'12 FL WR Alton Howard (UT SIGNEE)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#127
#127
pcvolfan said:
Not postive, but I believe it was Lord Vader who stated in Bowles thread that he was being recruited as a DB.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure either, but what I think LV said was that UT's staff was thinking/throwing around the idea of maybe trying Bowles out at DB. NOT that they were recruiting him strictly as a DB.
 
#130
#130
I wouldn't worry about this offer. I don't think it indicates things have gone bad with Croom and/or Patterson at all.

Howard is just a completely different player than those two. He is an ATH. I don't know why UT offering a 5'9" ATH would affect UT's recruitment of two 6'5" WRs.

Howard would/will be utilized differently in UT's offense than Croom and Patterson would be utilized. I don't think they would neccesarily be battling over touches.
 
#136
#136
volunteerlane said:
He may have but Bowles told me WR
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I was wrong, in the Redding thread LV stated that he thinks the staff wants Bowles at DB. Although after missing on Redmond, maybe Bowles and Redding move to DB. Thus the reason for offering "Pig". Howard, Croom, and Patterson at WR with Redding and Bowles at DB.
 
#138
#138
pcvolfan said:
I was wrong, in the Redding thread LV stated that he thinks the staff wants Bowles at DB. Although after missing on Redmond, maybe Bowles and Redding move to DB. Thus the reason for offering "Pig". Howard, Croom, and Patterson at WR with Redding and Bowles at DB.
Click to expand...

We're still in on Montgomery too. Wouldn't count him out as a possibility at WR either. I think we get Croom and Patterson, then we'll take either Howard or Montgomery to close out at WR.
 
#139
#139
flowd82 said:
I'm not 100% sure either, but what I think LV said was that UT's staff was thinking/throwing around the idea of maybe trying Bowles out at DB. NOT that they were recruiting him strictly as a DB.
Click to expand...

this is correct.

i do not know if they recruited him as a WR or a DB or just an ATH, but i do think the staff prefers Bowles (as of now) at Safety.

this offer only strengthens my belief in that with the way we look for Patterson and Croom.
 
#140
#140
pcvolfan said:
I was wrong, in the Redding thread LV stated that he thinks the staff wants Bowles at DB. Although after missing on Redmond, maybe Bowles and Redding move to DB. Thus the reason for offering "Pig". Howard, Croom, and Patterson at WR with Redding and Bowles at DB.
Click to expand...

Redding will be a WR for the Vols.

i would only look for us to take 1 more DB. we would really like to get Crawley or Diggs.
 
#141
#141
Now why would Redding stay at wideout but Bowles gets moved? He's got crazy potential on offense
 
#144
#144
Drae looks like he could get to 220+ rather easily. I think the staff may just take a wait and see approach with him.
 
#145
#145
he has a big frame to add weight and is an excellent defender. alot of people say he is already a better defender than a WR regardless of what a recruiting website thinks.

pretty much every team that recruited him knew he could excel at either and were basically just wanting him as an ATH and would figure it out later. i just think as of this moment, he is a Safety for the Vols and very, very high on the DB board.
 
#146
#146
flowd82 said:
I wouldn't think UT offering Howard has anything to do with UT regarding Croom and Patterson.

UT is in great shape with both Croom and Patterson and they still offered Howard.

Howard is just a great athlete and a great football player. They are offering him for that reason alone. He could play a number of positions, but if he does stick to WR he is a completely different WR than any WR we have committed.

Like some posters have already mentioned, Howard is like a Percy Harvin type player and could take the role that Kimbrow/Norfleet would have played.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with most of your quote above. Howard is a totally different type of football player/receiver than the taller, bigger Patterson and Croom, so the fact that we have now offered Howard has no bearing one way or the other on how we stand with Croom and Patterson.

Where I totally disagree with your assessment is in the final part -- that Howard "could take the role that Kimbrow/Norfleet would have played". Howard is in no way a "substitute" for Kimbrow or Norfleet -- as I have noted a number of times in this and other threads, he is a far more versatile and valuable addition to our team than Kimbrow or Norfleet could ever be. That is why neither Kimbrow nor Norfleet had a committable offer to Tennessee and Howard now does.

Howard will fill his own "role" on Tennessee's team, not the "role" that Kimbrow and Norfleet "would have played".

mlsoft
 
#147
#147
UTCVol said:
Bowles is being recruited as a DB.
Click to expand...

Wow really? First I've heard that.Thought we already had good depth at DB.Honestly Bowles is a highly touted WR. I don't believe that bs.Sounds like Clear being a lineman.Yea whatever.Let me guess ur on tha coaching staff right.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#149
#149
Lord Vader said:
this is correct.

i do not know if they recruited him as a WR or a DB or just an ATH, but i do think the staff prefers Bowles (as of now) at Safety.

this offer only strengthens my belief in that with the way we look for Patterson and Croom.
Click to expand...

Bowles has no idea of this. He told me was being recruited to play WR at UT
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top