What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

How many receivers per class?

DiggerBuffs

Well-Known Member
Never take only one WR in a class. Always take at least two, ideally three.

The main reason I say four is to achieve some better class balance. We have a bloated junior class with six on the roster currently. Do not expect all six to come back as seniors.

Opportunity for early playing time is available here. Hope we get serious interest from Nixon.
Agree, but if you get 4 in the 2017 class, how many would you expect in 2018? I would say just 1 would be fine with up to 2. At least 1 of the 4 would REDSHIRT even in a talented group like this.
 
Last edited:
Agree, but if you get 4 in the 2017 class, how many would you expect in 2018? I would say just 1 would be fine with up to 2. At least 1 of the 4 would grayshirt even in a talented group like this.

No you play a couple early and redshirt the other two. Four WRs in one class is not excessive.
 
Ya there is no way we grayshirt any of these guys. Redshirt perhaps.
I would say JJ is the most likely Redshirt candidate due to his injuries, but I believe Laviska is every bit in the mix for early playing time, as would Bell and obviously Nixon if they were able to reel them in.
 
No you play a couple early and redshirt the other two. Four WRs in one class is not excessive.
If we take 4 starting with 2017 class and come 2021 season you would have: 2-RS Seniors, 2-True Seniors, 2-RS Juniors, 2-Junior, 2-RS Soph 2-Soph 2-RS Frosh 2-Frosh 2-Redshirts (no play) You can't have 18 WRs when only 4-5 play. Most WRs you should have is about 12-14. 4 is excessive if you do it more than 2 years in a row.
 
If we take 4 starting with 2017 class and come 2021 season you would have: 2-RS Seniors, 2-True Seniors, 2-RS Juniors, 2-Junior, 2-RS Soph 2-Soph 2-RS Frosh 2-Frosh 2-Redshirts (no play) You can't have 18 WRs when only 4-5 play. Most WRs you should have is about 12-14. 4 is excessive if you do it more than 2 years in a row.
That's not taking into consideration attrition over that time period, and I don't think anybody is saying we have to take 4 WRs every class; just that taking 4 in this class is not excessive. I think the current talent level at the position also effects this... Why would we pass on the chance to recruit over some of the players we currently have that are struggling to see the field as 2nd or 3rd year players?
 
No attrition over a five year period will never happen. Take three at a minimum every class. What is the freak out here?
 
That's not taking into consideration attrition over that time period, and I don't think anybody is saying we have to take 4 WRs every class; just that taking 4 in this class is not excessive. I think the current talent level at the position also effects this... Why would we pass on the chance to recruit over some of the players we currently have that are struggling to see the field as 2nd or 3rd year players?
I have said you don't turn down elite talent and all 4 of these WRs are elite talent. Yes, attrition will happen especially for a couple seniors that are tired of the grind and not playing or want a chance to start elsewhere. 4 is not excessive in this class. And I don't see all 4 of last year as WRs. I see Julmisse playing more at RB.
 
No attrition over a five year period will never happen. Take three at a minimum every class. What is the freak out here?
There is no freak out. Just saying you shouldn't take 3-4 every class. That is 15-20 schollies in a 5 year period. There are only 85 schollies. Even with a 20% attrition rate, you still have 12-16 guys for 4.5 spots. OL doesn't have 15-20 schollie guys. Balance in recruiting numbers is needed. That's it.

Back to topic on hand, K.D. Nixon is a rare talent, you take him regardless!
 
There is no freak out. Just saying you shouldn't take 3-4 every class. That is 15-20 schollies in a 5 year period. There are only 85 schollies. Even with a 20% attrition rate, you still have 12-16 guys for 4.5 spots. OL doesn't have 15-20 schollie guys. Balance in recruiting numbers is needed. That's it.
I believe TTU has 22 WRs on their 2016 roster... I can't find how many are S vs WO, but having 12-16 scholarship guys at a position that starts 4 most of the time, seems about right when you consider at least 3 will be RSing.
 
There is no freak out. Just saying you shouldn't take 3-4 every class. That is 15-20 schollies in a 5 year period. There are only 85 schollies. Even with a 20% attrition rate, you still have 12-16 guys for 4.5 spots. OL doesn't have 15-20 schollie guys. Balance in recruiting numbers is needed. That's it.

Back to topic on hand, K.D. Nixon is a rare talent, you take him regardless!
OL doesn't have 15 to 16 schollie guys? Really? Who are you, Dan Hawkins?
 
They don't end up with that amount it seems. Seems like 12-14. Just look at numbers.
Well, your assumption is wrong or based on bad data. For instance, 12 is the bare minimum you would want to go into the season with - hell, that's barely enough to fill out a 2 deep without injury.
But let's actually look at the current numbers to see if you are on point. A quick look at our current roster shows that we currently have 14 OL players on schollie. That's not counting the incoming frosh and greyshirts, of which we have 3, I think. I will let you do the math.

So that point is not something to rely on. Carry on.
 
Well, your assumption is wrong or based on bad data. For instance, 12 is the bare minimum you would want to go into the season with - hell, that's barely enough to fill out a 2 deep without injury.
But let's actually look at the current numbers to see if you are on point. A quick look at our current roster shows that we currently have 14 OL players on schollie. That's not counting the incoming frosh and greyshirts, of which we have 3, I think. I will let you do the math.

So that point is not something to rely on. Carry on.
I said 15-20. They are at the low end of that. 14 plus 2 incoming. Greyshirt does not count. Roberts will be at DL. I didn't say the OL DOESN'T need 15-20. Don't come at me bro!
 
I said 15-20. They are at the low end of that. 14 plus 2 incoming. Greyshirt does not count. Roberts will be at DL. I didn't say the OL DOESN'T need 15-20. Don't come at me bro!
Bro, you either can't read what you wrote, or your brain has misfired from attempting to find some logic to what you are saying. Anyways, best of luck with your argument. Maybe it would make more sense on your blog?
 
The staff will keep plugging away at a Dixon or anyone else who are absolute studs at the WR position. You don't just stop recruiting the position because you hit a supposed number. Will be interesting to see if we actually have any traction with Dixon or not.
 
Bro, you either can't read what you wrote, or your brain has misfired from attempting to find some logic to what you are saying. Anyways, best of luck with your argument. Maybe it would make more sense on your blog?
You peanut butter and jelly bro? My blog is about to get a bigger voice/eye due to my writing joining someone else. Sorry I can't podcast and blog for pennies like your "writer" Elite friends.
 
The staff will keep plugging away at a Dixon or anyone else who are absolute studs at the WR position. You don't just stop recruiting the position because you hit a supposed number. Will be interesting to see if we actually have any traction with Dixon or not.
You have to think Shenault will be a pretty solid influence to at least get him to visit and seriously consider CU
 
You peanut butter and jelly bro? My blog is about to get a bigger voice/eye due to my writing joining someone else. Sorry I can't podcast and blog for pennies like your "writer" Elite friends.
Your manufactured #BuffsTwitterElite thing seems forced and a little tired.
 
Seems like kind of a silly debate to me. It's pretty clear we are going to no to a more pass happy offense. If you do that, you better have a lot of receivers. Taking four in any given year isn't a big problem. Taking four every year is excessive. With regard to this year, we are looking at four 4* receivers. You don't pass that up.
It's entirely possible that by 2017, we are regularly playing 6 different receivers per game. Having 12-15 on the roster should not be problematic.
The consequence will be fewer fullbacks and tight ends overall. There's also a good possiblbility that at least one or two of those WRs get converted to TEs. Particularly the ones 6'3" and taller.
 
Considering our offense, let's look at the Texas Tech comps on the number of WRs signed for the past 4 classes.

2013: 5
2014: 7
2015: 6
2016: 5

The above does not include anyone listed as an ATH by Rivals, just the WRs.
 
Take the most playmakers we can get but we still need some dlinemen, linemen, and linebackers. Big class so we got numbers.
 
You peanut butter and jelly bro? My blog is about to get a bigger voice/eye due to my writing joining someone else. Sorry I can't podcast and blog for pennies like your "writer" Elite friends.
The fact that your blog is about to get a bigger eye is quite an accomplishment.

Anyways, yea, more WR please.
 
Considering our offense, let's look at the Texas Tech comps on the number of WRs signed for the past 4 classes.

2013: 5
2014: 7
2015: 6
2016: 5

The above does not include anyone listed as an ATH by Rivals, just the WRs.
I would actually say that's excessive. There's a reason Tech has problems on defense. Looking at that list, I'd say they probably have depth issues on defense.
 
Back
Top