I think the word 'depth' is getting thrown around way too loosely. Seemingly, if guys practice well or coaches laud their development, those players - without *ever* playing a game - get labeled as depth. For example, I am and have been a huge fan of Alex Bookser. But, if JJS wouldn't have been injured, he would've been labeled as 'depth' without ever proving he was any good. How do I know that? Because he's being discussed as a solid starting option.....without proving he was ever any good. Zeise = Depth? He also hasn't played. Challingsworth = Depth? He also hasn't played. Brian O'Neil = Depth? He also hasn't played. Wirginis = Depth? He also hasn't played many snaps at LB. Same with Javonte Pitts; hell, same thing with Jordan Whitehead.
Now, I like almost all those players. In some cases, I like them a lot. And, I think they *will* be solid. But, we don't know. Not a one of us.
Depth is a term usually used for a guy who has performed before and can be counted upon to perform again when needed. He may not be of the starters quality (that's why he's labeled *depth*), but he's shown an ability to not be a huge drop off. Most of Pitts supposed depth is just guys that have impressed practice onlookers going against other Pitt players, or, has caught the coaches attention. So did Buddy Jackson his whole career. So did Hez Trahan last year. So did Mike Caprara before last years season....only to play sparingly. So did Terrish Webb, who now hardly ever gets mentioned. So did Kevin Collier - who never actually played well or often. The list could go on and on.
I guess my point is this: Based on instability, subpar recruiting, bad luck, and just normal attrition.....we don't have a lot of 'depth', as that term is most commonly understood. A couple good plays in practice, a couple laudatory remarks from the staff, and a couple good pedigrees of recruits is no substitute for actual playing/performing and providing a reliability factor. It's more optimistic to think otherwise, but it's not realistic.
Now, I like almost all those players. In some cases, I like them a lot. And, I think they *will* be solid. But, we don't know. Not a one of us.
Depth is a term usually used for a guy who has performed before and can be counted upon to perform again when needed. He may not be of the starters quality (that's why he's labeled *depth*), but he's shown an ability to not be a huge drop off. Most of Pitts supposed depth is just guys that have impressed practice onlookers going against other Pitt players, or, has caught the coaches attention. So did Buddy Jackson his whole career. So did Hez Trahan last year. So did Mike Caprara before last years season....only to play sparingly. So did Terrish Webb, who now hardly ever gets mentioned. So did Kevin Collier - who never actually played well or often. The list could go on and on.
I guess my point is this: Based on instability, subpar recruiting, bad luck, and just normal attrition.....we don't have a lot of 'depth', as that term is most commonly understood. A couple good plays in practice, a couple laudatory remarks from the staff, and a couple good pedigrees of recruits is no substitute for actual playing/performing and providing a reliability factor. It's more optimistic to think otherwise, but it's not realistic.
