Discussion on Cornerback

Harmost

All-American
Sep 19, 2005
2,843
0
55
34
please go re-read the initial couple of posts. The premise of them was that since we didn't get two CBs signed in this class, that the staff could convert a WR over to CB for depth and cited Cyrus as an example. Thing is, since Cyrus was really a CB (since that's what he played in the all-star games), that's not really a true statement. The initial response from Crimsonprof basically did what you said - yes he played some WR but was 2 way player in HS instead of a pure WR recruit and had potential for either side of the ball in college. Then the response to that went off the rail in defending that it was indeed some actual conversion that happened; basically doing what you said it didn't do in claiming Cyrus was some natural WR talent who we converted because we had to.
I can't even believe that this is an argument I'm having. The direct quote is: "Maybe the staff has an idea of converting a receiver. I think Cyrus Jones was a converted receiver and that worked out pretty good!" Catching any pontification in that about how Cyrus wasn't just playing WR, but was in fact something more... a "natural" WR? As I said a couple of posts ago, that could just as easily be read like this: "Cyrus had been playing WR, and was switched to DB. Wonder if there's anyone currently playing WR that could do that?" That's not a strained reading. And the response to that wasn't at all like what I said in my previous post: it was a gif saying "Wrong", and then "Cyrus was not a converted WR" and "The idea that he was a WR recruit who WR converted out of desperation is erroneous." The "idea" referenced in that last bit just wasn't in the the original post whatsoever, and the middle bit is, at best, a quibble of what it means to "convert" or to be a WR vs a DB. I'm not sure what sort of "actual conversion" (what does this mean, anyway?) defense you're seeing in the next post, but that's not really what I was responding to.

Anyway, while we're on the subject of "actual conversions," what's the appropriate view on that anyway? This is for my edification -- I don't want to be lashed out at for saying converted when I really -- BY UNAMBIGUOUS RULE DANGIT -- should have said "switched positions" (is there anything more worthy of a reprimand?). Does it hinge on a determination of each player's "natural" position? How do we determine that? If Cyrus had stayed at WR throughout his Bama career, would he still not truly be a WR such that we could say, if he switched to DB now, in the NFL, the switch was a "conversion"? What if Cyrus had switched back to WR at some point in his Bama career -- would that have been a conversion? Does playing both offense and defense in HS preclude a player from ever having a natural position -- are the players you cite in your second paragraph incapable of converting (and if so, should we classify them as switch-onlies)? How certain of the answers to these questions do I need to be to start responding to any use of the word "conversion" that I don't like with an all caps "WRONG!"? Why should I care so much about whether someone says Cyrus converted vs switched positions?


That said a majority (possibly all?) of our WR corps is now made up of guys who are pretty much pure WRs who didn't spend much, if any, time on the other side of the ball. Further, the only guy who might match the profile of a corner would be Ridley (other than a couple of walk-on WRs) as everyone else is 6'4" +. Equating converting one of them into a corner to the situation with Cyrus isn't even close to accurate. Other than Diggs, all the guys who played WR/RB/DB in HS are already playing DB for us now.
I'm not sure if it seems like I'm doubting this, but I'm not.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.