With the addition of Feaster, I wonder if any of our senior RBs will seek to transfer. Guess they'd have to sit out this season and look to play somewhere else next year. It seems apparent to me that the coaches are intending on Feaster being our feature back. In that case, I can't imagine all of our returning RBs will be content to ride the pine or get spot duty. Among Turner, Dowdle and Denson, someone's going to be the odd man out. I guess Turner could move to corner, but will he want to? Are any of them good enough to transfer to another major FBS program and start? Would any of them consider dropping down to FCS to play this year and start?
Will any of our RB seek to transfer?
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
How would you theoretically envision it working with Feaster, Dowdle, Turner and Denson? Worst case scenario: our coaches try to get them all touches.
I do. Not as closely as some, obviously. Last I read, it was speculated that Turner could play on D and have an expanded ST role, but I hadn't seen anything definite.
How would you envision it working out with Dowdle, Denson and Feaster, assuming for sake of argument that Feaster is the feature back? One of them would have to concede to being a sparingly used 3rd back.
It's the SEC, you need at least 3 backs ready to go at any moment. Like the Muscahmp/Scar thread, you like to stir up crap and make mountains out of mole hills.
It's a legit question, particularly if you're one of these guys who has one year of college football left to play. It's not just senior RBs our coaches have on the sidelines. We've also got Fenwick, Valentine, Harris, etc. There aren't enough carries for everyone. It's just numbers. If you follow college football much, you know that now more than ever, players are most concerned with one thing: playing time.
Valentine will be very limited this year, he is dealing with issues, very vague but sounds like some depression. Fenwick is only a Redshirt Freshman, he knows his time is coming. I am sure the coaches have a plan, and have made it very clear to the rest of the backs what it is. If none of them were on board they would have transferred by now, it was not a giant secret that Feaster was coming, or even being pursued to come here.
Valentine last tweet 6/18 was the depression issue, I would think he may be taking some time and getting help and not playing this season?
But I have not seen any official update.
But I have not seen any official update.
Turner will be special teams and defense. Feaster and Dowdle will split carries and Mon will help where he can.
Yall remember Cosch Brown said he plays 2 guys and thats pretty much it.Feaster/Dowdle and Denson 3rd back.If someone gets hurt maybe you see Fenwick step up.Think Turner will end up mostly on defense.
I would be surprised. Valentine, Fenwick, and Harris all committed prior to Williams transferring out, and knew that he - along with Dowdle, Turner, and Denson - would be experienced veterans ahead of them. If they think they are good enough to steal carries from any of them, then why leave now?
Feaster only replaces Williams, and for 2020, there'll be 4 fewer veterans on the depth chart, and the addition of possibly only 1. That opens up a lot of opportunities for the 3 youngsters...
Feaster only replaces Williams, and for 2020, there'll be 4 fewer veterans on the depth chart, and the addition of possibly only 1. That opens up a lot of opportunities for the 3 youngsters...
I guess how I'm looking at it is we'll have 9 RBs on our roster . You can take Valentine out of the mix for reasons already discussed. Harris will redshirt. Kinlaw isn't really a factor. That still leaves you with 6 who are redshirt freshman or higher. If the coaches wanted a RB by committee, we've already got that. They are obviously not just bringing Feaster in to be part of a RB committee but intend for him to get the bulk of the carries. For his part, with this being his last year, he was obviously looking for a place where he could be showcased as the feature back. He would not have come here otherwise. Either he has seen us play and feels like he can easily come in and earn the starter role or he was given some kind unofficial promise by the staff to be the starter. Maybe none will transfer. Maybe Feaster will be a bust. Just wouldn't surprise if one them decided they can get more carries somewhere else.
UGA, by comparison, carries 5 RBs on their roster.
I'm not saying it will happen or should happen, but I'm not sure why folks find the proposition so unfathomable, particularly in the transfer happy climate we now live in. We already had a logjam at the position and we're bringing in a grad transfer at the 11th hour.
UGA, by comparison, carries 5 RBs on their roster.
I'm not saying it will happen or should happen, but I'm not sure why folks find the proposition so unfathomable, particularly in the transfer happy climate we now live in. We already had a logjam at the position and we're bringing in a grad transfer at the 11th hour.
Last edited:
Since you are so hung up on this who do YOU see transferring?
We have 4 seniors, at this point noen will transfer. Fenwick, Valentine and Harris, all freshman, all knew there was going to be 4 seniors this year, we just traded Williams for Feaster. Really not a lot has changed.
We have 4 seniors, at this point noen will transfer. Fenwick, Valentine and Harris, all freshman, all knew there was going to be 4 seniors this year, we just traded Williams for Feaster. Really not a lot has changed.
Yes. You don’t have one back with 20-30 carries a game anymore. Each back will split 10-15 carries each. Unless one is just absolutely hot then they will tote it more
I don't have any idea. As I stated in my post above, I am not saying this should or will happen. I'm just surprised so many posters find this to be an unthinkable proposition. As if no player has ever transferred because of a lack of playing time. If you've paying attention, transfers are quite quite common now.
It actually changes A LOT to "replace" Williams with Feaster. Williams got the 3rd most touches of our RBs last year (70 total). That's a little over 3 games worth of carries (give or take). At the least, Dowdle and Denson were looking forward to splitting those carries. Now, not only are they are looking at NOT getting those carries, but one of them is likely looking at losing a substantial portion of the carries they had last year.
Instead of Dowdle or Denson having the shot to be the feature back this year, they are essentially losing that opportunity before camp even opens. Whoever didn't get the starter spot was at least looking forward to getting a decent number of carries as the primary backup. But that's gone for one of them. Will Dowdle or Denson be ok with getting a few carries here and there in mop-up duty?
I don't know how far down you'd go with the ripple effect. If neither Dowdle nor Denson decide to transfer, it's plausible someone like Fenwick might wonder what the heck he's going to do this year. Sit and collect dust? I'm sure he feels like he's capable of at least getting some decent reps this year, but that's definitely not happening.
It's just a numbers game. Maybe they'll all be ok with having reduced roles or very limited playing time. If so, that's fantastic. But it would hardly be earth-shattering to see one of them decide to transfer out. Most likely would be Dowdle or Denson so they could have one full year somewhere else, but that raises the question if either of them are good enough to be picked up as a transfer.
You are way over thinking this. If Denson or Dowdle were going to transfer it would have happened by now.
You sure are building a Mt St Helen out of this ant hill.
You sure are building a Mt St Helen out of this ant hill.
Assuming of course that Feaster is the starter (obviously everything changes if he's not), then he'll split carries with either Dowdle or Denson as a primary backup. At the least, either Dowdle or Denson are going to lose some carries this year. The question is whether they are ok with having their role reduced from their junior to senior season. Maybe they have a team-first attitude and will accept a reduced role, and that's great. But, as we've seen the steam picking up with transfers, guys care now more than ever about playing time.
They want more carries then they should do better than the guy ahead of them.
Why would they have transferred by now? They were both coming back for their senior season with the opportunity to earn the starting nod or at least get a decent number of reps as the backup. Instead, one of them will have a reduced role this season.
It's actually all those who find this to be an unfathomable proposition who are turning this mole hill into a mountain. Given the current climate in college football with transfers, this was a totally logical and expected question to raise. The easiest way to answer it would have been to say "no, i don't really see it happening." The dumbest way to answer, which is how most proceeded, was to present it as a totally unthinkable proposition.
Absolutely agree. But we all know how it is with transfers now.
It really just boils down to whether Dowdle or Denson will be ok with accepting a reduced role.
It's simple as I stated a while back, Nothing has really changed. Williams was "traded" for Feaster. It has been know for a while Feaster was coming. Camp is about to open, if someone was going to transfer it would have happened right after spring or early summer.
It really is not a hard concept to understand.
You say it's simple, but then you don't even really understand your own argument. The addition of Feaster means either Dowdle or Denson will be expected to accept a reduced role. That would have not have been the case without the addition of Feaster. You say it's been known for a while that Feaster was coming, but you don't know that. It was fairly recently on here when the general consensus was that he was bound for Va Tech. We have no idea when the staff was informed of his decision.
The only one who can transfer is Dowdle...unless they have graduated. Dowdle is the only one with a RS year left.
Their role is about the same as last year, when you know we had the same number of backs for the most part. Not a lot has changed except maybe Feaster is better than Williams.
VA Tech was always a backup/smokescreen.
Weird things can happen. I have seen injuries totally wipe out a position and kids are called on to play when it appeared they were buried on the bench. I've also seen instances where players transferred and suddendly the school they left has an opening at the position they just transferred from, if they had only had patience. In Holtz's first year we were totally stripped out on the ol and kids on d were switched at the beginning of the week to play in an SEC game that Saturday on the new ol. Also players can switch positions from rb to db or wr. I recall Vince Dooley signing 8 qb knowing most would go to other positions. Most extreme was George Patton. Signed as a qb and ended up as an all-american dt.
Because Feaster coming to USC was known by our staff, and probably our players, well before it was made public. I'm not sure Dowdle or Denson have shown enough to garner interest from too many other teams, even if they were to enter their names in the transfer portal.
Denson's role increased last season due to Dowdle's injury. Not because he beat hi out for playing time. So having Dowlde healthy automatically reduces Denson's role.
Yes, we do. It has been known from very early on that Feaster was coming here. He kept it under wraps while still at Clemson, which I think we all understand why.
Please provide the date (and supporting documentation) showing when Feaster informed the staff of his decision.
Not sure why you believe this. Kelly Bryant played four games of his final year of eligibility and decided to transfer.
The positive side of the transfer portal is that you get an instant upgrade at a position. The downside is that you just told every other player at that position you have no faith they can do the job. That will chip away at brand loyalty. If you are really self-aware enough to know you have no future at the next level, you might stick around and go through the motions but if you are delusional (see Kelly Bryant) you just have to leave to prove people wrong.
Depth charts are all theoretical until the season starts. If I'm a senior with pro hopes or not- maybe I just like playing- and I'm not getting snaps in the first few games, I'm leaving.
As for whether Feaster might be a bust, I would say South Carolina struck me as an odd choice to begin with. I'd have picked some place with an easier schedule. You have teams on your schedule that can flat stop the run I don't care who you are. If he lights up Bama, for instance, he'll get a shot in the pros. But I surely don't see that happening.
Hopefully our offense will be going full blast this year, fast pace with lots of plays so lots of carries to go around. As soon as one gets a little tired put in a fresh one, keep maximum pressure on the defense
How about I just recommend you pay the annual fee here and read the article posted a couple of days ago on the insiders forum? You've been very active on this forum lately so you'd probably really enjoy the insiders forum as well.
Five years to play 4 still applies. Bryant hadn't used a RS year prior to transferring. His SR year at Clemson where he played in 4 games became his RS year and he was a graduate transfer to Mizzou.
I have a gut feeling that Dowdle and Fenwick will transfer out? Dowdle because he’s not mentally fit to play in the SEC. Fenwick because he’s not physically talented to be a contributor to the running game.
Total number of offensive plays under Muschamp at South Carolina:
2016: 877 (good for 11th in SEC)
2017: 802 (tied for 10th)
2018: 887 (8th)
Total number of rushing carries:
2016: 475 (13th)
2017: 405 (12th)
2018: 444 (12th)
First Downs:
2016: 241 (13th)
2017: 231 (12th)
2018: 281 (8th)
The offensive production last season improved substantially, but the rushing offense did not do a lot to support that. We did improve in rushing YPC every year, but rushing TDs declined from 20 to 16 to 15 last season, and USC was 13th out of 14 SEC teams in Red Zone conversion %. Despite improving substantially in overall 1st down generation, most if not all of the games we lost, our opponents had huge disparities in their favor in number of offensive plays for the game.
Most of that actually had to do with our poor run defense, than our run offense, but we need to improve on our ability to run the ball successfully in critical situations: 1st down yardage gains, taking pressure off the offense with long 3rd down situations; 3rd down conversions when we actually have 3rd and short situations; and goal-line scoring situations.
The good side to all this, is USC has great depth at RB in terms of playing experience. The bad side is, we also have a wealth of history with injuries preventing our backs from establishing rhythm during the season before sustaining injuries.
Adding Feaster just adds another experienced, veteran back to the depth, but we should still continue to rotate heavily, ensuring all the backs do not carry too big a load putting them in a situation of getting hurt. My biggest concern is more the OL than the RB position - the starting unit is somewhat OK, but the depth behind them is very young and inexperienced. We need the OL along with the RBs to stay healthy....
2016: 877 (good for 11th in SEC)
2017: 802 (tied for 10th)
2018: 887 (8th)
Total number of rushing carries:
2016: 475 (13th)
2017: 405 (12th)
2018: 444 (12th)
First Downs:
2016: 241 (13th)
2017: 231 (12th)
2018: 281 (8th)
The offensive production last season improved substantially, but the rushing offense did not do a lot to support that. We did improve in rushing YPC every year, but rushing TDs declined from 20 to 16 to 15 last season, and USC was 13th out of 14 SEC teams in Red Zone conversion %. Despite improving substantially in overall 1st down generation, most if not all of the games we lost, our opponents had huge disparities in their favor in number of offensive plays for the game.
Most of that actually had to do with our poor run defense, than our run offense, but we need to improve on our ability to run the ball successfully in critical situations: 1st down yardage gains, taking pressure off the offense with long 3rd down situations; 3rd down conversions when we actually have 3rd and short situations; and goal-line scoring situations.
The good side to all this, is USC has great depth at RB in terms of playing experience. The bad side is, we also have a wealth of history with injuries preventing our backs from establishing rhythm during the season before sustaining injuries.
Adding Feaster just adds another experienced, veteran back to the depth, but we should still continue to rotate heavily, ensuring all the backs do not carry too big a load putting them in a situation of getting hurt. My biggest concern is more the OL than the RB position - the starting unit is somewhat OK, but the depth behind them is very young and inexperienced. We need the OL along with the RBs to stay healthy....
A little late for anybody to up and transfer,especially since Feaster ending up in Columbia has been strongly rumored all summer. And probably has been a known fact in the football building. But it doesn't matter. Turner can help on defense and special teams more. Dowdle and Denson might get their load cut back with Feaster in the fold. But so what? Neither are actually game changers that are going to the NFL or will make as much difference as Feaster. May be some initial pouting but they will get over it. Or not. Doesn't matter
