Fierce competition along the D-Line

[akita]

You guys remind me of a 3rd world latin american village I would go into. The village had the right idea,but would fight amongst themselves. That is where we came in and set it straight. Probaly for worse. the FIGHT IS NOT AMONGST OUR SELVES,BUT AGAINST THEM THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE.

[akita]

CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT CRICK GETS ONLY 6 SACKS THIS YEAR AND BAKER GETS 4,BUT THE BACK UPS TOTAL 20. tHAT WOULD MEAN GREAT DEPTH/LOL TYPING IN CAPS.FFFFFFFFFF Sorry for the caps thing.

[teachercd]

Can you tell me what you mean by 'peaked'? Because I don't really know what that even means.

 

Which Williams are you talking about for the 3 deep at DT? Josh Williams is an end and Kevin Williams is an incoming frosh.

 

Randle has pretty much tapped what? He's going to be a redshirt soph next year, there aren't many redshirt freshman that are every down players. Ankrah is also going to be a redshirt soph to say he won't get any better at reads and technique and that he has 'peaked' is nonsense. To say any player has 'peaked' as a freshman or sophomore is pretty silly.

So which one of your buddies plays on the D-line that has you all up in a tissy and trying to figure out the exact meaning of every typed word?

 

But, its a fact that not every player is NFL caliber and while we'd like to have 16 guys that are first team all American we don't. Some guys aren't going to get much better athletically than they are now. Their bodies matured earlier than guys around them in high school. We all know that's partly why they dominate at that level. When they recruited them the did so on the idea that they would still physically mature even more and through SC work their abilities would instead of go up a click go up two or three clicks because they still had room to grow. They simply didn't grow like they thought. Yes they''ll be in better shape and leaner and some quicker. . but not as they projected. That growth comes in year 1 and tapers in year 2 in a large majority of college athletes. After that continued development comes in technique. Some of these guys. . all they had to gain was technique and its not enough at this point. Its noting new, but I say it probably happens more now that high schools have training programs and kids practice football year round. I will also say we are blessed with the fact that Bo and Carl get more from "average" D-1 talent than 80% of the coaches out there.

 

For example, Randle is near as good as he's going to get athletically. Physically he was more mature than what they expected. He didn't have the extra growth they thought and so as a result the things they want to do with his body haven't benefited him like they thought. He's not going to be a guy who goes through major transformations any further. His chance to become better will be based solely on if he can master a skill set now. A guy like Rome or even a Justin Jackson my pass him up. Ankra is a bit the same. He was a beast compared to other incoming freshman....guess what...he's no longer light years ahead. For lack of a better term..his progress (based on crystal ball projections) has stalled. Or at the very least has not multiplied like first thought.

 

You realize the coaches have projected depth charts usually 2-3 years out right? Sure..competition is open 100% and anyone at any time can start or be at any spot on the depth chart. They also chart out where they hope people will be in year 2, 3, 4 or 5 of college so they can recruit for needs. That changes as their evaluations of the players change and as natural selection in sports runs its course. I just so happen know where a few of those guys sit in those evaluations at this time. Some of that is from former players who watch practice, some from a conversation with a coach or one of my friends who hangs with the AD on game days. It still can change an is always fluid because kids are kids and people surprise us both good and bad. But there is a reason (actually many reasons) we take lots of O-line and D-line guys. They don't develop ideally and we don't have enough bodies for the number of spots.

 

 

I have coached for 10 years and I have never heard or seen a depth chart that is 2-3 years out. Never. I have seen one year out, thats it. Then I have heard lots of "there is a chance this guy will be good for us in 3 years" talk.

 

As far as 9 guys playing, I think what is being said is that you there are so many decent guys that you dont need two of them taking 100% of the snaps. Now what you said about guys being studs as seniors in high school and then basically not getting any better, that happens all the time! That is why rivals is such a crap shoot.

[da skers]

Can you tell me what you mean by 'peaked'? Because I don't really know what that even means.

 

Which Williams are you talking about for the 3 deep at DT? Josh Williams is an end and Kevin Williams is an incoming frosh.

 

Randle has pretty much tapped what? He's going to be a redshirt soph next year, there aren't many redshirt freshman that are every down players. Ankrah is also going to be a redshirt soph to say he won't get any better at reads and technique and that he has 'peaked' is nonsense. To say any player has 'peaked' as a freshman or sophomore is pretty silly.

So which one of your buddies plays on the D-line that has you all up in a tissy and trying to figure out the exact meaning of every typed word?

 

But, its a fact that not every player is NFL caliber and while we'd like to have 16 guys that are first team all American we don't. Some guys aren't going to get much better athletically than they are now. Their bodies matured earlier than guys around them in high school. We all know that's partly why they dominate at that level. When they recruited them the did so on the idea that they would still physically mature even more and through SC work their abilities would instead of go up a click go up two or three clicks because they still had room to grow. They simply didn't grow like they thought. Yes they''ll be in better shape and leaner and some quicker. . but not as they projected. That growth comes in year 1 and tapers in year 2 in a large majority of college athletes. After that continued development comes in technique. Some of these guys. . all they had to gain was technique and its not enough at this point. Its noting new, but I say it probably happens more now that high schools have training programs and kids practice football year round. I will also say we are blessed with the fact that Bo and Carl get more from "average" D-1 talent than 80% of the coaches out there.

 

For example, Randle is near as good as he's going to get athletically. Physically he was more mature than what they expected. He didn't have the extra growth they thought and so as a result the things they want to do with his body haven't benefited him like they thought. He's not going to be a guy who goes through major transformations any further. His chance to become better will be based solely on if he can master a skill set now. A guy like Rome or even a Justin Jackson my pass him up. Ankra is a bit the same. He was a beast compared to other incoming freshman....guess what...he's no longer light years ahead. For lack of a better term..his progress (based on crystal ball projections) has stalled. Or at the very least has not multiplied like first thought.

 

You realize the coaches have projected depth charts usually 2-3 years out right? Sure..competition is open 100% and anyone at any time can start or be at any spot on the depth chart. They also chart out where they hope people will be in year 2, 3, 4 or 5 of college so they can recruit for needs. That changes as their evaluations of the players change and as natural selection in sports runs its course. I just so happen know where a few of those guys sit in those evaluations at this time. Some of that is from former players who watch practice, some from a conversation with a coach or one of my friends who hangs with the AD on game days. It still can change an is always fluid because kids are kids and people surprise us both good and bad. But there is a reason (actually many reasons) we take lots of O-line and D-line guys. They don't develop ideally and we don't have enough bodies for the number of spots.

 

 

I have coached for 10 years and I have never heard or seen a depth chart that is 2-3 years out. Never. I have seen one year out, thats it. Then I have heard lots of "there is a chance this guy will be good for us in 3 years" talk.

 

As far as 9 guys playing, I think what is being said is that you there are so many decent guys that you dont need two of them taking 100% of the snaps. Now what you said about guys being studs as seniors in high school and then basically not getting any better, that happens all the time! That is why rivals is such a crap shoot.

Last fall 2010 TG showed me their recruiting needs along with a projected depth chart for 2011 and 2012 based on what would ideally happen. Some was based on 2010 and some was pulling from thin air a bit. (And of course it changed over the course of the year. And while I haven't seen it since then I've been privy to 3rd party conversations that discuss holes in team make up.) After that there was an outline for need in 2013 and people more or less listed based on the previous two in slots. A few of those did have guys as Freshman in 2010 listed ahead of guys that were one or two and would be Sr. or Jrs. based on how they thought they would develop. Its obviously very objective and was based on how guys were currently doing and how they intended to develop them. I realize its nothing set in stone. It was a snapshot of what they needed to do over the course of the next 3-4 seasons. So. . call it a recruiting chart if you rather, but it was talked about as a projected depth chart. At that time players I wont mention were talked about where they were if they were ahead or behind of where they wanted etc and what the anticipated "ceiling" for some of those guys. Again. . its all looking into the magic eight ball but you as a coach probably also have a good idea when a guy appears to flat line or peak in your system. We talked about the number of guys they like to have in each grouping and guess what. . .at the time they were adding bodies to the D-line group based on the idea they had several "role" players and needed more every down guys. Say what you want about the guy as a WR coach but TG had a very good handle on the RC end of things based on what input the coaches were giving him and what they assumed would be needs from this non existent chart.

 

This isn't a new idea or practice to do this and its done at colleges besides NU so I have no idea why you as a coach wouldn't be trying to do it as well unless you're at a level where you don't recruit such as high school or have to take what falls into your lap like a state or JR college.

[flatwaterfan]

. So. . call it a recruiting chart if you rather, but it was talked about as a projected depth chart.

 

That's one of the things I like to do after a recruiting class.... build a depth chart with the last 2 recruiting classes and identify the positions that are thin. Obviously I don't have enough to do.

[teachercd]

Can you tell me what you mean by 'peaked'? Because I don't really know what that even means.

 

Which Williams are you talking about for the 3 deep at DT? Josh Williams is an end and Kevin Williams is an incoming frosh.

 

Randle has pretty much tapped what? He's going to be a redshirt soph next year, there aren't many redshirt freshman that are every down players. Ankrah is also going to be a redshirt soph to say he won't get any better at reads and technique and that he has 'peaked' is nonsense. To say any player has 'peaked' as a freshman or sophomore is pretty silly.

So which one of your buddies plays on the D-line that has you all up in a tissy and trying to figure out the exact meaning of every typed word?

 

But, its a fact that not every player is NFL caliber and while we'd like to have 16 guys that are first team all American we don't. Some guys aren't going to get much better athletically than they are now. Their bodies matured earlier than guys around them in high school. We all know that's partly why they dominate at that level. When they recruited them the did so on the idea that they would still physically mature even more and through SC work their abilities would instead of go up a click go up two or three clicks because they still had room to grow. They simply didn't grow like they thought. Yes they''ll be in better shape and leaner and some quicker. . but not as they projected. That growth comes in year 1 and tapers in year 2 in a large majority of college athletes. After that continued development comes in technique. Some of these guys. . all they had to gain was technique and its not enough at this point. Its noting new, but I say it probably happens more now that high schools have training programs and kids practice football year round. I will also say we are blessed with the fact that Bo and Carl get more from "average" D-1 talent than 80% of the coaches out there.

 

For example, Randle is near as good as he's going to get athletically. Physically he was more mature than what they expected. He didn't have the extra growth they thought and so as a result the things they want to do with his body haven't benefited him like they thought. He's not going to be a guy who goes through major transformations any further. His chance to become better will be based solely on if he can master a skill set now. A guy like Rome or even a Justin Jackson my pass him up. Ankra is a bit the same. He was a beast compared to other incoming freshman....guess what...he's no longer light years ahead. For lack of a better term..his progress (based on crystal ball projections) has stalled. Or at the very least has not multiplied like first thought.

 

You realize the coaches have projected depth charts usually 2-3 years out right? Sure..competition is open 100% and anyone at any time can start or be at any spot on the depth chart. They also chart out where they hope people will be in year 2, 3, 4 or 5 of college so they can recruit for needs. That changes as their evaluations of the players change and as natural selection in sports runs its course. I just so happen know where a few of those guys sit in those evaluations at this time. Some of that is from former players who watch practice, some from a conversation with a coach or one of my friends who hangs with the AD on game days. It still can change an is always fluid because kids are kids and people surprise us both good and bad. But there is a reason (actually many reasons) we take lots of O-line and D-line guys. They don't develop ideally and we don't have enough bodies for the number of spots.

 

 

I have coached for 10 years and I have never heard or seen a depth chart that is 2-3 years out. Never. I have seen one year out, thats it. Then I have heard lots of "there is a chance this guy will be good for us in 3 years" talk.

 

As far as 9 guys playing, I think what is being said is that you there are so many decent guys that you dont need two of them taking 100% of the snaps. Now what you said about guys being studs as seniors in high school and then basically not getting any better, that happens all the time! That is why rivals is such a crap shoot.

Last fall 2010 TG showed me their recruiting needs along with a projected depth chart for 2011 and 2012 based on what would ideally happen. Some was based on 2010 and some was pulling from thin air a bit. (And of course it changed over the course of the year. And while I haven't seen it since then I've been privy to 3rd party conversations that discuss holes in team make up.) After that there was an outline for need in 2013 and people more or less listed based on the previous two in slots. A few of those did have guys as Freshman in 2010 listed ahead of guys that were one or two and would be Sr. or Jrs. based on how they thought they would develop. Its obviously very objective and was based on how guys were currently doing and how they intended to develop them. I realize its nothing set in stone. It was a snapshot of what they needed to do over the course of the next 3-4 seasons. So. . call it a recruiting chart if you rather, but it was talked about as a projected depth chart. At that time players I wont mention were talked about where they were if they were ahead or behind of where they wanted etc and what the anticipated "ceiling" for some of those guys. Again. . its all looking into the magic eight ball but you as a coach probably also have a good idea when a guy appears to flat line or peak in your system. We talked about the number of guys they like to have in each grouping and guess what. . .at the time they were adding bodies to the D-line group based on the idea they had several "role" players and needed more every down guys. Say what you want about the guy as a WR coach but TG had a very good handle on the RC end of things based on what input the coaches were giving him and what they assumed would be needs from this non existent chart.

 

This isn't a new idea or practice to do this and its done at colleges besides NU so I have no idea why you as a coach wouldn't be trying to do it as well unless you're at a level where you don't recruit such as high school or have to take what falls into your lap like a state or JR college.

 

 

Recruiting chart makes a ton more sense to me. Sorry, I was not trying to be a jerk before, its just not anything I had ever seen.

[da skers]

Can you tell me what you mean by 'peaked'? Because I don't really know what that even means.

 

Which Williams are you talking about for the 3 deep at DT? Josh Williams is an end and Kevin Williams is an incoming frosh.

 

Randle has pretty much tapped what? He's going to be a redshirt soph next year, there aren't many redshirt freshman that are every down players. Ankrah is also going to be a redshirt soph to say he won't get any better at reads and technique and that he has 'peaked' is nonsense. To say any player has 'peaked' as a freshman or sophomore is pretty silly.

So which one of your buddies plays on the D-line that has you all up in a tissy and trying to figure out the exact meaning of every typed word?

 

But, its a fact that not every player is NFL caliber and while we'd like to have 16 guys that are first team all American we don't. Some guys aren't going to get much better athletically than they are now. Their bodies matured earlier than guys around them in high school. We all know that's partly why they dominate at that level. When they recruited them the did so on the idea that they would still physically mature even more and through SC work their abilities would instead of go up a click go up two or three clicks because they still had room to grow. They simply didn't grow like they thought. Yes they''ll be in better shape and leaner and some quicker. . but not as they projected. That growth comes in year 1 and tapers in year 2 in a large majority of college athletes. After that continued development comes in technique. Some of these guys. . all they had to gain was technique and its not enough at this point. Its noting new, but I say it probably happens more now that high schools have training programs and kids practice football year round. I will also say we are blessed with the fact that Bo and Carl get more from "average" D-1 talent than 80% of the coaches out there.

 

For example, Randle is near as good as he's going to get athletically. Physically he was more mature than what they expected. He didn't have the extra growth they thought and so as a result the things they want to do with his body haven't benefited him like they thought. He's not going to be a guy who goes through major transformations any further. His chance to become better will be based solely on if he can master a skill set now. A guy like Rome or even a Justin Jackson my pass him up. Ankra is a bit the same. He was a beast compared to other incoming freshman....guess what...he's no longer light years ahead. For lack of a better term..his progress (based on crystal ball projections) has stalled. Or at the very least has not multiplied like first thought.

 

You realize the coaches have projected depth charts usually 2-3 years out right? Sure..competition is open 100% and anyone at any time can start or be at any spot on the depth chart. They also chart out where they hope people will be in year 2, 3, 4 or 5 of college so they can recruit for needs. That changes as their evaluations of the players change and as natural selection in sports runs its course. I just so happen know where a few of those guys sit in those evaluations at this time. Some of that is from former players who watch practice, some from a conversation with a coach or one of my friends who hangs with the AD on game days. It still can change an is always fluid because kids are kids and people surprise us both good and bad. But there is a reason (actually many reasons) we take lots of O-line and D-line guys. They don't develop ideally and we don't have enough bodies for the number of spots.

 

 

I have coached for 10 years and I have never heard or seen a depth chart that is 2-3 years out. Never. I have seen one year out, thats it. Then I have heard lots of "there is a chance this guy will be good for us in 3 years" talk.

 

As far as 9 guys playing, I think what is being said is that you there are so many decent guys that you dont need two of them taking 100% of the snaps. Now what you said about guys being studs as seniors in high school and then basically not getting any better, that happens all the time! That is why rivals is such a crap shoot.

Last fall 2010 TG showed me their recruiting needs along with a projected depth chart for 2011 and 2012 based on what would ideally happen. Some was based on 2010 and some was pulling from thin air a bit. (And of course it changed over the course of the year. And while I haven't seen it since then I've been privy to 3rd party conversations that discuss holes in team make up.) After that there was an outline for need in 2013 and people more or less listed based on the previous two in slots. A few of those did have guys as Freshman in 2010 listed ahead of guys that were one or two and would be Sr. or Jrs. based on how they thought they would develop. Its obviously very objective and was based on how guys were currently doing and how they intended to develop them. I realize its nothing set in stone. It was a snapshot of what they needed to do over the course of the next 3-4 seasons. So. . call it a recruiting chart if you rather, but it was talked about as a projected depth chart. At that time players I wont mention were talked about where they were if they were ahead or behind of where they wanted etc and what the anticipated "ceiling" for some of those guys. Again. . its all looking into the magic eight ball but you as a coach probably also have a good idea when a guy appears to flat line or peak in your system. We talked about the number of guys they like to have in each grouping and guess what. . .at the time they were adding bodies to the D-line group based on the idea they had several "role" players and needed more every down guys. Say what you want about the guy as a WR coach but TG had a very good handle on the RC end of things based on what input the coaches were giving him and what they assumed would be needs from this non existent chart.

 

This isn't a new idea or practice to do this and its done at colleges besides NU so I have no idea why you as a coach wouldn't be trying to do it as well unless you're at a level where you don't recruit such as high school or have to take what falls into your lap like a state or JR college.

 

 

Recruiting chart makes a ton more sense to me. Sorry, I was not trying to be a jerk before, its just not anything I had ever seen.

Its all good. Well. . got to love the internet anyway. You starting thinking and typing and then things don't come out exactly clear and if we were in a room talking we could explain things easier with a quick question and a follow up with out a 32 hour lag in between.