MtownJacket
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
Rarely do teams have multiple players in a single unit all-conference. That is just sick.
We also have LBs returning from injury, that is a big deal.
Next Thing I'm Worrying About...
- Thread starter Huntrey
- Start date
Rarely do teams have multiple players in a single unit all-conference. That is just sick.
We also have LBs returning from injury, that is a big deal.
GoldenTornado
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 549
I'm in the camp that believes the D could very well be better this year and I doubt we'll see a serious dropoff.
1. True, players don't always get better with experience. But under good, stable coaching, they usually do.
2. Younger players usually improve the most. GT's D was very young last year. 6 of the top 9 tacklers in 2008 were first-two-year players, and two of those were true frosh.
3. Normally teams see improvement in the second season of a new system. Most talk about GT's schemes centers on the offense but we had a pretty dramatic change in defensive scheme in 2008 as well. Interviewed players have quite often mentioned how much more comfortable in Wommack's D they are in 2009. And Wommack is a quality DC.
Obviously teams could get worse despite any one of the above indicators. But with all three applicable, a decline would seem pretty unusual.
The big counteragument to all of this comes from the school of thought that the D can only be as good as the D-line, so a depleted D-line means overall mediocrity.
Whether that is true or not, I'm not at all sure the D-line is gonna take a big step back, and I could see it improving -- for a lot of reasons....
4. GT has not fielded a poor DL in the 2000's, except arguably in 2002 when we were #42 in rush D. We certainly haven't under Giff Smith.
5. Giff says we have the least experienced DL since he's been here. However he also says we have the most talent and depth; and it's also worth noting that our DT contributors have all had redshirt seasons for the first time in quite a while.
6. 2nd year in Wommack's scheme, which normally means improvement.
7. The Johnson factor -- this applies across the board. Johnson brings a state of mind that just makes his teams better. His teams practice hard, play hard and hit hard. His Navy D's were actually very physical and good for their talent levels, except 2007 when they effectively returned 0 starters. In the fall scrimmages the D has played impressively hard to me.
8. I tend to agree with the school of thought that a very physical offense makes your D better. See the Blackshirts at Nebraska. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure that coaching, talent, and mentality matter more than the offensive scheme your D faces. When Fridge was here our D scrimmaged against a great offense run out of every imaginable formation, yet they were often awful. Meanwhile when coached by Tenuta they faced bad O's but were usually very good.
9. The degree that GT is undersized at DT seems somewhat overstated to me. If Peters can't recover back to the 270 range that's a little bit more of a problem, but on listed roster weights we are not significantly smaller than past GT teams or many other good BCS defensive lines. It also helps that we have very big DE's. I think Barnes will play on 60% of snaps which will make our DL really very large most of the time.
Here are the sizes of GT's DT's since 2003, as listed on various preseason depth charts and RR player bios...:
Anoai 280 SR, 270 JR
Walker 292 SR, 270 SO
Richard 290 SR, 285 SO
Wrotto 310 SR, 310 SO
Anyaibe 280 SR
Parker 260 SR
Oliver 260 SR -- DT on passing downs.
GT's top 4 in 2009:
Anderson 275 JR
Barnes 340 FR
Peters 275 SO
Walls 285 SO
This group is really only undersized when Peters and Anderson are in together; and even then we are still at least as big in the middle as we were with a rotation of Anoai, Parker and Walker.
1. True, players don't always get better with experience. But under good, stable coaching, they usually do.
2. Younger players usually improve the most. GT's D was very young last year. 6 of the top 9 tacklers in 2008 were first-two-year players, and two of those were true frosh.
3. Normally teams see improvement in the second season of a new system. Most talk about GT's schemes centers on the offense but we had a pretty dramatic change in defensive scheme in 2008 as well. Interviewed players have quite often mentioned how much more comfortable in Wommack's D they are in 2009. And Wommack is a quality DC.
Obviously teams could get worse despite any one of the above indicators. But with all three applicable, a decline would seem pretty unusual.
The big counteragument to all of this comes from the school of thought that the D can only be as good as the D-line, so a depleted D-line means overall mediocrity.
Whether that is true or not, I'm not at all sure the D-line is gonna take a big step back, and I could see it improving -- for a lot of reasons....
4. GT has not fielded a poor DL in the 2000's, except arguably in 2002 when we were #42 in rush D. We certainly haven't under Giff Smith.
5. Giff says we have the least experienced DL since he's been here. However he also says we have the most talent and depth; and it's also worth noting that our DT contributors have all had redshirt seasons for the first time in quite a while.
6. 2nd year in Wommack's scheme, which normally means improvement.
7. The Johnson factor -- this applies across the board. Johnson brings a state of mind that just makes his teams better. His teams practice hard, play hard and hit hard. His Navy D's were actually very physical and good for their talent levels, except 2007 when they effectively returned 0 starters. In the fall scrimmages the D has played impressively hard to me.
8. I tend to agree with the school of thought that a very physical offense makes your D better. See the Blackshirts at Nebraska. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure that coaching, talent, and mentality matter more than the offensive scheme your D faces. When Fridge was here our D scrimmaged against a great offense run out of every imaginable formation, yet they were often awful. Meanwhile when coached by Tenuta they faced bad O's but were usually very good.
9. The degree that GT is undersized at DT seems somewhat overstated to me. If Peters can't recover back to the 270 range that's a little bit more of a problem, but on listed roster weights we are not significantly smaller than past GT teams or many other good BCS defensive lines. It also helps that we have very big DE's. I think Barnes will play on 60% of snaps which will make our DL really very large most of the time.
Here are the sizes of GT's DT's since 2003, as listed on various preseason depth charts and RR player bios...:
Anoai 280 SR, 270 JR
Walker 292 SR, 270 SO
Richard 290 SR, 285 SO
Wrotto 310 SR, 310 SO
Anyaibe 280 SR
Parker 260 SR
Oliver 260 SR -- DT on passing downs.
GT's top 4 in 2009:
Anderson 275 JR
Barnes 340 FR
Peters 275 SO
Walls 285 SO
This group is really only undersized when Peters and Anderson are in together; and even then we are still at least as big in the middle as we were with a rotation of Anoai, Parker and Walker.