Jump to content

All Things Final Spots in the 2018 Class


aujeff11

Recommended Posts

On 1/19/2018 at 9:32 AM, Mikey said:

I don't see why not try McClain there. He has the size and good speed for the position. There are quality payers in front of him at WR and more are coming in the current recruiting class so it's not essential for the team that he improve at WR. Now, if he doesn't like sticking is nose in there and blocking people as his "regular" job, that's a different story and his future, however bright or dim, will be at WR.

McClain = perfect fit for pass catching TE. If he had gone to Ole Miss he would probably be a household name by now would be my guess..

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 hours ago, Eagle-1 said:

McClain = perfect fit for pass catching TE. If he had gone to Ole Miss he would probably be a household name by now would be my guess..

Let's hope he so hungry to put his in the dirt and block some in addition to catching some passes, hopefully, several for touchdowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2018 at 3:51 PM, WarEagleJersey said:

Me:

You:

Bird:

 

Context is key . Yours is missing a whole lot of it based on your rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Eagle-1 said:

McClain = perfect fit for pass catching TE. If he had gone to Ole Miss he would probably be a household name by now would be my guess..

Since his position coach here has publicly stated that McClain needs to grow up, unless there is a reverse fountain of youth in Oxford I doubt there would be much difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Eagle-1 said:

McClain = perfect fit for pass catching TE. If he had gone to Ole Miss he would probably be a household name by now would be my guess..

He’s also 6’2 and 225. If he gained 20+ pounds and grew three inches maybe. Still don’t understand this unprecedented hype that he’s gotten lately. Made a hard catch in our bowl game and did well at A-Day this past year... that’s it. I don’t get it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ClaytonAU said:

He’s also 6’2 and 225. If he gained 20+ pounds and grew three inches maybe. Still don’t understand this unprecedented hype that he’s gotten lately. Made a hard catch in our bowl game and did well at A-Day this past year... that’s it. I don’t get it. 

20 lbs? 3"? That's a bit much.

As for his few successes, look at it another way. How often have you seen him fail? I feel like I've seen him make more plays than I've seen Sal make, and fewer mistakes.

You are right about the hype being a little over the top, but I think part of it is fed by there not really being any big guys ahead of him making plays. That might be a function of the offense - I have no problem believing that whatsoever - but it's still something to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DAG said:

Context is key . Yours is missing a whole lot of it based on your rationale.

Actually it's not, based on the original text quote. Context is key and you clearly don't have it.

The original statement made by Bird was simplified to the above text, and nobody can deny my position in this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WarEagleJersey said:

The original statement made by Bird was simplified to the above text

Which means that it's presented out of context...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

20 lbs? 3"? That's a bit much.

As for his few successes, look at it another way. How often have you seen him fail? I feel like I've seen him make more plays than I've seen Sal make, and fewer mistakes.

You are right about the hype being a little over the top, but I think part of it is fed by there not really being any big guys ahead of him making plays. That might be a function of the offense - I have no problem believing that whatsoever - but it's still something to consider.

The measurables were just what I imagine a TE is. 6’5-6’6 240. Marquis is not close to that. I miss when you and I used to agree on everything, Loof. Those were simpler times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ClaytonAU said:

The measurables were just what I imagine a TE is. 6’5-6’6 240. Marquis is not close to that. I miss when you and I used to agree on everything, Loof. Those were simpler times. 

Hug it out?

According to some thing I read, NFL TEs average 6'3. Evidently you were right about the weight thing- most of them are >240. But that's the NFL. 

I'm guessing that we won't ever see McClain as a TE, but as the same big slot guy that @bigbird mentioned... he's got the metrics for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

Damn that LSU game...

Ol' Loof, he ain't never been the same since. He looks the same on the outside, but I don't know if he's in there anymore. His eyes are open, but it's like he ain't seeing nothing. Like a ghost or something. Kinda creepy to tell you the got-danged truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we have a thread on the football side discussing McClain as a tight end?  I keep coming to this thread looking for info on the actual subject and keep seeing the exact same argument discussed weeks ago about McClain, with the exact same people.  You guys are killing me!

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

Didn't we have a thread on the football side discussing McClain as a tight end?  I keep coming to this thread looking for info on the actual subject and keep seeing the exact same argument discussed weeks ago about McClain, with the exact same people.  You guys are killing me!

giphy.gif

Hey, if we're only discussing it in 2 places, that's pretty good.

Now, back to how we manage running backs...

(Side note: We're barely talking about QBs this offseason. How cool is that????)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Hey, if we're only discussing it in 2 places, that's pretty good.

Now, back to how we manage running backs...

(Side note: We're barely talking about QBs this offseason. How cool is that????)

"Malik should be starting!" - someone somewhere

 

I just want some OL players dangit. Someone hold a big ole pot luck for the big boys and bring them in with our southern cooking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

Which means that it's presented out of context...

Another person comes to the defense of a post that bears little comprehension. Ten person army defending this guy...

 

Below is the full quote from Bird. Bolded is the text quote I took. Explain how I took it out of context. Go ahead. Explain.

On 1/18/2018 at 9:29 PM, bigbird said:

Being that none of those play the position we were talking about, I would suggest we don't bench any of the ones you mentioned. 

KD played the Big slot role. After he was dismissed, we moved Sal there where he failed to contribute. After that, they stopped running sets that had utilized the big slot. They should've used MM in that position.

That simplified text pretty much explains his point. There's no way it could be taken "out of context".

On 1/19/2018 at 8:38 AM, WarEagleJersey said:

Kyle Davis did not just play the "Big Slot" role. That just happened to be the position most fans saw him succeed at.

What Mikey is trying to say is, when you add another player to the offense, you need to consider taking reps away. I dont think anyone is saying McClain shouldn't have played more, and this idea is of importance on our minds because of his catch against UCF.

Lets also not act like Cannella played all that much too. Once Lindsay saw his drops, he was riding the pine.

Explain...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WarEagleJersey said:

Explain...

Well, first, you added the word "just" which changes the message significantly. Bird didn't say that KD "just" played the big slot role.

Second, Bird said, "After he was dismissed, we moved Sal there where he failed to contribute." To which you then responded, seemingly in an attempt to contradict, "Lets also not act like Cannella played all that much too. Once Lindsay saw his drops, he was riding the pine."

Finally, Bird said, "After that, they stopped running sets that had utilized the big slot." And you said, "when you add another player to the offense, you need to consider taking reps away". Well, let's see here: KD left and Sal got benched- you took a really strange tack in agreeing with Bird about that- and so they completely took away that part of the offense. Meaning, to reinstall that part of the offense would not be taking reps away from anyone because there was nobody running those plays. 

It's these last 2 things that make it look like you didn't read what Bird wrote; not the one tiny little point that you keep isolating. First, you restated something he'd already said as though you were telling him something new, and then you either completely disregarded or misunderstood something else he said. 

To bring this back around to recruiting, we may or may not have a need for a big slot receiver. McClain may or may not be able to fulfill duties that were vacated by Davis and then Cannella, and which have since gone dormant. Or whatever. Sorry, E. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WarEagleJersey said:

Another person comes to the defense of a post that bears little comprehension. Ten person army defending this guy...

 

Below is the full quote from Bird. Bolded is the text quote I took. Explain how I took it out of context. Go ahead. Explain.

That simplified text pretty much explains his point. There's no way it could be taken "out of context".

Explain...

People are defending Bird because he is one of the most respected posters on this site who also happens to be a football coach.  With 7 posts under your belt, it would behoove you to get to know the natives before throwing shade.

Now, for your explanation. What Bird said is that Davis played the Big Slot role (he never used the word "just"), then when he left Sal took over on those plays, then when Sal proved to have stone hands, we just flat out stopped calling those plays, therefor there was no one to be replaced, because the role basically vanished. So while Mikey's point is valid that someone would have to sit on those plays, because you can only have 11 men on the field, they wouldn't be sitting because they were being replaced in a role, just because the one guy who might cover that position isn't them.

And for the record, I didn't cheat off of Loof's paper, which I think makes the point even stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's talk spots in the current class in this thread peeps. Take the McClain to TE talk to the football forum or PMs please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Well, first, you added the word "just" which changes the message significantly. Bird didn't say that KD "just" played the big slot role.

Second, Bird said, "After he was dismissed, we moved Sal there where he failed to contribute." To which you then responded, seemingly in an attempt to contradict, "Lets also not act like Cannella played all that much too. Once Lindsay saw his drops, he was riding the pine."

Finally, Bird said, "After that, they stopped running sets that had utilized the big slot." And you said, "when you add another player to the offense, you need to consider taking reps away". Well, let's see here: KD left and Sal got benched- you took a really strange tack in agreeing with Bird about that- and so they completely took away that part of the offense. Meaning, to reinstall that part of the offense would not be taking reps away from anyone because there was nobody running those plays. 

It's these last 2 things that make it look like you didn't read what Bird wrote; not the one tiny little point that you keep isolating. First, you restated something he'd already said as though you were telling him something new, and then you either completely disregarded or misunderstood something else he said. 

To bring this back around to recruiting, we may or may not have a need for a big slot receiver. McClain may or may not be able to fulfill duties that were vacated by Davis and then Cannella, and which have since gone dormant. Or whatever. Sorry, E. 

So let me get this straight...

I responded to everything in Bird's original post, in which you just went into more detail about covering everything I've already covered, and yet you're still going to say "I don't think you really read what Bird wrote"? This is why I am defending my position that I "didn't read his entire post". We're talking about 5 sentences. The rhetoric that "You didn't read everything he wrote" is pretty juvenile in a 5 sentence post, in which I covered everything he wrote.

I think what he wrote was a little misrepresented and also not fully understanding Mikey's post. So I defended it. That is all. Just because somebody disagrees with someone and calls them out for saying something that was borderline wrong, doesn't mean the army has to defend it's leader.

And @lionheartkc, thanks for the post count reminder. It would BEHOOVE me to know who I'm talking to, or I could just look at the profile and see hes a moderator. :eyeroll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WarEagleJersey said:

And @lionheartkc, thanks for the post count reminder. It would BEHOOVE me to know who I'm talking to, or I could just look at the profile and see hes a moderator. :eyeroll:

Attitude noted... guess it should be expected with Jersey in your name. Mod or not, Bird knows his stuff and is one of the true good guys around here, if you care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

We still thinking 1 CB, 1 OL and the best remaining player we can get?

Looks like 1 CB & best available. As posted in the Langham thread his offer may actually be at OT for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...