gthunder 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Well people all the time say that the SEC is the closest thing to the NFL. So, I looked up the starting defenses of two Tampa 2 defenses in the NFL. Shouldn't we try to emulate this. I'm not saying that I expect freshman and sophomores to be this large, but it doesn't even seem like we recruit to bring in kids that grow to this size. Bucs. Bears WLB. 6-1 226. 6-1 244 MLB. 6-2 242. 6-4 258 SLB. 6-2 240. 6-1 234 FS. 6-0 200. 5-11 204 SS. 6-1 220. 6-1 210 Those are pros. They are gong to be bigger. I know the difference. Like I said the SEC is basically the minor leagues for the NFL. By the time they are JRs and SRs they should look the part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gthunder 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 To me, you've got to fill needs in addition to having a "top 5" class. I look at who we really got rocked by this year, and it was teams who's OL and DL (and LBs) just destroyed us. I know how young we are, but I still feel like we really NEED to sign 2-3 top OL, another top DT, another top DE, and really two top LBs. By "top" I mean in or near the top ten at their position. That's just my armchair opinion, but it's how I see things and it seems to be backed up by looking at the players that beat us. I suppose we really need another very good QB, too, to push Kiehl. I don't think Pike will be ready to do that in his first year. As long as I'm being greedy, I'd like a sure handed, great route running, strong blocking possession WR, too. Having said all of that, here's to hoping to a strong finish. It looks like we have the potential to finish with both a top 5 class AND a class that meets our most pressing needs. I second this, but it's extremely hard go out and get the guys you want. An armchair opinion of mine is that we are still recruiting players that are too small. I digress, they will be introduced to a college weight program. Linebackers and safeties need to at least match the size of the ball carriers they are trying to tackle. Derrick Brooks Prototypical Tampa 2 LB size 6-0 235 Eltoro Freeman our best LB SR 5-11 228 Darren Bates JR 5-11 205 Jake Holland SO 6-1 235 Justin Garrett FR 6-1 205 Daniel Pond FR 6-1 215 Chris Landrum FR 6-3 235 Jonathan Evans JR 6-3 235 Jawara White RFR 6-2 230 Anthony Swain FR 6-2 205 Harris Gaston SO 6-2 236 Clay Finkelstein FR 6-1 180 Jacob Westrich RFR 6-1 218 Ashton Richardson SR 6-1 201 All the above stats taken from the game day program for Old Miss... Kris Frost FR 6-3 210 taken from rivals.... Ok I was curious about the size statement so I did some research. All of the underclassmen LB are between 6-1 and 6-3. Perhaps allowing for some growth in weight due to gaining muscel mass they will grow into the roll. I know they will put on weight with time, but the RBs, TEs, and WRs in today's college football world are getting bigger. We need to do the same on our D. Look at Lacey, Richardson, Fowler, Lattimore, N Davis, and others around the conference. Our guys have to be big enough to fight off blocks and then be able to tackle the bruisers of today's game. I anticipated this statement and I took a look at the Alabama LB's that were Fr/SO and the size of our scholarship Fr/So LB's is very compareable in size. Just give our kids more time in the weight room and ours will be comparable to anyones... Not even close... Their lightest listed LB is Sunseri at 220 and he plays safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gthunder 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 To me, you've got to fill needs in addition to having a "top 5" class. I look at who we really got rocked by this year, and it was teams who's OL and DL (and LBs) just destroyed us. I know how young we are, but I still feel like we really NEED to sign 2-3 top OL, another top DT, another top DE, and really two top LBs. By "top" I mean in or near the top ten at their position. That's just my armchair opinion, but it's how I see things and it seems to be backed up by looking at the players that beat us. I suppose we really need another very good QB, too, to push Kiehl. I don't think Pike will be ready to do that in his first year. As long as I'm being greedy, I'd like a sure handed, great route running, strong blocking possession WR, too. Having said all of that, here's to hoping to a strong finish. It looks like we have the potential to finish with both a top 5 class AND a class that meets our most pressing needs. I second this, but it's extremely hard go out and get the guys you want. An armchair opinion of mine is that we are still recruiting players that are too small. I digress, they will be introduced to a college weight program. Linebackers and safeties need to at least match the size of the ball carriers they are trying to tackle. Derrick Brooks Prototypical Tampa 2 LB size 6-0 235 Eltoro Freeman our best LB SR 5-11 228 Darren Bates JR 5-11 205 Jake Holland SO 6-1 235 Justin Garrett FR 6-1 205 Daniel Pond FR 6-1 215 Chris Landrum FR 6-3 235 Jonathan Evans JR 6-3 235 Jawara White RFR 6-2 230 Anthony Swain FR 6-2 205 Harris Gaston SO 6-2 236 Clay Finkelstein FR 6-1 180 Jacob Westrich RFR 6-1 218 Ashton Richardson SR 6-1 201 All the above stats taken from the game day program for Old Miss... Kris Frost FR 6-3 210 taken from rivals.... Ok I was curious about the size statement so I did some research. All of the underclassmen LB are between 6-1 and 6-3. Perhaps allowing for some growth in weight due to gaining muscel mass they will grow into the roll. I know they will put on weight with time, but the RBs, TEs, and WRs in today's college football world are getting bigger. We need to do the same on our D. Look at Lacey, Richardson, Fowler, Lattimore, N Davis, and others around the conference. Our guys have to be big enough to fight off blocks and then be able to tackle the bruisers of today's game. How big do you want them to be? Other than the freshmen, who will gain weight, everyone seems to be right around the weight you should want for a 4-3 D. We just need DT's that will take double teams and keep Guards off the linebackers. I agree. So many people want our linebackers the size of Alabama's 3-4, but we run a 4-3. Our linebackers sizes are comparable with everyone in the SEC that's run a 4-3. Our freshmen have to grow into their bodies, and are not going to arrive with physiques like Juniors or Seniors. Everytime size is mentioned, people bring up Daren Bates, as if all our linebackers are that size. We do run a 4-3 just like moo state and usce. Their LBs dwarf ours at this point. LSU has smaller LBs but have y'all seen their DBs? They run a 4-2-5 almost exclusively just to keep them out there. I know the kids will get bigger, but it was apparent to me this season that our LB core was severely undersized. I really think this should be a major concern that the staff needs to address. I think they will. IMO, this is why Noor Davis became such a hot commodity. BTW, I also think Bates should go back to S immediately. IMO, he has NFL talent at safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbomb 193 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 "Not even close... Their lightest listed LB is Sunseri at 220 and he plays safety." Jake Holland SO 6-1 235 Chris Landrum FR 6-3 235 Jawara White RFR 6-2 230 Harris Gaston SO 6-2 236 Kris Frost FR 6-3 210 Anthony Swain FR 6-2 205 Justin Garrett FR 6-1 205 bammers Patrick So 6-3 236 Atchison So 6-2 240 Mosley So 6-2 234 Depriest Fr 6-2 242 Hubbard Fr 6-6 237 Dickson Fr 6-3 240 Comments Height wise our players are comparable. Hubbard is a freak and probably more of a D end position. Weight wise 4 of 7 of ours are within just a few pound of theirs. The smaller ones may be the difference between recruiting for a 4-3 as opposed to a 3-4. I cut out what I believe to be some of our walkon LB's that were even smaller. Again my original comparison was Fr/So only. "Their LBs dwarf ours at this point." I dont believe the facts spell this out but I guess that is a matter of opinion. *Source of the Alabama stats was ESPN roster. I couldnt stomach going to the Tide website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANSBY 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Removed by Admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigereagle03 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Removed by Admin this should be deleted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,113 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Removed by Admin this should be deleted! Seriously! What are you doing man?! This is a public board. Do you want the NCAA up our butts again. I don't care if your post is a joke. It's on the same level as Updyke calling Finebaum about poisoning our trees on the not the smartest thing to do scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustache eagle 2,412 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Dansby, I thought it was funny ... Where is that sarcasm emoticon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,113 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Dansby, I thought it was funny ... Where is that sarcasm emoticon? Yes it's funny but the NCAA would have a field day with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollsroyce5 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Dansby, I thought it was funny ... Where is that sarcasm emoticon? Yes it's funny but the NCAA would have a field day with it. Don't sweat it Ellitor, both the statute of limitations and the 18 month reaming that the NCAA gave us assure that we're safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,113 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Dansby, I thought it was funny ... Where is that sarcasm emoticon? Yes it's funny but the NCAA would have a field day with it. Don't sweat it Ellitor, both the statute of limitations and the 18 month reaming that the NCAA gave us assure that we're safe. I forgot about the statute of limitations. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUinfusion 390 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 "Not even close... Their lightest listed LB is Sunseri at 220 and he plays safety." Jake Holland SO 6-1 235 Chris Landrum FR 6-3 235 Jawara White RFR 6-2 230 Harris Gaston SO 6-2 236 Kris Frost FR 6-3 210 Anthony Swain FR 6-2 205 Justin Garrett FR 6-1 205 bammers Patrick So 6-3 236 Atchison So 6-2 240 Mosley So 6-2 234 Depriest Fr 6-2 242 Hubbard Fr 6-6 237 Dickson Fr 6-3 240 Comments Height wise our players are comparable. Hubbard is a freak and probably more of a D end position. Weight wise 4 of 7 of ours are within just a few pound of theirs. The smaller ones may be the difference between recruiting for a 4-3 as opposed to a 3-4. I cut out what I believe to be some of our walkon LB's that were even smaller. Again my original comparison was Fr/So only. "Their LBs dwarf ours at this point." I dont believe the facts spell this out but I guess that is a matter of opinion. *Source of the Alabama stats was ESPN roster. I couldnt stomach going to the Tide website. This is a weird comparison. It looks like you picked our biggest LBs to compare to their smallest LB? Where is Bates, and Garrett is < 200lbs according to rivals. uats starting LBs, according to rivals, (Harris, Upshaw, Hightower, Johnson) are 242lbs, 265lbs, 260lbs & 245lbs. They are MUCH bigger than us. I did this once before, and wish I still had the numbers to cut and paste: I compared their entire defense to ours and, quite LITERALLY, uats DBs are just about the size of our LBs, their LBs are probably bigger than our DEs, and their DEs are as big as or bigger than our DTs. uat's defense has MUCH bigger players out their than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoCrazyAuburn 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think he picked the back-ups. Also this is like comparing apples and oranges. Two different defensive schemes, two different types of players. Why don't you compare their "DE's" as well. I bet they will be bigger than ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,113 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think he picked the back-ups. Also this is like comparing apples and oranges. Two different defensive schemes, two different types of players. Why don't you compare their "DE's" as well. I bet they will be bigger than ours. With only 3 on the front line the DEa almost have to be bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoCrazyAuburn 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Exactly, thats my point. Their DE's are more of a light DT, and honestly, this year they have just 3 DT's on the line. Besides some of our Freshman and Bates, this is the biggest set of LB's we've had in a long time. The biggest problem they have been having is that they have been reacting and not attacking. They are letting the play come to them instead of dictating what the offense can do. That makes them seem slower and gets you out of position. When Eltoro is playing well, he does this perfectly. He attacks is area and dosn't allow the offense to go where it wants to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbomb 193 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 "Not even close... Their lightest listed LB is Sunseri at 220 and he plays safety." Jake Holland SO 6-1 235 Chris Landrum FR 6-3 235 Jawara White RFR 6-2 230 Harris Gaston SO 6-2 236 Kris Frost FR 6-3 210 Anthony Swain FR 6-2 205 Justin Garrett FR 6-1 205 bammers Patrick So 6-3 236 Atchison So 6-2 240 Mosley So 6-2 234 Depriest Fr 6-2 242 Hubbard Fr 6-6 237 Dickson Fr 6-3 240 Comments Height wise our players are comparable. Hubbard is a freak and probably more of a D end position. Weight wise 4 of 7 of ours are within just a few pound of theirs. The smaller ones may be the difference between recruiting for a 4-3 as opposed to a 3-4. I cut out what I believe to be some of our walkon LB's that were even smaller. Again my original comparison was Fr/So only. "Their LBs dwarf ours at this point." I dont believe the facts spell this out but I guess that is a matter of opinion. *Source of the Alabama stats was ESPN roster. I couldnt stomach going to the Tide website. This is a weird comparison. It looks like you picked our biggest LBs to compare to their smallest LB? Where is Bates, and Garrett is < 200lbs according to rivals. uats starting LBs, according to rivals, (Harris, Upshaw, Hightower, Johnson) are 242lbs, 265lbs, 260lbs & 245lbs. They are MUCH bigger than us. I did this once before, and wish I still had the numbers to cut and paste: I compared their entire defense to ours and, quite LITERALLY, uats DBs are just about the size of our LBs, their LBs are probably bigger than our DEs, and their DEs are as big as or bigger than our DTs. uat's defense has MUCH bigger players out their than we do. Hey the original discussion was about the LB's that we have been recruiting were smaller than Bama's. I highlighted the last two recruiting cycles of LB's. Please reread my post. I showed our recruited Fr/So and their Fr/So LB's. No Sr's no Jr's thats why I did not put Bates and Freeman. We are getting bigger at LB... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange and Blue 17211345162833 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Swain is bigger than the weight you have listed. He's in the 230 range. There is not much difference in size between Auburn's and Alabama's. We played a 4-3 and their OLBs are hybrid DEs in a 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auwrx 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 the de's and the jack lb are the only posistions that will have a real size difference. our version of the 4-3 plays with a nose tackle just like a 3-4. i don't think our coaches would mind if we had a 330lb nt. the jack back is a hybrid de/lb. that's what uat was recruting craig sanders as. i think what gets people upset about the size of our linebackers compared to other teams is the fact that alabama has had two consecutive 260lb mike lb. and then cgc says we want speed first. but i can't seem to remember mclain or hightower having any problem moving in space. in the sec we face 3 or 4 230lb backs a year. it gets old watching our linebackers meet them at the line of scrimmage olny to have to ride em down for a three or four yard gain. it's simple physics, mass x acceleration = force. if you're not as big, and none of our lb's are as fast as lattimore, davis, or richardson then you lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange and Blue 17211345162833 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Our DTs need to start carrying their weight also. We have 300 lb DTs, but they are not getting off blocks, or getting penetration. They are not making many tackles at all. They should get stronger in Winter workouts, which will make life for our linebackers a whole lot easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbomb 193 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Swain is bigger than the weight you have listed. He's in the 230 range. There is not much difference in size between Auburn's and Alabama's. We played a 4-3 and their OLBs are hybrid DEs in a 3-4. All of the Auburn LB's weights were taken from the Old Miss. game day program... With the exception of Kris Frost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiltonTiger 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Strenght, not weight, is our problem. Especially with the DL. Offseason weight training should improve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jthaub Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I had an update being typed up to release in around 6, and then... power goes out, computer dies, yada yada yada.... It will be later tonight til I can type it again. Sorry, but alot of changes to be excited about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfan25 0 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I had an update being typed up to release in around 6, and then... power goes out, computer dies, yada yada yada.... It will be later tonight til I can type it again. Sorry, but alot of changes to be excited about! appreciate the info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gthunder 0 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 the de's and the jack lb are the only posistions that will have a real size difference. our version of the 4-3 plays with a nose tackle just like a 3-4. i don't think our coaches would mind if we had a 330lb nt. the jack back is a hybrid de/lb. that's what uat was recruting craig sanders as. i think what gets people upset about the size of our linebackers compared to other teams is the fact that alabama has had two consecutive 260lb mike lb. and then cgc says we want speed first. but i can't seem to remember mclain or hightower having any problem moving in space. in the sec we face 3 or 4 230lb backs a year. it gets old watching our linebackers meet them at the line of scrimmage olny to have to ride em down for a three or four yard gain. it's simple physics, mass x acceleration = force. if you're not as big, and none of our lb's are as fast as lattimore, davis, or richardson then you lose. My point exactly. I don't care what our defense is we just need bigger LBs and DBs. Will - 235+, Mike - 250+, Sam - 240+, FS - 200+, SS - 210+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardon1345162806 0 Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I had an update being typed up to release in around 6, and then... power goes out, computer dies, yada yada yada.... It will be later tonight til I can type it again. Sorry, but alot of changes to be excited about! Used to have a gurlfrnd like you- get me all fired up about a promised event only to find out it was just a huge tease job- Sure hope you post the update soon- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.