Theory on Daren Bates...

[aurules16 0]

Do you think as soon as he arrived in June 09 (or when he was being recruited) the coaches immediately saw him as a LB, but played him at safety that season because we didn't have Savage and McNeil?

Now that we have them back they move him to LB?

It just seems as though it became a random immediate decision to move him there (which was the right call)

[StatTiger 3,153]

Do you think as soon as he arrived in June 09 (or when he was being recruited) the coaches immediately saw him as a LB, but played him at safety that season because we didn't have Savage and McNeil?

Now that we have them back they move him to LB?

It just seems as though it became a random immediate decision to move him there (which was the right call)

That is a strong possibility. As the season progressed, the coaching staff began to play him closer to the line, especially when they went to their Bear or 46 look. He plays great closer to the line of scrimmage because he takes great angles to the ball and is a hitting machine.

[wellsheit 0]

I can't refute you're theory, but I will give you another thought.  Sometimes you have to move somebody around to keep your best 11 on the field at the same time.

[LakeBum 187]

I think Daren surprised everyone including the coaches regarding how good he is.  His nose for the football and willingness to lay the lumber to bigger backs had to impress them.  I think CGC likes mobile LB that can be hybrid types that can cover receivers and protect the corners against the run.  Once they saw how he actually played, they determined he was a picture perfect fit for their LB group, and decided to move him permanently at the end of last year. JMO.

WDE!

[kflah 0]

I can't refute you're theory, but I will give you another thought.  Sometimes you have to move somebody around to keep your best 11 on the field at the same time.

Agreed.  I just think this was a means of keeping Bates out there, now that we have Savage and McNeil back.  Dude's a ball-hawk and will make plays. 

[AUDynasty 567]

good question. Bates has the linebacker's menality...

[The Duke 0]

I was a little surprised to see Mike McNeil not in the starting rotation. I am certain that they will use him, no doubt, possibly in nickel

[Lynx34 0]

I was a little surprised to see Mike McNeil not in the starting rotation. I am certain that they will use him, no doubt, possibly in nickel

I'm about 98% sure that McNeil will probably be in on about 1/4 to 1/3 of all snaps.  The depth chart may have Means behind Etheridge, but make no mistake: McNeil is the 1st option at both and will relieve both Zac and Aairon during games.

As for Bates, I love the idea of him at linebacker.  He's such a Chizik prototype, it's gross.  Undersized, fast, and hits hard.  Like hard to the point of ignoring personal safety.  Seriously, every time he hits someone, he is thrusting as hard as he can right into their torso to knock them down with sheer force.  Sometimes I think he forgets he has arms.  It works for him because he takes such great angles though.

[wardon1345162806 0]

Other teams will prolly try to match up a tall TE or WR against Bates, who is not even 6 ft-

Suspect the days of really small LB @ AU will start coming to an end-

[Guest simonsez]

The small LB is good.  The 2004 team had em and look where that got us.  I would like to clone Bates a few times.

[au_weagle 0]

I think the combination of getting 3 high caliber safeties back and the lack of depth at linebacker were two issues that could be adressed pretty early on. I am glad they did it early enough for him to completely learn it.

[waregl87 0]

Do you think as soon as he arrived in June 09 (or when he was being recruited) the coaches immediately saw him as a LB, but played him at safety that season because we didn't have Savage and McNeil?

Now that we have them back they move him to LB?

It just seems as though it became a random immediate decision to move him there (which was the right call)

I strongly disagree with this. As much as I like Daren Bates as a player -- he will knock your head off -- nobody should be starting at LB in the SEC at 5'11", 210. I don't care who you are. Now I know there have been some good guys play for us that have been undersized, but there's a difference in undersized and small. Bates is SMALL -- for a linebacker. I think they're doing it out of necessity, and because Bates is a physical football player. Although the depth is A LOT better this season, we're still one good recruiting class away from being deep and solid at every position, especially LB. I'm not gonna doubt Bates, but it scares me to death to think about when we play those teams -- Alabama, LSU, Georgia and even Clemson -- that line up in the I-formation and run straight at us. You don't need to look any further than the Kentucky and Georgia games last year. We knew exactly what they were going to do, but we were too exhausted and thin defensively to do anything about it. Maybe we'll run a little more 3-4 this year with Bates a hybrid type guy. I don't know. But I have my worries.

[3rdgen 2]

Look at it this way even if bates is undersized for lb he give us another warm body to rotate throughout the game so fatigue does not become a factor this year.  Besides it is the dlines job to keep the lbs clean so they can make plays and that is what bates will do.

[au_weagle 0]

With all the spread offenses we'll face he is probably going to be a hybrid player, we knew that. The guy can play up close or split off and cover a slot guy. Valueble, but I think we'll see him less against downhill pro style teams like South Car, Georgia, and Bama.

[The SandMntTiger 9]

Do you think as soon as he arrived in June 09 (or when he was being recruited) the coaches immediately saw him as a LB, but played him at safety that season because we didn't have Savage and McNeil?

Now that we have them back they move him to LB?

It just seems as though it became a random immediate decision to move him there (which was the right call)

I strongly disagree with this. As much as I like Daren Bates as a player -- he will knock your head off -- nobody should be starting at LB in the SEC at 5'11", 210. I don't care who you are. Now I know there have been some good guys play for us that have been undersized, but there's a difference in undersized and small. Bates is SMALL -- for a linebacker. I think they're doing it out of necessity, and because Bates is a physical football player. Although the depth is A LOT better this season, we're still one good recruiting class away from being deep and solid at every position, especially LB. I'm not gonna doubt Bates, but it scares me to death to think about when we play those teams -- Alabama, LSU, Georgia and even Clemson -- that line up in the I-formation and run straight at us. You don't need to look any further than the Kentucky and Georgia games last year. We knew exactly what they were going to do, but we were too exhausted and thin defensively to do anything about it. Maybe we'll run a little more 3-4 this year with Bates a hybrid type guy. I don't know. But I have my worries.

Hate to disagree with you but I think your way off about Bates being to small. The following group of players either started at LB or played major roles as backups (though mainly starters) on some of the best Auburn defenses this past decade (i.e 2004-2007): Travis Williams 6-1 / 213, Karibi Dede 6-0 / 216, Antarrious Williams 5-11 / 213 (all weights and heights are from when they were Seniors), Trey Blakmon 6-0 / 210, Merrill Johnson 6-0 / 201, Steve Gandy 6-1 / 201, and Chris Evans 6-0 / 217 (all when listed as Sophomores which is what Bates is). I think Mr. Bates will be more than filler out of necessity. I actuallly believe he is just what CGC is looking for in his schemes this year.

[waregl87 0]

Do you think as soon as he arrived in June 09 (or when he was being recruited) the coaches immediately saw him as a LB, but played him at safety that season because we didn't have Savage and McNeil?

Now that we have them back they move him to LB?

It just seems as though it became a random immediate decision to move him there (which was the right call)

I strongly disagree with this. As much as I like Daren Bates as a player -- he will knock your head off -- nobody should be starting at LB in the SEC at 5'11", 210. I don't care who you are. Now I know there have been some good guys play for us that have been undersized, but there's a difference in undersized and small. Bates is SMALL -- for a linebacker. I think they're doing it out of necessity, and because Bates is a physical football player. Although the depth is A LOT better this season, we're still one good recruiting class away from being deep and solid at every position, especially LB. I'm not gonna doubt Bates, but it scares me to death to think about when we play those teams -- Alabama, LSU, Georgia and even Clemson -- that line up in the I-formation and run straight at us. You don't need to look any further than the Kentucky and Georgia games last year. We knew exactly what they were going to do, but we were too exhausted and thin defensively to do anything about it. Maybe we'll run a little more 3-4 this year with Bates a hybrid type guy. I don't know. But I have my worries.

Hate to disagree with you but I think your way off about Bates being to small. The following group of players either started at LB or played major roles as backups (though mainly starters) on some of the best Auburn defenses this past decade (i.e 2004-2007): Travis Williams 6-1 / 213, Karibi Dede 6-0 / 216, Antarrious Williams 5-11 / 213 (all weights and heights are from when they were Seniors), Trey Blakmon 6-0 / 210, Merrill Johnson 6-0 / 201, Steve Gandy 6-1 / 201, and Chris Evans 6-0 / 217 (all when listed as Sophomores which is what Bates is). I think Mr. Bates will be more than filler out of necessity. I actuallly believe he is just what CGC is looking for in his schemes this year.

Ok, Gandy, Blackmon and Johnson hardly ever played, and Evans started for one year. But like I said, there have been some good undersized LBS play at AU. Whether you agree with me or not, you have to admit having a 200-lb makes you -- or any AU fan -- worry, esp. against power running teams.

[sAULTy71 0]

Do you think as soon as he arrived in June 09 (or when he was being recruited) the coaches immediately saw him as a LB, but played him at safety that season because we didn't have Savage and McNeil?

Now that we have them back they move him to LB?

It just seems as though it became a random immediate decision to move him there (which was the right call)

I strongly disagree with this. As much as I like Daren Bates as a player -- he will knock your head off -- nobody should be starting at LB in the SEC at 5'11", 210. I don't care who you are. Now I know there have been some good guys play for us that have been undersized, but there's a difference in undersized and small. Bates is SMALL -- for a linebacker. I think they're doing it out of necessity, and because Bates is a physical football player. Although the depth is A LOT better this season, we're still one good recruiting class away from being deep and solid at every position, especially LB. I'm not gonna doubt Bates, but it scares me to death to think about when we play those teams -- Alabama, LSU, Georgia and even Clemson -- that line up in the I-formation and run straight at us. You don't need to look any further than the Kentucky and Georgia games last year. We knew exactly what they were going to do, but we were too exhausted and thin defensively to do anything about it. Maybe we'll run a little more 3-4 this year with Bates a hybrid type guy. I don't know. But I have my worries.

Let's see.  5'11", 210lbs...105 lbs of muscle, 105 lbs of heart.  That seems just right to me.  WDE 

[Jonesy 1]

Other teams will prolly try to match up a tall TE or WR against Bates, who is not even 6 ft-

Suspect the days of really small LB @ AU will start coming to an end-

You know he was a safety last year, right? He covered tall receivers all the time.

[AU Counsel 64]

If Bates gets run over,  we'll put in someone else.  This isn't akin to putting Ziemba at cornerback...not to be dismissive over the concern, but we were 1 deep at the linebacker spots last year, and we will be 3 deep this year, with L. Owens ready if we need a 10th linebacker.

I don't know whether McNeil is better than the other safeties, but he is a junior and they are seniors...no worries there...they may play a pretty even number of snaps anyway.

[Jonesy 1]

If Bates gets run over,  we'll put in someone else.  This isn't akin to putting Ziemba at cornerback...not to be dismissive over the concern, but we were 1 deep at the linebacker spots last year, and we will be 3 deep this year, with L. Owens ready if we need a 10th linebacker.

I don't know whether McNeil is better than the other safeties, but he is a junior and they are seniors...no worries there...they may play a pretty even number of snaps anyway.

Spot on

[auwrx 0]

ra ra white is playing behind him at a listed 243. i think we have contingency plans. jonathan evans is listed at 230 this year and those outside linebacker positions are interchangeable. we've got  beef if needed. but, chizik said at the press conference "if we can make our defense faster, we will". if bates had to play 100 snaps per game i'd be worried, but with a better rotation, you're looking at 35-45 snaps. i'm not concerned.

[The SandMntTiger 9]

Actually Chris Evans was 3rd on the team in tackles in '07 and '08, Trey Blackmon was hyped beyond belief (and his size certainly had nothing to do with his PT), Merril Johnson played a good bit and was very solid, and Steve Gandy would haved started and played alot if not for an injury that ended his career. I didn't just pull these guys off the old rosters because of their size. I instead was using them as an example because of their size and that they were very productive.

Keep in mind the best Auburn defense this past decade ('04) started not 1 but 2 LB's very similar to Bates' size. Also one of the first ones off the bench that year was Dede. So believe me, I'm being honest when I say Bates size doesn't worry me at all. Its part of the coaches plan and I believe CGC knows quite well that just because you've got a 210 LB doesn't mean you can't stuff the run all day long.

I hope I've eased some of your concerns. If not I have a feeling watching him and the rest of the defense play this year will. War Eagle.

[TigerTy 19]

I'm excited over Bates @ LB. As STAT said, his great angles to the ball can not be overstated. I believe he makes a difference in short yardage passes to TE/TB. In the run game, just watch him dodge the lead blocker (after all he is small, right  ) and give the ball carrier second thoughts about that play !

[AU Counsel 64]

Look back to Jimmy Johnson at Miami (where CTT honed his defensive philosophy).  He put DT's on the O-line, moved linebackers to defensive end, moved safeties to linebacker, corners to safety..etc in an effort to have a fast attacking defense...his success speaks for itself.

CTT and CGC have both done similar things as well, encouraging a fast attacking defense, with swarming defensive pressure.  It is a risky defense to employ, but when you have depth and speed on defense (both of which we have as the season begins), you can afford to take those risks...

Demond's height concerns me more than Bates...and I'm truly concerned about neither.

[DickBird 0]

I was a little surprised to see Mike McNeil not in the starting rotation. I am certain that they will use him, no doubt, possibly in nickel

McNeil was still walking and running with a limp at the spring practice I saw.