dhbartlett12
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 533
Our backup longsnapper is Lucas Pickles?
Our backup longsnapper is Lucas Pickles?
People make way to much out of who is "starting"
I have no problem with starting Chase Alford. I don't care who's older/younger, I don't care who's on scholarship. I don't even care who's bigger/faster. I care about who makes our defense better! I care about who is going to be the most productive out there play after play. I care about who is going to make every play they should make and isn't going to give up a back breaking run because they weren't in the right place.I hope you are right about mitchell. I will go on record and say what roof is doing here makes no sense to me given they were even in offseason.
Look at this logically. Mitchell played over alford as a freshman last year. Now all of a sudden alford is so good he jumps him? Not to mention one is a senior the other has a ton of room to grow; and all offseason they were neck and neck. For me its a no brainer to start and play the younger guy more. You need to build a team. Anyway call me not a fan of this right now.
Predicted the corey griffin start. He will have a short leash though. Simmons and durham is a wash but the staff likes simmons range and height.
Still AMAZED no one can pass chungong and this is one reason why my hope for the DL is severely attenuated. We will still struggle in pash rush imo. Simply there are no two guys on the dl that make the other team worry about sliding protection. This is the issue....we dont have two heck we may not even have one dynamic rusher.
I like our starting OL alot. Pray they stay healthy.
I like our AB rotations. And Bb all of a sudden may become the best 1-2 combo ever at tech. Keep an eye on this.
But....a wr needs to emerge NOW.
I hope you are right about mitchell. I will go on record and say what roof is doing here makes no sense to me given they were even in offseason.
Look at this logically. Mitchell played over alford as a freshman last year. Now all of a sudden alford is so good he jumps him? Not to mention one is a senior the other has a ton of room to grow; and all offseason they were neck and neck. For me its a no brainer to start and play the younger guy more. You need to build a team. Anyway call me not a fan of this right now.
Predicted the corey griffin start. He will have a short leash though. Simmons and durham is a wash but the staff likes simmons range and height.
Still AMAZED no one can pass chungong and this is one reason why my hope for the DL is severely attenuated. We will still struggle in pash rush imo. Simply there are no two guys on the dl that make the other team worry about sliding protection. This is the issue....we dont have two heck we may not even have one dynamic rusher.
I like our starting OL alot. Pray they stay healthy.
I like our AB rotations. And Bb all of a sudden may become the best 1-2 combo ever at tech. Keep an eye on this.
But....a wr needs to emerge NOW.
What ever happened with Whitehead at DE? Thought he was going to give us a good pash rush. I have not heard anything about him in a long time.
Guys- don't get to worked up over this depth chart. It is not accurate. CPJ does this all the time. Just a few that jump out at me from what CPJ has said in interviews:
- Camp is 3rd WR off the bench
-Mills is starter at B-Back, he won't be returning kicks
- Mitchell is starter at LB from what he said the other day
- A backs that will play are Lynch, Willis, Searcy, Green, Griffin, Cottrell, Jarrett
I have no problem with starting Chase Alford. I don't care who's older/younger, I don't care who's on scholarship. I don't even care who's bigger/faster. I care about who makes our defense better! I care about who is going to be the most productive out there play after play. I care about who is going to make every play they should make and isn't going to give up a back breaking run because they weren't in the right place.
I remember how many were saying how in trouble we were at AB when this slow, short-as-heck walkon was getting the start vs VT in the opening game. "Oh, it must be because he's the best blocker and CPJ is just trying to get the message to the other guys how important blocking is." Nope, turns out, he was just stinkin' better than the rest of 'em ... and, later we found out, better than most of the ACC.
What it means to me is that Chase beat him out. That means that Chase is better than Brant by some metric a coach can observe ... which means we should have better MLB play than we had last year when Brant was in there. And, heck we should have that anyway whether it's Chase or Brant in there because Brant should be better as well.
There have been plenty of walkons at plenty of schools who turned out to be the best player at a certain position, and plenty who have gone on to be very good players nationally. LB is a position that is more likely than some others because it doesn't require 4.4 speed (which is easy to see in recruiting) and it doesn't require a 300 lb body (which is easy to see in recruiting) - A larger portion of the population fits the size range for a LB. If you were 185lb guy in high school who could run around making plays but had no shot at getting a scholarship offer because you were a 185lb guy playing LB, then what do you do? If you really were a good football player, you walk on somewhere. And, then you get up to 205 just because you are a dude in college ... and then you get up to 225 because you're a beast in the weight room, and drop a couple tenths off your 40 ... It's not a highly unlikely event that you actually turn out to be a better, more productive player than the other guys who were recruited at the position simply because they had the size (which you now have too). The main reasons it doesn't happen more often is because a lot of times those guys either just choose not to walk on somewhere and just pursue other opportunities or because they choose to go to a smaller division. Another reason is that for a walkon to actually beat out a starter, they have to not just be as good, they have to be undeniably better ... for 2 reasons: one, you already have that guy for free and if he's starting he now is going to cost you a scholarship, and two, if a scholarship player messes up then the player looks like he needs to improve and the coach looks like he needs to develop him more but if a walkon is in there and messes up the coach looks like a fool for even having him in there in the first place.
Tyler is currently on the scout team I believe, but that could change.Alford was listed over Mitchell in the depth chart much of last season. But Mitchell had 3x as many tackles, and I remember him being on the field a bunch more. Don't think this year will be any different.
Not surprised by Chungong being listed first. He deserves to be named starter (how many games has he started now?). Everyone else deserves their shot to displace him. We have a lot of bodies that will likely rotate at DE, and I believe Roof will take the opportunity to see who he has. Between Anree, Antonio, Desmond and Tyler, someone will eventually emerge (I hope!). Hope Freshman year Freeman comes back this year after his sophomore slump. Really like him on the other side. Most worried about the starter opposite Gamble. Will an effective DT/NT combo come out this year?
I know u have a built in affinity for walkons but i dont think you are following my point totally.
Roof said they were equal. As such that means the defense is about the same with either player. My point is, in this case i start the young guy. I would say the same whether the older guy is a walkon or not.
Now, on top of that i will next point out the fact it was mitchell who played last year not alford.
So again. Not a fan of this and it doesnt make total sense to me.
Or maybe it means that Alford has worked his butt off and is a senior and the coaching staff realizes that BM is mature enough to understand that it's pretty cool that the coaching staff wants to recognize CA for his contribution to what CPJ is trying to build at Tech, hard work, perseverance and doing right.This mean Brant may still have trouble grasping where he needs to be on the field or he is not as strong as against the run as Chase
I know u have a built in affinity for walkons but i dont think you are following my point totally.
Roof said they were equal. As such that means the defense is about the same with either player. My point is, in this case i start the young guy. I would say the same whether the older guy is a walkon or not.
Now, on top of that i will next point out the fact it was mitchell who played last year not alford.
So again. Not a fan of this and it doesnt make total sense to me.
Amen, brother!I have no problem with starting Chase Alford. I don't care who's older/younger, I don't care who's on scholarship. I don't even care who's bigger/faster. I care about who makes our defense better! I care about who is going to be the most productive out there play after play. I care about who is going to make every play they should make and isn't going to give up a back breaking run because they weren't in the right place.
I remember how many were saying how in trouble we were at AB when this slow, short-as-heck walkon was getting the start vs VT in the opening game. "Oh, it must be because he's the best blocker and CPJ is just trying to get the message to the other guys how important blocking is." Nope, turns out, he was just stinkin' better than the rest of 'em ... and, later we found out, better than most of the ACC.
What it means to me is that Chase beat him out. That means that Chase is better than Brant by some metric a coach can observe ... which means we should have better MLB play than we had last year when Brant was in there. And, heck we should have that anyway whether it's Chase or Brant in there because Brant should be better as well.
There have been plenty of walkons at plenty of schools who turned out to be the best player at a certain position, and plenty who have gone on to be very good players nationally. LB is a position that is more likely than some others because it doesn't require 4.4 speed (which is easy to see in recruiting) and it doesn't require a 300 lb body (which is easy to see in recruiting) - A larger portion of the population fits the size range for a LB. If you were 185lb guy in high school who could run around making plays but had no shot at getting a scholarship offer because you were a 185lb guy playing LB, then what do you do? If you really were a good football player, you walk on somewhere. And, then you get up to 205 just because you are a dude in college ... and then you get up to 225 because you're a beast in the weight room, and drop a couple tenths off your 40 ... It's not a highly unlikely event that you actually turn out to be a better, more productive player than the other guys who were recruited at the position simply because they had the size (which you now have too). The main reasons it doesn't happen more often is because a lot of times those guys either just choose not to walk on somewhere and just pursue other opportunities or because they choose to go to a smaller division. Another reason is that for a walkon to actually beat out a starter, they have to not just be as good, they have to be undeniably better ... for 2 reasons: one, you already have that guy for free and if he's starting he now is going to cost you a scholarship, and two, if a scholarship player messes up then the player looks like he needs to improve and the coach looks like he needs to develop him more but if a walkon is in there and messes up the coach looks like a fool for even having him in there in the first place.