Depth Chart released

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,761
I guess you haven't seen the D stats from last season. In the bottom of the conference with sacks,TFL, and rush yards per carry. They need to improve.
I was simply responding to the concern over the weight of the DEs. I do not have that concern. Weight will not be the issue, in my opinion.
 

DrJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,178
freeman was about 225 at years end last year; and documented as such in the papers. He was mid 230's in spring...that chart is pretty close.

Whitehead doesn't look much over 21o to me...

To be totally honest, I think these weights are all really close to actuals....

Its the summer program the guys put all the weight on anyway....then slowly lose it during the season....which is why quality muscle weight is so important.
243lbs. here just a few weeks ago. Unless someone's fibbing. http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2015/03/27/big-jump-anticipated-for-tech-de-freeman/

And, if I remember correctly I asked specifically about Whitehead when I was at practice during the spring. "We've put about 9 or so on him" was the response I got. In his 220's, that's still light. But, it's something. At ground level, he looked a little thicker to me. Which may not be worth much, granted.
 

kyle.smith828

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
152
Not picking on you or attacking you, just asking for some general comment. The word "concerning" means pertaining to or with regard to. In the last five years I suddenly have begun to hear this word used over and over again to mean "worrying about" or "having concerns about." Is this something people who use the word have always said or is this another one of those cases where the English language is in flux and we are now seeing the definition of a word changing simply through sheer brunt of use as more and more people change their syntax?

I am not being critical; it just "jars my ears" when I "hear it" and I notice that TV anchors and commentators now use it frequently and I am hearing it easily a hundred times more often than I heard it even five years ago.

Secondary definition of concerning as an adjective:

adjective
  1. 1.
    causing anxiety; worrying.
    "I find many of the comments very concerning"
 

Architorture23

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
176
Not picking on you or attacking you, just asking for some general comment. The word "concerning" means pertaining to or with regard to. In the last five years I suddenly have begun to hear this word used over and over again to mean "worrying about" or "having concerns about." Is this something people who use the word have always said or is this another one of those cases where the English language is in flux and we are now seeing the definition of a word changing simply through sheer brunt of use as more and more people change their syntax?

I am not being critical; it just "jars my ears" when I "hear it" and I notice that TV anchors and commentators now use it frequently and I am hearing it easily a hundred times more often than I heard it even five years ago.
http://grammarist.com/usage/concerning/
 

kyle.smith828

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
152
Good point - i overstated. I just meant looking at the 2 deep, it's nice to have will bryan around this year b/c if there is an injury, I think he's good enough to be a solid backup / or even rotational guy at G or T this year. A versatile player with a high ceiling who gives us great depth. Plus, it seems like the best part of his game is his effort. If an emergency situation where a true fresh has to play on the Oline, that's probably the best trait to have.

I, too, think Will has a very high ceiling. I do agree with your point he could come and provide relief as a rotational guy if we have injuries. Preferably, I'd like to see him RS, and see him start for 3 or 4 years. I think he's that kind of player. I just hate to see us burn a year of eligibility on an o-lineman as it usually takes 2 years or so, at least, to have a firm grasp on the system/position. I also like for those guys to have at least a full academic in the strength and conditioning program. But, yes, I'm excited to watch Will's career on the Flats.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,876
You can't just look at the weight, you have to look at the frame and also defensive alignment. At 240+, Freeman is fine because he's just 6'1 playing rush end in a 4-3. Whitehead you'd like to be heavier since he's playing SDE and he's 6'5.

However, if both guys were playing in a straight 3-4, where DEs are almost like defensive tackles, then I'd be concerned. That's where someone like Gotsis would be playing DE because he's the prototypical 34 DE in size and ability. Our best 3-4 alignment from just a shear height/weight perspective would be Gotsis-Kallon-Jabari (or Pat Gamble). Whitehead and Freeman would fit more of a OLB role than DE.
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,409
Whitehead is going to be a killer peice to bring in to keep Freeman fresh and as a extra rusher on pass downs, i don't understand him being listed at SDE
 

vamosjackets

GT Athlete
Featured Member
Messages
2,147
Whitehead is going to be a killer peice to bring in to keep Freeman fresh and as a extra rusher on pass downs, i don't understand him being listed at SDE
Because Freeman isn't going to come off the field. He didn't come off the field on defense at all last year. He was in on passing and rushing downs, plus he played special teams as well. He's just got that kind of motor, stamina, ability, and desire. He's our best at the end position no matter what down, situation, quarter, or how much he's already played. So, if he's got one position locked for the entire game, how do you go about getting your best on the field in the other 9 positions? Gotsis isn't coming off the field much either, and neither is Jabari (though both will rotate more than Freeman just for stamina differences). So, the only other position you've got to play with is SDE. So, you play the other guys there situationally ... Rook-Chungong or Gamble on normal downs and Whitehead or Simmons on passing downs.

To another poster's point, we really do have the physical traits for a 3-4 or even 3-3-5 more than a 4-3 this year. But, we've got pieces to be successful either way, as size isn't the only factor for playing these positions, as Freeman and PJ Davis have shown.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,761

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,761
Secondary definition of concerning as an adjective:

adjective
  1. 1.
    causing anxiety; worrying.
    "I find many of the comments very concerning"
Except that the word as an adjective is not found to be standard in most commonly accepted dictionaries. I am willing to accept that we are well on the way to making it a word due to its shear volume of use but I just wonder why use of the word in this way has accelerated so rapidly in the last few years. I also remember that everyone knew it was incorrect grammar to add "at" to the phrase of "where something is," since, at best the "at" is understood and it is redundant to add it. At worst we end up with absurd sounding possibilities like, "The boy asked his teacher where to put the at at in the sentence." I digress. Point is that saying "where something is at" in certain grammatical constructions is also widely practiced and accepted when it used to not be even though I find no evidence (yet) that it is considered standard. I ain't gonna worry about it though. ;)
 

ilovetheoption

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,803
Gotsis is going to be a pretty good pro 3-4 DE. He'll get to like 290, 295, and some team like the Steelers will get him in the 3rd or 4th and be tickled pink for 10 years
 

GTBillyJosh

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
260
I don't think Skov, who has never even practiced for GT, should be listed above other BBs. (Yes, there are some.) It's disrespectful.

"Thanks for your multiple years' hard work, but there's this other guy who you've never had a chance to compete against, and we've decided he's better than you."

I would generally agree with you, although I think in this particular circumstance, I might tend to side with placing Skov in the depth chart. Look at the BB's currently on the roster:

Marcus Allen (Starter) - RS-JR
CJ Leggett (Injured) - RS-FR
Quaide Weimerskirch (Injured) - FR
Brady Swilling (PWO, moved over from QB, no game experience) - RS-SO
Ryan Braswell (Walk-On, no game experience) - RS-SO
Patrick Skov (Transfer, 39 games played) - RS-SR

So I guess in your scenario you'd give it to Braswell for being here the longest at BB? We don't have a Matt Connors on this roster unfortunately. If we did, I think you'd see his name in the two-deep. Give it to Skov, he should be ready to go once he enters camp.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
I would generally agree with you, although I think in this particular circumstance, I might tend to side with placing Skov in the depth chart. Look at the BB's currently on the roster:

Marcus Allen (Starter) - RS-JR
CJ Leggett (Injured) - RS-FR
Quaide Weimerskirch (Injured) - FR
Brady Swilling (PWO, moved over from QB, no game experience) - RS-SO
Ryan Braswell (Walk-On, no game experience) - RS-SO
Patrick Skov (Transfer, 39 games played) - RS-SR

So I guess in your scenario you'd give it to Braswell for being here the longest at BB? We don't have a Matt Connors on this roster unfortunately. If we did, I think you'd see his name in the two-deep. Give it to Skov, he should be ready to go once he enters camp.
He could have listed Braswell as No. 1 and dropped him down after the first practice, but that is about as transparent as glass. Better for the team, and in keeping with Johnson's character, to be upfront on Day One. (Keep in mind this is the guy who despite popular practice that nobody should lose their job because of an injury, kept Days as starter when Laskey came back. That seemed to work.) Besides which Skov needs all the repetitions he can get before the first game. Some say the mesh is not a big deal but I think it is, and that was part of the reason for some of the Bback disappointments in the past. Part of the reason for our success last season was the ability of Days and Laskey to stay longer in the mesh with Thomas and yet still have the footwork to avoid the scrum of the LOS. A couple of times Thomas was rasslin' one or the other for the ball, from behind them.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,051
He could have listed Braswell as No. 1 and dropped him down after the first practice, but that is about as transparent as glass. Better for the team, and in keeping with Johnson's character, to be upfront on Day One. (Keep in mind this is the guy who despite popular practice that nobody should lose their job because of an injury, kept Days as starter when Laskey came back. That seemed to work.) Besides which Skov needs all the repetitions he can get before the first game. Some say the mesh is not a big deal but I think it is, and that was part of the reason for some of the Bback disappointments in the past. Part of the reason for our success last season was the ability of Days and Laskey to stay longer in the mesh with Thomas and yet still have the footwork to avoid the scrum of the LOS. A couple of times Thomas was rasslin' one or the other for the ball, from behind them.
They should be doing a 100 meshes a day till fall camp starts.
 

Architorture23

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
176
He could have listed Braswell as No. 1 and dropped him down after the first practice, but that is about as transparent as glass. Better for the team, and in keeping with Johnson's character, to be upfront on Day One.

except that he left our best AB completely off the 2-deep. :)
 
Top