Ken Sugiura's article on Lance Austin

danny daniel

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,104
I thought this discussion about the Austin twins height was about as ridiculos as you can get until I thought about the first Kansas City Chief's head coach's (Hank Stramm I believe) litmus test for a CB, A FOOT SIZE 8 OR SMALLER. If we think height is so important why not start measuring foot size? I guess there is not much else to do until July 16.
 

RLR

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
355
I thought this discussion about the Austin twins height was about as ridiculos as you can get

To be to fair, those of us with nothing to do are arguing about the ability to play, not height...and I'm basically arguing your point - there's more to a football players' effectiveness than a singular physical measurement, be it height, weight, hand-size, foot-size, 40 time
 

Eric

Retired Co-Founder
Staff member
Messages
12,734
Eric,
What is he?.That is the weight USED In THE ARTICLE (actually 170) so what is one to go on?.He isn't 6 ft,200+ which is what most would want taking on those guys at that position. btw-Smith listed at 6ft,194 ,Noble 6-2,216.
If he weighs more,ok.who's to say the TEs and RBs he's tackling aren't 10 lbs heavier than shown also.
I'd love for him to be GREAT but my point is he will be undersized there at Rover.

Weighed in at 180 two days ago...and exactly on Noble. He was listed at at 6'2 190 in HS...he has put on 26 pounds according to that.
 
Last edited:

alaguy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,117
Alaguy, why are you taking the reported weight of the Austin twins as a concrete fact, while also claiming that the reported weight of our opponents could be understated by 10+ lbs? Lol you also cast doubt on the listed weight for Jemea Thomas, someone whose height and weight are extremely comparable to the twins and excelled playing the rover. Eric said the twins weight more than 170. He knows better than anyone on this board. And, an 18 year old kid could easily put on 10 lbs in a college strength program. I really don't think we have to worry about the kids weight.

As for height, I found a PFF article from 2012 that rated NFL defensive backs based on tackling ability. The survey is old (based on the 2010, 2011, 2012 seasons) and it includes all defensive backs, not just "rovers". Also, my source for player height is wikipedia. So ya, it's not perfect.

Also, I know tackling isn't the same as pass coverage. But you should agree that if you are a starting defensive back in the NFL, you probably have to cover 6'4 TEs and 215 lbs+ rbs more often than a DB playing at Ga Tech. Also, there are plenty of great cover corners 5'11 or under. if the rover is hybrid position, I'm assuming tackling is a more important aspect than the other db positions? Let me know if I got that wrong.

Top 10 DBs (# of total tackles)
  • 4 of the players are < 6'0 (Bethea #1, Mikell #6, Weddle #8, Clark #9 (tie))
  • 2 players are listed at 6'0 ft (Branch #2, Bell #3)
  • Special shoutout to Dawan Landry #7, GT alum and 2nd tallest player on this list - standing at a towering 6'1
  • Based on these players alma matters, many were not highly recruited (Howard, UConn, UL Lafayette, Utah). I found rivals pages for 3 of the players. Branch & Weddle were 2 stars, Pollard a 3 star
Bottom 10 DBs (# missed tackles)
  • 3 of the players are < 6'0, BUT 2/3 were elite cover corners (Ronde Barber - 5x pro bowler, Asante Samuel - 4x pro bowler) and the other, Mikell, is listed in the top 10 for # of tackles).
  • This list features bigger names and bigger college programs (Michael Griffin 4 star Texas, Antrel Rolle Miami, Sean Jones UGA(sic), Charles Woodson Michigan)
Top 10 DBs (highest tackling efficiency)
  • 7/10 players are under 6'0 feet
  • Special shoutout to another GT Alum, and tallest player on the list, James Butler (6'3)
  • This list has 15 players, but I only included the top 10 to keep it consistent. If i included all 15, then add Brandon Flowers (5'9, 175) and Jarius Bird (5'10) to the list.
Bottom 10 DBs (Worst tackling efficiency)
  • 2 / 10 players are under 6'0.
  • This list has the tallest average height
Source: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/07/06/three-years-of-tackling-efficiency-defensive-backs/

O good grief-
NOBODY knows what Austin weighs for sure but EVERY ,I say EVERY mention of him since he was being recruited said 5-9/5-10 at 170 lbs.What else can one go on ? -So when I originally made the statement he is small for the rover position in 4-2-5 def that is the fact stated.. A rover usually plays like a floating LB so he gets a lot of plays dealing with bigger guys close to LOS like TEs and RBs. I see the position as NOT really a DB which for some reason you blissfully ignored and so you got lots of data on PRO DBs ,for some reason, (including safeties which he is not) that doesn't say anything regarding the rover position.
I hope he is a KILLER.I just don't see him at that position .If he plays there and makes all-conf ,I will be first to say I was wrong.

btw- Jemea was listed at 5-11,185 originally reported ,if you think that is "extremely comparable" to 5-10(maybe reported at 5-9), 170 which is what even this article says--well, good for you but I might have played college fball on scholarship except for those 2 in and 15 lbs
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,117
Location
North Shore, Chicago
In Wommack's 4-2-5 defense this is the Wolf position (or Husky back in the Southern Mississippi days). Guys like Mario Edwards, Cooper Taylor and Chris Reis would play that type of position. Generally, its a Safety/LB hybrid position. Pretty sure the Austin twins are going to be CB's not Safeties, so I don't see either of them in this position. Jemea was successful in the Nickel, but he's probably the exception not the rule. With as big as these two guys play, I wouldn't discount them, but I think we'd see one of the bigger safeties slide over instead of one of the Austin twins. Just my thoughts.
 

vamosjackets

GT Athlete
Featured Member
Messages
2,126
It's a matchup position. If the offense has 10 personnel (1 RB, 0 TE ... so 4 WR's), then we'll need to send in personnel to match up with that. We'll send in nickel or dime personnel, which means an extra 1 or 2 DB's. If there are 3 WR's, we'll probably be in nickel with an extra DB. Our extra DB will need to match up with their slot guy, so an extra CB (at normal CB size) would be fine in that circumstance. If the offense sends in an extra TE, then we won't be sending in that CB as an extra DB. We'll either be in our normal 4-3 with 3 LB's or we'll be in our normal nickel (4-2-5), with a hybrid guy at that position, which could be a special LB or a special S or even a special CB if that CB has the special skill set required to match up with that TE who could be flexed out in the slot. A Jemea Thomas gives you a lot of flexibility. If we don't have a Jemea level player, then we'll just match up with the hybrid S/LB guy.

As related to this thread, Austin could very well be our extra DB (or nickel guy) if he's matching up on a slot WR rather than a slot TE. And, we'll just have to see what type of player he is to say more than that. But, I seriously doubt we'll be doing anything stupid and putting him or anybody else in positions where they can't succeed or that don't fit their skill set.
 

RLR

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
355
O good grief-
NOBODY knows what Austin weighs for sure

See Eric's post above. 180 pounds.

"he is small for the rover position in 4-2-5 def that is the fact"

Okay. That's pretty close to a fact. But it's unsupported and it's irrelevant to my point. No one ever said that the Austin twins were tall or the that they are massive. We were just saying you can't choose the accuracy of someone's height and weight based on how well it fits with your argument. You cited a reported weight for Austin that was known to be incorrect (see above). When Eric corrected you, you used that as support to say, well if this player's weight is incorrect, then these other unspecified players (215 lbs+ rbs and 240 lb tes) weights are also understated.


"A rover usually plays like a floating LB so he gets a lot of plays dealing with bigger guys close to LOS like TEs and RBs. I see the position as NOT really a DB which for some reason you blissfully ignored"

This is my problem with your opinion. You pre-suppose the truth of your statement in your premise.

A rover usually plays like a floating LB + floating LB has many plays dealing with bigger guys close to LOS + I see position the not as a DB but as a LB.

Using your own logic, I've only seen Austin listed as a DB. So, i figured the rover must be at least in part a DB position. On the other hand, you view the position, not as a hybrid position, but as a "floating" LB. I should have disclosed that I was uncertain about the role of the rover earlier...

I thought we were switching to the 4-2-5 because more teams were using spread formations, eliminating the traditional TE and using more skill players in the slot. Am I wrong? I just don't understand the benefit of removing an OLB and replacing it with a "floating lb" if the offense is just going to run heavy sets like that at us and play power football.

I feel like you are defining the rover position too narrowly, based on a players weaknesses in order to make your argument true. At the end of the day, I don't care if he plays rover. Maybe he is too small to play that position. My point is that he can play. Do you disagree with that? I cited the NFL numbers to show that smaller players in the NFL are capable of being great tacklers. You are acting like this kid can't play because he's small. You have given 0 evidence to support this. You assume that Ted Roof can't adapt a game plan to matchup with different offensive formations or place a player in a position that utilizes his skills.

FWIW, Jemea Thomas NFL combine results list him at 5'9 192 lbs. And If you attribute your short lived football career to lacking 2 inches in height and 10 extra pounds, you have no idea what a "Killer" is. When Godhigh is older, he isn't going to say, man if i was 2 inches taller, I would have been a d-1 running back. Killers ante-up, take the hard route, and fight for an opportunity to play the game.

And most importantly, my responses to you are far from blissful. I fully admit I have no idea what I'm talking about. The thing is, neither do you. So if you're going to come on a board dedicated to a football team that we are all fans of and bash an 18 year old kid for being shorter than you would like, then I'm going to be the idiot drowning your voice out by arguing louder and more coherent...or at the very least, more verbosely.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
It's a matchup position. If the offense has 10 personnel (1 RB, 0 TE ... so 4 WR's), then we'll need to send in personnel to match up with that. We'll send in nickel or dime personnel, which means an extra 1 or 2 DB's. If there are 3 WR's, we'll probably be in nickel with an extra DB. Our extra DB will need to match up with their slot guy, so an extra CB (at normal CB size) would be fine in that circumstance. If the offense sends in an extra TE, then we won't be sending in that CB as an extra DB. We'll either be in our normal 4-3 with 3 LB's or we'll be in our normal nickel (4-2-5), with a hybrid guy at that position, which could be a special LB or a special S or even a special CB if that CB has the special skill set required to match up with that TE who could be flexed out in the slot. A Jemea Thomas gives you a lot of flexibility. If we don't have a Jemea level player, then we'll just match up with the hybrid S/LB guy.

As related to this thread, Austin could very well be our extra DB (or nickel guy) if he's matching up on a slot WR rather than a slot TE. And, we'll just have to see what type of player he is to say more than that. But, I seriously doubt we'll be doing anything stupid and putting him or anybody else in positions where they can't succeed or that don't fit their skill set.
Sanity, thank you.
 

thwgjacket

Guest
Messages
969
O good grief-
NOBODY knows what Austin weighs for sure but EVERY ,I say EVERY mention of him since he was being recruited said 5-9/5-10 at 170 lbs.What else can one go on ? -So when I originally made the statement he is small for the rover position in 4-2-5 def that is the fact stated.. A rover usually plays like a floating LB so he gets a lot of plays dealing with bigger guys close to LOS like TEs and RBs. I see the position as NOT really a DB which for some reason you blissfully ignored and so you got lots of data on PRO DBs ,for some reason, (including safeties which he is not) that doesn't say anything regarding the rover position.
I hope he is a KILLER.I just don't see him at that position .If he plays there and makes all-conf ,I will be first to say I was wrong.

btw- Jemea was listed at 5-11,185 originally reported ,if you think that is "extremely comparable" to 5-10(maybe reported at 5-9), 170 which is what even this article says--well, good for you but I might have played college fball on scholarship except for those 2 in and 15 lbs
Jemea is 5'9. He was measured at the combine.

It's like Vamos said, it's all about matching up personnel. If we see a 4 wr set then he'll be fine lined up on a slot guy. Personally I think the kid will be a corner. It's not like we're going to line him up at Rover against the I. We wouldn't even be in a nickel set in that formation.
 
Top