Spring Practice

[AE 87]

One of the starting OLB's at App St and the #8 tackler was 208 and a FR OLB who played every game was 195.

I suspect that they have one OLB who is more of a rush back and the other is more of a nickel.

 

[ilovetheoption]

One of the starting OLB's at App St and the #8 tackler was 208 and a FR OLB who played every game was 195.

I suspect that they have one OLB who is more of a rush back and the other is more of a nickel.

I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading him saying that it depends on personnell, but he'd prefer to just have a ROLB and a LOLB, but if he can't get guys well rounded enough, he could play with a SOLB and a WOLB.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading him saying that it depends on personnell, but he'd prefer to just have a ROLB and a LOLB, but if he can't get guys well rounded enough, he could play with a SOLB and a WOLB.

You are correct with this. I think some are seeing what he did at app state and are assuming that’s what will happen at GT. He will have better players here though, and bigger guys who can run as well as the smaller guys. Of course if the smaller guy is the better player he will go with them, but I think it’s obvious with the guys who have offers for this upcoming class he is looking at getting size and speed. IMO we will see NT in the 290 range, DE’s in the 260-270 range, and LB’s anywhere from 220-250 range. I just think we will be able to get those guys in here.

 

[GTpdm]

These guys bust their *** all week long dealing with obnoxious pompous professors while also trying to meet the demands of a 50 hour week dedicated to football and strength & conditioning.

That’s twice now you’ve taken cheap shots at the GT faculty, as a way of defending players against cheap shots taken at them on GT’s Fecebook page. Is that intentional irony on your part, or do you just not realize that by using that particular language, you are contributing to the bad impression of Tech that you are complaining about?

I don’t think that most Tech students would agree with your remark, as a blanket statement about the faculty. I don’t think that most student-athletes would, either. With only a few exceptions, most of my profs when I was a student were in the good-to-great-to-awesome range. Yes, some of them expected a lot more than I was ready for, but I ended up stronger for it.

I would rate most of my current faculty colleagues at Tech in the good-to-great-to-awesome category, as well. I don’t know what they would say about me, though. I know what my own students say, based on course evaluations, but (a) that’s private, and (2) I’m cecpetienced (wtf, spellcheck? EXPERIENCED) enough to know that course evalualtion results don’t provide a full and accurate picture of students’ opinions.

Back to the point: It seems absurdly counterproductive for you to try to express support for our student-athletes by implying that the GT faculty is collectively a giant bag of of d*cks. Granted, this forum isn’t as public as Facebook, but do you think a potential recruit seeing your remark would bump Tech up in his deliberations, based on the way you’ve “defended” our current SAs?

Maybe I should start a crazy new new thread, in The Lounge: “My Favorite Tech Prof”. For me, that would be James Herod (Math). Knew his stuff, came in to class prepared, and knew how to correct a student’s wrong answer in a way that was encouraging, not depreciating.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

If you're using chrome, go up to the far right of your screen, and click the three dots, then hit "new incognito window".

And the ajc works in incognito in chrome.

I periodically use chrome, so I know what the incognito option is there, but I didn't realize that that could be used to bypass the MyAJC log in. However, I use Firefox the majority of the time. Good to know the trick though.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading him saying that it depends on personnell, but he'd prefer to just have a ROLB and a LOLB, but if he can't get guys well rounded enough, he could play with a SOLB and a WOLB.

Makes sense, less thinking and moving around presnap.

 

[AE 87]

I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading him saying that it depends on personnell, but he'd prefer to just have a ROLB and a LOLB, but if he can't get guys well rounded enough, he could play with a SOLB and a WOLB.

I wasn't assuming anything. I was just providing data.

 

[redmule]

Didn't Coleman Rudolph play DT at about 245-255 and was an AA?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

That’s twice now you’ve taken cheap shots at the GT faculty, as a way of defending players against cheap shots taken at them on GT’s Fecebook page. Is that intentional irony on your part, or do you just not realize that by using that particular language, you are contributing to the bad impression of Tech that you are complaining about?

I don’t think that most Tech students would agree with your remark, as a blanket statement about the faculty. I don’t think that most student-athletes would, either. With only a few exceptions, most of my profs when I was a student were in the good-to-great-to-awesome range. Yes, some of them expected a lot more than I was ready for, but I ended up stronger for it.

I would rate most of my current faculty colleagues at Tech in the good-to-great-to-awesome category, as well. I don’t know what they would say about me, though. I know what my own students say, based on course evaluations, but (a) that’s private, and (2) I’m cecpetienced (wtf, spellcheck? EXPERIENCED) enough to know that course evalualtion results don’t provide a full and accurate picture of students’ opinions.

Back to the point: It seems absurdly counterproductive for you to try to express support for our student-athletes by implying that the GT faculty is collectively a giant bag of of d*cks. Granted, this forum isn’t as public as Facebook, but do you think a potential recruit seeing your remark would bump Tech up in his deliberations, based on the way you’ve “defended” our current SAs?

Maybe I should start a crazy new new thread, in The Lounge: “My Favorite Tech Prof”. For me, that would be James Herod (Math). Knew his stuff, came in to class prepared, and knew how to correct a student’s wrong answer in a way that was encouraging, not depreciating.

Oh good heavens dude. Grow up. And no I don’t mean you’re short, so don’t take that literally too. I will try to just say our school is hard in the future so I don’t hurt any professors feelings. Especially the obnoxious pompous ones (that don’t equal 100% of them).

 

[jwsavhGT]

Oh good heavens dude. Grow up. And no I don’t mean you’re short, so don’t take that literally too. I will try to just say our school is hard in the future so I don’t hurt any professors feelings. Especially the obnoxious pompous ones (that don’t equal 100% of them).

Just in case you don't know, GTpdm teaches at GT.

 

[swampsting]

Didn't Coleman Rudolph play DT at about 245-255 and was an AA?

Yeah, but that era, not that long ago in the grand scheme of things, was much different. Nearly every other OL in P5 averages 300 pounds plus per man. Back then, not so much

 

[jwsavhGT]

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Just in case you don't know, GTpdm teaches at GT.

Well that explains it.

So just to be super clear, I was giving props to our players, who have to deal with real classes and real work on top of having a 50 hour commitment to football. The rest was hyperbole, an attempt at humor, and yes - at least when I was there there was a certain percentage of pompous obnoxious professors and TAs. What was the percentage? Oh I dunno, 15%? The point was more that they have a real education and real rigor in the classroom unlike many other schools. So I don’t want my hyperbole or attempt at humor to get in the way of that.

 

[tech_wreck47]

 

[augustabuzz]

Didn't Coleman Rudolph play DT at about 245-255 and was an AA?

Rudolph played DE.

 

[redmule]

Rudolph played DE.

I'm think Marco Coleman and Marlon Williams were the DE's. Thought Rudolph lined up a lot next to Battle.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Rudolph played DE.

Hmmm...I seem to recall him playing more DT. Listed at about 270 but weighed closer to 260 by NFL.

 

[croberts]

On Thomas to OLB:

One of my favorite Tech players of all time was Mackel Harris, all 6' 190lbs of him. He played inside linebacker and was quite successful at it. Why, you might well ask? Wasn't he pushed around by the OLs?

Well, he would have been if they could catch him. Because the one thing I left out above is that Mackel ran the 40 in 4.45. Needless to say, he had no problem with pass coverage. The keen thing, however, would be to watch him take a long outside loop around opposing OLs then close in on the runner from behind to hold them to a short gain or a lose. He was so fast it was breathtaking.

Maybe Thomas will be the same kind of player for us. We could use someone like that these days.

One thing I am sure of, none of the incoming class were state sprint champs as Mackel was as a 9.6 100 yd dash guy back in the day. He was a rare talent that could have played any defensive position outside of NT and Tackle. 6' 190lb would compare to 6'2" 220 today. I would love for Thomas to be 1/2 of Mackel. We would be so lucky.

 

[65Jacket]

I am pretty sure he was a DT.

 

[AE 87]

Well that explains it.

So just to be super clear, I was giving props to our players, who have to deal with real classes and real work on top of having a 50 hour commitment to football. The rest was hyperbole, an attempt at humor, and yes - at least when I was there there was a certain percentage of pompous obnoxious professors and TAs. What was the percentage? Oh I dunno, 15%? The point was more that they have a real education and real rigor in the classroom unlike many other schools. So I don’t want my hyperbole or attempt at humor to get in the way of that.

Fwiw, if there were still pompous obnoxious professors at Tech, they'd probably be on here getting all condescending and defensive .