Position Changes

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:19 pm

The Brandon Mack move makes me wonder if he was passed up on the depth chart at DT by Young. I thought Mack did a good job at DE over the last couple years, but then he showed up 3rd on the depth chart at DT. For those that are enamored by height/weight, Mack had great measurements for DE. Have to assume that he was moved to C or T. Maybe TE?

BGFootball · Post by **BGFootball** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:35 pm

Mack is at Tackle as of now and looking very solid.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:38 pm

I know we are not suppossed to talk about this but 257 pounds is too light for a tackle.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:46 pm

MatelaAntwerp wrote:I know we are not suppossed to talk about this but 257 pounds is too light for a tackle.

Falconboy? Is that you?

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:45 pm

BGFootball wrote:Other position changes to note...

Goodwin to fullback and Mack to offensive line...

Please, for the love of pete tell me your joking.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:47 pm

transfer2BGSU wrote:
MatelaAntwerp wrote:I know we are not suppossed to talk about this but 257 pounds is too light for a tackle.
Falconboy? Is that you?

Why would Curt Miller say we would not have any WNBA players, thats stupid. Dont set a ceiling on your players ever.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:49 pm

BGFootball wrote:Mack is at Tackle as of now and looking very solid.

Mack is a NFL prototypical sized DE. He looked very good at DE last year. Why the hell is there even a need for Mack to be moved to offensive tackle. We're are supposed to be loaded on the offensive line. What would be the meaning of a move like this? This is getting very strange. I hope GB knows what he's doing.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:01 pm

It is creepy how we are oversized at RB and RG, and undersized at every single other position. This is especially true at DL and LB, arguably the 2 most important units on the field...

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:04 pm

We are undersized at both DE and LB. That seems to be the nature of the beast as a MAC school. We are sacrificing size for speed. We have moved LBs to End and Safeties to LB. To argue that we are not undersized would be foolish IMO. To argue that we can not have an effective Defense with undersized players is also foolish.

Do you really think that Coach would not rather have his DE weigh more than 218 and his SLB weigh 205?

That does not make them less effective. However, if you were an opposing coach and looking at a place to target in the running game where would it be?

BGFootball · Post by **BGFootball** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:28 pm

honestly, i think it will work out for the best. Mack has long arms and can give some defensive ends some problems...

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:29 pm

MatelaAntwerp wrote:We are undersized at both DE and LB. That seems to be the nature of the beast as a MAC school. We are sacrificing size for speed. We have moved LBs to End and Safeties to LB. To argue that we are not undersized would be foolish IMO. To argue that we can not have an effective Defense with undersized players is also foolish.

Do you really think that Coach would not rather have his DE weigh more than 218 and his SLB weigh 205?

That does not make them less effective. However, if you were an opposing coach and looking at a place to target in the running game where would it be?

Actually , I think on average we're closer to the average size for DE's but way under for DT's. I'd rather have it the other way around than the way it is now.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:35 pm

Thats true... 252 for Parks isnt bad, but 216 for Briggs is a little too light I would think.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:44 pm

BGSUFootballFan wrote:Thats true... 252 for Parks isnt bad, but 216 for Briggs is a little too light I would think.

Yeah, Briggs is the exception. Everyone else, Hardwick, James, Fredricks were all at least 250-255lbs out of HS, so the're fine size wise for DE. I'm still trying to wrap my head around moving Mack to OT if that is indeed true. Its the most bizzare move that I could ever think of. More bizzare than moving Dozier to LB.

BGFootball · Post by **BGFootball** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:41 am

they are movin guys all over the place now. waldron to running back, AD to linebacker, and chris wright to WR.

also heard goodwin and magner both left the team...........

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:43 am

BGFootball wrote:they are movin guys all over the place now. waldron to running back, AD to linebacker, and chris wright to WR.

also heard goodwin and magner both left the team...........

Is this true?

Position Changes

Whaaattt???