Brandon Curtis

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:57 pm

Where did he go?

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:35 pm

Moved from D-line to O-line for some reason over the winter and spring. He is Lichtensteiger's backup at center.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:02 pm

BGGrad01 wrote:Moved from D-line to O-line for some reason over the winter and spring. He is Lichtensteiger's backup at center.

And a bizzare move at that. I thought we're on short end on DT's. Then again , I thought someone here posted that Hardwick as supposed incoming DE had gained like 50lbs or so over last summer. If thats true he'd be right at 300lbs making him an obvious DT. DJ Young could be in the mix as well. Having said all that , I still don't get the position move.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:12 pm

Maybe he's a better center than DT....maybe he's a better option at back up center than any OL in the program? Maybe the coaches have a better idea about roster management than we do?

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:19 pm

And maybe we have a very big problem with stopping the run that an astute College Football Fan would like his team to try to solve with girth in the middle of the Defensive line. Seeing said girth, on a team that lacks it, given away does not generally seem to make sense. I think that Falconboy looks at size way too much in most cases. This is not one of them. You dont give away water in the desert.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:31 pm

Flipper wrote:Maybe he's a better center than DT....maybe he's a better option at back up center than any OL in the program? Maybe the coaches have a better idea about roster management than we do?

Right.....Curtis would make a better center at 270 than all of our recruited offensive line players that are 285-295lbs. Sorry , I'd have to see that before I believe that.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:35 pm

We have guys with Curtis size and experience in the program. We have talented recruits coming in who have been deemed capable of playing immediately by people who know more about the subject than you or I.
Therefore, your water/desert analogy isn't valid.

This obsession with size and only size on defense is and always has been an asinine fixation on statistical minutia. I doubt any of us really know what any of the DL weighs (except for Wiliams and Frericks family ...they've posted on the board before) so this constat discussion of weights and "size" is, in my opinion, a pointless circle jerk of epic proportions...

moneymaker02 · Post by **moneymaker02** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:44 pm

I know for a fact that Thomas Smith weighs 270!!!! And that's a fact jack. In all honesty I hate people that just look at a person's size. When I came to Ohio I noticed more and more people have that view on life, the bigger someone is, the better the athlete they are. However, as far as D-Line goes, you can have great athletes on the d-line that weigh around 270 but at some point you need big bodies to handle to load. We were holding Calhoun down last year until the second quarter but Wisky's big boys up front just wore us down plain and simple. Another good example was the nebraska/florida state national title game. FSU's team was all speed and athletic ability. Me being an FSU fan my whole life was happy that the game ended when it did because the FSU D-line had nothing left in the tank and if there were another quarter nebraska prolly would have won that game.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:47 pm

Flipper wrote:We have guys with Curtis size and experience in the program. We have talented recruits coming in who have been deemed capable of playing immediately by people who know more about the subject than you or I.
Therefore, your water/desert analogy isn't valid.

This obsession with size and only size on defense is and always has been an asinine fixation on statistical minutia. I doubt any of us really know what any of the DL weighs (except for Wiliams and Frericks family ...they've posted on the board before) so this constat discussion of weights and "size" is, in my opinion, a pointless circle jerk of epic proportions...

You know what.....I think last years D-line performance makes my case for me, I don't think there is a D-cordinator in college or NFL that could've made a difference for our d-line performance last year , with the possible exceptions of a few Mac games.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:59 pm

There's an underlying flaw in your logic. You assume that the defensive line sucked last year because they were small. A lack of size and strength played a part in it, but so did a coaching change and defections from the previous recruiting classes (Durham, Campbell, Leininger, Latkewicz). There was no depth .

The bulk of the guys from the past two classes are sdtill here (Minturn, James, Frericks, Hardwick etc...) so there's more depth to draw on. Finally, you cannot rely on the listed weights for anything. Based on what I saw at the spring game, there's no way in hell Minturn is 250lbs. That kid is 280 if he's an ounce.

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:00 pm

Comparing the DL from 2001 (the best we've had in the last 8 years) to last year's, there is virtually no difference in size:

2001: Hicks (6'2", 260), A. Glantzis (6'4", 280), C. Glantzis (6'4", 260), Wingrove (6'3", 250)

2005: Cooley (6'2", 271), Thaler (6'1", 289), Williams (6'3", 256), Parks (6'3", 252)

That's based on the information on bgsufalcons.com.

A great line (2001) versus an average line (2005) -- virtually the same size. Size is certainly important, but it shouldn't be the only factor in who plays, who moves to offensive line, etc. The obsession with weight is ridiculous.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:11 pm

It's not about having the biggest tub of lard on your line its what that body can do physically. I could be wrong but that's what Lovie Smith wanted with the bears defense. He demanded that his players trim down get strong and be mobile. It's not all about having fat guys on the line.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:20 pm

Flipper wrote:There's an underlying flaw in your logic. You assume that the defensive line sucked last year because they were small. A lack of size and strength played a part in it, but so did a coaching change and defections from the previous recruiting classes (Durham, Campbell, Leininger, Latkewicz). There was no depth .

The bulk of the guys from the past two classes are sdtill here (Minturn, James, Frericks, Hardwick etc...) so there's more depth to draw on. Finally, you cannot rely on the listed weights for anything. Based on what I saw at the spring game, there's no way in hell Minturn is 250lbs. That kid is 280 if he's an ounce.

We need more size on the Defensive Line. If that is our own players gaining weight. Good. A lack of size means you get pushed around. Plain and simple. Those posted weights may be innacurate. What data would you like someone to work with? I hope Minturn is 280. That would be fantastic. We need more size on the interior of the Defensive Line. I think the Ends are fine Although Briggs is small but he is the smallest)

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:21 pm

How do you know we need size?

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:27 pm

WE get pushed around all over the field. We need someone who wont get pushed around and can eat up blockers.

Can you honestly tell me that with our recent recruits on both the defensive and offensive side of the ball, if you had a player in the 6-3 275-290 range and you could put him on the offensive side or defensive side of the ball...you would pick the o-line?

We have studs all over the offensive side of the line. D seems to have a few playmakers but need a space-eater so we don't get mauled.