DJ Young....

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:46 am

Is now a "solid verbal" per RIvals with no fuirther visits scheduled. This really is shaping up to be a great class!

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:50 am

This is my favorite recruit so far. If I remember correctly he's listed at 275 with a 4.9 40 time. If we can even put just 10-15 lbs on him, he'll be dominating if he has any kind of motor at all.

We could see a lot lof young guys getting some PT on defense this year.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:06 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:This is my favorite recruit so far. If I remember correctly he's listed at 275 with a 4.9 40 time. If we can even put just 10-15 lbs on him, he'll be dominating if he has any kind of motor at all.

We could see a lot lof young guys getting some PT on defense this year.

Same here man. This kid sounds like a STUD in the middle of that defense.

The question is do they try to get him up to the 300+ range and have us start playing the 3-4 in a couple years? I just drool when I think of Diryall Briggs in a 3-4...he defines a 3-4 OLB.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:23 am

hammb:

I love the idea of us moving to a 3-4, but the reality is we'd have to recruit kids like this every year. Our track record with DTs is not good as it is.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:28 am

ESPN insider (yay free trial) has him projected as a tight end.

"Young is a talented and athletic prospect who with time and depending on the situation at the school he chooses could wind up playing several positions. We feel he presently projects best as a tight end in college. However, he has a great frame and with added bulk could be a one gap penetrating three technique or an offensive guard or tackle. He would have to add some bulk to move to either of those positions, but is still young and could get it done. He is strong in line blocking tight end. He gets of the ball well and delivers a good initial pop. He does a good job of getting position with his hands and deriving power from the hips. He has the leg drive to get push in the run game. He moves and can get to the second level to block linebackers. He can block on the move and can reach and seal defenders on the edge. He is a solid pass blocker that keeps his knees bent and can mirror defenders. He is a good athlete and could probably catch the ball for you in the flat every now and again, but his main function is a blocker and that is why he may wind up sliding in a spot or two with time. The bottom line is that Young has ability and can be a good player. Where he plays though depends on the direction the coaching staff wants to go."

I would have to think our staff would try to go d-line with him.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:36 am

TE? Good grief, I hope your right J4H. We could use a superior athlete on the D-Line.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:25 am

1987alum wrote:hammb:

I love the idea of us moving to a 3-4, but the reality is we'd have to recruit kids like this every year. Our track record with DTs is not good as it is.

Our track record with 4-3 DTs is not good. We have not attempted to recruit 3-4 NTs, of which there are fewer, but they don't seem as coveted in the college world either. The key to playing NT is to be big and hold your ground. The athleticism and penetration skills that are so highly sought after aren't as important for a NT. Hold your ground, eat blockers, let the LBs make plays. That's really it.

Beyond the NT I think our team fits so much better in a 3-4 it's not even funny. Almost all of our DTs are actually more prototypical as 3-4 DEs. Most of our DEs are more prototypical as 3-4 OLBs. Our MLBs should still be able to play the ILB position. Our current smaller LBs would have to move to the secondary or bulk up, but in the future we could taylor our recruiting to that scheme.

In all honesty I'm more of a fan of the 4-3, but with our penchant for recruiting undersized DL players I think the 3-4 makes more sense. That way we'd only need to recruit 1 behemoth DL each year, rather than hope for 2. Unfortunately if you cannot get that 1 NT the entire defense falls apart. Reading the ESPN article that J4H posted, doesn't sound like he's really a good candidate as a NT anyways, saying he's better in the 1 gap, 3 technique.

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:44 am

3-4 would be nice.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:21 am

I wouldn't worry about Young ending up anywhere other than DL. Per Rivals, the week after he committed, the staff told DL prospect Athanasius Anagonye (** per Rivals) that we would no longer be offering him a scholarship because we had a number of DL commits the previous weekend.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:32 am

Hate to see us turning guys away.

But I guess the bright side of that is that we already got the ones we want. Hope that is thet case.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:44 am

What is it with guys going by the name of (random intitial)-J choosing BG? This is gonna get confusing real quick.

I will admit that Anagonye has a much cooler name. Good to hear that the coaches seem intent on putting him at DL. Thanks for the info Flip.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:58 pm

It would be awesome to get Young!!

Only 3 or 4 weeks til signing day. Keep it up coaches!!

edr4225 · Post by **edr4225** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:05 pm

Its great to get Young

Finally we have a quality DT Recruit, if we can get some more like him then it will help us matchup better with the big ten teams and they wont be pushing us around anymore!

go falcons

Class of 61 · Post by **Class of 61** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:20 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:What is it with guys going by the name of (random intitial)-J choosing BG? This is gonna get confusing real quick.

I will admit that Anagonye has a much cooler name. Good to hear that the coaches seem intent on putting him at DL. Thanks for the info Flip.

My only question....why DID we turn this kid away? It seems to me that our D-line was in need of depth as well as talent...and if this kid was good enough to get a schol. offer to start with, what changes that? Only "excuse" I can see is if the coaches feel their total (unannounced) verbals are solid enough that there's nothing left....what happens if one or more of these kids backs out at the last minute?

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:31 pm

Class of 61 wrote:
Jacobs4Heisman wrote:What is it with guys going by the name of (random intitial)-J choosing BG? This is gonna get confusing real quick.

I will admit that Anagonye has a much cooler name. Good to hear that the coaches seem intent on putting him at DL. Thanks for the info Flip.
My only question....why DID we turn this kid away? It seems to me that our D-line was in need of depth as well as talent...and if this kid was good enough to get a schol. offer to start with, what changes that? Only "excuse" I can see is if the coaches feel their total (unannounced) verbals are solid enough that there's nothing left....what happens if one or more of these kids backs out at the last minute?

I kind of thought the same thing at first, but with the solid recruiting effort thus far, I'll give the staff the benefit of the doubt on this one.