Spring Depth Chart is out.

[The Niz]

Did we run a five man defensive front last year? Am I reading correctly that we will be doing so this year?

The ONLY year my high school was any good was when we ran a 5-3 monster-back style D, the same that the Steelers use. That style D could actually fit the personnel we have here.

[orangeandbrown]

Do, it is a 4-3. We run a NG instead of one of the D-tackles.

[1987alum]

Did we run a five man defensive front last year? Am I reading correctly that we will be doing so this year?

The ONLY year my high school was any good was when we ran a 5-3 monster-back style D, the same that the Steelers use. That style D could actually fit the personnel we have here.

Niz:

No on both counts. Our standard defensive package is a basic 4-3. Seeing "NG" in there may have thrown you off. Moving to a 5-3 would be quite risky in the MAC, since so many teams run multiple-option, wide-open offenses. You'd have to have an incredibly disruptive defensive line to have any chance of success.

Overall, no major surprises, outside of Sean's move. Flip, you're spot on - we'll go as far as our QB play takes us. It will be interesting to see if Anthony steps up and takes control or if Sheehan can force the issue. I still believe #17 can get it done.

Good observation about the O-line, too.

And, boy, we are still a very young team.

[Warthog]

Another observation: ALL the WRs have changed positions. That may not seem like a big deal, but I think it is. Each position lends itself to certain characteristics. One goes over the middle more, one lines up outside and is the deep threat, one is probably designed to be more of a lead blocker on a lot of plays. And of course, there are different reads when lining up at new positions. So I think we have a big learning curve ahead of us at WR again.

The one/two position changes that baffle me the most are Lewis Parks and Nick Lawrence. They are basically the same size (6'2", 228-230). And they basically switched positions, FB and LB. My guess is that Parks is a better athlete than Lawrence and they wanted to get him on the field. Since we basically waste Winovich at FB (never gets the ball, never throw to him), they didn't want to waste Parks as well. I wouldn't view this as a good thing for Lawrence. IMO

[Flipper]

One of the comments Brandon made recently re recruits and positions centered on the players mental approach and capabilities. Some kids need to know where they're supposed to go ahead of time and some are more comfortable with being in a situation where they have to read and react. That might explain why similar sized guys are flip flopped between offense and defense

[1987alum]

One of the comments Brandon made recently re recruits and positions centered on the players mental approach and capabilities. Some kids need to know where they're supposed to go ahead of time and some are more comfortable with being in a situation where they have to read and react. That might explain why similar sized guys are flip flopped between offense and defense

Flip: Good point. The direction our defense has been taking has been reading, reacting and flying to the ball (don't know if that changes with Lovett's exit). That requires athletic players who can make quick decisions. Our offense is pretty exacting. Once the play is called, everyone seems to nee to get to pretty specific spots via specific routes in order to exploit weaknesses in coverage and personnel. So once a player knows that "X fly, YZ triple dig wheelie bump" is the play, they know exactly what they have to do.

And in order to determine which role is better for a player, you need to get them onto the field and see them at game speed. That's why we see players flipping sides of the ball.

[Warthog]

I am not disagreeing that some guys need to change positions because they fit better somewhere else. But, I think we have a "push-pull" problem. I would like to see us recruit players with skills that fit a certain position and let them excel that way. But we seem to recruit a bunch of athletes, then let them play a year, see what skills they have, then pull them to where we have a hole.

I don't have a problem with guys moving around from where they played in high school or after they redshirt a year. But once you have been here two years, the coaches should know if you can play or not. Moving guys that are juniors or seniors seems like a waste to me. In essence, you have made that guy a "freshman" again since he has to learn a new position and you potentially keep another younger player off the field and gaining experince.

In the case of Lawrence, it's like they decided he couldn't cut it at LB, so they needed to move him somewhere else. Since Parks went to LB, we need a FB so let's put Lawrence there. Why did Parks redshirt as a FB last year? When did they recognize his skills were better suited for defense? Shouldn't these issues come up when you recruit a kid? Obviously these guys are athletes and more then likely played both sides of the ball in high school. Shouldn't the coaches be able to evaluate then what they think the best position is?

I am not trying to be negative, but I wonder what others think. It just seems to me that we recruit a group of players, throw them at the wall so to speak and see what sticks. If that doesn't work, move positions and throw it at the wall again. Is it too much to expect the coaches to evaluate a player they are recruiting and know, at least 90% of the time what position that player will be best at?

[Globetrotter]

I am not disagreeing that some guys need to change positions because they fit better somewhere else. But, I think we have a "push-pull" problem. I would like to see us recruit players with skills that fit a certain position and let them excel that way. But we seem to recruit a bunch of athletes, then let them play a year, see what skills they have, then pull them to where we have a hole.

I don't have a problem with guys moving around from where they played in high school or after they redshirt a year. But once you have been here two years, the coaches should know if you can play or not. Moving guys that are juniors or seniors seems like a waste to me. In essence, you have made that guy a "freshman" again since he has to learn a new position and you potentially keep another younger player off the field and gaining experince.

In the case of Lawrence, it's like they decided he couldn't cut it at LB, so they needed to move him somewhere else. Since Parks went to LB, we need a FB so let's put Lawrence there. Why did Parks redshirt as a FB last year? When did they recognize his skills were better suited for defense? Shouldn't these issues come up when you recruit a kid? Obviously these guys are athletes and more then likely played both sides of the ball in high school. Shouldn't the coaches be able to evaluate then what they think the best position is?

I am not trying to be negative, but I wonder what others think. It just seems to me that we recruit a group of players, throw them at the wall so to speak and see what sticks. If that doesn't work, move positions and throw it at the wall again. Is it too much to expect the coaches to evaluate a player they are recruiting and know, at least 90% of the time what position that player will be best at?

I am with you. I don't think there is much strategy in this. If I was Brandon I would maybe have a press conference to explain the moves. He knows more than we do, but looks like he doesnt know anything moving Minturm to OL and O'D to DT. it just seems stupid.

[orangeandbrown]

Wart--There's another element, too. The player isn't in a vacuum. He has to play where he can best help the team. And, sometimes those needs evolve. Someone at LB might evolve ahead of schedule, which means that you can afford to move a guy to another position in order to get him onto the field.

Finally, I wouldn't worry about the WRs too much. Others have indicated that our offense is pretty simple and I think the WRs can learn their "new" routes OK. To me, the key is for Marques Parks to bounce back. We need at least three reliable WRs in our offense.

[Flipper]

It's easier to discuss recruiting perfectly than it is done. You have to take into consideration the quantum leap that the move from HS to college represents. It has been said that the move from HS to College is the biggest jump a player makes...more challenging even than the transition to the NFL from College.

It can be very difficult to project how well a player is going to adjust to that jump. Some guys simply turn out to be better suited for another spot. The coaches understand this...I've been to four of those recrutiing receptions. At each one Brandon has been very clear in explaining that some kids will wind up playing a different position than what the recruiting list shows. Lewis Parks was a TE...maybe a DE...now he's a LB. OK by me.

You really don't know until you know....

[The Niz]

Did we run a five man defensive front last year? Am I reading correctly that we will be doing so this year?

The ONLY year my high school was any good was when we ran a 5-3 monster-back style D, the same that the Steelers use. That style D could actually fit the personnel we have here.

Niz:

No on both counts. Our standard defensive package is a basic 4-3. Seeing "NG" in there may have thrown you off. Moving to a 5-3 would be quite risky in the MAC, since so many teams run multiple-option, wide-open offenses. You'd have to have an incredibly disruptive defensive line to have any chance of success.

Overall, no major surprises, outside of Sean's move. Flip, you're spot on - we'll go as far as our QB play takes us. It will be interesting to see if Anthony steps up and takes control or if Sheehan can force the issue. I still believe #17 can get it done.

Good observation about the O-line, too.

And, boy, we are still a very young team.

The nice thing about the 5-3 is it allows for an undersized defensive line to be productive. With a NG who can get into the backfield consistently the scheme can work wonders. If the Monster back is strong, along with the NG, the defense is fantastic to watch. There's also A LOT more qb pressure from that NG. The problem in the MAC with the 5-3 is that there is probably no one in the conference who can recruit a NG that good.

[hammb]

The 5-3 would never work in the MAC. There are way too many teams that are running constant 3-4 WR sets. You would definitely get some pressure, but not enough to allow your 3 DBs to cover all those WRs.


As for the position changing I'm used to it by now. I have no problems with changing kids from what they played in HS, that is common. I don't like playing them at one position, then changing them so late in their collegiate careers.

This seems to be a fairly common occurrence here, and I don't see that too often at other programs. Maybe it does happen everywhere and I'm just not as informed with those programs, but it seems very odd. In Winovich's case we used him at 3 different positions before finally settling on FB when he was a Jr. That seems odd to me.

[Warthog]

In Winovich's case we used him at 3 different positions before finally settling on FB when he was a Jr. That seems odd to me.

Especially when we hadn't used a fullback in like five years. They created on offensive scheme so that Winovich would have a position. At least that's how I'm looking at it.

[Warthog]

Wart--There's another element, too. The player isn't in a vacuum. He has to play where he can best help the team. And, sometimes those needs evolve. Someone at LB might evolve ahead of schedule, which means that you can afford to move a guy to another position in order to get him onto the field.

I understand that. But I think that is part of what I am saying. Some of our needs are created because of the players moving positions. It's like the coaches have no patience in allowing some players to develop and are quick to just move an older player from another position. They "pull" players to where there are holes instead of "pushing" players already at that position to develop faster. Not arguing, just saying ...

[Warthog]

It can be very difficult to project how well a player is going to adjust to that jump. Some guys simply turn out to be better suited for another spot. The coaches understand this...I've been to four of those recrutiing receptions. At each one Brandon has been very clear in explaining that some kids will wind up playing a different position than what the recruiting list shows. Lewis Parks was a TE...maybe a DE...now he's a LB. OK by me.

You really don't know until you know....

I agree with your point Flip. And I can see guys moving from like DB to LB or LB to DE because they mature physically and are better suited for a different position. But what you say about Brandon is also what I am concerned about. It sounds like he expects a lot of players to change positions at some point. Why are we recruiting these kids? There aren't enough kids out there with skills at positions we need that we wouldn't have to have change positions?

I understand the idea of taking guys that are "athletes". But we must be recruiting an inordinately high number of these type guys based on how many are changing positions. I'm a big believer that if a kid can play a position and be succesful at that position in HS, why do you think he should change positions? It's like the NFL draft. These scouts get all caught up in 40 times and leaping ability, and bench press reps which is all great, but have you watched the kid play a real game? I would rather take the guy I have seen play the game and succeed then the "athlete" with all the potential. Which it seems Brandon is using the "potential" logic and maybe that is why I am disappointed.