Sentinel Defense Story

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:07 pm

Says that Crossley and Perry are both in academic trouble. And, we need a new scheme on D, especially at Safety.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:12 pm

orangeandbrown wrote:Says that Crossley and Perry are both in academic trouble. And, we need a new scheme on D, especially at Safety.

OUCH! That is definitely not a good thing. Do you know of the link to their site or the article?

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:15 pm

Sorry, Sentinel=no site, no link.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:22 pm

What are they stuck in 1993? Thanks anyway and thanks for the info O&B. If they really are not able to play due to grades we are really going be hurting up front with Matt L gone and the secondary is always a soft spot as it is. I sure hope these two get it together. Our defense can't afford losing Crossley too.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:34 pm

I think Crossley was having grade issues last spring as well. We relly need those guys. If Perry is ineligible, that will mean we lost 3 of the top 4 safeties on the depth chart from last year.

That's going to be tough to overcome.

falconman · Post by **falconman** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:37 pm

Just hope that through hard work and dedication these two can over come their challenge and suit up with the Orange and Brown next season.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:33 am

The biggest off-season concern is at safety. Newson and Carswell gone and Perry "is battling academic problems". The Falcons may change their game plan in the secondary while sorting out personnel issues. "We have to do a better job there. We've got to change the scheme or get better, more disciplined players back there. Maybe they can't do what we're asking them to do." Crumpler is a candidate at safety. Will Myles has a chance at safety after being recruited as a QB and seeing time at WR. Redshirt freshman Enrique Dozier and Nate Waldron also in the mix. In regards to the corners, Brandon says "A lot of those big plays we gave up were safety related." Simonton and Petey Hood (former RB) are the backups.

At LB, "We'll be ok there becuase we recruited well." Piepkow is back. Jamien Jackson Terrell White and Lavelle Sharpe all played this year. Jackson is scheduled to have arthroscopic surgery on his knee, but should be ready to play this fall. John Haneline and Pete Winovich are in the picture as well.

At end, Parks returns, but Crossley "is having academic problems". Brandon Mack, Joe Schaefer, and Diyral Briggs, all freshman last fall, will compete for playing time. "I'm a little worried at end."

Plenty returning at DT. Thaler, Williams, Cooley. Williams could move to end. Brandon Curtis and Nicholas Davis, both redshirts, could play at tackle as well.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:58 am

Some really good signs here admist the bad news.

It's good to hear someone on the staff admitting that we had some real defensive problems last year and there's reason for concern in 05.

Personally, it's tough to hear that Perry is having academic trouble. Noah wore 24 this past football season and that made Deaudre one of his favorite players. I hope he and Crossley can get their academic houses in order.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:34 am

1987alum wrote: Personally, it's tough to hear that Perry is having academic trouble. Noah wore 24 this past football season and that made Deaudre one of his favorite players. I hope he and Crossley can get their academic houses in order.

That's gotta be tough, but I guess it can be a blessing, too. If Perry winds up ineligible, it makes the "you need to do good in school" lesson that much easier at an impressionable age.

Hopefully it doesn't come down to that, though. We need everyone on defense we can get, and losing manpower to grades just seems silly.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:12 pm

What surprised me about the comment about safety-related problems was that one of the two safeties was supposed to be our best player on defense.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:35 pm

No surprise to me. Great player, no doubt, but sometimes a gamble at the safety spot will cost you the big one down the field. Once they catch you sleeping, it can go for a homerun. It may look like the corner because they are in the vacinity, but many times not the case.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:07 pm

orangeandbrown wrote:What surprised me about the comment about safety-related problems was that one of the two safeties was supposed to be our best player on defense.

Keon was our playmaker, but he was playing a new position in '04, moving over from corner. And Carswell seemed to sport a dual personality - sometimes on, sometimes not-so on.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:04 pm

BelieveNBG wrote:No surprise to me. Great player, no doubt, but sometimes a gamble at the safety spot will cost you the big one down the field. Once they catch you sleeping, it can go for a homerun. It may look like the corner because they are in the vacinity, but many times not the case.

My take on this is that he was yet another of our defensive players that was not put in the best positions to succeed. Keon is & was a CB. A great CB. A shutdown CB who could cover any WR in this league. Even when he was struggling his sophomore year he was usually in good position, but made some dubious plays when the ball was in the air. His Junior year he corrected that and then towards the end was moved to the safety spot out of necessity because of injuries. While there we found out he was also a very sound tackler.

Now, coach Brandon sees that he's a good tackler and makes the comment that "CBs don't lead your team in tackles" which led to him playing Keon exclusively at safety. That was a major mistake, IMO. Every team in every level of football generally knows that you put your best cover guy at CB. Sure he might be your best safety if you put him there as well, but you STILL put him at CB. You could make an argument that CB is the most important position on a defense, and certainly one of the most difficult to fill adequately. Here we took our best DB, who was without a doubt our best coverman, and made him a Safety, because he was a good tackler and could lead our team in tackles from there. That just flat out doesn't make sense. Besides, if your safeties lead your team in tackles your front 7 just plain isn't doing its job.

Beyond that Keon was only above average at safety. He was a gambler. Why? Because he was a CB, with a CB's mentality. CBs can gamble. Safeties cannot. They have to be the last line of defense and have to be there to make a play; they don't have room to gamble. He also went through the entire year without learning that you cannot expect to strip the ball every time you hit somebody. That works okay on the corner when you're trying to pull it out of a WR's hands who isn't holding the ball correctly; it doesn't work so well when you're trying to pull it out of the hands of the RB who has a full head of steam after burning through your front 7 like a hot knife through swiss cheese.

I voiced my displeasure over the decision to move Keon to Safety this past summer, and my opinion did not change after seeing it for a season. We took a potentially great CB, made him a darn good S, and lived with crappy CB play. It just doesn't make sense.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:08 pm

hammb:

Awesome post - good context and excellent, spot on analysis.

This speaks to something you've addressed in other threads - the fact that we need to put some of our best athletes on defense. The best have typically ended up on offense, but that must change.

I know it's only January, but I'm already concerned that our defense - which was at best inconsistent and at worst below par in 2004 - will be significantly weaker in 2005. If that's the case, our expectations for the year will not be met.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:10 pm

1987alum wrote:I know it's only January, but I'm already concerned that our defense - which was at best inconsistent and at worst below par in 2004 - will be significantly weaker in 2005. If that's the case, our expectations for the year will not be met.

Offense wins games; defense wins championships.

Sentinel Defense Story

Sentinel Defense Story

Re: Sentinel Defense Story

More stuff from the Sentinel