Stallion wrote:Bonds was very overrated-perhaps the most overrated Ponyfans "love child" ever -Haywood was more like 6-3 and could run. Bonds went about 2 years w/o getting a sack against a Division 1A team and our schedule isn't exactly "Murderer's Row"
Haywood wasn't 6-3. I'm 6-2, and when I met him, I was taller than he was/is.
Also, the coaches didn't ask Bonds to chase the QB - his role was to clog the middle, occupy blockers and try to make plays if the RB or QB ran up the middle. He was pretty solid in his last two years.
This all reminds me of last year when all the prognasticators chimed in on the 'new' team makeup. They forgot to consider the incoming class and look what happened. This team will look totally different this coming year due to our new recruits. There may not be as few red shirts, but I doubt there will be many. As was proven last year, June wants his recruits on the field.
Lotus wrote:So if the moves Scoops suggests are true (and based on his track record, I'm assuming they are until we learn otherwise), am I right that the defense would look something like this (at the start of spring ball)?
DE: Taylor Thompson Anthony Sowe
NT: Zac Thomas Evan Huahulu
DE: Justin Smart (?) Jordan Johnson
LB: Pete Fleps Patrick Fleming
LB: Ryan Moczygemba Jason Jackson
LB: Chase Kennemer Victor Jones
LB: Youri Yenga Julian Herron
CB: Bryan McCann Keith Robinson
CB: Derrius Bell Deyon McElroy
SS: Rock Dennis (maybe) Ryan Smith (?)
FS: Tyler Jones (?) Shaun Moore
Banjo will start. He is a player. I would guess Ryan Clark (isn't that the name of the 4 star JUCO transfer from Navarro?) is an instant starter as well. Andrew Ellison should also show up somewhere on that 2 deep I would guess.
Look what happerned? ANSWER: We failed to beat a Division 1A team. This coming class looks to be a lot better than last years class most of which will be recruited over in coming years.
It's nice to get some sacks from your dts but the ends are the sackmasters. Why were we better when Bonds and Haywood were here-size and more ability. They were hard to move.
MustangIcon wrote:Banjo will start. He is a player. I would guess Ryan Clark (isn't that the name of the 4 star JUCO transfer from Navarro?) is an instant starter as well. Andrew Ellison should also show up somewhere on that 2 deep I would guess.
My mistake - didn't mean to forget Banjo - of course he starts (I knew I was forgetting someone - thanks).
I agree that Ellison hopefully will emerge in there someplace ... just not sure which side, or where he fits in the rotation.
i think moving to a 3-4 defense might be the change we need on defense. im optimistic with any foundational changes with our porous defense. although with our d-line personnel, the results might be the same as the last two years. i dont think our linebackers are really anything special, excluding yenga
Dooby wrote: What the coach is really saying is "I don' have enough defensive linemen that can play."
Totally true statement, but as you said, not necessarily a bad thing. As a below-average school in an average league you're not gonna get too many of the big hosses. A fast 3-4 can overcome a lot of deficiencies that a weak 4-3 will bring.
And as for Cunningham, it's not uncommon for a kicker to get to practice with defensive position players -- even if he never sees the field in that role in a game.
I think last yrs LB's are pretty likely to be standing on the sidelines. Would not be surprised to see Fleming and Jones both starting.
Have to agree with Stallion on the DT's - we will not get where we want to go until we have insdie guys busting through to put pressure on the qb's - and also clogging up the middle. Big old rspeed bumps are a think of the past hopefully.
Let's not forget about Maquis Frazier on the D-Line. He could make a major impact next year. Ryan Clark might be playing CB (which is where he earned his accolades in JC).
"We will play man to man and we will pick you up at the airport." - Larry Brown
SMU 86 wrote:Let's not forget about Maquis Frazier on the D-Line. He could make a major impact next year. Ryan Clark might be playing CB.
I would be very surprised if Bell or McCann is not starting next year. I know people are down on our secondary (bc apparently many think a corner should be able to cover their man for 7+ seconds while a QB sits comfortably in the pocket without any pressure picking things apart ), but McCann is the best corner we have had since KG (maybe even more skilled but not quite as fast) and Bell is right behind McCann. I don't see Bell as a safety and McCann doesn't need to move, which is why I see Clark playing safety more than likely.
SMU 86 wrote:Let's not forget about Maquis Frazier on the D-Line. He could make a major impact next year. Ryan Clark might be playing CB.
I would be very surprised if Bell or McCann is not starting next year. I know people are down on our secondary (bc apparently many think a corner should be able to cover their man for 7+ seconds while a QB sits comfortably in the pocket without any pressure picking things apart ), but McCann is the best corner we have had since KG (maybe even more skilled but not quite as fast) and Bell is right behind McCann. I don't see Bell as a safety and McCann doesn't need to move, which is why I see Clark playing safety more than likely.
Good point. I think Bell has to sit out the first game. Whatever the case we have an upgrade in the secondary.
"We will play man to man and we will pick you up at the airport." - Larry Brown
1. Rock Dennis - there's an effort being made to get him an extra year because of the shoulder injury that cost him his first season at SMU.
.[/quote]
I'm not sure why this is even a question, everyone should have 5 years to play 4. He doesnt need a medical hardship, he missed the entire season, it's a normal redshirt. Was he a non-qualifier out of high school?
), but McCann is the best corner we have had since KG (maybe even more skilled but not quite as fast) and Bell is right behind McCann. I don't see Bell as a safety and McCann doesn't need to move, which is why I see Clark playing safety more than likely.