'22 CT DT Jeffrey M'ba (JUCO)

RG didn’t pass, the kid didn’t see a fit cause of the amount of time the defense was on the field. That was the negative recruiting pitch that was made by the barn.
more time on the field to make plays and pad your stats is a negative? does the kid not know about rotations? lol
 
RG didn’t pass, the kid didn’t see a fit cause of the amount of time the defense was on the field. That was the negative recruiting pitch that was made by the barn.
Defensive line rotates a lot and this is bs in my opinion. Let him go to the barn with rest of the jucos. 1 lineman and 10 dbs they signed should work out real well with not having to be on the field much.
 
RG made the pitch of more reps equals better development, didn’t work. Kid is good too.

RG’s primary strategy should just be to downplay this whole issue. Our defense played 6 snaps more per game this year (77.5) than Auburn’s (71.1).

(And half our games were blowouts where we could rest/rotate our guys heavily for most of the game. Auburn only blew two out.)
 
RG’s primary strategy should just be to downplay this whole issue. Our defense played 6 snaps more per game this year (77.5) than Auburn’s (71.1).

(And half our games were blowouts where we could rest/rotate our guys heavily for most of the game. Auburn only blew two out.)
This is my thoughts too… sell the high flying offense and that most games should be blowouts and you’re out there padding stats on teams forced to pass
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill
RG made the pitch of more reps equals better development, didn’t work. Kid is good too.
MV, I put a lot into what you have to say, respect what you bring to the board, and much appreciative for it; but, this is hard to believe, for so many reasons. Our O this year had little to nothing to do with our D playing so many snaps. I would think Garner would be stressing and looking more to getting better, getting stops, getting off the field, which equals less reps...
 
Last edited:
MV, I put a lot into what you have to say, respect what you bring to the board, and much appreciative for it; but, this is hard to believe, for so many reasons. Our O this year had little to nothing to do with our D playing so many snaps. I would think Garner would be stressing and looking more to getting better, getting stops, getting off the field, which equals less reps...

Just relaying info. I agree, more reps would equal better development, and that’s what RG was saying
 
Last edited:
Don’t know if this kid will be in the portal soon or not but I expect Harsin to hit the transfer portal soon.
 
This… who wants to be on the field less??

Agree with this to some extent, but I just don’t really understand why we should lean into the narrative that our defense is on the field so much, etc. It is not surprising that coaches would try to play this card against us, and I just feel like the best pitch/counter we can make is basically:

Look, Harsin is right. On average our defense was on the field more than his. To be specific, our defense played six more snaps per game than Auburn’s defense. Bro, he is trying to pull a fast one on you. Six more snaps per game. That’s like two more snaps over the course of an hour. Did he mention that?

Did he also mention the fact that we were up 4 TDs by halftime in 5 of our games this year, while Auburn was in a dogfight most every week. Our offense putting up points helps us get lots of defensive guys quality reps and rest some of the guys who we need to play a lot of reps late in really close games.
 
MV, I put a lot into what you have to say, respect what you bring to the board, and much appreciative for it; but, this is hard to believe, for so many reasons. Our O this year had little to nothing to do with our D playing so many snaps. I would think Garner would be stressing and looking more to getting better, getting stops, getting off the field, which equals less reps...
A couple more d linemen rotating in - drops the number of reps significantly.
 

VN Store



Back
Top