Recruiting Football Talk VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#38,604
#38,604
Any idea where we go next at WR for recruiting? Looks like Mikell may be headed to the ugly Dawsgs...

Imo, until last couple games, WR was one of the biggest drop-offs, and understandably so after losing what we did, from last year to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knoxvol52
#38,606
#38,606
Jackcrevol said:
Any idea where we go next at WR for recruiting? Looks like Mikell may be headed to the ugly Dawsgs...

Imo, until last couple games, WR was one of the biggest drop-offs, and understandably so after losing what we did, from last year to this.
Click to expand...
Not current today? UGA offered another highly ranked WR. Hope you didn’t weld that chain to the boulder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Big Orange#1, Paper_Towel and 7 others
#38,607
#38,607
Ten_Titans said:
Just trying to help a brother out. I don't think the thought "It isn't that serious" has ever crossed your mind when posting or reading posts here. Maybe it's a cry for help.
Click to expand...
You were being an azz and condescending and don't like being called out on it. If you thought "It isn't that serious" then why did you make the personal attack on her and "some of y'all." Apply all your retrospective complaints to your original post where they apply. If you do that, you'll see what I'm talking about. It was simple enough to simply say Ole Miss is less offensive to Bama, et al.
 
#38,608
#38,608
BaldBiker said:
Had:
1. Rushing TD...check
2. Passing TD...check
3. Extra points...check
4. Field goal...check
5. Scoop and score...check
6. Pick 6...check
7. Safety...missed it by a foot

Did not have:
Punt return TD
Kick return TD
Two point conversion

The did not haves gives us something to work on i suppose.
Click to expand...
If we went for a 2 point conversion, don’t you think it would be adding insult to injury? (It would probably piss off uconn)

I would be okay if we did it just for practice against an opponent.
Just curious what your opinion would be?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BaldBiker, Glitch, Enki_Amenra and 1 other person
#38,613
#38,613
MarcoVol said:
Had it in college. You think it went away?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a matter of had it and went away as much as it’s much harder to replicate in the NFL vs CFB. Probably shouldn’t have said just in general he doesn’t have it, but more that he hasn’t shown he has it so far once he came to the NFL.

To be fair to him though, his first couple years he had no talent around him and was in a system that didn’t play to his strength. He has both now, and that’s why you see the much improved play, but he has to start showing it in key games against elite defenses.

We have the 2nd hardest adjusted strength of schedule to end the season though so he will have plenty of chances to change the narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glitch
#38,615
#38,615
About Mizzou...Cook has been a very similar QB to Rattler this season. Very effective throwing the ball and a capable runner. Both have struggled against tight man coverage when under pressure...the difference being that Rattler is more likely to take a sack and Cook is more likely to toss it up and hope his guy makes the play. They have a solid RB, but I think our line can slow him down without having to over-commit to the box.

I really think it comes down to the coverage Banks runs against Mizzou. Soft zone probably leads to Mizzou picking us apart with some longer drives where you hope the defense tightens up in the red zone and forces field goals, but also results in fewer possessions on offense for us. Man coverage with little cushion at the LOS probably results in a few good plays for Mizzou but also more sacks, more stops, potentially more interception opportunities, and more possessions for the offense.

Just my thoughts. This defense seems to be a lot better when they're allowed to be aggressive. Hopefully they're allowed to put up a fight instead of sitting back and trying to keep everything in front of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Big Orange#1, Paper_Towel and 10 others
#38,618
#38,618
utvols83 said:
About Mizzou...Cook has been a very similar QB to Rattler this season. Very effective throwing the ball and a capable runner. Both have struggled against tight man coverage when under pressure...the difference being that Rattler is more likely to take a sack and Cook is more likely to toss it up and hope his guy makes the play. They have a solid RB, but I think our line can slow him down without having to over-commit to the box.

I really think it comes down to the coverage Banks runs against Mizzou. Soft zone probably leads to Mizzou picking us apart with some longer drives where you hope the defense tightens up in the red zone and forces field goals, but also results in fewer possessions on offense for us. Man coverage with little cushion at the LOS probably results in a few good plays for Mizzou but also more sacks, more stops, potentially more interception opportunities, and more possessions for the offense.

Just my thoughts. This defense seems to be a lot better when they're allowed to be aggressive. Hopefully they're allowed to put up a fight instead of sitting back and trying to keep everything in front of them.
Click to expand...
I think we will see the zone play like UK. Keep everything in front and keep eyes on Cook who can move the chains with his legs if you don’t have eyes on him. Plus we don’t have Hadden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top