SouthernFans.com
TrueGSU.com

Follow GSUFANS.com on
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: Last Game

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    JDC325's Head
    Posts
    28,460

    Default Re: Last Game

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    No one stays healthy, though.

    The bolded part is an opinion I wholeheartedly share.

    Yesterday I was able to put together a three-deep on offense (excluding OL) that would probably change a lot of the professionals' pre-season predictions (at least the ones who saw Fields and Ramsby run behind a competent line).

    Defense is not as deep/good, but it's plenty talented, with one major area of concern.

    I'm talking about being hurt. As in missing games. Nobody stays "healthy" throughout the season, but that's for every team in the country.

    I don't think our 3 deep should change any opinions, but our starters should. Depth is only meaningful on the DL and if you have injuries.
    Quote Originally Posted by NO_QUARTER View Post
    I actually considered getting into a debate with Half one time (on something unimportant). But then chickened out because I knew my a$$ was about to get handed to me.

  2. Default Re: Last Game

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    Depth is only meaningful on the DL and if you have injuries.
    Well then we may be in a world of hurt concerning DL.

  3. #33

    Default Re: Last Game

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    I'm talking about being hurt. As in missing games. Nobody stays "healthy" throughout the season, but that's for every team in the country.

    I don't think our 3 deep should change any opinions, but our starters should. Depth is only meaningful on the DL and if you have injuries.
    If depth only matters on the DL, then we are frigged.

    With the numbers of rushing attempts I expect to see this season, we better have three QBs ready to play and at least four RBs who'll get meaningful snaps.

    At this point, depth matters because it means there's a larger pool from which impact players can emerge.

    Will we need 7-8 WRs this season? Not likely.

    That said, give me the 7-8 guys we have there now, and I'm feeling confident that we'll find two or more who can make a difference on any given play.

    Similarly, we've got Ramsby and Fields. Will we need more RB?

    We definitely want one or two more to rotate in and absorb carries; if they turn out to be game-breakers (Walker, Laroche, Garrett?) or powerful, consistent inside runners (Montgomery?), then that's going to make us a much better team than if they're simply placeholders.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    JDC325's Head
    Posts
    28,460

    Default Re: Last Game

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    If depth only matters on the DL, then we are frigged.

    With the numbers of rushing attempts I expect to see this season, we better have three QBs ready to play and at least four RBs who'll get meaningful snaps.

    At this point, depth matters because it means there's a larger pool from which impact players can emerge.

    Will we need 7-8 WRs this season? Not likely.

    That said, give me the 7-8 guys we have there now, and I'm feeling confident that we'll find two or more who can make a difference on any given play.

    Similarly, we've got Ramsby and Fields. Will we need more RB?

    We definitely want one or two more to rotate in and absorb carries; if they turn out to be game-breakers (Walker, Laroche, Garrett?) or powerful, consistent inside runners (Montgomery?), then that's going to make us a much better team than if they're simply placeholders.

    How do you know we are "frigged" at DL?

    If we get to our 3rd string QB, then just like any team out there we are probably in trouble.

    I doubt we see 4 RB's get meaningful snaps. We never saw that under Fritz and it's almost impossible to run the ball more than we did then. Which answers the question of "We've got Ramsby and Fields. Will we need more RB?".....no, unless they get injured. Nothing more than to eat up a few carries a game and any mop up duty.
    Quote Originally Posted by NO_QUARTER View Post
    I actually considered getting into a debate with Half one time (on something unimportant). But then chickened out because I knew my a$$ was about to get handed to me.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    JDC325's Head
    Posts
    28,460

    Default Re: Last Game

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz Killington View Post
    I don't know that it's accurate to think that no schools have 5-6 corners ready to play when so many teams are basing out of nickel. If we count nickel corners as "corners" you basically have to have 5-6 from a practical standpoint.

    If you don't count nickel guys as "corners" then I see your point. Especially since Summers seems to like using a big LB/safety hybrid as a SAM/Nickel player. However, under Jack Curtis, we were using real corner-type players at that nickel spot. I guess it really depends on scheme.

    We already have 4 ready to play alot. It won't be that hard to find 2 more to provide "depth"

    "Ready to play" and actually playing are two different things. Sure teams have 5-6 cornerbacks ready to play, but they don't actually play that many. If your #5 and #6 CB are seeing the field then you've got and injury problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by NO_QUARTER View Post
    I actually considered getting into a debate with Half one time (on something unimportant). But then chickened out because I knew my a$$ was about to get handed to me.

  6. #36

    Default Re: Last Game

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    How do you know we are "frigged" at DL?

    If we get to our 3rd string QB, then just like any team out there we are probably in trouble.

    I doubt we see 4 RB's get meaningful snaps. We never saw that under Fritz and it's almost impossible to run the ball more than we did then. Which answers the question of "We've got Ramsby and Fields. Will we need more RB?".....no, unless they get injured. Nothing more than to eat up a few carries a game and any mop up duty.
    So Wesley Fields was only useful for mop-up duty in 2015?

    Fritz's base formation used one tailback, and he rotated three backs as part of the main offensive unit. It looks like our base formation in 2017 will use two tailbacks, so I don't think it's crazy to think that four guys will get meaningful snaps--particularly if Cook shares PJ's philosophy on rotating skill players.

    DL is the one place on the team with question marks as far as talent and numbers. We have plenty of those at every other position, so it'd be a bummer if DL is the only position in which having a lot of talented players does any good.

    I spent a couple of decades watching relatively thin GS teams live on the edge, just one key injury to a QB or B-Back away from a ruined season. IMO, it's a good thing to have talented scholarship players going three and four deep at every position, and I don't think you can convince me otherwise.
    Green Bastard
    Parts Unknown

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    JDC325's Head
    Posts
    28,460

    Default Re: Last Game

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    So Wesley Fields was only useful for mop-up duty in 2015?
    I said "eat up a few carries a game AND mop up duty". Which yes, would describe Wesley Fields in 2015. He averaged just under 8 carries a game and had 6 or less in half our games. He had 2 double digit carry games in 2015....Citadel and ULM.

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    DL is the one place on the team with question marks as far as talent and numbers. We have plenty of those at every other position, so it'd be a bummer if DL is the only position in which having a lot of talented players does any good.
    That doesn't mean we are frigged though. Yes it's a huge question mark, but because it's a huge question mark you can't say that we are frigged. Because we simply don't know. We might be or we might end up being okay.

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    I spent a couple of decades watching relatively thin GS teams live on the edge, just one key injury to a QB or B-Back away from a ruined season. IMO, it's a good thing to have talented scholarship players going three and four deep at every position, and I don't think you can convince me otherwise.
    You've also seen a lot of UGA football over the past decades and could you not say the exact same thing about them? And you could replace UGA with just about any other team in the country and get the same answer. Just about every team is going to be a key injury or two away from a ruined season. Nobody is going to have even talent across their three deep. So no, I'm not going to try and convince you that it's not a good thing to have talented scholarship players going three and four deep because it is...in a dream world. It's not reality though.

    First off going 4 deep of scholarship players would be 88 players which is illegal Even taking that out of the equation, you are talking 66 to get 3 deep. Hitting on 66 of 85 players is 78%. That's not a realistic mark.

    I've never argued that it's not a good thing to have solid depth. But having solid depth is like having a solid insurance policy. You may or may not need it. I could walk around without health insurance all year, but if I never get sick then it doesn't matter. However if I do get sick then it's going to come back to bite me. That's all I'm saying about depth worries at certain positions. If we don't get injuries then it's not going to matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by NO_QUARTER View Post
    I actually considered getting into a debate with Half one time (on something unimportant). But then chickened out because I knew my a$$ was about to get handed to me.

  8. #38

    Default Re: Last Game

    Again, it's not just about having back-ups in case of injury. It's about having a pool of scholarship players to push one another. When we were I-AA, we often had filler-material backing up all-Americans.

    That's not in any way disparaging our tradition of getting great walk-on players.

    But having backups is a good thing.

    I'm not even sure that we had a backup QB during the 2000 playoffs. It was probably either Andre Weathers (starting A-Back) or Edmund Coley (backup B-Back).

    Melvin Cox was the only other QB on the roster; he was hurt down the stretch in either 2000 or 2001 (I can't remember which).

    Coley was the only scholarship B-Back behind A.P., and he wasn't even really a B-Back.

    We were very lucky to have A.P. and J.R. on the field during our playoff run.

    In any case, we need depth everywhere. This isn't the NFL, and it's not FCS. You can't rely on 22 players.
    Last edited by pete4256; 12th July 2017 at 09:28 AM.
    Green Bastard
    Parts Unknown

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    JDC325's Head
    Posts
    28,460

    Default Re: Last Game

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    Again, it's not just about having back-ups in case of injury. It's about having a pool of scholarship players to push one another. When we were I-AA, we often had filler-material backing up all-Americans.

    That's not in any way disparaging our tradition of getting great walk-on players.

    But having backups is a good thing.

    But I'm not even sure that we had a backup QB during the 2000 playoffs. It was probably either Andre Weathers (starting A-Back) or Edmund Coley (backup B-Back).

    Melvin Cox was the only other QB on the roster; he was hurt down the stretch in either 2000 or 2001 (I can't remember which).

    Coley was the only scholarship B-Back behind A.P., and he wasn't even really a B-Back.

    We were very lucky to have A.P. and J.R. on the field during our playoff run.

    In any case, we need depth everywhere. This isn't the NFL, and it's not FCS. You can't rely on 22 players.

    If JR and AP got hurt it wouldn't have mattered. The backups were going to be a huge drop off. That's my point.
    Quote Originally Posted by NO_QUARTER View Post
    I actually considered getting into a debate with Half one time (on something unimportant). But then chickened out because I knew my a$$ was about to get handed to me.

  10. #40

    Default Re: Last Game

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    I said "eat up a few carries a game AND mop up duty". Which yes, would describe Wesley Fields in 2015. He averaged just under 8 carries a game and had 6 or less in half our games. He had 2 double digit carry games in 2015....Citadel and ULM.
    You mean the 2015 Go-Daddy Bowl offensive player of the game? Dude got important touches in important situations, and he could change the game on any given play.

    So, yes, this is a good illustration of how depth helps. I liked Chaz Thornton a lot, but if I need a RB to get 5-7 meaningful carries a game, I'd take Fields every time.

    That's why I'm interested to see whether Montgomery, Walker, Garrett, Laroche, Wright, or Godfrey (all scholarship RBs) can make a similar impact off the bench in meaningful situations.

    I'm as big a fan of rotating skill players as Mark Richt and Paul Johnson.
    Green Bastard
    Parts Unknown

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •