RyanCuse44
All Conference
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 2,793
- Like
- 6,818
Especially considering all Richards are D*cksLove his name.
Back in the day on Main Street in Geneseo, there was a surveyors office. The guy's first name was Richard. Let's say his last name was Smith. The sign on his door read.Especially considering all Richards are D*cks
Fran recruits on a National basis especially when it comes to the portalThere will also be a lot of recruit poaching as well. I know OSU had a couple of big-time DT recruits. Although the geography is not great for us, never say never with HCFB.
I have a colleague who is a professor named Richard Shields. One of my former students used to refer to him as “Dr. Condom”Back in the day on Main Street in Geneseo, there was a surveyors office. The guy's first name was Richard. Let's say his last name was Smith. The sign on his door read.
Richard Smith
"Dick"
Surveyor
Laughed every time I went by.
What is the point of going from 85 to 105? We already have lots of QBs, DLs, OLs, WRs, on the roster that apparently aren't good enough to play. Why get more? Seems like they would dilute the coaches' focus on the 2+ depth.I thought JW didn’t want to go above 85 but unless there is a massive wave of kids who leave and haven’t gone public yet, maybe his tune has changed
You kind if answered your own question. Gives you 20 more chances to potentially find better 1st or 2nd team players. Odds should be much better of doing so out of the portal as you have actual college film and transcripts on players.What is the point of going from 85 to 105? We already have lots of QBs, DLs, OLs, WRs, on the roster that apparently aren't good enough to play. Why get more? Seems like they would dilute the coaches' focus on the 2+ depth.
Yea I thought that was odd. We definitely need a LB who is better in coverage and for depth too. But I also think schematically Bryant willCarlson says LB isn't a glaring need as Bryant is a returning starter, then goes on to detail how awful Bryant was this season.
I've never played or coached one second of organized football. I've just been a fan, lo these many decades. If there are technical aspects of defense that I'm unaware of, I plead ignorance, but I almost started crying when I saw these cushions.Yea I thought that was odd. We definitely need a LB who is better in coverage and for depth too. But I also think schematically Bryant will
be better with our new DC too. Love Erob as a person but he was historically bad as a coordinator. I watched a game with some very clued in NFL football guys earlier this year and they were blown away by his decisions during games.
Bryant will be fine situationally at the very least. Vince will coach all our current guys up and will bring upgrades in as well. I think he will have a Tony White effect on the D, and it will be year one since he won’t be trying to teach a new scheme via Zoom like Tony had to in his first year!Yea I thought that was odd. We definitely need a LB who is better in coverage and for depth too. But I also think schematically Bryant will
be better with our new DC too. Love Erob as a person but he was historically bad as a coordinator. I watched a game with some very clued in NFL football guys earlier this year and they were blown away by his decisions during games.
Don’t know how I missed that.Back in the day on Main Street in Geneseo, there was a surveyors office. The guy's first name was Richard. Let's say his last name was Smith. The sign on his door read.
Richard Smith
"Dick"
Surveyor
Laughed every time I went by.
I noticed that as well.Carlson says LB isn't a glaring need as Bryant is a returning starter, then goes on to detail how awful Bryant was this season.
Would be HUGE to get him
Just down from Aunt Cookie’s, across the way from Fat Augie’sDon’t know how I missed that.