bees tomcat.

[RF2044]

I think the talent is a bit of a dropoff. Reddish is/was far better than any of our returning CBs. He is the biggest loss.

I think Eskridge has more talent than the people replacing him. Kelly probably has more talent than the new safeties too. Davis was our best athletic LB and Crume our most athletic DT. But all of these guys tended to blow assignments pretty regularly and were hurt a lot too. Lynch was a good athlete but was abused all the time in coverage. So other than Reddish, and Davis, who had experience and athletic ability and was solid as a senior, I don't consider the rest huge losses.

We are getting an upgrade in talent at DE but Welsh and Robinson played pretty smart assignment football. Thompson and Simmons in theory anyway should be a lot more capable of getting pressure on the QB than their predecessors.

The young safeties have to play smart. At least one of the CBs needs to step up. Between Whigham, Morgan, Winfield, Dowels and Hudson, at least two need to have solid seasons. I think Morgan is more than capable if he stays healthy. Whigham has size, talent and a lot of experience. Winfield is a really good athlete and I think Dowels is going to be excellent at some point. Ellison has been taking some snaps at CB and might end up here too if there are injuries or if others can't produce.

Anyway, I think in terms of athletic ability, there is a small dropoff. In terms of experience, there is a big one. The biggest indicator of success for the defense since Shafer arrived has been the number of returning players with experience. It is probably smaller this year than for any year since Scott has been on campus. That disturbs me.

We have a good staff of defensive coaches. They are going to have to earn their money this season.

Good post.

But I think you are underestimating Crume's value.

Otherwise, agree with your take.

 

[Consigliere]

I think the talent is a bit of a dropoff. Reddish is/was far better than any of our returning CBs. He is the biggest loss.

I think Eskridge has more talent than the people replacing him. Kelly probably has more talent than the new safeties too. Davis was our best athletic LB and Crume our most athletic DT. But all of these guys tended to blow assignments pretty regularly and were hurt a lot too. Lynch was a good athlete but was abused all the time in coverage. So other than Reddish, and Davis, who had experience and athletic ability and was solid as a senior, I don't consider the rest huge losses.

We are getting an upgrade in talent at DE but Welsh and Robinson played pretty smart assignment football. Thompson and Simmons in theory anyway should be a lot more capable of getting pressure on the QB than their predecessors.

The young safeties have to play smart. At least one of the CBs needs to step up. Between Whigham, Morgan, Winfield, Dowels and Hudson, at least two need to have solid seasons. I think Morgan is more than capable if he stays healthy. Whigham has size, talent and a lot of experience. Winfield is a really good athlete and I think Dowels is going to be excellent at some point. Ellison has been taking some snaps at CB and might end up here too if there are injuries or if others can't produce.

Anyway, I think in terms of athletic ability, there is a small dropoff. In terms of experience, there is a big one. The biggest indicator of success for the defense since Shafer arrived has been the number of returning players with experience. It is probably smaller this year than for any year since Scott has been on campus. That disturbs me.

We have a good staff of defensive coaches. They are going to have to earn their money this season.

I'm with you virtually point-by-point. The X factor is the favorable way the schedule sets up. On paper we open with the 3 most winnable games, get a status check against LSU, then and off week to re-assess and we go on the road with arguably our two most winnable road games. Back home for a swing game with Pitt, then the gauntlet - @ FSU, @ Louisville, home for Clemson and @ N.C. State who I expect to be a surprise team in the ACC before closing with BC. Tailor made for a young squad to grow and improve day by day. Not sure if we could have drawn it up any better.

That said, "We're 0-0. Can't be any better than that yet. We've got a Rhode Island team coming into our place next week with a chip on their shoulder. Everyone calls them the smallest state, but let me tell you. They don't like that and they don't feel small. They have a backup DT - I know him well. Fine young man from a great family, God love 'em. He would like nothing more than..... " Miss you Coach Mac!

 

[baggerbob]

Better on offense.

Worse on defense.

Better on special teams.

I don't think we are going to be able to move the ball against good defenses and I don't think we will be able to shut down good offenses. Special teams should be a lot better; the best they have been in many years.

I think we are solidly in the 5-7 to 7-5 range. Unless we get a lot of injuries. Depth is a huge issue, especially on the lines. If we get banged up like last year, expect another 3-9 season.

Will write up something more in depth a few days down the road.

Like your post, but hopefully we have a healthy Thompson, and Raymon this year, next to each other. Just my opinion, but I believe those 2, could make a huge difference in how good the defense is.

 

[CuseCactus]

Anyone know the story with Raymon? Has he been practicing?

 

[elimunelson]

This season, the talent level and the schedule smell like a typical Rutgers season. A bloated early season record and then a tailspin at the end. Just hope u can peel off a few wins against equally injured teams at the end (like BC, Pitt).

I think this team is capable of 5-7 wins but the downside risk to 3 is there vs the upside to 8-9 wins. Hope i'm wrong.

 

[SWC75]

how do we look.

Through these: