DL next year

[AngryOtto]

There is a possibility all the DL returns next year.
I know there has been so much talk if the weight has an impact in the 3-3-5. Appears to have impact stopping run heavy teams with big lines.
Questions
Do people think the staff will add weight to the DL or keep them at their current weights? Linton I know needs to add weight.
Even though we did not have 300 pounders last year the starters seemed around 285 to 290.

 

[kcsu]

There is a possibility all the DL returns next year.
I know there has been so much talk if the weight has an impact in the 3-3-5. Appears to have impact stopping run heavy teams with big lines.
Questions
Do people think the staff will add weight to the DL or keep them at their current weights? Linton I know needs to add weight.
Even though we did not have 300 pounders last year the starters seemed around 285 to 290.

As long as we can rotate kids up front i think we are ok. 6 in rotation. 3 kids over 270.

 

[CapitalO]

There is a possibility all the DL returns next year.
I know there has been so much talk if the weight has an impact in the 3-3-5. Appears to have impact stopping run heavy teams with big lines.
Questions
Do people think the staff will add weight to the DL or keep them at their current weights? Linton I know needs to add weight.
Even though we did not have 300 pounders last year the starters seemed around 285 to 290.

I think it is a top priority for a handful of them to add 15 - 20 pounds of good weight, a good SC. staff can make this happen while having the players not loose speed or quickness however I'm not a big fan of our SC. staff.

 

[qdawgg]

These threads are always pretty funny. While we’re at it in the off season they’re going to give the WR’s a shot of route running and speed. We just going to give the DL a shot of 50lbs while they retain all other positive attributes lol. On my couch that’s called; Doritos, beer, mtn dew, and chocolate chunk cookies. But I usually lose a step.

 

[goofnoff]

They need a run stuffer in the middle.

 

[sufandu]

I think it is a top priority for a handful of them to add 15 - 20 pounds of good weight, a good SC. staff can make this happen while having the players not loose speed or quickness however I'm not a big fan of our SC. staff.

I say cut em loose with all the speed they can use. But if getting bigger causes them to lose any, that could work against us.

 

[javadoc]

These threads are always pretty funny. While we’re at it in the off season they’re going to give the WR’s a shot of route running and speed. We just going to give the DL a shot of 50lbs while they retain all other positive attributes lol. On my couch that’s called; Doritos, beer, mtn dew, and chocolate chunk cookies. But I usually lose a step.

Thank goodness the commercial breaks are so long. Losing that step on the way to the kitchen and back won’t cost you any actual game time!

 

[JRHEETER]

They tried going after kids last year in the portal. The kids just didn’t end up here.

I would assume that we will be targeting DL in the portal once again

 

[Dinkyspond]

Don't forget about Chase Simmons too next year. He was seeing a lot of time early in the year too. I haven’t seen in awhile. He's probably out for the year too.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The DL is going to be even better next season than this one.

 

[David332]

Even with our depleted DL struggling against these last three run heavy teams we still held Pitt to only 19 points. Not being able to score TDs is what made it fatal.

 

[CbusCuse]

I like our 3-3-5 scheme. It serves us very well most of the time. I'm even fine with mostly lighter pieces that are uber explosive. But we need to have some bigger pieces to throw in there for when we go up against teams that we know are going to just run it up the gut. And I don't see why we can't have some heavier formations for these times. It doesn't make sense to have 3 light lineman in on these plays. We play a team like Notre Dame or Pitt that don't really throw the ball and are going to do 3 runs and a cloud of dust and it seems we have not had any answer. Maybe we add Ruff at around 300 lbs, if he's healthy next year. Definitely need a portal add at DT with some size. I'd be good with adding another DE that is 270 or so but I would guess some of our DE's will gain some weight in the offseason so not sure if they will make any additions there or not

Babers can say the issue has been getting stops on 3rd down, which it is. But its because they have 3rd and 1 or 3rd and 2 because their last runs net 9 or 10 yards, and that's after their first two runs already net a first down previously. We are rarely stopping teams right now in these situations. It seems Teams drives are sometimes stalling when they get bored doing this and then try a pass. We have also been very good in the redzone which is great. But giving up field position alone isn't good when the Offense isn't performing.

 

[FrancoPizza]

The DL is going to be even better next season than this one.

I hope so. I don’t know if I can take any more 2nd and 5, 3rd and 1s.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I hope so. I don’t know if I can take any more 2nd and 5, 3rd and 1s.

I humbly submit that if that's a problem for you, you're thinking about defense in college football the wrong way.

Teams are going to score at some point. They're going to get yards and first downs. We're in an era of offense and I don't know if that's ever going away. Our defense is fantastic because it slows scoring, yards and first downs better than most. It shouldn't be viewed as a failure that they can't do that every time.

Fans here talk about how if we only had a bigger defensive line we'd shut everything down. That's just not accurate. Teams would still score on us. They'd still convert first downs. And we know this, because there are teams with defenses full of NFL players, and they get scored on and give up first downs too.

That's not a bad reality, btw. That's why we have a puncher's chance against, say, Clemson.

There are tradeoffs to schematic decisions. One of ours is that we're a little smaller on the defensive line. Looking at the overall results though, we're making the right choices. If we keep getting good results we have a chance to recruit better, bigger defensive linemen, and if we do... we're still going to give up yards and points sometimes.

 

[Oakland]

We have 16 DLs on the roster this season! These include Josh Hough at 315 lbs, and a bunch of underclassmen in the 260-270 lb range (according to ESPN).

 

[Iony44ny]

As long as they’re as tenacious as Darton, add two more, any size. A two man rotation was never going too work. Did they think Lockett would last all year? I don’t even know why we’re talking about the D. If the O could sustain a couple drives, god forbid score, or just work some clock, D would be dominant. Three and outs are getting old fast

 

[qdawgg]

As long as they’re as tenacious as Darton, add two more, any size. A two man rotation was never going too work. Did they think Lockett would last all year? I don’t even know why we’re talking about the D. If the O could sustain a couple drives, god forbid score, or just work some clock, D would be dominant. Three and outs are getting old fast

Only Darton is as tenacious as Darton.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I humbly submit that if that's a problem for you, you're thinking about defense in college football the wrong way.

Teams are going to score at some point. They're going to get yards and first downs. We're in an era of offense and I don't know if that's ever going away. Our defense is fantastic because it slows scoring, yards and first downs better than most. It shouldn't be viewed as a failure that they can't do that every time.

Fans here talk about how if we only had a bigger defensive line we'd shut everything down. That's just not accurate. Teams would still score on us. They'd still convert first downs. And we know this, because there are teams with defenses full of NFL players, and they get scored on and give up first downs too.

That's not a bad reality, btw. That's why we have a puncher's chance against, say, Clemson.

There are tradeoffs to schematic decisions. One of ours is that we're a little smaller on the defensive line. Looking at the overall results though, we're making the right choices. If we keep getting good results we have a chance to recruit better, bigger defensive linemen, and if we do... we're still going to give up yards and points sometimes.

I agree. I think too much is made of the ND, Clemson and Pitt power running success. If we had any offense in those games to give us a cushion, anything coherent at all, the other teams can’t just pound it for 5 yards a clip.

 

[cvilleorange]

I humbly submit that if that's a problem for you, you're thinking about defense in college football the wrong way.

Teams are going to score at some point. They're going to get yards and first downs. We're in an era of offense and I don't know if that's ever going away. Our defense is fantastic because it slows scoring, yards and first downs better than most. It shouldn't be viewed as a failure that they can't do that every time.

Fans here talk about how if we only had a bigger defensive line we'd shut everything down. That's just not accurate. Teams would still score on us. They'd still convert first downs. And we know this, because there are teams with defenses full of NFL players, and they get scored on and give up first downs too.

That's not a bad reality, btw. That's why we have a puncher's chance against, say, Clemson.

There are tradeoffs to schematic decisions. One of ours is that we're a little smaller on the defensive line. Looking at the overall results though, we're making the right choices. If we keep getting good results we have a chance to recruit better, bigger defensive linemen, and if we do... we're still going to give up yards and points sometimes.

I would agree and say that our defense has done enough to win every single game this year. Our d line is light in part due to the scheme, but these guys are really young and were developmental prospects who are playing because we have not been as successful recruiting or in the portal. I think we will be very happy with this positional group over the next couple of years

We need to extend drives and score points on offense. We had the same issue last year with a larger, veteran D line

 

[money3189]

I humbly submit that if that's a problem for you, you're thinking about defense in college football the wrong way.

Teams are going to score at some point. They're going to get yards and first downs. We're in an era of offense and I don't know if that's ever going away. Our defense is fantastic because it slows scoring, yards and first downs better than most. It shouldn't be viewed as a failure that they can't do that every time.

Fans here talk about how if we only had a bigger defensive line we'd shut everything down. That's just not accurate. Teams would still score on us. They'd still convert first downs. And we know this, because there are teams with defenses full of NFL players, and they get scored on and give up first downs too.

That's not a bad reality, btw. That's why we have a puncher's chance against, say, Clemson.

There are tradeoffs to schematic decisions. One of ours is that we're a little smaller on the defensive line. Looking at the overall results though, we're making the right choices. If we keep getting good results we have a chance to recruit better, bigger defensive linemen, and if we do... we're still going to give up yards and points sometimes.

Well said. I still dont know why people think a 4-3 scheme with unathletic DT's will automatically stop the run. Its been proven for years that it doesn't.

 

[money3189]

I would agree and say that our defense has done enough to win every single game this year. Our d line is light in part due to the scheme, but these guys are really young and were developmental prospects who are playing because we have not been as successful recruiting or in the portal. I think we will be very happy with this positional group over the next couple of years

We need to extend drives and score points on offense. We had the same issue last year with a larger, veteran D line

Yup. Offensive efficiency has been the biggest issue in the last 3 games. Not the DL

 

[djorange1989]

besides the portal and hopefully a bit of weight gain for our current players, having Thompson back is going to be a great help in stopping the run

 

[djorange1989]

I humbly submit that if that's a problem for you, you're thinking about defense in college football the wrong way.

Teams are going to score at some point. They're going to get yards and first downs. We're in an era of offense and I don't know if that's ever going away. Our defense is fantastic because it slows scoring, yards and first downs better than most. It shouldn't be viewed as a failure that they can't do that every time.

Fans here talk about how if we only had a bigger defensive line we'd shut everything down. That's just not accurate. Teams would still score on us. They'd still convert first downs. And we know this, because there are teams with defenses full of NFL players, and they get scored on and give up first downs too.

That's not a bad reality, btw. That's why we have a puncher's chance against, say, Clemson.

There are tradeoffs to schematic decisions. One of ours is that we're a little smaller on the defensive line. Looking at the overall results though, we're making the right choices. If we keep getting good results we have a chance to recruit better, bigger defensive linemen, and if we do... we're still going to give up yards and points sometimes.

this post is way too intelligent for a bunch of morons like us on this forum. well, at least for this moron.

100% dead on post, well done. yeah, Clemson ran for a ton of yards against us, but we gave up 27 points total, and at halftime we had 21 on the board, that is failure by the offense. ND wasn't a terrific effort but they had 34 points on offense and 7 of those points came on an ultra short drive later in the game after the blocked punt. And I am sure we all saw what ND's run game did to that Clemson front 7 that has 3 guys projected to go in the first 15 picks in April. Last week? 17 points allowed, that is great in today's game, it was 100% on the offense there as well.

the scheme is really good, the happy medium is a bit more size as our pups get a year older and we hopefully bring in a bit more size in the middle via the portal if someone ready to play is available and signs on . Even without Mikel and GW, I think the D is going to be a monster next year. I can't wait to see Thompson back in there stuffing the run amongst everything else he does

 

[RF2044]

Not counting any transfer portal guys...

DTs Next year:

• Lockett
• Darton
• Fuentes-Cundiff
• Bassette
• Hough
• Perry

DEs Next year:

• Okechukwu
• Geer
• Linton
• Simmons
• Jobity
• Jasquez
• Noulton

Now granted, there are players who might play multiple positions in White's system [like Okechukwu playing inside on passing downs, Perry maybe playing both DT / DE, etc.].

But that doesn't include any of other "new" faces beyond the existing group, with the exception of incoming frosh Perry.

We also know that Tony White loves rotating parts to keep them fresh -- so he'll play guys if they can contribute. When I look at that list, I see a LOT of guys who can contribute. And LOTS of proven commodities, mixed with newer faces with exciting potential.

DL is loaded for next year. Wish one or two of these guys was a bit more experienced THIS year, given the depth constraints we're facing. But hard not to look at the talent in the pipeline and not conclude that it's both stocked with talent, and the future looks bright.

 

[djorange1989]

Not counting any transfer portal guys...

DTs Next year:

• Lockett
• Darton
• Fuentes-Cundiff
• Bassette
• Hough
• Perry

DEs Next year:

• Okechukwu
• Geer
• Linton
• Simmons
• Jobity
• Jasquez
• Noulton

Now granted, there are players who might play multiple positions in White's system [like Okechukwu playing inside on passing downs, Perry maybe playing both DT / DE, etc.].

But that doesn't include any of other "new" faces beyond the existing group, with the exception of incoming frosh Perry.

We also know that Tony White loves rotating parts to keep them fresh -- so he'll play guys if they can contribute. When I look at that list, I see a LOT of guys who can contribute. And LOTS of proven commodities, mixed with newer faces with exciting potential.

DL is loaded for next year. Wish one or two of these guys was a bit more experienced THIS year, given the depth constraints we're facing. But hard not to look at the talent in the pipeline and not conclude that it's both stocked with talent, and the future looks bright.

definitely a lot of depth, and Perry just may be a solid contributor even as a true frosh, that dude is a beast. Assuming there aren't any unexpected losses (ie like what almost happened when we dogged a bullet with Mikel staying and not cashing in at Miami) then the defense is the last thing any of us need to worry about, it will be great. Offense is what needs fixing, we need help literally everywhere except QB.