Class of 2015 JUCO OLB Ted Taylor (KS) Signed LOI

[007]

Your Original Post "Am I the only concerned by the striking lack of height or size in that list?"

My answer was basically "NO", you never mentioned "doing it well", it was purely height and size and it was "...am I the only one concerned?".

Were we talking about Syracuse or the NFL? Spruill realistically played under 220 at a height of 6'1" at SU, Not ideal size. Just so you know, you named 5 guys and had to dig all the way back to 1984 to find 2 of them which kind of proves my point. And to sufandu's point, NONE of them came her with ideal size and height.

Here is a tidbit...If a LB has ideal size and height with enough speed to play in Shafer/Bullough's system, guess what...they are 4-5 star kids and aren't coming here.

Again, good to know. Thanks.

 

[sufandu]

I actually think Zaire Franklin is about 6'1 240 right now.

Sweet. I meant coming straight out of high school, but if we get a guy that grows into it by his sophomore year, I won't complain.

 

[anomander]

Sweet. I meant coming straight out of high school, but if we get a guy that grows into it by his sophomore year, I won't complain.

Ya i'm pretty sure that's what he played at last year. He wanted to win the starting MIKE spot, so I know at one point last Summer they told him he was heavy enough, and concentrate on speed.

 

[sufandu]

I would take Siriki Di'Abate at 5'10" with speed and instinct over a slower bigger LB any day. SPEED KILLS...and there is not substitute for it at any position. Period.

I think it can depend on the system. If a big guy can fill a hole, get off blocks, and clog up the middle I think he can work as a mike. Clifton Smith was a really good player for us. After all of his knee surgeries it's pretty much what Dan Conley became too. A smart guy that reads plays quickly can make up for some speed too. Obviously, you can't have those guys all over the field though.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

Yeah, and most of the guys that have been bigger haven't been all that fast. Guys like Clifton Smith were more suited to Pasqualoni's more conservative system than Bullough's.

The last kid that had ideal size and athleticism straight out of high school may have been the kid under GRob that had to quit football because of blood clots. Wasn't he somewhere around 6'2" 240?

Pierce -- I cried that he couldn't see the field any more.

 

[CuseOnly]

I think it can depend on the system. If a big guy can fill a hole, get off blocks, and clog up the middle I think he can work as a mike. Clifton Smith was a really good player for us. After all of his knee surgeries it's pretty much what Dan Conley became too. A smart guy that reads plays quickly can make up for some speed too. Obviously, you can have those guys all over the field though.

Tougher for a big guy that is not all that fast to shoot through holes and makes plays like Siriki did. Same with Davis, Cam, Kirkland, etc.

 

[007]

There is a reason Keith Bullock has been one of the only LB's who have stuck around the NFL and had a very successful career. With that said I don't think size is overly crucial to the college game, but i'd rather have it, then not have it. I know it's obvious, but just being big allows you to do certain things smaller guys can't.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. I think that size is a determining factor in college, and, obviously, even more so in the NFL.

Forgetting about NFL and elite college programs, we seem to be undersized at LB compared to peer programs. And, I would highly doubt that we are any faster. If anything, we lack team speed.

Just for fun, I looked quickly at Pitt's roster for 2014. Most agree that they would be a peer. Pitt had 18 LBs on their roster, with an approximate average size of 6-2, 225. And 7 of the 18 were 230 or more. We STARTED a guy at Mike this year who was 5-11 218.

 

[TheCusian]

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. I think that size is a determining factor in college, and, obviously, even more so in the NFL. Forgetting about NFL and elite college programs, we seem to be undersized at LB compared to peer programs. And, I would highly doubt that we are any faster. If anything, we lack team speed. Just for fun, I looked quickly at Pitt's roster for 2014. Most agree that they would be a peer. Pitt had 18 LBs on their roster, with an approximate average size of 6-2, 225. And 7 of the 18 were 230 or more. We STARTED a guy at Mike this year who was 5-11 218.

Our D was #29.

 

[anomander]

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. I think that size is a determining factor in college, and, obviously, even more so in the NFL.

Forgetting about NFL and elite college programs, we seem to be undersized at LB compared to peer programs. And, I would highly doubt that we are any faster. If anything, we lack team speed.

Just for fun, I looked quickly at Pitt's roster for 2014. Most agree that they would be a peer. Pitt had 18 LBs on their roster, with an approximate average size of 6-2, 225. And 7 of the 18 were 230 or more. We STARTED a guy at Mike this year who was 5-11 218.

I tend to agree with you, but for what we are trying to we can't have the old school B1G 6'4 250 run stuffers. The one area where our LB's have been a bit of a disappointment has been in coverage. Since we are giving up size for speed you would think we would be a little bit better when asked to drop back in coverage. For as good as Lynch is when he is blitzing, he was that bad in coverage, and Davis for being a lean, quick athlete hasn't been that much better. I think this is one area where Troy Henderson excels, and will be an upgrade over what we have seen from the position recently. Obviously this is assuming he actually cracks the rotation.

 

[CuseOnly]

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. I think that size is a determining factor in college, and, obviously, even more so in the NFL.

Forgetting about NFL and elite college programs, we seem to be undersized at LB compared to peer programs. And, I would highly doubt that we are any faster. If anything, we lack team speed.

Just for fun, I looked quickly at Pitt's roster for 2014. Most agree that they would be a peer. Pitt had 18 LBs on their roster, with an approximate average size of 6-2, 225. And 7 of the 18 were 230 or more. We STARTED a guy at Mike this year who was 5-11 218.

I can assure you, we do not lack speed at the LB position.

Yet they were overall 1 spot ahead of us in total defense by 6 yards (yes 6 yards) and did not play Clemson or FSU with that roster and "better" sized players.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense

 

[syr02esq]

Well, without getting into the specifics, WILL is weakside linebacker, MIKE is middle linebacker, SAM is strongside linebacker. Unless you already knew that much, in which case this isn't helpful at all.

How about specifics?

 

[007]

I can assure you, we do not lack speed at the LB position.

Just out of curiosity, what specific assurances, other than your opinion, can you provide that we do not lack speed at the LB position?

 

[TexanMark]

Not sold on the kid...but the good thing is it doesn't carry much risk. Kirkland was a late add and did well. We'll see.

 

[javadoc]

There is a reason Keith Bullock has been one of the only LB's who have stuck around the NFL and had a very successful career. With that said I don't think size is overly crucial to the college game, but i'd rather have it, then not have it. I know it's obvious, but just being big allows you to do certain things smaller guys can't.

 

[cuse309]

I don't have a coaches eye, so projecting a players ability at the next level for me depends on size and speed. Skill set aside, doesn't this kid translate to a textbook big time safety with his sub 4.5 speed and a 6-1 215 frame? He could be a real headhunter back there if his coverage skills are up to snuff.

 

[Libero2]

In terms of everyone's being down on the kid, if I had one question for the staff (about basically any late add) it would simply be if we were out of scholarships and came across this kids tape, would you be pissed you couldn't offer him/go after him? Or would it not bother you in the least. With Womack, I think the staff would have been upset they didn't have a ship for him, with Taylor I'm not nearly as sure.

 

[sufandu]

Tougher for a big guy that is not all that fast to shoot through holes and makes plays like Siriki did. Same with Davis, Cam, Kirkland, etc.

Sure, I get that, but obviously Siriki wasn't the ideal or we'd see the factories using guys like that. He wasn't even the ideal for us since he's significantly smaller than anyone else we've had there recently. What Siriki couldn't do as well as well as a bigger guy is take on a block in the hole. If you remember, we had trouble against physical running teams when he was our MLB. So either way it's a trade off. A guy like Siriki is good at shooting gaps and blitzing, but a bigger guy could take on a blocker in the hole, shed him, and make the tackle. Whether one guy is better than the other is probably determined by the type of team we are playing against.

 

[jekelish]

How about specifics?

WILL is the one most often asked to go into pass coverage. SAM lines up opposite the tight end, and is asked to stop the run more than the WILL typically is. In the simplest terms, the WILL is your fastest backer and will cover RBs and so forth out of the backfield, the SAM is pretty much only going to cover TEs because he's not as fast, but he's stronger.

 

[PhatOrange]

What did Kirkland ever do other then being a warm body? He was always banged up, and his over aggressiveness put him out of position more times then not.

If this kid was any good what so ever he would have been gobbled up long ago.

We should have targeted more HS kids, we have shown the ability to land some highly regarded prospects.

Kirkland was a quality depth guy. He made mistakes sure but he wasnt the starter - he was the backup - and he provided better depth than any of the recruited high school kids.

If this kid gets on the field then he's contributing. A warm body is a kid taking up a scholarship who by his junior and certainly senior years isn't cracking the two deep.

I'm envisioning this kid as more of an okie anyways. One of our biggest losses from last year will be Kelly.

 

[TexanMark]

Phat...if the coaches thinks he'll be a quality 2nd stringer...then they should definitely offer. I would assume that the JUCOs are pretty picked over right now and mostly left are 1AA and below players.

 

[anomander]

Phat...if the coaches thinks he'll be a quality 2nd stringer...then they should definitely offer. I would assume that the JUCOs are pretty picked over right now and mostly left are 1AA and below players.

Exactly if he was any good he would have had suitors prior to NSD.

 

[IHeartSUFball]

Exactly if he was any good he would have had suitors prior to NSD.

jay Bromley says hello yea once in awhile this happens but Ya never know

 

[sufandu]

Exactly if he was any good he would have had suitors prior to NSD.

Any chance he could be a J R Johnson for us? If he can be productive on special teams while saving one of our 2 deep guys, that's worth a scholarship.

 

[anomander]

jay Bromley says hello yea once in awhile this happens but Ya never know

Give me a break I'm so sick of hearing Jay Bromley. That's a once every couple decade find. Plus this kid is 2 years out of HS. If he was going to develop into a dominant force he would have done so by now so save the Bromley stuff. Oh and Malcolm Howard says hello.

 

[Libero2]

Give me a break I'm so sick of hearing Jay Bromley. That's a once every couple decade find. Plus this kid is 2 years out of HS. If he was going to develop into a dominant force he would have done so by now so save the Bromley stuff. Oh and Malcolm Howard says hello.

In the face of conventional wisdom most people will always cling to the counter example, the what-if situation that comes along once in an incredibly rare time frame in order to hold on for some kind of hope...