DE Depth

#51
#51
benholt06 said:
There’s some conflation going on here between LEO and 5 tech DE (doesn’t have to be 5 tech alignment)

Jordan Norman should be the main LEO, and he’s bigger than the LEOs under Banks— which may be a feature under Knowles.

My concern is the depth behind him. Luckily the staff took a metric sh!t ton of DL in the 2026 class.

Here’s what DL depth looks like:

Nose/1 tech: Gilliam/Robinson/Campbell/Finch/Simmons

3 tech/DT: Hobbs/Utley/House/Rivers

5 tech/DE: Weathersby/Dye/Gentle/Groves

LEO: Norman/Gooden/Carter/Harris

I list those guys at LEO because I believe they have the build and traits Knowles wants at the position.

In some early down scenarios, I expect Knowles to deploy sort of a blitzing SAM. This is where a guy like Telander can shine. See ball, get ball. Guys like TJ White might also thrive in this role, or you could use Gass like that from the WILL role.

So many exciting possibilities, even without Chaz Coleman, and I love the underclassmen talent we have at DL. Chances of CRG getting good play from a couple of those guys are high.
Click to expand...
This DL looks pretty good to me. Of course it will be better when we have Hobbs back, but in the meantime, more reps for the young 'uns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: benholt06
#52
#52
benholt06 said:
There’s some conflation going on here between LEO and 5 tech DE (doesn’t have to be 5 tech alignment)

Jordan Norman should be the main LEO, and he’s bigger than the LEOs under Banks— which may be a feature under Knowles.

My concern is the depth behind him. Luckily the staff took a metric sh!t ton of DL in the 2026 class.

Here’s what DL depth looks like:

Nose/1 tech: Gilliam/Robinson/Campbell/Finch/Simmons

3 tech/DT: Hobbs/Utley/House/Rivers

5 tech/DE: Weathersby/Dye/Gentle/Groves

LEO: Norman/Gooden/Carter/Harris

I list those guys at LEO because I believe they have the build and traits Knowles wants at the position.

In some early down scenarios, I expect Knowles to deploy sort of a blitzing SAM. This is where a guy like Telander can shine. See ball, get ball. Guys like TJ White might also thrive in this role, or you could use Gass like that from the WILL role.

So many exciting possibilities, even without Chaz Coleman, and I love the underclassmen talent we have at DL. Chances of CRG getting good play from a couple of those guys are high.
Click to expand...
Great points. Also, other than Albert and Simmons, those other 8 freshmen d linemen got 6 extra months under Owings, CG and Knowles. Pearce and Ross didn’t enroll until June, and though Herring and Josephs were early enrollees, they both came in very underweight (for the SEC). These freshman are different
 
  • Like
Reactions: benholt06 and orangebloodgmc
#54
#54
benholt06 said:
There’s some conflation going on here between LEO and 5 tech DE (doesn’t have to be 5 tech alignment)

Jordan Norman should be the main LEO, and he’s bigger than the LEOs under Banks— which may be a feature under Knowles.

My concern is the depth behind him. Luckily the staff took a metric sh!t ton of DL in the 2026 class.

Here’s what DL depth looks like:

Nose/1 tech: Gilliam/Robinson/Campbell/Finch/Simmons

3 tech/DT: Hobbs/Utley/House/Rivers

5 tech/DE: Weathersby/Dye/Gentle/Groves

LEO: Norman/Gooden/Carter/Harris

I list those guys at LEO because I believe they have the build and traits Knowles wants at the position.

In some early down scenarios, I expect Knowles to deploy sort of a blitzing SAM. This is where a guy like Telander can shine. See ball, get ball. Guys like TJ White might also thrive in this role, or you could use Gass like that from the WILL role.

So many exciting possibilities, even without Chaz Coleman, and I love the underclassmen talent we have at DL. Chances of CRG getting good play from a couple of those guys are high.
Click to expand...
 
#55
#55
benholt06 said:
There’s some conflation going on here between LEO and 5 tech DE (doesn’t have to be 5 tech alignment)

Jordan Norman should be the main LEO, and he’s bigger than the LEOs under Banks— which may be a feature under Knowles.

My concern is the depth behind him. Luckily the staff took a metric sh!t ton of DL in the 2026 class.

Here’s what DL depth looks like:

Nose/1 tech: Gilliam/Robinson/Campbell/Finch/Simmons

3 tech/DT: Hobbs/Utley/House/Rivers

5 tech/DE: Weathersby/Dye/Gentle/Groves

LEO: Norman/Gooden/Carter/Harris

I list those guys at LEO because I believe they have the build and traits Knowles wants at the position.

In some early down scenarios, I expect Knowles to deploy sort of a blitzing SAM. This is where a guy like Telander can shine. See ball, get ball. Guys like TJ White might also thrive in this role, or you could use Gass like that from the WILL role.

So many exciting possibilities, even without Chaz Coleman, and I love the underclassmen talent we have at DL. Chances of CRG getting good play from a couple of those guys are high.
Click to expand...
Gass is a full time DE, he does not play WILL. He’s a little undersized for a traditional Knowles LEO/Jack but he will still get snaps. Hearing he’s up to 240lbs though, and still very quick. Arion Carter, Spillman and Perlotte are our WILL’s this year.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#58
#58
csheaton said:
Gass is a full time DE, he does not play WILL. He’s a little undersized for a traditional Knowles LEO/Jack but he will still get snaps. Hearing he’s up to 240lbs though, and still very quick. Arion Carter, Spillman and Perlotte are our WILL’s this year.
Click to expand...
No, he’s listed as a full time LEO. If he’s really 240– that’s awesome. Blitzing from Will doesn’t mean he has to be a Will— just meant he could pressure from that position and still audible to coverage and not be a liability. But if he’s put on that kind of size, he could potentially fight for the No. 2 LEO role.

DE would suggest he’s playing with his hand in the dirt on the LOS. DE and Leo may be more interchangeable than ever under Knowles, but it can still cause confusion if the distinction isn’t made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#59
#59
benholt06 said:
No, he’s listed as a full time LEO. If he’s really 240– that’s awesome. Blitzing from Will doesn’t mean he has to be a Will— just meant he could pressure from that position and still audible to coverage and not be a liability. But if he’s put on that kind of size, he could potentially fight for the No. 2 LEO role.

DE would suggest he’s playing with his hand in the dirt on the LOS. DE and Leo may be more interchangeable than ever under Knowles, but it can still cause confusion if the distinction isn’t made.
Click to expand...
Correct. A full time LEO is a defensive end. He’s not a weak side linebacker and will never blitz from that position during his time here.

A WILL linebacker is completely different from a DE. What you’re thinking of is a Jack linebacker, which is what Gass could play some of. WILL’s do not play on the line of scrimmage with their hand on the ground, Jacks do. WILL is Arion Carter’s position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#60
#60
csheaton said:
Correct. A full time LEO is a defensive end. He’s not a weak side linebacker and will never blitz from that position during his time here.

A WILL linebacker is completely different from a DE. What you’re thinking of is a Jack linebacker, which is what Gass could play some of. WILL’s do not play on the line of scrimmage with their hand on the ground, Jacks do. WILL is Arion Carter’s position.
Click to expand...
Jacks can line up and rush from the weak side. Call them whatever you want. It’s a weak side linebacker.

I never said it was the same as DE and I never said Gas’s was a Will I said they could blitz him from the Will side.

You’re getting bogged down in semantics when it’s all alignment based.
 
#61
#61
benholt06 said:
Jacks can line up and rush from the weak side. Call them whatever you want. It’s a weak side linebacker.

I never said it was the same as DE and I never said Gas’s was a Will I said they could blitz him from the Will side.

You’re getting bogged down in semantics when it’s all alignment based.
Click to expand...

You’re right, jacks can blitz from the weak side, but what you said is that they “can use Gass in the WILL role.” Which is not true.

A jack linebacker is not a WILL linebacker and the two terms are not interchangeable. He may blitz from the weak side, but “WILL linebacker” is a completely different position. WILL and SAM are terms with more specificity. They refer directly to the guys who play standing up.
 
Last edited:
#62
#62
csheaton said:
You’re right, jacks can blitz from the weak side, but what you said is that they “can use Gass in the WILL role.” Which is not true.

A jack linebacker is not a WILL linebacker and the two terms are not interchangeable. He may blitz from the weak side, but “WILL linebacker” is a completely different position. WILL and SAM are terms with more specificity. They refer directly to the guys who play standing up.
Click to expand...
Ok then…

Gass lines up in the Jack position, but due to offense’s pre-snap look, audibles to coverage.

Is he not then in the Will role?

I guess I said blitzing specifically, so you can have the win on your pedantry prance here, idc.
 
#63
#63
benholt06 said:
Ok then…

Gass lines up in the Jack position, but due to offense’s pre-snap look, audibles to coverage.

Is he not then in the Will role?

I guess I said blitzing specifically, so you can have the win on your pedantry prance here, idc.
Click to expand...
That is correct. That would be the only time a LEO/jack linebacker would play the “WILL role.”

Though you are also correct in that we were only, and specifically debating blitzing. So, thank you, sir. Graduate level football debates going on here. Tip of the cap
 
#65
#65
csheaton said:
That is correct. That would be the only time a LEO/jack linebacker would play the “WILL role.”

Though you are also correct in that we were only, and specifically debating blitzing. So, thank you, sir. Graduate level football debates going on here. Tip of the cap
Click to expand...
I think it would’ve confused the players I coached to change their position name pre-snap based on where or what assignment they audibled to.

Also, a Will can absolutely blitz from his natural position. A blitzing Will through B gap can wreak havoc. You of course have to adjust your strong side assignments. But the idea that a Will can never blitz— idk who told u that.
 
#66
#66
benholt06 said:
I think it would’ve confused the players I coached to change their position name pre-snap based on where or what assignment they audibled to.

Also, a Will can absolutely blitz from his natural position. A blitzing Will through B gap can wreak havoc. You of course have to adjust your strong side assignments. But the idea that a Will can never blitz— idk who told u that.
Click to expand...
Never said a Will can never blitz. You said that, not me. I said a Jack linebacker will never blitz from the WILL linebacker position. As in Gass will never play the “WILL role” See what I mean?

It’s more likely they walk a SAM or WILL linebacker UP to the los to blitz to take advantage of their speed. In other words, in blitzing situations, a WILL or a SAM can act more of a Jack, but a Jack will never act like a WILL. They’re never going to back a Jack up to the traditional WILL position to blitz from there, thus completely negating his speed.

The only time he goes backward will be in disguise pass coverage situations, not a blitzing situation (as you correctly mentioned). Jacks/LEO’s either have their hand down or are standing up near the los in blitz packages.

A square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
#67
#67
I think Ty Weathersby will have a very good year and we will be reminded there are still players that stick with the program and it pays off. I think you’re going to see the same thing with our tight end position and Ethan Davis. I like our depth at tight end as well. GBO
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#68
#68
csheaton said:
Never said a Will can never blitz. You said that, not me. I said a Jack linebacker will never blitz from the WILL linebacker position. As in Gass will never play the “WILL role” See what I mean?

It’s more likely they walk a SAM or WILL linebacker UP to the los to blitz to take advantage of their speed. In other words, in blitzing situations, a WILL or a SAM can act more of a Jack, but a Jack will never act like a WILL. They’re never going to back a Jack up to the traditional WILL position to blitz from there, thus completely negating his speed.

The only time he goes backward will be in disguise pass coverage situations, not a blitzing situation (as you correctly mentioned). Jacks/LEO’s either have their hand down or are standing up near the los in blitz packages.

A square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
You just said a moment ago if Gass was to line up as a traditional Jack and be forced to drop coverage for whatever reason he’d be in the Will role then.

You’re all over the place. If he’s a Jack, dropping coverage doesn’t make him not a Jack. If he’s a Will, stepping up to Rush doesn’t make him not a Will.

Whether Gass plays that role or not, maybe he won’t, I’d happily concede that, but your semantic pigeon-holing with positional terms and their roles makes no practical sense, my guy. Hope this helps.
 
#69
#69
benholt06 said:
You just said a moment ago if Gass was to line up as a traditional Jack and be forced to drop coverage for whatever reason he’d be in the Will role then.

You’re all over the place. If he’s a Jack, dropping coverage doesn’t make him not a Jack. If he’s a Will, stepping up to Rush doesn’t make him not a Will.

Whether Gass plays that role or not, maybe he won’t, I’d happily concede that, but your semantic pigeon-holing with positional terms and their roles makes no practical sense, my guy. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
And you said specifically that we were talking about blitzing situations, multiple times. You even conceded to that earlier. Don’t attempt to move the goal posts now.

You’re biggest issue is that you earlier tried to refer to Gass who is a Jack/Leo as “technically a WILL.” Terminology is the problem. Yes, a Jack linebacker is often a weak side linebacker, but he is not a WILL. WILL refers to ONE specific position. Same for SAM. “Weak side linebacker” can refer to any linebacker lined up on the weak side, which is often the WILL AND Jack.

Not all over the place, I’m spot on.
 
#70
#70
csheaton said:
And you said specifically that we were talking about blitzing situations, multiple times. You even conceded to that earlier. Don’t attempt to move the goal posts now.

You’re biggest issue is that you earlier tried to refer to Gass who is a Jack/Leo as “technically a WILL.” Terminology is the problem. Yes, a Jack linebacker is often a weak side linebacker, but he is not a WILL. WILL refers to ONE specific position. Same for SAM. “Weak side linebacker” can refer to any linebacker lined up on the weak side, which is often the WILL AND Jack.

Not all over the place, I’m spot on.
Click to expand...
No, I said they could blitz him from the Will position. Makes sense if he’s 220, but you say he’s 240… good on you for keeping up with their physical progress. At 240 he should have the versatility to rush or set the edge from Leo, Jack, Will— whatever.

Where I took exception with what you said is you made it sound like schematically it’s impossible to blitz a Will, or philosophically he ceases to be a Will if he walks up or blitzes.

Will refers to one specific position but what I’m trying to tell you is his title doesn’t change if he moves from his natural position or his natural role.

Gass lines up as a Jack, and due to a coverage gap has to drop into flat coverage… what is he then? What does this assignment dictate his title to be?
 
#71
#71
Oldvoldad said:
I don't know anything about the kid, his family, his health, or anything for that matter.

But here is what I do know. You can't be an effective, consistent part of any sport at the collegiate level if you are not 100% in.

And for whatever reason, this kid isn't.
Click to expand...
I never disagreed. I did, however, say, from what I know, he is not a thug. This is NOT a Boo Carter situation
 
#72
#72
benholt06 said:
No, I said they could blitz him from the Will position. Makes sense if he’s 220, but you say he’s 240… good on you for keeping up with their physical progress. At 240 he should have the versatility to rush or set the edge from Leo, Jack, Will— whatever.

Where I took exception with what you said is you made it sound like schematically it’s impossible to blitz a Will, or philosophically he ceases to be a Will if he walks up or blitzes.

Will refers to one specific position but what I’m trying to tell you is his title doesn’t change if he moves from his natural position or his natural role.

Gass lines up as a Jack, and due to a coverage gap has to drop into flat coverage… what is he then? What does this assignment dictate his title to be?
Click to expand...
Your first paragraph makes sense, and is correct. After that you’ve lost me.

I never once said it is “schematically impossible to blitz a WILL” that’s just something you’ve made up. Obviously WILLS and SAMS blitz all the time.

I said verbatim, a Jack LB/LEO/WDE (which is what Gass is) will never ever blitz in the WILL role. You stated that Gass could line up in the WILL role in blitz situations in your original post. That statement was fundamentally wrong. The end. No big deal.
 
#73
#73
csheaton said:
Your first paragraph makes sense, and is correct. After that you’ve lost me.

I never once said it is “schematically impossible to blitz a WILL” that’s just something you’ve made up. Obviously WILLS and SAMS blitz all the time.

I said verbatim, a Jack LB/LEO/WDE (which is what Gass is) will never ever blitz in the WILL role. You stated that Gass could line up in the WILL role in blitz situations in your original post. That statement was fundamentally wrong. The end. No big deal.
Click to expand...
So you’re still saying it’s theoretically impossible for Gass to line up as a Will and blitz. I have no idea why that would be the case.

If you’re making a prediction— fine. I wasn’t. I was simply talking about the versatility of the scheme.
 
#74
#74

Attachments

  • IMG_5468.jpeg
    IMG_5468.jpeg
    70.4 KB · Views: 1
  • IMG_5470.jpeg
    IMG_5470.jpeg
    60 KB · Views: 1
  • IMG_5469.jpeg
    IMG_5469.jpeg
    142.4 KB · Views: 1
  • IMG_5471.jpeg
    IMG_5471.jpeg
    57.9 KB · Views: 1
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top