'26 Florida Transfer EDGE Brien Taylor

#102
#102
OrangeFluff said:
It depends on the individual and their strength. Owen Williams was 6-2, 290 and an absolute nightmare to push around when he was at Tennessee, but also still retained the athleticism to make impacts against the pass. I'd have to find the clip again, but there is one last year of Xavier Gilliam refusing to get moved out of the hole by a double team causing the play to be blown up. Absolutely, bulk can help, but leverage, strength, and technique are arguably more important, especially with teams passing more and more each year. Having guys who are 290-310 and able to play well against both the run and pass is what you're really hoping for in a lot of instances.

However, we can want all the fat boys we want in the middle of the line, but there never was a ton of them in the portal and the pickings are getting slimmer. Best bet now is to either develop what you have or try to rush development of the two bigger bodied freshmen coming in (Nuk Simmons at 6-3, 320 and Dereon Albert at 6-1, 300). There's not enough guaranteed impact in the portal today. Maybe in the coming days after Indiana and Miami play tomorrow with their portal window.
Click to expand...
I get your point. I think Gilliam is a good pickup. Personally, I'd like to have have as weakside DT and a bigger guy at NT. And then a tweener at SDE (Bailey was way too slow against mobile QBs) and then super athletic guy at LEO. We need to have multiple guys who can hold up to double teams though. Just gets old watching us get gashed for 7 or 8 yards a pop straight up the gut.
 
#103
#103
CAVPUT said:
So he prefers guys who are mobile, run themselves out of position and open up running lanes for RBs and mobile QBs like Pavia ? Good to know.
Click to expand...
You should talk to him. I bet he'd listen to you, given that your well-earned reputation as an expert in defensive line play vastly exceeds that of Rodney Garner.

It's too bad we can't find a legitimate defensive line coach who understands the type of defensive lineman Tennessee needs and how to coach him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volinnooga, SoilVol, Sasquatch_ and 1 other person
#104
#104
Vol865 said:
I get your point. I think Gilliam is a good pickup. Personally, I'd like to have have as weakside DT and a bigger guy at NT. And then a tweener at SDE (Bailey was way too slow against mobile QBs) and then super athletic guy at LEO. We need to have multiple guys who can hold up to double teams though. Just gets old watching us get gashed for 7 or 8 yards a pop straight up the gut.
Click to expand...
I agree. Getting beat through the air is frustrating, but at least you get the ball back quicker. Getting hammered on the ground is death by a thousand cuts, just watching the clock tick down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OptimusPrimerib, Go Fight Win and Vol865
#106
#106
I don't want to see anyone on the edge that can't contain, I'm damn tired of the guy looping between the guard and tackle and the running back running around that end with a 15yard wide hole. I want the DT's to stay in their lanes and play run first, then rush, it's like our Dline had 4 edge rushers doing everything they could to get to the QB and damn the run. We need to take away the run and make teams one dimensional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paper_Towel, OptimusPrimerib, 625 Gibbs Hall and 2 others
#115
#115
JT3 said:
Precedence has been established with JUCO years not counting towards eligibility with guys like with Pavia and Kitselman so you would assume he would win an injunction to play next year.
Click to expand...
To be clear, no final rulings have been made or precedent set. The NCAA granted a one year blanket waiver in response to an emergency injunction being granted to a single player so that the NCAA lawyers didn't have to one-by-one combat each individual injunction request last year. No such waiver is in place and the prior injunction no longer applies. Every injunction request is considered independently. You can perhaps attempt to look for a trend in the judge's decision, but his ruling was on a singular legal filing, not on the case regarding the standing NCAA rules. Taylor isn't even functionally part of the Pavia suit that Aguilar and other joined at this point. He's seemingly betting on the NCAA granting an additional waiver if they win their suit or favorable wording if they change the redshirt rules. Adding Taylor before a ruling would be gambling on the same.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NighthawkVol
#116
#116
OrangeFluff said:
To be clear, no final rulings have been made or precedent set. The NCAA granted a one year blanket waiver in response to an emergency injunction being granted to a single player so that the NCAA lawyers didn't have to one-by-one combat each individual injunction request last year. No such waiver is in place and the prior injunction no longer applies. Every injunction request is considered independently. You can perhaps attempt to look for a trend in the judge's decision, but his ruling was on a singular legal filing, not on the case regarding the standing NCAA rules. Taylor isn't even functionally part of the Pavia suit that Aguilar and other joined at this point. He's seemingly betting on the NCAA granting an additional waiver if they win their suit or favorable wording if they change the redshirt rules. Adding Taylor before a ruling would be gambling on the same.
Click to expand...
To provide some context on why this can't be regarded as a slam dunk, look to Tennessee's would-be baseball player Alberto Osuna. He was not covered by the NCAA blanket waiver granted JUCO athletes an additional year of competition for the 2025-26 athletic year as he sought to play in the 2024-25 athletic year. As such, he had to file a separate suit heard by a different judge. That judge determined he didn't qualify for one of the two thresholds that must be met for immediately injunctive relief. Those thresholds are a high probability, in the judge's estimation, of winning their case and irreparable harm caused by not being granted immediate relief.

One reason a ruling on a further injunction is taking so long right now is that there are several more plaintiffs in the case, and all are seeking said relief. Their individual lawyers have to provide requested documents, and the judge then needs to go through the 27 different filings and documents. It's not even a given that the judge will rule the same on all requests for relief, so the NCAA is fighting a further injunction at this point. While this is before the same judge that ruled on the Pavia injunction, he has to consider each plaintiff individually based on the two requirements that must be met.

It's messy and not a great bet, so for Tennessee at this point it makes sense to talk to and establish that relationship with Taylor as well as to keep Aguilar in the fold, but they can't make them key parts of their future plans until the court makes a decision and the NCAA responds to the decision if the athletes win their injunction.
 
#117
#117
I went back and looked at this kid's game logs.

In 2024, he played in 9 games, which included a bowl game.

I wonder if the argument for another year is going to involve the new redshirt rule, which allows a player to maintain his redshirt while participating in up to 9 games. Perhaps his team is saying it should apply retroactively to current players' past seasons. If so, I think they may have a solid argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enki_Amenra, D-Vols, HeadVol77 and 1 other person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top