• The KillerFrogs

Deryck Gildon not back

Planks

Planks

Active Member
Mistletoad said:
So what you're saying is, that Hasley has a 4.5 40. McFarland(4.6 with size) was the 36th ranked player at LB in the Country out of HS. Sure his speed was taken into consideration in that evaluation and sure he could handle that position and responsibility as well as any walk on.

Most on this site have voiced concern about the lack of size at LB on our roster. Again... if the concern at LB is greater than DE, by the staff... then there is a very logical and serious option they could go to.

Cheers !
Click to expand...

40 time is not an all encompassing metric of athleticism. Casey Pachall ran a 4.6. He is by no means athletic. Jeremy Kerley ran a 4.6. He is extremely athletic. How many times have you seen a linebacker run in a straight line for 40 yards in a game? I'd venture to say shuttle time is a better metric for linebacker athleticism, since actually encompasses lateral movement.

With that being said, I'm not sure Hasley could run circle around anyone. No way he tuns a 4.5 at his current size. Probably a 4.7/4.8 guy. McFarland very well be more athletic than Hasley, but that doesn't mean he is athletic enough to play LB in a Gary Patterson defense. There is a reason McFarland was moves from LB to DE. And with the loss of Maponga, we need McFarland at DE. Plus, DE is a way more important position than LB, check NFL salaries.
 
A

asleep003

Active Member
Planks said:
40 time is not an all encompassing metric of athleticism. Casey Pachall ran a 4.6. He is by no means athletic. Jeremy Kerley ran a 4.6. He is extremely athletic. How many times have you seen a linebacker run in a straight line for 40 yards in a game? I'd venture to say shuttle time is a better metric for linebacker athleticism, since actually encompasses lateral movement.

With that being said, I'm not sure Hasley could run circle around anyone. No way he tuns a 4.5 at his current size. Probably a 4.7/4.8 guy. McFarland very well be more athletic than Hasley, but that doesn't mean he is athletic enough to play LB in a Gary Patterson defense. There is a reason McFarland was moves from LB to DE. And with the loss of Maponga, we need McFarland at DE. Plus, DE is a way more important position than LB, check NFL salaries.
Click to expand...

Agree with some of your points, however....

a) Pachall came to us at 189 lbs/a 4.65 40 and even looked quite athletic(much more than Andy) as a RFr at 208lbs. But at 226 his So/Jr years, will agree, he was definately not very athletic.

b) GP is known for moving Safeties to LBs, LBs to DEs and DEs to DTs to gain a speed advantage... so the move to DE most likely wasn't an indictment on McFarlands LB skills/talent.

c) Again, It's just a consideration that the staff could option to, based on LB to DE need.... Just a site brainstorm/not a recommendation.

Cheers !
 
L

LazyToadCA

New Member
Mistletoad said:
Mostly to assure those who I disagree with, not to take any of it too serious ... that it's all in good
fun... or sometimes, to annoy those that pickup a resentment at the drop of a hat.

Cheers !
Click to expand...

Saying "cheers" at the end of an email is quite common in the UK. It is simply considered a friendly salutation, and very non offensive to even the most negative people. Is effective every where on the planet except TCU fan forums.
 
A

asleep003

Active Member
LazyToadCA said:
Saying "cheers" at the end of an email is quite common in the UK. It is simply considered a friendly salutation, and very non offensive to even the most negative people. Is effective every where on the planet except TCU fan forums.
Click to expand...

Lived in Singapore(a British Commonwealth) for 10 years. Kind of a 4 letter word, plus 2, to some on this board.

Cheers !
 
T

tetonfrog

Active Member
Right now, we have depth issues at DE and LB. MacFarland stays at DE, then we need a LB bad. If we move him to LB, who plays DE? It's a double-edged sword for us. It will probably be decided after recruiting is over.
 

Latest posts

Top