ADVERTISEMENT

Three Biggest Area's For Development: Kicking/QB/Interior D-Line . . . .

The-Hack

All-American
Oct 1, 2016
22,725
39,114
113
We have repeated posts saying we return 10 of 11 on defense, and while that is technically true, with only Love departing, it kind of ignores the turnover at NT. We lose two guys who ended up not starting the last few games, and add a big body or two into the mix.

Obviously, replacing Johnson is huge. Not the flashiest player in program history, but he could produce some timely plays when needed . . . . scoring critical TD's, or clutch throws late in the game in at least 6 of his 24 games played.

We will have to replace our best FG kicker and one of our better punters.

For me, the optimism (or lack thereof) will come down to the QB position, NT, and the kickers.

All our returnees are significant, in that we need not focus on replacing their production, and can focus on the three most obvious losses from the last two seasons.

And frankly, most any season's hopes and dreams could be closely attached to the QB, the kicking game, and the interior defensive line.

If we have recruited or developed a difference maker on the interior of the defense, we could be a force on defense, next year, as the periphery of our defense is all returning experience and relative quality.
 
And frankly, most any season's hopes and dreams could be closely attached to the QB, the kicking game, and the interior defensive line.

That is it in a nutshell - IF we get improved play at QB, and IF our front line improves substantially, we can have a really good season. Otherwise, we have topped out 7 wins, and may struggle to get six next year without QB and DL improving.
 
Not many bigger fans of Stephen Johnson than I...but to be honest..his season was really bad QB after the Ole Miss game. I'm hoping that it won't be a huge accomplishment for Wilson/Hoak/Clark to match the overall QB production we got.

Johnson was really good at not turning it over but his passing was just not good enough to be a massive downgrade in QB production as the final numbers were....but SJ was timely at end of games but I hope more consistent QB play will not lead to so many end of game drives to win/lose games.
 
IMO, replacing our kicker is the biggest concern. I believe, with experience, our next qb will be as effective as Johnson. Our defense, with most returners, should be better with experience. We've had an ace in the hole with our kicker. It's comforting to know we will likely get at least 3 whenever we get within the 35.
 
My biggest, and I think most important concern is points scored per game...need to be at or above the 30 pt plateau
Those that hold the ancient line of "Defense wins championships" need to look at this year's play-off. We know both Bama and Ga had great defenses. The clear difference was which offense was potent enough to put more points on the board..I'd say, the Bama/UGA game illustrated the FACT that it now takes strong offense to win at a high level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sluggercatfan
Those that hold the ancient line of "Defense wins championships" need to look at this year's play-off. We know both Bama and Ga had great defenses. The clear difference was which offense was potent enough to put more points on the board..I'd say, the Bama/UGA game illustrated the FACT that it now takes strong offense to win at a high level.
Everyone agrees that the team that scores the most points wins every game. But it is defense that makes that possible. How did Alabama and Georgia get to the championship game? Here's how. Alabama led the nation in defense and Georgia was 6th. The big scoring machines are exciting to watch when they have the ball, but they always end up losing the big games when they face a smothering D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The-Hack
Everyone agrees that the team that scores the most points wins every game. But it is defense that makes that possible. How did Alabama and Georgia get to the championship game? Here's how. Alabama led the nation in defense and Georgia was 6th. The big scoring machines are exciting to watch when they have the ball, but they always end up losing the big games when they face a smothering D.
Big scoring machines...Ga. scored 35.5ppg...Ala. 37ppg. Where would UK have been scoring at these clips? Have you checked the scores from the last two championship games?
 
  • Like
Reactions: crestcat
Everyone agrees that the team that scores the most points wins every game. But it is defense that makes that possible. How did Alabama and Georgia get to the championship game? Here's how. Alabama led the nation in defense and Georgia was 6th. The big scoring machines are exciting to watch when they have the ball, but they always end up losing the big games when they face a smothering D.



I understand what you say, but the reality is simple: Both UGA and Bama had talented, and for all intents and purposes, equal defenses. The clear difference was offensive.

The team that puts most points on the board wins the game. The recipe for winning in college Football is to have a decent defense and a very strong offense.
 
I understand what you say, but the reality is simple: Both UGA and Bama had talented, and for all intents and purposes, equal defenses. The clear difference was offensive.

The team that puts most points on the board wins the game. The recipe for winning in college Football is to have a decent defense and a very strong offense.
:football::football::okay::clap::clap:[thumb2]
 
I understand what you say, but the reality is simple: Both UGA and Bama had talented, and for all intents and purposes, equal defenses. The clear difference was offensive.

The team that puts most points on the board wins the game. The recipe for winning in college Football is to have a decent defense and a very strong offense.
Yes, and I understand what you are saying. But I could just as easily make the argument that it was the defense that win that game. It was the UGA defense that gave up the final TD. The AL defense held Georgia to a FG. The two offenses were within 2 yards difference in total yardage for the game, but the Georgia D failed; the Alabama D succeeded in the OT.
 
Everyone agrees that the team that scores the most points wins every game. But it is defense that makes that possible. How did Alabama and Georgia get to the championship game? Here's how. Alabama led the nation in defense and Georgia was 6th. The big scoring machines are exciting to watch when they have the ball, but they always end up losing the big games when they face a smothering D.
How did Ala/ Ga get to the championship game: Ga. 52. Okl 48...Ala 24 Clemson 6...2015 NC score osu 42..Oregon 20
2016 NC score..Ala 45 ..Clemson 40
2017 NC score..Clemson 35. Ala 31
 
  • Like
Reactions: RonEJones
Those that hold the ancient line of "Defense wins championships" need to look at this year's play-off. We know both Bama and Ga had great defenses. The clear difference was which offense was potent enough to put more points on the board..I'd say, the Bama/UGA game illustrated the FACT that it now takes strong offense to win at a high level.

You're using a game that ended 20-20 in regulation with the winning team having <100 yards of offense in the first half as PROOF that a 'strong offense' is needed to win big? Think you had the answer in mind before you asked the question. Did offense win the Clemson game for Bama? Of course, you have to score points to win but Bama's defense, when healthy, was very, very good and won games almost without much of an offense. Let's look at Bama's offense: run, run, run and (at least with Hurts) a very mediocre passing attack. That's your proof?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jauk11
How did Ala/ Ga get to the championship game: Ga. 52. Okl 48...Ala 24 Clemson 6...2015 NC score osu 42..Oregon 20
2016 NC score..Ala 45 ..Clemson 40
2017 NC score..Clemson 35. Ala 31
I'm not really disagreeing all that much with you. But I believe we have to have a big, big improvement on the defense if we are to get to the next level. For the offense to put up good numbers it has to get more possessions. When your defense keeps giving up long scoring drives it diminishes the opportunities for the offense. If the D keeps giving up points, the O has less room for failure. Yes, we need better production on offense, especially in the passing game, but it won't win games unless our defense improves considerably.
 
I'm not really disagreeing all that much with you. But I believe we have to have a big, big improvement on the defense if we are to get to the next level. For the offense to put up good numbers it has to get more possessions. When your defense keeps giving up long scoring drives it diminishes the opportunities for the offense. If the D keeps giving up points, the O has less room for failure. Yes, we need better production on offense, especially in the passing game, but it won't win games unless our defense improves considerably.
Have a bigger offense which equals more top, first downs , moving chains and your defense isn't on the field as much. Yes, you are right when U6 didn't even need to bring a punter to the game you surely need a better defense, but when your offense scores 17 against a team that had a defense that gave up 30+ points to 8 different teams that is pathetic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ky grandpa
Yes, and I understand what you are saying. But I could just as easily make the argument that it was the defense that win that game. It was the UGA defense that gave up the final TD. The AL defense held Georgia to a FG. The two offenses were within 2 yards difference in total yardage for the game, but the Georgia D failed; the Alabama D succeeded in the OT.
I understand. So could we agree that is as important to have a good offense as it is to have a good defense?
 
I would rather have 2 linbackers at Mike and Will who get downhill and fill. The DL is serviceable, the ILB were poor to dismal.


First person I've heard say the defensive line was serviceable. Poor ILBs played with tackles and guards hanging all over them like ornaments on the Christmas tree all season. Who knows how good they might have been with some help up front.
 
You're using a game that ended 20-20 in regulation with the winning team having <100 yards of offense in the first half as PROOF that a 'strong offense' is needed to win big? Think you had the answer in mind before you asked the question. Did offense win the Clemson game for Bama? Of course, you have to score points to win but Bama's defense, when healthy, was very, very good and won games almost without much of an offense. Let's look at Bama's offense: run, run, run and (at least with Hurts) a very mediocre passing attack. That's your proof?
I'm using that game as proof that it was the offense that made the difference. Yes, having fewer than 100 yards offense in the first half vs what they did in the second half shows what happens when you don't have a strong offense to go with your strong defense. They won the game because they added offense in the second half. UGA and Bama's defenses were about equal. No one can deny that both are among the best in the country. It was Bama's offense in the second half that made the difference. It is quite possible that had Saban benched Hurts in the first quarter, it wouldn't have been close.

Yes, I did have an answer in mind before asking the question. My answer is that offense is just as if not more important than having a good defense. For those that say defense wins, if you can't score you can't win either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sluggercatfan
Not many bigger fans of Stephen Johnson than I...but to be honest..his season was really bad QB after the Ole Miss game. I'm hoping that it won't be a huge accomplishment for Wilson/Hoak/Clark to match the overall QB production we got.

Johnson was really good at not turning it over but his passing was just not good enough to be a massive downgrade in QB production as the final numbers were....but SJ was timely at end of games but I hope more consistent QB play will not lead to so many end of game drives to win/lose games.
Agree,someone will have to step forward.I am surprised/disappointed/confused(or something) that Hoak wasn't able to overtake Barker as the #2 guy at some point last season. Maybe it was loyalty to Barker.

One has to wonder if the urgency to find a Stephen Johnson 2.0 was because they want to continue playing that style or a lack of confidence by the staff on who was still on hand.

Hoak should get a fair shot at wining the job,he has been around a long time and should understand what Gran wants and really understand what he is saying.
 
We have repeated posts saying we return 10 of 11 on defense, and while that is technically true, with only Love departing, it kind of ignores the turnover at NT. We lose two guys who ended up not starting the last few games, and add a big body or two into the mix.

Obviously, replacing Johnson is huge. Not the flashiest player in program history, but he could produce some timely plays when needed . . . . scoring critical TD's, or clutch throws late in the game in at least 6 of his 24 games played.

We will have to replace our best FG kicker and one of our better punters.

For me, the optimism (or lack thereof) will come down to the QB position, NT, and the kickers.

All our returnees are significant, in that we need not focus on replacing their production, and can focus on the three most obvious losses from the last two seasons.

And frankly, most any season's hopes and dreams could be closely attached to the QB, the kicking game, and the interior defensive line.

If we have recruited or developed a difference maker on the interior of the defense, we could be a force on defense, next year, as the periphery of our defense is all returning experience and relative quality.

Good post. The loss of Austin M at kicker is huge. I can safely say, we would have lost a few more games over his career had he not been a Wildcat. Hopefully, next man up is really good. Huge shoes to fill and points we absolutely must have.
 
I don’t disagree with Hack’s OP, but note that in years past, you could not start a thread like this without mentioning needs at OT. While we lose Meadows, it appears people recognize that Big George, Watkins, Young and EJ make the position, in the least, stable and, for most, hopeful. That is huge, especially when you consider the fact that Young will be a junior, EJ a soph, and Watkins a frosh. The OLine needs to continue to improve and will hopefully demonstrate the depth we witnessed two years ago, but is not a problem area going into the spring. That is a somewhat new experience for us.

Now, DT/NT has been a turnstile since Stoops arrived. We can develop one person, but getting quality depth as been hard. I think we have players on the squad who can provide depth, if they develop. So, there is a measure of hope there.

Whenever you lose a good kicker or punter, it is likely to be a crapshoot next season. While it appears the staff has recruited well, you never know until the leg hits the field. That leg is attached neurally to a brain and whether that brain is prepared for the rigors of college cannot be known until it swings in a game. And, there is just so much more for kickers and punters to realize and understand at the college level that being a success in high school is not enough of a predictor. Kickers change tees, balls, goal posts and punters have to deal with shorter durations of time to act. Both have to consider the speed of the game and placement in ways they may have never considered before, except at a kicking camp.

As for QB, fans can speculate out their nose hairs and we just don’t know until we know. Hoak evidently is cerebral enough and can adequately make the throws, but may lack the vocal ability to lead. Wilson comes in impressively and seems off the field to be what we want, but until he reads and reacts, and demonstrates he can throw to the right spots, he cannot be compared to anyone successful. And, Clark seems to have a cannon by reputation and is a good excited teammate, but can he handle the wheel of an SEC offense?

The QB position alone makes the prices of the ticket for the spring game feel like it is totally free!
 
Last edited:
The OLine needs to continue to improve and will hopefully demonstrate the depth we witnessed two years ago, but is not a problem area going into the spring. That is a somewhat new experience for us.

In many seasons, we'd be praying for distinct improvement at all but one or two spots on the field.

I think we have recruited and developed SEC depth and quality at LB, Safety, Corner, DE, TE and the entire O-line. Those are more positions than I would have thought we had adequately filled the vast majority of seasons we've entered, the shortcomings being periodically masked (somewhat) by overwhelming QB play by the likes of Coach, Lorenzen, Woodson and even Hartline/Cobb.

I'm not predicting a 9 win season (yet), but if we do get there, karma would seem to require that we do so with a mediocre "game-manager" at QB, and most of the rest of the positions manned adequately . . . . in other words, we would have then become LSU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caveman Catfan
Our defense, with most returners, should be better with experience. We've had an ace in the hole with our kicker. It's comforting to know we will likely get at least 3 whenever we get within the 35.
I don't expect experience to help guys playing their 3rd year & starting their 2nd. Their natural talent long ago should have out-shone experience already.
 
I don't expect experience to help guys playing their 3rd year & starting their 2nd. Their natural talent long ago should have out-shone experience already.

That's how they were able to get on the field so early, they were more talented than their older competition. As this program matures there will be fewer and fewer three and four year starters as we look to more Juniors and Seniors.

Amazingly this upcoming team is flush with Juniors and Seniors.
 
I don’t disagree with Hack’s OP, but note that in years past, you could not start a thread like this without mentioning needs at OT. While we lose Meadows, it appears people recognize that Big George, Watkins, Young and EJ make the position, in the least, stable and, for most, hopeful. ...

Dotson
 
I don't expect experience to help guys playing their 3rd year & starting their 2nd. Their natural talent long ago should have out-shone experience already.

Looking at long-term program history, there have been too many players who positively shone in their third year, versus their first and second for me to buy the notion that "experience" doesn't count for much.

Look at Dewayne Robertson's third year. Yes, he was good the first two, but he took over a couple of games his third season, and made a top draft choice, because of it.

Also, look at Myron Pryor. His first two seasons, he struggled with hyperventilation, frequently pulling himself out of games early. In his last season, he had U of L hyperventilating, trying to catch him on a 60 (+) yard fumble return, along with tackles for loss, etc

I think the observation is especially true for defense. Offensive players have memorized "by rote" where they are supposed to be going on all plays. Defensive players have to choose angles and their best routes to get from point A to point B. Repeated lessons learned over years are bound to have an accumulative effect for such players.

Take as an example Darius West. He got caught shallow and out of position several times, especially against Mizzou. I bet he looks much more polished, next season.
 
That's how they were able to get on the field so early, they were more talented than their older competition. As this program matures there will be fewer and fewer three and four year starters as we look to more Juniors and Seniors.
That they've already played so much is why I don't expect much improvement. The experience factor has already happened.

I think our talent level is on even keel through the classes now - at a higher level than 4 years ago but not stellar. But that leveling does mean fewer young guys playing early. If talent was still improving, then many young guys would still be replacing veterans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RonEJones
Looking at long-term program history, there have been too many players who positively shone in their third year, versus their first and second for me to buy the notion that "experience" doesn't count for much.

Look at Dewayne Robertson's third year. Yes, he was good the first two, but he took over a couple of games his third season, and made a top draft choice, because of it.

Also, look at Myron Pryor. His first two seasons, he struggled with hyperventilation, frequently pulling himself out of games early. In his last season, he had U of L hyperventilating, trying to catch him on a 60 (+) yard fumble return, along with tackles for loss, etc

I think the observation is especially true for defense. Offensive players have memorized "by rote" where they are supposed to be going on all plays. Defensive players have to choose angles and their best routes to get from point A to point B. Repeated lessons learned over years are bound to have an accumulative effect for such players.

Take as an example Darius West. He got caught shallow and out of position several times, especially against Mizzou. I bet he looks much more polished, next season.
Hack: You note 2 players in the last fifteen years. You intend to make a case on that? The other thing is they were more physically mature in those 3rd years. How do you know it wasn't that that worked in their favor over experience? We'll have to see on West. I can tell you I don't see Jordan Jones getting one bit smarter.
 
I can tell you I don't see Jordan Jones getting one bit smarter.

Such an odd comment. In my experience, people who cannot imagine others improving, especially young people, don’t make very good leaders. I doubt Jones has capped his potential as a football player. In fact, he is so physically and instinctually gifted, should the mental switch be thrown, he could be exceptional. As an impulsive young man, I suspect he has greater potential than you are able to perceive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The-Hack and jauk11
To win at the highest level you need both a very strong defense and a very good offense. Being strong on only one side of the ball can and will win you games, but to win at the highest level you better have both. Great teams however build a great defense first and foremost. If you can’t stop people it’s very difficult to outscore teams that actually do have great defenses.
 
To win at the highest level you need both a very strong defense and a very good offense. Being strong on only one side of the ball can and will win you games, but to win at the highest level you better have both. Great teams however build a great defense first and foremost. If you can’t stop people it’s very difficult to outscore teams that actually do have great defenses.
I'll take the opposite...ALL the best teams today have high scoring offenses...we are in year six of a new staff , which one do we even come close to having?
 
ADVERTISEMENT