Against the run, for sure. But we know next to nothing regarding his coverage skills, which are a big part of OLB.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Kale Edwards in the Portal
- Thread starter PDXGrizzly
- Start date
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
I asked another LB how he thought Edwards would do at LB, and he said he didn't know. I'm impressed that so many posters know, and also know he'd be a good outside backer in the NFL.
I don't know much about Edwards and the advice he was or wasn't given about whether he should stay or go or about what his 'ideal' position is. Nor do I know about the conversations the staff had with Edwards about position and role within the program or about his future asperations as a FB player or in an academic career.
I can tell you from a long time coach the defensive side of the football, that scheme fits are a bit blown out of proportion when colleges recruit at the high school level. To the same degree that is true of transitions between the college and the NFL. Does it help players transition if they played in a certain scheme? Absolutely. Would certain schemes high light certain skill sets? Absolutely. The NFL is chalk full of players on the defensive side of the ball that would be considered to be out of position in relationship to what they played in college. Could have the UM retained his services if they'd played him at rush LB and not DE in a 30 front that commonly asked him to play as a 4-3 DE? I don't know. Was he miscast at a DE when he was really Travis Kelce as a TE? Really can't prognosticate that either.
Playing in a 3-4, 4-3 is a difference of schematic tactics but it isn't some sort of absolutist system about how you deploy personnel or skill sets. Most college programs are hardly static in the DL deployment these days, and I think it leans on a bit of a myth that from my perspective that I'd love were purged from our consciousness. UM probably used two dozen different front alignments last year mixing personnel w/ alignment. That put Edwards mostly on the edge or inside shade of the OT quite similar to that of a 4-3. Does the 3-3 deny certain amount counting stats for DL that he might get more access in a 4-3 or 3-4? Maybe, but it sure appeared that the staff were pretty good about taking advantage of his skill sets on the edge last year and allowed him to show out.
Colleges are smart to recruit guys that have multiple homes. Edwards probably could have been a good player at TE, OLB, DE or wherever you put him. Now at the UM did were his services best utilized at DE? I think it was. If it didn't match with the advice or perception of where he wanted to play, it wasn't necessarily about him being DE in a 4-3 or a rush backer in a 3-4, it wasn't a fit for Edwards and not necessarily a failure of the staff to maximize his talent.
If Edwards was or is looking for exposure that is a double-edged sword. He could just as easily transfer to a Group of 5 or Power 5 school and sit. I don't think that is going to be the case, but unless you show out it isn't necessarily going to improve your stock merely because you are at BSU or Washington.
Regardless, I do wish him the best. I think he's going to garner significant interest because of his freak athlete skill set.
I can tell you from a long time coach the defensive side of the football, that scheme fits are a bit blown out of proportion when colleges recruit at the high school level. To the same degree that is true of transitions between the college and the NFL. Does it help players transition if they played in a certain scheme? Absolutely. Would certain schemes high light certain skill sets? Absolutely. The NFL is chalk full of players on the defensive side of the ball that would be considered to be out of position in relationship to what they played in college. Could have the UM retained his services if they'd played him at rush LB and not DE in a 30 front that commonly asked him to play as a 4-3 DE? I don't know. Was he miscast at a DE when he was really Travis Kelce as a TE? Really can't prognosticate that either.
Playing in a 3-4, 4-3 is a difference of schematic tactics but it isn't some sort of absolutist system about how you deploy personnel or skill sets. Most college programs are hardly static in the DL deployment these days, and I think it leans on a bit of a myth that from my perspective that I'd love were purged from our consciousness. UM probably used two dozen different front alignments last year mixing personnel w/ alignment. That put Edwards mostly on the edge or inside shade of the OT quite similar to that of a 4-3. Does the 3-3 deny certain amount counting stats for DL that he might get more access in a 4-3 or 3-4? Maybe, but it sure appeared that the staff were pretty good about taking advantage of his skill sets on the edge last year and allowed him to show out.
Colleges are smart to recruit guys that have multiple homes. Edwards probably could have been a good player at TE, OLB, DE or wherever you put him. Now at the UM did were his services best utilized at DE? I think it was. If it didn't match with the advice or perception of where he wanted to play, it wasn't necessarily about him being DE in a 4-3 or a rush backer in a 3-4, it wasn't a fit for Edwards and not necessarily a failure of the staff to maximize his talent.
If Edwards was or is looking for exposure that is a double-edged sword. He could just as easily transfer to a Group of 5 or Power 5 school and sit. I don't think that is going to be the case, but unless you show out it isn't necessarily going to improve your stock merely because you are at BSU or Washington.
Regardless, I do wish him the best. I think he's going to garner significant interest because of his freak athlete skill set.
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
Mods - is there a way that these 2 separate threads can be combined?
horribilisfan8184
Well-known member
Isn't this the first year after all post-covid, additional year players, have used up eligibility so that there are more schollies to offer?
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
You said there are a lot of things that you don't know. I know even less. Thanks for the post.
Merged the two threads together. No need for two.
thirdandlong
Well-known member
I used to be an exec with an ophthalmic surgery company based in Huntington (in the early 1980s). The company name was CILCO, and they were bought by Alcon. I think they still manufacture intraocular lenses there in Huntington.
thirdandlong
Well-known member
If you don't, they'll go somewhere where they will........
I wonder how far away we are from schools trading players?
grizzlygrumpa
Well-known member
He sealed the win against idaho with tackle fumble recovery as they were driving
I don’t believe anyone has said they KNOW how he’d do. I’ve personally said how I THINK he’d do…just an uneducated opinion from someone who never played the game past 9th grade.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
Why would a fan know more than a player who played D with him?
Ut-Grizfan
Well-known member
2 FBS offers so far (Marshall and Buffalo), I don't see him taking an offer to another FCS school at least initially. Maybe he's holding out hope for a MWC team?
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
This is a fairly strong statement: “He’s a natural OLB at the NFL.”
There’s no “think” in that sentence.
SinCityGriz2005
Well-known member
It's not a bad place, reminds me a lot of Missoula, minus actual mountains and water that isn't mud.
SinCityGriz2005
Well-known member
anything past Columbus, Ohio... Man I'd rather live in Butte or Great Falls than anything in north Ohio.
SinCityGriz2005
Well-known member
He would be better off going to Buffalo than Marshall. He will be one of fifteen LB's at Marshall, if that's where Huff plays him. Huff is a different animal. He will tell players anything to get them to Huntington.
Buffalo lost a couple of LB's to the portal.
Buffalo lost a couple of LB's to the portal.