Any chance ND Switches from a 3-4 to a 4-3?

[Emcee77]

No? So you are buying the sick grandmother excuse? Facts:

1. EV was ADAMENT about not playing the 0-technique.
2. BK called him a NT during his NSD interview. The minute I heard this I thought either a.) the staff changed his mind or b.) he was duped.
3. EV would have been the clear successor to Nix in 2014.

Perhaps you aren't aware of what happens once a player has signed his LOI. The process of de-recruitment happens. After months of everyone telling these recruits how great they are, college coaches start to break them down. It's like the Army. They sign up and then get broken down. I believe the 'trust' that was lost between EV and the staff has everything to do with his future position. You don't have to agree with that, but come with something more intelligent than "Yeah...no".

Oh I really don't think so. We'll never know for sure, but Vanderdoes is like Day ... built like a NT but just freakishly athletic. He played LINEBACKER at times in his high school tape. He has that kind of range, footspeed and agility. I think he would have lined up at NT occasionally but I really don't think the staff would have used him primarily as a NT. I mean if I were coaching the team I certainly wouldn't have done that. I would have put Springmann at NT before Vanderdoes. I like Springmann as a Sean Cwynar type, if taller.

My comprehension of the paragraph I quoted was you were saying Jones, Rochell and Matuska were too tall to play NT. If that was not your point, then why list their name and height and hardly anything else to back up your stance that they couldn't be Nix's replacement? You insinuated that NTs can't be 6'5" or taller which is simply not true.

I agreed with TP's post because everyone seems so concerned about life post-Nix, but the reality is a.) Nix doesn't grow on trees, b.) the staff didn't plan on losing EV (which supports my argument that they planned on using him at NT and he wasn't happy about it) and c.) as long as the NT takes up two blockers, we win. I agreed with everything he said.

To answer your valid question (not my intention with my previous response), Day is the closest body type to I. Williams. We really don't have anyone else that is 6'2"-6'3" and 300lbs.

Cynwar was 6'4", 285-300 and we have a few of them. Jarron Jones (6'6", 300lbs), Springman (6'6", 300lbs) and Rochell (6'5", close to 300lbs by the time 2014 rolls around). I don't believe Matsuka will be moved inside and I am not relying on a true freshman (Hayes) in 2014, although I trust the staff will bring in someone closer to a true 0-tech that can contribute.

I actually think Matuska could be a NT in a few years, depending on what happens when Longo gets him. Admittedly it's unlikely considering how fast he is (watch his tape ... he gets behind the defense on a number of long bombs as a TE) and he might be wasted in the middle, but he certainly has the toughness -- his HS coach called him a "street fight football player", which reminds me of Cwynar. He could be another Kona Schwenke ... comes in light and fast, bulks up into a force in the middle. But this is kind of idle speculation; Matuska likely won't be able to bulk up enough by 2014.

 

[IrishLax]

No? So you are buying the sick grandmother excuse?

Why is this a binary? I was simply stating that you were wrong. Nothing else was implied in my statement.

Facts:

1. EV was ADAMENT about not playing the 0-technique.
2. BK called him a NT during his NSD interview. The minute I heard this I thought either a.) the staff changed his mind or b.) he was duped.
3. EV would have been the clear successor to Nix in 2014.

Perhaps you aren't aware of what happens once a player has signed his LOI. The process of de-recruitment happens. After months of everyone telling these recruits how great they are, college coaches start to break them down. It's like the Army. They sign up and then get broken down. I believe the 'trust' that was lost between EV and the staff has everything to do with his future position. You don't have to agree with that, but come with something more intelligent than "Yeah...no".

Pontificating at me about what happens after you sign a LOI, the "facts" of the EV situation, etc. is downright hilarious. And there is nothing "unintelligent" about succinctly stating that your theory is wrong. The fact that you think strictly worries over his potential position lead to this utter fiasco is the only thing unintelligent here. It was a very large combination of factors, and I obviously don't feel like getting into the EV situation in detail... or I would have made the first post more than 2 words.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I want a 6'2" NT as much as anyone, and have no idea why we've turned down any 3 or 4-star DE or DTs over the past 3 years with potential. I think we should recruit them all and we are in a bit of trouble at NT (although I think Jones ends up becoming the guy... I know).

HOWEVER, Alabama plays a 3-4, and their first draft day NT is generally listed between 6'3" and 6'4" and up to 6'5", depending on the source. BTW, he has a very weird build.

 

[NDWorld247]

Oh I really don't think so. We'll never know for sure, but Vanderdoes is like Day ... built like a NT but just freakishly athletic. He played LINEBACKER at times in his high school tape. He has that kind of range, footspeed and agility. I think he would have lined up at NT occasionally but I really don't think the staff would have used him primarily as a NT. I mean if I were coaching the team I certainly wouldn't have done that. I would have put Springmann at NT before Vanderdoes. I like Springmann as a Sean Cwynar type, if taller.

EV is a prototypical 0-tech. I agree he could've played all over the line, but the reason I brought him up in the first place is that he was the OBVIOUS best option at NT in 2014.

Why is this a binary? I was simply stating that you were wrong. Nothing else was implied in my statement.



Pontificating at me about what happens after you sign a LOI, the "facts" of the EV situation, etc. is downright hilarious. And there is nothing "unintelligent" about succinctly stating that your theory is wrong. The fact that you think strictly worries over his potential position lead to this utter fiasco is the only thing unintelligent here. It was a very large combination of factors, and I obviously don't feel like getting into the EV situation in detail... or I would have made the first post more than 2 words.

I can understand you not wanting to get into an EV discussion. I stayed away from the EV thread for the most part because the whole situation has been exhausting. But, for you to say I am wrong when, frankly, it is the only thing that makes sense, and not backing it up at all is laughable.

2:45 of the video below:

Reporter - What position is Notre Dame looking at you at?

EV - Umm, they're looking at me as a 5-technique. It's like a 5, 3, every now and again a 7, and then, maaaybe a 1, not really a 1, I asked them if I will play 1 and they said no.

There is another video out there where he is A-D-A-M-E-N-T about not playing the 0 or 1 technique. I remember watching it and thinking I don't want anyone on my team that is that adamant about not playing a position that best helps the team. $1M vBucks to anyone that can find it.



<object id="flashObj" width="480" height="270" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=2071367485001&playerID=2436801239001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAPLMIMAE~,kKetLjW2WxVXWpp0mM9RUhm5kMHfb4Eg&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=2071367485001&playerID=2436801239001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAPLMIMAE~,kKetLjW2WxVXWpp0mM9RUhm5kMHfb4Eg&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

 

[Emcee77]

EV is a prototypical 0-tech. I agree he could've played all over the line, but the reason I brought him up in the first place is that he was the OBVIOUS best option at NT in 2014.

I think that's only true if you look at each player in isolation. EV would have been our best NT in 2014, but he also probably would have been our best DE. It's actually much more important in our system to have great DEs who can be disruptive and make plays. As we've said numerous times in this thread, the NT really just has to two-gap. As long as he is doing that, other players are free to make plays. Why waste a guy with EV's athleticism doing that? We have other big lugs who can two-gap. I really don't think he would have been primarily a NT in 2014 ... he would have taken a turn there occasionally with Day and Springmann and others, but he would have moved around a lot.

And I am not convinced the staff ever told him otherwise. I don't think we can read too much into an off-hand comment Kelly made while addressing the media. The coaches repeatedly say that they don't get wrapped up in labels. They get annoyed when media insist on characterizing receivers as either X, W, Z or TE receivers, for example. They tend to think in terms of broad position groups or even athlete-type groups. If Kelly called EV a NT once ... not super significant.

 

[NDWorld247]

I think that's only true if you look at each player in isolation. EV would have been our best NT in 2014, but he also probably would have been our best DE. It's actually much more important in our system to have great DEs who can be disruptive and make plays. As we've said numerous times in this thread, the NT really just has to two-gap. As long as he is doing that, other players are free to make plays. Why waste a guy with EV's athleticism doing that? We have other big lugs who can two-gap. I really don't think he would have been primarily a NT in 2014 ... he would have taken a turn there occasionally with Day and Springmann and others, but he would have moved around a lot.

And I am not convinced the staff ever told him otherwise. I don't think we can read too much into an off-hand comment Kelly made while addressing the media. The coaches repeatedly say that they don't get wrapped up in labels. They get annoyed when media insist on characterizing receivers as either X, W, Z or TE receivers, for example. They tend to think in terms of broad position groups or even athlete-type groups. If Kelly called EV a NT once ... not super significant.

I agree with you. His versatility is what made him special. All I'm saying is this kid DID NOT want to play the 0 or 1 technique, yet, it's clear to me that's where he was needed most (not exclusively, but quite a bit) going into 2014.

I have a great relationship with a UCLA d-lineman. I WILL get the true story in the next 6-9 months and, whether I'm right or wrong, I'll bring that info back to this thread.

 

[IrishLax]

I can understand you not wanting to get into an EV discussion. I stayed away from the EV thread for the most part because the whole situation has been exhausting. But, for you to say I am wrong when, frankly, it is the only thing that makes sense, and not backing it up at all is laughable.

The "only thing" that makes sense? SMH dude... how you jump to conclusions like this is beyond me. You're making tons of inferences off of publicly available information. Your inferences aren't illogical in the least... but it's really naive to think that you have "the only" possibly correct view of things from this info you have consumed. I know what I know because people were kind enough to share with me... I'm not an "insider"... I never pretend to be an insider... but people are often kind enough to PM around what they know. So I was shared information, I was told to keep it to myself, but I feel confident saying that worries over what position he would play is not "the only thing that makes sense." Fin.

There is another video out there where he is A-D-A-M-E-N-T about not playing the 0 or 1 technique. I remember watching it and thinking I don't want anyone on my team that is that adamant about not playing a position that best helps the team. $1M vBucks to anyone that can find it.

As a complete aside, that's a view I've also had on players. You want Keivarae Russels who will play wherever the coaches put them, you do not want Aaron Lynches who refuse to run defend and is a malcontent.

 

[ulukinatme]

I know I read that EV didn't want to play NG as well, just don't have the time/ability to research it atm. It made me a little worried when we were recruiting him, almost like there was a chance we were moving out of 3-4 if EV wasn't our NG. I just figured he changed his mind or the future was looking 4-3.

 

[NDWorld247]

The "only thing" that makes sense? SMH dude... how you jump to conclusions like this is beyond me. You're making tons of inferences off of publicly available information. Your inferences aren't illogical in the least... but it's really naive to think that you have "the only" possibly correct view of things from this info you have consumed. I know what I know because people were kind enough to share with me... I'm not an "insider"... I never pretend to be an insider... but people are often kind enough to PM around what they know. So I was shared information, I was told to keep it to myself, but I feel confident saying that worries over what position he would play is not "the only thing that makes sense." Fin.

I should have said, "only thing that makes sense TO ME". Based on the public information I have gathered, he lost trust in the staff. TO ME, trust is lost when someone feels they have been misguided or not given the whole truth. I do not want to insinuate he was lied to, but when thinking about what the staff could have misguided him on, the position thing is the only thing that makes sense TO ME with the public information I have. Based on the information I have, I am convinced his willingness to play inside (0 or 1 tech) is at the heart of his issues. I am not saying that's the only issue nor am I saying everyone has to agree with me, but what other scenarios make sense given the public information available? I've backed up my opinion with facts. I found your response "Yeah...no" to be disrespectful.

 

[IrishLax]

I know I read that EV didn't want to play NG as well, just don't have the time/ability to research it atm. It made me a little worried when we were recruiting him, almost like there was a chance we were moving out of 3-4 if EV wasn't our NG. I just figured he changed his mind or the future was looking 4-3.

He was a very good fit for DE in the 3-4 (a la Day) and would've played DT in 4 man fronts. Exceptionally athletic for his size and could get after the passer. Not prototypical 3-4 DE like Tuitt was but he would've been very good there. And yes, he definitely did not want to play NG and eat up blocks.

 

[chicago51]

EV is a prototypical 0-tech. I agree he could've played all over the line, but the reason I brought him up in the first place is that he was the OBVIOUS best option at NT in 2014.



I can understand you not wanting to get into an EV discussion. I stayed away from the EV thread for the most part because the whole situation has been exhausting. But, for you to say I am wrong when, frankly, it is the only thing that makes sense, and not backing it up at all is laughable.

2:45 of the video below:

Reporter - What position is Notre Dame looking at you at?

EV - Umm, they're looking at me as a 5-technique. It's like a 5, 3, every now and again a 7, and then, maaaybe a 1, not really a 1, I asked them if I will play 1 and they said no.

There is another video out there where he is A-D-A-M-E-N-T about not playing the 0 or 1 technique. I remember watching it and thinking I don't want anyone on my team that is that adamant about not playing a position that best helps the team. $1M vBucks to anyone that can find it.



<object id="flashObj" width="480" height="270" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=2071367485001&playerID=2436801239001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAPLMIMAE~,kKetLjW2WxVXWpp0mM9RUhm5kMHfb4Eg&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=2071367485001&playerID=2436801239001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAPLMIMAE~,kKetLjW2WxVXWpp0mM9RUhm5kMHfb4Eg&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

5 technique would have been Kaps old position.