Kevin Brent

U

UTDB

25+ Posts
Appears that he is coming in this weekend for a visit!
hookem.gif


The Link
 
mack's db recruiting this year has me confused.. it's pretty much first come first served it seems. we've offered davis and barnett, who accepted immediately. vaccaro has been offered, and is mulling it over and taking his visits. kirkpatrick has been offered, but is a huge longshot. we're trying to get loston in for a visit, presumably to offer him despite his public hatred towards texas. brent is coming in, presumably for an offer. other guys like cobb are waiting for an offer, and have gotten good vibes from the coaches.

how many DBs do we need? yes the area was a huge weakness for the last 2 years, but we've got 2.. 3 years of developing talent there with several top 100 guys in chy brown, cu brown, ben wells, williams, monroe, and other studs like christian scott, thomas, brewster, etc... there's no way we should be taking more than 3 dbs, unless some attrition is coming our way (i'm hoping scott gets his grades together..)

ok rant over..
 
Colt,

I agree that Texas' recruiting at times seems a bit confusing and db is one area that seems to be heavily over recruited when you consider the number of players signed in the last three classes.

My mantra has been trust Mack on this for two big reasons. First, it is his *** on the line if he and his staff fail in player evaluation and development. Second, is they know what is happening inside the program and this is the one area that I have yet to see one of the pay boards truly show any edge over the others.

Mack and his coaches know who is making the grades, they know who is most likely looking at position changes, and I am sure they have an idea of who is likely to transfer.

Personally, I would love for this to be the 6th offensive lineman and 5th defensive tackle in this class to be offered, but it also seems that this state produces far more quality db's than dt's or lb's.
 
What I think it also signifies is a change in defensive philosophy. Looks to me like Muschamp wants to run more nickel and dime packages at times which means we need more DB's. I would not doubt that we see Williams, Gideon, and perhaps even Monroe on the field this year. Similar to Griffin coming in and playing dime packages as well as special teams as a true frosh. If these packages are utilized more I would say 4 DB's every year would be needed, similar to OL.

Whether or not I want that to happen or I would rather see some guys redshirt and stay for longer is out of my hands as a fan. Mack said in the offseason that more of the younger guys are playing early and leaving early so that he needs to change the way he looks at recruiting at certain positions. So what I see is Mack bringing in more DB's to run certain packages as well as to build depth at a position that we may see guys leaving sooner than later in the upcoming years. But that is just my speculation.

Certainly there may be some attrition issues there that we don't know about. If so I really hope it doesn't involve Scott, Thomas, or Wells as these guys all look like they have a ton of potential.
 
thanks for the comments guys.. interesting point about the defensive philosophy. i think it would be good to see some 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 packages in at times, to showcase the talent at DB, which is starting to develop. i haven't been to practices, but i hear chykie is really coming along well, and that ben wells had a good "redshirt" year last year. i hope scott gets his nose in the books, so we can have something like this in the fall:

CBs - Beasley and Chy Brown, with Cu Brown and Palmer as first off the bench
FS and SS - Scott and Wells, with Ishie and .. perhaps Thomas or Williams as the first off the bench

Ideally we would RS a talent like WIlliams rather than get him backloged into that mess, but I suspect he will play and be a nickleback initially on rare occasion.. hopefully used better than Curtis Brown was last year.
 
My only deference to the theory on the change in defensive schemes requiring the need for recruiting more db's is that if every player on the current roster and was signed last Fall make it to campus in August Texas would be 2 deep at 6 distinctive defensive back positions with players who have at least 2 more years on campus and a large number with 3.

The thought has merit, but it just seems to me that the only reason why you would project 17-18 defensive backs on an 85-man roster is that you don't think everyone is going to be around for the long haul.
 
Although I have a huge man-crush on Muschamp, I am skeptical in his philosophy of heavy defensive back usage in a year in which we conceivably have the best linebacking core in the country...
 
You can never have enough good DB's-not everyone pans out, ya know. i think that our safety play from last season serves as a good example of needing as much quality depth as is humanly possible.
 
Not sure if I agree about the concern re: 20% DB's. DB's represent 4 of the 22 starting positions, which is 18%.

Yes, that doesn't count special teams, but kickoff teams are often made up of a lot of reserve DB's.

Plus, as mentioned by a previous poster, DB's are often a boom or bust position. A CB playing with the number of mistakes that Killebrew made at LB would absolutely lose us a number of games. You just can't get by with an average to below-average player in the role. Therefore, you (imho) need to recruit extras.

Hook'em.
 
Converse,

Only issue there is that DB is a position that a player coming in from high school can perform early at a fairly high level skill. Especially when you consider the increased participation by the high schools in 7 on 7.

The line positions on the other hand seem to take longer for players to develop due to the strength demands and it is often more difficult to gauge how a lineman will project at the next level due to common sheer physical mismatches at the high school level.
 
Just read the article on the Vaccaro commitment and it does in fact appear this could be a first come first serve type thing at DB. I really wonder what will happen with a talent like Brent here this weekend. Check out this quote :

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
yeah i saw the report too.. good sense would dictate that we really ARE done at DB with 3 in the pocket. good sense would also say it would be SILLY to turn away a stud like Brent and have him play for OU against us for the next 4 years. though i hesitate to stack our depth chart more, perhaps we could make room for another?
wink.gif
 
If Brent shows up this week and wants to verbal, I'd bet the rent money Mack finds a place for him, statements about shutting down db recruiting not withstanding.
 
2008 DB's:
Palmer (Senior)
Oduegwu (Junior)
Beasley (Junior)
Ch Brown (Soph)
Cu Brown (Soph)
Thomas (RS Frosh)
Wells (RS Frosh)
Scott (RS Frosh)
Williams (HS Frosh)
Gideon (HS Frosh)
Brewster (HS Frosh)
Monroe (HS Frosh)

That is 12 total, which includes the 4 incoming true freshman. 1 or 2 of the incoming frosh may RS and then you are left with 10-11 which includes a few true frosh. Thus IMO the 4 they took in 08 were needed.

Now 09:
same list, minus Palmer, plus:
Barnett
Davis
Vaccaro
4th (Brent?)

That is 15 total which includes 4 true frosh. They will have 2 seniors and if they take 2 in 2010 it will even back out to 15 assuming zero attrition, which isn't likely.

I just don't see them approaching the #'s mentioned by above posters unless they take like 6 DB's this year and 4 more next year. The #'s they are taking are fine due to the attrition that has existed in previous years (Henry 06, Joseph 06, Tatum in 04) and the # of DB's that will be needed to run the nickel and dime packages. Plus if the attrition has happened in the past no reason to think it can't happen again.
 
Yes, Brent was here this weekend and did get an offer from Mack. Word is (and has been) that he wants to wait to make a commitment but we're probably in better position now.
 
Good to hear. He is must have, regardless of who is on the roster. I too am surprised at the DB #s this year but Brent is welcome with open arms.
 
Given that our passing defense has been horrid the last 2 years, that we seem to be better at coaching DBs than LBs for the NFL, that Akina is one of the best college DB coaches in the country, and that Muschamp may want to move to a 5-DB backfield, it seems we would want around 18 DBs on the roster.

That would allow for 2-3 freshmen to redshirt, 2-3 upperclassmen who have been written off, and 2-3 who are recovering from injury. That should leave about 10 active playmakers, which is your 5-man x 2 deep. It would also give Muschamp & Akina plenty of bite (sit on the bench if you won't give 100% effort) to go along with their bark.
 
I actually joke broke those DB #'s down a few posts above and we won't come close to 18 DB's in the near future unless we recruit 7 this year and have no attrition over the next couple of seasons.
 
DBH I donot recall any year that Texas was over 14 at DB.
AWE Old fashioned or not most games are decided at the line of scrimage. IMO
LB is the biggest need followed by DT IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top