What about this offseason putting 20 lbs on Nickoe and moving him to LB?

hotdigitydog

New member
May 21, 2007
4,729
0
0
LB..........I really like Matthew Wells but he's light in the britches to be playing lb in the SEC right now..........He'll gain some weight but he needs 20 lbs. at least..........
 

AzzurriDawg4

Member
Nov 11, 2007
3,206
11
38
I think he will continue to improve in coverage. Losing Bonner and Mitchell, though they are not all-stars, is going to create a depth issue at safety next year, especially when you consider the loss of Thames before this season. Outside of Whitley, we are looking at Dee Arrington, Zach Jackson and Jay Hughes. I dont see any way we can afford to take Whitley out of that rotation, although I do have high hopes for Arrington.<div>
</div><div>We would still have Lawrence, Wells, Skinner and Hughes competing at OLB. </div>
 

RougeDawg

New member
Jul 12, 2010
1,474
0
0
About substituting Nickoe for Cam. Wit has the best nose for the ball and bring the wood more than any player we have.

Also who is #41 on out kickoff team? That dude lays some wood on every kickoff. Been referring to him as the human cannonball because I don't know his name.
 

EClass04

New member
Feb 2, 2010
241
0
0
IMHO, I think this would be a bad move and render Nikoe basically useless. He's obviously a playmaking roam the field type of safety, and I think his future is set there. Besides, putting 20+ pounds on him wouldn't make him any bigger than any of the LBs we currently have, and like them, he would get swallowed up by 300+ lb SEC offensive lineman. With the way we look at LB right now, I can definitely understand entertaining the idea though.
 

Original48

New member
Aug 9, 2007
3,322
0
0
But we are getting absolutely zero pressure on the QB. Look how many big INTs Banks and Broomfield already had at this point last year. It was because of the pressure. We didn't have to have the big INT from Nickoe last year (although the one handed grab vs Arkansas was rediculous) because nobody had time to throw it deep. I love watching him in the secondary. He is as destructive as I've seen. But people are running all over us and we need to shake something up. Watching him blitz would be awesome. Ok..vent over.
 

kired

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2008
6,651
1,722
113
I'd rather see Slay live up to the hype so we can move Banks to FS.A secondary of Banks, Whitley, Broomfield, & Slay would be nice.

We've got a ton of guys at LB already. The problem has been finding3 or4 we can really depend on. We don't lose much this year - Wilson is really the only loss since we haven't gotten anything out of the Clemson guy so far. I really hope we'll see a lot of improvement by next year from guyslike Skinner & Bohanna. Cam will still be our #1 LB, and hopefully Wells can pack on a few more pounds in the offseason. I don't think that position can get any worse than it is now.

The one guy I've wondered about moving to LB is Brandon Hill. He's currently at TE but physically looks like a LB... no clue if he's ever played defense before though.

Edit to add: What about moving McCardell or Stigers to LB? They bring nothing but depth at DE... but I guess that'd really make us thin at DE.
 

AzzurriDawg4

Member
Nov 11, 2007
3,206
11
38
Banks already has 3 picks this year, and they were all huge. Nickoe has 2 already. And I see no reason why we can't blitz Nickoe from his safety position. I just dont think it is a move we can afford to make in the short term or long term. <div>
</div><div>I think you may be overstating what we did on defense last year. We gave up a ton of yards last year too.</div><div>
</div><div>If anything, I would consider starting just 2 LBs, Cam and a combination of Skinner/Wells/Wilson, etc., with Whitley and Bonner in the back and Mitchell in a hybrid LB role (can't be worse than what he is doing at safety). </div>
 

AzzurriDawg4

Member
Nov 11, 2007
3,206
11
38
It will basically be him, Rufus Warren, Malcolm Johnson and some white kid from Leakesville at TE next year. Also, Hill looks to be a pretty good pass-catcher.
 

lawdawg02

New member
Jan 23, 2007
4,120
0
0
The best way to hide inadequacy at LB is to keep them on the sideline.

Put Mitchell, bonner, and Whitley on the field at the same time, since they all can make plays at or behind the LOS. I'd also like to see Cox at end with that lineup. That adds beef up front and gets a DE off the field too.

I guess its a good thing we don't have 11 Charles mitchells this year...
 

HireCohen

New member
Jun 5, 2008
180
0
0
With the way we play Broomfield, whom is supposedly a top SEC talent, 10 yards off the line of scrimmage every play I am not sure how it would make things worse. The "don't break" coverage our guys are playing is sickening. Banks and Broomfield are by all accounts top-tier talents in this conference and we just allow freshman wr's 10yd slant routes all game. I guess our pass rush is so bad Wilson believes we have to give receivers 10 yards so we can cover them the amount of time quarterbacks have against us.
 

Original48

New member
Aug 9, 2007
3,322
0
0
AzzurriDawg4 said:
If anything, I would consider starting just 2 LBs, Cam and a combination of Skinner/Wells/Wilson, etc., with Whitley and Bonner in the back and Mitchell in a hybrid LB role (can't be worse than what he is doing at safety).
 

AzzurriDawg4

Member
Nov 11, 2007
3,206
11
38
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2011/9/28/2454607/texas-defense-its-not-about-the-sacks-silly LINK<div>
</div><div>Manny being Manny?</div><div>
</div><div>I like this quote from Manny:
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(242, 215, 191); ">I've always felt like it's the quarterback's choice whether he gets sacked or not. It's not something that keeps me up at night.</span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(242, 215, 191); "></span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Did anyone else think of Jay Cutler when they read that?</span></font></div>
 

studentdawg87

New member
Feb 24, 2008
1,094
0
0
Whitley is 6'0'' tall at the most, and he doesn't have a huge frame. There is no way he could gain 20lbs and still be worth a **** at any position. This thread is 17ing stupid. You don't move your most talented safety to LB when next year he will be the only safety on the roster who has any experience. Hell, Matt Wells is entirely too small to be playing LB as it is. We don't need to move another safety.

Zack Jackson has been at LB all fall, and Shumpert was recruited as a FB.
 

JackShephard

Active member
Sep 27, 2011
1,300
387
83
was not doing that with mitchell this year. mitchell covers like a LB, hits likeLB, catches like a LB...so why's he a safety? He would've shored up a weak spot on our D and we would've been just as good with Nickoe in his spot and Bonner or Banks at the other spot. If Banks, then you put Slay at CB. I think a Slay, Broomfield, Whitley, Banks secondary with Mitchell at OLB would be a better combination than what we have now anyway.
 

LR1400

New member
Oct 22, 2008
322
0
0
Dude is barely 6' tall. He is a good free safety with pretty good range. More like an Ed Reed type than a Polamalu type. He'd be gone by the time he got big enough.

Get a real LB. One that is 6'2 or more.
 

Foronce

New member
Mar 26, 2008
2,069
0
0
you lose Mitchell and Bonner this year

Hopefully Banks can move into one spot and Whitley can fill one with Hughes
No way you can move Whitley into a position we actually will have depth at next year.