Laurinaitis vs. Grant (Starting LB Discussion)

[jwinslow]

The point is that you cannot conclude that Laurinaitis is a stud simply b/c "they did not attack him." In the michigan game, they threw two swing passes to the WR on Laurinaitis' side. On both plays, he was got there after Hawk/Schlegel due to getting blocked early.

The plays were blown up quickly thanks to our outstanding talent at other positions, such as the corner, safety and DE on that side. Our LB on that side was shut down, and yet nobody noticed thanks to the rest of the players.

Our defense is too solid all-around to try and attack one player.

If they did spot a weakness in Laurinaitis, how often could they attack him? Twice? How long before our excellent DC realized this and adjusted to this easy to predict pattern?
--------------

Yet, they didn't, which clearly implies that saw no weakness with his play. If one of the most potent offenses in college football, led by an NFL offensive coordinator with 3 SB rings, doesn't attack a true freshman with minimal game experience, they sure must think the kid is pretty damn good.

What tape was there to suggest that the kid was "pretty damn good"? He was not in during the michigan game nearly enough to conclude this. Again, you are taking "ND not attacking Laurinaitis" and using it to prove that he is "pretty damn good" and later applying that to say that there is"No way he beats out Laurinaitis...no way." That last quote left you no wiggle room.

Personally, I agree Grant has a ways to go before surpassing Animal, especially due to the discrepancy in technique and experience. But I'm not going to sit here and bash someone who thinks there might actually be some competition this offseason.

 

[JXC]

Where did I say that ND was "avoiding" him? You folks imply he had little impact because he wasn't in the game much and hint that it was because we couldn't afford to have him on the field (you may not say that, but that's what you're implying). My point is that we were in the nickle not to keep a potential liability in a true freshman LB off the field, but rather to contain ND's passing attack. And when Laurinaitis was in, he more than held his own.

I don't think he wasn't on the field because of him not being good...i'm just saying...he isn't as tested as it might seem. That's all. I like him. I thought he played really well. You said ND didn't attack him. Did you want them to run at him every play? He's obviously good enough to be out there...he's not going to be weak. But I don't think that makes him a clear cut starter. That's all.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

He is only here for 2 years of playing time, so if he shows the goods in practice I expect we shall see a lot of Mr. Grant.

And Laurinaitis has 3 years left...only one year's difference. That won't come into play as much as you think. Tressel will put the three best LBs on the field. Grant has the glamorous measurables, but also needs work in tackling. Laurinaitis has big-game experience to go along with solid measurables and first-hand knowledge of the system...that gives him a big edge.

 

[jimotis4heisman]

the reality is the defense is designed to free up the will and have the will make big plays...its been that way since tressel got here no matter the dcor, but keep in mind jimmy h has been associate coach of the defense before he was dcor.

what grant gives us is another guy with size, who if he is the player he has shown to be in the past, works hard-will give the coaches more and more options in how they can play teams, whether its some 3-4, 4-3, nickel or using a rush backer.

having a great athlete with great size and great speed will only help this team if he decides to work hard...

 

[EdDantes22]

Well, at least you're consistent in your M.O. in resorting to sarcasm when proven wrong...time and time and time again. You know, maybe you should actually watch some of the games once in a while. ND spread the defense wide and their only success running was up the middle and off-tackle when our two LB played back (not to mention a coupld of bad missed tackled by our secondary), to take advantage of our nickle coverage. We were willing to give up some yardage on the ground in order to lock down Samardzija and Stovall (which we did). You think that Walker would've rushed for 5.6 ypc and almost 100 yards if we were in our normal 4-3-4 defense? ND didn't focus on Hawk or Schlegel but rather took what we gave them.

Were you at either the Michigan game or at the Fiesta Bowl? I was. Did you go to any games this year? I made every home game, too. So don't tell me I didn't watch the games, because I did, usually in person.

You totally missed the point; I resorted to sarcasm because I was having trouble taking your point about Lauranaitis having "no weaknesses" seriously. Since you recognized the sarcasm, I don't know why you wasted your time arguing that ND didn't focus on Hawk & Schlegel. Of course they didn't try to consciously attack Hawk and Schlegel--that was exactly my point. You recognize my sarcasm and then refute my post as if I was speaking literally... Why?

 

[jimotis4heisman]

The point is that you cannot conclude that Laurinaitis is a stud simply b/c "they did not attack him." In the michigan game, they threw two swing passes to the WR on Laurinaitis' side. On both plays, he was got there after Hawk/Schlegel due to getting blocked early.

The plays were blown up quickly thanks to our outstanding talent at other positions, such as the corner, safety and DE on that side. Our LB on that side was shut down, and yet nobody noticed thanks to the rest of the players.

Our defense is too solid all-around to try and attack one player.

If they did spot a weakness in Laurinaitis, how often could they attack him? Twice? How long before our excellent DC realized this and adjusted to this easy to predict pattern?
--------------
What tape was there to suggest that the kid was "pretty damn good"? He was not in during the michigan game nearly enough to conclude this. Again, you are taking "ND not attacking Laurinaitis" and using it to prove that he is "pretty damn good" and later applying that to say that there is"No way he beats out Laurinaitis...no way." That last quote left you no wiggle room.

Personally, I agree Grant has a ways to go before surpassing Animal, especially due to the discrepancy in technique and experience. But I'm not going to sit here and bash someone who thinks there might actually be some competition this offseason.

without watching these two plays, schemes are interesting. and good team defense often revolve around a guy taking blocks on (but trying to play through them) for his team to make the play. a la pagac's silver bullets. i dont think either of these guys are physical speciemens to play "superman" backer a la the big kat his frosh year...

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

...You said ND didn't attack him. Did you want them to run at him every play?...

Again, Danielson harped uppon the fact of how pro coaches attack the weakest part of the defense until you correct it...and that indeed is how pro coaches operate. If Laurinaitis was the weakest link out there, then I would expect Weis to have run at him time and time again...not "every play", but certainly far, far more often than he did.

 

[NJ-Buckeye]

I would have liked to have seen Laurinaitis blitz... I like LBs that wreak pure havoc via the blitz (duh)... but the coaches did not give him that role... that concerned me... and didn't know whether to read into that or not...

and it's probably what excites me most about Grant.. speed causes havoc..

 

[JXC]

Again, Danielson harped uppon the fact of how pro coaches attack the weakest part of the defense until you correct it...and that indeed is how pro coaches operate. If Laurinaitis was the weakest link out there, then I would expect Weis to have run at him time and time again...not "every play", but certainly far, far more often than he did.

Obvioiusly I don't agree. We are just going in circles now.

 

[jwinslow]

Again, Danielson harped uppon the fact of how pro coaches attack the weakest part of the defense until you correct it...and that indeed is how pro coaches operate. If Laurinaitis was the weakest link out there, then I would expect Weis to have run at him time and time again...not "every play", but certainly far, far more often than he did.

So b/c Danielson harped on a particular tendency, it is what Weis must have been doing? Who was a weaker link than Laurinaitis out there in terms of the front seven? Can you successfully attack laurinaitis with the rest of the supporting cast? Or is it better to focus your blocking on the more talented players?

I'm not sure, but I think you're stretching big time when trying to draw far reaching conclusions from a player who saw spot duty in two games.

 

[scarletngray]

I made this observation on another site but I wouldn't be surprised if we see six guys rotating in a LB, much like we do on the DL. Therefore, who starts, imho, isn't as much an issue as who will be in the rotation at LB. I think who plays will be based upon scheme, score and schedule (we might see less rotation in games like Texas for example).

I see six guys getting a lot of playing time:

Will - Freeman, Kerr
Mike - D'Andrea, Hoobler
Sam - Laurnitias, Grant

ALL these guys can play. Freeman, D'Andrea and Grant have the edge in speed and perhaps a higher talent potential on paper. But Kerr, Hoobler and Laurinitias are all good, solid players whose strength is in size and tackling ability. It's a win/win situation, no matter which way you look at it.

GO BUCKS!! :osu:

 

[ScarletNGry]

Lets keep in mind that we do run a pretty complex defense as far as learning responcibilities and Laurinaitis does have a year up on Grant at this point in time. That puts Animal II 1 up on Grant. Does that mean Grant has no chance to come in and earn his way... of course not. It does mean that Laurinaitis will have a bit of an edge as he can just play on instinct instead on trying to learn and keep up. I think Tressle and Co. have done a great job of getting young guys in and getting game experience without putting any weaknesses on the field. Everyone has to adjust to new systems. Perhaps Grants JUCO background will help him adjust faster. That still does not help him for an immidiate impact for early next year. Raw talent can get you a scholarship, it does not always get you on the field right away. See Mike D'Andrea, all the talent in the world just taking a little more time to get to game speed.

 

[CONGERSBUCKEYE]

Animal II has the knowledge of playing in two huge games last year as a true freshman. None of the new recruits or Grant have that on their resume. Carp taught him well and expect him to be there for 4 years. Kerr/Mike D should be on this thread more the Animal II. Freeman will take one of the three spots.

 

[gost8]

Nobody knows what is gonna happen next September. But it sure is fun to debate it. Personally I gotta go with Mili here. I can't go as far as to say Grant has no chance to take the spot from lil' animal, but game experience (even a little) makes a big difference on your readyness to take the field. This guy was thrown into the fire against two of the three teams we played that I would never want to start a freshman against. (The third being Texas.) And he held his own. Puts him a step ahead in my book.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I made this observation on another site but I wouldn't be surprised if we see six guys rotating in a LB ...

I see six guys getting a lot of playing time:

Will - Freeman, Kerr
Mike - D'Andrea, Hoobler
Sam - Laurnitias, Grant

ALL these guys can play. ... It's a win/win situation, no matter which way you look at it.

I wholeheartedly agree.