austin white?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 PM ^
Well White's not living with Archie Collins, so yes, there's a shot.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:02 AM ^
if we land white would we take one more rb hopefully lattimore ?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:05 AM ^
Well Lattimore is the kind of player you take regardless.
But I'd assume, since Grady, Brown and Minor are gone after this year, we'll be looking for 2/3 RBs. White, Nick Hill, Brennan Clay, Stephen Hopkins, Lattimore (pipe dream), etc...
March 24th, 2009 at 12:10 AM ^
yes very true but if we take 3 we would need a power back either lattimore or riley or both
We will probably take 3 running backs at the LEAST. Obviously, one or two might be of the RB/slot variety.
But after this year, our RB depth is Shaw, Cox, Toussaint, and Smith.
dont forget teric jones...
I'm not.
He's a slot.
ahh..i missed that one. havent heard much about him lately. is he going to get a redshirt???
March 24th, 2009 at 10:01 AM ^
My guess is that yes, he's going to get redshirted. But no one will really know until it happens. The coaches rarely say "We're going to redshirt this guy" before the season starts.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:13 AM ^
We're not getting Brennan Clay. Obviously anything can change, but I don't see him leaving the West Coast. Every time I've talked to him he mentions USC and Oregon as his top schools.
We've got a good shot with Hill, White, Mack Brown, and Cassius McDowell.
I've got more of a positive vibe on him than a say, Brown, during articles i've read.
Is one or the other is a better fit for our offense, or do they just offer different things?
Austin White is a versatile guy as either a slot or a RB, and has pretty good start/stop moves. He makes people miss. Nick Hill, from what I understand, is more like a Mike Hart type of guy.
I'm not the best judge of talent, but based off of their scholorship offers, I would say White has garnered more interest so far for a reason.
It could be because of talent, it could be because of size, I'm not sure. I like both of them, but we haven't offered Hill yet, and there's probably a good reason behind that.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:11 AM ^
austin white reminds me of steve slaton at wv
It seems as though Coach Jackson might be getting the kid to warm up to him. And, yes, it's too late to find a better way to articulate that.
I can see us pulling in corvin lamb along with Torrian Wilson in a package deal. also Mack Brown recently sd hes high on us right now as well....
I can see Stephen Hopkins being the perfect power back in this offence. IMO he's got nimble feet with decent speed for a 6'1, 220lbs highschool junoir and he seems to be highly interested in M.
Austin White is a versatile guy as either a slot or a RB, and has pretty good start/stop moves. He makes people miss. Nick Hill, from what I understand, is more like a Mike Hart type of guy.
You mean he is also a guy who makes him miss? How many times was the defense in the backfield only for Hart to evade the would-be tackler?
Yes Mike could be physical at the point of impact as well, but he did make em miss.
Yeah he was slippery, but he wasn't a jitterbug type back, he was a downhill runner. There is a big difference between what they are describing in White. Hart didn't do a lot of moving sideways.
Exactly.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
nor is he the poster for non-shifitness as Sommy suggested by comparing him to White. My point is that you could have picked a better comparison than Hart if you were trying to emphasize the lack of shiftiness. For example, Ty Wheatly was the polar opposite of elusiveness. Wheatly would either take it to the house or get stopped for a loss or no gain.
I have not seen White play so I cannot make a comparison, and he may in fact be like Hart, but I think it does a disservice to history to claim that Hart was not shifty, when he was better than just about any back in M history (sadly, by necessity most of the time) at making something out of nothing. That is not the hallmark of a pure downhill runner.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:16 AM ^
Your memory of Tyrone Wheatley is slightly off.
In all honesty, it wasn't exactly supposed to be a direct comparison, and I never actually said "Mike Hart is not elusive." I merely said that White's strength is his ability to cut and stop on a dime. I don't know a lot about Nick Hill, but the comparison I keep hearing is "Mike Hart." The syntax is the main culprit here.
I'm not sure why such a comparison has to imply all or none, though. Yeah, Hart was elusive, but that had a lot more to do with patience and vision than his moves most of the time. White is not that kind of runner.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:59 AM ^
how so?
That he was not a straight line runner or that he would break one or get tackled for a loss? Are you suggesting Wheatly was shifty?
March 25th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^
No, he wasn't very shifty. But he did gain yards in chunks as well.