Florida post camp position group grades by Florida 247 site

Submitted by Bambi on August 21st, 2017 at 2:50 PM

A few days old but I haven't seen these posted anywhere yet and I thought they were interesting. One of the Florida 247 writers gives his post-camp grades to each Florida position group with a short write-up about each group.

Offense

Defense

Depth Chart

Unfortunately they are slideshows but short ones at least. I don't think there's any ground breaking info here for people who have been trackinf Florida over the offseason, but it's interesting. 

For someone who has what should be pretty accurate and up to date info about the team he covers, the writer honestly seems a little pessimistic about Florida as a whole. QB still sounds like a major question mark and it seems like Florida has major depth issues at OL, DT and LB. They've also been without 4 TEs at various times this camp due to injuries or personal reasons so that could be another problem spot.

Comments

Goggles Paisano

August 21st, 2017 at 5:01 PM ^

I keep hearing that the OL is the strength of their team and that McElwain feels very good about that group - especially considering that they still don't have a clear cut leader at QB.  I asked my "Gator honk" friend today about it and he keeps hearing that Del Rio may have the slight lead right now.  That tells me that Del Rio, Franks and Zaier are not lighting it up and no one is good enough to separate.  Combine that with Nuss, no Callaway and I smell a problem for the Gators come Sept 2nd.  

BoFlex

August 21st, 2017 at 6:39 PM ^

It sounds like their QB competition is going as well as the RT competition for Michigan with JBB, Runyan and Ulizio all competing.

Although, last I heard I thought Feleipe Franks was leading the competition for Florida, not Del Rio. The few Gator fans I know think that Malik Zaire was only brought in to provide legitimate competition for Franks to develop faster.

stephenrjking

August 21st, 2017 at 2:58 PM ^

Depth issues aren't something that can necessarily benefit Michigan for the first game, though if we can string some drives together (big if) it might cause some problems for their DL if it's shallow. 

It would be a big help if they have QB issues early. Our secondary may be the defense's weak link, but if the QB isn't solid and our DL is causing problems they may not be able to expose those issues.

And our secondary seems, to me, to have a better chance of improving over the course of the season than our OL should that struggle.

Bambi

August 21st, 2017 at 3:00 PM ^

Agreed that most likely depth won't be a concern in game 1. But the writer mentions true freshman or walkons as backups all along LB and that they have one guy as the primary backup at every OL position. If there's an injury mid game at either one of those spots, things get ugly quick there.

corundum

August 21st, 2017 at 2:59 PM ^

Spoiler alert: Different year, same Florida. Offense will be painful to watch but their defense will be frustratingly good. They will lose 4 or 5 games (including Michigan) and still manage to backslide their way into the SEC championship game, just in time to get splattered by Bama.

WolverineHistorian

August 21st, 2017 at 11:06 PM ^

The exact answer if you're interested.

2003: Navarre 319 passing yards (110 to Braylon, 108 to Perry, 80 to Joppru), Chris Perry 104 rushing.

2008: Henne 373 passing yards (153 to Arrington, 78 to Manningham 65 to Butler, 62 to Matthews) Mike Hart 129 rushing yards, Manningham 53.

2016: Rudock 278 passing yards (118 to Chesson, 51 to Perry, 24 to Darboh) Deveon Smith 109 rushing, 58 by Johnson, 32 Houma, 29 Rudock.

So to answer your question.....no.

814 East U

August 21st, 2017 at 3:00 PM ^

Offense (Pre-camp/Post-camp)

QB: B-/C+

RB: A/A+

WR: A-/B

TE: C+/C

OL: B/B-

Looks like the offense is worse in most areas from the "pre-camp thinking".

DCGrad

August 21st, 2017 at 9:24 PM ^

to show that the defense is genreally better than expected and the offense is generally worse than expected. I wonder how much of that is just the defense getting the better of the offense making the defense look better and the offense look worse.

michgoblue

August 21st, 2017 at 4:37 PM ^

Here is how I would grade our team going into game 1, with some explanations:

QB: B+

I know that Wilton struggled in some of our losses, but he also showed the ability to make all of the throws necessary, poise and the ability to lead the offense.  In his first year starting!  With another full offseason of work and another spring camp with our QB whisperer coach, I actually expect really good things from this position.

RB: B

We have a bunch of guys, but none that I expect to be ready to put this team on their back and keep moving the chains like a Mike Hart or Tyrone Wheatly Sr.  Doesn't mean that one won't emerge, but until one does, I can't rate higher than a B.

WR: B

Before everyone disagrees, let me say that the potential from this position is off the charts.  Insane athletes, and lots of options.  But, the options that people are most excited about are true freshmen.  This is a position where freshmen tend to struggle - blown assignments, poorly run routes. etc, that make the QB look bad.  By the end of the season, I expect that this B will go up a bunch, but going into Game 1 - on the road, hard to rate this above a B.  

TE: A-

We have so many insanely good options here, I would consider going full A, but none of our returning options is proven.  Still, this position should be damn good.

OL: B-

I feel very good about 2 spots, fairly comfortable about the other two, and then there is RT.  We all knew that this spot would be a concern, and it is.  This line has potential, but, again (stop me if you heard this before) with so much youth, it's hard to be confident in game 1.  

 

DL: A

I expect lots of belly rubs.  Lots.  Oh, and this Gary kids looks pretty decent, as well.  

LB: B

Lots of youth, but the youth is athletic.  There will be plays made that last year's LB wouldn't have made, and also a share of maddeningly blown plays.  Because they are young.  Nonetheless, should be decent and shouldn't be a major hole.

CB: C+

So.  Much.  Youth.  Bodes really, really well for 2018.  Not so much for this year.  I know that a lot of these kids are highly rated and really athletic, but this is a spot where youth can hurt.  A blown coverage can turn a short gain into a TD, and a silly pass interference because of bad tecnhique can keep a drive alive.  This position worries me A LOT.  But, concerns are mitigated by the fact that it is hard for a QB to expose a weak secondary when he is lying on his back or running from angry men aiming to do him harm.  

 

S: B-

See "CB" review above - same thing.  

 

Tl;dr - our entire team is loaded with crazy talent, but that talent is so young that we may have issues at a bunch of spots - mostly CB, part of the OL, S and WR.  QB and TE should be really good (and will have to be), as will DL.

war-dawg69

August 21st, 2017 at 5:11 PM ^

WR- Crawford and Perry are veterans and then sprinkling in insane talent. You said B. I diagree but lets see how they do in game one. LB- McCray and Furbush are seniors and sprinkle in Bush and Hudson. I think we have playing experience and insane athleticism. You said B. Will see again. Really think were better, but just can't stand the built in excuse were young. The only place I see a freshman starting is one wideout spot. Sophmores can't play football?. Lavert Hill is the best CB Michigan has had in a long time. He is better than Lewis so what is the problem. If you think Stribling is better than Long....well your wrong. Stribling"s run support was a joke and he was a huge liability there. Kinnel and Metellus will see, but Thomas and Hill gave up a lot of big plays last year. I think are secondary will be good, because just like last year the QB will be under duress religiously. When you have more talent and better coaching there is only one equation and that is you should win most of your games if not all. Please tell me which teams Michigan plays has more talent. I can come up with one... maybe. See what I am saying.