May 28th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^

Kovacs plays bandit and Gordon plays spur. I don't think the spur has more deep responsibilities. The both play a flat zone usually, but when the defense gets overloaded to one side, the spur stays in the flat, the bandit takes the deep zone, and the weak CB plays man on the lone receiver. At least that is what I saw at the spring game.


May 28th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^

AFAIK, they are both more of a SS in most cases. Essentially we have 2 CB, 1 FS, 2 SS (5 DBs), 3 LB, and 3 DL. Most times the 2CB and FS will play deep thirds while the 2 SS act almost like OLB in zone coverage in the flats. In the rare case that there are 2+ more receivers on one side of the field than the other, the bandit moves to the other deep third (still more of a SS) and the CB will play man on the lone receiver.

I did not see any plays with 4 receivers on one side of the field with either a 5th receiver on the other side or a RB, but I would imagine that both CBs would move to the strong side to play quarters, the Spur stays where he is and the Sam moves closer to the receivers. The FS would then play the other Half and the bandit would play the Weak Flat. That is just a guess though.

In any case, I don't think the bandit is a FS in the manner you are referring to it as, but rather both are SSs.


May 28th, 2010 at 12:56 AM ^

As much as I want to say this makes him awesome, I will remain skeptical until I see it on the field.  Remember guys, he is a freshman and speed =/= production.  See Trent, Morgan.

big john lives on 67

May 28th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

Attitude is important as well.  In hearing him speak during an interview on WTKA, it sounds like his head is in the right place.  I guess the proof will be on the field though.  As others have mentioned, you have to like this kind of speed in a body that is close to LB size.  Also, the reality of the depth chart states that he and MRob will be looked at for serious minutes if not starting.  Hey, any positive sign is welcome!


May 28th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^

The Bengals apparently disagree with your take on Trent, based upon the $1.65 million 4-year contract that they gave him. 

Not saying that speed alone gets the job done, but speed + coaching does.  In Trent's case, it is likely that the coaching element suffered, not from bad coaches but from the complete change-over in staff and system mid-career. 


May 28th, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^

I know everyone loves to dump on Trent 'round these parts, but...

a) He was coached to bail out.  I'm not saying he had great hips, but I think it's funny/sad that so many people on here hate on him for doing what he was coached to do.

b) You can take one photograph from anybody's "highlight" reel (Mike Hart fumbling on the goal line, Chad Henne throwing an INT, Jake Long getting beaten by Vernon Gholston) and pretend that he sucked.  This series of pictures has been posted several times, so I guess if it gets posted enough, people just might start believing the bullshit...


May 28th, 2010 at 10:36 PM ^

The post was not meant necessarily as a shot at Trent, but rather as a point that speed =/= production.  There is no doubt that Trent was fast as shit, as could be seen when he tracked down Percy Harvin, but his college-level production simply did not meet up with his physical tools.  Maybe this was because of the coaching, and maybe because he was lazy; I don't know.  What I can say confidently, however, is that Furman's coaching coming right out of high school is probably not on par with anything Trent ever got, so assuming that he will immediately produce because of his speed is a bit problematic.


May 28th, 2010 at 1:01 AM ^

He did not win the state championship.  He won his school's regional, which is essentially the qualifier for state.

Also, 11.27 is not blazing.  I'm not saying he's not fast for a big guy, but, as an example, it wouldn't even qualify you for state in Michigan, which is generally an ok- but-not-great track state.  Side note: Delonte Hollowell ran a 10.7 and is seeded 5th going into the state meet next weekend


May 28th, 2010 at 8:28 AM ^

I've got to agree with you here. I wish I could be more positive as well, but a couple years ago at my high school (only about 200 boys and not a good sports school) we had two people run faster than that. IIRC only one of those 2 is even running in college (a d3 school). I'm not totally familiar with typical safety speeds, but unfortunately anything in the 11s isnt making me excited.


May 28th, 2010 at 8:35 AM ^

I get what you're saying about your small school, etc. but he's 6'3", 200 lbs., and was recruited to play a LB/S hybrid position.  His time isn't blazing, but it's certainly more than adequate for the position he'll be playing.

Look at it this way - he'll be fighting guys like Jordan Kovacs for playing time.  I'm not dissing Kovacs here, but he's not exactly a speedster and he's smaller.


May 28th, 2010 at 8:55 AM ^

I totally understand that point, and its a valid one. I guess all I'm saying is, when I read a time of 11.27 for a 200 lb safety I'm thinking more along the lines of "someone with acceptable measurables for a serious division 1 football team" which is, albeit, an improvement to our current roster, it still does not make me think "wow i cannot wait to see this guy's speed on the field!"

The reality of the situation is that he will still be slower than a very large portion of the non-linemen amongst quality B10 teams (OSU, Wisc, PSU, Iowa, etc.).


May 28th, 2010 at 9:03 AM ^

The reality of the situation is that he will still be slower than a very large portion of the non-linemen amongst quality B10 teams (OSU, Wisc, PSU, Iowa, etc.).

Eh...I'll agree to disagree.  I don't think you can determine this by one timing in the 100m.  I also don't know that we have any idea how fast most non-linemen would run in the 100m.  So while it's unclear if it's "reality," I'll agree that it's a possibility.


May 28th, 2010 at 9:11 AM ^

Agree to disagree sounds good. Just to clarify the way I'm making my assumption about how fast most non-linemen would run in the 100m is by roughly looking at general reported times on recruiting sites coming out of HS. While those times generally carry 3 or 4 FAKES out of 5, we also have to remember that other teams are starting juniors and seniors against Michigan (by which point in time many athletes have improved their speed to reduce the fakeness-level initially reported).


May 28th, 2010 at 9:13 AM ^

The reality is that knowing the time means next to nothing.  

Was he running into/down wind?

Was it timed correctly?

Did he slip?

Did he not get his best jump?

Was he sick?

Was it not his day?

Was it his best day ever?

Is he injured?

Was he able to train properly leading up to the event?

The only thing we know is he advanced so at least he was faster than the guys in his region. 

Is he in the fastest region in the state?

In certain sports sometimes it is harder getting out of your region than winning states.



May 28th, 2010 at 9:16 AM ^

This might be a really really stupid question, but when you add pads, would that cut into the speed of someone with less strength?  In other words, would Furman be able to stay closer to his true speed than someone with a smaller frame?  Maybe it's 9am.

I've never played football in pads so I have no clue.


May 28th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^

I dont think anybody has ever been able to definitively say one way or the other, mostly because I dont think many athletes run the 100m in pads. You have to remember that a bigger frame = bigger pads so thats not necessarily an easy assumption to make.

To use the only example I've heard on the subject, Jerry Rice (while not considered a speedster) is considered the "best" NFL player to maintain speed while running in pads and he is by no means a large guy by NFL standards. This fact, quarterback play, and his excellent route running are the three most cited reasons for his success despite unimpessive measurables.

Maize and Blue…

May 28th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^

He clocked a 4.37 electronic timed 40 at a combine event and for a LB that is blazing.  We don't know know any of the factors concerning the race so it would be hard to judge as he could have been running straight into the wind. 

Let's just say Furman is faster then our other options at his position.  Though he has said in previous interviews that he would need to work on coverage skills as it is not something he has had to do in HS.


May 28th, 2010 at 1:12 AM ^

I agree with everyone else on his speed for his size. If he put some bulk and converted to OLB he'd be a beast. Either Safety of OLB he'll help the defense.