Quick Bryant Reprimer
I thought since we'll be seeing Bryant in extended action for the first time ever today, despite him being around since the Sugar Bowl season, we might all enjoy a little re-primer on who he is and why we can expect good things.
Chris Bryant - 6-4, 320 lbs - RS Sophomore
4 - Star, #19 OG
|
|
Feet
Technique
HS Evaluation Said:
Big bodied lineman who can move well for a kid his size. Smart, and takes to coaching quickly. Has great power and strength. When he gets his hands on someone, he usually wins. He has exceptional punch and can knock defenders off balance easily. He still is somewhat raw with his hand placement and technique, and is a tad top heavy, but has a ton of raw ability, and the type of aggressive, hard working attitude you want in a lineman. - Allen Trieu
So, here is a big bodied kid that has good feet (pulling) and an exceptional punch, with proper guard size, who mostly needed technique work to move up. In a RS and then injury non playing year, his technique should be very improved. That's exciting to me.
When you consider the fact that Glasgow, while very good, is a walk-on and as such, probably not the fastest player *problems pulling), and also a little tall for Guard, a move to center (or outside) makes sense. Meanwhile, Jack Miller spent two years as the heir apparent to David Molk, only because there WAS nobody else. He has been trying to get to an effective playing weight since coming out of HS at 265 (an exageration, probably, too), and may be featuring more bulk than good muslce at this stage. Another year in the weight room might really benefit him.
Overall, adding a 4-star, #19 Guard, moving a player withou7t pulling speed to center and getting an undersized player with some obvious performance mistakes off the line could pay TREMENDOUS dividends in both the rushing and passing games. I know other people are saying this won't be a magic bullet, but I think there could be a whisp of magic in this move.
October 3rd, 2013 at 8:38 AM ^
October 3rd, 2013 at 9:24 AM ^
"This notion that any new "body" will improve our oline is a farce."
What makes you think that Bryant is just a "body" being inserted into the OL? If what we've been told is true (and I have no reason to believe it is not true) Bryant was slated to be staring LAST season, but did not due to injury. Your above statement says to me that you're severely miscalculating Bryants potential impact on the OL's performance.
October 3rd, 2013 at 8:26 AM ^
Here is his hello post: http://mgoblog.com/content/hello-chris-bryant
Not to be a downer, but he was only a 4 star on 1 of the 3 major services. He was a 3 star on the other two.
October 3rd, 2013 at 8:58 AM ^
Stargazer!
Kidding, kidding. I agree it's probably the best proxy we have given no on-field time yet.
October 3rd, 2013 at 8:39 AM ^
I share the same enthusiasm that everyone else here does regarding the line changes and Chris Bryant. I have hoped he would emerge as a starter as he looks like a prototypical guard for the offense this staff wants to run. Hopefully everything works out for him and the team.
Yesterday on one of the trheads someone mentioned a thought that perhaps CB was one of those people that had a very high pain tolerance and as such played hurt to the point that he would inure himself in a severe way, while if he just stopped playing when he initially got hurt the injury wouldn't have been so bad and he would have healed quicker and been able to return faster.\
I have an alternate theory personally, and it is nothing against CB and it has been illuded to in this thread previously when someone mentioned Hoke said CB is learning to play hurt. It sounds more likely that he has average at best and below average at worst pain tolerance and is slowly learning to play through injuries, which most athletes do on a pretty regular basis.
Again, this isn't a knock on CB, just an observation. If he can learn to play through the pain like most high profile athletes do I think he could be one of the best players on our line for years to come.
October 3rd, 2013 at 8:47 AM ^
October 3rd, 2013 at 9:21 AM ^
October 3rd, 2013 at 9:30 AM ^
No doubt it is going to be interesting to see the C-QB exchanges coming up. But, I have to imagine that if there were any concern from Hoke & Co. (more than omnipresent base concern) they wouldn't be making the change. Wouldn't you?
October 3rd, 2013 at 10:05 AM ^
I've never understood why snapping is such a concern. Is it really that hard to deliver a ball to a guy a few feet behind you?
October 3rd, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^
I've played center in contact flag football with an all-shotgun offense, and it's harder than it looks. It's not just snapping...it's snapping blindly at velocity with one hand in an awkward position. The hardest part is snapping as you explode out of your stance, as the center can get an advantage by being the first off either line to engage someone.
Of course, anyone can probably snap well a few times with your broskis in the park. The trick is getting good snaps every single time...like forty or fifty times a game, depending on number of plays run and shotgun/pistol vs. under center.
October 3rd, 2013 at 10:25 AM ^
I'd like to piggyback on this comment. Indeed it isn't very difficult in a routine play or in a controlled practice setting. However when you have a guy over you or even worse when you have to step hard in one direction to take the DT to one side or the other (as in a trap) it becomes increasingly difficult to make a hard step and get the ball on target.
Think of it this way, smaller centers make it to the NFL because they can long snap (tight spiraled passes between the legs basically) they can't have anyone make contact with them until their heads are up and yet they still miss from time to time.
October 3rd, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^
"I've never understood why snapping is such a concern."
You've never understood why having the snapped ball either drop to the turf, make the QB reach awakwardly, or sail over the QB's head is such a concern? Really?!?
Have you never understood why having a catcher that can actuall, you know, catch the ball is such a concern? Or how about a point guard that can actually dribble?
October 3rd, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
You missed his point. He's not saying that he doesn't see the negative consequences of bad snaps. He's saying he doesn't see why it should be that difficult for a lineman to learn it.
October 3rd, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
Well, he wrote, "I've never understood why snapping is such a concern." Pretty straight forward to me.
October 3rd, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
Hey come on now. Being deliberately obtuse in order to provide excessive snark and douchery is a patented Ghost tactic. Get your own bag of MGotricks.
October 3rd, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^
I think the proper nomenclautre is "Douch Baggery," no?
October 3rd, 2013 at 11:49 AM ^
Depends on the regional dialect.
October 3rd, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
But if you look closely, he also wrote the following: "Is it really that hard to deliver a ball to a guy a few feet behind you?"
As such, it does indeed appear that you missed his point.
October 3rd, 2013 at 1:22 PM ^
I didn't miss his point -- he made two statements, not one. I saw the second, but I chose to only address his first as someone else addressed his latter point. If he meant to only focus upon the physical aspects of snapping a football, i.e., that it's not that diffcult (or shouldn't be deemed so), then he should have made the statement one sentence, e.g., "I've never understood why snapping is such a concern; Is it really that hard to deliver a ball to a guy a few feet behind you?" I go by what I read, and what I read were two independent statements.
Further, his use of the word, "concern" implies something along the lines of "importance," not the physical diffuclty of the action. Lastly, when his statement is viewed within the broad context of the thread, i.e., a change in the starting center, and the narrow context of his direct reply to a posters worry about the center-QB exchange, it's easy to see that I missed nothing.
What are you, his attorney?
October 3rd, 2013 at 1:44 PM ^
Again, wasting time by creating and editing lengthy replies in a futile attempt to bolster weak, pointless arguments is kind of my thing. You're stepping on my turf.
October 3rd, 2013 at 2:07 PM ^
Yes, but I do it with much more elan!
October 3rd, 2013 at 3:12 PM ^
isn't that like a Dutch pudding or something?
October 3rd, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
This comment from last week was extemely informative. TL;DR version: Snapping that ball is relatively easy. Blocking the guy directly over you while snapping the ball is hard.
October 3rd, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^
If you don't understand a relatively simple concept, then I'm not sure why you would ever expect us to take you seriously when you call for coaches to be fired.
Just let this be confirmation of why your angry rants are unwarranted.
October 3rd, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
Ha you actually think I expect people to take me seriously when I call for coaches to be fired?
October 3rd, 2013 at 1:05 PM ^
I just don't understand why you don't have anything better to do than troll this board.
October 3rd, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^
Can you explain how I've trolled this board lately?
October 3rd, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^
Unless I'm thinking of some other ghostof person, you're always trolling.
October 3rd, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^
You're probably thinking of the GhostofYost.
October 3rd, 2013 at 9:27 PM ^
October 3rd, 2013 at 7:43 PM ^
October 3rd, 2013 at 9:57 AM ^
and optimism. I am ready for Saturday.
October 3rd, 2013 at 11:05 AM ^
October 3rd, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
Although I'd love to be wrong, I think all this optimism seems a bit much. Bryant suddenly gets "healthy" only when we've reached the breaking point with one of the previous starters? Sounds a little convenient.
October 3rd, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
The scuttlebutt around the program is that Bryant has always been part of the "Best Five" idea, but that he hasn't been healthy. Word is that he was actually going to start against UConn before dealing with another boo boo, after missing the first few games because of a camp boo boo.
FWIW, I think it's really just been getting him healthy and/or having him learn to play even when it hurts.
October 3rd, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^
You could be right, but I think Hoke may have wanted to wait till the bye week to reevaluate the line. I think he also mentioned that they wanted to simplify some things on the offense (which I take to mean a more power run approach and play action) and I think Bryant better suits that style.
October 3rd, 2013 at 1:11 PM ^
October 3rd, 2013 at 1:56 PM ^
That's what she said
October 3rd, 2013 at 4:21 PM ^
Where's Braden in all this? Did the coaches not consider him capable of playing guard?
October 4th, 2013 at 1:36 AM ^
October 3rd, 2013 at 5:57 PM ^
and didn't play football until his junior year of high school. Hence, rough edges and unknown commodity during recruiting, but many schools were more than willing to have him walk on. I doubt he is as foot slow as assumed given his basketball days.
October 4th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^
with the current assignments, and no interest in the conflicts above. However, I do echo the curiousity of "What about Braden?" Look at his BigHouseBBQ pic with Morris, Kalis, etc., and see him in person; he is huge, I recall the praise on his play from coaches and wonder why he is not being used more in light of the current interior difficulties. I understand the grooming/education/bodydevelopment plan, but Braden could be very useful in opening holes in the running game right now.