Jordan Fehr

[ericsaid]

One thing that needs to be seen is how Williams looks after 15-20 carries week to week. He will certainly be on the radar but how he develops in the off-season and what he shows as the #1 back next year will be key for his stock. What is crazy that I think Williams could run for 1,000 yards next year but he is probably what the 3rd or 4th fastest among our backs? Shows how much speed we have.

I'm not an insider so I have no way of knowing but I would think that Harrington and Anderson are the fastest. Peoples and Williams are probably a different type of fast. Williams seems to have that short area quickness coupled with second level burst you look for in a bellcow.

[JMappfan5]

MWJr should be our primary back. But I think Coach Clark will utilize 3 or all 4 scholly RBs consistently. Keeping fresh legs into the 4th Q is an advantage for our offense. Evans still had fresh legs at the end of this season because he shared a lot of reps with Marcus, Daetrich and Raykwon.

[ericsaid]

MWJr should be our primary back. But I think Coach Clark will utilize 3 or all 4 scholly RBs consistently. Keeping fresh legs into the 4th Q is an advantage for our offense. Evans still had fresh legs at the end of this season because he shared a lot of reps with Marcus, Daetrich and Raykwon.

He didn't share a lot of reps. He and Williams were rotated when the game flow called for it. If Evans was having trouble with busting through the line against a tough defensive front, Marcus was sent in. But if Evans was rolling, they didn't seem to pull him out as often.

[JMappfan5]

MWJr should be our primary back. But I think Coach Clark will utilize 3 or all 4 scholly RBs consistently. Keeping fresh legs into the 4th Q is an advantage for our offense. Evans still had fresh legs at the end of this season because he shared a lot of reps with Marcus, Daetrich and Raykwon.

He didn't share a lot of reps. He and Williams were rotated when the game flow called for it. If Evans was having trouble with busting through the line against a tough defensive front, Marcus was sent in. But if Evans was rolling, they didn't seem to pull him out as often.

Coach Drink said that they "purposefully" gave other backs some reps to keep Evans fresh, especially for the 4th quarter of closer ballgames. But maybe you know something I don't. Either way it was effective strategy.

[AppStFan1]

One thing that needs to be seen is how Williams looks after 15-20 carries week to week. He will certainly be on the radar but how he develops in the off-season and what he shows as the #1 back next year will be key for his stock. What is crazy that I think Williams could run for 1,000 yards next year but he is probably what the 3rd or 4th fastest among our backs? Shows how much speed we have.

I'm not an insider so I have no way of knowing but I would think that Harrington and Anderson are the fastest. Peoples and Williams are probably a different type of fast. Williams seems to have that short area quickness coupled with second level burst you look for in a bellcow.

I don't know the actual testing from S&C but I would assume based on what I see on the field that Anderson and Harrington as well. Peoples is one I need to see more of to know for sure.

[ericsaid]

MWJr should be our primary back. But I think Coach Clark will utilize 3 or all 4 scholly RBs consistently. Keeping fresh legs into the 4th Q is an advantage for our offense. Evans still had fresh legs at the end of this season because he shared a lot of reps with Marcus, Daetrich and Raykwon.

He didn't share a lot of reps. He and Williams were rotated when the game flow called for it. If Evans was having trouble with busting through the line against a tough defensive front, Marcus was sent in. But if Evans was rolling, they didn't seem to pull him out as often.

Coach Drink said that they "purposefully" gave other backs some reps to keep Evans fresh, especially for the 4th quarter of closer ballgames. But maybe you know something I don't. Either way it was effective strategy.

I suppose that when you're running and not hitting a brick wall every time, it's easier to stay fresh so you aren't rotated out as often. It's a supposition. I don't know anymore than you do.

[AppStFan1]

MWJr should be our primary back. But I think Coach Clark will utilize 3 or all 4 scholly RBs consistently. Keeping fresh legs into the 4th Q is an advantage for our offense. Evans still had fresh legs at the end of this season because he shared a lot of reps with Marcus, Daetrich and Raykwon.

He didn't share a lot of reps. He and Williams were rotated when the game flow called for it. If Evans was having trouble with busting through the line against a tough defensive front, Marcus was sent in. But if Evans was rolling, they didn't seem to pull him out as often.

Coach Drink said that they "purposefully" gave other backs some reps to keep Evans fresh, especially for the 4th quarter of closer ballgames. But maybe you know something I don't. Either way it was effective strategy.

I suppose that when you're running and not hitting a brick wall every time, it's easier to stay fresh so you aren't rotated out as often. It's a supposition. I don't know anymore than you do.

I remember as a player we had guys who got better as the game went on and some who would not be nearly as good in the second half as they were in the first half. Just depends on the guy it seems like.

[ericsaid]

MWJr should be our primary back. But I think Coach Clark will utilize 3 or all 4 scholly RBs consistently. Keeping fresh legs into the 4th Q is an advantage for our offense. Evans still had fresh legs at the end of this season because he shared a lot of reps with Marcus, Daetrich and Raykwon.

He didn't share a lot of reps. He and Williams were rotated when the game flow called for it. If Evans was having trouble with busting through the line against a tough defensive front, Marcus was sent in. But if Evans was rolling, they didn't seem to pull him out as often.

Coach Drink said that they "purposefully" gave other backs some reps to keep Evans fresh, especially for the 4th quarter of closer ballgames. But maybe you know something I don't. Either way it was effective strategy.

I suppose that when you're running and not hitting a brick wall every time, it's easier to stay fresh so you aren't rotated out as often. It's a supposition. I don't know anymore than you do.

I remember as a player we had guys who got better as the game went on and some who would not be nearly as good in the second half as they were in the first half. Just depends on the guy it seems like.

The question is if it's the guy getting better or the defense wearing down? Something I noticed this year unlike previous years is that App's run game didn't really take over games late like they could in the Satterfield era. When App needed a punishing run game to seal the deal, they couldn't do it. Part of that may have been the difference of being more balanced run to pass on offense than before.

[AppStFan1]

He didn't share a lot of reps. He and Williams were rotated when the game flow called for it. If Evans was having trouble with busting through the line against a tough defensive front, Marcus was sent in. But if Evans was rolling, they didn't seem to pull him out as often.

Coach Drink said that they "purposefully" gave other backs some reps to keep Evans fresh, especially for the 4th quarter of closer ballgames. But maybe you know something I don't. Either way it was effective strategy.

I suppose that when you're running and not hitting a brick wall every time, it's easier to stay fresh so you aren't rotated out as often. It's a supposition. I don't know anymore than you do.

I remember as a player we had guys who got better as the game went on and some who would not be nearly as good in the second half as they were in the first half. Just depends on the guy it seems like.

The question is if it's the guy getting better or the defense wearing down? Something I noticed this year unlike previous years is that App's run game didn't really take over games late like they could in the Satterfield era. When App needed a punishing run game to seal the deal, they couldn't do it. Part of that may have been the difference of being more balanced run to pass on offense than before.

I wonder if that is why we are replacing our S&C director. We were more worried about speed and flexion. I think we need a balance for sure. I want to be able to impose our will on G5 teams.

[ericsaid]

Coach Drink said that they "purposefully" gave other backs some reps to keep Evans fresh, especially for the 4th quarter of closer ballgames. But maybe you know something I don't. Either way it was effective strategy.

I suppose that when you're running and not hitting a brick wall every time, it's easier to stay fresh so you aren't rotated out as often. It's a supposition. I don't know anymore than you do.

I remember as a player we had guys who got better as the game went on and some who would not be nearly as good in the second half as they were in the first half. Just depends on the guy it seems like.

The question is if it's the guy getting better or the defense wearing down? Something I noticed this year unlike previous years is that App's run game didn't really take over games late like they could in the Satterfield era. When App needed a punishing run game to seal the deal, they couldn't do it. Part of that may have been the difference of being more balanced run to pass on offense than before.

I wonder if that is why we are replacing our S&C director. We were more worried about speed and flexion. I think we need a balance for sure. I want to be able to impose our will on G5 teams.

I thought it was scheme. We didn't have the downhill running game with Drinkwitz that we had with Satterfield. I found Drinkwitz play calling to be a bit disjointed between the traditional pistol formation zone stretch runs and the inside zone plays from the Shotgun. Both utilize different blocking schemes but one forces the defensive line to move and at least one second level guy to take on the h-back or guard. I think dealing with that 30 times per game rather than 5 to 10 is why we may have been more effective down the stretch in Satterfields offense; as boring as that was to watch.

I believe Clark likely wants a balance between what we had with Satterfield and Drink though. Or perhaps he wants to go back to Iron Mike without necessarily the personality that came with it. I have no clue.

[Mjohn1988]

I suppose that when you're running and not hitting a brick wall every time, it's easier to stay fresh so you aren't rotated out as often. It's a supposition. I don't know anymore than you do.

I remember as a player we had guys who got better as the game went on and some who would not be nearly as good in the second half as they were in the first half. Just depends on the guy it seems like.

The question is if it's the guy getting better or the defense wearing down? Something I noticed this year unlike previous years is that App's run game didn't really take over games late like they could in the Satterfield era. When App needed a punishing run game to seal the deal, they couldn't do it. Part of that may have been the difference of being more balanced run to pass on offense than before.

I wonder if that is why we are replacing our S&C director. We were more worried about speed and flexion. I think we need a balance for sure. I want to be able to impose our will on G5 teams.

I thought it was scheme. We didn't have the downhill running game with Drinkwitz that we had with Satterfield. I found Drinkwitz play calling to be a bit disjointed between the traditional pistol formation zone stretch runs and the inside zone plays from the Shotgun. Both utilize different blocking schemes but one forces the defensive line to move and at least one second level guy to take on the h-back or guard. I think dealing with that 30 times per game rather than 5 to 10 is why we may have been more effective down the stretch in Satterfields offense; as boring as that was to watch.

I believe Clark likely wants a balance between what we had with Satterfield and Drink though. Or perhaps he wants to go back to Iron Mike without necessarily the personality that came with it. I have no clue.

I was never board with being able to run the ball at will.

[ericsaid]

I remember as a player we had guys who got better as the game went on and some who would not be nearly as good in the second half as they were in the first half. Just depends on the guy it seems like.

The question is if it's the guy getting better or the defense wearing down? Something I noticed this year unlike previous years is that App's run game didn't really take over games late like they could in the Satterfield era. When App needed a punishing run game to seal the deal, they couldn't do it. Part of that may have been the difference of being more balanced run to pass on offense than before.

I wonder if that is why we are replacing our S&C director. We were more worried about speed and flexion. I think we need a balance for sure. I want to be able to impose our will on G5 teams.

I thought it was scheme. We didn't have the downhill running game with Drinkwitz that we had with Satterfield. I found Drinkwitz play calling to be a bit disjointed between the traditional pistol formation zone stretch runs and the inside zone plays from the Shotgun. Both utilize different blocking schemes but one forces the defensive line to move and at least one second level guy to take on the h-back or guard. I think dealing with that 30 times per game rather than 5 to 10 is why we may have been more effective down the stretch in Satterfields offense; as boring as that was to watch.

I believe Clark likely wants a balance between what we had with Satterfield and Drink though. Or perhaps he wants to go back to Iron Mike without necessarily the personality that came with it. I have no clue.

I was never board with being able to run the ball at will.

It wasn't that it was boring to watch, it's the fact that earlier in the game when the game is getting underway the stretch left, stretch further left, dive, became boring and predictable to watch. Depending on the opponent, you could also see that it wasn't going to work out. But it was obviously a far more effective strategy against Louisiana, over the course of an entire game, than the plan that Drinkwitz threw out there.

[AppStFan1]

I suppose that when you're running and not hitting a brick wall every time, it's easier to stay fresh so you aren't rotated out as often. It's a supposition. I don't know anymore than you do.

I remember as a player we had guys who got better as the game went on and some who would not be nearly as good in the second half as they were in the first half. Just depends on the guy it seems like.

The question is if it's the guy getting better or the defense wearing down? Something I noticed this year unlike previous years is that App's run game didn't really take over games late like they could in the Satterfield era. When App needed a punishing run game to seal the deal, they couldn't do it. Part of that may have been the difference of being more balanced run to pass on offense than before.

I wonder if that is why we are replacing our S&C director. We were more worried about speed and flexion. I think we need a balance for sure. I want to be able to impose our will on G5 teams.

I thought it was scheme. We didn't have the downhill running game with Drinkwitz that we had with Satterfield. I found Drinkwitz play calling to be a bit disjointed between the traditional pistol formation zone stretch runs and the inside zone plays from the Shotgun. Both utilize different blocking schemes but one forces the defensive line to move and at least one second level guy to take on the h-back or guard. I think dealing with that 30 times per game rather than 5 to 10 is why we may have been more effective down the stretch in Satterfields offense; as boring as that was to watch.

I believe Clark likely wants a balance between what we had with Satterfield and Drink though. Or perhaps he wants to go back to Iron Mike without necessarily the personality that came with it. I have no clue.

A lot of people complained about working with Mike but he was very good. I know many were not happy with him personally but you can't complain about his results.

[Mjohn1988]

I remember as a player we had guys who got better as the game went on and some who would not be nearly as good in the second half as they were in the first half. Just depends on the guy it seems like.

The question is if it's the guy getting better or the defense wearing down? Something I noticed this year unlike previous years is that App's run game didn't really take over games late like they could in the Satterfield era. When App needed a punishing run game to seal the deal, they couldn't do it. Part of that may have been the difference of being more balanced run to pass on offense than before.

I wonder if that is why we are replacing our S&C director. We were more worried about speed and flexion. I think we need a balance for sure. I want to be able to impose our will on G5 teams.

I thought it was scheme. We didn't have the downhill running game with Drinkwitz that we had with Satterfield. I found Drinkwitz play calling to be a bit disjointed between the traditional pistol formation zone stretch runs and the inside zone plays from the Shotgun. Both utilize different blocking schemes but one forces the defensive line to move and at least one second level guy to take on the h-back or guard. I think dealing with that 30 times per game rather than 5 to 10 is why we may have been more effective down the stretch in Satterfields offense; as boring as that was to watch.

I believe Clark likely wants a balance between what we had with Satterfield and Drink though. Or perhaps he wants to go back to Iron Mike without necessarily the personality that came with it. I have no clue.

I was never board with being able to run the ball at will.

Not saying you are but I’ve listened to a lot of folks grumble when we would run the ball up the gut and get nothing and then cheer like crazy when we would break a long one up the middle. Folks just don’t understand all the things that are set up by letting the opposing defense know that your going to run the ball between the tackles no matter what. We have made a lot of big plays off of the center zone read. As an O line guy I have no doubt Coach Clark will run the ball between the tackles and when it gets stopped, and it will, the same folks will scream for us to throw the ball and complain about the play calling. But just like Satt, Clark knows you have to keep pounding that ball between the tackles.

[ericsaid]

I remember as a player we had guys who got better as the game went on and some who would not be nearly as good in the second half as they were in the first half. Just depends on the guy it seems like.

The question is if it's the guy getting better or the defense wearing down? Something I noticed this year unlike previous years is that App's run game didn't really take over games late like they could in the Satterfield era. When App needed a punishing run game to seal the deal, they couldn't do it. Part of that may have been the difference of being more balanced run to pass on offense than before.

I wonder if that is why we are replacing our S&C director. We were more worried about speed and flexion. I think we need a balance for sure. I want to be able to impose our will on G5 teams.

I thought it was scheme. We didn't have the downhill running game with Drinkwitz that we had with Satterfield. I found Drinkwitz play calling to be a bit disjointed between the traditional pistol formation zone stretch runs and the inside zone plays from the Shotgun. Both utilize different blocking schemes but one forces the defensive line to move and at least one second level guy to take on the h-back or guard. I think dealing with that 30 times per game rather than 5 to 10 is why we may have been more effective down the stretch in Satterfields offense; as boring as that was to watch.

I believe Clark likely wants a balance between what we had with Satterfield and Drink though. Or perhaps he wants to go back to Iron Mike without necessarily the personality that came with it. I have no clue.

A lot of people complained about working with Mike but he was very good. I know many were not happy with him personally but you can't complain about his results.

The question becomes when do the ends justify the means? If you can reach the same end, you'll probably look for new means.

[AppStFan1]

The question is if it's the guy getting better or the defense wearing down? Something I noticed this year unlike previous years is that App's run game didn't really take over games late like they could in the Satterfield era. When App needed a punishing run game to seal the deal, they couldn't do it. Part of that may have been the difference of being more balanced run to pass on offense than before.

I wonder if that is why we are replacing our S&C director. We were more worried about speed and flexion. I think we need a balance for sure. I want to be able to impose our will on G5 teams.

I thought it was scheme. We didn't have the downhill running game with Drinkwitz that we had with Satterfield. I found Drinkwitz play calling to be a bit disjointed between the traditional pistol formation zone stretch runs and the inside zone plays from the Shotgun. Both utilize different blocking schemes but one forces the defensive line to move and at least one second level guy to take on the h-back or guard. I think dealing with that 30 times per game rather than 5 to 10 is why we may have been more effective down the stretch in Satterfields offense; as boring as that was to watch.

I believe Clark likely wants a balance between what we had with Satterfield and Drink though. Or perhaps he wants to go back to Iron Mike without necessarily the personality that came with it. I have no clue.

A lot of people complained about working with Mike but he was very good. I know many were not happy with him personally but you can't complain about his results.

The question becomes when do the ends justify the means? If you can reach the same end, you'll probably look for new means.

Always a big question. After 2020 we will see if that is the case with us. This team will have a lot of questions after the season. We are going to find out how good our new recruiting folks, strength staff, coaches, etc. are because this team is still going to be 70% built by Satt, Hamilton, Mike, etc. I know Shawn Clark had a big part but he has to replace a lot of folks.

[Appstate88]

Fehr’s stats are similar to ADG’s, he’s bigger, and his reported run/jump/lift numbers are fantastic. Obviously there are several posts here suggesting (some intentionally, some otherwise) that he’s undervalued because he’s white, but that’s silly and not even a stereotype that applies to linebackers.

To me the big question is whether his workout numbers are inflated, and if so to what extent. Obviously there’s no question about his productivity.

You are right. I'd be surprised if he runs a sub 4.5. He has some good lateral quickness, which would matter to me more, but I just don't see a sub 4.5. I am a fairly big guy and I used to run track and could pull a sub 4.3 at my best. I was no where near as heavy in the legs and feet as Fehr, which would make it tough for him to put up that kind of speed. It's the same problem I see with Henni, who has great hands, but heavy feet. Race has nothing to do with it. But I am rooting hard for both of them, they are outstanding kids.

Way to show out Jordan. Good luck tonight.

[AppState89]

Great series for Jordan...like the App and Jordan props he just got...

[Rekdiver]

I didn’t get to see the game. Can someone give us a recap

[Mjohn1988]

I didn’t get to see the game. Can someone give us a recap

Ditto, how did our guys do?