Spring Camp News Thread....

[Judge Smails]

http://www.scout.com/college/penn-state/story/1771731-mcgovern-psu-o-line-ready-to-lead-way

But in the eyes of new starting center Connor McGovern — all 6-foot-5, 313 pounds of him — the men up front have staked their collective claim as the leaders of the unit.

“We want to bring that physical aspect back,” the sophomore said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. “We want to be the leading group. We don’t want Trace or Saquon or anyone else to have to lead the offense. We want to lead the offense first from up front.”

It took until last season for the unit to begin to make headway, as talented young linemen like McGovern (then a true freshman), and redshirt freshmen Ryan Bates and Steven Gonzalez worked their way into the starting lineup. This fall, the Lions will return six linemen with significantly starting experience.

“I think we’re gonna be one of the strong points this year on the team,” McGovern said. “We’re gonna be a lot more physical this year — bring that back.”

“We were physical at some points last year,” he said. “But definitely this year, we want to finish blocks, get guys on the ground, make the holes bigger — give Trace and Saquon bigger holes and easier reads. Just blowing guys off the ball.”

McGovern was an early enrollee at Penn State in 2016. He arrived on campus at 310 pounds but with nearly 25 percent body fat. Everything about his body and his game has transformed since then.

“It’s all coming along very well,” McGovern said.

That goes for his body, too, thanks to Penn State’s strength and nutrition programs. He now carries 313 pounds but has reduced his body fat percentage into the teens.

“I’ve put on a lot more muscle and lost a lot of fat,” he said.

 

[NJPSU]

 

[TheGLOV]

This is what I know about UK basketball, football. My HS FB teammate was a scholarship OT for 3 yrs at UK in the early 70's. He was a starter. Biggest human being I've ever been around, and I've been around a bunch. No one, repeat no one above the Mason Dixon line would look at him academically. He had poor grades, no SAT's scores and was in Vo-Tech for car repairs I believe. Good guy, we were in boy scouts together. UK was like meh, academics? No problem. He told me he had a sponsor who bought him clothes and a car (Chevy Cheville? ) his tutors did his work, and he played football.
My sister in law was a teacher at Sam Bowies HS, she said after Sam signed, his mom had a new Cadillac, everybody knew it came from UK that's why he signed.
Mummy Dummy sent some kids tape back with a wad of cash in it, that was well known. As you pointed out, hoops did it as well.

Do I think they've changed? No not really. Hoops? with all the one and dones, maybe UK doesn't have to pay them anymore, the agents do, sent them there, knowing they will be looked after, athletically and academically, they turn pro, and a new set arrives on campus. too much work for the NCAA to follow anything, unless of course a package with a bunch of money falls into their laps.

The 'cash' was sent in a hollowed-out DVD that fell in a Fed-Ex office (was it?) and some pf the $10,000 came out!

 

[trz103]

View embedded media

At this point Is it safe to say he will win Reid's job?

 

[palehorse]

At this point Is it safe to say he will win Reid's job?

I don't think so. He'll play a ton regardless though. I wouldn't be surprised to see him play north of 40% of our defensive snaps this season.

 

[royboy]

Question or just speculation -- will we see what the staff thinks are likely fall starters reflected in the spring game lineup? Will there be #1 units on offense and defense?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Question or just speculation -- will we see what the staff thinks are likely fall starters reflected in the spring game lineup? Will there be #1 units on offense and defense?

I think they tend to give some guys that need more snaps time. It will be good for the young guys trying to get into the rotation IMO. I don't need to see Trace or SB out there,,,,but Charles, JJ, Wade...etc. are all fighting to get on the field.

 

[GregInPitt]

At this point Is it safe to say he will win Reid's job?

Open starting positions are usually won in Fall camp. I would be very surprised if CJF names a CB starter to replace Reid at the conclusion of Spring practices.

At QB last year CJF took the competition right into the middle of Fall camp. No reason to name starters for open positions this early, unless there is an obvious player waiting in the wings that is very experienced and is a very obvious choice. Extending the competition into Fall camp is really the fairest strategy for the players that are competing and the continued competition is motivation for all the players involved to keep improving.

And at CB, with so much, mostly young, talent (Campbell, McPherson, Wade, .....) it would be short sighted to name a starter this early. Who knows who will make a leap in performance, strength...... over the summer and then possibly make a leap up the depth chart in Fall camp.

There is more limited competition at DE and for the 3rd LB spot but I don't believe that CJF will necessarily name starters at those positions coming out of Spring practices either.....

 

[Judge Smails]

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[Raffycorn]

Well, both of those articles are certainly encouraging. And looking at pictures from spring ball, Cam Brown in particular looks the part of a linebacker a lot more than he did last year. He doesn't look lanky anymore.

 

[Judge Smails]

 

[Judge Smails]

 

[Judge Smails]

 

[Judge Smails]

I look forward to this video every week.

Interesting that Zembiec hasn't nailed down 3rd string QB vs two walk ons. Can tell JF isn't wild about Josh and Mom Jeans. Cam Brown had a good not great camp. Holland, Campbell, Stevens, J McPhearson singled out for praise.

 

[Judge Smails]

 

[Judge Smails]

I think Barkley is going to be our starting kick off returner.

 

[Judge Smails]

 

[Raffycorn]

Definitely looks like a big year for Zembiec to establish himself in the pecking order - he might be running out of time with Clifford coming this summer and Fields arriving either next winter or summer (I thought I saw he was considering enrolling early, but I might be confusing him for someone else).

 

[Obliviax]

I think Barkley is going to be our starting kick off returner.

View embedded media

That is just stupid. Crazy for him to run a 30 yard gasser to start an offensive series.

 

[Judge Smails]

That is just stupid. Crazy for him to run a 30 yard gasser to start an offensive series.

McCaffrey

 

[Obliviax]

McCaffrey

Isn't that the guy that quit on the team so he wouldn't get hurt in the bowl game? Exception, and not the rule. We are way too deep at return guys to risk Barkley. If #26 can't play, or is tired, we are 1/2 the team.

 

[getmyjive11]

Well, both of those articles are certainly encouraging. And looking at pictures from spring ball, Cam Brown in particular looks the part of a linebacker a lot more than he did last year. He doesn't look lanky anymore.

He definitely looks better. The number helps.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I think Barkley is going to be our starting kick off returner.

View embedded media

 

[Judge Smails]

Isn't that the guy that quit on the team so he wouldn't get hurt in the bowl game? Exception, and not the rule. We are way too deep at return guys to risk Barkley. If #26 can't play, or is tired, we are 1/2 the team.

We'll see.

Interesting hearing JF say that Koa Farmer is up to 239 "naturally". Once he got out of the safety mindset, his body has grown into linebacker. Still has that 4.4 speed, he's going to be a load.

 

[Judge Smails]

Their main focus on offense is to get SB the ball in space. Well, KOR is definitely putting a guy with the ball in space. Look at what Quadry Henderson has done for Pitt with his return yardage. His 80 or 90 yard KOR in their game against us probably won the game for them. We had all the momentum in the world at that moment. We have enough depth now at RB with 5* Sanders along with the others, you can't coach scared. We're gunning for a national championship this year, don't leave any bullets left in the chamber.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Their main focus on offense is to get SB the ball in space. Well, KOR is definitely putting a guy with the ball in space. Look at what Quadry Henderson has done for Pitt with his return yardage. His 80 or 90 yard KOR in their game against us probably won the game for them. We had all the momentum in the world at that moment. We have enough depth now at RB with 5* Sanders along with the others, you can't coach scared. We're gunning for a national championship this year, don't leave any bullets left in the chamber.

I get that, but he's our best player and KR is risky. The other thing is - don't we have a ton of talented young guys who could easily fill this role? Give me someone who is smart enough to know when to run and when to FC and I'm happy. I think Carter returned kicks on the '94 team (with Archie) and I can't recall him ever breaking one. Guess we'll see though.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I get that, but he's our best player and KR is risky. The other thing is - don't we have a ton of talented young guys who could easily fill this role? Give me someone who is smart enough to know when to run and when to FC and I'm happy. I think Carter returned kicks on the '94 team (with Archie) and I can't recall him ever breaking one. Guess we'll see though.

The thing is there are options now at both KR and PR. Anyone can understand a coach not putting a SB back on KOR's. You can also understand a coach saying that is our guy and let him do his thing. It really comes down to the coach's decision based on the risk/reward. I don't think there is a wrong answer, just different philosophies.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

The thing is there are options now at both KR and PR. Anyone can understand a coach not putting a SB back on KOR's. You can also understand a coach saying that is our guy and let him do his thing. It really comes down to the coach's decision based on the risk/reward. I don't think there is a wrong answer, just different philosophies.

For sure. I disagree with this philosophy though. If it's a risk/reward thing, then definitely not, especially with other options. But, it's CJF's team and he makes the call.

 

[Nittany.Lion]

The thing is there are options now at both KR and PR. Anyone can understand a coach not putting a SB back on KOR's. You can also understand a coach saying that is our guy and let him do his thing. It really comes down to the coach's decision based on the risk/reward. I don't think there is a wrong answer, just different philosophies.

Agreed, folks can disagree on the risk reward, but using fatigue as a reason is weak, he's an elite athlete in peak physical condition.

 

[Judge Smails]

I get that, but he's our best player and KR is risky. The other thing is - don't we have a ton of talented young guys who could easily fill this role? Give me someone who is smart enough to know when to run and when to FC and I'm happy. I think Carter returned kicks on the '94 team (with Archie) and I can't recall him ever breaking one. Guess we'll see though.

I did a quick google search. I remember reading studies about how kick off returners really don't get injured that much in comparison to many other plays. I may or may not find it, but here is a study of youth football injuries. The study for college or pro showed the same thing.

http://www.sadlersports.com/blog/ayf-releases-data-injuries-youth-tackle-football/

Below is a summary of the leading injury statistics by frequency in each category:

• Type Of Play

45% offense

35% defense

11% other

2% kicking off; 2% receiving kick off

Note that very few injuries occur during kickoff returns.

• Position Played

24% running back

17% defensive line

11% linebacker

11% offensive line

9% quarterback

6% secondary; 4% receiver; 2% kickoff returner

 

[LaJolla Lion]

For sure. I disagree with this philosophy though. If it's a risk/reward thing, then definitely not, especially with other options. But, it's CJF's team and he makes the call.

This is the type of subject where there is not a right answer. If you are a coach and put him back there...and he does get injured...you're an idiot. If you don't do it and you lose a game....some people will say why isn't our best option on the field 99% of the time. I see both sides and I say you don't put him back there unless you deem it absolutely necessary. Big game or possibly a spark...even then...still a tough call to make. Some coaches wouldn't think twice...others do.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Larry Johnson sure made it worthwhile.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Larry Johnson sure made it worthwhile.

Fewer options on that team for sure.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I did a quick google search. I remember reading studies about how kick off returners really don't get injured that much in comparison to many other plays. I may or may not find it, but here is a study of youth football injuries. The study for college or pro showed the same thing.

http://www.sadlersports.com/blog/ayf-releases-data-injuries-youth-tackle-football/

Below is a summary of the leading injury statistics by frequency in each category:

• Type Of Play

45% offense

35% defense

11% other

2% kicking off; 2% receiving kick off

Note that very few injuries occur during kickoff returns.

• Position Played

24% running back

17% defensive line

11% linebacker

11% offensive line

9% quarterback

6% secondary; 4% receiver; 2% kickoff returner

Yeah, I mean - he could just as easily get injured on any of the dozens of plays he's involved with on offense. But, I would note that I found a study - and I believe it is the one the NFL referenced when thinking about eliminating kick-offs altogether. Another article I found mentioned kick-offs kill more high school football players (by percentage) than any other play/factor (to include pre-existing conditions and heatstroke):

Football kills a decent amount of high schoolers every year. Sometimes they die from heatstrokes, sometimes they die from pre-existing medical conditions and sometimes they die from brutal on-field injuries.

A disproportionate amount of these deaths come from kickoffs. Last season 11 high school football players died, and seven of those deaths were a direct result of on-field injuries. Three of these seven injuries happened on kickoffs, which do not make up 43 percent of football plays.


From Advanced Football Analytics:

Will the New Kickoff Rules Really Reduce Injuries?
By Brian Burke


The NFL play-by-play reports when players are injured on each play, or at least when the injury stops play so trainers can attend to the injured player. These are far from 100% all injuries suffered in the course of play, but they are the ones that tend to be significant or severe--ACLs, broken bones, separated shoulders, concussions--the kind of things that really worry players, teams, and the league.

With that information in hand, we can see the injury rates for each type of play, including kickoffs.



Injuries are increasing for all types of plays over the last decade. Last season, the injury rate was 1.6% on runs, 1.5% on passes, 1.3% on punts, and 2.0% on kickoffs. The graph illustrates there is something systemic at work increasing injuries at predictably steady rate, or at least increasing the reporting of injuries. Because of the very real concern around the NFL, I'd assume most of the increase is real.

(If I had to guess, the simultaneous near-doubling of injuries on all play types between 2004 and 2005 could be due to an increased effort to report injuries in the play-by-play. But even accounting for that jump, injuries are still steadily on the rise. I also suspect the drop in injuries in 2010 for passes and runs may not be just statistical noise and could be due to enforcement of helmet-to-helmet hits.)

Increasing the number of touchbacks will certainly reduce the number of kickoff injury rates simply by reducing the number of return plays. Needless to say, the fewer the kick returns there are, the fewer the injuries there will be. The question becomes: How much of a reduction can the NFL expect?

It's hard to estimate how many more touchbacks there will be under the new rules. Kickers may kick higher but shorter, or returners may decide to return the ball from deeper in the endzone than in previous years due to the shorter run-up allowed to the coverage team. But there is preseason data to work with. Because of weather factors (temperature is far more important to kick distances than most think) and other considerations, we'll compare the 2010 preseason to the 2011 preseason.

In 2010 the preseason touchback rate was 19.5%, and in 2011 it doubled to 39.4%. That equates to a 24.8% reduction in returnable kicks (60.6% / 80.5% = 75.2%). The NFL can expect a proportional reduction in injuries on kickoffs, reducing the rate from 2.0% to 1.5%. (We'll plan to revisit the actual numbers later this season.)

But what does this mean in real terms? How many injuries will this prevent?

In 2010, there were about 9.5 kickoffs per game, which is consistent with the previous 10 years. So reducing the injury rate by half a percent won't add up to much. Instead of the 51 kickoff injuries in 2010, we might expect about 38 in 2011. Thirteen fewer injuries over 32 teams and 267 games from week one through the Super Bowl. That's a reduction of 0.024 injuries per team per game--imperceptibly small and meaningless in practical terms.

Again, not all injuries are reported in the play-by-play. But even if we stipulate that this estimate is an entire order of magnitude too small, that's still only 0.2 fewer injuries per team per game!

Further, looking back at the graph above, it appears that over the past few years, injury rates on kickoffs are in line with those on run and pass plays. In fact, in 2008 and 2009 the kickoff injury rates were lower than for typical scrimmage plays. Getting rid of the two-minute warning in the first half, a gimmick that only allows extra commercials, would have a similar injury-reducing effect just by reducing the number of pass and run plays.

In my mind, this miniscule reduction in injuries does not justify ruining one of the more exciting plays in the game. The trade off just isn't wise--there are better ways to address injury reduction. Even if the kickoff injuries are significantly reduced this season, whatever factors have been causing injuries in general to increase remain unaddressed. Those are the things the league needs to fix, or else injury rates will be back on the climb.

As it stands today, the entire NFL post-score kabuki dance is unwatchable. First there's an automatic review that could take up to several minutes featuring two beer and two car commercials. Then there's the virtually automatic extra point, the NFL's version of...well, I can't think of anything else in the universe so pointless. Now throw in the touchback, followed by Dennis Leary hocking Ford F150s and a positively terrifying ad for some horror/sado-torture movie that gives every kid under 13 nightmares for the next week, plus one for Cialis and one for whatever lame hour-long drama featuring a tough-cookie hot single mom NYPD detective is going to be cancelled on CBS later this fall. Then it's back to some moron sideline reporter who tells us something we either already knew or could just as easily be relayed through the booth announcers. Then, finally, it's back to the game.

Pssst, NFL. Your problem isn't not enough touchbacks.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

This is the type of subject where there is not a right answer. If you are a coach and put him back there...and he does get injured...you're an idiot. If you don't do it and you lose a game....some people will say why isn't our best option on the field 99% of the time. I see both sides and I say you don't put him back there unless you deem it absolutely necessary. Big game or possibly a spark...even then...still a tough call to make. Some coaches wouldn't think twice...others do.

Don't disagree, but if I'm coach and I have capable talent not being used elsewhere, I save my big play-maker for regular offense. Barkely is an immense talent and I'm sure he will/would be great returning kicks, but he hasn't done it for two years.

 

[Judge Smails]

Yeah, I mean - he could just as easily get injured on any of the dozens of plays he's involved with on offense. But, I would note that I found a study - and I believe it is the one the NFL referenced when thinking about eliminating kick-offs altogether. Another article I found mentioned kick-offs kill more high school football players (by percentage) than any other play/factor (to include pre-existing conditions and heatstroke):

Football kills a decent amount of high schoolers every year. Sometimes they die from heatstrokes, sometimes they die from pre-existing medical conditions and sometimes they die from brutal on-field injuries.

A disproportionate amount of these deaths come from kickoffs. Last season 11 high school football players died, and seven of those deaths were a direct result of on-field injuries. Three of these seven injuries happened on kickoffs, which do not make up 43 percent of football plays.


From Advanced Football Analytics:

Will the New Kickoff Rules Really Reduce Injuries?
By Brian Burke


The NFL play-by-play reports when players are injured on each play, or at least when the injury stops play so trainers can attend to the injured player. These are far from 100% all injuries suffered in the course of play, but they are the ones that tend to be significant or severe--ACLs, broken bones, separated shoulders, concussions--the kind of things that really worry players, teams, and the league.

With that information in hand, we can see the injury rates for each type of play, including kickoffs.



Injuries are increasing for all types of plays over the last decade. Last season, the injury rate was 1.6% on runs, 1.5% on passes, 1.3% on punts, and 2.0% on kickoffs. The graph illustrates there is something systemic at work increasing injuries at predictably steady rate, or at least increasing the reporting of injuries. Because of the very real concern around the NFL, I'd assume most of the increase is real.

(If I had to guess, the simultaneous near-doubling of injuries on all play types between 2004 and 2005 could be due to an increased effort to report injuries in the play-by-play. But even accounting for that jump, injuries are still steadily on the rise. I also suspect the drop in injuries in 2010 for passes and runs may not be just statistical noise and could be due to enforcement of helmet-to-helmet hits.)

Increasing the number of touchbacks will certainly reduce the number of kickoff injury rates simply by reducing the number of return plays. Needless to say, the fewer the kick returns there are, the fewer the injuries there will be. The question becomes: How much of a reduction can the NFL expect?

It's hard to estimate how many more touchbacks there will be under the new rules. Kickers may kick higher but shorter, or returners may decide to return the ball from deeper in the endzone than in previous years due to the shorter run-up allowed to the coverage team. But there is preseason data to work with. Because of weather factors (temperature is far more important to kick distances than most think) and other considerations, we'll compare the 2010 preseason to the 2011 preseason.

In 2010 the preseason touchback rate was 19.5%, and in 2011 it doubled to 39.4%. That equates to a 24.8% reduction in returnable kicks (60.6% / 80.5% = 75.2%). The NFL can expect a proportional reduction in injuries on kickoffs, reducing the rate from 2.0% to 1.5%. (We'll plan to revisit the actual numbers later this season.)

But what does this mean in real terms? How many injuries will this prevent?

In 2010, there were about 9.5 kickoffs per game, which is consistent with the previous 10 years. So reducing the injury rate by half a percent won't add up to much. Instead of the 51 kickoff injuries in 2010, we might expect about 38 in 2011. Thirteen fewer injuries over 32 teams and 267 games from week one through the Super Bowl. That's a reduction of 0.024 injuries per team per game--imperceptibly small and meaningless in practical terms.

Again, not all injuries are reported in the play-by-play. But even if we stipulate that this estimate is an entire order of magnitude too small, that's still only 0.2 fewer injuries per team per game!

Further, looking back at the graph above, it appears that over the past few years, injury rates on kickoffs are in line with those on run and pass plays. In fact, in 2008 and 2009 the kickoff injury rates were lower than for typical scrimmage plays. Getting rid of the two-minute warning in the first half, a gimmick that only allows extra commercials, would have a similar injury-reducing effect just by reducing the number of pass and run plays.

In my mind, this miniscule reduction in injuries does not justify ruining one of the more exciting plays in the game. The trade off just isn't wise--there are better ways to address injury reduction. Even if the kickoff injuries are significantly reduced this season, whatever factors have been causing injuries in general to increase remain unaddressed. Those are the things the league needs to fix, or else injury rates will be back on the climb.

As it stands today, the entire NFL post-score kabuki dance is unwatchable. First there's an automatic review that could take up to several minutes featuring two beer and two car commercials. Then there's the virtually automatic extra point, the NFL's version of...well, I can't think of anything else in the universe so pointless. Now throw in the touchback, followed by Dennis Leary hocking Ford F150s and a positively terrifying ad for some horror/sado-torture movie that gives every kid under 13 nightmares for the next week, plus one for Cialis and one for whatever lame hour-long drama featuring a tough-cookie hot single mom NYPD detective is going to be cancelled on CBS later this fall. Then it's back to some moron sideline reporter who tells us something we either already knew or could just as easily be relayed through the booth announcers. Then, finally, it's back to the game.

Pssst, NFL. Your problem isn't not enough touchbacks.

I'd always read the main problem on kickoff returns was injuries blocking/getting blocked. Not so much the returner.

 

[Judge Smails]

Don't disagree, but if I'm coach and I have capable talent not being used elsewhere, I save my big play-maker for regular offense. Barkely is an immense talent and I'm sure he will/would be great returning kicks, but he hasn't done it for two years.

SB could be injured on any play. What makes the kickoff return "not as important" as the next play they run from scrimmage. Yards are yards. If your 230 lb, 4.33 guy is your best kickoff returner....what is the difference if Sanders returns it to the 25, and then on first down SB carries if for 5 to the 30. Or SB returns the kick to the 30?

Get the ball in your playmakers hands. Steelers have used their best offensive player, Antonio Brown, as the punt returner because he's great at it.

I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and that's fine.

 

[GregInPitt]

Don't disagree, but if I'm coach and I have capable talent not being used elsewhere, I save my big play-maker for regular offense. Barkely is an immense talent and I'm sure he will/would be great returning kicks, but he hasn't done it for two years.

Lots of good RB depth. But only 1 Barkley, best RB in country. I believe CJF will only put Barkley back at KO returner few times this season, similar to last season. Is he our best KO returner? Likely. But with some of the other talent such as Wade, both McPhersons, .... and the continued upgrade to the KO unit across the board, we will see more explosive and longer KO returns this year.....

 

[getmyjive11]

Barkley should not be the kick returner, however, if you are in a tight game and need a big play, throwing him back there is not a bad idea. Despite the fear of injury, it's a relatively low risk.