Nice Article on Kaydon Kirby

UNTLifer · March 28, 2013

http://www.dentonrc.com/sports/colleges/north-texas-headlines/20130328-football-walk-on-working-to-replace-fortenberry.ece

Great article on a young man that could end up being a four year starter for us. By the way, since when is 6'3" and 300 lbs. considered undersized? McCarney would have been shocked to have met one of our best, Andy Brewster, back in the day.

I'm sure some will criticize Kirby, since he didn't have any other offers from D1 schools, but remember he is replacing a young man that was also a walk-on that didn't have any D1 offers that developed into an all conference performer.

Harry · March 28, 2013

He can play. This is evidence of how great our walkon program can be.

Green P1 · March 28, 2013

I'm sure some will criticize Kirby, since he didn't have any other offers from D1 schools, but remember he is replacing a young man that was also a walk-on that didn't have any D1 offers that developed into an all conference performer.

Why would anyone criticize a walk-on for not having any other D1 offers?

SilverEagle · March 28, 2013

I don't understand how this young man is not already on a "ship". This is a great article, but we've been hearing about his overachieving exploits for some time.

Mean Green 93-98 · March 28, 2013

By the way, since when is 6'3" and 300 lbs. considered undersized?

For a tackle, maybe . . . that isn't undersized at all for a center.

Mean Green 93-98 · March 28, 2013

I don't understand how this young man is not already on a "ship". This is a great article, but we've been hearing about his overachieving exploits for some time.

No rush. . . this is only his second semester. If he earns a starting spot, he will be on scholarship four years, as much as most who sign LOIs.

BillySee58 · March 28, 2013

Kirby has outperformed Boone Feldt from day 1. If anyone is undersized, it's Feldt. Nevertheless we should be set at center for the next four years with those two.

greenminer · March 28, 2013

I feel pretty comfortable with our OLine this year.

glick1980 · March 28, 2013

Honestly, though I am rooting for the kid, if McKinney was brought in from JUCO to play C and can't win the job, it was a wasted scholarship.

So go Shawn! And Kirby can be a solid back-up and get playing time.

I don't agree that it is a wasted scholarship. We need depth and more than one guy that is capable of stepping up at every position. Mac is creating alot of competition at every spot and that is what is going to make us better. Every player on the roster can't start.

BillySee58 · March 28, 2013

Honestly, though I am rooting for the kid, if McKinney was brought in from JUCO to play C and can't win the job, it was a wasted scholarship.

So go Shawn! And Kirby can be a solid back-up and get playing time.

Ever thought that they don't have a whole lot of trust in Feldt, both because of injury history and playing capability? You have to have depth across the board, McKinney gives us some at center.

glick1980 · March 28, 2013

Gotcha. I think we run into this more than most schools due to our proximity to talented walk-ons and our tuition costs. I think it is a good problem to have.

I agree in general, but I was more referring to a walk-on starting ahead of a guy we used a ship on and will only get 2 years out of. If Fedlt never starts at center regularly but provides good depth for 3 years or so, that is more ok than bringing in a JUCO that sits for 2 years IMO.

That is all I meant.

UNTLifer · March 28, 2013

Why would anyone criticize a walk-on for not having any other D1 offers?

Because to some, the number of stars that get from Rivals and the number of other D1 schools offering is an indication of how good they will be and another reason to criticize something about NT.

Green P1 · March 28, 2013

Because to some, the number of stars that get from Rivals and the number of other D1 schools offering is an indication of how good they will be and another reason to criticize something about NT.

I'm not going to do the research... But I think you'd be hard pressed to find any posts criticizing the quality of walkons we've had in the past. As somone pointed out earlier our location and cost of tuition aid us greatly in attracting some very strong talent through the walkon program. Really what you're doing is using an invalid argument to combat those who believe we should be recruiting (giving out scholarships) to a higher caliber of athlete.

UNTLifer · March 29, 2013

Our walk-on program is strong, but I fail to see how you can argue that our players we sign are not D1 caliber due to their lack of stars or D1 offers and then celebrate a walk-on that had neither. Seems hypocritical to me, a valid point to support my arguement and proof that the rating system is not an accurate assessment for all athletes. I fail to see how being a scholarship player or walk-on matters when I could do a little research and find a multitudeof posts being critical of our athletes that did not have other offers or a certain number of stars given by a biased website.

Edited March 29, 2013 by UNTLifer

Green P1 · March 29, 2013

Well the easy rebuttal to your post would be that were we able to give scholarships to better quality recruits.... We wouldn't so often see players not deemed worthy of scholarships outperforming "paid" players on the field.

foutsrouts · March 29, 2013

And why is it that we think a 6'3" 300 pound center is somehow short/small? Makes me think that I wish we would keep the roster exaggerations to a minimum.

Green Crazy · March 29, 2013

Well the easy rebuttal to your post would be that were we able to give scholarships to better quality recruits.... We wouldn't so often see players not deemed worthy of scholarships outperforming "paid" players on the field.

it's not that we don't give them to "higher quality" recruits...it's that they don't accept them.

GrandGreen · March 29, 2013

Our walk-on program is strong, but I fail to see how you can argue that our players we sign are not D1 caliber due to their lack of stars or D1 offers and then celebrate a walk-on that had neither. Seems hypocritical to me, a valid point to support my arguement and proof that the rating system is not an accurate assessment for all athletes. I fail to see how being a scholarship player or walk-on matters when I could do a little research and find a multitudeof posts being critical of our athletes that did not have other offers or a certain number of stars given by a biased website.

Apples and oranges to me. Most fans celebrate players that can help the program doesn't matter were they come from. That is a lot different than being concerned with the lack of highly sought recruits.

Edited March 29, 2013 by GrandGreen

UNT90 · March 29, 2013

Because to some, the number of stars that get from Rivals and the number of other D1 schools offering is an indication of how good they will be and another reason to criticize something about NT.

Right, because what we have been recruiting and the walk-ons that have contributed have led to exactly how many winning records? In the worst conference in college football?

Recruiting stars are directly related to succcess of the program. Go see how many 2 star or no star players are recruited by the Alabamas of the colleged football world. Go see how many walk ons end up starting for the Alabamas of the world.

To say recruiting ratings don't matter and pointing to the rare exception to the rule is just another way of sticking your head in the sand.

GrayEagle · March 29, 2013

I think that we celebrate Kaydon Kirby's accomplishment because it is a success story. He did not have the stars because he did not have the ability as a senior to attract the attention of scouts or recruiting coordinators at FBS universities.

To Kaydon's credit he built himself into a FBS player. He added 30 pounds of muscle, eliminated mistakes, practiced and developed a winning attitude. He earned his spurs.

Edited March 29, 2013 by GrayEagle

UNT90 · March 29, 2013

So yet again, 6'3" and 300 lbs really mean 6' and about 275.

Why colleges and high schools lie about measurables is something I'll never understand.

BillySee58 · March 29, 2013

So yet again, 6'3" and 300 lbs really mean 6' and about 275.

Why colleges and high schools lie about measurables is something I'll never understand.

He is about 6'2", possibly 6'3". I see him on campus a lot and he rooms with Trussell, so I know. Also, he came in about 300 lbs, he just wasn't were he needed to be body fat wise.

I won't argue with you on the basketball height listings, but this is a different case.

foutsrouts · March 29, 2013

So yet again, 6'3" and 300 lbs really mean 6' and about 275.

Why colleges and high schools lie about measurables is something I'll never understand.

If they would be more consistent it wouldn't bother me so much, but the 3 inch 25 pound stuff really bothers me. Not talking about Kaydon at all, but when an LB is listed at say six three 225, and a guy who is` around six feet 200 appears to be around the same size as the guy, it just wreaks of BS.

Not saying in any way that we are the kings of that kind of BS, because I have seen it all over the place. A little reasonable honesty would be refreshing. One inch and a few pounds of BS would be acceptable for gauging these guys from afar for me.

BillySee58 · March 29, 2013

I don't know why everyone acts so surprised to see these walk ons do so well. A lot of the ones who do good we're all-district performers in high school at 5A football programs.

Examples just to name a few include Kaydon Kirby - Flower Mound, Darnell Smith - South Garland, Kenny Buyers - Hurst LD Bell on this current team.

I'd take a player from a 5A program who was a multi-year starter and all-district, but maybe a little too slow or undersized over these guys we offer from smaller schools who have better measurables but weren't that productive in high school.

A lot of times our walk ons are beating out players who we were their only scholarship offer. This shouldn't be as shocking as we make it out to be.

BillySee58 · March 29, 2013

If they would be more consistent it wouldn't bother me so much, but the 3 inch 25 pound stuff really bothers me. Not talking about Kaydon at all, but when an LB is listed at say six three 225, and a guy who is` around six feet 200 appears to be around the same size as the guy, it just wreaks of BS.

Not saying in any way that we are the kings of that kind of BS, because I have seen it all over the place. A little reasonable honesty would be refreshing. One inch and a few pounds of BS would be acceptable for gauging these guys from afar for me.

This isn't as big a problem in football as it is in basketball. But yeah, luckily the combine sets the numbers straight.

Also, if you're looking at a players measurables on rivals, definitely take those numbers with a grain of salt unless the numbers have checks next to them (indicating rivals has verified those numbers at a combine). Zac Whitfield was listed at 5'11" 199 lbs on his rivals profile.