Ron Swanson
Offense Wins Championships.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2012
- Messages
- 38,246
- Likes
- 198,049
And... I'm asking you what you think that "concern" is.
If you pursue high level prospects then you are going to lose more than you get. Clemson and several other programs are going to make their best appeal and win some of those battles. What you have to do is turn around and look at what you got when the dust settles. Those are the guys the staff will try to turn into a winning OL. The 6 OLs and current 3 OL commits they've gotten over the last two cycles look like the right kind of talent to produce some really good OLs.
We were leading for O’Connell then overnight Clemson took the lead and will likely get his commitment tmmrw, whats to say that that doesnt happen with Warren and/or Satterfield?
This would be true regardless of if we got ROC or not. Nothing I’ve said is about him specifically.You’ll wake up, get dressed, and go on about your day like everyone else.
Until it actually happens, this whole freak out nonsense is a waste of time.
AP had nothing but good things to say about Warren & Satterwhite.
This kid will be an afterthought.
So? There are a ton of good players not ranked in the mythical top 250 according to the recruiting sites. I'm not saying most of those guys aren't good players. I'm just saying they miss FAR more than they award 4/5* to... and that's especially true of OL.There’s one position group that starts 5 guys. Iirc we’ve signed/committed 2 player in 3 years ranked in the top 250. Warren I think would be 3.
OK Chik'n Lil. Do you know how long it typically takes to get an OL ready to play and especially if they come in a little raw?The only tackle we signed last year weighs 380 pounds. The year before we took significant projects that aren’t panning out so far.
We can still be in a better position right now as a program than 20 years and say offensive line recruiting is concerning.
This isn’t my opinion fwiw. I’m not smart enough to have my own opinions about this stuffSo? There are a ton of good players not ranked in the mythical top 250 according to the recruiting sites. I'm not saying most of those guys aren't good players. I'm just saying they miss FAR more than they award 4/5* to... and that's especially true of OL.
OL is about the hardest position for them to evaluate for a very simple and practical reason. Those guys almost never play against an opponent with the physical ability to challenge them. You can measure them but you can't see how they're going to handle SEC level DLs.
OK Chik'n Lil. Do you know how long it typically takes to get an OL ready to play and especially if they come in a little raw?
It is a concern when Heupel can't get the players he needs to build a good OL. So far... that hasn't been a concern.
There’s one position group that starts 5 guys. Iirc we’ve signed/committed 2 player in 3 years ranked in the top 250. Warren I think would be 3.
The only tackle we signed last year weighs 380 pounds. The year before we took significant projects that aren’t panning out so far.
We can still be in a better position right now as a program than 20 years and say offensive line recruiting is concerning.
Can we agree that compared to other position groups that o line recruiting is behind?What do you mean by "trend"?
There are 3 OLs committed. I have some question about Perry but the other two look better than "solid" as recruits. They signed 4 HS players in 23 plus two good looking transfers.
I see a "trend" that they have a pretty particular profile in the guys they're pursuing. But what "trend" are you referring to? That they don't get every good OL they offer?
There’s one position group that starts 5 guys. Iirc we’ve signed/committed 2 player in 3 years ranked in the top 250. Warren I think would be 3.
The only tackle we signed last year weighs 380 pounds. The year before we took significant projects that aren’t panning out so far.
We can still be in a better position right now as a program than 20 years and say offensive line recruiting is concerning.
Coaches on other staffs are recruiting against the hurry up offense (from at least one recruit I know from last year). Big guys don't typically like to do a lot of running, so they're being reminded of all the extra running they'll do, and other coaches are also arguing that it hurts their NFL chances. Darnell might've been a first round pick, but you need more than one example to consistently fend off that kind of negative recruiting. I think that won't be as much of a problem if Heupel keeps winning and o-linemen keep getting drafted. Kids seem to like Elarbee. This does seem like it's going to be a solid o-line class and definitely an improvement over the last class. I wouldn't be surprised if the next class is even better.This isn’t my opinion fwiw. I’m not smart enough to have my own opinions about this stuff
There’s one position group that starts 5 guys. Iirc we’ve signed/committed 2 player in 3 years ranked in the top 250. Warren I think would be 3.
The only tackle we signed last year weighs 380 pounds. The year before we took significant projects that aren’t panning out so far.
We can still be in a better position right now as a program than 20 years and say offensive line recruiting is concerning.
that OT is 330 pounds atm, but did you know that? as an insider you shouldThere’s one position group that starts 5 guys. Iirc we’ve signed/committed 2 player in 3 years ranked in the top 250. Warren I think would be 3.
The only tackle we signed last year weighs 380 pounds. The year before we took significant projects that aren’t panning out so far.
We can still be in a better position right now as a program than 20 years and say offensive line recruiting is concerning.