We're taking zero OL this year?

Tough spot for the incoming staff. The guys we had committed didn’t sign and the new staff didn’t think they were a fit for the direction we were going in. We’re aiming pretty damn high for the ‘20 class and imagine we will take a handful with a few playing as frosh. Could help us in the aspect of being able to pitch that playing time will be available.

Also have the Vandy transfer coming in.
 
Aside from grad transfer Southers, yes, no OL in this class. Maybe CGC will have better luck keeping an OL intact and it won’t matter.
 
bravejason said:
Aside from grad transfer Southers, yes, no OL in this class. Maybe CGC will have better luck keeping an OL intact and it won’t matter.
Click to expand...
Still 15 OL on scholarship after PB leaves. That’s quite a few especially considering how little they play on ST.

I assume a few will transfer or graduate early after this season if they don’t play much and we’ll see some very highly ranked OL on the Flats in 2020.
 
We will have 15 ol. That is how many paul essentially operated with for 11 years underrecruiting the position imo. So while its not what cgc wants, we can operate with that many; its not dire. Some rosters have only 15-16. At our school i think we need more consistently. Guys like parker braun leaving are a great example why. Same with dude that went to go paint art. Or whatever. Our ol tend to be turnstiles.

I expect cgc to want to operate yearly around 18-19 ol consistently. Next year he will try to get to that number imo

With that said. I do think we bring in another by the time fall begins. We will see what happens at DE.
 
I credit the staff for not settling for OL they weren't excited about just to get a warm body on the roster. I'm referring to a commit who we didn't follow up with.

That tells me this staff is not playing CYA - they are going for broke or to paraphrase our new OL coach, 'he didn't come all this way to play small ball'.

Its a ballsy strategy and I, for one, applaud it.
 
33jacket said:
We will have 15 ol. That is how many paul essentially operated with for 11 years underrecruiting the position imo. So while its not what cgc wants, we can operate with that many; its not dire. Some rosters have only 15-16. At our school i think we need more consistently. Guys like parker braun leaving are a great example why. Same with dude that went to go paint art. Or whatever. Our ol tend to be turnstiles.

I expect cgc to want to operate yearly around 18-19 ol consistently. Next year he will try to get to that number imo

With that said. I do think we bring in another by the time fall begins. We will see what happens at DE.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for RJ Proctor from UVA. I think he would be a starter from day 1 but it seems like Texas and Penn State are the leaders.
 
00Burdell said:
I credit the staff for not settling for OL they weren't excited about just to get a warm body on the roster. I'm referring to a commit who we didn't follow up with.

That tells me this staff is not playing CYA - they are going for broke or to paraphrase our new OL coach, 'he didn't come all this way to play small ball'.

Its a ballsy strategy and I, for one, applaud it.
Click to expand...
You call it going for broke but it might be Russian Roulette. 25% of your starters are online. Not taking any this year along with the fact all current oline have been running a different scheme, I think this is bad. I understand there are needs at right end and receiver but seems like they could get at least 1-2 linemen.
 
Get ready for smashmouth football. No more blocking phantoms and diving on the ground. We'll see what we've got available soon enough and go from there.
 
I’d rather sign none than sign the few the prior staff had coming in. Those guys were not going to see the field in a non-option offense and were just going to fill scholarship spots. It would have been the same thing as giving schollies to kickers who sit on the bench (oh wait).
 
Tennessee made this mistake in 2012 and it was among many poor decisions that have set them back. Here is a summary written about it in 2014 degrading the class:

"Ideally, a football program will sign three to five offensive line prospects every year to be able to tier depth and safeguard against injuries at a vitally important position.

Inexplicably, Dooley failed to sign a single lineman in the 2012 cycle.

Of all his recruiting inefficiencies, this was his biggest. It was puzzling then, and more so now, especially since Antonio "Tiny" Richardson left school early and the Vols are facing a 2014 season where they'll break in five new offensive linemen."

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2098044-re-evaluating-tennessees-2012-recruiting-class
 
rocky top buzz said:
You call it going for broke but it might be Russian Roulette. 25% of your starters are online. Not taking any this year along with the fact all current oline have been running a different scheme, I think this is bad. I understand there are needs at right end and receiver but seems like they could get at least 1-2 linemen.
Click to expand...

But exactly who are we going to take? Most or all of the quality lineman signed in December. Schollies are too precious to spend on reaches
 
beej67 said:
That can't be true, can it?

https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/...lans-clearing/HmF5e8I7Tyvoc5xLJTYkjP/amp.html
Click to expand...
p5s5j.jpg
 
savbandjacket said:
I’d rather sign none than sign the few the prior staff had coming in. Those guys were not going to see the field in a non-option offense and were just going to fill scholarship spots. It would have been the same thing as giving schollies to kickers who sit on the bench (oh wait).
Click to expand...

I don't see your logic. 100% of the current o-line are in the same boat transitioning to a non-option offense. Someone is going to have to play on the line. Freshman who haven't spent 1+ years running the option seem easier to mold.
 
ibeeballin said:
But exactly who are we going to take? Most or all of the quality lineman signed in December. Schollies are too precious to spend on reaches
Click to expand...
Aren't most schollies a reach? 5 stars are close to a sure bet, but 2 and 3 starts maybe not. Why not target some of the oline signing with G5 schools who run a pro set? I'd think they would be better than the 15 option oline we have now.
 
rocky top buzz said:
I don't see your logic. 100% of the current o-line are in the same boat transitioning to a non-option offense. Someone is going to have to play on the line. Freshman who haven't spent 1+ years running the option seem easier to mold.
Click to expand...

We have people to play the line. I’d rather take a shot on a skill player than sign an o-lineman recruited by Sewak to dive at ankles. It’s not like we lost a bunch of 4 or 5 star o-line recruits. We lost a Sewak 2 or 3 star (I can’t recall which he was).
 
ibeeballin said:
But exactly who are we going to take? Most or all of the quality lineman signed in December. Schollies are too precious to spend on reaches
Click to expand...
This. If you're shopping for a Ferrari, you don't buy a Kia just because you didn't find the Ferrari you wanted this year.
 
rocky top buzz said:
Aren't most schollies a reach? 5 stars are close to a sure bet, but 2 and 3 starts maybe not. Why not target some of the oline signing with G5 schools who run a pro set? I'd think they would be better than the 15 option oline we have now.
Click to expand...

Only 5 lineman can play at time. 15 will be enough and let’s stop pigeon-holing these Olineman. They are more than just option lineman and their offers to other schools speak to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top