We're taking zero OL this year?

gtrower

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
9,911
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.
 

bravejason

Flats Noob
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
843
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.
 

thwg

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
1,454
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.
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.
 

33jacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,319
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.
 

00Burdell

Mod Thyself
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
24,705
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.
 

thwg

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
1,454
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 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.
 

rocky top buzz

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
370
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.
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.
 

gnats67

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Messages
13,633
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.
 

savbandjacket

Dr. SBJ
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
29,101
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).
 

rocky top buzz

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
370
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
 

ibeeballin

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
10,843
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.
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
 

rocky top buzz

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
370
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).
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.
 

rocky top buzz

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
370
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
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.
 

savbandjacket

Dr. SBJ
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
29,101
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.
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).
 

GoGATech

Big Dummy
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
11,811
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
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.
 

ibeeballin

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
10,843
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.
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.
 
Top