#23 - Paula Vaipulu

maxresdefault.jpg
 
gtg970g said:
We had a few committed prior to the coaching change. After the change in scheme they decided to go elsewhere. Likely best for all involved.
Click to expand...
We had two 2*'s committed, one was actually rated as a DT and I don't think even had a rating as OL.
 
Have a friend that loves delving into these type numbers.

He did the numbers of both OL & DL in the classes of CU and GT from 2008 until 2018.

I believe he found that CU averaged signing 18 OL & DL per year.

We signed an average of 10 OL & DL per year.

Anyone think having 8 more lineman on a roster per year might make a difference? 32 lineman over 4 years.


Welcome to GT young man.
 
texstinger said:
Have a friend that loves delving into these type numbers.

He did the numbers of both OL & DL in the classes of CU and GT from 2008 until 2018.

I believe he found that CU averaged signing 18 OL & DL per year.

We signed an average of 10 OL & DL per year.

Anyone think having 8 more lineman on a roster per year might make a difference? 32 lineman over 4 years.


Welcome to GT young man.
Click to expand...

I think the highest number of both OL&DL Clemson recruited in the past 5 years is 9. Recruiting 18 lineman every year would be a bit ridiculous.
 
Sometimes this stuff isn't planned out to exact numbers: we probably knew we needed to take a big class of OL and would be happy with 5-8. That we are landing on 7 is based on the quality we think is in the recruiting class and how many decided they really liked Tech. As other said, the fact that we can (and likely will ) redshirt a couple of these players means we can even out the class based on how many OL we sign next year.

Seems about perfect to me: all the freshmen have to compete with each other to be "ATL"; not all of them will make it so there should be intense competition. And then the RS Freshman should be far ahead of any true freshman OL the next season. In other words, better to get 7 and 3 than 5 and 5 in the 2020 and 2021 classes.
 
texstinger said:
Have a friend that loves delving into these type numbers.

He did the numbers of both OL & DL in the classes of CU and GT from 2008 until 2018.

I believe he found that CU averaged signing 18 OL & DL per year.

We signed an average of 10 OL & DL per year.

Anyone think having 8 more lineman on a roster per year might make a difference? 32 lineman over 4 years.


Welcome to GT young man.
Click to expand...
Seriously? This is incredibly interesting. Might need a thread about this disparity. And I’d love to see numbers across the country.
 
texstinger said:
Have a friend that loves delving into these type numbers.

He did the numbers of both OL & DL in the classes of CU and GT from 2008 until 2018.

I believe he found that CU averaged signing 18 OL & DL per year.

We signed an average of 10 OL & DL per year.

Anyone think having 8 more lineman on a roster per year might make a difference? 32 lineman over 4 years.


Welcome to GT young man.
Click to expand...

Those numbers can't even be close to correct.

The idea that other teams have recruited more at those positions is correct, but the numbers are way off.
 
MidnightJacket said:
I've been following Tech football since 2004, when I enrolled. And every single year there has been bitching that we don't recruit enough/more OL. Finally a coaching staff that is putting emphasis in properly managing the roster.

Jacked up and thrilled to have Paula in this deep and excellent OL class. Dude looks like a beast.
Click to expand...

If you think you can get by on scheme when it comes to the lines, you're not a very good coach. You need to recruit the players and have the development as well.

Our offense will go as our OL goes. We get a bunch of athletic, high IQ guys that want to work hard and we will have a top offense no matter who the QB is.
 
This is what I see on Rivals

2009 - 6 DL, 3 OL, 9 total
2010 - 3 DL, 2 OL, 5 total
2011 - 3 DL, 4 OL, 7 total
2012 - 3 DL, 2 OL, 5 total
2013 - 3 DL, 2 OL, 5 total
2014 - 5 DL, 5 OL, 10 total
2015 - 4 DL, 2 OL, 6 total
2016 - 4 DL, 2 OL, 7 total
2017 - 4 DL, 4 OL, 8 total
2018 - 5 DL, 2 OL, 7 total

FWIW, Clemson in 2018 took 5 DL, and 2 OL. In 2017 they took 2 DL and 3 OL.

Fact Checker gives that post 3 pinocchios
9pNFQF6.jpg
 
OptionJacket said:
These are the guys that will bring us victories. They won’t score a point or get many highlights but top 10 teams are built from the offensive and defensive line out. QB’s, WR’s, and RB’s are a dime a dozen (other than the elite), but the lines are where coaches earn their money. Whether we win another game this year or not doesn’t change the fact that we have a coach who knows what needs to be done and is hungry. As for numbers, I’ll be glad to take 6 OLinemen a year and take a few less WR’s. We’ve seen what injuries can do to a line.
Click to expand...

And less RBs. Don't need 12-15 of those on the roster either.
 
texstinger said:
Have a friend that loves delving into these type numbers.

He did the numbers of both OL & DL in the classes of CU and GT from 2008 until 2018.

I believe he found that CU averaged signing 18 OL & DL per year.

We signed an average of 10 OL & DL per year.

Anyone think having 8 more lineman on a roster per year might make a difference? 32 lineman over 4 years.


Welcome to GT young man.
Click to expand...

Sounds like your friend sucks at math.
 
texstinger said:
Have a friend that loves delving into these type numbers.

He did the numbers of both OL & DL in the classes of CU and GT from 2008 until 2018.

I believe he found that CU averaged signing 18 OL & DL per year.

We signed an average of 10 OL & DL per year.

Anyone think having 8 more lineman on a roster per year might make a difference? 32 lineman over 4 years.


Welcome to GT young man.
Click to expand...

Are they planning on running 9 lineman schemes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top