OL

M

midatlantech

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
6,756
I argued this year that our OL was not stout enough to be a top ranked team and that until we could prove we could move the LOS straight ahead we will always be limited. Well, unfortunately we couldn't budge the LOS against BC.

Is Chan purposely recruiting light quick players a la the Denver Broncos (who also struggle in similar) or is it time to consider playing a couple of our younger OL? Gardner is undersized, Rhodes is undersized and McManus' game seemed to stop growing a year ago. Are there any beefier players in the wings?

Certain teams just always seem to have really big and strong linemen. Is it possible that certain teams look the other way regarding growth products and/or steroids? I'm not blaming BC actually, I'm thinking of others, but just curious.

Lastly, is the quicker linemen (OL and DL) just always going to put us at risk for a game or two a year that we just can't compete? Does that mean NC and likely ACC championships will always just be out of reach?
 
You would think with 4 3rd year starters that our OL would be good...
 
I argued this year that our OL was not stout enough to be a top ranked team and that until we could prove we could move the LOS straight ahead we will always be limited.
Click to expand...

I'll admit to thinking our OL was going to be really good this year. Turns out they're merely sorta good.
 
Blocking turns on effort, not on talent. A player has to want to block. A player has to take pride in blocking. I think back to an undersized guard we had in the sixties. Shug told him he wasn't big enough to be an SEC player; that he needed to go to Furman or somewhere small. He ended up being a good player for us and played all three years. David Pollack is another example. He was undersized, but never took a play off. Our guys have experience. They've been in a college weight program for three or more years. I think they have good coaching. Bottom line (in my opinion) is they need to take pride in their job and want to get it done.
 
midatlantic

I would not argue undersized except for Matt Rhodes...as Gardner, Smith, McManus, Lonowski are all 300. It is fine having the center at 292 lbs...and Tuminello is ok.

imho....they just did not come out and play physical enough....that was Gailey's take as well after the game for both sides of the line. He said he warned them all week that BC would be physical. That...plus BC played disciplined D and always had someone home to stuff the cutback lanes.

also imho...#61 just makes a lot of mistakes out there. I hate to call someone out...but he is a senior.

to answer your question about those coming up...plenty of big boys in Howard, Yandell, Claytor, Voss, etc. The questions is....will they play mean!
 
I seem to recall BOR has been on #61's case for quite some time and frankly he has been repeatedly proven correct.
 
the thing is...there is only 1 guy on the OL under 300 lbs...TRUE....Rhodes
They aren't undersized.

Rhodes should be benched. I have been saying it for 3 years now. Start Dunman or lonowski there.


This was an ill-prepared team that thought they could walk into the stadium and win. They got punched in the mouth. I don't get this staff...but we have 1-2 of these games a year...where our team is clearly out-coached and underprepared.
 
Yes, I probably should have focused more on meanness and not weight, but for a few years now it just seems like we get manhandled a game or two.

Regarding weight however, I think big linemen today are more like 330#, not barely pushing over 300#. Gardner is just not a big linemen, he's a good technician. Put him next to other smallish guards and you have a problem. Our Center is fine at 292#, I agree.

It just seems like zero penetration in the middle though. Smith is a big guy at RT (did he play?) but new.
 
midatlantech said:
Yes, I probably should have focused more on meanness and not weight, but for a few years now it just seems like we get manhandled a game or two.
Click to expand...

A lineman once told me that if he lined up across from an opponent that was big, he figured he was there because he was big. But if he lined up across from an opponent that was small, he knew he was there because he was mean. He also said that rarely did he line up against an opponent who was both big and mean.
 
midatlantech said:
Regarding weight however, I think big linemen today are more like 330#, not barely pushing over 300#. Gardner is just not a big linemen, he's a good technician. Put him next to other smallish guards and you have a problem. Our Center is fine at 292#, I agree.
Click to expand...

BC's O-line...the one that manhandled us and stopped the blitz every time.

LT- 319
LG- 290
C- 285
RG- 302
RT- 262
AVG- 292

Our O-Line
LT- 298
LG- 280
C- 292
RG- 300
RT- 300
AVG- 294

BC's DL:
DE- 235
DT- 325
DT- 284
DE- 291
AVG- 284

Our DL (although I have head Walker is much heavier now):
DE- 245
DT- 285
DT- 275
DE- 265
AVG- 268
 
dodd_54 said:
Blocking turns on effort, not on talent. A player has to want to block.
Click to expand...


Pretty much would have to disagree on this one!

As far as a player wanting to block? He better damn well want to block or he will be watching from the sidelines the first year and then without a scholly the second. Remember players scholarships are renewable yearly, if he ain't cuttin it he will be shown the door.
 
There's 2 people who will be fighting to keep their spots I'm not gonna name names but I'm sure yall can figure it out.
 
"Want to" dries up in the 3rd qt when you are trying to block a 330 lb DT AGAIN and you are giving up 35 lbs min.Got to have talent and strength.We got beat BADLY on lines.
btw-Lonowski at this point is not the answer.I've watched him in 3 games and he is learning.
 
I can't remember the last time this current group was tested this strongly (got their asses handed to them).

It's a wake up call. Time to step up or step out.

Still a lot of football left to bee played but nobody's laying down, fellas. We'll have to earn every win.

Coaching staff needs to be coaching up not just expecting fruition from their tenure. We have to get tough and be tough every game. I saw a little "we're supposed to win" this past weekend. Will not happen. It's going to be tough every game and we're going to have to be tough and WANT the win. Georgia will be tough again this year.

Let's get it on, Tech! Football's a rough sport and it's time we got rough.
 
I can't remember the last time this current group was tested this strongly (got their asses handed to them).
Click to expand...

Clemson, last year.
 
We have 1 weak link on the OL (Rhodes) and another position that is hit and miss (Lonowski/Smith at RT). When Smith gets fully healthy I definitely expect him to take the starting RT role. He will be a good one I'm sure of it. Rhodes simply should not be a starter. I'm just being honest; if we can call out the QB by name why not an OG?

Anyway, Gardner is a man and will play on Sundays. He completely shut down Gaines Adams last year at Clemson. Adams made all that noise when he lined up on the opposite side and went heads-up with Wrotto.

the rest of the guys are all good ACC players.
 
Well, Smith is the starter so I don't know what that's all about. As for Rhodes, I'd suggest no one on this board has any idea which OL play well and which don't.
 
knoxjacket said:
I seem to recall BOR has been on #61's case for quite some time and frankly he has been repeatedly proven correct.
Click to expand...

If we want our best chance of running the ball, #61 needs to be benched PERIOD. Tuminello also gets lit up by good Dlines. Our best line for running in my opinion is Gardner at LT, Lonowski at LG, Dunman at C, McManus at RG, and Smith at RT. Although Smith had some problems Sat. night but he is fairly new on the line, so he gets a pass. Our LG is a peewee when it comes to big games.

Gailey favors experience over talent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top