Where's the beef?

ncjacket said:
TechPhi, semi interesting statistical exercise, but find me a team that had 18 OL on their roster and maybe I'll pay attention. What you're really saying is that all college coaches under recruit OL?
Click to expand...

The other issue is TE's - how would we account for that? Here are a couple that I looked up - I was trying to think of teams that traditionally have good OL's.

Boston College has 15 + 6 TE's.
Clemson has 19 + 8 TE's
Nebraska has 19 + 9 TE's

Now that I've looked these up - my problem is how many are scholarship players? I would still say that 16 makes sense, which is 3-deep at every position. With the OL, the best teams I've seen are ones that RS their guys for 3 years, and every starter is a JR or SR. Because of that, I think it makes sense to carry a higher number of OL.

In scanning the commits for some other schools (like Michigan), it seems like a good average is 4 OL signees per year. This would put you at about 16 guys at the position.

Anyway, its impossible for me to figure out the scholarship players on roster, so I can't really answer your question.
 
TechPhi97 said:
The other issue is TE's - how would we account for that? Here are a couple that I looked up - I was trying to think of teams that traditionally have good OL's.

Boston College has 15 + 6 TE's.
Clemson has 19 + 8 TE's
Nebraska has 19 + 9 TE's

Now that I've looked these up - my problem is how many are scholarship players? I would still say that 16 makes sense, which is 3-deep at every position. With the OL, the best teams I've seen are ones that RS their guys for 3 years, and every starter is a JR or SR. Because of that, I think it makes sense to carry a higher number of OL.

In scanning the commits for some other schools (like Michigan), it seems like a good average is 4 OL signees per year. This would put you at about 16 guys at the position.

Anyway, its impossible for me to figure out the scholarship players on roster, so I can't really answer your question.
Click to expand...
I'd say yes to BC, but in recent history neither Clemson or Nebraska has consistently had good OLs.
 
TechPhi97 said:
The other issue is TE's - how would we account for that? Here are a couple that I looked up - I was trying to think of teams that traditionally have good OL's.
Click to expand...

I think that we are mostly replacing TE's with running backs, both A and B.
 
You seldom think of OL as a poisition where a walk-on can help you, but in our offense calling for linemen who fire out and block low, walk-ons could contribute at least depth. As the Johnson era matures I think you could see some young linemen willing to walk-on and give this offense a try.
 
We got 3 walkons from last year that had other scholarships. We will eventually hear from these guys.
 
Ish said:
We may be "loaded", but we aren't loaded w/ talent. Some of these guys were walk-ons under Gailey.
Click to expand...

None of our 14 schlarship offensive lineman were ever walk-on's.

Zach Krish could earn a schollie for his last two seasons because he fits the new offense...but he is not one of the 14 currently who were all recruited out of high school.
 
GTLiebs said:
I think that we are mostly replacing TE's with running backs, both A and B.
Click to expand...

Yes, but to follow the topic of this thread, which is more likely to be able to convert to OL in a pinch? A TE or a back. We have two converted TE's on the O-Line right now. No converted backs currently play O-Line. Our 13 scholarship O-linemen include two TE's.
 
TechPhi97 said:
Boston College has 15 + 6 TE's.
Clemson has 19 + 8 TE's
Nebraska has 19 + 9 TE's

Now that I've looked these up - my problem is how many are scholarship players? .
.
Click to expand...

We have 21 OL's on roster, not including the two long snappers. 14 of those 21 are on scholarship.

Only once in the past 13 years have we had more than 14 OL's on scholarship. I am fine with 14...more concerned with getting quality over quantity...and I like our future here.

1998- 13
1999- 12
2000- 12
2001- 14
2002- 13
2003- 12
2004- 14
2005- 16
2006- 14
2007- 14
2008- 14
2009- 14
 
I'm not sure the point was that TEs could convert to OL, was it? Although I can't believe a) Nebraska has 19 scholarship OL and 9 scholarship TEs or b) that any coach would be dumb enough to use that many scholarships on those positions.
 
ncjacket said:
I'm not sure the point was that TEs could convert to OL, was it? Although I can't believe a) Nebraska has 19 scholarship OL and 9 scholarship TEs or b) that any coach would be dumb enough to use that many scholarships on those positions.
Click to expand...

That's why I said its impossible to tell how many are on scholarship, unless you literally go through and match recruiting websites to rosters.....which would take forever.
 
To alleviate any confusion about my TE comments. We currently have 11 recruited O-Linemen on the roster. In fact we have had to convert 2 TE's to the OL to reach what I consider to be a minimally acceptable number of 13. Apparently a lot of HC's consider that a minimally acceptable as well when you look at he numbers of OL throughout this thread. CPJ does not recruit TE's for his offense, therefore that "bailout" option to improve OL depth is no longer available. I would like to see us increase our OL recruiting numbers so we don't get our a$$ in a crack sometime down the road.
 
True more OL would be nice. However, I think the odds of 4 starting linemen getting injured in a two week stretch to not be overly likely. Obviously we know it can happen, but I don't think we should do more than recruit an extra one a year to compensate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top