Can I Get an Offensive Tackle Please?

Other than Nick Gates, the only other high school OT's we have a serious connection with are Frank Ragnow and Brian Wallace and those connections are fading a bit recently. We were in on Ragnow early last summer when he camped here but didn't offer him then and he started looking around. He appears to have lost interest in us and may be leaning to his home state Minnesota.

 
TonyStalloni said:
Other than Nick Gates, the only other high school OT's we have a serious connection with are Frank Ragnow and Brian Wallace and those connections are fading a bit recently. We were in on Ragnow early last summer when he camped here but didn't offer him then and he started looking around. He appears to have lost interest in us and may be leaning to his home state Minnesota.
Click to expand...
We are still in on Roseville,Ca 4* OT Kolton Miller. Word is the ship has not sailed on him and he has only taken 2 visits, one being to Wisconsin. At 6'8 290, would love to get him N!

 
Agree on this. No reason with a larger class we shouldn't sign 4 OL. That's kind of a min every year regardless. Last year's depth issues were a product of us being low on numbers the first 3 years Pelini was here. Throw in some transfers and a few injuries and it gets thin quick. We had good numbers this year and still ended up kind of thin.

 
Yup. OL needs stocking every year. It's probably the hardest position to scout well, it typically takes a couple of years on campus to get physically ready to play and has a high rate of injuries. We get a pretty good advantage in the number of walk-on linemen we recruit, but we still need about four scholarship recruits per year.

The improvement in the depth and quality of our OL since Bo took over is impressive. Despite Callahan's reputation as a line guru, that's one area we struggled to keep well stocked under him.

 
kchusker_chris said:
Agree on this. No reason with a larger class we shouldn't sign 4 OL. That's kind of a min every year regardless. Last year's depth issues were a product of us being low on numbers the first 3 years Pelini was here. Throw in some transfers and a few injuries and it gets thin quick. We had good numbers this year and still ended up kind of thin.
Click to expand...
You give four as an example of a good number to sign in a larger class. This year we had five scholarship seniors on the OLine and five scholarship juniors on the offensive line. You might need to try again when trying to come up with a reason.

 
Mavric said:
kchusker_chris said:
Agree on this. No reason with a larger class we shouldn't sign 4 OL. That's kind of a min every year regardless. Last year's depth issues were a product of us being low on numbers the first 3 years Pelini was here. Throw in some transfers and a few injuries and it gets thin quick. We had good numbers this year and still ended up kind of thin.
Click to expand...
You give four as an example of a good number to sign in a larger class. This year we had five scholarship seniors on the OLine and five scholarship juniors on the offensive line. You might need to try again when trying to come up with a reason.
Click to expand...
You including Finnin in that? Where was he last year? How about Kondolo? Didn't see him adding depth last year. Spencer Long? Don't remember him going against the scholly numbers when he signed w/ his recruiting class. Mark Pelini? How many scholly's did he take up back then?

Pelini had a few years where he signed low on OL. It's not some hidden secret I uncovered, and it certainly contributed to our lack of depth. Not rocket science. If you want to argue with me on everything fine, but at least bring something better than this weak a$$ stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kchusker_chris said:
Mavric said:
kchusker_chris said:
Agree on this. No reason with a larger class we shouldn't sign 4 OL. That's kind of a min every year regardless. Last year's depth issues were a product of us being low on numbers the first 3 years Pelini was here. Throw in some transfers and a few injuries and it gets thin quick. We had good numbers this year and still ended up kind of thin.
Click to expand...
You give four as an example of a good number to sign in a larger class. This year we had five scholarship seniors on the OLine and five scholarship juniors on the offensive line. You might need to try again when trying to come up with a reason.
Click to expand...
You including Finnin in that? Where was he last year? How about Kondolo? Didn't see him adding depth last year. Spencer Long? Don't remember him going against the scholly numbers when he signed w/ his recruiting class. Mark Pelini? How many scholly's did he take up back then?

Pelini had a few years where he signed low on OL. It's not some hidden secret I uncovered, and it certainly contributed to our lack of depth. Not rocket science. If you want to argue with me on everything fine, but at least bring something better than this weak a$$ stuff.
Click to expand...
That's fine. They were considering playing Kondolo late in the year - couldn't do that if he wasn't here. Even without those two, that's still 8 upperclassmen, which averages four per year so it's still at the number you cited. If we had taken more scholarship linemen earlier, we probably wouldn't have had those two so it really doesn't matter when they got here.

If the facts are weak a$$ stuff to you, that explains a lot.

 
The 2012 class and 2008 classes are the only ones that were significantly short on linemen. In the case of 2008, we signed three high school linemen and one juco. Grant didn't make it and baker had to switch to defense due to depth issues there. Coaches should have signed at least one more, but it's hard to blame them for that class, considering they only had a short time to salvage a class after the transition. There's no excuses for only signing two in 2012 though.

2008: 3 HS, 1 JC (one didn't qualify, baker to defense)

2009: 4 HS (not counting pensick)

2010: 3 HS, 1 JC (one more HS would be nice, but hardly a shortage)

2011: 5 HS

2012: 2 HS

2013: 3 HS, 2 JC

 
Mavric said:
kchusker_chris said:
Mavric said:
kchusker_chris said:
Agree on this. No reason with a larger class we shouldn't sign 4 OL. That's kind of a min every year regardless. Last year's depth issues were a product of us being low on numbers the first 3 years Pelini was here. Throw in some transfers and a few injuries and it gets thin quick. We had good numbers this year and still ended up kind of thin.
Click to expand...
You give four as an example of a good number to sign in a larger class. This year we had five scholarship seniors on the OLine and five scholarship juniors on the offensive line. You might need to try again when trying to come up with a reason.
Click to expand...
You including Finnin in that? Where was he last year? How about Kondolo? Didn't see him adding depth last year. Spencer Long? Don't remember him going against the scholly numbers when he signed w/ his recruiting class. Mark Pelini? How many scholly's did he take up back then?

Pelini had a few years where he signed low on OL. It's not some hidden secret I uncovered, and it certainly contributed to our lack of depth. Not rocket science. If you want to argue with me on everything fine, but at least bring something better than this weak a$$ stuff.
Click to expand...
That's fine. They were considering playing Kondolo late in the year - couldn't do that if he wasn't here. Even without those two, that's still 8 upperclassmen, which averages four per year so it's still at the number you cited. If we had taken more scholarship linemen earlier, we probably wouldn't have had those two so it really doesn't matter when they got here.

If the facts are weak a$$ stuff to you, that explains a lot.
Click to expand...
What does Kondolo have to do with the 2012 season? He wasn't even on the team yet. The 2007 class was thin, in 2008 we signed 3 OL, 1 of which was a JUCO so gone by 2012. 2010 class included a JUCO who was gone by 12' as well. 2012 season was impacted by low OL numbers in prior years. Throw in a couple transfers and a few busts and our numbers stunk. It why about half the OL depth was walk-ons recently. 4 is a pretty universally accepted number...we need to hit it. Not sure why you argue it...other that to just argue. Do you have a reason why you think it's 3, or 2?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2012 was a small class, but we definitely had room for at least one more lineman. The staff may have thought they had Peat in the bag, but there still should have been another.

 
dylan said:
2012 was a small class, but we definitely had room for at least one more lineman. The staff may have thought they had Peat in the bag, but there still should have been another.
Click to expand...
In 2012 we were holding a spot for one more offensive lineman. Unfortunately Peat chose Stanford. By then it was too late to get anyone else.

 
If peat is waiting that long, you need to have a third one in the bag and make room for peat if he comes. I like this staff, I like our recruiting and I think that we are overall doing fine with OL, but it needs to be stocked every year. We have a unique advantage in the number of young men willing to walk-on at that position, but you still need to keep the scholarship numbers up.

And I disagree with the post above that the walk-ons playing was a sign of a recruiting problem. Those kids were recruited, first of all, and they beat out scholarship players to get on the field.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top