Can someone PLEASE explain why we always have OL problems???
- Thread starter rockingamecock
- Start date
The OL has been rough this season and the announcers addressed that in the last game we played -- injuries, starting new guys, etc.
There's no doubt Elliott still has a big hand in the OL and he's put together some of our best lines ever -- so I would think the announcers are likely correct.
Last year, we ended up with one of the best offenses in the country so they couldn't have been that bad.
If we had NIL funding to pay our OL like many of the SEC teams (including Missouri) - things would probably change quickly.
Otherwise, we have to wait on the stars to align like Vandy with seniors across the board. That's typically been when we have the most success on that front and it doesn't happen often.
Our recruiting has been pretty good the last few years on the OL. I wouldn't blame that.
I hear a LOT of fans of teams lamenting how they always have a weak OL, but I dont think everyone has been as bad as we have the past few years.
At some point, you have to look at the OL coach, or what the OC is asking them to do.
Last edited:
I honestly think it's been this idea of building culture over playing football. There was a story about how much fun they had this summer playing frisbee golf. Not that those things aren't important, and I fully believe that football is not the only thing in life for these young men. If you look at poor coaching, it's because there hasn't been enough football coaching. I have absolutely no inside information on this, so take it for what it's worth. Just my uninformed opinion.
Football should be a HUGE part of these players and coaches lives. They are paid a lot of money to play football, it is not some extracurricular activity they do in addition to their school work. Beamer and staff are paid millions of dollars to put the best football team possible on the field, not to make sure the players have fun and a balanced life.
College football is now a professional sports league. The coaches and players are employees and should be expected to produce the greatest return possible for the people funding them.
Eventually Donati will be forced to look at the HC.
I dont see it at the end of this year. Last year is still too fresh. If we salvage this year, he'll get a few more. If we tank this year, I think next year is all important for him.
This year, I could see some serious discussions with some position group coaches, most notably the OL. I still think the OL coach will be the sacrificial lamb for the OC.
I just have a feeling that Beamer is not the kind of coach that Donati is looking for. And he wouldn't have hired him. Of course, no real AD would have either. Real ADs want to make their mark on a program. You're right, probably not this year. But I don't think he will let this continue the way it is. He has a job to worry about too. Tanner was here so long a lot of us have forgotten what a real AD is like.
All of that is true. A new AD is not good for the stability of any coach who isn't on solid ground.
Shane can get on solid ground with 7 or 8 wins this year. Can he do it?
The "solid ground" year was last year when he signed the big contract to keep him on board through 2030.
The best you BOTs can really hope for is a departure at the end 2027.
That would be the first time the buyout move closer to $10mil.
Until then, you're straddled with the our best coach in history to date.
Tough luck. You might try finding another team to troll to stem the tide until then.
Money will determine everything. If donations, tickets sales and attendance holds up, no changes will be made by the AD. I don't see anything happening after this year, even if the record ends up being 4-8.
I do think Beamer will be on the hot seat next year if this is a 4-8 or 5-7 season.
....because we insist on running that dang Zone Blocking scheme that has OL confused on who to block instead of just getting a hat on a hat. Only watching South Carolina do I see linemen spinning around looking for someone to block instead of actually blocking people.
Two things:
1. Running a pro-style offense is complicated and,
2. Being saddled with Satterfield's Offensive Line Coach is, well, offensive.
1. Running a pro-style offense is complicated and,
2. Being saddled with Satterfield's Offensive Line Coach is, well, offensive.
I agree with that. We go to one game per year. This year it was Kentucky. Two things stood out to me.
1. the stadium is still packed even though the play this year has been crappy and,
2. most attending look considerably younger than me.
Most people are considerably younger than me.
Do the younger crowd start heading out during the 4th quarter (win or lose)?
That will probably be the last time I go. I almost did not go this year. Just walking up the ramp takes a lot out of me. I live in a hilly neighborhood, Walking my dogs is much more difficult today than it was just 10 years ago. But, anyway, I way more prefer to watch the games on TV. And considering how mediocre we tend to be, watching on TV rather than in person is the wise approach.
Regardless of what scheme we run we have had OL problems for years. Occasionally, we have a good one when the stars align. Last year, the line was porous, but Sellers was able to escape most times making it look better than it was. Now, everyone has film and Illinois showed how to defend Sellers. I think we have the athletes but lack the coaching. Beamer doesn't want to move on from Teasley because the players like him and he recruits well. Maybe he will this year ... who knows.
I don't follow it closely but didn't realize Mizzou has more NIL money than us. I find that surprising. Midwest school that has little to no championships in any sports.
Who can even say for sure? Any NIL totals thrown around are anecdotal, and taken with a grain of salt. (Like us having the 5th highest paid player in college football)
Some people will take donations for a new athletic building and pass them off as NIL donations if they want to argue one side of a story. I saw that done with Missouri at one time.
Edit: I'll explain since I know the troll who spread this story before has migrated to this board.
This story was used to insinuate Missouri had 60 million to spend on players.
Mizzou athletics announces $62-million gift, largest donation in history
An anonymous donor has gifted the Mizzou athletics department $62 million, the school announced Monday morning. Most of the money will fund renovations at Memorial Stadium with some allocated for NIL.
www.kshb.com
If you actually read the story, 50 million went to stadium renovations. 12 million to the athletic department that could include going to NIL.
It was then argued that 12 million meant they could spend so much more than us, except athletic departments are currently capped at 20.5 million. And we are spending that max already.
NIL is simply the unprovable bogey man for anyone who wants to dismiss a win or a loss without an otherwise good reason.
Last edited:
It is surprising. They have a very tight knit alumni who make it rain.
Even all of their lineman have NIL deals.
Last edited:
I've posted everything for you before in living color, Doubtfire.
You just didn't like what you saw -- as it put a crimp in your constant complaining about our program.
Why does Teasley get all the blame for this? This Zone Blocking crap has been a problem since before Sean Elliott went to Georgia State. It's a scheme issue that our players for whatever reason have been unable to pick up. Every now and then when we have an OL group full of upperclassmen, do we have a decent line.
62 million from anonymous donor in 2024, stipulated as 50 for stadium renovations and 12 for NIL. Missouri spent 31.7 million in NIL jul2024-jun2025. The state of Missouri also passed laws around NIL to benefit their recruiting. They’re serious out there.
If its the scheme, then are we stuck with it for some reason, or is someone consciously making the decision to keep it?
If not the OL coach, then the OC? The scheme has encompassed more than one of those during that time.
As for the NIL, good to see we agree on the details of the supposedly 62 million NIL deal.
And for the 31 million number, this article breaks it down nicely.
"As for how that money was spent, the Missourian found ETT paid nearly two-thirds of every dollar it was supplied on football ($8 million of the $12.4 million in total),"
And
"Like all SEC schools, Missouri will spend the full $20.5 million "salary cap" as allowed under the House settlement, with $18 million coming in actual dollars and $2.5 million in new scholarships counting toward the cap. "
These came from a FOI request that was honored because the way Missouri's AD was tied to the collective.
Not sure if ours is the same, because every article i found was vague "its murky" comments when Gamecock staff were asked about our numbers.
Missouri seems to be an outlier there with the way things are handled. Leaving other schools' budgets to be more vague.
Edit: I remembered one other thing. I think we have a hurdle some other schools don't. That Missouri report had them spending 2/3 to 3/4 of their money on football. I wonder if our percentages will be shifted due to WBB taking more of a chunk from our budget than it does at other schools.
And for the 31 million number, this article breaks it down nicely.
"As for how that money was spent, the Missourian found ETT paid nearly two-thirds of every dollar it was supplied on football ($8 million of the $12.4 million in total),"
And
"Like all SEC schools, Missouri will spend the full $20.5 million "salary cap" as allowed under the House settlement, with $18 million coming in actual dollars and $2.5 million in new scholarships counting toward the cap. "
These came from a FOI request that was honored because the way Missouri's AD was tied to the collective.
Not sure if ours is the same, because every article i found was vague "its murky" comments when Gamecock staff were asked about our numbers.
Missouri seems to be an outlier there with the way things are handled. Leaving other schools' budgets to be more vague.
Edit: I remembered one other thing. I think we have a hurdle some other schools don't. That Missouri report had them spending 2/3 to 3/4 of their money on football. I wonder if our percentages will be shifted due to WBB taking more of a chunk from our budget than it does at other schools.
Last edited:
Our line has admittedly been dreadful most of this year. But, I have never heard of a fan base claiming they have a great OL. Fanbases of great teams might say “we won the trenches that game”, but as soon as the QB gets sacked the next game, the OL sucks again. I’ve got two kids at Bama and a wife who went there, so god knows I’ve heard it about Bama even when Saban was there.
Even our best years here under Spurrier, these boards undoubtedly blamed the OL for not getting over the top. Maybe fairly, but still…
Even our best years here under Spurrier, these boards undoubtedly blamed the OL for not getting over the top. Maybe fairly, but still…
Our line has admittedly been dreadful most of this year. But, I have never heard of a fan base claiming they have a great OL. Fanbases of great teams might say “we won the trenches that game”, but as soon as the QB gets sacked the next game, the OL sucks again. I’ve got two kids at Bama and a wife who went there, so god knows I’ve heard it about Bama even when Saban was there.
Even our best years here under Spurrier, these boards undoubtedly blamed the OL for not getting over the top. Maybe fairly, but still…
Ha. True. I think the dreadful goes beyond this year, but youre right about OL always being a fan favorite punching bag.
I doubt most here were alive to see the 1984 "Black Magic" season. We had a great offensive line, probably the strength of the team: Del Wilkes, Jim Walsh, Tom Garner, Carl Womble, Bill Barnhill, etc. And NO, my memory is not that good. I just remember we had a very good offensive line that year. I had to look up the roster to see who was on the offensive line.Our line has admittedly been dreadful most of this year. But, I have never heard of a fan base claiming they have a great OL. Fanbases of great teams might say “we won the trenches that game”, but as soon as the QB gets sacked the next game, the OL sucks again. I’ve got two kids at Bama and a wife who went there, so god knows I’ve heard it about Bama even when Saban was there.
Even our best years here under Spurrier, these boards undoubtedly blamed the OL for not getting over the top. Maybe fairly, but still…
Last edited:
There's lots of old farts on here. The o line that Big George ran behind was pretty good.
What's NOT included: This cap does not include NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals secured by third parties, such as a brand sponsoring a specific athlete for social media. promotion.Who can even say for sure? Any NIL totals thrown around are anecdotal, and taken with a grain of salt. (Like us having the 5th highest paid player in college football)
Some people will take donations for a new athletic building and pass them off as NIL donations if they want to argue one side of a story. I saw that done with Missouri at one time.
Edit: I'll explain since I know the troll who spread this story before has migrated to this board.
This story was used to insinuate Missouri had 60 million to spend on players.
Mizzou athletics announces $62-million gift, largest donation in history
An anonymous donor has gifted the Mizzou athletics department $62 million, the school announced Monday morning. Most of the money will fund renovations at Memorial Stadium with some allocated for NIL.
If you actually read the story, 50 million went to stadium renovations. 12 million to the athletic department that could include going to NIL.
It was then argued that 12 million meant they could spend so much more than us, except athletic departments are currently capped at 20.5 million. And we are spending that max already.
NIL is simply the unprovable bogey man for anyone who wants to dismiss a win or a loss without an otherwise good reason.
Missouri spent in the last year $12.4 mil for football NIL. Also universities this year can spend up to $20.5 mil for athletes as part of the revenue sharing as part of the NCAA court case. And those numbers don't include the 3rd party deals. You would need to see the individual players tax returns to know what they make.
I was. It was the best of times and the worst of times. That Navy game sucked but I sat on The Hill at Clemson.
It was but George simply ran over a lot of defenders as well and once he got past the linebackers, it was over.