Sixth...now seventh...now eighth olineman enters portal

Harvard Gamecock

All-Conference
May 5, 2014
2,830
2,633
113
Anyone who thinks OL are "plug and play" doesn't know much at all about football. If that were true, there would be little to no drop off when a starter went down and the backup who practices with the 1s every day came in. OL is very much a "team" unit. Every player on the OL needs to know and trust every other player and know instinctively how to work together. There is no other position group on a team that requires as much cohesion as the OL.

Bringing in 4 or 5 new OL that have never played together or in an OC's system and expecting them to immediately be effective is pure fantasy.
This is what I was suggesting to the poster who proposed the "plug and play" concept, and gelling was overrated.
Your post was much more, how shall I say, straightforward. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker123

kidrobinski

All-Conference
Jul 27, 2004
1,242
1,068
113
Bringing in 4 or 5 new OL that have never played together or in an OC's system and expecting them to immediately be effective is pure fantasy.
Wellsir, we gwan give it a try anyway. Let’s see what happens.
 

Gamecock Jacque

Joined Dec 20, 2020
Jan 30, 2022
5,386
5,042
113
This is what I was suggesting to the poster who proposed the "plug and play" concept, and gelling was overrated.
Your post was much more, how shall I say, straightforward. ;)
I don't know about "gelling", really everything needs to gell. But I remember when Devaney coached Nebraska, every Oline player enrolled at Nebraska not expecting to start until their senior year.
 

sclawman77

All-Conference
Jun 27, 2011
1,211
1,072
113
OL portal commits fwiw:

Tree: Nebraska
Baugh: A&M
Henry: Louisville
Sharpe: Michigan State
Stanley: Purdue
Thompson: hasn't officially entered portal
 

18IsTheMan

Heisman
Oct 1, 2014
18,629
15,612
113
OL portal commits fwiw:

Tree: Nebraska
Baugh: A&M
Henry: Louisville
Sharpe: Michigan State
Stanley: Purdue
Thompson: hasn't officially entered portal
I think we had some talented OL, but they were not coached well, and they did not play well together as a unit. I don't think it's shocking or a big deal that our OL are getting picked up by other programs. They each may individually have been good, but not as a unit. In this case, it seems the whole was less than the sum of its parts.
 

Lurker123

All-Conference
May 4, 2020
5,590
4,628
113
I think we had some talented OL, but they were not coached well, and they did not play well together as a unit. I don't think it's shocking or a big deal that our OL are getting picked up by other programs. They each may individually have been good, but not as a unit. In this case, it seems the whole was less than the sum of its parts.

All it takes is to imagine our reaction to signing a 4 star OL in the portal, even if he came from a crappy unit. We'd be excited to get them.
 

Gamecock Jacque

Joined Dec 20, 2020
Jan 30, 2022
5,386
5,042
113
When discussing CFB, aside from field dimensions, one would be very hard pressed to find much semblance to the game from 50 years ago.
I know that players didn't expect to start on the oline until their senior year and back then I didn't see a more dominant oline for years. That was a change. Coaches would not be hard pressed, as there are many things that have not changed. Football wise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kidrobinski

Harvard Gamecock

All-Conference
May 5, 2014
2,830
2,633
113
I know that players didn't expect to start on the oline until their senior year and back then I didn't see a more dominant oline for years. That was a change. Coaches would not be hard pressed, as there are many things that have not changed. Football wise.
 

Slim Chickens Gamecock

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2022
1,585
1,809
113
So we might get a visit from Ferris St and Northern Arizona U.

yay- we are killing it. Clemmers loading up on DT's....again!
 

bayrooster

All-American
Aug 21, 2003
15,047
7,621
113
When discussing CFB, aside from field dimensions, one would be very hard pressed to find much semblance to the game from 50 years ago.
Guess it's time to throw Bartlett's Familiar Quotations in the trash bin; the world isn't the same as it was in Cicero's time. 😥
 

Bubba Fett

Joined Oct 6, 2000
Feb 1, 2022
2,042
1,995
113
Thus far our OL pickups in the portal are yawners.

We have some recruits that look good on paper.

I hope I'm wrong but I'd say our OL situation has not gotten better. It's gone backwards.
 
Last edited:

kidrobinski

All-Conference
Jul 27, 2004
1,242
1,068
113
This far our OL pickups in the portal are yawners.

We have some recruits that look good on paper.

I hope I'm wrong but I'd say our OL situation has not gotten better. It's gone backwards.
I’d be interested in your articulation of why you perceive it that way.
 

Bubba Fett

Joined Oct 6, 2000
Feb 1, 2022
2,042
1,995
113
I’d be interested in your articulation of why you perceive it that way.
In no particular order:

If you lose that many starters, who could have returned, and gotten better, you're going to need a bunch of stout new guys coming in.

What's more likely with our past OL: we mis-fired on ALL those guys? Everyone of them wasn't as good as their incoming ratings? All of them? Or is it more likely that the system and the coaching failed them?

The guys leaving aren't sitting in the portal. They're going to Nebraska, Purdue, Mich St, TexA&M, Louisville... that says they're not clowns.

Portal ratings wise, we're upside down, badly:

Outbound:
88.49
88.03
87.96
87.00
86.00
86.00
85.00
89.72 - that's sophomore Josiah Thompson who I think had a ton of potential, hate to lose him

Inbound:
86.00
87.27

^^^That doesn't look like a winning formula. Too much out.

Update: yay! It looks like we might get one I really wanted, Jacarrius Peak, 96.72. That's a huge pick up, but we're still way behind.

We're gonna need more. We gonna need at least three more 89+ guys to get close to filling in that hole. You gotta have some depth too.

I'm skeptical. That said, it's pretty clear that the new staff wants a clean slate. They nuked the OL room from orbit, "it's the only way to be sure" as the guy said. And that's probably the right direction, but we've got to get some more studs through the portal. It's chaos right now. Another week and the studs will be gone.

We'll see.
 

Bubba Fett

Joined Oct 6, 2000
Feb 1, 2022
2,042
1,995
113
I'm starting to breath a little on the OL.

We just picked up Emmanuel Poku from ECU. Portal rating isn't super high, but he's one I wanted. Watched him play at ECU. He's a monster and potentially a good bookend with Peak.

Poku and Peak!
 

Piscis

All-Conference
Nov 30, 2001
24,598
2,128
113
I'm starting to breath a little on the OL.

We just picked up Emmanuel Poku from ECU. Portal rating isn't super high, but he's one I wanted. Watched him play at ECU. He's a monster and potentially a good bookend with Peak.

Poku and Peak!
A monster at ECU doesn't necessarily translate to a monster in the SEC, or any P4 conference.
 

Skuddy

All-Conference
Feb 23, 2022
1,740
3,796
113
In no particular order:

If you lose that many starters, who could have returned, and gotten better, you're going to need a bunch of stout new guys coming in.

What's more likely with our past OL: we mis-fired on ALL those guys? Everyone of them wasn't as good as their incoming ratings? All of them? Or is it more likely that the system and the coaching failed them?

The guys leaving aren't sitting in the portal. They're going to Nebraska, Purdue, Mich St, TexA&M, Louisville... that says they're not clowns.

Portal ratings wise, we're upside down, badly:

Outbound:
88.49
88.03
87.96
87.00
86.00
86.00
85.00
89.72 - that's sophomore Josiah Thompson who I think had a ton of potential, hate to lose him

Inbound:
86.00
87.27

^^^That doesn't look like a winning formula. Too much out.

Update: yay! It looks like we might get one I really wanted, Jacarrius Peak, 96.72. That's a huge pick up, but we're still way behind.

We're gonna need more. We gonna need at least three more 89+ guys to get close to filling in that hole. You gotta have some depth too.

I'm skeptical. That said, it's pretty clear that the new staff wants a clean slate. They nuked the OL room from orbit, "it's the only way to be sure" as the guy said. And that's probably the right direction, but we've got to get some more studs through the portal. It's chaos right now. Another week and the studs will be gone.

We'll see.
How does Indiana's OL look ratings wise against our line last year?

Or even Indiana's entire team, position by position?
 

Bubba Fett

Joined Oct 6, 2000
Feb 1, 2022
2,042
1,995
113
How does Indiana's OL look ratings wise against our line last year?

Or even Indiana's entire team, position by position?

Going into 2025 season:

UI Oline using data points from 2024
  • Team run-blocking grade: 75.6 (ranked 17th nationally, 3rd in Big Ten).
  • Team pass-protection grade: 73.9 (ranked 34th nationally, 4th in Big Ten).
Those are PFF numbers

SC Oline

Harder to get numbers on our guys for some reason, but a rough calculation of 68-72 overall for the projected unit. So about 70PFF overall, That quite a bit worse than UI. I don't know what the "star" ratings or High School ratings comparison was, but UI clearly got better guys or at least performed better.

Overall ratings compared between SC and UI:

SC PFF rating going into 2025 was about the same with UI, like 12th overall national, but SC was ranked 13th(AP) with high expectations, and UI was ranked 20th (AP) with lessor expectations.

Researching this made me change my mind a little about SC's Oline... I was thinking we had talent there and simply weren't getting the best out of them. Now I think we had a talent level problem and a coaching problem. Maybe it's just me rationalizing it, but the cleaning out of our OL is looking more and more like a good move.

Will the new guys be better? I don't know. I do like that we appear to be looking everywhere for the type our new coaches want. On paper these guys look "harder."

We'll see.
 

Skuddy

All-Conference
Feb 23, 2022
1,740
3,796
113
Going into 2025 season:

UI Oline using data points from 2024
  • Team run-blocking grade: 75.6 (ranked 17th nationally, 3rd in Big Ten).
  • Team pass-protection grade: 73.9 (ranked 34th nationally, 4th in Big Ten).
Those are PFF numbers

SC Oline

Harder to get numbers on our guys for some reason, but a rough calculation of 68-72 overall for the projected unit. So about 70PFF overall, That quite a bit worse than UI. I don't know what the "star" ratings or High School ratings comparison was, but UI clearly got better guys or at least performed better.

Overall ratings compared between SC and UI:

SC PFF rating going into 2025 was about the same with UI, like 12th overall national, but SC was ranked 13th(AP) with high expectations, and UI was ranked 20th (AP) with lessor expectations.

Researching this made me change my mind a little about SC's Oline... I was thinking we had talent there and simply weren't getting the best out of them. Now I think we had a talent level problem and a coaching problem. Maybe it's just me rationalizing it, but the cleaning out of our OL is looking more and more like a good move.

Will the new guys be better? I don't know. I do like that we appear to be looking everywhere for the type our new coaches want. On paper these guys look "harder."

We'll see.
I was wondering about their star power compared to ours since you seem to be worried about whether we are replacing our star power with a higher star power. And generally, I would agree with this but then there is.....Indiana.

Hopefully, the guys we are getting can actually block better than the guys we are losing. That's all I ask.

As you said, We'll see.
 

Bubba Fett

Joined Oct 6, 2000
Feb 1, 2022
2,042
1,995
113
I was wondering about their star power compared to ours since you seem to be worried about whether we are replacing our star power with a higher star power. And generally, I would agree with this but then there is.....Indiana.

Hopefully, the guys we are getting can actually block better than the guys we are losing. That's all I ask.

As you said, We'll see.
Cignetti kept 2 starters from his predecessor two years ago. He rebuilt through the portal. He takes mature 3 stars and makes them better.

Problem is, we don't have Cignetti and his staff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sclawman77

Bubba Fett

Joined Oct 6, 2000
Feb 1, 2022
2,042
1,995
113
and now a ninth!! Unprecedented positional defection. This dude never player though.
Pretty safe to assume it was an intentional house cleaning. They want to keep Sarratt and Hay. Still hope of one more upgrade from the portal. Way, way too early projection:

LT Peak / Smith
LG Sarratt / Arnett
C Hay / Miller
RG Gray / Purvis
RT Poku / Smith

Depth at tackle is a problem.

The other two freshmen, Guiles and Baxter may have to play too.

We really could use 2 more decent guys.

CORRECTION:

I wrote this thinking that Ajidahun, Anderson, and Franks were gone, but they're not. Anderson and Ajidahun in particular are going to play a big part in '26. We've got more dudes than I realized. OL is going to look more like this:

LT Peak / Ajidahun
LG Sarratt / Miller / Franks / Arnett
C Hay / Miller
RG Anderson / Gray / Purvis / Arnett
RT Poku / Franks / Smith

So, we'll have at least 10 guys legitimately competing for the starting 5.
 
Last edited:

3USC1801

Joined Dec 10, 2020
Dec 10, 2020
1,067
3,288
113
and now a ninth!! Unprecedented positional defection. This dude never player though.
Perhaps the demands of the new regime are too difficult for some to handle. So be it. A clean sweep, a new system, and a fresh start. I like it.

As to Teasley, he must have some upside or else Rhule wouldn’t hire him. Now, we all believe he couldn’t coach players up so that leaves recruiting as his strong suit. He brought 10 “blue-chip” players to Carolina during his time here so my guess is he is being hired for his ability to recruit.
 

Tngamecock

All-Conference
Sep 10, 2000
29,622
2,548
113
In no particular order:

If you lose that many starters, who could have returned, and gotten better, you're going to need a bunch of stout new guys coming in.

What's more likely with our past OL: we mis-fired on ALL those guys? Everyone of them wasn't as good as their incoming ratings? All of them? Or is it more likely that the system and the coaching failed them?

The guys leaving aren't sitting in the portal. They're going to Nebraska, Purdue, Mich St, TexA&M, Louisville... that says they're not clowns.

Portal ratings wise, we're upside down, badly:

Outbound:
88.49
88.03
87.96
87.00
86.00
86.00
85.00
89.72 - that's sophomore Josiah Thompson who I think had a ton of potential, hate to lose him

Inbound:
86.00
87.27

^^^That doesn't look like a winning formula. Too much out.

Update: yay! It looks like we might get one I really wanted, Jacarrius Peak, 96.72. That's a huge pick up, but we're still way behind.

We're gonna need more. We gonna need at least three more 89+ guys to get close to filling in that hole. You gotta have some depth too.

I'm skeptical. That said, it's pretty clear that the new staff wants a clean slate. They nuked the OL room from orbit, "it's the only way to be sure" as the guy said. And that's probably the right direction, but we've got to get some more studs through the portal. It's chaos right now. Another week and the studs will be gone.

We'll see.
Your faith in ratings is admirable
 
  • Like
Reactions: kidrobinski