Teasley
- Thread starter Pinkgimp
- Start date
I disagree with you about Teasley, but you are right that a lot of highly ranked teams didn’t look overly impressive this weekend.
It killed Brad Scott more than any other coach we've had here, in my estimation.
OK. But looking at the stats, for whatever reason, there are stats for sacks allowed for 93 teams. I believe there are 130 teams. Right now, we are tied at 82nd in the nation. Based on those early returns, our OL had a worse night than most. Along with the poor performance of the Teasley OL in each of the past two seasons, I am not encouraged. But, that's me.
OL is a very difficult position for a HS player to transition to in college. In HS, most highly rated OL are simply physically superior to everyone they play against. Their 4 or 5 star rating is based on size and athleticism more than anything. They rarely face a DL who is close to their equal in size and athleticism.
In college, technique and knowing who and how to block on a given play are critical. Every DL an OL faces in college is his equal in strength and quickness and the speed of the blitzing linebackers is something HS OL have never seen. OL coaching is very important in college, probably as much or more than any other position.
Signing a couple or three four star OL in a recruiting class is not enough to change overall OL play. Quite a few OL don't pan out in college. When I saw people here a couple years ago saying our OL problems would be solved the next season because of the recruits we had coming in, I knew that wasn't going to happen. The top programs load up on four and five star recruits and know it is going to take two or three years before most of them have any chance to contribute and most of them will likely never be a big contributor.
In college, technique and knowing who and how to block on a given play are critical. Every DL an OL faces in college is his equal in strength and quickness and the speed of the blitzing linebackers is something HS OL have never seen. OL coaching is very important in college, probably as much or more than any other position.
Signing a couple or three four star OL in a recruiting class is not enough to change overall OL play. Quite a few OL don't pan out in college. When I saw people here a couple years ago saying our OL problems would be solved the next season because of the recruits we had coming in, I knew that wasn't going to happen. The top programs load up on four and five star recruits and know it is going to take two or three years before most of them have any chance to contribute and most of them will likely never be a big contributor.
Should I conclude from that that we have not recruited as well as we thought or that OL development has been poor?
Both. OL recruitment is a very inexact science to start with. OL don't really have stats to point to that justifies their star rating. Size and athleticism combined with the number of scholarship offers is what determines star ratings for OL. On paper, the recruits we sign might look really good but once they arrive, they need coaching to help them take the step up to college play.
OL play, and DL to a bit lesser extent, is helped by coaching but not *made* by coaching; OL play is made by "want to" moreso than coaching. It sounds cliche, but its true; in addition to being big, strong, and smart, a successful OL is seriously mean, a literal big ugly, He has to seriously WANT to do what he does. Many of these guys don't really WANT to be an OL for various reasons, its what they CAN do. You can teach technique, zones, reads, and what you can and can't get away with til you're blue in the face; if the guy has other things in his head besides selling out he's not going to be particularly effective. A good friend was an OL on Dietzel's ACC championship team and can pick that out quickly. I also have a neighbor that was a highly recruited can't miss as an OL by Buddy Pough under Holtz; he and his family got all kinds of perks while being recruited but ran his mouth at a game at which he was a guest and got dropped like a hot potato. Ended up signing with Ga Southern and was a big nothing.
I would say that goes to recruiting then. Being able to identify the guys who have the intangible "want to" and not just the measurables.
Well that goes back to what piscis said; it’s a very inexact science. The upper echelon do seem to have a good recognition of it though. A squad can get occasionally one or two guys that fit the bill, but getting a room of them is apparently a different story.
We are consistently shat under the current o line coach. It’s not just physical. Going back over the past 2 seasons you can see where there are continuous whiffs. At times, looking like not knowing who to block. Blitzing linebackers come free constantly. It’s not so much physical but communication and KNOWING the calls.
I always liked Jim Carlen. If not for Holderman, a good football program would have been established for the next 20 years at that time. smh