Defensive tackle problem
- Thread starter Fab5Coug
- Start date
And it doesn't get better if you throw in the SDEs. There are two 4 star SDEs from Utah, none in CA. One of those guys signed with Utah today, and the other looks like he's leaning that way.
We'll see who can project, develop and retain.
However, I wonder how USC's nose dive has affected the rankings. Helton has three guys that are close to a 4 star rating. Obviously no "benefit of the doubt" being given this year.
Only a couple left in the JC's. The Kavicka kid that went to San Jose State might of been a solid player.
Leach seemingly always gets and develops O Lineman, without fail, the same goes with recievers and qbs-but O line a lot of schools struggle with. I think its the unique skill set in pass blocking he recruits for and teaches. He recruits a body type, 6-5/6-6 and after a couple of years we have another 6-5 310 pound monster.
I don't buy it. The idea that out of the top 35 DT kids, only 1 lives in the west, is more of a comment on the rating system than on the kids.
First, CA population keeps growing. Yes, people leave. People also move here. And birth rates have not stopped. You could probably say the same for the entire west. So it is not population.
Second, there is a cultural difference between the west and the deep south. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, people in the west are more widely and seriously concerned about the long term results from football brain impacts than in the deep south. I see kids today who would have been playing youth football in SoCal 20 years ago who are not playing it now. It is a regular topic of conversation of adults with jr. high and high school aged athletes here. You also hear it from soccer parents. My friends in the south tell me that is less of a phenomena there at this time. So I'll buy the idea that a somewhat smaller % of the population is playing football here now, whereas that might not have been the case 20 years ago. Still, that is nibbling around the edges when it comes to fewer 4 and 5 star D linemen in the west.
There are more high school football factories in the south. That appears to be indisputable. So it is possible that more of the HS seniors in TX or GA might be more polished than the same seniors in CA or WA. That probably plays a role.
The biggest factor, IMHO, is the nature of the high school rating system. Maybe the ratings folks in the west are more unbiased. Maybe the ones in the south and midwest believe a bit too much of their hype. Maybe some of those rating gurus are simply not very good at what they do.
Long story short, it defies logic and reason that only one of the top 35 DT's lives in the west, where something like 20-25% of the population resides. That calls into question the raters, not the ratees.
First, CA population keeps growing. Yes, people leave. People also move here. And birth rates have not stopped. You could probably say the same for the entire west. So it is not population.
Second, there is a cultural difference between the west and the deep south. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, people in the west are more widely and seriously concerned about the long term results from football brain impacts than in the deep south. I see kids today who would have been playing youth football in SoCal 20 years ago who are not playing it now. It is a regular topic of conversation of adults with jr. high and high school aged athletes here. You also hear it from soccer parents. My friends in the south tell me that is less of a phenomena there at this time. So I'll buy the idea that a somewhat smaller % of the population is playing football here now, whereas that might not have been the case 20 years ago. Still, that is nibbling around the edges when it comes to fewer 4 and 5 star D linemen in the west.
There are more high school football factories in the south. That appears to be indisputable. So it is possible that more of the HS seniors in TX or GA might be more polished than the same seniors in CA or WA. That probably plays a role.
The biggest factor, IMHO, is the nature of the high school rating system. Maybe the ratings folks in the west are more unbiased. Maybe the ones in the south and midwest believe a bit too much of their hype. Maybe some of those rating gurus are simply not very good at what they do.
Long story short, it defies logic and reason that only one of the top 35 DT's lives in the west, where something like 20-25% of the population resides. That calls into question the raters, not the ratees.
Those big bodies are always hard to come by. Over the last 6 years or so what three schools in the Pac 12 have had the best dline play? Are they the 4-5 star kids? I would say with Herc in 2015, 16 and even 17 they were very competent or better along the defensive front.
This is a great and overlooked point. Football is not religion in the West. When all this news of head trauma from concussions started surfacing, it impacted people’s decisions out here a helluva lot more than in the south as far as kids playing ball IMO. Because the trend of holding kids out of football for concussion fears really gained steam a few years ago, we’re going to see a much wider gap in talent in 3-5 years I think between regions.
Glad Leach has a philosophy to go far and wide with recruiting because WA is going to be slim pickings.
Im not sure that's true regarding participation numbers, that could be checked statistically, I know wrestling participation numbers are at an all time high nation wide. Football numbers im not sure about but it could be found online.
More big kids choosing basketball or baseball is possible, also regional genetics do play a role. You find an inordinate amount of offensive lineman in Iowa/Wisconsin because of the german/polish farmers.
Some interesting hypotheses being kicked around. Here are two more:
Someone pointed out that people are just bigger (to put it kindly) in the south. No doubt you would find that if you put CA & AL head to head. For sure there are cultural differences in how big it is acceptable for men to be, and informed by the fried/oversized diet.
I suspect people in the south regard youth football as being of paramount importance, with a huge dropoff to the next most "important" sport - not so with west coast which is split with basketball, baseball, soccer and more.
And this might be a stretch, but to the point about CA culture, the region is arguably more self-focused: how I look, how I perform, what people think about me. CA and the West Coast are the home of Hollywood and modeling and self-promotion. This is conducive to producing a lot of flashy skill positions (and indeed it does): QB, RB, WR, DB. By contrast, I would suggest that support positions (OL/DL) are less attractive to CA & West Coast kids, who trade on their individual social status, than to southern kids who are [arguably] more likely to gain satisfaction from being part of an "elite" group.
You could even extend this to the military: in my time in the service, I met zero other kids from Seattle (a few from the burbs), a handful from rural WA/OR, some from CA (it's a big state, after all), but probably 50-60% of the "western half" people I served with were from TX/OK. Every account you read from the last 20 years of overseas adventures is from TX, it seems.
- Other sports pose less of a threat in the south competing for bodies: virtually no basketball pedigree vs the west coast, growing but not widespread participation in soccer, etc.
- Culture
Someone pointed out that people are just bigger (to put it kindly) in the south. No doubt you would find that if you put CA & AL head to head. For sure there are cultural differences in how big it is acceptable for men to be, and informed by the fried/oversized diet.
I suspect people in the south regard youth football as being of paramount importance, with a huge dropoff to the next most "important" sport - not so with west coast which is split with basketball, baseball, soccer and more.
And this might be a stretch, but to the point about CA culture, the region is arguably more self-focused: how I look, how I perform, what people think about me. CA and the West Coast are the home of Hollywood and modeling and self-promotion. This is conducive to producing a lot of flashy skill positions (and indeed it does): QB, RB, WR, DB. By contrast, I would suggest that support positions (OL/DL) are less attractive to CA & West Coast kids, who trade on their individual social status, than to southern kids who are [arguably] more likely to gain satisfaction from being part of an "elite" group.
You could even extend this to the military: in my time in the service, I met zero other kids from Seattle (a few from the burbs), a handful from rural WA/OR, some from CA (it's a big state, after all), but probably 50-60% of the "western half" people I served with were from TX/OK. Every account you read from the last 20 years of overseas adventures is from TX, it seems.
I’m pulling more off of personal experience. Buddies of mine that were pretty good players in high school who’s wives have laid it down...no way kids will be allowed to play football. All because of the concussion worry. Two things with this. I think it’s complete bullshit as a guy who played soccer for 14 years and had 4-5 concussions, and played football for 9 years and never had one. My 13 year old is playing and loving it and I have no second thoughts about it. My personal take is that there’s more parents on the west coast with this change in attitude about football than there probably is in the south...where football is just different. I could be wrong.
I had a niece that quit soccer from concussions. I never saw a player lose consciousness the whole time I played, youth/HS. At least 50%-probably more of all concussions and knee injuries are from artificial turf imo. Grass is a natural surface that gives, many of the concussions aren't helmet to helmet but heads slamming off turf and the acceleration factor is much higher than grass. Turf manufacturers are going to be sued one of these days, right now I cant understand why all HS's are going to turf other than money/up keep....its stupid.
I feel good when my son practices plays on grass. Ive seen several kids just fall over a player, hit their head off the turf and get a concussion-that never happened on grass. Physicians/physicists and attorneys could easily prove this...im surprised it hasn't happened yet.
Yea im in the south, and I never hear anybody keeping their kid out of football due to worry over injuries. If anything they start them to young and expose them to injuries. I let my son start playing in 4th grade but just have well started him in 6th/7th. In Illinois when I grew up you could not play tackle football until 7th grade and that worked fine.
I also thing concussions are cumulative. You are unlikely to have any effects if you only play till 12 th grade. If you play beyond that it may be a different story.
Last edited:
You do realize it is not about concussions. It is about repetitive hits. I am from Texas. Our local team is one of the best in the country. Their numbers are down.
Most sports are down. Some of that is that kids are less active today. They play videos games. Concussion in soccer is worst in girls soccer. because of neck strength.
Tx, I'm going to parse your last statement a little, because I had quite a bit of time in youth soccer. I agree that females as a group have less neck strength, but I don't see that as being directly correlated to concussions. It is directly correlated to other injuries. Under about 10 years in boys and 12 years in girls, the ball velocity is low enough that I've never seen a ball-caused concussion even with a direct header. I've seen a few collision headers. As you get older, the ball velocity picks up because the kids can kick harder. Then you start to see neck injuries, particularly with the girls. When my son was playing SoCal high school soccer, concussions were not unusual. They didn't happen all the time, but for a kid to get one or two in a season was almost expected. The diagnosis protocols seem to have gotten pretty dialed in over the past decade, and every program that I've seen here takes it seriously.
I played HS football...center...and I'm only sure of one game where I played concussed. Back in the middle '70's the whole issue was not well understood, and if you seemed to be functional, you played. My son played as a defender in HS soccer. He probably had a half dozen direct headers every game. I think about that a lot, because as you point out, it is about repetitive impacts over a certain force level.
My friends in OK, TX and FL suggest that, at this time, this issue is not as "front and center" as a behavior-altering issue as it is in the west. I've seen a lot of kids in SoCal who are not playing football right now that probably would have been playing 20 years ago. I stand by my statement that this alone is not the cause of only 1 out of the top 35 DT's being from the west. As I said in my previous post, I suspect that this is more about the raters than the ratees. The idea that the west, with 20-30% of the population, has only 1 out of the top 35 DT's is absurd. It is pretty clearly a comment on those with influence in the rating system more than it is rooted in any sort of reality. But just because that is the case, does not mean that the west is not the point of the spear when it comes to having parents who forbid their kids from playing HS football. Give this another 5 years and it might legitimately cut down on the kids available for recruiting.
I played HS football...center...and I'm only sure of one game where I played concussed. Back in the middle '70's the whole issue was not well understood, and if you seemed to be functional, you played. My son played as a defender in HS soccer. He probably had a half dozen direct headers every game. I think about that a lot, because as you point out, it is about repetitive impacts over a certain force level.
My friends in OK, TX and FL suggest that, at this time, this issue is not as "front and center" as a behavior-altering issue as it is in the west. I've seen a lot of kids in SoCal who are not playing football right now that probably would have been playing 20 years ago. I stand by my statement that this alone is not the cause of only 1 out of the top 35 DT's being from the west. As I said in my previous post, I suspect that this is more about the raters than the ratees. The idea that the west, with 20-30% of the population, has only 1 out of the top 35 DT's is absurd. It is pretty clearly a comment on those with influence in the rating system more than it is rooted in any sort of reality. But just because that is the case, does not mean that the west is not the point of the spear when it comes to having parents who forbid their kids from playing HS football. Give this another 5 years and it might legitimately cut down on the kids available for recruiting.
The level of DNA to play P5 football is high. You may see the number of kids decline that play ball. I don't think you're gonna see much decline for BCS kids. They are far and few between to begin with. Maybe a few athletes never play ball but I don't think you'll see a decline that is noticeable.
Because of studies and of course a lawsuit, kids are not allowed to head the ball below the age of 12 in US soccer today. I am a soccer coach. They put us through training on concussion protocol. We work on neck isometrics. I do not encourage heading, but I do teach them head the ball correctly. I have only had to use concussion protocol a couple times. Head to head collision trying to head the ball and hitting a goal post. Parents are aware and concerned about head trauma.
I see more flag football at the younger ages than I used to in TX. Moms more than dads discourage football. Even soccer numbers appear down, but it is hard to gauge with the numbers of soccer clubs forming and disbanding at the competitive level.
Artificial turf = ACL tears and Concussions. I cant understand the financial incentive for all high schools to go to turf, is it that expensive to maintain a grass field ? Hell its a sprinkler, fertilizer and a lawnmower. Are there kickbacks involved somewhere ?
Refreshing to see Arkansas and a few other schools going back to grass, they will have less injuries.
Refreshing to see Arkansas and a few other schools going back to grass, they will have less injuries.
The new field turf style turf? I haven’t seen green concrete in a while but the field turf plays a lot like grass. Soft, forgiving, you can actually slip on it rather than foot stuck and knee explosion. Is there was that much of a difference anymore...?
I’d suspect over the long haul it’s much cheaper than grass now. Water, chemicals, labor...labor alone now a day is pretty expensive to maintain fields.
yes there is a huge difference. The padding/composite below the surface causes an acceleration when your head bounces off it which is higher than grass...leads to brain injuries. Your foot also gets planted and what gives is your ligament soft structures of the joint, unlike grass/dirt which gives and prevents as many acl tears. The old surfaces were harder and the new surfaces are softer-but the trampoline effect have made things just as bad as far as head injuries.
If you think about it, our body was designed to run/cut and fall on grass/dirt, the man made stuff just does not and will not match our design/tolerances. If and when CTE investigations get around to funded studies on head trauma from striking the artificial playing surface-you will start to see changes. There are some studies now which have measured the acceleration/brain trauma from artificial surfaces vs grass. I can tell you -like many on here- from playing, you could run, leap fall and hit your head on grass and it never caused a concussion that I saw/experienced-now I see many players that suffer concussions from just falling and hitting their heads on the turf-getting whipped to the ground/getting sacked and falling backwards etc...
If Leach researched it, WSU would have less injuries if 50% of their games were on grass, but since the offense is conducive to a dome/fast surface, im not sure hed be willing to go to grass.
If you think about it, our body was designed to run/cut and fall on grass/dirt, the man made stuff just does not and will not match our design/tolerances. If and when CTE investigations get around to funded studies on head trauma from striking the artificial playing surface-you will start to see changes. There are some studies now which have measured the acceleration/brain trauma from artificial surfaces vs grass. I can tell you -like many on here- from playing, you could run, leap fall and hit your head on grass and it never caused a concussion that I saw/experienced-now I see many players that suffer concussions from just falling and hitting their heads on the turf-getting whipped to the ground/getting sacked and falling backwards etc...
If Leach researched it, WSU would have less injuries if 50% of their games were on grass, but since the offense is conducive to a dome/fast surface, im not sure hed be willing to go to grass.
I’ve played on both, guess I’ve been lucky. Played on the old green concrete too, that stuff sucked.
Interesting to hear that, I figured there wasn’t much difference. I’m all for less injuries but don’t think there will ever be a trend back to grass because of $$. Hopefully there will be advancements in the turf to make it more like natural grass.
yes, I wish they would, my son is 14 and at least he practices on grass and only plays games on turf, so that helps. Its an obvious problem, but is all about money.
I don't like ambulance chasers, but if they ever start class action lawsuits over CTE/injuries, you will see the fields go back to grass imo. NFL Players Assn should be all over this but they aren't, money again I suspect.
The old soldiers field was painted green concrete, Dave Duerson and Jim McMahon suffered CTE and Wilbur Marshall had his joints basically pulverized to the point he has a hard time dressing himself or doing simple activities of daily life. Hampton has had 18-22 knee surgeries. Those are just the guys I know about, im sure that 85 team has more guys with problems. That was my favorite team of all time, and the best defense ever imo.
I don't like ambulance chasers, but if they ever start class action lawsuits over CTE/injuries, you will see the fields go back to grass imo. NFL Players Assn should be all over this but they aren't, money again I suspect.
The old soldiers field was painted green concrete, Dave Duerson and Jim McMahon suffered CTE and Wilbur Marshall had his joints basically pulverized to the point he has a hard time dressing himself or doing simple activities of daily life. Hampton has had 18-22 knee surgeries. Those are just the guys I know about, im sure that 85 team has more guys with problems. That was my favorite team of all time, and the best defense ever imo.
Grass fields do not hold up to fields that are used in extremely dry or wet conditions and have six of more games played on them per week, at the larger districts. When I coached we watered the turf to keep injuries down.
Yea it costs more for upkeep We used to have sprinklers and ground crew guys that kept our field in good shape in high school in Illinois. There never seemed to be a problem. Varsity jv frosh and youth all played on it. Nobody was allowed to practice on it of course.
air raid isn’t the right offense for mud and Pullman isn’t the greatest weather. I’m just speaking in terms of injuries though.
all the schools around us have dug up their grass fields and installed turf unfortunately
Tx64, did you used to post on raiderpower(texas tech site) ?
air raid isn’t the right offense for mud and Pullman isn’t the greatest weather. I’m just speaking in terms of injuries though.
all the schools around us have dug up their grass fields and installed turf unfortunately
Tx64, did you used to post on raiderpower(texas tech site) ?
Last edited:
