Down to 9 scholarship olinemen
- Thread starter froropmkr72
- Start date
The statement about UW was in regards to number of recruits so was curious when we've had a numbers problem.
I'm saying that we need to do a better job of evaluation and development because the guys we've gotten aren't good enough. When it comes down to it, the 2014 and 2015 classes did next to nothing to help us in 2018 and that's a problem. Just grabbing more guys to satisfy an internet fan base isn't necessarily the solution.
Flat, I understand your point(s). And I am not saying that you are wrong, particularly when you acknowledge the "muddiness" of the concept. But I'll point out a few things and use Stanford as an example. They had what was probably the most balanced run/pass attack in the PAC this year, with decent skill position guys. That helped their line a lot. But when they ran into a team with a good pass rush (WSU, for example, with Herc & crew), every time they were in 2nd & long or 3rd & long, they were in trouble. That line that looked so good against a team that had no good pass rush was not the same line that blew out a third of their opponents. So yes, the "muddy" is a real deal for even successful O lines.
I guess where I probably disagree the most with the concept of not memorializing 5 scholarships per year is with the concept that if you can't find 5 guys that are obvious success stories, you instead just give out the 3 more likely scholies and ask a group to walk on. In our PAC world, the kid that you are talking about would more likely take a Mountain West scholarship than walk on at WSU. If you want that kid, you have to give him a scholarship. We have a great walk on tradition and some very passionate alums. That usually gets us at least one solid walk on per year, and as a result there are typically at least one and sometimes 2 walk ons who are at a stage of development where they can help in any given season. By "help", I'm suggesting that he/ they are either in the 2 deep or the next spot or two after that at the start of the season. The attrition for various reasons that has been discussed endlessly in this thread explain why our 2 or 3 legit PAC scholie recipients and our 2-3 more that are really more Mountain West level end up with 2 or maybe 3 actual contributors in years 3-5. The thing is, if we jettisoned the Mtn West guys, it would be a rare year when we gave 4 scholies, and I don't ever remember a year when we had 5 true PAC O line scholarship recipients. But we use those scholarships to end up where we need to be, year after year. And I think the investment is worth the lost opportunity at other positions, because without an O line we are lost. Done. Kaput. It is a non-negotiable position group.
I was one of those pissers and moaners, and was very grateful that they made it through the season with minimal injuries. If the injury gods smile on you, you can survive minimal depth. If they don't, you pay. 1984 was a very good O line injury year. I would take another year like that any time.
You guys about done with this thread?
Maybe I can summarize the 46 posts so far:
- We only have 11 Edit: 9 linemen on Schollie
- That is kind of low
- 5 per year +/- seems to be a good target - but not just any big body
- Retention could be better
- Previous coaches sucked. So do the Huskies
Last edited:
Emotionally devastated?
We also put up a combined total ~600yds rushing and averaged almost 7yds/carry against two of the top 5 rushing defenses in the Pac in Oregon and WSU.
Back to the subject at hand of number of recruits per year, we never were at risk of trotting out only 4 OL and have good depth overall.
Loyal, you're working in conjunction with the Russian MoonDawgie ...aka MD 20/20... in order to halt all meaningful debate on WSU topics. Is RealDawg owned by Sinclair? HereWeGoCougars was neither a Cougar nor part of We, but definitely Here all the time.....Discuss!You guys about done with this thread?
Maybe I can summarize the 46 posts so far:
That about cover it?
- We only have 11 linemen on Schollie
- That is kind of low
- 5 per year +/- seems to be a good target - but not just any big body
- Retention could be better
- Previous coaches sucked. So do the Huskies
No longer satisfied with holding back his No. 2s, Loyal wants dearly to be the board nanny here.
Btw, Fro, any updates on Blake Walker?
Well I beg to differ here. As with many topics, the meaningful debate in this thread lasted about 10 posts.
I bring up a lot of thoughtful and even intelligent topics to discuss. Often they get little response, while inane topics get dozens of replies and usually end up in the gutter, with name calling, personal attacks, and the mandatory bringing up of former coaches.
But no matter. Carry on.
That's a fair way to look at it and I'll say that my viewpoint has changed over time where I agree more with the idea that it should be at least 4 on average and more at times if you are seeing attrition like we are right now. Your comment about a guy taking a scholarship at Utah State (as an example) over walking on at WSU is definitely valid. Every school that I listed had found themselves in spots where they took 5+ linemen at some point and I definitely agree that WSU is in the spot where we need to do that until we get the numbers balanced back out.
It's not what YOU think...it's really what's on an informed person's mind and here..it's just the offensive line numbers and how they are going to be sustainable as a group. I'll watch CNN to stay abreast with the latest regarding the N. Korean leader and everything Trumpian. The more THIS craziness goes on the more people are going to find sanctuary in sporting events. Beyond that...is the quarterback debate...which will be debated endlessly.
Here's a Decemberists Video.
Last edited:
Maybe CNN should go back to covering football.
They already have Wulff Blitzer.
Any chance that is Andy Mattingly?
F-you assh0le. Insults and personal attacks, that's pretty much all you bring to the table.
Things do not keep working out for them anyway.....
The teams you listed only 1 has a winning record against WSU during that time. UW.
Oregon has lost 3 straight
Stanford has lost 2 out of 3
Colorado I think is 2 out of 3
Stanford will be in trouble if they are as stacked with Seniors and have so little depth. That means 1 year and they are playing freshmen, I wouldn't say Stanford was in trouble last year because they had all these guys who are seniors now who were juniors last year + the seniors they have.
The offensive line is a position where poor roster management doesn't hit the first year, it hits years later if it isn't addressed. As you can see Stanford has a ticking bomb on the O-line. Unless something changes they will be screwed.
I've gone over these kind of holes before when I talked about the DBs I think the year after Buchanon. We basically had nobody, and you go back to the 2010/2011 class and you see that we got like 1 DB. That was it.
What happened in 2014 when those players are to be upperclassmen/contributing? We had nobody.
Roster management is important. You want to keep a good mix of people incoming every year so even with attrition you have somebody.
Stanford will have some serious problems after this year. There is no doubt about it. They will have to get transfers or be forced to start tons of fresh / green players on the line in 2019. It's a threat that is looming and they haven't addressed it.
At WSU we have had multiple all Americans, multiple people drafted and will continue to field a good line BECAUSE we recruit so many, that even with attrition...we always have somebody. That's why you recruit so many. Retention... only 5 people play. only 10 are in the two deep. What you are trying to do is make that 10 the best it can be while stocking up the back.
Good players that are behind 2/3 guys...probably will transfer... that's what happens.
It’s not being done to satisfy anyone on the internet. It’s being done so the OL is not the block of Swiss cheese it used to be.
I hear what you guys are saying. I'm just saying that the coaching community as a whole doesn't follow your advice. As a general rule, I'm thinking that they know more than we do. Leach does march to the beat of his own drummer and takes more OL than pretty much anyone else in the business, but even he's shown that he's not going to sign 5 just because he "should".
Last edited:
The fact that WSU and Oregon were two of the top-5 rushing defenses in the P12 is all you need to know. WSU couldn’t stop any legitimate rushing team. We were fortunate to get Stanford in back to back years when McCaffrey and Love were injured.
Although a week later a gimpy Love was able to run Stanford to a win over the UW. I know he wasn't 100% against us and ESPN decided to give him a pass but I never saw him limping around like he was against the dawgs.
Come on, Love ran that 50-yard TD last year on one leg. And McCaffery was on crutches in 2015 and 2016. PurpleCougPatrol nailed this one!
You guys are right. Our rushing defense was impressive, and the stats had nothing to do with the fact that we faced QBless Oregon, an injured Love (facing a stacked box due to Costello making his first start), and a P12 conference that, outside of UW, doesn’t try to run.
