because they need another 3 this year, An Oregonian going to Arizona doesn't sit too well. Turnabout would be Jonathan Nathaniel from Arizona (Basha HS) coming to Pullman.
Good thing WSU has about 15 scholarship offers to Olinemen
- Thread starter froropmkr72
- Start date
Cody Shear who had the cougs in his top three.I thought that he was going to commit to the cougs.
I thought he'd be a Beaver, since he mentioned playing close to home. Well, when Leach, now in his fifth season, has a roster with only six scholarship O-linemen, he'll have rivaled the great feat of Jim Walden in 1984 with the "Six Pack."
They already have 2....Powell and Moore. There's a pool of 12 known targets right now and they all look pretty equal on film in terms of athleticism. Some are more tenacious than others, but it's still against high school. If 4 more of these guys verbal...for total of 6....just make room. This is the best year for offensive linemen I've seen in a long time.
Two of these 12 OL offers have WSU as being "high" on their choice list and i see them committing soon. So one would guess that 5-6 of the commit s will be O linemen.I would like to see about 3 more D linemen commit as well.
I just don't get it. When I was in school ,WSU was know for top tier OL play. The "six pack" blocked for a kid who ran for 356 in a game. They were good that the greastest line in school history, including the best lineman ever, remained buried on the depth chart. Hell, they were so good, even third string Junior T looked like a world beater behind them. OL was thedeep plug-n-play position -- skilled players were the issue. Then came Dennis, followed by Mike, Bill, Paul and Now Mike II, and for the last 30 years we have struggled to find 5 servicable linemen at any one time.
What happened?
I can't speak for the past but right now, I don't understand what your question is. We have some great OL with great depth. Just because a kid from Oregon decided to go elsewhere doesn't mean we are struggling. What gives you this perception?
Feels like the AS OLM could play this year.
85 scholarships? How big were OLM in the early 80s? PEDs? Maybe lack of academic requirements back then?
Simply put, no coach has consistently put any kind of money into the OL. 2 here, 1 there, 0 one year. It's been ignored entirely.
Some schools might be able to put 2 or 3 scholarships per year into the OL and be fine, WSU cannot. They need a minimum of 4 per year. 5 most years.
What I like about Leach's offense is 0 fullbacks and 0 tight ends. Put that money into your OL.
Some schools might be able to put 2 or 3 scholarships per year into the OL and be fine, WSU cannot. They need a minimum of 4 per year. 5 most years.
What I like about Leach's offense is 0 fullbacks and 0 tight ends. Put that money into your OL.
Leach's system is designed to make it as easy a possible for OLs. Our OL play is not to the standards that were set by his OLs at TT, not even close. YPC is down significantly, and Falk got hammered and hammered. We were successful on O despite bottom tier OL play in virtual every stat, because of Falk's heroics, not the other way around.
Compare that to our OL play in the 80s. At it's height our OL was able to manhandle the #1 team in the nation on the road, late in the 4th quarter, a long, game winning, drive entirely on the ground, allowing Richie Swinton, for god sake, to run roughshod.
Now look at us? We are a Falk injury away from disaster. Why, because 5 years in, despite the renewed focus on OL recruiting, our OL gives our QBs zero margin of error.
Stop being a Pollyanna. No one but you thinks we have a talented and deep OL right now. We are at the, "keep our fingers crossed we can put 5 guys out there who can keep Falk from getting the snot beat out of him" stage, still.
95 scholarships helped. But all the other factors you point to were relative. Dianabol was readily available and was the "supplement" of choice back then. Everyone cycled it back then. There was no testing!!!! Ultimately, my best guess is Walden and Co. could spot talent better. He actually had to convince Utley to put the tool belt down and play college ball. The 80s lines were made up of kids that no one but WSU/OSU wanted. Sadly, no coach wasted more talent with killer practices and stupid schemes as well.
If you don't have a very keen eye, you have to play the numbers. Leach is smart enough to know that he doesn't have a OL talent spotting guru right now. He is doing all he can to correct the situation -- numbers. But it is frustrating.
Who's being a Pollyanna?! Never did I say it was a perfect situation. Do I think we have some great talent? Yep. Do I think we have great (if not exceptional) depth? Yep. Like Biggs said, we've never had what we have now. THAT'S HUGE. But in your original statement, you didn't clarify jack. You just yammered about the past and asked why we can't have the same success. I asked for your the reasons for your perception, man. That's all… ? Hold your breathe, count to 10 and then exhale… Loosen the shoulders, force the muscles in your face to smile… and just breathe. Relax that itchy trigger finger, we are all on the same side… sheesh.
I do love the direction WSU is heading, though. Oline isn't something that can be fixed in 4/5 years. Not from where we were, anyways. We've started down the road. Speed is certainly a thing we need more of, IMHO.
One of the TT's biggest marks, was the wide, wide splits. We have some pretty big splits but CML has said over and over, as big, maneuverable and instinctive the OL becomes, the wider the splits will become. We don't have the same splits TT had. So he manipulates that situation (lack of speed) with splits that aren't quite so wide. As we get bigger, as we get more speed, as we mature, those splits will widen. That will give the QB more time. One of the issues with comparing WSU to TT while CML was there… When he left, he had been there for 10 years and had built a TOP 10 program. Did he get some lucky breaks? I'm sure. Did he live in the middle of Texas where recruiting boys made of muscle and corn are a bit more prevalent? Yep. Football=religion there? Yeppers, again. So will CML be able to build the same kind of line he had at TT? Million dollar question.
EDIT: And I'll add one disagreement I have with your statement. CML's system is not "easier" for the OL. The wider splits are very difficult.
I don't think WSU's line, back in the 80's, is relevant due to some of the other issues others have mentioned… Basically, different time + different rules = inexplicable change…
I think O'Connell will be a beast this year. I hope he has enough speed that will help with those splits. Sure as hell has the size. From what I hear, he has the talent.
Last edited:
Well, we just had one drafted in the 5th round. I'd venture to say Dahl was the best lineman we've had since...Derrick Roche?
Edwardo Middleton earned some All Pac 12 first team honors.
I think Cole Madison is thought to be an NFL prospect.
Riley Sorenson has been pretty good & serviceable and Dillard looked to be pretty promising.
And I don't know where you want their YPC to be, but Wicks was at 5.7, Morrow at 6.5 & Harrington at 6.4.
I'm no expert on offensive line play, but I considered last year's line to be one of the better we've put on the field recently.
You know, I used to think the numbers CML is investing into the OL, would wane as success starts to come. The more I've looked into rosters, compared raw numbers, looked at size differences, etc. etc… He was investing this much at TT, as well. In 2005 at TT, he had 18 OL on the roster. Interesting "chuckle" note: From 2005 to 2009, Texas Tech doesn't have an official roster on it's website. Seems they forgot the prime CML years… anyways, I digress...
According to our official roster, WSU has 19 on roster.
And for those that think this is unusual. Here's a list of football teams across the nation.
Alabama has 16 OL on roster.
Vandy has 20 OL/OLB/OG on roster.
UTEP has 18
Oregon State has 19
Rutgers has 12 (Not counting TE, FB)
Miami Hurricanes: 14 OL (Not counting the 3 TE)
Boise State Bronco's 14 OL (Not counting the 5 TE)
Auburn has 18 OL (Not counting the FB, TE)
So really, we are on par with a good percentage of the rest of CFB, maybe a bit higher but not much. I find it interesting that there are some that think we are doing something weird here… Pulling this many is fairly normal in today's world.
The problem isn't a "keen eye" because they all know what a good lineman looks on film and only offer after players express some form of interest. They offered a bunch of really good players. There's no hiding players these days. I'd be my guess that now everyone knows about the talent and many watch film (Hudl, over and over). Back in the day....it was Oregon, Oregon State and maybe an Idaho who knew about this 6-6 260 pound OL/DL who could run like a deer. Now EVERYONE knows about them. Even if they miss them in the original early phase- they emerge during the season and are reported on several times...along with film on Hudl. That's how Madison came about. If these guys aren't that good...how did they have put up the offensive numbers they did on offense and win so many games?
Addressing the songs of praise for Walden's o-lines, there was a reason he ran the veer. It's not hard to figure out.
There are 19 listed, but a few of them(Paz, Hopkins, Norvell) might be walk-ons, unless they've been award schollies. Plus, of the six incoming freshmen, I see only Haangana and Mauigoa contributing this season.
How many saw the field last year? There's only 16 scholarship olinemen scheduled for the year. I'd put King in as a possible "semi-impact" player this year. They have to prove they can pass block really well before seeing the field at all.
I think we will sign 4 classic O linemen and two more who might go O or D. We will probably sign two classic DT, two DE and at least one DE/LB combo player who in another offense might even project at TE.
They'll get 5, Leach always takes 5. Offer kids that are 6'6" 240, with quick feet and a frame to add more weight without losing quickness. Just don't go after big kids, now project kids 5 years down the road.
I'm fine with this. Just please, no more 230 lb Alex Reitnours. Just not a fan of trying to pack 70 lbs on a kid.
230 is too light. Not that it can't be done, but you need guys to grow for two years and start moving into the depth chart. You can't grow a kid 20 pounds per year and he's finally ready in year 4. Too long. They have to have done some work in high school.
Yaki, I don't expect any of the new O-linemen to contribute this year. I think that we are at the point depth-wise where all can be red-shirted. All need a year to transition to college life academically as well as a year learning the position. Some could use a year to pack on more muscle and Haangana could certainly use a year to lose some of the baby fat. Kid looks like a larger version of me. Let's hope his footwork is better. Give them all a year of free tuition with tutoring, practice and working with the S&C guys. If any see the field as true freshmen it will be due to (a) remarkable talent or (b) an ungodly outbreak of injuries.
Even without the six freshmen and the three walk ons, WSU is still two-deep on the O-line, so you're right.
I wasn't assuming Walk on's from any other program, which was why I couldn't exclude WSU's. I don't know the other programs WO's. Was just showing how many bodies WSU has are not extraordinary. A little high? Maybe but debatable. Regardless, I don't see this kind of recruiting to go down at any time, if looking at other programs and comparing.
