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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Cody Shear who had the cougs in his top three.I thought that he was going to commit to the cougs.
They need more than 3.
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.
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.
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?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?
85 scholarships? How big were OLM in the early 80s? PEDs? Maybe lack of academic requirements back then?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.
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.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.
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.
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...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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
280 pounds or more on high school kids most likely doesn't look good. Get a few guys that are 6'6" or taller that tip in at 265 and grow them.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.