Offensive Line

[95coug]

95, I'll add something to your point # 2.

This is one of the very few areas where I think the flawed stars system has some value. If you are Alabama or USC and your OL recruits are all 4 & 5 star kids, then maybe your odds of having fewer of them not pan out are better. So maybe in that case you can get away with 3 or 3.5 OL recruits per year instead of 4 or 4.5 per year. But when you are relying on good evaluation of 3 star kids, you have no such luxury. You have to take numbers. Leach shot for 5 per year and it worked. In today's world of the portal, maybe Leach would be taking 3.5 HS kids per year, but if so he would be adding a portal kid or two every year to that total. I'll also point out that Leach's preferred OL recruit did not look exactly like Alabama's preferred recruit, due to what Leach's offense was trying to do with the OL. That made it a bit easier to find 3* OL high school kids that looked like a good fit and which Leach could sign.

I don’t even think USC and Bama can get away with 3 per year. That works out to 12 recruits over 4 classes. Someone else pointed out that you only need 8 on gameday, and I’d agree that in theory that’s enough. But, to have 8 who are capable and ready to go, you probably need 10-12 to account for the kids who are dinged up and not ready. Especially later in the season, and with todays concussion rules.
If you’re only signing 3-3.5 per class, it means you have 12-14 on the roster. 1/4 of those are freshmen, and even for the blue bloods most freshmen aren’t ready for significant PT on the OL. So you’re really drawing from 9-11 available players. To have 8 you can put on the field, that means you need to have an extremely low rate of attrition, combined with a very high success rate of player development.

I think the basic roster math forces even the schools who pull 4 & 5 star recruits to average closer to 4 OL per year. You just don’t have enough bodies otherwise.

And, here’s a counterpoint to your counterpoint: I agree that that some schools get more highly rated recruits, and the odds of those panning out are better. But…does a 5 star recruit who can play - and knows it - stay at USC for 3 years for a chance to play 1? Or does he transfer to Arizona and start as a junior? Point is, attrition also exists at the schools who pull top recruits, it just looks a little different.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I don’t even think USC and Bama can get away with 3 per year. That works out to 12 recruits over 4 classes. Someone else pointed out that you only need 8 on gameday, and I’d agree that in theory that’s enough. But, to have 8 who are capable and ready to go, you probably need 10-12 to account for the kids who are dinged up and not ready. Especially later in the season, and with todays concussion rules.
If you’re only signing 3-3.5 per class, it means you have 12-14 on the roster. 1/4 of those are freshmen, and even for the blue bloods most freshmen aren’t ready for significant PT on the OL. So you’re really drawing from 9-11 available players. To have 8 you can put on the field, that means you need to have an extremely low rate of attrition, combined with a very high success rate of player development.

I think the basic roster math forces even the schools who pull 4 & 5 star recruits to average closer to 4 OL per year. You just don’t have enough bodies otherwise.

And, here’s a counterpoint to your counterpoint: I agree that that some schools get more highly rated recruits, and the odds of those panning out are better. But…does a 5 star recruit who can play - and knows it - stay at USC for 3 years for a chance to play 1? Or does he transfer to Arizona and start as a junior? Point is, attrition also exists at the schools who pull top recruits, it just looks a little different.

Depends on the offers he gets and if he has any game film at SC.

There are schools kids will sit at and schools they won’t.

Unless the $$$ is good, most kids prob won’t leave SC for 1-11 Arizona.

NIL is going to make things interesting lol

 

[95coug]

Depends on the offers he gets and if he has any game film at SC.

There are schools kids will sit at and schools they won’t.

Unless the $$$ is good, most kids prob won’t leave SC for 1-11 Arizona.

NIL is going to make things interesting lol

Probably not, but the point is that most 4-5 star kids want to play. Even at SC or Bama, if he thinks he should be on the field and he isn’t, he’s going to think about places where he’ll see the field.

At least historically. Maybe now he’ll go ahead and stay at Bama and get paid not to play.

 

[425cougfan]

Jesus, if our #1 LT is Wilson, a 6'11" converted basketball player, we may be even more screwed than I thought.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Probably not, but the point is that most 4-5 star kids want to play. Even at SC or Bama, if he thinks he should be on the field and he isn’t, he’s going to think about places where he’ll see the field.

At least historically. Maybe now he’ll go ahead and stay at Bama and get paid not to play.

I’d like to see how some of these NIL deals are shaped. I have a hard time seeing kids getting $$$ if they aren’t playing by a certain time.

 

[Coug-Vandal]

Leach laid out a blueprint on how to win consistently at WSU. Were there some things he could have done better? Yes. Plenty of meat left on the bone. Why would 2 new HCs right after him not look at what he did? Why, with the amazing lack of HC experience that both of them have, would they pay zero attention to what went right?

Well Dickert did go out an get an offensive coordinator directly from the Leach tree.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Well Dickert did go out an get an offensive coordinator directly from the Leach tree.

Yes he did. Who uses a TE.

 

[Coug-Vandal]

Yes he did. Who uses a TE.

Yes. Perhaps we need to wait and see how this works. As much of a fan as I was of Leach's passing game I thought it was obvious that he needed to tweak it. Leach seemed to think if you ran every play perfectly it didn't matter what the defense did. This always struck me as hopelessly stubborn. Build enough variation into your system to take advantage of what the defense is giving you.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Yes. Perhaps we need to wait and see how this works. As much of a fan as I was of Leach's passing game I thought it was obvious that he needed to tweak it. Leach seemed to think if you ran every play perfectly it didn't matter what the defense did. This always struck me as hopelessly stubborn. Build enough variation into your system to take advantage of what the defense is giving you.

The run game was needed. But I digress.

If you rob the OL to pay for the TE…. may not work out. Managing the roster in a multiple set offense is easier for some schools and much more difficult for some others. We will see what happens.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Two counterpoints to that -

1 - If you already have decent OL depth, you can more easily afford the luxury of going light on OL recruits for a year or two. WSU has had that depth maybe twice ever…and not in the last 3 years.

2 - If you have that depth, and you’re averaging 3.5 OL recruits per year over 4+ years, you’re not going to keep that depth…unless you’re lucky enough to have every one of them turn into reliable players who don’t get hurt, transfer, or struggle in the classroom.

I expect that if you look at most programs - certainly at the successful ones - their average number of OL recruits is going to be over 4 per year. They might fall below that over a 2 or 3 year span, but their overall average is going to be higher.

Counterpoint to the counterpoint......some people here think that it doesn't matter what our depth is....we need 5-6 guys every year and they use the "lower level recruits" as the excuse......even though we recruit lower across the board so shouldn't that apply to every position on the field? Lord knows that I've seen plenty of terrible defensive backs at WSU. There are going to be years where we need to get extra guys...but it should be the exception...not the rule.

On your last paragraph, you "expect that if you at most programs" that they will recruit more than 4 per year. I looked at Oklahoma State, which is a good program but not elite and found the following:

2022: 4
2021: 2
2020: 4
2019: 4
2018: 5
2017: 1
2016: 7
2015: 3

They recruited 30 OL players in 8 years, which averages to 3.75 per year. What about Kansas State...a spiritual brother to WSU?

2022: 3
2021: 3
2020: 6
2019: 3
2018: 4
2017: 5
2016: 4
2015: 4

The Wildcats recruited 32 OL players over that period or right at 4 per year on average. How about Colorado State...a team that has to fight with a lot of schools with more "prestige"?

2022: 2
2021: 3
2020: 5
2019: 4
2018: 4
2017: 8
2016: 2
2015: 2

The Rams were in that 4+ range from 2017 to 2020....but that looks to be from only getting 4 guys in two years in 2015 and 2016. They still only averaged 3.75 guys over the full eight year period.

FWIW, I didn't cherry pick any schools. Every one that I looked at is like this. Y'all are just flat out wrong on how college football OL recruiting works. I guarantee that all of these schools are bringing other OL guys in as walk-ons with the idea that they can earn a scholarship if they can prove they are worthy. WSU should be no different. We should strive to find 4 good candidates per year and take a 5th if there's a guy that's worth taking a shot on. Offer preferred walk-ons to guys that you know that you can get to do that but have some questions to answer. Don't just toss out 5-6 scholarships because it makes our message board members feel better.

 

[taf88]

Counterpoint to the counterpoint......some people here think that it doesn't matter what our depth is....we need 5-6 guys every year and they use the "lower level recruits" as the excuse......even though we recruit lower across the board so shouldn't that apply to every position on the field? Lord knows that I've seen plenty of terrible defensive backs at WSU. There are going to be years where we need to get extra guys...but it should be the exception...not the rule.

On your last paragraph, you "expect that if you at most programs" that they will recruit more than 4 per year. I looked at Oklahoma State, which is a good program but not elite and found the following:

2022: 4
2021: 2
2020: 4
2019: 4
2018: 5
2017: 1
2016: 7
2015: 3

They recruited 30 OL players in 8 years, which averages to 3.75 per year. What about Kansas State...a spiritual brother to WSU?

2022: 3
2021: 3
2020: 6
2019: 3
2018: 4
2017: 5
2016: 4
2015: 4

The Wildcats recruited 32 OL players over that period or right at 4 per year on average. How about Colorado State...a team that has to fight with a lot of schools with more "prestige"?

2022: 2
2021: 3
2020: 5
2019: 4
2018: 4
2017: 8
2016: 2
2015: 2

The Rams were in that 4+ range from 2017 to 2020....but that looks to be from only getting 4 guys in two years in 2015 and 2016. They still only averaged 3.75 guys over the full eight year period.

FWIW, I didn't cherry pick any schools. Every one that I looked at is like this. Y'all are just flat out wrong on how college football OL recruiting works. I guarantee that all of these schools are bringing other OL guys in as walk-ons with the idea that they can earn a scholarship if they can prove they are worthy. WSU should be no different. We should strive to find 4 good candidates per year and take a 5th if there's a guy that's worth taking a shot on. Offer preferred walk-ons to guys that you know that you can get to do that but have some questions to answer. Don't just toss out 5-6 scholarships because it makes our message board members feel better.

A reminder that many big bodies are recruited and listed as DL in their recruiting profiles with the intention of moving them to the OL.
With this year’s recruits the Cougs have 3 designated DL (Seth, Williams, Roaten) who are converting to the OL so we’re going from 3 OL to 6 OL. Include the No. Colorado transfer and you have 7 OL recruited this year.
Guess Dickert and staff view recruiting the OL different than you, but carry on.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

A reminder that many big bodies are recruited and listed as DL in their recruiting profiles with the intention of moving them to the OL.
With this year’s recruits the Cougs have 3 designated DL (Seth, Williams, Roaten) who are converting to the OL so we’re going from 3 OL to 6 OL. Include the No. Colorado transfer and you have 7 OL recruited this year.
Guess Dickert and staff view recruiting the OL different than you, but carry on.

FFS........If you go through the same recruiting lists....they aren't recruiting a bunch of dudes on the DL that are going to the offensive line. What's even more laughable about your response is that someone up above made a post about how it's not that easy to just move a dude from the DL to the OL.

You can keep saying it over and over.....but this message board's fascination with OL recruiting is off base and irrational. WSU is unique and I actually agree that it doesn't matter if the national average for OL recruiting is 3.75 dudes per year....we should be around 4 per year or a touch above. If you actually do some research instead of just assuming what's going on, you'll see that it is very, very common for schools to only get 5-6 guys in a TWO YEAR PERIOD if they can't find guys worthy of scholarships. They don't just throw scholarships at a wall and hope they stick.

Of course, just like everything else, facts don't actually matter anymore. It's more fun to make up your mind and ignore any actual data because that might force people to change their minds on something.

 

[taf88]

FFS........If you go through the same recruiting lists....they aren't recruiting a bunch of dudes on the DL that are going to the offensive line. What's even more laughable about your response is that someone up above made a post about how it's not that easy to just move a dude from the DL to the OL.

You can keep saying it over and over.....but this message board's fascination with OL recruiting is off base and irrational. WSU is unique and I actually agree that it doesn't matter if the national average for OL recruiting is 3.75 dudes per year....we should be around 4 per year or a touch above. If you actually do some research instead of just assuming what's going on, you'll see that it is very, very common for schools to only get 5-6 guys in a TWO YEAR PERIOD if they can't find guys worthy of scholarships. They don't just throw scholarships at a wall and hope they stick.

Of course, just like everything else, facts don't actually matter anymore. It's more fun to make up your mind and ignore any actual data because that might force people to change their minds on something.

Listen Stoogeland. You have zero idea about what other programs are doing w/the big bodies they bring to campus.
You’re looking @ recruiting profile that isn’t always accurate.
Since you apparently don’t work since you continually sit on this board, how bout you go through every program and total up the number of OL.
Does your company know you’re stealing their time y’all as you’re prone to throw out for reasons unknown.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Listen Stoogeland. You have zero idea about what other programs are doing w/the big bodies they bring to campus.
You’re looking @ recruiting profile that isn’t always accurate.
Since you apparently don’t work since you continually sit on this board, how bout you go through every program and total up the number of OL.
Does your company know you’re stealing their time y’all as you’re prone to throw out for reasons unknown.

I donate plenty of my time at work each and every week to my company. If I want to spend 10-15 minutes on this board (or some other spot) to get away for a bit.....it's all good. If it makes you feel better, I'm on lunch break right now and I was working on billing worksheets at 10:30 pm last night.

As for looking up numbers, I picked a couple random ones and it verified what I thought. I've clearly taken more time to actually look than you have and if you want to throw out the term "stooge", I'd suggest that you apparently know even less about what other programs are doing. Again, I understand, it's difficult for you to accept that you might be wrong and you'd prefer to reach for possibilities that can let you keep your world view instead of accepting the truth. It's ok if you want to do that.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Counterpoint to the counterpoint......some people here think that it doesn't matter what our depth is....we need 5-6 guys every year and they use the "lower level recruits" as the excuse......even though we recruit lower across the board so shouldn't that apply to every position on the field? Lord knows that I've seen plenty of terrible defensive backs at WSU. There are going to be years where we need to get extra guys...but it should be the exception...not the rule.

On your last paragraph, you "expect that if you at most programs" that they will recruit more than 4 per year. I looked at Oklahoma State, which is a good program but not elite and found the following:

2022: 4
2021: 2
2020: 4
2019: 4
2018: 5
2017: 1
2016: 7
2015: 3

They recruited 30 OL players in 8 years, which averages to 3.75 per year. What about Kansas State...a spiritual brother to WSU?

2022: 3
2021: 3
2020: 6
2019: 3
2018: 4
2017: 5
2016: 4
2015: 4

The Wildcats recruited 32 OL players over that period or right at 4 per year on average. How about Colorado State...a team that has to fight with a lot of schools with more "prestige"?

2022: 2
2021: 3
2020: 5
2019: 4
2018: 4
2017: 8
2016: 2
2015: 2

The Rams were in that 4+ range from 2017 to 2020....but that looks to be from only getting 4 guys in two years in 2015 and 2016. They still only averaged 3.75 guys over the full eight year period.

FWIW, I didn't cherry pick any schools. Every one that I looked at is like this. Y'all are just flat out wrong on how college football OL recruiting works. I guarantee that all of these schools are bringing other OL guys in as walk-ons with the idea that they can earn a scholarship if they can prove they are worthy. WSU should be no different. We should strive to find 4 good candidates per year and take a 5th if there's a guy that's worth taking a shot on. Offer preferred walk-ons to guys that you know that you can get to do that but have some questions to answer. Don't just toss out 5-6 scholarships because it makes our message board members feel better.

I buy your math on 4 per year for OSU & KSU. And they have tight ends, so they probably figured they only had 4 to give. That also might make sense, depending upon priorities of the HC. However, I also think you could justify "robbing" the TE scholie every year from the WR's, rather than the O line. Again, it is about one's priorities.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I buy your math on 4 per year for OSU & KSU. And they have tight ends, so they probably figured they only had 4 to give. That also might make sense, depending upon priorities of the HC. However, I also think you could justify "robbing" the TE scholie every year from the WR's, rather than the O line. Again, it is about one's priorities.

Mike Price was known for recruiting tight ends and turning them into offensive linemen if they didn't work out at being able to catch the ball.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

The rest of college football isn't a traditionally have-not school that went to bowl games for five years in a row, with quality OL play.

lets not get carried away with the "quality OL play." I think we can agree to settle on "not-shit OL play."

 

[CougEd]

Listen Stoogeland. You have zero idea about what other programs are doing w/the big bodies they bring to campus.
You’re looking @ recruiting profile that isn’t always accurate.
Since you apparently don’t work since you continually sit on this board, how bout you go through every program and total up the number of OL.
Does your company know you’re stealing their time y’all as you’re prone to throw out for reasons unknown.

taf88...are you retired? Unemployed? Self employed? The reason I ask this post seems to be during a traditional work day it would seem like you are either "stealing" their time as well if you are working for someone.

But Flat is right in some respects. Leach brought in bodies and they failed at an alarming rate. The difference between he and say Price is Leach would find a way to move them on. That is the difference between what Price/Doba/Wulff did and what Leach did. The first three played by old school commitment ideals, Leach played by real world deals.

So while Leach recruited five bodies a year, they would often wash out by year two. Never seeing a down. The other thing Leach did and was a mistake by coach who decided 3.5 was disposable was taking out the sand pit. That was genius by Leach. So in the time Leach was at WSU, how many times did he have to go two to three deep at a tackle or guard position.

I can remember two maybe three times he had to go beyond his starting five. 2014 when our center went down and Halliday was blown up and broke a leg when Flor got manhandled by Lenard Williams of USC.

2015 when Dahl broke a hand and Dillard came in. If I recall correctly that was the year Falk had to be carried out on a stretcher the game before the Apple Cup against CU.

There may have been one more time Leach went one player beyond the starting five. That is unheard of.

And then the offense and line splits he ran. Not a lot of running plays, so you avoid congestion there. With splits widened you lesson the chance of another big body rolling up on an ankle or knee.

So while 5 was a good number for Leach, if a coach can hit 50% with four, it is the same as what Leach hit on with 5.

 

[dgibbons]

lets not get carried away with the "quality OL play." I think we can agree to settle on "not-shit OL play."

"Functional" works for me. Most important is the absence of dysfunctional OL play.

 

[95coug]

Counterpoint to the counterpoint......some people here think that it doesn't matter what our depth is....we need 5-6 guys every year and they use the "lower level recruits" as the excuse......even though we recruit lower across the board so shouldn't that apply to every position on the field? Lord knows that I've seen plenty of terrible defensive backs at WSU. There are going to be years where we need to get extra guys...but it should be the exception...not the rule.

On your last paragraph, you "expect that if you at most programs" that they will recruit more than 4 per year. I looked at Oklahoma State, which is a good program but not elite and found the following:

2022: 4
2021: 2
2020: 4
2019: 4
2018: 5
2017: 1
2016: 7
2015: 3

They recruited 30 OL players in 8 years, which averages to 3.75 per year. What about Kansas State...a spiritual brother to WSU?

2022: 3
2021: 3
2020: 6
2019: 3
2018: 4
2017: 5
2016: 4
2015: 4

The Wildcats recruited 32 OL players over that period or right at 4 per year on average. How about Colorado State...a team that has to fight with a lot of schools with more "prestige"?

2022: 2
2021: 3
2020: 5
2019: 4
2018: 4
2017: 8
2016: 2
2015: 2

The Rams were in that 4+ range from 2017 to 2020....but that looks to be from only getting 4 guys in two years in 2015 and 2016. They still only averaged 3.75 guys over the full eight year period.

FWIW, I didn't cherry pick any schools. Every one that I looked at is like this. Y'all are just flat out wrong on how college football OL recruiting works. I guarantee that all of these schools are bringing other OL guys in as walk-ons with the idea that they can earn a scholarship if they can prove they are worthy. WSU should be no different. We should strive to find 4 good candidates per year and take a 5th if there's a guy that's worth taking a shot on. Offer preferred walk-ons to guys that you know that you can get to do that but have some questions to answer. Don't just toss out 5-6 scholarships because it makes our message board members feel better.

I think you've got to look at it as a 4-year rolling average, not an 8-year average, because the kids you recruited 8 years ago have zero impact on what your team is doing today. I'd also typically say that your 2022 recruits should not be included in the average for your 2022 season...it's rare that a true freshman is going to play on the OL, so it's the preceding 4 years that matter (so, for 2022, you'd consider 2018-2021).

However you do the math, what you really want to avoid is having years with less than 3 or more than 5. Not taking enough kids creates holes, and forces you to take more down the road. CSU pulled 2 OL in 2015 and 2016, which forced them to take 8 in 2017. Taking 8 OL in one class eats up spots for other kids and probably hurts the team overall. KSU only exceeded 5 once, and never fell below 3. OSU took 7 in 2016 and only 1 in 2017, which averages out and they got away with (although they fell from a 10 win team to a 7 win team), but it's probably not a trend anyone wants to get into.

You certainly don't want to throw scholarships at kids who aren't worth them just to make numbers. You also don't want to load up too heavily in any year. But you have to recognize that OL is nearly half of your offense, so it's not a position you can afford to go light on.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I think you've got to look at it as a 4-year rolling average, not an 8-year average, because the kids you recruited 8 years ago have zero impact on what your team is doing today. I'd also typically say that your 2022 recruits should not be included in the average for your 2022 season...it's rare that a true freshman is going to play on the OL, so it's the preceding 4 years that matter (so, for 2022, you'd consider 2018-2021).

However you do the math, what you really want to avoid is having years with less than 3 or more than 5. Not taking enough kids creates holes, and forces you to take more down the road. CSU pulled 2 OL in 2015 and 2016, which forced them to take 8 in 2017. Taking 8 OL in one class eats up spots for other kids and probably hurts the team overall. KSU only exceeded 5 once, and never fell below 3. OSU took 7 in 2016 and only 1 in 2017, which averages out and they got away with (although they fell from a 10 win team to a 7 win team), but it's probably not a trend anyone wants to get into.

You certainly don't want to throw scholarships at kids who aren't worth them just to make numbers. You also don't want to load up too heavily in any year. But you have to recognize that OL is nearly half of your offense, so it's not a position you can afford to go light on.

Agree 100% that a failure to be consistent creates new pressures that we in particular do not need. Those schools getting only 1 or 2 OL guys in a class are definitely setting themselves up for pain down the road. The biggest problem that I've seen with needing too many OL guys because of prior recruiting is that you end up handing out offers to guys that you know are not likely to pan out instead of having the luxury of asking them to walk on.

 

[95coug]

Agree 100% that a failure to be consistent creates new pressures that we in particular do not need. Those schools getting only 1 or 2 OL guys in a class are definitely setting themselves up for pain down the road. The biggest problem that I've seen with needing too many OL guys because of prior recruiting is that you end up handing out offers to guys that you know are not likely to pan out instead of having the luxury of asking them to walk on.

Yes. Most teams can probably find 4 in a typical year that are worth trying to develop into real players. Sometimes 5, maybe occasionally 6. If you're signing 7 or 8, you're probably starting to reach.

Even if you have 8 slam-dunk, can't miss, guaranteed starter quality OL prospects in one season, signing them all means shorting the team somewhere else. And, it's fleeting. You'll be OL rich for 4 seasons, and then you're back at zero. Better to be as consistent as possible, rather than count on frequent jackpots...especially since we all know there's really no such thing as a can't miss prospect.

 

[etowncoug]

Yes. Most teams can probably find 4 in a typical year that are worth trying to develop into real players. Sometimes 5, maybe occasionally 6. If you're signing 7 or 8, you're probably starting to reach.

Even if you have 8 slam-dunk, can't miss, guaranteed starter quality OL prospects in one season, signing them all means shorting the team somewhere else. And, it's fleeting. You'll be OL rich for 4 seasons, and then you're back at zero. Better to be as consistent as possible, rather than count on frequent jackpots...especially since we all know there's really no such thing as a can't miss prospect.

The math on 5 a year makes sense. We start 22 players between offense and defense and sign 25 players. 5 guys per year is where you should be. If a Brian Greene develops and earns a scholarship, that's gravy. But you shouldn't be at a point where you depend on walk-ons filling out a roster because too many of them seeing snaps in the two deeps usually mean the talent isn't very good.

The other issue is having to move other scholarship players over to fill gaps. Fa'amoe and Carrell both got moved to OL this spring. Now we look thin at DT next year and Carrell has already hit the portal.

They signed a bunch of OL for 2022 6 HS and 1 portal guy. I suspect another portal guy might be in the works. But prior to getting Stephens the back up tackles were going to be a former basketball player and a converted DT.

Most of the current mess can be laid at the feet of Rolo and Weber. They wanted a different body type for OL and changed up what they asked the OL to do, which predictably led to transfers, and they didn't both to recruit the numbers necessary to build depth.

I hope we return to more balanced classes in general. We overloaded the OL and DB's last year but didn't take a single receiver and grabbed a single DL.

 

[BiggsCoug]

The math on 5 a year makes sense. We start 22 players between offense and defense and sign 25 players. 5 guys per year is where you should be. If a Brian Greene develops and earns a scholarship, that's gravy. But you shouldn't be at a point where you depend on walk-ons filling out a roster because too many of them seeing snaps in the two deeps usually mean the talent isn't very good.

The other issue is having to move other scholarship players over to fill gaps. Fa'amoe and Carrell both got moved to OL this spring. Now we look thin at DT next year and Carrell has already hit the portal.

They signed a bunch of OL for 2022 6 HS and 1 portal guy. I suspect another portal guy might be in the works. But prior to getting Stephens the back up tackles were going to be a former basketball player and a converted DT.

Most of the current mess can be laid at the feet of Rolo and Weber. They wanted a different body type for OL and changed up what they asked the OL to do, which predictably led to transfers, and they didn't both to recruit the numbers necessary to build depth.

I hope we return to more balanced classes in general. We overloaded the OL and DB's last year but didn't take a single receiver and grabbed a single DL.

Weber sucks ass. Those two dipshits fuc$es this up royally.

 

[wsudefense]

Riley and Carrell both in the portal. No one wants to complete and it’s seems to me players want a starting job given to them. Having the transfer portal is a joke. We shouldn’t take high schools players so we can develop them as players. We should and just recruit JC and Portal players at this point. The portal has FD college football.

 

[etowncoug]

Riley and Carrell both in the portal. No one wants to complete and it’s seems to me players want a starting job given to them. Having the transfer portal is a joke. We shouldn’t take high schools players so we can develop them as players. We should and just recruit JC and Portal players at this point. The portal has FD college football.

Carrell wanted to play DL and we moved him to OL. Not a surprise with him. Riley hadn't cracked the two deep and is a graduate transfer. Don't think he would have played here.

 

[wsudefense]

Carrell wanted to play DL and we moved him to OL. Not a surprise with him. Riley hadn't cracked the two deep and is a graduate transfer. Don't think he would have played here.

It shows Riley signed 7/11/2018

Carrell wanted to play DL and we moved him to OL. Not a surprise with him. Riley hadn't cracked the two deep and is a graduate transfer. Don't think he would have played here.

It shows Riley signed 7/11/2018 with WSU
I wasn’t aware he was a transfer

 

[froropmkr72]

Don't think Syr is going to play in an other world but fat land.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

The math on 5 a year makes sense. We start 22 players between offense and defense and sign 25 players. 5 guys per year is where you should be. If a Brian Greene develops and earns a scholarship, that's gravy. But you shouldn't be at a point where you depend on walk-ons filling out a roster because too many of them seeing snaps in the two deeps usually mean the talent isn't very good.

The other issue is having to move other scholarship players over to fill gaps. Fa'amoe and Carrell both got moved to OL this spring. Now we look thin at DT next year and Carrell has already hit the portal.

They signed a bunch of OL for 2022 6 HS and 1 portal guy. I suspect another portal guy might be in the works. But prior to getting Stephens the back up tackles were going to be a former basketball player and a converted DT.

Most of the current mess can be laid at the feet of Rolo and Weber. They wanted a different body type for OL and changed up what they asked the OL to do, which predictably led to transfers, and they didn't both to recruit the numbers necessary to build depth.

I hope we return to more balanced classes in general. We overloaded the OL and DB's last year but didn't take a single receiver and grabbed a single DL.

Annnnnd......we are back to the 5 per year talk. SMFH. It's not as simple as 22 being almost the same as 25. If you read above (posted by someone other than me), it's unusual to have more than 8 OL guys play in a game. You just don't see substitutions on the offensive line very often. Running backs, wide receivers and defensive line are a constant train of substitutions and you'll see as many as 18-20 guys play in those 8 spots in any given game. We can't be recruiting 2-3 OL guys per year without having problems, but we don't "NEED" 5 in a year unless we find absolute studs or we are making up for prior sins.

FWIW, I pulled up the stats for the Stanford game and looked at the participation report. 9 offensive linemen played for WSU, 46 other guys played at other positions. 9/55 is a smaller ratio than 5/22 and is more reflective of the notion that we need to average around 4 OL per year.....not 5.

 

[BiggsCoug]

WSU will be the landing spot for Big Sky and Mtn West all leaguers that cant land NIL $.

Waiting to see who chases the d2 and d3 All Americans cause their HS kids wont stay and the portal kids ignore them for NIL dollars.

 

[etowncoug]

Annnnnd......we are back to the 5 per year talk. SMFH. It's not as simple as 22 being almost the same as 25. If you read above (posted by someone other than me), it's unusual to have more than 8 OL guys play in a game. You just don't see substitutions on the offensive line very often. Running backs, wide receivers and defensive line are a constant train of substitutions and you'll see as many as 18-20 guys play in those 8 spots in any given game. We can't be recruiting 2-3 OL guys per year without having problems, but we don't "NEED" 5 in a year unless we find absolute studs or we are making up for prior sins.

FWIW, I pulled up the stats for the Stanford game and looked at the participation report. 9 offensive linemen played for WSU, 46 other guys played at other positions. 9/55 is a smaller ratio than 5/22 and is more reflective of the notion that we need to average around 4 OL per year.....not 5.

Once again, you don't get it. There are two position groups where you need someone who can play every snap. QB and OL. We take 1-2 QB's a year because the team is completely screwed if it doesn't have a good starter and decent back up. The collapse the team saw when we were down to Gaballis last year is a situation to be avoided at all costs.

Our QB drops back to pass 50+ times a game. It's critical to do every thing we can to keep QB1 in the game. We aren't recruiting a bunch of 4 stats along the line, so the strategy is to get a bunch of kids with good frames and see who figures it out. For every Andre Dillard there is a Davis Perrott. We don't land many sure things at OL, so it takes numbers to ensure this works out.

The rest of the positions are rotational. If our back up WR's, RB's, DB's, or LB's aren't good we simply rotate less. It also doesn't take a couple years to develop depth at these positions. I'd drop a min of 10 scholarships a year on OL, TE, DE, DT.

 

[95coug]

WSU will be the landing spot for Big Sky and Mtn West all leaguers that cant land NIL $.

Waiting to see who chases the d2 and d3 All Americans cause their HS kids wont stay and the portal kids ignore them for NIL dollars.

The portal and NIL are poorly conceived and even more poorly designed/managed. It will clearly reinforce a "rich get richer" system, and will probably result in the winner's club becoming even more exclusive. Separation of tiers will become even more pronounced, and upward movement my programs will become even more difficult. If a team like WSU has a recruit who develops and turns into a breakout star, he'll get poached by another school who can pay more, give more exposure, a clearer path to NFL, etc.

All of this is coming together to make CFB less interesting. The 2021 season was the least I've enjoyed CFB...ever. Part of that was the political BS through the first half, and the last 6 weeks was a little more fun than the first 6, but the way things are evolving, I'm not sure how long that'll last.

It's not hard to envision a scenario where I'm in my last season or two of having season tickets. It's fast becoming a situation where it's not enough fun to be worth the effort.

 

[BiggsCoug]

The portal and NIL are poorly conceived and even more poorly designed/managed. It will clearly reinforce a "rich get richer" system, and will probably result in the winner's club becoming even more exclusive. Separation of tiers will become even more pronounced, and upward movement my programs will become even more difficult. If a team like WSU has a recruit who develops and turns into a breakout star, he'll get poached by another school who can pay more, give more exposure, a clearer path to NFL, etc.

All of this is coming together to make CFB less interesting. The 2021 season was the least I've enjoyed CFB...ever. Part of that was the political BS through the first half, and the last 6 weeks was a little more fun than the first 6, but the way things are evolving, I'm not sure how long that'll last.

It's not hard to envision a scenario where I'm in my last season or two of having season tickets. It's fast becoming a situation where it's not enough fun to be worth the effort.

Im tellin’ ya… when the SEC figures out it can both pay kids NIL $, have them pay their own tuition AND sign 25 kids to scholarships… The soon to be 16 team league could take 800 kids per year and let them leave if they’re upset.

And look out for the TV $$$$. What happens when the SEC schools take down $75,000,000 per year???

Shoot, what happens when Texas and A&M take 100 kids per year from Texas? How does that effect recruiting around the region?

I dont have a problem with kids getting a 1 time free transfer. I have a problem with them being induced/enticed into the portal. The tampering, the back door deals, etc. That’s not above board. And they can roll ANY time they want. Really? No timeframe set forth??? Just a free for all at any given moment. Looks bad.

I don’t believe jdl was playing in the bowl game without having offers from other teams on the table. And if Dick knew, shame on him for even allowing him at the game. If he didnt know, that’s not great either.

And what are HS kids supposed to do? You can’t be a project any more. If you blow up and enter the portal, why would a school continue to sign kids and watch them go??? No multi year deals can be signed. Are schools gonna offer walk on spots to guys cause they took all transfers? Only way a school has leverage is to take a kid that’s burned up his 1 freebie.

What a mess. How the NCAA can punt on this altogether and still have ANY control or influence is asinine.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Im tellin’ ya… when the SEC figures out it can both pay kids NIL $, have them pay their own tuition AND sign 25 kids to scholarships… The soon to be 16 team league could take 800 kids per year and let them leave if they’re upset.

And look out for the TV $$$$. What happens when the SEC schools take down $75,000,000 per year???

Shoot, what happens when Texas and A&M take 100 kids per year from Texas? How does that effect recruiting around the region?

I dont have a problem with kids getting a 1 time free transfer. I have a problem with them being induced/enticed into the portal. The tampering, the back door deals, etc. That’s not above board. And they can roll ANY time they want. Really? No timeframe set forth??? Just a free for all at any given moment. Looks bad.

I don’t believe jdl was playing in the bowl game without having offers from other teams on the table. And if Dick knew, shame on him for even allowing him at the game. If he didnt know, that’s not great either.

And what are HS kids supposed to do? You can’t be a project any more. If you blow up and enter the portal, why would a school continue to sign kids and watch them go??? No multi year deals can be signed. Are schools gonna offer walk on spots to guys cause they took all transfers? Only way a school has leverage is to take a kid that’s burned up his 1 freebie.

What a mess. How the NCAA can punt on this altogether and still have ANY control or influence is asinine.

never forget that you advocated for this.

To paraphrase: " the coaches get paid and leave whenever they want, the players should be able to as well. "

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Once again, you don't get it. There are two position groups where you need someone who can play every snap. QB and OL. We take 1-2 QB's a year because the team is completely screwed if it doesn't have a good starter and decent back up. The collapse the team saw when we were down to Gaballis last year is a situation to be avoided at all costs.

Our QB drops back to pass 50+ times a game. It's critical to do every thing we can to keep QB1 in the game. We aren't recruiting a bunch of 4 stats along the line, so the strategy is to get a bunch of kids with good frames and see who figures it out. For every Andre Dillard there is a Davis Perrott. We don't land many sure things at OL, so it takes numbers to ensure this works out.

The rest of the positions are rotational. If our back up WR's, RB's, DB's, or LB's aren't good we simply rotate less. It also doesn't take a couple years to develop depth at these positions. I'd drop a min of 10 scholarships a year on OL, TE, DE, DT.

I get it that OL is important...but at the end of the day, it's no more important than any other position. If our DB's suck, we get burned for big plays. If our DL is weak, we get ran over. If our linebackers suck, it opens the entire field for opposing offenses. If our receivers suck, we can't move the ball. If our QB sucks, it doesn't matter how good the OL is. If our running backs suck, we lose the ability to be balanced. All position groups matter. It doesn't matter how great the OL is if you are suffering in other spots.

Long story short, you've decided that only the OL matters. It's a myopic way of thinking and, as I've already demonstrated with ten minutes of research, the rest of college football doesn't agree with you.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Flat, you are a long time Coug. You know that we've never had a decent team without a decent O line. And prior to Leach, it was common to have an O line that got decimated by injuries such that we went down the drain late in the season. We are talking about insurance. Is insurance always needed? Any insurance decision comes down to the potential impact you have if you have a major loss and no insurance coverage. That is why vehicle owners are required to have liability insurance, and mortgage companies require homeowners insurance. I would submit...and you may disagree, but this is my personal position...that 4-5 scholies per year for O line is the sort of insurance that has proven to be worthwhile in Pullman, WA. Maybe not at bluer blooded programs. And you are right that even less blue blood programs sometimes don't opt for this insurance. But when I look back through the decades, the two most important indicators of our success (or lack thereof) in WSU football has been solid play at QB and OL. And the only way I see to be confident in having enough quality OL is by investing 4-5 scholies per year.

 

[roses04]

Im tellin’ ya… when the SEC figures out it can both pay kids NIL $, have them pay their own tuition AND sign 25 kids to scholarships… The soon to be 16 team league could take 800 kids per year and let them leave if they’re upset.

And look out for the TV $$$$. What happens when the SEC schools take down $75,000,000 per year???

Shoot, what happens when Texas and A&M take 100 kids per year from Texas? How does that effect recruiting around the region?

I dont have a problem with kids getting a 1 time free transfer. I have a problem with them being induced/enticed into the portal. The tampering, the back door deals, etc. That’s not above board. And they can roll ANY time they want. Really? No timeframe set forth??? Just a free for all at any given moment. Looks bad.

I don’t believe jdl was playing in the bowl game without having offers from other teams on the table. And if Dick knew, shame on him for even allowing him at the game. If he didnt know, that’s not great either.

And what are HS kids supposed to do? You can’t be a project any more. If you blow up and enter the portal, why would a school continue to sign kids and watch them go??? No multi year deals can be signed. Are schools gonna offer walk on spots to guys cause they took all transfers? Only way a school has leverage is to take a kid that’s burned up his 1 freebie.

What a mess. How the NCAA can punt on this altogether and still have ANY control or influence is asinine.

I agree with what you are saying, this will end up like the old days with no scholarship limits and the wealthy teams take up all the players. However there won't be much NIL money after year 1 or 2 for a guy that is not starting, and that is where the transfer portal makes a difference, unlike the unlimited scholarship days those guys didn't have options. In the end kids that are competitive and want to play, so it's JC ball and the portal for many recruits. I think they need to tweak the portal to only being able to use it once. You can use it twice but apparently have to sit a year as it is written now. I really think it should be a one and done deal.

 

[froropmkr72]

How about 18 total and recruiting as many players in a year to obtain that total. 41 scholarship players on offense/ 11 =3.72. times 5 players on the line equals 18.6. They recruit 6 olinemen this year because there's they're down to 12. But I bet that it'll go 4 next, 5 after that, 6 after that and then 5 again. It's always going to be at least 4 to have distribution between the classes.

 

[95coug]

never forget that you advocated for this.

To paraphrase: " the coaches get paid and leave whenever they want, the players should be able to as well. "

There's a difference. There were more than a few of us who believed that players should have a greater flexibility to transfer because the coach left or the program wasn't a good fit. Now, players can leave because another program pays better.

The transfer and NIL changes created free agency in CFB. The system is set up the lazy way, with practically no controls or oversight, and lets players get paid before they ever set foot on the field. Some of us have also believed for years that there should be some sort of compensation for players, in addition to their scholarship, but this isn't what anyone had in mind. Allowing general merchandising to fund a stipend for players would have been reasonable. Even NIL rights could be managed, but the paycheck shouldn't be cashed while the player is active. It would not be difficult at all to track whose jersey sells how many, and put a piece of that into a pot for a player upon completion of eligibility.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Flat, you are a long time Coug. You know that we've never had a decent team without a decent O line. And prior to Leach, it was common to have an O line that got decimated by injuries such that we went down the drain late in the season. We are talking about insurance. Is insurance always needed? Any insurance decision comes down to the potential impact you have if you have a major loss and no insurance coverage. That is why vehicle owners are required to have liability insurance, and mortgage companies require homeowners insurance. I would submit...and you may disagree, but this is my personal position...that 4-5 scholies per year for O line is the sort of insurance that has proven to be worthwhile in Pullman, WA. Maybe not at bluer blooded programs. And you are right that even less blue blood programs sometimes don't opt for this insurance. But when I look back through the decades, the two most important indicators of our success (or lack thereof) in WSU football has been solid play at QB and OL. And the only way I see to be confident in having enough quality OL is by investing 4-5 scholies per year.

Not only that, but his last post is so full of cognitive dissonance its not even funny.

For our team, each position group has as follows:

OL - 5 starting players (6 if you count TE, but for the sake of this argument we wont)
Backs - 2 starting players
WR - 4 starting players.
DL - 3 or 4 (what are we running again?)
LB - 3 or 4 (see above)
DB - 4 starting players

The OL comprises of at least 25% more of the team than any other position. The OL easily has the most consistent contact of any position group, making injury that much more likely.

OL needs to be a consistent, purposeful focus of recruiting, every year.