ADVERTISEMENT

Thoughts on moving away from Leach Tree?

chugspig

Hall Of Fame
Nov 5, 2011
2,423
1,304
113
Not to blast the man so close to unfortunate times, but it seems his coaches are extremely loyal to each other and Texas. We don’t need any more 1-2 year guys hopping around. I understand this is possible with whoever we hire, but I think that nucleus of guys we focus on will always be in and out or jobs with the Dykes, Holgerson, Riley, Harrel, Morris etc etc. Leach’s tree is big enough and tight enough we basically stand to replace any successful OC from him within a year. Again, I know this is possible with whoever we hire, but it doesn’t seem necessary to have one of his former players anymore to run an air raid style offense. We can find that most places. Hell Bartelone could do it now. Just curious on other thoughts, because we haven’t seen much loyalty from that group outside or Leach himself and the constant turnover needs to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wazzubrooz
Not to blast the man so close to unfortunate times, but it seems his coaches are extremely loyal to each other and Texas. We don’t need any more 1-2 year guys hopping around. I understand this is possible with whoever we hire, but I think that nucleus of guys we focus on will always be in and out or jobs with the Dykes, Holgerson, Riley, Harrel, Morris etc etc. Leach’s tree is big enough and tight enough we basically stand to replace any successful OC from him within a year. Again, I know this is possible with whoever we hire, but it doesn’t seem necessary to have one of his former players anymore to run an air raid style offense. We can find that most places. Hell Bartelone could do it now. Just curious on other thoughts, because we haven’t seen much loyalty from that group outside or Leach himself and the constant turnover needs to stop.

WSU needs to be a West Coast team. There should be an army of kids coming up from SoCal every year, combined with the best of Washington high school talent.

Edit to add, same for the coaching staff.

The end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: froropmkr72
We have more talent and athletes to fit the air raid offense on the west coast. I think it's a matter of finding a scheme that you can recruit too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: froropmkr72
First, good luck. Whether they've worked directly with Leach or not, the Air Raid has permeated modern offensive football to a significant degree. You can find elements of it almost everywhere.

Second, good luck. If you're looking for staff loyalty - especially among assistants - I think you're dreaming. The days of the Levensellers spending 15 years as a position coach, or Dobas spending 10 as DC, are pretty much over. Football is a business now, and if you're not growing, you're failing. Assistants are going to continue to spend a year or two in a place and try to parlay success into a promotion. Even if you find the rare assistant who wants to stay an assistant, the decreasing stability of HC positions means that the assistant jobs are less secure too. So, you have to keep moving and building the resume.

Third, you have to look at your team and your available recruits and flex your system to fit what you have and what you can get. The west coast generally doesn't have the big, beefy linemen to enable a power run game, so we're not going to see those offenses. We're also not going to see the defenses that rely heavily on a big, run-stopping DL.

For schools like WSU, their best chance at being competitive is to be flexible. You can have a base system, but you've got to be able to flex it based on your personnel. The blue bloods and moneyed programs will be able to pick their system and recruit to it exclusively. We won't. We're going to have to be able to adapt the base system to fit the available players. That should also make us tougher to prepare for.
 
Umm Mike Leach's Tree is SO BIG, that 99.99% of the Air Raid Coaches are either DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY the Children or Grandchildren or great great grand children under the GREAT BIG UMBRELLA of the Mike Leach Tree.

Even Bartilone as a player is technically under the Leach tree.

What you need to do is get a SONNY DYKES tree Air Raid coach.

The Sonny Dykes Air Raid tree coaches are BETTER then the Morris, Harrell, Littrell (from directly under Leach instead of directly under Dykes).

Those that are DIRECTLY under Dykes, like Anae, MEACHAM, are BETTER then those DIRECTLY under Leach, because at least they will RUN THE DAMN BALL, whereas those directly under Leach like Littrell, etc, DO NOT RUN THE DAMN BALL.

I also think that guys DIRECTLY UNDER THE DYKES Tree are more likely to stay 3,4,5,6 years, then the guys like Harrell, Littrell that are DIRECTLY under Leach who that are likely to only stay 1,2,3 years, because Dykes runs a LESS POPULAR HYBRID BALANCED AIR RAID, then the LEACH RAID.

Everybody wants the LEACH RAID.

Less want the DYKES RAID.

So because of that LEACH RAID OC'S WILL LEAVE SOONER THEN DYKE RAID OC'S.
 
Also my point and 95's point go hand in hand, because SONNY DYKE RAID HYBRID BALANCED RUN 40% PASS 60%, 1 TE, 3 WR, 1 RB, AIR RAID is BETTER then the LEACH RAID RUN 23% PASS 77%, NO HYBRID, LESS ADAPTABLE, NO BALANCE, NO TE, 4 WR, 1 RB, AIR RAID,

because it is more adaptable, fits what 95 is saying better. And because it is easier to put RPO, etc, into the DYKES RAID AIR RAID. And because the Dykes Raid Air Raid RUNS THE DAMN BALL, unlike the Leach RAID.

The Dykes Raid is BETTER than and for WSU then the Leach raid, and the Dykes Raid is less popular then the Leach Raid, thus Dykes Raid recruits will be easier to get then Leach raid recruits. And Dykes Raid OC's will stay longer then Leach Raid OC's

This is why WSU should get Robert Anae Doug Meacham from the Dykes Raid Tree, INSTEAD of Littrell, etc, from the Leach Raid Tree.
 
On a slightly different tangent...regardless of where the coaches come from, an important and often demonstrated aspect of Pullman/WSU is that we need some uniqueness in order to be successful. If our approach is simply the same commoditized offensive approach that 75% of the teams are using, then we have no recruiting or game planning advantage. IMHO, the Air Raid variations still offer that ability to be unique. If we ever got to the point in college football that it was no longer possible to be at least somewhat unique with a hybrid Air Raid, then we would need to move to coaches who knew how to do something different, so we would again have the recruiting advantage in getting the players that we need.

The extreme example of such a shift would be to go to some variation of a triple option. That has been effective for Air Force in modern times because, even with their other recruiting limitations, it lets them use somewhat smaller but highly mobile OL, and there are always fullbacks available because most offenses no longer use them. They are competitive, even with the recruiting limitations that go with being a service academy. The triple option got a natty for Oklahoma in the '80's mostly because they had the right OL and the right QB. The triple option is just one example; there are other possibilities...an offense that typically uses dual tight ends, two wide outs and a single back might be another. Walden's Veer Option might also be a choice for those who like split backs with a lot of run plays and a tight end. All of those can use 280-290 pound OL with good technique & footwork. The common denominator is that we are not trying to recruit players for an offense that is the same as 75% of the competition. As a side benefit, we are also more difficult for our opponents D staff to game plan, since we don't look just like the last 5 teams that they played. I'm personally convinced that the jump in offensive performance in college football recently is mostly because the D's simply have not caught up with the RPO and Air Raid offensive changes. But catch up they will...they always do. That is another reason why it is important to continue to try to stay at least somewhat unique. And that is more true for WSU than for many schools.
 
On a slightly different tangent...regardless of where the coaches come from, an important and often demonstrated aspect of Pullman/WSU is that we need some uniqueness in order to be successful. If our approach is simply the same commoditized offensive approach that 75% of the teams are using, then we have no recruiting or game planning advantage. IMHO, the Air Raid variations still offer that ability to be unique. If we ever got to the point in college football that it was no longer possible to be at least somewhat unique with a hybrid Air Raid, then we would need to move to coaches who knew how to do something different, so we would again have the recruiting advantage in getting the players that we need.

The extreme example of such a shift would be to go to some variation of a triple option. That has been effective for Air Force in modern times because, even with their other recruiting limitations, it lets them use somewhat smaller but highly mobile OL, and there are always fullbacks available because most offenses no longer use them. They are competitive, even with the recruiting limitations that go with being a service academy. The triple option got a natty for Oklahoma in the '80's mostly because they had the right OL and the right QB. The triple option is just one example; there are other possibilities...an offense that typically uses dual tight ends, two wide outs and a single back might be another. Walden's Veer Option might also be a choice for those who like split backs with a lot of run plays and a tight end. All of those can use 280-290 pound OL with good technique & footwork. The common denominator is that we are not trying to recruit players for an offense that is the same as 75% of the competition. As a side benefit, we are also more difficult for our opponents D staff to game plan, since we don't look just like the last 5 teams that they played. I'm personally convinced that the jump in offensive performance in college football recently is mostly because the D's simply have not caught up with the RPO and Air Raid offensive changes. But catch up they will...they always do. That is another reason why it is important to continue to try to stay at least somewhat unique. And that is more true for WSU than for many schools.
I think the key point you hit there is that for most of the teams they play, Air Force is the only one running that offense. Opponents know it's coming, but it's not what they're used to, so when they follow their instinct...they're wrong.

Air Force also benefits from a high level of discipline. They execute really well - everyone does their job on every down. That's their tradeoff for the fact that they don't have the biggest/fastest/strongest players anywhere on the field.

I'm not sure the 80s offenses will gain much traction against P5 defenses today. Even with really good execution, there's a point where the defensive athleticism will start to negate the advantage. You'd probably manage some wins against the less athletic defenses, but wouldn't beat the good ones.

Besides...the triple option isn't going to sell tickets or win viewers. And that's what college football is really about now.
 
I think the key point you hit there is that for most of the teams they play, Air Force is the only one running that offense. Opponents know it's coming, but it's not what they're used to, so when they follow their instinct...they're wrong.

Air Force also benefits from a high level of discipline. They execute really well - everyone does their job on every down. That's their tradeoff for the fact that they don't have the biggest/fastest/strongest players anywhere on the field.

I'm not sure the 80s offenses will gain much traction against P5 defenses today. Even with really good execution, there's a point where the defensive athleticism will start to negate the advantage. You'd probably manage some wins against the less athletic defenses, but wouldn't beat the good ones.

Besides...the triple option isn't going to sell tickets or win viewers. And that's what college football is really about now.
95, you may be right. I can confidently predict though that somebody, somewhere will adopt the triple option besides Air Force, for the reasons you and I noted. If I had my druthers and the Air Raid & its variations became so commonplace that there was no ability to be unique any more, based on what I am seeing right now I'd switch to the double tight end, two WR and one back offense as my base. It appears to me that teams would be forced into a 4-3 D front to counter that, with a situational 5-2 as their second choice. Only one safety would be available to help the CB's; they would essentially be 1 on 1 with the WR's on every play. The TE's would not be limited to blocking, though a good run game would be critical to that offense. TE's can run delayed pass routes, or the two of them could do a mesh. In any event, the 3 LB's would be hard put to do much blitzing and would be mostly in a read/react mode. You could always split the TE or do the H back position. You probably would situationally use a FB. Short yardage would be a scrum that you should win most of the time if you had the right 7 guys on the line.

If you were the only team running that offense as your base, you'd have a way to differentiate yourself (the most important thing in recruiting). You could use a mix of the fast, open space back or the bruiser, and if you had a guy who was a bit of both and a decently competent line it would be tough to defend.
 
95, you may be right. I can confidently predict though that somebody, somewhere will adopt the triple option besides Air Force, for the reasons you and I noted. If I had my druthers and the Air Raid & its variations became so commonplace that there was no ability to be unique any more, based on what I am seeing right now I'd switch to the double tight end, two WR and one back offense as my base. It appears to me that teams would be forced into a 4-3 D front to counter that, with a situational 5-2 as their second choice. Only one safety would be available to help the CB's; they would essentially be 1 on 1 with the WR's on every play. The TE's would not be limited to blocking, though a good run game would be critical to that offense. TE's can run delayed pass routes, or the two of them could do a mesh. In any event, the 3 LB's would be hard put to do much blitzing and would be mostly in a read/react mode. You could always split the TE or do the H back position. You probably would situationally use a FB. Short yardage would be a scrum that you should win most of the time if you had the right 7 guys on the line.

If you were the only team running that offense as your base, you'd have a way to differentiate yourself (the most important thing in recruiting). You could use a mix of the fast, open space back or the bruiser, and if you had a guy who was a bit of both and a decently competent line it would be tough to defend.

So you watched Oregon State….
 
I’ve thought for a while that the evolution of offenses is circular to the extent that you may see something like a wish bone triple option again someday. it’s very hard to prepare for something you never see in a weeks time.

Emory Ballard who created the triple option wishbone offense was quoted saying Mike Leachs offense was basically the same thing he was running, and he liked it above anything else being run. leach then credited the wishbone offense as what Was used to
create the air raid. They both talked about attacking space and getting the ball in as many skill players hands as possible. I thought that was interesting.
 
So you watched Oregon State….
I did not think about that, but of course you are right. OSU had a beast back. The best player on their team. If your RB is your best and most versatile player, you would be stupid not to use a scenario that gets the most benefit from that player. However, prior to that player they did not run so many double TE formations, and after he is gone it remains to be seen if they stick with it. I was coming at it more from the idea that it would be a scheme to which you would deliberately recruit players...and you would have to have a QB who could throw the ball better than OSU did. It will be interesting to see where OSU goes with their offense over the next couple of years.
 
I did not think about that, but of course you are right. OSU had a beast back. The best player on their team. If your RB is your best and most versatile player, you would be stupid not to use a scenario that gets the most benefit from that player. However, prior to that player they did not run so many double TE formations, and after he is gone it remains to be seen if they stick with it. I was coming at it more from the idea that it would be a scheme to which you would deliberately recruit players...and you would have to have a QB who could throw the ball better than OSU did. It will be interesting to see where OSU goes with their offense over the next couple of years.

They just picked up a QB from Clemson. Im sure Smith will think of something.

The future of football is running the ball. Especially for middle class and lower class P5 teams.
 
They just picked up a QB from Clemson. Im sure Smith will think of something.

The future of football is running the ball. Especially for middle class and lower class P5 teams.
I'd modify that a bit.

The future of middle and lower class P5 teams hinges on their ability to run. That automatically enables them to also get the ball to people in space, if they do it right. Mike Leach unequivocally showed that the reverse does not necessarily work: being able to get the ball to people in space does not automatically enable a running game. I'm convinced that is why most of the Air Raid derivatives include a TE.

Any team with the ability to run will end up doing so over half of the time. What I like about double TE's is the almost automatic run support you get while still having two eligible receivers that will be covered by LB's that will usually be either smaller or slower.
 
The future of Middle Class, and semi lower class teams, and WSU type teams is being ABLE to run the ball ABOUT 39% to 44% of time, as far as handing ball off to a RB, FB, WR(reverses, jet sweeps, wild cats).

AND having QB run(designed QB runs, draws, sneaks, scrambles, RPO, etc), about 8% to 14% of time(about 7 to 14 times per game)

And Passing, stretching the field with 2,3 WR, TE, about 53% to 60% of time.

The running the ball and have QB run ball, balances things out, and opens the field and passing game.

And the passing game opens the field to the running game.

SEMI BALANCED offenses like this is the future, as demonstrated by Sonny Dykes, TCU

Unbalanced run or pass offenses where either run somewhere between almost all the time nonstop to most of time or pass almost all the time to most of time, semi non stop, is TOO PREDICTABLE, TOO EASILY DEFENSIBLE, and will probably not lead to success for TCU and all the other middle to semi lower class programs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chucksizzle1
First, good luck. Whether they've worked directly with Leach or not, the Air Raid has permeated modern offensive football to a significant degree. You can find elements of it almost everywhere.

Second, good luck. If you're looking for staff loyalty - especially among assistants - I think you're dreaming. The days of the Levensellers spending 15 years as a position coach, or Dobas spending 10 as DC, are pretty much over. Football is a business now, and if you're not growing, you're failing. Assistants are going to continue to spend a year or two in a place and try to parlay success into a promotion. Even if you find the rare assistant who wants to stay an assistant, the decreasing stability of HC positions means that the assistant jobs are less secure too. So, you have to keep moving and building the resume.

Third, you have to look at your team and your available recruits and flex your system to fit what you have and what you can get. The west coast generally doesn't have the big, beefy linemen to enable a power run game, so we're not going to see those offenses. We're also not going to see the defenses that rely heavily on a big, run-stopping DL.

For schools like WSU, their best chance at being competitive is to be flexible. You can have a base system, but you've got to be able to flex it based on your personnel. The blue bloods and moneyed programs will be able to pick their system and recruit to it exclusively. We won't. We're going to have to be able to adapt the base system to fit the available players. That should also make us tougher to prepare for.
Loyalty… you are spot on . Do I think Levenseller to this day was a better wr coach than any coach Leach brought in to coach that position .

How did loyalty work out for Mike Walker ? His mistake was he didn’t broaden his resume .

Dennis Erickson until late in his career was a step of the executioner . He knew better to leave early than late .
 
I'd modify that a bit.

The future of middle and lower class P5 teams hinges on their ability to run. That automatically enables them to also get the ball to people in space, if they do it right. Mike Leach unequivocally showed that the reverse does not necessarily work: being able to get the ball to people in space does not automatically enable a running game. I'm convinced that is why most of the Air Raid derivatives include a TE.

Any team with the ability to run will end up doing so over half of the time. What I like about double TE's is the almost automatic run support you get while still having two eligible receivers that will be covered by LB's that will usually be either smaller or slower.

You’re splitting hairs.
 
I think we did move away from the Leach tree with the hire of our OC, correct?

Based on what I have seen that is a home run hire.

I would like to move away from the Leach tree when it comes to teaching nthe offensive line *cough *cough
 
The future of football is running QBs. It is pretty much already here, but that is the endgame. You cannot play 10 v 11 in today's game and expect to win consistently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BiggsCoug
By the end, I think most of us were pretty unhappy with Leach's rigidity on the traditional Air Raid. It stunned the P12 for awhile but teams with the talent to stop it did so pretty routinely.

One thing Jeremy Pruitt (former Alabama DC) said about this year's CFP was that Georgia fared well because it was adaptable in-season on both sides of the ball, whereas Michigan and tOSU - not unlike Mike "if we're not winning then it's because we're not executing" Leach - mostly focused on superior execution. tOSU overperformed on the strength of Stroud's all-around athleticism, while Michigan fans were furious that Harbaugh kept trying to play power run football against TCU; consistent with the idea of "we have the horses, we just have to out-execute" even when it amounted to banging their heads into a wall.

Pruitt is of a mind that a rolling stone gathers no moss, and if you're not adapting, you're losing. Whether he was right or wrong, that was definitely not Leach's philosophy...
 
The future of football is running QBs. It is pretty much already here, but that is the endgame. You cannot play 10 v 11 in today's game and expect to win consistently.
I can't completely agree. Yes to your thought of 10 vs 11. And QB mobility is always good. But bear in mind that RPO was all the rage when Oregon was doing it so well a decade & more ago. The fallacy is when you get an injury, because most teams will not be 3 deep with this kind of QB. And QB injuries will happen in an RPO-heavy offense. So it is self-limiting, and it is why the sport is unlikely to ever fully embrace running QB's unless they are mostly runners...the sort of QB you use in an option running game. Because you can get 3 deep with running QB's with only limited throwing ability.
 
I can't completely agree. Yes to your thought of 10 vs 11. And QB mobility is always good. But bear in mind that RPO was all the rage when Oregon was doing it so well a decade & more ago. The fallacy is when you get an injury, because most teams will not be 3 deep with this kind of QB. And QB injuries will happen in an RPO-heavy offense. So it is self-limiting, and it is why the sport is unlikely to ever fully embrace running QB's unless they are mostly runners...the sort of QB you use in an option running game. Because you can get 3 deep with running QB's with only limited throwing ability.

Change, is a constant in college football. If you recruit to it, imo, it is easier to teach. The prob with qbs isn’t their talent, it’s the enormous passing game. Cut it in half, actually coach your backups, build a passing game around pitch and catch to TEs and taking off running when things aren’t open….. and watch the transition from one qb to the next be much smoother.

Any limits are put there by the coach.
 
I can't completely agree. Yes to your thought of 10 vs 11. And QB mobility is always good. But bear in mind that RPO was all the rage when Oregon was doing it so well a decade & more ago. The fallacy is when you get an injury, because most teams will not be 3 deep with this kind of QB. And QB injuries will happen in an RPO-heavy offense. So it is self-limiting, and it is why the sport is unlikely to ever fully embrace running QB's unless they are mostly runners...the sort of QB you use in an option running game. Because you can get 3 deep with running QB's with only limited throwing ability.
There are more good QBs than ever before. The risk of injury can be mitigated by good recruiting.

And really I am not even talking about RPO offense as much as I am an air raid offense where the QB can check himself into an effective run if the passing options aren't there post snap. Guys like Falk and Halliday could not do that because they were too slow. But a quick guy can wreck havoc on a defense dropping 8.
 
The future of football is running QBs. It is pretty much already here, but that is the endgame. You cannot play 10 v 11 in today's game and expect to win consistently.
Although probably true, we would likely see a lot more QB injuries. I wonder if that might ultimately discourage employing an offense that requires more QB runs? Rightly or wrongly, player health is going to become one of the most impactful things in college/pro football's future, IMO.

(EDIT: I wrote this before I scrolled down to read cr8zyncalif's comments about QB injuries. I second his motion.)

Glad Cougar
 
  • Like
Reactions: cr8zyncalif
Although probably true, we would likely see a lot more QB injuries. I wonder if that might ultimately discourage employing an offense that requires more QB runs? Rightly or wrongly, player health is going to become one of the most impactful things in college/pro football's future, IMO.

(EDIT: I wrote this before I scrolled down to read cr8zyncalif's comments about QB injuries. I second his motion.)

Glad Cougar

Stop thinking of qbs as you have seen them. Start thinking of them as football players.

Injuries happen. Coaches are going to have to coach more than 1 guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wazzucougs96
I can't completely agree. Yes to your thought of 10 vs 11. And QB mobility is always good. But bear in mind that RPO was all the rage when Oregon was doing it so well a decade & more ago. The fallacy is when you get an injury, because most teams will not be 3 deep with this kind of QB. And QB injuries will happen in an RPO-heavy offense. So it is self-limiting, and it is why the sport is unlikely to ever fully embrace running QB's unless they are mostly runners...the sort of QB you use in an option running game. Because you can get 3 deep with running QB's with only limited throwing ability.

There was a post on the internet a couple days ago showing all the currently injured NFL QB's that are known for their running ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cr8zyncalif
You’re splitting hairs.
What is necessary to run the ball consistently ?

Doba thought burning clock, ball control was the way to go. He changed our philosophy . The the rest of the conference sped things up, creating mismatches for the defense and in three plays the offense for other teams were scoring in a minute on three or four plays .

Meanwhile wsu slogged its way down the field and had to settle for field goals because the field shrank in the last 20 yards . I believe you are off the mark on this one .
 
Last edited:
What is necessary to run the ball consistently ?

Doba thought burining clock, ball control was the way to go. He changed our philosophy . The the rest of the conference sped things up, creating mismatches for the defense and in three plays the offense for other teams were scoring in a minute on three or four plays .

Meanwhile wsu slogged its way down the field and had to settle for field goals because the field shrank in the last 20 yards . I believe you are off the mark on this one .
Ed, there is some validity in what you say...but the reason it failed for Doba was not so much that the concept was bad, as it was that the lazy guys who were supposed to be recruiting and the worthless recruiting coordinator(s) simply did not do their jobs. The result was that a team with a good reputation under-recruited horribly and Doba had no depth. Yes, the field compresses as you get into the red zone. But the same was true for the Air Raid. Ultimately you have to be able to get short yardage when it counts, regardless of how you do it. And if you can do it on the ground, then you will be successful more often than not. But you can't completely give up the explosive play, either. You have to use a different strategy to get the guy open for the explosive, however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coug1990
Ed, there is some validity in what you say...but the reason it failed for Doba was not so much that the concept was bad, as it was that the lazy guys who were supposed to be recruiting and the worthless recruiting coordinator(s) simply did not do their jobs. The result was that a team with a good reputation under-recruited horribly and Doba had no depth. Yes, the field compresses as you get into the red zone. But the same was true for the Air Raid. Ultimately you have to be able to get short yardage when it counts, regardless of how you do it. And if you can do it on the ground, then you will be successful more often than not. But you can't completely give up the explosive play, either. You have to use a different strategy to get the guy open for the explosive, however.
The problem has always up front. We cannot recruit enough quality olineman and other middle of the road teams cannot either to have the run game of which you speak. Mike Price couldnt. He had two good olineman recruiting classes in terms of ranking. 94 which was a total bust which led to 98 and 99. And 1999's class which led to 01-03.

Jonathan Smith is the exception. It is like Walden running the veer in late 70's and early 80's it was the anomaly. It works at OSU because they have the best oline coach in the country and wsu should do what is necessary to pry him away.
 
The problem has always up front. We cannot recruit enough quality olineman and other middle of the road teams cannot either to have the run game of which you speak. Mike Price couldnt. He had two good olineman recruiting classes in terms of ranking. 94 which was a total bust which led to 98 and 99. And 1999's class which led to 01-03.

Jonathan Smith is the exception. It is like Walden running the veer in late 70's and early 80's it was the anomaly. It works at OSU because they have the best oline coach in the country and wsu should do what is necessary to pry him away.

I really doubt we could pry him away. We aren't flush with money.
 
I really doubt we could pry him away. We aren't flush with money.
Oh they could find a way....He is on a two year guaranteed deal with OSu. Do something different. Pay him 800k per year five year guaranteed. Gets him to 60ish. Then he can decide what he wants t do from there.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT