Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 12:40:09 GMT -8
Funny.. the worst offenses that we had at Oregon State under Riley came during the time we couldn't recruit OL to save our collectively figurative life. Now we're back down to 13 schollie OL plus a couple more than you threw in as a Hail Mary. I remember when CGA said he the program was too OL-heavy and I remember us (you and I specifically) commenting "uhhh.. this doesn't sound like a good thing to not recruit OL..." an NFL team generally carries 10 OL on a 53 man roster, and almost always has a OL or two stashed on the practice squad. These are not players that need to be developed, but immediately game ready players. you are not rostering projects... just necessary depth. an NFL team commits nearly 20% of its roster to that one position group. Gary Andersen committed 15% of his scholarships to that position group, and in college you have to expect the need to develop players. 17 scholarship OL would be an NFL minimum standard. 20 scholarship OL is more of a safe standard considering the need to redshirt 2-4 OL every year, and have another 2-4 buried on the scout team under development for another year. To me you should be adding 4-5 OL in every 25 man class. If you think about it, that only makes sense. They are 5 of the 25 starting positions (I'm being generous and including K/P/LS as starting positions). That should be reflected in recruiting. Some years you may get 6-7 but I believe Andersen got to enamored with athletes and wanted 50 WRs on the roster for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 8, 2017 13:04:46 GMT -8
an NFL team generally carries 10 OL on a 53 man roster, and almost always has a OL or two stashed on the practice squad. These are not players that need to be developed, but immediately game ready players. you are not rostering projects... just necessary depth. an NFL team commits nearly 20% of its roster to that one position group. Gary Andersen committed 15% of his scholarships to that position group, and in college you have to expect the need to develop players. 17 scholarship OL would be an NFL minimum standard. 20 scholarship OL is more of a safe standard considering the need to redshirt 2-4 OL every year, and have another 2-4 buried on the scout team under development for another year. To me you should be adding 4-5 OL in every 25 man class. If you think about it, that only makes sense. They are 5 of the 25 starting positions (I'm being generous and including K/P/LS as starting positions). That should be reflected in recruiting. Some years you may get 6-7 but I believe Andersen got to enamored with athletes and wanted 50 WRs on the roster for some reason. absolutely. The "doesn't cut it" rate of OL is pretty high. every year you should be putting 4 OL into Redshirt status just to get big and strong enough. Not even really for learning blocking schemes and what not, but just to get big enough to be a D-1 OL. That really carries over into your redshirt year. You should expect that you get a solid 3 years out of your two deep players. you should count on 9 times out of 10 your OL class will red shirt year one. That fudges up and down based on injuries, based on whether or not you struck gold and got the very rare immediately game ready player. or you had a stud leave early. Things like that. This idea that you are gonna have 10-12 game dressed players and only 4-5 "in development" players on a college team is just... it is just crazy pants to me. |
|
lefty
Freshman
Posts: 430 
|
Post by lefty on Nov 8, 2017 14:05:53 GMT -8
I don't want to hate to much on the guy, but holy cow DG is not a D-1 quarterback. period. SOOOO many drives ended because he couldn't get the ball within a country mile of a reciever. It is so frustrating to watch. We have a nice play, one of our guys is open, has a window and that ball is no where close. The number of times Nall had to pick a terrible pass out of the dirt was incredible. And folks wonder why Villamin appears disinterested . . . . |
|
lefty
Freshman
Posts: 430
|
Post by lefty on Nov 8, 2017 14:12:04 GMT -8
Maybe you missed the passes that hit the receivers in the hands and were dropped or catching the ball and falling down untouched two yards from a first down. The key is blocking both running and passing. They go hand in hand...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 14:51:55 GMT -8
To me you should be adding 4-5 OL in every 25 man class. If you think about it, that only makes sense. They are 5 of the 25 starting positions (I'm being generous and including K/P/LS as starting positions). That should be reflected in recruiting. Some years you may get 6-7 but I believe Andersen got to enamored with athletes and wanted 50 WRs on the roster for some reason. absolutely. The "doesn't cut it" rate of OL is pretty high. every year you should be putting 4 OL into Redshirt status just to get big and strong enough. Not even really for learning blocking schemes and what not, but just to get big enough to be a D-1 OL. That really carries over into your redshirt year. You should expect that you get a solid 3 years out of your two deep players. you should count on 9 times out of 10 your OL class will red shirt year one. That fudges up and down based on injuries, based on whether or not you struck gold and got the very rare immediately game ready player. or you had a stud leave early. Things like that. This idea that you are gonna have 10-12 game dressed players and only 4-5 "in development" players on a college team is just... it is just crazy pants to me. The other thing about it is that you don't need 3-5 star players to pull this off. If the guy has the right body he can be no stars and still developed into a 3 year starter. A high school teammate of mine that was nothing special in high school grey shirted, red shirted, and then started for 3 years at center for the Ducks. He simply had the size to do it and the Ducks developed him. That kids brother did the same thing and developed into an NFL level TE (7 year career). All because UO saw the size and potential and gave them time to develop. OL and to a lesser extent DL (run stuffers more than pass rushers) are the places where you should be open to recruited lower level talent and I also believe those are the positions that should be the focus of your grey shirting and walk on recruiting. OSU will always be hard pressed to recruit studs in the trenches, they need to be developing them. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 8, 2017 16:48:48 GMT -8
Funny.. the worst offenses that we had at Oregon State under Riley came during the time we couldn't recruit OL to save our collectively figurative life. Now we're back down to 13 schollie OL plus a couple more than you threw in as a Hail Mary. I remember when CGA said he the program was too OL-heavy and I remember us (you and I specifically) commenting "uhhh.. this doesn't sound like a good thing to not recruit OL..." an NFL team generally carries 10 OL on a 53 man roster, and almost always has a OL or two stashed on the practice squad. These are not players that need to be developed, but immediately game ready players. you are not rostering projects... just necessary depth. an NFL team commits nearly 20% of its roster to that one position group. Gary Andersen committed 15% of his scholarships to that position group, and in college you have to expect the need to develop players. 17 scholarship OL would be an NFL minimum standard. 20 scholarship OL is more of a safe standard considering the need to redshirt 2-4 OL every year, and have another 2-4 buried on the scout team under development for another year. There was an interview with Riley the fall after he took over NU where he talked about being amazed at the walkon program there. He said at OSU every year they had to identify their top 6 o-linemen and sometimes it was tough to get 6, while at Nebraska he had about 18 walkons that could legitimately be competing for one of the top 6 positions at OSU. I read somewhere that Wisconsin also has a very strong walkon program that has lots of potential O-linemen. Perhaps GA thought that's how it is everywhere in big-boy Power 5 football and linemen would be easy pickin's at OSU as well. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Nov 9, 2017 12:41:55 GMT -8
an NFL team generally carries 10 OL on a 53 man roster, and almost always has a OL or two stashed on the practice squad. These are not players that need to be developed, but immediately game ready players. you are not rostering projects... just necessary depth. an NFL team commits nearly 20% of its roster to that one position group. Gary Andersen committed 15% of his scholarships to that position group, and in college you have to expect the need to develop players. 17 scholarship OL would be an NFL minimum standard. 20 scholarship OL is more of a safe standard considering the need to redshirt 2-4 OL every year, and have another 2-4 buried on the scout team under development for another year. To me you should be adding 4-5 OL in every 25 man class. If you think about it, that only makes sense. They are 5 of the 25 starting positions (I'm being generous and including K/P/LS as starting positions). That should be reflected in recruiting. Some years you may get 6-7 but I believe Andersen got to enamored with athletes and wanted 50 WRs on the roster for some reason. We are not looking at this logically. The amount of scholarship offensive lineman added in the 3 rosters under Andersen was 13. This is 4 to 5 per year. Our anger over the bad years is blinding us to a degree as to what actually happened. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Nov 9, 2017 12:56:33 GMT -8
an NFL team generally carries 10 OL on a 53 man roster, and almost always has a OL or two stashed on the practice squad. These are not players that need to be developed, but immediately game ready players. you are not rostering projects... just necessary depth. an NFL team commits nearly 20% of its roster to that one position group. Gary Andersen committed 15% of his scholarships to that position group, and in college you have to expect the need to develop players. 17 scholarship OL would be an NFL minimum standard. 20 scholarship OL is more of a safe standard considering the need to redshirt 2-4 OL every year, and have another 2-4 buried on the scout team under development for another year. This post makes no sense. Either you evaluated the numbers wrong or you tried to word it in a way that fits your ideas. The current roster has 14 OL (not 13) on scholarship. This is 16.5% of the roster and is low. This shows that Andersen and staff failed in getting the OL they wanted to fill out the roster. Andersen stated many times he wanted 16-18 OL on roster. 16 would almost exactly match what they do on a NFL roster at 18.8% (10/53 and 16/85). 18 OL on roster would be 21.1% more than an NFL roster. How does an NFL roster prove that we should have 20+ OL on roster(23.5%). I have done some research on this and found that almost all college teams are following the rule of 16-18 OL on roster. The deficiency of Andersen was in execution of recruiting the appropriate number of quality OL and not in his philosophy on how many should be on roster. Even your own examples bear this out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 14:45:05 GMT -8
To me you should be adding 4-5 OL in every 25 man class. If you think about it, that only makes sense. They are 5 of the 25 starting positions (I'm being generous and including K/P/LS as starting positions). That should be reflected in recruiting. Some years you may get 6-7 but I believe Andersen got to enamored with athletes and wanted 50 WRs on the roster for some reason. We are not looking at this logically. The amount of scholarship offensive lineman added in the 3 rosters under Andersen was 13. This is 4 to 5 per year. Our anger over the bad years is blinding us to a degree as to what actually happened. Fair enough, my point about a strong OL walk on focus still stands, don't think OSU has that. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Nov 9, 2017 15:03:48 GMT -8
an NFL team generally carries 10 OL on a 53 man roster, and almost always has a OL or two stashed on the practice squad. These are not players that need to be developed, but immediately game ready players. you are not rostering projects... just necessary depth. an NFL team commits nearly 20% of its roster to that one position group. Gary Andersen committed 15% of his scholarships to that position group, and in college you have to expect the need to develop players. 17 scholarship OL would be an NFL minimum standard. 20 scholarship OL is more of a safe standard considering the need to redshirt 2-4 OL every year, and have another 2-4 buried on the scout team under development for another year. This post makes no sense. Either you evaluated the numbers wrong or you tried to word it in a way that fits your ideas. The current roster has 14 OL (not 13) on scholarship. This is 16.5% of the roster and is low. This shows that Andersen and staff failed in getting the OL they wanted to fill out the roster. Andersen stated many times he wanted 16-18 OL on roster. 16 would almost exactly match what they do on a NFL roster at 18.8% (10/53 and 16/85). 18 OL on roster would be 21.1% more than an NFL roster. How does an NFL roster prove that we should have 20+ OL on roster(23.5%). I have done some research on this and found that almost all college teams are following the rule of 16-18 OL on roster. The deficiency of Andersen was in execution of recruiting the appropriate number of quality OL and not in his philosophy on how many should be on roster. Even your own examples bear this out. I vehemently disagree with almost the entirety of your post. Andersen failed in getting even the minimum number of bodies on scholarship that he wanted, and by a LOT. 16 being the bare minimum, 13 is a long ways short. And there are 13 OL on the roster, not 14. 1. Delp 2. Clay Cordasco - Juco JR added right before signing day this year 3. Houston - was playing DT last season 4. Sattelmaier 5. Demogerontas 6. Fifita 7. Wellsfry 8. Lauina 9. Lavaka 10. Brandel 11. Moore 12. Keli'i Montibon - Juco Jr added mid-June of this year 13. Travis McKay What I see here is 10 legitimate scholarship OL, one guy that you asked to move over from DT and stick his finger in the dike, and 2 Hail Marys that never really had a shot to see the field. I guess CGA had scholarships to burn or something. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 9, 2017 15:33:01 GMT -8
To me you should be adding 4-5 OL in every 25 man class. If you think about it, that only makes sense. They are 5 of the 25 starting positions (I'm being generous and including K/P/LS as starting positions). That should be reflected in recruiting. Some years you may get 6-7 but I believe Andersen got to enamored with athletes and wanted 50 WRs on the roster for some reason. We are not looking at this logically. The amount of scholarship offensive lineman added in the 3 rosters under Andersen was 13. This is 4 to 5 per year. Our anger over the bad years is blinding us to a degree as to what actually happened. in 2015 Andersen added: Blake Brandel Zack Lucas Miki Fifita Sosaia Tauaho - whom was a 2 for 2 JC Ryan Navarro was signed as a JC OL, but he was a long snapper specialist. - if you are counting long snappers as OL, there is your problem.. In 2016, Andersen signed one player Gus Lavaka... Zach Lucas never sees the field for OSU, and disappears after a season. The 2017 class signs Clay Cordasco a late JC Onesimus Lutu-Clarke Justin Sattlelmaier Travis Mackay Brock Wellsfry Keli'i Montibon Andersen adds 6 OL, including late JCs, but needs to also absorb a mass exodus of OL. not including the graduation of Andrews, Stanton, Harlow, Tauaho, and Keegan we also lose several OL with eligibility remaining: Will Hopkins, Gunnar Braden, Braden Kearsley, Robert Olson and Sam Curtis So that is 10 scholarship player added in 3 seasons. We lost 10 players alone in 2017... |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Nov 9, 2017 18:19:13 GMT -8
bah I missed Clarke.
So we do have 14, not 13, on scholarship.
I maintain that Cordasco is a desperation signee and moving Houston over was an equally desperate move driven by failure to recruit enough OL. Without those 2 added to the list, the roster looks shockingly pathetic with 12 bodies on it.
Another thing that we are talking about is that not all numbers from one school to another are equal. When you recruit projects who aren't ready to play until year 3 or 4 typically, you better have a bunch more on the depth chart than the blue chip schools that can afford to play true freshmen. You can get away with 16 at UCLA. You better have 20 at Oregon State. You can't afford to stock up on skill players because if you're losing up front, all the skill players in the world aren't going to help you out.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 9, 2017 19:13:49 GMT -8
I don't want to curb the enthusiasm of this discussion, but are you now not just arguing/discussing a moot point?
I mean GA's tenure was an abject failure in almost every area possible. Lots of info here, but really, does it matter now or surprise anyone the ineptitude?
And... I know it's AD speak, but the program is NOT in better shape than when GA took over! Ok, except in the bank account! 😊
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Nov 10, 2017 1:10:05 GMT -8
We are not looking at this logically. The amount of scholarship offensive lineman added in the 3 rosters under Andersen was 13. This is 4 to 5 per year. Our anger over the bad years is blinding us to a degree as to what actually happened. in 2015 Andersen added: Blake Brandel Zack Lucas Miki Fifita Sosaia Tauaho - whom was a 2 for 2 JC Ryan Navarro was signed as a JC OL, but he was a long snapper specialist. - if you are counting long snappers as OL, there is your problem.. In 2016, Andersen signed one player Gus Lavaka... Zach Lucas never sees the field for OSU, and disappears after a season. The 2017 class signs Clay Cordasco a late JC Onesimus Lutu-Clarke Justin Sattlelmaier Travis Mackay Brock Wellsfry Keli'i Montibon Andersen adds 6 OL, including late JCs, but needs to also absorb a mass exodus of OL. not including the graduation of Andrews, Stanton, Harlow, Tauaho, and Keegan we also lose several OL with eligibility remaining: Will Hopkins, Gunnar Braden, Braden Kearsley, Robert Olson and Sam Curtis So that is 10 scholarship player added in 3 seasons. We lost 10 players alone in 2017... These are the 3 you missed. Leo Fuimaono, Brayden Kearsley, and Gus Lavaka. When it comes to the roster I do know what I am talking about, you did not need to research it. As you can see there are ways to bring in OL scholarship players that do not always show up on the recruiting sites. Zach Lucas medically retired during/after his redshirt year. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Nov 10, 2017 1:35:49 GMT -8
This post makes no sense. Either you evaluated the numbers wrong or you tried to word it in a way that fits your ideas. The current roster has 14 OL (not 13) on scholarship. This is 16.5% of the roster and is low. This shows that Andersen and staff failed in getting the OL they wanted to fill out the roster. Andersen stated many times he wanted 16-18 OL on roster. 16 would almost exactly match what they do on a NFL roster at 18.8% (10/53 and 16/85). 18 OL on roster would be 21.1% more than an NFL roster. How does an NFL roster prove that we should have 20+ OL on roster(23.5%). I have done some research on this and found that almost all college teams are following the rule of 16-18 OL on roster. The deficiency of Andersen was in execution of recruiting the appropriate number of quality OL and not in his philosophy on how many should be on roster. Even your own examples bear this out. I vehemently disagree with almost the entirety of your post. Andersen failed in getting even the minimum number of bodies on scholarship that he wanted, and by a LOT. 16 being the bare minimum, 13 is a long ways short. And there are 13 OL on the roster, not 14. 1. Delp 2. Clay Cordasco - Juco JR added right before signing day this year 3. Houston - was playing DT last season 4. Sattelmaier 5. Demogerontas 6. Fifita 7. Wellsfry 8. Lauina 9. Lavaka 10. Brandel 11. Moore 12. Keli'i Montibon - Juco Jr added mid-June of this year 13. Travis McKay What I see here is 10 legitimate scholarship OL, one guy that you asked to move over from DT and stick his finger in the dike, and 2 Hail Marys that never really had a shot to see the field. I guess CGA had scholarships to burn or something. I am glad you recounted to get 14. I do not think that you really read what I typed. I said the same thing that Andersen failed in recruiting enough OL. He even stated thus himself when he said the roster was not ideal. The topic was that Andersen was an idiot because his philosophy on what percentage of the roster should be OL was flawed (~19-21% OL). I and most college coaches disagree with this. I have no desire for this idea to perpetuate as a standard for our next coach. I will not join in the thought that our next coach is an idiot if he thinks 16 to 18 is the appropriate amount for OL. From your post I get 2 ideas: 1) We do not have enough OL and I said the same thing, yet you vehemently disagreed. This confuses me. 2) The quality of OL on roster is bad. I have never expressed an opinion either way, so we have no disagreement. You already corrected yourself that the correct number is 14 on roster. I am really failing to see how we disagree on anything  . This a humorous thread of 2 people that are sure they disagree with each other on everything, yet cannot find a single thing to disagree on. We are finding ways to miscommunicate, though. |
|
.