Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 18:52:46 GMT -8
Who said anything about getting 20 OL in one recruiting season? I said 2-3 walk ons, not 20. The 20 is how many spots you have total. Not what you would get in 1 year. And there are workarounds to paying out of state tuition. I know when I was in school (and I have not looked, it may have changed) out of state students from most western states could go to OSU for not more than 150% of in state tuition as part of the Western University Exchange program. But even if that isn't an option anymore I am talking about finding 2-3 kids with the size to develop. That is doable even in Oregon. Frankly, I don't understand why the scholarship depth has any connection to what you do with a walk on program. If anything struggling to find quality lineman that are worthy of a scholarship should be all the more reason to focus on developing walk ons at that position. If you could get a bunch of studs every season you'd have no need to use the walk on program at that position. My point is that until we have 15-20 scholly OL developing the walking on is not as big of deal. I believe we may have 2-3 walk on OL now, but that is hard to track. So basically I'm just saying lets worry about upgrading and filling the scholly OL. I'm betting over half of the scholly guys we have would be walk ons at most top 50-60 type (bowl teams) schools. In fact were we not supposed to have 2 or 3 JCs come in ready this year? Are they RS? Wasted year? Just no good? Of course that leads into actually having a OL coach. Woods is the worst we've had in quite a while. Not disagreeing with the idea that OSU needs to recruit better OL but I stand by my opinion that the focus of the walk on program should be OL. I am sure they have 2-3 walk ons total but I favor bringing in 2-3 per year. Its not an either/or situation. You can try to recruit better OL while also making it the focus of your walk on program. If you go to 247 (not that they know more than the coaches, just an easy to look up example) and look at the top Oregon players you will find 4 OL without major offers. Each has D1 size (6-4/5 and 300 lbs.). Guys like them should be the focus of the walk on program at OSU in my opinion. I'd bet at least 1 would develop into quality depth if not a starter. I wouldn't offer them scholarships just because of that size but I'd much rather give them a walk on shot than grabbing someone at a position we have plenty of scholarship talent at.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 14, 2017 18:58:22 GMT -8
My point is that until we have 15-20 scholly OL developing the walking on is not as big of deal. I believe we may have 2-3 walk on OL now, but that is hard to track. So basically I'm just saying lets worry about upgrading and filling the scholly OL. I'm betting over half of the scholly guys we have would be walk ons at most top 50-60 type (bowl teams) schools. In fact were we not supposed to have 2 or 3 JCs come in ready this year? Are they RS? Wasted year? Just no good? Of course that leads into actually having a OL coach. Woods is the worst we've had in quite a while. Not disagreeing with the idea that OSU needs to recruit better OL but I stand by my opinion that the focus of the walk on program should be OL. I am sure they have 2-3 walk ons total but I favor bringing in 2-3 per year. Its not an either/or situation. You can try to recruit better OL while also making it the focus of your walk on program. If you go to 247 (not that they know more than the coaches, just an easy to look up example) and look at the top Oregon players you will find 4 OL without major offers. Each has D1 size (6-4/5 and 300 lbs.). Guys like them should be the focus of the walk on program at OSU in my opinion. I'd bet at least 1 would develop into quality depth if not a starter. I wouldn't offer them scholarships just because of that size but I'd much rather give them a walk on shot than grabbing someone at a position we have plenty of scholarship talent at. Well, I speak from experience for about 20+ of those types in my career. They'd rather go play "inferior" ball at WOU, EOU, PSU, Linfield, Fox, etc than walk on. Even when OSU was rolling a few walked on and stayed one year then went somewhere they could play. When it comes down to it kids want PT... eff developing to maybe play. Makes sense from their viewpoint.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 19:05:30 GMT -8
Not disagreeing with the idea that OSU needs to recruit better OL but I stand by my opinion that the focus of the walk on program should be OL. I am sure they have 2-3 walk ons total but I favor bringing in 2-3 per year. Its not an either/or situation. You can try to recruit better OL while also making it the focus of your walk on program. If you go to 247 (not that they know more than the coaches, just an easy to look up example) and look at the top Oregon players you will find 4 OL without major offers. Each has D1 size (6-4/5 and 300 lbs.). Guys like them should be the focus of the walk on program at OSU in my opinion. I'd bet at least 1 would develop into quality depth if not a starter. I wouldn't offer them scholarships just because of that size but I'd much rather give them a walk on shot than grabbing someone at a position we have plenty of scholarship talent at. Well, I speak from experience for about 20+ of those types in my career. They'd rather go play inferior ball at WOU, EOU, OSU, Linfield, Fox, etc than walk on. Even when OSU was rolling a few walked on and stayed one year then went somewhere they could play. When it comes down to it kids want PT... eff developing to maybe play. Makes sense from their viewpoint. And maybe it comes down to coaching and/or selling them on the university because I know a few that turned down those opportunities to go play for Bellotti at UO and they stuck around for their entire career (they did eventually earn scholarships). That said, players leaving after a year is a pretty common risk (and I am sure it happens at Wisconsin too) with all of your walk on spots and isn't unique to OL so I'd still rather focus on that position group.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 19:08:55 GMT -8
In fairness, I just looked and in prior to 2016 2 of the 5 announced preferred walk ons at OSU were OL and 1 of the 2 is still at OSU, the other is at Linfield. So they very well might be doing this. As you said, its hard to track.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Nov 15, 2017 8:20:10 GMT -8
Not disagreeing with the idea that OSU needs to recruit better OL but I stand by my opinion that the focus of the walk on program should be OL. I am sure they have 2-3 walk ons total but I favor bringing in 2-3 per year. Its not an either/or situation. You can try to recruit better OL while also making it the focus of your walk on program. If you go to 247 (not that they know more than the coaches, just an easy to look up example) and look at the top Oregon players you will find 4 OL without major offers. Each has D1 size (6-4/5 and 300 lbs.). Guys like them should be the focus of the walk on program at OSU in my opinion. I'd bet at least 1 would develop into quality depth if not a starter. I wouldn't offer them scholarships just because of that size but I'd much rather give them a walk on shot than grabbing someone at a position we have plenty of scholarship talent at. Well, I speak from experience for about 20+ of those types in my career. They'd rather go play inferior ball at WOU, EOU, OSU, Linfield, Fox, etc than walk on. Even when OSU was rolling a few walked on and stayed one year then went somewhere they could play. When it comes down to it kids want PT... eff developing to maybe play. Makes sense from their viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Nov 15, 2017 8:21:35 GMT -8
Well, I speak from experience for about 20+ of those types in my career. They'd rather go play inferior ball at WOU, EOU, OSU, Linfield, Fox, etc than walk on. Even when OSU was rolling a few walked on and stayed one year then went somewhere they could play. When it comes down to it kids want PT... eff developing to maybe play. Makes sense from their viewpoint. Was that your subconscious that listed "OSU" as inferior ball? Or is there another OSU in the state that I'm missing.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 15, 2017 9:19:07 GMT -8
Was that your subconscious that listed "OSU" as inferior ball? Or is there another OSU in the state that I'm missing. Damn fat fingers on a small touchy phone... PSU OSU... seems to be little difference these days! 😊
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Nov 15, 2017 9:47:35 GMT -8
Would the Wisconsin "model" fit for the Oregon State Beaver football program?
Their program for years and years appears to be based on recruiting and coaching up the best possible linemen. Wisconsin (like OSU) is unlikely to obtain the quality and numbers of top rated receivers, quarterbacks, etc.
However by emphasizing blocking, tackling, aggressive defense and a punishing running game they have been able to have consistently good teams year after year.
Who would be a good head coach selection if OSU wanted to go down this path? How would OSU maintain this type of consistency when one head coach leaves and another arrives. This consistency seems to be a huge part of Wisconsin's success. Case in point, they were able to survive Madman Gary Andersen!
I look forward to hearing comments from the Beaver fans. Thank you! Bielema is an absolute scumbag of a human but he might fit the mold.
|
|