'14 TN OT Alex Bars (Notre Dame Signee)

[BGIF]

In my experience, that's the way it's usually been here. When have we ever really had more than 15 scholarship OL.? I think CW's last season we had 15 scholarship OL. Most of Weis' career we were around the 12-13 range, and last season we had 12.... 12 scholarship OL!

You're seriously going to use Charlie's OLines to support your point?

How'd that work out for him?

Whose OLine owns the ND career record for sacks? (Hint: "Sorry about that Jimmy. Can you move your legs yet?)

Charlie was not successful at recruiting OLs nor developing them.

There's always been a depth concern, at least during the Kelly era, along the OL.

...

Yes there has and while he recruits better than Charlie and hires assistants that teach better than Charlie's, he's lost OLs to death, academics, family issues, career ending injuries, and 11th hour recruit flipping. Attrition is fact. And once again ND doesn't take JUCO's so you need a higher base to offset that.

Perhaps if ND didn't have so many Special Teams players on Scholarship in the Weis and Kelly eras there'd be room for adequate OLs.

BTW, how many Safeties are on the Roster?

 

[CanadalovesND]

You're seriously going to use Charlie's OLines to support your point?

How'd that work out for him?

Whose OLine owns the ND career record for sacks? (Hint: "Sorry about that Jimmy. Can you move your legs yet?)

Charlie was not successful at recruiting OLs nor developing them.


Yes there has and while he recruits better than Charlie and hires assistants that teach better than Charlie's, he's lost OLs to death, academics, family issues, career ending injuries, and 11th hour recruit flipping. Attrition is fact. And once again ND doesn't take JUCO's so you need a higher base to offset that.

Perhaps if ND didn't have so many Special Teams players on Scholarship in the Weis and Kelly eras there'd be room for adequate OLs.

BTW, how many Safeties are on the Roster?

Haha, no, just pointing out how lack of depth on the OL throughout the years, and how it essentially started with the big boy, CW

It would take Kelly a few years to build the roster he wanted, we are now in year 4 and it looks like it's finally happened.

 

[Old Man Mike]

If I was foggy crystal ball gazing into the future, I'd try for:

2013OLine: 5
2014OLine: 4
2015OLine: 4
2016OLine: 4 ... we would, if fortunate, be on ideal "16 OLine" status [I'm giving one away to some sort of attrition], and Kelly would alter the number up to 5 in a given year if there were more issues with availability. This would also keep our drain on scholarships reasonable, so that sufficiencies existed for the other 17 positions plus specialists.

In any given year, ideal actual playing OLine is 15 { two-deep plus scout team}. You can make do with fewer if the two-deep is very sound and you have serviceable walk-ons for the scout team empty slots. Most OLines actually play the season [except for garbage time] with about eight studs --- same for the pros. The trouble is, of course, injury and bad luck of it happening to too many players at the same position --- this is why "16" is ideal for protection against Fate and for cultivation for future years.

I'd stick with four this year --- obviously if some gigantic talent wants to board the bus late, if at all possible with your Big Board planning, you welcome him.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I think that is the point, the big guys are stampeding to get a seat, and Smith is waiting. I would take four normally, but five this year, if Smith came, with the idea that some future choice may not be as good, and we may have a smaller class in the future with some other needs more pressing.

 

[Luckylucci]

I also want to point out that part of the reason is the quality of the 5th lineman. In most cases follow numbers so not to overload a specific position I get that but this is a consensus stud on the Oline we r talking about. We take Bars to get 4 in the door and continue to pursue Braden because he's a bad man. If he is as good as everybody says he is then we can't expect that we'll get a guy like him every year because that's what Charlie did and we all see how that worked out.

 

[VivaGrace]

IMO, we can't overload on OL just to take into precaution injuries that might occur. Let's say we have 17-18 scholarship OL, I'm sure most fans would love this idea, as the old saying goes : "You win and lose games in the trenches", but is it viable at ND to have up to +20% of your total scholarship count awarded to the OL?

Obviously, this is over-simplifying, but 5 of your 22 positional starters are OL....that's 23%...just saying....

 

[NDWorld247]

If I was foggy crystal ball gazing into the future, I'd try for:

2013OLine: 5
2014OLine: 4
2015OLine: 4
2016OLine: 4 ...

Based on your numbers, that would give us 19 OL heading into the 2015 season due to the fact we don't lose anyone after the 2014 season.

The Kelly era has been about building depth across the board. The staff has been successful doing this at almost every position with the exception of the OL due to attrition. If we carry 15 OL, what are the chances all 15 will be healthy at the same time?

Of course this debate implies we land Nelson and Bars, AND another elite OL. I'm not suggesting we take a 3 star so we have another warm body. It has to be the right guy, which I don't think is limited to Smith. I would throw in Brian Allen (I like the idea of a true center and, although undersized, he's the #2 C in the country) and Damian Mama (I like him more than Smith).

 

[irishog77]

The talent has to justify the signing. I don't think signing up less than stellar guys along the O-Line (or any position group, for that matter) is wise simply for the sake of "depth." I think the 5 OL being mentioned as potentially joining this class are all worthy of a spot though.

One of the big reasons I'm not quite the advocate of loading up on the O-Line like others on here is because there is a high amount of them that stay 5 years. We all want potential 5th year starting OL to return...as well as key, legitimate back-ups. I think it's safe to say that we'll have 2 or so 5th year OL every year. Signing 4 every cycle then leaves the roster with 18 O-Linemen every year. And after signing 5 last cycle and talking about signing 5 this cycle means 10 spots in a 2 year span. That means, by default, the staff will have to "undersign" in the next couple of cycles, then once again load up in a few years.

I've always expressed some concern with how Kelly has/does tend to "oversign" position groups in any given cycle. I think signing 10 over 2 years can create a lot of headaches in a few years.

 

[Ironman8]

The talent has to justify the signing. I don't think signing up less than stellar guys along the O-Line (or any position group, for that matter) is wise simply for the sake of "depth." I think the 5 OL being mentioned as potentially joining this class are all worthy of a spot though.

One of the big reasons I'm not quite the advocate of loading up on the O-Line like others on here is because there is a high amount of them that stay 5 years. We all want potential 5th year starting OL to return...as well as key, legitimate back-ups. I think it's safe to say that we'll have 2 or so 5th year OL every year. Signing 4 every cycle then leaves the roster with 18 O-Linemen every year. And after signing 5 last cycle and talking about signing 5 this cycle means 10 spots in a 2 year span. That means, by default, the staff will have to "undersign" in the next couple of cycles, then once again load up in a few years.

I've always expressed some concern with how Kelly has/does tend to "oversign" position groups in any given cycle. I think signing 10 over 2 years can create a lot of headaches in a few years.

You are assuming all OL will stay healthy or remain at ND. We have seen that is rarely the case. Not taking as many high quality OL and DL, when such issues arise, create major problems for the team, much bigger than making some hard decisions on 5th years, which would be the worst case scenario for signing extra OL in your scenario.

 

[Ironman8]

Overall #55 in the initial ESPN 150

 

[irishog77]

You are assuming all OL will stay healthy or remain at ND. We have seen that is rarely the case. Not taking as many high quality OL and DL, when such issues arise, create major problems for the team, much bigger than making some hard decisions on 5th years, which would be the worst case scenario for signing extra OL in your scenario.

I'm assuming, when the staff signs a player, they expect him to be there.

Isn't every individual or position susceptible to injury or transfer?

I'm basing this off all things being equal. All things being equal, 16-18 OL is too many.

 

[Ironman8]

I'm assuming, when the staff signs a player, they expect him to be there.

Isn't every individual or position susceptible to injury or transfer?

I'm basing this off all things being equal. All things being equal, 16-18 OL is too many.

Of course the staff hopes for all players to be in the program and successful, but that just simply isn't the reality, and you must recruit to that reality. I will bet you any amount of vBucks right now that not every player from the combined '13 and '14 classes uses all 4 years of their ND football eligibility.

We would all love to keep and have healthy all the players we recruit and sign every year, but that just doesn't happen. You have to recruit with that in mind or you find yourself with massive holes / depth issues in your program.

 

[IrishLax]

16-18 OL is not too many. Not even close. First and foremost, you need to overstock OL (and DL, to a degree) because it's near impossible to move a guy there from another position with any kind of effectiveness. Similar logic applies to QB. On top of that, it takes so much time/practice to develop an OL to legitimate starter quality that you basically never want to play a true frosh there even if they're a future 1st round draft pick. They just can't/won't be ready to play at a championship level.

So because of this, you always need to target more OL than you would normally think. Probably the best way to look at it is if you take 4 OL a year and they all stay you are at a base 16 with 12 capable of being on your 10 man 2 deep (i.e. ignore frosh). Then you assume 2 injuries per year and 1 transfer per class gets you down to 7 for your 2 deep... but then you get 5th years (usually you'll have at least 2 on the OL with the regular redshirting) will get you up near 9. So your target for a roster should always be around 17 OL per 4 recruiting classes... with fluctuation (as low as 14 or as high as maybe 20) depending on the actual situation at your specific school (i.e. how many transfers did you actually have? how many 5th year eligible guys are you counting on? anyone going pro early?).

So let's look at ND... 2010 class you have 3 (Lombard, Nichols, James), 2011 class you have 4 (Prestwood, Hegarty, Martin, Hanratty), 2012 you have 2 (Harrell, Stanley), and 2013 you 5 (Elmer, Montelus, McGovern, Bivin, McGlinchey). That's a total of 14. 3 are no longer with the program (James (RIP), Nichols, Prestwood)... so 1 per year, brings us down to 11 useable for the 2 deep next year and means taking 5 would put us at 16.

This year... we only have 6 "useable" players for the 2 deep... plus (thank God) Zach Martin and Watt coming back for a 5th year to give us 8 non-frosh bodies. Can you imagine if either or both left for the NFL? As is, we're in DEEP trouble if a key player goes down with an injury in fall camp. If two or more get hurt the whole season could fall off the tracks. This is why you can't settle for recruiting sub 15 OL over a 4 year period.... it leaves you with WAY too much risk. You absolutely should be aiming for 16+. Stuff happens and you have to be prepared... or you have to be able to take plug-and-play JUCOs like an Alabama. If you take JUCOs, you can definitely get away with taking ~14 guys or less over a 4 year span. You simply have much more control over who is ready to play/contribute versus stocking true frosh on the shelf and letting them mature.

 

[irishog77]

I get what y'all are saying. I do. I'm just pointing out that to keep that many OL, then another position has to lose depth (perhaps even "ideal" or "good" depth). If the answer is the staff quits signing up numerous ST players, then I am COMPLETELY fine with that (and I have a posting history to back that up- lol!).

I guess I've kind of been seeing on here a mantra of "We need more OL. We need good depth and numbers." But it's not that simple. The 85-man limit and the legitimate rules of college football make it difficult for ND to have 18 OL on the roster. Then throw in the fact that ND doesn't run off players, grayshirt, etc., so the roster is very much "what you see is what you get." If somebody can tell me how ND can carry 18 OL and NOT lose players and positions elsewhere, then I'll hop on board the train.

Also, people keep bringing up injuries and transfers. I get it. Injuries and transfers happen, no denying that. Why, though, are OL seemingly being given a higher rate for this than others? Is it because 2 have been given Medicals in the last couple years and one transferred away? Those losses hurt, no doubt. I just don't think that they have a higher rate to never play football again or leave the school all together than other players. In other words, I don't think the staff needs to look at injuries or transfers more carefully than other positions. ND lost 2 starters in the secondary last season for the year with injuries, accounting for what, 23 games or so? But didn't the same 5 OL start every game last season? I don't think secondary players are more susceptible to injuries though. I think, overall, ND was probably unlucky with secondary injuries and probably lucky with OL injuries. And that's the way it goes. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[koonja]

Don't have time to read everything, but we, being a school that honors 4-year schollies, are not in a position to overload particular positions. Granted, some talent is too good to pass up, but we need to avoid it at almost all costs IMO. 4 OL is ideal in this class IMO.

 

[Ironman8]

I get what y'all are saying. I do. I'm just pointing out that to keep that many OL, then another position has to lose depth (perhaps even "ideal" or "good" depth). If the answer is the staff quits signing up numerous ST players, then I am COMPLETELY fine with that (and I have a posting history to back that up- lol!).

I guess I've kind of been seeing on here a mantra of "We need more OL. We need good depth and numbers." But it's not that simple. The 85-man limit and the legitimate rules of college football make it difficult for ND to have 18 OL on the roster. Then throw in the fact that ND doesn't run off players, grayshirt, etc., so the roster is very much "what you see is what you get." If somebody can tell me how ND can carry 18 OL and NOT lose players and positions elsewhere, then I'll hop on board the train.

Also, people keep bringing up injuries and transfers. I get it. Injuries and transfers happen, no denying that. Why, though, are OL seemingly being given a higher rate for this than others? Is it because 2 have been given Medicals in the last couple years and one transferred away? Those losses hurt, no doubt. I just don't think that they have a higher rate to never play football again or leave the school all together than other players. In other words, I don't think the staff needs to look at injuries or transfers more carefully than other positions. ND lost 2 starters in the secondary last season for the year with injuries, accounting for what, 23 games or so? But didn't the same 5 OL start every game last season? I don't think secondary players are more susceptible to injuries though. I think, overall, ND was probably unlucky with secondary injuries and probably lucky with OL injuries. And that's the way it goes. Nothing more, nothing less.

But the point Lax and I are trying to make is that you have to focus on bringing in more OL with an eye towards depth even when things look set more so than other positions because it takes an OL so long to see the field. With other positions, you can get away with plugging and playing true freshman. When you try that with OL that aren't ready to see the field, disaster happens.

There is no position that is more susceptible to injury in my eyes than others, but OL need more time to develop than other positions, hence why you need to 'overstock' more on OL than any other position IMO.

As for the ST point, right now we only have 2 non-graduate players on ST scholarships, so I am not sure where everyone is fretting about wasting scholarships on them. Brindza and Daly are the only two players that are on scholarship going forward, and we just brought in a number of preferred walk-on K and P options.

 

[IrishLax]

Also, people keep bringing up injuries and transfers. I get it. Injuries and transfers happen, no denying that. Why, though, are OL seemingly being given a higher rate for this than others? Is it because 2 have been given Medicals in the last couple years and one transferred away? Those losses hurt, no doubt. I just don't think that they have a higher rate to never play football again or leave the school all together than other players. In other words, I don't think the staff needs to look at injuries or transfers more carefully than other positions. ND lost 2 starters in the secondary last season for the year with injuries, accounting for what, 23 games or so? But didn't the same 5 OL start every game last season? I don't think secondary players are more susceptible to injuries though. I think, overall, ND was probably unlucky with secondary injuries and probably lucky with OL injuries. And that's the way it goes. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know if transfers happen at a higher rate than other positions (off the top of my head, I would imagine it's middle of the pack somewhere below QB and RB and maybe WR/CB for a lot of reasons but we can revisit that). As for injuries, OL is actually the lowest rate of any position in terms of injuries per rep in the NFL... here is some quick and dirty info on that: Which NFL Position Groups Suffer the Most Injuries? - The Falcoholic. In the NFL, each team loses a little bit less than 2 players per year at the OL over 16 games/practice... so if you scale that to college you can probably expect 1.5 OL a year to have "IR" level injuries... so you probably need at least 8 guys capable of playing meaningful minutes to feel comfortable at all... ND has 7 is you include Hegarty and Stanley but not others.

The issue is how much time it takes to groom a HS kid into a viable contributor for the OL... so if you don't take JUCOs, this is a position where you absolutely must "overload" relative to other positions. OLs need typically 1 year MINIMUM of conditioning, weight gain, strength gain, and practice reps to have a chance of being solid contributors on the OL. Compounding that problem is that unlike CB/RB/WR/TE/LB where you can move guys around and/or compensate for injuries in a pinch... on the OL you are stuck with what you've got. There is no "Plan B" if you only have 4 OL capable of playing.

This is why you feel injuries at OL (and QB) more than other positions and why you have to overload to compensate for it. The easy solution is JUCOs... if you don't want to overload, recruit 3-4 OL a year and if something bad happens sign a ready-to-play JUCO in the next class to compensate. But we don't do that, and therefor we must overload to ensure that in any given fall camp there are at bare minimum 8+ healthy OL on the roster capable of coming in and playing quality minutes. Anything else is tempting fate.

 

[beryirish]

Overall #55 in the initial ESPN 150

can you post the link for the 150 --- I'm on ESPN and can't find it anywhere...i would imagine it'd be headline news

 

[NDdomer2]

can you post the link for the 150 --- I'm on ESPN and can't find it anywhere...i would imagine it'd be headline news

I think in Trumbetti's thread we came to the conclusion that it was released early as Lax stated it wasnt supposed to be relased until 6pm. They may have caught their mistake since Ironman posted that info.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Possibly a concrete idealistic visual might help: Let's imagine a fictional school, the University of Boppawappaloo. The Big Boppers have been pursuing a "mechanical" style of recruiting four OLinemen per year. AND because their OLine coach is a distant relative of Harry Hiestand, they have smartly redshirted every frosh every year. Because of that practice, all the "graduating seniors" don't have to, and The Boppers have 5x4=20 potential OLine scholarship players. "Whoa! say screaming roster management fans. You guys are screwing up!! Fire Coach Homer Hiestand and maybe Bopper head coach, Smash Knuckleknocker!"

The coaches appear before the outraged internet fan board to try to explain. OK, guys, you're correct. THEORETICALLY we have 20 OLine scholarships, but look what really happened.

In 2011, we had 4, who would now be graduating;
In 2012, we had 4, who would be seniors;
In 2013, we had four, now juniors;
In 2014, we had four, now sophs; and
In 2015, we have four frosh coming in. "So you admit it, you incompetents!!".

Well, yes and no. If you remember, ol' Edsel Carbender of 2011 decided that his real love was Lacrosse, and left the team in 2013. Also, though we like the kid a lot, Freddie Shufflemuster has never played a serious down, and we won't be asking him back. So, the 2011 class 5th years are only Shed Rockclobber at RT, and Myron Mental at Center.

"That's STILL 18, you creeps!!"

Well, yes and no. Probably you are not aware that Axel Rhinelander of the 2012 class, who would have been a senior, has informed us that he's foregoing the 2015 season and is going pro. We are saddened at not having The Axe with us this season, but would never stand in the way of his career.

"Well.... that's still 17...."

Well, yes and no. Blasington Ballcracker also of 2012 has received a "no go" from the health staff, and will be completing his degree in Building Destruction Management under the University's medical scholarship policy.

"..... grumble....."

And we have been recently informed by Bullock deBullock of the 2014 class, that he plans to transfer due to concerns about the depth chart and playing time. We wish him all the best at Michigan.

"..... oh, shut up!......"

Thank you for your confidence in this staff and roster management.




Bottom line: Sh!t happens.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Bottom line: Sh!t happens.

I'm dying here. The names are pure gold.

 

[BeauBenken]

I'm dying here. The names are pure gold.

Leave it to the Old Man.

 

[STLDomer]

Hiestand and Denbrock will be in Nashville tommorow to visit Bars and Malone

Sampson thinks we lead for Bars

 

[Emcee77]

Hiestand and Denbrock will be in Nashville tommorow to visit Bars and Malone

Sampson thinks we lead for Bars

Huge

 

[BeauBenken]

Hiestand and Denbrock will be in Nashville tommorow to visit Bars and Malone

Sampson thinks we lead for Bars

Hopefully we can make a strong push for lead on Malone as well.

 

[Irish Man3]

I really like Bars. I like Bars more than Nelson but would really like to land either one here soon. Tennessee has some legit talent this year in state.

 

[KyfightingIrish36]

Everyone is talking about Bars and how they expect him to commit to ND on here but all the Crystal Ball projections have him going to UM?
Granted we were about 90% of the projections for Bunting.

 

[clashmore_mike]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Top247 offensive tackle Alex Bars getting 'close' to decision <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Michigan">#Michigan</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23NotreDame">#NotreDame</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23PennState">#PennState</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Vols">#Vols</a> <a href="http://t.co/DtDrv3ErgS" title="http://tennessee.247sports.com/Article/Top247-offensive-tackle-Alex-Bars-getting-close-to-decision-128976">tennessee.247sports.com/Article/Top247…</a> via @<a href="https://twitter.com/247sports">247sports</a></p>— Steve Wiltfong (@SWiltfong247) <a href="https://twitter.com/SWiltfong247/status/329659457397215232">May 1, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Doesn't give any names out, but in his mind he has it narrowed down to 5 or so schools. Says he is getting close and could decide in the next month. Will probably take another visit before deciding, but hasn't scheduled anything yet.

 

[TomHaverford]

Everyone is talking about Bars and how they expect him to commit to ND on here but all the Crystal Ball projections have him going to UM?
Granted we were about 90% of the projections for Bunting.

I love 247, but a lot of those crystal ball predictions are worthless. A lot of times it's just the guys writing for a specific site that pick their own teams. And honestly outside of Steve Witflong, not sure any of the national analysts are that plugged in.

I have a feeling that Bars will do his own thing aside from his brothers and I see him at either Tennesse or ND.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

I love 247, but a lot of those crystal ball predictions are worthless. A lot of times it's just the guys writing for a specific site that pick their own teams. And honestly outside of Steve Witflong, not sure any of the national analysts are that plugged in.

I have a feeling that Bars will do his own thing aside from his brothers and I see him at either Tennesse or ND.

I completely agree. I think TremendousUM has picked every kid in the Top 247 to go to Michigan and the same applies to the writers for the other individual sites.