2013 Offensive Line

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
6,456
I can't help myself, but, despite the very long time period for things to develop in the 2013 class, one of my favorite areas of team-building seems not only slow, but a bit worrying due to unusual successful predation by Michigan and OSU. And, not a very good sign of the big teams letting up the pressure. Here are some thoughts to chew on:

My last issue of Blue&Gold had their master list for recruiting. It was totally inadequate but worrisome still. It listed 7 prospects [including Steve Elmer as one], and as of now at least 4 of the seven have signed elsewhere. Only Biven and Tunsil remain with Elmer from that list.

Our own master list has nine names [also including Elmer]. And four of those too are already committed elsewhere. That would mean that we would have to nearly sweep Biven, Tunsil, McGovern, and Cochran to achieve a 4 O-line class and actually sweep to achieve the ideal 5 [given only two this past year].

On our extended player-by-player listings, there is one other player listed as having an offer: McGlinchey. He is not currently signed apparently so that helps. Looking deeper into the list, to the names mentioned but without offers, we see Maurice Porter, Timothy Gardner, Derwin Gray, Brad Henson, Marcell Lazard, Darius Latham, and Sam Flor... none of which I know anything about as likely to get offers or sign.

Our team needs to sign at a minimum four solid O-Line prospects this cycle. That would give us 3+5+2+4= 14 for the year after next; we can't do much about the carved-to-the-bone 10 non-freshmen that the "2" year gives us, unless Springmann or Jones would move over. I do not think Niklas will, as that is too much dancing across positions to really find a home. He will probably stick with TE.

IF we ONLY get four this cycle, we will REALLY need to get five next time, or we will be back into the "ten only non-frosh" when Stanley and Harrell are seniors --- Kelly really does need to pay attention to long-range roster management.

This shows why I am probably prematurely concerned and at a minimum curious. Do any of you guys see things a bit more clearly? If you thought you could reasonably defend us getting four this class, who would they be? Who would be a fifth?

I realize if no one knows much yet on these things, but curiosity rages. And by the way, our master list D-Line listings are also disturbingly scarce.
 
M

Me2SouthBend

Guest
Keep in mind that these recruits for the class of 13 haven't signed, only verbally committed. We will see many names pop up over the next 10 months that aren't yet on the radar of those of us not on the staff. Long way to go, Coach will cover the needs. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see JJones move to the OLine before all is said and done.
 

STLDomer

Schmitty
Messages
9,426
Reaction score
549
1) we don't need 4 or 5 OL
2) we do not know more than Kelly on how to manage
3) we don't need more than 1 DL this yr. no one is graduating
4) the master list on here is far from accurate, no offense to GB
5) there are guys we haven't heard of that will commit

Not trying to accuse u but it's too early to worry and we need 3 or 4 OL I would say
 
Last edited:

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
1) we don't need 4 or 5 OL
2) u do not know more than Kelly on how to manage
3) we don't need more than 1 DL this yr. no one is graduating
4) the master list on here is far from accurate, no offense to GB
5) there are guys u haven't heard of that will commit

You should probably read more and post less.
 

STLDomer

Schmitty
Messages
9,426
Reaction score
549
You should probably read more and post less.

I'm not gonna get in another argument but please inform me in how I'm wrong and why u feel the need to stalk literally every one of my posts and say there wrong?
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
OMM, you put your finger on it ... we should get at least 4 OL this year to avoid getting into trouble when Harrell and Stanley are seniors (or putting even more pressure on us in next year's recruiting). Don't forget Pocic, who as far as I know we still have a legit shot at, so that's four interested or relatively interested top prospects in addition to Elmer: Bivin, Pocic, McGovern, McGlinchey. Doubt we'll get Cochran (feels at "home" at Cal) or Tunsil.

I too am a little concerned we don't have more offers out, but it is early in the process. I expect the coaches are in contact with guys we just don't know about yet. Not sure why the deliberate approach though ... maybe the coaches have their eyes on a couple lower-rated diamond-in-the-rough types, but they don't want to offer until they know where they stand with the abovementioned four-stars? Just guessing.
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
I'm not gonna get in another argument but please inform me in how I'm wrong and why u feel the need to stalk literally every one of my posts and say there wrong?

First off, I don't stalk your posts (but I'm flattered you think I do). Secondly, it's "they are" or "they're," not "there." And finally, if you actually read the words in my post, and did what I suggested, then there would be no need for carrying this on further. So I'll say it again-- read more, post less.
 

Rack Em

Community Bod
Messages
7,089
Reaction score
2,727
1) we don't need 4 or 5 OL
2) we do not know more than Kelly on how to manage
3) we don't need more than 1 DL this yr. no one is graduating
4) the master list on here is far from accurate, no offense to GB
5) there are guys we haven't heard of that will commit

1) OL is the cornerstone to ANY quality team. OMM knows what he's talking about. He's learned on the subject and on the necessity for depth. He's right here.
2) Correct. OMM is stating a concern for the potential lack of depth, not that he knows how to manage the team.
3) Dude, we rotate DL like no one's business. We always need to add a few bodies there. Nobody may be graduating, but what about transfers, injuries, or players that leave early (see A. Lynch)?
4) Our master list is more accurate than II. It's more comprehensive and includes players we have realistic chances with (not just big name players to keep subscriptions up).
5) I think we all can agree on that. We're not going to hit every target so there will be late offers. That's part of the game.

OMM is a well respected poster around here and genuinely knows what he's talking about with regards to the OL. A lot of us here just post our opinions based off the limited knowledge we have.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
6,456
STL: Please explain your information supporting assertions #1, 3, and 5, and you'll get no flak, only support. #2 is a given and in no way contradicts the post; #5 is an obvious statement, but perhaps you will admit adds little of substance to the discussion. A less dismissive tone to a collegial beginning inquiry by me would have also been appreciated, but perhaps you had some reason for the lack of generosity that I am unaware of. Hopefully you'll tell us why you stand on these topics as you do.
 
G

Grahambo

Guest
I think Bosch ends up flipping to us. I've thought that for a while.

Elmer, Bivin, McGlinchey, McGovern, Bosch
 

NDPhilly

Philly Torqued
Messages
16,441
Reaction score
16,721
Don't forget Pocic, who as far as I know we still have a legit shot at, so that's four interested or relatively interested top prospects in addition to Elmer: Bivin, Pocic, McGovern, McGlinchey.

That's 4 tackles. They are all 6'7" + to tall for guard.
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
That's 4 tackles. They are all 6'7" + to tall for guard.

Great point. McGovern is 6'6'' according to 247, so that might be at least borderline for a guard, but your point remains and I've been wondering about it too. Where are the offers for guards/centers?
 

NDPhilly

Philly Torqued
Messages
16,441
Reaction score
16,721
Great point. McGovern is 6'6'' according to 247, so that might be at least borderline for a guard, but your point remains and I've been wondering about it too. Where are the offers for interior linemen?

Bosch was the guard I thought we would get. :censored:
 

STLDomer

Schmitty
Messages
9,426
Reaction score
549
STL: Please explain your information supporting assertions #1, 3, and 5, and you'll get no flak, only support. #2 is a given and in no way contradicts the post; #5 is an obvious statement, but perhaps you will admit adds little of substance to the discussion. A less dismissive tone to a collegial beginning inquiry by me would have also been appreciated, but perhaps you had some reason for the lack of generosity that I am unaware of. Hopefully you'll tell us why you stand on these topics as you do.

My bad I tend not to put my reasoning and make my statements short because I'm on my phone but I think are main difference is want vs need. For the lineman we should get and want 5 but we only need 3 or 4 in my opinion and for d line we really dont need anyone but would like 1 or 2

I thank u and rack em for being less confrontational and more respectful than irishhog
 
Last edited:

Rack Em

Community Bod
Messages
7,089
Reaction score
2,727
My bad I tend not to put my reasoning and make my statements short because I'm on my phone but I think are main difference is want vs need. For the lineman we should get and want 5 but we only need 3 or 4 in my opinion and for d line we really dont need anyone but would like 1 or 2

I thank u and rack em for being less confrontational and more respectful than irishhog

No worries, big dog. Make sure your posts are grounded in reason and elaborate on them and you're straight cash homie.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
6,456
Concerning the issue of O-Linemen and height: the average NFL O-Tackle is 6'5"+ or so, mainly because he needs the arm leverage extension and the taller the frame statistically the longer the arm levers as well. He needs a lot of other traits as well, but in one way he can be less athletic than the typical NFL guard. That regards run pulling. Tackles do some run pulling but are not tasked with that as strenuously as NFL guards. Guards in the NFL need to be quicker and more agile to pull as much as they are required to do. They are therefore shorter than the tackles, statistically averaging about 6'4" or less.

That's the NFL. That sort of statistical analysis may not apply as well to Kelly's spread offense, which although linemen DO pull [Cave doing it very impressively at times], they may not be tasked with that as strenuously, particularly with no QB under center to step on.

Height is meaningless, just a statistically significant indicator of likely length, athleticism, and flexibility. The flexibility thing is a big deal. Linemen need to be natural knee-benders rather than waist-benders in order to generate power while maintaining balance and generation-of-force athletic position. Again statistically, the taller you are the more likely that you have picked up some bad waist-bending habits. So, what the staff is looking for is the length, quickness, and knee-bending flexibility which fits our scheme [and not particularly the NFLs though there will be lots of similarities].

Though I'm sure it was a joke, Golson will have just as much trouble seeing over the 6'4"s as he will the 6'7"s if nobody's bending at the knees.
 

returnofthemack

New member
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
128
After our defense leaves the scUM offensive line and Denard in a mangled, bloody heap, maybe some of their verbals will change their minds.
 
Top