Offensive Line Thread

[Luckylucci]

I've always expected them to get better, stated as much a couple months back but to act as if they already have seems early. That hasn't shown up on a football field, at least not yet. And there has been one day of pads for Spring ball, lol.

Right or wrong they eliminated competition at most spots. What else are they going to say. As of today, there is literally no realistic options to back up most of these players. What else are you going to do besides talk them up. You created the least competitive environment that you could. Now it's just coaching and hoping it works out.

 

[IrishLax]

That whole article is just patently absurd. By no measure was Hainsey the "best player on offense" unless you are legally blind or don't understand football. I hate when coaches use coach speak or make outright misleading statements to the press like people won't know better.

In Hainsey's defense, he was playing through significant injury. And this isn't really about him, it's about Chip Long and that nonsense. We've all seen what good tackle play looks like and good OL play in general and last year was not it.

None of this has anything to do with the future, which is what's important. I know there are many knowledgeable people that believe the key to the ND OL is getting good tackle play and having guards that can move... Hainsey has always seemed like a natural guard and that guard is his best NFL position. If he's not going to be ZMart-esque levels of dominant on the outside then I don't know why you don't at least try moving him inside and playing someone else at RT. You either believe Kraemer can get the job done or you don't, these waffling comments about him don't help anyone.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I share Lax's skepticism. As I've mentioned before, I don't think it's a coincidence that our ALY fell off a cliff right after Hiestand left. That--along with recent rumors that our coaching staff is blowing up the OL to start from scratch, the tendency for Kelly's QBs to struggle during their 2nd year as a starter, and our lack of returning production at WR and RB--has me very worried about our offense in 2019.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

I share Lax's skepticism. As I've mentioned before, I don't think it's a coincidence that our ALY fell off a cliff right after Hiestand left. That--along with recent rumors that our coaching staff is blowing up the OL to start from scratch, the tendency for Kelly's QBs to struggle during their 2nd year as a starter, and our lack of returning production at WR and RB--has me very worried about our offense in 2019.

Skeptical, ok, sure.

"very worried"? Back away from the ledge...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Skeptical, ok, sure.

"very worried"? Back away from the ledge...

FWIW, I'm very optimistic about Lea and the defense. Right now, I'm expecting a 9-3 record for 2019, and I think all three losses will be squarely on Chip Long's offense.

 

[koonja]

I feel like you guys are appropriately hard on the OL play in 2018, but way to down on the 2019 squad. 4 returning starters, and they're raving about Jarrett Patterson. I expect at minimum, 2 of the returning 4 to make significant improvements in 2019.

Jeff Quinn should get better, too. It's virtually his 2nd year as well.

 

[Luckylucci]

I feel like you guys are appropriately hard on the OL play in 2018, but way to down on the 2019 squad. 4 returning starters, and they're raving about Jarrett Patterson. I expect at minimum, 2 of the returning 4 to make significant improvements in 2019.

Jeff Quinn should get better, too. It's virtually his 2nd year as well.

Well, a couple months back I shared the view that with 6-7 guys competing, plugging and playing the best guys, at the best spots, gave us a chance to dramatically improve. And, that may still happen.

However, we did virtually none of what was expected or talked about. We took our most promising OT prospect and immediately made him the starter at OC. We've taken Lugg (the other back up OT) and have him playing LG. So there is literally nobody that could challenge or compete with Eich or Hainsey at OT. And Kraemer has "lost weight and is moving better". Really? That is the solution to fix the OL problems. It very well could work out but that seems like a pathetic attempt at fixing the situation. It actually sounds like we're concerned about hurting feelings versus fielding the most competitive OL.

 

[Irish#1]

I've always expected them to get better, stated as much a couple months back but to act as if they already have seems early. That hasn't shown up on a football field, at least not yet. And there has been one day of pads for Spring ball, lol.

Right or wrong they eliminated competition at most spots. What else are they going to say. As of today, there is literally no realistic options to back up most of these players. What else are you going to do besides talk them up. You created the least competitive environment that you could. Now it's just coaching and hoping it works out.

Have they? Players may know the current pecking order, but that doesn't mean they aren't working and competing to get playing time or bump someone.

 

[Luckylucci]

Have they? Players may know the current pecking order, but that doesn't mean they aren't working and competing to get playing time or bump someone.

Where would the competition come from for LT, RG, and RT?

 

[Irish#1]

Where would the competition come from for LT, RG, and RT?

I thought we had more than 5 OL on the roster?

 

[snoopdog]

Where would the competition come from for LT, RG, and RT?

Lugg and Dierksen

 

[Luckylucci]

I thought we had more than 5 OL on the roster?

Not surprised this would be the response. The answer is there is literally nobody else that is taking reps with the ones that is realistic competition at any of those spots. Not difficult to grasp and not trying to be a dick but it’s like saying McKinley is competing against Claypool. Well yea, in the most naive sense of the word. He takes “reps” at that spot. But there is no competition because he’s not given legitimate reps or has the talent to unseat him.

 

[Luckylucci]

Lugg and Dierksen

Dirksen is clearly not a viable option right now and Lugg is repping at LG with the “emergency OT” designation.

 

[Irish#1]

Not surprised this would be the response. The answer is there is literally nobody else that is taking reps with the ones that is realistic competition at any of those spots. Not difficult to grasp and not trying to be a dick but it’s like saying McKinley is competing against Claypool. Well yea, in the most naive sense of the word. He takes “reps” at that spot. But there is no competition because he’s not given legitimate reps or has the talent to unseat him.

It's early and given where we were last year, I'm not surprised at who is listed as the starters. We have a LG that wasn't getting a sniff until Barrs went down and even then he didn't get the nod, but after a couple of weeks Banks showed enough to move Rhuland out and now he's the starter and performed quite well given his lack of experience prior. I am very positive about these starters and I don't see any reason not to be. I don't think the center move would have been done if they didn't think it was beneficial. Doesn't mean he can't be moved and Rhuland dropped in at center if need be.

I do miss Harry.

 

[BobbyMac]

Surprised Lugg couldn't ever get in line for OT. Thought for sure he would force Hainsey inside once he caught up with Hainsey in experience. Hainsey had the advantage over every OT prospect in the country being IMG's starting LT for two seasons. At the Opening 2016, Lugg was universally applauded as the #3 or even #2 OT at the Finals. Pretty sure even Jamie at ISD thought that. He had the prototype body for the position.

Surprised that Hainsey is still at RT. Would have been nice to move him inside. I thought he'd have made a great OC/Capt type. Apparently, no one can dethrone him.

Lugg's lack of development at OT is really troublesome. That's two guys who HH couldn't get on track outside, Bars being the first... actually maybe Bivens was the 1st but he did go to ND when MArtin/Stanley/McGlinchey were manning the spots

Patterson going to OC might be the best move for the position but taking away your first OT off the bench hurts. Ruhland obviously has some injury/condition that prohibits him from being the starter, they've said as much.

Is it possible that Patterson is a one year plug at OC until they get Zeke Correll up to speed? He measured in at just 6-3/275 btw.

Too bad Luke Jones couldn't win the OC position or Gibbons for that matter, anything to keep Patterson outside. His HS film was one of the few out there that rivaled NPF when it came to athleticism. In Gibbons case, he does appear to be a solid back up at OG

Too bad Colin Grunhard isn't 6-4/305. He actually was the #2 OC on the depth chart for a few weeks last year. But at 6-1/280, he's just not a realistic option.

So we get a line that looks like:

Eich - Banks - Patt - TK - Hainsey

When I thought it would be:

Eich/Lugg - TK - Hainsey - Banks - Lugg/Eich

I hope they put Carroll at RT and leave him there and the only way he slides inside is if Baker/Christ/Fisher are pure OT's who push him to OG down the road.

 

[GBdomer]

Skeptical, ok, sure.

"very worried"? Back away from the ledge...

I share some of Whiskeys worries. I literally haven't seen a BK offense that has been the same. 9 years and it's literally been 9 different offenses to start the season. No one on the outside scares you at all, no RB has proven they can carry the load. The way we recruit the O line we should just be able to physically dominate teams and that Oline didn't do it last year. I think they took a step back last year without Heistand and no lock down Oline guy where we are like we have a dude here. Eich and Hainsey looked that way at times and then they also didn't look that way many times.

Sure Lenzy, Austin and Claypool might be able to get open downfield and open up or offense. Will Book be able to make those throws? Didn't really show it to much last year. Can Armstrong stay healthy and be a focal point in this offense? He should it at times last year and then he was also dinged up and missed some games. If Armstrong goes down I honestly think we are in major trouble there. I don't even wanna think about having 4.8 Tony Jones and Cbo or Jahmir Smith being our primary runners. They don't scare you and won't scare other offenses. I think the way we have recruited skill position players might really show up this year. It's been good but not even close to the way we have recruited other sides of the football. I'm not saying the sky is falling but what whiskey is saying I believe has some truth to it.

 

[Rocket89]

Well, a couple months back I shared the view that with 6-7 guys competing, plugging and playing the best guys, at the best spots, gave us a chance to dramatically improve. And, that may still happen.

However, we did virtually none of what was expected or talked about. We took our most promising OT prospect and immediately made him the starter at OC. We've taken Lugg (the other back up OT) and have him playing LG. So there is literally nobody that could challenge or compete with Eich or Hainsey at OT. And Kraemer has "lost weight and is moving better". Really? That is the solution to fix the OL problems. It very well could work out but that seems like a pathetic attempt at fixing the situation. It actually sounds like we're concerned about hurting feelings versus fielding the most competitive OL.

A few thoughts...

1) If they're really high on Patterson at center I think you're glossing over the fact that this is a huge, huge need for the 2019 line. Sure competition at tackle would be nice but not as much as Patterson solidifying a position that needs a new starter and was going to be a major question mark this off-season. Coming out of spring with a full unit ready for fall camp feels really important for this team.

2) I agree the quality depth isn't super promising especially given the amount of bodies on the roster. But at the same time, if there isn't a lot of quality depth do we really want to start shuffling guys around? Maybe that works out but it also could backfire.

3) Depth and competition are overrated in the sense that the OL almost always relies on a very small amount of guys every year. That's just the way it goes. It's probably the one position with the least "real" competition.

4) It was very unrealistic to expect the 4 returning starters to get challenged in practice. Doesn't sound great on paper sometimes but the most likely route to the 2019 getting better is Eichnberg/Banks/Kraemer/Hainsey staying at their positions, getting more reps, and improving their cohesion.

5) It seems like they decided pretty early last year that Lugg wasn't a tackle anymore. I'm guilty of thinking some shuffling would be better, too. Yet, it doesn't really make sense for Lugg to "challenge" Eichenberg or Hainsey when they don't like him at that position anymore. Maybe Patterson was that guy but they like him better at center, what are you going to do? If you moved Hainsey to center you'd better really like someone else to fill his shoes at tackle. I'm fine with them thinking that wasn't going to happen for a 2-year starter.

6) IMO, Carroll and Kristofic are the future at tackle. Neither will be needed until 2021. We might as well start getting them quality practice work now. That development won't get headlines during this spring ball but it's still important.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Yes+

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

FWIW, I'm very optimistic about Lea and the defense. Right now, I'm expecting a 9-3 record for 2019, and I think all three losses will be squarely on Chip Long's offense.

I'm the exact opposite, and that's not a knock on Lea.

Improvement on the OL is almost a guaranteed certain from the experience we are bringing back with that unit. Any regression in running game will probably be from the lack of a home run threat in Dex's departure, but I like what I saw from Jafar last year to be our "feature" back with TJ and one to emerge from Jahmir Smith, C'Bo, or Kyren Williams change pace. Armstrong needs to stay healthy and be durable for our production to be what it was last year; certainly not a given.

Your concern with BK's history with second year starters is warranted, but I think Book will tell a different story this fall. He's too consistent/efficient as a passer, and he can't get much worse throwing deep balls. Improvement can be expected there, especially with more speed on the perimeter with the younger WRs.

The young potential is promising on Defense but we are replacing too much production and experience to expect an improvement from last year IMO.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I'm the exact opposite, and that's not a knock on Lea.

Improvement on the OL is almost a guaranteed certain from the experience we are bringing back with that unit. Any regression in running game will probably be from the lack of a home run threat in Dex's departure, but I like what I saw from Jafar last year to be our "feature" back with TJ and one to emerge from Jahmir Smith, C'Bo, or Kyren Williams change pace. Armstrong needs to stay healthy and be durable for our production to be what it was last year; certainly not a given.

Your concern with BK's history with second year starters is warranted, but I think Book will tell a different story this fall. He's too consistent/efficient as a passer, and he can't get much worse throwing deep balls. Improvement can be expected there, especially with more speed on the perimeter with the younger WRs.

The young potential is promising on Defense but we are replacing too much production and experience to expect an improvement from last year IMO.

I would expect the defense to regress but this also Lea's 2nd year with it being the 3rd year of Elko/Lea's system in place. You can usually expect good things in the 3rd/4th year of a coach's tenure.

They've recruited very well defensively over the last 3 cycles. We should see a competent defense but a great defense will require some journeymen to emerge or some frosh/sophs to become big time players for us.

We lost 4 defenders who'll be drafted. Two of which could go in the 1st round (Love, Tillery)

We need our DEs to take another step into the elite stratosphere. We need another lockdown corner and we need our interior to find answers.

Offensively, I expect a small uptick in production. Boykin/Dex were big losses. Bars was a loss as well but he already know what the line looked like without him.

It's hard to imagine an older, more experienced OL unit regressing. Accurate, returning QB and lots of WR potential. The RB position is a reasonable question mark.

The TEs are primed for a big year as well.

Can't wait for Thursday/Saturday reports to begin.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Improvement on the OL is almost a guaranteed certain from the experience we are bringing back with that unit. Any regression in running game will probably be from the lack of a home run threat in Dex's departure, but I like what I saw from Jafar last year to be our "feature" back with TJ and one to emerge from Jahmir Smith, C'Bo, or Kyren Williams change pace. Armstrong needs to stay healthy and be durable for our production to be what it was last year; certainly not a given.

Offensively, I expect a small uptick in production. Boykin/Dex were big losses. Bars was a loss as well but he already know what the line looked like without him.

It's not as simple as "will our OL improve?" because that overlooks how bad we were last year and what level of play we'll need from them to win 10+ games again. We dropped from 5th to 106th in ALY in 2018, which is in the bottom quintile for all of Division I. Yes, losing Q and McG to the draft and Bars to injury explains some of that, but with the OL talent we've consistently brought in since Hiestand was hired, that's just unacceptable; our floor should be much higher than that now.

When you're starting out that low, it's hard to go anywhere but up. So yes, I agree that we'll improve; but by how much? Let's say our OL takes a couple big steps forward and end ups producing an average 65th ALY. Is that going to be good enough to beat Georgia in Athens with a QB who can't throw deep? The Dawgs may be the only elite defense we face this year, but 6 of our 2019 opponents rated in the top half of Division I for DFEI last year.

If we're going to perform up to our talent level this year on offense, the OL has to be much better than it was last year. Book can do amazing things, but he needs time and a reliable ground game. Without that, we're going to get exposed. I'm not sure Quinn is up to the task.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

It's not as simple as "will our OL improve?" because that overlooks how bad we were last year and what level of play we'll need from them to win 10+ games again. We dropped from 5th to 106th in ALY in 2018, which is in the bottom quintile for all of Division I. Yes, losing Q and McG to the draft and Bars to injury explains some of that, but with the OL talent we've consistently brought in since Hiestand was hired, that's just unacceptable; our floor should be much higher than that now.

When you're starting out that low, it's hard to go anywhere but up. So yes, I agree that we'll improve; but by how much? Let's say our OL takes a couple big steps forward and end ups producing an average 65th ALY. Is that going to be good enough to beat Georgia in Athens with a QB who can't throw deep? The Dawgs may be the only elite defense we face this year, but 6 of our 2019 opponents rated in the top half of Division I for DFEI last year.

If we're going to perform up to our talent level this year on offense, the OL has to be much better than it was last year. Book can do amazing things, but he needs time and a reliable ground game. Without that, we're going to get exposed. I'm not sure Quinn is up to the task.

I don't disagree with this but last year was the youngest OL we've fielded since Kelly has been here and we still put together a 12-0 season with OL ALY @106. What happens if they do reach the 65th and your defense has a small regression? And if you get a small uptick in offense?

It's always too early to tell this time of year. We could have an 8 win team or we could have some big time players ready to emerge. Last year, we made plays when we needed to. We need to do the same this year.

Each unit must be good enough to collectively produce the win. I think a jump to 50-65 would put us in a good position. I can't expect more than that, if we perform below that bench mark, then it should be Quinn's last year at the helm.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I think the team wins 10 games, mainly because I don't believe that the opponents are particularly strong outside of the Dawgs. @Michigan doesn't scare me too much atm, because I think they'll regress a bit and will be coming off a big game vs PSU. I suppose @Stanford is worrisome due to the monkey on BK's back. The O line will certainly improve from last year, and I guess I'd take average play as a unit.

However, people are looking back at the last few years of Hiestand's recruiting with rose-colored glasses. He absolutely whiffed in '15 and followed that up with a 3 man class in '16 with one guy leaving after a year, effectively leaving 3 OL recruited in a 2 year period. Yeah, he can't control transfers, but it was widely acknowledged that HH did not like to recruit. He certainly carries some of the blame for the drop off, because the cupboard wasn't stacked nearly as well for Quinn as much as we'd like to think. Thank goodness HH was able to land quantity and quality in '17, because it's their 3rd year and are badly needed this year.

 

[Luckylucci]

A few thoughts...

1) If they're really high on Patterson at center I think you're glossing over the fact that this is a huge, huge need for the 2019 line. Sure competition at tackle would be nice but not as much as Patterson solidifying a position that needs a new starter and was going to be a major question mark this off-season. Coming out of spring with a full unit ready for fall camp feels really important for this team.

2) I agree the quality depth isn't super promising especially given the amount of bodies on the roster. But at the same time, if there isn't a lot of quality depth do we really want to start shuffling guys around? Maybe that works out but it also could backfire.

3) Depth and competition are overrated in the sense that the OL almost always relies on a very small amount of guys every year. That's just the way it goes. It's probably the one position with the least "real" competition.

4) It was very unrealistic to expect the 4 returning starters to get challenged in practice. Doesn't sound great on paper sometimes but the most likely route to the 2019 getting better is Eichnberg/Banks/Kraemer/Hainsey staying at their positions, getting more reps, and improving their cohesion.

5) It seems like they decided pretty early last year that Lugg wasn't a tackle anymore. I'm guilty of thinking some shuffling would be better, too. Yet, it doesn't really make sense for Lugg to "challenge" Eichenberg or Hainsey when they don't like him at that position anymore. Maybe Patterson was that guy but they like him better at center, what are you going to do? If you moved Hainsey to center you'd better really like someone else to fill his shoes at tackle. I'm fine with them thinking that wasn't going to happen for a 2-year starter.

6) IMO, Carroll and Kristofic are the future at tackle. Neither will be needed until 2021. We might as well start getting them quality practice work now. That development won't get headlines during this spring ball but it's still important.

1.) Not glossing over that fact at all. That's why competition or at least taking the "battle" for starting OC into actual practice might make some sense seeing how important it is, lol. Like maybe he should actually snap the ball and then block a live body before we anoint him the position. And FWIW, I was very high on Patterson coming out of HS.

2.) Yea, I'm not sure shuffling guys around in the Spring is going to be some crazy task that can't be overcome in the back half of spring practice or fall camp. And it's not like we're going to re-arrange all 4 returning players every practice. Plus it's an experienced group, they should be able to handle it. And that's part of problem. Seems like we're handling this group with kid gloves. What other position group, that underperformed by that much, just gets a pass?

3. Sure, nobody is calling for Dirksen to rep at LT or Jones at RG with the ones. We had a top 6 of returning players. Very easy to see some realistic combinations that could work.

4.) No, not even close. It's unrealistic to think that Patterson and Lugg aren't good enough to challenge on an OL that was not very good last year. That sounds very naïve. Continuity is a priority, so is performance. Saying that Kraemer's weight is down and he moves better is a solution before pads come on is lazy, at best.

5. Sure and that's fine. Doesn't change the fact that maybe he's better than Kraemer at RG. Or maybe Banks is better at RG and Lugg at LG than Banks/Kraemer (LG/RG). Now is definitely the time to do that.

6. Completely irrelevant to our discussion. Using 2-3 weeks in the Spring of 2019 to figure out our best OL lineup for the 2019 season has absolutely no impact on how those guys perform in 2021. Nor should that even be on the list of things that are important. We had an underperforming unit in 2018 that needs to be better in 2019. That's the only priority, not if Carroll and Kristofic get #2 reps 2.5 years before they are needed to play.

The whole point is you have an underperforming unit that is just getting a pass. May turn out to be right but there is no way taking a couple weeks to make sure it's right is a bad idea. Making any decisions before pads even come on is disappointing considering they have no more information to make that decision than they did before.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't disagree with this but last year was the youngest OL we've fielded since Kelly has been here and we still put together a 12-0 season with OL ALY @106. What happens if they do reach the 65th and your defense has a small regression? And if you get a small uptick in offense?

Our 2019 schedule is relatively weak, so we could end with a great record even if our OL only manages to be average. I'm not overly pessimistic about this upcoming season. I only spoke up because it seems like most here don't appreciate how badly our OL underperformed last year. Given what we're working with now (a great "distributor" in Book who likely won't have much help from scheme-bending skill position athletes), our OL is more important than ever.

However, people are looking back at the last few years of Hiestand's recruiting with rose-colored glasses. He absolutely whiffed in '15 and followed that up with a 3 man class in '16 with one guy leaving after a year, effectively leaving 3 OL recruited in a 2 year period. Yeah, he can't control transfers, but it was widely acknowledged that HH did not like to recruit. He certainly carries some of the blame for the drop off, because the cupboard wasn't stacked nearly as well for Quinn as much as we'd like to think. Thank goodness HH was able to land quantity and quality in '17, because it's their 3rd year and are badly needed this year.

I know Hiestand wasn't perfect, but the guy developed OL talent better than anyone else in the country. And my concern is that development is what our still very talented OL is now lacking under Quinn. It's still too early to hit the panic button, but having to replace Hiestand with Quinn seems to be the most obvious explanation for why that unit underperformed so badly in 2018.

 

[Rocket89]

1.) Not glossing over that fact at all. That's why competition or at least taking the "battle" for starting OC into actual practice might make some sense seeing how important it is, lol. Like maybe he should actually snap the ball and then block a live body before we anoint him the position. And FWIW, I was very high on Patterson coming out of HS.

I dunno, kinda seemed like you were waving that off. The one main guy who was supposed to compete at center is injured and Jones/Correll are battling for reps. What's the big deal? Patterson will still compete and maybe he won't even start? We've got a long way to go.

2.) Yea, I'm not sure shuffling guys around in the Spring is going to be some crazy task that can't be overcome in the back half of spring practice or fall camp. And it's not like we're going to re-arrange all 4 returning players every practice. Plus it's an experienced group, they should be able to handle it. And that's part of problem. Seems like we're handling this group with kid gloves. What other position group, that underperformed by that much, just gets a pass?

Who are you wishing to shuffle around, exactly? How many combinations were you expecting? I don't think the line is getting a pass at all but you seem opposed to the idea that the combination that opened spring is going to be the best.

3. Sure, nobody is calling for Dirksen to rep at LT or Jones at RG with the ones. We had a top 6 of returning players. Very easy to see some realistic combinations that could work.

Which combination(s) then?

4.) No, not even close. It's unrealistic to think that Patterson and Lugg aren't good enough to challenge on an OL that was not very good last year. That sounds very naïve. Continuity is a priority, so is performance. Saying that Kraemer's weight is down and he moves better is a solution before pads come on is lazy, at best.

Patterson looks to be fitting in as a starter after getting positive reviews last year. It would seem that's better news than him "competing" with Luke Jones and not hearing as many positive things. With OL often the best players are known very quickly, and competition doesn't last very long. Maybe you have a naive belief on the whole competition angle?

Maybe Lugg isn't that good and worse than Kraemer?

5. Sure and that's fine. Doesn't change the fact that maybe he's better than Kraemer at RG. Or maybe Banks is better at RG and Lugg at LG than Banks/Kraemer (LG/RG). Now is definitely the time to do that.

Is this just a crusade against Kraemer?

6. Completely irrelevant to our discussion. Using 2-3 weeks in the Spring of 2019 to figure out our best OL lineup for the 2019 season has absolutely no impact on how those guys perform in 2021. Nor should that even be on the list of things that are important. We had an underperforming unit in 2018 that needs to be better in 2019. That's the only priority, not if Carroll and Kristofic get #2 reps 2.5 years before they are needed to play.

Can you at least imagine a world where Eich/Banks/Patterson/Kraemer/Hainsey is the best lineup?

The whole point is you have an underperforming unit that is just getting a pass. May turn out to be right but there is no way taking a couple weeks to make sure it's right is a bad idea. Making any decisions before pads even come on is disappointing considering they have no more information to make that decision than they did before.

I feel like you really hyped up this spring competition to a level that was bound to disappoint you. Basically, it largely hinges on the fact that to date Lugg isn't that good and doesn't seem to be challenging for a starting role.

If that's true--and the staff has 2 years of evidence to weigh with him--I'm not sure what you're expecting to happen. The 4 returning starters were never likely to A) lose their jobs B) shuffle positions and C) the most likely route to the line getting better was those 4 staying put with a new center. Figuring out a new center really limits the amount of shuffling you'd want to do, as well.

I think you just ignored realities of a football team in favor of a mysterious "competition" that really didn't have much of a shot to take place when someone like Lugg hasn't developed the way some fans thought he would.

 

[Irish#1]

Everyone including myself have their own opinions on what's best, but Patterson is at center for a reason. Regardless of the glory that a LT gets, the most important position on the O-line is still the center. You build your foundation off of him. If your center is subpar, your blocking goes in the toilet.

Last years line didn't perform as good as we would like. IMO I think Big Mike and Q set the bar quite high and some tend to judge these kids with a lot less experience against McGlinchey's & Nelson's senior seasons. This was afterall a pretty young line. Losing Barr also hurt considerably, so a lot of the continuity that they were trying to build had to be rebuilt when Rhuland took Barrs place, then again when Rhuland was replaced by Banks.

 

[Luckylucci]

I dunno, kinda seemed like you were waving that off. The one main guy who was supposed to compete at center is injured and Jones/Correll are battling for reps. What's the big deal? Patterson will still compete and maybe he won't even start? We've got a long way to go.



Who are you wishing to shuffle around, exactly? How many combinations were you expecting? I don't think the line is getting a pass at all but you seem opposed to the idea that the combination that opened spring is going to be the best.



Which combination(s) then?



Patterson looks to be fitting in as a starter after getting positive reviews last year. It would seem that's better news than him "competing" with Luke Jones and not hearing as many positive things. With OL often the best players are known very quickly, and competition doesn't last very long. Maybe you have a naive belief on the whole competition angle?
Maybe Lugg isn't that good and worse than Kraemer?



Is this just a crusade against Kraemer?



Can you at least imagine a world where Eich/Banks/Patterson/Kraemer/Hainsey is the best lineup?



I feel like you really hyped up this spring competition to a level that was bound to disappoint you. Basically, it largely hinges on the fact that to date Lugg isn't that good and doesn't seem to be challenging for a starting role.

If that's true--and the staff has 2 years of evidence to weigh with him--I'm not sure what you're expecting to happen. The 4 returning starters were never likely to A) lose their jobs B) shuffle positions and C) the most likely route to the line getting better was those 4 staying put with a new center. Figuring out a new center really limits the amount of shuffling you'd want to do, as well.

I think you just ignored realities of a football team in favor of a mysterious "competition" that really didn't have much of a shot to take place when someone like Lugg hasn't developed the way some fans thought he would.

Not going to go over all of this again, stated my opinion on most of this before.

I don't think I was waving it off when I said this very well could be the right group but some Spring competition at an underperforming unit sure seems like a better approach than calling starters before it happens. Seems like if anybody is glossing over anything it's you on what I've been saying/already said.

Unless we are just being willfully ignorant to last seasons performance, I think it's fair to assume all jobs should be questioned, to some degree. And not necessarily that they shouldn't be playing but are they at the right positions.

Not naïve, was told this by some credible folks. Hence the disappointment. They obviously chose to go the status quo route with no additional information. Seems like if HH was here it might be different.

No, and I wouldn't consider it a crusade against any one particular player. Again, underperforming unit might need some changes, seems pretty simple

Neither has Kraemer. This is a former 5 star player (top 10 by 247, ugh) that after his 3rd year in the program wouldn't even sniff the draft. Yea, I think some real competition for him might be a good thing. Or maybe it's a different position. I don't know the answer, nobody does. Just seems logical that if players are underperforming, we give them real competition and maybe position switches. Happens all the time.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I'll reiterate my unpopular position once (since I believe a very good player is getting disrespected a bit too much --- yes, I watch every Tommy Kraemer rep on replay and do not see the awful play some attribute to him --- I pointed out in the season before last that Kraemer was the RT who was in {{during the Kraemer/Hainsey rotation}} when we scored and moved the ball the most; and I watch plays all the way past the whistle and see him mauling guys on the ground on running-plays-right more than any other OLineman on "their" power plays --- there is a lot of wanting-to-get-at-them in this guy --- and I'll point out that Eichenberg lost his competition with Kraemer for who'd play and who'd sit a couple of years ago ---- this staff, including Harry, has always thought that Tommy was a stud --- he's just not a fast-pulling stud. ... yet.) And, yes, I wonder alongside Rocket, whether there is some "crusade" for some non-understandable reason, against Kraemer.

My position:

1. This harping on TE and RB blocking by me is mocked around here, but it is as real as it gets when you re-watch our games slo-mo. These "secondary" blocker errors mess Book up as well, and he gets moving into spaces relatively safer, but not always "reasonable" for the regular OLine to hold for four or five seconds --- this is especially hard on Eichenberg/Hainsey. Some sacks or hurries might be "credited" to them, but a lot of this is Book seeing a pressure which is not being picked up by a back and moving either too wide or too close to what was a caving Mustipher.

2. We have, thankfully, one of the best QBs in the nation to counteract this, since Book decides to act so quickly decisively. A stronger physical presence at Center (why it is Patterson not Ruhland, even healthy) should shore up our caving-in Cup. Better understanding of blitz packages --- something that I bet those RBs in that crowded RB room will AVIDLY be trying to outcompete their colleagues on in order to get on the field --- should help Hainsey and Eichenberg. If Hainsey and Eichenberg are more "relaxed" about not getting beaten wide, that helps Kraemer and Banks --- just watch Tommy trying to see early in snaps how much trouble Hainsey might be having with loops et al. Even when they don't rush anyone at him --- which often happens as he usually stones an immediate rush, he is forced to pay attention to both Hainsey's and Mustipher's side for breakdowns. Late linebacker blitzes can profit from that.

3. Nobody has much right to lay our running attack mediocrity entirely on the OLine --- Long certainly doesn't. He's practically preached to the media that our lack of explosiveness (even with Dex) was woeful last year. His quote was something like: "we're not explosive. Last season we'd have maybe two 20+ yard plays a game. The previous one we had two a drive." OK OK Q and McGlinchey but it wasn't ALL that.

4. The value of maintaining side-by-side OLine teammates is great. Sure, sometimes you don't want to or can't do that, but the instant sensing of what Hainsey or Kraemer is going to do (by the other in the pair) on a stunt is pretty close to priceless. That is why I believe IF Patterson is pretty good, this is going to be a very good line. AND THEY'LL ALL ULTIMATELY BE DRAFTED --- yep even the "terrible Tommy."


Koolaid now served: our offense is going to be extremely effective whether it is explosive or not. Our OLine will be very good. Our QB will be extremely good, and hard to sack due to instant field analysis and delivery. Our receivers will be very good, especially Claypool and Finke, and at least one young blazer who figures out routes and catches contested balls. RB? Who knows? If I thought we'd be any good there, I'd predict 11-1. A lot of pro scouts will be at later games watching our OLine and noting that there's a lot of drafting potential bashing around out there. Georgia at their place? OK. Maybe a tough task. Michigan at their place --- no Bush, no Wildhair Whitey (forgot his name), no Gary, etc etc --- we win in a brawl.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

From your lips to God's ears, Mike. I dearly hope to be wrong here.