OLine Comparison

IrishGD31

New member
Messages
56
Reaction score
11
I know much has been made about who in this loaded Oline class we have not gotten, but, really, if we land Garnett, I really don't see much of a better fit combined for the whole class than what we'll have. Aside from Humphries, Theus and Armstead (who doesn't even want to play Oline) I can't think of any of the targets we didn't land that we'd want more than their equivalent that we did land:

LT: 1). Andrus Peat - has even more physical potential than Stanley, true, but I'd rather have Stanley for a couple reasons. Stanley's tape shows more aggression and follow through. He also seems to diagnose plays better and not be blocking the wrong guy or in the wrong direction, like Peat seems to be doing constantly. Plus, I'd much rather make inroads with Bishop Gorman than Corona.

RT or G: 2). Kyle Kalis - Great film, aggression and good size, but who'd you rather have, a bigger, stronger Taylor Decker who is almost as mean and almost as quick as Kalis pre-injury or a Kyle Kalis with a reconstructed knee? Decker every time.

LT: 3). Kyle Murphy - For the same reasons as with Peat, I'd rather have Stanley. Plus, he doesn't have quite the physical potential Stanley has anyway.

LT or RT 4). Zach Banner - Film shows over and over the same thing. He is just too tall. It'll work out against some Dline guys but against others he'll just get abused. Inconsistent effort too and, like Peat, blocks the wrong guy constantly.

LT or RT 5). Eric Magnuson - Kyle Murphy/Andrus Peat problems with even less potential upside. The Opening showed clearly enough that Harrell was more impressive as a potential T and he's not even slotted for T at this point and there's no way Magnuson could be as effective as Harrell at C.

Bottom line, out of all our top initial targets, taking Humphries, Theus and Armstead out of the equation, Decker is the RT I'd want, Garnett is the G/T combo I'd want, Stanley is the project LT star I'd want and, for that matter, Harrell is the C I'd want. No OLine guy on the board combines all the things we need in a C as he does - athleticism, strength, aggression, intelligence. And, he has the frame to get over 300 lbs easily so he's not going to be undersized by the time he plays. Just have to get Garnett. Looking at his film and our needs, probably a better get for us than even Humphries or Theus would have been and equal to Armstead if he wanted to play OL.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,965
Reaction score
6,453
I have no idea how to compare those guys yet. My observations of O-Lineman development is that if the guy has good size, attitude, and feet/flexibility, then it's all coaching after that. The only exceptions are a rare bird like Seantrel Henderson who is just a freakish monster. Our guys are VERY good as starter candidates for bigtime college football, and our staff knows how to coach. These players will get the benefit of the best, both in the coaches and the vets.

As to the "pool" of talent: to me a lot of those guys are interchangeable parts as far as the physical is concerned. Other than coaching, the difference will be who has the "want-to-be-exceptional" attitude. That's part of the RKG that Kelly's always looking for, and I trust that our guys are RKGuys.
 

Patulski

www.ndnation.com
Messages
878
Reaction score
138
The thing that was most obvious to me was that we need quicker offensive linemen. When playing the better football teams, with more explosive athletes playing gap penetrating defenses, we did not compete well enough. We need athletes along the line who can match the quickness and athleticism of our best opponents. Hopefully we are rectifying this with recruiting.
 

IrishGD31

New member
Messages
56
Reaction score
11
I have no idea how to compare those guys yet. My observations of O-Lineman development is that if the guy has good size, attitude, and feet/flexibility, then it's all coaching after that. The only exceptions are a rare bird like Seantrel Henderson who is just a freakish monster. Our guys are VERY good as starter candidates for bigtime college football, and our staff knows how to coach. These players will get the benefit of the best, both in the coaches and the vets.

As to the "pool" of talent: to me a lot of those guys are interchangeable parts as far as the physical is concerned. Other than coaching, the difference will be who has the "want-to-be-exceptional" attitude. That's part of the RKG that Kelly's always looking for, and I trust that our guys are RKGuys.

Yep, that's really the key, that from size, strength, athleticism, intelligence and aggression perspective, our guys are fairly equal to any of the other guys on the board, leaving everything up to the coaching. The thing that I have noticed with this class, though, is that some of the guys we missed on who were higher rated than the guys we got, had deficiencies in comparison to our guys. I just think that as people look at our class and consider it less than we were expecting at the beginning of the recruiting cycle, I'd say in truth we ended up as solid and as much without weaknesses as possible. Sometimes, like the Dline class last year, the top of the top guys had no weaknesses ala Lynch and Tuitt. But, sometimes, you end up being lucky to not win a guy who is rated top of the top because of being just slightly more impressive than anyone else but will likely never pan out because of a serious weakness in their game. I think Peat and Banner especially fall in that category.
 

jason_h537

The King is Back
Messages
6,945
Reaction score
581
Murphy and Magnuson are both beasts that play with mean streaks. We got some good ones but both would have likely been taken over some guys we have.
 

PLACforever

I spit hot fire
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
222
I was upset when we missed on Henderson, but in hind-sight, I'd rather have RKGs than an top ranked freak who will never meet his potential because of character flaws.

I with we got Magnuson because that is an awesome O-linesman name.
 
Top