Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Anyone else concerned that if we sign the 14 players committed so far for 2007, we will have recruited only two offensive lineman over the past two years?

I know that maybe some of the "defensive lineman" in this year's class may end up on the other side of the ball, but I don't see a Lichtenstiger or Mucrowski in the bunch that can come in and make an immediate impact.

Thoughts?

Nope...I was gonna say "Where's the beef?....it's in my pants" but then I decided not to.

I don't think we need any freshman OL to make an immediate impact. There's still enough depth from past classes to work with this season and probably the next.

and you realize yourself that some of this year's guys coul dplay OL.

Maybe they'll move a WR to OT just to annoy falconboy...

Rollo, count me as one that is concerned. I mentioned this issue the other day. We have 14 OL on the roster, 6 Sr to be, 3 Jr, 4 So, 1 Fr(redshirt), and 1 in-coming. While it is not an issue now, what about two years down the road? We are going to be forced to play freshman and sophomore and/or move guys from other positions. I'm holding out hope that some of the signees we haven't heard about are OL.

Warthog wrote:Rollo, count me as one that is concerned. I mentioned this issue the other day. We have 14 OL on the roster, 6 Sr to be, 3 Jr, 4 So, 1 Fr(redshirt), and 1 in-coming. While it is not an issue now, what about two years down the road? We are going to be forced to play freshman and sophomore and/or move guys from other positions. I'm holding out hope that some of the signees we haven't heard about are OL.

No, we'll just freak out because we're short players, and recruit 15 OL in one class.

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:

Warthog wrote:Rollo, count me as one that is concerned. I mentioned this issue the other day. We have 14 OL on the roster, 6 Sr to be, 3 Jr, 4 So, 1 Fr(redshirt), and 1 in-coming. While it is not an issue now, what about two years down the road? We are going to be forced to play freshman and sophomore and/or move guys from other positions. I'm holding out hope that some of the signees we haven't heard about are OL.

No, we'll just freak out because we're short players, and recruit 15 OL in one class.

and that was the rest of the point of my post last week. Kinda like a few years when our secondary was ignored. Now we have 11 DBs, 8 of them will be sophomores. Here is what it looks like to me. Brandon can't recruit well enough to focus on a few players at each position. So he goes after a bunch of guys with the hope that one or two pan out. Which is good for that one or two, but what about the 5 or 6 scholarships that got wasted???

I think you guys are looking for reasons to be critical. We recruited up at DB because we wanted more speed (we moved a ton of DB's to LB and a WR to to LB for speed). That's been accomplished, apparently.

We're recruiting linemen this season. Most of them are listed as DL, but that really doesn't matter. It's what the coaches have in mind that matters. If they come right out and say "none of these guys will play OL"
I'm sure that someone will ask coach Brandon on Wednesday about the need for OL help.

I'll ask him if you want....

Flipper wrote:I'll ask him if you want....

Please do. And I understand what your saying, but I am concerned that we focus too much on one particular area without looking at the big picture. We focus on speed, but get no one that can catch the ball. We focus on big DL , but have no size at LB. We go after RBs, but ignore something else. "Athletes" are great, but we tend to go after those type guys that you have to teach a position to instead of focusing on guys that are pretty good at one particular position already.

Flipper wrote: Most of them are listed as DL, but that really doesn't matter. It's what the coaches have in mind that matters.

Meh -- I don't buy this. Our staff has shown they're not very good at identifying where a player needs to be straight out of HS, especially on the lines. It was impossible to even keep track last year of who was on DL and who was on OL. They're not interchangeable, no matter how hard this staff tries.

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:

Flipper wrote: Most of them are listed as DL, but that really doesn't matter. It's what the coaches have in mind that matters.

Meh -- I don't buy this. Our staff has shown they're not very good at identifying where a player needs to be straight out of HS, especially on the lines. It was impossible to even keep track last year of who was on DL and who was on OL. They're not interchangeable, no matter how hard this staff tries.

That's a tad hyperbolic, don't you think?. Brandon Mack moved to OT and was moved back when injuries cropped up. I think most of us were able to keep up with that change....other than that, I didn't find anything too confusing.

I don't mean to sound like a slappy...there are legitimate questions about the direction of the program, but some of the stuff that gets posted here seems so off kilter that it just stikes me as.....well...silly. The coaches know who they're recrutiing, they know how many OL adn DL are in the program and I know they can count because they've never once sent the punt team out on third down

Flipper wrote:

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:

Flipper wrote:

I know they can count because they've never once sent the punt team out on third down

Oh great, at least we have that.

Flipper wrote:I think you guys are looking for reasons to be critical. We recruited up at DB because we wanted more speed (we moved a ton of DB's to LB and a WR to to LB for speed). That's been accomplished, apparently.

We're recruiting linemen this season. Most of them are listed as DL, but that really doesn't matter. It's what the coaches have in mind that matters. If they come right out and say "none of these guys will play OL"
I'm sure that someone will ask coach Brandon on Wednesday about the need for OL help.

I'll ask him if you want....

That is exactly right. Our new DC came in, all of the slow DBs we had previosuly recruited got moved to LB. He wanted speed at LB and DB. Now he is getting the tackles to go with it. That defense is headed in the right direction IMO.

Flipper wrote:

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:

Flipper wrote: Most of them are listed as DL, but that really doesn't matter. It's what the coaches have in mind that matters.

Meh -- I don't buy this. Our staff has shown they're not very good at identifying where a player needs to be straight out of HS, especially on the lines. It was impossible to even keep track last year of who was on DL and who was on OL. They're not interchangeable, no matter how hard this staff tries.

That's a tad hyperbolic, don't you think?. Brandon Mack moved to OT and was moved back when injuries cropped up. I think most of us were able to keep up with that change....other than that, I didn't find anything too confusing.

I don't mean to sound like a slappy...there are legitimate questions about the direction of the program, but some of the stuff that gets posted here seems so off kilter that it just stikes me as.....well...silly. The coaches know who they're recrutiing, they know how many OL adn DL are in the program and I know they can count because they've never once sent the punt team out on third down

I hate agreeing with you so damm much after you said you never agree with me but I think you are right on here. 14 people have already been named, we normally recruit like 24 because of transfers and what not. The guys who have been labeled as our top guys the last few years have not panned out, but other guys have. Recruiting is no where near an exact science. Anthony Turner, Virgil Robinson, Nick Lawrence were all listed as our top recruits. The jury is still out on Lawrence and Turner but the early returns have not been spectacular.

Also someone noted that there would be a large group of other players leaving the team. Anyone have any idea who they are? Anyone not enrolled for second semester who should be?