- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/27/17 at 1:11 am to Madking
quote:
When you don't recruit certain positions it is a problem. And when you lose as many guys as we have it's a major problem. I think you're missing what people are saying. We have some talent at guard but none at tackle. We have a guard and what should be a backup starting at our two tackle positions. What does it matter that we have depth at guard when he have 2 major holes at the tackle spot? You just can't ignore that problem by saying we have some talent overall
Did you miss where he said Malone is the only one playing a position different than he was projected out of HS.
Or do you just disagree with the recruiting services projection?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 5:54 am to SportTiger1
Sticking with the recruiting numbers theme....
So that "only one player out of position" is a 3* OG/C playing the most important spot on the line (LT) and at the same time starting a freshman (or two) at a OG spot where he should play isn't a problem? It isn't an indicator of issues at OT recruiting?
By saying "it's only one player out of position" you're minimizing the impact, which is at two spots, both of which are getting abused. I would say it's impacting 3 spots because Clapp is having his own issues with trying to account for bad switch-offs and blown assignments at the guard spot.
And if a 3* OG is the best we have to offer at the most important spot on the OL, yes- I'm going to go ahead and say I do disagree with the recruiting services evaluations. I'm also going to say taking no more than 2 OT every year for 9 years is a problem.
At the same time agree with Okeke- I believe that's the transfer that's hurting us. Teuhuma would've been suspended anyway, he was a loss no matter what. But having Okeke would change the whole dynamic.
So that "only one player out of position" is a 3* OG/C playing the most important spot on the line (LT) and at the same time starting a freshman (or two) at a OG spot where he should play isn't a problem? It isn't an indicator of issues at OT recruiting?
By saying "it's only one player out of position" you're minimizing the impact, which is at two spots, both of which are getting abused. I would say it's impacting 3 spots because Clapp is having his own issues with trying to account for bad switch-offs and blown assignments at the guard spot.
And if a 3* OG is the best we have to offer at the most important spot on the OL, yes- I'm going to go ahead and say I do disagree with the recruiting services evaluations. I'm also going to say taking no more than 2 OT every year for 9 years is a problem.
At the same time agree with Okeke- I believe that's the transfer that's hurting us. Teuhuma would've been suspended anyway, he was a loss no matter what. But having Okeke would change the whole dynamic.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:07 am to UpToPar
There isn't a post you respond in or a thread you start that doesn't bash O, so don't come here with that shite. That's all you do. You are a young little kid with nothing else to do but bash O 24/7. There isn't any analysis need done. We don't even have a full healthy 2 deep on scholarship. So stop with your bs you miserable sob.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:12 am to whitefoot
Lmao...how is it good nonetheless, when you yourself said it wasn't accurate...unless of course it helps your agenda? It's comical how far Democrats, eh ih, o haters will go to bash O.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:15 am to UpToPar
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 7:12 am
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:16 am to SportTiger1
Both. He is minimizing the impact of the most important positions on the line. But we get it, just a small thing there, because it doesn't fit your 24/7 agenda. Y'all flock to the same threads over and over bashing O. Does it not grow tiring? Do you think people will respect your opinion more if you get on here numerous times every single day and whine about O.
Admin needs to pull your post history, up to par, 357, and several others.
Admin needs to pull your post history, up to par, 357, and several others.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:19 am to UpToPar
I really wish Okeke had stayed. He was way too talented to not be starting at at least one of the tackle spots. Being that he hadn't played football all that long, I thought we wouldn't get to see him until year three. This year would have been great to have that big athletic guy gaining experience at LT.
Okeke
Teuhema
Dodd
Clapp
Weathersby
This should have been our lineup starting this year and it would have been fricking nasty.
Okeke
Teuhema
Dodd
Clapp
Weathersby
This should have been our lineup starting this year and it would have been fricking nasty.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:24 am to CharlesLSU
quote:It is worth pointing out that the Gumps are not going to let some attrition happen. A 5* OT isn't going to sit for such a minor infraction as being busted by the cops with weed and a gun. It's "avoidable attrition" for them.
The main hole in your argument is Bamas oline production is typically superior to everyone else. The reason is that Saban recruits based on actual coaching evaluation and not composite recruiting bullshite. Now, does he have a fair share of 4-5 stars guys? Sure. But, it's the under the radar gems that he uses to complete the unit.
On the other hand...
If we're not going to go about it the same way, then we must recruit differently and plan for such. The example here would be Teuhuma.
ETA: and you have a valid argument UpToPar. I disagree with parts. Part of my disagreement is based on the fact that a weak "spot" on an OL causes a weak "squad" often. Our recruiting has led to the weakening of some spots (e.g. not enough quality OTs). One part I agree with are the transfers are a problem, and weakened spots further.
I do agree with coaching being the biggest problem. Good coaching makes better players (i.e. development). A Willie Allen, for example, with better coaching MAY have felt he was developing better and thus would have not felt the need to transfer to get PT. If not Willie Allen I'm sure there is another better example because I've seen enough issues on the coaching side from game play where I, personally, feel comfortable assuming that.
So I do feel comfortable saying: transfers are indeed part of the problem, and better coaching would have mitigated some of that, and would have the lagniappe of having better OL play overall.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 6:36 am
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:28 am to SportTiger1
But he's not the only one smart guy or did you miss the part where he said he only researched the starters? You aren't even worth responding to anymore. Cry all you want but you're wrong and not going to get your way. He's not going to be fired this year or next so go crawl back into your hole or go find another fan base to bore to death.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 6:40 am
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:55 am to I20goon
Yes, I'm going to commit a message board faux pas here and respond to myself....
You can never point to one thing and solve the problem. What you have to do is EITHER identify the biggest impact solution, or the low hanging fruit. If you are lucky the low hanging fruit IS the impact solution.
As far as our OL is concerned, how we got here, is recruiting under Studrwra, recruiting by Grimes, transfers under Miles, transfers under CEO, coaching by Grimes, WR coaching (yes, affects the QB thus affects the OL). All those are contributors.
If a balloon is your OL performance, you're not bursting the balloon by shooting it with a 12ga (pointing to one thing), it's stacking boxes on it, some big, some small, until it pops.
So what's our biggest box, our "impactful solution"? If Grimes coaching is affecting:
A) OL performance on the field, today now- Yep. Absolutely.
B) OL recruiting. Yes, we've been offered evidence of that on the recruiting board.
C) OL transfers. Maybe. I'm personally assuming that. Is debatable. Saying "they don't like playing for O" is even much more of a reach and we've seen evidence to the contrary. So I'm assuming Grimes is more of a factor.
So what is the low-hanging solution? Grimes (fire everybody right?).
So what is the impact-solution? Grimes (as evidenced by A,B, & C) above.
quote:In general, when you feel like problems are raining down on you (like this team must've felt during the MSU game) it's never ever one thing. In football, in life, in business.
So I do feel comfortable saying: transfers are indeed part of the problem, and better coaching would have mitigated some of that, and would have the lagniappe of having better OL play overall.
You can never point to one thing and solve the problem. What you have to do is EITHER identify the biggest impact solution, or the low hanging fruit. If you are lucky the low hanging fruit IS the impact solution.
As far as our OL is concerned, how we got here, is recruiting under Studrwra, recruiting by Grimes, transfers under Miles, transfers under CEO, coaching by Grimes, WR coaching (yes, affects the QB thus affects the OL). All those are contributors.
If a balloon is your OL performance, you're not bursting the balloon by shooting it with a 12ga (pointing to one thing), it's stacking boxes on it, some big, some small, until it pops.
So what's our biggest box, our "impactful solution"? If Grimes coaching is affecting:
A) OL performance on the field, today now- Yep. Absolutely.
B) OL recruiting. Yes, we've been offered evidence of that on the recruiting board.
C) OL transfers. Maybe. I'm personally assuming that. Is debatable. Saying "they don't like playing for O" is even much more of a reach and we've seen evidence to the contrary. So I'm assuming Grimes is more of a factor.
So what is the low-hanging solution? Grimes (fire everybody right?).
So what is the impact-solution? Grimes (as evidenced by A,B, & C) above.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:20 am to Dawgfan128
quote:
There isn't a post you respond in or a thread you start that doesn't bash O, so don't come here with that shite. That's all you do. You are a young little kid with nothing else to do but bash O 24/7. There isn't any analysis need done. We don't even have a full healthy 2 deep on scholarship. So stop with your bs you miserable sob.
Are you ever going to contribute to a thread or are you going to piss and moan in every single post?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:21 am to Madking
quote:
But he's not the only one smart guy or did you miss the part where he said he only researched the starters?
Malone is the only OL currently playing out of position. What other OL are currently playing out of position?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:35 am to UpToPar
Good thread, I'd just add that IMO attrition has hurt this unit more than anything else.
Grimes was celebrated when hired in at lsu. Everything you read was positive.
It hasn't worked out. It's easy to look good when you are stacked at a position, the real coaching job comes through when you have to improvise.
Which is what we are doing now.
Grimes was celebrated when hired in at lsu. Everything you read was positive.
It hasn't worked out. It's easy to look good when you are stacked at a position, the real coaching job comes through when you have to improvise.
Which is what we are doing now.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 7:38 am
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:36 am to I20goon
quote:
As far as our OL is concerned, how we got here, is recruiting under Studrwra, recruiting by Grimes,
The point of this thread is to show that recruiting is not the problem. Without the transfers we have the most talented starting 5 in the SEC.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:40 am to Datbayoubengal
IMO, Dodd just wasn't very good. If he was, Bama wouldn't have let him walk. To my eyes, the line overall recently has seemed small & weak
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:45 am to UpToPar
Good post, lot of work here. 
I want to mention that other schools have probably lost players to attrition as well so if we're going to include Teuhma and Allen we need to compare that to everyone else' "could have been" lineup.
I want to mention that other schools have probably lost players to attrition as well so if we're going to include Teuhma and Allen we need to compare that to everyone else' "could have been" lineup.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:52 am to UpToPar
The problem has been offensive philosophy and an inadequate number of linemen to perpetuate that philosophy over a game, and a season as a whole.
Saban had 10 linemen plus TE's that were interchange pieces, Miles never did that, whether by a conscious choice, or simply through difficulties in recruiting. Miles had an inordinate amount of injuries on the line.
But, the most significant thing was the 1970's era offense, and the inability to recruit kids who had played nothing but spread type offense in high school.
Saban had 10 linemen plus TE's that were interchange pieces, Miles never did that, whether by a conscious choice, or simply through difficulties in recruiting. Miles had an inordinate amount of injuries on the line.
But, the most significant thing was the 1970's era offense, and the inability to recruit kids who had played nothing but spread type offense in high school.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:53 am to UpToPar
First of all, good job doing all that research. A couple of concerns I have about your conclusions:
Recruiting rankings, while helpful, are not a reliable indication of talent, especially with a small sample size (in this case, 5 per team). Russell Shepard was a 5-star QB in recruiting rankings. Jarrett Lee and Etling were both 4-stars. Dak Prescott wasn't even ranked as QB, was he? I suspect the rankings would be especially difficult to get right with offensive linemen, as I would think it would be difficult to judge how they will do at the college level based on their high school performance. I suspect the rankings rely very heavily on size when evaluating OL prospects, while athleticism and the ability to learn blocking schemes and technique is harder to judge.
Was each starter ranked for the specific position they are playing for each team now, or were they rated for another OL position or just generic "OL"? That makes a difference. Not all OL positions are the same. One of our problems is we have guards playing tackle or vice versa because we have too many of one and not enough of the other, and people playing center who aren't really natural centers. Just because someone was highly rated (probably on size mostly) playing guard in high school doesn't mean he'll be a good tackle or center, or for that matter even a good guard, in the SEC.
Averages are sometimes not the best metric for judging an overall unit. One outlier can skew the average, particularly in small sample sizes. Also, using only starters gives an incomplete picture, since OL is an area where reserves frequently play and depth is a major issue. Not having a decent player behind him can make a good player not as good because he has to play more snaps.
I disagree, and so will just about anybody who looks at our lineup, including the anonymous SEC coach who commented on it over the offseason in whatever publication it is that does that feature. We might have recruited a sufficient number of players with sufficiently high recruiting rankings to place in the top half by that numbers metric, but we have not recruited the positions we need and the players we have signed do not appear to warrant the recruiting rankings they had. We have had a LOT of misses in the OL over the last few years. The result is that now, not only are we thin in the OL, but even what players we do have just aren't that good.
I'll certainly agree that development is big part of the OL equation, and we seem to have a problem with that, and have for a while. However, I don't agree that we have OL talent in the top half of the SEC right now.
Again, kudos for doing all the research, but I really don't think these numbers alter what anyone can see watching the games. The offensive line is thin and not very talented, regardless of what people said about them when they were in high school.
quote:
247 composite rankings
Recruiting rankings, while helpful, are not a reliable indication of talent, especially with a small sample size (in this case, 5 per team). Russell Shepard was a 5-star QB in recruiting rankings. Jarrett Lee and Etling were both 4-stars. Dak Prescott wasn't even ranked as QB, was he? I suspect the rankings would be especially difficult to get right with offensive linemen, as I would think it would be difficult to judge how they will do at the college level based on their high school performance. I suspect the rankings rely very heavily on size when evaluating OL prospects, while athleticism and the ability to learn blocking schemes and technique is harder to judge.
quote:
for each starter listed and averaged them for each team.
Was each starter ranked for the specific position they are playing for each team now, or were they rated for another OL position or just generic "OL"? That makes a difference. Not all OL positions are the same. One of our problems is we have guards playing tackle or vice versa because we have too many of one and not enough of the other, and people playing center who aren't really natural centers. Just because someone was highly rated (probably on size mostly) playing guard in high school doesn't mean he'll be a good tackle or center, or for that matter even a good guard, in the SEC.
Averages are sometimes not the best metric for judging an overall unit. One outlier can skew the average, particularly in small sample sizes. Also, using only starters gives an incomplete picture, since OL is an area where reserves frequently play and depth is a major issue. Not having a decent player behind him can make a good player not as good because he has to play more snaps.
quote:
any notion that our OL recruiting has fallen off in the past couple of years is a completely fabricated lie... we are still top half in the SEC in terms of talent on the OL.
If we want to blame our OL woes on development, then fine, but the idea that Orgeron was "dealt a bad hand" when it comes to our OL talent is nothing but an excuse. I think we can safely put to bed the idea that we have not recruited well at OL.
I disagree, and so will just about anybody who looks at our lineup, including the anonymous SEC coach who commented on it over the offseason in whatever publication it is that does that feature. We might have recruited a sufficient number of players with sufficiently high recruiting rankings to place in the top half by that numbers metric, but we have not recruited the positions we need and the players we have signed do not appear to warrant the recruiting rankings they had. We have had a LOT of misses in the OL over the last few years. The result is that now, not only are we thin in the OL, but even what players we do have just aren't that good.
I'll certainly agree that development is big part of the OL equation, and we seem to have a problem with that, and have for a while. However, I don't agree that we have OL talent in the top half of the SEC right now.
Again, kudos for doing all the research, but I really don't think these numbers alter what anyone can see watching the games. The offensive line is thin and not very talented, regardless of what people said about them when they were in high school.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 8:12 am to UpToPar
quote:But we did, so...
Had we not had the attrition that we had going into this season we would have the top ranked OL in the SEC based on 247 composite ratings.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News