So we signed 2 high school offensive linemen...

[mcdawg22]

View attachment 5995

I've often thought that would be a good place to innovate. You essentially assure yourself of a decent OL every single year, which is the biggest piece needed for consistency.

 

[kired]

In general, 50% of your OL signees become starters and 50% do nothing. At one point I researched this going way back and it's held constant. Of the 50% that do nothing - probably half just aren't good enough and the other half either quit or have career ending injuries (back or knee type stuff that they can't 100% recover from).

Mullen has typically had 15-20 on roster. But it never plays out like you'd expect. Go back to 2014 when we had 18 on roster - 4 sophomores and 5 freshmen (3 redshirt) plus a JUCO junior who was redshirting (Johnson). You would think we're set for the future. Fast-forward to 2016 and 3 of those 9 aren't even on the roster (Cole Carter, Kent Flowers, Jake Thomas) and the JUCO who redshirted never cracks the starting lineup.

So my opinion - we don't need to sign more OL, we need to sign better OL. The fact that we've had to convert one DT and one TE to OL and they actually started even though they weren't very good... that alone tells me we have a serious problem recruiting talented HS OL. I would say 3-4 HS OL per year plus 1 JUCO would be ideal, but you've got to get at least 2 legit starters every year and 1 of those needs to have real NFL potential (not just a practice squad guy). Right now we're simply missing out on the elite talent.

 

[maroonmania]

Cooper could still get in, making it 3. 2 JUCOS and 3 HS isn't a bad class.

Also, any chance that James Jackson ends up on the OL?

 

[Go Budaw]

This is utter insanity. NFL teams keep 9 OL on their 53 man. 18%. That translates to 14-15 guys on an 85 man. Even factoring development -- you only need about 8 OL ready to go in college. 10 at most.

You go much over 14-16 guys in the pecking order -- they are leaving to get you back to the "playing time/one injury away guys" and the "young guys". At that level, you are wasting schollies on guys just to waste them -- at the expense of the positions that actually need more depth/rotate a bunch.

So what positions need those schollies instead? There's an average of 3 WR's on the field at any time. So you don't need more than 12 on scholarship. DL is 3 or 4, so 12-16 on scholarship (depending on what front you are running). Same with LB's. DB's would be around 16-18. I can't think of any other groups that rotate a ton and require more bodies.

Anyway, you get the idea. If you're going to have a disproportionately small number of OL on scholarship compared to the number of players that get on the field, you have to have a disproportionately large number somewhere else. Quite frankly, the numbers above for all the groups I listed look like plenty, and taking schollies away from the OL to give to those groups just creates the same problem you mentioned with too many bodies somewhere else on the field. If we have a problem with too much depth somewhere, I want it to be on the OL over anywhere else.

 

[engie]

Well -- we are undersigned against the 85 right now because of how last class was handled, but I'm not beating that dead horse any more.

How would I break it down in an ideal world?

1 kickers
1 punter
4 QBs
15 OL
12 WR
4 TE
5 RBs

8 CBs
8 Ss
14 LBs
16 DL

Sign up 88-91 every year and then let the numbers take care of themselves.

And to get to 20+ OL -- we would definitely be shorting other position groups. And regardless you can never sustain 20+ guys. You've got starters, backups, and young guys. The rest aren't going to be here regardless. That's prettymuch true across position groups.

 

[Chris Mannix]

I like the guys we got today. There is something to be positive about. We are not quite where we need to be up front but today was a step in the right direction. I think anybody with football knowledge understands that o line is a very unique position and they all are in their own ways. Offensive line is a unique thing to recruit and I think today was a win. Just hoping we can be positive about something on this board.

 

[Go Budaw]

How would I break it down in an ideal world?

1 kickers
1 punter
4 QBs
15 OL
12 WR
4 TE
5 RBs

8 CBs
8 Ss
14 LBs
16 DL

Not all that different from how I would do it, but I would make a few changes as noted below.

1 kickers
1 punter
*Subtract 1 of these two here and go with a walk-on. I don't really believe in using two schollies on special teams, mainly because the scholarship guys are often outperformed by walk-ons (see Devon Bell, Sean Brauchle, etc.). Besides, I can't remember a single time in the Mullen era where both the kicker and punter were on scholarship. Maybe Devon Bell's freshmen year but that might be it.

4 QBs
*Subtract one here. You are never going to be able to play nearly that many, nor keep that many over the long term as it is the glamour position where everyone wants to see the field yesterday.

12 WR
*About right

4 TE
*About right

5 RBs
*Subtract 1 here. We had 6 this year that had all already redshirted or played, and only 2 saw a meaningful number of carries. 5 is way too many.

8 CBs
8 Ss
*Both about right

14 LBs
16 DL
*Subtract 2 here from these combined groups. If 4-3 is the primary alignment, take out 2 LB. If it is 3-4, take out 2 DL. If it is a hybrid of the two, maybe take out one from each.

If it were me, I'd take all those subtracted and give them to the OL. I understand it can be hard to have that many, but I'd break it down with 9-10 in the primary rotation (as you said), 4-5 deep reserves (guys just coming off their RS year and some less talented upperclassmen, and 4-5 redshirts. Obviously you can give or take here and there with those numbers.

I think even if we can't sustain holding that many OL on the roster, it benefits us to still sign 5 or 6 every single year. Then let the rate of attrition and processing decide whether we fall closer to 15 or closer to 20. It's obvious based on our recruiting limitations (mainly the state in which we reside) that we are never going to consistently sign multiple blue chip OL every year or maybe even any year. So, I say let's take a different approach and increase our sample size at the most difficult position to evaluate in recruiting.

 

[engie]

So, you would only have 4 total players beyond the 2-deep at LB in a 3-4?

I agree on generally taking 5 OL per year, which we have done for the most part. We've taken 37 in 8 years of Mullen -- and I think I showed pretty conclusively where the quality of who we are getting has gone up. 39 if you count Rufus and Carmon, which I do not.

Next year, we have:

Rankin - Could easily grow into a first rounder and probably goes in the first 3 rounds. Had an insane NFL grade this year for what we actually thought we saw on the field.

Jenkins was good and got starting experience both at T and G.
Calhoun was good and got starting experience at both T and G.
Story showed a lot of promise and got 2 starts at G.

Williams showed alot of promise prior to injury and was the first inside OL off the bench for us.
I don't remember Moon doing anything bad in 12 games he played in.

Got Parker, Eiland, and Reese coming off RS. Have heard glowing reports about the last two.

I think we are set on the OL next year, and especially going forward(since we only have one senior), assuming we find a RT.

 

[Go Budaw]

So, you would only have 4 total players beyond the 2-deep at LB in a 3-4?

No, I would have 6. Two deep would only be 8 guys. I said subtract 2 DL from your 16 if it was a 3-4. Mainly, what I was getting at is that you need 4 players per spot on the field in the defensive front 7. That makes 28 players, compared to the 30 you had listed.

 

[tenureplan]

We're still in transition to the 3-4 though. Some of the 4-3 dlinemen we recruited will probably move to a hand on the ground olb spot or at least be able to fill in there. Our D-line count is high now because of said transition.

 

[tenureplan]

Fat men with footwork aren't on every corner in MS or Miami.

 

[Go Budaw]

We're still in transition to the 3-4 though. Some of the 4-3 dlinemen we recruited will probably move to a hand on the ground olb spot or at least be able to fill in there. Our D-line count is high now because of said transition.

Well first off, I was talking more in terms of ideal theoretical roster management more so than this specific upcoming season. Pretty much all the proposed totals engie and I threw out there are mostly null and void based on how far under the 85 we currently are (thanks, 2015 class). Secondly, my main point was that I think you need 4 scholarship players per depth chart position in the defensive front 7. You can balance that out however you want. But I think 28 guys for those 7 positions is more than enough, transition year or not.

 

[tenureplan]

Another counter to that would be the fact that defense is more tiring than offense. It is why the hurry up has been so successful. The same OL stay in, but it is the DL that get worn out. Defense has also become more specialized in terms of down and distance. Once again, you aren't subbing out OL based on down and distance.