EagleOutsider.com

HJS {l Wrote}:3 of those 5 were 4-star recruits with the others being high 3-star recruits. We used to regularly be able to recruit elite OLinemen. That hasn't happened with any sort of consistency in almost a decade. We are in Year 4 and the program is regressing and does not show the stability or direction one would expect from a coach guaranteed to return for a 5th year. While I think Daz is actually pretty decent at identifying talented kids who are lightly recruited, he hasn't been able to show any ability to beat out programs for recruits that have good offers (outside of a handful of wins in his first recruiting cycle). You simply can't win on a regular basis with recruiting classes that are composed mainly from battles won versus the MAC.

Maybe you're right and its simply a talent issue, but one thing is for sure less talented players having to play earlier at a position where size and strength, which generally increase during the ages of 18-22, matter greatly, is not a recipe for success. There may be an earlier TOB OL that is a better example of not quite as talented older players having a good deal of success, I'm not sure.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

claver2010 {l Wrote}:certainly fair and accurate, but it wouldn't surprise me if other teams in the acc have age / avg games / starts.

i just picked those 2 schools cause they're the largest programs but you're right probably shouldn't have picked the baby rapists in the conf

Pitt is I think a pretty good comparison in terms of what should be (it's not currently) a realistic peer recruiting school. It has RSSr-Sr-RSJr-RSSo-RSSo. The LT has started 30 games coming into this year, the LG started 29, the C 23, RG 2; RT 12 for average starts of 19.2. Frankly, averaging 19+ starts is kind of crazy in the opposite direction.

In theory our OL could have that kind of experience next year.

His ultimate success is married to what he can do next year. He has been beating the drum on Year 5 for a while now. As you say our OL should be at the point experience wise to be successful. If next year continues to be a dumpster fire, we have our answer.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:3 of those 5 were 4-star recruits with the others being high 3-star recruits. We used to regularly be able to recruit elite OLinemen. That hasn't happened with any sort of consistency in almost a decade. We are in Year 4 and the program is regressing and does not show the stability or direction one would expect from a coach guaranteed to return for a 5th year. While I think Daz is actually pretty decent at identifying talented kids who are lightly recruited, he hasn't been able to show any ability to beat out programs for recruits that have good offers (outside of a handful of wins in his first recruiting cycle). You simply can't win on a regular basis with recruiting classes that are composed mainly from battles won versus the MAC.

Maybe you're right and its simply a talent issue, but one thing is for sure less talented players having to play earlier at a position where size and strength, which generally increase during the ages of 18-22, matter greatly, is not a recipe for success. There may be an earlier TOB OL that is a better example of not quite as talented older players having a good deal of success, I'm not sure.

It's both... you can succeed with less regarded players that you invest time developing or you can succeed with highly regarded players who use their talent to compete immediately. For the OL, you can probably also get away with a diamond in the rough who gets thrown into the mix too early, but only if there is stabilty along the rest of the line (see, Castonzo). Ultimately, doing what Daz is doing (throwing lightly regarded recruits directly into the fire) is not only not succeeding in the short term, I believe it will ultimately retard these players' development such that we won't see much improvement despite their extensive experience.

At the end of the day. what concerns me the most is that the current state is by design. The recruiting strategy of securing the class by the end of July... the curious numbers allocated for positions... the indecision on what QB best fits the offense (and recruiting it)... it all seems to be deliberate decisions made by Daz (who I believe fancies himself the recruiting coordinator). With his well-percieved lack of intelligence, I think it's fair not to be surprised at failure whenever strategy is involved.

HJS {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:3 of those 5 were 4-star recruits with the others being high 3-star recruits. We used to regularly be able to recruit elite OLinemen. That hasn't happened with any sort of consistency in almost a decade. We are in Year 4 and the program is regressing and does not show the stability or direction one would expect from a coach guaranteed to return for a 5th year. While I think Daz is actually pretty decent at identifying talented kids who are lightly recruited, he hasn't been able to show any ability to beat out programs for recruits that have good offers (outside of a handful of wins in his first recruiting cycle). You simply can't win on a regular basis with recruiting classes that are composed mainly from battles won versus the MAC.

Maybe you're right and its simply a talent issue, but one thing is for sure less talented players having to play earlier at a position where size and strength, which generally increase during the ages of 18-22, matter greatly, is not a recipe for success. There may be an earlier TOB OL that is a better example of not quite as talented older players having a good deal of success, I'm not sure.

It's both... you can succeed with less regarded players that you invest time developing or you can succeed with highly regarded players who use their talent to compete immediately. For the OL, you can probably also get away with a diamond in the rough who gets thrown into the mix too early, but only if there is stabilty along the rest of the line (see, Castonzo). Ultimately, doing what Daz is doing (throwing lightly regarded recruits directly into the fire) is not only not succeeding in the short term, I believe it will ultimately retard these players' development such that we won't see much improvement despite their extensive experience.

At the end of the day. what concerns me the most is that the current state is by design. The recruiting strategy of securing the class by the end of July... the curious numbers allocated for positions... the indecision on what QB best fits the offense (and recruiting it)... it all seems to be deliberate decisions made by Daz (who I believe fancies himself the recruiting coordinator). With his well-percieved lack of intelligence, I think it's fair not to be surprised at failure whenever strategy is involved.

I hate the end of July class end.

This may be naive, but is it easier to pass block than run block? I would think so. Pass blocking, especially in a zone scheme is largely about size, strength and technique. The fact that our OL bulked up over the off-season is probably a big part of that improvement.

But to run block, especially in a scheme that telegraphs the run, you need not only size, but dominant strength, technique, speed. I would think it just takes a little longer to develop into a run blocker, especially with all the pulls Daz likes to run.

Also, we utilize backs a lot to help in pass protection. A lot.

HJS {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:3 of those 5 were 4-star recruits with the others being high 3-star recruits. We used to regularly be able to recruit elite OLinemen. That hasn't happened with any sort of consistency in almost a decade. We are in Year 4 and the program is regressing and does not show the stability or direction one would expect from a coach guaranteed to return for a 5th year. While I think Daz is actually pretty decent at identifying talented kids who are lightly recruited, he hasn't been able to show any ability to beat out programs for recruits that have good offers (outside of a handful of wins in his first recruiting cycle). You simply can't win on a regular basis with recruiting classes that are composed mainly from battles won versus the MAC.

Maybe you're right and its simply a talent issue, but one thing is for sure less talented players having to play earlier at a position where size and strength, which generally increase during the ages of 18-22, matter greatly, is not a recipe for success. There may be an earlier TOB OL that is a better example of not quite as talented older players having a good deal of success, I'm not sure.

It's both... you can succeed with less regarded players that you invest time developing or you can succeed with highly regarded players who use their talent to compete immediately. For the OL, you can probably also get away with a diamond in the rough who gets thrown into the mix too early, but only if there is stabilty along the rest of the line (see, Castonzo). Ultimately, doing what Daz is doing (throwing lightly regarded recruits directly into the fire) is not only not succeeding in the short term, I believe it will ultimately retard these players' development such that we won't see much improvement despite their extensive experience.

At the end of the day. what concerns me the most is that the current state is by design. The recruiting strategy of securing the class by the end of July... the curious numbers allocated for positions... the indecision on what QB best fits the offense (and recruiting it)... it all seems to be deliberate decisions made by Daz (who I believe fancies himself the recruiting coordinator). With his well-percieved lack of intelligence, I think it's fair not to be surprised at failure whenever strategy is involved.

This, absolutely.

I may still be in the youth-is-an-excuse camp. But it's only so much of an excuse. Daz's stubborn insistence on running "his" scheme despite the depth chart has probably been bad for the team. I'll defer on the effects of the the July deadline for recruiting to the shirtless boy experts.

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:This may be naive, but is it easier to pass block than run block? I would think so. Pass blocking, especially in a zone scheme is largely about size, strength and technique. The fact that our OL bulked up over the off-season is probably a big part of that improvement.

But to run block, especially in a scheme that telegraphs the run, you need not only size, but dominant strength, technique, speed. I would think it just takes a little longer to develop into a run blocker, especially with all the pulls Daz likes to run.

Also, we utilize backs a lot to help in pass protection. A lot.

You are beyond parody.

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:This may be naive, but is it easier to pass block than run block? I would think so. Pass blocking, especially in a zone scheme is largely about size, strength and technique. The fact that our OL bulked up over the off-season is probably a big part of that improvement.

But to run block, especially in a scheme that telegraphs the run, you need not only size, but dominant strength, technique, speed. I would think it just takes a little longer to develop into a run blocker, especially with all the pulls Daz likes to run.

Also, we utilize backs a lot to help in pass protection. A lot.

You are beyond parody.

I have to agree with the Funishment here. It is not even worth mocking this post.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:This may be naive, but is it easier to pass block than run block? I would think so. Pass blocking, especially in a zone scheme is largely about size, strength and technique. The fact that our OL bulked up over the off-season is probably a big part of that improvement.

But to run block, especially in a scheme that telegraphs the run, you need not only size, but dominant strength, technique, speed. I would think it just takes a little longer to develop into a run blocker, especially with all the pulls Daz likes to run.

Also, we utilize backs a lot to help in pass protection. A lot.

You are beyond parody.

I have to agree with the Funishment here. It is not even worth mocking this post.

I don't get it. Is it because it's an obvious difference? Again, I said it might be a naive question, but I didn't think it is ridiculous. Can an adequately big, strong and disciplined OL do well in pass protection while it requires a dominantly big, strong and disciplined OL to do well in run blocking? Basically so long as you can match your opponent you can pass block but you need to be better than your opponent to run block. Again, I may be missing something here, but I think Funishment might just be being Funishment and twballgame is just being a twat...

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:This may be naive, but is it easier to pass block than run block? I would think so. Pass blocking, especially in a zone scheme is largely about size, strength and technique. The fact that our OL bulked up over the off-season is probably a big part of that improvement.

But to run block, especially in a scheme that telegraphs the run, you need not only size, but dominant strength, technique, speed. I would think it just takes a little longer to develop into a run blocker, especially with all the pulls Daz likes to run.

Also, we utilize backs a lot to help in pass protection. A lot.

You are beyond parody.

I have to agree with the Funishment here. It is not even worth mocking this post.

I don't get it. Is it because it's an obvious difference? Again, I said it might be a naive question, but I didn't think it is ridiculous. Can an adequately big, strong and disciplined OL do well in pass protection while it requires a dominantly big, strong and disciplined OL to do well in run blocking? Basically so long as you can match your opponent you can pass block but you need to be better than your opponent to run block. Again, I may be missing something here, but I think Funishment might just be being Funishment and twballgame is just being a twat...

It's pretty much a maxim of football that run blocking is far easier to teach than pass blocking, and that pass blocking is much more about technique. It's such a maxim that it doesn't really warrant further explanation.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:This may be naive, but is it easier to pass block than run block? I would think so. Pass blocking, especially in a zone scheme is largely about size, strength and technique. The fact that our OL bulked up over the off-season is probably a big part of that improvement.

But to run block, especially in a scheme that telegraphs the run, you need not only size, but dominant strength, technique, speed. I would think it just takes a little longer to develop into a run blocker, especially with all the pulls Daz likes to run.

Also, we utilize backs a lot to help in pass protection. A lot.

You are beyond parody.

I have to agree with the Funishment here. It is not even worth mocking this post.

I don't get it. Is it because it's an obvious difference? Again, I said it might be a naive question, but I didn't think it is ridiculous. Can an adequately big, strong and disciplined OL do well in pass protection while it requires a dominantly big, strong and disciplined OL to do well in run blocking? Basically so long as you can match your opponent you can pass block but you need to be better than your opponent to run block. Again, I may be missing something here, but I think Funishment might just be being Funishment and twballgame is just being a twat...

It's pretty much a maxim of football that run blocking is far easier to teach than pass blocking, and that pass blocking is much more about technique. It's such a maxim that it doesn't really warrant further explanation.

Yeah, dtwalrus. What are you, a moron?

And before you go there, yes, Damien Woody pulling from center and zone blocking take skill. Sergeant Screamalot is not Alex Gibbs.

I need a ruling on whether that was really a Big Ben scenario

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:
I don't get it.... Again, I may be missing something here, but I think Funishment might just be being Funishment and twballgame is just being a twat...

I'll strip out some of the extraneous bits for you.

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:This may be naive, but is it easier to pass block than run block? I would think so. Pass blocking, especially in a zone scheme is largely about size, strength and technique. The fact that our OL bulked up over the off-season is probably a big part of that improvement.

But to run block, especially in a scheme that telegraphs the run, you need not only size, but dominant strength, technique, speed. I would think it just takes a little longer to develop into a run blocker, especially with all the pulls Daz likes to run.

Also, we utilize backs a lot to help in pass protection. A lot.

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:
I don't get it.... Again, I may be missing something here, but I think Funishment might just be being Funishment and twballgame is just being a twat...

I'll strip out some of the extraneous bits for you.

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:This may be naive, but is it easier to pass block than run block? I would think so. Pass blocking, especially in a zone scheme is largely about size, strength and technique. The fact that our OL bulked up over the off-season is probably a big part of that improvement.

But to run block, especially in a scheme that telegraphs the run, you need not only size, but dominant strength, technique, speed. I would think it just takes a little longer to develop into a run blocker, especially with all the pulls Daz likes to run.

Also, we utilize backs a lot to help in pass protection. A lot.

Thats what I assumed, Funishment. You didn't read the key word. Actually, you read it, but then you took the time to single that word out to be minimized. lol. I've fixed it above.

Let's just chalk this up to poor phrasing on my part and a simple misreading on your part. Save this squabble for a better cause...

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I need a ruling on whether that was really a Big Ben scenario

i think that ben showed up at just the right moment.

The OL was terrible last year. It has been much better this year. The challenge is that Addazio has had two bad OCs in a row who can't figure out what to do with the talent they have. Fitch would still be the OC if he had stuck with Jeff Smith in a simple read option scheme. Loeffler wants to run an old school, '80s Big Ten, pro style game with a pocket passer, but that doesn't really play to Towles strengths nor our overall talent.

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:The OL was terrible last year. It has been much better this year. The challenge is that Addazio has had two bad OCs in a row who can't figure out what to do with the talent they have. Fitch would still be the OC if he had stuck with Jeff Smith in a simple read option scheme. Loeffler wants to run an old school, '80s Big Ten, pro style game with a pocket passer, but that doesn't really play to Towles strengths nor our overall talent.

you should post at Eagle in Atlanta, they would love you there

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:The OL was terrible last year. It has been much better this year. The challenge is that Addazio has had two bad OCs in a row who can't figure out what to do with the talent they have. Fitch would still be the OC if he had stuck with Jeff Smith in a simple read option scheme. Loeffler wants to run an old school, '80s Big Ten, pro style game with a pocket passer, but that doesn't really play to Towles strengths nor our overall talent.

If this advice was followed, Jeff Smith would have died, and also the offense would have been terrible.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:The OL was terrible last year. It has been much better this year. The challenge is that Addazio has had two bad OCs in a row who can't figure out what to do with the talent they have. Fitch would still be the OC if he had stuck with Jeff Smith in a simple read option scheme. Loeffler wants to run an old school, '80s Big Ten, pro style game with a pocket passer, but that doesn't really play to Towles strengths nor our overall talent.

If this advice was followed, Jeff Smith would have died, and also the offense would have been terrible.

and sarge isn't brian kelly and this isn't notre dame

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:The OL was terrible last year. It has been much better this year. The challenge is that Addazio has had two bad OCs in a row who can't figure out what to do with the talent they have. Fitch would still be the OC if he had stuck with Jeff Smith in a simple read option scheme. Loeffler wants to run an old school, '80s Big Ten, pro style game with a pocket passer, but that doesn't really play to Towles strengths nor our overall talent.

If this advice was followed, Jeff Smith would have died, and also the offense would have been terrible.

Skinny fast QBs run the read option all of the time. And was there any room for the offense to be worse? Every big play last season came off of a read option by Smith, all 3 of them.

remember when those of you that used to eat the shit out of slaughter's ass and declare it a delicious chocolate ganache used to point out how at least sarge didn't get blown out? well maybe it's time to take his dick out of your mouths and realize this guy is the same level of snake oil salesman as the last mustachioed cartoon character that stole his head coach paycheck from our alma mater.

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:remember when those of you that used to eat the shit out of slaughter's ass and declare it a delicious chocolate ganache used to point out how at least sarge didn't get blown out? well maybe it's time to take his dick out of your mouths and realize this guy is the same level of snake oil salesman as the last mustachioed cartoon character that stole his head coach paycheck from our alma mater.

A little crudely written but you do make an excellent point. The pregame speech was the same nonsense. It hurts to watch.

Lat night was so depressing it was hard to get mad about anything other that Dabo's pooch kickoff when he was up 35.

It's time for Bates to finally #beadude and fire this guy. There is not a single aspect of his job that he does well. Plus, he looks like a moron and probably smells like a mix of BO and Drakkar.

angrychicken {l Wrote}:It's time for Bates to finally #beadude and fire this guy. There is not a single aspect of his job that he does well. Plus, he looks like a moron and probably smells like a mix of BO and Drakkar.

and oregano, I would guess

angrychicken {l Wrote}:It's time for Bates to finally #beadude and fire this guy. There is not a single aspect of his job that he does well. Plus, he looks like a moron and probably smells like a mix of BO and Drakkar.

Do you eat really want Bates's making another hire?

Nobody could be worse than Chris Crane.

hansen {l Wrote}:

angrychicken {l Wrote}:It's time for Bates to finally #beadude and fire this guy. There is not a single aspect of his job that he does well. Plus, he looks like a moron and probably smells like a mix of BO and Drakkar.

Do you eat really want Bates's making another hire?

Nobody could be worse than Chris Crane.

At this point, I'll take my chances.

angrychicken {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

angrychicken {l Wrote}:It's time for Bates to finally #beadude and fire this guy. There is not a single aspect of his job that he does well. Plus, he looks like a moron and probably smells like a mix of BO and Drakkar.

Do you eat really want Bates's making another hire?

Nobody could be worse than Chris Crane.

At this point, I'll take my chances.

Then he just keeps collecting a big BC check until November 2020 for doing nothing. He can buy a house in Hingham right next to Spaz and the two of them are laughing all the way to the bank (of course I certainly hope they aren't still paying Spaz but it wouldn't surprise me if they were.)

There is some dollar figure where Addazio remaining as the head coach is costing the school more money (in donations, ticket sales, concessions, whatever) than it would cost to just pay him to disappear and hire someone else to do his job for him. That is a huge number. I don't think they've hit that yet and until they do. I'm not sure Leahy and the BOT would approve of Bates pulling the trigger twice with such a heavily loaded up contract. Too much $$$$$$.

innocentbystander {l Wrote}:

angrychicken {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

angrychicken {l Wrote}:It's time for Bates to finally #beadude and fire this guy. There is not a single aspect of his job that he does well. Plus, he looks like a moron and probably smells like a mix of BO and Drakkar.

Do you eat really want Bates's making another hire?

Nobody could be worse than Chris Crane.

At this point, I'll take my chances.

Then he just keeps collecting a big BC check until November 2020 for doing nothing. He can buy a house in Hingham right next to Spaz and the two of them are laughing all the way to the bank (of course I certainly hope they aren't still paying Spaz but it wouldn't surprise me if they were.)

There is some dollar figure where Addazio remaining as the head coach is costing the school more money (in donations, ticket sales, concessions, whatever) than it would cost to just pay him to disappear and hire someone else to do his job for him. That is a huge number. I don't think they've hit that yet and until they do. I'm not sure Leahy and the BOT would approve of Bates pulling the trigger twice with such a heavily loaded up contract. Too much $$$$$$.

Nice guy Frank is no longer receiving checks from BC. waited until his contract ran out before taking the New Mexico State job he had a standing offer to take so he did not mitigate any of the money he "earned" as HC of BC.