2010 tOSU Recruiting Discussion

[Woody1968]

Only having 1 OL does hurt if it comes to pass. It's obvious the staff wanted 3, as they were/are seriously in the game for James, Henderson and Moses. Now there is still Moses and Henderson to go but being completely honest, I just don't see Henderson coming here now despite what I've been told. The only reason I trusted TP would come to OSU in '08 was because of the momentum, which is non existent in this class. Now if we miss Henderson and Moses doesn't make the grades, then yes, the number is too low and it could come back to haunt us. I agree getting the 4 we got last year helps, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see one or even two of the Block O leave early if we win it all next year (and I'm not throwing a shot in the dark). Plus with potential injuries considered, 1 OL is just not enough.

I think the staff would be happy with just 1 more OL, because they seem to really be going after the real studs. If they wanted to have more than 1 or 2, they would have gone after some lower ranked recruits, which I expect them to do next year, when the need is more imperative.

 

[Oh8ch]

All the lamentations in regard to OL recruiting are a bit premature until Henderson and Hendersonk sign, but -

1. We have as talented and young an OL right now as I can recall.

2. In the past the staff has said they like to carry around 14 OL. With no further commits the number of OL schollies for 2010 will be at 13 plus Boren and McQuaide (who I believe is a year to year situation).

3. Any incoming recruits would have to have the talent level of a Henderson to seriously compete for PT this year and perhaps next. OSU is NOT an attractive school for OL prospects right now.

4. Clearly OSU has missed on some prime targets. But IMO they were the right targets.

5. The answer to any OL problems is NOT bodies. Never has been bodies. Never will be. You can sit outside Chipotles any day of the week and find any number of slow, fat kids to walk on.

6. Anybody who has followed recruiting for any length of time and believes that one or two additional players are critical to any position has not been paying attention. Signing a couple of kids from the next tier would create a far worse problem than missing on Moses and James.

7. If we whiff on Henderson we clearly will not have met our targets for OL in this class. But we are miles - and at least two years - from it being any kind of significant problem. I am more concerned about landing a difference maker in the secondary than I am about the OL.

8. Some folks are already starting to write this class off. Scout has us 18th right now - but that is based largely on class size. Rank them by average rating and we are 8th. This is not shaping up to be a "great" class. It is certainly not a problem class.

 

[jwinslow]

They're not happy with just 1, but they obviously aren't worried about moving forward with only 1, or they would have pursued someone else this week (if not long ago) given the uncertainty surrounding all of their targets.

 

[buckeyesin07]

All the lamentations in regard to OL recruiting are a bit premature until Henderson and Hendersonk sign, but -

GPA.

 

[ArmyVet83]

They're not happy with just 1, but they obviously aren't worried about moving forward with only 1, or they would have pursued someone else this week (if not long ago) given the uncertainty surrounding all of their targets.

Could it mean the staff is confident about Henderson or accepting the fact that next year we'll have to restock the shelves?

 

[Jake]

Her is a fun little exercise.

Construct a 2 deep OL for the year 2012.

Here is a hint - a decent OL should rely on kids who currently have another year of hs ball to play.

We're doomed!

 

[Gatorubet]

Word is we never sent him the LOI package, so that means you or Kiffin.

 

[Gatorubet]

Let me add, that I'd like to pour battery acid down Todd McShay's throat.

 

[amybuckeye]

8. Some folks are already starting to write this class off. Scout has us 18th right now - but that is based largely on class size. Rank them by average rating and we are 8th. This is not shaping up to be a "great" class. It is certainly not a problem class.

Agreed, higher rating based on class size is very overrated. Quantity over Quality.

13-14 O-lineman as a target number is not enough in my opinion. Injuries/attrition/off-field issues are not taken into account with that number.

 

[RB07OSU]

Let me add, that I'd like to pour battery acid down Todd McShay's throat.

Let's do it. Btw, since you refuse to gloat, I'll do it for you...Florida has the sickest class I've ever seen.

They're not happy with just 1, but they obviously aren't worried about moving forward with only 1, or they would have pursued someone else this week (if not long ago) given the uncertainty surrounding all of their targets.

Good point but I think we were earlier with the guy from Illinois and contact with Schoefner, but it seemed they liked where they were at with the other 3 and didn't extend the offers. NLOI week is just too late to find a diamond in the rough to offer. I feel if these guys decided earlier, we likely would have tried to get 2 more.

I think the staff would be happy with just 1 more OL, because they seem to really be going after the real studs. If they wanted to have more than 1 or 2, they would have gone after some lower ranked recruits, which I expect them to do next year, when the need is more imperative.

I don't think they'll be happy but I do agree that we'll pepper the OL with offers in '11. We definetly need 4 in '11.

 

[Steve19]

It's not the tension of waiting, it's what you do with it.

 

[Buck94]

13-14 O-lineman as a target number is not enough in my opinion. Injuries/attrition/off-field issues are not taken into account with that number.

If you follow the pair and a spare approach, then you would need 15 O-linemen on the roster. So, 13-14 is not too far off. Also, that 12-15th lineman is basically filler for the scout team. So, having +/- 1 lineman is not big deal and I am not sure how it would impact the win-loss column.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Agreed, higher rating based on class size is very overrated. Quantity over Quality.

I agree to a point but you need a certain amount of quantity because no matter how good the quality looks coming out of HS you just never know.

13-14 O-lineman as a target number is not enough in my opinion. Injuries/attrition/off-field issues are not taken into account with that number.

Agreed.

My only concern with the 1 (maybe 2) OL haul situation is the pressure it puts on them to have a good OL recruiting class next year.

It really becomes an extension of the downside to Tresselball in a way, limiting your margin for error when you don't really need to do so. I'm sure Tress looks at it as reducing risk (all your eggs in a couple of baskets because you know the baskets so well), I look at it as taking unnecessary risk (diversify away all the risk you can because something always goes wrong).

To each his own I guess.

 

[jlb1705]

OK, suppose one thinks that the Buckeyes have taken too few OL over the years. Wouldn't it follow then that they've taken an excess in another area? What area would that be? Has that position group benefitted from having the extra bodies?

Let's say the team has been taking an excess of DBs at the expense of the OL. What happens if you take those roster spots away from DBs and put them on the OL? You might have a better chance of improving your OL but maybe a lower chance of having a solid group of DBs. I think people are taking the other side of this thing for granted. What happens to the DB group if the scholarships that went to guys like Jenkins, Youboty & Chekwa went to OL? Compound that situation with the loss of guys like the Underwood brothers and Clifford, and guys like Ginn and Gonzo going over to the other side of the ball (didn't the conventional recruiting wisdom have both of those guys as DBs?)

It's really easy to say that you'd bring in more scholarship OL as if it occurs in a vacuum, but in reality where are those spots coming from? How would that affect other units on the team? How would it affect the team's chances to win games, beat M*ch*g*n and go to BCS bowls?

 

[osubartender23]

OK, suppose one thinks that the Buckeyes have taken too few OL over the years. Wouldn't it follow then that they've taken an excess in another area? What area would that be? Has that position group benefitted from having the extra bodies?

I dont think you can necessarily look at it like you would be taking extra bodies from other areas. It seems as if every year there are a few left over scholarships on NSD that go unfilled by incoming recruits, that are given to existing walk ons. Now if those scholarships are used on the positions that they are being used to recruit, then you arent taking any scholarships away from anywhere. You just arent using them on walk-ons.