• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2010 tOSU Recruiting Discussion

jlb1705;1654237; said:
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?


First my disclaimer that I'm not hung up on the OL numbers like Duane Long and some others and you are absolutely correct in stating you have to take from one to add to another.

That said, if you are asking me to do a basic marginal cost vs marginal revenue problem between DB's and OL then I'm taking the marginal production from the OL 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.
 
Upvote 0
It's not as if the staff isn't trying to bring in offensive lineman, it's just that they aren't willing to settle for players they don't really want, especially when they feel confident about what we already have and about the potential in next year's class. Off the top of my head we offered: Hurst, Linder, Benedict, James, Hendersonk, Moses (if grades worked out), Green, and Norwell. It's not like we didn't try. And if the staff felt that some kids from Ohio didn't merit an offer, then I am going to trust their judgment. Furthermore, despite rampant (mostly justifiable) pessimism, we haven't lost Hendersonk yet. Likewise, of our three offers to 2011 offensive lineman, we seem highly likely to land two of them (Bennett and Walker), and that's only out of our three early offers. If 2013 rolls around and the O-line stinks I guess I'll eat my words, but I think we are going to be just fine.

P.S. To everyone complaining about 07 when all we got was Blankenship...Andrew Norwell is not Evan Blankenship. Also, getting just one that year was worse because in 06 we only brought in two (Browning and Smith, three counting Miller) and Smith didn't pan out. This year, we are bringing in one stud (maybe two), on top of four quality prospects last year. Again, we are going to be fine. For reference, during the three brutal years we have had to endure the Class of (only) Blankenship, we have finished #5/#4 (AP/Coaches'), #9/#11, and #5/#5. Next year many publications will rank us as pre-season #1. Everyone take a deep breath.
 
Upvote 0
This thread seems awfully negative on a day when several Buckeyes officially joined the family. Welcome aboard, guys. :osu2:
 
Upvote 0
osubartender23;1654242; said:
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.

Those scholarships that are going to walk-ons are not just in a pool that JT has secretly been holding on to though. They're getting offered to recruits who for one reason for another turn them down to go elsewhere. Or, they come from guys who transfer out after spring practice or otherwise find their way off the team. Typically those scholarships are offered to senior walk-ons, so they go back into the pool to be offered to recruits in the next class. In other words, I don't think those are truly "extra scholarships" is somehow not already trying to put to use.

Jaxbuck;1654245; said:
First my disclaimer that I'm not hung up on the OL numbers like Duane Long and some others and you are absolutely correct in stating you have to take from one to add to another.

That said, if you are asking me to do a basic marginal cost vs marginal revenue problem between DB's and OL then I'm taking the marginal production from the OL 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.

I was just using DBs as an example. If we're being specific about it though, I'm in favor of bringing in excess DBs over excess OL. I know the OL are important positions to solidify, but if you miss on a DB they can possibly help you elsewhere. You can slide a guy to LB, RB, WR... they can help you on special teams. If you miss on an OL, there aren't as many things you can do. I've read somewhere that the coaching staff thinks along these lines, and I'm inclined to agree. These days scholarships are at a premium. More teams are going to get impact players because the big boys can't get them all. One of the things that can keep Ohio State ahead of the pack is what they're able to get out of the guys they miss on.
 
Upvote 0
A grea day to be a Buckeye!

All the nay sayers are out in full force.. But most the guys I talk to are happy with who we got as a whole.. We are solid at DB and Receiver and picked up arguably the best running back in the country.
Not a lot of OL pickups (yet) finger crossed, but we got some quality players in my view..
Welcome to all the future Men of the Scarlet and Gray
No matter what you may say, I say it is a great day to be a Buckeye!
:oh:
 
Upvote 0
C-busBuck;1654284; said:
All the nay sayers are out in full force.. But most the guys I talk to are happy with who we got as a whole.. We are solid at DB and Receiver and picked up arguably the best running back in the country.
Not a lot of OL pickups (yet) finger crossed, but we got some quality players in my view..
Welcome to all the future Men of the Scarlet and Gray
No matter what you may say, I say it is a great day to be a Buckeye!
:oh:

AMEN!! :osu:

:io:
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch;1654169; said:
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).

amybuckeye;1654200; said:
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.

Buck94;1654217; said:
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.

I think you need 18 OL on scholarship. Reasoning is found here...
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1654294; said:
I think you need 18 OL on scholarship. Reasoning is found here...

Of course, nobody else on that thread agrees that 18 OL is a requirement of even desirable; the consensus is more like 15, as it seems to be in this thread as well. Going almost 4-deep is going to allocate a bunch of scholarships on guys who will likely never play and can't necessarily switch to other positions.
 
Upvote 0
3 deep is fine. 15 scholarship offensive lineman, if your luck is so bad that you need more then you're going to have to rely on walkons.

Well, as a caveat, I want 15-16 versatile offensive linemen. Guards that can play tackle and vice versa.
 
Upvote 0
Merih;1654301; said:
3 deep is fine. 15 scholarship offensive lineman, if your luck is so bad that you need more then you're going to have to rely on walkons.

Well, as a caveat, I want 15-16 versatile offensive linemen. Guards that can play tackle and vice versa.


I like the versatility angle and imo we've had a lot of that. What we have lacked (and still do to a degree) is the franchise type OT's and that's something the quantity side of the equation doesn't address.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck;1654309; said:
I like the versatility angle and imo we've had a lot of that. What we have lacked (and still do to a degree) is the franchise type OT's and that's something the quantity side of the equation doesn't address.

It doesn't help that our last two franchise left tackles haven't panned out, Boone was no better as a senior than he was as a true freshman because of off the field issues, and Adams isn't working out up to this point. We've signed the players, they just haven't come through.

That being said, between Shugarts and Hall (and possibly Norwell) I think we are set at RT for awhile. We just need a LT to pan out...
 
Upvote 0
So we keep signing big time guys on the OLine, but they just never seem to pan out. Is this a case that we just keep having bad luck and getting guys who peaked in high school? Or is it more likely that the staff just isn't developing these guys the way we do at other positions?
 
Upvote 0
Joe6809;1654322; said:
So we keep signing big time guys on the OLine, but they just never seem to pan out. Is this a case that we just keep having bad luck and getting guys who peaked in high school? Or is it more likely that the staff just isn't developing these guys the way we do at other positions?
Offensive line is a crapshoot when it comes to ranking guys out of college frankly... its the hardest position to project to the college level from Hs.
 
Upvote 0
Joe6809;1654322; said:
So we keep signing big time guys on the OLine, but they just never seem to pan out. Is this a case that we just keep having bad luck and getting guys who peaked in high school? Or is it more likely that the staff just isn't developing these guys the way we do at other positions?

Boone and Adam's problems have nothing to do with coaching.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top