Duane Long (Blog Discussion)

[cdiddy70]

discouraging 21.

I've not been overly critical of Bollman as a coach.
I have been of his recruiting, but the last 2 years have been solid, making this year not a "must year" in terms of OL #'s.
hopefully we can avoid the chinese fire drill that occurs when a starter misses time because of injury.

however, your statement reeks of a guy who has mailed in in terms of recruiting. i also am concerned about heacocks effort in recruiting. heacock has no out state recruiting resposibilty yet i was alrmed when he asked for DT's "highlight tape", and that recruit had already sent it in.

 

[zincfinger]

Is it Boll's choice to have fewer schlorship lineman? And if so can you please explain his reasoning.

Long had an interesting comment on this here. The basic idea is that at most positions, if a guy is not productive due to being too slow for the position (and/or becoming too big) you have the option of moving him to a bigger/slower position and getting some production from him. But since OL is the biggest/slowest position, this isn't an option for those guys, and so there are no alternatives for unproductive O-linemen. So whereas an unproductive corner might become a productive safety, an unproductive O-linemen just becomes a "wasted" scholarship.

 

[DontHateOState]

I mentioned in this thread that we should have around 18 OL on scholarship. Right now we have 14. That extra four schollies could find one more solid starter...

Right, but that's assuming the problem is numbers and competition. The opposite thesis is that Ohio State has been settling for less than talented linemen in the past which mere numbers won't correct. The talent level would have to be raised which means being pickier with scholarship offers.

And if Andrew Donnal's play was broken down on film, evaluated during camp, and yet he was still passed over for a scholarship, that should be an indicator that he may not be as good as Duane thinks he is.

I'm not necessarily against more numbers per se, but it's a leap of faith that pure numbers would churn out a better offensive line.

 

[FF08]

Fair well thought out response vegas.

I submit that my golden rule when projecting a player is productivity.

If a player isn't productive in H.S. his chances of being productive in college are remote.

I realize that you need a balance. Sammy Sausage may have been a helluva DT in HS but if is 5-9, 180 he doesn't project.

My gripe with some scouts is the fascination with measureables above prodictivity.

One nit. NFL scouts watching nearly every snap a kid takes and a crap-ton of practice film.

That's what the competent CFB staffs do too. I know a kid that had a good highlight clip from a service a few years ago. Vandy asked for a game tape. It came back with a note saying the kid was a good athlete but seemed unable to sustain an effort.

Duane has also not always changed his "measurables" as positions have evolved. I also don't agree with the way he's labeled some kids. But, he's usually an interesting read.

 

[matcar]

Long had an interesting comment on this here. The basic idea is that at most positions, if a guy is not productive due to being too slow for the position (and/or becoming too big) you have the option of moving him to a bigger/slower position and getting some production from him. But since OL is the biggest/slowest position, this isn't an option for those guys, and so there are no alternatives for unproductive O-linemen. So whereas an unproductive corner might become a productive safety, an unproductive O-linemen just becomes a "wasted" scholarship.

Yeah, but theoretically if you buy into the "move down" theory then Bollman should inherit some DLs that were too slow to play DL. If that's the case, one might argue he hasn't inherited enough. But that's a different story/tangent.

 

[osugrad21]

heacock has no out state recruiting resposibilty yet i was alrmed when he asked for DT's "highlight tape", and that recruit had already sent it in.

I would have to bet someone way down on the ladder caught it over that one. There is so much film sent into a football office that the GAs or whomever is assigned to that task naturally can get a little slack. I know this one personally...we had a prospect who blew up late after straightening out some early-career issues. Kid became a major D-1 prospect (eventually did not qualify and had to go JUCO but anyway..) We were sending out multiple films every day as the kid blew up. Finally we get a call from a 'local' D-1 coach asking why we never sent them any film or a heads up...we informed him they were sent the 1st film and multiple emails which were never acknowledged. The next day, at 7am, an Assistant was at the school to pick up the film...he said the HC blew a circuit at the entire staff from Coordinators to equipment managers over the mixup and threatened everyone's job over such slack recruiting organization. The poor assistant was a young guy and was scared to death...he got the film, talked for about 10 minutes, and got back on the road.

 

[coastalbuck]

I would have to bet someone way down on the ladder caught it over that one. There is so much film sent into a football office that the GAs or whomever is assigned to that task naturally can get a little slack. I know this one personally...we had a prospect who blew up late after straightening out some early-career issues. Kid became a major D-1 prospect (eventually did not qualify and had to go JUCO but anyway..) We were sending out multiple films every day as the kid blew up. Finally we get a call from a 'local' D-1 coach asking why we never sent them any film or a heads up...we informed him they were sent the 1st film and multiple emails which were never acknowledged. The next day, at 7am, an Assistant was at the school to pick up the film...he said the HC blew a circuit at the entire staff from Coordinators to equipment managers over the mixup and threatened everyone's job over such slack recruiting organization. The poor assistant was a young guy and was scared to death...he got the film, talked for about 10 minutes, and got back on the road.

How local? :)

 

[ant80]

I would have to bet someone way down on the ladder caught it over that one. There is so much film sent into a football office that the GAs or whomever is assigned to that task naturally can get a little slack. I know this one personally...we had a prospect who blew up late after straightening out some early-career issues. Kid became a major D-1 prospect (eventually did not qualify and had to go JUCO but anyway..) We were sending out multiple films every day as the kid blew up. Finally we get a call from a 'local' D-1 coach asking why we never sent them any film or a heads up...we informed him they were sent the 1st film and multiple emails which were never acknowledged. The next day, at 7am, an Assistant was at the school to pick up the film...he said the HC blew a circuit at the entire staff from Coordinators to equipment managers over the mixup and threatened everyone's job over such slack recruiting organization. The poor assistant was a young guy and was scared to death...he got the film, talked for about 10 minutes, and got back on the road.

An interesting anecdote, no doubt. When exactly did this happen? I mean, to what class did the prospect belong? The reason why I ask is, during times prior to recruiting services, this might be more frequent. However when there are recruiting services that do a fairly reasonable job, I would think that the staff would avail these services more often.

Let me clarify by saying I believe the coaches' evaluation is much much MUCH better than the services'. However, the services do a job that I would characterize as being "not bad." I would think that the staff would have someone to keep an eye out on the services page, to see who expresses interest that might be viable, and who that they don't know would be interested in their school, and who else the services rate highly. Now I'm not suggesting that the staff use the services' ratings without self evaluation, but just use them to figure out who they missed.

I don't think this kind of a thing is as acceptable anymore. If the coaches can send texts to recruit, this is a fairly simple process.

 

[osugrad21]

An interesting anecdote, no doubt. When exactly did this happen? I mean, to what class did the prospect belong? The reason why I ask is, during times prior to recruiting services, this might be more frequent. However when there are recruiting services that do a fairly reasonable job, I would think that the staff would avail these services more often.

Let me clarify by saying I believe the coaches' evaluation is much much MUCH better than the services'. However, the services do a job that I would characterize as being "not bad." I would think that the staff would have someone to keep an eye out on the services page, to see who expresses interest that might be viable, and who that they don't know would be interested in their school, and who else the services rate highly. Now I'm not suggesting that the staff use the services' ratings without self evaluation, but just use them to figure out who they missed.

I don't think this kind of a thing is as acceptable anymore. If the coaches can send texts to recruit, this is a fairly simple process.

This kid was never on any of the services until midway through his Senior year...a real salvage project that went from no hope to a slight chance to qualify. With the sites, again, that monitoring is usually a low level intern/GA type...and there is plenty of 'loopholes' that can be exploited with the services. A few years ago, I was personally told that if my player, a high 4-star rated recruit in the top 5 at his position ranking, did not attend a certain combine, he would not be considered for a post season all-star game. The more you give as a coach/player, the more exposure you receive. Many times, coaches personally contact sites to inform them of offers. Over time, I have found a few guys in the business that I trust completely...they do that networking for me or handle the stories personally. In return, we give them the scoop...

Also, texts are no longer legal.

 

[zincfinger]

Yeah, but theoretically if you buy into the "move down" theory then Bollman should inherit some DLs that were too slow to play DL.

From my reading of his description, "moving down" wouldn't be a predictable enough phenomenon that you could necessarily expect X number of additional O-linemen within some given time-frame. All you could reliably say from it is that O-linemen generally have the least positional versatility and that, arguably, a coaching staff might want to be extra selective in offering that position group, on that basis. But I think you raise a reasonable counter-point, inasmuch as it does predict some influx of O-linemen from other positions (and I can only think of Andy Miller, off the top of my head, and he was possibly viewed as being OL-bound from the outset).

 

[Taosman]

This has been a strange recruiting year for this staff to be sure.
First the Montana/QB thing.
Recently the TE thing.
And now this O line , and I'll call it a possible third bizarre situation.
Did the concentration on this young football team's Spring development really wreck the recruiting season? I have no idea.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Right, but that's assuming the problem is numbers and competition.

When you have 3-4 less OL than you otherwise can, the chances of missing out on a starting-caliber, or higher, lineman increases. Also, having more OL competing for the limited amount of playing time inherently increases competition and/or weeds out those less motivated or talented.

The opposite thesis is that Ohio State has been settling for less than talented linemen in the past which mere numbers won't correct.

The talent level would have to be raised which means being pickier with scholarship offers.

Look at the star ratings of the OL currently on scholarship (including the incoming 2009 class):

Adams 5
Brewster 5
Shugarts 5
C. Smith 5
Cordle 4
Hall 4
Linsley 4
Mewhort 4
Longo 3
Browning 3
Blankenship 3
Miller 3
Kerr 2 (signed LOI to "Da U" in 2004 before schollie was pulled)

And our only OL commit for the 2010 class is 5-star Norwell. So I'd say talent-wise, at least from what was evaluated while these OL were still in HS, we fared pretty well. But, as pointed out earlier, OL is the hardest to get right in terms of evaluating talent. Browning (3*) is starting whilst Smith (5*) hardly plays, which is a good example of the hit-and-miss nature of picking OL. Thus, the more OL you can take, the better your chances of getting that extra "hit"...

 

[ant80]

This kid was never on any of the services until midway through his Senior year...a real salvage project that went from no hope to a slight chance to qualify. With the sites, again, that monitoring is usually a low level intern/GA type...and there is plenty of 'loopholes' that can be exploited with the services. A few years ago, I was personally told that if my player, a high 4-star rated recruit in the top 5 at his position ranking, did not attend a certain combine, he would not be considered for a post season all-star game. The more you give as a coach/player, the more exposure you receive. Many times, coaches personally contact sites to inform them of offers. Over time, I have found a few guys in the business that I trust completely...they do that networking for me or handle the stories personally. In return, we give them the scoop...

Also, texts are no longer legal.

All of which cost a truckload of money I assume? Thanks for the info Grad. That's illuminating.

One point though. I thought the services had their own scouts and didn't rely on the coaches to sometimes inform them of the offers. Very surprised at this. Wouldn't that be illegal under the "can't comment on unsigned players" rule? Or is it done privately in such a way that there is a tacit understanding between the services and the coaches that the services say they found out about the offer themselves?

 

[osugrad21]

One point though. I thought the services had their own scouts and didn't rely on the coaches to sometimes inform them of the offers. Very surprised at this. Wouldn't that be illegal under the "can't comment on unsigned players" rule? Or is it done privately in such a way that there is a tacit understanding between the services and the coaches that the services say they found out about the offer themselves?

That rule is for the college coaches...part of a HS coach's job is to get that exposure. I was referring to HS coaches contacting site guys to inform them of offers...however, I do know it also happens from college staffs under the agreement you mentioned.

 

[DontHateOState]

When you have 3-4 less OL than you otherwise can, the chances of missing out on a starting-caliber, or higher, lineman increases. Also, having more OL competing for the limited amount of playing time inherently increases competition and/or weeds out those less motivated or talented.

Again, this isn't an argument against more numbers per se. It isn't signing day, and we don't know how many are in this class yet so it is very hard to judge numbers in July.

The issue I have is with people getting jumpy over Ohio State passing on kids like Donnal. Even when they worked with him at camp, and have spent plenty of time evaluating him. That should be a pretty clear sign that they don't like him that much.

Having three more kids is only going to make other kids more expendable, not necessarily upgrading the talent level overall. Unless you are bringing in talented kids, you are just using up scholarship space. I know that having another Person on the roster wasn't the answer to the interior line last season. But having a Boren play instead of a Person would have been pretty fantastic. The staff seems to be looking for more Borens than projects which Donnal seems to be.