• 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!

Duane Long (Blog Discussion)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
MililaniBuckeye;1499049; said:
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.



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"...
Click to expand...

7 of those top 9 are either freshman or sophomores. I think there has been an obvious upgrade in the talent the staff has brought in. If they still "under perform" I think the "more OL" train may pick up some steam.
 
Upvote 0
DontHateOState;1499091; said:
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.
Click to expand...

Solid points for sure, but to spur on some discussion, is tOSU really recruiting more 'Borens' or is the staff looking at a prototype and recruiting in that fashion? Im talking about the possible OT frame that is then pushed to other positions if needed. Sometimes a bull like Boren is needed...and he was recruited as such. Connor Smith may have had an effect on this philosophy since he has not panned out and cannot truly fit in multiple positions. Dunno, I see the logic, but the results are not fulfilling the promise right now.
 
Upvote 0
osugrad21;1499101; said:
Solid points for sure, but to spur on some discussion, is tOSU really recruiting more 'Borens' or is the staff looking at a prototype and recruiting in that fashion? Im talking about the possible OT frame that is then pushed to other positions if needed. Sometimes a bull like Boren is needed...and he was recruited as such. Connor Smith may have had an effect on this philosophy since he has not panned out and cannot truly fit in multiple positions. Dunno, I see the logic, but the results are not fulfilling the promise right now.
Click to expand...

It seems as if the staff had relatively good success cherry picking OL players over the past 2 years...perhaps this has made them even more confident in that approach? Overconfident perhaps?

One would tend to think that there has been some recruiting of "Boren's" recently (Shugarts and Brewster seem to have that attitude) and some recruiting of prototype frame (Adams). Which of those two categories would a Donnal fit into?

I agree the results aren't there though. On a side note, why is it that OL are the hardest group to gauge coming in? ....having said that, it seems we've missed quite a bit with defensive secondary, so perhaps we've struggled in a couple areas...but it seems the consensus is that OL recruiting is the biggest crapshoot. Curious to know why.
 
Upvote 0
It seems to me by what the staff recruited for our OL this past year and what the staff was telling our OL this spring that they have had a change in philosophy on the line: playing with a nasty/mean streak. If that means not going after the Rehrings of the recruiting world and instead going after the Brewsters, Mewhorts, & Norwells, I'm more than okay with that.

Bottom line is that I trust this staff and I'm happy as all get-out that we have enough scholarship OLs to field at least part of a 3-deep with scholarship players.
 
Upvote 0
osugrad21;1499101; said:
Solid points for sure, but to spur on some discussion, is tOSU really recruiting more 'Borens' or is the staff looking at a prototype and recruiting in that fashion? Im talking about the possible OT frame that is then pushed to other positions if needed. Sometimes a bull like Boren is needed...and he was recruited as such. Connor Smith may have had an effect on this philosophy since he has not panned out and cannot truly fit in multiple positions. Dunno, I see the logic, but the results are not fulfilling the promise right now.
Click to expand...

matcar;1499148; said:
It seems as if the staff had relatively good success cherry picking OL players over the past 2 years...perhaps this has made them even more confident in that approach? Overconfident perhaps?

One would tend to think that there has been some recruiting of "Boren's" recently (Shugarts and Brewster seem to have that attitude) and some recruiting of prototype frame (Adams). Which of those two categories would a Donnal fit into?

I agree the results aren't there though. On a side note, why is it that OL are the hardest group to gauge coming in? ....having said that, it seems we've missed quite a bit with defensive secondary, so perhaps we've struggled in a couple areas...but it seems the consensus is that OL recruiting is the biggest crapshoot. Curious to know why.
Click to expand...

Well, Duane has consistently argued for not recruiting HS guards, only tackles (to play guard and tackle in college). Along with the occasional HS tight end with the right frame to move to tackle (Fragel / Miller).

they seem to be going for athleticism more than power recently.

I think a guy like Hall and even Mewhort can come in and move down and be great pretty early. Some of the guys have big upside at tackle but will take time to develop (Longo, Fragel).
 
Upvote 0
DontHateOState;1499091; said:
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.
Click to expand...
Makes which "other kids more expendable"? My breakdown showed that even with 18 OL on scholarship, we'd had more than enough scholarships to adequately fill all other positions.

DontHateOState;1499091; said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which brings us back to the difficult nature of OL recruiting. You don't think that the staff thought when recruiting Person that he'd turn out better than he did? It would be great if a staff could magically foresee which OL prospects will become All-Americans and which will be busts before the staff even issues offers, but unfortuately that's not the case.
 
Upvote 0
osugrad21;1499374; said:
Do we really need tackles?

Written by Duane Long
Thursday, 16 July 2009 11:54
Click to expand...

This is a confusing title by Duane in relation to his blog content.

Initial responders think he is questioning do we still need to recruit tackles.
Far from it. He just doesn't like to see guys like Browning and Cordle forced to play tackle at tOSU.
Does tOSU need more tackles on campus right now? Heck yes, especially when you are talking "quality" tackles.

Even with Fragel moving in there, nothing proven yet. And Longo is two years of development away. Mewhort? I'll have to totally disagree with Duane on him. From what I've seen at the all tar games, I wouldn't want him at right tackle. I see feet that are too slow. I see a road grader that, once he locks on to you, you are usually toast. I think he moves well enough to pull at guard, though.

Having a guy like Cordle who can step in and play RT in a pinch is great.
Having to rely on a guy like Cordle to be the mainstay at RT is a bad thing.
I sure hope JB can get healthy and step in and be a real good RT. Last year showed that "well, he's the best option we've got right now" (re: Browning, Rehring) isn't good enough. And shouldn't be a situation that happens at tOSU.
 
Upvote 0
westbuck04;1499468; said:
It isn't official at all. BN reported that but, as usual, they were mis-informed. He will probably end up there, possibly this year, but he's a tight end for the moment.
Click to expand...

Fragel said he wanted to try to stay at TE, which means he will be given a shot there. I believe he ends up at tackle in any event.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1499381; said:
Makes which "other kids more expendable"?
Click to expand...

It makes other offensive linemen more expendable which doesn't necessarily lead to a higher quality of play. Just more linemen.

My breakdown showed that even with 18 OL on scholarship, we'd had more than enough scholarship]s to adequately fill all other positions
Click to expand...
Depends. Adequately for you, not necessarily adequately according to the staff's desire.

Which brings us back to the difficult nature of OL recruiting. You don't think that the staff thought when recruiting Person that he'd turn out better than he did? It would be great if a staff could magically foresee which OL prospects will become All-Americans and which will be busts before the staff even issues offers, but unfortuately that's not the case.
Click to expand...
Of course. But Person was not as highly thought of as about any of the linemen in the last two classes. Especially if you look at offer lists. Person's next biggest offer was Notre Dame, and then you get into BC, Stanford, and Pittsburgh. Considering ND's inability to put together anything resembling an offensive line in the past few years, I am not so sure that offer means much either.

The linemen in the last two classes have a deep pedigree of offers.

Ultimately, my point stands. Taking more linemen that may be less talented just for the sake of numbers is foolish. It is not as good of a fix as recruiting better linemen. Which Ohio State has in the last two years.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top