forums

Is it possible that the OL problem is...

SayWhat said:
While this is true, all I can remember was you posting how our OL was 9x.xx something while Clemson was xx.xx and so on.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm talking about. A few years ago, OL was Clemson's weakness. They were outstanding in the title game this year with a moderately recruited group. They still haven't had an OL drafted in years and I don't believe they currently have a guy in the NFL (we have five players who started games this year).

The Clemson OL succeeds with scheme, coaching and collective experience. The scary thing is that their OL recruiting is finally catching up to the rest of the team.
 
Advertisement
I don't like to question the intelligence of players, but something does look mighty off there. I watch Wisconsin play and it makes me sick to my stomach.
 
DMoney said:
That's exactly what I'm talking about. A few years ago, OL was Clemson's weakness. They were outstanding in the title game this year with a moderately recruited group. They still haven't had an OL drafted in years and I don't believe they currently have a guy in the NFL (we have five players who started games this year).

The Clemson OL succeeds with scheme, coaching and collective experience. The scary thing is that their OL recruiting is finally catching up to the rest of the team.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with you here, but two comments: we should remember that talent for college purposes may be different from talent for nfl proposes. There are guys who are great cfb players whose ceiling isnt nfl. Gino Torretta was one. Joaquin Gonzalez. If we keep measuring talent by reference to the few kids who make the nfl, and it isn’t translating on field, then maybe we are just defining and measuring poorly, all else aside.

Second, depth matters a lot. You mention collective experience. Also sheer competitive pressure. We have had anemic depth on the OL for ages.
 
Back
Top