OL "experience" ....

[dawgduice]

I did not realize until the other day that BC played an ALL SENIOR OL last year. I kind of wondered how they could run the ball on us so well. So, I guess experience / size / strength count for something, especially for an OL. It actually gives me hope we will be better this year

 

[BOSCO2]

I did not realize until the other day that BC played an ALL SENIOR OL last year. I kind of wondered how they could run the ball on us so well. So, I guess experience / size / strength count for something, especially for an OL. It actually gives me hope we will be better this year

Not you, but I'm amazed at the number of people on this board that seem to be of the opinion that this year's OL will not perform any better than last year's. Bigger, faster, stronger and experienced translates to major improvement. We started almost every game with 2 guys that were little over a year out of high school, along with another guy that is a converted DT. Can't help but get better.

 

[GregInPitt]

Not you, but I'm amazed at the number of people on this board that seem to be of the opinion that this year's OL will not perform any better than last year's. Bigger, faster, stronger and experienced translates to major improvement. We started almost every game with 2 guys that were little over a year out of high school, along with another guy that is a converted DT. Can't help but get better.

Exactly. A great running back looks great from his first carry (i.e. if the OL gives him room to run) but almost every linemen needs time (years) to develop. And most of our OLinemen were not they type of kids that were ready to play coming out of H.S. or even as RS freshmen. Losing Smith will hurt, but will be more than made up by the experience of the other linemen that played last year. And then when you add in Riehner, a very experienced player, the interior line should be at a minimum average.

To me the wild card will be Palmer. He looked much bigger and stronger at LFL, and if he is indeed the best JUCO OT in this class he should develop an understanding of the offense in the first few games and be ready to contribute to a much improved OL by the time conference play begins.

Another contributor to the OL play could be better running back play. Belton was a below average back and Lynch although better than Belton was not a Curt Warner or LJ or any of the other great RB's that we took for granted in the last 40 years. If Barkley or one of the other freshmen has the goods to make plays in the running game, taking small seams and making defenders miss, turning what have been short gains into 1st downs, then pass blocking will get easier as well. Last year we had no running game and the front 7 from our opponents just came at Hack relentlessly. Once they are forced to respect the run the whole offense will look much better.....

 

[blion72]

while the OL was a clear weak area last year, the RB situation was not helpful. Zack, who was the power back went down v tOSU, although he had a hard time with this OL. Bill was talented, but not great. It took the staff a while to settle on the fact that Akeel was the best pure RB they had - although Bill as a receiver was superior. When Bill started to get hurt I thought we might see one of last year's FR RB = Scott or Thomas. Maybe they were not as good as Bill even hurt.

the OL had some experience if you look at their age, but many were under developed in other ways. I am still not sure re the OL.

 

[bjf1984]

I did not realize until the other day that BC played an ALL SENIOR OL last year. I kind of wondered how they could run the ball on us so well. So, I guess experience / size / strength count for something, especially for an OL. It actually gives me hope we will be better this year

Last year, PSU's starting offensive line had ZERO seniors (remember, D Smith was a redshirt junior who left early). For 2015, the projected offensive line has just one senior (Mangiro)

Starting B1G offensive lines (not including PSU), 13 teams X 5 starters per team = 65:

Senior Eligibility (29/65): 5th year seniors - 25, 4th years seniors - 4
Junior Eligibility (21/65): 4th year juniors - 20, 3rd year juniors - 1
Sophomore Eligibility (12/65): 3rd year sophomores - 10, 2nd year sophomores - 2
Freshman Eligibility (1/65): 2nd year freshmen - 1

45% Senior eligibility
75% AT LEAST in their 4th year
Only 7 of the projected 65 starters in the B1G DID NOT take a redshirt year (even the crappy teams redshirt their offensive linemen - as a rule).

PSU will not have a normal B1G offensive line depth chart until at least 2017.
Until the offensive line in comprised primarily of 4th and 5th year guys who took a redshirt to start their careers (and those guys are being "pushed" by third and fourth year guys), it is going to be a real uphill battle to compete on offense.

2015 will certainly be closer to normal than 2014, and 2016 closer still.....but this was never going to be a quick fix - it just wasn't possible.


I

 

[BlueBand]

Not you, but I'm amazed at the number of people on this board that seem to be of the opinion that this year's OL will not perform any better than last year's. Bigger, faster, stronger and experienced translates to major improvement. We started almost every game with 2 guys that were little over a year out of high school, along with another guy that is a converted DT. Can't help but get better.

And what makes you think they are bigger, faster, stronger? Other than Paris at LFL, who showed obvious change from when he enrolled.

The reason people (myself included) are so cautious in their expectations is 1.) the line showed little to no improvement as the season progressed. Arguably, they got worse, but that could have just been stronger competition. 2.) they showed no to little improvement in the bowl game (without Dieffenbach), 3.) they showed no to little improvement in the B/W game (yes, our D is talented again--we hope--but so are some of the teams we play), 4.) no indication from the coaches or reporters that the line has shown major improvement in spring.

Now maybe all the work in the weight room, and a year in the system, and the addition of depth and some competition at positions will help. Normally it would. But 1.) we have no evidence yet that it has, leading some to question if the players we have just don't have it, and 2.) we were SO BAD last year that a tremendous improvement could still result in a below average to average line.

I hope they are better. I feel bad for the guys, I know they're taking heat and were put in a position that was not their fault. But as much as I want to wear my blue and white glasses, I don't want to set myself up for disappointment this fall if they don't perform, when I have virtually nothing to grasp onto other than "they couldn't be worse."

 

[VaNtyLion]

Not you, but I'm amazed at the number of people on this board that seem to be of the opinion that this year's OL will not perform any better than last year's. Bigger, faster, stronger and experienced translates to major improvement. We started almost every game with 2 guys that were little over a year out of high school, along with another guy that is a converted DT. Can't help but get better.

I still go back to the very noticeable improvement in the OL from the last game of the season to a bowl game as reason to be fairly optimistic about this season's OL. We went through a very rough stretch last year where the OL was under the microscope and I think things were snowballing on them. When they had the time to step back, wipe the slate clean and focus on practice and development, we saw a pretty significant improvement against a BC team that was better than at least 4 of the 6 teams that beat us.

Hack's performance in that game with the improved OL (34/50 for 370 yds, 4TD, 0 interceptions and sacked only twice) and Lynch going for 75 yds on 14 carries should not be understated too. This year's offense has an exceptional pool of talent at the QB/WR/TE positions and I love Lynch as the feature back.

 

[ejb25]

The OL did show improvement for the Bowl Game against a good BC Defense. This is why everyone is hopeful. We had no depth last year, which takes a toll as the season progresses. Our OL was able to show major improvement against a good BC Defense once they were rested physically and mentally.

 

[mickey_PSU]

If you go back and watch all the games, you will see improvement from game to game. The competition had something to do with the fact that it wasn't as evident as it actually was. Also, it was 2 converted DTs, not 1 (Dowrey and Gaia) in the Bowl game. Add to that, Donovan Smith played most of the season with injuries that would have sidelined him had we had any depth.

In the Ohio State game, the drive where we tied the game (as I recall, it was a long drive, starting inside our own 20) was without D.Smith. The Bowl game was played, at least for 3 quarters, without Dieffenbach. This past season, guys like Nelson, Gaia, Dowrey, Mahon, Laurent and obviously Mangiro got lots of experience. We're adding Riehner (5th year Sr.) and Palmer (JUCO) so already there's more experience going into the upcoming season.

BTW, an old coach held near and dear to us used to say "You either get better or worse, you never stay the same" or something like that- I'll go with the "get better".

BTW no. 2, do not assume Palmer will be the guy at LT- do a little research on Chance Surrell, he was an extremely highly touted kid until an injury derailed him a bit. He's overcome the injury and he may just be one of those rarer kids who plays earlier in his career than most.

 

[GuStHeCaT]

2014 was the perfect OL storm, inexperience plus lack of depth due to the sanctions. There was no two-deep, as Dief missed most of the season and only two backups got meaningful snaps, one of whom (Laurent) was only the result of D. Smith getting hurt. So not only did the OL lack experience, they were dead tired as there were no subs to give them a breather. I think fatigue was a major factor as the season dragged on and the same five guys were taking 95% or more of the snaps.

So if for no other reason than actually having a true two-deep and having backups that can play for a few series the OL should be better able to avoid the sloppy mistakes and excessively cautious play that occurs when exhaustion has set in. Not to mention I think there's certainly enough talent there to see improvement based on the steep learning curve of last fall.

 

[dawgduice]

Well, I think we will be better across the board on offense, including the OL. The OL is bigger and stronger, natural growth and conditioning makes that happen. And a year of experience helps with understanding, teamwork and footwork. I am now VERY optimistic
We will get to know right away against Temple.

 

[bjf1984]

Which of these guys is gonna' win more battles in the trenches?

And that is just the difference from a fresh recruit - to the end of his RS Freshman season.

Imagine a group of 5 guys with 3 or 4 years of college experience/training/maturity.....vs 5 guys still wet behind the ears.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Biggest growth in college OL is going into their junior year or second year starting. It takes 2-3 years for most HS OL to fill out properly. It also takes a full year IMO for the OL to see everything. Last year you had 4 new starters in their first year of a new scheme. That simply is not s recipe for success. Look how long it took OSU's OL to gel last year. 8 games in before it really clicked. PSU should be a bit better this year. Not dominant, but they should be better.

 

[mickey_PSU]

I can't recall the year but we crushed Wisconsin when they had an extremely young line, the score was 48 - 7 or something like that. I mention this because 4 of the 5 starting lineman in that game were drafted and started in the NFL. I'm terrible with names so I couldn't tell you who the 4 were but if you go back to the season we beat them by the score I just mentioned, than go back and find out who their starting lineman were in that game, you'll see. Age and experience are critical to the success of an offensive line. Further, the rest of the offense only goes as far as the offensive line, no matter how great the QB, TEs, RBs and WRs are. While I hadn't noticed it before, all last season I heard guys like Troy Aikman, Ron Jaworski and Phil Simms talk about how important a good offensive line is to a QB. What they said made sense but because I never paid enough attention to it (until our offensive line woes last year), I didn't pick up on the importance of that unit.

 

[lionroar88]

The coaches HAVE stated that the OL is much improved over where they were a year ago, not sure where people are getting that the coaches haven't stated this.

Also, last year there were 2 DL playing OL for the first time, we lost our best blocking RB during the 1st QTR of the first game, and our best OL was injured for the first 9 games of the season............

 

[BBrown]

And what makes you think they are bigger, faster, stronger? Other than Paris at LFL, who showed obvious change from when he enrolled.

The reason people (myself included) are so cautious in their expectations is 1.) the line showed little to no improvement as the season progressed. Arguably, they got worse, but that could have just been stronger competition. 2.) they showed no to little improvement in the bowl game (without Dieffenbach), 3.) they showed no to little improvement in the B/W game (yes, our D is talented again--we hope--but so are some of the teams we play), 4.) no indication from the coaches or reporters that the line has shown major improvement in spring.

Now maybe all the work in the weight room, and a year in the system, and the addition of depth and some competition at positions will help. Normally it would. But 1.) we have no evidence yet that it has, leading some to question if the players we have just don't have it, and 2.) we were SO BAD last year that a tremendous improvement could still result in a below average to average line.

I hope they are better. I feel bad for the guys, I know they're taking heat and were put in a position that was not their fault. But as much as I want to wear my blue and white glasses, I don't want to set myself up for disappointment this fall if they don't perform, when I have virtually nothing to grasp onto other than "they couldn't be worse."

I get what your saying but I disagree with some of it. I think there was improvement in the bowl game, remember BC had the #11 defense in the country and gave FSU and Clemson all they could handle.

INMO one of the big reasons we saw little improvement is that I don't think those guys got a chance to practice much at their positions.
They were so thin and had injuries that they couldn't go full bore in practice during the season and were usually playing out of position.
Dowrey had that wrist issue that was pretty bad and he gutted out the entire year. Alosi was kicked off the team right before fall practice started so losing both DIff and Alosi was HUGE.
Plus I don't think the RB's, TE's or WR's did the O-line any favors. Often times there were holes or the ends were sealed and the backs didn't see them or tripped.
Those are just a few of the reasons I think we will be better.

And frankly we don't have to be much better just a slight improvement would be the difference of 1 or 2 games.

 

[Madsol]

And what makes you think they are bigger, faster, stronger? Other than Paris at LFL, who showed obvious change from when he enrolled.

The reason people (myself included) are so cautious in their expectations is 1.) the line showed little to no improvement as the season progressed. Arguably, they got worse, but that could have just been stronger competition. 2.) they showed no to little improvement in the bowl game (without Dieffenbach), 3.) they showed no to little improvement in the B/W game (yes, our D is talented again--we hope--but so are some of the teams we play), 4.) no indication from the coaches or reporters that the line has shown major improvement in spring.

Now maybe all the work in the weight room, and a year in the system, and the addition of depth and some competition at positions will help. Normally it would. But 1.) we have no evidence yet that it has, leading some to question if the players we have just don't have it, and 2.) we were SO BAD last year that a tremendous improvement could still result in a below average to average line.

I hope they are better. I feel bad for the guys, I know they're taking heat and were put in a position that was not their fault. But as much as I want to wear my blue and white glasses, I don't want to set myself up for disappointment this fall if they don't perform, when I have virtually nothing to grasp onto other than "they couldn't be worse."

Sorry, but I just don't see how you could have watched the bowl game and come to this conclusion. The offense as a whole looked much more composed and collected in the bowl game and much if not most of that has to be attributed to the line. Even when Dieffenbach went down, they still performed at an acceptable level. I don't know exactly how that will translate to this year but it is a very promising sign IMHO and you improperly discounted it as a reason for optimism.

 

[BBrown]

Sorry, but I just don't see how you could have watched the bowl game and come to this conclusion. The offense as a whole looked much more composed and collected in the bowl game and much if not most of that has to be attributed to the line. Even when Dieffenbach went down, they still performed at an acceptable level. I don't know exactly how that will translate to this year but it is a very promising sign IMHO and you improperly discounted it as a reason for optimism.

Agree if you want to see improvement watch the rerun the BTN had of the Rutgers game and then watch our bowl game.
I did that the other night and it was HUGE. We were much, much better against BC and they were a much better Defensive team than
RU was. BC was better than MD, Illinois and maybe even Michigan.

 

[CappyToCJF]

The coaches HAVE stated that the OL is much improved over where they were a year ago, not sure where people are getting that the coaches haven't stated this.

Also, last year there were 2 DL playing OL for the first time, we lost our best blocking RB during the 1st QTR of the first game, and our best OL was injured for the first 9 games of the season............

Those two DT's that switched to OL played lots of OL in high school, and had a full year to transition. Not ideal, and by no means do I want to imply that they could hit the ground running, but the real problem was that they were not top talent so begin with as OL recruits. They were likely projected as college DT's due to the fact they were smaller framed and quicker. I give the two guys all the credit for helping the team by moving to OL, and am rooting for them to continue getting stronger, better, and more comfortable at Guard. Wouldn't it be sweet if one or both end up as All-B10 at the end of their senior season??? Gaia and Downey should be considered among those that sacrificed to save the program, as they made big sacrifices in changing positions, a direct result of the sanctions.

 

[Madsol]

Those two DT's that switched to OL played lots of OL in high school, and had a full year to transition. Not ideal, and by no means do I want to imply that they could hit the ground running, but the real problem was that they were not top talent so begin with as OL recruits. They were likely projected as college DT's due to the fact they were smaller framed and quicker. I give the two guys all the credit for helping the team by moving to OL, and am rooting for them to continue getting stronger, better, and more comfortable at Guard. Wouldn't it be sweet if one or both end up as All-B10 at the end of their senior season??? Gaia and Downey should be considered among those that sacrificed to save the program, as they made big sacrifices in changing positions, a direct result of the sanctions.

Is this correct? If they had a full year to transition, that means they would have played OL during the 2013 season as well. I don't believe that's correct. I don't remember excatly when they moved, but I think it was after Franklin was hired.

 

[BBrown]

Those two DT's that switched to OL played lots of OL in high school, and had a full year to transition. Not ideal, and by no means do I want to imply that they could hit the ground running, but the real problem was that they were not top talent so begin with as OL recruits. They were likely projected as college DT's due to the fact they were smaller framed and quicker. I give the two guys all the credit for helping the team by moving to OL, and am rooting for them to continue getting stronger, better, and more comfortable at Guard. Wouldn't it be sweet if one or both end up as All-B10 at the end of their senior season??? Gaia and Downey should be considered among those that sacrificed to save the program, as they made big sacrifices in changing positions, a direct result of the sanctions.

I dont think thats correct I'm pretty sure the switch happened for both of them after Franklin was hired.
and Gaia was (according to ESPN) ranked as one of the top 25 guards coming out of Highschool.

Heres the info for DD, apparently he switched even later than Gaia did...

After spending his initial two seasons on the defensive line, Derek Dowrey shifted to the offensive line during spring drills to increase the talent and depth at the guard position.

 

[dawgduice]

Biggest growth in college OL is going into their junior year or second year starting. It takes 2-3 years for most HS OL to fill out properly. It also takes a full year IMO for the OL to see everything. Last year you had 4 new starters in their first year of a new scheme. That simply is not s recipe for success. Look how long it took OSU's OL to gel last year. 8 games in before it really clicked. PSU should be a bit better this year. Not dominant, but they should be better.

Good point about the OSU line and "gelling". BUT, on their two deep 7 of the 10 had been in the OSU program for 3 years. So they were physically ready. Our guys were "kids" in every way.
We are at least 2 years away from the level of depth at OSU.

 

[mickey_PSU]

Those two DT's that switched to OL played lots of OL in high school, and had a full year to transition. Not ideal, and by no means do I want to imply that they could hit the ground running, but the real problem was that they were not top talent so begin with as OL recruits. They were likely projected as college DT's due to the fact they were smaller framed and quicker. I give the two guys all the credit for helping the team by moving to OL, and am rooting for them to continue getting stronger, better, and more comfortable at Guard. Wouldn't it be sweet if one or both end up as All-B10 at the end of their senior season??? Gaia and Downey should be considered among those that sacrificed to save the program, as they made big sacrifices in changing positions, a direct result of the sanctions.

I'd argue further that HS coaching is nowhere as good as D1 college coaching. I'd also note that both Gaia and Dowrey didn't get moved to the OL until the spring, only about 5 or 6 months before the season. I could be wrong, but they were both 3*s but working as a DT is much different than an OL and the adjustment had to be really difficult. As has already been mentioned, the other starters were 2 RS Frosh- definitely not ideal in anyone's book. We'll still be relatively young in 15' but I agree with all those who said all you have to do is watch the Bowl game to get a little optimistic about the line this year.

 

[lionroar88]

Playing OL in HS is no where near what it is on college, and both hadn't played OL in over a year - so they were basically relearning blocking techniques and foot work and learning to play OL alongside other inexperienced OL (no one there to help if blocking broke down, or to lend advice - mentor). It is totally different having someone 'senior' providing tips during practice vs having a more senior OL who can 'coach' during the game.

 

[bwifan]

The OL definetly was much better in the bowl game than the last regular season game. Most of the improvement was practice and repitition and probably a little getting healthy. Why it was soooooooo important when PSU was allowed to play in bowl games again. It allowed starters and young freshmen all those extra practices and repititions that really allow for their development. I don't think it can be stated strong enough how much those extra practices help teams. The rich get richer if you will.... Very important for programs to keep a healthy pipeline of young players developing coming up through the ranks.

 

[Madsol]

The OL definetly was much better in the bowl game than the last regular season game. Most of the improvement was practice and repitition and probably a little getting healthy. Why it was soooooooo important when PSU was allowed to play in bowl games again. It allowed starters and young freshmen all those extra practices and repititions that really allow for their development. I don't think it can be stated strong enough how much those extra practices help teams. The rich get richer if you will.... Very important for programs to keep a healthy pipeline of young players developing coming up through the ranks.

I remember one very, very, very, very (enough modifiers?) vocal poster here and on TOS who laughed at anyone who dared to suggest that the extra practices would be beneficial. The fact that it was this particular poster saying it just reinforced my belief that the practices were really important. I think the bowl performance bore that out.

 

[bwifan]

I know several coaches in D-2/D-3 with the ncaa playoffs... they will tell you straight even 1-2 extra weeks of practice while playing in the playoffs or a ecac bowl game is huge for the kids development. In these coaches view that is why you see teams that make long runs in the playoffs continue to be good year after year as those kids including freshmen are getting that many more practices and reps and coaching every year and it does make a huge difference in their development.