'15 MD OT Pat Allen

#601
#601
The big issue and difference between Pittman and Mahoney to me is recruiting. Pittman was a boss especially in NC. He could handle his own and close the deal without needing his boss.

Coaching wise they are probably close enough. You have to remember Beliema always produces Olineman. He did it at Wisky and doing it at Arky. His system does that so that's not all Pittman. The recruiting is where Pittman just works circles around Mahoney.

Mahoney has not been able to close the elite OL. Butch or other coaches are the one closing on them or having to do all the heavy lifting. butch recruited Blair and is having to recruit Richmond. RG and Parker pulled Boulware. Jack and Stewart were coming regardless as long as Butch was head man. Hurd pulled JRob.
 
#603
#603
Crookruss said:
It's honestly more about wingspan than just raw height.
Click to expand...

Still though I mean either way it's an "arms" race of size and length I don't see why a guy 6'4 with fast feet and smarts couldn't get the job done. I can see why the guy with longer arms has an advantage but it's wild.
 
#604
#604
Butch's loyalty is akin to Fulmer's it has it's pluses and minuses. Early on like know it's likely more plus than minus.
 
#605
#605
The thing is, there's usually a positive correlation between height and wingspan. So, the taller you are, the more length you have usually. Now, there's always exceptions to the rule. A great example of this would be Greg Robinson out of AU. He's 6'5", but he has a wingspan of 80 plus inches. That makes him have the length of a 6'7"-6'8" OT. He also weighs 330+ pounds, and runs like a gazelle for someone his size . Still, more height = more length is a good rule to follow for most situations.
 
#606
#606
Noticed the Broncos made some changes to the OL and moved guys around from G to T and it has helped their ground game quite a bit. An undrafted free agent hung 160+ yards on the Chiefs last night
 
#607
#607
DD4ME said:
Still though I mean either way it's an "arms" race of size and length I don't see why a guy 6'4 with fast feet and smarts couldn't get the job done. I can see why the guy with longer arms has an advantage but it's wild.
Click to expand...

At RT, it's not a problem. At LT, it usually is. Peters is the only effective LT in the NFL thats 6'4". It's a rare occasion when a LT can dominate in college. It's an even more rare occasion for those LTs to get drafted high in the NFL draft. Pugh is the only OT I know of that was less than 6'5" that's been drafted in the 1st round of the draft in the last few years, and he hasn't played LT in the NFL on a regular bases, if ever. He's strickly a G/RT at this point in his career.

When all of our competitors are obtaining multiple 6'6" or bigger OTs, then there seams to be some importance to having bigger OTs. Keep in mind, Tiny and James were both 6'6". How many sacks did we give up in 2013? Also, keep in mind Tiny played hurt all year in 2013.
 
#610
#610
Nashvegas31 said:
The big issue and difference between Pittman and Mahoney to me is recruiting. Pittman was a boss especially in NC. He could handle his own and close the deal without needing his boss.

Coaching wise they are probably close enough. You have to remember Beliema always produces Olineman. He did it at Wisky and doing it at Arky. His system does that so that's not all Pittman. The recruiting is where Pittman just works circles around Mahoney.

Mahoney has not been able to close the elite OL. Butch or other coaches are the one closing on them or having to do all the heavy lifting. butch recruited Blair and is having to recruit Richmond. RG and Parker pulled Boulware. Jack and Stewart were coming regardless as long as Butch was head man. Hurd pulled JRob.
Click to expand...

Not sure how accurate this is. Pittman did not sign top tier rated OL when he was at UT. Ranking wise his OL recruits were probably about the same as Jack Jones, Boulware, Stweart. Again, the problem with out current OL recruiting is not that we are not getting quality OL commitments. We have very good OL commitments. The problem is in just one specific area. We don't have a prototypical LT commitment. Is that all on Mahoney? Not sure. Some of it might be. But it is also just law of averages. High caliber prototypical LT recruits are rare. We had one instate recruit that fit that mold and he committed to Ole Miss for many reasons. Most of which I would not put at the feet of Mahoney, would you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#611
#611
I know Bielema/Wisconsin has a reputation for producing good linemen, but I wonder how true is. I can think of a couple good ones - Joe Thomas, Zietler - off the top of my head. But Carimi and Konz were wildly overrated coming out of that system. Huge busts.

Anyone know any other Wisc olinemen in the NFL and whether they're any good?
 
#612
#612
Wingspan is the be all end all when it comes to OT because it allows them to get their hands on speed rushers. Height is only important because it is usually an indicator of wingspan. I believe the reason Hall is an OT at 6'4" is due to him having an impressive wingspan.
 
#614
#614
therickbol said:
Not sure how accurate this is. Pittman did not sign top tier rated OL when he was at UT. Ranking wise his OL recruits were probably about the same as Jack Jones, Boulware, Stweart. Again, the problem with out current OL recruiting is not that we are not getting quality OL commitments. We have very good OL commitments. The problem is in just one specific area. We don't have a prototypical LT commitment. Is that all on Mahoney? Not sure. Some of it might be. But it is also just law of averages. High caliber prototypical LT recruits are rare. We had one instate recruit that fit that mold and he committed to Ole Miss for many reasons. Most of which I would not put at the feet of Mahoney, would you?
Click to expand...

Pittman, had he been here today, would have us 3-4 LT prospects. Skipper would be starting for us as we speak. Pittman has recruited 5-6 6'6" or bigger OL since he arrived at Arkansas. We'd be in a lot better shape than we are now OT wise had Pittman been retained. Richmond is on Mahoney and Butch. When you go all out on a player in a position of huge need you better make sure you can land that player without a doubt. Our recruitment of Richmond is equal to that of a 18 year old only wanting to take one specific girl to prom. By focusing on that one girl, he lost out on everyone else, and when the time came to go to prom, the girl told him she is going with someone else. Now, it's just him and his empty hand on prom night.
 
#615
#615
therickbol said:
Not sure how accurate this is. Pittman did not sign top tier rated OL when he was at UT. Ranking wise his OL recruits were probably about the same as Jack Jones, Boulware, Stweart. Again, the problem with out current OL recruiting is not that we are not getting quality OL commitments. We have very good OL commitments. The problem is in just one specific area. We don't have a prototypical LT commitment. Is that all on Mahoney? Not sure. Some of it might be. But it is also just law of averages. High caliber prototypical LT recruits are rare. We had one instate recruit that fit that mold and he committed to Ole Miss for many reasons. Most of which I would not put at the feet of Mahoney, would you?
Click to expand...

He was here for 3 weeks before his first NSD at UT, and he was let go before his 2nd,so I don't think his recruiting can be judged based on who he brought here.

He did go out to Colorado to get Skipper, Hawaii for Koehler, Florida for Kirkland, STL for Brian Lewis, etc... So I don't think he's limited to finding his guys instate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#616
#616
keckjm said:
Pittman, had he been here today, would have us 3-4 LT prospects. Skipper would be starting for us as we speak. Pittman has recruited 5-6 6'6" or bigger OL since he arrived at Arkansas. We'd be in a lot better shape than we are now OT wise had Pittman been retained. Richmond is on Mahoney and Butch. When you go all out on a player in a position of huge need you better make sure you can land that player without a doubt. Our recruitment of Richmond is equal to that of a 18 year old only wanting to take one specific girl to prom. By focusing on that one girl, he lost out on everyone else, and when the time came to go to prom, the girl told him she is going with someone else. Now, it's just him and his empty hand on prom night.
Click to expand...

Speaking of recruiting rankings, Skipper was not high rated. Especially not when he accepted his commitment. He moved up the rankings his senior year. That is all you can judge our current commitments on is rankings. Just like Skipper, our current OL commitments could outplay their ranking. We have no idea yet. Acting like Pittman signed the highest rated OL and now we sign low rated OL is just not true. In fact, some of the upperclassman OL that struggle for us right now were brought in while Pittman was here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#617
#617
therickbol said:
Not sure how accurate this is. Pittman did not sign top tier rated OL when he was at UT. Ranking wise his OL recruits were probably about the same as Jack Jones, Boulware, Stweart. Again, the problem with out current OL recruiting is not that we are not getting quality OL commitments. We have very good OL commitments. The problem is in just one specific area. We don't have a prototypical LT commitment. Is that all on Mahoney? Not sure. Some of it might be. But it is also just law of averages. High caliber prototypical LT recruits are rare. We had one instate recruit that fit that mold and he committed to Ole Miss for many reasons. Most of which I would not put at the feet of Mahoney, would you?
Click to expand...

2012 Pittman OL recruits signed to Tennessee: 0

2013 Pittman OL recruits signed to Tennessee: 1 (Kendrick)

Sanders committed when Hiestand was OL coach. Weisman flipped from Cincy.
 
Last edited:
#618
#618
therickbol said:
Speaking of recruiting rankings, Skipper was not high rated. Especially not when he accepted his commitment. He moved up the rankings his senior year. That is all you can judge our current commitments on is rankings. Just like Skipper, our current OL commitments could outplay their ranking. We have no idea yet. Acting like Pittman signed the highest rated OL and now we sign low rated OL is just not true. In fact, some of the upperclassman OL that struggle for us right now were brought in while Pittman was here.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the argument here. I never said the guys we have can't be good. What I'm saying is, we don't have any true LT prospects outside Kendrick and Blair. I'm not asking for 5 star after 5 star. All I want to see is some LT prospects recruited. Pittman recruited Kendrick. That leaves Blair as the only LT prospect Mahoney has obtained on his own. I really don't care what guys are rated, though higher rated OL due tend to be more ready to play right out of high school usually. All I care about is obtaining some players who have the length to play LT effectively. Pittman has proven he can do that at Arkansas. Mahoney hasn't.
 
Last edited:
#622
#622
ajvol01 said:
2012 Pittman OL recruits signed to Tennessee: 0

2013 Pittman OL recruits signed to Tennessee: 1 (Kendrick)

Sanders committed when Hiestand was OL coach. Weisman flipped from Cincy.
Click to expand...


Pittman wanted Weisman. They offered him at OL camp. From my memory he stood out at that camp and the coaches really wanted him. He picked CIN over UT so it was an easy flip for him.
 
#625
#625
ajvol01 said:
2012 Pittman OL recruits signed to Tennessee: 0

2013 Pittman OL recruits signed to Tennessee: 1 (Kendrick)

Sanders committed when Hiestand was OL coach. Weisman flipped from Cincy.
Click to expand...





But, but ... Pittman is a great OL recruiter. He had to have recruited 5 or 6 top 4* O-Linemen to UT while he was here.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top