Extra large or super-sized?

[oldfartvol]

Why don't we just recruit 5'9" running backs to play OL then? They can squat as much as OL and they will be quick pulling guards... That is the logic you are using.

You make it sound like we are recruiting Flouder from Animal House..."Fat,drunk, stupid,slow, and weak is no way to go thru life or play OL son"...

That is not my logic at all, and you know it. Silly analogy packed full of stupid!:crazy:

 

[oldfartvol]

I somewhat agree. But it one of them situations like your dammed if u do or your dammed if you don't. With the spread offenses these days you would think the lighter lineman would work better. But what gets me is when you get in one of these tough nose to nose SEC games that's won and lost in the trenches. If we was Oregon in the PAC I would definitely say we need to stay smaller and quicker but its a totally different animal in the SEC. I think we should keep doing what the SEC is known for, big strong lineman with fast LBs. Its worked for a long time.

I'm all in on big, strong defensive linemen. I just think quick, mobile and mean offensive linemen at around 275-295 lbs. will get the job done just fine. :victory:

 

[Volosaurus rex]

In critiquing the original poster's theory, it is important to distinguish between matchups between (1) offensive tackles and defensive ends; and (2) interior offensive linemen vs. defensive tackles. In the latter case, there simply is no substitute for mass, strength and leverage if you hope to hold your own against, let alone defeat, defensive tackles built like Shy Tuttle and Kahlil McKenzie.

A defensible argument can be made, however, for moving toward leaner, more athletic offensive tackles. As a case in point, we all recall that Derek Barnett more than held his own against Brandon Scherff, the Iowa senior offensive tackle, who was selected fifth overall in the 2015 NFL draft. It is quite probable that a third- or fourth-year version of Barnett would have absolutely dominated this highly touted tackle, who often looked slow by comparison.

Barnett is currently listed as 6-3, 257. By the time he graduates or leaves for the NFL draft, he might tip the scales at 265-270. Few tackles in the 300-315 pound range can match his quickness. This parallels the matchup problems that most SEC teams had with Jadeveon Clowney (6-5, 266). Granted, he has freakish talent when he chooses to apply it consistently. Nevertheless, customizing the tackle position to more heavily emphasize quickness and mobility at a lighter and leaner playing weight would seem like a logical course of action if you want to neutralize speed-rushing defensive ends.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

You can maybe get by with 280ish OT's if they're strong and athletic. IMO your guards need to be 300ish because of the size of the DT's they're facing.

 

[Hank Bukowski]

It seems the trend in college football over the last few years is to recruit jumbo offensive lineman (320 lbs. plus).

In MHO, I would rather have a smaller OL (270-295 lbs.)if they can achieve similar strength in the weight room.

I am of the opinion that once a player reaches a certain size there is no advantage in getting heavier. In fact, I think adding 40-50 lbs. of blubber has many disadvantages:

1. Carrying the extra weight is like playing with a weight belt around your waste. It only increases the fatigue factor over the course of the game.

2. Smaller linemen would be better able to fire off the LOS and make contact with the D lineman instead of having them blow by virtually untouched.

3. A smaller OL would be able to pull and make critical blocks on the corners and get to the second level and engage the linebackers, which would allow our RB's to break away for some long runs.

4. Without the extra fat, our OL would be less injury prone (especially knees and ankles).

I would have our guards weigh in at around 270 and our OT's at around 295 lbs. or so.

What do ya'll think VN? Good logic or am I alone on this island by myself?:compute:

Good points...but what about freaks like Tuttle and McKenzie who are in the 320-340 range and have very little blubber on them and are super-athletic? Isn't that the prototype lineman we seek...the freakishly athletic big dogs?

Don't we need this type of monster on the OL too?

 

[armchair]

Really good offensive lineman have size, strength and AGILITY. They can move pretty well. If you can't move your feet well, if you are too bulky, defenders just run by you--or you don't get to defensive players to block them, something you see all the time with college lineman; they get out on a screen or pull and a defensive player just runs by them. Soooo many blocks are missed because big lineman just don't have the athleticism to get to a moving linebacker/DE or defensive back.

 

[VOLinNC]

I'm all for OT's around 280-290. Seems like the best Tackles come from over sized TE's who move inside but are able to use the athleticism they have there. If I was recruiting OT's I would look for guys 6'5"+ and in the 260lb range. I think that's where we get into trouble by signing linemen who are already 300 lbs and have lost the agility needed to play Tackle.

 

[oldfartvol]

In critiquing the original poster's theory, it is important to distinguish between matchups between (1) offensive tackles and defensive ends; and (2) interior offensive linemen vs. defensive tackles. In the latter case, there simply is no substitute for mass, strength and leverage if you hope to hold your own against, let alone defeat, defensive tackles built like Shy Tuttle and Kahlil McKenzie.

A defensible argument can be made, however, for moving toward leaner, more athletic offensive tackles. As a case in point, we all recall that Derek Barnett more than held his own against Brandon Scherff, the Iowa senior offensive tackle, who was selected fifth overall in the 2015 NFL draft. It is quite probable that a third- or fourth-year version of Barnett would have absolutely dominated this highly touted tackle, who often looked slow by comparison.

Barnett is currently listed as 6-3, 257. By the time he graduates or leaves for the NFL draft, he might tip the scales at 265-270. Few tackles in the 300-315 pound range can match his quickness. This parallels the matchup problems that most SEC teams had with Jadeveon Clowney (6-5, 266). Granted, he has freakish talent when he chooses to apply it consistently. Nevertheless, customizing the tackle position to more heavily emphasize quickness and mobility at a lighter and leaner playing weight would seem like a logical course of action if you want to neutralize speed-rushing defensive ends.

Duly noted, and a good refinement of my original thread. Thanks! :hi:

 

[oldfartvol]

i'm all for ot's around 280-290. Seems like the best tackles come from over sized te's who move inside but are able to use the athleticism they have there. If i was recruiting ot's i would look for guys 6'5"+ and in the 260lb range. I think that's where we get into trouble by signing linemen who are already 300 lbs and have lost the agility needed to play tackle.

+1000

 

[oldfartvol]

Good points...but what about freaks like Tuttle and McKenzie who are in the 320-340 range and have very little blubber on them and are super-athletic? Isn't that the prototype lineman we seek...the freakishly athletic big dogs?

Don't we need this type of monster on the OL too?

Yes, but good luck finding o-lineman that fit this category!!! ardon:

 

[DaddyChad]

Richardson and James did just fine for us when healthy. Those guys were well north of 300 lbs but still were good pass protectors and maulers on the run. I think you can get away with smaller tackles that have good technique and feet but ideally you would have both size and athleticism at the position. I wouldn't agree with just going with smaller tackles but I do agree with the premise that I would rather have a smaller tackle with great technique than a larger tackle that cannot move well. Interior guards you have to have that low center of gravity mass. Imagine a 270 lbs guard going against McKenzie.

 

[Remy]

I would tend to think the same way. Oregon is a team that comes to mind who use a bit lighter OLs who seem leaner. They are looking for durability and speed.
But then I test my hypothesis by looking at the NFL expecting to see chiseled atletes. I see a significant amount of blubber there too.

So not sure.

Yea all those NCs Oregon has in their trophy case denotes how effective that strategy is.

 

[SaintLouisVol]

It depends on the offense who want to run.

If you are Air Force, the smaller, quicker OL is great. They can pull, seal and do other things to take advantage of the quickness.

But if you want to pocket pass, you're doomed. The OL is back peddling or best case holding the pocket while the DL is pressing forward. In these cases, the OL needs the weight advantage to offset the momentum advantage of the DL.

Big and quick are not mutually exclusive. The blue chippers are both. We used to get those. We need to start getting them again.

 

[Orange Daddy]

That is what they are going to ask JARED (subway) when he gets to Prison...

 

[UTwild82]

Five pages in and no one has said...

TWSS?

 

[ptcarter]

The bigger the line, the less turnovers...


wait for it....




They eat them before the game!