I sure hope Walker is correct....

#3
#3
Hope this means we have a oline and not a weak dline. Experience means very little in practice, however, it does on 4th and one again Florida.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
Urinal Mint said:
Hope this means we have a oline and not a weak dline. Experience means very little in practice, however, it does on 4th and one again Florida.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

We don't have a lot of depth on the interior of our D-line, but Hughes and Walls are beyond solid. We are loaded at Defensive end as well. I think this O-line is going to be better then expected. We have talent there, it's just young and inexperienced. They should get better as the season goes along.
 
#5
#5
Volfootball55 said:
We don't have a lot of depth on the interior of our D-line, but Hughes and Walls are beyond solid. We are loaded at Defensive end as well. I think this O-line is going to be better then expected. We have talent there, it's just young and inexperienced. They should get better as the season goes along.
Click to expand...

I agree but to add one thing....Chuck Smith....thats all.
 
#6
#6
I still think from a pure coaching standpoint Smith and Hiestand are better than the last line coaches... and signficantly better than the ones previous to that.
 
#8
#8
lylsmorr said:
Smith will improve every single D-lineman. I'm pretty confident in that
Click to expand...

And in turn improve our O-line. Seriously, let them go at it as much as possible. Our O-line will gain very, very valuable experience just going against our D-line, which is going to be excellent next year.
 
#9
#9
Don't forget Hiestand . Every one of his linemen in his first seven years at Illinios signed an nfl contract.
 
#11
#11
If our O-line does prove to be above SEC average, I would be absolutely ecstatic. Its definitely perceived to be the weakest spot on the team. With the expectations set so low, they actually have a decent chance to exceed them.

Going against our d-line every day will certainly help their progress. But I'm not getting my hopes up until we see them on the field.
 
#12
#12
General Jack said:
If our O-line does prove to be above SEC average, I would be absolutely ecstatic. Its definitely perceived to be the weakest spot on the team. With the expectations set so low, they actually have a decent chance to exceed them.

Going against our d-line every day will certainly help their progress. But I'm not getting my hopes up until we see them on the field.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with letting your hair down and getting your hopes up in late March. It should be an annual tradition - Go for it.
 
#13
#13
I read where the hurt players were wearing red jerseys, I did not see N. Reviez on the list. Is he back, practicing or did they leave his name out? Fill me in someone!!
 
#14
#14
VolsNUT said:
I agree but to add one thing....Chuck Smith....thats all.
Click to expand...

...who won't make one tackle this year.

Its fine to be excited...spring training in baseball, spring practice in football. However, no matter how good of a coach Chuck Smith is, you can't coach talent, and you can't coach depth. We have a numbers problem, thanks to PFP, which will be overcome not by coaching, but by years of recruting.
 
#15
#15
They say that o-line is all about chemistry so let's hope that these young guys can build some during the spring that will help us during the fall
 
#16
#16
OrangeBrownie said:
They say that o-line is all about chemistry so let's hope that these young guys can build some during the spring that will help us during the fall
Click to expand...


Who is "they"? If "they" said that o-line is all about chemistry, "they" are wrong. Chemistry gets a lot better when the center makes the correct line calls, and you have individuals on the offensive line who are excellent players.

There has never been anything more overrated than "chemistry." Chemistry never blocked anybody; however, chemistry imporves if everybody blocks somebody.
 
#19
#19
sjt18 said:
I still think from a pure coaching standpoint Smith and Hiestand are better than the last line coaches... and signficantly better than the ones previous to that.
Click to expand...

Hiestand, yes. He has a remarkable track record in the college ranks, and whatever it is he knows, I think it's working. He'll coach those guys up and we'll be fine on the OL, as long as people don't get hurt.

But as much as I dislike Orgeron and am glad he is not in Knoxville anymore, the man could coach defensive linemen as good as anybody in the business.

Chuck Smith is 100 times better than Orgeron when it comes to character and ethics, and I think he'll also be a good coach. But we can't say (yet) that he's a better on-the-field coach than Orgeron.
 
#20
#20
Voltillyafall said:
There has never been anything more overrated than "chemistry." Chemistry never blocked anybody; however, chemistry imporves if everybody blocks somebody.
Click to expand...

Ever play OL? Chemistry isn't just important- it is vital. Chemistry allows the C to make a mistake and not make a call but the OG picks it up any way. Chemistry is a level of trust and positive "group think" that makes up for lesser pure ability.

Chemistry never blocked anyone... it just made sure that someone blocked everyone.
 
#21
#21
sjt18 said:
Ever play OL? Chemistry isn't just important- it is vital. Chemistry allows the C to make a mistake and not make a call but the OG picks it up any way. Chemistry is a level of trust and positive "group think" that makes up for lesser pure ability.

Chemistry never blocked anyone... it just made sure that someone blocked everyone.
Click to expand...

Even in your scenario, the OG merely made a play that the C missed. He could have made the same play had he hated the center. He could have made the same play if he was going out with the center's girlfriend, or vice versa. Chemistry has ZERO to do with it. The guard has a job to do, and no "chemistry" caused him to do his job. He was talented enough--both physically and mentally--to make that play. No chemistry needed.

It is said that some qb's have "chemistry" with a wideout. That's just coach-speak that they have thrown hundreds of balls together, practiced hard, and know through experience what to expect. Where is the "chemistry"? There is none.

As applied to another sport, its like Earl Weaver said: "Chemistry is all about getting good pitching and three run home runs."
 
#23
#23
Voltillyafall said:
Even in your scenario, the OG merely made a play that the C missed. He could have made the same play had he hated the center. He could have made the same play if he was going out with the center's girlfriend, or vice versa. Chemistry has ZERO to do with it. The guard has a job to do, and no "chemistry" caused him to do his job. He was talented enough--both physically and mentally--to make that play. No chemistry needed.

It is said that some qb's have "chemistry" with a wideout. That's just coach-speak that they have thrown hundreds of balls together, practiced hard, and know through experience what to expect. Where is the "chemistry"? There is none.

As applied to another sport, its like Earl Weaver said: "Chemistry is all about getting good pitching and three run home runs."
Click to expand...


Are you aware of what the meaning of the term "chemistry" is as it relates to sports? Building a good relationship based on trust through familiarity due to repeated practice is exactly what "chemistry" means. Your argument makes no sense.
 
#24
#24
Voltillyafall said:
Even in your scenario, the OG merely made a play that the C missed. He could have made the same play had he hated the center. He could have made the same play if he was going out with the center's girlfriend, or vice versa. Chemistry has ZERO to do with it.
Click to expand...
Have you ever played OL? You don't even seem to have a clear conception of what "chemistry" is. It has nothing to do with being buddies. Guys can have a special relationship playing beside each other who aren't friends off the field.

It is all about reaching a comfort level that allows you to anticipate what the other guy will do by second nature... without even thinking about it. An OL can get to the point where guys will compensate for each other as naturally as one arm compensates for the other when the weight of something being carried shifts.

The guard has a job to do, and no "chemistry" caused him to do his job. He was talented enough--both physically and mentally--to make that play. No chemistry needed.
Click to expand...
Again, have you ever played OL... or on a good OL at any level of competition?

It is said that some qb's have "chemistry" with a wideout. That's just coach-speak that they have thrown hundreds of balls together, practiced hard, and know through experience what to expect. Where is the "chemistry"? There is none.
Click to expand...
You came very close to defining "chemistry" right before you denied that it existed.

As applied to another sport, its like Earl Weaver said: "Chemistry is all about getting good pitching and three run home runs."
Click to expand...

The closest thing in baseball to the "chemistry" that an OL has is the relationship between a SS and 2B on a double play.... and even that falls short.
 
#25
#25
I too like the fact that this OL can develop some chemistry together, partly relating to the fact that they are ALL new. I mean, I'd rather them have experience, but if you gotta have 4 green ones, ya might as well have 5 and then they might think, we are ALL gonna make some mistakes so no point in being too nervous about venturing to try, and we gotta look out for one another (more than they might otherwise).

Having said that, one thing we are lacking there besides experience in making judgments and reads, is the fact that years in the program gives more time to put on bulk and strength, and most of these guys haven't had much chance to do that. I guess I'm stating the obvious.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top