Offensive Line it's now official

#26
#26
In rivals not in Scout. Rivals changes there stars after committed anyway. They follow hype. But yes he ended up a 5 in rivals.
 
#27
#27
On our line:
I don't see any reason why center play will drop any. I was pleased with McNeil last season. The left side of the line looks solid, and if McClendon can get on the field, I think he has the ability to open up holes.

On backs:
I agree with Freak, I think Foster has a good year this year. If Hardesty can start like he did last year. TDs in the first 5 games, and if Coker can make it back 100% from suspension by the Georgia game(about the time we will need him), our running game will be great this year.
 
#28
#28
Jewbaccah said:
In rivals not in Scout. Rivals changes there stars after committed anyway. They follow hype. But yes he ended up a 5 in rivals.
Click to expand...

According to Scout, McFadden was the 9th ranked RB as a 4 star.

He was a 5 star athlete by rivals and ranked the 23rd player nationally.

A commitment to Arkansas didn't make him 5 stars.
 
#29
#29
I just want the best player in there. Whoever wins the starting spot will have the talent, they will just need to do something with it. I believe we should have some solid backups too.
 
#30
#30
chavisut said:
According to Scout, McFadden was the 9th ranked RB as a 4 star.

He was a 5 star athlete by rivals and ranked the 23rd player nationally.

A commitment to Arkansas didn't make him 5 stars.
Click to expand...

No - basically after it's all said and done rivals tries to cover themselves a little bit to make their service look more credible.
 
#31
#31
vol_freak said:
This year is starting out like many others in the past 10 years in that we are hearing great things about the o-line from practice. The only problem is that more times than not, those lines have underperformed based on expectations.

The other thing that worries me about the o-line is that there were at least two bad snaps tonight and if I'm not mistaken they were both McNeil. I could be wrong, but if true it's concerning to me.

We aren't good enough to overcome big mistakes like that, or penalties for that matter.
Click to expand...

This is a major beef with Fulmer. With an ex-offensive lineman & offensive line coach as Head Coach fans expect to have a good offensive line most of the time.

If there was one area Fulmer could step in and make sure they played well this is it.

How would Spurrier look if he had bad QB play year after year at SC?
 
#33
#33
chavisut said:
How would there be hype in a commitment to Arkansas, especially then?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that is the reason - I don't know if the guy is right or wrong but I was trying to help communicate his point.

Who says they didn't re-evaluate some of the rankings way after signing period and changed them up after a while. Or even midway through the recruits first season (highly unlikely though) just to cover themselves.

But the point was scout only had him as a 3 star apparently.
 
#34
#34
Thanks, ok well rivals has yet to switch these guys from 3 star recruits Slaton, Poulszny, Lauranitis, Willis (Patrick), Gaines Adams. And I could go on and on and on. Mcfadden was originally a three on scout because they thought of him as a QB. When they realized he would be playing elsewhere with his size and speed his stock started to rise. Sorry for the confusion but my memory is blessed and I forget with the internet history can be altered.
 
#35
#35
Bassmanbruno said:
I'm not saying that is the reason - I don't know if the guy is right or wrong but I was trying to help communicate his point.

Who says they didn't re-evaluate some of the rankings way after signing period and changed them up after a while. Or even midway through the recruits first season (highly unlikely though) just to cover themselves.

But the point was scout only had him as a 3 star apparently.
Click to expand...

No, Scout had him as a 4 star and the 9th ranked RB. I know Rivals last rankings come out late, not sure if its after signing day. If Rivals did change their rankings after signing day, a commitment to Arkansas wouldn't raise someone's stock.

McFadden was 6' 198, ran a 4.38, and had a 325 lb bench. He also has all the football talent in the world, that is why he was a 5 star athlete.

Anyways, I'm done talking about McFadden.
 
#36
#36
Jewbaccah said:
Thanks, ok well rivals has yet to switch these guys from 3 star recruits Slaton, Poulszny, Lauranitis, Willis (Patrick), Gaines Adams. And I could go on and on and on. Mcfadden was originally a three on scout because they thought of him as a QB. When they realized he would be playing elsewhere with his size and speed his stock started to rise. Sorry for the confusion but my memory is blessed and I forget with the internet history can be altered.
Click to expand...

Cool beans! I like the avatar, I need to get one.
 
#37
#37
chavisut said:
No, Scout had him as a 4 star and the 9th ranked RB. I know Rivals last rankings come out late, not sure if its after signing day. If Rivals did change their rankings after signing day, a commitment to Arkansas wouldn't raise someone's stock.

McFadden was 6' 198, ran a 4.38, and had a 325 lb bench. He also has all the football talent in the world, that is why he was a 5 star athlete.

Anyways, I'm done talking about McFadden.
Click to expand...

No one said a commitment to Arkansas would change anything. But he could have been evaluated again after signing. The poster cleared it up anyway.. so no point in throwing out all these stats..
 
#38
#38
Right well I am glad Mcfadden was a 5 in rivals and ended up a four in scout my point was not to get in a stats battle with you, I said tha he was a three in scout most of the way until they realized he would not be a QB and listed him as a RB. Clearly, by the others mentioned previously, there are issues with star rankings on players especially when it comes to the level of competition they played with. Gerald Jones went from 5 to 4 stars at some point in the process last year. Why I do not know.
 
#40
#40
So, it looks like the starters will be:

LT: Eric Young
LG: Anthony Parker
C: Josh McNeil
RG: Chris Scott
RT: Ramon Foster

Besides Frogg backing up McNeil, I would guess that McClendon will be backing up Scott. Who will the backups at the other positions be? Also, would Chris Scott move over to replace Foster and McClendon start at RG if Foster were to get injured? I'm just trying to get some rough depth charts down for a software piece I am putting together for this season....
 
#41
#41
TennTradition said:
So, it looks like the starters will be:

LT: Eric Young
LG: Anthony Parker
C: Josh McNeil
RG: Chris Scott
RT: Ramon Foster

Besides Frogg backing up McNeil, I would guess that McClendon will be backing up Scott. Who will the backups at the other positions be? Also, would Chris Scott move over to replace Foster and McClendon start at RG if Foster were to get injured? I'm just trying to get some rough depth charts down for a software piece I am putting together for this season....
Click to expand...

McClendon may end up starting he has a bad ankle. But yes he will start at guard if there are any injuries and Scott will move over. Frogg is the back up C. After that I am not sure. Anyone heard much about Sawtelle?
 
#42
#42
VolinArizona said:
I'd be more worried if Forsett didn't play. The guys behind him are wayyyy faster, and are SEC caliber fast. Forsett, while not as bad as his performance in Neyland last season, doesn't worry me.
Click to expand...

forsett hits the hole faster than any other rb on the roster (and faster than lynch too). Montgomery and Best will be studs but it's hard to imagine freshman having big games in their first game.
 
#43
#43
VolinArizona said:
I'd be more worried if Forsett didn't play. The guys behind him are wayyyy faster, and are SEC caliber fast. Forsett, while not as bad as his performance in Neyland last season, doesn't worry me.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be because their depth chart behind Forsett consists of 2 freshmen and a redshirt freshman. I also wouldn't go so far as to say they're "waaay faster" because that is a bit of a stretch. They have talent back there, but none of which is on Forsett's level and speed wise, they aren't much faster than him if faster at all. As good as Lynch was, everyone always thought Forsett was "quicker" and that's pretty quick. haha
 
#44
#44
VolinArizona said:
I don't even think the Cal game will give us a good idea of where we stand.

Last season, we ran for over 200 yards on them. We stuffed their run game, mostly, too.
Click to expand...
well the outside wheel pass success had as much to do with that than anything....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top