UW OL -- reason for optimism?
LT 72 Adams, Trey SO
LG 52 Eldrenkamp, Jake SR
OC 79 Shelton, Coleman JR
RG 75 Sosebee, Jesse RS SO
RT 58 McGary, Kaleb RS SO
2nd string:
LT 71 James, Matt RS SO
LG 67 Kneip, Michael SR
OC 60 Brostek, Shane SR
RG 59 Roberts, Henry RS FR
RT 73 Kirkland, Andrew JR
Unquestionably there's solid experience, depth and talent. Probably the best in 12+ years. What are your expectations for this group? Top 3 in conference in rushing + protection? In another thread I saw some posters state that OL is the biggest question mark going into the season. I don't see it. Unless Strausser is a complete bust in the Cozzetto mold -- and he isn't (on the field, anyway) -- this unit should be a strength.
Comments
-
Not a single one of those guys made all conference OR honorable mention even though plenty of game tape exists. This is a concern with a young QB and RB
-
Top 3 in conference definitely. Great defense, plus very good OL = don't fuck this up Pete.
-
Top 3 in the conference? They certainly weren't last year. Browning got pounded in several games, so badly at one point that he missed the stanford game.
They better be much better. That's what I expect, otherwise strausser will be the next brett pease. -
The O Line looked good during lean and mean during spring practice. All have served the time needed in the weight room!
None got any post season awards due to the lack of domination of the defense. Their play was pretty solid for their experience.
Coach Stausser is a good coach, he will have them ready to play. They had a few injuries during the spring so some others got some good reps.
Should be able to lead the way to another 1000yds+ Rusher
-
So the standard now for 3 OL that were in one form or another freshman last year that since they didn't make the all conference team (or honorable mention) that hey must not be very good?sarktastic said:Not a single one of those guys made all conference OR honorable mention even though plenty of game tape exists. This is a concern with a young QB and RB
Some are looking for anything possible to discredit this team heading into the year. -
Good stuff. I hope you're right.MikeMonan said:The O Line looked good during lean and mean during spring practice. All have served the time needed in the weight room!
None got any post season awards due to the lack of domination of the defense. Their play was pretty solid for their experience.
Coach Stausser is a good coach, he will have them ready to play. They had a few injuries during the spring so some others got some good reps.
Should be able to lead the way to another 1000yds+ Rusher -
How many Top 5 draft picks??
-
I think you have to look at the UW offense last year as the kids getting some baptism by fire in the first half of the season and then performing relatively well over the second half of the season.
The hardest spot for freshman to come in and play is on the lines and we asked Adams to play LT as a true Frosh and McGary to play over there as a true frosh. If you go back and look at the Boise game last year, the lines clearly struggled with not only the physicality but also the general speed of the game. The ability to run the ball during the 2nd half of the season was visible in basically every single game but against Boise a 5 yard run was massive.
Over the second part of the season there was far more balance in both the run and pass game and the amount of pressure on Browning went significantly down as he was getting better protection.
The OL doesn't need to be the best in the conference for us to win the North. What it needs to be is growing off of what it did the 2nd half of last year and ensure that the offense can put up 30+ points on a regular basis and in particular getting into the upper 20's and low 30's against the Stanford, Oregon, and USC trio and then allowing the defense to do their thing. -
Hmm not sure I agree Teq. Let's look at the second half of last year:
The only games where I'd say the offense performed at or near its full potential were Arizona and Southern Miss. Remember, three of the TDs against WSU were by our* defense. Our* offense consistently shat all over itself that game. As did our* ST -- remember all those missed FGs?
Stanford game was a disgrace, backup or no.
Arizona we seem to always slaughter at home regardless of circumstance.
Utah the O horrendously underperformed.
ASU was the most frustrating offensive game I've probably ever seen, so no.
Oregon State is Oregon State.
There have been many studies that highlight how important combined starts along the OL is towards a team's offensive success. That alone warrants some degree of optimism for sure. I think the latter half of 2015 was less our* offense coming together and more the competition getting worse and Jake not being a shellshocked 18 year old. -
The part that I feel like you are underestimating is the impact of what a young offense is going to make plenty of ... and that's mistakes. The sign of an experienced team, player, etc. is that they have the ability to execute the nuances of the game. For an offense, that's converting on 3rd down and converting drives into points notably TDs.
The production of the offense in the last 6 games of the year was strong ... I don't really pay too much attention to the Stanford game as that was the big outlier last year for obvious reasons.
Offensive yards (total, rush, pass) in each game:
Arizona: 468, 201, 267
Utah: 381, 124, 257
Arizona St: 547, 142, 405
Oregon St: 482, 271, 211
Washington St: 443, 240, 203
Southern Miss: 580, 296, 284
By far the best defense that we played of that bunch was Utah and we put up 381 on them in a game if I recall correctly was played in some rain and wasn't the best of weather games. If this team puts up over 400 yards of offense consistently this year, then I would expect that we're going to see a team that wins 10+ games.
The problem was finishing drives and turnovers (see ASU) ... but the ability to produce is there. They just need to clean things up (read: grow up a bit) and they'll be fine. -
We fucking suck.
-
Go back to drinking your 15 minutes to make cocktails that nobody has ever heard ofDennis_DeYoung said:We fucking suck.
-
I'm as optimistic on next year as the next Doog, but when I put the Molly down I realize the OL is still too young. If they're top 3, great. However, nothing last year would suggest they're top 3 in '16. Put another way, the DL had their way in the Spring.
-
The O/U is 5PurpleJ said:How many Top 5 draft picks??
-
For the 15th year in a rowAEB said:I'm as optimistic on next year as the next Doog, but when I put the Molly down I realize the OL is still too young. If they're top 3, great. However, nothing last year would suggest they're top 3 in '16. Put another way, the DL had their way in the Spring.
-
I know you are being sarcastic, but that would be the most talented starting line in history.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The O/U is 5PurpleJ said:How many Top 5 draft picks??
-
DL will arguably be the best in the conference ... it will help to build up the OL on a daily basis.AEB said:I'm as optimistic on next year as the next Doog, but when I put the Molly down I realize the OL is still too young. If they're top 3, great. However, nothing last year would suggest they're top 3 in '16. Put another way, the DL had their way in the Spring.
The OL doesn't have to be the best in the conference or really even Top 3. The offense doesn't need to be that either. It needs to be upper half and then everything upwards from that is gravy. -
Step back from the ledge, man!Tequilla said:
So the standard now for 3 OL that were in one form or another freshman last year that since they didn't make the all conference team (or honorable mention) that hey must not be very good?sarktastic said:Not a single one of those guys made all conference OR honorable mention even though plenty of game tape exists. This is a concern with a young QB and RB
Some are looking for anything possible to discredit this team heading into the year.
Don't twist.
5 guys with game tape + 3 years (+) in the program x zero in the top 20 in the conference = a concern... an unknown... a space where doogism can grow like mold if left unchecked... Not, the end the the world.
I'm doogin for 1st place PacN... or did you forget?
BTW, Leach had 2 "young" OL Pac HM ... that apparently, are not too young... One of them from Kennedy Catholic. Peterman fucked that one up. Even at BSU he should have had that kid in his sights. -
Fuck you all.
OL sucks until proven otherwise -
No, they're just another year away. Like always.Dennis_DeYoung said:We fucking suck.
-
2 of the 21 OL who received 1st team, 2nd team or HM recognition were underclassmen. 1 was a true sophomore (Mama) and 1 was a redshirt sophomore (Madison), both of whom were HM. Dawgs started a True Freshman and a RS Freshman at OT, backed up by a RS Sophomore.
At the Guard/Center position, it was a RS Soph (Shelton), RS Freshman (Boomer), RS Junior (Brostek), and RS Senior (Tufunga).
Dawgs in 1991/1992 OL:
SR, Ed Cunningham 3rd Round Pick in 1992
SR, Siupeli Malamala 3rd Round Pick in 1992
JR, Lincoln Kennedy, JR 1st Round Pick in 1993
SR, Kris Rongren, 11th Round Pick in 1992
Not sure who the other Guard was (Kaligis?)
Developing OL talent and depth takes more than a couple of years, regardless of whether or not the ADD dumbfucks on this bored see that or not. The OL will be better, but in my opinion, not at a natty level. But getting closer.
-
TierbsHsotBoobs said:
For the 15th year in a rowAEB said:I'm as optimistic on next year as the next Doog, but when I put the Molly down I realize the OL is still too young. If they're top 3, great. However, nothing last year would suggest they're top 3 in '16. Put another way, the DL had their way in the Spring.
^ should be the new HHB motto lol -
I expect that the UW will have at least one member of the OL at least make honorable mention this year ... I would expect that we'll have at least 2 get recognition.
-
House Money POTDTequilla said:
DL will arguably be the best in the conference ... it will help to build up the OL on a daily basis.AEB said:I'm as optimistic on next year as the next Doog, but when I put the Molly down I realize the OL is still too young. If they're top 3, great. However, nothing last year would suggest they're top 3 in '16. Put another way, the DL had their way in the Spring.
The OL doesn't have to be the best in the conference or really even Top 3. The offense doesn't need to be that either. It needs to be upper half and then everything upwards from that is gravy. -
OKGGladstone said:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
For the 15th year in a rowAEB said:I'm as optimistic on next year as the next Doog, but when I put the Molly down I realize the OL is still too young. If they're top 3, great. However, nothing last year would suggest they're top 3 in '16. Put another way, the DL had their way in the Spring.
^ should be the new HHB motto lol -
By day's end, your poast will probably be festooned with WTF's... but I do think your point is reasonable.Tequilla said:I expect that the UW will have at least one member of the OL at least make honorable mention this year ... I would expect that we'll have at least 2 get recognition.
-
fixedDennis_DeYoung said:We fucking suck. We Lost to Cal. We'll always lose to Cal
-
Sark never lost to Cal.
-
The Wazzu and (unranked) Oregon State team he lost to were worse than CalTierbsHsotBoobs said:Sark never lost to Cal.
-
WHOOOOOSHbananasnblondes said:
The Wazzu and (unranked) Oregon State team he lost to were worse than CalTierbsHsotBoobs said:Sark never lost to Cal.
5-4 > 4-5
