(05-08-2012 11:54 PM)yesman815 Wrote: you are crazy saying the O-Line is better than last years!
all first time starters who have barely played except Logan Pegram. The rest are freshly new to Division 1 football
do not forget injuries occur and guess what if anything happens the back up better be ready.
First game for these O-Line vs IOWA can be a little scary!
if the O-Line doesnt come this year. It will be scary for the Offense!
No one said the Oline would be better. Might have better athletes. The offensive line is 5 guys that work TOGETHER. If they don't communicate well, everyone one of them could have a pancake block on a play and the offense still loses yards. I don't know if the 4 new starters will be more athletic, more talented than last years, that is TBD. Just like Lynch. He is more athletic and a better athlete than Harnish. Doesn't mean he will be a better QB.
Don't forget that Wedige, Pawlak and Otis sat for three years and "only" started two. And as Cawoo has asked, who would of thought that Otis would play as well as he did. Being young doesn't necessarily equate to being less talented. If our OLine recruitment is as good as its been touted we should be fine.
It's probably good we have a QB who can run. May do a lot of scrambling this year.
(05-09-2012 08:10 AM)NIUSAE Wrote: Don't forget that Wedige, Pawlak and Otis sat for three years and "only" started two. And as Cawoo has asked, who would of thought that Otis would play as well as he did. Being young doesn't necessarily equate to being less talented. If our OLine recruitment is as good as its been touted we should be fine.
It's probably good we have a QB who can run. May do a lot of scrambling this year.
They may be young but I think they are going to be darn good. I dont want to take anything away from the previous group, they were one hell of a group, but in terms of run blocking they were average at best. This type of offense does not demand that you hold the block very long for the passing game either. Im not trying to take away what they did, I just think people are over-estimating the offensive line losses.
(This post was last modified: 05-09-2012 09:29 PM by MaddDawgz02.)
(05-12-2012 03:02 PM)niucyberdawg Wrote: What may prove to be the most difficult and tangible factor to replace is the collective experience together in combat from last yrs players.
You cannot easily "buy/duplicate " the experience of playing in games together...
Consider how many starts together we lost ...
I still say the offensive line becomes the strongest unit on the team in time for MAC play, there is loads of talent.
It's the same thing as the D going into last year. We don't know if they're bad, we just don't know if they are good either. The D turned out to be bad, but I'll be surprised if the o line is. It seems like every few years we lose a ton of offensive lineman and the next year the offensive line is a question mark that ends up being a strength. Sort of like Penn State with linebackers, we churn out offensive lineman.
I still would be more concerned with Lynch than the offensive line. I'm not saying Lynch is bad either, but you just don't know about a guy until the job is his. Look at Nicholson. He was great as a freshman in limited time, and then he turned in a pumpkin. It's a different story when you're the guy.
And before anybody says Nicholson was injured (which he was, but he also was bad). Nobody is concerend about Lynch staying healthy with the way he runs? Hopefully he learns to dial it down now that he is the ugy.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2012 03:51 PM by 7.)
(05-14-2012 03:50 PM)7 Wrote: It's the same thing as the D going into last year. We don't know if they're bad, we just don't know if they are good either. The D turned out to be bad, but I'll be surprised if the o line is. It seems like every few years we lose a ton of offensive lineman and the next year the offensive line is a question mark that ends up being a strength. Sort of like Penn State with linebackers, we churn out offensive lineman.
I still would be more concerned with Lynch than the offensive line. I'm not saying Lynch is bad either, but you just don't know about a guy until the job is his. Look at Nicholson. He was great as a freshman in limited time, and then he turned in a pumpkin. It's a different story when you're the guy.
And before anybody says Nicholson was injured (which he was, but he also was bad). Nobody is concerend about Lynch staying healthy with the way he runs? Hopefully he learns to dial it down now that he is the ugy.
(05-14-2012 03:50 PM)7 Wrote: It's the same thing as the D going into last year. We don't know if they're bad, we just don't know if they are good either. The D turned out to be bad, but I'll be surprised if the o line is. It seems like every few years we lose a ton of offensive lineman and the next year the offensive line is a question mark that ends up being a strength. Sort of like Penn State with linebackers, we churn out offensive lineman.
I still would be more concerned with Lynch than the offensive line. I'm not saying Lynch is bad either, but you just don't know about a guy until the job is his. Look at Nicholson. He was great as a freshman in limited time, and then he turned in a pumpkin. It's a different story when you're the guy.
And before anybody says Nicholson was injured (which he was, but he also was bad). Nobody is concerend about Lynch staying healthy with the way he runs? Hopefully he learns to dial it down now that he is the ugy.
It still amazes me how for Harnish's first two years everyone thought he was horrible and called for his benching. There were big questions about how good of a teammate he was and just how tough he was, and whether he had a strong enough arm. Amazing what a difference 2 years can make.
Who do you think will emerge as our key back, or will it be running back by committee? Since Chad Spann moved on running back U has not had a dominant back and when the weather turns windy and cold it is good to have a strong running game.
(05-14-2012 05:33 PM)bikechuck Wrote: Who do you think will emerge as our key back, or will it be running back by committee? Since Chad Spann moved on running back U has not had a dominant back and when the weather turns windy and cold it is good to have a strong running game.
You mean the entire one season? When our QB ran for 1500 yards?
(05-14-2012 03:50 PM)7 Wrote: It's the same thing as the D going into last year. We don't know if they're bad, we just don't know if they are good either. The D turned out to be bad, but I'll be surprised if the o line is. It seems like every few years we lose a ton of offensive lineman and the next year the offensive line is a question mark that ends up being a strength. Sort of like Penn State with linebackers, we churn out offensive lineman.
I still would be more concerned with Lynch than the offensive line. I'm not saying Lynch is bad either, but you just don't know about a guy until the job is his. Look at Nicholson. He was great as a freshman in limited time, and then he turned in a pumpkin. It's a different story when you're the guy.
And before anybody says Nicholson was injured (which he was, but he also was bad). Nobody is concerend about Lynch staying healthy with the way he runs? Hopefully he learns to dial it down now that he is the ugy.
It still amazes me how for Harnish's first two years everyone thought he was horrible and called for his benching. There were big questions about how good of a teammate he was and just how tough he was, and whether he had a strong enough arm. Amazing what a difference 2 years can make.
Not me. Said he'd be 1st team all MAC after his Soph. year. I'm wrong a lot, but that was one I got right.
I'd still like to see us have a bigger back we can use in short-yardage situations. I think Womble could be the guy if he can hang on to the ball or maybe Bowers.
(05-14-2012 03:50 PM)7 Wrote: It's the same thing as the D going into last year. We don't know if they're bad, we just don't know if they are good either. The D turned out to be bad, but I'll be surprised if the o line is. It seems like every few years we lose a ton of offensive lineman and the next year the offensive line is a question mark that ends up being a strength. Sort of like Penn State with linebackers, we churn out offensive lineman.
I still would be more concerned with Lynch than the offensive line. I'm not saying Lynch is bad either, but you just don't know about a guy until the job is his. Look at Nicholson. He was great as a freshman in limited time, and then he turned in a pumpkin. It's a different story when you're the guy.
And before anybody says Nicholson was injured (which he was, but he also was bad). Nobody is concerend about Lynch staying healthy with the way he runs? Hopefully he learns to dial it down now that he is the ugy.
It still amazes me how for Harnish's first two years everyone thought he was horrible and called for his benching. There were big questions about how good of a teammate he was and just how tough he was, and whether he had a strong enough arm. Amazing what a difference 2 years can make.
Not me. Said he'd be 1st team all MAC after his Soph. year. I'm wrong a lot, but that was one I got right.
I'm pretty sure I said he was going to be an elite QB. Glad I called that one.
(05-14-2012 05:33 PM)bikechuck Wrote: Who do you think will emerge as our key back, or will it be running back by committee? Since Chad Spann moved on running back U has not had a dominant back and when the weather turns windy and cold it is good to have a strong running game.
You mean the entire one season? When our QB ran for 1500 yards?
Granted the QBs ran wild last year but it is a risky strategy and one that had Harnish limping around a bit at the end of the season. I would prefer to have the backs be the leading ground gainers.
(05-14-2012 08:27 PM)7 Wrote: Linebackers. Easily, the linebackers. You must be forgetting how good 36 and 9 are.
I guess maybe its a good sign if there are 3 or 4 units that could be the best. This team should not have many weaknesses. The weakest part to me seems like running back.
