Young offensive linemen

[WildHorse]

What kind of changes?
New starters?
Or juggling to compensate for the loss of Neal and Hargis?

[Pony4Life]

OK, now I'm curious, too. Whats' up with the offensive line?
They'll be bigger and stronger this year, that's for sure.

[PK]

There will be news on the line,changes today. And PK I was at the scrimmage.

I'm glad for you that you got to the spring scrimmage. I was only able to make it for a short while. Every time I've seen Peveto practice he looked like he was holding his own. As for Eidson, he is not 5-10, he is 6-1 280+. Obviously, we want as much experience on the O-line as we can get, but all these guys have been working their butts off getting stronger and adding beef...hopefully it pays off.

On a more serious side, hope you are not in Charley's path. Batten down the hatches and take care.

[Roach]

.... As for Eidson, he is not 5-10, he is 6-1 280+....

Uh huh. I've seen Eidson up close, and while he's worked extremely hard to get stronger, and therefore might be in the 280 range (he's gotten thick!), trust me when I tell you that he is not 6-1. Some schools inflate a guy's numbers, and while SMU doesn't have a reputation for doing this, or at least not often, it appears they are in this case.

Remember, Charles Barkley came out of Auburn listed at 6-foot-7, and by the time he retired, they were saying he was a hair under 6-4. Now I know Barkley's heavy, and maybe all that weight had some effect, but there's no way he's shrunk three inches in 15 years. You won't see (usually) heights inflated for tall guys (unless you have a basketball player who's really 6-10 or 6-11, and believes he'll be a better player when listed at 7 feet) -- it's usually the little guys whose numbers miraculously outgrow the players they're measuring.

[PerunaPunch]

In high school, Urbanus was just a naturally humongous young man. Now that Faucette has been working on him, he’s added serious power to go with the frame. I forget his squat, but his bench has come up (seriously folks) from about 190 when he got here to just a shade under 400 now (I think I heard he put up a legit 395).

The rumblings along the OL may have to do with the idea of moving Bonds to the offensive side of the ball – given the logjam of talent at DT. Given Bond’s size and strength, I’m assuming guard. How wild would it be to have 4 young guards, all over 6’ and all close to 300 lbs. to go with our 6’6” bookend tackles?? This on a team that hasn’t had solid depth on the OL since ‘80s.

[Ikus]

.... How wild would it be to have 4 young guards, all over 6’ and all close to 300 lbs. to go with our 6’6” bookend tackles?? This on a team that hasn’t had solid depth on the OL since ‘80s.

Good point. That would be a drastic improvement over anything we've seen (size-wise, anyway) in the last 15 years.

So is the Bonds-to-offense move a done deal?

[Corso]

So if Bonds really is going to play on offense, does the loss of Neal, Eidson and Hargis mean that Kenard Burley will have to be ready to play this year? I was under the impression that the coaches think he can be a terrific player, but that his background (small HS, limited technique coaching) meant he was a year or more away still from contributing. Anyone know? With the shuffle on the offensive line, he must be on the two-deep chart, I would think.

[Uncle Morty]

[quote="Corso"] With the shuffle on the offensive line, he must be on the two-deep chart, I would think.[/quote]

Right now I think everyone we've got is on the 2-deep roster. I only count 11 healthy offensive linemen on scholarship, and one of those is a true freshman.