Worst Offensive line

RGV Pony · Post by **RGV Pony** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:13 pm

...and we look just like PB teams of early-mid 2000s. A bunch of middle size guys, maybe 8 guys total that look the D1 part and the rest look short squatty and uncomfortable running in pads (if they're not just plain skinny).

JasonB · Post by **JasonB** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:43 pm

Our whiff percentage is way higher at the skill positions. As I mentioned, we probably should have signed more linemen than all of those skill positions. We were chasing one position and sacrificed the future at another.

I think Stallion you are making a lot of assumptions about what I am saying. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't bashing Klemm. I am not pointing fingers, but certainly when it comes down to the number of players selected at each position, that comes down to the head coach.

I was just trying to make a point that we had a lack of numbers recruited in 2010 and 2011 and that has really caught up to us last year and this year.

smufootballguy · Post by **smufootballguy** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:51 pm

We should be signing 5 O lineman every year. Games are won or lost in the trenches not by slot wr.

SMU 86 · Post by **SMU 86** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:59 pm

smufootballguy wrote:We should be signing 5 O lineman every year. Games are won or lost in the trenches not by slot wr.

I think we may have been spoiled with E. Sanders and A. Robinson. I guess those guys were not as easy to replace as thought. I am thinking that they were trying to go with a lot of numbers hoping to find 2 or 3 really good receivers.

RGV Pony · Post by **RGV Pony** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:00 pm

And Beasley and DJ

ponyswim · Post by **ponyswim** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:56 pm

Just out of curiosity, I looked at the Rivals classes of 2010-2014 to see how many O lineman were signed during those 5 years. SMU: 18 Baylor:17 TCU: 15 A&M:21
So it does not seems like it is as much about the numbers signed, as much as the quality/longevity of those that are signed - sort of like what Jason was saying. That does not include any position changes. So it seems, like it is not about the numbers as much as it is about the quality - those who have the ability/work ethic/character to stay in school.
Don't read into this any excuses - I just was curious about SMU's numbers compared to the others.

Mustangs_Maroons · Post by **Mustangs_Maroons** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:59 pm

RGV Pony wrote:...and we look just like PB teams of early-mid 2000s. A bunch of middle size guys, maybe 8 guys total that look the D1 part and the rest look short squatty and uncomfortable running in pads (if they're not just plain skinny).

Yup. The talent and size disparity was so obvious. Right off the bat we just don't look like a legitimate d1 football team.

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:02 pm

Compared to the #10 team in the nation, yes. Not defending, but let's have a little perspective here.

sbsmith · Post by **sbsmith** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:04 pm

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:
Yup. The talent and size disparity was so obvious. Right off the bat we just don't look like a legitimate d1 football team.

Damn that's weird because the practice gurus told us that this was the "Biggest, Fastest, Strongest" team since the DP. June said our secondary "looked" like an NFL secondary. What gives?

Mustangs_Maroons · Post by **Mustangs_Maroons** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:07 pm

How about the perspective that we're 7 years into June jones tenure and we've distanced ourselves further from Baylor and tcu and are now more closer to north Texas. Is that perspective a little better?

Rebel10 · Post by **Rebel10** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:08 pm

ponyboy wrote:Compared to the #10 team in the nation, yes. Not defending, but let's have a little perspective here.

How was TCU competing with top BCS teams before they got in a BCS conference? Let's have a little perspective.

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:12 pm

I get you and grant your point as to what the goal ought to be right now. We want to be TCU in the early 2000's. But the poster's point that I was responding to was that Baylor was bigger than us. Duh that a top 10 team will be bigger than even a top AAC team.

Rebel10 · Post by **Rebel10** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:14 pm

ponyboy wrote:I get you and grant your point as to what the goal ought to be right now. We want to be TCU in the early 2000's. But the poster's point that I was responding to was that Baylor was bigger than us. Duh that a top 10 team will be bigger than even a top AAC team.

Gotcha. Except for UCF who dropped Baylor by 10 in the bowl game. UCF is bigger, faster , and more phyical than we are. Louisville when they were in the AAC was pretty physically impressive as well. One of the SMU coaches said that USF was also physically impressive.

RGV Pony · Post by **RGV Pony** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:14 pm

Rebel10 wrote:
ponyboy wrote:Compared to the #10 team in the nation, yes. Not defending, but let's have a little perspective here.

How was TCU competing with top BCS teams before they got in a BCS conference? Let's have a little perspective.

Patterson recruited speed everywhere. I remember the first time they beat Tech, in the post game PC I remember him puffing up his chest, saying "speed, baby"

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:20 pm

How'd he get his stomach that high?

Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line

Re: Worst Offensive line