Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:21 pm to wdhalgren
Will do, but can we all agree that a team with 9 players drafted should do better than 8-4?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 1:11 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
a disaster like Catalina
Yet he was better than anyone else we had for that position so good thing we had him.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 2:07 pm to djsdawg
So the measuring stick for being a "good" lineman in college is making a NFL roster?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 2:12 pm to Barstools
Wasn't following convo but remember Cornelius Washington? Did nothing in college but had awesome combine so was drafted in like 3rd round and oh my gosh he can't play. Catalina is similar. Looks and tests great. Can't play much. Better at guard because of slower feet
Posted on 6/29/17 at 3:00 pm to Barstools
quote:
So the measuring stick for being a "good" lineman in college is making a NFL roster?
There is a certain logic about the reasoning.
ETA
However, if your point is that you can be a good lineman and still not make the NFL, then I agree.
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 6/29/17 at 3:18 pm to Barstools
quote:
the measuring stick for being a "good" lineman in college is making a NFL roster?
If the point is to prove the player wasn't good in college because of coaching and not lack of talent, making the NFL can prove that point. The NFL is gonna have talent dressed on the sideline.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 3:36 pm to djsdawg
quote:
If the point is to prove the player wasn't good in college because of coaching and not lack of talent, making the NFL can prove that point. The NFL is gonna have talent dressed on the sideline.
I understand what you are talking about, but nobody should say anything definitively. There are very good players that never play a down in the NFL or even stand on the sideline for a variety of reasons. Buddy of mine was drafted by the Cowboys back in (Changed because I really don't remember) and blew his knee out in preseason camp. He had reconstructive surgery, and the Cowboys called him back and said they liked what they saw before the injury and wanted him to come back. He thought for awhile, and said, "No, thanks."
But sometimes a player gets drafted and just doesn't fit the offensive or defensive philosophy of the team, and doesn't do well and gets cut.
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 6/29/17 at 3:57 pm to DawgsLife
It makes sense to limit such a point to healthy players and players who want to continue playing football after college.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 4:17 pm to djsdawg
quote:
It makes sense to limit such a point to healthy players and players who want to continue playing football after college.
Wasn't trying to call you out, or say your argument was not valid.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 5:50 pm to Barstools
quote:
So the measuring stick for being a "good" lineman in college is making a NFL roster?
Go back and rewatch the Florida game. Nothing about that offensive line was good. All five of those guys repeatedly got their asses whipped that day.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 6:52 pm to VADawg
quote:
back and rewatch the Florida game. Nothing about that offensive line was good. All five of those guys repeatedly got their asses whipped that day.
Go back and watch the next week vs Kentucky and watch
the 4 games that followed.Somehow we averaged over 200 yards per game rushing and made a complete 180 after
our coaches got their collective heads out of their asses and simplified things.
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 6/29/17 at 6:54 pm to VADawg
quote:
Go back and rewatch the Florida game. All five of those guys repeatedly got their asses whipped that day.
I've rewatched it and I saw a lot of the same things I saw in the Nicholls State game; an aggressive attacking defense, guys running straight line into our backfield untouched or barely grazed, defenders getting double teamed while their neighbor was ignored, running the ball straight ahead into a stacked defensive formation.
If you think that's all about talent, prepare to call this year's OL untalented too. Because unless something changes in the coaching or scheme, there's very little chance that this less experienced group won't make the same exact mistakes all season long. Defensive coordinators will just dial up the same attack mode and our all world backfield will get shut down.
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 6/29/17 at 7:28 pm to wdhalgren
This thread needs more Fiddle Cat
Posted on 6/29/17 at 8:46 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Go back and watch the next week vs Kentucky and watch
the 4 games that followed.Somehow we averaged over 200 yards per game rushing and made a complete 180 after
our coaches got their collective heads out of their asses and simplified things
The quality of DL significantly dipped in three of those four games. Kentucky and Georgia Tech are not the weight class Georgia should be punching in.
The Auburn game was nice but the offense didn't score a touchdown and Eason damn near got killed.
Any team with a halfway decent DL absolutely handed the OL its arse.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:40 am to Peter Buck
quote:
I mean, no way a pro team would waste their time with a disaster like Catalina... let alone pay him cash money.
Of course not. The NFL has never fricked up evaluating a player. Ever. Not even once. Of course, if they had, it might have worked both ways, where guys deemed marginal-but-acceptable ended up being really good, too. You know, if. Hypothetically.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 6:05 am to VADawg
quote:
The quality of DL significantly dipped in three of those four games.
Did you watch the Missouri,Ole Miss or Nichols State games?Ole Miss and Missouri had 2 of the worst rushing defenses in P5 (worse than UK,GT and TCU) and all those defenses stuffed us and I'm not gonna count the 4th qtr garbage yards vs Ole Miss.
Auburn had a better rushing defense than UF and our performance vs them was significantly better.Not great but we did rush for almost 180 LOS yards vs them.
Once again our consistency and execution was far better
the last 3rd of the season on the O-line... not even a debatable point.
This post was edited on 6/30/17 at 7:15 am
Posted on 6/30/17 at 8:54 am to VADawg
quote:
Go back and rewatch the Florida game. Nothing about that offensive line was good. All five of those guys repeatedly got their asses whipped that day.
The argument they are making is not that they were a consistently good line. It is that when they stayed within a certain blocking scheme they were good "enough". The performance was all over the place last year. Some games they looked pretty darn good, and as you pointed out, there were games they looked bad.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 9:32 am to VADawg
quote:
Any team with a halfway decent DL absolutely handed the OL its arse.
Depends on what your definition of decent is, I guess.
Out of the 128 teams listed in the NCAA statistics, the last 4 opponents we faced (Kentucky, Auburn, ULL, and GT) all finished above the halfway point in the rankings of Run Defense, except Kentucky...with two of them finishing in the top 25 in the nation. Granted, one of those was ULL who faced inferior opponents most of the year, that helped them finish higher.
But there can be no denying that we did horribly against Nichols, Missouri, and only so-so against Tennessee, all of which had pretty bad rushing defenses.
Whatever the reason, our rushing attack was wildly inconsistent last year. The simplest answer is usually correct, and for me the simplest answer is a combination of all opinions.
1. No outstanding talent on the OL
2. Playing out of position
3. Blocking scheme (At times)
4. Protecting young QB
Posted on 6/30/17 at 10:11 am to DawgsLife
quote:
1. No outstanding talent on the OL
2. Playing out of position
3. Blocking scheme (At times)
4. Protecting young QB
Going in circles.
Eason and the unproven receivers didn't make anyone respect them, so they loaded the box. 5 linemen vs 8 tacklers. Note that Chaney didn't even respect Eason and the receivers, as he continued calling run plays straight into a buzz saw.
Our OL wasn't fantastic, but they would have looked alot better if Eason had better pocket presence and field awareness. Eason was throwing dump-off passes when he had wide open receivers downfield. If Eason instead hits those open downfield receivers, then the defenses can't continue stacking the box... they has to account for the fact they aren't covering the receivers.
Does all that make sense?
Page 3 of 9
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News