»
Topic: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis
Replies: 24   Last Post: Dec 11, 2018 8:53 AM by: Carlsbad®
[ Tiger Boards - Football ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 24  

Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis

[20]
Posted: Dec 10, 2018 7:18 PM
    Reply

Many of you are questioning Clemson offensive line recruiting and the fact that most of ours are 3 star and the occasional 4 or 5.

I did a quick analysis of the all American team. 1st, 2nd, 3rd teams
5 stars - 1 - you guessed it Clemson
4 stars - 4
3 stars - 9
2 star - 1
60% of top 3 teams are 3 stars
Seems to me - Clemson is doing just fine. We are getting our share. Sure, we want others people’s share - but we are fine. Develop away.
Go Tigers!


All American team
Jonah Williams - Bama - 4 star
Hyatt - Clemson - 5 star
Benzchewel - Wisconsin - 3 star
Stallings - Kentucky - 3 star
Bradbury - nc state - 2 star

2nd team
Risner - Kansas state - 3 star
Thomas - Georgia - 4 star
Samia - Oklahoma - 3 star
Dieter - Wisconsin - 3 star
Pierschbacker - 4 star


3 rd team
Dillard - Washington state - 3 star
Ford - Oklahoma - 3 star
Prescod - nc state - 3 star
Lindstrom - Boston college - 3 star
Jordan - Ohio state - 4 star


Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis

[1]
Posted: Dec 10, 2018 7:25 PM
    Reply

Take this logic and apply it to every single position. Should Clemson start signing 3 star WRs and DEs as well? Will that make Clemson more competitive on the national stage?

2019 student level member

thats a really poor argument


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 7:36 PM
    Reply

5 Olinemen on field yet you might find 5 5* Olinemen in an entire recruiting year.

You have to take 3* and 4* Olinemen each year and we sign our fair share of very good ones who are Clemson men. I love the guys we have and the guys we have coming in.

Next years class already looks strong with already half our o line takes on board.


Re: thats a really poor argument


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 8:41 PM
    Reply

I’m not talking about just the starters, I’m talking about the entire depth chart. Let’s fill it up with 3 stars at every position. Just look at defensive line, starters include two 5 stars and two 4 stars. 2nd string includes one 5 star and three 4 stars. 3rd string consists of four 4 stars. Clemson would have been better off signing all 3 stars for that position. Amirite?

2019 student level member

Re: thats a really poor argument


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 8:41 PM
    Reply

I’m not talking about just the starters, I’m talking about the entire depth chart. Let’s fill it up with 3 stars at every position. Just look at defensive line, starters include two 5 stars and two 4 stars. 2nd string includes one 5 star and three 4 stars. 3rd string consists of four 4 stars. Clemson would have been better off signing all 3 stars for that position. Amirite?

2019 student level member

Re: thats a really poor argument


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 8:41 PM
    Reply

I’m not talking about just the starters, I’m talking about the entire depth chart. Let’s fill it up with 3 stars at every position. Just look at defensive line, starters include two 5 stars and two 4 stars. 2nd string includes one 5 star and three 4 stars. 3rd string consists of four 4 stars. Clemson would have been better off signing all 3 stars for that position. Amirite?

2019 student level member

Re: thats a really poor argument


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 10:43 PM
    Reply

What was that again, Trotsky?

2019 orange level member

We should not start 2 star WR over 4 and 5 star WR

[1]
Posted: Dec 10, 2018 8:28 PM
    Reply

right?

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 8:39 PM
    Reply

Cute little straw man argument, there, Trotsky.

Try to stick to actual logic and facts.


Clemson should be starting the BEST players ... PERIOD!

[1]
Posted: Dec 10, 2018 9:14 PM
    Reply

The OPs post shows very clearly that the best OL are very often NOT the most highly rated out of high school.

You’re working awfully hard to prove your point, but others are more adept at shooting holes through your logic.

We still have 5-6 scholarships left for 2019 and two months to fill them. If we get a couple of 3-star OL at the end, the OPs post clearly shows they have a fair chance to be All Americans.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: Clemson should be starting the BEST players ... PERIOD!


Posted: Dec 11, 2018 8:35 AM
    Reply

So easy question.... you prefer the likes of Webb, Sayler, Mays, etc... or 2-3 star projects.

I get we won’t hit on every 4-5 Star OL but I’d like to hit on a few. Especially after having low numbers the last 2 cycles. We need immediate contributors because of low numbers and we have none of those type players committed. At this point we just have to hope injuries don’t happen and guys like Vinson, Dehond, McFadden, and Reeves develop. It’s tough when you sign 5 guys in 2 years on OL. The class before that we need to beg Simpson to stay as that could help a lot. We know what we have in Pollard and Anchrum which is decent not All-American 3 star play. Stewart is a good run blocker but not complete player and who the heck knows about Reeves. Long story short, we needed big time help this class.


Thanks, I'm gonna borrow this.


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 7:34 PM
    Reply

;;


Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 8:21 PM
    Reply

Interesting. Nice work looking this up.


Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 8:23 PM
    Reply

u need to understand that a lot of these guys are 3 stars on average teams who beat out fellow 3 stars and become the respective stars of their teams. You do realize also that there are 1000x more 3 star players than 5 star players? 1 out of 100 5 stars made the all America team and 9 out of, I dont know, 5000 three stars made the team


Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis

[3]
Posted: Dec 10, 2018 8:27 PM
    Reply

O-line is the hardest position to recruit. Some guys don't physically mature until 19 or 20 and the mental side is more demanding than other positions.

2019 orange level member

I think the best solution is carrying a couple more OL's on


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 10:33 PM
    Reply

Scholarship because the hit rate is more difficult to achieve.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis


Posted: Dec 10, 2018 9:11 PM
    Reply

clemzn1981 Thank you! This was perfect!


People have to understand: "ceilings" when talking OL out of H.S. Some kids reach their ceiling as 16,17 year olds! They are physically ready earlier and often get ranked higher! As has been stated OL is the hardest position to recruit for this very reason!


In fact, look at the top 300 10 years ago. Many of the top OL recruits never panned out! Many 3 star guys did. And also stated earlier; b/c there are more 3 star OL recruits the % of guys who developed into NFL talent is higher! Particularly in 2008 but I suspect that is the case in most years; just b/c of the #'s!


Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis


Posted: Dec 11, 2018 6:57 AM
    Reply

Okay now show me how many OL were rated 5*, 4*, 3*, and 2* coming out of high school.

This is the same argument as the “stars don’t matter” crowd uses for NFL draft numbers. Both instances are purely a numbers game. The blue chip recruits hit at a much higher rate than the 2 and 3 stars.

On a given year there might be 3-4 5* OL, 20-30 4*, 500 3*, then everyone else is a 2*. So even in your example you can statistically argue that 4 and 5 star OL are more likely (significantly so) to become all Americans than 2 and 3 stars.

And spare me the Renfrow argument. Name me 3 more walk ons in the last 15 years that have been as impactful.


Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis


Posted: Dec 11, 2018 8:22 AM
    Reply

Andy Teasdale and Greg Huegle were both walk ons. Seams like they contributed to a couple of wins in 2016.


Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis


Posted: Dec 11, 2018 8:32 AM
    Reply

Still shows that the 5 stars don't all pan out to be all-Americans. Barely any do. They are no locks either.

2019 white level member

Re: Since O linemen are the topic of the day - quick analysis


Posted: Dec 11, 2018 8:30 AM
    Reply

You and your facts.

2019 white level member

Devils advocate to those statistics and how they apply to CU


Posted: Dec 11, 2018 8:35 AM
    Reply

So your stats show that CU need 5*'s to produce all americans.

I don't have time to look it up but how many 3* (because realistically that's the level OL we are looking at taking from here out for 2019) OL has Clemson developed into All Americans under our current staff?

I am happy with our team success and have nothing but faith in the coaches, but am looking at those statistics in a different way.


Re: Devils advocate to those statistics and how they apply to CU


Posted: Dec 11, 2018 8:40 AM
    Reply

So why do other staffs at other schools with the 5 star OL not develop their 5 star OL to the level of All-American?

2019 white level member

I have no idea


Posted: Dec 11, 2018 8:50 AM
    Reply

I have no idea why or how other teams do or don't develop their talent.

I am simply pointing out that using those particular stats shows that at Clemson our only OL all american was a 5* recruit. With that in mind it only seems logical that people would prefer to land 5*'s over 3*'s and therefore have an arguement. Again, I am not in the camp that thinks we are in trouble with OL. I am just looking at that data from a different angle.


Re: I have no idea


Posted: Dec 11, 2018 8:53 AM
    Reply

Yep the only 5 star OL in the nation to be an All-American.

2019 white level member

Replies: 24  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: Two seats row j in section K. North stands, lower section. Price is $1100 per seat. Half now and ha...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Tiger Boards - Football ]
Start New Topic
2415 people have read this post