Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
IMO these two links sum up what happened to our OL
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 19
| visibility 1

IMO these two links sum up what happened to our OL


Nov 11, 2020, 12:28 PM

2017: https://247sports.com/college/clemson/Season/2017-Football/Commits/
2018: https://247sports.com/college/clemson/Season/2018-Football/Commits/

OL is not a position where many FR come in and make big impacts early. The bulk of a good OL is going to be comprised of players that have been in the program for 3-5 years. OL recruiting was pretty darn good in 2019 and 2020, but it's just not reasonable to expect many of those guys to be ready to start this year. Currently Putnam is a true soph starting at RG - the only player from those two good OL classes starting - and he has been struggling (but so have most of them so take that as you will).

OL is also a position that can be difficult to evaluate and project. I'm not going to say stars don't matter for OL because i really believe that stars always matter to some extent from a macro perspective even if they aren't always accurate on a player-to-player basis, but what i do feel is important for OL is to keep signing a healthy number of them every year because it's likely only about half the guys you sign are really going to pan out. This is probably even more likely to be true when you aren't signing blue chippers. When you ink 2 and 3 star OL you are hoping that 1 of 3 things happens:

1) You've found the diamond in the rough type of kid that flew under the national recruiting radar
2) The kid is more of a late bloomer that was rated lower coming out of HS but comes on as a college upper-classman
3) You can just develop OL really well.

Not to pile on Caldwell too much, but i feel pretty confident in saying that we aren't great at #3. Feel free to argue this point, but i don't think you will find much evidence to support your case.

Now if you look at 2016-2018 OL recruiting it's no surprise at all that we are having issues, and many people here were predicting the 2020 OL to struggle as far back as two years ago.

2016: John Simpson, Sean Pollard, Tremayne Anchrum, Chandler Reeves, Cade Stewart. This was a good class with some major contributors to our 2018 and 2019 OL units which were quite solid. Unfortunately, all but Stewart have moved on. Stewart was a 2 star or low 3 star depending on which service you look at - and he's unfortunately been playing like it this year, consistently grading out poorly at center - even compared to our other OL who have graded out poorly themselves.

2017: Bockhorst, Vinson, DeHond. Only 3 players in this class and 1 of them had to retire from football - which of course is one of the big dangers of only signing 3 OL in a class. Bockhorst, a former 4-star recruit, is starting and doing OK at LG. Vinson is currently the backup at RG. And that's it. That's all we are getting out this class.

2018: Carman, Mcfadden. That's it! Only 2 players! Carman was obviously a huge get, and he's been starting for 2 years now. You can argue whether or not he's lived up to the billing or whether he's really developed at all over that time, but he's been solid and it was still a good signing. McFadden, a former 3*, is starting at RT. The real issue here, again, is that it's only two players! We are fortunate, at least, that both are still in the program.

So that's it. Three classes that should be contributing the bulk of our OL is down to just 5 players. That obviously gives you absolutely no margin for error in your evals and development and leads to problems like having to start guys that probably aren't good enough to be starting, lack of experienced depth, etc. With this few signees the staff needed to bat 1.000, but right now it seems like they are actually closer to the Mendoza line.

Now, WHY we only signed 5 OL in 2 years is a much more interesting rabbit hole to go down, and is probably directly related to us only signing 31 players TOTAL over those two classes, which in turn is related to our roster somehow becoming incredibly imbalanced and led to us signing nearly as many players in 2019 (29) as the previous two classes combined. How THAT happened is an entirely different rabbit hole that i don't feel like going down, but the TLDR here is that our 2017 and 2018 OL recruiting is almost certainly directly responsible for our 2020 OL struggles, and this was a problem that was pretty easy to see coming.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: IMO these two links sum up what happened to our OL


Nov 11, 2020, 12:41 PM

Imo,your just another one of those experts who thinks he knows more than the coaching staff.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I never claimed to know more than the staff


Nov 11, 2020, 12:44 PM

I just think they somehow ended up in a numbers pickle that is now coming back to bite them.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Great post leftie. It’s clear that reading comprehension is not a strength for you.***


Nov 11, 2020, 12:52 PM [ in reply to Re: IMO these two links sum up what happened to our OL ]



military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

And "your" one of those cult members who need to walk


Nov 11, 2020, 2:46 PM [ in reply to Re: IMO these two links sum up what happened to our OL ]

with a shepherd because you're not smart enough to see what he laid out was 100%...We signed 5 OL over a two year period when we really needed to sign at least 7 or 8 and that is why we are depending on Fr as backup and have to start a walk-on at C...What part of that don't you understand?

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: IMO these two links sum up what happened to our OL


Nov 11, 2020, 1:15 PM

First off, I gave you a TU because your info is good and many of your points are very valid.

I will still offer some differing points, mostly because I'm bored and you gave a lot of info to comment on.

First the 2016 class: 3 major contributors and guys that we hit on is really strong for 1 OL class. Those 3 are gone because they were good players and really shouldn't factor in to this discussion. Stewart is now filling a spot as a 5th year which is about the best we can expect. This is where I will say to not pay too much attention to the PFF grades because they have little idea of what our coaches want on a positional basis. Our coaches have graded multiple guys in the 80s or above this season that PFF had below 60. You choose who to trust on performance and maybe it should fall somewhere in the middle. Also I would say Stewart is performing like a 2-low3 star in run blocking but exceeding that in pass pro. Still an average OL at best but a 5th year presence.

2017 class: First you can't knock the staff for not preparing for a career-ending injury. That's a freak thing that hurts but you can't have a roster full of extra players just in case somebody has to retire. We stay within the numbers and in this case it makes things a little tight. Vinson should also be in the spot where Putnam is but lost an entire year of development to injury. Really bad break to add that to the DeHond situation. Bockhorst is by some accounts our best run blocker, which seems true based on what we got after he left injured at ND, and he is having a very solid season at LG. If all 3 guys are healthy and in the program, this 2020 line and depth looks much different.

2018 class: This is the class that is really biting us right now. 2018 is the year we shifted to trying to catch the big fish on the OL like we do at every other position. We caught 1 out of our main 3 (the other 2 signed with UGA under some questionable circumstances) and we elected not to take Cade Stewart type guys just to fill the class. Had we taken a 2 star type guy he likely wouldn't be ready to contribute this year anyway. We saved the spot for the '19 or '20 class and it worked out well as it seems those classes are looking pretty good, but still need time to be ready.

We can't ignore that the thin classes of '17 and '18 likely set us up for the strong classes in '19 & '20 which will help us in the future. I for one am glad that we have committed to going after the better/higher rated guys on the OL like we do at other positions and think our choice in '18 was a good one even if it causes us to struggle a little extra this season. It's a good move for the program in the long run.

I expect Carman to leave for the draft this year. There could be some debate on if he should, but I think he will go for it.

That leaves us with a predicted '21 line of Parks, Bockhorst, ????, Putnam, and McFadden. Depending on who we develop into that center position we should see an upgrade in overall depth and starting line production. Rayburn is the guy I would like to see develop into this spot because I think it helps a ton to have a huge body to anchor the middle of the line.

If for some reason Carman returns, we could be looking at a really strong OL in '21 with the possibility of playing Parks at RT, moving McFadden down to G and maybe Putnam to center.

Also look for that last move to possibly happen to finish this season if the coaches decide that Parks is ready and that they want to shake up the rotation to get something going in the run game.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Just a couple of quick counter-points


Nov 11, 2020, 1:30 PM

1) It wasn't my intention to make it sound like i thought 2016 was in any way part of the problem. My post is really focused on the 2017 and 2018 recruiting cycles. 2016 was a strong OL class. If anything, the 2016 class likely further illustrates how important 3rd and 4th year players are because you can never count on having guys 5 years - even at a position where that is still some-what common.

2) I think it is actually reasonable to expect attrition. While you cannot predict a career-ending injury, you can generally expect SOMETHING to happen whether it is a transfer (Fruh), injury (DeHond), dismissal, etc. It happens at all positions. Some are more prone to attrition than others, but OL is certainly not immune. Signing 5 OL in 2 years and then expecting them all to be with the program 3-4 years later is a risky proposition.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Just a couple of quick counter-points


Nov 11, 2020, 1:50 PM

1) I understood your assessment here. As I said, I agreed with pretty much everything you said and just wanted to add comment due to boredom.

2) The '17 class of 3 by itself is likely fine after a '16 class of 5. It looks really bad now because it was compounded by an '18 class of only 2.

As I said, I think the '18 is what is currently hurting us (along with the misfortune of basically losing 2 of 3 from '17 up until now so we really have only had 3 in 2 years), but I really think it was the right decision.

The move to chasing a higher quality of player on the OL instead of the typical 3 star guys that have made up 4 of 5 OL at Clemson for years and years was a good decision. The problem is that it is hurting us in this one year that is happening right now. I'm hoping we will continue to get the higher rated guys with the occasional flyer taken on a lower rated guy with potential.

Also, I mentioned Rayburn (320 lbs.) as a hopeful to move into consideration for next season. I think another thing that is really hurting our running game this season, besides the 2 small classes, is the lack of size on the interior. In the past few years we have had 2 of the 3 interior guys in the 315-325 range. Our 2nd biggest guy is 310 this season and 2 of our 5 are under 300 lbs. That's a small OL in terms of getting push in the run game. With smaller guys you have to have superior fundamentals and positioning which we do not have.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So as soon as we made Streeter the RC our OL signings


Nov 11, 2020, 1:26 PM

went out the window? Sure, we still got the guy who we had in the pipeline, but once he had full ownership the number of OL signings dwindled and now we are behind the 8 ball and have to over sign and hope they pan out in a couple of years? Hopefully the guys we signed last Feb can contribute before DJ leaves for the NFL

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: So as soon as we made Streeter the RC our OL signings


Nov 11, 2020, 1:54 PM

There is already a starter from one of the last couple of classes and one of the guys in DJ's class is pushing hard for more playing time already. That is happening along with all of these young OL missing an entire off-season worth of development that would have been a huge help right now.

"Hoping some guys can contribute before DJ leaves" is just nonesense.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"only signing 5 OL over a 2 year period" nonsense or" I


Nov 11, 2020, 2:44 PM

can't refute any accurate assessments so I'm just going to gaslight" nonsense?

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: "only signing 5 OL over a 2 year period" nonsense or" I


Nov 11, 2020, 2:48 PM

It's nonsense because some guys are already contributing.

The list of contributors in the next 2 seasons will only grow.

A small recruiting class in '17 will have no negative effect on the '21 or '22 seasons.

A smaller recruiting class in '18 will have a very small negative effect if any in '21 and none in '22.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

They're not contributing though guy, 15 snaps is what we got


Nov 11, 2020, 2:51 PM

Saturday and our OL was an absolute #### show all night...All night

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: They're not contributing though guy, 15 snaps is what we got


Nov 11, 2020, 3:52 PM

CM Shack said:

Saturday and our OL was an absolute #### show all night...All night


I agree. It was bad but enough to put up 40 points 473yds total offense (even with the weekly drive killing fumbles). Even time of possession with UND.

To bad we weren't Duke, Louisville or Georgia Tech this year, because the 33 points the #### show help hang in regulation would have been good for the win.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Good Lord, I can only lead you to the water's edge, if you


Nov 11, 2020, 4:51 PM

die of thirst at the water's edge, that's on you guy

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I love the coward who downvoted every post I made in this


Nov 12, 2020, 5:10 PM

thread, but was still way too chicken #### to offer up a rebuttal to any of them...Leads me to believe the truth hurt his feelings and he couldn't refute any of it

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: IMO these two links sum up what happened to our OL


Nov 11, 2020, 2:58 PM

I don't disagree with the majority of what you are saying, but I think the biggest 2 contributing factors to our low numbers of experienced O linemen is:

1. How well the 2016 recruiting class performed. Who would have expected that 3 of the recruits in that class would NOT redshirt and be gone by now. John Simpson, Sean Pollard, and Tremayne ACnchrum all were in that class. None redshirted, so they are now moved on.

2. Also, losing/missing on Chandler Reeves and Noah Dehond hurt. Thats 5 players that could still be here contributing in some form that are no longer with the program.

Maybe, the coaching staff should have seen the writing on the wall by the 2018 recruiting class, but that still would have been tough to know by then, that all of those 5 guys would have moved on.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Good post...


Nov 11, 2020, 7:00 PM

I'd like to see us over sign at OT on a yearly basis, even it means signing a blocking TE, as a project. Ideally Stewart would be getting solid minutes in a reserve role. Out of necessity, he's stepped into the starting rotation; a role suited for physical skills above his ceiling. As a 5th year senior, improvement is possible, but unlikely. But maybe we faced a playoff level defense in ND.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: IMO these two links sum up what happened to our OL


Nov 11, 2020, 7:04 PM

Can't argue with our recruitment of skill players and Defense -- but Clemson has 35-some practice players who would not start at Vandy. They are winners who fulfill a role at Clemson, but they would not be allowed on the Bama roster.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: IMO these two links sum up what happened to our OL


Nov 11, 2020, 8:14 PM

Ya'll are right about the '18 class being the one hurting us the most now. I really thought we were going to get Cade Mays, then UGA seemed to kinda lure him in right at the end. Remember we were all down about that but the mood brightened later that day when we landed Carmen. Still, things might be a little better if we had managed to get Mays.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 19
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic