Our perceived "lack of talent" on the OL

[Coach34]

Seems like the pro scouts give us more credit than our own fans-


Justin Malone- rated 27th in the country out of 208 Guards:

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=96625&draftyear=2016&genpos=OG

Dillon Day- rated as the 19th best C in the country:

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=106728&draftyear=2015&genpos=C

Blaine Clausell- rated the 27th best OT in the country:

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=106225&draftyear=2015&genpos=OT

[thedawg]

But the ones we missed on....

[Coach34]

Those 3 guys are what our fans call "serviceable" cause Hevesy cant recruit

[MetEdDawg]

I'm a little surprised Day is that low to be honest. I would have thought he might have been a bit higher even with a not so terribly great year last year. I've been saying since before last season that Clausell had the potential to be a draftable OT. He has another solid year and improves upon what he did last year I think he can squeak in the draft. Just throw on his tape against Clowney last year. He did a great job and has obviously improved tremendously since he got here.

[Reason2succeed]

But the ones we missed on....

Help me to remember which OL we missed on that went elsewhere and became great. Seriously because I was trying to think of some and couldn't.

[War Machine Dawg]

Holy shit, Coach. This isn't the argument and you damn well know it. I realize you're trolling and I shouldn't play into your little game by responding, but this is a ridiculous post. We ALL agree that Hevesy has done a good developing some diamonds in the rough. And all 3 of those guys you listed are just that. But literally none of them were big time recruits. They were all 3 stars or less. (Not that I give a shit about stars personally, but that's part of this whole debate) This staff as a whole has proven over and over they're good at finding guys that everyone else has overlooked.

The problem is that we've repeatedly missed on our top 3-5, highly ranked OL targets most years under Mullen. It's forced us to settle for those Plan B-D players. And whether you want to admit it or not, Hev's personality has hurt us with the guys we've lost. I understand he's a damn Yankee and lacks the tact of native Southerners. But it wouldn't kill the guy to at least fake being friendly in recruiting until we can get these guys' names on an LOI. Then he can be the meanest son of a bitch on the planet and no one would care. All most of us are saying is Mullen needs to get Hev's attitude in check during recruiting, because with the way he's developed Malone, Day, Clausell, etc., it'd be damn fun to see what he could do with a 4 star type OL recruit.

[MSUDawg4Life]

Holy shit, Coach. This isn't the argument and you damn well know it. I realize you're trolling and I shouldn't play into your little game by responding, but this is a ridiculous post. We ALL agree that Hevesy has done a good developing some diamonds in the rough. And all 3 of those guys you listed are just that. But literally none of them were big time recruits. They were all 3 stars or less. (Not that I give a shit about stars personally, but that's part of this whole debate) This staff as a whole has proven over and over they're good at finding guys that everyone else has overlooked.

The problem is that we've repeatedly missed on our top 3-5, highly ranked OL targets most years under Mullen. It's forced us to settle for those Plan B-D players. And whether you want to admit it or not, Hev's personality has hurt us with the guys we've lost. I understand he's a damn Yankee and lacks the tact of native Southerners. But it wouldn't kill the guy to at least fake being friendly in recruiting until we can get these guys' names on an LOI. Then he can be the meanest son of a bitch on the planet and no one would care. All most of us are saying is Mullen needs to get Hev's attitude in check during recruiting, because with the way he's developed Malone, Day, Clausell, etc., it'd be damn fun to see what he could do with a 4 star type OL recruit.

Still, name the big time recruits we missed on during the years those guys were recruited that are playing better than them right now. If you can't do that, then shut the **** up.

[CadaverDawg]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2817947/billbored.gif

Going this far to try and spin it, proves that you know we're right. But it's entertaining watching you look up stuff that has zero to do with the original debate. (And I use "debate" lightly...there really is no argument)

[RC3]

I'd like to see the numbers for the rest of the sec west. We go up against some of the best defenses in the land and we need elite talent to combat that. I'm not sure those numbers are proving the point you claim. Not ripping our guys, but with the exception of special teams, they are still the biggest question mark in my mind going into the season

[codeDawg]

Holy shit, Coach. This isn't the argument and you damn well know it. I realize you're trolling and I shouldn't play into your little game by responding, but this is a ridiculous post. We ALL agree that Hevesy has done a good developing some diamonds in the rough. And all 3 of those guys you listed are just that. But literally none of them were big time recruits. They were all 3 stars or less. (Not that I give a shit about stars personally, but that's part of this whole debate) This staff as a whole has proven over and over they're good at finding guys that everyone else has overlooked.

The problem is that we've repeatedly missed on our top 3-5, highly ranked OL targets most years under Mullen. It's forced us to settle for those Plan B-D players. And whether you want to admit it or not, Hev's personality has hurt us with the guys we've lost. I understand he's a damn Yankee and lacks the tact of native Southerners. But it wouldn't kill the guy to at least fake being friendly in recruiting until we can get these guys' names on an LOI. Then he can be the meanest son of a bitch on the planet and no one would care. All most of us are saying is Mullen needs to get Hev's attitude in check during recruiting, because with the way he's developed Malone, Day, Clausell, etc., it'd be damn fun to see what he could do with a 4 star type OL recruit.

Man, Hevesy is who he is. He's just not a people person. That's not to say he isn't a great person / coworker / coach / friend / father, but he's just not an approachable, huggable dude. I know plenty of people like that and any attempt to get them to soften up just comes across as fake and silly.

He is a damn good coach who has put a quality product on the field sTaRZez or no StARzeZ. He is a professional that knows what he is doing and that Mullen trusts. When his guys start stinking it up, then I'm all ears on the complaints, but for now, it's just a bunch of whining.

[Coach34]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2817947/billbored.gif

Going this far to try and spin it, proves that you know we're right. But it's entertaining watching you look up stuff that has zero to do with the original debate. (And I use "debate" lightly...there really is no argument)

no- what this proves is that you guys are wrong and we have more talent then given credit for.

[engie]

All most of us are saying is Mullen needs to get Hev's attitude in check during recruiting, because with the way he's developed Malone, Day, Clausell, etc., it'd be damn fun to see what he could do with a 4 star type OL recruit.

It says all it needs to say when Hevesy is only recruiting one player in MS for this entire cycle. Rankin. Who, strangely enough, most think goes to Ole Miss. He's been pulled off the trail for the most part, especially here -- and it's paying off for us as much as it possibly can. Guys still have to meet him at some point.

Thusfar, Day is the only "backup plan" OL that we've hit on, while we've missed on several. We've got a lot of lower rated guys playing -- but they were mostly early takes for us. That makes a pretty big difference in how I view them. Guys that are evaluated as good enough to commit to us early are totally OK by me regardless of ratings or offers.

Clausell - Committed at 2009 Big Dawg Camp
Clayborn - Committed 2 weeks after Big Dawg Camp
Day - National Signing Day
Malone - Committed Nov 3

Let's just grab a Patterson, Taylor, Gennessy, etc type of player that other people are heavily recruiting once every other cycle or so and everyone will be giddy about everything.

I'm fairly high on our OL recruiting this class at this moment. It's proven volatile over time though. If we can get Danley/Rankin and add one more good HS guy(Williams or Patterson), it will be the best OL haul under Mullen IMO...

[Barking 13]

I'll admit I was cringing when Clausell had to start a couple years ago, but look, he had to replace a first rounder (who was another 3 * from little ol Caledonia, btw, same as Carter)

[Homedawg]

I think both sides have some valid arguments. But we got Damien Robinson who was our "biggest star guy". Who we pretty much all agree is a bust, yet that doesn't count in his recruitment of players. He gets bashed on the ones we missed when we didn't get them even more whether they end up sucking or not. I don't get it. Bottom line is he gets paid to have a good line. And with the exception of one year we have had what I would call good lines. Code had a great post earlier portraying hev. Covered it all. Couldn't have said it better. But while hev isn't the "perfect" recruiter he has had some integral parts in recruiting guys that matter, I.e. Dak. No need to say more.

[Homedawg]

It says all it needs to say when Hevesy is only recruiting one player in MS for this entire cycle. Rankin. Who, strangely enough, most think goes to Ole Miss. He's been pulled off the trail for the most part, especially here -- and it's paying off for us as much as it possibly can. Guys still have to meet him at some point.

Thusfar, Day is the only "backup plan" OL that we've hit on, while we've missed on several. We've got a lot of lower rated guys playing -- but they were mostly early takes for us. That makes a pretty big difference in how I view them. Guys that are evaluated as good enough to commit to us early are totally OK by me regardless of ratings or offers.

Clausell - Committed at 2009 Big Dawg Camp
Clayborn - Committed 2 weeks after Big Dawg Camp
Day - National Signing Day
Malone - Committed Nov 3

Let's just grab a Patterson, Taylor, Gennessy, etc type of player that other people are heavily recruiting once every other cycle or so and everyone will be giddy about everything.

I'm fairly high on our OL recruiting this class at this moment. It's proven volatile over time though. If we can get Danley/Rankin and add one more good HS guy(Williams or Patterson), it will be the best OL haul under Mullen IMO...

Great point about taking a guy that we offer early- we've been pretty damn good evaluating talent!

[Todd4State]

What's with all of this "we're missing our Plan A's" crap? None of us including the recruiting people know what our board is, and I would suspect we miss out on a lot of Plan A's at other positions as well.

Two years ago, we landed Jake Thomas, who I believe was a four star guy that Ole Miss wanted BAD, Kent Flowers who had an Ole Miss offer, and then we found Jamaal Clayborn who is the best of the bunch. OK, so Hevesey screwed up Deon Mix. Devon Desper was a three star, but he played in the Under Armour All-Star Game. And now we have Tommy Champion who is a four star guy.

Not to mention that o-line is by far the most misevaluated position by the recruiting sites.

[thedawg]

We arnt gonna get Patterson so u guys go ahead and accept that... We are 50/50 on both juco guys and it is very important we get one or the other... If we hold on to the three we have and commit a juco guy we will take a developmental guy when Patterson goes elsewhere and it will be a really good oline class... We are number two on the number three center prospect in the nation out of Bessemer Alabama behind Auburn and right now Auburn doesn't have room... That would be a big get... Others will appear late like stallings we just have to close one this year

[Reason2succeed]

Hev knows what he is doing. I remember Florida fans complained about him too though. But one thing that you can't deny is that there is nothing worse than getting a lazy softie at OL. We need the guys that are nasty enough to take it and dish it back out. OL is not my concern this year. Special teams is.

[DownwardDawg]

I spent an entire weekend with our coaching staff a few years ago. Hud was still here. That's why I'm one of the ones who wants Hud IF Mullen ever leaves. Anyway, Hevesy was a very likable guy. He seems a little different, but he's got a sense of humor and we (family) really liked him. I think my son liked him better than most of the other coaches except for Hud. Hud was in a league of his own. I've never understood the dislike for Hevesy, and I don't believe 1/10th of what I read about recruiting on the internet.

[CadaverDawg]

It's amazing how things get spun and redirected a lot of times. The Hevesy defense is funny to me. Nobody has said they want Hevesy gone....nobody has said he isn't a nice guy....nobody has said he is a bad developer of talent...

All we are saying is that we wish he could start reeling in some higher profile OL recruits...that's it. I don't understand why everybody jumps to defend as if we're saying he's garbage.

Most of you guys defending Hevesy, are the same ones that were demanding Mullen recruit better front end talent despite him developing well and going to bowl games. So why can't people ask the same of Hevesy? The strange jumping to defense by C34 and others is odd to me.

Mullen and Collins develop well too...but doesn't it make you happy when a Dak or Jamal Peters commits and signs with us? Isn't it a double standard for you to say we're crazy for asking the same of Hevesy?

If Hev is a big, tough, old school coach that hates soft players, etc....I wouldn't think he would need a lot of defending. Start signing better recruits like THE REST OF THE STAFF IS DOING, and nobody will complain. He has a shot this year if he can retain current commits and close strong

[Bubb Rubb]

Seems like the pro scouts give us more credit than our own fans-


Justin Malone- rated 27th in the country out of 208 Guards:

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=96625&draftyear=2016&genpos=OG

Dillon Day- rated as the 19th best C in the country:

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=106728&draftyear=2015&genpos=C

Blaine Clausell- rated the 27th best OT in the country:

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=106225&draftyear=2015&genpos=OT

What are their SEC rankings? I would expect almost every lineman in the SEC to be top 50 or so.

[thf24]

What are their SEC rankings? I would expect almost every lineman in the SEC to be top 50 or so.

I don't have the time to actually look it up, but if almost every lineman in the SEC were in the top 50 nationally, that would mean the SEC would constitute about half of all guards and tackles and about a quarter of centers. That can't be even close to accurate in reality.

[Coach34]

I don't have the time to actually look it up, but if almost every lineman in the SEC were in the top 50 nationally, that would mean the SEC would constitute about half of all guards and tackles and about a quarter of centers. That can't be even close to accurate in reality.

I only saw 4-5 SEC guys ahead of Malone- that's not even close to being right about SEC guys

[Johnson85]

What's with all of this "we're missing our Plan A's" crap? None of us including the recruiting people know what our board is, and I would suspect we miss out on a lot of Plan A's at other positions as well.

Two years ago, we landed Jake Thomas, who I believe was a four star guy that Ole Miss wanted BAD, Kent Flowers who had an Ole Miss offer, and then we found Jamaal Clayborn who is the best of the bunch. OK, so Hevesey screwed up Deon Mix. Devon Desper was a three star, but he played in the Under Armour All-Star Game. And now we have Tommy Champion who is a four star guy.

Not to mention that o-line is by far the most misevaluated position by the recruiting sites.

I don't think anybody is complaining about the class from two years ago. If we had a class like that every year, there wouldn't be a problem. I would say we are one solid OL signee a class away on average. Our Staff seems to be pretty good on OL evaluation. For every Joey Trapp there is a Malone, Clausell, or CLayborne or two. It sounds like Senior and Carter are developing nicely, so assuming that's true, you have to be impressed with the way they hit on linemen that are not highly recruited. Anybody we offer early, I feel very good about. But we have still spent most of Mullen's time with either a weak link on the Oline, or an OL position where we don't have a good backup. In 2010, we had a converted DT and a RS Freshman split time at LT. In 2012, although Malone did great for how young he was, there was a noticeable lack of push when he came in. Last year I think was the first year we had an OL that could handle an injury, but we still couldn't run the ball against good SEC defenses. I think we're going to ahve the same issue this year. Very solid across the line, but no road pavers that will let us really move the ball against top SEC defenses.

One more good OL prospect every year and Mullen's career so far looks pretty different. If he pulls a ready to play JUCO OT for the 2011 season and a good JUCO Guard or OT for the 2013 season, and our 2011 team looks very different, our 2012 team would have looked better although the record might not have been that much different outside of maybe the egg bowl and for 2013, we have much more solid depth, maybe allowing Malone to go ahead and start working at RT.

[engie]

Last year I think was the first year we had an OL that could handle an injury, but we still couldn't run the ball against good SEC defenses. I think we're going to ahve the same issue this year.

When Dak was in games, who stopped us on the ground?
http://my.jetscreenshot.com/12222/m_20140729-2mah-44kb.jpg

[PassInterference]

Seems like the pro scouts give us more credit than our own fans-


Justin Malone- rated 27th in the country out of 208 Guards:

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=96625&draftyear=2016&genpos=OG

Dillon Day- rated as the 19th best C in the country:

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=106728&draftyear=2015&genpos=C

Blaine Clausell- rated the 27th best OT in the country:

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=106225&draftyear=2015&genpos=OT


But Barrett Sallee says we have less talent than Arkansas.

PS: our defense in 2013 held 5 of our 13 opponents to season low offensive output.

[Bubb Rubb]

I only saw 4-5 SEC guys ahead of Malone- that's not even close to being right about SEC guys

Because you said it, it must be right, and this is my point. Offensive lineman rankings are very subjective. It's not apples-to-apples. If everyone in the country ran the same system, it would be a more reliable exercise. These guys are ranked as highly as they are because they are in the SEC and play for a team expected to have a decent year. It's kinda like recruiting rankings....BMac was a two star, but if Alabama had recruited him, he probably would've been re-evaluated and bumped to a four star.

There's no question that we are serviceable on the line. There's no question that our staff does a great job of developing our linemen. But there is also no question that we have to recruit better there. I don't know if Hevesy is throwing you a bill to come on here and pimp the line every day, but it doesn't make sense to me. OL, aside from the kicking game, is the biggest concern most have about this team going into the season.

[CadaverDawg]

There's no question that we are serviceable on the line. There's no question that our staff does a great job of developing our linemen. But there is also no question that we have to recruit better there. I don't know if Hevesy is throwing you a bill to come on here and pimp the line every day, but it doesn't make sense to me. OL, aside from the kicking game, is the biggest concern most have about this team going into the season.

Bingo. This is all that needs to be said

[Coach34]

And I just wholeheartedly disagree. Our OL will be the best we have had since 2000- and we will be a top 3-4 SEC rushing football team

[Coach34]

When Dak was in games, who stopped us on the ground?
http://my.jetscreenshot.com/12222/m_20140729-2mah-44kb.jpg

and this is my utmost point.

When Dakota played from games 2 until A&M when he got hurt- we rushed for over 200 yards in 6 of 8 games. That is going to get even better with JRob in there.

[CadaverDawg]

Finishing 3-4 in the league in rushing doesn't mean you have the 3rd or 4th best OL. Ask Arkansas. I knew you would resort to that though...we've been talking about how much better Dak and JRob make our run game (Engie has proven that with the numbers) regardless of OL play, and now you'll take our season ending rush totals and say "well, we have the 3rd best OL in the SEC...told y'all". I'm not falling for it.

I do hope we finish top 3-4 or better in rushing though.

[Todd4State]

I don't think anybody is complaining about the class from two years ago. If we had a class like that every year, there wouldn't be a problem. I would say we are one solid OL signee a class away on average. Our Staff seems to be pretty good on OL evaluation. For every Joey Trapp there is a Malone, Clausell, or CLayborne or two. It sounds like Senior and Carter are developing nicely, so assuming that's true, you have to be impressed with the way they hit on linemen that are not highly recruited. Anybody we offer early, I feel very good about. But we have still spent most of Mullen's time with either a weak link on the Oline, or an OL position where we don't have a good backup. In 2010, we had a converted DT and a RS Freshman split time at LT. In 2012, although Malone did great for how young he was, there was a noticeable lack of push when he came in. Last year I think was the first year we had an OL that could handle an injury, but we still couldn't run the ball against good SEC defenses. I think we're going to ahve the same issue this year. Very solid across the line, but no road pavers that will let us really move the ball against top SEC defenses.

One more good OL prospect every year and Mullen's career so far looks pretty different. If he pulls a ready to play JUCO OT for the 2011 season and a good JUCO Guard or OT for the 2013 season, and our 2011 team looks very different, our 2012 team would have looked better although the record might not have been that much different outside of maybe the egg bowl and for 2013, we have much more solid depth, maybe allowing Malone to go ahead and start working at RT.

If people are complaining about our o-line recruiting in general, I would assume that they are referring to the 2012 class as well.

[PassInterference]

When our fans argue not over whether or not we are good, but rather how much better we could be, well then we are in a good place.

[CadaverDawg]

When our fans argue not over whether or not we are good, but rather how much better we could be, well then we are in a good place.

^This^ we can all agree on

[codeDawg]

And I just wholeheartedly disagree. Our OL will be the best we have had since 2000- and we will be a top 3-4 SEC rushing football team

Exactly. People are freaking out because the guys behind our very good starters didn't have a bunch of star power. Those guys have been RS freshmen and true freshmen with a couple of exceptions. Clausell looked awful as a RS Freshman and now he has a good chance at getting a shot in the league.

Everybody needs to pump the brakes a little.

[Coach34]

Finishing 3-4 in the league in rushing doesn't mean you have the 3rd or 4th best OL. Ask Arkansas. I knew you would resort to that though..

No- but when you combine that with Dakota being one if the SEC leaders at sacked the least per attempt- it means you will have a top SEC OL. And that's what we will be this year.

Thats how you you measure an OL- can you run the ball? Do they give up sacks? We'll have our answer soon enough

[maroonmania]

No- but when you combine that with Dakota being one if the SEC leaders at sacked the least per attempt- it means you will have a top SEC OL. And that's what we will be this year.

Thats how you you measure an OL- can you run the ball? Do they give up sacks? We'll have our answer soon enough

Coach, I don't think anyone here is saying or thinking we will have a bad or inadequate OL. I think our OL will be pretty decent by SEC standards, not necessarily a strength but probably not a liability either, and Hevesy has done a nice job developing the group we have where we will likely have 3 starters from the academy ranks. However, do you really feel that our CURRENT OL recruiting is up to the standard of our CURRENT recruiting at most all other positions? If your answer is yes, guess we just have to agree to disagree and move on to a different topic.

[Coach34]

We have 3 fairly highly rated starters plus Clayborn who the staff thinks will be better than Gabe Jackson. So yes, I think we have a talented OL

[Johnson85]

If people are complaining about our o-line recruiting in general, I would assume that they are referring to the 2012 class as well.

I wouldn't assume that people complaining about OL recruiting in general would be complaining about the best year we've had OL-recruiting wise. I can say we have generally had subpar qb's at State without that being a negative comment towards Sleepy or John Bond or Dak Prescott.

[Johnson85]

and this is my utmost point.

When Dakota played from games 2 until A&M when he got hurt- we rushed for over 200 yards in 6 of 8 games. That is going to get even better with JRob in there.

Well if we really had a good O-Line, shouldn't we have been able to run without a QB running threat? It seems like other teams run the ball without it.

It's hard to tell exactly how good our O-Line was last year because a lot of yards were lost trying to pound Perkins up the middle and that's not on them. It's not as clear to me whether our lack of production when Russell was playing was due to the coaches not knowing how to call plays in the offense without a running threat at QB versus our line simply not being able to move the D enough to run the ball without the advantage of an extra runner back there. But it just didn't seem like we got a lot of push against good defenses. I certainly didn't go back and break down tape which I think would be necessary to get a good idea of how an O-line performed, but my impression when watching the games was that we lacked a little oomph there.

[Coach34]

Well if we really had a good O-Line, shouldn't we have been able to run without a QB running threat? It seems like other teams run the ball without it.

no- because our scheme is shit without a mobile QB

[maroonmania]

I wouldn't assume that people complaining about OL recruiting in general would be complaining about the best year we've had OL-recruiting wise. I can say we have generally had subpar qb's at State without that being a negative comment towards Sleepy or John Bond or Dak Prescott.

That is a good analogy in that up until recently I think the consensus was that QB recruiting was not where we wanted it either and we were missing on most of our top targets. Of course the difference is QB is a position of one so you don't have to get a high quality group every year to be alright. But hey, we won games with Chris Relf for a while and Tyler Russell was the one highly rated guy we got to hold things together (even though he wasn't a natural fit for Mullen's offense) until now where we have what looks to be 4 quality guys on the roster with 2 more looking to sign next February.

[engie]

No- but when you combine that with Dakota being one if the SEC leaders at sacked the least per attempt- it means you will have a top SEC OL. And that's what we will be this year.

Thats how you you measure an OL- can you run the ball? Do they give up sacks? We'll have our answer soon enough

I wish TFL allowed was measured in the college game. We would get a wayyy more conclusive picture on OL production with that stat + sacks + rush average...

Depending on the exact quantity of the debate, I can take both sides on this. I can think our OL should be good this year -- and the deepest it's been under Mullen -- while still wanting to see us recruit a little better at the position with guys alot closer to being "ready-made". That said, it seems that may be happening this year...

[engie]

That is a good analogy in that up until recently I think the consensus was that QB recruiting was not where we wanted it either and we were missing on most of our top targets. Of course the difference is QB is a position of one so you don't have to get a high quality group every year to be alright. But hey, we won games with Chris Relf for a while and Tyler Russell was the one highly rated guy we got to hold things together (even though he wasn't a natural fit for Mullen's offense) until now where we have what looks to be 4 quality guys on the roster with 2 more looking to sign next February.

Correct to all. My big thing is -- what # "target" are you hitting on? If you are getting one of the top 2-3 on your board every year(evidenced by when you allow them to commit), then you are doing pretty well. If you get #7-8 on your board on signing day, you aren't doing that well. Doesn't mean those players can't work out -- they certainly can -- but just for assumption purposes on the front end....

In reality, we've probably grabbed our #1 target at the QB position each of the past 3 years -- after only hitting on it once in the first 3(Dak). Sandberg never showed of course. But that's why people have graduated from worrying about that position when they were up in arms at first. Not like the QB commits we've gotten were 5*s with amazing offer sheets for the most part -- but they were our priorities -- and given what we've seen with Dak, we can trust that.

[CadaverDawg]

I wish TFL allowed was measured in the college game. We would get a wayyy more conclusive picture on OL production with that stat + sacks + rush average...

Depending on the exact quantity of the debate, I can take both sides on this. I can think our OL should be good this year -- and the deepest it's been under Mullen -- while still wanting to see us recruit a little better at the position with guys alot closer to being "ready-made". That said, it seems that may be happening this year...

I share your thoughts exactly. Coach is unable to see that wanting us to recruit better, and saying our OL sucks, are two different things.

Well said

[maroonmania]

Correct to all. My big thing is -- what # "target" are you hitting on? If you are getting one of the top 2-3 on your board every year(evidenced by when you allow them to commit), then you are doing pretty well. If you get #7-8 on your board on signing day, you aren't doing that well. Doesn't mean those players can't work out -- they certainly can -- but just for assumption purposes on the front end....

In reality, we've probably grabbed our #1 target at the QB position each of the past 3 years -- after only hitting on it once in the first 3(Dak). Sandberg never showed of course. But that's why people have graduated from worrying about that position when they were up in arms at first. Not like the QB commits we've gotten were 5*s with amazing offer sheets for the most part -- but they were our priorities -- and given what we've seen with Dak, we can trust that.

Well Dak, Fitz and Staley were all high on our QB board and we got those guys. Williams was obviously a late take and down the board a bit in a year where we had some swings and misses (Sandberg to MLB, Dobbs that went to TN and O'Korn that went to Houston) but looks like he is going to be pretty good for a prospect we wrestled away from USM at the last moment.

[Coach34]

And all 4 of those QB's are 3 star players. So I guess we need to be recruiting more talented players there if we ever expect to compete with the big boys of the SEC

[thedawg]

Do u agree that Jake Thomas in 2012 and Tommy Champion in 2014 were either #1 or very near #1 on our board? And yes I know the debacle that was ol recruiting in 2013 and have admitted it sucked.

[CadaverDawg]

Do u agree that Jake Thomas in 2012 and Tommy Champion in 2014 were either #1 or very near #1 on our board? And yes I know the debacle that was ol recruiting in 2013 and have admitted it sucked.

Not sure who you're asking, but yes I do. Which is why I say, IF Champion sticks with us and signs, he's a BIG get. Just waiting til the ink dries before claiming a victory in OL recruiting

[Bully13]

stats aside, it did seem like we had too many of our running plays stuffed at the line of scrimmage last year. this is just based on memory watching our games last year. that's either from too many times having LP up the middle, not enough JRob, and being predictable at times when the passing game had not developed yet. very few Olines can effectively run against quality defenses these days if the D is able to load the box and not respect passing plays. especially play action plays which is a play I love but I don't recall seeing enough of last year. there are 3 stars and there are 3 stars. the QB's you are mentioning coach had better offers than the overall offers of our 3 star olinemen we've been signing. I think anybody would have a hard time arguing we've got to step it up on our Oline recruiting. hopefully we'll turn the corner this year with that. with Dak's improvement, I don't think D's are going to be able to ignore his arm and load the box which should open up some lanes that makes ANY Oline look better.

[Todd4State]

Do u agree that Jake Thomas in 2012 and Tommy Champion in 2014 were either #1 or very near #1 on our board? And yes I know the debacle that was ol recruiting in 2013 and have admitted it sucked.

I do agree and I also think that Damien Robinson was probably near #1 on our board at the time as well.

The thing is we have too many fans getting hung up on stars, some random guy from Kentucky or from wherever else going to some other school, etc.

I think we need to keep getting guys like Tommy Champion and then private school guys. We've had a lot of success with them and there are a few out there. It sounds crazy, but it works for us. It won't win us the star war, and it will cause some of our fans to freak out- but long term it seems to work out for us.

[I seen it dawg]

It's amazing how things get spun and redirected a lot of times. The Hevesy defense is funny to me. Nobody has said they want Hevesy gone....nobody has said he isn't a nice guy....nobody has said he is a bad developer of talent...

All we are saying is that we wish he could start reeling in some higher profile OL recruits...that's it. I don't understand why everybody jumps to defend as if we're saying he's garbage.

Most of you guys defending Hevesy, are the same ones that were demanding Mullen recruit better front end talent despite him developing well and going to bowl games. So why can't people ask the same of Hevesy? The strange jumping to defense by C34 and others is odd to me.

Mullen and Collins develop well too...but doesn't it make you happy when a Dak or Jamal Peters commits and signs with us? Isn't it a double standard for you to say we're crazy for asking the same of Hevesy?

If Hev is a big, tough, old school coach that hates soft players, etc....I wouldn't think he would need a lot of defending. Start signing better recruits like THE REST OF THE STAFF IS DOING, and nobody will complain. He has a shot this year if he can retain current commits and close strong

So higher stars? Or better players? Which is it?

[CadaverDawg]

So higher stars? Or better players? Which is it?

Better front end talent, like I've been saying.

[CadaverDawg]

So higher stars? Or better players? Which is it?

Just because Dan and Company can develop a 2 star into a NFL player, doesn't mean we should only recruit 2 stars, does it? We have gone from recruiting as many raw, project guys that require tons of development, to recruiting guys with more front end talent to work with. It's awesome that we have the ability to develop lower rated guys into studs, but it's even easier to develop high rated guys that are more SEC ready into studs...so why not do it? Gabe Jackson wasn't a 5 star and he ended up being one of the best in the country....so does that mean you aren't interested in Laremy Tunsil's of the world? Hell no.

[MSUDawg4Life]

So higher stars? Or better players? Which is it?

I'd rather have more production.

None of these guys complaining about lack of stars or perceived talent have been able to point to one guy we've missed that is playing better than Blaine Clausell or Dillon Day. Not one.

[thedawg]

I feel like we have been round and round with this... In reality I dont think its as bad as some of our fans do.. I also recognize that 2014 made some fans worry... It was a shitty chain of events that led us to taking two developmental guys on signing day... One or both may make players but I will agree that if 2014 happened every year you have a major issue... I see it as a one year blip in the radar... I think if we sign Genesey or even Price no one is overly concerned and its a total non issue... After this season we lose three starters but it will be Carter, Thomas, Senior, and Jocs turn to step up... If we weather that storm and hold on to the 2015 guys 2014 oline failures will become a non issue the way that the Cord Sandberg/ Josh Dobbs debacle is now.

[Coach34]

Better front end talent, like I've been saying.

And as I've shown- we have front end talent. Including 2 guys that will start for a 4th season as they attend their 5th straight bowl game before signing with an NFL franchise

[I seen it dawg]

I am absolutely in the corner of go get the best players out there, it helps win more games. I think OL is a position for us that is going to have to come along as far as the high front end talent guys. And it's starting to. You aren't just going to start getting all of those guys just because. We didn't sign QB worth a shit for a long time and now we are. OL is taking time but I don't think it can be laid solely at Hevesys feet. I think it's been stated on here before that the entire staff recruits all positions not just the position coach. Unless Hevesy (who I personally saw recruiting Dak) was recruiting Dak to play Right Guard...

Look I would love it if we could get all the 5 stars we wanted. But if they get to campus and aren't coached they won't be worth a shit and will all be busts. I would rather have a staff that coached up 2-3 stars into damn good football players than sign 5 stars that don't get coached and turn to shit....who do we talk about that only care about stars versus who puts a better product on the field?

[I seen it dawg]

I'd rather have more production.

None of these guys complaining about lack of stars or perceived talent have been able to point to one guy we've missed that is playing better than Blaine Clausell or Dillon Day. Not one.

That makes them better players I think.

[Bubb Rubb]

So higher stars? Or better players? Which is it?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't give a damn about star rankings, or rankings in general. Our staff has done a good job of evaluating players and going after the ones they want, not the ones that the recruiting services say they want. So, I don't care if the o-line averages two stars across the board....if those are the ones Mullen wanted. The concerning thing to me is that he hasn't always been getting the ones he wanted...he seems to strike out and ends up going deeper on the board. Some speculate that it's Hevesy's fault. I don't know whose fault it is. I just know that we have to do a better job of getting our top targets on the o-line to pick State, instead of having to go to plan B or plan C. THAT'S what I mean when I say we have to recruit better in that area.

[CadaverDawg]

I'd rather have more production.

None of these guys complaining about lack of stars or perceived talent have been able to point to one guy we've missed that is playing better than Blaine Clausell or Dillon Day. Not one.

How about every lineman in the country that is better than them? You have to be more specific on a "miss". We have just as much opportunity at a Laremy Tunsil as Ole miss. We have just as much possibility at an Austin Gholson as OM. We have just as much opportunity at all of the linemen in the country as the ones that end up getting them. That's the whole point. Nobody is saying that we have bad linemen right now....I don't understand why is is so hard to understand. We're saying, we have stepped up our recruiting in every other position, yet we continue to have to develop underrated guys into "serviceable" or better OLinemen. If you recruit higher front end talent, you don't have to hope for a 3 year development process on every single one of them. Sure, you have your exceptions both ways....but to be a SEC team with a history of a physical ground game, we should be able to recruit better front end OL talent than we are. That's all we're saying.

Once again...

We don't have a shitty line
We have coaches that do a good job of developing

People get so defensive when someone is just pointing out the truth. It doesn't mean I hate MSU, or I want Hevesy fired, or I think our OL sucks, or anything like that...so quit reading too deep into it. I just want us to start recruiting and landing better front end talent like we have been at other positions....and I'd like to have Hevesy not be a reason that some of our OL targets decommit or take our name off the table. Does that make me a terrible guy? Nobody seemed to have a problem asking the same of Mullen even though we had guys like Banks, Slay, McKinney, etc that were lower rated guys making a huge impact...so why all the defense of Hevesy when we're asking the same exact things?

[MSUDawg4Life]

That makes them better players I think.

Does it? So the guys our coaches recruited and developed are ... better players ... than these unicorns these star chasers are whining about? You don't say ....

[HoopsDawg]

No- but when you combine that with Dakota being one if the SEC leaders at sacked the least per attempt- it means you will have a top SEC OL. And that's what we will be this year.

Thats how you you measure an OL- can you run the ball? Do they give up sacks? We'll have our answer soon enough

We couldn't run the ball with our backs last year. If Dak carries the ball 15 times a game, we will fine.....right up until he gets hurt.

[CadaverDawg]

And as I've shown- we have front end talent. Including 2 guys that will start for a 4th season as they attend their 5th straight bowl game before signing with an NFL franchise

If you are using Blaine Clausell as an example of front end talent....you either A) have no clue what front end talent is, or B) are resorting to BS just for arguments sake.

[maroonmania]

So higher stars? Or better players? Which is it?

How about just a few more guys that have multiple other SEC offers? Are we saying we are the only school with a coach that can locate OL prospects with the potential to be developed? We do pretty well with what we get to work with but it would certainly be nice to get some guys with higher ceilings on occasion. I don't think we have one OL this year that would even be a candidate for any all-SEC team at the moment. We had Gabe Jackson last year but I'm pretty sure he was a Croom recruit.

[CadaverDawg]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't give a damn about star rankings, or rankings in general. Our staff has done a good job of evaluating players and going after the ones they want, not the ones that the recruiting services say they want. So, I don't care if the o-line averages two stars across the board....if those are the ones Mullen wanted. The concerning thing to me is that he hasn't always been getting the ones he wanted...he seems to strike out and ends up going deeper on the board. Some speculate that it's Hevesy's fault. I don't know whose fault it is. I just know that we have to do a better job of getting our top targets on the o-line to pick State, instead of having to go to plan B or plan C. THAT'S what I mean when I say we have to recruit better in that area.

Completely agree. And you're right...we can't ONLY blame Hevesy. However, he has been the reason in more than one instance that a high target chose not to come here. Good post

[sandwolf]

The concerning thing to me is that he hasn't always been getting the ones he wanted...he seems to strike out and ends up going deeper on the board. Some speculate that it's Hevesy's fault. I don't know whose fault it is. I just know that we have to do a better job of getting our top targets on the o-line to pick State, instead of having to go to plan B or plan C. THAT'S what I mean when I say we have to recruit better in that area.

Agreed.

[Johnson85]

I'd rather have more production.

None of these guys complaining about lack of stars or perceived talent have been able to point to one guy we've missed that is playing better than Blaine Clausell or Dillon Day. Not one.

Well Clausell I believe was somebody we targeted early. Another example of our staff having a good eye. We waited until late to offer Day, and I think the primary concern was weight. I remember someobdy saying he was a possible grade risk, but have no clue if that was true and caused the staff to prioritize other players or if the poster saying that was full of it.

[HoopsDawg]

Help me to remember which OL we missed on that went elsewhere and became great. Seriously because I was trying to think of some and couldn't.

Are we supposed to follow the careers of every prospect we didn't sign? Last year's O-line recruiting was a mess. Tyler Smith de-committed and signed with NCstate. Norman Price de-committed and signed with USM. He is their starting RT this year. He would have been our starting RG. Jordan Harris didn't qualify. We missed on Stallings after being his leader, he signed with UK. Rawlings de-committed and signed with OM. We were never in the game with Rod Taylor, the top in-state prospect. Bailey Granier was a top target from LA, he signed with Vandy. And this is just last year and this is just off the top of my head. We ended up panic signing a couple of kids with no major offers. Now they may pan out, I hope they do. But they were by no-means prospects our coaches identified as priorities or top prospects.

[I seen it dawg]

How about every lineman in the country that is better than them? You have to be more specific on a "miss". We have just as much opportunity at a Laremy Tunsil as Ole miss. We have just as much possibility at an Austin Gholson as OM. We have just as much opportunity at all of the linemen in the country as the ones that end up getting them. That's the whole point. Nobody is saying that we have bad linemen right now....I don't understand why is is so hard to understand. We're saying, we have stepped up our recruiting in every other position, yet we continue to have to develop underrated guys into "serviceable" or better OLinemen. If you recruit higher front end talent, you don't have to hope for a 3 year development process on every single one of them. Sure, you have your exceptions both ways....but to be a SEC team with a history of a physical ground game, we should be able to recruit better front end OL talent than we are. That's all we're saying.

Once again...

We don't have a shitty line
We have coaches that do a good job of developing

People get so defensive when someone is just pointing out he truth. It doesn't mean I hate MSU, or I want Hevesy fired, or I think our OL sucks, or anything like that...so quit reading too deep into it. I just want us to start recruiting and landing better front end talent like we have been at other positions....and I'd like to have Hevesy not be a reason that some of our OL targets decommit or take our name off the table. Does that make me a terrible? Nobody seemed to have a problem asking the same of Mullen even though we had guys like Banks, Slay, McKinney, etc that were lower rated making a huge impact...so why all the defense of Hevesy when we're asking the same exact things?

Nobody is getting defensive this is just a spirited debate. It's far from a soccer brawl.

And your stance isn't the "truth". It's your take of which quite a few don't agree with which is ok. Personally I don't think you can just go after every 5star the recruiting morons label guys. There isn't enough time, you have to prioritize by who you think you have some kind of chance at. So no we don't have the same opportunities as everybody else for Laremy Tunsil just like other schools, including the best of the best, don't have the same opportunities at every single player. That's not to say we or anybody else doesn't go after "big timers".

We finally broke through on the QB position and we will on OL. It's just taking more time.

And what other players besides Mix has Hevesy cost us to miss out on...?

[I seen it dawg]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't give a damn about star rankings, or rankings in general. Our staff has done a good job of evaluating players and going after the ones they want, not the ones that the recruiting services say they want. So, I don't care if the o-line averages two stars across the board....if those are the ones Mullen wanted. The concerning thing to me is that he hasn't always been getting the ones he wanted...he seems to strike out and ends up going deeper on the board. Some speculate that it's Hevesy's fault. I don't know whose fault it is. I just know that we have to do a better job of getting our top targets on the o-line to pick State, instead of having to go to plan B or plan C. THAT'S what I mean when I say we have to recruit better in that area.

This is correct. At all positions all the time. We always have to be better at landing our targets.

[I seen it dawg]

How about just a few more guys that have multiple other SEC offers? Are we saying we are the only school with a coach that can locate OL prospects with the potential to be developed? We do pretty well with what we get to work with but it would certainly be nice to get some guys with higher ceilings on occasion. I don't think we have one OL this year that would even be a candidate for any all-SEC team at the moment. We had Gabe Jackson last year but I'm pretty sure he was a Croom recruit.

I agree with this. We finally broke through at QB and maybe this class will be the one that happens for the OL.

[Bubb Rubb]

Nobody is getting defensive this is just a spirited debate. It's far from a soccer brawl.

And your stance isn't the "truth". It's your take of which quite a few don't agree with which is ok. Personally I don't think you can just go after every 5star the recruiting morons label guys. There isn't enough time, you have to prioritize by who you think you have some kind of chance at. So no we don't have the same opportunities as everybody else for Laremy Tunsil just like other schools, including the best of the best, don't have the same opportunities at every single player. That's not to say we or anybody else doesn't go after "big timers".

We finally broke through on the QB position and we will on OL. It's just taking more time.

And what other players besides Mix has Hevesy cost us to miss out on...?

I think a lot of people were split on Mix to begin with...so I don't think that was a huge loss. Again, it's not about stars with me, but about getting the guys we targeted. Hoops made an excellent post just up the page a bit where he identifies guys that we missed on, or decommitted from us for whatever reason. We had to go to plan B or C in those cases. That's the only point I'm making.

[CadaverDawg]

Nobody is getting defensive this is just a spirited debate. It's far from a soccer brawl.

And your stance isn't the "truth". It's your take of which quite a few don't agree with which is ok. Personally I don't think you can just go after every 5star the recruiting morons label guys. There isn't enough time, you have to prioritize by who you think you have some kind of chance at. So no we don't have the same opportunities as everybody else for Laremy Tunsil just like other schools, including the best of the best, don't have the same opportunities at every single player. That's not to say we or anybody else doesn't go after "big timers".

We finally broke through on the QB position and we will on OL. It's just taking more time.

And what other players besides Mix has Hevesy cost us to miss out on...?

Who said we have to go after every 5 star? All I'm saying is that if some 3 star kid out of Weir, MS is our top target, by God sign the kid. Don't lose him to OM, USM, etc and then end up having to resort to your 5th or 6th prospect as your top OL recruit. We either need to start landing the guys we're going after if they are all going to be developmental guys....or we need to start shooting for more top players early, so that the bottom of our list is a better caliber player on the front end.

I'm not talking stars here. I'm talking front end talent. Yes, most guys with high front end talent are 4/5 stars...but I'm not focused on stars. I feel like Hevesy and Mullen are great evaluators. So I have a lot of faith in their recruiting board whether it's all 2 stars or all 5 stars. But if you have a bunch of "potential" on the top of your OL board, and not a lot of front end talent.....you better make sure you're landing the top players on your board, bc you're already out of the game with most of the guys with the highest ceilings.

And yes, I do think it's the "truth". Otherwise the consensus wouldn't be that our OLine is our only potential weak link this season. And that IS the consensus whether C34 says we have a great OL or not.

And again, I'm happy with the way our 2015 OL class has started. I just want to see us close. As long as I continuously see our coaches recognizing their weaknesses, and trying to improve on them, I will always be happy. What happened last year with our OL recruiting is the type of shit that can sink a team fast if you do it back to back years....so there's a reason some of us raise a little concern with the OL

[HoopsDawg]

And again, I'm happy with the way our 2015 OL class has started. I just want to see us close. As long as I continuously see our coaches recognizing their weaknesses, and trying to improve on them, I will always be happy. What happened last year with our OL recruiting is the type of shit that can sink a team fast if you do it back to back years....so there's a reason some of us raise a little concern with the OL

So far this year, I really only consider 2 losses: Chandler Jones to Louisville and Womack to LSU. Can't find fault on Womack since LSU was his dream offer. Must sign Danley and/or Rankin + another good interior HS O-linemen.

[CadaverDawg]

So far this year, I really only consider 2 losses: Chandler Jones to Louisville and Womack to LSU. Can't find fault on Womack since LSU was his dream offer. Must sign Danley and/or Rankin + another good interior HS O-linemen.

Agreed. Finish with Danley, Rankin would be big. Patterson would be a homerun

[maroonmania]

How about every lineman in the country that is better than them? You have to be more specific on a "miss". We have just as much opportunity at a Laremy Tunsil as Ole miss. We have just as much possibility at an Austin Gholson as OM. We have just as much opportunity at all of the linemen in the country as the ones that end up getting them.

Considering the Bracky factor we deal with I'm not sure that last line is totally accurate.

[thedawg]

So far this year, I really only consider 2 losses: Chandler Jones to Louisville and Womack to LSU. Can't find fault on Womack since LSU was his dream offer. Must sign Danley and/or Rankin + another good interior HS O-linemen.

Trey Derouen is the same player as Chandler Jones... similar size, ability, and offer sheets... You can only call it a loss if you miss on a guy and have to replace him with an unknown with no other offers... If you miss on a guy and another guy of similar ability and stature commits then its a tradeoff... They were recruiting both of those guys and one committed to Louisville.. We have no way to know which one was rated higher on Mississippi States board.. Jmho

[Coach34]

We couldn't run the ball with our backs last year. If Dak carries the ball 15 times a game, we will fine.....right up until he gets hurt.

JRob averaged almost 6ypc didn't he? How is that not "running the ball"?

[engie]

Agreed. Finish with Danley, Rankin would be big. Patterson would be a homerun

Williams is a huge deal too. We badly need a true C prospect. That's seemingly already going to be kinda patchwork next year IMO...

[Coach34]

Williams is a huge deal too. We badly need a true C prospect. That's seemingly already going to be kinda patchwork next year IMO...

coaches expect Calhoun to be the Center at this point

[HoopsDawg]

JRob averaged almost 6ypc didn't he? How is that not "running the ball"?

He got 6 carries per game. If we needed 3 yards, our RB couldn't get it. Did you see our interior OL getting a push b/c I did not.

[HoopsDawg]

coaches expect Calhoun to be the Center at this point

Calhoun, who you touted in another thread, has yet to play a snap in practice or a game. If Mullen can sign Danley and Rankin and Flowers develops, I could see Clayborn playing C next year. That is his most natural position.

[Coach34]

Whoa Cadaver- OL is our weakest spot as a consensus by who? ESPN ranked our OL higher than they ranked our WR's and RB's in the SEC

[CadaverDawg]

Whoa Cadaver- OL is our weakest spot as a consensus by who? ESPN ranked our OL higher than they ranked our WR's and RB's in the SEC

Consensus.... Look that word up

I didn't say "ESPN". That's one source.

[Coach34]

He got 6 carries per game. If we needed 3 yards, our RB couldn't get it. Did you see our interior OL getting a push b/c I did not.

Go back and watch the UPig game- couldn't run the ball with Perk in the 1st half. He gets hurts. Insert JRob in the 2nd half- he runs for 100 yards. It wasn't the OL- it was Perkins

Dakota and JRob ran the ball just fine. Their YPC averages were good- Perkins was not. There's a reason for that

[thedawg]

Go back and watch the UPig game- couldn't run the ball with Perk in the 1st half. He gets hurts. Insert JRob in the 2nd half- he runs for 100 yards. It wasn't the OL- it was Perkins

Dakota and JRob ran the ball just fine. Their YPC averages were good- Perkins was not. There's a reason for that

New debate since we have killed this one... Why did Mullen stick with Perkins so long and put him in a position to not be successful? Whos gonna be ******* guy that he sticks with way too long this year?

[Coach34]

I was told that Perkins did everything he was asked off the field while some others did not. He also pass blocked the best and was a leader in practice. A point was being driven home to the other RB's

[HoopsDawg]

Go back and watch the UPig game- couldn't run the ball with Perk in the 1st half. He gets hurts. Insert JRob in the 2nd half- he runs for 100 yards. It wasn't the OL- it was Perkins

Dakota and JRob ran the ball just fine. Their YPC averages were good- Perkins was not. There's a reason for that

So coaching is a big concern?

[thedawg]

I was told that Perkins did everything he was asked off the field while some others did not. He also pass blocked the best and was a leader in practice. A point was being driven home to the other RB's

As a coach I get that... What you do without the ball in your hands is a major concern at Rb that most people over look... If you wont block or carry out your fake or line up correctly you can really fubar an offense... I also know that at times Jrob needs a big dose of act right... but damn... motivate the ****er to do those things... the divide between the two when the ball was in their hands was large... really frustratingly large

[Johnson85]

I was told that Perkins did everything he was asked off the field while some others did not. He also pass blocked the best and was a leader in practice. A point was being driven home to the other RB's

I get that but it seems like the way to reward Perkins was to send him on routes out of the backfield and give him some easy TD's against weaker opponents. Pounding him up the middle may have kept the other RB's from getting touches when they were not doing everything correctly off the field, but seems like emphasizing Perkins weaknesses for scouts wasn't so great for Perk.

Also, when was Griffin hurt this past year? Was he not available for any games to take all those up the middle carries? I'm assuming that the guy that has come back from two injuries like he has has more or less been doing the right things off the field.

[Coach34]

Consensus.... Look that word up

I didn't say "ESPN". That's one source.

I havent found one source yet that ranked our RB's higher than our OL. Most of the consensus I have found is that our OL is viewed by others as our 2nd strongest group on offense. Who is this "consensus" you speak of?

[Coach34]

I get that but it seems like the way to reward Perkins was to send him on routes out of the backfield and give him some easy TD's against weaker opponents. Pounding him up the middle may have kept the other RB's from getting touches when they were not doing everything correctly off the field, but seems like emphasizing Perkins weaknesses for scouts wasn't so great for Perk.

Also, when was Griffin hurt this past year? Was he not available for any games to take all those up the middle carries? I'm assuming that the guy that has come back from two injuries like he has has more or less been doing the right things off the field.

The play we run is not called "up the middle"....it's an inside zone play in which the back has to read flow and find the crease in the defense. JRob finds that inside crease a helluva lot better than Perkins did.

[Johnson85]

The play we run is not called "up the middle"....it's an inside zone play in which the back has to read flow and find the crease in the defense. JRob finds that inside crease a helluva lot better than Perkins did.

Whether his lack of success was because he can't make reads or is too easy to bring down, it still doesn't seem like emphasizing that would be good for Perkins.

[Bubb Rubb]

Go back and watch the UPig game- couldn't run the ball with Perk in the 1st half. He gets hurts. Insert JRob in the 2nd half- he runs for 100 yards. It wasn't the OL- it was Perkins

Dakota and JRob ran the ball just fine. Their YPC averages were good- Perkins was not. There's a reason for that

Can you say with certainty that we were running the same plays, and Jrob was gaining yards when Perkins was not? If you were truly a football coach, you know way better than this. Watching football plays develop and execute is like looking at an iceberg....there's the 30% that you see, and the 70% that you don't see.

I seem to recall many plays....I mean at least a dozen, where Perkins didn't go anywhere because he ran into one of our slow, fat ass linemen pulling in front of him. Whose fault is that? J-Rob is a much more physical back so they did a lot of traditional north/south running with power blocking. Perk was smaller and quicker, and the line blocked differently for him...lots of pulls, cross-blocks, combo blocks, and traps.

So while I agree with the general premise that JRob was a more productive runner, Perkins gets a horrible injustice done to him on this board. He was misused as a back, and that's why he wasn't as productive last year. And just so you know, it's a lot easier to power-run block than it is to do the other stuff, which is why the line probably looked so much better.

[Coach34]

Can you say with certainty that we were running the same plays, and Jrob was gaining yards when Perkins was not? .

Yes

We dont have that many different running plays- especially when we were without Dakota. We only had like 6 running plays with Tyler at QB. JRob sets up blocks and does things differently from Perk. Same offense- but different result because the RB did a better job of finding the creases to slip into

[thedawg]

Can you say with certainty that we were running the same plays, and Jrob was gaining yards when Perkins was not? If you were truly a football coach, you know way better than this. Watching football plays develop and execute is like looking at an iceberg....there's the 30% that you see, and the 70% that you don't see.

I seem to recall many plays....I mean at least a dozen, where Perkins didn't go anywhere because he ran into one of our slow, fat ass linemen pulling in front of him. Whose fault is that? J-Rob is a much more physical back so they did a lot of traditional north/south running with power blocking. Perk was smaller and quicker, and the line blocked differently for him...lots of pulls, cross-blocks, combo blocks, and traps.

So while I agree with the general premise that JRob was a more productive runner, Perkins gets a horrible injustice done to him on this board. He was misused as a back, and that's why he wasn't as productive last year. And just so you know, it's a lot easier to power-run block than it is to do the other stuff, which is why the line probably looked so much better.

He was for sure misused that we agree on... Hes a hell of a third down back... or pass catcher out of the the backfield... was really productive in the that role for three years... He was not so much a feature back..

[maroonmania]

I havent found one source yet that ranked our RB's higher than our OL. Most of the consensus I have found is that our OL is viewed by others as our 2nd strongest group on offense. Who is this "consensus" you speak of?

Not surprised by that given we have 3 returning starters coming back on the OL with a 4th guy that was a starter in the first game of the season coming back off injury although I'm not convinced Malone is going to be back to full speed by the first game this year. Meanwhile, JRob really hasn't gotten much hype as a RB although most of us think he is likely an upgrade from Perkins. Our RBs I do believe have the higher ceiling but our OL is more of a known quantity at this point.

[Todd4State]

Trey Derouen is the same player as Chandler Jones... similar size, ability, and offer sheets... You can only call it a loss if you miss on a guy and have to replace him with an unknown with no other offers... If you miss on a guy and another guy of similar ability and stature commits then its a tradeoff... They were recruiting both of those guys and one committed to Louisville.. We have no way to know which one was rated higher on Mississippi States board.. Jmho

Exactly. A lot of times what happens is there will be a player of interest who is about to make an announcement and the recruiting web site people will talk about him because of the possibility of a commitment. But that doesn't mean a guy is higher or lower on our board. It just means he is announcing earlier.

[Todd4State]

I get that but it seems like the way to reward Perkins was to send him on routes out of the backfield and give him some easy TD's against weaker opponents. Pounding him up the middle may have kept the other RB's from getting touches when they were not doing everything correctly off the field, but seems like emphasizing Perkins weaknesses for scouts wasn't so great for Perk.Also, when was Griffin hurt this past year? Was he not available for any games to take all those up the middle carries? I'm assuming that the guy that has come back from two injuries like he has has more or less been doing the right things off the field.

You'll have to take that up with Dan. I agree that he was grossly misused. Perkins is not a bad player, but he's not a between the tackles type runner. The way we used him was quite puzzling.

[War Machine Dawg]

It's amazing how things get spun and redirected a lot of times. The Hevesy defense is funny to me. Nobody has said they want Hevesy gone....nobody has said he isn't a nice guy....nobody has said he is a bad developer of talent...

All we are saying is that we wish he could start reeling in some higher profile OL recruits...that's it. I don't understand why everybody jumps to defend as if we're saying he's garbage.

Most of you guys defending Hevesy, are the same ones that were demanding Mullen recruit better front end talent despite him developing well and going to bowl games. So why can't people ask the same of Hevesy? The strange jumping to defense by C34 and others is odd to me.

Mullen and Collins develop well too...but doesn't it make you happy when a Dak or Jamal Peters commits and signs with us? Isn't it a double standard for you to say we're crazy for asking the same of Hevesy?

If Hev is a big, tough, old school coach that hates soft players, etc....I wouldn't think he would need a lot of defending. Start signing better recruits like THE REST OF THE STAFF IS DOING, and nobody will complain. He has a shot this year if he can retain current commits and close strong

Nailed it.

[Bubb Rubb]

Yes

We dont have that many different running plays- especially when we were without Dakota. We only had like 6 running plays with Tyler at QB. JRob sets up blocks and does things differently from Perk. Same offense- but different result because the RB did a better job of finding the creases to slip into


You are dead wrong on this, my friend, so we will disagree.

[Coach34]

You are dead wrong on this, my friend, so we will disagree.

Bubb, we run:

Counter
Zone read
Inside Zone
Zone Stretch
Jet Sweep
QB Power (that's what I call the play we scored on in Egg Bowl- some call it the power trap)
Speed Option

other than that- we really don't run much of anything else very often