Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Expectations for Strength & Conditioning this off season
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="takethepoints" data-source="post: 670264" data-attributes="member: 265"><p>I didn't put down the heights of the players, but Tech stacks up pretty much the same there as well. Lay and Hansen are 6'2", but a lot of the opposing OLs are 6'2 or 3" as well, you can look at the source I provided. The exception among our Coastal opponents is, again, Pitt; they've got 6'5" height two deep everywhere, though it didn't help them much this year. Further, when you look down our depth chart, we actually have more "length" sitting down then in the starting lineup. When all the data is considered here, I don't see anything indicating that "Results clearly show we're lacking on both fronts …". Quite the contrary, in fact. Unless, of course, you think average differences of 1 - 3 pounds or so are significant. Here's the comparison in round numbers of average OL weights; there's no point in doing it for the DLs, as you can see:</p><p></p><p>Tech| 306, Puke| 307, da U| 308, Pitt| 314, UVA| 302, VT| 307 and, just for good measure, NCSU| 305</p><p></p><p>Again, except for Pitt, most differences are around 1 - 2 pounds. In short, I think this is a red herring. Our problems on the OL had more to do with nagging injuries to key players, learning new blocking techniques, and getting game experience with a new O then any gross physical or talent differences. And, of course, Clemson and Ugag are tough matchups for everybody. </p><p></p><p>I agree, however, that some players will need to carry more weight next year (you guys know who you are) and some will have to get in better condition (ditto). We will need that; the incoming frosh OLs and DLs will need a year in the weight room before they are ready for prime time. (There is one exception, I think, but he's on the light side compared to our present lineups.) Our easiest solution would be to move Defoor back to OT and either keep Lay at center and move Cooper to guard or keep Cooper at center (yay!) and let one of the others (Minihan, Clark, Smith, or, if he recovers, Maye) move in at guard. But this will be determined this spring and by who leaves, if any do. We'll see some results of the program then.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 670264, member: 265"] I didn't put down the heights of the players, but Tech stacks up pretty much the same there as well. Lay and Hansen are 6'2", but a lot of the opposing OLs are 6'2 or 3" as well, you can look at the source I provided. The exception among our Coastal opponents is, again, Pitt; they've got 6'5" height two deep everywhere, though it didn't help them much this year. Further, when you look down our depth chart, we actually have more "length" sitting down then in the starting lineup. When all the data is considered here, I don't see anything indicating that "Results clearly show we're lacking on both fronts …". Quite the contrary, in fact. Unless, of course, you think average differences of 1 - 3 pounds or so are significant. Here's the comparison in round numbers of average OL weights; there's no point in doing it for the DLs, as you can see: Tech| 306, Puke| 307, da U| 308, Pitt| 314, UVA| 302, VT| 307 and, just for good measure, NCSU| 305 Again, except for Pitt, most differences are around 1 - 2 pounds. In short, I think this is a red herring. Our problems on the OL had more to do with nagging injuries to key players, learning new blocking techniques, and getting game experience with a new O then any gross physical or talent differences. And, of course, Clemson and Ugag are tough matchups for everybody. I agree, however, that some players will need to carry more weight next year (you guys know who you are) and some will have to get in better condition (ditto). We will need that; the incoming frosh OLs and DLs will need a year in the weight room before they are ready for prime time. (There is one exception, I think, but he's on the light side compared to our present lineups.) Our easiest solution would be to move Defoor back to OT and either keep Lay at center and move Cooper to guard or keep Cooper at center (yay!) and let one of the others (Minihan, Clark, Smith, or, if he recovers, Maye) move in at guard. But this will be determined this spring and by who leaves, if any do. We'll see some results of the program then. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Expectations for Strength & Conditioning this off season
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top