PFF Week 1 Grades

[slugboy]

I'm more meaning why is a walkon ahead of their "recruiting prowess" guys. I have no issue with walkons, but this staff was fairly snide in the past about previous staff's weights/recruiting abilities. That comes off hypocritical to a lot of people. People would be more forgiving if Collins and Key hadn't been so cocky coming in.

If you have 5 walk-ons ahead of all your scholarship athletes, you have an evaluation problem. If you have 1 walk-on starting, that’s probability at work, and normal. Healthy programs have contributions by walk-ons

I’d like to see more walk-ons competing for starts at other positions

 

[LargeFO]

Sometimes walk-ons turn out to be exceptional athletes. Baker Mayfield won the Heisman Trophy. Stetson Bennett just won a national championship with the mutts. Clay Matthews was an NFL All-Pro. Sean Bedford was All-ACC. It seems as if you are more interested in taking shots at the staff than discussing football.

Not sure how I’m taking shots for calling out hypocritical actions. Collins and Key both came in really mouthy about the OL and to this point have looked quite silly. We’ll see if it improves.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Not sure how I’m taking shots for calling out hypocritical actions. Collins and Key both came in really mouthy about the OL and to this point have looked quite silly. We’ll see if it improves.

You've said your piece. I'll say mine. If you want to talk PFF grades, this is the place. If you want to insult the staff, find a more appropriate thread.

 

[yeti92]

If you have 5 walk-ons ahead of all your scholarship athletes, you have an evaluation problem. If you have 1 walk-on starting, that’s probability at work, and normal. Healthy programs have contributions by walk-ons

Yea, idk about that being normal in regards to the OL. 1 or 2 guys across the entire starting 22 maybe, but not usually on OL. Gut feeling, but I would guess there are few programs around the country starting any walk-on OL, and far fewer (if any) are the number of those programs where O line isn't a problem and the walk on just happens to be good and just went undiscovered.

Sean Bedford and William Lay are the only other walk on OL I can think of over the last 15 years that started for Tech or even got significant snaps.

 

[jacketup]

I ratcheted down my expectations for the offense after watching the game. Chip Long would like to run a lot of 12 personnel, but I'm not sure he has the TE's to do it. The grades bear that out, although one TE was not available for the game. Good TE play would also help a young (younger than I expected) OL, but that wasn't the case Monday. Sims was better, but I expected that and factored it into preseason expectations. Unfortunately, we are still digging out from 11 years of running the option, and it shows up most at OL and TE.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Yea, idk about that being normal in regards to the OL. 1 or 2 guys across the entire starting 22 maybe, but not usually on OL. Gut feeling, but I would guess there are few programs around the country starting any walk-on OL, and far fewer (if any) are the number of those programs where O line isn't a problem and the walk on just happens to be good and just went undiscovered.

Sean Bedford and William Lay are the only other walk on OL I can think of over the last 15 years that started for Tech or even got significant snaps.

I mean, the Brandon Burlsworth trophy is named after a walk on lineman who was named an All American and was drafted into the NFL. I would also highly doubt more than a handful of P5 programs have walk on OL either starting or making key contributions. I do not, however, see the fact that we have one as a major indictment on our staff or our recruiting. There are plenty of other legitimate complaints for both of these areas of concern without having to make this an issue as well.

 

[JacketFan137]

Ok, but after all that "404 recruiting" overhaul chatter thats pretty sad for year 4.

if a guy wins the job he wins the job. weren’t you lot saying stuff about how stars don’t matter and the best guys should play?

can’t have it both ways now

 

[LargeFO]

if a guy wins the job he wins the job. weren’t you lot saying stuff about how stars don’t matter and the best guys should play?

can’t have it both ways now

nah must have your fonts confused.

 

[augustabuzz]

Ok, but after all that "404 recruiting" overhaul chatter thats pretty sad for year 4.

Our 1st OL recruiting class was 2020.

 

[stinger 1957]

Obviously speculation on my part, but I see this OL group getting better as year goes along to where they are a pretty good group near the end of the year. We will see. Other the UGA I have to keep in mind that front 7 we were up against one of the best in the country and it was the first game for a young group in a position that is hardest to learn other than QB.

 

[yeti92]

Obviously speculation on my part, but I see this OL group getting better as year goes along to where they are a pretty good group near the end of the year. We will see. Other the UGA I have to keep in mind that front 7 we were up against one of the best in the country and it was the first game for a young group in a position that is hardest to learn other than QB.

I'm not sure whether it's due to the o-line blocking better, or Sims escaping more, or receivers getting open more, or running quicker developing plays, but we did improve on getting sacked less than last year, and our d line actually got more sacks than Clemson this year which certainly makes you feel good.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I'm not sure whether it's due to the o-line blocking better, or Sims escaping more, or receivers getting open more, or running quicker developing plays, but we did improve on getting sacked less than last year, and our d line actually got more sacks than Clemson this year which certainly makes you feel good.

I think it's a little bit of both. The OL, for all its faults, "looked" better in the way they moved and played against a vastly more talented DL. We did game plan some for that, as we didn't ask them to hold blocks for long developing downfield passes. WR play is still a ? for me, but it wasn't abysmal either.

On the D side, more of the same. We gave up more yards and more points to what is most likely going to be a much better, though not great, Clemson offense. The "eyeball test" says DL got more penetration, LBs didn't play out of position nearly as much, and DBs held their own for decent parts of the game.

Stats wise, we're still atrocious on both fronts, but I have hope that some games against teams where the talent level difference isn't quite as pronounced will go our way now.