One UConn Observation

[OrangePA]

One thing that struck me at the game on Saturday was the sheer size of the UConn OL.

6'6" 309; 6'6" 312; 6'7" 304; 6'8" 325 and 6'4" 300.

They were really big. And that's UConn!

And that caused me to think back on Doug Marrone's complaint a few years ago that we were not big enough.

We are still not big enough.

We are young and we are getting a lot of experience, but we need to get bigger and faster.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

As TomCat said in his recap - they're big, but that doesn't mean they're athletic.

 

[sufandu]

Briles liked big olines at Baylor too. Can we eventually bring in bigger guys that are athletic enough?

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Briles liked big olines at Baylor too. Can we eventually bring in bigger guys that are athletic enough?

Our starting OLine from Saturday:
Lasker - 6'5" 312
Roberts - 6'4" 280
Byrne - 6'5" 312
Adams - 6'6" 333
McGloster - 6'7" 328

There are several large men on that line.

 

[SUATO92]

One thing that struck me at the game on Saturday was the sheer size of the UConn OL.

6'6" 309; 6'6" 312; 6'7" 304; 6'8" 325 and 6'4" 300.

They were really big. And that's UConn!

And that caused me to think back on Doug Marrone's complaint a few years ago that we were not big enough.

We are still not big enough.

We are young and we are getting a lot of experience, but we need to get bigger and faster.

And yet they weren't big enough to push past our young DL for one measly yard and our OL was good enough to go 99 yards in the opposite direction to close out the game.:noidea:

 

[sufandu]

Our starting OLine from Saturday:
Lasker - 6'5" 312
Roberts - 6'4" 280
Byrne - 6'5" 312
Adams - 6'6" 333
McGloster - 6'7" 328

There are several large men on that line.

Hopefully we'll start seeing more push from them.

 

[orangehomer]

I think part of diaco's recruiting is to just get the biggest guys he can that can walk and chew gum, and then see if he can make them into football players. I see it as the jay bromley approach. "hey man, the dude is huge lets take him and see if we can teach him." Yukon huge but slow.

 

[Deuga]

Size has been my concern about this team for a couple years now. Our O line is smaller than all of our competitors except Colgate, our RBs are lighter, our LBs are lighter, on and on. We haven't got a single 220 RB on the roster. Sure there are exceptions: Amba and Ishmael for example have good size. Dungey has decent size at the QB position.

I think knowing your role and being able to execute that role accurately is more important than size. I think if we win more games it'll be because of superior execution with good quickness at some key positions and running a scheme that opponents struggle with. However, over the long run I think size is one of Baber's challenges.

 

[orangehomer]

Size has been my concern about this team for a couple years now. Our O line is smaller than all of our competitors except Colgate, our RBs are lighter, our LBs are lighter, on and on. We haven't got a single 220 RB on the roster. Sure there are exceptions: Amba and Ishmael for example have good size. Dungey has decent size at the QB position.

I think knowing your role and being able to execute that role accurately is more important than size. I think if we win more games it'll be because of superior execution with good quickness at some key positions and running a scheme that opponents struggle with. However, over the long run I think size is one of Baber's challenges.

we're not going to suddenly find players that are bigger and more athletic than the ACC. especially in our division. the only hope we have is to perfect a system that teams have trouble with, and maximize the abilities of good athletes that are not 5*. that's where we are at. I hope babers has a bit better plan for the defense, but I think that is at least a year away.

 

[hungrychuck]

Size or not, UConn's offensive line has been godawful for some time now. Certainly all of last year, and off to a woeful start this year.

It may be the weakest unit on that team.

 

[RF2044]

Briles liked big olines at Baylor too. Can we eventually bring in bigger guys that are athletic enough?

Yes. But we saw last year the template that Babers might follow--he recruited a bunch of really tall OL who are a bit undersized weight-wise, but who have room to pack "good" weight on without losing athleticism. When you have a bunch of 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7 guys up front, that's a lot of heft.

Now, it might take them two years in a collegiate S&C program to add the right weight / strength. But taller guys carry 310+ pounds differently than 6-2 guys.

Interestingly, the two OL we have lined up for the class of 2017 are both tall AND big. So, maybe we can have our cake and eat it, too.

But the key is getting "bigger" prospects, and letting those big-framed guys to bulk up appropriately. Bigger OL should be able to open holes in the running game more effectively, and if they don't lose athleticism they should be effective as pass blockers, too.

OL has been a trouble spot for our program for decades. Even in the McNabb days, his athleticism and ability to make plays on the move helped to mask poor blocking. I was hopeful that Marrone, with his background and coaching experience as an OL coach, would help address it, but he wasn't around long enough for that to come to fruition. Babers and staff look like they have a template for the attributes that make successful OL in their system. Bigger seems to be what they are going for.

 

[OrangeTarheel]

I always thought this was a core tenet of football - the offensive line is the core of everything on an offense. Is it that hard to recruit big lineman who are reasonably athletic and ready for D1?

 

[oldpinepoint]

Size isn't everything when it comes to the OL.

 

[javadoc]

Size isn't everything when it comes to the OL.

Big fat guys who can't sprint to the new LOS and get another play off, without much recovery time, are useless in this offense.

 

[PhatOrange]

Our starting OLine from Saturday:
Lasker - 6'5" 312
Roberts - 6'4" 280
Byrne - 6'5" 312
Adams - 6'6" 333
McGloster - 6'7" 328

There are several large men on that line.

Yeah I don't really think our online is small. Young and inexperienced but not small.

 

[upperdeck]

so the real question is why have we struggled for so long with a running game when a run play is required? these guys are big enough. is it strength? talent? technique? confusion?

uconn was still able to gain 1-2 yds everytime they ran that QB sneak. if they had been smart maybe they should have run that 4 times down on the goal line to score.. our sneaks are a struggle and usually require the qb to slide sideways to find a hole.. some teams just do it well we havent for a long time.

the system masks many of the oline issues, which is good. But when we need to run we struggle and when we need to pass we are just OK. its when we keep the D guessing that we look decent.

O for the days we can run a screen pass, we used to be pretty good at it, and when we were we had a pretty good oline.. maybe the 2 go hand in hand. strong and nimble..

 

[sutomcat]

Our starting OLine from Saturday:
Lasker - 6'5" 312
Roberts - 6'4" 280
Byrne - 6'5" 312
Adams - 6'6" 333
McGloster - 6'7" 328

There are several large men on that line.

Averages

UConn 6'6 310 pounds
Syracuse 6'5 313 pounds

Sounds like Cody Conway might be back at LT next week. He is listed at 6'6 287 pounds. If you use him instead of Lasker, UConn and Syracuse average 6'6 and the SU average weight goes to 308. They are very close, in large part because Byrne and Adams are bigger than Emerich and Palmer.

Conway SO
Roberts SO
Byrne RFR
Adams RFR
McGloster RJR

If you believe these players are going to improve (I do), the future is pretty bright at OL.

 

[Faegan]

Browning's Edict: Well, we're not going to play fat people

 

[PhatOrange]

so the real question is why have we struggled for so long with a running game when a run play is required? these guys are big enough. is it strength? talent? technique? confusion?

uconn was still able to gain 1-2 yds everytime they ran that QB sneak. if they had been smart maybe they should have run that 4 times down on the goal line to score.. our sneaks are a struggle and usually require the qb to slide sideways to find a hole.. some teams just do it well we havent for a long time.

the system masks many of the oline issues, which is good. But when we need to run we struggle and when we need to pass we are just OK. its when we keep the D guessing that we look decent.

O for the days we can run a screen pass, we used to be pretty good at it, and when we were we had a pretty good oline.. maybe the 2 go hand in hand. strong and nimble..

Strickland and Neal are part of the problem.

 

[Alsacs]

UConn may have a big OL but our DL dominated them opening holes for the LB to make play after play. UConn's OL was awful. We might night to get bigger but it has to be athletic and bigger not just more girth.

 

[TheCusian]

One thing that struck me at the game on Saturday was the sheer size of the UConn OL.

6'6" 309; 6'6" 312; 6'7" 304; 6'8" 325 and 6'4" 300.

They were really big. And that's UConn!

And that caused me to think back on Doug Marrone's complaint a few years ago that we were not big enough.

We are still not big enough.

We are young and we are getting a lot of experience, but we need to get bigger and faster.

Giant blocks of rock that don't move? No thanks. Get big athletic guys and add weight later.

 

[sufandu]

Yes. But we saw last year the template that Babers might follow--he recruited a bunch of really tall OL who are a bit undersized weight-wise, but who have room to pack "good" weight on without losing athleticism. When you have a bunch of 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7 guys up front, that's a lot of heft.

Now, it might take them two years in a collegiate S&C program to add the right weight / strength. But taller guys carry 310+ pounds differently than 6-2 guys.

Interestingly, the two OL we have lined up for the class of 2017 are both tall AND big. So, maybe we can have our cake and eat it, too.

But the key is getting "bigger" prospects, and letting those big-framed guys to bulk up appropriately. Bigger OL should be able to open holes in the running game more effectively, and if they don't lose athleticism they should be effective as pass blockers, too.

OL has been a trouble spot for our program for decades. Even in the McNabb days, his athleticism and ability to make plays on the move helped to mask poor blocking. I was hopeful that Marrone, with his background and coaching experience as an OL coach, would help address it, but he wasn't around long enough for that to come to fruition. Babers and staff look like they have a template for the attributes that make successful OL in their system. Bigger seems to be what they are going for.

Hopefully their body types allow them to fill out well. Height doesn't guarantee the ability to add weight. If it was, we'd see bulkier basketball players. I'm sure they'll get bigger. I'm curious to know if there is a difference between guys that carry more weight naturally versus guys that that have to really work to add weight.

 

[RF2044]

Hopefully their body types allow them to fill out well. Height doesn't guarantee the ability to add weight. If it was, we'd see bulkier basketball players. I'm sure they'll get bigger. I'm curious to know if there is a difference between guys that carry more weight naturally versus guys that that have to really work to add weight.

Of course it doesn't GUARANTEE it, but let's also keep in perspective that these are pretty big guys to begin with--6-6 275 pounds. Not like they are recruiting some 6-9 guy who weighs 210 [i.e., a basketball player's body] and expecting him to add 90 pounds.

 

[OrangePA]

Giant blocks of rock that don't move? No thanks. Get big athletic guys and add weight later.

Correct!

Get guys who are 6' 6," 6' 7" and 6' 8" and athletic for the OL.

That's a solid goal.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from where I was sitting the UConn OL seemed to be able to move people. For most of the game they were able to get the short yardage they needed with simple drive blocking.

I can't comment on the "athletic" ability of each guy, but I was struck by their size.

 

[TheCusian]

Correct!

Get guys who are 6' 6," 6' 7" and 6' 8" and athletic for the OL.

That's a solid goal.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from where I was sitting the UConn OL seemed to be able to move people. For most of the game they were able to get the short yardage they needed with simple drive blocking.

I can't comment on the "athletic" ability of each guy, but I was struck by their size.

Yeah that's what the staff is doing judging by the recruiting efforts.

I finally got to watch the first half (listened on Sat) - they got some short yardage inside for sure, but anytime they tried to go wide we buried them for a loss. I think this speaks to the big guys with low athleticism.

Side note: I was more impressed by our run game with Strickland in the first half than I thought I'd be. He reeled off a nice 9 yard run. He needs to see the holes a bit more.