MY initial assertion is that OL has been a trouble spot for our program dating back for 20+ years, which is 100% true.
When we were recruiting Chad Mavety a couple of years ago, one of the Rutgers OL who was in the NFL poked fun of him having SU on his list. Paraphrasing: "why would you go there? they don't put anybody in the NFL"
That was pre-Pugh getting drafted, and reflected the perception of the talent we were fielding. Not only have we lacked talent at OL dating back to the P era, we've also placed very few of them at the next level. Not that having NFL prospects is the end all be all, but it suggests something about the players [considered in aggregate] that we've marched out there for the last two decades.
You referenced Chibane and Trudo. Nothing against either of those guys, but both were players who saw the field early and showed a lot of potential, but also plateaued early. Bringing them up again demonstrates that you don't see the forest through the trees re: the most important factor: those were perfectly serviceable players, but they weren't as good as the guys our peer programs were playing on THEIR offensive lines, and they certainly weren't NFL caliber talents. How many OL has a peer program like BC put in the NFL over the last 20 years? How about Pitt? Now, compare that to the paltry list of names you're bringing up.
Also, I shouldn't have to explain this, but we play 5 offensive lineman at the same time. 1 stud can certainly improve the play of the entire unit [a la Pugh in 2012], but the fact remains that most years we haven't had that stud, and often were only fielding 2-3 OL that would even be in the rotations of many of our opponents.
So for all of the rationalizing you've done referencing the Chibane's and Trudo's, the fact is that our OLs have generally trended from god awful to decidedly subpar, far beyond the memory of players like Chad Mavety when we recruited him. OL has been a systemic problem at SU for a LONG time.
I'm not over estimating anything.
Here is what I was responding to in total.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooky03 said:
↑
The big question is who's going to want to play OL here? Linemen don't like running; most are allergic to it. I know Dino favors more svelte linemen but still, we might struggle to get solid recruits on the OL for a while.
If by "a while," you mean the past 30 years, then I completely agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we've failed to get solid OL in this program for the last 30 years. 30 years, as in since 1986 we've failed to bring in solid OL recruits.
Really?
Where did I say we had lines full of all american's from tackle to tackle? That's what getting solid OL recruits equates to?
I pointed out two guys who are starting now in the NFL that certainty don't fit with failing to get solid OL recruits in the last 30 years. There are first and second year players playing this year that are probably going to be "solid" with quality coaching. Does that mean they are headed to the NFL, probably not, but it doesn't mean they won't turn out to be good college players.
Chibane, Trudo, Mackey, and Hickey are the very definition of solid.
In 2003/2004 the OL unit had Terry, Tarrullo, Franklin, Ojinnaka, Greene, Romeo, Sampson on it. Were they great, no, but solid, certainty think so.
It's not like they have trotted out lines like Lepak, Baumbach, Allport, Phillips, and McKenzie year after year. If the three deep was full of guys like that year after year then you'd be right.
