OL @ CU - off game or worst yet to come

by KevinJ on Oct 6, 2008 6:13 PM CDT

I don't think anyone would applaud our OL from last year. This year , however, we're off to a blazing start and are healthy, and we also have some talented Freshman sneaking time as well, but does that mean from our gaudy stats in the first four games that our OL is really that good? I'm not sure myself - but I'd be curious to know after the CU game what you guys think. Was it just an off game for the big boys, or do you think this is the start of them really going through their maturation as a unit while learning on-the-job against tougher opponents in conference after four walk-throughs?

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Eh

The O-line is my main blame for the lack of running. They have been much improved last year against the pass rush, but I credit Colt-Fear for as much of that improve as I do actual technical improvements in line play.

From a very non-technical perspective, the 0-line just seems weak to me. Ulatoski, Huey, Hall, Tanner, Hix, even Dockery- all talented, just not TOUGH. Alabama has a good run attack because their line is a bunch of mean MFs. Even against crap teams, I never saw us destroy the line of scrimmage, pancake block inferior players, step on them, etc. They need to develop some serious anger problems in the next 112 hours for us to have a good shot now, and going forward.

by Tackchevy on Oct 6, 2008 7:16 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

I lean toward the latter

This line is still developing.

Experience — 1 senior, 3 juniors, 1 sophomore in starting unit, with the most-used sub a sophomore. Career starts entering this season around 55. The unit that began the 2005 season had above 80 starts and included 2 seniors and 3 juniors. Experience matters a lot in this area.

Quality/skill — Pretty subjective; Ulatoski and Hall maybe B+, Dockery B or B-, Tanner slightly less, Hix hard to say but probably the weakest of the five. Ulatoski perhaps a ticker higher. Huey highly regarded, likewise Snow (a true freshman). Depth at tackle and center iffy.

Toughness — I agree with you, Tachchevy; doesn’t seem to be enough Kasey Studdard in there. I wonder if some of the problems at Colorado, espeically in the second half, had to do with the motors being on idle with the game pretty well under control and the Sooners coming into mental view.

by edsp on Oct 6, 2008 7:45 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

Taking what we're given/Close to the vest

Good point about games played. Of course, maybe we can hope that our OL was not as dominate against CU because:

1) Pass blocking is more passive/stand-up compared to attacking with run blocking and that we’re just taking what teams are giving us right now when they load the box. (Yet, I crave more of the long ball. Chicks dig the long ball). Plus, we swung out the TE a good amount instead of leaving him to block, while CU was bringing the blitz as much as possible.
2) Maybe we can pray that Greg Davis has been hiding some fancy misdirections and more complicated run patterns for the meat of our conference games on the horizon and hasn’t wanted to show his hand unnecessarily early. Regardless, we’ll get up for the Land Thieves. HOOK ’EM!

Oh, and please God, if you’re listening, if we do run the Q, can we please do the unexpected and let Chiles actually attempt a pass from the pocket?

by KevinJ on Oct 6, 2008 8:22 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs