OLine, Barwis, and the Pizza Fat Diet
I have to preface this by saying this thread is not a joke, because some people are bound to think it is.
We've seen that our team's conditioning has helped out in quite a few cases so far this season (as bad as it is going) -- the defense doesn't seem gassed in hot weather, etc. However, I think it's worth questioning Barwis' approach to conditioning for the offensive linemen.
Granted, there's a bit of a dearth of talent when it comes to our OLine (and the "talent" we do have on the OLine has shown to be a bit overrated), and much of it comes down to coaching and technique, but has anyone else considered how much leaner our offensive linemen are now? Granted, it is great they are much more muscular and athletic, but it's worth noting that they are all leaner (and do weigh much less now than they did say, last year).
While it's important that a team's Oline is athletic, I think it's probably just important that they're big (and by "big," I more importantly mean "inert"). Part of being an offensive lineman is, to a degree, be able to remain stationary and hold position -- more so than to be "explosive," anyway. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the offensive linemen being as well-conditioned as they are, but there is arguably a ceiling for just how strong they can become, while it's similarly possible to be that strong, but have the advantage of extra weight (inertia) from, well, fat. Obviously, it's probably quite a delicate balance to maintain, but I think you could make an strong argument that one reason the linemen are being pushed around so easily is simply because they're not big enough.
I know we all laughed when ND adopted the "eat a pizza a night" diet this year, but it's hard to argue their offensive line hasn't improved -- and really, it's pretty much all the same linemen from last year.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:13 AM ^
Long: 313
Schilling: 295
Kraus: 296
McCavoy: 288
Boren: 314
This years O-line
Ortman: 294
McCavoy: 288
Molk: 282
Moosman: 292
Schilling: 295
All of that according to Rivals depth charts. Obviously, the line has lost some girth, but its not like they are down to vintage leather helmet 220 lb gaurds. Yes size helps on the O-line, but gaining size at the cost of conditioning, speed, and explosiveness is a pyrrhic victory.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:56 AM ^
October 14th, 2008 at 2:06 AM ^
October 14th, 2008 at 12:20 AM ^
Our O-line's substandard play is based on poor recruiting, attrition, and lack of experience.
Your post just made me stupider reading it.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:32 AM ^
I realize it's tempting to jump at any chance to pull the "stupid" card, but it's similarly stupid to suggest that the O-Line's performance is entirely contingent upon everything you've listed when one one of the starters was a five-star guy, another was a high four-star, both of the aforementioned have at least a year of experience, and they're all getting similarly pushed around. And Boren got pushed around a lot last year, too.
I'm obviously not saying their weight is the only issue. Of course there are issues of talent and experience on the line, but it's worth noting that the linemen are smaller, and given the position they play, it will contribute toward how they play on the field.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:23 AM ^
People's fascination with star ratings never ceases to amaze me. A recruit's rating is a measure of his POTENTIAL, not how good he is. A recruit can have a 4 star rating; that means the recruiting services THINKS he can be a strong contributer on the Division I level. Because these kids are coming from high school, no one knows how they will perform, but they can try hard to measure their POTENTIAL.
So just because we have several 4 stars and a 5 star recruit on our OL doesn't mean that guarantees that they will be good. These players' POTENTIAL was deemed to be high, but it's evident that some of them aren't panning out. There's a good reason why Mooseman, McAvoy, Zirbel, and Ortmann never saw decent PT in past seasons; they weren't that good. Recruiting services felt that they had 4 star POTENTIAL, but when they reached the college level, they couldn't put it together. They couldnt' even beat out Mitchell and Ciulla last year. It's too early to write off Schilling; I think he'll break out next year.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:08 PM ^
October 14th, 2008 at 12:49 AM ^
October 14th, 2008 at 1:26 AM ^
October 14th, 2008 at 1:47 AM ^
October 14th, 2008 at 6:33 AM ^
October 14th, 2008 at 6:00 AM ^
all weigh 285-315. They did last year as well. And most considered them to be the best o-line in the nation coming into this season.
Barwis is not slimming offensive lineman down to 260-270. He never has. I think he just doesn''t accept that you are required to be a fat tub of lard in order to weigh 300 pounds. What you will see in the future is a lot more Jake Long bodies and a lot fewer Alex Mitchells.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:09 AM ^
It requires a lot of pulling and the O-line blocking on screens. This means leaner smaller guys.
By the way, muscle weighs more than fat, so if our guys are stronger, they should also be heavier. You can't go wrong with more muscle and less tired!
October 14th, 2008 at 8:37 AM ^
October 14th, 2008 at 9:22 AM ^
October 14th, 2008 at 2:05 PM ^
Pretty well until third down.
"Eff you, try and stop THIS. Oh, I guess you did -- let's punt."
October 14th, 2008 at 10:33 AM ^
Somewhat worrisome that WVU's O-line was obliterated by Pitt in last years upset.