OL's experience in BIG

Submitted by massblue on

ESPN has a nice article on the ranking OL in the BIG based on their experience.  Here is a short list

 

3. Indiana: 130 career starts 
4. Minnesota: 129 
19. Northwestern: 100 
22. Rutgers: 99 
23. Illinois: 96 
46. Wisconsin: 74 
66. Iowa: 62 
T-68. Maryland: 61 
T-68: Michigan State: 61 
107. Michigan: 37 
116. Nebraska: 32 
117. Purdue: 31 
126. Ohio State: 21 
127. Penn State: 20 

Similar to us, our three main competitors do not have a lot of experience on the OL either.

 

$LINK

Edit: link is not behind paywall

LordGrantham

June 12th, 2014 at 7:40 PM ^

I disagree.  The reason Florida dominated that game was because their D line just obliterated OSU's offensive ilne.  I think we would have mitigated the pressure much more successfully.  IMO, it would have looked very much like the Capital One Bowl.

WolvinLA2

June 13th, 2014 at 12:58 AM ^

Florida was not the same team the next year.  There's a big difference between the clear-cut national champion and a 4-loss team (what they were in 2007).  

That #1 vs. #2 game was great, but both teams got clobbered the following game.  I imagine that same would have happened had we played Florida and OSU played USC.

EDIT:  I looked up your claim that the 2007 Florida team was basically the same team.  After their 2006 BCS title, Florida had 9(!) guys drafted in the 2007 draft, including 2 first rounders.  They lost 7 starters from their D to the league.  So, no, not the same team.  They had more players drafted than any other school.

Wolfman

June 13th, 2014 at 3:23 AM ^

as monumental as so many have made it out to be. We would actually have won it decisively had Mike Hart been the Mike Hart he had been the previous three years and 12 games. But we did so because we were far better than our record indicated and our talent indicated we should have operated with a far more aggressive offene the entire season. The yards we racked up in that game support both claims as to FL being far weaker than the preceeding year and us having offensive talent that should have been used much differently throughout the entire campaign.

In  the Bowl games Fl was far superior than OSU that season but OSU, like us actually matched up well against USC. Unlike '04 where they simply possessed talent that allowed them to do things defensively forcing Jake Long to say, "They threw things at us that frankly we had never seen before."  They didn't have this same level of talent in '07. But they still outcoached us on the other side of the ball with one minor adjustment. They moved Booty out of harms way with the installation of nothing more that simly rolling him out of  harm's way during the second half, something we never adjuted to, and I have no reason why such was the case, but it happened and we were schooled in both matchups, the last one needlessly. 

PIJER

June 13th, 2014 at 6:31 PM ^

OSU got smoked by Florida because they tried to match them speed for speed. OSU really only played power football for one series, during that series they scored a TD and made it look simple. IMO, that was their downfall. Michigan would have been giving them the three yards and a cloud of dust treatment. Then of course going over top once they've brought the defense closer to stop the run.

BlueKoj

June 12th, 2014 at 5:18 PM ^

While Sparty doesn't have "a lot" of experience, I wouldn't say the experience level is similar to UM's. Did they include games played and do you know if the Bama transfer is included in OH's numbers?

Ron Utah

June 12th, 2014 at 5:34 PM ^

Not exactly sure whom you are referring to, but MSU has significantly more experience.

Lindsay only had four starts at 'Bama, so those OSU numbers might be right.

I'm guessing Penn State is our third comparison?  God willing, the crappy O-Line bug hits them this year and costs them dearly.  They have good RBs and TEs, so if the OL can make holes and give Hackenberg time, they could be pretty good.

MGoStrength

June 12th, 2014 at 9:39 PM ^

Althought they have less experience they are older.  I think practice time and age, especially at a size-dependant position like o-line is important.  For example a 4th year guy with very little game experience is better than a 2nd year guy with a whole year of experience IMO.  He's had 3 full years of practice time, work with coaches and the system, and time to put on weight and strength.  OSU is mostly 4th and 5th year guys with only one 3rd year guy.  UM is mostly 3rd year guys with one 2nd and one 5th year guy.  They are basically a year older at every position.  They are what I'd expect UM to be next year.

OSU should go

OT - Jr

OT - RS Sr

OG - Jr

OG - RS So

C - RS Sr

 

UM should go

OT - RS So

OT - RS So

OG - So

OG - RS So

C - RS Sr

 

tbeindit

June 13th, 2014 at 10:31 AM ^

This is an interesting comparison.  OSU's line is "older" with a total of 3 years (0.6 per player) extra in the program, but Michigan's line has 16 extra starts (3.2 per player).  Honestly, I'm not sure which of those I would take at the end of the day.  Honestly, might lean OSU simply because that's extra years in strength and training, but I definitely think from an experience standpoint, they are pretty close.

MGoStrength

June 13th, 2014 at 6:43 PM ^

Just ask yourself this question.  If you could have either line, which would you take?  I'd take OSU's 10 times out of 10.  Hindsight is 20/20, so I hope I'm proven wrong this season, but sitting here now, there's no question in my mind.

ifis

June 12th, 2014 at 6:29 PM ^

a large part of our problem is our O-line's lack of time in college practices and college weight training.  I am pretty confident our starters are dead last by a considerable margin in that stat.  Would like to see numbers confirming our denying this suspicion though.