This is an honest question from an infrequent poster, but long-time fan (who will be going to the Buffalo game next weekend).
When posters discuss the various reasons for the offensive debacle against Temple, one of the most frequently-cited is “lack of talent” on the offensive line, or some variant of that theme. I went back and compared the Rivals recruiting rankings for our starting O-line, to Temple’s. Below is what I see:
Penn State’s O-Line Starters (with Class Year and Rival’s ranking):
LT: Paris Palmer, JR, 4**** 5.9
LG: Brendan Mahon, RS SO, 4**** 6.0
C: Angelo Mangiro, RS SR, 3*** 5.7
RG: Brian Gaia, RS JR, 3*** 5.7
RT: Andrew Nelson, RS SO, 3*** 5.6
Temple’s O-Line Starters (with Class Year and Rival’s ranking):
LT: Dion Dawkins, JR, 2** 5.4
LG: Shahbaz Ahmed, SR, 2** 5.3
OC: Kyle Friend SR, 2** 5.3
RG: Brian Carter, RS SO, 2** 5.2
RT: Leon Johnson, RS SO, not in Rivals database
For purposes of this question, let’s all assume that Rivals rankings are the best, quick and dirty tool we have available to measure talent and potential of a player coming out of high school. I realize they are an imperfect measuring stick, and I am familiar with the refrain, “star rankings are bullsh$t.” Like I said, just go with me on this for the moment (and assume I didn’t want to take the time to create a giant matrix comparing all the scholarship offers that these O-linemen had coming out of high school . . . ).
So here is my question: based on the superior recruiting rankings assigned by Rivals to our starting O-line over Temple’s, how can the problem be “lack of talent”? If “talent” was all that mattered, shouldn’t Penn State’s D be the one that recorded 10 sacks, instead of Temple’s D? The two lines have similar seniority (in fact, four of Penn State’s starters had the benefit of red-shirt years, to only two for Temple).
I will be the first to admit I have no real football knowledge (only played one year in high school). So someone who knows what they are talking about, please help me understand what is going on here. Do we need a line of five starters that were all ranked 5***** by Rivals before we can have a decent O-line? I don’t think even Alabama or Ohio State have lines like that. Or is it simply that only 1/3 of O-line recruits (regardless of ranking) pan out, and we just haven’t had a big enough sample size, due to sanctions, for us to have 5 good ones available to us right now?
I guess my own (admittedly uneducated) viewpoint is that the fault is more with coaching development and offensive scheme, than with “lack of talent” on the O-line. And yes, I saw Palmer’s “whiff” on the infamous “2 on 5” sack. It just seems to me that if Temple can provide their QB with time to throw, and their RBs with holes to run through every now and then with their 5.2 and 5.3 ranked players, Penn State should be able to do the same with the “talent” available to us on our O-line.
When posters discuss the various reasons for the offensive debacle against Temple, one of the most frequently-cited is “lack of talent” on the offensive line, or some variant of that theme. I went back and compared the Rivals recruiting rankings for our starting O-line, to Temple’s. Below is what I see:
Penn State’s O-Line Starters (with Class Year and Rival’s ranking):
LT: Paris Palmer, JR, 4**** 5.9
LG: Brendan Mahon, RS SO, 4**** 6.0
C: Angelo Mangiro, RS SR, 3*** 5.7
RG: Brian Gaia, RS JR, 3*** 5.7
RT: Andrew Nelson, RS SO, 3*** 5.6
Temple’s O-Line Starters (with Class Year and Rival’s ranking):
LT: Dion Dawkins, JR, 2** 5.4
LG: Shahbaz Ahmed, SR, 2** 5.3
OC: Kyle Friend SR, 2** 5.3
RG: Brian Carter, RS SO, 2** 5.2
RT: Leon Johnson, RS SO, not in Rivals database
For purposes of this question, let’s all assume that Rivals rankings are the best, quick and dirty tool we have available to measure talent and potential of a player coming out of high school. I realize they are an imperfect measuring stick, and I am familiar with the refrain, “star rankings are bullsh$t.” Like I said, just go with me on this for the moment (and assume I didn’t want to take the time to create a giant matrix comparing all the scholarship offers that these O-linemen had coming out of high school . . . ).
So here is my question: based on the superior recruiting rankings assigned by Rivals to our starting O-line over Temple’s, how can the problem be “lack of talent”? If “talent” was all that mattered, shouldn’t Penn State’s D be the one that recorded 10 sacks, instead of Temple’s D? The two lines have similar seniority (in fact, four of Penn State’s starters had the benefit of red-shirt years, to only two for Temple).
I will be the first to admit I have no real football knowledge (only played one year in high school). So someone who knows what they are talking about, please help me understand what is going on here. Do we need a line of five starters that were all ranked 5***** by Rivals before we can have a decent O-line? I don’t think even Alabama or Ohio State have lines like that. Or is it simply that only 1/3 of O-line recruits (regardless of ranking) pan out, and we just haven’t had a big enough sample size, due to sanctions, for us to have 5 good ones available to us right now?
I guess my own (admittedly uneducated) viewpoint is that the fault is more with coaching development and offensive scheme, than with “lack of talent” on the O-line. And yes, I saw Palmer’s “whiff” on the infamous “2 on 5” sack. It just seems to me that if Temple can provide their QB with time to throw, and their RBs with holes to run through every now and then with their 5.2 and 5.3 ranked players, Penn State should be able to do the same with the “talent” available to us on our O-line.
