[unclechuck]

[quote author=unclechuck link=topic=5816.msg42809#msg42809 date=1334097158]
That said I'm not too troubled with the UW loss. My impression is that they've stocked some big bodies over the last couple of years and will get serviceable replacements.

I don't think that's correct. UW surrendered 34 sacks last year, 11th in the conference, and 78 TFL, 9th in the conference. Overall I'm sure they'll have a good offense--too many weapons not to--but losing two starters total (this guy to injury; another to eligibility) from a poor offensive line isn't a recipe for success. Overall, their OL recruiting is only so-so--about three four-star recruits over their entire roster. Compares poorly to the rest of the conference, generally speaking.


[/quote]So WIM, you do NOT believe they will glean serviceable replacements for an O-line, that you point out, was pretty underwhelming at least in pass protection for 2011? Yet, you do agree that their offense should be pretty good.

My O-line thoughts based on 7 OL commits in class of 2010:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/stanford/footbal...hington-65

2012 will be their 3rd year in the system. UW also had a big class of 6 OL for 2008 who would be RS-Srs this year with all 4 years of Sark's system.

And, while it is sweet indeed to harvest multiple 4-5 star recruits for OL as we have this year, it seems that many programs do well with 2-3 star guys brought along slowly and fitting a system e.g. Stanford before this year, Oregon State 2006-2009, Oregon 2007-2011 etc.

Did you just need a Snickers?

[unclechuck]

[quote author=unclechuck link=topic=5816.msg42809#msg42809 date=1334097158]
That said I'm not too troubled with the UW loss. My impression is that they've stocked some big bodies over the last couple of years and will get serviceable replacements.

I don't think that's correct. UW surrendered 34 sacks last year, 11th in the conference, and 78 TFL, 9th in the conference. Overall I'm sure they'll have a good offense--too many weapons not to--but losing two starters total (this guy to injury; another to eligibility) from a poor offensive line isn't a recipe for success. Overall, their OL recruiting is only so-so--about three four-star recruits over their entire roster. Compares poorly to the rest of the conference, generally speaking.


[/quote]So WIM, you do NOT believe they will glean serviceable replacements for an O-line, that you point out, was pretty underwhelming at least in pass protection for 2011? Yet, you do agree that their offense should be pretty good.

My O-line thoughts based on 7 OL commits in class of 2010:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/stanford/footbal...hington-65

2012 will be their 3rd year in the system. UW also had a big class of 6 OL for 2008 who would be RS-Srs this year with all 4 years of Sark's system.

And, while it is sweet indeed to harvest multiple 4-5 star recruits for OL as we have this year, it seems that many programs do well with 2-3 star guys brought along slowly and fitting a system e.g. Stanford before this year, Oregon State 2006-2009, Oregon 2007-2011 etc.

Did you just need a Snickers?