[msqueri]

I think a better way to think about it is that our top seven OL are back. That is so much healthier than last year when we had two of the top seven back. This allows us to have a modicum of depth and competition. Emblematic of that is that the #3 OL from last year was running with the second team in the first practice as a younger player has passed him. 

The other way to think about it is that our OL room is just plain older, which is the most important factor for OL performance (yes, even more than talent and coaching). For five years now we’ve tended to have 0-3 fourth year OL or older. Last year if you are super generous and count FCS players Mayberry (who was only in his third year of playing) and Bank we had five. This year we have five with four FBS recruits, the oldest OL room we have had in at least half a decade. 

Yet another way to think about it is that last year we had one of the top 50 Pac-12 OL from the previous year by PFF grade (and ended up benching him) and two of the top 75 whereas this year by that same measure we have two of the top 50 (both top 35) and seven of the top 75. 

There’s no doubt we should be far, far, far more optimistic about OL. Totally different situation. And while I haven’t posted in quite the voluminous detail here as I have elsewhere, I can tell you I have amassed overwhelming empirical evidence that sheer age and experience is the most important predictor of OL success. 

The question we should have is whether the coaching is any good. Our OL coaching is super green and unproven. We really have no idea if they can coach. I have no doubt the OL will be significantly improved but I don’t know if they’ll actually be good.

[msqueri]

I think a better way to think about it is that our top seven OL are back. That is so much healthier than last year when we had two of the top seven back. This allows us to have a modicum of depth and competition. Emblematic of that is that the #3 OL from last year was running with the second team in the first practice as a younger player has passed him. 

The other way to think about it is that our OL room is just plain older, which is the most important factor for OL performance (yes, even more than talent and coaching). For five years now we’ve tended to have 0-3 fourth year OL or older. Last year if you are super generous and count FCS players Mayberry (who was only in his third year of playing) and Bank we had five. This year we have five with four FBS recruits, the oldest OL room we have had in at least half a decade. 

Yet another way to think about it is that last year we had one of the top 50 Pac-12 OL from the previous year by PFF grade (and ended up benching him) and two of the top 75 whereas this year by that same measure we have two of the top 50 (both top 35) and seven of the top 75. 

There’s no doubt we should be far, far, far more optimistic about OL. Totally different situation. And while I haven’t posted in quite the voluminous detail here as I have elsewhere, I can tell you I have amassed overwhelming empirical evidence that sheer age and experience is the most important predictor of OL success. 

The question we should have is whether the coaching is any good. Our OL coaching is super green and unproven. We really have no idea if they can coach. I have no doubt the OL will be significantly improved but I don’t know if they’ll actually be good.