Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Official 2018 Fall Camp Thread

You guys are over thinking this lighter OL as being problematic IMO. There are two parts to this (As everyone is pointing out) recruiting, and the S&C program (which is a reflection of the coaches overall philosophy). Sherman is a great case in this discussion. He came in and lost weight, probably due to the S&C program. Specifically, I would assume, due to a higher volume of running and plyometric drills throughout the year. The theory being that they want these guys to be 1) in shape, and able run with a super up tempo offense, and 2) explosive (thus the olympic lifts and plyo drills....that **** works BTW). I would contend that the fact that Sherman lost weight is simply due to this (plus nutrition being focused upon, which isn't a bad thing) Now, we have a RS Freshman who is lean, athletic and more explosive....and only weighs 275 lbs. As a RS Frosh, that weight isn't alarming in itself....he will likely be a stronger, leaner 295 lbs as a RS soph...and that is a good thing. I am also not as worried about him (or some of our other OL) playing at lighter weights, as my experience is that so long as the strength, explosiveness and athleticism are there, a 275 lb lineman can be just as effective as a 295 lb OL with more body fat....but a 295 lb OL with excellent conditioning, and body composition can be a BADA**. Simply, this is part of Sherman's growth process.

Overall, I am fine with this philosophy and I think we will see it payoff down the road in spades.

Where my criticism lies is in a handful of the OL that we recruit that seem to have a leaner/longer muscular structure, while passing over some guys that have more bulk to their muscular make up, but might actually be coming out of high school at a lighter overall weight. It is SO hard for the former type of guy to gain weight and thrive in that philosophical environment....and quite opposite for the latter. If this is in fact what MM wants to accomplish, then I argue that we have a problem with applying that philosophy top to bottom.
 
Last edited:
onealcd said:
There is probably a happy medium here. I personally have no problem with the philosophy of trying to keep lineman leaner so they are in better shape but 275 just seems a little too low. I think it worked with Haigler a couple years ago because they rotated him and he didn't get worn down. For me the ideal weight is around 300-305 pounds and the coaches would rather have a 280 lber than a 300 lber with 20 pounds of fat but what is wrong with getting a guy up to 290 so he had a little meat on his bones but it isn't hurting his conditioning?
Click to expand...
With the height and frames of 18-22 year old offensive linemen these days, there should be no D1 linemen under 290 in a starting 5. EOS.
 
From the interview, it sounds like MM recognizes that 275 is too low and wants Sherman to gain enough to play guard. I’m guessing his strategy is to get OL conditioned enough to run our offense, and wants the fr./soph. classes to get in shape for that as quickly as possible.

Then they make sure any weight added after that is primarily “good weight” and not just fat. I think that results in some very light younger OL that don’t reach a good playing weight until their junior/senior year.
 
Da Lama said:
With the height and frames of 18-22 year old offensive linemen these days, there should be no D1 linemen under 290 in a starting 5. EOS.
Click to expand...
In general, I agree with you. The issue here with Sherman, though, reflects that the Buffs as a program have sucked, and have been recruiting up as they rebuild. So, do you start a guy simply because he weighs 290 or more to maintain your theory, or do you play the more talented/athletic younger guy that isn't at the "right" weigh yet, or should they throw their philosophy out the window on a case by case basis and tell Sherman to gain the weight back by limiting his conditioning and telling him to eat anything he wants?
 
Bill Cody said:
In general, I agree with you. The issue here with Sherman, though, reflects that the Buffs as a program have sucked, and have been recruiting up as they rebuild. So, do you start a guy simply because he weighs 290 or more to maintain your theory, or do you play the more talented/athletic younger guy that isn't at the "right" weigh yet, or should they throw their philosophy out the window on a case by case basis and tell Sherman to gain the weight back by limiting his conditioning and telling him to eat anything he wants?
Click to expand...

The coaches need to look at OL recruiting top to bottom. I do not really see any of standard, other than generically telling every guy they recruit he is capable of playing all five positions.
 
Ok, so all of this mention of being leaner for an up-tempo offense got me thinking, what did Oregon’s starting line look like under Chip in ‘12 in his last year? Maybe they were leaner too.

Jake Fisher: 6’6” 294
Nick Cody: 6’5” 310
Hroniss Grasu: 6’3” 294
Ryan Clayton: 6’5” 305
Tyler Johnstone: 6’6 292

So the whole up tempo lean idea doesn’t even apply to the fastest offense in college football at the time. Granted, I looked at the pencil depth chart and aside from Sherman being listed at 290 when he’s really 275, our starting 5 is actually similar in terms of weight.

300
295
290
300
295.
 
Bread said:
Ok, so all of this mention of being leaner for an up-tempo offense got me thinking, what did Oregon’s starting line look like under Chip in ‘12 in his last year? Maybe they were leaner too.

Jake Fisher: 6’6” 294
Nick Cody: 6’5” 310
Hroniss Grasu: 6’3” 294
Ryan Clayton: 6’5” 305
Tyler Johnstone: 6’6 292

So the whole up tempo lean idea doesn’t even apply to the fastest offense in college football at the time. Granted, I looked at the pencil depth chart and aside from Sherman being listed at 290 when he’s really 275, our starting 5 is actually similar in terms of weight.

300
295
290
300
295.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse weight with lean. Those guys at whoregon were lean and well put together.
 
hawg1 said:
Saban went smaller a few years back.

Quicker.
Play faster.
Better shape.
Shoot gaps on wider splits.
More speed on edge agaist big tackles.
Click to expand...
What size is considered smaller? When it comes to DL/OL in big time college football, size is relative.

Edit: According to Bama's roster for the guys they list as "DL", that position group is averaging 290 lbs, but includes 3 guys right around 225-230, which I believe are more OLB types than true DL.
 
Last edited:
hawg1 said:
Saban went smaller a few years back.

Quicker.
Play faster.
Better shape.
Shoot gaps on wider splits.
More speed on edge agaist big tackles.
Click to expand...
TSchekler said:
What size is considered smaller? When it comes to DL/OL in big time college football, size is relative.

Edit: According to Bama's roster for the guys they list as "DL", that position group is averaging 290 lbs, but includes 3 guys right around 225-230, which I believe are more OLB types than true DL.
Click to expand...
I think this shows Alabama’s starters for last year. They went 290, 308, 290 across the DL, and then the two OLBs were 250.
http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/alabama/89923
 
interesting debate. Maybe there is a nastiness factor that would explain more variance than lean or fat and over/under 300lb. if strength and size are within a range, the mien of the player could make a huge difference.
 
Perhaps you guys can start a new thread about the body composition of the players and swipe left/right elsewhere? I dropped in expecting to get some news on camp (given its lack of existence elsewhere) and have to wade through 2 pages of this? 280...300...who cares? Block somebody, stay healthy, and win the battles in the trenches. If it were an actual concern the guys who get paid to make the decisions would be changing it so it must be part of the plan.
 
FLounder said:
Hot take alert: Montez is the definition of Cocky, Lytle is the definition of Confident. Noyer is right in between.
Click to expand...
mrw-i-take-a-sip-of-hot-chocolate-even-when-i-know-its-probably-too-hot-62657.gif
 
FLounder said:
Hot take alert: Montez is the definition of Cocky, Lytle is the definition of Confident. Noyer is right in between.
Click to expand...
I don't mind a cocky attitude but you better back it up if you go that route. The great ones have all been cocky, some just go about it different. When it's time though, they find a way to beat you.
 
I believe 285 is a good minimum OL weight for CU's offensive scheme. The sooner the lineman blocks his assignment, the sooner the hole opens up.

After watching Edwards struggle at 350 pounds last season, I think it's safe to say that 285 to 300 is a good weight for linemen on both sides of the ball. Altitude also plays a factor.
 
As the Buffs continue to build depth on the offensive line, they have been giving some snap to junior college transfer Kary Kutsch at guard with the No. 2 unit at guard. Kutsch signed in early May and thus didn't have the chance to participate in spring ball, but has made good strides in fall camp and is a solid 6-foot-4, 300 pounder. …
Click to expand...
https://cubuffs.com/news/2018/8/16/...ix-at-highly-competitive-cornerback-spot.aspx

First time I've seen Kutsch mentioned. Guess he's not a tackle. While this is a positive, I just have no idea what our staff is thinking at tackle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top