Roster two deep at Pitt, PSU and Temple

[pitt-girl]

Conveniently, you left out the part at the end. Answer this simple question.....Over two years, if given 20 more scholarships, do you think Bill O'brien would have signed more lineman? Also, for those that do not think sanctions have anything to do with Penn State's current success, you might want to check out USC...remember the former powerhouse USC?

Well, you bring up a good counter point. I'm sure there were any number of positions he would have recruited more players given more scholarships. But IMHO this is where O'Brien failed you guys. He KNEW about the reduced reduction and still chose to over recruit in specialty areas. It was HIS choice and not necessarily the only option he had.

 

[depthchartjustice]

Well, you bring up a good counter point. I'm sure there were any number of positions he would have recruited more players given more scholarships. But IMHO this is where O'Brien failed you guys. He KNEW about the reduced reduction and still chose to over recruit in specialty areas. It was HIS choice and not necessarily the only option he had.

I agree my argument is not that O'brien did not fail Penn State, because I think he did for the long term. O'brien used Penn State to get what he ultimately desired an NFL head coaching position. The PSU coaching job was a no lose situation for him where if he came in and had any success he was going to look like a genius. During his tenure, Penn State was set up for success with a veteran Oline. I'm happy for the guy. His choice to ignore the oline will hurt Penn State for a little longer, but he was a good leader. However, he would not have ignored the oline if it were not for the sanctions.

 

[depthchartjustice]

I guess what I am saying is the sanctions are designed to hurt a team in some fashion. You simply cannot just spread them out and still have success. Just look at USC....we are talking about a team who considered 10-1 a bad season and they are still struggling to crack the top 25. Are they still getting elite talent? Yes, but losing depth allows for holes on a roster. Coaches are paid to attack these holes or weaknesses.

 

[pitt-girl]

You named Pitt as having success. Clearly, your idea of success is much different than mine.

Pitt has had success this year with a roster as young as PSU and arguably with less talented players coming out of High School (Rival's star rating).

 

[pittdan77]

Want to clear up the argument that O-Line was de-emphasized because of sanctions and how it just doesn't wash in respect to the current team. Not sure if any DL changed sides of the ball...

Four OL out of 21 commits in 2011.
Two OL out of 23 in 2012.
Three of the 16 of the 2013 class were OL.
Four of 25 last year.

Four of 25 this year so far.

Explain to me how sanctions had any bearing on limiting OL commits when you had only 85 scholarships over the last four years yet 13 are OL players? If anything, I think PSU did a good job getting enough guys during a tough era.

Then again, in JF's two classes, only 8 out of 50 are OL. That's de-emphasizing.

 

[pitt-girl]

Want to clear up the argument that O-Line was de-emphasized because of sanctions and how it just doesn't wash in respect to the current team. Not sure if any DL changed sides of the ball...

Four OL out of 21 commits in 2011.
Two OL out of 23 in 2012.
Three of the 16 of the 2013 class were OL.
Four of 25 last year.

Four of 25 this year so far.

Explain to me how sanctions had any bearing on limiting OL commits when you had only 85 scholarships over the last four years yet 13 are OL players? If anything, I think PSU did a good job getting enough guys during a tough era.

Then again, in JF's two classes, only 8 out of 50 are OL. That's de-emphasizing.

5 OL recruits in 2 years (2012 and 2013) when the line was already old was under-recruiting IMHO. If they had had quality depth leading into those years it might be different, but they were all graduating. For example I'm concerned with the lack of OL offers/commits for Pitt's 2016 class. The only reason that it might be okay is that we are fully stocked from previous classes.

In defense of Franklin, I think 4 commits a year on the line is a good number. So regardless of how many schoolies he had to offer, I don't think he has under-recruited. JMO.

 

[pittdan77]

5 OL recruits in 2 years (2012 and 2013) when the line was already old was under-recruiting IMHO. If they had had quality depth leading into those years it might be different, but they were all graduating. For example I'm concerned with the lack of OL offers/commits for Pitt's 2016 class. The only reason that it might be okay is that we are fully stocked from previous classes.

In defense of Franklin, I think 4 commits a year on the line is a good number. So regardless of how many schoolies he had to offer, I don't think he has under-recruited. JMO.

OL is 22% of the starting lineup. Five is probably closer to the right number unless you're recruiting that position well. Then you can get away with four.

 

[pitt-girl]

OL is 22% of the starting lineup. Five is probably closer to the right number unless you're recruiting that position well. Then you can get away with four.

OL have to be developed. And it is 5 across, which means you should have approx. 10 available. Given redshirts, poor performance, injuries and the fact that for most it takes 2 solid years of development, like you said, recruiting less than 4-5 a year is very risky IMHO. O'Brien make a calculated decision to ignore that regardless of reduced scholarships.

 

[depthchartjustice]

Pitt has had success this year with a roster as young as PSU and arguably with less talented players coming out of High School (Rival's star rating).

They have had the same amount of success as Penn State thus far. Neither team has beaten a good team. Penn State has actually won a lot of their games by wide margins. Pitt's marque win is against a 3-6 GT team and most of their games have gone down to the wire. They could just as easily be 2-6 and 6-2, but credit to Pitt they have won the games. Pitt is likely to lose tomorrow and could lose a few after that. There is a good chance Penn State wins at most 1 more. So, we may be looking at a pair of 7-5 or 8-4 teams with neither having more success than the other. The big difference is Paul Chryst's recruiting took some hard hits toward the end of his tenure and Pitt's depth gets worse moving forward along with more than likely losing Conner and Boyd. Penn State's depth is getting better. I guess I'm not saying Pitt hasn't had "success" I'm just saying if Pitt has, then Penn State has, as well, but it's been minimal.

 

[pitt-girl]

They have had the same amount of success as Penn State thus far. Neither team has beaten a good team. Penn State has actually won a lot of their games by wide margins. Pitt's marque win is against a 3-6 GT team and most of their games have gone down to the wire. They could just as easily be 2-6 and 6-2, but credit to Pitt they have won the games. Pitt is likely to lose tomorrow and could lose a few after that. There is a good chance Penn State wins at most 1 more. So, we may be looking at a pair of 7-5 or 8-4 teams with neither having more success than the other. The big difference is Paul Chryst's recruiting took some hard hits toward the end of his tenure and Pitt's depth gets worse moving forward along with more than likely losing Conner and Boyd. Penn State's depth is getting better. I guess I'm not saying Pitt hasn't had "success" I'm just saying if Pitt has, then Penn State has, as well, but it's been minimal.

Main differences IMHO is that Pitt has not lost any games they were favored in and have won games as the underdog (3 so far). PSU was ranked pre-season and fell out. Pitt was not and played there way in. I happen to find the new argument this year to prove that Pitt really isn't any better than PSU is that perhaps we're both not quite good very amusing, but on paper Pitt HAS performed better. It's a perception thing. If PSU would win tomorrow it would be the first time (I'm pretty sure the entirety of Franklin's PSU tenure) where they could win as the underdog. That's quite a statement.

 

[depthchartjustice]

Main differences IMHO is that Pitt has not lost any games they were favored in and have won games as the underdog (3 so far). PSU was ranked pre-season and fell out. Pitt was not and played there way in. I happen to find the new argument this year to prove that Pitt really isn't any better than PSU is that perhaps we're both not quite good very amusing, but on paper Pitt HAS performed better. It's a perception thing. If PSU would win tomorrow it would be the first time (I'm pretty sure the entirety of Franklin's PSU tenure) where they could win as the underdog. That's quite a statement.

I'm not sure where you get your "facts" perhaps you are just a casual college football observer and that's fine, but Penn State was never ranked this year. Can you please explain to me how Pitt has performed better? I hear that argument a lot from my Pitt friends, but I have yet to hear an exact reason on what their reasoning is. Is it because they beat 3-5 Syracuse by a FG? Because they survived a late drive by 3-5 Virginia? Maybe it was the way they held on against 4-5 Va Tech? Or was it the 57 yard FG against 3-6 GT? Penn State beat 3 of it's B1G opponents 92-9. They aren't hanging on. No Indiana, Illinois, and Rutgers are not very good, but neither are VA, VT, AND Syracuse. Pitt hasn't had a game this year where they haven't been biting their fingernails whether it been Youngstown State or Akron. So, like I said earlier....I guess our definitions of "success" and "performance" are different. Some people are content with average and ecstatic if they ever slightly rise above it, so congrats on the great season thus far. I hope it ends well.

 

[pitt-girl]

I'm not sure where you get your "facts" perhaps you are just a casual college football observer and that's fine, but Penn State was never ranked this year. Can you please explain to me how Pitt has performed better? I hear that argument a lot from my Pitt friends, but I have yet to hear an exact reason on what their reasoning is. Is it because they beat 3-5 Syracuse by a FG? Because they survived a late drive by 3-5 Virginia? Maybe it was the way they held on against 4-5 Va Tech? Or was it the 57 yard FG against 3-6 GT? Penn State beat 3 of it's B1G opponents 92-9. They aren't hanging on. No Indiana, Illinois, and Rutgers are not very good, but neither are VA, VT, AND Syracuse. Pitt hasn't had a game this year where they haven't been biting their fingernails whether it been Youngstown State or Akron. So, like I said earlier....I guess our definitions of "success" and "performance" are different. Some people are content with average and ecstatic if they ever slightly rise above it, so congrats on the great season thus far. I hope it ends well.

I believe PSU was ranked preseason? Pitt has performed better simply because they have won as the underdog. You want to split hairs and get down to details that's fine, but PSU has not been able to do that in the last 2 years. And 2 of Pitt's OOC's opponents are top 10 teams - Iowa and ND. PSU did not even come CLOSE to that with their OOC slate.

(Edit: I just checked and you are correct PSU was not ranked preseason but was in the others receiving votes, so depending on the poll they were ranked anywhere between 31-35.)

 

[depthchartjustice]

I believe PSU was ranked preseason? Pitt has performed better simply because they have won as the underdog. You want to split hairs and get down to details that's fine, but PSU has not been able to do that in the last 2 years. And 2 of Pitt's OOC's opponents are top 10 teams - Iowa and ND. PSU did not even come CLOSE to that with their OOC slate.

No Penn State was not ranked. Penn State took the team that won the national title last year to double overtime. This year Penn State is showing signs of progress each game and have looked better each. If they lose tomorrow, I might feel otherwise, but this team is young and getting better. Not a team in the country has been thru what Penn State has been through over the past 4 years. It's pretty amazing they are where they are now and it's only going to get better. Pitt fans, like yourself, should enjoy this brief period where they are around the same level of program. It hasn't been that way very often over the past 30 years.

I find it ironic that Pitt fans always talk about "OOC" but fail to bring up that they play in the worst P5 division in College football. They HAVE to play that type of OOC just to get any respect and have a chance for the playoff.

 

[pitt-girl]

No Penn State was not ranked. Penn State took the team that won the national title last year to double overtime. This year Penn State is showing signs of progress each game and have looked better each. If they lose tomorrow, I might feel otherwise, but this team is young and getting better. Not a team in the country has been thru what Penn State has been through over the past 4 years. It's pretty amazing they are where they are now and it's only going to get better. Pitt fans, like yourself, should enjoy this brief period where they are around the same level of program. It hasn't been that way very often over the past 30 years.

I find it ironic that Pitt fans always talk about "OOC" but fail to bring up that they play in the worst P5 division in College football. They HAVE to play that type of OOC just to get any respect and have a chance for the playoff.

Well Pitt has been through what, 7? 8? 9? coaches in the last 5 years, so we've been equally challenged. But I guess we didn't have "the sanctions".

 

[depthchartjustice]

Well Pitt has been through what, 7? 8? 9? coaches in the last 5 years, so we've been equally challenged. But I guess we didn't have "the sanctions".

Penn State has had 1 less coach than Pitt since Wanny left. Here is a fact, if Pitt were sanctioned, Boyd, Conner, Dorian Johnson, Holtz, etc would not be at Pitt right now. They would not have committed. Penn State lost out on many kids because of the sanctions and not having the ability to play in bowl games. Factor in the loss of scholarships and it's quite a bit different than replacing a coach.

 

[pitt-girl]

Penn State has had 1 less coach than Pitt since Wanny left. Here is a fact, if Pitt were sanctioned, Boyd, Conner, Dorian Johnson, Holtz, etc would not be at Pitt right now. They would not have committed. Penn State lost out on many kids because of the sanctions and not having the ability to play in bowl games. Factor in the loss of scholarships and it's quite a bit different than replacing a coach.

Okay - you win. Sheesh. I fully expect you to run the tables the next 4 years against Pitt and get to the NC in what - 2? 3? years. LOL.

 

[TempleBAPittMPA]

Here is a fact, if Pitt were sanctioned, Boyd, Conner, Dorian Johnson, Holtz, etc would not be at Pitt right now. They would not have committed. .

Wait a minute! Just how have you verified this "fact"?

 

[pitt-girl]

Wait a minute! Just how have you verified this "fact"?

Because he knows - no one comes to Pitt of their own free will. Only when coerced or PSU deems them not "PSU material" or their academics aren't in order or the sanctions or.......

 

[rpost3]

post-season bump

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

No Indiana, Illinois, and Rutgers are not very good, but neither are VA, VT, AND Syracuse.

Virginia, Virginia Tech and Syracuse are all better than Indiana, Illinois and Rutgers. And only an idiot would think otherwise.

The difference is that Virginia, Virginia Tech and Syracuse are not very good. Indiana, Illinois and Rutgers are all bad. In the case of Illinois and Maryland, very bad.

 

[Pittx9]

Virginia, Virginia Tech and Syracuse are all better than Indiana, Illinois and Rutgers. And only an idiot would think otherwise.

The difference is that Virginia, Virginia Tech and Syracuse are not very good. Indiana, Illinois and Rutgers are all bad. In the case of Illinois and Maryland, very bad.

That Nitter that said otherwise is clearly an idiot. But I gotta say, you give Rutgers way too much credit. They are most definitely in the very bad category. They lost to Maryland today for cryin out loud. You've got to be really, really, really bad to lose to Maryland.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Virginia, Virginia Tech and Syracuse are all better than Indiana, Illinois and Rutgers. And only an idiot would think otherwise.

The difference is that Virginia, Virginia Tech and Syracuse are not very good. Indiana, Illinois and Rutgers are all bad. In the case of Illinois and Maryland, very bad.

I don't think the ACC Coastal is that bad, just very even. I think the Big 10 West and SEC East is just as bad.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

That Nitter that said otherwise is clearly an idiot. But I gotta say, you give Rutgers way too much credit. They are most definitely in the very bad category. They lost to Maryland today for cryin out loud. You've got to be really, really, really bad to lose to Maryland.

I typed Maryland when I meant to type Rutgers. Illinois and Rutgers are very bad. Those are the two the nitter was talking about. But yeah, Maryland is bad too.

I guess it's just too easy to get all the bad Big Ten teams confused with each other. There's just too damn many of them.