Not a lot of OL commitments in the Pac-12

[Buffnik]

Last night, I decided to check in on Arizona's class on the Rivals network and was surprised to see that of the 24 verbal commitments only 1 of them is an OL. So I decided to look around the conference. Surprisingly, no one seems to be emphasizing the trenches this cycle except for USC (which has depth issues there from the NCAA penalty). Usually 20-25% of your roster is made up of OLs. With the fast-break offenses, is the position becoming de-emphasized as a priority in early recruiting?

School	Commits	OLs
Arizona	24	1
Arizona State	14	1
Cal	11	1
Colorado	13	2
Oregon	8	2
Oregon State	13	2
Stanford	16	1
UCLA	9	0
USC	7	2
Utah	11	2
Washington	8	1
Washington State	12	2

 

[MtnBuff]

It would take some work and some speculation to determine but I wonder how many schools have guys committed who are listed as DL or TEs who will eventually end up on the OL.

With the growing use of the spread demands on offensive linement are changing. It used to be that you wanted a bunch of big, strong guys who nobody could move. Now you have to have guys who can move, who can make blocks in space, who can get to and stick with the faster defenders that teams are using to defend the spreads.

 

[boydbuff]

Nice to see us tied for 1st in the Pac 12 for something, in recruiting no less

 

[Buffnik]

Nice to see us tied for 1st in the Pac 12 for something, in recruiting no less

In a way, we actually have 3 OLs due to John Lisella grayshirting from the 2013 class.

 

[SBG]

Stanford has a monster OL. They'll finish with 3 studs.

 

[DBT]

Since linemen take longer to develop, is it possible that schools wait longer to offer? Pure speculation on my part.

 

[SuperD]

Last couple years were bumper crops out west for OL, maybe fewer needed this cycle?