Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Oregon has gotten yet another DL transfer from Nebraska, this time DL Casey Rogers.

Embedded Tweet

Now we need a LT.

buckmarkduck wrote:Now we need a LT.

We do? I thought our line was in decent shape.

karlhungis wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Now we need a LT.

We do? I thought our line was in decent shape.

They are ok, but we don’t have a lot of depth and I feel like a ventral LT would go a long ways in making this like really good.

buckmarkduck wrote:

karlhungis wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Now we need a LT.

We do? I thought our line was in decent shape.

They are ok, but we don’t have a lot of depth and I feel like a ventral LT would go a long ways in making this like really good.

See Josh Conerly number 1 Tack in this year's class...

We are fine on OL.

jimmy12 wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:

karlhungis wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Now we need a LT.

We do? I thought our line was in decent shape.

They are ok, but we don’t have a lot of depth and I feel like a ventral LT would go a long ways in making this like really good.

See Josh Conerly number 1 Tack in this year's class...

We are fine on OL.

Our OL had some horrible games last year. Fine isn’t a word I would use. And counting on a HS kid to be the LT, is risky.

buckmarkduck wrote:

jimmy12 wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:

karlhungis wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Now we need a LT.

We do? I thought our line was in decent shape.

They are ok, but we don’t have a lot of depth and I feel like a ventral LT would go a long ways in making this like really good.

See Josh Conerly number 1 Tack in this year's class...

We are fine on OL.

Our OL had some horrible games last year. Fine isn’t a word I would use. And counting on a HS kid to be the LT, is risky.

See Penei

jimmy12 wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:

jimmy12 wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:

karlhungis wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Now we need a LT.

We do? I thought our line was in decent shape.

They are ok, but we don’t have a lot of depth and I feel like a ventral LT would go a long ways in making this like really good.

See Josh Conerly number 1 Tack in this year's class...

We are fine on OL.

Our OL had some horrible games last year. Fine isn’t a word I would use. And counting on a HS kid to be the LT, is risky.

See Penei

1 guy in 100 years of UO football? See Utah and Stanford eating our OL lunch, even UA and Cal made them look bad at times. They are average. Hopefully Klemm gets them to play hard every game.

Have we ever had a lineman so highly ranked? How about in 100 years? The answer is no.

I am not saying he is penei, but i like our chances that we got a HIGH ceiling tackle.

buckmarkduck wrote:

jimmy12 wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:

karlhungis wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Now we need a LT.

We do? I thought our line was in decent shape.

They are ok, but we don’t have a lot of depth and I feel like a ventral LT would go a long ways in making this like really good.

See Josh Conerly number 1 Tack in this year's class...

We are fine on OL.

Our OL had some horrible games last year. Fine isn’t a word I would use. And counting on a HS kid to be the LT, is risky.

See Penei[/quote]

1 guy in 100 years of UO football? See Utah and Stanford eating our OL lunch, even UA and Cal made them look bad at times. They are average. Hopefully Klemm gets them to play hard every game.[/quote]

Mario was ironically a terrible ol evaluator, developer and coach

I think it says something that our OL coach, fresh from the NFL, seems mystified by the way Mario and his little sidekick coached our O-Line.

karlhungis wrote:I think it says something that our OL coach, fresh from the NFL, seems mystified by the way Mario and his little sidekick coached our O-Line.

Where has he said that?

They were pretty poor in evaluating OL prospects. Only penei was a grand slam and it allowed us to get his brother.

They wanted Banks over Conerly, so I'm hoping it was another case of their usual poor scouting and Conerly turns out to be a stud LT!

alxtw wrote:They were pretty poor in evaluating OL prospects. Only penei was a grand slam and it allowed us to get his brother.

They wanted Banks over Conerly, so I'm hoping it was another case of their usual poor scouting and Conerly turns out to be a stud LT!

Thanks for sharing this... Who said it? Was it Klemm? I can't see him saying publicly because of how his current players would respond.

I am not disagreeing.

jimmy12 wrote:

alxtw wrote:They were pretty poor in evaluating OL prospects. Only penei was a grand slam and it allowed us to get his brother.

They wanted Banks over Conerly, so I'm hoping it was another case of their usual poor scouting and Conerly turns out to be a stud LT!

Thanks for sharing this... Who said it? Was it Klemm? I can't see him saying publicly because of how his current players would respond.

I am not disagreeing.

He was political about it. But basically said he is coaching them different techniques and style.