Defensive Lineman

[corysold 0]

Is ND in it with any other top defensive lineman? I keep seeing projections of who is left, and don't see any lineman.

 

I know they have Matuska and Rochelle, but I think I'd like to see one more big body come on board.

[Big23Head 2,502]

Alquadin Muhammad (6'4" 225) and Austin Hooper (6'5" 240) are the two main DEs discussed right now. Both actually could be CATs too I guess. Also Ogundeko (6'4" 220) but he is more of a CAT too.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Big23Head

[Rockets Revenge 0]

What about Josh Augusta (6'4" 275 4* DT)? He is from Peoria, IL so fairly local and shows an offer from ND. We have no one that size in this class.

 

If Rochell falls through the cracks (like Darby and Tee last year) we would be screwed at DL (like DB last year).

[Big23Head 2,502]

Augusta is Illinois, MSU and Missouri (unless ND gets back involved)

 

Rochell is all Irish, zero worry at all in my opinion

[NDhoosier 1,339]

Muhammad as a DE is not only very possible, but he is an elite talent. Not high on Hooper myself, but I am hardly a scout.

 

I have seen on IE I believe that Augusta seems to have grade problems or something, so ND isnt pushing as hard. Augusta is really the only DT on the board. However, not all is lost, a 2014 DT seems to be high on us by the name of Enoch Smith.

 

Honestly, this may not be the year for the a super strong DL, however, Rochell and A. Muhammad would be two studs at DE and Matuska has potential, but he is kind of an unknown at the DE position. I would be happy with those three on the DL, you cannot load up at every position every year, the numbers simply wont allow it.

[a1ND 0]

Muhammad as a DE is not only very possible, but he is an elite talent. Not high on Hooper myself, but I am hardly a scout.

 

I have seen on IE I believe that Augusta seems to have grade problems or something, so ND isnt pushing as hard. Augusta is really the only DT on the board. However, not all is lost, a 2014 DT seems to be high on us by the name of Enoch Smith.

 

Honestly, this may not be the year for the a super strong DL, however, Rochell and A. Muhammad would be two studs at DE and Matuska has potential, but he is kind of an unknown at the DE position. I would be happy with those three on the DL, you cannot load up at every position every year, the numbers simply wont allow it.

 

i personally think enoch and trumbetti will be committed to ND by the end of spring so dline recruiting for 2014 class is gonna get off to a strong start...those 2 guys are really good

[Big23Head 2,502]

i personally think enoch and trumbetti will be committed to ND by the end of spring so dline recruiting for 2014 class is gonna get off to a strong start...those 2 guys are really good

 

Yes, yes, yes they are and as of now I agree that we can pull both.

[OklahomaIrish 0]

Why did we take Matuska?? I like his height, but isn't he a 3 star? Does he have a big upside?

[UncleJoe 0]

247 likes him:

http://247sports.com/Player/Jacob-Matuska-11717

[Big23Head 2,502]

Why did we take Matuska?? I like his height, but isn't he a 3 star? Does he have a big upside?

 

He is one of the local guys with decent size and room to grow. Plus he has the skills to play TE, so usually good ahnds and feet.

 

Offers from Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, South Florida, Louisville (not sure if Charlie Strong wanted him on D though). Good skill player.

[Katzenboyer 0]

Why did we take Matuska?? I like his height, but isn't he a 3 star? Does he have a big upside?

 

What's wrong with 3-stars? Our starting QB who everybody is in love with was a three-star guy on most of the sites.

 

Seriously, Stanford just went to two straight BCS bowls collecting three-star depth and putting a stud QB in front of them. Oklahoma State rarely gets more than a handful of four-star talent -- the rest is three- and two-star guys.

 

Now before anyone bites off my head YES I KNOW THAT FOUR AND FIVE STAR TALENT MATTERS.

 

But ND's been getting those five and four-star guys, and it's the attitude of "why should we take a three-star guy?" that killed Charlie Weis in his recruiting. Why do you take that talent? BECAUSE YOU NEED TO BUILD DEPTH.

 

Matuska will be a valuable part of the team. Weis' could never recruit a "middle class," and it killed him against teams like Pitt, BC, Stanford, etc. You need those guys to win. Even Alabama has three-star starters sprinkled in (Sunsieri comes to mind immediately).

[Big23Head 2,502]

What's wrong with 3-stars? Our starting QB who everybody is in love with was a three-star guy on most of the sites.

 

Seriously, Stanford just went to two straight BCS bowls collecting three-star depth and putting a stud QB in front of them. Oklahoma State rarely gets more than a handful of four-star talent -- the rest is three- and two-star guys.

 

Now before anyone bites off my head YES I KNOW THAT FOUR AND FIVE STAR TALENT MATTERS.

 

But ND's been getting those five and four-star guys, and it's the attitude of "why should we take a three-star guy?" that killed Charlie Weis in his recruiting. Why do you take that talent? BECAUSE YOU NEED TO BUILD DEPTH.

 

Matuska will be a valuable part of the team. Weis' could never recruit a "middle class," and it killed him against teams like Pitt, BC, Stanford, etc. You need those guys to win. Even Alabama has three-star starters sprinkled in (Sunsieri comes to mind immediately).

 

FWIW Golson was actually a 4 star on Scout and ESPN but a 3 star on Rivals.

 

As I put in the other thread Matuska is going to be like Kona Schwenke was, a guy that grows and develops.

[a1ND 0]

FWIW Golson was actually a 4 star on Scout and ESPN but a 3 star on Rivals.

 

As I put in the other thread Matuska is going to be like Kona Schwenke was, a guy that grows and develops.

 

and he was a 4 star on 247 as well

[nd1989 216]

I look at the difference between three and four-five stars this way. Most four and some five stars have just developed earlier, either its earlier puberty or a better coach than the three star. So when you get to college, where the players will have the same coach, the same nutrition, the same strength work, etc, now the three star has a chance to catch up. It might take 2-3 years to catch up, but if they are hard workers, they can catch up. So a three star might have the same ability, it just takes longer to get there. The four star might start earlier, but around a junior year, they often just even out.

[BlackIrish42 0]

What's wrong with 3-stars? Our starting QB who everybody is in love with was a three-star guy on most of the sites.

 

Seriously, Stanford just went to two straight BCS bowls collecting three-star depth and putting a stud QB in front of them. Oklahoma State rarely gets more than a handful of four-star talent -- the rest is three- and two-star guys.

 

Now before anyone bites off my head YES I KNOW THAT FOUR AND FIVE STAR TALENT MATTERS.

 

But ND's been getting those five and four-star guys, and it's the attitude of "why should we take a three-star guy?" that killed Charlie Weis in his recruiting. Why do you take that talent? BECAUSE YOU NEED TO BUILD DEPTH.

 

Matuska will be a valuable part of the team. Weis' could never recruit a "middle class," and it killed him against teams like Pitt, BC, Stanford, etc. You need those guys to win. Even Alabama has three-star starters sprinkled in (Sunsieri comes to mind immediately).

 

 

I agree with you but CW got our numbers back up so I would hardly blame him for "lack of depth..."

[Big23Head 2,502]

Also just to put it out there. This year we lose KLM with Jarron Jones right behind him and next year we only lose Schwenke (unless Nix and Tuitt leave). Another also, Romeo Okwara may grow into a DE which they will have a better feel for at the end of the season.

[Katzenboyer 0]

I agree with you but CW got our numbers back up so I would hardly blame him for "lack of depth..."

 

I'm not going to argue with you and say that Charlie didn't do wonderful things for Notre Dame when it came to recruiting. He absolutely did.

 

He also swung and missed on top-talent on the DL and defensive backfield, and left some woeful holes in those groups by not pursuing the "filler" that programs need to survive. In 2008 he took one CB (Blanton) and 2009 he took one who soon left the team (EJ Banks, recruited as an athlete). Those would be seniors and juniors this year, and our lack of depth at corner in the upper classes is directly traceable to those two classes.

 

That's not saying that Kelly hasn't had his faults (see Shepard, Tee and Darby, Ronald). But when you start declaring someone as "just a three-star" you start getting into some trouble. Just my opinion, though.