The Monday Morning Wash

by John Berkowitz on Aug 17, 2009 6:14 AM PDT Comment 31 comments

It is hard to believe how quickly summer is drifting away from us. Out here in the Midwest, we had very below average weather in June and July. August, on the other hand, has rewarded us with the nice, hot, and balmy days we look forward to all year. As far as the football calendar goes, the Huskies have finished week one of practice and face another week of intense practice to sort things out before the staff coaching starts meaningful game-planning for LSU.

The big story of the weekend had Jake Locker signing with the Los Angeles Angels, meaning he will have a bit extra spending money for his final two years of college. While no details have been released, figure his signing bonus is likely in the $150,000-range. Locker's focus remains on playing quarterback at UW for two more years, parlaying that into an NFL contract upon graduation.

A side-benefit of the Jake's signing is it provides the coaches with another scholarship to award in 2010, as the Angels will be paying for Jake's tuition from now on. Interesting how issues develop in the scholarship arena; last spring it was difficult to foresee UW signing more than 12 players in 2010, while now it appears there will be room to take a full class of 25. While good news, it leaves the roster on the short side in 2009. In particular, examining the offensive line, there are only twelve scholarship players on the roster, plus Nick Scott, a walk-on who earned a scholarship last year. Ideally, a team wants 15-18 offensive lineman on its roster, so Washington has some serious rebuilding to do.

Washington currently has commitments from Ben Riva and Colin Porter for the 2010 class, leaving availability for at least four more commits in coming months. Erik Kohler is potentially number three, with the Huskies holding a slim lead for his services, though UCLA is making a serious push at him as well. One seldom sees a true freshman offensive lineman step into the lineup and have success; however, If you are Erik Kohler and choosing between UW and UCLA, the lure of starting as a true frosh may be hard to resist.

Sarkisian has stated repeatedly that in the future, his staff will likely not frequently recruit junior college athletes. Obviously, it is very challenging for JC transfers to gain admission into Washington and it isn't the effective means of building the team for the long term. However, if Washington can find several prospects this fall who qualify for winter admission and potentially start on the OL in 2010, they just may roll the dice again.

Wide receiver Anthony Boyles finally got himself noticed with a strong practice session on Saturday. Boyles who progressed well late in 2008 and followed that up with solid 2009 spring practice, had fallen to the third unit after being displaced by freshman phenom James Johnson. Johnson missed some weekend practice time with a minor injury; Boyles seized the opportunity and was named one of the offensive players of the day. Boyles has plenty of talent, but is taking longer to adjust to the new offensive scheme.

On defense, Victor Aiyewa had strong weekend, stepping in for Nate Williams who is nursing a groin pull. Aiyewa is a big time hitter who still has some work to do in picking up coverages. At this point the top three safeties seem to be Williams, Jason Wells, and Michael Batts. Batts has been very impressive thus far and has worked himself into the starting nickel back position. He has great size and instincts and by the end of the year may end up being one of the top safeties on the west coast. Wells rested his knee Saturday, something the coaches do for players returning from injuries. Wells is having a solid camp and projects to be a solid contributor this fall.

At running back, we haven't really seen anyone emerge to the front of the pack. All appear fairly equal at this point, though the full scrimmages should begin to sort out the pecking order in the next week or so.

The Huskies will have another double practice session today. The first practice will be at 8:45 AM, while the second is at 6:45 PM, and ought to be well attended.

Cut Blocking

Todd Miles of the News Tribune wrote an excellent piece on cut blocking, a technique the Huskies will utilize extensively in 2009.

Nobody questions the effectiveness of cut-blocking – chopping down defensive players below the waist. Some of the best offenses in the NFL or college football utilize it, knowing the backlash it creates when somebody gets injured.

It’s a scheme the Washington Huskies will use this season.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Cut blocking

is fine in the NFL…but I don’t like it in college. I think you run the risk of jeopardizing the careers of players who might have otherwise made a good living doing what they love. It falls under the same guise as Pro vs. Amateur boxing for me. Keep these kids healthy and let them have a chance to play on Sundays.

by B Money on Aug 17, 2009 7:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree, B Money.

I’m not a fan of it either.

It’s effective, though, and until it’s made illegal, you’ve got to do what you can to win games.

by Sundodger on Aug 17, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cut blocking II

I personally think it should be outlawed in football, but if it is within the rules you have to learn the skill and execute.

Whenever you block below the waist the risk of serious injury dramatically increases.

by John Berkowitz on Aug 17, 2009 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

All the more reason...

to teach it. If this team is going to be cut blocking, it is imperative for everyone’s safety that they learn to do it correctly.

"Anytime, Anyplace"
"Life is hard, it's harder if you're stupid." - John Wayne

by Husky nav on Aug 17, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And conversely...

teach your defense how to play off those blocks.

by doubledeucedawg on Aug 17, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a big key, tripleD.

Lots of teams in the Pac 10 cut. The d-line has to be ready for it.

by Sundodger on Aug 17, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not A Fan of the Chop Block

And I’m sure Dan Milsten is not either. His career was ended due to a chop block against the Ore St Beavers.

by john_s on Aug 17, 2009 10:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That was a highly illegal cut, though.

Milsten was engaged with another player, and the beav hit him from behind. Two big no-no’s.

Injuries are far less likely with legal cuts. More frequent than standard drive or pass blocking, though.

by Sundodger on Aug 17, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Poetic Justice

The kid (his name escapes me) that blind sided Milsten had his own knee taken out before the end of his college career and is no longer playing.

by T9ODawg on Aug 17, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chop Blocks...IMO

I love them…as an O-linemen I lived off of them. If done proper they are extremely effective. The other positive is that once you cut block a guy 2-3 times he starts to hesitate a little bit, not fire off the ball. Its a weapon that we have to utilize in the Pro Style offense. I hope no one gets hurt but its all part of the game.

You also have to remember that these are head in front of the player…these are the crack back hits WR’s used to put on LB’s. You are in front of the player you are going to cut…you have to set him up for the block though.

by bigdave967 on Aug 17, 2009 10:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Cut Blocks and Chop Blocks Aren't Synonomous

Cut blocking is legal because, per book, it’s done within the box and on the initial charge after the snap, with initial contact below the waist when firing out. A chop block is illegal because one O Lineman is engaging the D Lineman above the waist while another sticks him below the waist…recipe for career-ending disaster (re: Dan Milstin).

Oregon State’s offense seems to have perfected the cut blocking scheme. If we can emulate anything close to the success of the Rodgers brothers with our own running game—especially after last year’s fiasco of a season—I have no problem with it.

by Purple Reign 91 on Aug 17, 2009 10:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The ducks

Don’t they do a lot of chop blocks too?

by doubledeucedawg on Aug 17, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Think So

But then again, with the beasts the Ducks develop on the O-Line, do they really need to?

by Purple Reign 91 on Aug 17, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, they cut on the backside.

Not so much at the point of attack, but they do do it some.

by Sundodger on Aug 17, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Old High-Low...very illegal and very dangerous

Though in College you can cut legally anywhere on the field. In high school you had to be in the tackle box. We used to cut LB’s all the time on stretch plays back side.

by bigdave967 on Aug 17, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

Not all below the waist line-blocking is bad. Bear Bryant taught a technique called “The ’Bama Block,” which (oversimplified) aimed at the defenders outside thigh to turn him in. This was difficult to learn and required great footwork, but was effective for a smaller team against a physically dominant opponent. It was popular in coaching clinics during the 60’s. The Bear used it to win a few national titles with undersized teams.

Straight ahead cut blocking can be effective on certain plays, and though hated by defenders, is relatively clean and safe.

Hi-Lo/chop blocks and trap-cutting are at best unintentional acts of desperation, and often acts of cowardice with intent to maim. These dirty tricks have been around since the game began, and should get a player (and maybe even his coach) ejected.

by Verge on Aug 17, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

JC transfers .

Yeah, trying to get a few more JC guys to bolster the ranks is a great idea .. yeah .. then the upper campus “clearinghouse” can trash these guys also and send them somewhere else .. AGAIN. I think getting a few JC men to help out is a tried and true way to help bolster a team’s depth, but UW has never had a history of helping JC transfers get into our school. Some upper-campus prejudice I believe. They seem to get into almost any other program, why not here? I don’t get it. Never have understood this.

by thedesertdog on Aug 17, 2009 1:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The main issue with the UW and JC transfers is that the UW doesn’t have a PE program, so if a JC kid has a number of PE credits making up his AA degree, he might not have enough transferable credits to get admission to the UW.

That’s not always the problem – sometimes a kid has the minimum NCAA and UW requirements, but the admissions department still denies them based off their opinion that the kid isn’t likely to succeed academically at the UW (as in the case of Charles Garcia). But most of the time when a JC kid doesn’t get into the UW, it has to do with PE credits not transferring.

Not much Emmert and upper campus can do about that one – in this economic climate with the UW’s funding dropping fast, there’s no way a new degree program is going to be instituted where PE credits can transfer.

The big thing that has to happen is our coaching staff needs to be more proactive in vetting a kid’s JC transcripts and work with the UW admissions department to have a clearer idea if the kid is likely to qualify. There are kids in JC’s who are full qualifiers out of H.S. that are late bloomers looking to get a scholarship, and there are some JC kids that have enough credits beyond just PE credits to get into the UW – our coaches just need to work harder to find them early and get in on them before it’s too late.

Despite what Sark says about JC kids not being a major part of recruiting moving forward, I’d also be surprised (and disappointed) if he gave up on them completely. Even DJ took advantage of JC’s at times to bolster depth in areas of need. And Sark is probably going to need some JC help in the next year or two to bolster the O-Line.

by kirkd on Aug 17, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Stupid question:

Shouldn’t the coaching staff see PE classes as red flags when recruiting? Don’t they look at the transcripts before they burn a scholarship offer?

by Verge on Aug 17, 2009 3:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Simple answer is yes, it should be something of a red flag. However, in practice it’s probably not that simple. I think a JC transfer can get at least some PE credits transferred over to the UW, they just can’t transfer above a certain amount.

Let’s say a kid looks like he’ll have more JC credits than necessary to get his AA, and appears as though he might have enough transferable credits to get into the UW. Well, what if during the time that he’s being recruited by the UW and the time he gets his AA, he doesn’t pass one of those classes that would allow him to get into the UW? Or what if he passes that class, but the NCAA clearinghouse determines that the class doesn’t meet their criteria and the credits aren’t allowed to transer (as may be the case with Gaisie).

To successfully recruit a JC kid, the UW coaches need to review his transcript, check it with UW admissions, and then continue to monitor and advise the kid until he gets his AA to ensure that he’s taking (and passing) the right classes to gain admission to the UW.

The UW isn’t the only school that has difficulties getting JC kids in, but they operating at a disadvantage compared to those that do have PE programs and/or have other provisions in place to make it easy to get JC kids accepted.

I think we can cut Sark’s staff a little bit of slack with the JC kids they recruited for the ‘09 class, given that they were way behind the 8-ball in recruiting for the Huskies when they got here and didn’t have a whole range of options available – they had to roll the dice on some kids.

by kirkd on Aug 17, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the new coaching staff was ignorant of the UW limitations?

I also understand that recruits fail to live up to their responsibilities after signing—this was apparently the case with some this year.

But given the number of staff dedicated to athlete-academic services, I would hope that we won’t see transferability-type mistakes in the future. It just shouldn’t happen, and somebody needs to take charge.

by Verge on Aug 18, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not even Verge

Gaisie missed by one credit…some of these kids attend 3-4 JC’s over two years so it can be confusing. The coahces and advisors know what they need but it is up to the kids to pass the classes they neeed to qualify. The problem at UW is PE credits. UW doesn’t accept them and other schoold do. Gaisie can get in about any place he wants except for a school that doesn’t accept PE credits like UW.

by John Berkowitz on Aug 18, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure that it is confusing.

And I also realize that the coaching staff doesn’t have final say on eligibility. Most of all, I can appreciate the frustration when recruits fail to do the work expected of them.

But if it’s true that PE credits are the most common issue preventing JC transfers from gaining admission, it doesn’t matter whether it’s unique to the UW. It’s your own house rule—you should know about it.

I’m OK on giving them a pass this year. But it would seem that in the future, as kirkd said above, the program needs to be more proactive (in conjunction with upper campus) in vetting JC transcripts. It sounds as though better communication might save a few scholarships.

by Verge on Aug 18, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know that the coaches...

…look at it the same way as we do. I mean maybe they knew that a few of these guys wouldn’t make it? The scholarship slots were filled and if they don’t make it in then the next class will have three more kids. We look at it like “well if you don’t think they’ll qualify then why offer them?” but just maybe they really didn’t see many other viable options out there with the late start recruiting? The upside to that is that the scholarships are preserved for kids who they can evaluate for a full season and establish more of a relationship with. The quality of the recruits will probably be higher also.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Aug 18, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting Point

Maybe they even have a formula, based upon experience, that you have to sign x number of JC players in order to actually get y on campus.

I tend to think though, that this year they were trying hard to get as many bodies as possible who could contribute now. I suspect the primary goal was to get the program jump-started by any means necessary, and get some momentum going for the future.

by Verge on Aug 18, 2009 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The focus today is on the OL and recruiting

I don’t think many of us have any idea of how big a rebuilding job it is going to be. We just aren’t no trouble this year but next year without a significant talent infusion it gets worse. Talk about your challenges….this one is going to be huge…I also add the disclaimer that I think with the time afforded he will get it done.

I was talking to a friend close to the program today and he expects that they run a number of players off the roster after the season concludes and they could bring in as many as 29-30 recruits this winter. Talking about 24-25 frosh and five to six JC’s.

This may be the most exciting recruiting season in Husky history.

We started the year with only 12 or so opening for next year and now we are over twenty…the numbers will continue to climb.

Getting back to the offensive line Cozzetto says he wants to find eight players this season….count on the rest being gone next season…maybe more… . the key to bringing this team back is agressive recruiting on the OL.

by John Berkowitz on Aug 17, 2009 5:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rebuilding the OL is indeed the biggest thing IMO – I think there’s enough skill talent on the roster to succeed if the OL is strong.

But we can’t forget the defense either – back to back years of the worst defense in Husky history. We’ve got a lot of bodies in the secondary, and hopefully we can get find 4 quality guys to start. Hopefully the bodies equal competition and the numbers result in better play. Same thing on the DL. I think there’s some promise there in the younger guys. LB should be a strength this year, but I’m highly concerned after Butler, Savannah and Tui graduate – only Foster is a proven returning LB. Maybe E.J. can get a 6th year (but I doubt it).

by kirkd on Aug 17, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

EJ

He should get a 6th year morally but the letter ot he law is you get it if you are injured for two years.

by John Berkowitz on Aug 17, 2009 6:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

for reference only, make your own conclusions

Tys first class: 14 offers, 4 JCs. Wood, Handy, Freeman and Durocher. Durocher and Wood made it in and contributed but Wood actually lost a year of eligibility due to UW not catching his original clock start date at a school. So 50% for TW on JCs in first year, same as Sark 3 of 6 in. Of the 11 other offers, 5 are still with the team: Ossai, EJ, Teo ,Darrion Jones , and Roseborough. Stevens and Perkins played and used up eligibilty or medically retired. That leaves Tys first class of high schoolers who are no longer there as JR Hasty, Tim Williams and Tyrone Davis who never qualified out of HS to get admittance.

by prrbrr on Aug 17, 2009 8:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

JCs

I think Sark was trying to fill in slots with the late start he had with recruiting. I don’t believe the Huskies will recruit much more out of the JC ranks and if they do I don’t think you’ll see too many guys not making it in.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Aug 18, 2009 8:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

JC's

If they can find some kids that qualify and can start in a position of need like the offensive line they will pull the trigger if they can get them in for Winter Quarter.

That of course is a huge if…first you need to find the guy’s that have the ability to step in and start, have interest in coming to UW, and finally are qualified to enter UW for Winter Quarter.

Not exactly an easy task but if you could find one or two of them the coaches would be all over that.

by John Berkowitz on Aug 18, 2009 10:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs