2014 Offense…."Optimistify yourselves"!

Submitted by MichiganMan14 on

QB:  Devin--Shane--Russell---Wilton(rs)  

RB:  Green---Smith---Johnson---Shallman---Rawls

FB:  Houma/Kerridge

WR: Darboh--Harris--Canteen--Jones

WR: Chesson--York---Ways---Dukes

Slot:  Canteen---Norfleet---Peppers

TE:  Funchess---Butt---Bunting---AJ

LT:  Braden--Tulley-Tillman---Fox

RT:  Magneson---Samuelson---Bars

OG:  Kalis---Dawson---

OG:  Glasgow---Bosch---

C: Kugler--Miller

5* Starters=2

4* Starters=6

3*Starters=3

 

 

 

KR:  Canteen/Norfleet  +  Peppers

PR:  Peppers or Norfleet

 

There is absolutley no excuse for this team to not field a good to GREAT offense next season. Any competent Offensive Staff would whip this into a legitimate offense.  

I personally think we win 10 games next season.  Call me crazy....a dreamer....whatever.  There is simply no way this amount of talent fails to materialize.  2014...Get Optimistic!!

GO BLUE!

BlowGoo

January 3rd, 2014 at 8:02 AM ^

I wish there was more to it than that, but the fact is until Hoke proves he can win those games, smart money is that that the trend continues. But who knows? There are reasons for optimism, and a couple subtle changes on a team can have a dramatic ripple effect. Bottom line: if I had to bet the house, I'd agree with Don. I just wouldn't be too keen on betting the house.

Victor Valiant

January 3rd, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^

I'm not sure how anybody can predict we are likely to lose to ND or MSU next year. MSU is losing basically their entire defense. Will they reload or rebuild? Probably a little of both. They will be good defensively, but not special like this year. Their offense is average at best. Cook easily would have cost them the Rose Bowl had Stanford just made the easy interceptions. ND is returning a QB who struggled against us 2 years ago and is losing their best defensive players. Am I missing something?

Don

January 3rd, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^

I'll repeat: in his three seasons at UM, MIchigan under Brady Hoke has not once beaten a team in its own stadium that has finished the regular season with a winning record.

Go ahead and recite all the roster reasons why we'll beat MSU or ND or OSU next year, and then look at all the confident predictions posted here why we were going to beat ND or Iowa or OSU or Penn State or MSU or Nebraska on the road over the past three seasons.

Our road victories are Northwestern (2), Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, and UConn. A real Murderer's Row, ain't it?

Does this mean that it's impossible for us to beat a good team on the road? Of course not. However, when you've gone three whole seasons without managing to pull it off, it's hardly unwarranted pessimism to want to see it happen before penciling in road victories against good teams.

Reader71

January 3rd, 2014 at 4:04 AM ^

I predict 9 wins. The staff is retained. We are happy with this, except we still want Borges gone. Critics say our success was all due to Gardner's magic.

BoWoody

January 3rd, 2014 at 8:29 AM ^

This isn't the michigan I grew up watching in the 90s and in the early 2000.  Year after year we were talking about another national championships till we usually get those unbelievable lloyd carr losses.  But you knew, we had the team to compete with anyone on the schedule.  We werent afraid of anyone.  Now we are talking about accepting that this program isn't going to compete for the b10 championship.  This program has fallen big time.  Where is the talk THIS IS MICHIGAN FORGODSAKE.  Like i said before, I see us going 8-4 next year and hoping i am wrong to be a happier person.  But if we dont go at least to indiana this year, it is a failed season according to HOKE.  So 4 failed seasons in a row isn't an acceptable job, and DB needs to give hoke the pink slip, and hopefully a deal is made with jim harbough behind the season to take the program over.  I know before i get killed, I dont think jim will ever leave the NFL.  but i can always hope for it

CoachBP6

January 3rd, 2014 at 4:10 AM ^

I love the talent we'll have at each offensive position. I'm fairly confident this offense can score on any defense in the country. My only doubt lays at the feet of Al Borges. 2-4 times a season he has deployed a game plan so atrocious and void of "execution" that I am unfortunately certain that it has become a trend. This team is still not MANBALL ready yet and if Al runs some of the same stuff he did against Iowa / Nebraska then we will be hopeful to get to 9 wins. Two years ago I predicted Michigan would go 9-4 this past year and 12-2 next year. A man can hope, and dream.

MichiganMan14

January 3rd, 2014 at 4:28 AM ^

Double Tight End set with Funchess and Butt would be a nasty mismatch on the backers.  Would also likely allow one on one coverage for Darboh and Chesson.  We really need a "Guy" = someone who is a winner in one v one situations.  Preferably a deep threat but ill take a master route runner extraordinaire.   Canteen comes to mind here....but hes young.

TallyWolverine

January 3rd, 2014 at 5:03 AM ^

michiganman14, are you going to start a thread titled "2014 Special Teams" within the next couple hours? I can't wait much longer, the season is only eight months away!

robmorren2

January 3rd, 2014 at 5:41 AM ^

You thought the O-line was bad the last 2 years, wait to see this one. Rarely do you lose 2 NFL tackles and improve your line. Basically, you could have 4 guys making their first starts at their positions. Next year will probably be rough. Hopefully #98 can be dynamic enough to keep us respectable. I'm thinking 7 or 8 wins for the regular season, with a possible additional win if we get a favorable matchup in whatever mediocre bowl we go to. I'm trying to be as realistic as possible. I don't think the contributions of the new guys getting playing time will be better than what we got out of Taylor Lewan, Michael Schofield, and Jeremy Gallon. You can't use the "one more year in the system" logic that you could apply to some teams. Borges doesn't really have a "system". Everything changes week to week; from formations, to play calling, to blocking schemes, to personnel packages -- as opposed to say an Urban Meyer or Brian Kelly offenses which operate much more like a machine with interchangable parts. The only real variable being a non-mobile or mobile QB (Rees/Golson).

NFG

January 3rd, 2014 at 6:02 AM ^

Who is the OC? Don't let stars and paper tigers fool you. This team is talented but unless we have a system in place of growth and high level schemes, prep for losses.

Space Coyote

January 3rd, 2014 at 9:10 AM ^

Is it too high level or too low level?

Is it too much or not enough?

Is it too much run or too much pass?

Is it too many deep passes or too many short passes?

Is it too much anticipation or too much stubbornness?

Is it too grab bag or too "Man ball"?

Is it trying to teach too much or just can't teach?

Etc etc.

Can we, as a group, at least come to a consensus for the causes of the offense's failures, instead of moving the goal posts every other day, constantly contridicting one another, and trying to discover other shit to throw at the wall to see what sticks? Because honestly, it sounds like a lot of people are just saying things just to complain because they're unhappy with the results, but really can't determine how/what to complain about, so they just sputter random nonsense. Maybe we can start a poll so we can come together and get a firm grasp of what the talking points should be.

WM-wolverine

January 3rd, 2014 at 10:03 AM ^

How many words per minute can you type? Why do you type so many? You have made it abundantly clear that it is improper to blame coaches for negative on field results. Many others feel differently and they are entitled to their opinions.

NFG

January 3rd, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^

So without trying to sputter random nonsense, I'll try to explain my POV, without insulting you twice in the same day. High level schemes to me mean that we establish an offensive game plan that isn't recycled from one week to the next, and have some sort of adjustments to the next week opponents defensive strengths and weaknesses.

For example, when tackle over worked for us against Minny, the next week our first play was a tackle over zone run to the left which was a big loss. PSU's defensive line was their strength, which we kept running into. Our center couldn't get their reach block and guards never made it to the second level. Regardless, we continually ran tackle over throughout the next couple weeks, even though it wasn't progressing in terms of positive yards and became very predictable in certain down and distances. A low level scheme IMO, would be running the same play out of the same formation in the same similar down and distances and expecting a different result. We continually do play action on 3rd and long which gives the safeties more time to drop back and read the routes, because they all know that there is no way we are going to run a zone run. I believe Einstein is quoted of saying that the definition of insanity is, " doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."

We couldn't protect Gardner because our play calling was so predictable, and we couldn't run up the middle because of our poor development of interior linemen. Not sure if Funk uses shoots and sleds, but if he does, I believe he should focus more on footwork and getting to your block at a low point, since that is where they are failing.  Michigan hasn't had an above average pulling guard in nearly 4 seasons, and there needs to be a change.

The deep/short passes, manball/basketball on grass and style all comes back to oline play and schematics. If they continue to be ignorant of what they have failed at and what they need to work on, they will continue to make a mockery of themselves. 

 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html#GEgKigJMp4R6mD5c.99 

Space Coyote

January 3rd, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^

I don't really want to get into the debate again, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions, my post really wasn't just about you, or even directed mostly at you. I've just seen a lot of different reasons, many of which don't coincide and actually contradict one another. As a blog, as a whole, as a group of posters, the complaints have been all over the place, not you individually. That was my long-winded point.

WM-wolverine

January 3rd, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^

Why is it so troubling to you that different individuals have differing individual thoughts? Is that not what this place is for? Why is your opinion any more valid than anyone elses? Many worship at your feet, why must all? Your CYA coach speak does not ring true in my ears. It seems you would fit right in with brady and his boys.

93Grad

January 3rd, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^

Trying to get perfect consensus from any group of people about nearly any topic is difficult.  Now try it with a sports forum trying to understand the reasons for results that did not meet expectations in a crazily complex sport like football. 

You seem like a smart fellow so maybe you just choose to ignore these simple truths about human nature in order to feel above the crowd.  Or maybe you are just a Don Quiote type who likes to fight windmills.  Who knows?

Space Coyote

January 3rd, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^

This blog has mostly come to a general consensus (note: not perfect consensus) about what the issues are. We at least had talking points that made sense and went in one direction. Now it's all over the place. I don't expect people to really understand the finer problems, because none of us are there in practice to see/know those things. But even the broad strokes are vastly different, to the point of contridiction, not just semantics.

And yeah, I've faught a windmill or two in my time, but I feel like the general direction of this blog (let's see how much we can complain about, no matter what it is) rather than actually formulating some talking points, forming some consensus, etc, is already growing tiring (it did during the season already). If it's going to be like this the entire offseason, where someone makes a joke about "they didn't execute", and then as a group we are all over the place with complaints, then we're just a bunch of people grasping at a lot of straws, and no real discussion can be had. I like football and I like Michigan. I'd like to discuss football and discuss Michigan football. But if we can't have that discussion, then this blog and community are going to go in the wrong direction. It's not about feeling above the crowd, it's about actually having a place that isn't going to be insanity for the next 9 months. 

BlueGoM

January 3rd, 2014 at 6:56 AM ^

"no way this amount of talent fails to materialize"

except the o-line was awful this year, and we'll be starting 2 new tackles next year.

Recruiting stars are nice, usually mean the kid is very athletic, but that's about it.

To have a good offense you've got to have a good line.  I'm not sure we'll have that next year. Maybe the year following.

Also Borges.

 

blueblueblue

January 3rd, 2014 at 7:09 AM ^

michiganman14: Does the "14" mean you are 14 years old?  

To write off coaching is to be quite naive. You can have a collection of individuals, but they have to be put together into a coheren whole. That falls on coaching, chemistry, and other factors that exist between individuals, not just as a collection of individuals. 

g_reaper3

January 3rd, 2014 at 7:26 AM ^

i think we will be underdogs for sure in the 3 road games against our rivals. As for Notre Dame, I don't think we usually beat ND on the road. We have lost 2 of our last 3 on the road there and 5 of the last 7 on the road there. I think we go 8-4 or 9-3.

JTrain

January 3rd, 2014 at 7:44 AM ^

But I am so done with "paper talent". The stars on the paper need to translate to real life play at some point. I'm so sick of getting jacked up about our awesome recruiting classes and then getting manhandled and out coached on a regular basis by teams with way less "talent". I realize we are in a transition phase....isn't that what we're calling it.......but it time for player development to HAPPEN. It's time for the systems on offense and defense to work. ANNOYED.

dj89

January 3rd, 2014 at 8:10 AM ^

I may say you are a dreamer. But you aren't the only one. The concern here is that we had good talent this year and we still displayed baffling bipolar performances.

m1jjb00

January 3rd, 2014 at 8:24 AM ^

You got Shallman and Hill coming off their redshirt years.  I'm hoping between those guys along with the slots and as mentioned above Justice Hayes can provide another dimension.

I think it's time to just list Funchess as a wide receiver, especially if Bunting can serve as say 2/3rd of Butt's freshman year as a back up.  Along with Paskorz and WIlliams you have options for catchy/blocky.

I'll bet a doughnut that Manguson is your left tackle and Braden is the right tackle.

Kalis, Glasgow, Bosch is probably the best single guess as to the interior, but Kugler and Dawson are so much in the mix that you just have to sit back and watch.

JohnCorbin

January 7th, 2014 at 1:13 AM ^

From LT to RT, I imagine it will be Magnuson, Kalis, Glasgow, Bosch, Braden.

Question: Why do you say Kugler and Dawson are so much in the mix that you just have to sit back and watch?

I've heard Kugler is coming off a shoulder injury, and is technically as sound as they come.  I have not heard anything about Dawson though.  Is there something I've missed?

What about Bryant?  He started a few games this year.  I think an entire off season to help his knee heal up will do wonders for him.

What about Miller?  I know he was a little weak this year, but a full off season of lifting could help change that.

Overall, I think there is going to be some good competition on the OL, and I think they'll surprise a lot of people next year.

chally

January 3rd, 2014 at 8:27 AM ^

Which site(s) are you getting your stars from? You list us with two 5-star starters, but don't mention who you are counting. None of our players were 5-star recruits across the board. Devin Gardner received 5 stars from 1 of 3 sites. Kyle Kalis received 5 stars from 2 of 4 sites. Patrick Kugler received 5 stars from 1 of 4 sites. Derrick Green received 5 stars from 2 of 4 sites.

BlueGoM

January 3rd, 2014 at 8:39 AM ^

Pipkins was a 5 star according to Rivals.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/commitments/2012

Anyway IMO Hoke is recruting well.  But it still takes time for those kids to come in , learn the playbook and  develop into juniors and seniors.  It's quite rare a 5* guy just comes in and becomes a star the minute he sets foot on the field.

 

EDIT: Duh, we're talking offense.  Whatever. :)

 

chally

January 3rd, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^

Yeah, I'm not trying to knock Michigan's recruiting, nor am I saying that 5-star recruits need to come in and dominate from day 1 (far from it, in fact).  I just thought it was odd that the OP decided to lump players in 5-star and 4-star buckets when the truth is that most recruits have a fair bit of divergence across sites.  It's not at all clear who the OP is counting or why he chose to count some guys as 5-star recruits and not others.

Frankly, I get rather frustrated with the recruiting emphasis in the comments on this site.  We are recruiting a lot of solid prospects, whether 5-star or 4-star or whatever.  I'm interested in watching them develop and eventually play for Michigan.  Players being annointed as team saviors before they even step on the field at the Big House (Peppers, Green, Kalis, Pipkins, Gardner) seems a little silly, and it only sets everyone up for disappointment.