Was the OL horrendous tonight or merely not as good as the DL?

Submitted by Erik_in_Dayton on
Like many mgbloggers, I was not able to attend the scrimmage tonight. I was able to follow it on Twitter thanks to Ace and Sam Webb. It seems safe to say that the DL outplayed the OL by a wide margin (with Kalis not playing and Glasgow not playing much - or at all?)...................................... Question for those who were there: Did the OL seem competent at a basic level but unable to compete with a very good DL? Were they a disaster? Did they seem like a young but talented group that will just need time to find their way? Were they horrible? Terrible? Nausea-inducing? Were they driven from their villages and forced to surrender their women to Caesar and renounce their gods?......................................... Any insight from those in attendance will be appreciated. [EDIT: I can't create paragraphs for some reason.]
MGoBoard
Football
again?

bluebyyou

August 17th, 2014 at 6:05 AM ^

While I'm not suggesting that we do the same thing, a couple of years ago, Wisconsin was having O-line problems and fired their O-line coach two weeks after the season had started.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8361472/wisconsin-badger…

It takes a while for players on the O-line to gel.  At the very least, two of the five starters are new and they are playing with a new scheme. From Hoke's comments, I think he sees things in practice that may not have shown up in yesterday's scrimmage. They still have two weeks before the start of the season and three weeks before the ND game.  That's a long time as these things go, considering there has only been about a week or ten days of contact drills.

If there isn't substantial improvement in a month, all bets are off.

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 18576

umfan323

August 17th, 2014 at 12:14 AM ^

To expect to see a competent O line ?? He has been here long enough to get this line together, he has had the same amount of time as Borges and this line has not improved 1 bit,  most of these guys have been here 2-3 years in the system and we can't run the ball consistently

Joined: 01/19/2011

MGoPoints: -99997697

snarling wolverine

August 17th, 2014 at 12:34 AM ^

I am not saying that he's done an awesome job to date or that the OL looked great tonight.  What I am saying is that it's very common in the preseason for the defense to be ahead of the offense. 

For the time being, don't freak out.  It may be that our OL turns out to be bad all year.  Or it may improve.  We'll just have to wait and see.

 

 

Joined: 12/14/2011

MGoPoints: 98372

ottomatic

August 17th, 2014 at 1:36 AM ^

New OC, now offense, new scheme. If this OL had been dominante last year they could reasonably be expected to look meh today. Time is needed for this crew to gel under the new scheme.

Joined: 01/12/2011

MGoPoints: 1302

Gulogulo37

August 17th, 2014 at 1:29 AM ^

Obviously Hoke wasn't afraid to let go of Borges, and I'm sure he would have let Funk go too if he thought that was the problem. Everyone is concerned about the OL, and it certainly won't be our strength, but can we at least see how it goes in a real game? We've still got 2 weeks, the OL is still young, our defense is going to be damn good, and time and again coaches always say the defense is ahead of the offense before the season.

Remember when the Lions went undefeated under Marinelli in the preseason in 2008, and then because the preseason, especially a damn scrimmage, reflects the team perfectly, the Lions just blasted everyone in the regular season and won the Super Bowl? Oh wait...

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 28318

johnvand

August 16th, 2014 at 10:56 PM ^

I'm going to attempt to withhold judgement on the OL until we see them go against other teams.  Our obnoxiously inexperienced 2nd string OL should get beat consistently by our experienced 1st string DL.

It's going to be another year of tight games.  We have difference makers on defense.  Very good starting QB and WRs on offense.  Then there's the inexperienced and unproven OL and RBs.  Defense should keep us in all of the games.  I expect the OL to blow 4 or 5 drives per game with TFLs, Sacks, and Penalties.

Joined: 02/04/2010

MGoPoints: 5505

tbeindit

August 16th, 2014 at 10:57 PM ^

Attended live.  In all honesty, I didn't think the 1st team OL was as bad as many are making it out to be here.  The DL definitely got pressure, but there were some sets where Gardner got some decent time to throw.  Also, there were very few plays where it seemed like Gardner was getting run over.  The only series I remember this happening was during several blitz packages.  Nussmeier responded with a nice screen that picked up a lot of yards.

On the other hand, the rest of the offensive lines were a disaster.  Morris was fighting for time to throw on almost every play.

Joined: 01/27/2011

MGoPoints: 2039

Schembo

August 16th, 2014 at 11:20 PM ^

I agree somewhat. I saw some nice pockets tonight for the passing game. But I also saw breakdowns when the D brought pressure. Last year is going to be our Achilles heel. Defenses are going to attack us up front until we can prove we can handle it and burn them on it. We didn't show that tonight.

Joined: 01/06/2011

MGoPoints: 6374

hart20

August 16th, 2014 at 10:58 PM ^

same story about the D Line being "that good" before the season and that turned out to be a result of the O line being that bad. I get that we have two more weeks to go, but why should we expect the reports to be more accurate this year?

Joined: 05/25/2011

MGoPoints: 5692

Schembo

August 16th, 2014 at 11:01 PM ^

Defense is always ahead of the offense this time of year though isn't it? My concern is running to the left. Cole looks like a natural pass blocker, but probably not there as a run blocker at this point. Mags' strength is also pass pro, originally. It seemed tonight that the coaches preferred running on the right side of the line. Also, Funk gets a lot of blame on the board, but what about Wellmam? I mean it's cool and all that we got some defensive players with sweet abs, but we gotta get better in the trenches.

Joined: 01/06/2011

MGoPoints: 6374

Reader71

August 17th, 2014 at 12:02 AM ^

There are, for sure. Wellman, for instance, believes in the bench press, while Barwis did not. The bench press is absolutely critical for offensive linemen. Look at our team. They all look the part. Strength is not an issue. Neither is conditioning, as evidenced by our team generally being good in the 4th quarter, whereas Barwis' teams often folded late in games and late in the season. Wellman is not the problem. These guys can move tanks and can run for days. The problem is that they aren't very good at blocking people yet.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Gulogulo37

August 17th, 2014 at 1:23 AM ^

There can be a bunch of reasons for that. I can think of plenty of games RR's teams played poorly well before the 4th. It could just as well be that RR was trying a bunch of new tricks until the other team figured it out. Also, how did RR have such good teams at WV if they apparently couldn't bench press a broomstick? It's easy to point to RR's time at Michigan and blame it on whatever you choose, not so easy to criticize RR's WV teams.

You can work your pecs without a bench press. A lot of people criticize the bench press as one of the big NFL combine stats. Is it true that Barwis didn't have them work on the press at all? Or just underemphasized it? I don't know the average, but Brandon Graham got 31 reps at the combine. Looking at the records and some of the lower showings, that seems pretty good. Obviously he had pecs. Anyway, core and legs are way more important.

I'd agree with LordGrantham. Wellman and Barwis are/were not the problem. They just talk about those guys so they have something else to write about. www.bodyrecomposition.com run by Lyle MacDonald is a great resource, along with the forums there. He tries to base things in science as much as possible (although the science on bodybuilding is not great actually). One thing he criticizes is a poster talking about THE way to get big.

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 28318

Reader71

August 17th, 2014 at 2:13 AM ^

The eyeball test. Sure, it's crude, but our guys look the part.

As an example, Ben Braden isn't weak. He looks like Tarzan. His problem is that he hasn't figured out how to apply his raw strength into playing strength.  This is due to a lack of technique. Wellman doesn't teach technique.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Reader71

August 17th, 2014 at 2:18 AM ^

I have only one qualm with Barwis, but as an old lineman, I simply cannot forgive him for it. Sure, you can build your chest without the bench press. But the motion for the bench press is IDENTICAL to the motion of the punch of a lineman in pass protection. So why not stress the shit out of it?

You don't want your skill position guys to bench press, fine. I'm sure I can be convinced. But not on the line.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

CoachZ

August 17th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^

I'm not sure who taught you how to punch, but if it is identical to your bench press motion you're doing it wrong.  

Bench is over rated, period.  Squats and cleans are where you make a living as an OL (actually all positions).  If you want to knock people off the LOS it's about the lower body, not the upper.  That is why you don't stress the shit out of it.  

I also have a copy of Barwis' Michigan workouts and bench press is definitely part of the plan.  

Joined: 01/24/2011

MGoPoints: 208

Reader71

August 17th, 2014 at 2:48 PM ^

Funk taught be how to punch. Ba-zing! Maybe I overstated the case, but no lift approximates the punch of a pass protecting lineman like the bench press. Just like no lift approximates the punch in run blocking like the incline bench press. As for whether they did it or not, I'm sure they benched. But Barwis was quoted saying they were going to deemphasize the bench because the only time you do the bench motion on the field is when you've been pancaked and you're pushing someone off of you. The comment strained credulity.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

MGoClimb

August 16th, 2014 at 11:08 PM ^

I said this at the bottom of the scrimmage thread, but remember that through 2 games last season MSU had scored a grand total of 2 offensive touchdowns...against Western and South Florida. App. State is two weeks away. The line will improve between now and then.

Joined: 07/31/2012

MGoPoints: 9026

bronxblue

August 16th, 2014 at 11:04 PM ^

It's days like this that I enjoy being hundreds of miles away from Ann Arbor - it just seems like nothing good was going to come out of this scrimmage.  If the OL and DL play even, then everyone wonders if both suck are both are good.  One dominates, and the other is treated as a dumster fire.

Let's see how the team performs against opponents, not against guys who they have matched up against all year and in a contrived setting to boot.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171787

BoFan

August 16th, 2014 at 11:14 PM ^

10) Doesn't the DL know the playbook? 9) DL is always more developed at this point 8) They're sophomores...give them.a few games to gel...or next season 7) Kalis at RG will be a beast 6) Miller is a decoy. Glasgow will replace him for ND 5) Cole will learn fast...you'll see 4) It's just a scrimmage. Hoke ain't showing his cards 3) With our RBs we dont need an OL 2) Ty! 1) Peppers at LT

Joined: 03/09/2012

MGoPoints: 19943

Reader71

August 16th, 2014 at 11:28 PM ^

The offensive line was always going to fail in this setting. It is a work in progress. And its starting from a very low point. I'm of the opinion that this line will be better than last year's, but it wont happen right away. They will probably never be able to get much consistent push in the run game. We will have to live with that. Where I think the improvement will come is in fewer outright missed assignments meaning fewer sacks and fewer TFLs. And with Gardner upright, we can win a lot of games, particularly if we get some 3rd and 5s instead of the 3rd and longs we were always in last season. We will live and die with Gardner, just as we did last season. I think he is good enough to beat any and every team on the schedule if he is given some time. Like I said in an earlier thread, people were so happy to get an announcement on who was starting that they were ignoring the concerns we ought to have. This will not be a good running team. But the defense and passing game should make us a contender in the division.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

alum96

August 17th, 2014 at 12:05 AM ^

I think this is a very realistic take.  But Devin needs to improve - his variability from game to game was very high - anywhere from Vince Young Jr to HS SR level of play.  I am worried about what I saw in the spring game (a few bad decisions against, bad INTs) and some of the comments tonigh about his decision making and accuracy.  He needs to be lights out for this team to get near 10 wins due to the OL.  I'd give up 2 Vince Young nights from him where he looks like the 2nd/3rd best QB in the country in return for 10 games where he looks like the 2nd/3rd best QB in the league.

Joined: 04/28/2012

MGoPoints: 82522

reshp1

August 16th, 2014 at 11:17 PM ^

Honestly, I'm kinda surprised at how much doom and gloom there was here. 1st team offense didn't play much at all, but I thought the OL was adequate. They had trouble against all out blitzs and Hurst shot through for a bad TFL and safety, but otherwise they seemed ok. Runs were of the 3 yard variety mostly, but were consistently positive. Pass protection was ok as long as the ball came out quick. Devin didn't look very good and the were tons of drops, which didn't help things.  Considering they only ran the basest of base plays, it really wasn't all that surprising the D was ahead.  

The 2nd team spent most of the scrimmage getting destroyed by the defensive two deep, which is probably why it seemed so bad to do many people. If you didn't realize who was first team and who was second team, yeah it looked awful.  

Glasgow got hurt early on, interestingly it was Burzinyski that filed in. He came back for a series with his ankle all taped up, then Burzinyski played the rest of the way. I watched Glasgow walk out through the tunnel afterwards and he wasn't limping as far as I could tell, so I don't think it's serious. 

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177