Mailbag: More Sad Football Things, All Caps Sad Football Section Comment Count

Brian

10770781156_6945156a37_z[1]

Bryan Fuller

Hi Brian,

I don't pretend to know the intricacies of football but during the Nebraska game it seemed that Toussaint, in pass protection, would wait for his blocking assignment to come to him before engaging the player. Seeing as Toussaint is significantly smaller then the LB or lineman he's been assigned to block this usually resulted in Toussaint getting pushed backwards (physics and all). Is this how RBs are typically coached to play pass protection?

Thanks,
Jack C.

I mostly stay away from the how of any particular technique failing; more of a "what" guy since I didn't play the game, etc. But to me Toussaint's blocking issues stem from three problems:

  1. Michigan's line has to resort to slide protections that often expose him to a pass-rushing DE. This is a bad matchup for anyone.
  2. He's part of that need to resort to slide protections since his recognition isn't good; when he is tasked with identifying guys to pick up he often catches them. Vincent Smith and Mike Hart would find guys and then get some momentum before making contact.
  3. He hits guys too high sometimes, which makes it easy for them to shed him and attack. Smith and Hart got low, or in Smith's case existed in a perpetual state of low-ness.

3 is his problem, 2 is part his and part a holistic inability to pick up blitzes, and 1 is not his fault.

What's different about this year?

Greetings –

Regarding the offensive line, I saw some comments that intrigued me that intrigued me the other day and I’m curious your perspective.

Borges indicated that another variable in the mix this year is that it’s “the first year in the scheme we’ve wanted to move to.”  Based on your work therefore, do you conclude that:

1) There is a significant difference this year in scheme, protections, and what the offense is asking of the o’line?

2) That experienced lines would be impacted by such a scheme change?

3) That inexperienced players would unimpacted (i.e. just as inexperienced)?

4) That therefore the years experience/games experience would also be negatively impacted from a production standpoint.

So that in conclusion – there’s actually hope bc the ones that are young are young and the ones that are supposed to have experience have less experience than one would otherwise understand to be true.

And – that next year or the year after really will be better!

Keep up the good work.

-Andy

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence for that rationale.

Borges's comments make no sense. This year started out with Michigan running a bunch of stretch plays, which was a departure from what they'd done the first two years… and a staple of the Rodriguez offense. If that's what he meant, he could have just, you know, kept running the stretch.

Instead Michigan was almost exclusively an inside zone and power team their first two years here, and the differences between running those things from under center versus the shotgun are minimal. There has been a more concerted effort to run plays from under center, but that shift was even more pronounced late last year after Gardner took the helm of the offense.

If anything's changed this year from last year in terms of blocking it's that Denard isn't around to bail it out. Borges trying to use him to cover his ass by claiming he somehow couldn't run the schemes he wanted to be cause the guy running behind them was also the one taking the snap is a weak excuse that throws Denard (of all people!) under the bus.

[After THE JUMP: WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER]

8083961838_647823c748_z[1]

Eric Upchurch

Brian,

I know you were disappointed about the Hoke hiring as was I. However, I subsequently became impressed with his recruiting and the staff he put together, though skeptical about Borges. In retrospect, was there anyone available at the time that Michigan had a realistic shot at that they should have hired?

Peter from Horsham, PA

I am in the same boat with regards to staff and recruiting and would also like to throw his level of aggressiveness (Penn State excluded) as unexpected positives.

As to your question: probably not. If we are taking the narrowest possible view of "realistic"—simply would coach X take the job if offered—then there are some guys out there who look attractive to me, but not many. Gus Malzahn was still Auburn's offensive coordinator at the time; I did like him. Kevin Sumlin was out there but had not yet led Houston to a 13-1 record and was much less of a hot commodity. Charlie Strong had just finished his first year at Louisville and it would have been a tough sell on both ends to pull a Todd Graham. I can't think of anyone else who seems like a man-that-guy kind of hire who was remotely plausible.

And then if you make realistic include the fact that Michigan was coming off a disastrous foray into modernism and had a program culture that had derided Rich Rodriguez as a hilljack from about the moment he showed up, that closes off various possibilities. Would Malzahn get the RR treatment? Maybe, maybe not but after RR he was politically unviable.

So it was either Hoke or some other swing in the dark at a guy less likely to make Dhani Jones happy, and now that everyone's happy Michigan has at least stabilized their roster and recruited very well. Anyone else was going to be facing this crapstorm on the OL, too, and they'd be far less likely to have the capital to power through it. And right now Michigan just needs to have a guy in for five years and see what happens.

One of the lessons I hope we've all learned from this: never wait until after the bowl game to fire your coach (and then don't do so in with a bizarre three-day "process" and don't take another week and a half to hire the new guy). By waiting, Michigan turned one crap recruiting class into two and missed out on various other coaches who would have been available earlier in the year, like Jim Harbaugh. If rumors that Dave Brandon's mind was already made up before the bowl game are true, that's a huge blunder. It's one thing if the program insurrection is his fault, another if he was a known dead man walking.  But we'll probably never know the truth there.

I have been just as frustrated by the recent offensive output as anyone and have been struggling with what should be done against the blitzes and the in our headset defenses.   

What does a team like Alabama or Stanford do that does not allow the same types of defensive strategies to work?  Is it the better offensive lines, use of counters, more coherent scheme, consistent coaching, or a combination?  As an example, Stanford against Oregon seemed "predictable" in running power but continued to be successful regardless of the defense.  Or I would imagine Alabama could run tackle over stuff against Penn State and obliterate them.

I pick those schools as they seem to be the model for what we strive to be. I want to understand the solutions to our woes.

Thanks,
Scott

First, sanity check. FEI rankings for their offenses (please keep in mind that as a schedule-adjusted system, being 34th is really being 34th out of the 50-60 teams playing serious football plus whatever Boise State or NIU may happen to exist in a particular year):

Year Stanford Alabama
2013 17 13
2012 34 5
2011 6 11
2010 5 3
2009 1 5

So… yes, Stanford and Alabama have generally had elite-ish offenses over the past five years, with Alabama being more consistent.

Stanford's success can be traced back to having Andrew Luck. for 2009, 2010, and 2011, and Alabama is just an NFL factory of five-star linemen and back after back after back plus the occasional Julio Jones.

With anything there is a certain level of talent that brings with it the ability to impose your desires on the defense. When you can run something against a defense playing straight up and get five, six, seven yards, the defense then has to cheat to stop you and that opens up other possibilities. Against Oregon, Stanford lined up with tight line splits and made it so that blitzers would not find gaps and they could just roll over the lighter Oregon defense. Their predictability was not an issue because they had the horses in that particular matchup, as Alabama tends to do against anyone.  And when you can be predictable and still get some yards then teams have to start freaking out about thing X and overplay it, which opens up other options.

Michigan obviously lacks the talent to do that sort of thing. They might have the talent to make their thing deep passing, but Toussaint (and the OL against MSU) have prevented that from happening. They have nothing that they can rely on. That is the fundamental issue. They don't have a go-to play.

That is part talent, part wishful thinking about what this team could do (if we had similar wishful thoughts that is more understandable because we weren't watching practice daily), part midseason OL changeups that have at least partially backfired, part wasting three weeks with a tackle over gimmick, and part Cheesecake Factory offense that in fact allows teams to cheat like a mother to things like the inverted veer without ever worrying that Gardner is going to put a throw on their face once they see veer handoff action.

brian,

i loved your site and the informative analysis you brought to the table. now, it has become a useless forum to spread anger and hate and you are the leader. every week you write about and talk about (on wtka) how displeased you are with the michigan offense. you basically heap all of the blame on borges, even though they have a line that can't block, backs that can't hit a hole or pick up a blitz, a qb that locks on one receiver, throws ill advised passes and bails the pocket too quickly and receivers that can't get open and don't come back to the qb when he is scrambling.

if you have all of these issues with coach hoke and coach borges then why don't you attend their press conferences and ask them questions? why send a lackey to do your work for you? simple answer. you are a coward.

if you are so dissatisfied with what the coaches are doing, go root for arizona. that is where your heart lies anyway. you and rich can cuddle while listening to josh grobin.

dom

Putting aside the ridiculous assertion that I haven't pointed out the various flaws in the personnel all year when offensive line UFRs come in speckled in vomit and a purple-green substance I don't even want to get into, I don't go to press conferences because these are my options:

  • asking about which kind of horse is your favorite horse (A: "I like 'em all.")
  • trying to bring film cut ups and walking through certain things I don't understand, taking 10 minutes, getting cut off, getting a BOO THIS MAN from rest of assembled press corps
  • trying to do that verbally, doing unspectacular job, getting are-you-an-idiot cocked eyebrow from coach, more BOO THIS MAN
  • sarcastically huffing at every response, asking "why are you the dumbest dumbass in the history of dumbasses?"
  • listening to a bunch of questions about horses

Also I have other things to do, like put out 20k words in two posts on one game. I prioritize that over asking about horses and Heiko does a great job—a much better job than I would do—of representing the blog at the pressers. He does not ask about horses.

If Al Borges wants to hear it directly from me, my email address is at the top of the page. Until such time as he asks for it I'll forgo telling him to his face that I think he's screwed the pooch this season, because who does that help? I don't pretend to imagine that Borges gives two craps about what I think. And I don't care what Borges thinks about what I think, because it can only be one thing: "why are you the dumbest dumbass in the history of dumbasses?"

ALL CAPS SECTION

I HOPE YOU'RE WELL?!?

Brian,

Can he pull a Russell Wilson and go play his senior season elsewhere? If so, any potential destinations? The thought of him going to the desert and playing for RR would be quite juicy.

Hope you're well,
Jordan

I'M A LOT LESS WELL AFTER GETTING THIS EMAIL, JORDAN

I'M GOING TO BOLIVIA MYSELF

I'm itauditbill on mgoblog. I didn't want to actually post this for the real possiblity of be bolivia'd. However the thought struck me last night in a flu addled state. What are the odds that Applachian State is already working on the A Gap Blitz? (or whatever blitz it is that teams have been doing to Michigan the past few games, I will profess my understanding of football only comes from MgoBlog and it's not as in depth as others)

Yes, I've moved on from this season into worrying about the Nightmare 2.

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

Panic_1024x1024[1]

I ONLY TALK ABOUT COACHES WHO COACH FOR MICHIGAN

Gentlemen -

Thank you for the outstanding work despite trying times.

Maybe I'm just making this worse, but I'm a little concerned about the (understandable) existential crisis swirling in the the six-inch space between Brian's ears.

What if one of the other guys does the Michigan offense UFRs for the balance of the year, and Brian UFRs the Arizona games?  I can't be the only person who became entranced by the spread option after Denard Dilithium met Brian's UFR analysis, and am intrigued at the developments taking place in the parallel universe down in Tucson.

I understand that Brian's name probably needs to be attached to the Michigan's UFRs, but I think we're all better off in the long run if he stops for the balance of the year.  Why not take the opportunity to build bench strength in the mGoStaff?

What's going on now ... it's not your fault:

-Scott

DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD MAKE THINGS BETTER

DON'T YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE LIKE WATCHING YOUR DYSFUNCTIONAL EX-GIRLFRIEND HAVE SEX WITH A HOBO

AND FEELING JEALOUS

Comments

FrankMurphy

November 15th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^

Not sure what you mean. If you're going to fire a coach, it's always preferable to do it shortly after the end of the regular season rather than waiting until early January, unless there are extenuating circumstances. I think that if Brandon knew for sure Harbaugh wasn't coming, he would have fired RichRod after the Ohio State game.

M-Wolverine

November 15th, 2013 at 4:56 PM ^

First, it was a big IF that none of us know.  But even if that's the case, what's the advantage of firing a coach then if you don't have anyone you can hire, and your #1 candidate isn't going to be available until after the bowl game? Harbaugh may have negotiated behind the scenes (and feelers probably went out between the two parties no matter what the intentions were) but he wasn't leaving Stanford and having someone else coach them in the Bowl game. So he wasn't going to be recruiting for us until then anyway. And if Hoke or anyone else had been hired before Harbaugh too the SF job?  They'd have been dead upon arrival.

jmblue

November 15th, 2013 at 3:54 PM ^

After the bowl debacle, RR was done.   It was better to pull the plug then instead of go through a lame-duck year with the team under seige from the media and recruiting probably down again.

Even if RR would have somehow stumbled upon a competent DC who understood the 3-3-5 (or, better yet, came to the realization that the 3-3-5 is not the only way to play defense), I don't think for a minute we'd have won 11 games with him in 2011.  There was way too much negativity around the program by the end of the 2010 season.

 

 

 

MileHighWolverine

November 15th, 2013 at 4:37 PM ^

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't he pull in Dee Hart (5* RB) and a few other highly regarded recruits that bolted when he got fired? I think his recruiting would have been fine and a good year (even 9-10 wins) would have been enough to squash some negativity. Although Brian has been alluding to some things I was not privy to and still don't fully know about (open mutiny, etc). 

I think our offense would have done some incredible things. Hard to say if we would have won 11 games (I think we might have) because a lot of it was our opponents suffering down years relative to expectations. 

But I understand skepticism there.

PurpleStuff

November 15th, 2013 at 6:30 PM ^

Martin was 2nd team all-conference in 2010, playing on a bad ankle the second half of the season.  He was 2nd team all-conference in 2011 as well (he made a lot more tackles, but his TFL and sack numbers remained about the same). 

He didn't have any problem playing well when Rich Rodriguez was here.  Neither did Brandon Graham or Donovan Warren.  Or Stevie Brown, once he found a home at OLB.

The defense got a lot better in 2011 because we had four new starters (35+% of the defense) after Heininger (and Woolfolk) came back from a season ending injury and we found three future 4-year starters from the supposedly horrible recruiting classes Rodriguez never got to coach (Ryan, Morgan, and Countess).  That, and a bunch of guys who had been forced to play as underclassmen grew up a little (Roh, Floyd, Demens, Gordon, Kovacs, etc.).  The D has been playing at that same fairly high level ever since.  They didn't get good because Mike Martin suddenly stopped sucking at football.

jmblue

November 15th, 2013 at 3:39 PM ^

Of all the chatter from back then, the rumor I tend to believe is that Harbaugh indicated he wanted to come to Michigan but then either changed his mind or was never genuinely interested
Credible sources have suggested that Harbaugh himself was interested, but his wife much less so. She wanted to stay in California.

Voltron Blue

November 15th, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^

you basically heap all of the blame on borges, even though they have a line that can't block, backs that can't hit a hole or pick up a blitz, a qb that locks on one receiver, throws ill advised passes and bails the pocket too quickly and receivers that can't get open and don't come back to the qb when he is scrambling.

 

Who do you think is accountable for the line being able to block, backs hitting a hole or picking up a blitz, QBs not locking on to one receiver, throwing ill-advised passes, or bailing out of the pocket too quickly, receivers getting open, coming back to the QB when he is scrambling, etc?

Oh, that's right...the OC is in charge of player development in addition to calling plays.  So your point is..... ?

TheJuiceman

November 15th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^

Why would we be surprised that he threw Denard under the bus? This entire staff bungled the Denard/Devin situation to save their own asses, and thus set them both behind schedule. Denard, by lying to the kid about being a QB (he obviously would never play the position in the NFL) and allowing him to become larger than the program in the process. Meanwhile, Devin was running routes and not gaining experience at QB (which he obviously is), while Bellomy ascended to #2 on the QB depth chart (WTF??), unbeknownst to nearly all of the players on the team. Poor guy, inherited two of the best playmakers in Michigan history and he still couldn't figure out how to utilize them both. Talk about inept. Borges needs to go.

GMHW

November 15th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^

"Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence for that rationale.

Borges's comments make no sense. This year started out with Michigan running a bunch of stretch plays, which was a departure from what they'd done the first two years… and a staple of the Rodriguez offense. If that's what he meant, he could have just, you know, kept running the stretch."

 

"If anything's changed this year from last year in terms of blocking it's that Denard isn't around to bail it out. Borges trying to use him to cover his ass by claiming he somehow couldn't run the schemes he wanted to be cause the guy running behind them was also the one taking the snap is a weak excuse that throws Denard (of all people!) under the bus."

 

This is infuriating.  I don't think this is even coach-speak from Borges.  I think he is serious here.

 

I don't think we should wait five years to see a finished product if the lightbulb doesn't go on in Hoke's head to fire this guy.

PurpleStuff

November 15th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^

If he hasn't even been able to begin installing his "system", what the fuck were we doing running ISO out of the I-formation against Iowa in 2011? 

We pissed away a chance at an even better season than 11-2 because we supposedly had to sacrifice short-term success for long term gain.  How much time was wasted practicing that shit (instead of maybe repping Denard on his zone-read run-game reads) and how many downs were set on fire running it in games?  All so supposedly the guys down the road would be good at it.  A bunch of guys who won't be here next year just had to run that stuff in 2011 so we could put up God awful rushing performances against PSU, MSU, and Nebraska this year.  Now Borges is acting like that never happened.

PurpleStuff

November 15th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^

I think Brian glosses over the fact that the 2009 Stanford offense was good precisely because Jim Harbaugh's first recruiting class contained Andrew Luck.  And Jonathan Martin.  And David DeCastro. 

All three started as RS freshmen on that team.  All three were HM All-Pac10 and freshman All-Americans.

The parallel is our 2012 class.  That class didn't contain a QB.  The top rated OL got benched in favor of a walk-on and a true freshman.  One OL is playing (probably out of position) and is almost certainly not going to be on any all-conference teams.  The only real RB in the class (if they won't line up Norfleet at RB it is hard to see him as one) was Drake Johnson. 

Outside of Devin Funchess (a guy Borges had blocking defensive ends for over a year instead of catching passes), that class just doesn't look strong on the offensive side of the football.  As such it is hard to see this offense moving back up to an elite level with guys like Lewan, Schofield, Fitz, Gallon (and a pair of QBs who could save the day with their legs) eventually removed from the current equation.

steelymax

November 15th, 2013 at 2:50 PM ^

it has become a useless forum to spread anger and hate and you are the leader. every week you write about and talk about (on wtka) how displeased you are with the michigan offense.

Yeah, Brian. Sure this is a sports blog focused on all things Michigan football, but why do you have to comment on this historically bad offense?

bronxblue

November 15th, 2013 at 4:04 PM ^

I remain amazed that people complain about the content and focus of a free blog to the degree that I see both in these emails as well as the comments.  If you don't want to read Brian's particular take, then by all means move along to something else.  But complaining about how this site should be different is just silly; write your own damn ideas down if you want to hear them.

/ Hand shakes

// Reaches for medicine bottle

/// Shakes out small pill, enters bliss

Michigan Arrogance

November 15th, 2013 at 5:11 PM ^

I think we need to look at running a MichiganOffenseQuest re: all time worst Michigan offenses.

This staff started tinkering with the power/manball stuff in 2011 and it NEVEER worked. Even with Molk. It was a disaster.

They incorporated a bit more last year, especially after Denard got hurt. Not great results.

Now, it's 2013. AND ITS THE WORST ITS EVER BEEN. But yeah, why bring up the offense Brian- that's just foolish.

 

Don

November 15th, 2013 at 6:04 PM ^

I do occasional business with a former UM player, and about once a year we end up talking Michigan football. A couple of years ago he told me in person that Brandon made the decision to hire Hoke to replace RR at the 2010 UM Golf outing, and that a number of unidentified UM alumni players had been agitating for Hoke behind the scenes. Yes, that's right—he says that DB had Hoke tabbed months before the start of RR's final season. If that's true, then RR was a dead man walking the entire season, and it also implies that neither Harbaugh or Miles (or anybody else) were truly in the picture.

This is a pretty bald assertion, but the ex-player who said it is a really solid individual so I don't know what to believe.

gvsulaker19

November 15th, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^

I think Brandon came in and knew Michigan was in a very state as a fan base. There was so much back-stabbing and "Carr's people" and "RR's people" that he didn't need much convincing to find a reason to let Rodriguez go. Unfortunately, RR's defense help make that in easy decision.

Hoke, really was a safe hire. Miles had baggage with Carr. Harbaugh had publically blistered his alma mater. Hoke was a prototypical "Michigan Man" and the Wolverine fanbase wanted someone who would tell them what they wanted to hear ("we're gonna play 'manball', we'll never run a 3-3-5") and would be so low key  and hard not to like, he would heal the fanbase "divide".

Having said that, I will admit I like, supported, and will always root for Rodriguez. I hope he does well in Arizona. But as hard as it was to take, RR being fired probably was the best for everyone associated with Michigan football, including him.

gvsulaker19

November 15th, 2013 at 7:10 PM ^

But I think that there has to be some sense of Hoke and company selling something to Denard to get him to stay, whether it just be to get a Michigan education or maybe try and develop him as a QB.

Yes, Denard did mask any problems that Borges' scheme may have had that first year by his sheer talent. Great players often can.

However, you would have thought seeing Devin playing QB the end of last year, and having an entire off-season to work, that he would have been a better fit to the "pro-style" offense Borges dreamt of when he took the Michigan OC job. But now Devin looks even more of a "square piece in a round hole" than Denard did.

Now yes, I realize the OL has struggled, no doubts. Yes, their blocking schemes create terrible mismatches for their RBs, who can't seem to provide any protection on passing downs.

But my biggest concern is QB development. Denard regressed under Borges as his QB coach. To me, Denard was never a NFL-type QB, he was custom fit for a spread option where the QB is primarily a run threat. But Denard looked awful his senior season in his passing game. I mean down-right bad.

The same is happening to Devin right now. He is going backwards in his QB development. I know the O-line implosion is hurting him during the game. But sweet candy corn, how can such a talented guy regress so quickly?

 I am with Brian as far as Borges, I like Big Al as a person, but his scheming seems so neurotic and sometimes head-scratching. I haven't cursed this much watching a Michigan football team in a LONG time. Bigger concern is QB development. NFL-type QBs won't come to Ann Arbor unless they are getting direction on bettering themselves as players, and that is not happening much on the offensive side right now.

 

Truxter

November 16th, 2013 at 10:05 AM ^

I keep reading about lack of talent and inexperience within the offensive line.  To me this is just another excuse for the absence of good coaching.  Blocking is not rocket science and on the other hand, offensive linemen are usually some of the smartest athletics on the football team. Blocking is either man-up/over or zone blocking. Man blocking requires the OL to block the nearest DL across from him depending on what direction the play is going and the defensive alignment.  Zone blocking requires the lineman to block a gap or area depending on the offensive play called.  Zone blocking is not dependent on defense alignment unlike man blocking but it does require the OL to work in unison more so then man blocking.  The key to both of these blociking schemes  is footwork and leverage.  If the OL fails to use proper technique, the result is usually failure unless you are one hellish of an offensive lineman.  A lot of hight school coaches teach these fundamentals so young college recruits are at least familiar with them prior to signing with a particular team.  The major reason most freshmen OL don't play their first year is because of size and strength and not lack of experience.  Michigans offensive line averages over 6' tall and the average weight is about 305 lbs, so size should not be a big obstical to success, but the strength could come into question.  One of the key factors attributing to the lack of success of the OL I have witnessed during the games is absence of foot movement to gain proper position and leverage.   In some instances, I have also seen a lack of effort or inability to sustain blocks.  The OL line coach is responsible for teaching and instilling proper technique and advancing the skill level of each lineman. This is achieved through rigorous drills to develop footwork and proper blocking technique.  One-on-one blocking competition is also used to guage the level of proficiency for each lineman, build confidence, and instill one of the most important intangibles necessary for any good football player and that is "PHISICAL MEANESS."  In my opinion Coach Funk is simply failling to develop and assist his charges reach their full potential.   This has been very obvious this year because the OL has not improved since the Notre Dame game and I would even say they have digressed to an all time low. 

Seth

November 17th, 2013 at 6:59 AM ^

Very few high school coaches out there are teaching good technique, and various coaches have subtle differences in what they teach. My brother had excellent technique coaching in high school and that was the secret to his team beating far more talented ones until they ran into North Farmington which then and now does a great job of this. Also 300 pound high schoolers often fall into bad habits (like getting high, or taking over large steps) because against high schoolers you can get away with that by being 300 pounds and moderately athletic. OL take development because there's a lot of fundamental coaching they need to pick up, not just to know it but to ingrain it so they can instead spend plays adjusting to what the defenses do. Another big factor is that good DL technique is rare to see in high school, so when they face smart defensive linemen like MSU and Nebraska have, young OL are likely to get beat by that. And finally strength. Even overgrown kids who play offensive line in high school increase their bench and squats dramatically between 18 and 22 because that's when human bodies are best at adding muscle. These guys will be better at man blocking when they're bugger.