Mailbag: TEs, Scheduling Surcharges, OL Weight, Brandon's Master Plan

A potential future TE and one of many, many places it would be cool to go

Let's have a TE rummage sale.

Hi Brian,

Just listened to the podcast of your WTKA Thursday gig and you echoed my own concerns about TE depth.  Yesterday I started a thread on the board about converting Heitzman to TE but it was partially highjacked by the Snarkosphere. 

Keith was a TE in high school and played a bit of fullback in the Big 33 game (scored the last TD).  At 6'3"  250 he is already big enough to contribute and would be ready to step into the looming void of 2012.  WolvinLA had one of the few constructive comments to my post saying that he thought Heitzman had the frame to become a 285 lb. SDE..... but I would rather have a 260 lb. TE next year, and taking a third TE in this class does not really address the immediate depth problem.

jbibiza

I think you're onto something. Michigan is going to bring in a couple SDEs next year that are probably going to pass Heitzman on the depth chart as soon as they hit campus. On the other hand, they have zero(!) scholarship SDEs on the current depth chart. Unless Brink is a diamond in the rough, they'll need the competition there.

There's another guy on the roster who seems even riper for a move: Jordan Paskorz. Paskorz played TE in high school—he actually made the local newspaper's All-Region team at the spot. He's listed as a 6'3" 246 linebacker but didn't make the depth chart; I actually thought he was competing at WDE. Either way, SLB and WDE are both three-deep for the next couple years.

He's got a much clearer path to playing time at TE. By next year he could be 260 or 270 pounds. I'm a little surprised they haven't moved him already.

WHY OL NO ENORBOUS

Brian -

One of the consistent comments since Brady Hoke was hired has been the weight of our offensive linemen.  I feel like this is something you bring up quite regularly, either talking about how the starters haven't put on as much weight as you expected or about how some of the incoming recruits fit more in line with the "man ball" theme based on their size.  Here's my question - what weight do you think Hoke wants for the OL? 

I did a little research on this and what I found was that Michigan isn't as light as I would expect as compared to everyone else.  Most teams, both NCAA and NFL, seem to average about 305-315 across their line while Michigan is just under 300.  More interesting is that our current OL out-weighs the National Champion 1997 line that produced a bunch of quality NFL players.  (Caveat about old school rosters matching reality goes here.)  

The only team I found that has any significant size difference with respect to Michigan is Wisconsin.  So do you really think Hoke wants that type of OL or is a modest increase into the 310 area that most NFL Teams seem to favor? 

Adam
AC1997

Yeah, in 1997 Michigan was still in the mode where any lineman over 300 pounds was listed at "299." Whether this was an homage to the old Schembechler story about the scales in the football building only going that high (and having to weigh some kid on a freight elevator as a result) or a hint to anyone over that number to get under it is unknown. Those guys were probably just as big as these guys.

I have no idea what to make of Hoke's intentions since he seems to say one thing and then let Borges do what he wants. I wouldn't read much into the lack of weight added to Michigan's current line in that regard since it's possible they're just not guys who can be much bigger than they already are. Molk and Huyge are probably topped out and putting more weight on Omameh would be easy if you just wanted it to be fat. Maybe not so much the muscle. Barnum and Lewan are exceptions; not sure what to make of that.

Down the road we will see bigger linemen. No one in this class is ever going to be described as "undersized," as Molk and possibly Omameh are. I'm guessing they won't be as huge as Wisconsin, but who knows?

Reasons not to schedule anyone that kind of assume I am not aware of the structure of college fooball.

Brian,

I hear what you're saying on the scheduling but it's never going to change with the current incentive structure. As long as a school from a BCS conference can destroy three cupcakes, run the table in their conference and go to the national title game (or lose 1 conference game and still get a huge BCS payout) what is the incentive for Michigan to ever schedule anyone but 2 directional schools and Baby Seal U of its choice?

At the end of the day, the fans care about wins and in January there will be much less bitching if Michigan is 10-2 with losses to Wisco and Iowa (and having clubbed 3 terrible teams) and playing on New Years Day than if they went 9-3 with an additional loss to Oklahoma.

Jason

Since up to five Big Ten teams now play on New Year's Day, your hypothetical 9-3 team would easily cross that threshold. Hurray for grade inflation. That's beside the point.

I see what the emailer is saying, and sort of agree, and think that's another aspect of modern college football that sucks out loud. HOWEVA, I don't think that the only thing CFB fans care about is wins at The End Of The Day. This whole topic of conversation arose because I went to the UM Club of Detroit's kickoff luncheon and some guy launched into a rant about Michigan's scheduling that got applause from the entire room. At the end of the day I think fans want to see Michigan win more than its fair share against quality competition and feel like they're getting value for money.

I believe that even if the fans sigh and pay for Michigan scheduling real opponents by yourself, value for money is on the side of real opponents. And $2.59 per ticket means you don't have to schedule Georgia or Oklahoma to make the home and home worthwhile. YMMV, but here's a list of teams Michigan could play. You can yes or no the hypothetical surcharge in your brain for each:

• Georgia Tech
• Clemson
• Missouri
• Oregon State
• Oklahoma State
• Cal
• UCLA
• Arkansas
• North Carolina
• Tennessee
• Ole Miss

Those are all "yes" to me and none are signing up to play Oklahoma. It's true that signing up for a second real game reduces your chances of running the table and getting into the worst playoff ever. That's another crappy effect of the current system that would be far less powerful if we had a properly-sized playoff (six teams, IME). That's a downside… but I don't really care. I just want to play some real teams.

This guy's mileage varies from the previous guy

I know and understand your post is all about the financial ramifications and feasibility of a home and home with a real opponent, but you failed to mention one common sense tidbit that Dave Brandon doesn't seem to get: PEOPLE LIKE TRAVELING TO NEW PLACES, which is why Michigan is almost always a lock to bring a big crowd to a bowl game.

People want to explore the country. I've always wanted to visit the south and all I need is a game scheduled between Michigan and any SEC team below the Mason Dixon line to get me to finally take that trip. Road games are FUN, especially when they are in a city/region you don't get to visit much.

-Lincoln

Amen. I'm still undecided about whether I'll shell out to go see Michigan play Alabama in Jerryworld. It's just a bowl game in a meh city. I can do that every year. (Right, Brady?) If the game was in Tuscaloosa I'd be hitting refresh on Kayak every twelve seconds until I'd gotten solid plans. That is a once in a lifetime opportunity to check out a college football mecca. Hell, I went to a game at Auburn Michigan wasn't even involved in and came back raving about how awesome college football was.

Jerryworld is not college football, but it pays the bills. If paying those is what it takes for Michigan to schedule nonconference games not against Notre Dame, I'm willing to do that. Give us the option. Put a millage on the season ticket applications that will add a surcharge for two years for a specific matchup and only do it if you get 60% of the vote. The worst thing that happens is nothing.

A Third and long Denard followup from the Mathlete.

I have Denard at 1140th out of 1235 players in my database on 3rd and 8+

Tate Forcier from 2009 was literally one spot ahead at 1139

Pat White in his three years under RR:

2005: 315th
2006: 281st
2007: 395th

West Virginia wasn't great under RR but they were always in the top quarter and nowhere near as low as Michigan was the last two year.

-Mathlete

Yeesh. That will be a stat to track this year, more to see how Denard develops than any particular differences between RR and Borges. That assertion about Michigan 2011 being an offense that had to stay ahead of the chains as much as generic triple options teams turns out to be no exaggeration.

Yet another reason to shoot yourself (DON'T SHOOT YOURSELF)

Hi Brian-

I have an alternative theory on Michigan football, we are all in a dream.
Hear me out.

You know how most dreams will contain basic familiar elements (Denard, uniforms, etc), but often will have people in places you don't expect but might hope for (Tressel resigning in disgrace, getting great recruits), some simply weird stuff (Brady Hoke as coach, huge scoreboard out of nowhere), and then all of a sudden the narrative gets really weird with some natural phenomenon (like onrushing water) that signals the dream state and the fact we might be ready to get up?

Is Dave Brandon trying to perform Inception on us?

Niels Rosenquist

accurate representation of how Michigan fans feel after last four years

Hmmm… If I shoot myself in the head, the possibilities:

• die
• wake up on December 1st, 2007 thinking "Dave Brandon should coach Michigan football"

I think I'll pass.