First off, good questions Heiko. And I think the OL problems boil down to "3 guys now have 9 combined starts". If we still can't run block against Minnesota ill worry a bit. If the OL hasn't really gelled by November, were in trouble
Tuesday Presser Transcript 9-17-13: Al Borges
"Okay. Anybody? Heiko, you don't have a question? You always have a question."
MGoIAmAboutToLookReallyStupidIn321: I do. I was just waiting for someone else to break the ice. Anyway, regarding the offensive line, a couple times during the game Akron lined up both of their defensive tackles in the A-gaps, and that sort of screwed up Jack Miller's blocking -- [MGoContext: Someone mentioned during the game that this happened. As it turns out, this may not have actually happened. MGoFail.]
"Well first of all, they didn't do that. They lined up in a double-eagle defense. Every time he blocks one direction he's covered the other direction, so the decision never should be bad, but it's all a matter of technique and fundamentals. On the first play of the game, he was lined up at nose guard and we just didn't get it covered. He stepped one direction and there was too much space between him and the left guard, and a guy leaked through. What they did in the game, they had done in other games. They didn't do it as much. They walked up on our weakside guard and was in essence a double-eagle or bear type defense, which wasn't anything new, it just wasn't run as often as we had seen on video. So we made some adjustments at halftime, handled it pretty good in the second half. We ran a little more directly at them the second half, a little less sideways, and that helped. That helped our running game."
[I recover! Eventually. Hit the jump.]
Status of the offensive line personnel-wise?
"Like I said, it's always been in pencil. We're going to continue to force people to compete at the position. It's that simple. But to say we're going to start firing guys left and right, no. We knew if we go through this there’s going to be some growing pains, and there has been in the first three games. Not a heck of a lot but it has been affected. But at the same time there is an expectation that we should improve. That’s my biggest issue with this football game more than anything – I don’t think we took a step forward. That irritates me more than anything.”
Who are the guys being challenged right now?
"The inside three are the guys that would probably be affected the most, but again, we want to give everybody a chance to continue to improve and compete. If you just change people every time you're not happy with how someone plays, sometimes you end up putting somebody else in there that goes through the same growing pains. You have to be very careful with that. But by the same token, like I said, from the beginning, it's all in pencil."
Yesterday Taylor Lewan said Glasgow graded out well. What did he do right?
"He plays with aggressiveness. He gets after people. But he too is a guy who has an error here and an error there, and a lot of it again is experience. He played hard. That's one thing Graham does a nice job of. For the most part he plays smart. But he still has those things that happen in games that kids have to go through to grow. He still has a couple of those, but that's an experience issue. But I think at the end of the day, Graham is progressing pretty nicely."
When you look at that third quarter drive when you drove down the field unimpeded with a bunch of runs, what was the difference between that and other drives?
"Well there just weren't any errors. If you look at the video, there's some really nice-looking plays surrounded by garbage. That's what happened in the game. How do you play a game like that? You turn the ball over. That's one thing we preach all week: we have to make sure we take care of the ball. We had a couple of ridiculous errors that put us in some bad situations. And that was it. When we didn't do that, we moved the ball fine. Total offense was pretty good at the end of the day and all that, but you can't surround it with all the stuff that we did. And it wasn't just turnovers. It was other stuff too. Blown assignments. A few things that were hard to fathom for me as a coordinator. Some of the stuff that I thought we had down by this time. We just didn't execute like we should have executed. It put us in a lot of second-and-long situations and some tackles for loss that were at times inexplicable. As coaches we have to do just a better job of preparing a team obviously. We didn't do as good a job. It's never one guy, although everyone always wants to blame it on one guy. It's a combination of things that we just have to improve on. We have to do a better job of coaching it, we have to do a better job of forcing the issue. A great coach demands what he wants. He doesn't ask for it, he doesn't suggest it. He demands what he wants, and that's what we have to do a better job of."
Is that the tone you take with Devin?
"With everybody! With Devin, with everybody. He's not any different from anybody else. If he makes a mistake, he's going to be corrected just like the left guard, just like the wide receiver, just like anybody."
What were your conversations like with Devin during that game?
"Well some of them were probably a little obvious to you. Just correcting the errors for the most part. The big thing about a game like that is because you're playing a team against whom you're heavily favored, there's a natural tendency for everyone to think that every time you get the ball you should score, every time they get it they should be stopped. If that doesn't happen everyone starts freaking out. Well I've been in many of these games where you're playing a team that you're favored against and if you start freaking out, they beat you. They darn near did anyway. But what you have to do is keep your composure as a coach and a player, so you’re not being a hypocrite, you’re not saying, ‘Keep you’re poise’ and all of a sudden you’re a screaming maniac—that’s a mixed signal there. You have to keep your poise, know what you want to call next, keep them informed and tell him what he’s doing wrong. That way you can correct the errors so hopefully they won’t show up again. I don’t know any other way to do it. I could go crazy, but I don’t know at what point that’s going to help. I’ve done some of that too. I don’t know if it really helps that much.”
Did Devin not keep his composure?
“I think he did pretty much. He was just having trouble finding a groove, I think we all were, having a little trouble finding a groove. Because if you look at the pattern of the game, and I’ve watched the game several times now, it’s long run, holding penalty, long run, holding penalty. The next question you're going to ask me is 'How come Fitz didn't get more yards?' Well he had 120-something yards but we had two holding penalties. That's a microcosm of the issue. Drive the ball down, turnover. These are the types of things that are a perfect storm for the team to upset you. And to our credit, they didn’t. And when we needed a touchdown, we got one. Did we play well? Not even close. But, in the crucial we played well, and we basically did not lose our composure to a point where we fell a part and didn’t play at all. If we had, we’d have lost.”
Did you get into trouble trying to get into a groove and maybe trying to force things to go right?
“Yeah. Oh yeah. When it’s not happening at the speed that you want it to happen. Offensively, we kind of have a microwave mentality –- we want it now. And then it’s ‘Oh god it didn’t happen, well now we want it!’ It’s a new series. Oh, it hasn’t happened yet? Well sometimes these problems perpetuate themselves and before you know it you’re pressing a little bit. Not necessarily losing your poise, but saying, ‘Okay, now it’s time we should be beating this team worse than we are.’ It can lend itself to some errors.”
With Devin in particular, is he more prone to forcing things because he's so athletic?
“Those are the plays you have to use good judgment on. Those are the plays you have to say, ‘Well, when do I cut my losses?’ You heard me say it with Denard all the time. When do you do it? There’s a fine line between being a playmaker and making a bad decision. Sometimes, the playmakers step over that line and sometimes the playmakers supposedly step over that line and make a play. So, as a coach, you have to make sure you keep them aggressive, you can’t scare them into playing cautiously. But at the same token, knowing that you have to use discretion, you have to keep us out of trouble because the quarterback influences the outcome of the game a lot and you have to make sure that he’s making the right decisions.”
Is knowing where that line is something that comes with maturity and experience?
“Oh of course it is. Without question. That's part of the position. You learn more and more about what to do and what not to do as you play more and more. These scenarios, different scenarios come up every week that under pressure are different than they are in practice. You live and learn. If one thing happens bad, hopefully you fix the mistake and move to the next thing. My biggest thing with any position, not just quarterback but any position, is how much do I have to re-coach you? How many times am I telling you the same thing time and time again and you’re just not getting it. Devin is actually pretty good at not being re-coached. He’s smart and an error he makes, he generally won’t make it again. But these scenarios, they’re different all the time. As much as you talk about them in the week, it’s a different deal when you’re playing on Main Street than when you’re playing on State Street. That’s with any quarterback. That’s with any position.”
What's your concern level regarding the run game?
“I think we need to improve it. I don't think there's any question about it. We've got to continue to pound it. A lot of our issues are still fundamental and techniques. And that sounds like coachspeak, but I'm telling you if you watch the tape that's exactly what it is. It's taking proper steps, working in concert with the guy next to you, understanding what the guy next to you is going to do depending on the line call or whatever. So much of it is that. On occasion we'll get pushed back, but it's not like that's happening constantly where we're just getting tossed. That's not happening a lot to us. We just have to improve ourselves fundamentally and technique-wise. As that happens, our run game will get good. Because you can see, even in the first three games, are we killing people running the ball? Not necessarily. But you can see flashes of it happening now, because there were some very nice runs in that football game by Fitz, by Devin. Devin ran through a couple of holes you could drive a truck through. And the quarterback rushing does count. Just want you to know that. That's part of your rushing. When it's done right, it's done well. When it's not done right, you get tackles for loss. So much of that is how you go about doing it.”
MGoQuestion: Is learning how to double team, who to double team, and then when to peel off of the double team one of the most difficult things to learn as an offensive lineman?
"Well a lot of it's chemistry. You're coming off on a guy on a double team. Very seldom are you going to double team a guy through the entire process of the play. At one point you're going to leave him to take a second level defender. Just working with the guy next to you, knowing exactly when either you're going to do that or he's going to do that based on how the defender moves takes some time. It takes some understanding exactly what your buddy's going to do. Our guys are getting better at that all the time, but we still have not arrived, and that's part of the process."
MGoLastQuestion: Akron's nose tackle seemed to be getting a lot of penetration. Jack Miller wasn't able to single block him well. Should he have been double-teamed at all?
"At times, depending on the play. Sometimes the center's got to block him by himself. Every play is different. Sometimes the center's going to get help on a double, sometimes he's not going to get help on a double. You can't double team every player now. There's only so many that you can. Depending on the nature of the play, whether it's a gap scheme, a zone scheme, or whatever, it will determine whether a guy's going to get help or not. Like I said, you can't double team all of them.
How do you coach judgment?
“Repetition is the best way. Guys doing it, blowing it. Some of it –- as much as I hate to say this –- is trial and error. Because you can coach a guy, coach a guy, coach a guy, but until that scenario comes up and he senses it and he blows it and he goes, ‘Oh my god, I can’t do that.’ But you talk about it. We talk about the three causes of interceptions. That's something that we've talked about since the first day on campus. You can talk about them and talk about them, but until those situations come up and in some instances you go through the trial and error, it’s hard to process. And that's happened to every quarterback who has ever played the position. Most quarterbacks will tell you, ‘I cannot desperately avoid a sack and throw the ball.’ Yet, under pressure sometimes when you’re trying to make a play. A 15-year NFL quarterback I've seen do that. You can't throw the ball over a flat defender who's backing up. Yet I've seen veteran quarterbacks do that because under pressure something happened that dictated -- they were trying to make a play and afterward going, ‘Oh my god, how did I do that?’ You just expose them to everything you think goes in to the position, practice it as much as you can and hope that they respond under pressure. And if anybody has a better formula than that, I’m all ears.”
Were Fitz's good runs a function of the offensive line using good technique and not making mistakes?
"Oh yeah. If you watch our video and really study it, you can tell when we do it right and when we don't. I mean, we come off the ball and our butts are right next to each other on zone blocks. Our combo blocks are hard and there's no space between blocks. You could see the difference from when it's not. The consistency of play is always the issue when you're not playing as good. One time it's good, one time it doesn't look as good. Why? Maybe fatigue. Maybe just lack of attention to detail. Things like that, but the runs that break are pretty runs. We had some this last game. A couple power plays that were just like you draw them up on the board. But then we run one and we miss a read. And then you go, 'What happened?' Just have to keep pounding. Keep doing what you're doing and coach what you coach and fix your mistakes.”
Fitz has had 13 negative yardage runs in three games. What's an acceptable number?
"I don't put a number on any of that. I don't put a number. Just improvement. That's what I'm looking for. If there were 13, I'd like ... 10. Okay? I want us to get better. If you have an inordinate amount of assignment errors then you better re-evaluate it. We really haven't had that to this point. So much of what we do is just fundamentals and techniques. I know you hear Brady say that a lot, but it's so true."
Despite the turnovers, you still scored 28 points. Does that say something about the offense and its potential?
“I think your ability to pass -- we’re throwing better than we’ve been throwing and that helps. That’ll account for a lot of things when you get behind the chains. As long as you’re not forced to throw the ball every snap, which that’ll come back to haunt you, too. It’s a nice way to recover. It’s not necessarily the answer all the time, I want to be clear on that. If you’re forced to throw all the time, like I said, eventually something’s going to show up that you’re not going to like.”
Jehu Chesson had a really nice game. What have you seen from him the last few weeks?
"He's made a lot of headway. He's learning how to play the flanker position. You could see on that play what we've seen in practice a bunch. He has some big play dimension. He also has some very nice run-after-catch ability. Because he is so explosive. He's very fast, and he's pretty tough. What was really impressive about Jehu was his blocking in that game. He is getting after people down the field. That's always nice to see because that means he's willing to mix it up. But I think you'll see more of him before it's all said and done. As he gains more confidence, he could be a real factor."
The question I'd love to see would be something like:
"With the constant turn over due to graduation in college ball, you'll typically always have 1-3 new starters on the offensive line each year. Is this lack of execution the norm because teams are always breaking in 1-3 new guys? Or would you say our new starters are failing at an inordinate level relative to other new startes you've worked with in the past? And should we expect the same issue next year on our offensive line when we lose our two most experienced bookends?"
The answer would undoubtedly be a nebulous bag of vaguaries to cover up what is currently a gigantic mess on the inside.
That's a good point about oline turnover, but at the same time I think most coaches/programs are hoping that the new starters are guys who have been in the program 3-4 years and might have already seen some spot time on the field (injuries, blow outs). UM's putting starters out there who are still very green in their development.
Also: Redshirt freshman, Redshirt Freshman, Redshirt Sophomore
That sounds like he's saying the Akron guys slanting into the backfield instantly at the snap should have been chipped by the OL releasing downfield.
On the first play of the game, he was lined up at nose guard and we just didn't get it covered. He stepped one direction and there was too much space between him and the left guard, and a guy leaked through.
And that's 9 starts after the Akron game.
People acknowledge this central fact about the OL, and then proceed to ignore it in their hair-pulling and scab-picking. Apparently a good number of people around here expected the interior lineman with their 6 combined starts going into the Akron game to function like a well-oiled machine, regardless of the fact that the opponent's DC is the guy who was Bobby Bowden's assistant head coach for 14 years during their stretch of dominance in the 80s and 90s. Chuck Amato has pretty much seen it all from a defensive standpoint, and to think he wouldn't look at the films from CMU and ND and devise a defensive plan to take advantage of the interior OL's inexperience is odd.
Thank you Don. This is so true. We all acknowledged the lack of experience in the interior OL at the beginning of the season but after we beat ND, everyone seemed to assume those guys were golden. They still have a lot of learning to do, we won, we should move forward and hope that they do better against UConn this weekend.
Progress is really measured in small steps, not in giant leaps.
I think it has more to do with the fact that people aren't seeing improvement or even push against an opponent that should have been a little easier to handle. Everyone was still complaining about the interior O-line after the ND game, but was willing to caveat it based on the perceived strength of the opposing DL. When they're up against a MAC attack D-line you expect some sort of push on run plays and for Devin to not be instantly harrassed every time he drops back to pass. Now that there's been little sign of progress to go with the fact that the interior O-line was a never improving disaster last year it's time to panic and run around screaming as the precedent from both last year and the first few games is......not good.
The difference from last year, though, is that the interior line was a more veteran group. The interior line this season is young and raw, so improvement throughout the season can be resonably expected. We have to wait and see.
The smoke-blowing-up-the-ass hoopla of the ND win "papered over" some of the issues the OL had, and if Devin doesn't turn the ball over 4 times and Matt Wile doesn't punt like his leg is made out of balsa wood against Akron, we would have won this game comfortably.
Now, the coaches have the players' full and undivided attention. If we show no improvement either defensively or offensively against UConn, then all the rosy predictions of 12-0 and 11-1 will look like a pipe dream.
Built mainly on the ineptitude of the Big Ten, and some too soon comparisons of Devin to Vince Young.
As I'm sure you know, but some are too anxious to accept, we're getting to the point where we're building a good team again, but we're still a couple of years away from being a great one.
Okay. I will grant you that 12-0 in the regular season is highly unlikley, and that 11-1 is unlikely. Name me a game that you are sure this team will lose. Name me two games that you are sure this team will lose.
Pipe dream. Something only possible in a narcotic haze. In other words impossible. So let us talk odds. How about 50-1 that they lose one regular season games and 100-1 that they lose no regular season game. I'll take the the winning side of either bet if you'll give me odds. I mean after all it's a "pipe dream" right?
I'll never bet against a Michigan team. Usually I won't bet on Michigan at all because it seems tawdry to bet. In your case I'll make an exception. If you are so sure that this is all a pipe dream give me those odds and I'll happy let you take my money. Your minimum bet is $1000. I mean it's a pipe dream, you can just pick my pocket.
Otherwise show a little, just a scintilla, of respect for this team.
For the record, I think as you do that the team is two or the years from fielding a dominant team, but this still could be a Cinderella season where everything breaks Michigan's way. I'm willing to allow for that. Perhaps you might want to as well.
an illusory or fantastic plan, hope, or story
So it's something that someone has dreamed up hoping to happen that is very unlikely. Since it's only happened like once in the last 60 years, yes, it's very unlikely.
It's not that they're for sure going to lose any one game, it's that the odds of them winning all the games isn't very good. You could turn it around and say "if they could almost lose to Akron, tell me a game you think there is a 0% chance of losing." The only reason you'd even consider the possibility is because the Big Ten is so awful, not because you think Michigan is great.
Giving an honest assessment of where the team is isn't showing a lack of respect. It's just acknowledging that the work they're doing is still in progress. Great teams aren't inexperienced on the O-Line, have more than one game breaking receiver, and have more athletes up front on defense. And are generally a bit older on the two deep. Saying a kid has potential but he hasn't had a chance to reach it yet is not disrespect.
And sure, let's bet. I mean, good luck enforcing that straw man. Even after Akron Michigan is only 16-1 to win the National Championship, which would involve winning two more games than going 12-0. That's like me saying "well, if you really believed in your team you'd bet me the $1000 straight up. Come on, you won't bet against Michigan...don't doubt them and take a line or odds!"
People aren't upset at the O-line's mistakes because of inexperience. They barely held their own against Notre Dame's D-line (that was really the Gardner-to-Gallon show), which may not be nearly as good as we thought, but even in hindsight no one's upset. Michigan is being very open -- from Hoke to Borges to Taylor Lewan -- that they slacked off last week. I mean, they're all talking about it in public. People are upset because they were lazy, and no one was more furious than Lewan. This is his last year, he could've been a millionaire by now if not for staying, and he almost lost to Akron not because the interior line was young, but because they didn't respect their opponent or the team. As Borges said, Akron's D wasn't doing anything they hadn't done before, and when a reporter asked Lewan if they were doing anything to wreak havoc on the O-line, he cut him off with a flat "no". OK, so some of Lewan's answer may have been frustration, but there's no evidence the O-line was confused. They just flat-out missed assignments and that's largely due to lack of focus.
I'm not denying the crapitude of the OL's performance, but IMHO the lack of experience—and maturity—of 3/5 of the line has a great deal to do with the lack of focus. That's why you ideally want upperclassmen at key positions—they have a better understanding of what's required to play at a top level every week.
Regardless, it is a fact that the young OL are going to have to grow up and improve in a hurry. That goes for some other positions on the team, too. The State Street to Main Street transition does sometimes weed guys out who are stars on the practice field but nobodies on game day.
when only 4 dudes from akron's 2 deep of 2012 return in 2013, 2 starters and a position switch, the 4th a backup.
52 Zenel Demhasaj Sr., 6-6, 331
74 Cedric Brittnum Jr., 6-4, 316
75 Dylan Brumbaugh So., 6-5, 310
72 Joe Petrides Sr., 6-5, 305
67 Travis Switzer Jr., 6-2, 296
57 Stephen Ericksen Fr., 6-3, 305
50 Joe McNamara Jr., 6-1, 312
72 Joe Petrides Sr., 6-5, 305
76 Jarrod Pughsley Sr., 6-5, 313
71 Quaison Osborne So., 6-3, 297
|RT||65||Adam Bice||Sr., 6-4, 284|
|72||Joe Petrides||Jr., 6-5, 268|
|RG||64||Mitch Straight||Sr., 6-6, 315|
|78||Micah Lio||So., 6-8, 308|
|C||67||Travis Switzer||So., 6-2, 280|
|52||Vinnie Rizzo||Sr., 6-2, 286|
|LG||75||Dylan Brumbaugh||RFr., 6-5, 287|
|77||Andrew Bohan||RFr., 6-3, 262|
|LT||76||Jarrod Pughsley||Jr., 6-5, 291|
|71||Quaison Osborne||Fr., 6-3, 290|
than by our OL, which I figured would struggle early. I thought—erroneously—that the DL would be one of the strongest units on the team. It's not like Mattison and Hoke don't have a great deal of experience and success at developing DLs, so it's hard for me to conclude that all of a sudden they don't know how to coach anymore. Maybe—gulp—the talent is significantly overrated. I thought Pipkins would be a consistent force by now, and he's far from that.
Need a scapegoat, need a scapegoat....I know—it's Aaron Wellman's fault.
which sort of undercuts the idea that offensive line cohesion is a thing. or underlines the idea that an incohesive line handled our DL.
I would agree with that sentiment generally. When I watch the line play, they generally do all the individual things pretty well, but don't do anything that well as a unit. In other words, they generally win 1-1 matchups, but don't execute zone blocking well as a group. Brian's picture pages yesterday showed a great example of that. Glasgow needed to double the nose with Miller and then peel off on the linebacker. Instead, he went straight for the linebacker and Miller couldn't execute a really challenging reach block.
The linemen need to know what's happening in the backfield and have a good idea of what the defense is doing. If a linebacker is roaring in hard, Glasgow needed to go right after him. If the play was a quick hit, maybe he needed to ignore the nose. On a slow developing stretch with read-and-react linebackers, he needed to double with Miller first. He's probably heard all of this, but he may just need more reps to let it sink in.
Yet Chuck could only muster 1-11 last year against far weaker opposing OLs. I'd love to see a breakdown of the number of starts of all the lines Amato faced last year. I'd guess there'd be a few that had 2 or 3 new starters as well.
Honestly I'm not sure what's worse at this point - people beating the dead horse fact that our O line is a disaster, or people trying to candy coat it.
It is what it is, we all just need to settle and see if there is improvement vs UCONN and so forth. Specifically, yards gained by our RBs, and pass protection.
If we can do a better job on first down it's going to help us immensely. When Fitz gets ransacked 4 yards behind the line it puts us in a real negative situation with a young line and a Qb a work in progress. Have to do a better job of at least getting one or two on first down, and setting up a third and five or so. That being said I feel like the learning curve for the three inside guys may be more challenging than we know.
The coaches always comment about teaching this or teaching that, technique this or technique that. It's very valuable to play correctly and know what you should be doing but it still comes down to if you can physcially play the game or not. I think we're still finding out who can or can't at this point.
But we can't act like physicality is independent of technique, particularly on the line. Molk was not more physically able than Miller in terms of strength or speed, but his technique was miles ahead.
That being said, I think one guy might me physically unable to ever play effectively, and that is Glasgow. Almost all of his problems are those of technique, but I don't know if that can ever be fixed. If he can't take a six inch step playside to a 3 and at least not miss his defender consistently, something is up. I do love that Borges isn't throwing him under the bus publically.
Physicality is independent of technique. I may be a phenomenal technician, but I'm 6 ft 180 lbs. I'm not going to be able to block anyone on any line anywhere.
Molk had great technique, but he was also physically dominant. He hit 30+ reps at the combine if I remember correctly.
A 2 x 4 is a 2 x 4, but whether it's a teeter-totter or a blockade is a matter of leverage. If our blockers are high or missing assignments, all the physical gifts in the world won't help.
I missed assignments because I was high...
If you're 6'0" 180 you won't be a lineman. But if you're 6'4" 290 like Miller, you will be, and no matter how strong you are or fast you are, you won't be able to block anyone without technique.
Yes, Molk was strong, but I don't think he did 32 reps as a red shirt freshman, which is when he started playing, and playing effectively.
But your snark is independent of everything, including humor, decency, or the ability to have a serious discussion. And you're also wrong, which sucks.
Not trying to be snarky, just stating a fact: Physical prowess and technique are independent.
Tony Mandarich disagrees. So do the great combine heroes who don't pan out. So do countless college players who you never hear of after signing day.
So do coaches, players, trainers, everyone involved in sport.
Of how he was a coach under Woody, I think at Miami, and he being a small lineman believed in technique and got into an argument about it with another of the coaches, and he decided to three point stance him and show him that technique mattered. Well the other coach, a much bigger guy, knocked Bo on his ass. Bo said wait a minute, lets do that again. And got knocked on his butt for his troubles again. And the coach told Bo that technique mattered, but size and technique could beat technique every day. So Bo made sure he would always recruit big, strong guys, and teach them the technique.
I'm not sure where it falls in this discussion; I just love the story.
He was a steroied ass who was still able to manipulate a fat contract because he knew once tested in the nfl, his professional life span would be basically ZEho, so acting wisely, he decided to temporarily do the roid thing and take a massive signing bonus that if acted on wisely would ensure his financial stability for his remaining years. Among the smartest spartest of them all.
I tried to be polite. There's no reason for you to be a dick.
I understand you need both strength and technique to be a good lineman. I understand that. If you're trying to say being a good lineman is dependent on both physical prowess and technique, I can agree with you there. You're going to need to be a powerful guy, and you're going to need to know how to use that power, with great technique, to block someone.
Do you understand that being big and strong and having great technique aren't related? They are not dependent on each other. Therefore they are independent.
And Molk could bench press 370 pounds and squat 520 as a senior in high school. This is before he was ever in a college strength program. He has always been extremely powerful.
You can ask coaches, players, trainers, everyone involved in sports. Just because you're an athletic freak doesn't mean you have great technique.
I get it. You're still wrong. There are guys in every gym I. Tue world who are stronger than your average lineman. But they can't block for shit.
I guess I should say football strength is different than normal strength. I've played with guys who were Hercules in the weight room but couldn't hit as hard as a guy who lifted less, because of technique.
So, are they independent? Yeah, you win. Bad choice of words. But I've got experience that tells me that great strength isn't as important as the ability to put it to use. And the other side of that coin, great technique wont move a 300lber out of the hole without a strong man using it.
hearing Glasgow might slide over to C and Bryant will come in at LG. please let this happen.
Doug Karsch mentioned Monday that the coaches were thinking about moving Schofield back to LG, sliding Glasgow to C and having Magnuson start at RT. Not sure if that is what he is talking about though.
This year: Lewan-Scholfield-Glasgow-Kalis-Magnuson
Next Year: Braden-Glasgow-Kugler-Kalis-Magnuson
That sets up a better balance of expierience for the future. Two new tackles, a walk-on, and a weak center doesn't seem like a recipe for success.
I am most likely very wrong.
I would not be surprised. UConn is the last chance to do it before conference games. I think a lot has been made of Akron's scheme in the picture pages etc and whether Miller is responsible for guys slanting away from him. I do give him a pass on those, but there are many examples of guys being heads up on him and he simply could not hold his ground (Pushed around like a shopping cart, as OZone's Michigan Monday put it). That's really concerning. Hopefully we get up on UConn early and the coaches get to try that combination even if they don't roll it out for the start.
be very interesting to see magnuson get reps at OT and see where hes at talent wise. schofield is servicable but is quite often a liability in pass pro so if they think magnuson has better feet and decent enough feel for their scheme then its worth a shot. many people say schofield has a shot at getting drafted and if he somehow does it will be to play G at the next level, no way he can play decent snaps at OT against pro pass rushers. i think most would agree schofield was better G than T, they just didnt have any other servicable OTs on roster in past year. give it a shot this week in practice, check out all available options. the coaches have been very honest about the best 5 playing - and the best guys playing at all spots not just OL. and thats the luxury of several soft non-conf games, filter through some options and hopefully find your horses
You know, even if all those players are individually better, this still worries me. Given how much Borges talked about the O-Line needing to know exactly what your buddy is going to do, shuffling around everyone seems to make that aspect even worse. It reminds me of RR trying to completely change the defense in the middle of the season.
I know a C has to be quick and all but am I the only one who thinks that Miller's issue may be size related? He looks pretty small on the field. And most small centers are not like Molk.
Or somewhere else, but I've only heard about it here.
our butts are right next to each other."
/14 year old humor
I think the concern is that Akron has the type of team that bad technique or not should be destroyed. It is one thing for us to talk about young players struggling against a second tier Big10 team. It is another for there to be struggles against a MAC doormat. There was a reason why the spread was 35. There was a reason why the pundits on the radio were talking about Shane Morris taking all the 2nd half snaps. Everyone was talking about this game being not much more then a scrimage to work out these kinds of wrinkles. If our Oline are completely dependent on perfection to succeed verses the bottom of the MAC, what happens when were up against a better defense, not that there are many in the Big10. My hope is it was just a collective bad hair day.
I will accept an excuse of technique issues against a real opponent. But we have no buisness getting stuffed by Akron. The talent differential is so great we should be able to run it down their throat even if they sneak 4 more defenders on to the field.
SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD. Stop saying should! There is NO SHOULD, there is only what is. Where did you get the idea that a young inexperienced player can play with poor technique and blow another college player off the ball (who may well be more experienced, older, and stronger)? Who told you that the "talent differential is so great" that Michigan should be able to run it down Akron's throat even with 15 defenders on the field? Asinine statements like this are completely opposite of what the coaches -- the guys that REALLY know -- are saying. To say Akron isn't a "real opponent" is the height of arrogance. They're football players, coached by coaches with impressive resumes. They workout, focus on technique, and practice just as hard as Michigan does.
Sorry to say my Michigan brother, but you're being arrogant, and perhaps it is that same arrogance -- arising after the players read their press following the ND win -- that got the players in trouble. I promise you Hoke & Co. weren't underestimating Akron, and I promise you they told them afterwards that THIS is what can happen when you play sloppy football, with bad technique, and turnovers.
Cut the BS!
I would bet a large sum that a variant of the guy's last paragraph you responded to was said over and over by position coaches this week. And there IS a should--its called talent differential. Now, you are correct that bad technique will doom you no matter the differential. But it is a simple fact that we should (that word again) have won by a much larger margin--precisely why guys like Taylor Lewan were so pissed off, precisely why the coaches were pissed off.
This "talent differential" isn't a big as fans think it is. I'd take that bet! There is no way that the coaches were saying that Akron wasn't a "real opponent" nor that simply because you're at Michigan you should be able beat anyone simply because you're at Michigan. They were likely telling the guys, "ANYONE can beat you if you play with poor technique..."
Taylor was pissed because Michigan played with poor technique, because Michigan was arrogant and didn't take Akron seriously. If Michigan played with great technique and passion, but lost to a more talented team, I don't think the coaches would be pissed. They might be disappointed they lost, but not pissed like they were. They're pissed because they go over technique every day, they drill it, and drill it, and drill it again. They preach technique above all else. But, the players thought..."eh, it's only Akron, I can just show up in my winged helmet and bully them around."
And regarding "talent differential" that you state "isn't as big as fans think it is," that is the SINGLE biggest reason games are won or lost. That isn't even a debate, and every coach will say that.
I didn't state that Taylor or the coaches ever said that they should win because they had better talent. I said that Taylor was pissed because M played poorly and should have won--by playing better. And the reason they should have won is because they are better--NOT that their technique is better. In fact, Devin came very close to actually saying that before the ritual "no disrespect" disclaimer.
I do totally agree with your last few sentances though
Agree, but a lot of events transpired to make this close besides bad oline play.
Devin gifted Akron 7 pts with a pick 6.
Devin fumbles on the Akron 10 (when Fitz was open on the pitch).
Devin throws an int when they are on the Akron 20.
Gibbons misses a FG ( granted it was a 45 yarder which is about the edge of his range)
Wile punts from the UM 10, shanks it and Akron gets the ball at the UM 31. Akron gets a FG.
While the oline is an obvious concern, there's 10 pts UM gifted Akron and 2 times that UM was inside the redzone and came away with 0 points.