B1G Offensive Line Sizes
Hello. First Diary entry, woo! [ EDIT: Lol nope, my 2nd. forgot about the one I did in '09]
So, when the offensive line struggles, the claim is frequently made that the offensive line is too small. I heard this alot on call-in radio shows during the RR era, and it's starting to creep back into style, or so it seems to me.
So, I thought let's see just how big Michigan's line is compared to the rest of the B1G. I basically went through every B1G teams site, got the roster and then checked the game participation notes from the most recent game they were in to see who was listed as starting on the OL.
I then computed the average weight of the OL for that team/game.
Notes: I didn't include any TE's or FB. Just from one tackle to the other.
I didn't check for situation subs (unbalanced lines, etc.)
I went by weight alone, didn't look at height. Perhaps I should have gone by body mass index?
Would be nice to do a comparison of games played / experience as well. Maybe next time.
Also some teams rather suspiciously seemed to have players weights in exact increments of 5 pounds. Some teams roster's were worse than others in this regard. But the roster is all I really have to go on, so, it is what it is.
So, here is the sorted list of average weight of offensive lines in the Big Ten.
Weight Team
321.0 Wisconsin
312.8 Penn_State
312.0 Minnesota
308.0 Illinois
304.8 Purdue
303.8 OSU
303.6 Michigan*
302.0 Nebraska
300.6 MSU
299.0 Rutgers
299.0 Maryland
298.0 Iowa
295.0 Indiana
294.0 Northwestern
*If Kalis is in UM's line instead of Glasgow, the average drops to 301.0
Michigan is smack right in the middle. No surprise Wisconsin is tops, by a relatively large margin. Iowa, a somewhat run-first offense, is surprisingly near the bottom. Indiana's potent offense is also only at 295.
The most notable thing here is probably that in terms of weight most lines are roughly the same.
So IMO this shows that Michigan's line isn't undersized. To some this may not be a big deal, but I've always bristled at the claims of UM's line being small for a reason for them struggling. I always felt that is just a knee jerk superficial criticism. It's kind of a pet peeve and I wanted to dispel any such notion.
Raw data below
UM
52 Mason Cole OL 6-5 292 FR
78 Erik Magnuson OL 6-6 294 RS SO
60 Jack Miller OL 6-4 299 RS JR
61 Graham Glasgow OL 6-6 311 RS JR
71 Ben Braden OL 6-6 322 RS SO
alternate
67 Kyle Kalis OL 6-5 298 RS SO
average weight: 303.6
w/Kalis instead of Glasgow: 301.0
Nebraska
LT 71 Lewis, Alex 290
LG 68 Cotton, Jake 305
C 56 Pelini, Mark 290
RG 74 Moudy, Mike 305
RT 57 Sterup, Zach 320
302
Purdue
LT 66 Cermin, Cameron 303
LG 72 King, Jason 309
C 57 Kugler, Robert 298
RG 70 Roos, Jordan 312
RT 73 Prince, J.J. 302
304.8
Illinois
LT 68 Cvijanovic, S. 310
LG 5H Hill, Alex 310
C 71 Spencer, Joe 300
RG 69 Karras, Ted 310
RT 74 Heitz, Michael 310
308
Minnesota
LT 65 Campion, Josh 317
LG 52 Epping, Zac 318
C 58 Olson, Tommy 306
RG 77 Bush, Foster 304
RT 78 Lauer, Ben 315
312
Northwestern
LT 78 Jorgensen, Paul 295
LG 53 Mogus, Geoff 295
C 66 Vitabile, B. 300
RG 57 Frazier, Matt 290
RT 76 Olson, Eric 290
294
Iowa
LT 68 Scherff, B. 320
LG 79 Welsh, Sean 285
C 63 Blythe, Austin 290
RG 65 Walsh, Jordan 290
RT 78 Donnal, Andrew 305
298
Ohio
LT 68 Decker, Taylor 315
LG 65 Elflein, Pat 300
C 50 Boren, Jacoby 285
RG 54 Price, Billy 312
RT 76 Baldwin, Darryl 307
303.8
PSU
RT 59 Nelson, Andrew 305
RG 53 Dowrey, Derek 323
C 66 Mangiro, Angelo 309
LG 70 Mahon, Brendan 292
LT 76 Smith, Donovan 335
312.8
MSU
74 Jack Conklin OT 6-6 303 SO
63 Travis Jackson OL 6-4 291 SR
66 Jack Allen C 6-2 299 JR
76 Donavon Clark OL 6-4 306 JR
79 Kodi Kieler OL 6-6 304 SO
average weight: 300.6
Wisc
61 Marz, Tyler OL 6-5 321 RS JR
73 Lewallen, DallasOL 6-6 321 RS SR
70 Voltz, Dan OL 6-3 311 RS SO
54 Costigan, Kyle OL 6-5 319 RS SR
78 Havenstein, Rob OL 6-8 333 RS SR
average: 321
Rutgers
Lumpkin 310
Johnson 300
Bujari 295
Muller 300
Alexander 290
average: 299
Indiana
LT 78 Spriggs, Jason 300
LG 68 Kaminski, David 295
C 64 Rahrig, Collin 285
RG 67 Feeney, Dan 305
RT 62 Evans, Ralston 290
average 295
Maryland
T 76 Dunn 300
G 68 Altamirano 290
C 65 Conaboy 295
G 66 Zeller 310
T 55 Doyle 300
avg 299
September 23rd, 2014 at 11:28 PM ^
September 24th, 2014 at 6:57 AM ^
We should emulate Wisconsin. They hit people in the mouth, pound the rock, get ten yards per carry, and never lose any games.
/s
September 24th, 2014 at 8:16 AM ^
September 24th, 2014 at 9:18 AM ^
We changed the OC and the offense still sucks. It is time to pile on Funk. He appears to be a terrible coach. After 4 years we still do not have a decent OL.
September 24th, 2014 at 9:41 AM ^
Not four years with the same players and the line has improved significantly from last year though it still has a ways to go.
September 25th, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^
sacks are up, pressure is up, the pass game is down and it ain't all on the QB
the run blocking does look better though
Just ask yourself if it makes any sense that going from Lewan/Schofield to Cole/Braden can be an improvement, even with adding a year for the guys inside.
September 24th, 2014 at 7:13 AM ^
September 24th, 2014 at 7:39 AM ^
I did keep that info, but what I was thinking of doing was comparing the number of starts along with the number of years with the same offensive coordinator, rather than just 3rd year , 4th year.
There is this:
http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2014/JUNE14/DBJune10.html
But I think that is a bit outdated and probably didn't account for Mason Cole (true freshman) starting.
September 24th, 2014 at 9:28 AM ^
September 24th, 2014 at 9:35 AM ^
And really agree with point number 3.
Beyond that, and it's outside the scope of this exercise, but it's difficult to say how much any of these numbers are fudged. We can probably guess a bit with the Michigan players, but it would be unfair only to apply that to our guys and not other guys.
For instance, I'm guessing that Cole is not his listed weight. I'm guessing he's in the mid-to-low 280s. I don't think Mags or Miller are really at that weight either, probably high-280s to low-290s. But that sort of thing is likely fudged at all schools to some degree, probably less so with the older guys than the younger guys, but still.
In the end if comes down to technique I think most importantly, then functional strength. Mags, for instance, doesn't have a great body to have functional strength on the inside. He's lean. He's an OT playing inside out of necessity. I don't think this team is too far behind anyone else, I think the conclusion is probably about right (they are just about average in size for the B1G), where they currently lack is functional strength (particularly on the left size) and technique.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:13 PM ^
Agreed with the general idea that strength matters more than just mass.
Good example is David Molk, IIRC he never was over 300 as a player yet wound up winning the Rimington trophy.
Unfortunately we don't have access to the weightlifting performance of the players, and as I mentioned people tend to reflexively revert to "gotta get bigger dudes" when an OL struggles.
September 26th, 2014 at 10:36 PM ^
Strength is such a vague word. What does strength mean...a one reprtition max on a bench, squat, deadlift, hang clean, etc.? Does it mean pushing another man backwards? For example to be a good bench presser it's beneficial to have shorter arms ala Molk. Molk benched more at the combine than Mike Martin. Does that mean Molk is stronger than Martin? Having longer arms is typicall more beneficial at almost every position in football and as an offensive lineman which is why Lewan is a better lineman than Molk. I'd be willing to bet the highest lifters in any position on their teams are almost never the best position players, even at offensive line. Ultimately being an offensive lineman is more complex than that. Being a good offensive lineman is what's important, not just being strong. You can have a bigger or smaller, stronger or weaker, faster or slower guy and still be a good offensive lineman. A position is not that simple and is more complex than that. Also, confidnece, knowledge of the system, understanding your assignment, etc. all go into this and why older players are better...not just size and strength. Saying strength is important IMO has no real meaning in the context in which it was used.
September 27th, 2014 at 8:44 AM ^
You are largely preaching to the choir here.
However allow me to clarify what I was getting at:
"You don't block with your belly."
-Mouse Davis
September 27th, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^
I hear what you're saying, but I think you have to quantify what specifically strength means if you're going to say that. IMO strength is not the most important factor, motor control is. As Stu McGill once said "The best athletes rarely outperform their peers in pre-season testing like bench pressing and squatting. Their distinguishing qualities are motor control. The ability to exert strength quickly, deactivate muscle quickly, and optimally project forces throughout the body linkage is characteristic of this skill."
September 25th, 2014 at 8:01 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 24th, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^
In regards to the "increments of 5" comment, I'm totally fine with that. Most guys don't weigh the same every single day, and a generic "his average day he weighs X" is close enough. I'm pretty consistent with my diet, workouts, etc., and I regularly bounce around between 198 and 205, so when asked I just say I'm 200. Not to mention weight differences from morning to evening.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^
Agreed, it's just that some rosters this seemed more prevalent than others which seemed a bit fishy - like they didn't have the real info and the media guy just made it up :)
Maryland's roster seemed especially bad about this.
http://www.umterps.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=716328&SPID=120713&DB_LAN…
Michigan's roster doesn't have the 5 lb increment thing, so at least superficially seems more legit.
September 24th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^
Cole is a true freshman so I expect he will bulk up a bit over his career. I'm hoping at least 310. Magnuson has always had issues adding weight to his frame so I don't expect him to grow at all. Miller is a good 15 pounds bigger than Molk was. Glasgow and Braden are where they need to be size wise.
September 25th, 2014 at 2:59 PM ^
Hmmm, Michigan's is higher than I thought. I thought we still averaged under 300. Michigan needs to get back to averaging 310-315.
Comments