Walmart Wolverine Fullback

Submitted by SeattleChris on

Disclaimer: I played Fullback for a D3 college team so I represent the offensive position this blog distains most. This also makes me a Walmart Wolverine so I'm actually the two most distasteful things combined, almost as if Brandon wanted to troll Brian by hiring a German Marketing Intern nickleback fan that wins Karaoke contests singing Creed while advocating for all-maize uniformz and inverted helmet colors to be worn at the next edition of The Game as his big “revenue generation” project.

At any rate, on the football stuff here is what I think:

What ails team 134 - you're all somewhat right and all a little bit wrong:
 
Criticism #1 YOUTH -

M Coaches= you can't overcome a young Oline, y'all don't understand

Everyone Else= that’s no excuse, you suck at coaching definitely the Oline coach sucks, this is unacceptable

WWF take:You're both right; back when I was in school and we ran the offset I because I was usually too slow to block the POWER from the normal I. Actually I take that back, it was outside zone where I was too slow to get to the corner from the normal I.

At any rate, we had a 198 lb freshman center forced into action; the kid belonged in a Chem lab not on a football field but at any rate he was all we had after an injury. Kid got blown back every play but he was a quick study and by the end of the season he was semi-servicible. By the end of his senior season he had put on about 15 lbs of muscle and we could even run an ISO to the back side B gap without me having to block the D lineman running through. The C is critical for all the reasons you point, out communicating the front so the QB can get the right check with me play and the line calls. It's a lot for physically challenged guy to do (thinking of Miller here) and even worse a young one. We at least had experienced guards who helped a lot, but if the call was wrong then it blew up from there. 

My junior year we lost both of our senior tackles and had to replace them with a sophomore and a freshman. Total disaster similar to MSU+Nebraska - no run game, multiple sacks etc. guys would get confused in protection especially against blitzes. Luckily for them I was a "lineman in the backfield" and could take on a D end from my now well-rehearsed ability to run POWER.

The other issue here was we kept trying to MANBALL when we were usually on average 20 lbs lighter, weaker and .3 slower than our opposition (obvs not a problem at M). The issue here was not only that but actually "playing fast" when you are accustomed to the system, know all the checks and responsibilities, then you have a seasoned and strong offensive interior a la Stanford.  

At our best, we had a situation where we could manball, despite our physical shortcomings, because we could be variable. We had a play (outside zone) with a constraint, counter where backside G/T pull and slow fullback blocks the backside D end out of same offset I used to run outside zone. We also had a play action bootleg off of the counter. We ran Power, we ran ISO. We used to have a game with the RBs and Oline where we guessed each other’s assignments in Pass Pro by play and defensive formation. Whoever won made the other group run an extra sprint at the end of practice. This game was played by upperclassman/starters usually and the underclassman stayed silent lest they raise their hand, be wrong and the reason everyone had to run which got you an Incognito. The freshman center guy was annoyingly good at this. When the two tackles went down this game was no longer played and we went back to reviewing everyone's responsibility thrice.

What I described above is a situation where any coach would struggle... but this; this is a desmadre completa. The fact that we are playing true/RS frosh over basically anyone else on the interior is certainly a sign of bad recruiting but, even worse, a sign of bad planning and indecisiveness by the coaching staff. It seems they thought they could get away with a two platoon team, one being the more Devin/Toussaint friendly RR transitioners that would be the lead (ND Offense) and then MANBALL1 piloted by Derrick Green or some serviceable mishmash of the two. Instead we got transitionballnegative63 and the passion of the Gardner. In light of this I have a task for the MgoBlog team - maybe Heiko - get inside an oline grading session and figure out if Glasgow or Miller has a worse incorrect line call to missed assignment ratio. If Funk is playing the "mentally worse" of the two he is probably more of a “tough guy” Oline coach than cerebral one who is going to figure out what to do with a line that has the least experience of any in his career and thus merits all of the criticism meted out by the unwashed masses. Just a guess here.

Criticism #2 Coaches are stubbornly sticking to what they want to run vs. what works -

M Coaches= we are calling what works in practice that suits who we want to be and what we think we can do limited by our limitations

Everyone Else= you suck at coaching

WWF take:Agree with the fans. Another awesome analogy was when I was pressed into service as an overweight out of shape freshman that had only seen ST and mop up duty. Starter gets injured. Coach calls me out in front of team, I get nervous, get crushed on first block where they send me out on POWER to block 275 lb DE. Does not end well. Coach pulls me over on the sideline and says, "We will run Power till we bleed"!

When we lost yards the next time we called that play when I was pancaked by said DE and I ran off the field to apologize and that was met with,  "Tell that to the 33 other guys you just let down" Harsh lesson in reality that did nothing for my confidence. Not sure that the plays or the calls are putting the players in the position to succeed or gain confidence.

Insert demands for short passing game here. Here is another great possible analog to this year from bad D3 coaching. We were winning against a team that we had probably been outscored 107-3 by over the last two meetings with a "dink and dunk" slant approach antithetical to MANBALL where we ran our 2 min drill to start the game. We the players were happy with said success, but somehow it was deemed by the HC that we were not running enough ISO and POWER! Sadly, we reverted to that and the result was predictable 7-0 turned into 63-7.

Also this created a rift in the team with older players not recruited by that coach but by the previous one who ran a split back, run and shoot type approach. They felt they had been more successful with the previous style and wanted more similar plays called.. Anyone for a Shotgun-5 wide slant to Tay Odoms?

This should be the easiest thing for Borges to revert to, put Fitz/Norfleet in the slot with Dileo and Gallon and Funch/Chesson/Butt on the outside or Flex TE. Put some of these “incompetent” defenses in the Nickel and see if their Dbacks can get home. Pull a Tressel 2006! Make the Blitzer(s) run farther and give the Oline more time to target, easier checks and leave Devin with simple instructions. Three seconds, three decisions: 1)Throw at blitz if open, if not look to receiver 2,  if not throw away. Out of this, run a QB draw, motion slot into a RB draw/QB lead draw once the D is burned badly enough via short passing to back off on the blitz. Bad pass blocking/Blitz pickup complexity are somewhat mitigated and simple hot routes have a better chance of succeeding against a competent D.

It seems like the coaches are asking a first year computer science student to execute stored procedures without teaching them to write a  "Select" statement first - (Yes I come from the 90s). For me this is the worst indictment of Borges’ lack of adaptation and to a lesser extent, Hoke's own identity crisis - how many times in the pre-season did you hear Lewan say "We're a downhill team now".  I like the comment from a post that read something to the effect of "Borges seems like a guy who knows 4890 plays but only uses 12." Also, Identity is great when you have a seasoned program like Stanford, but when you have a bunch of little wolverine cubs that you want to grow into polar bear killers, you have to know they are blind and feed them mothers' milk, not expect them to go hunting on their own in the big bad forest. Rodriguez actually gave Borges a blueprint for success here where he could slowly mix in ManBall plays using the same basic blocking schemes. I think we should've stayed on the "Denard-special" O for one more year, more for the program’s success, than the development of the line as a MANBALL LINE and also for Devin and the young skill guys to have success early, remembering that Devin is developmentally a soph QB after the PSU game – not sure which game was his 12th start.  

Criticism #3 Borges is tipping his calls w/formation and calling to tendency-

M Coaches= we are limited because of our youth; we need to execute better

Everyone Else= you suck at coaching and chess and Rochambeau and Life

WWF take:Agree with the fans and the coaches. When you have problems 1 and 2 working together the tendency issue then can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even good constraint plays or formation changes can be anticipated if you run essentially the same type of play with the down and distance and/or tip with formation and personnel. The coaches want to keep the game plans simple so that the players can execute what they presumably showed they were capable of in practice and other games. The issue here is about balance between the two. This can be avoided with better game planning as well as better in game calls, not just passing on First down, but doing something completely different like running a lead draw on first down out of a formation that you had primarily passed successfully from the week prior, but if your line can't execute then that you don't have that option.

We had a play where instead of blocking the will on the outside zone I'd run a wheel route. We ran motion before it for the QB to determine if Man/Zone, if man we called the run (I was slow and wouldn't beat most Will in pass coverage) if zone we called the wheel route and Id catch it in the hole between flat and safety for a first down almost every time. This is the opposite of what most teams would expect. Then we reversed that in a particular game and I caught the only 30+ yard pass of my career when I used my 4.99999 forty speed to smoke the Will (if only it had been from the 30 yard line going in, damn you Wild Bill!) This was during my Junior/Senior year when most people were seasoned and knew their responsibilities and also against a sucky team. 

On the other hand when we were starting in our youth, these plays were a gleam in the OCs eye. We were too busy figuring who to target on outside zone, ISO and power given the different fronts and blitz packages you would see from the different teams on our schedule. Most of them knew that based on down and distance if they saw offset I it was either counter or rollout off the counter. The rollout worked early on (See Borgess PA from Ace) but as teams caught on, our sure fire first down on that play was shut down. We varied it by running the same two plays against tendency and then finally put in an iso and iso play action out of the same formation which worked for one game.

Strangely, though we were able to execute better when we ran the two minute offense because we had less time to think about all of those variables and remember the playcall if a run (it was one of three) and inside-out for pass pro as a general rule. We were adjusting to a new scheme with old personnel, young in critical positions and outcoached on a number of occasions. This resulted in a bad season by even our mediocre standards. For M it's a situation where Borges' hands are tied but I think the effect is magnified by his reticence to go away from unsuccessful play calls/formations.

I think a little of all of this is what is ailing our (not so) beloved Team 134 and while it's a huge stretch to compare one person's 15 year old experience in D3 college football with the sports' most successful program, however I believe there are some parallels 1) young players' reaction to pressure and complexity 2) Coaches failing with over-reliance on system vs. personnel 3) those two combining to exacerbate game planning and play calling problems that are probably going to crop up in a less obvious but more impactful way (OSU 2012) because well, people are people and they have channels burned into their neurons. I'm not sure that Al is fresh enough at this point to adapt and barring an unbelievable turnaround and the biggest upset in the history of The Game, which will have everyone apologizing and calling Hoke, the BO REDUX, I think Brady and DB need to act quickly to minimize disruption with recruits like Speight, Malzone and all the other stud offensive guys that will be following Hand to Alabama.

Finally, as fans the best thing we can do is not to boo the players and whine and complain on message boards that they and their parents read, but rather support them so that they feel that in the end, despite the challenges, it was worth it to come to Michigan because it's Michigan and regardless of what happens on the staff they will have stability in their playing career and get a quality education. Ultimately, the likes of Kerridge and Houma should be able to come back to AA, have someone buy them a beer and hear stories about how much that 2013 season sucked, or how terrific the turnaround was but that they love M regardless for what it is and the impact the experience had on their lives. That is the Michigan Difference. If we can add “winning football games” to that statement then you have the recipe for a badly awaited return to relevance. If you want to complain about building a program and recruiting issues, look at yourself first; fans now play a critical role in recruits’ perception of a program. If you want to represent a team and school whose motto is "The Leaders and Best" then don't whine like a little bitch when the going gets tough; do what you would expect the players to do: miss a block, learn from it and move on - and yes I'm targeting this message to myself (COACHTV guess what - they can't hear you) as much as everyone else.

But then again I'm just a Walmart Wolverine Fullback so what the fuck do I know...

Comments

Seth

November 14th, 2013 at 10:45 PM ^

1. Spartans are the only people in the world who think it's not okay to root for a school you didn't attend, and that's only because it angers them that people who didn't attend Michigan adopt Michigan's superiority complex. Eff the Walmart crap; if you're one of us you're one of us. Your ticket costs the same as mine, and my history degree isn't doing the team any more favors than your degree from wherever.

2. WE DON'T HATE FULLBACKS! This is important: the complaint about fullbacks is that their primary use--blocking a guy--can be accomplished by spreading out a receiver. If you have a fullback who is awesome at blocking a guy and maybe block two guys, well that's a better weapon than putting a receiver out there to force the defense to put a defender out there, because you've got a guy direclty at the point of attack and his block can HURT and he might block two guys or wall off the defense from pursuit.

We hate playing fullbacks when they're far less useful than other guys. Kerridge isn't a good blocker; Drew Dileo is an excellent slot receiver. So we'd rather Dileo be on the field accomplishing the same goal.

That said, great diary!

SeattleChris

November 15th, 2013 at 12:46 AM ^

Purpose of the diary was a little catharsis, a sarcastic attempt at humor and some anecdotal evidence to take the edge off this nasty mofo of a season and try to bring the MGoBlog family together. I've read this blog nearly since it's inception, but the recent boiling over seems worse than even the worst of the RR era. I find myself so frustrated after watching these games, and when I finally gain perspective after being reprimanded by my wife, I remember what it was like to be a young player confronted with a bible-sized playbook. At any level, the jump from HS to CFB is an adjustment. One of the guys on our team was the older brother of Ohio saftey Donnie Nickey and I talked to him a couple times about his experience as a frosh there, and it wasn't that different than D3 in terms ramping to the prep, gameplanning, time investment etc, only the guys were crazy athletic and paid a lot of $$$ :-), so I definitely can empathize with baptism by fire regardless of level. My personally biased point of view is that good fullbacks can have a larger impact than a pure TE (not a Funchess) because they are also a threat as runners and can surprise the D based on their versatility.The obvious preference is to have both. Also, a Walmart Wolverine is as good as any in my book. In my family we have both and M sports are the tie that binds across the country and around the world. Kevin Dudley, Chris Floyd, Aaron Shea, Leroy MF Hoard, Jarrod Bunch, BJ Askew et al.. I salute you!

Brian

November 15th, 2013 at 1:14 AM ^

We only hate fullbacks given scholarships and you were D3 so you're cool. Also, what Seth said about "Walmart." Anyone who wants to like Michigan is welcome as long as they don't tweet at players. Those guys can GTFO.

maizenbluenc

November 15th, 2013 at 8:08 AM ^

is running with this fans booing the players and harassing them over social media thing, someone (mgoblog, aa.com, detnews) needs to run a survey that asks: a) did you attend last weeks game? b) did you boo? c) who were you booing at (coaches for play calls, qb, rb, line, coaches for player development)? I'll bet 90% of the responses say booing at coaching.

aplatypus

November 15th, 2013 at 9:45 AM ^

the problem is when you're a player on the field you don't always know that. Booing your team is booing your team. And if they're getting harrassed over social media - that clearly isn't directed at the coaches, even if it is being projected because fans get direct access to players that way and not coaches. Either way, neither should happen, period. Not just at Michigan, but anywhere.

umumum

November 15th, 2013 at 10:18 AM ^

I love that it is not scheme-based but rather personnel and pure coaching based.  I believe the micro approach--its all the young offensive line-- is really just a guise for an attachment to a specific offensive scheme.  I think most of us just want an offense that utilizes the players we have in the most effective way--and not try to force square pegs into round holes.

jackw8542

November 15th, 2013 at 10:11 AM ^

Great analysis.  What most commenters complain about is precisely that Borges seems to have no interest in taking what the defense gives.  He wants it his way.  It's like the Black Adder cut put into the blog yesterday in the sense that the general who came up with the plan 19 times to have the troops walk slowly toward the enemy was not among the people walking towards the enemy.  In the same manner, Borges is not getting drilled by the large humans who regularly impale DG.  While it may hurt Borges to see play after play get blown up, his hurt is mental while DG's is getting more and more physical and direct.

Ron Utah

November 15th, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^

Great diary.  I agree with just about everything you've said.

I think Borges and Hoke have basically said, "Whether we win or not, we're going to start learning how to MANBALL."  That stance is obviously having an undesirable effect on our record this season.  Whether or not it pays dividends in 2014 will probably determine the future of this coaching staff, or at least the offensive side of it.

Michigan4Life

November 15th, 2013 at 11:43 AM ^

so the team could have growing pains in his first two years and it finally paid divdends in his 3rd year.  The fact that he had Threet/Sherdian at QB made the decision even easier for RR.  Ironically, Steve Threet was the best QB at zone read even though he's not a fast runner.

gbdub

November 15th, 2013 at 11:07 AM ^

Very cool read, some mod ought to give the OP a nice point bump.

A question for him, since he seems a good one to ask: Any chance the coaches are doing a poor job at simulating games in practice? Or more precisely, doing a poor job of practicing in a way that really prepares the players to execute in a game (vs. in a controlled practice setting)? I've observed a few things that might be explained by this theory, and am curious what a guy who played thinks:

i) Head scratching personnel shuffling - you alluded to this in your answer to 1 in the OP. Are we rolling out young "practice warriors" who maybe perform great in drills but break down in the mental game on the field? Is that why we seem to juggle the OL so much? Is that why we played Taco Charlton and burned Bosch's redshirt despite them not appearing to be a major upgrade on actual gameday? Or is that why we played Furman, who is fast as heck (maybe Mattison thought we needed that against an option team) but seems to have made a couple mental errors that the guys he replaced generally havent?

ii) Inability to execute 2 minute drill / general time management issues. Hoke has mentioned that they typically "coach guys up" in between practice reps, rather than the Oregon approach of rep-rep-rep-rep all day. Does rarely practicing at a high tempo hamper our ability to do it on Saturday?

iii) Defensive struggles against tempo - see ii

iv) poor pre-snap communication on both sides of the ball. A lot of guys seem to be struggling with their own assignments, let alone having someone act as a "QB of the defense" (watching Bullogh on MSU made me realize how much Michigan lacks a guy like that). And our actual QB and center seem to struggle at properly ID'ing checks and blocking adjustments. Is it possible to get good at this if the coaches aren't running a simulated game environment in practice? Maybe guys are good at this in theory but are falling apart when presented with the pace of a game.

v) home v. away performance. All of the game vs. practice issues will be intensified on the road, in a hostile environment.

Basically, my thought is that coaches who are used to (or more comfortable with) working with more experienced guys (e.g. Mattison's NFL experience) might be focusing more on refinement, technique, and so on. This is great for perfecting things that people already know the basics of, but maybe some of these young guys really need to practice the intensity, pace, and unpredictability of a game. That's where young guys will struggle the most.

Taylor Lewan doesn't need to be taught how intense and fast the college game is - he knows that, he just needs a guru coming in to make minor adjustments and point out any bad habits. But for Kyle Kalis the game is still moving super fast - he needs all the help he can get to get comfy in that environment, and maybe getting his footwork correct down to the inch is a little less important (or at least the value per minute of practice is less).

SeattleChris

November 16th, 2013 at 5:17 PM ^

Very cool read, some mod ought to give the OP a nice point bump.

A question for him, since he seems a good one to ask: Any chance the coaches are doing a poor job at simulating games in practice? Or more precisely, doing a poor job of practicing in a way that really prepares the players to execute in a game (vs. in a controlled practice setting)? I've observed a few things that might be explained by this theory, and am curious what a guy who played thinks:

That’s tough to answer with the limited practice clips available. I think there are two critical elements in practice, the “individual” period with the position coaches and the “interior/skelly” and “team” periods with all coaches.

Individual is where the techniques are drilled and picked apart – for example how you step correctly and target the right part of the defender in blocking assignments for example, to teach the guys how to be fast by not false-stepping and taking the right path to the block – “inside out” for example on kick out blocks and learn how it feels to move correctly. This is where the “muscle memory” part comes into play. More seasoned good players do this in their sleep, young ones struggle more and bad ones usually never really get it.

In the interior section, the Offensive interior (RBs and Oline) work against the defensive front 7 mostly on running plays, but sometimes on blitz pickup, depending on the coaching philosophy this can be 1’s vs. 1’s or 1’s vs. 2’s, scout team etc. and the O will spend time mimicking the next opponent d and vice versa or sometimes you just drill your own different looks against each other depending on how similar your opponent’s scheme is to yours. This is the opportunity to really evaluate and teach the lines on how to deal with the opponents. A lot of times when an MA happens the coaches would whistle it dead, coach the guy up (or replace him) and “run it again”!

In Skelly it’s basically 7 on 7 work in the passing game, routes, checks, d works on coverage responsibilities etc.

Team is where you take the starters and drill them against the opponent’s scheme in simulated down and distance situations. The intent is for the O and D to “get a look” from the scout team representing (as best they can) so you can rehearse all the assignments, variable looks that come from the structure of the game plan. Usually the coaches start with a larger set of plays in the beginning of the week and then whittle down to the ones that are “executed” well in practice against the defensive looks you expect to see.

This is derived from scouting the other team and assuming they will roughly play to their tendencies (e.g. in 3rdand long these guys are most likely to run a double A cross fire (the double lb blitz that State runs) with man free, so we are going to run a “check with me” which is like a two play choice, run the play call, but if they tip their alignment or QB sees something different the play changes to a pre-determined other play. This is a way to simplify the process of checks/audibles into a binary option. Not sure how much Borges employs this vs. straight audible where the C and QB must be on the same page when the QB sees something and calls a completely new play.

The potential issue here is being able to simulate the opponents size/speed advantages with the scout team (hoke calls this “look team”) who is usually composed of your young guys or walk-ons – which is why they had RB’s/WR’s etc play QB to try and simulate Denard. Unless you go 1s vs. 1s (recipe for injuries) all the time, the practice “look” often doesn’t match what you see on game day, the better the look team does, the better prepared you are. The better the coaches anticipate what the other team will do, the better prepared you are.

The other issue here is that if the other team comes out with something completely new and breaks tendencies your game plan can go up in smoke (read: Nebraska). This is what concerns me about those guys, they can’t anticipate what the other teams are doing based on what worked against them in the past. Hoke admitted as much in his presser. I didn’t compare the offensive UFRs enough to know if Nebraskas blitz scheme was the same as MSUs or just their own blitz package the decided to run or something completely new which is a risk both for you and them.

i) Head scratching personnel shuffling - you alluded to this in your answer to 1 in the OP. Are we rolling out young "practice warriors" who maybe perform great in drills but break down in the mental game on the field? Is that why we seem to juggle the OL so much? Is that why we played Taco Charlton and burned Bosch's redshirt despite them not appearing to be a major upgrade on actual gameday? Or is that why we played Furman, who is fast as heck (maybe Mattison thought we needed that against an option team) but seems to have made a couple mental errors that the guys he replaced generally havent?

I think this is how Hoke wants to run the program a la Carroll et al. who want “competition at every position” to keep pressure on the starters. Normally, the starters are determined by coaches eval and how they grade out in practice and games. Also, there is some judgement about whether to go with a player who has been in the program and plateaued vs. a baptism by fire for a young player with potential. I have to imagine in the case of the OL it’s that effect. For Taco, I think it’s a matter of getting young players involved who have a single talent (e.g. pass rush) in the right situation. For Furman it seemed to be a sub due to Gordon’s injury – Furman hasn’t show anything to me this year that would make me want to sub him in for a healthy Gordon. When you are in a nose dive, things become a clusterfuck because you are trying to turn over every stone to find something that works.

ii) Inability to execute 2 minute drill / general time management issues. Hoke has mentioned that they typically "coach guys up" in between practice reps, rather than the Oregon approach of rep-rep-rep-rep all day. Does rarely practicing at a high tempo hamper our ability to do it on Saturday? It’s possible, if you spend too much time working on base things you can leave out time for two minute. When we decided to start the game with it we practiced it more during team. Usually we practiced it at the end of practice in a set period of time. I do think that when your team runs a particular offensive or defensive style, the other side players are more accustomed to that style and probably play better against it. Other than talent deficiency and terrible coaching, I thought this was a big issue for the RR defenses when the played “heavy” teams.

iii) Defensive struggles against tempo - see ii

iv) poor pre-snap communication on both sides of the ball. A lot of guys seem to be struggling with their own assignments, let alone having someone act as a "QB of the defense" (watching Bullogh on MSU made me realize how much Michigan lacks a guy like that). And our actual QB and center seem to struggle at properly ID'ing checks and blocking adjustments. Is it possible to get good at this if the coaches aren't running a simulated game environment in practice? Maybe guys are good at this in theory but are falling apart when presented with the pace of a game. I think some of this has to do with youth and leadership, some of it has to do with our coaches’ lack of adaptation, but yes we miss a Molk or Harris/Kovacs on both sides of the ball, not sure this has to do with how practice is run vs. flat out experience, film study and reps.

v) home v. away performance. All of the game vs. practice issues will be intensified on the road, in a hostile environment. This is true, when it’s loud communicating is harder and you have to resort to more hand signals, especially on O. It drives me crazy though that we have issues getting lined up on D. That seems to be a practice issue, or an issue with rehearsing the timing to get the D call in when you are in a tough environment and the other team is running no-huddle/jet tempo.

Basically, my thought is that coaches who are used to (or more comfortable with) working with more experienced guys (e.g. Mattison's NFL experience) might be focusing more on refinement, technique, and so on. This is great for perfecting things that people already know the basics of, but maybe some of these young guys really need to practice the intensity, pace, and unpredictability of a game. That's where young guys will struggle the most.

What I read and consistently hear is that these guys are great teachers. However they have been around a long time and it may be that they are trying to be too fancy with certain things, or thought they had more capability from certain players based on practice than they did. I think it’s that we’re trying to “build and airplane in the sky” to use the tired corporate analogy and then deciding that airplane should be replaced with “helicopter” do that with apprentices vs. journeymen and you’re asking for trouble. Ultimately there is no ability to simulate exact game conditions in practice even if you go 1s vs. 1s which is a huge risk for injury.

Taylor Lewan doesn't need to be taught how intense and fast the college game is - he knows that, he just needs a guru coming in to make minor adjustments and point out any bad habits. But for Kyle Kalis the game is still moving super fast - he needs all the help he can get to get comfy in that environment, and maybe getting his footwork correct down to the inch is a little less important (or at least the value per minute of practice is less).

This is true and where you need the Lewans of the world to be player-coaches. This is where I wonder how variable or consistent the coaches are. Depending on the previous weeks’ result, sometimes less indvidual and more team if we struggled with opponent scheme, and vice versa if they felt it was a tecnique issue. Knowing Hoke, he’s probably pretty consistent, which while good for the young guys’ development, doesn’t give a lot of time for working on scheme. At this point in the season they are probably going to work on what they want to run and technique. A lot of the sacks etc. are just due to young guys getting beat straight up. Look at the lineman around the pile for DG and you’ll see that it’s Bosch, Magnussen etc. usually.