Auburn's OL, successful despite their youth
I've been thinking about this since the SEC championship game. Auburn has put up monster rushing numbers this season, but they have a very young line. Theirs runs SO - FR (RS) - JR - JR - SO. All second and third year players. Its much younger on the outside than Michigan, and not much older on the interior. (Incidentally, that RS FS is former Michigan target and vision quest lover Alex Koxan).
The players on the line credit a lot of their success with Malzhan's (simple) scheme and a new OL coach. Next season, Michigan will be about as young as Auburn's OL is this year -- sophomores on the outside and maybe a junior or two on the inside. Given all of that and Michigan's well publicized issues with rushing, do you think Hoke and co. look to Borges' old stomping grounds for ideas? Assuming all of the coaches come back, is there anything Michigan can realistically use from Auburn?
Not looking for a host of "fire Borges, fire Funk" answers here. Just looking for reasons why Auburn can be so successful with a young line, and what Michigan can try and copy from their success.
December 13th, 2013 at 4:46 PM ^
The answer is pretty obvious to me: good coaching. There are lots of old OLs that don't do well, and there are lots of young OLs out there that do just fine - given our status as a program and what we pay our staff I would say we have every right to expect to be in the second group.
December 13th, 2013 at 4:54 PM ^
I would agree that a change in coaching might help, but it doesn't sound like that's going to happen. So with that said, I think Borges, Funk, and Hoke could look at some of the simple things Auburn does offensively and use that as a model of sorts for next season.
According to a lot of media people and whatnot, Auburn only runs like 7-8 plays. They just run them fast and have lots of options out of them. Seems like dialing back the offensive playbook even more, and focusing heavily on a small group of plays you can add options to would be hugely beneficial for this offense.
Now wether we have the staff in place to pull something like that off...that's the millon dollar question.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:00 PM ^
I'm of the opinion that coaches are going to do what they do once they've hit this level (i.e. once they've been coaching for 30-40 years). Boarges has proven what his coaching philosophy is at this point - complex offenses that try to confuse the defense. Is that a good fit for us? I would say pretty obviously not. Is he likely to change that? At this point, I'm not optimistic.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:55 PM ^
complex offenses not be a good fit for Michigan? Is Michigan just not able to land players with the mental acumen that would allow for success with a complex offense?
If the answer is yes, that is disconcerting. If the answer is no, then the follow on question is at what point do you believe Michigan players will be a good fit for a complex offense?
December 14th, 2013 at 10:53 AM ^
Complex offenses give defenders more to think about, but the also give offensive players more to think about. The more complex an offense, the harder it is for young players or players new to the system to execute. The advantage of a complex offense comes when the offense knows what it is doing and the defense is confused and has to hesitate before executing. Our offense has seemingly led to more confusion and hesitation in our players than those tasked to defend them.
Athletes execute better when they don't have to think about what they are doing. As emotion increases, the ability to think decreases. The more ingrained, through repeated practice, a physical action is, the more emotion a player can bring to the play. See the Inverted U and Performance for clarification.
My belief is that our play book has been too large for our young players to execute effectively (the scarcity of constrain plays is another problem) . It is one thing to line up and hit the guy across from you. It is another when you have to do mental calculus to decide who you are supposed to block. The later leads to hesitation and poor execution. The former allows you to get your mean on and attack your opponent.
The question is, "Will 4 years in the same system make a difference?" It may be that something will click and our offensive players will begin executing plays automatically instead of missing assignments and hesistating. I am skeptical.
December 13th, 2013 at 4:57 PM ^
That is not obvious. They have one RS Fr starter, and we had two (we even had a true frosh starting for a while). This makes a difference. It's also possible that Kozan is just better than Kalis or Magnuson. Their oldest guys are younger than ours, but their youngest guys are older.
They also have Tre Mason who is really good. I'm not suggesting he would have the same numbers at Michigan, but that certainly makes up for a lot.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:09 PM ^
And that's why I'm wondering more about next season. Comparing this year's Michigan OL to Auburn's OL is apples and oranges. But next season, Michigan's line will have very similar experience to this season's Auburn line. That's what got me curious.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:38 PM ^
he would have played T if we had an opening there. Back to T next year.
Kalis? So far a disappointment, but this was his 1st season. He might have made a difference if he hadn't got blown away by Ohio lineman on the 2-pt play and forced Devin to throw the ball early (without letting Gallon get open on a 2nd option).
Personally, I don't think Schofield was all that great this year and may end up at G if he makes the NFL.
December 13th, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^
A bit much to blame any single player on the 2pt. conversion.
Apparently "the team, the team, the team" until it isn't...
December 13th, 2013 at 7:28 PM ^
You must not be a big fan of the UFR's.
December 13th, 2013 at 8:51 PM ^
he was throwing it there no matter what; his mind was made up presnap. Let it go.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^
"It's also possible that Kozan is just better than Kalis or Magnuson." Man, is that depressing to think about or what?
December 13th, 2013 at 7:38 PM ^
Why is that depressing? All three of those guys were highly rated prospects recruited by a lot of top programs. The fact that Kozen might be the best at this point isn't even that surprising, let alone depressing. OL are tough to project, and they don't all develop at the same rate. Hell, Kalis and Magnuson might both pass him within a year, that's just how things work.
December 13th, 2013 at 4:49 PM ^
so these guys are doing something right. Simple schemes to allow players to play fast is not a bad thing.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:40 PM ^
He was also a high school quarterback. I didn't take too much time to dig, but Rivals says he had 2,300 yards, 29 touchdowns, and 4 interceptions as a sophomore in high school. Yes, he played corner at Georgia for a bit, but then he transferred to Garden City CC and played quarterback. I agree that the simplified offense probably helps him out a little bit, but he wasn't a cornerback any more than Devin Gardner was a wide receiver...and Gardner has put up some pretty respectable numbers at quarterback, too.
December 13th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 4:59 PM ^
Maybe I should have gone with the 5th or 6th posbang thread of the day. Silly me for wanting to talk football.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:10 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 5:40 PM ^
No, you just posted a one-liner that contributes nothing to the conversation (whereas the OP and thread have been pretty analytical). It's one-liners like your post that have stifled good conversation on the blog since voting disappeared.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:47 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 6:00 PM ^
We haven't had a good neg bang thread in over 24 hours and you wanna talk football?! Priorites....priorities
December 13th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^
you should have followed up with: got you good you fucker!!!
December 13th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 4:57 PM ^
Auburn is running a totally different scheme from Michigan. I don't think there's much else you can say. There's a reason most successful teams in college football are running zone read / spread type blocking schemes. Michigan insists on blocking everyone, while Auburn tries to option off a guy on most of its run plays.
Offense has a lot of advantages in football. It knows where the ball is going and picks when the play starts. Defense has one huge advantage, however--the ballcarrier can't block. Therefore, they always have a numbers advantage. A traditional running game tilts the odds further in the defenses favor by taking the quarterback out of the play immediately, leaving 9 blockers against 11 defenders. Play action is one way to counter this, as is an effective passing game in general.
The zone read brings the odds back down by picking a player to not block and allowing the quarterback to option him out of the play. You win more with better odds, right? Michigan tried something similar faking the bubble screen late in the year. Same goal, different style.
Michigan was very successful running an abortive spread when it needed yardage early this season. I think Gardner got hurt somewhere around game 5 or 6 and lost a step, making the zone read much less effective.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:13 PM ^
insights.
I think you took a hiatus during the dark days on the blog this season?
December 13th, 2013 at 7:37 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 5:42 PM ^
Michigan really hasn't been much of a zone read team at all. The option play has been the inverted veer, which isn't a zone play. And I don't think Gardner's health had a lot to do with that play's lack of success - it's just that teams were better prepared for it, and Michigan's OL couldn't block it.
December 13th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 7:45 PM ^
I think he was banged up, then MSU literally beat the shit out of him...
I also think the talent Auburn has in the skill positions makes a huge difference as well. I curse the fact that Drake Johnson got hurt, as well as Daborah, hurt a lot more than people can comprehend...
jdon
December 13th, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^
Yes, I agree. I don't think you can make the argument that Borges can just implement a Malzahn scheme. Borges' and Malzahn's offensive schemes are antithetical. One might naturally think that the more intricate offense (Borges' west coast plus power-blocking scheme) would outperform the rudimentary offense (Malzahn's set of 8 running plays), but we've seen that is not the case. Mgoblog readers are the last group of people that have to be told that this is disappointing.
I think the distinction, aptly described by Zone Left, can be summarized by the way the offenses line up. Malzahn's (and others, like Briles and Chip Kelly) offense spreads out to minimize the number of defenders "in the box", and further tries to option off a defender using the zone read/spread. In contrast, Borges' philosophy essentially maximizes the number of defenders in the box -- lots of TE's, FB's, bunch formations of WRs inside the hashmarks. As a result, you'll see 7, 8, or 9 defenders in the box, and Borges has developed ways to block all those guys on paper. Execution, he would say, is where the play breaks down.
At this point, we're not going to see a drastic change in philosophy from Borges. If Borges was 25 years old and starting out in the coaching profession, I think he would be a spread-based coach -- his pressers reveal that he is a smart guy and I believe he'd realize the benefits of the spread. However, he is 58 years old -- he's not changing. We just have to hope that the players can perform up to his expectations in order to see how his scheme works.
December 13th, 2013 at 6:09 PM ^
I think Borges can be successful as long as he cuts out the abundance of formations. Malzahn can run 8 plays over and over again as long as the formations don't change with every play. This keeps the chances of the defenses guessing correctly at 0.125% clip per play.
I think it was obvious that once Borges implemented the bubble screen formation with 3+ possible plays, that our offense became more of a threat. If he can install multiple packages where there are several different plays with constraints out of the same formation, then I think the offense will be just fine.
Another thing I'm hoping to see is less substitutions that obviously give away whether Michigan is going to run or pass. This should be mitigated by having experienced WR's/TE's that can both effectively block and receive.
December 13th, 2013 at 4:58 PM ^
Their center and RG are upperclassmen. Center is the most important position on the line.
There's a reason why our line was successful when Molk was the center.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:01 PM ^
Yeah, a good center is one of the most important things on offense. Clearly Michigan doesn't have that at this point in time. I think a lot of the team's future success is riding on Kugler panning out. No pressure or anything kid...
December 13th, 2013 at 5:10 PM ^
I have the utmost confidence Kugler will pan out. As a true frosh he's already as big as Miller as a RS Soph. (Kugler is 6-5 287 pounds and Miller is 6-4 and 290 pounds).
December 13th, 2013 at 5:12 PM ^
I don't know if it has to be Kugler. Glasgow had a rough-ish start to the season, but he was a RS Soph first time starter who switched positions after a few games. Sure, he had practiced at C for a while, but there's still a transition when you go from a starting guard to a starting center.
That said, he finished the season off a lot better, and with a full off-season playing just center and getting stronger, I don't see why he can't be the center while he's here. Having two guys next to him who also know what they're doing will help him a lot as well. It might be the same two guys (well, likely Bosch and Kalis) but they'll have a lot more experience another year from now.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^
after an almost full season of seeing opposing defenses and making line calls glassgow should certainly improve. plus he'll have all offense to work on snapping and with miller and kugler pushing him we will finally have some solid depth at center
December 13th, 2013 at 4:59 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 5:05 PM ^
Not trying to compare this year's team to Auburn's team. Thinking more about next season when Michigan will have some sort of collection of 2nd and 3rd year players on the interior. Just like Auburn did this year. Not expecting Michigan to have the 300yd/game attack Auburn has, but maybe 200yds/game could be plausible??
December 13th, 2013 at 4:59 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^
a lot to be desired as well.
December 13th, 2013 at 6:26 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 6:59 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^
is decidedly more difficult than the B1G, I would add.
[Edit: And if I were Borges I'd be looking anywhere for answers/inspiration, right about now. Valid point, OP. I fully expect Michigan to rebound next season on par with MSC's 2012 and 2013 seasons. If we continue having OL problems next season, there is clearly a problem, imho.]
December 13th, 2013 at 5:07 PM ^
When talking about how young an OL is, you can't simply average the age and go with it. A Junior and a Sophomore is better than a Senior and a Freshman (especially when that freshman is a true freshman, like we had for a handful of games).
Once Glasgow moved to C, we had two frosh at the Guard spots all year, save Bryant's cameo. This was made worse by the guy between them being a sophomore who was also a brand new starter (and would sometimes snap the ball over DG's head). We did not just have a young OL, we spent the entire year switching out which young and inexperienced guys worked best.
You can talk about scheme all you want, but this problem was outside of the coaches' control. We weren't going to change our entire offense to make up for it. This will be better next year, when our OL age looks a lot more like Auburn's, where our old guys aren't as old but our young guys aren't as young.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:12 PM ^
I get that this year's OL was super young and there's not much that anyone could do about it (unless you had a time machine). So do you think its possible the 2014 OL could make a similar leap forward?
December 13th, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^
I don't know if they'll be Auburn, but they return a lot of guys with experience and we won't have to play any RS frosh (unless those guys are just good and beat out an older guy).
Braden is the x-factor (or whoever the 5th starter is). He will be the only one without starting experience, but there were a lot of good things said about him possibly being in the starting line up before this season, so an entire spring practice as the starter at one tackle spot should make him a less-weak weakest link.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:37 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 8:34 PM ^
Agree on Braden, but given Braden's size he seems better suited for tackle which is why we may not have seen him in the lineup this year. Most of our rotation was in the interior, maybe the coaching staff tried him at guard and realized the rotation of Kalis, Bosch, Glasgow, Magnusson, and Bryant had more positive results.
December 13th, 2013 at 10:39 PM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^