Being that I live in Rockford, I am very proud of this kid! Congrats to him and his hard work. Let's hope he can develop a high level of cohesiveness with the other 4 lineman!
Being that I live in Rockford, I am very proud of this kid! Congrats to him and his hard work. Let's hope he can develop a high level of cohesiveness with the other 4 lineman!
Reading tea leaves it seems like the inside spots yet again are the spots up for grabs. I'd wager Mags ends up at LG. Which leaves C/RG as the open spots assuming Cole starts at LT which seems to be happening.
I will start clenching now but still be happy that these kids will be running the same damn scheme week after week this season.
Cole will be a backup
Mags is the leader in experience, so putting him next to Cole helps train Cole to be his LT backup better than putting someone who is trying to learn LG. Everything in the Inside/Outside Zone scheme primers indicated that the repetitions are required because the secret sauce is combo blocking and the timing and decision making involved in executing those against the variation of defensive formations/shifts.
I think this whole "experimention" has just been to increase reps for all such that any backups aren't coming in cold. It increases risk to the starters for "gelling" and honing their skills, but that has been part of Hoke's strategic approach since he arrived. Everyone has forgotten how much he had to restate that he wanted rotation on the DL and that's why he wouldn't name a solid starting lineup for that group. Yet the first season went pretty much as expected with Mike Martin staying in almost 100% of the time, same with Ryan Van Bergen.
They know the starting 5, but they aren't betting everything on the starting 5.
I would also think that by shuffling around you also learn what the guy next to you is seeing, doing, perhaps it makes a given player better. It would seem to be a crash course in the strategy of making the blocks work, using team work. By understanding your fellow guy's assignment it should theoretically make you better at your own position, knowing who's got who in a critical second or two. Nothing like having that understanding by seeing the field thru that vantage point.
You'd think Bosch, Mags, and Glasgow are high on that list. Makes you wonder where Kalis will end up.
RG is my bet, but not until after the App St. game.
Dammit man I really want to see Kali's work out. Insane potential.
He was the one position where a guy with experience did not lead. He is a huge kid with good athleticism. I think the other spots are likely very competitive and performing well. Cole is in the mix because he is good IMO. Not because they need Mags at guard. The best 5. This gives me confidence.
But the internet told me it was going to be Dawson.
I bet Mason Cole starts at left tackle too. At least at the beginning of the season he does.
start a freshmen opening day...lol, that's a first.
hi my name's jabrill
only if we start out in nickel on defense.
I would bet mags gets the start at LT unless Cole has been the next coming of jake long in practice (even he redshirted soooooo). If they are gonna burn his redshirt this season, hopefully he can replaces mags in the 3rd quarter if the game is in hand
All accounts indicate that Cole has had a great camp...but returning kicks? Insane!
no way they burn his RS. Kalis spent all of 2012 2nd on the depth chart without taking a snap.
Brady Hoke has actually already played more freshman at Michigan than any other Michigan coach.
One down - four to go.
Congratulations, this indicates that are line is progressing as planned!
We still face the prospect of a true freshman Left Tackle. I'm not sure that constitutes progress.
If your post was intended as sarcasm then disregard the above.
LT - Cole
LG - Magnuson
C - Miller/Glasgow
RG - Glasgow/Kalis/Bosch/Fox/Dawson/Burzynski/Peppers
RT - Braden
Looks like a good OL to me. But only if all 7 guys can play RG at the same time.
Peppers could do it alone
Now I'm hungry.
Missing 1 pepper?
it is a "Ghost" pepper.....
This looks like a Borges alignment from '13. (I wish I was joking.) Tell your WR2 pepper to take a step back off the line of scrimmage, otherwise the TE pepper is covered and is an ineligible receiver.
Then WR1 needs to be on the line. Which maybe he is, it's hard to tell.
WR1 looks like Tacopantspepper- he's so tall it looks like he's on the line, but I think his feet are a yard or 2 short.
I might be wrong, but I think it's Tacopepperpants. Which I think I've had before.
Better be a run play. If I see that TE downfield, I'm throwing a flag.
I'm far from an X's and O's expert, but the idea of putting the FB in was that it was going to be a run to the strong side of the line.
At least that's how it played out in my mind.
You can run plays out of that formation. You can run to the strong side, but the as will be looking for that with the TE covered. You're not hiding anything that way. Your other option is to throw out of that, keeping the TE in to max protect. Send both wideouts deep, keep one back in to block and let the other slip into the flat as a safety valve. Not a bad play, especially if the D is thinking run.
I think you need the FB lined directly behind the QB. It's the position that dives into the wash and plugs up any remaining holes for our tippy-toed RB of the day.
Is that a Carolina Reaper?
Upset that our pepper TE is thinner than the pepper WR. Wellman should be fired.
You can play with 10 guys, but if that WR2 isn't on the LOS (and it's hard to tell if he is or not) then you've got illegal procedure for only having 6 guys on the LOS. If he is on the line, your TE is ineligible.
I'm a first year HS football official, so this stuff is on my brain lately.
Peppers could probably pull really fast.
Sure but can he pick fast?
Can Peppers pick a peck of pickled passes pronto?
If Braden is at least named as starting RT right now, that should be probably 4 of the 5 that have very likely starters.
Mags and Cole will man the left side, but the order isn't set yet.
Glasgow should be leading for Center still, would be surprising if it's not him at this point.
And now with Braden the RT to start from Hoke himself, that only leaves the RG spot up for graps. Probably a battle between the Kyles but could be someone else sneaking in.
I just hope to god that if Cole doesn't start, or isn't going to see significant time die to injury, please redshirt the guy. If he's so good, I would love to see some separation between the classes.
He's definitely not going to redshirt. Hoke was asked about the "separation between the classes" in his 8/12 press conference and he responded: "No, we don't think about that at all. You have to have the best players play and ready to play, if you don't have [the best players playing], you cheat this great program and we're not gonna do that."
Man, I just disagree. I think you're doing the program a disservice by not planning for the future. If Cole playing can win you a game, you play him. If you play him in junk time, and sacrificing the future, you're cheating the program. But just my opinion.
The best five players have to play regardless of class, if a Cole/Mags LT/LG combo is better than Mags/Bosch(or whoever), then you play Cole, period. You can't be worried about what that'll do to the line in 2018. You play the best players and then adjust your recruiting accordingly.
If Cole is 5% better than whoever his replacement would be, is that an upgrade that's worth burning an entire year of having a 5th-year senior starting at LT?
If Cole is better by leaps and bounds than whoever his replacement would be, then I say go for it. But true freshman offensive linemen are rarely great, so unless there's a true pile of suck behind him redshirting is incredibly valuable, because 5th-year senior linemen are rarely anything but great.
If that 5% means avoiding a game losing sack against... say MSU or ohio, would you be singing a different tune? IMO, you play the best option and recruit like crazy to keep the pipeline full of talent to replace the burned redshirts, especially considering how pivotal this year is to the program.
Yeah, that's the point. If Cole playing will prevent a pivotal sack or something, totally worth it. But if Cole plays when UM is up 30 points late in the fourth, and that's how they use him...eh, the marginal benefit just doesn't seem worth it.
If that's what happens, I agree with you, but you don't know that until the season's over. He might be needed at any time, whether it's injury or just someone losing their helmet the play before. If he's the primary option, he's probably better off getting the garbage reps because the odds of him being needed when it counts is pretty high.
Yeah, I suppose you're correct. Is just be majorly disappointed if Cole lost a very productive upperclassmen year for like 5 snaps or a blowout. But of the problem is that Cole can't see the field because of too much talent ahead of him, or if Cole beats out a starter down the road, that's a good problem for UM to have. UM just has to keep the OL recruiting and talent going in order for it to not bite them down the road.
But if Cole is really your next best OL, then playing him in garbage time isn't bad. That way he'll be more prepared in the event one of the starting 5 goes down.
People worry about redshirts way too much around here. If a guy is good, you play him. Coaches don't worry about 5 years down the road. If he's that good, he might be in the NFL by then anyway.
I disagree with you here. Many coaches have built programs by deploying redshirts and planning for the future. While coaches today do have to worry about the present more than the future, I think to argue that coaches don't plan for the future with RS's is silly.
I'm willing to bet very few coaches, if any, do that. Lots of coaches redshirt guys who aren't ready, but I highly doubt HCs are redshirting guys just to play other guys ahead of them who aren't as good.
I think coaches play whoever the best player is regardless of what year that player is.
The interesting thing is one could say Hoke possibly did look to the future with the way Kalis was handled in 2012. It sounds like the coaches were 50/50 on whether to insert Kalis into the starting line up towards the end of the 2012 season. I wonder now with hindsight if they regret not making that change and have taken a firmer stance on playing the best players regardless of how old they are.
I generally agree with you but not in this case because we don't have a backup tackle at this point. If Braden or Mags gets hurt (assuming they are the starters) in game 5 do you want to throw in Cole with no experience? If he is your 3rd tackle he has to play and the RS is burned. It is the same logic for those saying "don't play Shane this year, we may never need him". Well sure - but if Devin goes down you have a Russell Bellomy situation with a guy who has not played all year thrown into the fire in the middle of game 7 or whatever.
If Cole was the 4th tackle or the 5th I with you on on your logic. At this moment he might be your 2nd or at worst 3rd tackle. If he is, he is going to have his RS burnt.
Sure, that's a risk. And if redshirting him would mean that we take that sack, it would certainly suck.
But how likely is it that a tackle who is just 5% better will avoid a game-losing sack against MSU or Ohio? I'd say that's a pretty small likelihood. Meanwhile, I'd say that starting a 5th-year senior in 2018 rather than the next inexperienced young lineman coming through our system has a far greater chance to make a difference in beating MSU or Ohio then.
Let's say for arguments sake that Cole and Mags are pretty similar at LT, but that allows Mags to play LG, where he's marginally better than Bosch et al. right now. So, basically we've made the offensive line marignally better for this season. I don't think we should be comparing each of the guys on this roster to the other guys on this roster to whose better than who ONLY. We should ALSO be doing another calculation. How much do we think this line is worth when considering what the line will look like in Cole's potential 5th year. If losing him for that 5th year makes the line significantly worse and only makes this current line marginally better than it MAY not be worth it. Now, I realize there are no gurantees in life. Injuries, coaching changes, early entry to the NFL, etc. could all change that, which should also be taken into account when prioritizing importance. But, to completely disregard the future is a mistake IMO. We all see the difference in guys when that light goes on and things start to slow down and players can play aggressively and react instead of having to think. For some elite guys that happens sometime in their freshman year. Others it takes until their junior or senior year. And, we know it tends to take players longer where size matters like the lines. My point is, thinking about the future should be part of the process.
If Cole is that good enough to play this year, let him play and learn this year. Then his next 3 years will be that much better because he has a year under his belt and the next 3 years the oline will be set at LT.
But if he sits this year, next year will be his learning year and he will go through the same rookie learning get curve he did this year only with a 1st yr starting qb thus having less stable line and offense next year.
But you also have to remember that by then we won't have underclassmen all over our line. This should be the last season we have inexperience due to recruiting. Next year and most likely every year going forward our line should be upperclassmen and/or returning starters. So if we keep recruiting as wel as we have been, even if Cole was a 5th year, he might only be marginally better than his experienced backup.
If the line is better with Cole starting this year, then you play him. If we're just talking about needing a sub for a few snaps, that's another story. I can think of several possible downsides and the only realistic potential benefit comes in 2018.
If Cole gets injured down the road, it's certainly better if he hasn't already taken a RS.
This line can stay pretty much intact for several years. They're going to develop chemistry as a unit as well as indivdually. Those returning starters are going to be tough for anyone to unseat. Moving Magnuson to guard down the road would be far from ideal. In two seasons only Glasgow will have moved on. Kugler stepping in would be the obvious move. Things should be wide open in 2017 and Cole is looking like a two year starter. If he's already one of the top five, it's best for him and the team to let him have the job he's earned.
If he's really good, he'll be a candidate to forego that final season anyway.
Usually, I would agree. But how much do you trust our current staff to correctly and immediately identify who the best players are and what the best combo is? I'll bet my balls that at least one week 1 starter gets yanked due to poor performance before the Big Ten season starts. If that guy ends up being Cole, then you have pissed away his redshirt (unless you can conjure up a "back injury"). You have also probably wasted valuable practice reps with Magnusson at LG, instead of LT, which is where he will slide out to if Cole starts but gets benched. I just really hope that Cole doesn't get meaningful snaps this year.
Not to be that guy, but chances are, someone on the line is going to get dinged at some point this season. If Cole is the 6th best OL, you have to prepare him via practice and garbage time reps. I wish it was like NCAAF where you can turn injuries off, but that's just not the way it is.
I think you're doing the program a disservice by thinking about the 2018 season instead of the 2014 season.
You give me vastly too much credit. Nothing I do has any impact on the program.
I meant the same "you" in my post that you did in yours. The coach(es).
Yeah, I know. I was being jokingly narcissistic. These types of jokes really lose their impact through the internet.
This year, I actually think we'd be doing the 2018 season a disservice by thinking about the 2018 season instead of the 2014 season. This next year or two is hugely important for the middle-term future of Michigan football. Win now and good things will follow in the coming years.
But not in reality. We haven't had a decent line why would you hold out one of the best for later? This is why you recruit.
I don't even live in Rockford but am still proud of the kid.
Cole first off the bench on the outside, Bosch for the inside. No sources, just a gut feeling.
I'd be surprised if Bosch doesn't start.
I would also be surprised if the starting lineup has both Miller and Glasgow, especially if Glasgow is at LG. I think that Glasgow is either the starting C or the emergency option at RT. To me, the most likely left side is either Cole-Mags or Mags-Bosch. I am really hoping that it's the latter.
With all the good things I've been hearing about Ben Braden over the last few years and his great size for a RT, it seems like a very good choice. Hopefully, that will solve one piece of the OL puzzle. Now for the other 4.
If for whatever reason, Bosch doesn't see time this year, is it possible for him to RS and gain another year of eligibility? Granted, I don't see that happening, but if Cole is our LT and that pushes Mags to LG, Mags will be there for 3 more years...the same number of years of eligibility Mags (and Kalis) has. I would just hate to see such a talent only be around as career backup.
It's possible, NCAA doesn't care which year you sit. You have 5 years to use 4 years of eligibility. That said, this coaching staff seems to put eligibility management pretty low on their list of priorities, so it's unlikely. Really, it's probably good for a guy like Bosch, should he not start, to get some reps, even if it's garabage time. They'll just need to keep the pipeline filled, which they've done a great job of so far.
Thanks, and I hear ya. I just dream of a team that allows our lineman on both sides of the ball, minus possibly DE where size isn't so important, or guys that are obviously physically ready like a Charlton, to all RS and see them play in their 5th years.
I do too. The DL is to that point. Mone is now a luxury (3rd string DT) to play this year rather than a need like Pipkins was 2 years ago. Go forward there is no need to play players straight out of HS on the DL.
The OL is a different story. It has been such a cluster that a guy 6 months out of HS could be better than what we have to offer from guys 2-3 years in the program. I think this will be the last year we face that situation on the OL however unless 70% of the current players do not develop.
Bosch was a necessary casuality of the current state of UM OL last year and it sounds like Cole will be this year. But those are the only 2 guys you really lost a RS season from out of this huge mess. It is what it is. If you have a good OL coach this university gets plenty of high quality talent recruits that trading a 5th year SR in 2018 for something competent today is an ok trade in a few cases.
Not surprising that the coaches are holding off till after Saturdays scrimmage to select a starting unit. Gives players one last shot to stand out.
Even so, this staffs track record suggests we will be guessing week to week as they have had a pretty short leash in the past. Be nice to see that approach (and the need for it) a thing of the past.
Glasgows situation dictates we will have a different line up week two. I suppose he could get beat out, but I doubt it.
Glasgow is our best and most experienced interior lineman. I'd be shocked if he was beat out after missing one game.
My guess is that we're looking at something like what we've expected:
LT - Magnuson
LG - Bosch (or Cole)
C - Glasgow (Miller for App State)
RG - Kalis
RT - Braden
Kalis had a comment in the Free Press about how he, Glasgow, and Magnuson have played a lot of football here and a lot of the shuffling right now is about getting guys ready in case a starter goes down.
At this point I think we've heard enough about Cole that he's clearly in the mix, whether it's for a starting position or a very quick jump off the bench kind of deal. I could see him being first off the bench for LT, which would explain wanting to get him a lot of playing time.
Agreed. I still think that's the most likely.
With Braden in the thick of things for a guard spot going into last year, only to drop out of the conversation completely and never be heard from again, I was really starting to get worried we were headed into a "unending practice hype that never actually materializes on the field" situation. Announcing him as a starter this early really signals that the coaching staff is comfortable with his development, both physically and with his technique.
Let's hope he can lock down that spot for the next 3 years, and we never have to build an OL out of so many question marks again.
Take this for what it's worth, but a commenter on another site who has apparently been to a few practices says Miller is the clear choice at center and is the most improved OL on the team. He then went on to say the starting OL (once Glasgow is available) will be Mags at LT, Glasgow at LG, Miller at C, Kalis at RG, and Braden at RT.
That's my take from all the "insider" buzz over the last few days, and the little pieces of practice film we've seen. In fact, I don't think I've seen a single clip of Glasgow at center since camp started.
So you think they'll burn Cole's RS for the App at game instead of inserting Bosch or Dawson?
Mags, Bosch, Miller, Kalis, Braden for week 1. Cole is not going to RS either way.
Honestly, I'm glad it's not my call. It seems like one of those things that could go either way based on things outside of your control, with plenty of chances to look stupid no matter what you decide.
Cole will play this year. He will not redshirt.
But I just wonder what the hell happened to Hoke saying that "Glasgow is a center", and being pretty vehement about it just a couple weeks ago...
Unless I'm just way off and mis-remembering.
I nailed it up above! I've also heard that Miller is the preferred C. His problem has always been size, so if that's fixed, he's good to go.
He was saying that Miller probably benefitted more than any other OL from the switch to zone blocking because he was never going to be the type of player to simply move DT's out of the way. The best thing about that OL is every player would be in at least their third year with the program.
in my opinion, if those 5 are in fact playing the best. That line combination has the most experience and provided Miller's play has progressed to where his football smarts already seem to be (making calls, etc), the line could actually be serviceable.
I know for a fact that the coaches think much higher of Miller than his performance last year would dictate.
I hope for Miller's and the team's sake that Miller is very good this year. If true, this shows some combination of 1) how important age and experience are to the OL and 2) what a difference scheme makes to the OL.
That can't be. It is well known in these parts that this coaching staff can't develop players. There is no way Miller could have improved. Nope. Can't be true. We'd have to go back to complaining about the color of pants.
If Miller wins the job at center that would actually be a very good thing as it would give us 2 whole upperclassmen on the line.
Out of the 5 spots, Braden locking up RT may be the most important, so I'm glad he stood out enough to name him first. If it wasn't Braden, it would necessitate a lot of shuffling with at least one person being out of their natural position. With RT locked down, it seems like the rest of the linemen will at least know what position they're competing for, even if the starter isn't quite named yet.
man that's great to hear Miller is really putting a stranglehold on the C spot. Allows Glasgow to play G, which I think is his natural position.
All I can think of is miller and states blitz right up the middle, gotta trust the coaches though, they have forgotten more about football than I know.
This OL thing is a daily happening: ) Part of me just wants everyone to be patience and part of me loves the debate.
If Cole jumps into the lineup do we have some guys transfer? Coach Hoke recruited so strong at OL that I wondered if we have some guys transfer anyway once we got a young OL set.
I hope not and please don't mention any player by name, but I respectfully predict we have one OL transfer out after the season for playing time. The school will not be Ferris is also a joking prediction.
So the point of recruiting is trying to get as much raw material in here to mold. You will hit and miss. If we keep the guys who hit and a guy or two who missed and/or was behind the guys who hit leaves, that's part of it. It is part of the system. You are still retaining the guys that hit for Michigan football. The other guys still want opportunities and it may not be here so you can't lose sleep over it - esp since they were not going to be playing much if at all here. See Rawls as an example for RBs.
There were 4 OL in the 2012 class - 3 are in every discussion, 1 you never hear about. Etc.
I think worded my post well enough to not get negged. I didn't mention any players by name, etc.
I agree with Alum96. Yes, players transferring out is part of the system and it should not be taboo to bring it up.
It's all on him.
I expect him to remain the starter for the rest of his career.