Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
- Our RBs have been pretty solid players the last few years (e.g., Toussaint, Rawls, Smith)
- Fred Jackson knows what he's doing when it comes to identifying RB talent
- That the the Michigan run game has stunk because of the combination of inconsistent scheme and crappy OL talent and development.
- That Michigan's RBs and RB coaching have been unfairly maligned since 2011
Since there's ample evidence that all of the above is very likely true already, it shouldn't matter much what Green does as a not-green Frog. Still, it's reason to hope that Green could pretty well if you're a TCU or Green fan. I wish him all the best.
"That the the Michigan run game has stunk because of the combination of inconsistent scheme and crappy OL talent and development."
Cut the shit.
Are you not factoring that D. Green, a 5* talent himself, who showed up out of shape as a FR RB and never really displayed the speed, vision or tackle-breaking ability most scouts had pegged him for had nothing to do with a below-average running game while he was on the team?
It was clear from the day Deveon and Derrick suited up that Deveon had seized the job when both we're on a equal playing field. Hell, Drake Johnson passed him a while ago behind the same Oline and coaching everyone received.
I, too, wish him the best but the chances were there for the taking.
Looks like Mike Tyson, runs like Cicely Tyson?
I don't think Derrick Green is very good, but the following must be noted.
- Toussaint's rushing average went down every year from 2010 to 2012. We're talking about a bonafide NFL back.
- Rawls rushing average went down every year from 2011 to 2013. It shot immediately back up after he transferred. A bonafide NFL back.
- Since 2011, every back has struggled to put up a solid YPA in meaningful situations, including multiple 4 or 5-star backs.
- Green was ahead of Smith every year under Hoke. Green was ahead of Isaac for much of the season under Harbaugh. Harbaugh thinks Smith is pretty dang good.
- The only Hoke OL recruits that looks like NFL caliber linemen were a walk-on and Cole (who had to play LT as a true freshman).
- Michigan ranked 113th in opportunity rate in 2015 - the closest thing we have to an OL run-blocking stat.
- Green had 3 offensive coordinators in 3 years.
TCU is taking a worthwhile shot on Green given the deplorable situation at Michigan over the last 5 years.
Much of what you say is fair, but Erik Magnuson will get drafted. Some publications have him preseason 2nd Team All BigTen.
his weight was terribly misappropriated or his ankles were among the weakest we've seen. I don't recall reading anyting about questionable competition in h.s., but it is as you say. He did go down with what appeared to be no more than a hand to the ankle/foot area. That was perplexing.
With that said, i can only hope he, somehow, has one year that is more similar to his high school tape than to what we saw here. He didn't blame anyone, no trash talking. Seems mature to me. He realized he was given much more than a fair chance and I respect someone who goes out like that. I have no more idea with him than I did with Grady or Vargas. It just wasn't there.
Hoping somehow he has one good, fun year while he's still in school. He has a degree in hand so hoping he just relaxes and the Big 12, for some reason, turns out to be good for him.
The Florida game changed a lot of minds on Smith. No coincidence that came after the OL got a full month with Drevno to gel, and after Rudock and Chesson locked in.
Anthony Thomas went down easily too - if you could get to him, if you could catch him. Green is no Thomas, but if he had Thomas' OLs and QBs he would have looked a helluva lot better than he looked during his time in AA.
...and De'Veon Smith also made cuts/saw holes in the Florida game that he hadn't made/seen before. Offensive linemen aren't the only players who can improve with an additional month of practice. It's odd that you're like, "Well, Smith produced in the bowl game because the OL improved and the QB improved and the WR improved."
The OL wasn't that special before the bowl game, and they were pretty good during the bowl game. De'Veon Smith wasn't that special before the bowl game, and he was pretty good during the bowl game. It's entirely possible that all parties improved.
It's also possible that Florida crapped the bed or that Michigan was just really locked in for the bowl game. Regardless, one good game - where everybody on Michigan looked like an all-star - doesn't convince me that any one individual player is better than what he was during the 2015 regular season.
because his feet/ankles were rested and healed. Our O line was good because we were playing an undersized undermuscled SEC east D line.
With ball-in-hand, the RBs job is pretty simple. RBs tend to be who they are, give or take some blocking and fumbling-prevention, the day they set foot on campus. They don't need a lot of coaching up (Chris Perry being an exception). The OL's unit's job is more complex. It takes a lot of linemen 4 years to figure things out and the best units tend to be the ones that have worked together in a consistent system - not necessarily the most talented ones. Freshman only play when they are plugging major holes. The complexity and development are totally different between RB and OL.
Smith made the cuts because the holes were there. "Vision" is something that is instinctual. It's not going to look good when you're getting hammered by unblocked defenders in your backfield. It can improve if you have developed trust in your linemen (i.e., they are consistent) but not overnight or even a few weeks time. I don't buy the vision meme as the primary rationale for the struggles because, the other backs weren't any better. It doesn't make any sense that all these guys lack vision at the same time, and then suddenly their vision improves as a team in a different game. Is it a coincidence that every RB suddenly gets 'vision' when we play Indiana or UNLV? Is it a coincidence that nobody shows any vision against MSU or OSU (even Jabril Peppers or Ty Isaac or Drake Johnson?)
RB production correlates much more strongly with OL/Offense than it does with the individual ability. You've seen guys go up and down from year to year (in YPA) but multiple backs tend to look similar on the same teams (at least in meaningful situations). It's been very rare that Michigan teams have really had a difference-maker at RB, where if the guy goes down the run-game falls apart. I think Mike Hart might have been that last true difference-maker Michigan had (where his backups were substantially worse than him). Otherwise, most of the time, it's mostly about who is around the RB.
In short - the importance of RBs is overrated. Ask Bill Belichick
I agree that coaching 5 guys is more complex than coaching 1 guy, but that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. And if you watch the film, De'Veon Smith was indeed cutting to holes that he was missing early in the year. I'm not saying Michigan's OL was great all year, but they opened some holes with cutbacks or holes to the playside, and Smith flat-out missed them. There's no way around it.
Maybe there were MORE holes in the Florida game, and maybe the OL improved 20% while De'Veon Smith improved 10%. But Smith improved. If he had made some of those cuts earlier in the year, then we might not be talking about the OL so much. Or Rudock might have been more productive earlier in the year if Smith was threatening defenses on the ground.
Your point about Belichick is largely irrelevant. It's a single data point. Furthermore, he also doesn't care much about outside WRs, because they look for production from TEs and slot receivers. But other teams do indeed count on outside WRs to move the ball, including the Super Bowl champs this past season (Demaryius Thomas with the Broncos). There are different ways to win. Additionally, the Patriots don't have an elite run game and don't need one because they have perhaps the greatest NFL quarterback of all time in a pass-happy league. They win, but the running game just keeps defenses honest. Nobody looks at the Patriots and says, "Now THAT's how we want to run the ball." They use a bunch of random backs who gain 4.0 to 4.5 yards/carry. Like I said, it works but it's nothing special.
In short - if we have a Tom Brady-level QB, then the RB isn't so important. In the meantime, we need to see improvement from everyone on offense, including the OL and the RB.
I believe the "missing holes" argument was overstated and frankly, I think it's a little audacious. Every back misses holes and you can pick them apart all day. Even most good runs have missed holes. Sometimes they aren't supposed to go to that hole (by design), other times you're expecting them to hit a hole in a situation that's entirely unrealistic given reaction time, distance, and how long the hole was there for. Other times the hole is there when they make their decision and then gone when they get there. Other times they can't possibly see things from field-level that you see from the camera level.
I do believe that patience can improve, and thereby 'vision', over time with trust in execution and consistency.
I do not buy that Smith got substantially better vision between OSU and Florida.
Neither of our claims can be proven definitevly, but there's a lot of circumstantial evidence around that RBs are dependant on their OL far more than vice versa.
----------------
Tom Brady is a single data point to. I'm still going to refer to him when I argue about Michigan QBs being great in the 90s.
Belicick is a genius. His opinions and theories are relevant. He clearly believes that RBs are overrated. He's far from the only one, he's just the most prominent one.
There are difference-making RBs out there, but the vast majority of them are replacement-level backs. They go down, their backups step in, little to no loss of production. See Marshawn Lynch. How many times do you see a successful back sign a FA deal with another team and immediately look mortal?
It's the OL. It's the pass threat. It's the system. Vary rarely is it the RB that makes the Offense go.
I think the missing holes thing was overstated, too, but it wasn't entirely absent. That's fine if holes are missed all the time...but that doesn't mean he didn't improve against Florida. I mean, wouldn't you agree that missing 1/20 holes against Florida is an improvement over missing 3/20 or 4/20 holes against Opponent X earlier in the year?
Good linemen miss blocks. Good running backs miss holes. Good wide receivers drop passes. Good quarterbacks miss open throws. I get all that. Still, some backs are better than others at finding the holes, and some backs get better. It's not that hard to believe (for me, at least) that an extra month of watching film, improving reads, etc. could help a RB improve incrementally.
That's fine if Belichick thinks backs are overrated, but you know who doesn't? Nick Saban. Nick Saban places a premium on finding high-level talent at RB every year, and he finds the most elite guy on the team to pound the rock. He doesn't give 80 carries here and 80 carries there and 80 carries there. Saban is also an excellent coach. So I can sit here and say that backs do matter because Saban. But he is also only one data point. Like I said, there are multiple ways to win football games. Belichick has one way, and Nick Saban has a different way. Les Miles has his way (more similar to Saban). Pete Carroll has his way. Etc.
It's like saying isn't a baseball player going 1/4 better than a going 1/5. Of course, but it doesn't mean that baseball player got better or worse overnight. It can mean he faced a worse pitcher or just had a ball drop in play, etc.
I don't think we as fans (or even HS coaches) are qualified to judge something like vision without knowing the playcall, defense, etc. I think judging this kind of thing is hard even for the coaches who do - which is one reason they rotate backs who haven't differentiated themselves.
I believe vision matters, but I think it's mostly instinctual. You can affect it over time, but it takes a lot of reps to get there and feel really comfortable enough to make consistently good decisions. Michigan simply hasn't had the consistency in scheme to expect our RBs to be making great decisions.
That's why you see not only Smith missing holes but Toussaint, Isaac, Green, Peppers and everyone else. I suspect that Smith got grilled mostly since he got more carries than those guys - that's why his "vision" is under the microscope. The OL's crappy blocking is the real culprit IMO.
I think a lot of this stuff is an attempt to rationalize bad logic IRT the O-line. When Omameh left it was - "things can't get any worse". They got worse. When Borges left and Nussmeir was going to "simplify the offense" and the OL was going to mature - things still stunk. Last year we had all the same guys but now with a proven coach, so we couldn't possibly blame him anymore, nevermind the fact that the blocking scheme changed entirely.
The vision thing just seems like a convenient but illogical explanation for all the coaching turnover and Hoke's terrible OL recruiting and development.
I believe every one of our RBs is going to look significantly better than they did last year. It won't be because they got glasses.
Your first paragraph is exactly what I alluded to at the beginning of this discussion. How do you know the offensive line improved? Maybe Florida regressed, maybe they didn't care, maybe their coaches got RPSed, etc. You seem comfortable assuming that the improvement up front was entirely because the OL had an extra month to practice, but you don't allow for those other things (Florida's regression, etc.) to be factors. Then you think Smith was just finally allowed to do what he was always capable of doing because the OL improved. Somehow those things only matter when it's convenient for your argument.
Your version seems to be that if the running game is bad, it's because of the OL. But if the running game is good, then it's because of the OL and the RB. There's a reason that different running backs on the same team can produce wildly different results. If individual talent didn't make a difference, then you wouldn't have some guys on the Patriots running for 4.3 yards/carry while others run for 4.8. You wouldn't have Smith running for 4.2 yards/carry and Johnson running for 5.0. You wouldn't have Mike Hart running for 5.5 yards/carry and Max Martin averaging 4.1 and David Underwood averaging 4.6.
It is very rare to see "wildly different results" for different running backs. When those exist (e.g., YPC differences) they tend to be explained by situational use.* You brought up Mike Hart. In 2005, he averaged 4.4 ypc. Martin, Jackson, Bradly, and Bass were all 4.2 to 4.4. This illustrates my point. Even an actual difference-maker like Hart is limited by what his OL gives him.
I'm putting the improvement on the OL for the reason's I've stated previously: the OL is where you see bigger differences in performance with gains in age/experience.
You are correct that my argument is that the OL/Offense is more important than the RB. That's based on years of observations and the correlation of run game production with good OLs (i.e., a good OL/Offense will make multiple RBs look good, and RBs can change their production dramatically from year to year depending on changes in OL/Offense).
*The reason all those Alabama backs have their YPC go down each year is that they stop getting as many carries in non-meaningful (i.e., easy) situations.
It's not at all rare to see wildly different yards per carry for different backs.
Yes, OL see bigger differences in performance with gains in age/experience...but a month of practice is a small increment when you're talking about guys who are in their fourth or fifth year together. Cole was a two-year starting left tackle, and the rest of the guys were redshirt juniors or redshirt seniors. Do you really think that one month of bowl practices was the reason Michigan could finally run the ball? After spending 48 months together, month 49 brought about some magical change? Yeesh.
I'm not saying the offensive line doesn't have to do with running production. They go hand-in-hand to an extent. I'm just saying there are numerous reasons that the running game could have improved against Florida, and pointing to one definitive reason ("The linemen had a heart-to-heart and finally united!") is a strange position to take, especially when that one definitive reason has holes.
I'm just replying to see how thin the responses can get! Let's get to one character!
(And this isn't even due to a personal rant - you guys are in an actual debate with some facts thrown in here and there!)
Does he sacrifice 5-star QBs, WRs, and DEs to take 5-star RBs? Or does he just "put a premium" on every position?
Belicheck has a salary cap. If he could pay Adrian Peterson $2M/year instead of $13M/year, he would gladly take him. Saban isn't dealing with those constraints. He gets to load up on talent at every position.
Alabama has produced good RBs - and good OL, WR, DE, DT, LB, CB, and S. This doesn't prove your point.
Saban has split carries regularly. e.g., Coffee/Ingram, Ingram/Richardson, Lacy/Yeldon, Yeldon/Henry. I'm sure he'd rather have 2 excellent backs than 1.
If backs are interchangeable, then you wouldn't have guys getting a majority of carries. Sure, if you have 2 great running backs who want to stay fresh for the NFL, then you play them both. Why not? The fact is Derrick Henry got 395 carries this year while Kenyan Drake had 77 and Damien Harris had 46. Henry and Yeldon (both 1st round talents) split carries evenly in 2014, while Tyren Jones, Altee Tenpenny, and Drake got fewer than 40 carries. Yeldon had 207 carries in 2013, while Drake had 92 and Henry had 35.
Saban recruits the elite backs in the country. He puts the best one (or two) on the field, and the rest languish on the bench. They're all very talented, and yet only the best ones play. If the talent of the backs didn't matter, then he would let 4 or 5 guys get 100 carries to keep them all happy and fresh. But that's not what he does. Again, different strokes for different folks. There's not one single way to win football games. Belichick does a great job. So does Pete Carroll. Those guys are totally different coaches with totally different offenses, but they both win a lot of games.
You saw Ezekiel Elliot express jealousy for the carries the Bama backs got. The model that Saban has going works, because he knows some guys will wait their turn. He's better off with his feature backs winning some Heismans so that he can keep recruiting 5-star talent.
But that's kind of beside the point. Henry may be .1 yards better per carry than his backups - and that's enough to give him 100 more carries. That doesn't mean the offense is going to shut down if he gets hurt. Tenpenny, Scarbrough, and Harris can just slot right in and hum along at 5.7 ypc instead of 5.8 ypc.
Once again Alabama illustrates the point:
Despite having continutity with Yeldon and Henry, their run game has fallen from 5.8 to 4.7 YPC over the last 2 years as the OL losses to the NFL have piled up.
...and Belichick's model works because he has a great QB, a potential Hall of Famer at tight end, and some very good slot receivers. It's not because running backs are all interchangeable. If Belichick had RGIII or Brian Hoyer at QB, he might invest more in running backs. Or he might invest more in a high-level WR. Or he might trade draft picks to move up and take an elite QB or something. It's a good system he has, because it works. But it's not the only way.
The problem here is that a lot of RBs don't. Look at YPC for Alabama backs by year.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/tj-yeldon-1.html
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/derrick-henry-2.html
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/trent-richardson-1.html
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/eddie-lacy-1.html
Did these guys get worse under Saban?
No. That doesn't make any damn sense. Of course they got better - they just did it in ways that don't show up in the box score. They did it slowly and with the little things that round out a players game - blocking or pass catching, or getting more comfortable in the scheme, etc.
As Brian said in the Walker post: vision and instincts are synonyms. You can't improve your instincts over a few days or even weeks - because they are... instinctual.
I disagree, and I've seen this from experience. Vision is not entirely instinctual. Instinct is about seeing a guy in the hole and making that split-second decision to juke left, juke right, run him over, use a spin move, etc. Do you try to outrun him down the sideline, or do you try to cut back?
Vision is different. It's not unrelated, but it's different. What can be improved - and I say this because I've coached it and talked to players about it - is the understanding of the blocking scheme and the reads. If you're running an inside zone play, your primary read might be the playside DT and then your secondary read might be the MIKE linebacker. Maybe you start off understanding how to read the DT, but that MIKE linebacker is tougher...and then it clicks after a while. Or you figure out just how quickly you can press the hole before having to make your decision. Or you see on film that the MIKE linebacker tends to overpursue, so you know you can cut back on him. Or you see on film that the backside DE tends to get too far upfield, so if you feel any playside penetration, you know you can cut it back outside the backside OT.
All that stuff is involved in "vision," IMO. I don't think instincts and vision are synonymous at all. I see why some people might think it's the same thing, but one can be coached and one probably can't.
I'm not sure I buy everything you're saying, but it's a good argument. Having no coaching experience I'll concede the point.
I still don't think anything 'clicked' for Smith overnight (or even over a series of weeks). I saw much bigger holes against florida than I saw against Ohio State. It looked like Smith's job was much easier, and the results reflected that.
Anthony Thomas was a beast, BIG Freshman of the year and NFL Rookie of The Year. He broke a lot of tackles at MICHIGAN and was integral in the "97 NC run. Also this:
"After his freshman year, Thomas led the Wolverines in rushing for three consecutive years with 893 yards in 1998, 1,297 yards in 1999, and 1,733 yards in 2000. His 1,733 rushing yards in 2000 remains the second highest single-season total in Michigan history. During the 2000 season, Thomas had nine games in which he rushed for over 100 yards, including 228 yards against Illinois, 199 yards against Northwestern, and 182 yards against both UCLA and Auburn." -Wikipedia
In 2000 he had an OL made up entirely of NFL starters. He ran for 5.4 YPC that year. Want to know who else did? Walter Cross, Chris Perry, and Ryan Beard. The only RB who didn't was Justin Fargas (4.7 YPC).
Thomas was extremely productive mostly because he was extremely lucky to play with excellent teammates. Thomas and Terrell got most of the praise and glory but it turned out that the most successful NFL players of that era were QBs and OLmen.
Thomas was a good back because he hit holes hard and fast, but his NFL career was entirely unexceptional. Solid rookie year (4.2 ypc) and then downhill from there. In other words, take away a difference-making OL and Thomas was no longer looked like a beast.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on this blog:
Anthony Thomas went down easily too
There was a lot of frustration with Thomas and he got his share of criticism around AA while he was there. Everyone appreciated (and then eventually took for granted) his speed and size combination, but Thomas did tend to run (fast) in a straightline. He tried to run past would-be tackles more than making people miss. He got cut down in the secondary a lot because of it. Given the size of the gaping holes and his speed, he left a lot of big plays on the field. In other words, he was great at getting through the OL, he was great when he had a clear path to the end zone, but in the middle levels - where elusiveness and balance were needed - he was mediocre at best.
You saw this manifest in the NFL where he eventually got put into a short-yardage back role. He was good at shooting through his hole (with size and speed) but he didn't create a lot of yards beyond the LOS.
I'll just leave this here so sane people can make their own decision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuj0HJ6XPHs
There is Green's
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
put it behind a good consistent OL, in a coherent system, paired with a dangerous passing attack.
Jackson is the one that got Fitz rushing for 5.5 ypc by his 3rd year on campus. Is it Jackson's fault that Toussaint fell off so dramatically the next 2 years? Or is it the OL and coaching scheme.
Deveon Smith's YPC fell off from 4.5 and 4.8 ypc to 4.2 after Jackson left. Does that mean he missed Jackson's coaching?
Blaming Jackson for the lack of RB production - when the OL is straight-up debacle and the HC/OC are in constant turmail seems ludicrous to me. Jackson wasn't a genius when he had NFL OLmen and Tom Brady opening things up for his backs. He wasn't an idiot when he had the 2008 and 2013 OLs.
Jackson isn't the OL coach. He isn't the OC.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
is that it IS mostly about recruiting. The number of guys that get substantially better from freshman to senior year is small (Chris Perry). Michigan had a bunch of guys lately who didn't work out because...the entire offense didn't work out. It didn't matter who the back was. Throw Jabrill Peppers back there and you still can't run the damn ball. The idea that Thomas Rawls' failings at Michigan are somehow on Jackson is especially preposterous.
Jacksons job is to find talent and then fine tune some things (blocking, not fumbling). That's it. He isn't the HC, the HC, or even the OL coach. He doesn't call plays and he doesn't execute blocking assignments. Wheatley's job is the same thing. You tend to see QB and OL coaches become OCs far more often than you see RB coaches move up. Their job is to recruit (not only RBs - you tend to see RB coaches as lead recruiters for players at other positions often).
Jackson spent many many years bringing NFL backs to Michigan. That never stopped - even when Rodriguez couldn't coach defense and Hoke couldn't coach offense. Scapegoating him for the run game failings when Michigan went through an epic run of OL incompetance and offensive turnover is nutty.
That sounds great... except he performed worse than all the other backs dealing with the same garbage.
Check out opportunity rates by back:
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2015-michigan-advanced-statistic…
If you are willing to consider the alternative idea (that the OL was inconsistent in its ability to block) you might look at 'performance' differently.
The coaches seem to - remember that Green started over Smith under Borges and Nussmeir. Smith passed him over last year with Drevno, but Isaac, Green, and Johnson battled for backup carries for most of the year. If there was a big difference it wasn't obvious to our Harbaugh, Drevno, and company.
I thought for sure he'd go to Tennessee
His high school Top 3 were Michigan, Tennessee, and Auburn
I had Georgia or Florida pegged as a dark horse
If it goes anything like previous UM RB's that have transfered he'll be putting up > 1000 en route to an all-conference season.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad