Further evidence the season boils down to the o-line and rushing ability
Just saw an interesting article on ESPN Wolverine Nation about the 4 criteria that makes up the average B1G champion. The criteria are 1) top 40 scoring defense, 2) top 30 rush defense, 3) control the turnover battle and the clock, and 4) rank in the top 30 of rush offense. Basically they are saying the B1G champ all boils down to running the ball and defense. ESPN seems to think Michigan either is on the fence or meets all of those except the last one. I think most of us are pretty confident that this year's team will be fairly stout on defense, that there are enough skill players on offense, yet we are all concerned that the o-line will be competent enough to get an adaquate running game going. Do you buy this criteria?
Link:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/103489/fitting-the-criteria-of…
I suspect you can't get away with it to the same extent. Saban's really an outlier, maybe his reputation is so strong that he's able to bring those guys in regardless, the way Bobby Knight used to convince top players to go to Bloomington to get heaps of abuse at practice every day. Maybe they just knew they'd get turned into superb, fundamentally polished players, and that made the whole thing worth it. I don't know.
Why doesn't Hoke give Jerry Hanlon a call and ask him if he wants to be a part time consultant for 20-30 hours a week????
I've been asking this question for two years. If I was Funk, I would have made the call myself, just from the standpoint of job preservation.
Common Don. What does Jerry HANLON know about modern, space-age, offensive line coaching???? He's one of those coaching dinosaurs who clings to that pre-historic notion that the moving the guy in front of you backwards was one of the fundimental premises of effective blocking. He also thought that keeping the man in front of you from getting to where he wanted to go (say on a pass play for example) could also be effective. How quant!
Knowdays we have evolved and teach more refined, cerebral techniques. Those old-fashioned notions of blocking are long-gone my friend.
At one point during the season last year, I heard a radio interview with Hanlon, and he was asked why the OL was having such a hard time protecting Devin.
Without any hesitation, hemming, hawing, or issuing meaningless generalities about playing tougher or executing better, Hanlon immediately got specific and said that our OLs (he didn't name names) were not getting back in their pass-protection stance quickly enough after the snap, which naturally allowed the DLs to penetrate right away.
Now it's certainly possible that the coaching staff also recognized this and were unable to get our OLs to make the necessary adjustments, but it seems to me that getting quicker movement at the snap ought to be one of the easiest things for a lineman to change.
I get the sense that you could probably point out things they weren't doing that seem very basic in a number of different scenarios. I think the bottom line here is they were overwhelmed. That's what happens when you put guys in that aren't ready. It's a lack of confidence, things happening too quickly, the inability to dissect stuff fast enough, too much new material at once, paralysis by analysis, etc. It's like the example of the rider and the elephant popularized by the Heath borthers when trying to change behavior. The rider is the logical, rational part of the brain that wants to change and the elephant is the emotional pain/pleasure part of the brain that wants comfort. The rider can control the elephant as long as the amount of change is small. But, when there is too much new change being asked to occur at once the tiny rider is helpless against the giant overwhelmed elephant that cannot process so much new, uncomfortalbe, change at once because it feels like it's constantly self monitoring, self assessing, analyzing, and getting critical feedback. All those things take a toll mentally and emotionally so it's hard to do too much of that at once. (I may have butchered that example off the top of my head, but I think you get the gist.) This is why behavior change is a process, even in motor skills. Anways, that was a long way of saying that IMO it's a simple experience problem that only time and experience can fix. You can only learn so many new things at once before you get overwhelmed. It's just unforutnate that they are beings asked to learn in games instead of practice.
semi-retirement coaching the TEs at Tampa Bay, maybe he could spend a few hours helping out. He conjured up a stellar OL in 1997, maybe he could help do it again.
If you do not have any high expectations of our LB corp, then you're sorely mistake. Only thing on the defense that worries me a little is our DL. If Pipkens is back, I think we will be in good shape because our DEs will be pretty good. Its rush the football or bust
We're going to be better. I know we're going to be better. I believe.
The O-Line will continue to be terrible until they get a competent o-line coach in there. Denard was able to cover up a lot of holes with his running ability so no one had any idea just how bad the line was back then. Now we know and there's every indication that this year's line will be worse than last year's.
I think Denard covered up a lot of the holes his senior year, but during his juinor year with Molk anchoring the line, it was very good and produced two 1000 yard rushers. I think finding competent center play will be the key factor to improvement on the line.
This is absolutely true. The before and after Denard shot that ESPN did during the Nebraska game of their pass rush was crazy. The flood gates opened up without Denard back there.
to "Denard covered up the total absence of holes his senior year", amirite?
I agree that Denard covered up a lot of issues and the jury is certainly still out on Funk. I don't agree with you last sentence that "there's every indication that this year's line will be worse than last year's." I know most people say "well they lost 2 tackles to the NFL so they have to be worse". As others have said before, an OL is only as good as its weakest link and last year the weakest link (guards) were pretty terrible. So we had 2 great tackles, an average center and 2 pretty bad guards. While the tackles will surely take a step back this year, if the rest of the line can improve to average I think the OL as a whole will improve. I am also an optimist and have convinced myself that there is no possible way the line can be worse than last year.
I and others went into 2013 thinking the oline couldn't be worse then it was in 2012.
Everyone's offense is as good as the offensive line allows, but for Michigan this is especially true. Devin would have been much better last season had the offensive line actually done something...and I know they were young and still developing, which is fine - that happens to all teams at some point. This year, though...man they better step their game up or else we are looking at yet another shitty 7-win season.
This... uh... isn't about Lebron? So it has THAT going for it?
I think they should rep 2-3 plays over and over and over until they can do it in their sleep and with full aggression. Maybe tweak it slightly each week based on the upcoming opposing D and run the ball so they are not ranked in the 100's in negative plays and rush offense.
My thinking (somewhat sarcastic) was that by alot of accounts the young offensive line players had a high workload to master last year. There were alot of missed blockes, indecisiveness, etc. I was thinking that they should focus on a core group of plays to be successful at so that they can decrease negative plays.
There's a chicken-and-egg issue here. Teams that win a lot have a lot of rushing yards, but that is in part because they're ahead a lot.
I'm not saying a good rushing offense isn't important. I'm just saying statistics seldom tell the whole truth.
You have to look WAY deeper than total rushing yards. Way, way deeper. Hell, by this guy's logic, total number of kneel-downs should be a key focus.
Football Outsiders, if I'm not mistaken, said something to the effect of "teams don't necessarily run successfully to win, they run successfully because they're winning." Likewise, when you're winning, you're generally better able to *stop* the run.
If a team is losing in the 4th quarter, especially by 2 scores or more, the odds are they are going to start throwing the ball more and reduce the amount of times they run ball.
You are correct. When you are ahead - especially late - you suppress the other team's willingness to run and accumulate running ydg. But you're not necessary stopping the run in the most literal sense.
Since 2008, the average rush defense rank of the Big Ten champ in terms of yards per carry was 33rd. The average offensive yards per carry rank was 31st.
If the O-line isn't vastly improved, then it's time for heads to roll. Those of us who live this stuff realize that not every recruit works out, but with so much highly rated talent, it seems that the odds should be strongly in favor of a good offensive line.
I am optimistic for several reasons. I think senior leadership was lacking last season, Borges' multitudinous schemes and consant line realignments from game to game had to be tough for young players to deal with and most importantly, I hope, is that after all the bad mouthing re the OL, the players' sense of pride will cause them to have a rather large chip on their shoulders.
The hard part about that is most offensive lineman aren't servicable until their 3rd year and aren't good until their 4th and 5th year in the system. There was a good diary on here that took a look back at former great UM o-lineman and their track records over the years. If I recall correctly it suggested that even Hutchinson who is possibly the best lineman ever to come through UM was a redshirt his first year, was a liability his second year, was competent his 3rd year, then was great his 4th and 5th year. So, you're expecting guys to be good in their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year, who history says even great o-lineman are not. We only have one project starter (Glasgow) not in his first 3 years. So, even though I want some accountability as much as you, if history suggests o-lineman won't be good in their first 3 years how can we say it's the coaches fault? At best we're hoping for a servicable o-line because we will have on no 5th year guys, one 4th year guy, 2-3 3rd year guys, and 1-2 1st or 2nd year guys. Until they have a line that consists of the majority of 4th and 5th year guys you simply can say it's the coaches fault IMO. And, that won't happen until 2015 at the earliest and maybe not even until 2016 if some of the younger guys like Cole leapfrom guys Braden.
In 1997 (redshirt freshmen - the year you say he was a liability) he was 1st team all big ten by the media and 2nd team all big ten by the coaches.
In 1998 (redshirt soph - the year you say he was just competent) he was 1st team all big ten by both the media and coaches.
Hutchinson spent his RS season on the other side of the ball with both hands in the dirt. Furthermore, RS S Chris Zeimann also flipped from the D side of the ball during the spring of 1997, and Jeff Backus was a RS F in 1997 with no college level game experience.
So there we have it, the LT, LG, RG all of whom had zero previous game day experience fronted the MNC Michigan team in 1997. Of the front five only RT, Jon Jansen, played the same position in 1997 as he had in 1996 (Zach Adami moved from RG to C). Yes, three of them would be drafted by the NFL and fourth would sign with an NFL team, but in 1997 only Jansen was on the mind of NFL teams.
So here we are with more linemen with more game day experience than what the 1997 team had and the worry is that they'll be worse than last years OL which had fewer players with experience. Which leads us, or at least me, to believe
- Worries about the OL being awful are being claimed by Henny Penny
- Recruiting of offensive linemen truly sucks
- Coaching of offensive linemen truly sucks
I think it quite probable that given the spring to assess linemen, the names and positions of the starting five will be known the first day of fall practice so they'll have a full month to gel into a cohesive unit (less Glasgow). If that isn't the case then point three is an absolute. In fact if Coach Funk doesn't now, today, know who his likely front five are by name and position, a call should be made to Terry Malone's agent asking him to return to Ann Arbor to again work his magic on the OL. The second call should be to Coach Funk asking him to turn in his office keys.
Regardless about one and three, perhaps thought should be given to contracting an outside consultant to assess the recruiting process of offensive linemen. Hoke talks about having wide butts and reach for the OL, maybe some assessment of heart and work ethic should be included.
The talent is there in regard to the genuinely accepted rule: more stars better the player. There are exceptions, of course, but the number of studies done over the last decade have shown this to be a truth. But as you indicated, determination, heart, etc., go a long way in determining just how good any player at any position will become. There are many 5 stars who were labeled such just because it was so damn easy to dominate at the h.s. level. Once they reached the next level it took them all of one game to realize, "Damn, the opposition is hitting back and pretty damn hard as well." So there is one of two things done. They either accept the challenge this new level of competition brings in the manner the M defenses did in being the only BIG school in never allowing Ron Dayne to gain 100 yards, including his finale vs. UM where he had nearly that amount at half-time. Certainly, the coaches made adjustments, but just as certain is the fact it took the two qualities above to achieve that. The other path is basically self-destructive, deciding it's good enough to say, "Yeah, I played ball at UM," but not adding as a career backup, or even lower on the depth chart.
Hanibal is correct as well in stating this forum has used the inexperience/young label long enough. We have the number that allow us to use 5 across the front that are now in their third year in this system. Those that were RSed needed it but they would not have been offered if the staff did not believe them to possess the talent to be, at minimum more than a liability at this point in their Michigan career. Although the blocking schemes will change, it is nothing any of them haven't experienced at some point in their playing days in the past and Nuss will keep it as simple as possible to begin with, although it is pretty damn simple in itself. It is up to Funk to make certain the communication is there and that, I believe, is what led to exactly to what we saw on the field last season, complete breakdowns and multiple whiffs at time.
I do know that Borges was fond of trying every damn play in his 300 page playbook at any given time and this added to the problem. Although wise enough to stick with DR handling the choices in his first year here he, and this falls on BH as well, were not wise enough to have the man that would be taking over taking snaps with the second, or even third unit. The fact he was playing another position does not mitigate the need for this. Many players have been cross trained at positions they were capable of for that very reason and when called upon they proved this to be a wise move. That has been addressed. You will see an offense that might remind you of the '70s at times this season, at least starting at the beginning of the season. And as they become more comfortable and confident we will see additional plays each week. Given the fact that BH has pretty much been given the green light in pursuing top ranked coaches, be they coordinators or position coaches, I can't imagine him keeping Funk on board if he thought he were the problem.
Essentially, time to Man Up and starting playing Michigan ball this year in the same manner you will see the defense operate beginning with Game numero uno.
One thing is that we will not likely be trotting out all guys in their third or higher year. It seems generally accepted that we will go Mags (3rd yr), Bosch (2nd year), Glasgow (4th yr), Kalis (3rd yr), and either Braden(3rd yr)/Dawson (2nd yr)/Cole (1st yr). So, assuming Bosch, Dawson, or Cole is in there we are not all 3rd year or older guys. The other main point is that although you'd expect guys like Dawson, Kalis, Bosch, and Mags to be more than adaquate in their 3rd year, that would assume that there are 2-3 4th or 5th year guys around them. When they are surrounded by other 3rd year guys it's not quite the same. The final point is yes, the coaches wouldn't recruit a kid if they didn't believe in him. But, that's also a bit of a starry-eyed view. It assumes the coaches always get their top choices. Kalis, Bosch, Dawson, and Cole are all highly rated recruits, Mags isn't exactly a scrub either. Glasgow is a walk on and Braden is a guy that was probably taken because he was the best available option rather than the best player. That 2012 class of o-lineman was not the best and Braden is not in the same class as the others based on his recruiting rankings. He is a giant, but based on his recruiting rankings and his lack of playing time so far, I'd guess he still needs more time to develop.
While Barwis was undoubtedly overhyped, he was at a minimum competent in the job. The same goes for the guy Hoke brought in, Aaron Wellman.
So, now I had to go back and find the write up. It said that Jansen, Hutchinson, Backus, Long, and Lewan were "solid" as soph/jr and "stars" as jr/sr and 5th year. It goes on to predict Glasgow and Mags will be solid, whereas Bosch, Kalis, and whoever plays RT will be a liability. But, if I'm reading it correctly there seems like quite a bit of varience in the prediction, but it doesn't look great with so few 4th and 5th year guys. The good news is there is a decent chance the same group will be pretty good in another year or two.
Link:
I don't think a historical look back at Michigan's former great o-lineman provides the proper perspective as to what the development of an average o-line should be in todays game. The game has evolved so has the development of high school players. Michigan was also in a more advantageous position with regards to recruiting and development than what today's circumstances provide. I think a better guage would be to look at the broad swath of BCS teams in the last 5 - 8 years and see what the averages are. My guess (with no data) is the 5 year scale you laid out would be accelerated by 6 - 12 months.
If I'm hearing you right, then you are confident that our 3rd year guys (Kalis, Mags, & Braden) should be quality starters albeit not stars, and our 2nd year guys (LTT, Bosch, Dawson, & Fox) should be servicable if needed this year?
Honestly, I have no idea how to assess that. Until we see guys that were recruited by this staff go through their entire 4-5 years in the program it's a little short-sighted to judge. I think we will learn a little more this year, and granted it doesn't seem great so far, but it's also a little short-sighted to judge at this point. Check back with me after 2015.
No more excuses Blue. Now is the time.
I think the defense can be very good. What I have not seen for a long time at Michigan is a defense with the mentality to punch someone in the mouth. Maybe that is due to development as well, but I just don't get the feeling that teams walk in scared of Michigan's defense like they once were (a long time ago now). There was a little bit of it in 2011 thanks in large part to Mike Martin and RVB, prior to that....probably 2006.
3 and 4 sort of go together. Hard to control the clock and limit turnovers if you cannot run well. The only exception I suppose being a west coast offense that throws 6-10 yard passes most of the time and uses a pass in the flat in lieu of running.
I dunno - these seems like basics for any conference. Run the ball well, don't turn the ball over, stop the other team from running. Seems to work in the NFL too. MSU was awesome at the latter 2 and good enough at the first last year - I think they turned the ball over 15 times the entire year. OSU last year was likewise very good at the first two and maybe weaker in the third one. I think the first 2 we can do this year as our D line gets better in the middle and our LBs should help. We had a disaster versus OSU where we looked helpless to stop OSU but generally run defense was "solid" much of the year; the pass defense was where things were very bad.
3 and 4 are the question marks to me. Until Devin shows the ability to read defenses better pre-snap, make better decisions, and find his secondary receivers it feels like we are in feast or famine mode in our passing game. And everyone on earth knows the situation in the running game.
I get the feeling we were so uselesses against OSU's offense last year due to the strength of their o-line and of course Hyde. With both of those things gone I don't think we have as much difficulty defending their offense, do you? That being said, our o-line vs their d-line will become a larger problem now that we no longer have NFL tackles to defend their ends Spence, Bosa, and Washington.
"Nussmeier did have some changes he wanted to see out of the weight training and they have incorporated those changes (we didn’t get specifics on that)."
Since he's the OC I doubt that the changes he had in mind were for defensive players. If I had to place a bet, the changes were not in reference to RBs and WRs either, but were specifically for the OL. Given how our linemen were frequently knocked backwards at the snap by DLs who were in many instances smaller and lighter, I can easily envision Nussmeier wanting to remedy that immediately.
I was looking at 2013 box scores last night and asked the question how many times did the defense generate a WHAM play. I define a WHAM play as generating a loss on 1st, or 2nd down, stopping 1st down on 3rd-2 or less, plus any subjective play example stopping Akron on 4th down to win the game. I also include turnovers on any down. Take the stats with a grain of salt as I had to add a few plays I knew ESPN play-by-play had missed. The basic idea is the defense makes a play such that there is no need for a great play to be made on later downs. For example generating a minus seven yard sack on 2nd and 8 essentially ends the possesion for the other team. First number is plays counted and second is turnovers. CMU is excluded because they were not a real team :). Note I do not count a play on the 3rd down as any play that stops a first down is essentially the same thing.
ND 3/2, Akron 7/2, UCONN 3/1, Minn 5/2, PSU 6/4, IND 3/2, MSU 5/1, Neb 6/2, NW 5/0 Iowa 10/4, OSU 3/2, KSU 2/1.
For a team that did not generate a lot of pressure we generated a lot of turnovers. Generating 2 TO's a game is very nice. However, our defense did not generate enough negative plays. Good offenses rarely went backwards. This is where we need to see improvement. All to often the other team moved the chains because they were able to make a play because the down distance was managable. If that 3rd down play is 3rd and 12 instead of 3rd and 6 some of those close losses become wins. I would like to see 20 more plays for loss and the TO's to remain the same.
Because Michigan destroyed 6-6 CMU while only just escaping from 5-7 Akron and 3-9 UConn. It therefore follows that both Akron and UConn were better teams than CMU.
Or something like that. I might have to dig out my old truth tables to figure this one out.