More manball, less monkey rodeo.
spoiler alert: i linked this
More manball, less monkey rodeo.
Have a little faith.
of true manball, but I certainly prefer it plus a kick in the nuts over monkey rodeo.
But seriously, whatever wins games, let's do that.
If we can establish a good running game this season I think we will be playing in Columbus with the big ten on the line, just like it should be.
*with the Division title on the line.
The division title is necessary but not sufficient for the B1G title, so really both are true. Lose the division, lose the conference.
Going up againist wisky,psu,tuos & msu ((espically againist them)) if toughness isn't shown dismal results could be reality...AGAIN!!
Well done, but what happened? I think you're underrating Marquise Walker. Both he and Terrell were ranked in the top 3 WRs by some services. Adding in the #1 RB in Fargas and a top 3 QB in Henson made that an unreal haul.
Agreed. Walker and Terrell were each the #1 WR to different services.
Hate to be that guy..but its Isaac not Issac
Hate to be this guy........-1.
We now just need an average o-line.
I threw this chart together yesterday while discussing the OL with some buddies. The number by each guy's name is number of years in the program. I've removed walk-ons.
Obviously we're still quite youth-heavy, but I see about 10 guys on there who should be serviceable linemen at this point in their career, IMO. Unless Funk is completely wasting the talent of these kids, we should be able to put 5 together and run the goddamn ball. And I'm not even considering Cole who is still a potential starter last I heard...
|Erik Magnuson||RS SO||3|
|Dan Samuelson||RS FR||2|
|Chris Fox||RS FR||2|
|Logan Tuley-Tillman||RS FR||2|
|Ben Braden||RS SO||3|
|Kyle Kalis||RS SO||3|
|Blake Bars||RS SO||3|
|Graham Glasgow||RS JR||4|
|Jack Miller||RS JR||4|
|Patrick Kugler||RS FR||2|
|David Dawson||RS FR||2|
Very misleading as you are already counting this year in total for each player. Ex. Kugler has been here since last fall and yet you show 2 years by his name. Basically the number should be 1.54 not 2.54 as you state it.
Nice try at purposefully misleading numbers, but it is kind of easy to fact-check.
This will be their status when the season starts this fall? You really think that's misleading?
And what are you talking about with the fact-checking? Am I lying about their class?
is that you shouldn't add the upcoming season to their "experience". For example Mason Cole has no experience having never suited up or earned a letter for UM...and yet he has 1 year of "experience" to start the year in your chart.
Yes - very misleading.
Your words: "The number by each guy's name is number of years in the program. " & "This will be their status when the season starts this fall? "
I dont think Kugler has been in the program for 2 years when season starts in the fall. Agree with other poster that the statement does not apply at all here.
Basically the experience is approximately half redshirted last year while the other half have a redshirt yr + 1yr experience. The rest is a few sprinkled in (Miller, Glasgow offset by Cole).
You are asserting that Erik Magnuson, for example, has three years in the program when the season starts, which is odd since his profile at MGoBlue says this:
Sophomore/Freshman (2013) ... earned first varsity letter ... appeared in 12 games as an offensive lineman, making seven starts at guard ... also contributed on special teams ... INDIANA (Oct. 19) ... made first career start at right guard.
Freshman (2012) ... did not see game action ... redshirted.
Unless you're calling the time between the end of the 2013 season to the beginning of the 2014 season as an entire season in itself, Erik Magnuson enters the 2014 with two seasons under his belt.
Even more ridiculous is your assertion that incoming freshman Mason Cole enters the season with one year of experience in the program even though he hasn't yet gone through his first fall camp.
So, Don, let me ask you this. Come September, how many fall camps will Magnuson and Cole have gone through? Also, will this be Cole's zeroeth season?
Besides, we can go back and forth all day on this, but it's not going to help us figure out who pissed in your Cheerios this morning.
This will be Cole's first season on the team. After this season, Cole will have 1 year experience.
Maybe there's some poster history that makes this sub-thread more relevant to some, but I'm not sure its a huge deal. The "average" years of experience is a poor indicator, IMO since it matters greatly where and who has the experience. So, the general argument around average is misguided.
However, as for listing the current year in the program doesn't seem that egregious. I have great hopes for DG as a 5th year senior and would have no problem someone using 5 next to his name on a similar chart. Whether you use 4 or 5 seems pretty immaterial as long as it is consistent.
At some point, these kids will be in the middle of that year and at the end of that year. I for one expect the 3rd year in a program to be significant from a maturity, S & C and "speed of the game" stand point.
To be clear, I'm a "youther" and do think the O in general is still prohibitively young as is the OL...but I expect a marked improvement by the interior and pray the tackles can be average (OL average to slightly below would be okay with me).
Whether his chart is correct or not, the University of Michigan football team should never rush for -48 yards or 28 yards on 27 carries. Any third year player is about as good as he is going to get which means Kalis, Braden, Magnuson, and Glasgow/Miller should all be ready to run people over. Bosch started as a freshman, so there is no excuse to not drastically improve as a sophomore.
No one thinks the OL play was acceptable, and part of the point of my post was wondering why there was so much emphasis on "misleading" data.
I think you're way off stating, "Any third year player is about as good as he is going to get." That is just dead wrong, and we all should expect players to significantly progress in years 4 and 5 and should expect some surprising lights to go on in years 4 and 5 for some players (happens all the time).
I did say I expected significant improvement from the interior and do think 3rd year players should have made significant gains.
No one who reads this blog realized that our offensive line has struggled the last two years.
I bet your sarcasm will totally convince him not to make comments about last year's OL that cost you an entire second to read. Good work.
I liked what I saw in the Spring Game, I know others will disagree. It seemed like there was a heavy shift in focus from releasing to second level players to blocking the DLine first and foremost. That resulted in a lot of short gains as LBs came free to meet the RB in the hole, but they were much much better about not giving up losses and zero gain plays. I think that's the right approach when you have bruising backs like we do. Give the guy the ball and have him truck the LB and fall forward.
Add in a whole summer and fall camp for Nuss to install more elements in his offense, more time for the OL to get stronger from a S&C standpoint and gel as a unit, and actual play-calls with wrinkles in them instead of the vanilla stuff for the Spring Game and I think we could see a unit capable of picking up 3 yards consistently with a few long ones sprinkled in. That may not be all that flashy, but it'll have an incredible effect in wearing down defenses and keeping the pressure of off Devin and the passing game.
Absolutely. This team doesn't have to become a running powerhouse in the snap of the fingers. If they can at the very least keep the D lineman from playing in the backfield and limit negative plays, that will be an improvement right there. I'll be happy with an offense that gains little by little on the ground. That will keep Gardner much healthier and upright and if that happens he could be poised for some good things.
Agree that the key is making forward progress and keeping defenses honest. Gardner presents a hell of a mismatch to most defenses when he is in 3rd and 3 v. 3rd and 9 because he is a legit threat to EITHER run or throw at that shorter down and distance. Our problem last year with neg plays was the domino effect on teams knowing Gardner had to gain 9 or more yards on a third down...they pinned their ears back and he was surrounded. Imagine him only needing 3 yards with Jake Butt, Funchess, Isaac, Canteen and Chesson/Darboh as his weapons OR just run for 4 on a QB keeper. I would not want to be the DC trying to stop all those possibilities.
In Nuss we Truss!! He will figure out how to use these guys. All the O-line has to be is "serviceable" with all the weapons DG has at his disposal...crazy to think about it...Green, Smith, Isaac, funchess, canteen, darboh at full go per Speight, Chesson, norfleet, maybe peppers a little bit (?), moe ways, Harris....we all know the defense will be stronger than the O and probably carry us through the first few games...predicting a season similar to Sparty's last year where the defense won the first few games as the O got there feet underneath them...our O will not be nearly as sorry as theirs started out, but you know what I mean.
"our O will not be nearly as sorry as theirs started out, but you know what I mean."
Our D won't be any where close to what theirs was last year either. Probably not a popular opinion, but oh well, neg away.
It's not so much that your opinion is unpopular, just that it's unfounded and pure speculation. Why can't our defense be as good as their defense last year? Our defense was quite good (though inconsistant) last year, and we return a lot of talent, as well as adding some frosh who could make an impact.
Now, I'm not predicting that, simply because MSU's D was incredible last year. But there is nothing about our defense that would preclude us from that.
Why is it so difficult for people to spell 'Isaac?' It's a real name, and 'Issac' is not.
Isaac is a real name? Do people have fake/unreal names? I ' guessing you meant that Isaac is a name that's out there. What are some unreal names? Shavodrick Beaver?
Really? Member for 3.5 years, and THIS is your first post?
Maybe his name is Issac??
Maybe the Mingo ate your baby.
Issac is also a real name. It isn't his name but does belong to some people.
The name is not the issue here, dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude, across this line YOU DO NOT... also, dude, Oriental is not the preferred nomencleture. Asian-American, please.
American at all? Also, Is oriental a bad word now?
...but just in case, here's a clip from the greatest movie in the history of movies.
Re your comment on the dude's nickname, are you just playing out some silly movie bits or do you really have an objection to the term "oriental?"
Does it? Are their actual people named Issac? I'm asking seriously, because I've never ever seen that.
But it really doesn't matter, because even if it exists, 99% of people with that name spell it Isaac. If we had a recruit named David, I don't care if you once met a dude named Dayvid, there's no excuse for spelling it wrong.
If Ty's last name was spelling Issac, no one would fault you for spelling it Isaac, because that's the normal way, just like if I mistakenly spelled your friend Dayvind's name David. But there's no excuse for misspelling someone's name when they use the traditional spelling.
A suggested similar baby name is Izsak.
Issac is a somewhat popular first name for males (#698 out of 1220) and an even more popular surname or last name for all people (#14870 out of 88799) (2000 U.S. Census).
Read more at http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Issac#zKUv5I4Tgb1qUzpB.99
if the running game still sucks? In 2015 we have to be one of the top running teams in the country.
Probably the same thing it's been for the last 2 years?
...with a different OL coach.
I think Isaac does have a bit of that breakaway speed but I agree with your overall comment. I think Justice Hayes fits the mold of the type of player you describe, and I actually think far too many people are dismissing him after the addition of Isaac.
He is a very talented runner who should see the field a lot this year. He was clearly the best back in the spring game, which should count for just about as much as star ratings in high school (i.e. not much).
Don't forget about Drake Johnson either. Dude was riding the hype train before his knee blew out.
I like Smith alot as well. I think he is the toughest to bring down. Although I think he's not very shifty and is most effective when he can get his momentum going. I think when the O line starts blocking a little better he will come into his own more. I also agree that all three of the backs have similar styles. I'm hoping that a guy like Ross Douglas, Dennis Norfleet, Justice Hayes or maybe even Peppers can step up this year and provide a nice change of pace.
Didn't Green run a sub 4.4, laser timed 40? That's pretty good breakaway speed there.
Apparently he ran 4.36 at the Army AA game, but not sure how it was timed.
Don't sleep on Smith, I think he is capable of being a big part of the offense.
I think the OL will be better based on a few things.
1. Simplification of scheme. Hell, most of us could not figure out what Borges was doing from an eagle eye perspective. Imagine being in the trenches as a kid with all that pressure? Recipe for disaster.
2. Have the kids play at one spot, injuries later this of course, and stay there. When you put Lewan on the right side and still run to your left, well you go backwards.
3. Nuss by all accounts is a better teacher, communicator and is more hands on with the offense. This can only be a positive influence.
I'm thinking the line improves, not to the usual standard, but enough to make defenses think about and game plan for our run game.
I, too, think the OL will be much improved from last year. If I had to guess I would say they will be somewhere around the 2012 team in terms of rushing offense (41st nationally in ypg). I think Magnuson and Glasgow will be the tackles, and while they aren't Lewan/Schofield, I don't think the drop off will be near the level of Molk to Mealer. The interior OL can only get better (right?). I think some combination of Bosch, Dawson, Kalis, Miller, Kugler and Bars will be a huge improvement over what we saw last year. I've mentioned before that I believe the defense will be very good (top 10 nationally), so if the offense can be just average, it should be a very good year.
I would feel ok about the O-line, except for the gaping hole at center. Miller just could not get it done last year and Kugler has tremendous upside, but is still young. Our best move might be to start Glasgow there, but that is hardly ideal. Unless Miller develops into a complete surprise, Kugler is ready earlier than expected, or Glasgow is servicable (and not needed elsewhere on the line), our post-Molk travesty will continue. The other wierd thing is that we don't seem to have a long-term plan for that position. It is the worst position on the depth chart, by far. Even if Kugler develops, there are no good options behind him.
Glasgow is fine at center. I liked what I saw from Kugler for the most part during the Spring Game too. Kalis and Bosch seem to have locked up the Guard spots so it's not like Glasgow's needed there like he was last year. RT is the place that scares me. Braden is the obvious choice here, and I thought he looked decent in the Spring Game as well, but the way the coaches seem to see him (i.e. the inexplicable disappearance after last year's fall camp, constantly trying different people other than him out at RT) makes me a little leery that he might not be the most consistent player. Depth all around is razor thin right now, I didn't really like much of what I saw from the back up options at all.
several depth charts I've seen project Glasgow at RT, which leaves us with Kugler and Miller at C. Other positions on the O-line are thin now, but there are already young players ready to step up by 2015 or 2016. Right now, at center, we have Kugler and Miller for the foreseeable future.
the star-gazing on this board has reached unprecedented levels. it's pretty embarrassing.
You think we are the only fan base that gets excited by top ranked players coming to our school!
It's just a matter of time before all the talent shows up on the football field..
no, you are right. but i would like to think that our fanbase (at least the subset that frequents this site) is a little more intelligent and can see through the BS. the fact that people still have a hard-on about derrick green being an OMG 5 star in high school just blows my mind.
dymonte thomas was a great example of how this board operates at a high level. OMG this guy is going to be the sickest player ever. he's going to come in from day 1 and start and dominate. next charles woodson. okay, dymonte wasn't an all-american as a freshman? he sucks. who is the next 4/5 start coming in? jabrill peppers? OMG this guy is going to be the sickest player ever. he's going to come in from day 1 and start and dominate. next charles woodson . . . .. dfd
Or the fact that "everyone" thinks our running game will be solved by adding another highly rated running back. I believe our running game will be better, but that it would be better with or without Isaac.
OMG ths guy is going to be the sickest player ever. he's going to come in from day 1 and start and dominate. next charles woodson
Dude, one word: Freshman
Patience, sometimes it takes a little time for guys to break through at the next level.
My name is College Football. Have we met?
Someone needs to let the Texas talent know about this.
The Texas that was playing in the National Championship game 5 years ago? Yea, we'll be sure to let them know.
Umm no, but nice try without doing any research:
Recruiting class ranking via ESPN:
Does one top25 rankning since that game seem acceptable given those recruiting classes?
Are you just going to cherry pick Texas? Or are you going to mention that each of the last 10 or so national champions have had top 10 recruiting classes? Much worse than the star gazers are those that think recruiting rankings mean nothing.
or Alabama. Tell Nick Saban to stop stargazing.
Can you help me understand the (or at least your) "star-gazing" critique? Is it:
(A) It doesn't matter how much incoming talent you have.
(B) The recruiting sites are terrible judges of incoming talent.
Or (A) and (B)? Neither?
it's the general tendency of this board to focus a disproportionate amount of attention to a recruit's star-rankings rather than on-field performance. for example, when people were discussing last year before the season started who should start on the OL. there was this chorus of people that said that they would be disappointed if Glasgow or Miller started over Ben Braden or Magnuson or whoever. the focus was not "i am agnostic as to who starts, as long as it's the best 5 offensive lineman". instead, it was basically "the starters should be the guys with the most stars. if not, we are in trouble". that's just one example. the majority of people on this board have star-clouded vision.
I see some of that as people's wildly unrealistic expectations for underclassmen contributions. I think there's a group here that decides that guys are busts if they aren't major contributors in their first year or two on campus. I find that ridiculous. More often than not, the experienced 3-star is a much better option than the inexperienced 4-star.
Still, I think the talent pipeline is really important. Aside from a few exceptions, the teams that consistently win in college football are the ones that consistently bring in elite talent. Maybe that's just correlation and those teams have great coaching or something, but I think the thing that most clearly distinguishes Alabama, LSU, FSU, etc. is that they're getting incredible talent year after year. To me, bringing in elite recruits is a big deal, even though some of those guys won't pan out and most will need some time before they're really contributing.
In fairness, the 247 composite rankings have Green as the #5 RB, Isaac as the #8 RB, and Smith as the #21 RB. Not sure where the "consensus #1" thing comes from.
In general it is always positive news to see good players interested in the Wolverines, but like some of the other posts have noted - the presence of one or two RB may not instantly give us a great running game.
To grossly simplify (which is ideal for the web and blogs :) )
1. Great OL + Great RBs = Amazing running game - ideal but rarely achieved
2. Great OL + Good RBs = Great running game - what I nostalgically believe the Wolverines had during their glory years
3. Good OL + Great RBs = Good-Great running game - what I hope will happen this year
4. Good OL + Good RBs = Good running game - what we hoped would have happened recently
5. Poor OL + Near Great RBs = ? suspect below average - at times good running game, but spotty and more variation subject to play call and where the play is heading. Have to wonder about how some of the RB who were taken in the 3rd or 4th rounds have fared well in the NFL - maybe they were much better than given credit, just needed a better line.
6. Poor OL + Average RBs = Poor running game - the obvious opposite of 1 and 2.
Smith might be the best of the three, but not based on his ability to break a big run. It's pretty well established that he lacks top-end speed. Go watch Isaac's highlight video to see what breaking a big one looks like. Over and over again.
but Michigan needs at least 1 of the 3 to redshirt. Whether it's Ty not getting his waiver, one of the others taking one for the team or whatever. Having 3 top level running backs is great, having all 3 of them in the same class not so much.
It's a huge get, but the obvious factor going forward will be blocking for them. I really do think Green and/or Smith would have looked WAY better last year with a bit more blocking up front; while they will have to learn to run through contact a bit more, that should come with physical maturity. But if no back can get some momentum going forward before he's trying to dodge two or three LBs, it won't much matter their star ratings.
for the possibility of a three headed RB monster. If our OLline is somewhat ok this year, defenses will never get a break with these three guys running..
Isaac possible second coming of Jim Brown?
Negged for "Issac."
It's the thought that counts. I've lost a few brain cells over the years.
If we can't get even a decent push on the OL, it wouldn't even matter if we had Trent Richardson in our backfield.
Green, Isaac and Smith have the potential to be great, even devastating together. But it will all be for naught if the O-Line can't mesh together and live up to its potential.
Yes, it would matter, because Richardson isn't eligible. What are you trying to do to Michigan's football program?!?!?!
Now we have three 220+ lbs RBs but have only one truely quick RB in Justice Hayes I think it will be important to recruit a smaller quicker and more of a make you miss type of guy into Michigan. I think Harris would be that guy but we will see how that goes. Also we should redshirt Smith for this year if Isaac gets his waiver.
You seem to be forgetting about redshirt freshman Ross Douglas.
I honestly don't think Adrian Peterson would have averaged more than 3.5 yards per carry behind last year's O-Line....and that had 2 NFL tackles.
I think that people think that recruiting at a high level doesn't matter because some schools haven't done much of anything like Texas since 2010 or USC since 2010 but ignore the fact that every national champion has had a top 10 class. Also Washington State, Rutgers, Maryland, Boston College don't recruit at a high level and haven't done anything.
Georgia is doing it with Todd Gurley and Keith Marshall!
1/4 of the thread is arguing about a name.
I love this place so much because of greatness like this.
for 4 years - 1975-1978.
Davis was the No. 1 running back in the nation in 1975 and chose Michigan over USC (John McKay's final year). They even had Rob Lytle start at TB in 1976.
Huckleby had to have been a top 10 running back that year out of Detroit Cass Tech.
In those days Michigan ran a meat-grinder run offense, which meant plenty of carries. Today not so much.