Inside Running Game
What's shocking to me is our inside running game is non-existent. I'm not sure what it is but for a coaching staff which preaches MANBALL, we are far away from it. I didn't see any production from Fitz or any of the other RBs against stout defenses.
Our playcalling has been dismal. This makes me wish for 3 yards and a cloud of dust all over again. It wasn't pretty but it worked.
Also, what will it take to not throw interceptions and lose fumbles. This game reminded me of the dark days.
With a fresh corp of OL next season, I'm very skeptical of where we will be at. No more Lewan who'll be drafted 1st round.
November 25th, 2012 at 9:01 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 9:01 PM ^
O-line didn't seem to gel as well as Hoke wanted them to and UM simply does not have an elite RB to run into, around, and through defenders.
November 25th, 2012 at 9:06 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 9:08 PM ^
a question though: how can you expect other coaches to leave your recruited guys alone if you go after recruited guys? or are we past that facade?
November 25th, 2012 at 9:28 PM ^
other coaches to leave their recruits alone. I keep missing the copy that is floating around.
November 25th, 2012 at 9:34 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 9:07 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 9:07 PM ^
I think the jury is still out on Funk. Kind of a mixed bag in terms of results. His lines at Colorado State were awful and didn't see a whole lot of improvement while he was there, but SDSU did go from 116th to 28th in rushing yards/attempt from 2009 to 2010, and although the results are obviously skewed with long runs from Denard, Michigan has been in the top thirty both years he has been here.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:56 AM ^
Yeah, he's had ups and downs, but he's been limited in his personell at every stop. In his 5 years coaching OLine at Colorado State 4 offensive linemen went into the NFL. Mike Brisiel, Joel Dreessen, Clint Oldenburgh, and Erik Pears. His 1 year at Ball State they were 4th nationally in fewest sacks allowed, and in 2010 at SDSU they were 5th. His first year at Michigan we had two 1,000 yards rushers for the first time in forever. We just had a really bad dropoff from Schofield-Molk-Omameh-Hyuge to Barnum-Mealer-Omameh-Schofield. We have had terrible blocking in the running game, and our backs have struggled to pick up late blitzers, but just about every game this year I remember plays where the announcers start laughing at how long Denard/Devin can stand in the pocket, too.
November 26th, 2012 at 8:55 AM ^
but the reason for the lack of pass rush against Devin and Denard has more to do with the fact that DC's don't want to rush them, they want them to stay in the pocket and avoid what happens when the break outside and scramble.
If you watch how teams rush them it is almost always no more than a four man rush with all four guys simply trying to stay in their lanes more than actually get to the QB. Their have been a few exception with teams like MSU and those exceptions had little difficulty actually getting pressure. Not a lot of sacks because of Denards ability, but a lot of pressure.
November 25th, 2012 at 9:11 PM ^
Going after guys who have commited to other schools is part of the game although Bielema and Dantonio would tell you differently.
November 25th, 2012 at 9:24 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 9:27 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 10:03 PM ^
Nope, but I'm assuming he's no longer a Michigan commit. I'm not sure anyone really knows what his status is now.
November 25th, 2012 at 11:05 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 9:43 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 10:04 PM ^
I think the Ty Isaac ship has sailed.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:11 PM ^
November 26th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
...but has it sunk?
November 26th, 2012 at 11:56 AM ^
Maybe not sunk, but listing...
November 25th, 2012 at 10:37 PM ^
I'm been noodling on something. Before I pose the question, I'd like to emphasize -- in no way whatsoever do I intend or want to reopen any debate about prior coaches.
Seriously ... please ... let's keep it out of that space.
I'm thinking of this question in purely objective, non-emotional terms.
Looking back at recruiting classes (Rivals), I see the following:
- 2007 (LC) - 2 OL (Huyge, Molk)
- 2008 (LC) - 5 OL (Barnum, Khoury, Mealer, O'Neil, Wermers)
- 2009 (RR) - 3 OL (Lewan, Schofield, Washington)
- 2010 (RR) - 1 OL (Pace)
- 2011 (RR) - 2 OL (Bryant, Posada)
- 2012 (BH) - 4 OL (Bars, Braden, Kalis, Magnuson)
- 2013 (BH) - 5 OL (Bosch, Fox, Kugler, Tuley-Tillman, Sypniewski)
As we sit here in late 2012 it's clear our offensive line depth is a problem. That said, three questions:
- Question 1 -- can a case be made that the 2010 and 2011 recruiting for OLs was sufficient given prior pipeline?
- Question 2 -- if answer to Q1 is "no," can any case be made to explain why so few were signed?
- Question 3 -- is there such a thing as an "average" number of OLs needed per cycle?
Again ... this is a question about how position pipelines are recruited and maintained.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:56 PM ^
1. 2010 and 2011 were insufficient.
2. Rodriguez did a terrible job of recruiting.
3. You generally want to bring in 3-4 offensive linemen per class.
November 25th, 2012 at 11:02 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 11:12 PM ^
I can't remember the history ... was it a case where more were targeted and simply didn't materialize? Or simply not targeted?
Part of the reason I'm asking this question is because to a degree we're seeing something similar with Hoke's recruiting, but in the other way -- he spent two cycles loading up on OL, DL and LB but at the expense (somewhat) of RB, WR and DB.
At some point, I presume, recruiting settles into a more balanced approach. But for a new coach, facing priorities based on preferences and needs, I would imagine early recruiting cycles gets skewed. Which is why I asked about 2010-2011.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:11 AM ^
We needed defense desperately in 2010 and signed 16 players on that side of the ball (for comparison our 2003 class had 17 players in total). The coaches also weren't high on many OL that year if IIRC and knew they had talent already in the pipeline. The plan was to then take a big OL class the next year, but the staff got fired. Jake Fisher decommitted (he's starting at Oregon now) and the new staff was only able to add longtime target Chris Bryant in their limited recruiting time on the job.
Also, Jack Miller was an OL all the way so the 2011 class was 3 guys, just not the 4-5 we wanted/needed and of course Posada going emo the second he arrived on campus didn't help matters.
November 26th, 2012 at 5:33 AM ^
Yeah, Michigan needed defensive players desperately...which is why we signed Demar Dorsey, Conelius Jones, Antonio Kinard, and Davion Rogers, none of whom even dressed for a game. And that's not to mention Cullen Christian, Carvin Johnson, Ricardo Miller, the Talbotts, Ray Vinopal, Austin White, and DJ Williamson, all of whom have left the program.
I understand trying to load up on defense, but it doesn't do any good if those guys don't qualify. And we certainly didn't need DJ Williamson or Austin White.
That was a terrible recruiting class, not from a talent standpoint but from a retention standpoint; and there's really no excuse for failing to bring in more linemen.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:32 AM ^
If you bring in a 27 person class, especially one skewed to a particular side of the ball, you are going to have loads of attrition. You could make a long list of guys who didn't play in every recruiting class we've ever had and the list gets longer the bigger the class. And you want that attrition, to some extent (you don't want the roster full of guys who aren't going to see the field when you could bring in new young guys). Recruiting off a 3-9 season with limited job security and institutional support isn't an easy task either. I'm content with a class that landed Black/Ash/Wilkins, Avery/Furman/Robinson, Ryan, Hagerup, Dileo, and Gardner. We don't have a two-deep now without those guys and are a much worse team if Ryan and Gardner aren't big time difference makers.
Recruiting is a numbers game. If you take three linebackers in a class and one of them is Jake Ryan, you are still ahead of the game. The hits matter, the misses really don't.
And I'm not advocating taking 1 lineman ever. You should always take 4-5 if possible. I just think other factors compounded a situation that would have worked out okay otherwise. Between Pace's injury, Dave Brandon being willing to sacrifice a recruiting class, telling Khoury he won't play (apparently), and making the Washington/BWC switch a two man move to the d-line, you have four extra guys on the offensive line who aren't there. Just one or two of those guys make a big difference in depth this year and next.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^
Right, but you say you need attrition and then you say it's not okay to have 1 lineman in a class. You can't have both, though, and expect to be successful. Yes, there's something to be said for the career bench guys heading elsewhere, and career-ending injuries happen in football. But when you're taking 1 lineman (or 1 anything, frankly) in a class, you're setting yourself up for trouble.
Rodriguez took chances on a lot of guys, and a lot of guys backfired. Several of those guys never made it to campus. It's not that they gave it the ol' college try, sat on the bench, and went elsewhere so they could play. They just flat-out didn't get the grades/test scores, and that's inexcusable, in my opinion, to have that many guys be academically ineligible - Rogers, Dorsey, Jones, Kinard, etc. Rodriguez clearly wasn't recruiting enough character guys, and he wasn't properly balancing the roster. Yeah, there's some talent there (Gardner, Ryan, etc.), but you need more than that - you need depth and experience.
November 26th, 2012 at 5:36 AM ^
Michigan only offered 17 linemen in the class of 2010. That is a ridiculously low number. Meanwhile, Michigan offere 25 running backs and 17 wide receivers.
http://www.touchthebanner.blogspot.com/p/2010-offer-board.html
November 25th, 2012 at 11:54 PM ^
Was Pace the guy who got injured? I seem to remember losing him as a big blow.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:18 AM ^
His career was cut short due to injury.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:02 AM ^
1. Not really. 1 OL in 2010 is really, really pushing things. However 2010 was the year we brought in 6(7) db's (source: Rivals, Furman is listed as ATH) because, well, IIRC we needed them.
2. Possibly, see 7 db's. Also RR's recruiting was poor, but re-read 3 and out to see the reasons for that.
3. See Magnus' post.
[edit: revisiting 2010 recruiting class makes me sad... Dorsey, etc.]
November 25th, 2012 at 10:38 PM ^
We will be just fine in the trenches next year. I believe Hoke hedged for the future by red shirting our younger, more talanted linemen.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:06 AM ^
I came just to downvote the OP :)
November 26th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^
If we need one thing in reruiting it would be a reliable RB.. A big bruiser that can get a yrd when we really need it..I cant take anymore of small backs..
November 26th, 2012 at 11:40 AM ^
I don't see Lewan going pro this year. He hasn't had the good season to do it.
November 26th, 2012 at 1:25 PM ^
Toussaint and Rawls are good running backs. We saw that last year. This offensive line without much doubt is the worst O-line in Michigan history. We had a couple of 5th year guys that couldn't ever play until someone was injured their 5th year. Doesn't say much about their ability.
November 26th, 2012 at 1:38 PM ^
At no point have we seen Rawls look like a good running back. He has looked adequate at times, and that's really the best we can say for him at this point.
November 26th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^
Everyone is so worried about the O-Line and the running game. Which we should be, but we were also worried about our receiving corps this year and they were pretty darn good when we finally had a decent passer throwing them the ball. I think all this worry, will turn intonothing come next year.
Hoke gets it, so no worries