Is it our run blocking, our scheme or both?
I get it with Hoke, always want to keep pushing the guys in his pressers by keeping on them. When he does it with the defense, you sort of chuckle since the guy is looking for zero yards period from a unit that is playing pretty darn well. That group has been put in position to succeed by the staff and those guys have responded.
However, we also keep getting the same type of comments in terms of run blocking not being great. While we are not Road Grader U, we also have some talent on the line which includes a first round left tackle. I don't mind pushing our linemen, but I also don't feel we provide them any help with our play selection or having our running backs regularly hitting the proper hole. You can only hope to out execute a defense so much when they are running downhill at you and not having to pay for it. Has our line been perfect, no, but there are parts to work with. I am not sure the blame can just be laid on their run blocking abilities. I am interested in what the rest of the board thinks.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:13 PM ^
October 29th, 2012 at 5:24 PM ^
How about... OUR RUNNING BACK! I think it's pretty clear Fitz just hasn't been the same this year. It's time to give Rawls a legitimate shot to do something productive. We keep hearing about how he's really progressing, and how "he has earned more carries," but they just haven't come, and I don't understand why.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:25 PM ^
because he's been no more productive than Toussaint, and we have a large enough sample size to comfortably conclude this. Listen to the coaches. Then watch the games again. Fitz looks a bit slower, but he generally has nowhere to go.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:38 PM ^
Ummm. Rawls is averaging 7 yds per carry. Compared to Fitzs' 3.3. He has half as many yds and TD's, with a quarter of the carries. I agree we don't have a large sample size ( this is why it's so aggravating ), but why? Fitz has shown us nothing this year. He dances in the backfield, waiting for massive holes that don't, and won't exist, instead of taking 2-3 yds when he can. He has lost a total of 32 yds for us, Rawls has lost 2.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:49 PM ^
Do you really think it is fair to compare the back that is in for the majority of the competitive game with the one that plays mainly at the end in when the game is locked up?
I think that Toussaint has had issues, especially early on. But I think he has gotten better and has started running more North-South. I also like some of what Rawls has shown. But I do not think that you can directly compare the 2 based on their statistics.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:05 PM ^
No, I don't think you can simply say that Rawls is better because he has a better YPC. However, I think it is fair to say that our starting RB hasn't done well all season and our back-up has at least shown flashes of competency so why not give him more of a shot? I haven't complained about Borges like many have, but this is a sticking point with me.
Give Rawls 1/3 of the carries in a game, see how he does. Don't give him 2 or 3, but you don't have to make him the starter either. Give him the second quarter, say, and see how he does. Or alternate drives between the two for the first half. If there's no difference, or if Fitz gets rolling, stick with Fitz. There's really no risk in that instance. But If Rawls is rolling, then you might have a solution.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:42 PM ^
With Minnesota this week, hopefully we'll see something similar to what you're proposing. I'd imagine it's not easy to commit a quarter of play to Rawls during MSU and Nebraska (even if that might be the most logical choice) when I think everyone is expecting Toussaint to break into 2011 form at any moment.
I'd also add that we should shred Minnesota with Denard, and I hope Denard's playing time reflects that. Bellomy needs the reps and Denard needs rest.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:44 PM ^
Rawls HAS gotten chances in meaningful situaitons: Against Alabama - he stunk. That's 'Bama, fine, but against Illinois, he didn't distinguish himself either, until the game was completely decided. I was near the Illinois bench and trust me - those guys didn't care by the end of that game. This stupid fake debate is the Mike Cox thing all over again, except scale back the talent level.
Rawls has only done well in easy situations, and Fitz has beaten him out in practice the last 2 years.
Fitz is clearly the superior back and every carry that Rawls takes, that a healthy and rested Toussaint could otherwise take, is a big-play opportunity lost. It's not quite a bunt, but it's the same concept.
The offense is struggling, pulling Toussaint isn't going to fix that anymore than pulling Denard was the answer when the passing game struggled. Doesn't calling for the backup RB remind anyone of the people who were calling for the backup QB when Denard struggled, based on spring game/garbage time impressions?
October 29th, 2012 at 8:22 PM ^
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. No, you cannot directly compare their stats, but as WLA stated above, he HAS shown flashes of a legit downhill RB. He just hasn't been given much of a shot. He played great against Purdue, albeit in cleanup time, but that entire game was cleanup time, and Fitz couldn't do a damn thing. I would just love to see him actually get a chance take show what he can do in a big game situation. Fitz has had plenty of opportunities in every situation ( both big game and cleanup, and neither have looked much different ). Give Thomas a chance, 5-10 meaningful carries a game. If he outplays Fitz, replace his ass. I'm def not all for leaving a struggling player in just because,"OMGZ BUT HE WAS SOO SUPER SIIIC LAST YEAR."
Edit: srry, little confusing. This was supposed to be a reply to WolvLA
October 29th, 2012 at 9:02 PM ^
Rawls DID have a chance to show what he could do. Against Alabama.
The entire Purdue game was not cleanup time. What an asinine remark. They very clearly sold out to stop Fitz and left Denard wide open to run all over them, as was covered multiple times. Pay attention, dammit.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:32 PM ^
Well, I was just trying to make a joke. However, to some extent I agree but at the same time I don't think there is any one person or personnel group to blame here.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:41 PM ^
I agree, it is a combo of quite a few different things. But the OP doesn't even acknowledge that one of these problems may be the RB. Rawls hasn't seemed to have much of a problem all when given a chance, though.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^
or last year, Devin Gardner.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:16 PM ^
I think it is both blocking and scheme, but I think it also has to do with the defense selling out to stop our ground attack.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^
Exactly.
Our receivers have not been stepping up. Dropping balls, not getting open. Until the passing starts improving there is no penalty for opposing defense not to put 7 guys in the box and blitz.
Oh how we miss Junior Hemingway.
October 29th, 2012 at 7:19 PM ^
100% on Hemingway. He could make plays down field and we don't have that at all anymore.
October 29th, 2012 at 7:08 PM ^
I agree one of the big issues is too many defenders in the box since teams would rather have Denard pass than run.
The blocking issues that I have seen have been more due to one lineman not recognizing what the defense has done and blocking the wrong guy versus not being big and strong enough. Many times if a lineman had picked the right guy of two to block it could have broken a big play. I figure it's because Mealer and Barnum don't have that much game experience and have been hoping to see it improve as we go. I didn't watch closely against MSU or Neb.
I think Fitz has looked better as far as running North-South the last few games.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:19 PM ^
The scheme, the scheme, the scheme.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:19 PM ^
Barnum and Omameh rarely blow linemen out of holes. The two of them and Schofield operate much better in space against linebackers.
Most of our running plays also develop pretty damn slowly, so it's also that they have trouble sustaining drive blocks in addition to making them.
I'm really hoping Chris Bryant and Kyle Kalis win the guard spots next year for this reason.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:22 PM ^
October 29th, 2012 at 6:27 PM ^
Joey Brzynski and Graham Glasgow, mostly. I know that doesn't sound daunting, but those guys (along with Miller) have looked pretty solid in garbage time despite being young. An extra year of S&C and practice reps for those two and I bet at least one of them gives Bryant and Kalis a run for their money. In addition to them, I bet Blake Bars and Kyle Bosch (who is enrolling early) could give some push at the interior spots.
Our interior OL won't be that thin next year. It's the tackles that will be a concern (assuming Lewan doesn't come back).
October 29th, 2012 at 6:50 PM ^
No one on the interior OL next year will ever have started before. The presumed starters at OG will have not played a single down of college football. Their backups will be walk-ons.
Miller is a huge key, but he's the 3rd or 4th choice at OC right now - not a great sign.
The interior OL will be extremely, painfully, perhaps devistatingly thin on experience.
That's why I think Gardner's going to be the QB next year. You can roll with a true freshman QB, but not behind a rookie OL.
October 29th, 2012 at 7:01 PM ^
I never said they'd be stars, just that we won't be that thin.
Although experience is a good thing, it's not the only important aspect. It's no uncommon for linemen to have success their first year as a starter, if they have talent, and I'm willing to bet at least three of them do. Kalis was billed as being college ready this year, so he'll probably be one. And the coaches were almost ready to start Brzynski in Mealer's spot this fall. It might not be those two, but between them and who beats them out, they will be just fine.
October 29th, 2012 at 7:19 PM ^
Burzynski has looked quite capable in the games he has played this year, including when subbing for an injured player during meaningful parts of the game. To my untrained eye, he's looked at least as solid as the starters, and I haven't seen him miss a block. Miller has looked ok.
I've been dreading next year's OL for a long time now. However at this point, I"m not that worried about the guards and center since I think we'll have a reasonable group to choose from Bryant, Kalis, Miller, Burzynski and Bars. The biggest negative is that it will be a whole new group with no chemistry. Since this years play has not been great it won't be a big downgrade. Replacing Lewan would be scary. I sure hope a redshirt freshman Magnuson approaches the redshirt freshman Lewan (minus the penalties).
I agree we need to start Devin Gardner due to his playmaking ability. We don't have the elite players at the other positions for a game manager like I perceive Bellomy to be. I expect Gardner will do ok as the year goes on next year.
October 29th, 2012 at 7:25 PM ^
the OL and Devin have a really favorable early schedule next year: CMU, ND, Akron, @UConn, Bye, Minnesota before heading to State College against a team that will be better than expected, but still depleted, after that it's IU and a bye before MSU and the heart of the division schedule plus Ohio.
We should be heavily favored against everyone but ND in the first six weeks, which should make it easier on the new guys.
October 29th, 2012 at 8:01 PM ^
If by just fine you mean having the same problem that we're complaining about now.
The interior OL may not get worse, but it will still probably be a weak point and is unlikely to be a whole lot better until 2014 when these young guys develop.
October 29th, 2012 at 8:03 PM ^
Yes, I mean the same problem we're complaining about now. I wasn't saying they'll be great, but they won't be the disaster a lot of people are auggesting. They'll be a competent and not much better OL.
October 30th, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^
My most optimistic thought is that guys like Kalis and Magnuson will be like watching Ross at LB. Very young but so much more talented that it goes ok. 2014 and on will be lots of fun!
October 29th, 2012 at 5:28 PM ^
October 29th, 2012 at 5:31 PM ^
Especially the one play that looks like a stretch play. I don't know the techincal definition, but it is where the RB runs to the right and looks for a cutback where there is none.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:10 PM ^
October 29th, 2012 at 5:29 PM ^
The defense might have enough "bullets," but the offense has been predictable. When the defense tips its hand pre-play week after week, you need to give your players other ways to succeed. In the spread they have constraint plays. This coaching staff has made it clear they hate the spread, but it has been irresponsible of Borges not to equip his QB with checks or to call two plays in the huddle based on the defense. While Borges isn't at Debord level zone left twice and pass, it hasn't been much better. I can't see a rhyme or reason to his offense most weeks. There's no reason IMO that playmakers like Jeremy Gallon don't see the ball more, that Norfleet isn't getting more of a chance as a slot/rb hybrid player or that Rawls isn't getting more time in power formations. I realize having Denard makes it tough to get everyone involved at times, but that's why they pay you the big bucks. I'm not begging for a return to up-tempo spread, but this offense annoys me almost as much as Rodriguez era defense. The biggest irk is that in a system like Borges', you marvel when the line succeeds and when players make plays because they aren't being put in the best situations to succeed IMO.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:58 PM ^
He hasn't been DeBord predictable, but there've been playcalls (to me) that look like the equivalent of taking a knee, or running the clock out. It feels like the offensive philosophy has been bend-don't-break against good defenses. The opening drive against Sparty is a case in point. 1st and 10: qb run right for a loss (plus penalty,) 2nd and 19: qb run up the middle for 1 yard, 3rd and 18: outside run left back to original los. Punt. Sparty lined up in tight coverage and sold out on the run (like everybody in America knew they would) and Borges countered with run play after run play, and when that didn't work, they just did it again anyways. Why? It doesn't feel like we're running the ball because its what we're good at, it feels like we're running the ball because at least it isn't throwing. Not a good way to go about trying to win the B1G Championship IMHO. I like playing to win, I can't stand playing to not lose.
October 29th, 2012 at 7:40 PM ^
Can't have it both ways. Against Alabama Borges introduced a varied and unpredictable gameplan that Alabama throttled by being more talented at every part of the field. Brian made numerous remarks griping about the lack of Denard running.
So Denard runs "predictably" and people gripe.
October 30th, 2012 at 12:36 AM ^
You're like the 100th person to say this and I hate it everytime because not running Denard at all and complaining about it doesn't mean you should only run Denard. You have to find a common balance and it doesn't ever seem like we do that. Sometimes it changes drive to drive with run all the time then pass all the time.
October 30th, 2012 at 3:32 PM ^
I didn't say anything about Denard, you saw what you wanted to in what I wrote. Worth noting that against Alabama we knew they had a dominant front 7, were dedicated to stopping the run, and then ran up the middle over and over again anyways. We ran Vincent Smith directly at their front 7 to no effect throughout the entire game. Later in the game, after it already had gotten absolutley nowhere through 2 quarters, I remember Smith up the middle: no gain. Next play Smith: up the middle again! No gain again! Back to back fucking dives up the middle by Smith made no sense. Running it at them between the tackles at all was kind of an odd choice at all, considering it was the weakest part of our offense versus the best defensive front in America. It felt like Borges was saying Do this until you get it right. Those plays got us absolutely nowhere, yet he kept calling it.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:44 PM ^
We need pro style linement plain and simple. What really hurt is coach Hoke not taking any linemen of his own in the 2011 class. It's going to be some time until we have a line that can get done what this offense needs to get done, and that is running the football with a rb and fb.
Also, here is to hoping Lewan stays and one of Braden/Magnuson take the right tackle spot. Schofield needs to be at guard.
October 29th, 2012 at 5:50 PM ^
This is the same scheme that made Ronnie Hillman a star. It is not an incompetent system. It is not lack of talent. It is consistent execution. It is diligence.... excellence over a long period of time.
We've shown flashes, but even Lewan plays up and down. Even Denard. It has been frustrating to watch, but nothing appears broken as I see it.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:52 PM ^
because SDSU played 7 defenses that were statistically worse than Michigan"s worst D of all time + an FBS school.
Borges is a West Coast offense guy and Bill Walsh, who is credited with creating the offense, says it takes 3 to 4 years to perfect. IMO, this is the stupidest offense you can install in college where the stars stay 3 maybe 4 years. Ask Nebraska fans who experienced Bill Callahan and the WCO before Pellini what they think of it.
October 29th, 2012 at 9:55 PM ^
plays fairly frequently in the NFL too? Because the Broncos are an FBS school?
Just because Walsh says it takes 3 years to perfect doesn't mean you can't effectively run the offense in college. I can't think of any offense that you can perfect in 2 years. It's not like spread offenses are perfectly executed by teams 2 years into the system.
You cite one case of a college WCO not working. You can do that for any offense out there. BYU ran a WCO to great success in the early 1970s, Boise ran a WCO pretty well recently.
Finally, it's not clear to me that Borges runs a Walsh-style WCO. I haven't seen a whole lot of 3-5 step drops and short routes. If anything, Borges seems to favor a passing game closer to an "Air Coryell" or vertical offense, the style favored by Norv Turner and Cam Cameron, which focuses on frequently sending at least 2 guys deep.
October 31st, 2012 at 12:00 AM ^
How many college teams in major divisions in the past decade have had success with an "Air Coryell"/vertical offense that you think Borges wants to implement? (I assume you will grant me that Borges' 2001 Cal team, his 2002 and 2003 Indiana teams, and his Auburn teams (putting aside the first year, inherited team with seniors Jason Campbell, Ronnie Brown, and Cadillac Williams) do not qualify as successes.) I just do not see the model we are aiming for, or the reason why his offense will show progression here, when it has shown regression at every other stop. But I'm interested in your take on WCOs, as it obvious that Hoke/Brandon would rather eat glass than admit that a spread offense could be "Michigan football."
October 31st, 2012 at 4:30 PM ^
Coryell himself started the offense at SDSU and won a bunch of games, but that's not recent (late 1960s). Interestingly enough, wikipedia lists the 1995-2007 Michigan Wolverines as running a version of it, but I'm not sure about that. It's modern college appex is probably something like the recent USC offenses, where you have a pocket cannon and guys running deep. If you want see the goal, I think something like Cam Cameron's offense is a good model. I think that the system, in theory, can work just fine in college. But you might well be right that Borges is not good at implementing it. So the system I think he has in mind isn't horrible, but it's yet to be determined whether he's any good at installing it (and you're right, there is some evidence that he isn't good at installing it).
WCO in general I think is kinda a useless term, just like "spread offense." There are so many variants of Walsh's system that it's kinda pointless to use the term anymore. Passing spreads like Northwestern that use lots of short hitches and slants look like a WCO to me, even though they often have 4 or 5 wide. Brian Billick said, (rightly, IMHO)
"There’s no such thing as a West Coast offense anymore. It doesn’t exist . . .Everyone has taken different bits and pieces of it and its morphed into a number of different things. He may use some of the West Coast verbage but even the most ardent of west coast guys who came directly from the Walsh lineage whether its be via Holmgren to Andy Reid to Jon Gruden, they’ve all evolved it and it’s morphed into different forms almost like the Dungy 2 or Tampa 2, everyone uses a form of it. To identify a team like that, it’s kind of a misnomer because everyone is doing it."
There are systems using West Coast principles (pass to set up the run, percision timing routes) that I'm sure would be a pain in the ass to install in college, but I'm not sure Borges system is one of them.
October 31st, 2012 at 4:32 PM ^
Coryell himself started the offense at SDSU and won a bunch of games, but that's not recent (late 1960s). Interestingly enough, wikipedia lists the 1995-2007 Michigan Wolverines as running a version of it, but I'm not sure about that. It's modern college appex is probably something like the recent USC offenses, where you have a pocket cannon and guys running deep. If you want see the goal, I think something like Cam Cameron's offense is a good model. I think that the system, in theory, can work just fine in college. But you might well be right that Borges is not good at implementing it. So the system I think he has in mind isn't horrible, but it's yet to be determined whether he's any good at installing it (and you're right, there is some evidence that he isn't good at installing it).
WCO in general I think is kinda a useless term, just like "spread offense." There are so many variants of Walsh's system that it's kinda pointless to use the term anymore. Passing spreads like Northwestern that use lots of short hitches and slants look like a WCO to me, even though they often have 4 or 5 wide. Brian Billick said, (rightly, IMHO)
"There’s no such thing as a West Coast offense anymore. It doesn’t exist . . .Everyone has taken different bits and pieces of it and its morphed into a number of different things. He may use some of the West Coast verbage but even the most ardent of west coast guys who came directly from the Walsh lineage whether its be via Holmgren to Andy Reid to Jon Gruden, they’ve all evolved it and it’s morphed into different forms almost like the Dungy 2 or Tampa 2, everyone uses a form of it. To identify a team like that, it’s kind of a misnomer because everyone is doing it."
There are systems using West Coast principles (pass to set up the run, percision timing routes) that I'm sure would be a pain in the ass to install in college, but I'm not sure Borges system is one of them.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:09 PM ^
Like someone said Toussaint seems maybe a little heavier and slower than last year. He certainly doesn't hit the holes like Rawls does. Rawls must have some issues or he would be playing some. I know it seems Borges is pretty stuborn and not really creative but after awhile when a guy isn't getting the job done the head coach has to start asking questions.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:14 PM ^
October 29th, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^
Does the word "donkey" mean anything to you?
I'm as mystified as you are about Rawls on the goal line. Toussaint has more power than a guy his size and style would lead you to believe, but we've got a few horses.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:18 PM ^
You don't see Fitz pushing his lineman through and manufacturing blocks. And yes, he dances around in the backfield way too much. Watch LSU RBs play, that is how you run the ball.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:23 PM ^
I think this problem is certainly fixable. Hopefully the Minnesota defense is just what the doctor ordered. Fitz has to get going, and we need to pose some sort of deep threat to keep opposing teams from continuing to load the box.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that this year was going to be more of a transition to the power type running that Hoke wants to see? I definitely thought we would see more of it but apparently either they feel they're not good enough at it or they'd like to transition after Denard all mighty graduates. Either way something's gotta give. This offense is too talented to be held Touchdown-less for 8 quarters.
Thoughts?
October 29th, 2012 at 7:18 PM ^
At least on the ground, I think the part of the east-west issue is the run blocking. I looked at some of my own game notes just now - if we use the plays called for Toussaint as an example, the calls themselves actually are not bad overall, but you have to execute at the LOS, of course.
In the MSU game for example, there were numerous isolation plays which could have been quite successful if the creases were wider and Bullough was not a compentent linebacker. Even for Illinois and Purdue, we ran a lot of inside zone with Toussaint, and in those two games, the biggest gain was 6 yards on any one of them. Off-tackle plays were working better in those two games, but only one went for more than ten yards. I think this looks better if lanes are open, but they aren't opening wide or consistently.
Conventional WCO thinking, as I understand it, is to use short passes to spread out the defense in order to open up the running game potentially (or present a deep threat in the passing game), and it seems like, and this point, don't have all the pieces developed or in place I think we all expected that, of course.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:29 PM ^
For some reason, many of Michigan's plays (both running and passing) are extremely slow to develop. It got even worse when Bellomy came into the game as well.
When it comes down to it, the offense has a lot of problems right now
- Receivers aren't getting any separation, even when the DB's aren't pressing them at the LOS. Plus they are rounding off their routes.
- A couple above posters mentioned it, but the running game just seems way to horizontal. I don't understand it, and I'm not sure why Rawls isn't seeing time when he seems like one that would at least fall forward/fight for yards.
- The offensive line is struggling massively. I don't know if it's Molk/Huyge being underrated, or what the answer is.
The worst part of the game, for me at least, was watching the team fall apart after Denard went out with his nerve injury. A lot of people (myself included) were critical of Russell but he wasn't given a fair chance by anyone on O.
Beat the Gophers!