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 6:31 PM ^
One donkey hating lineman isn't going to cut it at all.....that is the biggest problem. No ability to drive block with this group, just the way it is right now. Schofield to me is a guard and had much better success inside last year but he is needed outside this year.
Barnum/Pat O just dont get that drive block we are looking for and are usually a yard in the backfield when they even try it.
But for me all in all it comes back to Denard and his inability to keep a defense honest with his arm. With that said I do think the constant long developing pass plays Borges is in love with dont seem to hit paydirt to often Teams are willing to spy Denard and just sit and wait for him to take off.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:34 PM ^
Yeah - the truth is that our OL just really isn't that good. They aren't. Lewan is awesome, but our second best OL might be Mealer, and no offense at all to him, but that's not a good sign.
It's won't be better next year either, but 2014 and beyond should be very good years on the OL for us. I'm happy none of our 2012 recruits had to burn redshirts this year (KNOCK ON WOOD).
October 29th, 2012 at 8:55 PM ^
Either Borges or Funk deserve most of the blame for our OL not performing. Look at what our former OL coach has accomplished with Indiana's OL. Are you telling me that he has more to work with at Indiana than we have here at Michigan? Just as our supposedly poor defensive players turned around quickly with competent/very good coaching, it is possible for things to change the other way. I don't know why people simply want to give Borges and the offensive assistants all a pass, because of one positive season in the Mountain West (against abysmal competition), or a 2004 Auburn team with first round picks in the complete backfield.
October 29th, 2012 at 9:22 PM ^
What has been accomplished at Indiana? They lost to Navy and Ball State. They're 72nd in the country in rushing, even though they've played all of 2 (maybe) good defenses. Let's not get too braggy about Indiana just yet.
October 31st, 2012 at 12:19 AM ^
I haven't watched them play, but they put up 30 against Navy, 27 against Michigan State, 39 against Ball State (in the loss you mention), and 49 against Ohio State. Does Indiana have more talent than Michigan on offense? Do they have more highly recruited and talented OL than we do? I find that hard to believe. But they do have our former OL coach, and they likely have better coaching in general on offense. Moreover, Indiana is putting up with these numbers starting a true freshman at QB. Yet people are saying that years of QB regression or stagnation are excusable in Borges' offense, and we should wait until a chosen one receives years of tutelage in his arcane system before we evaluate. I think the years of failure and regression at Borges' previous stops bode ill for us, and we are seeing ample evidence of that right now. We can dance around it, and make excuses, and say things like: he's been doing this for year -- did he forget how to coach? I would say this our current regression is consistent with his previous coaching stints, and Greg Robinson had far more ammunition to make the argument that previous successes (four Rose Bowl wins, two Super Bowl wins) should drown out recent failures.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:48 PM ^
Also, I don't recall a run from a TB that hit the hole like he was running down hill. Seems like I recall a plethora of dance, dance, juke, juke, tackled
October 30th, 2012 at 1:12 AM ^
The only one that really comes to mind my is Toussaint's long run against MSU. He was patient waiting for a hole to open, found a little crease, took and burst into the second level and was gone.
October 29th, 2012 at 7:03 PM ^
October 29th, 2012 at 8:03 PM ^
I think "disarray" is an overstatement. Drawing conclusions about what would have happened against Nebraska by extrapolating from a quarter and a half of Denard is fundimentally flawed thinking.
So the complaint is really over low scoring in the MSU game. One low scoring game does not equal disarray. Especially when it was by design a conservative plan. IU ran a wide open offense against MSU because they have no defense, so if they did not score 40, they had no chance to win- so a high risk, high reward style makes sense.
(by the way, Indiana lost despite all those points, we won with the offense in "disarray"- so I will take our strategy)
As for Borges not adapting, look at the offensive plans for Alabama, Notre Dame, Purdue, and MSU. There are 4 different offensive plans. You may not like them all, and certainly not all of them worked, but at the least it shows his adaptability in switching up the offense.
October 29th, 2012 at 8:42 PM ^
October 29th, 2012 at 8:48 PM ^
If you look at the Borges' results at his various stops over the past decade, regression or failure is the norm. Cal, Indiana, even Auburn -- his best year was the first, in which he inherited a first round pick at QB, two first round picks at RB, etc., etc. From there, downhill. To every person who is saying it takes 3 or 4 years for Borges to get his system in place, please name a place where that has occurred. Borges' history is one of consistent regression. (And Lindley's 57% completion rate 'success' is, well -- if that's a success to you, and you think we will get W-L results like that in the Big Ten instead of the Mountain West, good luck.)
October 30th, 2012 at 1:20 AM ^
Auburn: You think the regression might have had a little to do with the fact he lost his starting QB and running backs? All of whom were first round draft picks.
Lindley's passer rating his 4 years of college (all 4 years had between 421-447 pass attempts):
2008 (no Borges): 117
2009 (Borges): 123
2010 (Borges): 149
2011 (no Borges): 125
October 29th, 2012 at 7:17 PM ^
Right now, teams are playing us with the "stop Denard from running and pray he misses on his non-short passes."
When Bellamy came in, it was "ditto... now blitz like hell."
We will not be able to run the ball until we get someone who can make defenses pay by hitting those mid-deep/deep level passes. It is then and only then that we will have anything that resembles a decent running game. Until then, we will run into 8-10 man fronts, stare down crazy blitzing schemes when passing, and pray for our defense to score TD's for us...
October 29th, 2012 at 10:39 PM ^
A few posters have noticed this, but I'm surprised more haven't. Michigan's biggest problem on offense is the inability to pass effectively, allowing defenses to sell out to stop the run. Denard is not a great passer and Michigan has no go-to receiver. The receivers are either small, slow, or inexperienced, and when they are open, quite often the QB misses the throw or the receiver drops the ball. If Michigan can show a modicum of competency in the passing game, there will be more room to run and the yards per carry will improve substantially.
October 29th, 2012 at 8:02 PM ^
But then remember that Arizona gave up 618 yards of offense, and was only in it because SC kept turning the ball over. That game was about to look just like Stanford - score a ton of points but still lose. Does that sound familiar?
Arizona is lucky that outside of Oregon, there isn't a great team in the Pac 12, and the overall depth of the conference is below where the Big Ten was in 2008. That, and he has a QB.
October 29th, 2012 at 9:04 PM ^
Yes, we all love Mattison's defense. Is it a moral imperative that we must tie a great defense to a terrible offense? Given that the Humme/Leach/Holgerson/et al. offense can be implemented in weeks (not 3 to 4 years), and show great success quickly, and the same to some extent with respect to spread teams like Arizona (coming off a 4 win season, now putting up huge points on USC, Washington, Ok. State, and Stanford), might we want to think about something other than Al Borges, who hasn't established a consistent, successful offense anywhere in more than a decade? What are we hoping for -- his accomplishments in year 2 at Indiana? Year 3 at Auburn? Year 4 at Auburn? Year 1 at Cal (there was no year 2, etc.)? Which of these is the thing we hope will occur?
October 29th, 2012 at 9:10 PM ^
Spot on
October 29th, 2012 at 10:05 PM ^
Holgo's offense has scored 28 points in their last two games, both of which were blow-out losses. That's 7 more points than we have scored, counting half a game where our star QB was hurt. Calm the fuck down.
October 30th, 2012 at 1:43 AM ^
It's taking Leach a little longer than a few weeks to establish his offense in Pullman. They are 94th in total offense right now.
October 29th, 2012 at 8:01 PM ^
My 11 year old could tackle Fitz clean everytime, I don't know if he has brocken a tackle all season......THOMAS RAWLS please, he is the best option for the TEAM.
October 29th, 2012 at 8:11 PM ^
Defense stacks box. Our predicatble & horrible play calling also are a huge part
October 30th, 2012 at 4:07 PM ^
Seeing as how YOU have it all worked out...maybe YOU should give Borges a call and tell him what he's doing wrong.
*cough* douche bag *cough*
No offense.
October 29th, 2012 at 8:17 PM ^
Fitz is running hard, I get that part of what Hoke sees. I also understand that Hoke is not the kind of coach to speak to the skill positions as much as the action in the trenches. But when's the last time you saw Fitz get a single yard that wasn't there for the taking for any average back? At least Rawls can run through guys and get a few yards tacked on at the end. Fitz was so shifty in space last year and developed some really nice vision. What happened?
I'm tired of hearing about it too, but at some point we have to give Rawls a shot. The differential between Denard and Fitz ypc can only be explained partially from a shematics standpoint. There are many times where it's undeniable that the difference is talent. I see Denard time and time again make something out of nothing. I haven't seen that at all from Fitz this year. I know Denard >> Fitz, but I'd still expect SOME playmaking ability from our RB....
October 29th, 2012 at 9:13 PM ^
I really think Borges' scheme has become too one-dimensonal... When we have run out of the shotgun, we always seem to resort to a designed QB run, a zone read, or a run to Fitz in which he starts at the left hash mark, for example, and will run all the way to the opposite side of the field only to lose five yards. Borges really needs to mix it up by putting Denard under center more and running Fitz less from the shotgun. When we take it under center, Denard (proven by ESPN analysts) is a more comfortable and more reliable passer, and Fitz doesn't end up losing five yards. This allows us to comfortably transition into a more pro style, west coast offense which is beneficial to players like Bellomy who aren't traditional spread offense QBs. Just a thought.
October 29th, 2012 at 9:23 PM ^
October 29th, 2012 at 9:38 PM ^
Come on, blaming it on the line is ridiculous. The gameplan put forth by Borges was horrible. Does he think Nebraska, or any other team, does not watch game film? I mean, running Vincent Smith of Fitz on every 1st or 2nd down is not going to win games. Furthermore, if he is going to do that, change up the formation. Borges play calling was atrocious. I realize last week his gameplan was to have Denard avoid costly mistakes by only running. But Michigan scored 45 against practically the same defense last year. Borges, what are you doing?
October 29th, 2012 at 10:22 PM ^
I think losing Molk has been the biggest difference by far. Molk was the best center in the country and made all the players around him better. With him, he and our other linemen were able to block into the second level and create more room for Fitz and Denard to get going upfield. Now this year pass protection has been decent but still not as good as last year. Also I wonder if this year's schedule has had something to do with it. Last year we had the first 5 games at home against lesser opponents with the exception of ND. This allowed them to create a chemistry on the field that would establish them as a good line as the tougher opponents came our way. This year we got thrown right into the fire on a neutral field vs Alabama and a few weeks later on the road at ND. Maybe it's just my idea but maybe this affected their confidence right off the bat.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:44 PM ^
I agree molk is a big loss, not saying mealer has been bad but he isnt going to win the rimington this year.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:32 PM ^
My guess is that Fitz is outperforming Rawls in practice. I'd like to see Fitz get more physical at times but a the same time the OL has not done very well in the design zone run blocking. Robinson is so fast he makes quick runs up the middle and once he's in free space he's picking up some big yardage.
IMO...the D is way ahead of the O and it will probably take a few more years of infusing new talent to become a good RB team.October 30th, 2012 at 12:41 AM ^
I was at the Nebraska game, and they were reading off the Michigan offensive line starting lineup. Most of UM's guys upfront are 6-5 or taller and 305+ lbs. This drew some "wow"s and "wuh!"s from the Husker fans around me. I was shocked because we all know about the Husker weight room history (Rimington, Steinhkuhler, etc.). Nebraska has a big OL too, but an equally impressive tradition of great OL players dating back to Devaney.
Anyway, Michigan's OL is not undersized. They are not inexperienced by any measure. I also believe they are pretty talented and quick by Big Ten standards, but certainly not elite NFL level across the board.
There's just not a whole lot of counter-punch in Michigan's rushing playbook to the defensive over-pursuit we saw 2 weeks ago by MSU and last Saturday by Nebraska. Against a player like Denard Robinson and a WR like Roy Roundtree, for example, defenses should immediately pay a price for such over-commitment. But it's not happening, or the plays are just not being called.
When Fitz was tackled for another loss on a 3rd and short, it finally hit me.
Misdirection, finesse and counter have been shelved in favor of finding the winner of the Oklahoma Drill, which might put hair on the chest, but no yards in the books and no points on the board.
Even Schembechler, who reviled in long sustained drives and the physical demoralization of opponents, installed and embraced the merits of deception and counter with the triple option offense back in 1972-1973, and the play action pass in 1977, 1980 and 1985 with some impressive results.
Fitz looks hesitant to me. Rawls is so hungry and hits the hole really hard. He's also a punishing runner. He reminds me of a Che Foster except with Jesse Johnson wheels.
Maybe Borges has genuinely tried, but it hasn't been working out in practice. So he gets freaked and decides it's basic stuff at game time?
October 30th, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^
I think a lot of us are underestimating how badly losing Molk hurts this offense. I got a chance to talk to a coworker last night, who happened to be a center in college. He explained a lot of intricacies of offensive line play to me.
As the center is calling out the blocking scheme/assignments before the snap, a lot of offensive success hinges on him getting things right. My coworker said that it wasn't until his junior season that he felt like the techniques of playing O line were completely instinctual (holding his block, feeling the D lineman's coming move to counter it, and looking into the second level). And that it wasn't until his senior year that he really understood/excelled at playing center. This was after backing up at guard and tackle to learn those positions.
As an aside, when he finished school he was rated as the 6th best center in his draft class even though he was coming out of division II. He decided not to try for the pros. Also, Brian Kelly was an assistant coach on his team. Kelly is as much of an ass as he appears on TV.
October 30th, 2012 at 12:16 PM ^
It's not our scheme. It's our players. We don't zone very well, and when we do, the backs don't hit the holes. Fitz doesn't run down hill like he needs to. He dances and wastes time in the hole. If he would at least run forward he'd at least get 2-3 yards a play, and if you combined that with some good zone blocking, we'd break one every now and then.
Edit: To restate that a little bit... it's our players who aren't performing in the running game, Fitz especially. It's our coaching that's implimenting the scheme and responsible for teaching it. I'm tired of Borgus.
October 30th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^
Read what Hoke said in the presser. The OL, and to some extent the WR's, aren't holding their blocks. Some of that is obviously technique, and some is talent. I am 100% confident that the coaching staff is working very hard on improving the OL's technique. But, there is very little that can be done to improve talent level. If the players are getting the proper technique coaching -- which I assume they are -- and their still not able to perform those techniques effectively, there isn't much a coach can do aside from benching the player -- but, this doesn't seem to be an option with the current OL depth situation.
Maybe there is a schematic issue, one that could be putting the OL at a disadvantage, or not playing to their strengths. But, one also has to take into consideration the schematic issues that Denard creates.
Personally, I think they're really missing Molk and Huyge, their technically not all that great, and the opposition is really selling out on the run because they're not afraid of Denard's arm.
October 30th, 2012 at 8:55 PM ^
WCO coach: spread option personnel. Be patient.
October 30th, 2012 at 9:14 PM ^
That was downright embarassing Sat!
October 31st, 2012 at 4:42 AM ^
Look at KSU. After Snyder retired the program plummeted. Only 2 and 3 star players were recruited. Some how Snyder has molded these players into the number 2 team in the country. On paper Michigan has more talent than KSU but I compare both OL and the lesser talented KSU OL just dominates the line of scrimmage. Our OL often gets dominated by better D. Snyder has a knack of picking some talented young coaches to join his staff. Much like what he did during the 90s and up through 2003.