Mlive OL Talk with Hoke
Nothing earth shattering but since this unit's development probably swings 2-3 swing games to wins v losses this year obviously it is under the microscope. One interesting thing is - in light of some discussion I saw on another thread about Magnuson at LT, pushing Cole back to his "more natural" guard position - that does not seem to be the plan. Hoke says Cole is the backup LT, despite what some here were opining. At 6'5 I don't see why some think he has too small of a frame to play tackle but maybe I misread the comments.
Some positive things about Kugler growing physically but sounds like Glasgow is the C which is more than fine by me - experience matters. Take away the STARZ and one could argue Glasgow is the most sure thing coming back on the line.
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/07/michigans_graham_glas…
Good to hear that Braden finished spring at the top for the RT position. Hopefully he can hold onto it and he can start tapping that huge potential that comes with his frame/body type. I personally would like Glasgow at center this year, because identifying who's who on the D is incredibly critical to the zone blocking scheme, and the experience Glasgow has will be critical. As for a whole, while very young, at least eveyone except Braden has starting experience. So, yeah, I'll use that to bolster my hopes. What I really hope is that, unlike the last two years, the coaches can actually identify who will be best where early in the fall so everyone can rep a lot before the start of the season. Really don't want to see any switches/shuffling again.
Game experience yo!
From an age / eligibility standpoint, that's true of several players, but if it is thought about from a stability / experience standpoint, it's sort of an accurate description. Almost regardless of how long they've physically been here, they all began more or less on the same first page when Nussmeier walked in the door, and several of them are now learning their second (perhaps third if we assume that Denard / post-Denard by itself represents a philosophical shift) offense.
I think we're looking at a different projected starting line. I thought it looks like, Magnuson, Bosch, Glasgow, Kalis, Braden. That's RS So (3rd year), true So (2nd year), RS Junior (4th year), RS So (3rd year), RS So (3rd year). Compared to last year, there's more starting experience as a whole across the line, but with only one upperclassman, that's still a young line to me.
It is still young. Generally elite lineman like a Long or Backus or Lewan get started as RS SO (3rd year in program). The more traditional guys backup as RS SO and then you slide them in as a RS JR as a starter.
So if our 3 RS SO are all elite than I guess it makes sense but reality is, they are not all going to be Long Hutchinson Lewan Backus. And those guys were different players as RS JR or RS SRs than they were as RS SOs. Not hard to remember as it was not long ago Lewan making dumb plays with his temper etc as a RS SO.
If you are throwing one true SO out there with a bunch of 4th/5th year players or 2 3rd year players with three 4th/5th it is one thing as they cover for each other to a degree. But there is no such luxury.
On the plus side 2015 should be the year we can stop being "welp" about this situation.
Yeah, if the OL can take a good step forward this year, then man, 2015 and 2016 looks like it could have monster OLs.
Yup, 2-3 deep at every OL position of mostly 4* recruits. Should be fun to watch, but I agree, 2014 must be a year that we see it start to happen.
If you're gong to look at Michigan's offensive line objectively, then you have to measure the real experience they've had in actual football games.
I believe I read a statistics on ESPN which stated that UM's projoected offensive line starters has only 37 starts in their careers--and all those weren't at their likely positions going into the 2014 season.
Erik Magnuson, for example, is projected to play left tackle, but the seven starts he made last season were at guard (and for the record, he's coming off surgery and didn't participate in spring practice). If he and Braden are the two tackles, these will be their first starts at those two respective positions.
Successful college football teams have talent, depth AND experience across the board. Michigan's 2014 defense can largely say that at this point, but the offensive and the offensive line aren't there yet--certainly not on the experience side.
By the start of 2015 season, that situation should get flip flopped. More players will be moving into the upperclassman ranks and they'll carry actual game experience with them as they get older and more mature. The only projected starter that will be lost on the offense next year will likely be Devin Gardner--barring injury, etc., 10 of 11 players who started games in 2014 could well be back the following year.
If preseason projections hold up we will probably lose both Devins on offense. But yes. 2015 will be well stocked with experience on offense. On defense we will have a similar situation - a few more bodies leaving but only 2 key losses imo, JMFR and Mr. Clark. Otherwise M will be heavy in experience and talent going at least 2 deep in most positions.
A comment like this really brings to light just how young and imbalanced the roster has been (especially around the line). When the three RS SO, a true SO and an RS JR on the OL aren't considered young, that says something. Especially with a true FR as backup LT.
There will be some younger lines, and they need to develop and play well, but it is still a young group.
You have to consider that OL almost always redshirts, so you can pretty much lop off one year. If you look at the starts you have:
LT: Magnuson - 7 starts, 0 at LT
LG: Bosch - 3 starts
C: Glasgow - 13 starts, 9 at C
RG: Kalis - 8 starts
RT: Ben Braden - 0 starts
So that's 31 starts total, just 20 at their current positions this year, or 6 starts/man or 5 starts/man at current positions. So, maybe "young" isn't technically the correct term as much as "inexperienced" which by most objective measures is completely true.
I agree, Glasgow's experience will help a ton. I really think that moving him all over the line during the spring was a VERY SMART move by the coaches. The benefits of moving him around should help the whole line come game time. As I see it moving him around got other centers (Miller, Kugler) more reps to help them improve, BUT most importantly it should have made Glasgow a much smarter lineman. He got to see the defense from various offensive line positions in the spring. This will help him become an even better center, because the Center is the quarterback of the offensive line. With so many young lineman it will be a great to have a center who can help out the whole line before the snap of the ball.
is get the 5 best lineman on the field. Graham is the best lineman on the team and I've seen him play from LG - RT pretty well and I would assume he could get plugged in at LT as well. That means when he comes back from suspension for Notre Dame, you can just replace whoever the weak link is from the App State starting line. Moving Graham around gives the coaches the flexibility to move him wherever he can help the line the most. It also helps in an injury situation, if Mags hurts his shoulder again or Braden goes out, the coaches have the option of putting in Cole or moving Graham to tackle and putting in Kugler/Miller at center.
I'm going to have an optimistic view about the OL for the season based on the interior being more experienced and overall I think the interior OL is more important the two tackle spots if you had to pick one or the other. Also with all the team chemistry stuff that has come out especially recently I have to speculate if this OL group will come together better and wonder if Lewan was a bit of a bully last year.
-- that's what she said! - to be a protypical NFL tackle. Obviously that hasn't prevented others from doing it and transitioning back to guard when the move to the next level. Due to the wealth of bodies at the Guard position I think you could see Cole playing RT in the next few years, particularly if LTT and JBB don't progress from "project" status.
Agree 100%. The constant shuffling was a very bad thing. Sounds like the "hope" is to get it settled by week 2 of camp and let them stick together for the next 2 weeks. I guess unless we hear otherwise it is shaping up to be Braden-Kalis-Glasgow-Bosch-Magnuson as the starting 5.
I think what they did in the spring is if in emergency, break glass and Braden goes down with an injury they might move Glasgow out to RT and then you plug in either Miller or Kugler as the C. There does not seem to be a real backup plan at RT right now unless you take a projected guard like Dawson out there. A guy like Blake Bars you hear almost nothing about so he seems to be ...well not projecting with much upside. The Fox and LTT group still seems a year away as well.
So right now as "backups" for the guards it seems like its Glasgow/Dawson...and at LT Cole, and at RT Glasgow. So there is a lot of Glasgow. I don't know how much Kugler or Miller are training for a backup guard position but I guess we'll see what Funk/Nuss do if a guard struggles or goes down with injury in the not too distant future.
Agree. I'll extend that to the team as a whole as well. Identify the best people early, and rep them so they develop more. We saw the same thing with the defensive secondary (mostly safeties) last year as well.
1. Simpler blocking schemes. Without getting into the blame game re: Borges, the quotes from former players all seem to indicate that Borges' schemes were too diverse and complex for such a young group of OL. If this is true, while our blocking may be more vanilla this year, we should be better than the confused tire fire that we saw last year.
2. Chemistry "issues": who knows what the true story was last year. Too few seniors on the team, a group of bad actors, poor overall team chemistry, Taylor Lewan, whatever. If those issues are gone, we could see a bigger improvement than normal.
3. A solid interior. While it sucks to replace 2 NFL level tackles, I remember seeing something on this blog last season that examined a ton of date (mathlete perhaps?) and concluded that the experience of the interior of the line is more important to team success than the tackles. Forunately, while we are still young across the line, our interior will be comprised of guys who have at least a full season of experience.
4. RB help. Toussaint couldn't block. Green and smith were true freshmen. Hopefully, one lf the two learns to block and pick up a blitz. If one does, that could be a huge help for the OL.
While I agree with #1 in terms of you need to adjust your scheme to your personnel (and it doesnt sound like Borges dumbed it down enough for his interior line) I think the meme of "simplify the offense and it will work out great" is too easy. If it was as simple as that every team would go simple - most teams are actually going complex. Further the more simple your schemes the more easy it is for good defenses to diagnose your plays.
So while I think it is a positive THIS YEAR to keep it simple I hope it goes back to "normal" (maybe not Borges level) in 2015. I am a big believer in Jimmy and Joes over Xs and Os. This "complex scheme" that "was the main reason we sucked" seemed to do fine in 2011 when we had talented experienced linemen. There is a point of diminishing return where you dumb it down to the point the defensive players will be calling out our plays. The advantage of an offense is you know where you are going - the defense doesn't. If it gets so simple that advantage just goes away.
are quite standard, i.e., follow the guards, watch the downblocks for traps, etc., I don't know how going to a zone scheme where changes actually do exist, depending on what the defense does in your assigned area; therefore making communication extremely important and the fact that many more NFL teams are using it as their basic blocking plan indicates it is a "dumb downed" version thereby making more sophisticated plays unlikely.
Borges' problem was he was determined that he was going to use every play that he had included in that week's game plan. The fact that the OL wasn't prepared and had never shown the ability to successfully run it in practice didn't change his mind at all. This does reflect on Brady as well because he should have stopped some of these practices that the laymen could see were, in your words, "making our plays way too predictable for the defense," and that was utilizing the type of blocking you are promoting.
Brady would have and could have taken a 2-0 advantage over Meyer in the second game if he had merely told Al to take the afternoon off during the second half. We repeatedly gained 8-9 yds on a first down pass from Devin - don't ask me why it wasn't ten - but following every successful pass on first down, we couldn't get the one or two yds needed on the next two plays. Not forcing OSU to prove they could stop these easy completions was the biggest reason for that loss, especially seeing how the defense gave up all of 6 points. And if they (OSU) had adjusted to prevent the pass, it's more than likely our attempts at a rushing game would have proven to be more than that, mere attempts.
Zone is simpler in terms of being more adaptable, but provides less scope for personal variety. Man blocking has a wider ability to vary keys, techniques, and looks, but is harder to adjust to a variety of defensive looks.
The reason more NFL teams are going to it is likely a function of the huge amount of defensive looks they see week-to-week. This is a function of how much more NFL teams can implement into their playbook on defense, and how much more NFL offenses put into their passing playbook than most college teams currently do. Trim out some of the passing playbook, and you can focus more time on the run game.
I personally love drawing up plays with man blocking schemes. I do all sorts of crazy things and provide the defense absolutely no hard and fast keys, and in fact make them believe they are reading something completely different. Been in reality, you need to rep that and rep it enough to be able to adjust to different defensive looks. Meyer and Co ran every blocking scheme and more that Michigan ran last year, and they may again this year, but OSU's OL was much more experienced as well.
Agree and think you make some good points. The other catch with 2011 is David Molk at center.
I'd also add maybe a 4b - the blocking by the tight ends wasn't very good either. As much as we all want to see the Oline improve, I'm hoping that there is also improvement from the tight end(s) when it comes to blocking as well.
My feelings were only that Cole would move back inside if both Mags and Cole both played. I think Cole is probably more natural at OG, but at this stage, as Reader71 had said in the other post as well, he doesn't seem strong enough through the legs to be optimal over other players at OG right now either.
But if Cole and Mags aren't both playing, I think Cole is probably the second best LT on roster right now. Some others may have more upside there (again, I think Cole's more natural position is on the interior, similar to Schofield), but he can more than hold his own on the outside if needed.
Agreed on Cole. Tuley-Tillman was/is very raw, and he's really the only other legitimate option for left tackle. Cole looks like a guard long-term, but he has the feet for left tackle and he's not needed (or ready, IMO) for guard at this point.
The Cole thing probably bodes well for the interior. He's a guy that can play both, but Ihe coaches seem to like what they saw out of him at LT so having him back-up or start on the interior instead would be a compromise out of necessity. I take the fact that he'll be backing up LT to mean that the interior is likely further along than expected and has probable starters and back-ups at each.
The thing is this coaching staff has a track record of not being right about the OL in July. Their hopes and desires don't always manifest into reality. Last year, they pegged Miller as the starter at center, the year before there was the Barnum-Mealer flip-flop. I'd take Hoke's early assesment with a couple large grains of salt.
Here is my takeaway: "Hoke has yet to name a starter at any spot".
He more or less said Magnuson and Graham would start and it's clear he values the cohesion/consistency on the interior and views Braden as the leader at RT. However, those comments seem more like a wish than an observation. If Cole or Dawson prove to be one of the best 5 linemen, or one of the presumed starters (Kalis, Bosch, Braden) struggle - they will once again shuffle things around.
Sam Webb isn't buying the "Glasgow won't move around from center too much", he thinks there's absolutely still a chance he moves out to RT. Glasgow is the best Center, but how much better is he than the back-up options? If that difference isn't enough to offset poor play by Braden at RT, there's still a chance he bounces out.
I think Braden has all the ability in the world - size, feet, power - but based on just the spring game, he's inconsistent. The Wolverine preview mentions this - run blocking good, pass blocking needs improvement. I'm guessing the pass pro thing is about assignment and hat-on-a-hat. He was beaten by Clark once or twice, but it also appeared that he let rushers in umolested as the doubled a DT with the guard. Very reminiscent of last year. Maybe that was a problem with the line call or RB, but this might explain why there are still doubts over there.