Monday O Line/Offense Snowflakes Thread and Wisconsin question
While I realize there are other prior snowflake threads, I thought I'd start a new one for today based on a more specific question: What is Wisconsin doing that we can't seem to be able to do? Anyone have Badger fans as friends how might explain how they have been able to consistently run the ball for a decade with minimal or average-at-best over the top or passing threat? Is it that they consistently have upperclassmen O line across the board that just reload every year?
When I first heard Hoke imply we were going back to ManBall, and given our superior recruiting to Wisconsin, I always envisioned the goal state was a Wisconsin 2.0 run game. I.e., what the Badgers do, but even better.
Perhaps some insight on Wisconsin's success can help shed more profound light on the real cause of our own running woes.
September 23rd, 2013 at 10:49 AM ^
Probably because he is bad. He traveled so he's obviously not injured still.
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^
Sam Webb is high on Bryant, and has maintained for a while that his impression was that he likely would have been a starter if not for the knee injury near the end of camp.
The segment I heard this morning had him hinting around a change there. Not based on insider info., but again the end of camp scuttlebutt, and Miller's performance at C so far. Glasgow to C and Bryant to LG are probably real possibilities over the bye.
I've been clamoring for that change, even without having any knowledge of Bryant's play. I also think we need to get Bolden off the field more, and stop the musical chairs at corner. But what the hell do I know
September 23rd, 2013 at 10:50 AM ^
All throughout the offseason, in between discussions about the possibility of Gardner going pro after this year and how Derrick Green was going to rush for 1000 yards by the first bye week, there was a lot of talk about how the inexperience of the interior OL was going to be the primary concern for this team.
Coaches don't want to change an OL lineup unless they have to, I think in large part because experience makes is one of the best paths to improvement. That is what these first 4 games were supposed to do - give the OL experience and time to gel and work a lot of the kinks out before B1G play.
While it seems like they are performing at the low-end of those expectations, opponents have been targeting the middle every single game and they are getting a lot of experience against many different looks.
Also keep in mind that UConn and to a certain extent Akron have been selling out against the run and trying to force DG to beat them through the air. I would too if I saw a mobile QB with lots of turnovers, but that makes a young OL look especially bad vs. going up against a base 3 or 4 man front.
September 23rd, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
Melvin Gordon III is an absolute beast.
Outside of that, they've run the same offense for a decade + and most of their OL are corn fed redshirt juniors before they're seeing the field replacing the redshirt senior that was all big ten the year before.
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^
We have 3 years in a system, an All American Tackle and another solid/All Big Ten type performer, a 5 star guard in the system for 2 years, a center in the system for 3 years and we can't get a push against Akron and Uconn and your blaming experience? Come on.
I'm the guy always preaching patience. I pleaded patience for RR to get his players in place and Hoke should be awarded patience to let his recruits develop and I don't expect us to blow ND and MSU off the ball right now it will take time, but this is ridiculous. We've played 4 games and the oline has given a nice push in 1 qtr. They looked pretty good in the 3rd Qtr against CMU who has proved to be utterly terrible.
Hoke, Funk, Borges and the players all need to accept blame and get better. The reason I can say that confidently is that is exactly what Hoke is saying.
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^
Read what people that know (like Magnus and Space Coyote) about how OL performance is all about the pipeline. Michigan's pipeline was broken, or at least somewhat clogged, and Michigan's OL depth is HORRIBLE. Molk and Lewan are the only OLinemen that have kept with tradition of Michigan OLinemen from the past.
Since you were defending RR (as was I) due to depth issues, you MUST be able to see the issues that Hoke took over. Further, you MUST see that no matter how many fans complain about players and coaches, depth issues cannot be solves by anything but TIME -- especially on the OL. The OL is a "team within a team" and having guys that have played together for multiple seasons, AND have played within the same scheme for all those years
September 23rd, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
We act like "holes" in the oline pipeline (or any positional group for that matter) aren't a fairly common occurrence. Classes bust. Sometimes a bust leaves a class that had little to no recruits as a glaring hole rather than a semi-acceptable occurrence. Sometimes young but highly touted players have to fill in earlier than one would hope. That's certainly the case here, and I don't think anyone would say that Borges/Funk are operating in ideal circumstances. But when you have an all-american and a three year starter as your book-ends, two extremely touted classes as your first and sencond year players and a couple leftovers to fill the gaps, we should be able to do better than we are currently doing.
The thing that bothers me about the excuses is that with respect to the last two years, they are contradictary. Last year we had 4th and 5th year guys across the board. Guys that had backed up mostly long term starters. We worried because there weren't enough talented 2nd year and 3rd year guys that could have potentially unseated those starters. This year we have 2nd and 3rd year starters (along with viable backups) and we complain that we're too young.
Obviously an ideal situation is that you have starters that take over in their third or fourth year, leave and are replaced by new starters in their third or fourth year, with the occasional special player breaking in early, producing a conveyor belt of lineman to the NFL. That is not the norm. 115+ FBS teams operate in lesser circumstances and most of them produce far better line play than we've seen in the last year and a half. To pretend that our problems are entirely roster based is absurd.
September 23rd, 2013 at 1:07 PM ^
tired of the OL excuses myself. great point about last year which had all the experience in the world. Still had excuses then.
Given the youth I'm not expecting world beaters but better than Akron and Ucoon DLs which they are not.
September 23rd, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^
Everything I hear from people complaining, like y'all above, is SHOULD. I've said many times in here recently -- SHOULD doesn't matter, and is very dangerous. The problem that many of you are having accepting the facts (or what you call, "excuses") are based upon your expectations, your "SHOULD's." But, you have no idea whether or not your expectations are accurate. You seem to think that a Michigan OL SHOULD just push Akron and UCONN around, as if their winged helmet makes them automatically better.
Last year's OL did NOT have "all the experience in the world." They were upperclassmen, but until last year many had not started before, and they were AGAIN in the midst of a scheme change.
It's all about continuity -- of scheme, personnel, and development. Michigan has had very little continuity over the last 6 seasons, and it shows. Have a little more respect for your opponents, and realize that they are working just as hard as anyone eles is, and although they might not have been as highly rated coming out of HS, many many OL/DL from smaller schools end up in the NFL -- i.e., they're not as devoid of talent as you guys seem to think that they are. And, in the same vein, I think you've overestimating the amount of experienced talent that Michigan currently has.
September 23rd, 2013 at 1:59 PM ^
Where do you get that from? The only "expectation" I stated in my post was "better than we are now" which based on 4 games appears to be the worst line of an BCS-AQ team. I'm not expecting this group to be Alabama's line from last year. But it's not unreasonable with the combination of talent and experience to think that we could be an average big ten line, or even slightly below average. What is clear, is that we're not meeting even the lowest of expectations for this season.
You seem to think that the only way to have a good line is to have no holes in your pipeline and no scheme changes. This ignores the fact that half of college football will undergo a coaching change every few years, and that doesn't even account for coordinators moving around. Many teams face situations similar to ours over the last two years and produce better performing offensive lines. Often times with less overall talent.
September 23rd, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^
"...we should be able to do better than we are currently doing."
This is what you wrote, and what I was responding to. I don't believe in should, I believe in what is. If the OL SHOULD be able to do better than they're doing currently, they would be.
"Many teams face situations similar to ours over the last two years and produce better performing offensive lines."
Of course many teams face similar situations, and I'd be willing to bet that some of those teams performed worse, some the same, and some better. Who has performed better? What are the circumstances of these lines performing better?
"Often times with less overall talent."
How do you know they're less talented? Is it because they go to schools that you think are inferior to Michigan? Again, your judgement is clouding your understanding of the situation. You think that just because a kid is playing for Michigan that he is better than a kid playing for Akron or UCONN -- this is a spurious assumption, and one that I PROMISE you the coaching staff is not making. Coach Hoke knows full well what kind of talent exists in the MAC, and what a coach like Bowden brings to the table.
"You seem to think that the only way to have a good line is to have no holes in your pipeline and no scheme changes."
I am not saying that continuity is the ONLY way to have a good line, only that WITHOUT continuity, having a good line is difficult. Go talk to any college coach and ask them the importance of pipeline. They will tell you that building and maintaining a steady stream of players, redshirting, developing, and getting the players to "buy into waiting their turn" is absolutley essential to having a Championship program year in and year out. Michigan was broken, and it likely started to breakdown somewhere in the mid-2000's, and really became a cluster fuck in 2008 and into 2011. It's going to take the same amount of time to re-open the pipeline as it did to close it down. After two full recruiting cycles are complete (8-10 years) the pipeline will be 100% open again. It's not going to take that long before the OL improves, just that long to completely reestablish it.
Michigan starting a walk-on OLineman says pretty much everything.
September 23rd, 2013 at 4:09 PM ^
8-10 years before we can hope to see a dominant line???? Are you kidding? You seem to think that there's an actual physical pipeline between some mythical lineman factory and Michigan. That's not the case at all. It's no different than any other position. You identify talent. You recruit well. You develop the talent. You hope for good luck. There's no reason that should take 8-10 years. And that's really besides the point. I'm not asking for us to be one of the top 5 lines in the country this year. I'm asking that we be capable of controlling the line against objectively one of the worst teams in FBS. That isn't arrogance. That's simply recognizing that our 5 linemen include an all-american/1st round pick, a three year starter/borderline all big ten tackle, and a 5-star recruit. Even filling in the other two positions with 3-star equivalents should see a reasonably competent line.
You seem to be saying that the line this year is simply awful and there's no reason to have expected any different. That is just asinine. It's like you believe coaching has no impact whatsoever on performance.
September 23rd, 2013 at 4:46 PM ^
"8-10 years before we can hope to see a dominant line???? Are you kidding?"
I specifically said that it would NOT take that long to have a dominant OL, only to have the pipeline completely reestablished. The 8-10 years is refering a "recruiting cycle," i.e., the entire term of a classes eligibility. With OLinemen, for the most part, that is going to be 5 years. I think the breakdown of the Michigan recruiting pipeline began somewhere in the early-2000's, and was in full effect in 2005 and the rebuilding didn't begin until 2012 as Hoke's first class was rather small. So, even starting at 2005 was a 7 years, almost two full recruiting cycles before the fix began. I contend that it takes just as long to fix a recruiting problem as it took for the pipeline to dry up. As such, I think it's going to take about 2 full recruiting cycles before Michigan is back to having a steady stream of top notch OLinemen who replace each other one after the next.
"You seem to think that there's an actual physical pipeline between some mythical lineman factory and Michigan. That's not the case at all."
It was 100% the case from about 1969-2005 (give or take) So for about three and a half decades Michigan's OL was consistently one of the nation's best, and (if you paid attention) it was one RS Jr. replacing a RS Sr. with an occasional RS So. on the line due to injury or him being a special player -- they were like shark teeth. No granted, some of those years were under the 125 scholarship limit, not 85 (and that has certainly taken it's toll) but Michigan was one of the acknowledged OL factory programs.
"It's no different than any other position. You identify talent. You recruit well. You develop the talent. You hope for good luck."
No, as a matter of fact, it is TOTALLY different than any other position. First of all, almost NO true freshmen can come right in an make an impact. So, that makes it different than RB, WR, TE, and even to some extent QB. Secondly, an OL is a UNIT, and it MUST operate as one to be effective. Having an All-American LT is great, but if other members of the OL aren't very good, you're not going to have a very good line, overall.
Further, note your third sentence above concerning recruiting -- you actually prove my point. It's about the recruiting (or lack there of) that PRECEEDED Hoke's arrival.
I don't think you understand what goes into a well functioning OL -- at least your comments indicate that you don't.
"I'm not asking for us to be one of the top 5 lines in the country this year. I'm asking that we be capable of controlling the line against objectively one of the worst teams in FBS. That isn't arrogance. That's simply recognizing that our 5 linemen include an all-american/1st round pick, a three year starter/borderline all big ten tackle, and a 5-star recruit. Even filling in the other two positions with 3-star equivalents should see a reasonably competent line."
Go back up to what I said about functioning as a unit above. The ENTIRE OL has to function properly and without weak links to be competent -- especially if one of those "fill-in's" is the center.
There's that ugly word, "should" again. Somehow fans seem to think that things SHOULD be different than they are. I contend that things are EXACTLY as they should be, otherwise, they'd be different. To me, it's patently obvious that neither Miller, Glasgow, and perhaps not even Kalis would be playing on a Michigan OL with its historic depth. The fact that they are playing is indicative of the depths to which the program sunk under the previous regime.
"It's like you believe coaching has no impact whatsoever on performance."
Quite the contrary. I believe that coaching can have a HUGE impract on performance. However, I also think that Hoke & Co. are as good as it gets at developing players. As such, I can only imagine how much worse Michigan's OL -- starting a RS Fr., an unheralded RS So., and a walk-on -- WITH OUT the coaching they're receiving. There is only so much that a coach can do. At some point, without a viable backup, they have to let the kids learn by experience. That's why playing young inexperienced players is so painful, and not very condusive to Championship football.
September 23rd, 2013 at 3:19 PM ^
September 23rd, 2013 at 4:10 PM ^
"A team within a team" mean that they are a unit, and to be a good OL you MUST operate as a unit. The OL is only as good as it's weakest link.
Miller's "excuse" is that he's not very good, and probably NEVER would have seen the field (much less be starting) if he were playing for Michigan when they had "historically normal" OL depth. Center is a very demanding position, perhaps the most demanding next to QB. You must process a great deal of information, quickly, accurately, snap the ball successfully, and THEN execute your physically demanding blocking assignment(s). I hate to say that the kid isn't good because I know he's trying he best to live up to the expectations of the position.
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:14 AM ^
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^
Wisconsin is listed as having recruited eight OLs.
In 2009, UM recruited Lewan, Schofield, and Washington
In 2010, zilch.
In 2011, Posada, Miller, and Bryant.
So over three classes that could have supplied upperclassmen with all the experience that normally goes with them, we've gotten 3 guys who have actually played, and one guy—Bryant—who has not played due to injury.
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
are all RS Sophomores. What do you expect? Of these guys, 1 is a walk-on, 1 an undersized, under recruited guy, and the last is a 5*.
Give Hoke's staff another year or 2, when the RS Sophomores playing will be the guys who beat out RS Jr's and SR's.
Look at this http://mgoblog.com/content/michigan-depth-chart-class-0
Note, Michigan has zero JRs or Sr's available at Guard or Center and no SOs or JRs at Tackle. That dept chart is awful.
Miller, Kalis, and Glasgow didn't beat anybody older than them out for their playing time.
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
I see reasons for hope and for frustration.
The fact that we came back to win the game (ignoring for the moment that our opponent was a mid-level high school team (yes, I exaggerate)) was important. The defense played well in the second half and we were able to start running the ball.
That said, it was hard to even find those positives with all of the evident WTFs. My concern is what happens next year when Lewan and Schofield are gone? Our interior line is bad and our youngsters might have talent, but not experience. I think we could be even worse next year if we don't start giving reps to young players, if for no other reason than for experience. I don't want to be in a position of saying, "Oh, well, just wait until 2015." Our team should be much better than it is and we're doing poorly in all of the areas that we should be improving.
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:40 AM ^
One thing that is interesting about Wisconsin going back over a decade is that not once since 2000 have they scored more passing TDs than rushing TDs, but they have had less successful years overall on the ground. For the past three years, they have been more run-first than they ever were though, despite having what might be statistically one of the most balanced (i.e., rushing / passing yardage within a few percent of one another) offenses in the conference most years.
September 23rd, 2013 at 11:49 AM ^
Hoke was signed as a coach so late I don’t really count his first recruiting class (2011). With the 2012 class we brought in some good o-line talent, then redshirted all those guys last year so for them this is only their first year playing. We brought in another strong o-line class last year but those guys are all redshirting now.
Bottom line is I still think we have serious depth issues across the line. We might be up to the pure numbers we want from an offensive line scholarship standpoint, but so many of those guys are in their first and second years in the program. I just think it’s going to take time. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will be fixed next year either. The first year I think we will be able to judge the offensive line from a development and talent standpoint will be 2015.
September 23rd, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^
Here's my take, FWIW:
There is a reason that the old football cliche, "it all starts up front" exist. It's because the OL is the absolute key to winning football. Hoke came in and immediately assessed the fact that Michigan's OL depth was crap, and set about rebuilding that precious depth. But, unlike any other position, OL depth building is a slow, methodical process.
Now, back to this season. IMO, Hoke & Co. assessed the schedule and realized (at least behind closed doors) that there was basically one game (ND) that wasn't an assured win. Remembering that Hoke's stated goal is to win the Big 10 Championship, and knowing that the Big 10 schedule doesn't get really tough until later in the season, it seems to me that the staff is experiementing a bit (both with scheme, and with personnel). I think they felt that the younger OL were close, but not quite ready for prime time, and they also suspected that Miller and Glasgow weren't going to be highly effective either. As such, they've probably been running the 2nd unit OL as a unit (which is very important for an effective OL) knowing that it's just a matter of time before the younger guys work their way into the starting line up.
I feel like Hoke & Co. are in a tough spot concerning the OL. The last thing they want to do is throw a bunch of RS Fr. OLinemen into the mix too early and shatter their confidence, but at the same time, the alternatives weren't anymore experienced, and likely less talented. It's a lesser of two evils scenario, unfortunately.
Back to the schedule, I think they circled this bye week leading into the Big 10 season, and decided that they'll give Miller and Glasgow their shot to prove they could play, develop the younger guys as much as possible, knowing they if they didn't, they would bring the younger OLinemen in to get them some much needed experience.
September 23rd, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
That's some mighty big optimism. I like it. But that's because everything else is so dismal and depressing.
September 23rd, 2013 at 1:19 PM ^
I suppose it's optimism, I just think that Hoke & Co. are pretty crafty, and understand how to manage players, depth, and development.
September 23rd, 2013 at 1:56 PM ^
The issue with last year's line wasn't age - it was the fact that everyone "won" their job because there was literally no one else, other than true freshmen.
With Bryant injured the only other bodies were Miller, Glasgow, Burzynski and freshmen.
Next year if Bosch isn't starting it's because Bars beat him out, etc. It's going to be waaaay different. In two years we'll have talent, competition and experience. It's going be awesome. Right now we're experiencing the effects of effectively having three recruiting classes without a servicable lineman. I don't know what RR was expecting would happen if he had kept his job.
September 23rd, 2013 at 3:48 PM ^
September 23rd, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
September 23rd, 2013 at 7:35 PM ^
September 23rd, 2013 at 9:06 PM ^
staff plan on playing Bosch? He looks like a beast! Is he a guard or tackle? I just wonder if he beats out Magnusson next season. I would like to see if Braden can play some RT this year, I'd love to see Schofield move back to guard, if Miller isn't getting it done, I'd rather Glasgow get some time there. What could this hurt?
September 23rd, 2013 at 9:17 PM ^
I was thinking this too. If Braden was physically ready to play but had pad level issues, we'll say, then he could surely do a job at T where he wouldn't have to get as low as G.
Bosch looks like a G to me, btw.
September 24th, 2013 at 12:28 AM ^
Probably had some inexperienced OL in his early years. If I recall correctly the '72 OL was pretty young with 3 of the 4 lineman from '71 class graduating. But for some reason Bo and his coaches were able to take the young OL and went on to have a very successful season. I know the importance of depth and experience but if you look at our current line it is MUCH better than '08 OL and probably more talented then 3/4 of the B1G OLs. So, I guess, I don't like the idea of using this as a possible scape goat if this team doesn't finish at least 8-4. I think the 10 plus win prediction this season was was a bit of pie in the sky. This will not be a top ten team until at least 2015.
September 24th, 2013 at 7:54 AM ^