Norfleet Interview

Submitted by Shop Smart Sho… on

Saw this pop up on twitter:

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/09/dennis_norfleet_passi…

 

While I think it is great that the players support Hoke, I am very surprised that the program is allowing them to talk to the media.

If given the chance, I'm sure we would all like to reassure the kids that we aren't criticizing their play or effort.  And maybe ask them to talk to someone like Devin who was here when RR got canned.  I'm sure Devin thought RR was a great guy who supported him, and all of the players.  That doesn't mean he was the right coach, at the right time, for Michigan.

atom evolootion

September 23rd, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^

Does Borges look like he's ever thrown a football? Understanding the quarterback position through his responsibilities in drawn plays is different from actually being able to pick up a football and show somebody how the job is done, from calling the play to identifying the Mike to receiving the snap to going through the progressions to stepping into a throw to delivering an accurate pass. I'd love to see someone without lower limbs, who claims expertise in Michael Jackson moves, trying to teach somebody to Moonwalk...

Reader71

September 24th, 2014 at 12:57 AM ^

This is fucking nonsense. Borges is fat. So fucking what?

You know who never threw a football? Bill Walsh, best developer of QB who ever lived, creator of the most popular passing offense in the history of football, offensive genius and revolutionary.

He was a RB in high school, was a backup QB for two years, and ended up as a TE/DE.

Get a fucking grip. Rod Smith coached Denard. He is fat, too. And he managed to teach Demand how to throw AND run.

atom evolootion

September 24th, 2014 at 9:25 AM ^

This other thing for you, Mr. Borges: Walsh was actually a genius at what he did; hence the results he had. You, Mr. Borges (You are Al Borges, aren't you?), are only a so-called quarterback developer; hence the results you've had. Maybe Walsh, who never threw a football and was still awesome at developing quarterbacks, is the reason why you thought you could do it, too. Well, this is America, where you have the right to pursue whatever makes you happy, so go for it all, Al!

Gulogulo37

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:24 PM ^

The other user mentioned tempo, but then there's also the fact that we're going under center a whole lot and not using Gardner's legs at all, which is just mind-boggling. Having said that, there were some designed runs for him under Borges, so it kind of seems like it's Nuss' doing, which is even more mind-boggling. Didn't the QB at Washington run a bunch when he was there? The tempo thing is also weird. There's no real reason to think Nuss is being vetoed on it besides the fact that everyone talked about him running a bunch of tempo that then never comes up in a game.

I'd also still like to see Hayes get some real carries. He may be playing more in garbage time, but he's looked good when he's had chances and looks really fast. It's hard to say if the coaches just don't think he's been good enough or if they're dead set on using big burly RBs, but considering the RBs have made some glaring mistakes, he deserves a shot you'd think.

UMaD

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:31 PM ^

Huddling. Putting your 5-star QB at WR. Putting Denard behind center. Thinking of Jeremy Gallon as a 'slot'. Making a big deal about having a "primary" back even though almost everybody else rotates. Favoring height over speed for WRs. Favoring size over speed for RBs. General orthodoxy towards 90's physical prototype (how many 6'4 Free Safeties are around anymore?  How many tall DTs do we need? Why wasn't Funchess a real WR last year?) Not knowing what to do with short fast guys (e.g., Norfleet, Dougless). Recruiting QBs that can't run.  Looking to get "bigger" at LB, instead of looking to get faster (Josh Furman looks very good at LB at Oklahoma State). Recruiting LBs like it's 1974, when these days you need more DBs and space players. Manball. Tempo. Aversion to screens.I could probably go on.

We can win with the stuck-in-the-past mentality and your larger point is right (it's about development and execution), but that doesn't change the fact that Hoke IS stuck in the past.

reshp1

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:42 PM ^

Huddling isn't outdated, some people do it some don't.

QB at WR was a ploy to keep Devin engaged so he didn't transfer. Both Hoke and Gardner have said things to that effect.

I have no idea what you're talking about with Gallon, he was the #1 receiver and we used him everywhere.

Size in WR was most likely a Borges thing. We've also brought in speed guys like Canteen and Damario Jones. Norfleet is now playing slot (quickness more than speed, but certainly not size). Even Borges had no issues using Dileo

Size over speed at RB, probably valid, but again not exactly outdated.

Norfleet, again, is finally being utilized. Probably a Borges thing.

Morris seems to move just fine. Again, we're not Oregon, but that doesn't mean we're outdated.

I'm going to stop there but you get the idea.

UMaD

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:56 PM ^

The majority of high school teams use the spread and most programs at least use some form of tempo. The vast majority of elite offenses run spread offenses. Huddling is in decline. Fewer and fewer teams do it. It is nearing being obsolete, retro, whatever you want to call it.  The game changes. The Oregon distinction that you are drawing is a roughly a decade outdated. Your are living in the 00s. Hoke is living in the 90s.

Borges referred to Gallon as a 'slot' and his usage developed slowly. It felt like they put him into the top WR role very begrudgingly.  Gardner was moved to WR at a time when they had Dileo, Gallon, and Roundtree.  Size was a big reason for that.  Dileo was underutilized while Jackson and Reynolds played.

The best chance of the '12 team winning was with Gardner at QB and Denard at RB, but Denard is "too small" to be a college RB and Gardner "looks" like a WR.  Only if it's the 1980s or 90s though.

Size over speed at RB IS outdated. Natrone Means, Chrstian Okoye, Ron Dayne -- these type of guys don't exist anymore (or are extremely rare). We keep trying to find the next A-Train instead of the next Darren Sproles.

Norfleet has bounced from RB, DB, to WR.  He should probably just be a RB, but we don't exactly have a ton of speedy YAC options at WR -- because we haven't recruited them.

 

Space Coyote

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:00 PM ^

The same way Junior Hemmingway was a "slot". "Slot" was one of the primary positions in Borges's offense. He liked to put his #1 at slot because they were threats in the screen game, they couldn't get jammed off the LOS, and they could threaten the whole field. If you didn't notice, that's why Funchess played "slot" last year once Michigan entered B1G play.

Gallon was the #1 receiver. He was going to be the "slot" in 2013 until Darboh got hurt and they felt he was more important at the X-receiver where he had received reps earlier. They still were able to utilize tunnel screens and the like with him to get him involved underneath as well.

At the end of the day, you're nit-picking football terminology, which is an absolute mistake to begin with.

Having a "primary" back was a Borges thing, and also isn't fairly uncommon. A lot of teams rotate RBs when they are successful running the football so their primary back doesn't get 30 carries a game, but a lot of teams prefer having a "primary" back. Lets look at the B1G and who utilized a "primary" back in 2013: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan St, and OSU.

Let's be clear on this next one: having height at safety is outdated? Anyway, Hill is 6', Dawson is 6'2", Wilson is 6'2", Thomas is 6'2", Gordon was 6', those are fairly standard heights for safeties. We had "tall DTs" because they were recruited as SDEs in an Under front. Like 3-4 DEs, they tend to be a little taller and leaner, because they not only play interior, but they also play DE on passing downs. But Michigan has one DT taller than 6'4" (Godin, recruited as a SDE). Meanwhile, MSU has at least three.

Furman refused to play LB at Michigan. But four of Michigan's twelve scholarship LBs weight 235 of more, seems outdated (in contrast, MSU has 5). RB screens are a matter of OL development. If you noticed, Borges called quite a few RB screens before 2013, including slow screens, throw back screens, and flare screens. But when he tried screens in 2013 to the RB it ended in disaster, which is maybe why Nuss hasn't utilized them despite the fact they were utilized a lot at Bama. And somehow you are acting like screens are a "modern" concept, right.

You talk about RB size, but Michigan's size at RB fits with the scheme. You call the scheme dated, but it's just different, it's just not the spread. But just FWIW, Michigan has 4 RBs over 215, Oregon has three. Oregon has two over 225, the same as Michigan. Oh, and 7 out of the top 10 rushers in the NFL currently weight more than 220 (most between 220-230), and all but one is above 215. Outdated my ass. 

So you can go on talking out of your ass because it some how fits what you want to believe. That doesn't make it true.

LordGrantham

September 24th, 2014 at 1:11 AM ^

Not that it undermines your point, but neither Wisconsin, Indiana, nor Illinois really had primary backs last year, the average height for an NFL safety is 5'10.5, Gordon wasn't a Hoke recruit, Oregon has only two RBs over 215 (only one of whom plays), only 4 of the top 10 rushers by YPC in the NFL are over 220 and only 1 is over 225.  If you're going to bully someone with your football knowledge, let's at least be a little more factually sound.

Reader71

September 24th, 2014 at 1:19 AM ^

Same. He said leading rushers, and there are 7 larger than 220. He said nothing about YPC. As far as I can tell, the rest of your comments are on point, aside from maybe Wisconsin not having a primary back.

Space Coyote

September 24th, 2014 at 8:23 AM ^

As far as the primary back, I started off listing this year (Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois all have primary backs this year) and then didn't feel comfortable with Maryland or Rutgers, so I switched to last year (which is OSU, which doesn't have a primary back this year). Regardless, the point being, if someone steps up and takes the role, it's typically a teams preference to have a primary guy.

Michigan seems a little taller than the average NFL height. I'm sure when you take out the little bit of extra height their given that they average around 6'. FWIW, the average height for the past 5 NFL combines for safeties is 6'0.25", which I would say is a closer approximation of what top safeties coming out of college look like.

The Oregon thing I took straight from their roster. You are correct, I should have said 215 or over, because the RB that gets the most carries in their offense weighs 215 lbs. Two of their most used backs weight 215 or more (Freeman weighs 229).

Reader already clarified the "Top Rusher", which is total rush yards, which what I said is factually correct.

 

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^

You can just as easily say teams prefer to have two top backs, like Wisconsin, and they default to a 'primary' back only when the backup is significantly worse. You call this "stepping up", but it's just as easily "lack of depth". I think the Alabama/USC/Oregon situations, where they've consistently rotated productive backs, would be the ideal most programs would strive for. I think Wisconsin and OSU prefer having two guys.  This just seems like common sense.   The benefits of having a 'primary' back are what?  Simplicity? Tradition? Rhythm? Why is this a goal?  Want to play feelingsball?

The fact that you point to rushing yards (instead of total yards) is pretty backward looking in itself.  Yards gained through the air count just the same.

Oregon is a machine so they can win with big backs like Blount, but they have had the most success with tiny guys like James and Barner and they consistently recruit small backs (unlike Michigan, which is exclusively about size).  Oregon recruits bigger backs as specialists and for a changes of pace.  They value speed, first and foremost. Michigan values size.

You argue this is because of scheme, but Michigan doesn't have the people to support it, and I don't see any schemes out there that demand 6' plus/220 plus RBs. Correct me here if I'm wrong, but the quintessential inside zone teams were the Denver Broncos, who had the most success running with Terrel Davis - a guy who weighed less than 210 lbs and was under 6'.  Emmit Smith was one of the best manball backs ever and was 5'9. Walter Payton was 5'10. Mike Hart is the most productive Michigan back since the 90s and is small.

A large number of things you argued are wrong, irrelevant, or misleading.

Michigan is focused on developing a 'traditional' / 'pro style' roster that is decreasing in relevance and popularity.  Doesn't mean they can't win with it, but it's a reality that they are looking to the past and I don't think they are even trying to say otherwise.

Reader71

September 24th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^

Mat, you're arguing for your opinion of an ideal offense, and that is fine. But you can't try to pass it off as fact. There are perfectly good, legitimate offenses that huddle, don't spread, and don't work at a high tempo. You mentioned USC as a team that shared carries. Did they go no huddle, spread, and tempo? No.

As far as primary backs go, I think it is rooted in coaching minutia. A primary back gets more reps, allowing for better and faster development. College coaches are all about reps. Now, Oregon practices at tempo and does most coaching in the film room, so they all get more reps. There is something to be said for that. But there is something to be said for coaching in real time, on the field. It can stop a bad tendency before it becomes a habit. And there is nothing quite as effective for getting your point across than a dressing sown in front of the team.

There's also a belief (maybe wrong, don't have data) that having a primary back leads to fewer turnovers. Fewer bad handoffs, fewer fumbles by the back, who is warmed up, into speed of the game, and used to the defense swiping at the ball.

And having one back can help disguise run/pass. You mentioned that passing yards are just as valuable as rushing yards, and I agree. But with this line, we aren't really at liberty to sens RB out into patterns, they have to stay and block.

That's not to say that your complaints aren't valid. But we're working with a team of people, not just a theoretical ideal. Nussmeier had some success at Bama; his running backs were Lacy (230) and Yeldon (221) in 2012 and Yeldon as the primary back in 2013. You think this coach, whose career is on the line every game, is going to prefer a type of back that works in theory or the type that he has actually has success with?

Not to mention that your accusation about Hoke's recruiting isn't even correct. His back at SDSU was Ronnie Hillman (205). He's not averse to small backs, as he brought in Hayes and Norfleet and moved a DB who I can't remember there. He recruited Derrick Green, but so did everyone else. He recruited Ty Isaac, who is potentially an Adrian Peterson type: big and fast. What's wrong with any of this?

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 1:12 PM ^

In no way did I say it was impossible to succeed with USC's or any other traditional-oriented team.  I am simply saying that these 'traditional' offenses are declining in popularity. Either you are staying the same (Alabama, USC) or you are transitioning towards what was common in the past (Michigan). i.e., looking back

In pointing to another advantage of tempo (more reps),  I think you are helping make my case.

The other stuff (turnover avoidance, predictability) are just...not convincing at all. Rotating backs keeps them fresh. Different looks and skillsets can make you less predictable. I understand your argument, but the exact opposite is equally, if not more, convincing.

Norfleet was recruited primarily to return kicks. Douglass was recruited as a CB. Neither guy stuck at RB and has been moved. This is part of my argument.  Hayes was a long time ago - the transition year - and was (I think) offered by Rodriguez.

Michigan does not recruit small running backs. It is a problem because there are a lot of good small running backs and not very many good big running backs.

Ty Isaac was 5th string on USC's team last year. He is not Adrian Peterson.

Reader71

September 24th, 2014 at 1:24 PM ^

I think the implication is that looking backwards is bad. I could be wrong.

I don't really care if we have one back or more, I'm just trying to explain why some coaches might have those beliefs. If they aren't convincing, its because I'm not trying to sell it.

You also tried to twist my words, and I'm not sure why, we don't even disagree. I didn't say Isaac was Peterson, I said he might be a Peterson type of back (big and fast), which is a concept that you brought into this discussion. Not everything is a fight, man.

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^

It is usually bad. Not always.

Rodriguez spread innovation was inspired by looking back.

Stanford has made themselves different by looking back.

Bielema.  Etc.

The main thing is you still have to move forward while being inspired by the past. You can't be all backwards.

Not trying to fight, but Coyote got my guns up with his tone.  No insult intended to you.

Space Coyote

September 24th, 2014 at 1:21 PM ^

Alright. Of course every team would like to have depth at RB. A lot of teams also like to have a primary guy who can get into a feel for the game, that's how a lot of teams function. Not all, but it's a difference in philosophy, not some way to placate a bygone era. The goal is to have your guy in a feel for the tempo and rhythm of a game, and have your best back on the field more often than not.

I picked rushing yards because it was easy to find. But you want total yards from scrimmage for RBs, fine: 5 of the top 10 RBs in yards per scrimmage for the 2014 NFL season weigh 215 lbs or more (Murray weighs 214). Three of those RBs weigh 230+. It's not misleading, it's characterizing it as not completely outside the norm or "outdated" as you call it.

The Broncos were almost all a zone stretch team. Emmitt Smith weighed 220 lbs throughout his career, despite being at 5'9". There are currently 9 players in the top 20 career rushing that retired 10 seasons or less ago. LT (221 lbs), Bettis (250), C. Martin (210), E. James (215), M Faulk (210), F. Taylor (235), S. Jackson (230), W. Dunn (180), and C. Dillon (225). Everyone in that group is 210+ besides Dunn, and +/-10 lbs from 220 isn't a huge difference.

I never said RBs couldn't be successful at a lesser weight, just some systems prefer bigger backs than others. I would like to see Michigan have a speed back on the roster as well, they have Hayes, they are bringing in a speed back as well. But when Hoke and Co arrived they didn't have many bigger backs on the roster to fit the system they wanted, so they brought in two bigger RBs.

What I argued wasn't wrong, irrelevant, or misleading. It all showed that having bigger backs on a roster isn't outdated. Some schemes put more emphasis on speed, others more on size. OSU has five scholarship RBs, but they must be outdated because three of those five are over 220 (one that's not: Dunn). That's because their emphasis for their RBs is between the tackles, while their H and QB takes a lot of the outside runs. Again, it's simply a different emphasis because of scheme.

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 1:37 PM ^

"A difference in philosophy" -- exactly!  One philosophy is old, one is new. One looks back, one looks forward. [Or at least towards what current trends tell us forward looks like.]

This NFL season is 4 games in.  Last season is complete. You are now dropping your criteria to 215 or 210, which is less than what Green, Smith, Issac weigh.  Hayes and Johnson (211) fit though - but they are not even being considered for 1st or 2nd down duty. They are viewed as specialists.

 

You are seriously going to mention Jerome Bettis with a straight face? He played college football in the 80s (1990 technically counts).  He is exaclty the kind of backward looking profile I am talking about.

I never said "having bigger backs on the roster is outdated". I said recruiting big backs almost exclusively is antiquated.  The prototypical RB is now 200-220 lbs. In the 80s it was far more common to have 230+ pound backs. It was very rare to have backs who weight less than 200 pounds.  Now it is common.

Michigan does not go after guys like Emmit Smith very often. They don't seek short and stout, they seek tall and lean. 

I don't have the data to support it at my fingertips, but if you look at who they offer I am confident in asserting that they will be taller, leaner, and generally larger than most elite college football programs. 

Yes, OSU does like big backs, but they recruit Dontrel Wilson and Jalin Marshall too.

My concerns on this front have been mitigated to an extent by Harris (who is a 5-star elite player, so the coaches probably don't care about his size) and Weber (who the coaches backed off of for a while, much to my chagrin).  But the guys they tend to prefer fit an outdated mold.

I don't think these guys are idiots - they will take great prospects who do not fit their desired profile, but they are more size-oriented than most other staffs, including Wisconsin.

I don't think Hoke should be fired. I think we can win with him. I hope this gets turned around. I think we will kill Minnesota. etc.  But if you don't think this program is looking back, trying to build the 1997 team all over agian, I think you are flat out not paying attention.

Space Coyote

September 24th, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^

You say "outdated' or "antiquated" which, by definition, means "very old and no longer useful, popular, or accepted: very old-fashioned or obsolete". That to me, is unfair. It's a different style, one that has kept up with the times by incorporating up-to-date passing concepts, utilizing hybrid positions, and utilizing more 11 personnel than 22 personnel. You say it "looks back" because it isn't a spread, but it that isn't the case. I mean, Michigan ran pistol and 12 personnel and inverted veer and a multiple blocking scheme and passing concepts reminiscent of most modern NFL teams with some modern staples of college spread teams. Just because their personnel isn't spread, doesn't mean it's looking back.

I feel like you're sending me on a wild-goose-chase for stats, now it's last years all purpose yards from scrimmage. Of the top 10, 7 were 215+, three were 220+. That seems to show that being 215-225 is right in the normal range and not "antiquated". That's not twisting stats. Michigan top two RBs are 220, 215 isn't a far cry from 220 in terms of how weight fluxuates, so I'm not moving the goal posts here.

I gave the criteria for the players I chose. Bettis happened to have a long career and so he was on that list. But, if anything, the list I gave above, of yards from scrimmage in 2013 for RBs, should prove my point just fine.

As for recruiting, in 2014, the only RBs they offered that were 220+ were top 50 players. The other six averaged just over 200 lbs. In 2013, the three RBs that didn't end up on Michigan's roster weighed on average, 200 lbs. They aren't looking for Emmit Smith because it's harder to find a guy that is 5'9" and solid between the tackles than it is to find a guy that is 6'0" and solid between the tackles. That's what it boils down to. If it's an elite athlete, they'll find a place, otherwise, they'll recruit the guys that best fit the system. The thing is, of all the 4 or 5-star RBs in this upcoming class, only two are shorter than 5'10". Michigan has Weber as a commit, who is 5'10". 2014 had one below 5'10". 2013 had 2 below 5'10". The point is, that most teams covet backs that are taller than Emmit Smith was.

And maybe you're right, I shouldn't have began so combative. Sorry for that. But you did use "outdated" in reference to the RBs, you did say that Hoke was "stuck in the past", saying that he wants to recreate the 1980s and 1990s. You gave "evidence" such as "Michigan recruits 6'4" safeties", despite only one safety being taller than 6'2" on the listed roster, which probably adds an inch to each of their heights. Michigan is essentially 0.75" on average taller than the average combine safety in a five year span. Your evidence doesn't back up your perseption, your conclusion is clouded by bias. Is the system Michigan is currently employing more similar to those teams than what many spread teams are running? Absolutely. But watch games from the 1997 team, this offense very little like that offense, very little, other than the fact that they work from under center and sometimes use 21 personnel.

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^

You chose to interpret it as not "useful" instead of "popular" when you accused me of "talking out of my ass".

Old-fashioned - yes. Not popular - yes. Not useful - depends on which issue we are discussing, but certainly on some of them yes.

To RBs, because that's the one you seem to take the most issue with.

I did not say there was zero use for big backs. I took issue with the single-minded targeting of them at the expense of other areas.

Their personnel does not reflect what most elite college offenses look like to me. If you are arguing they are running a spread-heavy scheme, than the personnel should fit that. It doesn't appear to do that.  Ohio State is a good argument for big AND fast, but they still recruit a bunch of space players, mobile QBs, and seem to value speed at least as much as brawn.

I am not sending you on wild goose chase for NFL stats. I gave the best stat I could think of to tell a story of what productive backs look like in today's NFL.  Again, a 4 game sample size is far less convincing than 16. 

It seems fairly obvious to me that running backs are generally smaller than they used to be.  Here is some random blogpost that talks about height going down and provides data to support it.  https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-go…

People still say stuff like "Denard is too small for RB" despite CJ2K, Charles, Bush, Spiller and others having plenty of success with similar physical size. I never hear anybody say "Green is too big for RB".  I don't believe either FWIW, but I think our coaches do.

I never really argued that that 215-220 was a problem, but that's on the high end of what the best NFL backs look like and on the low end of what Michigan is recruiting.  Michigan is targeting a lot of backs that are taller than 6' when that is becoming increasingly rare.  Michigan is targeting a lot of backs that are over 220 when that is becoming increasingly rare.  Look at the top athletes and running backs in the Recruiting list and chances are, if they are big, Michigan is going after them.  If they are not, Michigan is probably not.  Again, there are exceptions, but as a generality it is true. Michigan likes bigger backs -- like were more common in the past.

In 2013, Michigan offered 8 running backs.  All but two were either >215 or >6'.  Keith Ford was an elite 5-star back.  Kyle Hicks was the lone outlier (5'10/195).  Wilkins, Green, Issac, Davis, Smith, Shallman - these guys are either tall and lean (Wilkins, Davis, Issac) or straight-up power (Shallman, Smith) or just elite prospects (Green, Ford).

Michigan is on the far end of the curve here. Plus, you're ignoring that these guys are typically going to add 5-10 pounds in college if not more. So comparing HS weights to NFL is a bit disingenuous.

The idea that a RB needs to be "between the tackles" is in itself a bit antiquated in modern football - no?  Sure you want that, but you want the guy who gets "outside the tackles" too.  Why limit yourself? Isn't that antiquated?

I want backs who can run between the tackles, but it's more important that they be thick and hard to bring down (a la Hart, Ray Rice, Jamal Anderson, Emmit Smith) than tall with straight-line speed (a la Foster, Peterson, Forte).  Michigan's done (and is doing) fine on this front in terms of the guys they've gotten, but they've targeted (and missed) on a lot of taller thinner dues (like Dunn, Davis, Wilkins.) that are reminiscent of the Dickerson-Wheatley-Thomas model of years past. Shallman hints they have interest in going even further back to Okoye-Means-Hoard type backs.

The bigger issue is just totally passing on the CJ Spillers, Jamal Charles of the world all together unless it is absolutely abundantly clear that they are elite (Harris) or from a local pipeline (Weber).  To me, those type of players are more useful than the Jeron Dukes and CSonte Yorks and Demario Jones' of the world. We could really use another Vincent Smith and have another Norfleet waiting in the wings.  It's certainly not a priority for our staff.

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 1:29 AM ^

The top RBs in the NFL last year in yardage were:  McCoy, Charles, Forte, Moreno, Lynch, Bush, Murray, Matthews, Peterson, Lacy.  Some of those guys weight less than 200 pounds. Only Lacy and Peterson weigh more than 220. Only Forte and Peterson are over 6' tall. The best backs these days are more likely to be Denard sized than A-Train sized. Peterson is an absolute freak and you can't find those guys easily.

Michigan has consistently targeted some of the tallest and heaviest backs in the class.  Brionte Dunn (6'2 215), Ty Issac (6'3 215) are examples.  These guys are 5 stars, so whatever, but Rawls and Shallman were recruited too and those guys fit the same mold. Bigger is better. Michigan hasn't come close to landing a single 'speed back' since it took Norfleet as a last minute replacement - they proceeded to move him to DB and slot. Vincent Smith was a very valuable piece of the 2011 and 2012 teams.  Michigan doesn't seem to care to recruit a replacement for him.

I recognize the difference between positing and position. I've argued before that the slot position shouldn't even be distinguished (at least not anymore so than Boundary Corner vs Field Corner - something 90% of football fans can't distinguish, or split end vs flanker or Y-TE or U-TE).

Gallon did not line up in the slot as often as he lined up outside by 2012 yet was called a 'slot'.  Hemingway lined up in the slot all the time and was called a "wide receiver".  Funchess lined up in the slot a ton, as you pointed out, and was called a 'tight end'.  I don't have a problem with usage as much as the terminology. Your accusation on that front is correct, but doesn't dispute my point.  The 'slot' is a specialist to Borges, a pejorative.

Eventually he stopped, uh slotting Gallon into that specialist position and made him a full on wide receiver but he did it only after Gardner moved back to QB...and never did with Dileo, who was our 2nd or 3rd best WR last year, depending on how you want to classify Funchess. He consistently underutilized weapons that don't fit his preconceptions because they were small.

Furman did not refuse to play LB as far as I know. Are you breaking news?  I don't buy it. The coaches have been very explicit about their desire to get bigger.  They were never satisfied with Cam Gordon's weight and he was 30 lbs heavier than Furman. If he did refuse, it was probably because he didn't want to eat that much just to lose his speed.

I never argued Michigan couldn't be successful doing backward looking things, but they are backward looking and they are not successful. I'm all for becoming Stanford or Wisconsin or MSU or Alabama teams of recent vintage, but you're talking about teams with stability, talent, or coaching that we are not going to match.

I enjoy reading many of your posts, especially your many defenses of Borges, but here you are wrong - and your tone sucks too.

 

 

STW P. Brabbs

September 24th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^

Thomas Rawls was about 5'10", 210 lbs.   Wyatt Shallman was never recruited to be a starting tailback. 

Green and Smith fit your argument in terms of size, but damn near every program in the country recruited the former.  So maybe it's the fact that Deveon Smith is on the team that is bringing all these losses.

How big are the best linebackers in the NFL?  The best receivers?  Where are the Pro Bowlers who are Furman-sized? 

Now I don't think that future NFL success is a good way to judge college players.  I'd have zero problem with a team of smurfs who win championships and can't get drafted.  But you brought up this question of NFL size in your argument, and it doesn't make any sense.

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^

Both the coaches and Shallman say he was recruited to play RB. I'm aware fans (me included) assumed he'd move from day 1, so maybe it was all BS, but he seemed to believe it and he seemed to get a shot.

Green and Smith aren't THAT big, but the coaches top targets have generally been taller thinner guys that fit more of a 90's Wheatley/A-Train mold. You're right about Rawls, but he was in the scraps-under-the-table '11 class.

Most of the best NFL safeties are 5'11 to 6' tall.  That is shorter than most of the CBs we try to get. I'm encouraged they are trying Kinnel there, FWIW.

The very elite WRs are tall, because size and speed, duh, but there are a whole lot of 5'11 and 6' guys on pro bowl rosters too. Wes Welker, Desmond Howard, Hines Ward and so on. We take a pass on short WRs from the jump, in favor of guys like Jarron Dukes.  You want fast guys who might be tall, not tall guys who might be fast.

There are exceptions to this of course. Michigan recruits elite players who are small, but they make up a small minority of their targets.

I think the LBs our coaches want are in line with NFL-size. I don't have a big problem really with that, but at the college level I don't think you have to go there. Overall, our coaches have done really well recruiting and developing LBs...it's a position they've emphasized very heavily (scholarships wise), so they should. But it's a shame to see a guy as athletic as Furman waste away. The bigger issue here is with the scholarship numbers being allocated to 2.5 positions coming at the expense of depth at QB, TE, WR, OL, S.

STW P. Brabbs

September 24th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^

1) Maybe Shallman really was recruited to be a tailback, but if so he certainly wasn't a top target. 

2)  Who else has Michigan targeted who's tall and thin?  Aside from Ty Isaac, whom, of course, almost every major program wanted.  Damien Harris is 5'10", and Mike Weber is 5'9", 215 lbs. 

3) Most safeties are 5'11"-6".  This is, as you suggest, an area where Michigan has been recruiting outliers in terms of size.  But I don't think that's really a 'looking to the past' phenomenon.  If anything, it's bucking an older trend. 

4) Hines Ward was good, but never elite.  Wes Welker is a very good complementary player, but will never be a true #1 option.*  Desmond Howard hardly played WR in the NFL.  (You should have gone with Steve Smith, who's the only true all-around #1 WR under 6' tall I can think of off the top of my head.  But he's still a major outlier.)

5)  Seeing as how LB is loaded with quality depth, it's quite possible that the coaches looked at Furman -- who had nearly ideal safety size -- and thought that it would make much more sense for the roster to try to get him to work out at safety than to have him: 1) try to gain weight; 2) move to a new position; and 3) fight through that quality depth for a chance to get on the field.  Safety, of course, being the position on our defense with the least quality depth.  Sometimes, just maybe, the coaches makes decisions based on criteria other than This Is What Bo Would Have Done; Manball.

*You might counter that Welker was indeed Brady's #1 option for a few seasons there.  But this was still primarily on short to intermediate routes, and it was during a period when there was a continual crying-out for a true #1 receiver to give Brady a downfield option.

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^

Who else has Michigan targeted who's tall and thin? Shallman, Smith, Ball.  I'm sure I could dig through and find others.  You are right about Harris and Weber.  They have indeed mitigated my concern here, but don't forget Harris is indisputably elite and Weber was slow-played until Nuss came on.

Safeties used to be bigger, now they are smaller. Michigan is on the 'used to be' side.  Which is my whole point.

Desmond Howard won a Heisman. (Guessing you knew that, but since you probably thought I knew what Howard did in the NFL, I decided to drop a more pertinent factoid.) Welker is a #1 target, regardless of short or long routes. Ward made numerous probowls and was 2nd team all NFL several times.  Elite enough for me.

The LB is loaded with quality because Michigna has (over) recruited the position.  They had Furman but still offered 43 scholarships to linebackers over the last four years.  Give or take 30.

Furman was not a good safety. He looks like a good LB.  You can make all the excuses you want but this is not putting athleticism and talent where it is best suited.  Michigan could have looked at Furman and said "we've got a hell of LB here, maybe we should back off on trying to find so many more LBs"....like, oh, I don't know, the OL that needs 3 or 4 starters to be ready to go 2 seasons from now, which is really hard to do.  Or a backup QB.

They also don't HAVE to put more weight on Furman. OK State hasn't.

STW P. Brabbs

September 25th, 2014 at 7:50 AM ^

Deveon Smith is 5'11", 220 lbs.  If that's 'tall and thin' to you, your mom must have told your fat ass that to make you feel better. Or you're just making shit up to fit your squishy, bullshit argument. 

Yes, Desmond Howard won the Heisman.  You're the one who brought up NFL players, not me.  He didn't do shit in the NFL.

Furman apparently looks decent for Oklahoma State, not that you have any real insight to that beyond the stats from a few games.  Does he look better than our LBs now?  Does Ok. St. play the same scheme?  Also, whether UM over-recruited at LB or not isn't at issue.  The relevant fact is that there are a lot of highly-regarded LBs on Michigan's roster.  Furman wasn't one of them.  There's no basis for assuming that they kept him at safety because of any antiquated/old-fashoned/crotchety obsession with size -- you just desperately want him to be a data point that fits your argument. 

So, to recap:

Argument 1:  The 'tall thin' RB case.  The only RB who fits your 'tall, thin' mold is Shallman, and I still don't believe the coaches really thought he could be a starting RB.  Just because they told him: we're bringing you in as a RB, that doesn't mean they weren't thinking, 'and if it doesn't work out, he's got H-back written all over him.'  Regardless, he was definitely never a top target.

Argument 2: Michigan recruits safeties who are too tall.  Admittedly, there are a lot of good safeties in the NFL who are 5'10" - 6' tall.  But just because it's difficult to find someone who can play safety at 6'3" doesn't mean it's not a good thing when you do.  Kam Chancellor, Harrison Smith, Eric Reid, and Marc Barron are all young, talented, taller safeties in the league.  Here's a list of the heights of the top ten 2015 safety recruits per Rivals, from 1 to 10:  6'1", 6'0", 6'1", 6'3", 6'3", 6'3", 5'11", 6'2", 6'0", 6'2".  Looks like the whole durn country has gotten all wrapped up in this Bo Schembechler man-ball thing, eh? 

Argument 3:  Michigan ignores short, talented WRs.  Michigan likes tall WRs.  So does everyone else.  You seem to think that the bare fact that Michigan recruited Jaron Dukes means they must have ignored smaller, quicker WRs.  This is baseless.  But here's a solitary data point - if that's what we're doing - which is actually relevant without wild hypothesis and inference: UM really wanted Artavis Scott, but couldn't pull him in. 

In conclusion: you wanted to make an argument about Hoke and co. being stuck in the past with regard to recruiting/personnel because it just felt right, but you have no relevant evidence to support that argument.  This staff has been killing it in terms of recruiting, whether you like it or not.  There are plenty of other areas for criticism, so I'm not sure why you picked this one.

 

Reader71

September 24th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^

Gallon set all sorts of records as a wideout.

You are arguing about what he was called on the depth chart. You're not even arguing that Borges used him wrong. What's the real issue here, man?

Vengeful Barbarian

September 24th, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^

Dude I've been reading all of your stupid arguments but this is the worst one of all.

 

"Vincent Smith was a very valuable piece of the 2011 and 2012 teams.  Michigan doesn't seem to care to recruit a replacement for him."

So the problem is we are not recruiting enough Vincent Smith type 3 star rated "speed" backs, and instead are taking 4-5 star rated "big back" recruits with offers from most of the top college football programs? You are fucking out of your mind. 

I'm also surprised that you haven't mentioned Michigan is recruiting quarterbacks that are too tall. Drew Brees is one of the best quarterbacks ever and he is only 6 feet tall, therefore all quarterbacks Michigan recruits sould be exactly 6 feet tall.

reshp1

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:44 PM ^

I never said we were at the vanguard of college football, but I have a hard time buying your obsolete characterization when teams are winning national championships and rose bowls with much the same style as us.   

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 1:36 AM ^

It's still looking backward. The point isn't even if it can be successful or not, it's about what wins. In the 80's and 90's certain things won and football had evolved to be about size and strength more than ever and then the game evolved to get faster (physically and mentally).

The things Michigan is doing may work but they quite clearly are looking to the past.

Now, what the future holds, we can't say for sure, but I'm pretty confident that things like hand signals and using tempo will continue to be part of the game. There simply isn't a compelling reason to huddle up before every play if you are a organized and well coached team. There is certainly no advantage to it when you are trying to save time during a comeback. 

 

reshp1

September 24th, 2014 at 9:50 AM ^

Yeah, I'm sort of in agreement I guess. We do a lot of tried and true stuff that still works fine. We're not interested in trying the more innovative stuff for the most part. That's fair. I don't think that's what a lot of the comments are implying though, people think he's a guy that never watched a snap of football after 1997 and I don't think that's fair at all.

UMaD

September 24th, 2014 at 1:54 PM ^

He is not a cave-man. I mean, obviously they tried with Denard to do some things. 

It can be overstated - but it's still truth in there.There is a certain cave-manish component and it comes leaking out in a lot of different areas that look like they end up doing more harm then good.  There is a resistance to change (spread punt for example) that flat out doesn't make sense.

I'm with Nuss on the tempo thing - Rich Rod did the same thing actually - you have to wait till the offense is installed and stable.

But the other stuff...it makes us look antiquated.  Antiquated is fine when it works, but right now we dont have that.

atom evolootion

September 23rd, 2014 at 10:03 PM ^

We certainly are allowed to rip on the players. They're not really kids as much as we say they are; they're young men who can no longer be sent to juvie if they break the law and are convicted. That said, it's not the thing to do to go after the players, especially when the obvious matter is in the corner of the coaches. Certainly, the coaches can't play the games, and some of them have never been players, so they're not able to relate to the players in the way of "I've been there," which could give their charges first-hand testimony of how to work in the trenches, as opposed to simply relating the Xs and Os, no matter how brilliant the plays; but if these young people signed up to play for these coaches, expecting to be properly taught to succeed in games at this level to maybe move to the payday level, then the coaches are far more responsible for what we see on Saturdays than the players are, and are far more susceptible to the fire and brimstone that comes down when the team should do well and does horribly.

chatster

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:48 PM ^

Quote From Dennis Norfleet:

There have been times when I needed to see my family at a critical time, or I needed to see my daughter and he was there by my side throughout the way. It's more than (just) football. In life, he's a good coach. And right now, the way people are talking about him I don't feel -- and the team doesn't feel -- that it's right.

Brady Hoke often talks about his players as his "105 sons."  Say what you will about his coaching record and his ability, his non-disclosure press conferences, his refusal to wear a headset during games and the claims of coverup of embarrassing incidents that have involved his "105 sons" (and I've joined others on this board in some of that criticism), but Dennis Norfeet has given us all good reason to show some respect for Brady Hoke's devotion to his "105 sons."

chatster

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^

For some reason, it doesn't work for me (and it didn't work for the section I quoted when I tried to post it as a blockquoote), using Google Chrome.  That's why I indicated that it was a quote from Dennis Norfleet, and then put the text in bold italics to distinguish it from the rest of the post.

chatster

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:00 PM ^

Let's see if it works now.

There have been times when I needed to see my family at a critical time, or I needed to see my daughter and he was there by my side throughout the way. It's more than (just) football. In life, he's a good coach. And right now, the way people are talking about him I don't feel -- and the team doesn't feel -- that it's right.

 

Michigan Arrogance

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:49 PM ^

Everything we've been told is wrong.

There *is* money in social work. Hoke is apparently the best godammed social worker in history. 2-3 MM/yr is a hell of a lot more than the 25k most SWers get. Hell, he's probably single handedly increasing the quoted avg salary for the profession. take Hoke out of the equation and most SWers probably get 5500/year.

alum96

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:21 PM ^

I think we've all established Brady Hoke is a good man.

John Beilein is likewise a good man.  A very good  man.  Who after a rough start, adjusted his coaches, got out there and just began winning.  While being a good man.  If he had continued his early path he most likely would no longer be at UM or if he was he'd be under considerable pressure for not performing. 

I am sure plenty of head coaches are good men - Bob Davie, Kirk Ferenz, Whittingham from Utah, Darrell Hazell, Gary Anderson, etc.  But some win and some lose.  Hoke cannot just be a good man and continue in thise role.

Hoke can serve many roles in his life being a good man but he has to put results on the field to continue being a "father" to these particular sons. 

UMfanKT

September 24th, 2014 at 9:22 AM ^

Head football coach primary job is to win games.  Nick Saban is considered a prick but my guess is that his players would tell you the exact same thing.  Mark Dantonio is considered a prick but his players would say the same thing.  Being a great guy and a father figure is not why he was hired on that fateful day...he was hired to win games.  He's not being paid $4+ million a year to raise sons...he is getting paid to win games.