I really want to talk about how talented Ohio is. Excuse me for being rude but you just re-opened a wound that I trying to close...
Peppers at 10, which seems low.
I really want to talk about how talented Ohio is. Excuse me for being rude but you just re-opened a wound that I trying to close...
Yea I agree, I'm trying to just forget about it and focus on school and our bowl game.
NOT READING OR COMMENTING ON THE F*CKING THREAD!!!
So you wouldn't mind a thread discussing how great the state of Ohio is?
They have meds for that homie. Go get yourself checked...
are heartily sick of it. Have no idea why it doesn't occur to people that they expose their lack of. . . insight by telling people what they can or can't talk about. But then, those of us who were here five or six years ago remember a time when the average IQ was a lot higher here.
Now I know MGoBlog is a place where we not only call for people to lose their jobs at the drop of a hat, but we also talk about how great our biggest rivals will be for years to come and hope to keep up. Now I get it...
True sophomore Michael Bennett started at SDE in place of Simon. Adolph's Washington moved up to the 2-deep behind Bennett. He and Noah Spence (WDE) usually come in during obvious passing situations because of their speed. Tommy Schutt has also earned lots of playing time tis year at DT. If Hankins goes this year, all three of these guys may very well start next year on the DL.
Thanks man, was just curious.
I think Washington beat Lewan for a sack or pressure. They're going to be good, no doubt. So will Magnuson, Braden, Kalis, et al, however.
Washington forced the fumble that I believe Boren recovered.
Yep. Watching the replay now. In FG position, Washington goes around Lewan fairly easily. Sack, fumble, loss of opportunity.
Lewan also completely whiffed on Sabino on the 4th and 3. That play was actually there. Sorry Borges haters. Our best OL had an easy downblock on an undersized LB and Denard has the first easily. Probably a lot more.
FIRE LEWAN!!!!! (s/ unfortunately required).
Also, also. On the play before Denard fumbles, the long pass to Gallon: if he picks up his feet or holds his legs on the diving tackle, he goes for six.
Did you see the play where Shazier blitzed up the middle, and Denard made practically no attempt at blocking him?
So I read your things that went wrong not on borges but stopped giving a shit about your analysis after you listed having an ankle tackle happen as anything wrong with Gallon, guy made a diving ankle tackle it happens all the time, there is literally nothing Gallon did wrong. In regards to the 4th and 3 play I remember a few guys hitting denard but maybe you are right on that one. Either way Borges is dumb.
denard breaking a 67 yd TD in the first half and then not really getting another run to the outside the rest of the game was all borges.
and roundtree breaking that tackle and having dileo downfield to block that last guy on the 75 yd TD was also all borges.
but for superior effort by roundtree and denard on those two plays, we are lucky to get just 7 points.
see, it cuts both ways. borges "wasted" way too many plays in the second half. and the argument that "denard can't block so don't use him" meme wears thin with me. the lions had a certain RB that couldn't throw or block, yet he gained a lot of yards and his offense was better for it.
Have you not seen the development already? Q, Big Will, etc..
Quinton Washington and William Campbell were 4-star and 5-star prospects, respectively, and neither one looks great. I think they combined for 3 tackles for loss and 1 sack for the ENTIRE SEASON. I agree that they've developed from where they were, but they're not exactly lighting the world on fire.
i think we agree that those two actually developed into serviceable players...finally. my bigger concern is the o-line development. it's not like the guys we have out there are throwaways. most were 4* guys. we actually were pretty damn lucky this year that the o-line was healthy. i think it's highly unusual that none of them got hurt. i think all the starters played in every game, iirc. i shudder to think what would have happened if a couple of them went down during the year.
Frankly, I don't think talent is our problem. For the first time in YEARS, I felt our talent level was basically on par with OSU. You guys disagree?
Simply put, yesterday we were out coached.
We have a lot of talent on the team, but most of it is young and/or on the defensive side of the ball. Excepting Lewan, our starting O-line was at a definite talent disadvantage as well as our receivers and RBs.
down their throats in the middle of the line.
but except for omameh, i think each of our starters on offense was at least a 4* on rivals.
If you're talking about the offensive line, yeah. If you're talking about everyone, then Omameh, Kwiatkowski, Hopkins/Kerridge, and Rawls/Smith were all 3-stars or less.
We were just out schemed in the 2nd half...mix that with runs up the middle against the strongest part of OSU's D and we get what happened yesterday. With al that said I like the direction we are going, we're a better team than last year just with a worse record.
I totally agree about our OL talent...that is why I think, even if we lose Lewan, we will probably be better next year. Yes, I know, we will be playing a bunch of first year starters, but I think most of them are more talented than the guys that we have starting now. And I think trading Mags for Lewan will not be a huge dropoff everyone thinks.
WR are going to be ok, I think especially with the new guys coming up. Even at RB, I think we will be ok, though I would love to have Green...I think he is a gamechanger.
I think that the Oline might actually be better pending the caveat that the incoming lineman live up to expectations. I also question Lewan leaving early as I think he needs another year IMO to develop.
I have questioned it a few times this year, but why did they never seem to run over Lewan on the short yardage plays. I just do not think Jake Long or Joe Thomas for example when watching Lewan play at this point, and it just does not seem he is the go to lineman for those types of plays.
Personally, I feel that the turnovers are what sealed the game for us. We lose by a combined 12 pts total on the road to ND and OSU. If it wasn't for 10 turnover between the 2 games we would have won both. I do feel that Borges gets in the "just don't lose the game" type mindset. Instead of "let's go out and win it." I remember a lot of games in the Lloyd-era that were the same way.
I wonder how much of the "just don't lose the game" mindset comes from the turnovers, some of which appear to stem from "let's go out and win it" mindset. That's not an excuse, just idle speculation.
I got this feeling too. For the first time in quite some time we were on equal footing in terms of talent. We obviously have some holes here and there. So do they. Overall, talent seemed pretty equal.
I definitely disagree here. Fans focus way too much on the skill positions and not enough on the lines. On the offensive and defensive lines, it wasn't even close. We were manhandled up front on both sides of the ball. When OSU ran the ball, even when it was well defensed, the line of scrimmage surged up and they got positive yardage. That's the kind of luxury that allows you to call an inside handoff on 3rd and 7 and have it look like a smart call. Meanwhile, when we ran the ball, our OL was invariably shoved backwards, and it took a great individual effort from the ballcarrier to gain anything.
I should have been more specific. Our offensive line (outside of Lewan) was was I was considering our weakness. Ohio's saftey play, especailly tackling, was pretty bad. Also, our receivers felt superior to theirs. Ohio's D line seemed better, but that could have been amplified by how bad our O line was. Our linebackers seemed better. Once again, RB is hard to tell because our O line was so bad. All I am saying is that to my subjective belief (and talent surely is subjective), the overall talent amongst the teams was approximately equal.
The offensive line is five out of 11 players on offense. It's not just one little position area. If you have a talent deficiency there, that's a monster handicap to overcome. You can have a huge edge at the skill positions (which I do not think we had, anyway) and it can go for naught if you can't block up front. OSU had penetration on almost every Michigan offensive play, whether it was a pass or run. Pretty much every successful offensive play we had required an excellent individual effort from Gardner or the ballcarrier to avoid losing yardage right off the bat.
I don't think Borges called a great game, but I also don't think the OSU OC did, either. The difference was that Borges needed to call a brilliant game to overcome our weakness upfront, whereas OSU could just run Hyde up the gut all day.
I am well aware of the importance of an offensive line. Still, if we are talking about overall talent on the two teams, which we were, a deficiency in one position group does not make overall talent disparate between the two teams without looking at the rest of the positions.
But if both of our lines were at such a disadvantage in the talent department, what position group do we make up the difference in? If 9 or 22 starters already put you in a massive hole in the talent department, where do you make up for them that will put us on even footing?
Their DBs were atleast on par with ours, their QB is equal to ours. Their running back is light years beyond anything we trotted out there save Denard, who only brings us to about equal due to his limitations yesterday.
Our receivers had a good day but I think Ohio is definately more talented at receiver I can be talked into leaning that one into Michigans catergory though. TEs are equal I would say.
So that means you think our LBs were light years beyond their Ohio counterparts, I just didn't see that at all. I saw alot of Ohio Linebackers making great plays all day. They practically lived in our backfield.
I really see no way in which our talent was anywhere near equal to Ohio's.
You are including Lewan and Roh in your 9 out of 22 which actually makes 7 out of 22. I also said I didn't think you could really tell if their D line was better as they were going againt our O line which was just bad. So that makes 4 out of 22 clearly conceded which makes your premise incorrect. As for our position groups with superior talent, I say linebackers, DBs, and WRs have a talent advantage along with "factor back" or whatever you want to call Denard.
They(Ohio) had more talent on the field. People seem to forget how much we lost from last year and who they were replaced with. Molk, Schofield, Martin, Van Bergen, Heininger, Hemingway. All major contributors and no offense to their replacements but they just weren't on the same level. The RR years really hurt us depth wise and if we are honest this team performed to where they were expected to this year. Could they have won a few of the games they lost? Yes. Could they have lost some of the games they won last year? Yes. In the upcoming years with the recruiting that is being done, especially in the trenches, this team will be alright. It's only the second year under the new regime. Rare does it happen overnight.
Schofield is the starting right tackle.
Sorry, meant Huyge.
teams have attrition/graduation every year. losing molk, huyge, hemingway and koger shouldn't be enough to decimate this offense when there are 4* guys waiting in the wings...and you return the all time yardage leader at the school.
i'm really concerned about the o-line coaching; not necessarily the players we have there.
Just because you have 4-star guys waiting in the wings doesn't mean they're any good.
I'm lukewarm on Darrell Funk, too, but the bottom line is that David Molk won the Rimington Award, he was experienced at calling protections, and he was a very good center. Elliott Mealer was the fourth-string center last year behind Molk, Barnum, and Khoury. And Barnum has never looked impressive to me, whether he was coached by Frey or Funk.
but i would bet half of the big 10 teams would trade their o-line talent for ours.
question - how many of our redshirts do you see winning o-line starting jobs next year; 2 or 3? imo, if it's just one, we are in trouble.
That depends on Lewan. I think Kalis will start somewhere (RG or LG). I also think Bryant will start, so I'll say one redshirt freshman will start next year. Two if Lewan leaves.
I totally disagree. With the exception of LB, LT and the interior of the DL (and that's a stretch to say that), their talent level was well above ours.
If you are looking for a way to rip on the coaches, be my guest. The 4th down call was bad, the alternating Denard and Devin was disruptive at best, and having Bellamy as the back up was deplorable, in hindsight. But to say the talent level is on par is way off base, imo.
The Game was there for the taking, but that doesn't necessarily mean the talent level is equal. I agree with you on that. Especially comparing our OL vs. their DL, I thought it was clear Ohio had more talent there.
But even if our talent level wasn't on par, The Game was there to be had, and I don't blame the players for not taking it. It's fair to rip on the coaches after that second half. This loss was purely coaching (I won't rehash the madness). It's troublesome because this was such a great opportunity to get a win against Ohio, and the opportunity was wasted. I hate to say this, but we know Urb is going to get the horses in his stable, so it will be more difficult to beat them on a consistent basis in the future. This was a great chance that was squandered.
You can look at it two ways, we were outcoached in the 2nd half, or we seriously outcoached them in the 1st. You can also say that OSU handed us each of those three TD's.
1st - Blown coverage and poor tackling
2nd - Fumbled punt/poor special teams coaching (Urban is the ST Coordinator) and mass quantities of stupid OSU penalties
3rd - Poor tackling and dilithium
Otherwise, we didn't move the football very well. When we did, it was in the passing game. We were lucky to be ahead at the half and played a very good defensive game to keep the game one possesion away.
As to your other point, if you think they will have a QB like Miller every year, I think you are severly underrating Miller. He's a rare QB (like Denard) who won't be replaced easily. OSU will probably always have better talent, but, as long as we keep recruiting like we are, that gap will be considerably less than it is right now. That's the way it's always been.
Why we used them independently in the second half, I can't explain.
Play action fakes w/ Denard on the bench were basically ignored.
It was like we couldn't throw the ball with Denard in the game. IME, it could have been different if tOSU had to cover all of the possibilities w/ Denard and Devin in the game. And Borges has been touted as some imaginative wizard?
Borges played turtle after realizing that Denard in the backfield wasn't going to pick up and blitzes and Devin was going to get killed before Denard could flair out to catch a screen. Now, i'd have liked that very real possibility to be seen in theory or practice and make sure that V. Smith was in on a lot of those plays to balance the issue with Denard.
The only position groups on the field where I felt UM had equal or better talent than Ohio was the LBs, QBs, and specialists (Hyde was better than any of our tailbacks, unless you count Denard as a tailback). Mostly though, Ohio was way better than Michigan in the trenches. Ohio was able to run the ball on us consistently, both inside and outside, and UM couldn't do the same to them.
I think you're thoroughly mistaken on the talent, but I agree with you that our coaching job was deficient on offense.
I watched them play all season and they struggled with a lot of mediocre offenses. Yesterday
Some teams can improve as the year goes along.
You know, I think that's what is so frustrating. OSU always seems to step up during The Game even if they haven't all year, and we seem to shrink. Is it coaching? Talent? Some combination? I don't know, but it's been that way for ten years.
I don't know how much they really "stepped up" yesterday. They were playing at home against an 8-3 team starting its backup QB and backup RB. They came into the game averaging 38 ppg. They received five turnovers and managed only 26 points. Their red zone offense was worse than it had been all season: their placekicker had attempted six field goals all year going into the game and then attempted five yesterday. Meanwhile, their defense gave up TDs of 75 and 67 yards.
Neither team rose to the occasion yesterday. The game was not well-played or well-coached on either side. Unfortunately, the talent level is still sufficiently uneven that a crappy OSU performance will generally beat a crappy U-M performance.
and it will be an exciting thing to watch their development. However, those who are automatically assuming that their actual in-game performance will be better right off the bat than departing seniors are engaging in some extremely rosy optimism.
Go watch Taco's highlight film and you will feel better. Then think about Kyle Kalis, Erik Magnuson, et el. Really the only freshmen line-men who made even a slight impact on either side of the ball for us was Pipkins. It seems our coaches prefer to bring the players along more slowly than OSU does. The fact is, both the offensive and defensive lines will get significantly more talented the next few seasons. If football is truly won "in the trenches" we will be set.
You guys keep berrating our O line and they were at a disadvantage all day. tOSU continuously put 8,9 men in the box all day to stop the run. Last I looked, 8,9 is a big advantage over 5. And our play calling kept right on running into that box.
Which is why it is so frustrating that they did not have Gardner and Denard in the game together running plays. It completely tipped pretty much everyone but Stevie Wonder on what was going to be happening.
It took Gardner out of synch with his receivers, made the entire offense predictable, and kept putting pressure on Gardner to come back in on 3rd and long which is not good for any QB, let alone one who was not in total synch with the offense.
I also question if there is a system in place to identify the players being used with the called plays as you keep hearing about the expectation is for the position, and in a few cases you have to scratch your head on why a running back was in the game for a certain play.
Given that there was some success going outside or off tackle, i would have expected to see some efforts with Justice Hays or Norfleet possibly to use some speed to get there.
It also seems like there was alot of focus on throwing the ball 20+yds on alot of the routes, but not as much focus on short/medium range or exploiting the middle of the defense when they were bringing the house.
That is just putting the players you have into position to be successful.
The non-use of Funchess yesterday borders on the criminal, as was refusing to have Devin and Denard on the field together for the whole game.
noted inability to block (he really would have benefitted from. RS year) was too big a liability against the OSU D-line. And/or the coaches thought his presence was too much of an obvious pass-play indicator.
I expect big(ger) things from him next season after a full year of practice and weight training.
Our 5 OL couldn't block their 4 DL, so we need a TE; let's assume that let's them scoop an LB too. Now the WR take their CBs, and we lead block with Smith ... Leaving D & D against 3 guys, usually a safety and two LBs. Denard can't block, so Gardner has to juke someone to get anything, assuming someone even buys a play fake to Denard.
Math sucks. When your OL consistently fails to block, your runs won't go anywhere. Adding two non-blockers to that mix instead of one makes it worse. If anything we should have been throwing the ball more, where the OL is better and we can work the field more.
It was detrimental to Gardner and telegrahped intent; however, this team's problem for two years plus now is the ability of defenses to stack the box and dare the pass. Gardner helps that quite a bit. Unfortunately, Robinson in the backfield doesn't. He's not a blocker because he's never been trained to do it. So you can still blitz Gardner if you're willing to bet that you can get to him before receivers can get open.
Denard being less than 100% and having fairly little time to practice new roles probably limits possibilities like using him more in the slot to stretch defenses before the play begins, motions, pitches, etc. (Though here, i'll say that Borges used the Denard/Devin combo much better against Iowa and i don't understand not doing many of the same things against OSU.)
This is what I was saying during the game. Especially in that formation we ran on third and short a couple times in the second half with Dennard in the backfield with 2 RB, we esentially had 6 guys blocking 8-9 guys. Of course we were stuffed both times. The next drive we went to some kind of jumbo/goal line when our running back options are a 160lb guy or a "power back" with no power.
Urban is trying the same defensive formula from UF days - utilize playmakers at DE and CB to funnel plays to inside hitters at LB and safety. The scheme was problematic this season until Boren started making tackles and the DEs started disrupting plays. He doesn't have the CBs yet, but the 2 in the 2013 class could make it far more potent. Not sure if MLB and S talent exists for the coming years. DE talent on roster already.
Like Bama, the best way to beat this scheme is power running and effective play-action downfield; must force the DEs to play run gaps and the safeties to mind the deep alleys. Turn them from freewheeling playmakers into conservative role players.
But I think we will be fine, especially if we get a new OC.
Poor grammar, rehashed opinion that isn't backed up by anything other than a gut feeling, everyone is already sick of the topic...
Yup, this really needs to be a brand new thread!
I think you mean "classy."
Why can't Ohio State lack talent every once in a while?
They are the only big school (sorry Cincinnati) in a state that is loaded with HS talent. That's it in a nutshell. Pretty much the only time they've ever had less talent than us in the last 50 years was in a brief stretch in the late '80s/early '90s. Earle Bruce must have been a horrible recruiter for that to happen.
....... I mean weak enforcement of ....rules
now. Two biggest rivals are undefeated. UM has made strides o late but are still playing catch up. Mattison can only do so much. UM is not going to shut out elite teams. It's on the O to step up now. I don't see a RB on the roster that is top shelf. UM needs to complete start over st RB. I don't want to Rawls starting.
Yes, they have studs outside...and yes, the OL got manhandled in the middle. Hoke's strategy for recruiting thus becomes obvious - get the talent to take the game to them. For all the complaining about coaching, having OLine talent to match tOSU's defensive talent will be part of what makes watching this game fun again...
Great point, and we all have to be patient since recruiting and development take time. Little being said about freshman OL development behind the scenes, but a lot of noise that our DL could be even better next couple years. We got something, got to take this year for what it's worth and hope for the best. We got a touch bowl game coming up though, wow! USC(ntusc) aTm, Florida or Georgia. Yikes!
They had more talent on the field, we had better coaching(well, defensively anyway). Here's the real reason yesterday's game is so frustrating: our less talented but well coached defense(the strength of our team) handily beat their supposed strength, the Meyer coached no.1 offense in the B1G. We just couldn't keep our critical weaknesses(interior Oline, Toussaint out, inexperience at QB) from sending The Game down the Toilet.
Our defense and our special teams clearly outplayed their counterparts. But with the offense in full sabotage mode, no defense was going to win the game for us in that situation. If the offense had just a sub-par game or even a bad game instead of the I'm-making-sure-we-don't-win-this-game abomination in the second half, we should have won.
You know when you accidentally cut yourself, the blood is gushing out and you realize how deep the cut is? You just know it's going to leave a scar for a long, long time. A day after the cut, I can't stop staring at it.
I think it's incorrect to say your defense "clearly" outplayed our defense. Yes, you stood up against some bad field position, but OSU yielded 60 yards in the second half and four first downs, while forcing essentially four turnovers. That's pretty solid.
Am I the only one who thinks our defense did not play well in the first half?
that means they wont get Hand next year.
R u freakin serious!!!!!!! somebody needs to tell D. Brandon to higher a OC that understands how to design plays for two Lamborghinis, and not two Plymouth Horizons.
Well, you clearly seem smarter than Brandon, so maybe you should apply for his job.
I moderated this to funny, but that's probably an abuse of power.
How do you higher an OC.