Quick thought on Funk

Submitted by Ezeh-E on

When it comes to Darrell Funk  and the offensive line fusion cusine, I have no interest in arguing how bad the line is right now or exactly whose fault it is.  That argument is older than the average age of the starting interior linemen at OSU.

 

My question is this: why did Patrick Kugler, whose Dad was the Steelers OL coach and is now the head coach at UTEP, come to Michigan to play football?  I can't imagine his Dad and he didn't watch Funk coach during practices before deciding he was the guy they wanted to be Patrick's position coach.  If Funk is Kugler and Son approved, where does this evidence play into the overall conversation in the "fire Funk" vs. "young line, not all Funk's fault" discussion?

milhouse

November 19th, 2013 at 9:20 AM ^

Running 9,000,000 play sets.  Tipping your plays by formation AND personnel.  Naked bootlegs. Seven step drops. Also, play action on 3rd and 85. Our line is not good, but play calling and preparation are making them look worse.   

Magnus

November 19th, 2013 at 10:20 AM ^

The schemes have been vanilla. Some teams pull tackles, pull tackles and guards on the same play, pull centers, etc. Except for very rare occasions, we're running zone and power. That's it. It's pretty simple stuff.

pearlw

November 19th, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^

It seems like it's been a common assertion that Kugler could win the center job next year...is there are anything real behind that other than that his dad is an OL coach and that he was a fairly high ranked recruit? I can't recall hearing anything about how he is doing in practice this year. Has anyone actually heard any positive reviews on Kugler or is it just pure speculation based on his high school career?

Benoit Balls

November 19th, 2013 at 9:35 AM ^

I agree with what someone said above...it seems more a product of the plays being called not taking into account what our line can and cannot do. Also, I think this weekend gave us a little more insight on what "could" be possible when we utilize backs that are able to hit a hole (however small) quickly and not bouncebouncebounce

Champeen

November 19th, 2013 at 9:39 AM ^

This is indeed a strange OL year.  We have arguably the best pair of Tackles Michigan has ever had.  We have the worst interior Michigan has ever had.  It still tranlates into the worst line Michigan has ever had (your only as good as your weakest link).

I always want to blame our OL woes on youth - and to be honest, it is a huge part of the problem.  But then i think, Harbaugh went to Stanford, which had WAY less to work with than what we have here at Michigan, and turned that OL into a jaugernaught (sp?) overnight.

Fitz is a very, very good running back. He, and no one else, can find any holes. Akron and Uconn DL caved in and destroyed our interior line.

One thing that is grossly overlooked is how good Devin Gardner is.  Yesterday i looked up Michigan's historical passing records (per game and by season and by career) and Gardner was very high on all the lists (including first in passing yards in a game) and he hasnt even started for an entire season (yet).  To take such a beating, have 3 guys in your face every play, and still put up the production he does is absolutely amazing.  With even an average line Gardner has half the INT's and about 8 more TD's.

Point blank, without Gardner this year (if Morris or anyone else had to start) this team isnt .500

This interior OL absolutely stinks, and the coaching decisions have been HIGHLY questionable.  I still havent forgiven Hoke for his decision last year vs. Nebraska.  And he keeps piling on.

Love the guy - but Michigan is bigger than one person.

bubblelevel

November 19th, 2013 at 11:07 AM ^

with some of your positions. 

Not sure that I would draw the conclusion that Fitz is "very, very" good.  Not horrible, but not in that category.  Also I ask this in all objectivity - there is a narrative around Gardner that should be scrutinized (refering to your point about how good he is).

Where would this offense be without all of his mental errors this season (fumbles and picks and probably half  of the sacks are attributable to him and not others).  Early in the season those mistakes put the team on its heals and very much affected momentum.

This one I struggle with, yes DG has absolutely dragged us out almost single handedly of big holes with his (at that point in the game) athleticism and competitiveness .... yet.... he was the one more times than not that was to be looked at as the primary contributor to those situations (we were running the ball well Saturday but stalled when we had to get production out of a QB making QB decisions correctly).   Do you laud someone who leads you to the backside of a cliff and then later pulls you back to safety?  I really am not sure on this one.

I believe very much that next season 80% + of these issues are gone because of his experience of this year.  I would say that if you see any sign of mental mistakes in game one next year (or any point early in the season) we may have an answer definitively about his ability to play at the level the team needs.  

michgoblue

November 19th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^

Let's look at your claims:

1.  "Harbaugh went to Stanford, which had WAY less to work with than what we have here at Michigan, and turned that OL into a jaugernaught (sp?) overnight"

Our current line is a walk-on center playing next to 2 freshmen guards and two senior tackles.  Let's compare to what Jimmy had in Palo Alto:  In 2008, Harbaugh started a line of 3 seniors, a junior and one sophmore.  No freshmen and no walkons.  He won 5 games that season.  Quite the dominant offense.  In 2009, his line consisted of 2 seniors, 2 juniors and a single redshirt freshman.  Harbaugh's dominant season was 2010.  His line consisted of 1 senior, 3 juniors and 1 soph.  Zero freshmen, zero walk-ons.  Also note that in each season, he had a junior or senior TE - in some seasons, he had two of them.  He also had Tony Gerhart, who was a Heisman trophy finalist running the ball. 

2.  "Fitz is a very, very good running back"

Depends on how you define good.  He can't pick up a blitz or block to save his life.  He did have one good season, but that was when Denard was running the ball and teams were clearly more afraid of Denard, creating opportunities for Fitz.  Not taking anything away from that season, but you should also keep in mind that Fitz is also coming off of a major injury.  For whatever reason, Fitz just isn't getting the job done.  Compare his production to that of the 2 true freshmen this past game.  So, Fitz is a great guy and has been a serviceable back, but only Fred Jackson would say that he is "very, very good"

As for Devin, I actually agree with you.  He is very good, and has some real potential.  The problem is that you could put Tom Brady in at QB and it wouldn't matter.  A QB can only throw the ball to an open receiver.  It generally takes more than half of a second for a receiver to get open.  When the OL cannoy buy the QB more than 3 steps to throw the ball before he is killed, there is not much that the QB can do.  Earlier in the season, Devin tried to compensate for this by rushing his mechanics just to get the ball out, or by making tight throws.  The results were many interceptions.  Unfortunately, until the line gets its act together, we will never know just how good Devin can be.

Michigan248

November 19th, 2013 at 12:11 PM ^

To add to your post. i dont know who started on the oline but in 2007 Harbaugh went 4-8 and the teams leading rusher had 500 yards. Now as far as talent goes I would argue Harbaugh had more just look at players drafted during that time Richard Sherman best DB in the NFL. Doug Baldwin,Whalen,and Gerhart just to name a few

M-Wolverine

November 20th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^

I might not go with them just because Backus was a freshman that year. And Muransky and Harpring were good tackles, probably far better than Schofield, and the guys opposite them were beasts. I'd probably go with Runyan and Jansen looking at their NFL careers for the balance. But they were all probably better big dog-little dog than the current equivalent. Not that we don't have good tackles. But some of those guys were great and beyond.

StephenRKass

November 19th, 2013 at 9:40 AM ^

We wouldn't have the success we're having in OL recruiting if Funk was a skunk. I guess what I'm happiest about right now is that I don't see Hoke or Brandon changing the OL coaching. I'm glad they're the ones in control, and not the rabid fan base. All the concerns about Funk will be washed away by the 2015 & 2016 seasons.

Schmoe

November 19th, 2013 at 9:45 AM ^

Kugler doesn't come into play at all.  And it is not all Funk's fault.  But it is partly his fault.  He has not done the job his entire time here.  I assume he would lose his job because he doesn't do it well.  Period.

mgobaran

November 19th, 2013 at 9:50 AM ^

Pretty insightful post. I never thought of it that way. It makes sense to me that Kugler's dad would have been able to see if Funk knew his stuff or not. 

Hopefully now that the fans have seen enough of this team to draw the conclusions that we are just not there yet, people will jump off the "FIRE (insert coach here)" meme, and start enjoying these close games. 

Sure last week was dreadful, but I was happier that they won, than if they lost. So I must still care. 

Michigan248

November 19th, 2013 at 9:54 AM ^

You guys kill me. There's only a few different techniques, every o line coach across the country knows everyone of them. The only thing that makes a difference is if your players execute or not, right now Michigan's o line is not. Its not about Funks father,technique, or Borges

maizenbluenc

November 19th, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^

and not as strong, and this causes them to either be confused and miss assignments, or flat out get beaten.

Who's job is it to take this fact into account, and set offensive strategy and game planing in place to win games in spite of these weaknesses?

The loss to Michigan State: still sticks in my craw, but I sort of can understand. (I still think we were outcoached.) I'll even cut Borges some "experimentation / training day" slack for Akron and UConn. The losses to Penn State (especially the OT part) and Nebraska: no. We played to our weaknesses instead of around them.

As the OP suggests: Funk may be a good coach. Everything I read about him up until this season points to him being a respected teaching coach. Maybe we give him another season to see if this youth develops.

The smug guy up in the booth - I'm more sure needs to go - or he at least needs a massive pay cut based on our offense being 40th in points for, 52nd in passing yards, and 95th in rushing yards. Just "grinding" is not getting us our moneys worth.

Michigan248

November 19th, 2013 at 11:06 AM ^

i am tore with Borges. The argument can go either way. My personal feeling is that Michigan's two best RB are true freshman, outside of gallon the WR core sucks, even if you call funchess a WR the unit is still 2 deep. Gardner has been making horrible decisions, but do you blame him or the line? The interior of the o line is young, even our rs Sr Schofield has made me scratch my head.

Oscar

November 19th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^

"Its not about Funks father,technique, or Borges"

Let me take an extreme hypothetical example to show that it is arguably mostly Borges fault.  So if you have an offensive line that is great in pass blocking and terrible in run blocking, and then you call run plays the majority of the time, then yes, it is the offensive coordinators fault.  Granted we don't have a great pass blocking offensive line, but there are ways to coach around that to a certain extent.

aiglick

November 19th, 2013 at 9:57 AM ^

I think the point that we can all agree on is that the offense has regressed mightily this year. We were around the top 20 in FEI for offense in 2011 (because they threw it up to Hemingway) and it has regressed each year. We are now at 60. Contrast that with the defense that shot up about 100 spots when Mattison and the other coaches took the reigns. I agree that O Line youth is a major problem but that excuse cannot fly next year. We lose our two experienced tackles but everybody on the line should have at least two years in the system. If we don't see drastic improvement on the offensive side of the ball I would say there will have to be coaching changes next year. Also unfortunately if a poor offense does not start getting better and we have another year like this then Hoke is probably on the hot seat in 2015. Personally, if Hoke gets rid of at least Borges I would give him another year since that is a major change that could improve a woefully underperforming unit. I just think that there is still a fair amount of talent on the offense and t shouldn't look this bad if the play calling and in game adjustments were better.

In reply to by jaylee714

Oscar

November 19th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^

Based on Westwood's post, you must be young.  That is no excuse, you obviously haven't been coached correctly, firing your position coach is the only way to improve.

gbdub

November 19th, 2013 at 10:09 AM ^

Maybe Funk is an extremely knowledgeable, articulate guy (hence great recruiter) who just can't teach really young, inexperienced guys very well? Maybe he has great appeal for guys who already mostly "get it" like Lewan and the Kuglers but can't get through to more raw prospects? Like a professor who's brilliant in a grad class but can't "teach down" to a 101 class?

Prince Lover

November 19th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^

I think I've read somewhere that he didn't play football until his senior year which is why such a big guy went unrecruited. And after 3 years of Funk, has developed into a starting scholarship player. Of course the rebuttals will be yeah but the interior oline, Glasgow included, sucks. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Glasgow and his 3-4 yrs of football is starting over guys with 7, 8, 9 years of experience. (Okay maybe calling 5th and 6th grade football experience is stretching things a bit)

reshp1

November 19th, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^

Funk just might be one of those guys that knows a ton but isn't a great teacher, or at least isn't great at adapting to a particular person. I have no dont that he has the knowledge and expertise necessary, my worry is why it hasn't transferred to the players yet. I don't think that's something that comes across in just talking or watching the guy here and there like Kugler's dad probably did.

He too has some mitigating circumstances that make it hard to evaluate if he's really to blame, but at the same time, the list guys that he's worked with that are even passable is alarmingly short.

Perkis-Size Me

November 19th, 2013 at 10:53 AM ^

I have no doubt that Funk knows the position and what it should take to be successful. He wouldn't be coaching at a major collegiate institution if he didn't. He just might be a terrible teacher.

There's a big difference between knowing something and then being able to teach it. I don't know that this is the reason, but I don't buy into the whole youth and inexperience excuse. There's no way the line should be this bad if that is the main problem.

Brown Bear

November 19th, 2013 at 10:54 AM ^

I know I'm in the minority here but I'm willing to wait another year before I judge Funk and the offensive line. I think there is a lot of talented youngsters on this team but the key word there is youngsters. Sometimes with youth there are growing pains and it was somewhat expected before the season began, maybe not on this level but it was expected. Join Team Brown Bear and wait a year before giving up on Funk and this line because to be honest and a realist Funk isn't going anywhere after this season anyway. Patience my friends, we've been through some bad years and we should understand rebuilding doesn't happen overnight.

umchicago

November 19th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^

we have several other guys on offense that have gotten worse since this staff took over in 2011; including others on the o-line.  almost no college player should get worse; in any sport.  that is a rarity.  add to the almost zero improvement of the young guys this year and i have seen enough evidence.