Reality and the Offensive Line
At some point, does reality have to set in regarding the oline? Being the least productive--or close to least--in the country over a span of ten or so games with these highly-ranked recruits?
I know that this issue has been parsed by knowledgeable people here (but maybe not in one concentrated debate like I would like to invite here, now). I accept that Funk had a serious shitstorm to deal with, including attrition, recruiting failures, and three different systems over four-five years. I also know that there is evidence of incremental improvement.
Is that enough to explain the ineptitude? Maybe it is? Tell me. Or can we point to other schools and their experiences and say--yes, but it ought to be a hell of a lot better than this? At what point is it completely legitimate to say, sorry but that can no longer be our excuse. Yesterday? Now? Over the next few games? Next year?
EDIT: I am interested in the way some things get accepted as truth around here. A lot of people are responding that the oline did well Saturday and that our problems go well beyond. I accept that they go beyond, but our backs averaged 2.5 yards a run Saturday. How is that acceptable? Looking forward (sort of) to the UFR to make better sense of this.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:15 AM ^
what Borges and Nussmeier really think of Funk. And (just to play devil's advocate) wouldn't at least some squeals have come out of Fort Schembechler by now if he were clearly inadequate to the task?
September 9th, 2014 at 9:19 AM ^
Agreed. I haven't heard any rumors from the Fort that Funk isn't up to the task and I have a hard time believing serious Oline recruits, including recruits with former NFL players raising them, would be signing up if there was even a doubt re: Funk's coaching acumen.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:03 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^
but better with arguably an inferior talent/experience mix.
In the Nuss presser thread, dragonchild and Space Coyote do a heck of a job of breaking down the difference between the Borges approach and the Nuss approach - Borges trying to scheme his way past experience/execution problems on a per game basis, and Nuss trying to build them to a point where they are fantastic at running a particular scheme.
This explains the drastic up and down of the offense last year to some degree, where the difference was - Did Borges catch the DC napping with his new scheme, and could UM execute even a little bit to take advantage? Yes for OSU/ND, no for MSU/Nebraska/Iowa (etc).
Best part is - The theory is that with Nuss (limited scheme, improve) we actually get better over time against talented opponents, plus against inferior talent, we should be able to avoid the execution disasters that had us losing to Iowa/Nebraska/NW last year.
Worst part is - Limited scheme means easier to figure out and contain for teams with high talent level + good DC (ND).
Now - Understanding whether the defensive problems are really the difference between Taylor/Peppers/Countess and Lewis/Hollowell/Countess. I'm finding it hard to imagine that Greg Mattison has suddenly forgotten how to teach people to play D, but Saturday==OW.
Rob
September 9th, 2014 at 9:58 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 9:16 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 9:21 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 9th, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
our starting offense for the first half will probably consist of 7 to 8 sophomores. Another new offfense as well. I don't think our coaching staff is bad but I'd say probably needs to be elite to make that many sophomores along with the freshman and juniors beat ND at home. Especially in a huge game like that.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
I believe the only true freshman who saw a lot of time on offense against ND was Cole. Hill as a redshirt freshmen saw some. The only true sophomore's to really see time were Green and Smith. I think everyone else is at least in their 3rd year with the program. Gardner's a Sr. Glasgow, Miller and Kerridge are 4th year Jr's. Williams, Funchess and Norfleet are Jr's. Chesson, Mags and Braden are 3rd yr Soph's.
September 9th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^
We are very young and none of our 5 future starting juniors and seniors are studs except Funchess. They are average athletes. Don't you dare tell me Gardner is an exceptional athlete either. I cant hardly ever see that being a good offense. I think you have to start working Peppers in somewhere within the offense and see what he can do.
September 9th, 2014 at 3:09 PM ^
cant tell based on that wording, are you serious about gardner not being an elite athlete? the dude has huge issues with confidence, hot-cold decision making, mechanical fluctuations, and inability to run progressions and read past his primaries (especially when hes sped up / under duress) - but hes def a great athlete. now that does not mean hes great QB or hes guaranteed to lead this O to wins every week. im guessing youre trying to say in spite of him being a great athlete they still have huge problems on O?
September 10th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^
You create a false dichotomy. At this level, being a great athlete cannot be separated from decision-making. I too sersioulsy quesiton the assumption that Gardner is a great athlete-in waiting. Many people have physical traits and abilities, but those are just part of what makes a great athlete - esepcially the farther you get beyond high school.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 9th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
Karma is one hell of a thing.
September 9th, 2014 at 12:21 PM ^
The hour of your re-insinuation is nigh.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:20 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 9:25 AM ^
I doubt it was because I keep reading these threads, though.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:42 AM ^
and stuff. Take your 1s and 0s and go play somewhere else.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:47 AM ^
O-Line was okay. D-Line was lulz at pass rush.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:17 AM ^
your prosaic a** feel so superior this morning. We'll look for the evidence of your great acumen elsewhere. Glad you've got "lulz" in your repetoire, though--that, at least, does shine.
EDIT: Or better yet, see Blue Dragon's comment below.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^
was kinda lame, that's all. No biggy. Sometimes the newbies decide they're going to tell us all what we can or can't talk/think about, play policeman. You always just wonder why they declare a thing lame and beneath them, then come back to talk about it ten times.
September 9th, 2014 at 7:16 PM ^
You've got that backwards.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
Actually one thing I'm surprised no one is talking about is what the line up going forward is. I was buying the Miller stock coming out of camp, but he got blown up pretty good in this game. The rest of the line did at times too, but the difference with Miller was he was showing it from the get go where the other guys seemed to slip as the game wore on and got out of reach.
I wonder if the coaches keep rolling with him or if they yank him and put Glasgow in at C and Kalis in at RG. Granted Glasgow had probably the second worse game after Miller and Kalis is still maybe not 100% so it may not be worth it. In hindsight, Glasgow's first game suspension was a bigger deal than it might have seemed at the time. I think there's a good chance if he wasn't, he would have been starter at C from day 1 and maybe held up a bit better against ND (not that it would have won the game, but still).
September 9th, 2014 at 9:24 AM ^
zero Junior and Senior offensive linemen. ZERO.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:28 AM ^
Yes because if we did have any....say at tackle for instance....we'd have a good OLine. And if they were say.....NFL quality tackles.......we'd be awesome.
Right?
September 9th, 2014 at 9:31 AM ^
but to expect an offensive line made up of five, first, second and third year players to be any good is pretty unrealistic. Especially coming off a year where they weren't very good with a couple NFL quality tackles.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:08 AM ^
Their line is three class of 2012 guys and two true freshmen. They just had a back rush for over 6 ypc on the road against Stanford. Speaking of Stanford, in Jim Harbaugh's fourth year there Jonathan Martin and David DeCastro were superstars on the o-line. Where are those kinds of guys from Hoke's first class? Kalis isn't even in the lineup, Magnuson is an undersized guy playing guard, and Braden is just getting worked into the lineup. Maybe we shouldn't listen to Jason Whitlock anymore?
We saw the same problems in 2012 as well, when the line was three NFL guys and two 5th year seniors who had been highly rated recruits.
Fan myths to the contrary, this staff has done a horrible job recruiting on the offensive line and now it is showing up. Last year was just the canary in the coal mine, when if things were going adequately you would have seen a couple of future stars eased into the lineup between Lewan and Schofield. That isn't how it went down.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^
as bad as ours last year.
No
September 9th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^
Hoke deserves a cookie for doing a consistently shitty job?
If you're just saying this is what we should have expected, I agree with you. The ND beatdown didn't really bother/surprise me because I had no expectations. If you think that excuses the staff's performance then we are in strong disagreement.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^
they have recruited the offensive line well. Kalis and Magnuson had offers from plenty of big time programs. Bars had offers from Clemson, Fla, LSU, and PSU to name a few. Braden had the worst offer list, but had one from Wisky and they churn out NFL Olineman. This staff just haven't developed them at all.
Remember how we were wondering if/when Alex Kozan would make a choice. He had an offer list similar to Bars and he started in the NC game last year.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
At this point the cause/effect issue is irrelevant. Whether it is development or scouting (I didn't see Lewan/Schofield/Molk/Omameh having any trouble playing well under this staff so I fall on the scouting side), either way there is a major problem and it isn't going away any time soon (the 2013 class looks even less pleasant at this point than 2012).
I suppose yours is the more optimistic view since you think a coaching change in the near future could result in dramatically improved results. I think we're probably fucked for a while.
September 9th, 2014 at 1:26 PM ^
imo, he regressed under this coaching staff.
September 9th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^
They inherited were brought in for a spread scheme not a power scheme that is why you saw those guys who looked to be improving under RR get worse under hoke. I dont blame this staff for those particular guys. Now kalis still being unable to figure things out and being a five star recruit... THAT i believe one could blame on hoke or funk or someone. you would think someone out of Dawson Bars Samuelson kalis braden LTT would have turned into something by now
September 9th, 2014 at 9:49 AM ^
Got a ways to go, but to me they look alot better than last year when we had 2 NFL tackles.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^
Offensive linemen are like the tires on your car . . . two really good ones can't make up for two really bad ones.
You're better off if they are all merely adequate.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
was up on blocks in the front yard Saturday.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^
Miller and Glasgow are both RS Juniors. Burzynski is a RS Senior, for whatever that's worth.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:46 AM ^
Glasgow and Miller are 4th year Jr's.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:26 AM ^
and certainly not the main problem against Notre Dame.
They had 2 plays where no one blocked Day for some reason, then another where Miller got pushed back more than he should have been before holding ground, but outside of that they were acceptable.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:44 AM ^
a carry. And I have little doubt that an ability to march down the field behind a solid o line would have made some difference.
Our bad o line has been the team's most glaring deficiency. And if the blame belongs with Funk rather than Hoke, that's grist for the mill in any debate about whether he stays or goes.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
40 of those yards came on four plays from Norfleet (tricks) and Hayes (draws in long yardage situations).
Green and Smith combined for 55 yards on 20 carries. When we really tried to run the ball in hte masculine fashion Brady Hoke promised when he arrived, we once again couldn't.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^
You can't really do that with rushing stats. That's true for everyone. Even Georgia and Gurley slam into the line for little gain regularly. It's the long ones mixed in that make their YPC gaudy. I don't think the Hayes or Norfleet ones were trick plays. Norfleet had a couple nice carries that were straight up outside zone. Hayes draws were situational, but again, you can't just cherry pick certain plays.
Also, the rushing was much much better the first half than the second, that was true for the OL in general. We definitely need to improve so the guys have good muscle memory to fall back on when they get tired, but the first half was a real positive to build on going forward.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^
I'm not taking out the successful plays Green and Smith had. I'm taking out the carries from guys who aren't our regular running backs. When Hayes and Norfleet get more than two carries a game then I'll view them as part of our base rushing offense. Until then, acting like the line did great because the defense got fooled a few times by situational players or conceded 10 yards on 3rd and forever is overly optimistic.
Let's not forget that last year ND overloaded the box and brought their linebackers hard to stop the run, which opened up big plays in the passing game and for Gardner's legs. This year they sat back and let our backs run into a wall while they completely stifled our passing game (outside of Funchess). The line may have looked better with an easier assignment, but they were getting off easy because ND didn't feel they had to work to stop them.
41 is stilll a lot >>>>> than fucking zero.
EDIT: Just looked it up, and Hayes' two carries came on 3rd and 10 and 3rd and 20. Norfleet ran a reverse in the first quarter for 13 yards. Praising the offensive line for the success of those plays doesn't make sense to me.
September 9th, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
I don't know that I'm praising the OL, just that there's improvement. The OL is still blocking outside zone on the fly sweep, but Norfleet also got a straight up run for 7. The Hayes stuff, again, is part of the normal context of the game, not some trick play. If you want to excise things, I vote to excise the runs in the 2nd half after things were out of hand and OL started slipping. I think you'd see YPC go up in that case, but that's neither here nor there. Another key stat is that there were only 2 TFL on the RBs. So they were at least going forward, again, improvement.
I also don't think ND was stacking the box last year from what I recall. That didn't really start happening until later in the season. I seem to remember ND being pretty passive actually, their DL more than held their own without much help.