Any chance we recruit any juco O linemen for next year? discuss
to play football, not to play trumpet
We don't need Juco OL players. We need to do a better job of coaching the players we have.
Never really understood the opposition to the JUCO recruiting.
Probably because most classes won't transfer
This is precisely the problem. As much as Mike Valenti likes to say that Michigan is no different on the academic front than MSU, they are.
It's harder to get a JUCO graduated from Michigan, which then affects APR. MSU literally has classes in bowling and golf.
Also most JUCO's went that route because they didn't originally qualify for D1. If you look back, the only times Michigan has taken a JUCO is when he had originally qualified straight out of high school, possibly spent a year or two at a D1 university, but went JUCO for a year so they wouldn't have to sit out. These types of JUCO players are not very common.
The Russell Wilson type of players (grad transfer) are also hard to find for Michigan. It's a great institution, but often behind the pack when it comes to introducing new graduate programs. It is very hard for a player to find a graduate program to go into at Michigan that their current institution doesn't have.
even the regular classes aren't likely to transfer. I helped someone get in from EMU and we had to sit down and make sure to take specific classes that we knew would transfer in.
Save for players from Grand Rapids CC. Most/All credits would transfer due to in-state agreement between CC's and state universities. GRCC is the only CC in the state with a football team I think.
It doesn't really make much sense when everyone else in the country recruits jucos. I think it's a necessity when our entire OL will be RS freshmen and RS sophomores next year.
And how old exactly do you think these JUCO transfers will be? Not a lot of 4th year JUCO transfers.
There might be a few programs that recruit jucos heavily (KState comes to mind) but a lot of programs don't go after jucos.
The ones that win championships do. Just saying.
Really? How many JUCO's do you think Alabama has?
Glancing through the roster, I see Deion Belue and Leon Brown as JUCO transfers and Brandon Hill, who went to Hargrave Military Academy.
They pull in 3-4 a year. I know they have 2 already set for 2014 and are still talking to some MLBs.
At least three probable starters will be RS juniors...Miller, Glasgow, Bryant. The no-seniors thing won't be fun unless we start to see some pretty serious player development.
JUCOs probably won't help. It's not like we'll pull in a bunch of senior linemen who are instantly better than the group we'll already have.
I'm not entirely sure why you think Miller and Bryant are probably starters. Both are mired on the bench, and neither has the ability to replace the departing tackles. The only way they probably start is if a) the coaches think Miller's ability to snap the ball accurately surpasses their love for Glasgow as a blocker and/or b) if two of those interior guys slide out to tackle.
More like "somewhat likely." Magnuson will hop out to tackle, opening up one guard spot. Now we have Kalis, Bosch, Miller, Bryant, and Glasgow to fill the three interior spots. So now we have at least one, likely two, possibly three RS juniors on the interior.
Competition caveats apply, but I feel like the OL was better (at least in pass pro) near the beginning of the year than now. Maybe I'm wrong.
I think pass protection was better earlier in the year, but I think that was partly due to Miller making better line calls than Glasgow...and partly due to the fact that teams figured out they could run twist stunts and kill our OL. I don't have any statistics to back me up on this, but I thought teams were playing fairly straight up in the first few weeks. Then we got hit on some twists against Akron and UConn and other defensive coordinators took note.
Like shark week, but with bad ideas
Make the guys that you have, who were highly recruited by the way...better.
Then call plays that put them in a position to succeed.
Logic, the pesky obstacle to overreacting.
borges doesnt game plan or attack weaknesses, he just has a handfull of plays that he picks from. Anyone that suggests he use more lays is taken off the pudding list for that week.
It's funny, 1/2 of this board thinks we have a Tecmo Bowl playbook and the other 1/2 thinks the playbook is too complex for the players to learn.
A lot of people who've never played or coached or been around football.
Regardless, I don't think that's the point...and I think most would agree with me. It's the plays that are called, not the playbook itself.
I for one think Borges is a BRILLIANT play designer. He's a mad scientist when it comes to play design, IMO. Loved the "Fritz" package, loved some of the Denard-Devin stuff late last year. Love that rocket screen we run to Gallon or the PA "pop" pass to Funchess in the slot.
The problem to me isn't the playbook. I like the flexibility of being able to spread you out and run the ball from under center. I like the play action and the read-option in the playbook.
We're truly multiple.
The problem...the play CALLING. He's the worst play CALLER in college football. He's got plays to chose from, but he doesn't pick the right one. He also has no idea how to pick the plays that limit our weaknesses. He ALSO is far too obsessed with setting up the big play rather than moving the ball down the field and getting first downs. We'd rather call 6 runs for 0 yards and get a 60 yard play than get 6 10-yard plays.
Odds are that the 60 yard play isn't always going to work, meanwhile...one of the 10 yard plays could pop for a big gain...and if it doesn't as least you're moving down the field.
Borges calls plays like a pick-up game...no first downs, start on your goal line and you get x amount of plays to score a touchdown.
Stanford is FAR better than us, but look at how they call plays. It's like the end zone doesn't even exist. They just want the first down. Eventually that end zone shows up and they score.
I've said this before...Borges should be in charge of designing plays. Hecklinski should be in charge of calling them. At least until changes are made.
I'm done with Borges. I can't imagine looking at the Akron game and the UCONN game and deciding that we should continue with the "transition" process. Sure, you can write the first one off as not playing hard enough but two in a row? The PSU game should have broken the last straw. At that point you scrap whatever you were trying to implement and do what works. If you say you're goal is a big ten championship then act like it. I can't believe this group of coaches thought that coming into the season the power run game would be effective. I'm sorry but that lack of preparation deserves to be punished and he should no longer be coaching here upon completion of this season.
Saying "Borges is the worst play caller in the country" implies that you know as much about the other 122-ish play callers in the country as you do about Borges. Which you probably don't.
I'm not a huge fan of Borges's play calls, but I also wasn't a huge fan of Rodriguez's play calls, Mike DeBord's, etc. When it comes down to it, most teams' fans don't like the plays that are called because most plays don't work well enough to win championships.
But have you watched the other 122 to confirm that Borges isn't the worst play caller in the country?
Indeed, I have not.
Of course I don't. But exaggeration is a way of expressing how good or bad something truly is.
You know, like if you said "this day is the worst ever"...is it really? Probably not.
You are correct in griping about playcalling...however, when it's simple x's and o's or doing things to limit your weaknesses, that's a whole new plateau of failure.
Let's be honest, 99% of bloggers don't know shit about what they're talking about 98% of the time. (Again exaggeration to keep the convo "light"). However, when bloggers could seriously "outcall" Borges it's sad. They don't get paid almost a million a year, I can tell you that much.
And I'm not talking coaching up or developing players. Simply calling a play based on what you have and what you see.
On another note...since you have more football knowledge than most. Why do you think it is that we don't go to a controlled no huddle to allow us more time to make adjustments at the line based on what the defense is showing us? Not Oregon, not Baylor, not Texas A&M. Just line up and either run the play, put the pressure on the defense to disguise their coverage for the entire play clock, or check to a better play based on what you see.
It seems simple but there has to be a reason we're not doing this other than "We're Michigan and we huddle."
We take forever to get the play in, then we take forever to get lined up correctly, then we leave ourselves with no time to adjust. Why not just skip the first two steps?
I honestly have no idea why Hoke won't go to more of a hurry-up offense. He has talked about time of possession and keeping his defense off the field, but that's an old-fashioned view of football. Personally, I would love to see Michigan run the no-huddle more often, but that just doesn't appear to be in the cards right now.
I've seen too many examples of Gardner not getting the play called in enough time and then having to burn a timeout, take a delay of game, etc. It's frustrating.
And I suspect it's coachspeak to avoid talking about the real reason, whatever it is.
Hoke and Borges were running plenty of no huddle together their last year at SDSU; I wish those picture pages of their bowl game were still up because what you see in the first frame each time is the team at the LOS with the play clock barely started. And it was successful.
I don't buy the argument that he suddenly caught the "time of possession" bug when he came to Michigan. I don't buy "we're Michigan fergodsakes" either. Something else made them decide not to do it here.
No, you discuss it by yourself
they all picked Alabama as well
Let's coach up the guys we have and watch them blossom.
Yes, that has worked out just beautifully so far.
Are you saying that a kid with an AA cant transfer in? That doesnt make too much sense.
They can transfer in. I did and nearly all of my credits did transfer via MACRAO.
Problem is only one CC in the state has a football program.
Out of state CC's aren't covered by MACRAO.
Then we can start looking for sleepers.
The center of our galaxy has a super massive black hole.
It just sucks.
This would have been a solution for this year, going forward it wouldn't add to much to the equation for us.
Probably would be a better idea if we recruited JUCO TEs that could block. Second the notion below that this would have been a better idea going into this year. We likely have enough OL to field a decent squad next year, assuming quality coaching.
I think JuCo in lots of areas would help. That being said it is not very Michigan to get JuCo.
Just for you.
How about get Chris Bryant to develop since he has been healthy (mostly) all year and will be the same age, or older, than any JUCO next year. I know - it's crazy. It would plug at least one hole if that miracle happened.
Nobody develops under this offensive staff, you are asking a lot there.
Would probably disagree
And how would adding more players (with probably less talent) without any experience help us?
JuCo often have more talent and they have experience playing JuCo.
To be fair though a JuCo player hasn't won a Heisman. Well not since 2010.
You know that Newton was at Florida for 2 years BEFORE he went to a JuCo school, right? And only went to one so he could transfer without sitting out a year. Different circumstances than most JuCo players certainly.
Perhaps different than most but let's not pretend that JuCo players do not come into systems and are named All Americans every year. No one is suggesting that Michigan just grab a random JuCo player but pick out the ones that UCLA, Oregon, Alabama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, FSU, and Arkansas go after.
Who are the JUCO All-Americans? Can you name any, other than Cam Newton? Any offensive linemen in that group?
I googled juco transfers, and found this link to this article (admittedly from 2011, so the numbers aren't super-recent):
It breaks down how many JUCO's each team had from 2007-2010 (numbers are total for the four years). Of note:
Michigan - 1
MSU - 2
OSU - 0
Alabama - 5
LSU - 4
Florida - 4
Georgia - 6
FSU - 8
Oregon - 17
Other than Oregon, where are all of these super-talented JUCO's that everyone wants to bring in? Don't forget that for every JUCO we sign, that is one less scholarship for the recruiting trail.
Alabama had Terrance Cody, Jesse Williams, Deion Blue, Quinton Dial, and James Carpenter.
They are there if you are willing to go get them. You just have to keep in mind you only have them two years so that position frees up much faster than a freshman that may bust. JuCo are a known producer or non-producer.
Quite a few, perhaps most of players go the JUCO route because of academics. And they have playing experience. So you get a guy who's a junior with one or two years of college game experience. As others have pointed out, it's one of the primary ways Snyder's been able to assemble competitive teams at KState year after year.
Can we hire some juco coaches instead?
Al borges' coaching are a majority of these threads?
There are probably not JuCo kids who could get in academically, and realistically the players on the roster are better than those in JC but just need to be coached up/improve. The pieces are there in terms of players, but perhaps the guys at the top need to see some transitions.
Come next season, we should start to see the talent and depth begin to emerge (unless Funk is just that bad). If there was a time to get JuCOs it would've been when Hoke arrived and saw that he had little young O-line talent, potentially foreseeing the interior O-line debacle we've stumbled upon now. I don't think JuCOs would help at this point
There has been copious amounts written (less since Nebraska) excusing this year's OL play b/c "they're young" and "we didn't recruit in 2009-2011". While both are true, Hoke has known this would happen for 3 years (and think how bad off we would be if Lewan didn't unexpectedly come back), so if he was concerned that the OL play would be this bad in 2013, the way to fix it was through Jucos. But he didn't do that, so he must have thought UM could take young guys and "coach 'em up" - which obviously hasn't happened and is on him & his staff.
There's nothing in the rules against recruiting Jucos when you need to get some big guys with experience. Go look at the top Juco OT and OG's -- schools like Alabama, Texas A&M, FSU, OSU, Texas etc are getting these players. If we are going to compete with these programs, we can't dismiss a class of players for no good reason (and please, don't give the "transfer credits" academics nonsense -- I guarantee we let in plenty of HS seniors who would not get into UM except for the fact they play football).
Your opposition to facts notwithstanding, that's exactly why Michigan doesn't take many JUCOs. UM makes the transfer of credits from junior colleges more difficult than many other universities. Whether that's smart or fair is another question.
UM also didn't used to pay for asst coaches. Now we do. Michigan Stadium didn't used to have suites b/c we wanted everyone to have the 'same' experience. Now we do.
Plus, we have had Jucos in the past - Russell Shaw (#2 WR on 1997 team) and Austin Panter (mid-2000s; didn't do much when here, but he got into the school) to name a couple off the top of my head. So it's rare, but it's possible.
Again, look at those schools that are getting the Juco recruits - it includes Texas, which is a school every bit the "Public Ivy" that Michigan is, and Texas A&M is just a step behind.
So, unless someone from the admission department can explain to me how they can let in high school students with ACT scores and GPAs that wouldn't get in without football, and can't figure it out for ANY Jucos, I'll take as the "fact" that UM is still stuck in its ways that we do Jucos as an after-thought/very last resort. And the facts show that this year's OL (and very likely 2014's) deserved some (for Michigan) out-of-the-box thinking. It doesn't look like we're even trying for these recruits.
Meantime, we handicap ourselves for no good reason, and Alabama (home of 2 of the last 3 Academic All-Americans of the Year), FSU, OSU, etc will continue to be far ahead of us in the rankings on a consistent basis.
The academic side likes money as much or more than the athletic side. Thus they block a very large percentage of juco credits so you have to buy more of them from the block M to get your M degree.
The school is transparent with regard to credits. The need to replace upper class students is real. People fail out for reasons related to life - it happens. Transfers are a way to replace drop outs and students who themselves transfer out. Transfer students are also a part of a public schools mission.
Not all schools within the UofM take transfers. They all do it differently but the UofM does it well and often enough. The point is football has a specific need for JUCO athletes that it doesn't follow up on for whatever reason.
The lack of JUCO players is a fail on the football side to provide leadership, support and time. Not to mention - for the most part - JUCO players aren't as good as incoming freshmen. The exceptions though prove the rule however. JUCO players sometimes makes sense...Michigan sometimes does not...lately it seems more times than not.
I don't see it being an issue that some freshmen are better than some JuCo. Michigan can easily start scooping up those great players in the JuCo system. Michigan goes head to head with other programs for those 4 and 5 star freshmen. They can easily do the same for those top rated JuCo guys.
I agree - but it often isn't the case.
The JUCO player would have to transfer with courses that show progression toward a degree ie they can't repeat underclass ciricula. It's complex and situation dependent.
If Michigan is serious about JUCOs they need to develop relationships with schools to lay out a plan for the athletes from the get go. That is work. SEC schools don't have as high a hurdle.
There is more to it than that. I don't think the Football program is focused on it. The school supports it - in fact demands it to put butts in classes. Alabama actively farms athletes out to CCs with plans for transfer. Michigan doesn't do this.
Looks to me like it's pretty straight forward to transfer in? It's not easy to get into Michigan but that is true for freshmen as well as transfers. We had 1076 transfer students in Fall of 2013 (5 were admitted to Kinesiology.) Statistically 1-2 players on the team should be transfer students if football were a reflection of the student body at large. It's not I know but there is an even stronger impetus to get JUCO athletes in time of need. We looked at it for QB this year instead of burning Morris' RS.
What is surprising is that a student could take the classes he would need to transfer in if he wanted. Every school in the nation is listed with equivalencies on the U-M website. They just don't. About half of Grand Rapids CC courses transfer with no issue.
The classes are listed by JUCO wherever the student goes or went across the nation. This credit listing has been on the web for a couple years.
I don't think that makes it any harder than freshman admissions.
Granted this isn't for the Engineering school mind you but ...LSA requires a B average - that is doable for a motivated JUCO or goal oriented HS athlete.
I think we need to look deeper than saying the school doesn't allow it. They allow football. JUCO is a part of football. They don't pursue JUCO talent. There is a disconnect here.
I appreciate it.
Give the line some time. They'll come around. Most linemen don't start their freshman year.
I'm sorry, what team have you been watching that gives you any form of encouragement that this O-line will progress under Funk or Borges?
Its understandable to get a little beat up by the MSUs of the world, especially with a some new guys going against a very tough, aggressive, and experienced defense. But when your O-Line is getting dominated by Nebraska, Akron and UConn, all of whom either have terrible defenses, or are just terrible teams in general, there is a huge problem with the coaching.
There is absolutely no excuse on any plain of existence for a Division 1 offensive line to be this bad. Wyoming gained 600 total yards of offense against Nebraska's D, and Nebraska's D dominated our offensive line. That should tell you all you need to know about our current situation.
You are correct, however, this is the time of the week where many on this board go into denial until post game on Saturday.
But I totally agree with this sentiment. I played line in college (albeit in a lower division) and based on my experience, it usually takes until your third year in college before you get used to the strength and speed of college D-line competition. There are obviously exceptions (Lewan, Boren) but year three is typically the time. I think coaching or not, we will see significant improvement next year.
Any JUCO Offensive coordinators out there? That would fill a bigger need.
Michigan will have no need for JUCO offensive linemen.
Are concentrated in Akron. Guess we should go compete with them for transfer players.......
I'll do it
Not only do we not ever really go after JuCo players at U of M, a big thing with the recruitment of O-linemen is getting in young raw talent and moldable size/skillset that you can try to form in to the player that you want. I'd imagine a OL on the JuCo level who's done well enough to warrant consideration at the FBS level is fairly set in his blocking ways already and is no longer as malleable. Could be way off, but that's just how I see it.
I agree, in an ideal world, you'd have a bunch of talented 4th and 5th year lineman, along with the rare super stud 2nd/3rd year guy, rolling into your OL year after year. You can mold them into the type of blocker that fits your system.
But that's not we're UM is at -- the problem for 2013 and 2014 is that "we're so young." If that's recognized as a problem, there are other ways to fix it than looking at the clock and wishing it were 2015.
Also the JuCo players can come in and have the skills and experience. It is not like these guys do not have real world experience.
Worst case your young guys now beat them out as starters. That means you have some older players giving depth in case there are injuries. They have big game experience and can help the young guys understand what to look for.
How did Auburn win 2010? The answer is community colleges. Their QB was a transfer from Blinn. Their defense was built around one Nick Fairley who transfered from Copiah Lincoln.
How did Alabama win?
Michigan doesn't want JuCo for a reason. It is not academics as they allow for transfer credits pointed out previously. There is more to it. I think it could simply be the same reason so many pushed back against the Fab 5 20 years ago. It is not the face they want for Michigan.
This discussion that the JuCo guys couldn't come in because they are too set in their ways and so can't play at that level is an interesting one. I think Nick Saban and Mario Christobal would disagree. After all they scooped up Dominick Jackson to play for Alabama next year as a starting OT. The problem Alabama currently has is a very young line (among the lowest with starts) but they forgot to tell the young guys to suck.
Yep. Young and raw for OLs is what you want on your roster, but not on the field...just yet. But since we're obviously in a situation where our young big guys are seeing ample playing time (and aren't studs right out the gate), our offensive scheme needs to be able to play to their current strengths (whatever in the world those may be) rather than running an offensive that pretends we have a group of guys in the middle that have an average of 20 starts among them.
REMEMBER THE AUSTIN PANTER!
Is he the local guy who used to disrupt the performers at SXSW by running through the crowd while gasping after every breath?
The one and only.
So does Auburn, so does eveyone in the SEC. I get it. We don't care about national championships only fighting for the Big 10 Championship and maintaining our academic reputation. However, if our academic reputation mattered so much answer this question. Why did I have 20 football / basketball / hockey athletes in my summer Communications 101 class but none in any of my first year engineering classes? Later when I transferred to LSA I did not have any athletes in my statistics classes nor in my economics / 200 level accounting classes. They also did not exist in the 400 level economics classes.
I will tell you why. Athletes in revenue producing sports have almost no extra time to go into Pre Med, Engineering, Pre Law or the BBA programs. Athletics is a full time 8 hour per day job and we are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.
Honestly, we have bigger academic problems if taking 2 or 3 Jucos per year matters academically. Just take the Juco kids and "teach them up" so that they will do well and then go win some damn football games. Our elitism is killing this program.
We just suck at JUCO recruiting. This is a football fail. We can't expect to pickup JUCO talent without establishing relationships with the JUCO schools, coaches, marginal academic high end HS talent and most importantly the schools within the UofM.
The time would have been 1 or 2 years ago. We're stuck with what we have now.