Which teams with young O-lines have rushed for -47 yards and 27 for 27?
The Snowflake Thread: Offensive Line (Specific OL Issues)
But you are off by one.
A&M's sophomore center was a backup who saw plenty of playing time last year. So that's one guy on their line who hadn't played vs. 3 for Michigan, including one who's a walk-on and 2 guys who haven't been playing since the beginning of the year. Seems like a pretty big difference to me.
The point isn't just youth. It's youth AND inexperience. I like how you choose a random part of each team's schedule.
Pretty hard to take seriously your repeated claims of dealing with reality if you think that defense we faced is a fraud.
How many offensive coordinators fail to scheme around their inept offensive line?
How do you "scheme around" a terrible OL? If those five guys can't block the people in front of them, you're pretty much screwed.
I don't think you do. Maybe not call zone read on 3rd and 2 in red zone. But real question is, can this performance really be blamed on simply youth when we have a great pair of tackles, a seemingly decent glasgow, a 5 star RS frosh and then bryant, bars, bosch, magnuson, miller? Forget about the rushing game, we were playing 6 OL at times with fitz in pass pro and they were getting to DG. Something is seriously seriously wrong.
I think those are fair questions - and I don't know if Funk is the guy to coach the OL.
But from a playcalling standpoint, I think Borges's hands were pretty tied by our incredibly poor run blocking/pass protection.
Finally, a post that makes sense.
It's not average, even slightly below average, it is POOR. Does youth account for the lack of quality? Our guys are big, they are used to playing football, and yet they look like rejects from the Ivy league (sorry for the insult Ivy league rejects). You can say no OC would have luck with this line but would our O-line be as bad had those OC's coached them up? Is the best our coaches could do with these guys after 8 games the best any coaches could do with our guys?
"Can this performance really be blamed on simply youth...?"
Glasgow is a sophomore and a walk-on.
Kalis is a RS Frosh. Yes, he's a 5* but still a RS Frosh. Even 'Bama tries not to start RS Frosh.
Bryant is a sophomore.
Bars is a freshman.
Bosch is a freshman.
Magnuson is a freshman.
Miller is a sophomore.
Every lineman you mentioned outside of the tackles, suffers from youth/inexperience.
You're not telling me anything I don't know. My point is there are a lot of potential contributors there and it's not unreasonable to get production out of RS sophs. Bottom line this is a historically bad OL and last year's was poor at best. If you want to chalk that up simply to youth fine but it's not like we're lacking in supposed talent, so I think it goes beyond that.
If it is truely based on youth, why not let your best 5 play and go through the growing pains. The message being sent by the coaching staff is that this is a personnel issue. They keep pulling interior linemen in favor of different linemen with the same result. Heck, I think they had two walkons starting at one point.
My question is to the coaching staff. Is it youth? If so, why keep changing personnel. Is it personnel? How could we have missed so badly on the talent evaluation?
Is it the coaching? The line has gotten worse not better. We have gone from 27 yards on 30 carries down to an alltime low of -49 yards rushing. Something is seriously wrong here!
27 for 27 man...not just this game. Throw short stuff? It's not my job to come up with these things. I don't get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars
Whatever the scheme was for ND, that seemed to work out okay. They have a pretty goof defensive line, last I checked. Remember in September when we thought that the offensive line wasn't great, but would be okay?
I think our gameplan today was actually pretty similar to the ND gameplan - but MSU has a much better pass rush. Gardner usually had time to throw against ND. Today he rarely did.
How do you sheme around a terrible OL? By coaching your line comprised of an All America, a 5th year senior and a 5 star so it isn't terrible. Oops guess Borges gets a pass on that too.
So you are blaming Borges, and not Funk, for the development of the OL, even though the latter coaches them everyday?
I am blaming both of them. I am also blaming the QB coach for Gardner's inconsistency. He is having a lot of the same problems Denard had. Not setting his feet, poor throwing angles, not stepping up in the pocket, etc.
While I agree on Devin's technical problems, Borges has talked ad nauseam about trying to fix them. I'm not saying he shouldn't be held responsible, but this seems to be a problem on Devin's end.
That aside, it is impossible to step up in a pocket that is not there. Devin tried that a few times yesterday and was sacked by the interior linemen. This line is bad.
My good friend who's been following UM since 1980 just like me said this exact thing. I'm not ready to give up on Hoke, but I gave up on Borges 3 weeks ago after Penn State. His apologists are just inflicting more pain upon this program by delaying the first obvious cure to its woes. Fire Borges come end of season and Funk too.
Worst post I have since on here. Easily. You do realize that no one outside of the lunatic fringe of the Michigan fan base is calling for Hoke's head do you. That should tell you something.
....but mgoblog is the lunatic fringe.
Sad to say I can't argue with this. :( Like I said elsewhere, I'm not sure bringing voting back would even be a good thing anymore. The lunatics might have the votes to take over.
Good point, actually. I'm sure Brian is enjoying all the extra clicks from the unwashed masses that have flooded the site, but he needs to be careful. This place is MLive right now, and it's only going to get worse. Even if it means shutting the site down for a few days, bringing voting back before it gets any worse needs to be the #1 priority.
There's an army of people willing to try to save your website, Brian! Let us!
Fire Hoke. Fire Mattison. Fire Borges. Fire Brandon. Fire Mary Sue. Fire, Fire, Fire. I know I'm right, because all teams with three freshman lineman should be able to play with top ten defenses!
I think what happened much of the time back in the days of the old system is that this site would actually crash outright because of capacity issues, or at least so I remember from conversations I have had with the higher ups.
As for returning voting, one of the flaws of the karma system is that you would have a thread like this and literally watch things get upvoted / downvoted serially based on the mood of the poster doing the voting. It was simply their way of having the last word.
I say this as a mod, but the old system which actually created an impact on point totals - if you cared about that sort of thing - were preferable to me. We only stepped in with the extreme sh*t then.
Good point - those 503 errors (or whatever they were) under the old format were extremely irritating. I guess I'll take some annoying posts here and there over literally not being able to post for long stretches due to server capacity.
"If you want Hoke to continue, you are the worst Michigan fan ever."
It should tell you that teams would prefer to play us with Hoke on the sideline.... Since it gives them a better chance to win.
Lunatic fringe? Oh right, anyone who disagrees with you is a lunatic. I forgot how reasoning works for some people.
...I couldn't agree more.
Ummm, dude, 2006? Remember that ball state team that came to the big house and was a last second stop from beating one of the best michigan defenses ever? Hoke has done great things with lesser teams. I honestly think he relies a lot on coordinators for his in game strategy, and Borges is just letting him down.
UCLA's isn't great but is doing okay....
Which is better than the insane tire fire M's is right now.
So what's the O-line like? How experienced are their starters?
Three true freshmen, some pass pro breakdowns and not the best push, but there's some definite progress shown there. UCLA is infamous for paying assistants below market in VERY expensive S. California. If I'm Hoke I think very hard about making a serious run at Klemm.
Stanford is pretty young too I think
Michigan's offensive FEI is 33 and UCLA is 48.
Did UCLA play the mighty defenses at Akron, UCONN, Indiana, etc., etc. to pad stats with?
They played Neveda, Cal, and New Mexico St. Not exactly a murders row of defenses.
So what you're saying is you don't know anything about FEI...
Guess not. But I've been following Michigan since 1980 and my eyes tell me Al Borges is the worst coordinator we have ever had, and I'm tired of the endless excuses everyone conjures up to obscure the obvious. You can toss your FEI data into that pile.
were worse. Yes, Debord was the OC of the NT team, but all he had to do was not screw up.
Borges isn't great, but at least he aggressively takes shots.
Agreed that they had a pretty big hole to plug--there's a whole lot of first and second year players on their O-line 2-deep.
But they don't quite fit the requested parameters becuase they have three third-year players on their line, so they don't have three as young as our three. My quick impression when I was looking through the history of 5-star OL recruits last week was that there's usually a big step up between the second and third year in a program.
The announcers were saying that UCLA was starting 3 true freshman on the offensive line and they sure seemed better than the performance our offensive line put up against PSU and MSU. So I guess it is possible to have serviceable young offensive lineman.
UCLA's has 1 freshmen starting. They may have had 3 against Oregon, but as you will recall Hundley's numbers were awful against the Ducks and they got blown out. So that really isn't a good argument to use.
...and they did start three freshmen against Oregon. It doesn't seem to have gone too well.
UCLA's website is terrible--they don't even post weekly game notes as far as I can see, so I don't know what happened to force the two new freshmen into the lineup. Injury? Or they played their way in?
They're the best comparison I've seen, for sure. Don't see any evidence their offense is better than Michigan's, but at least like Michigan they've won some games and scored some points. Could be worse.
Oregon/UCLA was a close game going into the 4th quarter. A turnover turned a 1 possesion game into 2 and it was over at that point.
UCLA held its own against the Ducks better than most teams have.
Michigan was close against MSU until the 4th. Michigan was beating Penn State until 27 seconds were left in regulation. These things are irrelevant, as was UCLA being close to Oregon. Also, M is ranked higher by FEI, which takes opposition defense into consideration. In raw numbers (before this weeks games, as sports-reference hasn't updated), Michigan is ranked 7th in scoring offense to UCLA's 32nd. There is a 6 point difference in PPG.
So, Michigan's offense is better than UCLA's, despite our line being even more inexperienced than theirs. Their 3 true freshman line has been deployed once.
Fire UCLA's line coach and offensive coordinator?
Really? Oregon's D shut them down, and they don't hold a candle to State.
Your insane posts are the biggest fail ever. Get a grip. Posts like that are embarassing for the whole fan base.
Not sure about that just yet. It depends upon what happens come end of year. If Hoke does not fire Borges and Funk, then I agree with you wholeheartedly, and the focus will quickly shift from just Borges and Funk to Hoke as well.
neither of which has a defense as good as MSU's.
Auburn has a freshman and two sophomores.
Playing very well in the SEC, ranked 11 in the country.
Edit- also, 5th in the country in rushing yards.
Without looking it up, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the other two lineman aren't a high 1st round draft pick and a mid round draft pick, are they?
They are both juniors, and I have no clue as to their draft prospects. Pretty certain neither of them will be a top 5 draft pick, though.
Lewan is not a top 5 NFL draft pick. He wasn't last year either, depsite what Brian likes to say. Sorry.
"But it's somewhat of a surprise that Auburn already has a clear leader at left guard, the only spot on the offensive line without a returning starter after two-year starter John Sullen graduated." Not at all like Michigan.
...is starting two fifth-year seniors, two fourth-year seniors and a sophomore.
Nice try, though.
Must have been thinking about UCLA my bad
Michigan State, for one. Their o line has had a lot of turnover and injuries and youth issues, not to mention being made up of far less talented recruits, yet they performed much better than ours did with with its elite prospects and nfl draft picks in the depth chart.
Well yeah but their D is worlds better than ours. I'd still take Michigan's offense over State's.
I guess you don't like winning.
And MSU's line is not as young as Michigan's. Not close.
Keep making excuses. All that matters is wins
Brad Nesler, is that you?
Our O-line coaching might be terrible--I'm neither a coach nor am I in the lockerroom--and the results have certainly not been acceptable. But I'm beginning to worry that the O-line problems have to do with something being awry with the players, outside of mere inexperience. I know we need all five linemen to execute as individuals, but it's strange that our "soon-to-be-top-15-pick" can't elevate the play of his peers through practice, insight, motivation, etc. Part of me thinks that trading senior Lewan for a less talented senior Molk would improve our play. I'm not saying that Lewan isn't a good player, but his brashness is starting to outstrip his performance.
Those guys were leaders.
I've had this sense since the beginning of the year that Lewan is not a leader at all. Besides loosing his cool a lot, when denard, Martin and others were seniors, I would read about them knocking on guys doors in off season at 6am to get them to workouts. I don't get the sense Lewan is pushing guys th same way as an upperclassman
UCLA is also very young, but they also have a soon to be 1st round draft pick playing QB.
Also going into the MSU game Michigan was 8th in the country in scoring.
Right. Also, UCLA may be an exception rather than the rule in terms of young O-lines. I'd guess Michigan is par for the course given their O-line situation.
4* and 5* recruits along the O line meaning these are guys who should be able to contribute as RS freshmen and sophomores...no need for excuses about being young
Our interior line is even less experienced than that. The ones who are RS Sophs (like Miller and Bryant) weren't big recruits IIRC.
If there are no excuses for being young than you should be able to provide a very long list of all these teams with really young offensive lines that have great offenses. So far UCLA's has been mentioned, but it remains to be seen how good they really are.
Well not that long a list because there aren't many teams playing with lines as young as ours because young offensive lines are terrible!
because its so easy to get a database of teams starting olineman ..along with how many years they have been in the program. We are starting 1 true freshman and it is by choice.. it's not like he is the only option. And in case you forget..you only get to play college ball for 4 years, where are all these teams with 5 5th year seniors on their oline. There is a big difference between struggling because you have young players and what funk has been trotting out there this year. This is just shit coaching and the evidence is clear as day.
Actually it is. Its called Rivals. Did you miss the whole RichRod massive attrition/ swtitch to the spread thing because that is why they are starting freshmen and sophmores.
You can sit there and say it's "shit coaching" all you want, you're entitled to your opinion. However, I think you're taking the "easy" way out on understanding what is going on. I think we first have to agree on a basic fundamental competence on the part of the coaching staff, and in particular Funk. If you cannot agree to that, stop reading.
So, given at least aveage competence at coaching OLinemen, I think what people are discounting is what happens if ALL of the OLinemen that have been shifting in aren't very good -- at least not yet. There is a game every week, and it seems to me that the coaches are having to choose the "least bad" OLine combination every week. That is what having a young pool to choose from forces the coaching staff to do. They coach them up, see who has the best week in practice, insert them into the line up, and see how it goes. This is what it seems to me "Funk is trotting out there." He's having to choose between guys that aren't that good, guys that aren't ready, and....nobody.
There aren't many teams with 5 RS Sr's playing on the OL, but by the same token, there aren't many teams that have the lack of OL depth that Michigan has. Why do you think Hoke recruited so many OLinemen in the last two classes? It's a shame he wasn't able to get more OLinemen in his first class as they're sorely needed.
Funk knows what he's doing. Is he the best? I don't know, and you don't know. But, what we do know is that his choices are limited.
do know he is definatly not the best. Answer me this, in his third year can you name a single player on the O-line that has improved? In his 3rd year there is not a single player you can point to and say ok, Fund did a good job with that guy.
How do you know he's not the best? Are you an OL coach?
Molk improved a great deal. Huege improved, as did Omameh. Glasgow has improved, and I think Bosch has obviously developed as he's starting now.
I want to see what he does with the bevy of top talent they've brought in in the last two classes before I crucify the guy.
was an All American before Funk ever met him. Omameh regressed from his sophomore year through last year. Huyge was a 5th year senior the only year he was here with Funk. Glasgow and Bosch are seeing their first playing time this year, how could you possibly conclude they have improved or developed when you have no baseline to compare from.
I think the problem I am having is that these discussions end up focused on the fact that our o line isn't great and you point at the experience factor. Some posters are just crazy but many, like me, are more focused on the fact that our online is not only not great, they suck. I don't think experience is an excuse for that level of play. I wasn't expecting world beaters but this is way below even some pretty mild expectations.
Lewan and Schofield are really the only guys who are still here. Everyone else on the depth chart is either a freshman or sophomore. And Lewan and Schofield are, by most accounts, pretty good.
but I think Lewan and Schofield have both regressed this year. The oline has gotten worse each year with these coaches, that much is not debatable.
Lewan may have regressed, although, as an All-America and potential high draft pick last season, he has probably plateaued. There's only so good you can be.
Schofield has gotten better. His regression actually occurred last season, but that might have had something to do with moving from guard to tackle. This year, he has been better. And I'm not just making shit up. Check the UFRs, he had a relatively rough transition last season before settling in.
Funk can go. Probably should. But the arguments about "regression" are silly considering we have started 7 interior linemen this season, not one of which had ever had a previous start under his belt.
Still, I knew the line would be bad. I said after last year's bad line that this edition would be worse. I just can't believe how bad it is. They block no play/protection well. Not one. There is nothing they do consistently well. Every play is literally a crapshoot. This is the worst line in Michigan's history. For that, Funk has to go. Tough break. I'm sure he would love to have another senior, a single junior, and even another sophomore to plug in there. That he doesn't isn't his fault. But still, like Coach Rod, historical levels of futility call for firings. Fire Funk.
More than half of the five-stars in Kalis's class have yet to start. Even at the very highest level of talent, most linemen don't seriously contribute until their third year in a program.
but what kind of rediculous stat is that to throw out. What was there like 7 5 stars in Kalis's class? Garnett was a 4 star just outside that group and he started as a freshman and played pretty well. Sometimes you have to play freshman and sophomores on the oline.. you can't just throw away every season that it works out that way. Auburn is doing a good job of it right now.
What stat do you suggest is more relevant than actually looking at linemen of similar calibre and seeing how many have been able to play their way into a lineup? Occasionally somebody does, and that's great, but if you set up your program on the assumptions that it's GOING to happen you've set yourself up for disaster.
No functioning program goes three years without recruiting offensive linemen. UCLA and Michigan weren't functioning programs for a while there, and they're both now paying the price.
it's such a small sample size. I looked it up, there were 7 5 stars on rivals. Since you insist lets look at them D.J Humphries is starting for florida. Zach Banner was playing a bit but went out for the year with an injury. Kyle Murphy was moved to TE.. I don't know if hes played any. Andrus Peat is starting for stanford. John Theus was a freshman all american at Georgia. Jordan Simmons is not playing at USC. Kalis started 3 games, obviously hasn't played well. Garnett was just outside as the # 28 player overall that year played in jumbo packs as a freshman and has started some this year. So even that small sample size says to me the young players can and do contribute all the time. Things are not always going to be perfect where all of you lineman are 4th and 5th year players. You guys act like any season where you have to play underclassman should be scrapped.
"Things are not always going to be perfect where all of you lineman are 4th and 5th year players."
Of course thing aren't always going to be perfect. But, can you not look at the data (for just Michigan) going back to 2005 and see some "issues." 5 years from then is 2010, and Michigan had "personnel issues." Five year from 2008 is 2012 and Michigan had "personnel issues." 5 years from 2009 is 2013 and Michigan continues to have "personnel issues," especially on the OL. Can you really not see this?
"You guys act like any season where you have to play underclassman should be scrapped."
Who said anything about scapping the season? What can they do? You dance with the girl you brought, no? A long-term plan says that you keep running plays that you're going to be using in the future to develop the young players that are playing now so that when they're older they'll be able to execute at a higher level. You act as if there is some secret schematic change that Michigan could make that would negate the OL issues. Sorry to say, there isn't.
fair points. I agree with pretty much all of that. But I am not looking for schematic changes, I think the issue is technique. I just feel like Funk should be able to get more from what he does have. Obviously they aren't going to be world beaters with 3 underclassman, but I refuse to beleive it is impossible to get better results with what is available.
Edit: I would also like to point out that in my post above 2 of the 3 non contributers of those 8 play for USC, who has had coaching issues itself.
Young OL can contribute. However, the odds that 3 young OL playing adjacent to each other against the best D in the country on the road are going not play terribly are pretty low.
"Sometimes you have to play freshman and sophomores on the oline..."
Yes, but only when there is a breakdown in the recruiting pipeline, or a series of injuries. I promise you if you ask any coach in the nation to look at the talent and age of the Michigan OLine, they're going to say that Michigan will struggle to run the ball. Lewan and Schofield are good, but the rest (including the TE's) are young as hell and physically not up to par against even teams like UConn and Akron, let alone MSU.
did Stanford and Georgia have breakdowns in their recruiting pipelines? They both had freshman starters last year.
4* and 5* O-lineman usually don't start to adequately contribute until they are at least RS Sophomores. Look at any of 'Bama's national championship O-lines. Or count how many RS frosh and sophs are on the All-America teams. It's the most technically demanding position on the team and the one which requires the largest weight/strength gains from high school. It takes time.
Don't Lewan and Schofield mitigate any sort of comparison with other teams with young/inexperienced OL's? I mean we do have one All-American LT and one All-conference level RT along with the mushy middle of the OL. That's a lot more than UCLA, Auburn, Stanford, et al
Is it? There are certainly quality players on those teams but I'm not sure of their lines. Lewan can't do everything. As hard as it is to believe, Michigan's line could be significantly worse.
I don't know. That's why I'm asking.
Individually, Lewan is better than most lineman and Schofield is at least an above average pass-blocker. He can still struggle in run blocking sometimes though. But the thing with O-line is that it's 5 guys functioning as a unit. The blockers must work together and all be on the same page as far as line calls, protection slides, etc. This doesn't come overnight, especially if the starters are chaning on a week-to-week basis.
A play can be blown up by one guy not hearing a protection call (ie. Clowney's hit in the bowl game last year) or one guy not releasing a combo block in time because he can't "feel" if the other blocker has control of the block.
But our interior isn't mushy. Its a sieve. That's why we can be sacked 9 times in a game and rushed countless others. Its also why we have a ton of TFL in the running game instead of a bunch of 0-2 yard gains. They let guys run free. They give up penetration by at least one guy on a preponderance of plays.
Lewan could do things to hide a bad LG. Stay on doubles longer, help on full slide protections longer, etc. But when all three guys are bad/inexperienced inside, there is nowhere to hide them.
Fot the rest of the year everyone will be grasping at straws to explain why our offense is so woeful when the answer is right there in front of us: Al Borges.
Football has passed Al by. Al made Akron's D coordinator look great. Al made UCONN D coordinator look great. He made Penn State's D coordinator look like a demi-god. Al made Narduzzi seem like Nick Saban 3.0 today.
I have followed this program since 1980 and the Charles White phantom touchdown. So heed me when I say that Al Borges is the worst coordinator Michigan has ever had. Far worse than GERG. Al makes Mike Debord seem like Chip Kelly.
-48 yards rushing ... Two weeks to prepare, and 6 points.
27 yards on 27 attempts vs PSU...
He is a resounding failure in every possible facet of the game. Can't wait for his apologists to come out of the woodwork now and talk about winning a BCS bowl we actually got blown out in and were lucky to win, or the points he put up vs a Lou Fickel coached Ohio.
I love the players and my university, but as long as Al Borges remains employed by Brandon, this program won't be going anywhere.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion about the O-line of other teams with an original post on Borges.
If you had to guess (+-1 year), what year did you start following Michigan football? Very important for the matters at hand.
You've been following Michigan football for over 30 years!! Now if only you knew anything about play-calling or game-planning.....
We will heed you man, we will heed you. You've been watching something you know nothing about for 30 years after all. And in those years, you never developed adult level emotional control, or you would realize that Borges is way better than Coach Rod's defensive coordinators. If you only meant offensive coordinators, I'd suggest you rewatch some of DeBord's or Parrish's games.
I think the point is a good one. Michigan's OL does suffer somewhat from inexperience -- that much is undeniable. And this is perhaps compounded by the fact that the interior 3 -- the ones with the harder jobs in the run game -- are the freshmen.
Still, given that there are almost 10 players available to fill those 3 spots, and yet there isn't a decent combination to be found, I do think it's become safe to assume that the coaching is at least not great. Whether that takes the form of poor position coaching, poor scheming and play calling, or poor oversight, I don't think it's possible for an outsider to say. I do think it would be best for the program if Hoke sticks around for at least another couple years, and it would probably be best if Borges does too, although that is arguable. I just worry about starting from stratch with a new offense (and potentially losing players and recruits to transfer), and it is possible that a better OL coach would allow Borges' schemes to work, despite my personal disagreements with his philosophy.
Yeah I'm certainly not saying it's all on the young line, but this really shouldn't be a conference championship-worthy team with this line, even given that it's the B1G. It seems like a perfect storm of sorts. Would they be better with Art Briles running this? Yeah probably, but we sure wouldn't be Baylor either. Mighty Baylor. That's weird to say.
You guys think this oline is bad!? Just wait til next year : (
No. This line will definitely be better next year. Yes, even without Lewan and Schofield. There are 10 or so dudes who should be improving significantly. 5 competent linemen is better than 2 really good players and a total disaster on the interior.
That's because our line is as shitty as it gets
Agreed. Tackles tend to have pretty easy jobs in the run game, and I'd argue that even in the passing game, MSU's D makes life harder for the interior OL. All 3 of those spots are guaranteed to be better next year one way or another, and there seem to be 2 or 3 good players vying for spots at T. Although I'm still hoping for at least a thorough review of the offensive coaching staff (Funk, mostly), next year's OL stands to be significantly improved either way.
That's what everyone was saying heading into this year - the oline can't be as bad as it was in 2012.
I said after last year that this edition would be worse. And I wasn't just guessing, either. I played offensive line in college.
It is EXTREMELY rare to get a guy who is ready to play as a freshman. They are almost never strong enough, and the technique is almost nonexistent. Your red shirt season is mostly spent on the scout team. You get a ton of mental reps from film, and you get drill work, but while the travel team is running the offense, you're mimicking the opposition from cue cards. And no one coaches you during practice. The line coach is working with the line when you're running looks. So, the first year is really about adding strength and learning from film. This is why 99% of freshmen linemen suck.
Redshirt freshmen are stronger and have seen a year's worth of tape, but they really only have had spring ball and summer camp to actually learn/be coached. They usually suck, too. Experience is the most important thing in line play. You think you know what's up, you know what to do against every potential defensive alignment on every play, but then you see what happens at full speed against guys who want to kill your ballcarrier, and it goes to shit. It takes reps to get comfortable, much less good. Glasgow might become a good player, but I watched a blitzing linebacker put him on his ass in this game. How does a guy who is 80 pounds lighter put you on your ass? Bad technique, low awareness, in short, inexperience.
I believe that no one should ever start on the offensive line before their red shirt sophomore season. Some guys will because they are either amazing players who will one day be in the NFL or their teams have holes in classes above them. But man, I'm telling you, they just aren't ready.
For the record, Fire Funk. I feel bad for him, as his personnel is really young and he literally has an empty row of chairs in the line men's room (no juniors), but this is historically poor. And historically poor gets you fired, even if there are legitimate reasons to have expected regular old poor
I've said this elsewhere, of course, but I'll leave this here:
Nobody should be surprised that Michigan's offensive line, with a brand new interior, would have some issues this season. It takes time to learn. There are going to be mistakes, and there are going to be trouble situations. I don't think any Michigan fan would have a problem with this.
It's always possible for a player or two to not "work out." Kalis has struggled this year, but it's always possible that he just has trouble "getting it" early in his career, or perhaps he is a "bust." Either would be a reasonable hypothesis in a vacuum. But we don't have a vacuum--we have a situation where Michigan has a significant cadre of players that have had a chance to prove themselves at the three interior line positions, and of them only one (Graham Glasgow, a walk-on!) has shown any competence at all.
But the line seems completely overmatched against even moderately adequate defenses. Its ability to run block is embarrassing; Michigan has put up decent, not great stats against cupcake defenses like Central, Uconn, and Indiana (Indiana just ceded 35 points to Minnesota, let's not pretend that their defense is competent), and was totally stymied by teams like Penn State and Akron (!!!).
Pass blocking has been okay for most of the year, but today it was a complete mess.
There is youth, yes. But there is also talent. I don't expect the line to be worldbeaters this year, but the level of play has been so disappointing that I seriously think they are worse than a good percentage of teams in the MAC. And this is with future NFL players, including a player in Lewan who could be starting in the NFL *right now* if he had entered the draft.
This is a comprehensive disaster.
And given all of this, one must conclude that there is a coaching problem. I don't know enough to know what should be happening or what is going wrong, but something is. It is true that if the OL were still Lewan-Glasgow-Miller-Kalis-Schofield, we would be furious that nothing else was being tried; it is also possible that all of the switching of players is hurting the ability of the linemen to learn to work together. I don't know.
But all of the goals for Michigan's season are gone, except for the last game of the season. And the OL is the chief culprit.
You summed it up well. 100% agree.
The most lucid analysis of this team I have read by a commenter this year.
It's all coaching! We have a very talented team. Texas A&M and Mizzou, changed leagues, have young teams, and are still good! A&M had a freshman QB that won a Heisman! Mizzou is still winning with a back up QB. Oregon went through two coaching changes, and never skipped a beat! And lastly, Urban Meyer took over a team that was terrible under Luke Fickell, and has only won 21 straight games since then! Urban Meyer has a very punchable face, but dammit he wins! Well...........Ya know. Does every fucking question need to be answered this way? Because no! No I don't know what the hell you trying to do!
I think that sums it up very well.
I agree with all of that, and I could not have laid it out as eloquently.
You are my favorite now that SpaceCoyote is gone. How can you always be so reasonable?
Is anyone else mentally preparing for the Ohio State game, It might be really rough especailly in our stadium.
Because Purdue lost to msu by 14.
Michigan just lost to msu by 23.
Ohio rogered Purdue the entire afternoon 56-0, ergo....
Ohio eleventy billion, michigan negative eleventeen.
So Can we go now?
I have some mushroom clouds to paint.
realizing that UM is probably going to get completely curb stomped? Yes.
Yeah Michigan never performs well at home.
when I knew we were dead men walking. 2009 and 10 were death marches as well. I am not sure if I can bear to watch this year. It kind of sucks to have your Thanksgiving weekend ruined.
I am guessing - if Gardner, Gallon and Funchess make it that far alive, we can be marginally more effective on offense than we were today. Our defense is going to suffer heavily.
I don't know what the lean conditioning program was they put both lines on in the off season, but it sure doesn't look to have worked.
You're aware we just had the worst rushing game of any Michigan team in the history of the program. They got pushed around by Akron and UConn. The "youth" card only goes so far.
Yeah, and what I'm asking is "how far"? Given the responses, it looks like very far.
Also, it's hilarious to see how people act like I'm defending the coaches. I haven't been happy with Borges either for sure, although I think people are putting more blame on him than he deserves.
Yeah, as if they're mutually exclusive. The O line and the coaching can both suck.
Although I don't know what Al could have called today. Even the short pop passes were hurried.
That's it! That's all I've ever said! You are the best!
Fire EVERYONE, just don't expect good results behind this line. The fact that we have a decent offense at all is, in my opinion, a point in Borges's favor.
Why can't there be multiple issues? Why can't Funk and Borges and the line suck? What's wrong with peoples' brains that this never seems to be an option?
Talent is one thing, execution another. Even now, I look at this OL and still see talent. They just can't execute. Is that because the scheme is flawed, the scheme doesn't fit their skills or their skills aren't being developed properly off the game field? That I don't know, but IMO, the talent is there, the coaching is not.
How exactly do you see this talent? What do you see that shows you how talented they must be while the coaching is lacking?
As far as the Oline issues go, with the youth and inexperience, it seems a lot of people are forgetting about the lack of experience at the TE position as well.
Yes, good point, especially in Borges' offense. Someone mentioned Auburn having a good rushing offense, but I'm guessing they don't use their TEs like Michigan does. Now, part of that is on Borges, but it's unfair to say he should just install a full spread. That's not the offense he has learned. People talk about putting square pegs in round holes in terms of players, but the same goes for coaches. That's why I'm not on the Fire Borges train yet.
UCLA is top 40ish in most offensive catagories and is ranked. Their losses are to Stanford and Oregon and they beat Nebraska. They are playing one Jr, one RS So, a true So, and two true Fr.
is too lazy with the ball after the snap. He takes 1/2 a beat long to gather the ball, another half beat to hand it off. On pass plays he costs himself almost a full second of surveying the field by just being so slow to gather the ball and move.
we should fire Hoke. He is terrible. We will propably lose Peppers and Hand will sign with Alabama for sure. But I'm tired of being out coached every week.
At least stop dressing like an ass. Put some clothes on when it's cold and rainy. You look like an idiot. No you are not Billy B in New England. You are not tough and neither is your toilet paper strong team. Drives me crazy. No headset. No hat. No jacket. He just looks like a 3rd grader with parents who don't care how he dresses when he goes to school. Absolutely does not project 'toughness' when his teams get manhandled *weak in and *weak out.
OK, if the coach's clothing is "driving you crazy," you need to take a step back from the ledge. That's moving beyond normal coaching criticism into "I hate everything about the guy now" ranting, like you'd hear from a scorned ex-girlfriend.
(Besides, Dantonio didn't exactly glam it up with his scruffy gray sweatshirt, either.)
Hoke actually did wear a headset at times today, incidentally. It did not result in any miraculous improvement from our team, though.
Seriously? Your criticism of him is in regards to his clothing style?
If your avatar pic is of yourself you need to stop dressing like an ass. Drives me crazy. No headset. You look like an idiot. You look like a 3rd grader whose parents bought him clothing a size to big because they didn't care about how it looked and he would someday grow into them. Also, I don't know why you 'quoted' toughness and your puns are week.*
"FSU's 19 year old lineman is like a veteran on this O-line, compared to the other guys".
They seem pretty okay, decent, somewhat good this year. Oh, and with a mobile QB a la DG.
He is in his third year as a starter. He played as a 17 year old frosh. Everyone in that line has at 17 or 18 starts. Their center has more than 20 if I remember right. FSU is actually the opposite of where we are in terms of the interior.
Did watch FSU in 2011 when those "veterans" were playing for the first time? They went 8-4 with losses to Virginia and Wake Forest with a defense that was more talented than ours.
We will have 4 returning starters (assuming one of the 3 ex- starters on the interior become a starter when Mags moves to tackle) and all of them will be sophomores, as will the 5th starter.
Woo 2 years after that!
of the most disappointing 5 star oline recruits I can remember. For a guy that whined about wanting to play last year he's been nothing but awful for most of the season. Really tired of seeing Gardner go down on the ground with Kalis standing there looking at his man make the tackle.
Think its bad now wait till next when the only two current olinemen with any competency move on to the NFL.
Mary Sue should be glad that Coach isn't firing her /gordongee'd
you spend your time between truck driving on mgoblog? Man you really should find a hobby.
Our kids don't seem to learn from their mistakes (they keep making the same ones) and they can't stop anyone or push anyone off the ball. I see Lewan getting beat all the time, putting him and Scofield on the same side does nothing. They don't open any holes either. I think it comes down to coaching and strength and conditioning. Our guys are weaker, slower and out of position way too often.
Funk, Weller and their cohorts need to go.
Weller is not a person attached to this program. Wellman is, and just by looking at our team from 2010 to 2011, we can see that he has made tremendous gains in musculature and strength.
Funk can go. Maybe Borges. Wellman should definitely stay.
Someone(for the 1000th time)said that today was RR's fault due to poor line recruiting. They said that youth and inexperience are the reason why the O-line has been terrible. I'm not doubting for a second that's one of the main reasons. But there ARE teams(UCLA, Auburn, A&M,etc) who have inexperienced linemen but seem to be able to run the football and pass protect. Not being able to run against MSU is one thing. Not being able to run against Akron and UCONN is an entirely different monster. I wasn't saying that EVERY team in America runs the ball better than UM. I was just stating that it goes deeper than youth. Outside of the IU game, Michigan hasn't been able to generate a consistent running game at all this season outside of Devin.
and the only 2 linemen who have played well were RR recruits.
I'm not an RR supporter or hater. I supported him while he was the coach and moved on once he was fired. But the man hasn't coached Michigan for three years now. To keep blaming him for how the O-line has performed is ridiculous. We were set back by line recruiting but at this point we should be able to field five guys who can put up 100 yards against Akron and UCONN.
It's too bad he stopped recruiting.
This comment shows you don't quite get it. There are only 2 of them, that is a HUGE part of the problem. Worse still is the fact that there are ZERO RS Sr OLinemen next year. Meaning, RR plumb forgot to recruit OLinemen in '10. If there were 2 OLinemen from the '09 class, and 2-3 from the '10 class, putting one from the '11 class wouldn't be so bad. But the numbers just aren't there.
When you try to compare personnel between teams in an effort to say, "see, they're starting underclass men and they are a functional OL," you're never going to be successful. Firstly, as many have aptly pointed out, Michigan's OL is not only inexperienced, but there are walk-ons and lower rated guys. Meaning, are the talent leveled comparable? I think many Michigan fans just assume that the talent is there.
Moreover, one can discount the impact of bad recruiting from '08 - '11 but that is basically all one needs to look at. The pipeline is everything. Saying, "it's been three years now..." shows your ignorance of what makes a successful OL and program. Those upperclassmen are NOT on the roster, and there is no way to mask or scheme around that fact. It's HUGE, but fortunately, improving ...but it takes time.
The line recruiting wasn't good from '08 to '11. But the line didn't generate any rushing from anyone not named Denard las year either. Michigan has tried everything from mixing up the lineup to putting our two best linemen next to each other and nothing has worked.
Said they ran the same blitzes from 2011. Good scouting report. Maybe implement calls to block them
There were a few RPS minuses due to the defense having a good call against a certain protection, but bad protections weren't as big a problem as plumb bad blocking. We didn't block guys, we missed guys, all sorts of problems from all sorts of protections and plays. Nine sacks, countless hurries, a few scrambles that actually went for a gain, a few throwaways. Even our completions were rushed.
But Brian said we're OK at pass protection, so it must be play calls.
I love that play where our QB and RB run sideways 5 yards behind the LOS and wait for the Defense to come get them, then the QB hands off to the RB when they get close. That play was perfect yesterday.
Serious, wtf was that? They throw the ball to get all the way down the field, then pull out these dumb ass run plays? You have to run quick run plays that go north and south. This east west crap just doesn't work.
overly simplistic, and granted, they fill books with what I don't know about football, but have we considered moving our guards to the D line and their counterparts vice-versa? It seems to me that our O line has no trouble shedding blocks and losing their man, while the D line seem to be specialists at holding blocks and preventing penetration. Thoughts?
Both Baylor and Texas A&M have similar age/experience on the OL.
- LT: Spencer Drango, RS SO
- LG: Cyril Richardson, 5th YR
- C; Stefan Huber, 5th YR
- RG; Desmine Hilliard, RS SO
- RT: Kelvin Palmer, 5th YR OR Troy Baker, RS JR
Yep. Just like Michigan in age and experience.
5th year Sr @ Center makes a huge difference -- remember David Molk?
Well, that's true of course, but I think the bigger point is that they DON"T HAVE A SINGLE GUY STARTING that's in less than his third year in the program, and yet they're trotted out as a comparable to a Michigan team whose interior is entirely made up of first and second-year players.
People are just throwing shit out there on the assumption that no one will bother to fact check.
- LT: Jake Matthews, SR
- LG: Jarvis Harrison, RS JR
- C: Mike Matthews, SO
- RG: Germain Ifedi, RS FR
- RT: Cedric Ogbuehi, RS JR
They have scholarship upperclassmen at C and RG who were beaten out for jobs.
What's going on this year at Michigan and UCLA is pretty unique. Barring a total catastrophe like the Tulane hurricane or the SMU death penalty, nobody goes multiple years with 0-1 OL recruits and nobody has multiple positions on their line without a single third-year-and-up scholarship player. Maybe you find a young guy that's better but the older guys exist on your roster.
regarding recruiting and coaching (at every level from position coach through head coach). I have nothing new to add.
I just know I have multiple memories of television and radio games in the Schembechler/Moeller/Carr eras where the announcers made a point of saying "Michigan's line is really taking control of this game." Enough times that it felt like a constant.