The Snowflake Thread: Offensive Line (Specific OL Issues)
"There are several teams across the country who are operating with extremely young O-linemen. And they all seem to be able to run the ball."
Comments like these have been quite common in response to those posters who think there isn't anything the coaches can do given our line. However, I've yet to see anyone actually name one of these supposed teams. So, honestly, which teams have 3 (or more) starters on their O-line that are as young and inexperienced as ours but actually field good offenses? I honestly want to know if these teams actually exist.
MOD EDIT: The original title was "Which teams have competent O-lines that are young and inexperienced?", but as this might become a center point of discussion, this will be repurposed as a separate Snowflake Thread. Hopefully, the OP does not mind - LSA
OP EDIT: I specifically made this thread about other team's young O-lines because just making a thread about OL issues would likely lead to complaints about Borges or the players or whatever has been said a million times already, although those complaints are rife here as well unsurprisingly. However, I don't mind because it doesn't seem like anyone has an answer except UCLA, and theirs doesn't appear to be better than ours.
November 3rd, 2013 at 3:23 AM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:32 PM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:17 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:05 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:14 PM ^
"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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:27 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:32 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:33 PM ^
"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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:11 PM ^
did Stanford and Georgia have breakdowns in their recruiting pipelines? They both had freshman starters last year.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:34 PM ^
They both had *a freshman starter.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^
have a* freshman starter as well
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:27 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 8:49 PM ^
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
November 2nd, 2013 at 8:57 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
I don't know. That's why I'm asking.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:35 PM ^
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.
November 3rd, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 8:50 PM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^
Thanks for contributing to the discussion about the O-line of other teams with an original post on Borges.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:14 PM ^
If you had to guess (+-1 year), what year did you start following Michigan football? Very important for the matters at hand.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^
You've been following Michigan football for over 30 years!! Now if only you knew anything about play-calling or game-planning.....
November 3rd, 2013 at 4:31 AM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 8:59 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:08 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:02 PM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:11 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:28 PM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:49 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:13 PM ^
That's what everyone was saying heading into this year - the oline can't be as bad as it was in 2012.
November 3rd, 2013 at 2:56 PM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:06 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:27 PM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
The most lucid analysis of this team I have read by a commenter this year.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:16 PM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:16 PM ^
I think that sums it up very well.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:56 PM ^
I agree with all of that, and I could not have laid it out as eloquently.
November 3rd, 2013 at 3:45 AM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:15 PM ^
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:21 PM ^
Is anyone else mentally preparing for the Ohio State game, It might be really rough especailly in our stadium.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:04 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:17 PM ^
realizing that UM is probably going to get completely curb stomped? Yes.
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:50 PM ^
Yeah Michigan never performs well at home.
November 2nd, 2013 at 11:04 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:25 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:31 PM ^
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.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:42 PM ^
for two years. People here love to find a convenient scape goat.
November 2nd, 2013 at 9:48 PM ^
Although I don't know what Al could have called today. Even the short pop passes were hurried.