UM vs. OSU Talent Revisit

Submitted by DenverBuckeye on

Back in May, I did a position group comparison of OSU and UM saying which had more talent. Now that the season is over, I thought I'd do a revisit. I want to clarify, though, with teams that have recruited as well as OSU and UM have, evaluating and developing that talent is the difference in the end. I am not trying to be a troll, rather trying to get real discussion on the different paths of these rosters and how Michigan can/can't bounce back next year. I'd also like UM fans' thoughts on how we project.

Original post:

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/um-vs-osu-talent#comment-2535899

QB = OSU>UM (I honestly don't feel this needs any justification.)

RB = OSU>UM (Elliott is an outstanding all around back. He is the complete package of speed, vision, power, and receiving. He has also turned out to be one of the best blocking RB's in the country. Glad he's only a sophomore. His backups are Samuel, who will get touches no matter who is the starter, and Dunn. UM had flashes from their top 3 backs and showed promise with the improvement of the OL. Johnson was looking very good in The Game before his injury. All three flashed better vision this year, with seemingly less plays leading to a RB running into an OL. I really hold the coaching staff at fault here. There never seemed to be a definitive "This is the guy" choice. And that Johnson didn't seem to get a bigger chance until after Green's injury is questionable. Obviously, hindsight is 20-20 and all, but...)

OL = OSU>UM (OSU's OL has showed that they are able to win games with pass or run blocking. The way OSU rebounded from VT shows the difference in coaching. This gap is not large, though. I think Cole has obviously shown that he has the talent to be great. OSU's interior has higher upside than UM's, though, and I like OSU's depth more. A new coach will probably wipe the slate clean for UM's OL.)

WR = OSU>UM (The young OSU talent broke out this year. Thomas, Marshall, and Wilson all showed big play ability and consistency alongside Smith and Spencer. Funchess showed he has as much ability as anyone, but not always the drive. Darboh and Chesson seem to have skill, but they never wowed me. This will be one of the positions that I think a new staff can have a huge impact on.)

TE = UM>OSU (I think this is closer than UM fans will probably think, though. OSU had three TE's score this year and Heuerman and Vannett are as athletic and well-rounded as any TE in the country. Heuerman should be one of the first TE's chosen in the draft. Butt is just flat out a better receiver and can have a huge impact on games. He is as good as any UM player, in my opinion.)

DL = OSU>>>UM (Even with the loss of Spence and Marcus, OSU's DL is still one of the best in the nation. Clark was very good for UM, but outside of him, no one scared me.)

*LB = Wash (Jake Ryan is the single best player out of either group, but I think OSU has a lot more pure talent. The athleticism gap is large. Lee, Perry, McMillan, Grant, and Booker are all ridiculous athletes which allowed them to make up for a lot of missteps and bad angles. They were young and it showed at times. I'm not very high on Bolden. I think he's not a bad player, but he doesn't seem to do much that jumps out to me when I watch UM. I think he's at his ceiling, too. I honestly don't know much about what any other UM LB did this year. They seemed slightly invisible. Whatever happened to Ben Gedeon? I thought he would blow up.)

*CB = OSU>UM (Doran Grant was the best corner between the teams. Countess and Taylor disappointed me some this year. Countess showed that he is not a true cover corner. Michigan's secondary in general was kind of shocking in how easy it was for competent QB's to find holes. UM only recorded 5 interceptions this year, and only 2 were from the secondary, both by Lewis. Lewis obviously impressed me more this year than I expected, but overall the UM CB's were kind of forgettable.)

S = OSU>UM (I think Peppers would have made a big difference here if he could've stayed healthy. If he would've played a nickel or hybrid spot, I'd still include him with the safeties. UM safeties did not record a single turnover this year. Bell and Powell for OSU were above average. The secondary play as a whole increased quite a bit this year, although the DL certainly helped. Bell in particular seemed like the most talented between the two teams. He has a knack for being in place to make picks, is a hard hitter, and a sure tackler.)

Specialists = Wash (Cameron Johnston is one of the best punters in the nation. OSU placekickers aren't world beaters. Hagerup was about the same as anyone would've expected this year and UM's placekicking was slightly better than OSU's. Out of all of them, I think only Johnston has a real NFL future.)

I know I am probably biased, though I try not to be. All told, I look back at lot of the thoughts and responses I got back in May and am shocked at how bad UM's coaching truly is. I think OSU has certainly developed talent at a much higher level, but I also feel OSU has evaluated much better, too. OSU seems to be able to plug in a lot more guys early in their careers and hasn't had a lot of misses the last few years in recruiting. A lot of you were very optimistic about UM's season and players according to the talent UM was starting with, but that talent didn't progress at all. After doing this post and reviewing the old one, I think my opinion has actually downgraded even more of Hoke and his staff. They really did very little with the talent they had.

Tater

December 12th, 2014 at 4:07 PM ^

I am still not sure the "talent gap" is as great as it may appear.  I still think the terrible offense was a direct result of hiring Nussmeier.  There are three issues AFAIC; the offense was too predictable, players were having to learn a new offense and the coaching staff failed to develop players.  

I still think a coach like Jim Harbaugh could win ten games with this team next year.   Dan Mullen or any other good spread guy could probably win at least eight as long as half of the roster isn't encouraged to transfer.  

I think the talent is there.  It just needs to be developed and used correctly.

StateStreetBlue

December 12th, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^

I pretty much agree with everything you stated and think that's a pretty fair assessment. I think the UM WR group was greatly hindered by the QB play in general, but can't argue that statistically OSU WRs did better this year.

This doesn't mean that I like you.

StateStreetBlue

December 12th, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^

I pretty much agree with everything you stated and think that's a pretty fair assessment. I think the UM WR group was greatly hindered by the QB play in general, but can't argue that statistically OSU WRs did better this year.

This doesn't mean that I like you.

ChiBlueBoy

December 12th, 2014 at 3:49 PM ^

Given the circumstances, I'm not sure that this needed to be shared on this particular website. Were the teams relatively competitive, this would be appropriate. Given the disparity, it comes off as gloating.

I really shouldn't have to point this out, but this is the internet.

getsome

December 12th, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^

unfortunately theres not much to say, your post nailed it.  

roster-wide, osu has evaluated, targeted and signed more promising athletes than um - and then theyve not only done better job developing that talent (look at reserves and inexperienced players making huge impacts for osu and contributing to wins)  but the coaches then actually attempted to tailor their schemes / calls to their players particular strengths.  

shocking what ideology-free, smart, flexible coaches can do with really fast athletes -- sincerely hope um hires coaches with similar skills and mentality

caliblue

December 13th, 2014 at 1:40 AM ^

I do not think this is trolling. If you want trolling/gloating go to RCMB. We should welcome contributors from other fan bases as long as they follow our rules and post factual and analytic material.Our contributions on 11 warriors generally seem to be accepted ( with a few notable exceptions ). We should accept other opinions gladly. Otherwise we are MSU. NO alternative posts are accepted at RCMB. We are better than that.

MotleyBlue

December 13th, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^

In your initial thread, we were embarking on a new season full of promise. Now you have come back to the well after a 5-7 year, in the middle of a coaching change. What the hell did you expect to find? Yes, your team is good. Our team wasn't good. And going forward? We don't even have a coach yet! Pointless...

sierragold

December 12th, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

That is why we don't have a Coach!!

U of M fans were hopeful and expected development of the players from 2013 to 2014. Their is talent on the Roster, Devin Gardner started out as a very good quarterback, I don't know what happened.

COACHING

Padog

December 12th, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^

I'm sorry but werent your linebackers the worst part of your team? We have the best linebacker in the big ten along with a solid Joe Bolden and James Ross. With our backups being Ben Gedeon and RJS, I think we have you guys there. You may have more talent, but your guys did not play very smart last year.

DenverBuckeye

December 12th, 2014 at 4:32 PM ^

I think most would agree that Hull was the best LB in the conference this year. Ryan was still great, but I don't think he ever made it fully back to his former self from the injury. That combined with eith position swap limited him some. He wasn't nearly as explosive to my eyes. Ross didn't do anything of note that I saw. OSU's LB's played young and undisciplined, but also made a ton of big plays - combined for 33 TFL and had as many INT as UM's team combined.

Proclus

December 12th, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^

Good Lord, these are some insightful and unbiased observations. You should submit a dissertation proposal to Ohio State, although it might get rejected for being too similar to a dozen other current students' projects.

Philbert

December 12th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^

I will question the cornerbacks. I thought michigan corners were better this year then osu. I'm pretty sure the cincy receiver is still running. Connor brewer looked like Drew Brees as well. Just my opinion and I will promise you I'm not a scout so that may be my fandom talking.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

nmwolverine

December 12th, 2014 at 4:37 PM ^

With all the Buckeye position advantages against a team with a losing record and an awful head coach, how was this game tied late in the 3rd Q, 1 week before your 59-0 game.  Huh?  Answer that for me.  Mr. Santa Fe

DenverBuckeye

December 12th, 2014 at 5:42 PM ^

I think it's not hard to say that UM was the hungrier team the last two years coming into the game. They played with more motivation and fire than they did the rest of the year, easily. I aslo think that Hoke and his staff made it obvious that they were game-planning for Ohio State all year. UM always seemed more prepared against OSU than any other opponent. Hoke's greatest strength was that he got the rivalry, but it may have also been a huge weakness for him. His teams looked so bad against schools like Rutgers, but then came out and were ready to go against OSU.

Space Coyote

December 12th, 2014 at 4:38 PM ^

OSU and Michigan actually had fairly similar defensive rankings (according to advanced stats) until the conference championship game. I won't debate that I think OSU has more athletic LBs in spots (Lee and Raekwon are above anyone on UM, I do not believe the others were in any way significantly better) and at DL, but I do not agree that they were much better.

Until the Wisconsin game, OSU was extremely hit or miss and terrible fundamentally at the LB spot. Despite being athletic, they were slow filling holes, they too often lost gap integrity, they struggled getting off blocks, etc. Lee stepped up in a huge way late, he really impressed me. But if this would have been before the Wisconsin game, I would have picked Michigan's LBs easily. OSU played much better in the Wisconsin game to maybe push them to even if you you are weighting what happened more recently. 

Let's look at common opponents and YPC (sacks included) for UM/OSU

Minnesota: 4.38/4.95

Rutgers: 2.47/3.92

PSU: 1.54/0.52

MSU: 4.76/5.24

Indiana: 3.71/7.81

Maryland: 4.20/2.75

Total: 3.64 on 238 carries/4.39 on 207 carries

So yeah, against common opponents, Michigan was not only better against the run, they were significantly better against the run. OSU's stats, and the way the played over the course of the season, are very washed by their final game. And so you look at advanced stats for DL on Football Outsiders and you see OSU at 59 and Michigan at 11. This isn't some crazy stat thing, this is  realistic. OSU was explosive, they could get sacks and get TFL, and they also got gashed time and time again. It's because they were undisciplined (too much emphasis on slanting and stunting, IMO).

So, I agree with you along the offense, even to the point where TE is closer. I strongly disagree with DL, where I'd say Michigan was still slightly better than OSU despite OSU's one game great performance against Wisc (in which they did play great) and despite the great athleticism along that line; I'll also say UMs LBs are still slightly better, though OSU is very young and will likely be better next year if the Wisconsin game means anything (and I think the Wisconsin game was the single best game by either team's LB unit).

OSU's DL showed what they can do on pass downs, their issue is consistency and discipline. Too easily getting out of lanes and getting gashed, too easily allowing blockers to the 2nd level, too often getting sucked up field. They were much more disciplined in their attack against Wisconsin. If we're talking potential or athleticism, then OSU's DL is way better, but we aren't, we're talking results.

OSU has some great athletes at LB, but still very much struggle making reads consistently. Michigan had issues in pass drops and underneath zones, OSU had those same issues. OSU got caught waiting way too often in the 2nd level or shooting gaps that were incorrect, more often than Michigan did. Their athleticism made up for quite a bit of that, and will likely prove to be an even bigger strength as they gain experience, but for the 2014 season, still Michigan there.

DB I agree is OSU, though Michigan improved at the CB spot by conference play, there just wasn't the depth or athleticism at the safety spot. Special teams was probably OSU as they were much better on their return unit (excluding the MSU game). FGs were a problem for both teams, and I think OSU's punter was more consistent in pinning teams inside the 20.

 

DenverBuckeye

December 12th, 2014 at 5:22 PM ^

The LB for me was tougher, but at the end of the day, it came down to what would I rather have:

a corps that was solid against the run, gave up the occasional big play, but made a lot of sacks, TFL, INT, and fumbles

or

a corps that was very good against the run, was generally in positionon any given play, but made almost no game-changing plays.

The UM LB corps had one INT and 2 forced fumbles. They weren't getting sacks much either. They were obviously well-coached (Mattison>Fickell), but they never seemed to be the catalyst between winning/losing. They were just constantly plugging holes. Now, I'm not saying this is in anyway bad, but I'd just take the occasional long run given up to go along with the more frequent big plays they made.