I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
- Member for
- 2 years 7 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Karma value
|1 day 9 hours ago||Uh. . . about that||
"After all, the bubble screen is an 'easy' play. Its just a pitch and catch. Anyone can do that. But it isn't. Nothing is."
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to draw a line here.
I won't speak for or defend the derpheads who trivialize everything, but I have never, EVER heard "it's hard" accepted as an excuse for anything that has been executed with regularity. You can argue it's acceptable, but in reality it's never accepted. I mean, can you give me an example of anyone out of HS who gets away with that? My profs sure didn't buy it; in hindsight I have to admit they were right. The excuse didn't work; I had to grow up instead.
Of course it's hard. No shit. That's why it's guys like DG and Gallon up there instead of a balding pencil-necked geek like me, doing these things on scholarships worth more than what I make. But you know what? The crap I do isn't easy either. It took six months of daily training before I was ready for OJT; throw Peyton effin' Manning into the seat of my job and he'll crash & burn in half an hour. Of course he would! Who can possibly do anything that takes months of practice in a day?? But I don't expect him to do my job. Everyone I work with expects ME to. They don't care if I'm ready or not; if I'm not, my boss gets the heat. That can get rough at times but it also limits my sympathy for Borges' plight. That guy makes money I could only dream of.
I mean, point taken, I'm not one to believe ANY play can be installed in a day. It takes reps until the body can do what the brain wants it to. But lack of preparation is on the OC. That changes the argument a bit -- it's "why couldn't he get the players ready" instead of "why doesn't he call a play they haven't even repped" but the responsibility is the same. I contrast with Mattison, who also had a ridiculously young squad to work with but implemented a scheme that was, while maddening to watch at times, something they could execute well enough to hold their own.
Football is hard? Really! Whether it's college football or a desk job, if what you take pride in can be mastered by anyone in a day, you're not ready to be a grown-up.
|1 day 11 hours ago||I can follow X's and O's||
They'd help, actually. What I can't follow is jargon, like this:
"Run action is away, blitz comes up the middle, a tunnel is formed between the WR blocking inside-out on the CB lined up over #1 and Lewan leads in the alley and picks off the next guy."
I got parts of that, but football is a formation sport so positioning is key. If I can't see where the X's and O's are, I can't follow this stuff.
|1 day 12 hours ago||Why run them then?||
"I'm not saying that it isn't something that should have been prepared to the point of bringing out against Iowa, but they may just not have been ready."
I get that if they're not ready because a bad post-snap read on bubble action and you're hoping for a PBU because at least that's not a pick-six or a TFL. But shouldn't these plays ideally be installed as a set? If you're a constraint short, you don't have a sustainable offense.
It's hard for me to understand what you're saying in fine detail without some diagrams, but at the end of the day, what I want to see is when the offense aligns a certain way, the defense can't deviate much from their base alignment. You might see a safety shuffle or a linebacker show blitz, but the idea of constraint theory, at the most basic level, is to eliminate pre-snap reads and force the defense to react -- or, if they insist on going SPARTAAA on your Rock, burn 'em for 20 yards with Paper. If they've got Rock and Paper covered, the OC had darn well better have a third play from the same look ready to justify his salary because RPS has been around forever. I won't pretend I understand football well enough to know what a safety's read is on a play just by watching them move, but I can see how they move. When defenders tear turf at the snap for the ball even before it gets there, something's wrong. I guess that's where I share everyone's frustration.
This has jack to do with pro set vs. spread; as you said, all functional offenses utilize constraint theory. But I don't see an acceptable explanation for the accusation that Borges ran these plays for two games with no answer for the inevitable defensive adjustment if the players weren't ready. If he doesn't know, well, he shouldn't be an OC. But if he knew they were short on weapons and had them go over the top anyway, how's that any better? That does beg the question what the hell else would he run considering just about nothing was working, but the answer to that question still falls on the OC to prepare a scheme the players can execute, constraints included.
|1 day 19 hours ago||Well, the point was that we||
Well, the point was that we are not redshirting Peppers out of desperation for playmakers. In all likelihood we're not redshirting him at all, but desperation is not the reason. We're actually doing pretty well at CB.
"Healthy Jake Ryan can shed blocks, redirect, and make plays in space. Who else has really shown that type of ability on our defense?"
Our MLB/WLB have shown the ability to make some heads-up plays in space that have on occasion bailed out the offense. They're not shedding blocks because Mattison likes to rush four (for better or worse) vs. the pass and use his DTs to keep the linebackers clean on run plays, so generally a blocker there means a breakdown. QWash has shown playmaking ability at DT; he commands double-teams and often holds his ground and that's all you ask for in a DT. Black isn't a walking highlight reel but he's a troublemaker. Our CBs are playmakers in the making. They were in position for plenty of PBUs and INTs that they simply lacked the strength to finish; that'll change over the offseason. We're a bit thin at safety but not every class is going to have a Jordan Kovacs.
No, they're not superstars but I think a lot of the heat they get is because Mattison's assignment-based "bend don't break" approach this season was frustrating to watch. For much of the season, they were plenty good at keeping teams out of the end zone and that's all that matters. Getting off the field faster so they're not quite so gassed in the 4th quarter is something to improve on, but with another year of conditioning they can probably cut another half-yard to yard off each play, which will make a huge difference over the course of a game.
I guess I just don't equate highlight plays with a great defense. We don't have a top-5 NFL pick on defense but we have no glaring weaknesses either. If everyone can execute their assignments the offense has to pick their poison, and Mattison is pretty darn good at making offenses work for their points.
|1 day 23 hours ago||Actually that's exactly what I'm saying||
Well, that's a weird spot to reading comprehension fail. The ONLY reason to redshirt Peppers is injury. I mean, what else is there?
But that's not saying we're so desperate for playmakers that we'd field him if in some hypothetical situation he's better off redshirting.
Benching Peppers for a year just because is a stupid idea. But I'm not going to entertain the notion that our defense is in horrible shape. They got torched by OSU but that offense murdered everybody this year.
|2 days 10 hours ago||Playmakers||
I think you're selling the defense way, WAY short. There weren't "playmakers" because they were so ridiculously raw that it was all Mattison could do to get them to execute basic assignments. Not even JMFR was a barbarian out of the box.
There's a LOT of young talent on that team. They weren't "playmakers" because Fr/So "playmakers" are usually guys that are OK on 3 plays out of five, OMFG on one, and way out of position on the fifth. The key is to get to 3 OK vs. 2 OMFG or even 4 OK vs. 1 OMFG, but the OMFG isn't worth it if it comes with equal measures of AARRGGH. Mattison hates AARRGGH so we didn't get to see a lot of OMFG this season. WTF is the use of blowing through the gap for a sen-SAY-shunal!!! -5 yard TFL and then completely leaving a guy uncovered for 30 yards on the very next play? I've seen enough of that in my time to never care to see it again.
If Peppers doesn't redshirt it'll be because he's a five-star recruit and CB is a position where it's easier to work them into the 2-deep early. We are not desperate for playmakers on defense; the playmakers we have are still on short leashes for incredibly obvious reasons.
|2 days 14 hours ago||Well that shouldn't be a problem||
The 2013 defense was a B+ defense; it didn't shut teams down but it kept us in games. And it was ridiculously young. Mattison implemented a "bend don't break" scheme not because he was trying to be clever, but because he knew his players could barely handle basic assignments at FBS speed. Almost the entire defense will be back, with another year to gain strength, learn and mature.
Improvement on the defense alone will at least hold this year's record. I think MGoBlog is really underestimating the defense due to "lack of playmakers" because Mattison kept the silly-young unit on a short leash (which ironically translates to soft coverage). It will at least be very good. The offense can't possibly be worse next season, because it can't possibly get any younger. Borges doing his best to snatch defeat from the jaws of easy victories aside, the 2012 problem was O-line depth and the 2013 problem was O-line youth. 2014 won't be a complete turnaround but the O-line has absolutely nowhere left to go but up.
So it kind of depends on what "do or die" means. If you mean a B1G championship, I don't think anyone expects that yet. I think the expectation is to at least split the rivalry games, road games or no.
|5 days 20 hours ago||Yellow pants||
I see this complaint on EVERY SINGLE THREAD here these days. We're not winning because we care about being Michigan and not willing to compromise that to be successful, as if the two are mutually exclusive.
I have a serious question. . . if identity means that little to you, why bother rooting for Michigan at all? If you are willing to cast aside everything that makes Michigan what it is, all in the name of seeing one number always be greater than another number on a scoreboard, then what "Michigan" means to you is just the arbitrary color of laundry. With that in mind. . .
Why not just root for Alabama?
Why are you here at all? You obviously don't care about Michigan's tradition, or ways, or history, or values, or identity, or anything. You want guys in yellow pants to do better than guys in some other color of pants. If that's the case it really does seem like it'd be easier for you to change your preference than throw an entire program overboard just you get the numbers you want. Just become an Alabama fan! Throw out all that old blue and yellow swag -- obviously we haven't been elite for a while and that's all that fucking matters to you -- so just don some red and yell "roll Tide"! Voi la! Your favorite team is now an annual National Championship contender! You even get Hand to boot! And to put a cherry on top, you can GTFO so we don't have to put up with each other anymore!
I want to see Michigan succeed, but that only means something if we're Michigan. Hypothetically speaking, we can probably get better results than we have now if we drove a dump truck full of cash up to Urban Meyer's door, bought out his entire staff and overhauled our academic standards and recruiting such that we're basically a clone of what Ohio State is today. We'd probably be undefeated if we did that 4-5 years ago. But then we wouldn't be Michigan; we'd be Ohio State wearing yellow pants. I guess I'm the only goddamn dinosaur here who wouldn't see just how much of an appalling farce that would be?
It's one thing to look at Ohio State's smart use of constraint plays and emulate that. That's just adaptation, and something we should've done a long time ago. But saying "to hell with mantra" basically undermines your credibility as a fan because there's absolute nothing stopping you from leaving.
|1 week 17 hours ago||If you look at the scores,||
If you look at the scores, Mattison is a big reason why Borges still has a job.
But for me, it's doubly frustrating. Not only does Mattison keep bailing out Borges (yes it sometimes goes the other way but not nearly as often), the difference between the two amplifies Borges' weaknesses. Mattison takes a bunch of middling prospects and gives them a scheme they can execute with good results. He doesn't have an elite defense yet but he gets the absolute most out of the talent he has. This is something Borges flat-out can't do.
Frankly I don't give a rat's ass what Borges can do with elite talent. Michigan hasn't had elite offensive talent for a while, and there's no guarantee the future talent will be elite either. Mattison's working wonders with a blue-collar crew, but this is the same guy who was a very respected DC in the NFL so it's not like a high ceiling limits his creativity either. Jabrill Peppers could result in 1997 redux -- a historically good defense carrying a mediocre offense into elite status.
Hoke running recruiting, RichRod coming back to coach offense and Mattison running defense would be a dream team, but as long as we're going to go all Chrono Trigger I'd rather hook up with Lucca than Marle.
|1 week 6 days ago||I think so too Brain, but where are||
I think so too Brain, but where are we going to find a rubber suit at this time of the day?
|1 week 6 days ago||Context||
PA from 3rd and 11 isn't completely insane, but it does have to be unexpected AND underplayed. Take an offense like Minnesota that gets most of its yards on the ground, consistently run in all situations good or bad, then call PA on 3rd and long when the defense least expects it because it's something you haven't done all season. . . then you might catch the defense unprepared. But Borges called PA on 2nd and 15 against MSU when the RBs were going backwards so who did he think he was fooling this time? Northwestern isn't a school you ride to in a short bus.
This guy is just so bad at poker. I want to share a table with him; I'm the world's worst bluffer but I feel confident I could clean him out.
|1 week 6 days ago||Both (undead and in another dimension)||
If a lich is sacked often enough, it may reach a point where it feels it cannot play any more in its present state and seeks other avenues to attain yards. The lich's interest turns away from the physical realm, and its soul voluntarily leaves its uniform and football factory, using astral projection to travel across other planes of existence. The medicines preserving the lich's body against the ravages of blitzers weaken, usually causing the body to gradually deteriorate until only a skull or even a single skeletal hand remains; this advanced form of lich is known as a Devinlich.
*I may have altered the text somewhat
|2 weeks 16 hours ago||Disagree||
"Michigan's first throw over about 15 yards occurred with under a minute left in regulation, that a fly route just over Chesson's head after the rollout sack to put Michigan in second and twenty-three. That was the first time Michigan even looked at one—they didn't try to get some deep throws off only to be thwarted by pressure. It was windy, but it wasn't that windy, especially when you've got this offense."
I don't think the wind was the problem. Last few games it was established that those long routes weren't working because the O-line couldn't pass protect long enough for those routes to develop. MGoBlog reamed him for it. Now he goes for a short passing game, which is precisely what the MGoBlog community determined was his only option knowing the obvious downside was the risk of a INT (with an INT-prone QB at that), and this is now what's wrong with DG? C'mon, man.
Michigan's plays are predictable because Borges gives his opposing defenses pre-snap reads; for this I want to light Borges' office chair on fire while he's still sitting in it. That said, it's not (clear-cut) Borges' fault that Michigan's scheme is predictable for lack of options. They can't run, they can't pass protect, so they were heading toward an Akron-like short passing game the whole time. Don't fault Borges for NU seeing the writing on the wall.
It's just too bad we don't have a proven, surehanded senior possession receiver. You know, some guy in the slot to flood a zone. I mean, heck, I'll take a short slow unathletic white guy at this point as long as his presence would occupy a linebacker. Just too bad. What a shame.
|2 weeks 22 hours ago||not necessarily||
Spread offenses are often higher variance. It's designed to put quick people in space, and a single missed tackle can break big. This isn't some off-hand comment about the inherent superiority of one offense vs. another. A hypothetical zero-variance offense that gets 4 yards per play, no more, no less, on every single down is completely unstoppable.
|2 weeks 22 hours ago||"We probably learned a lesson||
"We probably learned a lesson in the Indiana game. We substituted everybody else, but we don’t substitute the back end. In today’s football, covering the passes you have to cover, the deep balls and all that, those guys need a little bit of a break also."
When the facts change, you change your mind. This is how you make decisions, folks. I want to punch people who confuse staying the course with consistency.
"If you’re asking a guy in the open field to defeat a block and make a tackle on a guy that has a huge amount of area, you can’t do that yourself."
I.e., Jake Ryan's back, but JMFR isn't quite back yet.
|2 weeks 23 hours ago||Wusses||
"How’s everybody doing today? Come outside and practice outside with us."
The band practices outdoors no matter how cold it is.
(They will rehearse indoors when it's raining hard enough, but not for comfort -- the rain can damage instruments, and those things ain't cheap.)
|2 weeks 23 hours ago||They did some good things||
They're football players. Now we just need to get some consistency, where they play with great technique and execute the way we want them to.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||1998-1999 (99-00 bowl season)||
B1G went 10-2 in bowls, including a 5-0 bowl sweep in 1999. That was back when Drew effin' HoF Brees was playing for the fourth best team in the conference. Michigan had some guy named Bom Trady and that was only good enough for 3rd in conference.
This is how absurd it got: Illinois at 8-4 (4-4 in conference, good for 6th) finished the season ranked (albeit at #25) after crushing their bowl game by six touchdowns. No one, NO ONE wanted to play a B1G team those years.
FWIW, and I have to point this out because nausea loves company, the B1G swept the SEC in bowl matchups those years. . . and yes, SEC fans were still claiming they were the best conference in the country.
But yeah, that was a long time ago. Traditionally the B1G is more known for being top-heavy.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||That's backwards though. I||
That's backwards though. I daresay half of Borges' problems is his insistence on running the ball.
What the guy SAYS in pressers makes more sense, that the game determines the play selection. But if that's the case and the defense has 9 in the box, throw 30, 50, 80 times a game if the defense refuses to back off. Punish them for overplaying until they learn, then move to something else the instant they do. It's not about run/pass ratio so much as:
A) Running different plays from the same look so the defense doesn't know what's coming. This is an arbitrary personal preference but with the exception of and-long plays which are obvious passing downs, I want at least four different plays from the same formation & personnel group. A single formation running several plays is way more effective than twice as many plays that each give the defense a pre-snap read. We have way, way too many of the latter.
B) Taking what the defense gives you. I don't care if you're the #1 offense in the nation; if the defense is concentrating on one part of the field, that's the one place the ball shouldn't go. And IF you are the #1 offense, odds are you're not doing something that stupid anyway.
And FWIW while Hoke is responsible for the offense as HC, I don't buy the theory that he's holding Borges back -- at least, it's just speculation to me. Borges runs the offense from a box Hoke isn't even headset to, and the unanimous feedback from former players, current players and coaches is that everybody loves working for the guy. He pulled Mattison from a successful gig in the NFL FFS. The same guy is lording over Borges' playbook with an iron fist? I need evidence.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||ROLL OUT||
With all the rollouts I wonder why they didn't open the 'cast with Ludacris. Wrath of the RIAA?
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Incidentally||
I started the whole Borges = Field Marshal Haig thing. . . and yes, I actually did reference "The Art of War" as well (in older posts).
Sun Tzu repeatedly hammers one point home more than any other, at least on the tactical side -- never, NEVER attack at the enemy's point of strength. EVER. Of course, war is another beast entirely, but in principle, attacking at a strength is the absolute dumbest thing you can do (although to be fair, properly identifying a strength or weakness is not always quite as straightforward as it seems and this is a very common failure). This guy is right, and while when the inverted veer was invented he's been dead for centuries, these are very basic concepts studied by scholars to this day.
Deception. Misdirection. Scattering and dividing your enemy. Gathering information and revealing none. Using every possible factor to your advantage. These are basic concepts practiced for millenia even by those who operate from a position of superior strength. Why would you NOT do them in a competitive situation? The scope goes well beyond warfare into everything from business to sports. Some people take it to mean things like dirty hits and cheating; I wouldn't go that far, but I'm not asking we do that anyway. Given the choice between an O-line that can blow back a D-line and an O-line that can blow back the D-line and the defense doesn't know what the offense is going to do, you have to be retarded to choose the former. And when you DON'T have an O-line that can blow someone backwards with sheer execution, you simply don't count that among your assets.
Granted, our issues go way beyond playcalling, but as long as the offense is a tire fire, employing basic tactical principles is something that can be done immediately.
|3 weeks 12 hours ago||Consider why you don't crack||
Consider why you don't crack jokes at a funeral.
|3 weeks 13 hours ago||Serious answer?||
This presser made a lot more sense than I expected. I get that they had to implement their offense at some point. I also get that if the team can't run OR block, there's not a lot you can do. And honestly, the suggestions on MGoBlog are completely contradictory -- some people are saying he's mixing up the plays and personnel too quickly, others are saying he's not doing enough. Well, it can't be both. Space Coyote did have that long diary where he noted Nebraska wasn't in position to shut down the inverted veer, so Borges' argument that they didn't predict every play has merit.
That said, I still agree that "putting the players in a position to succeed" is the coaches' responsibility, and at times Borges seems to leave a lot of yards on the field. That PSU was able to do the most basic data analysis and find that Borges calls runs on like 90% of first down and roll out four DTs -- absolutely no excuse. That he won't call a bubble screen -- hell, reduce it to a two-man long handoff -- to save his life, I find his justifications more arrogant and stubborn than reasonable. If the team IS struggling, and damn you've got a QB with a rocket arm in DG and a shifty receiver like Gallon with a CB playing off him, well the line can implode but if Gardner throws immediately out of so much as a pistol formation the blitz is basically asking for a roughing-the-QB penalty. The ball's in Gallon's hands and there's nobody within five yards, and -- here's the biggest point -- the young offensive line can still try to practice their blocking in a real game. It's not just the 6-8 free yards. The linemen are now allowed the luxury of screwing up because you just put the ball in the hands of a senior receiver in space. This is not some magic play, but it's a play that can be run any time the corner cheats off the receiver to shut down the obvious run call. Hell, forget the screen; it can be a simple check if DG simply counts more defenders in the box than blockers. The guy's got a college degree; he can be trusted to count.
I guess the whole thing is that Borges is a big-picture guy, and fine we do need someone who can see the big picture (I think that was RichRod's biggest weakness), but this is a team that needs the pennies. Like, NOW. It's like giving stock tips to someone living out of a car. Yeah it can all make sense but you can't blame a guy for "not executing" when he's nowhere near in a position to follow your oh-so-brilliant advice. You've got to get the guy out of the gutter before thinking about turning millions into billions.
|3 weeks 14 hours ago||Oh, yeah||
THAT would've gone over well. Take the most prolific player in Michigan history, cut his role in half, and toss in an underclassman with zero game experience at QB.
In a perfect world I might agree with your principle, but the program had just run one guy out of town for PR reasons, so I'll forgive Borges for being a tad gun-shy.
|3 weeks 17 hours ago||SC makes this site better,||
SC makes this site better, Brian. You may disagree with him, you may even hate him but damn if these exchanges haven't been enlightening for all of us. Even if I don't agree with everything he says, I've had a lot of "Hmm, I didn't know that, that's interesting" moments since he came on the scene.
You're on the same side. You're both Michigan fans. You both want the same thing. It's not your finest hour when you get out-classed by one of your own readers.
|3 weeks 19 hours ago||Well, his answers MAKE SENSE||
As far as answers go, I don't care for a coach that just falls on his sword any more than a red-faced bloviator. Maybe my industry roots make me biased, but I see that Mattison has a classic Deming Cycle approach -- he has a plan, executes it, checks the results and adapts. The 4th and 2 is the smallest possible iteration of the cycle -- the alignment of a subset of players on a single play -- but the same applies. He left the secondary to align themselves, they blew it, he identified the root cause & countermeasure and that reassures us that this breakdown is unlikely to happen again. THIS. PROCESS. WORKS. And it's got an effectiveness, honesty and transparency that even a high schooler can relate to, without revealing anything an opposing team can capitalize on. When you make a mistake, there's really no reason to be a defensive prick about it. I may not be an NFL coach -- heck, I'm just an angry dude on a couch -- but I can follow Mattison's answers just fine.
|3 weeks 19 hours ago||C'mon, man||
He's kicking himself in public, saying he should've called time out. . . WTF do you want, Dr. Who? Do it all over again and he calls time out, or the young corners align better, something. The point is, you can tell by the answer that he knows it was a mistake and doesn't intend for it to happen again. This is an answer that gives me confidence that the defense will keep getting better.
|3 weeks 23 hours ago||This is wild speculation, but||
This is wild speculation, but they're probably not used to getting burned.
Hoke took over some losing programs filled with overlooked recruits with nothing to lose. He took over a very frustrated RichRod squad that was willing to do anything to go out on top.
Young guys are young, but I don't think guys like Kalis or Bosch are used to getting PWND on the field, and going up against scout teams isn't going to change that. As a result in their first year they'd have trouble playing HS schemes at college speed, let alone college schemes. This has more to do with immaturity than inexperience. The one thing I'd like to see is some indication that these kids are bothered by the mounting losses, because frustration will be what motivates them to learn it.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||I recently realized||
I recently realized something, though. . . is it really all that valuable having two fifth-year seniors? This class is devoid -- as in, ZERO -- playing middleclassmen, which is surely an unusual deal. It's not unheard of for teams to play underclassmen with some success, but where's the redshirt junior? We have like, what, one redshirt sophomore?
The point is that our two tackles are basically playing at the NFL level alongside guys who can barely execute high school schemes at college speed. For skill positions it's OK if Gallon runs a tricky route as long as Gardner can hit him, that doesn't directly impact what Toussaint does in the backfield. But Lewan can't execute a combo block unless the LG finishes the block. Offensive linemen HAVE to work together, and not only are there freshmen on the line, there aren't any middleclassmen to serve as liaisons if the freshmen get overwhelmed. Our seniors, our leaders, our offensive captain. . . is basically an NFL player in waiting working next to a guy fresh out of high school.
I've never played football competitively but I can relate to the frustration of a vast experience gap. In soccer as a defender or GK I'll pass ahead of a wing to start a counterattack and the guy just stands there because he thinks people only pass to where they're standing. The thought never occurs that I wanted him to trap the ball in stride. In basketball I'll set a high pick and not only the defender but the ball handler gapes at me like I'm dry-humping the guy. WTF, if you can't recognize a simple pick-and-roll, I don't want to hear your commentary on NBA play, EVER.
Well, imagine how Schofield and Lewan must feel when they're forced to play down to the level of college freshmen. Much of what they know beyond one-on-one technique is just going to sit on the shelf. We don't have three underclassmen and two seniors; we effectively have five underclassmen. Lewan might as well be a freshman out there for all the blocking experience he has that's not doing any good.
Mind you, I could be WAY off here. But FWIW, I'm not trying to exonerate the coaches. If anything, it's an indictment. This may be an unusual situation but it's something they're paid the big bucks to notice.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Not sure if you'll see this||
Not sure if you'll see this but I have a theory. . .
It's possible there's some bizarre phenomenon taking place due to lack of middleclassmen. People keep talking about Lewan and Schofield as leaders of the O-line, but they're fifth-year seniors with sights on the NFL leading a bunch of 18- and 19-year-olds. Imagine if you mistakenly sat through a quantum physics lecture on your first day of class instead of Physics 101. You don't have a chance.
It's possible the coaches tried to do way too much, way too soon. Now we've got several partial blocking schemes in their head and no middleclassmen to serve as liaisons for the rest of the O-line. Lewan and Schofield are passing off assignments like pros to kids who can barely handle basic schemes at college speed. When frustration sets in everyone tries to do too much when they'd be better off on a playing level they can all execute. But this involves Lewan and Schofield falling back to high school level, and that's GOTTA be aggravating for them -- not to mention completely neutralizing all the benefits of their experience.
I can't go too far into blocking concepts so sticking to what I know (soccer), I think I can still relate. I'm firmly an amateur but I do have some competitive playing experience, and when I play soccer with a beginner there's some frustration. For example, after defending a play I'll kick a pass in front of a winger to start the counterattack, and the guy just stands there watching it go out-of-bounds and stares at me like I kicked it nowhere. You're supposed to trap the ball in stride you nitwit; if I pass to where you're standing the forward will pick it off or at the very least you'll have a mark in your face as soon as the ball arrives. Can you count to potato while you're at it?
My point is that it's damn tough to establish chemistry when the gap in experience is vast. It's certainly an odd situation and no good can come from it.