OSU Freshman DE's
Did anyone notice who started at SDE for OSU since John Simon was out? I'm not sure if it was Adolphus Washington or Noah Spence. I do recall hearing both of their names a few times, especially Washington on that strip on Gardner.
Seems these two 5-star DE's are already making quite the impact for OSU as true freshmen. I'm quite apprehensive about our matchups in the future. These guys are going to be animals. Hopefully our first class o-line recruiting pans out as expected.
November 25th, 2012 at 9:45 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 9:46 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 11:04 AM ^
NOT READING OR COMMENTING ON THE F*CKING THREAD!!!
November 25th, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^
So you wouldn't mind a thread discussing how great the state of Ohio is?
November 25th, 2012 at 11:25 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^
are heartily sick of it. Have no idea why it doesn't occur to people that they expose their lack of. . . insight by telling people what they can or can't talk about. But then, those of us who were here five or six years ago remember a time when the average IQ was a lot higher here.
November 25th, 2012 at 1:04 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 9:49 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 10:01 AM ^
Thanks man, was just curious.
November 25th, 2012 at 9:50 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 10:38 AM ^
Washington forced the fumble that I believe Boren recovered.
November 25th, 2012 at 11:15 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^
Lewan also completely whiffed on Sabino on the 4th and 3. That play was actually there. Sorry Borges haters. Our best OL had an easy downblock on an undersized LB and Denard has the first easily. Probably a lot more.
FIRE LEWAN!!!!! (s/ unfortunately required).
November 25th, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^
Also, also. On the play before Denard fumbles, the long pass to Gallon: if he picks up his feet or holds his legs on the diving tackle, he goes for six.
FIRE GALLON!!!!!
November 25th, 2012 at 2:34 PM ^
Did you see the play where Shazier blitzed up the middle, and Denard made practically no attempt at blocking him?
November 25th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^
So I read your things that went wrong not on borges but stopped giving a shit about your analysis after you listed having an ankle tackle happen as anything wrong with Gallon, guy made a diving ankle tackle it happens all the time, there is literally nothing Gallon did wrong. In regards to the 4th and 3 play I remember a few guys hitting denard but maybe you are right on that one. Either way Borges is dumb.
November 25th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^
denard breaking a 67 yd TD in the first half and then not really getting another run to the outside the rest of the game was all borges.
and roundtree breaking that tackle and having dileo downfield to block that last guy on the 75 yd TD was also all borges.
but for superior effort by roundtree and denard on those two plays, we are lucky to get just 7 points.
see, it cuts both ways. borges "wasted" way too many plays in the second half. and the argument that "denard can't block so don't use him" meme wears thin with me. the lions had a certain RB that couldn't throw or block, yet he gained a lot of yards and his offense was better for it.
November 25th, 2012 at 9:51 AM ^
It's not going away and OSU will continue to rake in great high school talent and develop them as they have a great record of doing.
The question now is whether or not Michigan can get back to developing talent as well. The jury is out but we'll know in a few years.
Until then, Michigan needs to keep making it's program relevent to elite high school recruits and get them into the program. Without that talent, Michigan will just be a mediocre team.
November 25th, 2012 at 11:23 AM ^
Have you not seen the development already? Q, Big Will, etc..
November 25th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^
Quinton Washington and William Campbell were 4-star and 5-star prospects, respectively, and neither one looks great. I think they combined for 3 tackles for loss and 1 sack for the ENTIRE SEASON. I agree that they've developed from where they were, but they're not exactly lighting the world on fire.
November 25th, 2012 at 3:58 PM ^
i think we agree that those two actually developed into serviceable players...finally. my bigger concern is the o-line development. it's not like the guys we have out there are throwaways. most were 4* guys. we actually were pretty damn lucky this year that the o-line was healthy. i think it's highly unusual that none of them got hurt. i think all the starters played in every game, iirc. i shudder to think what would have happened if a couple of them went down during the year.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^
Frankly, I don't think talent is our problem. For the first time in YEARS, I felt our talent level was basically on par with OSU. You guys disagree?
Simply put, yesterday we were out coached.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:16 AM ^
We have a lot of talent on the team, but most of it is young and/or on the defensive side of the ball. Excepting Lewan, our starting O-line was at a definite talent disadvantage as well as our receivers and RBs.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:27 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 11:41 AM ^
down their throats in the middle of the line.
November 25th, 2012 at 4:06 PM ^
but except for omameh, i think each of our starters on offense was at least a 4* on rivals.
November 25th, 2012 at 4:13 PM ^
If you're talking about the offensive line, yeah. If you're talking about everyone, then Omameh, Kwiatkowski, Hopkins/Kerridge, and Rawls/Smith were all 3-stars or less.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:17 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^
I totally agree about our OL talent...that is why I think, even if we lose Lewan, we will probably be better next year. Yes, I know, we will be playing a bunch of first year starters, but I think most of them are more talented than the guys that we have starting now. And I think trading Mags for Lewan will not be a huge dropoff everyone thinks.
WR are going to be ok, I think especially with the new guys coming up. Even at RB, I think we will be ok, though I would love to have Green...I think he is a gamechanger.
November 25th, 2012 at 11:08 AM ^
I think that the Oline might actually be better pending the caveat that the incoming lineman live up to expectations. I also question Lewan leaving early as I think he needs another year IMO to develop.
I have questioned it a few times this year, but why did they never seem to run over Lewan on the short yardage plays. I just do not think Jake Long or Joe Thomas for example when watching Lewan play at this point, and it just does not seem he is the go to lineman for those types of plays.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 12:46 PM ^
I wonder how much of the "just don't lose the game" mindset comes from the turnovers, some of which appear to stem from "let's go out and win it" mindset. That's not an excuse, just idle speculation.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^
I got this feeling too. For the first time in quite some time we were on equal footing in terms of talent. We obviously have some holes here and there. So do they. Overall, talent seemed pretty equal.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:45 AM ^
I definitely disagree here. Fans focus way too much on the skill positions and not enough on the lines. On the offensive and defensive lines, it wasn't even close. We were manhandled up front on both sides of the ball. When OSU ran the ball, even when it was well defensed, the line of scrimmage surged up and they got positive yardage. That's the kind of luxury that allows you to call an inside handoff on 3rd and 7 and have it look like a smart call. Meanwhile, when we ran the ball, our OL was invariably shoved backwards, and it took a great individual effort from the ballcarrier to gain anything.
November 25th, 2012 at 11:54 AM ^
I should have been more specific. Our offensive line (outside of Lewan) was was I was considering our weakness. Ohio's saftey play, especailly tackling, was pretty bad. Also, our receivers felt superior to theirs. Ohio's D line seemed better, but that could have been amplified by how bad our O line was. Our linebackers seemed better. Once again, RB is hard to tell because our O line was so bad. All I am saying is that to my subjective belief (and talent surely is subjective), the overall talent amongst the teams was approximately equal.
November 25th, 2012 at 11:56 AM ^
The offensive line is five out of 11 players on offense. It's not just one little position area. If you have a talent deficiency there, that's a monster handicap to overcome. You can have a huge edge at the skill positions (which I do not think we had, anyway) and it can go for naught if you can't block up front. OSU had penetration on almost every Michigan offensive play, whether it was a pass or run. Pretty much every successful offensive play we had required an excellent individual effort from Gardner or the ballcarrier to avoid losing yardage right off the bat.
I don't think Borges called a great game, but I also don't think the OSU OC did, either. The difference was that Borges needed to call a brilliant game to overcome our weakness upfront, whereas OSU could just run Hyde up the gut all day.
November 25th, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^
I am well aware of the importance of an offensive line. Still, if we are talking about overall talent on the two teams, which we were, a deficiency in one position group does not make overall talent disparate between the two teams without looking at the rest of the positions.
November 25th, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^
But if both of our lines were at such a disadvantage in the talent department, what position group do we make up the difference in? If 9 or 22 starters already put you in a massive hole in the talent department, where do you make up for them that will put us on even footing?
Their DBs were atleast on par with ours, their QB is equal to ours. Their running back is light years beyond anything we trotted out there save Denard, who only brings us to about equal due to his limitations yesterday.
Our receivers had a good day but I think Ohio is definately more talented at receiver I can be talked into leaning that one into Michigans catergory though. TEs are equal I would say.
So that means you think our LBs were light years beyond their Ohio counterparts, I just didn't see that at all. I saw alot of Ohio Linebackers making great plays all day. They practically lived in our backfield.
I really see no way in which our talent was anywhere near equal to Ohio's.
November 25th, 2012 at 4:10 PM ^
You are including Lewan and Roh in your 9 out of 22 which actually makes 7 out of 22. I also said I didn't think you could really tell if their D line was better as they were going againt our O line which was just bad. So that makes 4 out of 22 clearly conceded which makes your premise incorrect. As for our position groups with superior talent, I say linebackers, DBs, and WRs have a talent advantage along with "factor back" or whatever you want to call Denard.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 10:44 AM ^
Schofield is the starting right tackle.
November 25th, 2012 at 11:17 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 4:14 PM ^
teams have attrition/graduation every year. losing molk, huyge, hemingway and koger shouldn't be enough to decimate this offense when there are 4* guys waiting in the wings...and you return the all time yardage leader at the school.
i'm really concerned about the o-line coaching; not necessarily the players we have there.
November 25th, 2012 at 4:20 PM ^
Just because you have 4-star guys waiting in the wings doesn't mean they're any good.
I'm lukewarm on Darrell Funk, too, but the bottom line is that David Molk won the Rimington Award, he was experienced at calling protections, and he was a very good center. Elliott Mealer was the fourth-string center last year behind Molk, Barnum, and Khoury. And Barnum has never looked impressive to me, whether he was coached by Frey or Funk.
November 25th, 2012 at 4:45 PM ^
but i would bet half of the big 10 teams would trade their o-line talent for ours.
question - how many of our redshirts do you see winning o-line starting jobs next year; 2 or 3? imo, if it's just one, we are in trouble.
November 25th, 2012 at 4:49 PM ^
That depends on Lewan. I think Kalis will start somewhere (RG or LG). I also think Bryant will start, so I'll say one redshirt freshman will start next year. Two if Lewan leaves.
November 25th, 2012 at 5:03 PM ^
you don't see him winning the RT spot if lewan stays?
November 25th, 2012 at 5:04 PM ^
Not if Schofield's still around, no.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^
I totally disagree. With the exception of LB, LT and the interior of the DL (and that's a stretch to say that), their talent level was well above ours.
- We couldn't run because the interior of our OL couldn't move their DT's and get to the next level. That forced us into obvious passing situations. We had no RB to speak of. As much as I respect the heart of Smith, he's a 5'6", 156 lbs tailback without breakaway speed or elite quickness. The Rawls experiment is flopping and our #1 RB is out. The only player that is better talent wise along the OL is Lewan. All of the bitching about not running the ball is moot. We tried to repeatedly to run the ball with Smith and Rawls and it didn't work. Yes, we scored on a long run with Denard, but it said what we are doing when he was in the game. By the 3rd, he came in the game, safeties came into the box.
- Our WR have a very difficult time getting open without scheming them open. They don't have the burst to get past opposing db's nor the strength to outmuscle them. Our biggest threat is a 5'9' slot (Dileo), 2 decent but small outside WR's (Gallon and Roundtree) and a freshman TE (Funchess). Not the greatest threat to good DB units.
- Our DB's are small and slow. Without Countess, we have no lockdown CB. Floyd has made great strides, but he's a smallish, slow CB that can be burnt deep. Taylor is decent, but he gets picked on very much and isn't always up to the task.
- QB, Miller is a Hell of a QB. Gardner is good and a healthy Denard is right up there as well, but our situation was not good yesterday. Having no behind Gardner takes away him as a running threat (I think the coaches told him not to run unless nessacary). We contained Miller for a good portion of the game.
If you are looking for a way to rip on the coaches, be my guest. The 4th down call was bad, the alternating Denard and Devin was disruptive at best, and having Bellamy as the back up was deplorable, in hindsight. But to say the talent level is on par is way off base, imo.
November 25th, 2012 at 10:57 AM ^
The Game was there for the taking, but that doesn't necessarily mean the talent level is equal. I agree with you on that. Especially comparing our OL vs. their DL, I thought it was clear Ohio had more talent there.
But even if our talent level wasn't on par, The Game was there to be had, and I don't blame the players for not taking it. It's fair to rip on the coaches after that second half. This loss was purely coaching (I won't rehash the madness). It's troublesome because this was such a great opportunity to get a win against Ohio, and the opportunity was wasted. I hate to say this, but we know Urb is going to get the horses in his stable, so it will be more difficult to beat them on a consistent basis in the future. This was a great chance that was squandered.