Joey Burzynski & Erik Magnuson to start at guard vs. Indiana
From the Michigan football Twitter account.
October 18th, 2013 at 7:04 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 7:25 PM ^
But he's being replaced by a blue chip recruit from his same class (Magnuson). So does it looks bad on the coaches when one blue chip kid is replaced by another? Keep in mind they're both RS frosh and probably shouldn't really be ready yet anyway.
October 18th, 2013 at 7:45 PM ^
-an undersized walk-on
I don't necessarily think Hoke's reputation is taking a hit (because he hadn't really established one yet) but lets not pretend this is just ho-hum blue-chipper replaces blue-chipper. This is a bad OL where Bryant, Kalis, Miller, Braden are all sitting while two walk-ons start.
October 19th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
I pay more attention to ESPN's rankings more than others. But, by ESPN's rankings Mags is far form blue chip. I think he was ranked like 79 and the #27 OT in the country...not exactly a blue chip guy, whereas Kalis had a top 10 position ranking.
October 18th, 2013 at 7:27 PM ^
October 19th, 2013 at 12:07 AM ^
- Jordan Simmons, USC, 3rd on depth chart at LG (had knee surgery)
- D. J. Humphries, Florida, starting LT
- Zach Banner, USC, 2nd on depth chart at RT
- Kyle Murphy, Stanford, 2nd on depth chart at LT
- Kyle Kalis, Michigan, now 2nd on depth chart at RG after starting first six games
- John Theus, Georgia, 2nd on depth chart at RT
- Andrus Peat, Stanford, starting LT
Fewer than half have had any starts at all. It's not so much "falling short" as a lack of depth putting him in a situation he probably shouldn't have been in in the first place.
October 19th, 2013 at 12:19 AM ^
October 19th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
I would be curious to see a review of offensive lineman and how many years in the system it takes to be effective. We keep calling guys "freshman" who are RS freshman. They are not freshman, they are only that by eligibility. These guys are sophomores and juniors in college that took a RS. And, RS sophomores are juniors in their 3rd danged year. I find it hard to believe that a 3rd year player should not be ready to contribute. Bryant, Miller, and Glasgow are all in year 3 should be serviceable, same with a 5-star guy in year two (Kalis). Maybe we don't expect all-conference type of performances, but we are not even serviceable at this point.
October 19th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
Didn't I just do exactly that?
I'll say it again: of the seven five-star offensive linemen currently in their second year, only two are starting for their teams. The others may or may not be serviceable, but they do not play.
I'm not sure we need to do a study of walk-ons in their third year. Most walk-ons do not ever start at any point in their careers. To get any serious playing time out of Glasgow at any point in his career, let alone in year 3, is a huge plus cmopared to any reasonable expectation when he came to campus.
Bryant has been battling injury.
You may find it "hard to believe" but this is what happens when you don't bother to recruit linemen. You can't turn it around overnight--unless you happen to hit that once-a-decade guy, it takes a couple of years for even the best recruts to be ready to play.
October 19th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
I appreciate you're follow up Yeoman, but I'm interested in a little larger sample size, and some year-end results of thier effectiveness, not just that one class. I would like to know how long it takes a 3-star guy, a 4-star guy, a 5-star guy, etc. Are we still going to be having this conversation next year? I hear what you're saying with a walk-on. But, will Bryant in year 4 still suck next year? Will Mags (4-star) in year 3 suck next year? Will Kalis in year 3 suck (5-star) next year? Will Braden in year 3 suck (3-star) next year? And, if so will they be good in 2015 or will they all the 3-star guys get overtaken by the 2013 class by Dawson, Bosch, Kugler, etc? Then, will they all still suck because they will only be RS sophomores?
I hear what you're saying with recruiting though. The 2010 and 2011 class of no good o-lineman is killing us now. But, I want an expectation of next year and 2015. When can we expect these guys to be good?
October 19th, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^
I know the sample size is small but it's easy to get current depth charts and it's a lot of work to drag them out of archives for prior years, and I don't have the time now.
But even a small sample size has some information. It's possible that a 50/50 shot would give you 2 out of 7; we can be pretty sure it isn't a 90% proposition. I think even the small sample is a demonstration that it isn't time to be worried about Kalis, or think his current development is a sign of bad coaching. He's not behind the curve' he's just seen the field early.
My guess is that 6 of those 7 guys will be starting this time next year. For what it's worth, both the five-stars from 2011 are quality starters in their third year (2012 must have been a good year for linemen).
But you never know; it's a hard position to project. That's why you need numbers, which we'll have in a couple of years but sure don't now.
October 19th, 2013 at 2:43 PM ^
I used ESPN rankings and I’m sure I missed some people. But, after looking around at the rest of the conference MSU is starting one underclassman, a RS Freshman (Jack Conklin, NR). Indiana is starting three, a true sophomore (Jason Spriggs, 75), a RS sophomore (Ralston Evans, 74), and another true sophomore (Jake Reed, 77). Illinois is only starting one underclassman, a true sophomore (Ted Karras, 77). Iowa is only starting one underclassman, a true sophomore (Jordan Walsh, 79). Minnesota is starting one true sophomore (Josh Campion, NR) and RS sophomore Jon Christenson, NR). Nebraska is not starting any underclassman. Northwester is only starting one RS sophomore (Geoff Mogus, 75). ND is starting one underclassman, true sophomore (Ronnie Stanely, 79). OSU is only starting one underclassman, a true sophomore (Taylor Decker, 78). Penn State is only starting one true sophomore (Donovan Smith, 79). Wisconsin is only starting one RS sophomore (Tyler Marz, NR). Purdue is only starting one RS sophomore (Robert Kugler, 78).
Not surprisingly the highest ranked guys are from OSU, PSU, and ND. But, only Indiana is starting three underclassman, and Minnesota is the only other team starting two. Everyone else seems to only start one, and they are typically a true sophomore or RS sophomore. But, few of them are highly rated recruits, most are 3-star types. So, UM is typically starting 2-3 underclassman, one of which is a walk-on. I still have to assume with the combined recruiting profiles of Lewan, Schofield, Kalis, and Bryant, that filling in one RS sophomore walk on (Glasgow) should still produce better results than we are currently seeing. Maybe Byant’s injury situation is yet another factor that is hurting us…hard to say. But, scheme and coaching have to be a part of the problem. Does Indiana have great coaches because they are doing it with less? They obviously have a very different philosophy and scheme.
October 19th, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^
So of the sixty offensive linemen starting in the conference, there are a total of two freshmen and one walk-on.
Two of those three players are starting for Michigan. The other is playing about half-time (he splits the position with Donovan Clark) on an offensive line that I think the board generally agrees is a pretty bad line.
---
I don't know what to say about Indiana--I guess we'll know a lot more three hours from now. What exactly is it that they're doing that everyone's so envious of? They're scoring 42/game, Michigan's scoring 39. They get more yards, for sure, but I don't know what if anything that says about their line. Some of it's tempo, some of it is that they haven't turned the ball over as much even though they throw it a lot more.
October 19th, 2013 at 4:26 PM ^
Thanks for staying with the convo because I am enjoying clarifying what we are seeing so thanks. Just to clarify, because the language is killing me. There are no freshman. There are two RS freshman. They are not freshman...they are sophomores with freshman eligibility. Also I did not do any calculation of scholarship vs walk-on. I only know that for Michigan. And, in all fairness a walk-on at Michigan could be a scholarship lineman at Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, etc....same goes for OSU, ND, PSU, Wisc, etc.
Based on what I'm seeing so far in this game though, scheme and playcalling seems to be a big difference. We are running much better. It could also be Indiana is a bad defense. But, they still stuff us when we run from under center.
One other quick note I will make because I saw it in the UCLA game. UCLA is starting two true freshman, one true sophomore, and a RS sophomore. They are in the top 25 in passing, rushing, and points.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:31 PM ^
Count me among those happy that the staff is experimenting on the OL. Honestly you guys, it can't get much worse than it's been this season. Indiana can put out a functional line of freshmen and sophomores. There are bodies on our roster that can go out there and not give up -1 yards per rush.
October 19th, 2013 at 2:50 AM ^
And for some reason IU's 2* Freshman and Sophomores are performing better than our young but talented OL? I wonder if it just boils down to coaching.
October 19th, 2013 at 3:08 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 6:31 PM ^
There's a chance this might be some sort of motivational tactic as well. I wouldn't be too surprised to see Kalis and Bryant play at some point tomorrow.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 6:32 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 6:32 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 8:08 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 11:31 PM ^
Saban has the same issues except he weeds them out. Regression alone is not proof of poor coaching.
October 18th, 2013 at 11:38 PM ^
The list of guys that haven't worked out is getting rather long though. It's possible we got the longest, most improbably string of busts in a row, but the more likely explanation is there's something funky going on with the coaching.
October 19th, 2013 at 1:07 AM ^
On the interior OL, we are throwing our JV out there against the other team's varsity. And all the depth is RS or true frosh as well. I just don't know how any coach could overcome that and be steamrolling anybody decent.
When our OL are all grown up and still whiffing on blocks and looking generally confused, then it will be time to talk about how bad the coaching is.
I understand the "but they're not getting better" complaint but it's just not realistic. The Matrix was just a movie, the coaches can't just download knowledge, skills, and experience directly into their brains. Building OL means planting a forest, not a garden. Trees are stronger than flowers, but they take a lot more time to grow.
October 19th, 2013 at 3:46 AM ^
and when one falls in the forest with no one around, does it still make a sound?
October 18th, 2013 at 6:38 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 8:36 PM ^
Brian will steal this if we ever run tackle over to Magnuson's side.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:38 PM ^
see what sticks amongst the young'uns tire fire, except on offensive line rather than defensive backfield ....
October 19th, 2013 at 1:16 AM ^
and you know what? Some of those DB's turned out OK. Sure a lot of that was the change in defensive staff, but the point stands - RS frosh and frosh DB's covering jr and sr WR's...there's just no way to make it work.
A good staff can try to do things to "hide" one sub-par player, but you can't "hide" an entire position group.
So it was with RRod's DB's. So it is now with Brady's OL. The difference: Hoke & Co. are successfully addressing the problem through recruiting.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:42 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^
No. This is what happens when you have terrible coaches who are catastrophically incompetent and they can't develop players, come up with game plans, or figure out where guys fit.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:48 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 8:08 PM ^
every time you get in the same formation. You know, mix it up and throw a quick out now and then to keep them on their toes.
October 18th, 2013 at 8:26 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 8:39 PM ^
Agreed. I'm as disappointed in our line play and coaching staff as anyone but the constant whining and rehashing of the same opinions in every single thread gets old to the point that I'm reading the blog significantly less these days.
October 18th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 10:43 PM ^
Ohio State has also had 3 coaches in 7 years. Their O-line seems okay.
October 18th, 2013 at 11:43 PM ^
Ok, I'll bite. They didn't change offenses from one polar opposite to another twice. Secondly, they didn't really have a gap in recruiting because Tressel getting fired was pretty sudden and not based on performance issues on the field. Even when Fickle was interim coach and things weren't going that well, Urban was in the background with a de facto second coaching crew recruiting his ass off. I'm naving trouble coming up with an analogous situation as Michigan went through between 2008-2010. That sort of debacle has long shadows.
October 18th, 2013 at 11:53 PM ^
All the players on Ohio's O-Line are seniors, with one exception (Taylor Decker, a true sophmore), and we just don't have that kind of depth thanks to the RR transition.
It was a bad comparison on my part.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:44 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 6:47 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 6:46 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 6:47 PM ^
"There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know."
"There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know."
"There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know."
"There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know."
"There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know."
"There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know."
"There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know.""There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine. Quote it. Let them know."
October 18th, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^
October 19th, 2013 at 1:22 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 10:30 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 6:48 PM ^