Nuss' impact on the OLine and RBs?

Submitted by UMfan21 on

The general consensus with Nuss is that he's developed a lot of good QBs and his philosophy is pro-style offense with an emphasis on short passing.  Obviously this will open up the run game by forcing LBs to react to the possiblity of pass coverage, rather than be on speedballs screaming through the A gaps.

Aside from this, what other impact can he have on the run game?  Obviously a change in OL coach would be the most direct way to change the OL performance/scheme, but let's assume Funk and Fred Jackson stay.  It seemed like the OL last year made many mistakes and I'm unsure how many of those are really attributed to the scheme versus inexperience and poor positional coaching (same for RBs who I felt were often times hesitant, missed cutback lanes, etc). 

Is Nuss going to fix the run game through the passing game, through improved blocking schemes, or will the impact be minimal (ie is Funk really the key)?  How much direct impact can a "QB centric" OC have on the run game with the rest of the offensive staff in tact?

 

PS-I'm not advocating firing Funk or Jackson.  Just considering the coaches we have today, what kind of improvement can we expect.  Curious what others thought.

Magnus

January 9th, 2014 at 2:29 PM ^

I agree. I think Bryant was deemed too big/slow to be able to pull, and he wasn't good at moving in space, so that's partly why he didn't see much playing time. (Also, he was injured.) I also think that several of these guys could have been 310 lbs. or so if Michigan wanted them to be, but instead, they were 300-305. If Michael Schofield were returning in 2014, I sincerely doubt Nussmeier would want him at 304 lbs.

True Blue Grit

January 9th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^

to get bigger and stronger by next year.  I am hoping that's one of the offseason edicts that has been passed down to the players  and Wellman to help turn things around next year.  Other than maybe Bryant, every guy could stand to gain 10 pounds or more PLUS getting stronger.  We just had too many plays this year where there was no push from the line at all.  

DonAZ

January 9th, 2014 at 1:46 PM ^

I asked this over on TTB ... I'll ask it here as well:  would you anticipate the arrival of Nussmeier will make the role of center a better fit for existing personnel?

I'm no X's and O's guy ... it was my impression the center's job was to call line blocking, and if the blocking schemes set by Borges were really complex, might that have contributed to problems at the snap?  A simpler, more intuitive blocking system might make the center more comfortable?

I ask this because I know center is one of our OL weak spots.

Magnus

January 9th, 2014 at 2:43 PM ^

I think Graham Glasgow's head was spinning when he got the center job in the fifth game. He really had trouble, and I'm not sure if he'll be the guy going forward or not. Personally, I see him more as a guard, but I do think a simplified blocking scheme could help him out significantly. 

WolvinLA2

January 9th, 2014 at 2:02 PM ^

Assuming Magnuson moves back to tackle, our interior linemen are pretty big. I'd imagine the front runners for those three spots are Glasgow, Kalis and Bosch, and those are three big dudes. Scheme change or not, those guys were likely to put on around 10 pounds this offseason anyway, so we should be in good shape there. The tackles are the guys who will need to beef up, or Kugler if he's going to be in the mix at center.

UMfan21

January 9th, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^

Thanks Magnus, I guess that is what I was looking for.  I didn't know if the OC dictated the blocking schemes or if that was done at the positional level.  So the OC typically decides the schemes and the positional coaches then mainly focus on fundamentals?

Magnus

January 9th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^

It depends on the team. Hoke appears to want the offensive coordinator to have autonomy, so yes, I think Nussmeier will have his choice of what scheme(s) to run. The position coaches can have some input, but they're there mainly to do what the OC says.

DamnYankee

January 9th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^

I am just curious.  I wonder how much of it was Funk's coaching and how much of it was Borges' predictable play calling?  I mean, no matter how technically sound (or unsound) our offensive linemen are, no "technique" is going to be able to overcome a defense that practically knew what play we were going to run based upon our formation.  Again, I am no expert and would love to hear more informed opinions on the subject.

jbibiza

January 9th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^

That's what I have read, and he uses the outside zone for counters (what are these "counters" you speaketh of?).  Sounds like the kind of simple yet nunaced system that could bring a quick turnaround.

Soulfire21

January 9th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^

Obviously a change in OL coach would be the most direct way to change the OL performance/scheme
I kind of thought the most obvious thing would be not having your 3 interior lineman all starting their first games together, quickly followed by not shuffling the lineup every game (particularly in the mid to late season).

WolvinLA2

January 9th, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^

It depends on how you want to measure it, and total starts can be very misleading. A guy with 30 starts is only a little better than a guy with 20, but a guy with 10 is way better than a guy with zero. We will only have one guy (probably) who will start next season at zero, but this season we had three of those. This is like when people talk about the average weight of an offensive line. The stat can have meaning, but how you get to it is equally important. Having two guys who weigh 350 and three others who weight 267 each is not as good as five 300 pounders, but the average would be the same. We might not have as many total starts next season, but I would consider our OL more experienced on the whole.

Reader71

January 9th, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^

Yes but we will be starting between 0-1 guys who have never started. Last year we broke in Kalis, Magnuson, Glasgow, Miller, Bryant, Burzinsky, and Bosch (7!). Seven guys - covering three of 5 spots - who have never started is what made us horrible, not a lack of total starts. Also, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to development. In my opinion, you are who you are after 15 starts or so.

DGDestroys

January 9th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^

If you're expecting a hefty bunch of maulers, you'll probably be disappointed. Having said that, I think one of the most encouraging things to look at from this past season was the OLine's development. Their first game against VT was a disaster on the line, but they began to pull together as the season went on (aside from some big pass protection failures in the Sugar Bowl).

Magnus mentioned this, but it has a lot to do with running the same inside/outside zone plays over and over and over again, and paying attention to detail. They're not going to have to learn new blocking schemes every week, and that should be of significant help. 

funkywolve

January 9th, 2014 at 6:17 PM ^

Agree that their development was pretty good throughout the year.  At the same time, VaTech isn't the easiest team to open with for an oline that has a handful of first year starters.  VaTech has fallen off some in recent years, but that's mainly due to their offense.  Their defense continues to be year in and year out a fairly solid unit.

Section 1

January 9th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^

OL coach at Alabama; he's only been there a year, and has no particular Alabama ties.  By most accounts a great recruiter.  I have to think that Nussmeier had a role in Chistobal's hiring at Tuscaloosa.

Sideline

January 9th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^

I was under the impression he had a friendship with Saban. After FIU let him go, I thought Saban was the first to say this guy was too good to not be on someone's offensive staff and that's why Alabama hired him... I could be way off and obviously I don't have any sources to back this up, just what my impression was.

Sac Fly

January 9th, 2014 at 1:36 PM ^

Cristobal took a job coaching tight ends at Miami after he got fired. After a month the O-Line position opened up at Alabama and he took it.

You don't burn your alma mater for Nick Saban because you're friends. He did it because he wants to be a HC again; coaching offensive line in the SEC was a much better opportunity than tight ends at Miami.

Victor Valiant

January 9th, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^

I was under the impression Alabama's offensive line regressed in performance this year as opposed to years past. I know they lost some good players off of last years line, but it has been pretty widely reported that their best lineman, Kouandjio, regressed as a player. I'm not sure Cristobal has proven he has what it takes.

Yeoman

January 9th, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^

The word from Alabama was precisely the opposite--the emphasis on short to intermediate routes was already in place under Saban and the primary change when Nussmeier came in was a new focus on vertical routes.

They were #1 in the country in "explosive drives'. That's not a sign of dinking and dunking.

Don

January 9th, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^

and it was during his one-to-one meeting with Borges that he let him know that he was being let go, seems to me that if there were other similar staff changes in the works we would have learned about them already.

Yeoman

January 9th, 2014 at 1:07 PM ^

They wouldn't hire position coaches until an OC was in place; they wouldn't start firing people until they had decided on replacements.

My guess is the next step is for Nussmeier to meet with the position coaches and decide what moves he'd like to make. If he's bringing anyone with him, that'll probably happen at those spots pretty quickly.

Blue in Seattle

January 9th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^

everyone makes with this line of thinking is that the coaching staff structure has many levels instead of being flat.  All the coaches are hired and fired by Hoke, evaluated by Hoke, assigned to their position by Hoke.  Just like Rich Rodriguez hiring and firing his DC.  No staff changes beyond the coordinator.

I agree with Don, we would have heard of something from Michigan if it's going to happen, because Hoke would have decided it all at the same time.  If he wanted a package deal from Alabama that would have been arranged in the dark secret place where Brandon does all his negotiating.

Check the recruit responses to the firing.  They are pretty consistent with "I haven't heard from Coahc Borges for a couple of weeks".  That's pretty close to how long Lane Kiffin has been "consulting" with Alabama.

Yeoman

January 9th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^

...is thinking that the way Rich Rodriguez manages a football program has anything to do with the way Brady Hoke manages a football program. RR gives very little autonomy to his coordinators; Hoke gives a great deal. I'd be shocked if Hoke made a decision about a position coach without consulting with the relevant coordinator, and until a few hours ago there was no relevant coordinator.

TIMMMAAY

January 9th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^

Even if (you could argue especially if) Hoke decided during the staff meetings that he was going to let a few coaches go, there's no reason to think we'd find out about them at the same time. Think about this. We didn't hear about Borges until we had a replacement locked up (as it should be). Why, then, would we magically find out if Funk was gone before finding his replacement (especially since we now have a new OC, who would doubtless want some input into that decision). What you're saying just doesn't make logical sense given the context of Borges' firing/ new hiring. 

uncleFred

January 9th, 2014 at 2:21 PM ^

First: It is a virtual certainty that offensive staffing would have come up during the hiring discussions with Nussmeier. Unless you don't plan to give your OC input into hiring offensive position coaches, exploring his thoughts and ideas about staff is simply part of evaluating him for the job. I would not be surprised if these discussions were specific to each offensive coach. 

Second: There has been a lot of speculation here that Nussmeier is a "short term" hire, and is  someone who will leave in 2 or 3 years for a head coach position. If that is true you don't want him bringing in guys who are loyal to him and will follow him when he leaves. A mass departure among the offensive or defensive staff is almost as disruptive as a new head coach. Assuming that Hoke does indeed plan to finish his career at Michigan, he needs a staff that is loyal to him and the program.

If Funk's or Jackson's jobs are in jeopardy due to Nussmeiers arrival, that is already known to Hoke (and Brandon) and probably would have been part of the individual discussions that Hoke had with staff prior to the announcement. 

JayMo4

January 9th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^

I think Funk is probably on the way out, so it's hard to speculate all that much until we know who the new guy is.  But hearing the word "counter" is music to my ears already.