The running game is not great - not much separation between RB's
Not much in this article that we don't already know (as per usual with Nick). Personally, I was too busy panicking about the WR's after the Spring Game to worry about the run game, which was not great, to put it charitably.
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/04/michigans_running_game_taking.html
April 13th, 2015 at 11:50 AM ^
Someone needs to surgically implant a ring laser gyroscope.
April 13th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 13th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^
I was one of the few on here who though Smith would be better than Green when they committed. It was pretty evident from Green's senior/junior highlights that he was not a 5 star and he probably woulndt be a premeir back. Now of course Smith didn't turn out to be as explosive as I thought but at least he has vision and balance. Green just doesn't have the skill set.
At the risk of dredging up an argument from five years ago, the stats suggest your interpretation of their "skill set" might not be so meaningful.
Green averaged 5.74 yards/carry last season until he got hurt.
Smith averaged 4.81 yards/carry.
If the guy with worse vision and balance gains almost 1 yard more per carry, I'm okay with that.
He can move pretty well if the offensive line can create some holes for him. I don't think he's Carlos Brown fast, but he's got pretty good speed for being a 225-235 lb. back.
As for trucking guys coming downhill, we'll just have to see. He still hasn't had a lot of opportunities, but the ability is there.
April 13th, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^
He also went down on the first contact in high school quite a bit. It's been clear in his time here that the 5* rating is no longer warranted.
April 13th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^
For someone whose full-time job is to cover Michigan football, Baumgardner is unusually pessimistic about everything related to this team and has always been, at least as long as I've been reading his work. Not everything will be smooth, but he has always gone out of his way to bring a negative perspective to things that look pretty good. He was also the last reporter to believe that Harbaugh was coming. He outright denied it as even a possibility all last year, and even when folks like Sam Webb were strongly hinting that it was going to happen, he was steadfast that it wouldn't. I have learned to not take anything he says too seriously.
April 13th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^
I'm not sure about the validity of this, but somebody said that Baumgardner got a bad taste in his mouth about the program when Hoke told one of his non-answer "fibs" about something. Ever since then, Baumgardner has seemingly had it out for Hoke and the program in general.
Again, that's what somebody else said, but I don't know what Hoke/Baumgardner interaction it was in reference to.
April 13th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
That would not surprise me, Magnus. Nick is actually a pretty good writer, but his grudge-holding would make more sense if he was offended by something that happened to him in the past. With the performance of the team over the past few years pessimism was warranted, but he took it to a whole new level.
The guy has been overly negative about Michigan football for as long as I can remember. And I am sure it was before Hoke. Also, lol at "Nick is actually a pretty good writer." While we dont agree with where he is now, we can probably agree that he would improve as a writer if he had a beat he actually liked.
from MSU. I'm not sure why he's assigned as the Michigan beat writer in the first place.
April 13th, 2015 at 11:50 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 13th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^
April 13th, 2015 at 11:41 AM ^
Everyone does. They're not that easy to find.
April 13th, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 13th, 2015 at 12:06 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 13th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 13th, 2015 at 11:49 AM ^
April 13th, 2015 at 11:49 AM ^
April 13th, 2015 at 11:55 AM ^
April 13th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^
I'm more optimistic about the run game because we seemingly have a coach who will fit the scheme to the talent on the team. As with everything during the Hoke years, the run game was a mis-mash of square pegs and round holes. Just like trying to fit a dual-threat, spread-option QB into a drop-back, pocket passing attack, Hoke had power running backs in a zone scheme. It was clear Smith and Green aren't zone running backs (or hadn't yet developed that skill). Only when Hoke realized Drake Johnson was the better zone runner did the rushing attack get better. Smith and Green need to know where they're going before the ball is snapped and Harbaugh seems to know that. Based on that, I think the run game will be better this year than most people think--not great, but better. The wild card is Ty Isaac. He was the back I most wanted to see in the spring game and he got one snap. If he can bring some zone running ability to go along with Smith, Green, and whatever Johnson can contribute following his injury, we'll have a decent rushing attack.
April 13th, 2015 at 12:21 PM ^
April 13th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^
"To an extent, the RB makes the OL."
You've got it turned around. The OL makes the RB. Drake Johnson was finding holes because the offensive line was coming together in the second half of the season.
Well that's half of it but I remember several photos of Smith or Green bulling their way into the backsides of their own guards while a hole big enough to drive Harbaugh's truck through was 2-3 feet over to the right. Maybe the wrong holes were opened by the line, which is a problem...at the same time Johnson was the only one whose vision stood out as a guy who could see that hole developing and take that path instead. It's akin to the QB-WR relationship in the passing game...yes the QB is more important but the WR has to help his QB out when he can.
IIRC, those plays were early in the season when the running game was kind of a crap shoot, partly because of the OL and partly because of the running backs.
I also think people overreact to that type of thing because we UFR these games, thousands of people see it, and then we remember "OMG how could he miss that hole?!?!?!?! It's so wide open that I can even see it on my laptop 72 hours later in slow-mo!!!!1"
In reality, running backs miss holes all the time. This is not something specific to Green, Smith, etc. And I can tell you as a coach, we don't sit here and bemoan a missed hole 7 months after it happens. Just like quarterbacks miss open receivers, don't see defenders jumping routes, miss seeing the blitz coming off the edge, etc., running backs miss holes and do other bad things sometimes.
That's fair, obviously we can't see the field perspective of the running back from TV or the stands. And I agree generally that the line is more crucial to a good run game.
My analogy of the WR to QB is pretty much how I view it...75% or 80 %or 90% (whatever greater than 50 or so % you want to assign) of a completed pass is the QB reading coverage, knowing the timing of the route and how much time he has to release and then making an accurate throw. The WR's job is to run his route (with sight adjustment if need be) and catch the ball, and then gain yardage afterwards, but assuming it's a throw downfield, that's secondary to hauling in the pass.
If you have a bad QB who misreads coverage or can't make a good throw, that's bad. But if it's a catchable ball, I want the receiver to do as much as possible to help out his QB. Same thing with the line...if the line is creating some space at all for the RB to hit, I want him to hit it.
April 14th, 2015 at 12:38 PM ^
Pretty sure it was Jack Miller, but one of the linemen contradicted you directly, saying that Drake made us look better.
It definitely goes both ways. In the past we've had great lines make some backs look much better than they were, well not to me, but they got them yards that the backs would't make on their own. This includes a couple of all time yardage leaders. I think in this case it was a combo of Drake making them look better by having some great skills, above average, and that the other backs made the line look worse than it was with with below average abilities & performance.
April 13th, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^
It's a spring game. 50 percent of the OL we saw won't play this year and we didn't see Johnson, Rudock, or Gentry. Didn't we gash Ohio's D pretty good last year?
April 13th, 2015 at 12:45 PM ^
Our run D was like 15th in the nation last year and might be even better this year based on scheme and if Peppers stays healthy at Safety. He will help the run stopping like he did in the Spring game, if anything, I take away from our Spring game that our D is pretty good.
We also still have Higdon coming who reportedly runs a 4.46 40 according to Hudl and 4.5 according to 24/7. Not blazing but pretty good speed and looks like a decent back. He could get time if Green, Ty, Smith really are as bad as the chicken littles think they are.
Personally I still think Green and Isaac get the bulk of the carries if Isaac is healthy and I think Green has a monster year. Watch out for Shallman too!
The Oline will be a work in progress, but baring severe injuries, should get better each week.
While none of the running backs have been world beaters yet, we've seen (on tape at least) what Issac can be capable of when he heals up, the same for Johnson. Neither of which really were able to contribute in the Spriong Game.
I know it's not a popular opinion, but I've always stated my like for Smith. He may not have the speed of the other 3 RBs (or even the vision), but he's tough, breaks tackles, moves the pile, and falls forward.
There is always a role for a running back with that skillset.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but with 4 decent backs, someone will emerge as the starter; also it may boil down to who has the best recieving hands, or who blocks the best.
Our rushing last year was 64th out of 128 teams so mediocre but not bad. No reason to be concerned with 4/5 OL back and all of the RBs plus Drevno and Harbaugh.
64th is not bad? That Michigan bar? Its apparently been lowered.
Where did I say it was good? 64th is middle of the road which makes the transition to being a good running team easier especially with Drevno. The point is we were not 100th or something. We moved the ball some games which should make it easy for Harbaugh to improve the rushing to at least somewhere around 35th-40th this year and then further up into the top 10.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 13th, 2015 at 10:02 PM ^
I'm not a huge fan of this "In Big Ten play..." thing because games aren't played only against the Big Ten. They're played against Utah, Notre Dame, BYU, Oregon State, Appalachian State, etc. The yards and wins against the Big Ten or non-conference opponents - unless you make the conference championship game - count the same either way.
I don't think anybody's making the argument that we looked good last season or against the Big Ten last season. The team went 5-7, missed a bowl game, and generally looked bad offensively. We can massage statistics in various ways, but unless we're massaging everyone's statistics, the truth is that Michigan was so-so. That's what "64th in the country" means and that's what "8th out of 14" means and that's what a 5-7 record means.
April 13th, 2015 at 10:40 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 13th, 2015 at 10:02 PM ^
I think you forgot a "g."