Michigan Pass Blocking Woes in a Chart
I'm no expert, but I think this may be part of the problem with our passing game.
h/t Garrett Fishaw
Here's how Michigan's offensive line has fared in pass protection this season, based on our Pass Block Efficiency Rating pic.twitter.com/WMszBtimgy
— CFB Film Room (@CFBFilmRoom) September 18, 2017
September 19th, 2017 at 11:41 AM ^
(Insert Silicon Valley D2F video here)
September 19th, 2017 at 1:43 PM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 11:17 AM ^
Air Force blitz was rather obvious, yet I never saw a receiver break off into a quick slant or a stop route to give WS a quick throwing option ... is WS not seeing the blitz ? Also - WS missed Ty on at least 2 obvious dump off throws with Ty having plenty of space. I'm certain the coaches see this ... so I hope it's fixed by Saturday.
Go Blue!
September 19th, 2017 at 11:43 AM ^
Having wr's break those routes off, and in the correct way, and having your qb know it will happen is part of where massive inexperience in our receiving core is a big problem. This isn't madden, that doesn't just happen overnight and Speight has been working with most of these guys for under a year.
September 19th, 2017 at 2:15 PM ^
by the QB ... its a "hot call" that the wide outs / running backs hear and know what their hot route are. sheesh
Go Blue!
September 19th, 2017 at 11:28 AM ^
There is just no way in hell this is accurate. I mean, even if the IDEA is accurate, and 3 of the 5 of them are truly bad, there is simply no way that we are 3-0 with the right side of the line THAT bad.
September 19th, 2017 at 12:59 PM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 11:28 AM ^
That distirbution is....interesting but not surprising and I think it meshes what we've seen in-game really - the right side of that offensive line needs to figure something out and hopefully soon. I kind of wonder what the mechanics of this analysis are though - I question just how big this difference may be.
As someone kind of touched on above, I wonder what the compression is between #1 and #2 at a couple of these spots, or rather, what the competition has been like, especially on the right side.
September 19th, 2017 at 11:30 AM ^
Maybe this is just me, but a 0.5 rating for a starting offensive lineman at a Big Ten school seems unbeliveable. While I admit to having no idea how they calculate these numbers, that just doesn't seem possible to me.
Like, in the grand scheme of college football, how could someone earn a starting job at a school like Michigan with a 0.5 score? There are 128 FBS teams. I know run blocking isn't included here, but I have serious questions about the scaling here. Are we seriously to believe that Ulizio could only start at six or seven schools in FBS? While, I get everyone has concerns about his play so far, that seems unbelievable to me.
September 19th, 2017 at 12:01 PM ^
Brian documented just yesterday how terrible Hoke was at recruiting OL, and how comprehensively barren the cupboard was when Harbaugh returned. That was compounded by some extremely untimely recruiting misses.
Ulizio was a 3* flyer. He seemingly lost a year of weight training and practice development to mono. And now, as a starter, he is making mental errors. So he doesn't really seem to have size, talent, or football IQ.
I agree with others that sample size issues are massive with this chart so early in the season. But, to this point, it makes sense to say that Ulizio has probably been one of the worst starting tackles of any team so far this season.
September 19th, 2017 at 12:17 PM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 12:53 PM ^
First, elephants in the room (in no particular order):
* Newsome's injury was *really* unfortunate.
* Devery Hamilton's last-minute decommitment (coupled with the miss on Jean Delance). If you want to judge Harbaugh harshly for anything, it may be his '16 O-lineman class.
* Runyan was a "legacy" recruit. BoMoCarr and Hoke all did that. He may still work out fine, as he's a good athlete.
* Harbaugh had only a few weeks to get the '15 class together. If Ulizio ends up as a miss, well, I'll accept it.
As for '17, "the rest are a complete unknown." Well, no shit. Of course they are. It's too early to say much of anything. Really, Bredeson and Onwenu (and Spanellis) shouldn't be judged yet.
September 19th, 2017 at 7:06 PM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 12:28 PM ^
Look, you could convince me that Ulizio is Michigan's weakest offensive starter. You could even convince me that he's one of the weaker starters in the Big Ten and among all Power Five teams.
But, from a numbers perspective, a 0.5 rating just doesn't make sense. As a few people here have mentioned, this site offers little as to how they get these numbers (which should raise even more doubt). However, 0.5 implies Ulizio doesn't even crack the first percentile of FBS football.
Maybe this is obvious, but think about the last percentile of FBS football for a second. Last year's S&P bottom six teams were UConn, Nevada, Charlotte, UL-Monroe, Buffalo, and Texas State. There were 14 (!!!) teams that finished behind Rutgers. We're not talking about "down recruiting" for a Big Ten team. Three-star recruits should blow away a 0.5 rating. Hell, a major recruit should be able to beat that number as a freshman or first-year player.
My issue here isn't with negatively rating the offensive line. My issue is that a 0.5 rating doesn't make sense and, as such, I'm not sure what these "ratings" tell us.
September 19th, 2017 at 1:58 PM ^
you keep saying 0.5 "rating" and that you don't know what the rating tells us. They explicitly say it is a percentile, so they are saying he is in the bottom 0.5%ile of starting tackles (it says they group tackles separately from interior OL).
Second, Ulizio was not a major recruit, or even a high-end 3 star recruit. He was a last minute scramble addition during the transition year.
Third, Ulizio lost a year of development to mono.
Fourth, Ulizio has looked pretty terrible in every single game. So this definitely passes the eye test.
However, the inherent flaw with this metric is that it is based on a small sample size of games, as you and other users have pointed out, and Michigan has played relatively more games against better defenses than many other teams.
September 19th, 2017 at 6:44 PM ^
There are 127 better starting tackles than him?
Yeah, checks out <eyeroll>
September 19th, 2017 at 11:31 AM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 11:36 AM ^
but sadly, it doesn't seem to be a size or talent issue, it's been mental errors. that's not usually what you expect from a 3* flyer. disappointing.
September 19th, 2017 at 11:39 AM ^
The one issue with this graphic: Michigan has played a schedule with no cupcakes. Their data could be skewed by the fact that other teams have played MAC and FCS opponents in the first weeks of the season and such a small sample size. If 50-100% of your data is from teams outside the Power 5 or AAC, you are going to look a lot better and be more efficient.
It is not a good sign for the right side of the OL, but it is hard to take too much from this without seeing more of their data and more games against equal competition.
September 19th, 2017 at 11:42 AM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 11:54 AM ^
Cincinnati is better than most FCS, Sun Belt, CUSA, & MAC teams. How do you define a cupcake?
And part of my point is that Cincinnati is 33% of our schedule. Compare that to MSU who has played 100% MAC teams. Because the sample size is so small, having an FCS team or avoiding top-30 teams through the first 3 weeks could skew results significantly.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem. UFR has showed that the right side of the line has been suspect against the pass. I just don't think it is nearly as bad as that graphic makes it out to be.
September 19th, 2017 at 11:55 AM ^
To play devils advocate: The team historically recruits better than a MAC snack and could end up a bowl team if they continue to improve (Michigan is their only loss right now). Their play in the first game of the season could be a bad representation of the team as a whole.
September 19th, 2017 at 12:05 PM ^
#41 in S&P+ defense which is slightly above average. The cupcake portion of their team is the offense.
Florida is #8 in S&P+ defense.
Compare that with Penn State who hasn't played a team with a defense ranked above #80. I'd venture to guess their OL would grade out well in this exercise.
September 19th, 2017 at 2:10 PM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 11:46 AM ^
How is this figured? I went to their site, these stats aren't listed, there are no comparisons to other teams and no explanation for how they got these numbers.
I'm gonna say this is probably bullshit.
September 19th, 2017 at 1:59 PM ^
It's bullshit that they don't provide how they grade. It's not bullshit to say Michigan has a terrible passblocking line.
September 19th, 2017 at 11:51 AM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 11:55 AM ^
you thought the OL has done a good job so far this season?
September 19th, 2017 at 12:21 PM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 12:13 PM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 12:35 PM ^
Why De'Veon Smith was so valued by Harbaugh as a lead RB. It wasn't his actual production in the run game, but rather that he could pick up a blitz in a heartbeat
September 19th, 2017 at 12:41 PM ^
Was this posted by Kugler's mom?
September 19th, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^
And I expect it will. But sometimes the rush is also good.
GO BLUE!
September 19th, 2017 at 1:35 PM ^
Counting redshirt as 0.5 and non-redshirt year as 1:
2017 Michigan experience: 15 (SR, SO, RS SR, SO, RS SO)
2016 (S&P Offense rank)
#1 Oklahoma. Experience - 11.5 (RS SO, RS FR, JR, RS SO, SO)
#2 FSU. Experience - 16.5 (JR, RS SR, RS SO, RS JR, JR)
#3 Pitt. Experience - 15 (SR, SR, JR, SO, SO)
#4 Texas Tech. Experience - 12.5 (SR, FR, SR, SO, RS FR)
#5 California. Experience - 20.5 (RS JR, RS SR, RS SR, RS JR, RS SR)
#6 Clemson. Experience -14.5 (SO, RS SO, RS SR, RS JR, SO)
#7 USF. Experience -15.5 (RS FR, SR, JR, JR, SR)
#8 Ok. St. Experience -16.5 (RS SR, RS FR, RS JR, RS JR, RS JR)
#9 Alabama. Experience -13 (JR, SO, JR, SR, FR)
#10 Louisville. Experience -16 (SO, SR, RS SR, JR, RS SO)
September 19th, 2017 at 1:41 PM ^
with recruiting stars, and you have a great look at how this OL coaching staff is doing compared to peers.
I think you'll find it is disappointing, and points to Drevno's seat getting warm.
September 19th, 2017 at 1:45 PM ^
Anybody miss Kyle Kalis yet? I think after the first few games PPF had him as one of the best OL. I know that changed.
September 19th, 2017 at 2:46 PM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 1:58 PM ^
September 19th, 2017 at 3:47 PM ^
I think the UFL will show these numbers are off.