Five Questions and Five Answers 2014: Offense Comment Count

Brian

Podcast 6.0. The Story. Quarterback. Running back. Wide Receiver. Tight End And Friends. Offensive Line. Defensive End. Defensive Tackle. Linebacker. Cornerback. Safety. Special Teams.

1. It can't get any worse, can it?

It can always, always get worse.

1A. But it's not likely to, right?

8759617036_91b21de69d_z

good night sweet prince [Heiko Yang]

No, it's not. Yes, even though Michigan lost both starting tackles to the NFL. It takes a special kind of panicked incompetence to end up with results like last year's Michigan. Al Borges's final D-I offense ran outside zone, then it ran power, and then it ran inside zone. It heaped all of the possible base plays you can run on an offensive line that had zero upperclassmen on the interior. It wasted essentially a month of practice time on the "tackle over" gimmick that was ruthlessly exposed by the first opponent that knew it was coming.

Michigan had 13 plays on which a tackle lined up next to another tackle. These plays were 11 runs that gained 8 yards (more than all of them on Toussaint's long run of the day, a 12-yarder), a seven-yard sack given up by Williams, and a scramble that gained eight yards. That is the product of three weeks of practice time and the futility there was only stopped by Lewan's injury.

Many of these plays could not be blocked by anybody, because Penn State was so aggressively overplaying run that they were in the gaps before Michigan could do anything about it.

Three guys for two blockers with the WLB meeting Bryant a yard in the backfield. If Kalis tries to pursue #40, the MLB, he blocks no one instead of an irrelevant guy. On second and one, a great PA down that a lot of DCs will just give you.

They got to the line of scrimmage with under ten seconds on the clock most of the time.

GET OUT OF THE HUDDLE.

Yes. In addition to all the things previously discussed, Michigan's offensive line is looking at Gardner with two  seconds on the playclock. Michigan snaps it with zero already showing—probably not actually a penalty because there is a natural delay before the ump looks at the ball to see if it's still there—and slides their line against a four man rush with no tailback to pick up the DE:

That turnover is a tangible cost of Michigan's inability to get to the line with 20 seconds on the clock consistently.

It moved linemen around almost literally every game after the first four. It was dumb.

How did this happen to a guy who was rather successful at San Diego State? Panic strangled reason in multiple ways. Michigan is stuck on this picture of itself as its 1990s self, and Al Borges was openly contemptuous of the spread both in press conferences and off the record (not to me, but to multiple people who covered the program over the last few years).

So they played a tight end who couldn't block. I'm not talking about Devin Funchess, who was eventually thrust outside. I'm talking about AJ Williams, who had one catch for two yards a year ago and was no better at blocking than Funchess. They had to know this. It jumped off the screen to me, an amateur. But instead of doing something about it they just kept plugging along with him on the field, to the point where people trying to evaluate Taylor Lewan got frustrated:

…why in the HELL did Michigan keep a tight end to Lewan's side so damn much? He obviously didn't need the help. The quarterback was right-handed anyway (with bootlegs you like for the tight end to be lined up to the side of the quarterback's throwing hand), and they could have potentially had a wide receiver there instead of a tight end. It would've increased the chances of success on passing downs as well as run downs if you get the opposing defenses to spread themselves out. But is that what Michigan did?

HEEEEEELLLLLL NOOOOOOOO

Here is the scenario I saw time and time again. So you have a tight end helping before he goes out into his route. Lewan, who doesn't need the help any damn way, blocks the hell out of the edge rusher. But the rest of Lewan's buddies on the Michigan O-line aren't quite as, well, good as he is, so the quarterback is under pressure and ends up sacked.

I mean. This is a guy who said he "didn't want to get in a chess match" last year. They're playing chess anyway, man. If you want to try to win with checkers, you're gonna have a bad time. Yes, even if you've got 75 different colors. The full results were detailed after Borges's firing. It just did not work.

[After THE JUMP: Nussmeier the savior(?), offensive line the achilles heel, Gardner the legend(?), stupid predictions.]

Under the tutelage of Doug Nussmeier, a man who's shown both pro-style chops and spread flexibility, things will improve greatly. Let me deflect a criticism about how I want both 1) a base play and 2) complain about Michigan's predictability under Carr. I want a system. I want that system to look at what the defense is doing and tweak itself to take advantage of the way the opponent is playing my base play. Ace's recent post on combining fly sweeps with inside zone is a great example.

Borges never established a thing you have to cheat to and was so inflexible he kept putting Denard Robinson in positions only an idiot would. Michigan couldn't block inverted veer play action in year one so they never tried it again. DeBord installed a system and then that was pretty much it; counters were limited to waggles for the most part; the run game was always the same. I have high hopes that Nussmeier is going to be a guy who is flexible within a coherent system, as he showed that ability at Alabama: an inside zone team that worked a lot more from the pistol and shotgun when he was around, and could put the pedal to the metal when needed.

2. Does the stuff that helped strangle the offense last year have relevance going forward?

Maybe? I wonder if This Is Michigan is a problem.

GYI0050929602.jpg

Stan Parrish gonna ball state out yo

Brady Hoke is a weird dude, stylistically. His successful Ball State outfit was a MAC-standard passing spread coordinated by Stan Parrish (of all people!) that didn't use a fullback, like, ever. Borges's offense at SDSU was a West Coast one-back passing-focused offense. Meanwhile Rocky Long's Aztec D was the same 3-3-5 so reviled at Michigan. Hoke seemed very much like a "whatever works" kind of guy.

Then he landed in Ann Arbor and decided that now he could play football exactly like Michigan did during its 1990s White Artillery Piece QB era. He told anyone who would listen that Michigan was going to run POWER with POWER. People who went to Michigan's first coaching clinic under the new regime reported that there was a near-maniacal focus on the idea of not only running power, but running "A-gap power." IE: the manliest of manball. Hoke's ideal was the famous drive against Ohio State on which Michigan choked the game out by running the same play over and over again. It was sometime in the 80s. I was approximately six, but I've heard enough people rhapsodize about it to know it happened.

I think of that drive whenever I think about the tight end blocking last year and despise it. Sometimes there are reasons to put up with bad tight end blocking: good tight end catching, poor tackle pass protection, etc. Michigan had NFL tackles and their terrible tight end blocking came with zero receiving upside. While we're all happy to execute Al Borges and move on, I wonder just how much Hoke's ideals interfered with a reality as diametrically opposed to them as possible.

um04[1]

Not walking through that door

On the one hand, you think not particularly much, because the guy doesn't wear a headset—something I regard as an asset; the best thing to know is know what you do not know. Also he has the aforementioned stylistic versatility. Guy had to defend the 3-3-5 in his first press conference. He said there were a "lot of misconceptions" about it, and boy howdy was that accurate.

On the other, Al Borges was not ejected into space in 2011 after setting the Iowa game on fire by deciding to put DENARD F---ING ROBINSON in a pro-style I-form system. Nor was he ejected into space after deciding to put DENARD F---ING ROBINSON in one million waggles at Notre Dame the year after.

So. This team looks like it's not going to be able to run the ball much. It may be able to pass protect, and it's got so many receiving options that 3-4 of them figure to be quality options… if not more. You've got a senior QB. How much are you putting on him? Are you ready to resign yourself to the fact that a three-wide shotgun system seems to make the most sense for your personnel when your tight ends are iffy and your quarterback can outrun most of your wide receivers?

I don't know. I think it's a hard sell for Hoke. I'm not sure why it's so hard for big chunks of the Michigan fanbase to accept running from the shotgun as good idea when it has been the main cause of most humiliations suffered by Michigan during the Carr era and was a clear indicator of doom last year; hell, even the kick-ass 2006 defense finally crumbled when OSU and USC (in the second half) decided that this running stuff was for rubes and went Texas Tech on M.

But it is what it is. I just want Michigan to do the things that make sense right now, and worry about being rough and tough when they have more than one upperclass OL. Nussmeier talks a good game in this department:

“Our goal is to put our best playmakers in position to make plays… whatever that may be,” said Nussmeier.  “So if that means that we have to line up in empty formation and throw the football, we’ll do it.  If that means we have to line up in three tight ends and two backs to run the football, that’s what we’re going to do.  So we’re going to do whatever we need to do to put our players in the best possible situation to have success... because at the end of the day it’s about giving them the opportunity to do what they need to do.  It’s about them.”

I hope that's true.

3. How big of a problem is the line, really?

13655438303_dcdfec8927_z

whoops [Fuller]

Last year I tried to play down problems by noting that some people were a little unhinged:

The offensive line section's comments featured a dude ranting at me for being excessively optimistic after giving the interior guys a two and saying that "mediocrity would be a win" at the center position. People are punchy about the offensive line.

I apologize, guy who ranted at me. You are like the one guy screaming about the financial crisis in 2007. Start a mutual fund; I'm in.

The line is a problem. I think it may actually be less of one than people fear it will be for two reasons: 1) tight end blocking and 2) running back blocking. Both of those were at the bottom of the barrel last year, especially #2, and Michigan has set about fixing that bit:

"Guys are more consistent now with their reads, going from point A to point B with protections," Michigan running backs coach Fred Jackson said last week on WTKA-AM in Ann Arbor. "By not having a ton of protections and a ton of different runs, it allows the guys to be more consistent in what they're doing."

/waves tiny flag

Last year there were up to ten things a back had to check presnap, and even when Fitzgerald Toussaint got in the right position more often than not the rusher blew through him like he was not there. Regression to the mean should help Michigan immensely, and increased tight end options—including not playing as many—will either play better or take guys out of the box, making blitz reads easier.

Additionally, they are an inside zone line now, running inside zone drills constantly. They suck right now, make no mistake, but as the year goes along they will get better and better at the many nuances of the zone game. Fred Jackson:

“You would think because you’re running the same things over and over and over (that it won’t be successful), but it is going to be better for your kids... simpler for your  kids. … you can formation enough to make it complicated enough where the defense can’t just look at it say, ‘here comes this play… here comes that play.’  We’re going to know how to run zone. That’s going to make us a better football team.”

It is going to be an uphill battle at the start, and medocrity is the distant chalice on the mountaintop. But it won't be as bad as last year, and hopefully opposite the defense they can be not bad enough to win some games.

There is a danger. THE DANGER: right guard. Joey Burzynski should not be in serious competition with Bosch and Kalis; he is. That spot could be a problem all year. Jack Miller could suddenly be the most important player on the O.

4. Can Gardner be the really good Gardner all year?

10894729055_1f6123d96f_z

[Fuller]

I'm saying there's a chance. It is so hard to do the things he did while under constant assault, and the guy from the beginning of the year was kind of amazing. While the accuracy issues seem baked-in at this point they're at a level that is acceptable. Additional maturity plus pass protection from the interior of his line should cut down on the bad decisions… hopefully severely.

Gardner has been given a bunch of extra responsibilities and knows this is his last chance to put his mark on the new #98; he went through last year's leadership cataclysm and should not make whatever mistakes he may have then.

He's got a monster target to go up and get it, and a tiny guy who can pick up easy yards. He's going to be good. The upside is still enormous.

5. Well?

The line issues are going to put a ceiling on what is otherwise an offense that has a ton of potential. It's not often you go into a season with a senior QB, a first round pick at WR, and several other weapons besides for Gardner. I think they're a great passing team, and they cope on the ground, and things feel a lot better.

The exception: Michigan State. MSU has had Michigan's number for the past six years, whether it's jumping the snap count or engulfing the throwback screen. They are likely to overwhelm this OL en route to another grim day. Ohio State also looms what with their DL of doom. Games against the rest of the league look tractable if Michigan is doing what works instead of what they want to work.

The end result should be something approximating GERG to Mattison: Michigan is suddenly better but some distance from great.

BETTER

  • Senior Gardner > junior Gardner
  • Sophomore Magnuson in one spot >>> never ending rotation of guards
  • Junior Glasgow > sophomore Glasgow
  • Kyle Kalis > freshman Kalis
  • Sophomore Jake Butt, Williams, Heitzman >> freshman Jake Butt and Williams
  • Chesson/Canteen > Chesson/Reynolds
  • Dennis Norfleet > ignoring Dennis Norfleet
  • Any pass protection >>>> Fitz Toussaint last year
  • Not doing what you did last year >>>> doing what you did last year

PUSH

  • Devin Funchess == Jeremy Gallon
  • Johnson/Green/Smith == Toussaint/Green/Smith

WORSE

  • Cole/Braden <<<< Lewan/Schofield
  • Amara Darboh < Devin Funchess

Last Year's Stupid Predictions

Gallon and Gardner chemistry is a real thing that propels both of them way up statistical charts. Gallon challenges Braylon's single-season receiving record.

Gallon in fact broke it, thanks in no small part to Indiana. But hooray full points.

Gardner is not quite as statistically amazing as he was last year but is clearly the best throwing quarterback in the Big Ten. His legs are a side asset.

Gardner led the league in YPA at 8.6. Braxton Miller was more efficient according to the NCAA's passer rating, but so much of that is because Braxton Miller gets to throw at safeties freaking out about Braxton Miller. Points.

If healthy a month into the season, Bryant moves into the starting lineup. Glasgow displaces Miller at center. The interior line struggles early before rounding into an acceptable unit.

Correct! Correct! So, so incorrect.

Toussaint goes over a thousand yards at over 5.0 YPC. He gets the lions share of the carries. De'Veon Smith emerges into the #2 back by midseason.

I don't want to talk about it.

Funchess blows up thanks to Gardner and the Darboh injury. He's the #2 receiver on the team.

Correct.

I complain about Dileo being underutilized at some point.

Correct, but this was gimme. Spiritually, very correct since a third WR made a lot more sense than a lot of what Michigan was doing.

Michigan splits its snaps about equally between shotgun, pistol, and under center.

    Pistol was an infrequent sidelight and, if audibled to, almost literally always a speed option. Michigan eventually came around to the gun late—big chunks of the OSU game were from the gun; before that they were a decidedly under-center team. I should have been right. I wasn't

    The offense rebounds from the ugly numbers a year ago, in part because Alabama isn't on the schedule and Michigan doesn't spend half of the Nebraska game with the backup QB (knock on wood). Passing offense skyrockets from 94th to top 20.

    Michigan was 23rd in YPA. The rebound from the ugly numbers… not so much.

    Rushing remains basically static (41st, 4.8 YPC) as an improved line and Toussaint can only do so much to keep pace with Denard's missing 7.2 YPC. YPC will actually drop a few tenths.

    "A few tenths" was more like "a yard and a half." In my defense, the next one is worse.

    Borges seems like a much better coordinator when he's not trying to work with pieces he'd never have recruited.

    The wrongest thing ever put on the internet, and I've seen the picture of a woman's breast combined with a hornet nest. (DO NOT GOOGLE THIS, YOU WILL DIE.)

This Year's Stupid Predictions

  • Devin Funchess challenges but does not reach Jeremy Gallon's single season receiving record, and then gets drafted in the first round.
  • Devin Gardner is a slam dunk first team All Big Ten performer; he still makes too many bad decisions to be truly great.
  • Michigan's OL is Cole/Mags/Glasgow/Kalis/Braden for virtually the entire season unless Kalis's back flares up. If there is a change it is Glasgow shifting to RG with Miller entering at C.
  • The running game improves significantly, starting out depressing and ugly but improving throughout the season until Michigan reclaims mediocrity at around 4.2 YPC. There is little separation between Smith and Green.
  • I complain about Norfleet being underutilized last year.
  • Sacks plummet to the surprise of all. Cole is overmatched by elite rushers but handles the rank and file just fine; Braden is a bit of an issue that Michigan covers with tight ends. Tailback pass blocking gets so much better that it makes up for losing the tackles and then some.
  • Michigan has a great passing offense, scraping the top ten in YPA.

Comments

Hoke_Floats

August 29th, 2014 at 4:19 PM ^

and the team went undefeated Gorgeous Al would still be here

he was at a time a quality OC - he had a very bad year last year and he was let go

the whole philosophy thing will only be brought up in the context of a loss - and we lost a ton last year - so we brought it up a ton

if we have a solid UofM year (9-3 and up) there won't be as much belly ache about the philosophy of the offense (no matter what we do - lateral farting including)

notetoself

August 29th, 2014 at 2:17 PM ^

i thought it was a lotus pod. either way, i was scratching my body constantly for 2 weeks after seeing it. thinking about it still makes me queasy and want to find a scab to pick at.

RB's Mustache

August 29th, 2014 at 2:34 PM ^

My stomach just sank. I had a feeling like hearing pounding at the front door and seeing a bunch of cops outside. If I had anything in my mouth I would have done a spit take. 

reshp1

August 29th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^

is definitely a problem. I don't think it's Hoke's ideal as much as a certain sect of the fanbase that revolted during the RR experiment. Hoke knew coming in he would have to hit all the right notes with these people, lest he be turned on immediately as well. As a relatively unheralded coach, he knew he had a small window of opportunity to impress upon these people that he was a "Michigan Man" and was going to restore the Michigan way of doing things.

Deep down, I think Hoke just wants to win football games. Whatever stylistic input he had into the offense last year, I believe, was small. He just doesn't seem like that type of person. Yes, he's hamstrung slightly by his initial promise of manliness, but there's miles of room between spread and shred and A gap POWER every play and I think Hoke is more than willing to explore those possibilities. Its seems in Nuss, he now has an OC that is willing to do the same.

funkywolve

August 29th, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^

Agree with your points about Hoke and the 'manball' quote.  One could also say that 'manball' means controlling the line of scrimmage (whether on offense or defense) no matter what system you're running.  Hoke might not have meant manball to mean a return to 3 yards and a cloud of dust, but rather that he wanted UM to control, if not dominate, the line of scrimmage and be the most physical team on the field.

MI Expat NY

August 29th, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^

I'd completely agree but for stories from the coaching clinic and such.  I think I made the same argument as you did with regards to the press conference just being bluster to the fans and nobody in their right mind would come in and take an offense that should be amazing and shoehorn it into something as ill-suited as POWER.  But there was little reason to keep up that charade all the way through to a coaching clinic.  That brings in the faintest bit of doubt in my mind that Hoke may really be more responsible for the offensive mess the last three years than we think. 

kb

August 29th, 2014 at 7:45 PM ^

I think the This is Michigan crap gets fed to the players too much and gives them an unhealthy dose of overconfidence. This ultimately costs us a couple games a season for overlooking some of the less talented teams on the schedule. At some point they/we have to come to the realization that merely walking on the field gives you a two TD Michigan lead....and no one is intimidated by playing in the Big House. That can change, but only when Michigan arrogance goes away.

Blue Balls Afire

August 29th, 2014 at 2:59 PM ^

For all the reasons stated here and elsewhere, I'm ecstatic that Borges is gone.  For me, the indelible stain of his that I can't get out of my mind is that damn 2-point conversion attempt against Ohio.  We line up trips stack right.  Urban Liar sees it, calls time-out.  Does Borges come out of that time out with at least a different formation to put some doubt in Ohio's minds????  Nope.  The exact same freaking formation (and likely the same play) that Urban just called time-out to scheme and defend.  Brilliant.  

Reader71

August 29th, 2014 at 3:16 PM ^

There are huge benefits to coming out in the same formation. First, you get to see what the defense's initial reaction is. How did they line up before the time out? Second if you had one particular play called, that you had shown in other games, you kind of know after the time out that the defense was preparing for that play. This gives you a leg up. Now you call the counter to that. I can't claim that this is what happened, but you can't claim otherwise. The formation isn't a problem at all, so long as you use it to your advantage.

Blue Balls Afire

August 29th, 2014 at 3:23 PM ^

I don't necessarily disagree.  However, there are also huge advantages to coming out in a different formation than the one the other team just saw and called time out.  I would even argue there are more.  Also, has Borges given any indication at all during his tenure that he was able to counter using the same formation, or that he was able to extract any tactical advantage at all?  I agree, no way to know what was or wasn't happening during that episode, but I'm not able to give Borges the benefit of the doubt based on his track record.

Reader71

August 29th, 2014 at 4:10 PM ^

Borges was a failure of a coach and left himself open for many legitimate criticisms. Make them. You can't just assert that not changing formations after a time out is self-evidently a bad thing. Or are you prepared to criticize Nuss when this same scenario plays out but his counter works? "Damn, that touchdown shouldn't have happened, we didn't even try to put some doubt in Urban's mind." That's not something I've ever heard, and i doubt I ever will.

Blue Balls Afire

August 29th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^

I'm not saying the lack of a change in formations after a time-out is per se a bad thing.  In fact I agreed with you on that point.  Taken as a whole, though, it reinforced to me the notion that Borges likely ran the same play, and more broadly, that he was transparent and playing checkers while others were playing 3D chess.  Furthermore, keep in mind that it was Ohio that called time-out--not Borges--in that two-point attemp.  If it was Borges who called time-out after seeing how Ohio lined up, and he came out of it in the same formation, it would have been more tactically advantageous because it would have put in their minds that Michigan may be running a counter to their initial play call but out of the same formation, regardless of whether they ran the same play or not.  Instead, we trot out a formation.  THEY see it and call time-out.  I guarantee that Urban was telling his kids, "hey, if they come out in the same formation again, be on the lookout for A and B and remember how we practiced it.  If they line up differently, run base-goal-line press-quarters," or something.  Point is, Urban had already prepared his team for that formation and Borges played into it by trotting it out again.

As for your hypothetical, I don't really understand it so I can't comment.  Seems to be a straw argument to a point I'm not actually making, but so be it.

This is fun.  Nice discussing it with you, Reader.

 

Reader71

August 29th, 2014 at 4:39 PM ^

Maybe it is a straw man. Sorry. I just find people disparaging play calls to be really silly and reductive and annoying. So I like to point out that all anyone ever seems to care about is the result, rather than the idea behind the play. I also disagree with the idea that who calls the time out matters. I think its possible (probably likely) that Borges stuck with the same play, which would be stupid. But there is no correlation between who calls a timeout and who runs what after that time out. The offense is under no obligation to run the same play, and a good coach probably realizes the timeout gives him a chance to mess with the defense's expectations. My point was only that using the same formation is not only perfectly OK but possibly even a deceptive advange, in the hands of a good play caller. But yeah, screw Borges. This is fun. I'll probably stop here, unless I am compelled by football nerdiness and a lack of social graces to reply.

Blue Balls Afire

August 29th, 2014 at 4:49 PM ^

My final point will be that if Borges had at least trotted out a different formation after the time-out and we suffered the same result, ie, a loss, I would not have had a problem with the idea behind the play.  Trotting out the same formation in Borges' hands offered no deceptive advantage, especially since it wasn't Borges who called the time out which might have planted a seed of doubt in Ohio's minds that he might be calling a counter out of the same formation based on how Ohio lined up.  

Anyway, upvote to you, sir.

the professional

August 29th, 2014 at 3:09 PM ^

Wouldn't mind seeing more of a passing oriented offense with 60-70% of the plays coming out of the shotgun. I seem to remember the time when Lloyd finally conceded that his team would benefit from a more passing oriented offense in his last year of his last game against Florida. We torched that team even though Florida's D was down that year, but it was a shoot out that we won. This was a complete 180 from the whole season of running on 1st and 2nd, then passing on 3rd every single freaking time.

This to me is a telling example of what happens when you adjust to your personnal like you were talking about. We have pieces that we can manipulate and use to be successful, the coaches (Hoke) may just have to swallow their pride and allow Nuss adjust to personnel. Hopefully Hoke learns this lesson faster than Carr did.

the professional

August 29th, 2014 at 5:32 PM ^

an easy thing to do. I agree that we need to maintain our "core plays" but these might need to be based around passing which can be twicked and adjusted to attack differing opposing defenses from week to week. 

If our "core" was based around the running attack we'll most likely run into trouble no matter how many variations of running plays we develop week to week due to our line's porous run blocking. 

I agree with what you're saying but we need to be careful as to not "reinvent" ourselves every week like Borges had us do. We need to find a happy medium of adjusting a few things as to not overwhelm our players (especially the o-line) while basing our attack around more passing. Just because we pass more doesn't mean we'll be predictable.

UMaD

August 29th, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^

I'm the guy who ranted about the OL, and I had actually been ranting about OL recruiting for a while before that.  What led me to rant (more) was that Brian is usually very rational and doesn't make faith-based leaps in logic very often.  Besides the interior OL, the Dymonte Thomas was another (rare) example. 

The hype train is more believeable for guys like Lewis and Bolden, who have actually played in meaningful situation and looked at least serviceable, then guys who haven't (like Braden and Miller.) So, I was surprised last year at how bullish the preview was (relative to my PANIC).

My pessimistic quibbles this year:

  • TE blocking may not get better. Same position coaches presided over miniscule improvements from Funchess and Williams last year. Butt is recovering and won't be himself.  We may or may not be using more 2-TE sets. TE is still a weakness, which sucks beside a bad OL.
  • Nussmeir is an unknown. I'm optimistic here too, but reality is we don't know exactly what to expect. Everywhere else he has coached there has been a dominant presence (e.g., Sarkisian, Linehan, JL Smith, Saban) so this is in many ways his most challenging job. New coordinators are always awesome, until they become fired coordinators, and then they are just the worst. It could be great...it could be not so great.  He ain't GMatt yet...but he might be.  Still, there's a reasonable chance he panics too, dealing with the OL's problems. Pass protection could and probably will be worse, meaning TEs and FBs, not the 3 or 4 WR sets we might hope for.
  • My guess is that Miller isn't that important at all. They have to motivate him because he's starting game 1, but after that...back to being Glasgow's backup.  Also not buying the RG battle being about anymore than Kalis' back.  Why risk it vs App State? Play Burzynski (who is OK and big enough for App St).  Burzynski was inserted into the line instead of Miller last year and the year before that too. I don't know why it would be different this year unless Burzynski is still hurt. Miller seems like another case of fake hype (again).
  • We have no OL depth, still. If Cole or Braden falter, Magnuson or Glasgow have to move outside, and then you're back to huge uncertainty inside with Burzynski, Miller, or Bosch being a starter.  If the Kalis injury is something long-lasting, same thing.
  • We're sure RB blocking is going to be better? Toussaint was bad, but he was a senior.  This is the Omameh/Barnum argument repeated -- it can get worse.  This year, presumably, we will have FBs back to block less often too.

I do agree with the expectations for improvement for most of the other reasons cited.

Reader71

August 29th, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^

TE blocking is a concern, with Williams having never shown much and Butt out for a while and still not being himself when he is back. But, I don't think our RB situation is really comparable to Barnum/Mealer. Neither Barnum nor Mealer were on the team last year. People were expecting other people to play at a higher level. Like you, I doubted it. W/r/t the RB this year, we are expecting to see improvement from the same guys who played last year. Fitz is gone, but we also saw Green and Smith struggle. Players generally improve year to year, particularly between freshman and sophomore year. So, while you are right to doubt any great improvement, we should expect some. We're not saying Drake Johnson (who we've never seen) will be better than Fitz, we're essentially saying that Green will be better than Green and Smith will be better than Smith.

UMaD

August 29th, 2014 at 4:36 PM ^

An experienced but disappointing senior being replaced by unproven young players.  Last year it was Barnum/Mealer as veteran departures getting the bulk of the blame for a specific problem (they can't pull!), and this year it's Fitz (he can't blitz-pickup!).  If Green/Smith/Hayes were good at this, the coaches probably would have used them to do so. Last year, Fitz sucked at it, but he had the job presumably because he was better than those guys.

That the returning players CAN get better doesn't mean they will improve enough to close the gap to get to Fitz. This was the same argument that was made for Bryant/Miller/Kalis -- they're a year older and better and even though they haven't done the job before "it can't get any worse" than Omameh/Barnum/Mealer.  It can and it did.

It's a leap of faith that we don't have any real reason to believe will be the case. They might be better than Fitz, they might not. Things dont just get better because we want them to and saying "so-and-so was bad at it last year" is basically irrelevant to this year if so-and-so is gone.

Run-blocking -- should be better due to simplicity/scheme if Nuss is a) sane and b) anything what his reputation says he is.   

Pass-blocking -- this isn't so much a scheme thing as an individual responsibility thing. Our personnel is worse overall because of the tackle situation, so pass-blocking will take a hit, even if our leap of faith at TE/RB is reality.

Reader71

August 29th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^

My contention is that its not just losing a senior and replacing him. With the OL, we lost seniors and replaced them with unknowns. People didn't expect those unknowns to play that poorly. The error wasn't that people thought Kalis and Miller would be better than themselves from a year prior, but that people expected their floor to be higher than Barnum/Mealer, sight unseen. With the RB, they weren't any better than Fitz, but we saw them. The difference is we know their floor (last year's performance). The same player generally doesn't regress as a pass protector. And in the event that one does, another will likely step up. This isn't meant to be a guarantee that they'll be any better than Fitz was last year. It's just that we know how bad they can be, whereas last year on the OL, we had no idea.

UMaD

August 29th, 2014 at 5:26 PM ^

Didn't really see them run block (Hayes excepted)

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but it seemed like Green and Smith were very rarely asked to block. When they were in they got the ball. When they were out Fitz or Hayes caught passes or blocked.

To me it's equivalent to the Miller argument -- he did PLAY, technically, but he didn't demonstrate he was good as a backup at what he was going to have to do in the upcoming season as THE guy.

Last year, the floor for OL blocking appeared to be something but it was worse.This year the floor for RB blocking appears to be Fitz, but it could be worse.  Not saying it will be - but no guarantees.

Ty Butterfield

August 29th, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^

I still think people are expecting Nuss to be some sort of miracle worker who can move mountains and part the Red Sea. At this point I have no idea what to expect. Funk is still here and the O-line is plagued by some sort of combination of youth and failure by the coaching staff to properly develop these players. If Hoke can't beat Staee on the road this year it may never happen. I am sick of people saying wait for 2015. This team needs to win now.

UMaD

August 29th, 2014 at 4:41 PM ^

Agree with holding up on the Nuss hype.  There is a huge overreaction going on to Borges.  He was bad, he is past his prime, and he did some big dumb things, but he also pulled out some great performances and was very flexible. I don't know that we can really blame him for trying a lot of different things.

People are jsut assuming Nuss will do everything right and be a perfect fit. He will do everything Borges didn't. He will be simple without being predictable....  But objectively speaking, this is a guy who was rumored to be out the door at Alabama, despite his success, and now faces a significant scheme change with still very young OL personnel.  This is the most responsibility he has ever had.  There are no guarantees it will work.

Hoke_Floats

August 29th, 2014 at 4:49 PM ^

Our offense will be very QB centered this year

If he uses #98 like a video game player and UofM has a huge year he may well bolt for another job.

Hard to say if his success is b/c of Gardiner or b/c he knew what he was doing.

 

gwkrlghl

August 29th, 2014 at 4:57 PM ^

I think our personnel seem very suited for a pro-ish style Air Raid. Roll out 2-3 WR and/or Butt out wide most plays. Run the RBs from shotgun. Spreading it out would seem to help the young OL and take advantage of our great WR corps, give DG some space, and allow DG more room to scramble if needed (an asset it seems like many of us forget he has much of the time)

mgoblue98

August 30th, 2014 at 10:53 AM ^

Are there really a lot of Michigan fans that don't like the idea of having the QB in shotgun?  I don't know why you would want to line a mobile QB like Gardner up under center.  If Michigan is running IZ mixed with some Power O, it seems that there are a number of constraint plays that you can run with the QB from shotgun that you can't run from under center.