October 18th, 2013 at 7:31 PM ^

He got benched because he wasn't good.  Him being smaller than Glasgow was likely part of the reason he wasn't as good, but it's not like the coaches simply said "Miller is too small, let's put someone bigger there."   There are guys at every position who don't have ideal size who are good.  When a guy lacks ideal size and he isn't good, people like to point to his size as the reason.  Molk lacked elite size but was a badass.  Elliott Mealer had great size but really couldn't.

Point is, size is only one part of the equation.  Miller's other attributes couldn't overcome his (slight) size deficit.  Maybe the coaches feel Magnuson can.  He seemed to do pretty well last week.


October 18th, 2013 at 7:39 PM ^

I know that and I agree with you. But all I'm saying is his lack of size and technique cost him his spot. And Mags technique was so good they would have found a spot for him earlier. yes he couldve gotten better during the year but all his play has been on the outside which is why if u wanna play him it would make since moving schofield back inside and play mags outside


October 18th, 2013 at 7:46 PM ^

I disgaree that if Mags was good enough he would have started from the beginning.  Sometimes 4 weeks of camp isnt enough time to really see who the starters should be.  It's possible Magnuson was close to getting a starting spot, was edged out, and now things have changed.  And some guys look better in practice but not so in games.  We'll see. 

As far as moving Schofield instead of Magnuson - either way you're moving a tackle inside.  Might as well keep 3 of the 5 spots in place rather than moving more guys around. 


October 18th, 2013 at 10:15 PM ^

Yes, it matters.  Face it, football is a grown-up man's game.  When a smaller guy makes a splash, they make a movie about him, he gets laid by hot Catholic chicks, and he never has to buy another beer. 


October 18th, 2013 at 6:55 PM ^

Look, I get that people are restless, but would you rather the coaches just keep the line that couldn't get fitz more than a yard a rush? After PSU, people criticized the coaches for their stubbornness. Now that the coaches have made a hange, we criticize the change. Stupid.

Do you have a better suggestion for TE starting OL? Who eould you start on the OL and why?


October 18th, 2013 at 7:27 PM ^

u are missing the point. u can change players but if the philosophy is the same, the change means nothing. As much a personnel needs to change, there is also a systematic problem that has not changed which is why we keep getting the same poor oline play.


October 18th, 2013 at 10:36 PM ^


But then again, maybe not.

Its besides the point, really. We're not changing coaches midseason. We're not bringing out a whole new offense. What this change does is give some other guys a shot, show the team that no ones position is safe, and punishes guys for poor play. All good things. I don't think it will work, really, but it is good coaching nonetheless.


October 19th, 2013 at 8:44 AM ^

We need to show credentials with differing opinions?  What are yours to say he wrong?  I should hope UM would hire no less that an "expert" as OC - how's that been working out?

We all recognize Mattison's 2011 turnaround of the "same" defense as a testament to his coaching prowess - a textbook example of what good  coaching can achieve.  And yet it's crazy to think that a different OC could achieve more?



October 18th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^

And those numbers are also almost never accurate.  If an OL recruit is 260, he's not going to say he's 260.  At least not usually.  This is why so many of our recruits come in shorter and lighter on the roster than they were as recruits. 

Chris Wormley was reported anywhere between 6'6" and 6'8" as a recruit, but now he's 6'4".  This is not the case with everyone, but it is with most.


October 18th, 2013 at 6:58 PM ^

At some point you just have to let the guys play through the tough times so they can grow and mature.  This constant shuffling does nothing but keep setting us back. 


October 18th, 2013 at 10:45 PM ^

There is no reason to be wed to any one guy. We all thought Kalis was a 4 year starter, but if he's beaten out and never plays, I would not lose any sleep over it. Will it harm this the cohesion of this year's line? Probably, but cohesion isn't as big a problem as taking the right step, being fast about it, and being strong enough to move a guy.

There will be 14 or so non-redshirting freshman fighting for 5 jobs next year. Let these guys get a live audition. It can't be much worse than what we've gotten so far. If nothing else, they will have gained some game reps, which might help them for next season.

The expectation is for the position.


October 18th, 2013 at 7:00 PM ^

It doesn't matter. I'm sure tomorrow we'll run the ball against a bad team. We won't be able to run against staee or Ohio or any other decent defenses. Not with what this staff wants to run. Not with these players.

Maize and Blue…

October 18th, 2013 at 7:02 PM ^

The line wouldn't look so bad. I'm not trying to say changes aren't needed, but when a monkey could easily guess that Borges is going to run power into a stacked box on first down the Oline is at a distinct disadvantage. Is Al our Charlie W???


October 18th, 2013 at 7:03 PM ^

I may be wrong here, but I'm wondering if this means Michigan is going to run more of a shotgun/spread type of offense. Burzynski and Magnuson are guys more suited to zone blocking than someone like Chris Bryant or even Kyle Kalis, and Magnuson came out of high school as a solid pass blocker who needed to work on his run blocking. Maybe the coaches are (finally) saying "F*** the power and iso. We're running zone, we're gonna throw the ball, and we'll see what happens."