January 21st, 2014 at 9:58 AM ^
January 21st, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
That's what I was hoping for during the season when it became clear our interior was pretty poor. I think Mags could have handled the RT position since many believe G is Schofield's best position anyways.
January 21st, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^
Agreed. With as bad as the OL was this season, I probably would have put Lewan at LT and Schofield at LG to at least have one good side of the line.
January 21st, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
January 21st, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
And one complete and total disaster side of the line? I would have hated to see the overloads to that side of the line with Kalis/Magnuson... passing downs would have been jailbreaks.
Granted they were jailbreaks anyway, but it's probably six of one and half dozen of another. I see the advantages of leaving Schofield at the position he's played most.
January 21st, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^
January 21st, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
to say that those suggesting Schofield should have played LG would complain had the right side collapsed on every play. With only two on the OL with more than token experience, it was pick your poison. Critics now only complain becaue their favorite flavor of poison wasn't selected.
January 21st, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
January 21st, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
I'm not saying it would have fixed everything. But you could put Lewan/Schofield on the one side and run more to that side; you could also leave those two guys alone and have tight ends and backs help out the guys on the right side.
When 2-3 of your linemen are bad, you're not going to fix the problem by putting the two good guys on one side. But it might give you a chance. If your interior offensive line is poor, your offensive line gets destroyed. College and the NFL are different games, and I'm not saying that I know better than Borges/Funk/Hoke/whoever. But I do know that in high school football, having a crappy group of centers and guards is a recipe for disaster. I have seen high school teams with really crappy, immobile tackles run the ball very well, in part because their centers and guards get the job done.
January 21st, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
they should have lined up with Lewan at LG, Schofield at RG, with Glasgow at center?
January 21st, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
Wasn't aware of that difference at the hs/college level vs. pro. But didn't we try to get Lewan and Schofield together with some of that tackle-over stuff? Didn't seem to work. I understand there's a difference between a gimmicky scheme and permanently moving Schofield over, but it still seems like you could make this argument either way.
January 21st, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
You can't compare a trick formation that telegraphs the direction of a running play with a base formation.
January 21st, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^
I believe that CBS Sports had Schofield projected in the 5-6th round of the draft, but hopefully with as well as well as things seem to be going he does show that versatility and can improve his stock above projections. As the article said, he quietly had a very productive career at Michigan, and early data suggests that he has been impressing some folks. I definitely wish him nothing but the best in this next phase of his football career.
Nice read, and thanks for sharing.
January 21st, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^
FIRE BORGES!
January 21st, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^
If Schofield wants to make an active roster as a backup (which is a good goal for a mid-late round rookie OL), having the ability to play inside or outside is key. Most teams have 7OL active, with one a "swing tackle" (capable of playing left or right) and one an interior guy (if a G or C goes down, he replaces, although a starter may handle the snaps either way). Showing he's got the form to play guard if necessary could really help him make an active roster next year
January 21st, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
articles like this point out one of the biggest problems I had with Borges/whomever was in charge of the Offense: where they should have worked with what they had to get the best five on the field they just made up dumbass offenses/schemes that worked for like two possessions a game and sucked the rest of the possessions...
This staff cedes games and I don't know why.
jdon
January 21st, 2014 at 11:17 AM ^
Well, okay then. You know that they fired that guy and next year we'll have a new OC, right?
January 21st, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^
I wonder if Schofield's draft position would be any different if Lewan had gone pro last year and he was the starter at LT. He would have gotten more attention, but some might have been negative as he was the leader on an otherwise terrible OL.
January 21st, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
If BWC can get drafted in the late rounds as an O-Lineman and make an active roster then Schofield shouldn't have a problem. I predict 4-5 round. Otherwise the world just doesn't make sense to me.
January 21st, 2014 at 6:57 PM ^
January 21st, 2014 at 10:29 PM ^
January 22nd, 2014 at 2:50 AM ^
to impress scouts is another indictment against Borges' & Funk's management of the offense in 2013. Why didn't they try Shofield at RG while Lewan stayed at LT?
January 22nd, 2014 at 7:14 AM ^
Charles Davis, the analyst quoted, said he's not sure if he is a guard or tackle. Michigan had more time with him as well as the line as a whole. No one knows what they tried or didn't try as far as position changes during practice. Right or wrong, I have to assume they put what they thought the best line available on the field. There is no sure fire way to put 2 experienced people in with all the youth and not have potentiially weak places.
The main point is that players sometimes don't play at their best position because of depth issues. That could be why he was at tackle.