OSU Freshman DE's

Submitted by jcorqian on November 25th, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Did anyone notice who started at SDE for OSU since John Simon was out?  I'm not sure if it was Adolphus Washington or Noah Spence.  I do recall hearing both of their names a few times, especially Washington on that strip on Gardner.  

Seems these two 5-star DE's are already making quite the impact for OSU as true freshmen.  I'm quite apprehensive about our matchups in the future.  These guys are going to be animals.  Hopefully our first class o-line recruiting pans out as expected.

Comments

MGlobules

November 25th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^

are heartily sick of it. Have no idea why it doesn't occur to people that they expose their lack of. . . insight by telling people what they can or can't talk about. But then, those of us who were here five or six years ago remember a time when the average IQ was a lot higher here. 

UFM

November 25th, 2012 at 9:49 AM ^

True sophomore Michael Bennett started at SDE in place of Simon. Adolph's Washington moved up to the 2-deep behind Bennett. He and Noah Spence (WDE) usually come in during obvious passing situations because of their speed. Tommy Schutt has also earned lots of playing time tis year at DT. If Hankins goes this year, all three of these guys may very well start next year on the DL.

ak47

November 25th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^

So I read your things that went wrong not on borges but stopped giving a shit about your analysis after you listed having an ankle tackle happen as anything wrong with Gallon, guy made a diving ankle tackle it happens all the time, there is literally nothing Gallon did wrong.  In regards to the 4th and 3 play I remember a few guys hitting denard but maybe you are right on that one.  Either way Borges is dumb.

umchicago

November 25th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^

denard breaking a 67 yd TD in the first half and then not really getting another run to the outside the rest of the game was all borges.

and roundtree breaking that tackle and having dileo downfield to block that last guy on the 75 yd TD was also all borges.

but for superior effort by roundtree and denard on those two plays, we are lucky to get just  7 points.

see, it cuts both ways.  borges "wasted" way too many plays in the second half.  and the argument that "denard can't block so don't use him" meme wears thin with me.  the lions had a certain RB that couldn't throw or block, yet he gained a lot of yards and his offense was better for it.

Shakey Jake

November 25th, 2012 at 9:51 AM ^

It's not going away and OSU will continue to rake in great high school talent and develop them as they have a great record of doing.

 

The question now is whether or not Michigan can get back to developing talent as well. The jury is out but we'll know in a few years.

Until then, Michigan needs to keep making it's program relevent to elite high school recruits and get them into the program. Without that talent, Michigan will just be a mediocre team.

 

Magnus

November 25th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^

Quinton Washington and William Campbell were 4-star and 5-star prospects, respectively, and neither one looks great.  I think they combined for 3 tackles for loss and 1 sack for the ENTIRE SEASON.  I agree that they've developed from where they were, but they're not exactly lighting the world on fire.

umchicago

November 25th, 2012 at 3:58 PM ^

i think we agree that those two actually developed into serviceable players...finally.  my bigger concern is the o-line development.  it's not like the guys we have out there are throwaways.  most were 4* guys.  we actually were pretty damn lucky this year that the o-line was healthy.  i think it's highly unusual that none of them got hurt.  i think all the starters played in every game, iirc.  i shudder to think what would have happened if a couple of them went down during the year.

neoavatara

November 25th, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^

Frankly, I don't think talent is our problem.  For the first time in YEARS, I felt our talent level was basically on par with OSU.  You guys disagree?

Simply put, yesterday we were out coached. 

GoBlue0420

November 25th, 2012 at 10:17 AM ^

We were just out schemed in the 2nd half...mix that with runs up the middle against the strongest part of OSU's D and we get what happened yesterday. With al that said I like the direction we are going, we're a better team than last year just with a worse record.

neoavatara

November 25th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^

I totally agree about our OL talent...that is why I think, even if we lose Lewan, we will probably be better next year.  Yes, I know, we will be playing a bunch of first year starters, but I think most of them are more talented than the guys that we have starting now.  And I think trading Mags for Lewan will not be a huge dropoff everyone thinks. 

WR are going to be ok, I think especially with the new guys coming up.  Even at RB, I think we will be ok, though I would love to have Green...I think he is a gamechanger.

 

MFanWM

November 25th, 2012 at 11:08 AM ^

I think that the Oline might actually be better pending the caveat that the incoming lineman live up to expectations.  I also question Lewan leaving early as I think he needs another year IMO to develop.  

I have questioned it a few times this year, but why did they never seem to run over Lewan on the short yardage plays.  I just do not think Jake Long or Joe Thomas for example when watching Lewan play at this point, and it just does not seem he is the go to lineman for those types of plays.

goblue1213

November 25th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^

Personally, I feel that the turnovers are what sealed the game for us. We lose by a combined 12 pts total on the road to ND and OSU. If it wasn't for 10 turnover between the 2 games we would have won both. I do feel that Borges gets in the "just don't lose the game" type mindset. Instead of "let's go out and win it." I remember a lot of games in the Lloyd-era that were the same way.

jmblue

November 25th, 2012 at 10:45 AM ^

I definitely disagree here.  Fans focus way too much on the skill positions and not enough on the lines.  On the offensive and defensive lines, it wasn't even close.  We were manhandled up front on both sides of the ball.  When OSU ran the ball, even when it was well defensed, the line of scrimmage surged up and they got positive yardage.  That's the kind of luxury that allows you to call an inside handoff on 3rd and 7 and have it look like a smart call.  Meanwhile, when we ran the ball, our OL was invariably shoved backwards, and it took a great individual effort from the ballcarrier to gain anything.  

 

 

America

November 25th, 2012 at 11:54 AM ^

I should have been more specific.  Our offensive line (outside of Lewan) was was I was considering our weakness.  Ohio's saftey play, especailly tackling, was pretty bad.   Also, our receivers felt superior to theirs.  Ohio's D line seemed better, but that could have been amplified by how bad our O line was.  Our linebackers seemed better.  Once again, RB is hard to tell because our O line was so bad.  All I am saying is that to my subjective belief (and talent surely is subjective), the overall talent amongst the teams was approximately equal.

jmblue

November 25th, 2012 at 11:56 AM ^

The offensive line is five out of 11 players on offense.  It's not just one little position area.  If you have a talent deficiency there, that's a monster handicap to overcome.  You can have a huge edge at the skill positions (which I do not think we had, anyway) and it can go for naught if you can't block up front.  OSU had penetration on almost every Michigan offensive play, whether it was a pass or run.  Pretty much every successful offensive play we had required an excellent individual effort from Gardner or the ballcarrier to avoid losing yardage right off the bat.  

I don't think Borges called a great game, but I also don't think the OSU OC did, either.  The difference was that Borges needed to call a brilliant game to overcome our weakness upfront, whereas OSU could just run Hyde up the gut all day.

 

 

 

 

America

November 25th, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^

I am well aware of the importance of an offensive line.  Still, if we are talking about overall talent on the two teams, which we were, a deficiency in one position group does not make overall talent disparate between the two teams without looking at the rest of the positions.

Bill the Butcher

November 25th, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^

But if both of our lines were at such a disadvantage in the talent department, what position group do we make up the difference in?  If 9 or 22 starters already put you in a massive hole in the talent department, where do you make up for them that will put us on even footing?

 

Their DBs were atleast on par with ours, their QB is equal to ours.  Their running back is light years beyond anything we trotted out there save Denard, who only brings us to about equal due to his limitations yesterday. 

Our receivers had a good day but I think Ohio is definately more talented at receiver I can be talked into leaning that one into Michigans catergory though.  TEs are equal I would say.  

So that means you think our LBs were light years beyond their Ohio counterparts, I just didn't see that at all.  I saw alot of Ohio Linebackers making great plays all day.  They practically lived in our backfield.  

I really see no way in which our talent was anywhere near equal to Ohio's.

America

November 25th, 2012 at 4:10 PM ^

You are including Lewan and Roh in your 9 out of 22 which actually makes 7 out of 22.  I also said I didn't think you could really tell if their D line was better as they were going againt our O line which was just bad.  So that makes 4 out of 22 clearly conceded which makes your premise incorrect.  As for our position groups with superior talent, I say linebackers, DBs, and WRs have a talent advantage along with "factor back" or whatever you want to call Denard.

Brown Bear

November 25th, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^

They(Ohio) had more talent on the field. People seem to forget how much we lost from last year and who they were replaced with. Molk, Schofield, Martin, Van Bergen, Heininger, Hemingway. All major contributors and no offense to their replacements but they just weren't on the same level. The RR years really hurt us depth wise and if we are honest this team performed to where they were expected to this year. Could they have won a few of the games they lost? Yes. Could they have lost some of the games they won last year? Yes. In the upcoming years with the recruiting that is being done, especially in the trenches, this team will be alright. It's only the second year under the new regime. Rare does it happen overnight.

umchicago

November 25th, 2012 at 4:14 PM ^

teams have attrition/graduation every year.  losing molk, huyge, hemingway and koger shouldn't be enough to decimate this offense when there are 4* guys waiting in the wings...and you return the all time yardage leader at the school.

i'm really concerned about the o-line coaching; not necessarily the players we have there.

Magnus

November 25th, 2012 at 4:20 PM ^

Just because you have 4-star guys waiting in the wings doesn't mean they're any good.

I'm lukewarm on Darrell Funk, too, but the bottom line is that David Molk won the Rimington Award, he was experienced at calling protections, and he was a very good center.  Elliott Mealer was the fourth-string center last year behind Molk, Barnum, and Khoury.  And Barnum has never looked impressive to me, whether he was coached by Frey or Funk.

dayooper63

November 25th, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^

I totally disagree.  With the exception of LB, LT and the interior of the DL (and that's a stretch to say that), their talent level was well above ours.  

  • We couldn't run because the interior of our OL couldn't move their DT's and get to the next level.  That forced us into obvious passing situations.  We had no RB to speak of.  As much as I respect the heart of Smith, he's a 5'6", 156 lbs tailback without breakaway speed or elite quickness.  The Rawls experiment is flopping and our #1 RB is out.  The only player that is better talent wise along the OL is Lewan.  All of the bitching about not running the ball is moot.  We tried to repeatedly to run the ball with Smith and Rawls and it didn't work.  Yes, we scored on a long run with Denard, but it said what we are doing when he was in the game.  By the 3rd, he came in the game, safeties came into the box.

 

  • Our WR have a very difficult time getting open without scheming them open.  They don't have the burst to get past opposing db's nor the strength to outmuscle them.  Our biggest threat is a 5'9' slot (Dileo), 2 decent but small outside WR's (Gallon and Roundtree) and a freshman TE (Funchess).  Not the greatest threat to good DB units.

 

  • Our DB's are small and slow.  Without Countess, we have no lockdown CB.  Floyd has made great strides, but he's a smallish, slow CB that can be burnt deep.  Taylor is decent, but he gets picked on very much and isn't always up to the task.

 

  • QB, Miller is a Hell of a QB.  Gardner is good and a healthy Denard is right up there as well, but our situation was not good yesterday.  Having no behind Gardner takes away him as a running threat (I think the coaches told him not to run unless nessacary).  We contained Miller for a good portion of the game.

 

If you are looking for a way to rip on the coaches, be my guest.  The 4th down call was bad, the alternating Denard and Devin was disruptive at best, and having Bellamy as the back up was deplorable, in hindsight.  But to say the talent level is on par is way off base, imo.  

DefenseWins

November 25th, 2012 at 10:57 AM ^

The Game was there for the taking, but that doesn't necessarily mean the talent level is equal.  I agree with you on that.  Especially comparing our OL vs. their DL, I thought it was clear Ohio had more talent there.

But even if our talent level wasn't on par, The Game was there to be had, and I don't blame the players for not taking it.  It's fair to rip on the coaches after that second half.  This loss was purely coaching (I won't rehash the madness).  It's troublesome because this was such a great opportunity to get a win against Ohio, and the opportunity was wasted.  I hate to say this, but we know Urb is going to get the horses in his stable, so it will be more difficult to beat them on a consistent basis in the future.  This was a great chance that was squandered.