[Updated] Starters on OL and injuries (Dileo), Michigan State week

Submitted by dnak438 on October 28th, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Michigan OL for MSU game (per depth chart): Lewan LT, Bosch at LG, Glasgow C, Magnuson RG and Schofield RT

— angelique (@chengelis) October 28, 2013

UPDATE: This is apparently subject to change:

Hoke anticipates same OL that finished w vs IU. He said that could change after Tuesday -- Kalis and Bryant ready to go

— angelique (@chengelis) October 28, 2013

UPDATE #2: Drew Dileo may or may not play:

Hoke: Drew Dileo is a 'we'll see' vs. Michigan State -- will know more on Wednesday. — Michigan Football (@umichfootball) October 28, 2013

 

 

Comments

Uper73

October 28th, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^

Kali's will play a lot because Borges will use heavy packages. This game is so physical the risk of injury is higher than normal. Hopefully, Lewan is healthy. To me, I think he has been playing hurt for a while.

Putt4Dough

October 28th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^

 

After 7 games and 2 bye weeks, can we please have this figured out?  Puzzling and frustrating to say the least.  We keep hearing that we're competing and playing the "best 5". I can't understand how that can be so fluid and inconsistent. 

I'm even more frustrated after watching UCLA and other squads have success running the ball, while starting 2-3 true freshman. I hope we win this game (mostly), and can look back and see it solidify our identity and personnel.  

 

GoBlueInNYC

October 28th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^

Plenty of teams at least make due with a line as inexperienced as Michigan's, and often with less talent. Not every program is a Wisconsin, with a seemingly endless stock pile of 5th year seniors to start on the line. Most make due with young contributors on the line. Michigan's line play has been some of the worst I have ever seen, from anyone, not just Michigan.

alum96

October 28th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^

"Most make due with young contributors on the line. Michigan's line play has been some of the worst I have ever seen, from anyone, not just Michigan."

On this I agree.  The fact this much talent - whatever age - cannot even be AVERAGE against the UConns or Akrons is beyond troubling.  There is 1 NFL high draft pick and another probably late NFL pick or free agent type. So you need to plug 3 holes.   Even more troubling is this is now systematic.  Other than Fitz's year in 2011 with Molk and young Lewan Schofield we have not had a consistent year long ability to do basic run blockin against average defenses for half a decade (and will be the case next year too).  It is scary really.

2010 - leading non QB rusher was V Smith at 600 yards, not much better than Fitz output last year being suspended, hurt, and not playing well in most of the other games.

2009 - Minor and Brown together combined for 1K... so I guess in the past 5 years that is our 2nd best output.

To put that in perspective Hyde has 600 and Hall 520 already for OSU this year - and they have a 3rd RB with 200.  That is 1300+ yds with 4-6 games to go.

Pit2047

October 28th, 2013 at 6:21 PM ^

How many OL transfered out after Rich Rod became thte coach and brought in a system change, and on top of that Rich Rod's offense never really emphasized the RB.  In 2009 your right we weren't that great but that was kinda team wide. In 2010, Vincent Smith was probably the best RB on the roster with Fitz hurt and he's what 5'7" 180lbs?  Definitely not the 235lb Beast that Hyde is and not the speedster Hall is either.  Also in 2010 you had a QB breaking rushing records so it wasn't all bad and you can't blame this coaching staff on things that happened before them.  This is what happens when attrition hits a program, Ohio is in an absolutely different place than we are right now and their better for it.  They did have that off year in 2011 but that team still had tons of NFL talent on it and if Braxton starts day 1 on that team I think they win more ball games because Bauserman didn't even deserve a uniform.  Most teams groom guys behind the starters on the OL but there's been no one to groom or the guy hasn't worked out.  Behind Molk the only center on our roster was Miller and last year he wasn't ready(still isn't) so they moved Barnum to C but at the last minute switched to Mealer because Barnum couldn't snap, but Mealer couldn't make the line calls.  This year you have young, inexperience OL who are not ready to play football at a BIg Ten level.  If we didn't have a Dual Threat QB like Devin we would be royally screwed so at least Rich Rod gave us that but  it will take years to get this program where it used to be and really hasn't been since maybe 2006 if not before.

Bocheezu

October 28th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^

Part of the problem was Bryant being hurt at the start of the season; I think the coaches pinned a lot of hopes on him and were sort of in a holding pattern until he returned.  After he was back and proved to be ineffective, then they were like, oh shit, we can't do manball now.  I think they went into that PSU game fully expecting to run for 5 ypc with the OL just blowing guys off the ball and ended up very surprised.  Bosch was probably good enough to start against IU, but they just didn't want to burn his redshirt.  He is the first true freshman to start at OL in forever.

This game will say a lot about how the offense has progressed, and whether the spread concepts are going to stay or not.  If the U-M offense is shut down, then I don't know where they go from here.  Hopefully they don't panic too much, because a lot of decent offenses look like crap at Spartan Stadium.

Ron Utah

October 28th, 2013 at 2:34 PM ^

This isn't simple division...it's the amount of yardage you gain per attempt.  If we gain 27 yards on -2 carries, how many yards would we gain on one positive carry?  That's what yards/attempt measures.

The answer in this case = infinity

/logic nazi

LSAClassOf2000

October 28th, 2013 at 2:50 PM ^

So, a simple sign error has not only fixed the run blocking, but improved it to a point where we have the single most prolific rushing attack ever? That's actually a fairly significant development and a hitherto unknown side-effect of mathematics. One of the many reasons I like this place so much. 

RioThaN

October 28th, 2013 at 6:48 PM ^

If -2 runs gives us 27  yards wouldn't that mean -4 would give us 54? and the -1 whould be 13.5 so positive runs lower the average? I'm confused..... Also could mean -2 on a baseline.... if we were to run 30 times, we'd have to run 28 instead and win 27 more yards? that could be more logic.... so air it out?

Ron Utah

October 28th, 2013 at 1:09 PM ^

If we are starting Magnuson at RG, I have to believe we'll see the more spread-based concepts we saw against Indiana.  Don't get me wrong--there will still be plenty of under center stuff, but starting Mags is an admission that MANBALL will not be the focus of our offense.

I think our best shot at winning is utilizing a heavy dose of max protect to snuff the double-a blitzes and letting Gallon and Funchess try to win their match-ups outside.

I actually think the big key for us will be our defense; we need to hold them to 17 points or less to have a decent chance, IMO.  Obviously, life gets tough for our defense if we're giving-up short fields or pick-sixes on offense.

Putt4Dough

October 28th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^

Does their inconsistent offense justify the Mattison bend-but-don't-break strategy?  Or are they weak enough to ramp up the pressure and take a few more chances.  Hopefully a healthy MF Jake Ryan negates this choice. 

EZMIKEP

October 28th, 2013 at 1:59 PM ^

Blitz blitz blitz blitz. 

I have never seen a team as terrible as this years Spartan squad strike so much unwarranted fear into my fellow fan base. 

I don't care what they did against 3 of the worst teams in college football. Thats like saying we are as good as Baylor after Indiana. 

Have confidence in this Defense, because besides one half against Indiana they have been the best unit in the Big 10 besides MSU. The offense has spotted so many points to our opponents it's ridiculous. And the D almost bailed us out of the PSU game save a couple amazing catches and missed timings. They had one bad half against Indiana. This same Indiana team has put up huge points all season and took it to the Buckeyes for 49 points at the end of last season. Hanging our heads is silly. 

For once we have the bye week and this offense is in our wheelhouse. IMO if Devin can keep from turning the ball over on the wrong side of the field we will win by a lot. Sure MSU's D is stout, but you have to score points and its obvious that Michigan can score the damn ball. 

B1G_Fan

October 28th, 2013 at 2:52 PM ^

 Their offense is just as inconsistant as ours. They lit up indiana and illinois but couldn't score on Purdue. if it where any group besides our O line having issues It's just worry or uncertainty about what Michigan offense will show up. The thing we aren't really looking at tho is our defense VS. their offense. They're not going to stop us all day with their D. We need our defense to step up and put the breaks on sparty's offense and possibly score or atleast give the offense great field position.

alum96

October 28th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^

Sorry this is the stuff dreams are made of.  Mattison did not bring extra pressure versus a freshman in Happy Valley.  So he is not going to suddenly change strategy now.  The few times we brought pressure to Hackenberg he looked like... well a freshman.  The bend dont break lets these QBs get into rhythms and gain confidence which is why you get explosions from the like of Akron in the 2nd half, Hackenberg (at times), Indiana (oh its just the system) etc.  UConn and CMU did not do much but just inferior QBing.  This is the deal with the devil Mattison has - keep everything inside and in front (except for I guess PSU at end of the game and Indiana all 2nd half) and in return for that allow QBs to get into a comfortable rhythym.  MSU OL pass protect has probably been the best in the Big 10 this season - they give up almost no sacks so Cook is going to be back there all day picking out his targets.

Reader71

October 28th, 2013 at 2:50 PM ^

I doubt that we are game planning around the right guard position. We wont put him out there unless he has shown better in practice than the competition. And we wouldn't put in a guy who has shown worse just because he theoretically fits the style we have in mind. And we definitely aren't changing our game plan based on who the right guard is. We haven't even changed the game plan to satisfy mgoblog!

Ron Utah

October 28th, 2013 at 4:02 PM ^

Our gameplan against Indiana was decidedly different from anything we've seen this season.  It's closest relative was ND.  If we KNOW we're going to line-up in shotgun over 50% of the time and/or pass more from under center, wouldn't we want the best OL for that gameplan?

Magnuson is not a drive blocker.  Borges knows this.  If he's starting, we're not going all out MANBALL.

Reader71

October 28th, 2013 at 4:12 PM ^

I just think we're reading too much into it. Magnuson started against Indiana because Kalis had not been playing well. Do you think if Magnuson couldn't go, we would have put Kalis in and said, "well, now we'll just have the MANBALL"?