Verdict on the slimmed down O-line
We are two years into body reshaping and I assume that the current line is roughly about as strong as it will get (unless you are really young and will continue to significantly grow) since you have had so much time in a particular training and eating regimen. Are we more athletic? Yeah, I think so. Are we more effective? Not sure. We seem to lack talent or mass to move people. Specifically, it seems curious as to why we have been failing in short yardage recently if we are a "run first" offense. Texas Tech, yeah, I would give them a pass if they needed to pound the ball. Additionally, we seem to be really average in pass protection where you would expect our athleticism to be an asset.
We either
1)lack talent on the O-line
2) need more mass (and strength, 3 yrs of Barwis?)
3) have forgotten how to block
I really struggle with the last one since Frey has to be better than Moeller. Also, pls don't give me Molk. I just watched Iowa play with something like their 6th different starting five for the season with 2 opening day guys out do reasonably well against a strong D at OSU. We may be missing a great guy, but it is still one guy.
Not sure if we have any O-line technicians on the board, I haven't been a guard since HS so I can't claim to be an expert.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:55 PM ^
I think the line has done a pretty good job moving people this year. We pounded Iowa's line in the short yardage situations, and they are supposedly pretty good. I put that Illinois goaline stand on Carlos because he definitely had a chance to put it in. Pass protection hasn't been great, for sure.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:01 PM ^
I remember when they said that Barwis was going to create these "bodybuilder" type lineman. I will be honest, I fantasized about the lineman literally bench pressing other lineman out of the way in Big ten games. Well.....that has not quite happened. Actually the O-line is pretty average. How do these other Big Ten schools get away with these fat lineman? It frustrates me because it still seems to work(I mean, having fat lineman and basically overpowering people). Is it just a dream that fast agile, athletic lineman can work? Is there any proof? We have them, but we suck!
November 16th, 2009 at 10:09 PM ^
We did lose our top lineman, and we have a lot of very young and talented guys (especially the frosh being redshirted). Just give it some time. Over the next few years things will get significantly better when there is more depth, and talent at the top.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^
Ahoy. I think (and this has been said by other posters) that the more talented lineman are waiting in the wings. They are but freshmen and redshirt-freshmen and need time to grow and learn.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:16 PM ^
Out of eight non-freshmen on the roster, two were rated 4-star or higher coming out of high school.
Out of seven freshmen on the roster, five were rated 4-star or higher and the one 2-star has already emerged as a multi-year starter.
Things will be much better in the future.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^
The O-line is OK and getting better. I personally have no concerns.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:13 PM ^
They lost Molk. The offensive line, even at this point, is not the problem. You want to say since Iowa has talent to spare on the line that Michigan has no excuse for losing their leader? Iowa has some of the best line coaching in the country, there was no drop off because none of them are that physically stellar. I've never seen a QB sack him self more than Tate has this year, the protection is designed for him to take x steps and release, which he doesnt do consistently (or, ever). Mass isn't the issue, mass is extremely overrated, especially on the line. Given that Odoms isn't your gaurd, you won't run into many problems with bigger guys. You run into problems when the bigger guy is as quick as you, but at that point, your strategy has failed.
Michigan struggles down low because that's not how they block, they do not line up and gap block. They're taught from inception (atleast now a days) into the program how to reach block and utilize the leverage awarded to them by our spread look. Tate deserves a lot more blame for the breakdown in blocking schemes than hes getting (Yeah hes a freshman, big deal, hes out there playing with everyone else, he doesnt get a "QB in training" tag.). They just stopped reading the run plays, which eliminates the advantage the zone read gives you (Backside end control), and his passing progression is just atrocious. All considered, he should be able to grow out of it considering hes young, but right here right now, you can't absolve him from this situation.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:13 PM ^
There are only eight non-freshmen on the roster at o-line, five of whom have to play. With Molk out you are down to seven guys left to choose from. Only two of those guys were highly rated recruits (4-star or higher). Up until Omameh's recent emergence in his RS freshman season, we had to essentially throw three of Dorrestein, Ferrara, Ortmann, McAvoy, and Huyge out there. None of these guys were highly sought after recruits, one is a converted DT, and one is an underclassman. You are essentially constructing a line with three default starters. A line with one weak link is going to struggle. Considering the talent-level of the group, I think they've done a very admirable job this year.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:16 PM ^
weren't we the first team to get a rushing td against Penn State's defense?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:21 PM ^
I thought it was Iowa? There first rush TD in over a year
November 16th, 2009 at 10:23 PM ^
And we only scored three points after that
November 16th, 2009 at 10:23 PM ^
I think that was the first against Iowa
November 17th, 2009 at 2:55 AM ^
you might be thinking of us scoring a touchdown on Penn State in the first 1/2. I believe we were the first team to do that this year.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:16 PM ^
like the rest of the team, except for the D, is inconsistent. Yes, there were times they did a great job but other times you had to scratch your head. Losing Molk was huyge!
The D has been consistently BAD. That's the only consistency the team has had....other than Mesko being reliable with his leg for the most part.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:17 PM ^
I don't have too many complaints with the way Michigan is running the football at this stage under RichRod and his "new" linemen. But pass protection has not been anywhere near where it needs to be.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:20 PM ^
There is more talent on the bench than on the field with regards to the OLine. Guys like Hugye and Dorrestein should never be playing but have been forced into action due to our depth problems the last two years. Both were very low rated recruits. Thats two guys on the line, that most players on the other OLines in the leagues were all ranked ahead of when they were coming out of high school.
I look at Omameh's emergence as proof that we're at least in better shape from a developmental standpoint with the current regime (or any regime really if you're to believe how out dated S/C was and poor an OL Coach Moeller was). He seemed to play real well, maybe even our second best OL in the Purdue game. Not sure how he did against Wisco.
The Molk injury is relevant in how this particular OLine began to falter, but your observation about Iowa is good one.
I was never anti-Ferentz, for example, when his name came up becuase he has an amazing reputation for building offensive lines and OL depth charts. It's been a trait of Iowa ever since he got it rolling. After a decade of OLine building you are bound to have depth that you can plug into. A lot of their guys dont play for 2-3 years and just bulk up and skulpt their bodies. Then, they open holes for their final 2-3 years.
In that vein, it will be interesting to see how long we keep guys like Barnum, Mealor, Khoury, Lewan, Scholfield, and Washington on the bench.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:02 AM ^
The lines are the only place I don't buy into the RR system. I still think that "fat bastards" make better linemen. I don't think that having linemen under 300 (yes 300!) is a good thing.
But like all things RR, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:53 AM ^
As jamiemac said, there are guys playing who probably shouldn't be. I'm not saying guys like Huyge and Dorrestein haven't earned their starts, but they were 3-star recruits. I think Huyge was even a 2-star recruit until very late in the process.
I think our offensive line has been fine. I think our playcalling has been poor at times, and I think Forcier has made our offensive line look weaker than it actually is. Very rarely does Forcier receive the snap, cock his arm, and throw. He catches the snap, looks, runs around, and then throws (or gets sacked). As he gets older and gains a better grasp on the offense and college defenses, he'll make quicker decisions, which will make our offensive line look better.
When we line up in the I-formation, we run the ball really well. I don't have any issues with our run blocking at all, really.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:06 AM ^
to the OP, I must give you Molk as it took Moosman out of his natural position, which by all accounts he was a pretty good guard, so losing Molk hurt us in 2 spots. Schilling is in his 1st year at guard and noted by others, the talent level of the older guys is not on par with the younger ones we will see in the near future.