Michigan’s Offensive Line Issues: How did we get here?

Michigan’s Offensive Line Issues: How did we get here?


January 18, 2017

(image via GBMWolverine)

SITE NEWS: I have installed CloudFlare to help offload some of the demands on the site, which hopefully will help with some of the downtime TTB has experienced recently. Depending on how much this helps, I may not need to employ a new hosting service just yet. I appreciate everyone’s suggestions and help, which I will keep filed away for when I need to grow the site. A special thanks to Dan for the suggestion and info about CloudFlare.


The Orange Bowl was yet another example of a Michigan offensive line that has been underperforming for years. The 2011 offensive line wasn’t a completely dominant one, but it did have some NFL players and guys who worked cohesively as a unit. Since that time, there have been some good individual players (Taylor Lewan, Michael Schofield, Mason Cole, etc.), but not much development as a unit. Michigan expected some improvement from last season to this season, even with the loss of Detroit Lions draft pick Graham Glasgow (who started several games at center and guard for the Lions this past season). A unit that included three fifth year seniors would reasonably be expected to perform well. However, the Wolverines did not do well this year, gashed some weak opponents, and got handled by the tough defenses.

Hit the jump for a journey through the travails of Michigan’s offensive line.

Here I’ll take a look at each position along the offensive line and the players who are filling or could have filled those spots. Last season’s starters are at the top of the list, even if they were not originally recruited for that position. The rest of the list at each position is listed from oldest to youngest. Recruit rankings are 247 Composite rankings for each player in his respective class.

LEFT TACKLE

  • BEN BRADEN (2012, #429 overall): Braden was expected to be a right tackle coming out of high school but ended up playing right tackle, left guard, and eventually left tackle in 2016 after a season-ending injury to Grant Newsome.
  • Logan Tuley-Tillman (2013, #169 overall): Tuley-Tillman redshirted in 2013 and played sparingly in 2014. He was the sixth offensive lineman to begin 2015, but then some legal troubles got him kicked off the team. He announced a commitment to Washington State and then went to Akron as a transfer. He is now looking to grad transfer, perhaps even back to Michigan.
  • JUWANN BUSHELL-BEATTY (2014, #331 overall): Bushell-Beatty redshirted in 2014 and needed to remake his body. He played some once Newsome got hurt this season, but he struggled and Michigan reshuffled the line to replace him.
  • Denzel Ward (2014, #648 overall): Ward decommitted from Michigan and signed with Syracuse, but injuries derailed his career before he ever played a down of college football.
  • GRANT NEWSOME (2015, #235 overall): Newsome was Michigan’s sixth offensive lineman for most of the 2015 season as a true freshman once Tuley-Tillman got kicked off the team. He played well as the starter at left tackle early in 2016, but a potentially career-ending knee injury occurred in the Wisconsin game.
  • Devery Hamilton (2016, #248 overall): Hamilton was committed to Michigan but ended up flipping to Stanford late in the recruiting cycle. He redshirted this year.
  • Erik Swenson (2016, #328 overall): Swenson was committed to Michigan for a long time, but Michigan basically pulled his scholarship offer late in the recruiting process after he didn’t meet their expectations. He signed with Oklahoma and redshirted this season.

LEFT GUARD

  • BEN BREDESON (2016, #39 overall): Bredeson ended up starting for much of this season and was on the ESPN Big Ten All-Freshman team. He struggled mightily at times, though that’s often what happens with true freshmen.
  • Blake Bars (2012, #646 overall): Bars played sparingly throughout his career. With one year of eligibility remaining, he chose to quit football to begin concentrating on life after sports.
  • Kyle Bosch (2013, #87 overall): Bosch started for a short time as a true freshman in 2013, but off-the-field issues cut his time short at Michigan. He transferred to West Virginia, where he starts at offensive guard and was Honorable Mention All-Big 12 this year.
  • DAVID DAWSON (2013, #95 overall): Dawson redshirted as a freshman and has not played a ton over the past three seasons. When he played, he struggled. An off-season injury this past spring didn’t help, and he is now transferring to Iowa State for playing time in 2017.

CENTER

  • MASON COLE (2014, #128 overall): Cole has started all 38 games in his career: the first 25 at left tackle, and 13 this season at center. He has been a solid player, though not dominant.
  • Caleb Stacey (2012, #704 overall): Stacey decommitted and ended up signing with Cincinnati, but then he transferred to a JUCO and quit football.
  • PATRICK KUGLER (2013, #68 overall): Kugler played sparingly over his first few seasons. The son of an offensive line coach, he played right tackle in high school but was expected to transition smoothly to center. However, he has been pinned behind a couple other players – who changed positions to center – and has played some guard as a backup.

RIGHT GUARD

  • KYLE KALIS (2012, #49 overall): Kalis redshirted as a freshman in 2012 and then started 42 games from 2013-2016. He was Second Team All-Big Ten in 2016. The son of a former NFL offensive lineman and a former Ohio State commit, he was expected to be a star but had a somewhat disappointing career.
  • Dan Samuelson (2013, #414 overall): Samuelson transferred to Eastern Michigan without ever playing for Michigan.
  • JON RUNYAN, JR. (2014, #1128 overall): Runyan redshirted as a freshman and was a backup in 2016.
  • MICHAEL ONWENU (2016, #88 overall): Onwenu played in nine games as a true freshman, including some occasional work at defensive tackle.
  • STEPHEN SPANELLIS (2016, #735 overall): Spanellis redshirted in 2016. He could also play tackle.

RIGHT TACKLE

  • ERIK MAGNUSON (2012, #83 overall): Magnuson redshirted as a freshman in 2012. He started several games at guard in 2013 before settling in at right tackle, where he started 25 games over the past two seasons. He was First Team All-Big Ten in 2016.
  • Chris Fox (2012, #110 overall): Fox injured his knee as a senior in high school and never was able to play for Michigan.
  • NOLAN ULIZIO (2015, #1273 overall): Ulizio redshirted in 2015 and then played in three games as a backup in 2016.

 

SO WHO SHOULD BE IN OUR STARTING OFFENSIVE LINE?

Going purely by recruiting rankings, here are the top five guys Michigan has signed within the last five cycles, spread out across a possible lineup:

  • LT: Erik Magnuson (#83 overall)
  • LG: Ben Bredeson (#39 overall)
  • C: Patrick Kugler (#68 overall)
  • RG: Kyle Bosch (#87 overall)
  • RT: Kyle Kalis (#49 overall)

Notice that Bosch is gone and Kugler is on the bench. Bredeson is a true freshman, Magnuson is the only true tackle (playing left instead of right), and Kalis is somewhat playing out of position at right tackle. Would that line be better? I don’t know. Bosch would almost certainly be an upgrade over Bredeson at one guard position, and he would probably be an upgrade over Kalis; either way, he would help.

This isn’t a post about recruiting rankings not mattering. It’s not a post suggesting that the highest ranked players should play. It’s about what Michigan’s offensive line could have looked like here in 2016. Based on what we’ve seen play out over the years, here would be my guesses to start in 2016 if off-the-field issues and injuries didn’t occur:

  • LT: Grant Newsome (#235 overall)
  • LG: Erik Magnuson (#83 overall)
  • C: Mason Cole (#128 overall)
  • RG: Kyle Bosch (#87 overall)
  • RT: Logan Tuley-Tillman (#169 overall)

That leaves Kalis and Braden on the bench, and maybe Bredeson redshirts or plays a backup role. Regardless, that lineup looks far superior to what we have. It does project Tuley-Tillman as being superior to Braden and Kalis, so maybe one of those guys beats him out at right tackle.

THE AVERAGE LIFESPAN OF AN OFFENSIVE LINEMAN

In light of recent discussions about how many linemen should be recruited and retained on an 85-scholarship roster, I thought I would do some math to see how long an average college career lasts for an offensive lineman. Since the 2012 class just completed its eligibility this season, I’ll look back at the five-year span immediately preceding. Linemen recruited from 2008-2012 include:

  • Ricky Barnum (2008): 5
  • Rocko Khoury (2008): 4
  • Elliott Mealer (2008): 5
  • Patrick Omameh (2008): 5
  • Dann O’Neill (2008): 1
  • Kurt Wermers (2008): 1
  • Taylor Lewan (2009): 5
  • Michael Schofield (2009): 5
  • Quinton Washington (2009): 5*
  • Christian Pace (2010): 1
  • Chris Bryant (2011): 3
  • Jack Miller (2011): 4
  • Tony Posada (2011): 0
  • Blake Bars (2012): 4
  • Ben Braden (2012): 5
  • Kyle Kalis (2012): 5
  • Erik Magnuson (2012): 5

*Washington was recruited as an offensive guard and switched to defense.

That’s 17 players over a span of 5 years (3.4 per class). Those 17 players spent 63 combined seasons at Michigan (3.7 years per player).

Ideally, I think Michigan should be recruiting 4-5 linemen in each recruiting class. That leaves some room for attrition and also keeps a steady stream of talent, so you don’t have to rely on huge or tiny classes to balance everything. You can see that Michigan took 6, 3, 1, 3, and 4 linemen over that span. That was rather inconsistent, and as we have seen, Michigan has too often had to rely on true freshmen to contribute or even start.

43 comments

  1. Comments: 1356
    Joined: 8/13/2015
    Roanman
    Jan 18, 2017 at 7:39 AM

    You go, Thunder!!!

    Pie charts and everything!!!!!

    One of the great mysteries to me has been the bizarre and woeful nature of our offensive line recruiting. I’m a football hobbyist and I know that three years with a total of 7 offensive line recruits is a prescription for heartbreak.

    Take 5 every year, take 4 every year on your defensive line, including a DE/TE. One QB, two RBs, a TE/DE, two WRs, two CB’, two safeties and three LB’s/maybe fullback and one fullback/maybe LB and you just took 22. That’s 88 every four years. You’re 3 over. To be cold about the issue, injury and attrition handles that pretty smoothly.

    i get transition costs every time you change coaches, but this is some pretty simple math, it barely rises to a level above counting.

    • Comments: 1356
      Joined: 8/13/2015
      Roanman
      Jan 18, 2017 at 7:54 AM

      As an aside, sort of, I look at the video on most every preferred walk-on that has committed to us. I think we will get some pretty good football players out of the group of offensive linemen and tight ends we have brought in since Harbaugh.

      I don’t think people always get how tough it is for an 18 year old kid to get 6’5″, 300 lbs. moved around efficiently. This is where evaluating high school offensive linemen gets so hit and miss, the best example recently being Kalis who looked to be a beast at the high school level as opposed to Jake Conklin who had low mid and D2 offers, walked on at MSU and is now arguably the best rookie lineman in the NFL this year.

  2. Comments: 14
    Joined: 12/13/2016
    vlacca
    Jan 18, 2017 at 8:03 AM

    So it appears that a rotisserie of o-linemen is a must.
    4 to 5 a year eats up scholarships but sometimes athletes can play on either side of the line. U-Mich is coming out of a lull right now because of poor planning dating back to a previous regime.
    This said, I’m on the Newsome train if for no other reason than he is determined beyond expectation. Unlike others I’m not put off by the lengthy hospitalization- getting things right is of highest need regarding swelling control and soft tissue reconstruction- it takes time. Proper healing requires immobility- there is no other option. Ready by fall… we’ll see but Grant has impressed to a degree that shows the depth of his character.
    http://imgix-mobile.scout.com/member/5794669/images/x04AAAAAAAA1.jpg?w=227
    Cole and Bredesen are given.
    That would leave two spots open.
    I’ll go with Owenu for one. You can’t teach size and brother he is thick. I’ve seen him on campus. His legs and torso are Probowl size right now. He just needs the reps.
    The other spot would probably be right tackle or if Bredesen kicks out at left guard.
    Our last spot will be telling.
    A common refrain is to pencil in Filiaga. If so it would suggest current players are not developing since being in the system for a year or two isn’t producing the skills needed to trump sheer potential.
    I say Bredesen stays inside and Bushell-Beatty gets motivated to reach the next level and move over to the right side.
    RT It could also be Ulizio if he zeros in on the prize.
    My guess is the coaches will opt for consistency- something preferable to the big mistakes that will happen with Freshmen- especially w/o early enrollment. Any defensive coordinator worth their salt will throw multiple schemes at the weak link. Think Florida out of the gate.

    That would leave

    • Comments: 3844
      Joined: 7/13/2015
      Jan 18, 2017 at 8:13 AM

      I don’t think taking 4-5 linemen per year eats up scholarships at a particularly high rate. There are roughly 24 scholarship positions on the field (O, D, K, P), and with 5 linemen playing at all times, that’s roughly how many you would expect in the allowable 25-man limit per class. I know those are very rough numbers, but still.

      Even so, for every five linemen you recruit, 1 is going to be gone by the time he’s a redshirt freshman.

    • Comments: 6285
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Jan 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM

      I think you should start with the 1 scholarship per position per year, then adjust from there based on many factors (red-shirting, position importance, position overlap, etc.)

      5 person classes for OL are very much needed unless you have young starters all lined up.

    • Comments: 6285
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Jan 18, 2017 at 3:31 PM

      I forgot JBB was only a RS Soph last year. I think if you project reasonable improvement for him you have a decent starter. I’m going to project him into the starting lineup until we have different information.

      LT: Newsome / Bredeson
      LG: Bredeson / Ruiz
      C: Cole
      RG: Onwenu
      RT: JBB

  3. Comments: 134
    Joined: 9/13/2015
    AC1997
    Jan 18, 2017 at 8:26 AM

    I liked all of this information, though I think I’ve seen you talk about some other aspects of it in previous posts as well. Here’s how it breaks down for me:

    1 – Quantity. Both Carr and Rodriguez failed in this area because they didn’t consistently restock the depth chart with 4-5 per year. Quality is very difficult to predict as evident by your data above an the fact that teams like Wisconsin and Iowa can churn out solid OL despite recruiting rankings.

    2 – Variety. This is difficult, but I think you need to be willing to recruit a variety of players to see how they play out. One of the things that Hoke’s classes struggled with was the lack of true OT options with a lot of guard looking options. Being willing to recruit that high school kid that’s tall, skinny, but athletic like Omameh or Lewan is okay if you’re following rule #1. Too many 300+ pound high school kids might result in an OL full of guards.

    3 – Recruiting. This is nearly impossible to get right with 17 year old high school kids. But I do hate it when people said “Michigan sucks at recruiting OL.” How do we know? Kalis seemed like a sure fire prospect. Kugler had everything you wanted as a center prospect. Braden was massive. Mags, Bosch, Bars, and Samuleson offered depth and diversity. I struggle to say they recruited the wrong guys. (Insert comment about Pocic here.)

    4 – Coaching. It is easy to point a finger at the Hoke era in this regard….though Drevno hasn’t turned any of the Hoke players into NFL prospects in 2 years. Sometimes I wonder if the spread/zone offense helps simplify things for OL like it does for QBs.

    • Comments: 3844
      Joined: 7/13/2015
      Jan 18, 2017 at 8:40 AM

      2. Variety is an issue that I’ve talked about before. Like you said, we haven’t recruited enough tackles. Personally, I think tall, skinny-ish, athletic kids make the best tackles. Lewan is a prime example. You don’t have to be a string bean, but you have to be an athlete rather than a big brute. If you go through that list of players above, not many projected as true tackles.

      3. As for recruiting, I think you can still hold people accountable. For example, Bosch had some issues. Were there red flags while he was being recruited? I don’t know, but it’s certainly possible. I know I’m tooting my own horn here, but I was not fond of Dawson, Bars, and Samuelson when they were recruited…and not one ever contributed anything meaningful. I was a fan of Pocic, but he got squeezed out. If a dude watching Youtube highlights can figure out that you’re spending scholarships on guys who aren’t going to contribute much, then that’s not good. (For the record, I’m not above making mistakes, but I’m just saying there were serious questions about the abilities of those players.)

      4. The spread/zone does indeed simplify things a great deal. The concepts of inside and outside zone are really pretty simple, though it does take some work to get the blocking down as a unit.

      • Comments: 134
        Joined: 9/13/2015
        AC1997
        Jan 18, 2017 at 9:20 AM

        2 – I’m still a little worried about this with Harbaugh. I know he wants to find every 330 pound planet shaped object, but I hope he doesn’t overlook that 265 pound guy that might be the next Lewan, Long, or Jansen.

        3 – I don’t remember the timing of things with Pocic and the other guys other than Samuelson was a very late add. There are so many factors that go into recruiting like relationships, location, personality, etc. that we may never know. Bars and Samuelson seemed like huge reaches for a top program. I don’t mind adding a depth guy late in the process if you have room because sometimes they work out and you need good guys on the roster that can handle being back-ups. I didn’t have a problem with Dawson. He was a highly ranked local kid. I think you take him for a variety of reasons.

        4 – So you could argue that RichRod put 3 OL in the NFL who have had solid starts to their careers in Lewan, Omameh, and Schofield. Compare that to the total number of guys from late-era Carr, Hoke, and Harbaugh so far. Long and Molk?

        • Comments: 3844
          Joined: 7/13/2015
          Jan 18, 2017 at 9:30 AM

          2. I think Harbaugh is going for some guys who are light on their feet. Honigford and Herbert come to mind (though Herbert seems likely to go elsewhere).

          4. I might add David Baas and Graham Glasgow to that list for Carr/Hoke/Harbaugh.

          • Comments: 134
            Joined: 9/13/2015
            AC1997
            Jan 18, 2017 at 11:01 AM

            I might concede Baas and I can’t remember when Maurice Williams was recruited. But I don’t give anyone credit for Glasgow (especially version 1.0) because he was a walk-on. Maybe you give someone credit for the other two once they saw how talented their older brother was.

            Carr and Rodriguez screwed up because they didn’t get enough depth.

            Hoke screwed up because of some combination of bad choices in recruiting (Bars, Samuelson), coaching/development (Kugler/Dawson/Kalis), and luck (Fox/Bosch/LTT).

            Harbaugh gets an “incomplete” so far but it sucks that in his third year we are so far from clarity on the depth chart.

            • Comments: 1356
              Joined: 8/13/2015
              Roanman
              Jan 18, 2017 at 12:39 PM

              Glasgow was a preferred walk-on. He didn’t just show up to an open try-out, he was recruited here.

              • Comments: 3844
                Joined: 7/13/2015
                Jan 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM

                Right. He was recruited and developed, even if he wasn’t given a scholarship immediately. I think the coaching staff deserves some credit for that.

                • Comments: 1356
                  Joined: 8/13/2015
                  Roanman
                  Jan 18, 2017 at 2:51 PM

                  More credit really, they persuaded the kid to come with no immediate promise of a schollie.

              • Comments: 6285
                Joined: 8/11/2015
                Lanknows
                Jan 18, 2017 at 3:38 PM

                I think you give partial credit for Glasgow. On one hand, it was an OSU UM battle that was hard fought. But… not hard enough fought that either school offered an actual scholarship. Obviously he was worth it.

      • Comments: 6285
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Jan 18, 2017 at 3:35 PM

        Is your claim about not recruiting enough tackles backed up by any numbers?

    • Comments: 6285
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Jan 18, 2017 at 3:34 PM

      You can say BECAUSE of the recruiting uncertainty. Star rankings don’t tell you very much about OL and recruiting as if they do is what put Michigan under Hoke in such a bind. It appears history is repeating itself with Harbaugh but at least they are trying to fix it with an OL class of 6 or 7 this year.

  4. Comments: 134
    Joined: 9/13/2015
    AC1997
    Jan 18, 2017 at 9:13 AM

    Here’s another way to look at this. Here are my rankings for biggest reason the 2016 and 2017 lines were sub par:

    2016:
    #1 – Kalis and Kugler not meeting recruiting expectations. Both were supposed to be “locks” and fell far short. (Braden and Mags were close to their recruiting rankings.)
    #2 – Bosch leaving the team. He was solid for WVU this year and would have kept a redshirt on Bredeson and maybe been the best OL on the team.
    #3 – Newsome’s injury. Losing your LT and replacing him with a true freshman and Braden moving outside is not ideal.
    #4 – LTT leaving the team. You could argue that he would have been the starting LT in the first place. Not having him or Newsome meant that there was no true LT left.
    IDEAL LINEUP — LTT – Bosch – Cole – Braden/Kalis/Kugler – Mags

    2017:
    #1 – Kugler. Instead of being a multi-year starter in the middle he’s fighting just to make his first starting appearance.
    #2 – LTT/Bosch. Both would be multiyear starters and aren’t even in the program.
    #3 – Newsome. Maybe he makes it back and this is moot
    #4 – Hamilton/Swenson situation. Maybe neither would start, but both are tackles that would look good on the depth chart.
    IDEAL LINEUP — Newsome – Bosch – Cole – Bredeson/Kugler – LTT

    Look at that potential 2017 line assuming everything went as planned in an idea world. That’s pretty solid!

    • Comments: 1863
      Joined: 1/19/2016
      je93
      Jan 18, 2017 at 9:45 AM

      Great job Thunder, and nice contribution AC

      I’ve read elsewhere that LTT isn’t starting material at UM. What do you guys think?

      GO BLUE

      • Comments: 3844
        Joined: 7/13/2015
        Jan 18, 2017 at 9:57 AM

        I think he’s talented enough to start at one of the tackle spots in 2017, although I don’t think there’s a great deal of competition. Michigan is somewhat lacking in tackles this coming season, especially if Newsome won’t be back.

        • Comments: 134
          Joined: 9/13/2015
          AC1997
          Jan 18, 2017 at 10:58 AM

          I don’t think LTT is a “star” but I think he is a solid starter in the Mags mold. Compare him to the idea of starting JBB, moving Cole/Bredeson out to tackle, or starting a true freshman. Yikes.

          LTT was sort of the 6th OL for a while and that vaulted Newsome to a starting spot. I think if he were on the roster he would be in line to start at tackle for sure.

    • Comments: 6285
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Jan 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM

      I think people might be overrated LTT. Is he really better than Braden? He wasn’t when he was here. Maybe all that turmoil accelerated his development, or maybe he would still be sitting on Michigan’s bench last year if Newsome is healthy.

  5. Comments: 134
    Joined: 9/13/2015
    AC1997
    Jan 18, 2017 at 11:02 AM

    Thunder –

    Based on where things stand with the 2017 recruiting of OL, how do you see it playing out across the finish line?

    If you were recruiting right this minute to finish out the class, what would your focus be for the OL specifically?

    • Comments: 3844
      Joined: 7/13/2015
      Jan 18, 2017 at 12:02 PM

      I think Michigan will probably lose Herbert and add Mekhi Becton. Otherwise, I think things will remain status quo. I don’t think Thorpe will flip from PSU.

      If I were recruiting this minute, I would be looking for left tackles. I would be looking at big tight end types who could be groomed to play OT, kind of like Jake Fisher back in the day. Your current tackles or failed tackles can always move in to offensive guard.

      • Comments: 134
        Joined: 9/13/2015
        AC1997
        Jan 18, 2017 at 2:03 PM

        I think I agree with you about the three recruits we know.

        Are there any of the tweener OT/TE guys out there that you’d be willing to name? This is the time when you would love for there to be some low 3-star type at a Michigan school who would jump at an offer and you see enough to give it a shot.

  6. Comments: 400
    Joined: 12/24/2016
    INTJohn
    Jan 18, 2017 at 11:23 AM

    All of this essentially falls under the Heading of:
    “How Does One Build a Football Team”

    22 players with 5 OL means ~ 25% of Scholarships should be used on OL……… So if a coach signs 28 players (similar to this year at Michigan); ~7 of them should be OL. Last year Harbaugh signed a similar number of players and yet only had 3 OL. These are the types of things that make me wonder IF Harbaugh really understands How to BUILD team vs How to Coach a Team……..

    ……….and Thunder to add a little to your ‘history’ lesson (for the masses) relative to OL’s:
    Carr 2005 – 5 OL 06 – 3 07 – 2

    So as one can see Carr didnt leave RR a whole lot to work with. RR tried to rectify the OL problem right from the get-go by signing 6 OL his first year. (I confirm & defer to Thunder’s data above & repeat):
    RR 2008 – 6 09 – 3 10 – 1

    Now why RR failed to continue what was an obvious issue with the OL recruitment; I have no idea but he started off good and FAILED to continue with building OL. Enter Hoke.

    Hoke never even bothered to address the issue until it was toooo late:
    Hoke: 2011 – 2 12 – 4 13- 6 14 – 2

    Michigan went 4 years signing 10 Ol’s when these coaches should have signed at least 20! Even tho Hoke finally got with the idea and recruited 6 OL in ’13 the inevitable Law of 40% Attrition Averages caught up that class ; coupled with the other lack of signing OL’s leaving Harbaugh essentially with NOT MUCH to work with. Sort of like what Carr did 10 years prior and the same problem RR had to deal with…….
    Enter Harbaugh:

    Obviously jimmy didn’t have a whole lot of time to sign anyone in 2015 but was able to snag 3 OL’s out of a class of 14 – not bad; but then like RR and like hoke he never followed thru on it. In 2016 he only signed 3 OL out of a class around 30 – Harbaugh should have signed at least 7!

    Harbaugh: 2015 – 3 16- 3 17 ~ 6 (maybe 7?)

    because Harbaugh FAILED to sign 6 OL last year in 2016 he must sign at least 6 this year BUT he also Must sign at least 6 next year, too.

    Now all of this brings me to my real point and I suppose someone could ask: “INTJohn, What are you really doing; Are you building a Team or are you knocking one down?”

    But Have you ever asked yourselves often enough just how much the Building of a Team has ever cost because this is the price that must be paid.

    How many of these so-called Coaches have slandered and misunderstood their own profession and our consciences in terms of Building a Team! If a Temple is to be Built then one must be destroyed. If this isn’t true then show me where it hasn’t occured!

    Carr, RR, Hoke all slandered and Failed building a Michigan Team.

    The school is still out on whether or not Harbaugh can Build a Team as well as Coach one we’ll see what takes the field in 2018; after the ‘Transition Years’ are over. He failed to sign enough OL in 2016 setting the Re-Build project back another year. He’s trying to catch up now in this year – 2017. He must continue & maintain it in 2018 and not get side tracked by oversigning the so-called ‘skilled positions’ – positions, I’ll add really have no skill to them. (he must also stop letting The Enemy and 5 star High scoolersentice him with Flash & Gash – playing him like a harp.)

    Offensive Lineman is the True Skilled Position in Football and we need 7 this year and at least 5 if not 6 next year!

    IMHO……………….INTJohn

    • Comments: 134
      Joined: 9/13/2015
      AC1997
      Jan 18, 2017 at 11:32 AM

      I think the general rule of thumb is 4-5 per class. I actually think 6+ is too many because those guys are eventually going to compete with each other and be more likely to wash out. I don’t think it is a problem to have the occasional class with 3, but you should only do that when you’ve had a successful couple of years with regard to class size, attrition, and on-field performance.

      Example – if Harbaugh signs 6-7 this year he should still target 4-5 next year. But in 2019 if those ~10-12 players are mostly still with the team and some have had success then you might be able to back off for a year.

      Another example is what Thunder mentioned about taking bodies just to take bodies. Given the unknown of OL development it isn’t a bad thing to reach for a low 3-star now and then (Omameh, Glasgow are NFL starters). But you have to be careful because you can fill too many spots with “projects” if you don’t have clear starters already on the depth chart (Bars, Samueson, Dawson, Kugler).

    • Comments: 6285
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Jan 18, 2017 at 3:47 PM

      It was not Rodriguez’s job to build an OL for Hoke. Rodriguez was building an OL for himself. He had already proven he could turn recruitis into starters in 2 years and he had a good OL all lined up through 2012 with Jake Fisher.

      Not only did Rodriguez do a good job on OL recruiting, he did a GREAT job at OL recruiting.

      Rodriguez messed up so many things at Michigan – it’s amazing to me that the one thing he absolutely knocked out of the park is one people keep harping on.

      • Comments: 134
        Joined: 9/13/2015
        AC1997
        Jan 18, 2017 at 5:22 PM

        Well…..I give RichRod a lot of credit for the OL he put into the NFL and the fact that he set a bunch of rushing records for Michigan despite having generally bad teams in his three years.

        But he was setting himself up for trouble with his recruiting too. After taking 6 players in his first year in an attempt to recover from the late-era Carr depth chart he took just 4 in the next two classes. His wash-out rate wasn’t any better than the other coaches either.

        He gets credit mostly for development – turning out 3 NFL starters. But I don’t think we can give him any more credit for recruiting than anyone else.

        • Comments: 6285
          Joined: 8/11/2015
          Lanknows
          Jan 18, 2017 at 5:49 PM

          This debate hinges on the 2010 class where Rodriguez took only 1 OL recruit (Pace).

          Keep in mind that at that point he had 4/5 starters locked in for the next two years. Also Barnum (who they liked arguably as much as anyone else). All they needed looking 2 years out (2012) was a replacement for Molk. Hence, Pace (a Molk clone).

          Rodriguez recruited 2010 to fit his roster need. If you are going to argue that Rodriguez needed to look further out in 2010 than 2012 I would respond that a) Rodriguez had reason to think he could get 2011 guys starting by 2012 and b) you are ignoring the heat coming onto Rodriguez after 3 and 5 win seasons AND the coming shitstorm on defense. Rodriguez was as putting out fires elsewhere and the OL was in great shape.

          As for 2011 – that was not a Rodriguez class. OK? He was fired before it was done. There were not only decommitments (Jake Fisher) but guys who would have signed near signing day. In 2009 Rodriguez had Robinson, Stokes, and Washington (all high 4 stars) commit near signing day. So lets account for those 5 or so guys that didn’t come and consider the possibility that one of them would have been an OL.

          Rodriguez left Hoke a full starting OL for 2011. He left him 3 NFL starters through 2012. He left him 2 NFL tackles through 2013. The cupboard was far from bare and the situation Hoke started with vs what Rodriguez started with isn’t remotely comparable.

        • Comments: 6285
          Joined: 8/11/2015
          Lanknows
          Jan 18, 2017 at 5:58 PM

          Rodriguez took 10 OL recruits in his time at Michigan.

          3 NFL starters – Lewan, Schofield, Omameh
          3 solid college starters – Barnum, Mealer, Washington (on DL)
          1 career backup – Khoury (actually started in the Sugar Bowl)
          1 lost to injury – Pace
          1 bust – Wermers
          1 transfer / MAC-level starter – Oneill

          I would challenge you to find another run of 70% success in OL recruits. You have to go back to the late 90s recruiting class glory years. Rodriguez had one (!) flat-out miss out of the 10 recruits he brought in (Wermers). Even ONeill was an all-conference player at Western.

          Considering his 2008 class was a handicapped transition class this is absolutely phenomenal.

          The guy had an eye for talent and he could develop it quickly. He had every reason to think in 2010 that he was good through 2012 and could handle whatever came up in 2011 — which he did with Fisher, and very well could have with his other recruits too.

          • Comments: 262
            Joined: 8/12/2015
            Painter Smurf
            Jan 19, 2017 at 6:46 AM

            Frey was a quite good OL coach, and pretty active recruiter too. Surprised he is still at Indiana and has not been scooped up by a bigger fish. Hoke should have kept him and not pushed his fantasy of developing a serious power-blocking line without stud offensive assistants. Especially considering that Funk seemed to be more comfortable with zone schemes anyway. What a cluster.

            • Comments: 6285
              Joined: 8/11/2015
              Lanknows
              Jan 19, 2017 at 12:10 PM

              Agreed on all fronts. Frey continues to produce at Indiana too. Mystery why he hasn’t been promoted.

              Funk was awful. No way around that. His resume is thoroughly unimpressive.

    • Comments: 262
      Joined: 8/12/2015
      Painter Smurf
      Jan 19, 2017 at 6:54 AM

      22 OL is a pipe dream. I’ve heard that coaches mention 16 roster OL as a general target. But a lot never get there. Most teams have enough trouble reaching 7-8 players good enough to be core contributors. Beyond the 7-8 contributors, you can’t have 14 additional OL on the shelf taking up roster space. Another aspect is the top OL tend to be 3 or 4 year starters, which also works against heavy stockpiling.

      Even though OL has five starters, there are other position groups like DL and sometimes DB which actually give more players meaningful snaps. Just pointing out why the 22 roster OL is message board fantasy.

      • Comments: 6285
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Jan 19, 2017 at 12:21 PM

        Right. Just because you think something should happen doesn’t mean it will.

        The reason OL needs more than DL despite rotation (and 5 position vs 4) is red-shirting. 95% of kids need it on the OL. Of course it’s helpful on DL too but there it’s more about athleticism so less of a premium on development.

        DL red-shirts are a luxury. OL red-shirts are a necessity.

        There absolutely is a logical path to having 20 OL without screwing over other positions. You have to cut some of the excess at RB and WR for starters. You can’t take multiple FBs and have TE go 8 deep and RB go 7 or 8 deep and WR go 10 deep. I mean you can because a lot of teams do it, but the excess is there. That goes double for a heavy personnel Stanford power offense.

        Absolutely blame the horrendous development under Funk for OL problems but not having enough guys is a huge part of the problem too. We’re about to enter year 3 and how many Drevno guys are ready to start and be even average big ten players? There are zero sure things, a couple guys we are hoping on, and then crossing our fingers we luck out with recruits.

        Very few players are going to be ready to plug into the Stanford-Harbaugh offense as freshman and sophomores. It’s just not going to happen very often if this offense is going to succeed. Even 5-star recruits like Isiah Wilson generally take a little time.

        You have to account for development, and that means having guys on the roster who are not ready to play (and we are not just talking about red-shirting freshman). We are talking about Dorresteins and Huyges who you really don’t want starting as RS Sophs or even in many cases RS Juniors.

        • Comments: 262
          Joined: 8/12/2015
          Painter Smurf
          Jan 19, 2017 at 1:04 PM

          Guess I should have clarified “scholarship” OL. Getting to 20 or so roster OL including walk-ons is not unusual. Keeping numbers up is always tough though. Pecking order on the OL tends to work itself out pretty quickly. If a guy does not get on a starter or key-back-up track pretty quickly, he is going to get recruited over. Behind the scenes, these guys know where they stand pretty early on. With limited rotation, that is why you wind up with a high quit / transfer rate on OL.

          • Comments: 6285
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            Lanknows
            Jan 19, 2017 at 3:19 PM

            Disagree with this. Because development can take years, coaches will often assume a guy is coming along and project him to be a starter in year 3, 4 or 5, even though he isn’t there yet. It may not ever click though. The stagnation for Kalis as an example, or the very late development for Jack Miller, or maybe the never development of Kugler….man this list could get very long very quickly.

            Kugler is a good example where he isn’t up for a starting job but he also didn’t get ‘recruited over’ by anyone.

            There are no quick fixes on OL. If you are wrong about 1 guy you have to spend the next few years trying to fix it. So you better have multiple Plan Bs ready to step in as starters in addition to your Plan A.

            That’s where the call for more than the typical 14-17 range comes from.

            I think people have the impression that Michigan has had unusually bad attrition over the last few years when in fact it’s been pretty normal. Talent development was bad under Hoke/Funk but it hasn’t necessarily been much better under Drevno so far. The new staff is not showing signs of producing at the Rodriguez-level for OL.

            Give Drev credit for turning Magnuson from OK to an NFL player and Braden/Kalis from trainwrecks to passable, but where is the crop of younger players pushing through after 2 years of coaching? We need to get something besides Cole from the 2013-15 classes (i.e., non-freshman).

            • Comments: 6285
              Joined: 8/11/2015
              Lanknows
              Jan 19, 2017 at 3:23 PM

              Aside from attrition Michigan would likely be fine if 2 guys (we’ll say Kugler and Ulizio for the sake of illustration, a younger guy and an older guy, but it could be anyone else) get developed.

              LT: Cole
              LG: Bredeson
              OC: [Kugler]
              RG: Onwenu
              RT: [Ulizio]

              If you add two capable starters to the returning players, you don’t feel too pessimistic because reasonable projections for Cole-Bredeson-Onwenu has them as solid starters.

              But Ulizio and Kugler were getting passed over by true freshman…if that continues it falls on Drevno.

          • Comments: 6285
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            Lanknows
            Jan 19, 2017 at 3:25 PM

            the discussion assumes we are not including walk-ons.

            There are some PWOs who make it a nebulous distinction and a robust walk-on program is definitely a way to help the issue, but it’s not a solution to close the OL numbers deficiency the program has had for over a decade now.

  7. Comments: 6285
    Joined: 8/11/2015
    Lanknows
    Jan 18, 2017 at 3:22 PM

    Great post topic, as evident by the robust discussion in the comments. Many thoughts in my head, but I’ll try to keep it short.

    1. I look at the issue more about how many high quality starters you can have than how many guys are on the roster. The average career lifespan tells you about the latter not the former. I think of players in 3 big groups – NFL caliber, solid college starter, non-starter. NFL caliber players generally start for 3 or 4 years but even they will struggle as freshman and typically be average at best in their second year. That’s the smallest group. A much bigger one is the solid college starter – these guys typically are not ones you want to start until year 4 and 5. The final group is the biggest and includes everyone from busts to career backups..

    2. The question you need to ask when talking about numbers is how many guys are you comfortable starting who are below average players (NFL caliber guys who are first or second year, college caliber guys who are 3rd or 4th year, and career backups ever). Some of these guys need to be sitting on the bench.

    3. I really think recruiting stars don’t seriously belong in this conversation. It has made only incremental difference in the liklihood that a player falls in the NFL/College/Backup bin.

    4. Rodriguez had fantastic success on OL recruiting. Expecting that 3.5 year average to continue moving forward in recruiting is a recipe for disaster. I would guess Hoke hasn’t been anywhere close. Early to tell with Harbaugh but with how he encourages roster turnover (sorry, I mean COMPETITION!) it’s not going to hit that mark either. [Including Washington bumps up that number a good bit too. At the very least the years on the DL should be excluded.]

    5. I looked at the ‘success rate’ of finding average or better Big Ten starters in recruits a few years ago. The number was right around 50% success, but that included a lot of guys like Perry Dorrestein and Mark Huyge who were not capable starters until 4th or 5th year. Put another way, you have to invest 5 scholarship years to get 1 starter year.

    6. What you really need is an expected value for number of starting years per recruit. I’ll use some made up numbers just to illustrate the point. 10% of guys will give you 4 years of quality starts (note: this is generous), another 10% will give you 3, another 10% will give you 2, and 20% will give you one. 50% will give you zero (though they might be suitable as depth).

    Based on the above that is 0.4+0.3+0.2+0.2 = 1.1 years per recruit. You need 5 starters per year every year, so by this math you would get 4.4 with taking 4 recruits and 5.5 with taking 5 recruits.

    Of course the math varies by recruiting ranking and especially coaching staff. Rodriguez’s “starting years” distribution was far better than Hokes. The jury is still out on Harbaugh’s staff.

    7. My argument is that with the OL being such a critical position for this offense to function you need to ensure you are more than covered. Michigan can’t just produce OL classes that give an expected value of 5 starting years, they have to go above and beyond to account for variance.

    • Comments: 6285
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Jan 18, 2017 at 3:22 PM

      That wasn’t short at all.

    • Comments: 6285
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Jan 18, 2017 at 3:26 PM

      8. If you focus on producing an appropriate number of guys who are worth starting, the depth issue will sort itself out.

      So – I would not really focus on number of guys on the roster in order to produce the 8 or so linemen you need to play in a given year. To me that’s looking at it backwards. That’s assuming if I have 15 guys (or whatever), I’m sure I can find 5 good starters. That model, we’ve seen, doesn’t always work.

  8. Comments: 6285
    Joined: 8/11/2015
    Lanknows
    Jan 19, 2017 at 12:30 PM

    One wildcard in all this I suspect is performance enhancing drugs. HS use vs college use. There are some guys using in HS to get the scholarship, but don’t intend on continuing through their college years with no shot at the pros. There are some guys not using in HS who find it in college and skyrocket. May not be so easy for coaches to tell in some cases. There must be a significant dichotomy between NFL-bound athletes and future insurance salesmen trying to get through school who know they aren’t going to get playing time ahead of the NFL kids.

You must belogged in to post a comment.