2016 Season Countdown: #41 Henry Poggi

2016 Season Countdown: #41 Henry Poggi


August 1, 2016
Henry Poggi 179x

Henry Poggi

Name: Henry Poggi
Height: 6’4″
Weight: 266 lbs.
High school: Baltimore (MD) Gilman
Position: Fullback
Class: Redshirt junior
Jersey number: #19
Last year: I ranked Poggi #53 and said he would be a backup defensive end (LINK). He made four starts at fullback and tight end, catching 1 pass for 2 yards.

Poggi was one of several position-switchers last year who was getting a chance on both sides of the ball. The coaching staff toyed with the idea of putting a bunch of linemen and linebackers on either side (Tom Strobel, Brady Pallante, Chase Winovich, Poggi, etc.), and Poggi is the one guy who seems to have stuck on offense. He really struggled with blocking early in the year, and he offered little as a pass receiver. Those facts being known, it was frustrating to see him on the field so much. But he improved by leaps and bounds as a blocker, and that’s probably what prevented him from flipping back to defense.

Going into the 2016 season, he looks to be a frequent contributor once again on offense. Despite being a four-game starter last year, I don’t find his contributions to be so irreplaceable that they beg for a higher spot on the countdown. He is a plus blocker, but other guys can also do that (Devin Asiasi, Bobby Henderson, etc.). He’s not a threat as a pass catcher, and there are several tight end/H-back types who are more dangerous running into the flat on bootlegs (Khalid Hill, Zach Gentry, etc.). Poggi also doesn’t pose a threat as a runner on dives and traps in the same way that Sione Houma and Joe Kerridge did. I think he will play plenty of snaps, but there is a good number of guys who have more value to the team.

Prediction: Part-time starting fullback





40 comments

  1. Comments: 28
    Joined: 8/20/2015
    Jetski
    Aug 01, 2016 at 11:52 PM

    Impressive timing with the Biff Poggi news.

    Henry seems a bit tall to be an ideal fullback. Do you think his classification as a fullback is primarily due to lack of options at fullback and a wealth of options at tight end and defensive end? Or do you think he has a chance to be a legitimately excellent fullback?

    • Comments: 3844
      Joined: 7/13/2015
      Aug 02, 2016 at 2:03 PM

      I don’t think he has a chance to be an excellent fullback, which I would define as a good runner, receiver, and blocker. I think Michigan views him as a jumbo blocking fullback, so he serves a very specific role for this staff.

      • Comments: 6285
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Aug 02, 2016 at 2:47 PM

        And H-back. Michigan can either drop a TE into that spot (which they will do at times) or use Hill and Poggi there. Poggi is the blocking H-back, but Hill has more upside to be a threat. And by more I mean he has some.

    • Comments: 262
      Joined: 8/12/2015
      Painter Smurf
      Aug 02, 2016 at 10:16 PM

      I just don’t get why Poggi got so many snaps last year – reminded me a bit of AJ Williams situation as a true freshman. The explanation may be that it took the staff a while to see what they had in Houma and Kerridge. His usage did seem to drop a bit as the season wore on. Unlike Thunder, I just did not see much improvement from Poggi over the course of the season and don’t completely understand the staff’s patience with him. Since he mainly lined up in an HB position, I am hoping that Hill and Asiasi can split some snaps in there.

      • Comments: 6285
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Aug 03, 2016 at 1:43 PM

        Williams played as a freshman because Michigan didn’t have any options at TE (Rodriguez didn’t recruit them). Anyway, I think the fact that Harbaugh still played him (when there were other options like Hill, Bunting, Poggi, etc.) is sort of validating that Williams wasn’t quite as bad as he was made out to be by fans.

        The Poggi situation is different. M had 2 other very good senior FBs. He played to prepare for next year, not becuase M needed him.

        I think there is a chance that HIll and Assiasi displace Poggi in his H-back duties. But we’ll see — usually when a staff spends that much effort in development they do it for a reason. I’d bet Poggi remains a significant contributor and his role grows a bit. I think the FB spot is going to be used a little less.

        • Comments: 262
          Joined: 8/12/2015
          Painter Smurf
          Aug 03, 2016 at 10:17 PM

          Williams was so bad in year 1, they would have been better of throwing a 3rd tackle or slot out there. We discovered later in the year that there was a much better walk on who should have been ahead of him as well. His presence on the field killed a ton of drives and negated the outside running game. Williams in year 4 has no bearing on whether he belonged on the field in year 1. Poggi got too many snaps last year, but he was still ahead of where AJW was in year 1.

  2. Comments: 6285
    Joined: 8/11/2015
    Lanknows
    Aug 02, 2016 at 12:11 AM

    I just can’t believe we’re actually going to use a 6’4/266 lb guy as a primary fullback and yet…

    It seems like Poggi played a lot last year to groom him for a bigger role this year. We’ll see if that translates to FB snaps. My guess is that Hill and Henderson will end up ahead there, but that Poggi wi’ll get significant snaps as a blocking H-back. Then again I figured he’d end up at TE or back to DL.

    Is there much history with 270 pound fullbacks beyond the odd short-yardage package?

    Intriguing to see what happens here.

    • Comments: 3844
      Joined: 7/13/2015
      Aug 02, 2016 at 2:07 PM

      No, there’s not a whole lot of history with players like that. Will Paul was a 260+ lb. fullback, but he wasn’t a big offensive threat, either.

      • Comments: 6285
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Aug 02, 2016 at 2:45 PM

        Nice one. That’s a helluva YMRMFPSA for Poggi.

  3. Comments: 1364
    Joined: 8/11/2015
    WindyCityBlue
    Aug 02, 2016 at 7:01 AM

    Up to now, this coaching staff’s forays into position switching have not met with much success, and Poggi seems to be no exception. I’ve frankly hated the way this team has used the fullback for a long time now, in any case. Rather than just abandoning the position, they’ve stripped it of any playmaking threat and limited it to use as a battering ram. Sorry guys, but that’s just not what teams with productive offenses do any more. How many other teams with really scary, high-powered offenses still use a fullback like we do?

    Yeah, I know, Harbaugh..manball..it ain’t going away..but it’s an anachronism, and really puts a ceiling on our offense.

    • Comments: 359
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      GKblue
      Aug 02, 2016 at 8:05 AM

      I thought the way they used Houma last year was effective. Sure wish he had another year of eligibility.

      • Comments: 1863
        Joined: 1/19/2016
        je93
        Aug 02, 2016 at 9:00 AM

        No kidding, Houma was an asset, and even Kerridge found some big plays

      • Comments: 3844
        Joined: 7/13/2015
        Aug 02, 2016 at 2:10 PM

        This doesn’t really speak to the point above, but Houma was a special talent. He was basically a tailback in a fullback’s body. That’s the advantage of taking a featured high school runner and turning him into a fullback, as opposed to taking a high school defensive lineman and turning him into a fullback.

        • Comments: 1863
          Joined: 1/19/2016
          je93
          Aug 02, 2016 at 11:31 PM

          Kingston Davis comes to mind

        • Comments: 1356
          Joined: 8/13/2015
          Roanman
          Aug 03, 2016 at 7:58 AM

          Somebody around here just refused to give up ranting that Houma was a Running Back, going all the way back to his recruitment. Turns out, that guy was right ….. whoever he was.

          • Comments: 6285
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            Lanknows
            Aug 03, 2016 at 1:45 PM

            Meh. Houma’s use at RB late in the year seemed like more of indictment of Green, Isaac, Shallman and Higdon than a credit to him. I mean, he’s got indisputable skills for a FB…but the key there is FOR A FB. If he had been recruited as a RB and stayed at RB everyone would have been yelling for him to move to FB (a la Smith).

            • Comments: 3844
              Joined: 7/13/2015
              Aug 03, 2016 at 4:29 PM

              It would be interesting to see Houma play RB at 220 lbs. instead of the 240 lbs. where he played last year. I wouldn’t expect him to be a superstar, but I do think he could have been mildly successful. I don’t see him being any less productive than Smith.

          • Comments: 6285
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            Lanknows
            Aug 03, 2016 at 5:03 PM

            Not after his superpowered vision goggles arrive right before the Hawaii game!

    • Comments: 22
      Joined: 8/20/2015
      GoBlue
      Aug 02, 2016 at 8:18 AM

      I’m definitely not an expert, but I read about as much about football as I can find, and I especially love the X’s and O’s from places like smart football and breakdown sports to name a few. With that said, I think your concept of what Harbaugh does on offense, along with how he utilizes his players is a little out of line with how effective he truly is.

      I would argue that his teams are especially effective based on what other people run, because what he is doing is so unique these days. Further, the things he does on offense are so much more complex than they were 20 years ago when most people think of “POWER” offense and fullbacks on the field.

      I won’t argue against the face that some of the most explosive offenses are spread or spread power like OSU. But I would always point to Alabama, LSU, Wisconsin Stanford, heck you could even look at a school that plays an entirely different level of football like North Dakota State who is scary dominant, as teams who are more of a throw back but still dominate today.

      Overall, my point is that I think what Harbaugh is doing is going to be very effective for many reasons, and although I don’t particularly think Poggi is going to be a big reason why, the fullback position or H Back or U Back or whatever, is a big part of that reason and shouldn’t be over looked.

    • Comments: 6285
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Aug 02, 2016 at 1:08 PM

      3 of the top 5 offenses in college football last year (Stanford, Arkansas and Navy) use FBs or FB-like players (Navy’s flexbone O)

      • Comments: 6285
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Aug 02, 2016 at 1:19 PM

        That’s by FEI. S&P had Arkansas 1, Stanford 5, and Navy 20. They had USC 15, LSU 12, – who also used FB extensively.

        http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff

        FBs may not be as popular as they were but you can’t argue using them is not effective.

      • Comments: 1364
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        WindyCityBlue
        Aug 02, 2016 at 1:51 PM

        Not sure where you got this..they were 29th, 40th and 48th in ypg. Ppg #18, 22, 27. None of them were even close to top 5, let alone all 3.

        http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/total

        • Comments: 6285
          Joined: 8/11/2015
          Lanknows
          Aug 02, 2016 at 2:27 PM

          http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff

          FEI adjusts for things like pace and number of drives that the defense

          Total yards is a function of pace and defense as much as how effective an offense is.

          I haven’t watched Navy enough to know, but Stanford and Arkansas do not play fast enough to put up gaudy yards. Part of that is a lot of running plays which eat up clock.

          Passing offenses are always going to put up more yards if nothing else because of clock stoppage.

        • Comments: 262
          Joined: 8/12/2015
          Painter Smurf
          Aug 02, 2016 at 7:35 PM

          He is talking advanced stats. Something like yards per game is not especially relevant when Power teams tend to take fewer snaps on purpose.

    • Comments: 6285
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Aug 02, 2016 at 1:13 PM

      Moving Wormley to DE was highly successful. Turning Ojemudia into a standup OLB instead of a WDE was highly successful. Jeremy Clark to CB was highly successful.

      That was the position changes in the first year that worked, mostly with veteran players. That’s pretty dang good.

      • Comments: 1364
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        WindyCityBlue
        Aug 02, 2016 at 1:22 PM

        Wormley was still a D lineman..Clark was still a DB…DE and buck LB are not significantly different. Minor tweaks in deployment.

        Canteen from WR to CB? Winovich from LB to TE? Those were actual position changes. How’d they work out?

        • Comments: 3844
          Joined: 7/13/2015
          Aug 02, 2016 at 2:14 PM

          I think it’s too early to really judge position changes. It’s hard to be a WR one year and then be an impact CB the next year. And it’s hard to be an OG one year and then an impact DT next year. I think it takes a full year for those changes to really take hold, because sometimes you have to work on your body, you have to learn new techniques, you have to reset your mentality, etc. Poggi sucked at FB early last year and was a pretty good blocker by the end of the season. I expect him to be better this year.

          Canteen was a backup WR two years ago, and became a backup CB last year. I’m not sure what else could have been expected. Now he’s not on the roster. It’s hard to judge some of those guys.

          • Comments: 1364
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            WindyCityBlue
            Aug 02, 2016 at 8:36 PM

            Except that the coaches already HAVE judged them. They switched Canteen from WR to CB, and then switched him back to WR after a year, and now who knows where. As far as what else could have been expected, how about he shows enough development at CB to get some snaps this year, and then play a bigger role next year when we’ll need new people at that position. They switched Winovich from LB to TE, and then gave up on that after a year and switched him back. I’d call both of those failed experiments.

          • Comments: 6285
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            Lanknows
            Aug 03, 2016 at 1:48 PM

            I wonder if you can see some benefits from having learned perspective and skills from other positions/sides of the ball.

            Winovich has seemed to shoot right past some guys who have been at DE for a few years without moving.

        • Comments: 6285
          Joined: 8/11/2015
          Lanknows
          Aug 02, 2016 at 2:41 PM

          Oh so you want more dramatic position changes to pay off immediately? That is your gripe.

          Canteen was probably a throw-away. More akin to Teric Jones than Roger Sherman.

          Anyway, these aren’t minor tweeks. Clark played 2 very different positions. Wormley I’ll give you but it is different going from interior DL to having to read QBs on the edge.

          As for Winovich — we’ll see how it worked out! The time at TE may have helped him more than spending a year as a BUCK lb.

          Harbaugh has a good track record for moving guys around. If Poggi had stuck at DL he’d be just as buried as Brady Pallante. Instead he’s an effective H-back.

          • Comments: 1364
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            WindyCityBlue
            Aug 02, 2016 at 8:45 PM

            Um…no. As noted above, I wouldn’t have necessarily expected them to start in their first year at a new position. I would have been happy to see them get a couple years to develop, since neither of them looked like a big impact player at their original position. Also as noted, it’s the coaches who gave up on them at the trial positions, not me. They basically wasted a year of Winovich’s eligibility, and switched him from a position where we have real need this year to one where we won’t for the foreseeable future, and which he wasn’t physical suited for anyway, before they switched him back. And if you’re saying that he would have been better off practicing for a year at a completely different position than getting all of his practice at the one he’s in now…ummm…ok.

        • Comments: 33
          AA7596
          Aug 02, 2016 at 11:27 PM

          “Minor tweaks in deployment”—I don’t know about that.

          Sure, some switches are bigger changes than others. But remember Dymonte Thomas’s FR year? U-M yo-yoed him between safety and nickel corner. He was a DB the whole time, but that minor tweak took him quite a while to sort out.

    • Comments: 3844
      Joined: 7/13/2015
      Aug 02, 2016 at 2:17 PM

      Any offense can work, especially in college football. I think people get too worked up about “system” when the real questions are “deployment” and “development.” Michigan could be successful with a fullback, with three wide receivers, by running zone read option, by running triple option, etc. as long as they recruit the right guys and train them properly. The fullback doesn’t concern me at all.

      • Comments: 6285
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Aug 02, 2016 at 2:36 PM

        Sure, but it’s hard to evaluate “deployment” – or even define it. You watch a game you can see what the ‘system’ (scheme) looks like. You can see the playcalling and the personnel and it works or it doesn’t. Most of use can’t evaluate if the LG has good technique on his footwork or uses his hands properly.

        Obviously you have to find good players and develop them and deploy them, and like you said that can make any system work. The question posed above, I think, is taking that as a given. If Michigan is running it’s system at 100% – can they be as good as the various spread systems out there running at 100% or are they setting themselves up at a disadvantage from the outset. I think that’s the question on people’s minds.

        To me, the best argument for the spread is that it doesn’t require as much physical development. You can plug in a RS freshman OT – he doesn’t have to be a 320 pound technique machine, he just has to know his assignment and put up a fight for a few seconds, then have the stamina to play with tempo. The QB doesn’t have to know 90 different plays off 90 different Defensive reads and execute perfect timing with his WR routes.

        The path we are choosing seems more difficult. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong though.

        • Comments: 3844
          Joined: 7/13/2015
          Aug 02, 2016 at 2:51 PM

          Offense isn’t played in a vacuum, though. There are spread teams out there who score quickly, but then they give up scores just as quickly. Oregon scored a lot of points a couple years ago, but they weren’t strong enough up front on defense to stop Ohio State. So does it matter that their spread offense could score a ton of points? No, because their defense couldn’t keep up. Alabama has done well in recent years by running a more conservative offense using H-backs, tight ends, etc. They are also good on defense. Sure, they increased their tempo recently, but the fullback itself wasn’t the issue.

          The “fullback” isn’t the problem. I think it’s kind of strange when people mention that, because like you said elsewhere, teams with fullbacks can be very effective on offense. I’m interested to see if/when a team takes an offense with a TE, an H-back, etc. and goes up-tempo with it. Fullbacks don’t prevent you from playing in a hurry-up offense.

          • Comments: 6285
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            Lanknows
            Aug 02, 2016 at 4:08 PM

            Of course it matters. Oregon would have lost a ton of games if their O wasn’t so good at scoring. It matters more when you have a bad D than when you have a great D how many points your O can put up.

            You want to be good at both – obviously.

            We’re conflating a lot of topics at once whenever you get into the spread vs manball thing. There is tempo and it’s impact on D. There is the ability to score fast. There is the personnel (positions and skill) differences. etc.

            The argument that spread offenses hurt defenses doesn’t make much sense. Yes, the defense is more tired – so is the other offense. That just means you have to ‘deploy and develop’ more depth. And anyway – the thing about tempo (from the O perspective) is that you can slow it down if you want — get to the line, prevent the D from substituting, then sit there making calls at the line till the playclock is down to 1. You don’t have to put your D on the field quickly if you dont want to. But lets not start pretending that scoring quickly is a bad thing. That’s never true, even if you have a big lead already.

            I happen to agree with you that you can win with FBs.
            I think the FB is not the real question, but it’s the most evident symptom of an old-school offensive approach. The real concern is a lack of creativity and predictability. You can say a lot of things about Harbaugh but the argument that he is predictable and boring is a losing argument.

            The game theory thing is just math. If you are heavily favored you want as many possessions as possible to account for variance/uncertainty (aka upsets). If you are the underdog you want to grind the game down to as few as possible and hope you get lucky. Tempo and a big play offense are assets here.

            In some way these scheme questions are tied to the question of personnel (i.e., FBs) and in other ways it is not. I think the question is legitimate because slow boring teams tend to have FBs and fast high scoring ones tend to not. Are you putting yourself at a disadvantage by having a less-skilled player out there? Same question goes for pass-only QBs. These are restrictions you impose on yourself – so they payoff has to come somewhere else in execution, complexity, novelty, etc.

            The manball argument is: that’s all well and good but it’s offset by our ability to dominate you physically all game long. We will keep your O out of rhythm and, on the off chance you keep us from the endzone well that will only last a few quarters before we start to wear you down.

            There’s probably something to that, just as there’s something to the benefits of fast explosive offenses. It’s a real philosophical debate. There are pros and cons and I think they can be acknowledged on both sides*. The correct answer probably boils down to talent and execution (coaching and development).

            *and there are clearly more than 2 sides here. The pass spreads really fit this debate differently than the run spreads, especially Urban Meyers. On the other end – Bielema and Harbaugh and Johnson are going to probably going to have very different looking offenses when they are down in the 4th Q.

          • Comments: 6285
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            Lanknows
            Aug 02, 2016 at 4:10 PM

            So that was long but the point was I agree that the FB isn’t the ‘real’ problem anymore than using a TE vs a 4th WR is the problem – it’s just a symptom of a bigger philosophical question – which is a legitimate one.

    • Comments: 33
      AA7596
      Aug 02, 2016 at 10:56 PM

      Regarding position switching: respectfully disagree for two reasons…

      –Poggi went from a guy who wasn’t playing to one who is. He may very well be our primary FB this season. (Contrast that to his chances of playing on our defensive line.) Say what you want about the usefulness of the FB position, but if you manage to move a buried player to the field, you’re inarguably getting more value from his roster spot.

      –It’s only fair to grade position switches on a curve. Position switchers are generally guys who aren’t working out—so to say that a switch is a failure (in one year, no less) is to blame the staff for not instantly resuscitating a player who maybe just isn’t that good.

      • Comments: 6285
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Aug 03, 2016 at 1:50 PM

        well put

You must belogged in to post a comment.