Hokepoints: Seasoning the Line

Gardner's implied question is the same we're all asking [Fuller]

The 2014 football season hinges on whether the offensive line can go from one of the worst in the country to just mediocre. We've mentioned the downsides: it has to replace two NFL tackles. The upside is an offensive coordinator who plans to simplify the things they'll have to do, a ton of talent, and rather good excuses for why the bulk of guys weren't so good (youth compounded by panicky/insane coaching decisions). The competence of coaches replaced, arriving, or remaining can't be determined until they play, so guesses at their 2014 performance have to be extrapolated from what we know of the current players and the typical progression of men like them.

When Michigan was still putting together those 2012 and 2013 classes I looked over the history of our offensive linemen going back to the mid-'90s, because my memory before that is weak.

The results were the growth chart below. I've reproduced it with updated data from 2013:

Really it's more specific than the above. If you're the backup to Steve Hutchinson in 2000 you could be pretty solid or terrible, but if you were an interior lineman on the 2013 team and hale and still couldn't crack the depth chart, you were obviously not good at that point. One thing working in our favor is Michigan has historically brought in offensive line classes rated about as highly as the recent crops. If you tried this with MSU over the same period there would be stretches of 2-stars (and, um, personal issues) to throw off the numbers.

A more precise way to show where our OL are at this point is to find closer comparisons to historic players at this point in their careers. I couldn't figure out a good way to show "tracks" before, but I think I've learned enough about table html now to make a crude flow chart. Sample sizes are way too small to say "Kalis will be X good by Y season," but if you can read it to say "At that age, Steve Schilling and Patrick Omameh were both about where Kalis is now." Usefulness is better at capping expectations: you can always say so-and-so was a backup at this point, but Miller's not going to be Molk.

Here goes:

[Discussion after the jump]

Played as freshmen track: Bosch and Cole?

Until Bosch Michigan had only started one true freshman, that being Boren, who beat out a better (still not great) depth chart for his playing time. If Mason Cole starts this year he would be just the third. I would guess that the guy they picked to start as a freshman, even if he wasn't very good, is still ahead of his class. I definitely wouldn't expect an all-conference season from either, but there's a reasonable hope that Bosch at least could be a decent starter, which would mean nice things for the future.

Figure most years both of these guys would have redshirted. Upside is still Backus and Hutchinson, downside is still all the way down.

Liability as a redshirt freshman starter track: Kalis & Mags

Again, a guy starting as a redshirt freshman is rare, and a guy ready to play at a Big Ten level his redshirt freshman year is rarer still. A guy who's decent by his second year in the program tends to be awesome. A guy who's forced to play at this point and is a liability is still probably going to be good; even if you'd rather he not be starting, he's shown the coaches enough by this point to be ahead of the field of other guys you don't want starting.

How could they make Schilling a tackle? Couldn't they see his number was clearly in the 50s? [photo: Allen Warren|AnnArbor.com]

Our two examples are Steve Schilling and Patrick Omameh, who broke into the starter ranks late his redshirt freshman year with mixed results. Omameh regressed sharply once he could no longer do what he was great at (devastating second-level defenders), and was asked to pull or manhandle the guy in front of him, both things he could never do well.

You could perhaps compare Mags to Schofield, who was a decent interior lineman as a RS sophomore then moved outside to his natural tackle position and was quietly pretty good. Schofield didn't start as a redshirt freshman, but that year (2010) didn't have any obvious holes. Schofield as a sophomore guard was decent-but-protected (and played because Barnum got hurt). When he played his natural tackle spot he looked okay. Stenavich in 2001 was the natural comparison for those with a 10-year memory of eventually decent offensive linemen.

Kalis is your Schilling comparison. Schilling was also a 5-star, but he was asked to play right tackle—and didn't do very hot—for a couple of years before he moved inside, where he wound up being pretty good. What does Schilling look like as a starting guard in 2008? Probably on the high liability side.

Solid as a sophomore track: Glasgow

It's hard to call anyone on Michigan's interior line "solid" but the low end of that description fits the year Glasgow had. He was obviously the best of the group. The precedent for guys who are able to win the job and play at that level in their third year with the program is very encouraging. The upper end of expectations for Glasgow finds two similar center/guard types in Davids Brandt and Baas. Tony Pape and Adam Kraus grew into all-conference players as seniors. Adam Stenavich, Matt Lentz, and Mike Schofield are the low end of expectations. I'll take Lentz with a chance of Baas any day!

Chances are good that many of Michigan's OL candidates are on the Huyge Track, which means you'll spend this year praying to replace them, next year still mad at them, and 2016 forgetting you ever said those things. [photo: Heiko]

Liability as a sophomore track: Miller

Do we give up on Jack yet? History suggests yes, unless he's anexceptionally bright guard/tackle tweener like Chris Ziemann, who was loved by coaches but not as much by fans, or Mark Huyge, the more recent and unkillable example. Zach Adami isn't a good comparison; he was a guy who looked like a tackle but because Jansen and Runyan were the tackles he started a year each at the guard spots (one bad, one good) before emerging as the national championship team's All-Big Ten center as a senior.

Closer examples are Reuben Riley, Alex Mitchell, and Demeterius Solomon, who were good depth guys to have on the team but you didn't want them starting. Again, you're looking at lots of tweeners, which Miller isn't.

So let's look down the line where we do come across some centers who wound up okay as seniors in Steve Frazier, Mark Bihl and Kurt Anderson, and some guys who never cracked better depth charts (Ben Mast, Courtney Morgan). There's also plenty of Tim McAvoy-like objects. So don't give up on Miller but there's only a remote (Dave Pearson) chance that he's solid this year.

Backups and redshirt tracks: everybody else.

This is just a big "no idea" for these guys. Mentally put Braden and Bars behind the two guys who cracked the depth chart last year, and save all other judgment for the future.

Outlook:

If we're sticking to this "you might remember me from such players as" thing then here's basically how I'd see the offensive line going down:

When I plug these guys into the seasons of recent memory to find a comparison, the two obvious things stand out: 1) Rich Rod's offense >>>> Hoke's/Carr's and 2) Liability starters are a problem:

rushing yards per carry and passing yards per attempt are sack-adjusted

There were two seasons with no liability starters, and those produced really really good rushing numbers.

We're not that. At best the 2014 line will be something like the 2009 version, which was young, in its second year under a new coach, and flashed good things until it lost Molk and crumbled to below-average. That of course was under one of the game's greatest coordinators, but Omameh was the only guy Rodriguez had recruited himself. It also lost 412 yards in TFLs and gave up more sacks than 2008 despite the run-based offense and the second-year Rodriguez leap effect. That's partly on too-moxie-to-ever-throw-it-away freshman Forcier, but a line with pores is one that can be exploited despite good pieces elsewhere, something the 2013 offense is nodding vigorously about.

So that's the bad news. The good news is that once these guys are upperclassmen there's a very good chance of finding five solid or higher players, and the couple times that's happened Michigan's offense has been between good and really really good.