Speed vs Size
There has been talk on GoBlueWolverine that our lines will be getting bigger this winter. Lineman will be putting on size and running less. I see this as a necessity in the Big Ten and it should help with lineman recruiting as well.
Can anyone provide more insight to these reports?
February 7th, 2010 at 3:24 AM ^
i believe the ladies prefer size.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
I can confirm this.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
why, are you starved for sex?
February 7th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
and when you combine the two, as Russel Peters might say, somebody going to get hurt real bad...
February 7th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
as long as you aren't too fast
4
February 7th, 2010 at 3:32 AM ^
No point in having your blockers be able to run downfield if you can't get past the line of scrimmage. Furthermore, it is notable that our slot receivers have been pretty good at blocking in the secondary.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
All the good passing teams have a QB who has time to throw; it doesn't do us good to have a QB dancing in the pocket anticipating a shot at any moment. Also, size improves the running game, an aspect of the Wisconsin offense that was remarkable last year. And will be again this year. Geez oh peets, when was the last time Wisconsin was formidable in like everything they do?
February 7th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
The guys we have are largely the mobile, agile types to begin with, so a little extra size shouldn't slow them down too much. And whatever they might lose in quickness will be worth it if our tackles stop getting blown 4 yards into the backfield when trying to lead a sweep.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
I can tell you as a fact, the players I've talked to on the O-Line are all saying that getting bigger in the offseason has been a priority. Its easy to loose wait during the season (practice, school, etc.) and therefore there is a special emphasis on the addition of weight that is sustainable. As far as recruiting goes, I have no idea what impact this will have, but I would presume positive.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
'all you can eat' would be a plus in recruiting...
February 7th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
Strength without sacrificing speed is the best option here. The lines will get bigger because they have more time with Barwis and will have experienced more of their final "growth spurt." At 18, one is still a "boy." By the time he is 20-22, he is a "man."
I really don't like it when people use the fact that UM was playing boys against men on the OL as "evidence" that lowering body fat doesn't work for the "grunt" positions. I don't know how the equations would work, but I'm pretty sure that if you have two linemen who can both leg press the same number, the one with less bulk and more speed will be more efficient on the field.
If bulk was all that mattered, Wiscy would have won four or five MNC's in the last twenty years.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
No kidding... my thoughts exactly.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
I don't think this argument holds much water.
By the 2009 season, all players (save freshmen) had about 20 months of work in under Barwis. That's plenty of time to develop.
Those players were:
Mark Ortmann - 5th year senior
Steve Schilling - 4th year junior
David Molk - 3rd year sophomore
David Moosman - 5th year senior
Perry Dorrestein/Mark Huyge - 4th year junior/3rd year sophomore
It wasn't a matter of boys against men. It was a matter of their guys were better than ours, whether it was because of talent or size. But it had very little to do with conditioning and strength. Bottom line. It's not like our poor little redshirt freshman linemen were facing 28-year-olds.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^
For some reason, people seem to think Rodriguez has put together teams consisting of nothing but speedy midgets--and for some reason people think that philosophy even goes to his offensive line.
Then you do some research and find that his offensive lines at WVU seemed to come in at about the usual 6'4 or 6'5, 300 lbs that we all like. Expecially his last Oline--take a look at those guys (I'm not gonna do it for you).
I mean, is this really something that deserves its own thread? Haven't the Scouties answered the question for you>
February 7th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^
This does deserve its own thread, because while I do agree with you, there is significant concern that an Offensive Line that has averaged only 290ish (if you take Omameh, Schilling, Huyge, Ortmann, Dorrestein, Molk and Moosman-the guys that significant PT) across the front can actually make effective blocks against some of the biggest and best opponents. I am not suggesting that we turn into the next Wisco with our O-Line, but athleticism at these positions is at a premium and especially in this offense. I have more faith in Rich Rod than anyone on this board, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss such a topic-especially at a position of such vital need in the recruiting scene in 2011.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
For making the claim and then stating "(I'm not gonna do it for you)"
February 7th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
-1 for having a half naked pic of Jack Black. Gross
February 7th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
period.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
Rich Rod had a freshman OL on the roster in 2007 who was 6'7, 340. He wore #77. His name was Miller. JAKE Miller.
Coincidence? I think not.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
I read a post a while back that said something to the extent that RR came to his OLineman and told them that he was sorry for having them cut down so much. He didn't realize that it would negatively effect them this way. He told them that he would let them bulk up again.
That was the jest of the post. Now I don't know if this is true or not but it does make some sense after reading what they are planning to do with the OLine now. It'll be nice to see hulking guys pancaking Big Ten defenses once again and still have some of that speed to tear the linebackers apart. Get it done fellas.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
Unless RichRod is blind and stupid, I can't believe he'd say something like that (or do something utterly misguided with the players). After all his years in football he must understand what it takes to win on the O-line. To put it another way, it's hard for me to believe that he'd "shrink" those guys for speed and sacrifice any necessary bulk. Aside: I think (Molk aside) that the simple issue with that area the past couple years has been talent level. That should improve soon.
February 7th, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^
Are you claiming that he is infallible? The Big Ten is a totally different ball game compared to the Big East. My claim is just a valid as yours is. I don't have proof but with this change in the work out regiments of the OL my statement has more backing then does yours.
February 7th, 2010 at 3:59 PM ^
He's certainly not infallible. A quick look at the chaos on the defensive side would prove that. But, I think he understands football and what an offensive line needs to do.
Talent aside, I don't see a *huge* difference between the two conferences. Let me know what you think (seriously).
As someone else noted here, his offensive lines at WVU were pretty big, too. Another poster correctly pointed out that, if hugeness were the only thing that mattered, Wisconsin would win the national championship every year.
Anyway, what does anyone really know about the change in workouts? Could it be that it's just a board posting (with no foundation)? Even this decent, civilized (as compared to MLive) 'blog has its share of bluffers. (For a good example, look at the "Character of Early Entrants" post from a couple of days ago. There's an Eminem wannabe on there who claims to have inside information on Austin White.)
February 7th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
Within reason, sure, it makes sense for the linemen to get bigger. This is especially true with the younger guys who are still growing.
But, the general idea has its limits. Do we want any nasty Alex Mitchell flashbacks? Weight per se isn't the goal. I'd think that we want "optimized" linemen who can maximize mass x velocity for blocking purposes.
As for running, I can't believe that would suddenly lose emphasis. I'd guess that it would correlate well with 4th-quarter stamina.
Also: What is special about the Big Ten, anyway? That's a serious question. Is there a conference where it would make sense to have the linemen at 230 pounds? Anyone who watched OSU play Florida and LSU should understand that, again, weight by itself is a recipe for disaster. Speed matters, too.
Finally, why would this approach have any effect on recruiting? Not flaming... just wondering.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^
2004 Mich offense avg 153.58 year rushing yds/gm
2005....151.58
2006....175.54
2007....164.92
2008....147.58
2009....186.17
2009 with small linemen 186 avg
2004-2007 with big linemen around 161 avg
February 7th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
How many yards did we get against quality DLs during our Big Ten losing streak?
How many times did we fail to get in from the 1 against Illinois?
February 7th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^
Total Yards per/gm 2009... Mich Big10 losses
Mich-251....Mich-319....Mich-250.... Mich-427
Mich St-417....Iowa367....Penn St-396....Purdue-494
Mich-265....Mich-309....Mich-377
Wisconsin-469....Ohio St-318....Illinois-500
Illinois was a team that should have been at the top of the Big 10,but for some reason didn't play very well,until they played us.
I'm not pro or con on size vs speed,just offering some numbers.
February 7th, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^
This makes a lot of sense. Like cwill says there are times when you need to impose your will on a defense, and smash it in from the one. There is also something to be said for being able to move d lines around. Against the top level teams last year OSU / PSU even MSU we could not control the ball and the clock.
Regarding recruiting - we have always been a top level producer of o lineman. Right now in the NFL we have two of the top five players (Hutch and Jake). So it makes sense that the top o lineman would consider us. But this year we did not get a sniff from Seantrel or any of the very highly rated Ohio prospects. I love the players we have but also want to see 5* o line talent in the recruiting class. The move toward size and less running helps because these large lineman cannot take the beating of constant running like players who weight 180 pounds. If I were an opposing coach I would negatively recruit against M because of this. Does this make sense?
Anyways, Go Blue and interested in what others think...
February 7th, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
I've posted a bunch of times already, so why not more? To your points:
* For some reason, no one here is talking about the talent level at that position. There hasn't been much. Since the glory days of Hutch and Backus (*and* Maurice Williams) it's basically been David Baas and Jake Long. Thanks a bunch, Andy Moeller. With all respect to Moosman and Ortmann (who seem like good guys), it could be that the O-line just basically sucked the past couple of years. It might not be a matter of Barwis "shrinking" them.
* What would an O-line prospect want out of a school? Good coaching and development, for sure. Wins would be nice. Could it be that top-level conditioning (which surely involves some running) might aid that process? Do you think USC has its players munching on pizza (Gittelson-style) and never running around? Seantrel is a basketball player, for @#$%'s sake. Do you think he fears running?
---
Look at Jake Long, who was an impact player at UM from day one and who appears to have a bunch of Pro Bowls in his future. He was said to be a freakish athlete at Michigan (speed, power, the whole package). There's a false dichotomy (speed / strength) being presented here by many posters. Molk can't weigh more than 280#, but look at how much more effective he is than Alex Mitchell was.
Do we really want to go back to days of pure mass? Does everyone remember the picture of the OSU game where our O-line looks like a collection of giant pylons? I think we need strength AND speed!
February 7th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
Keith Jackson prefers the Big Uglies.
February 7th, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
The diffrence between 280-290 pounders and 315-325 pounders I do not believe is that great (I played O-line in college at 285 and held my own pretty well). I think what we need to be more concerned with is our O-Line's attitudes. You need to play the position with a chip on your shoulder and a mean streak. Jake Long knew he was the shit and he took pleasure in crushing guys. Besides Molk, I did not see anyone that had that type of playing style. Omaneah showed some flashes I believe, but we need to have more than two out of five lineman having some swagger/cockiness that they know their gonna dominate every down.
February 7th, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
Agreed, as long as the 280# guy is quicker / faster / both than the 315# guy. Otherwise, the larger guy will have more momentum (and ability to crush the D-line).
Did you have the sense (at 285) that you would have lost something by packing on another 15? Just curious...
February 7th, 2010 at 4:18 PM ^
285 was just where I and my coaches felt was my best weight to play at. In high school I played at 255 but was bench pressing 400 and squating 500 so I wasnt lacking strength.
I did realize in HS before college that quickness would be more of an advantage for me. I played against Dan Mozes ( Rodriguez's All American Center at WVU) in a State Title game my Junior year and his size (300 to my 255) didnt bother me as much as how quick and aggresive he was. I played at the division II level in Pa. and played against numerous guys that were bigger but i never felt outmatched when giving up some weight 8 times out of ten those guys just had bad weight that was giving them the weight edge.
February 7th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
Well, you guys could get scientific about it. Look at the pros. Are the OL from successful NFL franchises bigger or are they speedier than those teams that usually don't make it past the regular season? Is talent more important than size in the NFL? Unfortunately I'm too lazy to put that together.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:50 AM ^
It depends. Teams who use zone-blocking schemes are often lighter (look at Shanahan's Denver Broncos), whereas power run teams are generally bigger (look at the Ravens and Cowboys).