Stats (and fuel for optimism) on Stanford's 2010 Offensive Line
Much has been said and written about how mediocre offensive line play was what held Michigan back this year, so I decided to go digging for info about Stanford's 2010 offensive line.
- Stanford's O-line starters in 2010 were LT Jonathan Martin, LG Andrew Phillips, C Chase Beeler, RG David DeCastro, and RT Derek Hall. FB Owen Marecic also often lined up as a de facto sixth offensive lineman.
- In 13 games, they allowed 6 only sacks, which was second in the nation (first was Air Force, which ran an option-heavy offense in which they rarely ever threw the ball and never ran it up the middle).
- In 13 games, they committed only 16 holding or false start penalties, which helped make Stanford the least penalized team in the Pac-10.
- Stanford had the 17th-ranked rushing offense in 2010 despite the loss of Toby Gerhart.
- Four of the five OL starters were consensus 3-star recruits per Scout, Rivals, and 247. DeCastro was a 4-star to Scout. Hall was a converted DE. Marecic was a 2-star and was recruited only as an LB.
- All but Phillips played in the NFL.
- Stanford's OL coach that year? Tim Drevno.
Rest assured my friends: we gon' be alright.
December 7th, 2016 at 8:20 AM ^
...so here they are.
Michigan was #49 in Adjusted Line Yards, #63 in Standard Downs Line Yards, #80 in Opportunity Rate, #41 in Power Success Rate, and #64 in Stuff Rate. This is according to Football Outsiders.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol
If you break down college football into three categories (Good, Mediocre, and Bad), the 128 teams encompass about 43 teams each. Therefore, if Michigan is between #44 and #86, that's pretty mediocre. You can see above that Michigan is in that "Mediocre" range in every category except Power Success Rate - of which they're two spots away at #41. And a lot of that is due to those Hammering Panda plays.
So yes, "mediocre" is an appropriate descriptor for Michigan's offensive line this year.
December 7th, 2016 at 9:42 AM ^
Mediocre means "not very good." In that sense, your three categories should be good, average, and mediocre. But mediocre can also mean average. I apologize if the general consensus is that our line was average. I tend to think they were better than average for reasons outlined elsewhere. My sense is from reading all these posts bashing the line that people think the line was not very good, i.e., bad, and I reject that.
December 7th, 2016 at 9:59 AM ^
"Very good" means it's high quality. So if you're NOT "very good," then you are something below "very good." I agree that it's semantics, but if we're talking about our 2013 offensive line, we're not calling them "mediocre." That line was bad, horrendous, terrible.
I don't get the sense that people are calling our line as a whole "bad" or "terrible." But it is a fact that our line and running backs did not produce against our tough opponents.
December 7th, 2016 at 1:10 PM ^
You need a dictionary lesson (and perhaps a common sense) lesson, my man. The full definition of mediocre is "of only moderate quality; not very good." Another is "of moderate, or low quality, value, ability, or performance." It DOES NOT mean of the lowest quality. Magnus' three catergories of good, mediocre, and bad are completely fine.
December 7th, 2016 at 1:45 PM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 2:25 PM ^
Stats are more important than random media members or coaches' votes.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:43 PM ^
Nobody cares how they performed against Rutgers and Maryland. When this offensive line needed to produce a first down, they were absolutely terrible.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:51 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:54 PM ^
Iowa: 2.8 YPC
OSU: 2.1 YPC
Do those stats look good to you?
December 6th, 2016 at 10:11 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 10:28 PM ^
Um, OK. Total yards don't have a lot of meaning? I know points matter. Colorado was 18th in the country in scoring defense at 20.5 per game. The offense scored 31 and set us up for two FG attempts that we missed. Do I get to take credit for those at least?
December 7th, 2016 at 12:06 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 6th, 2016 at 9:50 PM ^
All they needed was to clear the way for 2-3 more first downs and that's the difference between 10-2 and 12-0. They were better this year, sure, but they failed to produce when they were needed most.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 6th, 2016 at 10:13 PM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 10:48 AM ^
True, but this thread is about the OL, not the other position groups. I agree that the struggles on offense the past few weeks are not all on the OL (Speight connects on one more pass vs. Iowa, that game is over), but I am still very much in a "believe it when I see it" mode with the OL. I don't put much stock in running all over Rutgers or Maryland because everyone does that.
Sure, they got better, and the pass protection was pretty darn good this year. But the run blocking continued to be pretty meh against good defenses. And they still did not produce in that OSU game when they were absolutely needed most. Yes, that game is not all on them, but just one, maybe two more first downs is the difference between winning that game and losing.
They were a good unit this year. Great at pass pro, meh at run blocking, so my grade-out is good. Not yet elite.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:15 PM ^
Pass protection was pretty good. Run blocking was good against mediocre and lesser teams, especially compared to the last two Hoke years.
But the knock is that the o-line was not able to get many running first downs against better defenses, especially when needed in the 4th quarter. Iowa and OSU games.
The criticism of the o-line is exaggerated.
But it is fair to say that it was not a dominant o-line that could take over games (as was the d-line, in contrast).
December 6th, 2016 at 10:19 PM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 12:32 AM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 11:44 AM ^
2016 - 2679 total yards rushing, 5.0 ypc
2007 - 2144, 4.0
2006 - 2282, 4.3
2003 - 2287, 4.3
I picked Lloyd's last team and two of his better teams from the 2000s. I'll take this year's results, thank you very much.
December 7th, 2016 at 8:04 AM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:36 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 6th, 2016 at 9:37 PM ^
I hope like hell Drevno sticks around for a LONG time, and the rest of the staff for that matter. That's really the only downside to having an amazing coaching staff is they are definitely candidates for poaching.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:41 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 10:17 PM ^
I believe they had 2-3 freshmen starting on that line. I believe they played really well this year.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:46 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:47 PM ^
We'll be fine in 2-3 years when Drevno has his guys that HE recruited and not the 4*/5* guys that got us all excited, but never really lived up to the hype until this year and that was inconsistent.
I'm not worried about the OL at all. I remember how bad it was, I have perspective.
We're on the right track and I'm seeing freshman contribute on upperclassmen-led teams and play well. Those guys are going to get better and we'll find more of those guys.
Ben Bredeson was better this year than any OL on the team except Cole in his freshman (or sophomore) year.
Onwenu got snaps when he didn't have to.
I look at the 5-6 guys we're about to bring in...they'll be young, but in 2-3 years, I expect us to have a vintage Stanford OL littered with draft picks.
December 6th, 2016 at 11:07 PM ^
The veteran narrative is a little overplayed when it comes to Michigan this year. Let's look at the 4 playoff teams...
Clemson is starting 3 players on the OL that are underclassmen. Avg 2.6
Alabama is starting 2 players on the OL that are underclassmen. Avg 2.6
Ohio State is starting 2 players on the OL that are underclassmen. Avg 2.6
Washington is starting 2 players on the OL that are underclassmen.Avg 3.0
Only one playoff team has an average starting age at an upperclassman level - Washington. And as many would agree here they are the worst of the playoff teams.
Michigan is starting 1 player on the offensive line that is an undercalssman. Avg 3.2
Michigan will be fine with the recruits they are bringing in. Three of the four teams listed above have something that we are just getting used to - coaching continuity. The veterans we had on this team are working on their third offensive system in their short careers (Borges/Nuss/Drevno) - so that makes them underclassmen by the nature of change. They performed well, but their game experience was erased by the change in coaching and scheme. I'm just not as negative on the future as some are because continuity plays a huge role in developing players.
With that said, I really hope Drevno stays.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:47 PM ^
Sounds to me like they were underrated recruits out of HS.
Does that mean we are any more likely to have a better o-line in the next few years?
December 6th, 2016 at 9:52 PM ^
Why doesn't it? Harbaugh and his staff were either very good at evaluating talent, finding diamonds in the rough, coaching up kids with modest natural ability, or all three. In any case, profit.
December 7th, 2016 at 10:36 AM ^
So far, it hasn't seemed to help much at UM, but they obviously did a great job at Stanford. So, what does that mean, I don't know. We've struggled at o-line for quite a few years straight now, despite good recruiting and good coaching. I'm not quite sure why to be honest. The only thing I can guess is that we had bad luck with recruits panning out, poor talent evaluation, jrs/srs already at their cieling, and/or our best o-lineman are just too young to be effective at the college yet.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:10 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 3:07 AM ^
I've seen the word "magic" used here several times. Look, sometimes three stars turn out to be really good and sometimes a few of them hit at once like Stanford's line in 2010 and our bball teams during "the run" of 2012-2014. It seems like magic because it basically is - it's a healthy heaping of luck.
MSU hit on the same kind of good fortune from 2013-2015 with Cook and Conklin and their O line and all we could talk about was how that was luck and they'd come back down to their recruiting rankings.
We convinced ourselves that Beilien could take fringe four star PGs and make them first rounders because he did it with two in a row. Then came Walton - woof.
It's just very difficult to be systematically smarter at talent ID and development than other very good coaches. Ours are very nearly the best, but they're not miracle workers. If they were, they would have been able to do more with this group of four and five stars.
The key is recruiting better talent, not hoping the three stars all align (it happens, just not frequently). We need to land these five stars this year and hope they can come in right away and contribute. We also need to be realistic about next year.
December 7th, 2016 at 9:14 AM ^
with your general point that stars matter and that the odds that 4 starts hit it are higher than the odds that 3 stars hit it...
...It is much easier/more predictive to evaluate HS age b-ball players than it is to evaluate HS age o-linemen in football.
So maybe the comparative advantage for a college coach who has an upper tail of the bell curve ability to evaluate o-line talent is bigger than the comparative advantage of a b-ball coach who is good at spotting under-appreciated talent.
Similar argument could be made about taking raw attributes and coaching it into star level players.
3 star HS o-linemen are comparatively much more raw than 3 star HS b-ball players. So an outstanding o-line coach has more of a chance of turning his players into high 'over-performers' than does an outstanding b-ball coach.
December 7th, 2016 at 12:28 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 8:56 AM ^
In the end, basketball is about talent. The guys B coached up had it; the guys he couldn't, didn't.
I've maintained for a while now that Harbaugh/Drevno probably picked up something at Stanford: smart players are good players. Generally speaking, the smartest players on a football team are offensive linemen. This is because 90% of playing O-line is being in the right place at the right time (and right stance and right orientation), and defensive coordinators burn the midnight oil trying to prevent that. You learn multiple schemes, multiple techniques, and see them attacked by an endless variety of blitzes, twists, stunts and moves. There is no amount of rote coaching that can develop an offensive lineman. Way too much variation.
We physically dominated our overmatched opponents, but against good defenses the offense sputtered -- Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana and OSU all held the offense to 20 points or less in regulation. There were extenuating circumstances, from refs to injury, but there are extenuating circumstances in every season. What we needed was consistency. Too many players were prone to missing assignments, especially on key downs. Stanford's offense had that; in 2010 they scored less than thirty points once. QB play was definitely a factor, but I want to point to a microcosm of the line play difference. In terms of natural ability, whether it's catching passes or getting two-for-one blocks on the edge, Hill >> Marecic. But when it came to being in the right place at the right time, every time, Marecic >> Hill. Guess which matters more against an elite defense that can match your physicality? The 2010 Stanford line was all unheralded 3-stars, but they soaked in schemes that were NFL-caliber in complexity. Our players aren't dumb, but I think Harbaugh had to turtle at times because he didn't trust them in big games.
I think the thing about our current O-line is that Hoke's crew largely recruited players who had some intriguing physical trait that got them 4 star evaluations, but also some rawness they assumed could be fixed. The problem is that even after three years, many of them still couldn't figure out the intricacies of O-line. Many of them washed out, Magnuson turned out OK, Drevno coached up Braden. Cole and Newsome were the Hoke recruits closest to the sorts of guys I think Drevno's looking for, but Cole has limited physical upside and Newsome got cheaped by Wiscy.
December 7th, 2016 at 9:24 AM ^
long.
But the analysis is pure gold.
December 7th, 2016 at 12:20 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 12:31 PM ^
Yes, football is a superstructure, but if you're going to throw out any attempt at analysis of one facet on the grounds that others exist, then none of us have any business being on this blog because that's what MGoBlog is.
December 7th, 2016 at 6:38 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 12:36 AM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 1:10 AM ^
gained 5.2 ypc. So what you are saying is that if we just keep hope alive, our mediocre offensive line can improve from 5.0 to 5.2 yards per carry. And the glorious Stanford offensive line of 2010 paved the way for Stanford to average 40.3 ppg, meanwhile, our mediocre line could only propel us to 41 ppg. It must've been all those dynamic skill position players we had this year. Like De'Veon Smith, someone that most people wanted replaced as starting RB. Or Jehu Chesson, who saw his receiving yardage fall by about 300 yards this year. Or a good, but not great Amara Darboh, who was no Braylon Edwards, Jeremy Gallon or Doug Baldwin. I know, it must be the QB position. Wilton Speight versus Andrew Luck. Yep, you convinced me. The Stanford line was awesome and our line is mediocre. Andrew Luck had nothing to do with the Cardinal putting up 40.3 ppg.
December 7th, 2016 at 7:37 AM ^
Paragraphs and/or tables are your friend.
December 7th, 2016 at 8:36 AM ^
You're missing the point. In 2010, here's what Stanford did against their top five opponents:
5.7 YPC vs. #3 Oregon
5.4 YPC vs. USC
8.0 YPC vs. #16 Virginia Tech
3.8 YPC vs. Notre Dame
4.8 YPC vs. Arizona
Their lowest output was 3.1 YPC vs. Arizona State.
Here's what Michigan did this year agains ranked opponents:
4.1 YPC vs. #11 Colorado
6.7 YPC vs. #5 Penn State (who were missing their top 4 LBs most of the game)
3.0 YPC vs. #8 Wisconsin
2.8 YPC vs. #21 Iowa
2.1 YPC vs. #2 Ohio State
The lowest output was the 2.1 vs. Ohio State, but that list doesn't even include the 2.9 YPC vs. UCF.
So against good teams, Michigan had THREE games with 3.0 yards/carry or less, while Stanford had zero...and only one with less than 4.8 yards/carry.
December 7th, 2016 at 9:00 AM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 9:55 AM ^
No, no, no, no... See, now you're talking about Feelingsball. You can't have it both ways. You said you want stats. I gave you stats. Now you're coming up with rationale for why Stanford's numbers were better, "Oh, they had to play their safeties deeper because of Andrew Luck!" That's a feeling, an opinion, a guess.
Yes, we played more top-25 teams. They had 5.7 and 8.0 yards/carry against those two top-25 teams. Our best two performances were 4.1 and 6.7 yards/carry against those five teams. The number of high-quality teams doesn't matter for the stats I gave you, because they're broken down game by game.
December 7th, 2016 at 10:07 AM ^
He's rolling. This isn't even feelingsball; it's fundieball. He's right, and no amount of facts will change that. This is personal, and if you question his gospel he's going to breathe fire on you.
I mean, there are some good points being made about QB play and stat equivalence, but we're not dealing with a rational person who's happy in a world of nuance. Someone is Wrong on the Internet, and he's going to "win" this thread datgum.
December 7th, 2016 at 11:36 AM ^
is it irrational to claim that Andrew Luck is a better quarterback than Wilton Speight?
December 7th, 2016 at 12:26 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 11:05 AM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 1:19 AM ^
This group was very average. They improved in baby steps, but never made the leap we were wishing for.
Cole, Ben B and Big Mike could be a fine middle next year. Maybe JBB at right tackle and a 5 star true freshamn LT. I think we will be alright next year.