With spring practice starting next week, I think it's time to look at what position changes might occur to benefit the team. With a lot of pieces remaining the same on offense and a similar scheme on defense, we generally know what type of systems we'll see on each side. It's more of a question about which players might slide around a little bit to fill some holes.
Mike Barrett (RS Sr.): OLB ---> ILB
Barrett is a former starting Viper in 2020 under former defensive coordinator Don Brown, but that spot was largely eliminated early in 2021 when Michigan played Daxton Hill at the slot corner position. Barrett didn't play much early in 2021 until defensive coordinator Mike Macdonald was forced to make some adjustments. He started just one game last year and made 20 tackles, 1.5 tackles for loss, 1 sack, and 1 pass breakup on the year. Now with middle linebacker Josh Ross headed to the NFL, Michigan loses a leader in the middle but returns a freshman All-American in Junior Colson at the other inside linebacker spot. While Nikhai Hill-Green also returns, I think Barrett and Colson are the two most productive linebackers; Hill-Green played okay but his youth showed with some missed reads and false steps. Plus if Barrett is going to have a minuscule role, I'm not sure he can be convinced to stick around for a fifth year. I think Barrett is enough of a well rounded athlete that he's worth keeping around, and his speed and athleticism could be a plus if the defensive linemen and the scheme can keep him clean.
Hit the jump for more.
Trente Jones (RS Jr.): TE ---> OT
This isn't a wholesale position change, but Jones - who was an Under Armour All-American as a tackle - spent most of his time playing tight end as a sixth lineman in 2021. There is an opening now at right tackle with Andrew Stueber off to the NFL, and the two front-runners would appear to be Jones and redshirt junior Karsen Barnhart. Barnhart was a spot starter in 2020, when he seemed to have the upper hand over Jones; but Barnhart was a backup in 2021, while Jones played pretty consistently wearing a #80 jersey with no name on it. It seems to be kind of a toss-up between those two, although I suppose a youngster like Jeff Persi could come out of nowhere to take the spot. It may be time, however, to ditch the eligible jersey number in favor of Jones's old lineman number.
Mike Sainristil (Sr.): WR ---> CB
Sainristil is a 5'10", 185 lb. athlete who has been an important contributor at wide receiver for the past couple years. He has 37 catches for 539 yards and 5 touchdowns in his career, including 22 receptions for 312 yards and 2 touchdowns in 2021. With the situation at receiver last year, it was important for him to remain at receiver, especially once leading receiver Ronnie Bell went down with an ACL tear in the season opener. But Michigan doesn't throw the ball a ton, especially not enough to keep four or five guys involved. On the other side of the ball, cornerback Vincent Gray, safety Brad Hawkins, and safety Daxton Hill are off to the NFL, leaving a bunch of inexperienced players available to play in the secondary. Sainristil was a two-way high school player and could provide an immediate boost of athleticism and confidence to the secondary. While D.J. Turner II and Gemon Green are the two leading candidates to start at cornerback, Sainristil could play the nickel spot vacated by Hill, allowing sophomore Rod Moore and redshirt sophomore R.J. Moten to stay at safety.
Key to Barret is the DL. If a big ugly can get to him, Barret is a liability
ReplyDeleteI don't get Sainristill moving. He may add maturity & leadership, but we'd be in trouble if he is playing significant snaps in coverage for the first time since High School
Whew! It's okay to question the coaches on this one
DeleteThe Barret move makes some sense to me since sliding guys down a position where their speed can be more impactful tends to work well. That said, it seemed like he was pretty prominent later in the year. By the numbers he had 5 tackles in the first half of the year (even with some blowouts) and 15 in the second half of the year. His snap count was generally in the 20s late in the year - not at a starter level but steady rotation in. Against Indiana he started and played 45, 7th most on the D, in more of a viper type role.
ReplyDeleteWith our more DE flavored OLBs (Ojabo and Hutchinson) way perhaps there's a bigger role for a more DB flavored OLB like Barrett.
What I'm really wondering is what changed to increase Barrett's role midseason. Was he already playing some ILB or was his OLB spot made more prominent? If the latter, why would he move positions? If the former, did this already happen? He's listed as "LB" on the official roster, not that that means much.
Is the viper really gone or was it just deemphasized by MacDonald and TBD what Minter does (with different personnel strengths at OLB)?
Perhaps he's just a multi-purpose LB who can be used inside and out and it's not worth making a distinction (in the same way that our TEs can lineup as a WR, OL, or FB without us calling it a position change.)
My guess - he sticks at OLB/viper and becomes a swiss army knife that can line up on the edge like a Rush LB, off the line like a traditional LB, and as a slot CB. Michigan is losing Ross at ILB and Ojabo at ROLB so there are plenty of snaps available and no obvious heirs to snatch them up. Barrett could have a big year without any real change IMO.
If memory serves me correctly, Barrett's role increased after the Michigan State game. Up to that point, Michigan hadn't been killed by the run but they were leaking yardage.
DeleteUp through MSU, Michigan had given up 4.0+ yards per carry 6/8 games. After MSU, Michigan gave up 3.3+ yards per carry in 2/6 games.
Yeah, we struggled with 5 or 6 DL against MSU. Some people think simplistically that size is the thing needed to stop the run and MSU is exhibit A why bigger isn't always better. Maybe Devin Bush is exhibit A. Anyway, Michigan shut down Wisconsin playing a nickel personnel most of the game, tried to play bigger against MSU, and failed.
DeleteThe next game against Indiana it was Barrett time, but he was mostly taking snaps from a 5th DB. After that though, he was a part time rotational player.
I'll admit I don't have a great read on this situation but am intrigued with Barrett's skillset. I was dubious of him as a Brown viper but MacDonald seemed to find good use for him and perhaps Minter can do even more.
Dislike the idea about Sainristil. He's a good WR and should still get a meaningful role even with Bell back. If they're not going to throw more, then blocking ability will remain at a premium and Sinristil excels there.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you'd move a good player at one position late in his career to the other side of the ball unless you're panicking. Michigan isn't. They've got 4 returning starters (Moore, Moten, Turner, Green) three highly ranked freshman (Sabb, Johnson, Berry) plus a bunch of others who should be in the mix (Paige, McBurrows), all whom Sainristil would struggle to pass IMO.
I think Michigan is very unsettled on defense. The Green brothers are/were supposedly entertaining the idea of hitting the portal, McBurrows tore his ACL and won't practice this spring, and Sainristil probably isn't a safety.
DeleteYour two-deep at CB for the spring is...Turner, Gemon Green, Johnson, and...who else?
Meanwhile, you could say the same thing at WR about talented guys coming in. The difference is that offense has proven guys (Johnson, Bell, Henning, Wilson) and incoming talent, while the defense has Turner/Gemon Green and...nobody else with a shred of experience except Jalen Perry.
I don't know about you, but if I'm looking at playing a spring game with that little depth at CB, I'm looking for help from elsewhere.
I'm saying Sainristil is better at WR because that's where he's been playing, and playing well, for three years. Comparisons of WR to CB are beside the point, but we'll to that in a second. The bigger issue is that regardless of positional need it would be a huge leap to assume a good offensive player can become an equivalently good defensive player at the flip of a switch.
DeleteRegarding the situation at CB, the depth that matters is for the season not the spring game. The spring game is irrelevant. But, let's play this out and assume McBurrows isn't available and neither are freshman like Dent, Jones, and Pollard aren't there either. The reinforcements that will arrive in the fall don't count for this, even though in real life they of course do.
EVEN THEN. Besides the 3 you named there is Perry, Dennis, Germon Green, and Harris. That's 7 for 2 positions in spring, before the reinforcements arrive and not accounting for any shifts over from safeties (fairly common).
WR, assuming Bell still isn't available, has 6 in Sainristil, Wilson, Henning, Anthony, Dixon, and Johnson. Maybe we should move a DB to WR to fill out depth for the spring game otherwise we won't even be able to play 4 WR sets.
Ah yes, Michigan and all those 4 WR sets...oh, wait. I forgot. They don't use 4 WR sets.
DeleteThat's dodging the larger point, but it's also not true. They use empty 5-wide sets.
Deletehttps://gfycat.com/merrysevereguineapig-trevor-keegan-jj-mccarthy
The larger point is that spring WR depth is no less of an issue than spring CB depth. If you moved Sainristil it'd be worse. You couldn't even run Michigan's base 3-wide offense on both teams with proven players.
The even larger point is that it's a scrimmage and you can play walk-ons or tweak playcalls and it's not a problem. Fielding two teams for a spring scrimmage would be terrible logic to justify position changes.
In football games during the season, the thing that matters, Michigan uses 5-wide empty sets. While they do sometimes use 4 wides and/or motion out RBs and/or split out TEs, you are correct in spirit that generally do it based out of 11 personnel. The reason is because they have RBs who can play WR (a.k.a. RB/WR hybrids) and TEs who can play WR too. Positional flexibility.
Likewise, on D, Michigan uses 5 DB packages where the 5th guy can be a DB (a.k.a. CB/S) or a LB (a.k.a. viper) or a CB or a safety.
This is another in a long line of depth chart related debates where, in my view, dubious assertions are made by overly rigid interpretation of positions. Some of these things are problems only if positional flexibility is ignored and multiple injuries are assumed. If you play that game every position is problematic in some form.
Bottomline is this - if Sainristil is a better CB than WR than he should move there. If he isn't he shouldn't. Position switches generated by team needs (rather than individual fit) are rarely successful, except insofar as being a temporary band-aid. Michigan football is in very good shape right now and has no need for band-aids.
Please show me an example. The example you tried to show had TE Erick All in the slot to the bottom and RB Blake Corum lined up wide to the top.
DeleteThat's 11 personnel: 1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR.
Well...if Sainristil moves to DB, I guess you will have to revert to "Trust the coaches because they know more than people on the internet."
You're arguing both sides. You're saying Michigan can't field WRs for the spring game, but then you say Michigan's running backs and tight ends can play WR.
DeleteEdwards, Dunlap, Stokes, Corum, Schoonmaker, All, Hansen, Hibner, Honigford, plus all the actual WRs... Michigan has plenty of guys to play WR!
Now you get it. We shouldn't move anyone to WR because WR isn't a problem. Same as CB.
DeleteI don't know what's best about that GIF: that the best example a big available is when we were down 31pts with 9min left in the season, or that there were only three WRs out there
Delete*was Saint even in on this play? Can't tell if that's #5 on the top hash
Didn't look like Corum up top to me. Maybe it is. As I said, it's not really the point.
DeleteIf Sainristil is moved to CB you have a bigger depth problem at WR than at CB. The cure is worse than the disease. Which is still...not actually bad. It's spring! It doesn't matter. WR depth isn't a problem, now or in the hypothetical, and neither is CB depth.
Looks like Corum
DeleteThunder makes a good point on concern at CB, especially if we have post-spring transfers. Anon makes an interesting case as well, but IMO the time for Saint at CB was two years ago. His leadership will help young Corners, but I don't see him keeping up with decent opposition; just too little time to prepare
There is no depth concern at corner when you have 10 guys.
Delete1. Green
2. Green (brother)
3. Turner
4. Perry
5. Harris
6. McBurrows
7. Dennis
8. W.Johnson
9. Jones
10. Pollard
That's not including Moore, who many are projecting to the nickel corner spot, or any other freshman DBs who could easily wind up at CB like Dent.
Even if you lose a few guys in the spring to transfers, there is still not a depth problem at corner. We probably WILL lose a couple, which will take us all the way down to 8 guys.
Moreover, Sainristil, as a CB, is going to be less experienced and more out of practice than all 10 of the guys above. So he would have to be more talented to jump ahead of them. That's unlikely. You'd be doing it for depth at a position that has plenty already.
You're throwing a couple guys into the CB mix who aren't corners, and you're also including a walk-on in Keshaun Harris at a position where walk-ons virtually never play. So I feel like the conversation has already jumped the rails.
DeleteAt least at WR, we can say walk-ons play in key games sometimes (Nate Schoenle, Jake McCurry, Bo Dever, Joe Reynolds, etc.).
You think CB is fine because Keshaun Harris is there. Jim Harbaugh reportedly thinks Michigan would be better served by having Mike Sainristil play defense.
*shrugs*
I don't know who you are saying isn't a corner but ours were solid last year. Gray got an NFL combine invite and was all conference. He's the only one who is leaving from the unit that drew meaningful playing time. Some of the departures of deeper bench guys is because of Harris.
DeleteYou've made a big deal about saying Tru Wilson isn't a 'real' walk-on because he was talented. Well, Harris is a track star who has ascended up the depth chart. He's got talent too - and he beat out a bunch of guys with better recruiting rankings. Not a Glasgow level, but also not a garden variety walk-on either. He already has done more than Dever did.
I listed 10 guys. If you want to pick nits you can. CB is in good shape.
A question: if you look at Sainristil's natural attributes, and you look at the long-term (Michigan and beyond), do you think he's better served to be a receiver or a defensive back?
ReplyDeleteI think if you're 5'10" and 185 lbs. without being dynamic in the open field, you're probably better served playing DB. We already know he's physical and he has good speed.
DeleteI found an article online that did an analysis of the NFL positions to determine the height and weight distributions by position. I'm not sure of the date of the study, but I'll assume it was relatively recently. Here's what it showed:
DeleteDB:
Height: 5'9" to 6'3", with an average of 5'11"
Weight: ~185 to ~205, with an average of 200 pounds
WR (TEs were evaluated separate from WR)
Height: 5'7" to 6'6", with an average of 6'1"
Weight: ~170 to ~230, with an average of 200 pounds
WRs have a wider distribution of heights and weights; DBs a tighter distribution.
Sanristil at 5'10" and 185 could fit within either range, but as a WR he'd be 3" below the average. As a DB he'd be only an inch below the average. Unless he was an exceptional receiver, that 5'10" height would likely work against him as a WR.
So to your point, he'd likely be better served going the DB path. So perhaps the relative depth of WRs at Michigan might work out best for him. That's no guarantee of him being a great DB, either at Michigan or in the NFL, but it might afford him the best chance.
We're all entitled to speculation and opinions but one based an assumption that guys can just change positions and sides of the ball and be instantly better than the position they've been working at for years -- and where they are successful - strains credibility.
DeleteSainristil's failure to look like an NFL caliber WR isn't sufficient to think he might look like an NFL caliber CB. It's an argument against it.
"We already know he's physical and he has good speed."
Which is why he's a good college WR. It's why the coaches have trusted him to return punts, kicks, and run the ball, in addition to earning a starting spot at WR.
"you're probably better served playing DB".
Is there any basis for this? No it's just speculation.
Are we just throwing a hail mary for the NFL at the expense of college performance? Seems so.
Is there basis for doubting it? Yes - plenty. For one he hasn't done it. For two - there was a much bigger need in the 2020 offseason when CB was a problem or the 2021 offseason when CB was way more uncertain than it is now.
Why didn't they do it those other times? Probably because they made the right call for the player and the team.
The last time I remember this kind of assertion was for Michael Onwenu, who is among the best OL in the NFL. Moving him to D late in his career was most definitely not best for him or for the team.
Chances the coaches got these decisions right are very high. Chances that some guy on the internet is correct in completely dismissing that a veteran player performing at a high level can't flip to the other side of the ball to play where he hasn't played since high school and magically do better - very low.
We already know that he hasn't played DB at the college level and is entering his last year of eligibility (or close to it). Does that mean it's impossible to switch? No. Richard Sherman did it, with the help of an offseason to recover from injury and develop his skills. Does it mean it's likely? No. Does it mean it's unlikely? Yes. Examples are rare, for good reason.
Where Thunder and I agree here is this -- if the coaches make the call I'll believe it is worth trying. They have way more info than we do. But I'll still be skeptical it will work because we've been through these kind of late flips that haven't.
Anyway, the rationale made here is dubious in every way. The WR depth chart isn't any less needy than the CB depth chart. Sainristil is a good college WR and any purported lack of dynamicism in the open field isn't really a strong leg to stand on either based on statistical production or role to date.
An undersized and inexperienced CB who hasn't had years to hone skills to overcome his limitations is very very unlikely to be an asset to a college team, let alone be an NFL caliber player. MAYBE Sainristil could have been a good DB if he had been working at it for years but he's not such a gifted athlete that we can assume he'll thrive there without having put in the time.
Sainristil is having a very nice college career as a WR. He's doing well and so is his team. Why fix what isn't broken?
@ Lank 3:07 p.m.
DeleteI really don't understand where this conversation is going.
1. There's a logjam of talent at WR. Several guys are capable of contributing and have shown it, whereas Michigan gets torched at CB sometimes and we're all like, "Well, crap...Vincent Gray is the best we got, so I guess we just leave him out there."
2. You basically insult me because I'm "just a guy on the internet" but reports have come out that Sainristil is moving to defense. You can't play both sides of the fence and say I'm wrong but that we should trust the coaches (which is what you always say). THE COACHES AND I ARE SAYING THE SAME THING.
If you win the argument and I'm wrong, THE COACHES ARE WRONG, so your constant stream of "The coaches are right" comes into question.
If you lose the argument and Sainristil does indeed move to/stay on defense, then you...lose.
If we end the discussion here, you end up being wrong either way. I don't know why you would be so insistent on digging your heels in just to be wrong. You're not even leaving yourself any outs here.
@ Anonymous 1:35 p.m.
DeleteYes, I did a study several years ago on Pro Bowl cornerbacks and found that a lot of the elite corners are smaller than what some think. Everybody wants the 6'2" corner who's physical and speedy, but those guys are rare.
@Thunder
DeleteNo insult intended. You have an anonymous blog so you are... a guy on the internet. So am I. Distinct from the coaches and players on the team.
I'm not tracking what you are saying about being wrong. I'm arguing with the logic you gave. And Yes I trust the coaches on personnel decisions, but as you are fond of saying they are not always right - something I've never argued with.
What I do argue with is your insistence that you can better assess what positions a guy, or who should play more or less, from watching on TV than the coaches watching in person every day.
If the coaches do them that changes my perspective. I'll still be skeptical and would question it for all the reasons outlined above.
If you're passing off Rivals reporting as your own speculation well that's a different thing...
I don't need any "out" for any of the above. I'm saying the move doesn't make sense to me and doesn't make sense objectively, unless Sainristil is a better CB than a WR, which seems highly doubtful.
If you want to tell me I'm wrong about this because Sainristil becomes an NFL caliber CB -- well that's a best case scenario and I'll be happy and gladly admit I was "wrong" in my read of the situation.
@ Lank 9:31 p.m.
DeleteI spend less and less time on the various websites, and Rivals certainly is not one of them. I've visited that site maybe two times since the old crew moved over to On3. The only time I give Rivals any traffic, really, is when I'm posting commitment posts and need to check their rankings.
The logjam at WR is legitimate. I think that's been the case for a few years, and it's basically why Tarik Black transferred, so it goes back that far. Johnson, Wilson, Henning, Bell, Sainristil, etc. are all solid players. If you play your seniors (Johnson, Sainristil, Bell), you run a high risk of chasing off younger players like Bell and Wilson.
And then you're up a creek without a paddle because your seniors graduate and you have nothing left behind them.
The CB position is not as logjammed or senior-heavy.
If the logic doesn't make sense to you, then so be it...but again, the coaches are doing it. I've heard from two different people yesterday that Sainristil was practicing at cornerback on day one of spring practice.
And for all we know, Sainristil may have requested consideration of a move to DB. I can imagine a few scenarios where that might make sense for a young man in his position.
DeleteLet me put it a different way. Sainristil has a better chance of getting meaningful playing time at WR than at CB. He's a proven player there, with a good skillset. Rotation is frequent - more frequent than at CB.
DeleteAt CB, he faces an uphill battle. He lacks any advantage - size, experience, athleticism.
If WR logjam is a long standing problem -- why didn't they move Sainristil to CB sooner?
If Sainristil plays there you run into the same challenges you mention at WR. If he starts ahead of Turner, Turner probably transfers. If he blocks the younger guys, they probably don't stick around. Exact same issue.
If he wants to do it - good for him. Best of luck.
If the coaches think it's worth a shot - it's probably worth a shot.
My skepticism is noted. If I'm wrong about it, I'll be happy about it. Here's to me being wrong.
The WR and CB depth situations are not the same.
DeleteMichigan had Vincent Gray as a starter. They may or may not have been counting on him to return in 2022. He's gone, so they're down a starter and a guy who would have been gone after 2022, anyway.
There are no open spots at WR. Guys are already established (Johnson, Wilson, Henning, Bell, etc.), and there's actually an extra body thrown into the mix with Bell returning. So who gets demoted from being a starter-quality players: Bell, Johnson, or Wilson?
Sainristil was the #3 guy, and he would have been #4 if Bell stayed healthy. Staying on offense puts him at #4 at best (barring injury).
There's an open spot on defense. There are no open spots on offense.
No openings anywhere. Both positions are stronger and more experienced than they were coming into 2021.
DeleteIf Sainristil moves away, WR is down two starters. Baldwin started 5 games. Bell steps in to replace.
CB is down one starter, widely criticized as a weakness by the fanbase. Green steps in to replace. Green has started 12 games already - you ranked him as the superior player heading into 2021. The coaches ended up disagreeing but the reason Green lost his starting job was that Turner emerged as arguably the best option of all.
So there is no open spot at either position. We can put a proven starter at every position. So the debate is about where there is more or less depth. Cannot ignore where that depth is relevant and where it isn't.
WR rotates FAR more than CB so WR depth beyond the starters is more relevant. Moreover, there are more WR positions. Michigan's base personnel has 3 WRs and 2 CBs.
WR has Bell, Johnson, Wilson as starters. CB has Turner and Green as starters. WR has more PROVEN depth (Henning, Anthony), but that's only because WR rotates a lot. How many snaps did our 6th WR (Henning) play last year? How many did the 4th CB play?
Sainristil played a similar number of snaps as Wilson so I wouldn't automatically assume that Bell takes only from him. Wilson and Baldwin are the guys whose roles got elevated when Bell got hurt. Stands to reason they're the ones whose roles would decrease upon his return. As you note elsewhere Michigan rotates WRs and spreads out targets. There's plenty to go around.
Both positions need a new backup to emerge and have plenty of candidates when factoring in freshman.
It's really difficult to argue with someone who doesn't acknowledge that Michigan lost a starting cornerback from the 2021 season.
DeleteAcknowledged when I said "CB is down one starter".
DeleteMight be easier if you don't just make things up.
"No openings anywhere."
DeleteI'm not making anything up.
False. There are no openings is not the same as there are no departures.
Delete2 starters gone at WR - but you won't call that an opening?
1 starter gone at CB - but that's an opening.
The reason there isn't an opening is because there are OTHER PLAYERS that we assume will step in. Namely, guys who started in 2020 (technically 2021 too). You ASSUME, rightfully, that Bell will step in for departed starters Baldwin/Sainristil and take a starting spot. I ASSUME, rightfully, that Green will step in for departed starters Gray.
Bell lost his spot due to injury and Green lost his due to Turner. That difference doesn't matter because they're both back in 2022 presumably and there's no obviously superior alternative that has emerged to keep them away form the starting spot they previously held.
Career starts: Bell 17 Green 12
DeleteGreen only started in 2020 because Ambry Thomas opted out, and he got passed in 2021 by D.J. Turner II. Technically, he's had some starts. Realistically, he's proven himself to be a backup.
DeleteJohn O'Korn started some games in 2017. I wouldn't have called him a returning starter if he had come back in 2018.
Agree here, and said as much last off-season. Green sucked at first, and improved to "okay" as opponents realized it was just as easy to run right over us & around us as it was to lob jumpballs. Best case scenario was always someone on the bench surging past him (I thought it would be Seldon)
DeleteWhile I'm making my arguments above, let me be very clear that I enjoyed this post. It's fun to discuss and debate these ideas. I fully recognize that we're speculating on "changes to consider" not saying "this is the way it must be".
ReplyDeleteIn the spirt of good fun, I'll throw in a few more.
1. AJ Henning to RB. We don't really need more RBs but Hennings receiver skills are so/so and he's a classic hybrid player who could serve a depth role and have some fun in low leverage situations. Perhaps we can dictate some funky matchups when we split out Corum or Edwards and put Henning in the backfield instead.
2. Trent Jones to FB. We already use our TEs as fullbacks so why not use an OL who plays TE to really add some muscle.
3. Ike Iwunnah to FB. 6'3 and 306. If he's not popping at DT maybe he can moonlight as masher on O to get on the field a bit.
4. Barret to ROLB. Maybe this isn't even a real move but instead of putting Barret between the tackles we can keep him on the edge in Ojabo's spot. If he can hold up against the running game (or rotate in such that the risk is minimized), he could be a real asset as a guy you can rush off the edge or drop into coverage and keep defenses guessing about where pressure is coming from.