 |
| Ryan Glasgow shows off a mildly impressive big-man vertical |
Height: 6'4"
Weight: 297 lbs.
High school: Aurora (IL) Marmion Academy
Position: Nose tackle
Class: Redshirt junior
Jersey number: #96
Last year: I ranked Glasgow #54 and said he would be a backup nose tackle. He started eleven games and made 22 tackles, 4 tackles for loss, 1 forced fumble, and 1 fumble recovery.
I underestimated Glasgow last year. He made just 2 tackles in extended time in 2013, and he basically just held his ground at the point of attack or got washed out. I didn't see a reason to place him higher than about midway through the countdown. Somewhere between the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014, he figured out how to play football in the Big Ten. He was not a superstar last year, but he was strong at the point of attack and got some penetration for a defense that was pretty good. The highlight for him came against Indiana when he poked the ball out and recovered the fumble. It was good to see him take a step in the right direction with two years left to play.
Now Glasgow is a veteran starter in the middle of a good defensive line. I have underestimated him before, but my guess is that he will continue to be solid against the run and not much of a pass rusher. He can hold up against double-teams in the middle, and he can beat one-on-one blocks with some regularity. While I expect him to start at least part-time, Michigan is so deep on the interior defensive line that I do not see Glasgow as being irreplaceable. The Wolverines have a few capable nose tackles in Glasgow, Bryan Mone, and Will Henry, not to mention someone like Maurice Hurst, Jr. who can play in passing situations.
Prediction: Starting nose tackle; 25 tackles
Poor Glasgow. He'll always be a guy who you wish well but also whose backup (e.g., Mone, Hurst, Pipkins) you wish would pass him.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't have put it better myself.
DeleteFor several years I kept reading about how Mattison and Hoke were D-Line specialists, and with their focus on the line we'd do great things there. But my sense is we've been okay to good but nothing approaching great. Any idea why not? Lack of talent ... lack of coaching ... uncontrollable X factor inhibiting it?
DeleteIf Glasgow continues to develop, he could push for All conference honors this year or next. Not sure if there is a reason to feel sorry for him.
DeleteI don't think Michigan has done a great job of recruiting the defensive line. They got good players, but they haven't pulled in the truly explosive players who can wreak havoc in the backfield. I think Mone has a chance, Wormley can be that type of he gets to be more consistent, and Willie Henry is on the verge of a breakout, I think. Clark was pretty darn good, but then again, maybe his off-the-field problems indicate that he just wasn't 100% dedicated to football, anyway.
DeleteThunder: "They got good players, but they haven't pulled in the truly explosive players who can wreak havoc in the backfield."
DeleteI miss me some Brandon Graham or some Mike Martin.
I don't know why they stopped getting the disruptive players. I hope it wasn't because they no longer valued that attribute. Heck, the entire SEC defensive philosophy is built on menacing defensive linemen. I've read where Mattison talks of "earning the right to rush four" ... so I'd think he'd *want* the disruptive DL player. Just can't get them. But why?
Perhaps no answer ... other than "just because."
Yes, it has not been great, but still decent IMO. Clark, Wormley, and Henry all have legit NFL potential. Glasgow is a good player, though not a pro prospect. Mone has generated good practice buzz, so maybe he will show more this year. Hurst is intriguing. I think they have brought in a lot of big bodies who have been coached to be technically sound. That has helped shore up the run defense, which was awful under RR.
DeleteThe disappointing thing to me though is that the only competent edge rusher they have put out there was Clark. In 3-4 recruiting classes, I would have hoped they could bring in a couple more. They started to finally address this in the '14 class by targeting bigger framed OLB's. Would be nice to see a couple young DE's emerge this season.
It's worth considering the possibility that Henry and Clark are better NFL players than Martin and Graham.
DeleteThat means it might not be about who they are 'getting' but what they are doing with them.
I do agree that recruiting has not gone well on the outside since Clark (in 2011), who it must be remembered was a true sleeper recruit. Jake Ryan (a Rodriguez recruit) is the only athletic outside backer that has really been employed -- and then he got bulked up and moved inside too.
I think it has a lot to do with Hoke staff's obsession with taller than prototypical players. I'm optimistic Durkin and co. will change things for the better.
As bad as UM football has been the past few years imagine how much worse it would be without these 2 walkon brothers.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am concerned Glasgow is already a massive success and if he is just a run stuffer the rest of the way he already contributed more than highly touted guys like Pipkins and Strobel.
I'd like to hope and think R Glasgow will be a good/solid interior D-lineman on running downs and hope that we have another guy be it Hurst or Henry etc who can actually be a solid pass rushing D-lineman.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree Magnum with Pipkins gone, I'd love to see Mone hopefully turn into a space eating monster especially given his listed weight of 325lbs. Especially if he's demanding double teams, that could really free us up to finally have a decent pass rush...
The thought of Mone and Henry turning the corner and really figuring out how to play consistently could potentially take our 'very good' D-line into the 'outstanding' region...
Based on last season and what we saw in the spring scrimmage, I'd say that Mone has a ways to go before he is at Glasgow's level. Mone may wind up being a better player (not sure), but I personally have not seen the evidence to indicate that it will happen as soon as this season.
DeleteFirst starter of the countdown and he's outside the top 22. That means the K, P, & his backup are ahead of him (Mone hasn't ben on the countdown yet, correct?)
ReplyDeleteYesterday the long-snapper was listed as a starter.
DeleteSorry for spelling but I think these are the guys that are left
ReplyDeleteJake Ruddock
De'Veon Smith
Joe Kerridge
Jehu Chesson
Amarar Darboh
Jake Butt
Graham Glasgow
Kyle Kalis
Mason Cole
Ben Braden
Erik Magnuson
Chris Wormley
Brian Mone
Willie Henry
Mario OhhhJoo
Dez Morgan
James Ross
Joe Bolden
J. Lewis
Wayne Lyons
Jay Breezy PepPep
Jarrod Wilson
Kenny Allen
Dan O'Neil
I think you were looking for Dan Samuelson and not O'Neil.
DeleteHe's talking about the punter Blake, not the guard Samuelson.
DeleteBlake O'Neil?
DeleteFrom that list:
Keny Allen
Jehu Chesson
De'Veon Smith
Joe Kerridge
Blake O'Neil
James Ross
Mario O
Mone
Braden
Wormley
Dez Morgan
Joe Bolden
Magnuson
Jarrod Wilson
Darboh
Lyons
Kalis
Butt
Lewis
Glasgow
Henry
Cole
Peppers
Ruddock
Yes, the transfer punter,Blake O'Neil
DeleteI'm assuming your list s your countdown from #24 to #1. If so, I can't really complain about it. QB #1, three OL in the top 10, Henry is the top 10.
DeleteDoes Glasgow fall under the umbrella of people making the "Hoke played favorites" argument?
ReplyDeleteIt'll be interesting to see if Glasgow stays ahead of Mone, Henry, Wormley and all our other options on the DL. Other than Henry, who has shown enormous potential, I would guess Glasgow will still get more snaps than any of them.
I like the idea of Mone locking down the NT spot, and as a sophomore he's in a position to make a leap. You also have to consider the new coaches and the scheme changes perhaps valuing a true behemoth in the middle. But Glasgow has consistently earned more snaps than anyone over the last couple years and that's been in both the 4-3 Under and Over. We'll see if that changes in 2015...
I would guess not.
I think Hoke was playing favorites with Glasgow in 2013, because Glasgow just wasn't very good and didn't make many plays. Last year I think he belonged in the rotation where he was for the most part.
DeleteAll due respect, but this is a weird argument. That defense was pretty good in 2013 and Glasgow was a key contributor. Glasgow got better last year, as he should, but presumably the experience of 2013 contributed to that. I think he proved Hoke's faith to be correct. I know you have a thing about tackle stats, but we are talking about a different scheme and a relatively small (1 or 2 tackles per game) difference in production. Aren't 4-3 Under NTs typically less productive (tackle-wise) than 4-3 Over DTs in general? If Glasgow's stats go down this year does that mean he got worse?
DeleteAnyway, who did you want Glasgow to sit behind in 2013? What would NOT playing favorites have looked like? Glasgow was a decent player then and he was just a RS Freshman. I think Glasgow proved he was the best option last year.
It's not just about tackle stats. Glasgow just didn't do very much. I think Henry probably should have played more nose tackle that year, and Quinton Washington should have gotten more snaps. I also think Richard Ash was okay as a third nose tackle, and he went on to have a decent season in the MAC (42 tackles, 7.5 tackles for loss, 2.5 sacks at WMU last year). I think Glasgow played too much that year.
DeleteMy hat's off to him. I acknowledged at the very beginning of the post that he got significantly better from 2013 to 2014.
I think you're overstating Glasgow's improvement and underselling the value of development. If a coach can develop guys while still putting a very good defense on the field then hats off to him.
DeleteMaybe Ash and Washington were a little better (it's debatable, but for the moment lets say it's true). Ash wasn't going to be a big time player and Washington was an oft-injured senior. If you can work your developing guy in without giving much up, you do it. This philosophy is why John Beilein didn't invite Bielfeldt back for his 5th year even though he has an open scholarship. This seems counter-intuitive until you consider the development of other centers (Wilson and Donnal). They are probably worse than Bielfeldt today, but that's unlikely to last for long.
In other words, Hoke may have been thinking long-term instead of short-term rather than 'playing favorites'.
Not sure Henry was a fit for an Under NT and he was needed at DT too. Sometimes you want a freshman to just focus on one position.
A lot of FR or RS-Fr get snaps for developmental purposes. Glasgow got a surprising amount of snaps in '13 out of nowhere, but I think by then the coaches saw something in him that did not translate to the field his first year of playing. But it certainly did last year. And it is not like he was starting in '13 anyway.
DeleteI can think there are more blatant cases of favoritism. One would be Taco playing as a 3-tech in '13 on passing downs. I have never seen a UM defender more at risk to get knocked on his rear end more than Taco was that season. Joe Bolden almost never getting rotated out as if he were David Harris. Kyle Kalis becoming a fixture in the OL while he was still struggling mightily. AJ Williams getting too many snaps, etc.
Taco - I thought he looked like a much better pass rush threat than alternatives (Ash, Washington, Glasgow, Henry). The way he was used it was about getting to the QB, often on stunts, not holding up to bigger interior linemen.
DeleteBolden - I don't really get this one either. It sounds like Harbaugh may make Bolden a captain and is absolutely raving about the kid. Can't see how this is playing favorites.
Kalis - people wanted him to start as a freshman, and there weren't exactly great alternatives the last couple years. He was thrown in too early based on need - I don't know how that is playing favorites. So were Cole, Bosch, Miller, Braden, Magnuson, etc.
Williams - we'll see here what Harbaugh does. I've argued repeatedly there weren't good alternatives for what Hoke/Borges/Nussmeir wanted to run. We can question their approach but the personnel decision seems like not much of one. They tried to put other guys here (like Heitzman) and they weren't any better. This seems more like failing to get and develop talent than it is about 'playing favorites'.
I'm not buying it.
Dan O'Neil is no longer on the team, so I'm not sure who your missing player is.
ReplyDeleteOur D was actually not that good. How many times did we need them to clamp down to secure a win and they let the other team drive the length of the field.
ReplyDeleteThey had inflated stats as well.
Agreed. I think our D gets a little too much credit for their performance last year. Their on-paper numbers don't look too bad, but they played more than their share of fairly weak offenses, and got knocked around in quite a few games. As you note, they did not play tough in far too many situations when they really needed big stops, and they were absolutely terrible on takeaways. Give a weak offense some of the blame, but our D needs to be significantly better this year when it counts.
DeleteAll the advanced stats say our D was pretty mediocre last year. It's a big reason why we won only 5 games despite the offense improving dramatically in the run game.
DeleteThat said, it was a decent defense. A little unlucky on the turnover front.