Burgeoning Wolverine Star

A note on Tim Hardaway Jr.

2012-01-19T17:37:00.005-05:00

Chris Ryba | The Michigan Daily

I've drawn much ire for my criticism of Tim Hardaway Jr. in the wake of the Michigan State game. Because I don't like being wrong, and more importantly, because I want to affirm that what I'm seeing and thinking are not totally crazy, I figured I'd jot down some thoughts about Michigan's most enigmatic scorer.

Hardaway came out of high school as a middling three-star recruit (Scout listed him as the #36 shooting guard in the country; he wasn't ranked on Rivals). After a successful freshman year, people were crowning him as one of the league's best scorers, which he might well be, but in a way that should make more people skeptical of his production. Hardaway is a high-volume shooter (he averaged 13.9 PPG on 10.8 shots/game last year; 15.4 PPG on 12.5 shots/game this season), which is odd given his predilection to disappear for large periods of time. Unfortunately, this equates to a player who is not particularly efficient on the offensive end.

Many people look to KenPom for college basketball stats, but my stat guru is ESPN's John Hollinger. About two years ago, Hollinger introduced his NBA Player Efficiency Rating (PER) to the college game. I'll let him explain:

For those of you unfamiliar with PER, it stands for player efficiency rating. This is the catch-all metric I developed to sum up what you see in the box score -- a method I developed to provide apples-to-apples comparisons of NBA players who are playing under different circumstances.

It doesn't see everything because not everything is counted -- for instance, the box score doesn't have good defensive stats besides blocks and steals. But it's adjusted for the pace of the game and calculated on a per-minute basis, so it's a great way to get a statistical snapshot of a player's efficiency and effectiveness.

PER is, in my opinion, the best metric for judging players. When the initial college rankings came out a week or so ago, I wanted to see where Hardaway landed. Given his production and widespread praise, I sort of assumed that he'd end up in the good-not-great region of players nationally. But a glance at the top 100 players nationally in PER returns no Wolverines. Fortunately, Hollinger also has a conference-by-conference breakdown of players. Hardaway? 36th... in the Big Ten.

Hardaway's PER is a middling 18.53 (per Hollinger, league average is 15.00). Both Evan Smotrycz (20.15, 25th) and Trey Burke (19.71, 27th) rank higher than Hardaway. For perspective, Jared Sullinger is currently leading the Big Ten in PER with 33.18. PER is a metric that can swing a few tenths of a point after a single game, but after tracking Hardaway since the rankings have been up, he's been consistently in the high teens, and has not surpassed Smotrycz or Burke.

Less objectively, Hardaway seems to be a player that gets praised for good timing and image. Hardaway has come up big late in games, and he may very well be one of those clutch scorers that just happens to put it together at the end, but that's not the kind of top scorer you can successfully build your team around. There's a reason Hardaway doesn't get to the line or the bucket: he can't, really. His first step is slow, his lateral quickness is lacking (just look at his defense, about which more later), and he doesn't have the strength to muscle up inside. He does, however, have incredibly long strides that make him an excellent transition scorer and afford good straight-line speed.

But Hardaway is not a bad player. Hardaway is a great player to have as a second or third option, which he ostensibly is given the success of Burke and Darius Morris last year. The problem is that Michigan's second option offensively is a defensive sieve. Hardaway's PER benefits from the lack of defensive metrics because, as most can agree, he's either a lackadaisical defender (not rotating to help, getting lost in coverage, taking possessions off) or outright subpar. I think it's a combination of the two: his lateral quickness hinders his ability to guard athletic shooting guards and small forwards, and he fails to make up for it with Zack Novak effort.

I do really like Hardaway. He seems like a good kid with the raw talent to be a special player, but I also think he gets too much praise for his actual output. You'll think I'm crazy or a prick for writing this, but you probably thought that already. At least now I know I'm not crazy.

The Arrival

2012-01-18T11:25:00.001-05:00

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

There are some moments that feel bigger than they actually are in the grand scheme of things: your first kiss, getting your first job, acing a particular test. Each has some cultural significance that tells you This Is Important despite the fact that these moments are likely to happen far more frequently in the future than they have in the past. The worst case scenario for most of these is a missed opportunity, but there are some instances that don't necessarily have to happen; when Target rejected my application as a 16 year old, it felt deflating, but chances were that I'd spend most of my life working in some capacity.

When Darius Morris' floater clanged off the rim against Duke to end the Wolverines' season last year, everyone was disappointed. Michigan had missed its opportunity to make a truly profound statement: not only had Beilein begun to turn around a moribund program, but the evolution was complete; Michigan can compete with anyone, on any stage, at any time. Instead it felt like another close loss, the likes of which the team has seemed to suffer on a regular basis over the last three years. Sports are zero sum events--there are no moral victories--so despite Michigan's fate last night hinging on a similar shot that could have just as easily gone the other way, the results are profoundly different.

It's a reach to say that Michigan has a better basketball program than Michigan State now. They don't. Tom Izzo's win total and the Final Four appearances and the recruiting rankings and the championship banners hanging in the Breslin Center are enough proof of that. But Michigan is a better team than Michigan State, which is something that can't be said that frequently in the history (certainly the more recent history) of Michigan basketball.

Most importantly, though, Michigan has finally arrived. When they were ranked #15 in the preseason poll heading into the 2009-2010 season, most fans were skeptical. The team still had noticeable blemishes and the wins that put them on the map the previous year felt more like feel-good stories than the actual emergence of a contender. But with the program's third straight win over their in-state rival--and a team with annual national title aspirations and potential, to boot--the Wolverines have finally fulfilled the promise that they've been inching toward since Beilein set foot in Ann Arbor.

Bullets

Everyone knew that Michigan was going to lose that game in the second half. And then they didn't. A big thanks goes to Keith Appling who continues to play faster than his mind can process. Credit obviously goes to Michigan's defense as well, about which more in a moment, but Appling, as he did last year, plays too quickly.
Jordan Morgan, Zack Novak, and Stu Douglass are the reason Michigan won this game. Despite their middling stat lines, these guys all stepped up throughout the game defensively. Down the stretch, I would've liked to see Douglass covering Appling more frequently, but this is a minor complaint. Morgan denied the post, Novak did his grit thing, and Douglass displayed his usual defensive prowess.

Beilein also deserves credit for the defensive performance. He just pushes the right buttons at the right time, mixing in 2-3 and 1-3-1 zone defenses with the team's typical man coverage. He uses the zone sets sparing, but they almost always seem to work when he deploys them.
Trey Burke: good.
I think the Hardaway hype train has finally run out of steam. The two charges that he took on defense were momentum shifting plays, but otherwise, Hardaway continued his unimpressive season. And yet it's hard to argue with his season averages (15.4 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 2.5 APG). Hardaway is a utility superstar (think Joe Johnson): not amazing at anything but pretty good at just about everything with an emphasis on scoring. His defense is still a huge problem and he appears to be a malcontent. Hardaway has to be one of the most humdrum stars in the country.
It still boggles my mind that a team full of three-point specialists can't hit three pointers. I know that everyone's enduring vision of Novak is of him scrapping for rebounds and bleeding from his forehead, but watching him clanging wide open threes off the rim will be my lasting memory of him, fair or not.
This is a great NCAA Tournament resume piece. One or two more of these (and taking care of business against the Big Ten's lower-ranked teams) and Michigan could be looking at a 5 or 6 seed in the tournament.

Notes from Michigan vs. Indiana

2012-01-06T14:40:00.000-05:00

Now that I've finally had a chance to watch a few Michigan hoops games (including actually attending the Bradley game, my first in-person Michigan hoops game since a 2004 throttling at the hands of Michigan State), I feel like I finally have something to say about the team...

Yesterday's game was not close. I know the scoreboard says Michigan only lost by 2 points, but that game was totally dominated by the Hoosiers. Michigan allowed Indiana to shoot 55% from the field, including 63% from outside (most of which were completely uncontested). The teams had equal rebounds, Indiana had two more assists and five more blocks, and Michigan only held onto the ball slightly better than the Hoosiers (12 and 15 turnovers respectively). Three more made three pointers by the Wolverines and seven missed free throws by Indiana is the only thing that kept this game close.
The main reason for the loss: athleticism. Michigan got kind of exposed last night. It will surprise no one that Stu Douglass and Zack Novak are less athletic than some of their counter parts (spot up three-point shooters tend to be), but just how much less athletic was put in stark contrast last night. Sure, not every team has someone as electric as Victor Oladipo, but Michigan simply could not keep up with that team last night. They were faster and stronger at basically every position, which resulted in contested shots for the Wolverines, blow bys on the defensive end, and an inability to get open, both on and off the ball (I've never seen back cuts defended so well without giving up anything on the frontside; Indiana is just that much faster).
This leads me to my next point of contention which I will be widely derided for: Tim Hardaway Jr. is not very fast. He can jump pretty high and has decent straight-line speed, but his first step is devastatingly slow. There's a reason you can barely give him the ball in isolation situations on the offensive end: he can't beat his man off the dribble. Similarly, this lack of quickness is one of the primary reasons that he's such an abhorrent defender. If you didn't believe it before, you should after last night. And on nights when he's going 0/7 from outside, he's as much a detriment to the team as a benefit (19 points on 19 shots from your star player is not a recipe for success).
Jordan Morgan did a really good job defending Cody Zeller last night, despite his still positive stat line. Morgan denied passes into the post by fronting Zeller all game and was quick enough to get back into position so as not to allow lob passes or anything inside.
Evan Smotrycz. Damn, kid can shoot. Can't dribble. Can't pass. Loves fouling. But boy can he shoot.
Enough has been said about Trey Burke to date, and I'm not sure I have much more to offer. He does have one of the softest shots I've ever seen. I'm not really sure why, or whether or not it's less effective because of it, but his shots flutter in a way that I don't think I've ever seen before. Especially from outside, he seems to heave the ball more than shoot it. I expect his outside shooting to improve dramatically whenever Michigan's coaches really have a chance to mold his form (probably not until the offseason).

As MGoBlog mentioned yesterday, this loss doesn't really hurt Michigan's NCAA Tourny resume, but they're going to need a few of these games against ranked opponents to go the other way. "Good losses" only get you so far. But they're set up well to win a few this season. Besides, Indiana is going to finish the Big Ten either 1st or 2nd (behind OSU), so not all of Michigan's ranked opponents will be Duke or this Indiana team.

Last word on bubble screens... for this season

2012-01-06T10:58:00.000-05:00

I drew much ire yesterday for criticizing Al Borges' neglect of bubble screens. It's been a bugaboo all season and it was especially bad against Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl. Specifically, this comment caught my eye:

This is what happens when fans and internet blogger heroes think they know more than coaches. We're not running a spread-option offense anymore. The bubble screen and constraint plays went out the door with Rich Rodriguez. If that pisses you off, then take it up with David Brandon for hiring a coach who doesn't wish to run the spread. Expecting a coach to run an offense that isn't his is unfair, and, quite frankly, dumb.

Frankly, I'm not asking Al Borges to run an offense he doesn't know or doesn't understand. I'm asking him to be smart enough to take advantage of the defense when it aligns like this:

This is egregious. When you don't throw the bubble screen here, things like the Sugar Bowl happen: a game that saw Borges absolutely punked by the Hokie defensive staff as they played to his tendencies and forced Michigan to run plays into the strength of the defense.

I don't care about constraint plays or zone reads or any of the other plays and terminology that came with the Rodriguez era. I do care about winning football games, though, and ignoring the bubble screen when a defense aligns like this makes it significantly harder to win football games. This is equivalent to coming out in a three-tight end formation under center on 1st and 10 in the first quarter, when the defense has 11 defensive backs on the field, and running play action. Attack what the defense is giving here. In the picture above, they're giving Michigan anywhere from 8 to 46 free yards.

If Borges never aligns the offense like this next year, that's fine. But if you align the offense like this, you have to take advantage of its benefits. Those include stretching the defense horizontally by using screen passes. This isn't even a questionable screen pass call (where it's 3 vs. 3, for instance, and you're asking a receiver to make a play in space); there are barely two defenders covering three of Michigan's receivers.

Many times this game, Michigan ran the ball into 10 box defenders. This is not effective. It will never be effective. Like Michigan's losses against Iowa and Michigan State this year, the defense had a gameplan: load up the box and defend the run aggressively, forcing Denard to beat them through the air. Michigan was lucky to win this game because offensively, they were dominated. If Borges implements screen passes--and not even many of them, throwing one or two a game will force teams to respect the threat--this forces defenders outside of the box, opening lanes for Denard and Co. in the running game.

I realize that at this point I'm banging my head against a wall. No one even wants to read about this anymore, but it's something that, when it pops up during such an abysmal offensive performance, I can't simply ignore. Borges does not believe in the bubble screen. That's unfortunate. It's also stupid.

BrendOwl Gibbons

2012-01-04T13:16:00.002-05:00

Sugar Bowl bullets

2012-01-04T11:07:00.001-05:00

I'm sure there's some narrative to be written about last night. Maybe there's something about Junior Hemingway's emotional post-game speech, but it hasn't come to me yet. Last night was terribawesome. This is the emotion I can muster. For now, though, bullet:

That Brendan Gibbons winning field goal almost makes up for the last three years of awful special teams play. The best part was that you kind of felt like he was going to make it. That's an awesome feeling.

Howeva, it seems like the refs missed false start calls on Gibbons on both the yackety sax "fake" field goal and the game winner. He was called for that stutter step earlier in the year, but the refs let it go in this game. I do not know why. Probably because our helmets have wings.

Al Borges had a truly awful game last night. He was sort of in a Mattison Ohio mood: He came into the game with a gameplan, it wasn't working, and he just wasn't adjusting. Michigan was running on nearly every first down this game and the Hokies were loading the box with sometimes 10 defenders. This is the biggest reason for the offense being completely awful.

The other reason, and I know I said I wasn't going to complain about this anymore, but deal with it, Borges is truly an idiot for not throwing bubble screens. For most of the game, Virginia Tech wasn't even covering the Michigan wide receivers because they knew Michigan a) wouldn't throw the bubble and b) were planning on running directly into their strength. Borges needs to put this one behind him.

Mike Martin and Ryan Van Bergen, and perhaps more importantly, the Virginia Tech offensive line, were as advertised. The interior of that offensive line is dysfunctional. Martin and Van Bergen were three yards into the backfield on basically every running play. The only reason they can pass block is that they keep retreating into Logan Thomas, at least long enough for him to zip a pass to one of his many wide receivers. I have no idea how a team with an offensive line that bad can win 11 games.

Still not sold on David Wilson, and his 24-carry, 84-yard day is about what was expected. Mitigating factors apply (terrible offensive line), sure, but outside of the one carry that Wilson turned from a two-yard loss to an eight-yard gain, he didn't really get many yards that weren't made for him by outflanking the defense with blockers. Wilson looks like a backup Wisconsin running back: runs behind his pads and plays to power, but can't will a team to victory that's not getting blocking advantages on the outside.

Logan Thomas, however, remains a scary dude. He's huge and semi-mobile and makes great throws. His two late-game first down scrambles were both Mike Martin's fault for not maintaining gap integrity, but Thomas was smart enough to see the holes and pick up big yardage. His YPA numbers are pretty uninspiring because the team ran a lot of hot read checkdowns on Michigan blitzes, but Thomas played an incredible game. Except for...

FRANK CLARK!

Next up: Danny Coale. Good receiver. That wasn't a catch in overtime. There is no debate about this.

Blake Countess had trouble defending double moves all year. Virginia Tech took note and attacked him all game. Countess fluctuated between awful freshmen mistakes and being in perfect position. He'll be good.

These are all the thoughts I can muster right now. There will be more coverage throughout the week, including the typical game breakdown with play analysis etc. It might be a little later than usual, though, because I didn't even think to look for a torrent of the game last night. Hopefully someone has one up tonight. Knowing the Michigan blogosphere, I'm sure it's already up.

2012 Sugar Bowl Preview

2012-01-03T09:00:00.000-05:00

All 2012 Sugar Bowl coverage can be found on the Bowl Game page.

Allstate Sugar Bowl
#13 Michigan (10-2) vs. #11 Virginia Tech (11-2)

Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, LA

Kickoff 8:30 pm EST

ESPN

Previous Game
#5 Virginia Tech 10 - #20 Clemson 38. The last time the Hokies took the field, things did not go as planned, as the team was blown out in the ACC title game against Clemson. Much hyped running back David Wilson was completely shut down, rushing for just 32 yards on 11 carries. And with the Hokies down by so much, QB Logan Thomas threw the ball 44 times and was not great: 22/44, 274 yards (6.2 YPA), 1 TD, 2 INTs.

Meanwhile, Clemson did just about anything they wanted. As a team, they rushed for 4.8 YPC on 45 carries, which is the best performance of any team against the Hokies this season. QB Tajh Boyd went 20/29 for 240 yards and 3 TDs. The vaunted Hokie defense was wholly shredded: 457 total yards, 8.0 YPA, 4.8 YPC, 0 turnovers forced.

Ohio 34 - #15 Michigan 40. Game column. I mean, you know what happened.

Offense vs. Virginia Tech
If the Hokies are known for anything, it's their defense. Virginia Tech boasts the #17 rushing defense, #13 pass efficiency defense, and #8 scoring defense, while coming in at 30th in turnover margin. They run an aggressive, blitzing defense that gets most of its production from its secondary and pair of sophomore defensive ends. As mentioned around here earlier, four of the Hokies top five tacklers are in the secondary. Those four secondary members account for 3.5 sacks, 8 INTs, and 21 tackles for loss. The Hokie secondary plays downhill, blitzes frequently and is often involved in the run game.

While that sounds intimidating, the Hokie linebackers are subpar at best. They overpursue to the ball, have trouble filling running lanes, and bite on play action frequently. That the Hokies have such a good run defense is due to the fact that they sell out against it with their secondary. On the defensive line, meanwhile, defensive ends JR Collins and James Gayle have some crazy numbers, combining for 20 tackles for loss and 13 sacks. The defensive tackles are unimpressive. Frankly, I'm not sure how this defense boasts such good numbers across the board.

Offensively, Michigan should make hay against the interior of the Hokie defense. Al Borges' playbook has the kind of counters that should eat the Virginia Tech linebackers alive, and the defensive line is either ineffective defensive tackles or pin-your-ears-back defensive ends. When you take chances and blitz a lot, you create turnovers and big negative plays, but Michigan has been good in preparation for defenses this year and has all of the pieces to victimize the Hokie defense.

With Denard coming off his best game of the year against Ohio (14/17 for 167 yards, 3 TDs, 26 carries for 170 yards, 2 TDs) and seemingly healthy, Michigan matches up well against this defense. Though Mark Huyge's matchup against the Hokie defensive ends looms large, the rest of the line should be able to contain the blitz-heavy front of Virginia Tech. In the secondary, the Hokies will show both man and zone coverage, and while MGoBlog has been kind of terrified of the Virginia Tech secondary, I'm more confident in Michigan's ability to find holes in the intermediate areas of the field where the linebackers were supposed to be*.

On the ground, Fitz Toussaint should have a big game. Given the struggles of the Virginia Tech linebackers and Toussaint's noted ability to cut back and burst upfield, if the offensive line can create any holes (and it seems like they should be able to), Toussaint should gash the Hokie defense frequently.

*Something I've been thinking about this year: Rich Rodriguez's QB Oh Noes were usually used to attack opposing safeties and get big plays. Borges' have been used to attack linebackers for 10-15 yard gains. I think this will be a huge factor in the game.

Defense vs. Virginia Tech
Though the Virginia Tech defense boasts some impressive numbers, the offense is not quite as intimidating, at least on paper: 29th in rushing offense, 66th in passing offense, and 52nd in scoring offense. The dangermen are running back David Wilson and QB Logan Thomas, but really, most of the work falls on Wilson's shoulders.

The Hokies run the ball about 60% of the time with Wilson averaging 6.1 YPC. Though it may qualify me as a crazy person, I don't think too much of Wilson. He has a tendency to bounce the ball outside even when he shouldn't, and despite having a devastating spin move, seems like a pretty regular running back. There are mitigating factors: the interior of the Hokie offensive line might be the worst that Michigan faces all year. The Hokies are more or less unable to run up the middle despite being fond of using pulling linemen and running power. Mike Martin and Ryan Van Bergen are set up for big games, and if Jake Ryan, Desmond Morgan, and Jordan Kovacs are disciplined and maintain the edge on rushing plays, I expect Wilson to have another poor game, closer to his performance against Clemson in the ACC title game than against some of the team's weaker opponents.

Oddly, it's Thomas who scares me more than anything else on Virginia Tech. Thomas is a slightly mobile rocket cannon (think Ben Roethlisberger, except not a despicable human being). With a clean pocket, Thomas can hit receivers in stride and rifle passes into any hole in the defense. Maybe it's just residual fear from 2010 or turning Braxton Miller into a capable thrower, but watching film on Thomas makes me fearful of this game.

Getting to Thomas is key. He has a tendency to throw some bad interceptions, but is far too accurate with a clean pocket for Michigan's secondary to adequately cover all game. Oddly, despite the Virginia Tech interior line being horrible in run blocking, they seem to handle pass blocking pretty well as long as the defense is only bringing four linemen. Greg Mattison blitzes and Martin's ability to shuck interior linemen on pass plays are what is going to decide this game for Michigan's defense.

They Hokies also have a bit of option running in their game. They have shown both the inverted veer as well as a triple option look in the games I've watched this season. Earlier in the year, Mattison mentioned that the contain defenders are always forcing the QB to hand the ball off on option plays, but I would expect them to break tendency against Virginia Tech. Thomas is a huge, rumbling, 6'6" pillar that gets yards because he's bigger than you are. Risking David Wilson in the open field is a worse option than letting Thomas try and rumble for more than five yards.

Prediction
Aside from Thomas' arm and the potential for Wilson to get hyphy on the edge of Michigan's defense, there's really not much about this matchup that worries me. I think Michigan is supremely suited to attack a Virginia Tech defense that is overly aggressive and weak in the front seven. On the other side of the ball, Martin and Van Bergen should show some inspired play against an interior line that gets thrown around by basically everyone. If Michigan can't get any pressure on Thomas, this game could quickly turn ugly, but Mattison and the defensive line will make sure that doesn't happen. Good Denard vs. Evil Denard given, but Michigan's offense gets it clicking early and often.

Michigan 34 - Virginia Tech 24

Holiday schedule

2011-12-21T10:30:00.000-05:00

I had every intention of writing something for today, but due to all of the packing/secret Santaing I had to do last night, I just didn't have time. Tonight, I fly back to the state that looks like a mitten and will be there until December 28th. I still intend on watching and breaking down the ACC championship game between Virginia Tech and Clemson, and I'm bringing my hard drive with me to do so, though I'm not sure when that content will start going up. All previous content on the game can be found on the bowl games page.

Virginia Tech triple option

2011-12-20T09:30:00.000-05:00

All 2012 Sugar Bowl coverage can be found on the Bowl Game page.

As mentioned around these parts, Virginia Tech QB Logan Thomas isn't much of a runner despite having decent rushing numbers on the year. He's a big, bulky QB who defenses have to account for but not really respect in the running game. He's not going to beat you with his legs. The basic read play that the Hokies use is the inverted veer that Michigan used against Ohio State and Auburn used to win a national championship. However, they will occasionally throw in other option plays. Against Georgia Tech, they showed a triple option look from a two-back shotgun set.

The Hokies comes out in a two-back, two-wide set with an H-back to the playside of the field. Georgia Tech is in their base 3-4 defensive front.

As the ball is snapped, the fullback to Thomas' left comes in motion for the dive option. Meanwhile, running back David Wilson swings behind Thomas to be the pitch man if the QB pulls the ball. I think (?) Thomas is reading the playside linebacker who will be left unblocked by the H-back.

As Thomas pulls the ball, he and Wilson are now on the edge against one defender, the playside linebacker.

The linebacker makes a poor decision and comes up to tackle Thomas. Wilson now has a clear lane to the GT safeties.

As the ball is pitched, the Georgia Tech linebacker turns to pursue. The only unblocked defender on that side of the field is the Yellow Jacket safety who is six yards beyond the line of scrimmage. Wilson is heading for the edge.

Wilson runs for the edge...

...and is eventually wrapped up for a decent gain.

To demonstrate just how little the Hokies run plays like this, the only other time they showed it this game (earlier), Thomas turned the wrong way on the dive option and ended up following his fullback up the A gap on a broken play. This is not an option team Michigan will play, but they do have this kind of stuff in their arsenal that Michigan will have to prepare for.

It'll be interesting to see what Michigan does with these option plays. Against the spread teams in the Big Ten, Mattison was adamant that the unblocked defensive end/linebacker play the quarterback and not the running back. This makes sense when you're playing the likes of Braxton Miller, Nathan Scheelhaase, and Dan Persa. However, against a quarterback that doesn't have the wheels or maneuverability of those guys, it might behoove the offense to play the pitch and force Thomas to get his yards on the ground instead of the much more dangerous David Wilson. However, there won't be a whole ton of this during the game. The key will be if Jake Ryan et al can identify these option plays and execute how Mattison has designed. As long as they do that, the defense has proven to be smart enough to properly defend the option.

VT vs. Georgia Tech impressions

2011-12-19T09:30:00.000-05:00

All 2012 Sugar Bowl coverage can be found on the Bowl Game page.

I went into this game with the expectation that it would be a good barometer for how the Hokie linebackers handle the option. Of course, that ended up being an ill-conceived goal as the Georgia Tech flexbone attack is like nothing Michigan runs and the linebackers played as such. The one thing I could glean from the defensive front of Virginia Tech in this game is that they have trouble defending the pitch option on the outside. For most of the game, the linebackers were caught in no-man's land and would bite on a fake pitch. That's not much, though.

There were some things to glean from the offense in this game though:

I really don't think very highly of Virginia Tech running back David Wilson. He has really good numbers on the season, but he's just not very impressive on a down-to-down basis. Part of that is because of his crappy offensive line (about which more later), but Wilson doesn't have much speed and isn't the kind of Wisconsin bulldozer that can make yards solely by running people over. The real way that Wilson gets his yardage is on the few plays where pre-snap motion by the Hokies catches defenses off guard. I mean:

Of course Wilson can pick up yardage here. Wilson will run to his left here where he has four blockers against four box defenders. Virginia Tech will pull a weakside lineman as well. This is just poor alignment by Georgia Tech that was brought on by pre-snap motion. If Michigan's defense can align properly before the snap, I don't expect Wilson to be able to do much.

The other notable aspect of Wilson's game: he has stone hands. Given the amount of checkdown passes Virginia Tech used against Miami, the few drops that I saw from Wilson I brushed off as a bad game (you can't gameplan for that many checkdowns if your running back can't catch). But he showed the same brick hands against Georgia Tech.

You can't really blame him for some of his poor rushing performances, though, because the interior of the Virginia Tech offensive line is terrible. Headlined by sophomore center Andrew Miller, the interior of the Hokie offensive line gets put on skates on most plays. Any iso play up the gut is shut down in the backfield. The lack of production from the center probably also hurts the performance of the guards, but Mike Martin will be salivating to go against this interior line. Expect at least a few sacks from Michigan's tackles in this game.

That weak interior line also means that Virginia Tech rolls the pocket on almost all third-and-long situations. It's clear that the offense has no faith in their offensive line and tries to get Logan Thomas on the edge to make throws in obvious passing down situations.

Thomas is a really good QB, though. He's got a rocket for an arm and with a clean pocket can make all of the throws. His receivers can come down with some miraculous catches, but Thomas throws with power and precision. The other thing he does is QB sneaks. Basically any time the Hokies need one yard, they sneak Thomas up the middle. They did this against Miami and Georgia Tech. It makes sense when you have a 6'6" semi-mobile QB.

There really wasn't much else from this game. The offense showed a triple option which I'll break down tomorrow, but otherwise, there wasn't much. A few great catches by VT receivers and some long runs by Wilson created off of poor defensive alignment, and that was about it.

Brady Hoke and the Hokies

2011-12-15T16:55:00.001-05:00

Because why not?

VT bubble/tunnel screen

2011-12-15T09:30:00.000-05:00

All 2012 Sugar Bowl coverage can be found on the Bowl Game page.

Against Miami (FL), Virginia Tech didn't do all that much offensively of note. They ran the counter draw that Michigan showed early in the year, and they used the inverted veer to devastating effect against a Miami defense that just couldn't figure it out. Otherwise, it was a lot of downhill running, clean pockets, and checkdown passes. They did run a really interesting bubble/tunnel screen late in the game.

(First, apologies for the quality of the screenshots. This was not a high-res rip of the game.) This is right as the ball is snapped; the camera work on this game was mediocre. The Hokies are in a three-wide set with a tight end lined up as an H-back and a running back to Logan Thomas' left. Miami is in a 4-3 nickel formation.

As the ball is snapped, Thomas looks off to his left as the VT running back heads for the flat. The slot receiver to Thomas' right starts to bow out for a bubble screen. The H-back heads immediately upfield to block the nickelback lined up over the slot receiver. Miami, for what it's worth, is in a basic cover-2 defense with five zone defenders underneath.

A moment later, after the nickelback has taken a few steps toward the sideline to cover the bubble screen, the slot receiver reverses his direction and begins running toward the middle of the field for a tunnel screen, the likes of which Michigan has run with Jeremy Gallon all year.

The VT offensive line has now successfully slipped the rushing defensive linemen and are headed to the second level to block Miami's linebackers. The slot receiver is catching the ball and turning upfield.

The slot receiver cuts inside...

...and is brought down for a six-yard gain.

Obviously, the goal of this play is to get the second-level defenders running toward the sideline so that they can clear out the middle of the field for the tunnel screen. The Hokie linemen are supposed to seal the linebackers to the outside, putting the receiver one-on-one with the safety. Unfortunately for Virginia Tech, Miami has the perfect playcall to defend this play. This is a man-coverage beater, though, something that worries me against Michigan's defense. If you're not disciplined or read the play quickly enough, whoever is covering the slot--either Avery or Jake Ryan, who frequently played that role against Illinois--could easily overrun the play.

Miami (FL) designed cutbacks

2011-12-14T09:30:00.000-05:00

All 2012 Sugar Bowl coverage can be found on the Bowl Game page.

As I mentioned in the Miami Impressions post, Virginia Tech's linebackers are not very good. This also explains why only one of them shows up in the team's top five tacklers, supplanted instead by four members of the team's secondary. Miami took note of the linebackers' susceptibility and aggressiveness throughout the game. This is just one example.

Miami comes out in a heavy I-form set with a tight end and H-back. Virginia Tech shows the 4-4 run stopping front that they used throughout the game. This will be a counter iso run, a designed cutback to attack the Hokie linebackers.

As the ball is snapped, Jacory Harris turns to his right. The Virginia Tech linebackers immediately react and start moving to their left. Notice, however, that the Miami offensive line is creating a hole in the B-gap on the left side of the line (top of the screen).

As Harris hands the ball off, you can see the huge hole opened by the Miami offensive line. However, all three of the Hokies linebackers have run past the gap. The Miami center is releasing upfield to block the only linebacker capable of making the tackle.

A moment later and the Miami center has reached the VT linebacker. You can see the Miami running back Mike James sees the hole and is headed for it. This was not a great read/cutback by the running back. This was designed.

James is now running through the enormous gap created by the overpursuit of the VT linebackers with only a safety between him and the endzone.

He's partially obscured behind the referee here, but that safety makes the tackle. The play results in a six-yard gain.

Though Virginia Tech's linebackers have almost surely improved from the middle of the season when these teams played, this was a consistent trend in this game. And if the team's tackling leaders are to be believed, this probably happens more often than not. These linebackers are aggressive heading downhill and frequently bite on play action/counters like this. They don't appear to key on pulling linemen very quickly, and as is the case here, they're suspect in run fills.

It'll be interesting to see what Michigan can do with this. Plays like the counter draw (which VT actually used in this game) and counter draw play action might be really effective against linebackers prone to overpursuing. Regardless, this was indicative of the team's play all game: overly aggressive reaction to the run opening lanes for both running backs and Jacory Harris. If the Hokies aren't more disciplined than this against Michigan, Denard and Co. should have no problem putting up gaudy numbers.

VT vs. Miami (FL) impressions

2011-12-13T09:30:00.000-05:00

All 2012 Sugar Bowl coverage can be found on the Bowl Game page.

The following are various impressions gleaned from the Hokies 38-35 win over Miami (FL) this season. I cherry picked this game because of Jacory Harris' skill set and its similarity to Denard's. As such, this post is heavy on defensive scouting. More thorough breakdowns of blitzes and defensive schemes will come later this week.

Defense
Formation. Virginia Tech played from a whole bunch of different formations, from their standard 4-3 to a hybrid 3-3 to a heavy 4-4 look to something approximating Michigan's Okie formation. They were situational formations; the team rarely blitzed directly from the 4-3 front. The look:

4-4 (run stop)

3-3 (blitz)

Okie

From the Okie package, the Hokies rarely dropped linemen into coverage, but it was still used as a means to confuse Jacory Harris and the Miami offensive line.

Blitzing. Virginia Tech brought pressure from everywhere, but most of the time, it came from the linebackers. They came both on direct and delayed blitzes and from a number of different formations. The blitzes were usually long developing and Harris had a lot of room/time to dance in the pocket. However, he rarely passed out of it and the blitzers usually found him eventually.

Linebackers. Speaking of linebackers, Virginia Tech's appear to be awful. There's a reason that four of the top five tacklers on the team are in the secondary. The Hokie linebackers are bad at run fills, over pursue the run, and are really susceptible to play action. They secondary plays a lot of man coverage, so this doesn't always open up gaping holes in the middle of the field, but cutbacks and fakes almost always caught the linebackers off guard.

Defensive ends. As expected, those the gaudy sack numbers from the defensive ends are due to an aggressive pass rush. On passing downs, the defensive ends run directly uphill, openly a lot of running lanes for quarterbacks. Harris wasn't able to take advantage of it, but I have no doubt that Denard/Al Borges will.

Contain the rollout. The one thing that the Hokie defensive ends do really well is contain the rollout on play action. If Michigan uses play action from under center, Denard will have a defensive end directly in his face:

Post-snap

This ended up being a handoff, but the VT defense was prepared for the rollout. If they're gameplanning like this for Jacory Harris, they will be gameplanning like this for Denard.

Defensive tackles. Soft. They were put on skates most of the game. Michigan's offensive line should manhandle these guys.

Safeties. These guys are aggressive. On handoffs, they come directly downhill to make tackles. There's no hesitation in their game. They may be susceptible to play action. More importantly, they were really susceptible to trick plays, the likes of which Miami ran against them a few times. Given Vincent Smith's, urm, throwing abilities, that might be something Borges brings back for this game.

Offense
Formation. I was wrong yesterday when I said that the teams plays primarily under center. Most of the game, the Hokies were in the shotgun with three and four receivers. They rarely used fullbacks, both in the shotgun and under center. There were occasional H-backs, but for the most part, this was a shotgun, one-back set with three or four wide receivers and/or a tight end.

Power running. The Hokies use a lot of power running schemes, which means pulling linemen. They frequently used the pin and pull (usually from under center) that Michigan deployed with little success this year. They were a little more successful than Michigan was, but not that much more. The offensive line wasn't great at zone or power blocking, and weren't able to create a ton of lanes to run through.

Option running. However, the Hokies used the inverted veer a lot in this game. Lumbering QB Logan Thomas was able to gain a whole ton of yards on the inverted veer. It was, however, the only real option play they ran all game. They used it frequently in the red zone and a few times elsewhere, but rarely if ever did they use any other zone read play. The only other option running play that I can remember distinctly is a speed option that was usually at least moderately successful. I hold my position: Thomas is not much of a running threat. He was used a few different times on fourth and short on quarterback sneaks. Mike Martin and Co. are begging for this.

Ball security. This probably isn't a trend, but Thomas had a lot of trouble with ball security. He bobbled and fumbled one snap and failed to tuck the ball when he was pressured on another play and fumbled it. There was also another poor snap during the game that had to be recovered. I don't know if these are consistent problems, but they certainly were during this game.

Checkdowns. Thomas is a smart passer. When Miami goes into a prevent shell, he frequently found his running back coming out of the backfield. Virginia Tech looked to use their running backs frequently to chip block blitzers/rushers and then head out to the flats for checkdown passes. If Michigan doesn't assign someone to the VT running backs, this could get ugly. I'm worried about Kenny Demens and Desmond Morgan in coverage.

Virginia Tech by the numbers

2011-12-12T09:30:00.000-05:00

A quick reminder on coverage: Sugar Bowl coverage will be a lot like last year's Gator Bowl. After a general breakdown of the VT team, I'll cherry pick plays and games to figure them out schematically. Eventually, I'll make a prediction that will be wrong.

Rushing Offense
The Hokies rank 31st in rushing yards per game, averaging 188.69 yards. The rushing offense is led by junior David Wilson. Wilson is listed at 5'10", 205 pounds. Though he doesn't have a ton of breakaway speed, he's difficult to bring down, averaging 6.1 YPC and 125 yards per game.

The Hokies run a primarily pro-style offense. They take a lot of snaps from the shotgun, but they they don't run from it that frequently. When they do run from the shotgun, options looks are unlikely but they do happen. Sophomore starting QB Logan Thomas is listed at 6'6", 254 lbs and is used more as a decoy to keep defenses honest than an actual threat in the running game. Think of Steven Threet in Rodriguez's system. Sacks removed, Thomas has carried the ball 122 times for 569 yards (4.66 YPC) this season, which is a lot better than expected when you see him actually run. He lumbers down the field and doesn't have a lot of shake to him. His biggest asset is his size, which will allow him to get a few yards every time he carries, just by a function of falling forward.

Senior Josh Oglesby also gets carries. Oglesby has 90 carries this season and averages only 3.7 YPC. His long run on the season is 44 yards against Marshall. beyond that, he has a 31 yarder against Duke. Oglesby is a short-yardage back (5'11", 218 lbs) who won't get many carries in the bowl game. When he does, he's not a threat to do much but pick up short first downs.

However, the Hokies are a relatively run heavy team. On the season, they've run the ball 59% of the time. With a run/pass split like that and a 10-2 record, you'd expect the team to be more successful running the ball. However, Virginia Tech has won largely on the strength of their defense, about which more in a bit.

Passing Offense
The Hokie passing game isn't exceptional either. The Hokies have the 66th ranked passing offense, averaging 227.08 yards per game. Thomas is more of a prototypical passer, however: a lot of drop backs, good touch, strong arm. With a clean pocket, Thomas can do some damage against defenses, but if you get pressure (Hi Mr. Mattison), he's a little more erratic. Even still, Thomas is completing 59% of his passes this season and has a 19/9 TD/INT ratio. He's also averaging 7.71 YPA. Thomas is good-not-great.

His top two targets are senior wide receivers Jarrett Boykin and Danny Coale who have 57 and 52 receptions, respectively. Boykin averages 12.8 yards per catch and has 5 touchdowns, while Coale averages 15.1 yards per catch and has 3 touchdowns this season. Both receivers are of the 6'1"-6'2" mold. Neither is Michael Floyd nor overly dangerous deep threats. Since Thomas isn't the kind of run threat that Braxton Miller is, expect Michigan's secondary to return to form against the Hokies and throw a combination of zone and man against these receivers. Thankfully no one here is DeVier Posey.

The Hokies will run out 4-wide sets frequently. When not throwing the ball to Coale or Boykin, Thomas looks for junior Marcus Davis (29 receptions, 499 yards, 5 TDs), junior D.J. Coles (34 receptions, 449 yards, 3 TDs), and senior tight end Chris Grager (14 catches, 186 yards, 2 TDs, in only 8 games).

Offense Overall
The Hokie offense shouldn't be too challenging for Michigan's defense. With a mediocre passing game and a good but unimpressive run game, the defense should be able to get Virginia Tech in long down and distance scenarios when Mattison can bring pressure. They also have a decent kicking game, converting 14/20 field goals. In total, the Hokies come in as the 38th total offense and 55th scoring offense rankings. If Ohio ~~State~~ was the defense getting caught off guard, anything short of that should see the defense turn in its usual performance from this season.

Rushing Defense
The Hokies defense is another story. Virginia Tech has the 17th ranked rushing defense allowing only 107.77 yards per game. Not many teams have moved the ball on them that well. Georgia Tech put up 243 yards on the Hokies in 49 carries, but that's to be expected from the Yellow Jackets offense. The only team to beat VT, Clemson (twice), had mediocre days against the Hokie defense: the first times the teams met, Clemson rushed for 119 yards on 35 carries, but in the ACC title game, the Tigers rushed for 217 yards on 45 carries. Miami (FL) had the best game against the Hokies rushing defense by chalking up 236 yards on 28 carries (6.2 YPC). For what it's worth, this is one of the games I've earmarked to rewatch given that Jacory Harris probably has the closest skillset to Denard's of any of Virginia Tech's opponents.

The Hokies leading tackler is a.... safety. Their second leading tackler is a... safety. Their third leading tackler is a... cornerback. Their fifth leading tackler is a.... cornerback. These are not encouraging numbers for a run defense. The Hokies run a 4-3 defensive front and four of their top five tacklers are in the secondary. It's not until you get to Tariq Edwards at linebacker that any of the Hokies front seven show up in the top five tacklers on the team. I'm going to have to watch more games, but this seems like a not very good way to support the 17th ranked run defense. It also means the team is probably susceptible against the pass which...

Passing Defense
The Hokies rank 13th in pass efficiency defense but 41st in total pass defense. Where the Hokies succeed against the pass is in getting pressure. Eight different Virginia Tech defenders have more than one sack, led by sophomore defensive ends James Gayle (7 sacks) and J.R. Collins (6 sacks). Cornerback Kyle Fuller has 4.5 sacks, linebacker Bruce Taylor has 5 sacks, nose tackle Derrick Hopkins has 3 sacks, and the aforementioned Tariq Edwards has 2.5 sacks. The Hokies are tied for 11th in sacks nationally and it's clear why. They bring pressure from all over the field.

The team also has 15 interceptions, most of which I would guess are pressure dependent. All of the Hokies top-five tacklers each have at least one interception, led by junior cornerback Jayron Hosley with three. This pass defense's statistical profile (good pass efficiency defense, lots of yards allowed) holds with all of this: this is an aggressive blitzing defense that thrives on sacks, pressure, and turnovers to succeed. Screens, quick passes, and counters are probably going to hurt this defense.

Overall Defense
The Hokie defense's greatest attribute is its ability to generate turnovers. As mentioned above, the defense has recorded 15 interceptions, but they also have 5 fumble recoveries, putting them 29th in turnover margin this season. This is a young defense, populated mostly by sophomores (there's only one senior starter to six sophomores; the rest are juniors). With Denard's newfound ability to scramble, it will be interesting to see how aggressive this team can be against Michigan. Their top two sack leaders are both defensive ends who, if they play undisciplined gap defense, could open huge lanes for Denard to run through.

The secondary, meanwhile, appears to blitz frequently and force quarterbacks to throw off balance a lot. This has all the makings of a Good Denard vs. Evil Denard kind of game. If he can avoid the mistakes that the Hokie defense has thrived on all season, he should be able to get receivers matched up against safeties and linebackers. This is a big if, though, given the Hokies success with this brand of football all season.

Ohio formation notes

2011-12-08T09:30:00.000-05:00

Outside of the inverted veer that Michigan ran semi-successfully against Ohio ~~State~~, there wasn't a whole ton to take note of schematically. There were a few alignments that made me furious or at least made me question what the coaching staff was doing. First up:

Screen passes
I think this is it. This is the last time I complain about Michigan's lack of receiver screens. But this almost made my head explode:

Michigan actually would throw one of their play action, throwback screens on this play, but the play action seems like a waste of time. Count the defenders: you can see all 11 of Ohio ~~State~~'s and yet only two of them are even in the vicinity of Michigan's three stacked receivers. If a defense aligns like this, Denard should take one step from under center and throw it to the back receiver. Instead, the team fakes the play action and Gallon takes a step toward the line of scrimmage before fading back to catch the pass.

I don't know, man. Borges has done basically everything right this year save ignoring screen passes. There's almost no way that he will implement these passes in the bowl game or next year, but that doesn't mean I won't be infuriated when Michigan doesn't throw it. Consider this my final comment on this though.

Defensive line alignment
I mentioned this earlier in the year with regard to the defense's okie package, but Michigan seemed to be tipping its hand with the alignment of its defensive linemen:

Another thing to note is the pre-snap alignment of Ryan, who is lined up close to a yard behind the other defensive linemen:
Though I'm not positive, I think Ryan or Roh has done this before. It's something to watch going forward. If the defensive ends continue lining up too far from the line of scrimmage on the zone drops, it will tip off the blitz and coverage to opposing QBs. It didn't here, and I'm not sure if it's noticeable enough in real time, but it looks to me like it is. Ryan's helmet is a full yard off the line of scrimmage. If opposing linemen start picking up on this pre-snap, they can tip off the quarterbacks to a likely zone blitz. It will also help them in pass protection.

Michigan's defensive linemen have continued to line up like this even when they're not dropping off into coverage:

Look at how much closer to the ball Mike Martin is than all of the other defensive linemen. I'm at the point where I just don't understand this. It's too egregious and frequent to just be a mistake, but I don't understand the rationale for lining up this far from the line of scrimmage. It looks like it might give the linemen a better angle to slant into the play, but it doesn't seem like that's what's actually happening here. If anyone has any idea why the defensive linemen who line up this far from the LOS, other than They Weren't Supposed To, let me know.

Blocking issues on the inverted veer

2011-12-07T09:30:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I broke down Denard's long touchdown run against Ohio ~~State~~ but had trouble identifying who he was reading on the play. It was either the weakside linebacker or the middle linebacker, the latter of which seemed unlikely, and the former was blocked by pulling guard Patrick Omameh. Brian from MGoBlog clarified in the comments that Denard was reading the weakside linebacker who was mistakenly blocked.

He should be reading Shazier, #10, and he makes the right read. Omameh screwed up by blocking the guy the play options off.

Michigan used the same zone read play a number of times throughout the game, but interestingly, the pulling lineman (in the play below Michael Schofield) appeared to have the same problem identifying who he was supposed to block. This time, Denard could not Denard the unblocked defender and Michigan lost what could have been another huge gain.

Michigan comes out in a three-wide set with twins to Denard's right, and Kevin Koger lined up as an H-back. Fitz Toussaint is in the backfield with Denard. Ohio ~~State~~ is in a 4-3 nickel look.

As the ball is snapped, right tackle Mark Huyge leaves the strongside defensive end unblocked and releases to the second level. Koger is responsible for blocking the strongisde end. Schofield begins to pull across the formation. The rest of the defensive line down blocks.

At the mesh point, Denard is reading the playside linebacker (circled in red). Schofield is pulling across the formation and should ignore the playside linebacker and head upfield to block the Buckeye safety...

...but he doesn't, instead blocking the linebacker that Denard was optioning off of. The Buckeye safety (circled in red) who Schofield was supposed to block is now standing between Denard and Awesome.

Denard sees this and tries to cut outside.

He is unsuccessful.

Ten-man football etc etc. If Schofield blocks the proper defender here, Denard is running 91 yards for a touchdown. Instead, he's tackled for a two-yard gain. For me, this isn't quite as frustrating as when Michigan fails to run from under center. This seems like a repetition issue. Neither Omameh or Schofield have practiced this blocking scheme as much as they probably should, and pulling across the formation and finding the right defender to block is probably one of those things that just takes getting used to.

That said ARGHHH. Block the right guy. I wonder what goes through Denard's mind during a play like this. "Yes, yes, got'em. Remember, take a knee. Troll Tebow. Chest bump. Hoke Point." Tackled. If Al Borges starts integrating this play into the offense next year and the offensive line gets their blocking assignments in order, this will be a fierce rushing attack, possibly on par with the 2010 Rodriguez-led team. This kind of play is both encouraging and discouraging. I'll take it.

UPDATE. MGoBlog has video of this play that clarifies a question in the comments about whether or not Denard made the right read (he did).

Long Denard TD vs. Ohio

2011-12-06T09:30:00.000-05:00

Remember that time you beat Ohio? That was awesome.

So yeah, Michigan beat Ohio and that ruled. But they also did some things during the game that they hadn't showed throughout the season, the most effective of which was a zone read by Denard and Co. that MGoBlog long ago coined the inverted veer. Though Brian acknowledges that it isn't a veer at all, I'm not really sure what to call it. Given the pulling guard (as we'll see), maybe inverted power zone? I don't know, that sounds wordy. Maybe will stick with inverted veer. In any case...

Michigan comes out in a three-wide (twins to the top of the screen), two-back set. Ohio ~~State~~ is in a 4-3 under (hey!). Before the snap, you can see a blitz coming from the weakside cornerback (bottom of the screen). He'll attempt to time the snap but jumps a little early.

As the ball is snapped, Michigan's offensive line begins to zone block to the right. Patrick Omameh will pull across to the weakside of the formation. Ohio ~~State~~'s defensive line is slanting to the strongside, so Omameh gets caught up in the wash a little bit. His pull isn't clean. Fullback Stephen Hopkins is heading upfield to block the blitzing cornerback.

At the mesh point, I'm not really sure who Denard is reading. He is either reading the middle or weakside linebacker. Omameh unearths himself from the offensive line and continues to pull.

As Fitz Toussaint comes out of the mesh point, Denard pulls the ball, but I'm not sure why. If he's reading the middle linebacker (#6 in the middle of the screen), he should hand the ball off, but I'm not sure that's who he's reading. If he's reading the weakside linebacker (just below #6), I suppose he should pull the ball because he's further outside (?). Regardless, Denard pulls the ball.

Omameh pulls across the formation to block the weakside linebacker leaving Denard in space against the middle linebacker. This goes about as expected...

...Denarded

Denard bounces outside behind Omameh and gets to the sideline for a touchdown.

Lesson: Denard is better than you. Probably. Despite the outcome, I'm not sure if he made the proper read here. With Omameh pulling to block the weakside linebacker, it seems like Denard is reading the middle linebacker who diagnoses the play and is in position to make a tackle. But then Denard Denards him and runs for a touchdown. Regardless, Michigan didn't use this play all year until Borges unleashed it against Ohio ~~State~~. There frankly weren't many new plays that the team showed on either side of the ball against the Buckeyes but they few that were deployed (this one specifically) were wildly effective.

Anyone with any insight into what Denard's read is here would be appreciated.

2012 Sugar Bowl: Michigan vs. Virginia Tech

2011-12-05T09:30:00.000-05:00

And so it is: Michigan will face Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl on January 3. As the game approaches, content will be similar to that of last year's Gator Bowl. Now I'll begin the arduous process of downloading and rewatching a bunch of worthless Virginia Tech games from this season.

I also haven't forgotten about the Ohio ~~State~~ post-game. Throughout this week, I'll do the usual play breakdown and analysis. Virginia Tech extensive preview will begin next week.

All coverage of the game can be found at the Bowl Games page.

Those Who Stay Will Be Champions

2011-11-28T09:30:00.000-05:00

Jeff Sainlar | AnnArbor.com

At halftime against Ohio ~~State~~, I used the word embarrassing. I hadn't used that word about Michigan football since the 2009 Penn State game when, walking out of the stadium after a 35-10 shellacking at the hands of the #13 team in the country, I felt it was embarrassing that a 5-2 outfit--with only an overtime, road loss to MSU and a frustrating late road loss to Iowa--would be beaten that badly. Michigan's first-half defense against the Buckeyes was the worst it had been all season. The team allowed Braxton Miller to throw for a lot of yards and run for a lot of yards and let receivers frolic in the daisy fields of Michigan's endzones that prior to the season Greg Mattison had put a picket fence around with a worn wooden sign that read "Wolverines Only".

In retrospect, a 5-7 Michigan team had no business beating that Daryll Clark-led Penn State unit. And in reality, the first-half defense against Ohio State wasn't as bad as it seemed. The Buckeyes benefited from good field position thanks to a Denard fumble, setting up a 31-yard touchdown drive. Otherwise, Michigan blew a few coverages because they loaded up against the run and, for one of the first times this season, Miller made a defense pay for exploiting his obvious weaknesses. Those blown coverages were ugly but holding Dan Herron to 37 yards on 15 carries speaks for itself. So the does defense's first safety in 170 years.

Mattison didn't try to outscheme Ohio ~~State~~. The Buckeyes had one obvious weakness and Mattison was willing to bet that his players would be able handle that weakness without any fail safe. This is how your cornerbacks get beaten on double moves for 50-yard touchdown passes. Without safety help over the top, this sort of thing happens unless you're on Revis Island. The minor outlying islands of Countess and Floyd appear to have quarterly ferries that shuttle receivers to greener pastures. This was a gamble, but given Ohio ~~State~~'s meager rushing numbers and Miller's still up-and-down day, it was a gamble that probably paid off.

Al Borges, on the other hand, was sitting on some of his best stuff until the Buckeyes came to town. That Koger touchdown was 100% Al Borges' Diabolical Machinations and the frequently deployed zone read that saw Denard head upfield instead of to the weakside was gift wrapped for Ohio ~~State~~. Denard's best day of the season and Fitz Toussaint's 6.0 YPC performance were no mistake.

This was never going to be easy, or at least it shouldn't have been. Of course it featured the worst overturned touchdown of the season when Michigan had put the game away. Of course the team took 25 yards in penalties the following play when it looked like they had gotten into the endzone a second time. But Ohio ~~State~~ is Ohio ~~State~~ and they spiked the ball on 3rd and 6 with 45 seconds remaining. This is The Game. Things like this define the rivalry, and for the first time in too long, Michigan gets to celebrate the offseason the right way.

Bullets

Congratulations to the seniors who deserved this game for all of the shit they've been through the last four years. Those Who Stay Will Be Champions.
You could see how much this game meant to Toussaint. An Ohio kid without an Ohio ~~State~~ scholarship offer, he had something to prove in this game. It's unfortunately that the final, clinching non-touchdown was called back because he deserved to get into the endzone.
Lordy, the non-touchdown. Every Michigan fan knew that it would be how Michigan lost its eighth straight to the Buckeyes. Michigan had the game put away until it inexplicably didn't. I have no idea how you can overturn that call. The two available angles showed differing opinions. Conclusive evidence yadda yadda. Water under the bridge, I guess.
Mattison using the okie package on the final drive was terrifying. I like that his version of prevent defense includes zone blitzing, but I do not like that his version of prevent defense doesn't appear to prevent anything. You have to have safety help over the top. I'll sit down with Mattison over a cup of tea and discuss my displeasure.
Denard had his best game of the season. He properly pulled the ball on zone reads and threw the ball better than he has all season. He still had a few frustrating runs where he tried bouncing outside, but these are minor complaints when his statline reads 170 yards on 26 carries.

Upcoming
There won't be many posts this week. I'm out of town for a conference for my day job until Wednesday. I'll probably have some play breakdowns on Friday and early next week, and as bowl season approaches, you can expect similar coverage to that of last year's Gator Bowl.

Preview: Ohio 2011

2011-11-25T09:30:00.000-05:00

Ohio (6-5) vs. #15 Michigan (9-2)

The Big House

Kickoff 12:00 pm EST

ABC

Forecast: Low 50s, 50% chance of rain

Last week
#21 Penn State 20 - Ohio ~~State~~ 14. Last week, Ohio ~~State~~ continued their season of futility with a loss to Penn State. Rather than hilariously losing to Purdue in overtime after a late botched extra point, Ohio ~~State~~ lost after falling behind 10-0 in the first quarter and never climbing back into the game. The offense could muster only 289 yards and allowed Penn State's anemic offense to put up 327, though both teams were held scoreless in the second half.

Ohio ~~State~~ star senior receiver DeVier Posey played his first game and caught four passes for 66 yards, but that wasn't enough to bolster another awful passing day from Braxton Miller (7/17, 83 yards, 4.9 YPA, 1 TD). Miller had a decent day on the ground, rushing 18 times for 105 yards and Dan Herron averaged 4.2 YPC on 18 carries.

On the other side of the ball, Matt "Farvian Walk-On" McGloin wasn't much better (just watching this guy play this season makes me break out in hives; how did Michigan's defense make him actually look like Favre last year? Oh, nevermind). McGloin went 10/18 for 88 yards and 1 INT. Stephon Green did most of the damage on the ground, averaging 5.8 YPC on 16 carries while Silas Redd averaged 7.9 YPC on 8 carries. The thing that stuck out during the game was just how bad Ohio State's linebackers were against the run. It appears they attended the Obi Ezeh school of gap filling. PSU's running backs were finding holes at the line of scrimmage and no linebackers in sight. The hope is this continues because, well, dang.

#16 Nebraska 17 - #18 Michigan 45. Game column. Michigan followed up a dominating defensive performance against offensive-line-challenged Illinois with another great game against Nebraska, limiting one of the better running attacks in the country to 4.5 YPC on 31 carries. More impressively, the defense was barely on the field, whether it was from Nebraska special team turnovers or the 3/13 performance on third down. Infamous duck thrower Taylor Martinez was as advertised: ducky. He was 9/23 for 122 yards and 1 TD but looked awful getting there. He can't be totally blamed:

That's a run play, but Michigan's defensive line was getting that sort of penetration all game. Martinez was only sacked a handful of times but constantly had pressure in his face.

On offense, Denard scrambled, which was the unit's biggest revelation. When he wasn't dropping dimes to Martavious Odoms in the back of the endzone, Denard was scampering through a vacated middle of the field as Nebraska's secondary played exclusively man coverage. Unfortunately, he was indecisive on many of those runs, turning what should have been a big day into a mediocre 3.6 YPC day on 23 carries. Fitz Toussaint picked up the slack, though, averaging 4.8 YPC on 29 carries.

Offense vs. Ohio ~~State~~
Though Ohio ~~State~~ has been universally awful this season, their one bright spot is defensively where they rank about where you'd expect an Ohio ~~State~~ team: 42nd in rushing defense, 35th in pass efficiency defense, 16th in total defense, and 14th in scoring defense. Aside from the rushing defense numbers, that sounds about right. Those numbers are largely because of defensive end John Simon. Short of Whitney Mercilus, Simon will be the best defensive end Michigan faces this year. The matchup between him and Mark Huyge in pass protection looms large, but any time I say something like that, Huyge comes through with a competent effort. To date Simon has 13.5 TFL and 6 sacks.

The other dangerman on Ohio ~~State~~'s defense is defensive tackle Johnathan Hankins whose numbers are similarly harrowing: 10 TFL, 3 sacks. He's not quite as terrifying, however, as the strength of Michigan's offensive line is David Molk on the interior.

The linebackers, as previously mentioned, are suspect. None of them have particularly great numbers (their starting linebackers combine for 6 sacks and 11.5 TFL). Ohio ~~State~~ is a prototypical cover-2 defense that doesn't blitz a ton, so those numbers aren't totally unexpected, but their ability to fill in run support was terrible against Penn State. Given that the team is 42nd in run defense, it's been that way for much of the year.

With the strength of Michigan's offensive line and the lack of discipline from the Buckeye linebackers, Fitz Toussaint and Denard should find plenty of room to run between the tackles in this game. Chances are the Buckeyes will load the box with their strong safety making it difficult to bounce runs to the outside, but Michigan should average solidly in the 4.5-5.5 YPC range.

Through the air, we'll see. It's expected to rain, which probably favors Ohio ~~State~~ (Miller can't throw anyway, so this makes Michigan's offense a bit more one dimensional), but if the weather holds up, the Buckeye secondary isn't all that harrowing. They're currently starting two juniors, a sophomore, and a redshirt freshman. They've accounted for 7 interceptions between them, which isn't spectacular. More interestingly, the safeties (Christian Bryant and CJ Barnett) are the #3 and #4 tacklers on the team, respectively, which lends credence to the linebacker-suck theory.

Per usual, this comes down to Good Denard vs. Evil Denard. Borges has shown a few new passing concepts in the last few weeks that have all had good results. Expect at least one or two new formations and route combination that pick up good yardage. If it's raining and both teams are having trouble throwing the ball, Evil Denard will likely rear his head a few times. Pressure off the edge from Simon or up the middle from Hankins will probably cause a few errant throws, but I don't expect Michigan's passing game to be significantly worse against the Buckeyes than it was against Illinois or Nebraska.

Defense vs. Ohio ~~State~~: Where the LOLephants roam
Anyone who has watched the Buckeyes this year knows that the offense is barely functional. Watching Braxton Miller throw the ball is basically a redux of Terrelle Pryor during his freshman year: lots of armpunts, terribly inaccurate, and rarely effective. Given the current state of Michigan's secondary, chances are Ohio ~~State~~ will forgo passing the ball as much as possible. Floyd and Countess have been too good in coverage and Miller too bad passing for this to make a dramatic swing during this game.

Third and long will be interesting. In the last few weeks, Mattison has unleashed hell with Michigan's "okie" package, but Miller is a better athlete than Nathan Scheelhaase or Taylor Martinez and is better at escaping pressure than both. Fortunately, Michigan's zone blitzing is the kind of scheme that can confuse a young quarterback--especially one prone to scrambling--and force him into the strength of the defense. Expect at least a few moments when you say to yourself, "awesome blitz call" during this game. Simply put, Miller is not a threat through the air, even with the recent return of Posey, who Floyd will be Snuggie-ing all day.

The run game is where the Buckeyes will do the most damage. Miller's aforementioned athleticism will cause the team problems, but I'm not sure how many more than Scheelhaase and Martinez. Again, were this earlier in the season, I'd be worried about the edge discipline of Jake Ryan and Craig Roh, but in the last few weeks, Michigan has largely ironed those out. Per usual, Michigan will try to play contain on Miller and force a handoff to whatever running back is on the field.

That RB is likely to be senior Dan "Boom" Herron, he of TatGate fame. Herron has played in only five games to date but has accumulated 556 yards (5.2 YPC) and 2 TDs. He's a rumbling back (5'10", 205 lbs) that plays like a poor man's Beanie Wells. He's got some speed, but he makes most of his yards carrying the pile and running over defenders.

The Buckeye running game has really excelled because of their offensive line and fullback Zach Boren (yes, that Boren). The interior of the line is fierce, led by senior center Michael Brewster and the return of Mike Adams at tackle gives Ohio ~~State~~ possibly the best offensive line in the Big Ten. Were Michigan's defensive line not currently Swiss cheesing teams (see above), this would be a bigger worry. The real concern will be Michigan's linebackers filling the proper holes and reacting on time. I can already envision a few 20-yard runs after Desmond Morgan gets flattened by Boren, but if Demens and Co. can hold up against an aggressive, downhill running game, the Buckeye offense will be nonexistent.

Prediction
It's really hard to see Ohio ~~State~~ moving the ball at all. They haven't been able to all season and with Michigan's defense playing its best two games of the season in the previous two weeks, I can't see that trend changing. Miller is a dynamic athlete and he'll be a terror to defend against in the next few years, but he's not there this season. The Buckeye passing game is barely functional and Michigan's secondary is good enough to shut it down. With Ohio ~~State~~ forced to exclusively run the ball, Ryan, Roh, and Kovacs will be left to clean up the option runs. This will not be too much of a problem.

On the other side of the ball, Michigan's run game is going to be extremely variable. Runs will likely go for either zero yards or 10 yards. Given how poor the Buckeye linebackers are, if Toussaint and Denard can make it past the defensive line, they won't see anyone until they run into the safeties downfield. Depending on the weather, the passing game may be a non-factor. Regardless, expect a run/pass split like we've seen the last few games.

Ohio State 13 - Michigan 23

Nebraska's scrape exchange

2011-11-23T09:30:00.000-05:00

Against Michigan, Nebraska used the scrape exchange defensive playcall to defend Michigan's zone read. We saw Rodriguez toy with countering this a few times, usually using a pulling H-back to block the unblocked defensive end and the weakside tackle to block the scraping linebacker. Borges has been using more two-back sets to the same effect, one time busting Fitz Toussaint for a 10-yard gain. What's really interesting to me on this play is what the unblocked Nebraska defensive end does.

Michigan is in a basic two-back set with three wide receivers. Toussaint is to Denard's left and Stephen Hopkins is to Denard's right. Nebraska is in a nickel formation.

As the ball is snapped, the weakside defensive end is left unblocked (bottom of the screen).

Despite being unblocked, the weakside defensive end actually grabs on to Taylor Lewan (you can actually see his arm grabbing the side of Lewan) and restricts him from getting to the second level to block a linebacker. This also creates a log jam on the strongside of the field. Hopkins is running across the formation, to kick out any defender that that might crash down on the handoff.

At the mesh point, Lewan, who is being held by the defensive end, decides to block him and push him downfield. The weakside Nebraska linebacker has scraped over the top of the play and is playing contain on Denard.

Denard properly hands the ball off. However, Toussaint is running into a mass of bodies, in large part due to the Nebraska defensive end who engaged Lewan. The key here is Hopkins who is still pulling across the formation and going to engage the weakside linebacker that forced Denard to hand the ball off.

Hopkins engages and seals the linebacker to the outside. Lewan is trucking the Nebraska defensive end downfield. Toussaint, being a smart, patient running, sees this hole open up and cuts back to the weakside of the play.

Toussaint hits the hole and won't be tackled for 10 yards by a safety. (So maybe Hopkins gets away with a hold here, but so did the Nebraska defensive end in my opinion.)

Toussaint is probably the only Michigan running back that makes this play. His ability to delay and find the proper hole is something Michigan hasn't had since at least Mike Hart (and frankly, I think Toussaint does it better than Hart). But Michigan's response to the Nebraska scrape exchange also enables this play. Without Hopkins pulling across the formation to block Nebraska's weakside linebacker, that hole doesn't open up for Toussaint to run through.

Remeber this?

2011-11-22T11:00:00.000-05:00

Well...

These things are not the same. They are close though. That will be all.

Defending the option is hard

2011-11-22T09:30:00.000-05:00

As a purely hypothetical exercise (because trying to assign blame in a realistic sense to anyone on the Michigan defense is silly), I wanted to look at the awesome triple option that Nebraska ran for their second touchdown on Saturday. You may remember it as the coolest fucking option play you've seen all year. You may not have remembered it so fondly if Michigan hadn't been shellacking Nebraska at the time, but rest assured, it still would've been the coolest play you've seen this season.

The play:

Nebraska has the ball on the three yard line and comes out in a basic shotgun formation: three-wide and two backs in the backfield. Michigan is in their 4-3 under formation. When the ball is snapped, Ryan Van Bergen is left unblocked:

In a typical option play, the quarterback would be reading the unblocked defensive end. On this play, I believe that Martinez is actually reading Kenny Demens. The Nebraska left guard is pulling around the formation to block Van Bergen.

The pulling guard (#77) engages Van Bergen. The slot receiver is sealing Jake Ryan to the inside of the field. Not pictured, Nebraska's playside wide receiver is trying to seal Blake Countess to the outside. This leaves Demens and Thomas Gordon unblocked. Demens is staying high rather than scraping over the play, which tells Martinez to hand the ball off.

At this point, Michigan is toast. Gordon is in space against a ball carrier and pitch man.

Duh. Touchdown.

If blame has to be assigned here, it's on Demens, but that's not really fair. The issue here is alignment and a brilliant playcall that you can't really gameplan for. But (technically) Demens needs to scrape over the top of the formation here because Kovacs, crashing on the backside of the play, has Martinez if he pulls the ball. But we're not blaming Demens for this. We're admiring how awesome this play is.

All your corn are belong to Rich Rodriguez

2011-11-21T09:30:00.000-05:00

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

When Michigan's shellacking of Nebraska came to an end, I expected Brady Hoke to walk to midfield to shake hands with Bo Pelini whereupon Pelini would pull off his cheap rubber mask to reveal that Rich Rodriguez had actually been in charge of the Cornhuskers' otherwise valiant attempts at bumbling, fumbling football. The mess of kickoff fumbles, blocked punts, and otherwise undisciplined sloppy play reeked of the last three years in the Big House. Except this time, it was the opponent (a non-Notre Dame opponent to boot) that was staring at the sidelines after the football that was supposed to be tucked high and tight in their armpits was bouncing gleefully into the arms of defenders.

I like Rich Rodriguez, more than I rightfully should after the last three years. But JT Floyd and Jeremy Gallon are making him look like an idiot. Since Gallon showed up on campus, he was a bad decision waiting to happen: not fielding punts that he should have in addition to a complete inability to catch. In the short months that Hoke has been on campus, Gallon has become a reliable punt returner and relatively sure-handed. And don't even get me started on Floyd who built on his Illinois performance with another game of jumping routes and blanketing receivers.

An honest question: What were Rodriguez and his staff coaching for three years? The only answer I can muster is "schemes". Rodriguez assumed that at this level, players should have the fundamentals down and focused on schemes. Hoke, on the other hand, mocks your lack-of-toughness schemes and teaches Will Campbell how to keep his ass low to the ground. Whatever it is, Michigan's back-to-back defensive smotherings of decent-to-good offenses prove that this isn't a fluke. The defense is under the best management that it has been since Greg Mattison was last leading the same unit to a national championship over a decade ago.

The offense appears just as well off. Denard ran the ball 23 times in this game, his highest total since Michigan's dismantling of Northwestern over a month ago (and his third highest rushing attempt total of the season). Borges gets it. Denard isn't Chad Henne or Shane Morris, but Borges understands personnel; the previous coaching staff understood schemes. So the offense will probably be a little wonky and grab bag until 2013 when Borges has his prototypical quarterback under center (and he will be very much Under Center). Michigan will run Totally Surprising Jet Sweeps that invariably lose five yards. But when Borges isn't outsmarting himself, he's putting together an effective offensive package that keeps defenses on their toes and finds ways to utilize all of Michigan's vast skill players.

At this point, it's fair to say that Rodriguez's recruiting hauls were probably not as deficient as previously thought. A lot of the non-contributors over the last three years, especially on defense, are panning out as effective starters and in some cases, possible All Big Ten performers. But that's not such a great thing for Rodriguez's reputation. The better this team gets--and they will continue to get better--the more you have to ask, What the hell was going on the last three years?

Bullets

How nice is it that all of the special teams blunders are not being committed by your team? When's the last time Michigan blocked a punt? How enjoyable is it to be relatively certain Gallon is going to catch any punt sent his way but also make a few yards without fumbling?
Fitz Toussaint looks more and more like an NFL running back the more carries he gets. His lateral movement is incredible. There are only a few running backs in the country with a more effective cut than his. So long as he doesn't fall in love with it and maintains it as a tool to run vertically, Toussaint is going to be the best Michigan running back in a long time.
Denard, however, had another rough day running. For whatever reason, he's really struggled making decisions in the running game. In the last few games, Denard has shown a tendency to bounce everything to the outside, even when he has a lane up the middle. He may be trying to avoid some hits, but I'd guess he's trying to bust every run long rather than taking the running lanes given to him. The coaches will surely talk to him about this. His new-found ability to scramble is a wonderful addition to the offense, however.
Jibreel Black is done seeing relevant snaps this year. He refuses to play contain on the quarterback on option plays and was responsible for a significant chunk of Taylor Martinez's rushing yards.
Michigan ran 80 offensive plays in this game. Nebraska ran 54. Time of possession is a worthless stat, but those numbers are unreal. Michigan's defense booted the Cornhuskers off the field with ease (Nebraska was only 3-13 on third down and I believe they were 0-7 at one point) and the offense maintained long scoring drives.
Denard's interception was a clone of one that he threw earlier. He struggles mightily throwing those RB screens. Otherwise, he seemed to have a really good day through the air. That touchdown to Odoms was his best throw of the season.

Next week
Ohio.

Preview: Nebraska 2011

2011-11-18T09:30:00.000-05:00

#16 Nebraska (8-2) vs. #18 Michigan (8-2)

The Big House

Kickoff 12:00 pm EST

ESPN

Forecast: Low 50s, 30% chance of rain

Oddly, the first result in Google images for "cornhusker" is NSFW

Last week
#19 Nebraska 17 - #12 Penn State 14. Nebraska took on program-in-crisis Penn State last week and pulled out the victory despite Penn State making a game of it late. Nebraska held a 17-0 lead mid-way through the third quarter before PSU scored two unanswered touchdowns to make it a close game. The Nittany Lions were driving for a tying field goal when time ran out. Thus ended the first Penn State game since Jesus rode dinosaurs around the earth that Joe Paterno wasn't the head coach.

Though the scoreboard and box score say this game was close, that's not really the case. Nebraska holed up and played prevent football once they got a lead allowing PSU to crawl back into the game. Both teams' passing games were predictably inept with neither starting quarterback (Taylor Martinez or Matt McGloin) surpassing a 50% completion percentage. Both rushing attacks were mediocre, too. Rex Burkhead averaged 4.8 YPC on 25 carries while Stephon Green averaged a little less (4.2 YPC) on 17 rushes.

These are two teams with suspect offenses and the game played out as such. They were a combined 11-32 on third downs, 1-4 on fourth downs, and each team turned the ball over once. This game personifies The Big Ten in 2011.

#24 Michigan 31 - Illinois 14. Game recap. Illinois continued their Zookian slide in epic fashion against Michigan, failing to score in the first half and generating under 50 yards of offense for the game's first 30 minutes. Much of that can be attributed to Greg Mattison's schemes, but it's also largely due to Illinois having the worst offensive line in the Big Ten. Unable to run or pass block, and a sophomore quarterback who's a mediocre passer, this offense is barely functional. Michigan eventually capitalized on the strength of a 192-yard day from Fitz Toussaint. Denard Robinson came out of the game after mashing his hand on a defenders helmet, and Devin Gardner proved a serviceable backup.

The defense turned in its best performance since 2006 by playing disciplined in addition to great individual play from the secondary, which shut down AJ Jenkins and anyone else Scheelhaase considered throwing to. We were even treated to the best CB play of the last few years when JT Floyd--of all people--jumped a Jenkins hitch route and picked off Scheelhaase.

While this game is probably a bit of a paper tiger, there's a possibility, going up against two flawed offensive teams, that Michigan will be able to maintain this level of play for the rest of the year.

Offense vs. Nebraska
Nebraska's defense has been weird this year. Though they allowed only 3 points to MSU, they gave up 41 to Wisconsin, 27 to Ohio ~~State~~, 29 to Fresno State, and 28 to Washington. They're currently 66th in rushing defense, 29th in pass efficiency defense (about which more in a second), 38th in total defense, and 36th in scoring defense. These are good-not-great numbers, but when you see Nebraska's schedule, they're a little underwhelming (Chattanooga, Fresno St, Washington, Wyoming, Ohio ~~State~~, Minny, PSU; they also played MSU, Wisconsin, and Northwestern, but the majority of their schedule is either cupcake or has a broken offense).

Defensively, the Cornhuskers are led by senior cornerback Alfonzo Dennard and senior linebacker Lavonte David. A lot is going to be made of Dennard because of Michigan's obvious passing struggles and Dennard's status as the conference's best cornerback. However, I'm not sure he presents many problems for the team. Denard Robinson doesn't really have a go-to target (Hemingway, I guess) that he relies on heavily, so sticking Dennard on any one receiver doesn't make too much of a difference. Dennard will probably defend deep passes better than any other CB that Michigan has faced this year, but he won't be able to out-jump Hemingway.

David, on the other hand, allows the Cornhuskers defense to be incredibly versatile. He's good in coverage as well as run support, allowing them to maintain consistent personnel groups if Michigan starts changing between spread and pro-style concepts. David is fast enough to affect Michigan's running game, so getting a helmet on him downfield will be critical to the offense's success.

As for Michigan's schemes, those are once again up in the air. After using primarily an I-based attack against Iowa to disastrous effect, Al Borges went back to mostly spread schemes versus Illinois. This opened up a lot of running lanes for Toussaint, despite Denard having a relatively poor day on the ground. The expectation now is spread schemes for the rest of the season. I think Borges has experimented and failed enough with the I formation and pro-style attack that he's content running what the team is best at.

Though Dennard's ability to lock down Michigan's best receiver might not be a huge factor in the game, his presence will be felt. Denard will have to be careful passing into the Cornhusker secondary as they're one of the better units in the Big Ten. Expect a lot of short, horizontal routes, the likes of which Borges debuted against Illinois (I'm thinking specifically about the bunch receiver set that they used with a delayed route).

When running the ball--primarily with Toussaint as the coaches have made clear--Michigan will probably run between the tackles. Nebraska is dealing with injuries to their defensive line and is thin at the defensive tackle spot. Michigan's interior line should be able to seal the Nebraska linemen and get to the second level to block off David and the other linebackers.

Defense vs. Nebraska
Were this earlier in the season, Jake Ryan's persistent contain issues would be terrifying here. Martinez is every bit as fast as he's rumored to be, and giving him the edge, especially with Michigan's other indecisive linebackers, is a recipe for long runs. Fortunately, Ryan et al have shown considerable improvement defending the option (save Jibreel Black and Frank Clark, who both still struggle keeping contain, don't play).

Nebraska has the kind of QB/RB combo that Michigan had hoped for under the Rodriguez regime with Rex Burkhead lining up next to Martinez. Burkhead is averaging 5.1 YPC this season, has surpassed the 1,000 yard mark, and has 14 touchdowns so far. Though Michigan will still likely force Martinez to hand the ball off as much as possible, Burkhead can make defenses pay.

The problem with defending Nebraska's run game, as has been mentioned elsewhere and as Mattison brought up in his weekly press conference, is that they're able to run a variety of styles and formations effectively. Michigan's defense has to really be on their toes to defend the mix of power and option running that Nebraska will bring. Fortunately, they're coming off their best performance to date against Illinois--an option team--and looked universally sound on their assignments. This game will tell whether or not the improvement we saw from the defense against Illinois is for real.

Through the air, well... Nebraska is currently 101st in passing offense. God doesn't give with both hands, so what he gave to Martinez in speed, he subtracted from his passing abilities. Martinez can't throw a football like a quarterback. He shot puts the ball, which is about as effective as you might imagine. He's currently completing only 57% of his passes, has a 10/7 TD/INT ratio, and is averaging only 7.44 YPA. Martinez is only a real threat to throw the ball when safeties bite on play action.

This inability to throw and the emergence of JT Floyd and Blake Countess as legitimately good cornerbacks means that Michigan will be able to use Jordan Kovacs primarily in run support, leaving either Thomas Gordon or Troy Woolfolk as the lone deep safety. As long as Michigan's linebackers/defensive ends properly play Nebraska's option attack and force a handoff to Burkhead, Kovacs' presence should strip the Cornhuskers of the blocking advantage they gain.

Prediction
In August, if someone had told you that Michigan would be 8-2 and favored going into this game, you'd probably have told them they were nuts, but Nebraska's disappointing season and the emergence of Michigan's defense makes this a very winnable game. If Michigan's performance against Illinois wasn't a one-off event, Michigan could similarly dominate this game. Because Martinez is hardly a threat to pass, Michigan will play primarily in man coverage in this game and load up against the run. The discipline of the front seven against a varied and unusual option attack will be key: always, always, always force Martinez to hand the ball off. Fortunately, Michigan's recent performances make me think they won't have much trouble containing this rushing attack and consequently, the Nebraska offense.

On the other side of the ball: Evil Denard vs. Good Denard. Nebraska's defensive line isn't strong enough to stuff Michigan's rushing attack, which should move the ball pretty well. However, Michigan will have to call on Denard's arm a lot more than they did against Illinois. Avoiding costly mistakes against the conference's best secondary is important. He'll throw at least one interception. If he starts turning the ball over multiple times, it may be too much to overcome.

A low scoring game that sees Michigan's defense dominate and the offense look shaky once again.

Michigan 20 - Nebraska 16

Illinois sanity day

2011-11-17T10:26:00.001-05:00

Rewatching the Illinois game again, I realized that I probably bit off more than I could chew this week with my Mattison blitz post because it stripped me of a number of things to write about. Instead of watching the game a second time yesterday to try and find something to write about, I decided to take a much-needed sanity day. Between my day job, applications to graduate school, and blogging, I was pretty worn out. Regular posting will continue tomorrow with the Nebraska preview. Posting for the rest of the month will probably be a little weird though, as I have a week-long conference for work around Thanksgiving, but I'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Defending Illinois' speed option

2011-11-16T09:30:00.000-05:00

Though Michigan showed a lot of innovative blitzes against Illinois, perhaps the most memorable play from the game was one of the few times the Illini ran from their signature pistol formation. The most highlight-worthy moment of the play was Jake Ryan flattening Illinois quarterback Nathan Scheelhaase a moment after he pitched the ball, but it was the play of Jordan Kovacs (shock) that really made the defense effective.

Illinois comes out in the pistol formation they're known for. Michigan counters with a basic 4-3 under formation. Instead of running the triple option as Illinois typically does from their formation, they run a speed option to Scheelhaase's left with the H-back used as a lead blocker.

As the ball is snapped, Michigan rushes all four down linemen. Ryan reads the play and makes an incredible break on the ball. Illinois' slot receiver will try and block Ryan or at least impede his path to Scheelhaase, but because of how quickly Ryan diagnoses the play and breaks on the ball, he's able to beat the block. (As a sidenote, look at how quickly Mike Martin came off the ball. He's already beyond the line of scrimmage as Michigan's other down linemen are just standing up. Explosiveness, he has it.)

A moment later, Ryan has beaten the block from the slot receiver. Illinois' H-back (acting as a lead blocker) recognizes this and tries to slow up and block Ryan but is unable to. This play is intended to option off of Kovacs, but because Ryan is in the backfield so quickly, Scheelhaase is forced to pitch the ball too early.

Despite the H-back trying to block Ryan, he's still able to hammer Scheelhaase who pitches the ball. At this point, the running back is essentially in space against Kovacs. Martin is flowing to the play in pursuit but is initially outrun.

This is where Kovacs makes the play. Illinois' running back is trying to get to the edge of the field and away from Martin and Michigan's other pursuit defenders. As you can see, Kovacs is coming downhill at the ball carrier but he's a yard or two outside of the ball, making sure to funnel the play back inside.

As Kovacs approaches the ball carrier, he's still aligned with the outside shoulder of the running back, forcing him back inside. Though it looks like Kovacs overruns the play (he doesn't, as we'll see), that's OK because he's forcing it back to the middle where his help defense is.

Kovacs reaches out and gets a hold of the ball carrier, slowing him enough for Martin to wrap up the tackle.

If Michigan fails to do any of these things (Ryan's jump, Kovacs' contain, or Martin's pursuit), this could have become anything from a 5-yard gain to a long touchdown. But the combination of these actions helps Michigan perfectly execute the play. Ryan's ability to force the pitch early simplifies Kovacs' read. Given that Mattison has assigned Michigan's defensive ends to play the quarterback on option runs, I'd bet Ryan was coached to go directly after Scheelhaase if Illinois runs from this formation.

Kovacs is the real key, in my opinion. For the last three years, we've been treated to corners/safties/linebackers giving up the edge as they rush without abandon to try and make the tackle. Kovacs is smart enough to realize that he's in space against a running back and will probably struggle to make a play. He shows the perfect amount of aggressiveness here: engaging the running back in the backfield, but being cautious enough to maintain leverage.

Martin is able to clean up the play because of his pursuit. It helps that he ripped through Illinois' suspect offensive line, but good defenses have players that make plays like this. Martin was heads-up enough to read the play and get himself in position to corral the running back if Kovacs kept contain.

For this blog's purposes, the schemes that Mattison brings are probably the most exciting aspect of the new coaching staff, but in reality, proper positioning and this kind of fundamentally sound play is the real benefit of Mattison and Co. Chances are that last year, this play goes for a significant chunk of yardage and the team continues to make the same basic errors. In the span of one season, Michigan's defense suddenly gets it. That's all coaching. I hate you Greg Robinson.

p.s. I hate you Rich Rodriguez.

Obligatory slobbering Mattison post

2011-11-15T09:30:00.000-05:00

Late in the game against Iowa, Greg Mattison unveiled a pre-snap defensive alignment and blitz package that was similar to the one that produced the late Notre Dame touchdown. Michigan overwhelms the line of scrimmage with defenders and drops most of them into coverage, generally rushing only four defenders. The difference between the Iowa formation and the ND formation was the alignment of Mike Martin who, instead of lining up in the nose tackle position, lines up outside of the offensive tackle--Desmond Morgan instead lines up as the "nose tackle".

Against Illinois, Mattison went insane. Or rather, he put on display his brand of mad genius. Not only did Mattison dial up that pre-snap alignment six different times in the game, he showed just how deep his playbook goes by calling five (!) different plays from it, using a combination of zone and man coverage. Doing a Picture Page post for each one is probably redundant, so what follows are diagrams of the five different plays Michigan showed from that formation in addition to the game situation.

The first time Michigan showed the alignment, Illinois was in 3rd and 10 in the first quarter. This is the most coverage-heavy variation of the play Michigan showed. As you can see, Martin is bounced outside the Illinois tight end. Martin, along with Van Bergen, Roh, and Ryan will be the four rushers while the rest of the defense drops off into zone coverage. Hilariously, Ron Zook or Nathan Sheelhaase checked to a running play when Michigan showed this formation. My guess is that Scheelhaase was coached during the previous week to check to a run when Michigan showed this alignment because it was a zone blitz that would be susceptible to a run. But this was 3rd and 10 and Illinois came up obviously short.

The second time Michigan showed the formation, Illinois was once again in 3rd and 10. The biggest change is having all of Michigan's defenders play man coverage against Illinois' eligible receivers rather than drop into zone coverage. However, Ryan and Morgan will still drop into underneath zones. Meanwhile, on the strongside of the play, Van Bergen, Kovacs, and Martin are running the stunt formation that Michigan used to great effect against Western Michigan early in the season. Though this doesn't produce a sack, Scheelhaase makes an errant throw with pressure in his face and the defense gets off the field.

This result is not sufficient for Mattison. Once again, Illinois is in 3rd and 10. Michigan shows the same formation but brings another completely different coverage scheme. The blitzing schemes are the same, but with Illinois spreading the field with five receivers, Michigan drops all players that aren't blitzing into zone coverage. Here, Martin--who had rushed on the previous two instances--will drop into coverage. Floyd and Woolfolk are playing deep halves and the rest of Michigan's defenders are in underneath zones across the field. Roh, Demens, and Ryan run the stunt formation we saw above. This will yield a sack.

Mattison's playbook must go on forever. Illinois is in 3rd and 12. Michigan comes out in basically the same pre-snap formation. The only difference is that Roh and Van Bergen are much tighter on the inside of the line than they had been previously. The will run an inside stunt move while Martin and Frank Clark rush the outside. The rest of Michigan's defenders drop into the basic cover-2, underneath zone coverage they've shown a few times now. The inside stunt confuses the offensive line and Van Bergen gets in for the sack.

I imagine Mattison has more plays from this formation, but he showed only one more during this game. Once again, Michigan will use man coverage instead of zone. The biggest change here is the decision to rush five men instead of four, as the team had done the entire game. Scheelhaase makes a quick hitch throw to AJ Jenkins, which JT Floyd covers but is called for a legitimate pass interference call.

This is insane. As I rewatched the game, Michigan seemed to always be in this formation and every time (save one) they brought a different blitz scheme. Though not all of them produced sacks, they did get considerable pressure on Scheelhaase. In addition, the various coverage schemes must be nearly impossible for a QB to diagnose before the snap.

After the game, I said of Mattison's schemes:

Mattison is installing this defense a lot like Rodriguez or Borges installed their offense. Week by week, Mattison introduces a new formation or coverage scheme to the defense--usually only one. Early in the season, it was a basic stunt move intended to overwhelm one side of the offensive line. Against MSU, he debuted an A-gap zone blitz. Purdue: nickel blitz. Iowa: crowding the line of scrimmage. Michigan's base defense is a 4-3 under, man-coverage look that Mattison can slowly and effectively build upon. While he doesn't go back to the cookie jar in later weeks, the hope (and my expectation) is that when Michigan plays Ohio ~~State~~, they'll have an arsenal of blitzing plays that can be deployed in unison, creating a defense that is as unpredictable and consistently effective as the constantly tweaked offense under Rodriguez.

...but I hadn't imagined he debuted quite this much during the game. Not only does Michigan's defense now have five blitzes in their arsenal should they need them, but these are schemes that opposing offensive lines now have to practice and account for. And even if Michigan shows this pre-snap alignment, they could still bring a variety of different pressure and coverage schemes. If Mattison has this many variants from other pre-snap formations, Michigan's defense will have a near endless arsenal of blitzes to throw at opposing offenses. It'll be fun once the defense really learns the playbook.

Illinois 2011: A reason to love Greg Mattison

2011-11-14T09:30:00.000-05:00

Before the season, I was bullish on Greg Mattison and the Michigan defense, but ultimately thought the unit wouldn't rise above 60th in the country in most statistical categories. "Ten" games into the season (the NCAA doesn't recognize the shortened WMU game), Michigan is 41st in rushing defense, 39th in pass efficiency defense, 17th in total defense, and 7th (!) in scoring defense. As the season progressed, there were always caveats: the Big Ten is awful, the defense is recovering an inordinate amount of fumbles, mediocre performances against Iowa and MSU. But after dismantling a 6-3 Illinois team, those caveats get thrown out the window. This is a good defense.

Sure, there's not very much depth on the defensive line. After this year, Mike Martin and Ryan Van Bergen graduate and the front seven looks less terrifying, but the one thing that won't change is Greg Mattison, whose schemes are some of the best in college football and who can find ways to generate QB pressure regardless of who is on the field. Last week, Mattison debuted the alignment above on third and very long against Iowa. Despite seven men crowding the line of scrimmage, only four would rush while the rest dropped off into coverage, confusing both the offensive line and quarterback. On Saturday, any time the defense forced the Illini into a third and long situation, Mattison dialed up this formation, each time rushing different players from different positions on the field. The Illinois offensive line was ill equipped to handle the attack.

Mattison is installing this defense a lot like Rodriguez or Borges installed their offense. Week by week, Mattison introduces a new formation or coverage scheme to the defense--usually only one. Early in the season, it was a basic stunt move intended to overwhelm one side of the offensive line. Against MSU, he debuted an A-gap zone blitz. Purdue: nickel blitz. Iowa: crowding the line of scrimmage. Michigan's base defense is a 4-3 under, man-coverage look that Mattison can slowly and effectively build upon. While he doesn't go back to the cookie jar in later weeks, the hope (and my expectation) is that when Michigan plays Ohio ~~State~~, they'll have an arsenal of blitzing plays that can be deployed in unison, creating a defense that is as unpredictable and consistently effective as the constantly tweaked offense under Rodriguez.

Saturday was about more than blitzes though. That was the best defensive performance from a Michigan squad in four years. Though Illinois doesn't have a great offense, they do have an above average one, and Michigan was able to completely shut them down despite the offense affording the Illini 13 real drives. Illinois earned only 20 yards in the first half and didn't score until the end of the third quarter. The defense forced seven 3 and outs during the game and JT Floyd made the best play a Michigan cornerback has made since Donovan Warren ripped the ball away from an Indiana receiver to seal a Michigan victory in 2009. Were the offense able to move the ball at all, this game would've gotten out of hand earlier. Instead, it took the aforementioned Floyd interception to set the Wolverines up with good enough field position to capitalize.

With two games left against obviously flawed teams, Michigan can, against all odds, win 10 games this season. With a defense that appears to be getting better as the season progresses and an offense that's functional (with occasional flashes of brilliance), this is the most complete team wearing the Maize and Blue since 2006. And though making it to the Big Ten title game is probably out of reach (barring an epic collapse from Sparty), Michigan really only has one thing left to play for this season: ending Ohio ~~State~~'s seemingly endless win streak against the Wolverines. After Saturday's game, that seems more like a likelihood than a possibility.

Bullets

I'm really glad I have a "Reasons to love Greg Mattison" tag already.
Al Borges' refusal to throw a screen pass makes me so angry. After Michigan took a 14-0 lead, Illinois started almost exclusively run blitzing, and rightfully so: Michigan only threw the ball 15 times throughout the game. Borges' answer to these run blitzes was to... run. It obviously didn't work and Michigan's offense bogged down when they had a chance to blow the game open.
However, Borges' decision to play almost exclusively from the shotgun paid dividends. Though it seems like he's come to this conclusion before, Michigan still had the offensive debacle against Iowa, which was dominated by I formation runs. The hope is that Borges has finally learned his lesson and Michigan will forgo the I formation for the majority of the remaining games.
Great to see Martavious Odoms get a touchdown catch in this game. His lack of playing time is the most depressing aspect of the season.
My other gripe about the offensive playcalling: rollouts. They're awful. Michigan doesn't run them well and defenses are consistently defeating them by shooting a linebacker/defensive end straight upfield to play contain. Denard and Devin never have a run/pass option on those plays because of how they're defended. Instead, Borges is asking the team's mediocre passers to throw on the run. This is sub-optimal.
Illinois' offensive line is Swiss cheese. Though much of the pressure on Scheelhaase was created by Mattison's schemes, the offensive line provided little-to-no resistance.

Next week
Michigan welcomes 8-2 Nebraska to the Big House. The Cornhuskers are coming off a 17-14 win against Penn State. They've been relatively shaky all season, losing to Northwestern and being annihilated by Wisconsin. They also had a narrow escape against Ohio State. This is going to be a tight game that will probably come down to who turns the ball over less.

Preview: Illinois 2011

2011-11-11T09:30:00.000-05:00

#24 Michigan (7-2) vs. Illinois (6-3)

Memorial Stadium, Champaign, Illinois

Kickoff 3:30 pm EST

ABC regional/ESPN

Forecast: High 50s, 10% chance of rain

Last week
Illinois 7 - #19 Penn State 10. Despite playing a Nittany Lion team that still can't find an offense, Illinois lost last week thanks to a missed field goal at the buzzer that would've sent the game into overtime. Illinois' defensive numbers were great but Penn State has a way of making all defenses look good. The Illini only allowed 209 yards, 2.7 YPC, and 3.5 YPA through the air. Penn State's offense is awful. In spite of that awful output, PSU running back Silas Redd still managed 4.6 YPC on 30 carries, so there's yard to be had against the Illinois defense.

What ultimately killed Illinois last week were turnovers, of which they had four: interceptions thrown by backup QB Reilly O'Toole and wide receiver Tim Russel, as well as two fumbles. Otherwise, they won every offensive category on the box score. (A sidenote: Penn State is going to be the worst team to win the Big Ten in at least 20 years.) Then again, starting quarterback Nathan Scheelhaase only threw the ball 16 times, connecting on 9 of them for 63 yards.

Offensively, this game set the Big Ten back a decade.

#15 Michigan 16 - Iowa 24. Game column. Michigan struggled to score against a mediocre Iowa defense and managed to screw up an extra-point attempt to set up a frantic game-theory debated fourth quarter. In the end, Michigan came three yards short of a potential tying touchdown despite all of the receiver drops, freshman mistakes, and I formation catastrophes. Regardless, this is a game that Michigan probably should have won.

Desmond Morgan came in for much chastising after failing to keep contain on multiple Iowa runs, but otherwise, the defense held up well. Against an admittedly mediocre offense, Michigan held Iowa to 302 total yards, including 3.7 YPC. They were even able to hold Mooseback Marcus Coker below his season average, albeit not significantly (4.6 YPC).

The offense, on the other hand, was... bad. Denard had another poor day, but that was aided by multiple drops from his receivers. On the ground, the team averaged only 3.4 YPC. And the offensive line had arguably their worst game of the year. Much of that was due to the coaching staff's insistence on calling plays from the I formation, but this is life for Michigan in 2011.

Offense vs. Illinois
This looks harrowing. In addition to the offense coming off one of their worst performances of the season, the Illinois defense has been very good this year. They currently rank 15th in rushing defense, 19th in pass efficiency defense, 6th in total defense, and 13th in scoring defense. Despite those terrifying numbers, they're almost identical to those of the Illinois defense last year before Michigan's epic triple overtime win (19th in total pass yardage, 26th against the rush, 12th scoring defense). Unfortunately, Michigan 2011 /= Michigan 2010, and the chances Michigan exposes the Illini defense this season are hovering around zero.

This year, the Illinois defense is led by defensive end Whitney Mercilus, who already has 44 tackles, 16.5 TFLs, and 11.5 sacks. He'll be matched up against Mark Huyge, which, if recent returns are to be believed, is going to be a big problem. A key to winning this game will be making sure Huyge always has help on Mercilus, whether that's a running back chipping him in the backfield or a tight end. Michigan will either have to option off of Mercilus or run away from him. My guess is the latter.

Illinois boasts and old, experienced defense and it shows. The one weakness is probably 260-lbs defensive tackle (!) Glenn Foster. If Michigan is going to run from the I formation, it's going to be specifically to attack Foster. Illinois, meanwhile, heeding Michigan's previous performances, will likely load the box and force Denard to throw the ball.

As for what Michigan can do to attack Illinois: I have no idea. Against Iowa, Michigan made a significant shift in playcalling:

A lot more under center in this game. I've got Michigan with 9 snaps in an ace formation, four in Denard jet, and 14 in I-Form. Michigan had 26 shotgun snaps in hurry-up time and 22 outside of it.

Of Michigan's 49 snaps in their base offense, 22 were from the shotgun, a 45% rate. Big dropoff from before the bye week.

At this point, I have no idea what Al Borges is going to call, though maybe that's the point. If Michigan stays under center in this game, they'll have to attack Illinois' suspect defensive tackles because Michigan has struggled to run outside the tackles and Mercilus will shut down anything in his direction.

Through the air, it's another episode of Good Denard vs. Evil Denard. He showed improvement going through his reads against Iowa--except on his interception, in which he stared down Roundtree, randomly pump faked (that no one bought), and then threw the ball into triple coverage--but he still hasn't solved many of his accuracy problems.

Defense vs. Illinois
I would feel a lot worse about this situation if this game were earlier in the season and Michigan hadn't already played a triple option team (Northwestern). Since that time, Jake Ryan has shown significant improvement maintaining the edge and Michigan's undisciplined defensive ends have started to play more consistently. My big concern in this game is Kenny Demens, who has been slowed by a few injuries and has shown a lot of struggles diagnosing plays. This is the kind of offense that punishes linebackers for not making quick reads.

As Greg Mattison instructed the team to do against Northwestern, the unblocked defensive ends on the option will always play contain on the quarterback, forcing a handoff. This means there will be a lot of running plays headed directly at Desmond Morgan that he'll need to stay disciplined on. I expect Michigan's defense to play far more zone coverage in this game than they have all year as a safety valve for blown assignments.

For the second straight week, the secondary will have its hands full with another star wide receiver. This week its A.J. Jenkins, who has 68 receptions for 1,030 yards this season. It will be interesting to see whether or not Mattison leaves JT Floyd to cover Jenkins or whether he gives Blake Countess a crack at it. Floyd struggled last week, which may be a strong enough argument to give Countess the first shot at covering Jenkins.

Fortunately, Illinois' quarterback is still hit-or-miss thrower Nathan Scheelhaase. Though he's a shifty runner (not a lot of top-end speed, though), his throwing motion and accuracy are, well, iffy. He runs the option well, but when he's asked to throw the ball, he often struggles. For proof, in last year's triple overtime loss, Scheelhaase only threw the ball 25 times. Denard and Tate Forcier combined for 39 passing attempts in the game. Illinois does not throw the ball much.

Prediction
I don't know. If I had any inclination what the offense will look like on Saturday, this would be easier to call. Unfortunately, Al Borges seems to be trending more toward an I formation system. If that's the case, Michigan is going to struggle to run the ball and Mercilus is going to add to his already gaudy stats. But even if Michigan does play primarily from the shotgun, it's tough to see them moving the ball against a defense that's proven to be one of the more consistent in the country. Denard's accuracy problems and the offensive line's struggles run blocking create an inconsistent offense that will likely struggle to move the ball. And given that the Illinois defense is more blitz-heavy than Iowa's, you can expect more pressure on Denard and more errant throws.

I don't expect Illinois' offense to move the ball much either. Aside from a few frustrating drives punctuated by linebackers giving up the edge, neither Scheelhaase or starting running back Jason Ford present too much of a threat on the ground. A.J. Jenkins will get his receptions, but I'm confident enough in the secondary that he won't be catching Michael Floydian deep jump balls. Though I do expect Illinois to put together a few more scoring drives than Michigan will be able to muster.

Michigan 17 - Illinois 24

On Penn State; Coach Taylor

2011-11-10T15:35:00.001-05:00

I grew up playing hockey despite my parents’ constant refrain “You can play any sport you want. Except hockey and football.” My parents were concerned for my safety. But when the Muzzi’s moved in down the street and I saw Tony roller blading on the sidewalk, I ran into the house and told my parents “I want to play hockey.” As a five year old, Tony was the coolest person I had ever seen. Something about the way he would glide down the sidewalk captivated me. I wanted to glide like that.

After investigating the sport, my parents realized that contact and violence were slowly introduced. A few months after I begged them to let me play, my parents took me to Play It Again sports to outfit me with hockey gear. The helmet and skates didn’t fit right, but they were good enough for a Mini Mite. The salesman handed me a hockey stick without any curve on it and told me to hold it however it felt comfortable. That’s how I found out that I play hockey like Wayne Gretzky: a righty playing left handed.

I idolized my coaches despite not remembering many of them anymore. I remember coach Cooke because he made me captain of the team and selected me #1 overall in the open draft for players one year. I remember coach Mann because he was the best coach I had ever had, and because he arranged to have MSU goalie Ryan Miller come to a practice—I scored on him, but I’m relatively sure he wasn’t looking. Coaches were authority figures in a way that parents and teachers couldn’t be. In the locker rooms, they swore and talked about girlfriends. They were usually younger than my parents and didn’t seem like such stringent disciplinarians. Coach Mann advocated heart punches: if you screwed up in practice, he would punch you in the heart in the locker room. This probably wasn’t a great idea, but my favorite coaches were the ones that inspired you to play well but acted like your peer, despite being old enough to have birthed you.

One year, either in Squirts or Pee-Wee, our team had a new coach that I didn’t recognize: coach Taylor, I think, though I don’t remember exactly. Everyone loved Coach Taylor. He had an attractive wife and bragged about it in the locker room. He had two young children who used to come on the ice and practice with us. He was everything you wanted in a coach: a good motivator, someone who swore and talked about girlfriends, but also inspired you to go out on the ice and play your best hockey.

As the season wore on, Coach Taylor would invite the players to come watch him play hockey after our games. Players would hang out with him at the ice rink after practices and watch him skate later that night. My parents never let me stay despite my desire to hang out with Coach and the team. The players loved Coach Taylor. Eventually, he began inviting everyone to come over to his house and hang out. Once again, my parents never let me go. I felt left out when the team laughed about playing video games at his house over the weekend.

Then one night, my parents received a call. There were parent meetings and rumors of weird things going on at Coach Taylor’s house. At the next practice, we were told that Coach Taylor was no longer our coach and that he wouldn’t be allowed back ever. We were warned to cut ties with him. To this date, I don’t know exactly what happened—my parents never told me—but the bits I can remember included something unsavory in a shower. His wife left him and I don’t believe he was allowed to see his children anymore.

A few years later, my mom and I were walking around a Target when we came across Coach Taylor. My mom hurried us away and wouldn’t let me talk to him. This was the first time that I can remember feeling that adults—adults in my limited world, anyway—did bad things.

There’s no moral to this story and I won’t try to force its narrative on the one that’s currently playing out at Penn State. Sports seem like an avenue to gain access to young children, and how you monitor and control that is what really needs to be addressed in the wake of this scandal. With such a young and possibly at-risk population, reform and questions should be directed at the oversight of these charities and youth sports. The administration and athletic department at Penn State failed miserably in this regard, but that’s in the past. Now we need to establish ways to ensure that this never happens again.

Third and long? Get Mattisoned

2011-11-10T09:30:00.000-05:00

Readers of the blog will know that I've been enamored with Greg Mattison all year. Aside from the obvious, tangible gains in performance, Mattison brought with him NFL blitzing schemes that I had been clamoring for during Greg Robinson's disastrous experiment with an "aggressive, blitzing" 3-3-5 defense. Early in the season, Mattison showed more than a few zone blitzes that had me really excited for the rest of the season, but as games rolled by, Michigan lacked the kind of defensive flare that got me excited. Finally, with Iowa in a 3rd and 16, Mattison unveiled a seemingly hellacious blitz that earned Michigan a sack and more importantly, got them off the field in a critical situation.

The play:

The first thing you'll notice is that despite Michigan having players swarming the line of scrimmage, only four defenders actually rushed, while the rest dropped off into coverage. There are a few players not pictured, but things of note: Martin is in a two-point stance outside of Iowa's tight end, Courtney Avery and Frank Clark are lined up over Iowa's slot receiver, and Desmond Morgan is lined up as the "nose tackle". It is difficult to get a read as to two is and is not rushing.

As the ball is snapped, most of the defenders on the line of scrimmage drop into coverage. Morgan drops from the NT spot, and Martin and Kovacs each begin dropping into their respective coverage zones. Meanwhile, Clark, Demens, Roh, and Van Bergen are the four rushers.

As the play continues, it's clear that Michigan's coverage scheme is a basic cover-2 with five zone defenders underneath. But because Iowa needs 16 yards for a first down, Michigan is able to mix up who they send into coverage without the fear of a blown play.

Iowa's receivers are all running shallow crossing routes, which, if this is defended even remotely how it should be, will net a gain of no more than 5 to 8 yards. Here, you can see that Michigan's underneath defenders are all within arms length of an Iowa receiver, forcing Vandenberg to progress through his reads.

Since all of the Iowa receivers are covered, Vandenberg steps into the pocket where Roh is headed.

Boom, Mattisoned.

A few things of note:

This is a difficult playcall to make unless the opponent has 10+ yards to go for a first down. Sending players like Mike Martin into coverage is risky business if your opponent only needs a few yards to convert, but surprising QBs with a zone drop from linemen is a way to force an errant throw or make them check down to a different receiver. Here, with no one open, Vandenberg has to eat a sack.

The pre-snap alignment also goes a long way toward this result. Obviously having Morgan lined up in the nose tackle spot is a wonky alignment, but in my opinion, the most critical alignment prior to the snap is that of Troy Woolfolk. When a quarterback reads a defensive alignment before the snap, one of the key things they look for is the alignment of the safeties. If there's one deep safety, chances are the team is playing cover-1 or cover-3. If there are two deep safeties, they're likely playing cover-2 or quarters. However, on this play, Woolfolk is the only deep safety, but he will roll to one side of the field as JT Floyd drops into coverage as the second deep safety.

Missed blocks (Iowa edition)

2011-11-09T09:30:00.000-05:00

After a poor 2009 season blocking for Tate Forcier, Mark Huyge proved himself a decent-to-good right tackle last year en route to Michigan's best offense in over a decade. Unfortunately, 2011 hasn't been quite as kind. Against MSU, Huyge opened SitB for suffering Spartan defensive ends. And against Iowa, he was responsible for the death of a play that was setup to go a long, long way.

The setup:

Michigan is down 6-7 with just over 13 minutes left in the second quarter and has the ball on their own 40 yard line. Michigan comes out in an I formation with stacked receivers to Denard's right. Initially, Kevin Koger is lined up as an H-back on the left side of the field...

He will motion across the formation and line up directly behind Mark Huyge:

This is a basic power play. On the snap, Michael Schofield begins to pull across the formation as the lead blocker. Huyge and David Molk down block. Patrick Omameh needs to get to the second level to seal Iowa's MLB. Koger is responsible to kick out the playside Iowa linebacker. They're creating a hole in the C gap (to the right of the right tackle, Huyge) for Schofield and Fitz Toussaint to run through.

Schofield continues to pull...

As Denard hands the ball off, Huyge is being thrown to the ground. So instead of creating a hole in the C gap for Schofield to run through, Iowa now has, essentially, an unblocked linebacker and defensive end for him to deal with.

Huyge continues to fall. Toussaint follows Schofield.

Since Huyge has missed his block, Toussaint is forced to cut back up the field into the help defense.

Tackled. Boo.

A few things:

Huyge has to hold this block. If he does, this play is set up to go a long way. If this play is blocked correctly, the only things between Toussaint and the endzone are two defenders and two blockers. Instead, the hole collapses and Toussaint is forced to cut back into the middle of the field and into the strength of Iowa's defense. Problems like these are why Michigan can't run the I formation this year.

This is not Mike DeBord's power running. Much harumphing has been done about the I formation, but pre-snap shifts like this act as a way to create mismatches to the playside. With Michigan's receivers blocking downfield and Schofield pulling across the formation, Michigan had seven blockers on the playside of the field where Iowa only had six defenders. The problem here is that Huyge doesn't hold his block, not the play design, which is mostly brilliant.

I think there's a misconception that I formation running is strictly helmet-on-helmet brute strength. In actuality, this is far more indicative of the theories used in power running: create mismatches at the point of attack and expect your blockers to do their job. (As a sidenote, the Philadelphia Eagles have the best running schemes in the NFL, even without Michael Vick. Watch how they use H-backs and shift players pre-snap to create these mismatches.)

Should Hoke have gone for two?

2011-11-08T09:30:00.000-05:00

[EDIT: There's been much contention about this. I post this in the comments, but it's worth posting here as well: If someone has a model to calculate win probability (other than the Advanced NFL Stats one, because it doesn't really work here), I'd love to see the analysis of win probably for the following (with 7:53 left on the clock and kicking the ball off):

WP(extra point) vs. WP(2-pt make)*.4 + WP(2-pt miss)*.6

I think this is the crux of my argument. My assumption is that WP(extra point) is higher.]

In the wake of Michigan's loss to Iowa, game theorists are criticizing Brady Hoke's decision to kick the extra point rather than go for two on Michigan's fourth-quarter scoring drive. Though I know it goes against traditional game theory to kick the extra point, I can't shake the feeling that it was the correct decision.

Hear me out. Michigan scored to make the game 15-24 with 7:53 remaining on the clock. Game theory states that Michigan should go for the two-point conversion because, if they miss, it will inform the coaches whether or not they need one or two scores with the remaining time, and can adjust their playcalling accordingly. But there's one play that this theory doesn't take into account: a successful, expected onside kick.

First, let's examine the path to victory that Michigan would have to follow for all of the possible scenarios (with the exception of missing the extra point because, well, if you do that twice in a game, shame on you):

Go for 1	Go for 2 make	Go for 2 miss
Defensive stop	Defensive stop	Defensive stop
Touchdown drive	Touchdown drive	Touchdown drive
2-point conversion	Extra point	Extra point
Overtime	Overtime	Expected onside kick recovery
Overtime	Overtime	Field goal drive

Michigan, obviously, elected to kick the extra point. With that decision, the team was essentially playing for a coin flip (2-point conversions are successful about 40% of the time). Kicking off with 7:53 remaining, Michigan needed a defensive stop as well as a successful touchdown drive and two-point conversion. As the game played out, Michigan had ample time for that. Not only did the defense force a stop after 2:41, but they were able to fit in two more drives and a second defensive stop (offensive drives consisted of: 1:13 off the clock preceding a punt, and 2:15 off the clock ebfore stalling at the 3 yard line; the second defensive stop took 1:44). Had they been able to punch the ball into the endzone, they would've had a 40% chance of tying the game and sending it into overtime. From there, it's anyone's game.

If Michigan makes the two-point conversion, the same scenario unfolds as above, but instead of needing a two-point conversion after the possible tying touchdown they only need an extra point. There is ample time for this situation, and it is the best-case scenario.

The problem lies in missing the two-point conversion early in the quarter. If Michigan had gone for the two-point conversion and missed, it's a two-possession game (9 points) with 7:53 to go. In that instance, not only does Michigan have to force a defensive stop (which they do), but also receive the ball, march down for a score, successfully complete an onside kick (about which more later), and drive for another score. Not only does the successful completion of an onside kick present problems, but time then becomes a major factor.

Hypothetically, let's say that Michigan scores with 7:53 left in the game and misses its two-point conversion attempt. They're down nine, kicking off, and need two scores. If the defense produces the identical defensive stop, they will receive the ball on their own four yard line with 5:12 remaining. Michigan's fastest scoring drive of the day was its final one, which covered 57 yards and took 2:49 (0.337 yards/second). If Michigan continued that pace, a drive of 96 yards would take them 4:44. If we're generous and shave off a minute from that time, Michigan is left with 1:28 and probably zero timeouts. In that time, they have to successfully recover an onside kick and move the ball about 35-40 yards to have a makeable field goal for the win.

While this is doable, onside kicks present a huge gamble. According to Advanced NFL Stats (caveats about these being NFL numbers apply, but only barely),

Onside kicks in the NFL are successful 26% of the time. It’s true, but it’s also very misleading. Onside kick success rates are very dependent on whether the receiving team is expecting one...

When teams are expecting it, when WP is about 0.15 and below, the success rate is about 20%. But when teams aren’t expecting it, the success rate averages 60%.

In this situation, Iowa would be expecting an onside kick, making the success rate somewhere at or near 20%. With a true freshman kicker who has never attempted a collegiate onside kick? Michigan's chances would be low.

The point is that going for two points earlier in the quarter, while it would pay off significantly if you convert (40%) basically puts the game out of reach if you fail (60%). Not only does clock management become a significant issue if you miss the two-point conversion early, but Hoke would also be asking his team to play nearly perfect football for close to 8 minutes. With Michigan's current team, that's asking too much.

This is why I feel like the "information" angle of game theory here is short-sighted. Would Michigan's coaches know whether or not they needed two scores? Sure, but getting two scores in that time-frame while playing errorless football is the equivalent of putting the game out of reach. By kicking the extra point, Michigan creates a potentially one-score game and forces Iowa to play errorless football (a fumble or interception changes the game significantly). Most importantly, it removes the variance of a successful, expect onside kick.

As it played out, if Michigan was able to score, that gives them a 40% chance of taking the game to overtime. But that same 40% chance of making the two-point conversion earlier in the quarter significantly increases the win variance and Michigan's ability to convert what is needed for an eventual victory. So while kicking the extra point may not make the game a guaranteed one-score game, it does indicate that you're playing for one more scoring drive. Because with the time remaining, playing for two is nearly impossible.

Iowa 2011: Where first downs are a killer

2011-11-07T09:30:00.000-05:00

#15 Michigan 16 - Iowa 24

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

In the first three quarters against Iowa, Michigan had 20 first downs. They ran the ball on 14 of them and gained only 50 yards for 3.57 YPC, mostly because Iowa broke tendency and played a single-high safety defensive front, stacked against the run. With someone like Chad Henne under center--a polished passer--an average of 2nd and 7 isn't as large of an issue, but Denard Robinson has shown time and again that he can't excel in long down and distance situations.

On the season, he completed 62.5% of his passes for 8.8 yards per attempt. On obvious passing downs, he completed only 44% of his passes for 5.7 yards per attempt. In addition, Denard threw nearly half of his interceptions in these scenarios. While you might expect that (trying to force the ball to a receiver to pick up a first down), it implies that he's either not particularly careful with the ball in OPD (he had a 7.1% interception ratio) or he has difficulty reading defenses and executing the throws.

Regardless, when Michigan earned a first down against Iowa in non-hurry-up mode, 75% of the time, the team would line up in a running formation, with Iowa's defense loading the box, and head directly into it.

When the team was down 15 points in the fourth quarter, Al Borges decided to spread the field and air it out. On their fourth-quarter scoring drive, Denard threw the ball on all four first downs. He connected for gains of 7, 9, 13, and 7, all four complete and one of them for a touchdown. On that drive, Michigan marched 57 yards in just under three minutes, had one incompletion, and didn't have a single negative play.

Michigan is a better football team than Iowa, of this I cannot be convinced otherwise. This is a loss that can be chalked up to a coaching transition. The I formation, both the coaching staff's insistence on using it and the team's inability to consistently exceed from it, explicitly lost Michigan this game. It's a growing pain, though the last time this happened, we were losing to Toledo, so things could be worse.

With the talent and performance of this Michigan unit to date, a loss like this shouldn't be too frustrating: they aren't good enough to challenge for a BCS bowl and in a non-Bizarro Big Ten, they wouldn't be anywhere near a Big Ten championship. But with everyone in the league intent on losing to vastly inferior teams, Michigan was solidly in the running for a birth in the Big Ten title game. This loss effectively takes them out of it.

What this says about the coaching staff is disappointing in the short term but not wholly unexpected. Brady Hoke's "We will run power" is not a lie, as early returns indicated. Losses like this don't need to happen but they do when you're switching coaches. Hoke is building a program in his image and unfortunately, that image doesn't best utilize the skills of Michigan's current personnel. Rodriguez did the same thing when he arrived on campus and Michigan went 3-9. With a team that's still wildly outplaying expectations and a coaching staff that has proven to be a significant upgrade over the previous one, this loss is the equivalent of being told you have to eat three more bites of vegetables before desert: you really don't want to but the reward will be something sweet.

Bullets

Desmond Morgan is a freshman. Morgan was atrocious in this game (I expect MGoBlog's UFR to be ugly for him). The first two scoring drives were nearly single-handedly his fault. He lost contain on almost all runs and Iowa made it a point to attack Michigan's WLB all game. It was no surprise that the coach's pulled Mogan after Iowa's second drive, but I was surprised to see him back on the field in the second half. This is still a young team.
Blake Countess is a freshman. And he's really good. Countess is the best cornerback Michigan has had since well before Rodriguez came to Ann Arbor. He's going to be a special player.
Denard had another awful day. Most of Denard's issues, as mentioned above, came from throwing in a long down and distances. The other factor contributing to his struggles were the wide receivers once again completely unable to create separation. Opponents have seen the tape and taken note: if you're physical with Michigan's receivers, you'll stick to them like glue. Denard was, however, progressing through his reads better than he has all season, which is encouraging.
The running backs struggled because Iowa, like Michigan State, loaded the box and dared Michigan to throw the ball. The lack of audibles at the line is increasingly frustrating.
The goal line stand. Iowa called four straight house blitzes when Michigan had first down from the three yard line. My only real complaint with the playcalling was the timeout before that series. When Michigan had the ball 1st and goal with the clock stopped, they should've run the ball, giving Denard one chance to get into the endzone by himself, and then called the timeout. Instead, they allowed Iowa to set their defense and bring in the right personnel. They blitzed the house all four downs so that Michigan had to throw the ball. My other gripe was not calling a screen pass on fourth down. When it became clear that Iowa was bringing everyone, sneaking Vincent Smith out to the flat on the screen seems like the best course of action. Instead, Roundtree got pressed at the line of scrimmage and couldn't create separation.

Preview: Iowa 2011

2011-11-04T10:00:00.000-04:00

#15 Michigan (7-1) vs. Iowa (5-3)

Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City,Iowa

Kickoff 12 pm EST

ESPN

Forecast: High 50s, 10% chance of rain

Last week
Iowa 21 - Minnesota 22. Last week, Iowa did the seemingly impossible and lost to moribund Minnesota. They did this despite a 252-yard, 7.9 YPC day from star running back Marcus Coker. How you manage those numbers against anyone and only score 21 points is beyond me--well, Iowa did miss two field goals during the game, but still--but Iowa did, ending MGoBlog's GopherQuest: a journey to see if Minnesota would be the worst Big Ten team ever. Beyond Coker, the rest of the Hawkeyes put up decent numbers if Minnesota were a real opponent (they're not): quarterback James Vandenberg completed 66% of his passes for 177 yards (7.7 YPA) and the team only turned the ball over once.

So the offense threw away 6 points in missed field goals and only scored 21 against arguably the worst defense in the country, and that might have been the better of the two units on the day. Gopher quarterback Marqueis Gray managed one of his best days as a passer completing 11 of 17 passes for 193 yards (11.4 YPA), one touchdown, and no interceptions. The ground game was similarly effective. Duane Bennett carries the ball 20 times for 101 yards, and Gray carried it 11 times for 62 yards. Simply put, Iowa's cover-2 bend don't break defense was particularly bendy and occasionally breaky.

Though a shocking loss, last Saturday shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Iowa already has a loss to "in-state rival" Iowa State and a 13-3 loss to Penn State. This is probably not a very good football team.

Purdue 14 - #18 Michigan 36. You know what happened last week: Michigan played a vastly inferior opponent and for the first time since 2007 (in the Big Ten that is) actually beat that opponent convincingly [Edit: There was also that Minnesota game, but the Gophers can hardly be considered a Big Ten team]. Despite Michigan's tandem of quarterbacks throwing a pair of interceptions, Michigan cruised to victory thanks in large part to Fitz Toussaint's breakout rushing performance (170 yards, 2 TDs, 8.5 YPC). Denard and the passing game found their stride thanks in part to some new passing routes debuted by Al Borges, while the rushing game was successful because Purdue's linebackers are slow as something that's very slow.

It wasn't a flawless performance by the team, however. Denard was still showing signs of inexperience going through his reads and Devin Gardner's interception was, well, not great. These were minor issues in an otherwise thorough beating of a lesser team.

Offense vs. Iowa
For the first time in a while, the Iowa defense is mediocre, ranking 69th nationally in rushing defense (163.63 YPG), 91st in pass efficiency defense, and 40th in scoring defense (23.13 PPG). The most surprising ranking is the team's terrible pass defense. For a unit that plays almost exclusively cover-2, seeing that kind of performance against the pass is surprising. Then again, it's possible that opponents are using the Hawkeyes conservativeness against them, forcing matchups between slot receivers and linebackers. I haven't watched enough Iowa film to really tell, but something is rotten in their secondary.

The team's one defensive star is defensive end Broderick Binns. Adrian Clayborn he is not, but that shouldn't matter anyway since the last time the Wolverines faced Clayborn, he was completely shut down by Taylor Lewan. Other than Binns, the Iowa defense is unremarkable. They run the blandest of Big Ten Cover-2 Defenses and have very few playmakers. Beating their defense will be a matter of specifically attacking their cover-2 scheme and not turning the ball over.

As Iowa's rankings suggest, Michigan shouldn't have any trouble moving the ball on the ground against the Hawkeyes. Either inside or out, Michigan has the advantage. The Iowa starting defensive tackles weigh in at 280 lbs and 277 lbs, which you can get away with running solely four-man fronts but is still not preferable. If Michigan's inside linemen can get some push against the Iowa front four, they should be solidly in the 5+ YPC range. On the outside, it will be interesting to see if Iowa plays a nickel package at all. If they don't, expect the Michigan offense to zone read their linebackers to death. If they do, the running game will feature more Toussaint and less QB carries.

Through the air, the battle will be Good Denard vs. Evil Denard. You might remember this Evil Denard highlight against Iowa from 2009

If you chose to block that out, I don't blame you. This is the kind of thing that cover-2 defenses do to unseasoned quarterbacks, the likes of which we appear to have again this year. If Borges can find Denard some easy throws and not saddle him with long down and distances, Michigan should be able to move the ball well.

Defense vs. Iowa
The Iowa offense is about as milquetoast as their defense, ranking somewhere in the 50-60 range in almost all categories. They're arguably the most traditional offense in the Big Ten running lots of power-I formations and depending heavily on the run game. This, in theory, works for them. The Hawkeyes have an experienced offensive line and the aforementioned Coker who is capable of racking up 252 albeit against a terrible defense. Coker is 6'0", 230 lbs and is basically a freight train. He doesn't have too much shake to him, but with that kind of size, picking up three to five yards is a breeze. The key to stopping Coker is to plug him at the line of scrimmage. If Michigan's defensive line is getting pushed off the line, it's going to mean bad things, but if the DL and linebackers can close off initial gaps, Coker can be contained.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of blitz pressure Mattison uses in this game. The zone blitzes that he's shown all year and almost exclusively pass blitzes. Against Purdue, the defensive line stunted more frequently than they ever have before, often to great effect. Don't be surprised to see the defensive line stunting a lot on running downs to try and bait Coker into gaps and confuse the offensive line.

Junior quarterback Vandenberg can best be described as Just a Quarterback. On the season, he's completing 62% of his passes for 8.52 YPA. He does have a 17/4 TD/INT ratio, but he is of the Iowa quarterback mold: system quarterback, game manager, [some other backhanded compliment]. Give him time in the pocket or make a mistake and he'll hurt you, especially with Marvin McNutt on the outside. But Vandenberg doesn't move particularly well and won't beat you on his own.

McNutt is the real dangerman. Michigan has already played a pterodactyl-like creature in Notre Dame's Michael Floyd and came away with all of their limbs in tact. In Iowa's more traditional offense, there will be less opportunities for McNutt to beat the Michigan defense than Floyd had. If Michigan can shut down McNutt or force Vandenberg to throw only underneath passes to him because of blitz pressure, that will cripple the Iowa passing game.

Prediction
It's hard to be scared of a team the week after they lose to Minnesota, especially one that seems to match up so poorly with Michigan. Though I expect Coker to have a good game, my fear of him declined exponentially after Michigan's defensive ends and linebackers showed that they knew how to contain the edge. Coker is going to spend most of the game running straight ahead between the tackles directly into linebackers and safeties who will fall on contact but also drag him to the ground. Vandenberg will be Vandenberg and get his yards through the air. If most of those are going to non-McNutt players, Michigan is in good shape.

Offensively, Michigan is going to have a very up and down day. The Iowa defense is constructed to either stuff drives before they really get rolling or allow them to slowly rumble down the field. Denard and Co. will have a few three-and-outs during the game, but they'll also string together a number of quality drives. Toussaint comes back to earth but still eclipses 100 yards. Also, I expect that Denard will be targeted on a pass sometime during the game. In the end, the good drives outweigh the bad ones and Michigan comes away with the victory.

Michigan 31 - Iowa 24

Avery nickelback blitz

2011-11-03T09:30:00.000-04:00

Just as I was bemoaning the total lack of interesting schematic plays against Purdue, Greg Mattison gifted us with a blitz that, if I can recall correctly, the team hasn't shown yet this season: a nickelback blitz and zone drop. The design:

It's late in the game and Michigan has a number of backups in. Robert Marve is in at quarterback for Purdue with four wide receivers and a running back in the backfield. Michigan is in their nickel package with Courtney Avery in as the nickelback.

Traditionally in a zone blitz, pressure will come from the linebackers or defensive backs while a defensive lineman drops into zone coverage with the rest of the defenders. It's tough to see here, but I'm relatively certain that Michigan is playing a combination of zone and man principles with the corners and safeties in man coverage against each of Purdue's receivers.

On the snap, Craig Roh begins to drop into coverage. The other three linemen, Kenny Demens, and Courtney Avery all blitz.

The initial rush doesn't create any pressure but Avery and Demens will cause problems in a moment. Brandin Hawthorne is turning to play zone coverage over the middle of the field.

Demens finally gets to the line of scrimmage and Avery is still screaming downfield. Roh is locked onto Marve in the backfield cutting off any passes to the short side of the field.

Not seeing anyone to throw to, Marve steps up into the pocket, but it's quickly collapsing around him.

Avery finally arrives to the play. He and Roh will chase down Marve in the backfield for a sack.

I really like this playcall. It's designed to force a quarterback to one side of the field where there are linemen dropping into coverage. Avery blitzes from the wide side of the field as Roh steps into coverage on the short side. Not only does this force a quaterback to throw into a defense's strength, but forcing the quarterback to the short side of the field gives Roh less field to cover. Hawthorne is also playing zone in the middle of the field and is able to cut off any throws against the grain of the play.

I'm relatively certain this playcall only works against vertical passing routes, but that's exactly what Michigan was facing as Purdue tried to force the ball down the field in garbage time. Short routes or crossing routes would be problematic with this playcall. This blitz is not something we'll see again soon, but any time a team tries to run all/four vertical routes, this is the kind of play Mattison can dial up to attack it.

Locking onto receivers: Purdue edition

2011-11-02T10:25:00.000-04:00

Because it's tough to criticize a team after a 36-14 walloping of a conference opponent, this has turned into Point Out the Bad Decisions Our Quarterbacks Make Week. Yesterday, MGoBlog broke down Devin Gardner's horrible interception. Today, something from our starting quarterback: a missed touchdown pass to Kevin "Look How Open I Am" Koger.

It's the end of the first half and Michigan has put together a long drive. It's first and 10 from the 13 yard line and Michigan is in a traditional I-formation with two wide receivers and Koger lined up as a tight end.

As the ball is snapped, Hemingway and Roundtree both head downfield. Michigan is going to run a RB iso play action. Koger holds at the line of scrimmage for a moment before releasing downfield in a passing route.

A moment later, Denard is faking the handoff to Toussaint. Koger (mostly obscured by Lewan below) is releasing downfield. The safety at the top of the screen standing on the five yard line is assigned to Koger in man coverage.

This is the ARGH screenshot. The safety that was supposed to cover Koger is reading Denard's eyes. This is a textbook example of "looking off a safety". The safety sees Denard looking at Roundtree running a corner route and starts cheating that way. Koger is already wide open in the flat.

As Denard lets go of the ball, you can see how big of a mistake the pass is. Koger is wide open on the backside of the play without a defender between him and the endzone. Instead of throwing to Koger, Denard had made up his mind pre-snap to throw the ball to Roundtree.

But Roundtree is covered in the endzone. The Purdue cornerback breaks the pass up but probably should have intercepted it. Koger goes home and writes LiveJournal posts about being ignored.

This is something that we've seen from Denard already this year: he seems to make up his mind pre-snap when Michigan has single coverage on the outside. Though Koger is likely he's final read, Denard needs to recognize what defenders are assigned to each potential receiver. When Denard turns around after the play action, he has to recognize the deep safety assigned to Koger is reading his eyes and cheating toward Roundtree in the corner.

As was the case with Denard's interception early in the game, Purdue's defenders were reading his eyes, which always led them to the ball. Denard never goes through his reads and defenders are starting to key on that. This will be an issue as the season goes on. Unless he's able to progress through his reads and identify coverages, defenses will sell out on Denard's first read. This is why he throws into double coverage so frequently.

Offensive scheme and formation notes

2011-11-01T09:30:00.000-04:00

After watching the Purdue game yesterday, I saw a lot of things from the Michigan offense to comment on but not necessarily all that many that deserved a dedicated post. The following are a few things the offense did that I took note of after watching the game.

The Pin and Pull. MGoBlog was happy to see that the pin and pull worked against Purdue. In reality, that's only half true: the pin and pull worked against Purdue when it was run from under center. Michigan first debuted the play against Eastern Michigan. At the time, I couldn't identify it as the pin and pull but I said this of the formation:

I don't understand why Michigan would run this blocking scheme instead of zone blocking the play. We already know that Molk is adept at reach blocking, so reaching and sealing defensive tackles will free Barnum to block EMU's linebackers. The same goes for Moore blocking on the edge; if Lewan and Moore double the playside defensive end and seal him to the outside quickly, Lewan will be able to release to the second level. However, with this pulling scheme, EMU stretches the play out to the boundary as Molk and Lewan attempt to pull into their gaps. This gives Eastern's pursuit defenders time to close off any cutback lanes.

The problem with the play has been that Denard is forced to wait for his offensive linemen to pull before he can head upfield. This stretches the play out and allows defenses to close off running lanes as Denard waits for his linemen. However, when the team runs it from under center, it gives the pulling linemen time to get into position because Denard has to hand the ball off. In addition, it forces the opposing linebackers to be cognizant of play action (even if it never works from under center). I'm officially in favor of the pin and pull as long as it's run from under center. The few times that Michigan did run it from the shotgun, Purdue was able to bottle it up.

Throw the ball fergodsakes. No seriously, throw the ball fergodsakes:

This is suicide. Purdue has seven defenders in the box, a strong safety overhanging on the strongside of the field, and a "deep" safety that's nine yards off the line of scrimmage. Instead of optioning to a passing play or simply heaving the ball up to Hemingway (top of the screen) who has single coverage against a guy who's 5'11", they stick with the original playcall and hand the ball off to Toussaint. The play ends as a loss of two yards because, well, duh.

I understand that Al Borges either doesn't like the bubble screen or has simply decided not to throw it, but at some point it's just willful ignorance. I mean:

OK, fine, maybe I'm just bashing my head against the wall, but this shouldn't happen. I don't care if you throw a quick hitch to either of the inside receivers here and let them turn it upfield. But allowing a defense to align like this without punishing them is not only doing a disservice to your offense, but it's flat out bad playcalling. Not calling a screen here is the worst thing Borges can do.

This leads to the bigger issue of making checks at the line. It's possible that in future years, with Shane Morris under center, the coaches will give the QB more opportunities to call audibles (which is typically the case in pro-style offenses, instead of the coach making the checks from the sideline in the spread), but this is a check that needs to be made right now. Either allow Denard to make checks at the line and call for screen passes when the defense is giving up 8 free yards or find a way to call in audibles from the sideline. This is officially my bugaboo of 2011. I hate this.

Al Borges reads SmartFootball. One of the most frustrating screen captures of the Greg Robinson years (for me anyway) came via SmartFootball during an explanation of attacking a two-deep formation with trips receivers. To wit:

The first time Michigan showed their three stacked receivers against Purdue, they ran exactly this play. Roundtree was the post route, Hemingway the hitch, and Grady the flat route. Denard threw the hitch route to Hemingway for a critical first down on Michigan's opening drive.

Michigan showed the same formation later in the game on a 3rd and 20 call and were able to pick up the first down because of a slight change in the routes.

Here, Purdue is in a cover-two shell with five underneath zone defenders and four down linemen who rush. Instead of Hemingway (the receiver in the middle) running a hitch route to the inside, he runs a 10-yard out route, creating a high-low decision for the safety:

These are the kinds of passing formations I like to see from Borges. Michigan floods the defensive zones and forces the safeties/corners to make a high-low decision. In very Michigan 2009 fashion, Purdue's safety bites on the Hemingway out route just long enough for Roundtree to get open on the corner route.

I suppose as long as Borges keeps bringing out play calls like this, I won't get totally annoyed with his lack of bubble screens. I guess...

Programming note

2011-10-31T11:24:00.000-04:00

As expected, I got into town too late to watch the game and write anything, so there won't be a post-game column today. Regular posting will resume tomorrow.

Preview: Purdue 2011

2011-10-28T09:30:00.000-04:00

Ed. Note: I'm going to be out of town over the weekend and probably won't get to watch the game until Sunday night. As such, there may or may not be a Monday game-wrap post.

Purdue (4-3) vs. #18 Michigan (6-1)

The Big House, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Kickoff 12 pm EST

ESPN2

Forecast:Low 50s, 20% chance of rain

Last week
#23 Illinois 14 - Purdue 21. In a Zookian, non-shocking upset, Purdue took down Illinois last week, making bowl eligibility sort of attainable for the Boilermakers. Somehow, despite being outgained by 60 yards and holding even in turnovers Purdue pretty convincingly beat (Illinois didn't score until the fourth quarter) a team that many were picking as a sleeper in the Big Ten. Then again, Ron Zook.

Despite being noticeably worse on the ground (Illinois averaged 3.7 YPC on 33 carries, Purdue averaged 3.0 YPC on 42 carries), Purdue was significantly better through the air. Starting quarterback Caleb TerBush went 16/25 for 178 yards (7.1 YPA), while mediocre passer Nathan Scheelhaase went 22/35 for a measly 6.2 YPA. (Despite drastically improving his numbers this season, I'm not sold on Scheelhaase as anything special. His stat line from this game looked a lot like his numbers from his freshman campaign.)

The weirdest stat of the game? As many Purdue players carried the ball as did catch a pass: eight. Though the majority of the rushing load was carried by star running back Ralph Bolden and TerBush, the Boilermakers are not afraid of opening up the playbook a little bit with jet sweeps and wonky option plays. Despite this, Purdue's stat line was pretty abysmal. Bolden carried the ball 12 times for 28 yards, and TerBush carried it (sacks removed) 9 times for 24 yards.

Seriously, how did they win this game? The powers of the Zook are immeasurable.

Michigan.
	Too easy?

Offense vs. Purdue
The Boilermakers run a 4-3 defense but will likely spend most of the game in their nickel package like they did against Illinois. The Purdue defense is led by ~~Ryan Kerrigan~~ senior middle linebacker Joe Holland, who shows up all over the stat sheet with 31 tackles, a few TFLs and sacks, and a few pass break ups.

Holland leads a defense that's surprisingly competent this season: 55th in rushing yards per game, 27th in pass efficiency defense, 39th in total defense, and 24th in scoring defense. Those are Greg Mattison numbers. Then again, Purdue must have one of the easiest schedules to date: Middle Tennessee, Rice, SE Missouri State, Notre Dame, Minnesota, Penn State, and Illinois. While three losses might seem like an acceptable number with ND, PSU, and Illinois on the schedule, one of those losses came at the hands of Rice where a missed field goal made the Big Ten's already putrid reputation even worse. The point is, don't read too much into those defensive numbers: Notre Dame put up 38 on them and Minnesota managed three (THREE!) scores.

The last time the Wolverines were on the field, they were snap-count-timed to death by the 4-3 defensive front of Michigan State. Purdue will not do that. Given Denard's struggles against pressure, you can be sure that Purdue will bring pressure throughout the game, but there's little to no chance that they are as aggressive or effective as the Michigan State front seven.

4-3 defenses are a wonderful defensive front to throw bubble screens against, but as Al Borges has made it abundantly clear, he won't be doing that. Instead, Michigan will probably continue to take shots down the field, which might be a good idea against Purdue's tiny cornerbacks. The man tasked with covering Junior Hemingway will be 5'11" Josh Johnson who has 5 PBUs on the year but is ripe for jump-ball exploitation.

But Michigan will likely make a majority of their yards on the ground. Notre Dame absolutely torched Purdue on the ground to the tune of 7.2 YPC on 40 carries. However, their last three opponents (Penn State, Illinois, and Minnesota) all averaged between 3 YPC and 4 YPC. If Rice can put up 4.6 YPC on 40 carries, though, something is wrong. Either Purdue figured it out in the last three weeks or this is a highly variable defense. It's the latter. Michigan will be able to get good yardage on the ground between Denard as the running backs, that is if they stay away from the I-formation, which seems custom built for Purdue to stop.

Defense vs. Purdue
Purdue's offense is Purdue's offense: a spread-type substance that has the potential to move the ball but always fails spectacularly in some aspect. While their running game grades out well (26th nationally, 295 YPG), their passing game isn't all there. Unfortunately it's the run that Michigan struggles to contain.

Ralph Bolden is Purdue's (non-)workhorse. Despite being their offense's best player, he hasn't carried the ball more than 17 times in a single game this season. His low was 6 carries against ND, but he averages somewhere in the range of 10 carries a game. On those, he's good-not-great, averaging 4.9 YPC. The problem for Michigan's defense, as it has been all year, will be containing Bolden, a sprite-like scat back who, if he gets outside of the tackles, can make some things happen that will make me very sad. Behind Bolden is Junior Akeem Shavers who is the team's bigger back. His numbers (325 yards, 5 YPC, 5 TDs) are as impressive, if not moreso, than Bolden's.

Fortunately, Purdue's spreadness is hampered by their not-that-mobile QB TerBush. TerBush has 206 yards on 55 carries (2.6 YPC). He's also a mediocre passer. Though he's completing 61% of his passes, his YPA (6.75) is uninspiring. Since neither of Purdue's top-two running backs are receiving threats out of the backfield, TerBush is throwing short hitch and out routes to dink and dunk down the field.

During the past few seasons, this style would've been a problem for Michigan's defense, but this year, it seems to play right into the unit's strength. The defense has been very Bend Don't Break all year, especially in the first half, and have managed to shut down opponents eventually, forcing field goals or turnovers on downs. If Michigan's defensive ends and linebackers can successfully contain the Purdue running backs to the inside of the field, they will produce a lot more field goal attempts than extra points.

Prediction
Michigan is a 12.5-point favorite headed into this game, which might seem a little optimistic against a team that just knocked off a ranked Illinois team, but that spread sounds about right. Despite the recent success Purdue has seen against the run, I think it's more a function of playing teams that either can't throw the ball (PSU and Minny) or have a sophomore QB who wasn't much of a passer last year and is prone to these types of performances. Michigan will hand Purdue their second-worst defensive performance against the run on Saturday (there's no way they're making it to ND's output), much of which comes from Denard who Borges utilizes more in the running game. This will also be Denard's second game without an interception this season (and because I said that, he'll throw three pick six's).

On the other side of the ball, Michigan's coaches have recognized the containment problems and likely spent much of the bye week in the film room and on the field coaching up Jake Ryan et al. While there will still be a few frustrating outside runs, expect Ryan and the other linebackers to be significantly better forcing runs back to the inside. Otherwise, I don't think Purdue can do too much damage against this defense. TerBush doesn't have the arm to beat them deep and his dinking and dunking will come to an end either when the field compresses or Mattison calls for a zone blitz that forces an interception. Ultimately, they don't have enough firepower to outscore Michigan's offense.

Purdue 20 - Michigan 28

Progress report: The 2011 special teams

2011-10-27T08:00:00.000-04:00

Since it's Michigan's bye week, it's a good time to take stock of where the team is currently in relation to where we expected them to be preseason. Previously: Where are they now: The team, the team, the team, The defense, The offense

Preseason expectations:

The word for special teams this season is competence. For three years, we've watched this Michigan team fumble and bumble basically every special teams play that didn't feature Zoltan kicking the ball to the moon. If the kickers are competent, that means 3-6 more points per game. If the returners are competent, that means better starting field position and more possessions. This year, all signs point toward competence. But don't expect much more.

Best case scenario for the 2011 season was a competent kicking game, competent returners, and no awful busts. For the most part, this has been the case. Despite uninspiring returns from the kick and punt return units and a few misses from Brendan Gibbons, Michigan has been spectacularly average. This is universal improvement over the endless stream of mistakes from the special teams last over the last three seasons.

Placekicking
Preseason expectations:

Projecting how these two will kick throughout the year is tough (How many opportunities will they get? How long will the kicks be? etc), but it's worth venturing a guess. While Gibbons is being given a shot early on, I expect him to struggle, making 2/4 or some other uninspiring performance, opening the door for Wile to assume the permanent gig. By the year's end, Michigan's kickers will be somewhere in the combined range of 18/24. Hoke's more conservative approach will see the team taking a lot more chances in the kicking game, and if Wile proves a noticeable improvement over last year (he has to be, right?), that shouldn't be such a harrowing experience.

Despite being given a scholarship to kick footballs through the uprights, true freshman Matt Wile hasn't attempted so much as an extra point. This ranks somewhere in the range of mildly disappointing, given the team's field goal struggles in the previous few years. Returning harbinger of doom Brendan Gibbons, meanwhile is 4/6 on field goals and 32/33 on extra points. While these are uninspiring numbers, Gibbons has at least been close on his missed field goal attempts as opposed to last year where, well, you know.

Before the season, Hoke said that Wile would be the kicker on long-distance field goals, but Gibbons has seen all kicking duty. I don't know if this is poor performance by Wile in practice or simply a coin flip, but for whatever reason, Hoke appears to be sticking with Gibbons throughout the season. He's been good enough that Michigan was able to run a fake field goal because MSU actually thought we could kick from that distance. This is a bonus.

Kickoffs, as expected, are being handled by Wile who has proven an immediately improvement over Gibbons. Wile has the leg to get the ball into the endzone on kickoffs, which pushes returners back at least 10 yards from where they were catching the ball last season. Unfortunately, there's something horribly wrong with Michigan's coverage. I don't know if it's getting out of your lanes or just poor tackling, but Michigan's kick coverage is broken. I don't understand a ton about the fundamentals of kickoff coverage, but I know that Michigan shouldn't be allowing returns to consistently bring the ball beyond the 30 yard line.

Grand Statement of Optimism: I don't know, Gibbons is 4/6 or something? His performance seems sustainable and Michigan hasn't kicked less than one field goal per game. If Gibbons can stay consistent within 30 yards, I won't curse his name every time he steps on the field.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Gibbons 2010. Michigan is currently tied for 93rd in the country with a 66% success rate.

Wet Owl sez:

Punting
Preseason expectations:

In [Hagerup's] absence, Wile will be handling punting duties. Here, best case scenario is no terrible shanks. Even if Wile doesn't boom the ball down the field like Hagerup can, as long as he doesn't commit any huge errors, Michigan should be able to sneak by the first half of the season with Wile puting. When Hagerup returns, punting should be a strong part of Michigan's game, and given Hoke's Carr-like tendencies, an integral part of the gameplan.

With Hagerup missing the first five games of the season, Wile did an admiral job holding down the fort. Zoltan he was not, but he got the job done, averaging 41.1 yards on 14 kicks. Hagerup's return, however, has been uninspiring. He is averaging a meager 33.6 yards per kick on 10 attempts. You would expect Hagerup's numbers to resemble those of last year eventually (43.6 yards per kick; a long of 72, wheeee).

The bigger issue punting has been the coverage downfield. MGoBlog has been railing against the use of the traditional punt formation all season and with good reason:

Michigan's return to a traditional punt formation puts a burden on two lone gunner tasked with tackling the returner. This can only produce bad things. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear like Hoke will be changing this strategy anytime soon.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Hagerup proved last year that he has a good-to-great leg. His early-season struggles are probably just a statistical anomaly.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Traditional punting

Wet Owl sez:

Punt/kick returns
Preseason expectations:

Hemingway and Odoms have both proven themselves to be competent catchers, but neither are particularly explosive on punt returns--though Odoms' returns late last season would be to differ. My guess is that Dileo, who was recruited specifically for punt returns, will be the primary returner by season's end, unless he experiences the same drops and mistakes of the last three years.

As for kick returns, Gallon, Kelvin Grady, and Vincent Smith are listed on the depth chart. With the loss of Darryl Stonum for the year to his DUIshirt, there are very few explosive returners on the roster. Grady may have the shiftiness to make a few guys miss, but no one here has the flat-out speed to take one to the house. Again, we should hope for competence here and let the chips fall as they may.

This has been a constant source of frustration this season, though not in the areas you'd expect. Castoff Jeremy Gallon has developed into a sure-handed punt returner after being a travesty the past two years. Though he can't make a ton of yardage after fielding most punts (largely due to the spread/rugby punt formation), Gallon has caught everything that's catchable without any crippling fumbles. I don't know how the coaching staff managed this, but it's a testament to their skills.

Kickoff returns are another story. For whatever reason, the coaches have Vincent Smith as the primary kick returner. Smith is emphatically not a kick returner. Not only does he lack the prototypical speed to take it to the house, he barely gets beyond the 20 yard line on most returns. Michigan is currently 111th in kickoff returns and averaging just over 18 yards per return. What's odd is that the current make-up of the roster is that of speedy slot receiver types that are great in space. You'd think that someone (Grady, Dileo, etc) would be a viable replacement, but for whatever reason, Hoke has elected to use the team's #1 running back--a guy who couldn't take a long run to the house because he's just not built like that--as the primary kick returner. If I had a dollar for every time I screamed at the TV because Smith was returning a kickoff, I would have 7 dollars.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Gallon can catch punts and doesn't make my eyes bleed.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Vincent Smith on kickoff returns makes my eyes bleed. Same amount of eye blood loss.

Wet Owl sez:

Mid-season report
Though it hasn't been pretty, the special teams have mostly gotten the job done. Clear improvement from Gibbons is an added bonus but the lack of Wile appearances bothers me. If the team can correct its coverage issues on kickoffs and switch to a rugby punt formation, special teams could be something we don't have to constantly think and worry about.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Hagerup will get better. Gibbons is functional. Wile can force touchbacks on kickoffs.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Vincent Smith. Eye bleeding.

Wet Owl sez:

Ed. Note: In keeping with the series, I was going to do a coaches progress report, but I think most of that content would be redundant as it's already covered in the offense and defense posts.

Progress report: The 2011 offense

2011-10-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

Preseason expectation:

Matching the numbers from last year would be a near miracle and would make my season prediction the most off-base thing written all year. It's safe to say, however, that the offense, regardless of anything else, will revert back to the mean, if only slightly (best case scenario).

Despite my fear that this squad will look like the 2008 catastrophe, things are not really that dire. In reality, the offense will look more like the 2009 Forcier-led team: flashes of brilliance punctuating frustrating mistakes and crippling plays. If Denard can prove me wrong and become a consistent, accurate passer, this offense could really take off. Unfortunately, there's too much evidence to the contrary for me to buy into him as a quarterback that can lead a passing-oriented offense.

That is all depressingly, shockingly, [insert adverb here] correct. Michigan's offense this year has fluctuated between the Denard spread'n'shred that dominated opponents last year to a grab bag of unrelated plays that are neither surprising nor effective. A comparison between 2010 and 2011's numbers beckons:

	Passing	Rushing	Scoring
2010	36th (250.15 YPG, 8.45 YPA)	13th (238.54 YPG, 5.58 YPC)	25th (32.77 PPG)
2011	81st (212.17 YPG, 8.90 YPA)	12th (239 YPG, 5.62 YPC)	28th (34.67 PPG)

It's not difficult to see what happened here. Despite the 2011 numbers being bolstered by a weak strength of schedule which will even out as the team heads deeper into Big Ten play, Michigan's passing game has fallen off a cliff. You don't need the numbers to tell you that though. This is largely due to Al Borges' pro-style passing attack that emphasizes deep, downfield throws rather than getting players into space (further evidence is the increase in YPA despite the drop in total passing yards). Borges has implemented the QB Oh Noes that accounted for a significant portion of Denard's passing last year, but this season, they've been more of the TE seam route variety than the hand-wavingly open slot receiver type we saw last season. Otherwise, Borges has called a lot of vertical routes that have ended in Denard throwing into double coverage or flat overthrowing receivers.

Those numbers are not quite as bad as I thought they'd be, however. Michigan's running game has remained mostly intact, while scoring is actually up slightly from last year. Again, as the team plays further into the Big Ten schedule, expect those numbers to drop, but they may not fall off too significantly. That's the hope, anyway. But on with the show...

Quarterbacks
Preseason expectations:

While it's risky to read too much into what is otherwise a glorified practice, the previous spring games have taught me a lesson: they have been far too predictive in the past for me to ignore what we saw from Denard this year. Denard's inaccuracies and his tendency to sail passes is going to cause a lot of problems for the offense throughout the year, especially when it's clear that much of the offense is going to rest on his ability to make quick reads and sharp, accurate throws. As such, I expect Denard's completion percentage, yards per attempt, and total yards to all drop noticeably this season, while his interceptions increase.

Unfortunately, all of my speculation about Denard's passing abilities ended up being correct. He makes poor decisions down the field, struggles with accuracy, and is prone to throwing the ball directly to the opposition with no receivers in sight. Denard's numbers have regressed but more importantly, his understanding of the offense is gone. In 2009, Denard ended what would've been a miraculous comeback against Iowa with a woefully thrown ball that ended up in the arms of the Iowa safety. He threw that because he wasn't sure of where his receivers would be. The same in the case in this offense, which asks Denard to progress through his reads and make timely throws. Instead, he tends to lock onto receivers and make up his mind before the ball is even snapped (the reason for many of those throws into double coverage).

Some of this is scheme-dependent. I mean, look at how open this bubble screen is:

Borges needs to recognize these defensive weaknesses and exploit them. He's done a good job setting up play action and opening up the playbook, but taking advantage of what the defense gives you is essential to successful football.

Hoke and Borges have also implemented an offensive package for Devin Gardner, he of a high recruiting profile and the ability to armpunt at a moment's notice. There have been rumblings about getting Gardner on the field more, and if Denard's passing woes don't improve, we could see a time where Gardner's snaps outnumber Denard's. That's unlikely to happen though. Despite Denard's struggles, he has too many skills (and Borges has too much in his playbook) to bench him in favor of an untested backup.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Despite his awful numbers to date, Denard's 2010 performance is too positive to totally ignore. If Borges can adjust his offensive schemes to limit downfield throws and give Denard shorter completions, this could quickly become the behemoth offense it was last year.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Have you watched Denard this year?

Wet Owl sez:

Running Backs
Preseason expectation:

In 2010, Michigan's running game was superb, primarily because of Denard's production. The running backs all hovered in the "unimpressive" range, and I expect that to continue. However, with the coaching staff limiting Denard's carries this year, the running backs will bear more of the load and likely have trouble succeeding as much as they had last year. A reversion to Lloyd Carr-like rushing numbers from the running backs seems probable. At the end of the year, Shaw will be the leading rusher (of the running backs), and Hopkins will have the second-most carries of any running back.

So this is maybe the most-wrong thing I wrote in the preseason. To date, Denard is averaging 17 carries per game, which is only two less carries per game than he averaged last season. The top three running backs averaged 19 carries per game last year and are down to 17 this season (in fact, Denard has carried the ball 120 times this season, as have the top three running backs). Mike Shaw has almost completely disappeared from the field. He was used sparingly against Northwestern as a speedier back used to get the edge, but otherwise, his snaps have gone almost entirely to Vincent Smith and Fitz Toussaint.

Smith and Toussaint are having quietly impressive years, though. Despite not getting the goal line carries that rack up touchdown numbers, both are well above 5 YPC (Smith is averaging 6.7 YPC and Toussaint is averaging 5.4 YPC). Neither has the take-it-to-the-house capability that you'd like to have from a running back, but both are running well between the tackles--Toussainst has more power than you'd expect and Smith creates holes where there aren't any--and have the ability to make tackles miss.

Then there's the unfortunate case of Stephen Hopkins who saw his playing time at running back vanish as he continued his trend of fumbling upon contact. Hopkins, who was expected to be the every-down, punishing running back Hoke is searching for, has been relegated to fullback duty. He will catch the occasional pass out of the backfield, but for the most part, Hopkins is a nonentity in this offense.

Grand Statement of Optimism: The RBs' YPC numbers are off the charts this season. Despite a seemingly mediocre running game, the numbers say Michigan's running backs are producing above the level they had been last year.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Michigan still doesn't have an every-down back. Smith is a third-down guy who is a threat from the backfield, which makes him lethal in Rodriguez's offense but just another guy in this one. Toussaint appears to be Michigan's best back but on film, he doesn't do too much to stand out, aside from the occasional jumpstep. Michigan desperately needs a guy to carry the load.

Wet Owl sez:

Receivers
Preseason expectation:

With the suspension of Darryl Stonum for the season, Michigan is left with very few deep-threat receivers. The only true outside receiver on the roster is Junior Hemingway, who I expect to have a big year if he's able to stay healthy. His leaping ability and size will make Hemingway the go-to receiver when Michigan takes a shot downfield. In the slot, Michigan has more than enough options. Roy Roundtree solidified himself as Denard's favorite target last year, and I expect that to continue. Martavious Odoms is now entering his senior season after bouncing to wide receiver last year. Odoms will be on the field a lot, but where he lines up is going to vary from play to play.

True to form, Hemingway is not only the team's only downfield threat, but he's also been Michigan's best non-Denard player (on either side of the ball). Though he hasn't come up with a ton of catches this season (18), his ridiculous yards per completion total (24) speak to how important he is to this offense. Hemingway has bailed out Denard on a number of poorly thrown deep balls and seems to always come up with a clutch catch.

Hemingway's gains are Roundtree's losses, though. Relative to last year, Roundtree is a non-factor in the passing game this season. He has hauled in a meager 12 catches for 193, though none bigger than the game winning jump ball against Notre Dame. Roundtree's issues are clear though: he doesn't understand the offense. Whether it's lining up on the wrong side of the formation presnap or running the wrong routes, it's obvious where his failings are this season. Given those struggles, it's clear why he hasn't been on the field. Roundtree's placeholder has been Drew Dileo who hasn't done much of anything, though that's largely because Denard seems to miss him standing wide open.

The real revelation this season has been the emergence of oft-maligned Jeremy Gallon as the team's leading receiver (in receptions). Gallon has pulled in 20 passes and more impressively, has become a reliable, if unimpressive, punt returner. Where once Gallon was simply a kid with stone hands that looked like a character from The Wire now stands a kid with good hands that looks like a character from The Wire. The greatest condemnation of the Rodriguez era (besides, ya know, all those losses) is the fact that Gallon was wholly incapable of fielding a punt during their tenure. This season he has been as sure handed as they come. *Knuckles meet wood*

Grand Statement of Optimism: The meager numbers the wide receivers are putting up this season are more a function of poor QB play than anything else. Individually, they've performed as well as can be expected, and with the emergence of Hemingway as one of the better jump-ball receivers around the country, the receivers have proven themselves Michigan's best unit.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: The meager numbers the wide receivers are putting up this season are more a function of poor QB play than anything else.

Wet Owl sez:

Offensive Line
Preseason expectations:

The offensive line is where the hope lies for this offense. Returning everyone except Steve Schilling, the offensive line was one of the best in the Big Ten (country?) last year and should have a productive season. Unfortunately, they've had trouble blocking the power-running game that Hoke prefers. If Borges doesn't abandon the zone running game, and if the offensive line is able to gel and effectively block the smash mouth running game Hoke wants, this will be Michigan's best unit.

Once again, not so much. Michigan's offensive line was expected to be its most consistent unit. Instead, the offensive line has struggled both in the power running game (expected) and pass protection (not as expected). Mark Huyge announced the opening of his new charity Spartans in the Backfield (SitB) against Michigan State, and right guard Patrick Omameh has been periodically benched for his complete inability to pull on power running schemes.

Some of this is scheme/coach induced. The Spartans timed Michigan's snap count and were overwhelming specific gaps in order to get free rushers at Denard. There are also instances of linemen pulling toward the playside, stretching the play to the boundary and allowing defenders to cage in Denard. These are schematic and planning issues, some of the few that can be levied against the coaching staff thus far. With few backups to speak of, though, this is Michigan's unit for the rest of the season, flaws and all.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Michigan's rushing attack is actually better in YPG on the ground and YPC this season than it was last year when the team's offensive metrics were off the charts.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: SitB. Zero depth. Wholesale replacements by true freshmen in 2012 argh.

Wet Owl sez:

Tight Ends
Preseason expectations:

While rumor is that the tight ends will play a big role in the offense this year, given Michigan's lack of depth at fullback and the desire to run helmet-on-helmet power football, I don't see the tight ends becoming an integral part of the receiving game. Last year, the tight ends combined for 19 catches and 266 yards. Expect those numbers to remain about where they are.

A little over halfway through the season and Michigan's tight ends have combined for 13 catches and 143 yards. One of the misconceptions about this team that commentators cite is how happy the tight ends must be as a bigger part of the offense. The truth is, they're not. Though Koger has been used for the QB Oh Noes in place of Roundtree, very little has changed in terms of their involvement with the offense. Instead of lining up at H-back, the tight ends are lining up on the line of scrimmage. Otherwise, it's par for the course.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Koger is as athletic as true tight ends come and has made some nice plays this season.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Zero depth. Zero.

Wet Owl sez:

Mid-season report
To date, Al Borges has been impressive in his ability to tweak his system and adjust to Denard's unique capabilities. He's not without his flaws though, namely the entirety of the Michigan State game and the infamous fourth and inches call late. Regardless of the scheme, this offense is going no where if denard can't get his game in check. His awful passing numbers are about on pace with what I expected to see this season, which was never a positive projection. Elsewhere, the offense is having an underrated season. The running backs are quietly supplying impressive run support and the wide receivers have caught just about everything thrown their way (which hasn't been much, unfortunately).

Given that the offensive line struggles with power run blocking and Denard is having difficulty adjusting to this pro-style offense, the onus for success this season will fall on the shoulders of Borges. Is he smart and flexible enough to cater to the team's strengths or will the coaching staff continue to implement their offensive schemes in contrast to the team's obvious strengths? If I had to guess, the rest of the season will look a lot like the first half: a grab bag of plays that the coaching staff has faith in but that Denard fails to execute properly.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Denard 2010

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Denard 2011

Wet Owl concludes:

Progress report: The 2011 defense

2011-10-25T10:00:00.000-04:00

Preseason expectation:

Mattison will do wonders for this defense, not only teaching the fundamentals, but also varying up the playcalling with zone blitzes, man and zone coverage, and various personnel groups. If I had to put a number on it, I would guess the defense leaps to somewhere around the 60th best defense in the country. The talent and personnel are mostly in place with a few exceptions, and the defense should be able to hold itself together because of it. There will still be a number of forehead-meet-palm breakdowns, but not nearly as many as there have been in the past few years. Barring injuries, this will be a competent unit that will keep Michigan in games and won't explicitly lose any for the team.

For the most part, this has held true. A quick glace at national rankings shows just how much Michigan's defense has improved under this new staff:

	Rush Def	Pass Eff Def	Total Def	Scoring Def
2010	95th (188.92 YPG, 4.43 YPC)	103rd	110th (450.77 YPG)	108th (35.23)
2011	62nd (153.5 YPG, 4.68 YPC)	36th	36th (345 YPG)	8th (15.5 PPG)

With essentially the same personnel, Mattison has turned what was one of the worst defenses in the country last year into a defense that's decidedly above average. While Michigan's defensive numbers haven't taken the logical hit they will once their schedule evens out, this sort of improvement speaks bounds for Mattison's skills and reputation. One of the reasons for this success, as indicated by the image above, is Mattison's innovative blitzes. Especially early in the season, Mattison showed stunt blitzes and zone drops to wreak havoc on opposing offenses. Occasionally, this cost the team, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Unfortunately, as the lead image also indicates, the defense is not without its flaws. Certain players and position groups, in spite of the defense's overall success, have been struggling through the year. Let's recalibrate our expectations and see where the defense stacks up to their preseason hype.

Defensive Line
Preseason expectation:

As for production, this unit should be far more effective than they were last year. For the most part last season, Michigan rushed three down linemen and let the crippled secondary deal with endless coverage. It did not go well. With a four-man line and Roh's move back to DE, the defensive line should be able to create pressure by themselves. Even last year, with an incoherent defense, Martin and a four-man line were able to generate some pressure. Add in Mattison's blitzing tendencies, and we should see a far more productive unit.

Speaking of which, there have been plenty of rumors, pictures, and even footage (the spring game) of the defensive line dropping into coverage on zone blitzes. This is something that Greg Robinson dabbled in last year, but it never became a staple of the defense. It looks like Mattison is going to bring plenty of pressure from the linebackers and have the defensive line dropping into coverage. Given Martin's experience with this and Roh's time at linebacker, this could be a devastating change up.

Like the general preseason defensive projection, this is about 70% correct. Though this unit was expected to give the team a lot of production, slow starts by the defensive ends coupled with Will Heininger's uninspiring play as the starting 3-tech have created a fairly lackluster group. To date, the defensive line has recorded only 5 sacks (Martin 0.5, Roh 2.5, Van Bergen 1.0, and Will Campbell 1.0), one of which came from a backup. In addition, they've only amassed 16.5 of the team's 31 tackles for loss. While those are decent numbers, I think more was expected of this unit coming into the season.

There are mitigating factors: many of the zone blitzes that Michigan runs are intended to open up lanes for linebackers and safeties to blitz (Kovacs, for example, has 3 sacks and 4 tackles for loss), but the production from this unit has been meager.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Michigan's defensive rushing numbers haven't been great, largely due to inexperience in the linebacking corps (about which more in a minute). As such, the defensive line has struggled to make plays because their help defense isn't in the proper position. As Michigan's linebackers improve, so too should the output from the defensive line.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: With a mostly veteran defensive line, the chances for significant improvement (with regard to getting pressure from a four-man rush, for example) are slim. In addition, it may be time to stop piling heaps of praise upon Martin who has failed to live up to the lofty expectations we have for him every season. Yes, he plays out of position, but not significantly so. When's the last time you remember Martin beating a double block against anyone other than a cupcake? He's a solid Big Ten starter but not much more.

Wet Owl sez:

Linebackers
Preseason expectation:

Like the defensive line, the change in scheme should be beneficial for this unit. MGoBlog spent much of last year criticizing Greg Robinson's deployment of the linebackers at an inadequate depth. Mattison's schemes likely won't put the linebackers in such harrowing positions, decreasing the amount of frustrating pancake blocks and loss of contain. I expect this unit to be significantly better against the run and filling gaps, and their pass coverage should be adequate. If Demens can stay healthy, this should be a functional linebacking corps.

So, urm, that's wrong. Though Mattison has created plenty of opportunities for the linebackers to make plays and amass stats, they've unquestionably been the worst unit on the defense to date, largely responsible for opponents uptick in rushing YPC from 4.43 last year to 4.68 this year.

The stalwart of this unit was supposed to be returning starting MLB Kenny Demens who, despite showing signs of inexperience last year after overtaking Obi Ezeh for the starting spot, appeared to be the best middle linebacker Michigan had fielded in a quite some time. This season has been less promising. Those moments of indecision have persisted, opening up running lanes through the middle of the field. He's also struggled in pass protection and is responsible for the little red line on the play diagram above which means Screw Up. That said, like last year, he's shown an ability to learn from his mistakes, prompting me to write yet another apology post that isn't really an apology but more a Thank You For Doing Your Job.

Demens is not the worst part of the linebacking corps though. That designation would fall to the revolving door at weakside linebacker where Brandin Hawthorne, Brandon Herron, and recent "starter" Desmond Morgan have been rotating through. I don't have any picture pages of any of them screwing anything up, but I also don't have any of them doing anything well. These three take turns ghosting around the field and being total nonentities.

On the other side of the formation is Jake "What Have You Done for Me Lately" Ryan who vacillates between recovering fumbles and getting tackles for loss, and making crippling mistakes by letting ball carriers outside of him. Ryan has competition on the depth chart with Cam Gordon nipping at his heels, so if he begins to really struggle, at least there are other options. But Ryan makes enough good plays that it'll be tough to pull him off the field completely.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Youth and inexperience. Michigan's linebackers are either young, haven't had much playing time, or both. As they get more time in the system and in the film room, the hope is that keeping contain will become less and less of an Achilles heel for the defense.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Demens isn't the All Big Ten linebacker most assumed he was coming into the season. In fact, he's shown so many mistakes that had Rodriguez recruited a single competent linebacker, his status as the starter would be seriously in question.

Wet Owl sez:

Corners
Preseason expectation:

Troy Woolfolk returns from purgatory as the experienced veteran. Were he around last year, the defense might have begun to resemble competent. But there's no use crying over spilled milk. Woolfolk proved himself to be a decent Big Ten corner in 2009 when he was moved from free safety, and I expect he'll have a successful year, possibly good enough to make people realize that the hype poured on Donovan Warren was terribly misguided.

Opposite Woolfolk will be true sophomore Courtney Avery. Despite the depth chart giving the noncommittal "OR" to the starting position, Avery is your starter...

The backups will be precisely that: backups. There are young guys on the two deep that will, with any luck, spend most of their season on the bench. The Woolfolk/Avery starting tandem should provide Michigan will a decent set of corners that can cover man-to-man or zone, allowing the front seven to attack the quarterback and stop the run.

Corner has been a weirdly average position for Michigan this season. Despite not fielding anyone who's been all that good, the team hasn't been exploited. Woolfolk has been injured the entire season and it has shown. He's visibly slowed, has trouble in coverage, and just generally doesn't look anything like he did two years ago. It's possible that the time off took a lot out of his game, but he still looks hampered.

Opposite Woolfolk, I expected Avery to start and excel. The opposite has been true. Avery similarly has struggled in coverage and has seen his playing time significantly reduced as JT Floyd locked down the second CB position.

The bright spot from this unit comes from true freshman Blake Countess who has replaced Woolfolk in the starting lineup each of the past few weeks. Aside from showing quality coverage skills, Countess ranks sixth on the team in tackles, even after zero starts and playing only six games. Though he's been beaten deep on a few different routes, Countess breaks on the ball well, wraps up his tackles, and has shown ample ability to break up passes. Unless Woolfolk's lingering injuries subside by the end of the season, Countess should take over the starting position.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Blake Countess roolz.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: The technique that the corners and safeties are using to defend the pass (face guarding, explained in depth at MGoBlog) is unsustainable and implies that they aren't in the proper position yet to make a play on the ball.

Wet Owl sez:

Safeties
Preseason expectation:

This is where things get hairy

If you need me, I'll be in the stockade for the next week while Jordan Kovacs hurls rotten passionfruit at me.

The unequivocal best unit from Michigan's defense this season has been the safeties. Take a deep breath and read that again. Kovacs and free safety Thomas Gordon have been somewhere between good and great in relation to the last three years. The team hasn't allowed any play longer than 40 yards, largely thanks to the sure tackling of Kovacs. The biggest play of the season (the late non-game winning touchdown to Notre Dame) was the fault of Marvin Robinson, not either of the two starting safeties.

Kovacs has been the real breadwinner though, racking up 4 TFLs, 3 sacks, 1 interception, 1 pass breakup, 1 forced fumble, and 1 fumble recovery, all while being tied for second on the team in tackles. Simply put, Kovacs has been everywhere. Much of that is due to Mattison's schemes, which give Kovacs clear lanes to the backfield and put him in positions to break up passes. Regardless, Kovacs still has to perform and in that regard, he's done swimmingly.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Jordan Kovacs roolz. Also, no long touchdowns.

Grand Statement of Pessimism: They haven't made enough interceptions?

Wet Owl sez:

Mid-season report
While some units are under- and over-performing, Michigan's defense is about where we expected it to be before the season: an above-average, blitz-heavy defense that shows obvious signs of coaching and discipline. The problems that ill this defense are more experience based than talent based, as they have been in the recent past. Michigan appears to have depth in the secondary for the first time in four years, two competent safeties, and a few young prospects in the front seven (I'm including Will Campbell in this because I like his play so far).

The rest of the season is littered with unimpressive opponents, but many of them are built to exploit Michigan's biggest weakness: containing the edge. With option running attacks from Nebraska, Illinois, Ohio State, and Purdue, Michigan could be stepping into a perfect storm of teams that are uniquely positioned to punish the young Wolverine defense. However, given the excellence of the coaching staff, the team's issues with containment and discipline should be largely mitigated by the season's conclusion.

Grand Statement of Optimism: Greg Mattison

Grand Statement of Pessimism: Boy, that defensive line is thin. After this season, it's going to be hard to field a team that is even remotely competent against the run, especially given the lackluster performance by the linebackers.

Wet Owl concludes:

Where are they now: The team, the team, the team

2011-10-24T09:30:00.000-04:00

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

After Michigan State gave Michigan its first loss last year, the internets exploded with criticism or support of Rodriguez and his staff. This prompted me to write the following in response to a post by In Rod We Trust:

Michigan had two turnovers in the endzone which cost them points, but they don't address the fact that Michigan was outgained 536 yards to 377 yards, allowed 5.9 YPC on 42 carries (!), and forced all of seven incompletions, allowing Cousins to throw for 11.4 YPA. Michigan was crushed in this game in almost every aspect. They hardly belonged on the field with Michigan State.

Given what we know about this team--that Denard is young and inexperienced, the secondary is young and starts walk ons, and the team can't tackle--there's very little to say that this was an aberration or that this isn't indicative of how the team will perform going forward, unsettling as that may be. The future of the program looks bright. it's riddled with young talent and should-be stars/contributors. But that's only if Rodriguez can hang on long enough to see the team to the promised land. And unfortunately, the future of this team isn't all that promising.

You know what followed: Michigan finished 2-5, including an ugly beating in a bowl game, as well as lopsided losses to Ohio State and Wisconsin. Their only two wins were the triple overtime defensive crapshow against Illinois and the snowbowl against Purude. The good news is that 2011 doesn't look quite as harrowing as 2010 did--partially because of Michigan's remaining schedule--but that's not to say Michigan will finish out the season with much more success than they saw last year.

The Good
The most positive aspect of this season has been the revelation that Michigan's coaching staff is a significant upgrade over last year's. It has been so good, in fact, that I've had to create tags like "Al Borges' diabolical machinations" and "reasons to love Greg Mattison." Blitzes, overall defensive improvement, and an increasingly expansive offensive playbook all contribute to a coaching staff that is keeping opponents on their toes and providing tangible improvement from the personnel they've inherited.

One of those inherited player groups is the surprisingly competent secondary. The return of Troy Woolfolk was supposed to improve a still young and inexperienced secondary. In reality, Woolfolk looks far from 100% and has been pulled in favor of true freshman Blake Countess in each of the last few games. Though Countess has been the unsurpassed bright spot from the secondary, mainstay Jordan Kovacs has continued to his streak of competent-to-good play while second corner JT Floyd and free safety Thomas Gordon have all contributed to a unit that hasn't allowed any long touchdowns or massive breakdowns through the first seven games of the season. This constitutes unbridled success.

The Bad
In spite of a 6-1 start and the coaching and secondary improvement, the rest of the season has been either disappointing or flat out bad. First, the obvious: Denard Robinson's clear regression in the passing game. I was more skeptical of Denard entering this season than most. His struggles on obvious passing downs, high INT rate, poor spring game performance, and a changing offensive system that emphasized his arm rather than his legs painted the picture of a quarterback who would experience massive regression. What we've seen is exactly that: Denard is completing only 52% of his attempts and has thrown only 11 TDs to 10 INTs. More importantly, his arm was the primary reason behind Michigan's loss to MSU (caveats about the weather apply).

The second most disappointing aspect of the season has been Michigan's defensive front seven and run defense. Despite a mostly experienced group, the likes of Mike Martin, Kenny Demens, and Craig Roh have been largely ineffectual this season. Demens has frequently struggled with diagnosing plays, something that was an issue last year as well. Meanwhile, Michigan has gotten the bare minimum production out of the defensive line, a unit that was projected to really excel with the likes of returning starters Martin, Roh, and Ryan Van Bergen leading the charge.

The team's less experienced defensive ends and linebackers (Jake Ryan and Brennen Beyer, specifically) have accounted for a lot of Michigan's trouble defending the run. The team has shown discipline problems defending the run by allowing offenses to easily gain the edge and get to the second level. Fortunately, this is something that should improve throughout the season, one of the few negative trends this season that could be easily correctable.

The Future
The reason this season has the potential to end better than last year is because of the state of the Big Ten. Michigan's final five opponents (Purdue, Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio ~~State~~) are all seriously flawed. Where once Illinois and Nebraska looked like intimidating forces, their recent collapses make them far less terrifying. Unfortunately, beating anyone else on the schedule largely hinges on Denard's improvement in the passing game. If he continues to struggle, it's possible that Devin Gardner, who has seen more and more snaps as the season has progressed, will take over the starting role.

Beyond this season, the future looks bright. Michigan has amassed one of the best recruiting classes in the country and with open season on high-profile recruits like Bri'onte Dunn and the recently flirtatious Gunner Kiel, the staff could bolster an already impressive recruiting haul. Combine that with the coaching staff's impressive start and the Hoke administration is aligned to be more successful sooner than most people thought they would be.

A call for recruiting fanatics

2011-10-21T11:11:00.001-04:00

When I first started to really take this blog seriously (there were a few months upon its inception that it was just a general sports blog), I made an effort to produce content that you couldn't find elsewhere, an idea that quickly become my unofficial mission statement. This explains why the majority of the content here is comprised of Picture Pages and Xs and Os. Knowing that I'll likely never have the resources, inside contacts, or reach of Brian at MGoBlog, I wouldn't write on anything that I couldn't provide unique analysis or commentary on. Not having the time or the passion to invest in recruiting, that subject went almost entirely unreported here. Unfortunately, it may be too big a piece of the puzzle for me to totally ignore anymore, which is why I'm putting out an official call for a recruiting analyst to write for the site. With this being the bye week, I figured it was as good a time as any to gauge the interest of both readers and people who might want to write.

So here's the catch: right now, this site makes essentially no money, so compensation will be slim to nonexistent, but that's something that can be discussed later. I am, however, a professional editor and writer and can offer the benefits that go along with that. The point is, this is a position for someone who is already passionate about Michigan recruiting but never had an avenue to pursue it or didn't want to deal with the back-end management of a website.

The structure of the content has yet to be decided. In keeping with the site's goals, I'd like for it to be different than the various other Michigan blogs currently covering it, but the nature of the industry is such that there is bound to be some crossover. This would be something to brainstorm about and formulate.

If this is something that you're interested in, contact me at BurgeoningWolverineStar@gmail.com. Please send a brief description of who you are, a bit about your writing background, and any ideas you have for coverage. I'll respond to all submissions and depending on the interest, determine where to take this.

The dangers of zone blitzing

2011-10-20T09:30:00.000-04:00

One of the few complaints I can levy against the defensive staff after the weeks leading up to the Michigan State game was a lack of the innovative blitzes that Mattison showed early in the season. Michigan State, being a strictly pro-style offense, appeared to be the perfect team for Mattison to unveil a few of his NFL-style blitzes. In my opinion, the team didn't blitz nearly enough in the game. For the most part, any D-I offensive line can pass protect against four straight-ahead rushers, which is what the Spartan line was tasked with for most of the game. Occasionally, Mattison would bring a blitz, however, and on this example, he utilized a zone blitz but oddly used man coverage behind the blitz rather than zone coverage, necessitating that Michigan's defensive ends cover players they had no ability to cover.

It's third and eight with about four minutes left in the third quarter. Cousins had just thrown the backwards pass that wasn't a backwards pass. Michigan is in its nickel package with Coutney Avery as the nickelback and Desmond Morgan and Kenny Demens as linebackers.

Before the snap, Michigan's linebackers show blitz, as does Jordan Kovacs who has come down from his safety position. These three will blitz the A gap, not unlike Michigan State did against Michigan all game.

As the ball is snapped, Michigan's defensive ends (Craig Roh and Jake Ryan) both drop off into coverage as Demens, Morgan, and Kovacs blitz the A gap. On the strongside of the field, you can see Avery and Blake Countess in man coverage against MSU's receivers. Roh is also assigned to man coverage against MSU's H-back. Ryan, lined up against BJ Cunningham on the weakside of the field is supposed to be in man coverage. You'll see in a minute that he is confused about his assignment on the play.

The blitzers are now getting into the backfield and will have a free run at Cousins (there aren't enough blockers to protect him). Roh is engaged with the MSU H-back. FWIW, I think he'd probably be called for defensive holding if the play had ended differently. On the weakside of the field, Cunningham is running behind Ryan. Cousins already recognizes that Ryan has missed his assignment as is getting ready to throw to Cunningham once he clears Ryan.

Morgan and Kovacs have blown by the MSU running back and are charging after Cousins. You can see Ryan pointing at Cunningham. Ryan thinks that this is zone coverage, and he's trying to alert Roh to the crossing route. Unfortunately, Michigan is in man coverage.

At the last minute, Ryan realizes that he's blown his coverage, but Cunningham is already wide open. The blitz was a step too late.

Blown coverage aside, this emphasizes the danger of running zone blitzes: if the blitz doesn't land, you have defensive ends in zone coverage against zippy slot receivers. This almost always ends poorly. This play, however, is especially perplexing. I can't understand how Mattison can call for man coverage from the defensive ends on a blitz, especially asking them to cover wide receivers. If they are assigned to tight ends, fine, they might be able to handle that. But asking Ryan to cover one of MSU's best receivers in man coverage is suicide. I think the design of the play calls for Ryan to jam Cunningham at the line of scrimmage so that the A gap blitz has time to land, but that's a risky call.

Other random observations
You can see the difference between this A gap blitz and the ones that MSU used against Michigan. As MGoBlog pointed out, MSU was timing Michigan's snap count and able to get into the backfield almost immediately. The Spartan defenders were able to build a full head of steam pre-snap. Michigan's blitzers, however, were slowly creeping to the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped.

Another thing to note is the pre-snap alignment of Ryan, who is lined up close to a yard behind the other defensive linemen:

Though I'm not positive, I think Ryan or Roh has done this before. It's something to watch going forward. If the defensive ends continue lining up too far from the line of scrimmage on the zone drops, it will tip off the blitz and coverage to opposing QBs. It didn't here, and I'm not sure if it's noticeable enough in real time, but it looks to me like it is. Ryan's helmet is a full yard off the line of scrimmage. If opposing linemen start picking up on this pre-snap, they can tip off the quarterbacks to a likely zone blitz. It will also help them in pass protection.

Using receivers to seal Michigan's linebackers

2011-10-19T10:00:00.000-04:00

One thing that was clear to Michigan State's offensive staff was that Michigan was bad at containing the edge on running plays. When Michigan's defensive ends weren't being chopped down as they recklessly rushed upfield, MSU was using a variety of blocking schemes to seal Michigan's linemen and linebackers to the inside of the field. One such play would've gone for a touchdown had Edwin Baker not gotten a case of the fumblies.

It's the first play of MSU's second drive of the third quarter. MSU is in an offset I formation with one wide receiver and an H-back. Michigan is in a 4-3 even front with SAM linebacker Jake Ryan rolled up to the line of scrimmage as the EMLOS.

Before the snap, MSU's H-back will motion across the formation. Michigan doesn't change their formation at all. This is a problem because, if you can count, you can see that on the strongside of the field now (bottom of screen), Michigan has only five defenders. Meanwhile, MSU has the RG, RT, H-back, FB, and wide receiver on that side of the field to block.

As the ball is snapped, the RT immediately steps away from the line of scrimmage and pulls around to the playside. The fullback is also headed to the strongside of the field as a lead blocker. The H-back and wide receiver are tasked with sealing Craig Roh and Desmond Morgan to the inside of the field. The right guard will reach block and seal Will Heininger. This is an outside pitch to Baker.

A moment later, the WR and H-back have effectively sealed Michigan's defenders and Heininger is also being sealed to the inside. The right tackle and fullback are pulling around the formation as lead blockers. Michigan only has two unblocked defenders left on that side of the field.

Doom cometh. Baker has blockers and the ball.

The fullback chops down Kovacs. The right tackle is headed directly for Countess.

Thomas Gordon, who just entered the screen, stands as the last defender between Baker and an 80-yard touchdown.

Gordon takes an awful angle, allowing Baker to get to the outside. He will lunge at Baker and force a miraculous fumble.

I don't know what to do here, honestly. MSU has an overwhelming numbers advantage to the playside after a pre-snap shift but Michigan's defense doesn't make any adjustments. I think realistically, once MSU motions the H-back across the formation, the defensive line has to shift as well. Ryan likely has to put his hand in the ground and Roh becomes the EMLOS. That might not be a sound defense, however. Anyone with insight, feel free to let me know in the comments.

Though it's not a surprise, this is a clear indication that MSU's coaching staff knew that Michigan's defense was weak on the edge and utilized some unique blocking schemes to help get outside. Rather than using their wide receivers to block safeties downfield, they were assigned to Michigan's linebackers, giving the running back one-on-one matchups against Michigan's safeties downfield. Part of the problem is that Michigan is in a cover-3 formation against a likely running formation. The other problem was Michigan's backside defenders not pursuing the ball quickly enough (if Morgan had managed to force this play back inside, would Michigan have any defenders there to make the tackle?). Michigan was bailed out by a lucky forced fumble, but unless Michigan's defense reacts to these pre-snap shifts, expect more teams to utilize these tactics.

MSU linebacker blitzes

2011-10-18T11:00:00.000-04:00

We've already seen that Michigan struggled to run the ball against Michigan State. Much of that is due to the Spartans blitzing consistently and completely selling out on the run. Despite some pre-snap alignments that would've been gold to Rodriguez's staff last year, Michigan ran directly into the strength of the MSU defense en route to their far and away worst rushing performance of the season. The one blitz that MSU used most frequently--or maybe just to the greatest effect--was a linebacker blitz in which the strongside and middle linebackers blitzed the A gap. The following is just one of many examples of how the blitz worked.

Michigan comes out in a three-wide set with Vincent Smith in the backfield. If you're screaming at the computer screen "LOOK AT THE OPEN BUBBLE SCREEN", please stop. They can't hear you. Also, the game is over. Michigan State is in a 4-3 even formation with the WLB set up as the EMLOS.

As the ball is snapped, Michigan State rushes all four down linemen as well as the WLB and MLB, who are blitzing the A gap. The SLB drops off as an extra contain man should Denard pull the ball on the zone read.

A moment later, Denard is reading the strongside defensive end (William Gholston) who Koger left unblocked. Koger is releasing to the second level to block the SLB. Since Gholston is keeping contain, the proper read is to hand the ball of to Smith. Unfortunately, MSU has overloaded the A gap with blitzers that are staring down Smith in the backfield. FWIW, Omameh misses his block here, but even if he hadn't, MSU's weakside linebacker was also blitzing into the gap.

This is the same premise as Mattison's stunt blitzes against Western Michigan in which the defense overloaded one side of the offensive line and blitzed a specific gap.

As Denard completes the handoff, Smith is bottled up.

He's brought down behind the line of scrimmage. If Denard had kept the ball, he would've had two defenders in his face: the first is Gholston; the other is the MSU defensive tackle who's participating in Mark Huyge's SitB charity.

With the windy conditions and Denard's inability to throw the ball down the field, MSU spent most of the day selling out on the run like this. (They also used this same blitz on passing downs, including the pick-six that effectively ended the game.) This blitz effectively shuts down Michigan's zone read: by tasking the weakside defensive end with keeping contain on Denard, MSU can force him to hand the ball of into the teeth of the blitz.

The way to combat it is to make an adjustment at the line of scrimmage. Last year, Michigan would've checked out of this run and thrown a bubble screen. It was wide open and Michigan had a clear numbers advantage. Instead, Borges insists on running what's called in the huddle, which produces results like this. The fear is that other teams will replicate it. While it's unlikely that any other group of corners and safeties in the Big Ten will be able to cover Michigan's receivers this well for an entire game--nor is there likely to be these adverse conditions again--this at least provides a blueprint for how to shut down Michigan's zone read game. Borges will need to come up with variations on the running game or check into more advantageous plays when defenses present an unsound defensive front.

Offensive structure versus MSU

2011-10-18T09:00:00.000-04:00

While reading MGoBlog's recap of the Michigan State game, I was struck by some of the numbers he cited. Though I found structural issues with Michigan's playcalling, Brian found entirely different ones based on rushing and passing numbers that seemed to go against what I thought I saw on Saturday. Specifically this:

While this doesn't paint a pretty picture for the run game, either, after halftime Michigan passed on 60% of its first downs, got one completion on a short route that turned into a big gain when Roundtree broke a tackle, and did nothing else.
For the game Michigan tried to pass at least 41 times*, averaging 2.8 yards per attempt and giving up a defensive touchdown.
TWO POINT EIGHT YARDS
DEFENSIVE TOUCHDOWN
RUN THE FOOTBALL!!!!
…
…
Sorry. Sorry.
Michigan tried to run the ball 26 times and averaged… oh, Jesus… 5.2 yards per carry. Fitzgerald Toussaint got two carries, Denard twelve.

These numbers seemed wrong and after looking through the box scores that I typically look at (Rivals and ESPN), I still don't know where these numbers came from. Both box scores say that Michigan ran the ball 36 times for 82 yards (an average of 2.3 yards per carry). In college, sack yardage is inexplicably taken away from the running game, but even if we add in the yards from Michigan's seven sacks (62), Michigan average only 4 YPC (144 yards with sacks removed), not the gaudy 5.2 YPC that Brian cites.

The same discrepancies exist in the passing game. Both box scores list Michigan as completing 12 of 31 passes through the air for 168 yards (5.4 YPA). If you remove sack yardage from those passing numbers, Michigan averaged 3.29 YPA (102 yards with sack yardage subtracted)

To make the running numbers worse, 80 of Michigan's rushing yards came on five carries:

26-yard Vincent Smith carry on a miraculous Denard zone read
15-yard Denard scramble for a touchdown (supposed to be a pass)
15-yard Denard carry on a jet sweep
11-yard QB draw on 2nd and 18 when MSU is playing prevent
13-yard Denard carry on a jet sweep

That's two base-offense carries, one scramble, and two jet sweeps. If you excise those rushes and sacks, Michigan produced 64 yards on 29 carries (2.2 YPC). This isn't a particularly fair process--you can't just cherry pick Michigan's best runs and remove them--but the sustainability of running Incredibly Surprising Denard Jet Sweep is questionable and scrambles can't be relied upon to produce consistent rushing numbers. Not that any of this really matters, but it does at least confirm what I saw on Saturday: Michigan couldn't run in this game because Michigan State was loading the box and forcing Denard to throw the ball.

[UPDATE: A commenter notes that if we remove sack yards from rushing totals, we also have to remove the rushing attempts. Therefore, Michigan produced 144 yards on 29 carries (4.9 YPC). For the cherry picked rushed above, Michigan average 64 yards on 24 carries (2.6 YPC).

Similar logic applied to the passing numbers. If you add rushing totals back into the passing numbers, Michigan netted 102 yards on 38 attempts (2.7 YPA).

I didn't expect Brian to make an error like this and by my math (wrong) it seemed like he had. While Michigan did struggle passing the ball, I still think saying the team rushed for 5.2 YPC (or 4.9, whatever the case may be) is a bit misleading.]

This is the kind of defensive formation Michigan saw all game:

Regardless of the weather, you don't run against this formation. You can't. MSU's safeties are 8 yards beyond the line of scrimmage and the defense is essentially playing cover zero. If your receivers can't get open (and QB can't throw to them) with this coverage, you're not winning.

Before the game, the logic was that the wind would hurt Michigan State more because they relied more heavily on the passing game. In reality, Kirk Cousins, being a much better passer than Denard, was able to more effectively manage the adverse conditions. The Spartan defense, therefore, was able to key on the running game because of Denard's existing passing struggles in addition to the blustery conditions.

The real problem with Michigan's offense in this game was the structure of the passing routes. Almost all of the Michigan receivers were running vertical routes that took too long to develop. With the MSU blitzes and the windy conditions, long-developing routes were never going to be successful. To make matters worse, MSU completely disregarded the bubble screen. Michigan hasn't used it once this season and so defenses are allowed to align like this:

That's Michigan's best receiver (Junior Hemingway) lined up in the slot with a safety 10 yards off the line of scrimmage in man coverage. Michigan would run a pitch option here that would net two (TWO!) yards. On the next play, Drew Dileo will dive for the first down on Michigan's fake punt.

For a coordinator that tries to exploit man coverage by taking shots down the field, it's willful stupidity not to throw bubble screens when a defense aligns like this. Worse still, Michigan ran into a defensive front that had eight men in the box openly showing a run blitz. Even one of those throwback screens that Michigan has used this season would have worked; MSU was overpursuing for most of the game.

I don't think Michigan threw the ball too much against MSU. The bigger problem was the passing routes that the team ran. With a defense so obviously selling out on the run by constantly blitzing (which also stopped deep routes), the short hitches and screen passes that Denard has proven he can throw would've been a superior option to the deep routes that Borges called in an attempt to exploit single coverage on the outside.

Mark Dantonio: Pillar of class

2011-10-17T10:54:00.000-04:00

I forgot to mention this in the game column, but it deserves to be noted: Though Michigan may have been beaten on Saturday, they certainly weren't outclassed. As if you didn't know this already, the Spartans are truly unsportsmanlike thugs. The ESPN announcers extolling the virtues of Mark Dantonio and the way he runs his program to try and offset yet another cheap shot by the Spartans was comical. After the Dorm Hall Massacres, it was probably a stretch to try and validate that program as anything other than a bunch of meatheads given total amnesty, but since Tressel's departure, Dantonio has become the poster boy for good, upstanding Christian men with strong jaws. This is just further proof that if you put on a good face and say the right things to the media, reality is unimportant.

I mean this with all sincerity: Fuck Mark Dantonio. You beat us, and that sucks, but I can live with the loss. What pisses me off is watching your players act like asshole as you're commended for your discipline.

Michigan State 2011: Where Little Brother finds your weakness

2011-10-17T09:30:00.000-04:00

#11 Michigan 14 - #23 Michigan State 28

Jeff Sainlar | AnnArbor.com

The last time my older brother and I got in a serious altercation was on Thanksgiving Eve a few years ago. It was past midnight at our parents' house and we were both in town for the holiday. Neither of us felt like going out, so we opened a few beers and my poker set, and sat down at the dinner table to play a few games heads up until we got too bored, angry, or tired to keep going.

My brother is a better poker play than me. Aside from knowing the odds, he's also more disciplined; it's difficult to bluff if you haven't won any hands yet, but invariably, that becomes my strategy early in poker games. But I know my brother's greatest weakness and more importantly, I know how to exploit it: get in his head. If only I could win a few toss-up hands, I knew I could give him enough mental jabs to get him totally off his rocker. After about an hour of playing, he stormed off into his room as I sat at the table shrugging saying something to the effect of, "Whatever dude, just sit down and shut up and we'll play." This was a victory.

It's not just poker either. My brother is taller, stronger, and smarter than I am, and being of a religiously competitive breed, we spent most of our childhood figuring out Who Is Better, which meant I needed to figure out what his weaknesses are and how to exploit them. In basketball, I have a speed advantage that I use to get to the basket. Defensively, I know that when I don't contest his shot, he tends to shoot with less arc, causing more rim outs. These are petty, small, unsustainable strategies that have become my only defense against someone who is objectively better than me at a few key competitive events.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Mike Hart now famously referred to Michigan State as Little Brother in 2008, the Spartans took it as the greatest sign of disrespect, but in reality, it's not that far off. When people think "football" and "Michigan", the first thing that comes to mind is the Wolverines; teachers called me by my brother's name an innumerable amount of times through gradeschool and high school. But less disrespectfully, Michigan State is a growing program, fighting for national relevance by slowly making itself a force to be reckoned with. Michigan, meanwhile, was the established entity.

Michigan's weaknesses are not the same as my brother's--he understands statistics, so he knows better than to punt from the opponent's 36 yard line on fourth and four. Michigan State plays like a little brother, though. For the last several years, more than any other opponent, they've identified and exploited Michigan's weaknesses en route to commanding victories. Michigan's linebackers and defensive ends struggle with contain? They run almost exclusively outside of the tackles (even with two mediocre-to-bad offensive tackles). Denard Robinson struggles throwing under pressure? Bring heat constantly. Michigan runs well but struggles throwing the deep ball, even with man coverage and no safety help? Load the box.

You would think that Al Borges and Greg Mattison would change tendencies. How many times does an opponent have to blitz before Borges calls that throwback screen to Smith? How many times can Michigan State run outside the tackles before you bring a safety/cornerback blitz off the edge? In this game, unfortunately, either arrogance, ignorance, or just befuddlement caused Michigan's coordinators to spend most of the afternoon slamming their head against a brick wall and hoping that eventually, it would crumble. It didn't, of course, because the brick wall was made of brick and your head is made of squishy tissue that, if this were Rock-Head-Brick Wall, would lose to brick wall. (Head would also lose to rock for what it's worth. It doesn't seem like a very balanced game.)

So Michigan goes into its bye week 6-1. This was never supposed to be a BCS season, and 10-2 with a win over Ohio ~~State~~ would still be a better case scenario than most expected preseason. Michigan has its flaws and at this point, they're obvious to everyone, including the Michigan coaching staff. Finding ways to remedy those, or at the very least mask them, has become Borges' and Mattison's primary mission.

Bullets

Borges comes in for some lashings after this game. The offense continued to run plays that were doomed from the start. All passing routes were vertical and downfield. Rushes were stuffed at the line as Michigan State loaded the box. There were no screens thrown against an aggressive blitzing defense. Borges was punked the whole game and seemed content to run the same plays through four quarters.
Mattison, on the other hand, called a pretty good game. Were it not for the defensive ends and linebackers giving up the edge on rushes, the defense shut down the MSU offense. Kirk Cousins averaged only 5 yards per attempt. The Spartan offensive line was as advertised: soft. But by doubling Michigan's defensive ends with tight ends, Michigan State was able to get the edge and run all over Michigan's undisciplined defense.
It was a good day for Mark Huyge's new charity Spartans in the Backfield (SitB). Huyge had a truly awful day and offered MSU's defenders a direct line to Denard on countless passing plays.
Denard struggled, but there were reasons for it outside of his control. SitB was a huge problem all game. In addition, the Michigan State defense loaded the box making running nearly impossible.
Despite playing against single coverage, Michigan's receivers were completely shut down. I'll have to watch again, but they seemed to get precisely zero separation against MSU's corners. Though Denard wasn't very accurate, he didn't have many open receivers to throw to.
Michigan showed another counter to the heavy-I formation they debuted last week but it was blown dead on a delay of game penalty, which is a shame because Fitz Toussaint had a 20+-yard carry.

Next week
Michigan is on its bye this week. They can use this time to get healthy and implement more of the offensive and defensive schemes. The following week, Michigan takes on Purdue, a game that will be a good barometer for the rest of the season.

Around here, this week will feature the regular post-game analysis. The following week will be a mid-season breakdown of where I expected to be at this point and where they are now.

Preview: Michigan State 2011

2011-10-14T09:30:00.000-04:00

#11 Michigan (6-0) vs. #23 Michigan St. (4-1)

Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, Michigan

Kickoff 12 pm EST

ESPN

Forecast: 50s, 20% chance of rain

Last week
Michigan St.: Bye. MSU is coming off of their bye week, but the previous Saturday, they went against Ohio ~~State~~ in a game that did wonders for the Big Ten's national reputation: a commanding 10-7 win against a team that couldn't field a functional quarterback. A little credit is due to the Spartans defense for holding the Buckeyes to 178 total yards of offense, but that's not saying much. Joe Bauserman (Michigan fans should buy up every Bauserman jersey available; love that dude) played most of the game, throwing the ball in the general vicinity of the football field. Though he didn't throw any interceptions, his 7/14, 87-yard stat line speaks for itself. Ohio State is a black hole.

On the other side of the ball, the underwhelming Ohio ~~State~~ defense was able to hold Kirk Cousins and the Spartan offense in check, though mostly due to two terrible interceptions by Cousins who seemed determined to keep OSU in the game. As it has been all year, the MSU running game was nonexistent, but that's what happens when your offensive line is a hodgepodge of position switch starters and Gumby characters. The highly touted trio of Le'Veon Bell, Edwin Baker, and Larry Caper managed just 85 yards on 27 carries (3.15 YPC).

Simply put, the Spartans barely looked like a functional football team playing fighting-for-bowl-eligibility Ohio ~~State~~. If ever there were a confidence builder for Michigan fans, this game was it.

#12 Michigan 42 - Northwestern 24. Game recap. After being dominated in the first half against Northwestern, mostly due to three interceptions from Denard, the team rallied in the second half and scored 28 straight points to beat the Wildcats. The defense shut out the Dan Persa-led offense in the second half after the Northwestern squad left scorched earth in their wake during the first two quarters. Michigan was the beneficiary of a sketchy interception call that turned the momentum of the game, allowing the offense to take hold of the game.

After Denard's first-half arm punting, he settled down and led the offense to 541 yards on 17/26 through the air. Al Borges continued his tricky playcalling with a play action to the counter draw, as well as a heavy-I formation that earned Michigan an easy touchdown. The defense struggled with Northwestern's triple option, though. Defensive ends, who were assigned to the quarterback, often gave up the edge, and the Wildcats were able to throw bubble screens for significant yardage throughout the game.

Despite a shaky effort on both sides of the ball, Michigan came away with a commanding victory.

Offense vs. MSU
First, let's disabuse the notion that Michigan State has one of the best defenses in the country. MSU's ranking as the 3rd best scoring defense, 3rd rushing defense, and 2nd pass efficiency defense is a tenuous one when you consider the opposition. The Spartans' murderer's row of opponents includes: Ohio ~~State~~, Youngstown State, Florida Atlantic, Central Michigan, and their one loss (in which they allowed 31 points) to Notre Dame. If you actually believe that Michigan State's defense is as good as those rankings, then I've got some land to sell you.

That's not to say Michigan State has a bad defense. Defensive tackle Jerel Worthy looks like the best defensive prospect in the Big Ten this year. He routinely blows by offensive linemen and fights off double teams. Elsewhere on the defensive line, former 5-star prospect William Gholston has lived up to the hype. The secondary is also strong, recording seven interceptions in the first five games of the season.

How Al Borges schemes for this defense will be interesting. Like the last few weeks, running up the middle will be hard. Worthy will make inside runs far more difficult than they should be while Gholston and the MSU linebackers should be able to contain a lot of the outside carries. Against Northwestern, we saw Borges use Mike Shaw to get the edge on some carries, and I'd expect that to continue this game. Otherwise, Michigan will have to use some new option schemes or the speed option to get Denard and Co. in space against a traditional 4-3 defense.

The other concern is Worthy's pass rush. If you watch MSU games from this season, one thing you'll notice is how quickly Worthy and the rest of the defensive line get off the ball. In years past, it's been clear that MSU's defensive line was timing Michigan's snap count, and it looks like that kind of preparation has become a staple of the MSU defense. It'll be interesting to see if Borges starts using hard counts to slow down the aggressive pass rush. The other thing that should be effective against this front seven are screens and counters. Expect to see more from Vincent Smith as Borges uses him out of the backfield in an effort to slow the pass rush.

If Michigan's short stuff isn't working or Denard is forced to sit in the pocket and throw, things could get hairy. We've already seen how Denard struggles with pressure (throwing off his back foot and often throwing to the other team), and Worthy is the kind of defensive tackle that will get into the backfield. I'd guess that the deep jump balls will be rare to nonexistent in this game. Besides playing a cover-2 shell thus limiting those deep opportunities, Worthy is the kind of player that will get to the QB given enough time. Borges should have at least one or two new formations and wrinkles to throw at the Spartan defense to keep them guessing.

Defense vs. MSU
Though all of the above might seem foreboding, the good news is MSU's offense is pretty terrible. As inflated as MSU's numbers are against a schedule of patsies, their shoddy offensive production to date looks even worse. Currently, the Spartans are 79th in rushing offense, 34th in passing yards per game, and 62nd in scoring offense. When your second most difficult opponent is a Luke Fickel-led team, you've officially only played cupcakes. And against them, the Spartan offense has been pretty bad.

Much of that has to do with the team's offensive line, which features a defensive tackle position switch (who only switched to offensive line in the spring) and a JUCO as the tackles and a redshirt freshman center. This is a recipe for disaster, and it's been trouble for Cousins. MSU is 24th in sacks allowed, but Cousins is under constant pressure. In addition, the terrible offensive line has completely shut down what was expected to be a prolific rushing attack. With the trio of Caper, Bell, and Baker, Michigan State's running game was supposed to be one of the best in the Big Ten. Instead, they've produced an awful 3.4 YPC this season. There's trouble in East Lansing.

How Michigan's defense stacks up against this attack will be interesting. So far, the defensive line hasn't been as productive as expected, but given the Minnesotaness of MSU's offensive line, a big game is necessary. Specifically, Jibreel Black, Craig Roh, and Jake Ryan (when he has his hand in the ground) need to beat MSU's inexperienced tackles, though I expect Dantonio will use tight ends frequently to help out blocking on the outside. If Cousins has too much time in the pocket, he will pick apart Michigan's secondary, regardless of how much they appear to have improved this season.

Enter Greg Mattison. We've seen what Mattison's schemes can do to inexperienced offensive lines, and given that Cousins isn't a threat to run like Persa was last week, blitzing should resume in full effect this game. The stunts Michigan used earlier this year will hopefully cross up the inexperienced line and give Michigan a few free shots at Cousins. If nothing else, it'll force him to rush throws and get him out of rhythm.

Meanwhile, I don't think MSU has the pieces in place to hurt Michigan on the ground. Though the running back trio can be deadly, the status of the Spartan offensive line is too poor to make any lanes. Mike Martin will be charged with clogging up the middle of the field and taking care of any iso runs while the decisiveness of the indecisive linebackers will be put to test on power runs. It'll be key that Michigan doesn't let the MSU running backs bounce outside on power runs. Keeping everything in the middle of the field should effectively shut down the MSU running game.

Prediction
Before the season, this was a Michigan State lock, but seeing the state of MSU's offense and the improvement from Michigan's defense makes this a lot harder to call. The chances that MSU marches down the field are unlikely. Without a functioning running game, sustained drives will be sparse. The key will be whether or not Michigan can get pressure and whether or not Cousins can pick apart the secondary. (Something to watch: With a pro-style QB, chances are he'll take advantage of Michigan's defensive backs face guarding. Expect multiple back-shoulder throws and a few pass interference calls.) A lot of Michigan's success will hinge on Mattison's playcalling.

On offense, Michigan will be forced to pick their way down the field. MSU's 4-3 cover-2 will all but eliminate Denard's jump balls. Borges is going to have to find ways to exploit a stacked box, necessitating a lot of tunnel screens, throwback screens to Smith, and short hitch routes. This will be Michigan's chance to really utilize the triple option that they showed against Minnesota. Ultimately, they move the ball well against MSU's conservative defense and rediscover the rushing attack that was absent against Northwestern.

Michigan 31 - Michigan State 20

Pretty sneaky, Mr. Borges pt. 2

2011-10-13T10:28:00.000-04:00

Earlier, we saw Al Borges unveil a heavy-I formation which featured two fullbacks and a tailback. It's not an unusual formation--lots of teams use it--but the pre-snap shift of Steve Watson from the fullback position was curious. It gave away Michigan's intentions and as such, Northwestern was able to stop Michigan on a third and one. On the next play, Denard would run the ball for an easy first down (about which more later).

Later in the game, Michigan had the ball on the one yard line down 24-21. Devin Gardner was under center in the heavy-I formation seen earlier. Northwestern has loaded the box to stuff the run.

Prior to the snap, Watson shows the same motion he had in the play before, stepping up to his left under the A gap. Like last time, a Northwestern linebacker begins to creep into that hole.

As the ball is snapped, however, Watson plants his left foot and begins to pull across the formation.

Gardner fakes the handoff to fullback Stephen Hopkins as Watson continues to pull behind the formation. You can see the penetration that the NW linebackers have gotten through the A gap.

Hopkins stuffs the linebacker blitzing the A gap as Gardner rolls out with the ball. Brandon Moore released from the LOS to block the Northwestern safety, leaving only one slow-reacting linebacker to cover Gardner and Watson.

Gardner has a run pass option and will outrun the Northwestern linebacker to the pylon.

This is basically a one-time use play. Michigan intentionally showed this formation and pre-snap motion early in the game just in case this situation would arise. Now that they've shown it, this counter will be significantly less effective.

In retrospect, the most interesting thing about the first play was the field position. Michigan was on their own 40 yard line in a third and one situation. After going for it with the heavy-I formation and failing, Hoke made the decision to go for it on fourth down. Given Hoke's rumored conservativeness (I say rumored, because he hasn't really shown it to date), this seemed like an obvious punting situation. In reality, knowing that the offense can almost always get one yard with a QB draw, Borges used this opportunity to show off this formation and pre-snap motion. The knowledge that Denard could convert the first down allowed Borges to reveal a play that was intentionally ineffective in order to set up an easy touchdown near the goal line.

It's encouraging to see these one-off setup plays. Not only is Borges installing the base offense, it looks like he has one or two tricks for every team Michigan faces (see: Fritz formation, heavy-I formation). Borges is manufacturing touchdowns on a notepad. I'm curious to see how times he can unveil something like this.

Pretty sneaky, Mr. Borges Pt.1

2011-10-13T09:30:00.000-04:00

Michigan didn't show a whole lot of new offensive formations against Northwestern, but they did debut the heavy I formation, which has two fullbacks lined up in the backfield:

This is obviously a short-yardage formation. In this instance, it's third and one about midway through the second quarter. Michigan is down 14-7 and has Steve Watson and Stephen Hopkins lined up as fullbacks. Fitz Toussaint is lined up deep as the half back. Northwestern is predictably loading the box.

Just before the snap, Watson takes a step forward and another step to his left, which seems like a horrible idea. This tips off the Wildcat linebackers as to what direction the play is headed. You can see in the screen below that the Northwestern MLB (or possibly strong safety, I can't tell) starts moving toward the A gap because Michigan has tipped their hand.

As the ball is snapped, you can see the linebacker is already at the line of scrimmage and about to engage Watson in the A gap. For a play that is designed to get one yard, creating a log jam at the point of attack is probably not the best idea.

Watson has now engaged the linebacker and is falling over. Hopkins is headed into the same hole as a lead blocker.

By the time Toussaint gets the ball, Northwestern has changed the line of scrimmage at the point of attack. Because the linebacker was able to key on Watson pre-snap, the Wildcats have plugged the A gap and pushed the Michigan blockers a yard behind the line of scrimmage.

Toussaint dives into the hole and fails to make the first down. After a few timeouts, Michigan would eventually make the conversion on fourth and one with a QB keeper.

This is MANBALL of the worst variety. If Watson doesn't motion pre-snap, he likely hits that linebacker a yard beyond the line of scrimmage instead of at the LOS. Hopkins then doubles that linebacker or finds someone else to block and Toussaint easily picks up the one yard. But as we'll see later today, there's a reason for this: Al Borges' diabolical machinations.