2012 Spring Game thoughts

Angela J. Cesere | AnnArbor.com

I will try to have some more comprehensive thoughts once I can download a torrent of the game, but the spring game left a few impressions that I should probably write down.

• Gardner. All the talk after the spring game focused on Devin Gardner's, shall we say, less that encouraging performance. After last year's spring game, I said...

  Devin, who has the size, still has little or no technique. Watching him fling a 40-yard pass from his off foot was the most Pryor-Armpunt thing I've ever seen him do. Unless the new staff can drastically improve his fundamentals, Gardner won't ever see significant playing time at Michigan, and that's disappointing.

  ...which is basically a carbon copy of what I'll say this year. Gardner's throwing motion is still unsustainable, which causes his accuracy to be inconsistent. He's not even reading the defenses particularly well. That interception: you can't make that throw. Gardner has done nothing to change my stance on his prospects: he will never see significant time at QB unless there's an injury. Next year, it's the Shane Morris Show.
• Wide receiver. Holy smokes, Michigan desperately needs these. While most people are centering their concern on the offensive and defensive lines (and rightfully so, about which more later), wide receiver is nearly as barren as the linemen depth chart. If this game doesn't turn up the volume on the Gardner-to-WR chatter, nothing will. I didn't take note of everyone out there (did Roundtree even play in the game?), but regardless, Michigan has no one to catch passes that will threaten opposing defenses.
• Offensive line. The first team offensive line looked fine, barring the two fumbled snaps, which are probably 50% on the quarterback, but beyond them, yikes. There is nothing there. If I can recall correctly, redshirt junior Erik Gunderson played a lot of right tackle in the game and reprised Mark Huyge's role in Spartans in the Backfield. Defensive linemen were routinely getting past the second unit, largely unabated. Pray for health because if not, this team is sunk.
• Defensive line. Adequate. Totally adequate. Craig Roh looked good as the strongside end. Will Campbell was completely average. Otherwise, there was nothing particularly impressive or concerning about the defensive line. It won't be as good as last year, but it won't be a major liability this year (there's almost no way this prediction doesn't come back to bite me in the ass).
• Secondary. The secondary looked pretty good actually. Greg Mattison seemed comfortable putting most of the secondary in man coverage throughout the spring game. Caveats about competition aside, the coverage down the field looked really solid, which will open things up for Mattison in the blitzing game.
• Edge issues. The defense still showed some problems maintain edge responsibilities, which ugh, but fine. I'd like to see those things ironed out by now, but last year, the coaches recognize and addressed those issues quickly.
• Bellomy. Russell Bellomy came in as the nominal #2 quarterback. Despite my desire to see Gardner move to wide receiver, I'm not sure I want Bellomy as Denard's backup. He showed good pocket presence and some ability to make plays, but he has a high school arm and only decent accuracy. He's not a quality backup yet.
• Running backs. Thomas Rawls wins the annual Spring Game award for Most Impressive Player Likely to Spend the Season on the Bench. Rawls is a power runner that showed good vision and an ability to get upfield. This year still belongs to Fitz Toussaint, though. Rawls will be a good option when Toussaint needs a breather, but he doesn't offer much that Fitz doesn't already bring to the table. The biggest concern with Rawls isn't even about his play: I'm worried the coaches will try and revive the I-formation running game behind Rawls' shoulder pads. As we saw once again in the spring game, this team is ill-equipped to run from the I formation.
  
  In other running back news, Vincent Smith is still a better blocker than you. Hoorah for consistent third-down backs.

Overall, this was a pretty nothing performance. It's much more difficult to make broad, sweeping statements when the team isn't switching coaches or quarterbacks. The game probably induced more fears than it appeased concerns, but that's probably to be expected. In reality, it really just confirmed what we already knew: the defensive line will be functional, the offensive line is thin, Gardner isn't a quarterback, and the offense is going to rely far too heavily on Denard.

That's about all I can remember from a single viewing of the game. I don't know if I'm going to picture page anything from the game or not, but I might. Frankly, I don't remember seeing anything that was particularly noteworthy schematically, but if something caught your eye, let me know and I'll take a look. If other thoughts pop up throughout subsequent viewings, I'll try and bring them up.

Missed blocks (Iowa edition)

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.

Progress report: The 2011 offense

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

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...

MSU linebacker blitzes

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.

Michigan State 2011: Where Little Brother finds your weakness

#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.