Rutgers @ Michigan, Saturday, September 28th, Noon EDT, BTN/Fox Video

[UMStan White]

As i said in the beginning UM-v Rutgers who gives a shit

[hack]

Do you want to explain why you think Michigan was in something called a 2-4-5 despite continually citing content that says it was in a 3-3-5?

[hack]

As i said in the beginning UM-v Rutgers who gives a shit

People who want to know if we should start using terms like ``Old Hoke'' and ``New Hoke''. A loss would make the comparison direct.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hope you're right. From my reading Rutgers is really a pass to run offense without the line play to allow the deeper routes to develop. A boundary S can play up that helps defend what Rutgers does short. They aren't at all a gaping run team like Wisconsin so, yeah, I think the D will look better.

Then again, let's assume the O remains a mess and cant move the chains, turns the ball over on a short field, all those things we're seeing and you have this close game susceptible to the randommess factor. That's my scenario (2) at 20 -18 and a game that could go either way late.

[Hannibal]

This might be a battle to see who has not quit on their coach.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hack, I'm on my cell at the airport. In another thread, I posted a link where Brown discusses his 2-4-5. It brings a LB type up on the LoS so, to the uninformed it looks like a 3 man front. It only as 2 true DTs. If you Google something like Don Brown's 2-4-5 you might be able to find the great discussion that explains this approach.

[hack]

If I'm wrong please accept my apologies, but I've looked at the link you shared more than once. It says Michigan was in a 3-3-5 or a 4-2-5. There is no discussion in that link of any 2-4-5 formation run by Don Brown. However mgoblog's other preview coverage of the game discusses Wisconsin's 2-4-5. So I'm wondering if you're sharing the wrong link, or not informing yourself accurately.

Not to get too hung up on semantics, because there's obviously a bit of that involved in labeling a defensive configuration. mgoblog's pre-game coverage made exactly that point as well. They think Wisconsin's front is basically a 4-3 with LBs on the ends. But it sure seems relevant here and now in this forum to point out that Wisconsin apparently is facing the same weakness at DT that Michigan is, is dealing with it differently, and pitched two shutouts before surrendering a few garbage-time TDs to Michigan. Maybe Don Brown isn't in a 2-4-5 but should consider it? Maybe if they're gonna keep putting Glasgow's hand on the ground he should be outside the tackles? I dunno. But since we're all here trying to figure out whether the problem is the recruiting or the tactics, here we are with some relevant data points.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hack, you're right about the link from Match in Quarters. Go to the diagrams in this link. Note that there are only 2 true DTs in this 4 man front. Then go to SB Nation football study hall by googling the 2-4-5 defense.

The use of the term 2-4-5 refers to the type personal on the LoS. 2 = 2 Hands down DTs. The terms 4-3 and 3-4 while still widely used are outdated.

[hack]

I don't see a link in that post, but was talking about the neck sharpies you linked to yesterday. Am happy to read any you provide. MatchQuarters returns one hit for 2-4-5 that features Kirby Smart's defenses. Football Study Hall delivers 160 pages of results for ``2-4-5 Don Brown", but sorted by relevance or date none mention Don Brown in the first few pages. I did find mention of Don Brown's 4-2-5 and Wisconsin's 2-4-5 in the FSH piece linked below. And some older coverage of Wisconsin's 2-4-5, so mgoblog could be inaccurate when referring to that configuration as a solely response to Wisconsin's lack of DTs this year. The 2-4-5 configuration is new to me, but it's not new to me that Wisconsin's defense is all about LBs making plays, and that they usually have four of them on the field. I'd been under the impression they run a 3-4.

Still, possibly none of that changes the fact that Wisconsin seems to have the same weakness at the same position group and is getting much different results. Reading the below link doesn't quite help me decide anything about Don Brown. I know he's not the biggest problem, but I also don't know that he's a solution. Or that recruiting is the problem. Probably the team needs better recruiting (can't be in this much trouble when one DT transfers, i.e. Solomon) but also better coaching. And maybe better intangibles flowing down from the top on the effort front. I suspect a bit of everythign is needed, but wouldn't really be confident in ranking those needs according to severity.

[froot loops]

Rutgers generally sucks but every once in awhile they rise to the occasion and give teams a game. 27 points seems like a lot of points to be laying for a team that has injury problems at QB.

All I know is the Rutgers/MSU game last November was the worst. It was irsome, it irked me.

[Hannibal]

In our last six games, we are 0-6 ATS and we have fallen short by about 20 points per game. That puts this one at about 27-20.

[maxreturn]

People who want to know if we should start using terms like ``Old Hoke'' and ``New Hoke''. A loss would make the comparison direct.

I just watched a video clip of Jim Rome. According to him Harbaugh is "getting paid a Saban type salary to achieve Hoke type results". That about sums it up.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Ehh, I try not to get hung up on descriptions of defenses. Every D coordinator uses different terms.

I feel pretty good about Don Brown.

[Mackenzie]

"I have also seen some decent commentary on McCaffrey. He is believed to be highly competitive which makes him reckless and you can argue his recklessness is behind his injuries."

I agree with this and particularly with the second sentence. The staff needs to instill in our QB's a sense of self preservation and that often "living to fight another day" is not a bad thing. That the team is better with them than without them. Instruction in some feet first sliding techniques wouldn't hurt. Being competitive is one thing. Being suicidal is another.

[Jeff Buchanan]

WARNING, this pertains to Rutgers. I DO NOT give a shit about Wisconsin anymore. It's done. Having said that, .........

I'm not a coach and although I watch a lot of video analysis and read a lot of stuff on-line from coaching clinics, I really don't know shit about evaluating a football game. Why is that? I'm reasonably intelligent, I have good reading comprehension and I can follow quality video analysis from people that are coaches and do know stuff. But, and here's the slam-dunk thing, what I have at my disposal to review a play or an offense or a defense pales in comparison to what M's coaching staff has to do that. TV video? Probably gets 30% of what needs to be seen. Another thing. I'm not in the clubhouse, I don't know the players strengths and weaknesses that coaches know from hours of working with these guys. I don't know how the play was supposed to look and therefore can't really judge it.

But mgo's Brian can, right? Wrong. He can't. He has a way with words and he sounds confident and convincing. I don't think he should be trusted beyond some decent play-by-play analysis given the limited tools he has available to do that. He's overly emotionally involved and therefore has a ton of bias .... and a rep to protect. Conclusions about what that analysis means, e.g., the OL blocked poorly and this is a trend, Patterson is limited in his skill set? A big fat NO.

So, then what? What was learned from the Army and Wisconsin games that can be applied to the questions, how will M perform as a team going forward? How will Patterson, absolutely key to how the offense performs, do as QB?

Here's what I think:

Patterson is way better than he appeared v. Army and Wisconsin. What do I base that judgement on? Last season's performance was decent. if his stats are reflective of that. I do understand, in general, the ZR/PRO, run to pass concepts. From what I can see - and caveat that with my comments above - there is a lot to be desired with both play design, both run and pass, and, in the passing game, with how the receivers are running routes. Patterson get's unfairly blamed, IMO. You can disagree.

Now Brian does point out what you might call, just for fun routes that have no intention of being useful in the play design. These might be 2, maybe3, of the 4 receivers running routes. There's one guy to throw to, no progressions or maybe just one. Isn't that what we are seeing? I think that is why observers think he tends to not see the whole field. They are not part of the play design. In the Gattis offense, they SHOULD be ignored by the QB. Then, he get's criticized for missing wide open guys who may not be part of the play anyway. Patterson CANNOT be as bad as he has looked so oblivious to open receivers on his initial takes.

There is no mystery that M's offense is hamstrung by it's failure to go deep to it's bigs or go anywhere with passes to great TEs and great slotty guys. That is NOT Shea Patterson's fault if the simple explanation I give above is even partly correct.

QB's are supposed to have route trees. I think for whatever reason, Patterson doesn't have more than one in a specific play, maybe two reads. If it's not open, he bails and improvises - something he is good at for the most part. I think he's being given plays, by design, that only obtain an expanded route tree if they are successfully strung together. If the play within a series is dorfed on any level, options are narrowed by design, third and long predictability sets in, M typically goes 3 and out. We hear uniformly from players and coaches, "we didn't get into a rhythm." Does an offense need a rhythm? Maybe but let's just look at one play at a time, call it and move on to the next one all options available. Don't narrow the route tree, RPO or ZR options. I think that is happening.

What's the new ingredient in this cluster fuck that is M's 2019 offense? Gattis. I'm not going with transition costs. I'm not going with injuries or that the OL can't block well. I'm not going with Patterson has regressed. All of that's probably BS. I'm going with the alleged play designer and play caller and as far as we know, it's Gattis.

This is an Occam's Razor argument. Gattis, who reportedly was given complete control to design and run the offense hasn't performed. If Harbaugh is sticking his nose into things that's a separate problem. The results on the field - what we see with our eyes and with a review of the stats, fancy or otherwise, requires the least speculation. Gattis.

I don't think Gattis is stupid. I think he needs to be supported and coached up and if I were Harbaugh, that's what I'd be doing. At the same time, Harbaugh isn't afflicted with anything, he's not medicated. Pure speculative BS. He's a competent coach with a shit ton of experience. If I were Harbaugh I'd coach Gattis up, give him guidance, guard rails then let him go do his thing. I suspect Harbaugh doesn't need to be told that.

The Rutgers game this weekend will reveal a lot with regard to whether or not Gattis is up to the task. He's got a skilled 5* QB, the nation's best WR group, injuries or not, an OL with All Big Ten potential and a very good RB room again injuries or not. He hasn't put it together ..... YET. I hope he does for the sake of my sanity.