Michigan @ Iowa, 8pm EST, Game Day, Post Game Discussion.

[Wild Hoss]

By the way -- isn't the advantage of MANBALL/Harbaughffense supposed to be that you can pick up a first down at the end of a game and put it away? Remember that old argument? Harbaugh's manball offense has been charged with putting a game out of reach by getting a first down (without taking any risks on first or second down) on a final posession four times now by my count, and they are a stark zero for four in that department (2015 MSU, 2016 Wisconsin, 2016 MSU, 2016 Iowa). Last year, we ended the game against MSU with three straight three-and-outs. This year, we ended the Wisky game with two straight three-and-outs. Against MSU this year we gained a paltry one first down in the entire fourth quarter and against Iowa we fell flat on our face at the end when a first down would have ended it.

This is nothing new either. I think that I can count on one hand the amount of times in the entire Lloyd, Mo, and Carr eras that we were able to run the clock out on offense hoding onto a slim lead.

Yeah....but those are all teams with pretty good defensive fronts Hanni, so I think you have to take that into account. I'm sure Jim's approach has ground down a few games against other opponents in those scenarios.

That said, your OC also needs to take that into account. This was a gripe I had with Frank Solich...he too would run into the proverbial wall in these situations, then punt and put the onus on the defense to win the game. Sometimes that's fine, but sometimes not; if getting the first down is critical, you need call plays capable of getting the requisite yardage. They don't have to be a double-reverse, but against a good defense that might require attempting a pass. God forbid.

The other aspect that always puzzled me was that, if the idea is apparently just burn up 30 seconds between plays, then why risk running the ball into the teeth of the defense in the first place? Just go Victory Formation and kneel it.

[Hannibal]

Wisky and MSU 2015 were good defensive fronts, but the run defense this year for MSU and Iowa are pretty bad.

I guess what I am trying to say is that one of the supposed benefits of MANBALL is the ability to run out the clock by keeping the ball on the ground, and if anything, I think that the opposite is true. MANBALL sucks for running out the clock. I'll take a spread or a triple option offense in that department any day of the week and twice on Sunday, since those are both offenses that prosper even when you know for sure that the run is coming. I mean, holy shit look at what Navy did to Notre Dame. They held the ball for the last 7:28 of the game!

[Wild Hoss]

If the idea is just keep playing offense instead of worrying about grinding clock, then you're talking playcalling more than formation/style.

If the notion is to accept that the defense is going to load the box, but you want to run the ball anyway because burning clock is important, you'll find that many spread OCs will go heavy in those scenarios. You don't want to be running out of 10 or 11 personnel when the defense's focus is on knifing into the backfield because they have nothing to lose.

If you, as a coach, are willing to have your QB stand back there and throw under those conditions, you probably do have a better chance of getting a first down to close it out. If it doesn't work- you take a sack, or your QB gets hit and fumbles- then you have hard questions to answer afterwards. That drives alot of the thinking, IMO.

[THE_WIZARD_]

In a close game/ 4th quarter, officials will watch roughing the center more closely as teams will attempt to block the kick.

Supposed to watch it every kick formation. We signal to each other that protection for snapper, holder and kicker in place. We also talk to the defense to remind them of that. Yes it may go uncalled but not supposed to if they are doing their job. The snapper is afforded protection for 1 second...so an immediate charge on the snapper should be called regardless of the point in the game. After 1 second where they can reset themselves they are fair game.

Contact Against the Snapper

ARTICLE 14. When a team is in scrimmage kick formation, a defensive
player may not initiate contact with the snapper until one second has

elapsed after the snap (A.R. 9-1-14-I-III).

[Jeff Buchanan]

.........If you, as a coach, are willing to have your QB stand back there and throw under those conditions, you probably do have a better chance of getting a first down to close it out. If it doesn't work- you take a sack, or your QB gets hit and fumbles- then you have hard questions to answer afterwards. That drives alot of the thinking, IMO.

I think there is data that shows the probability of success given down, distance and field position with those probabilities being increased or decreased given other variables.

I have no idea if M uses these real time. I rather doubt it but they are around in various software programs and I do think this kind of stuff, put together by analysts, shows up on play sheets in one way or the other.

But your point is well taken ....... M turns the ball over as a result of a sack/ fumble or interception, I can guarantee you there will be a mountain of complaining from the peanut gallery that will be loudly hollering, "why didn't you just fucking run it!"

I had no problem with the play selection on the last series; it was the order it was called. The Run-Run-Pass approach removes any doubt about how the defense needs to set up on 3rd down and makes a blitz, like Iowa did run on third and eight, a lot more appropriate.

Iowa's Defense was in Zone coverage with CBs back off a bit for almost the entire game. Throw a quick out pattern for 4y on first down; that makes the defense's problem a lot harder on second down and third if you pick up a few more to make it 3rd and 2.

I also would have liked to see the PepCat package NOT do what it has done every time Peppers lines up at QB. Perfect time to use what that play does as a constraint to something else; like, a waggle to the back side and easy throw to an open TE who sneaks out there while the rest of the offense is moving play side to make it look like zone stretch.

[WingsFan]

I also would have liked to see the PepCat package NOT do what it has done every time Peppers lines up at QB.

That play also relying on Jake Butt actually making a block (to secure the edge). It's the only way to succeed in some positive yards, and of course Butt block attempt on the outside LB was pathetic (as usual).

[Jeff Buchanan]

Out of that formation, Peppers is averaging 3.2y per carry. I read that somewhere. If the staff doesn't know that Butt has problems making blocks, maybe they should have thought about that and, if they really intended to run Peppers wide, put Wheatley in there who does make blocks. Nobody thought Jake was going to sneak out back side after chipping his man (a LB). If he had done so, it could have been a big play.

Opportunity lost, IMO.

[Hannibal]

I'm actually kind of surprised it took defenses so long to catch on. That and the Eddie McDoom running plays. We got nine games out of employing McDoom like Dennis Norfleet and Calvin Bell somehow.

[Wild Hoss]

I think there is data that shows the probability of success given down, distance and field position with those probabilities being increased or decreased given other variables.

I have no idea if M uses these real time. I rather doubt it but they are around in various software programs and I do think this kind of stuff, put together by analysts, shows up on play sheets in one way or the other.

But your point is well taken ....... M turns the ball over as a result of a sack/ fumble or interception, I can guarantee you there will be a mountain of complaining from the peanut gallery that will be loudly hollering, "why didn't you just fucking run it!"

I had no problem with the play selection on the last series; it was the order it was called. The Run-Run-Pass approach removes any doubt about how the defense needs to set up on 3rd down and makes a blitz, like Iowa did run on third and eight, a lot more appropriate.

Iowa's Defense was in Zone coverage with CBs back off a bit for almost the entire game. Throw a quick out pattern for 4y on first down; that makes the defense's problem a lot harder on second down and third if you pick up a few more to make it 3rd and 2.

I also would have liked to see the PepCat package NOT do what it has done every time Peppers lines up at QB. Perfect time to use what that play does as a constraint to something else; like, a waggle to the back side and easy throw to an open TE who sneaks out there while the rest of the offense is moving play side to make it look like zone stretch.

I think there can be some good taken from data analysis, especially when it comes to 4th down attempts. The accepted thinking is outdated here IMO.

OTOH...Manny Diaz was a BIG believer in data analysis when he was DC at Texas. He was going to be a trend-setter in this regard. All I ever saw him do was blitz, subsequently give up 500 yards a game, and get fired. So all things in moderation. Heh.

Fear of criticism is huge in coaching, IMO. One of my favorite examples is facing a 4th and 4 in scoring position, down 10, late. What do coaches always do? Kick the FG. (Its what the color guy will say too) Then, IF they get the ball back, they inevitably have to go 70 yards in 1:03 with no timeouts, needing a touchdown. Its dumb...your odds are far better getting the 4 yards. Then if you succeed and score a TD, you get the ball back with maybe :30 and no timeouts, but only needing to go 35 yards, for a FG. But the former scenario can be acceptably defended at the postgame presser. "We got the ball late, but just couldn't get it done."

Agree that playcalling is probably more important that formations. You can line up in a MANBALL formation and still throw...but as an OC/HC, you have to choose to.