Announcement

**Jeff Buchanan** · October 3, 2017, 07:16 AM

MVPJ05 ...... your post got deleted because the news of O'Korn's designation as the starter had been posted roughly 6h earlier by others. This was noted in the "reason for deletion section." Don't take it too personally.

***JD*** · October 8, 2017, 10:17 AM

Speight is out for the year with 3 broken vertebrae.

**WingsFan** · October 9, 2017, 12:16 AM

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EVeIDIIgTE"]Maybe Eastern? - YouTube[/ame]

**WingsFan** · October 9, 2017, 07:37 AM

I posted that for the people who do not live in Michigan, your lucky you don't have to listen to that kind of talk all fucking year long!

**hack** · October 9, 2017, 09:48 AM

I think the ``stop doing NFL stuff" angle has some legs to it. Or maybe it's just losing Fisch and gaining Hamilton that's been the problem. I didn't have a problem with last year's offense save for how they used Peppers, and the unnecessary risk taking leading to giving the other team points, like in Columbus last year. The coaches lost that game. I think there needs to be a wholesale adjustment in their approach to risk, but, independent of that, maybe it's time to take a look at dropping the NFL crap, at least at the coordinator level. I don't see a problem with having NFL guys as position coaches. But the offense is where all we see the fancy-title/overlapping responsibilities approach. Not the defense.

**SeattleLionsFan** · October 9, 2017, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by hack View Post

I think the ``stop doing NFL stuff" angle has some legs to it. Or maybe it's just losing Fisch and gaining Hamilton that's been the problem. I didn't have a problem with last year's offense save for how they used Peppers, and the unnecessary risk taking leading to giving the other team points, like in Columbus last year. The coaches lost that game. I think there needs to be a wholesale adjustment in their approach to risk, but, independent of that, maybe it's time to take a look at dropping the NFL crap, at least at the coordinator level. I don't see a problem with having NFL guys as position coaches. But the offense is where all we see the fancy-title/overlapping responsibilities approach. Not the defense.

Yup

**Jeff Buchanan** · October 10, 2017, 05:48 AM

This is a well done piece of analytics about the play calling. I don't know what Hack means by "NFL stuff" or that M needs to stop doing it. I do know, from the UFRs what offensive formations M uses. What this piece does is to compare success rates out of various offensive formations and offers one writer's insight into how the coaches might have approached the MSU game and why.

It goes on to conclude that based on success rates for various plays, it was clear that M wanted to pass against MSU out of the Shot-Gun, empty backfield and by doing this exposed JOK to the potential for more sacks and pressures while affording the M offense the highest probability of a big play ..... a risk/reward strategy that didn't work out so well for M (JOK had 4 sacks and 3 INTs).

One final point the writer makes is that it appeared that M stuck with this plan - passing out of the shot gun-empty set - on play calling after the rain started. He felt that retrenchment into plays that offered a PA option - shotgun with a RB - would have improved success rates.

A proposed explanation of the play-calling using a UFR review of the offense going into Improvement Week | mgoblog

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/proposed-explanation-play-calling-using-ufr-review-offense-going-improvement-week

After the Purdue game, I started to compile the UFRs from this season into a large chart to try and see what the offense has done well and what hasn't worked so far. This unfortunately but very coincidentally turned out to be a very useful tool to give some data on what Michigan may have been trying to build upon going into the Improvement Week and context for the play calling in the MSU game. Disclaimers: This is an objective analysis (with some editorializing) to explain the playcalling, not to defend it. I did not collect any data on the types of passes thrown (i.e. long bombs vs. mesh vs. screens, etc.) so I cannot look at the decision against testing the MSU safeties more. I did not look at blocking schemes or individual blocking scores, as this is a higher level review. That does lead to some clear limitations here. There is no data to explain why Michigan did not account for the monsoon. But, my fan theory based off of this review is that Michigan spent the bye week (prior to any forecast for storm) working on plays that are weather-independent, and then were stuck between a rock and a hard place because the main things they had worked to improve would not work well in a monsoon. The rock and the hard place both split the victory, unfortunately. There is no data to explain why Michigan totally abandoned the running game after the first drive. In fact, the data makes it pretty clear that Michigan's passing game had its greatest success when there is a viable PA (which requires running plays to be called, regardless of their own success). But, I will attempt to show why Michigan chose to pass so much on first down. And when you fail to gain yards on first down, you're stuck between a rock and a hard place on 2nd or 3rd & long. We all know who won there... Three basic observations from the game Michigan utilized a ton of Shotgun and Ace formations (albeit with some exotic twists and motions.) Michigan passed a ton on first down. Michigan utilized a ton of 4 & 5 receiver passing plays. Explaining the three basic observations 1. Why did Michigan utilize the Shotgun and Ace formation so heavily? First, let's look at this from the vantage of the Michigan running offense: O Form Big Ace Shotgun Offset I I-Form n 43 41 29 17 6 % Form 0.32 0.30 0.21 0.13 0.04 Yards 133 276 151 87 1 YPP 3.09 6.73 5.21 5.12 0.17 Success rate 0.47 0.44 0.55 0.29 0.17 Off-schedule 0.09 0.27 0.45 0.24 0 RPS sum -13 0 0 5 -1 Box 8.45 7.66 6.47 7.41 7.42 Blocking Avg. -0.70 -0.14 1.00 3 0.20 RB sum 1.5 13 10.5 1 -2 Running out of the Ace formation led to the highest yards per play of any formation, with the rate of successful runs being 3rd out of the 5 formation bases utilized. Running out of the Shotgun formation led to the highest rate of succesful runs, and second highest yards per play. On average, Michigan had the best blocking execution out of the Shotgun than of any other formation by a wide margin. For whatever reason, the RBs also had the most success making positive plays out of Ace and Shotgun formations. The caveats with Shotgun is that it had the highest proportion of Off-schedule use (i.e. runs called on 2nd or 3rd & long), as well as the lowest average defenders in the box (which may be explained by the former). However, this can be seen as an advantage for passing plays, as it gives credibility to play fakes on seemingly obvious passing downs. Now, let's look at the successful plays (at least 4 yards on 1st down, at least 60% of the yards to gain on 2nd down, at least 100% of the yards to gain on 3rd or 4th down), and see how it breaks down from these formations when it comes to Michigan executing its bread-and-butter running plays: Successful Plays O Form Ace Shotgun Play Zone Counter Crack sweep Zone Power O % Form/success 30.43% 100% 50% 34.78% 50% % Form/play 23.94% 80% 46.67% 23.94% 26.92% Relative success 1.27 1.25 1.07 1.45 1.86 To explain the rows, on the Zone plays out of Ace formation, 30.43% of successful Zone runs were out of the Ace formation, compared to only 23.94% of all Zone runs being called from the Ace formation. This is a relative proportion (success rate/play call rate) of 1.27. Overall, this suggests that Michigan believed it had a relatively strong running foundation to build off in the Ace and Shotgun formations. ---------- Second, lets have a similar look at the Michigan passing offense:* O Form Shotgun Offset I Shotgun Empty Ace I-Form Big n 58 17 16 15 12 9 % Form 44.96% 13.18% 12.40% 11.63% 9.30% 6.98% Yards 222 142 203 145 65 50.00 YPP 3.83 8.35 12.69 9.67 5.42 5.56 Success rate 0.29 0.47 0.69 0.8 0.25 0.22 Off-schedule 0.36 0.65 0.00 0.73 0.75 0.89 RPS sum 0 5 6 8 4 -1.00 Blocking Avg. 0.30 1.06 1.73 0.91 0.55 1.00 QB DSR 60.98% 64.29% 85.71% 100% 80.00% 28.57% Route/YAC sum 5.00 -1 3 0 -4 -1.00 *Notes: I have the plays separated between O'Korn vs. Speight in my chart, as well as red zone vs. between the 20s, but I have combined them all for this review. So again, some obvious limitations apply. See my previous post for a comparison of the performances between the two going into Improvement Week My yards and yards per play includes sacks AND penalty yardage. Same goes for the success rate. This is a results-based analysis, i.e. drawing a 15 yard PI call is a success in my book. This again shows that Michigan found a relatively high proportion of its success out of the Ace formation. The Shotgun formation, however, is where a lot of the problems with the OL rear their ugly heads. The caveat here is that the shotgun is the go-to formation on standard passing downs, as indicated by the huge discrepancy in off-schedule rate from the Shotgun compared to the other formations. But when you look at the Shotgun empty, there is a great amount of success. 2. Why did Michigan pass so much on first down? Again refer to the passing chart above. There is a stark difference in success rate out of formations that have a higher proportion of plays on non-standard passing downs (Off-schedule). Overall, Michigan had a 41.86% success rate on passing plays. That success rate jumps up only slightly to 43.33% on off-schedule downs, but the highest jump is in the Shotgun formation, from 29% as above to 38%. 3. Why did Michigan use so many 4 and 5 route passing plays? I already made a post alluding to this prior to the game: UFR review shows pass protection in Shotgun Empty formation is stellar. That breakdown, as shown again above, suggests that the OL has an easier time blocking when there is no RB and/or TE to confuse the assignments (or whiff their own block). Let's look closer at the Shotgun formation, where much of the blocking woes become most visible: n 58 % Form 44.96% Routes* 3.778846154 Pass rushers 4.784313725 Blocker discrepency 1.39 Blocking Avg. 0.3 *Note: I counted a route where the TE or RB blocked prior to the route as 0.5 Michigan had a number's advantage in pass blockers:pass rushers on every play, yet the rate of adequate pass protection:failed pass pro was barely above zero. However, a break-down by # of routes suggests that that the relative lack of routes and QB is also to blame: On Shotgun passes with 3 or 3.5 routes: Shotgun Formation Routes Blocker Discrepency Blocking Avg. Success Rate DSR 3-3.5 1.64 1.35 0.18 43.75% 4-5 1.20 -0.29 0.36 65% The success rate jumps going from 3/3.5 to 4-5 routes, but the blocking averages plummet. The blocking dip could partially be due to the lack of extra blockers (as the blocker discrepency does go down a touch), but, from recall, most of the stunts that killed Michigan came during 4 WR shotgun sets, so extra blockers would not necessarily have helped there. It's hard to fully explain the jump in success rate, but the jump in DSR could possibly suggest that receivers were getting open more when there were more routes. Regardless, the data overall shows that Michigan had relatively more success on 4-5 receiver routes. -------------- Discussion My take-away from this information is that Michigan had a clear idea of what had previously worked best going into the Improvement Week. But, it felt like a dad joke gone wrong: Drevno & Co. told a funny joke last week, and then they kept repeating it and repeating until they beat the dead horse so silly that Little Brother snapped and cut the bolt on the gun locker and shot everyone dead. Again, none of this touches on the offensive staff's failure to account for the rainstorm, but I've already stated above that my guess is they had a gameplan (or at least several packages) in place prior to the weather forecast and failed to adjust. And there's only so much you can do when the OL is a seive, the QB throws an INT turkey, and your players fumble the ball twice before it even starts raining. But, at the end of the day, the play-caling had a very Borgesian feel in that they took what worked previously totally out of context and created a game-plan that was doomed from the start. The passing plays on off-schedule downs out of standard running formations only succeeded in the pass because of downs dedicated to running the ball made play-action a conceivable threat. It was frustrating to see Michigan abandon the run after falling behind quickly, as it totally threw off the basic premise of the gameplan's vision.

**hack** · October 10, 2017, 07:27 AM

Baumgardner has a piece on how this offense requires NFL throws and NFL catches. It's been commented on before that creating more gaps by putting more people on the line means more guys need to execute. Harbaugh's offensive guys are NFL guys. Not necessarily guys that know the college game or know how to work with kids at this stage.

All those points suggest that maybe college football requires college coaches. I don't know. But it seems to me a better debate than whether Harbaugh has suddenly lost his fire, or is planning to quit for the Colts and is mailing in the season on his alma mater.

**whodean** · October 10, 2017, 09:23 AM

My diagnosis in order of severity.

1. The line is porous (not sure it can be fixed with this group)

2. The coaching staff on offense has not found the right identity for this group (fixable)

3. The backup QB lacks vision and good judgement (not fixable, he's a senior and is what he is)

4. the receivers young, it has almost gone unmentioned how they quit working around the field after initial route in the MSU game. (fixable, just need experience)

5. the running backs aren't being put into position to make plays, and when they are they haven't performed (fixable, there is talent there)

Lots of criticism to go around. Lots of things to fix, some more likely to get straightened out than others.

**hack** · October 10, 2017, 09:33 AM

Save for the young WRs, all this adds up to bad coaching. Players are most certainly not being put in a position to succeed.

**whodean** · October 10, 2017, 09:48 AM

In a "the buck stops here" kind of way, sure, and that is accounted for in #2. The shit o line is a personnel problem AND a scheme problem.

**Jeff Buchanan** · October 10, 2017, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by hack View Post

Save for the young WRs, all this adds up to bad coaching. Players are most certainly not being put in a position to succeed.

This is my last post on anything to do with the MSU game and all the dumbfuckery from all quarters involving criticisms of the coaches. Certainly, there are legitimate concerns and questions regarding M's offense. But, I'm ready to move on and am really looking forward to watching M play IU.

I'm sticking with my 80/20 concept - the objectively documented inefficiency of the M offense is 80% on the players and 20% on the coaches.

OL performance, again objectively documented as poor, is a major contributor to the sucky M offense. I'm willing to cede that how OL recruiting was handled from 2015 is a factor in OL performance and IS on the coaches but that's water under the bridge. I'll give that 10%.

The other 10%, and this is a WAG, has to do with (1) How the game plan is developed and implemented during practice week and (2) how play calls get to the QB and C.

I've never been a part of a successful organization that had layered leadership similar to how we outsiders understand what M's coaching organizational chart looks like ...... i.e., why are there 3 guys (Drevno, Hamilton, Harbaugh) that appear to be involved with developing a game plan directing implementation of it during practice week and play calling during the game?

So we could suppose relationships between coaches and communication might be part of the offence's issues. Something can be done with this and the only way we are going to know that it's been addressed is if, all of a sudden, the offense starts to gel and put up some big numbers.

My point is that the M coaching staff isn't failing because they don't know what they are doing with the units/positions they coach or are incompetent during the game or have lost desire or need to simplify and adjust to their players skill levels or any of the other dumbass accusations floating around out there after 1 .... ONE fucking loss.

Asking college players to run NFL level schemes or route trees and require college QBs to possess NFL talent level for the offense to work is silly. People like Baumgardner who assign this sort of thing as the real problem with M's offense are talking out their asses.

A modicum of attention to what M's offense does on a play by play basis and a basic read and understanding of how plays might be related to each other down to down suffices to render ideas like this as NOT APPLICABLE. It's fairly easy to do gain some understanding of the play-book and some understanding of a game plan as it evolves if one has the time by tapping into information that is easily available from the blogs that write about this stuff.

Can't wait to see M's offense v. IU's D and and M's D v. IU's O. I'm starting now to study Indiana's 2017 roster and football games.

**Rocky Bleier** · October 10, 2017, 10:32 AM

"or need to simplify and adjust to their players skill levels or any of the other dumbass accusations floating around out there after 1 .... ONE fucking loss."

Yeah, adjusting to your players' skill level is so stupid....

The one loss is just the first of at least four. PSU, Wisky, and OSU are certain defeats. Will criticism be more valid when losses pile up? Criticism is valid or not valid regardless of the number of losses, though more losses tends to validate it.

**hack** · October 10, 2017, 10:36 AM

I agree with very little of that, Jeff. One team turned it over 5 times; one team none. I think that by the third damn interception you had to wonder about competence during the game. Especially given that Michigan is developing a track record of handing the other team the ball in scoring position. You had three fumbles in four games on the year from the RBs already. Coming into a rivalry game that's a point of concern you've got to address.

This is a poorly-coached team. Is it because the coaches are shit? No. Harbaugh didn't suddenly become a dunce. But I can't fathom how anyone can look at the outcomes and see a well-coached team.

**WM Wolverine** · October 10, 2017, 11:11 AM

Talent, depth, and experience at the most important positions (QB & OL) is well short of where it needs to be. Receivers are all underclassman but Grant Perry; way too many drops. Perry is the only one making tight cuts on his routes and creating separation...

Coaching staff should be doing a much better job of covering up the obvious weaknesses and finding an offensive scheme that fits the players.

Indiana is no gimme, they've a very solid-to-good defense that's as athletic & B1G size as the Hoosier's I've ever seen. On offense they have some pieces but have glaring holes on the OL that M's defensive front will exploit. Ramsey is a much better fit for their offense than Lagow, I'll wait & see for more evidence to say he's actually a better QB.

Announcement

Michigan Football, Team 138, 2017 Season.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment