Michigan @ Purdue, Saturday, 9/23, 4p Eastern, FOX/Stream FSGo

[iam416]

Minnesota's OL is getting some kudos. We'll see how they do against real teams, but they're grinding. Their new OL coach? My boy, Ed Warriner. Guy is a legit, top-shelf OL coach. Not a great OC and a total meh recruiter. But dude gets his OL playing ball. So, IMO -- there's really no excuse. Now, I don't like Ulizio. I thought it was a total meh offer, was surprised M took him and am shocked he's playing.

I don't think ranting about it is necessary at this point, mainly because I have no doubt that JH and his staff are going to keep honing unit skills ..... QBs, RBs, TEs, WRs, AND THE OFFENSIVE LINE. That's just who Harbaugh is and frankly, I don't think his coaching tenure at M is his Waterloo. He's been too successful everywhere he has been to think that it is.

I think that's an odd point. I mean, I think every coaching staff is going to keep working to hone every part of the team. Whether they can do it or not is a legitimate fan talking point. I'm more in line with you, JB, in that I don't particularly like "fan critiques" that often border on demanding perfection. But, that's not going to stop, and I certainly don't think a coaching staff gets a free pass no matter how accomplished.

Personally, I've been perplexed by the absence of Evans. Isaac has definitely looked good, but Evans seems like he can be utilized in ways to stretch the field. I mean, the put in an entire dysfunctional package for a DEFENSIVE player last year, surely they can stretch the field horizontally with Evans. And I really think DPJ needs to work his way into heavy rotation.

That said, maybe Evans can't block and maybe DPJ can't block, yet, or is a bad route runner. Or whatever. But they need to utilize their speed to push the edges a little beyond the f'n hashmarks.

I also wonder if O'Korn will be HARBAUGH!!!!!'s gateway drug to more spready stuff. Heh. Instead of, you know, running an offense with one skill player who absolutely will not run the ball.

[Hannibal]

None of the backs can block so there is no downgrade there if Evans sucks at it.

[whodean]

Personally, I've been perplexed by the absence of Evans. Isaac has definitely looked good, but Evans seems like he can be utilized in ways to stretch the field.

I think you said you missed the Purdue game? Evans much bigger presence, including a long TD run.

I guess Isaac is injured, we didn't see much of him at all in that game.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Purdue hadn't been very aggressive in their previous games, but they probably saw on film that our OL and RBs can't identify blitzers and pick up stunts. As I said above, the OL and RBs will no doubt grade out horrible in pass protection, but how much is reasonable to expect there for a college team with weekly practice limits and only a few years to pick up a scheme? You've got to scheme around these limitations. Keeping the defense honest by throwing the ball to the backs out of the backfield might help -- and you've got nothing to lose if they can't block guys anyways. Having a mobile QB helps tremendously too. I wonder whether O'Korn's legs will cause defenses to adjust and start dropping 7 or 8 into coverage to avoid being burned by his legs and try to force him to make mistakes.

Agree with all of this.

I can't find fault with your criticism of the play calling. I can ID a couple of reasons why it appears as it does though.

(1) I'm pretty sure JH has used the first four games to try to get the OL to block correctly out of his base formations. I don't know if M uses this terminology or not but I read a piece on Sunday that pointed out that Harbaugh has had "great success with his 21, 22, 23 base sets."...."There is no need to doubt him or to make some kind of change." Here's what that means:

http://insidethepylon.com/film-study/film-study-nfl/offense-film-study-nfl/2014/09/08/understanding-football-offensive-personnel-packages/

Take a look at this play. It is out of a 21 set (1RB, 2WRs). Here's Brian's description of it in the AF game UFR/Offense:

Jet motion, split zone instead of jet. AF stunts on the backside, which Hill(+2) picks up. He redirects, gets to the OLB slanting inside, and pins him. Cole(+1) locks out and steps upfield of the new force guy so he can?t spin back. Isaac(+2) reads the backside gap and hits it, blowing by the safety but barely stepping out as that guy makes a desperation dive. Kugler(-2) got lucky here; NT slanted way outside and he never came off on the linebacker. Bredeson(+1) got a second level block. RPS +2; jet motion moved a CB to S and he was off balance on the snap and never likely to get to this. He just barely prevents the TD with a desperate lunge at Isaac's legs.

Here's the video (this is Isaac's big run where he stepped out of bounds or it would have been a TD):

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PflshQ4nfgQ"]2017 Michigan vs Air Force part 4 - YouTube[/ame]

Here's the McDoom sweep down inside the AF 15 that should have been a TD ..... but gets blown up because Bunting does not identify the S that he should have blocked. If he does, it's a TD. He didn't. Here's Brians comments:

McKeon and Bunting the TEs to the playside and Bunting(-3) appears to blow this as he flares out like he?s the kickout block. He is not. McKeon is, and he gets it, and Bunting is way too late to redirect. If Bunting starts searching for a DB he sees the safety coming down hard and McDoom has a pretty decent shot. As it is, no. This should be a TD. Michigan got slants inside from the DE and LB that erase them and Cole(+1) reads it and is heading for the same guy Bunting blocks as a bonus guy. RPS +1.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkRWizJvxw"]2017 Michigan vs Air Force part 14 - YouTube[/ame]

These are two outside zone plays that show when you have a great play-call and key blocks are made (the Isaac run) or not made (the McDoom sweep)what happens.

IMO, when you get into the nuts and bolts of a play, this isn't about a completely broken OL; it's about guys almost there but not quite.... and, yes, I get your point about the need for perfect execution maybe being too much to ask at the college level. Being that I'm kinda a glass half full kind of guy, I'd say keep at it; keep working to get it right.

(2) I think there are identifiable reasons why Speight has been ineffective in the pass game. These are (among others): a. he is facing a lot pressure but he reacts poorly to it. b. I think coaches are asking him to work first to make plays downfield. That's hurting him because in making those reads and given his relatively slow release, he does not have time to check down; he holds the ball or doesn't see the check downs and gets sacked.

I think we saw what happened to the offense when, with O'Korn in, that long ball approach was abandoned and he was asked to focus on short and intermediate routes to his TEs, Slot receivers and WRs running shallow crossing routes.

I don't think this game was some kind of seminal moment in which the offensive brain trust's light bulb came on and they suddenly realized how to defeat pressure defenses. I just think they were set on making Harbaughffense, as it designed work, work. Stubborn? Yes, I believe so and I think you are right about this.

What should happen, and I think it will regardless of which QB starts v. MSU is a bit of a shift to the kind of plays that worked for O'Korn and less emphasis on the big play, long ball. I actually think Speight is good at this .... as long as he is not trying to complete the big, long ball play and the coaches aren't emphasizing this and asking of him more than he is able to do.

As much as Speight and his coaches may want it, he is just not good at the long ball and once he gets in that mode, it's too late to check down to the shorter routes and that is because his release is too slow and that is not going to change. I also don't think O'Korn is good at the long ball either. Both of these QBs are also limited by young receivers who aren't getting sufficient separation to make that long ball a safe throw. I do think O'Korn processes quicker the Wilton does and his release is quicker. He is therefor probably better suited to this shorter passing game I'd advocate for. But that's just me. I don't want to dime Speight because I really don't know if my thinking on that is accurate or not.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.......I think that's an odd point. I mean, I think every coaching staff is going to keep working to hone every part of the team. Whether they can do it or not is a legitimate fan talking point. ..... I certainly don't think a coaching staff gets a free pass no matter how accomplished.

..... which is why I can agree with Hannibal's criticisms.

All we can do to measure a coache's ability to "do it or not" is what we see on the field. My problem, and you and I agree on this, is that fan perspective tends to be off in varying degrees. Sometimes way off.

The piece I just posted above was written to show how slender the margin is between a great play and a shitty one. In a general sense, coaching success is probably based on how many times something goes right in a game rather than it goes wrong. The problem is that the measuring stick that we all use for that purpose ain't that good. Fans are emotional, not objective ..... and besides, we really don't know shit.

What has improved our eyebal view though are web sites like mgoblog, among others, and guys writing for them like Brian who, over the years, has developed a pretty good fan eye for passing out atta-boys and aw-shits. But that's all it is - a better eyeball but not a coache's eyeball or sets of eyeballs. So, muted support for our view of things. But, at the same time, I think it is completely reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to coaching staffs in assuming that things will improve as they "hone" the skill sets of the players.

[Jeff Buchanan]

The UFR - Offense for the Purdue game is up .......

I'll be blunt. Michigan's offense is not good. In fact, it is terrible. The problem is blocking. Blocking in the run game, blocking in the passing game, blocking by the OL, by TEs and by RBs. No one escapes getting pointed at for fucking something up on any given play. It takes 2/3s of your offensive players to execute their assignments to make a run play work. It only takes one guy to fuck up to cause it to crash and burn.

The point is, it's not easy and if you get it wrong, you're going to have a shitty run game and your QBs are going to get sacked a lot. Brian, at moblog, thinks the problem is line calls not technique. If individual players know their applicable techniques (which observers think they do because they can see it) and the line call is understood collectively by everyone, the play is successful. Too many plays are not successful. Why.

Brian thinks what is designed to happen on a particular type of play - I'll concentrate on the run game - just doesn't; players look confused. What he sees them doing in a given play too often makes no sense. He asks, is it Kugler getting these wrong? Is their a mis-match that occurs between the play-call and the line call that's made pre-snap and importantly, do the players know how to adjust after the snap?

There has consistently been an inability of M's OL to deal with twists, slants and stunts. That's a post snap read sort of thing. When a defender slants into a gap, typically opposite the direction the OL is going, there is supposed to be a hand-off to someone else to take that gap. For example, 4-3 front, Kugler (C) and Onwenu (RG) are going to double a DT. Bredeson (LG) needs to know that he has to handle that in the now open A Gap.

That Purdue had 5 sacks in this game is evidence that this sort of basic thing isn't happening. There's a free rusher when it doesn't and it didn't. It's on video, it's obvious. It's not always a 9 guys in the box sort of thing that destroys a run play. More often it is this sort of thing - missing a twisting, slanting or stunting defensive lineman - that is the cause of a run getting flat out stuffed or the RB getting 3y or less.

Pass-pro has it's problems too. The first hit on Speight that put him down and the second that might have ended his career were unblocked (Free) rushers that didn't get picked up on potentially screwed up pre-snap line calls or post snap hand-offs that were not executed properly. This is basic stuff. It is not complicated and offensive linemen at the college level have been doing this sort of thing since Pop Warner. That's why Brian thinks the line calls are wrong either just flat out the wrong call for the play that came down or it's the right call for a particular play that isn't executed properly ..... and that, after all the practice this team has had, along with in-game play is hard to explain.

[whodean]

Didn't need any "further review" to know that Oline blew chunks. Unfortunately it was crystal clear during the game.

[CGVT]

Didn't need any "further review" to know that Oline blew chunks. Unfortunately it was crystal clear during the game.

Yeah, my eyes glass over when this analytics shit comes up.

[The Oracle]

Yeah, my eyes glass over when this analytics shit comes up.

I like it much more in basketball where there's more plays, more possessions. Football ain't that deep.

[iam416]

Yeah, it's pretty basic = analytics are great with right sample size. They're also better where players are more interchangeable than not. So, baseball? Yes. But, using them in a sport with limited samples and players of drastically different value lead to, well, the Browns.

To be fair, the Browns were horrific long before being Moneyballed, but it ain't helping one lick, though they are set with draft picks!

As for M, I didn't watch the Purdue game. "Line calls" seems like an egghead explanation.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Crunching subjective data and deriving conclusions from that process seems to me to be an improvement in analytics over, "It appears to the naked eye Michigan can't run the ball well."

I get the point. I think analytics can be over-used. I don't think the UFRs that appear at mgoblog do that. They are basically assigning a numbering system, true, not without some subjectivity, to make conclusions about the quality of a player's in game performance. Brain has a good eye and he's gotten better, over time, in analyzing a play and determining why it failed or why it worked.

Coaches are doing the same thing with game film then coaching corrections. The UFRs make it possible for fans to understand football better. At least it helps me to do that and I'd disagree with the position that "it ain't too deep." Succeeding at any sport or any activity at a high level, getting incrementally better, is all about objectively measuring the various aspects of it.

I'm loath to subjective comments about specific games, e.g., OL play sucks, without a reasonable basis for making it. That's just me. Others may be fine with superficial observations and fly-by comments.

[Hannibal]

As for M, I didn't watch the Purdue game. "Line calls" seems like an egghead explanation.

It's the latest and greatest.

It comes down to this -- something or someone needs to change this offseason. It wouldn't surprise me if Tim Drevno wants to "spend more time with his family" after the season.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

Yeah, I agree. And I think the UFRs are fun and useful for fans. And as you agree, you just have to understand their value.

It's the latest and greatest.

Yeah, it seems like it. But it also seems like Brian isn't optimistic about it getting fixed. Which is odd. Because one of the points about that explanation is that it CAN be fixed. It's an optimistic explanation for a shit sandwich.

I still think Ulizio is hot garbage. But, whatever.

I'll also say this -- I haven't a clue if this is on Drevno or whatever. I do know that a coordinator that can't get the job done can't stay. It can't happen. And if you're blaming "line calls" you're blaming the coach.

[Hannibal]

Ulizio is definitely a weakness but the rest of the line and the backfield blockers are fucking up a lot too. He is right about the OL being highly succeptible to post-snap shenanigans by the defense.

The "line calls" will/would be fixed by Kugler graduating. If that explanation catches on, then Kugler will become the new Kalis.

[iam416]

Yeah, but dealing with slants is OL 101. I mean, my HS OL could do that 25 years ago! I get that stunts may cause problems. But watching some of those slants shred that OL was really bad.

I think if OSU and M played tomorrow that neither offense would score unless set up by a TO. I'm fairly sure OSU couldn't move the ball against M with no passing game, and I don't think the M OL v OSU DL is a good matchup for HARBAUGH!!!!

But, at least they have JOK back there. If you're OL ain't going to block, you sort of need to move away from the stationary target/sitting duck.