Michigan @ Wisconsin, Noon, 11/18, Fox/Stream FoxGo

[Jeff Buchanan]

........ Jim Leonhard should make life hard for Peters. I look for at least 3 sacks. Just not our year. Probably would have been better if O'Korn hadn't crapped out against Sparty.

Yes and correct ......

I started doing some research on Wisky's D and turned out several good articles on Aranda's (now Leonhard's) defensive schemes.

They run a Hybrid 3 - 4 (nickel 4-2-5) with a space backer. It's a lot like Brown's except different - whatever that means. Apparently at the time of these articles, Wisconsin had been toasted by osu, did some tinkering and shut down Auburn in the Bowl. Not sure I have those details right but the point is that Leonhard is a very good DC and will know that Kugler doesn't hold up well v. a strong NT and that the pass-pro on the right is weak.

The only place I'd quibble with is your prediction of 3 sacks. I think M has done a really good job protecting Peters despite these two weaknesses in the OL. They've gone with heavy sets/a 6th OL and run and passed out of them to avoid signaling a pass plays. Obviously this limits the 22 formation on a pass play (2RBs and 2 TEs = a "22" formation) to one WR. That's why Peters checks down to one of either the TEs or RBs so often.

Good corners in man are taking the deep ball away. However the throws to the TEs and RBs have been effective on roll-outs/waggles and Peters sees the field when he scrambles and has made some plays. I'd add that I'm pretty sure Peters has been coached up to take the deep route only if it is wide open (i.e., a coverage bust) and look for those same coverage busts on the TEs or RBs that he chooses to put it up. O/W, throw it away. He's been very disciplined in this regard with few exceptions

After the two big time hits that Peters didn't see v. Rutgers, It appears he wasmuch more conscious of this v. Maryland. Wisky will obviously work to get penetration and hit Peters; how that works out for them we'll have to wait and see.

[Rocky Bleier]

The only place I'd quibble with is your prediction of 3 sacks.

Peters is fairly mobile, but I think he'll be forced to throw more since he'll be playing from behind. No need to throw v.s. Minnesota or Maryland. Wisconsin sacked Nate Stanley 4 times, and Leonhard will surely come after the redshirt freshman QB on 3rd and long in the second half when he's up 2 or 3 scores.

[whodean]

Wisconsin has a very capable defense. This could be a low scoring affair.

Keep them below 24 points and we'll have a decent chance for a W.

[Mainevent]

Too many 3 and outs lead to a tired defense that even at its best over-pursues and is susceptible to big plays. That does not bode well playing a strong running team. The offense needs to get some sustained drives early that result in points.

[WM Wolverine]

Can't give up the big plays like they've to inferior opponents, I'd hope to see a less aggressive Don Brown but that has yet to happen.

[Rocky Bleier]

"We solve our problems with aggression."

[Jeff Buchanan]

Can't give up the big plays like they've to inferior opponents, I'd hope to see a less aggressive Don Brown but that has yet to happen.

I think Brown (and by the approval of JH) is fine with the risks endured by Brown's aggressiveness. I also think that Wisconsin is vulnerable to this unlike, say, Maryland or osu, maybe IU by virtue of the offensive styles they all run. Not so with Wisconsin's pro-style offense.

Another thing, if you look objectively at Wisky's offense it's not great as measured by a number of advanced stats - and by this time in the season, these numbers tend to be more predictive.

Wisconsin in rushing is 21st in S&P+, 27th Success Rate, 52nd Power Success Rate (3rd/4th down < 3y to go); in passing, 28th, 19th respectively and take a bunch of sacks (Sack Rate = 95th).

M ranks 2nd in Overall Havoc Rate so, the numbers would indicate an aggressive D will pay off against this particular offense.

I would be remiss and guilty of homerism if I didn't remark about who is #1 in Overall Havoc Rate. That would be Wisconsin's D. It's a lot like Browns. So M needs to keep up the QB harassment regimen as you can bet Wisconsin is going to be working really hard to work Kugler and JBB ..... neither QBs are likely to burn the D and I'd actually give the edge to Peters, not so much because he's a better QB but because my eyeball tells me he is used better than Hornibrook.

One further comment: M's win probability v. Wisconsin is actually lower than it is v. osu. both around 30% based on S&P+.

[Jeff Buchanan]

...... One further comment: M's win probability v. Wisconsin is actually lower than it is v. osu. both around 30% based on S&P+.

I'm quoting myself because now I think I understand why ......

Let's go through this. Advanced Stats says Wisconsin is good and because M's SOS is not much better than Wisconsin's, the "they haven't played anyone" doesn't wash. Neither has M and that M lost to the two teams they played that were other than "anyone" (MSU & PSU) doesn't speak well of SOS comparisons as an indicator that M has some kind of advantage here. It doesn't.

The comparative Advanced Stats that's done at mgoblog was out this morning. I read it carefully. It's depressing. Nearly a clean sweep in every category for the Badgers. It concludes with a few rays of hope:

Well, it was fun while it lasted, but the days of seeing matchup charts that are predominantly and overwhelmingly maize-and-blue-colored has come to an end.

The efficiency and success rate matchups alone suggests we can expect to witness a slobber-knocking sludge-fart of a game. Scoring will be low, and the intangibles like turnovers, hidden yards, penalties and weather may factor significantly in the outcome. That said, execution will be critical to avoid the adverse effects of such elements of this game we call Football in general, and Big Ten Football in particular.

So how can Michigan sneak out of Mad-town with a victory? The LYPC advantages for Michigan are largely attributable to the power and gap-blocking schemes in its rushing offense. If UM chooses to reverts to zone-blocking as it did against Maryland, this advantage will be lost, as evidenced by the chart. Michigan has the bodies and the proficiency to make this work. The uptick in OL performance actually began with the MSU game, and the trend in LYPC (as Mathlete pointed out a couple weeks back IIRC on the podcast?) is steady and consistent ? until Maryland, when zone-blocking was for some inexplicable reason given a new emphasis. Phooey on that. UM needs to stick with its Power, Iso?s and Counters.

Should Michigan attempt to pass, step one will be to minimize the Badger pass rush. In other fancy stats, the Badger Defense currently ranks #1 in Overall Havoc (UM is #2), as well as #1 in LB Havoc, #1 DB Havoc and #1 in PD to INC. It also ranks #3 in regular old sacks.

Therefore, failing step one, steps two and three will be?.... (insert ".gif of medieval, armor clad sword wielding soldiers running away) ...... But seriously ..... An emphasis on the blocky-catchy types and heavy sets ? particularly multi-TE/H-backs - and the tackle-over has worked on occasion as well. These sorts of things could be effective to keep the Badger defense guessing as to who?s blocking or running a route. Also, continued use of the waggle, with its pulling protection, may work as far as keeping Peters clean while buying time to take a shot or two downfield - preferably on first down or second-and-short situation. This also might also be a good time to resurrect that shovel pass UM ran once at IU that got whistled before it went anywhere. Let?s not forget the mesh, either, should UM persuade the safeties to back off. It?s high time to run a couple or three of those.

I did find an article about CFB that ranks teams in terms of a combo of S&P+ and SOS, i.e., their resume. It's long and tedious. I read it, you don't have to. What this does is highlights win margin (nod in talent's direction re our discussion this morning on osu wailing or not wailing M) among others within the S&P+ stats as a component of a team's comparative ranking.

The article is linked below. Wisconsin ranks #3 by S&P+ but drops 4 slots to #7 in S&P+ Resume (SOS); Likewise, M ranks 16 but drops to 22. The author suggests that the Resume S&P+ rankings are quite meaningful in separating the top 5-10 but less so beyond that. His Top 4 by this ranking system are Alabama, osu, PSU and Auburn. First two teams out are Central Florida and UGA.

So, my point is that Wisconsin is really not a good choice as a play-off team. Still, they are very good at what they do.

Key to an M win:

Stop RB Jonathan Taylor and TE Troy Fumagali. Sounds simple but it's not and that is because of the unique style of Harbaughesque man-ball that Paul Cryst puts on the field (yep, he's got Flexbone stuff in there - see Fi-Fi-Fo-Film Offense at mgoblog for film. Very cool in an I hate that shit v. M sort of way). His goal is keep ahead of the sticks; he uses Taylor to do that and selectively throws to Fumagali on 2nd or 3rd down and short. It's effective.

Wisconsin 24 - M 20

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/11/3/16556844/college-football-strength-of-schedule-rankings-2017-sos

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/advanced-stats-matchup-analysis-%E2%80%93-2017-michigan-wisconsin

http://mgoblog.com/content/fee-fi-foe-film-wisconsin-offense-0#more

[Jeff Buchanan]

This is what one mgoboarder posted when the crowd was asked in a serious sort of way, "what do want to see from M's offense v. Wisconsin." .... I LOL'ed at this one:



Sometimes there is some funny and clever stuff on mgoboard.

[WM Wolverine]

You just have to search way too damn hard at that place to find it.

[UMStan White]

Unfortunately that photo depicts Wisconsin's line vs. UM's defense.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I thought of that too. Goes both ways, I guess.

[drok]

Actually, looks more like W's d-line closing in on Peters

[Jeff Buchanan]

You can read, watch and weep the Fe-Fi-Fo-Film Wisconsin Defense ..... or not and just take in these cliff notes.

Wisconsin's' D, designed by Dave Aranda (presently at LSU) and now in the hands of young Jim Leonhard is, as Seth called it in the linked article below, your platonic ideal of the 3-4.

It is so because of solid DL play with some of the best blitzing and covering LBs and Ss in CFB. There is one S, D'cota Dixon who is injured and may not play. He is frequently seen stuffing runs and getting sacks. This helps little because back-ups are also good.

When one looks at how this team is built, how it plays and then listens to outsiders who don't study them seriously say Wisconsin is not good because they haven't played anyone yet, you find Wisconsin critics are horrendously wrong.

Seth concludes M's young OL is not yet ready for a defense like this. The best way for M to keep this game from being a huge win for Wisconsin is to to run power (not zone), not too much of it, coupled with a bit of PA. If you run too often, the LBs will blast it so, M's passing strategy should be to back the LBs out, not necessarily the Ss, by throwing short stuff to TEs and RBs. Seth, the author, mentioned this elsewhere so he might have a bias toward this approach but it makes sense to me based on how Wisconsin's D is desiged and how players execute it.

Reading this makes me no more or no less confident in the score I predicted (W24 - M 20) above. What I am doing now, though, is contemplating M's visit to San Diego to face RR's Zona squad in the Holiday Bowl instead of figuring out ways I can attend a NY6 game in FL.

Truly, if you don't want to become totally despondent about tomorrow, don't read this and esp. don't watch the film of the Badgers curb-stomping Iowa contained within.

http://mgoblog.com/content/fee-fi-foe-film-wisconsin-defense-0#more

[hack]

When one looks at how this team is built, how it plays and then listens to outsiders who don't study them seriously say Wisconsin is not good because they haven't played anyone yet, you find Wisconsin critics are horrendously wrong.


Horrendously wrong? What's the support for that? I think it's fair to wonder if Wisconsin's defense is as good as ours was before it was tested. Which doesn't suggest we're gonna go in there and beat them, but I think the defense should play a good offense before we conclude that. (Not saying Michigan's is that offense, mind you...)