Diaries

I'm tired, so you don't get much of an actual explanation on design reasons or any of that jazz.  I thought I'd just tone it down a bit since we're all a bit pissy about the football season, Hand, etc.  Not flashy, but effective.  PLEASE give me ideas you'd like in future wallpapers because I'm hoping for a more MGoBlog-centric development of these wallpapers for basketball season.  I'm open to pretty much anything aesthetically-speaking and would love a challenge.  Anyway, I hope you enjoy the wallpaper.  Go Blue, beat Northwestern and Iowa State this weekend!

Desktop (16:9) -

Mobile-ish (ok, so it's just portrait orientation, I don't want to make tons of variations) -

Enjoy!

- JonValk

Brian Meets Al Borges
(A satirical comedy by: maizenblue92)

(Brian upon having a scheduled meeting with Michigan OC Al Borges wanders down the halls of Schembechler Hall until he sees the name placard with the information he is looking for. Brian enters a room with only three lights overhead creating a well-lit center of the room and shadowed corners. There is only a white board on otherwise plain walls. Al Borges sits alone on one of two bean bag chairs in the room, sipping on a Zima, and facing the doorway. Two large guards stand in each corner behind the bean bag chair designated for Brain.)

Guard One: Borges, your guest has arrived.

              (Borges speaks in an agitated, yet methodical and confident tone. Kind of like the villain in any given movie)
Borges: Ah, yes the man who keeps sending people to ask me about bubble screens at pressers.

             (looking around at the office, taken aghast)
Brian: Wow! This was not what I was expecting.

Borges: Welcome Brian, I have been expecting you. Please have a seat.
            (gesturing toward the bean bag chair)

Brian: Yeah, you should have been expecting me; I set up a meeting with you like two weeks ago. Do I have to sit on one of those to? Do you have anything else to sit on?

Borges: No, now please take a seat so we can talk.
            (the two guards each put a hand on Brian’s shoulders forcing him into the bean bag chair)

Are you thirsty Brian? Would like a Zima to quench your thirst?
            (Borges gestures a bottle toward him)

Brian: No thanks. Wait, did you say Zima?! No one has had one of those since, like, 1995. And no one with taste buds has ever had one. And do we really have to have these two guards here? They don’t really seem necessary.

Borges: The Zima is non-negotiable and yes, the guards are necessary. In case you haven’t heard, I am not a very popular man at the moment in Ann Arbor and I think it best I don’t take chances right now.

             (muffled so Borges doesn’t hear, but so he kind of does)
Brian: Sounds like your offensive game plan.

Borges: What was that?

Brian: Nothing.

Borges: So, Brian, what would like to talk about?

Brian: Let’s start with the obvious. Why don’t you like bubble screens?

Borges: Ah geez, not this shit again. We just don’t run that play.

Brian: But why? It gets the extra man out of the box. It is easy yards most of the time. And they keep hits off of your QB. And don’t try to give me some sorry excuse that they don’t belong in a pro-style offense. Every goddamn NFL has them!

            (Borges says this with a completely straight face and takes a sip of Zima)
Borges: You want to know the real reason? Every time a bubble screen is run Santa gets a titty-twister. And I will not aid in Santa’s torture.

            (Brian facial expression is one of disbelief and shock)
Brian: What are you talking about! You can’t possibly be serious! You are fucking with me right? This is a joke, right?

Borges: ‘Fraid not. That is what I believe. That and running into 9-man boxes.

Brian: But…that doesn’t make…any sense.

Borges: Still probably the best reason you have heard for an OC not running bubble screens in today’s college football.

Brian: Actually…yeah…it is. Probably because there is not a logical reason not to.

Borges: Can we move on?

Brian: Fine. What is up with the 2-man routes with max protect and play action?

Borges: Well you see, with the respect our run game deserves opponents have no choice but to bite on play action. They never see it coming.

             (Brian is becoming very irritated)
Brian: Are you serious? Not one thing you just said is true.

Borges: How so?

Brian: One, our run game is terrible. Old nuns with osteoporosis could stop. Two, no one has bitten on it yet because, three, all of your plays are tipped. Quite badly tipped. There are 6-year-olds calling out the play before it happens. That is not a joke, that is actually happening.

Borges: That is why I put in that veer thing that no one ever sees co-

Brian: I am going to cut you off right there. When you run veer, it is so obvious that teams are blitzing two guys into the exact hole. Another thing, why do you keep running such deep routes when we can’t block anybody? Devin Gardner is getting killed out there!

Borges: We just need to go out and execute better. We have a solid game plan. Just need to execute.

Brian: Oh no. You are not getting away with that Hoke press conference, cookie-cutter crap answer. You did not and have addressed a single point I have made.

Borges: What about the Santa answer?

Brian: Forget about fucking Santa!

Borges: Looks like someone is not getting presents this year.

            (Brian fights with all of his might to restrain himself from doing something stupid)

Brian: I mean an answer that makes sense!

Borges: You haven’t had any of your Zima.

Brian: Because I don’t want a goddamn Zima! I want real answers!

             (Both individuals are becoming more adversarial)
Borges: Fine, if you are so critical of my offensive game plan. Nay, genius! What do suggest I do?

Brian: Well, you have an O-line that can’t protect very long, a mostly accurate QB, and pretty good weapons on the outside.  So, a quick, no huddle passing spread. It hides your flaws and accentuates your strengths.

Borges: Why the fuck would I run a communist system like that?

Brian: Because when you fall behind and go to it to get back in the game the offense has been pretty successful with it. You had your deepest drive of the game against MSU with it. It worked on Nebraska and you used some of those elements well against Notre Dame.

Borges: Eh, no.

Brian: What? Why?

Borges: Because it is important to establish a downhill run game and establish the line of scrimmage. Because that is how we play at Michigan!
             (Borges is becoming defiant in his defense of MANBALL!!!)

Brian: But you don’t have the people to do that! You can’t block! You are running the ball with 7 blockers and 9 defenders.

Borges: Eventually…we will run through it. And break a long one. Then play action will work.

          (an angry tone shifts to one that is almost pleading by the end of the statement)
Brian: Ahhh! Listen here you little fat man! It is getting to a point where I have to root for Michigan, my alma mater, to fall behind in games. Why? Because when they do fall behind you have no choice but to abandon your futile run game. And call nothing but passes. Not just passes, but short passes on every down and it works. And why can’t we do that every drive? Pass on almost every down.

Borges: Because then we would be predictable.

Brian: GGGGAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!! I’ll kill you!

            (Brian loses control and lunges at Borges. This knocks over his untouched Zima, spilling it all over the floor. No sooner than Brian gets out of his chair do the guards in the office grab him and throw him back onto his beanbag chair. They continue to hold him there for a few moments until he has calmed down.)

***************************************************************

             (Brian now sits there bleary-eyed and disoriented from rage.)

Borges: Alright, let’s wrap this up, there is a Golden Girls marathon on in 15. Anything else you want to talk about?

            (Brian’s voice and facial expressions are completely devoid of any emotion)
Brian: No. No. ‘Cause if I keep talking…to you…I will probably try and finish the job.

Borges: Alright I gotta go prepare for…uh…ah shit who is it again? Eaaa-? Weee-? Nooorr-?

            (Brian answers in a whisper as he slowly stands and heads for the door; not sure this is even still reality)
Brian: Northwestern.

Borges: That’s who it is, thank you. Well, see you around Brian. Good talk. Oh, actually, one more thing Brian.

            (asking out of morbid curiousity)
Brian: What?

Borges: Would like a Zima for the road?

Brian: (muffled grumble sounds)
            (Brian also lets out an anger twitch at the request. Followed by him slowly turning and heading down the hall)

Borges: Nice guy.

             (from down the hall)
Brian: Your beer is shit!

*Some of the formating got messed up copying this over so bear with me if there was some difficulty reading it properly.

Summary

A simulation suggests that Ohio State beating Northwestern increases Michigan’s chances at that time of winning the division by 5 percentage points and the Big Ten championship by 1-1/2 pp.  Such a win also improves on average Michigan’s bowl placement when it doesn’t win the division.  On the other hand, what’s true for Michigan is also true for Michigan State.  And perhaps more importantly, a win over Northwestern greatly improves Ohio State’s chances of a great season. 

Details

So, events have overtaken the question, but the argument that I should have rooted for OSU over Northwestern, which played out in some forums in the week before the game, remains stuck in my mind.  Before getting to the relevant analysis, I’m compelled to make two points.

1. Whom I root for is of no practical consequence to anyone else, especially how Michigan’s season actually plays out.¹  I can understand an argument that I should give to charity or be nice to my neighbor, but why I “should” do something that doesn’t matter strikes me as a strange concept.
2. Being happy that OSU beats Northwestern makes sense because it increases Michigan’s chances of winning the division.  Taking pleasure in an OSU loss makes sense because, obviously.  The choice depends on how I weigh the tradeoffs.  Determining whom to root for solely on how it affects Michigan’s chances of winning the division at the exclusion of all other considerations may work for some people, but there’s no basis to argue that I “should” have those same preferences.²

Still, there’s an unresolved issue that can be analyzed.  How much does the outcome of the OSU-Northwestern game affect Michigan’s chances of winning the division?  For that matter, how does it affect other considerations, like MSU’s chances, OSU’s chances of going undefeated, etc.?³ Armed with those answers, everyone can draw their own conclusions over whom they should have liked to win.

To answer this question, I picked a probability structure for the Big Ten games as scheduled, used a random number generator to establish outcomes, programmed the Big Ten’s tie-breaking procedures, and repeated 5,000 times.  To calculate the effect of the OSU-NW game, I let the rest of the season stand and calculated the season outcomes when NW wins and when OSU wins.  I also let stand the actual outcomes of the Minnesota-Iowa and Wisconsin-Ohio State games that occurred the week before.

The left-hand side of the Table 1 details the results for Michigan.  When Northwestern wins the game, Michigan wins the division about 25% of the time; when Ohio State wins, Michigan wins the division about 30%, for a 5 percentage-point differential.  (Keep in mind that with four teams in the division that at the time were thought to have reasonable chances of winning the division, any one team’s odds aren’t going to be large.)The differential for the Big Ten championship, however, is much smaller at 1-1/2 points.  That’s because an OSU win increases its chances of winning the Leaders Division, and Michigan’s chances of beating OSU in the championship games are assumed to be smaller than those of beating anyone else out of that division.

It’s interesting to observe that there are a small number of times when a Northwestern win helps Michigan win the Legends.  That can happen in the following case: MSU beats Michigan but loses to Northwestern and say Iowa.  Michigan beats Northwestern and loses to a team in the Leaders Division.  And Northwestern loses to one other team other than OSU and Michigan.  If Northwestern beats OSU, then there’s a three-way tie that Michigan wins because each of the winners are 1-1 against the others, but either Michigan has the best division record or at least MSU is knocked out for having the worst division record, and then Michigan wins head-to-head against Northwestern.  On the other hand, if Northwestern loses to OSU, then it’s just a tie between Michigan and Sparty, which Sparty wins by the head-to-head match up.  Even so, the more common outcome is that a Northwestern win hurts Michigan’s title hopes, rather than helping.

One may also be interested in knowing how a Northwestern win affects Michigan’s bowl placement when it doesn’t win the division.  (I use a simple rule that considers non-conference wins and a tie-breaking procedure that looks at head-to-head records to determine the order, but then gives Michigan the benefit of the doubt otherwise.)  The outcome of the NW-OSU game is of no consequence for Michigan’s bowl placement the large majority of the time.  Otherwise, a NW win helps Michigan sometimes, but hurts it about 4 pp more often.

What’s true for Michigan is also true for Michigan State, which may be relevant for some people.  An OSU win increases MSU’s chances of winning the division by 3-3/4 pp and winning the Big Ten by 0.6 pp.  As with Michigan it also helps its bowl placement on average.

Obviously, a win against Northwestern also makes it more likely that OSU has an outstanding season, which could also be an important consideration.  An OSU win over Northwestern increases the probability OSU wins it division by almost 19 pp and the probability it wins the Big Ten by 13 pp (Table 2).  It increases its chances of going to a BCS game by 26-3/4 pp (Big Ten winner or 10-2 record or better.)  And finally, what some may consider a nightmare scenario, Ohio’s chances of going undefeated go from zero to 15% with a win against Northwestern.

Methodology

For each scheduled Big Ten game (other than OSU-Northwestern and the two games the week before) I model the probability of the home team winning as depending on the difference in fixed strength parameters plus a home premium.  A more sophisticated model could allow for match up issues that mean win probabilities aren’t transitive. 

Table 3 describes these parameters, the probability Michigan beats them on a neutral field and the average Big Ten wins in the simulations.  They aren’t meant as an accurate gauge of the relative strengths of the teams as much as an expression of what I take to be the relative strengths of the teams as perceived by the fan base at the start of the Big Ten season.  Home teams won 56.9% of their Big Ten games in the 2003-2012 period, so the home-field premium equals 6.9 pp.  Home team i beats visitor j in the simulation if the draw of a random variable (distributed uniformly between [0,1]) is less than or equal to ½ + ½ (P_i - P_j) + h.  The outcomes of all the games are assumed to be mutually independent.   The results are little different quantitatively, and are qualitatively the same, if I shock the strength parameters for each simulation with a uniformly random variable between [-0.10, +0.10].

Endnotes

1.       My theology doesn’t leave room for God choosing the victor based on a prayer vote or my prayers alone, but I can see if others go in a different direction.  I’m also excluding the metaphysics of Scott Adams of Dilbert fame who argues that you can effect changes in the universe over which you otherwise have no control by simply writing down an affirmation for 15 straight days.  See the end of The Dilbert Future: Thriving on stupidity in the 21^st century.

2.       Economists call a preference structure where one needs to be satiated in one dimension before appreciating other dimensions as lexicographic preferences.  They’re not logically excluded, but they’re not how I roll.  The spirit of this piece is that life has tradeoffs.

3.       There are two things I’m not going to consider.  First, I’ll ignore whatever effect the game has on BCS rankings as it’s probably small and related to the order in the Big Ten standings anyway.  Second, another reason to root against a team is because you’d like an indication that the team is bad and is more likely to lose future games.  An OSU loss will make you feel better about the Game as you update your win probability using Bayes’ Theorem.  This thought experiment doesn’t lend itself easily to such considerations.  It takes pairwise probabilities as “known” in advance.

Disclaimer: I played Fullback for a D3 college team so I represent the offensive position this blog distains most. This also makes me a Walmart Wolverine so I'm actually the two most distasteful things combined, almost as if Brandon wanted to troll Brian by hiring a German Marketing Intern nickleback fan that wins Karaoke contests singing Creed while advocating for all-maize uniformz and inverted helmet colors to be worn at the next edition of The Game as his big “revenue generation” project.

At any rate, on the football stuff here is what I think:

What ails team 134 - you're all somewhat right and all a little bit wrong:
 
Criticism #1 YOUTH -

M Coaches= you can't overcome a young Oline, y'all don't understand

Everyone Else= that’s no excuse, you suck at coaching definitely the Oline coach sucks, this is unacceptable

WWF take:You're both right; back when I was in school and we ran the offset I because I was usually too slow to block the POWER from the normal I. Actually I take that back, it was outside zone where I was too slow to get to the corner from the normal I.

At any rate, we had a 198 lb freshman center forced into action; the kid belonged in a Chem lab not on a football field but at any rate he was all we had after an injury. Kid got blown back every play but he was a quick study and by the end of the season he was semi-servicible. By the end of his senior season he had put on about 15 lbs of muscle and we could even run an ISO to the back side B gap without me having to block the D lineman running through. The C is critical for all the reasons you point, out communicating the front so the QB can get the right check with me play and the line calls. It's a lot for physically challenged guy to do (thinking of Miller here) and even worse a young one. We at least had experienced guards who helped a lot, but if the call was wrong then it blew up from there. 

My junior year we lost both of our senior tackles and had to replace them with a sophomore and a freshman. Total disaster similar to MSU+Nebraska - no run game, multiple sacks etc. guys would get confused in protection especially against blitzes. Luckily for them I was a "lineman in the backfield" and could take on a D end from my now well-rehearsed ability to run POWER.

The other issue here was we kept trying to MANBALL when we were usually on average 20 lbs lighter, weaker and .3 slower than our opposition (obvs not a problem at M). The issue here was not only that but actually "playing fast" when you are accustomed to the system, know all the checks and responsibilities, then you have a seasoned and strong offensive interior a la Stanford.  

At our best, we had a situation where we could manball, despite our physical shortcomings, because we could be variable. We had a play (outside zone) with a constraint, counter where backside G/T pull and slow fullback blocks the backside D end out of same offset I used to run outside zone. We also had a play action bootleg off of the counter. We ran Power, we ran ISO. We used to have a game with the RBs and Oline where we guessed each other’s assignments in Pass Pro by play and defensive formation. Whoever won made the other group run an extra sprint at the end of practice. This game was played by upperclassman/starters usually and the underclassman stayed silent lest they raise their hand, be wrong and the reason everyone had to run which got you an Incognito. The freshman center guy was annoyingly good at this. When the two tackles went down this game was no longer played and we went back to reviewing everyone's responsibility thrice.

What I described above is a situation where any coach would struggle... but this; this is a desmadre completa. The fact that we are playing true/RS frosh over basically anyone else on the interior is certainly a sign of bad recruiting but, even worse, a sign of bad planning and indecisiveness by the coaching staff. It seems they thought they could get away with a two platoon team, one being the more Devin/Toussaint friendly RR transitioners that would be the lead (ND Offense) and then MANBALL1 piloted by Derrick Green or some serviceable mishmash of the two. Instead we got transitionballnegative63 and the passion of the Gardner. In light of this I have a task for the MgoBlog team - maybe Heiko - get inside an oline grading session and figure out if Glasgow or Miller has a worse incorrect line call to missed assignment ratio. If Funk is playing the "mentally worse" of the two he is probably more of a “tough guy” Oline coach than cerebral one who is going to figure out what to do with a line that has the least experience of any in his career and thus merits all of the criticism meted out by the unwashed masses. Just a guess here.

Criticism #2 Coaches are stubbornly sticking to what they want to run vs. what works -

M Coaches= we are calling what works in practice that suits who we want to be and what we think we can do limited by our limitations

Everyone Else= you suck at coaching

WWF take:Agree with the fans. Another awesome analogy was when I was pressed into service as an overweight out of shape freshman that had only seen ST and mop up duty. Starter gets injured. Coach calls me out in front of team, I get nervous, get crushed on first block where they send me out on POWER to block 275 lb DE. Does not end well. Coach pulls me over on the sideline and says, "We will run Power till we bleed"!

When we lost yards the next time we called that play when I was pancaked by said DE and I ran off the field to apologize and that was met with,  "Tell that to the 33 other guys you just let down" Harsh lesson in reality that did nothing for my confidence. Not sure that the plays or the calls are putting the players in the position to succeed or gain confidence.

Insert demands for short passing game here. Here is another great possible analog to this year from bad D3 coaching. We were winning against a team that we had probably been outscored 107-3 by over the last two meetings with a "dink and dunk" slant approach antithetical to MANBALL where we ran our 2 min drill to start the game. We the players were happy with said success, but somehow it was deemed by the HC that we were not running enough ISO and POWER! Sadly, we reverted to that and the result was predictable 7-0 turned into 63-7.

Also this created a rift in the team with older players not recruited by that coach but by the previous one who ran a split back, run and shoot type approach. They felt they had been more successful with the previous style and wanted more similar plays called.. Anyone for a Shotgun-5 wide slant to Tay Odoms?

This should be the easiest thing for Borges to revert to, put Fitz/Norfleet in the slot with Dileo and Gallon and Funch/Chesson/Butt on the outside or Flex TE. Put some of these “incompetent” defenses in the Nickel and see if their Dbacks can get home. Pull a Tressel 2006! Make the Blitzer(s) run farther and give the Oline more time to target, easier checks and leave Devin with simple instructions. Three seconds, three decisions: 1)Throw at blitz if open, if not look to receiver 2,  if not throw away. Out of this, run a QB draw, motion slot into a RB draw/QB lead draw once the D is burned badly enough via short passing to back off on the blitz. Bad pass blocking/Blitz pickup complexity are somewhat mitigated and simple hot routes have a better chance of succeeding against a competent D.

It seems like the coaches are asking a first year computer science student to execute stored procedures without teaching them to write a  "Select" statement first - (Yes I come from the 90s). For me this is the worst indictment of Borges’ lack of adaptation and to a lesser extent, Hoke's own identity crisis - how many times in the pre-season did you hear Lewan say "We're a downhill team now".  I like the comment from a post that read something to the effect of "Borges seems like a guy who knows 4890 plays but only uses 12." Also, Identity is great when you have a seasoned program like Stanford, but when you have a bunch of little wolverine cubs that you want to grow into polar bear killers, you have to know they are blind and feed them mothers' milk, not expect them to go hunting on their own in the big bad forest. Rodriguez actually gave Borges a blueprint for success here where he could slowly mix in ManBall plays using the same basic blocking schemes. I think we should've stayed on the "Denard-special" O for one more year, more for the program’s success, than the development of the line as a MANBALL LINE and also for Devin and the young skill guys to have success early, remembering that Devin is developmentally a soph QB after the PSU game – not sure which game was his 12^th start.  

Criticism #3 Borges is tipping his calls w/formation and calling to tendency-

M Coaches= we are limited because of our youth; we need to execute better

Everyone Else= you suck at coaching and chess and Rochambeau and Life

WWF take:Agree with the fans and the coaches. When you have problems 1 and 2 working together the tendency issue then can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even good constraint plays or formation changes can be anticipated if you run essentially the same type of play with the down and distance and/or tip with formation and personnel. The coaches want to keep the game plans simple so that the players can execute what they presumably showed they were capable of in practice and other games. The issue here is about balance between the two. This can be avoided with better game planning as well as better in game calls, not just passing on First down, but doing something completely different like running a lead draw on first down out of a formation that you had primarily passed successfully from the week prior, but if your line can't execute then that you don't have that option.

We had a play where instead of blocking the will on the outside zone I'd run a wheel route. We ran motion before it for the QB to determine if Man/Zone, if man we called the run (I was slow and wouldn't beat most Will in pass coverage) if zone we called the wheel route and Id catch it in the hole between flat and safety for a first down almost every time. This is the opposite of what most teams would expect. Then we reversed that in a particular game and I caught the only 30+ yard pass of my career when I used my 4.99999 forty speed to smoke the Will (if only it had been from the 30 yard line going in, damn you Wild Bill!) This was during my Junior/Senior year when most people were seasoned and knew their responsibilities and also against a sucky team. 

On the other hand when we were starting in our youth, these plays were a gleam in the OCs eye. We were too busy figuring who to target on outside zone, ISO and power given the different fronts and blitz packages you would see from the different teams on our schedule. Most of them knew that based on down and distance if they saw offset I it was either counter or rollout off the counter. The rollout worked early on (See Borgess PA from Ace) but as teams caught on, our sure fire first down on that play was shut down. We varied it by running the same two plays against tendency and then finally put in an iso and iso play action out of the same formation which worked for one game.

Strangely, though we were able to execute better when we ran the two minute offense because we had less time to think about all of those variables and remember the playcall if a run (it was one of three) and inside-out for pass pro as a general rule. We were adjusting to a new scheme with old personnel, young in critical positions and outcoached on a number of occasions. This resulted in a bad season by even our mediocre standards. For M it's a situation where Borges' hands are tied but I think the effect is magnified by his reticence to go away from unsuccessful play calls/formations.

I think a little of all of this is what is ailing our (not so) beloved Team 134 and while it's a huge stretch to compare one person's 15 year old experience in D3 college football with the sports' most successful program, however I believe there are some parallels 1) young players' reaction to pressure and complexity 2) Coaches failing with over-reliance on system vs. personnel 3) those two combining to exacerbate game planning and play calling problems that are probably going to crop up in a less obvious but more impactful way (OSU 2012) because well, people are people and they have channels burned into their neurons. I'm not sure that Al is fresh enough at this point to adapt and barring an unbelievable turnaround and the biggest upset in the history of The Game, which will have everyone apologizing and calling Hoke, the BO REDUX, I think Brady and DB need to act quickly to minimize disruption with recruits like Speight, Malzone and all the other stud offensive guys that will be following Hand to Alabama.

Finally, as fans the best thing we can do is not to boo the players and whine and complain on message boards that they and their parents read, but rather support them so that they feel that in the end, despite the challenges, it was worth it to come to Michigan because it's Michigan and regardless of what happens on the staff they will have stability in their playing career and get a quality education. Ultimately, the likes of Kerridge and Houma should be able to come back to AA, have someone buy them a beer and hear stories about how much that 2013 season sucked, or how terrific the turnaround was but that they love M regardless for what it is and the impact the experience had on their lives. That is the Michigan Difference. If we can add “winning football games” to that statement then you have the recipe for a badly awaited return to relevance. If you want to complain about building a program and recruiting issues, look at yourself first; fans now play a critical role in recruits’ perception of a program. If you want to represent a team and school whose motto is "The Leaders and Best" then don't whine like a little bitch when the going gets tough; do what you would expect the players to do: miss a block, learn from it and move on - and yes I'm targeting this message to myself (COACHTV guess what - they can't hear you) as much as everyone else.

But then again I'm just a Walmart Wolverine Fullback so what the fuck do I know...

[Moved to Diaries to keep folks informed]

[Update 11/13: Todd Howard is confirmed]

[Update 11/7: Talked to some former players, who are going to try to come. A lot of guys coach so if the season's over (ie they lose in the playofffs) they'll make it.]

Q: What's the exact opposite of the East Lansing experience?

A: The Evanston experience.

Northwestern fans are eminently likeable, not that you really need to be alone on a purple sea since half the seats in Ryan are going to be filled with people in maize:

The above is the t-shirt that people going on the Northwestern trip with Sports Power Weekends will receive, along with a game ticket, hotel room for two nights, transportation, gift cards, and an MGoStore discount. For Friday night's entertainment, Jared of SPW has engaged the services of…US GUYS.

There's still some spots left on the SPW trip and I highly recommend you jump on that if you're considering going to the NW game—it gets down to just $350/person if you can get three of your friends to come along.

Since we'll be there anyway we'd like to also invite any readers from Chicago to come join us at:

Which is a huge (as in we get lots of space) Michigan bar. Details-like things:

When: Friday, November 15, from 6-9PM CST.

Where: Moe's Cantina River North 155 W. Kinzie St., Chicago, IL 60654, one block north of the Chicago River between LaSalle and N Wells. M: Merchandise Mart.

What: Q&A Session with Brian, and talking with people who don't need it explained that we had a true freshman guard starting against Max Bullough, i.e. other MGoBlog readers.

RSVP below, or show up.

Introduction

In the picture pages post today, I feel I noted something of some significance. This isn’t supposed to be a post to puff out my own chest, rather, I merely want to give the other side of the argument my side of the argument for what it really is.

As an aside, there have been numerous people that have constantly misconstrued my argument lately. I understand that by taking a particular unpopular stance so strongly, that I have opened myself up to criticism. But within this article I also want to make clear up some of my stance, so towards the end I will get into some of that. Much of these will be related to the comments I made earlier (if not copy and pasted), the major difference is that I now have the opportunity to add accompanying pictures and diagrams to go with it. This is of importance because football isn’t really a sport that is best described with words. You can try to be as descriptive as possible, but there will always be a certain amount of failure to accurately convey your thoughts through this medium. So the pictures/diagrams help in that regard. So let’s begin.

Set Up and Play Design

I’m going to copy and paste Brian’s set up to his post as he does a good job getting us there.

Michigan comes out with an H-back and two tailbacks in a twins formation, which necessarily means that the slot receiver is not an eligible receiver. Nebraska responds with 7.5 in the box, with the gray area defender just about splitting the difference between Funchess and the tackle.

I’ll get to the covered receiver part later, I want to start off with the basics here about what the intention of this play is. Let’s first start with the most fundamental concept of any run play: the blocking scheme.

Inverted veer works with a Power O blocking scheme. Power is a type of man/gap blocking scheme, while “O” indicates the pulling of the backside guard. A simple power play looks like this.

The inverted veer meanwhile, takes the fullback and erases him. It utilizes the option read to kick out the DE because the DE must commit to the QB or the RB. If the DE commits to the RB, the QB reads this and shoots through the lane inside of him. If the DE commits to the QB, the QB gives to the RB and the RB attacks the edge. Here’s how the inverted veer looks:

Now, let’s first act like there is no FB involved in the play so we can address the offensive line and TE first. As noted, this is a standard power blocking scheme. No one, from any of the offensive linemen, to the TE, do things differently than they would if this was a Power O run from under center. But the defense aligns in a way that makes running power difficult. This is an even front, stacked front, meaning the DL is aligned 5-2-2-5 as far as gaps. That’s outside shoulder of the OT and inside shoulder of the OG. The stack indicates that the OLBs are stacked over the DEs.

Well, to the front side this is similar to what a 4-3 Under will look like, but instead of the LB brought up on the LOS like Michigan often does with Jake Ryan, they’ve stacked him behind the DE.

This isn’t the exact defensive formation, but the blocking scheme is exactly the same (the only difference is the OC has one less shoulder to down block the backside DT and that the LB are shaded further from playside).

If you’re wondering what some of the things are in the diagram, the green boxes are the blocking calls that should be understood or made. As for the defensive formation, just for reference, the “G” means the NT that is usually lined up in a 1-tech slides out to the guards inside shoulder (often utilized to stop Iso) and the Loose is the SAM position loose from the LOS.

What you see is an adjustment in the blocking scheme. This is automatic and should be called and understood. Any team that runs power should make this adjustment. Why? Because that playside DE is very tight to the formation and becomes extremely difficult to kick out. His position pre-snap is already squeezing the hole that power is intended to go through, so rather than slam into that wall, it’s easier to down block him and seal the outside for the RB.

Now, here is how that applies to the inverted veer.

You see now that the person being optioned is that OLB (SAM) rather than the DE because of the defensive alignment.

Now let’s add the FB in the inverted veer. Power blocking makes another small adjustment when you have two lead blockers. If you remember back in the Tackle Over days, Michigan would utilize the U-back as a first lead blocker and a FB as a second. It was the U-back that was first through and responsible for the kick defender. The FB has some reads, but generally will try to get beyond the kick player and knock the first odd color jersey he sees.

More accurately, let’s look at it with an overhang defender. The way the FB is going to treat this is to go block that guy. If that guy tries to gain depth into the backfield, the FB will just carry him with his momentum. If he tries to go inside of him, he’ll simply arch block him. This is what that looks like:

Now let’s apply that to the inverted veer. It’s the same exact thing. The first lead blocker through takes the kick defender (here, that is the playside OLB). The fullback goes and finds the next off color jersey, typically to the outside. Generally, he will block this in a somewhat similar way, erring on the side of scooping the gray area defender. What that does is give a massive alley for Fitz to run through. It also forces that gray area defender to fight that block, regardless of if it blocks him from DG because he knows he must respect Fitz to run. That means if the blocking up front is done properly, DG has more than enough room and time to go straight up field and beyond that gray area defender before cutting out into the same lane that Fitz would run in.

So that’s how the play is designed to be run. Combined with the slot receiver taking the playside safety, everyone on the playside is blocked and a defined seam is established.

Why Run This Play?

I’m not really going to get into why you run the inverted veer, as that’s just a play more or less that has some pretty clear positives as far as reading a defender and threatening a defense with the RB and QB. But why put in the FB?

A common way teams defend the inverted veer is similar to ways that defenses have adapted to defend the read option: they force the QB’s read to be wrong. Essentially, this is a scrape exchange.

In the instance of an inverted veer, they’ll bring a defender off the edge that the QB can’t read or see because the QB is busy reading his key. The key typically is the DE.

Here’s a give look:

Here’s a keep look:

And here’s how a scrape exchange looks:

See that the read is still the same player for the QB. The QB’s read is to give. What the QB doesn’t see is the guy that is coming right into Fitz at the handoff. The defense is making DG’s reads wrong and there is nothing he can do about it.

So, to counter this, you add a FB. This is similar to what Rich Rod did with a U-back to kick the backside on a read option. Essentially, it’s making the QB’s read right by blocking the exchange defender. This means the QB just has to read his key and is fine. This is an adjustment to take advantage of a defensive look and seal the defense inside. Effectively, it’s acting similar to a bubble screen would act as it’s sealing the defense inside and attack the edge and alley with the RB (rather than a slot receiver). It’s a horizontal constraint on top of the normal inverted veer play.

Video/Diagram

Play:

Full Speed:

Half Speed:

Why Doesn’t it Work?

I’ll save some time and copy and paste a bit:

So the problem is two-fold: Kerridge completely whiffs his block because he archs too wide. His goal is essentially to scoop that gray area defender like he's trying to do in the MSU clip, note in that clip how he passes off the read DE and tries to get to the second level where he blocks no one because the safety he wants to block shot the gap instead (in theory here, his eyes are in the wrong place, there should be some adjustment that allows for DG to read the safety crashing and for Kerridge to scoop the DE, and DG should give here in that instance, but was likely hoping that guy would just follow Fitz and he'd have a clear path to a TD by having the option essentially block two-defenders, but as expected, it doesn't). The second problem is the fact that two people (Schofield and the TE) aren't on the same page as to what the power blocking adjustment should be.

The Big Picture

So we see this is messed up here. It is an execution issue. Alright. So what’s the deal. Quasi-rant in copy and paste mode:

Now, I don't think as far as the missed communication that it's because the blocking scheme is too complex. Much and most of their run scheme settles around a power blocking scheme. That should be better. The play against Nebraska should be executed better, but there were two huge botched assignments. The play against MSU is tougher and something that clearly wasn't repped enough (on the coaches). The FB nor Gardner made the correct adjustment to a safety shooting a gap. They might have repped it a few times, but clearly it wasn't enough to be familiar with how to adjust it in game.

It's basic Power O blocking fundamentals with two lead blockers (here, the two lead blockers are the option read and then the FB rather than a U-back and then a FB).

This is the problem that I've had with the "too many things that they aren't good at anything" argument. Veer option is based on a running scheme they utilize anyway (essentially a down G) but you don't have to pull because your kick block is the option. Inverted veer is Power blocking all the way. It is their base run play with the same exact assignments and adjustements. Nebraska does absolutely nothing that shows this play is tipped, they don't play it any way other than how a standard defense would play it. But Michigan can't get out of it's own way.

And this is the argument that I've had since PSU. It is execution. This play should work. It is 100% execution. Borges has Nebraska exactly how he wants them. Michigan is missing assignments in their base blocking scheme that they've repped thousands of times from under center, from pistol, from ace, from shotgun. That's not just on the players. Why the hell isn't the coaching staff able to get the players to block their base scheme? Why is it taking so long? Youth is part of it, yes. But at this point they should be able to block the run they utilize 75% of the time, including on their counters. It's on the coaches but it's not because of the play call. The play call is perfect. Why the hell aren't the players able to execute? Part of that, a lot of that, is youth. And part and a lot of that is they aren't getting through to these kids. It's the argument that I've made that's been misinterpreted since the start of all this. It's the same thing over and over again. Why can't they block their most basic, most repetitively run play in the entire playbook?

It’s not that there is too much in the playbook, I don’t believe that. That seems like a plausible answer when you isolate inverted veer from the rest of the offense. But it's not isolated from the rest of the offense. It's a Power O play with Gardner making a read. Blocking is exactly the same as Power O. It's their most repped play in the entire playbook. 

So how can you make it easier? They've taken out most of the difficult things. 75+% of the runs are the same damn blocking scheme. Counter Power, Inverted Veer, Veer option, Power, that accounts for the vast majority of the plays and all those plays have their roots in the same blocking structure. They still can't get it done. It's not about reducing the playbook anymore, they literally can't without just running from the I formation or just inverted veer. They can literally only reduce it by having the same blocking scheme and the same run action behind it, and that would only make matters worse because blocking is the primary issue.

And I know the execution thing rings of cliché as well, but it is absolutely true. This grab bag theory that all these plays are independent of one another isn't correct. They do have some tweaks. Zone stretch is now intended to be a constraint. Same with the counter. But the base of the run game comes back to power over 75% of the time I can promise that.

So it’s part youth. Certainly youth is a valid reason for some of these issues. But it’s also coaching. I can reiterate that until my face turns blue and some people won’t accept that I said it. But there is a fundamental flaw transferring the knowledge of this scheme to the players. This is not a difficult scheme. It’s a scheme taught to high schoolers all across the country. Sure, it gets a bit more complex at this level, and it gets a lot faster and you have to be much better at executing, but the basic, mental problems?

Why No Vertical Constraint?

Trust me when I say I would like a vertical constraint (pop pass) out of this look as much as anyone. My goal in this section is to try to explain why it may not be in the playbook right now with so many other issues in this offense.

But I seem to remember a pop pass off of it once or twice last year (I believe with Denard at QB). Honestly can't say why Borges hasn't run a false mesh, slide protection pop pass off of this look yet this year. I would like him too as well unless. My guess is that he's uncomfortable with DG making that read in traffic (he's worried about someone undercutting it or scrapping into it is my guess, and DG not processing it fast enough).

This is intended to argue one way or another if that play should be in there (I would personally like it), it's just trying to give perspective on if it's been run before and why an OC may shy away from it.

Why Cover Funchess?

Again, guesses for the most part, but realistically:

As I said, I hate covering receivers. It is a tip to the defense that it's likely run (where, they don't know). That said, you would be surprised how many defenses will still trot a DB out to cover that guy.

Anyway, the reason here is because Borges wanted a guy to block the playside safety. He wanted to form an alley on that side for Fitz. The FB takes the slot defender, Funchess takes the safety, and Gallon takes the CB. Everyone else is sealed inside. That's the only reason he did it, was to get the play completely blocked playside, which it should have been.

They need to cover the TE or Funchess because he wanted to run to strength and wanted that slot blocker. So the TE or Funchess had to be covered. Now, typically I'd say "alright, cover the TE, don't cover your 2nd biggest threat". But a couple things could have gone into the thinking here.

1. But have the TE off the line you open up plays to the backside of the formation with the inverted veer look (including counter schemes and how the FB would leak out into the flat later). So in a way, it keeps the box defenders more honest, which they succeeded in doing (they didn't all crash playside on the snap before reading the play).
2. They wanted to know what that slot defender was doing. They didn't want to run him off, they want a clear target for the FB. Funchess covered, that guy comes. Maybe that was something they saw on film and were trying to take advantage of. But there's a real possibility that they didn't want to force the FB to read "is that guy going with the WR, do I pick up the filling alley safety or does Funchess, so do I switch to his guy?" etc.

My guess is more #1 than #2, but it depends on what they saw on film.

Conclusion

So what’s the point in all this? Is it to blindly defend Borges? No. The intention isn’t to blindly defend the coaches. The intention is to look at what is happening and figure out where the issue is. Here is a very, very clear example of a bigger picture. It is execution. The coaches aren’t lying about that and it isn’t a copout answer. This is a play where Al Borges got everything he wanted and more from Nebraska. Nebraska, who had a player say they knew every play that was coming, did nothing to stop this play because of any tip or tendency. They stopped it because Michigan can’t get out of their own way. They can’t execute their most basic blocking scheme that they practice and rep more than any other. This points to youth, and this fails to a failure by the coaching staff to adequately teach these players to do one of their most fundamental plays. Both of those are under the execution umbrella.

And this goes beyond this play. This goes to the pass protection schemes. This goes to how I’ve seen veer option blocked. This goes to how every single run play pretty much ever this year is blocked. There are a few players that seem to “get it”, there are some that get it sometimes and not others, and then there are the young or inexperienced that clearly don’t. It’s a fundamental issue that isn’t play calling, it isn’t scheme, it isn’t about huddling or not huddling. It’s not about if you prefer certain screens (I’d like more screens), it’s not about play action or 3-step drops or hot routes. It is as simple as people continuing to fail at doing their jobs. That’s not just calling out the players; that’s also calling out the coaches for putting out a product, for not teaching their students, in a way that allows them to succeed. They are in positions to succeed, probably positions to the best of what they rep day in and day out in practice, but the mental aspect, the thought process, the confidence to know what they are doing without questioning it or doing it wrong is not there. And that is the major failure in this offense right now. This play only exemplifies that.