Playcalling
I was going to post this as a comment on another thread, but it got long enough that I decide to separate it into its own entry.
I've heard quite a bit of criticism about our playcalling against Illinois, and I think some of it is warranted - on the surface. But I think there's something that most people aren't thinking about.
As Michigan fans, we are used to competing for Big 10 titles on an annual basis. It has been a long, long time since our team was in analysis mode. What I mean by that is that this year, it's not about competing for the conference. That's a nice goal, sure, but the true aim of the coaching staff should be implementing the system that they believe will make us the most successful, and with as many freshmen as we have, that's going to take A LOT of teaching.
But back to the playcalling topic ...
Are the coaches being stubborn and running a lot of plays that probably aren't going to be successful? Sure, I don't think most of us will argue that.
But I think RR has made it more than clear that no matter how ugly it is, he's throwing us full-bore into the spread offense. He's not going to half-ass it this year and run a tiny section of the playbook, or a simplified version, in an attempt to go 8-4 instead of 6-6. We're going balls to the wall - he's finding out who can do what, what works and what doesn't, and he's not going to ignore the possibility of doing something just because it doesn't seem to fit our personnel.
I think RR knows that realistically, Threet isn't going to be successful as an option QB. So why are we seeing option pitches from him to McGuffie (two of which have resulted in fumbles)? Simple: He's finding out if Threet can prove him wrong. You might as well see if a player can do something before you dismiss it out of hand. He's already proven more effective as a runner than any of would have expected, and if RR believes that those plays are going to help the offense reach its maximum effectiveness (and obviously he does), he MUST find out if Threet can run it. Why is Shaw in as a lead blocker? Why is Moundros flaring out into the flat as a receiver? These are things that these guys have never been asked to do, at least not at the college level. Putting them in that situation isn't likely to result in anything positive - not right now, anyway. But what's the worst that can happen on that option play? We fumble, the other team recovers, and maybe it costs us a touchdown. The flipside? What if Threet shocks us all and runs the option beautifully? We've suddenly added an entirely new dimension to the offense, not just for the rest of this season, but possibly for the next four years. Again, as a coach, you find out if those guys can make those plays, because if they CAN ... well, then you're starting to figure out how to make your offense the best it can be.
If there's one thing that RR's track record demonstrates, it's that his transitions are ugly but ultimately successful. Go back and look at his first year at each school. Then look at the years right after.
Glenville College: 1-7-1 the first year, 5-5 the next, national title the fourth year. As OC at Tulane: 7-4 the first year, 12-0 the second. As OC at Clemson: 6-6 the first year, 9-3 the second. At West Virginia: 3-8 the first year, 9-4 the second, Sugar Bowl in his fourth year. There will be adjustments, but the coaches have to figure out what they have - and what those guy can do - and that takes TIME.
I'm not saying that I won't question anything we're doing strategy-wise. Like I said, there are clearly some things that have raised eyebrows, mine included. But you have to realize that each playcall, each substitution, etc., is not done in a vacuum where the only thing that matters is end result of that play, or winning that game - which is what most of us have become accustomed to. RR is thinking long-term, and there are going to be some very ugly situations and questionable (on the surface) decisions that are done with a lot more in mind than the average fan realizes.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:05 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 8:02 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 8:40 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 10:13 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 10:31 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 2:26 PM ^
I would be interested to see what Threet's completion percentage is on 1st down vs. 3rd down since so many of his attempts have come on 3rd and long. I'm not sure where you got 45% but it's wrong. Threet was 18/35 on Saturday and is 60/121 for the season, not to say that's much better. BTW,
Threet: 5.4 yards per attempt
McGuffie: 4.29 yards per carry
October 6th, 2008 at 10:33 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 10:42 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 2:16 PM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 4:47 PM ^
Actually, not so much about going to a bowl game, but I really want to see this team do no worse than break even or hopefully (and I still believe it can) go 5-3 in league play.
Its important that the program does not get kicked like a can by everyone in the league. I don't think 5-3 is out of the question either....keep alternating wins and then get on a mini streak when the PUs, NWs and Minnys with average, almost MAC-like defensive talent......i think the team can do it and I am seeing enough improvement where its not outlandish.
A winning league mark, given all the transition and bascially 11 new starters on offense, would be an accomplishment worthy to write home about.
I think its doable, and I dont care what bowl we land as a result.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:23 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 11:43 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 11:47 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 12:15 PM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 12:58 PM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 2:01 PM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 3:40 PM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 3:55 PM ^
There is no way that RR is somehow "sacrificing" 2 wins (or any wins) with bizarro, substandard playcalling to somehow install his offense in a bid for future glory. He, and every other coach and player, are trying to win the game in front of them, period.
If they are running plays that don't work in games, they most likely worked in practice. And he would run a Wisconsin ISO based offense if he thought it would win more games, which he obviously doesn't. (Even the play with Mathews lined up ineligible has some purpose in RR's mind, otherwise he wouldn't use it.)
Look, if something doesn't make sense to us, I guarantee there's still some reason for it. Might be a bad reason in our minds, but there's a purpose behind it in the coach's mind. And the purpose is always, always, always to win the game. Never to set up some future thing on the possibility that might help you later.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:48 PM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 4:11 PM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 9:35 PM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 9:43 PM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 10:23 PM ^
To follow up, let's take note of the fact that McGuffie was vastly more successful against ND than against everyone else we've faced. Against ND, he rushed 25 times for 131 yards (5.2 avg). Against our other four opponents, he rushed 59 times for 188 yards (3.2 avg). Why was he a full two yards better per carry against ND than against everyone else? ND was the one defense that played a base nickel. Everyone else is playing with seven in the box and trying to outnumber us at the point of attack. Against ND, actual holes were opened up because there were enough blockers to man up on everyone. Against the rest of the schedule, we're getting outnumbered at the line and McGuffie keeps meeting an unblocked defender in the backfield.
Our OL is struggling enough as it is. Asking it to take on stacked fronts is too much. It has shown again and again that it can't. If defenses are going to cheat up to stop the run on first down, it makes no sense to play into their hands.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:47 AM ^
October 7th, 2008 at 10:22 AM ^
October 7th, 2008 at 10:40 AM ^
To use some math: Saying that we averaged 5.6 yards per called pass play and 2.9 yards per called rushing play is misleading.
Only 18 of our 39 passes netted positive yardage - in other words, more than half our passing plays resulted in no benefit. If your goal is to avoid "2nd and 10", this, more often than not, would not have been successful.
We ran 31 times, 11 times of which we netted zero or negative yardage (again, pretty crappy). However, more than half the time, these plays advanced the ball. So, if your goal is to gain yardage on first down, despite both options being horrific, running the ball gave you a better chance.
Comments