Film Breakdown: Michigan Run Game vs MSU
For the sadists out there, I took a look at Michigan's run game vs MSU in quite a few film breakdowns on twitter.
Solace for no one, but my opinion nonetheless:
After re-watch, I'm less disappointed in Michigan's plan to attack MSU. I think formationally, personnel, and play scheme given their base was mostly good.
What I disliked was how they adjusted their plan in-game. Should have used more zone (split to take advantage of MSU exchanging End/LB, and Stretch); should have attacked boundary more, especially in unbalanced; should have attacked the edge more with sweeps and swings. Those things could have opened up the run game quite a bit and really took pressure off Milton. That doesn't need to happen in the form of Run-run option, or multiple reads. You can block the end man and still execute these traditional type "old school" schemes (there are downsides to the new schemes too, which is why teams don't run them every time).
Eventually, Milton will have to prove he can hit downfield throws, but I think there are other elements of the attack that Michigan could have leaned on to get there in this game.
November 3rd, 2020 at 10:24 PM ^
Seems like we missed a ton of blocks and our center and guards got beaten by their DTs often.
November 4th, 2020 at 12:40 AM ^
What’s so puzzling about this is that after hearing about “speed in space” for two years we still seem reluctant to use that speed—whether with receivers or RBs—where its benefits are realized; i.e., you’re wasting Corum and Charbonnet’s speed by running up the middle to no effect.
November 4th, 2020 at 7:40 AM ^
Breakdown=Run right, that worked, but lets just keep running into the middle which didn’t work. Never again to use our speed on the outside. I don’t know that I’ve ever saw a less inspired group or gameplan in my life. I won’t speak ill of Milton because he was one of the only players out there who gave his all. Coaches included.
November 4th, 2020 at 12:18 PM ^
Philosophically my question for the board is it better to pick a back and give them 10,15, 20+ carries a game or rotate the bench 4 deep and give each guy 4-6 carries a game? I'm really torn on this and I look at other really successful teams (ie-Bama and Najee Harris) and they seem to go with a lead horse. I know we have a deep and talented RB room and we want to get them touches. The Minnesota game showed that. I suspect recruiting promises were also made that are trying to be fulfilled.
But, do we really have a meritocracy in the RB room?
November 4th, 2020 at 3:36 PM ^
Pretty much agree here. It's too spread out for sure. But it's also a challenge when a lot of your best players are all RBs. It's hard to exclude any of Corum, Charbonnet, or Haskins. I wouldn't go any deeper than 3 though, because when it gets spread out too much, you lose rhythm and focus. Look at the top ten teams -- does anyone utilize 4 or 5 RBs during a game? Nope.
November 4th, 2020 at 2:05 PM ^
I was thinking Reggie Bush with better vision and balance but then I might be Fred Jackson but more hyperbolic.
November 4th, 2020 at 2:29 PM ^
After re-watch, I'm less disappointed in Michigan's plan to attack MSU. I think formationally, personnel, and play scheme given their base was mostly good.
Great! I'm sure losing a 1st year coach with a far less talented team at home was just a fluke and we can still expect great things from Michigan and Harbaugh this year!
November 4th, 2020 at 5:23 PM ^