“The player development is the main thing I like (about Michigan),” Williams said. “You can see that they develop their players. They get them in the gym and they work them hard. And their hard work pays off.”
FWIW. Michigan doesn't seem inclined to get re-involved.
From Portage Northern.
"He's a hard worker, and he watched me and Tim (Hardaway Jr.) and Nik (Stauksas) put work in to become (first-round picks), and I'm just happy he's getting better," Burke said. "It's great for the program, too. It shows what type of program the University of Michigan is and the direction it continues to go in."
cumong man
"please don't get tackled from behind this t--dawwww"
so we've got that going for us
help i've been transported back in time to Jim Tressel's hiring help
oh my god the blinking goes up
See! It could be worse.
noon Wednesday if you're interested
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
[SITE NOTE: Due to a confluence of things including a long drive home, four overtimes, thrilling CONCACAF qualifier business, the Tigers, this post, and a desire to stab my eyeballs whenever I look at the tape, UFR is not quite done and will go up tomorrow.]
Fitzgerald Toussaint set a Michigan record for sustained futility on Saturday by running for 27 yards on 27 carries. Since 1949, no other back has gotten as many carries without gaining at least twice as many yards. Posterity demands that someone detail what happened.
A note: blame is apportioned. When things are designated playcall it's because I don't believe it's reasonable to expect Michigan to block player X, either because he's an extra guy in the box or he's tearing towards the line of scrimmage on the snap because he has no fear of a pass. You can adjust your personal indignation levels on this based on how reasonable you thought running into stacked boxes was vis a vis Devin Gardner's 13 YPA and constant turnover threat; I'm just trying to figure out how much of the run splat was preordained by playcalls.
Ready? No. I know you're not. But here we go anyway.
Play: Power O
Formation: Tackle over I Form H
Yards: -3
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 80% OL, 10% playcall, %10 TE/FB
Play: Zone stretch.
Formation: Tackle over I Form big
Yards: -3
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 30% TE/FB, 30% OL, 40% playcall
Play: Power O
Formation: Tackle over Ace H
Yards: 12
Why it didn't work:
Blame: Everyone is happy!
Play: Counter
Formation: Tackle over trips TE
Yards: 1
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 80% playcall, 20% OL.
[After THE JUMP: just don't click through. I'm sorry I even did this.]
Play: Tricky edge pitch
Formation: Tackle over I-Form
Yards: 1
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 100% playcall.
Play: Inside zone read
Formation: Pistol 2TE twins
Yards: 1
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 50% Gardner, 50% OL. (Eight in the box is OK since they are trying to option one off.)
Play: Zone stretch
Formation: Tackle over I-Form twins
Yards: 0
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 50% playcall, 50% OL.
Play: Iso
Formation: I-Form
Yards: 2
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 90% playcall, 10% OL.
Play: Zone stretch
Formation: WTF
Yards: –2
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 100% playcall
Play: Zone stretch
Formation: Ace 3-wide
Yards: 0
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 80% OL, 20% TE/FB
Play: Power O
Formation: Goal line
Yards: 0
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 50% OL, 50% TE/FB
(End of first half.)
Play: Power O
Formation: Tackle over twins H
Yards: 0
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 100% playcall.
Play: Power O
Formation: I-Form
Yards: –1
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 50% bloody fate, 30% TE/FB, 20% OL.
Play: Inside zone
Formation: Ace twins
Yards: 0
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 40% playcall, 30% OL, 30% TE
Play: Iso
Formation: I-Form
Yards: 4
Why it didn't work:
Blame: Ain't no blame on second and six. /highfive
Play: Zone stretch
Formation: Ace twin TE twins
Yards: 8
Why it didn't work:
Blame: we're cookin' now
Play: Power O
Formation: Ace twins H
Yards: 4
Why it didn't work:
Blame: this is almost like offense
Play: Zone stretch
Formation: Ace twin TE
Yards: 0
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 50% TE/FB, 50% OL
Play: Zone stretch
Formation: Ace
Yards: 3
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 100% OL, but amplitude decreased since this almost kind of worked.
Play: Power O
Formation: Ace H twins
Yards: 1
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 50% OL, 50% FB/TE
Play: Inside zone
Formation: Ace
Yards: 0
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 100% playcall
Play: Zone stretch
Formation: I-Form Big
Yards: –3
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 40% OL, 30% FB/TE, 30% playcall.
Play: Zone stretch
Formation: Ace twins twin TE
Yards: 1
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 100% OL.
Play: Iso.
Formation: I-Form
Yards: 2
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 100% playcall.
Play: Inside zone
Formation: Pistol 3-wide
Yards: 3
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 50% OL, 50% Toussaint.
Play: Iso
Formation: I-Form
Yards: 0
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 100% playcall
Play: Down G
Formation: Goal line
Yards: 0
Why it didn't work:
Blame: 100% OL
Ten points per play were awarded.
I'm impressed you got to the end of this. Hang in there, man.
I thought the same thing. Can he catch a 5 yard out route once? Boom he's a TE. 3 wide one TE base.
you know, i like this idea. he's supposed to be a great athlete for his size. i'm sure he could even catch a pass. hell, the bears threw passes to the fridge.
I agree with the "27 for 27 Never Forget" tshirt idea.
Does evidence of those counters mean that we will stop hearing that Borges never runs them? We don't block them for shit, but he calls them.
I also propose that we try to extend this to passing plays. When Gardner scrambles or is sacked, Borges has still called a pass. Someone might even be wide open, but we have no time to throw because our line is the worst any of us have ever seen. And because TV doesn't show us all of the routes, we never know. It just looks like a bad play.
...free 10 yards
hits the open linebacker and it turns into a pick 6!
C'mon Al (I mean burtcomma) .... put the keyboard down.
It's pretty well established that we're trying to fit the square peg in a round hole. What gives us the best chance to have a more potent offense going forward? Just revert back to a spread? Put Funchess out as a wide receiver and let Touissaint run in more open ground? I feel at this point, we know the OL is not good, Borges playcalling is suspect, the insistence of B Hoke manball is proving to be counterproductive. What in the opinon of the bloggers/readers is the solution for this year?
Since Sunday my view of the problem has moved from 80/20 playcalling/blocking to more like 50/50 in line with Brian's assessment of these 27 plays. Reading this post and looking at tape of other teams both running Power O, stretch, iso-it is not as hard to run those plays against 8 man fronts as it might seem on the surface. However, it is almost impossible to run those plays against any defense with this offensive line. The problems are never the same affect all of the OL, TEs and FBs (except Lewan). Poor angles, no push, mental errors. It also seems like sometimes our guys are late getting off on the snap.
Maybe this is 2008 again in terms of the offense and the coaches are going to keep calling the same damn plays regardless of whether it works. However, at least there was significant improvement in '09 but this offense seems like it could be even worse next year absent some huge positive surprises from the OL, TEs, FBs and QB.
Just kick me in the nuts next time, Brian.
Fire Borges
I realize the focus was Toussaint's carries, but it should include all tailback runs. Green had 3 carries for 1 yard, thus the tailbacks had 30 for 28.
Even ESPN did better with 30 for 30.
Also, asking a TE (essentially in name only) to block when he is a known liability in blocking should NOT absolve the playcaller of blame.
Including the twelve yarder
This means plays 11-27 were all 100% play call
going from 10 for 10 to 27 for 27, you really have to admire the the overall consistency.
I would argue he probably is smarter than you. We all get fired up about The Team, but lets respect these kids who represent us.
He has looked really slow and tentative on his few runs. Small sample size and all.
Once he saw how it was going I think he gets all the blame.
Obviously my lucky shirt stopped working on Saturday. Need a replacement.
Blue and maize shirt with the title across the chest "27 for 27. A Documentary by Al Borges" and maybe a picture of his face underneath
Great detailed breakdown of the running failure. After reading through the post, and the expert comments, I have a question for Space Coyote and the others who seem to have a high football IQ.
Is it possible that Devin is not allowed to audible out of a called run play when he sees a stacked box? It seems inconceivable to me that a college program doesn't have a simple run/pass check system in place. I mean, say what you will about Borges, the man is clearly not a moron, and he obviously understands that running into a stacked box is impossible, or at least not very likely to succeed. As such, I am forced to choose between one of two conclusions: either a) Gardner is given the ability to check out of plays, but for whatever reason did not most of the time; or b) Hoke has told Borges to run up the middle, regardless of the outcome, until the players get it right -- a sort of dogged determination/show of will kinda thing in which he's trying to build the OL experience for the future.
I know one thing for certain: when DG is on, he's very good, and if he could stop turning the ball over, and Michigan had even an average rushing game, the offense would be very hard to stop.
Thoughts?
Good analysis.....this pretty much matches up with what I was thinking while watching the game. Namely, this playcalling blows, and the line is suffering from a serious lack of talent. I was watching, thinking, "Okay, I know why Borges / Hoke is trying to do this.They're going uber-conservative on the road with a turnover-prone QB. But they can't do it, so they need to do something else."
The fact that they were unwilling to do something else, that means changes have to be made. Even with a top-quality OL (questionable if it's even possible with Funk's track record), this playcalling will not work against the better teams with smart DCs and quality personnel.
There has to be a motive at play, doesn't there? I mean, everything a play called does is to set up something, right? You show determination to establish the run to catch the defense being "nosey" and beating them with play action. What's befuddling, is that PSU started the game in a "run stop" set and really never left it. Right away, unfortunately, Borges calls a PA Pass, DG throws and ugly INT, and PSU scores quickly. I think Borges wanted to pass, but was torn between worrying about DG's INT problem, and his desire to keep PSU "in the box" to exploit the PA pass. Another INT, a sack fumble, a near miss, and one has to wonder whether Borges felt like he was choosing the lesser of two evils with the crappy running. DG did have 2 TD's to FUNCHESS and 2 to Gallon (and 2 that DF dropped), so Borges didn't TOTALLY go into a shell.
In the 2nd half it seemed like running DG loosened up the defense some, but it was obvious to me that DG (who was wearing a knee brace) looked like he was nearing the limit of his durability. What then?
Not to pull something from a writer talking about another sport, but during this year's NBA Draft, our favorite Grantlander Bill Simmons made an excellent point when the Pelicans drafted Nerlens Noel (only to trade him).
Great schools / teams / franchises have an IDENTITY. With the drafting of Noel, the Pelicans were going to play defense like nobody's business (see Thibs' Chicago Bulls teams recently). Oregon Football has an identity. The Patriots have an identity.
Right now, we don't have an identity, especially on offense.
The spread-to-pro transition is the cause for a lot of these ills. Borges/Hoke have spread personnel, but want to establish a POWER MANBALL identity. But, we're more successful with spread concepts. So, the brain trust wants to do A, but is forced to do B in order to have short-term success. Sometimes, you get 2011 Ohio State. Sometimes, you get 2013 Penn State.
The important thing is to believe in establishing that IDENTITY, come hell or high water. Hoke wants to turn this team into Alabama/Stanford. I'm not against that. Right now, we're caught between two worlds. Growing pains, friends, growing pains.
Id argue that the weighting is to low as it pertains to the failure of the playcalling. Specifically, with the run game being so unsuccessful thru the game and yet continuing to run the rock the probability of failure has to be greater. IE, heavier weighted rating for play calling.
A bad call worth 10% in the first quarter should be called at least 20% in the second, 30% in the third... So if it were a 50% play call fault in the first, in the fourth it would be 200%! Crap, I'm with you but my numbers are obviously off...
Gardner's 2 first half INT's?
They basically went in a shell and tried to let the defense and special teams win the game, which they obviously couldn't.
Not an optimal strategy, but good enough to win 75% of the time which is pretty good for a 2 point road favorite.
Gardner's interceptions came on 3rd and 8 and 2nd and 7. His fumble, the result of a sack, came on 3rd and 5.
Passing on obvious passing downs is going to result in a much higher turnover frequency.
Mixing in a few more passes on 1st and 2nd down probably would have given Gardner better looks and resulted in more yardage. Giving Gardner easier throws could only help with his confidence. Michigan left a lot of yards on the field by refusing to attempt some easy throws on first down.
Yeah, Michigan was a 2 point favorite on the road to a team with 20 less scholarship players, and lost. Perhaps if Penn State had 30 fewer scholarship players, Michigan might have won.
Why the eff does Michigan run the zone stretch? I have never seen itgo for a big gain ever. It takes coordination and good understanding of leverage to effectively run the play and I don't think the OL has that yet. At least with power you can run play action to cause some hesitation in the LBs unlike the stretch where they can flow immediately.
Sorry we cant seem to win the one on one battles, which doesnt really surprise me with the youth on the line. To keep trying when we are outnumbered and unable to win the individual matchups reeks of pure desperation or insanity. With perhaps the third starting lineup this weekend i'd guess we try the same running attack again, hopefully with better results. If this doesnt produce maybe then we will see a broader playbook. Unless of course desperation and insanity are once again the offensive philosophy and the beatings will continue. Personally i'd like to give the offensive line a chance, spread the field and let Gardner do what he's going to do through the air, good or bad. We have seen the 27 for 27 and it cant get much uglier.
Even our two senior tackles seem to get manhandled at the line. I don't understand. These guys have got size. May be they just lack technique and toughness at this point? Our OL better get better. Even going to more zone blocking will not help us much if the OL doesn't get tough!
I hope the staff can learn from it's mistakes and run what works. I've not freaked out yet but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried.
I really have no idea what would be a normal EV for playcalling, but if we say 1/3 good playcalls (not counted here), 1/3 even playcalls (no point) and 1/3 bad play calls, the EV would be 81. We ended up at 94, which I would put us at 1 full bad play worse than average.
I'm still not sure if I'm reading the scoring for playcalling correctly or not though.
In any case, I don't know that I consider the playcalling a major factor in the lack of rushing yards.
so much schadenfruede.
Brian is in his glory.
for me it's over.
that's all I have, but jesus this is getting out of hand, I can't wait for saturday just so we can stop hearing about PSU/27 for 27/tackle over/we finally lost so we can implode.
jdon
