"poor damn jibreel black" starts a new line at an unforunate point.

And wouldn't holding be easier to get away with in a short passing offense? You're only really grabbing them for a couple of seconds, it's hard to see, unlike a run play or slow forming pass play where you can see the guy being ridden.

Also-

 

Black is penetrating.

I think I saw that movie in a hotel once.

"Guys not named Black or Ryan got zero push".

"Ryan"? Or should it be Beyer?

In this play, they have 8 to block 4 rushers.  All 3 linebackers are watching the play happen.  They would not have made it to the QB on a late blitz, but if one or two did go, it may have freed up one of the front four.  They are not making a play from where they are watching. 

Crazy good break down of everything, Bye the way!

Seth in week 1 you did a play by play breakdown of who was on the field for each play.  Have you continued that elsewhere - I have not seen it on the front page for ND or Akron?

My biggest take-away is that the D-backs are a big part of this problem.  If they are max protecting, then no one should be open.  On way too many of these passes, there were guys wide open pretty early in the play.  You're just not going to get pressure when he can throw to his first read like that.

they have not earned the right to rush four.

I just find it hard to believe that we can't play tight man against the shit recievers Akron has.  Playing bend but don't break has been infuriating for many years now.  I remember when we had guys like Marlin and Leon and we would still play 10 yards off the los.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  Against ND, I totaly understand that gameplan, but against Akron, that is just not good.  Lb's have to be better in zone and man, but having 7 guys back there, and their crappy qb looking like Montana out there was just disheartening.

Playing tight man to man coverage would help our d-line out a ton. Why we don't do this is perhaps the most annoying thing. 

I thought Willie Henry also had a decent game.  Some four man combination of Henry, Clark, Beyer, Washington, Pipkins, and Black appears to be the best we have right now.  I, personally, think a lineup of Clark at WDE, Black at SDE, Henry at DT, and Pipkins or Washington at NT would work best.  

Other than obvious short-down situations it looked like UM had four DEs playing on the d-line  for most of the second half.   How can UM get any penetration giving up 40lbs to the 0-line?   

confirms are certain suspicions about the pass rush and the way teams scheme to prevent it and run their offense in the face of likely pressure. 

Akron scored 14 points on long drives and got a gift field goal based on a shanked punt that gave it great field position. The defense did an extremely good job in the red zone, stopping one drive with a  pick and then giving up a TD but after defending a first and goal at the one. That should be noted. The Alamo stand at the end speaks for itself. So, when Akron had first down  from point blank range, it scored once. Now, that is a defensive positive, which I have not seen mentioned or noted by anyone. 

The other point to be made about our criticism of the defense and its flaws, is the fact that while the coaches are trying to win, they are also trying to determine who will make plays when it matters, and that relying on gimmick plays doesn't help in that assessment especially in games like this. They are trying to build depth and develop guys while keeping focused and motivated. 

The offense in this game made the defense's job very difficult. They faced more plays and were on the field longer, especially in the second half. Now the defense has to get off the field on third down. And I don't recall seeing a stat on the Zips third down conversion rate. It seemed late, that they extended drives on first and second down, rather than doing so on third.

There are few tangible benefits to playing Arkon. One of those is, however, the ability to put your team under the microscope and see how it will respond and whether it can build the kind of effective cohesion and experience that will enable it to recognize formations and alignment in pressure situations and react as it should. I think Mattison is trying to see what he's got before he starts plotting for the conference season. 

Toward that end, they are playing many guys who may or may not play a lot in conference. But the idea is to build depth and provide experience. Using the Akron game for a rush four judgment isn't a bad idea, until it is. Again, however, when you play Akron, using wrinkles to beat it makes you look weak, just like complaining about penalties. 

One other thing: We really don't know whether the Zips qb is any worse than Western's starter or Central's or any other in the MAC, do we? If the guy makes plays and throws the ball well downfield, and he does it while gimpy and when his team needs a big play, then I think he's pretty good. So, why are we dismissing his talent to deliver the ball, as if he got lucky because the pass rush wasn't better? That happens in every game. 

We have focused on the big pass plays. And the adjustment that was made by Akron second half was the greater confidence going deep down the middle and sideline, picking on Bolden who got run by leading to the first score. That is what prompted all the deep stuff second half. 

Looking at it live and then seeing it broken down, makes me feel better about this defense because I don't really see the kinds of major problems we all projected postgame. We all get that the pash rush isn't elite and there are lots of young guys on the line trying to fit in. This defense misses its playmaker, which will make it better. 

The truth is, the performance Saturday was poor at best. I think was a team effort in that regard, in every area of the game, not just pass rush. There is a trend of Mattison's team at Michigan which was also confirmed, his team grinds in the red zone and makes plays. Let's not forget that. 

I thought the rush was much better in the first half than in the second.  What's striking to me is that watching that film, you don't get the sense that Akron was able to move the ball at will.  Other than a few big plays, they really weren't that effective.  Of course those few big plays earned them 24 points.

At this point, I have to say I am disappointed in the coaching staff.  The whole "Inside and in front" mantra is great in theory, but if you're being so conservative you are allowing long catches over the middle (one for a TD, and two that set-up scores in this game) then your strategy isn't working.  That opened-up a couple of 1-on-1's on the outside.  In Lewis' defense, that was a perfect route and perfect throw; in Taylor's defense...I can't defend him.  That was crappy coverage.

Athleticism isn't the issue either.  Taylor has been electronically-timed in the 4.4 range.  It's technique, hips, and awareness.

There are synergistic problems here:

• Lack of bump-and-run coverage means the WRs always have clean releases; this makes defending short routes very, very difficult.  This clearly is the Michigan strategy: we'll give you those dink-and-dunk plays but won't allow you to have anything over the top.  The problem with this is that it gives your pass rush NO chance to sack the QB, and asks an awful lot of your LBs in coverage.  Our LBs blew at least three coverages against Akron.
• Our "bumps" are usually re-directs inside.  They occur about 5 yards off of the LOS.  And, actually, they seemed to work pretty well in this game.  But we don't do it enough, IMO, and I'd prefer to see more bumps at the LOS.  Why?  When you're bumping 5 yards off, that means the receiver has already accelerated and you haven't started to back-pedal (you can't back-pedal and maintain leverage for a bump).  This means that if the bump isn't completely effective and the receiver gets by, your hips are square to the LOS and YOU ARE SCREWED.  I'd prefer to see more bumps at the LOS.
• Too many stunts and twists.  Michigan uses stunts and twists on nearly every passing down.  There are a few problems with this: 1) The O-line is ready for it since it's coming so often. 2) Stunts and twists usually take more time than just beating your man and going straight to the QB.  3) We're not very good at executing them.  This means our loose coverage has to wait for a slow-developing pass rush...that's a bad combination, IMO.
• Taylor and the LBs (esp. Bolden) had terrible coverage.  Taylor got picked on early and often, and he blew it.  He looked excellent against better ND WRs, and just did not show-up for this game.  Despite being one of the fastest players on the team, he got beat repeatedly and just didn't appear to be ready for this game.  The LBs didn't get enough depth in their drops or maintain their lanes.  Bolden specifically cost us the first TD and a long pass that set-up another score.  Bolden is ridiculously athletic; this is just an awareness/technique issue.  But will it be fixed? 
• The D-Line isn't getting it done.  In order for this team to win the B1G, we need better production from our front four.  Clark isn't getting to the QB or keeping contain.  Black is getting some inside pressure but not finishing.  Beyer is, IMO, clearly our best pass-rusher, and he's a LB.  I actually think Ojemudia is better than Clark.  On the inside, Black is only guy even sniffing the QB, with QWash, Pipkins, and the Wormley/Godin combo all accomplishing exactly nothing.
• We're not very good at blitzing.  Mattison isn't calling more blitzes because we can't execute them when he does.  Brining a fifth rusher seems to be an exercise in futility, and usually just leads to an easy completion.  When we bring six or seven, we get some pressure, but not the jail breaks we need to produce sacks.

Here's the bottom line: This defense has problems at all three levels.  There is nothing Mattison can do to eliminate those problems with scheme.  At this point in the season, I would have to say--rather surprisingly--that our secondary is our best unit in the passing game.  I would like to see more responsibility given to the CBs and I would like to see more blitzing by the LBs (they have to learn how to do this).  When Ryan comes back, I think we need to move Beyer back to the D-Line on a full-time basis, even though he is clearly out-playing Gordon at this point.  I agree that we need to keep our NTs in the game, but they aren't getting it done.  If Pipkins can't control his weight and pad level, he's going to be a bust.  He just does not produce.

The good news is that I believe Wilson and Gordon are playing pretty well.  Avery would be better used at nickel or as an extra safety when we roll Gordon into the box.  Trying Dymonte Thomas at the nickel seems like a good idea, but if he can't cover than that's trouble.

My conclusion: this defense is just not very good against the pass right now.  Until we do a better job of winning the 1-on-1's on the D-Line, blitzing, improving our LB coverage, and avoiding brain farts (Taylor), we are susceptible to getting beaten in the air.  I'd like to see more tight cover four, putting the pressure on our CBs and safeties to get their jobs done, and more blitzing and better depth from our LBs.  For the D-Line, less stunting and twisting and just beat your damn man.

I think what this post needs, even though it is already excellent, is a chart.  It would be good to know how many snaps each guy saw, how many blockers were kept in each play, how many rushers Michigan sent, etc.  You cite one bad Pipkins play but I thought he had some good ones in limited time.  I'm curious how Henry did or how Washington did when he was in there. 

If everyone is going to max protect our 4 rushers and play "dink n dunk", our DBs need to play tighter coverage. No pressure + soft zone = lots of completions.

I totally agree with the general findings here, but what drove me crazy watching this game was that despite everything, at no point did anyone not named Jibreel Black just hulk up and "make a play".  And as we've seen, guys like Clark are kind of useless in the run game, so if he isn't going to beat a below-average MAC tackle and a chipping RB, I don't see much of a reason to expect him to contribute during the conference slate.

During one of Hoke's coaching clinic tours, he kept bringing up his preparation mistake with the 1998 team, and the result against Syracuse. Basically the point was, everyone needs to practice the fundamentals. Mattison seems to be repeating that in his press conference. The players seemed so eager to learn that he accelerated the installment of technique to the detriment of fundamental importance. Now I don't know what it takes to install more LB blitzes, but when the offense is only putting three guys out to catch covering them with five players and sending both LB's seems to be something that needs doing. It also makes me think that if you can trust your front seven to be gap sound on every play there really is no reason not to hop them up on goofballs. That said, I have faith that progress will be made this season. And the bye weeks come up early this year, so I am ready to just think about U Conn from this point forward.

coverage in the secondary has been severly effected by the loss of Jordan Kovacs from last year's team and Courtney Avery this year due to injury.  Kovacs allowed Mattison to be more aggressive in coverages and blitzes last year.  I think they were/are molding Avery to be that reliable guy in the back of the defense for Team 134.  I hope Courtney's return makes eveyone in the secondary better.