Hokepoints: First Down and a Long Way to Go
One of the most frustrating problems with Michigan's offense is they appear to be burning a lot of first downs by running Toussaint into stacked lines. Whether it's zone blocked or man, they've been tipping it the same with the same results. The concept has been discussed on here and will be again until it stops; my purpose today is to add some numbers to that discussion.
Love Affair with 2nd and Long. Excising all the non-normal situations (4th quarters, burning clock, attempting a comeback, 2-minute drill at the end of a half) here's a a quick breakdown of playcalls this year on first down:
- 101 handoffs to running backs for 3.0 YPC and 6 TDs
- 28 passes for 10.7 YPA, one interception, and 2 TDs
- 20 play-action passes for 17.8 YPA, one interception and 4 TDs
- 17 options for 5.6 YPA and a TD
- 7 called Gardner runs for 2.7 YPA
- 7 wide receiver runs for 10 YPA
- 4 screens for 5.8 YPA
- 2 false starts
Like basketball the efficiency of the things you do goes down the more you do them, and the efficiency of the counters goes up. I don't doubt that the ridiculous numbers for PA passes above are because it's five times more likely to be a handoff.
Michigan's is not the only bad offense that does this. The thing that MSU was doing when they had Le'Veon Bell was running him into stacked lines again and again to open up the occasional big play for a receiver or tight end. This burned a lot of first downs and killed a lot of drives but when you just need 17 points to win you'll take a high variance in drive results. What made it worthwhile was Bell was one of the best backs in the country at getting yards after contact. If a safety came down to fill the hole Bell could still run (or leap) over that guy and thus set up 2nd and manageable. This year they don't have the OL or the RBs to do that, so they line up to pass on 1st down far more often.
Borges doesn't have the RBs or the OL to do that and haven't adjusted. Instead he's gone the other direction, selling out even further with the unbalanced lines, and running even more often.
- UFR database (through Minn) says…
| YPA, 1st Play of Drive | YPA, All 1st Downs | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Pass | Run | Total | Run% | Pass | Run | Total | Run% |
| 2008 | 7.0 | 4.3 | 5.3 | 63.2% | 6.1 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 64.8% |
| 2009 | 5.6 | 6.8 | 6.3 | 56.7% | 5.6 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 65.3% |
| 2010 | 9.2 | 6.1 | 7.2 | 63.1% | 8.8 | 5.3 | 6.4 | 66.7% |
| 2011 | 10.5 | 6.7 | 7.7 | 73.8% | 8.1 | 6.2 | 6.7 | 70.9% |
| 2012 | 8.6 | 5.7 | 6.6 | 70.9% | 10.0 | 5.1 | 6.9 | 64.2% |
| 2013 | 8.8 | 3.4 | 4.9 | 73.2% | 12.7 | 3.7 | 6.3 | 71.6% |
…that Michigan's drives are starting off with a whimper. If I take out 4th quarters and situations when Michigan is down more than two scores we're getting just 2.9 YPC on 1st down runs, which is over 73% of 1st down playcalls. But I showed the above because that's what Bill O'Brien was probably looking at when he and his coaches strategized for this game.
Let's play Being Bill O'Brien. This is how he responded. Here's the first play of the game:
[after the jump]
Michigan is shifting into its unbalanced formation; PSU already has 8 in the box, and all 11 players inside 10 yards. No guesses for what comes of this.
Here's the start of the next drive:
Michigan's unbalanced to the right; PSU has nine in the box. We run to the right. We get nothing.
Here's the next:
Again unbalanced. And there's eight in the box.
Next next next next next
Can you pick out the one above where Funchess burned them for a 59-yarder? Well yeah cause you can see the yard lines but anyway:
…they lined up in an Ace 3-wide with the twins side a stack—a passing look. PSU still ran a 4-3 against it because Michigan on 1st downs dur.
Can Michigan generate this response without bashing its head against a wall until opponents are just convinced we're insane? Yes. Those option plays mostly came out of shotgun/pistol formations and while they didn't work all the time they did generate 5.6 YPC despite running into lots of heavy stuff as well. That's not any better than what we were getting last year with the setup game, but right now we're looking up to last year.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^
As for maximizing the talent and success of our line, we would struggle in any formation. Also, at some point we have to just make the change from where we were (spread) to where we are going to be (Manball). Get it over with, deal with the speed bumps and move on. Otherwise, next year, when our line is not quite so young, we will have to endure another season of excuses (try are learning a whole new system).
October 15th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
Just wait until this coaching staff has a chance to work a bit more with the two young and inexperienced guards on the OL. Then, next year, we'll have two experienced guards and the blocking and running game will be much better -- just like last year . . . .
October 15th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^
The offenses job is to score 1 more point than the other team. In this new era of high flying offenses people seem to believe that unless a offense is putting up 50 pts, 600 yards and running 85 plays then they are a bad offense or outdated. Believe or not, there is more than one way to win football games. Most of the PAC 12 and BIG 12 believe in your way. That’s fine and is a viable option. But there are others that believe that pounding the ball, controlling the clock and protecting their defense is the way to win. This is also an option. Yes, I know Michigan hasn’t been successful doing it thus far, but that’s what they believe in. They aren’t failing because that’s the option they chose, they are failing because they aren’t executing for multiple reasons including the positions that the coaches are putting themselves in. If you want to see an offense that “scores in bunches” then you might want to pick another team to root. Because although you might see Michigan do that from time to time, their goal isn’t trying to go out there and score on every single play.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^
Yes, there are multiple ways to win football games.
But when the option you have selected is NOT WORKING, then you pick another option. I don't give a flying fuck about what people "believe in" if it's proven through multiple metrics that it's not working.
So yes, they ARE failing because they chose the option in which we suck.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^
No you don't reinvent the wheel. We are going to disagree but like I already said, you don't scrap it, you find a better way to do it. I do not agree with them coming out in heavy sets and trying to run the power play against 9 man boxes. That doesn't mean the power play doesnt work or as some brillant posters believe "under center" doesnt work. It means you put yourself in better situations to succeed running the play you believe in. If they come out and try to run the power play with a fullback and 2 TE's and don't punish the defense for loading the box they are going to get more of the same results. I am not denying that. But to throw their offense out the window and run a spread option is not the answer either. And if thats what you're looking for, please don't hold your breath.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^
Who exactly is calling for the spread option? Who? Anyone you've responded to? Anyone in this thread?
The staff has chosen to run stubbornly into stacked boxes despite total failure at doing so. I don't think we run power that well to begin with, and we REALLY don't run it well at 8 dudes within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. They "believe in" imposing their will on opponents when that's just not going to happen. It's not the '90s anymore when we could (usually) literally give the opponent our play calls and still run train.
Also, it's entirely possible we could run power at a 6-man box and still suck at it. Sometimes teams just suck at something, and it's up to the coach to "believe in" something else for the time being.
Borges is supposed to be a West Coast guy. What does that offense revolve around? Short passes to set up the run. Do we EVER do that? No, we only pass 37% of the time. That's ludicrous.
October 15th, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^
Who's calling for the spread? Why don't you try reading the post I was responding to in the first place? There's one person in this thread for you to go along with the other 75% of mgoblog is calling for it. You can't go 2 hrs on this blog with someone providing a chart or graph showing how much more effective the spread is.
I agree 100% that they are stubbornly running into stack boxes. No where have I have agreed with that approach.
West coast offense is short passes that give the WR the ability to run after the catch. Michigan's WR's usually have to fall, dive, jump, reach, etc for any pass thrown to them. Let alone the short quick passes that are thrown right to the other team.
October 15th, 2013 at 2:36 PM ^
I don't think you understand even a little what "spread" means. You seem to think it ONLY means an Oregon or Rich Rod-type option attack, which is about as inaccurate as you can get.
We only pass 37% of the time. 37%! And your "muh muh gardner sucks" quip near the end is just petulant whining to distract from the head-exploding stubborn asshattery exhibited by our offensive coaching staff. Gardner may be responsible for too many turnovers, but he's also the only thing keeping this team above water and he seriously balled out in that second half despite being in 3rd and long every goddamn time.
October 15th, 2013 at 2:59 PM ^
I am well aware of what spread means thank you. And I am well aware of the several different spread philosophies that includes multiple styles of running spreads and passing spreads.
I highly doubt anyone I have replied to is using the term "spread" in other way other than talking about a shotgun zone read spread attack.
If you've actually read anything I've said you would realize I have been calling for Michigan to spread the defense out.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^
two games, should RR abandon the spread and go to the Stanford type pro-style?
October 15th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^
The whole "MANBALL" meme has become worn out.
I don't agree with the way the offensive staff is trying to accomplish their power running game but the fact they want to be a power running team is not the problem here. They need to change their approach to being a power run team not revert to the spread option like many on this board are calling for. When Devin goes down with a season ending injury what do you want to do next? Force Morris into running the spread?
October 15th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^
Devin ran 27 times. Did you want him to run 40, 45 times? He's in a knee brace. He's getting up slow and looks like he's in pain.
Listen I agree 100% that Michigan is not having any success running the power play right now. My argument is that they don't have to do it the way they are right now. Going unbalanced, bringing in a fullback, and adding an extra TE isn't going to help their cause. Its going to make it worse. That will fly against MAC schools, Minnesota or Purdue.
But because that isn't working doesn't mean they need to scrap the whole idea of running a pro style power scheme from under center and go back to a spread. I agree they should use Devin's legs just like they have. Run him 12-15 times a game on a some inverted veers, draws, pistol read plays etc. Then add in the 5 or so scrambles on pass plays. But they need to lighten up their under center formations with more WR's and less fullbacks and tight ends. They need to get the 10th, 9th and 8th man out of the box. And they need to mix up the play calling on first down and hit some quick passes. Not once have they done a straight 3 step drop from under center. Why not?
The spread is ONE solution, not the only. And in my opinon going back to the spread will cause them to lose Gardner for the year, and set the program back another year in installing their pro system. Because whether you like or not thats where they are going and even if they did go back to a spread now. Next year we are having the same growing pains.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^
You're sugarcoating it on purpose and you know it.
Two of those wins came against legitimately terrible teams in UConn and Akron in which we were lucky to come out on top.
And the Penn State loss...its not that we lost, its how we lost. Somehow, with the ball at the Penn State 28 with a first down, with 3:10 to go up 7, we ended up losing. Mainly because our coaches decided to stop playing for the win.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
I cannot speak for him but I think the main sadface is because the same OL issues have been present all season (we accept this) but the coaches have not done anything to minimize them. Instead, they choose to run plays that highlight the problem. At some point people just reach their breaking point.
You might feel differently but, for me, winning is only one part of the enjoyment of watching the game. I like to watch good play, win or lose. And other than in the passing game, what consistent good play has there been in the running game to date? Gardner running is good but we all agree that there comes a point when Borges just can't run him anymore in a particular game. The problem is that Borges and Hoke want to be a power running team but the OL issues make it such that this is impossible this year (and next???). But Borges and Hoke keep pounding away to no avail. At some point, something has to give.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 3:32 PM ^
The Uconn and Akron games. Both those teams are getting bombed by EVERYONE they play, and Michigan barely beat each, probably should have lost to at least one. Once is an aberration, but they have played 3 pretty poor games against opponents they should handle. Yes, they should handle PSU, PSU got bombed by Indiana, who doesn't have the caliber of athletes Michigan does.
The O-Line has gotten worse every year since Hoke took over, despite his stepping up recruiting, they have shown zero improvement. The QB's haven't shown any development in that time period either, and Denard actually got worse when he came on. Hoke consistently makes mistakes with in game decisions, and is accountable for hiring Borges, who has been at best mediocre and at times an absolute train wreck calling plays.
A lot of the offensive struggles can certainly be placed on the O-line, but that's Hokes job, to see that the O-line performs. He might not be directly hands on, but he hires the guy who is, and whoever that guy is obviously needs to be re-evaluated, as they have been probably the worst unit on the field in most of Michigan's games, even with a surefire first round pick at left tackle! The fact is this team is about as bad as a 5-1 team can get, and while I certainly hope they can right the ship, I wouldn't be shocked if they have 5 more losses on the schedule.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^
I guess its debatable but, other than Lewan, I'd say the biggest weapons on offense are Gardner, Funchess, and Gallon (in that order). That being the case, Borges, Y U no play to the strengths? Y U no love the quick hitch pass against PSU in overtime? Y U no throw on first down?
At this pont, I don't think anyone has any real hope that the OL is going to go out and blast people off the ball. They haven't done so one this year. Not once. But that's okay! It really is okay. Some teams/players are better than others. But its time that everyone just accept this fact, move on, and figure out something that will work. Its okay to throw the ball more - just use high percentage designs. Short drops, shotgun formation, quick hitters, get the ball in the hands of the most deadly weapons! Its not rocket science.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
Guys that simply is NOT true. According to Hoke ""I've got a great offensive line coach. I've got a great offensive coordinator" so I guess it's just us who think this running into a brick wall thing is a problem.
Sadly I think Borges got high fives from our HC and not bitch-slapped behind closed doors on Sunday and that's what scares me the most.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^
Why do you think this?
October 15th, 2013 at 11:33 AM ^
Makes me feel like a sad panda.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^
honest question...
When the coaches look at the film though won't they look at it and say "gee...maybe we should run something different when the opposition has 20 people in the box?"
I mean doesn't someone have to pay the piper when the film is reviewed? Doesn't Hoke to Borges and say "yo big Al...all these teams are going to stack the box let's exploit that shit big guy".
October 15th, 2013 at 9:45 PM ^
Would this be the same film review they did after Akron and UConn?
I'm guseeing they've seen this show already. For some reason, they still think they can overpower it with redshirts.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
Wait, you mean you can run a two minutes drill at the end of the half? After Saturday I thought there was some kind of rule against that sort of thing. That, or perhaps the coaches don't understand that you don't really need a full two minutes to run a two minute drill.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:31 AM ^
1. Stop doing those bad things mentioned above.
2. Exchange the fullback for a WR (Funchess-Gallon-Dileo). Not every play (I'm not asking for a miracle), but, you know, sometimes. On First down.
3. Keep the damn tackles at tackle.
4. Instead of spending time NOT doing #3, spend that time adding in any one of the following for the sake of viariety on 1st down: a) a stretch play; b) trap play; c) Student Body Right; d) counter trey; e) any pass play.
5. In the offseason, ressurect Don Croyell and install him as OC. I think that this would be the best possible offense given Hoke's predilection for MANBALL, Devin Funchess' presence on the team, and the future where George Campbell and Drake Harris will be streaking down the field.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^
Seth, just wondering if you or Brian or anyone for that matter has charted the plays we run by formation. I re-watched the game last night (granted it was the 60 min BTN version) but within a drive I was pretty much able to predict the play based on formation including which direction. It seems to me under center = power run or long developing play action, pistol = read option and shotgun = pass or QB run. This obviously wasn't true all the time but by the end of the game I was getting pretty good at calling out the play based on formation. If I can do that from my living room, what are opposing D-coordinators doing? Anyways, would be interesting to see if any patterns emerge based on formation. Also, regarding the group of 8 screen shots, why doesn't Devin have the option to just take the snap and immediately throw it out to the WR. In the 3rd row down both times taking the snap and immediately throwing it to Funchess I believe gets you minimum 5 yards. Aaron Rodgers does this all the time. It's not the bubble screen Borges hates, you don't have to call an audible, the QB and WR just need to recognize the DB is 10 yards off. Its very low risk and an easy way to pick up yards and get guys out of the box.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
Ron Utah produced a formation chart in his Sept. 27th diary. Very informative.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:26 PM ^
Is it updated? If so I would love to see it as we were rediculously predictable based on formation versus Penn State.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^
but you are correct, if executed well, the initial yardage, and greater potential for yards after catch, is there.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
where do you come up with these miraculous statistics? Don't you realize that Football is all guts and odds.
Sincerely, AB
October 15th, 2013 at 11:44 AM ^
It has become glaringly obvious that we are not a good football team on offense. We can leave the defense out of this because we are servicable to decent on D and should improve with Jake Ryan returning at Greg Mattison improving the D as the year progresses (right?).
This is a servicable unit and that is more than we could say about 2008. We hope the line develops but have seen no reason to believe that they will. We hope Devin makes smarter decisions but we have no evidence to believe that he will. It seems unlikely based on Hoke's comments that we will abandon what we are running and go to a spread/option attack. So that being said, we have been prolific on offense and the emergence of Funchess as a WR has been a point of optimism.
Moving forward, I think we could easily employ more of the pistol formation and run out of the shotgun more. Many posts and evaluations confirm that it has been more effective. Being less predictable on 1st down and more variations out of our base MANBall formations. I understand you want to minimize Gardner's runs to avoid injury and avoid turnovers, but you need to utilize the strengths of the offense.
I think the coaches are at fault for employing too conservative of an offense and were hoping to "get by" Penn State and Indiana and open it up a bit against MSU as necessary. If we make a field goal, we are not going crazy this week and the coaches are empowered by their game plan working. It is a wakeup call that we need and we hoped that we got after Akron and UConn but clearly did not. Let's see what happens moving forward and I believe we are very capable of being a good team and putting this season on an upward trajectory. Go Blue!
October 15th, 2013 at 11:47 AM ^
All you have to do is look at the NY Giants. They have a QB, WRs and RB that are considered to be good if not great. They can't run. This is due to their offensive lines issues. The OC is still Kevin Gilbride who just a season ago led the Giants to their second highest scoring total in their franchise history. Surely it is not the playcalling that turns a good offense to a dud all of a sudden. Hoke & Co understand this. That is why they recruited heavily on OL the past few years. If you ask me, this is on Rich Rod.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:51 AM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 12:18 PM ^
Your alter-ego is showing.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:53 AM ^
Are you seriously blaming this shitty play-calling on RR??????????????????????
Can you read simple stats that have been proven of what works and what doesn't?????????
Or are you just a sheep who won't go against the grain???
October 15th, 2013 at 11:59 AM ^
Seeing many of your posts the last few days I must say your user name and picture couldn't be more perfect. I can picture Ari Gold getting all worked up and yelling exactly what you're writting.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
at least I am going full Ari Gold with merit...I would understand had we lost that game due to multiple 2nd half turnovers and constant blown assignments by the o-line...but the exact opposite occurred...this was all on Borges and Hoke, and for any of us to blame the kids for lack of execution is the shittiest cop-out I have ever witnessed on this board/the coaches
October 15th, 2013 at 11:56 AM ^
The Giants' issues stems from 15 interceptions from Eli Manning. Half of which stem from the receivers running the incorrect routes.
Are they 29th in the NFL in rushing? Sure. But they also have the fewest carries per game in the NFL.
The Giants don't run 30 stretch plays into a wall of defenders for 1ypc. They run it 16 times a game for 4ypc and let Eli slowly destroy them with turnovers.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:12 PM ^
Eli Manning is a statue.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
I still feel pissed as well because I have a good feeling the play calling won't change since it hasn't all year and most of last year
October 15th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
You run power blarghh.
It's not very effective...
October 15th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^
Al Borges seems set against dealing with reality: he doesn't have a good OL, he has two very good (if not great) receiving threats, and a very good QB.
What Seth's numbers and pictures show is that opposing teams can play the odds and keep the game close enough to win, because we just don't go away from tendency enough.
We've run the ball 256 times this season. We've thrown 153 times. We're throwing 37% of the time. 37 F***ING PERCENT!!! With Jeremy Gallon and Devin Funchess? Not to mention Dileo, Butt, Chesson, and Norfleet? That's criminal.
I know we don't have the best receivers of all time, but damn. 37% is pathetic. That's not balance. That's stubbornness.
If we want to be able to run the ball--and we clearly do--we need to pass teams out of these stacked fronts. Use short, safe passing routes to loosen the defense, and then run. We can't do it the other way around. We just can't.
Maybe it's the coaching, maybe it's that we're a young team, maybe it's the play-calling, but we simply are not capable of effectively running power on 1st down. So it's time to stop trying so much.
Funchess' success vs. Minnesota obligates Borges to use him more. He's a weapon; so is Gallon. USE THEM MORE. Defenses will adjust, but only if you make them. Then you can run.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^
the fact is most of those runs are by a guy who isn't built to run like a power back.
And for whatever reason, there is a reluctance to use anyone else either because they have no less effective (Derrick Green) or proticient in practice warranting PT during any game except the opener.
I see the reasonableness of argument from both sides about questionable playcalling and either youth, inexperience on the line preventing effectiveness in the run game. But when something isn't working, and your unbalanced line solution gets figured out, you need to compromise or face the heat that has emerged from this fan base over what was plainly on Saturday a depressing loss because victory was seen as being saved not grabbed. They handed that game to PSU, and not because of the kids.
You either trust them and show that trust, or you make excuses for not grabbing victory when the prospect is there.
Playing percentages means playing it safe, which doesn't mean you can't run just run out the clock by committing to victory by attaining a first down, and never having to kick a field goal, and challenge the confidence of your kicker, either by not going to him or then relying on him.
October 15th, 2013 at 4:53 PM ^
how useful this is but youre post got me thinking about the lack of balance in our play calling this year. The chart below shows proportion of running plays to total plays and YPC for the predicted BCS top 10 per Bleacher Report, plus Stanford. I still have no idea how to format here...
| BCS Ranking | Name | Rushing/Total Plays | FBS Ranking | YPC | FBS Ranking |
| 1 | Alabama | 53.6% | 66 | 5.38 | 19 |
| 2 | Oregon | 61.2% | 23 | 6.80 | 2 |
| 3 | Clemson | 56.3% | 46 | 4.00 | 85 |
| 4 | Florida State | 57.2% | 42 | 6.01 | 9 |
| 5 | Ohio State | 62.0% | 17 | 6.08 | 7 |
| 6 | LSU | 61.3% | 22 | 4.91 | 37 |
| 7 | Texas A&M | 53.0% | 77 | 5.48 | 16 |
| 8 | UCLA | 56.6% | 44 | 4.81 | 42 |
| 9 | Louisville | 52.7% | 81 | 5.08 | 31 |
| 10 | Baylor | 62.4% | 13 | 6.27 | 4 |
| 11 | Stanford | 62.4% | 14 | 5.10 | 29 |
| Average | 58.1% | 5.45 | |||
| Michigan | 62.6% | 12 | 4.06 | 80 |
Michigan runs the ball a bit more often than the BCS top 10 average on the same level as Oregon, OSU, LSU, Baylor & Stanford. However, our YPC is about 1.5 yds less than the top 10 average and only Clemson is lower. Take out Gardner's carries and YPC drops to 3.41 which would rank us 106th, between New Mexico State and Tulane. On a positive note our YPC is only 15 inches less that the FBS average.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:06 PM ^
37% .... it seems more like 3.7% Oh wait ... that the # of times, not YARDS ... OHHHH /s
Go Blue!
October 15th, 2013 at 12:14 PM ^
Comments