Important Things About South Carolina Comment Count

Brian

So, after shenanigans—there are always shenanigans—Michigan lands in the Gruesome Running Back Leg Injury Bowl against South Carolina. Appropriately, the game will be played in a pirate ship.

A new opponent requires knowledge. Here is the knowledge about South Carolina.

Haunting various dreams for the next month

hi-res-6703490_crop_650x440[1]

like Will Gholston, except good at football, so not like Will Gholston

Hey look it's Jadeveon Clowney, a 6'6", 260-pound defensive end with the kind of size/speed combo that has made him so patently unfair in college from day one that the only comparison you can make is with Adrian Peterson, who doesn't even play on the same side of the ball. Clowney's coming off a 4.5 sack performance against Clemson, leads the nation with 13 of those, and has hit 21.5 TFLs. Nobody approaches him and says "lol you name clowney."

Clowney's parents should have kept changing his name to something more outlandishly mockable with every inch he grew, just to see if anyone would bite on "I have a butt on my face Clowney." No one would have.

Unsurprisingly, over a sack per game by that guy is a good head start on lots of sacks in general—South Carolina is fifth nationally with 3.3 a game. Nobody else leaps off the page but that's actually a testament to South Carolina's pass-rush depth. The next three guys on the sack list have 5, 4.5, and 3 sacks. This isn't that impressive… until you look them up and find out they're all defensive ends. Which means that from two-ish positions on the field—I bet at least one of those guys plays DT on passing downs—South Carolina has 13 and 12.5 sacks. Put another way, Michigan's entire team has 6.5 fewer sacks than South Carolina's DEs*.

So at least NFL scouts are happy with the matchup of Lewan and Schofield versus those guys.

*[Not entirely fair since Michigan faced 294 passes to South Carolina's 342, but… yeah still pretty much fair.]

Haunting various dreams last month

That would be the aforementioned gruesome leg injury to Marcus Lattimore, whose knee ligaments had a suicide pact gruesomely consummated in the Tennessee game.

The downgrade in the run game was severe and immediately apparent. Backup Kenny Miles came in to grind out 34 yards on 10 carries—2.5 YPC worse than Lattimore's efforts—against the Vols. The next week against Arkansas Miles and Mike Davis combined to average 3.3 YPC. After a breather against Wofford, the pair split carries against Clemson for 3.1 YPC.

Lattimore had not been astounding before the injury, FWIW. He had a couple of Toussaint-like lines against LSU (13 carries for 35 yards) and Florida (3(!) for 13), and only cracked 100 yards against Vandy, Kentucky, and Georgia. Issues with South Carolina's run game seem systemic.

COACHES WANT TO BE SPIES

A8f23hXCYAAT0l0_medium[1]@ Right: Thompson is apparently evangelical.

This will sound familiar: South Carolina announced that backup quarterback Dylan Thompson would start against Clemson one hour before the game last weekend, rendering headlines like

Connor Shaw Is the Key to the South Carolina-Clemson Game

…teeth-gnashingly frustrating for blog folk. Shaw had been fighting foot/ankle injuries that sapped his mobility for much of the year and should reclaim the starting job with a month to heal up.

Thompson did put up 310 yards passing, 3 TDs, and an interception while also picking up 73 yards on the ground (of which he gave back 35 on sacks), so if Connor Shaw struggles early you know the OBC is just itching to swap quarterbacks.

Shaw has not given much indication that he will as long as he's healthy. Michigan's defense is good but it's not at the level of LSU and Florida, and those are about the only defenses to give South Carolina much trouble this year. Oh, and Vandy. Right.

I learned it from YOU, dad

If you have not watched Carolina play this year it may surprise you to know that the Gamecocks have moved to what is pretty much a full-on spread offense with QB running and whatnot. Shaw and Thompson have 118 non-sack rushing attempts between them, many of them on old-timey zone read pulls when defenses sell out on Lattimore or Guy Who Isn't Lattimore.

No, this has not prevented them from finishing 12th in total defense, 15th in rushing D, and 13th in scoring defense. Yes, it is a crazy old world when Steve Spurrier is piloting a spread offense and winning with defense.

Further upping the sense Michigan is playing a weird alternate universe version of itself: Ace Sanders is a Gamecock Jeremy Gallon, except way better on punt returns. He's a slot dude, like all South Carolina receivers, and is a frequent target on screens. About which more later.

South Carolina practices are races to the quarterback

So I'm pretty sure the Gamecock offensive line is a shambles. There's the Lattimore numbers, which are depressing against superior defenses and grindingly okay against the Vandys of the world, where he'd pick up like 4.8 YPC because he gets one or three after contact every time. Without him the Gamecocks are a team that rushes for 4.1 YPC against Wofford.

Now add in the OL yielding 2.9 sacks a game on a relatively modest 329 attempts and this is not a good offensive line. It is a very bad offensive line, which helps explain why…

The Gamecock passing game is a betrayal of everything Steve Spurrier has ever believed in

Ace Sanders Georgia v South Carolina N1is2qWQmo3l[1]

Gamecock WRs: shorter than cornerbacks. Which cornerbacks? All cornerbacks.

Here's every attempt from the USCe-Missouri game:

Purdue. Before Lattimore's injury he was Carolina's leading receiver with 26 catches for 173 yards; Miles has 16 more catches. The top three receivers are all 5'9". That clip reel has about three passes past ten yards and given the YAC machines these guys are that is a season-long trend. The leading receiver, Bruce Ellington, is averaging about 15 yards a catch.

The two tight ends are frequently featured. Justice Cunningham is the large guy you see catching a half-dozen dumpoffs in the clip reel above; South Carolina will also go to Rory Anderson in the redzone—five of his 13 catches are touchdowns.

It works well enough, though: Spurrier's dink and dunk is 21st in passer efficiency. They spread the ball around, get lots of yards after the catch, and have kept the interceptions that plagued Stephen Garcia down.

Men who might tackle Denard Robinson

If Michigan can get to the second level, the guy most likely to be making the stop is fifth-year senior Shaq Wilson, who's a 5'11, 226-pound WLB sort who leads South Carolina in tackles. #2 is safety DJ Swearinger, which may or may not betray a tendency to get blocked on a second level that the defensive line covers up frequently.

This is probably not thecase. South Carolina is 15th nationally despite facing an absolute ton of rushing attempts. On a YPC basis they are better than OSU by 0.4 yards and better than MSU by 0.2 yards. They are essentially equivalent to Notre Dame, who Michigan did actually run on some—with Denard Robinson playing QB.

The over-under on Thomas Rawls YPC is set at one.

Well what about the air?

More plausible. Michigan's pass efficiency D slots in just behind South Carolina and I think we know Michigan can be had. The Bray went nuts against them with 368 yards on 43 attempts, 4 TDs, and one INT. On the other hand, Aaron Murray had 109 yards on 31 attempts and an INT, Tajh Boyd 183 on 24 attempts and a 1-2 TD-INT ratio. 

As someone who saw the Bray live in a game where Jarvis Jones was made to not exist, I think that game does indicate that if you can protect your quarterback the secondary will yield open guys and chunks of yards. Every time you drop back, though, you're playing with fire, as that clip above demonstrates. Sooner or later I have a butt on my face is going to get you.

If Michigan can move the ball against this defense it's going to be great news for Mike Schofield as Michigan's left tackle next year, because Lewan will take the money and run after sending his stock skyward. Also everyone will all be like WHERE WAS THAT AGAINST OHIO STATE because I tell you what running up the middle on third and short is going to have the same result.

Off the cuff first impression

10-6 South Carolina.

Comments

GoBlueInNYC

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:38 PM ^

I think realistically that Borges can be blamed for 1.5 losses (in as much as one person can be blamed for a football team losing a game).

Alabama was clearly the better team. Borges shares no special blame for that loss.

The air raid experiment against ND made sense going in, given ND's weak and injured secondary paired with a strong front seven. But the adjustment to a run-first offense and the abandonment of that adjustment is on Borges. I give him a 0.5 credit for that loss because Denard's complete lack of ball security in that game is on Denard, but Borges probably should have not been dialing up nearly as many pass plays as he did.

The Nebraska game is on Hoke. The kind of decision to play Bellomy in the event of a Denard injury is exactly the kind of high-level team management that is the direct responsibility of the head coach. (Also, Nebraska is a good team; there is absolutely no guarantee that Michigan wins, even if Denard doesn't get injured or Gardner takes over at QB.)

The OSU loss is directly at the feet of the guy who went into a nonfunctional shell after a successful first half. The D were stout against OSU's O, but Michigan's O couldn't muster 6 points in the 2nd half after 21 points in the 1st. That's a function of an easily stopped, very predictable, vanilla offense that hasn't been able to run the plays that were being called for two straight seasons, as well as deciding to essentially bench the player responsible for nearly all offensive success the team has had for three years.

I don't agree with a lot of Brian's opinions when it comes to Michigan's offense. I'm not the Denard apologist Brian tends to be, nor am I quite the Debbie Downer he is regarding Gardner's performance. But Borges absolutely shares the blame for Michigan's offensive struggles over the past couple of seasons. I'm just hoping that things sort themselves out as Hoke's recruits start playing, but I'm not sold on Borges-as-offensive-genius by a long stretch.

GoBlueInNYC

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^

The run-first offense was working, but Borges abandoned it to go back to his original game plan that wasn't working, is what I meant.

I understand why Borges wanted to throw going into the game, given ND's strengths (strong front seven that's good against the run) and weaknesses (injured racked secondary that's soft against the pass). But then that plan wasn't working so they tried running for like a quarter, and were having success. But then the run-first plan was abandoned and they reverted back to Borges' original game plan of throwing.

Basically, Borges initial strategy (throw) didn't work so he tried something different (run) that worked, but he reverted back to his original, non-functioning game plan (throw). Even when he was having success doing something different, he still reverted back to his original plan.

EDIT: Just re-read my original comment. I meant that the adjustment to a run-first offense was a good move, but that Borges' mistake was then moving away from the run to throw again. Sorry, the initial play-calling adjustment to run the ball was good. The adjustment back to passing was not.

imafreak1

December 3rd, 2012 at 2:03 PM ^

I think you probably need to review the game again.

Michigan came out with a run pass balance that trended pass maybe a little pass heavy. They were probably "taking what ND gave them." Then Denard threw INTs on several consecutive pass attempts to end the half. The second half was dominated by the run, until Michigans final possession when the clock was a factor and they were down two scores. The clock was clearly against them at that point since they didn't get the ball back at all.

Blue boy johnson

December 3rd, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^

I think you need to re-watch the ND game. ND never stopped M in the second half. Denard fumbled the ball away once around the 10. On M's other two drives Denard drove them down the field but they had to settle for FG's.

After ND went up 13-3 with under 7 minutes to go in game, Borges threw the ball more, but it was effective, and time was of the essence

GoBlueInNYC

December 3rd, 2012 at 2:49 PM ^

You may be right, and my memories of that ND game may be distorted by an inaccurate MGoNarrative. And I'm in no rush to revisit that game, to be honest.

But my general sentiment toward Borges remains the same. I don't hate the guy the way a lot of people around here seem to, but I'm far from impressed by him and I think his bad game planning and play calling has cost Michigan some wins over the past couple of years.

M-Wolverine

December 3rd, 2012 at 3:54 PM ^

Just look at the box score-

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=322660087&period=0

 

Edited- because copying the drive results is going to distort the whole thread, so deleting.
 
Our two second half drives before the last running out of time one consisted of 8 rushes and 2 passes, and 11 rushes and 2 passes.  Ended by a fumble and a FG, respectively.

chitownblue2

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:47 PM ^

If Denard cannot throw, what do you want him to do on the field for 90% of the snaps?

It can't be at RB, because he can't block.

It can't be at WR, because he can't block.

Do we just give him the ball every single time? Or only run plays in which we either give him the ball, or decoy with him?

InterM

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^

Since you asked, I'd like him to be in a position where (i) the ball ends up in his hands a good percentage of the time, and (ii) the defense is concerned that the ball might end up in his hands the rest of the time.  Here's the amazingly creative thing Michigan can do to compensate for Denard's lack of blocking:  put another back in the backfield with him who can block.  It actually is possible to have Hopkins or Smith in the backfield with Denard at RB -- see Iowa (and even OSU) game film for examples.

chitownblue2

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^

OK

And giving him the ball that often solves the predictability problem?

Look - I think we should have called more of the "using him as a decoy" stuff we did against Iowa, and I don't think Borges is blameless. But you can't put him on the field, routinely, at a position that is not QB, and not face the "but he can't block" problem. Again, unless you just always give him the ball.

InterM

December 3rd, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^

where Denard running the ball was unpredictable and unexpected.  That must've been the same games where our OL and running backs were so effective, but I can't seem to remember those either.

Simply stated, Borges is way overthinking this.  It's college football -- put the ball in the hands of your playmaker and watch him make plays.

Harperbole

December 3rd, 2012 at 8:18 PM ^

I can't speak for anyone else, but my beef with Borges has been apparent inability to anticipate and/or identify weaknesses in opposing defenses efficiently with regularity against upper tier defenses. There will undoubtably be instances where a blitz will put Denard's inability to block to the forefront, but if Borges is able to diagnose these instances at a respectable rate there will be successful results, likely for big gains because of the space said blitz would open in addition to the occasional sack. Denard's skillset would in some ways limit the offenses playbook, but I find it difficult to believe that there isn't a way to manage the risks involved and get both players on the field in a way that would lead to a positive net result.

GoBlueInNYC

December 3rd, 2012 at 2:52 PM ^

But compensating for Denard's inability to block by putting in another RB who can is putting the offense at a disadvantage. Basically, if you're running a play with Denard on the field in which he doesn't get the ball and is not used as a decoy, you're basically running a play with 10 players.

ca_prophet

December 3rd, 2012 at 5:13 PM ^

... Denard and Toussaint is very different from Gardner and Denard.  (If I'm SC, I make Gardner keep it and hammer him; he's a good scrambler but if he carries 20 times on designed runs, we'll lose.)

Denard also isn't much of a decoy for the passing game - we can't go max protect with him in the game, and I've seen nothing to indicate that he can run anything but a flare or screen.

The real problem is that there's virtually nothing Borges can call that we can reliably run-block without the threat of Denard's arm *and* legs.  If he can't throw by the bowl game, we will have to pass to set up the run, and Denard's just not much use then.

borninAnnArbor

December 4th, 2012 at 7:01 AM ^

I am wondering what kind of job Borges will do given the amount of time he has to prepare. I fully expect that he will have a great plan in place, but I also expect that he will nave no usable plan B if plan A doesn't go to plan. I think I am going to start calling him "No plan B Borges". Or maybe work on it a bit to make it more creative.

BornInAA

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^

Hard to tell with these SEC teams.

I thought we would get crushed by a #9 3-loss Gators in 2008.

I thought we would beat/be competitive with a #22 4-loss MSU in 2011.

Ron Utah

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^

This is going to be a very, very tough game for us.  While only Ohio and 'Bama were able to move the ball against us consistently this year, the Gamecock offense has been able to slice-up some pretty good defenses.  I don't think we hold them to 10 points.

I think we'll need to score 28 points to win this game, and I don't think our O-line is good enough to get us there.  If we can't create two turnovers on defense, we are in big trouble.

chitownblue2

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^

I like that the board is setting up Borges for failure here. Clearly, if he can't score on a top 10 defense while lacking an OL and a RB, he's an idiot!

GoBlueInNYC

December 3rd, 2012 at 2:57 PM ^

As I poorly articulated earlier in the thread, I don't hate Borges as much as most people around here, but I'm not a big fan, either.

Just curious, aside from thinking he's the favorite scapegoat around here, what are you opinions of him? Do you think he's a good OC after the past two seasons? Jury is still out with the remnants of Rodriguez's offense on the roster?

chitownblue2

December 3rd, 2012 at 3:10 PM ^

I think he's a good OC. The only time I've truly gotten aggravated was with his 2nd, 3rd down & short playcalls in the 2nd half against OSU. If I recall, he called 7 runs on 7 plays. Probably needed to get a little more creative.

GoBlueInNYC

December 3rd, 2012 at 4:06 PM ^

Not trying to argue, I'm legitimately curious (MGoBlog gets very echo chamber-y, so counter points are always interesting), what have you seen from Borges that he's a good OC?

One thing I've learned from the Rodriguez years is to not put too much stock into how a team looks against weak opponents. And I'm not sure I've seen anything from Michigan's offense against good opponents the past couple of seasons that's terribly inspiring. (Even in wins: ND in 2011 was a lot of luck and late breakdowns by ND's D, 2011 was a particularly weak year for OSU, VT was a defensive/special teams victory, I'm not sure Michigan really beat any good teams this season other than NW, etc.)

I didn't follow Borges before he moved to UM, and I don't really remember any of the teams that he coached for before SDSU (who were good, from what I remember). I just find it a little disconcerting how much he's bounced around in his career, and I'm not sure how much stock to put into what he's done at UM so far given the personnel he has had.

unWavering

December 3rd, 2012 at 3:11 PM ^

I'm not chitownblue2, obviously, but my stance is similar to yours.  I do think the jury is still out on whether or not he can get the job done.  I want to see what he can do with a line of maulers, Shane Morris, and Derrick Green in the backfield.  My guess is that there won't be nearly as much griping if/when that happens.

YoOoBoMoLloRoHo

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^

If or when he adds 10+ lbs and combines with a bull rush, he will be absolutely unstoppable as a junior.

Now the guy just hurdles, spins and splits tandems on a regular basis. Taylor has a huge challenge.

No one ever called him Tom Clowney on a recruiting trip.

dahblue

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:36 PM ^

Everyone's so negative!  C'mon now...Michigan has a pretty good record, historically, against the SEC (23-7-1).   We didn't have too much trouble the last time (dark era omitted) we faced a vaunted SEC team, beating up Tebow and Co.  We'll be just fine (unless we run Denard and Rawls into the scrum all afternoon).

Michigan4Life

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:45 PM ^

Everything that I've been hearing is he would have been a #1 overall pick if he was eligible for '13 draft, but he's pretty much a lock to get drafted at top 5 in '14 draft.  His combination of size/speed/athleticism is second to none and there isn't a DE in the country that have that kind of combination. He lines up all over the field at LDE, RDE, DT and even at LB which tells you how gifted he is.  Lewan and OL have a tall task of protecting whoever's at QB whether if it's Denard or Devin.

NFG

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:47 PM ^

Brian,

Is that six points off a halfback pass on a 1st and Goal from the ten yard line, with Gibby missing the PAT or is that from a 99 yard Vincent Smith run on a draw up the middle out of a power I formation?

DealerCamel

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^

"Also everyone will all be like WHERE WAS THAT AGAINST OHIO STATE because I tell you what running up the middle on third and short is going to have the same result."

That being said, if we do run up the middle, I will break something and somebody, in that order.

Lac55

December 3rd, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^

Talking to Auburn fans down here has only worsened my confidence in Borges to get it done. They all echo the same thoughts as most in the mgocommunity as way to predictable, stubborn, conservative at times, and just kind of sitting on the egg so to speak. I hope he brings his A game and stays aggressive throughout.

UMgradMSUdad

December 3rd, 2012 at 3:36 PM ^

On Denard's blocking skills: I wonder how much of his ineffectiveness is injury related.  Obviously he doesn't have experience of practice and training in blocking, but there is no way to effectively block while trying to protect an arm either.