Picture Pages: Various Plays Of No Interest Comment Count

Brian

Every time I post a play analysis these days there are a half-dozen people in the comments who mention that if player X did hard thing Y they are not prepared to do then the play would work. This has gotten to the point where I can explicitly prepare for such criticism and find them ignored, as in the most recent one, and find a diary on this site asserting that if player X did hard thing Y something would have worked.

This is extremely frustrating to me, because these are good-faith attempts to paint broader pictures of what I'm seeing down to down, game after game, year after year, as I try to figure out what Michigan football is doing. Various critics, most prominently Space Coyote, make a few small concessions and then go about explaining why play X was a good call and why it would have worked. They implicitly assert things like "Joe Kerridge in a ton of space should deviate from expecting Nebraska to use their slot LB as a force and ably block that guy when that LB believes the inverted veer is coming, has no need to respect the slot receiver because he is covered, and runs directly into Fitzgerald Toussaint."

I disagree with that. I have watched a lot of people play a lot of football and I think that's hard. I'm trying not to have a stance here; I am evaluating whether I think a thing is easy to do or hard and assigning a number to that feel. Coaches tend to think everything is an execution issue. Players should be able to do arbitrarily hard things.  Some arrows on a diagram say this should work. Meanwhile I think there's a 10% chance for Kerridge to abort the plan and do anything with hell-for-leather blitzer and judge accordingly. Various guys dying on Borges Hill disagree.

I don't know what might be sufficient other than 175 yards against Nebraska to convince these guys that a poor offensive game plan can even exist, but here are various things that are normally too dull to post in a Picture Pages in which unblocked guys on blitzes obliterate Michigan runners for no or little gain.

These are representative of a larger slice of the game and a general feel that confirmed the Nebraska players' postgame assertions that they were expecting most of what Michigan threw at them. Tomorrow's Picture Pages will cover every play of the game, because this isn't going to work either.

One

Here is an iso. The slot LB is an eighth guy in the box and crashes down unblocked to tackle.

unblocked-dude-1unblocked-dude-4unblocked-dude-6

As this goes for three yards it qualifies as one of Michigan's best plays on the day on the ground. Three yards is not good on first and ten, and there was nothing Michigan could do about it.

Two

Here is a zone play. Nebraska loads up and sends a blitz through a gap that Michigan doesn't pick up as Bosch ends up doubling with Lewan.

However, because of the blitz the only thing Bosch making a very good play to recognize and pick up the charging LB does is send Green to one of the two unblocked guys, either the backside guy ripping down the LOS without thought of checking the QB or a linebacker sitting two yards deep without anyone trying to get him, because Nebraska's blitz has prevented anyone from moving to the second level.

un-1un-5un-6

Three

Here is a power play. Nebraska loads up with eight in the box and one deep safety and blitzes.

blitz-1

blitz-2

A Nebraska linebacker ends up shooting the gap behind the Bosch pull and meets Green in the backfield.

blitz-4

Michigan loses two yards and has third and eleven.

Four

Oh for pants' sake.

The offensive line is not in fact overwhelmed here; they are not actually involved because Nebraska's blitz is perfect to destroy the inverted veer.

Items Of Interest

All of this is an execution issue, sure. For a given definition of execution, this is an execution issue. Michigan's hyper-raw OL should be able to block this. They should be able to deal with Nebraska switching gaps and blazing LBs to the point of attack. They should be able to block Nebraska's maniacal run-oriented loaded box. They would do this, if only they could execute.

Except the last one. And the first one. And probably the second and third.

Either you believe that players can be put in positions they can succeed or players are expected to succeed in the positions they are put in. I am in the former camp. The last few Borges defenders are in the latter camp. This entire season Space Coyote has been gamely explaining what should have happened on failed play after failed play without any thought to how difficult what should have happened is.

Players do not exist in a vacuum. Joe Kerridge is trying to block a guy in acres of space and that guy has the jump on him because he knows Funchess is covered, and he knows what Michigan's running. I look at that and I think "Jesus, I do not want to be Joe Kerridge there."

I am admittedly working from a hand-waving feel on this, but it's no worse a feel than whatever Space Coyote has gotten from doing whatever he does with whatever team at a totally different level of competition. I say Michigan puts their players in a spot to work miracles or die, and that this is on both the overall structure of the offense and the predictability of playcalls based on formations and down and distance. Space Coyote makes certain concessions to not seem totally insane and then goes back to hammering the fact that it's all execution.

Kerridge was put in a spot to fail, and did. I'm looking at the play and saying I believe there is a small chance that Kerridge can make a tough play in space; the guys in the comments think that because Kerridge could hypothetically have made a play none of this goes back to the folks in charge.

These plays. The above plays are no-chancers for the offense, because Michigan is running into the teeth of a defense stacked to stop the run and blitzing. In UFR lingo they acquired sizeable rock-paper-scissors minuses. In compensation Michigan got two screens which both got large RPS plus numbers, but the number of downs thrown away in this game running at a Nebraska defense that seemed to be in Michigan's head was alarming. When I add it up, I am guessing things will come out highly negative, and then people will cluck at me about that.

I won't deny that things are more likely to get put in the negative bin there when you have fewer options because you're not good, but in my opinion running plays you suck at into stacked boxes is a bad idea. So is the continued deployment of Toussaint as a pass blocker on plays that take forever to develop. That, too, is an execution issue, but it is nuts to expect him to block guys now, and the offense would be better served if he was used in a pattern or replaced by a fullback or something. Instead… he is not.

But yeah yeah, the expectation is for the position.

Comments

wile_e8

November 13th, 2013 at 1:05 PM ^

But I think this misses out on Brian's main point. Sure, if they were coached to execute better the plays would work. But it is very hard to coach all of the players to do the very difficult things this scheme requires them to execute in order for it to work. Coaching up a better level of execution would be much easier to do if the scheme didn't require the players to execute so many difficult things.

mejunglechop

November 13th, 2013 at 3:20 PM ^

I am drawing a line connecting Brian's "extreme frustration" with SC here to his banning of WLA. Maybe that is unreasonable, but have you noticed how rarely and meekly Ace pushes back on podcasts? How uniformly everyone on staff echoes Brian's analysis? Brian takes pride in his analysis, which is great, but it seems like he takes any disagreement in this space quite personally.

Edit: I'm not taking a shot at the staff here at all. I really like them all (except Coach Brown dislike goes beyond how he goes about getting interviews). The tone gets set from the top and the tone is unnecessarily hostile.

JeepinBen

November 13th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^

Either you believe that players can be put in positions they can succeed or players are expected to succeed in the positions they are put in.- How about both?

The coaches have to call plays that their players can execute and the players have to execute the plays called. Remember how Michigan's passing offense with Denard moved to somewhat of a "Throw it high and pray for Hemingway?" Borges had his QB, and adjusted to his strengths and weaknesses. Denard wasn't going to be Peyton Manning, so Borges called plays that his QB could run.

I used to absolutely hate seeing Vincent Smith smash into the line for a yard out of the power I, but Borges needed to run that in order to set up the throwback screen. For whatever reason, that balance is off this year. Michigan isn't getting the right number of base plays to constraints and it's not being successful. Al Borges has put together awsome gameplans (see OSU 2011) and adjusted to his personnel (see Robinson, Denard) but for some reason he hasn't been consistent in doing both. Is that his issue? Is it because of who the personnel are? I don't know, but I doubt many people want it fixed more than Al and Brady.

victors2000

November 13th, 2013 at 1:57 PM ^

Especially if it doesn't help the offense apart from 'set up' a play. It's a waste of down if it produces no gain or even worse if it loses yardage. Not to mention the mental attrition of the team. What coach Borgess should be doing is run plays that work THEN call a play to take advantage of what the defense has to do to stop the original play.

snowcrash

November 13th, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^

Also you'd think that the base play would be whichever play has the best chance to work against a conventional defense given your personnel. For us, that can't be any type of run or slow developing pass pattern, which leaves quick passes even though Gardner isn't great at quick reads. Runs and deeper passes would then be the constraint plays, and might actually work if the opponent is expecting a quick pass.

steve sharik

November 13th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^

I think asking this roster to line up and run power football is extremely stupid and/or stubborn, bordering on mentally challenged.  At one point in the 2nd half I literally screamed out loud, "QUIT WASTING DOWNS!" After the 2nd/9 power after the muffed punt, and for the first time ever at Michigan Stadium, I booed a coach. I did so lustily.   As a former coach, I vowed never to do that.  I know what it feels like to have put in thousands of hours of work and have some jackalope in the stands curse your name.  But this time, I just couldn't help it, because I was otherwise helpless. Because I have one--and soon to be two--degrees from this university.  And because the person I was booing is making millions of dollars to not use anywhere near that poor judgment.  I made a couple grand each season coaching public high school players.  It's not only okay but also expected that I make coaching mistakes.  I can guarantee you that if I was a coordinator at Michigan, I would not make mistakes like I saw Saturday.

I agree somewhat with Space Coyote that this is an issue of execution.  Any Michigan OL should be able to block their base play.  But there was mountains of evidence weeks ago that this OL simply couldn't do it.  Insert Einstein quote about insanity here.

It reminds me of 2008 when Coach Rod asked a brand new, fat group of OL playing in front of a lumbering pocket passer to run his spread.  He shouldn't have played pro-style, but he should've adjusted his spread to the talents of the players on the field.  

Now then, a lot of evidence has been pointed at how the really great ones usually get it going by year three.  I see the point, but I don't consider this year three of the Hoke regime b/c of the timing of the hire, in that the staff had zero time to recruit their types of players.  I consider 2011 to be somewhat of an interim year, last year to be year one, this year to be year two, and next year to be year three.  I don't know if we'll be where we want next year, but I think--regardless of record--that next year's team will be amazingly better and have a shot at a B1G title.  In 2015, it should be on.  If it's not, then Dave Brandon should be conducting another coaching search.

 

oc michigan fan

November 13th, 2013 at 12:59 PM ^

So true.

I said the same thing in OT vs. PSU. Just attempt the damn FG on first down if you have no intention of moving the ball. Why risk a turnover? It's not like the clock mattered at that point.

 

I too am involved with HS football. Our OC seems so much more advanced as a gameplanner and game caller/adjuster than Borges. It's embarrassing.

gpsimms not to…

November 13th, 2013 at 1:09 PM ^

that the play calling in general is not setting up the kids to be in winning positions.  When I say "in general," though, I mean not that 'arggh why didn't we call a screen in this situation' as much as "arrghh why are we playing so many tight end and fullbacks and sitting Dileo on the bench.  Why are we being so stubborn in our general manball strategy?"

I think it's an important distinction, because isn't stubborness on general strategy more due to the approach head coach wants to take?  To me, it just reeks of the defense under Rodriguez.  Through 3 seasons, the general feeling amongst these (very pages) was that RR was a great coach being held back by terrible DC's.  However, we always saw crap like the Penn State game after a bye, where the defensive personnel would be totally changed and things would go from bad to worse.

After those bye week decisions, people called for GERG/Schafer's heads.  I think after 3 years of failure, though, it became more clear it all went back to the head coach not managing the program's defense well.

Do you worry at all the same thing is going on here?  The offensive line is bad --> During bye week completely change personnel --> revert to more manball than ever --> things get worse.

When Hoke was hired, we freaked out about his 'basketball on grass' comments.  Then, he had the luckiest first season imaginable, and it was universally decided he was an amazing coach.  Now, I feel like people are unwilling to let go of the idea that he's an amazing coach and choose to blame all problems on coordinators, similarly to the Rodriguez era.

It's always nice when you post.  You know a ton about football and write very clearly/understandably.  Hope you are well.

bronxblue

November 13th, 2013 at 2:01 PM ^

The issue I had with the DC under RR had something to do with the University's unwillingness to pay for a good DC.  I mean, GERG in particular was a pretty cheap option; give RR Casteel when he shows up and I think you'd have seen a better performance because of that trust.  Hoke had full faith of the university and hired who he wanted; Martin explicitly limited RR by not offering to pay Casteel's pretty-reasonable request to get him to A2.

steve sharik

November 13th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^

"Do you worry at all the same thing is going on here?  The offensive line is bad --> During bye week completely change personnel --> revert to more manball than ever --> things get worse."

Well, you can never tell who's a practice player and who's a gamer until they all play a significant number of snaps in a game.  Moreover, even the Woodsons of the world have a bad game here and there.  So, generally speaking, you're not going to see a player benched after one bad game.  But, after two bad performances, you're going to be labeled a practice player and it's damn near impossible to change that unless the guy who steps in for you is worse...for two more games.

At this point, they've basically tried all the combos in multiple games, which is why you read that Al said they're not going to change anymore.

Now, once you change personnel, you have to put those players in a position to be successful, but balance that with where you think there are opportunities to attack the opponent that week.  It might be valuable to look at how players grade on certain plays, compare that to the week's game plan, and then play players accordingly.  Cohesiveness importance acknowledged, but probability of success outweighs that, in my opinion.

The problem I see is that the coaches are trying to force these players to be something they're not (yet), and what I mean by that is they're sticking with it too deep into games.  Sure, try the power early in the game.  But for the 2nd play in a row in a 10-10 game in the 4th quarter when it hasn't worked at all in the first 3?  You wanna talk about hurr durr.

At least they didn't put in a whole new system during a bye week, a la 2008 Purdue.  That was 9th grade football.

I recall the 2000 Orange Bowl when Michigan tried to manball Alabama for most of the 1st half, and at some point the camera got on Lloyd, at which point you could see him storming up the sideline to talk to whoever was on the headsets with the OC and you could easily lip-read Lloyd screaming "F--- the run!"  At which point it turned into the Brady to Terrell domination show.  Now, this team doesn't have that luxury, but you get the point.

gpsimms not to…

November 13th, 2013 at 4:19 PM ^

Funny you mention the Orange Bowl.  I was there for that, and was also screaming "F--- the run!" for most the game.

Anyway, thanks for the response.  I was mostly wondering whether the 'hurr durr'-ing was causing you to seriously reevaluate the direction of the program as a whole.

I think we can all agree this year is effed (barring miraculous comeback which would totally restore my faith in all coaches involved).  I'm trying to decide the degree of panic about the future I should have.  I think based on reading, I'm deciding to wait another year before I start waving my arms and running around screaming.

Red is Blue

November 13th, 2013 at 1:46 PM ^

The general point is valid (don't waste downs), but I'm not sure that the specific example 2/9 after muffed punt was wasting downs given the alternative.  At the point, we were around the 25 yard line, the defense was playing well and a FG puts us in the lead.  Given the sack fest of the game up to that point and the preceeding game, being more aggressive runs a real risk of getting knocked out of FG range.  That on top of Gardner has demonstrated a propensity to hold on the the ball too long and an unwillingness to throw it away.  I think ideally a short pass would have been the call with a throw away if it is not open, but we don't seem to be able to do that.

Swayze Howell Sheen

November 13th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^

Brian sounded fine - he just didn't agree with the (many many) posts by SC about what is going wrong (or rather, how to look at what is going wrong).

It is pretty clear that the offense is NOT WORKING.

At some point, that is a big problem, and will either (a) get fixed or (b) cause heads to roll.

Before the last few games, I was thinking (a). Now I'm leaning (b), alas...

FreddieMercuryHayes

November 13th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^

Completely agree.  I actually like this point-counterpoint thing.  I don't think we'll see an 'agreement' because I think Brian and SC are in different philisophical camps, but I really like the counter-argument SC put out, and I like Brian's explination as to why he disagrees with SC's view.  They should make this a weekly thing when it comes to picture pages.  Or maybe not because we commentors will probably ruin it.

CooperLily21

November 13th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^

I actually completely agree with you guys too.  I think the two could put together an awesome post analyzing certain plays differently.  My only issue is the way the discourse was approached here, by calling SC out in an unfriendly or IMO disrespectful way.  It takes away from what could be a very educational.  That was my only point.

AriGold

November 13th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^

continues to show his inability/un-willingness to adjust...Brian is simply calling out SC and is trying to show SC why he thinks this way due to the proof of failure time and time again...unfortunately, I do not see this offense ever moving past 8 or 9 wins with Borges at helm over the next few seasons....i would love to be dead wrong, but honestly, does anyone expect us to win at Iowa (a team with a defense much like MSU, not as good, obviously) or even have a prayer against OSU with the current offensive game plans????

TennBlue

November 13th, 2013 at 12:53 PM ^

With the one exception of SDSU (where he had NFL-caliber talent in a weak conference), everywhere he's been the offense got worse the longer he was there.

 

We've already passed Borges' peak.  It's all downhill from here.

Ron Utah

November 13th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^

UCLA?

And what made the SDSU talent NFL-caliber?  Did Hoke's arrival magically turn bad players into great ones?  You can't argue the guy is a bad coach except when he inherits great talent when SDSU had ZERO four-star players on offense.  It was a mostly two-star team with a healthy does of three-star guys, but no one thought they were NFL talent until Hoke and Borges coached them.

jamiemac

November 13th, 2013 at 1:33 PM ^

Ronnie Hillman emerging as a future NFL TB as a freshman in their second season at SDSU turned it all around. Kudos to them for recruiting him and putting him in the lineup ASAP. I wonder if Hoke is even at UM right now if it took even a half season for that frosh stud to emerge

TennBlue

November 13th, 2013 at 2:18 PM ^

He inherited a pretty good program (34th in TO in 1995), kept it constant one year , had two very good years, then it all fell apart in '99 and '00.

 

UCLA Total Offense

1995 - 37th (pre-Borges)

1996 - 42nd

1997 - 13th

1998 - 8th

1999 - 85th

2000 - 63rd

2001 - 53rd (post-Borges)

 

So Borges had two stand-out years at UCLA, then fell into the dumpster.  He seems to have coasted on that the rest of his career.

This diary from 2011 will tell you the rest.

Ron Utah

November 13th, 2013 at 2:58 PM ^

I like how are now ignoring his achievement at SDSU.

He also had two great years at Auburn, and even in the year he was fired his offense was 24th in FEI.

At UCLA in 2000, he had the 39th best scoring offense in the FBS playing the TOUGHEST schedule in the country that year.  Not too bad.

Anyway, my point is not to say that Borges hasn't had bad years--he most definitely has.  But he's also had good years.

I am NOT a Borges apologist, but the guy has had a lot of success.  If you want to pretend he hasn't to build your case, go ahead.

TennBlue

November 13th, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^

I specifically mentioned SDSU in my first response.  You mentioned UCLA as though that somehow destroyed my argument.  I pointed out it doesn't.  He had two good years, then the program crashed under him.

He went to Cal, they got worse under him.

He went to Indiana, they got worse under him.

He went to Auburn.  His first year went well, then they got progressively worse.

The only stop in his career where they got consistently better is SDSU, where, as I said in the first post, he had exceptional talent in a very weak conference.

There is nothing in Al's history as a coach to suggest that his offenses get any better after his third year at the helm.  In fact, they've always gotten worse.  That is factual reality.

Hence, I have no confidence that Michigan is going to be the magical exception to his 20 year career.  Maybe they will, but I certainly wouldn't bet any money on it.

Ron Utah

November 13th, 2013 at 4:37 PM ^

He actually started at Oregon for a year, where he was a very good OC running Belotti's system, but here's the rest:

  1. UCLA - His best years were his 2nd and 3rd out of five.  That is not getting worse the longer he was there.
  2. Cal - He was only there for a year.  It was a disaster.
  3. Indiana - Terrible both years.  Worse the second.  You are right on this one.
  4. Auburn - His first year was amazing, but his second year might have been even better.  His offense scored more per game, and he did that without Jason Campbell, Cadillac, and Ronnie Brown.  His third and fourth years were certainly worse, but in 2007 he was starting an extremely young offensive line.  Years three and four were worse than one and two, but two wasn't worse than one.
  5. SDSU - You keep talking about this amazing talent.  Not one player that recorded a stat on his SDSU rosters was rated higher than three stars.  Hoke and AB turned a lousy roster in NFL talent, and they didn't just beat bad teams: Borges' Aztecs scored 35 points against undefeated and #2 TCU, 11 more than anyone else did all season, and 23 more than their avg. allowed.  He put 34 on Utah (only TCU scored more against Utah) good for 14 more points than their avg. allowed.  It was an amazing season.

To sum-up: UCLA got better for three years, then got worse.  Not a steady decline at all.  At Indiana, he got worse in his second year.  At Auburn, he had two great years, and two years that weren't as good.  At SDSU, they got decidedly better in his second season.

My point is that it's not nearly as linear as you suggest, that the sample size is small, and that he's never been anywhere for longer than five years...so it's really hard to say he's the cause of the drop in production.

But yes, at Auburn and UCLA his last two years were his worst.  I'm not denying that.  But I think it's hugely over-simplifying to say that he was the cause of the decline.

 

MI Expat NY

November 13th, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^

It should also be noted that at UCLA Borges was working under an offensive head coach.  Bob Toledo had bene an OC for 13 years before taking over as head coach, and to this day runs a WCO based offense.  While I'm sure Borges was influential during that UCLA run, without having been there, it's impossible to say how much of the UCLA success was due to him.  

MIdocHI

November 13th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^

I agree with Brian here.  Space Coyote has written more words on this site in the last couple of weeks than most of the paid MGoBlog employees.  While the site is set up for reader feedback, it is as if Space Coyote is using this one as his own forum.  He has an outlet on his own website.  Magnus makes comments here, but he uses his own blog for longer posts to put his thoughts down.  I, for one, have not appreciated Space Coyote's constant responses back and forth with every person who disagrees with him.  There was one OP in which a user and Space Coyote's "dialogue" took up almost a whole page of 50 comments.  If he wants to defend Borges at such length, he should do it on his own site, not a site that Brian provides.  He needs to be more like Magnus. 

Hail-Storm

November 13th, 2013 at 1:03 PM ^

he is way less snarky then Magnus could be if you disagree with him. His responses are always well thought out, and add value to the blog. Having someone provide that much informed content is not a bad thing for this or any other blog.  

I think I slightly agree more with Brian here, but both are admitting there is a coaching issue with this offense. 

LSA91

November 13th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^

1) FWIW, this came across as too personal to me.   I would have preferred "I'm glad Space Coyote is here to test my assumptions, but I think he's wrong, and here's why" to "I'm so frustrated that Space Coyote keeps disagreeing with me, and here's why he's wrong."  

That's just tone, though - I'm glad to read both of your analysis.

2) Isn't the million dollar question whether Borges has better plays available?   I'm dumb, but if I understand correctly, Brian and SC both agree that the plays would work if the OL executed, that it's on the coaches that they aren't, and that the fact that they aren't is worrying.  

But given where we are, I guess it comes down to:

Brian(ish):  Instead of the plays we're running for our baseline, which don't work, we should run more of other plays, which either might work or actually do work in the rare occasions Borges runs them.   

Coyote(ish):  Brian's plays aren't any better than Borges's.   This is just a team that didn't gell, and our best chance is to stick with the elements that the team has been practicing, so they have a chance to execute this year and get better next year.   Switching to plays that aren't based on the core elements that the team has practiced will only make them worse and will cost us next year.

I lean towards Brian, but I enjoy having someone thoughtful argue the other side, mostly because I don't know enough to be confident in my opinion.

Tacopants

November 13th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^

If you get a team where all 11 offensive guys complete their assignments 100% of the time, every drive will end in a TD.

If you're looking at all of this in a vacuum, I get how each opinion seems valid.

However, based on other ancillary signs (Dinosaur Close NFL Punt, Inability to perform 2 Minute Drill in "NASCAR", terrible delay of game/TO usage, "Execution" excuse ever since MSU 2011) I am much more aligned in Brian's point of view.

At a certain point, you realize that the coaches are just sticking round pegs into square holes, and when they don't fit, they proceed to bring out a hammer and keep smashing away. Afterwards, they fault the pegs for not being square enough.

Hail-Storm

November 13th, 2013 at 12:59 PM ^

of a story (I think in Bo's lasting Lessons) where Bo had attended a conference where a coach had a brand new offense that was going to take the nation by storm.  Afterward, Bo asked the Coach what his record was with the new offense.  The coach admitted that their record wasn't good, but it was because the players didn't execute.  I believe, Bo found this funny and went back to fundamentals.

I think the disticntion is that Brian is stating that the plays are putting the players in positions to fail, while SC is stating that the failure of the players ability to execute basic plays is the reason for the failure and not the playcall.  To me, if you know the players can't execute a play, then you need to make a play call that they can succeed in.  Both Brian and SC are saying screens should be used more as contraints.  To me, this is playcalling/ scheme. Not using enough constraints is putting the offense in a position to fail. This has been seen in PSU, MSU, and now Nebraska.