You Have Read This Column Before
9/3/2015 – Michigan 17, Utah 24 – 0-1
[Bryan Fuller]
I feel like I wrote this column already. In 2008, Michigan played a Utah team people expected would be pretty good. (They ended up very good, going undefeated, beating 'Bama in a bowl game, and finishing #2.) Michigan lost a somewhat close game. After, I used the then-skeletal luxury boxes as a metaphor for the team: under construction.
Michigan is still under construction. It has been under construction for going on eight years now. We brought in one company that insisted on turning half the building into pudding storage, and then it was a snake museum, and then a sand silo. Eventually the thing looked like the world's most totally rad Porsche hooked up to a pile of pudding, snakes, and quicksand. The next company fixed that at the same time they turned the rad Porsche into a Yugo full of clowns and if NEITHER OF THESE THINGS SOUNDS AT ALL LIKE A BUILDING YOU MAY BE ON TO SOMETHING THERE.
I also feel like I wrote this column already. Last year Michigan played Utah relatively even down to down, in fact outgaining the Utes, and lost because they were minus three in turnovers. This year they played Utah relatively even, outgained the Utes, and lost because they were (functionally) minus three in turnovers. Oh look, it's the game we play against Utah.
That there is a game we play against Utah that is a loss in which Michigan's offense spends much of its time armpit farting says a lot about the state of the program now, but you can go two paragraphs up if you'd like to relive that some more. You might. You're a Michigan fan. By now you must be into some pretty weird stuff.
The game wasn't quite the same as those other two. This one was less depressing. The first featured a walk-on at quarterback; afterwards it was clear that Michigan was going to struggle to maintain their bowl streak.
Last year was this game:
You know, the one with the downpour that everyone left during that was the end of Brady Hoke before THE END OF BRADY HOKE against Minnesota. The one with the ten-man punt return. The one with the column titled "By This Grainy Screenshot We Will Curse Thy Name."
So it wasn't that. Neither was it the grand debut of a Stanfordized Michigan. Despite the occasional media doofus retcon about Michigan fans being brought back to reality, nobody actually expected that in year one, and especially not game one.
I will admit was hoping they'd have a run longer than seven yards.
Not so much. Utah's burly front straight up whipped the Michigan offensive line. One replay of a failed third-and-short sneak featured Ben Braden getting moonwalked back into the quarterback. Mason Cole specialized in second-level whiffs. Kyle Kalis got dumped on his ass in the first half. Large creases were virtually nonexistent. Other than De'Veon Smith missing a cutback lane on second and three in the second half, lanes eschewed weren't obvious enough to induce groans.
They just could not cope with the defensive line, and that sounds like the most familiar thing of all. So we reset expectations again. Once more they have an offensive line working towards competency in a new system, and this will hold them back until such time as it doesn't anymore.
I wish I knew when that was going to be. It should be coming, as it always seems to for Harbaugh. It's hard not to be impatient when you've seen this all before. I have, and it's fine, I guess. I have faith that Jim Harbaugh is going to get there and everything will be wonderful and full of sprinkles topped with sprinkles. Yes, the struggle to the top is critical to the reward at the end. I would still like to fast forward to that bit.
![-2535ac8789d1b499[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/537fc4d56c20_9177/-2535ac8789d1b4991f1c37dee-a502-44d9-94ed-bee425f87474.jpg "-2535ac8789d1b499[1]")
AWARDS
Yet To Be Named Harbaugh-Themed Guys Who Did Good Award. #1 Jake Butt quickly established himself one of those WR/TEs that is basically Ertz/Fleener Voltron.
#2 Chris Wormley tore through the Utah line like it was made of tissue paper several times in the first half; by the second Utah had just about given up on trying to run Booker inside.
#3 Willie Henry also thundered his way through the line with frequency, pressuring Wilson and dissuading
Honorable mention: Amara Darboh had a bunch of catches and one unfortunately critical drop; De'Veon Smith looked like a guy who will be a nightmare if he gets gaps consistently; Jourdan Lewis shut his guy off; Jabrill Peppers erased screens.
YTBNHTGWDGA Standings.
3: Jake Butt (#1, Utah)
2: Chris Wormley (#2, Utah)
1: Willie Henry (#3, Utah)
Who's Got It Better Than Us Of The Week
For the single individual best moment.
Jake Butt skies over two defensive backs to bring in a spectacular #buttdown.
Honorable mention: Blake O'Neill drops a delayed punt at the two yard line. Wormley storms through the center of the line for a TFL.
WGIBTUs Past.
Utah: Crazy #buttdown.
MARCUS HALL EPIC DOUBLE BIRD OF THE WEEK.
This week's worst thing ever.
Rudock throws a pick six in the general direction of Grant Perry, who was in the general direction of Rudock's two other picks.
Honorable mention: The two other picks. That 74 yard Utah punt. That Utah fumble that bounced directly to the only other Ute in a six-block radius.
PREVIOUS EDBs
Utah: circle route pick six.
[After THE JUMP: a much shorter bullets section than normal because usually I have an extra day to pull this all together, Thursday games are stupid]
OFFENSE
Rudock. I dunno, man. He's up to 60% of his interception total from last year after one game. Football! It is stupid and weird sometimes. On those interception:
- I am about 90% sure that the first one was entirely Grant Perry's fault for running a hitch when he was supposed to run an out.
- The second was entirely on Rudock throwing a medium-distance ball to Tacopants—something I saw more or less once in the six games of his I reviewed last year. (He threw a pick against Iowa State on it.)
- The third was a combination of Rudock, Perry, and a route the Utah nickel was sitting on. Rudock should never throw that; Perry didn't sell his route well; the nickel made a great play.
People are bitching way too much about the long passes that fell incomplete. The reaction to them is as if they've never seen a 50 yard pass that's off by a couple yards; that happens all the time in every game, especially when there is a significant amount of wind. I do think those were a good example of Rudock's tendency to try to make perfect throws instead of hanging balls up for his receivers; Chesson was so open on the first one that an underthrown ball may still be an unchallenged touchdown.
Rudock part two. Can someone explain to me why "Ruddock" is now an incredibly common misspelling of his name? I don't get it.
[Fuller]
Butt. Couldn't ask for a better start from him, with one spectacular touchdown and an assortment of chain-moving plays. He's the #1 WR.
Other wide receivers. If the OL was an unpleasant surprise they were its opposite. They looked very strong. Darboh had one somewhat difficult ball that he dropped—unfortunately, that led to the missed 44-yard field goal. Perry had the early screwup. Other than that they caught everything that came their way and got reasonable separation. Chesson in particular found himself open on those deep balls.
Drake Harris played but was not targeted. It'll take some time even if he's fully healthy—he's barely played in three years.
Offensive line. Mostly addressed above. Transition to power-oriented blocking really hurt. By the end of 2014 Michigan was pretty decent at the brief doubles that inside zone depends on; they are not at all proficient at power.
The failed fourth and one conversion was egregious. Kyle Kalis headed outside on a play that De'Veon Smith took into the B gap, where two unblocked guys waited for him. Michigan was okay at power stuff last year, too, but running something as an occasional changeup is entirely different than running something as your base. You get way more margin for error.
I don't know that there's anything to do about this except live with it. Harbaugh has a proven offense that should be very good once it's fully installed, and Denard Robinson is not his quarterback.
DEFENSE
[Fuller]
Salty. Michigan did the same thing to Devontae Booker that they did last year, except this is a fully weaponized version of Booker. He split time in last year's game; shortly after the grabbed the reins fulltime and developed into a first team All Pac 12 tailback. Michigan just about shut him down, holding him to 3.1 yards a carry. Most of his damage came either outside the tackles or as a receiver. Michigan's run defense should be at least as stiff as it was a year ago; against a lot of teams that's going to mean disaster for them.
Spread sigh. I am going to be patient as Michigan installs Harbaugh's offense. I am going to be patient as Michigan installs Harbaugh's offense. I am going to be…
[several thousand mantra repeats]
…patient as Michigan installs Harbaugh's offense.
But man, it hurts to watch a QB rip up the middle of Michigan's defense for a rushing TD right now. If Wilson hadn't picked up 6.7 yards a pop on ten carries Michigan might win this game even with the turnover differential. It's hard to stop. I know Harbaugh wants to have some of it eventually.
It's just tough to watch old-style-lookin' Michigan go up against a spread team and lose. That's been going on for 15 years now. I know this is irrational when Michigan held an opponent to 337 yards.
Peppers. Peppers had a rough night in coverage, getting beat twice on Utah's first-half touchdown drive. He was also a one-man screen-wrecking machine and helped Michigan get a couple of their sacks with blitzes. While they got picked up they also paved the way for a couple of major pressures.
Negatives. Some minor downers on a promising debut:
- Channing Stribling got worked on a couple of early screens and was replaced by Jeremy Clark for much of the day. Neither was heavily targeted, so maybe that's actually not the worst thing for that second corner spot.
- Joe Bolden missed a bunch of tackles on Booker. Booker's tough to bring down; I don't know if that had too much to do with it. Bolden's never been great bringing guys down in space. They replaced him with Ross late; I was surprised it took that long.
- Ojemudia got most of the WDE snaps and did okay but looked very awkward in space.
Utah's offense didn't do much on the day, though.
MISCELLANEOUS
Special teams. Turns out Blake O'Neill can do that thing where he just waits until his gunners can fair catch one of his punts. Kenny Allen hit a 30 yarder and missed a 44 yarder; Jabrill Peppers had one enticing kick return; nobody else got to do much. Kickoffs from the 35 at altitude are almost guaranteed touchbacks.
Spread punting, though. Remember that punt on which the Utah returner dodged two guys and things looked worrying for a second and then another guy hit him? The tackler would have been twenty yards further away last year.
They tried. Michigan executed an 80-yard touchdown drive in 1:52 late in the fourth quarter and got a shot at an onside kick as a result. A two minute drill that successfully concluded in two minutes!
But they missed the game theory thing no one will ever do. Michigan had an opportunity to go for two after scoring to draw within a touchdown. They didn't because the only person in the world who would actually do that is that dude down at Pulaski.
Fox stuff. Fox's game commercials are fine if they happen between plays when we're just looking at the coach or the guy who caught the ball or whatever… if there was the slightest evidence they were replacing traditional commercials. Nope: this game felt like an NBC Notre Dame game. I'd like to think there is a point past which TV networks will not push. I don't.
On the other hand, the Gus Johnson/Joel Klatt announce team was terrific. Johnson is Gus Johnson; QED. Klatt was a revelation as a color guy, consistently on point with useful, enlightening commentary. I am not just saying that because I tweeted that the first interception was probably on Perry and Klatt came back from commercial saying the same thing.
I could tell they were excellent because Michigan was losing a football game and I had not even a slight impulse to mute it.
Thursday stuff. Playing on Thursday is stupid. Let's put that in the Big Box o' Brandon and never ever do that again.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:39 PM ^
I assume the argument is that if you can get it to six (24-18), then you win with another TD/PAT instead of just forcing OT. But of course, you've got to successfully convert that 2-pointer or else you're looking at an eight-point deficit and needing to convert a 2-pointer on the next TD just to force overtime.
If you just kick PATs there's a huge chance (80-90%, assuming a good kicker) you end up 24-24 and in overtime. If you go for two at some point you're looking at one of the following: a 25-24 victory, 24-24 and overtime, or a 24-22 loss.
The math slightly favors going for two, but no one wants to be the coach who has to explain that 24-22 loss to the media, so no one tries it.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:46 PM ^
I agree with you.
I know Brian has illustrated how, in situations when going for 2 will be necessary to tie over the course of multiple scores (say you're down 21-6), it is advantageous to get the information on how that 2-point attempt will go ASAP (since failing to get it mean you will need an extra score), so you can adjust tempo and playcalling accordingly.
In the situation where a 2PA is not strictly necessary (such as being down 17-3), it seems like a case of "do I always play for the win in regulation or not." Scoring twice with 1PAs to go to OT is obviously a viable strategy, with exceptions (such as the Gardner broken foot game).
September 4th, 2015 at 2:24 PM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 2:18 PM ^
Roughly: assume PATs are automatic and 2 point conversions are around 40% historically. You're down two touchdowns and score to make it an 8 point game. Options:
Kick the PAT: hope to score another TD and kick another PAT: OT almost all of the time, losses if you miss a PAT, but we're treating them as automatic
Go for 2 there are two cases:
(40% make it) - you win the game on the second TD
(60% miss it) - 40% of the time you force OT, 60% you lose
Now Assume OT is a 50/50 proposition
If you kick the PAT you are 50/50 to win the game.
If you go for 2, you win the 40% of the time you make the first 2 point conversion, plus in the cases where you fail and then succeed (24% of the time), you get to go OT. Which means you win 52% of the time overall. 52% > 50% therefore the math says you should go for 2 when down 8 late in games. If you're a little better at converting 2 point plays it becomes pretty overwhelming. Say it's a 50/50 proposition, then it's suddenly 62.5% of the time you win. Break even point is like 38.2% on the 2 point try.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:22 PM ^
If anyone is looking for even more detail...
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/01/two_point_conve…
September 4th, 2015 at 2:26 PM ^
Spot-on explanation. I was about halfway through typing up the same thing & then my computer deleted the comment. It's remarkable, because it's really really definitely the right thing to do, and yet no one EVER does it.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:31 PM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 2:38 PM ^
One question: are 2-point tries less successful in the last minute (when there's more pressure as the game is riding on it) than they are earlier?
Has anyone ever charted that kind of thing?
September 4th, 2015 at 2:43 PM ^
I doubt this in particular has been studied, but studies of such "intangibles" generally show that they don't really make a difference. Also, I don't see why the offense in particular would be less likely to succeed. The defense would also be feeling the "pressure" as well, since the game is in the balance for them too. As always w/ stats, I'm open to correction if the numbers are brought forward, but I would be very surprised to see it make a difference.
September 4th, 2015 at 3:01 PM ^
I feel like there is more random crap that can screw up an offensive play than a defensive play, especially in a goal line situation where things are so tightly packed in. The QB could trip over a lineman and stumble (as in Rudock's QB sneak attempt), or slip and fall down while he's backpedaling (like the NW QB last year), or fumble the snap, or have the ball slip out of his hands (like Tommy Rees in 2011). In a pressure situation, the side that has to snap the ball and protect it, while also advancing it, would seem more vulnerable to screwups than the side that just has to keep the ball in front of them.
Also, note that there are no surprise two-point attempts (like Oregon's swinging-gate stuff) in last-minute situations. Those surprises probably succeed over 50% of the time and inflate the total 2-point average.
September 4th, 2015 at 3:33 PM ^
Seems to me that there's a lot of story-telling and not a lot of measurables in this hypothesis, although again, I'm open to correction. The QB can trip, but a D-lineman can slip too. The ball can slip out of a QB's hands, but an RB can slip out of a LB's grasp. Maybe there's slightly more random crap for the O, but to a large extent there's stuff for the D as well that we just don't put as much of a spotlight on.
I do like the point, though, about suprise 2-point (fake PATs, etc.) versus expected (line up in a normal offensive formation). I know that in onside kicks those have been separated out, and it's been shown that a surprise-onside is basically always a good decision (caveat: if you do it too often, it stops being a surprise). Separating out regular 2-points from fakes, etc. would be interesting. Because there aren't very many fakes these days, I doubt it would impact the numbers much, but it's a legitimate variable to take into account. If nothing else, let's say fakes do work at an abnormally high rate, then this would be the perfect situation to deploy one in. The other team will be expecting you to go w/ conventional wisdom, and then boom, you do the smart game theory thing and make it even better by having an unexpected fake to improve your chances.
September 4th, 2015 at 3:07 PM ^
Nothing to do with pressure. The D is operating in a very confined space, which works to their advantage. The safeties are close to the line because there's literally that little room to work with. Hard to complete passes, hard to create space to run. If your O-line is dominant you can get 2 yards easy, but if that's the case odds are you're probably not down two scores anyway.
That said, I do wonder why so many teams play 2-point conversions like it's 3rd-and-short. It's not like if you miss you can punt it downfield or kick a FG. This is the time to maximize the chance of success regardless of the risk. This isn't the time to be avoiding a big loss or a turnover -- the play is literally all-or-nothing, nothing usually means the play is dead, and even if they run it back it's 98 yards to score a mere 2 points.
September 4th, 2015 at 3:27 PM ^
I think you misunderstood the question I was trying to answer. The point wasn't whether a 2-point is harder to get than a 3rd down of equivalent distance at the 50, it was whether a 2-point in the final minute of the game is harder to get than a 2-point in the 2nd quarter. Space doesn't enter into that equation.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:52 PM ^
There's a great chapter in Silver's The Signal and The Noise about why coaches don't take these game theory advantageous risks. By the same type of risk assessment reasoning, the backlash of failure outweighs the glory of success. It pays to be more conservative for most coaches. He notes this only changes when you have enough job security.
September 5th, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^
Yes, and this is a flaw in the logic... a conservative playing for OT approach is more appealing to coaches because it offers that basic 50/50 shot. Plus the act of making it to overtime, even if it is a 50/50 proposition, markedly improves the perception of the loss. A wider cost benefit analysis would be needed.
September 4th, 2015 at 4:26 PM ^
However, when your run game sucks and you get 2 inches with 2 downs you should go for 2 approximately 0% of the time.
September 4th, 2015 at 4:42 PM ^
Is everyone here absolutely certain our odds to make were >38.2%?
I think I'd be on the other side of that trade.
September 4th, 2015 at 5:29 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 4th, 2015 at 2:57 PM ^
When you're down 14.
If you get a TD and go for the PAT, you're still down 7. You still need another TD and PAT just to tie, and more to win. That's basically a 2-point conversion or you need to score again. And if you miss the 2-point play on the second TD, you're down one and have to score again anyway. So with the first TD in hand, the PAT is easy, but then the future becomes much tougher.
If you get a TD and go for 2, you have two possible outcomes:
1) You get the 2-point, you're down six. That means you can either go for the win with a TD (now just a PAT will do it), a blocked PAT doesn't mean death and you can even tie with two FGs -- you don't need another TD to stay in the game anymore (though not in Michigan's particular case -- nowhere near enough time).
2) If you miss the conversion, you're down 8, but it's still a one-score game. It's tougher to tie if you miss the 2-point, but -- again -- to win with a PAT you need to do something comparably hard anyway. The only thing you've done is make it tougher to go into overtime. And overall, the worst case involves missing two consecutive 2-point attempts.
Every coach in the country goes for the PAT thinking it's conservative because #2 is riskier. But all it does is kick the risk to the next score, at which point the stakes are magnified.
That said, all this generally assumes you have time to adapt your strategy based on the conversion's outcome. With one minute to play, the advantages aren't nearly as big, so I actually disagree with Brian here. Oregon likes to go for the 2-point conversion early, which is the best time to try.
September 4th, 2015 at 7:31 PM ^
September 5th, 2015 at 1:05 AM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 2:42 PM ^
In a nutshell, the advantage is two chances to get a 2 point conversion (at a near 50% probability). If you get it the first try, you win with a PAT on the second TD. If you fail the first try, you still get another try after the second TD. If you opt for the (usually) sure thing by kicking PATs both times, the best case scenario is still having to play overtime, and winning then is no sure thing.
Probabilities are great and everything, but if you're not confident in short yardage situations (see: Michigan), probably not a great idea to employ this strategy. For teams with dual threat QBs and many options from that range, I actually like the idea.
September 4th, 2015 at 3:21 PM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 2:07 PM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 2:12 PM ^
That gets discussed on these types of plays now and then, and the general consensus is there's no better way to force a stoppage and a replay like hauling ass up to the line to try to beat it.
September 4th, 2015 at 4:58 PM ^
I can't find the link, but I saw an interview with a replay official a while back that said exactly this. If he's in any doubt he'll first try to get the decision done in the normal time between plays, but if the offense comes to the LOS before he's sure, he's hitting the button.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:12 PM ^
My son was on it like you. He kept yelling at the TV "he dropped it - snap the ball" right up to the time the refs stepped in for the review.
To be honest I didnt see it and thought it was a clean catch. FWIW you would think they would have some protocol in place whereby the player making the play signals to the QB to hurry up the next play as he, more than anyone else, has to know the catch wasnt clean.
And totally agree with others that while I wish we would've won I'm not crushed we lost. Thought overall they played pretty good and a hellofa lot better than last year.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:31 PM ^
Agree. It was disappointing after the game because there were definitely opportunities lost that had they converted might have led to a win. I was expecting a close hard fought game and that's what it was. However, I thought they played better too. I'm expecting this team to get better as the season goes along, unlike the last couple of years where what you saw in November was pretty similiar to what you saw in August.
Utah's a decent program that plays in one of the tougher divisions in college football - the Pac 12 South. They beat USC, UCLA and Stanford last year and lost to ASU in double OT. They aren't national title contenders but they are chopped liver either.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:25 PM ^
You're absolutely correct.
I was very surprised Rudock didn't rush everyone to the line of scrimmage.
Harbaugh was telling them to hurry up from the sidelines too.
That was a tough break.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:44 PM ^
a play exactly like that in the TCU-Minnesota game last night where the ball appeared to hit the ground on a diving catch by the TCU receiver. The entire TCU offense sprinted like 30 yards downfield and ran a QB dive before the officials were able to review it so apparently it does actually work sometimes
September 4th, 2015 at 3:07 PM ^
Well thats one reason why they're ranked #2 i guess
September 4th, 2015 at 5:40 PM ^
I did the same exact thing saying (screaming) "snap the ball, snap the freaking ball!". I flipped over the Minnesota-TCU game during a commercial and the same thing happened in that game only TCU got the snap off before they could review and reverse as it was not a catch.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:07 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 4th, 2015 at 2:08 PM ^
Brian, the first 4 paragraphs of this review are perfect. Gold.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:08 PM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 2:08 PM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^
It happens for the same reason that Ty IsSac is a thing, also Caris Lavert, Derek/Derik/Derick Green, Zack Irvin and Nick Stauskas. People are dumb, and then they build tendencies, then they go on the internet and type too fast and angry, and then they misspell words. It is still incredibly annoying despite that explanation.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:38 PM ^
It's also not new. People have been spelling it that way on this site and others since he was thinking about transferring here. I think I've even seen a few Iowa fans spell it like that recently.
But you're right, people are dumb and then they build tendencies. People still type "Charlie Weiss" long after they should know better.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:39 PM ^
I think there is another explanation in the case of "Ruddock." The O and D beside one another on his jersey look quite like a double D. A a glance, OD looks quite similar to DD; especially in the font used on the jersey. I offer this as a partial explanation. For a fan, there is no excuse for not knowing how to spell the 6 letter name of your team's starting quarterback.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:50 PM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 3:01 PM ^
I wouldn't say people are dumb. Pattern recognition allows people to be far more efficient, but it just sometimes leads to mistakes like these. It's like the Berenst#in Bears problem*. Everyone remembers the Berenstein Bears, except they were actually the Berenstain Bears. Your brain develops to recognize patterns, and 99/100 times someone with that name or similar is spelled with an e. I wouldn't say you're dumb for remembering it spelled with an e.
Having said that, if you're a fan of the sport and have seen Nik Stauskas spelled with no c 18,000 times, you should recognize by now that it isn't Nick.
*This has been used by tin-foil internet folks to say we went through some kind of wormhole or something. Not referring to that.
September 5th, 2015 at 9:10 PM ^
FWIW, my phone tries to autocorrect Rudock to "Ruddock" so that may be part of the reason it is showing up a lot.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:11 PM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 4th, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^
I think we're a year or two away from that. Rudock is a good QB who will have better games but his bread and butter is short to intermediate routes. Need an upgrade at RB (a healthy Drake Johnson would help) and need the oline to jell better.
I think they can be a decent to good offense towards the end of the year but I think for a death machine to surface they need some significant improvement out of some of the players they have (which might be asking a lot in one fall) or need upgrades at certain positions which will come through recruiting.
September 4th, 2015 at 3:09 PM ^
I too would like to see how Drake does at RB again, but understand the coaches being cautious with him.
That said, I think the OL's run blocking is a bigger concern right now. Kalis's whif on the 4th & 1 mentioned by Brian above is a prime example, and it's surprising to me that his pulling hasn't been fixed yet (by any of the M coaches he's had). I just posted this a few days ago, and unfortunately he proved me right once again vs. Utah:
Overall I like Kalis as a player, but he has demonstrated some concerning deficiencies that I'm really hoping Drevno can coach up. Both are related to his pulling...a rather important skill for Guards, especially when we look to be running a lot of power this year:
-
His footwork is off, making him a slow puller and often late to the hole. Brian alludes to this above, suggesting that sometimes linemen are coached to pull in a "bendy" fashion, but I can't imagine he was coached to do this, especially when comparing the last clips above for Kalis & Glasgow who have been subject to the same coaching. Glasgow is doing it he proper way (drop step, pivot, run parallel to the line until you get to the hole), whereas Kalis is not (shuffles backward several steps and then takes an arcing path). As a result, Kalis is so far in the backfield he is almost in the way of the RB. Plus with the shortest distance being a straight path, his route just takes longer which can often cause the RB to slow down and/or run up the guard's back. Fortunately, once taught the proper technique Kalis should be able to rep this on his own all day until he has it down.
- Identifying the right guy to block. This isn't always easy because by the time a guard pulls to the desired hole, the defense has been set in motion and their personnel could be stunting, blitzing, etc., so the target isn't always where the pulling guard is expecting. That said, I've seen him get to the hole so many times and look lost, eventually targeting the wrong defender and seeing the play blown up. This is a tougher fix and can require a lot of situational reps.
September 4th, 2015 at 3:59 PM ^
That 4th and one failure to convert is not on him, unless the play called for him to pull from RG to the gap between the center and the left guard. That wouldn't make any sense to me. There's just not enough space to get the numbers advantage. If you watch the play, there is a gigantic open space to the outside, but Smith, thinking he only needs one yard, decides not to follow his guard and instead plunges into the center of the line. I'd love to hear ReadYourGuard's take on that play, because Smith clearly didn't follow his guard. All that's required on that play is a little bit of patience to see where Kalis is taking you.
September 4th, 2015 at 2:10 PM ^
September 4th, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^
Playing a top 25 (ish) team in your first game of the season is dumb. I'm not saying we beat that team in week 2, 3 or 4... But I thought we had almost zero chance winning that game last night, given everything that needed to be sorted out on both sides of the ball.
September 4th, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Comments