Five things to take from this: Confidence is everything (mostly)

Submitted by Lordfoul on
It reads the same, week after week:  Michigan looks like they can play with anybody early, then something happens to shake their confidence, then the second half rolls over them, the end.

Bler.

With all of the mitigating circumstances, it is really no shocker that this team might have confidence issues.  This may be their biggest problem all year actually, both from a long term and short term view.  Looking from the long view: The first half of the season this team had the "moxie" required to come back in the face of adversity.  Then something happened to shake their fragile confidence.  Fellow poster Brhino has given light to this:

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/michigan-has-gone-rally-team-fall-apart-team

Vs. Notre Dame
First Half: M 17, ND 20 (-3)
Second Half: M 21, ND 14 (+7)
Michigan rallies in the second half for the win.

Vs. Indiana

First Half: M 21, IU 23 (-2)
Second Half: M 15, IU 10 (+5)
Michigan rallies in the second half for the win.

Vs. Michigan State
First Half: M 6, MSU 10 (-4)
Second Half: M 14, MSU 10 (+4)
Overtime: M 0, MSU 7 (-7)
[Second Half + Overtime]: M 14, MSU 17 (-3)
Michigan rallies to tie at end of regulation, but loses in overtime.

Vs. Iowa
First Half: M 14, Iowa 20 (-6)
Second Half: M 14, Iowa 10 (+4)
Michigan rallies in the second half but comes up just short.

The loss to Little Brother in overtime cracked the armor and the loss at Iowa finished the job  The loss to Little Brother in overtime cracked the armor and the loss at Iowa finished the job.  Surely other circumstances like losing Molk had an effect as well, but after the Iowa game this team lost that early season "Moxie" that carried them to improbable comebacks against ND and Indiana.  Each game became a microcosm of the season as a whole.  Every game Michigan comes out with its swagger back, just to have one swing play kill their confidence again.

Against Penn St: (Drive notes swiped from the Worldwide Leader)

3rd and 16 at MICH 2 - Team rush for a loss of 2 yards to the Mich 0 out-of-bounds for a SAFETY.

And then the very next play...

1st and 10 at PSU 40 - Daryll Clark pass complete to Andrew Quarless for 60 yards for a TOUCHDOWN.

BOOM!  Confidence shattered and lying all over the field.  Second half implosion ensues.

Against Illinois:

1st and Goal at ILL 1 -
Carlos Brown rush for no gain to the Illin 1.  
2nd and Goal at ILL 1 -
Carlos Brown rush for no gain to the Illin 1.  
3rd and Goal at ILL 1 -
Carlos Brown rush for no gain to the Illin 1.  
4th and Goal at ILL 1 -
Brandon Minor rush for no gain to the Illin 1.

And the next drive...

1st and 10 at ILL 30 - Mikel LeShoure rush for 70 yards for a TOUCHDOWN.

BOOM!  Confidence shattered and lying all over the field.  Second half implosion ensues.

Against Illinois:

2nd and 10 at MICH 32 - Tate Forcier rush for a loss of 13 yards, fumbled, forced by Brandon King, recovered by Prdue Brandon King at the Mich 19.

And the very next play...

1st and 10 at MICH 19 - Ralph Bolden rush for 19 yards for a TOUCHDOWN.

BOOM!  Confidence shattered and lying all over the field.  Second half implosion ensues.

And then there was yesterday's game, which I am sure you all remember just fine thank you.  First and goal from the six leads to a blocked FG.  Third and long converted against us time after time...  Maybe no BOOM! but confidence shattering moments littered throughout leading to a second half implosion.

Maybe this is a manifestation of having a young team.  Perhaps having to start walk-ons contributes to this.  Some amount of it has to be attributed to coaching, both good and bad.  It is admirable that the coaches are able to get this team feeling good enough after each loss to have confidence going into the next game.  It is somewhat distressing that the first hint of adversity sends this team over a cliff.

FiveThings:

  1. Am I the only one that was disappointed, to say the least, that we did not use our timeouts on defense during the final minutes of the first half?  Instead of having all of our timeouts with 1:09 left we could have easily had two timeouts and two full minutes left.  This seemed like terrible clock management.
  2. The replay officials continue to baffle.  It sure looked like conclusive evidence that Clay was not in on the replay of Wisky's last TD of the first half.  I am ready to give up replay altogether and just live with bad calls at this point.
  3. I get that the opposing defense can counter rolling Tate out to throw, but couldn't we try rolling him out anyways?  He was awesome on the plays designed to roll him out and once again getting killed in the pocket.  Here's to better protection next season.
  4. Roy Roundtree and Vincent Smith are going to be incredible.  Those two put on quite a show yesterday and should hold their heads high. 
  5. Should we be sad for Fat Charlie (no) or for ourselves (yes) if he is fired?   
Looking Ahead:

There is not much left of this season.  There is sure to be some adversity faced in The Game and there is not much evidence at this point that Michigan can overcome it.  Anything can happen in this rivalry, but Michigan looks to be blown out.  I, for one, will be screaming at the TV just as hard as ever and hoping against hope for strange things to happen.

Next season is an enigma.  Does Michigan have anyone on defense that can fill in and turn this ship around?  Can GERG show his worth and get what we have to improve?  The offense is going to be really, really good...  good enough to beat anyone on the schedule.  It is going to be heart wrenching to watch the defense gack up games where we score 40 points, but maybe we can at least make a bowl game.  Hopefully this team will be another year older and have found what it really needs to win.

Confidence.

Go Blue.

Find a way, any way, and beat them Buckeyes.

Comments

Don

November 15th, 2009 at 8:28 AM ^

going for the punt block in the first half was one of the stupidest calls by a Michigan coaching staff since LC gave the ball to William Carr against Purdue. What was more important at that point in the game—blocking a punt, or getting the ball away from Wisky's offense? I'm not so naive as to think that it was the determining play of the game, but in my view giving the ball back to Wisky on the roughing-the-kicker call was almost as deflating to Michigan as was the goal-line futility against Illinois. Our collapse on the ensuing drive by Wisky was very predictable.

Considering how fragile our defense has been all season, the willingness of the coaching staff to gamble away a sure possession by going after something that wasn't necessary at that point of the game is, to say the least, eye-opening. I believe that RR deserves and will get 4 years, but I have very little confidence that he and his staff will get things righted by the end of 2011.

BlueTimesTwo

November 15th, 2009 at 11:04 AM ^

I didn't like the punt block either, but it was pretty bad luck too. If we didn't have two players in position to (almost)block the punt, then they wouldn't have collided and knocked each other into the punter. I don't think their angles would have taken them into the punter had they not run into each other. Not a great call, but once again, all of the bounces go against us.

ATrain32

November 15th, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^

Agree with ya Blue. I think that the collision between our two players carried them into the punter. The inference then is that the result is most likely a case of 'bad' luck or random occurrence. Ergo, the problem is less with the play call and more with bad luck.

The strategy of the going after the punt fits a larger picture of choices coaches make. Result wise, you win some, you lose some. Disappointing to be sure but I think the biggest problem there is the random collision.

Taken as a whole, we've been coming close to blocking some punts recently and our return game has been very suspect or non existent all year long. I like the idea the coaches are trying to create opportunities for good things to happen, even if sometimes things don't work out well for M.

snowcrash

November 15th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^

Trying to block a punt makes more sense when:

1. Your defense is playing well.
2. Your offense is really struggling.
3. You need to score a lot of points quickly.
4. The ball is close to the other team's goal line, so a block enables you to score quickly or even immediately, while a roughing call doesn't set the other team up.

It doesn't make sense in the second quarter in your own end of the field when you have a decent offense but a bad defense.

ATrain32

November 15th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^

"going for the punt block in the first half was one of the stupidest calls by a Michigan coaching staff since LC gave the ball to William Carr against Purdue."

The 'stupidest'? Drama crashing into hyperbole anyone?

Something to consider:
If the punt had actually been blocked and there was no flag, would the decision still have been the 'stupidest'?

I have little doubt, had things worked out for M, people would have praised the coaches moxie or aggression. Seems like they have been going after punts in recent games in general. The issue then is the outcome based analysis. I would be curious to hear what some x and o people think about that play call and execution.

As you pointed out, there were other opportunities to make plays and at the end of the day, Wisconsin simply made more of them. They just played a better overall game.

I think RR and staff will get things together but agree it might not be til '11.

Don

November 15th, 2009 at 4:43 PM ^

What was more important—getting the ball back from the Wisconsin offense with a 95% certainty (if our punt returners were more capable, the certainty would be closer to 99%), or trying to block a punt, where your chances of blocking it are probably no better than roughing the punter? I'm all for aggressive play, but there are times when being aggressive is simply nothing more than gambling away things you've already got in hand.

The critical thing you're seeming to ignore is how bad our defense is. Every time we stop somebody and force a punt, especially a team like Wisconsin, that's a valuable achievement, since our D is so prone to giving up huge chunk plays. In this instance our defense has done the difficult thing of stopping them on 3rd down, and instead of being content with the sure thing, we go for a low-percentage gamble, when it was not at all imperative that we block the punt. It was essentially a turnover, with the worst possible result: we put our defense right back on the field, when it was our offense that should have had the ball.

Magnum P.I.

November 15th, 2009 at 9:25 AM ^

I think the "BOOM" moment in yesterday's game was the first half roughing th kicker penalty on Wisky's 4th and 20. Don't even come after that! They were punting from the 50 and it was 4th and 20! Aside from the fumble TD, we didn't get another defensive stop (i.e., UW scored a TD) on any possession until late in the 4th quarter. That was a back-breaker. BOOM.

Lordfoul

November 15th, 2009 at 7:32 PM ^

I totally agree with this. That penalty was the back-breaking moment of this game. Coming after missing out on points after a first and goal from the six was a 14 point swing against us. Reverse those two plays in our favor and we have a comfortable lead at the half, and maybe enough confidence to see the game through to a W.

jmblue

November 15th, 2009 at 7:48 PM ^

The fact that it was 4th and 20 may have influenced the decision to go for the block. A lot of coaches will put on a punt rush in 4th and 10+ situations, when a 5-yard running-into penalty makes little difference (and actually can be beneficial, leaving the punter with less room to place a punt). The big problem was that Smith left his feet. You should never do that.

MileHighWolverine

November 15th, 2009 at 9:36 AM ^

1. Not having a FR/Walk on QB tandem starting 2 years in row;
2. Actually having depth so 1 or 2 injuries don't completely derail the team;
3. Consistency on the D from 1 year to the next; and
4. Good recruiting in spite of a (likely) 8-16 record after 2 years.

Seriously though, lack of depth and dependence on youth are really hurting this team. That should not be a problem next year and IF we can hold a team to 28pts or less, I am fully confident our Offense can pull it out for us 9 times out of 10.

michiganfanforlife

November 15th, 2009 at 10:53 AM ^

had only 24 players total from freshman to seniors. We had some good players, but every time we went up against a good team it was the same story. We would be in the game, or winning at halftime. Then, as the second half unfolded we would start to wear down and get beat pretty bad. We had no depth, and the lack of a rotation made it hard for us to keep up. This could be a big factor why the defense is so bad this year. The guys out there play almost the entire game. The only rotation is on the line, and our depth is paper thin.

This is something that will improve every year, as RR gets more bodies to fill in on defense. Quality depth is not something that is easy to notice during a game, but it's easy to see we have none. I liked seeing Brandon Smith out there. He was especially effective blitzing, and I think they should send him after TP all day next week. I agree that blocking a punt in a big game like that was a stupid idea. If they had worked on the proper technique in practice, the players would have tried to block it off the punter's foot intstead of just flying in there flailing arms. Whisky was just a better team all around, and I hope we can pull off something special at home next week. GO BLUE!!!

michelin

November 15th, 2009 at 11:50 AM ^

Another possible reason for why MI starts strong and finishes weak is that the team has a limited number of plays/defensive schemes that they can use competently. It's like when Henne started as a Freshman: the team had very few plays it could use.

In such cases, once we use the plays we are familiar with, the other team adapts. Then, we are faced with a bad choice. Either we can continue using ineffective methods or try to switch. But if we switch, then we execute poorly, since we are less familiar with the new methods.

Possibly, then, it would be better to use the more unfamiliar plays first, then switch to the familiar ones after half time. Or better yet: to mix in the two randmonly with a heavier dose of the unfamiliar ones first. Yes, we might get blown out by half time. That is the risk. But, what do we have to lose?

In Bo’s book, Lasting Lessons, he suggests a remedy for what to do when we are doing now is not working: Sudden change.

Wendyk5

November 15th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^

If I was coaching this team, I would run with this idea. I would make this week a radical departure from weeks past. No practice, at least not in the conventional sense of the word. I would work on motivation. I would make this team watch every over-the-top motivational speech Hollywood has ever dished out. I would make everyone laugh. A lot. I would loosen these guys up, try to take the pressure off. I would have them play football the way they played when they were kids, when it was just for fun. I can't even imagine what's in the heads of these players right now, but they can't be loving the game all that much. They have to love the game to win. If they're going to go back to the beginning (i.e. fundamentals), they should go all the way back, when it was all about love of the game.

Lordfoul

November 15th, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^

A great example of sudden change working: 2008 Citrus Bowl. We had no chance of beating Florida with our base package and Lloyd crafted a crazy spread gameplan that caught both Florida and everyone else off guard. If RR has such a change set up for OSU, maybe we have a chance in that one.

Not a Blue Fan

November 15th, 2009 at 2:42 PM ^

But I totally agree about Smith and Roundtree. Those guys look pretty solid. Same with Roh on defense. Will Campbell actually had a decent game yesterday, though I wouldn't put him on the same level in terms of contribution as those other guys.

tybert

November 15th, 2009 at 2:50 PM ^

This has killed us most of the year. I don't count anything from last year, but can recall several times when SUDDEN CHANGE situations resulted in SUDDEN SCORES.

Without even looking up the plays, here's where I can recall TDs right after a turnover or other TO-like play.

Though not officially TO's, I consider blocked punts, roughing the punters, on-side kicks, and turnover on downs, as TO-like plays.

ND game - pick in 4th Quarter turns into score (Mathews and Tate not on same page). Quick ND TD, they take the lead.

EMU game - Denard throws bad pick, EMU runs over us for a TD in 1st half

Iowa game - Mathews muff punt, quick score for Iowa in 2nd quarter. Iowa never trails again.

PSU game - Safety leads to free kick. Next play long bomb to TE for TD.

Illinois game - the infamous 1st and goal debacle, followed shortly by 70 yd TD run the other way

Purdue game - fumble to start 2nd half, one play one TD. Teric Jones isn't ready for on-side kick. One play, one TD

Wisky game - rough the punter, drive results in TD

To be fair, we DID stop teams and hold them to 3's in some games (Indy twice and fumble and INT, Iowa game after Tate fumble, etc.)

But overall, any team that commits a lot of turnovers AND gives up TDs often after the TO usually end up in cold-city bowls or not at all.

In some regards, "fixing" these issues is what we need to focus on this week and all during the off-season.

hail2m

November 15th, 2009 at 4:33 PM ^

An interesting article from the opposition may be encouraging for the faithful. Here is a clip with a link to the full editorial:

"Just give us time," Rodriguez said.

And that's the scary thing, because sooner or later, with or without Rodriquez, Michigan is going to stir. Just as sure as Fritz Crisler put those wings on the helmets more than 70 years ago so his single-wing passers could distinguish their downfield targets, the Wolverines are eventually going to rise up and reclaim what is theirs by birthright.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/badgers/69726477.html

Enjoy, and the good days will return...it's inevitable.

Senator Bluetarsky

November 15th, 2009 at 4:42 PM ^

This week, the team needs to focus on fundamentals. That's the best approach to attain a winning season next year. The lower classmen need to exit the OSU game confident the staff has got them on a sound football track even if this game is lost, which is more likely than less likely. No turnovers.

Post-season, RR needs to hold a series of relaxed team meetings to debrief the season and chart a course for 2010 so that everybody is on the same page and knows what will be required to prepare. Afterwards, RR should ease up for several weeks -- no visits to Mott, no "voluntary" ad hoc practices, etc., not even mandatory study table. The team needs some time off from all formal football activities so that the players can decompress and be situated right mentally. 2010 is going to be one heck of a consuming, pressure-filled time for them, more-so than 2009 will have been.

Lordfoul

November 15th, 2009 at 7:48 PM ^

I don't agree with the focus on fundamentals. This season is over without a win and a week is not enough time to make a serious difference in our "fundamentals." I would like to see this team fine tune some trickeration plays and to pull out all the stops against O$U. Let's see the triple reverses, the hook and ladders, and the flea flickers. Switch it up to smashing Minor and seams to Koger (if he can learn to catch again) and then catch em off guard with a double wheel route. Just dust off all of the tricks to try to steal this win. We will not beat them straight up with our base stuff, regardless of another week of "fundamentals."

jsquigg

November 15th, 2009 at 6:54 PM ^

I don't think it's fair to conclude that the teams confidence issues should be blamed solely on youth, or as the reason our season has headed south so quickly. While I hope things turn around, great coaches tend to find success with a talent gap by getting their players to overachieve. Unfortunately I don't think that can be said of the current regime.
Keep in mind that I think it's way too premature to fire Rod and I realize many of the excuses/reasons for the lack of success are legit. With that said it would be naive to think that we have done as well as we should even in our circumstance and it is depressing to think that we need certain types of players to succeed. I can't help but think that our coaches seem overwhelmed at times and contrary to some of the blind optimism I think that confidence issues start at the top.
Feel free to "make me pay" for my opinion but I do have some experience in coaching sports (not football, admittedly) and I can see a tangible difference between confident coaches and coaches who seem to be fighting their own success subconsciously.
I've been watching M football for as long as I can remember and am well versed in the tradition, but as much as I want success I can't do anything about it and something just doesn't feel right. Maybe it's our defense.....

Lordfoul

November 15th, 2009 at 7:54 PM ^

I too see some of the confidence issues begin with the coaching staff. Seeing the coaches screaming at each other and at their teammates can't help the confidence of the Michigan players. It sure seems like RR invests a lot emotionally on each and every play being perfectly executed. Maybe he just can't, but the dude needs to chill out at times IME.

Magnus

November 15th, 2009 at 8:44 PM ^

I'm not sure if we've run it this year, but it seems like a good counter to Tate's rollouts (and the defense subsequently trying to pin him inside) would be the counter draw. Instead of the running back stepping up to seal the playside end, he pretends to block and then Tate hands the ball off to him going back to the weak side.

It's been run against us with great success over the past several years (particularly by Oregon and MSU), so maybe we should try it.

Has anyone seen Michigan run this play since Rodriguez got here?

m83econ

November 15th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^

Just a word being used when the author doesn't really have a clue what is going on. The middle of the Michigan defense being a fertile area for attack by the opposing QB? Lack of confidence!