Two ways to learn, two ways to play: revisiting Stanford vs. USC 2007

Submitted by dragonchild on

So it's August, and football withdrawal is reaching a frenzy.  As productive as the limited media access to Fall Camp will be for the players, it leaves us in an echo chamber to. . . well, I'm hearing predictions of 10-win seasons and maybe even better.

As I've said elsewhere on MGoBlog, I'm tempering my expectations of results.  The coaching staff clearly knows their stuff, but they're making a lot of changes and to an extent that compromises some short-term gains.  Consider it a young team in spirit, with the inevitable goofs and gaffes that will lose us some games until they figure it out.  And yet, it's also time to be really excited.  Because starting next month, no team is safe.  Ask Pete Carroll.

With that in mind, I'm back to pick on Borges again (sorry Al), but in a more positive light -- looking ahead to the upcoming season.  No, this isn't a preview of San Jose State, but a comparison to highlight what is to me the most undercovered and yet profound shift in program philosophy.  In anticipation of what Michigan 2015 will look like, I revisited Stanford's 2007 upset of #1 USC.

"There was never a sense of, like, oh, it's the fourth quarter; oh, there's 85,000 people here; oh, this is the #1 team in the country; oh, we can drive down and beat 'em. All I'm thinking is, we've gotta make this drive down, we gotta go score. . ."
-Tavita Pritchard

To be clear, the Stanford offense did NOT have a good game.  5-17 on third downs, 11/30 passing with a pick, and 2.2ypc rushing usually means you go home with your head down.  And while there's been no shortage of words written or spoken about the improbable comeback, for as bad as the offense did that day, something struck me about the last drive.  I find myself compulsively re-watching from 1:20:00 of this clip, not because it's exciting, but to compare it with a very different program philosphy:

"If you don't understand read progressions, footwork, timing and all that, you get paralysis through analysis. So there's carryover is what I'm saying. I don't care how much offense you decide to run, they're still running the same defenses, so unless you can talk the other guys into running the same defense every time, which I've never been able to do, it's always going to be somewhat difficult for the quarterback no matter how much you scale back the offense."

-Al Borges on backup QB Shane Morris

Hold that thought.  Late in the fourth quarter, down a TD, Pritchard was facing 4th and 20.  Harbaugh's calling in the play.  And then this happens:

"I just remember being across the field, and [Harbaugh] yelling something to me. And I don't remember being able to hear it. . . I knew there could only be a couple of things, so I went back to the huddle, and I was like, 'OK, here's what we're going to do.'"

-Tavita Pritchard, Stanford backup QB

Let that sink in:  In Stanford's do-or-die play of the game, their unheralded backup QB didn't have Harbaugh to tell him what to do.  It was just him, in the middle of a deafening Coliseum, 41-point underdog against the #1 team in the country, effectively alone.  This is basically the worst-case scenario for a Borges QB (worst-case scenario in general, really), but this is what a Harbaugh QB does in that situation:

"[Pritchard] comes back. . . 'Guys, I couldn't hear him; I don't got the play, but. . . we're gonna run double go.' . . . Man, we don't even got the play??"

-Richard Sherman

"I remember keeping in an extra blocker. . . I was gonna make sure I could get this thing off."

-Tavita Pritchard

"Tavita eventually put it together with the information that he had, and was able to call the play."

-Jim Harbaugh

Sherman caught Pritchard's pass just beyond the first-down marker.

Maybe Pritchard is just the sort of cocky bastard (I mean that in a good way) to relish the situation, but he has to know he has the autonomy when he needs it.  That comes from the head coach, which makes it an unfathomable outcome for a Hoke/Borges offense.  Harbaugh is widely considered an innovative game-caller, but what I'm most geeked about is a program that will put the players in a position to dictate the game as needed -- not through talent, but through understanding of the game.

Stanford wasn't done, nor was USC.  1st-and-goal quickly became 4th-and-goal, Stanford's gains in the series rolled back by a substitution penalty.  Well, we've been there before.  What's the call, Al?

"We were pretty much going to stick with the plan. There was not going to be a lot of audibling in this game. . . we had designed the plan to block up to handle most of what they did, so we did not want to turn this into a chess game on the line of scrimmage."

-Al Borges

Needless to say, Stanford went in the exact opposite direction. With everything on the line against the #1 team in the country, the players changed the play again.

"Mark Bradford, me and Evan Moore, we're trying to fit it in the hole, but [USC] kept their three best defenders over there for three plays. "Mark is like, 'Man, I'm gonna switch to the other side,' because Ryan Whalen, a walk-on, was on the other side. We don't even look on the other side; we're just trying to fit it in the hole. So. . . we're like, 'All right.' You know. . . why not? This hasn't been working, so he switched to the other side."

-Richard Sherman

USC defended Bradford one-on-one in the corner, and he pulled in the game-winning TD.

If you're looking for the single biggest change from Hoke to Harbaugh, it's not the scheme, or the MANBALL, or the crazy plays or toughness or four-hour practices or a goddamn headset.  Well, that's all part of it, but it's going to be guys who look like they're lost to guys who know what the hell they're doing.  No, Al, it's not a chess match on the line of scrimmage because football players aren't pawns.  They're people with brains, and those brains can be a huge on-field advantage.  I liken the shift from guys who memorize sheets of music to musicians.  I'm not looking forward to Harbaugh micromanaging the offense; I'm hoping that he'll do the exact opposite and field a team that opposing DCs won't be able to keep up with.

Comments

ST3

August 4th, 2015 at 10:05 AM ^

Reminds me of Phil Jackson's unwillingness to call timeouts. His philosophy is that the players will figure it out, evetually, and they'll be better off for that learning experience.

Where does Nussmeier fit on this learning spectrum? Seems like he wasn't here long enough for us to figure him out.

 

dragonchild

August 4th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^

. . . in that I agree that Nuss wasn't here long enough.  But my impression based on what I've seen of (heavily edited) practice footage, and the 2014 offense, is that he's a "figure it out" guy.  He wanted people to make decisions on the field.  Unfortunately by that point Gardner all but had his thinking parts coached out of him, so he made a lot of bad decisions.  But you know what?  I liked that he was at least making decisions.  I personally think it's more fun to own a game and lose than win because someone dictated your every move.

BlueSky

August 4th, 2015 at 10:35 AM ^

and organizational skills are much higher with Harbaugh.  I believe this will filter down to the players.  It will allow them to know their assignments better, and to think on their feet as you point out.

trueblueintexas

August 4th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^

At the highest levels of competition you need good athletes to compete, so some of the stars in recruiting matter. That said, I much prefer a team made up of people who have such a will and desire not to lose and are smart enough to figure out how to do it. 

dragonchild

August 4th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^

I agree on talent -- get it if you can -- but to me, will & desire are hardly worth mentioning except as exceptions where they're lacking.  I think the FBS level has a high floor of desire to win that's really just a matter of channeling that energy productively.  Nobody's scared of anybody at that level.  One of the factors that did in USC that day was their stubborn insistence on imposing their will upon an underdog that wouldn't back down.

Anyway, we got the talent, and the desire was there all along.  The Devin Funchess that refused to block was the same guy that played with a bad leg.  I don't think anyone was inherently lacking toughness or desire, so when I read "well bye" posts on MGoBlog I seethe.  Rather, I think the players were smart enough to know when they were being asked to head-butt their way through a brick wall.  Again, they're not chess pieces.

I speculate that what they lacked was trust.  There was personal regard for one another, but not a whole lot of confidence.  The coaches didn't trust the players, the players didn't trust the plays, the QB didn't trust the O-line, the receivers didn't trust the QB, the RBs didn't trust what they saw, the defense didn't trust the offense. . . and I think that happens when everyone does what they're told, don't get the results that are promised, and aren't given the chance or means to learn why it didn't work.

trueblueintexas

August 4th, 2015 at 10:39 PM ^

My comment was not made in the vain of effort or caring. I believe Funchess really was giving his all given his injury. I respect him for that. But I have competed enough to know the difference between someone who has the will to win vs someone who has the will and desire not to lose. They are two different things. You can defeat the soul of someone who has the will to win. You have to kill the person who does not want to lose. I want people who do not want to lose. Combine that with athletic ability and intelligence and you have the truly special players/team.

dragonchild

August 5th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^

"You can defeat the soul of someone who has the will to win. You have to kill the person who does not want to lose."

I agree in principle, but I think you missed the point I was trying to make.  I agree that some dogs just can't be kept down, but I disagree that it persists in all possible contexts, particularly Michigan.  You CAN defeat the soul of someone who "does not want to lose".  How?  You emasculate the poor bastard.  Take away the reasons for self-motivation and replace them with unproductive control.  Yes, I know that's what you want to do, but we're going to make you do this instead.  (Hey, feels like some jobs I've been. . .)

This decouples what they're doing from what they want.  They want to win (or not lose, whatever), but they're told to do something else instead.  They're not going to do that something else with anywhere near as much gusto.  That's how a team full of desire and strength winds up going through the motions.  It's not that they're lazy, or lacking desire, or need some supernatural will to overcome.  It's that they know what they're doing isn't going to get them what they want.  100% effort for 0 result isn't an impressive show of willpower; it's stupidity.  These players are not stupid.

That goes both ways, in fact.  I think employers, teachers and coaches all want that extraordinary employee/student/player who gives 100% in all situations, but if you dig, the real reason isn't because they represent something worthy of such effort so much as engaging them is just too much of a bother.  They want unquestioning obedience because it makes their lives easy.  Getting everyone moving in the same direction is monumentally tougher, but when it happens, even the not-so-special guys might surprise you.

Bear in mind Michigan 2015 saw only a handful of transfers, and some of those were related to injury (Pipkins) or scheme (Countess, maybe Norfleet).  I count only 3 or 4 guys who arguably couldn't deal with how hard Harbaugh was working them.  The team that complained about practices running long last year, and the team that's used to 4-hour practices now?  It's the same guys.

ST3

August 4th, 2015 at 2:30 PM ^

I'd add that there are also two ways to teach - do as I say, and do as I do. Borges, having never played the position to my knowledge fits the former, Harbaugh the latter.

My son was having trouble throwing strikes the other day in his little league game. I never pitched, but I've watched some pitching coaches work and picked up a few things. So I tried to give the boy some pointers, but I was basically lost. The catcher, who also pitches, said to my son, "you've got to use your hips." Sure enough, that was the issue. He started turning more, getting better follow through, and he started throwing strikes. I'm humble enough to admit when I've been out-coached by an 11 year old. And the difference is that he learned how to pitch by pitching, while I just watched. (Sadly, in this analogy, I'm Borges.)

dragonchild

August 5th, 2015 at 7:46 AM ^

First, I think there are more than two ways to teach.  There are many techniques in a good teacher's arsenal.  Though I echo the concern about lacking hands-on experience with regards to our receivers.

That said, I think the lack of QB experience is only part of the problem with Borges.  Even if he was an NFL QB, his problem was that he wasn't concerned with getting the players to know what they're doing as much as do what they're told.  Experience isn't necessarily a cure for that.  It's a widespread problem in teaching today.  There are legitimate uses for rote memorization, but it's not sustainable for topics with any depth.  With enough repetition, you can teach a piano piece to someone with no musical background whatsoever in a few weeks.  It takes YEARS to build up a musical background.  Clearly, memorization is more efficient, right?  But now say the piece has to change keys (it's rare, but it happens).  The memorizer has to learn the piece all over again -- it's all notes, and now the guy has to learn a whole new set of notes.  Absolutely nothing carries over.  The musician, having mastered transposing, just makes an ad hoc adjustment.  Understanding the content vs. understanding the concept.  Pritchard and Bradford demonstrated a musician's understanding of the game.

Finally, don't sell yourself short.  To me, one of the biggest obstacles to teaching is arrogance.  Teachers get the impression they're supposed to know better.  I think teaching is really about engagement, and instilling the student with the ability to gather information, experiment objectively, to self-correct.  Every student gets taken under the wing of a teacher with one thing certain: they won't be a student for very long.  No course is nearly long enough to get everything in, even if students weren't a bunch of distracted yutes.  So to me, what's important is not how much material you pack into their heads, but whether or not they develop their capacity to fill it by themselves.  So heck, if they're helping each other, that's the best result a teacher can hope for.

Hotel Putingrad

August 4th, 2015 at 9:22 PM ^

This is partly why I expect Gentry to take over this year. It may be easier for him to begin on the same page as Harbaugh than for Morris to expunge the past couple years (or for Rudock to shake off the Ferentz for that matter). On the bright side, experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.

Kick Out The Jams

August 4th, 2015 at 9:40 PM ^

The points made also apply in the workplace, as I've unfortunately worked in too many places where, to paraphrase dragonchild's follow up comments, "the supervisors/managers didn't trust the employees, the employees didn't trust the directives they were given, ... " etc.

SC Wolverine

August 5th, 2015 at 1:26 PM ^

Watched this and then videos of some other Stanford games.  Boy was that encouraging.  Those did not look like highly ranked players.  But those were football teams.  Can't wait to see it at UM.

SAM love SWORD

August 5th, 2015 at 4:53 PM ^

Great insight.  I think this also plays into the entitlement issues we keep hearing about the Hoke locker rooms.  If you are told repeatedly that the gameplan will not change and your sheer talent will be enough to overcome your opponent, how else will you feel?  I highly doubt Gardner/Morris had any less capacity for football IQ than Stanford's backup, Hoke and Borges just didn't have the skills to get them there.

HARBAUGH!