Hockey pet peeve: "when a teammate tips a puck in on you, which is exactly how my first collegiate goal against happened. Thanks, Copper."
(Misopogon, if you can fix my tables, I'd appreciate it)
Alright class, I’m going to be your substitute teacher for the day, since Mr. Cook is taking some well-needed R & R. Consider this my Christmas present to you all, as I jump on the grenade that was the Ohio State game for the second year running.
Reviewing this game is like being Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five looked at life, or like the plot of Lost ended up: the end is pre-determined because you’ve lived through it, and you are powerless to change it. You know what’s coming, but you have to sit through it anyway. I honestly didn’t really go into this game with a realistic expectation of victory. The team is/was too young, too small, too slow. Greater upsets have happened, but when I heard that Hagerup would be out, I just put my feet up to cheer for good plays and progress. Were there any? Let’s see. Michigan kicks off.
Mercy. OSU runs out the clock and punts twice. I don't think there's anything more to be gained by charting the rest of this.
Great, I’ve got to do Brian’s internal monologue now?
Yes, now make with the chart
There will be no chart for the following reasons: 1. Just doing the play chart is hard enough. Give Brian more money for doing this. 2. Since the chart is subjective, my opinion on people’s performance is largely worthless to compare to anything. I think it was net positive for tackling, probably slightly negative for coverage, RPS slightly negative, with Demens, Kovacs, Avery, Roh and Gordon being mentioned most often.
Alright then, do you have any opinion on coaches, scheme, players or anything?
I think that except for the OSU drive in the second quarter where OSU went hurry-up and the defense seemed to scramble around, they really played pretty solid. I mean, one kickoff for touchdown, one touchdown from a shanked punt, and maybe two blown coverages are the majority of the points. Comparing OSU’s defense to Michigan’s has some validity. I got to the point that I was typing in 3-4 before even starting to watch the play. Aside from goalline, there were only a few instances where OSU played anything other than base 3-4, with one LB standing on the line strongside, and one LB lined up over the slot receiver. That, compared to what Michigan did/does, says a lot. While I won’t go so far as to say that the 3-3-5 can’t work in the Big Ten, I will say that there seems to be a lot to learn to run it, and that would be hard for young players to pick up. Now, I don’t know if a simple 4-3 cover 2 would be effective, simply because you have to have the players to put into positions. I’ll give the coaching staff the benefit of the doubt and assume that they looked at the talent on the roster, the available spots for the defense, and decided that trying to keep the opposing offense guessing is/was a key to victory.
Wow, that was long. So, fire GERG or what?
I may have an opinion on that, but ultimately it’s pointless to argue about it, since I don’t have a vote. The defense held OSU to 3-and-outs to start the game and ended three drives with field goals. Look, it’s not world-beating, but it’s a far cry from the Illinois game already. I’m maybe not excited, but maybe cautiously optimistic?
+1’s for everyone!
Just curious... How many hours did this take you?
Eight to ten hours for both, give or take (probably a bit more with formatting and video clips, etc.)
But I thought the Defensive UFR would have the Michigan Defensive formations, not the OSU offensive formations.
I was hoping to determine how often the 4 man versus 3 man front was used.
I'm confused why you think the chart is subjective. The chart just totals up what you already subjectively scored in the UFR. Without the chart we're not sure how well the DL versus the LB versus the secondary did in comparison to each other.
Congrats on the effort, but bummer on not sticking the landing.
The D-form is listed after the OSU formation notes. I guess I did it backwards by listing the offense first. I didn't bother to chart mostly because I feel like I shortchanged both O and D-lines. I know I didn't watch a lot of the blocking, apart from "who screwed up", so I think that would negatively reflect on the line. You're welcome to total them up if you wish.
Comparing OSU’s defense to Michigan’s has some validity. I got to the point that I was typing in 3-4 before even starting to watch the play. Aside from goalline, there were only a few instances where OSU played anything other than base 3-4, with one LB standing on the line strongside, and one LB lined up over the slot receiver. That, compared to what Michigan did/does, says a lot.
That's wrong. OSU doesn't use a 3-4. Their base is a 4-2 nickel, with Heyward in a two point stance some of the time, and a Star (oversized strong safety) covering the slot receiver.
Thanks for the correction. I struggled with that last year as well. I didn't know what to call it, since there's usually 3 down linemen, but one LB lined up in a crouch on the end of the line and one out on the slot receiver. I didn't know what to call the guy in the crouch or the "coverage LB." So I guess my description was correct, but the terminology was wrong. Sorry about that. I guess the point remains that they play base defense for a large portion of the game.
Heyward is almost always in a 3-point stance. Usually it's Nathan Williams in a 2 point stance. It's really an undershifted 4-2-5; essentially the guy who looks like the Sam is the Star (the big, third safety). Then you've got the Mike and Will still on the field, plus the Leo in a 2 point stance. It looks like a 3-4, but the personnel is a little funky (and so are the assignments).