Angelique joins in: "we knew what they were going to do."
Yesterday Wojo openly criticized our coaching, today Angelique Chengalis, the mild mannered wirter that LC always gave interviews to, has a headline "Foes say they know what's coming," with a quote from Jason Ankrah of Nebraska "we knew what was coming right before they did it." This follows on the heels of Randy Gregory's comment that has already been on the board here: "whatever formation they came out in, we knew what they were going to throw out at us."
This is of value at this point only because it really confirms what critics in the blogosphere and elsewhere have said before, and when actual opposing players take that side too, it takes it beyond question into fact, that playcalling and scheme itself is the issue.
I hope that Hoke is asked today directly about his reaction to these quotes.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131111/SPORTS0201/311110017/Michig…
November 11th, 2013 at 10:17 AM ^
Do you see a lot of these kinds of comments? I don't, except for when a losing opponent says "we knew what they were going to do but couldn't stop it."
It's not about "putting new stuff in November." It is about not having utterly predictable formations that opposing teams can key on. That is not normal. That is why most teams self-scout, precisely so that they make sure that they don't slip inot a situation where opponents know that is coming based upon formation.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:21 AM ^
moth teams have intra-formation variety. So that when they line up in say a standard I with FB, they do multiple things; and on different downs and yardages. With Michigan that formation is one of two things only; it's a pitiful power run - usually tipped by the downs or personnel on the field (eg early on, Williams = run, Funchess = pass), or it is a play action of that same run. In very basic schemes the former there should set up the latter, you show a formation and run out of it to set up the play action; but when you do absolutely nothing else out of it, and the run game is a complete nonthreat even when not directly accounted for, you lose all viability of play action.
Teams may not know the exact play like they suggest, but it is fairly easy for Michigan to look at the formation they come out in, the players on the field, and the down/yards to go and have about a 90% success guessing Run/Pass. Then when you factor in for runs that we go to the strong side of our formation probably another 90% of the time you're doing good. Then add in for passes the vast majority are going to be targeted to one of 2 players and the defense has an advantage before the ball is snapped almost all the time. They can literally double Gallon and Funchess on expected passing plays, and more often than not Devin will either throw it to one of them either, or he will wait long enough for one of them to be open that he gets sacked.
The slightly more frustrating part is that EVEN with that; those 2 are good enough they will get open if Devin has any bit of acceptible pocket time. Just a couple of seconds and one will be open; but often by that point a block has been blown and someone is either slamming the poor guy into the turf or has made him have to scramble out to the point he can't see his awesome TE wide open in the middle of the field. It just sucks, yo. Teams that have dominant talent can offord to be a little predictable; teams that can't execute a simple run against even numbers for a single yard absolutely cannot afford to be predictable. And that's what we are, a bad offense that is easy to predict.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:43 AM ^
I tend to think of this in terms of Tecmo Bowl. In old school Tecmo Bowl, you had about a 25% of chance of having your play blown up by the defense guessing right. In Tecmo Super Bowl, there were twice as many plays, so the chances dropped to 12.5%--still a decent percentage, but not ridiculous.
If opponents know to a practical certainty that you're only going to run 1 or 2 different plays out of a formation, then you're just asking to be Tecmo Bowl'd.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
And now I want to go play some Tecmo Bowl.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:48 AM ^
I think the only way the current playcalling would actually work is if we had Tecmo Bowl Bo Jackson starting at RB as well as QB Eagles in our offense.
November 11th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^
Your comment made me think of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PBvOxicz-0.
And then I watched it and remembered what an actual hole for a RB to run through looked like.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:45 AM ^
Good teams self scout and try to identify their own tendencies before opponents can take advantage of them.
They also have a cohesive base offense that they can execute well and does not tip off the defense early.
Let's take the example of OSU:
They run almost all of their plays out of 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE), and their base play, the Inside Zone read, looks identical to their base play action passes for the first several seconds of the play.
The defense knows that they can run the zone read, where they have to focus on stopping Hyde first and foremost, but also worry about containing Miller. They also know that they can run it with play action with a variety of routes, but linebackers and safeties are in a bind, as cheating towards either the run or the pass leaves them vulnerable to the other, and there isn't much of a way to determine what is coming until after the play action fake/handoff.
Even if corners play off the WRs to prevent the deep ball, they have built in package plays that allow the QB to fake the handoff and fire a hitch out to the WR while the line run blocks.
In Michigan's case, new formations are being wheeled out mid-season. These plays sometimes work when the defense is unprepared (i.e. Minnesota and tackle over), but once it is on film the defense knows what is coming and the offense does not seem to expect this and come prepared with effective counters to what the defenses will do to attack it.
When Funchess is lined up in line at TE, how many of those plays are running plays? Probably not a ton. Even if they are, it has been established that Funchess is not particularly effective at run blocking.
Defenses at this point in the season can know the possible plays that the offense can run out of a formation. A cohesive offense, however, makes the defense worry about covering the entirety of the field from any given formation, and punishes them harshly for cheating on a play.
Even bad defenses like Nebraska are cheating as hard as they can and bringing guys right where they think the play is coming, and they were right more often than not and continued to do so because they were not sufficiently punished for it.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^
You are wrong, most teams run myltiple play from every one formation they have. They dont have major signs saying we are running the ball or we are passing the ball, if that was the case no offense will look good in NOV or DEC. YOu run multiple things from the same formation and you do add tweeks for your next opponent to take advantage of their weakness and hide your weakness
November 11th, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^
Borges just has to go. Other teams know what plays you are running. That should never happen. You're a "quarterback coach/guru" and Gardner went to see somebody else to get better, and halfway through the season he starts to regress.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:12 AM ^
To be fair, Borges can't coach him over the summer. It's either someone else or nothing.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:44 AM ^
Who the heck are you to be letting the facts get in the way of a good story?
November 11th, 2013 at 10:09 AM ^
They were running manball against Oregon, and Oregon seemed to know what was coming and couldn't stop it. We can't do that though, and it's very clear to everybody. They knew this in 2011 and we adjusted appropriately and had success. Why are the coaches refusing to adjust now? When we have the personnel to back up stubborn playcalling, by all means, go for it, but pack this playcalling up for the rest of 2013, it's not going to work.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
We "adjusted" by just letting Denard run the ball like crazy. That wasn't really an adjustment. It was just backyard football, and Denard was an unreal talent.
Denard isn't here anymore and there is no one to just give the ball to and "make something up".
November 11th, 2013 at 10:50 AM ^
but they chose a style of offense that would be successful with the personnel, rather than try to run the type of offense Hoke and co. wanted to from day one, which is what we're getting this year. I 2011, they accepted that they would not be successful doing so from day one. I think after Akron and UConn, our coaching staff probably should have come to that conclusion.
I don't consider myself very knowledgeable about playcalling, and didn't come to this conclusion until after this game, where Michigan couldn't rush against a team with a terrible rush defense. Now, it's pretty clear. Considering it's their profession, I'd think it should become clear sooner for Hoke and co. The refusal to adapt is what hurts. I'm still not calling for anyone's job, but I think it will be justified if if we don't see adaptation in the final stretch.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:39 AM ^
There are few teams that can let you stack the box and run anyway. I don't know if that is a reasonable place to try to be.
Of course having that type of offense allows you to have play action passing that just sucks the life out of the other side.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
it looks like they were getting the type of players that had the potential to pull that off, and down the road, maybe they will. I'm happy with them going for it, watching what Stanford did was a lot of fun, but if it doesn't work, and it becomes abundantly clear where less offensively-knowledgeable people can predict plays, you have to be willing to adjust, that's all I'm asking for. Even if the adjustment isn't as successful as we'd like it to be. I truly believe if we did adjust after the UConn game, we'd only have one loss.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:09 AM ^
Well to put things in perspective:
I was blitzed during the game and could predict the plays Michigan was going to run. I was somewhere between 50%-75% accurate.
So anybody who actually studies the film on Michigan and gameplans against them and isn't 8 beers deep would easily be able to stop them.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
You were blitzed during the game? That must have been traumatic.
Holy shit, our OL and RB's can't even protect the fans in the stands.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:31 AM ^
I should have switched from Two-Hearted Ale to something Sam Adams...
Even if I execute I'm just way too predictable.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
Congratulations on your retirement, President Coleman.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:53 AM ^
That Gregory guy really was everywhere.
November 11th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^
November 11th, 2013 at 10:12 AM ^
I'm thinking Brady will say "it should not matter if the defense knows - if we execute what is called it should still be successful." I admire his desire to be Bo-like in that regard, but this team is far from a Bo team. If he maintains this mindset, I'm afraid it will become his undoing.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:17 AM ^
adapt or go the way of the Dodo bird
November 11th, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^
If they have 8 or 9 in the box because they know what is coming your 6 maybe 7 blockers can't block everybody. Therefore the likelyhood of success isn't very good.
While I'm not a Hoke fan I refuse to believe he is so dumb about football that he actually likes the play calling as he stated yesterday. Borges called two screens yesterday and they went for 23 and 27 yards. He must have forgot about the play working as we never saw another one. That is a major issue especially since screens are one of the ways to ease defensive pressure.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:39 AM ^
November 11th, 2013 at 10:53 AM ^
"One year ago, we knocked on the door. This year, we beat on the door. Next year, we're going to kick the son of a bitch in." Bum Phillips
"Last quater we ran into the line and lost 1. This quarter we ran into the line and lost two. Next quarter, we're going to run into the line and get positive yardage." Al
In both cases, they were wrong.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:03 AM ^
This is very true. While I have been just as frustrated as everybody else that our young line seems to be struggling mightily, if the other team essentially knows what play is likely to be run, then they can simply outnumber us at the point of attack. This puts additional pressure on the young guys up front, as even a seasoned line will struggle if they don't have the numbers that they need to block all of the defenders. If we had some truly innovative (or at least less predictable) playcalling, I wonder if our line would at least look serviceable.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:12 AM ^
He'll most certainly be asked about the quotes, but I won't put much stock in his response. Hoke plays things close to the vest, which is why I wasn't bothered by his comment in the postgame presser that he saw nothing wrong with the playcalling. Of course he's going to say that; he's not going to throw his own offensive coordinator under the bus. All I care about is what he actually does to fix the problem. If Borges resigns quietly during the offseason without comment from Hoke (or some generic statement thanking Borges for his service and explaining that the parting was Borges' decision), then we'll know that Hoke sees what everyone else sees.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:16 AM ^
is like watching all of the bad beats from Pat Shurmur's 1992 WCO as depicted by the Browns the previous two NFL Seasons, right down to the "We know what's coming" quotes from opposing teams, and the inability/unwillingness to audible and/or have hot routes.
Check out this quote, from Mike Lombardi (who is now the Browns "GM")
Lombardi says each week, he calls a former coach on the phone and plays a game with him. “I tell my friend the personnel group, the formation, where the ball is located on the field and what hash mark and describe the motion — if there is any — and ask him to tell me the exact play that will be run. He is correct about 95 percent of the time. No lie. “The Browns are so integrated into the West Coast system that their predictability is becoming legendary around the league,” Lombardi writes.
Sound familiar?
(and I hate to say anything because I know what I don't know, but when I watch football and feel like I'm getting trolled because no one could possibly be so unwilling to adapt, I just wonder...oh well.)
November 11th, 2013 at 10:21 AM ^
Insightful and terrifying.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:31 AM ^
Pat Shurmur or Mike Holmgren, but you are 100% right.
If it wasn't for the Trent Richardson trade, 2 first round picks consisting of Richardson and Weeden would be legendary, even for the Browns.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:41 AM ^
Quick Thread Jack....
You realize that if we win this Sunday in Cincinnati we'll be tied for first place in the loss collumn with 3-1 division record? I havent been this fired up for the Browns since 07.
Here we go Brownies....HERE WE GO!
You may now resume discussion of the village idiot. Or, as he was described yesterday and it STILL makes me laugh today:
"Borges is like a retarded cow that keeps trying to stick his head through the electric fence"
November 11th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^
even better was when that guy asked why he continues to love watching michigan football. a responder wrote "maybe you are the retarded cow". hilarious.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:27 AM ^
I know. That was from Eric the Actor and was equally hilarious. I actually started laughing in bed last night when I thougt of that exchange. Wife asked me why was I laughing and trust me the story did not translate well.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^
they're going to be just good enough to get us excited before the pull the rug out from under us.
November 11th, 2013 at 1:01 PM ^
That muni lot for the Steelers game will be EPIC, absolute bedlam.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^
November 11th, 2013 at 11:04 AM ^
I consider this post as GOLD...... thank you, Benoit...... if you can, i really think you need to start a new thread on this, for it to permeate the Michigan nation, AND FAST.
BRIAN... this is of mass importance here... can you create its own thread in case Benoit doesn't see this message???????
November 11th, 2013 at 10:16 AM ^
You don't have to be a genius to know Einstein was looking into the future and referring to our offense when he said this.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:16 AM ^
It simply boggles my fucking mind that something I could see (and post about to the point of other people telling me to shut up about it) our coaching staff is completely oblivious to and seems unwilling or unable to change. When I was coaching 7 YEAR OLDS in football we knew to disguise plays as much as we could to keep the defense from being able to key on our formations but our highly paid OC doesnt know this? How could he not know this?
And yet he will be defended and supported by his boss cause heaven forbid we say or do anything that might hurt Mr Borge's feelings. To me he's like the idiot Generals in WWI who ordered their men out of the trenches and straight into machine gun fire and then blamed them for not executing their plan correctly. But even worse - If Borges was the general he'd probably have a little sign up saying "about to attack now. We're all going to run over here (with an arrow pointing to where his troops were going)".
I'm so not surprised cause if mGrowOld can see the play in advance you can be damned sure any (well maybe not Indiana's but everyone else) DC can see it and will adjust accordingly. And rest assured NOTHING WILL BE DONE TO CHANGE THIS INSANITY this year or next.
It's just not the Michigan way.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:36 AM ^
You sure think a lot of yourself. People disagree with other people all the time. Why do you feel the need to throw it back in the face of the people who disagreed with you earlier on? You coaching 7 year olds is not relevant whatsoever. Stop trying to build yourself up. You're not on the level of these coaches and nobody on this blog is.
Has the game passed Borges by? It sure looks like it but his experience in the field of football is something none of us can imagine. He most certainly needs to go but to act like you're on the level of someone who has coached football for his entire adult life is a poor attempt at an ego boost and it makes you look silly.
You thought it was a good idea to compare our OC to WW1 generals who had to deal with trench warfare? I understand you don't like this guy but death and football are not peanut butter and jelly. Time to remove head from anus. You then refer to yourself in the third person. I've posted a lot of stuff on here to be a novelty and bring levity to the blog but holy shit. It is a true shock that you went to Michigan but that was before standards were so high and they let anyone in, my aunt included.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:47 AM ^
Welcome back Gary. You didnt like me or my posts before you left and obviously nothing's changed since your return.
November 11th, 2013 at 10:53 AM ^
I suppose you don't have the wit to respond with anything furthering the assumption, now an almost certainty, made at the end of my post.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^
Gary, I learned long ago not to try and debate with crazy people. Especially crazy people who don't like you (and you clearly don't) so I have no intention of doing anything more than simply welcoming you back to the board.
Some of the gif's you used to post were funny.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^
When someone plays a role that role does not embody who they are whatsoever. Christian Bale isn't really Batman, btw. Protip for ya there.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:05 AM ^
Both of you should just stop before this goes any further.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^
Calling someone out for a self aggrandizing post is something that should be done. If he is old, probably north of 50, and he posts crap like that, and is sincere in it, then I guess there is no point in trying to help him realize what a bafoon he is.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^
& obviously he thinks highly of his wife and deservedly so, but that doesn't make what he said wrong.
Misdirection and hiding plays makes a team successful. My high school football team had only a handful of formations, and we ran 30 different plays out of them, and we could and did run every single play out of every single formation. It's not rocket science. As someone else said earlier in the thread, it goes back to last year's OSU game. Devin in as QB = pass. Denard in as QB = run.
Yes, comparing football to war is stupid, as usually people don't die from football. That doesn't make his point about failing to change tactics in light of new advancements any less valid. The US won the revolutionary war in part because we realized the European way of fighting "i.e. line up in neat lines and stand there and shoot at each other" would not work well with how outgunned we were, so we resorted to ambushes and bushwhacking. WWI was a meat grinder because the generals were content to send men running (and even men on horseback) directly into machine gun fire without any sort of cover. WWII was a disaster for the Allies in the early years because the French thought that WWI tactics would work against WWII tanks and planes of Germany's blitzkrieg.
Just because Al has had a lifetime of coaching football doesn't mean that he knows more than everyone else. In fact, it could very well be why he's so set in his ways and obstinate in the face of change. His contempt for Heiko's bubble screen references in the press conferences is proof of that. When the other team is gifting us 5 yard gains minimum by having their DBs way back from the line of scrimmage, and him refusing to take those yards because they don't meet his definition of what he wants to do is idiocy at its finest.
November 11th, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^
I'll say this once because any further talk of it would not be for the truth. The part you said about deservedly so is at the opposite end of the spectrum. I've met her. There is a way to go about saying things in a right and a wrong way. It involves a fairly large spectrum and you most certainly colored within the lines. The former did not.
I completely disagree with your point about him not knowing more. If someone devotes their life to something and an observer, somewhat educated or otherwise, thinks that they know more then they're just giving themselves too much credit. I'm not arguing the point that he needs to go, btw. I want to make that clear. He has habits that are detrimental to the production of the offense and are easily read by the opposing defenses. He also seems stubborn to stick with concepts that don't work. Those are the things that are a problem. The plays are fine but the order in which he calls them, especially situationally, are what has been so egregious.