Gattis Explanation For So Many Runs? Time of Possession?
Interesting article. Why not score and put pressure on Army to play catch up which would put them out of character like their red zone pass play which led to an interception? If Gattis and Harbaugh can't plan better than then holy shit folks.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:39 PM ^
#speedinspace
September 10th, 2019 at 1:21 PM ^
https://www.google.com/search?q=oklahoma+army&ie=&oe=
Top-end offenses have only ran up 28 points in an OT1 win.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:28 PM ^
Oklahoma had the ball for 15 minutes. We had it for 30. They would've scored 56 if they had our defense.
How does math work?
September 10th, 2019 at 2:25 PM ^
How does Michigan get to 30 mins of possession if they score quickly, and put the ball back in Army's hands? And at what point does a tired defense start to get beat by Army more often?
We were a yard away from surrendering 21 points in the third quarter. We gave up 14 points in 30 mins on defense. How was our defense THAT much better than Oklahoma's, who gave up 21 points in 45mins?
September 10th, 2019 at 11:02 PM ^
Army almost lost to Rice at home the week before. They had to go on an 80 yard drive at the end of the 4th to get the win. Rice is not a very good team. This was just a disappointing effort by the offense. The Defense played about as good as expected.
September 10th, 2019 at 3:00 PM ^
When is the last time any team actually scored 40 on Army?
September 10th, 2019 at 5:42 PM ^
Duke put 34 on them last season
September 10th, 2019 at 4:49 PM ^
Is there an offense more top-end than OU?
Cheers.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:32 PM ^
Love how people keep bringing up Oklahoma to justify how poorly Michigan played. The same Oklahoma that fired their DC two weeks later because the defense was pure crap.
Why don't they bring up Duke?
Duke smoked Army 34-14 last year too
September 10th, 2019 at 12:37 PM ^
Rice ran for a petter YPC than we did... in fact, they more than doubled it. 6 yards per carry for the Owls. We couldnt crack 3.
In case you missed it, I'm talking about fucking Rice.
Yep. It was all by design to play dogshit offense because that would help our defense... or something.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:33 PM ^
Crap article right here.
I wish I was a "sports writer" or radio personality. All you have to do is make big, broad emotional statements and not have to worry about the complexities or details of reality.
This "writer" asserts it is:
- time of possession vs scoring - you must choose
So, if you are choosing time of possession, then you are passing up scoring plays on purpose.
Maybe....just maybe... hear me out.... the goal was to score all along. Maybe scoring was the main goal of the offense. Radical, I know.
Maybe Michigan figured it had just about a good chance of scoring on the ground as in the air. Had they had success running the ball and scoring running TDs to that point?
And, lets say the down side of not scoring is much greater if you don't chew up the clock...considering Army's style. So, the chances of scoring are about the same in the mind of the coaches, but there is a benefit to running the ball in that situation?
Maybe that strategy worked for UM in this game?
This author wants you to assume they chose "time of possession" as much more important than chances of scoring. As opposed to simply factoring it in at some level.
Dumb "hot take."
September 10th, 2019 at 12:44 PM ^
If you score more points you put an offense who can’t pass into “must pass” mode...easier win! And take a concept from the NFL, “pass to open up the run”. Back them up out the box, then hash them.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:03 PM ^
That's a fine strategy. Once again, what if the chances of that working were about the same as running the ball more?
September 10th, 2019 at 12:54 PM ^
In the second half of a game that they spent either tied or losing they ran the ball 23 times for 55 yards. That's successful to you?
September 10th, 2019 at 1:07 PM ^
The chewing up the clock and winning the game was the success. What are you talking about? I guess it's not a successful o drive unless you score a TD. Maybe it is successful if you have a good yard per play? I don't know. The only thing that we can all agree is a barometer of success is winning the game. That has to be the baseline. Everything else should be better though.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:19 PM ^
Michigan become more one dimensional than Army versus a team that gave up 6 yards per carry versus Rice at home...
Michigan has a ton to fix before going into Camp Randall.
Not sure why anyone would think that's a given based on what we have seen.
Army was 90th in yards allows per play versus FBS teams last year; let's not pretend their defense was anything special - they were aided and abetted by Michigan's baffling approach
September 10th, 2019 at 2:49 PM ^
Sure. They have to clean up a lot of sloppiness. Fumbles. Dropped balls. Penalties.
But, the strategy here of CONSIDERING the slow nature of Army's offense and keeping them off the field seems to have been a good strategy.
September 10th, 2019 at 3:20 PM ^
i am more concerned at the yyc than the fact Michigan ran the ball...
One can argue that Army stacked the line, but Michigan still refused to do anything but run it between the tackles; its no wonder that strategy ended up nearly costing them the game.
i don't buy the idea that this was the only way to win the game. Ball control is often used to prevent high scoring offenses from getting multiple possessions.
Army's offense, isn't very good, ranking 64th versus FBS and 84th versus FBS power 5 teams in 2018.
Michigan played right into what Army wanted, just like Lloyd used to do, keeping the score close to the point it became a coin flip.
Michigan happened to win that coin flip because of the army 50 yarder was just wide right, but there's no way anyone is convince me that was the right strategy considering Michigan needed a lucky break to win it.
September 10th, 2019 at 7:57 PM ^
Why do you suppose Michigan, with an alleged high power offense, decided to play Army's game of slow clock chewing possessions? And by Michigan I mean Harbaugh.
September 10th, 2019 at 8:49 PM ^
the best answer is that shea was injured.
though that answer is also fraught with questions... if shea was injured, why is he playing over DMC? Based on the strategy being espoused, DMC could have handled the ball off just as well as SP... the passing option evaporated as the first half wound down...
eliminating possessions from army doesn't make a lot of sense to me at least, unless one is expecting Army to score on every possession they had.on the road versus Michigan.
their offense in 2018 was not that good as noted previously
September 10th, 2019 at 1:29 PM ^
I don't consider beating Army by 3 in double overtime to be a success. Seems we have a fundamental difference on the definition of that word.
September 10th, 2019 at 2:55 PM ^
B.S.
Everyone considers a "win" a success on some level. If Michigan won every game by 3 all year and brought home a national championship, you would be leading the parade.
Maybe you mean the performance could have been more impressive, but now you are moving into that big gray area of what "successful" means for more nuanced considerations.
Success =/= looking great
Maybe it makes you concerned about future games. Fine. Be concerned. I think we all are.
September 10th, 2019 at 7:31 PM ^
"So, if you are choosing time of possession, then you are passing up scoring plays on purpose."
You mean like not kicking the field goal on Army's 19 in a tie game with less than 10 minutes left? Would that be passing up scoring plays on purpose to you?
September 10th, 2019 at 12:35 PM ^
My thoughts exactly. With their style of offense, we should have tried to score quick and in a hurry the 1st half. Get a comfortable lead and get them to try and play catch up. Their style of play doesn't afford them the opportunity to keep up with a high Octane offense.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:08 PM ^
But then we fumbled on three of the first five possessions. Killed that idea.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:09 PM ^
Didn't we? Our first drive, we were moving. 7 plays, 38 yards gained (-5 for penalty to net 33) in 2:41. We mixed pass and run pretty well. Then the fumble.
Then Army goes on a 10 play drive and we are trailing. Our defense has already been on the field for 7:18 of the first 9:59. And we cannot just give the ball back to Army, so maybe we are a little conservative, but we alternate run and pass until we end up having to punt. Luckily we fake it and go onto score.
We get 7 points taken off the board by the refs.
We immediately go for the endzone, and Shea is about to hit his WR for a TD when Turner misses a block and Shea is strip-sacked.
The next offensive possession is going really well, until we fumble again....now we are losing 14-7.
The next possession we go for it on 4th and 1 at our own 32 (sounds aggressive to me), and we end up missing a FG at the end of the half. Penalties really hampered our chance of cashing in (2 false starts and a 10 yard loss on intentional grounding). Not just for the 20 yards lost, but the lost TO we were forced to take to avoid a 10 second runoff.
2nd half starts with a 3 and out, and Levert Hill saving our asses from going down 2 scores against a boa constrictor. At this point the strategy changes from winning in style to winning at all costs against a team capable of running an entire quarter off the clock in one possession.
September 10th, 2019 at 8:01 PM ^
Penalties, fumbles, and missed assignments. Coaching.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:48 PM ^
Oklahoma scored on 2-3 minute drives last year, possessing the ball for a TOTAL of 15 minutes in regulation. Had our D been on the field 45 minutes, we would have lost.
Milking the clock was the right move. We don't have Oklahoma's offense.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:33 PM ^
I thought the whole idea of hiring Gattis was to get closer to Oklahoma's offense.
You're saying instead of making strides toward becoming a top-10 offense, we packed it in, sent a wet fart out onto the field in order for oue defense to Not Get Scored On Quite As Much. That was the strategy? That's why we operated less-efficiently than Rice?
Aren't you a football coach? Or former player? Have you ever entered a game as a 22-point favorite and adopted the strategy of "let's try not to score so much so they can't score so much"? What in the fucking hell is going on here?
Army had 4 drives longer than 9 minutes against Oklahoma. NINE MINUTES!!
Their longest drive against us was 6:46. Oklahoma's problems were Not. Our. Problems. We have a defense. What we didn't have was nearly enough points for as many times as we had the ball.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:50 PM ^
I see the excuses are starting to roll in. By next Friday this team will be a juggernaut and Harbaugh is saving all the good plays for Wisconsin
September 10th, 2019 at 12:55 PM ^
Excuses for what exactly?
September 10th, 2019 at 1:17 PM ^
All I know is that Urban Meyer who kicked Michigan’s ass every year he was at OSU, commented after the game that Michigan needed to throw away the game film and not look at it.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:19 PM ^
The excuses aren't rolling in. The coaches have had a chance to speak to the media and explain themselves. The way the game played out, the strategy makes enough sense to me. And it worked.
The Wisconsin game, on the road, was our 2nd hardest game on the schedule according to just about any predictive stat. It'd be foolish for the fanbase to see that game as an automatic win, regardless of our performance to date. Our offense has been slow to start the year, and our DL is probably our weakest unit on the team, so things look bleak. I don't think the game we played against Army matters in the context of the rest of the season though.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:30 PM ^
Regardless of what the coaches said to the media and how their strategy supposedly paid off, Michigan looked uninspired, unprepared, and the offensive play calling was ridiculous. Yes Army is tough but Ohio State, Clemson and Alabama puts 30-40 points on Army and surrenders no more than 14. This is what championship caliber programs do. Michigan is ridiculously hyped every preseason which makes the entire Michigan football support network look incredibly foolish.
September 10th, 2019 at 2:35 PM ^
In what world is Michigan on the same level as Ohio State, Clemson, and Alabama. Has anyone watched football the past 15 years? If you buy into that level of hype that's on you.
September 10th, 2019 at 2:49 PM ^
So let me get this straigh... Baran Von Buttucks...
Two posts above, we should be believers of the Coaching staff and team because they answered questions of the media and you bought their slop because it's a "W", however we're not supposed to believe the "hype"... which is it? Bi-Polar much?
September 10th, 2019 at 4:54 PM ^
I believe Harbaugh is a great coach. I believe Michigan can win 1 National Title per decade under Harbaugh. I believe that would be the best record of success for Michigan Football in the past 75 years.
I do not believe Michigan deserves to be in the same conversation as Alabama, Ohio St, and Clemson.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:38 PM ^
I think this is a classic case of latching on to one of the tangential points to create drama or outrage instead of keeping a focus on primary points, which as the author noted were easier understood.
I still would have kicked the field goal.
But I get too the concern regarding leaving Army time to drive down and score. If UM puts together a 1st-3rd down sequence at the end of regulation that was 3 straight incompletions like we saw at the start of OT, then Army likely wins (again, assuming UM goes for it and fails).
September 10th, 2019 at 1:51 PM ^
I hate when things spiral out of control. He's speaking about one drive at the end of the game. analyze the merits of that any way you want. That's fine. Just don't use that as a launching point to throw out your piping hot Valenti take.
They were trying to bleed clock to score last at the end of the game. Knowing Army can't score quick the amount of time that is normally relevant expands.
It's not coaching malpractice. It's a calculated choice that has pluses and minuses.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:59 PM ^
If they were going to try to run the ball pretty much every play in the second half, why in the hell didn't Patterson once pull the ball and run? It was there a number of times and he was very good at it last year. Was he told by the coaches not to pull and run due to his injury? If that was actually the case then he had no business being on the field with that offensive strategy. That turned our run game into a completely 1-dimensional predictable attack. Also, Turner was presumably removed because of a busted coverage. If we were just going to run anyways why not get him a couple of carries? His running style is different than Zach's and he would have had fresh legs. Maybe he breaks one.
As for the 4th down plays...TERRIBLE decisions IMO. In a game with 9 minutes to go and it's 14-14 and both teams are struggling to score, kick the 36 yard field goal and take the damn lead. If the fear was that on the ensuing drive Army would run a 9-minute 75 yard drive for a TD we still had all 3 timeouts. Even if Army does that, if the timeouts are used wisely they'd still be kicking to us with well over a minute left to play.
Take the damn points. It was unconscionable to pass on that FG try.
As for the late game 4th down attempt, the call was nearly as bad. Army only had 2 or 3 plays go more than 10 yards in the game and our D was stiffening on them. Punt the ball and pin them deep. Work to get them to a 3rd and medium and burn a TO. On 4th, if they go for it (I doubt they would if they were on their side of the 50) we get the ball back with over a minute and 2 TOs if we forced a 3 and out. Instead, we have them the ball near midfield and they set themselves up with a chance to win the game on a 50-yard FG try that had enough distance.
As for the play-calls themselves...how about a play action QB keeper? Do something relatively safe that they hadn't seen all game.
September 10th, 2019 at 3:26 PM ^
I don't mind lots of runs, but why do many ineffective ones?
September 10th, 2019 at 3:44 PM ^
This seems fairly straight forward to me. At the start of the game, Michigan's game plan was likely to get out to early lead, be aggressive, and put Army in a game they're not built to play.
Once Michigan proved unable to do for 3.5 quarters, then limiting the time that Army had to work with for their final posessions was absolutely the right move.
September 10th, 2019 at 3:50 PM ^
Protect the ball and both games are very different..shit, just cut those in half and it looks different.
Grease those sum bitch balls up and practice with only slick/slippery balls ... then run through the dong sled over and over.
September 10th, 2019 at 6:14 PM ^
Just feels like Harbaugh already has his hand in the cookie jar, but then again, what do I know.
#speedinspace
September 10th, 2019 at 9:27 PM ^
but then again, what do I know[?]
Absosmurfly nothing!
September 10th, 2019 at 11:50 PM ^
Yet they only scored one more touchdown than a totally inept offense against a team that is essentially the same, just one year younger.
This game was Army’s season here. They had a freaking general at the game. If you think they haven’t been practicing and game planning for this game all summer, I’m not sure you understand what this game was to them. We got their best punch and survived. Let’s wait until Wisconsin to really gauge where we are at.
September 11th, 2019 at 2:25 AM ^
I think Dylan is also banged up a bit and that is why we didn't see him coming in for an injured Shea. No way would they start Milton.
September 11th, 2019 at 8:36 AM ^
If what Gattis said is true, then Michigan is absolutely looking at a 5 loss season! There’s no reason not to kick the field goal from the 19, and there was no reason to go for it from their 43! This guy sounds like an idiot! Hey, let’s run it, straight up the middle again, that’s creative!! Pathetic!! 7-5!
September 11th, 2019 at 4:38 PM ^
Here's my explanation: Harbaugh is a control freak and took over in some fashion. Do you think Josh Gattis really called 33 running plays for Charbonnet? Really?