Halftime adjustments - Football
December 30th, 2014 at 7:11 PM ^
IIRC, UM was in every game at halftime this year and then would come out miserable after halftime.
December 30th, 2014 at 7:16 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 7:31 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 7:49 PM ^
I coudn't agree more... the late first half coaching and clock management was atrocious... not only did it cost us points, but it cost us momentum and morale. And it seemed consistent every game.
I have to think that if nothing else, this aspect of Michigan's recent play will be corrected.
December 30th, 2014 at 8:57 PM ^
Just for the sake of keeping the facts straight, this year Michigan surrendered a TD just before the half (inside 2mins) in four games. Rutgers, Notre Dame, MSU and OSU.
December 30th, 2014 at 7:22 PM ^
"Halftime adjustments" are the purview of idiotic fans everywhere. In 2007 Michigan got outscored in the 3rd quarter. In 2005 they were dead even in 2nd half points throughout the year.
In 2006 we dominated the 3rd quarter 95-46.
Did the "adjustments" and coaching moves change or was one team a lot better because Jake Long and Mike Hart were present and healthy and Harris/Hall/Woodley were there on defense? Gee, I wonder...
In other words, good teams are better most of the time and bad/mediocre teams struggle no matter what point in the game you are talking about. RichRod walked into some shitty teams here and Hoke's teams got worse every year as the talent level dipped. They didn't get dumber or stop trying to trick the opposition or refuse to make sweet motivational speeches in the locker room.
December 30th, 2014 at 7:26 PM ^
Count me as an "idiotic fan." You really don't think the coaches take the extra time of halftime to step back and look at the game plan and make adjustments based upon first half observations and trends?
December 30th, 2014 at 7:34 PM ^
At Stanford in year 1 they got outscored 81-57 in the 3rd quarter (after outplaying their opponents in the 2nd quarter) and got crushed 105-57 in the 4th.
In year 2 the 3rd quarter was their worst, losing 72-55 (they outscored opponents in the second and fourth quarters and only lost quarter number one by 2 points).
In year 3 they won every quarter except the 3rd quarter, and were better in the first and second quarter than they were in the fourth.
In year 4 when they were an awesome team, they destroyed teams in the 3rd quarter, though even then at a lesser rate than they did in quarters 1 and 2.
Both teams are trying in every game. Thinking your guys can win or do better simply by trying harder is fucking stupid.
December 30th, 2014 at 7:44 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 8:06 PM ^
And I'm the one that is condescending.
December 30th, 2014 at 8:48 PM ^
pretty much anybody on this blog, and we made half-time adjustments all the time. some worked, some didn't. why the snark, especially on harbaugh day?
December 30th, 2014 at 9:01 PM ^
No one is saying teams don't make adjustments throughout the game and at halftime. But both teams do the same thing. The guys at MSU and Utah and Northwestern and OSU aren't blithering idiots who can be tricked out of their pot of gold. They have pretty much the same football knowledge and insight as our guys do, give or take a few IQ points in each instance.
The OP began with a completely bullshit premise that Michigan's prior success was thanks in large part to Gary Moeller and Lloyd Carr joining heads with their staff members in the locker room and figuring out how to trick the opposition when the game resumed. And he assumed that Jim Harbaugh would bring that back, even though there is no evidence that his prior teams made any significant improvement at halftime (the good teams were good all the time and the bad teams pretty much sucked all the time). I know for a fact that the 49ers offense was terrible after halftime this year. Poor adjustments by our new savior? Or offensive line injuries? Gee, I wonder which one it was...
You know it better than anyone. If you played as much as you claim, you know that your team was for the most part as good as the talent level relative to the competition. When you won a lot of games, it wasn't because the coach kept rolling 7's and when you lost it probably had more to do with other guys being bigger, faster, stronger, etc. than the coach changing things up and putting you in a bad spot all of a sudden.
December 30th, 2014 at 9:36 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 9:25 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 7:47 PM ^
So the other team made "halftime adjustements" is what you're saying??
December 30th, 2014 at 8:21 PM ^
You have the facts and put them together in a way that supports your premise well. Why denegrate the less informed?
December 30th, 2014 at 8:52 PM ^
This is a fanbase that supported replacing the reigning Pac-12 coach of the year with a guy with a career losing record, crowed about their brilliance after one year, and now thinks Brady Hoke sucks but that he somehow in his suckitude left behind a program ready to compete for championships right away.
Jim Hackett may have saved us all in the long run, but combating our own idiocy is still a necessary and noble undertaking, IMO.
December 31st, 2014 at 8:09 AM ^
If your opinion is that calling people names combats idiocy, I disagree. It probably does the opposite of what you think it does.
I agree with your premise but your condescending approach obfuscates your message.
December 30th, 2014 at 7:36 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 7:43 PM ^
All game long. Everyone is trying to win. Typically the more times you roll the dice the team with more talent is going to come out on top.
December 30th, 2014 at 7:47 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 8:12 PM ^
Some teams are more talented than others. They win the roll of the dice. Those teams typiclaly win the game and are more successful in individual parts of the game over an extented sample size. This ain't rocket science.
December 30th, 2014 at 8:41 PM ^
I'm going to walk away from this one, because I know you've been around a while, and I've generally enjoyed your input over the years, You started the conversation with some valid points, then continued to be condescending and denegrating those that disagreed with you. Statements like "this ain't rocket science" take those valid points and confirm theyr'e coming from an asshat.
December 30th, 2014 at 9:10 PM ^
You misquoted me and made a nonsensical claim.
Me: "Typically the more times you roll the dice the team with more talent is going to come out on top" (This is a statement about quality vs. competition and probability, it is essentially the basis of modern baseball statistics)
You: "so the nfl is really just a roll of the dice? all teams have the same access to the same top talent, so they should just cancel the games and roll dice?" (You have turned a claim about superior teams being better over any extended sample size into a claim that all NFL teams have equal talent and should be replaced by dudes throwing bones in an alley)
This is why I labeled you as "intentionally obtuse". If you don't think these kinds of illogical leaps deserve to be denigrated, then my guess is you'll have far greater difficulties in life than chatting with me on a message board.
December 30th, 2014 at 9:28 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 9:36 PM ^
Jim Harbaugh had a losing record after three full seasons at Stanford. Why do you think that happened? Did it take him a while to get good at coaching? He's getting paid a lot of money because he knows how to find guys like Andrew Luck, Jonathan Martin, David DeCastro, and Stepfan Taylor, identify their talent (rather than depending on websites), convince them to enroll at the school he's at, and then win lots of games. He'll get as much as anybody possibly can out of what we've got, but it may still not make you happy. What he brings in a few years from now will make us all happy.
If you disagree with how this works, explain how Brady Hoke went 11-2 in his first season here and 5-7 in his final season. Please. I'll hang up and listen.
December 30th, 2014 at 9:48 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 7:23 PM ^
our +/- was in the second half. It wasn't good.
December 30th, 2014 at 8:20 PM ^
App State 1st half: +35
App State 2nd half: +3 (not counting this game against them)
Notre Dame 1st half: -21
Notre Dame 2nd half: -10
Miami (NTM) 1st half: +7
Miami (NTM) 2nd half: +17
Utah 1st half: -3
Utah 2nd half: -13
Minnesota 1st half: -3
Minnesota 2nd half: -13 (-17 in 3rd quarter)
Rutgers 1st half: -2
Rutgers 2nd half: E
Penn State 1st half: -3
Penn State 2nd half: +8
Michigan State 1st half: -11
Michigan State 2nd half: -13
Indiana 1st half: +17
Indiana 2nd half: +7
Northwestern 1st half: E (M00N!)
Northwestern 2nd half: +1
Maryland 1st half: E
Maryland 2nd half: -7 (-14 in 4th quarter)
Ohio State 1st half: E
Ohio State 2nd half: -14 (gave up 2 TDs in the span of 1 minute, as well as 4 of the first 5 TDs of the 2nd half going to OSU)
December 30th, 2014 at 7:24 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 7:41 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 8:12 PM ^
"Back in the day, with Bo, and Mo, and Lloyd, I always figured that if we went in at halftime 10 down or better, we would win the game. Our halftime adjustments were that good."
Really? I'll exclude Moeller for now, but Bo and Lloyd were famous in these parts for stubbornly pursuing a plan way past the point where it clearly wasn't working. Adjustments (which, by the way, need not be restricted to halftime) weren't really their thing.
Related, and on the subject of Lloyd, some analysis was done in this 'blog a few years ago on his 4th-quarter performance. IIRC a *lead* going into the quarter was often dangerous for the team (as it would result in offensive turtling).
December 30th, 2014 at 8:13 PM ^
The only adjustments that will need to be made is tightening up the helmets again, after we beat the hell out of our opponents.
December 30th, 2014 at 8:19 PM ^
In Hoke's first year on the job, we outscored opponents 93-45 in the 3rd quarter, and 124-56 in the 4th (we crushed teams in the 2nd quarter as well).
This past year, we were outscored 69-52 in the 3rd and 77-60 in the 4th (we were outscored in the 2nd quarter as well).
Good teams play well most of the time and bad teams do the opposite. Brady Hoke didn't start eating retard sandwiches and Jim Harbaugh isn't going to make us better by feeding everybody smart pills. You win by building a championship roster. We'll see if we have one yet in the fall, but I doubt it. In four years though, I can guarantee we'll be melting faces across the B1G.
December 30th, 2014 at 8:49 PM ^
Why would you wait to make adjustments? If you are a good coach, you are always making little adjustments based on what the other team is doing.
In college and pro's it is really easy. You have your entire unit on the sideline and are talking to them about what is going on and what you need to fix. Every coach is wearing a headset, so communication between coaches is extremly easy.
Also, as mentioned, talent and depth are a big deal. If your DT's are getting destroyed, there is only so much you can do.
December 30th, 2014 at 8:52 PM ^
the more difficult it is to discuss on the sideline with one eye/ear on the game and one on the chalkboard. the locker room is 15 minutes of time to focus and talk (without having to shout) about the changes in calls, line calls, alignments, etc.
December 30th, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^
I've never had a problem with my guys focusing on the sideline.
What do you consider a complicated adjustment? If I am making major adjustments, that means we were not prepared.
We will use halftime to go over and refine any adjustments made.
December 30th, 2014 at 10:14 PM ^
you can't hear, in fact you can only just barely hear the line call from the guy next to you, those talks are difficult. it is simililarly difficult to have that conversation on the sidelines. plus you might be on the sidelines for 30 seconds, 3 minutes, or maybe 7 or 10, who knows?
the changes that i think are the most difficult is when you are switching personnel either due to injuries or poor performance, and particularly on offense. and of course not everybody i played ball with, nor everyone that i now coach, is as swift as might be hoped for.
December 31st, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 30th, 2014 at 9:06 PM ^
December 30th, 2014 at 9:32 PM ^
As a head coach at the high school level, I can tell you a few things about adjustments...
(1) Your filmwork and preparation dictates how you start a game and your general gameplan. (obviously) The biggest "adjustment" that a coach(ing staff) must be able to make is to understand what the other side is doing and identify what you have in your arsenal to counter that. Sometimes, you won't have a good answer... you play with what you practice. If you have 3 plays on O and 2 coverages on D, that's what you go with. If you don't have a QB who can throw over 10 yards, no amount of begging to "GO DEEP" will magically make that happen!
(2) Each of my assistants is tasked with evaluating a specific aspect of the gameplan over the first few series, so that we can make quick, small, in-game adjustments between drives. The biggest, and easiest thing you can do is identify 1 player on the other team to pick on, and keep picking on him until he loses his shit/gets pulled. This could be a cornerback who takes plays off if he thinks a run's coming. It could be an overzealous backer or de giving up contain. This is the quickest form of adjustment: mastering which segments of your available playcalls can be used to exploit various weaknesses.
(3) Available playcalls as adjustments: There are times when you simply don't have an available answer to what you're confronted with. What you can counter with is totally dependent on how much info your team can take in and master. Also, how do you practice? It drives me crazy to hear fans bitch and moan about adjustments not being made at halftime in scenarios where there's clearly a limit to what calls are available. A team that can't pass or more importantly pass-block, won't magically start throwing the ball. Where i understand getting frustrated is when coachs refuse to do things that the players are capable of because of their own pride. You have to know your personnel, and adapt to it. If I have a dual threat QB, our passing spread turns into a read-option spread to run team.
(4) A great way to have built-in adjustments is to teach your kids concepts, send them to the line without a huddle, and coach them up to the point where your QB/linemen (in particular) can recognize the defense (or LB's/safety's on d) and make playcall adjustments at the line. My team this past year evolved into basically a passing spread team. We didn't have the big size and strength up front to be a power-based football team, but we were athletic enough to handle more zone concepts and were exceptional in pass protection (1 sack in 180 pass atempts over the last 6 games). My Qb had 11 available play concepts to call from based on what he would see at the line... it's pretty cool to see kids learn that they, being on the field, in the moment, have a better look at what plays will work against the other team. As a coach, this puts you in a situation where you can eventually trust your guys on the field to help YOU make adjustments during breaks.
anyway, just some thoughts from a coach who values teaching your kids up to the point where they are knowledgable enough and competent enough to make changes on the go.
December 30th, 2014 at 9:40 PM ^
December 31st, 2014 at 10:02 AM ^