LBs vs. Indiana

Submitted by BroadShouldersBlue on

I was trying to pay attention but was distracted by the chaos...how was our LB play last game? I know Brian will obviously address it in the UFR, but I was curious if any of you noticed anything. Were the LBs just getting beat, or was the defensive line not doing a great job of preventing the OL from getting up on the LBs?

Soulfire21

November 16th, 2015 at 11:21 AM ^

Without rewatching I am inclined to say they were getting beat because our leading tacklers came out of our secondary, which is not a good thing.  I could be rather off though.  Tough to judge how much was on them vs. the DL, we really miss Ryan Glasgow out there.

The d-line at least we can point to our injuries.

It seemed to me Indiana got a lot of yards after initial contact, whether it be because they were arm tackling or trying to shoulder pad Howard to the ground.

Also, my thought before the game was that Indiana would be a very pass-happy offense and we could've schemed for that, not expecting to get shredded on the ground.

We had several offsides penalties which also makes the defense look worse.

LJ

November 16th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^

The d-line at least we can point to our injuries

 

Regardless of which unit was better, this is shortsighted.  A NT's play affect the LBs at least as much, if not more, than the rest of the DL.  Guess what happens after a guard doesn't have to double a NT, or is able to move off after a combo block?  He goes to block a LB.

ijohnb

November 16th, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^

think so, I think it is more that some anti-homers that have not adjusted to the reality of this season yet.  There are a group of people who are like "Playoff!?!?! Are you serious? Give me some of what you are smoking!"  They only become more angry when you politely respond by telling them that we are going to be like 10 or11 in the playoff ranking and could actually get selected. 

UMForLife

November 16th, 2015 at 12:06 PM ^

I don't know man. It sounds like it happened every time they had a big run. May be we were holding too, but our run game wasn't quite good. So, it didn't matter much. May be we held more on passes? But I will say that on a few key plays in the 4th, our DL were held. It gets uncalled generally does not make me feel better about it.

Michology 101

November 16th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^

The IU O line was holding a good amount of times. Though since their RB was running so strong and impressive, I believe the refs didn't feel compelled to take back some of those great runs with a holding call. He was running through us so easy, it looked like some of the holding didn't even matter. I think the refs bought into that thinking and let some of it go.

FreddieMercuryHayes

November 16th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^

This is my main question with the defense. It seemed that, first, UM was only keeping like 6 in the box a lot which puts you at a numbers disadvantage when they were doing all that outside zone and pulling. The LBs were not clean, but I'm not sure if that's because of the DL, or them misreading things. I will say it didn't even seem like IU was even attempting to double team DLs. Kind of reminded me of Air Force where their OL go immediately to the second level. The DL would get push on IU's OL but could disengage to 'make plays' like they needed to if IU isn't going to bother double teams. That was my impression anyway.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

reshp1

November 16th, 2015 at 12:06 PM ^

The first half was mostly the center or guard going directly out for the middle LB without so much as a chip on the NT or 3T. Morgan and sometimes Bolden seemed like they haven't seen a lineman release all year (they probably haven't) and were really slow to read and react. They ended up flat footed and caught blocks 5 yards downfield. There was a shot of Durkin chewing out the LBs during a time out, I'm guessing that was what he was yelling about.

Towards the end of the game, we did adjust, but it seemed like everyone was just worn down at that point. There were fewer creases but the LOS was getting re-established 2 yards downfield every snap and Howard could just fall forward for 4 every time (when there weren't missed tackles).

BlueMetal

November 16th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^

I'm not football guru but I think our LB were a bigger problem than the DL. They either weren't filling the run lanes, or missed arm tackles. Once Howard got through the initial contact there was no one around for 8 yards.

ijohnb

November 16th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^

was that a lot of it resulted from spreading us out which OSU does a lot more than PSU.  Close your eyes and picture something - our run defense last Saturday against Barrett and Elliott with Braxton Miller as the end-around/screen option and an offensive line at least as good and very likely better than Indiana.  EVERYBODY PANIC AND RUN AROUND SCREAMING!!!!!

uofmdds96

November 16th, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^

but if Chesson, Darboh or Butt had those numbers I don't think we would just say we are not throwing to them and keeping the plays close to the vest.  Now whether or not any LB we have can match up with him is another question.  Maybe Jeremy Clark at 6'4'' will match up with him.

JD_UofM_90

November 16th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^

the coaches need a philosophy change for the OSU game.  Put more guys in the box and stop the QB / RB game and make Bennet beat us with his arm.  Hope and pray he doesn't go all Troy Smith on our asses....

True Blue Grit

November 16th, 2015 at 2:11 PM ^

They weren't in the run lanes on certain places, and wiffing on tackles on many others.  Part of it may have been being tired since they were on the field so many minutes.  But it was so bad it looked like Howard was covered in motor oil - he slipped through every little gap or tackle at the line no matter what.  Very frustrating to watch. 

Hail Harbo

November 16th, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^

It is becoming quite apparent that JMFR meant much more to the play of all the linebackers than just playing his one position.  It is truly frightful that Michigan returns no starting LBs for 2016.

Brhino

November 16th, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^

It seemed to me that we had a lot of the running plays something like 90% stopped, and then the back would break a tackle or slip through a tiny crease and then it would be a big gain.

LBSS

November 16th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^

Nick Bumgardner agrees: "The tackling was a problem against Rutgers, and it was a problem again Saturday. ... The defensive line not being able to shed blocks obviously hurts the linebackers, but Indiana just slow-bled Michigan to death on the ground all game. That's 307 yards rushing, and the longest play was a 24-yarder. These guys couldn't shed any blocks either."

 

GoBluePhil

November 16th, 2015 at 11:17 AM ^

And couldn't get to ball carrier because they couldn't shed blocks. But I also believe the defensive tackles couldn't stop the ball carrier at the line of scrimmage. It was a very poor showing from our run defense. Take the win and grow on that.

The Baughz

November 16th, 2015 at 11:17 AM ^

I didn't watch the game live, but watched the replay yesterday. I'd have to say that I think the entire front 7 had a rough day. I know IU has a good offense, but I thought they would have played better than they did.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Magnus

November 16th, 2015 at 11:17 AM ^

I think our DL was getting beaten up, and our inside linebackers couldn't flow to the ball. The absence of Glasgow hurt us a ton. The linebackers are okay when they have room to move, but they couldn't get off blocks and the DL wasn't getting penetration.

FanNamedOzzy

November 16th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^

Flowing to the ball was a problem both for LBs and especially players on the backside. Poor angles and arm tackles happening all over the place. Not getting off of blocks was their biggest problem, but like you said, the DL didn't perform well either, which only hurts the LB play.

ijohnb

November 16th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^

they will play better.  Our d-line was not Glasgow-only before he went out, they just had a rough day against a team that presented them with a particular set of problems.  I do think you will see more guys in the box going forward and a little less nickel.  We may get a chance to see how good our secondary actually is going forward, for better or worse.

alum96

November 16th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^

PSU obviously doesnt play at Indiana's pace.  So that will help.  I like Barkley but he is a freshman who is going to be hitting the "wall" soon.  Howard is a damn man.  And PSU OL doesnt have the same talent as Indiana OL.  Yeah thats weird to say.  I see that game as more of a typical slobberknocker game although I think UM wont be able to run on PSU DL ....they are good unlike Indiana's DL - which we could not run on.  So it might be back to aerial attack for Jake.

OSU is OSU.  If Urban watches this film it would behoove him to have OSU playing at this pace of Indiana.  They have a QB who can run, a rb as good as Howard, and multiple NFL linemen incl a 1st round LT.  If we cannot handle pace, then I'd expect OSU to play fast.  They usually dont play at Indiana's pace but they might adjust as a special gift for us.

By the way Indiana didnt really play "fast' after mid way thru the 2nd.  They played at Oregon pace in Q1 and had 37 plays and totally wore us out.  Then they slowed down in the 2nd half. 

I mean the crap they did in Q4 was line up man on man and jam it down our throat on the ground.  It was Stanford in a spread.  That was the frustrating part - nothing fancy.  They just beat us physically - something you saw in Hoke's team but thought would be eradicated this year.  That sucked.