Michigan 2nd slowest team in the NCAA

Submitted by dnak438 on

This is a pretty funny tweet:

A MICHIGAN MAN SAVORS THE MOMENT MT @McMurphyESPN: Slowest teams in seconds per play this year: Army (31.1) & Michigan (30.9)

— Ryan Nanni (@celebrityhottub) September 15, 2014

On the other hand, it does raise serious issues. What is with Michigan's tempo? One answer is that Nussmeier and Hoke aren't averse to tempo but are focusing on executing a new offense, and as the team settles in, tempo will become part of Michigan's offensive arsenal.

Another viewpoint is that there must be other teams breaking in new offenses, which have less experienced coaching staffs, as well as less good football players learning these offenses, and they are faster on a per play basis than Michigan (except for Army).

I wasn't able to find the full breakdown of each team, but it's something worth keeping an eye on, especially as it's been a topic of some interest for Brian and the rest of the MGoStaff.

Mr. Yost

September 16th, 2014 at 8:20 AM ^

But...but...but...!!!

lol, you're ruining it for them with your logic.

In all seriousness, I have no problem with our tempo except for 3 things.

  1. I think we should run tempo more when the offense is out of sync
  2. I think we should run tempo more when we've got the defense on its heels
  3. I think we're still horrible at running tempo in the late half/game situations

In all, that's probably 3 drives a game. All of the other ones, I have no problem with if you're the 2nd slowest team. As long as we're getting to the line and getting the ball snapped. I like giving the defense some rest.

It just drives me crazy when Devin is off and we don't change anything to get him in rhythm. Or when we've got the defense giving up chunk plays and we allow them to reset/sub and recover (and we end up settling for a FG).

Many people (Ace) will point to the blunder at the end of the first as an example of poor end of half management, but I believe we still had 2 timeouts. My guess is we would've picked it up if we would've gotten the first down. We just didn't want to give them the ball back with a bunch of time left. I had no issues except for the penalty at the end.

westwardwolverine

September 16th, 2014 at 9:27 AM ^

So basically, you have no problem with our tempo except you think we should run our offense much faster for a large portion of the time. 

Great logic, especially in a post where you use the word logic!

Its fine if you're a team whose offense actually works or you have a great defense (LSU, a lot of SEC teams) and offense is secondary. Its ridiculous when you're a team thats offense goes slow and tends to be bad and you have a weapon that might possibly help you. 

Also, stop using lol. 

ijohnb

September 16th, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^

no issue with LOL, though I am going with more LMAO lately.

And all he is saying is that we should mix it up a little bit and literally just be able to tempo other teams as part of our game plan.  I agree.  The fact that I literally cannot even conceptualize our offense going with some tempo is a problem.

danimal1968

September 16th, 2014 at 12:15 PM ^

with 20 seconds on the play clock, I don't really care how quickly the run the play from then.  That gives plenty of time to read the defense and change the play if need be.

It seemed to me that they were getting to the line with 20 seconds on the play clock a lot more often Saturday than they had been the first two weeks.

Willis Ward

September 17th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^

It's not about how quickly we get the next play off...we aren't going to be Oregon. All I want is to get in and out of the huddle quickly so there is time to react to what the d is showing. In 2014, not knowing how a defense is lined up so you can adjust to something better is like playing with an arm tied behind your back. I like Hoke generally and think he can succeed here. But I do see this as a HUGE deal. I really wish a reporter would ask Nuss questions about this.

MGoBender

September 16th, 2014 at 8:01 PM ^

 

We just didn't want to give them the ball back with a bunch of time left. I had no issues except for the penalty at the end.


Except there wasn't a bunch of time left.  There were 60 seconds left.  Take away 6 for the 4th down play and you're leaving them 54 seconds with no timeouts to put a drive together.  And this is Miami NTM.  Peyton Manning and the '05 Colts, they are not.

 

FreddieMercuryHayes

September 16th, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^

I don't think people asking for tempo, including me, are asking UM to become IU or Oregon or anything along those lines.  Instead I would like to see them be able to use it when needed to throw a defense off balance.  Tempo is a weapon in the offensive arsenal that UM just seems to refuse to use.  It's like throwing the same damn pitch all game.  Got to change it up sometimes in order to be more successful against better opponents.  Plus it's good practice for when the team actually needs to tempo during a 2 min drill; something the O under Borges could patently not do.

gbdub

September 16th, 2014 at 9:40 AM ^

Yes. The issue is not that we don't run no huddle high tempo offense, it's that it appears we can't. The coaches themselves talk about a so called Nascar package, but in the scenarios where it seems obvious to deploy something like that, we derp it up (Miami end of half, Penn State last year, almost NW last year...)



Yes, the coaches just need to win games, and there are many ways to do that. But the inability to operate uptempo cost us at least one game last year and almost another, plus whatever happens in the Indiana game.

CompleteLunacy

September 16th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^

Especially in end of half/game scenarios...but I still have no idea why people are criticizing the end of half drive against Miami for clock management. They get that first down, clock stops, ball on the 30 with a minute left and two timeouts. They're going to at least get 3 points in that situation with realistic shots at the endzone for 7. Time was simply not an issue on that drive. 

MI Expat NY

September 16th, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^

I think this just about nails it.  How often do you hear an analyst calling the game talk about an offense speeding up tempo for a possession or two in order to "get a rhythm."  I've yet to see it happen under Hoke.  I don't particularly care if we do it all the time, I just want to be able to do it on occasion.  And you're right, the 2 min drill was a continuing disaster under Borges.  I'm not going to feel comfortable that we can come back and win a game until I see us actually run a smooth 2-minute drill at some point in the future.  

MI Expat NY

September 16th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^

You mean the Kansas State program that lost 6 or more games three times in the relevant time period?  You mean the LSU program who has pretty much been winning with defense only for the last dozen years (do you remember the Alabama-LSU championship game a couple years ago? LSU barely crossed midfield).  You mean the conference that has been turned on its head the last couple seasons by high tempo teams at Auburn, A&M, Missouri and Ole Miss?  I got nothing for Georgia, but maybe they're slow tempo is a reason they continue to drop a game or two a season that they shouldn't?

Tempo isn't a panacea for all teams.  It certainly isn't one of the main contributors to team success (talent and coaching acumen are way above everything else).  But you can't deny that college football is in an offensive boom largely driven by high-tempo offenses.  

The more reasonable criticism of the tweet is that it's sort of silly to measure tempo after 3 games.  Not that outdated data shows some teams with success despite being low-tempo offenses.  

ijohnb

September 16th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^

I am pretty sure he means the Kansas State that kicked our ass last year, the LSU that has won 2 national championships in the last 10 years and appeared in another title game, the Georgia that is currently ranked in the Top 10 and the conference that has appeared in 7 out of the last 8 BCS national championship games. 

At least I thought that is who he was referring to.

In reply to by ijohnb

MI Expat NY

September 16th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^

The time period didn't include a KSU team that kicked the ass of a 7-5 mediocre Big Ten team.  Again, LSU wins on a beastly defense and has routinely underperformed its talent on the offensive side of the ball.  And I said I had no real explanation for Georgia but they do tend to lose to teams they shouldn't on a yearly basis.  

 

Tater

September 16th, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^

MANBALL and "slow" only work if you buy up all the best players as many of the SEC teams do.  Until everyone is allowed to buy players, the Wolverines won't have the level of personnel that allows them to handicap themselves with a 20th century offense.

Yeoman

September 16th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^

They aren't exactly pulling in Alabama-level recruits and they've been to three Rose Bowls out of four.

Stanford's been to four straight BCS bowls. Are they recruiting SEC-style?

CompleteLunacy

September 16th, 2014 at 8:10 AM ^

Of all the things this blog dwells on, tempo is the most annoying. Tempo can work and can be fun to watch, but it is not some sort of panacea for offense. Just one method.



But yeah, can we please get to the line sooner just so Devin actually has a chance to survey the defense and adjust? Take your damn time if you want, but don't make it rushed as the play clock expires. And for the love of God, pay attention to the play clock and call a damn TO if you can't snap it in time!

LordGrantham

September 16th, 2014 at 12:55 AM ^

Absolutely ridiculous.  Leaving that little time for adjustments is pure coaching malpractice in modern college football.

dnak438

September 16th, 2014 at 1:04 AM ^

...since Michigan, as the favorite in those games, wants to make the game longer and increase the number of plays, and thereby the variance -- this is a point that Brian and Ace made in the most recent podcast. Against a better team, a slow-down approach may be tactically sound, because you want to make the game ugly and short, but against the Miamis (NTM) of the world, an uptempo approach (assuming that the team can execute it) seems more appropriate.

LJ

September 16th, 2014 at 8:42 AM ^

He's saying that increasing the number of plays increases the chance to win for the better team by increasing the sample.  Think about it this way: does 2007 Appalachian State have a better chance to win 1 game against Michigan or win a best-of-7-game series against Michigan?  Obviously the former.  Running more plays in a game moves you closer to the latter, though in a very tiny amount.

dnak438

September 16th, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^

Have you noticed that Michigan has been losing more games than it has been winning lately? And that this year we crashed and burned against the only good team that we played? Because I have.

As everyone has noted, tempo is a useful (certainly not necessary, of course) tool in an offenses' tool-kit. There was a nice example in week 1 of the NFL. The Eagles had a 4th and 1, decided to go for it, and got up to the line and ran an inside zone after only 16 seconds had elapsed. The Jaguars (OK, not the world's best defense, but still an NFL defense) was unable to align properly; their defensive tackles were both lined up as 3 techs. The result: a 49 yard TD run by Sproles.

Nobody here thinks that Michigan will transform into a Chip Kelly offense, but you can't tell me that Michigan's had no issues with tempo whatsoever and that you're fine with the on-the-field product... or can you? (Without calling me a jabbering idiot, please).

dnak438

September 16th, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^

NOBODY is saying that up-tempo automatically wins more games. We are saying -- and Space Cowboy agrees, FWIW -- that it is a useful tool. Going slow is useful, too. The perceived problem is that Michigan is stuck in 1st gear 99% of the time, even when it would benefit them to speed up (again, not always, but sometimes).

readyourguard

September 16th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^

But what we don't know, and I'm with SC on this, is are we CAPABLE of speeding it up yet? Running an offense at a quicker pace while being ineffective is not very useful. Westward's argument is that up tempo MIGHT help us. Yes, it might. But then again, it might not. I'm going to trust the guy who runs the offense to know better than everybody else.

nowayman

September 16th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^

Michigan averaged 71.2.  

This year Alabama is faster so far (75.7) and Michigan is a tad slower so far 64.7.  

Thus, under Nuss, 65.9 for Alabama, and 64.7 for Michigan.  

/it's really to hard to find any data other than the number of plays per game.  That's why I'm using that stat.

//lifted from teamrankings.  

nowayman

September 16th, 2014 at 1:03 PM ^

game was broadcast.  

But I'm fairly certain that the Miami timeout on Michigan's fourth and one play with one minute left in the second half was called because Michigan suddenly shifted into a no huddle in order to catch the defense unaware and pick up an easy first down.  

But again, it's hard to tell from the broadcast because we, the viewers, never get to see Michigan lining up.  

Now whether Michigan has learned enough of Nussmeier's offense to string together a two minute drill at this point, I have no idea because we haven't seen it, or at least I haven't.   

But Michigan is capable of shifting gears.  Honestly, all teams should be able to shift gears for a quick one yard fourth down conversion.

http://mgovideo.com/2014-michigan-vs-miami-oh/

1:02:44 is the relevant portion.  

And then right after that the delay of game snafu.  

I have no idea how Nussmeier will use it, but I suspect tempo changes will be part of the arsenal eventually.  They will be a rarity, but they will be there.  Considering the team is still learning the base play of the offense, I'm not really holding my breath at this point.  

Disclaimer: all the above is a lay opinion from a fan.  

gwkrlghl

September 16th, 2014 at 7:22 AM ^

It seems like this year we're getting to the line quicker - notable exception being the DOG againt NTM. Haven't we been getting the line and making checks? Getting to the line with 1 second left and hurrying it appears to take the same amount of time as getting to the line with 10, checking out of something, and hiking the ball with 1 second left