Michigan 2nd slowest team in the NCAA
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.
September 16th, 2014 at 7:31 AM ^
September 16th, 2014 at 8:18 AM ^
September 16th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
Almost as exhausting as you moronically defending every single thing this staff does despite clear evidence that it's not working. And yes, I've used that term twice in my entire posting history. I'm really obsessed with it.
September 16th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 16th, 2014 at 1:36 PM ^
September 16th, 2014 at 1:10 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 16th, 2014 at 7:07 AM ^
It's called controlling the clock.
September 16th, 2014 at 8:56 AM ^
The level of emo freak out and Michigan related flagellation about any data point or stat like this (versus a measured consideration of, perhaps, controlling clock like LSU or Georgia) is ridiculous these days.
This is what post Lloyd mediocrity has done to the fan base.
September 16th, 2014 at 9:16 AM ^
realize when running the play clock down to zero the defense knows when it coming? But I guess we dont need to worry. When our OL is on par with AL ,LSU, & GA it will not be a problem. Until then maybe turn your inner emo freak out up a little bit.
September 16th, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^
Sigh.
The point people make about Michigan's tempo is that our slow controlling the clock (which isn't even a thing that matters) doesn't actually work. We also move ponderously slow, even in games where we are trailing (Hi Notre Dame!) when speeding up not only might work but should be basic logic.
Furthermore, every time our team comes up against a fast offense, we tend to get destroyed and its been going on for a long time.
Lets look within the conference. Do you know the two teams that had the most success last year against MSU (best defense in the country)? Indiana and Ohio State. Even Iowa scored on Sparty when they sped things up. Iowa. Let me say that again. Iowa.
In fact, look at what happened to MSU this year against Oregon. But hey, at least MSU won the ole clock battle 33 min to 27 min!
September 16th, 2014 at 9:48 AM ^
Indiana (42), Illinois (42), Nebraska (41), and Ohio State (34).
You increase tempo, you increase plays, you increase points scored. You list a good offense (Indiana) and one of the best offenses in college football (OSU) who scored a whoping 24 points, 4 points more than the methodic Stanford offense.
Does being able to utilize tempo help the offense: Certainly. Does it benefit the offense more than executing assignments: absolutely not. Some of the best offenses and some of the worst offenses with regards to efficiency utilize tempo. Being bad really fast isn't better.
Also, MSU's problems weren't tempo related, they were lined up fine and communicated fine pre-snap on all of their TDs. Their issues were post-snap, either tackling guys in space or playing their match-ups correctly from bunch sets.
Ball control isn't a great stat, or at least, it is an over-rated and outdated stat used by TV analysists. That doesn't mean it's completely negligible either. The issue is most teams pretty much used to work at a similar tempo and with somewhat similar explosiveness with plays. So the amount they possessed the ball was a quick and easy way to show how efficient they were at picking up first downs. It's a bit different now, of course.
September 16th, 2014 at 9:50 AM ^
oooh, kill em Space Coyote
September 16th, 2014 at 9:55 AM ^
I mean, you could be mocking me right now, I don't even know (I don't think you are, but yeah). But that gif, man, I might just use that gif for all my responses going forward. I mean, it pretty much says everything there is to say about everything. How I've missed it up until now is a shame.
September 16th, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^
Lol nope, wasn't mocking you. It's just a response to when someone makes an excellent counter-argument
September 16th, 2014 at 10:11 AM ^
Where to start:
Allegedly, we are supposed to have a good defense (on the level of say Oregon). At the very least, this year our defense > their offense. If this is the case, then an uptempo offense shouldn't be as big of a problem as it was for Ohio State and of course Indiana.
Stanford only scored 13 points against MSU. One touchdown was an interception return. After their first three drives which netted around 150 yards and ten points, they put up around 150 and 3 the rest of the game. Great stuff. OSU rushed for 6.8 yards per carry and scored 24 points while putting up 375 yards of offense. Their biggest problem was going away from Carlos Hyde/Braxton Miller and putting the games in the hands of Miller.
Sure, but its also entirely possible that the faster pace is what helped cause those individual errors by not allowing the defense their customary rest. In fact, this is part of the point of such an offense, which I would think a coach would understand.
Yes, but we don't know how bad we would be because we never try it. And again (Again!), we can't even run a faster paced offense WHEN IT IS NECESSARY. And its been that way for years under Hoke, so while I agree with your thoughts that executing assignments is more important, it doesn't actually make sense as an argument when looking at Hoke's tenure. So I'd rather have the team look foolish trying to run a faster paced offense against Notre Dame down 21-0 (when it might actualy help us get back into the game!) when it doesn't matter as much or against NTM and maybe, just maybe have it pay off in a close game later. You know, rather than being bad slow and then being incapable of running a two minute drill when we need a score late. Or being bogged down like we were against Notre Dame (or State or Nebraska or Iow last year) and need to try something different to keep their defense honest.
But as I've noticed with you and the other "football guys" on the board: Everything is impossible to do (except what we're doing because the coaches know best) because of X. We can't do things every other team does because of X. Excuse after excuse.
September 16th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^
I think the trap that a lot of the coach-types here fall into is that they understand the logic behind various strategies and tactics and appreciate how those strategies and tactics are supposed to work, in theory. Al Borges's offensive system was brilliantly designed, they'll tell you. A masterpiece of nuance. You just don't understand.
I do the same thing in my field with theory. It's a fun intellectual exercise to consider a well-thought-out argument, and I appreciate a good logical framework. The problem is when theory runs into reality. Rarely is it valid for all contexts. A certain play may be drawn up to perfection. Doesn't matter if the personnel can't execute it.
September 16th, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^
If you can't execute the plays well enough, if you don't take the time working on up-tempo (because you're working on executing plays first) to the point where you execute that well enough, then you don't implement up-tempo into your offense if it isn't naturally a part of the offense.
September 16th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
I'm not arguing that there's anything inherently wrong with theories and schemes. Indeed, their value is in guiding us where to look and what to try. You test a scheme, test a theory. If it works in your context, great, keep doing it. If it doesn't, move on to the next one. I think the feeling regarding tempo offense is that there's a lot of evidence to support it's effectiveness, so let's at least test it out and see if it works for us.
September 16th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^
The problem is when theory runs into reality. Rarely is it valid for all contexts.
As an engineer I often tell people:
"In theory, theory works"
September 16th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
OSU had 237 of its 374 yards in a 15 minute time span (4 drives). The rest of the game they averaged 3.43 ypp and only scored 7 points on a short field (44 yards) outside of that. Great stuff.
Look, I'm not arguing that tempo doesn't help teams. I never have. Tempo, in a vacuum, is good. But executing assignments is always more important. Michigan, a team prone to not executing assignments, maybe feels that they should spend more time making sure they get that right then working on implementing up-tempo into their offensive structure right now.
It's not that it's impossible to implement tempo, it's that the focus is elsewhere right now. I can't say I blame the coaches for taking that direction. If they had a different philosophy, say Rich Rod's philosophy, they'd have tempo implemented because that's something he stresses from the gate, so he takes time to rep it, he takes time away from other things to get it. And unless you are willing to take that time away from something else, it is impossible to implement it well enough to run it in a game.
I think the first year under Hoke saw a new system, and they felt that executing was more important than implementing tempo. Also, the offense didn't execute consistently enough to stay on the field to prevent the defense from having to go right back out there. The next year they used no-huddle on the first drive of the bowl game against South Carolina. In 2013 they used it on the first drive against CMU. They've used it before. For whatever reason, they back tracked off of it (in 2013, execution again became a huge issue). Hoke isn't averse to running it, he just wants his team to be good enough at executing before implementing other things.
September 16th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
I'll just argue the first paragraph: The point about Stanford is that after a fast start, it was basically over for them offensively. After 11 minutes of football they were done. They also only scored 13 points. Ohio State had 8 straight drives with at least one first down over nearly two quarters. They scored 24 points. Their offense only slowed down when they inexplicably stopped giving the ball to Carlos Hyde who was tearing MSU to shreds.
As for the rest...Excuses. Because its not how you were taught in Football Coaching 101, its not possible. I think Magnum nailed you perfectly above.
September 16th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
Or what I believe is best. I would not do everything the same as the Michigan staff has done.
There is just reasons that they do things the way they do. Valid reasons. Not excuses. It's different than the priorities other coaches have. Not less valid, just different. You have a certain number of hours each week to implement and rep things to the point that you can execute them well enough to be successful on Saturdays. If they didn't they'd implement it all. They'd rep it all until it worked. But they don't. They have to make trade-offs. That's not excuses, that's reality.
September 16th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^
On a related note, while all teams may have the same number of hours each week, not all teams use those hours with the same efficiency. You can be sure that Chip Kelly's Oregon practices featured far more reps than Hoke's practices. Kelly is doing the same thing in the pros. I won't bother to link all the reports, but he is well-known for running drills (e.g., multiple QBs throwing at the same time, etc.) that maximize reps. He also focuses on sports science to a greater degree than other coaches. While coaches might have "valid reasons" for the way they coach, run practices, etc., not all coaches are created equal. There are better and worse coaches.
September 16th, 2014 at 12:10 PM ^
But there are also other ways of coaching. Nick Saban believes in slowing practice down so he can emphasize teaching moments in practice. Chip Kelly tends to blow past that, because his belief is more reps. He then goes back to it during the film session.
So, on one side, you have the concept that "perfect practice makes perfect" and that the best moment to teach and/or correct something is when the mistake is fresh on the mind. The other believes that more reps are necessary to see improvement, and that it is sufficient to later touch on those topics at another time.
I don't think either is necessarily right or wrong. I certainly respect Chip Kelly and his coaching methods, how could you not with the success he's had. I certainly respect Nick Saban and his coaching methods, how could you not with the success he's had. Both coaches teach the way they do very effectively. I have my preference, the way I feel I'm better at teaching and coaching, that doesn't make the other way any worse, it makes it different.
I think, at the end of the day, you have to teach the way you feel is the best way to teach, and you have to believe in that method and approach. I think more than anything, it would be a bigger issue for coaches to try to coach and teach in a way that they thought they'd feel less effective teaching and coaching.
September 16th, 2014 at 2:48 PM ^
There is just reasons that they do things the way they do. Valid reasons. Not excuses. It's different than the priorities other coaches have. Not less valid, just different.
The ONLY valid reason for picking one methodology over the other is results. Anything that leads to suboptimal results is, not just different, but less valid.
September 16th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^
There's no control in the experiment. You make your one choice, you see the results, you don't know what would have happened if you'd done something different. You can speculate if you want. You can try to extrapolate from what happens at other programs, running different schemes with different personnel, but there's no way to know if their optimal is your optimal and there's no way to even know if what they're doing was optimal for them.
It's the playcalling grass-grows-greener fallacy writ large. Only the staff has to stand for the exam. Everyone else gets to pretend their choice would have worked out better.
September 16th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^
Who knows what's optimal and what isn't?
The scoreboard.
Good coaches predict correctly a lot. Bad coaches don't.
September 16th, 2014 at 3:10 PM ^
Nick Saban, Gus Malzahn, Urban Meyer, Mark Dantonio, Rich Rod, Jimbo Fisher, and Bob Stoops decided to drop their drastically different methodologies, regardless fo their success, and commit to the same exact one methodology, because that is the best one.
Reality is there are a ton of variables that make it so there isn't one superior methodology, but instead, there are multiple methodologies that work very well, but are just different, and dependent on many variables that aren't accounted for in the "one methodology theory".
September 16th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
"Tempo, in a vacuum, is good. But executing assignments is always more important."
I'll quote Bo Schembechler directly on this:
"Emphasize execution, not innovation."
September 16th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
Why, then, are so many other teams in college football able to execute assignments well enough to move on to things like tempo and misdirection and more complicated concepts? Why are we stuck on basic execution? In year four of this regime?
September 16th, 2014 at 1:32 PM ^
Devin Gardner has seen 3 offensive coordinators in his career. One a genius, one trying to get him killed and one trying to run Alabama's offense in Ann Arbor.
Nuss has had eight months to install his new system. I'd say this is probably why "we are stuck on basic execution". Not excuses, fact.
We should however, absolutely expect to see execution improvement week to week.
September 16th, 2014 at 10:07 AM ^
September 16th, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^
In a vacuum, there are advantages to dictating tempo. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
But in college, when you have players that have to play regardless of experience, plus with limited practice time, there are reasons to not implement tempo into an offense over say, repping execution. It really depends on the philosophy of the coach, but one philosophy (whether tempo is a requirement of your offense or an added benefit) is not inherently better or worse than the other.
September 16th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
Why can't you do both? Doesn't a higher tempo allow you more reps? If your offense is already making mistakes and not working, how is running similar plays at a higher pace any worse?
September 16th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^
September 16th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^
They rotate fast between first and second string, they maximize reps, etc. But there is a difference between practicing with tempo and implementing tempo into an offense.
The latter takes time to implement. It takes time away from other things. It takes time away from reps, it takes time away from coaching moments. Once it's implemented, yes, the amount of time you take going over it becomes much less. But that first implementation takes time, and every fall and spring when you bring in new guys, it'll take a little bit of time away from other things as well. It's a trade off.
So, you practice with tempo in practice. In a game you slow it down, you make sure everyone is on the same page, you make sure everyone has their assignment. You don't task the OL, who is trying to learn their assignments on each play, to have to also learn the communication with the sideline, to not have the benefit of the huddle to get their assingment correct with the guy next to them, etc. I mean, you can, but again, it takes time to implement. And if you do choose to implement it, it can make execution problems worse.
So your offense may be making more mistakes, it may work less often than it already does, both because of less preperation in practice dedicated to executing assignments, and because during the game you get less opportunity to make sure you're on the same page.
If you really want to know how I feel about tempo, read the link I posted above. I explained my feelings on it. You've complained about long posts from me before, I wrote an article detailing the pro's and con's of it so I don't need to be long here.
September 16th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
"And if you do choose to implement it, it can make execution problems worse."
-This. This is everything about you that makes zero sense and why you are so frustrating to read and communicate with on this board. What do you mean make execution problems worse? Like scoring 0 points against Notre Dame? Like only have 17 points at the half against NTM?
Or last year: Like Nebraksa? Iowa? Northwestern? Penn State? UConn? MSU? What is possibly worse?
It doesn't fit into your little coaching box, so its something that shouldn't be done, damn whatever is happening in the real world.
September 16th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
You think last year was the worst it could be. It wasn't. It can always be worse. There were tons of blown assignments last year. There could have been more. You think going up-tempo mitigates the issues we had last year? At all? You think tempo would change those games, with the way Michigan executed? Absolutely not. In fact, it would take away time from the limited amount of time they had to get better at execution.
You don't know what my coaching box is. You don't even know what a coaching box is. You see things with your world view and can't accept a different one. That's what this amounts to. Again, you'll note that in my article I addressed the positives of implementing tempo. I acknowledged that it is a benefit. I also acknowledged it takes time to implement, otherwise everyone would use it. But sorry that those facts don't jive with your "real world". But this is why it's so frustrating communicating with you, you can't accept the fact that there are other ways of doing things, that there isn't necessary a right and a wrong. You want it black and white, and to fit that world view, you ignore many of the things I've said.
September 16th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
A reasoned set of responses on tempo and execution.
September 16th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
You are the one who consistently says "No, this can't be done" even as other teams consistently do the same things Michigan does. Then you throw a multitude of excuses down to tell us why Michigan can't do them as if other teams don't have their own problems.
The real world results say that doing things your way didn't work. They haven't worked this year. They didn't work last year. They aren't good for our team in the long run because we don't have a way to score quickly and thus if we're behind we're in trouble. If anything, I'm saying its a change that has a long term benefit that wouldn't have had any major negative effect on our team last year because we were already terrible. But of course, in your box (please, you saying that I see things as "black and white" while you just parrot Football for Dummies as the actual game proves you wrong) that's a valid argument.
Things could not have been worse last year. We threw away game after game because our offense could not move the ball. And part of that is down to the fact we plodded about giving each team all the time in the world to shut us down on each play.
Somehow in your mind it makes sense to keep giving the ball to backs who gain 1 ypc because well, in that case we have to keep the defense honest. But taking a few drives each game to up the tempo, to maybe throw them off, is impossible because well, our execution might be off, even though it already has been all season.
Edit: More than anything, playing faster gives you more reps and more chances at executing a play. Its easier to slow things down than speed things up, so it would make sense to learn things at a higher tempo than at a slower one. By learning things at a slow tempo, we're extending our overall timeline to have a complete offense. How do I know this? Because the results bear it out (again reality). Playing slow did not help us at all against Notre Dame or NTM. Again, the outside the box thinking here would be that combining both practices helps the team more in the long run and if in the meantime results suffer, well, that's not too different than what is already happening. The inside the box thinking (you), is that we cannot do this because our execution will suffer and our results will be worse than they have already been, which is laughable. There is nothing more "black and white" than that.
September 16th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^
Where did I say Michigan couldn't implement tempo? They could. They would just have to prioritize it, which would take away from something else. If they prioritize repping executing over implementing tempo, they'll focus on that. It's not a 100% or nothing necessarily, but it can't be 100% for everything.
You keep saying "your way". What is my way? Obviously you didn't read the parts where I clearly said "I'd do things differently". My way has never been tried at Michigan. My way may not have worked at Michigan. Michigan's way last year didn't work last year. A different way may not have worked either. 2013 MIchigan offense didn't work. 2008 Michigan offense didn't work. Flip-flop the coaching staffs and both offenses still probably don't work, regardless of where they put their priorities in regards to tempo. It's just different. See, my way isn't the same as the coaches' way, isn't the same as previous coaches' way, etc. My way is my way, their way is their way; I believe in my way, but it doesn't necessarily make my way more correct, it makes it different. See, I just realize, that in the real world, there are multiple ways of doing things.
I've said a number of times that tempo helps. Get that through your head. Where, in anything I've said, have I been "black and white", as you are currently being. But you repeat, again and again, things I have never said. I'd like you to actually find quotes, without taking things out of context, for half the things you claim I've said.
September 16th, 2014 at 4:51 PM ^
September 16th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
I get what you're saying about tempo and practice time. But my point was that, even if tempo is not a point of emphasis, every successful team can at least run a two minute drill. The fact that we can't, in year 4 of Hoke, is concerning. Yes, there is a path to success that leads through a more deliberate offensive tempo. But we don't seem to be very far along that path. Basically, the fact that we can't afford to go uptempo and need to continue to focus on execution says that we're behind the ball on execution, and that's bad.
September 16th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
We could in year one, for whatever reason. It was successful in UTL 1. Why it bogged down the past few years I don't know. That was a problem. An inability to run an effective 2-minute drill was a problem.
But a 2-minute drill is much different than implementing tempo. A 2-minute drill is a small portion of the playbook, probably enough plays to run about 4-minutes worth, that you should be able to utilize with a very simplified form of communication. It's not communication from the sideline, it's a small set where the QB can get a call and relay it to everyone else with simple hand motions, not the big posters and what not you see on the sideline.
But you are correct, every team should be able to run a 2-minute drill. Michigan has had issues with that in the past, no doubt about that. That is not something I will say otherwise about. What I will say is that a 2-minute drill is a specific scenario, not an implementation of an up-tempo offense, which is different.
September 16th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^
UTL I got the touchdown in 3 plays, one of which was a huge coverage bust - not sure that's a great example, although it definitely worked. We're in agreement that wholesale uptempo is not critical, and that a two minute offense is a far cry from full-Oregon. It's a situational package that most teams can deploy. But still, I'd like us to have the ability to throw a changeup, which we seem to struggle with. We also had a big problem with tempo on defense against Indiana. I'd prefer we operate at a faster tempo not because it's intrinsically better, but because I suspect it's much easier to slow down when you can than speed up when you have to.
What's concerning is that uptempo offenses would appear to be here to stay. Even if we don't have one, we're going to face them. So far this staff has shown some cracks when it comes to effectively managing tempo. You say that every coaching decision has a reason. True, but not every reason is a good one, and I'm concerned that we're being forced into a choice, not because Hoke and Co. have weighed every option equally and decided slow is best, but rather because the staff/team either can't or cannot get comfortable with operating quickly.
September 16th, 2014 at 2:04 PM ^
I would also like tempo to be installed, because I think being able to control the tempo as an offense is an extra tool to use. I also think, like you said, it helps prepare the defense against other up-tempo teams. There are other ways to prepare for it, but I think that's just something that would naturally help it. I also don't think it's going anywhere.
I do think the coaches have weighed the options based on their criteria, a criteria where they believe that learning execution is more important right now. So I disagree with that. But I also think eventually this staff will implement tempo into the offense. In the mean time, they have to do better at preparing for other teams that go fast-paced.
September 16th, 2014 at 10:54 AM ^
And the fact that those teams had awful defenses had nothing to do with it? And that they mostly played in the latter half of the season after MSU had gotten their offense into gear? MSU scored 24 points against Stanford who was extremely slow and much, much better on defense than any of those teams you listed. If ball controll mattered much, you think that game would have been a 14-10 affair.
I also find it funny that you can't recognize that tempo impacts those post-snap issues that were the "real problem" and why those up-tempo teams were able to score so often.
September 16th, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^
September 16th, 2014 at 8:11 AM ^
September 16th, 2014 at 9:41 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad