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.

readyourguard

September 16th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^

Oh. You misspoke. See, I didn't know you misspoke when I responded to your being embarrassed. If I had known ahead of time that you misspoke I probably would have responded differently. Silly me. I need to be more cognizant of people's "misspeaking" prior to them admitting that they misspoke. Nutty me.

BloomingtonBlue

September 16th, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^

I called you a nut because you degrade and put down anyone who doesn't agree with you. Personally, I think I could of used worse words that still would have been appropriate. I may not agree with you on your option of tempo but I won't call you stupid for thinking it.


Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

ThadMattasagoblin

September 16th, 2014 at 1:16 AM ^

It really screwed up the last drive of the first half last Saturday both because we got a delay of game and we would have run too much time off the clock if we didn't punt on their 30 yard line.

Mgobowl

September 16th, 2014 at 1:17 AM ^

"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."

 

The flip side of this is that if they are trying execute the playbook, then maybe they need to get to the line quicker so they can run through proper checks in order to get into the best play. 

 

What was Alabama's tempo under Nussmeier? How does it compare? I find it hard to believe we can't get the plays called in quicker especially with Nuss standing on the sideline.

nowayman

September 16th, 2014 at 1:37 AM ^

Before and during Nussmeier's stay there. 

Done properly, slow tempo is just as deadly (if not moreso) than up tempo play. 

Slow tempo's problem, though, is it only works if you have the lead.  

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/4/24/4263582/tempo

According to that guy, in fact, Alabama was the slowest team in the country from 2008 to 2012.  But I didn't double check his facts.  

MI Expat NY

September 16th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^

I must have missed it where up-tempo offenses can only work if they're playing a team that's equally up-tempo.

If we eat up the clock with our possessions and don't score and Utah runs quick possessions and score, I foresee a very rough game for us.

Marley Nowell

September 16th, 2014 at 1:43 AM ^

This actually concerns me with regards to how practices are run.  Chip Kelly has made it a point to use every single second of the limited time he has practicing to get the most out of it. If we are this slow in games I can't imagine the snail's pace we have in practice.

Mr. Yost

September 16th, 2014 at 8:54 AM ^

In practice you want to get as many reps for as many players as possible, in a game that obviously isn't the focus.

If we moved in practice the speed we moved in games, practice would be over and we would've gotten 5-10% of what the coaches wanted to accomplish that day accomplished.

Not trying to sound like an ass, but I've heard that questioned a lot...seems reasonable to me.

SECcashnassadvantage

September 16th, 2014 at 2:03 AM ^

This is Michigan fergodsakes, so it doesn't matter how the defensive unit lines up. We just need to do a better job of coaching the kids. Rinse and repeat!

leftrare

September 16th, 2014 at 4:27 AM ^

This conversation concentrates on the coaches, which is probably as it should be. However, is it not fair to lay some of the blame for being slow to get to the line on the guy who leads the huddle? We would have to review huddle time to know for sure, something that can't be done from network game film. I've been to one game this year and had a sense the huddles were, I don't know, studious? Thoughts anyone?

leftrare

September 16th, 2014 at 4:28 AM ^

This conversation concentrates on the coaches, which is probably as it should be. However, is it not fair to lay some of the blame for being slow to get to the line on the guy who leads the huddle? We would have to review huddle time to know for sure, something that can't be done from network game film. I've been to one game this year and had a sense the huddles were, I don't know, studious? Thoughts anyone?

allintime23

September 16th, 2014 at 5:24 AM ^

Yeah we do take the clock down to penalty levels on most plays. I don't think it's in anyway planned either. You just sit back and think to yourself , this guys had four years? Wow.

LSAClassOf2000

September 16th, 2014 at 6:04 AM ^

Per TeamRankings, we are a comfortable 117th when it comes to offensive snaps per game at 64.7 so far for the season. Not that it is much slower, but Army gets about two less than that at 62 snaps on average, which is good for 125th. The fewest? Florida Atlantic at 57.7, but I think this is perhaps attributable to many drives that are brief and end badly in their case. The fastest Big Ten team on their metric is Northwestern - ranked 17th at 84 plays on offense per game on average. 

pearlw

September 16th, 2014 at 7:06 AM ^

NW has 18 incompletions per game while Michigan has only 8.33 per game. That impacts the time per play statistic greatly since the clock stops after every incompletion. This allows you to get off the next play in 7 seconds of gametime even if you waste 40 seconds in real time to get the play off.

LSAClassOf2000

September 16th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^

Sitting in this conference as I was today, I thought more about this - could you achieve a meaningful synthesis using average plays per game but also account for time of posession (probably through simple division) to get a plays run per minute metric? I think this would consider at least the attempt at tempo regardless of success rates on completions (although that would be an interesting transformation as well, to separate out pass / rush). 

pearlw

September 16th, 2014 at 7:45 AM ^

The stat being referenced in this thread isnt the most meaningful stat as you can see below... if you really want to have less time per play, what is the most effective way to do it - THROW AN INCOMPLETE PASS. Since the clock stops after an incompletion, that is a surefire way to make sure your next play starts only 5-10 seconds after the previous one. So let's go to the data...what a surprise. Army leads the nation in FEWEST number of incompletions per game (1.0 per game as they are 10 of 12 on season) and Michigan is 8th in NCAA for fewest incompletions per game (they only have 25 incompletions over 3 games). Yes..Michigan surely hasnt had the greatest tempo...but this statistic doesnt seem to be the greatest when it took two seconds to confirm it is misleading with the first thing that came to mind. >>>>>>>> TEMPO: focus on number of plays per minute of REAL time - improve by no huddle and getting to line quickly THIS STAT: based on number of plays per minute of GAME CLOCK time -improve by throwing the ball alot to maximize number of incompletions to stop clock -improve by having close game at end so you try to go out of bounds to stop clock

MI Expat NY

September 16th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^

We also haven't had the chance to use a 2-minute drill this season, ignoring the fact that we probably should have been doing so at some point against Notre Dame.  That and your incompletions statistic should even out through the course of the season.  It's why it's silly to put too much stock in this statistic after three weeks.

That being said, with the exception of the triple option teams, I think the plays per minute of game time statistic will give a reasonable look at tempo after a certain number of games.  Up-tempo teams don't seem to have an extremely higher number of incompletions than slow-tempo teams.  Auburn is averaging 8 through 2 games.  A&M is averaging 13 through 3 games.  

HokeHogan

September 16th, 2014 at 9:08 AM ^

These coaches are leaving the players at the line of scrimmage with little to no time left on the play clock. Alabama was a well oiled machine. Saban would never tolerate the terrible use of the play clock by Michigan. Actually, neither would their fan base. How any one can watch this dumpster fire and keep making excuses is beyond me. 

HokeHogan

September 17th, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^

what I read here. My point is that the defense is plowing through our line. You cant protect your snap count when the clock is down to 1 second. The defense is not caught off guard at all. The better question is how many times have the dline/lb's been in our backfield withn a micro second of the snap count. I mean its not like DG is running for his life turning the ball over constantly right?

carlos spicywiener

September 16th, 2014 at 7:16 AM ^

This isn't something to complain about. Michigan is going slow because they want everyone to internalize the responsibilities and assignments of a new offense. When this team can rep their base plays with ease and...sign...execute, they should speed up.

Exactly what about this collection of a young shakly OL, RBs that miss holes, a QB with shaky confidence, young recievers who are getting their first game experience makes you say "Speed them up!!!"

unWavering

September 16th, 2014 at 7:39 AM ^

Of all the complaints leveled at Hoke this year, this one appears to have the most substance. Until you realize that a team doesn't need to be fast to be good. It is curious that Michigan is taking so long to snap the ball though, since they apparently they emphasized running plays faster in practice. I suspect that further into the year Michigan will show up closer to the middle of the pack once we have a larger sample size against opponents that aren't mostly garbage. There are valid arguments on both sides on this one. The offense needs time to adjust to the defensive front. Or, the offense can try to line up and snap the ball before the defense can react to the alignment. It appears that Nussmeier is more in the camp that takes their time to adjust to the defense. Which was actually something a LOT of people were calling for around here, for Devin to check things at the line.

westwardwolverine

September 16th, 2014 at 9:44 AM ^

Except we're already slow and bad a lot of the time. We were slow and bad last year, but of course we couldn't use a higher tempo according to all the mouth breathers because then the offense wouldn't...I don't know what they possibly could have done worse, but well you still can't do it!

People keep saying things like "Well, Alabama" or "But, LSU"....How the fuck (seriously) are we comparing ourselves with these teams? The point is, Hoke's chosen control the clock approach hasn't worked and the offensive flaws were really only masked by having Rodriguez's QBs playing out of their minds and David Molk. 

But I could even understand some sort of "control the clock, learn the playbook, etc." BS that I don't believe if a Hoke team had ever shown an ability to run a two minute drill or used a faster pace when necessary. I mean think about the Notre Dame game. We're down 21-0, taking our sweet time, running the football. Its awful and it goes beyond "Well, the players are young, once they know the offense, we'll speed up". 

 

 

CompleteLunacy

September 16th, 2014 at 12:52 PM ^

"slow and bad" is not a reason to move to up tempo. If they're slow and bad, what makes you think they would become good if they moved faster? Bad is bad.   

And it's not particularly accurate anyway. You're ignoring the obvious improvements of the offense this year. A stat that others have brought up is they've already gained 44% of the rushing total from last year. So, close to one-half of last years rushing totals in just a quarter of the season. Oh, and nearly all of those yards were RB yards, so less Devin running around and taking shots, which should help in the long run. Remember how banged up Devin was last year? The offense relied almost entirely on him, and after the MSU game he was completely battered  and shellshocked until OSU. So, Nuss is trying to get the pass blocking right to reduce sacks (so far an improvement) while getting the run blocking right so that there is less of a need to rely solely on Devin (a definite improvement). I think going deliberately and slow in the game offers the young inexperienced (and last year, turrible) OL to actually, you know, gain experience and execute their assignments. It's ben a mixed bag so far, but the trend arrow is most definitely up. So no, it's not just "slow and bad",

 

CompleteLunacy

September 16th, 2014 at 8:31 AM ^

I remember RRs years all those quick up tempo 3 and outs. Tempo can work greatly, but for a team struggling with inconsistency it can backfire easily. After the chaos of last year, I'd honestly rather they go slower and more deliberately to get the base stuff working. Once Nuss is confident with progress, THEN introduce some in-game up tempo concepts to give the O a new dimension. The quick snap 3rd and short play is a great example...when you lull a d to sleep with slow pace and suddenly you go quick, it is easy to catch them off guard.