Scouting Stitt, Redux
Whelp, it's Friday morning on a non-game week so good football related work distractions are scarce. In case you didn't catch Bob Stitt's Orediggers on TV last night (like me, relevant thread here), Bill Connelly has a very informative post for you:
Obviously the chances of him ever coaching for us are slim to none, but it's fun to dream...
October 17th, 2014 at 9:44 AM ^
/SWOON
October 17th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
Do coaches have things that they prefer to call based on tendency? Absolutely. That's what they call their Cover 1 beater or Cover 3 beater, etc. But for the most part, each pass play is intended to be able to defeat every coverage.
2x2 sets typically have a two-high side and a one-high side, and therefore defeat every coverage. A mesh concept has a rub route at the middle of the field to defeat man, it also tends to have at least three receivers underneath and one attacking deep to overload zones, as seen here. A big reason I'm a huge proponent of bunch and trips sets is because a triangle beats everything, it just depends on everyone making the correct reads, and only requires three receivers to do so (a fourth receiver on the opposite side can run a hot route or an alert route, giving you the option of throwing to a isolated receiver in preferable situations).
I'm not saying the guy isn't a great offensive mind. He's had a ton of offensive success. What I'm saying is that high-level approach he's talking about really isn't different than anyone elses approach at this level in terms of pass concepts. A play that is only designed to beat one coverage is a play that is designed to fail. On top of that, it is no easier to read for the QB than running a play that is designed to defeat any coverage. So, especially with the fact that you only have a concept of what the defense may run based on tendency, there is no advantage to running plays designed for only one concept, and it isn't any more difficult to implement and run plays designed to beat all coverages, even if you are simply stealing those plays from elsewhere.
October 17th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
Space, you are usually pretty quick to support coaches while at the same time pointing out that at the higher levels almost all of the coaches are experts about schemes, etc. I get that you are a coach and you protect your own. Fine.
Your continued stance on this only drives home the point then that something must be wrong with Hoke and the coaching staffs ability to teach and develop the players to understand this stuff.
If most college coaches have the same understanding of concepts and the utilization of them, that only really leaves, phsyical ability of the players, desire of the players, or the ability for the coaches to teach and develop the players to execute the schemes.
If you look at those things, I don't see a huge gap in Michigan's physical ability vs. Minnesota, Rutgers, ND, Utah, etc.
For the most part, I don't think you see an effort issue (although there does seem to be a trend of Hoke's teams getting beat by teams that play hard)
That leaves player development and coaches teaching. This leads me to believe their needs to be changes, because the coaching staff isn't going to suddenly evolve in this area.
October 17th, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^
But they all have the same basic high-level understanding of the schemes, because they have to go up against it, they see it, and frankly, a lot of it is fairly intuitive. The things that we are talking about above can essentially be traced back to the "inventor" of progression read offenses, Sid Gillman in the early 80s. In the past 20 years, every non-option team (and by option, I mean triple option heavy team, and even excluding them is facetious) has utilized these high-level concepts in terms of progression reading and route adjustments to defeat any coverage (when you start implementing the Bill Walsh WCO, you've accounted for this completely).
So that's what I mean when I say all coaches at this level are doing this sort of thing as far as "coverage beaters". Now, that doesn't mean Al Borges understands the intricacies of the spread-to-run scheme as Urban Meyer. But he does understand that you utilize a FB on an inverted veer to prevent the scrape exchange or otherwise block the alley filling defender. He understands the high-level concepts. Likewise, a guy like Borges has a better understanding of the details of a WCO than Urban Meyer does, but Urban Meyer certainly understands a good bit of the detail as well. I'd argue Urban Meyer is better at his craft than Borges and I don't think a single person would challenge me; but I think there are people that would challenge me that our current coaching staff, as well as Borges, don't understand fundamental football concepts that they and many other coaches do, and I would vehemently disagree.
Now, where do I think the biggest issue on this coaching staff is? I absolutely do not think it's scheme. No, it's what you've said, and that is the exact thing I've said numerous times. At the end of the day you need to teach your players to execute assignments within your scheme.
I don't think for the most part teams are out-athleting Michigan. I don't think, for the most part, teams are out-scheming Michigan. There are those that are marginally better at scheming, and you look for those guys because they give you a marginal advantage, but by far where the biggest gap between coaching staffs is in actually teaching players how to execute. The schemes aren't that difficult; they are out there, they are on film, they are at coaching clinics. With a general idea of football you can't device and replicate the high-level schemes. It's the details and the techniques and methods of teaching that aren't as simply on film, and those are the things that aren't being executed right now. That's why Al Borges, a guy that won a National Championship as an OC, can struggle to score points, get fired, and then another OC that just recently won a National Championship do the same. It's not the scheme, this high level stuff is all over the place and readily available. It's developing the players and teaching the things efficiently so that the players can execute their assignments well.
You look at an offensive genius like Mike Leach (who has a similar system as Stitt). That guy has told more people about his offense than just about any other coach out there. And it's a really simple offense schematically. But how do you teach the receivers to make sight adjustments, how do you taech the QB to see those things and get the ball out on time, how do you teach the OL to do the small things they need to do to open up throwing windows? It's not the scheme. It's certainly not working despite the scheme, but it isn't simply working because of scheme. It's the coaching of techniques, reads, and assignments and developing players within your scheme. That's why if the next guy is a spread-to-run, spread-to-pass, pro-style, whatever, my attitude won't change in my assessment of them. I have a preferred offense, they have a preferred offense. I believe in mine, they believe in theirs. And both can work as long as we teach the things necessary to make them work, and if all that's equal, scheme is marginal (though the difference can be larger in certain situations in both the positive and negative directions, which is why I always bring up the fact that even Rich Rod wanted an I-formation offense as well because he understood the benefits of such in certain situations).
October 17th, 2014 at 7:39 PM ^
October 18th, 2014 at 6:47 AM ^
that's a totally cool story bro. Just wanna know why he doesn't use the spread-punt formation then?
October 17th, 2014 at 9:46 AM ^
I think Schlissel would be very receptive to the idea of hiring Stitt. He's gone on record supporting a change in commercialization of college athletics. I think hiring a coach that can provide entertaining and intelligent football for 110,000 fans and doesn't require >$4Million salary fits into this message.
October 17th, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^
Yes, nothing sells 110,000 tickets like the hiring of a Division II coach.
He's not the football version of Beilein. Beilein had coached at three different D-I schools before Michigan and taken each to the NCAA tournament.
Nor is he Jim Tressel, the other shoehorned comparison. Tressel, prior to coaching at YSU, was an OSU assistant in the 1980s - an important thing to remember. He knew what big-time football was.
Stitt is a guy comfortably at a low level of football - 14 years at the same tiny school - that's it.
October 17th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^
Perhaps not. I am certainly not advocating that Stitt be the next head coach at Michigan, but I am also certainly not going to suggest that he would fail here. I think the risk posed by his lack of familiarity with major college athletics is significant. However, I would not go so far as to say it creates an insurmountable hurdle that someone who is bright and hard working cannot overcome, which seems to be what you are suggesting.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
He's a risk to be hired as an offensive coordinator at Michigan, let alone the head coach. It's great he has had success at the Mines, but how his style translates to Division I football is not at all clear. I, frankly, don't understand the obsession.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^
Someone has to give him a chance.
Chip Kelly had never had any NFL experience, and he seems to be doing fine.
October 17th, 2014 at 12:10 PM ^
Chip Kelly was hired as Oregon's OC, and then a few years later was promoted to head coach. He wasn't hired cold out of New Hampshire to take over the head job.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
It makes little sense to sacrifice competitiveness in order to make a statement. The message will be muddled with the idea that you're simply being cheap, while still taking in a ton of tv revenue.
Schlissel is clearly unhappy with Brandon's marketing and pricing. That's where he's making changes to lessen the commercialization of our sports. He's not a fool. He knows about our football tradition and he surely knows it's a lot easier to fund the AD when the football team is winning.
I don't think he'll be in favor of throwing around $15M/year to lure Saban or Jim Harbaugh here. I think that's little more than a fantasy of a few fans anyway, no matter who was in charge. There's a middle ground between offering record contracts and opting out of paying competitive salaries. I expect our top choices will be names that command big contracts and that's what we'll offer.
October 17th, 2014 at 9:53 AM ^
October 17th, 2014 at 9:55 AM ^
If the mods don't feel this is post-worthy, they are free to delete it. I thought it was an informative article about a guy many of us have been following since Brian has made several front-page posts or mentions of him, going back to the last coaching search.
October 17th, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^
It is informative and if someone can't read the title of your post and immediately know that it is updated information about Bob Stitt then that is their problem, not yours. There are a ton of people here who will click on a thread that is obviously of no interest to them, just so they can boldly proclaim that it is of no interest to them and, therefore, is obviously of no interest to anyone.
Even if Bob Stitt was not a name mentioned by Brian, I would still have found this post and the linked article enjoyable - because it takes me to a better place - a fantasy land where watching Michigan football does not make me want to gouge my eyeballs out with a spoon.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
If Bob Stitt is in your fantasy land you need to take a long, hard look at your life.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:58 AM ^
So says Voldemort.
October 17th, 2014 at 1:09 PM ^
Fantasy land?
Yeah, I'll give you a long, hard look.
October 17th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
but note I said "a" fantasy land, not "my" fantasy land. I assure you my fantasy land involves no football!
October 17th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
#aaronrogersed
October 17th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
I know it's a bye week, but the only other football thread is discussing 2007 DE recruiting and was posted seven minutes before this was. I think the Stitt love is a little strange, but this has always been a weird place.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^
When he takes a large interest in watching a D-II game it's usually for a good reason.
Plus, can we all just accept how awesome Stitt Happens shirts will be?
October 17th, 2014 at 9:51 AM ^
October 17th, 2014 at 9:51 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 17th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^
Well, he's on the record saying he wouldn't mind being an OC at the FBS level...
Stitt says he'd be willing to move up as an offensive coordinator, but only if the head coach would give him total offensive control.
Rest of the article here.
October 17th, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^
I'd love to see Stitt hired as OC. Someone's going to hire him as an OC this year, I bet. I'd rather it be Michigan than whoever ends up being the next Illinois coach.
October 17th, 2014 at 5:41 PM ^
People keep saying it but yet it hasn't happened. Sumlin wears a stitt happens t-shirt and still didn't hire the guy. He may say he is interested in being an OC but chances are no head coach would ever actually give him full control of the offense because thats not how it works, at some point a head coach is going to want to make the call about going for it on 4th and 7 and the 50 and so nobody is going to hire stitt and he isn't going to want to get hired as an oc.
October 17th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
Stitt is a pretty good D-II coach.
October 17th, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
So is Brady Hoke.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
October 17th, 2014 at 10:26 AM ^
October 17th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
We were about to do a sticky for these, but the volume of these died off to a point where it is manageable for now, I think. It is still in the works as an option though.
Actually, I don't believe relative probability is a primary consideration for the "CC" threads genrally, but some of the candidates put forth do have some quirky schemes that are fun to discuss all the same. Stitt is one such person, in my opinion.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
Hire as a HC? No, probably too risky... however, I'd love to see him get a shot at coordinating an offense at the D1 level, and if it's here, all the better. There's a reason why many off the hot OCs and offensive-minded HCs in CFB think he's a genius.
October 17th, 2014 at 5:26 PM ^
Kind of reminds me of Malzahn. Coaching high school before getting the OC job at Arkansas (with a little help from a 5* QB recruit). Malzahn worked his way up and now has Auburn rolling. Maybe Stitt can too...
October 17th, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^
Will he get hired by Michigan? Most likely not. But isn't it sort of fun to talk about strategy that isn't dinosaurball? We can at least hope that the next coach will ascribe to a small part of Stitt's ideology, which I think makes this relevant.
October 17th, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
that this is still a talking point. Bob Stitt runs a novel offense in DII. He is in no way shape or form a viable candidate for the head coaching position at Michigan.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
but Stitt has been getting lots of attention around the football world for years before Brian ever mentioned him.
October 17th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^
HC? I don't think so. Too big a leap.
Wouldn't surprise me at all to see him as an OC in FBS this time next year
October 17th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
We have no idea what the criteria will be. Bo had experience at Miami. Mo was fired after three years at illinois with a record of 6-24-3. LC had never been a head coach. Brady Hoke was 47-50. The only coach they hired with a track record of success in a major conference was Rich Rod.
We also don't know how badly David Brandon has degraded the job in the eyes of other coaches. After the way Rich Rod was treated, coaches who will be perceived as "outsiders" are going to be leery of uprooting their lives at a place where they may be treated like shit by a sizable portion of the 'Michigan family."
I am hoping the new AD can attract a high-quality coach with a track record of success, but there is no guarantee that the Michigan job will be seen as "attractive" by coaches who have other options.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
I agree, Rich Rod's recent comments could be fairly damning towards attracting a coach with a tangential relationship with the University and athletic department. The only case where I could see that being a non issue is if it was a huge name. That seems highly unlikely.
October 17th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
If there is a new coach around these parts, I'm confident it is someone who understands the responsibilities and magnitude involved. There won't be another Rich Rodriguez. There won't be another guy who simply wants to be an offensive coordinator. There won't be a guy who quotes from the Lion King. There won't be another guy that plays Josh Groban songs at the football banquet. Whomever it is, will understand the responsibilities and will have the ability to carry them out.
October 17th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^
who doesn't do shit in offense and defense but coaching DL. Or another guy who posted a sub .500 record in different stop. Another guy who don't wear headset. Another guy who claps even when it's obvious that they suck.
October 17th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^
I'm not going to suggest that Brady shouldn't go -- it's too early to tell at this point. If things don't improve, the result is clear.
And, if you want to rip Hoke for not wearing a head set, fine. Personally, I don't equate head set wearing as a prerequisite for head coaches.
As to the rest, Brady does, very clearly, know exactly what the job is about, and is mature enough to understand it. He's also capable of carrying out, quite well in fact, the non-football related pieces. He is light years ahead of Rodriguez both as a person and as a manager of people.
That doesn't mean he'll survive. After all, ya gotta win games, too.
October 17th, 2014 at 7:12 PM ^
How do you even make that conclusion about Hoke being light years ahead of RR as a person? Do you know them? Guess who else got mad n cursed during games... Oh yeah Bo, the fabled one.
Better manager? I think RR's records outside of Michigan clearly show who the better coach/manager is even if it didn't work out here with lesser recruits I may add.
Man the anti-RR crowd will just say about anything to condemn the guy. Pathetic.
October 17th, 2014 at 7:32 PM ^
October 18th, 2014 at 4:39 AM ^
Um, yeah because I went to UM for 2/3 years for it. He deserved to get canned given his record here, but that doesn't mean shit regarding his person or apparently his coaching ability because he looks JUST FINE anywhere else other than Michigan. So based off that it wasn't that he was over his head; it's more like he just did not fit here regardless of why (b/c that can be argued for years).
Read option wasn't even the issue, defense was. Now, hilariously enough, "manball" is the issue. Hoke opened up all criticisms when he decided to take two top athletes on par with Woodson in forms of Drob and Gardner and turn them into mediocre at best QBs because "manball." I would chalk up the first 2 seasons of us winning in spite of offensive philosophy because DRob and Gardner literally saved our asses. Now Gardner is a shell of himself cuz that great "manball" oline.
Oh and if you haven't noticed a "beloved read option" QB is about to go #1 in the draft in the form of Mariota.
So yeah fuck that gimmicky offense man!
October 17th, 2014 at 1:13 PM ^
No Lion King and Josh Groban. But let's go with a little Frozen and Jason Mraz, really switch things up.
October 17th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^