Second Half Breakdown: Why?

Submitted by PeterKlima on
Everyone knows Michigan has really fallen apart in the second half of their recent games. But, this was also a problem last year. We finished 3-9, but we were winning at halftime of a lot of games. RR didn't have this problem at WVU. Michigan has changed DCs each year and that means "defensive half time adjustments" might not be the cause (unless Schafer and Robinson were equally bad at it). But, it also may indicate that a new system each year may be the cause. Anyway, based on the past two seasons, what would you say is the biggest reason for 2nd half meltdowns? 1. Lack of halftime adjustments (or bad adjustments). 2. Limited knowledge/experience with the DC's playbook and inability to effectively run other plays to counter other team. 3. The Barwis effect is over-hyped. 4. Young players choking. 5. Lack of depth for tired/injured players. 6. Better half-time adjustments by B10 coaches than in the Big East. 7. Lack of half-time motivational speech, etc... 8. Weird coincidence. 9. No one holds a candle to WVU's DC Casteel. 10. Other? Personally, I think it is almost all No. 2. At the beginning of the game, the defense looks somewhat confused and has busted coverages. They barely get the "base defense." So, I don't think they know enough to be able to adjust to other defensive plays during halftime of a game. Meanwhile, the other offenses can adjust. I also think No. 5, lack of backups, makes a difference when players need a rest in the second half. The others should not be the prbolem because they are either (a) somewhat constants from RR's time at WVU, or (b) improbable (i.e., I just don't think Big East coaches could be that much worse at half-time adjustments than weak B10 coaches.)

lilpenny1316

November 19th, 2009 at 3:40 PM ^

I hate Lloyd Carr, predictable football, but if we come out in the second half against Purdue and just go straight I-formation and run the ball down Purdue's throats, we kill clock and put points on the board. The ill-advised pitch on the option was a risk we didn't need. Same goes for the Iowa game. They couldn't stop our run game, so we should have shortened the game since we couldn't stop 3 and 24 to save our lives. But I do think we need to develop depth on the D-line. That was the big concern 12 months ago when looking at who was coming back and the lack of defensive recruits we had.

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 19th, 2009 at 4:50 PM ^

I totally agree. If we somehow have a lead at the half, we should go ball control in the second half. I'd even put Denard out there and have a go at a running-only, grind out the clock offense, similar to his touchdown drive against Iowa. The way we've been getting killed in the third quarter, we need to try something different.

aawolve

November 19th, 2009 at 3:45 PM ^

They are on the field too long, because they aren't very good to start with. They get tired, and there is no relief from the sidelines. They're smallish up front. They get grinded down to dust eventually. No scheme or coach could save this D, there's "a hole in the bucket."

helloheisman.com

November 19th, 2009 at 4:27 PM ^

somebody posted a comment on here before that, via a current player, under Lloyd the coaches would take about 10 min to come up with a game plan for the second half, and 10 min to explain the changes to the team. under RR, the coaches come in and yell at the players for their screw ups instead.

TrppWlbrnID

November 19th, 2009 at 5:04 PM ^

it can't be the adjustments one, because every team that michigan has lost to has done exactly what they have done for the past 10 years. wisconsin-power run, purdue - middle of the field short passing, illinois - juice running wild. they pretty much stick to their game plan the entire game.