Seven Takeaways from 'THE NIGHT'
Some takeaways from the first night game against Notre Dame
Now that I've taken off my maize and blue night vision goggles - here are some takeaways.
1) Denard is an unpredicatable passer - He made some brilliant throws and some downright ugly throws. While his arm strength isn't in question - his deep ball accuracy is.
2) We won because of risky plays - At the end of the day - most of our yardage came through risky plays. Denard lofts the ball and hopes the receiver gets it. Some of these were lucky, no matter how we construe it.
3) Our receivers make Denard look good (and bad) - One point which irked me was that our receivers dropped some very catchable balls. On the other hand, they also made some fantastic catches. Much like Denard's passing ability - receiving consistently is something we work on.
4) Our rushing game is a serious question mark - When we play Big Ten opponents Denard can't be expected to do all the lifting. Our rush attack from RB's needs serious work. If Fitz is injured - our other backs look ineffective.
5) We've turned a leaf on turnovers - Overall our ball security has been good (not counting Hopkins fumble). We've also made strides of improvement in forcing turnovers. This comes from Mattison's gametime adjustments - something the other Greg wasn't capable of
6) Our rush defense may become a strength - After the first half - our rush defense was markedly better. Mike Martin, BWC all seemed to step up and snuff out any ND rush attacks. This is a good sign.
7) Hawthorne may be the next Demens - Like last season when Demens upstaged Ezeh, this year Hawthorne may have upstaged Herron/ Jones. Kid has some skill and should solidify his starting position with the performance last night.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:34 AM ^
I agree that our Run D could actually become pretty good by the end of the season. If BWC builds off this game it frees up RVB to be back at SDE which itself will be huge. With Jake Ryan and Brandin Hawthorne stepping up, our entire front 7 would seem pretty solid. Additionally if we can take away teams running games and force them to be 1 dimensional then we can better unleash Mattisons blitz schemes and the entire defense becomes a lot better.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:37 AM ^
As far as the rushing game goes, we didn't really have a lot of chance to work on it after the first quarter. Plus Touissant was out. I would agree that Hopkins is a mistake unless Hoke plans on installing the wishbone and putting him at fullback, but I think they ought to give Smith and Shaw some more looks, along with Fitz. It is a question mark but I think it will clear up a bit before Big Ten play.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:46 AM ^
rawls may be the man by season's end.
September 12th, 2011 at 7:58 AM ^
September 12th, 2011 at 1:37 AM ^
I'm really curious to see how Jake Ryan and BWC show in this week's UFR. I was way too stressed and dazed to make real assessments on the fly, but Ryan followed a great showing against WMU with a damn important tackle on that late game 3rd and short. As for BWC, it seems to me that what this defense really needs is the ability to get pressure with the front four, and I'm not sure that the have the personnel to do that if they can't rely on Campbell to take the bulk of the snaps at DT.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:47 AM ^
the kid has football instincts. I think he shows tremendous potential.
September 12th, 2011 at 7:01 AM ^
I think they're going to show pretty well. Ryan seemed like his usualy rockin' self in run support, and as far as I can tell, BWC was pretty solid down the stretch. The fact that he was in during cruch time was pretty encouraging. That huge stop that Ryan got on 3rd and short? Take a look at Campbell. He absolutley destroyed the RT at the point of attack. The lead blocker on that play then had to take on Campbell which seemed to free up Demens and Ryan.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^
I agree with most of your points. It was awesome to see BWC get fired up and make some big plays. I think he'll grade out well
In terms of pressuring with the front 4 I think you'll see TONS of substitutions. I think that our personnel will change often and we'll give a bunch of different looks. Almost with every situation (kind of like a short yardage package, only we'll have a bunch).
Base 4-3/4-3 under: RVB/MM/BWC/Roh
Nickel 4-2 early downs (spread team run defense): Same or Black/MM/RVB/Roh
2nd/3rd and long (best pass rush): Same or sub an end for Jake Ryan
Basically I think MM and RVB will be out there all the time, but at times we'll sub a DT out for a secondary member and slide Jake Ryan down to rush. Often towards the end of the game BWC and MRob would sub directly for each other. Robinson would play deep safety. Gordon would slide up to Nickel and Ryan would slide up to end, giving us a 4-2-5 Nickel look. Our D looked like this:
Base Run D:
Woolfolk - Kovacs - Gordon - Avery
Ryan - Demens - Hawthorne
Van Bergen - Martin - Campbell - Roh
Switch to Pass D:
Woolfolk - Kovacs - *ROBINSON - Avery
*GORDON (Nickel) - Demens - Hawthorne
*RYAN - Van Bergen - Martin - Roh
I think that's what we'll see moving forward
September 12th, 2011 at 1:39 AM ^
While our Run D was improved the second half, I didn't think that it was very impressive. I half-agree with 2. And I think our running game will improved if/when Touissant come back or when we saw Rawls play.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:42 AM ^
isn't a bad RB and we stuffed him out on more than one occassion. I think our front men have some potential and as time progresses, they'll become better with Mattison's coaching.
On 2, Fitz has had issues staying healthy. He's like a Brandon Minor, only more fragile. Honestly, we don't have a every down back in our stable and I would hesitate to call Rawls a factor (freshman and all that)
September 12th, 2011 at 2:27 AM ^
"He's like a Brandon Minor, only more fragile."
The anti-Fred Jackson!
September 12th, 2011 at 2:51 AM ^
A lot of the particularly ugly runs we gave up seemed to come on RPS mismatches - several times I recall catching Martin dropping into a short zone on runs up the center.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
Agree completely. ND called some runs on 3rd and medium distances where Martin and/or other DL were dropping in zone blitzes, thus leaving gaping holes to exploit. I recall one run where Woods was running up Martin's back - almost as if Martin was the lead blocker - as Hulk was dropping back into his coverage. Can't do nuthin' about that. RPS is RPS. I think there will be plenty of positive RPS defensive plays for us, too.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:36 AM ^
I feel the same about our run defense. I loved the stuffs. But the ND backs gashing us repeatedly for 10+ yards, not so much.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:41 AM ^
Also, personally, I'm not worried about the WRs - and I'm very pleased with their play yesterday. Sure, they missed a couple of catchable balls, but they were catching in the dark in an extremely high-profile game, and most of those "drops" really weren't delivered perfectly. What they showed in terms of their ability to win jump balls, get yards after the catch, and make clutch plays more than made up for a couple of misses.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:45 AM ^
I guess, what I'm looking for is consistency.
In a 'put it up there and hope for the best approach' - we will win some and lose some. Yesterday we won the key matchups. In other games those plays may have very well ended in interceptions.
I guess - you may call me conservative - but I'm looking more towards 5-15 yards of low risk passing than 30 yard high risk passing (which was what won us the game yesterday)
September 12th, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
Consistency is definitely the word. They methodically drove down the field against WMU, but never once did it against ND. It was big play mania. Awesome at it was, and its never a bad thing to see how many huge plays our offense/WRs are capable of, it is certainly not a very reliable method of winning a game.
Denard was trying for many deee throws in teh 1st 3 quarters, forcing many into bad coverage. Not good. His vision still needs a lot of work, he missed some blatantly wide open receivers while throwing into double, triple, even quadruple coverage once. It could have been nerves. I don't know. But Denard needs to find a way to settle down, and other players on this offense need to find a way to help out Denard when he's off his game (and by that I mean earlier than the 4th quarter.) The WRs could have helped Denard's confidence by making a few catches even if they weren't perfectly placed passes. The RBs didn't really do anything in the first half.
Good thing is they get Eastern next week, so hopefully they can work on developing and fixing these parts of the offense.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:48 AM ^
Just like coach Hoke said in the postgame, I didn't think there were alot of opportunities for the RBs due to ND being pretty stout up front. I didn't think we blocked very well on too many plays when the RBs got the ball in their hands. I hope the line can start to get a better push up front, as we are bound to face some better d-lines once we get into Big Ten play. However, I do think ND has a pretty good d-line, so I don't think there will be too many that will be better.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:52 AM ^
MSU/ Nebraska/ Ohio State/ Iowa (to an extent) will all present challenging D-lines. If not in terms of skill certainly in terms of pure stoutness and space eating ability. If ND posed a problem all four of these teams undoubtedly will present a problem to our running game.
Also, offensive running production is a product of RB skill plus O line efficiency. We lacked in both departments unfortunately. Not trying to slam our RBs but just pointing out the need for some elite RB prospects in the future.
September 12th, 2011 at 7:04 AM ^
The run game also took a back seat when ND went up 14 points early and our D wasn't looking like it would stop them quickley. That lends to passing and play calling that eats up yardage quickley.
September 12th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
You keep spelling that word....I do not think it's spelled the way you think it's spelled....
quickly, not quickley.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:57 AM ^
September 12th, 2011 at 2:05 AM ^
In the first half, you could see Denard was trying to find passes when they weren't there. He looked uncomfortable holding onto the ball looking for a pass.
Once Al gave him freedom to run I think he looked a lot more dangerous. I think Denard should be given the read option as much as possible with some designed plays (like the throwback to Smith - that was the Play of the Game in my opinion) for specific situations.
September 12th, 2011 at 7:23 AM ^
that does something other than run up the back of our O-line (Hopkins).
September 12th, 2011 at 1:58 AM ^
Did Hawthorne play the whole game/start? I rpetty much agree with everything you said, and hope BWC takes this oppertunity to win the starting job, and kick RVB back out to DE where he belongs.
Also, anyone know how Roh did? Only heard his name called once (that I can remember anyways).
September 12th, 2011 at 8:55 AM ^
Hawthorne replaced him right around the start of Q2.
September 12th, 2011 at 2:02 AM ^
But he didn't start from what I saw.
Also Roh was anonymous and it was Black who looked more impressive. Roh was solid but not spectacular.
September 12th, 2011 at 2:05 AM ^
One more...
Matt Wile is saving our asses with the punting game right now. Hagerup put us in a terrible spot with his suspension, but Wile has been a very capable replacement as a true freshman who wasn't recruited or expected to be a college punter.
September 12th, 2011 at 2:42 AM ^
Is doing a good job punting. I am somewhat disappointed in the kickoffs though, a couple of them barely made it to the 20 yard line.
September 12th, 2011 at 2:44 AM ^
He's a true freshman and handled the pressure fairly well.
September 12th, 2011 at 3:55 AM ^
I think those short directional kickoffs that came later in the game were by design to protect our shaky coverage team.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:25 AM ^
September 12th, 2011 at 2:53 AM ^
For the first time (mostly because I have only really been paying attention to details for the past few years) I am actually excited to see how our defense plays for the rest of the year. Our line has had some problems, but I think things will workout as the year progresses. It seems we have viable starters at all of our LB positions. We have 3 CBs who seem to know what they are doing. Kovacs is Kovacs. Marvin Robinson made some key tackles. That may be the only position I worry about as the year goes on and I don't think I'm going to be that worried.
I usually look at the obvious wins and obvious losses, then say the offense and defense will win X games for us and lose Y games for us. Before the season I thought the defense would lose us a game. Now, I still think they will lose us a game, but I think that they will probably win us two games.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:39 AM ^
About the passing game, I think the key will be Denard learning not to throw long into double coverage. Good receivers should be able to beat man-to-man, so there is no problem with lofting it up deep against single coverage (yes, what a great job our WR's did on this!). So I don't think it's Denard's arm, per se, but his development in making reads.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:45 AM ^
"We won because of risky plays - At the end of the day - most of our yardage came through risky plays. Denard lofts the ball and hopes the receiver gets it. Some of these were lucky, no matter how we construe it." - Bluestreak
Scary as it was sometimes due to the uncertainty of the outcome (+4 over normal beer consumption to achieve necessary decompession), I like that they are willing to make these plays. I think that game-winning "Hail Mary' elicited a shout of, "Go Balls, Go Blue" from me because of the awesome yet potentially frightening thought of Dearest QB and his coordinator.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:49 AM ^
Against better teams ( I think ND was mentally soft) we would probably end up burning ourselves.
That said, full marks to the coaches for believing in our team.
September 12th, 2011 at 7:10 AM ^
But against better teams, everything will be tougher. Running basic plays will be tougher as well, so that sometimes means you have to take bigger risks to win as well. Basically, we are not a great team, so we have to take risks to win. And yes, that will not work out sometimes, but it's more a relic of the quality of our team, and not the play calling itself.
September 12th, 2011 at 8:20 AM ^
"Against better teams"? Honestly, how many teams do you think we'll play this year that are better than Notre Dame? I think they are as good a team as we play this year, save maybe Nebraska. Their talent is on par with anyone (did you see the size of their lines?). We had some luck on our side this game, but I think it's evidence that we have a chance to beat anyone on our schedule.
I also think Notre Dame puts it to Sparty next weekend.
September 12th, 2011 at 7:48 AM ^
All true above, but takeaway for me was the solid presence of the coaching staff. While Brian Kelly's "u mad bro" made Notre Dame players afraid to make mistakes so much they did, Brady Hoke and staff quietly corrected Big Blue. Hoke has a calming presence and stays even keeled. Mattison makes solid adjustments and builds pressure on opponents. Borges recognizes the need to revert to shotgun run and gun and fills players with confidence. Our coaching staff makes solid adjustments and gives the players confidence as the games go on. Rather than watch the team spiral out of control, the coaches provide stable leadership. It's encouraging to watch. Michigan pulled a win out of the jaws of defeat and now has some breathing room to continue progress. Hats off to the coaching staff.
September 12th, 2011 at 8:05 AM ^
September 12th, 2011 at 7:53 AM ^
basketball on grass!
September 12th, 2011 at 7:57 AM ^
Junior Hemingway is NOT the fastest guy on the field and whenever he went out for a route, the DB was always playing on top of him. Therefore, if you lead Hemingway, it gets picked off much more easily. Just let Hemingway do what he does best; jumping higher than any other DB and catching the ball spectacularly.
September 12th, 2011 at 7:59 AM ^
I'd agree with the coaching staff take away. I've been happy that when things aren't working, they will find something that does, on both sides of the ball, instead of staying with something that doesn't work all game, hoping that it will eventually.
September 12th, 2011 at 8:49 AM ^
1) Denard is an unpredicatable passer - It's his accuracy in general, not just the deep ball. And right now there's no question, it's not very good. I expect/hope Borges will fine tune things to fit with Denard's strengths. He's not a good pocket passer; he just isn't...
2) We won because of risky plays - Absolutely. A decent cover corner makes a play at the ball on these throws and it's 50/50 on which team ends up with it (unless your targetting Gallon and it's more like 90/10 for the D).
3) Our receivers make Denard look good (and bad) - I'd say our receivers played well overall. Benefitted from a weak secondary IMO. And I heart Junior Hemingway.
4) Our rushing game is a serious question mark - As is a lot of our offense. It'll be interesting to see where Borges goes with all this.
5) We've turned a leaf on turnovers - HUGE
6) Our rush defense may become a strength - Yea, and if they could get some more pass pressure without having to blitz we'd be looking pretty darn good on defense. Consistency is key.
7) Hawthorne may be the next Demens - Definitely had a good night. Excited to see him throughout the year.
Overall I agree with your points. I just don't feel very good about Denard and what Al is trying to do with him. I don't think it's spread or die, but that offense just looked awful in the first half. This sounds cliche, but we need to establish an "identity" on offense. Still trying to find our way it seems...
September 12th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^
Absolutely. A decent cover corner makes a play at the ball on these throws and it's 50/50 on which team ends up with itMaybe in the NFL. In college, there aren't that many good cover guys out there. If you put the ball reasonably on target for Hemingway, he'll outjump the DB most of the time.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
1. The Offensive Line. IMO "the rushing game" is too general a concern. For me the concern is the offensive line. From where I sat ND's D-line clearly and consistently beat our O-line. While the RB's didn't do much, I also saw lots of penetration from ND, and very little running room for both the RB's and Denard.
2. The Defensive Line. Again, we were unable to generate any real pressure with 4 guys. And their o-line gashed us in the running game. A couple nice plays from BWC and Hwthorne's game provide some hope, but that is countered IMO by the disappearance of Craig Roh, and a puzzling lack of big plays so far from Mike Martin.
3. The offensive scheme. Denard had very little room to operate, and I think it is still a very open question whether or not this scheme can get the best out of Denard. Comeback was awesome, but let's be honest, IMO some of those throws Denard made could have easily been intercepted. Denard didn't show anything in the passing game to make me think he has progressed much in his reads and accuracy.
On the positive side, the defense overall does indeed show improvement, and it's clear we have the right coaches. And since I was one of the legions of those who predicted 8 wins, that in itself presumes that there are concerns and holes in the overall team, so some of this is to be expected. I also think we will be much better late in the year than now, so I'm very hopeful overall.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
Don't get me wrong. I absolutely enjoyed watching us beat ND in heartwrenching factor again. Shame on Brian Kelly for not suspending Floyd. Nice to see his BCS dreams blow up in his face. And with a MSU victory ND's season will be over.
But anyone who thinks our defense turned a corner is insane. The reality is we gave up 500 yards to a team being run by a journyman. Of the four turnovers, only one was truly forced. I would say the Cierre Wood fumble was legit. One interception was a horrible throw when Reise threw way too late. The other occured because the TE blew the route and Reise went tunnel vision. Kudos to Kovak for still reading the play. If Reise just does not drop the ball on the ground for that 4th TO UM just wins easy.
The only thing I felt good about was that UM's run blitzes seemed to work when ND was obviously running. The Big10 is filled with QB's of a much higher quality. They will pick us apart if we play like that in conference play.