Should Mattison get a pass for DEBACLE?
I know we have been piling up on Borges, but I don't think Mattison should get a free pass for THE DEBACLE.
Before the game, the common mantra for defense was to utilize blitz to break the true frosh QB under pressure. However, at least for the first half, blitzes were few and far between, resulting in most of the touchdowns that PSU scored during the regular time.
Just how bad of an idea is it to NOT blitz against Heck? Here are the numbers.
| Rush | Count | Completion % | Avg Yards | TD Allowed | Sacks | YPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Three | 5 | 60% | 15.7 | 2 | 0 | 9.4 |
| Four | 34 | 50% | 13.2 | 1 | 1 | 6.6 |
| Five | 11 | 63.6% | 2.9 | 0 | 3 | 1.8 |
| Six | 1 | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
As you can see from above, the old adage is correct - the freshman QB does not handle pressure well. When we brought five or more, we were able to bring havoc (3 sacks) and limit YPA (less than 2!). But we only brought pressure only 1/5 of the time. What would have happened if that ratio was more like 50%?
Even worse, when we stepped off the gas and rushed three, Heck was able to complete passes for big yardage (9.4 YPA) and threw most of his touchdowns.
I just don't understand why we would give a freshman QB time to throw, ESPECIALLY when they are in the red zone. If Mattison brought the pressure from the get go, we don't allow 21 points to start off. How different this game would have been if we were ahead by 1 or down by only 3 going into the half?
Mattison blew it. We had a chance to completely dominate PSU, and we decided not to.
October 18th, 2013 at 2:20 AM ^
For me personally Mattison gets a pass, because he's proven what a great coach and recruiter he is. Mostly the coaching is what I care about, and he took an absolutely dreadful unit with basically all the same players and turned them around immediately into a top-25 defense. The defense has continued to be solid for his tenure at Michigan.
I think the reason many people are frustrated with Borges is that the offense has only gotten worse and worse since he's been here. It's not one bad game, its a bad pattern and doesn't show any signs of changing.
October 18th, 2013 at 2:59 AM ^
Look, no one is saying we need to replace Mattison.
I just want all this arrogance on both side of the ball with MANBALL! and #RightToRushFour to stop.
The defence had an opportunity to win this game by themselves if they just did what every other team does against a non-mobile freshman QB - blitz on every passing down.
But somehow winnig alone is just not enough with this staff. We have to win it, doing it OUR WAY. I just wish this attitude would cease on both side of the ball.
October 18th, 2013 at 8:18 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 8:56 AM ^
FWIW
Greg Mattison didn't get the right call on a complete BS pass interference that continued a drive for PSU that would have otherwise sealed the game for M, either...well before the jump issues
October 18th, 2013 at 9:12 AM ^
the offense, too. In fact, most betting people would take Gibbons on two fields goals over the possibility of an interception any day of the week. But reason hasn't been our strong suit here this week. A lot of men just get. . . a little excited. . . standing in big crowds of men shouting for blood; sad historical fact. We're impotent so much of the time. . . feels good.
Doesn't mean squat, of course. I could see Brandon dumping Borges to protect Hoke down the road, but it won't be tomorrow.
October 18th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
if he sent pressure. The D dominated the second half by pressuring the QB until we went into the prevent the win D at the end of the game.
October 18th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^
yea the defense gave up 2 big plays at the end of regulation to allow PSU to tie the game but, 21 of Penn states points where off offensive turn overs on our side of the field. I could not eeven mention the fact the defense held PSU to 0 points in 2 of the OT's when missed one field goal and had the other blocked. In no way is this on the defense to even bring this up is ridiculous
October 18th, 2013 at 5:54 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 10:54 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 2:26 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 10:17 AM ^
only 10-15 D's would have done much better given our TOs (they had 3 short fields) and the D held up fine in OT.
October 18th, 2013 at 2:47 AM ^
The defense gave up two touchdowns when they started the ball within the 30. They gave up three legit drives, the one long touchdown drives, and two field goals. That last drive, they were two lucky bounces away from getting out of there with a win, and I'm not really counting the OT, since it was their fourth fucking time on the field when they gave up a touchdown.
Yeah, he gets a pass.
October 18th, 2013 at 3:09 AM ^
I understand they had a short field, but we should have been able to hold at least one for a FG. Mattison refused to blitz, and worse, decides to only send three, resulting in touchdowns. This was easily preventable.
October 18th, 2013 at 10:01 AM ^
weakness in the secondary is a very well kept secret as of right now. Mattison is not blitzing because we will get toasted deep, Akron style. Our safeties are stout but they do not have outstanding speed, and while our corners are adequate they are both vulnerable deep if put on an island. Combine that with the staggering amount of time it seems to take for our blitz to get anywhere close to the backfield and you have a recipe for disaster. Mattison is playing to his strength, solid coverage on the corners with guys that make quick decisive contact after the catch to prevent YAC and pressure from the ends without giving up the middle. Mattison is not working with overwhelming personnel right now, and is being dealt pretty shitty hands in terms of defensive starting position. While I am not saying it is impossible that blitzing in those postions would yeild positive outcomes, I find it just as probable that it results in touchdowns, only sooner.
October 18th, 2013 at 11:05 AM ^
Our secondary is getting toasted because when he sends 3 or 4 they hvae to cover too long because our 3/4 man rushes aren't getting home. Look at the #'s. Our secondary has PLENTY of talent.
October 18th, 2013 at 2:51 PM ^
what he has, and tailored a defensive game plan to cater to those strengths and minimize our exposure to our weaknesses. That is summed up in the bend don't break philosophy and in limiting the amount of risk of big plays after having watched our DB's over 6 games .
October 18th, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 2:50 AM ^
I had a lot of faith in this team to pressure a true freshmen QB in an intense situation and sure enough we make him look like Tom Brady. Then we have our QB thats been practicing for years and he cant find an open player.
October 18th, 2013 at 11:19 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 2:51 AM ^
Having said that, aside from the delay of game penalties, I thought this was the most egregious coaching mistake on Saturday. I don't remember seeing any indication that they were going to burn us if we blitzed (though maybe there was some indication of their big play potential in that last 80-yard drive). I thought our D-line played reasonably well, but without having looked at the game since it happened (mercifully), it seemed to me that most of our rush-4 pressure came from PSU miscues rather than our line winning one-on-one battles.
October 18th, 2013 at 2:59 AM ^
What is the thing most likely to derail Michigan's season other than a Gardner injury? BRIAN: Not being able to run the dang ball.
OK, worst RB YPC in school history, but total yards: Michigan 389, Penn State 390. How is one coordinator a bum and the other a saint when both teams gain exactly as many yards and score exactly as many points (in regulation)? Confirmation bias?
October 18th, 2013 at 5:30 AM ^
Because the one coordinator kept calling plays that by the 2nd quarter everyone knew weren't going to work, e.g. running Fitz in between the tackles.
October 18th, 2013 at 5:54 AM ^
Both coordinators called uber-conservative games.
Borges would call 30-yard passes on every play if Hoke and Mattison let him. Instead, they give him a list of priorities something like 1. No turnovers 2. Burn clock 3. Do tough man stuff 4. Score points (in that order). Toussaint doesn't fumble and every hand off kills 30 seconds so Mattison's D only has to play 2/3 of a game and Hoke can pretend like the defense is good. The problem isn't the the play calling, it's the game plan and that's on Hoke.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:52 AM ^
1) Unless you've got some inside information the comment about Hoke forcing Borges into something feels like a supposition that you try to pass off as fact. 2) Even if you're assertion is true the statement that Borges would throw 30 yards every down is obvious hyberbole and patently false. 3) Thowing on every down would ultimate be probably be even less effective than 27 for 27.
October 18th, 2013 at 8:42 AM ^
I don't have any inside information, but I've followed his career, I've read Coaching The West Coast Quarterback, and I've listened to him talk for several hours. Al Borges is not a manball adherent.
October 19th, 2013 at 1:25 AM ^
Thank you. Not sure why this hasn't been getting brought up more. Borges is not manball. Hoke and Brandon are manball. Manball is a philosophy, and philosophy is handed down from the top.
If you want my opinion (based solely on speculation and that recent press conference video), Borges is frustrated with what he's being made to do because it's making him look bad. His career has not featured these ultra-conservative offenses that he's now being asked to run. It's like GERG being forced to run a 3-3-5, except Borges actually seems somewhat competent at running something he isn't used to running.
Let this be totally clear: "This is Michigan" means one thing, and one thing only to Dave Brandon and co.: Recognizably, traditional Michigan football. We tried non-traditional, you see, and it didn't work, so we have to go back to traditional.
Hoke succeeded in year one because he tailored his system to his players. He is failing now because he is not doing that anymore. I think he wants to build that identity for recruiting et al., but losing is not gonna help build a strong brand image and identity. I think the coaches and athletic department know this, but as long as Hoke continues to enjoy moderate success in this transitional phase, then he will be kept and regarded highly by the department, program, and its funders.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:15 AM ^
To add to this a little, it took Penn State 89 plays to get 390 yards off Michigan's defense, which is just short of 4.4 yards per play on average and actually slightly BETTER than their already Top 20 performance on this metric (#13 in Division I in YPP, to be precise). This is a team that still yields less than 3 YPC on average in the rushing game and, despite other aspects of the passing defense not looking so hot perhaps, is actually top 20 in yards allowed per completion (6.0 yards per completion, good for #19, despite being #53 in passing yards allowed).
October 18th, 2013 at 7:41 AM ^
And how's this for an additional point:
You know what team is averaging 4.4 yards per play this season?
Purdue.
Mattison "gets a pass" because he made PSU's offense look like Boilerquest on a down to down basis.
October 18th, 2013 at 9:55 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^
I'm not saying our pass defense was elite or anything, but you do remember our starting corner was suspened for the the game right?
October 18th, 2013 at 8:06 AM ^
I don't understand the logic of your point.
Borges is being criticized because the points and yards of offense gained by Michigan given the number of plays run were low.
Mattison isn't being criticized because the points and yards of offense gained by Penn State given the number of plays run were low.
October 18th, 2013 at 9:35 AM ^
total to score their 1st 14 points. Defense held them to 84 rushing yards for the game. The last drive doesn't even exist if the offensive calls don't go into the freezer. One first down from the PSU 27 wins the game ... no need to even score another point.
October 18th, 2013 at 8:11 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 1:01 PM ^
Thank god for the sake of the board somebody wrote this response. Was that question even serious? If both teams have identical yards it likely means either both units were average or one was significantly better than the other. In this case, with effectively 5+ quarters of play, I think most agree the offensive performed poorly and defense well.
October 18th, 2013 at 9:54 PM ^
It's probably because for one guy a HIGH number is a good thing, and for the other guy a LOW number is a good thing.
Yeah, that was the point. I said the yards and points were the same and you ignored the only one of those that is used to determine who wins the game. 34 is a high number and a good thing for the offense, not so much for the defense. Brian predicted 32 - 24, UM scores two more, gives up 10 more and Borges is a bum, got it.
October 18th, 2013 at 10:44 AM ^
I hate to point out the obvious, but if 389 is an unacceptable number for our O to have gained (and I believe that it is) Then 390 seems like an OK number to give up. Their D "stopped" us, so our D must have "stopped" them... right?
I would have liked to see more pressure brought late, 3 men rushing on the bomb to the corner was gut wrenching. There probably was not enough time to nickle and dime us to death at the end, bring the heat, stay behind the deep threats, and let him hit his hot read/checkdowns.
Also, a devin keeper as one of his last three plays on the botched pooch drive would have been nice.
Still, we will win one that we don't expect to before the end of the year. MSU? OSU?
October 18th, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
There were really only one, maybe 2 games we didn't expect to win...ND & OSU. ND we won, maybe that was it. I don't see us beating OSU right now unless both teams do a complete 180. We should be favored in all the other games, granted not by much, but it certainly wouldn't be a surprise if we beat MSU, Neb, or NW.
October 18th, 2013 at 4:40 PM ^
Half the plays Michigan ran you might as well have put a big glowing arrow over where the play was going.
October 18th, 2013 at 2:59 AM ^
Not from me. Mattison is the first one to say defense should have played better- even when the offense leaves them with a short field or a 3 and out. Did they lose the game? No. But they hada chance to win it and didn't do it. So not good enough
October 18th, 2013 at 3:14 AM ^
A great song that represents this past week or the past 10 years.
October 18th, 2013 at 3:25 AM ^
Of course we give him a pass because he is a great coach... most of the time. The lack of blitzing last Saturday was truly mystifying... starting with their first TD when we rushed THREE and he had all day to wait for someone to break open.
Mattison obviously felt that having so many bodies in the secondary would be very confusing to Hack. I dunno man ...pressure seemed so obvious.... yet Mattison is such a good coach... yet the stats put up by the OP tell a clear story.
Time to move on.........
October 18th, 2013 at 3:42 AM ^
What does a passs mean? He is a great coach... In your terms Mattison gets a pass?!(yes or no) Adrian Peterson does not because he never met his son...... All season long the defense has been putting up stops,or at least not giving up points. Many of the awful victories we have had (Akron, Uconn) <---, as stated numerous times, the defense has been at fault very little. He is an amazing coach, who has done an outstanding job from the beginning with whatever personel he has had. To be frank, haha Frank: the losses as we know it are on every player and coach (and student who has not shown up on time, regardless of the loss being away) but Mattison is an awesome defensive cordinator which we should all be glad to have. Let's all take a deep breath, understand we are not in charge of Michigan football (Brian excluded) and enjoy the game on Saturday.
October 18th, 2013 at 4:16 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 4:57 AM ^
Gameboy, I too have been frustrated with the conservative calls by Mattison this year, especially against a TRUE FRESHMAN QB. The best thing with a young QB is to attack him early, to get him rattled and confused early on. For some reason, we decided to sit back against PSU, and other teams, and cross our fingers that our DL will somehow miraculously become good at rushing the QB, when they haven't been good at doing that all year.
I still love Mattison, but I think he's been WAY too conservative with dialing up blitzes this year. I don't know if it's his pride or what, but he needs to get over it, and accept that the DL just isn't that good yet. They need help. Blitz! Stunt! But PLEASE, stop sitting back and letting freshmen QB's pick us apart because they have all day in the pocket, combined with our CB's giving up 10 yard cushions.
October 18th, 2013 at 5:03 AM ^
Even in at least one of the blow-out wins (against Minny), even the announcers were amazed at what a "leap" Minnesota's QB and offense had made from the week before against Iowa. Part of it is, the bend but don't break philosophy, and I'm sure there are other reasons, too.
Against UConn and Akron as well, they seemed to have their best offensive production of the year against Michigan. Some of that can be explained by lousy field position given up through turnovers, but Michigan was seconds away from losing to Akron through a quick 75 yard or so march down the field at the end of the game.
October 18th, 2013 at 12:12 PM ^
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Minnesota looked better because they actually had a different qb than the imcompetent one they used the week before. The defense allowed 13 points and only allowed one long, although frustrating, drive. Holy crap on a cracker!
October 18th, 2013 at 5:34 AM ^
The defense isn't the problem. The o-line is a disaster and everyone can see it is, yet Borges insisted on running into a brick wall.
The defense wasn't perfect but IMO beyond the fact that they don't have much of a pass rush from the front 4, they really haven't been the weak link on this squad.
If this o-line can't handle PSU, then State and Ohio are going to dominate us up front.
October 18th, 2013 at 5:43 AM ^
So, I can't tell if you agree with the OP or not, because I didn't get the sense that the question was "Is defense the problem with Michigan" but rather something more along the lines"Is defense a problem?" The OP's not making it an either / or proposition.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:49 AM ^