Special problems for M defenses with fast no-huddles.
Indiana won't be the last fast no-huddle offense Michigan's defense has to contend with this year.
Ohio State's uptempo no-huddle scheme, called "jet" has a high-speed gear that Urban Meyer calls "inferno." (SI.com link to Pete Thamel story on his time inside the OSU - headset conversations.)
Having seen OSU for myself in Columbus, they really can turn up the speed and keep it there for an entire drive; "Jet to Inferno" is right. IU can do some of it, but isn't as crisp as OSU or as fearsome rushing as are the Buckeyes. Still, IU took advantage especially on some second downs with super-quick snaps. There were at least a half-dozen plays where Michigan's defenders were not set, and a number of them went for big gains. I can think of one play where Channing Stribling was looking in at our linebackers for signals when the ball was snapped. He then reacted after his man in coverage broke off the line, then he looked back up just in time to see the IU QB pump fake, which he completley bought, and was then beaten. The whole mess really started pre-snap.
Michigan tried something new against IU; to get clearer signals in from Mattison, they first put him in a bright maize jacket, and then they had two graduate assistants standing behind Mattison hold up towels so that defenders would more quickly pick up where to look for Mattison on the sideline to get the signal.
It almost looked as if they were "hiding" Mattison from somebody behind the Michigan bench stealing signs. But I'm certain that they were highlighting Mattison's position along the sideline for the benefit of guys on the field. It was altogether a bit of a panicky affair, on the Michigan sideline.
It all calls into question the extent to which Mattison is substituting players on every defensive down, and the extent to which Michigan's DL is switching positions after the offense sets up. It was nothing less than a huge problem against IU; and it may be exploited a lot more as the season goes on. Does Mattison's defensive scheme need a lot of adjustment for good NCAA no-huddle offenses?
October 20th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
strike again.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 3:33 PM ^
Colored preacher, nice to meet ya!
October 20th, 2013 at 4:19 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^
What a hilarious thing to say! "No." So simple, yet so effective! Did you and the fellow from the QB-C thread plan this? Because I have to say, it has me in stitches! So, so clever. And not dismissive in the slightest. Bravo! Keep up the good work!
October 20th, 2013 at 7:49 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^
needs a lot of adjumstment for a good NCAA no-huddle. Unlike the NFL where the linebackers and safeties are de facto coordinators on the field, in college the defensive play calls and formations come from the sideline much more. No huddle/up tempo offenses are really hard to stop once they get rolling. To stop these teams you need to know their plays and schemes ahead of time and trust your players -just let them line up and react. Then hope for shit weather and some turnovers. If they dont get into a groove, these offenses can suffer a bunch of 3 and outs.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^
the only real way to be sure you beat a no huddle spread, is to socre as many points as you can, and hope you get a few stops (or at least one more than they did) along the way.
Slowing the game down on offense is nice and should be attempted, but it cannot be at the expense of moving the chains and scoring. There is no such thing as a game of field position and punt in this scenario.
In the end, this is why we succeeded in the Cap One Bowl, and yesterday. If we had just made more tackles on first contact and Fitz managed to collect that pitch, so much the better ...
October 20th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
Adjustment yes... a lot of adjustment no.
If up tempo was unstoppable it would be more prevasive. As is there is a time and place - and even some teams that drive tempo to find opportunity. A lesser tempo well executed or highly talented O is just as or more dangerous.
If OSU is driving tempo to beat us then bring it on. The Ohio challenge is steep regardless of tempo. Indiana also showed that tempo has it's risks as well as benefits.
I think Mattisons got this one. This was a good opportunity for learning. Stribling is going to break out soon. What happened to him also happened to Bennett peaking in on one of Gallon's TD.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:06 PM ^
What were the risks again?
October 20th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^
"Indiana had a lot of success with the ball, too, especially with its hurry-up offense. And yet, Wilson acknowledged the pace that helped the Hoosiers have scoring drives that lasted no longer than 2:08 may not be such a good thing for his team overall."
They moved the ball quickly on us, but their defense was tired and they had some key turnovers.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
Well, the defense argument is an interesting one.
But they had two turnovers on 15 drives. That's not exactly atrocious, and it's nothing particular to a hurry-up offense. I would bet 2/15 is better than the national average.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
Communication breakdown goes both ways the faster you go.
The opportunities that open up are transparent - a well coached D is going to know to look for deep shots on short yardage and single coverage - same goes for run and personnel based plays.
When you run fast - stuff gets missed. The D gets tired (and no practice in prep - so we have discussed.)
Not to mention your coach get's run out of town after a couple or three seasons... at least if your D plays like Indiana's did. I thought their DL, Hebron (an?) and Bennett were good.
Bottom line for me is faster doesn't beat better.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^
Faster might not mean better, but their offense put them in position to win yesterday. If Roberson didn't get injured, allowing Sudfeld to throw that pick, there's nothing to suggest that Indiana wouldn't have marched right down the field again and taken the lead to win the game.
When they needed to take a moment to assess a defensive alignment, they took it. But the option was always there to rush to the line and snap it. We won, and we're happy, but their offense was terrifyingly effective, and it's because of it's tempo.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
The tempo undoubtedly helps their offense a lot. I doubt they have the kind of talent to average 40 ppg operating at a conventional pace. But it's hard - not impossible, but hard - to field a good defense when your offense operates that quickly. You need some outstanding depth and conditioning on defense to be able to withstand playing all those extra snaps every game, and a school like Indiana is almost never going to have the former. Up-tempo teams probably suffer more injuries (on both sides of the ball) than the norm, simply because they play more snaps per game.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^
I agree somewhat with the defense argument (Oregon?). But Indiana had the perfect strategy against us. If we had thrown our requisite two interceptions this game, they would have won, and with a margin. It's no fun being in a game where you have to score every possession to win. A turnover will kill you, and it almost did us on the fumbled snap. As fate would have it, their QB got injured and the backup gave it right back. I'll take the win, but we were a hot mess yesterday. Look no further than Hoke's face for evidence.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^
I'm not really disagreeing with you, just noting the downsides of their approach. For all their explosiveness, IU is 3-4 and making a bowl is an iffy proposition for them.
Oregon has indeed shown that it's possible to field a decent defense with this offense, but they also recruit better talent than IU is probably ever going to get. For a defensive recruit, IU's a tough sell.
October 20th, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 1:42 PM ^
important to a teams success. Washington State ran pretty fast last year but sucked. This year not so much. Next year I expect them to be better still.
Tempo isn't the only factor driving Oregon. Good coaching is/has along with the other stuff that success brings. Baylor is another good tempo team. K State took it to them by beating them mano a mano (but admittedly lost).
Tempo is not where we are as a team, school or program. That is a sour offensive taste in my mouth - but we are throwing our hat in the elite ring where there are tens of DL who can bring a 3 or 4 man rush. There aren't too many of those types of talents out there (somewhere between 10 and 20 of them nationally IME.) Once they show up - I'll be happy with occasional NASCAR and national contention.
October 20th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^
prior to the game, hoke said that we did not to make any special adjustments for IU's tempo. he was wrong.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
to hear Hoke say that there was no special adjustments made for IU's offense. Glad we won, but you have to question that kind of coaching philosophy.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
That's Hokespeak for we did make adjustments but I will certainly not give them up.
October 20th, 2013 at 2:25 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^
Interesting insight into what was happening on the sidelines. Didn't seem to work very well, though.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
But against spread/no huddle teams we should do it by DRIVE, not every 4 plays like we usually do.
Get lined up and disguise your defense so that the offense can't read it and adjust.
Instead, we run guys on and off and have to run to our "spots" and we show our base defense and they can check into another play.
Mattison's strength has never really been about blitzing vs. not blitzing. It's always been about confusing the QB and offensive line and allowing the defense to make plays.
These teams take away our biggest strength when they go no huddle and we sub.
Just keep your defense out there and only sub if the offense subs (by rule - if the offense subs, the official has to stand over the ball and allow the defense enough time to sub as well). We should be able to play one whole series with the same guys if we have to.
More than anything, DISGUISE your defense no matter WHAT you call. Put 7 guys on the line and send 3...show a 3 man rush and send 6...I don't care. Just mix it up, don't show what you're doing and keep the offense off balance.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^
the yesterday should helpful experience for our D. Hopefully we can play a pretty inspired game against them. We should be in every game we play from here on out, and that's probably all we can expect from this team.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:22 PM ^
Do you have any real knowledge of the reason Mattison was wearing the highlighter maize jacket or was that a guess? I don't think we need to make huge adjustments. The team prepares every week of the year a little bit for Ohio and Mattison knows what he's doing. Our defensive success against them will depend entirely on our young secondary taking a step forward and minimizing the execution mistakes we saw yesterday. It's certainly going to be a shootout though. Probably similar to 2011. Hopefully homefield advantage is significant enough to put us over the top.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
First, Mattison wasn't wearing it earlier in the game. Second, nobody else on Michigan's sideline had one like it. In fact, the announcement was that the coaches would be wearing pink-trimmed apparel for the breast cancer awareness campaign. Mattison wasn't doing that. (Borges was.) Third, whether or not anybody thinks that Mattison had a different jacket on for a purpose, there was no doubt about what two graduate assistants were doing waving white bath towels directly behind Mattison on every defensive down starting at some point in the second half. The jacket and the towels happened at about the same time.
I guess we'll see, whether OSU uses no huddle speed to exploit Michigan's defense. Or whether we see any adjustements with Mattison between now and then.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 1:27 PM ^
But yesterday was interesting for me; in the first half I was invited to sit with a friend in Section 12, directly on the centerline of the field. It was a very interesting view for watching interior line play; not so good for the Michigan sideline. I did not see the towel-waving in the first half. If I had the chance, I might watch every game that way; first half from the endzone and second half from midfield.
October 20th, 2013 at 4:49 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
Interesting that this adjustment came later in the game, because our defense was much worse in the second half. Maybe we needed four graduate assistants and flashing lights on Mattison's jacket. Or maybe we could start giving some autonomy to Ryan, Morgan, and Gordon to make calls on the field. Does most teams have the DC call in every play?
October 20th, 2013 at 8:25 PM ^
did it every game. it's common practice.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^
It's not new - he's been wearing a different, more conspicuous color for at least a couple of weeks. I think in the PSU game he was wearing white when no one else was.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^
Everybody does it; distinguishing sideline signal callers from the rest of the sidelines. Using different color shirts, etc. There was Rich Rodriguez's red wristband, remember?
I was not suggesting that it would be weird in any way for Mattision to be dressed so as to enhance signal calling visibility. (Mattision had a white shirt on yesterday; more typical distinction from the other sideline coaches wearing blue shirts, per usual.) I've just never seen Michigan grad assistants waving towels.
In any event, it isn't the signalling so much as it is the scheme-wisdom, in the face of even better no-huddle teams in the future.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^
It's common for DCs to wear different clothing than the rest of the staff so that they stand out on the sideline.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
We have been playing bend and don't break all year, because Mattison knows damn well he is lacking experienced talent in the secondary and a pass rush with 4 people. He is rightly concerned about putting his corners and secondary in general out on an island by blitzing a lot because he knows they can be beaten one on one by Akron or PSU or Indiana receivers. Indiana was able to expose this weakness at CB and in the secondary and the defesnive line as well with a crop of good receivers and a QB. It was more than just their hurry up, we had people in position to make plays who just did not. Did you guys not see a freshmen QB with an all B1G receiver beat us last week?
October 20th, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^
So, it was Mattison's gameplan to give up 50 points and count on the offense to score 60?
October 20th, 2013 at 1:03 PM ^
Defense will always be "solid" under Mattison and we will never see total failure like the RR years. However, this defense lacks an explosive pass rush and elite secondary players. In fairness our linebackers are very good. That being said, there were 3 plays that really kept this game close for a lot longer than it should have been....the INT miss which turned into a first down and subsequently a TD drive in the first half, the Fitz pitch fumble, and the catch over Stribling when he had perfect position - (go up and get the ball at its highest point!!!!) They returned the favor on the Gardner fumble with the subsequent INT. Really, we should have been up 2-3 scores the entire game, not 2 points.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:07 PM ^
pretty much qualifies as "total failure." The only thing that worked defensively all day was dislocating Roberson's thumb at the end-- but for that, there's a decent chance we lose the game.
October 20th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^
It was definitely a bad outing, but those two missed INT opportunities in the 2nd and 3rd quarters were huge swing plays. The first one especially could have been a dagger - we were up 21-7 at the time and IU had just benched its starting QB. Roberson dodged that bullet, got the TD, and then he played with a ton of confidence the rest of the game. As we've seen, once you let a QB get in a groove, he can be tough to defend. If we pick off Roberson there, we have a chance to go up 3 scores and maybe he starts feeling pressure.
We've got to find a way for our DBs to make better plays on the ball, especially Stribling. I wonder if some of these guys need to be wearing contacts to see the ball better, à la Darryl Stonum?
October 20th, 2013 at 2:07 PM ^
Indiana put up 481 yards and 49 points against a pretty good team last year, and managed to do so in spite of a 13-minute disadvantage in time of possession. If the Hoosiers had managed to convert an onside kick, they would have had a good shot at winning or at least sending it into OT. Their opponent was Ohio State.
October 20th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^
October 20th, 2013 at 2:52 PM ^
You're calling MSUs defense average? Take off the homer glasses, their defense is legit and is a top 10 unit nationally. Those 28 points were almost tripple what any other opponent has scored on MSU.
October 20th, 2013 at 5:21 PM ^
Easy. That's his point.
October 21st, 2013 at 1:04 AM ^
You're essentially saying they don't have the talent in the secondary then? Gordon's a senior who's a multi year starter. Countess and Taylor are 2nd year starters and Avery is a senior who has a ton of experience. There's quite a bit of experience there.
October 20th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^