“He was on the other side of the court, screaming: ‘Good shot, Kev!’” Durant said, shaking his head in delight. “I’m thinking, this guy’s an All-American type of teammate right there.”
- Member for
- 5 years 31 weeks
Receivers who don't fight for the ball nearly as hard as the guys defending them, and seem to be at a loss as to what to do when the play breaks down (Scramble Drill Coach N?).
A 5-star RB who allows DBs he outweighs by 20 pounds to push him out of bounds or angle tackle him by running to the sideline rather than turning hard upfield and taking them on.
- Game plan and execution that doesn't scare anyone, doesn't stretch the defense, nor does it seem to punish teams for blitzing.
- The player thinks he is definitely going to play, and is discouraged or pissed off if they hold him out.
- The guys below him in the depth chart aren't as motivated as if they think they will play
- The opponent knows: OK if he does play, he will have trouble planting his left foot
- If the coach does it sometimes and not others, he will be hounded and needled each press conference or interview
- If the head coach is doing it, the other coaches and players think it is OK to give out that information, when maybe you don't want that information out
Our DBs were getting repeatedly beaten on slants using the so-called "GL Slant technique" (because that is where it is especially effective): a step (or three) to the outside- to threaten the Fade, and then hard inside. Seems like our CBs fell for it every time.
As RaisedGoBlue and others point out, in most coverage, it is important to protect the inside.
As a general rule: bite now on any inside moves, slower to react on any outside moves. You have time to recover if you go for the inside fake and the receiver cuts outside (with a speed turn if necessary). Not so if you get faked to the outside and the receiver comes in.
I don't understand the press techniques being taught. Good press technique typically requires using the feet and hips to disrupt the release. Contrary to popular opinion, the hands and arms only come into play when the hips are in position as the receiver comes into you.
Seems like Countess especially was sitting back on his heels, waiting to "catch" the receiver. This made it especially easy to get by him.
It also seems obvious to me that Michigan decided after last season that if MSU can get away with all the grabbing in pass coverage. etc. ("they can't throw a flag on every play") we'd try it too. Unfortunately:
a) we are not as good at doing it or getting away with it.
b) you still need the ability and technique to back it up
|2 days 10 hours ago||Bellomy's Helmet||
As someone pointed out on another thread, Bellomy (normally #3 QB) is signalling plays which has been his main job on game days, apparently wearing a headset. Not sure who is responsible for keeping his helmet ready for him.
Not making excuses, but it is highly unusual that the 2 QBs ahead of him would go down within a couple of plays of each other while still maintaining possession of the ball. Presumably, at the next change of possession he would be relieved of his signalling duties, gotten his helmet, and began warming up.
You would like to think that great coaching would involve preparing for every such contingency, but the reality is, it is likely to happen anywhere. For those who haven't been, the sideline is a hectic place, and you don't get the view or perspective that people in the stands or watching on TV do. There is a good reason there are coaches in the pressbox.
In this case, they should have called on of the two remaining time outs, or #4 QB should have been ready and sent in.
Two unfortunate over-reactions we might see from this incident?
1. They'll put numbers back on the helmets [NOT in favor, unless the is in back, rather than the sides].
2. Will burn timeouts every time there is the slightest confusion,etc. making clock management even more difficult.
|3 days 3 hours ago||Devil's Advocate||
While Hoke is definitely the one ultimately resposible, I would actually like to know exactly who makes the decisions to pull/insert players during a game.
It would also be good to know: exactly who is assigned to watch what on each play?
It is very possible that Hoke and maybe even DN weren't watching the QB and see the hit. While the trainer wasn't giving an exam, he was talking to Shane and looking into his eyes. Until we know futher, there is no evidence that signs of a concussion were ignored.
|3 days 18 hours ago||NU's return game||
...has given us something to worry about.
|1 week 1 day ago||Interesting analogy, but...||
...anybody who thinks DB is comparing Hoke to RR and concerned about being equally fair will be disappointed.
DB wants Hoke to work out- not only because Hoke was his own hire, but because of what he felt went wrong with RR: Michigan had lost its physical toughness, its physicality. That was painfully obvious in all the losses to MSU, OSU, and most of all, the embarassing bowl loss. That aspect wasn't getting any better, and- like it or not- toughness has, should, and will be part of the Michigan 'brand'.
While Hoke's teams have improved in terms of physical toughness, neither Hoke's teams nor RR's teams had enough in the way of mental toughness. In my recollection, RR's teams tended to fade in the 2nd half, especially against better opponents. Denard's feet saved RR's offenses.
As bad as the OL and other problems are, what we have to deal with at the moment is two QBs who panic under presure. Which, of course, invites more pressure.
Throwing motion is just a physical aspect, and yet it notoriously hard to fix. Urban Meyer and some of the best QB gurus around couldn't fix Tebow.
Some pyschological aspects are even tougher. While coaching ability can fix a lot of things, coolness under pressure are a lot more difficult to coach into a player.
|1 week 3 days ago||You might add...||
|1 week 3 days ago||Michigan practice/game planning||
I don't know how Michigan practices these days [does anybody here know?]. But until further notice, there is really no sense scheming and practicing against an opponent's base scheme, when it has painfully clear that every opposing defense will plan to put maximum pressure on Michigan's QB- either Devin or Shane- until they prove that they can handle the pressure and punish the defense for trying. At the moment, our offense doesn't scare anybody, and at any sign of pressure they seem to collapse.
If Michigan is not spending the majority of meeting and practice learning to block and execute against all kinds of blitzes and pressure, they are fooling themselves.
|1 week 5 days ago||3 years apart||
Would love to see Texas on the schedule in 2030 and '33 as well.
I have been saying it for years: I think about 3 years apart is ideal for such series- close enough for fans (and coaches and some players) to remember and talk about and get excited about a rematch, but far enough apart to let the games stand out even more on their own. (I believe that one reason the Stewart-Westbrook legend became magnified was because it was a few years before we played them again). I love cheese cake, but rather than two nights in a row and then never again for a few months, I'd prefer something else for a night or two and then come back to it again.
It would be great to have three PAC-12 teams, or three SEC teams on a rotation basis like that, too. More variety of teams, increased exposure in various parts of the country. That would be a lot more interesting to me, and I am sure a lot of other football fans as well.
I'd like to see something similar happen with the B1G non-division schedule also. Would rather see more teams in a shorter period of time (whether home or away), rather than wait five or six years between games with Wisconsin, or Nebraska, etc. because we had to play another opponent back to back. (That said, I would hope they could add some element of balance and matching the strongest teams with the strongest, based on the previous year's standings, the way I believe the NFL does for its non-divisional games).
|2 weeks 5 days ago||not revealing injuries||
I would add, perhaps an element is for our own players- both the injured, and the other guys on the depth chart. If Hoke announces: "his left ankle is not 100%, but we think he'll be ready" what happens?
Better/easier to be more consistent and make it a blanket rule and not comment at all on injuries.
While it irks the media to no end, as Space Coyote commented, downside to revealing injuries, very little/no upside to Michigan.
The NFL does it only because they are absolutely required now to do so (the love/hate relationship with Las Vegas is still extremely important to them. and they don't want an underground market for that kind of information).
|2 weeks 6 days ago||re: Countess to Safety?||
"Plays well in zone ... can't press ... Countess to Safety?"
If a big part of his problem is physicality, moving him to Safety would not be the answer- at least on running downs.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Top Picture: um, actually...||
..in the picture shown, we were actually off the single receiver (whether he as X or Z or what, I am not sure), who was to the bottom of the screen. We were pressing the #1 receiver to the boundary.
The formation is actually unbalanced, with 3 receivers (plus the RB offset) to the boundary. Can't see the numbers but the TE to the boundary- the second man from the center, what would first seem to be the OT- is possibly eligible. The deployed #2 'receiver' to the bottom of the screen in on the LOS, making him ineligible). Hope Michigan noticed. Only one eligible receiver to the wide side, with the FS in the MOF.
So I am not sure why it looks like we are playing that inside ineligible receiver off man- head is on him rather than inside, 6 yards off. I assume we were in Cover 3, at least to the wide side. Can anybody check the video: did ND shift or motion from this, and what play did they run, and how did M rotate and react?
|3 weeks 2 hours ago||trend lines||
I think the problem is, it is really hard to tell with such a small data sample. Obviously, a lot depends on various factors, including the teams surrounding you.
The First Year is especially tricky to judge- it depends on the returning roster (especially QB); how radically different the schemes are, etc. There is always a lot of carryover from the previous regime- some of it bad, but actually much of it good- that slowly fades in subsequent years. (As disruptive as a new coach and system may be, there is a lot of benefit to applying the new alternative way on top of some of the things you learned and worked on in the new system. Likewise, some of what was worked on this year will carry over to next year, even if it is not empasized as much).
If you start looking at this chart from the second year (or say, from game 10 or 11 in the first), you get a steadier view of things, most of which we already knew: Kelly and Dantonio would seem to be pretty solidly positive: Kelly improving sooner ; Rodriguez did poorly, but was improving; Hoke declining. But both Hoke and Meyer remain to be seen, and this year (and if there is a next) will be telling.
[Again, small data sample for Meyer, but the question with Meyer is if he stays long enough, will he get burned out on football again, or the players get burned out on Meyer's in-your-face shtick, or will they keep improving?]
|3 weeks 3 hours ago||clapping||
Sorry, but I will beg to differ. I think too much snarkiness and sarcasm has been directed at the clapping. Hoke tries to be positive on the sideline in games, so what? Beilein is pretty much that way too, but I don't see the criticism. I would be willing to bet when the yelling and criticism does happen, it is more likely to happen in the films sessions and meeting rooms and closed practices. Like most of us, athletes today would rather hear it in private than in front of everybody, Just cuz "tearing 'em a new one" worked in 1950 or 1970, doesn't mean it necessarily works today.
"the players on the sidelines they seem totally defeated after the first missed field goal " That tells me Hoke and the coaches are reading the mood of the players, and know when they can handle the screaming in their faces, and when they need support.
Tough Love only works on those who know they are loved, and are confident they can do better. Screaming in their faces because it makes you feel better is the worst kind of teaching and coaching. It might motivate some kids; but completely turns off many others.
Again, we are not living in the 1950's. Most kids don't respond to be yelled at by drill sargeants. They grew up with many other options, many of which had reset buttons.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||I would agree with much of||
I would agree with much of what YoOoBoMoLloRoHo wrote.
Also, I think that coaches may overthink things on the road and worry.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||RR history||
It always irks me when people complain the RR didn't get any support, or he or his stye wasn't accepted by the fan base. I don't think that is true at all.
RR would have been wildly and heartily embraced if he had been succesful. True, he did seem to go out of his way to alienate some of the Bo-Mo-Lloyd era guys. But most Michigan fans were more than ready for the Mad Magicians of the 21st Century, on the cutting edge if the game. We all would have loved that, if it had worked.
Some bad luck (no QB to start with), and a lot of bad decisions regarding personnel and recruiting doomed him. He also insisted on installing his own systems (on offense, and meddling with the defense) no matter what, even where they weren't necessarily the best fit for the personnel at the time or the conference. He seemed to recruit small 3-star slot receivers by the dozen, but many other positions were ignored. He recrutited like he had at previous stops, for underdog programs, instead of at one of the college football's historically elite programs. For all the talk of Gittleson's training techniques being outdated and how Barwis would turn them into supermen, RR's teams were consistently folding in the 2nd half.
What finally did it for many of us- and maybe DB as well- (besides getting manhandled by MSU, OSU and others in the regular season) was completely getting our butts kicked in that bowl game. We had hope that the month-and-a-half of rest and practice would show improvement and optimism for the future. But Michigan got dominated and pushed around on both sides of the ball, showing no toughness whatsoever. It truly was embarrassing. Like it or not, toughness and playing hard is what Michigan has seemingly always prided itself on, sold itself on, indeed branded itself with for ages and that was definitely not there. Whether Hoke and Co., or Harbaugh, or anybody else are capable salvaging that remains to be seen.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||This week, next week, the season: what worries me||
Here's the problem I see coming up. To recover some of that wounded pride, Michigan will probably insist on running the ball down Miami's throats. I assume that Miami won't be able to stop them, and that athletically Michigan will be able to stifle Miami's offense.
Unfortunately, we will not see the passing game develop much at all the way it needs to,and that does not put us in good shape for the rest of the schedule.
The passing game worries me. (Frankly I liked Borges' pass offense a little better- at least more downfield shots). DG is still uncomfortable, even when he has time in the pocket. Too much reliance on a 'favorite receiver' is a risky strategy over the long-term.
DN's "simplify" will work great when M has the opponent athletically outmatched. But what happens when the talent is more evenly matched? Simplification will makes things easier for our side and theirs- much easier to game plan for.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||re: pass rush||
While there was definitely not enough pressure, it seems like for the most part the DL did maintain pass rush lanes and responsibilities, and Golson did not have much chance to escape.
But it seemed to me the DEs (especially Clark) were rushing too deep, with little threat to go under, and the throwing window to the slant was always open.
I'd like to see more hands up on the rush as well, but there again, I would have to see game film.
There is no sense in blitzing if the blitzers don't get home and hit or hurry the QB and if we can't cover the receivers getting the quick throws.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I wonder if...||
The problem might be just as much- or more- at the position coaches level. M is sending a lot now on coordinaters who have impressive resumes. But we seem to be let down repeatedly by whole position groups (OL, DBs, RBs, etc.).
In contrast to Head Coaches and OCs and DCs, typical college assistants don't make so much. I wonder if it might be more cost-effective to make an upgrade this department.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||would like to see the tape, but...||
|44 weeks 6 days ago||whatever the math, i liked the call||
Going for the tie at that point would have made me uncomfortable, for psychological reasons, more than anything else.
a) Make the kick, and NW has all the time it wants to run or pass, all the way down the field for a TD or FG, or get conservative whenever it wanted, all the way to overtime. Make the first down and score the TD, or at least the FG you run some time off the clock, and NW becomes more one dimensional, which is easier to defend.
b) As effective as the defense has been most of the year, they have had the habit of giving up long drives to the opponent just when we've need a stop the most. (see NE and MSU).
c) I was reminded me of the Carr years, where I almost felt more comfortable when Michigan was trailing in the 4th quarter in a close game, and we had to rely on Brady, Henne, etc. and the offense to do it or else, rather than crawl into a shell, punt the ball away, and go on to lose. Anybody else?
d) The PSU game. At same point Michigan has to develop a more confident, aggressive personality on offense. Leaders and best? Champions of the West? Come on! The playing for FGs in the PSU game really bothered me most this year, not only for this team, but just as importantly, the milquetoast message it sent to recruits.
e)The crisis of confidence (particularly OL and Devin). I believe Borges has been desperately trying to start a fire somehow, someway, to get this team/season/program headed in the right direction, using the wet kindling available. A first down there could have done that. [apologies for the mixed metaphors]
f) If Gibbons had missed the FG? (PSU again?), What would that have done to the kicker/team/season? The good thing about the kick at the end, was they didn't have time to think about it- they just executed.
|1 year 3 weeks ago||Take your top 10 (mGrowOld)...||
...and reverse it, pretty much.
Maybe it comes from living abroad for many years. But then I seem to have relatives, friends who are ND, PSU, MSU grads and fans, and- believe it or not- they are actually half decent, and humble (though can't say that for the USC, OSU and Texas grads I know).
Oh, yeah, gotta stick Oklahoma in there somewhere. `
Really, it's a very good day when any SEC team loses to an outsider, especially a team from a...blue state.
If we are talking basketball, certainly all ACC teams should be near the top of that list.
But I assume you are talking purely college football, or otherwise the Yankees, Cowboys, Lakers, NASCAR and soccer would definitely be on there.
|1 year 3 weeks ago||I feel really conflicted...||
...when I see tOSU getting smacked down by SEC teams
|1 year 3 weeks ago||I was thinking the same||
I was thinking the same thing. Too "in your face" in more ways than one.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Grow or Die||
Penn State was a good addition. Rutgers, Maryland make some sense- GT and Virginia make even more sense...the B1G needs to grow its recruiting area to improve or die. Yeah, TV too. Virginia and Atlanta do that; the DC and east coast areas will help.
OTOH it was Nebraska that really didn't make much sense- much better deal for Nebraska than it is/will be for the B1G. Very few new recruits in that area, small TV market, with one more football powerhouse to divide the exisiting recruiting terrttory up with. If the B1G likes the TV exposure that outsized brands like Nebraska (or ND, Oklahoma, etc.) bring, the B1G should have just 'strongly encouraged' (incentives?) for non-conference games with them.
|5 years 31 weeks ago||Bo & Llloyd||
I realizing whacking Lloyd is a standard theme here. But I think you've got much of it wrong.
I will agree that both Bo and Lloyd attempted to impose Michigan's will upon the opponent. But there was quite a difference and evolution that took place.
The most common thread was the insistence on soundness in scheme and design and execution, eliminating chances of mistakes, and making the opponent play a near perfect game to beat you- which, while it is admittedly predictable, is a philosophy hardly unique to Michigan. Virtually all big (better talent) programs follow this general blueprint, depending on their own talent and situation. Did they err on the side of conservative sometimes? Sure, but not all that often. We tend to remember the cases where that MAY have been true, without knowing of course if the alternative really would have been better or worse.
Bo's schemes on offense and defense from the the 70's (and even through much of the 80's) and Lloyd Carr's offenses and defenses in the 00's were entirely different.
Bo's philosophy for much of his career: put your best athletes on defense, be tougher on both sides of the ball, and pound them; sooner or later the TB or QB will get loose on the option (and later maybe a WR on something deep) for a big play.
Mo and Lloyd's offenses were adopted from the NFL to the college game, and generally built around (NFL prospect) big play receivers and QBs who could get the ball to them if the defense dared to single cover them. The routes were usually intermediate and longer routes, although increasingly used WR screens in later years.
It was hardly "three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust" stuff. If the safeties were back, that allowed the run game to control the game. The Alex Gibbs zone run offense was based in large parts on reducing or eliminating negative yardage plays, in part with the realization that there is a big difference between 3&5 and 3&9 in what routes you can run, pass protections you need, etc. Perhaps I have digressed...
|5 years 31 weeks ago||maximizing points||
Maximizing points is often not the best strategy.
I recall a game at Michigan Stadium several years ago when Illinois give Michigan several chances to steal the game back, when all they really needed was a first down and possession of the ball.
Apart from sportsmanship issues of running up the score, scoring can remove the element of control. Generally a team of superior talent game plans around wanting to reduce the variables, increase its own time of possession and reduce the number of chances the other team has to score.
|5 years 31 weeks ago||speaking of passing risk||
we should not neglect the additional risk of injury to the QB when attempting to pass. While RBs (and running QBs) face a greater risk of injury when running the ball, they are not exposed in the way that a QB are.
|5 years 31 weeks ago||YPA||
"you should seek to have your passing plays and running plays gain the same number of yards" sounds pretty silly to me.
Certain plays will (and should) have higher reward (and hence higher risk). To design all pass plays and runs gain 3-4 yards would be ridiculous- defenses would merely align all 11 players within 5 yards of the LOS.
Rather than maximizing points scored in a game, you should seek to have each offensive play gain the maximum number of yards (and minimizing losses) for that play. Expectations (and risk/rewards) for each respective play are different, and perform a different function within the game plan and weekly practice plan.