Member for

14 years 9 months
Points
38962.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
What Purdue is doing is…

What Purdue is doing is called "stemming" pre-snap. Switching from an under to over front right before the snap. Georgia does it a lot (more in and out of Odd fronts, but similar idea). It has a few impacts: who pulls; how you anticipate your front side combo block; and maybe some front side tags.

With the combo block, you have your 1st level target to 2nd level target (DT to backside LB). The timing and how you come off the block is based on clues of the alignment, because it can hint at line slants or LB games, etc. Sometimes you'll be very patient at the first level and really dominate the double team before releasing, sometime you have to work quick. You should do this based on post-snap response too, but having pre-snap clues allows you to do it more effectively. Stemming the DTs is a way of changing those clues without giving time to process it.

On counter, Michigan pulls either the C or the backside G (BSG) depending on the defensive alignment. When the DTs shift, they nominally would have had the C block back on the A-Gap NT and pulled the BSG. I'm not convinced Zinter wasn't trying to make this adjustment, saw Olu still pulling, and basically turned his pull into a cut off block (on the first play). Olu blocking back on an A gap defender is much easier than Zinter reaching and hinging. A block back here keeps that DT in the backside A gap and allows the RB to punch it vertical.

The front side tag is a little more game plan dependent (Michigan did both last year), but it has to do with the TE block. With the DE aligned inside, he can block down on him or he can arch to the first defender outside the formation (CB here). Don't know for sure here, but generally, big-on-big (OL on DL) is nice, the arc allows for that. But, when the DL stems presnap, they get a defender in the C and B gap, instead of the C and A gap. The major difference: it's a lot easier to widen a C and A gap for the wrapper and RB than it is C and B gap, so Michigan may have preferred to block down with the TE on the DE and allowed the puller to wrap to the CB. In general though, the C and B gap covered by DL is very hard on inside gap schemes. 

On film, I thought UM was going to run more gap schemes. This may have been why they didn't. Stemming isn't specific to gap schemes (it has benefits vs zone schemes as well), but in general, it's easier to adapt zone blocking for it than it is gap. 

Also my Twitter has about…

Also my Twitter has about the first 1.5 quarters of Purdue vs Illinois for those interested 

I would try Space Coyote 

I would try Space Coyote 

No final score predictions…

No final score predictions for me. From my kind of vantage point way too many variables. I think over the analysis, you can kind of see where my head is at though.

1) I don't expect Michigan's…

1) I don't expect Michigan's defense to fundamentally change this year, so you're preparing for a lot of the same schemes. What will change is how often each of the core schemes is run. In that sense, I'd be more prepared to attack Fire Zones, I'd be getting a lot more reps against sim/creeper pressure (sim pressure is showing more than 4 people in pressure before multiple guys back out and only 4 come; creeper pressure is showing your normal people in pressure, then having one of them back out and being replaced by a atypical rusher, like an ILB). I'd also expect the fronts to be more diverse, so I'd be getting reps against a changing odd/even front picture. What I don't think you have to do as much as prepare to run away from one guy as often, or prepare to find and set protection for those guys on the edge.

2) I think I answered this question with my previous question. More standard down fire zones, more sim pressure, more creeper pressure on normal downs. I still think Michigan is going to major in quarters (Saban Cover 7, that often times is Quarter-Quarter-Half), with Cover 1, Cover 2, and Cover 3 change ups. I don't expect Amoeba defense because I don't think Michigan has the lock down guys outside or a number of high level coverage guys to really run it. It's just the percentage of each thing that changes. And the depth going into each game (and ability to change the picture either pre- or post- snap) that is probably better this year.

Over the course of the year…

Over the course of the year I would be very doubtful it goes over 50:50 run:pass. But I think in certain games, they can inch up to about 45:55 for normal parts of the game (meaning not come from behind or trying to eat clock). 

I am doubtful you see nearly as many games that are extremely run heavy (the 70:30 type stuff), probably a standard game will be around will be closer to 60:40 or 55:45.

Regarding JJ on offense, I think he makes it more explosive. It's likely more run heavy, and the downfield ability and ability to hit it in windows all over the field makes it more explosive. But it's likely less efficient. Cade brings more of a ball control pass heavy offense.

I think with Cade it’s an…

I think with Cade it’s an extension of last year’s offense, with more balance to passing. Lots of 5 wide, increase in actual RPO, but mostly underneath except on play action.

If JJ takes over, it’s probably a bit more focused on 12 personnel. The ball probably stays outside the hashes and more vertical to simplify the reads a bit. It probably means a decrease in how often JJ is part of the run game, though that wouldn’t go away. Probably a little more run heavy with JJ than Cade

Yup, you and Seth are…

Yup, you and Seth are correct. Both PSU and Nebraska ran it quite a bit last year. It’s a form of triple option, though the pitch portion of the play comes much earlier (usually) than the old fashion triple option play.

But you have to read the End first. He dictates if the Counter (or Dive, or whatever) should have numbers to work or not. If he crashes, it doesn’t (the End will cancel gaps behind the LOS) so you pull. If he attacks the QB or stays, you run the Counter (or dive or whatever).
 

Doesn’t matter if the pitch is open if the dive is open first, because it’s a progression

There's really only a…

There's really only a handful of reasons for a coach to be hired, not show up in person, and the university clearly withhold why that is (and people in the know falling in line). It really isn't too difficult to surmise. I'd recommend people quit asking, as it really isn't your business and truly no one owes anyone here an answer.

You guys are under-valuing…

You guys are under-valuing how young at heart he is

Given they are mostly just…

Given they are mostly just running their core plays, the missed ID is disturbing. It can't be the first time they have seen what the defense was doing, as they are common responses. That said, they are fixable. Get back to basics and rep it a ton in practice, because you're about to see a lot of it.

The lost 1v1 blocks to me is more concerning. They breaks down otherwise well executed plays

I think from an ID…

I think from an ID standpoint it's largely fixable. Focus on the types of things you're seeing up front and rep the heck out of them. I don't expect it to be great, because game speed is different, but it can improve. And Harbaugh has always had counters to pullers (and Gattis did last year as well), so I would expect that to get better.

But I don't think we'll be able to avoid the concern about losing some 1v1 battles. Relative to expectations, I thought Mayfield had a rough game. And even with that, I would fully expect Michigan to be very right hand dominant. Left side will be a weak point all year I'm afraid.

They have the plays in the…

They have the plays in the playbook to do it, but they need to move off the scout script (FWIW, MSU had issues with that too) and adjust in-game. I mirror your frustration there.

I don't really have an…

I don't really have an opinion strongly of one over the other because I'm not seeing day-to-day. Haskins has looked good in games so far, but everyone is on very limited sample size.

I do think over the course of the week and as they settle the plan they should focus more on getting 2 backs involved with maybe a 3rd as a changeup or specific package. I think you'd like to see a guy get at least 10 carries to get some feel. Can keep them fresh with that, but think there is too much in-game rotation happening right now.

More simply put:

Zone Read…

More simply put:

Zone Read is effectively a "Run-Run Option" (some people talk about it as an RRO) in that you read a defender (typically but not always a first level defender) and either you give or keep to run.

An RPO is an Run-Pass Option, in which you will give the ball on the run or pass the ball to a receiver, based on a read.

Now, a play can combine both. It can have a a first level defender be the first read, and then a second player that dictates if the QB runs or passes. This is what Magnus is referring to as "Triple Option", in that there is a first read for the QB to give/keep, and if keep, there is a second read for the QB to keep/pitch (pass).

FWIW, most RPOs do not combine both a Read Option and a Pass Option, because it's too much to process on one play (the one primary exception of this is the bubble RPO, which is basically the triple option play). But like the play you linked, may still give the impression of a read option, and that threat alone may impact the defense. Denard is only reading one defender on the play you linked (the backside safety); if that safety drops down, Denard pulls and throws. If that safety stays high, Denard gives to the RB. It's an RPO. But the read option threat is what causes the defense to play it the way they do.

His easiest path was winning…

His easiest path was winning the 2016 OSU game. Win that game, and Michigan is a lot different right now.

I think his chance to even things out with OSU has grown tougher because he missed that window. You can scrap it and try to start over or you can give a guy a chance to actually build something. For purposes of this though, his target (OSU) changed. Meyer came in and elevated OSU to a level they never recruited at before. So as Michigan has closed the gap almost completed with the pre-Meyer Buckeyes, OSU has just continued to improve (which is what happens when you hire a coach with 2 National Titles to his name and he manages a national title early in his tenure)

I tend to think the public is way too reactionary when it comes to desiring coaching changes. I also think if Harbaugh doesn't work, the next guy won't have the same "hope" Harbaugh was willing to sell, because if Harbaugh couldn't get it done, why would recruits expect the next guy to?

Nevertheless, the best Harbaugh and the program can do is try to continue to build a strong foundation, I think they are doing a pretty strong job of that. If this staff is going to win, that's at least a preliminary step that's needed.

It's difficult to project…

It's difficult to project the defense. I think Hazleton himself is an interesting hire with a kind of cool scheme. But his scheme is quite different than Tucker's scheme, which is Saban influenced (much closer to what Smart runs at UGA).

So what are they going to run? Hard to say. Colorado's defensive personnel was also quite limited last year, so that doesn't help. There were a few games that looked like "I think this is what Tucker actually wants to do, but these guys can't do it."

So I really don't know what to expect year 1 on that front.

I agree with your take. "Not…

I agree with your take. "Not going in the right direction" is from MSU's perspective. I think their scheme last year under Salem was better than what Johnson is running.

My take from this isn't too…

My take from this isn't too different than I think most:

  • We should be expecting Harbaugh to be able to recruit more Top 100 players than he currently is. But where 5 teams essentially take half of the top 100 players, the actual number is probably realistically 1-4 top 100 recruits per class (i.e. for the debbie downers, not enough to compete with OSU in recruiting).
  • That said, per the 2016 class and what I expect for the 2017 class, Harbaugh actually has scouted and developed 3-star players at a higher clip than his peers. He is developing a lot of high floor, good, solid P5 players.
  • His primary issue is the other end: QB and super stars. Michigan hasn't had a lot of guys truly bust (at least not any more than the average team) among 5-star and 4-star players, but they aren't getting them to perform quite at the level you would hope (i.e. the top players aren't becoming can't miss guys).
  • All this amounts to a team that takes care of business against teams it should, beats the even teams at home, and loses to the very top teams or equal teams on the road.
  • Pretty much every offensive player currently committed in the '21 class, per recruiting rankings, is a good player for Michigan to have.
  • While the defensive side of the ball is less optimal, 1 of the players I see as a guy Michigan would pretty much always accept in the class, 2 are guys that I think have specific traits and fits in Brown's defensive scheme that make them attractive as solid contributors/starters in their roles. And 1 I struggle to see the fit for, but remember the coaches know much more about the prospects than we do.
  • The problem is, Michigan is still recruiting a lot of guys I view as good, solid contributors. Back end of the draft type guys as an upside. They've been good at scouting those guys and developing them. The improve their ability to compete with top teams, they need to bring in some guys with higher upside (even if their floor is also lower). Uche is an example of this.
  • Michigan isn't going to compete with OSU by will. "We want higher ranked recruits" doesn't bring in higher ranked recruits. They need to bring in guys that can first beat OSU 1 in 5 times. That allows you to attract more that can beat them 1 in 4 times, and so on and so forth. Michigan isn't going to recruit alone to break even with OSU from a recruiting rankings. Michigan is identifying the guys that make up the foundation of those 1 in 5 teams. The question is if they are getting the guys on top of that foundation to deliver the rest of the way.
On twitter, I also did a …

On twitter, I also did a (admittedly) high level statistical look at recruiting rank vs production.

Defining the ranking with a little more precision.

5-star = 1st Team All-American = 1st Round Pick

High 4-Star = 2nd-3rd Team All-American = 2nd-3rd Round Pick

Mid 4-Star = P5 1st/2nd Team All-Conference any team would like = Drafted

Low 4-Star = UDFA


Thoughts:

1) For passive fans, recruiting rankings are in fact a good indicator for the impact/success of a prospect. Utilize it.

2) There is not a significant difference between 5 stars and top 100 prospects

3) Top 100 prospects are significantly more likely to be All-Americans

4) While the likelihood of success is significantly higher, it should be noted that 1/2 of top 100 prospects bust, and 2/3 don't live up to their ranking hype.

5) Beyond top 100, recruiting ranking is still generally indicative of success, but the difference is significantly less

6) 1 in 6 mid/low 4-stars get drafted, so scouting has significant importance still

7) 1 in 21 low 3-stars get drafted. So a generic 4-star is ~3x more likely to get drafted than a low 3-star. A high 3-star is about ~2x as likely to get drafted than a low 3-star. At the macro level, the difference is significant.

8) But, these numbers are more significant if you are only recruiting based on recruiting rankings (macro level). But because significantly more recruits at this range don't live up to the level you desire (good starter/contributor), scouting at this range is much more important than the actual rank (though forces you to do your own scouting or trust the coaches, otherwise you'll only look negatively at recruits in this range). This means at the micro level (the specific recruit) the ranking below Top 100 isn't something you should be as wrapped up in.

9) You can basically trust the recruiting services ranking of top 100 players. Yes, you still want to scout a prospect as a coach, but you'll likely find successful players in those ranks.

10) But as a coach, you don't just get to decide "I'll take top 100 players." So if you can't get a top 100 prospect, scouting + development is still fundamental to find successful players at a better rate than peers.

Another item:

Shoop worked…

Another item:

Shoop worked with Brown back when Brown was still utilizing a lot of 3-deep coverages. Late at BC and particularly early at Michigan, Brown moved away from that coverage almost entirely. I believe you saw it sprinkled in a little last season (a primary reason Camp was brought in, I think, as he was still utilizing that part of the playbook at BC), and expect it would get further expanded next season.

Shoop, as a DC himself, utilized a ton of zone pressure schemes with 3-deep coverage. Here is a post I wrote about Shoop in his time at PSU. Especially from Brown's 3-DL formations, he utilized a lot of zone pressure schemes last year, and I only expect that to grow.

 

From a Ni safety structure https://t.co/pVMurtLVJi pic.twitter.com/2wax23ppTy

— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) April 22, 2020
Think word that is being…

Think word that is being looked for is “Slingshot technique”.

https://twitter.com/coachmattjones/status/626846758778245120?s=21

https://twitter.com/brandonthornnfl/status/1039179285452414976?s=21

https://blogs.usafootball.com/blog/6305/how-nfl-offensive-linemen-execute-the-slingshot-technique-to-perfection

In no way was Mason trotted…

In no way was Mason trotted out as a FB. He was a power RB in a single RB formation.

At both PSU and Alabama he was part of offenses that ran the same arrow RPO with the TE. It’s a common part of the O

So to answer your questions, yes, both are very possibly Gattis’s decisions

Per S&P

2008: 62

2009: 40

Per S&P

2008: 62

2009: 40

2010: 45

2011: 15

2012: 13

2013: 39

2014: 42

2015: 10

2016: 6

2017: 13

2018: 10

I think this is a pretty accurate reflection of each Michigan team. 

11. 2008 - Worst offense in Michigan history. Defense had talent but was flawed.

(Gap)

10. 2009 - Offense saw an uptick, defense kept on slipping.

9. 2010 - I think is looked at more favorably than 2009, but there really isn't much separation. Offense finally feels like it takes a leap is probably why, but this is the worst defense in Michigan history.

8. 2014 - Second worst offense in Michigan history, but the team was better than the result. This team basically gave up and things started snowballing once the Minnesota game came around.

(gap)

7. 2013 - Think people forget that this team was actually plenty talented... accept had the worst OL in school history. Riddled with that, they were basically scattershot in their eventual performance. Overall, got unlucky, losing 4 games by a total of 8 points in regulation (PSU, Nebraska, Iowa, OSU). Also squeeked out bad wins vs Akron, UConn, and Northwestern. Flawed, very up and down team.

(gap)

6. 2011 - Transition cost looked bad on offense in early 2011. Coaching staff clearly trying to figure how to utilize team. Defense takes another step forward.

5. 2012 - I'd argue the defense took a step up and the offense actually became more consistent post-Denard injury. This team had possibly the best trajectory of any non-Harbaugh team.

4. 2017 - Very, very good defense, stuck with an offense that had injury issues, particularly at QB.

(gap)

2015 - Much more rounded team than any of the Hoke/Rich Rod teams. Had some growing pains early, but rounded out very well. 

2018 - Figured it out post ND and put together the second best run of any team on this list. Defense was fast and explosive, offense was paired well with it, although flawed.

(gap)

2016 - Likely the best group in almost all ways of any team on this list. Probably the best QB play (until injury), most consistent offense, best OL until at least 2018, best defense. This was a complete team. This was a team that was good enough to be in the playoff and compete. Missed opportunity if ever there was one.

Prediction: I think 2019 ends up close to 2018, but don't think it is at the 2016 level overall. Hope I'm wrong and it's better.

Haven't followed too much,…

Haven't followed too much, but what I have heard.

MSU

Lewerke is back up to strength (what that means mentally is still to be seen, but he isn't hurt any more). Their FR is coming on strong at RB and that will likely be a committee. They're really happy with their WR group. OL is shuffling a lot.

LT - Arcuri (former grayshirt TE, extremely tall, had to put on a lot of weight but still likely a bit undersized, has some upside but still probably a year away)

LG - Campbell (former starting RT who was decent two years ago, then had an awful off-season and was very bad last year. Weird to see him on the left side. Probably not great in terms of having a mualer on the inside but also probably an upgrade of Higby, who was weak and had bad feet/hands)

C - Allen (decidedly not the caliber of his brothers, maybe average)

RG - Jarvis (by far their best OL when healthy, but has suffered from injuries last year. Not a great OL, but a solid, reliable guy) or Bueter (this is a guess, but there is talk of kicking Jarvis out and I don't think it's going to be Higby or true FR Samac coming in)

RT - Reid (Reid is undersized but also still incredibly raw, I think he has athleticism to play outside but at his height needs athleticism and technique which he doesn't have and it's a shame for him he never got a RS (and he's not strong enough to play inside) or Chewins (first crack on the right side which isn't a minor deal for someone that's played LT their whole career, added some weight but still probably a bit light for his size), Jarvis (would be a worse version of Bredeson kicking out).

Dobbs is a LT all the way right now (thought they'd start him at RT and then work him inside as he went through the strength program, unlikely to RS) and Samac (other true FR really impressing).

By all accounts they are happy with their defense. The young Panasiuk kid lost weight so supposedly looks more like a DE now than a DT kicked out, still probably an average DE across for Willekes. Like their DT and LB depth, not really a drop off here unless they loss Bachie; have some good players that fit different roles. They seem to like their DB unit, I think they have more athleticism at safety than they have in the past but don't think players are of the same caliber, I would say they have potential on the depth chart at CB, but aren't really ready to step in yet.

OSU

Think everyone has heard about Fields. Probably looking at ~8 designed carries a game as they don't want him to get too beat up. Have heard conflicting things at RB, both that Dobbins is going to be a workhorse and is in better shape this year and that they will keep Dobbins touches about the same because they like the two guys behind him (if McCall could stay healthy I feel like he's seriously underused in their Air Raid pass structure). Very, very happy with their WR group. Haven't heard a lot of details about OL; some inconsistency concerns with some of the new guys, but I feel like they are decently happy with the depth and have some guys with high potential, so hard to make out without being super involved.

On defense, they obviously like their DL. LB is going to be the same core 4 as last year, and they're hoping scheme makes up for that. Their DBs are getting a ton of hype but I'm just not ready to buy in. Okudah allowed a low catch rate last year and is a great athlete, just not bought in that he's a complete CB yet. Lots of athleticm there but got to put it together. Safety still has some concerns. Great special teams.

The gameplans worked when we…

The gameplans worked when we could manage (note: not necessarily win) the LOS.

As I said then, the primary issue for the offensive woes was the OL. Borges wasn't a great OC, but he was an above average one (good play designer, I'd argue above average initial game planner, below average in-game adjuster, and then issues of building a playbook) that within his abilities couldn't mitigate an awful OL. Michigan got dominated at the LOS vs MSU and Iowa (and to an extent PSU except they struggled to account for DG's legs)

It's very difficult to tell…

It's very difficult to tell what is going on mechanically from TV and without actively watching him in person. But as other's said, it's primarily in his head.

His leg is as strong as it's ever been. But it's a lot like golf. You get on the course and you align a little close to the ball (plant foot a little close) you start blocking it. You try to correct and you slice. You try to square the club face and it's something else. You try to slow down and suddenly everything is out of sync.

Meanwhile you're taking practice swings until it feels right. Eventually it does. But then you go to hit the ball and it's the same old shit.

Now add a ton more pressure on a college kid that wasn't the most consistent even to start and that clearly feeds significantly on energy and confidence. It's a pretty bad mixture.

Guy can still figure it out. If he loses the FG battle, I'd hope he can contribute on kickoffs. He's got an incredible leg. But that's not everything to kicking.

There's going to be…

There's going to be differences because there are always differences (even if who staffs stay the same).

Primary differences are going to be some of the routes run by the receivers, especially how they run their intermediate/short routes and feel for where to "sit" vs zone depending on on the pass structure. But the basic pass structure isn't totally different (they aren't going to an Air Raid for instance).

For the QBs, they have the biggest transition. Much more reads. Much more on their plates. Getting the ball out on time is essential to this offense (which was really minimized in last year's O, as much as it can be). A little more run game element perhaps.

Some differences for the RBs. Some different aiming points in the run game, slightly different responsibilities in the pass game.

TEs have a pretty decent transition as well. Even some of their run game responsibilities change because of the RPO aspect. They'll sprinkle in a lot of the same stuff they did last year, but probably are tasked with doing the hard stuff less often, but tasked with doing more stuff overall.

Gattis runs primarily IZ,…

Gattis runs primarily IZ, with some changeups that include Power, Counter, Outside Zone, Pin and Pull, and Iso.

Michigan last year was primarily IZ, with some changeups that include Power, Counter, Outside Zone, Pin and Pull, and Iso.

There will be some small changes (there would have been even if the whole staff remained the same). They may run a little more OZ, they may run Counter OT more often whereas they ran Counter OH in the past (which changes the assignments of 2 people to take on roles they already take on at other times), they may change some pin and pull rules, but all these things are minor. They may take out Down G. The protections are effectively the same on pass downs (though they may favor certain protections than they did last year based on the playbook). 

Anyone concern trolling about major changes to the OL is doing just that. 95% of the stuff won't change significantly from last year. This isn't going from Lloyd Carr nothing but stretch to Rich Rod spread OZ or Stanford Gap stuff. This is people looking for an excuse to say "it's going to be a huge transition".

There are a few reasons to…

There are a few reasons to run trick plays: 1) Because you're outmatched; 2) Because you want to put something on film; 3) It's a constraint

Most of (3) doesn't get put on this list because it's relatively nuanced. That said, there are several plays that come to mind vs MSU that didn't make the list.

Here's Michigan running a fake jet to FB trap vs MSU for a big gain in 2015: LINK

Michigan did a bunch of decoy stuff with Peppers in that game, also ran a fake screen with Peppers running the wheel (it was incomplete). Also this.

The FB trap with Morris in was actually first run vs MSU, and it was set up beautifully and should have busted big. But one missed block and it got cut down rather quickly.

Michigan's most creative games in 2017 were Wisconsin and OSU as well. They put out some really nice wrinkles. The Wisconsin wrinkles were probably a little more nuanced than fancy trick play stuff, but well set up based off what was on film. OSU that year was basically dumping everything in the book to give themselves a shot.

Michigan has also been known to put these things into game plans early only for the game to end up a blowout. Many times those were in games that were expected to be close, but remember, despite the OSU game outcome, Michigan has had a lot of blowouts in games that were supposed to be close. 

Michigan rarely falls into the (1) category. Trick plays often cause variance. If they don't want variance because they feel they are better, and against better teams that variance goes up (because you are equally matched so teams don't need to bite on the primary thing), than trick plays aren't always great.

So a few things going on: a) yes, you see them a lot against worse competition because it gets things on film and forces opponents to scout/prep for them; b) you see a lot of those on this list because they are more likely to be successful; c) you do see an increase in them when Michigan feels they need to take chances against certain opponents; d) many of the constraints are missed in these sort of things because they are more nuanced and less flashy; e) and also perception bias.

 

Chris Evans vs Purdue I…

Chris Evans vs Purdue I described why it worked here (along with a few other plays): LINK

Tua and Hurts played at the…

Tua and Hurts played at the same time last year as well. They played multiple QBs at certain times at PSU as well. This shouldn't be extremely shocking.

What will be interesting is how he plans to do it. Neither really runs like Hurts runs. Maybe McCaffrey lines up at WR a bit (there is some pedigree there) and can also motion into a role that threatens with his arm? Is that really better than the WR depth chart though? 

Either way, at most, it's likely a package to force opponents to prep for it. If it isn't working, they'll scrap it and force opponents to still plan for it. If it is, they can continue to expand on it. Not a bad option to get both guys on the field.

Everyone is calling for …

Everyone is calling for "more zone" and I think that's one solution. I think you'll see that to a degree, though Michigan will still base out of Cover 1. They'll just mix in more of their Cover 2 elements and maybe reach back into a little Cover 3 (though those crossing routes can overload the underneath coverage pretty quickly).

I think you will see more variety in their Cover 1 match up and more change-ups in how they check against certain looks. I think OSU caught them in known checks and was able to dictate assignments/match ups pretty well. I think they'll do more to alter those assignments so that they can avoid getting isolated in many situations.

I think you'll see a difference in personnel. More 3-down looks. More DBs on the field (nickel CB sometimes, but more focus on nickel safety or nickel LB) and get a lot more movement to confuse looks. 

I also think Michigan's personnel will dictate somethings. Last year Michigan had some horses. They had guys that could do it all: Winovich, Gary, Bush, Long, etc. They don't have that this year. That's bad, in that those guys could literally do anything you ask of them. But it can be turned a bit into a positive, because I think Michigan has much more depth and specific role players than they did last year. It will come down to how Brown deploys a lot of that talent, but the end result is more variety than what we saw last year, where Brown was very happy with what he had and I think specialized a bit more (i.e. lets get really good at these few things at the expense of being more multiple) than he has in year's past.

Either way, I'm pretty confident if there is a guy looking for solutions, Brown is out there scheming for it. He takes this stuff personal. He's got a ton of fire. It may not be perfect, because OSU is still very talented, but I don't think he gets dunked on schematically two years in a row.

My main point of comparing…

My main point of comparing Howard and Day was the idea of: "Don't try to replace a legend with a clone and expect it to work out the same." If Michigan just went out and tried to hire a Beilein re-tread, likely you would see a slow degrading of the quality of Michigan basketball. Same if OSU went out and hired a standard Meyer clone.

You can't just try to replicate the success of someone else and expect similar success to continue. You have to look for upside of something at least a little different and let them do their thing. That was my only point.

The first sentence makes no…

The first sentence makes no sense. MSU made it to the playoff with a team that was pretty obviously worse than their record. They then went 3-9 with a team that was obviously better than their record. Then bounced back and their record was collectively better than their talent. Then last year they underperformed.

If anything, MSU is turning a lot into Iowa. Very consistent defensively, with pretty wild swings on offense that can drag their season either way. If the quote just meant "they were better than their record last year" then it would probably be fine.

I actually think Day was a…

I actually think Day was a pretty good hire for OSU, similar in many ways to Howard for Michigan's basketball program. It's better than just trying to clone Meyer. It's high upside with some downside attached to it.

That said, OSU for the most part is going to still be good. The majority of games they will come out looking like Meyer never left the sideline. The real question is what happens when there is adversity? What happens when things snow ball a little bit, team gets too low or too high, or off track, or whatever else. That likely only comes into play probably a couple games a year, but you go .500 in those games, and even that's a significant change from what OSU is used to.

Yes, it can snowball completely on you and you can lose seasons (see Michigan: 2014). I think OSU is about as well set up to avoid that though, and I'd have more confidence in Day than that.

A lot of this same thing is the primary question about Gattis as well. When things are clicking, I have little question Gattis will be successful as an OC. But what happens when they are consistently stalling, multiple 3 and outs, nothing seems to be working. What happens when a key player starts losing some confidence, defense throws a curve ball, etc. How Harbaugh manages that (and doesn't micro-manage the other stuff) I think will define Michigan's season on offense.

These are always interesting…

These are always interesting, but they always feel like their 30,000 ft high half truths a bit. "Michigan was still really that 22 personnel last year..." except they really weren't (two years ago was different, but they were far from that last year).

They say MSU is offensively 2-back, which they haven't based out of for a few years either. 

It's always kind of littered with that sort of stuff. Still fun though

Barwis is fine. He has his…

Barwis is fine. He has his methodology he believes in, with some merit, and was forward thinking in some regards.

His biggest problems were: 1) he put himself out front, when that isn't the role a S&C should play; 2) some of his methods didn't align with actual scientific evidence; 3) he hyped many of his methods as if he was the only one to profess them rather than pretty standard thought; 4) he treated his methods like they were the only methods for success

Those things put him at odds with many in his industry. He's a fine coach. I don't really blame him for any of UM failures. But he didn't live up to the hype, which he is partially to blame for getting.

I don't mind Top Billin' as…

I don't mind Top Billin' as much as some. But you can't say "Not a Highlight Channel" and then proceed to show nothing but highlights. Dwumfour certainly has some strengths, strengths that he can grow to be a better overall player. He also had his weaknesses last year, especially when he didn't win with his first step. You can't have an analysis of a player without highlighting their weaknesses as well and how/why they can improve.

The issue for Michigan is…

The issue for Michigan is they have zero on the depth chart that are Soph. or Jr year eligibility. They will have 3 RBs at FR eligibility in 2019. At least 4 RBs that are underclassmen eligibility in 2020. You don't fix a depth chart issue simply by over-recruiting it one year.

Also, important to remember that some of the slots will see time at RB. And it's also very possible on of the safety or LB prospects could add depth at RB if they don't work out on the defensive side of the ball.

I'd like one more RB in the class, but it isn't at panic level

I believe I talked about it…

I believe I talked about it in that article. I think Brown is going to use more 3-3-5 (not stack, but a version of it) quite a bit this year, more than in past years. That brings another Viper or nickel (nickel safety or nickel CB) onto the field. I don't think you'll see him use much Tite. Tite doesn't really fit in his wheelhouse as much as other variants, IMO.

Possibly, yes. The decrease…

Possibly, yes. The decrease in weight of traditional Rush End and increase in Anchor may point to that. I think the biggest thing that points to that is the safety recruiting though.

Some early takeaways (taking…

Some early takeaways (taking with a grain of salt all weights and heights on here):

  • Surprised Kemp is only at 286. Knew he probably would still be under 300 and the UM staff would be fine with that, but thought he'd be closer to 295ish.
  • Milton at 245 is a big boy. He looked more athletic last year than I thought he was, but that's some weight to have to bring down as a more power running option at QB.
  • Barrett may be creeping up to SAM/ILB weight.
  • Uche legit SAM/WDE size now. He's going to have a much bigger role this year I anticipate.
  • Gil at 236 isn't a huge weight gain, but makes me think they are in the process of carving out a role for him rather than every down WILL, especially with how much he has already grown (and implications to athleticism with the added weight). This doesn't apply as much to Ross, who naturally can hold the weight a little more (and is still at 232, after playing at 225 last year)
  • Surprised to see Metellus at 218. That's a 14 lb gain. Getting big for the strong safety role (historically that weight wouldn't surprise me, but in a Cover 1 scheme against modern spreads, it's a bit higher than I would have expected.)
  • JKP still at 180, officially offically a CB. Contrast to Faustin up to 195. On his way.
  • Vilain is down to 244. Wonder if they'll use him a bit in a two-point stance opposite Uche. Looks like more of a pass rush role. Contrast to Paye up to 277. That's an anchor, and likely inside at times.
  • Lavert will always be a smaller player, which is fine for college, but I think some NFL scouts will be concerned he's still only at 182 and not having much upward trajectory.
  • Not surprised at all Mason is at 270. +15 over one off season is appropriate. That puts him in a path to a role as an interior DL, as it's passable for a specific role. That's fine for now. 
  • Dwumfour weight actually dropped to 282. Not terribly surprised, expected him to stick around 285, just noted that it didn't go up.
  • Thought Onwenu might actually drop below the 350 lb max scale. No dice. Still surprised Ruiz is at 319. He plays well at that weight, but it's a big boy for a center. 
  • Honigford down nearly 10 lbs to 284? Odd, especially if his plan is on the interior. Stueber is 6'7", so the 334 is a little more spread out than most, but that's big for a RT. Mayfield at 319 has to be careful not to be carrying too much bad weight so as to lose his primary strength. Wonder if the plan is to keep him at RT regardless of what happens this year, because I think they'd want him closer to 305-310 at LT. Nice to see Runyan grow an inch in his senior year of college; impressive how far 6'3" can stretch. Ryan Hayes at 299 is a pretty decent number. Have to be careful not to add too fast, probably would prefer him closer to 290-295 right now. Goal is to get around 305-310 next year.
  • All at 229 doesn't change his position at all. If he plays this year, it'll still mostly be split out. PSU under Moorhead did that plenty. It's a TE role. Muhammad gunning for the in-line role at 261. Bigger than expected. I figured most of the TEs would end up around 245-255 with the way Gattis uses them, possibly trying to carve out a role for this year.
  • Upshaw's weight down is surprising. Guessing plan is to keep him at WDE, but even then it's light. Welschof looks like he's growing into a 3T, up to 278 now. One year at anchor maybe and then inside. Hutch also up to 278, gonna have some big bookends against the run. 
If you are interested in…

If you are interested in scheme heavy discussion, this is likely the best podcast you will ever find with Brown discussing his philosophy. It will not be dumbed down, so be warned, but Coach Vass has put together a hell of a list of podcasts this summer.

Doesn't mean he was the only…

Doesn't mean he was the only one poking around.

Enos wanted out and was looking for work (he's at Miami now). Locksley left for Maryland (known before the playoffs). Gattis was likely out and preparing to leave if he didn't get sole OC spot at Bama (he was going to Maryland with Locksley until Michigan offered). Lupoi was probably already told he wasn't coming back (Saban was fairly clearly unhappy with him as a DC, but his upward track landed him an NFL position coaching job). I wouldn't be surprised if Banks was looking for a bigger role other than ST/TE. Key, the OL coach, left to be Georgia Tech OL/RGC. Pannunzio, the RB coach, is now director of team development for the Eagles.

So you can say only one got a HC gig, but others may have been looking for HC or different landing positions already as well.

It isn't the only reason they lost to Clemson, but it's pretty clear the coaching turnover at Bama is atypical.

Mike Gittleson. I know he's…

Mike Gittleson. I know he's not revered around here, but he was in many ways the originator of a "Strength and Conditioning" coach (a term he and Bo created). He was a major reason for Michigan's growth under Bo and into Moeller and Carr. While his style was dated by the time he was replaced by Rich Rod, he deserves to be a Michigan legend in his own right.

My two cents

Was going to say the same…

Was going to say the same thing.

To address specifically the OP, I don't think there is a significant difference in BSE with a major in ME vs a BSME. To an employer, they'll effectively look the same. 

But I do think there is more value added in doing ME for undergrad due to the breadth of the major. You are more flexible with ME, and can go in a lot of directions with it, from bio-mechanical, aerospace, even in many ways civil engineering. This is especially true if he just has a vague idea of what he wants to go into. Then, if you are interesting more in the Aero side, your senior type classes can focus on those things (CFD, combustion, whatever else).

Then, if you are planning grad school, then you become more focused on whatever area you prefer (whether it be aero, or more focused within mechanical, like thermal, fluids, bio, etc.).

(NOTE: take this as a recommendation. He's going to be fine if he just goes straight into Aero, but I've found it's typically easier to go from ME to a job focused in Aero then the other way around)

Even if from a liability…

Even if from a liability standpoint, Mumphrey should receive more (for whatever reason, not saying it's appropriate or not), it shows how tone deaf MSU's admin is to how society is going to see this at large. To think it's going to look at all acceptable to have Mumphrey get a higher amount is ignorance, and from a PR perspective incredibly stupid.

They continue to do things that they feel will make things go away, but instead, just make things look worse

Yeah, it seems like there…

Yeah, it seems like there are a few sides to this, but what it boils down to is that MSU screwed up how it handled the Title IX proceedings, leaving Mumphrey essentially in limbo (after first saying he wasn't responsible) and not sufficiently informing him of the continued investigation and allowing him to be involved in something investigating him. On the victims side, it seems more about how MSU actually supported her through the process.

What I'm a bit surprised about, from a PR perspective, is find a way for the payouts to at least be equivalent. Regardless of the rationale for Mumphrey receiving more, it, at the surface, looks bad, given the focus within our society on sexual assault right now.

IIRC, it had to do with…

IIRC, it had to do with several members of the women's basketball team in some capacity, and it turned out with further digging that there wasn't enough evidence (or new contradictory evidence) to actually go with the story. So that "bombshell" isn't going to come out.