The scheme that beats MSU

The scheme that beats MSU

Submitted by Ron Utah on November 5th, 2013 at 9:29 PM

What does cute baby have in common with our offense vs. MSU?  They both suck!

Al Borges is easily the most hated man on the Michigan staff.  Darrell Funk may be gaining some ground in that department, but he has a long way to go.  Even Brady Hoke--the man who has delivered Michigan's best recruits in over a decade--is facing some heavy criticism.

I get it.  Saturday was painful in so many ways.  It's hard to watch your QB run play action from under center and get sacked almost before he turns around.  It's hard to watch your team's championship hopes vanish in game that wasn't a contest.  It's hard to know you can't beat the best, or even the very good.

Every story is made better with a villain.  This is our national mode of thinking now--in politics, in business, and in sports.  It's just so much easier to blame someone than to actually look at the complexity of an issue.

And to be sure, Al Borges does deserve blame.  As does Funk, and, yes, even Hoke.  Coaches are responsible for the product on the field.  Period.  Our product sucked with the fury of a black hole (yes nerds, I know they don't actually "suck") on Saturday, and it's natural to want bastards to pay for that.

But, just for a moment, let's look at how we could have attacked that MSU defense, instead of focusing on our complete inability to do anything resembling offense on Saturday.

This is right off of Brian's picture pages.  It is a very typical alignment for MSU, although the field (don't want to argue about strong/free) safety is a bit deeper than usual at ten yards; it's often closer to eight.  Michigan is in a pretty standard 3WR Shotgun look.  Sometimes, that slot LB is actually a LB, sometimes it's a LB/S hybrid.  Doesn't really matter.

How do you attack this defense?  Let's examine a few possibilities:

  • Quick pass/extended hand-off.  Outside press coverage eliminates this possibility for the X and Z (outside receivers).  You could look to the H (slot), but that LB or LB/S thingy is definitely close enough to tackle almost immediately.  As soon as DG turns his head there and Funchess turns to catch the ball, that LB is in KILL! mode.  He knows he has safety help over the top if he's wrong, so there's very little risk form him.  He would attempt decapitation.  Even if Funchess can shake him, that safety is there--and this assumes the TE blocked the middle LB.  So basically, this option sucks.
  • Slants/hitches/crosses.  We're going to assume this is man coverage, since that's what MSU runs most of the time.  First of all, it's terribly difficult to beat press coverage on a three-step drop, especially when the corners are as accomplished as Waynes and Dennard.  This is made even more difficult by the fact that their corners are playing "inside technique," meaning they are a half-step inside the WRs, trying to force them to the outside.  But let's assume, just for fun, that our guys beat their guys.  The WR on the left side is now running right into that slot LB, who is reading the H.  A common antidote to this would be to send the H on a flat route, attempting to pull the LB with him.  That might actually work.  The problem, though, is that MSU's safeties use a technique called "pattern reading."  Basically, they are watching the first few steps of those slot/TE types, and reacting.  If the slot/TE dudes don't stretch the field, the safety crashes down to try and help in coverage.  MSU's safeties will make this ready quickly.  A best-case scenario is a perfectly executed slant that gets thumped by the safety after a five or six yard gain. But this is a high-risk play: if the LB reads the QB's eyes and sinks, it could be a pick-six.  I didn't mention the hitch, but it's real tough against press man, and the crossing routes are even MORE susceptible to LB INTs, which MSU does well.
  • MANBALL.  Run the ball, damn it!  Well, even if we had a good O-Line, this is tough.  A give to the RB means our six blockers are up against their six plus"two halves" in the box.  That LB over the slot and the boundary safety are both on the edge of the box, ready to pounce on a running play.  Even if we leave a backside guy unblocked, MSU will have numbers in the box very quickly, and our best-case is a three-yard gain (which we actually mustered a few times).  BUT, even this will be inconsistent, because sometimes those LBs blitz and that safety crashes even before they know if it's run or pass, and in that case the slower-developing run from the shotgun is dead to rights.  This, by the way, is why AB and Hoke want an under center game: your RB can immediately get to the business of running when the ball is snapped, rather than waiting for the snap to get to the QB and for the QB to handle the snap and then hand it off to a guy who is right next to him.  From under center, the RB can (and does) start to move at the snap, and gets the ball closer to the LOS and with a some steam.  It's not a huge difference, but it is significant and it is why RB runs are often more effective from under center.
  • Option run.  Yeah.  We tried a few of these.  You saw what happened.  MSU makes quick, aggressive reads on almost every play.  They blitz frequently, and they slant, stunt, and twist all the damn time.  If even one of these guys gets free--which they almost always did against us--you're looking at a five yard loss.  Even in a well-designed play (which Brian covered in the picture pages) the MSU defense collapses fast, gets off blocks, and gobbles-up your RB or QB.  They get nine guys in the box (the safeties crash fast) as quickly as any team I've ever seen.  Their DE's are also athletic enough to trouble the option on their own.  All that said, a finely-tuned and perfectly-blocked option scheme would give them trouble, as it would anyone.
  • Deep passing game.  Without even the slightest doubt, this is where MSU is susceptible.  IF Ohio beats them, it will be with big plays in the passing game, IMO, and perhaps some read/option stuff with probably the best running tandem QB and RB this side of Oregon.  But, schematically, there is no doubt that this defense is susceptible to the deep pass, especially off of play action.  You can get single coverage on your H (slot), your Y (TE), and your X and Z (outside WRs) against this defense.  There are two problems with this: MSU's one-on-one coverage is really good; and MSU's blitzes and pass rush are even better than their coverage.  I believe Denicos Allen is the best blizting LB in the country, and Bullough isn't far behind.  Your QB needs a 7-step drop for these routes; your line needs to hold-up; and your RB probably needs to block (since that's one of the only ways to shut down the double-A blitz).  We had open receivers against MSU.  Other teams have also had wide open dudes.  But when the QB's face is in the turf--or he's worried about his face being in the turf--it's awfully hard to read the defense and make the perfect throw required to beat the coverage (see Gardner's INT).  Max protect should give you the time you need, but you still have to execute against an excellent blitz and stellar coverage, and MSU's safeties do a good job of reading three-man routes and helping their CB's where they can.
  • Play action.  For the record, I hated the play action calls.  Having Gardner turn his back when his line can't block just sucks.  But I understand why Borges calls them.  MSU does read-and-react, and their LBs and safeties do hold a beat on play action.  The run/pass conflict is there.  That said, they are often blitzing a LB no matter what, which has the potential to blow-up your play before it gets started.  So there's a bit of roulette there.  But if you can block it, the opportunities for deep passes will be there, and pop passes to the slot from the shotgun or pistol (which we did) can be effective.  That said, it's a slow-developing play that requires more blocking, and MSU is betting that you can't beat them in that department.  Yet another reason to run play action is to set-up the run.  Yep, you read that correctly.  When a defense gets burned on a PA pass, they naturally slow their reaction to the run.  This is why you might run a PA pass before you run the base running play. There is yet another reason Borges calls these PA passes and under center runs: he's preparing the team for the future.  If we don't run under center until we're good at it, we'll never be good at it.  Borges would get (rightfully) bashed for bringing out the 2015 team and expecting them to run under center stuff if they'd never done it before.  Like it or not, it's part of our future, and we need experience doing it some, even if we suck at it.

TL;DR - MSU's defense is really good, and very difficult to attack.  When you can't block their blitzes, you are left with few or no good options.  This is not an excuse for the coaches--they need to get their kids to block.  But the two best strategies against this defense require good, sustained blocking, and they are the only way to open up the running game.

We simply aren't good enough to execute against this defense.  And that falls on the coaches just as much (if not more) as it falls on the players.  Better play-calling couldn't have helped much.

Fix the Offense - Pick Your Poison (An MGoGameshow)

Fix the Offense - Pick Your Poison (An MGoGameshow)

Submitted by BrewCityBlue on October 16th, 2013 at 1:05 PM

This post started as me wondering if we could be seeing Kugler and/or Bosch with the revelation from Borges' presser that they are giving shots to other OL in the wake of the PSU debacle. 

Currently on the 1st page of topics for the board there are 8 threads focusing on Borges/Offensive philosophy/etc. I deem to make it 9. To try and come up with something new and entertaining and keep from it being just another Fire Borges/we can't block/Y we no innovate? post, I present to you: 

Pick Your Poison (an MGoGameshow which allows you to select your least terrible solution to the offensive issues we've had, that, if enacted TODAY, would be the best possible fix for our offensive ineptitude). This may be stupid and pointless, but at least it's different. You may only choose 1, so choose wisely...

1. Fire Borges

Easy to say, but doing this midseason will cause issues before it fixes any, so you better have a good replacement/plan ready. Then again, putting ANYONE in the box that is ok with getting plays in quicker, not huddling, instituting quick checks and giving Devin the power to utilize them, taking free yards on the outside instead of running into 9 man boxes, etc. may be better than what we have. But we would be firing our OC and QB Coach mid season, which can never be considered "good". Y U No Use Constraints? Y U Hate Free Yards? (This assumes Borges is 100% responsible for our offensive philosophy, game plan, play calling, etc and Hoke has nothing to do with it - would anyone really pick "Fire Hoke" for their one option?)

2. Fire Funk

You sure you want to leave Borges here to call the same terrible plays / refuse to take free yards with a new OL coach? Maybe a new/better OL coach could give us some shot of executing perfectly to help make up for imperfect gameplan and play calling. Firing the OL coach midseason can't be "good" but it shakes things up "less" and maybe is just enough for a fresh start and a new look at things in the trenches.

3. Start Kugler and Bosch at C and LG, respectively.

This can't get any worse with Borges and Funk still around, right? Might as well get some experience for next year's presumed interior OL. (This assumes they aren't any worse than the current starters skill-wise, and the only reason they're not playing is to preserve their redshirts and gain experience in the system before being thrown into the fire.)

4. Keep everything exactly as it is, and trust in Borges/Hoke to figure it out. All is ok.

Everything is going to be fine. Funk will coach 'em up. We trust that Borges (maybe with Hoke's urging) will get more creative and be more open minded. Current OL just needs some more time to gel. Borges may just wear a bubble screen smiley face tee shirt in the box! By the time we get to MSU and OSU we'll be a road-gradin' terror that noone wants to stand across from and try to stop. Stop This? Oh, well here are all my constraints! Plus with JMFR back and promises of a practice-ball-hawkin' Stribling getting more time, the defense will continue to improve. Maybe we can win without any serious changes on O. At the end of the season we'll think "Thank goodness we didn't fire anyone or shake up the OL again in a panic move after a tough 4OT road loss only 2 games into conference schedule". Stay the course, trust the coaches, and all will be ok. 

 

 

Due to process of elimination, which is best when you're talking "least terrible" solutions, I would go with #3. If I had faith that they'd be able to commit to/execute #4, I'd go with that, but does anyone actually believe any of that could happen? #1 solves the most of our problems if you have a viable replacement mid-season, but who would that be? Plus, like, that's not happening, right? #2 doesn't fix enough IMO.

If this is a long, failed attempt at a gameshow post then at least give me your thoughts on Kugler/Bosch playing and risking burning their redshirts to "see if they're better".