Is Michigan's Offensive methodology that different?
I listen to a fair amount of podcasts, and read a decent amount about Michigan.
For the longest time, listening to Baumgardner and reading other blogs, I got the impression that other teams had one Offensive coordinator who did everything, from scouting to prep to playcalling, and that Michigan had a 'unique collaborative method'. It seems many on this blog have had similar ideas.
But then, I hear more recently from Baumgardner and the most recent WTKA roundtable that *many* teams have a situation where the HC, OC, and pass/run game coordinators often work together during the game to call plays dynamically as the game evolves. The biggest difference is that UM didn't have a different quick call process to switch into to try to tempo teams. That doesn't make UM Football sound like that much of an outlier at all, and to my mind kind of undercuts the people who lose their mind over UM playcalling.
I guess I'm asking from coaches and those who know more about college football, is UM's pre-gattis methodology that different from other teams? Was my initial impression wrong?
And going forward, Will it be, even if they do a rip and re-install?
For my part, I'm happy for the change. It may or may not work. I was hoping for more of an evolution vs. a rip and re-install, but I'm willing to be optimistic. I think we might look like crap in the spring game, and that's okay. We'll evolve.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:28 PM ^
"In no way was our offense last year better than in 2016."
...despite all data saying the complete opposite. Feelingsball, dude. Feelingsball.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:34 PM ^
Continue to cling to your numbers instead of using your eyes.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:41 PM ^
Your eyes are connected to your brain... which is swayed by emotion.
Feelingsball, dude. Feelingsball.
January 22nd, 2019 at 1:31 PM ^
If our offense was so good last year why was Pep replaced?
January 22nd, 2019 at 5:24 PM ^
Actually my brain is connected to my gut. And my gut is never wrong.
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:23 PM ^
I love me some S&P+.
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:51 AM ^
The passing game sure seemed better when Jedd was around.
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:56 AM ^
UM's Passing S&P+ ranks on offense...
2015: 17th
2016: 29th
2017: 86th (O'Korn'd, again)
2018: 9th
UM had a better passing offense last season than in either of Fisch's years here.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:14 PM ^
We didn't have a single game with 300 yards passing last year...tell me again how our passing offense last year was better than 2016. My God. Some of you really need to go and rewatch how good Rudock played the 2nd half of 2015. Or Speight before he got hurt in 2016.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:19 PM ^
"....tell me again how our passing offense last year was better than 2016."
I just did. S&P+.
But, I mean, your stat of "300 yard passing games" and suggestion to "go rewatch old games" are prolly better metrics.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:29 PM ^
According to S&P we had a better passing offense than Clemson, Washington State, and West Virginia last year. Do you really believe that? It's a made up formula that people have taken as gospel.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:36 PM ^
Simply throwing the ball more frequently doesn't equate to being better.
You remember last season's game in East Lansing? You trusting Washington State's or West Virginia's offense to win that game?
January 22nd, 2019 at 1:33 PM ^
Why wouldn't I? Our offense did nothing in that game until that long pass to Peoples-Jones.
January 22nd, 2019 at 5:28 PM ^
LMAO, is this question sarcasm? The lack of self awareness in using MSU game 2018 to argue "our passing offense was good" is mind boggling
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:32 PM ^
What does S&P say about third and long conversions on passing plays. What does it say about average yards gained on first down passing plays? What does it say about fourth quarter passing when trailing?
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:39 PM ^
The answer to all your questions can be found here.
January 22nd, 2019 at 1:07 PM ^
Thank you for the link. Here is a cut/paste from it that I believe explains the discrepancy discussed here.
Since efficiency is by far the most replicable and least random aspect of football — big plays and turnovers decide games, but are incredibly random by nature — my success rate measure is the single biggest contributor to the S&P+ ratings.
This rating values efficiency very much over explosiveness. So did the Michigan offense. They also increased their statistical passing efficiency by not passing very much so that when they did it they mostly succeeded--but when they failed the drive ended. Which is not, to my way of thinking, a measure of how "good" it was. Efficiency measures getting first downs but the goal of offense is to score not get first downs.
Maybe when this stat was designed big plays were "incredibly random by nature" but I don't think you could look at the Michigan offense compared to a passing offense designed to get athletes in space (as opposed to hitting the 3rd TE for 6 yards on 3rd and 4) and say that the disparity on big plays was "incredibly random in nature." One offense gets big plays because they are baked into the design. The other sacrifices big plays in order to "be efficient."
So, returning to my previous point about efficiency versus scoring, Michigan could move efficiently all over the field with short efficient passes to the TE and not score because eventually someone drops a pass. While another passing offense might be much less efficient but score more because when they do succeed they get points.
January 22nd, 2019 at 1:16 PM ^
All of the questions are not there highlighting one of the core errors made in data interpretation. People think they are learning something they aren't. You have to dig into the details and specific situations to truly understand performance.
January 22nd, 2019 at 2:23 PM ^
S&P is for the whole year... we started slowly in 2015 but were a lot stronger by the second half of the season. So there's that...
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:59 AM ^
It's feelingsball. So much of the complaining about the offense is that the playcalling "seems" bad and used to be better. The numbers don't bear that out. Aside from the 2017 outlier, we've had good--not great--offense under Harbaugh. It "seems" worse now because you (and everyone else) thought we would have beat OSU and won the B1G by now, and you're getting sick of this shit. Me too, but I don't think it has much to do with a degredation in offense.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:21 PM ^
Yep. Feelingsball. And, yeah, we blew out some bad teams in 2016 by more points. But then, this year, we blew out decent teams (like Wisconsin) by more points, so it winds up being the same thing.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:30 PM ^
Everything else being equal, doesn't UM's 2018 offense win The Game in both 2016 and 2017?
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:47 PM ^
Depends, does Patterson have a broken arm in 2016? Is Milton playing in 2017?
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:53 PM ^
Ha!
Man, this is exactly what kills me about everyone who criticizes UM's 2018 offense. Was it as explosive as it could've been? Obviously not. But you have to assume that priority #1 was to make sure that Patterson was completely healthy come Thanksgiving with a shot to win the B1G.
And then the defense gave up a 60-burger. JFC.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:55 PM ^
Yes. In fact, I believe that winning those games was a big part of what Harbaugh had in mind when he designed the philosophy this year. Conservative use of the pass even with talent, to prevent that backbreaking pick-six. Body blows in the running game to wear down the defensive front, so that when Michigan has the ball and the lead late in the fourth quarter they can actually get that first down or two that would have clinched the game.
Michigan's offensive philosophy was designed to win the games we played in 16 and 17. Unfortunately, it got blitzed by the 2018 OSU team.
January 22nd, 2019 at 3:12 PM ^
The problem with that philosophy is that if you don't practice explosive offense when you can CHOOSE to, you won't be sharp on it when you HAVE to.
Between 1) that, and
2) the Spath-reported tendency to completely ignore dynamic game plans in favor of conservativism, and
3) our observations that Pep/Harbaugh may NOT actually be keeping something in the garage (think "huh, I guess there aren't any more wrinkles to PepCat", and "huh, I guess they really don't have anything else for McDoom", and "huh, I guess we don't have any other ways to use Ben Mason")...
I'd say that the biggest difference between M and other teams is not the collaborative process, but instead that the coaches are collaborating for 25 seconds to decide which run up the middle they want to call (slightly exaggerated, but you get the idea).
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:28 PM ^
2017 for sure.
January 22nd, 2019 at 1:04 PM ^
I agree many of the takes are pure feelingsball and I challenge anyone claiming "BE BETTER!!!" to clearly articulate one concrete example of how it could be better.....HOWEVA...stats don't always tell the whole story. Compare Michigan's rushing game in 2016 vs. 2018
Season rushing stats: for the past three years:
2016: 213.3 yds/game, 4.9 yds/carry, 41TD's
2018: 203.8 yds/game, 4.8 yds/carry, 26TD's
Season totals would tell you Michigan had a slightly better rushing attack in 2016 vs 2018.
Rushing stats against Wisconsin, MSU, OSU, and Bowll for the past three years:
2016: Wisc 130/3.0/1 , MSU 192/4.6/3 , OSU 91/2.1/1 , Bowl 89/2.5/1
2018: Wisc 320/6.7/3 , MSU 183/3.5/1 , OSU 161/4.0/2 , Bowl 77/2.6/0
Looking at how Michigan fared against four of the better opponents shows Michigan had a slightly better rushing attack in 2018 vs. 2016.
January 22nd, 2019 at 2:12 PM ^
Exactly. Numbers don't tell everything. Everyone could tell you we had a better overall back in Higdon to rely on this year vs 2016. But our ability to change it up between Smith, Evans, and Higdon in 2016 helped to keep defenses on their toes. As well as Peppers sometimes. I feel like Chris Evans was a ghost some of this year. He was used better back in 2016. He had 7 YPC in 2016 vs 5.1 in 2017 and 5.2 last year.
January 22nd, 2019 at 2:40 PM ^
Yeah. 4 carries for 8 yards against MSU, 6 carries for 18 yards against OSU, 9 for 39 against Indiana, not great.
Wait, what's that? [checks notes] Whoops, those are totals from games in 2016.
Evans WAS a ghost some of this year; he was hurt for large portions of it.
And, like you say, numbers don't tell the whole story: His ypc totals were good in 2016, but aided by putting up huge numbers in blowouts against teams like Hawaii and Rutgers. In fact, the whole team put up good stats in part due to games like that. Michigan this year did not blow out teams in the same way (remember how yawn-inducing games like SMU were?) but they still won what they had to.
Until, you know, the end.
There is simply no statistical evidence to support your underlying thesis, that the offense this year is substantially worse than the offense in 2016.
The bitter truth is that, while there were some differences in staff and personnel and how they operated, both offenses were decent at piling up numbers against teams Michigan was clearly better than, totally inadequate in a road night game, and insufficient when it counted most in Columbus.
And the one consistent thread between both is not the passing game coordinator; it is Jim Harbaugh.
January 22nd, 2019 at 8:49 PM ^
The 2016 team averaged 40.3 points per game.
The 2018 team average 35.2 points per game.
You can have a serious debate about whether one group was better than the other, but there is at least ONE statistic that points to the 2016 team having a significantly better offense than the 2018 team.
January 22nd, 2019 at 6:49 PM ^
I thought the consensus was that while the o-line system has improved of late that Michigan had better pass blocking under Jedd.
That last delay of game pentalty was painful so I hope for rapid improvement and some ability to go up-tempo.
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:38 AM ^
We have to get speed. Demon speed. Speed is what we need. We need greasy, fast speed.
and then throw it to them...
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:46 AM ^
I think most teams have a few coaches who are in on the playcalling. Most NFL and College football teams have run and pass game coordinators.
Michigan had the process as Harbaugh picking either run or pass and depending on what he chose it would then go to Pep or Ed. Then they would give Harbaugh a play to either approve or not.
Other teams usually have one guy who is calling plays and the coordinators are there more for practicing and coming up with concepts for the gameplan. Most other teams do not have multiple people with playcalling duties.
In other words, while other teams have the same assistant coaching positions, Michigan was giving more responsibilities to those coaches than other teams.
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:52 AM ^
As an OC (or any member of that group), you have to think of plays/concepts ahead of time. It's not unusual to have two or three people involved, but I do know some coaches who don't like to be a part of that type of system. Some people want full control, even if it means they're taken out of the equation.
When I say you need to think ahead, play 1 of a drive needs to be setting up play 3 or play 4. So if I'm the run game coordinator calling, say, inside zone on 1st-and-10 out of trips to the field, then Coach Y as the passing game coordinator needs to be looking at what he can run on 3rd-and-7 out of the same formation. You can obviously come back to it the next drive, but that's how those things need to work.
Conversely, if you're the passing game coordinator and you want to set up a play action pass off of a certain formation/motion/personnel grouping, then you need to say to the run game coordinator, "Hey, next drive, let's set up our Divide off play action by running power to the left" or something like that.
Obviously, that means your passing game coordinator needs to understand the game plan for the run, and your run game coordinator needs to understand what he's setting up in the passing game. And if the head coach has the final say in that process, then he needs to know it, too. So there's a lot of coordination (key word!) involved, and you can see how it might get bogged down.
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:57 AM ^
So with other teams there is collaboration but it's more weighted to the OC on game day, hence quicker execution?
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:48 PM ^
I don't know this for sure, but I believe Coach Harbaugh is the one who is slowing down the process. Not only does he seem to take input from his coordinators before signaling in the play, but he puts wristbands on his quarterbacks, signals in the play, has the QB read the whole play in the huddle, and then breaks the huddle.
One of the steps needs to be taken out, IMO. Have an OC signal in the play. Get rid of the huddle. Something needs to go. Each one of those steps takes ~5 seconds or so, which would be better used at the LOS with the QB assessing the defense, making checks if necessary, etc.
January 22nd, 2019 at 1:02 PM ^
Wristbands aren't all that uncommon; it makes sense for a team that has as many play options as Michigan does.
I think that more speaks to the point that Michigan uses a complex philosophy and cannot rely upon college students to remember entire playbooks without getting this sort of emphasis in the huddle. It does a good job of making sure that everyone knows their job on a given play, but it's less flexible and more time consuming.
January 22nd, 2019 at 1:11 PM ^
I don't have a problem with the wristband in itself. I also don't have a problem with Harbaugh signaling in the play. Nor do I have a problem with the huddle. Etc. All of these things are just fine individually. The problem is that Michigan is doing ALL of them.
To put it another way:
Is there anything Michigan could do to take MORE time between plays? Honestly, the only thing I can think of is sending in the play with a receiver or having the QB run to the sideline for the play call. Other than that, Michigan has adopted about the most laborious process available.
January 22nd, 2019 at 1:37 PM ^
Al Borges took longer. The issue isn't that they take a while when they have time, of course. When you're sitting on a two-score lead early in the fourth quarter bleeding clock is a positive. I don't care if they normally have this process; the problem seems to be that something in the way they've chosen to prepare precludes repping any other process for running plays other than the 2-minute drill.
There's no hurry-up with nine minutes to go. There is a 2-minute drill, and entirely different process that likely has a very limited playbook, and then there is the process that lines up with 15 to 10 seconds left on the clock.
There needs to be a better process for that. The idea concept, in my thinking, is to streamline the process such that you can have players lining up 15 seconds after the ready-for-play, and then just slow that process down when you don't need to go fast. But I don't get paid millions of dollars to coach.
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:56 AM ^
Everyone is making this way too complicated. For whatever reason our staff prioritizes, you can tell its a priority because they do it even when they're losing, running out the clock. The slow play calling is a feature not a bug.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:20 PM ^
At a macro level, it is intentional. It's what you do when you have an elite defense, a good run game, and offensive tackles who are unreliable in pass pro. It was a good strategy, won 10 games straight after ND debacle on offense.
Now at an individual game level? OSU played out of their minds, and Brown got owned. Neither could have been predicted based on the performance of the teams through 11 games. Why didn't Harbaugh change gears in the middle of the game when getting killed? Well, what was killing us was the defense. If you can run the ball and keep it away from Haskins, that may still be a good strategy. Remember it was only a 5 point game at half. Also, remember Brown getting owned all season in the first half, adjusting, then shutting opponents down in the second half? Harbaugh had good reason to believe Brown would adjust. He didn't. Game over.
UF was a cluster I have no explanation for that. We should have been pass happy what did it matter. But again I'd cite the offensive tackles, both of whom I assume were abused badly.
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:40 PM ^
^^^^ This comment is on point
At the same time, it feels like should have practiced our hurry up a bit more sometime in the other 10 games in case we'd need it against a good team (whether OSU or in the playoff)
January 22nd, 2019 at 12:55 PM ^
I agree with this. You can't just go full throttle at the last game of the year when you need it. The problem was that even against poor opponents, the tackles couldn't be relied upon to not get Patterson killed. They weren't awful every play in pass pro, no one is. But they were awful often, and when they were awful they were really awful. Couldn't risk it. Patterson getting hurt in the OSU game kind of proved that point.
Yes, the hurry up looks awful in every way.
January 22nd, 2019 at 1:46 PM ^
Ah yes, it always is and always will be the offensive tackles fault.
All else being relatively equal, the team that is trying to score points is always going to beat the team that is trying to kill the clock. That is exactly what happened in all three of Michigan's losses this year. If you watched any of the playoff games or any of the other big bowls games and think the kill the clock offense was going to compete there, we are not living in the same universe.
January 22nd, 2019 at 3:53 PM ^
"If you watched any of the playoff games or any of the other big bowls games and think our offensive tackles were anywhere near the level of play of those teams, we are not living in the same universe."
Understand that you are not smarter than Harbaugh. Start there. That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve criticism, but it does mean that there is probably a reason for his approach that you don't understand. Then take the first game against a very good opponent, Notre Dame. What happened? Our tackles were atrocious. Harbaugh saw this and took appropriate action. He protected them in pass pro with TE help, RB help, play action, and an offensive philosophy that leveraged what they do well - run blocking - over what they do terribly. You can do this when you have an excellent defense, in fact it makes sense. He didn't forget that his tackles were very bad in pass pro, especially against elite competition, like most of this board has.
This is what happened in 2018 , despite the fact that you're still angry the team lost to OSU and want to pout about Harbaugh being a dummy pants.
January 22nd, 2019 at 5:35 PM ^
I'm not still angry about losing to OSU, it was inevitable. They were trying to score points and we were trying to win time of possession. Both teams achieved their goal, Michigan still lost which should highlight why winning TOP is a worthless goal but apparently not because tackles.
January 22nd, 2019 at 9:29 PM ^
This is a temper tantrum reply and deserves no response.
January 22nd, 2019 at 11:56 AM ^
What surprises me the most is Coach is a former QB and our offense can’t go no hudddle or tempo. It seems like we should a least be able to do that.