Neck Sharpies: Not Getting Even Comment Count

Seth

image

This would not go over well.

After the injury to Ryan Glasgow Michigan has struggled to stop zone running. Indiana and Penn State tore the defense to shreds on stretch or outside zone, until Penn State decided the thing that got them two huge gains in three attempts wasn't worth using again (please keep James Franklin forever kthx). I drew that up last week and found Michigan was still trying to defend runs by shooting the DL upfield and dominating one-on-one matchups up front, as opposed to soundly preventing guards from releasing onto the linebackers.

With Urban Meyer, one of a few true masters of modern running attacks, doing the planning for the Game, we knew Michigan's defensive coaches would have to pull something out of our butts to stop it. Here's what we found in our butts:

Michigan broke out a 3-3-5 defense with an "even" front. Offensive coaches have different names for fronts but the basics are:

  • Under: NT on the center, shaded to strong. DT on a guard. (aka Weak, 50)
  • Over: NT on the center, shaded to weak. DT on a guard. (aka Strong)
  • Even: DL are lined up over guards, none over the center. (aka Split)
  • Okie: Center is covered, guards are not. (aka 30)
  • Bear: Center and guards all covered. (aka 46, Eagle, Double Eagle)

These can be split into "Odd" (under/over) and "Even" (Even, Okie, Bear). It is usual for just about any defense to come out in multiple fronts over the course of a game, though Bear and Okie are more rare than the other three.

image

Anyway that's what that means. By putting guys over the guards it makes it tougher for them to release to the next level. Michigan State used to love their even fronts back when Bullough was their best run defender, and that tells you something about the design of this defense. Tweaking your defense is about making life hard on your better players so things are easier for the rest of your players. "Even" makes life hard on the MLB, since that center is getting a free release unto him.

There's nothing 100% unsound about this defense. Depending on the offense's play, one LB is likely to get a center on him but the other is often a free hitter. If your LB eating the block is good at beating those consistently, or your free hitter is a ninja who sniffs out the play and attacks ferociously, or your unblocked guy is coached to play aggressively against an option you can defeat a basic run play regularly.

[After the JUMP, we totally can't]

What did Ohio State do to us?

It was not always the case, but due to the covered guy, Michigan has numbers here, with Gedeon the 8th man in the box:

image

Ohio State's play is a Midline Zone Read, a play that Smart Football drew up as a scrape exchange beater (and which starts with a photo of RR-era Denard because of course it would). One of the read-option's curveball plays, the midline play reads a DT instead of the EMLOS; in this case it's going to be Taco Charlton, who's lined up as a 5-tech.

image

blue reads blue

I know, I know, an SDE isn't a DT. Except this play has an unbalanced formation (the TE is covered), which shifts the apparent front. They made this extra difficult by tempo'ing into it; Michigan did realize the TE isn't eligible before the snap but they haven't adjusted their gaps, as Taco Charlton and Ben Gedeon would wind up standing over the same hole.

Michigan's alignment has thrown off the usual blocking assignments; the RG will have to cross most of Henry to get his release while the RT could lose this whole play if Henry gets upfield and can't get shoved or cut.

The tradeoff is easier frontside blocks; the linemen step down, not sideways, off the snap, selling inside zone before sealing the next guy over.

By design, Michigan's DL are supposed to be preventing the guards from releasing. Wormley is into his guy, but the free releasing center (red circle below) isn't heading for the second level; he's about to seal Wormley:

image

Moving up the line, Henry didn't even delay Elflein's release, a matter of Elflein being very nimble, and Michigan's aggressive scheme gambling that Henry can dominate a blocker set up so far inside of him.

Meanwhile on the backside:

image

On the backside, Taco Charlton is getting read. He forms up in the hole so it's a handoff. However Gedeon seems to be hanging outside for a keeper as well. WTF? Having Taco play to handoff here doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what the coaching point is, or if this exposed a weakness in what Michigan's defenders are supposed to do against a read option, or perhaps somebody didn't know his assignment after getting tempo'd and having to process the unbalanced formation. But Taco isn't crashing, and Gedeon is watching that same gap.

This brought Gedeon in for a round of Twitter clucking (including from people who thought he was Bolden) but that doesn't seem fair to me. Gedeon's basically playing free safety here since Delano Hill, who probably had that covered TE in man, is now just the edge defender. So if this is play-action and one of that bunch of receivers outside comes across the formation, Gedeon's depth will be crucial. I'm just saying if you've got 8 men in the box, CRASH ON THE GORRAM ZONE READ.*

(On the other hand Gedeon IS the eighth man in the box, and therefore once the handoff is made he should be reading the ballcarrier and attacking the gap.)

Since the handoff is made let's get back to the point of attack. Henry's burrowing into that guy's shoulder to maintain his B gap, and if he can drive that down the line he's got a shot to end this or at least delay the RB while his teammates rally. Instead Henry gives ground at the crucial second; there's a gap.

imageimage

Again, you can let blockers get a free release if you can dominate your gap. Henry hasn't dominated that gap. He got shoved back a yard right when Elliott got the ball. Does he have his gap? Yes. Does this help much? No. If you give the guard his free release and fire into the tackle, a stalemate with that tackle is a net loss.

It's now down to three players: Desmond Morgan vs. Pat Elflein and Ezekiel Elliott. If Morgan can beat the block and make a tackle, which is super super hard, Michigan can live for another down.

imageimageimageimageimage

Ah hamburgers.

-----------------------

Slo-Mo:

-----------------------

Lessons:

Michigan still can't run a 3-3-5 correctly. When 3-3-5 or its cousin the 2-4-5 is used as a base defense, they make up for free releasing OL with blitzes from here, there, and everywhere. They're kind of the next iteration of zone blitz defenses, except every play is a zone blitz.

That's not what Michigan's doing here. Michigan's taking their regular 4-3 over front that survived on instant gap penetration and going extreme with smaller players. This worked at Florida because one of those guys was Dante Fowler. It worked at Michigan for a time because one of those guys was Ryan Glasgow.

Later Michigan would go full-GERG by lining Morgan up a yard from the line of scrimmage, giving him no time to set up his block. I have no idea why we did that then or now. Michigan State, who runs the most even fronts (from a normal 4-3) of teams I watch regularly, puts its MLBs about five yards off the line to read and react. They also blitz the A gaps a ton so offenses can't trust that space to be there.

Live, other than a 4th down play when they overloaded the wrong side, I don't remember the linebackers ever blitzing to punish Ohio State for running into those A gaps.

Just don't let guards loose unless the DL is rampant. I think Michigan would like to play that way, and going 3-3-5 seems like it was intended to ease the load on that interior rotation. This play could have been blown up if Wormley shot through his gap so the center couldn't seal without getting an illegal chop. Or it could have been blown up if Henry blew back the RT so much that Ellliott had to stop and reroute to get to Morgan's gap. Asking Michigan's DL to do that with consistency is a way to dominate if they can do that with consistency. But against an excellent offensive line like Ohio State's, they can't.

And they shouldn't have to.

image

Don't let that guard cross your face without at least a delay, and Morgan gets to be first to the hole. That's the point of the whole alignment.

Life is hard for the middle linebacker. Notice on this play Morgan almost made the play anyway by having a second to see his block, take it on, and try to form up. That's versus perhaps the best guard in the conference and certainly the best RB in the conference and doesn't go well, but it nearly did, because Morgan popped the guy.

When we get to late spring and you're hearing about how great (walk-on MLB) Dan Liesman is in practices, that's because Liesman can read a play and hit a guy, and that's how you can win the two-on-one matchup Morgan got against a lot of comers. However to play this defense consistently you're going to need an ELITE middle linebacker. And against a team as uniquely suited for running as this Ohio State, we probably needed a better plan.

-----------------------

*[Crashing Charlton here would be no guarantee since it puts Barrett in space against against a linebacker and, well, this was Ohio State's first touchdown:

image]

Comments

Wolfman

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^

People try to minimize talent differential, but it is a very real thing. When you have a Bosa, and MSU does int the respect that if you believe one OL man is going to handle consistently their two top DLmen, your belief system is flawed. We have some decent DL whose talents pretty much stop at their ability to pretty much win one-on-one battles a large percentage of the time and do not have the athletic ability to wreak havoc the way the aforementioned do. Also, noticeable difference in LBing talent from both teams. They don't merely have strong bodies, but they have great mobility in their front 7 personnel and not too many teams have the horses along the OL to offset this disparity.

Jevablue

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^

through the whole year despite having one of the best coaches in history.  They were up for the game. I refuse to believe we were not just as "up" for the game.  They practically beat us worse than anyone they played all year.  I would not have been surprised if we lost playing our very best game, but for us to lose in such a grotesque manner begs all of these questions.

In reply to by somewittyname

MGoJeezy

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^

Really no joke. 46 bear all day. Make JT throw for 300. If you can't stop them on what they want to do- force them to do something their not used to doing. (See MSU game). They would've shut them out if not for those 2 turnovers.

Seth

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^

If you do a search you can find an article I did on Virginia Tech and how they used the bear defense against Ohio State. But OSU did beat the Bear after that. Wisconsin also had an interesting strategy for beating Ohio State. They made one of their linebackers basically a 3-tech.

In reply to by somewittyname

MGoJeezy

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^

Here's what I don't get, so many people talk of this enormous talent gap between us and OSU. Which is true. But take out Rutgers and Maryland and that's every other defense in their schedule that played better than us.

Freaking Maryland put double the points on OSU defense as we did. Maryland.

I don't get why we can't chalk it up to some mismatches in talent and a crappy coached game with little to no adjustments? Harbaugh is human you know.

The future is bright. Go blue!

somewittyname

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^

I am by no means suggesting the coaches had a perfect gameplan. I agree the absolute lack of ability to adjust at all in the 2nd half was frustrating, and despite what Brian thought, I thought trying to block that punt and punting from the 36 yd line were terrible decisions.

But you can't go comparing performances. It's pretty evident from the past two seasons that the same OSU team does not always show up in a given game. The OSU team that showed up on Saturday would beat us 19/20 times, and that's because of talent.

My biggest problem is the internet coaches thinking they have the answers. If you have an answer for when Jalin Marshall, Braxton Miller, JT Barrett, Zeke Elliott, and Taylor Decker play to their capabilities, while you're playing Joe Bolden, you're missing out a great chance to make a million a year.

M-Dog

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:56 PM ^

They actually woke up earlier in the season when they started Barrett.  They were on the roll we thought they would be at the beginning of the season.  

Then for some reason they freaked out over a little bit of rain, as if they never played in the Big Ten before.  On a clear day like we faced aganist them, they would have beaten MSU by 20.

Space Coyote

December 2nd, 2015 at 10:50 AM ^

Ross is a Buck, this is Michigan's base personnel just adjusted for the goal line.

My feeling on Gedeon is the same issue that happened to Bolden last week. He thinks he has man coverage on the TE (who is covered) and therefore needs to defend the TE pop pass that OSU runs fairly well in the red zone. This delays him and prevents him from being the free hitter in the hole (it's likely that he and Hill have a combo coverage on the TE, any vertical or inside release gets Gedeon and any outside release gets Hill).

Part of the tempo and unbalanced line is that it screws up gap responsibilities. The issue is that OSU ran this formation about 5 straight times and Michigan never did really understand it. People hate on Bolden, and Bolden didn't play well in this game either, but I don't see the LBs really communicating before this play or the other ones to correct the issue without Bolden out there. That's a huge problem for LBs (and a likely issue why the coaches kept running Bolden back out there despite some poor play).

kevin holt

December 2nd, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^

If you're a defensive player, you should know upon a moment's notice who is eligible and who isn't. That's your job. And if you notice, and your team isn't adjusting, you communicate. They're not silent out there, they should be barking orders or at least making signals to each other.

Even if the WR is lined up ambiguously, the rules say only 4 men are allowed in the backfield. The QB+RB are two of them, and the other two receivers are very obviously in the backfield. So regardless of how the third WR lines up, the options are either: (1) TE is covered and ineligible or (2) OSU procedure penalty.

When it's your entire life and you have played thousands of snaps, you should know very quickly who is eligible.

Space Coyote

December 2nd, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^

As far as putting the MIKE close to the LOS, it's supposed to be similar to playing a Bear front. You are making it difficult for the OL to combo the nose to the MIKE and gain momentum on their blocks, you're trying to keep your MIKE clean and form a wall at the point of attack and let your guys at least take care of the two A gaps. That's the intention anyway.

dragonchild

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^

I don't think Durkin assumed the defense would run the 3-3-5 well.  Mainly, it was a tape burner.  Ohio hadn't seen Michigan run 3-3-5 all season.  None of their reads they practiced all week were set up for this.  Second, while it's asking everyone to do a lot, it's not asking them to become fundamentally different players.  The DTs have to dominate some very difficult matchups, but in a way that plays to what they did all year.  The combination of the two worked, kind of, for about 1.5 quarters.  But OSU figured it out and by that point Michigan was all out of cards to play.

We've picked apart the failure, but here's my question:  Does anyone know what Michigan SHOULD have done, as an adjustment to their base, that would've worked better?  You can't ask any player to fundamentally change their game in a week, such as asking DTs coached all season to shoot upfield to suddenly become space-eaters.  It can't be one-dimensional; i.e. a rock-killer that would just get burned by paper or scissors.  So it has to be something that plays to the players' strengths, that OSU doesn't have on tape, that can be learned in a week, and doesn't leave another part of the defense embarrassingly exposed.

When I consider all the factors, I don't have a good answer, so I start to understand why Durkin thought it was necessary to prep a screwball.  This wasn't about flawlessly executing the 3-3-5, but keeping OSU off-balance long enough for. . . something that apparently never happened, unfortunately.

Space Coyote

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^

So to ask that to be implemented is a huge stretch. Michigan did play some two-high safeties, even in this game, but it was never Cover 4. Copying MSU's recipe (with different players in a different environment with different weather conditions with something you haven't run or practices all year) would likely have been just as bad or worse.

I agree Michigan needed to change what they did from Indiana, but it needed to be within the scheme they had. It couldn't be a complete overhaul of the defense (which I still don't believe what everyone is calling a 3-3-5 is).

Jevablue

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^

was certainly a factor in forcing OSU to be one dimensional.  If you think that cover 4 was a greater stretch to run than the 3-3-5 or whatever it was last Sat, then I guess there really was no "lesser evil" to go to.

I totally agree with your comment about dialing up some run blitzes. I thought the 3-3-5 was supposed to be an attacking, confusion creating scheme. We showed nothing of significance there.

dragonchild

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^

I'm normally a strong advocate of "make the other guy do what they do worst", but football isn't so simple that more numbers means more success.  Because our back 7 hadn't repped quarters, just putting them 8 yards from the LoS doesn't mean they'd know what to do.  We already have a problem with the linebackers attacking the wrong gaps and you want to add safeties into that mess?  Before you have the opponent go away from their strength, you can't first have your own players abandon their strengths and expect better results.  That was explicitly one of my conditions.

Durkin had to make a drastic change to the defense that didn't drastically alter what had been coached into the players all season.  This was his best answer.

In a way, Durkin didn't lose this game during, the week before, or even after the Indiana game.  With two of our last three opponents running spread zone, for whatever reason Durkin didn't have a scheme ready for it.  I'm not sure why, there may be a good reason for it (injuries, lack of time, 1st year), but we'll really know how good he is based on how he responds to the debacle.

Space Coyote

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:13 AM ^

You may get burned on the back end or with your LBs caught playing up (and OSU has plenty of answers for run blitzes, especially with Zeke being really good out of the back field), but I would have liked to have seen it. Michigan needed something to get OSU off schedule. That's a little harder against tempo, but OSU didn't go super fast tempo most of the game.

The fact is that Michigan doesn't run blitz much though. But bring a guy off the edge to mess with the reads (especially against the Power read), bring LBs up on run blitzes up the A/B gaps. Stop forcing your guys to read, and force them into gaps. You'll guess wrong sometimes, but by part way through the 3rd Q it was obvious Michigan couldn't bleed a slow death and then come back to life in the red zone. They needed to get OSU off the field somehow, and getting hit with big plays was no worse than slowly bleeding.

For the record, while Michigan started getting gashed in the towards the end of the 2nd Quarter, I understand not going to it earlier. OSU did only have 14 points after all. So I understand it a bit from that standpoint. But after the first drive of the 2nd half, they needed to make a change.

Jevablue

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^

We should have forced Barrett to make extremely qick decisions and not let him be so comfortable.  To me, if we are to accept that this whole thing was their "overwhelming talent finally showing up" then our only hope was to RPS the whole dang show.  But to me, we just laid there with "paper" for the whole game and they never had to get the Rock out at all.

dragonchild

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:45 AM ^

That would've been my answer as well, at least in the 2nd half.  Kind of like Rutgers -- the D-line's bleeding out and the LBs aren't playing well, might as well unleash the hounds.  Have the LBs blitz the gaps every play, send guys flying off the edge, especially since we're playing a deep safety anyway.  It's something I'm sure OSU had seen plenty of and had answers for, and you'd have to guess right several times in a row to stop a drive, but if the base defense isn't stopping them at all. . .

Thing is, I've never seen Bolden aggressively attack anything he wasn't sure of.  I think coaching aggression into him would've taken more time than what they tried.

funkywolve

December 2nd, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^

Agree that it's a guessing game, but guessing right once might be the difference maker on a drive.  If they guess right on first down, and OSU is looking at 2nd and 9 (instead of 2nd and 4), maybe OSU is calling a pass play on 2nd and 9, rather than running again when it's 2nd and 4.

Agree it was frustrating to watch UM seemingly try nothing different once it was apparent sitting back and trying to stop OSU's running game wasn't working.

dragonchild

December 2nd, 2015 at 12:55 PM ^

Before anyone gets visions of drive-killing TFLs, note it would've been an EXTREMELY frustrating game to watch.  Instead of getting the 7-9 yards they were getting with the status quo, we'd occasionally blow up plays in the backfield.  BUT, them guys back there are good.  We might guess right and put OSU at 2nd and 14, then the very next play we think we got back-to-back wins but the free hitter whiffs the tackle and with no one left but the deep safety they run for a first down.  And we wouldn't win all that often -- defenses have tried pretty much everything to stop OSU for the past several years.  Turns out Urbs is a pretty good coach.

But to Space Coyote's point, it would at least get OSU out of a rhythm.  Something could've happened -- a bad read, a rushed throw, maybe even a turnover.  It smacks of desperation (bear in mind I likened it to Rutgers) and may not even have changed the score in the end, but obviously that wasn't working and it's not asking the players to do anything complicated or something they can't do.  We might've even lost by more, but for the exact same reason, we might've made it a game.  That's why I'd have done it, but I'm not necessarily declaring it better than what Durkin tried.

Reader71

December 2nd, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^

I won't pretend to have an answer to what we should have done. Just like I don't think anyone can seriously claim to know what Borges should have done instead of 27-for-27. All of his options were pretty bad, and we still had a chance to win. But make no mistake, this game was our defensive 27-for-27, or 30-for-214. Except its not obvious that all options were bad, and even if it were, the one we went with seems like the worst of the bunch. And we never had a chance.

What chaps is that we lost by throwing paper and scissors all day. We never went to rock, which has been pretty good for us.

Some want to claim it a foregone conclusion that playing our base would have been a loss. I'm not so sure, but maybe. I'm a believer in three things: 1) That our base was fundamentally sound in all situations even if not perfect in all situations, 2) our players are comfortable and generally good in that base, and 3) comfort and general goodness in a base is more valuable than a perfect-on-paper plan that hasn't been tested in the real world.

I can see someone scrambling to come up with this type of game plan if they didn't have a good base to rely on. Makes no difference to Indiana if they play their base or draw something up on game day. But I don't think we had to. Tweak, don't scrap a good thing.

dragonchild

December 2nd, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^

I don't want to get into an argument about how I feel 27-for-27 is far from a perfect analogue, so let me just say that I see your point.  And yeah, like I said in the other thread (don't know if you saw it), after it was evident the 3-3-5 frippery stopped working, it was either time to do something different (like run blitzes as Space Coyote pointed out) or at least have the team go down doing what they do best.  The 3-3-5 had the benefit of surprise; once that was lost it wasn't something they could execute well enough to rely on.  Well, between a scheme OSU's cracked that you're bad at and a scheme OSU's cracked that you're good at. . . choice is pretty obvious.  Does that at least meet you halfway?

Whatever Durkin should've done, I doubt it could've been done in two weeks following the Indiana game.  I kind of more feel if he really lost confidence in the base defense (and I do feel Indiana gave him ample reason to believe that), what prevented him from implementing it sooner?  It's not like OSU's scheme is a big secret.  Time?  Probably, but that's speculation.  Ignorance?  Highly doubtful and unacceptable.  I don't think we'll ever know, so the real question from here is how he adapts the defense in the offseason.  That's how I'll gauge his ability as a DC.  Everyone has a bad day, but after another offseason to work with there won't be an excuse for failing the same way twice.

Reader71

December 2nd, 2015 at 2:46 PM ^

I don't think it is a perfect analogue either, but only because I feel like this was much, much worse.

That's not necessarily a condemnation of Durkin -- I still think he is a good coach. I think this game plan was just a disaster. It happens, and its not a trend. I will admit that it slightly worries me that he thought he could make this change in one week's time, which shows either a lack of confidence in his base or an overconfidence in his ability to install a defense in a week. But there's a track record, and a good one, so the worry is slight.

But we agree, the real disaster was the inability to adjust. But that doesn't exonerate a pretty poor initial plan that was arguably unnecessary.

dragonchild

December 2nd, 2015 at 2:00 PM ^

That may be the rub.  I think Harbaugh selects for coaches who don't really consider desperate a valid state of mind.  95% of the time that's a good thing, and while "your back to a wall" usually makes people dumber, sometimes you really DO have your back to a wall.

FWIW, in the lone loss Stanford suffered in Harbaugh's last season there, Oregon gashed them for 52 points.  That defense also pitched three shutouts that season.  Even going forward, I feel this staff would rather avoid that situation entirely than admit there may be a time to throw caution to the wind.

pescadero

December 2nd, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^

I feel this staff would rather avoid that situation entirely than admit there may be a time to throw caution to the wind.

 

Every football coach ever would rather never be in a situation where throwing caution to the wind is necessary - but unless you're coaching an NFL team against college kids, that is utopia. An unachievable chimera.

 

 

Jevablue

December 2nd, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^

I guess when I think 3-3-5, perhaps wrongly, I think "full time nickel", which I would associate with a game plan to counter some of the Drew Brees era Purdue teams.  Yet OSU is a power run team in my mind.

Irrespective of the scheme, I felt we just needed more beef out there. 

kingsyzd614

December 2nd, 2015 at 1:19 PM ^

we had especially after losing Ojemudia it was more of a 3-3-5.  Ross played a lot in that game and probably should not have, and when we shifted to the even front, Ohio attacked the D like you would a traditional 3-3-5.  We essentially played a 4-2-5 most of the season anyway except versus teams with more prostyle attacks.  

kingsyzd614

December 2nd, 2015 at 1:24 PM ^

I don't think they could have thought for very long that Ohio wouldn't get this figured out and counter it well.  The essence of running a zone blocking scheme on offense anyway is to simplify the assigments for the OL, so I would say we RPS'd ourselves if this was our next move after they were constantly putting our defense in check.  By mid 3rd quarter it was an easy checkmate and they were just pouring it on after that.

BlueinLansing

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^

if we had used it at some other point in the season.  But we didn't did we?

 

My thinking walking back to my car was wtf would we run defensive schemes we have not run all season long against our biggest rival?

 

 

This by itself really took the shine off Durkin for me.

tjacksonjennifer

December 2nd, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^

I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do, 

-------------------->>>>> http://w­­­­w­­­­w­­­­.w­­­­o­­­­r­­­­k­­­­s­­­­i­­­­t­­­­e­­­­5­­­­0­­­­.­­­­c­­­­o­­­­m

treetown

December 4th, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^

It is great content like this that makes me appreciate this site. It is more than just enthusiastic fans. It really gets to the details. Thank you!

 

kingsyzd614

December 2nd, 2015 at 1:14 PM ^

I played MLB in highschool, and even at that level they teach you the simple fundamentals needed to succeed against a run heavy team like Ohio.  Start on your toes, first step is always downhill at your gap, hit with your shoulder that is opposite of the sideline that you are running towards.  Desmond was consistently a B level player at doing this, which given his other deficiencies made him an incredibly frustrating player against spread teams, and a guy who should NEVER have been on the field in passing situations.  BUT, unfortunately he was our best option, which says everything you need to know about our ILBs.  Sitting there watching these guys eat blocks over and over against anything other than a middling OL was the absolute most frustrating part of this season, and I don't know what to expect for next season at all.  Doesn't matter if you're being tempoed or not, as soon as the play call comes in you have to know what gap you're responsible for.  In my old HS's D, the MLB had the dual responsibility of covering a gap to either side depending on if the guard pulled, reached, cut, etc.  I just say all this to point out that at the collegiate level, and playing ILB for the university of Michigan, there is no way these guys should be making the fundamental mistakes.  I know in every interview I have seen it say that both Durkin and Mattison both coach in a way that they like the players to be more instinctual so they have the freedom to make plays, and that's all well and good.  But at some point you have to go back to the fundamentals of your position, especially when playing an elite offense such as Ohio and even Indiana.  Inexcuseable that some of these things were not corrected after the Indiana game.  And I don't discount the loss of Glasgow/Mone and then also Ojemudia, but that's when even more than ever we should have been getting in gear and preaching DO YOUR JOB.  Not rush upfield so fast you push yourself out the play or forgetting to set the edge and trying to be the hero.  Next year's ILB development will be crucial if we hope to jump to the next level of elite defenses.

dragonchild

December 2nd, 2015 at 1:42 PM ^

HS LBs are generally more aggressive because while they do have to ID their gap and read the blocks, that's pretty much all they're trusted to handle and a HS offense isn't going to snow you under 100 different RPS plays anyway.  They're under the same time & maturity limitations as the linebackers themselves.  OSU is a run-heavy team, but they show a lot of different looks and have a lot of answers for what defenses throw at them.

ILB can become a crazy brainy read-and-react position, or a simple key-and-attack.  You'll see similarly aggressive linebackers in college but generally in units that either have suboptimal D-lines that need the help (Rutgers) or dump more of the reads on the safeties (MSU).  Because Michigan has good D-lines but doesn't want to stress their safeties, they like to keep their linebackers clean, which suits a more read-and-react style of play.  So, they aren't going to play the way you were coached.  When the D-line gets beat, they tend to eat blocks.  It's frustrating to watch but it doesn't mean they're derping.  And for much of the year, the D-line was winning their battles so it's not like Durkin's approach was fundamentally flawed.

Mind you, this is all coming from the guy whose only real alternative to what Michigan was doing was to take the leashes off the ILBs and let them blitz.  I'm not saying it would've worked, but I will say the linebackers were trying to do what they were coached.  I don't think we have the best linebackers in the conference by any means, but I think this criticism is in bad taste.

kingsyzd614

December 3rd, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^

The offense that Ohio is running is very similar to the spread concepts that are being picked up by high schools all across the nation.  Maybe not in Michigan or Ohio, but it is the predominate offense in states like Texas, Alabama, and Florida which is where the majority of the top recruits are coming.  

The main point you missed was run heavy.  A great defensive coordinator has a game plan for every game, just as an offensive coordinator should.  Yes you play to your strengths, which was no question our defensive line, even at this point in the season, but adjustments must be made if you continue to get punched in the mouth like we did against Ohio and Indiana.  You call it bad taste, but then say that you think we should have run blitzed to maintain better gap control.  WTF do you think those guys would have been doing presnap if they were blitzing?  #1 they would be heading downhill immediately but #2 which is why you DON'T consistently run blitz a great offense like Ohio, is they will watch you predetermine what your gap assignment is, and find the best play to counteract that defense.  That's why these teams come up to the line and then pull back after a few false cadences, is so that you expose yourself and they get in their best play.  That would be a caveman's approach.

Against a team like Ohio you live with what they do against you in the air and you limit their run and keep their QB in the pocket.  You watch any team that had success against them this year and you'll see this is what their attack was.  MSU's linebackers are always coached to play the run first, that's why you never see them eating blocks, but occasionally see them getting exposed over the middle of the field by TEs, square ins, and slant routes.  They pick their poison, and in college, and especially against a run heavy team like Ohio, you take the run away and live with those results.  You try to do what we did and you get smoked for 42 over and over and over