Papercuts And Paddles

Submitted by Brian on October 4th, 2010 at 1:08 PM

10/2/2010 – Michigan 42, Indiana 35 – 5-0, 1-0

 roy-roundtree-indiana-2010 image terrence-talbott-indiana-2010

AP, Lon Horwedel/AnnArbor.com (slideshow), MGoBlue.com

When you want to watch ESPNU in Sedona, Arizona, you go to this place called "Sticks and Steaks." To get there you drive past a massive tourist art complex with a faux-native name, a sign exhorting you take advantage of Angel Lightfoot's magic healing crystal expertise, and an enormous, profligate fountain in the middle of the damn desert. Whatever Sedona's purpose was when someone said "screw it" and set up camp in 1902 is gone, replaced by a talent for taking money that was jammed into old ladies' bank accounts and circulating it through the economy again.

Inside this place you'll find TVs, horse betting, and a motley collection of people who would rather be home for three and a half hours on Saturday. In front of me there were a couple peeved Texas fans watching their team get punked by Oklahoma. Behind me there was a Wisconsin guy who asked if I was wearing my lucky Michigan tie. (I wasn't: I'd neglected to bring one and had to drive back to the next town over and stop at their outlet strip mall to get one.) A couple of old women who didn't care about football ate there; as they left one of them said they'd gone to Indiana and was surprised the game was even that close.

I think it was an attempt to comfort me, as I'd spent the hour they were there pulling my hair back over my skull and swearing under my breath. Sometimes not so under my breath, too. I said something about how IU's quarterback was outlandishly good and hoped it was true.

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

I do not have to tell you this but I will anyway: that game was bizarre.

In the aftermath it stands as a tribute to how useless time of possession is. Michigan's put-upon defense actually got better in the second half of their 98-play version of Ishtar, and it turns out that a touchdown scored in three plays is worth just as much as a touchdown scored in 14. We have sufficient evidence now to declare this finding statistically significant. So that's nice.

In progress it felt like dying from a thousand paper cuts only to be brought back with the crashing thunder of paddles, conscious and fully aware you were about to do it all over again. The opponent holding the ball for 42 minutes might not mean much statistically, but it does make most of the game an agonizing slog.

As a result, records were set across the Michigan fanbase for "most muted response to a 70-yard touchdown." Such a thing wouldn't have been possible even four years ago. I remember thinking to myself "that's 25% of the points we need to win" after the first drive of the '06 Ohio State game, and I was delighted through a whole commercial break. I grew up with angry cold Midwestern football where touchdowns were hard-earned things only somewhat less rare than goals in soccer. Each one was a major step towards your goal, and punting a guy down inside their ten was tantamount to getting the ball back on the fifty.

Now a touchdown is just holding serve. When Denard fumbled the snap on the one I thought "this is going to be a 99-yard touchdown drive," and then it was a 99-yard touchdown drive. It's disorienting, and as Indiana is driving down the field again you can't even figure out who to scream at because no one's in the same zip code as the receiver, and you hate everything about everything because this is MICHIGAN we don't do things like this.

On the other hand, "this is MICHIGAN" also applies to an offense that could end up loaded with NFL talent and still come nowhere near this one. Michigan still has Denard and its blitzkrieg of an offensive line and a bunch of wide-receivers who draw straws to determine who gets this week's monster day. One day when the defense is capable of covering guys here and there, Michigan will club people. At the moment it's about having the ball last.

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

I got somewhat demonstrative during all of this, which is why the Wisconsin guy asked me about my tie and the Indiana woman offered a ham-fisted attempt at comfort. People found me entertaining as I alternated between brief flashes of happiness and long stretches of sports Tourette's, I guess. I probably would have too.

As I was leaving this other guy who I hadn't even noticed added his bit, jovially saying "Hey, you survived." I had. They had, unlike Texas or Wisconsin or Indiana. The Texas folk hadn't even made it past halftime. The fiancée, still able to engage in small talk beyond grunts and squeaks, asked who he was rooting for. He said "USC, but they don't play yet." When they did, they lost to Washington for the second straight year. There are worse things than getting bombed for 480 yards by Ben Chappell even if it doesn't feel like it at the time.

NON-BULLETS. CLEAR!

Stop it. I've defended the three man rush but good lord you have got to be kidding me. I defended the 3-3-5 but that's when I thought it would be used to create a wide variety of four-and-five man fronts with unpredictable blitzing. Michigan probably rushed more than three guys 10% of the time in the second half, and when they did that it was four. I can't support having Craig Roh and using him in zone coverage on every snap.

What's worse was the inane substitution pattern. Every Indiana run in the second half was a wasted down, and probably would have been a wasted down even if you replaced Banks with Roh and brought in a cornerback. One of this defense's few assets is the pass rushing ability of the outside linebackers, but Michigan is going out of its way to avoid using it.

Stop it, but the clock. I would have thrown a shoe at the TV if Michigan had botched time management at the end of the half like Indiana did. How do you get inside the 20 on that drive with a minute or so on the clock and end up with four seconds on third and goal? Indiana let the clock run from 13 seconds to 9 after a first and goal play before calling timeout, which meant they'd just blown an opportunity to run a fourth down. They got the TD anyway, but that was a sequence worthy of Les Miles.

Speaking of decisions like going for it on third there…

How Denard Robinson is like multi-way callers in a limit hold-em game. There is a phenomenon in limit hold-em called "schooling" where a bunch of weak players who call a lot of hands they should ditch accidentally make their play close to right, frustrating more experienced players with a strong hand they'd like to get heads up with.

I think about this every time an opposing coach defies his inner Lovie Smith and goes for it on a fourth-and-Romer down against Michigan or eschews a half-ending field goal attempt in an effort to score the seven it's obvious they'll need to keep up with Denard. Michigan has now faced 15 fourth down attempts on the season, which is double the next-highest total in the Big Ten and triple the average*. They've converted nine of these, turning a bunch of drives that would have been punts or field goal attempts against a less terrifying offense into touchdowns.

The difference is that the coaches' decisions are statistically correct, not just less wrong. Which is not so good for Michigan. Bill Lynch did manage to punt from the Michigan 42 on fourth and short, which just goes to show that it is the nature of all coaches to play it safe. I'm hoping as we get into the stodgy section of the schedule we'll see more insane decisions to punt when Michigan scrapes together a stop. Someone can tell Mark Dantonio and Kirk Ferentz and Joe Paterno that they should go for it, but what are the chances they listen? Maybe 40%?

*(FWIW, I disagree with the author's assertion that the reason Michigan's opponents are exceeding their yardage season averages when they play M is because Michigan is the "red-letter" game on the schedule. It's just because Michigan's defense sucks.)

Same thing on our side of the ball. Michigan should have gone for it on fourth and one in the second half; instead they sent Forcier out to pooch it. I'm fine with the pooch punting in general, as it's impossible to return or even catch one. Michigan netted 39 yards on Forcier's attempt, which would be good for 23rd nationally as a season-long average.

But punting in that situation? No thanks. When your offense is tearing through the opposition like M's offense was that Mathlete chart about correct decisions swings way towards going for it there.

Part of the problem may be the apparent lack of faith in Michigan's bigger backs. Cox didn't appear at all and Hopkins was just used as a blocker; when Vincent Smith is your best TB option (blocking or running) short yardage is less of a certainty. I'm still not a fan of Smith this year despite the long run against IU. He didn't have to do anything except run through a gaping void and run through an attempt to tackle him from behind. He's reliable, but having him at tailback is like having Greg Mathews on punt returns.

False. I knew this would happen in the aftermath; I could even feel Pam Ward complain about it despite not having any sound for the game: time of possession is a Problem That Must Be Solved:

It could not be clearer that Michigan doesn't need much time to score.

But what the Wolverines do need is the ability to keep their defense off the field. This defense is young, and it's still learning, and without the Michigan offense, its flaws would be that much more evident.

The Daily's Joe Stapleton also offered something along those lines.

Anyone who's read this blog for longer than a couple weeks knows the general outline of what's to come but whatever here goes: a touchdown is worth seven points no matter how long it takes to score, and having an offense that rips down the field in three or four plays against Indiana is not a bad thing. Against better defenses those opportunities will be much rarer. And what is Denard supposed to do, anyway? Kneel down at the 20?

It's the defense's job to get off the field. The offense is a thing to score points with. Was it good that Roy Roundtree got caught at the three? Not so much. If Michigan wants to bring TOP closer to even they'll have to get much better or blitz like madmen, but since that's a stupid goal to have they should only do the latter if it also makes it more likely they'll get stops.

Slight mitigation. One effect of Michigan's rapid-fire touchdown drives was to inflate Indiana's opportunities. Both teams had twelve bonafide drives in the game. That's 50% more than the opener against UConn; Michigan would have expected to give up 23 points if they'd faced eight IU drives. Which is still terrible, but maybe slightly less so than it seemed.

ELSEWHERE

I was in transit yesterday so no VOAV; apologies. Here's the Michigan defense highlight reel:

Something slightly longer from WH:

There are also BTN and MGoBlue highlight packages.

In non-video items: a serendipitous sideline photo gallery. Michigan's ridiculous "on pace for" numbers. Mike DeSimone has resumed his incredibly useful photo collecting. Wow, Les Miles. Wow Denard from the Indy Star:

There are certain moments that reveal a potential Heisman Trophy winner's essence, and that came on that final five-play, 73-yard game-winning drive that sealed the 42-35 victory.

"Shoelace'' has got my Heisman vote, and it would take an act of God to make me change my mind.

ESPN's Heisman watch says it's "Robinson and everyone else":

Now it's just getting ridiculous. I mean, at some point shouldn't we stop being amazed? We've seen it for five weeks now. Shouldn't we be used to it? I'm talking, of course, about Michigan QB Denard Robinson, and the answer is no. We haven't seen this type of college football playmaker since … Barry Sanders?

Postgame GERG-RR stills from MVictors are… not so happy. Ace asks if we're jaded already. I'll talk about this more in a bit but despite the stuff about the three-man rush above, complaints like those of BWS

The real story is that Greg Robinson's defensive schemes do not work. No longer is this a question of defensive talent or improper personnel. No, sadly, this is far more systematic: Greg Robinson's schemes Do Not Work.

I've been advocating a man coverage package for the last three weeks. Robinson has shown it sparingly. Not that I'm more qualified to run this defense, but Robinson's inability--or maybe stubbornness--to show new looks is far and away the most disappointing aspect of this season. Play after play (and now game after game), teams are running quick slants and seven-yard hitch routes and absolutely shredding Michigan's defense. And it's not that the defense looks athletically overmatched. They look unprepared and poorly coached.

…are kind of ridiculous. James Rogers cannot change direction. Jordan Kovacs cannot cover people man to man. There are massive personnel deficiencies that need covering up.

Comments

umich_fan1

October 4th, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^

I was screaming like ya'll about too many 3 man rushes. A few times it worked out alright. Thinking about it rationally, is dropping 7 guys so much worse than dropping 8 guys in coverage?  Would that really cause that coverage to be much more poorer? I guess I wait like everyone else for more analysis based on defensive coverage vs. outcome of the play. I worry that MSU TEs will kill us if we rush 3 guys as much as we did against IU. Cousins will throw at least one horrible INT based on his first five games. My biggest issue was that when we rushed 3 guys, we showed it with little movement pre-snap. When we blitzed from the corner, My grandma could have read it as the QB. We flat out need to show something else, something better, and more variety on defense to beat MSU. Or Denard will need to totally win the game himself on offense. I am hoping he gets a little help this week.

Yard Dog

October 4th, 2010 at 3:48 PM ^

His Syracuse teams stunk.  His UM defense stinks.  Has he had an incredible amount of injuries and attrition to deal with?  Definitely.  But in light of what he does not have, he does not seem to be planning for what he does still have at his disposable.  I'd like to see a bit more risk taking rather than playing "bend don't break" defense, which typically leaves us broken. 

I'm hellaciously worried that MSU is going to ram it down our throats, run a couple of really good play action passes, and keep Denard off the field as much as possible.

Please do not let this nightmare scenario come through.

And all the Sparty fans who think that Denard can't smoke your team, suck it.

Yard Dog

October 4th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^

His Syracuse teams stunk.  His UM defense stinks.  Has he had an incredible amount of injuries and attrition to deal with?  Definitely.  But in light of what he does not have, he does not seem to be planning for what he does still have at his disposable.  I'd like to see a bit more risk taking rather than playing "bend don't break" defense, which typically leaves us broken. 

I'm hellaciously worried that MSU is going to ram it down our throats, run a couple of really good play action passes, and keep Denard off the field as much as possible.

Please do not let this nightmare scenario come through.

And all the Sparty fans who think that Denard can't smoke your team, suck it.

Yard Dog

October 4th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^

His Syracuse teams stunk.  His UM defense stinks.  Has he had an incredible amount of injuries and attrition to deal with?  Definitely.  But in light of what he does not have, he does not seem to be planning for what he does still have at his disposable.  I'd like to see a bit more risk taking rather than playing "bend don't break" defense, which typically leaves us broken. 

I'm hellaciously worried that MSU is going to ram it down our throats, run a couple of really good play action passes, and keep Denard off the field as much as possible.

Please do not let this nightmare scenario come through.

And all the Sparty fans who think that Denard can't smoke your team, suck it.

sdogg1m

October 4th, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^

I understand the problems and the lack of experience on the defense but someone seriously needs to teach these guys to get low on their tackles. That is just good old fashioned fundamental football and they are failing at it.

Other than that I was bummed about the fumble at the one. I think the game would have a much much different conclusion if it weren't for that turnover. We know what we are getting from the defense but the offense cannot make an error like that.

tvaduva

October 5th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^

I don't know tackling fundamentals, but I assume you're right about that.

I expect that the defense will let the opponent score more than they should.  When they stop them, I am surprised and happy.  I think that's the only way to keep sane this year.

But, the offense has to keep serve and capitalize on all opportunities.  It's not fair, but it's the only way we can win this year.

Emarcy

October 4th, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^

until 2012 and beyond when this defense has all the needed parts to force a lot of three and outs.  We score in three plays, then the defense forces a quick punt.  This should even out the TOP numbers and result in scores like 98-6.  Please happen.

myantoniobass …

October 4th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^

I really like comparing Smith to Greg Mathews at PR.  RichRod almost said as much in the rivals article that was previously linked in the diaries.  I was also hoping you would point out in the UFR how utterly lost Craig Roh looks in a drop back zone compared to his strength of rushing the QB.  Great read today.

umaz1

October 4th, 2010 at 9:37 PM ^

Couldnt agree more about the fumble on the one.  Somehow I just knew that instead of going up 21 to 7...we were about to get tied up.  We had so many chances to go up 14 and just couldnt put a drive together.  The scarey thing is that our offense still isnt firing on all cylinders. We had 5 punts on Saturday. If we can turn just a couple of those punts into TD's, we will be sitting pretty no matter who we play.

MGoBlog Fan

October 4th, 2010 at 10:26 PM ^

Brian,

You are exactly correct that touchdowns drives that last 3 minutes are worth the same number of points as drives that last 8 minutes.  If anything, with an offense like Michigan's, you would want to score as quickly as possible in order to increase the potential number of groupings of independent tests (IOW, drives).

I have been looking at tempo-free applied to football (I think someone else here is working on the same thing).  Subtracting out kneel-downs and non-offensive scores, Michigan's offense is currently at a 52.6% Drive Success Rate (that is, scores at the end of a drive, whether TD or FG) and averaging 3.6 PPD.

If you were scoring on 52.6% of drives, and had a weak defense, wouldn't it make sense to maximize your number of possible offensive drives in a game?  Wouldn't 14 possible drives (on average, 50.4 points/game) be better than 8 possible drives (on average, 28.8 points/game)?

Conversely, Michigan's opponents would want to minimize the potential number of Michigan offensive drives per game.  The conventional wisdom is to "keep your defense off the field", but that's got the point of emphasis backwards -- the idea is to keep the other guys' offense off the field.

So for example, MSU may go into low variance playcalling (also known as "vanilla up the middle run strategy", in an attempt to limit the number of potential Michigan possessions.  Should MSU keep Michigan to 8 possessions -- on average, Michigan would score 28.8 points.  Do you believe MSU could put more than 28 up on Michigan's defense?  I do.

Keeping with your poker metaphor, I'd like to refer to Alfred Snyder's The Poker Tournament Formula. Snyder refers to "playing fast" and "playing slow" [not the same as slowplaying.]  Michigan wants to play fast, in order to maximize the number of Michigan offensive possessions.  Michigan's opponents should play slow, in order to minimize the number of Michigan offensive possessions.  Of course, Michigan's opponents should alter the pace of play, should Michigan be successful on more than 50% of their possessions.

[Incidentally, Snyder's book, if you haven't read it, is awesome.  It discusses pace of play; goes into the RPS nature of poker; ties in boat people, cagey codgers and ballcap kids; and advocates playing without even looking at your cards.  Take his advice or leave it, it is a very thought-provoking barbecuing of sacred cows similar to RichRod or Mike Leach philosophies of offense.]