podcasts
wtka roundtable

WTKA Roundtable 9/21/2017: Shut Up I’m Talking to Craig Comment Count

Seth

image

[Eric Upchurch]

Things discussed:

  • Is Purdue for real? They’re ginning up stuff with RPS
  • Michigan is gonna get the kitchen sink. Purdue’s OL is still hard to hide.
  • Purdue does stay run/pass balanced. They screen a ton.
  • Ed has Purdue up to 21% from 8%ish. Upset talk is coming from the trolls.
  • Red zone offense does not exist.
  • Worse games than Florida-Tennessee’s 4th quarter?
  • Air Force’s power option was effective, then it went away, then it came back and was effective—Michigan didn’t adjust to it.
  • AF had safeties at 7-8 yards all game: stuff you up until they give up a huge play.
  • Unlucky that Michigan couldn’t get touchdowns when they did.
  • Where was the max pro play-action deep ball?
  • How did Don Brown fly under the radar so long?
  • RBs missing their cuts—Ty Wheatley Sr. effect?
  • Devin Bush love: so effective as a blitzer. Michigan recruited him like a 5-star
  • Don’t hit Wilton Speight with a car.

You can catch the entire episode on Michigan Insider's podcast stream on Audioboom.

Segment two is here. Segment three is here.

THE USUAL LINKS

Comments

MGlobules

September 22nd, 2017 at 9:18 AM ^

The premises have gone for too long unscrutinized. I loved Brian's assertion yesterday that red zone offense is, simply, offense. Yes, there are some issues on the short end of the field--long passes are out, etc. It does become harder to score in some ways. But every part of the field contains its own vagaries. Keep picking at this one, guys. 

Joined: 11/17/2008

MGoPoints: 47549

SAMgO

September 22nd, 2017 at 9:05 AM ^

You guys get some weird callers, man. Then again, does a rational person decide to call into a radio show in 2017 to air some snowflakes and hot takes? Are the weirdos just self-selecting?

Joined: 07/15/2013

MGoPoints: 18745

tah15

September 22nd, 2017 at 9:08 AM ^

Michigan's defense did outstanding against Air Force because we're bigger, faster, and stronger at every position. However, I was at the game and actually thought Michigan could have cut Air Force's total yardage by a hundred yards if we simply went to a 4-man front. Our linebackers did outstanding, of course, but most of the tackles were coming 4-6 yards past the line of scrimage instead of right at the line or behind as might have been the case with a Gary--Hurst--Mone/Solomon--Winovich front blowing things up for TFL's every other play. We just did not have the numbers on most of those power option plays as Brian's UFR pointed out. We got RPS's hard and still covered our responsiblities, which speaks volumes of our linebacking and DB abilities. But seriously, there's no way Air Force (or most any other team for that matter) could handle a 4-man front from us. Hurst and Gary would have been eating all day. 

Anyway, I've been saying this now for three weeks, but the reason we're not seeing more stats from Gary and Hurst is because of the angles of attack they have to take in the 3-3-5. Devin Bush may be the beneficiary, and he is doing a superb job, but I'm greedy. A 4-man front would blow up more plays behind the line of scrimmage. Having Mone or Solomon shoot the 'A' gap instead of Furbush would force a Guard/Center double team every play allowing man-to-man across the rest of the line with better angles, and open up lanes to the quarterback for Bush and McCray. It would move Gary out from a 5-tech to a 7-tech or even wide-9 position and keep double teams off of him. Hurst, too, would see one-on-one most of the time. 

Now, I like the 3-3-5 as an added wrinkle, especially on passing downs because you disguise more blitzes, but I'm not in favor of a 3-3-5 against power option football, especially for a team like OSU. The 4-2-5 killed them last year. I'm wary of a 3-man front, a la Durkin in '15, going against OSU.

Part of me wants to think we still haven't seen Michigan's best defensive look yet (perhaps on purpose?), and if that's true, lookout! 

Joined: 09/10/2017

MGoPoints: 1071

war-dawg69

September 22nd, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^

Could not figure out for the life of me why we were running a three man front against that offense. It seemed like Brown wanted to give them a chance or wanted to give our linebackes a workout. I was literally screaming at the t.v. at Brown. What the fuck are you doing?!!. Everytime we went to a four or five man front we crushed them and the QB had no where to go. We ran the worst possible defense we could and still stopped them. Since we play no other triple option teams I guess I can relax, but I do want someone to explain why Brown was running a three man line. He made everyone work harder. I just don't get it, but I know the 3-3-5 is going to kill purdue and pretty any other team that can't play power football. Really makes me nervous though that Brown was running the wrong defense. Was it by design?. For what reason?. I would have put five guys on the line and AF would have run for maybe fifty yards or less. All you have to do is seal the edge. Don't get it Mr.Brown. You flat out made it harder on your defense. Anyways my man you are spot on in your analysis and I for one don't get why Brown was running the wrong defense for a power option team. Can someone please explain it to me because I am completely lost on the 3-3-5 against this team.

Joined: 10/07/2016

MGoPoints: 3061

tah15

September 22nd, 2017 at 5:49 PM ^

I'd be happy to. Brian made clear we got RPS'd when they went heavy to one side. That is an objective fact. Everyone in the stadium could see we didn't have the numbers against the strong side of the formation and never adjusted to it. That we held them to their lowest output since 2012 speaks to our D's athletic ability, but not to our outscheming them. Our linebackers and DB's just beat their blocks over and over again, so we never gave up anything big. But had Gary and Hurst been freed up from double teams by a nose tackle, those runs get blown up in the backfield much more often. Also, no one is claiming that "Donny B" (what is that your pet name for him?) doesn't know what he's doing. We're simply wondering where his own bread and butter 4-2-5 went? There are excellent reasons for not showing it right now: a.) less depth on the line this year (but not no depth); b.) the 3-3-5 hasn't broken yet so why go away from it, especially when you can continue to gain proficiency at it; c.) Mone might be slightly injured/out of shape, so we're saving him for later; d.) Brown might be waiting to use both schemes like a Fastball/off-speed combo to confuse later opponents like he did the first drive against Florida. Anyway, the 3-3-5 has been fine, great even against the pass, but Don Brown was hired because his 4-2-5 is death to the power option (particularly spread options like OSU's). And while Air Force isn't spreading it out, the same principle applies. Our defense was outstanding Saturday, AND we still gave up 50-100 yards more than we had to simply by not adjusting to the strength of their formation. Fact! I'm just saying we probably haven't seen Michigan's best look yet (the players have been alluding to as much in interviews this week), and that is downright scary! Hats off to "Donny B" if that's the case. If not, do you think you cold introduce me to him so I could share my thoughts and "see what happens"? You obviously seem to know. Or, perhaps you could offer an actual argument next time. 

Joined: 09/10/2017

MGoPoints: 1071

Shop Smart Sho…

September 22nd, 2017 at 9:41 AM ^

I'm still not sure of the point of Ed.

He doesn't seem to understand humor, and any statistical conversations can easily be covered by Brian.  This seems to be yet another example of more being less.

Joined: 07/10/2008

MGoPoints: 9602

Laser Wolf

September 22nd, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^

We have a station here in Cleveland where the nightly newscast is called Action News. Yes they still technically cover the news, but it’s sensationalized and the goal is to appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than calmly and fairly present the news.

This is my view of Ed Feng. Yes it’s technically rooted in statistics but it seems really clickbait-y and actively tries to be against-the-grain rather than just accurate.

Joined: 07/09/2008

MGoPoints: 33417

ScruffyTheJanitor

September 22nd, 2017 at 10:34 AM ^

What does he bring to the table? It would be easier to accept the occasional "against-the-grain" opinion if he was providing real insight.

Since I know nothing of him outside of this show, I was genuinely surprised to see just how educated Ed is. He doesn NOT come accross as someone who has a PhD in Math from Stanford-- though his stats do.

In fact, he comes across as so hot-takey that it MUST be intentional. 

Joined: 02/03/2011

MGoPoints: 12197

bronxblue

September 22nd, 2017 at 4:30 PM ^

I've never quite gotten Ed's involvement either. He seems like a perfectly intelligent guy, and my guess is he has better analytics on his site for the paying customers. But the level of his statistical analysis he provides on this show at times is extremely lacking at times. It feels like he has a point to make and then forces the numbers to agree with it, to the point he'll torture it beyond logic. And it's almost funny how little Brian cares for his opinion anymore.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171436

Swayze Howell Sheen

September 22nd, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^

Agree! I was going to post on this same topic.

The vibe I get is Brian seems more negative towards Ed than vice-versa. It is almost getting to the point of bad radio, in that it makes me cringe a little bit and not want to listen. 

Not sure why that is: they both are interesting and have some different perspectives on things. Sometimes when you have two "smart" guys in a room, they feel a need to outsmart the other...

 

Joined: 10/05/2008

MGoPoints: 47082

RemembertheGatorBowl

September 22nd, 2017 at 5:58 PM ^

I love MGoBlog and pretty much all of what Brian writes but in my opinion he's a little, shall we say, arrogant in his views? He always seems to state his views as a matter of fact not opinion. Like if Sam asks what do you guys think he just says "this is how it is." Not necessarily a bad thing for a pundit though.

Joined: 08/12/2017

MGoPoints: 520

Zeke21

September 22nd, 2017 at 12:14 PM ^

Great to use stats when it favors M

Not so great when analytics show M needs improvement in certain areas.

It's ok to think Brian WRONG.  happens all the time. IE fire berenson , thinking he won't do the right thing for M. Just one example, many many others.  But 

LOVE MGOBLOG   Thanks

Joined: 12/20/2016

MGoPoints: 8751

doggdetroit

September 22nd, 2017 at 1:28 PM ^

Brian is wrong most of the time. I would suggest reading the "This Month in MGoBlog History" series for evidence. There are some real gems in there.

Joined: 09/05/2015

MGoPoints: 2337

jsquigg

September 22nd, 2017 at 2:09 PM ^

Wrong in what way?  If you are attributing this to predictions, than who isn't wrong quite a bit?  As far as analysis and processing what is happening, there are few better.  If you are talking about opinion, who isn't right and wrong simultaneously?

Joined: 09/06/2009

MGoPoints: 9621

bronxblue

September 22nd, 2017 at 4:33 PM ^

I'd love to know the context for "most of the time", but my guess is this is just hyperbole.  Because if Brian was really wrong as much as you claim, and you've been posting here semi-consistently for 2 years, I'd question your credibility.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171436