Al- pls take some notes from VT on how to use the slot receiver
First off, I really like Al as our OC and hope he stays a while. He seems to be an open minded guy that looks outside the program for input and I only hope he watches VT's offense a bit more than our own when he reviews film. I felt like we were playing Northwestern, actually with good athletes, and it was death by slot receiver. Maybe Coale is simply the real deal, however, I have to think that we have enough talent (and bodies) to get a similar contribution from that position. Coale had 8 catches for 117, but it felt like 18, the guy was everywhere. While I may be a bit biased since I like more incorporation of a slot receiver into the game plan since those guys can be so good in space, it just seems that we have to have some untapped production on this team. Maybe we will see more next year as the rest of the playbook is implemented.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:52 AM ^
so. Michigan is not recruiting that type of team right now. If they were going to deploy a slot-ninja system it would have been the first thing implemented with the team they were given. I think this will be hit upon on the board just below under "Bubble Screens."
January 4th, 2012 at 10:03 AM ^
That's unfortunate b/c we shouldn't hesitate to take what the defense gives us. VT doesn't have a "slot-ninja" system, either. They happen to have certain personnel w/ various strengths and while they certainly like to incorporate the bubble screen into their everyday offense, they're even more eager to use it if the defense is giving it to you. VT has Coale line up outside sometimes and sometimes have 6'-4" Marcus Davis playing the slot. Not to mention, you can run a screen with the outside receiver. We wanted Diggs so bad; you don't think it would be great to maximize the potential of guys who can make plays in space? With Denard, that may be an easy throw to help get him into a bit of a rhythm. And Gallon is already effective a lot of the time when he gets screens as it is.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:52 AM ^
Al, please take notes from Georgia Tech on how to run the option. And please take notes from Okie State on how to run a passing attack.
Al didn't recruit slot receivers. He doesn't WANT to use them the way others do. Quit trying to tell a successful career offensive coordinator how YOU think he should design an offense.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:01 AM ^
Didn't Gallon have around 500 yards this season, plus another 250 or so from Koger at TE?
Last night's offensive performance was frustrating, but it's tough to blame the OC when you can't get a running game going and are dealing with the most ball-hawkingest secondary we've faced in recent memory.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:18 AM ^
Limited mobility Molk just plain killed us. All of sudden we didn't have escape routes for Denard up the middle and the run game stalled. Al did what he could to keep VT honest, but clearly our bread and butter was passing and they were ready for it.
We also have problems in that we only have one true outside WR this year (Hemingway).
January 4th, 2012 at 10:21 AM ^
January 4th, 2012 at 10:21 AM ^
Borges an open minded guy? Why in the hell did he keep running the same plays on first down that didn't work? The yardage gained on first down was pathetic.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:25 AM ^
Yeah, Borges should have run one of the hundreds of plays that are successful even when the OL can't block the DL.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:22 AM ^
It is the OC's job to find plays that work. Al didn't adjust. He sucked bad last night, but Michigan won so it doesn't matter. Hopefully this game isn't a sign of his inability to change his gameplan in the future.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:51 AM ^
Thing is, it's EXTREMELY difficult to do that when your Oline can't block anyone. Every offense in existence will struggle when that happens. Certanly Borges could have been better, but he and everyone else was put in a very difficult situation (your best Oline player being hampered significantly by injury). The fact that they still found a way to score some points and win is remarkable. They found some things that worked, but it was very inconsistent because of the pressure up the middle hitting Denard nearly instantly.
Every run play looked the same because nothing worked. But he tried all run plays he could think of. He wanted to exploit the perimeter with his RBs, but VT was more than ready for it. The middle was impossible because Molk was gimpy. Where else can you go? What else can you do? And don't say "bubble screens". He tried some outside screens, but again, every one VT was ready for and the one they weren't fell incomplete because Denard was rushed. There was a QB oh noes that got tipped and would have been a TD. Borges tried a lot of stuff, but VT has a very good defense. And even witha healthy Molk, Michigan would still have struggled to move teh ball inconsistently.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:38 AM ^
Michigan won the game. While it may have been frustrating to watch a lot of running plays go nowhere, the passing plays didn't exactly do much, either. Sometimes, you just have to give credit to an opponent for playing an inspired game. This was one of them.
Michigan won a BCS bowl and finished 11-2. Usually, it's the losing team and their fans who bitch about their coaches.
I am just going to enjoy basking in the glow of victory for awhile. Besides, it's a lot easier to give an opponent credit for playing well when your team wins than it is when they lose.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^
At 1.9 yards per attempt, our running game was anemic. VT did not do very much in that department either. One of the best RB's in the country average 3.4 yards per attempt which was also VT's team average.
It was a win and I will take it.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:05 AM ^
with the "double hand-off/QB Keepers" we keept running. It looked like we ran some version of this play A LOT last night. There would be someone in motion--the ball would be hiked--then Denard could give it to the guy in motion, the tailback, or keep it. I don't remember seeing this much in the regular season. (I could easily be mistaken) But we ran it a ton last night and never had much success with it. It always looked like VT had collapsed on the play by the time a runner was established and tried to start moving with the ball.
(I don't really think it was a bad play, I'm just currious as to why we kept running it?)
January 4th, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^
January 4th, 2012 at 11:27 AM ^
VT's defensive strength is obviously packing a bunch of guys into the box and getting pressure as fast as possible. So to counter that... we repeatedly line up in a formation with two wingbacks and only two guys split out wide, then run slow-developing plays with multiple play fakes?
It seemed that when we went 3-WR or 4-WR and let Denard look downfield right after getting the ball, rather than faking to Odoms then faking to Fitz, he was much more successful. The play fake package may be valuable against some opponents, but not against a team that constantly blitzes off both edges and gets a guy in the face of our 6'0" QB before he even starts to look downfield.
Edit: this might go back to the constant bubble screen complaint, but establishing a quick passing game out of the 3-WR and 4-WR package might have forced VT to spread out a little, opening up running lanes. Doing so was at least worth a shot after VT proved they could stuff our runs out of conventional formations with 9 guys in the box.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^
The slowly developing part of the play is what I think hurt us the most.
January 4th, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^
Multiple times during the game. Tooooo slow