Breakdown Sports - Coaching Points: Michigan vs OSU
I went into some depth with my thoughts on the game, still based off the original watch.
Offensive Summary:
- Michigan believed based on film that their core playbook was sufficient for what they wanted to do offensively, and provided the highest likelihood for success (vs the idea of drastically altering things for one game in an effort to catch the opponent off guard, it's a risk balance equation)
- Michigan did add some new wrinkles, as they do in most game. There were some things OSU hadn't seen on film that in theory were good additions. Mixed results overall, but the new wrinkles were basically the scope of wrinkles added week-to-week
- Some plays that are in the playbook were missing, and I question some of that.
- Gameplan going into the game was mostly sound - they rode what got them there - but did not adjust quick enough when defense started struggling
- Don't like handling of backup QB. Other personnel issues aren't significant.
Defensive Summary:
- Game plan going in was bad
- Brown made quick adjustments and then extensive adjustments at half; the game snow balled on him though
- OSU was extremely well prepared. They knew what parts of their core playbook they would start with, and understood Michigan's checks and adjustments and were consistently step-for-step with anything Brown threw at them
- Pressure didn't get home, to small degree there was a schematic reason (to protect against the run), but mostly was about execution on OSU's part
- Some questions about what to do going forward.
Overall:
- There are no excuses. Michigan got whooped. Schematically, adjustments, talent; and then it snowballed on them. I don't think either side of the ball needs to drastically change. I think they need to adjust some things, add a few new wrinkles to help when the game situation changes on both offense and defense, and do a good self-scout so that opponents aren't so prepared to change with you when you do.
November 26th, 2018 at 4:49 PM ^
It all seemed too easy for OSU in the short passing game. To me, we just did not have the cover chops to match what OSU had on the field. I was really impressed with their mix of WR talent, including adding in that freshman (#17) who caught two TDs and also blocked the punt. That must have been a surprise matchup because he hasn't played a ton up until UM.
November 26th, 2018 at 4:29 PM ^
I agree - this game was not won or lost in the trenches. This game was won by quick reads to WRs that could dust our slowest cover guys (designed crosses/rubs/picks). And if we were in full man coverage, the downfield WR patterns were designed to create huge chunks of open space in front of that free-running receiver. Zone helped contain YAC, but Haskins was really on his game and found open guys quickly in medium range. To me the guy we missed the most in this game was Mo Hurst. The pocket was too clean as our DTs did not match well with OSU's interior. The doubles on Gary and Winovich held up because our DTs created no havoc, no push from one-on-one.
November 26th, 2018 at 3:54 PM ^
Offense puts up the equivalent of 41 pts. This is all on the defense.
November 26th, 2018 at 4:08 PM ^
As someone in another thread said, the question should be, why did the defense give up 55 points, rather than why didn't the offense score 63
November 26th, 2018 at 4:11 PM ^
Offense put up 20 in the 4th quarter when their D relaxed.
Offense had (essentially) 20 in the first three, one score coming when they handed us the ball inside their 10.
Offense had 238 yards and averaged 4.3 yards per play through 3 quarters.
November 26th, 2018 at 5:32 PM ^
100% agree with this. Michigan had 9 drives start outside OSU's 10 yard line in the first 3 quarters and netted 13 points. The offense may not have been the biggest issue of the day, but they weren't the solution either. This wasn't Alabama they were up against.
November 26th, 2018 at 6:19 PM ^
I agree that the defense was our biggest problem. However, it was somehow more frustrating to watch the run, run, pass thing again. I just hate that style of offense. Bronxblue said, on a different post, that we threw on first or second down 1/3 of the time but it sure didn't seem like it to me. I thought an audible to a pass on many of those stacked box 1st and 2nd downs would have been effective. We tried to run our standard D and they just played horribly and were outgunned. That sucks, but the offense left a ton of points on the field through conservative scheme imo which was somehow more frustrating to me.
Our best match ups were collins and DPJ downfield and we just stubbornly stuck with ground and pound.
November 26th, 2018 at 4:16 PM ^
This was good to read...
My thought was that OSU, defensively, just told their DL to eat blocks and the LB's to stand still until the played showed itself. Not let them get caught up in motion or misdirection - just hold until its clear what the play is doing. We did nothing to attack that. There was nothing, aside from a couple of DPJ slants, that attacked the middle or punished the LB's for crashing gaps. Where was a TE seam for the 6'8" mismatch? Where were the RPOs and ZRs out of power formations? I remember two ZR keepers all day. I'm sure there were more that he gave on, but jeez! At least Brown tried to change things up, I don't think Harbaugh tried anything different from the base offense.
The WRs on this team are lethal - yet they are only used as constraints. Even when the ass-kicking starts early, often, and is completely unstoppable. At some point, Michigan has to realize that it's okay to use the pass to setup runs. I have never seen that, outside of RichRod and the Hoke games that featured DRob and DGard actually being spread QBs (and Carr's last game). It's like Michigan thinks Bo created football and refuses to move on. Maybe someday, some coach can look to the innovations that Fielding Yost and Fritz Chrysler brought in and realize that it's okay for Michigan to move forward and do new things...
November 27th, 2018 at 11:05 AM ^
Michigan attacked the seam at least twice, and Gentry dropped it both times.
November 26th, 2018 at 5:06 PM ^
Interesting tweet by Kareem...
November 26th, 2018 at 5:49 PM ^
The offensive game plan was trash. Route trees were ridiculously long and vertical. No crossing routes and quick 3 step drops. Did not exploit OSUs slow middle LBs and safety. Bad plan. L
November 26th, 2018 at 6:09 PM ^
Since JH is big on improvement leads to success, I hope his improvement is becoming more scheme/strategy conscious. Look at Beilein. After Holy Cross, he remarked how certain scheme/personnel would give HC layups. He made the proper adjustment.
JB adapts to how the game changes (change in shot clock, positionless basketball, etc.)
You don’t heat JH talk in detail about scheme or strategies. Need more emphasis on this part of coaching.
November 26th, 2018 at 9:13 PM ^
Beilein plays the part of the old innocent grand pa quite well. If John Lithgow coaches basketball.
However behind all that is killer who wont hesitate to see your big time college hoops team, with all its highly ranked 5 stars and stick a dagger right in your throat.
November 26th, 2018 at 6:20 PM ^
Fantastic article SC! Really enjoy reading your stuff (mostly via twitter) due to the fact I never played football and am always learning now. The thing that sticks out for me, and is frustrating as hell, is the point you make about how well the OSU offensive staff prepared and EXACTLY which matchups they wanted to exploit. They even had adjustments to Brown's adjustments ready to go at a moment's notice. You cited no such preparation on the Michigan side, stating that they ran what got them to this point with a new wrinkle or two. Why/how is there such a disparity between the two coaching staffs and their respective ability to game plan for a specific opponent?
November 26th, 2018 at 7:21 PM ^
I'm not going to say our offense lit the place on fire, but the gameplan was fine on that side even though people are going to complain a lot regarding it. If you told me we score 39 points I would have said we win for sure. This game was all on the defense. We were supposed to have one of the best defenses in the country(and I still believe they are), but the best defenses don't get 62 points scored on them.
November 26th, 2018 at 7:49 PM ^
Just typed in Jim Harbaugh into google and dude is getting skewered all over the place. Youch.
November 27th, 2018 at 12:21 AM ^
Just imagine how poor Mark Dantonio must feel. This was supposed to be a better season for them than last.
November 26th, 2018 at 9:31 PM ^
Hell yes. Analysis. Looking forward to reading this soon.
November 26th, 2018 at 10:01 PM ^
Defensive Summary:
- Game plan going in was bad
Brown made quick adjustments and then extensive adjustments at half; the game snow balled on him thoughOSU was extremely well prepared. They knew what parts of their core playbook they would start with, and understood Michigan's checks and adjustments and were consistently step-for-step with anything Brown threw at themPressure didn't get home, to small degree there was a schematic reason (to protect against the run), but mostly was about execution on OSU's part.- The rest was an attempt to put whipped cream on shit.
November 26th, 2018 at 10:38 PM ^
My biggest fear going into this game is that when Don Brown goes up against OCs he has coached with on the same staff previously they know the depth of his play book very well. Moorehead said as much last year when PSU put up 42 on us. Ryan Day and Don Brown were on the same staff at Boston College going against each other practice in and practice out. He would have intimate knowledge of what Brown will adjust into, if he will zone bracket, etc. He also knows that Brown doesn't play a quarters defense or mitigate crossing routes with stand stills off quarter alignments (look at it as a defensive pick if you will). He had adjustments for the adjustments because he knows the playbook. This is not something people focused on our discussed but my team and I do modeled betting and this is a factor that causes HUGE variance in results. From underdogs to unexpected blowouts. Something to consider....
November 27th, 2018 at 12:00 AM ^
If this is true then what a long con/inside job. Classic Urban to hire someone who can neutralize brown as he intimately knew his schemes. I mean this proves OSU just prepped specifically for Michigan for a while.
November 27th, 2018 at 8:15 AM ^
This is very interesting.
Back in the Llyod Carr days Michigan was know as playing a lot of varieties of zone and never press coverage. Michigan had great athletes, and it was fundamentally well played, and resulted in the look of a bend-but-don't-break defense. It required an offense to run a lot of plays successfully to get a score. But good QBs would carve up that defense. Games would often result in only 8 possessions for each team rather than 11 or 12. More variance that way, and thus more potential for upsets.
For years, people (including me) were clamoring for press, man to man coverage. We had the athletes, and would result in both more 3 and outs and big plays. But it also would give Michigan more possessions, thus giving the better team a better chance of winning.
The problem is both approaches, if run virtually exclusively (say 80% or more of the time) are quite vulnerable. It also seems that Ohio State's offense is designed to defeat a man-to-man coverage. I don't think that is by accident, and while it might cause some problems with other, lesser opponents, it pays huge dividends when they play Michigan. Ohio State gives up something here; being less dominant over the lesser teams in the conference (unlike Michigan).
Obviously running multiple defenses is difficult as you have to run all of them well. But I think running a number of different defenses well is better than running 1 great and the others sub-standard or not at all.
I guess my point above is if your game plan consists of running variations of man coverage (with very little mix up of zone), any in-game adjustments against a team designed to dissect man coverages would be of such minimal impact as to be akin to rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic.
November 26th, 2018 at 11:03 PM ^
Thanks for the analysis! Overall, I feel there is hope for the future because Jim Harbaugh is so competitive. He will keep at it until he succeeds. He will continue to upgrade recruiting and make coaching moves in an effort to improve. He is all about constant improvement.
The year before Jim Harbaugh arrived we were 5-7, including a loss to Rutgers and a 24 point loss to MSU. This year we dominated Wisconsin, Michigan St and Penn St by a combined score of 101-27. So that's tremendous progress. But, it took a lot of energy and focus to do that though. We couldn't afford to put as much attention on OSU as they do on us.
When we are putting more attention on OSU, one area that it seems like we could improve on is targeting their weaknesses and also adjusting to their schemes in real time, like they do with us. It seems like we focus mostly on improving our own execution regardless of what they do. For example, the pregame scouting report identified one of OSU's weaknesses (relative weaknesses) as their secondary. Much of their defensive backs' technique against Maryland was terrible, yet instead of attacking there, we run up the middle into their strength.
Also, how many times do you see other teams go up to the line of scrimmage, then stop and look to the sideline for an adjustment because the defense is showing an unfavorable look? How many times do you see teams run motion, not just to change alignment and create confusion for the defense, but to better identify the defensive coverage (i.e., man vs zone, etc). It seems like we are going to run what we want to run regardless of what the defense does.
Similarly, I remember when Jimmy Johnson, when he was winning Super Bowls with the Dallas Cowboys, saying that they didn't really focus much on their opponents. He felt like if they executed the way they were capable, no one was going to stop them. Doesn't it seem like we have a similar approach?
November 27th, 2018 at 12:23 AM ^
Always look forward to the educational content you provide SC.
Very informative.