Defeating UConn: Stopping the rush
Alright, so, I'm at work and I can only do a cursory examination. I'll dive in more deeply later tonight and get you some hard numbers, but here's an overview of what I've found so far.
Endres, the QB that just got suspended, is better than Frazer, the guy we'll face, by quite a bit, but it doesn't matter. In UConn wins and losses, they passed for anywhere between 150 and 350 yards, regardless of whether it was a win or a loss. Usually they ended up somewhere about 200 yards passing.
The real key to defeating them lies in the run. The magic number appears to be about 150 yards. Last season, when they were held under 150 yards rushing, they just couldn't pull off the win. They'd get close, but it inevitably ended up as a loss for them. Over 150, and they took it to their opponent pretty good. Makes sense, right? But WHY is this the magic number.
I maintain that we WANT this game to become a shoot out (to some extent). I believe that we will find that their defense lacks endurance, and that if we can force them to pass, keeping their D on the field longer, we will wear them out quickly. That seems to have been the case last year, and I look for it to be the case again this year.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:27 AM ^
I maintain that we WANT this game to become a shoot out (to some extent).
IN general I agree, but I would put more emphasis on the 'to some extent', such as, 'on one extent'. I think we want UConn to have to shoot it out, but we want a mixture of run and shoot, with more run than shoot. If our qbs have to put it in the air more often than not, I would get concerned - that means our mobility on the ground is being stiffled, which would be a big problem for this offense.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:36 AM ^
I don't think it would be a BIG problem, but it would make the game a little tougher to pull away from. Our passing game will be pretty good this year and will compliment our running attack pretty well, IMO.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:24 AM ^
look that Clubber Lang gave the Rock right before taking him out in the second. (how did criminal charges not result from his conduct toward Mick in the tunnel? Voluntary manslaughter man, come on.)
I expect big things from M-Rob.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
What are the odds of us actually accomplishing that? I don't mean to be a downer, but the past two years have made me more of a realist when it comes to expectations. Let's face it, we were 92nd against the run (out of 115 teams) last year and that's pretty horrible. Add to that the fact that when their backs get to the third level, we have high schoolers trying to tackle Div 1 backs... I think we should shoot for under 200 yards rushing. This seems a bit more realistic to me.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
...As far as the front seven goes. Brian linked to an FSU blog a while back that was studying the matter of pure poundage in a defense's front seven.
I broke down the Wolverines separately. Michigan comes in at 1828 lbs, which really bodes well for their defense performance this season. Last year they had a front 7 of 1720 lbs. Extremely impressive improvement and the second largest we have seen (Mississippi State +120). Even more so considering the move to a 3-3-5 hybrid.
Best,
Bud Elliott
That does assume that Brandon Graham is getting replaced by Will Campbell. (The three returning starters adding about twenty pounds each seems assured.) If that's the case, Michigan's front 3.5 can hang with anyone on a pure beef level; with Barwis's emphasis on good weight they should be even better on the BEEFCAKE level.
(The second paragraph is Brian's take.)
I think Michigan's secondary might be just a bit better this year, without a gaping weak link at free safety. But the DL and the LBs will be better, too, overall, even with the loss of Graham.
http://mgoblog.com/content/unverified-voracity-no-longer-size-sixth-graders
August 24th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
If Brian's assumption of a one-for-one swap of BG and Thor is correct, then this number is invalid. Word on the semi-open practice street is that Big Will is not close to cracking the starting line-up.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
but Brian wrote that almost 2 months ago in early July. His guess was as good as anyone's back them w/r/t who would be starting (and still is, to an extent).
August 24th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
The 1720 lb figure was derived by one Bud Elliott. Brian assumed that his math included the BG/WC swap. It is that 1720 number that is now in doubt, if that assumption is true. Not knocking anyone's powers of math or of assumption, just the final result if assumption != present reality.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:24 AM ^
I'm expecting the rush defense to be pretty good this year. The D-Line should be good to awesome, and stuffing the run is what the LBs and SSs (or SS equivalents in the 3-3-5) should be good at. I'm confident that the rush defense can step up and stop some run games.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
and given our secondary this could be the game UConn wins b/c they pass.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:38 AM ^
the football. We dont want a shootout!
August 24th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
That is rarely RR's game plan. His offense is based on fast strike scoring to maximize the number of possessions and in turn the number of scoring opportunities. We've seen control the ball football for the last 40 years and while successful, resulted in a level of mediocrity that many were tired of.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:56 AM ^
Our offense could score so quickly that it results in the M defense being on the field for long periods. This was a concern in each of the last two years.
At the same time, I'm all for seeing this young defensive backfield tested with the past. Chances are, one or more of these young guys will step up and be a very good player as a freshman.
Have we ever seen Rich Rod's offense 'slow down' to take the snap at 5 secs remaining on the play clock instead of our standard 20-25 remaining? Just trying to consider ways to keep the opposing offense off the field.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^
my favorite way to keep opposing offenses off the field is 3 and outs
August 24th, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^
"Our offense could score so quickly that it results in the M defense being on the field for long periods. This was a concern in each of the last two years."
I guarantee you that neither Rich Rodriguez, nor anyone on his coaching staff will have any problem turning the ball over to the opposing team because Michigan's offense is "scoring too fast".
hilarious.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^
Yeah, no one wants to turn down points, and opposing staffs won't feel comfortable giving up a bunch of 1:23 drives because it helps their time of possession.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:01 AM ^
The problem with focusing on a stat like the 150 yds is it doesn't explain causation. It may in fact be valid but without knowing how and when that 150 yds was gained it can be misleading. This is not a jab at the OP - you hear this every week during football season, especially in the NFL.
Case in point with UConn. I watched their bowl game against South Carolina and recommend it to anyone wanting to get a look at how they play. I don't know what the final stats were but I assume they had a decent amount of rushing yards. However in the first half they had at least a couple of big pass plays that got them ahead. From there it was pretty much a physical smackdown on both sides of the ball to grind out the game. Those rushing yards gained while ahead in the second half are very different from rushing yards gained to GO ahead.
Not saying anything you are projecting is invalid - just be careful with statistics.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^
That running yardage is net of yardage lost on sacks. That skews things further. And hopefully that will be a major factor,
August 24th, 2010 at 9:39 AM ^
"I'll dive in more deeply later tonight and get you some hard numbers, but here's an overview of what I've found so far." I think the OP is aware of potentially misleading numbers. IMO, this was a little something for us to chew on during the work day, which is appreciated. Maybe it was meant as a teaser for the in depth follow up. I wouldn't know, I'm not a content generator, I am merely a consumer.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
August 24th, 2010 at 9:16 AM ^
My in-depth analysis shows that the key to winning this game is scoring more points than UConn.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
Frazer isn't a good enough passer to beat us by himself. If the D-Line can hold the point of attack, I will feel a lot better about life.
Fortunately, we have Mike Martin for that.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:30 AM ^
change...though obviously I am not being careful with stats...
| TIME OF POSSESSION | G | Total Time | Avg/G |
| ----------------------- | --- | --------------- | ----- |
| 1. Wisconsin........... | 13 | 440:52:00 | 33:54:00 |
| 2. Penn State.......... | 13 | 423:56:00 | 32:36:00 |
| 3. Ohio State.......... | 13 | 409:26:00 | 31:29:00 |
| 4. Iowa................ | 13 | 402:41:00 | 30:58:00 |
| 5. Northwestern........ | 13 | 402:00:00 | 30:55:00 |
| 6. Illinois............ | 12 | 357:56:00 | 29:49:00 |
| 7. Purdue.............. | 12 | 357:39:00 | 29:48:00 |
| 8. Indiana............. | 12 | 353:53:00 | 29:29:00 |
| 9. Minnesota........... | 13 | 375:53:00 | 28:54:00 |
| 10.Michigan State...... | 13 | 375:02:00 | 28:50:00 |
| 11.Michigan............ | 12 | 317:01:00 | 26:25:00 |
August 24th, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^
won't TOP improve a ton if our turnover ratio gets closer to even?
August 24th, 2010 at 9:11 PM ^
Michigan TOP has mostly to do with our offensive strategy (and somewhat with the fact that we weren't very good.)
Note this data is readily available. I would be interested if this was true, but I can't see it theory or observation. #1 (4th in D1) TOP B10 team Wisc is #6 (50th in D1) in TO margin (in 2009). That would make a good diary with some charts.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^
So you don't think our TOP will improve because it was bad last year? Doesn't that mean we have a lot of room to improve, and a high likelihood of it happening? I just don't understand your argument.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:56 PM ^
We aren't Wisconsin. RR plays hurry up to prevent the defense from getting in plays and personnel. It's by design. It has been his plan from early on. Even if we dominate on D, I doubt we will break 50% time of possession.
This is not an argument, it's observation. It's a big part of what we are right now.
This makes a poor D all the more poor (especially against smash mouth teams like Wisconsin.)
You're not a B10 team at 117 out of 120 in D1 wrt TOP without trying.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
Also, when we defeat UConn, don't rush the field.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
Good advice. I had completely forgotten about that argument. Hopefully we have it early and often this year.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
Let's have it now! It'll give us one more thing to do in the next 11 days.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
I'm pretty sure after Jordan Todman meets Mike Martin for the first time he will be telling the coach for no more runs up the middle.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^
about the play action deep ball with our secondary. Very very scared.
A team like UConn or MSU, or Wiscy or Iowa probably scares me more with our current secondary than would Purdue or a pass happy team. Our secondary is so inexperienced that I can see bites on the play action when the opposition is getting 3-6 yards a pop, and then, woosh, Chad Henne to Braylon Edwards long pass right over the top.
Let's hope that our free safety and corners can zone without having to worry about the front 6 or 7 stopping the run. If they can't , we're in for a long day on September 4.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
"Endres is better than Frazer" argument. More talent? Maybe. Edsall is the HC and he chose Frazer for a reason.