PFF on Michigan-Indiana
PFF on Michigan-Indiana. Interesting take on our struggles against the run. Hope we can shore it up this week. Confirms what most observers saw: Godin and Bolden really struggled. Interested to see the UFR this week.
— Michigan’s run defense was exposed for the first time this season, but it wasn’t because they were overpowered on the line. No, the Wolverine’s defense looked completely lost trying to maintain gap control against the Hoosier’s stretch plays. Michigan’s defensive line likes to fire off straight upfield at the snap. This works great against downhill runs like inside zone where they had great success Saturday. But versis outside zone firing upfield creates very wide running lanes when one defensive tackle flows down the line of scrimmage and another one doesn’t. The poor discipline made the job extremely difficult on Michigan’s linebackers. Matthew Godin (-5.3) and Joe Bolden (-3.6) were the two that struggled the most.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 11:40 AM ^
There's a few typos in there. I guess they have to rush these out with all the games they have to cover.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:10 PM ^
Oh yeah, Jake-who Chesson.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 11:45 AM ^
Indiana has killed Michigan with pin and pull stretch play. OSU runs that play and I bet Urban will have that play repped out for Michigan game.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:38 PM ^
But neither use it as a primary run like Indiana does. They'll do it to keep defenses from cheating inside, but they are primarily inside zone/power O teams.
I actually have a write-up on OSU's pin and pull scheme: LINK
PSU featured and inside zone pin and pull scheme during their spring game, adn ran a bunch of it in the spring, and have run it consistently during the year; but not to the degree Indiana does (and not nearly as well, especially because their LT is the weakness of their OL).
November 17th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^
After Brian discussed it a few times, this was the first week I really noticed and felt we were getting owned on trap blocks.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
They down blocked. It was their pin and pull scheme.
Trap block is when a blocker pulls behind the LOS (behind other OL). Down blocks are blocking the gap away from where the run is going in front of other blockers.
November 17th, 2015 at 1:54 PM ^
Hmm sure felt to me like a lot of guys were getting into the backfield before getting blocked. Hopefully the UFR will shine some more light on it.
November 17th, 2015 at 2:03 PM ^
I can't tell you whether Indiana ran any traps or not without looking back at the film. That's not a staple play of their offense, so it would be somewhat surprising if they did.
You certainly some OL pulling with some down blocks in front of them, which can look like a trap in some ways. If there's penetration on the front side, then the pulling OL need to pick up those penetrators. Maybe you saw a situation like that once or twice where Howard cut it up inside, but I don't think there were any legit traps.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^
I could be wrong but I belive they were outside zone runs... The Howard read and cut-up field... A zone run by design has multiple lanes a runner can pick based on his vision. I think the runs were up the middle but they were outside zone design.
Hope that makes sense.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:24 PM ^
Indiana gashed Michigan a few times with inside zone, but probably 75+% was either stretch zone or pin and pull.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^
Because the RB runs inside the tackles on stretch zone. But it's still stretch. You can tell by the angle the RB is taking. If he's initially aiming at the OT/TEs butt, it's stretch, if it's the A or B gap, it's inside zone.
Most of Indiana's inside zone was in 3rd/4th and short situations. A lot of Indiana's stretch plays (especially in the 1st half) were cut back inside, because the DTs took themselves out of the play (shooting upfield), the DEs got sealed outside, and the LBs couldn't flow fast enough to beat free releasing OL to the spot (then they started guessing because they were losing, and when they started guessing they started taking themselves out of the play)
November 17th, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 17th, 2015 at 11:40 AM ^
and national reaction to the Indiana game is angering me. OSU, MSU, and Iowa very nearly lost to Indiana, all at home. It has not had any effect on the perception of their team. Most playoff predictions right now have us remaining behind Baylor, and some have Houston, NC, Stanford and Florida State ahead of us seemingly based on the narrow Indiana win. I will give you Baylor and whatever UNC is going to lose to Clemson. Stanford, Houston and Florida State all either lost or had uninspiring victories and it would be unfair if they are ranked ahead of is. Sorry. Thread jack complete.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 12:03 PM ^
I've already forgotten about this game.
November 17th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^
What game?
November 17th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^
The 41 points for IU is the thing. People see 40+ and flip out. They actually only scored 27 against our defense in regulation, but a lot of people don't know that.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^
20 points in regulation
7 were on the punt return
November 17th, 2015 at 12:28 PM ^
Indiana scored 34 points in regulation, 7 on the punt return. Technically, the defense didn't give up those points, but Indiana would have been starting that drive with excellent field position around midfield. It was very likely they would have gotten at least a FG on that possession as Indiana had picked up at least 25 yards on every possession so I think even calling 27 points is a bit of a stretch.
November 17th, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^
two of those points were extra points.
November 17th, 2015 at 2:50 PM ^
In regulation our defense gave up two touchdowns (including a two-point conversion) and four field goals. That's 27 points.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:45 AM ^
Just keep reminding yourself that it doesn't matter. Beat two top-5 teams to end the season and we'll have our say. May not be enough to get into the playoffs, but it won't be because of this week's rankings.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
just seems like a double standard. Indiana took OSU to the last playoff the game WITHOUT Sudfeld and nobody cares. State looked like Garbage against Indiana without Howard and Indiana had a field goal to lead with 5 minutes to play. The committee should consider these things when it deliberates and should also look at the Stanford loss to a team that Michigan absolutely obliterated. Florida State almost lost to (YT) Miami at home two weeks before they fired Golden. All of these things should be considered and not just a defense that had one off day. Second rant complete.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^
I mean, we were obviously closer to losing to IU than any of those other teams. I don't see how you can watch that game and have a ton of confidence in Michigan's defense going forward. Any unbiased voter is going to look at that and have questions.
Regardless, we've been consistently ranked as the best two-loss team, and probably will continue to be going forward. I don't think we can really complain about our national perception -- we've been getting lots of cred, and will continue to get it if we win out.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^
either Stanford or FSU will be ahead of us. Both of those would present rather problematic issues for any playoff chances. Whatever I guess, I am getting ahead of myself. Just need to get back in the gym and be at my best for Penn State.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:16 PM ^
MSU and Ohio State fans are upset because they think that Michigan is getting too much publicity, too much favorable coverage, and that Michigan is overrated.
Personally, I think Michigan is rated about right. Remember, this is the first game where Rudock has really opened things up in the passing game. Also, we still don't have much of a running game. I mean, give Indiana credit. But yeah, I want to see how Michigan does against a team that has both a solid secondary and a stout defensive line. I also want to see how our DL does against a team that can both run and pass. Michigan is doing great, and Harbaugh is giving them a great chance to win. But I don't think we are very complete of a team.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^
I work with are nervous as hell about playing us this year. One of them is even convinced that Harbaugh is going to make Meyer his bitch every year like we used to do to John Cooper.
The smart OSU fans (all 6 of them) are concerned.
November 18th, 2015 at 8:10 AM ^
Michigan should be competitive. Still, with the loss of Glasgow, I think this makes things much more difficult this year.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^
Stanford would only be close if we both win out. We rate to gain more from our remaining games and have a better loss and a better conference at the top. The Big Ten is going to get a team in over the PAC-12. I think they have no realistic chance. We need ND to stumble so root for Stanford.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 17th, 2015 at 2:28 PM ^
They've lost two games, don't qualfy for their CCG and Clemson is likely in. UNC winning out would make things interesting.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:34 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 17th, 2015 at 4:55 PM ^
FSU has no chance because at best they would be the second ACC team. If they had the exact same resume and could win the ACC, they might have an outside shot. I was responding to a post about FSU and Stanford getting in ahead of us. It was never about our chances vs Clemson.
November 17th, 2015 at 2:39 PM ^
That's about when people started to seriously rethingk the perception of OSU as the super team they were expected to be entering the season. And about when people started saying, "you know, I think one-loss Michigan is better than MSU." I think you are suffering a little recency bias.
The polls have us as the top ranked 2-loss team. MSU gained separation on us not because people suddenly think they're better, but rather that pollsters couldn't justify putting a 2-loss Michigan over 1-loss Baylor, TCU, UNC (who may have been criminally underrated for a while) and undefeated Houston. Again. Win out and we'll be fine. May not get in, but it won't be from disrespect or because of a close win over Indiana.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^
The last thing that happened is surely the next that will happen. The reality is, with this team especially, we haven't yet seen the same issues in losses and near losses. Against Utah it was offensive discombulation and turnovers--wrapping those issues up nicely since then. Against MSU, the passing game was stagnant and unable to open up the run and has improved markedly since. Against Minnesota, Leidner threw balls dipped in unicorn tears all over the secondary, hasn't happened since (or before really). Against Rutgers, well, death. We saw death. Indiana gashed us on the edges with pacing, very high quality OL play and an all-conference level TB against a suddenly retooling UM DL.
Did I just thread jack your thread jack? In short, I AGREE.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:58 AM ^
you did but I have lost track. Good insight though.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:05 PM ^
I'm not worried that Indiana played us close. I'm worried that Ohio State can replicate Indiana's strategy with much better playmakers and a great running quarterback.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:10 PM ^
for their performances. Sparty moreso than OSU, but I think people noted that Sparty was just barely getting by. That's why there are so many 1-loss teams ahead of them. If they get spanked by OSU, I bet they drop to near the back of the pack of two-loss teams.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:28 PM ^
A lot of people were like "OSU almost lost to Indiana" and laughed and talked about how much they were struggling (and this is when Indiana's record was still decent). Indiana's record is now much worse, and Michigan got gashed on D much worse than those other teams did.
My guess is you're feeling the reaction more than you did with the other teams (remember, MSU got the same reaction with several of their other early opponents, the final (misleading) score of the MSU-Indiana game mitigated some of that talk for that game) because it's negatively impacting Michigan. I personally thought Indiana exposed some issues Michigan currently has, and the reaction isn't completely unjustified until Michigan has showed they corrected some of those issues.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^
Those teams all have something else in common. They all have less losses than we do. I don't think anyone can complain about our national perception for as long as we are the top 2 loss team.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^
don't think we will be anymore based on a win against a team that has given everybody fits. That is what bothers me.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
looking forward to UFR.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^
Interesting tidbit that Howard is one of the top 5 ranked RBs in the nation this year. That makes me feel slightly better about Saturday...
November 17th, 2015 at 11:53 AM ^
He and Sudfeld both left the osu game injured and they still had a chance on the last play to win.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:09 PM ^
They were also injured or did not play against Rutgers and Penn State. If healthy, Indiana might have 7 or 8 wins.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^
Howard is a very solid back. He reminds me a little bit of Arian Foster - sneaky but not great speed, really hard to bring down without solid contact. Outside of Fournette, Henry, and the now-injured Nick Chubb, I don't think I've seen a better back this year. (Utah's Devontae Booker has not impressed me.)