What do you want to see come out of the next bye week?

Submitted by mrkid on October 17th, 2013 at 10:45 AM
With a bye week coming up soon, I am wondering what we will see from Al Borges and co. Last time we saw them install this "Hey! We're running over here" package which worked for one week but hasn't panned out beyond that. I imagine we will see Al and co test this package with limited success against Indiana.
 
My question is this... With the next time off, if Al finally ditched the power running scheme, installed more packages from the gun, would that change your feelings on Al? What do you want to see come out of this next bye week?
 
For me, I really need to see an adjustment that is sustainable and successful for the rest of season, especially against MSU.
 
I am still behind Borges at this point, but the nail in the coffin for me would be if we test the power package against Indiana with no success and then come out and continue to do the same against MSU and the rest of the year.

Comments

CooperLily21

October 17th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^

Yes please.  If I'm being honest - I hope this doesn't get me on Brian's or Seth's bad side - it seems to me as though a week hiatus should be sufficient to get this done.  I think 99.9% of the Board is asking for it, many of whom contribute generously to Beveled Guilt.  I think we all agree that it will make the Board a kinder, more productive place.  The Board isn't the most important part of the site but its definitely very important to some of the most diehard MGoFans. 

Of course, the above is strongly tempered with the fact that I (i) know absoutely about net coding or web hosting or anything of the sort, including how much this kind of thing costs, and (ii) assume Brian et al. have been working on this diligently already so there is good reason for the delay.  I just think its important to continue to impress upon the higher ups the severe need for this system to return if possible.  I think many of us would donate additional funds to help cover the additional expense of implementation . . .

LSAClassOf2000

October 17th, 2013 at 12:11 PM ^

I will also add that one of the advantages of the old system for mods was quick identification of problematic comments. Even with the -1 to +5 system, I would use key in on a mass of grayed out posts as places to begin. It did help me a little bit anyway - others I know use different means. 

vbnautilus

October 17th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^

I'm not sure what you have against people feeling better about themselves, but for me it was a huge time saver. Rather than read through every post in a 4 page thread, I could filter, read through the 5s and get the gist.

I also think social reward /punishment is a reasonable incentive to improve the quality of posts.

As for your second comment, I wonder if there is a way to retrieve that data. I suspect you are very wrong and that the majority of people read through filtered.

BlueNote

October 17th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^

I admit that points have some practical advantages.

However, a point system leads to groupthink.  It drowns out the minority viewpoints.  Sometimes those minority viewpoints are from trolls, but sometimes they are legitimate positions that should be recognized and addressed.  Having a real dialogue between people with different views usually leads to a better understanding of things by both parties.

Mgoblog began as a countercultural phenomenon, a bulwark against a homogenous mainstream media.  For Mgoblog to suppress a counterculture that grows within the blog itself would be shortsighted, hypocritical and sad.

 

MGoStrength

October 17th, 2013 at 9:08 PM ^

I can predict ahead of time whether or not my comment will be up or down voted, which to me means it is not based on merit, but rather popular opinion.  Ultimately, I am more interested in the discussion (the why's, support, etc.) itself rather than if other's neccessarily agree or disagree.

Indiana Blue

October 17th, 2013 at 10:52 AM ^

ugh.  Isn't one bye week enough?   As much as I hate what happened last weekend and its aftermath, I dread another week of just not having Michigan football getting ready for a game.

ZZZzzzzz

joeyb

October 17th, 2013 at 11:23 AM ^

It only happens every few years, but it's because of the way that they set the first and last days of available regular season play. Sometimes, the thursday prior to labor day through the first saturday in December equates to 14 weeks, hence the two bye weeks.

mGrowOld

October 17th, 2013 at 10:57 AM ^

A recognition on the part of our entire coaching staff that running offensive plays that tip the defense as to what's coming and where are death.  Counters, screens, draws...ANYTHING other that telegraphing the play in advance.

One thing I just thought of though as I typed that.....why the Hell hasn't Mattison or any of the Defensive coaches told Borges that running these plays are suicide?  I have to imagine they run the hell out of them in practice so you would think our defense would be royally stuffing these plays themselves.  Are these things actually working in practice or is the defense instructed to pretend to NOT know what's coming and line up in a base formation?

It would seem to me that the guy would know  most of all that these exciting new plays are doomed would be our defensive coordinator.  

Erik_in_Dayton

October 17th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^

My impression is that it's very rare for coaches to step into each other's spheres like that.  My guess is that there is an unspoken rule that you don't step on another guy's toes...He's also probably so deep in the weeds working on technique with his guys that he's not thinking much about the offense's success on Saturday. 

I remember RR saying that he thought up his offense in part by taking from the offenses that he'd found most difficult to defend as a defensive player.  He was a head coach at that point, though, so he had more room to think about both sides of the ball.   

mrkid

October 17th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^

I agree with you mGrowOld. I want to see Al finally say, "Okay, this isn't working. Let's go with what we know has worked" and install some new pass/run plays out of the gun, or simply install some run plays from the gun and stick with the pass plays that have worked.

I want so badly for them to abandon something that clearly hasn't worked. I appreciated reading SpaceCoyotes review on MaizeNBrew. The play calls were good, but the execution wasn't and that has been a recurring theme this year.

Abandon the stuff that isn't working because of execution, not because the play call is bad, but because we simply cannot execute. Go with the plays we are executing and install things that are more along that line.

MGoStrength

October 17th, 2013 at 9:12 PM ^

It still boggles my mind that a coordinator at Michigan doesn't get this.  I'm just not sure why this is our strategy.  Are we trying to be predictable?  What kind of a strategy is that?  And why we can check to other plays when it is obvious what we are doing is beyond me.  Isn't that like super basic football?

abertain

October 17th, 2013 at 11:00 AM ^

I'd like to see them install a tackle, tackle over play, where, everyone lines up on one side of the line with A.J. Williams and Jake Butt on the left side of the line an Lewan, Schofield, Kalis, and aw hell Bosch lined up to the right. Then I want them to run right 25 to thirty times in the game behind those guys. Also, I want them to be playing someone terrible.

 

Otherwise, yeah, probably a lot of Pistol and the NASCAR offense that M debuted for two plays, before abandoning it completely after a Gardner INT. Washington and Oregon have both showed you can be a kick ass running team out of a spread formation. It doesn't require you to suddenly only pass the ball. Granted that's what M should do this year given their talents, but, yeah, up tempo, pistol, Galllon, Funchess and Dileo as the base set out of  a one back with Butt at tight end or Kerridge at FB or Chesson at WR, depending on the play call. Then, let if fly, and do it quickly. But really tackke, tackle over is what I'm looking for. WR's are overrated. 

Erik_in_Dayton

October 17th, 2013 at 11:19 AM ^

I'd like to see the defense come out of the bye very well prepared for MSU's offense...I'd like to see Ryan play more too, but I suppose everyone is at the mercy of his knee when it comes to that...I don't have much hope for Michigan's offense against MSU, and I say that as a credit to them as much as anything.     

sbeck04

October 17th, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^

They've shown that they are going to blow at least one game every year with asinine, stubborn play calling. What I want to see is a dynamic, opportunistic game plan next year. I want it to last all year too without the customary loss due to stubbornly insisting on being smash mouth.

jblaze

October 17th, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^

new offensive plays and make it look like the SOS, while actually having wrinkles to outsmart the opposing DCs.

On D, I'd like them to do some exotic blitz packages.

joeyb

October 17th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^

A game plan that involves more shotgun, pistol, and passing. It would also be ideal if they would let Gardner check down into something when he sees DBs 10-12 yards off the line, but I'd settle for my first request.

aiglick

October 17th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^

State's corners press a lot so we probably won't see them play off our receivers unless we beat them deep several times. Still throwing relatively safe passes should be part of the game plan. I wouldn't mind throwing deep and seeing if we can get a few big plays and/or pass interferences since they seemed vulnerable to that against ND.

I Have A Gnarly Face

October 17th, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^

This offensive line (any pretty much everyone for that matter) better get their shit together because MSU won't be as easy as I originally thought they would be. I'd feel much more confident if this game were in Ann Arbor, but clearly it's a must win.

sammylittle

October 17th, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^

I want to see in this order: a win, an offensive gameplan that limits the profanity issuing from my mouth, and a competent running game predicated on competent blocking by the offensive line.

reshp1

October 17th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^

The tackle over stuff also failed because neither Lewan nor Schofield could seal that hole, not just because Penn State knew it was coming. Minnesota probably knew it was coming when they saw the formation the first time, and certainly every time after it and they couldn't stop it. I mean the whole play is designed so you have your two best guys next to each other to seal a hole and then send a bunch of lead blockers through.

As far as what I'd like to see... I'd like to see some more short passes to test defenses horizontally. I'd like to develop the jet sweep/end around concept to more than one play but a set of plays from the same look that can capitalize on defenses reacting AND not reacting.

Mostly though, I'd just like to see improvement in fundamental blocking. At this point, that's the biggest issue in my mind. Scheme hasn't been great, but lots of teams far less talented have done more with just as vanilla offenses.

Indiana Blue

October 17th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^

The tackle over stuff also failed because neither Lewan nor Schofield could seal that hole

Uhhh - with a stacked 8 man in the box defense and their best 2 defensive tackles against your 2 best offensive tackles ... simply means there isn't going to be any hole, regardless of your lead blockers. You are simply running into a wall of humanity.

reshp1

October 17th, 2013 at 2:05 PM ^

Add up the numbers. We have 5 OL, 1 TE, 1 Hback, 1 Full Back on most tackle over plays. That's 8 blockers, 1 for every defender. By design, the play also takes back side pursuit out of the equation, so you actually have a numbers advantage at the point of attack. So what if the DE was lifted for a DT? Taylor Lewan is an All American and Schofield is purportedly All Conference level. They should be able to seal the hole. They sure as hell have a better chance than Bryant and Glasgow doing it against the same DT. Seal the linemen and shoot your lead blockers through the hole to get the LBs and it's gravy. In fact, this is exactly how it happened in a lot of plays except one guys screws up and blows the whole play up. Read Brian's 27 for 27 piece, I know it's painful, but it's incredibly instructive and better than just the way oversimplified answer of "but there's 8 in the box!!, YU NO PASS?" The majority of issues weren't running into a stacked box.

 

EDIT: Here, I did the math for you. Running into too many defenders was good for 59 points of blame, per Brian's system. OL and TE/FB combined for 121 points of blame, over double. That's not even excising short yardage situations or clock killing mode situations where every single team in the country would be running the ball, stacked boxes or not.

http://mgoblog.com/content/27-27-document

Indiana Blue

October 17th, 2013 at 11:06 PM ^

running into layers of defenders with the KNOWN fact that this team cannot run (take Gardner's run statistics out the totals).  Their safety was essentially the 9th defender on first down which leaves ONLY man coverage on Gallon and Funchess.  Do you think the PSU secondary ... generally considered as very weak, could cover either of these receivers man to man?

Your argument fails the results test.  And results are what matters.

Perkis-Size Me

October 17th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^

Stop being so damn predictable on offense. If you see the defense stacking the box with 8-9 guys, don't just decide you're going to run the ball up the gut anyway. You thought that looked bad against Penn State? Imagine how bad it'll look against a defense that's actually good, and against a coach who's sole reason for existence in this world is to try and beat Michigan.