Pages

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Michigan 27, Northwestern 19 (3 overtimes)

Freshman running back Derrick Green saw his first significant Big Ten action and responded with 19 carries for 79 yards
Fire Brady Hoke? Okay, I would probably never call for a head coach's firing based on one play, but I have rarely been angrier at a single in-game decision than Hoke's call to go for it on 4th-and-2 down 9-6 with a little under six minutes remaining in the game. You have an offense that can't run the ball consistently or protect the quarterback, a chip-shot field goal begging to be taken, and you . . . run a quarterback bootleg? Don't get me wrong - that might be the best run play to call in that situation, keeping the ball in the hands of your most dynamic runner. But take the 3 points. Theoretically, a field goal in that situation ties the game at 9-9 and turns the last-second field goal into the game-winner. It all worked out in the end, but that's still the wrong decision by Hoke at that point.

Brendan Gibbons must have hated Rich Rodriguez. Ever since Brady Hoke arrived in 2011, Gibbons has been about as good as anyone could realistically ask a kicker to be, aside from the four overtime game against Penn State earlier this season. Gibbons was 4/4 on field goals in this game and 1/1 on extra points, but the most impressive kick was a 44-yard field goal from the right hash with no time on the clock to send the game into overtime.

The offensive line is fixed! The Wolverines are back to having a dominating offensive line after allowing just 5 sacks and allowing the team to rush for 139 yards on 44 carries, a 3.2-yard average. That's a marked improvement from the average of 7 sacks and -34.5 rushing yards per game for the previous two weeks. On a serious note, folks, I still think I saw Taylor Lewan and Michael Schofield both whiff on pass blocks that turned into sacks, which seems to support the idea that Michigan's offensive linemen are regressing or at least remaining stagnant. The positive rushing yards were a step in the right direction, but Northwestern has a small-ish defensive front that creates plays using quickness and blitzing frequently. Perhaps a game like this will give the offensive line a tiny bit of confidence in their abilities as a unit, but people said the same thing following the Indiana game.

There may or may not be a running back controversy. Fifth year senior starter Fitzgerald Toussaint dressed but did not play in the game, allowing freshmen Derrick Green (19 carries, 79 yards) and De'Veon Smith (8 carries, 41 yards) to take all of the running back carries. Green in particular looked solid because he hit the hole hard, unlike earlier in the season when he looked tentative and preoccupied with not fumbling. He also finished runs nicely once he got in the open field by lowering his shoulder and punishing tacklers. If Michigan could open holes consistently and get him on second- and third-level defenders more often, those hits would start to take a toll and turn into some even bigger runs. In addition to his 23- and 22-yard rumbles, Smith tossed in a nifty 16-yard run up the gut. I still believe Toussaint is the more explosive back because of his ability to make people miss and accelerate, but he's not strong enough to run through tackles of first-level defenders . . . and the offensive line isn't good enough to keep those first-level defenders from getting their mitts on him.

Al Borges's creativity goes in spurts. I've noticed in offensive coordinator Al Borges's three years at Michigan that he tends to get ideas that last two or three weeks, and then he eventually abandons them. This was one of those weeks that he got creative, so we'll see how long it lasts. Hopefully, he can beat Iowa with these types of plays and then come up with some new wrinkles for Ohio State. This game featured numerous bubble screen pump fake draws to Derrick Green, which seemed to open up some running lanes. As soon as I saw Devin Funchess line up in the slot to the left in overtime, I thought to myself, "Okay, it's about time to actually run the bubble," and Devin Gardner promptly whistled it out to Funchess . . . who gained about 4 yards before fumbling (and luckily recovered his own fumble). Michigan doesn't throw it often or well enough to make the draw a staple of the offense every week, but they can still pull it out once or twice a game and hope to have some success. Additionally, Borges decided to strategically rotate his running backs, using Green and Smith in the I-formation while sending in redshirt sophomore Justice Hayes and fullbacks to help out in shotgun formations. I thought that mitigated the pass rush a little bit, even though Gardner still went down 5 times; he had more time to throw than in past games, but the wet and windy weather combined with a good coverage team caused him to hold onto the ball a little too long.

Michigan's defense is coming along nicely. They allow too many short passes, but I think defensive coordinator Greg Mattison is finally settling in with which players on his team can do what. There seems to be more situational subbing and guys moving around as the year goes on, which makes it difficult for the offense to get a bead on what the defense is doing. Nose tackle Quinton Washington had his best game of the year, and I thought Joe Bolden had a quietly solid game, too. Michigan also moved around guys like Jibreel Black and Taco Charlton; blitzed the inside linebackers quite a bit; and sent corners and safeties at times, something he has rarely seemed to do. There's no Mike Martin up the middle, and Jake Ryan isn't quite back to his former self, but it's a good unit across the board.

Wet weather woes. Overall, it was probably a good thing that the field and ball were wet, because Northwestern dropped a bunch of potential interceptions. But the same issue plagued a couple Michigan receivers who are normally sure-handed in Drew Dileo and Jeremy Gallon. Meanwhile, Gardner short-armed and airmailed some throws on the way to a 24/43 day for 226 yards and 1 touchdown. It was a pretty ugly football game to watch because of a lack of big plays, but the good guys won so I'm temporarily satisfied.

How good is Northwestern? The Wildcats are 4-6 after having won their first four games of the year. That six-game losing streak has to be frustrating. Quarterback/running back/slot receiver Kain Colter has obviously been their star, but they're one or two players away from being a serious contender in the Big Ten. They obviously miss running back/returner Venric Mark. If he were healthy or if quarterback Kain Colter could hand off the ball to running back Kain Colter or throw the ball to slot receiver Kain Colter, Michigan probably would have lost this game and Northwestern would be 7-3 or 8-2. I feel like this has often been the story with Northwestern throughout the years - they have one good player surrounded with a bunch of so-so players, which just isn't enough to get them over the hump. Last year with Colter and Mark healthy, they looked like a team on the verge of a breakout. Unfortunately for them, their recruiting hasn't allowed them to have two studs at the same time. But they're doing a good job with their 2014 recruiting class (I really like RB Justin Jackson and WR Dareian Watkins), got a good quarterback in 2013 with Matt Alviti, and seem to have things going in the right direction. Northwestern is not going away anytime soon.

41 comments:

  1. I don't know why you're praising Borges, I thought he called another terrible game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anything in particular you dispute? That's not a whole lot of detail.

      Delete
  2. Im no expert, but I liked the 4th down call. The defense looked awesome, and lack of conversion did pin the Cats as close to the goal line as any punt. I think this is a case where success would have made Hoke a genius.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I liked the call to go for it. I hated the play call. You are calling a play that everyone knows is coming, and running it to the short side of the field. Spread everyone out and get Gardner in space at the least. Give him some sort of run pass option.

      Delete
    2. Imagine if Gallon getting tackled at the end of regulation was the final play, leaving Michigan with a 9-6 loss. I don't think Michigan fans here and elsewhere would be in support of Hoke's decision in that case. Objectively, it was a poor choice to go for it when the team can't run the ball well and was horribly unsuccessful in 3rd- and 4th-down situations.

      Delete
    3. That's probably true, but that's because fans tend to judge plays by the outcome. The flipside is that if it had worked and we'd have scored, few would have had any problem with it. I just did not like the idea of giving NW the ball last in a tie game.

      I don't think that short-yardage necessitates a run anyway. I thought 3rd and 1 was a golden opportunity to run play-action. Maybe 4th down, too.

      Delete
  3. I think I know the two plays you say Schofield and Lewan blew. I saw Schofield just flat out get beat by his guy but Lewan for some reason just chipped his guy then blocked air...I think that same guy proceeded to get the sack.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I liked the decision to go for it. I was dreading kicking the FG and then watching NW drive for a game-winning score with little time left. Knowing that Pat Fitzgerald is a very conservative coach, I figured he'd be content to sit on the ball if we failed, and he'd have horrible field position in that event. If the score is tied, Fitzgerald is going to play more aggressively, and maybe our D gives up another heartbreaking final score. Basically, if I have to choose between a chance at the lead and a chance at the tie, I want the lead if the odds are reasonable (4th and 2 is not unreasonable).

    Also, keep in mind that we only got into position for the final FG by going for it on 4th down earlier in the drive. We would not have done that with the score tied. In a tie game, we'll obviously never go for it in our own territory in the final minute of the game.

    Having said that, I didn't love the 3rd or 4th-down play calls. Why not try a jump ball to Funchess in the end zone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I liked the decision as well. Risk is always there on such calls. The distance was substantial and there was a good chance of not making the FG. Had that happened, fans would've been so angry at Hoke for playing it safe. I can see where thunder is coming from, too.

      Delete
    2. The distance wasn't substantial. It was around the 5-yard line, which would mean roughly a 22-yard kick.

      Delete
    3. So it was 4th-and-goal and not 4th-and-2?

      Delete
    4. So it was 4th-and-goal and not 4th-and-2?

      Delete
    5. No, it was 4th-and-2. A first down was possible.

      Delete
    6. I must've gotten mixed up. Yes if it was that close a FG might make more sense. I should've watched the game more carefully but I was doing stuff on the side as well.

      Delete
  5. With respect to the decision to go for it on 4th down rather than kick the field goal ... imagine he kicked the field goal to tie it and Michigan went on to lose the game by a field goal. The criticism then would be Hoke was too conservative, and a TD would have secured a 1 point win. Yeah, that's a lot of "what ifs" piled on top one another. But at the time Michigan decided to go for it on 4th the thought that went through my mind was that Hoke was preparing an answer for critics who claimed he was too conservative. I may be over-thinking it. We'll never know because Hoke will never say.

    Agree with you on some of the Borges-creativity. So help me, if we see Borges retreat back to tried-and-failed ways against Iowa, I will scream myself horse.

    Final thought -- I would like to see a chart showing the success rate of Gardner under center this season. I'll bet it's less than 10% successful, meaning positive yards of any kind. And why Gardner is *ever* allowed to turn his back on the defense is a complete mystery to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really doubt that the criticism would be very strong that Hoke was "too conservative" for kicking a field goal on 4th-and-2 to tie the game. The rationale here is that Hoke trusted his defense to stop the Wildcats, get the ball back, and give the offense another chance to score. If that's your entire rationale, then shouldn't it also be true that he would have trusted the defense not to allow Northwestern to score once it was 9-9?

      Delete
    2. Well, we recently had the PSU game, where Hoke took a ton of flack for "not playing to win." Kicking the FG is the safe option, but it can't win the game. Going for the TD can win you the game.

      Delete
    3. Hoke absolutely would have been criticized for kicking the FG by a lot of people. Especially if we lost, and x100 if the FG was not converted.

      Mathlete laid out the odds for an average team. And while Michigan's O is below average and kicker is above average, the math still says going is the right call if you want to win the game.

      Delete
  6. Big picture: This was another terrible game from this offense. Not scoring a TD through 4 quarters against this northwestern team is a joke. Running for under 4 ypc is bad, no matter the weather. The D looked solid, as it has for 95% of the season.

    On the 4th down call - I disagreed with the call too, but I'm not mad about it. Objectively, it's the right call to win the game when you can, rather than trying for a (less than) 50% chance at it. Could have missed the kick, plus for all Hoke knew, NW was just going to go back the other way and kick a FG to win after he tied it up. Even if you assume you can take it to overtime, your odds of winning are worse than 50%. So...win the game when you can. If you think you have even a 50/50 chance of converting, you do it. It was the right call to win the game, just the wrong team to call if for, because our offense is embarrassingly terrible. I'd have kicked it too, but I'm glad that Hoke made the right choice here, rather than playing scared. If the expectation is for the position, that mentality has to extend to the head coach as well. His job is to put his team in position to win football games and expect it to convert 2 yards against northwestern - no matter how damn crummy they look.

    Gibbons but especially Glanda and Dileo were just awesome on that kick at the end of regulation. Fantastic job. We're going to miss Glanda, who has to go down as the most famous long-snapper in M history - right?

    "Green in particular looked solid because he hit the hole hard," -- the key point there is that holes actually existed!. They were noticeable, especially compared to the last few weeks. If Fitz was healthy he'd have run for 120 yards or more in this one. It concerns me that Green and Smith aren't getting anything extra when they get to the second level. I do like their potential to pound teams, eventually, but they need the OL to create holes even more than Fitz does. Green still needs to lose 20 pounds, but it's down from the 25-30 he needed to lose earlier in the year, it seems to me.

    It was good to see those guys get work. As I said before, it's time for more young kids to get action to develop for next year.

    Overall, it looked like progress for the OL despite the still-awful performance. It was not a total disaster. Hooray! Big picture: we suck.

    Don't know if it was the weather or what, but Gardner looked as inaccurate as I can remember. Will need to be better vs Iowa.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Having praised Hoke in the past under similar circumstances for having some cajones, i can't in all fairness criticize going for it at the end of the fourth quarter Saturday, except to say that I wouldn't have done it for way double, absolute no doubt about it sure, as I'm agreeing with thunder here that this offensive line is featuring inferior versions of both Taylor Lewan and Michael Schofield, not to mention the lack of pound for pound, inch for inch the single greatest offensive lineman I've ever watched play college football in David Molk. I don't know where you find the trust in this group to open a hole.

    Borges play calling hasn't and does't irritate me quite as much as it has/does a bunch of others around here mostly because I watch offensive linemen try and miss or walk past obvious blocks without hitting anybody and it occurs to me that Borges could be the all time deity of play calling and nothing could possibly come of it anyway.

    I condemn Borges for his QB coaching. Going back to high school, Gardner has been a kid that will lower his eyes and get tunnel vision straight into a defenders thigh pads when pressured. He has not improved one whit when it comes to this issue with his game. You saw it time and time again Saturday as Gardner seldom takes off out of a collapsing pocket and clears trouble, but rather drops his head and ducks around the pocket seeing nothing while looking like a six year old girl about to get caught at tag. All that's missing is the giggling.

    Borges does a lot of talking about feet and fundamentals of QB play while coaching two of the more gifted athletes to ever play the position anytime, anywhere. Instead of slavishly filing off the edges of these two supremely gifted square pegs, he should have been boring out the round hole that is his system. I have him as a complete failure here as a QB coach. If RR were coaching the QBs we'd be breaking scoreboards all over the conference. Both teams.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You saw it time and time again Saturday as Gardner seldom takes off out of a collapsing pocket and clears trouble, but rather drops his head and ducks around the pocket"

      Agree ... and he seems to sense trouble before trouble is really present. His tendency to pull the ball down and seek some escape occurs a half-click or more sooner than other, more poised QBs.

      "Instead of slavishly filing off the edges of these two supremely gifted square pegs, he should have been boring out the round hole that is his system."

      That is a very well-crafted sentence ... conveying a whole bucket of truth. Well done.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. I am def not impressed with QB development under this regime.

      Delete
    3. Agreed. Definitely not impressed with QB development under this regime.

      Delete
    4. George Whitfield Jr. trains Gardner in the summer

      Delete
    5. This is what I think I'm seeing. Two instinctive athletes in a row slowed down significantly by thinking.

      Shifting weight, correct foot placement, delivering the football properly, wrist fundamentals etc. are all good things to drill on in the summer. The goal of course being to develop improved physical habits that replace some of your faulty ones.

      But ..... the single last thing in this world you want during a football game or maybe better put any specific play within a football is your quarterback thinking about his feet while he's throwing the football. By game time, that stuff is either in there, or it ain't. If it ain't and this is your guy, it's now your job as coach to give the kid a game plan and set of rules that works for whatever it is that has caused you to make him your guy. That's assuming of course that the reason he's your guy isn't that there ain't no other guy. Which is at least part of the case here this year. Still, Gardner can play. We've all seen it. We've all also seen way too many plays that have featured an inexplicable nothing that even remotely resembles adequate Quarterback play, and what looks to me to be a classic example of paralysis by analysis.

      I think I'm seeing a kid whose coaching staff is so deep in his head, he no longer knows the sound of his own voice.

      Delete
  8. Cam Gordon needs a shoutout here as well. I don't get how he rarely saw the field during the first half of the season.

    Green looks like a different player than in the first few games, and it's all mental. He's starting to trust his decisions and his ball security. I've never been high on Smith, but he looks improved physically from the first game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely agreed. As thunder says, Green and Smith are bigger and stronger than Fitz, and therefore punish defenders when tackled. I can see the two young guys doing great things from now on. And I am excited about the '14 RB as well. He looks like a real deal.

      Delete
    2. I have been looking for Cam Gordon to play more since last year. In my opinion, he's too good of an athlete to keep off the field. It's tough with Gordon and Jake Ryan at the same position, and while Beyer has improved since last year, I still think Ryan and Gordon are the top two guys to worry about rotating in there.

      Delete
  9. Magnus - I afree with most of what you write, but I think the OL improved much more than you see. The RBs ran for 120 yds on 27 carries , or 4.4 yds/carry; the sacks reduced the totals (and I thought most of those were on the QB's poor scrambling or holding the ball too long). Much of it was between the tackles with the OL opening holes. No matter how good Northwestern was, that's a huge turnaround; we couldn't even open holes against Akron and UConn, IIRC. So first, some kudos:
    * To KYLE BOSCH, for NOT quitting
    * To GRAHAM GLASGOW, for NOT quitting
    * To ERIK MAGNUSON for NOT quitting

    Here are three kids, playing against much more experienced competition, who have only experienced failure and letting down their teammates and watching their RBs and QB get beat up; with no track record of success to hang their confidence on; widely criticized, ridiculed, and abandoned by their own fans; who didn't give up and turned it around (what have quitters ever accomplished?). Wow, it was as exciting to watch as the victory itself.

    Is the OL "fixed"? Not at all, but that's a huge step forward.

    Also, without reviewing it systematically, it seemed like our FB and TE blocking, which I thought had been as weak as the interior OL, hasn't improved. I thought that was the cause of some sacks, etc.

    Go Blue!
    Long Time Alum

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. Let's see how they fare against Iowa. Iowa is much stronger at the LOS, so it will be a serious test for the Wolverines. If they can keep improving and Borges gets less stubborn, we have a chance. Playing at Kinnick is never easy, but there's a chance for victory for us.

      Delete
    2. I really don't think those OL have been "ridiculed" and "abandoned" by their fans as much as you think. In my opinion, the bulk of the vitriol has been (rightfully) directed at the coaches instead of the players. If anything, there's been a rather strong sense of sympathy towards the players.

      It was nice to have some yards on the ground. That said, this game should not have been "exciting." My elation didn't last longer than an hour after the victory, because Michigan did not deserve to win that game. OSU looms and a four-score beatdown seems unavoidable.

      Delete
    3. To BlastBleat88:
      Not directed at the players? A few quotes directed against the oline come to mind which have appeared on various sites. "These guys are terrible why don't they show some pride." "Have to get Miller out of there I'd rather have a bad snap in a game then have every snap get run over" "Kalis looks like he's lost out there" "We can see that stars don't mean much these guys were overrated" "Glasgow has been terrible bring Miller back" "These guys can't even handle simple high school blocking" "I can't understand how Funchess can be in his second year and not know how to block" and on and on. If I felt like doing the research I could find you a few dozen more. Rarely if ever does anyone rise to the players defense.

      In a sense it really doesn't matter, because whether the fans like it or not these players have made it very very clear that they consider the coaches part of the team. They don't believe the coaches deserve the vitriol the fan base has heaped upon them and are disgusted by fan behavior in general. How many times do you need to hear the players say "We are playing for each other" or "We know that we're a family (players and coaches) and we are the only ones we can trust to have our backs"?

      Whatever fan opinion, it's pretty clear that the players feel they've been ridiculed and abandoned by the fans. The team, both the players and the coaches, deserve better from the fans. I have no problem with fan expressing disagreement with play calls, or noting player mistakes in a civilized discussion. Comments like "Borges an incompetent stooge whose to fat to coach", or "Fitz has been weak and useless all season" inappropriate from someone who claims to be a Michigan fan.

      I AM NOT saying that you have said any of these things, but if you'll look around you'll see that comments like these and far worse abound on various web sites.

      UncleFred

      Delete
    4. Anecdotes aren't exactly evidence of anything. Notice I said "the bulk of the vitriol." There are idiots all over the internet.

      Furthermore, several of those comments are actually criticisms of the staff, not the players.

      Yes, the players have defended the coaches. That's because it's been evident from day 1 that the players like the coaching staff. That doesn't make the staff not terrible.

      Delete
  10. It's hilarious now that despite us being almost pathetically inept on offense against a defense that most teams roll over, and very nearly being held to 3 points in regulation, that we all agree we showed improvement on offense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the numbers speak for themselves. Regardless of how bad you think we looked on Saturday, it was a statistical improvement from the weeks prior.

      Delete
    2. Do the numbers speak for themselves? What are the stats if you ignore the overtime? Ok, if you're comparing to negative yardage, sure, but how many yards did they gain in regulation? It seemed like a very weak performance to me.

      I agree with you about the 4th down call. That was as close as you can come to a single-call fire-able offense. How do you not take the game-tying shot at that point of the game? If they'd not gotten the miracle final field goal, Hoke would be fending off the pitchforks for that call.

      Delete
  11. Thanks Thunder for the write-up! I've got a question regarding the O-Line, esp Magnuson. As I have not much knowledge about O-line and blocking, I can't tell if Magnuson is really better than Kyle Kalis. It would be best if you may explain the difference in their performance. My point is, if Magnuson is going to be our LT next year, should it be better letting Kalis back to gain more experience in playing RG, then using Mag who will be an LT anyway? Or even Chris Bryant, for building our future next year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Magnuson has done a better job of picking up stunts than Kalis did. That surprises me, because I thought Kalis was as college-ready as any lineman I've seen come to Michigan, but he just seemed to be in over his head mentally in the first half of the season. Magnuson has some things to clean up, and I don't think he's in great shape physically right now (he looks like a guy who needs to eat better and add some strength in certain areas), but he's further along mentally.

      I don't really care about next year right now. The goal is to win against Iowa, Ohio State, and in the bowl game. The coaches can worry about development in the spring, in certain game situations, next summer, etc. You don't sacrifice the here and now for what might happen next year.

      Delete
    2. "I don't care about next year." Interesting take. Imagine you're done feeling that way in about 2 weeks.

      We're not beating Ohio State, and underdogs at Iowa by a TD. I'd like to beat Iowa but, really - does it matter much if we're 7-5 or 8-4?

      I think the important thing is how this team finishes. I think the coaches agree. "Screw this, we're going to play the way we intend to play, even if we struggle" they seem to be saying. "We are going to be Michigan."

      Frankly, at this point, I think it's probably the right call. Michigan has tried to have it both ways for a couple years now. With the season (big 10 contention) lost, time to take our lumps for the greater good of the program.

      Spring practice is a whole lot different than November action.

      Delete
    3. I have a huge problem with the "greater good of the program" comment.

      What if we're no better next year? The year after? What if we lit practice time on fire and squandered talent for no reason at all? What makes you so confident this program is moving in the right direction outside of recruiting? I'm hopeful, but far from confident.

      Delete
    4. I didn't say they would or would not be better.

      The coaches, clearly I think, have a vision for a 'manball' offense. These incremental steps towards that have lead to a steady decline in overall production. Three years in and Borges says we're in transition. So - get on with it already.

      Will it work? No one knows, but it's time we stopped the excuses and find out. Denard is gone. The conference is lost. There are no games left where we need to sacrifice the program direction for immediate gains. Do the thing you say you want to do.

      If it works, yay. If it doesn't, we can fire the coach and move on, as a program.

      Delete