Upon Further Review 2017: Offense vs Indiana

SPONSOR NOTE. I mean the unfortunate thing is that president of US soccer isn't even a paid position right now so a guy like Matt, who is very organized and on top of everything and is clearly a talented manager and would probably listen to me when I told him that he shouldn't hire a muppet to be the coach, couldn't swing it and his current day job at the same time. Because he's got to get you those mortgage quotes lickety-split, you see, and if he's trying to determine who's a soccer muppet and who is a human you will not get them with the speed he is accustomed to.

HomeSure Lending: simple mortgage guidance in the comfort of your own home. Where nobody can see you watching clips of the Landon Donovan goal with big ol' wet tears falling out of your face.

FORMATION NOTES. It was a manball outing, with 31 one-or-zero WR snaps. There were 23 two-WR snaps and 15 three-WR snaps, many of those on obvious passing downs. When not forced into WRs Michigan had an extreme preference for tight ends and fullbacks.

IU kept their safeties increasingly close to the LOS as the day progressed for obvious reasons. They did one weird thing with this gap in the line:

Their front was multiple, as they like to say, bouncing between even, under, over, and even some 3-4 stuff. They also had a few plays with a five-man line when they were trying to slow down Michigan's heavy sets. Here's Indiana in an under front with the FLAG OF DOOM waving:

SUBSTITUTION NOTES. Thin rotation. O'Korn went the whole way at QB. OL was the new usual with Bushell-Beatty playing the whole way at RT. Hill and Poggi split FB snaps; no Mason. TE was mostly Gentry and McKeon, with a healthy number of Wheatley and Bunting snaps. Eubanks didn't play.

RB was mostly Higdon with Evans and Isaac making cameos; Walker got two snaps and one carry. WR was DPJ, Crawford, Perry, and some Ways. DPJ seemed to get more snaps this week.

[After THE JUMP: a unicorn!]

*fffrzzzzz* hello *fffrzzzzz*

Why do you sound like you're calling from a bomb shelter in Fallout?

*zzzrff* we will emerge in a thousand years when Michigan's QB situation is resolved goodbye *zzzrff*

Get out of that bunker right now, young man.

Fine. Why am I young now?

I don't know! Moving on! Ask me things!

Any hope I shouldn't go back in the bunker after going over things in detail?

I mean... maybe a little. Michigan's plan in this game was to get pass protection by leaving a lot of guys in, which simultaneously hacked down O'Korn's options to one or two. They ran a huge number of two-man routes, a few of which were almost one-man routes until a guy released late. Here Ways checks up just past the sticks and may have a safety between him and O'Korn, and at that point what is O'Korn supposed to do?

That, basically.

O'Korn mixed in a few competent short passes, including the opening play, a doofy little out to Wheatley on second and four, and the like. The physical ability to be a decent quarterback is there. Also this is going to happen a couple times a game:

So he's got that going for him. If you close your eyes and hope really hard it is possible to see O'Korn hit some deep shots, as long as they aren't at McDoom, and keep it together enough to move the ball against PSU as Michigan grinds out a low-scoring win.

I can feel the mother of all buts coming.

But when it's third and seven in the first half and you are running two sideline fades and nothing else that says somethin' about something.

It would be difficult to overstate how little faith it seemed like Michigan had in O'Korn by this point midway through the second quarter. And... I mean, he's got two near-identical options. One of them is against Rashard Fant. The other is against a backup. And you pick Fant? So you can throw to McDoom? I dunno, man.

Michigan would get bailed out by a terrible call on that INT, and two plays later O'Korn would run into Evans on a counter; I'm pretty sure that's on him because he almost pitched the ball on the crack sweep and was then very upset with himself afterwards.

From then on it was grim.

JOHN O'KORN

The rest of O'Korn's attempts were about half screens. Those that weren't: a five yard hitch to Crawford, the Gentry misread everyone was up in arms about, a near INT at Gentry, another near-INT at Perry, and a two yard drag McKeon dropped. Two of those are okay decisions, and three are events with an X in them. After Michigan went up 20-10 they faced third and seven with six minutes and change left. Michigan ran a tunnel screen against flat-out press coverage, which is hard to do when that CB is 100% sure you're not doing anything even vaguely risky.

One of the more frustrating things about this game was O'Korn setting up for max-pro deep shots several times and turning them down. Poor damn DPJ could have had a touchdown but was overthrown on one of the two they did throw:

I'd go back to that; I think Michigan did.

Michigan seemed to have a few other opportunities to hit deep strikes that I can't be entirely sure of because this director was no Rick Who Works For Fox. Downfield replays were rare and the camera was super tight, so I'm only guessing at some of these things. This one looks like a pretty good guess, though:

Two safeties at eight yards and they are moving upfield on that play action; WR gets inside of the CB as he leaves the screen. That's a post, right? So... how do you not throw that? This happened last week, where heavy bites on play action seemingly opened up deep shots that O'Korn didn't take.

Here a corner blitz gets DPJ one on one with a safety. Those guys roll off the screen; I can't be sure that DPJ is actually open here, but surely this is what you want when you dial this play up?

That could be a route minus from DPJ and the right decision. But... probably not.

I really wish we'd gotten more insight into goings-on downfield to clear this stuff up. It's clear that the wide receiver corps is a problem. How much of one I don't know. It does make O'Korn look worse. That dump to McKeon that he dropped looked like a dumb bad pass, but it's really just mesh on which DPJ doesn't do anything to disrupt the guy in man coverage on the TE:

#9 WR to bottom of screen

Mesh versus man is a good play and this is a good decision if DPJ just gets his rub right. He doesn't and he O'Korn looks like a dork through no fault of his own.

But that was rare. Michigan's extreme turtling in this game should be evidence enough of the coaching staff's opinion of their QB play.

Okay but there was something that didn't make me want to buy mashed potatoes in a box?

Yes, the ground game.

Michigan's blocking fell off a bit, landing at 61% instead of 68%; they had a much better day statistically because their running backs were collectively +19.5, which is a lot. Higdon singlehandedly shifted three or four runs from TFLs into solid gains or, in overtime, a touchdown. Meanwhile OL negatives tended to be bunched on a few very bad plays. Bredeson picked up –2s for:

• running past a linebacker on a screen, then reconsidering too late
• getting run over on a –1 yard run
• getting run over on a crack sweep that Higdon had to rescue for four yards, and
• running into Onwenu's back on a pull.

That's half of his minuses on four plays; the rest of the game he was hitting our Mendoza line easily. Similarly, Kugler picked up half his minuses on two plays, the first the –7 yard pin and pull that ended Michigan's final drive of regulation, the second the Higdon touchdown on which he went the wrong way and his guy fired into the backfield.

But Michigan just flat out won a lot of blocks, whether it was Bredeson knocking a guy two yards off the LOS and sealing or Onwenu getting a rare +3 for this ass kicking of a guy who is not slanting away from him:

#50 RG

Higdon's first touchdown was mostly Mason Cole thundering his guy off the line and opening up a bounce:

I was a little surprised the numbers came out that low. When not dorfing Michigan ran both zone and gap schemes effectively. Run plays by approximate grouping:

• Sweeps: 8 for 31 yards, 3.9 YPC
• Inside zone-ish: 14 for 90 yards, 6.4 YPC
• Gap: 18 for 142 yards, 7.2 YPC
• Exotics: 2 for 16 (McDoom end around, one zone read on which O'Korn kept).
• Yakety snap: 1 for –5 when O'Korn ran into Evans.

Michigan's pin-and-pull style sweeps feel like a separate category to me and so there they are. Amongst plays between the tackles, another ~60/40 edge for gap-blocked plays.

IZ was actually their most consistent play. Eight of their 12 IZ and IZ-ish plays went for at least seven yards, with only a third unsuccessful. The gap blocked plays provided two huge chunks and a lot of two-to-four yard runs.

Wait, so now we can run inside zone?

I'd give it another couple weeks. Indiana did not put a ton of pressure on Michigan to get off blocks with aggressive linebackers, and that helped considerably.

But they're making some progress. Michigan did some work running zone from 2TE formations. IU's more passive approach with their linebackers meant that Michigan could get some extended doubles. Here Kugler and Onwenu get to double a DT off the ball and get off on a linebacker, and that's the cutback lane:

#57 C and #50 RG

Meanwhile next to those guys Cole and Bredeson are doing the same to the other DT. Adding those TEs to the line allowed those doubles, with the other three guys on the LOS fairly easy kickout blocks.

While Michigan's zone identification was improved it was not so improved that there weren't a number of frustrating breakdowns. Slants did semi-frequently see guys jet into the backfield unmolested, chased by a guy who had little shot.

I don't understand why the first play has extended doubles and the second is everyone heading to the second level immediately. LBs seem to be playing it the same way. DL is aligned differently but you'd think that would just change who gets tasked with the double. It feels like Michigan is betting on "not slant," and when "not slant" happens they can get away with immediate releases. Like so:

#74 LG and #50 RG

IU plays that straight up and Michigan's guards put those DTs on one side of them at the LOS; successful play. But they get slanted so much that I'd rather bet on slant.

Even so: progress.

Was this just Frey knowing what IU wanted to run?

Impossible to answer definitively but probably not. Michigan was beat on slants and weird alignments frequently; they did not seem like a team that knew what was coming all the time. I'm sure Allen put in a bunch of curveballs, anticipating Frey's experience against him.

One example jumped out at me. IU occasionally ran this defense with a large gap in a nominally four-man front:

Now, Indiana isn't going to just give you this gap. They're going to fill it, and so you have to expect someone re-gapping. Sure enough, on Michigan's first snap against this the DT pops outside. Michigan reads it, blocks it, and rips off a chunk:

Later in the game on a doomed pin and pull Indiana would return to this. The positioning of the DT gets Michigan in the wrong line call, because while the nose tackle is technically a nose tackle he's spiritually a gap over. Bredeson thinks he's blocking down and gets a nasty surprise (that probably shouldn't be much of a surprise):

I gave Bredeson most of the minuses there because he got pancaked by that guy but to me the core failure was not blocking down with Cole and pulling Bredeson like IU wasn't doing this goofy thing.

Anyway, I don't think M had seen this before. They blocked one instance of it well and a second one poorly. This didn't seem like a run game heavily dependent on preparing specifically for this defense.

Instead they were heavily dependent on their running backs.

Yeah. I don't think I saw a missed opportunity; I was cranky on twitter about one Isaac run but that turned out to be totally unfair to him. Michigan running backs were consistently finding the cutback lane I'd been complaining about them missing all year.

In addition to taking close to maximum advantage of their opportunities, the RBs were also to repair some blocking mistakes, most notably on Higdon's overtime touchdown. That wasn't even his most impressive run. That didn't look like much on the stat sheet but here he breaks about five tackles to rescue a loss:

Isaac also got in on this action, running through tackles from the side:

Kugler doesn't get off his block there, allowing a linebacker to shoot the gap, but it doesn't matter since Isaac's sheer bulk allows him to shake off an arm tackle.

Heck, Kareem Walker's lone carry was a good one that rescued a play featuring an unblocked LB in the backfield:

That high step after the cut to prevent an ankle tackle is a good, instinctual decision, and his burst on the edge is pretty good. (Note that he gets shorted a full two yards on this run.) I'm assuming he'll get a couple shots a game going forward.

I've been doing this long enough to realize that running back is a high variance spot from week to week, so they're not totally repaired. They collectively had their best game of the year by a great distance.

Except Chris Evans, rabble rabble.

I know he had a 12 yard carry and –4 yards the rest of the day but Evans continues to draw the short stick with Michigan's blocking. Twice in this game Michigan ran a pin and pull with him only to see defensive tackles hop a gap over and get right in his face. Once he managed to turn it into four yards by reversing field. Once he was not so lucky:

A second and eight power play rather summed his day up.

I had a couple minor dings for him but mostly he got buried through no fault of his own. He's going to have to claw his way back into contention if Higdon and Isaac continue to play like they did in this game... but they probably won't, so he'll get his at bats.

How did Bushell-Beatty do? Was he clearly better than Ulizio?

I think so. Bushell-Beatty did give up a couple things in pass protection, but they were I-lose-this-block-but-stay-attached kind of things that allow the QB to get around a potential sack, not ugly blow-bys. IU's DEs provide very little rush and Michigan's pass protection approach was max pro all day, so I wouldn't start banking on a –1 or –2 day from JBB going forward. This was more of an incomplete than anything else.

More happily, he was a bonafide presence on the ground. Onwenu and JBB featured on a number of clobbering double-teams. Here they shoot a DT off the LOS so fast he goes in to panic spin mode:

#50 RG and #76 RT

They were the point of attack on those split flow counters, and on each they clobbered real good. This was the first; JBB is the prime mover as Michigan deposits a DE three or four yards away from where he wants to be:

#76  RT

That fails to break big because the playside LB fell down and convinced Hill that he was not a threat, erroneously. Otherwise you can't do it better. On both of the subsequent counters JBB washed his guy well out of the play. The final one saw him read a slant away and immediately head for the MLB, who he authoritatively seals with help from the counter action:

There are reasons Michigan was rolling with Ulizio for the first four and a half games and they will crop up. So far JBB looks like a real plus on the ground, which Ulizio was not.

Not to bring up any sore spots but I see that Stanford's Bryce Love is averaging ten yards a carry? When does that happen here? You kept saying it would happen? I want it now? These aren't questions?

It's going to take some more time. I was struck by this Ian Boyd article on Bryce Love and his absurd numbers mostly because of the... well... Stanfordization of that offense. When I went over Harbaugh's Stanford offense one of the things that impressed me the most was their blockers' ability to adjust to slants and various messes in front of their face and get to the point of attack no matter what. That's still the case:

Herbig is a great puller in his own right and clearly a cornerstone. Here he is pulling from left to right (before Bright took over the LG spot):

[ed: this gif was too enormous to embed, sorry, read the article]

Their ability to stay square to the line and read the kick-out block for the cue on whether to lead outside or plow straight ahead makes the difference on a lot of Cardinal runs. Here, Rice is able to spill the kick-out outside, where they have a help defender ... to the misfortunate of that help defender. Herbig gets outside and pancakes him while Love follows him to paydirt.

Michigan is not there yet. Their pullers get caught up on trash they don't have to handle and probably can't, anyway. Michigan gives up a lot of minor penetration on slants that should slow up but not eliminate pullers; too often it eliminates pullers. It feels like this amount of penetration should not destroy Bredeson's pull like it does here:

#74 left guard pulling

And I want Onwenu to get around this McKeon block to the outside:

#50 RG pulling

Maybe that's asking too much from a 350 pound guy. I also want McKeon to push and not be pushed so this is easier, as well. (FWIW, I didn't minus Onwenu but did minus McKeon here.) This from Bredeson is more definitively Not Good; Onwenu has his guy at the LOS and hasn't given ground. Bredeson should not be banging into him:

#74 LG pulling

You don't see the Gs popping outside against these slants much for Michigan. Stanford is making it happen. With fifth year seniors, granted. This is an Area For Improvement.

The receivers did technically play.

Yes, and sometimes they were even on the screen.

[0 = uncatchable, 1 = circus catch, 2 = moderate difficulty, 3 = routine]

ROUTES: Gentry +, DPJ +-, McDoom -.

I feel bad for McDoom because he should be running slants and little underneath stick routes in addition to the fun stuff on the ground:

People (read: I) get very hand-clap-tweet about his deployment now, but it really is just about his deployment. He's a good player in his Steve Breaston way; now stop pretending he's someone else.

Gentry played the first snap as a wide receiver, and that went well enough:

That's the flex bit of flex tight end. He'd probably have numbers warranting regional attention if Michigan's passing game was more functional. Gentry's also a functional blocker. Here he gave a DE the business, opening up a crack sweep:

#83 TE to top of screen

While we're on tight ends, Ian Bunting has fallen to third on the depth chart, at best, and we haven't talked about him much. He did get an impressive block on this pin and pull, driving and sealing a defensive end:

#89 TE to top of screen

Gentry dorfed a screen and McKeon appear to do the same on a crack sweep. They are still young; they are still very tantalizing for the future.

Heroes?

Higdon made the most of his opportunities and then some. Cole was terrific on the ground. Onwenu and JBB had their ups and downs but were the motive force behind the second-half TD drive.

Maybe not so heroic?

There is no passing game and Michigan told you how much they think O'Korn can handle with their playcalling.

What does it mean for PSU and the future?

If they're going to eliminate half the playbook anyway... Michigan gave O'Korn a freshman gameplan. Might as well see if a freshman can execute it better. Probably not to start on Saturday but if they're down in the third quarter I'd guess they have to try it. It probably won't go great, but it probably won't go worse.

JBB can move people, and Onwenu is getting good rapidly. Those guys were a solid asset and look to be one going forward. JBB's probably-still-very-bad pass protection will limit the offense. At least this pairing forces opponents to respect it and can maybe buy some RPS positives as a result.

It's Higdon's job until further notice. File under "duh."

Still an IZ/gap split. Second straight week they've gone close to down the middle between IZ and gap stuff.

They burned a real good play and will have to come up with something else. That counter was not going to be a huge gain even against IU for the fourth time—that was the call in OT and it looked like IU was all over it. I don't think they can expect it to do anything against PSU. Shelve it for a couple weeks and mix it in later.

One day someone is going to throw a catchable pass to DPJ downfield. I will enjoy that day.

It's hard to have other opinions on the WRs. They weren't on the screen, or targeted.