Everyone knew Michigan was going to struggle this year. Maybe nobody thought the Wolverines would fall to Toledo, but everyone except the most fanatically-blind Michigan supporters knew that a Big Ten title was likely out of the question, and a bowl game might be a reasonable goal. There was always the future to look forward to. A year of learning under the spread system. A year of Barwis. A good 2009 recruiting class. The future was looking bright, because Michigan fans certainly weren’t planning to bail after one trying year under Rich Rodriguez. The members of that 2009 recruiting class, on the other hand? Some may not stick around to help clean up the carnage.

There are competing schools of thought on the link between winning and success on the recruiting trail. On one hand, you have the fans who hope prospects see the opportunity to come in and compete right away (and, realistically, some recruits do follow this train of thought). On the other side, one can find those who think a recruit will want to stay as far away as possible from anything that could be perceived as a “sinking ship” (again, some recruits think this, as well).

I personally think, from my trials and tribulations in following recruiting, that there is something of a hybrid between these two schools of thought. We’ll start when a recruit is young. If a child grows up watching a program succeed regularly, he might become something of a fan of that program. More likely, however, it may become “familiar” to him, if only on the most shallow name-recognition basis. Actual wins and losses (of course, except in the case where a recruit grows up a diehard fan of a certain program) probably don’t really become a factor until a high schooler becomes something of a potential recruit. Once a young man realizes that he might have an opportunity to play division 1 football (brother), the attention becomes a little more focused on the programs who might be potential destinations. This typically happens around a prospect’s junior year.

Senior year, however, is not likely a time for recruits to radically alter their perceptions of a program. If a team struggles during the 2008 season (this is completely hypothetical, of course), a young quarterback from San Diego or Wichita Falls (again, completely hypothetical, and I randomly selected those cities) will see that as an opportunity to come in and compete for a starting position right away. This is especially true of those hypothetical recruits who intend to hypothetically enroll early hypothetically. Hypothetically. Only the more loosely-committed players, or those who look at depth charts and realize that, although there is playing time up for grabs, it is not at their position, are the ones who might be swayed from the 2009 class.

So, who might fall into the category for this class? Bryce McNeal, Brandin Hawthorne, Anthony Fera, and DeWayne Peace have taken or plan to take visits elsewhere, along with former commitment William Campbell. DeQuinta Jones has been heard from very little since he committed, and his status is a virtual mystery to Michigan fans. As long as Michigan’s coaches continue to do a good job recruiting these players, they should retain those that they want. McNeal seems to be the most likely to decommit at this time.

So, let’s bring this back to the 2010 recruiting class. If high school juniors see a program lose, and form their perception from that, it means Michigan’s 2010 class could be pretty bad, right? Well, yes and no. Michigan already has 2 commits, both of whom are likely to be 4-star or 5-star prospects. A third is presumably on the way, another 4-star or better player. All three of these players have Michigan ties from long before their junior years of high school, and their perception of the Wolverines isn’t bound to change radically. Joining a class of highly-ranked prospects is one of the antidotes to a less-than-stellar year. Jeremy Jackson, Ricardo Miller, and hopefully Marvin Robinson all will be an incentive for other good recruits to join the class.

This may be one of the factors in some of the more inexplicably-good recruiting classes in recent memory. Notre Dame can sell its tradition, but one would think a 3-9 year would deter top prospects from joining the class of 2008 in South Bend. At the end of the day, however, the Irish finished with the #2 class in the nation. The only team that finished ahead of the Irish? Alabama, a team that had a recent history of mediocrity, despite its history. Nick Saban, in his second year in Tuscaloosa, and coming off a 7-6 record that didn’t exactly scream “WOO PROGRAM ON THE RISE” pulled in a stellar group of players to help turn the Tide’s fortunes around.

So, can Michigan, with its young, exciting coach pull in top classes in 2009 and 2010, despite a 2008 season that will likely end well below .500? The recruits aren’t stuck with Michigan, but we fans are hoping that Rich Rod can keep the snake oil flowing.

Posted under Coaching, Recruiting

1. After the Wisconsin game, fans were jubilant, and expected that Michigan’s offense had finally, permanently snapped out of whatever funk it was in to start the season.

Following Illinois, the exact opposite describes the popular sentiment among Michigan fans.

What’s the real Michigan offense? Somewhere in between. A young unit is going to be very streaky, and as the players gain experience (and guys like Darryl Stonum and Junior Hemingway return to replace LaTerryal Savoy), the consistency will improve, but it will never operate at the level it was toward the end of the Wisconsin game, at least not on a consistent basis.

2. The rain of fumbles will slow down, even if is isn’t completely eliminated this year. Unless Michigan’s coaches are idiots (and they aren’t), or the players are just terrible (they aren’t), Michigan will not continue to fumble at the rate it has been to this point in 2008. The coaches will work in practice, and seeing as how fumbles are a (mostly) chance occurrence, they will happen with less frequency.

If Michigan is not playing from behind, the players will also force plays less often, and risk ball security in the process.

3. The Michigan defense might not be quite as good as it looked during the Wisconsin game. It might not be quite as bad as it looked during the Illinois game. The real Michigan defense? You guessed it, somewhere right in between.

Coming off an emotional performance against Wisconsin, in which they were on the field for more than 36 minutes, perhaps the defenders were ripe for a letdown performance. After such a physical performance last week, it’s understandable (but no excuse) why there were some missed tackles this week. Regardless, they held Illinois to just 24 points through 3 quarters, but they are not yet ready to carry the offense in every game, especially when they have to overcome 5 fumbles (with 2 lost).

4. Steven Threet actually had a decent game, aside from the fumbled exchange with Shaw, and the pump fake fumble. He had a QB rating of 130.3, which would have been better save a few drops. Running, he wasn’t quite as good as Michigan needed him to be, but there’s always the future for improvement.

5. Despite the losses, Illinois is a pretty darn good team. If Michigan can play as well as they did today (certainly on defense) for the rest of the year, only Penn State and Ohio State are likely to light up the scoreboard as much as the Illini did.

So what does it all mean? Michigan isn’t that good. But you know what? Maybe they aren’t that bad, either. At this point, there’s not much fans can do besides hope for a bowl.

Posted under Coaching

UPDATE: Issue fixed

Coach Simmons, purveyor of the best technical football blog this side of Smart Football, Three and Out, joined us today for the podcast. In addition to being an excellent blogger, he is defensive coordinator for a large high school in North Carolina. In whatever spare time he has, he acts as the resident coach of the Michigan blogosphere posting as gsimmons85.

In the podcast we talked about his coaching philosophies, his team, how he views Michigan and his love of his car. We barely scraped the surface so we hope to have him back. Without further adieu:

 

 Coach Simmons Talks about the Illini [16:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

(If you can’t see the player, you can right click here and click save target as)

Visual Aid 1:

Visual Aid 2:

Posted under Blogcast, Coaching

The Situation
There are 2 minutes and 28 seconds left in the third quarter, and Michigan’s offense is like, kinda sucking. And by “kinda sucking” I mean “had 31 yards in the entire game prior to this drive.” However, with 54 yards already racked up in this one drive, a touchdown would be the perfect thing to break the offensive funk. It would also put Michigan down by only 12 points, despite Wisconsin dominating most of the first three quarters. They might just be able to get back into the game…

The Personnel and Formation
Michigan is on the right hash in a basic spread set. Brandon Minor is the running back to Steven Threet’s left. Greg Mathews and Junior Hemingway are the wideouts to the left and right, respectively. In the left slot is Martavious Odoms. At slot on the right side is tight end Kevin Koger, appearing in a game for the first time this year. Wisconsin counters with a 3-2-6 dime package. The four CB/Nickel players are head up over the receivers. The linebackers are head up over Threet and Minor. The two safeties are deep.

The PlayAt the snap, Threet takes a 3-step drop. Minor sets as though he’s pass blocking, though Wisconsin only comes on a three-man rush. Free of the duty of protecting Threet, Minor runs a short circle route out of the backfield. Odoms runs a 10-yard stop route. The other three receivers all run vertical routes, with Mathews and Hemingway on fly routes down the sideline, and Koger running a seam down the middle. 

Wisconsin rushes the three linemen, runs man coverage on the receivers (and backs, including a spy on Threet), and has two safeties taking deep halves over the top. Threet goes deep to Koger, who is behind his defender. Koger makes the catch at the 6, and isn’t hit by a safety until after he’s in the endzone. 

Why it Worked
First things first, if your receivers are able to get open against man coverage, this is an effective play call against 2-man-under defense. Considering Wisconsin had a nickel corner lined up in press coverage against a TE, Koger should be able to get open, the question is whether he’ll be able to maintain that separation. With his athleticism, Koger is able to defeat the defender down the field. 

The wideouts on the outside are able to force the safeties to stay wide, so they aren’t leaving their corners on an island (which they don’t want to do in 2-man-under coverage – their duty is to defend anything over the top). That horizontal stretch allows Koger to catch the ball in the middle of the field in the seam between the deep men. Allow me to point out here that this is the point of Michigan’s “look over to the sideline” no-huddle offense. The coaches in the booth saw two safeties high, and knew that a deep seam route would likely be effective. They told the coaches down on the field, who then relayed the read to Threet. One must assume that as he gets more comfortable with the offense (probably not until future years), Steve will be able to make these reads himself.

The protection on this play was also good. Michigan’s dynamic offense forces the defense to account for every player, including the quarterback (though keep in mind that Michigan’s offense had been anything but stellar at this point in the game). Because of that, Wisconsin had to rush only three men in order to man up on everyone and keep two safeties high. Michigan’s offensive line, for all their difficulty run-blocking, has actually performed fairly well in protection so far this year, and the five blockers (which would have been four with Minor if the LB had blitzed) were easily able to corral the pass rush. Threet had enough time in the pocket to let Koger go deep, and the timing was perfect.

Now you know what it was like Inside the Play.

Posted under Analysis, Coaching

An interesting tidbit I saw on ESPN’s College Football Live today. John Saunders, Doug Flutie, and Trevor Matich went to the demonstration field in the studio to discuss primarily the Wildcat (Wild Hog, Wild Reb, etc.) formation. Though Michigan has run out of this formation very few times this year, the emphasis of their segment was on how running out of the shotgun formation is particularly taxing on the center.

Posted under Coaching

Since I let Paul’s post stand on its own after the game Saturday, here are a few things I’d like to add:

Posted under Analysis, Coaching

Let’s break down a bit of Notre Dame film from last year. Since Charlie Weis is the vaunted offensive genius who led the Irish to the Worst Offense in History, last year, we’ll look at the offensive “effort” against the Cardinal of Stanford.

First of all, I don’t know how John Latina still has a job. His offensive lines have gotten worse every year, even when they returned a lot of talent. Take a look at the regression by Sam Young, and you’ll see what I mean. In case you don’t believe me, here are some examples of the All-Star recruits of the Notre Dame offensive line getting completely owned by Stanford(!), of all teams.

Another item of note is the fact that Jimmy Clausen may just not be quite ready, but either way, there is no way he should have been starting for anyone last year, much less a team that has the QB tradition of Joe Montana and Brady Quinn. He was quite fond in 2007 of taking sacks by “scrambling” for 5-10 yard losses, when he was under little pressure and should have just thrown it away. On the rare occasion that he got good protection, he still managed to miss wide open guys, or threw passes that required superhuman effort for wideouts to catch. Another thing Clausen too often (not pictured) did was not trust his arm, and throw to the checkdown option even when his first read was open (and often widely so).

And of course, there is the lack of speed at the Irish skill positions. Slow running backs aren’t too much of a liability when they can do all the things that Mike Hart could for Michigan. When you’re just mediocre AND you get run down from behind by a Stanford linebacker, that’s a problem. This category of videos is also good for showing why Stanford lost to Notre Dame: the scheme was good, but players didn’t always execute right, and that led to several big plays.

This past weekend, we saw Notre Dame face off against San Diego State, and it appeared that few of their issues from last year have been resolved. Clausen was much improved, but it’s time to find out whether he can be so poised when he is getting killed on every other play.

Posted under Coaching

For the last 9 months, I’ve been obsessively reading everything I can find about the football team. I’ve tried to make it to as many events as possible. I’ve done everything I could to figure out what Michigan is going to look like tomorrow.

I have no clue.

The floor for this team is lower than I want to admit and lower than most Michigan fans have ever experienced. One or two injuries in the wrong places and the Wolverines are conference basement dwellers. The ceiling could be as high as second in the conference. I can’t see Michigan winning more than 10 games (11 with the bowl), but I can also easily see 7-8 losses.

This is something Michigan fans don’t deal with. High expectations dashed to bits by poor performance or predictable play calling, sure. But there’s always that knowledge that Michigan will win most of its games and play in a bowl game, that except for maybe one or two games, they are the better team on the field. I don’t feel that safety net this year.

Maybe that’s why I am more excited for this game than any Michigan game since I’ve been a student. Even the Epic Greatest Game Ever of the Week 2006 OSU game, which lived up to it’s billing. That was big for a game. Michigan vs. Utah is a game for a generation. I get to be in the stands at the biggest epoch in 40 years for arguably the greatest program in college football.

It’s a new, uncomfortable yet envigorating feeling. It’s an amazing time to be a Michigan fan.

And for the love of God, wear a maize shirt.

Posted under Coaching

The part with the videos.

Now that we’ve familiarized ourselves with some of Shafer’s credential’s, let’s delve into some tape from last year’s Cardinal and take a look at his schemes (spoiler alert: lots of blitzing).

Shafer runs a multiple-front defense, with a base 4-3. Against spread-type offenses, he’ll use a package called the “3-4 Okie” which, as the name implies, is a 3-4 scheme. The purpose of the Okie scheme is to disguise defenses so the offense can never tell who is actually blitzing on a given play. Often, on of the linebacker positions will be manned by a safety (or a LB/S hybrid) for a sort of 3-3-5 look, but with two safeties high.

4-3
One of Shafer’s favorite blitzes from the 4-3 stack is a dual-OLB fire.

There are also several other blitzes where he will send at least one linebacker, but often more.

3-4 Okie
The design of this package is intended to confuse the offense into not knowing who will rush on a given play. For much more on the Okie, read up on it over at 3 and Out, run by an MGoBlog commenter/high school coach who runs the Okie as his base package.

Risks
While an aggressive defense can help generate pressure on the quarterback, there are also disadvantages. For example, if the defense overpursues, they will be vulnerable to misdirection, such as counter runs and screen passes. In addition, if the pressure package doesn’t get to the quarterback, there isn’t going to be as much help in the secondary. An aggressive blitz scheme can often leave the secondary in man coverage.

When you have the athletes to match up (which Michigan will in most of its games this year), it can work to your advantage. However, it can create mismatches for the offense to exploit.

Losing to the Irish
For those worrying about how Shafer lost to Notre Dame, there is a little bit of reassurance to be had. For one thing, The Irish had a drive that was all of 14 yards, and the other two scoring drives were aided by big plays that were the result of poor execution (or simply not having the talent that Notre Dame boasts), not poor scheming.

Ed. Note: Thanks to Mike Gleeson, Stanford Video Coordinator for the game film, and to VB über-commenter RJ for hooking me up with Gleeson.

Posted under Coaching, Video

Defensive Coordinator Scott Shafer hasn’t been discussed nearly as much as OC Calvin Magee, mostly because Magee has always been by Rich Rodriguez’s side, and it is a little more obvious to see what he has done in his career.

However, Shafer is an accomplished coordinator himself, known for an aggressive style that calls for blitzes frequently. In fact, Shafer’s teams have led the nation in sacks on an occasion or two. Let’s take a look at Shafer’s years as defensive coordinator.

After a year as the secondary coach at Illinois (where he coached CB Kelvin Hayden into a second-round draft pick), Shafer returned to the defensive coordinator position, this time at Western Michigan.

It was at Western Michigan that Shafer worked the most magic. The Broncos improved in every relevant category in Shafer’s very first year (the decline in total pass defense can be attributed to more attempts, as the Bronco’s run defense was immediately upgraded), often by a very large margin. By his second year in Kalamazoo, Shafer’s Western defense was #11 in all the land, despite giving up 39 points in their first game of the season (to Indiana). He turned Ameer Ismail, an OLB who wasn’t even sniffed by the NFL, into the nation’s leading sacker.

Stanford was another case of Shafer making an impact in year one. Of course, there is the marquee moment of the Cardinal’s upset over USC (they were one of only 3 teams to hold the Trojans to under 24 points), but the team improved overall during the course of the season as well. The big improvement, once more, was in terms of pass sacks. Keep in mind that these improvements took place against teams with far more talent than Stanford (UCLA, Oregon, Notre Dame, Cal), and it’s easy to see why people are excited about Shafer wearing the maize and blue. One thing to point out, however, is that his pass efficiency defense has always taken a step back in year one. With returning corners, but new safeties, it should be interesting to monitor how that goes. One would expect, with more pressure on the quarterback, that efficiency would go down.

For those questioning Shafer’s “Michigan Man” credentials, there are a few pieces of evidence to the contrary. First, he was an assistant at Western Michigan for two years, and is familiar with the state dynamics. Secondly, there is a rather incredible story linking Shafer to Bo Schembechler since Scott’s much younger days. It’s a good read, and I recommend checking it out.

Posted under Coaching