2 questions this time around. The first comes from the ever-curious RJ, and it relates to slot receivers:

What makes all these small fast guys work better in the slot? It’s seems like fast running backs are almost interchangeable with this position.

The point of the slot position is to have guys who can get the ball in space, and do something with it from there. This means making a guy or two miss, or running over a guy, or just outsprinting people to the endzone. Mismatches are the name of the game, and these speedy small guys creates a speed mismatch against linebackers and even some defensive backs.

However, the small speedy guy isn’t the only type of player who can work out in the slot. Tight ends create mismatches as well, by being bigger than safeties, and (sometimes) faster than linebackers. They are able to make things happen by being a physical force from the slot. Toney Clemons is a physical specimen with near-TE size, but good speed and shakes like a smaller player, which makes him a monster in the slot.

As far as being interchangeable with running backs, that isn’t a bad observation. A lot of slot guys were scatback-type RBs in high school, whose speed is good, but size is lacking to take the beating that a running back will get in college. A lot of Michigan’s recruits at the position can be multiple-position players.

Next question comes from an anonymous e-mailer, relating to coaching clinics:

what is the point of coaching clinics? it seems like the coaches are just giving away their secrets. i heard that michigan state even sent some scouts to michigan’s clinic. what is the benefit of these clinics?

Well, the clinics are held with an intended audience of high schools coaches. While Michigan State’s coaches may have been at the clinic, Coach Rod has always been very open with his system, and he doesn’t fear that opponents will crack the system. College coaches are always traveling to other schools to swap ideas.

So now that we know the clinics are for the benefit of high school coaches, what does Michigan get out of it? They build a rapport with the high school coaches, and happy coaches will be more likely to send their top players to colleges that they have a good relationship with. It’s one way that college coaches can make inroads in recruiting.

The clinics also help develop future talent that will be able to run Michigan’s system. Teaching the zone-read offense to high school coaches means that more high schools in the state of Michigan (and Ohio, and wherever else the coaches come from to attend the clinic) will be running this offense. This means that players will be in the right positions for a transition to Michigan, and they will be more comfortable running the system by the time they get into school. It breaks down like this: if a lot of high schools are running pro-style offenses, there will be more dropback quarterbacks, blocking fullbacks, and road-grading offensive linemen developed in the high school ranks. If a lot of high schools run the zone-read, there will be more scrambling QBs and slot receivers to come out of the high school ranks, (more) ready to play in college.

Thanks for the questions, guys. Keep sending them and I’ll keep doing my best to answer them.

Posted under Coaching, Mail Bag, Personnel

Here are VB’s videos from the spring game:

Offense
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPGhsM2KPjQ&hl=en]

Enjoy

Posted under Coaching, Spring Coverage, Video

Reader RJ asks an interesting question about Michigan’s quarterback situation into the future:

My uncle seems to think Michigan’s days of getting good qbs and sending them off to the nfl are done with the new Rich Rod Offense. Kevin Newsome said he wants a Pro Style offense. Do you think our offense will be at least balanced unlike the run heavy w virginia offense? Will there still be some pro sets in the offense to provide a legitimate shot at getting recruits that are looking to find a place that they can make a jump to the pros from like Newsome?

Since this contains a bunch of different questions, I’ll answer them all, in order of importance.

Will the offense be more balanced than it was at West Virginia?
Yes, almost definitely. The main reason that West Virginia ran the ball so often was the talent they had was not conducive to passing. Between Chris Henry and Darius Reynaud, there was never a really good wide receiver threat. Michigan will have more talent at the wideout position in year 1 than Rodriguez had in his entire tenure at West Virginia (though probably not at the slot position). Then, of course, there is the issue that Pat White is a far-from-elite thrower. However, he is a very good runner, and Rod used the strengths of his personnel, rather than trying to force them to do something they couldn’t.

Of course, people will always ask why, if Rod is going to conform to his players’ strength, a four-star Elite-11 QB is battling a walk-on for the starting position. First, recruiting rankings are imperfect. Threet may not have been the talent that evaluators thought he was coming out of high school, and maybe Sheridan was overlooked by recruiters in his time at Saline. Also, while Rodriguez will conform to his talent somewhat, the system is dependent on ability to run (this includes rollouts and bootlegs, which are still passes but require mobility). “Adapting to his talent” does not mean completely changing the system, but rather adjusting run/pass ratio from something like 70/30 to more like 50/50 (though Rod has stated his target is 60/40).

Will there still be some pro-sets in the offense?
Yes, there will still be some pro sets, but not that many. Rodriguez teams are typically under center as a change of pace, rather than a regular part of the offense. However, this doesn’t mean that they won’t use pro-sets at all. One famous example is Noel Devine’s touchdown run in the Fiesta Bowl, which was out of an I-formation. You will see the I-formation mainly in goal line sets, and the QB will be under center occasionally, but it will be more of a rare occurrence than the norm.

Will Michigan be able to send QBs to the pros anymore?
If a player has the talent to make it to the NFL, as long as he doesn’t lay a complete egg in college, and have next-to-zero production, he will be able to make the NFL. Even Pat White will probably make it to The League, albeit as a safety. Running a pro-style offense isn’t necessary to making it to the pros. The best example is, of course, Vince Young. He had all the measurables of an NFL quarterback, but didn’t run anything remotely resembling an NFL offense in his time with the Longhorns.

Vince Young, despite taking almost no snaps from under center in college, and despite running an offensive system based on the one that Rich Rodriguez developed and will run at Michigan, was the third pick in the NFL draft, rookie of the year, and is known as Tennessee’s franchise player. While not all Michigan quarterbacks will go to the league as QBs, there is still a very good chance that they will make it if they have the skills.

As a side note that may be relevant, how often did the New England Patriots’ record-shattering offense operate from under center? Probably more than 5-7 times a game, but certainly far less than what would have been considered a “pro-style offense” a few years ago. The Indianapolis Colts are another example of this.

Kevin Newsome wants to run a pro-style offense. Does this mean we won’t get him?
Newsome hasn’t seemed adamant about running a pro-style offense, which leads me to believe that Kevin Newsome could care less what system he runs, as long as he makes it to the league. If Rich Rodriguez and staff do a good job selling Michigan to the kid, they will pull up examples of Vince Young (same system, different school), Woody Dantzler (ran Rod’s offense, made it to the league at a different position), and Shaun King (Rod’s offense, played in the NFL), all of whom show that Michigan’s offense will not keep you out of the NFL.

Newsome has to realize that his skill set and physical abilities are perfect for this offense, and a quarterback who produces in college will at least get looks from NFL scouts, even if he doesn’t run the prototypical offensive style. Worrying about future recruits who just want to make it to the NFL is a little premature, until we see what Rodriguez can do with the advantages of coaching at Michigan instead of WVU.

So what does it all mean?
For now, RJ, tell your uncle not to worry about it. If the results are poor after a couple of years, it can become a concern. In the end, I think Michigan ends up with either Kevin Newsome or Tate Forcier (who is actually more suited to a pro-style offense) in this class.

Thanks also to commenter Justin for asking a similar question about Newsome, regarding a recent Rivals article.

Posted under Coaching, Mail Bag, Recruiting

Locus of Control is a psychological term referring to whether a person believes that, in a given situation, they control the outcome (internal locus of control), or if they are being forced into a given outcome by the circumstances (external locus of control). Here, it is applied to college football defensive coordinators.

Defensively, belief in an internal locus of control would lead a coordinator to create a system and scheme wherein the defense attacks the offense, and forces them into making adjustments to the defenders. Belief in an external locus of control would consist of soft zone teams, and schemes that are primarily based upon a read-and-react ideology. Of course, offenses go into every given play with either a run or pass called, so the defense does not have quite the autonomy that an offensive team might have.

Defensive coordinators who believe in a scheme that places faith in an external locus of control are those who run almost all zones, and believe that their superior execution can prevent opponents from moving the ball down the field and scoring. In defensive fronts and linebackers, former Michigan defensive coordinator Jim Herrmann’s “read and react” ideology is the perfect example of external locus of control. By definition, you think the offense controls the play, and you hope to stop what they are doing after it begins its progress.

At the other end of the spectrum is the internal locus of control. Defensive coordinators that utilize heavy blitzing are certainly believers in this. The blitzes are designed to force the offense into changing what it wants to do. For running, that would be cause the running back to say “oh shit, I’m screwed,” and for passing, it would be either sacking the quarterback or forcing him to make a bad throw (or one that doesn’t get his team a first down). Along the front, internal locus of control coordinators would like their defensive linemen to play downhill and get after the quarterback or running back.

So which type of defensive philosophy is better? It really all depends. If a team has superior athletes, it can easily sit back in a zone and play bend-not-break principles. On the other hand, it can also play aggressively, and rack up a lot of negative plays for the opposing offense – but likely give up a big play or two the other way. With inferior talent, it will be hard for defensive linemen or blitzers to get through blockers (without sending so many men as to risk giving up an easy big play to the other team), so they are more likely to play soft, and hope they can not break, or come up with some stops. Like pretty much everything in football strategy, a mix of the two ideals is preferable.

In 2006 and 2007, Michigan defensive coordinator Ron English played with a balanced defensive system. From some games, it is apparent that he preferred to attack, believing in an internal locus of control. However, over the course of both seasons, it seems as though he wasn’t always allowed to run the defense the way he wanted, and the overall coaching philosophy of the program was to play it a little more safely.

In 2008, new Michigan defensive coordinator Scott Shafer will run a defensive scheme that believes wholeheartedly in an internal locus of control. His teams will blitz heavily, and place an emphasis on getting into the backfield to take down the running back or quarterback. This aggressive philosophy (especially with Michigan’s veteran defensive front) will allow Michigan to rack up many tackles for loss, but could also result in big plays given up to the opposition. However, as he told me earlier this year, the scheme will also react to what the offense is doing (though I believe he meant that as more of a formational adjustment, not an adjustment to the plays the offense is running).

Posted under Coaching

Locus of Control is a psychological term referring to whether a person believes that, in a given situation, they control the outcome (internal locus of control), or if they are being forced into a given outcome by the circumstances (external locus of control). Here, it is applied to college football defensive coordinators.

On the offensive end, locus of control is not necessarily an indicator of aggressiveness or run/pass ratio. Bo Schembechler, for example, believed very strongly in an internal locus of control (note: this specifically refers to years when the option was not heavily featured). His philosophy was to run down the opposition’s throat, and put a hat on a hat and beat the guy on the other side of the line. This was a very run-heavy offense. On the other end of the spectrum is the sort of team that tries to force the action by moving the ball downfield. USC’s 2003-05 offense was a good example of this. With confidence in Matt Leinart, Norm Chow, Steve Sarkisian, and Lane Kiffin were able to throw down the field with great success. As John David Booty showed over the next two years, however, this method is less likely to succeed with lower talent at the QB position.

At the other end of the locus of control spectrum lies external. This would be coaches taking what the defense gives them. These types of offense can succeed with less talent (specifically at the QB position in passing offenses) , and excel with great talent. A run-heavy team that relies on belief in an external locus of control would be Nebraska 1995. With Tommie Frazier at the helm, the Huskers ran an option attack. The base belief of the option is to hand off, pitch, or keep, reacting to what the defense will give you. In a passing attack, Purdue under Joe Tiller and Hawaii under June Jones are perfect examples of belief in external locus of control. These offenses rely heavily on bubble screens and short routes that the offense is willing to give up to avoid allowing the ball to be hurled downfield. Nickel-and-diming to score is their focus. This type of offense can succeed with less success at quarterback (see: Curtis Painter, Colt Brennan).

The ideal offense is a healthy mixture of believing in external and internal loci. Setting up the play-action with the run (play-action incorporates both controls, by forcing th defense to react in one way, then breaking their expectations), throwing both downfield and short passes, etc., seems to be the best way to run an offense that is both explosive and consistent (explosive=internal, consistent=external). LSU in 2007, despite not having a great offense, was able to blend the two beliefs very well, resulting in a high-scoring but consistent team. While we’re on the topic of LSU, going for fourth downs a la Les Miles would be belief in internal locus of control, rather than external, in which you take the field goal (which the defense is “giving you”).

On to recent Michigan teams. Michigan has been a fairly evenly-balanced run-pass team during the Lloyd Carr era. However, especially with Mike Debord, there has been a nearly-singular belief in an internal locus of control. “Hey man, we’re going to run left twice, no matter what you do” was the Mike Debord gameplan for seemingly every first down in 2007. Obviously, the Florida game was an exception, when Michigan had a nearly perfect gameplan: a healthy mix of run and pass, and a healthy mix of internal and external locus of control in both segments of the offense. For the rest of the year, however, Lloyd Carr preferred to adhere to an internal locus of control, while running the ball to “protect the defense.”

In 2008, it can be presumed that Rich Rodriguez will bring an offensive style that is at least similar to the one West Virginia has run in past years, even though the talent isn’t distributed among the skill positions in a similar manner at Michigan that it was at WVU. This means the offense will be slightly run-heavy (though there will likely be more passing than there has been at WVU in recent years), with a very strong belief in an external locus of control. This is an option offense that looks to capitalize on what the defense is doing, rather than forcing its will upon the defenders.

This is very much focused on taking what the defense gives you. So, look for Michigan’s offense in 2008 to be a slightly run-heavy externally-controlled spread-option attack.

Posted under Coaching

Michigan’s Coaches from 2007.

HC Lloyd Carr is still around the Michigan program, serving an administrative position within the athletic department.
OC Mike Debord has been hired by on the Seattle Seahawks, though his exact title is currently not known.
OL Coach Andy Moeller now serves in the same capacity for the Baltimore Ravens.
WR Coach Erik Campbell coaches the WRs at Iowa.
QB Coach Scot Loeffler is serving in the same capacity for the Detroit Lions.
RB Coach Fred Jackson is still on the staff at Michigan, and still coaching running backs.
DC Ron English is now the defensive coordinator for the Big East’s Louisville Cardinals.
DL Coach Steve Stripling is still unemployed.
LB Coach Steve Szabo is working at Cornell.
DB Coach Vance Bedford now coaches the defensive secondary at Florida.

Posted under Coaching

Reader Adam writes:

If Feagin is not ready to start next season, what will RR do with the offense? I know he likes to have the QB run, but Steven Threet and David Cone are slow.

While Rich Rodriguez does indeed like to have a quarterback who can both pass and run the ball, he is too good a coach to suddenly become a failure if the talent on the team doesn’t sync with his mission. In 2005, West Virginia started Adam Bednarik at QB, and Pat White didn’t take over until Bednarik went down with injury (Bednarik now chills out with a headset on).

In 1999 and 2000, Rich was the offensive coordinator at Clemson. (This is prior to his years with Shaun King at Tulane, when King set an NCAA record for passing efficiency, the most commonly cited evidence that Rodriguez can run an offense with a dropback QB). In 2000, Woody Dantzler started at the quarterback position. In the NFL, Dantzler was most known for a Hesterian kickoff return touchdown while playing for the Dallas Cowboys. He was a run-pass talent, and the Clemson offense in 2000 looked a lot like West Virginia’s in 2007.

In 1999, however, Clemson had an incumbent starter by the name of Brandon Streeter. Streeter was not the athlete that Dantzler was, but went into the season expecting to start. As it turned out, the two quarterbacks ended up sharing time under center (or in the shotgun, as it were). Streeter was the starter, but Dantzler played as well, and the two had a similar number of passing attempts. I believe (but am not sure) that Streeter was injured at various points during the year. Danztler played in 10 games, starting 6, and Streeter played in 8, starting 7.

When Dantzler was in, he was able to run. When Streeter was in, he was not forced to run all that often. So, if you’re curious as to what a Rich Rodriguez offense with a less mobile quarterback might look like, take a gander at Streeter highlights from 1999.

Of course, Streeter was a fifth-year senior and Dantzler a junior. For Michigan in 2008, redshirt and true freshmen are expected to carry the load. If Threet starts, the schemes might be 1999 Clemson, but the execution will probably be much worse.

Jared asks:

When Pat White went down, West Virginia was screwed. It happened against South Florida and Pitt. Can Rodriguez not use a backup quarterback effectively?

I think the issue is not that Rodriguez can’t use a backup quarterback, but rather that West Virginia’s backup quarterback, Jarrett Brown, was not ready to carry the team offensively. In the long run, I think this won’t be a huge issue for Michigan, as the name itself should help draw more talent at the QB position beyond one starter-level talent and a bunch of crappy career backups. Evidence of this is available in Michigan’s 2007 season, where Ryan Mallett may not have been completely prepared to handle the load, but at least the Wolverines had a talented player to step in when Chad Henne went down.

For the immediate time frame, this is far more of a potential problem. Michigan has 2 current scholarship quarterbacks in Steven Threet and David Cone. Incoming freshman Justin Feagin will enroll in the fall. Depth in general (much less quality depth) will be a big issue for Michigan this season. Expect current players like Carlos Brown and/or Brandon Minor to get practice reps, if only for emergency game situations.

Thanks to Clemson site Tiger Memories for the source files of those videos, and my apologies for the watermarks on them.

p.s.: jim tressel plz dont punch our playerz

Posted under Coaching, Video

An article in the International Herald-Tribune yesterday should go a long way to assuage the fears of Michigan fans who fear that Rich Rodriguez intends to ignore Michigan’s storied history, and do things the way he’s been doing them his whole career.

Last week, several members of the 1969 Michigan team that upset Ohio State spoke with members of the 2008 Wolverines. Bo’s first team has more in common with Rodriguez’s, in that both squads serve(d) under a new coach who came from outside the program. A culture shock of hard work is being implemented today, just like in ’69. I was fortunate enough to hear from Dan Dierdorf and Richard Caldarazzo, and their stories were great. One can only imagine how much the players appreciated it.

This weekend, there will be a meet-and-greet featuring more than 200 past Michigan players and their families. 700+ members of this party are expected to attend the basketball game on Sunday against Ohio State. Rich Rodriguez will speak at halftime, primarily to introduce his staff.

Posted under Coaching

In case any of you missed it over the weekend, here is a clip from Rich Rod’s SportsCenter interview:

I wouldn’t be surprised if (at least parts of) it appeared on SC again sometime soon, or when football season rolls around (so… far… away).

Posted under Coaching, Video

See the full press conference on MGoBlue now. Afterwards, we had a chance to ask Rich Rodriguez a couple extra questions. He responded thusly:

We also asked new DC Scott Shafer a couple questions about the defensive recruits and defensive schemes. Shafer, by the way, is a REALLY cool guy, and said a couple off-camera remarks about expecting to have a run of success against OSU.

Posted under Coaching, Personnel, Recruiting, Spring Coverage, Video