RPS: Hey, there's a "P" and an "S" you can use
Caveat: I haven't studied the entire game, but I did watch the tape of the 1st quarter and two 4th quarter Indiana drives. I would doubt the plan was different in the 2nd/3rd quarters, but you never know, so if this doesn't hold for the entire game, mea culpa.
This defensive game plan harkened me back to days of Michigan yore, and not in a good way. A long, long time ago, Michigan (and most of the elite programs) used to win a ton of games by having better players than you and doing what it did best. It didn't matter if you had a better scheme. Even more recently (but still long ago) Michigan used to get burned by having a ton of NFL coaches on their staff that, when faced with non-NFL offensive schemes, seemed clueless as to how to stop them. They also never seemed to want to lower themselves by consulting HS and/or sub-division coaches who had faced these schemes with regularity. This is how we would get things like giving up 54 points to Northwestern and its spread in 2000 despite having two weeks to prepare.
Why Michigan has been really successful on D this year is b/c it can lock up on receivers, put an excellent, smart safety deep, then play with a man advantage in the box b/c the QB was not a run threat. In some sense, it was throwing rock every single time, believing (like Mickey from Seinfeld) that nothing beats rock. They're not alone.
It is widely known among coaching circles that gurus Bill Belichick and Nick Saban believe that (all else being equal) man-free defense is the best in the game: you're strong up the middle, you're protected deep, and you have an extra defender in the box vs. run.
When you're facing option football (which the NFL never sees), this is a fallacy, and Michigan fell victim on defense last Saturday.
Here's how the Maize and Blue would play what I call Deuce--twin receivers on both sides of the ball:
When the QB is a run threat, there are six defenders in the box to account for seven offensive players. When the deep middle of the field (MOF) safety is aligned so far back so he can play fades on each sideline, there's no way he can be involved in the run game except to save TDs. Most of the game, Indiana incorporated a TE, to which Michigan aligned thus: 
The Wolverines were still short a man. And when you think about the fact that Indiana has a great OL and RB, it makes even less sense to play it this way. The funny (not ha-ha funny) thing is that playing a 30 front with hybrid defenders is supposed to allow a D to be able to have defenders who can play "overhang" (defender at LB level split b/w edge of box and inside receiver of twins, or 5x5 off the edge against a single WR). This way, the D gets two defenders in excellent position to support the run and get into zone coverage pretty easily.
Take a looky here: 
As you can see, the Buck and the Nickel players are in excellent position to be primary force players, freeing up the End and Tackle to play normal technique. The Buck and Nickel are also in good position to get into underneath zone coverage and even cover seam routes. Moreover, there are now two safeties over the top instead of just one. The D can also have a lot of fun by bringing safeties down, blitzing from all angles with overhang, inside LBs, and even safeties.
I'm hopeful that our staff knows these things and is saving them for the Buckeyes.
November 19th, 2015 at 12:14 PM ^
I concur
November 19th, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^
I am intrigued and like it when you post.
November 19th, 2015 at 12:23 PM ^
Um....our defensive coordinator has never coached in the pros.
Also, he was part of the coaching staff that beat the fast-paced Oregon team at Stanford.
EDIT: My point is that I don't think you can draw conclusions about how Michigan plays/will play defense based on Indiana. We are (1) beat up and (2) competing with mostly Hoke guys.
November 19th, 2015 at 12:33 PM ^
Just said the gameplan reminded me of those days.
November 19th, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^
I would be worried about the Buck trying to cover some slot ninja though.
November 19th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^
EDIT: Nevermind
November 19th, 2015 at 12:53 PM ^
This is why you play zone behind it. You have help outside (corner), inside (ILB), and over the top (safety).
Man-free or Man Under/Two deep can be used on 3rd and very long.
November 19th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^
when OSU has Jalin Marshall or Braxton Miller lining up at that spot. Both are great athletes and will outathlete Buck every single time.
Going to be interesting to see what Durkin has in store against OSU who present a far different challenge than Indiana. Not only do they have to try to stop Zeke, but they have all of the weapons on the outside with Thomas, Marshall and Braxton.
November 19th, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^
Yeah I'm sure those guys won't out athlete channing stribling or jeremy clark either. Thats what happens when you play good teams, they create matchup problems and you have to scheme to your best ability out of that. Michigan had some defensive line issues against indiana but the scheme didn't help either.
November 19th, 2015 at 2:45 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 19th, 2015 at 1:36 PM ^
This Michigan D does seem to have a "We're so good at X we're going to stop you no matter what you do" mentality. Which (for the most part) has served them very well.
this was the first time this year where they did really struggle at all (I'm axiously awaiting the UFR, I may cancel my $0.00 subscription soon....) and I was surprised that M didn't dial up more pressure throughout the game.
However - What you mention above about how the FS was playing too deep to help against the run - I think that's where M had a big red zone advantage - the compressed field saw IU struggle all day.
November 19th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^
But this is the 2nd game in a row where opponents have been able to take advantage of Michigan playing the FS so deep. Early on, during the shutout streak, Michigan kept those guys back and opponents had no answer. Michigan is going to need to mix it up a bit more in the next two games or else those teams will also take advantage
November 19th, 2015 at 1:37 PM ^
First, the interior of Indiana's OL was killing Michigan's ILBs, playing with a heads up DEs would not help the ILBs. Combined with the NTs struggling, that's a recipe to get creased an awful lot.
So your play is to put the DEs in a 4i or even 3-Tech to prevent the OGs from getting out so quickly. But Indiana is great at pin and pull, so this position puts the DE in position to get down blocked by the TE or OT (where they were struggling to get off blocks). It also puts the overhang defender is in a good position to have to react to the pull in such he either takes himself out of the play on the inside or gets washed outside if he comes straight up. Unless Michigan was really comfortable attacking off the edge (see down block, attack off EMOL's butt) to meet the puller deeper, they were going to get killed on pin and pull.
So then the reaction is to be aggressive on the edge, then you open yourself up to a lot of quick outs, bubbles, and other games from the #2 (including matching up the slot in essentially man coverage on deep routes).
Point being, there are schematic games you can play, and schematic games I'd like Michigan to mix in more often (they did a few things up front, but seemed a step behind most of the game), but at the end of the day, if you aren't executing up front, it's going to be a long day.
November 19th, 2015 at 1:54 PM ^
I wasn't paying any attention to the techniques of the Michigan line, nor how I would play it. The point is that if you're playing a spread team with QB run incorporated, you can't play short in the box. Even if you execute you're going to give up yards and be behind the sticks defensively.
As far as how to play the DEs, it also depends on their technique. If they're taught to get upfield and penetrate, yes, playing head up doesn't help. But if they're taught to keep the OT on the first level, that's a different ball game.
And sure, there are things an O can do to beat the D schemes, but the inverse is also true. As I'm sure you've heard or even said, it's "whoever has the chalk last."
Lastly, as a DC I may do something to open myself up to certain plays, sure, but hopefully I would be smart enough to open myself up to things that the O doesn't do much and/or doesn't do well; i.e., I'd rather take Howard away than their receivers.
If you're good enough to play on an island, they play zero and bring that guy down into the box, and do it late, if need be.
On a final, somewhat related note to the NTs struggling, I think there needs to be a rule such that the D is able to substitute at a normal pace. Have like a 5-second count in hoops; e.g., ref spots the ball for play, then counts to 5 or 10 (or whatever), then the 25-second play clock starts.
November 19th, 2015 at 2:00 PM ^
"If you're good enough to play on an island, then play zero and bring that guy down into the box, and do it late, if need be."
This is your answer.
November 19th, 2015 at 2:11 PM ^
Yes, it is a possible answer. If you're going to line up DBs over WRs and tell them to ignore everything else, there's no way one deep safety can help them all. But that guy sure can help keep the RB from rushing for 250 yards.
By the way, what's your answer? Throw your hands up and quit? Go tell the OC you need him to score points and keep the other team's O off the field?
November 19th, 2015 at 3:57 PM ^
In retro-spect I was being a bit argumentative.
I generally agree that we got run all over, and when that happens, as a coach you should probably adjust to a look with more run support. Playing both safeties at "medium" depth, vs one high & one low is as good a way as any to accomplish that.
I don't think the 3/4 vs 4/3 look makes a big difference. I know we have both looks with a buck, but RJS still feels like more of an on the LOS player to me.
More generally, I'm saying we got out Jimmy & Joe'd vs X's & O's 'ed. But yeah as a coach you should try to adapt. Perhaps not Durkin's best game.
November 19th, 2015 at 6:22 PM ^
This is essentially what Saban (Cover 7 Liz/Rip) and Dantonio (Cover 4) do against spread.
November 20th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
but it wasn't so much that IU was ripping off big chunks of yards in the running (they got some of those later in the game) it was that they were consistently getting 5-6 yds a pop. In regulation the running back carries went for: 5, 6, 2, 6, -2, 16, 8, 1, 14, 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 2, 5, 5, 3, 2, 0, 15, 9, 21, 2, 7, 13, 1, 0, 3, 13, 10, -1, 19, 4, 4, 4, 4, 6, 24.
November 19th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^
I think it's a combination of tempo, what Michigan does, and what IU does that hurt.
I'd personally like to see Michigan give more two-high looks and rotate the defense either immediately before the snap or right after the snap. Blitz off the edge with a DB, force things back inside, don't let the offense read you pre-snap. But I think the tempo threat backed Michigan off of some of their calls.
I think Michigan can still play Cover 1 in the 30 front you showed (I'd move the DEs into a 4i personnaly), and play games up front. Blitz the NB and bring the SS down into man coverage. Twist the DE and ILB to confuse the pin and pull reads. Keep doing what you've had success doing, but utilize only have 3 down DL to bring the 4th from different spots. But again, you have to get the communication down presnap, and tempo makes that difficult.
November 20th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^
Would switching coverage right around the snap also lead to more interceptions? Seems teams are really targeting the outside on pass plays becaus there is a safety in the middle and it prevents the WRs from going for the INT as they don't have safety help.
November 19th, 2015 at 1:56 PM ^
Yeah I agree. What I wrote was more alignment specific to the picture, but the point is: playing 5 on 6 "inside" with only 3 men on the line would be recipe for 5 ypc inside, one way or another.
QBs that can run (well) and throw (well) are dang near impossible to stop.
November 19th, 2015 at 7:01 PM ^
November 19th, 2015 at 1:52 PM ^
It starts up front.
In "take what the defense gives you" philosophy, the above formation is asking the offense to run a RB dive.
5 on 5 blocking, Godin/Strobel gets blown off the ball, Guards swallow Morgan & Bolden, RJS & Peppers (unblocked except by slots) probably can't cross the line of scrimmage and cut behind the OTs to make the play, have to scrape over the top & you're handing them five yards every time. If you do "run blitz" the two OLB/Buck/Nickel-type substances, then Bubble/bubble/bubble.
Indiana has a good OL, Sr QB that is probably 2nd string All Big 10 behind a top 10 draft pick, and a big transfer RB (outta no where!) that was breaking tackles ALL DAY.
We were playing our 2nd (Hurst) and 4th/5th (Godin/Strobel) Nose Tackles (assuming Mone was 3rd, not even counting Pipkins). They also play with a ton of pace, which left our short-handed DL gassed.
Henry (allegedly) had a quiet, decent day. I think we all saw Wormley get reached by the OT easy as pie during overtime for 15 yds a pop on that outside zone. He must've been gassed because fresh I don't think he gives that up to Jake freaking Long that easily. That wasn't option football, it was just a man on man butt-kicking.
November 19th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^
Me not good at blog.
November 19th, 2015 at 2:07 PM ^
But I doubt schematically that a center 1-on-1 would blow Strobel off the ball, much less Godin.
And with that alignment you can do things like spark the DEs into the B gap, aiming at the hip of the guard. If he bolts for the LB, the DE is either unblocked or can only be ridden down, at which point the play will bounce to the OLBs.
November 19th, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^
I didn't catch it myself but another user claims that Strobel was on rollerskates most of the day...
November 19th, 2015 at 6:25 PM ^
If he was on skates, though, I'd be willing to wager he was getting combo blocked; i.e. doubled immediately post-snap.
November 19th, 2015 at 1:57 PM ^
One thing I've heard Sam Webb discuss on WTKA is they've been man all year, it's not easy to just run a zone D. Hopefully, as you say, they've been preparing all year and they'll pop it on OSU. They need something
November 19th, 2015 at 5:43 PM ^
inquiring minds (okay, only my little mind) want to know.
November 19th, 2015 at 6:05 PM ^
RPS = Rock Paper Scissors. The idea is that sometimes the offense you call, and sometimes the defense you call, is perfect, and the other team can't defend it, or isn't set up for it. This is not the "we will beat them into submission because we have better players" thing. This is often where your team is not as talented, but you win because of "RPS."
November 19th, 2015 at 7:08 PM ^
November 19th, 2015 at 9:26 PM ^
And I'd bet your right that it was little to none. Two things, though:
- If they hadn't it would explain why there wasn't enough defenders in the box.
- All it takes is one or two QB keepers to make the defense account for it. So after the first carry, there should've been an adjustment, especially since it went for a 1st down, if memory serves.
November 19th, 2015 at 10:20 PM ^
prior game IU did not run Sudfeld once, RO or other, save for a scramble.
I don't know if this bears on the discussion. but I appreciate the time and energy that has been brought to it.
November 19th, 2015 at 10:11 PM ^
Steve,
I want to read and "understand" what you say in your write up but I'm too dumb.
I am willing to work and to learn but you can help me by using words, not letters to communicate what you want me to know.
D is that Defense, ours or our opponent? b/c is that "because" or something else?
5cents is that supposed to be a "nickel" and so on.
I'm 64 and a Michigan Alumni, been going to games since Bo, seen a lot of Michigan Football.
I can read, I can understand, just meet me half way, please.
November 20th, 2015 at 8:43 AM ^
November 20th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^
This diary in no way reflects my overall opinion and assessment of Durkin and the staff. I think he and the entire staff is awesome, perhaps the best in the country. Unfortunately, everyone's human and, therefore, makes mistakes.
November 20th, 2015 at 3:18 PM ^
Thanks - I really appreciate this post - lots of explanation with words.
Modern college football is clearly complicated - but the underlying concepts are not that different than what earlier coaches faced. Having more players in an area than the opposition will usually negate their play is clearly one of them. Being short handed likewise predisposes to failure.
One question - I get why the Nose Tackle is named the NT - he's on the nose of the ball. But why is there a DT and DE - when they both seem to be playing on the outside edge of the line - why aren't they both DE? Or is there some other aspect I'm totally missing?
November 20th, 2015 at 8:48 PM ^
It's so the same personnel can be on the field for both the 30 and 40 fronts. Names go better with the 40 front.
Comments