Bill C previews Michigan - Wisconsin
Interesting breakdown. He demonstrates how predictability on offense has been one of our biggest problems this year.
I define standard downs as first downs, second-and-7 or less, and third- or fourth-and-4 or less. Passing downs are everything else: second-and-8 or more, third- or fourth-and-5 or more. Obviously teams run the ball more on standard downs (58% of the time on average) than passing downs (34%), but the Wolverines are far more extreme than the national averages: They're running 67% of the time on standard downs (24th most overall) and only 20% of the time on passing downs (14th least).
Both Middle Tennessee and Army took full advantage of this tendency, blitzing and stunting with abandon. And Patterson was dealing with plenty of second- and third-and-longs because MTSU and Army also knew when the Wolverines wanted to run.
Unfortunately, SP+ picks the Badgers, but that should hardly be a surprise given how things went for both teams in weeks one and two. But also shows the roadmap for winning: mix it up on offense and force Wisconsin to pass on defense.
September 20th, 2019 at 10:16 AM ^
I have no idea what to expect from this game.
I think the most likely scenario is a close loss.
I think it was overstated about how far along the offense was preseason. I'm now expecting it may take up to half the season to start clicking. I think they'll look better on Saturday but maybe not far enough along yet to pull this one out.
The best strategy is to get an early lead so Wisconsin can't lean on Taylor as much. If UM let's them play their style of slogball, Wisconsin wins.
September 20th, 2019 at 10:20 AM ^
I agree. If michigan has the lead it forces wisconsin to play out of their comfort zone. Ill be confident in michigan winning if they dont have untimely turnovers on offense because the defense has certainly not been the problem
September 20th, 2019 at 10:25 AM ^
Does anyone have Finebaum’s preview?
September 20th, 2019 at 10:25 AM ^
I think those run pass stats are skewed by the Army game when the offense ran more to keep the ball away from Army's possession game. I don't believe that statistical profile will continue.
September 20th, 2019 at 10:46 AM ^
Just posted this below but the stats are actually worse for the MTSU game, in part because they were up by multiple scores and so also were trying to burn clock.
September 20th, 2019 at 11:27 AM ^
That's why one should use just 1st half stats when it comes to play calling analysis as 2nd half usually has a lot to do with score and time left
September 20th, 2019 at 12:06 PM ^
I'd adjust this to say you should focus on stats when the game is still competitive. The MTSU game was a 2-score game until the very end of the 3rd quarter. The Army game was competitive the whole way. Plenty of teams manage to still have a successful offense even when they're up by two scores, and I'm not sure why you would crawl into a shell when you're up by 13 with 20+ minutes left in the game. Sure you burn clock by running the ball, but that only works if you're getting first downs and stringing together long drives.
September 20th, 2019 at 10:45 AM ^
I mentioned this in the MTSU recap, but if you break it down by half this predictability is primarily a second half thing. For example, here's the run % on 1st down in Michigan's first two games:
MTSU 1st half: ran 50% of the time on 1st down (gained 5+ yards 53% of time on run plays)
MTSU 2nd half: ran 87.5% of the time on 1st down (gained 5+ yards 33% of time on run plays)
Army 1st half: ran 53% of the time on 1st down (gained 5+ yards 57% of time on run plays)
Army 2nd half: ran 77% of the time on 1st down (gained 5+ yards 39% of time on run plays)
I don't have the numbers in front of me for the other standard downs (by Bill C's definition), but Michigan's success rate running the ball in the 1st half was MUCH better than in the 2nd half of both of those games (~55% versus ~36%), so Michigan found themselves in 2nd & long much more frequently when they became more predictable on 1st down.
September 20th, 2019 at 10:57 AM ^
Good stuff.
Okay, so in addition to 13 year old Madden kid to handle clock management, we need some dope with a calculator to keep our standard down rush rate closer to 50%. "We're at 62% coach, sprinkle in a pass".
September 20th, 2019 at 11:04 AM ^
SP+ picks the Badgers
Does S&P really mean anything this early in the year? No one has played anyone yet so there's isn't much worthwhile stats to analyze. My hunch is UM was purposefully vanilla and will be much less so tomorrow. Granted, UW has still executed much better, but still.
September 20th, 2019 at 11:20 AM ^
Frankly I don't really think it ever means anything. It tells you who a computer thinks should win the game, and then the actual game starts, complete with unforeseen variables and actual human decisions that drastically impair the ability to pick a winner by way of mathematical equation.
September 20th, 2019 at 11:31 AM ^
It's a good way to compare cfb teams and the games they played by adding in the most important factor of schedule.
Doesn't mean it will play out that way but does give us what's more likely to happen using past evidence
September 20th, 2019 at 11:12 AM ^
After reading the preview on Wisky's defense this game basically seems to come down to Michigan's willingness to show the more open offense we thought we were going to see to expose Wisky's defenders lack of elite athletic ability and questionable secondary. If they try and bang their head against a wall like last week Wisky's defense will dominate most likely. This is a normal Wisky defense. Very physical and sound mentally, but still lacking in overall athletic ability relative to other top defenses. No chance to win this game if UM just tries to out physical them with a ratio skewed heavily towards running .
September 20th, 2019 at 11:31 AM ^
Wisconsin has a very good pass defense.
September 20th, 2019 at 11:36 AM ^
They are sound mentally but athletically they are not elite. There is a reason they play a base cover 2 or 3 and don't trust them to play on islands much. Physically they are overmatched by UM's receivers. Of course UM taking full advantage of this against anyone never seems to happen so I am not hopeful they will do that.
September 20th, 2019 at 11:32 AM ^
Wisky is going to be lining up a 5'10" 185 lb CB on Nico or Black. If one of them doesn't get around 10 targets, I'm going to set myself on fire.
September 20th, 2019 at 11:39 AM ^
In that scenario, we should feed them until they stop it more than once.
September 20th, 2019 at 11:43 AM ^
"If one of them doesn't get around 10 targets, I'm going to set myself on fire."
I'd keep a fire extinguisher handy if I were you.
September 20th, 2019 at 11:38 AM ^
And yet, if the game is at all close, I suspect turtle time. I know, I know, y'all want to call me a troll. Whatever.
Harbaugh era: Big game against ranked team, especially on the road, close game, turtle time. A serious pattern.
Just open up the goddamn offense and que sera sera. Turtle time means a high probability of a loss, and at least if we lose with a dynamic offense, it'll give future opponents something to think about, rather than knowing what we're gonna run (pun intended).
And no, I don't want us to lose. I want us to open up the offense -- unless it's a monsoon.
September 20th, 2019 at 11:51 AM ^
I think most of us want to see more deep shots with the talent at WR, but if Wisky plays mostly cover 2 and 3 they are going to actively try to take that away. Good news is that leaves holes in coverage elsewhere. At the end of the day we all just want the offense to take what the defense is giving you, don't turn down easy yards.
September 20th, 2019 at 1:54 PM ^
Isn't the book on Shea that you should run zone and force him into extra reads, which he does not yet do very quickly? Hopefully the return of Runyan will help Shea get some more time and get comfortable throwing (as well as opening running lanes).
September 20th, 2019 at 12:01 PM ^
Just don’t make me relive Brett Bielma handing off 27 times in a row against a 3-3-5. I know DB is no Gerg but physics don’t care. Unless he’s got the most creative and clairvoyant run blitz scheme ever conceived, that is a recipe for elevating Taylor as the Heisman front runner.
September 20th, 2019 at 12:25 PM ^
I'm worried about tomorrow.
Mostly because of what I see as Michigan's weakness -- defensive tackles -- matching up against Wisconsin's strength ... offensive line and JT.
If you add windy/rainy conditions to that, it adds another element where running is preferred to throwing.
The Wisconsin coaches wont' be as inclined to pass for first downs when they could easily run for one (like a couple of last year's baffling decisions).
Add in the fact that Michigan's big advantage is its receivers over Wisconsin's DBs, and it just doesn't seem like a great combination for Harbaugh to really get the road woes off his back.
Really, really hope I'm wrong and focusing on the wrong things.
September 20th, 2019 at 12:29 PM ^
We are going to get waxed a la 2017 @ Penn State (42-13) if we continue being so obvious with our running and passing play calling. Wisconsin's defense is first in success rate allowed (1st against the run, 2nd against the pass, 1st on standard downs, 5th on passing down).
It's not an advantage that the defense can tell by what down and distance you have what you'll be doing, and by Connelly's numbers, we're quite bad in that arena.
September 20th, 2019 at 1:06 PM ^
How's our defense in success rate allowed? Because they're almost as predictable. Connelly frames it as an improvement, and it is, but they're still at 63%, we're at 67% runs on standard downs. I'm not buying that as a colossal disadvantage.
September 20th, 2019 at 1:06 PM ^
My thinking is that bad weather doesn’t necessarily play into anyone’s hands, unless one team isn’t prepared for it.
Michigan should have a better run game than in previous games, if Charbonnet is healthy and Runyan has gotten back to full strength. Will it be a nice surprise by being up to the level of Wiscy’s game? Who knows.
We blew up Wiscy’s game plan last year. Granted, there were bad play calls on Chryst’s part, and maybe that gets fixed for this year’s tilt.
In any case, I’m going to be optimistic. Should be a good game.
September 20th, 2019 at 1:21 PM ^
I think his numbers are a bit unfair here; they were closer to 50/50 before the 2nd half of the Army game. With a small sample size, you can get these weird results.
September 20th, 2019 at 4:18 PM ^
Can’t disagree. I’m waiting for the #SpeedInSpace to show up.
September 20th, 2019 at 9:16 PM ^
Average defenses teeing off on our predictable playcalling? Small sample size for this year, but sounds par for the course considering the 3 previous years.