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

Listed below are statistics of Quarterbacks in the top 100 rushers in a given year. Immediately below each one, there is a snippet on where each one was drafted, or how they did in the NFL. As you can see, the number of times a quarterback rushes the ball has little bearing on where he will be drafted. Rather, it is a matter of which skills you have.

All of these players are back in college this year, but several of them are NFL-bound. Pat White will be a first day pick as a receiver, and Tim Tebow and Dan LeFevour are locks to be eventual NFL draft picks. Grothe will probably also make it to the NFL, along with Jake Locker, Matt Grothe, and maybe Zac Robinson.

None of these players made it to the NFL (yet, as several are still eligible).

I think we all know how Vince Young made out after leaving Texas (3rd overall in 2006). Reggie McNeal was picked as a receiver in the 6th round. Brad Smith went in the 4th round at receiver, and Michael Robinson was a fellow 4th-rounder as a running back.

Rasheed Marshall (who played for Rich Rodriguez at WVU) was a 5th-round pick as a receiver. Josh Cribbs went undrafted, but is still playing in the NFL as a receiver/returner for the Cleveland Browns. Drew Stanton was the 2nd-round pick of the Detroit Lions in 2006, and is expected to challenge for their starting position this year.

Also, for the record, Michael Vick was a number 1 overall draft pick, despite only actually playing college football for 2 years, and being as far from a prototypical NFL quarterback as you can imagine. Offensive style doesn’t dictate where a “system quarterback” will be drafted. Instead, it is skill that is paramount. NFL GMs can tell if a guy has an NFL arm, regardless of whether he’s running the zone-read (Vince Young), a different type of running spread (Tim Tebow), or a passing-oriented offense (Dan LeFevour, among others).

Posted under Coaching, Recruiting

Back in the spring, the Michigan staff opened its doors to high school and college coaches from around the country, and conducted a coaching clinic. Near-legendary Mike Barwis gave presentations about strength training, and defensive and offensive techniques were taught to the attendees. However, the main event (if not Barwis, of course), was the presentation on how the Michigan offense will work, and the principles behind said offense.

Many Michigan fans were curious about why the staff would give away its secrets, especially when the enemies could so easily use this information against the Wolverines (several MSU coaches were rumored to be in attendance). Of course, the coaches wouldn’t share all their secrets, nor does a knowledge of the system necessarily reveal the secrets to stopping it.

Instead of focusing on the possible negatives from spreading the… spread…, it is necessary to take note of the positives (and realize that they outweigh any potential negatives). I’ve brought this up before, but looking at future instate prospects, it really hit home to me how beneficial this sharing can be.

In 2010, the state of Michigan has a fairly strong recruiting class. Included in this class are two top dual-threat quarterbacks: Robert Bolden from Orchard Lake Saint Mary’s and Devin Gardner from Inkster (more on them in the upcoming 2010 recruiting primer). OLSM already runs a form of the spread (though not, if I recall correctly, a read-option), but I’m not sure what type of scheme Inkster runs. The Michigan coaching staff, by teaching its system to high school coaches across the state and country, gives itself an advantage. First, the coaching staffs at the high schools have a familiarity with the Michigan staff, and will not hesitate to encourage a player to commit to the Wolverines in the future. Second, players will be comfortable going to a school with an offensive system they ran in high school, and will have a leg up on learning the system by the time they enroll in college.

By giving high school coaches in the state access to the Michigan coaching staff and their knowledge of the spread offense, it helps the high schools develop prospects speficially for Michigan’s system, and also gives the Wolverines an upper hand in recruiting these youngsters.

Posted under Coaching

Many preseason publications warn Michigan fans: Rodriguez went 3-8 in his first year at West Virginia, so expect a very rough year in 2008. However, in order to fully understand what 2001 can tell us about 2008, we have to take a closer look at the 2001 Mountaineers.

The Previous Year
In Don Nehlen’s final year at the helm in Morgantown, West Virginia went 7-5, including a bowl victory. The season started on a high note, with a 34-14 victory over Boston College, followed by a 30-17 win over Maryland, both at home. The next week, however, the Miami Hurricanes rolled into town, and pasted WVU by a score of 47-10 (keep in mind that this was when Miami was actually good).

Uncomfortably close victories over Temple and Idaho (29-24 and 28-16, respectively) were followed by a three game slide against Virginia Tech (48-20), Notre Dame (42-28), and Syracuse (note that this was before Syracuse became ghastly bad).

In Don Nehlen’s final home game at Mountaineer Field, West Virginia beat East Carolina by a margin of 42-24. Their finish in the Big East gave the Mountaineers an invitation to the Music City Bowl.

Though heavy underdogs, West Virginia upset Mississippi State 49-38, thanks to a career day by QB Brad Lewis, who threw 5 touchdown passes and directed the offense to 432 total yards.

Here is a breakdown of where the Mountaineers ranked in several offensive and defensive categories:

In Between
Clemson Offensive Coordinator Rich Rodriguez was hired by West Virginia on November 26th, 2000. The Mounatineers returned starting quarterback Brad Lewis, though they graduated 2nd-leading receiver Kory Ivy, and a couple offensive linemen, but they did return most of their offense. On defense, linebackers David Carter, Cory McIntyre, and Chris Edmonds were the key departees. Kicker John Ohliger also departed.

Though Rodriguez didn’t inherit a world-beating team (The Mountaineers tied for 5th in the Big East with BC, whom they beat head-to-head, and as illustrated above, they were in the bottom half of the conference in nearly every category), their were enough returning personnel to expect a similar finish the following year.

Editor’s Note: I’m having a tough tiome tracking down 2000 and 2001 All-Big East Teams (even from the Big East office), so if you have access to them, please let me know.

2001
Nearly every Michigan fan knows that Rodriguez went 3-8 in his first year as WVU’s Head Coach, so let’s take a deeper look at each game.

In the first game of the year, West Virginia traveled to Boston, to take on the Eagles of Boston College. Brad Lewis and Rasheed Marshall combined to throw three picks and zero touchdowns. RB Avon Cobourne was the only Mountaineer to find the end zone on that day, and kicker Brenden Rauh went 1-3 on his field goal attempts. Boston College lit up the scoreboard, putting 34 points on the Mountaineers. RB William Green took it to the house 3 times, and QB Brian St. Pierre threw a TD pass to Dedrick Dewalt.

In game 2, Rodriguez got his first victory as the head coach at West Virginia. The Mountaineers took on the Ohio Bobcats at home. Avon Cobourne ran for 173 yards and two TDs, and Brenden Rauh tacked on a pair of field goals. Brad Lewis threw for a quiet 134 yards, while rushing for 9. For the other side, Bobcats RB Jamel Patterson ran for a mere 53 yards, while QB Dontrell Jackson threw for 87 yards and ran for 34.

In game three, WVU took on another MAC opponent. Facing Kent State at home, the Mountaineers would ultimately walk off the field with a 34-14 victory. Avon Cobourne ran for 181 yards and 1 score, and Brad Lewis threw for 286 and two scores while running one in as well. For Kent State, Josh Cribbs ran and passed for a score each, while throwing 2 interceptions.

The non-conference schedule continued with a trip to College Park, Maryland, where the Mountaineers faced off against the Terps. They would head back to Morgantown as the recipients of a 32-20 loss. Avon Cobourne ran for 128 yards, but no scores, while Brad Lewis attempted 52 passes. He threw for a total of 279 yards with 1 touchdown, but also completed 4 passes to the gentlemen in the red jerseys (one of which a player known to the NCAA statbook only as “Whaley” took to the house). Wide Receiver Shawn Terry ran a kickoff back for a touchdown, and Brenden Rauh added a pair of field goals. For the Terps, Bruce Perry ran for a touchdown, and QB Shaun Hill passed and rushed for one. RB Marc Riley ran one in as well.

The Mountaineers didn’t have much time to rest, as they invited Virginia Tech into Morgantown the following week. The Hokies brushed off West Virginia without so much as an effort, shutting out the opponent 35-0. Keith Burnell ran for 2 TDs
for Tech, Grant Noel Passed for a pair, and Kevin Jones ran one in as well. For West Virginia, Brad Lewis threw a pick and Avon Cobourne was held to just 31 yards.

Game 6 found the Mountaineers on the road in South Bend, where they dropped a 34-24 decision to the Irish. Brad Lewis threw for 91 yards, two touchdowns, and an interception, while Avon Cobourne threw in 169 yards and a TD of his own. For the opposition, Carlyle Holliday threw for just 70 yards, with an interception. However, Julius Jones ran for 2 TDs, and Tony Fisher chipped in with a pair as well. The RB tandem rushed for a total of 211 yards, with Holliday adding another 130 on the ground.

Relief wouldn’t come just yet for West Virginia, as they traveled to the OB for a night game against the eventual national champion Miami Hurricanes. WVU managed only a field goal, while the Canes scored 45. Clinton Portis ran for 76 yards and a touchdown, while Frank gore added 124 yards and a couple scores of his own. Ken Dorsey threw for 192 yards, two scores and an interception. Andre Johnson and Jeremy Shockey each had a receiving touchdown. Some dude named “Jones” threw 4 picks for West Virginia.

Looking to snap the 4-game losing streak, The Mountaineers next invited Rutgers into Mountaineer Field. It wasn’t pretty, as West Virginia pasted the Scarlet Knights by a score of 80-7. Rutgers’s only points were scored by Marcus Jones, who ran for 105 yards. West Virginia had scoring in bunches, with Avon Cobourne complimenting his 147 yards with 4 touchdown runs, Quincy Wilson running for 129 yards and a score of his own, Rego Cooper chipping in 65 yards and a trip to the endzone, and Cassell Smith getting a touchdown of his own. Brad Lewis threw for 175 yards and two touchdowns. Defensive back Shawn Hackett did the nearly unthinkable, scoring on both an interception retun and a fumble return.

With a bit of momentum on their side, West Virginia looked to get another Big East win against Syracuse. However, the Orangemen would triupmh 24-13. James Mungro ran for 78 yards and all three Syracuse touchdowns. Rasheed Marshall did the touchdown scoring for West Virginia, on 22 ruching yards (he also threw a pick). Brenden Rauh added a pair of field goals.

Next up for West Virginia was Temple. Though this sounds like a layup, the Owls went home with a 17-14 victory over West Virginia. Avon Cobourne ran for 103 yards, and Rasheed Marshall tacked on 95 of his own (and a touchdown). In his first start, Marshall also passed for 128 yards and a score (to AJ Nastasi), though he threw 2 interceptions. For Temple, Tanardo Sharps ran for 174 yards and Mac Devito threw for 85. The scoring was provided by running back Lester Trammer (who also had 30 yards) and three field goals by Cap Poklemba.

The Backyard Brawl was the last chance for West Virginia to come away from 2001 with a good taste in their mouths, but it was not to be. Pitt won 23-17 at Mountaineer Field. Rasheed Marshal ran for 40 yards and a score, while passing for 64 and another touchdown. For Pitt, David Priestley threw for 172 yards, three touchdowns, and an interception.

Let’s see how the West Virginia stats from 2001 stack up to their performance in Don Nehlen’s final year:

The Mountaineers finished last in the Big East with a 3-8 record (1-6 in conference).

What have we learned?
Rodriguez’s first year struggles at West Virginia actually don’t appear to be too great a dropoff from Nehlen’s final season. The defense was alternately terrible (run defense) and awesome (pass defense). However, it was not a significant weak point, and shouldn’t be pointed to as the cause of West Virginia’s slide (it is important to note, however, that Michigan will field a much, much better defense in 2008 than WVU did in 2001).

In the offensive stats, the rush yards increased significantly, while the pass yards decreased significantly. This is expected to occur (perhaps to a lesser degree) at Michigan this year as well. Brad Lewis was not an efficient passer (96th in the country) and Michgian fans can hope that a sour-star recruit in Steven Threet can carry the team a bit more.

Turnovers seem to be the main factor in WVU’s struggles during the 2001 system. If you subscribe to the theory that they are mostly random, then West Virginia would have had a much better year if only they had a bit more luck. The system transition may have had something to do with it, but 6 picks thrown by the “Jones” guy, and 9 for Lewis and 4 for Marshall seem to imply that maybe the Mountaineers just had bad QB play.

Forecasting
If the past is any indication, Michigan shouldn’t have a catastrophic first year under the Rich Rodriguez regime. He has had time to fine-tune his system at the highest levels of play, and the personnel on the team that he is taking over is a ridiculously large upgrade over what he
had to work with at West Virginia. Many fans and pundits expect the Michigan defense to carry the load, particularly early in the season, which is somethign Rodriguez wasn’t able to do.

So, for those who see a 1-7-1 record in his first year at Glenville State and a 3-8 mark in his first year at West Virginia and predict pain for Michigan this year, I won’t go so far as to say expect a conference championship for the Wolverines, but a 34th conecutive bowl game is certainly likely.

Posted under Coaching

West Virginia Offense. Next week we’ll get back to recruiting.

 

 Breaking Down the WVU Offense [7:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Posted under Blogcast, Coaching, Video

A little while back, there was a good post on Burnt Orange Nation about Texas Tech, and how a “gimmicky offense” doesn’t inherently lead to a team having poor defenses. Of course, the reason I bring this up is because of the perception that Rich Rodriguez run a gimmick offense himself, and the fear that this wouldn’t work at a high level.

Essentially, the theory goes: (1) offenses can be enginnered[sic] to take advantage of inferior athletes much more easily than defenses. (2) defenses require great athletes to be great. (3) it’s very hard to recruit great athletes to Lubbock, Texas. (4) therefore, Leach’s offenses have outpaced his defenses. Look around college football at the mid-level programs that have over-achieved in the past 10 years. What do they all have in common? Explosive offense; spotty defense.

This holds true for West Virginia to a certain extent as well. While Rodriguez’s recent success enabled him to recruit better players to Morgantown, WV, it was the Mountaineer offenses that became known around the nation, not the defenses. Recently, the defensive was able to improve based on the success of the team overall. Obviously, Michigan has been a national power, and will not have the same recruiting difficulties as Texas Tech or West Virginia.

If any of you have read the Blind Side by Michael Lewis, you’ll recall his discussion of Bill Walsh’s innovative West Coast offense. Well, NOW it’s called innovative. Back when it was introduced, it was thought of as gimmicky and voodoo. Sound familiar? Then Walsh (who himself said that defensive prowess depends primarily on having great athletes and smart football players, not a scheme) and his 49ers got a defense and won a few Super Bowls and now teams freely use the West Coast Offense as a viable system.

Of course, Michigan’s defense is expected to carry the torch in year one while the offense plays catch-up, so will the Rodriguez spread simply considered “innovative” rather than “gimmicky” in no time flat?

Leach could have been content with Tech being a mediocre team that loses to good teams with better players and beats the teams it’s supposed to. But he instead created a system that allowed his inferior players to beat the best on any given Saturday. Unfortunately for Leach, however, if his offensive system isn’t working, Tech can lose to teams that have even more inferior talent than it. Why? In short, no damn defense.

Of course, a lack of offense explained the WVU loss to Pitt, but it wasn’t because they had “no damn defense” (Pitt only put up 14 points). The lack of the system working and special teams blunders (due to Pat White’s injury and missing three field goals, respectively) were to blame here. With ability to recruit better backups and, presumably, special teams players than West Virginia, hopefully Michigan can avoid upsets of this nature.

In the end, it comes down to Michigan having a “decided schematic advantage” over the opponents (note: actual advantage, not Weis-labeled advantage) on offense, without the defensive difficulties that a team like Texas Tech or West Virginia may encounter. With an effective offensive system and the ability to recruit high-caliber defensive recruits, the sky is the limit for the Wolverines.

Posted under Coaching

For today’s video offering, there will be no recruiting podcast (and there was much sighing). I humbly request that you accept a repost of the basics of spread offense video:

Posted under Coaching

I’ve heard a lot of rumbling about how all of Michigan’s commitments are skill players, rather than linemen. While this is partially true (Michigan also has had a commitment from Will Campbell since the beginning of time), Michigan’s pickup of Michael Schofield changed this somewhat. Of course, the fans are never satisfied, and a couple defensive ends or safeties could go a long way to assuage their fears.

I figured this change was more a reaction to the new regime coming in and needing to be established, until I found an article with this fairly interesting quote:

While the current 10 verbal commitments to the Mountaineers’ next recruiting class are predominantly skill-position players…

This made me wonder about whether there is an inherent quality of the system, or perhaps even the personality of the coaching staff (while most of West Virginia’s old coaching staff is now in Ann Arbor, some members – including the new headman – remain in Morgantown).

West Virginia fans are apparently suffering from the same restlessness of Michigan fans, in hoping that they will stop picking up skill players and start getting some big fellas. The Mountaineer even have 3 linemen to Michigan’s 2, and this is still not enough.

I did a bit of historical research to see if West Virginia’s early commits were typically skill position players. It appears that this wasn’t always the case. Is there a trend here, or just a coincidence? I certainly couldn’t decide.

Posted under Coaching, Recruiting