Picture Play: The Fourth Down Option

The play above is one of the moments in The Game that really bothered me. It looked like the triple option that Oregon runs, but it didn't have the inside zone read (i.e. tradition speed double option). The idea of this play is to go to the outside and to option off a defender. This depends on what the defender does. If he commits to stopping the quarterback, he pitches to the running back. If the defender commits to the pitch, the quarterback takes off up field.

When Hoke talks about poor execution, this is the type of play that he's talking about.

Let's start by looking at the start of the formation:

Denard is in the shotgun with a two backs in the backfield, two tight ends and a receiver left.

Simulataneous with the snap, Smith motions behind Denard and to the left. The play is going to the left, and it's pretty clear that it's going to be an option left. The next picture is where we begin to see the breakdown in execution.

You'll see that Denard runs inside the tackles rather than running the option. Had he ran outside, he would've optioned off #4 CJ Barnett. With the WR blocking one on one with the corner, you would have liked your chances of getting the first down there. Instead, Denard does what he usually does, which is improvise. You let Denard do these kind of things because he often turns these things into big plays.

This also looks like it could be a big play. Hopkins is ahead of Denard on the left and Omameh is pulling from the right. Michigan has Lewan and AJ Williams ahead, and if all the blocks are executed right, Denard could have been sprung.

Hopkins whiffs on the block, forcing Etienne Sabino to the inside and Omameh doesn't even bother to meet him. Meanwhile, down the field, Ryan Shazier is getting off Lewan's block.

Both Sabino and Shazier funnel to Denard and stop him dead for a two yard loss. While Ohio State did well to stop Michigan, it all came down to poor execution:

• Denard should not have improvised. Had he run to the outside, Michigan is most likely looking at a new set of downs. By running where the defenders are, he put the fate of the play in his offensive linemen's hands. There is a reason why this play has stood the test of time: it works. Denard didn't run the play properly.
• The blocking failed on all levels. Hopkins whifed on Sabino, letting Sabino get past him. Omameh missed a pancake opportunity on Sabino that could've possibly sprung Denard to the next level. Lewan let Shazier get off his block, allowing the All-Big Ten linebacker to deliver the death blow to the play.

Re-looking at a play like this where I knew there was poor execution when I saw it live makes me want to look at more plays and see if there was a similar breakdown in execution. I raked Borges over the coals yesterday, but perhaps I didn't criticize the players enough besides the turnovers. If you're given an assignment on a play, it is your responsibility to do execute it. Michigan didn't. It made a difference in the final score.

The Great Disappointment

This has got to be one of the most frustrating seasons I've ever watched. Even that first Rich Rod season, you realized early on that that team wasn't very good. This team, even after the Alabama game, where the Tide were the much better team going in, I thought that Michigan had the chance to have a very successful season.

It was the little things that made the difference. I want so bad to call this season "unlucky," but I can't. A habitual penchant for making mistakes isn't unlucky. It is poor execution, and it is poor coaching. We turned the ball over 16 times in the four losses. That is just unacceptable. Yet, through all of this poor play, we managed to be within a touchdown against Notre Dame, the number one team in the country. We managed to be within a touchdown of undefeated Ohio State. We were within 1-point of Nebraska and deep in Big Red territory when Denard went down. This team was still so close to being an 11 win team.

That is the most frustrating part, isn't it? That first Rodriguez year was frustrating because it was un-Michigan-like. We have a program built on excellence and tradition. However, we were quick to realize how terrible that team was and how far below our standards it was. The team wasn't losing close games every week. They weren't competing at all. Period. This team competed their butts off. The defense kept us in the games, and the offense needed to score a bit more to put it games away. It just didn't happen.

This was supposed to be our year. It should have been our year. With Ohio State and Penn State facing sanctions, the Leaders Division cubbard was dry. It's still dry, unless you believe in Wisconsin's "let's run Power-O every single play on the 1 even though our opponent knows we're going to run Power-O from the 1" offense. Sparty was due for a down year after Cousins and Worthy went to the NFL. A similar story was brewing in Lincoln with Crick, Dennard, and David all gone. The potential for a big season was there.

There are many questions that come with a disappointing season. Who is to blame? What could we have done differently? Usually, these things involve a lot of hindsight, but I'm pretty sure the main core problems were noted before the season and before games.

Obviously, one of the major talking points has been Gardner's move from QB to WR. "Bellomy's failure there shows that he should have never been moved" blah blah blah. The bottom line is that we had depth issues at both positions. This is on Rodriguez. You shouldn't be down to only 3 scholarship quarterbacks to begin with. Additionally, with the youth (Funchess) and lack of size (Roundtree and Gallon), our wide receiving core was less than impressive. The coaches wanted to get our second best play maker on the field? That's preposterous.

If the coaches knew that injuries were going to work out the way they did, they probably would have put Gardner at quarterback sooner. It's easy to say that. As I said before, bringing in a redshirt freshman at quarterback in as hostile an environment like Memorial Stadium is not something you really plan for. It's easy to second guess the coaches on this, and I don't think it's worth hashing.

The fundamental problem with starting a quarterback like Denard, when the rest of your quarterbacks are more pro-style, is that you can't game plan for your backups as effectively as you can. You're not going to spend as much time preparing your backups as much as you prepare your starters. Otherwise, the starters wouldn't be as prepared as they should be. Thus, when you bring in a kid like Bellomy in a game you weren't expecting to bring him in, you see a scaled down playbook with more predictable play calling. The Blacksharks smelled blood, and they blitzed and blitzed and blitzed.

The other big hindsight call from the fans is that Denard should have been moved to RB/WR sooner, not just after he was unable to throw. The problem there again is that there were depth issues. Moving Denard to RB/WR would be a more permanent decision, because he is a Senior and because they would be running a different offense if they tried to move him back. They would have had to fit a square peg in a round hole mid-season. There is also the fact that Denard is the face of Michigan football and moving him would be met with cries of outrage. The guy did some incredible things at Michigan, almost all of it playing quarterback. Putting the ball in your best playmaker's hands every single offensive play makes too much sense not to do it.

Another big problem our running backs were so bad. Fitzgerald Toussaint was mediocre all season long, forcing Michigan to run it with Denard more than the coaches probably wanted. None of the backups really stepped up either. Giving Denard more attempts probably contributed to him taking more shots and eventually to his injury. Had our running game been as effective as it had been at the end of last season, this might not have been a talking point. It is football though. It's a physical sport, and injuries happen.

Besides unexpected injuries, you don't really know what you have on the field until you see them in action. The coaches must have felt confident in Bellomy and thought moving Gardner to wide receiver would significantly improve that position. While Roundtree and Gallon looked great at the end of the season, I don't think you can really argue against the fact that Gardner was one of if not the best receiver on the team early in the season, averaging 16.6 yards per reception. Furthermore, the small sample size we saw of Gardner at QB last year wasn't impressive. The coaches must have liked what they saw from Bellomy, who was the most impressive quarterback during the Spring Game, enough to make him second string QB.

In the end, there were too many conflicting ideas that prevented the best use of all personnel at all times.  You can attribute it to depth, you can attribute it to transition, but the bottom line is it held us back. When you couple it with some unexpected events, you're looking at a team significantly underperforming its talent level.

Then, there is Al Borges. Where do I start without devolving into an expletive ridden rant? For me, offensive play calling is very simple. You want to use your most effective plays to move the ball and to score points. I don't see the need to do trick plays and cute things like that when you're moving the ball effectively. Do what you do best. Al Borges, time and time again, has shown me very little in terms of his play calling in big games.

In the two years that he has been the offensive coordinator, Michigan has played in 10 big games. I really think that he's had good games in may be 2.25 games:

The fourth quarter against Notre Dame, where it was mostly jump balls anyway.
The Nebraska game last year.
The Ohio State game last year.

In the other 7.75 games, he hasn't been bad, he has been terrible. In the Michigan State game last year, Borges continuously tried to employ the deuce formation, using both Robinson and Gardner. I appreciate showing new looks, but whenever Gardner was under center, he was handing off to Robinson. There was little to no misdirection. There were no wrinkles. It was too predictable. If you're going to do that, why not just run a zone read/inverted veer type play. Why show a new look formation if you're not going to take advantage of it? It was a similar story in the Iowa game that we lost.

After great games against Nebraska and Ohio State, the offense devolved into jump ball to Junior Hemmingway against Virginia Tech. May be Borges struggled with Bud Foster's 4-4 defense, but he had several weeks to prepare. The Hokies held us to under 200 yards after we put up at least 40 points in our final two games. The inability to move the ball in that game just showed a lack of preparation from view. I say that knowing that Virginia Tech has historically had a good defense. It is hard to believe that the offense could be so ineffective after having so many weeks to prepare for a defense.

That was my first season watching Borges. As a result, I came into this season skeptical but hopeful that he would change my opinion of him.

I don't think you can really fault him for the Alabama game. I did want him to run the ball more and to take the pressure off of the defense that was continuously overpowered. However, I'm not sure how much of a difference it would have made. Alabama looked like they could score at will. They were bigger, stronger, and more powerful. Borges seemed to call the game with the rest of the season in mind. He did not want to put Denard Robinson at risk.

Notre Dame was different though. Even with the turnovers, Michigan outgained Notre Dame by 60 yards. Michigan was moving the ball at a decent clip. However, when Michigan entered the redzone, Borges struck with his finest effort in derpitude. Rather than letting Denard's legs carry us to the endzone, Borges decided that the Wolverines should try a half back pass with Vincent Smith. Smith was pressured and threw an interception. The first half was an abortion with all of the turnovers, but it was clear Borges didn't have confidence in the offense after halftime, only allowing it to operate with the parking brake. Notre Dame was a game that the Wolverines should have won. We did not.

Against Ohio State, Michigan had a great first half. Devin Gardner looked effective as did Denard Robinson in a pure running capacity. In the second half, we started inexplicably wasting downs running ineffective plays running up the middle. I don't know how much of this is on Borges as Hoke is trying to take some of the blame. It was quite evident that Michigan was struggling to run up the middle, but continued to do so. Ohio State kept stopping them and forcing turnovers on these type of plays.

Michigan was more effective running to the outside, but continued to keep it between the tackles. Furthermore, we saw less of Denard and Devin in together. Hoke is covering up for that too. It's a shame because Gardner's arm put us in many short yardage situations from which Michigan should have moved the chains. In the midst of all these inside runs, I was left dumbfounded by the lack of play action bootlegs, a play that has been so effective these last few weeks. Borges refused to call Michigan's most effective play with Gardner at QB. Coupled with the ineffective plays that he was calling, and Michigan could not move the chains.

It's a shame because the other side of the ball has been so good this year. If I lack confidence in Borges, I am the complete opposite with Mattison. This Michigan defense doesn't have the most talent, but Mattison gets the most out of them. He designs plays so that the team can make the play, rather than the individual. A great example of this is the slants in short yardage, which Brian from MGoBlog diagrammed. Michigan uses its linemen to occupy and disrupt the blocking so that the linebackers can flow to the ball. I'm not sure how innovative this is, but it is extremely effective. I think much of the effectiveness has to be credited to the coaching, to Mattison, Montgomery, and co.

Under Rodriguez, the defense was hardly existant. It was 108th in the country, allowing 454.8 yards per game. Last year, Michigan's defense allowed 322.2 yards per game, which was good for 16th in the country. This season, Michigan is 13th, allowing only 311.2 yards per game. The turnaround has been nothing short of a miracle. Much of this, by the way, has been with the same personnel. This new coaching staff did not recruit Quinton Washington, Craig Roh, or the mighty Jake Ryan. They have taken those guys and given them a chance to succeed though. We've seen what this coaching staff can get out of its players if they can get some time with them.

We have also seen glimpses of what the defense will look like next year and the talent that will translate. Jake Ryan will no doubt be the leader of the defense next season, following his break out season this year. Michigan will also get its best defensive back back from injury, Blake Countess. We've seen some of the freshmen like Ondre Pipkins, James Ross, and Joe Bolden that should be able to contribute. WIth recruiting, the defense is getting more athletic. With players spending more time in Mattison's system, they are better coached and more well-suited to take on college offenses. Michigan should have another great defense next year.

Speaking of next year, the schedule looks much easier. Michigan gets Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Ohio State, the three teams they lost to this season, all at home. While they face trips to Happy Valley and East Lansing, the best teams that they face should be at home. If there are high expectations next year, it shouldn't just be because of the players, but also a much more favorable schedule. It isn't outlandish to say that Michigan could go undefeated next year.

Much of Michigan's fate next year will once again fall on the offense. Can Al Borges get the most out of them? Who will step up around Devin Gardner? Which freshmen will make an impact? How will the offensive line look, especially considering they might lose every starter?

I think Borges can get the most out of them if he is running one system. With Denard graduating, he doesn't have to implement spread concepts over his more preferred "Gulf-Coast" offense. We'll run plays from under center. We'll get Gardner out of the pocket when we need to. We'll recruit bigger wide receivers and tight ends to be viable targets. The burden once again will fall on his play calling.

With Roy Roundtree graduating, Gardner might not have a lot around him. Jeremy Gallon will definitely be a go to guy, but he is far from an ideal sized wide receiver under the new coaches. Devin Funchess should continue to improve as he adds mass and adjusts to the college game. Then, who else? I don't think we can count on Toussaint being ready for next season, nor am I sold on Rawls's or Hayes's ability to step up. Both Amara Darboh and Jehu Chesson could figure greatly into the plans in their second year of the system, but receiver is going to still be an issue. Will Butt and Hill make an impact at TE? Will Michigan be able to land a Derrick Green or a Laquon Treadwell to give them an impact freshman on offense? We won't know until signing day.

What we do know is that we will have a bowl game. It's not the one we wanted. It's not the one we saw us going to. We'll face another good team too. It'll be exciting, and hopefully, we can win. Hopefully we can continue to build. My disappointment with this season is purely results based, but I've been happy with the progress. Hopefully, the results can match the progress.