Upon Further Review 2013: Defense vs Notre Dame

FORMATION NOTES: A very passive, bend-but-don't break outing. Michigan started in their 4-3, eventually transitioning to a nickel package basically full-time in the second half. Almost the entire game Michigan maintained a two-deep shell. Canonical example:

Michigan walked Jarrod Wilson into the box for about two plays in the second half, after Notre Dame had gotten some nice runs.

ND passed once, ran for two yards the second time (an offsides call that wasn't relevant to the play wiped that out) and then started passing again.

Late, Michigan started sending the house against Rees in high leverage situations. This is pure cover zero on which Michigan sent seven guys against six blockers. These are denoted as "Okie."

That one was actually in the first half; their frequency increased as Michigan got deeper into the game.

SUBSTITUTION NOTES: The secondary was Wilson/TGordon/Countess/Taylor the almost the whole way with Hollowell getting all of the nickelback snaps (he was on the outside with Countess at nickel). Stribling got a little bit of time replacing Taylor in the third quarter and Avery got a few snaps instead of Wilson.

The ILB rotation was the usual three way split between Morgan, Bolden, and Ross. It seemed about equal to the CMU breakdown, with Bolden in on 50% of snaps and the other two around 75%. Beyer got a lot more playing time than Gordon because he was a nickel DE; Gordon got a significant amount of run only before the nickel switch.

On the line, Clark and Ojemudia split the WDE snaps, no Charlton. Black was out there for just about every snap, first as the three-tech and then as the nose as Michigan went almost the entire second half without playing a true nose tackle. Wormley and Glasgow rotated in at the other DT spot, with Beyer and occasionally Gordon on the other DE. Washington and Pipkins played somewhat in the first half, and then barely at all in the second. I actually thought Pipkins was getting a good bull rush and that removing him was weird; we believe that Washington was playing through injury.

[After THE JUMP: run at us! Please! We're begging you!]

A lot of yards, man. Feels not so good.

410 yards is a lot, yes. However, 20 were rather useless ones at the end of the first half and 59 came on Michigan's final drive, when they weren't trying to stop Notre Dame so much as give up yards slowly. In contrast, every one of Michigan's 480 yards helped them. Let's look at ND's nine drives on which clock stuff didn't apply:

1. Three and out
2. Three and out
3. 9 play, 75-yard touchdown drive
4. 6 play, 20 yard FG drive
5. 8 play, 68 yard FG drive
6. Countess interception on second play of drive
7. 12 play, 90 yard touchdown drive
8. 10 play, 33 yard turnover on downs
9. 6 play, 29 yard field goal drive

That's actually pretty good. Notre Dame's offense scored 17 points on their own and then gets half credit for field goal drives starting from their 46 (dinosaur punt coverage) and 48 (shanked Wile punt); their turnover on downs came from the 50. They also coughed up a game-changing interception.

Michigan had a plan, and executed it everywhere except the pass rush. The end result was a respectable 23 point outing that allowed Michigan to distance themselves.

And I thought Tommy Rees was pretty good.

Lolwut

Rees is a senior who's been around the block, and he's got three excellent weapons in Niklas, Jones, and Daniels. He's miserable when he's forced to move around, but sometimes he did things like sense pressure behind him and get the ball out before the WR is even in his break:

Any time Rees tried to hit anything over the top it was a difficult throw to the edge of the field in a tiny window, and usually Jarrod Wilson was coming over the top. Live I thought he was just missing these things; now it's clear that he was asked to make a lot of difficult throws. He's got maybe a yard or two of space on the sideline to hit this:

This one is right on target and still out of bounds, as Ross and Wilson are again bracketing a 20-yard corner route.

Herbstreit kept saying Rees's throws were late; while that has some truth to it, he was trying to figure out if these windows were actually open. Other than one blown coverage by Morgan, Rees didn't have an easy decision to make on a ball more than five yards downfield all night. As I go through the clips, sometimes I have to refer back to the chart to remember why I thought a particular play was notable, and in this one I took a few just because I thought they were impressive throws by Rees.

He has limitations, but is there a better passer on the schedule?

Uh…

Right. Is there a better passer on the schedule other than unstoppable throw-god Trevor Siemian?

Didn't you think that Indiana's passing game was really good after the 2010 game?

Uh, yeah.

And Indiana turned out to be terrible?

Yeah.

And Michigan's defense was also incredibly terrible?

Okay but in my defense LOOK A BEAR

Are we worried about the run defense?

No. Or, at least not because of this game. Michigan spent the entirety of the second half and large chunks of the first half daring Notre Dame to run. This screenshot is probably the best evidence of that:

This is first and ten from Michigan's twenty in the second half. Michigan has nickel personnel on the field, deploys both safeties 14 yards off the line of scrimmage, and is playing Black and Godin at defensive tackle. This is begging Notre Dame to run.

Meanwhile, this was a first and goal(!):

That's five in the box. Maybe five and a half. ND duly ran for six yards.

Or this on third and three:

ND picked this up on the ground, because it's third and three and the linebackers are six and eight yards off the LOS.

This was Michigan's gameplan: shut off long plays and dare Notre Dame to run. When they did run, they picked up yards, and then the instant Michigan did something like stuff a third down or move Jarrod Wilson into the box they immediately abandoned the run, even when it made little sense to do so.

Michigan spent the entire game assuming that third and one was just as good as third and ten, and Notre Dame played like it too. It seems like Greg Mattison is in Brian Kelly's head at this point.

With that in mind, let's look at the

CHART

Chart.

Pre-chart context: don't forget to check out the metrics at the bottom before jumping on any particular thing. Coverage, especially, is important since it gives you an overview of the secondary's performance as a whole—and the linebackers in this game as well.

A really interesting chart: no stars until you get to the secondary, and no one who did poorly except the second three-tech on the field, be he Wormley or Glasgow. Keep that coverage number in mind as you look up at the relatively pedestrian numbers for the safeties and linebackers. They share in that credit. Rees didn't have anything open big all day.

The pressure metric is not great but it's better than I thought it would be; same goes for Frank Clark. Rees was about to get lit up several times, but he threw the ball before it could have an impact. Often he had nothing good, like those corner routes above. Sometimes he was throwing those because the alternative was a sack. Overall… still not good. Not as bad as I feared.

I can't overstate how impressive that coverage number is. There were three plays that featured a –2; everything else was the occasional –1. Cover minuses occurred on under a quarter of Rees's attempts despite a mediocre pressure number. Even if the game plan was set up to acquire those kind of results, actually doing it is another thing entirely. I don't think I saw an out-and-out mistake by a member of the secondary all day. Think about that.

RETIRED

That rock paper scissors seems too even. You've been lauding Mattison's game plan since Saturday.

RPS is not a holistic look at coordinator performance; it came about because there were certain plays where Michigan stuffed someone on which I struggled handing out points because it was all the playcall. If it's massively positive or negative, yeah, someone won. If it's neutral that asks for thinking caps.

Michigan gave up the edge about as much as they got it with various playcalls, yeah. Mattison's approach to this game was a steady drip that put ND in position to fail before they reached the endzone. And by now he's in Brian Kelly's head.

Mattison is in Kelly's head?

Notre Dame's first two drives went three and out as Mattison schemed his way to short-yardage victory. On the first, a late shift of Frank Clark inside paired with a Beyer blitz to acquire Clark a TFL without really having to beat a blocker:

On the second, Mario Ojemudia stunts inside as the two DTs hold up to blocking and he snuffs the play out:

This was so weird that I had Heiko ask about it in the press conference. Mattison confirmed that yes, that was the call. Ross was apparently supposed to flare out for cutbacks; he didn't.

I don't think I've seen that second play before: it's kind of a scrape exchange on a conventional inside zone. It's a DE/LB stunt that should get two ND players blocking nothing since the tackle can't help with Ojemudia and the G releasing downfield should find Ross shooting up to the outside for contain. I should probably Picture Page it. Mattison is awesome.

That was about that for Notre Dame trying to move the chains on the ground unless, as above, Michigan was flat-out begging for it. Down two touchdowns at the start of the fourth quarter, Notre Dame threw a wide receiver screen against a cornerback five yards off the line of scrimmage rather than try to run the ball. The whole thing still strikes me as a crappy gameplan by Kelly, but without Mattison booting his offense off the field in their first two opportunities to do so, the door stays on the hinges longer.

This is the third straight year that Mattison has crushed Notre Dame on third and short. Mattison is in Kelly's head.

Are we worried about the pass rush?

Yeah, a bit. It's worth pointing out that Notre Dame's left tackle is also a highly-regarded NFL prospect, a fringe first-round type. That mitigates things. Also, Michigan would have had some opportunities to sack a quarterback who was less sure of himself and his reads. Rees was letting it fly, quickly.

I bet you have a complaint about punt coverage.

You know me so well, bolded alter-ego. This was Michigan's first quarter punt, which traveled 42 yards with excellent hang time:

There are more Notre Dame players within 20 yards of the returner than Michigan players. TJ Jones would pick up 20 yards without having to dodge damn near anyone. Death to NFL punting.

Heroes?

The secondary as a whole.

Maybe not so heroic?

Michigan could have stood up to ND's running with six in the box much better if Pipkins or Washington had been in during the second half instead of Wormley and Glasgow. If they were supposed to provide more pass rush; they didn't.

What does it mean for Akron and the future?

If Michigan has to face down a passing spread at some point in the future they should be able to cope just fine; they will have to be more aggressive against teams that can move their DTs off the ball on doubles or run with the QB. This capability should be useful against Indiana and the Siemian version of Northwestern.

Frank Clark made progress. He made some plays in this game, which is important since the hype didn't match the production against CMU. Also, Brennen Beyer followed up on a promising start with a bit more pressure.

The pass rush was still disappointing. One sack in 51 attempts is subpar, and the DTs didn't provide anything.

Jarrod Wilson seems fine. No errors in this one. Huge.

Michigan's corners are at least good and may be better. Countess was very good and Taylor just about matched him even without the pick. Hollowell didn't look out of place, either.