Real Kato Blog: More on Dia de los Muertos

Sack Carr? Who would be a better coach?

Oh, so many thoughts about Saturday's game.

Many people, especially in the Michigan football blogosphere, are calling for Lloyd Carr's head, after Saturday's embarrassment. I have been a big Carr supporter for a long time, and I still believe that most people are wrong to believe that he's a bad coach. But just as I called out Chuck Amato for the performance problems at N.C. State, ultimately I have to blame Carr for the issues at Michigan.

Let's be clear on something, though: Carr's problem is not that he's too conservative. People say that he's a dinosaur, that the game has passed him by, that Michigan won't be any good unless they run a spread offense. Those folks are simply wrong. If every school in the country ran a spread offense, then the first school to bring back the triple-option veer would be called a modern genius. The reason the spread is so successful is that current college defenses simply haven't geared up properly to defend it. If every defense recruited solely to defend the spread, then a wishbone option running attack would destroy them. Remember how Joe Tiller ran roughshod through the Big Ten when he first introduced the spread? Defensive coordinators caught on, and now Purdue is just a middle-of-the road school in the conference.

Let me go into the ins and outs of the spread offense. The spread is a descendant of the run and shoot offense. It puts four or five wide receivers on the field with the intention of spreading out the defense, exploiting mismatches, and making it harder for defenses to disguise their coverages and blitz schemes. The defense doesn't put a safety in the box? Run a draw. Linebacker lined up against a receiver? Run a slant or a go route. Corners taking inside technique on a receiver? Play a fade. Every defense has an exploitable hole against the spread.

But the spread relies on several things going right for the offense: quick routes, good reads, and receivers who can get open. There's no blitz pickup protection, so a quarterback needs to find a receiver quickly... there's no time to wait for a slow-developing pattern. Both the quarterback and the receiver need to make the correct read on the defense. And receivers need to be able to beat man-on-man coverage by the cornerbacks. If any of those things don't happen, the offense falls apart. In the NFL, the main reason teams don't run the spread is that defensive backs are athletic enough to play man-on-man coverage. If the receiver can't beat press coverage, the play takes too long and the quarterback gets sacked.

So is the spread beatable? Absolutely. If I were a defensive coordinator playing against the spread offense, I would do three things: first, I'd play a lot of press coverage to disrupt the delicate timing of the passing attack. Second, I'd run zone blitzes (with defensive ends dropping into coverage) to confuse the reads. Third, I'd run a dozen different blitz packages to make sure I get some hits on the quarterback (and most likely, some bad decisions leading to interceptions and fumbles).

Why do so many teams run the spread, especially smaller schools? Because the spread relies more on timing and intelligence than size. If you have 320-pound offensive linemen, you don't need to run a spread. If you have 250-pound offensive linemen, like many small schools, you won't be able to pound away with a running attack, so the spread is the only strategy you can use.

So what about Michigan? Would we be more effective running a spread offense? With our current personnel, absolutely not. We've recruited offensive players for a running attack, or at least, a West Coast pro-style offense. A spread offense needs a mobile quarterback, and that's certainly something we don't have. In addition, a spread is vulnerable to giving up the ball on downs or via turnovers, and that's an element of risk that we don't need when we've got one of the best running attacks in the country (thank you, Mike Hart).

That's not to say that Michigan's offense couldn't use some tweaks. Michigan runs plays that are based on a West Coast offense, with short passing plays designed to complement the running game. Scot Loeffler, Michigan's highly-regarded quarterback coach, teaches a West Coast scheme to Michigan quarterbacks. But, unlike the Bill Walsh West Coast offense, Michigan uses the run to set up the pass, instead of the other way around. That's one area where Michigan might want to consider changing their tactics. Defenses load up to stop the run on first down. Michigan would do well to bring some variety to their first-down play calling. Screen passes and play action would sure be a good first step.

But fundamentally, Michigan's offensive playbook is modern enough. And the offense wasn't the problem on Saturday. The problem was the defense.

On defense, what was clear is that Michigan has exactly the kind of defense that spread offenses are designed to exploit. We don't have enough speed and athleticism at cornerback. We don't have the right schemes to confuse and disrupt offenses. We don't have linebackers who can react quickly enough to draw plays. If there's a place where Michigan needs a radical change, it's on defense.

And here's where I have a problem with Carr. His response to Saturday's defeat is that if we had executed better, we would have won. While that's true, that's not seeing the big picture. See, Michigan has long had the advantage of having players who are more athletic and more talented than the opponents. So a few lapses in execution could be tolerated. But there's so much parity in talent nowadays that Michigan doesn't have an athletic advantage over its opponents, even Division 1-AA opponents. When the difference in talent is small and the difference in execution level is negligible, then the outcome of a game comes down to which school has the better game plan. For the bulk of the past couple of years, Michigan has not had the better game plan. The edge in talent was enough to win games last year. It won't be the same this year.

It seems like Carr doesn't want to believe that he can't rely on Michigan execution and talent any more. He doesn't want to have to resort to trickery and scheming to win games. He wants to believe that Michigan's players and coaches are superior enough that simple fundamentals will win games. But there are so many good coaches and so many good players out there these days, and Michigan doesn't have the edge over other schools that it once had.

Coach Carr: I think you're a smart man. I think you have the ability to turn things around and get the program back on track. But if you don't want to coach in a world where trickery and scheming are more important than athletic superiority, then maybe it's time for you to go.

Lots of names have been floated as possible Carr replacements. LSU head coach Les Miles is mentioned frequently; he's successful, he's former Michigan player and head coach, and he's said that Michigan is his dream job. But he's also prone to embarrassing outbursts, and that makes a lot of people leery. Steve Sarkisian, the USC offensive coordinator, is an intriguing possibility; he would probably be in line for the head coaching position at USC, but who knows how long Pete Carroll might want to keep that job? My personal favorite: Norm Chow, the offensive genius behind the Tennessee Titans, the USC of recent years, and the Philip Rivers-era N.C. State. He was mentioned as a potential Amato replacement at N.C. State. I don't know that he'd want the Michigan job, but I think he'd be fantastic.

But you know what? I still believe in Michigan this year. I'm saddened and embarrassed over Saturday's loss. But Michigan is still Michigan, and we will still win games.

At least we're not Notre Dame.

Permalink 3 Comment

Posted by Ken in: sports

Comments

Comment #1 from Steve (Guest)
2007 Sep 5 - 12:50 pm : #

You know football a heck of a lot better than I do, but I'll summarize a bit of what you said in the latter paragraphs in my own words.

The job of a head coach, and his staff, is to make a team add up to be equal to, and preferably more than, the sum of its parts, whether through game plan, play calling, or whatever.

Carr and his staff may be able to do that, but they aren't right now.

Comment #2 from John C (Guest)
2007 Sep 5 - 10:06 pm : #

One thing that both App State and USC players said after the game is that Michigan's offense was incredibly predictable. I think we need to move away from the "even if they know what is coming, if we execute it will work anyway" approach. Sorta what you are saying, but on the offense.

Comment #3 from olafandyjon (Guest)
2007 Sep 6 - 9:55 am : #

Crap...it's been so long since I commented here that I can't remember which name I used...

But there's so much parity in talent nowadays that Michigan doesn't have an athletic advantage over its opponents, even Division 1-AA opponents. When the difference in talent is small and the difference in execution level is negligible, then the outcome of a game comes down to which school has the better game plan. For the bulk of the past couple of years, Michigan has not had the better game plan. The edge in talent was enough to win games last year. It won't be the same this year.

It seems like Carr doesn't want to believe that he can't rely on Michigan execution and talent any more. He doesn't want to have to resort to trickery and scheming to win games. He wants to believe that Michigan's players and coaches are superior enough that simple fundamentals will win games. But there are so many good coaches and so many good players out there these days, and Michigan doesn't have the edge over other schools that it once had.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head.

Comments are closed for this post.

Search This Site