Re-watched the second half of the game ...

[Motigerhawk]

Wrong! This is absolutely on BF. The 1st 3 points you made are absolutely the OCs fault. Bad coaching is hard to overcome when you lack athletes.

 

[hawkeye23]

I don't put all the blame on Stanley, but he didn't play very well either. IMO, play calling was aggressive. Iowa took a ton of shots in this game on offense. Threw it all over. Stanley was under throwing so many balls, but I have to imagine that was because of the time he was allowed. The line was horrible. They just weren't good enough or better than what UM was throwing at them. Iowa is not the best team in the country guys. I know it's disappointing. I am too disappointed but I kind of had an idea of that fact before the game. Now I am curious as to just how good of a year they can make it.

Likely.....it's going to be a typical Ferentz type year. 7-8 wins. Maybe 9 if they find a way to beat Wisky or PSU but after that Michigan performance, beating either one of those seems like a longshot.....lets hope

 

[HuckFinn]

I re-watched the second half of the game with intentions of going back and doing the first half but it is painfully obvious that I do not need to do that. If any of you want to go back and do the same thing, don't pay any attention to the play, just watch the offensive line play between 68 and 77, La. Paulsen and Jackson. It is horrific. That is where the game was lost, right there. With reasonable and competent line play, we win this game. The "NFL left tackle Jackson" stuff can just stop.

1. Stanley played pretty well actually. He does not deserve the heat he is getting, as he was in the correct play and made the correct read pretty much every play. He made some great throws. He did miss a throw to Sargent that could have been a first down and he definitely should have thrown the ball away on one of the sacks. But the other sacks were not on him.
2. Goodson played really well and in my opinion did a better job picking up blitzes than Sargent. Young does a great job picking up blitzes too.
3. Out of 31 plays I charted (I did not do the last drive), La. Paulsen made 7 egregious errors. By this I mean he either completely whiffed on a block, allowed a free rusher, or committed a penalty. Jackson had 3. Levi Paulsen had 2 and Banwart had 1. Sargent had 1. Wieting had 1. That is nearly half the plays when we had a player that could not block someone. An offense cannot overcome egregious errors on 50% of their plays, no offense can.
4. Notice I didnt say anything about Wirfs or Linderbaum. They are elite. Michigan only tried to blitz Wirfs once and he picked it up perfectly. Linderbaum allowed nothing in the middle. Zero.
5. I really can't blame B. Ferentz a lot here either. It did appear that he abandoned the run too early, however, after the re-watch and realizing the situation, we found ourselves in extremely long yardage situations where we could not run. We were behind the chains the entire time.

So lets all hope that something happens on the left side of our line and we clean that up. But knowing that we are talking about 5th year seniors and a supposed NFL tackle, it is hard to be optimistic.

This was really interesting analysis. Obviously, you know how to watch football. Now, to add to what you have written, go to Hawk Central and read Chad L’s Monday DVR. You will really enjoy it, as would anyone who read your post. It will be easy to blend in with your observations. Thanks for some really good stuff!

 

[DDThompson]

Ironically the OL coaching problem could be solved by Kirk retiring, Brian becoming head coach, Polasek the OC and a new decent guy becomes the OL coach.

That May solve the OL problem but if the guy can’t coach the OL why would that make him a better OC?

And just “no” and by that I mean, “not until hell freezes over no” on Brian becoming HC. The OC experiment is mixed “at best” so he needs to prove himself at a lower level.

We don’t do family dynasties.

 

[dirtwrap]

This was really interesting analysis. Obviously, you know how to watch football. Now, to add to what you have written, go to Hawk Central and read Chad L’s Monday DVR. You will really enjoy it, as would anyone who read your post. It will be easy to blend in with your observations. Thanks for some really good stuff!

You are welcome. I just read Chad's column a few minutes ago. He did a very good job as well. I particularly found it interesting how poorly we did on 2nd down.

 

[HuckFinn]

Read dirtwrap’s analysis and follow up with Chad L’s Monday DVR. Both are really good reads. A lot of the other posts on this thread are the sound and the fury, signifying nothing. If you really want to learn what happened and why, be objective and read these two sources.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Here is the formation breakdown in the second half:

21: 8 times. ran 3 times for 23 yards. 1 play action for 30 yds. 2 sacks. 1 holding penalty on 68. 1 holding penalty on Michigan corner.
11: 9 times. 7 yds. 2-5 passing. 2 holds. 1 ineligible receiver down field.
10. 4 times. 2-3 for 37 yards. Was the Sargent screen and the Tracy tackle break. 1 sack where Sargent whiffed.
12. 4 times. Ran 3 times for 8 yards. Other play was play action where 77 missed and forced Stanley to step up in pocket.
20. 1 time. Ran this on 3rd and 9, but Levi Paulsen gets beat badly and makes Stanley throw early or that would have been a sack, so incomplete.
01. 2 times. Had decent time to throw both plays. One play was a 9 yd slant to Nico, and the other was the 31 yard beauty to Goodson as he lined up in the slot. On the 31 yarder it was the only time that Michigan really went after Wirfs.
Empty set. 3 times. 2-2 for 19 yards. Both of those were on 1st and 10. The third time was on 3rd and 24 and Levi Paulsen missed his block and Stanley got sacked.

On the 10, 11, 20, 01 and Empty were all out of shotgun. There may have been one play where Stanley was under center in the 11 formation, I didnt write that down. Out of 31 plays, that is 19 plays out of shotgun.

I just dont see a lot that we left on the table here. Protection was equally poor in each and every formation and skill position lineup.

You say formation, but are you actually talking about personnel groupings? If that is the case, how in the "01" you have above was Goodson in the game? Maybe it was 10 or 20 personnel with a RB at the slot WR position? Not that it's totally relevant or take anything away from the plays you charted, as there is plenty of suck to go around in the plays you listed (coming from someone who hasn't watched the 2nd half).

 

[dirtwrap]

You say formation, but are you actually talking about personnel groupings? If that is the case, how in the "01" you have above was Goodson in the game? Maybe it was 10 or 20 personnel with a RB at the slot WR position? Not that it's totally relevant or take anything away from the plays you charted, as there is plenty of suck to go around in the plays you listed (coming from someone who hasn't watched the 2nd half).

You are right, I charted personnel groupings. I also noted the formation, but didn't put it in the post. I really didn't know what to do with the grouping when it was an empty backfield, one tight end but a running back was lined up in the slot. I just said Goodson was a wr in that one. If there is a more correct way to describe that I would like to know. Sorry for that, I am not an expert by any means. I was really interested to see if there were tendencies that we had out of specific groupings or formations that the defense would key on, but I quickly found out that it didn't matter much because of the problems at the both guard and left tackle spot. Those problems alone put us in so many obvious passing situations that we had no choice but to be unbalanced. It's a shame too because I do think we could have ran the ball on them if we had more favorable down and distance situations and had the opportunity to be more unpredictable.

Also, one thing that went unnoticed was how well we did on third down. There were a lot of clutch plays in there, especially with such long yardage. It is too bad to waste all of that by committing so many errors.

 

[hawkfan2679]

You are right, I chatted personnel groupings. I also noted the formation, but didn't put it in the post. I really didn't know what to do with the grouping when it was an empty backfield,.one right end but a running back was lined up in the slot. I just said Goodson was a wr in that one. If there is a more correct way to describe that I would like to know. Sorry for that, I am not an expert by any means.

No worries man. Like I said, it doesn't negate the analysis/play charting you did...the personnel grouping is merely the people who are on the field. So if Goodson is the only back on the field, regardless of where he lines up, the personnel grouping is going to start with a 1. I think more of your analysis was done from a formation perspective and then you added in how many were out of the gun. Often times I think we get a little too cute with our personnel groupings....but I digress.

What I've seen is that even when we go empty or even with 10 personnel, we almost NEVER take all the TE's off the field...if we're in empty, we will use 11 personnel quite a bit. I haven't paid as much attention this year, but I'd guess that we might put our top 4 guys on the field on occasion (B Smith, ISM, Nico, TT) because we are getting NOTHING from Weiting/Beyer.

 

[dirtwrap]

No worries man. Like I said, it doesn't negate the analysis/play charting you did...the personnel grouping is merely the people who are on the field. So if Goodson is the only back on the field, regardless of where he lines up, the personnel grouping is going to start with a 1. I think more of your analysis was done from a formation perspective and then you added in how many were out of the gun. Often times I think we get a little too cute with our personnel groupings....but I digress.

What I've seen is that even when we go empty or even with 10 personnel, we almost NEVER take all the TE's off the field...if we're in empty, we will use 11 personnel quite a bit. I haven't paid as much attention this year, but I'd guess that we might put our top 4 guys on the field on occasion (B Smith, ISM, Nico, TT) because we are getting NOTHING from Weiting/Beyer.

Thank you for the clarification, I will remember that.

I think your observation about the tight ends is spot on. I think our coaches are in a dilemna, where we have a pro-style QB who can't run, with a pro-style offensive line built to run the ball, without a productive tight end, without a power back, and where our WR's are our best players. If we leave the TE or TE's on the field, we put playmakers on the bench but we resemble a balanced pro-style offense, which is our style but not as potent without a difference maker at TE.. If we replace the TE's with better playmakers at the receiver spots, we are more potent down field but we are a totally different system with mismatched parts. That is a system that you almost have to have a running quarterback.

 

[HawkGold]

Missing in all of this though is that Stanley is as deliberate as molasses runs slow. That puts more pressure on the line. Good observations though.

 

[westender]

I have said it a thousand times, if you have a statue for a quarterback, which isnt necessarily a bad thing, you better be able to protect him and he better be able to make the throws. How our o line and specifically our guard play has deteriorated so badly over the years is disturbing.

When they blitz like that the routes have to be such the ball can be out in 3 seconds. Quick reads and quick throws. Make them stop that shit.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

If we played Iowa state again they would beat us. The line is not good, but the blocking scheme does not help either. Stanley is not good either. His accuracy is so inconsistent, and in this day and age you have to be able to at least avoid a blitz. He just freezes, and that is unacceptable for a senior qb. So is the grounding call, and taking the sack over on the sideline when all he had to do was flip the ball out of bounds.

Good God, last week it was "ISU is not a quality win", now it's "ISU would beat us".

You define the word "Inconsistent", as well as 'Ignorant".

 

[hawkeyebob62]

So the left side of the line was the main problem, but our OC shouldn't be expected to work around that?

Quick passes? Runs to the right? Screens? What adjustments were made, that show BF had any answers?

Well, at least he didn't call running plays on 3rd-and-20-something...

 

[uihawk82]

That May solve the OL problem but if the guy can’t coach the OL why would that make him a better OC?

And just “no” and by that I mean, “not until hell freezes over no” on Brian becoming HC. The OC experiment is mixed “at best” so he needs to prove himself at a lower level.

We don’t do family dynasties.

Polesek was the OC at North Dakota State during many of their Natty Champs from about 2013-2016 including during their win at Iowa in 2016.

Sometimes the OC can have a good feel for calling plays but might not be a top Off line coach. But BF showed he was a good Off line coach as running game coordinator is Kirk so I am sure the coaching is there for this team. As others said maybe a few linemen dont have the great hands or feet.

It is interesting that after the beating Beathard took in 2016 as the line couldnt pass block very well by last year they were pass blocking much better.

I think Polesek is probably doing a pretty good job but maybe is a really good OC.

 

[dahlhawk]

Jackson wasn't up to game speed, and was playing for the first time, essentially, with a new center and guard on the road. He wasn't ready for this game and we didn't have a capable backup. That's what happened, and the injury bug finally bit us hard enough to lose. He'll be better vs. PSU this week.

Really rusty from what I saw. Most of the pressure came right through him. The line just seemed totally confused by the looks they were giving Iowa. The holds (almost all legit) were simple Lineman getting whipped and having to tackle the Michigan players. Jackson really struggled, one has to wonder how the coaching staff didn't see it. Michigan really must have had this game circled because they had a whole game plan it seemed just for this game.
Iowa needs to let the defense lead this season, I hate to say it, but conservative ball-control offense works best when you have a great defense.

 

[skinnykilmer17]

I re-watched the second half of the game with intentions of going back and doing the first half but it is painfully obvious that I do not need to do that. If any of you want to go back and do the same thing, don't pay any attention to the play, just watch the offensive line play between 68 and 77, La. Paulsen and Jackson. It is horrific. That is where the game was lost, right there. With reasonable and competent line play, we win this game. The "NFL left tackle Jackson" stuff can just stop.

1. Stanley played pretty well actually. He does not deserve the heat he is getting, as he was in the correct play and made the correct read pretty much every play. He made some great throws. He did miss a throw to Sargent that could have been a first down and he definitely should have thrown the ball away on one of the sacks. But the other sacks were not on him.
2. Goodson played really well and in my opinion did a better job picking up blitzes than Sargent. Young does a great job picking up blitzes too.
3. Out of 31 plays I charted (I did not do the last drive), La. Paulsen made 7 egregious errors. By this I mean he either completely whiffed on a block, allowed a free rusher, or committed a penalty. Jackson had 3. Levi Paulsen had 2 and Banwart had 1. Sargent had 1. Wieting had 1. That is nearly half the plays when we had a player that could not block someone. An offense cannot overcome egregious errors on 50% of their plays, no offense can.
4. Notice I didnt say anything about Wirfs or Linderbaum. They are elite. Michigan only tried to blitz Wirfs once and he picked it up perfectly. Linderbaum allowed nothing in the middle. Zero.
5. I really can't blame B. Ferentz a lot here either. It did appear that he abandoned the run too early, however, after the re-watch and realizing the situation, we found ourselves in extremely long yardage situations where we could not run. We were behind the chains the entire time.

So lets all hope that something happens on the left side of our line and we clean that up. But knowing that we are talking about 5th year seniors and a supposed NFL tackle, it is hard to be optimistic.

Credit to you for putting yourself through that. You said you didn't rewatch the first half or the last drive? Do you ever follow Hawkeye GameFilm? They said #65 (Lindebaum) had his first hiccups of the year. Maybe you missed some of that. I think we all saw Wirfs get beat on that last (?) drive and get away with a hold. He also had a false start on that last drive. The poor line play was definitely a group effort. You might want to follow HGF. Usually seems spot on. A former player and consultant for the NFL. Now consults for NCAA teams. And he also mentions this: See below.

You had to rewatch it to see our OL looked like they were JR High?
That's why the tweet apologizing to the DL.
The loss was almost entirely on the OL.
Not Stanley, not our rb's, definitely not our defense.

IMO the loss was almost entirely on Brian and Kirk and Polesak. They did absolutely nothing to help the o-line or Stanley. Again Hawkeye Game Film pointed out something no one has brought up.
HGF - "Gotta sort out who your best options at OG are, injuries have caused a lot of shuffle & that impacts your communication & ability to adjust post snap, too many free rushers allowed; you'll lose some 1 on 1s & you live with that, but can't allow 4-5 free rusher sacks.
You simply can't let them time up the snap, gotta have some bluff counts to help ID that blitz and set yourself up a little better; also just a lot of basic mistakes by OL in blitz adjustments, chasing DT' s across gaps etc, lots of issues up front".

So he is saying Iowa never changed the snap count, quite possibly because the coaches got the plays in late and the play clock was running down. And they either didn't have enough time to bluff the counts or didn't think of it. This is lack of competent coaching folks. Plain and simple. And we made BASIC mistakes in blitz adjustments. You taking notes Polesak?
Again HGF- "When the clock starts to tick down, no threat of a hard count to tip blitz".

So don't fall for KF's typical BS during his post game presser:
"We knew coming into the game we would have to execute every play". There is that word 'execute' again. Nice blame shifting. BTW who in the hell expects to execute every play perfectly? What about this? You cut your sacks allowed in half and you probably win. Or you don't start A. Jackson because he clearly wasn't prepared physically or mentally? But Kirk had been frustrated the past couple of weeks about how long it was taking guys to recover. He talked about it. Seemingly he has never had much patience or sympathy for injuries. Remember his statement about Adam Robinson and his concussions? He did take responsibility for starting Aleric in the presser. Did Aleric play every snap? I just don't get that. Yes I do. Stubborn, passive aggressive Kirk.

But he also said a lot of other drivel. For instance, re the line play he said, "They are a high blitz team... not a big surprise..." "We didn't match their tempo." And whose fault is that? No hurry up. Nothing to counter their blitz. But the most classic Kirk thing was when he invoked, "I used to be an o-line coach and sometimes teams just get on a roll blah blah blah...". See what he did there? He manipulated the press corps. Again. Don't question my expertise. I am telling you there was nothing we could do. I call Bullshit. But of course the press didn't call him on it. What about, "In your unparalleled 78 years of coaching o-line are you saying there was absolutely nothing you could have done to counter or attack their blitz?" Man what a clueless loser's mentality. Not buying what your selling Kirk.

One more thing dirtwrap. Nate struggled as well in one specific area and Game Film pointed this out. HGF - "QB4 continues to retreat straight back as well, just cannot dodge pressure". Nate rarely steps up in the pocket or sidesteps pressure. He just doesn't seem to have much pocket presence. And he holds on to the ball too long. This was all on display. I wish the kid well but NFL teams (if he gets there) won't tolerate it.

 

[dirtwrap]

Credit to you for putting yourself through that. You said you didn't rewatch the first half or the last drive? Do you ever follow Hawkeye GameFilm? They said #65 (Lindebaum) had his first hiccups of the year. Maybe you missed some of that. I think we all saw Wirfs get beat on that last (?) drive and get away with a hold. He also had a false start on that last drive. The poor line play was definitely a group effort. You might want to follow HGF. Usually seems spot on. A former player and consultant for the NFL. Now consults for NCAA teams. And he also mentions this: See below.



IMO the loss was almost entirely on Brian and Kirk and Polesak. They did absolutely nothing to help the o-line or Stanley. Again Hawkeye Game Film pointed out something no one has brought up.
HGF - "Gotta sort out who your best options at OG are, injuries have caused a lot of shuffle & that impacts your communication & ability to adjust post snap, too many free rushers allowed; you'll lose some 1 on 1s & you live with that, but can't allow 4-5 free rusher sacks.
You simply can't let them time up the snap, gotta have some bluff counts to help ID that blitz and set yourself up a little better; also just a lot of basic mistakes by OL in blitz adjustments, chasing DT' s across gaps etc, lots of issues up front".

So he is saying Iowa never changed the snap count, quite possibly because the coaches got the plays in late and the play clock was running down. And they either didn't have enough time to bluff the counts or didn't think of it. This is lack of competent coaching folks. Plain and simple. And we made BASIC mistakes in blitz adjustments. You taking notes Polesak?
Again HGF- "When the clock starts to tick down, no threat of a hard count to tip blitz".

So don't fall for KF's typical BS during his post game presser:
"We knew coming into the game we would have to execute every play". There is that word 'execute' again. Nice blame shifting. BTW who in the hell expects to execute every play perfectly? What about this? You cut your sacks allowed in half and you probably win. Or you don't start A. Jackson because he clearly wasn't prepared physically or mentally? But Kirk had been frustrated the past couple of weeks about how long it was taking guys to recover. He talked about it. Seemingly he has never had much patience or sympathy for injuries. Remember his statement about Adam Robinson and his concussions? He did take responsibility for starting Aleric in the presser. Did Aleric play every snap? I just don't get that. Yes I do. Stubborn, passive aggressive Kirk.

But he also said a lot of other drivel. For instance, re the line play he said, "They are a high blitz team... not a big surprise..." "We didn't match their tempo." And whose fault is that? No hurry up. Nothing to counter their blitz. But the most classic Kirk thing was when he invoked, "I used to be an o-line coach and sometimes teams just get on a roll blah blah blah...". See what he did there? He manipulated the press corps. Again. Don't question my expertise. I am telling you there was nothing we could do. I call Bullshit. But of course the press didn't call him on it. What about, "In your unparalleled 78 years of coaching o-line are you saying there was absolutely nothing you could have done to counter or attack their blitz?" Man what a clueless loser's mentality. Not buying what your selling Kirk.

One more thing dirtwrap. Nate struggled as well in one specific area and Game Film pointed this out. HGF - "QB4 continues to retreat straight back as well, just cannot dodge pressure". Nate rarely steps up in the pocket or sidesteps pressure. He just doesn't seem to have much pocket presence. And he holds on to the ball too long. This was all on display. I wish the kid well but NFL teams (if he gets there) won't tolerate it.

Good post, thank you for the reply and your insight. I will look up Hawkeye Gamefilm, that sounds very interesting. I really enjoy the technical aspect of football, however, it is hard to get a lot of info on. That piece that Urban Meyer did a couple weeks ago was very good, I wish we had more like that.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in the fact that we were not prepared for the blitz, when it seemed obvious that is how they would play. The snap count is a great example and observation, because their guys just teed off on is when the play clock reached 1.

On a side note, I went back and watched Wisconsins offensive plays against Michigan. It was interesting to me that Michigan looked like they played Wisconsin exactly the same way they played us. Mixing coverages, rushing 4, a lot of activity with the linebackers, etc. And really, the reason Wisconsin scored 35 while we only scored 3 was pretty simple.

1. Wisconsins guard play was much better for sure.
2. Coan can run and the times Michigan got pressure like they got on Stanley, he ran out of their over pursuit for positive yardage where Stanley got sacked.
3. The ball bounced their way when it didn't for us. Michigan fumbled and they got it, patterson threw picks, like he did and would have against us if he had to throw it.
4. Wisconsin didn't commit any offensive penalties that stalled drives.
5. And most glaring is the running back. Taylor is an absolute stud and a lot of his runs were off schedule. When Michigan or anyone leaves a hole for us, our guy can get 10 or maybe 20 yards. Taylor will get 70. He can run over a corner or safety, he'll, even a linebacker, and run by everyone else. We have a guy that can run over some people but can run by anyone. A guy that can run by people but not over anyone. And a couple guys that pretty much cant do either very well. But Taylor made most of his yards after the initial play was blown up, and that is special. Watch that 70 yard td run again and ask yourself what would have happened with any of our backs. Probably a 2 yard loss.

My point in all of that is that had we been there at Wisconsin that day and played Michigan like they did, and you take away the penalties and turnovers and call that even, even the protection problems, we probably score 7, maybe 14 with our quarterback and set of backs. Maybe.

Oh, and sorry for being so fragmented, it one more thing. Wisconsin used a lot of that wr motion, like jet sweep type action that Michigan had to account for and took one of their blitzers out of the play, especially weak side. I am surprised we didn't do more of that with ISM, because that obviously slowed down the blitz and opened up that counter action that we didn't do enough of.

 

[uihawk82]

Oh, and sorry for being so fragmented, it one more thing. Wisconsin used a lot of that wr motion, like jet sweep type action that Michigan had to account for and took one of their blitzers out of the play, especially weak side. I am surprised we didn't do more of that with ISM, because that obviously slowed down the blitz and opened up that counter action that we didn't do enough of.

You are surprised!!! Really . It is like the Iowa coaches didnt even look at any film of Mich's games. And you really expect the Ferentz's to change, scratch where it itches. Usually KF doesnt change much.

 

[skinnykilmer17]

Good post, thank you for the reply and your insight. I will look up Hawkeye Gamefilm, that sounds very interesting. I really enjoy the technical aspect of football, however, it is hard to get a lot of info on. That piece that Urban Meyer did a couple weeks ago was very good, I wish we had more like that.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in the fact that we were not prepared for the blitz, when it seemed obvious that is how they would play. The snap count is a great example and observation, because their guys just teed off on is when the play clock reached 1.

On a side note, I went back and watched Wisconsins offensive plays against Michigan. It was interesting to me that Michigan looked like they played Wisconsin exactly the same way they played us. Mixing coverages, rushing 4, a lot of activity with the linebackers, etc. And really, the reason Wisconsin scored 35 while we only scored 3 was pretty simple.

1. Wisconsins guard play was much better for sure.
2. Coan can run and the times Michigan got pressure like they got on Stanley, he ran out of their over pursuit for positive yardage where Stanley got sacked.
3. The ball bounced their way when it didn't for us. Michigan fumbled and they got it, patterson threw picks, like he did and would have against us if he had to throw it.
4. Wisconsin didn't commit any offensive penalties that stalled drives.
5. And most glaring is the running back. Taylor is an absolute stud and a lot of his runs were off schedule. When Michigan or anyone leaves a hole for us, our guy can get 10 or maybe 20 yards. Taylor will get 70. He can run over a corner or safety, he'll, even a linebacker, and run by everyone else. We have a guy that can run over some people but can run by anyone. A guy that can run by people but not over anyone. And a couple guys that pretty much cant do either very well. But Taylor made most of his yards after the initial play was blown up, and that is special. Watch that 70 yard td run again and ask yourself what would have happened with any of our backs. Probably a 2 yard loss.

My point in all of that is that had we been there at Wisconsin that day and played Michigan like they did, and you take away the penalties and turnovers and call that even, even the protection problems, we probably score 7, maybe 14 with our quarterback and set of backs. Maybe.

Oh, and sorry for being so fragmented, it one more thing. Wisconsin used a lot of that wr motion, like jet sweep type action that Michigan had to account for and took one of their blitzers out of the play, especially weak side. I am surprised we didn't do more of that with ISM, because that obviously slowed down the blitz and opened up that counter action that we didn't do enough of.

Good point about the lack of motion. I really wonder how they devise their offensive gameplans but regardless it doesn't seem Brian is good at in-game adjustments.

I am having trouble linking it but a quick interesting read is the comments Joe Staley makes about Klye Shanahan predicting George Kittle's td on Monday night. If interested Google NBC sports/Shanahan/Kittle's touchdown.
The guy is a master playcaller and they make the point about pre-snap reads. We appeared to do very little of that Saturday.