Coach’s Corner: A Comparative Analysis of the UConn and Michigan Offenses

Posted at 8:00am — 9/1/2010

Coach’s Corner: A Comparative Analysis of the UConn and Michigan Offenses

There are offenses and there are teams that watching them is offensive. Both UConn and Michigan are teams with offenses and lack only a defense of the same caliber as the offense to be truly dangerous to all opponents.

Michigan and UConn both could easily average thirty points or more per game this year. Both have veterans, both have promise, both have good linemen and both have question marks.

UConn outscores opponents bad early in the game, is outscored in the fourth quarter.

Comparing and contrasting the two offenses provides interesting patterns. The analysis below shall address positions of strength, positions in question, an overview of each offense, and plausible situations that may occur on the field of play come Saturday.

Most love to start such discussions with the quarterback position; therefore let us have at it. By the end of the season, both UConn and UM may proclaim the quarterback position as a strength, but currently both starters (assumed to be Zach Frazer and Denard Robinson) are/were in serious competition and both starters had success and failure in 2009. Cody Endres of UConn has been suspended and Tate Forcier has faced an uphill struggle keeping up with Denard, two events that placed some air between competitors in the duel quarterback derbies.

Zach Frazer was a very highly recruited high school quarterback, signed by Notre Dame, who later transferred to Connecticut. His strength lies in being the classic big hammer pocket passer. This gunslinger is 6’4 and over 230 pounds and capable of lighting it up, more so if reports of steady improvement since last year are to be taken to heart. Zach, like most Division 1 quarterbacks, had both a highlight reel and a nightmare reel (head-scratching interceptions and some adverse reaction to pressure). The bottom line is Zach is a talent and this will be his statement year, one way or another. UConn did pass for more yardage than totaled by the running game in 2009, although the final results were very balanced.

Frazer also recruited hard by UM/Carr. UConn offense generated 700 yds more than UM.

Denard Robinson is talented from an opposite point of emphasis, running the ball and benefiting from broken plays instead of staying almost exclusively within the parameters of the designed playbook. Denard struggled mightily with the passing game for many reasons last year; including lack of experience, just ok mechanics, just ok arm-strength, trouble reading defenses, and being asked to pass in difficult situations. In addition, the running game was so predictable, with Denard at the helm, that opponents could literally run to the offensive destination, even as the ball was snapped, with little impunity or risk from the offensive play calling.

Denard is a talent, a physical specimen with superior athletic ability, the Michigan offense must diversify to make maximum use of his potential.

So is there an advantage? The advantage will be determined by which offense allows its quarterback to best use his strengths – run or pass.

UConn has enjoyed a very successful running game in the recent past, highlighted by first round pick Donald Brown of the Indianapolis Colts, the highest drafted Huskie ever. Another talented running back, Andre Dixon, signed with the Giants leaving Jordan Todman as the featured back in the UConn attack. Last year both ran for over 1,000 yards. Todman is very impressive and has a better than fair chance of playing on Sunday. There is certainty that Todman is the most accomplished and talented back on either roster that will see the field Saturday. Someone may break a couple of big runs and actually outgain Todman, but play for play he is the man.

The running game at Michigan is a position group in question; who will be healthy enough, will every back be eligible (betting here is yes, since practice time has been allotted to every back), and will the line get past the first level, enabling a back to make more than a couple of yards? Michigan’s biggest gainers have not been derived from standard play calling, but instead impromptu scrambling.

Can the committee of backs, combined with the big play potential of the quarterbacks offset UConn’s running game? This will be interesting to see and will be a key to what squad comes away a winner.

The offensive lines are very similar. Both UConn and UM have excellent returning starters. The difference is not so much in the quality or performance but the scheme. UConn is better at blast and iso plays because the offense is more versatile. There is more of an attempt to run downhill and as a result UConn has been much more successful on short yardage situations compared to Michigan. Cox and Hopkins have some ability to run downhill, so UM just may line up with some tight ends and two backs sets. UConn does appear to be vulnerable at the edge but strong up the middle.

Execution and the quality of the defense will determine who wins the trench war. Bottom line; this is pretty much a push, except for UConn’s ability to be more consistent with base running plays.

The receivers for both teams have talent but have not realized any notable achievements. In UConn’s case this is because others ahead of this year’s starters have moved on. UConn is effective at using tight end Ryan Griffin, who keeps the defense honest with two or three catches a game, usually for more than 10 yards per catch.

In Michigan’s case, being nondescript regarding the receivers is in good part assigned to a clear failure to get the ball vertical, and the horizontal game has yielded less yardage than the offense needs to sustain drives and keep the offense on the field. Many reasons have been put forth as to the deficiency, but to win this year Michigan must establish a passing game that forces defenses to account for more offensive options than zone read inside, zone read outside, and the quick pass to the slot that frequently yields fewer than five yards. Roundtree can really help the Blue attack from the slot. He is able to catch the ball and advance it well past the line of scrimmage. Odoms may play wideout and Gallon may not be 100%. As a result, there is a big need to involve the outside guys and the tight ends in more than edge blocking, not that gaining such leverage is not important. A wideout can both block and catch. The UConn secondary will be very similar to Michigan’s. UConn will take advantage of Michigan’s back seven, the question is will Michigan return the favor and attack one of UConn’s most vulnerable areas, downfield pass defense?

Comparing the offenses-

Both offenses may explode. The differences lie in philosophy more than talent. Both teams run the zone inside and zone outside. One quarterback is counted on to hit the homerun with the downfield pass, and one quarterback is equally counted on to break some big runs; the arm versus the legs, should be fun to see which emphasis gets the upper hand.

UConn’s offense is more versatile, not only running the read schemes, but also running five-out spreads, one-back spread, power I, and pro sets with two backs. This is more for the defense to prepare for, but looking at the bright side Michigan should have spent plenty of time preparing for schemes sure to be seen sometime during the year.

What May Happen

It is an opener and a coach never knows what new packages have been put in during the long off-season. But if the status quo is dominant here are some possibilities. But like a chess game, one move can change the entire order of events.

Either team may throw a surprise deep pattern very early, but the old formula of check the oil and lube the chassis is probable. Check the oil means run the ball up the middle to establish what coaches love most, taking advantage of a soft belly. The reality is that both teams are pretty stout up the middle, although one match-up can provide an advantage. Vinnie Smith can be effective against good competition between the tackles, assuming good health.

As a result both teams may then turn quickly to lube the chassis. This means that teams will attempt to break the perimeter and hit the boundary hard. Michigan’s tackles did not do well last year providing leverage and UConn had decent success. Jordan Todman has the speed and ability to break the big one if he gets past the first level. This is a real concern. UConn’s defensive tackles are very good but the ends are very suspect, providing Michigan with an opportunity to break some big ones if the line can win the boundary war and keep the UConn defense from good contain.

UConn and Michigan will probably play zone, soft zone sometimes, to keep the opponent from easy scores. The exception being the real possibility that UConn adapts a “show me” philosophy and crowds the box, daring UM to put the ball downfield. After all, this strategy did work for others last year. The problem UConn faces is that once into the secondary, a short pattern that is whiffed can turn into a big opportunity for UM.

Both staffs must suspect that holding the other team to a field goal, versus a touchdown, may be a minor victory.

Both defenses will select the times to blitz (gamble may be a good word). The more successful a team is in blitzing, the more likely the rate of blitzing will increase. If a team gets burned big, then expect a standard zone vulnerable to a decent passing attack. UConn on film blitzed up the middle, sometimes overrunning the quarterback and providing an opportunity to break a big scramble.

Up next the maligned defenses, a collective group of players sick of hearing about the deficiencies attributed to them.

Written by GBMWolverine Staff

Go Blue — Wear Maize!