Parker.laura.m

In Mad Max’s Thunderdome, the rules are simple: two men enter, one man leaves. On the equally sadistic Bachelor in Paradise, the rules are made up on the fly and subject to constant revision. Do you feel as though your peers have been treating you poorly and manipulated events to your detriment? Then, by all means, beg for a second chance. Sure, such fortuitous reversals are uncommon in the real world, but in Paradise, the pendulum of fate is far easier to control.

In exchange for suffering a variety of humiliations at the hands of Joe and Samantha, widow/single mom Juelia had her rose ceremony elimination reversed and was given human ham hock Mikey T. as a dimwitted consolation prize. Juelia’s latest bite at the cherry of love came after one of those emotional sidebars with Chris Harrison that happen more and more frequently on this show.

Knowing that her only legitimate chance to stay on the show hinged upon J.J. giving her a pity rose, Juelia ambushed Harrison while he was clearly in the midst of having a scintillating intellectual conversation with a random Teamster, who immediately disappeared from the frame the minute an actual cast member arrived. One can only hope our blue-collar friend can parlay his utterance of “uh-huh” on national television into a SAG card. Probably not.

Juelia pleaded her case, her eyes welling up with tears just at the thought of having to go back to her lonely daughter empty-handed. Chris Harrison, the softy that he is, had no choice but to give Juelia exactly what she wanted once J.J. bizarrely extended his rose to Ashley S., who it seems is very popular in Paradise.⁶ Mikey got a date card in the Monday episode, which he used to take Juelia to a lucha libre show. Great date, guys. The evening was capped off with an invite to make this regular lucha date an overnight lucha date. After some hemming and hawing, the happy couple retired to the boudoir. In the morning, Juelia’s hair looked like this:

ABC

Claim that her hair was messed up because she had tried on a luchador mask all you want, but I know the truth! Juelia and Mikey T. are now … more than friends.

But back to J.J.’s ultimate sacrifice. His rose was up for grabs because he gave up on finding love in Paradise and decided that the girl he left back home is the one he wants. After saving Ashley S., our man launched into a five-minute monologue about honor, romance, heroism, and redemption. It was so expository, blatant, and sleep-inducing that I half-assumed that Nic Pizzolatto had written it in the midst of a particularly nasty bout of food poisoning. Sometimes your worst self is your best, J.J. This new good boy is a lot less interesting than the guy who spent most of Kaitlyn’s season in a hot tub with Clint. Thing is, you ain’t that thing no more, what you used to was. But, I guess we get the J.J. we deserve. So long, pal.

Ashley S. needed saving by Dark Knight J.J. because Dan jumped over to Team Amber. But that wasn’t the only breakup this week. Jared finally explained to Ashley I. that he’s not joining her in spending the day doodling names for their future children in a Trapper Keeper notebook.⁷ On cue, Ashley I. turned into a bucket of tears like she was a Wonder Twin. At this point, I hope Ashley I. finds love just so she’ll stop crying. I want to dangle some six-pack abs in her face like you’d distract an upset baby with a set of keys. Just stare at this thing shaking in front of you for a while and shut up so I can go to bed.

The big separation of the week, though, was Joe and Samantha. The seeds of dissent were planted when Nick, the man with the body of a water polo player and the head of a certified public accountant, arrived in Paradise claiming a special pre-show relationship with Samantha. Joe thought only he was special, but in comes Nasty Nick’s dopey grin to ruin it all.

The sight of another dog in the hunt sent Joe spiraling into guilt, shame, and insecurity. And the last straw was pulled on Joe’s birthday, of all days. Our man had fashioned a birthday cake out of what looked like some whipped cream and a few malted milk balls and invited Sam to celebrate with him. Sam had other ideas. She asked for a fresh start. He asked for a chance to “work on things.” What there is to work on after a week or two of getting wasted on the beach is anyone’s guess. Perhaps Sam was sick of Joe putting limes in her Hendrick’s and tonic instead of cucumber like you’re supposed to, dummy.

As this dance of the dragons continued through the episode, Joe compared their love to Bonnie and Clyde,⁸ then tried his best to extort a relationship out of Samantha, explaining that the truth would come out if she didn’t play ball. Samantha switched her affection to new guy Justin, who looks like a cut-rate Tom Hardy. Of course, while this was going on, the show was subtly turning Joe into a good guy again by showing all the dudes taking his side and sympathizing with his plight. “She’s throwing you under the bus, bro,” they said enthusiastically between high-fives. There were the same guys who’d wanted to punch his face in for spurning a widow just a few days ago. Listen to the winds … of chaaaaaaaaaaange.

Nothing last forever in Paradise. Muppet-mouthed Joshua and Tenley are still holding on, but what if she discovers some hard party drugs in his sock drawer? Tanner and Jade leveled up their intimacy, but are things moving too fast for America’s most boring couple? And Carly and Kirk? Well, those two will probably be together forever because true love is real, but what if it isn’t? These last two days in Paradise have forced us to question everything — from the veracity of every cast member’s claims of undying affection down to the very structure of this program. Since it’s all on the table now, let me follow Juelia’s lead and beg Chris Harrison for four changes to the franchise:

1. Make Joshua get all of his tattoos removed, but especially the one on his calf and that really stupid one on his thumb.
2. Give Jorge the bartender more to do. He has a real “Isaac on The Love Boat” vibe and I’m digging it.
3. Bring back Lauren I. immediately, then — SWERVE — pair her up with Joe.
4. Fix After Paradise. Actually, that reminds me …

Can We Discuss After Paradise for a Minute, Please?

We are four episodes into the grand experiment and I think it’s time to consider whether this bold venture into the unknown is actually working.

In short, no. It is not. I understand why a show like this exists. Not only is this a cheap and easy ratings driver, but ABC⁹ must have realized they ceded the conversation around the Bachelor franchise to tabloids and recaps. This is a step toward directing that cultural traffic a bit more. It also gives them some splashy real estate to do things like announce Ben H. as the new Bachelor. The problem is this show is mostly boring and sometimes outright painful. Here are a few problems I’ve noticed, along with some common-sense solutions.

The Show Is Not Funny

So much of the discourse around the Bachelor franchise is funny. They try to inject some of that into After Paradise. Jenny Mollen is always swinging for the fences, doing what she can to add levity and unpredictability into a clunky format. But when you put her in the same room as the poor schmuck she’s mocking, it comes off as embarrassing for everyone. Sure, cutting remarks are part of the fun of watching these shows, but the cast members’ blank expressions make me think they aren’t always in on the joke. Get them the hell off the show and hire some writers to feed people catty lines.

Chris Harrison Seems Uncomfortable

Chris Harrison works when he is the Voice of God host who can wave his magic wand and fix everything. He’s not the kind of guy who should be making wisecracks about Ashley S. I thought he believes everyone deserves love. He’s not one of us, so don’t pretend like he is. Find a comedian to host the show. The Bachelor franchise is very popular among comics, so why take Chris Harrison out of his comfort zone like this? He’s part of the show. He shouldn’t be commenting on it.

Stop With the Damn Phone Calls

What is this, QVC? The questions are almost always weird, overly sincere, or dull. When “Bonnie From Knoxville” calls in to discuss “this Juelia drama,” the momentum of the show grinds to a halt. Last night, Bonnie made a fine point about Juelia also being a manipulator, and the panel (save for the clearly motivated Michelle Collins) had nothing to say. Why take calls if they don’t stimulate conversation?

Quit Trying to Manufacture Confrontations

Joe was surprised by Juelia during After Paradise last night, which gave her the chance to tell Joe how she really felt after she told him how she really felt two episodes ago. Like a trouper, Joe ate his humble pie and apologized. When it was all over, someone (probably Michelle Collins again) started giggling — breaking a most awkward silence. Riveting stuff. Chris Harrison woke up in time to ask #BachelorNation what they thought of Joe’s apology/ritual act of reality TV seppuku. Mollen pointedly asked why Joe’s apology had to occur on a television program. Collins compared the segment to an episode of Maury. Of course this was going to be on TV. You think this was Joe’s idea? Jon Stewart hitting John Cena with a chair at SummerSlam felt less contrived than this.

Things My Wife Said While I Was Trying to Take Notes

• “It seems like they’re always eating pieces of bread.”
• “What is that cake? Chocoalte-covered cherries? I mean, I wanna try one, but … ”
• “OMG, Joe said ‘exceptation.’”
• “I hate the word ‘freaking.’ Especially when Carly says it. She says it every other word! Dave!”
• “Mikey T. and Juelia are like two meatballs. Juelia is like a burnt meatball because of her tan.”
• “Tom Hardy? More like TOM SHARTY.”

FORMATION NOTES: Some additional  things in this game. This was a special situation, but when PSU hurried to the line in the first quarter to attempt it on fourth and one, Michigan responded with the perfect pinched-line D:

This punched PSU off the field and earned Mattison a gold star.

Michigan occasionally split their LBs in the nickel package in what I called 5-1-nickel:

And they took to a thing where they're standing the WDE before the snap like so:

This has almost always meant he's dropping.

Finally, everyone milling about presnap with no one with a hand down:

This was just Okie in my book.

SUBSTITUTION NOTES: Secondary was as per usual, with Stribling getting in on a couple of dime packages in the second half and replacing Avery on the Fatal Bomb Drive. ILB was basically the same; Morgan and Ross spotted by Bolden. SAM saw a three-guy rotation with Beyer, Ryan, and Cam Gordon all getting snaps.

The line was also about per usual: Heitzman/Washington/Black/Clark with Wormley/Ash/Henry/Ojemudia spotting. Ash's snaps were extremely scanty, FWIW. When Washington was out it was more often two of Henry/Wormley/Black than Ash.

[After THE JUMP: a heroic 43 allowed.]

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O36	1	10	Ace	4-4 under	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Heitzman	8
Wilson rolled down to the boundary, oddly. DL play is weird, too, with Black straight upfield and Washington diving inside of the C. Heitzman(-1) gets doubled and discarded, creating a crease. Ross(+0.5) pops around the C and initiates an ankle tackle, which is good work against a tough assignment, if not the best finish. Morgan(-0.5) got popped out on by one of the guys doubling Heitzman and could not shed to help.
O44	2	2	Ace	4-4 under	Pass	4	PA comeback	Taylor	10
Waggle sees Hackenbeg with all day on the corner as Beyer does not rush but drops into a short zone at the sticks. That's good, as there's a TE there who would have a nice catch and run if he's not. Hackenberg can wait for his guy to beat Taylor(-1, cover -1) on a comeback for a nice gain. (Pressure -2, RPS -1). Morgan(-0.5) and Ross(-0.5) had sucked in as well opening up a TE if the outer thing wasn't open. Cover -1)
M46	1	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Ross	6
This looks like it's going to be snuffed for little gain but somehow Zwinak sneaks between Black(-0.5) and Clark. Even that's not going to get much until Ross(-0.5) gets hit and moved out of the small crease the line provided him. Washington(+0.5) flowed down the line hard to tackle here; Morgan(-0.5) got cut on the backside and was not there to help.
M40	2	4	Ace 3-wide	4-3 under	Pass	4	TE seam	Wilson	INT
Line shifted under by LBs to the field. Clark in two point stance. He drops, Beyer comes, PSU not surprised. Why is Michigan doing this? It's a big flag telling them what you're running. PSU picks it up, no pressure(-1), M gets a bit lucky as Black(+1) pushes his guy into Hackenberg, disrupting his motion. No pressure plus for this because Hackenbeg has a ton of room he just doesn't use. Appears he's going for his TE, who Clark(-0.5) missed a chuck on, but overthrows it, allowing Jarrod Wilson(+3, cover +1) to adjust and make a great diving interception.
Drive Notes: Interception, 0-0, 12 min 1st Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
M14	1	10	Ace	4-4 under	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Bolden	2
Odd play by the PSU line as they don't really fire out... looks like the center might have gotten the snap count wrong? Washington(+1) gets movement on the C and then discards him when Zwinak commits, flowing down the line and removing cutback lanes. Wormley(+0.5) is getting doubled and giving ground slowly but goes to the ground to make a pile at the LOS, allowing Bolden(+0.5) to flow to the small crease and tackle. CGordon(+0.5) also got movement to constrict the hole and helps tackle.
M12	2	8	Shotgun empty	4-3 over	Pass	4	Cross	Morgan	Inc
Brutal setup as M has Wormley/Ash/Henry/Ojemudia and attempts to get rush with them; they don't get anywhere near. QB must check down to a crossing route for six yards; behind and dropped. (Pressure -2, cover +1)
M12	3	8	Shotgun empty	3-3-5 nickel	Pass	3	Dig	N/A	12
Three man rush telegraphed and gets nowhere(pressure -2); at least threaten blitz to prevent doubles everywhere, especially when Wormley is trying to be an edge rushers. Coverage eventually breaks down, but that's not their fault after eons in the pocket. RPS -2.
Drive Notes: Touchdown, 0-7, 9 min 1st Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O25	1	10	Ace	4-4 under	Pass	4	Sack	Clark	-1
Ryan debuts... and drops into coverage. QB goes through two reads without finding anything he likes (cover +2), at which point Heitzman(+1), who bull rushed and got into the backfield puts Hack off a third. He moves around, allowing Clark(+1, pressure +1, organic) to shove his guy backwards and disengage to sack. Bolden(+0.5) and Taylor(+0.5) had those reads blanketed.
O24	2	11	I-Form	4-3 over	Run	N/A	Draw	Black	1
Black(+1) drives a G back and sheds to the inside, absorbing the attempted FB lead and making Zwinak stop in the backfield. A would be TFL is nerfed as Clark gets held (refs -1) and Zwinak can bounce around outside. Taylor(+1, tackling +1) comes up and nails Zwinak with a textbook form tackle to end that bounce.
O25	3	10	Shotgun empty	Nickel even	Pass	3	Out	Wilson	10
M shows six guys going and drops eight. Gets nowhere (pressure -1) and an out opens up(cover -1) for a good gain that is short of the sticks as Wilson(-0.5) tackles. Would like Wilson to tackle on the catch here and make it fourth and two.
O34	4	1	Ace	4-4 pinch	Run	N/A	QB sneak	Heitzman	0
M all over this, lining up four DL right over the center and firing at the snap in preparation for this play. Heitzman(+2) is the prime guy here, into Hack's legs almost at the snap; Ryan(+1) and Black(+1) help stack it up. RPS +3. Awesome prep.
Drive Notes: Turnover on downs, 7-7, 7 min 1st Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O6	1	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 under	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Henry	0
Wilson over the slot, PSU runs into a stacked front. Henry(+2) blasts a G back, forcing a cutback that he tackles on. Good thing too, as Washington(-0.5) had given a lot of ground on a scoop block and this could have creased otherwise.
O6	2	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 under	Run	N/A	Counter	Morgan	5
M blitzing, sending Beyer and Morgan and folding Ojemudia back. This borks the playcall, as Washington(+1) slants into the backfield and gets a two for one, as does Wormley(+0.5); Morgan(-1) way out of control, though, and overruns the cutback. Beyer had the QB so that's just on him.
O11	3	5	Shotgun 3-wide	4-3 under	Pass	4	Hitch	Taylor	Inc
Taylor beaten for five yards on a three step drop; PSU does not execute.
Drive Notes: Punt, 7-7, 4 min 1st Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O25	1	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Morgan	1
Heitzman(+0.5) and Washington(+0.5) both take doubles; they give ground but no one pops out; allowing Morgan(+1.5) to shoot the gap between them, force a cutback, and tackle with some help from Ross(+0.5)
O26	2	9	Ace 3-wide	4-3 even	Pass	4	TE out	Ross	8
Ross(-0.5, cover -1) is unable get out on this so he can tackle on the catch and also cannot get James down to make this third and two; Morgan pops him to at least prevent the first.
O34	3	1	I-Form Big	5-3 under	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Heitzman	0
Rather crappy by Zwinak as he can probably hit it outside to pick up the first and decides on an ill-advised leap. Still, slant makes a heap of bodies with Heitzman(+1) and Washington(+1) providing the enormous pile with some help from CGordon(+0.5). RPS +1.
Drive Notes: Punt, 10-7, 14 min 2nd Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
M20	1	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 under	Pass	4	TE seam	Ryan	20
A couple problems on this play. Ryan(-1) does not get anything resembling a chuck on the TE, which robs Michigan of time to get depth. Bolden(-0.5) steps forward on the snap despite PSU not running any sort of PA fake, making it easier to get it over him. But it's really Taylor(-2, cover -2) who's in cover three here sucking up on a short hitch and not dealing with the TE that's the main issue. RPS -2, as well; tough either way here.
Drive Notes: Touchdown, 14-10, 11 min 2nd Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O39	1	10	Ace twins	4-3 under	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Wormley	2
Again M puts WDE in 2 point stance, indicating D flip. Works, though. Wormley(+1) gets into a tackle and upfield, forcing a bounce. Ryan(+1) fends off a blocker and pops outside to make a tackle with help from TGordon(+0.5), who came down over the slot and then read the play to help finish it. Bolden ends up pancaked by a one-arm shove by an OL.
O41	2	8	Ace twins	4-4 over	Pass	4	Waggle TE out	Ojemudia	Inc
M ready for this. Ojemudia(+1, pressure +1, line) shoots up to contain and force a throw moving backwards; Taylor(+1, cover +1) right there to tackle for minimal gain even if this is accurate, which it isn't.
O41	3	8	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Pass	4	TE out	Ross	10
Good pocket(pressure -1) and Ross(-1, cover -1) gets beat by the TE for a first down.
M49	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Wormley	5
PSU hurries and catches Michigan off guard. Henry(+1) gets a stalemate with his G and bounces Belton to the backside; Wormley(-1) got blown back, opening the cutback lane. Countess(-1) should have that but gets too far inside, which is dangerous for a moment before TGordon(+1) adjusts his fill to compensate and makes a nice open field tackle(+1) to reduce the damage. RPS -1.
M44	2	5	Ace 3-wide tight	Nickel over	Pass	4	Out	Taylor	6
More tempo. Taylor ends up ten yards off Robinson, easy pitch and catch first down. (RPS -1, Cover -1)
M38	1	10	Ace 3-wide	Nickel over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Ojemudia	1
Ojemudia(+3) makes a great play to shoot upfield of the TE trying to block him and then redirect into the RB for a near-TFL. If he doesn't make this play it's trouble, as Heitzman(-1) is stuck at three-tech and gets clubbed and the RB has a big gap once that block is made. Ross(-1) made a bad bid to avoid contact, as well. RPS –1.
M37	2	9	Shotgun 3-wide	Okie one	Pass	5	TE out	Ross	13
TGordon(+1, pressure +1, blitz) walks down and comes, beating the RB's block to hit Hack as he throws. Ross(-1) backs out into a zone and gets beat(cover -1), giving up first down yardage as he can't tackle(-1) the enormous tight end guy.
M24	1	10	Ace 3-wide	Nickel over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Black	-1
M goes with an obvious slant as they roll an S down over the slot WR but with PSU going at tempo they don't see it and get nailed. Black(+2) ducks under a G and drives the C yards into the backfield. Cutback into Ojemudia(+0.5) and Wormley(+0.5), who both ended up unblocked thanks to the slant. RPS +2.
M25	2	11	Ace 3-wide	Nickel over	Pass	4	Waggle TE out	Ross	Inc
Michigan badly aligned as both LBs are shifted to the over side and with those LBs slanting they should be backside; instead they flow. Ross(-2, cover -2) is the WLB who leaves the TE wide open; this is a first down and possibly a TD but the TE drops an incredibly easy ball. RPS -2.
M25	3	11	Shotgun empty	Okie zero	Pass	3	Corner	Avery	25
M backs out extensively. Hack ends up rolling away from decent Ryan(+0.5) pressure (the hold there was not a must call) and hitting a guy on a back-shoulder-ish fade against Avery(-3, cover +1), who's in great position to do something about this and does not. This is a badly-thrown back shoulder fade he can PBU or even INT and does not. Make plays, etc.
Drive Notes: Touchdown, 10-21, 7 min 2nd Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
M47	1	10	Ace twins twin TE	4-3 even	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Washington	5
Michigan's even alignment makes it difficult for the DTs to not get creased. Washignton(-1), does get put away by a guard and a crease up the middle is established. Bolden(+1) makes a nice play to leap past the C and initiate a tackle after a couple yards.
M42	2	5	Ace twins twin TE	4-3 over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Morgan	3
Black(-0.5) gets creased late, providing an outside avenue for Belton. Morgan(+1) sheds a blocker and provides an excellent stick(+1 tackling) that halts Belton in his tracks.
M39	3	2	I-Form Big	4-4 under	Pass	4	PA FB flat	Morgan	Inc
Morgan(-0.5, cover -1) gets beat for the first down; QB misses.
Drive Notes: Punt, 10-21, 2 min 2nd Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O25	1	10	Ace twins twin TE	4-3 over	Run	N/A	Trap	Heitzman	-8
Another tip with Clark in a two point stance. PSU runs something like power for the first time all day and does not read this. Two guys end up taking on Clark; Black(+1) shoots to the outside through everybody. He gets into the puller and causes Zwinak to pull up; Heitzman(+1) gets penetration on the backside, giving the RB nowhere to go. Ross(+2) reads and flows up as the guy who ignored Black looks to wall him off from getting to the other side of the field. He strips the ball; Clark(+2) scoops, evades Hackenberg, and scores. Zwinak is done for the day.
Drive Notes: Defensive TD, 17-21, 14 min 3rd Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O26	1	10	Ace	4-3 under 2PT	Pass	5	Improv	Clark	Inc
Twist blitz from M sends both LBs, drops out Ryan and Clark. PSU picks it up; Black(+2, pressure +2, organic) smokes the RT anyway and almost sacks. QB evades, starts rolling. RB goes with him trying to get open; Clark(+2, cover +1)makes a nice play to not come up but drop with the RB and almost intercepts once Hack throws the ball anyway.
O26	2	10	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Run	N/A	Draw	Ross	2
Great recognition from Ross(+2), who sees the RB lingering and immediately shoots upfield before the releasing OL can get him. He can't quite get the RB down at the LOS thanks in part to that OL harassing him, but he slows Belton significantly and by the time he escapes the rest of the D is there to rally.
O28	3	8	Shotgun 4-wide	Okie one	Pass	4	Out	Black	Inc
Michigan stands their entire DL up to play mind games. End up sending only four with Ross seemingly in screen spy mode. That draws attention from a TE so when Black(+1, pressure +2, blitz) shoots from the nose all the way around the right tackle he isn't picked up by anyone. Hack is able to move and find a dumpoff that he misses; Countess(+0.5, cover +1) was there to tackle on a two yard catch anyway. RPS +1.
Drive Notes: Punt, 17-21, 14 min 3rd Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O32	1	10	Ace 3-wide	Nickel even	Pass	4	Waggle circle	CGordon	Inc (Pen -15)
CGordon(+1, pressure +1, organic) is set loose on the edge as PSU pulls a lineman out to account for him; he shoots up inside and pressures the pass. Countess(-1, cover -1) jumps the inside move from the WR and has probably given up the corner and a first down once he cuts out. Gordon-forced wobbler is a tough catch and not made. PSU chop blocks Ojemudia nowhere near the play.
O17	1	25	Shotgun empty	Okie zero	Pass	6	Out	Wilson	Inc
M sends house but doesn't get through(pressure -1) as Ojemudia(-1) slips. The playcall does force Hackenberg into a hot read that's a six yard out Wilson(+0.5) likely tackles on the catch. Ball is dropped. RPS +1.
O17	2	25	Shotgun empty	Okie zero	Pass	5	Out	Countess	7
Another blitz; doesn't get home(pressure -1) as Ojemudia and Ryan get pushed upfield and Hackenberg can step up. Wormley is looking like he's going to contain that. Another short out. Countess(+1, cover +1) is there to tackle on the catch after a minimal gain. RPS +1.
O24	3	18	Shotgun 3-wide	Okie two	Pass	4	Deep hitch	Taylor	INT
Seven at the LOS with a four-man umbrella behind them. M backs out, sending only four, and again a DE slips, this time Clark. Wilson is one on one with the RB and gets stood up; Hackenberg throws on time to his WR before he's even out of his break and Taylor(+4, cover +3) still steps in front of it to intercept. And this is like four yards short of the first down.
Drive Notes: Interception, 17-21, 11 min 3rd Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O22	1	10	I-Form	4-3 over	Run	N/A	Iso	Bolden	3
Pretty much default iso behavior. Washington takes a double and gives a bit but not too bad. Bolden(+1) shoots the backside gap to tackle from behind near the LOS. Beyer(+0.5) took on the FB near the LOS.
O25	2	7	I-Form	4-3 under	Pass	5	PA TE out	Clark	10
Twist blitz with both WDE/SAM dropping. PSU picks it up (pressure -2). TE out eventually clears the zone at the sideline and is executed; Clark is the guy in coverage but I don't blame him since he's a DE and he gets a good chuck on the TE as he comes across and is there to tackle. This is a pretty narrow window to execute in.
O35	1	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 over 2PT	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Clark	10
Clark two point stance does not lead to a backout. This doesn't help him much, but he's the force guy and this play bounces outside. That is -2; basic thing that should be executed. Once that happens it's yards. Henry(+0.5) had fought through a block well to threaten the inside if there was going to be one. RPS -1.
O45	1	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 under	Pass	4	PA Dumpoff	Beyer	9
Four man rush doesn't get super near the QB but Clark(+0.5) does get around the LT to spook and grabs the QB's leg as he throws. It's short so no disruption but pretty close. Beyer(-1, cover -1) is chucking a TE and maintains that coverage too long, opening up a catch and run underneath by Belton.
M46	2	1	Shotgun twin TE twins	4-3 under	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Wormley	1
OL immediately releases downfield; M wins the inside gaps thanks to a slant with Washington(+0.5) and Wormley(+0.5) getting into the primary rushing lanes. Wormley contacts and tackles but with no help can't prevent RB from falling forward.
M45	1	10	I-Form	4-4 over	Pass	4	Comeback	TGordon	12
PSU at line with about 20 seconds left, takes a ton of time on sideline checks. Both M corners are at about 8-9 yards, PSU runs a hitch at Taylor. While this looks like his deal this is cover 3 and with no underneath threats TGordon(-1, cover -1) rolled up to the line should probably get underneath this throw; he even checks the WR as he makes his drop. RPS -1; got checked on.
M33	1	10	I-Form	4-3 under	Run	N/A	Draw	Morgan	3
Ross reads pass pro from the line and starts dropping into coverage. Morgan(+1) starts creeping to the line and then reacts as the draw reveals itself; he takes on a lead block from a TE playing FB and rocks him back and then looks to shed; this delays the back and allows Wormley to track back and TGordon to fill for a meh gain. Washington and Wormley created a big gap here but both fought back to constrict and tackle, so pushes for them.
M30	2	7	I-Form	4-4 over	Pass	5	PA sack	Black	-7
LG inexplicably decides he doesn't need to take Black(+1, pressure +3, stunt). LT takes Heitzman. Black appears to be slanting outside on a stunt while Heitzman does not get the call? My best guess. Works out as Black arcs around and sacks. RPS +1?
M37	3	14	Shotgun trips	Nickel over	Pass	4	Screen	Morgan	8
Just PSU trying to get into field goal range, or go for it range. M understandably ceding yards here, though too many since this is a part of the field where giving up this many yards is a significantly bad thing. Morgan(+1) leaps a downfield OL block to constrict the space and Wilson(+0.5) comes up to end the play well short of the sticks. RPS -1.
Drive Notes: FG(45), 20-24, 4 min 3rd Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O25	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	4-3 under	Pass	5	TE out	Bolden	5
M playing cover two; PSU throwing all five yard outs. PSU executes, M executes, five yards.
O30	2	5	Ace twins twin TE	4-3 over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Henry	6
Henry(-1) jumps offsides. This puts him upfield and lets him get locked away with instant releases from the OL; Morgan comes off to tackle but it's basically the same thing as the penalty.
O36	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	4-3 under	Pass	5	Out	Bolden	Inc
M runs their twist blitz. This gets Bolden(+1) through clean as PSU busts the protection; QB tosses it away. Should be grounding as there's no one in the area but they never call this. (Pressure +2, blitz)
O36	2	10	Shotgun 3-wide	4-3 over	Pass	4	TE out	Ross	11
Ross(-1, cover -1) is not close enough to this out to tackle on the catch and slips to the ground, turning five yards into ten.
O47	1	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Black	12
PSU goes uptempo. Black(-1) gets sealed inside. This allows a guy out in to Ross(-1) quickly but Ross should manage to set up outside with Ojemudia(+0.5) coming down effectively and does not; Belton pops out and picks up a nice gain. RPS -1.
M41	1	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 under	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Heitzman	2
Another hurry. TV doesn't get the start of the play but as we come back M is slanting with Ojemudia folding back and the LBs scraping to the slant. Confuses PSU; Henry(+1) comes around the outside to tackle as Heitzman(+1) stacks up his guy and gets penetration; Washington(-1) got blown back and allows the RB to fall forward. RPS +1.
M39	2	8	Ace 3-wide	4-3 over?	Pass	4	TE Hitch	N/A	9
M not even close to set on the snap. Simple hitch is open for first down yardage despite a weird soft dying throw from Hack. Deflected? M takes an illegal substitution, as well. RPS -1.
M30	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	4-4 over	Pass	4	Stop and go	Countess	Inc
Countess(-2, cover -2) beat badly on a stop and go on which Robinson literally stops. Pressure(-1) didn't get there, though this wasn't forever in the pocket. M lucky Hack misses.
M30	2	10	Ace twins twin TE	4-3 over 2PT	Pass	5	TE seam	Wilson	Inc
Front shifted, 2 point stance for Clark, slant implied. Slant occurs. Bolden sent. Blitz picked up; coverage(+2) good as James, the target, is bracketed by Taylor(+1) and Wilson(+1) and the window here is all but nonexistent.
M30	3	10	Shotgun empty	Okie zero	Pass	3	Comeback	Black	Inc
Show six, rush three. Black(+1, pressure +3, blitz) gets through free as PSU is out of sorts. He hits the QB as he throws way off his receiver. RPS +2.
Drive Notes: Missed FG(47), 13 min 4th Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O25	1	10	Ace 3-wide	Nickel over	Pass	4	Slant	Taylor	Inc
Taylor(+2, cover +2) plays the slant excellently, getting a PBU on a throw that was a bit behind. Even if the throw is on point this is still probably a PBU.
O25	2	10	Ace 3-wide	Okie zero	Pass	4	Throwaway	N/A	Inc
M shows all out blitz and backs out, sending only the DL. Hack doesn't know what he's looking at and coverage(+3) good for a long time as pressure(-2) is not forthcoming. Hack rolls out when it finally does get there and throws it away.
O25	3	10	Shotgun 4-wide	Okie one	Pass	4	TE out	Morgan	Inc (Pen +13)
Pressure(-1) again not coming; Morgan(+0.5) stuck in man coverage with Carter. Grabs a bit but before the ball is in the air, gets pretty dang phantom PI penalty once the ball is in the air. Cover +1, refs -2.
O38	1	10	Ace twins twin TE	Nickel over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Wormley	-5
Wormley(+2) isn't really blocked, but still does well to swim under a guy who's thinking about blocking him and then get the tackle in the backfield.
O33	2	15	Shotgun empty	Okie zero	Pass	3	Dig	Wilson	Inc
Wilson(+2, cover +2) breaks on the rounded in by James and breaks up the pass.
O33	3	15	Shotgun 4-wide	Dime even	Pass	4	Deep out	Stribling	14
Stribling in along with the other three corners. Pressure(-2) doesn't get there; Hack can step up and rifle a ball in against Stribling's guy. No replay, but this was man and Stribling did get beat(-1, cover -1).
O47	4	1	I-Form Big	Goal line	Run	N/A	Iso	N/A	2
They get it. I'm not minusing a one yard run but Black is the small issue here, as there's as bubble next to him and he gives just enough ground to give Belton the crease.
O49	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel over	Pass	4	Hitch	Avery	13
Way too easy as this is cover three with a stop route on the outside that Avery and Countess are nowhere near. Cover -2, RPS -1. I'm not sure if that's on Countess or Avery.
M38	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel over	Pass	4	Comeback	Morgan	16
Heitzman(+0.5) gets around the corner to get a little bit of pressure; Hack steps in and throws a high hard one to Robinson, which is brought in. Coverage basically fine; if lower Morgan has a chance at a PBU or INT; just a DO in a tight window.
M22	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Run	N/A	Draw	Wormley	4
Wormley(+1) drives his man back into the flight path of the RB. He pops off to fill a lane; cutback is there as Ryan(-1) is gone upfield at the QB and Henry got pushed back by a double. Henry(+0.5) rescues it a bit by chucking an OL away from him as Belton nears, tackling.
M18	2	6	Shotgun 3-wide	5-1 nickel	Penalty	N/A	False start	N/A	-5
Orp.
M23	2	11	Shotgun 3-wide	5-1 nickel	Pass	5	Sack	Clark	-3
Pressure isn't great; coverage(+3) is there for two reads with not that many guys back there. Clark(+2, pressure +1) drives a TE deep then spins off to sack.
M26	3	14	Shotgun 3-wide	5-1 nickel	Pass	4	Throwaway	Wilson	Inc
M creeps Wilson down and sends him, dropping other dudes. Wilson(+1, pressure +2, blitz) comes in at speed; LT doesn't recognize it and lets him through. Hack tries to step around, but Wilson latches on and is about to sack as Hack throws it vaguely in the direction of a WR to preserve FG position.
Drive Notes: FG(43), 34-27, 6 min 4th Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
O20	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Pass	4	Deep hitch	Taylor	14
Michigan gets decent pressure with Clark(+0.5) forcing Hackenberg up in the pocket; pressure up the middle is not great though so he can step up and fire. Taylor's in decent position here, but Penn State completes a one-toe-in catch about three yards OOB. What are you going to do?
O34	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Pass	4	Fly	Stribling	29
Pressure(-1) more bleah this time; they do make Hackenberg move around a little but he's comfortable as he throws a fly route... to a totally covered dude. Stribling(-1, cover +1) is in great position and should pick the ball off, as it hits him in the hands, but just deflects it to the WR. Cumong man.
M37	1	10	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Pass	4	Fly	Stribling	36
Pressure(-1) again meh. Hackenberg puts up a punt to a covered(+1) Robinson; Stribling undercuts and jumps pretty dang high, gets it right, ball goes over him, Robinson manages to pull it in. Merph.
M1	1	G	I-Form Big	Goal line	Run	N/A	QB sneak	N/A	1
They get it.
Drive Notes: Touchdown, 34-34, 30 sec 4th Q.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
M25	1	10	Ace 3-wide	4-3 even	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Washington	7
Washington(-1) goes straight upfield and ends up giving up a crease. Bolden(-1) takes on a G releasing free and kind of catches him, giving up ground, so Morgan(+1) making another OL go "ole" doesn't allow him to tackle because there's enough of a gap that he can't shut it down.
M18	2	3	Ace 3-wide	Nickel even	Pass	5	Sack	Wormley	-5
M telegraphs corner blitz by S alignment, PSU checks, but Wormley(+2) firing out to the right is fast enough to get around a guard who screws up (pressure +2, stunt) and he sacks. Only 2 because this also a PSU error. RPS +1.
M23	3	8	Shotgun trips	Nickel even	Pass	4	Hitch	Countess	Inc
Pressure(-1) still not bothering Hackenberg. He steps up and throws to a bracketed WR that Countess(+0.5) and Bolden(+0.5, cover +1) have ; Hackenberg has a small window and misses it; WR deflects the ball, Countess can't catch it.
Drive Notes: Missed FG(40), 34-34, OT1
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
M25	1	10	Ace 3-wide	Nickel over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Heitzman	6
Heitzman(-1) gets blown up by a double, ceding enough ground that Belton can cut back behind him. Washington(-1) had gone way upfield and the cutback here is huge. Just too much room for the LBs to hope to shut down.
M19	2	4	Ace 3-wide	Nickel over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Morgan	0
Same play. Heitzman almost jumps offsides and then buries himself at the LOS. He doesn't give ground but he's given himself up one for one here; he is annoyingly in the way of everything. Push. Morgan(+2) makes a great play to jet upfield of a releasing lineman once he puts his head down and makes a tackle at the LOS.
M19	3	4	Ace 3-wide	Nickel over	Pass	4	TE out	Morgan	Inc
Morgan(+1, cover +1) on the back of the TE without interfering and has a great shot at a PBU if this isn't well behind the WR anyway. Pressure mediocre, but may have bothered a little bit.
Drive Notes: FG(36), 37-37 EOT2
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
M25	1	10	I-Form	Nickel over	Run	N/A	End around	Clark	-6
Robinson just fumbles the ball. Clark recovers.
Drive Notes: Fumble, 37-37, OT3.
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	D Form	Type	Rush	Play	Player	Yards
M25	1	10	Ace 3-wide	Nickel even	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Black	5
No Washington, cumong man. Black(-2) pancaked instantly, bad things beckon; Beyer(+1) sheds and comes inside to initiate a tackle as the RB hits the crease. Morgan(+0.5) takes on a block and sheds to help end the play. Bolden(-0.5) got confused and almost dropped into coverage. RPS –1.
M20	2	5	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel over	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Wormley	1
M lucks out. Wormley(-1) blown off the ball; cutback lane available. Belton slips. Morgan might have been able to shut this down and Wilson was coming down, but that saves Michigan at least 4 yards.
M19	3	4	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Wormley	3
Beyer(+1) shoots inside to force a cutback away from Black(-1), who got blown up by a double. Wormley(-1) doesn't give as much ground but a guy pops off of him and he's still just pushing against an OL, not trying to actually tackle. Bolden(+1) has a tough job in significant space with a blocker; he dives at Bolden's feet and gets a tackle in, but can't prevent the RB from falling forward. RPS -1. Where is Quinton yo.
M16	4	1	I-Form Big	5-3 under	Run	N/A	Iso	N/A	3
Man, with a chance to win right there I don't know why Michigan has two safeties back. Black(+1) buries himself in the backfield, creating a pile. Morgan(-1) goes too vertical, so there's a crease outside him. Clark(-0.5) is also not being aggressive enough in the hole; instead being responsible in case of a bounce. Take the chance this time. Belton squeezes through. If Wilson was just in the box this might be a stop.
M13	1	10	Shotgun 2TE	Nickel over	Pass	5	Fade	Countess	Inc
Quick throw fade or Clark(+1, pressure +1) was coming through to hit/sack. Countess(+0.5, cover +1) in good position; ball dropped before he can swipe but he does swipe and may get a real PBU if necessary.
M13	2	10	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Run	N/A	Inside zone	Ryan	2
M stunting; Ryan(+1) dives inside as Clark(+1) sheds to the interior; both combine to tackle. Heitzman(-0.5) gave ground to a double and gave the RB room to fall forward.
M11	3	8	Shotgun 3-wide	Nickel even	Pass	4	Dig	Wilson	Inc (Pen +9)
All day (pressure -2) as no one gets through. On replay, Wilson(-2, cover -2) is overreacting to Robinson, who is undercut by Bolden. If he just takes it easy he has inside position; instead he overheats it and has to interfere once he breaks in.
M3	1	G	I-Form Big	Goal line	Run	N/A	Iso	TGordon	3
TGordon(-1) gives up the edge. Maybe it's a score anyway, but can't give up the edge.
Drive Notes: Touchdown, 40-43, EOG.

Why is Mattison getting a free pass from you? Wait, what? Am I asking you this question?

You are.

I don't like looking like a doofus, you know.

I'm sorry, but People on the Internet have come at me with that this week.

Seriously?

Yeah.

Well, lay it on me.

Penn State had 19 drives. Breakdown of these drives:

• 6 three and outs, some of which resulted in FGAs since it was OT.
• 5 turnovers: two INTs, a four-and-out turnover on downs, a fumble returned for a TD, and the unforced OT fumble. PSU got one first down on all these drives combined.
• 3 short TD drives of 14, 20, and 25 yards.
• 3 moderate length drives ending in FGAs: 50, 45, 49 yards.
• 61-yard TD drive.
• 80 yard desperation game-tying drive.

That's quite good, and it's reflected in PSU's YPA: 3 for the backs, mid-sixes for Hackenberg. On a rough points-allowed-relative-to-field-position metric the defense earned 13 with the TD and two drives they set up in FG territory and ceded 32 if you count the short TDs as 4 and the medium length FG drives as 2 each since none of those FGAs were chip shots. That's 19 net points—one per drive. To quote Lloyd Carr, that ought to be enough.

I'm probably more optimistic than the numbers because of the optics. Michigan was on the razor's edge of bashing PSU off the field with nothing on the FG drive that preceded the Great Leaping Disaster. To start they'd acquired three straight incompletions when a phantom PI extended the drive; on the next series PSU barely squeezed out a fourth and one; Hackenberg's knee was about three inches from a disastrous sack that would have put them in 4th and 20-ish and forced them to try a 50-yarder Sam Ficken would have been hard-pressed to make.

But they gave up 80 yards in like 20 seconds.

Yeah. That. That was

1. A toe-drag completion on a ball three yards out of bounds.
2. A ball miraculously fit in a window between two defenders.
3. A ball miraculously fit in a window over Channing Stribling and somehow still in bounds.

On replay #2 is pretty weird. Stribling seems to jump but not jump and a ball that should be intercepted somehow gets through him. I'm not sure if he misjudged it or what, but 9 times out of ten that ball gets at least deflected for an incompletion. I guess you can criticize the coaching staff for throwing Stribling out there, but if that's Courtney Avery is the result any different? It probably goes further over the DB's outstretched fingers. Ditto the Robinson catch.

Sometimes you just get beat. Penn State rolled an 11 and back-to-back 12s. Boom. Headshot.

You're seriously not going to put any of that on Mattison for dumping a freshman in at a critical time in the game?

He was in position to make plays and almost made plays. If he'd blown a coverage or something I could see it. Michigan's other options there weren't making those plays either, in all probability.

You do not demand excellence.

Nope here's a chart.

HEY!

Boom. Headshot.

[Reminder that DL is a MAKE PLAYS position and being neutral is bad; for a full game you want +4 to break even.]

Defensive Line
Player	+	-	T	Notes
Heitzman	7	3.5	3.5	Showed a little rush in this one.
Washington	5.5	3.5	2	Not a great day.
Black	12	5	7	Sack was kind of a freebie.
Clark	10	3	7	Neither sack was a BG-style pillaging but made effort plays.
Wormley	8	3	5	Also got a couple freebies.
Pipkins	-	-	-	DNP
Glasgow	-	-	-	DNP
Ojemudia	5	1	4	Ryan-like play to get near TFL most of this.
Godin	-	-	-	DNC
Ash	-	-	-	DNC, did get a few snaps.
Henry	5	1	4	Displayed strength on one particular inside zone blow up. Nice bounce-back.
Charlton	-	-	-	DNP
TOTAL	52.5	20	32.5	Step up games from most of DL.
Linebacker
Player	+	-	T	Notes
C.Gordon	2	-	2	May end up buried.
Morgan	9.5	4	4.5	Rough start, strong finish.
Ross	5	8	-3	Struggles covering TEs in space, also tackling them.
Beyer	2.5	1	1.5	Time decreased because of…
Ryan	3.5	2	1.5	…this gentleman.
Bolden	5.5	2	3.5	Telling: got OT playing time over Ross.
Gedeon	-	-	-	DNP
Jenkins-Stone	-	-	-	DNP
TOTAL	24	17	7	Mostly pass coverage issues.
Secondary
Player	+	-	T	Notes
Countess	2.5	4	-1.5	Burned on stop and go that PSU missed.
Taylor	10	3	7	+4 INT, a couple other PBUs.
Stribling	-	2	-2	Around the ball, now needs to MAKE PLAYS
Hollowell	-	-	-	DNP
T. Gordon	2	2	0	Boring safties.
Avery	-	3	-3	Really should have PBUed PSU TD.
Wilson	8	2.5	4.5	Had a monster game until last OT PI.
Furman	-	-	-	DNP
J. Clark	-	-	-	DNP
Lewis	-	-	-	DNP
TOTAL	22.5	17.5	5	Won coverage too.
Metrics
Pressure	22	23	-1	+7 line, +10 blitz, +5 stunt
Coverage	28	21	7	Freshman QB probably helped.
Tackling	3	1	75%	I need to revamp this metric.
RPS	16	16	-	Mattison's slants and blitzes versus hurry.

Enthusiasm for the defensive line should be tempered a bit as the pressure metric is mediocre at best and only that because a couple of three-techs took their rush wide and were subsequently ignored by the Penn State OL. Black's sack was more PSU screwup than beast mode, and same thing happened on Wormley's sack: M slanted away from the guard, guard decided that wasn't his guy, Michigan sends DE at tackle to that side, free rush up middle.

Speaking of Black, he's pretty bad at standing up to double teams, something PSU exploited on their winning drive when M sent he and Wormley out there as the DTs on the first series. But he's slanting quite a bit and he has the agility to pop out on an offensive tackle and be a credible edge rush threat, which gives Michigan flexibility with their rush calls. When Michigan slants him he's shown the ability to get under offensive linemen and drive them back. It's just those double teams that get him.

The item that probably jumps off the page is Ross coming in negative. That's because there was a lot of this:

Four or five of James's receptions were on TE outs like this where Ross was not able to react, and often gave up some YAC on the tackle. On the first one or two, okay, but at some point you have to get there faster—to tackle on the catch, at least. On that clip if Hackenberg puts it in front of James he's got a nice catch and run.

It did not seem like the defensive line got that much pressure.

Four sacks on 44 attempts is pretty good, and there were a few other instances where Hackenberg was almost sacked and just got passes off. Also, if you're only getting a push in the pressure department that's mediocre. Even with the sacks, it was a mediocre day.

Can we just decide if Raymon Taylor is good or not?

Yeah, a couple weeks after losing his starting job to Avery he goes out there and is more responsible for anyone else for shutting down Allen Robinson (M didn't switch on him; he was always outside, unlike Avery and Countess). He also scores one of the better INTs Michigan's seen in the last few years.

Taylor's interception was pretty badass because Hackenberg throws the ball on time. It's out of his hand before the WR is out of his break and right at the sideline; Taylor still undercuts and intercepts.

He also had an impressive PBU on a slant.

He's been a little up and down this year, but that's life as a cornerback. When you play great you usually don't show up on the screen; we're dealing with a low sample size here. He's been beaten over the top less than Countess at this point, though. He just had the misfortune to draw an accurate throw. I expect that, like last year, Avery's brief run as a starter will give way to Taylor permanently.

CLARK BACK?

This was his best day at Michigan considering level of competition. He of course had the two flashy sacks and a touchdown. I'm more encouraged by Clark's consistency of performance. When he made plays in the past they were outliers; here he was on the verge of making various other plays when Hackenberg got rid of the ball. He was beating PSU's left tackle consistently, and if he's grabbing at the legs of the QB to no effect on some plays, his extended effort resulted in a coverage sack:

His other sack was also just an okay rush that took a lot of time but got there and in his lane. I'll take it.

The fumble recoveries are just fluke events, especially the second, but Clark displayed why he's the world's worst guy to give a free run on the first. He's fast for 280. Even the one thing he blew—giving up the outside on one Belton run—was somewhat understandable, as Michigan had him in that two-point stance. That's uncomfortable for him.

Morgan is your binky, man.

I'm hoping we can dispel the early-season notion that Michigan's linebackers were underperforming after another game in which Michigan's safeties are barely involved in the run game. This wasn't quite "Thomas Gordon has one tackle" like Minnesota was, but PSU's long run of the day was 13 yards. The three ILBs were Michigan's three leading tacklers with 10, 8, and 6 respectively.

Both Morgan and Ross turned in impressive plays. Morgan is beginning to show a Harris-like ability to juke OL as they release into him. If this doesn't work it's a sure wag of the finger, but when it does, and consistently, I be like dang:

A couple other incidents like that didn't quite result in tackles because of other issues but were still the best way to get to the ball, and I didn't see any time that Morgan ended up out of position because he avoided contact. He takes that contact well; this is just another addition to his arsenal.

Example of taking contact:

I like that play a lot. He's in a lot of space, he impacts the lead blocker, he gets under him, extends, peeks inside, and then immediately goes back outside. The peek inside may convince the back to head to the other side of that block, and then Morgan is out there too. On purpose? That may be crazy, but it looks like something to get the back on the same side of the block as he is.

While Ross had his struggles in coverage, this play recognition on a draw is the kind of thing everyone was getting hyped about this offseason:

Bolden also came back strong after an iffy day against Minnesota. Moments during which he didn't bring the thunder were fewer (but extant) and he didn't blow a coverage. He was out there instead of Ross late, FWIW.

Again: long of 13 for running backs. Michigan hasn't even needed Kovacs-style saving tackles on the ground this year.

Anything you're not sure on?

Many things. This one is Call For Help Of The Week that will probably draw conflicting opinions:

Annoyed at the ease of this here. Seems like M is in obvious cover 3, which I felt absolved Taylor. Thought Gordon should have sunk under that route, but is this just not a particularly coverable route against this coverage?

Any HEY WE'RE RUNNING THIS hand-wave worries?

Wait, is this the offense UFR?

It's not and I do. Michigan's begun standing their WDE from time to time.

This is almost always that slant-based defense inversion discussed earlier in the year in Picture Pages. IIRC, every time but one. Showing your hand there.

Heroes?

Taylor and Wilson, yes despite the last PI. Clark and Black. Morgan.

Maybe not so heroic?

Ross got burned in coverage a bit much for my tastes; Stribling does have to MAKE PLAYS, specifically that one before doomy doom drive.

What does it mean for Indiana and the future?

Michigan's going to have to straighten out some tempo stuff. They got the fourth and short stop, but also had a number of plays where they were barely set before the snap and took an illegal substitution penalty. Indiana plays at lightning pace.

He's back. Jake Ryan's working his way back to full doombat.

The defensive line seems to be making steps forward. This was a much better performance for the line as a whole against an offensive line that's pretty experienced. Clark made plays against blocking, Henry had a nice day after Minnesota struggles, and Wormley made a few plays—albeit kind of free ones. Still, it's progress.

Progress is not going to progress towards dominance, unfortunately. Squeezing the pocket and getting patience sacks is the upside this year.

Michigan's going to have to fix their TE coverage. Penn State found a hole on those TE outs against Ross a week after Minnesota found a different hole against Wilson. To the adjust-mobile.

Raymon Taylor may be pretty good. He had a bad game earlier this year; this was an awesome one. If he can string together a few more of those that looks like a pretty good corner pairing.

Desmond Morgan is pretty good. I want to see a couple more games before I start stumping for All Big Ten recognition; it seems headed that way.

One more game away from safety apocalypse fears. Long stuff all to the sidelines against cover three. Wilson and Gordon haven't been culprits on either long pass or long run so far this year, IIRC. The spirit of Kovacs be with you.

This is the first post in a weeklong series entitled  “Submit One To Another: Christ and the Household Codes,” which will focus on those frequently-cited passages of Scripture that instruct wives to submit to their husbands, slaves to obey their masters, children to obey their parents, and Christians to submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21-6:9, Colossians 3:12-4:6; 1 Peter 2:11-3:22). You are welcome to join in the conversation via the comment section or by contributing to our Synchroblog. Use #onetoanother on Twitter. 

***

Ever heard this before? 

“The Bible says wives are to submit to their husbands, so clearly, Christian men are supposed to be the head of the household and Christian wives are supposed to defer to the wishes of their husbands when making family decisions.” 

Or this? 

“The Bible teaches husbands to love their wives and wives to respect their husbands because men need respect more than they need love and women need love more than they need respect.” 

Or what about this? 

“The Bible says wives are to submit to their husbands and slaves to their masters, so clearly, it’s an outdated and irrelevant text that oppresses people.” 

Which is typically countered with this… 

“The Bible doesn’t approve slavery. What it says about slaves obeying their masters should be applied to employees and employers. But instructions to wives still stand. 

When it comes to the interpretation and application of the parts of Peter and Paul’s* epistles typically referred to as the household codes, misunderstanding and controversy abound.  Unfortunately, many of our assumptions about these texts emerge without an understanding of their original context or intent, which is what this series aims to address. So to start us off, I’ve identified four common interpretive pitfalls surrounding the New Testament household codes. 

Before we begin, you might want to reread the texts in question in their entirety: 

Ephesians 5:21-6:9

Colossians 3:12-4:6

1 Peter 2:11-3:22

Four common pitfalls:  

1. We assume the instructions found in the Peter and Paul’s Household Codes are totally unique to Scripture. 

A lot of Christians are under the assumption that instructions about wives submitting to their husbands are found exclusively in the pages of Scripture, that these are solely “biblical” concepts. But the Christians in the churches at Ephesus, Colossea, and Asia Minor who first heard these letters read aloud would instantly recognize Peter and Paul’s version of the household codes as a sort of radical Christian remix of familiar Greco-Roman philosophy.  

As far back as the fourth century BC, philosophers considered the household to be a microcosm, designed to reflect the hierarchal structure of the society, the gods, and ultimately the universe. Aristotle wrote that “the smallest and primary parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children” and devoted several sections of his Politics to the importance of free men ruling over their wives, children, and slaves. First-century philosophers Philo and Josephus included the household codes in their writings as well, arguing that a man’s authority over his household was critical to the success of a society. 

Many Roman officials believed the household to be such an important part of Pax Romana that they passed laws ensuring its protection. In fact, Christians were finding themselves at odds with some of these laws—particularly those governing widows—which is probably why Peter and Paul address them.  How are people seeking to dismantle the divides between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female supposed to live in a society where these divisions were so central to the culture and where doing so my arouse even more suspicion and persecution? This is what members of the early church were wrestling with when Peter and Paul wrote their household codes. The apostles  weren't imposing a new structure onto marriage. They were addressing a structure that already existed and instructing new believers on how to bring Christ into that structure. These passages do not introduce a new ordering of the household, but rather comment on an existing one.

You will hear me say this several times this week: The most important question we have to ask when reading the New Testament household codes is this—is their purpose to reinforce the importance of preserving the hierarchy of the typical Greco-Roman household or is their purpose to reinforce the importance of imitating Christ in interpersonal relationships, regardless of cultural familial structures? Are these passages meant to point us to Rome or to Jesus, to hierarchy or to humility? 

The best way to answer these questions is to familiarize ourselves not only with the New Testament codes themselves, but also with those of Aristotle, Philo, etc. so we can observe how they are similar and how they are different. We’ll cover this in an upcoming post. But if you want to check out Aristotle’s version of the household codes ahead of time, check out Section III of Politics. 

2. We quote selectively from the household codes without reading them in context (and we ignore or gloss over the parts about slavery).  

In Ephesians, just before Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands, he tells all Christians—male and female—to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” In a radical departure from all the other household codes of the day, he starts with mutual submission! And yet, in many churches, instructions about wives submitting to their husbands are applied literally, but instructions about husbands and wives submitting to one another get left out of the sermon. 

This happens a lot. The New Testament household codes tend to get sliced and diced, not only by well-meaning preachers, but also by the chapters and verses in our Bibles. Rarely are they read, or discussed, in their entirety.  

I suspect a big reason for this is that reading the household codes in their entirety puts us in the awkward position of confronting the parts about slavery.  In fact, it was the issue of slavery—not gender—that first made me question what I’d been taught about how to interpret and apply these passages. Years ago, as I was looking at one of the three Bible verses that instruct wives to submit to their husbands—the one from 1 Peter that says, “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands” (3:1)—my inductive Bible study skills kicked in, and I dutifully looked back a few verses to see what Peter meant by “in the same way”—you know, to get some context.  To my surprise, the preceding paragraph had nothing to do with the relationship between men and women, but was instead about the relationship between masters and slaves!  A little more research revealed that all three of the passages that instruct wives to submit to their husbands are either preceded or followed by instructions for slaves to submit to their masters. 

The implications of this pattern are astounding. For if Christians are to use these passages to argue that a hierarchal relationship between man and woman is divinely instituted and inherently holy, then, for consistency’s sake, they must also argue the same for the relationship between master and slave, for the two are inextricably linked. 

And while slavery and Greco-Roman times was not the same as the slavery of the American south, don’t for a second think that this meant it was just or good. Peter specifically discusses slavery that involved harsh treatment and beatings because that was a reality for the many slaves who made up the early church. So it will not do to shrug these verses off and casually apply them to employers and their subordinates. To do so is to gloss over the ugly reality of slavery—then and now—which, as we will see, actually takes away from the power of these passages. 

Reality check: The household codes have been debated by American Christians before, but it wasn’t in the context of disagreements regarding gender; it was in the context of disagreements regarding slavery in the buildup to the Civil War. The household codes became go-to texts for those arguing that the ownership of slaves was indeed biblical.  Which brings us back to our central question regarding the New Testament household codes: Is their purpose to reinforce a household structure in which men rule over their wives, children, and slaves, or is their purpose to point us to attitudes that transcend a single household structure? Do these passages leave room for societies to develop beyond hierarchies between men and women, masters and slaves, or do they require that we preserve patriarchy and slavery?

Keep in mind that the same questions that divide us today divided our not-too-distant relatives in the buildup to the Civil War. 

(I wrote more about this in my review of Mark Noll’s fascinating book, “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.”)

3. We treat the household codes as marriage advice based on pop psychology, gender stereotypes, and modern cultural assumptions. 

A plethora of books and seminars have been built around treating the Household Codes as God-inspired marriage advice for modern couples, often working off the statement that “God tells wives to respect their husbands because men need respect, and God tells husbands to love their wives because women need love.”  

Now, I’m happy to admit that early in our marriage Dan and I benefited from many of these books and found great, applicable advice within their pages. But as helpful as these marriage books can be, they tend to work off of generalizations about men and women that may not apply to everyone (I’m a woman, and I certainly crave respect!) and they tend to gloss over cultural elements to these texts in ways that obscure their true meaning. 

This happens when we impose modern-day marital dynamics onto ancient social constructs. (Like when the biblical Esther is compared by a popular pastor to a contestant on “The Bachelor” when, in reality, she was one of hundreds of women forced into the king’s harem!) As modern, Western readers, we tend to think that when Peter and Paul reference “wives,” they must be thinking of “wife” as we understand that role/ position today (we think Claire from “Modern Family”) or that when they reference “children,” they must be thinking of little kids or teenagers (we think Haley, Alex, and Luke). Roy E. Ciampa refers to this habit as identity mapping. 

But families in Peter and Paul’s world didn’t look like the Dunphys. The familial structure referenced in the household codes was that of pater familias [father of the family], which positioned the man as the ruler and authority over an economic/familial unit which consisted of the ruling patriarch, his wife, children and slaves.

Marriages were typically based on economic considerations, not love, with wives holding a higher position than slaves in the household, but still functioning in many ways as the property of their husbands, who could do with them as they willed. Women were typically married as young teenagers in arrangements made by their fathers. A family in that day might very well include multiple wives, with the male head-of-house free to force slaves to satisfy him sexually as well. As Gordon Fee explains in "The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9": 

"In this kind of household, the idea that men and women might be equal partners in marriage simply did not exist. Evidence for this can be seen in meals, which in all cultures serve as the great equalizer. In the Greek world, a woman scarcely ever joined her husband and his friends at meals; if she did, she did not recline at table (only the courtesans did that), but she sat on a bench at the end. And she was expected to leave after eating, when the conversation took a more public turn."

Not only would the male head-of-house have authority over his younger children, but also his grown children, who were to submit to his will even after they had families of their own. The head of house was free to beat his slaves, or wives and children, into submission. In pater familials, the father truly ruled the household, serving as lord, judge, jury (and sometimes executioner) over his subordinates. 

When read with pater familias, rather than the Dunphys, in mind, we see just how radical Peter and Paul must have sounded when they instructed husbands to love their wives as much as Christ loved the church and to be willing to give their lives for them!  (Or to remember that they too are slaves to Christ and have a master in heaven. Or not to provoke their children, but to be patient with them.) 

How sad that words that would have sounded so liberating to those who first heard them are today so often used to oppress and silence. 

So once again, we confront our central question: Is the point of the household codes to declare pater familias the only godly household structure for all of time, or is the point of the household codes to declare Jesus Christ as the example to be followed no matter societal norms? 

4. We dismiss the household codes out-of-hand as irrelevant and oppressive. 

A lot of readers, upon encountering instructions about wives submitting to their husbands and slaves obeying their masters, decide that since the household codes reflect societal norms unlike our own, they must therefore be irrelevant or possibly oppressive. 

But as important as it is to keep the original culture and audience of the epistles in mind, these passages can still speak to us today in powerful, life-changing ways. 

With the epistles of the New Testament, we are given a glimpse into how the teachings of Jesus transformed the daily lives of his first followers. While the details of instructions regarding things like head coverings, meat sacrificed to idols, slavery, and pater familias may not apply to us today, the attitudes advocated by the authors most certainly do.  We need not adopt the familial structure reflected in the household codes to adopt the posture of humility that is advocated in them. 

The purpose of the household codes is to point to Jesus Christ as the model for interpersonal relationships.  That model transcends culture and can be applied to any household, past or present. And it is a model that, rather than reinforcing hierarchal relationships, should point us in the opposite direction—to the radical humility and servanthood of Jesus, who did not see power as something to grasp, but humbled himself and became submissive to the point of death on a cross. 

From this perspective, there is much we can learn from the household codes about confronting our own privilege, keeping whatever power we may have in check, responding to our feelings of powerlessness, practicing mutual submission in our marriages, and imitating Christ in all of our interpersonal relationships. We apply the Household Codes most faithfully to our own lives, not when we use them to reinforce power structures and hierarchy, but when we use them to break those power structures down at the foot of the cross. 

Ironically, complementarians (who believe hierarchal relationships between men and women should be preserved) agree with the hermeneutical premise of those who would discount the New Testament household codes as irrelevant, for they both assume that the point of these passages is to secure the Greco-Roman household structure as divinely instituted and holy, when in reality, their purpose is to point to humility, not hierarchy, as the primary Christian ethic. 

...More on all of this tomorrow!  

In the meantime: What have you been taught about the New Testament household codes? Have your views changed through the years? Why? What do you think a lot of Christians "miss" when reading these passages?  

And if you contributed to the synchroblog, feel free to leave a link in the comment section! 

***

* I am aware that Pauline authorship is disputed in some of these texts, but for simplicity, will refer to Paul as the author. (This is a conversation we can have later!)  

Sources: 

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complemenatrity Without Hierarchy, edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis; Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire by Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat; The Womens’ Bible Commentary, Expanded Edition, edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ring;  The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9 by Gordon D. Fee

See Also:

Christians for Biblical Equality (in particular the articles on submission and headship)

Aristotle’s Politics 

On Treating Modern Women as Ancient Greco-Roman Wives by Roy E. Ciampa, Ph.D

Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? by Kristen Rosser

The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9 by Gordon D. Fee

The Dark Side of Submission by Lee Grady

Submission in Context: Christ and the Greco Roman Household Codes 

Gender & The Creation Narratives

Is Patriarchy Really God’s Dream for the World?

Is the Abolition of Slavery Biblical?

Mutuality Series

A Year of Biblical Womanhood