Michigan Football
October 3rd, 2006
So, recently a couple friends of mine have asked me for my take on this year’s Michigan football team, who of course I’ve been watching intently this year. So, I’m answering blog-style.
First, I want to start off by saying that the Michigan-Notre Dame game was hands-down the best three and half hours I’ve spent in front of a television in ages. When Brady “Overrated” Quinn fumbled late and the Michigan D-linesman was chugging toward the end zone I was rooting him on enthusiastically. My wife asked why, since the game was about over and they already had a big lead, did it possibly matter? I just had to laugh. Beating up Notre Dame will never, ever get old, if only because we don’t do it enough. I still hate Lou Holtz when I see him on ESPN’s scoreboard show, but maybe that’s only because of the rocks in his mouth. (Seriously, listen to the guy talk…)
Anyway, on to the team. They have, of course, looked very strong. If they play the rest of the seaon like they played the ND game, or the second half against Wisconsin, or the first half against Minnesota, then I think there are very few teams who could hang with them. Given the quality of the rest of their schedule, only Iowa should be able to play even within 10 points of Michigan the until the annual battle with Ohio State.
The problem, of course, is that they’re Michigan, which means they’re prone to lapses and play far beneath that level, so anything can happen (see, for example, any game against Notre Dame in 87-91, the Kordell Stewart game, several games from last year including the bowl game, and so on). My buddy Karl pointed out that so far they’ve run the ball well and thrown deep well, but haven’t shown anything in the short passing game. The D-line looks great, but it’s not clear how good the linebackers and secondary really are. Rivas (the placekicker) is always an adventure, and I don’t mean that in a good way. So how good are they really?
I have to say, on offense they remind me of the 1970s Steelers: run the ball until the defense commits a safety to stopping the run, then throw deep. Henne has shown some amazingly perfect deep balls this year and Manningham seems to be problematic for college DBs right now, especially without safety help. He seems to double-move better than most college wideouts; on the TD against Notre Dame where scored on an out-and-up the corner bit so hard on the out I thought he might lose his jo…err, cleats.
Henne has completed 69 passes thus far, with 5 going to Hart and 13 to tight ends. That’s 26%. Not a lot of short throws, but maybe just enough to keep defenses honest. Frankly, I’d rather be able to run the ball on 3rd and 3 than have to pass every time, which is what they did last year. Michigan has 226 rushing attempts and 114 passing attempts so far this season. That’s a ratio I’m happy with. Do they really need a short passing game to win? I’m not sure.
I’m much more concerned about the Michigan DBs. The secondary certainly didn’t impress in the second half against the Gophers. I have to think that’s where the Michigan D is the most vulnerable. They certainly seem to get pressure on the quarterback and have been very stout against the run. I imagine Iowa’s Drew Tate will have seen the film on the Minnesota game, so I have some concerns there. And yes, if any game comes down to a late field goal, I think “be afraid” is indeed the order of the day.
So, what’s the upshot of all this? Well, yes, I can easily imagine Michigan going into the Ohio State game undefeated. But, if I’ve learned anything in my quarter-century of following Michigan football, it’s that they rarely live up to the early-season promise (in seasons where they have some). But I do think this is the most promising team since the ‘97 championship team. (That’s not too hard; frankly, my opinion was that no team starting John “batted down at the line of scrimmage” Navarre ever had all that much promise.)
Then, of course, there’s that big game in November. OSU looks like a juggernaut this year, plus the game’s in Columbus, plus the Buckeyes have really had our number since Tressel took over. All bad. The Maize and Blue were certainly ineffective stopping Troy Smith and Ted Ginn last year, something the rest of college football seems to be running into this year. Right now if OSU were to play Michigan in Columbus and I had to bet my life on it, I’d bet OSU, giving points. I have to think if they are indeed both undefeated it’ll be #1 vs. #2 or #3 and it will be the biggest non-Bowl game of the year even without the rivalry. The loser should still get a BCS bid. But we’re a long way from that kind of talk.
I just hope the Wolverines don’t screw it up vs. State this weekend. That would be so awful, and yet so like them. Coach ‘em up, Lloyd, and keep their eyes on the prize! Go Blue!
Interesting comparison to the Bradshaw/Swan/Harris era Steelers. That one hadn’t occurred to me. Of course, the run-run-run-bomb-repeat offense worked pretty well for them, didn’t it?
I’m not sure about Michigan. As I noted, Michigan has been getting strong play from the O line, which is critical to consistent success. That’s been opening running lanes for Hart and giving Henne time to make the deep throws when the D brings the safeties up. So far, it has worked like a charm, but it’s purely two dimensional. It also relies heavily on Michigan establishing an early lead, which it has done in all of its games to date.
If Michigan has to play from behind, however, I wonder if that two-dimensional offense becomes one-dimensional. Consider also what happens if Michigan runs up against a team that can pressure Henne and contain Hart without bringing the safeties up. That could happen as a result of a superior opposing defensive front, or a single injury along the Michigan O line, because the O line’s effectiveness is heavily dependent on their play as a unit. In either scenario, Michigan is going to need some more offensive options. That’s when you would want the offense to be able to execute screens, draws and passes on quick timing patterns like slants. We haven’t really seen any of that out of Michigan so far this year. Granted, they haven’t needed it, but I’m going to be skeptical about the offense’s ability to put up points when really needed until I see that those plays are in the book and can be run effectively.
That said(tm), I’m probably more optimistic that you are about Michigan’s ability to get to Columbus undefeated. The Michigan defensive line has been playing extremely well. Yes, the secondary is the question mark, but I don’t see any team before the Buckeyes really exposing that potential weakness. Iowa lacks any deep receiving threat. Michigan State has some offensive firepower but is in shambles, and I don’t think Lloyd will let his team get caught looking past them. Penn State has better balance than either of those teams, but doesn’t match up well against Michigan across the board. Purdue might actually be the Big Ten team with the best chance of exposing any weaknesses Michigan has on defense, but Michigan and Purdue don’t meet this year.
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.10.04 @ 09:36
Well, I guess I’ll have a conversation with myself here.
Michigan stayed true to form in the MSU game — run Hart like crazy, throw a couple of long bombs for scores, and then coast to the finish line. I did see at least one screen pass in the game, but other than that it was more of the same.
What really concerns me is the final stats. Michigan and MSU were actually quite close in total yards (351 for Michigan vs. 312 for MSU). Michigan got only one sack. MSU didn’t rush for much, but of course they were playing from behind for most of the game. The MSU passing game was disturbingly effective, and the Spartans moved the ball quite well in the 2nd half (as did Minnesota last week). The Spartans were 7-of-15 on 3rd down conversions and 2-of-3 on 4th down (vs. 3-of-10 and 0-of-1 for Michigan). What killed the Spartans in this game were penalties. The Spartans were flagged 11 times for 87 yards. More importanly, 3 of those penalties gave Michigan first downs that kept drives alive.
Yes, I know the media are reporting that Michigan rolled over MSU, and may be the #2 team in the country. I’m not buying it (Florida is my #2 right now). I’m getting a sinking feeling that the Wolverines are gonna be exposed by a scrappy Penn State team, or by a resurgent and disciplined Hawkeyes squad.
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.10.09 @ 17:25
I’ll join in.
I was less concerned than you with the MSU game after seeing it. Seems like both of the last two games followed the same formula: get a big lead, they play “prevent” D. Allow yards on underneath passes, even allow first downs and points, but not in big enough chunks that it could be done quickly, thus preserving the lead. Obviously, Minn hit some longer passes, and I was much more worried watching that game, but the MSU game seemed in hand to me. Given some other experiences with State (our freshman year, our senior year, the Plax Burress game, the clock game), I was very happy to see this.
I’m also not that worried about Penn State. First, we seem to play them well most years. Second, I think if we go down it’ll be to a more experienced QB who won’t get flustered by the pressure and who will find the open guy. I’m not convinced that the PSU QB has that.
Drew Tate, however, does, and we often play poorly against Iowa for whatever reason. (Probably selective memory, I know.) I’m a lot more worried about the Hawkeyes than the Lions.
And no, we shouldn’t be #2. Florida has played a tougher schedule, it should be them. Maybe we’re better than SC, but it’s hard to say–they certainly seem to be making a habit out of making it interesting late in the game, which is bad. WVU is an unknown; I’ve not seen them play, and come on, there are high schools around here with tougher schedules, at least so far. If Florida runs the table, they should play for the title, no question.
Comment by SunByrne — 2006.10.09 @ 23:46
Manningham out for the PSU game.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/10/10/manningham.surgery/
Comment by alex — 2006.10.10 @ 12:51
Ack! OK, now I’m more worried about Penn State. I still think we’re more likely to win than to lose, but that can’t be good. I sure hope he’s back for Iowa.
Comment by SunByrne — 2006.10.10 @ 14:39
Don’t count on it. He had a partially torn meniscus, IIRC. While Michigan is downplaying the injury, that may be more for the benefit of Manningham’s standing with NFL scouts than anything else, or a ploy to keep Iowa wondering as long as possible. I think we probably won’t see him back until Ohio State, or perhaps Indiana (week before OSU) at the earliest.
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.10.12 @ 11:20
Very ugly indeed. Iowa might be a little TOO interesting.
Comment by SunByrne — 2006.10.12 @ 11:46
The Penn State game was very revealing. I finally saw some screen passes run by Michigan, but they failed miserably. The Michigan offense clearly needs to spend time figuring out how to run the screen effectively.
Much more concerning, however, was how effectively the Lions used the screen pass against Michigan. Time and time again, they picked up positive yardage with it, including a score. Michigan’s defense should probably spend all week learning how to recognize and defend it.
Michigan also tried a pass to a tight end, which probably revealed why Michigan doesn’t do it much (it was a drop in the endzone, of course).
The most perplexing and infuriating aspect of the game was Michigan’s last few possessions. On 1st and 2nd down, Penn State put 8 or 9 guys in the box and crowded the line of scrimmage. What did Michigan do? Hand it off to Hart for no gain. On third down, Penn State put in the nickel and kept only five in the box. What did Michigan do? Throw an incomplete pass. I was literally screaming at Henne on the TV screen to recognize the defense and throw it on first and second down. My dog even recognized the obvious single coverage on the receivers. If ever there was a time for a quick slant, it was there. But Michigan was so ridiculously predictable and conservative they nearly gave the game away.
Henne also looked worse than I’ve seen him all year. He routinely overthrew open receivers. I don’t know if it’s because the loss of Manningham is leading to timing problems, but it was troubling.
So how about that Iowa game? It’s in Ann Arbor, or I’d probably be predicting an upset. I still think Michigan will win it, but it may be close. Iowa is disciplined and extremely well coached. They’ll be watching films and figuring out what works against Michigan. I expect to see a lot of draws and screens from the Iowa offense, and more focus on stopping the Michigan running game until Henne and company prove they can still connect regularly on the passing routes.
And the #2 ranking in the AP poll does not bode well for the Wolverines. #2’s have been getting upset regularly in recent weeks.
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.10.16 @ 10:25
I almost forgot. What the heck happened to Michigan’s punter? The punting against Penn State was awful — routinely low and very returnable. We also almost got burned on kick coverage. All in all not an impressive game on special teams.
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.10.16 @ 10:27
Here’s some more food for thought from your friendly rain-on-the-Michigan-parade guy.
First, as I predicted, Manningham is out for the Iowa game. Don’t expect to see him back before Ohio State, if then.
Second, a lot of people have been comparing the 2006 Wolverines to the 1997 Wolverines, in part because of their supposedly “dominating” defenses. I have my doubts, and so went back and did a little checking. As I suspected, they don’t measure up well at all.
The 2007 Wolverines have gotten a lot of attention for beating up a couple of opposing quarterbacks and getting a lot of sacks. The sack yardage counts against opponents’ rushing yardage, of course. When you combine that fact with the fact that Michigan has built early leads in most of its games, forcing opposing offenses to the air, the result has been that the Wolverines are statistically one of the very best run defenses in the country.
Michigan has shown quite a bit of vulnerability to the pass, however, and to offenses that can take advantage of an aggressive pass rush (witness the great effectiveness of the screen pass against Michigan at Penn State). Michigan’s secondary has also shown flashes of weakness, though the aggressive pass rush has often prevented opposing QB’s from being able to let downfield routes develop, and then set and throw accurately. Most importantly, however, is that Michigan has been giving up lots of second half yardage and points.
That last fact is the one that disturbs me the most. As I have pointed out before, Michigan this season has generally played well on defense in the first half, and the offense has put together a decent running game with occasional long passes that have commonly resulted in a lead of 2 or more scores by halftime. In the second half, however, the opponent makes it interesting, racking up yardage and closing the score differential generally through the air while Michigan’s offense stalls.
Did the 1997 team have that same pattern? Nope. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. The 1997 Wolverines tended to start slow and build as the game went on. With few exceptions, they dominated their opponents in the 2nd half, and not the first, pulling away as the game went on.
At this point in the 1997 season, the Wolverines were also 5-0 and heading into a game against Iowa. In the first 5 games of 1997, however, the Wolverines had allowed a grand total of 6 points in the 2nd half, consisting of two third quarter field goals. Opposing offenses were averaging just 91 yards against Michigan’s defense in the 2nd half of play.
The bottom line, in my view, is that Michigan’s current pattern is not suggestive of a team that will run the table. The Wolverines need to get more disciplined on defense, more creative on offense, and need to figure out how to increase the intensity and play better in the second half. If they can do those things, they may play for a national championship. If not, they may stumble even prior to the OSU game.
I would probably be picking Iowa for the upset at this point, but for one thing. According to Iowa, the Hawkeyes may be without their top receiver (Dominique Douglas), running back (Albert Young), left tackle (Dace Richardson) and defensive lineman (Mitch King) against Michigan. That’s a whole lot of injuries, in a lot of places, and that will be tough to overcome. Of course, some or all of those guys may play. Kirk Ferentz will have the Hawkeyes ready to go, and they’ll be looking to prove something after giving up a comeback victory to Indiana.
Incidentally, Iowa came in Michigan off a loss and ranked #15 in 1997, also. The Hawkeyes put a real scare into Michigan, building a 21-7 halftime lead thanks in large part to the special teams heroics of Tim Dwight. Michigan fought back to win 28-24, of course, and went on to finish the season undefeated. But that was the pattern of the 1997 Wolverines. They held Iowa to just 3 second half points, while scoring 21 themselves. I really question whether the 2006 Wolverines are capable of doing the same.
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.10.18 @ 09:34
Hmm. Well, having your starting left tackle out against the Michigan defensive line is very, very bad. I have some concerns about Michigan as well, but the D-line is NOT one of them. They are, I think, really as good as advertised. If Iowa also has their RB out, that’s also bad, because the worst thing you can do against that D-line is let them pin their ears back and come hard all the time. While Michigan has played the run well in general, I think teams need to at least try to run on them to keep the D-line honest. Minnesota did this well in the 2nd half, I thought.
I think Iowa will indeed go West Coast on them and try to use short passes to move the ball around in small chunks. It’ll all depend on how disciplined the linebackers can be. I have my doubts, but then I suspect the coaching staff will be ALL OVER them this week about the screen, based on what happened against Penn State. In some ways I think giving up that horrible long TD on a screen was really good for Michigan since it might attune them to the problem.
No, they’re not the 1997 team. The 97 defense relied on a lot of man coverage by the corners so the rest of the defense could be maximally aggressive. That strategy works great when you have one good corner and one spectacular corner, which they did. The current Michigan D relies more on stellar line play to cover up their weakness in the secondary. It’s a very different style.
The offenses, I think, have also played into the difference. The 1997 offense wasn’t as explosive and so the D had a lot of pressure on it to really clamp down so that Michigan could stay in. The current D seems to lose focus when they have a big lead, which they’ve often had. The question is, if the game is close throughout, can the Michigan D stay focussed for 60 minutes? I sure hope so, but I’m not sure.
Should be an interesting game this weekend. Hopefully not TOO interesting.
Comment by SunByrne — 2006.10.19 @ 00:54
Yeah, I think Michigan will survive Iowa, due in part to the Iowa injuries. I really hope that the Michigan coaches and players are recognizing some of these same vulnerabilities, however, and are addressing them. Even if they get through Iowa, they’ll need to improve substantially if they’re going to stand any chance of leaving the Horsheshoe with a victory.
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.10.19 @ 08:43
Well, Terry Bowden seems to think Michigan may be better than Ohio State: “On top of this, the Wolverine defense is better than the offense, and I’m not convinced anyone, including Ohio State, can beat them this year.” http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AiMjrmgW4oWsISPhxCai0.ocvrYF?slug=tb-heismanwatch101906&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.10.20 @ 08:29
Well, that’s the kiss of death for sure. Almost as bad as being picked by Lee Corso to win on GameDay…
Comment by SunByrne — 2006.10.20 @ 11:07
So … Michigan and Ohio State both apparently looked quite beatable this past weekend. I didn’t see either game, so I can’t really analyze what happened in them. I will note that Michigan appears to have done a good job on run defense against Ball State, but apparently gave up quite a few big plays in the passing game. Michigan also had a ridiculous number of penalties, and struggled to move the ball and score in the 2nd half.
I’ll be watching the Indiana game with great interest. Unless Michigan really turns it on in that game, I’ll be taking the Buckeyes to cover on November 18, regardless of the spread.
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.11.06 @ 09:24
So, Mike, any predictions on the “Big Game” this weekend? I’ve seen a couple of talking heads pick Michigan (Maisel at SI, for instance). On the other hand, our good friend Dodd over at CBS thinks it will be a blowout, and not in Michigan’s favor. Both teams looked pretty good this past weekend, though Michigan’s pass defense again seemed vulnerable.
Right now, I’m still leaning toward the Bucks. I haven’t seen a line yet, though.
Comment by BigHeadKarl — 2006.11.13 @ 08:46