Right now, I’m still leaning toward the Bucks. I haven’t seen a line yet, though.

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.

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.

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.

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.