Iowa Snowflakes: The Offense

Submitted by LSAClassOf2000 on December 3rd, 2023 at 1:00 PM

This will be the thread for snowflakes regarding the offensive performance in the Big Ten Championship Game. 

JHumich

December 2nd, 2023 at 11:40 PM ^

Hopefully Nugent can heal up, and the OL can gel better.

We've got a month now to adjust the game plan to not having Zak.

And solve whatever was going on with the TEs' hands.

FlaWolverine22

December 2nd, 2023 at 11:40 PM ^

I didn't see a national championship level team tonight and that's fine. We beat OSU again and won the big ten so the season is a success in my opinion. Hopefully the O-line gets fixed in the playoff practices but I'm not getting my hopes up for anything.

Guy Fawkes

December 3rd, 2023 at 8:12 AM ^

Defensively I agree. But the offense? No way, the offense it literally designed to get 1 inch over 10 yards in 3 or 4 plays and control the clock. At no point in the last 6 games have they even tried to be explosive. That means one thing to me....they aren't explosive on offense. Pretty chilling to think we have a 1st round QB too....

AnthonyThomas

December 2nd, 2023 at 11:41 PM ^

It's not good enough to win a national title, which is all that matters from this point forward. The offense lost something over the bye week. The passing game in particular has been much less efficient and JJ has thrown many, many more turnover-worthy balls than he did before (minus BGSU).

The bigger problem is that this team cannot run the ball like the last two Michigan offenses. You pair this year's version of JJ with the 2021 run game, and you've got the 1997 team. But that's not where we're at and beating some combination of Texas/Bama/Washington is going to be really difficult with this offense. 

AnthonyThomas

December 2nd, 2023 at 11:53 PM ^

It is what it is at this point. The last two offensive lines were generationally good, especially the 2021 run game. No one should ever take for granted what that o-line did to OSU in the second half of the game that year. It's pretty much impossible to keep up that level of line play, and we're starting to see that now. They're still good but the scheme requires them to be great if this team's gonna compete with schools that sign 5-6 five starts every cycle. 

stephenrjking

December 3rd, 2023 at 1:18 AM ^

I agree with the identification of the issue being the OL, but with none of the rest of this. And it's worth noting that the OL's biggest problem is pass protection, not running. 

Nothing mysterious happened at the bye week; Michigan's HC, an offensive guy, got suspended for three games, and Michigan built two-score leads against excellent teams with dangerous defenses, and were a bit conservative. The result? They're the #1 team in the country.

The 1997 comparison isn't great. The 1997 offense wasn't impressive, and in fact ranks pretty low by Lloyd Carr standards, with only 1996 and maybe 2001 being less talented and less capable units under Carr. Griese was a fine player, but Brady and Henson and Henne were better; Carr had a handful of better receivers than Tai Streets, and your namesake was a spot contributor as a freshman on a team that featured Chris Howard, a decent back bettered in the Carr era by four different magnificent RBs in different eras.

This is a better offense than 1997 by some distance. JJ is a terrific passer, and the real question is whether or not Michigan is able to give him the time to use that ability when it counts if they actually have to play from behind in January. That's the part of the playbook they won't stretch out much, as they perceive a risk. And that's the part that has pages to use if they are needed.

 

AnthonyThomas

December 3rd, 2023 at 12:18 AM ^

I like to think that I'm pretty measured on here, and I'm gonna say that it's really hard to justify that conclusion. The two TD drives began inside of the redzone. The offense that played tonight struggled to put more than two good plays together at a time and has, for several weeks now, been unable to create anything resembling an explosive play. These are not good data points for predicting future success. 

LeCheezus

December 3rd, 2023 at 12:51 AM ^

I get where you’re coming from.  Iowa essentially had 5 turnovers in this game if you include “turnover on downs they wouldn’t have attempted if they were not down multiple scores.”  It was a pretty similar game.
 

I did think Iowa’s D was pretty good.  Multiple moments where the run game looked like it had a big gap only for it to close down almost instantly.  I honestly think they would have been better off just running almost every play (OMG WHERE IS THE PLAY ACTION), straight drop backs that were not 5 yard outs were not great.

stephenrjking

December 2nd, 2023 at 11:43 PM ^

Nothing special. They weren’t throwing absolutely everything at Iowa, naturally. Frustrating not to get more done, of course, but the whole reason we want to see more is to see how good Michigan might be against other teams.

And we get to find out ourselves. So I’ll watch it play out. 

sharklover

December 2nd, 2023 at 11:43 PM ^

Would have loved to see receivers get more separation. Would like to see the line hold their blocks. Need to see line open up bigger gaps. 

Did plenty to beat Iowa. Will need more to win a playoff game.

Ham

December 2nd, 2023 at 11:44 PM ^

213 total yards isn’t going to cut it in the Rose Bowl against Texas or Alabama. Only 27 more passing yards than Iowa. 0 touchdowns on drives that didn’t begin inside Iowa’s 10 yard line. I’m unsure as to why the passing game has become so stagnant.