Michigan 34, Miami (NTM) 10 Comment Count

Ace


WITH AUTHORITY [Eric Upchurch/MGoBlog]

The gulf between box score and eye test is vast this evening.

The box score says Michigan gave hapless Miami their 19th straight loss with authority, outgaining the RedHawks 460-198, moving the ball well on the ground (6.1 YPC) and through the air (8.4 YPA), and ultimately cruising to a 24-point victory.

My eyes saw Michigan cough up three turnovers in the second quarter, allowing Hapless Miami to tie the game at ten apiece and hang around for a while.

The box score shows that Miami scored ten points against the Wolverine defense, but the eyes know those should be charged against Michigan's offense, as those scoring drives covered all of 26 and 21 yards following U-M turnovers.

The box score doesn't contain a giant red "WTF" flag. My eyes saw this at the end of the first half:

You can click to enlarge that picture, or I can just tell you that Michigan ran a four-minute drill with zero urgency or effectiveness. After Michigan tried to run a quick play on fourth-and-1, only for Miami to call a timeout before the snap, Brady Hoke decided to punt on 4th-and-6 from the Miami 37 when the Wolverines took a delay of game penalty coming out of that timeout. The decison to punt was so surprising Miami didn't put out a returner, then called a timeout of the "you can't be serious" variety. Finally, U-M took another delay of game to give Will Hagerup more room to boom a punt that hit the end zone on the fly.* Insert giant red "WTF" flag here.

The box score shows Devin Gardner had an efficient 184 yards and two TDs on 20 attempts, with one lone interception blemishing his stat line. The eyes saw his mechanics, which are all over the place, and at least two should-be interceptions hit the turf or, in the case of Jake Butt's first catch, get rescued by a great effort on the receiver's part. In fairness to Gardner, the box score also doesn't show that his interception was tipped at the line.


A crease, that. [Upchurch]

The box score and eye test agree on a couple things, at least. The offensive line did a fine job opening up holes after Miami stopped packing the box with eight defenders; when the RedHawks had to adjust to account for Michigan's wide-open receivers, Derrick Green went off, finishing the game with 137 yards and a pair of scoring runs on 22 carries. Green showed off patience, vision, and the decisive cuts necessary for success in a zone running scheme, and the numbers say as much.

Amara Darboh also looked good as he stepped into a starting role with Devin Funchess in street clothes; the redshirt sophomore caught six passes for 88 yards and Michigan's first touchdown—when he caught a quick slant and powered through a tackle to poke the ball across the plane—though he did lose a fumble during that stressful second quarter. Jake Butt looked healthy after playing sparingly against Notre Dame, finishing with three catches for 59 yards and a score on a clever fake screen called by Doug Nussmeier.

The defense thoroughly dominated Miami. RedHawks QB Andrew Hendrix could only muster 165 yards with one TD and one INT on 26 passes. The Miami passing game fared a whole lot better than their running game, which managed a paltry 33 yards on 24 attempts. The defensive front looked great, and even without starters Ray Taylor and Jarrod Wilson, the secondary held strong. Jourdan Lewis recorded his first career interception with a leaping grab on the sideline, while Jabrill Peppers impressed with his physical man coverage, forcing throw after throw to sail into the sideline.

The box score, which must be taken into account—our lyin' eyes being what they are—says Michigan turned in a dominant performance, with the final score a bit deceiving thanks to those turnovers. While it took longer than anyone hoped or expected, the Wolverines ultimately dispatched a bad team with relative ease.

On my drive home, however, I'll remember the groans that accompanied Hagerup's ill-fated punt, and the boos that followed the team into the tunnel, and I'll wonder what that kind of first-half performance would result in next week, when a plucky Utah squad coming off a bye week visits the Big House. The mental image isn't a pleasant one.

----------------
*Apologies for initially screwing up this sequence of events; now edited for accuracy, though the general "WTF" feeling stands, of course. This was horrible clock management and an infuriatingly conservative call in a one-score game against an overmatched opponent.

Comments

RobM_24

September 14th, 2014 at 12:00 AM ^

Michigan's offense is just so deliberate. It's like watching a pitcher who has 5 different quirks and superstitions that he has to get through before each pitch. It just has no rhythm or identity.

ThoseWhoStayUofM

September 14th, 2014 at 2:08 AM ^

I'm glad to see the all too common "A win is a win" comments are completely vacant from this blog.  As we all know, a win is not simply a win.  How you win matters, and Devin Gardner looked absolutely horrid.  That punt to end the half was absurd, and Doug Nussmeier really needs to call a better game and make a decision of what our identity is going to be.  One drive, we are a spread offense.  The next drive, we are lining up and playing ground-n-pound.  The entire offense is a massive cluster F***.

goblue20111

September 14th, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^

Yes, because that buys Hoke more time.  Look I get you're biased in his favor because you know him personally and played under him but this team will never be elite under Hoke.  We either makes the playoffs once in a bluemoon or hardly ever at all. It's not losing games but it's how we look when we win or hell when we lose.  Ohio State steamrolls a middling MAC opponent while I'm wondering if we're gonna pull out a win in the second quarter.  You shouldn't be struggling against quite possibly the worst team in FBS in year 4 of a coaching regime no matter what.  We hired a career .500 coach and we're seeing those results.  He is who we thought he was. 

Reader71

September 15th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^

I am biased. I always admit that. I was also biased in favor of Lloyd Carr. But I am a reasonable person. When Lloyd lost to App St. even I jumped off the bandwagon. There will probably come a similar time for Hoke. I just haven't seen it yet. And I certainly don't think there was anything wrong with the win yesterday, aside from the end of half fiasco.

I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to fire the coach. That's their right, and is the nature of fandom. What I do have a problem with is bad arguments. I'm not biased in Borges's favor. I've never met the man, and I thought he was the definition of average, but I stuck up for him on many occasions because people made really bad arguments. Saying a man with a .667 winning percentage is a .500 coach is stupid. Calling yesterdays game a struggle is stupid.

Also, 10 wins doesn't buy anyone time. It end the hot seat talk, full stop. That's not why I'm picking that number, though. I have believed this was a 9 win team since fall camp. Add a bowl game, and there we are.

Abram

September 14th, 2014 at 8:13 AM ^

They are coming along. The line is looking better on both sides. We've got some good skill guys and the recruiting is going very well. The coaching is fine. Hoke has beaten Notre Dame a couple times with what seemed to me inferior teams, so I'm not sure where the "can't win the big game" gripe is coming from. His first year proved he can do it. Excellent assistants. Good spirit on the team. Hoke's a good guy worthy of the job. We had forty years of excellent football. Be patient as we go through a lull. Alabama, USC, and Notre Dame, for example, were all irrelevent for long stretches when I was growing up. Down periods are normal in all things. We got spoiled and, dare I say, a bit entitled by the success of Bo and his assistants. Michigan has had to recreate their football program the last few years, and there have naturally been bumps along the way. They are rightly focused on fundamentals and it takes time to show results, but they will be real and sustainable. Enjoy watching the Blue through the good and bad.

KC Wolve

September 14th, 2014 at 8:51 AM ^

I appreciate your positive attitude but disagree. Those teams that went through down periods had bad coaches and then got rid of them until they found the right guy. As to your comment about Hoke deserving this job. In my opinion, he should have never gotten an interview. I hope the team wins but Hoke has shown what he is, an above average MAC coach that got the phone call of his life.

Reader71

September 14th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^

I'm not saying you are wrong, but his record at M has shown that he is an above-average B1G coach. No need to stretch your argument past the point of truth, it only makes your argument look worse and makes you look like a guy being led by his emotions and not his brain.

Yeoman

September 14th, 2014 at 5:34 PM ^

His record is above average. He's won 15 and lost 9 conference games in the three years; the average is .500 by definition.

The team's improvement compared to the prior 3-year period is also above average. M was 6-18 over the three years before he arrived; that 15-9 is a nine game improvement. Here's the conference delta:

  1. Michigan +9
  2. Indiana +2
  3. Michigan State +1
  4. Wisconsin +1
  5. Minnesota 0
  6. Penn State -1
  7. Purdue -1
  8. Ohio State -2
  9. Iowa -4
  10. Northwestern -4
  11. Illinois -6

Three games per season is pretty good; nobody else in the conference has even improved by one (Nebraska's entry in the interim made the overall delta negative).

Wins. Comparing wins to the school's established baseline. That's usually how head coaches are evaluated; do you have a method you prefer to these?

Reader71

September 14th, 2014 at 6:54 PM ^

No one begrudges you that opinion of Hoke. But if we are to have any discussion, you should really make valid points. Your points about wins against good teams and road wins are great. These things should form your opinion. But don't then let your opinion cause you to make untrue statements.

Yeoman

September 14th, 2014 at 9:00 PM ^

I can think of a couple of ways to tackle that one. I'm not sure what I'll find but here goes with the first and quicker of the two.

Using Massey as always (unlike the other computer services he has a free and functional website), Michigan's best win last year was over ND, who finished #29.

Here's the best win of the other conference schools:

  • Illinois #68 (Cincinnati)
  • Indiana #48 (Penn St.)
  • Iowa #36 (Nebraska)
  • Michigan St. #7 (Stanford)
  • Minnesota #36 (Nebraska)
  • Nebraska #25 (Georgia)
  • Northwestern #55 (Syracuse)
  • Ohio St. #22 (Wisconsin)
  • Penn St. #22 (Wisconsin)
  • Purdue #283 (Indiana St.)
  • Wisconsin #33 (Iowa)

Four of the other eleven conference teams had better wins than Michigan's best, seven did not. That's above conference average, in what I think we probably all agree was by some distance Hoke's worst season of the three.

That analysis is crude and not very enlightening, but I think the point is that top-20 wins are rare and Michigan's six-year drought (the last was Carr's last game) isn't as unusual as we think. The entire conference only had one top-20 win last year.

 

Reader71

September 14th, 2014 at 6:50 PM ^

Every game ends in a win for one team and a loss for the other. So the average coach has a .500 record. Hoke is 28-14 overall, 15-9 in conference. He is thus above average. This is a fact. The horrendousness of the conference is irrelevant. He is above average overall and in the horrendous conference. If you want to argue that because the B1G sucks, he is a below-average coach nationally, you could do that. You would still be wrong. But I feel like that is what you want to argue.

Yeoman

September 14th, 2014 at 8:37 PM ^

I think the counterargument would be that Michigan has institutional and structural advantages that mean that an average FBS coach should be able to do better than average there. That's fair as far as it goes--Indiana hasn't been at the basement of the conference for decades just because they've had a long, long parade of terrible coaches. Some situations are better than others.

But that's why I brought up the comparison to the prior period.

Reader71

September 14th, 2014 at 8:47 PM ^

Yeah. But he didn't compare Hoke to Michigan coaches, which would make sense. He said that Hoke was an above average MAC coach. I just find that a really stupid assertion in the face of his .667 record as coach of Michigan, a B1G school. People are so angry, so desperate to validate their opinions that they go overboard from legitimate complaints (losing 0-32 v. ND) to bad ones (Miami game was close) to outright false ones (Hoke as average in MAC). It's weird, man.

Yeoman

September 14th, 2014 at 9:10 PM ^

What I think I don't quite understand is: why are people mad precisely now? What makes winning most of your games, but not as convincingly as we'd like, worse than the actual losing was? Why is 15-9 worse than 6-18?

A lot of posts here, reaching back for a time when things were as bad as they are now, reach for '07. That's weird.

Reader71

September 15th, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^

I think some people are mad that Hoke is treated better than Coach Rod was. I think some people are just always looking for the next Saban and think we should keep hiring til we get lightning in a bottle. I think most people are tired of the long time between B1G titles and don't make a distinction between regimes. Whatever the reasons, I just think people should want truth and data on their side. It might come to pass that Brady Hoke ends up a bad coach. But there isn't any data to support that conclusion right now. Are we just in a race to make a claim so that we can say, "I told you so."

Yeoman

September 15th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^

That all sounds right.

But what I think is nagging at me is a plausible, to me, alternative history:

Hoke and Borges make the other choice in 2011, and install Borges's offense on the spot, without any modifications for the talent on hand. Denard is given a chance to compete at QB but he isn't a good fit for a true WCO and he winds up moving to WR or RB, where he's going to end up playing in the pros after all and where he would have been all along if he'd played for anyone but RR.

Mattison/Hoke/Hecklinski et al work the same magic with the defense they did in real life. The offense sputters, like Borges's offenses always do in his first year. We go 8-5, people are sad about Denard but damn, look at that defense, that feels like Michigan again, maybe we're on the right track.

The second year there's still some mismatch of talent/scheme but people are starting to learn the offense and fit into the new roles. By year 3 the thing's fully installed and it looks like last year but with some better run blocking and with a more experienced Gardner. Hoke's first three years are 8-5, 8-5, 9-4.

And everyone's basically happy. Or, to quote Harbaugh, at least they're the least unhappy.

The weird part is: given the choice between the two scenarios, nobody would choose that over 11-2, Sugar Bowl, Denard. But giving us what we wanted is what has Hoke's seat warm. It got hopes too high too fast; it flipped the trend line the wrong way. And the transition that would have been seen as a valid excuse in '11, just like it was in '08, wasn't seen that way when it was put off by two years.

MGOBOOB

September 14th, 2014 at 8:21 AM ^

that sequence of plays was far from the worst aspect of this game. the 3 giveaways were much worse but i expect nothing less from brian jr.

KBLOW

September 14th, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^

You're kidding, right?  The "fumble" was a result of one of the worse replay reviews I've seen. The INT got tipped and the receiver still had a shot at it.  The special teams fumble was the only thing close to having to do with game prep/systematic problem.  That end of the half fiasco was all about game and clock management and wasn't a result of essentially random ball bounces as most turnovers are anyway.  So, yeah, that was the worst aspect of the game and something that it seems like we've seen too much of the past few years.

CoMisch

September 14th, 2014 at 8:57 AM ^

Gardner. It's official, if it wasn't already, we need to move on. I know the competition wasn't great, but Shane looked good. If not for the drops, he has a really impressive showing. Gardner is a hell of an athlete, but a stellar QB. Shanemorris.com

dahblue

September 14th, 2014 at 9:11 AM ^

Butt played against ND? That's news to me. As for Miami, I watched the game last night (after watching in person) and we looked better than on first glance. Yes, the 3 turnover stretch was terrible but we otherwise dominated as we should have. Multiple receivers looked good. Green looked good. The D looked good. This could have been Akron or UConn but it wasn't. After last week, we know we aren't a great team but after this week I think it's clear that we are better than last year. If we continue to improve, I'm good with that...especially given all the talent and depth we've been building.

the Glove

September 14th, 2014 at 6:46 PM ^

When looking at all of these threads it is clear that you can see that there are those who are looking for anything to be negative about Hoke. Even going as far as putting a negative spin on something positive. Then there are those who are trying to defend him. This is the side that I fall on. This has happened twice before with two other coaches and it almost makes looking at the comments on bearable. Let's hope this is a successful season for all of our sakes.