FORMATION NOTES: Not a whole lot that was unusual. Michigan has changed the alignment of their backs in some shotgun sets:

I called this "shotgun deep" since the QB is still at 5 yards but the back is behind instead of parallel. I imagine they did this for the same reason the pistol exists: to give the back downhill momentum when he takes a handoff.

Conventional shotgun sets were frequent as well, as were split TEs. This is the first snap of the game and features Hill motioning from an H-back spot to the slot; he'll block for Funchess on a successful flanker screen.

Michigan would occasionally scrape up an I-Form out of whatever was laying around, like when Chesson motioned in here. This actually cut behind Chesson's force block to pick up 15.

SUBSTITUTION NOTES: OL was Cole-Magnuson-Miller-Burzynski/Kalis-Braden the whole way. Gardner obviously QB until garbage time; he got pulled a couple drives before Michigan did much non-WR substitution.

Feature backs were Green and Smith with Hayes apparently a third down option; Drake Johnson only saw garbage carries and should no longer be considered a playing time contender going forward.

At WR it was Funchess, Chesson, Darboh, and Norfleet rotating approximately equally; Canteen did not get on until late. Bo Dever is your backup slot, apparently. Tight end was mostly Hill and Williams with a bit less Heitzman sprinkled in.

[After THE JUMP: all things discussed.]

Let's get it over with.

I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about.

The level of competition disclaimer.

Oh. Actually, yeah. It was hard picking the worst thing App State did. This is a candidate:

There's no one on the edge at all and your linebackers are shaded away from the playside. That can never work; if Kalis wasn't inadvertently tripped by a defensive lineman this could be another enormous run. And Michigan didn't have to do much of anything to get that, just push the LB/DE guy inside.

Consider ourselves disclaimed. Now can we talk about running for like 12 yards a carry?

I liked it.

That's a bubble screen to Norfleet.

HA HA, so it is! Funny how that got there.

I would seriously like to talk about this so here is a direct question you have to answer sensibly. I thought we were going to be an inside zone team? What's with all this other stuff?

No one except Mike DeBord and the 1997 Denver Broncos run only one play, because then people cheat to it and it's not very effective. Having a base play is about being good enough for it to work when people are playing it straight up, expecting it. By biasing your game to the thing you rep most but mixing in the other things you keep people from cheating to your base and can still be effective with the stuff you maybe don't run as well because the DL expects the other thing.

So, runs by type:

• Draws: 2
• Inside zone and related (like IZ where Gardner keeps): 17
• Power and related (like pulling the frontside G): 6
• Stretch: 7

That's about 60% IZ, 80% zone in general, and a few power plays mixed in to keep 'em honest. Michigan had one 60-yard run of each variety.

Meanwhile, formations (goal line excluded):

• Shotgun: 25
• Pistol: 6
• Ace: 11
• I-Form: 11

And a few of those I-Form sets started out with Kerridge in a bunch formation as a quasi WR or wing TE. That is serious one-back orientation, with 80% of snaps having four potential vertical threats.

I came out with an average of 2.4 receivers per play, which feels low because Michigan had a bunch of snaps on which tight ends were split wide. This is faintly ridiculous right now; it will get far less so once Butt returns.

Can I talk about the bubble screen now? There's more stuff about the OL below but this is is the overall structure of the offense bit.

Oh, fine.

When they're giving it to you, you should take it. This is a philosophy as ancient as the first time a child was offered ice cream and I was at times literally hopping mad that Al Borges would allow opponents to align in easily exploitable ways without exploiting them. So, hooray. The Norfleet thing above is a two deep shell with seven in the box, and Michigan says "this is not an option for you. Choose again." Their options are single high against Funchess or an enticing box to run in or Norfleet on the edge. These are bad choices.

It is rare for things like this to not gain 4 or 5 yards unless it's the only thing you can do, and if they do stuff it that opens up other things. It is essentially a run play that is stupidly easy to execute that prevents the defense from doing a bunch of bad things.

I also loved this packaged thing they put in for times when the slot is uncovered.

The Devins don't even look at each other. I doubt Michigan has many routes that are "Funchess, stand in the slot," though, so this seems like an autocheck after App State's late motion leaves him without a guy over him. The line is run blocking, holding that linebacker in the box long enough for him to become irrelevant. Easy presnap read for a nice chunk of yards.

Meanwhile, the first Norfleet screen may also have been a presnap abort, as App State shows blitz, Norfleet claps at it to alert Gardner, and Michigan fires a ball out to where the Mountaineers just vacated. Hallelujah. Praise Neezus.

They're sitting out there waiting to give you their yards!  Are you going to take them? Seems like the answer is yes, finally. Not a panacea, not the Rosetta Stone, but easy stuff to do that forces the D to account for it and makes your life easier in the box.

CHART

We aren't nearly as aggressive on off

CHART

FINE

Devin Gardner 2013

Devin Gardner

Gardner recovered from last year's brutalizing.

Shane Morris

Low sample size, obviously. Gardner had a nice day in that small sample. Probably the most encouraging bit was Michigan actually providing Gardner a pocket and Gardner stepping up into it to hit Funchess for his hilarious stiffarm TD. The throw ended up being weird (the inane Joey Galloway responded with "look at the change in his mechanics!" after a no-step floated jump pass) but was the right one for the situation.

And that's all I really have to say, I guess? He threw a lot of screens and not much downfield. I think his occasional accuracy issues are still there, as in this limited sample he winged one way wide of an open Devin Funchess and turned a promising Chesson screen into three yards by taking him off his feet. The only pressure minuses he faced were on the play he got sacked, and most of his throws were to wide open receivers.

So… ask again later.

LET'S TALK OFFENSIVE LINEMEN

OKAY

I HAVE SOME STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT THIS DO YOU

not really but here's a chart

So, now, offensive line takes.

GIVE ME WHATEVER YOU'VE GOT: MILLER

With limited exceptions none of this is going to talk about technique beyond a basic level because I am not qualified to do so. I just evaluate things on whether they get the job done and seem like they will continue to do so.

Worth noting that while other Michigan players were dealing with at times hilariously undersized players, Miller drew a planetoid nose tackle. Tyson Fernandez is down to 328 this year. So while he's probably not real good this is the kind of player Miller has had issues dealing with in the past. In this one not so much. Miller was doing his best Molk impression on Michigan's various zone plays. This on a third and one is quite good:

Step around the guy and then push against him and that's a crease for a first down. It's no so much the step around, which the nose made easy by going straight upfield, but the control Miller shows after that happens. He rips the guy upfield with discernible effect and then stays connected. Chatter around the program has always held that Miller is one of the strongest guys on the team, but his overall lack of size has prevented this from being a major factor.

And, yeah, sometimes the planet blew him up.

That, as they uselessly say on the TV, Cannot Happen. Miller did cope on other plays, like one of the Smith TDs when he drew a one on one assignment and managed to not get Willie Henry'd when the planet tried to swipe him away with one beary paw. It's never going to be a strength.

Michigan logically responds to a planet NT like this by making him run with stretch plays or just running straight up iso into the gap between the NT and the DE, and when Michigan tried that approach Miller and whichever guard it was scooped that dude on every play, often creating lanes you could drive a bookstore through, if a bookstore was a vehicle. And possibly if it wasn't.

But that's why this 330 pound guy plays for Appalachian State instead of a bigger team. Probably. If Miller can get around the guys who can blow him up he is viable. I think he is strong enough to deal with human sized people now. On the last play I charted he completely destroyed a non-planet:

Yeah, that guy probably sucks. Ask again later. I will say that he was a zone guy recruited by Rodriguez so this is a system that suits him. He had an Omameh-ish downfield block to help spring Green. This was worlds better than anything last year, including the opener. Hope: incremented.

BRADEN

I'm worried about him. This is where I'll bring up some technique stuff: I have never viscerally understood what scouting types mean when they say a guy is a "waist bender," but I think they're talking about gentlemen who play like Ben Braden did in this game.

When you bend your waist to go get a guy you are off balance. When that guy tries to shed you, you are all of a sudden leaning against air and you stumble or fall over. There was a lot of lurching forward from Braden in this game.

Against a team that actually has a force player losing that block gives them a free hitter in the hole.

Braden does a good job to stay connected here but that is the bare minimum you can do and getting shed like this is an artifact of leaning on a guy:

There's always some of that because you're trying to push a dude somewhere; with Braden it was really obvious that he was playing top heavy. Maybe going up against bigger guys will actually be helpful to him here, as he won't have to go find a 230-pound dude somewhere down there.

On the bright side, barely noticed him in pass protection.

RIGHT GUARD MESS TYPE OBJECT

I wish this was as simple as "Burzynski can't play and Kalis can and it was only Kalis's back injury and nutty coaching that made this debatable." It's not. Kalis had some good plays; he also had some pretty awful ones.

Remember the third and twelve run that was a boggling callback to the 1990s? It was actually a check by Gardner to a play that was so, so there and stands a good chance of picking up the first down if executed. Everyone executes—Mason Cole in fact buries his guy in a heap—except Kalis, who airballs just as badly as Burzynski did earlier in the game:

You don't even have to contact that guy, you just have to make him run upfield of you and you won that block.

I think rather a lot was made of Kalis depositing a Mountaineer into the endzone on a Smith touchdown run. While that's a +1 for sure, it's also a free release at a defensive back, not exactly the toughest assignment.

Burzynski started off poorly but also got a couple of nice blocks, one a Molk step around. But… yeah. I wondered if something was up when he was so high on the depth chart and we've found out that there was indeed something holding Bosch back.  I can't see him holding up against bigger teams too well.

So it's no surprise that one of the official site videos accidentally leaked Hoke's Plan For The Offensive Line: Glasgow competing at right guard.

COLE AND MAGNUSON

Both were solid in both phases of the game. Magnuson blew one power play late by running past the hole; he then atoned by reading the play better and setting up a near-touchdown for Justice Hayes on the drive's final play. Cole had some mashing blocks and the sack allowed was more a missed stunt pickup than Cole getting blown up.

Mostly they just executed assignments consistently. I worry about both guys going up against big and strok folks; this was as good of a start as you could have hoped for.

Running back war! Go! Decide for all time who will be the guy we complain about not getting carries and who will be the guy we complain about getting carries!

I'm a lot more positive about Green's performance after watching it in detail. I know he got a –2, and RB is a MAKE PLAYS spot, but a  bunch of that came on a busted play on which he went the wrong way and two bad vision cuts. Must work on those things, obviously.

This section is going to be all feelingsball so might as well just say it: Green felt faster and more dangerous than Smith when I went over the tape. His early struggles were often a function of almost but not quite escaping defenders set free to fly at him by head-slapping blocks. Here AJ Williams decides to leave his guy inexplicably; Green runs around him and is in the process of making a hard upfield cut when he loses his balance so the second guy Williams didn't block can plunk him:

Green's balance is not nearly as good as Smith's but that's almost a really nice play. Similarly, when Burzynski airballed on a DE, Green's reaction made you think he might burst past the guy.

When he doesn't do so you're grumbling about not breaking a tackle. To me making that disappointing is something. (This stands in stark contrast to a late carry by Johnson during which he had a safety on the edge and kind of curved vaguely away from him for a really easy open field tackle.)

When Green was provided some less dubious opportunities, he showed an ability to surprise people with his burst, as when he juked a DB and hopped over his tackle on his big run in the second half:

And he made a nice quick cut backside after Morris came in:

I don't think he's able to make that cut last year without the backside end closing him down.

We have yet to see him really use his size as an asset. I cannot possibly defend a terrible read he made early when he didn't follow his fullback, seemingly because Michigan messed up some WR blocking and a CB came free. You are a 225-pound brick! Go run him over.  If he starts doing that, Michigan is in business.

In contrast—and this is more feelingsball—Smith seems more ponderous into and out of cuts.

This is in notable contrast to last year, so good job being Hulk, Derrick Green. I like Smith's balance and ability to squeeze out 2-3 yards after contact with eerie Hart-like consistency. He should be Michigan's first option on short yardage, no question. In this game Green felt like the better combination of change of direction, size, and explosion, especially since Smith wasn't exactly perfect with his vision either.

All conclusions tentative, of course.

The wide receivers seemed mean.

They did. Inspired by the idea their blocks were not futile gestures in a cold, unfeeling universe, the wide receivers kicked some ass on Saturday. On Michigan's first long one of the day, the key block aside from the scoop was actually Dennis Norfleet, who blasted a guy not looking at him from five yards downfield to here…

…and made the safety choose which side of the block he would take well before Green did. That's the difference between a first down and sixty yards. Chesson also did excellent work against a corner later.

Chesson's best block didn't spring a guy for a ton of yards but it was ornery. Watch him take care of this corner on a Funchess bubble screen:

Spicy. Chesson had other good blocks on Green's 19-yarder, Smith's 61-yarder (wsg Darboh), and Smith's 15 yarder—on which they actually used him as a tight end(!). That is just such a big secret asset for Michigan if they can continue getting their tailbacks to the secondary.

Darboh got into the act some, as well.

FUNCHESS

Yes, yes, WR metrics:

[Passes are rated by how tough they are to catch. 0 == impossible. 1 == wow he caught that, 2 == moderate difficulty, 3 == routine. The 0/X in all passes marked zero is implied.]

I'm going to try a new thing this year where if a route jumps out at me as obviously good or bad I'll make a note of it. A good route gets his guy wide open, a bad one allows a defender to make a play on the ball or results in an incompletion because the guy stumbles or falls down or whatnot.

ROUTES: Funchess +2, Hill –1.

Funchess was not even vaguely coverable by these dudes. He had a Dileo TD, a vicious stiffarm TD, and a Megatron redzone TD. Defensive backs are going to be better about the first (maybe), but they aren't getting any taller or heavier. Oh, and he leapt over another dude by getting his legs easily four feet off the ground.

Other than that: Michigan was presented with a ton of easy catches and caught them all.

Ever seen a field goal hook and slice on the same kick?

I have now.

PHYSICS!

Heroes?

Funchess. The left side of the OL and Miller. Jehu Chesson, the Destroyer. Neezus.

Maybe not so heroic?

Right guard needs work; Ben Braden had a generally solid debut that could sour quickly against better competition; Williams doesn't seem to have gotten much better.

What does it mean for Notre Dame?

Expect Glasgow at right guard. Miller had a much better game than either option there and Braden, while shaky at times, was still better than the interior folk. Add in the fact that the dangerman on the ND line is DT Sheldon Day and Glasgow should be your starting RG.

The left side of the line could be solid. Highly encouraging start.

Funchess is going to be ludicrous. TOOT TOOT ALL ABOARD FOR THE BILETNIKOFF.

Michigan has some mean-ass wide receivers. If this continues against better competition the backs are going to be buying these guys some BTB.

Gardner looks real good when not pressured. Surprise.

Michigan will take easy yards if you give them to them and they will be an inside zone offense with clever attachments. Praise Neezus.

Not necessarily any of that. Quality of opposition.