Best and Worst: Utah

Submitted by bronxblue on

So Brian beat me to the punch when it came to the theme of this Thursday’s game, so I should either be happy that multiple people I respect had a similar view of UM’s performance, or bothered that another human being is inside my head.  But still I’ll soldier on, with the understanding that this will be a bit shorter than normal due to the holiday weekend, the timing of the game, and my lack of scorching hot takes.

Best:  Rebirth of an Optimist…

So for those loyal readers who stuck around reading these columns last year, you’ll know the Utah game was when I turned on the season and, by extension, the team.  For those of you who Spotless Mind-ed the 2014 season, here’s how I started last year’s B&W for Utah:

Worst:  Death of an Optimist

People who have followed this diary know I'm a pretty optimistic guy.

But I'm done.  I'm done with this season, with this coaching staff, with this whole f'ing show.

The Utah game was the beginning of a 3-game losing streak that basically sunk the Brady Hoke era (Minnesota was next, then Rutgers felt like the final nail), and had come on the heels of the 31-0 loss to Notre Dame two weeks earlier.  And sadly, it wasn’t just the losing that made that game some demoralizing; if you’d been a fan of UM for the past decade “bad losses” weren’t new. 

No, what broke my spirit then was how predictable that performance was, how we’d seen it for years now, and for every 2006 or 2011 blip there were a half-dozen seasons where UM sharted its way further behind the rest of college football, and how the powers that be at UM didn’t seem to care or act particularly bothered by their failed stewardship.  Here, I’ll let pissed-off 2014 BronxBlue say it again, this time with feelings:

And it wasn't just that the f'ing winningest team in f'ing college football history, with a 5th-year QB and a 1st-round WR and oodles of talent up and down the roster (young as it may be), couldn't score more than 3 points against f'ing Utah. No, what killed my optimism about this team and this staff, about this program as it is currently stumbling through another shitty year, is how absolutely true-to-form it is to the dreams of the men in charge. 

And when the fanbase seemingly had had enough of being run off their own field by a bunch of fowl, and the administration took a shot on a guy who helped bring about the current age of the sport and won everywhere he coached, a bunch of faux sentinels of the "good days" cut off his legs at every chance and sat back as a combination of self-inflicted wounds and the rotten core of a dying program ending his run. RR's failure as a head coach at Michigan is one thing; you can be a good coach and not be a good fit at certain places. But Brandon and his cohort didn't view Rodriguez's ousting at UM simply as a bad fit, but instead as "proof" that this new-fangled version of college football, where smart guys try to take advantage of inefficiencies in the game and implement offensive and defensive systems to do so, is just a fad and the good old days of swinging your member around on the sidelines and expecting the opposition to be scared off are back.

That may well have been as disenchanted, as angry as I’ve been watching a sports team in my lifetime.  When the Tigers were losing an A.L.-record 119, I understood how a team heavily reliant on Mike Maroth, Jeremy Bonderman, Dmitri Young, and a broken Bobby Higginson could be terrible.  When the Lions lost all 16 games in 2008, they still had Calvin Johnson and were close in enough in a bunch of games that it was almost fun to root for the statistical anomaly of flipping tails 16 times in a row even when coin felt a little weighted to heads every other week.  And even when UM had some terrible basketball teams under Brian Ellerbe, and MSU was lobbing half-court alley-oops up 60, it wasn’t necessarily shocking given the talent on the court and the sanctions you kinda knew were on the way.

But with Michigan under Brady Hoke, you just saw this degradation in quality and performance that flew in the face of the talent and resources available.*  UM wasn’t suffering massive attrition and recruiting restrictions like PSU, it wasn’t shocked by the departure of a former institution-like figure in Tressel at OSU, nor was it coming off a particularly terrible stretch, with RR’s final team having made a bowl game and Hoke’s first team winning 11 games.  And the man could seemingly recruit and still had decently-stocked shelves, especially on offense, thanks to RR’s offensive focus.  But from 11 wins to 9 to 7 to 5, the team looked worse every year and the leadership ever more inept, and it just felt like everybody important was either asleep at the wheel or didn’t give a shit as long as the seat licenses kept flowing in. 

It wasn’t that the program was underperforming; that had been going on for some time, and I guess I was numb to it.  But until that game, I always felt like the coaches and administration were actively trying to address the issues they saw and field the best team possible.  I’m working through Bacon’s Endzone, and while I find parts of it gratingly congratulatory of UM’s (and in parts, the AD’s role in said) history, awash in the worst types of homerism, and littered with ground-down axes that would be Paul Bunyan proud **, it WAS illustrative of how past administrations would look at the looming issues surrounding the team or the school and work to address them immediately, stubbed toes and hurt feelings be damned.  Last year’s Notre Dame, Utah and Minnesota games would never have been allowed to happen because the warning signs had been seen in years past, and a competent administration would have addressed them months before. 

But under Brandon and Hoke, you saw two men who rather lose doing it their way than try to introduce meaningful improvements, all the while demanding blind loyalty from the fanbase because the team still genuflected at the altar of past leaders, slapped a banner, and wore the right laundry.  From the minute Hackett took over you knew that level of nonfeasance would not be tolerated, punctuated by Jim Harbaugh joining up.  And as a fan, that’s all that was necessary to rekindle my optimism that UM would be a winning program again, one that would be in the upper-echelon of college football teams.  Because with few exceptions, UM football has all the tools, all the advantages you need to be elite. 

I’ll always be a fan of UM sports; no crappy head coach or myopic athletic director would change that.  But as soon as UM ran onto that field in Utah, led by Jim Harbaugh and backed by an administration that expects and demands competency, that sense of dread and disgust faded away, replaced with the sense that while it might not always be a pretty trek, UM was back on the path to its rightful place in college football.

* It’s kind of like watching Stanford under David Shaw, a team that had some sustained success but has looked worse and worse as the remnants of Harbaugh’s tenure fade away.  I know Stanford has resource that pale in comparison to those at UM, but their has absolutely been a demonstrable drop in talent and performance there.

** Man, that does read like I hated the book, which isn’t the case.  I actually have enjoyed it overall and find most of Bacon’s novels to be equally fun reads.  But there is clearly an agenda at work in parts of the novel, and it feels Notre Dame-level pretentiousness to claim the hiring of Harbaugh has ushered in the “return” of UM before the man has coached a down of football.


Worst:  … Who Is Still Skeptical

To reiterate, I am still very much on-board with my new Harbaugh overlord.  The man is a fantastic coach, great recruiter, and overall the type of guy I want leading UM’s football team.  And unlike in the pros, where guys making millions of dollars don’t necessarily want a 51-year-old yelling at them, his demanding style works pretty well in college, where guys cycle through quickly and college athletes benefit a good deal from a strong authority figure. 

And I also understand that getting UM “back” will take some time; I said 7-5 at the start of the season, and while BYU now looks a bit less daunting without Hill out and PSU looks kinda terrible on offense, I still see them with a ceiling of 8 wins barring significant in-season improvements at LB, the other corner spot, and running back/run blocking.

But my biggest concern (from an on-field perspective) when the idea of Harbaugh was first raised had to do with the likely “ceiling” for a Michigan team given how he’d coached at Stanford and his overall offensive and defensive philosophies.  And not so much the system, which on its face is just as effective as any other: creating confusion and mismatches with multiple TEs and motion fueled by grinding backs and a semi-mobile QB works fine for me. 

But there so many moving parts that have to be “right” for it to run optimally.  I know people talk about the spread offense as a sports car, but to me the RR/Urban Meyer-style offense is like a souped-up Toyota Corolla.  It works because of its simplicity, its reliance on replacement-level parts at most positions.  It obviously runs best with premium talent at the skill positions, but I can’t imagine a world in which you could take Alex Malzone and drop him into Harbaugh’s offense and beat Indiana comfortably, let alone what OSU did against Wiscy, Alabama, and Oregon.

There are two key elements about spread-style offenses that I like, and they are intertwined; one, it lets you get away with sub-optimal talent at certain positions because the goal is all about exploiting a couple of mismatches; you’re 3rd/4th corner against my slot receiver, your defensive ends in space against my faster QB, etc.  And the second, related benefit is that it gives you a larger margin of error when it comes to recruiting, of still being effective with “lesser” athletes because their weaknesses are covered up by the greater system.  It broadens the available pool of “viable” players for your system, and so you don’t have to hit as often on the great player(s) in order to maintain a consistent level of success.

By comparison, Harbaugh’s offense is great when you have all the pieces but seems to stumble without them; this game was illustrative as a taste test of sorts; what happens when you secretly try to run an offense with Faygo-level players.  It isn’t terrible by any means, but you can tell something is missing.  And that’s what scares me, because it requires UM to basically recruit a stable of road-grating offensive linemen, stout-but-quick RBs who can catch out of the backfield, athletic TEs who can serve as viable downfield threats as well as strong blockers, and a QB who can have solid downfield accuracy while also being somewhat of a threat to run the ball.  I know this is a bit generalized and most teams try to nab these types of players, but it just feels like a team has fewer options at certain spots that they must hit on pretty consistently; that the 25th-best “pro-style” QB is probably a bigger step down than, say, the 25th-best “spread” QB. 

People often complained loudly that RR failed to recruit elite players to UM, and while I’d argue that characterization is a bit misleading, there is some veracity if you look at just the recruiting rankings.  But the counter is that UM had some of the best offenses in its modern history under RR, and that as soon as UM started to recruit ”better” skill players but changed the system they’d occupy, the performance dropped rather precariously.  I have full faith that an elite offense under Harbaugh will be spectacular; what troubles me, though, is that this success is going to hinge too much on the players brought in and not necessarily on the structure of the offense.  As a fan, I want UM’s success to have the fewest constraints placed on it, and “the best version of Stanford” on offense feels like a bit of a letdown. 


Worst:  Rudock-ulous Bad Luck

I won’t belabor the point, as everyone reading this knows it wasn’t a great debut for Jake Rudock; throwing 60% of your INT total from the year before in one game isn’t usually a good thing.  Still, his overall numbers weren’t terrible (6.5 YPA, 2 TDs, 63% completion percentage), and he wasn’t helped much by the running game (2.8 ypc from Smith with a long of 7) or his blockers.  The one hit I remember most vividly was in the third quarter when Ty Isaac inexplicably tried to double the Utah DE and let one of the LBs get a free shot on Rudock, who hung in until the last second before missing on a ball to Butt.  And while it didn’t give up an sacks, the offensive line didn’t seem great at picking up late blitzers, allowing him to be pelted a couple of times each quarter that seemed to contribute to the overthrown balls we saw.  The first Rudock INT seemed like a bad route by Perry, and the third INT was a combination of a mediocre throw, a mediocre route, and a pretty athletic play by the Utah corner.  The second INT was completely on Rudock, but those throws can open at altitude in the first game of the year. 

As for the overthrows, that felt like a guy still getting accustomed to his playmakers trying to make the perfect throw in a strange environment; while not Denver, SLC is 3/4 of a mile above sea level, and with a wind the ball probably moved differently than Rudock was used to.  I don’t expect that to continue.  Nor do I expect he’ll continue to have trouble connecting with Perry (who clearly has earned Rudock’s trust as a “pressure release” option) or look to AJ Williams as a receiver downfield.  I’m not sure if it was the playcalling or Rudock simply looking for the open man, but with all due respect Williams really shouldn’t be viewed as a viable receiving option on plays unless under extreme duress. 

Overall, I thought it was the worst possible performance you could reasonably expect from Rudock, and I assume he’ll be much better back in Ann Arbor.  He’s not a world-beater, but he directed the team competently and the offense seems more willing to let him challenge defenses deep with guys like Chesson and Darboh, to say nothing of the dynamics he has with Jake Butt.


Worst:  Calling for a QB Change

I’ll keep this brief – there is no reason in the world to insert Shane Morris into the lineup as a replacement for Rudock after one game.  Morris had weeks to beat our Rudock and he couldn’t; by all accounts, Rudock won the competition running away.  To make a switch after a game would be needlessly reactionary and stymie the positive signs we did see offensively.  So while I continue to believe Morris could be a starting QB at UM in the future, there is no reason to believe he would have had a better performance against Utah if he had replaced Rudock at halftime, as some fans seemed to be calling for.  In particular, it was funny to see people argue that Morris wouldn’t have overthrown receivers like Rudock, which flies in the face of all evidence we have about Morris and his moderately-accurate Howitzer. 


Best:  Moving Forward OR
Worst:  Except When it Counted

Utah recorded 3 TFLs in this game, amounting to 3 yards, and 0 sacks.  Last year, Utah recorded 8 TFLs for 31 yards, including 4 sacks, and 1 forced fumble.  The biggest bugaboo the last couple of years for UM’s offense has been the negative play, and against a decent Utah defense UM found a way to keep moving the ball forward, even if only incrementally, and that allowed them to sustain multiple 9+ play drives while staying out of too many 3rd-and-long situations.  Based on raw numbers the offense didn’t look appreciably better than last year’s game against these same Utes, but given the fact this was the first game of the year, on the road, with a new head coach and new-ish offensive philosophy, I was pretty happy with the team’s ability to stay above the muck and self-inflicted wounds that plagued the offense under Hoke/Borges.

That said, the offensive line and backs struggled immensely to get anything going beyond the line of scrimmage.  Smith made a couple of bad reads, but overall it felt like he was more often than not fighting against a wave of Utah players within 2 yards of the ball, and none of the backs seemed able to get anything going inside or outside even when it looked like the blocking was solid.  It didn’t help that none of them seemed to be running particularly, um, fast, but that horse has beaten to death so many times with this group that it is just a reality one must deal with.

I’ll again chalk some of this up to first-game jitters and bugs being worked out, but it was disheartening to see one of the most experienced lines in the conference get manhandled at times by a Utah team without some of their studs from a year ago, and the bulk of available backs fail to register a run longer than 7 yards.


Best:  Don’t Google Buttman

Yeah, just don’t.  It might seem like a funny idea, and it’s not like you’re going to be *shocked* by what you find, but just…don’t.

Anyway, Jake Butt had himself a game.  Tied for the team lead in catches with 8, caught a number of 3rd-down conversions, and had one amazing TD grab.

And unlike in the past with Devin Funchess, for example, this performance felt like one you can expect from a TE in this offense.  Butt will never be a fantastic blocker, but he can get some push when necessary before slipping out on passing downs and isn’t a liability in the running game.  I know it felt like hyperbole when Harbaugh said Butt was as fine a prospect at the TE position as he had coached, but after this game it sure doesn’t seem wrong to expect a great season.

As for the rest of the receiving core, it was a mixed bag.  I thought Darboh had a great game despite the one unfortunate drop on the failed 3rd-down conversion.  He proved capable of getting some separation from corners, flashed unexpected speed and agility after the catch, and generally looked like a guy who could be a leading receiver for a competent offense, something I wouldn’t have said coming into the season.  Small sample sizes and all, but I suspect Darboh will continue to have a solid OOC run at the very least.  Chesson, on the other hand, showed his speed but failed to do much with it, though he wasn’t helped by Rudock’s overthrows.  He should be better going forward, but it still feels very one-dimensional with him and I’m not sure that will change much this year.  Perry had some obvious route-running issues, but as a true freshman in his first game he was making blocks on screens and short passes that seniors tend to blow.  It sure looks like Rudock trusts him, and that’s half the battle with young WRs.  Cole made one catch that was basically a screen the Utes immediately snuffed out, and no other WR really saw the ball much.  My guess is we’ll see more against Oregon St. this week, but it sure does feel like Darboh-Butt-Perry will be the significant producers in the WR crop this year.


Worst:  TACKLING…IN…SPACE!

As long as I’ve been alive, mobile QBs have been the bane of UM’s existence.  If the guy under center can both run and throw the ball, UM’s defense consistently struggles in defending against it.  Now, put that same athlete one position back (RB) or outside (WR) and UM seems to have better luck corralling him, so it’s not so much an athleticism issue as it is one of scheme. 

So it should come as little surprise that while UM largely held Booker in check, Wilson was able to consistently pick up yardage whenever he held onto the ball.  And a lot of those struggles fell on the veteran LBs, who again seemed unable to tackle guys in any type of space.  Bolden in particular struggled to do so both against the run as well as keep up with receivers in the middle of the field, a weakness that has been well-documented over the years. 

Perhaps most jarring what watching Jabrill Peppers struggle to keep up with true freshman Brit Covey, who seemed able to shake Peppers almost at will in that first half.  He seemed to settle down in the second half and had some great TFLs by just slipping past would-be blockers, but it may be time for people to temper the “in case of emergency, just unleash Peppers” hype until he shows a consistently ability to stay in coverage.  I think we all forget that Peppers hasn’t played much organized football in the past year, and even the best redshirt freshman will have struggles adjusting to the speed and talent on the field.  But this team is going to struggle all year with the LBs and Peppers don’t improve their tackling and coverage dramatically.


Best:  Controlled Explosions

One of the lasting memories of last year’s game was Jourdan Lewis streaking across the field to catch Bubba Poole before he could score on an extremely ill-defended screen.  It was both an amazing (he literally ran across the field and caught Poole, who had a couple yards on him) and demoralizing (it took a corner running across said field to stop a 80+ yard TD that occurred because UM had one defender on that side of the field after the snap) play, one that did not portend a particularly great season by the defense against the “big” play.

Again, it’s only been a week, but this year’s secondary (and really, most of the defense) showed a much better ability at minimizing the long completions and broken plays that doomed them last year.  Booker had one nice run after the catch that just skimmed the sideline, but beyond that there wasn’t any real “explosive” play.  The cornerback position opposite Lewis remains in flux (on review of the game, it did seem like Stribling and Clark struggled to stay with their men at times), but you rarely saw WRs streak by anyone and, though there were some disturbingly wide-open expanses at times, the defense still forced Utah to march down the field most of the game.  And the defense nearly came up with a timely turnover when they forced Wilson to fumble the ball, only to have it bounce to the one Utah player on that side of the field.

I still have no idea if Michigan’s deployment of first-class-sized cushions to each and every receiver not covered by Lewis is a one-time thing or a sad reminder of how tight coverage ain’t coming to A2, but overall I thought the defense did a good job making Utah work for every yard they got.


Best:  Kicking the Ball With All the Time In The World

Michigan deployed the spread punting formation and was able to limit Utah to 1 return for 14 yards while averaging 43 yards per kick.  If you remember last year, UM gave up 83 (!) yards and 1 TD, losing the field position battle without really pressuring anyone on the Utah special teams.  And as far as I can tell, there were always 11 people on the field.

I know it’s a small victory, but as a football fan in 2015 being able to say “my punting team fielded the right number of people and didn’t give up a big return” is the biggest f*ing deal after the last 4 years. 

As for FG kicking, Kenny Allen hit the 30-yarder you expected and missed the 44-yarder I figured was going to be tough.  Utah’s all-world kicker also missed a couple of longer kicks, so I have to imagine a combination of wind and nerves were in the air.  While I don’t think it really altered the outcome of this game, I do think Harbaugh will be more likely to go for short-ish conversions in FG territory as he remembers that college kickers are immensely less reliable than pro kickers, and what feels automatic in the NFL (like that 44-yarder) is far more dicey with younger legs.  The announcers (who I thought were much better than the pre-game triad of goobers) noted as much, and you could tell Harbaugh mulling over his decision to not go for it basically as soon as the ball left Allen’s foot.  Again, this isn’t going to be a season whose overall success hinges on the foot of a kicker, but I think it’s becoming clearer that this team can’t rely on its kickers to bail them out.

Next Week

Oregon State comes to Ann Arbor, and I’d be amazed if Michigan didn’t emerge with a win.  It’ll be an emotional time for the fans when Harbaugh steps back into the stadium, and you get a sense from the way the players have spoken about the game that they realize they need to perform better and are almost embarrassed they lost on Thursday; I suspect a much better effort on the ground against a suspect Beaver front 7, and Rudock should have a much better game throwing the ball.  Anderson should have Oregon State ready to play, but the jump from Weber St. to UM is pretty jarring, and a true freshman QB making his first road start might lead to some of those elusive turnovers I’ve been seeing other defenses cause.  It is still a work in progress, but this team feels like one with the parts slowly fitting into place, not the grab-bag of uncertainty it has been the past couple of years. 

Comments

bronxblue

September 7th, 2015 at 8:06 PM ^

I don't think he'll abandon his offensive scheme or playcalling; had he gone with Morris or Gentry, then perhaps, but Rudock is a great fit for what he likes to do.  And the offensive line is fine; I think the running back talent is where the team is hurt, and I'm not sure there is much he can do except hope that Smith starts hitting holes or someone like Isaac or Johnson take over.  And the WRs look good enough to get open consistently, so I assume he won't be afraid to let Rudock take shots down the field if he can pull defenses in.

I do think he'll play a bit more aggressive as he realizes the mismatches he has with Butt and Bunting at TE and how unpredictable his kickers are.  My guess is we'll see quite a few more pass-based 4th-down attempts inside the opponents 35-40.  But the talent is there enough to succeed to a decent enough degree that I don't see a massive switch.

YakAttack

September 7th, 2015 at 1:15 PM ^

Waaaay back in the day, my brother in law and I were trying to pirate 8-Mile the weekend it came out. this was back in the day where you basically looked at titles and file size, and just downloaded without knowing the quality/language/contents until it was finished.

TL;DR version, after waiting a few hours (there were others in the cueue) we went to play 8-Mile and it was a porn movie entitled "The Buttmen of Budapest."

 

bronxblue

September 7th, 2015 at 8:09 PM ^

I think Minny is really good at grinding a game down and has a really solid secondary, but TCU showed a bit of rust as well.  Play that game in two weeks and I think TCU runs away.  But Minny is probably the 3rd/4th best team in the conference right now, especially give how terrible PSU looks offensively.

Bodogblog

September 7th, 2015 at 9:17 PM ^

I think your examples are a bit simplistic, but I may be misreading them: are you comparing Malzone to Cardale Jones? The guy beat out JT Barret and Braxton Miller, both Heisman candidates, for the job. He was great in those playoff games last year, and even against Michigan. He made plays on his own, was not at all the product of a system. If he has been a crappy QB they would have lost those games. How do I know that? Well I don't, but as an example RR lost Pat White against a terrible Pitt team and lost. The backup didn't seem to benefit from the advantages you note. Is that a weak example? No weaker than yours. What you're also discounting is the overpowering potential of a Harbaugh offense. As with Alabama, LSU, and his old Stanford outfits, they punish you and make you want to go home. They make you hurt. As much as we all vomit at the mention of toughness after the Hoke regime, it means something in football. It will eventually be a real thing under Harbaugh. Meyer's offense is elite be a use he's just a fantastic coach, and the talent there is elite, and his talent development and coaching staff are elite. That's what Michigan needs and now finally have. Great leaders, intelligently exploiting opponent weaknesses with their strengths, which they've recruited and developed, based on their elite coaching staff's input and recommemdations, will be what win the day. Spread offense has nothing to do with it.

bronxblue

September 8th, 2015 at 9:09 PM ^

I would counter that nobody looks at JT Barret or Braxton Miller as particularly great QBs in non-spread contexts (Barrett moreso as a passer, but Miller was always an athlete with a semi-live arm), and for all of Jones' success, it hasn't been because he's had particularly great stats.  I think the offense is elite in its simplicity, allowing a guy who was buried on the depth chart for not being able to make a huge number of throws into a NC champion.  Tim Tebow won a Heisman and he struggled (relatively speaking) throwing the ball.  But the offense covered those deficiencies up, and the elite talent around him won a couple of titles (along with Chris Leak).

You bring up Pat White and WVU losing to Pitt, but I remember that game and it was super-weird, with both teams playing badly in ways that just sometimes happen, like OSU being kind of terrible last year against VT at home (I know Barrett was in his first start, but that was still a weird game).  Still, the backup to White (Jarrett Brown) actually had slightly better stats throwing the ball and scored the lone TD for WVU.  If anything, the offense turned Pat White, a guy nobody thought could play QB at the college level (he was going to commit to LSU as a WR) into someone who could score 48 points on Oklahoma and 38 on both Georgia and GT in bowl games.  It turned 3* Steve Slaton into a Heisman finalist and an AA.

I don't argue that with good talent and time UM can be as successful with Harbaugh's system, but if you asked me to start a college team tomorrow, I'd pick a spread-style offense 10 times out of 10.  It gives you a larger margin for error in recruiting, exposes fewer weakness of the offense (holding up blocks, high-level talent at WR and QB, etc.) while stressing more on defense, and generally seems easier to implement.

Bodogblog

September 9th, 2015 at 8:35 AM ^

You're not giving any data to support your argument.  

What does being not being good in a non-spread environment have to do with anything?  No one would argue that Tom Brady would be a good QB in a spread environment.  So what?  

Again, the spread didn't allow Cardale Jones to be excellent and win a Nat'l Championship.  He was simply excellent in his play and allowed OSU to win a Nat'l Championship.   Yes, all 3 QB's on that team are elite.  And they have outstanding coaching (strategy and talent development).   This is fairly strong evidence for miy argument: outstanding recruiting, great coaching strategy in game, great coaching motivation, technique, great talent development.  This is the outstanding result when you have all these things, no matter the system. 

Ridiculous example, but it's soft and anecdotal data just like yours: did the spread cover up the talent deficiencies in Michigan's awful, just awful 2008 offense?  

I'm open to what you're saying, but I need data or something other than cherry picked examples to see your view.  What you're saying now just seems to be more polish on the existing spread mythos, and your evidence is that you prefer it because you like it.  That doesn't mean it's fundamentally better than any other offense.  And your arguments sound similar to a manball proponent saying "it's better because it makes your defense tougher."  Is that true?  What is the evidence there?  Schembechler believed that, he was a pretty good coach.  

bronxblue

September 9th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^

I don't see this discussion going anywhere, so I'm kinda out on it.  I'll respond with my final thoughts; you can do what you want.

You brought up Pat White and WVU losing a game; I returned with facts that the backup QB did better than White while in that game (he had a better completion %, more yards, scored the only TD).  It's a one-off example and I'll admit it was soft, but you brought up an argument and I countered.

As for Jones, he was the third-string QB behind both Miller and Barrett for a reason; by all accounts he was the worst QB they had, and only got into the starting spot because of injuries.  I think he has a good arm and is a bear to take down, but they almost moved him to TE, I believe, at one point.  And his stats and performance was fine during the three-game run (though he only completed about 50% of his passes against Alabama and had amazing running games from Elliott to take the pressure off), but against VT he completed 50% of his passes, threw a pick, and while he was solid running the ball it wasn't an amazing performance by any means.  OSU wins those games because they have one of the best running backs in the country and a dominant defensive line.  

And you bring up 2008, and yes the defense was very bad, but UM's offense was actually not all that bad considering they were starting either a transfer or a walk-on in Threet and Sheridan, didn't have really anything at the WR (Martvaious Odom led the team with 49 receptions but no TDs) or RB position (Sam McGuffie and Brandon Minor barely cracked 1,000 yards combined) and a terrible offensive line.  The fact they won three games that year and maybe could have won 1-2 more wasn't half-bad.  

And for deeper stats, that terrible running game behind a horrible line averaged 3.9 ypc; the year before, with Chad Henne, #1 overall pick Jake Long, and all-time rusher Mike Hart, with a couple NFL WRs as well, averaged 4.0 ypc.  The terrible QB situation under RR completed balls at 49% and 5.1 ypa, horrible numbers that RR never saw again; with Henne, Mallet, Manningham, and Arrington, UM completed 53% of their passes for 6.8 ypa.  The next year, with freshmen Forcier and Robinson, UM averaged 57% and 7.3 ypa.  

You complain about my arguments being soft, so I've given you numbers.  OSU wins because they have a great coach and greatn talent; I've not argued with that.  But that system they run works, and it lets their RBs and WRs get into space with limited resistance, and puts their limited QBs in positions to make easy throws for big yards.  RR's offense did the same, and when it is cooking so will Harbaugh's.  But you have failed to provide any evidence that my assertion that the spread offenses as run by Meyer or RR (or expanded out to Oregon and Baylor, if you want) give you more bang for your buck and provide more flexiblity in recruiting and player development because it allows you to exploit weaknesses in college defenses easier and with fewer constraints on your own athletes.

Bodogblog

September 9th, 2015 at 12:20 PM ^

I love your work here, I don't want you to get the wrong idea or have you get upset. 

But I'm not making an assertion - this isn't my diary with a claim that manball offenses are better than spreads.  I still disagree with your Cardale Jones example: he won the job this year over Miller and Barrett, he's better than them.  It's possible he wasn't at the beginning of last year, Barrett got the nod, things went well and why make a change.  I think it's clear after the games that he's played that he's absolutely elite as a player.  He was incredible vs. VT the other night. 

Carr's offenses underperformed for almost his entire tenure.  This is well documented and has more to do with his conservative nature than system.  USC was running a pro-style attack that Michigan easily could have adopted and scored pinball-type numbers.  There was absolutely no upper limit on them. 

I would like to see evidence, if it's there, that spread is better than manball.  There may be too many variables to isolate that, so there's no way to do it.  Then it comes down to personal preference.  But if you're going to assert that there's an upper limit to performance based on system, I think you solid evidence to back that claim.  All my questions aren't meant as an insult, they're intended to understand if you have that type of evidence.  Again it may not exist, and I don't want to diminish your analysis.  Truly enjoy your work. 

bronxblue

September 9th, 2015 at 10:22 PM ^

Sorry, I just felt like I was answering the same questions from multiple people, and I kind of got annoyed.

The Cardale Jones bit was a bit of hyperbole, but I'll argue that at no point will Jake Rudock likely look "better" than Cardale Jones this year, and I don't think that is 100% due to Jones being a better overall QB.  Also, I think Miller would have been in competition at QB if Meyer didn't realize he could get 95% of Miller's performance out of him as an H-back/slot receiver and keep Jones out there at QB.  As for Barrett, I wouldn't be surprised if he got to start when Jones inevitably stumbles a bit. 

USC is a unique comparison, as they had otherworldly talent on some of those early 2000 teams but, in recent years at least, the performance hasn't been nearly as impressive.  Georgia runs a more "conventional" offense and seems to put up good numbers, but again they have supreme talent at a number of positions that, honestly, UM doesn't consistently have.

I don't have any hard evidence to prove that spread-style offenses are better, though I look at the college football landscape and see a disproportionate number of top teams running some version of either the RR/Meyer run-based spread of the Air Raid-type you see at Baylor.  If you look at the top 20 yardage leaders in the country, you see a significant number run a spread-style offense, with a couple of notable outliers (MSU, Wiscy, Alabama).  FEI is a bit less generous, but (a) I think FEI struggles a bit when you are only considering 11-12 games for most teams, half of which tend to be against bad defenses, and (b) still shows a strong preference for teams that can score quickly with the spread offense. 

To me, the spread is like the 3-pointer in college basketball.  For years it let smaller teams compete with more traditionally talented units, but now you see most teams adopting the corner three/slash-and-kick offense that used to be reserved for the mid-majors.  Doesn't mean you can't win a title with a more traditional back-to-the-basket, pick-and-roll offense, but it puts a premium on size, speed, and skill that is less common than a bunch of 6' 3" guys who can shoot from distance.  That's why I think the spread offense is "better" in a college sense; it has a lower barrier of entry to above-average production, and when you only have 3-4 years with most kids, the cost of teaching and preparing them is higher with a more conventional offense, IME, versus the spread.

PeteM

September 7th, 2015 at 11:09 PM ^

I don't have the football knowledge that it sounds like the author has, but when he says that the Harbaugh offense requires a lot more moving parts I think back to Thursday.  We had a new (to us, albeit experienced) quarterback, no one we were convinced was a number 1 receiver and a running back who wasn't our most effective last year and still put up a decent number of yards.  I feel like one or two more moving parts -- Drake Johnson plus a slightly more effective Rudock and the game would've been ours.  I doubt that the Stanford teams were without talent holes.

CoachBP6

September 8th, 2015 at 8:21 AM ^

Dead on about the spread vs pro style. After high school I got into coaching and became an OC at HS and men's semi pro levels. Every defensive coordinator I ever spoke with stated that the spread is more difficult to defend on a down to down basis. Most spread option type teams isolate their skill players in space, which forces the defense to be perfect making reads and tackles. Watching osu last night and the end of last year, you saw them nickel and dime teams before bashing them for huge plays. Seeing what auburn and osu did to the best, most well coached defense in the NCAA shows the power of the spread. A properly orchestrated pro style offense, with the right parts can be just as difficult to stop, but the pieces are harder to acquire, especially at the QB and OL positions. I am hoping Harbaugh adds a hybrid section to the play book to broaden the scheme and force defenses to prepare for everything. I realize Rudock isn't going to set the world on fire with his legs, but some jet sweeps, jet pop passes, and a zone read or two would really go a long way with opening up the conventional, interior run game. Really hope out of O'Korn, Gentry, and Peters, that someone turns out to be Andrew Luck 2.0.

Bodogblog

September 8th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^

"Watching osu last night and the end of last year, you saw them nickel and dime teams before bashing them for huge plays. "

You would have seen the exact same thing from Michigan, had they hit on any of the wide open deep balls thrown in the game.  In addition to those to Chesson and Darboh, there was a pass play to Jake Butt where he ran a fake curl, and the LB (or safety, not sure) bit so hard he accidentally ran into Butt as he broke it out downfield.  Braden got beaten badly on his block, so Rudock had to get rid of it early.  But if not for that, Butt would have been wide open running down the middle of the field with the ball in his hands.  It's just that M doesn't have the execution or timing down yet. 

I don't understand these examples, they all sound like soft data or hearsay.  Cardale Jones made a spectacular throw to the end zone on OSU's first TD last night, and the receiver made a spectacular catch.  The first was getting pressure in the pocket, the second was fairly well covered (so much so that the DB was called for PI).  They made spectacular plays and I don't see any benefit from the system making it easier for them.  It's a system that Meyer believes in and is committed to, and he coaches it amazingly well.  I see great players (recruiting, development) making great plays.  I also saw several plays where one OSU OL got beat and blew up the play for a loss or no/little gain.  

Now were some plays great isolations?  Sure.  But Michigan had those too.  If OSU has a true freshman Grant Perry out there instead of Braxton Miller, they don't get those spectacular catches and TD's.   It's great coaching and great players/development. 

SirJack II

September 8th, 2015 at 7:59 PM ^

'It obviously runs best with premium talent at the skill positions, but I can’t imagine a world in which you could take Alex Malzone and drop him into Harbaugh’s offense and beat Indiana comfortably, let alone what OSU did against Wiscy, Alabama, and Oregon.

....And the second, related benefit is that it gives you a larger margin of error when it comes to recruiting, of still being effective with “lesser” athletes because their weaknesses are covered up by the greater system.  It broadens the available pool of “viable” players for your system, and so you don’t have to hit as often on the great player(s) in order to maintain a consistent level of success.

By comparison, Harbaugh’s offense is great when you have all the pieces but seems to stumble without them....'

 

Um, can you imagine a world in which you drop Ryan Mallett into Rodriguez's offense and beat Indiana comfortably? I mean, even with Denard our games against Indiana were nail-biters until the final seconds (whereas with Henne and the most boring offense imaginable we'd beat Indiana 42-3 every year). I think that spread just as much as "pro-style" offenses rely on the right pieces being there. I think more important than spread vs. traditional is whether your offense has sophistication and discipline. 

With Harbaugh we will have both. I really don't understand your idea that not running a traditional spread offense is some kind of automatic limit on how successful this program can be. I remember MSU plowing us off the field and shutting down our offense every year during the RichRod era, a team that has since won the Rose Bowl and is in real contention to make a run for the playoffs.

bronxblue

September 8th, 2015 at 9:18 PM ^

Those RR teams were terrible, historically terrible on defense.  And MSU's offense was never the reason they competed nationally; this year might be the first to really put the onus on the offense to keep them in games.  We'll know a great deal after Saturday's game against Oregon.

My point remains that being good with Harbaugh's offense looks the same on the scoreboard as with a spread-style offense, but maintaining that success in the face of the normal vagaries of football - injuries, poor player development, run-of-the-mill depth issues - can be harder.  Doesn't mean it isn't possible, but I get a little annoyed that people point to Stanford as the high point of UM football on offense.  Brian trots out that VT game which is great and all, but that was one game during a season where Stanford's offense was very good but also struggled against the couple of "tough" teams on their schedule.  As I've noted elsewhere, the Pac-10 was kind of down when Harbaugh took Stanford to the top, with USC, UCLA, Airzona, ASU, and UW all down.  Hell, the third best team both years was, I think, an 8-5 USC still getting through sanctions.  Had Stanford lost a couple more games during that time, played a couple more elite defenses, I'm not sure how excited everyone would be.

Again, this is my opinion.  I think UM will be successful with the offense over time.  But everyone keeps dinging me for "soft" comparisons but don't provide much more in the way of analysis except "Harbaugh should be able to recruit elite talent", which is probably true but hasn't happened yet.  And I assume he'll include some spread-style elements in his offense; we know he likes to run the QB.  But OSU and Oregon have been able to put up huge numbers for years with multiple different QBs; Stanford's best offenses required Andrew Luck.  My point remains that spread offenses give you a larger margin of error, and that's why I prefer them in a vaccuum.

SirJack II

September 8th, 2015 at 10:32 PM ^

I understand what you're saying, but I guess I just see it differently. Your undermining of Harbaugh's accomplishments at Stanford is not convincing. Stanford mauled USC with (at least on paper) vastly inferior recruits, the same USC teams Michigan would lose to any time we found ourselves in the Rose Bowl.

And setting aside the defense, during the Rodriguez years did we ever score more than a touchdown against the Buckeyes, ever more than two against Sparty? It seemed like everything had to go exactly right for us to squeeze out a first down. We were just as predictable as we were under Carr, with read-option taking the place of zone blocking.

I believe Harbaugh's offenses will more complex than prior regimes' and more difficult to defend. We will not be baffled by teams like Illinois at the goal line. We will be able to do power and deception.

bronxblue

September 9th, 2015 at 9:19 AM ^

Well, Stanford crushed USC once and then otherwise won in barn burners against teams that had depth issues in part due to sanctions. They also got housed by Otegon, as a counter. As for RR against MSU, he scored more points against them than any Hoke offense, and if Utah is an omen they'll struggle against MSU as well this year, though this defense will be worse than the ones Hoke usually saw. And RR scored TDs against OSU, he just didn't stop them at all. My point remains that we are hoping UM turns into a Stanford offense, and thats fine. But those Stanford teams won with defense a good deal, and I'm guessing that will be the case at UM. I just think that there are better offense out there than the one Harbaugh looks to be running.

CompleteLunacy

September 9th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^

RR scored against OSU? Come on man. He scored 24 points on them in 3 years! Total!

And Hoke vs MSU was historically bad offensively. So it's pretty easy to point to RR as better. But still, he didn't exactly scorch MSU either...his best year was 2008 when they put up 21.

As for Stanford...they had one bad year against Oregon, their last year. Every other game looks like an overachieving result. They put up 31 on them his first year (lost by 24), 28 the next (lost by 7), then 51(!!!) and a win, then 31 (lost by 21). Considering what Oregon has done to so many over that time, they weren't ever exactly outclassed by them.

I don't think the spread or pro style is inherently better. I mean, maybe the spread is, but I don't know (not savvy enough in football knowledge to really debate the finer poinst on spread vs. pro style). What I can say is that I would take Harbaugh in a heartbeat over every single spread coach except for Meyer, Chip Kelly, and Malzahn (and it would still be a difficult choice). I'd also add Saban to that list as the non-spread guy I would take over Harbaugh. Because when it comes down to it, coaching is the most important factor in success, and each of those coaches has proven success with their systems at an elite level. Notably, Saban has had to adjust his coaching style significantly to account for the more spread-happy offenses he faces, and that's certainly significant, but neither did he move away from his pro-style offense either.

Btw, the write up is fantastic, I love every part except for the spread vs pro style stuff.

bronxblue

September 9th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^

Thanks for the follow-up.  I get that my opinion isn't shared by all; I'm fine with that.  And as I've stressed, I believe Harbaugh's offense will be successful going forward.

RR vs. MSU was always weird, but he did find ways to score against those defenses in a way that, had he stuck around and gotten some help on defense, might have turned into something more competitive than we saw.  And I honestly think UM is going to struggle to move the ball against MSU unless Rudock can exploit their corners, which is a luxury Hoke never got.

My point wrt to Oregon vs. Stanford is that the best Stanford teams in history still couldn't keep up with Oregon offensively nor slow them down defensively.  I don't blame them for that, but Harbaugh's offense is about grinding people down to an extent and I'm not sure college football is designed to let you do that; MSU has a very good offense but have been run off the field by every spread team they played (Baylor just stopped scoring for some reason, otherwise they'd have lost that game as well), and have had trouble keeping up.

I think a well-run offense can score as well in whatever form is takes; my point is simply that the spread typically allows you more flexibility and margin for error in the event you don't have an elite QB or a great offensive line; it slows down the rush because of the threat of the run, lets your WRs work more against man coverage because teams tend to sell out against said run, and doesn't ask your QB to do much more than make 1-2 reads and go.  I know Harbaugh's offense does a lot of pre-snap reads so that a QB can make more of those immediate throws so I hope that remains, but if I'm a college team and I have to install an offense, it's a flavor of RR/Meyer's offense without question.  Heck, I think the Baylor/Texas Tech "Air Raid"-style offenses aren't as good because they limit the threat of the run a bit.  

Anyway, thanks for the discourse.  I am happy when people comment on my stuff, and I'll admit that the tone of the piece came across gruffer than I thought regarding Harbaugh's offense.

Eye of the Tiger

September 8th, 2015 at 3:39 PM ^

Good diary, as usual, but you're making some sweeping and untenable generalizations about spread vs "Harbaugh" offense based on one game, in which we out gained a spread offense in their stadium and would have won, had one or two passes ended differently. His system is every bit as much about exploiting mismatches as Rich Rodriguez's, and he went 11-1 at Stanford with very few elite recruits.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

bronxblue

September 9th, 2015 at 11:41 AM ^

Thanks for the comment.

My feelings about Harbaugh's offense have existed for some time; I posted in the OSU recap last year how I was worried that being "the best version of Stanford" offensively might not be the best long-term goal for UM.  I'm not saying they won't win a bunch of games doing so, but Stanford went 11-1 because they had a great defense and (I think) more talent than people always remember; Richard Sherman, Andrew Luck, Coby Fleener, etc. are all very good pros and were great in college, and their offensive lines were dominant.  They also played during a down period in the Pac-10; USC, UCLA, UW, Arizona, and ASU all had middling years for large stretches of Stanford's run, and had Stanford lost 2-3 more games during Harbaugh's tenure I'm not sure people would be saying quite the same things about him.  I'm not denying or trying to minimize what he did at Stanford, but just pointing out that everyone trottting out "11-1 at Stanford with no talent" lacks some context.

Also, to say Utah runs a spread offense in the way other teams do is a bit unfair, but even taking that example they also scored 26 points against UM last year (I know one was a kick return) while only giving up 10 (and 7 was on a pick-6), and Michigan had no great counter to Wilson running the ball and it sure seemed like Utah had guys in space way more than UM.

In 2-3 years UM should have a dominant offense; my point is simply that other offenses would cut down that wait time quite a bit, and if forced to start a college offense today I'd pick a Meyer/RR spread hands-down over anything else.

Eye of the Tiger

September 9th, 2015 at 2:11 PM ^

Why would a spread offense cut that wait time down? Using 10+ wins as a bar (and an NFL playoff appearance as a proxy), here are the figures for Harbaugh: 3 years at Stanford 1 year at San Diego and 0 years with the 49ers. By contrast, for Rich Rodriguez: 4 years Glenville State, 3 years at WVU, N/A at Michigan and 3 years at Arizona. Even if you discount RR's Michigan experience as an outlier, he's still averaging just above 3 years a program. 

(And Urban Meyer is not a good point of comparison, given the embarrassment of talent situation he walked into at OSU.)

I mean, Harbaugh didn't just go 11-1 at Stanford, he had unprecedented success both there and at San Diego. Plus he took a moribund 49ers franchise farther than it ever should have gone. Dude has a crazy track record of success. While this does not mean he will be successful at Michigan, as Rich Rodriguez's lack of success at Michigan demonstrated), it does mean that going 11-1 at Stanford was no fluke. It's part of a clear pattern.

BUT the fact is that it's going to take us some time to get all the pieces in place, and this is exactly the same situation we'd be facing had we hired a spread-oriented coach. We have some raw talent but we lack developed talent (thanks, Hoke!). And we have a rough schedule (rougher than either of our rival schools). This year just ain't it--I'll be satisfied with 7 wins, happy with 8, ecstatic with 9 and may check myself into a hospital for chronic hallucinations if we get 10. And the same would have gone had we hired Earth 2 Rich Rodriguez, who stayed at WVU in 2008, goes yachting with Lloyd Carr and the Regents in the offseason, and is definitely bringing Jeff Casteel with him. 

Second point, while I also like spread offenses (especially the air raid), I like them because they are: (a) systematic, (b) based on creating/exploiting mismatches, and (c) are basically plug-and-play. You might not always win 10 games, but you can just keep reloading and your success isn't just based on having superior athelete A at position X. This is also why I admire MSU's defense, and why I'm very excited about Harbaugh's offense.  

Case in point, you suggested that part of the reason he went 11-1 at Stanford was because he had Andrew Luck as QB--granted, that is true. But a large part of the reason Andrew Luck is who he is today is because of the coaching he got from Harbaugh, so at best the relationship between variables is endogenous. More to the point, Devin Gardner's and Hackenberg's regressions demonstrate how important QB coaching is--even to "can't miss" five star recruits. I'd wager Luck isn't who he is today if he goes to, say, Texas. (What's more, Harbaugh has won with a pretty wide variety of QBs. I mean, he reached an NFC championship game with Alex Smith, and a Super Bowl with Colin Kaepernick.) And those Stanford offenses were 2/3 star city beyond Luck.