A brilliant four quarters of football

Submitted by jamiemac on

For the Rich Rodriguez era at Michigan it was a signature four quarters of football. Six different Wolverines found paydirt. The offense, after some initial stuttering, exploded to score touchdowns on five of six drives. Michigan was +2 in the turnover battle and did not have a single giveaway. The defense harassed the quarterback and had a pick-6 of their own that electrified the crowd. The visitors tacked on a pair of touchdowns late to make the game appear closer, but in the end it was a 41-23 rout and a Homecoming celebration promptly ensued.

Sounds good, right? Of course, the above portrait does not capture the start to finish of a single game. Instead, its the final two quarters of the Wisconsin game followed by the first two quarters of the Illinois game. Michigan needed the Wisconsin finale to overcome a terribly historic first half en route to a comeback win. The Illinois first half set them up with their largest lead of the season, which the team gave up because the offense struggled to maintain their new found efficiency and untimely defensive breakdowns.

Putting those halves together does look pretty sweet and offers a ray of hope that this team is closer to gelling than Saturday's final score would indicate. Sprinkle in a few unicorns streaking down the sideline along with a dash of capitalist disdain and the opening paragraph of this diary reads like a dispatch from the WLA propaganda machine. But, seriously, this team is not miles away from being good and if they can come out even in the turnover game from here on out, they will snare enough wins to make for an interesting November. Here are some other quick thoughts on the game:

  • A lot of type was banged out last week regarding which running back should get touches and what the hierarchy of the depth chart ought to read. One name never got mentioned. Mark Moundros. I am convinced that he needs to play a lot. The sputtering running game had consistent life--and more importantly positive yards --just about every time he was in the formation. He was the lead blocker on 8 runs for 33 yards. The only two runs in these cases that did not go for more than 4 yards were because McGuffie tripped over his own feet on the way to a clear and free corner and then another time did not run hard to the corner on a third and goal run. They ran some pretty cool counter plays with him lining up just behind the tackle and pulling on the snap. He was also used as as basic straight up lead blocker out of that formation and the traditional power I look. He also caught a TD pass and served as a nice decoy in the passing game that helped open Odoms up on a couple of corner routes.

 

  • Piggy backing on the Moundros theme, its pretty clear what makes this running game work and what does not. It needs a lead blocker from the backfield. The OL is terrible and overmatched. But, with an extra blocker paving the way, Michigan has found running plays that regularly move the line of scrimmage forward. With a lead blocker, I counted 13 runs for 63 yards. Conversely, when it was just McGuffie in the backfield, we saw 5 carries for 1 yard. A lead blocker is needed or the running game goes nowhere but backwards. Minor had an excellent lead block off the above counter look to spring a big run, so it was not always Moundros doing the dirty work. Carlos Brown and Kevin Grady did not see the field and Shaw first played late in the third quarter and was complicit in a killer turnover. Pretty much right now, I am fine with the backfield as long its a combination of two of the following, McGuffie, Minor and Moundros. Dare I dream of a runaway beer truck moment out of Moundros?

 

  • I am not sure we need to pass the ball more,  but I do know that the coaching staff has to get creative and make it a goal throughout the game to keep the passing game in rythmn. Threet can move this team down the field, but since he is a red shirt freshmen he is prone to in game slumps that remind me of 2001 John Navarre. He was on fire to start the game, but then went through a 3-for-13 stretch, many of which came in difficult down and distances to work with.

 

  • How does this game change if Threet and Odoms connect on that play down the middle just before half time. It was open and should have been a touchdown.  Talk about a frustrating play. A week after Odoms and Threet weren't in the same zip code, these two were a top flight combination Saturday. Except for one play. And, it cost Michigan six points and an immeasurable amount of halftime momentum.

 

  •  Of course, its hard to get into a passing game groove when every week you are seemingly breaking in new receivers. A few times on Saturday, Threet needed Savoy and Clemons to come up with a big route and catch and the timing just was not there. Savoy should have been able to haul in a long catch to set up a first and goal, but he just lacked the on field saviness to do so. It will come from him, but its just too bad that in the fifth game, the new QB still needs to break in new guys, but thats what a series of injuries and unofficial suspensions will do. Mathews will be there, Odoms is getting better, but third and fourth options are not developing yet. The last time Michigan had a QB this inexperienced at this level, the targets were an all-american senior/future NFL first rounder and two others who had at least one year off all-big ten caliber production. Threet has to develop an in game rythmn with new targets every game.

 

  • The coaches need to lose a few pages of the playbook. Specifcally the one with the option pitch. Not only are these plays going nowhere, but they're being executed carelessly and are a bad turnover waiting to happen. Other plays that need a temporary hiatus include anything thats run horizontal and takes time to develop. The blocking is not there to sustain reverses, runs wide in a single back set without a lead blockers and passes parallel or behind the line of scrimmage to targets not on the move. These plays were much less a staple of the play calling on Saturday and we actually saw arguably the offense's best game of the season. But, they were called, these plays still went nowhere and were wasted downs.

 

  • Fourth and four at Illinois' 42-yard line with 50 seconds to go in the first half. Michigan punts the ball. Discuss.

We all knew this year would be tough. We knew the team would lose one game because it would have no idea how to execute the new offense. We knew one game would be lost because all these freshmen and first time players would crap down their leg in a turnover fest. And, because it is a Michigan tradition, we knew one game would be lost because of mind blowing defensive breakdowns. Well in the Utah, Notre Dame and Illinois games, we've seen all of those. Are those out of their system?

I am still hopeful for the rest of the season. If they come out even in the turnover department, they'll win games. I feel this offense can hum against Toledo, Purdue, Minnesota and Northestern. Only brutal turnover outcomes will get us in trouble in those games. We're in trouble against PSU and OSU (understatement of the year...well, its in the team photo) and will probably have similar defensive breakdowns in those games making it hard for the offense to go point for point anyway. That leaves Michigan State. I like the matchup and Threet can outperform Hoyer. Its clearly a must win for bowl hopes and to avoid being shutout in the rivalry games this season.

 

Comments

ShockFX

October 5th, 2008 at 11:20 PM ^

* Fourth and four at Illinois' 42-yard line with 50 seconds to go in the first half. Michigan punts the ball. Discuss.

I think this is the right call. Michigan has maybe a 50% chance to get those 4 yards, and they were having a rough 2Q. Even if they get the 1st, they have 40 seconds and are at the 35ish line. A FG is out because Lopata has looked horrible. I don't think you can pick up the 35 yards in 40 seconds with Odoms and Matthews being your only deep threats.

So while it's unlikely that Michigan can get any points in 50 seconds, and ignoring the whole "go into the half safely theme", what about if Michigan went for it and failed? Well, you figure Illinois has a huge shot to pick up enough yards to get into FG range or even score some big plays. If there are even 40 more seconds (1:30 total) on the clock I say bad call, but with only 50 seconds left I can't say it was a bad cal.

PattyMax64

October 6th, 2008 at 1:38 AM ^

I would have liked to see a Mesko run-punt option.  If he sees nothing, then he can boot it and pretty much end the half as Illinois runs out the clock.  If he sees something, like he did at Notre Dame, then he can take off.  I don't know why we don't see it more in short yardage situations.  I might have also been nice to see one of those QB punts like Sheridan did against Utah.  That's just my opinion.

JDNorway

October 6th, 2008 at 6:09 PM ^

I'm not convinced that wasn't a run-punt option. I don't remember it perfectly, but I think Illinois didn't have anyone back there. If it was an option, I can see why Zoltan would just kick and take the safe route.

We were 17-14 down with Barwis trained legs coming out fresh in the second half. If I'm Rich Rod I'm thinking we're looking pretty good at this stage. Then I would get a wake up call and realise that we forgot how to tackle on defense and how to block, run, throw and catch on offense.

It was a disappointing last three quarters to say the least. Sometimes I'm glad I live half a world away.

blue edmore

October 6th, 2008 at 8:32 AM ^

Saw the same thing you did. We do seem to run better with a lead blocker. I don't know, yet, whether it's a reflection of Moundros' talent or the O-line's lack of it.

Brewers Yost

October 6th, 2008 at 9:51 AM ^

I don't mind the punt but there was no point of calling the TO when Illinois just wanted to run the clock out and we didn't have a means of stopping the clock again. Going for it would have been a risky but reasonable call.

Lordfoul

October 6th, 2008 at 10:18 AM ^

I was really hoping they would go for it. Considering the long bombs we were trying against ND at the end of the first half, I was kind of expecting it.

bentley2121

October 6th, 2008 at 7:11 PM ^

The question I have though and why I think maybe the playbook shouldn't be expanded: The offense is really young, their like freshman in 300 or 400 level courses in college. It sucks for that semester, and the results won't be a 4.0 but in the end the student, or in this case our offense will be much better in the long run. I think that richrod actually welcomes these growing pains like most great coaches that are changing an entire program. You have to break the wall down before you can rebuild it. And as for the Ohio state game, I still think this team might have a shot, although I am significantly less optimistic than before this weekend's event, and I don't have any real facts to support my opinion, its just a feeling. go blue

ThWard

October 9th, 2008 at 4:23 PM ^

Dead on about the need for a lead blocker. Hopefully in a few years, the OL will be good enough to put nothing but playmakers back there, but not yet. Also, I think Mesko needs more carries. Kid's been great, with limited touches.