Looking Back/Hats Off/Looking Forward - Utah

Submitted by Lordfoul on

I have to say that was one of the more confusing games emotionally that I have witnessed as a Michigan fan.  By half time I was inconsolable but in the fourth quarter I came out of my funk better than in the past.  It helped to be watching with a Nebraska fan, who coached me in dealing with my consitantly dominant alma matter turning into a huge pile of fail.  Thanks Luke.

Looking Back - Some thoughts looking back on the game after sleeping on it:

Obviously the offense looked scary-bad for most of the game.  I don't see this turning around very quickly.  Bullets:

  • Sheridan's throws over 10 yards looked like punts IMHO.  Only one pick in the 1st half was very lucky indeed.  He is far too slow to make use of his legs and can't throw so I can't fathom how he beat out Threet to start.
  • Threet was a much better option at QB as displayed by the long TD throw.  He may be slower but his arm allows us to keep defenses honest.  Too much excitement let to overthrows I think.  Hope he starts going forward.
  • The offensive line started out bad but did improve I thought.  This had a lot to do with the "Barwis Effect" (more on this later).
  • The running backs looked tenative and the gameplan for going outside on most runs was the wrong one in hindsight I think.  McGuffie did look more confident than the rest and seemed to have a toughness that I admired.
  • If Mathews is hurt seriously that is a HUGE blow.  The other receivers will do well I think but we need that consistant guy with experience right now.
  • This offense needs a hero to step up.  I think it will be McGuffie at this point.
  • Why so many long passes in the first half?  Sheridan was awful and yet we persisted in throwing up lame duck jump balls until it finally bit us in the arse.  That pick at the end of the 1st half cost us the W and I put the blame squarely on RR.  I was praying for a Lloyd-like run,run,run,punt and a one-score deficit at the half.  We were really only in the game because of luck and good fortune, but regardless we have the W without that pick.  A pretty bad coaching gaff IMO.

The defense looked really bad for a while too, but really stepped it up as the game went on.  We were simply playing a very good offense with a great QB.  Their gameplan was solid but we still had a chance.  Bullets:

  • We do not have enough guys that are great in coverage to handle 4 receivers in the spread.  From what I saw it wasn't Trent/Warren getting torched most of the time, but they couldn't cover two guys each.
  • Our linebackers didn't seem to make plays and were very bad in space.  Having them cover receivers was futile as BJ picked us apart in the first half.  Ezeh had the pick and seemed to be in on a lot of plays.  Watching Evans slow up and throw his hands in the air as Asiata trucked around him on a swing pass was painful. 
  • The DL did well but only after the "Barwis Effect" (more on this still later) came into play late in the game did they really dominate.  Our contain of BJ was solid all game though I thought.
  • Bottom line is that this defense will get much better going forward and will look very good against 2 receiver sets and against lesser QBs (which is probabaly all we will face, BJ is awesome).

Hats Off Awards:

  1. MIKE BARWIS - The "Barwis Effect" is finally something tangible and we saw it in the fourth quarter.  Our superior conditioning finally had our OL protecting better, our DL getting pressure and sacks, and our team on the comeback trail.  I waited all game telling my Nebraska fan buddy that it was coming.  I am glad that it did.
  2. Shaw, McGuffie, Hemingway, Threet, and Sheridan (+ Lopata) - Watching Wolverines get their first TDs is always special.  Hats off to you guys.  Nice catch Junior.  Nice 50 yard boot K.C.
  3. Brian Johnson - This guy is almost definately the best QB we will face this year.  He looked like a future pro and shredded us.  If we had him at QB, like, wow.
  4. Sakoda - This guy beat us by himself almost.  Any one of his 4 FGs would have lost it for his team had he missed.  His 53 yarder was a killer.  His punts at the end of the game sealed the deal. 
  5. DC Shafer and the Michigan D - Make no mistake, they made plenty of mistakes.  I really think this was a great offense they were facing however.  Without the pick leading to a touchdown at the end of the half, they did enough to win.  Six sacks is a solid number and 3 points allowed in the second half gave me hope for the future.  Speaking of that...

Looking Forward:

Michigan should win next week easily as MiaOH got killed by Vanderbilt of all teams.  It should be a good game to work out some kinks on offense and get some swagger back.  I think this loss may be a good thing for the future of this team as it highlighted glaring problems on both offense and defense and the players will remain hungry.  We need Threet to calm down and lead this team better at QB because Sheridan doesn't seem to have it.  Threet's arm could give us the downfield passing game we need to help our running game.  I liked McGuffie's effort and toughness and think he will be the star we need if anyone will.  We should look much improved for ND in two weeks and our defense will line up better against them than they did against Utah.  All is not lost, but we do suck.

Comments

jamiemac

August 31st, 2008 at 10:33 AM ^

Couple of follow ups to your post:

1.) Lay of Obi Ezeh. He played very well, and made a couple of david harris-esque plays sniffing out where the ball was going and knifing through traffic for tfl's or short gains. The play you referenced above (throwing up the arms while Asiata ran by him) was #9 Marrel Evans. What in the world was that effort? Plus Warren missed an easy tackle on that play giving him another 10 yards. Is there another play that you're speaking of?

 2.) Yes, Schaffer adjusted in the 2nd half, but it was a soft, soft defense in the first half. He let them call their shots the whole first half before adjusting at half.Everyone bitched that English did that a lot. Very disappointed in Schaffer's first game as our DC. I think the team was told to play soft coverage and it killed us until we adjusted, which we did way too late.

3.) Of course, the back breaking TD at the end of the half never should have happened. Bad game management by our new head coach. It was painfully obvious we needed to get into the lockerroom to regroup. Run the football, take some time off, force Utah into using the TOs on D. Its basic strategy. RR failed there. The old regime were maestros at game management in cases like this. In the 2-minute drill, Bo always ran on the first play in hopes of A.) to surprise the D and B.) force a TO if the play does not work. Sheridan threw the bad pick, but RR's primary goal the final three minutes of the half should have been not giving the ball again to Utah and get to intermission.

4.) Barwis. Yes, we were fresher. He deserves a lot of credit for that. I liked that the team did not quit either. That's a mentality that also originates from off season workouts and bonding, of which he oversaw. Of course, the sun helped too. Our sideline was in the shade; theirs in the hot late summer sun for the whole second half.

Otherwise, excellent post and good recap.

Jivas

August 31st, 2008 at 11:30 AM ^

The game wasn't *too* far off from what I was expecting. However:

* Defense was definitely disappointing - they were dominant in the 2nd half but putrid in the first. We're gonna need them to step up and be more consistent down the road.

* We knew the QBs and O-line would suck, but what was so disappointing is that I still had a (potentially delusional) belief that we'd be able to run the ball effectively. I figured with all of the misdirection in the offense and the speed of our skill players we'd break off a few long gains, enough to sustain the offense and make it halfway decent. Such plays throughout the game were limited to:

(1) TD pass to Shaw (off misdirection play-action)

(2) Screen pass to McGuffie (effective draw/run)

(3) 20-yard run by Minor

And that was it (off my memory). If we can't take advantage of our offensive skill players on a near-consistent basis ... we're in deep shit. The QBs and especially the O-line will improve as they get more experience as we get deeper into the season. But winning the Notre Dame game in two weeks is going to be huge, in my opinion, because of the Wisconsin/Illinois/Penn State run (3 of 4 games) immediately following the ND game. If we don't beat ND, we could easily be 2-5 after the PSU game, and the negative media about the program will run 24/7. There are 4 very winnable games on the schedule after the PSU game, but I *REALLY* don't want to be 2-5 at that point.

I had us at 7-5 before the game yesterday, now we're at 6.5-5.5 according to my monkey math. Need to handle our business against Miami (OH) next week, then the ND game will have huge implications for me, unusual seeing as it'll be a cripple fight.

KRK

August 31st, 2008 at 1:41 PM ^

Lordfoul, I agree on Sheridan's deep ball. He just doesn't have the arm to throw at a D1 level. Those jump balls on the first couple of drives looked like a HS QB throwing it up in the air for grabs.

Desert Blue

August 31st, 2008 at 1:57 PM ^

Pretty good analysis here that sums up my thoughts. Some more from me: • I still thought we looked kinda slow, esp on D in the first half. And considering I was expecting we were gonna have an act, not react, D, like the one we had in the 2nd half, I thought we were too slow at times, esp in the middle of the field, where we are no doubt softest. • Speaking of quickness, the offense wasn't nearly as quick as I thought. The no-huddle is a work in progress, but I was shocked to see us throw so many jump balls. We had more in the 2nd drive than I thought we had all day. I thought the point with Sheridan was to make quick passes. We had WAY too many 7-step dropbacks. I couldn't tell watching on tv, but Utah's defense looked pretty good, shutting us down pretty much in every area of the field. • Threet....poor kid is just too late with being a Michigan qb. His TD throw was excellent, but every college qb can throw a nice deep ball, big deal. I thought he had a Navarre-esque tendency to hang in the pocket for about 3+ seconds longer than he should have, esp when the O-line was actually giving him more protection late in the game than it had been, and he sailed far too many of his throws. Too many 8 and 15-yard outs without a Chad Henne, not enough screen passes and short ones.

Kolesar40

August 31st, 2008 at 1:59 PM ^

like when people say "losing might be a good thing because..." That is merely a way of justifying a bad loss. Let's face it, we needed a win to spark some confidence in a young team.  That being said, lessons will be learned, and hopefully we will improve. I think 7-5 is a dream right now for this team. We just lost to a team that gave us 3 turnovers, and 150 yards worth of penalties. Notre Dame will give us neither of those (although I hope they do) and its at their place. Dont mean to come off too pessimistic, but its time to get off the 7-5 Kool-Aid after what I just saw. The bad QB play was not first game jitters. Neither QB is completing thos passes in practice with no defense. Amazing how we continue to make opposing QBs look like heisman trophy guys. Nice second half though, I expect more of that this season. I hope I am just too pissed off and emotional to be rational right now - In which case, I apologize. Lets get Miami of Ohio and then worry about the Domers.

UMFootballCrazy

August 31st, 2008 at 2:09 PM ^

"Why so many long passes in the first half? Sheridan was awful and yet we persisted in throwing up lame duck jump balls until it finally bit us in the arse. That pick at the end of the 1st half cost us the W and I put the blame squarely on RR. I was praying for a Lloyd-like run,run,run,punt and a one-score deficit at the half. We were really only in the game because of luck and good fortune, but regardless we have the W without that pick. A pretty bad coaching gaff IMO." Correct me if I am wrong...but is not a "read option" all about a QB's ability to read the defence he sees at the line and then with the basic package, pick the option he thinks is best. If that assumption is correct, then the "read" and the "option" choices to throw deep balls should fall more at the feet of Sheridan that at RR's feet. I think it was more Sheridan trying to earn himself a permenant starting job by forcing big plays that he really was not up to making.

Lordfoul

August 31st, 2008 at 2:45 PM ^

Are you telling me that you would blame Sheridan for trying for a big play over RR not telling him specifically that running out the clock was paramount?  Maybe RR did tell him to run the ball and get to the half and he just ignored it, but wasn't he in for the first play of the second half (I'm not sure, missed that play)?  If he defied RR's wishes with that pass then it is Sheridan's fault.  I really believe RR should have insisted on keeping it on the ground but didn't, and so I blame the INT and the ensuing TD on the coach more than on the probably not even 20YO walk-on.

UMFootballCrazy

August 31st, 2008 at 3:05 PM ^

Perhaps I overstated it...but this is still an offence that is learning...and learning to execute and learning to make decisions on the field.  It is hard to judge that late interception without knowing what was called and what was supposed to happen on that play. 

The one that was obvious in a global sense on the offence is they seemed to be making poor decisions, were slow making them and were not executing.

In my mind, a bigger reality than any one bad call or any one poor on the field decision, or any one play that was poorly executued is that this offence never got into enough of a groove to put together even one drive.

WolverBean

August 31st, 2008 at 2:56 PM ^

Two quick hats-offs re: special teams:

* KC Lopata's 50 yarder would have been good from 55. That was a beautiful kick. If he does that again, we might need a more complimentary nickname than "kicking competency."

* WE BLOCKED A PUNT! And it gave us a short field that (when combined with two Utah penalties) led to a score, and turned the momentum of the game for a while. And a blocked extra point at the beginning of the game put us a two-point conversion away from a tie game at the end. Plays like this reinforce the importance of special teams, and I'm glad to see the improved emphasis on that part of the game.

tdgobux

August 31st, 2008 at 2:52 PM ^

As an Ohio State fan, piling on the ineptitude of Michigan's performance is too easy. When John Cooper became head coach we had to endure an initially dreadful season and the same comments - the team is too slow. And since most of America is hatin' on the big ten, it will come as no surprise that if OSU does beat Michigan, it will be downplayed as a weak team getting beaten by an inferior highly-ranked team. Woody Hayes (I think) once said that his two favorite teams were OSU and whoever plays Michigan this week. That was convenient to say when national championship voting and placement in the BCS is not up for grabs. Now that Strength of Schedule and looking at the opponents a team beats is coming more into play - similar to seeding March Madness, I believe OSU fans need to take a different approach. Root for OSU and root for each Big 10 team's opponents to lose each week. The best thing that can happen is that the Big 10 develops a national image similar to the SEC of a dominating conference. But when Michigan loses to Utah, Illinois gets embarrassed by Missouri, Michigan State gets crushed by Cal, the national image of the Big Ten is that the teams can beat up on the patsies like Youngstown State, or Penn State running up the score on Coastal Carolina - but can't win the big games when it matters. I just hope that Michigan can beat Notre Dame and OSU beats USC - this may silence some critics

Tim Waymen

August 31st, 2008 at 5:14 PM ^

I try to root for OSU "in every game but one."  I learned this from my dad who is an OSU alum/fan who always did that for Michigan. I kind of do it because I see UM and OSU as two cosmic, diametrically opposed entities that are destined to play that one game in November to decide the fate of all the Big 10.  Okay, so there should be room for other teams to win the Big 10 championship, and it does happen. In fact, I don't want OSU to become the first team to win 3 consecutive outright Big 10 titles.  I can't handle that right now.

The point is, I want both teams to be strong.  I don't want OSU to have an 0-12 season.  1st, it would embarrass the Big 10 (not like it's gonna happen anytime soon though), and 2nd, it takes away from the rivalry and the specialness of beating the other.  It's much better to beat a good OSU team than a crappy one, obviously.

M-Dog

August 31st, 2008 at 5:16 PM ^

You are on your own now. You gotta beat USC if you want credibility. 

Beating the rest of the B10 won't get it for you.  After yesterday, there is no B10 win that will look like a "quality" win.  Maybe Wisky, but the media never gives them credit for being good, due to their style of play and where they are from.

 

Michael

August 31st, 2008 at 2:53 PM ^

I think many of you all are forgetting that this is the youngest, most inexperienced team in the Big Ten, and certainly one of the youngest in the nation. We lost the TOP FOUR tacklers on defense and over 80% of our yard production on offense. Our offensive line has the FEWEST combined starts of ANY line in the nation. The QB (Threet) that performed the best had not taken a snap prior to the second half of this game! Now, of course, we all ready have people talking about how much RR screwed up in this game. Our offensive line was getting manhandled and we averaged 1.4 YPC and that includes Minor's 21 yarder. There are two reasons why we threw the ball deep so many times: 1) to open up some running room by keeping the defense honest; 2) to make a play. We obviously were not getting it done in the running game. Taking those shots downfield kept us in the ballgame because they led to a few key receptions and, often, a pass interference call. Those plays allowed us to move the ball. This is the first game RR has coached with this team. In all likelihood, he found out just as much about this team as we did. He is still learning and, yes, this transition will apparently take a little more time than we had HOPED (not thought). With that said, it seems like there is still room for optimism; there is nowhere to go but up. If our team played like it did in the second half the entire game, we would have won the game. At least we know we are capable of that. Oh, and to UMFootballCrazy: you should do some reading up (har har) on the zone-read play; your conception of it really is not even close. I'd explain it here, but this post has all ready gone on long enough. Do some googling.

Lordfoul

August 31st, 2008 at 3:05 PM ^

but I only questioned RR regarding the final drive for us in the 1st half.  If he was insisting on trying to score on a pass there then he sould have put Threet in.  In reality he should have basically kneeled on it and gone to the locker room.  All the other flailing (read: long jump balls in a desperate attempt to score) was at least warrented to keep the defense honest, but that last one for the int was far too predicatable.

Ellipses Man

August 31st, 2008 at 4:27 PM ^

It's tough to say who is better Threet or Sheridan. One came in when the situation was 0-0 and the other when it was 25-10(was that the score when he came in?). The situations call for different approaches. The fans around me started booing Sheridan, which is HIGHLY UNFAIR to Nick. I still would've started Threet though. With all the line uncertainties NO one thought they could sustain the blocks needed for a running game. So you know you're going to throw. So if your tall guy cant get it done bring in Nick. Just my preference you know. But anyhow, its done and in the books. Utah, was guilty of even more holding calls than we're called. They were called for a fair amount but they could've gotten more calls against them. Namely the kick at the 7 minute mark where the scoreboard showed 0 time on the play clock for a good 5 seconds. Yet no delay of game penalty. I hope the head lines judge or whoever knew the real play clock.

roded

August 31st, 2008 at 4:46 PM ^

I will keep this simple. Long play "on Evans" was likely not his fault. Watch the play, every other defender on the field (especially at first level) was finding their area for zone coverage. Everyone except D Warren. He followed his man across the field in man to man. Evans turned his head because he was expecting outside coverage that was supposed by left corner. My opinion, it was an obvious blown coverage by Warren. And can we please stop the McGuffie-riding? Dude looked horrible! Yes, line can get better in run blocking, but his mental errors were obvious.

Ellipses Man

August 31st, 2008 at 5:14 PM ^

If Sam had picked Utah he'd of started for them and beat Michigan in the big house yesterday. That's my opinion. Sam played great for a kid who is genuinely awed by the big house and his full ride to Michigan. He is the type of guy who will improve week to week and that is why he started.

msoccer10

September 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 AM ^

Warrren is the golden boy, and I love him, but I agree that I think he was the one who blew coverage on the 55 yarder. I watched it over yesterday. Also, McGuffie looked confident, but he also made a ton of mistakes which killed drives. Minor or Brown, if they are healthy, are much better at this time. Maybe this will change, but we need some guys who have been there before when our QB and O-line are so green.

DamnYankee

September 1st, 2008 at 8:53 AM ^

on what has been said here. I agree with most of the points an will add to Desert Blue's analysis on Threet's throws. 1) His arm strength is obvious, but still needs to help with his foot work. If you look back at some of his key incompletions (2 pt. conversion, etc), he is either throwing off his back foot or his feet were not set correctly - both of which cause the ball to sail. 2) Correcting this will come with time, maturity, and comfort with the offense.