Michigan has gone from a rally team to a fall apart team
This is not a "fire Rodriguez" post or a "I hate everything" post. This is simply an observation I have made and a request for discussion as to just what exactly is going on.
I noticed a trend in Michigan's performance that reversed itself completely, and I don't know what to make of it. Observe - the following are summaries of scoring by half for Michigan's first four games against competitive opponents (Eastern, Western, and loloware state are excluded):
Vs. Notre Dame
First Half: M 17, ND 20 (-3)
Second Half: M 21, ND 14 (+7)
Michigan rallies in the second half for the win.
Vs. Indiana
First Half: M 21, IU 23 (-2)
Second Half: M 15, IU 10 (+5)
Michigan rallies in the second half for the win.
Vs. Michigan State
First Half: M 6, MSU 10 (-4)
Second Half: M 14, MSU 10 (+4)
Overtime: M 0, MSU 7 (-7)
[Second Half + Overtime]: M 14, MSU 17 (-3)
Michigan rallies to tie at end of regulation, but loses in overtime.
Vs. Iowa
First Half: M 14, Iowa 20 (-6)
Second Half: M 14, Iowa 10 (+4)
Michigan rallies in the second half but comes up just short.
Notice that, in each game, Michigan does better in the second half than it did in the first, even when taking into account overtime versus MSU. Michigan does not always win, but they stay strong and improve in the second half. And then, after DSU, this happens:
Vs. Penn State
First Half: M 10, PSU 19 (-9)
Second Half: M 0, PSU 16 (-16)
Michigan hangs in there for the first half, but then things get ugly.
Vs. Illinois
First Half: M 13, Ill 7 (+6)
Second Half: M 0, Ill 31 (-31)
Michigan leads at the half, but then things get ugly.
Vs. Purdue
First Half: M 24, PU 10 (+14)
Second Half: M 12, PU 28 (-16)
Michigan leads by two scores at the half, but then things get ugly.
Vs. Wisconsin
FIrst Half: M 17, W 21 (-4)
Second Half: M 7, W 24 (-17)
Michigan hangs in there for the first half, but then (say it with me now!) things... get... ugly!
What is going on here?
I don't know. There are a lot of reasons why one team might do better or worse in the second half of a football game. One team might be better conditioned and the other might tire. One team's coaches might make better adjustments to the other team's game plan. One team might start out hyped up on adrenaline while the other team comes out flat. The truly puzzling thing, though, is how Michigan has gone from second half rally team to a second half fall apart team, with a clean, complete, utter reversal of tendencies somewhere around mid-season. Is it a psychological phenomenon? Have Michigan's offensive game plan and defensive vulnerabilities been figured out to the point that any coach can, after a half game of observation, pick them apart? Your theories are welcome.
I noticed a trend in Michigan's performance that reversed itself completely, and I don't know what to make of it. Observe - the following are summaries of scoring by half for Michigan's first four games against competitive opponents (Eastern, Western, and loloware state are excluded):
Vs. Notre Dame
First Half: M 17, ND 20 (-3)
Second Half: M 21, ND 14 (+7)
Michigan rallies in the second half for the win.
Vs. Indiana
First Half: M 21, IU 23 (-2)
Second Half: M 15, IU 10 (+5)
Michigan rallies in the second half for the win.
Vs. Michigan State
First Half: M 6, MSU 10 (-4)
Second Half: M 14, MSU 10 (+4)
Overtime: M 0, MSU 7 (-7)
[Second Half + Overtime]: M 14, MSU 17 (-3)
Michigan rallies to tie at end of regulation, but loses in overtime.
Vs. Iowa
First Half: M 14, Iowa 20 (-6)
Second Half: M 14, Iowa 10 (+4)
Michigan rallies in the second half but comes up just short.
Notice that, in each game, Michigan does better in the second half than it did in the first, even when taking into account overtime versus MSU. Michigan does not always win, but they stay strong and improve in the second half. And then, after DSU, this happens:
Vs. Penn State
First Half: M 10, PSU 19 (-9)
Second Half: M 0, PSU 16 (-16)
Michigan hangs in there for the first half, but then things get ugly.
Vs. Illinois
First Half: M 13, Ill 7 (+6)
Second Half: M 0, Ill 31 (-31)
Michigan leads at the half, but then things get ugly.
Vs. Purdue
First Half: M 24, PU 10 (+14)
Second Half: M 12, PU 28 (-16)
Michigan leads by two scores at the half, but then things get ugly.
Vs. Wisconsin
FIrst Half: M 17, W 21 (-4)
Second Half: M 7, W 24 (-17)
Michigan hangs in there for the first half, but then (say it with me now!) things... get... ugly!
What is going on here?
I don't know. There are a lot of reasons why one team might do better or worse in the second half of a football game. One team might be better conditioned and the other might tire. One team's coaches might make better adjustments to the other team's game plan. One team might start out hyped up on adrenaline while the other team comes out flat. The truly puzzling thing, though, is how Michigan has gone from second half rally team to a second half fall apart team, with a clean, complete, utter reversal of tendencies somewhere around mid-season. Is it a psychological phenomenon? Have Michigan's offensive game plan and defensive vulnerabilities been figured out to the point that any coach can, after a half game of observation, pick them apart? Your theories are welcome.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^
I think the defense gets tired and the offense can't get back on track. Plus, the teams they are playing later in the year are simply better. This was probably a 7-6 team at best, and they lost a couple of game they shouldn't. That happens.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
answer lack of talent on defense.
Teams with better talent pull away in the second half.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:31 PM ^
Agreed, I don't know how anybody can watch this team and actually wonder why we fade in the second halves of games. We cannot cover anyone, no matter what we do. Our only hope is BG single-handedly stopping drives. If we blitz, guys are open. If we don't blitz, and BG doesn't make something happen by himself, there's no pressure and guys just run wide open.
I'm just hoping that Warren doesn't go pro (which, from the last few games, seems much more unlikely than it did earlier in the year), turner steps into the other corner position, Woolfolk moves back to safety, and Vlad starts at strong safety.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:48 PM ^
No, it's not that simple.
The coaches aren't adjusting at halftime like under previous years. Under Lloyd coaches would spend the first 10 minutes scheming on how to improve then spending the next 10 minutes telling the players what to do.
Last year (I can't speak for this year), it was a circus in the locker room at half. You have coaches immediately screaming at everyone and by the time players leave for the field they don't know what to do.
It's frustrating.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:11 PM ^
the LLoyd regime was not known for its second half adjustments.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:48 PM ^
that is going off of what players who played for both coaches told me and seeing it first hand. don't get upset, I want RR to do well but i'm making an observation.
it's the players AND coaches.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:48 PM ^
IIRC second half meltdowns were also a trend in the Carr era (2000 purdue, 2005 OSU, 2005 Minnie, just to name a few), so these new meltdowns should not surprise anyone.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:11 PM ^
- They are playing better teams - how does this make ND look?
- Players may be wearing down as the season progresses
- Teams have more film of us to scout
Things will get better
November 14th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
I'm not sure. I think ND and Iowa are better than Illinois and Purdue.
Your point about film is a good one, though. One of the jabbering heads on BTN during the game actually made an interesting observation. He said he thought that one of the 2nd half issues was that teams were able to make adjustments and UM wasn't able to counterpunch because the playbook is limited by the personnel. or something to that effect.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
Offenses are easily able to identify what works and what doesn't against this defense. I would be licking my chops as an offensive coordinator when looking at this defense even if there were some struggles in the first half. If you can hold up the Michigan DL, it's gonna be a shitload of points for your team.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^
To be honest I think the opposing teams have us figured and we play sloppy as the game progresses.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
Not surprising the defense couldn't even slow down Wisconsin in the second half. 3rd & forevers are converted with regularity. Need some players on defense who can tackle - diving at John Clay's ankles or sticking an arm out doesn't work. How can the D give up a 22 yard run with 8 in the box?
Offense wasn't bad - I liked the Vincent Smith show. Need to stretch the field vertically a little more though.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:50 PM ^
If the offense could possess the ball for a reasonable amount of time in the second half of these games, the defense would be more rested, and less exposed.
It was close at the half. They got nowhere in the second half. The defense was on the field the whole time. No wonder they got tired.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
I hate to question the great shrine that is Barwis, but might this have something to do with conditioning? After watching the Wisconsin game it seems that the further the game went along the more the lines got blown off the ball.
This may be another way to explain the youth on the team. I imagine young players are not conditioned quite to the same level as upperclassmen due to time with the program.
Not sure how to think about the rough second halves the past few weeks; however, conditioning and momentum call out to me.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:35 PM ^
I think it could be an S&C issue, but a different one. We're very young, and a lot of players (especially on D) need to get bigger and stronger to hold up against teams like UW.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:56 PM ^
Barwis is conditioning fr's and sophs to play against other teams' jr's and sr's. You can call it conditioning if you want, but I really think there is only so much Barwis can do with kids one or two years out of HS. The opponents have two to three years' worth of naturally-occuring HGH that Barwis' kids can't have until they get older. Since UM doesn't take shortcuts, we will just have to watch them grow the "long way:" chronology and training.
When Barwis has a class of jrs and a class of srs, I think we will all see a huge difference. I can't wait to see Barwis playing on an even playing field with the rest of the teams in the conference. I was as guilty as anyone else of overrating what he and RR could accomplish; I now have an idea of the true scope of the task they have before them.
I also have the faith that they will get it done.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
...and as much as I bought into all the Barwis hype, I have to question whether any of it is making a difference right now. Certainly the notion of it as a great equalizer that would immediately help us excel against other teams has been blown to crap. Our players may praise Barwis and talk about how they are in much better shape -- but how does one reconcile that with the the fact that we look like a bunch of grannies as the game goes on?
Fine, so we're playing guys who are a year or two older. Whatever. Guys who are older but supposedly less conditioned on shit teams like Illinois and Purdue ought not to be able to dominate us in the second half the way they have been...especially after we demonstrate that we can hang in with them by turning in respectable first halves.
I am not at all on the "fire RichRod" train, but I do question whether part of it is coaching, and not being able to keep our young guys' heads in the game after things start to go wrong in the second half.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:56 PM ^
It's the Defense stupid.*
*Note: Not actually calling anyone stupid, just stating the obvious.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:01 PM ^
At first I thought this was posted by Captain Obvious.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:21 PM ^
Seriously wondering at this point is Donovan Warren is going to turn pro - his stock is way down after these past few games. Here's to hoping he's back! We'll need him next year along with much better linebacker play.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:32 PM ^
I think that's where you see the yoot showing through. A coach can adjust all he wants, but young players--yoots--aren't far enough along that their instincts at the lower levels and yootful ignorance (and in some cases exhuberance: I CAN make this play even with a 400 lbs defensive lineman standing on my neck) both prevent them from adjusting on the field on the fly, and also from letting a play die a natural death and regrouping for the next down.
Also, yoots haven't been around long enough to be able to have that short memory--forget the last play (good or bad) and move on.
Those, to me, are the biggest reasons we see what we're seeing. I think, as Yogi Berra once said, "Half this game is 90% mental"
It is probably as much the swinging emotions of yoot. After 4-0, they probably thought they could do no wrong. Maybe they stopped listening to the coaches so much??? SPECULATION ALERT. Then when it got away, it got the FUCK away, and these younger guys became more controlled by the emotional and momentum-al swings in the games.
I believe the staff needs to stay intact (although I am not so sure about Hopson) so these yoots have the SAME guys in their ears for the next year, being told the same things, and players and staff learn and grow together. For those who keep saying "The future is so bright I need to buy one of those eclipse gadgets to look at it"--that has to be the answer.
Lastly--let's not forget all the off-field bullshit, and we can only hope this next off season is deathly quiet and as downright boring as watching Jim Tressel's offense.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:52 PM ^
with the King of Belch....
November 14th, 2009 at 8:33 PM ^
Joe Pesci. I love it.
The best part of the movie, though, were the body suits Marisa Tomei wore. Hubba, hubba.
The best part of the movie, though, were the body suits Marisa Tomei wore. Hubba, hubba.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:46 PM ^
but Michigan is lacking in the secondary and the play-calling
November 15th, 2009 at 8:56 PM ^
Hmm, and I hate to hear it, especially with nothing to back up such sweeping and vague assertions. Perhaps we should just go with our guts and just keep things we "hate to say" to ourselves?
November 14th, 2009 at 6:17 PM ^
Weaker teams in general could do better early in the season and in the first half of games.
Reason: There is more uncertainty early in the season about how to play another team. Also, there is more uncertainty during the first half of a game than in the second, when one has feedback from the results of the first half. When there is less uncertainty in the second half, the favorite is much more likely to come out ahead during that half. (this is conjecture but could easily be tested)
Conclusion: If a team was the underdog for all of its games, it would have a better chance of showing good first-half season and first-half game results. UM, in the games you show was more often an underdog than not.*
It would be possible to test whether my idea about underdogs doing better early in the season and in first halfs, in general, is correct. If true, it would suggest that these results could be at least partly due to chance. Of course, poor half-time strategy changes could still magnify any disadvantage of the underdog.
*Why we are an underdog: By the Sagarin ratings we should be underdogs in 6/8 games we played we would have been an underdog on a neutral field. The game vs. PSU would be a tossup, if it were not for our home field advantage. The game vs. Ill on the road would be almost a tossup (-2pts); so we were not a clear favorite against anyone but Indiana, and we know how close that actually turned out.
PS. I understand why you did not want to include WMU, EMU, DSU—to avoid the problem of decreased motivation to score in the second half. However, just based on results alone this would undercut your theory a little, since
EARLY SEASON WMU 21,0 better first half
EMU 7,21 better second half
LATE SEASON DSU 49, 11 better first half
November 14th, 2009 at 6:34 PM ^
Smith played a really good game today, b ut no Minor means no Ball control, and the usual Badger "Shove it down their throat, then throw to the TE" offense wore down the defense and kept them on the field pretty much the entire second half. Not freaking out about today's game, Wisky is a decent team with some good Players and it was our young team on the road. I can deal with Losses like today (I'm not saying I like them, I'm saying I can deal with them). It's losses to teams like freaking Illinois and Purdue that drives me nuts.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:57 PM ^
since they are obviously at a talent deficiency, and can only hope to keep playing lucky. But our offense has been shut down in the second half as of late. 7 points 2nd half against WI, 12 against Purdue, and 0 against Illinois and PSU. RR has has not been able to outscheme any defense in the second half. Yeah some of this is inconsistency of youth, or having to adjust strategy and play from behind, but we can't just keep throwing this at the feet of the defense.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:11 PM ^
I trust the coaching staff because of their track records so don't think that's the case - I also trust that Barwis has increased our conditioning because Barwis porn has been beaten into my head. The only thing I can think of is inexperience - with a younger team, you can run fewer plays to surprise the other team, meaning they have wider latitude to adjust at the half than you do. Not sure if there's anything in the UFR to justify this thought, but otherwise, it'd have to be one of the other two (which would raise serious misgivings about the coming years). I choose to blame the factor that looks like it'll at least improve with time - ?
November 14th, 2009 at 7:24 PM ^
Stanzi was a 2nd year starter, Juice a 4 yr starter, Clark a 5th year senior, Elliott a 5th year senior, and so on.
They know how to read D's and find the weak spots (and there are many!). Even Tolzein today has a great line, a monster back, a great TE, and some good WRs. Give Tate that to work with and he'd be in a bowl game, too.
Next season, we'll be seeing some new starters at Illinois, PSU, Purdue. If Charley gets canned, maybe Jimmah will go pro.
Two problems that don't seem to be going away --- glaring gaps in zones (where the F is the safety!) and slow getting outside on sweeps. Speed at LB helps with the first, getting Woolfolk back to safety and having Emmy start next yr (after special teams time) should help a bit. Warren and Turner at CB could be OK.
We also get a bye week next year in mid-October before we play the PSU game.
We'll know just what we have when we play MSU and Iowa home back-to-back 10/9 and 10/16. This year it was towo bitter road losses. Next year????
November 14th, 2009 at 7:14 PM ^
We have the reputation of fading, going in the tank, whatever you want to call it...teams that play us don't lose confidence against the 2009 team 'cause they know they are always in the game.
Hey, I was happy with 21-17 at half and thought we'd still lose but not 45-24. This was a bad match-up for an under-manned defense that is light on talent and depth.
Unless we pull off one of those rare miracles, the toughness and focus will have to happen during the off-season and the spring drills. And the only way that other teams will know that we "are that fading, choking 2009 team" IS WHEN WE PROVE OTHERWISE in 2010.
The whole season was defined during that 1st and goal situation at Illinois. We score there, I think we win the game and the Purdue game, lose this week, and then are 7-4 going vs. OSU. Unfortunately, we're dealing with 18-21 yr olds here. The psyche is really bad right now. It doesn't get cleared up very easy. Next year, we'll need a similar play go in our favor to turn the momentum around. Our players don't believe good things will happen to them in '09.
Next year's seniors will have to take charge in 8 days. That starts with Warren, who I expect to be back. Schilling, too. I love both Brandons this year and don't blame them a bit. They did their best to help put this team in position to win the Purdue game. No shame there.
Also, I don't think firing ANYONE right now makes sense. Honestly, if we stumble to 5-7 or 6-6 next year, RichRod and his entire staff will be axed. We've had 4 DCs in the last 5 yrs. Other than the 2006 team for 11 games and a few nice showings for the 2007 team, we have had a poor D. Firing even Hopson doesn't make sense given that it is all or nothing next year for the staff.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:31 PM ^
we don't have a nickel or dime package and if we blitz the safeties are toast. The opposing team feels us out during the first half and picks us apart in the second.
The coaches are handcuffed to do much due to talent and size issues.
Bigger,smarter players and maybe a new LB/S coach is needed.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:42 PM ^
... it seems like a convergence of a variety of factors. For example, I find Brian's Rock/Paper/Scissors metric an interesting, albeit slippery, subject for study. Do we find ourselves at the losing end of schemes more often than not? If so, does a large RPS deficiency point to a coaching, or to a talent, imbalance or, as is most likely, a combination of the two? So, if in a game against Purdue, the defensive coordinator continues to play his best corner 7 to 10 yards off the line of scrimmage such that Purdue is able to run approximately 50 simple ten yard out patterns, does that mean: a.) the coaches are stubborn; b.) the coaches are afraid of playing press because it means a lot of broken coverages (they don't trust a particular player); or c.) every attempt at one kind of defense exposes a different problem somewhere else.
The same question could be applied to the offense, where Wisconsin continually brought up their safeties to stop the run, essentially daring Michigan to go over the top - something that we rarely did. Does this mean that the coaches don't yet trust Forcier/the receivers?
No doubt the defense has all the issues that others have raised, but it would be interesting to be able to quantify the plusses/minuses involved in coaching decisions.
More RPS analysis, anyone?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:54 AM ^
but I don't think the line was protecting Forcier enough to try it. Molk's injury was devastating; as RRod said even b/f the season started, this team just doesn't have the depth to sustain injuries at virtually any position.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:42 PM ^
Tim highlighted in the presser notes that RR said there wasn't a lot of time for halftime adjustments during halftime.
While I generally give him the benefit of the doubt, I call bull on this one. 20 minutes is plenty of time to make adjustments, IMO.
The "better teams later in the season" issue also falls apart.
Iowa > Penn State
Notre Dame = Wisconsin
Michigan State > Purdue
Indiana >/= Illinois
With that being said, I tend to agree with Michelin's (purely observational) theory. It would be interesting if somebody could study this more in-depth
November 14th, 2009 at 9:29 PM ^
I take issue with the argument that the teams in the second half of the season are worst than in the beginning:
Iowa ~= PSU -> Iowa has been winning with smoke and mirrors all year, and lately the offense has regressed even further with Stanzi injured. Plus, Iowa beat UM by 2 at home and PSU crushed UM on the road by 25.
Notre Dame = Wisconsin -> Notre Dame has a horrible defense (statistically about as bad as UM's), and Wisconsin has been playing really well in recent weeks.
MSU > Purdue -> Maybe, both of those games were close. I'd say MSU ~= Purdue, despite winning today.
Indiana >= Illinois -> This is about right, though Illinois has played better in recent weeks.
I think the teams have gotten a bit better in the second half of the year while this team has gotten worse because of lack of talent, some poor coaching decisions, the loss of Cissoko, and the snowball effect of the losing streak.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:30 PM ^
After seeing Notre Dame last night, I agree with you there.
Iowa has beaten Penn State the last two years; They have the same record overall, won head-to-head, and put up a better fight than PSU against the bucks.
The point wasn't to say that the teams in the 2nd half were worse, just that they weren't better (or at least noticeably so), as people are using the argument that "our schedule got harder."
November 14th, 2009 at 7:37 PM ^
got harder.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:30 PM ^
I could go through the litany of reasons why we're not a good second half team but really the only thing you need to know about this team is that the offense is very young, moderately productive but inconsistent, while the defense lacks depth and talent. And one week from now it will all mercifully end. What else is there to say?
November 14th, 2009 at 10:48 PM ^
You can stil say GO BLUE regardless of what the score at the end of the game is!
November 15th, 2009 at 5:26 PM ^
teams have seen Michigan's playbook in its entirety as the season progressed. We're not throwing anything at them that they haven't seen already and practiced for. We are essentially counting on mostly freshmen and redshirt freshmen to out-execute more experienced players on opposing defenses. And whatever opposing defenses may be doing wrong in the first half, they are able to make a few small adjustments for the second half and have much more success. Next year's offense, IME, will be leaps and bounds better than this year because the playbook will be much more diverse and players will have more experience.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:23 AM ^
Please go through the litany of reasons as to why we're not a good second half team. I'm honestly curious, especially given that in the first half of the season, that didn't appear to be the case.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:16 AM ^
of the season are better than the first half. ND is in the midlle of their traditional November slide, EMU and WMU certainly weren't much competition and Indiana is much like us.
The big problem is we haven't improved since ND. Offensively about the same, maybe worse and the D has performed worse, partially players and partially coaching.
All-in-all, we're not a very good football team and PSU created the bluprint of how to beat us.
Hopefully, we get a miracle next Saturday so we can get the extra practice time and hopefully this team discovers an identity on defense beofre next season. Preferrably not one of making opposing offenses look like world-beaters every week.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:14 AM ^
Points scored by the offense alone (i.e., not counting defensive or kick-return points) in first half versus second half:
ND = 10, 21 [+11]
IN = 21, 15 [-6]
MSU = 6, 14 [+8]
IA = 7, 14 [+7]
PSU= 10, 0 [-10]
IL = 13, 0 [-13]
PU = 24, 6 [-18]
WI = 10, 7 [-3]
I realize defensive play figures into this, as the offense can't score when they're on the sideline watching the defense give up yardage on the field and time off the clock. However, there's no way to really sugar-coat the lack of offensive production the second half of games in the second half of this season.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:56 AM ^
pea gravel and broken glass. It don't taste good and it hurts.
But, so what? Seriously.
I have been entertained every game this season, win or lose. Even when the Wolverines look like a Little Rascals gravity powered downhill racer, it is still fun to watch. I mean, this team is doing things "HAVEN'T OCCURRED IN 60 YEARS! and "This is Wisconsin's greatest margin of victory EVA! and whatever else inconsequential trivial record some freakin nerd headed nerd pulls out of their narrow ass. Regardless of all that--even when it is just pure Roaring 20's style slapstick footbaw, it has remained fun to watch. I like this team. I like these corches. It will get better, even tho I can find nothing in my U of M fan agreement contract that promises they must. They will just do it FOR THE FANS!
Ipso Facto, whilst it is fun to dissect exactly why either team did whatever it did, 99% of it is utter dawg dukey and much like the Pcychic Network and junk. So, potato salad.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:48 AM ^
It has been a deadly perfect-storm-type combination of factors:
--Due to lack of depth, Michigan currently does not rotate normally at ANY position group, especially on defense.
--We still play a lot of freshmen and sophomores. Even Barwis can only push players to, but not beyond, the limits of the human body. The young'uns need time to grow, and there's no way around that.
--Injuries have thinned out the depth chart even more.
Conclusion:
We are playing very young players for far more minutes than what even veteran players would be playing on a fully loaded and healthy football team. Add to that the fact that the spread offense is designed such that the OTHER team should be gassed by game's end, however due to youth and lack of depth, our own guys are getting gassed by game's end. Over the course of a full season, the result is exhausted, worn-down players who don't yet have the experience to overcome the deadly combination of game-situation adversity + physical fatigue.
The good news: this is correctible over time via recruiting and continued development of current players.
The bad news: this doesn't help for Saturday's date with the HME (Hideous Minions of Evil) and their Supreme Commander, TSVO (The Sweater-Vested One).
It remains to be seen what Rich Rod will do at Michigan with a team that features junior and senior starters on both sides of the ball, plus adequate depth for normal rotation at all position groups. Available evidence from his resume is very encouraging. The question is: will the Michigan fan base have the patience to withhold judgment until the pond is fully stocked?
I, for one, hope so. This may not have been the quickest route to greatness, but it still may prove to be the best one. If we pull the plug on the Rich Rod era halfway through the re-building process, we could set ourselves back for many more years than necessary.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:51 AM ^
What bothers me is that we are getting worse as the season moves on. If we don't be Ohio State then really there was no improvement in our win loss record from last year. We essentially have 4 wins right now compared to 3 last year (Delaware State shouldn't count, last year we had a bye week in that slot). At this rate in 7 years we will be great!
I still have faith though that Michigan can win Saturday, its just disturbing how we seem to have gone backwards.
Comments