300 yards from a UM QB?

Submitted by Northville on November 1st, 2020 at 1:08 AM

Focusing on stat-nerd stuff vs. embarrassing 6th-year, home loss to in-state rival’s 1st-year coach, but how many 300-yard passing games have we seen at UM under Harbaugh? He came in as a hyped QB coach, but was this maybe the first 300-yard performance we’ve seen (50+ attempts noted)?
 

I’ve been a fan since the mid-70s, and 300-yard days are historically rare because of conservative tendencies, but they’ve been realllly rare lately, no? I guess I could dig through the Google somewhere, but some fans here may know off-hand... have we seen a few in the Harbaugh-era? This seems like the first. But I may be totally wrong. Or not.

Northville

November 1st, 2020 at 1:18 AM ^

Couldn’t wait, hit the Google, seems Shea had a few, Wilton and Jake too. Few and far between, but they pop up. Nothing to write home about... I do pine for the days when UM was sorta “QB U” and/or “RB U” or any sort of elite anything. But I’m getting old, don’t mind me.

Northville

November 1st, 2020 at 1:30 AM ^

Okay, more details, 10x total in the Harbaugh-era. Five in ‘15 and ‘16. Zero in ‘17 and ‘18. Four last year. And today.

Hope you enjoyed me talking to myself and now you know that 300-yards is a bit of an eyebrow raise. But maybe not quite as high as I’d thought. Maybe. Go Blue.
 

 

RobM_24

November 1st, 2020 at 1:34 AM ^

I just want to know why we have such a hard time getting passes deep. Even if it's just to put a scare in the defense or draw a PI. Or just to let me see how far Big Joe can chuck it. That all seems more worthwhile than slamming it between the guard and center with 10 defenders in the box. I don't think Milton was a big part of the problem today. I thought the neutered offensive approach was.

That said, I also know the Milton interceptions are probably coming, and possibly coming in bunches. He throws into tight windows and throws with a flight path and speed that a finger tip deflection or bounce off the chest plate could send it 30 feet into the air. However, if I have to lose I'd rather lose with 4 Milton INTs than with 20 wasted snaps on run plays that never had a chance. 

MountainDew88

November 1st, 2020 at 1:46 AM ^

According to my research, Joe Milton against MSU was the eighth time it has happened in the Jim Harbaugh Era.

- 2015: Jake Rudock (2), 440 @ Indiana, 337 vs. Rutgers

- 2016: Wilton Speight (2), 362 vs. Maryland, 312 vs. UCF

- 2017: 0

- 2018: 0

- 2019: Shea Patterson (3), 384 vs. MSU, 366 @ Indiana, 305 vs. Ohio State

- 2020: Milton (1), 300 vs. MSU

SBayBlue

November 1st, 2020 at 2:18 AM ^

Yes, Milton was not the problem today. It's his second start, ladies and gents, and he threw for 300 yards and ran for close to 60. He's not polished, but has the physical tools to get better, as the game slows for him and he makes better reads.

The cornersbacks looked atrocious, Don Brown made no noticeable adjustments, and the play calling was very bad.

I believe we all know where the fault lies here. Coaching.

 

Gulogulo37

November 1st, 2020 at 4:10 AM ^

On Twitter, Space Coyote talked about how the Gattis RPO offense relies on threatening the edges as "blocks". But they basically refused to threaten the edge even though State was focused on shutting down the RB game up the middle. Seemed it would have been a great time to run the arc package, but I guess they didn't wanna run Milton for some damn reason. I still haven't been able to watch the game yet, but it seemed there were lots of 3rd and longs. You're not gonna be successful often in those situations. Also, Urban said WRs couldn't get separation.

Michigan4Life

November 1st, 2020 at 10:40 AM ^

If you throw 51 times, I better hope he throws for 300 yards but it was not a good performance since it's less than 6 ypa. Good QBs averaged more than that in a game.  I thought MSU put out a great gameplan against Michigan and baited Milton into throwing to their coverage which he did but he got away since his arm is so strong and MSU lacked the athletes to pull it off.