The Athletic on 2021 Michigan Football
The Athletic has a long piece (paywalled, I presume) on the team’s strengths, weaknesses, and Harbaugh. The conclusion is Michigan is more likely to finish 7-5 than 10-2. Link:https://theathletic.com/2510677/2021/04/19/jim-harbaughs-2nd-act-or-last-stand-michigan-enters-pivotal-season-with-qb-defense-questions/
Honestly, I think 7-5 is closer to the best case than worst.
Fo anyone negging this... please go through the schedule game by game and tell us all where you see more than 7 wins.
There are only two teams on the schedule next year that I look at and say I'm not concerned about. NIU and Western. The rest all concern me to some degree. Even Nebraska, simply due to the fact that its on the road, will probably be at night, and I have had little to no faith in Michigan's ability to execute well on the road for over a decade. Yeah Nebraska sucks, but I didn't see much last season that indicated Michigan was in a much better off position than them.
Not saying Michigan will only win two games next year. But given how much of a disaster last year was, given how they went to triple OT with a god awful Rutgers team and got punk'd by a bad MSU team, I have a hard time seeing better than 7-5 next year. OSU and Wisconsin are guaranteed losses, PSU is no better than a coin flip and is more than likely a loss, MSU is on the road and has the momentum after what they pulled off last year, Northwestern has a good team that always gives Michigan problems, IU has gotten past its mental Michigan hurdle and is arguably a better team right now, and Maryland has got talent so who knows how that'll pan out. And then Washington is the second game of the season. Better than it being the first but Michigan will still be a team trying to figure things out.
There's gonna have to be a lot of lucky bounces or serious progression on both sides of the ball for me to feel like this team has a real shot at winning ten games. There's question marks all over the place.
Here's the thing.
I live in SEC country, and I make fun of the Kentucky fans who spit out how awesome the SEC is, every year. It's like, they say the names and then wait for a ooooh afterwards.
Just because the front of the jersey says something....does not mean they will be awesome. Just because they were awesome last year....doesn't mean they'll be awesome this year. Vice versa.
How about looking at our schedule and instead of looking at "auto loss", "coin flip", or "Win"....look at the returning players, from each team and making a legitimate assessment? Then, look at the incoming Freshmen, and see what qualities are there?
I think it's hilarious that Mike Hart was praised for what he did for Indiana, but people don't see his loss being a hindrance on Indiana's running game. How nobody looks at the players who graduated as a loss for that team. Like, Indiana has been recruiting at such a high level and are just reloading or something. Lol
Did anyone happen to notice what happened to Indiana once Penix went down? They were a totally different team, and weren't very good. Why do our injuries = excuses and everyone act like we are what our post injuries results are, but Indiana was hot garbage after Penix went out.....and everyone just disregards that? ?
Look at each team, and make an honest assessment, based on the roster.....not the name on the front of the jersey. Ooohhhh.....Wisconsin. "Auto loss". That's ridiculous. They might win, but it's not an "auto loss" simply because they are Wisconsin.
Most Kentucky fans I know have started looking forward to football season when they used to be diehard hoops fans. It’s as if their program has switched its identity. Sound familiar?
My wife is a die hard UK fan. She has zero interest in the football team, other than...."they will be ok, but no better than 8-5 or 7-6. That's still good, but not going to win anything."
She generally dismisses the past season, due to Covid. Which....I don't see Covid causing UK's problems. I see the 1 and done strategy biting them in the ass, without the same level of players as in the past. Yes, maybe, the Covid season didn't allow those players to gel, but it wasn't as detrimental as it was to football teams. However, her friends all feel the same as she does.
She's perfectly content with an 8-5 football season, because she's realistic and knows that there are too many juggernauts standing in UK's way.....that's what she says, anyway. Lol
Guess it depends on the fan, same with Michigan. Some fans are diehard Michigan football fans and it doesn’t matter what the basketball team does or is projected to do, it’s still all about football. I have seen an increase in Kentucky football fandom on Facebook and social media and a little dismay with the basketball team. It’s never gonna swing the pendulum far enough to flip the fandom, same with Michigan but it is interesting to listen to the parallel grumblings.
Wisconsin is an auto-loss until our d-line proves that they can stop their run game. I see no reason to think they can. So, an auto-loss it is. Wisconsin has had a stout run game and massive o-line for the last 25 years. Don’t even ask me who is returning for them. It doesn’t matter.
When was the last time Michigan won in Madison? 2001. Auto loss
Well....by that logic, then Wisconsin was an "auto win" for us, last year.
Since Harbaugh has taken over
2016: (At home) Win 14-7
2017: (At Wisconsin) loss 10-24
2018: (At home) Win 38-13
2019: (At Wisconsin) loss 14-35
So....the "auto loss"...."when was the last time Wisconsin won in Ann Arbor?" could have been equally stated. Yet, Wisconsin won in 2020 (albeit, with no fans in the stands).
So.....no. Wisconsin isn't an "auto loss", by any stretch of the imagination.
So.....no. Wisconsin isn't an "auto loss", by any stretch of the imagination.
Part of me agrees. Same thing with PSU. However, things seem to have changed post OSU 2018. 2019 was a bit of a struggle against Wiscy & PSU. UM came on strong vs PSU in the second half, but Wiscy was ugly. If we turned it back around in 2020 I'd be on board with UM always wins at home, but not only didn't we win but we looked the worst we've ever looked. It seems like Wiscy & PSU are going to be heavy favorites against UM next year. UM continues to out recruit both programs, but UM has a QB, DT, and CB problem. Those teams may not be elite teams, but they also don't seem to have the glaring weaknesses UM does. They seem to have a better identity and system and have done a better job retaining and developing their players.
April 19th, 2021 at 10:22 PM ^
And if we do that, we see we finally have a solid qb, at the most important position.
Thought we went awry when Harbaugh lost confidence in Speight, which I thought was premature. We were right there. And he was a solid presence and still young. I bet if he could do it over again he'd have stuck with Speight. Shea wasn't bad however.
Have faith in McNamara.
They were a totally different team, and weren't very good
The problem for us is we were very bad last season. Hell, Wisconsin was mediocre last year and they beat the shit out of us.
The fact is we were a bottom half Big Ten team last season (and thats putting it quite kindly). It would take a massive improvement to compete for a title, and I dont see any evidence of that.
Comments that act like Northwestern has been athorn in our side just drive me crazy. We haven't lost to them since 2008! And what momentum does MSU have in the series? What??? I understand the reasons for pessimism but get a grip
Where do you see 5 guaranteed losses?
Ohio state and Wisconsin duh
Penn state was a tire fire last year too
Nebraska? Maryland? Michigan state? sure we could lose all of them but Are those supposed to be guaranteed losses?
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the wheels fall off, but I would be less surprised to see another 1-2 loss season going into Ohio state
Penn State was a tire fire and still went on the road and beat Michigan by double digits last year. I don't put much stock in Penn State's shittiness last year when comparing it to Michigan because Michigan wasn't any better off.
Couple that with going to State College next season, in what will almost certainly be the White Out night game, and yeah to me that's almost certainly a loss. Not guaranteed like OSU, but probably a 75% chance of a loss as things stand now.
Not being pessimistic, just looking at what we have in the cupboard, I think 1-2 games over .500 is about right.
We still have no known capable starting QB. We still have no known 3 down RB. We give away our running plays by which back is in the backfield. And from the vast majority of reports I've read on the interwebs, our Defense is Rich Rod bad.
There is still hope. Always will be, but just looking at what we know (and not being overly pessimistic or wishful in our thinking) I think .500 or close to is what this team's talent is.
I haven't read anywhere that the defense is Rich Rod bad. I've only read that the defense is clearly better.
And Cade McNamara is better than you're thinking.
That is literally all Ive read re the D. Every offensive report on this here site is listed with the caveat that they may just look good because theyre going against our abysmal defense.
PSU was much better than its record, and came this close to beating Indiana on the road in the opener. I'd be very surprised if we win there. I think there are 9 winnable games on the schedule, but especially with the inexperience at QB I think 7-5 would be a decent result.
On the one hand UM has more talent than everyone on the schedule minus OSU. On the other hand last year proved that teams like PSU, Wiscy, Indiana & MSU don't need more talent to beat UM. I'd guess UM finds a way to beat 6-8 teams in '21, but I also think those will be dogfights unless a DT, CB, and QB make significant strides from last year and the team is a lot healthier.
PSU has just as much (or more) talent as Michigan does. They have been recruiting at a very high level, over the last 5-6+ years, and haven't had a bunch of transfers.
Michigan has out recruited PSU 5 of the last 6 years for an average ranking of 11 vs 15
Plus PSU has had more players in the portal than any other team in the Big Ten.
Other than that, your post is spot on.
How about you look at the rankings average after our 2017 class (almost entirely....including a 5 star) left early or transferred. How about you average in the amount of 4 stars that have transferred out of Michigan, in the last several classes. Yes, Penn State has had transfers, as well, but as my comment stated.....they have as much (or more) recruiting talent on the roster than Michigan does.
My point is....putting it as if OSU is the only team with more (or equal) talent, and PSU isn't as talented as Michigan is just skewing a narrative.
Plus.....recruiting talent is just one aspect. Returning/experienced recruiting talent is also super important.
How about you look at the rankings average after our 2017 class (almost entirely....including a 5 star) left early or transferred. How about you average in the amount of 4 stars that have transferred out of Michigan, in the last several classes.
You could also look at the team talent composite which takes into account the current roster each year and removes guys that transferred out and adds guys that transferred in. We can look that if you'd prefer for the last 5 seasons. While this does show PSU trending in a good way and UM in a bad I think this is basically the 2017 classes attrition. It still shows UM has had more talent the last 4-5 years on average and I'd guess UM leap frogs PSU in 2021 again now that the 2017 classes attrition has graduated out and won't negatively effect them as much. PSU has had their own transfer problems, just none as bad as UM's '17 class.
2020
- UM - #17
- PSU - #13
2019
- UM - #11
- PSU - #10
2018
- UM - #8
- PSU - #13
2017
- UM - #7
- PSU - #19
2016
- UM - #8
- PSU - #20
Average
- UM - #10.2
- PSU - #15
Ok, I'm sorry. When you said, "They... haven't had a bunch of transfers."
I thought you meant - They haven't had a bunch of transfers
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the difference between #11 and #15 is much of a difference at all in recruiting rankings. And again correct me if I'm wrong, but much of Michigan's higher average is due to larger recruiting classes. So, in that case, Kentuckiana's point about the similar talent is not incorrect and I'm not sure why you are making it out to be such a big deal.
So, in that case, Kentuckiana's point about the similar talent is not incorrect and I'm not sure why you are making it out to be such a big deal.
If he said PSU had similar talent I would not have disagreed. But he was arguing against my point that UM has more talent than anyone minus OSU by saying PSU has "the same (or more) talent than UM". Now, does that mean a whole lot? No I don't believe it does. However, the fact is UM has out-recruited PSU consistently during JH's time. And, the fact is UM has had more talent than everyone minus OSU. They don't have a lot more talent than PSU, but they have had slightly more consistently over JH's tenure. This also highlights the fact that JH does not beat teams of the same or better talent and even struggles with teams he is slightly more talented than, highlighting the overall coaching problem. Other teams do more with less.
April 19th, 2021 at 10:28 PM ^
Because we get WR, LB, DE, OG recruits over and over and half leave.
PSU has just as much (or more) talent as Michigan does
Let's take a look at the last 5 cycles.
2021:
- UM - #10
- PSU - #22
2020
- UM - #14
- PSU - #15
2019
- UM - #8
- PSU - #12
2018
- UM - #22
- PSU - #6
2017
- UM - #5
- PSU - #15
Average
- UM - #11.8
- PSU - #14
On paper / recruiting stars, we have more talent. That is a fact. When it comes to what actually matters, taking that talent and making it correlate to on field performance, we do not have more talent than many teams in the B10.
Harbaugh got amazing on field performances by Hoke's recruits, but has failed to have consistent overall team talent performances on the gridiron with is own recruits. Not mad....just the way things have panned out thus far.
This is spot on and people here probably won't like it.
I think this is the point those other posters were alluding to though.
We have more on-paper talent than anyone not named Ohio State. Therefore there’s no reason we should be losing, let alone getting curb-stomped in conference games...yet we still are. I.e. the problem isn’t recruiting stars
April 19th, 2021 at 10:08 PM ^
....it is coaching, player development, general organization. Yup, after 6 years of Harbaugh this is what we have, thanks a ton Warde!!!
On paper / recruiting stars, we have more talent. That is a fact.
That's all I'm saying.
When it comes to what actually matters, taking that talent and making it correlate to on field performance, we do not have more talent than many teams in the B10.
Bingo, the problem is not talent. It's some combination of ID the right talent and developing and retaining them...ie coaching.
IMO 7-5 is the ceiling and better hope we are at least 3-1 coming out of that Rutgers homecoming game. We get 2 of the 3 best teams from the B1G west and have one of the toughest schedules in the nation. The team has less experience and arguably less talent than last years (2-4) team and are a couple of injuries at key positions from being able to compete enough to win games in the second half of the season.
I predict 4-8 with a 6 game losing streak to end the season. I think the losses will snowball as pressure on Harbaugh and coaches increases with the losses like in Hoke's last year plus Harbaugh's Michigan teams always fade in the second half of the season.
WMU (H) [W]
Washington (H) [L]
Northern Illinois (H) [W]
Rutgers (H) [W] (win in overtime 2020)
Wisconsin (A) [L] (loss in 2020)
Nebraska (A) [W]
Northwestern (H) [L]
MSU (A) [L] (loss in 2020)
Indiana (H) [L] (loss in 2020)
PSU (A) [L]
Maryland (A) [L]
OSU (A) [L]
Isn't it universally agreed that we have much more experience this year than last and that last year we fielded one of the least experienced teams in the country. Before we lost our two best offensive AND defensive lineman to injury?
If you are referring to that one returning experience chart I think that is misleading because the guys that have experience (by whatever metric that is) is very little. Just look at all the players we've lost to the transfer portal and/or draft. Also, even the guys that played all last year only have 6 games under their belts - How many guys on this team have started for more than one season? How many guys started games last year but are at a new position etc.
Not sure if you read the article or not but they specifically said the RB room could be the best in the conference, our top receivers look legit, and that we have more offensive line experience than anyone else in the Big Ten. Those are excellent starting points. I think the offense will be explosive and that the defense will be an unknown but will probably get better as the season goes along, as the players learn the system, which will be essential as the schedule is once again backloaded. Transfers look bad but guys don't transfer if they are tearing it up. I wish Charbonnet and Jackson were staying but I am not sure any of the transfers are irreplaceable.
I think they offense will be a shit show with no coherence or creativity. Like last year when it looked like coaching was a large part of the problem. And the HC and OC are the same.
I think a part of it was both qb's were hurt too some extant. Milton played through a thumb injury and cade tried playing the Penn st game with his shoulder injury.
That's my biggest complaint about Harbaugh. He likes the toughness of the qb's but it's to the detriment of the team. A few years ago with Patterson and his ribs, why not play Dylan? Speight had a shoulder injury, if you someone else playing qb against osu that could throw the ball maybe they win if not for 2 picks by him.
Anyway, the offense can look very good if the qb is healthy and can throw. Milton was healthy against Minnesota then couldn't throw accurately because of his thumb. Cade looked really good against Rutgers and was good until he messed up his shoulder early in psu game. They are talented enough to have a very good offense. The 2 games where the qb playing was healthy it was a very good offense.
I haven't done the numbers on this so I am not saying this is wrong but it just doesn't feel right - Question is how can a team go from being the most inexperienced one year, play only 6 games then lose 19 guys to the portal, lose multi year starters like Paye, McGrone, Collins, Eubanks, Evens, Kemp, Mason, Nordin, etc to the draft be the most experienced the next year? What was the metric - someone played in one game = season?
All you have to do is look at the 2021 projected starters and realize these are names you haven't seen get a lot of playing time. If we are the most experienced team in the B1G then what does that say about our talent acquisition/retention because we definitely aren't the most talented.
There are probably 2 guys in our entire starting lineup (offense and defense) that would start on OSU.
Good start to the post, then lost me at "offense will be explosive". It's more likely that the offense will be implosive. We literally do not utilize a modern philosophy of offense.
Where are all these experienced players we have lost?
QB - our most experienced player, Dylan McCaffrey had a total of 35 attempts for 242 yards. McNamara has 71 attempts for 425 yards. Plus we bring in a transfer who has thrown for over 5000 yards.
RB - Yes, we lost Charbonet, Turner and Evans, but Haskins had more yards rushing last year then the entire rest of the running back room and Corum returns with valuable experience.
WR - We lose our third leading receiver. He came into the season with with a grand total of 142 yards receiving,
TE - Yes, we do lose our most experienced tight end.
Offensive line - yes, we lose Jaylen Mayfield who came into the season with 13 career starts, but he missed more than half the season with an injury. Stueber, Zinter, Vastardis, Filagia and Barnhart all got there first extensive experience as starters.
I really can’t see how you argue that this offense is not more experienced than last years.
On defense, while we lost 9 guys to the portal, none of them were starters. Losing Cam McGrone, Kwitty Paye and Carlo Kemp undoubtedly hurts, but we are returning our for top tacklers in Josh Ross, Daxton Hill, Mike Barrett and Brad Hawkins.and 7 of our top ten tacklers when you add in Gray, Green and Upshaw. When all is said and done on defense, we are returning 8 of 11 starters (with the three losses being Paye and Kemp on the DL and McGrone at LB.
I really can’t see how you argue that this offense is not more experienced than last years.
It may depend on if they were assuming Covid opt outs, injuries, & transfers. 2020 may have looked differently if we had McCaffrey, Nico, Hayes, & Mayfield all season long. Same defensively with Thomas, Ross, Hutch, & Paye. That's a lot of missing production. Could McCaffrey have steadied the offense? Could Nico have given another dimension? Could Thomas have solved our crippling CB problem? Could health the the ends of both lines shore up the line of scrimmage? I'd guess to some degree yes. We certainly would have beat MSU. I also think we would have beaten PSU who did not look great in '20 either. But, I'm not sure about Indiana. And, Wiscy still looked pretty dominant against us. But, maybe a 4-2 season changes perspective a bit from a 2-4 one?
Isn't it universally agreed that we have much more experience this year than last and that last year we fielded one of the least experienced teams in the country.
Yes, and generally in the past when we've had a young team we struggled. In 2016 we had lots of upperclassman that went to the NFL. We won 10 games. In 2017 we were young and only won 7 games. 2017 was actually UM's most talented roster JH has had. They had the #7 most talented roster in the nation including Clemson & Oklahoma whom both made the playoffs. But, they were young. Guys like Gary, Bredeson, Lavert Hill, David Long, Devin Bush, Chris Evans etc. were all sophomores. Then, in 2018 they won 10 games again with largely the same guys a year older. It also didn't help that Speight got injured in the conference opener. But, you'd expect a better product in '21 than '20, but just because it's better doesn't mean it will be good. 7-5 is a lot better than 2-4.
I think this is a generally pessimistic take, but my main issue is with the last sentence. Do you consider the bowl game as part of the second half of the season? I view the bowl games as more akin to "playoffs" and end the season after the conference championship games. IMO, and based on this interpretation of the "season," Harbaugh's teams fading in the second half of a season seems an overreach. I'll add that I view fading as playing down to competition as opposed to just facing competition that is better than the team.
2015 - Generally better in the second half of the season until the shellacking by OSU;
2016 - Two losses in the second half of the season, I think we can characterize this as fading in that they should have beaten Iowa and OSU;
2017 - I have a tough time viewing this as fading - losses to #2 PSU; #5 Wisconsin; and #8 OSU with that team seems like they just played to their level and didn't really fade;
2018 - I would say this team was stronger throughout the second half of the season hence the excitement going into The Game. Then curb-stomped, but again, I don't really consider that fading.
2019 - I think this team got progressively better throughout the season. The Penn State loss at the midpoint of the season seemed to turn it around.
2020 - Can't really fade when the team is terrible throughout the season.
And because it seems necessary given the tenor of the blog at this point, I'll add that I am not happy with how Harbaugh has performed and am at a loss in terms of strategy for how the program should move forward.
Yes, I do count bowl games and games that we barely won (Indiana etc) so maybe it is also who we played and when but most good teams get stronger as the season goes on and I just don't feel like we do under Harbaugh or at least finish strong - we've lost the last two games every year except Harbaugh's first - winning the bowl game.
Yes, I do count bowl games and games that we barely won (Indiana etc) so maybe it is also who we played and when but most good teams get stronger as the season goes on and I just don't feel like we do under Harbaugh or at least finish strong - we've lost the last two games every year except Harbaugh's first - winning the bowl game.
One, no beats OSU other than Clemson & Bama. You can't look at what UM has historically and compare that to The Game. OSU never historically recruited top 3 classes every year and won 12-13 games every year. They are better than they've ever been meanwhile UM is the same as it used to be.
Two, you can look at the bowl games in a historical UM perspective becuase UM is what they've always been. They have traditionally struggled in bowl games. Carr had a good run in the 90s with bowl performances and OSU wins. He also underachieved a lot relative to talent and should have been in better bowls against better teams. But, minus the 90s UM hasn't traditionally done that well in bowl games...not as well as OSU has for example.
when you factor in the injuries, no way last year's time had more talent.