Derrick Green and the running game.
September 14th, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^
Yeah, if anything POWER to zone takes pressure off of the OL and puts it on the RB as far as split second decisions go.
September 14th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
Is that Bing Crosby I hear?
September 14th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
When we can run the ball against good competition then I'll be impressed , but running against teams we should dominate isn't much to be excited about
September 14th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 16th, 2014 at 10:41 PM ^
As in "Buck Barry's Buckaroo Rodeo"? As a kid, I was on that TV show in the studio audience. Didn't get picked to play any of the kids games for prizes on the show, though :-(
September 14th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
Better counterpoint...
This is one of those cases where I completely agree with both and the thoughts themselves disagree with each other.
I do want to see us run well vs. a decent team. But then again, we did suck last year at running against ALL teams. Including the bad ones.
September 14th, 2014 at 5:13 PM ^
Much like the first game, I am encouraged by some of the things that I saw. However, just like the first week I need to see how we do against better competition in order to accurately gauge the progress. Both Miami, Oh and App St. were not high level opponents. Let's see how it goes against Utah.
Consider it cautious optimism!
September 14th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
Progress!
September 14th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
Also, our failure to run against a good team (ND) still looked a LOT better than our run failures did last year (such as MSU). Even against ND, the running backs each went for over 20 yards, some holes were there, and serious TFL on handoff plays were rare. Granted, we didn't run the ball well against ND, but that still was a major improvement from last year against tough competition.
There's no question the running game has improved, and our highly touted young offensive linemen are starting to look the part. This is as much as we could have hoped for in the first few games under Nuss, and justifies the firing of Borges completely IMO.
September 14th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 10:53 AM ^
But at least it's better than not being able to run the ball against teams Michigan should dominate.
September 14th, 2014 at 10:54 AM ^
Actually, when you consider that wet had only 1,634 (per the stats archive) net rushing yards last year and, in three games this year, we're at 729 net yards, that's actually quite the turnaround. That's 44% of last year's production in just three games - an OC and scheme change and compared to what it had been, the results are encouraging. This is especially true when, as Brown Bear mentions, we weren't doing this almost regardless of competition last year.
September 14th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
And this time the rushing yardage is overwhelmingly coming from the tailbacks. it's not due to our QB having to play heroball.
September 14th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 5:18 PM ^
After I got home from the game, I re-watched it and was very happy with how D. Green was hitting the holes. He was making his decisions quickly and accelerating through the holes, which was worlds better than he has been. I chalk it up to experience and want to see him continue to progress.
Regardless of my prior sentiment about the coaching staff, the only way to see progress on both sides of the ball is sticking with the plan. Stay aggressive on defense and the DBs WILL get better. On offense the zone blocking and D. Green will get better the more opportunities they have.
September 14th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
CMU -52
ND -82
Akron -103
-237 total : 348 total yards rushing.
versus:
App S. -9
ND: -5
Miami: -52
-66 total: 660 total yards rushing.
That's a pretty massive difference. Green has 332 yards on the season alone.
September 14th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^
Green is on pace to have a good year, dare I say 1000 yards? The line, while not dominating, is at least showing itself to be serviceable. Next year, however, it should be pretty good, with all starters returning (and having at least a season of in-game experience) and a number of backups with experience.
September 14th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^
Not that I think that does anything, of course.
But still knock on wood.
September 14th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
What's really telling is the tailback numbers. Last year through 3 games our backs had gained 338 yards while Gardner had 237.
This year our backs have gained 657 yards to 39 for Gardner. I find that very encouraging. I don't mind having Gardner run now and then, but asking your QB to be your leading rusher can take its toll on him physically. Tailback carries seem more "sustainable".
September 14th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^
Thanks for posting these stats. Its pretty important to realize when improvement is actually taking place in measureable ways. Rushing yards is an obvious indicator that the line and the backs are doing better. The split between the QB and RB yards is also a huge indicator that we are at least moving in the right direction.
A lot has been made by some posters that the team isn't imporving, but it obviously has improved in some areas. It is also obvious that massive amounts of improvement are needed to compete against the best competition we face. And that really is what we all care most about. Whether this imporvement will make a difference in the win/loss columns remains to be seen. Is it getting better? Yes. Is it good enough? Not even close. Next week is huge!
September 14th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^
And how much of that was Gardner? If you just compare our running back yards to last year, I'm sure it looks even better. Being able to run better without having to send your QB screaming into enemy territory every third play is even better than it looks here.
edit: sorry I see others beat me to this point. But it's a good point! The gigantic improvement in the running game seems obvious, although App St / Miami caveats apply.
September 14th, 2014 at 1:45 PM ^
9 lines. Beep, boop, beep, whirrr.
September 14th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
One thing our team can do is move the ball and that is a good sign to see.
September 14th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^
Ty Isaac was clearly the best runner in yesterday's game. Mike Weber was close.
No, Green had a nice game and broke some tackles. It is telling in the live chat a few of us were in shock he did break tackles. Not that kids dont grow and improve but that was something you'd think would have happened here and there along the line before yesterday. If that continues it will be a very good sign. Also his vision seemed to go from "welp" to "average". Let's see how how he does when competition steps up - so far his best games have been App State and Miami OH.
September 14th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^
I thought we would be able to cause more turnovers. But, most of all I was hoping for less mistakes from the offense.
September 14th, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
The luck part for sure plays a role. Dymonte had the FF yesterday and J.Clark was right there, but unfortunatley Miami had a lineman on the ground right next to it so he had no chance. The ball bounces a different way, a dude isn't looking in the right spot, could've been different.
September 14th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 3:56 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 4:00 PM ^
I mean, Lewis had a chance to catch it, but it was tipped by the Miami receiver, IIRC. It's pretty tough to keep a bead on a ball when it's tipped at the last second.
September 14th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
There's a reason season predictions always take into account TO margin and compensate for regression to the mean accordingly. TO's are very close to random and they are extremely high variance. We've played 2 good games and 1 bad game, with two of those having weirdly bad TO margins. If we can approach average with regards to turnovers (and we are likely to), we'll start passing the eye test a whole lot better. We look good but not great in every other metric.
September 14th, 2014 at 5:41 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
is the fucking score. It matters absolutely not one jot that you can gallop up and down the field if you can't put the ball across the correct goal line. Let's all be clear about something, shall we? There is no column for moral victories, no column for good intentions, and certainly no column for oops, we were so unlucky giving up those turnovers.
September 14th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 12:49 PM ^
I doubt you were saying that at halftime yesterday.
September 14th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^
encouragement might be a mistake. But I don't think you can discount players getting their assignments and the opportunity to obtain reps, even against a bad team. Nor can Green's obvious improvement be discounted.
I also think that Bear (above) gets it about right re: our probably having a pretty good D, etc. But through the bad game/time management going back to Penn State last year, the Gibbons affair (not all his doing), calling out the fans, the hemming and hawing, the looks of confusion, the hapless clapping, the needless denial of info about injuries. . . Hoke has lost me a little. I've tried to remain agnostic, but I realized yesterday, I just don't think he's the guy. Make him the D line coach, and let he and Mattison give us the best D in football, but let's get some young visionary blood in here, somebody who recognizes the importance of tempo and adapting the kicking game (for example), and let's keep growing. I have no doubt that Brady has done some good things for the program, love his sincerity and love for the school. But we've had enough time to assess his abilities and limitations.
September 14th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
September 14th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^
And I know people weren't completely happy with the outcome at halftime, but Miami spent much of the day with 8 in the box (at times 9) and Michigan was just really vanilla in it's play calling. Even the pass concepts were very vanilla. When Miami kind of spread out to help out on the edge, Green started getting chunks. By the second half when Miami said "no more chunks", Michigan just kept running into a stacked box with at least moderate success.
I know people don't like running into an 8 man box, but sometimes you have to. It can still be blocked in a zone scheme, you just have to do your job. For the most part Michigan at least did that (DG and some of the linemen didn't consistently do a great job of identifying the walk-up safety at times, and that hurt them with some of their line checks, but other than that they got into assignments, which is improvement from last year).