How good is Michigan? ESPN Insider conducted an anonymous survey of coaches

Submitted by Leaders And Best on

Not sure how much of paywalled stuff I can put here so I will just leave the link

The expectations for Year 1 of the Harbaugh era are being rapidly revised. Can Michigan challenge rivals Ohio State and Michigan State in the Big Ten East Division? How much should we buy into the past four weeks, as Michigan has defeated only one opponent (BYU) with a winning record? What's Michigan's ceiling this year, and what could stop the Wolverines from reaching it?

We asked coaches who have faced Michigan -- or soon will in the Big Ten -- to assess Harbaugh and the Wolverines as they prepare for their Big Ten home opener against No. 13 Northwestern. Coaches were granted anonymity in order to speak freely.

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/13817554/how-much-michigan-wolverines-improved-coach-jim-harbaugh

loosekanen

October 7th, 2015 at 1:37 AM ^

A lot of it is confirmation of what we're seeing in UFRs, that Michigan is prepared schematically and tough, especially on defense. Rudock gets some defense from one of the anonymous coaches as well. It sounds like the coaches profiled were the coaches at UNLV and/or Utah as they specifically mention Rudock's progression in the BYU game, Smith being a load and some other things that occurred in that game specifically. The head coach refers to Harbaugh as "Jim" very familiarly so maybe that's Whittingham. Who knows really. Any way you shake it, the view is positive.

RobinRedmond

October 7th, 2015 at 2:29 PM ^

"They're as good as anybody in the nation at matching their offense and defense together," a head coach who has faced Michigan said. "There's a lot of teams that go a million miles an hour and they hurt their own defense. But [Michigan] knows who they are. They're going to run the football, they'll huddle, they don't care about being ugly, they'll do it and they're so good on defense, it'll frustrate some teams.

"Even if they end up punting, they get two first downs, they'll make 25 yards, they'll take five minutes off the clock and then they're going to punt. They'll win a lot of football games doing that."

1464

October 7th, 2015 at 12:07 AM ^

I feel like Michigan is getting way too built up by the media.  I guess it is good for recruiting and all, but I feel like a loss or two and we go back to being considered underachievers.  I guess without high expectations you can expect complacency to sneak in and ruin things.

UMfan21

October 7th, 2015 at 12:18 AM ^

The truth is, despite our defense looking stellar, our offense is still a huge questionmark.  Many touchdowns have come from long plays that were more "lucky strike" or "bad defense" than any kind of really exceptional execution.

Our offense is still highly unpredictable, and those long plays won't always be there.  At some point we need to be more consistent and move the chains to drive the field for scores.  Until then, I am skepitcal.

Farnn

October 7th, 2015 at 12:29 AM ^

Our offense feels very controlled right now. Grind out drives, trust the defense to keep it close, throw in a wrinkle to get a big play when it's not expected. It's only 5 games and no good defenses since Utah, but they keep having new wrinkles and they keep leading to big plays. We'll see over the next two weeks just how sustainable it is but the trend has been solid so far. Coaches seem content to keep it very vanilla when they know the opponent is over matched.

Hail-Storm

October 7th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^

The way I see it, the coaching staff knows that they don't have to open the play book, so they continue to work on base plays and beating teams straight up.  I'm sure as the season progresses, we will see more variations and counters to the base plays as necessary.  

The passing game is still missing out of the base plays.  Guys are getting open, but we've seen very little in taking advantage of this. This is still the major fear with this offense, that they can't take advantage of those plays.  I understand that there has been some wind, but the weather doesn't get easier to play in from here.

The fact that the offense has been so effective without big plays shows a very consistant reliable offense, which is a good thing. Making big plays against undisciplined defenses is not really a long term game plan. 

LSAClassOf2000

October 7th, 2015 at 6:57 AM ^

I does seem that way really, that it is very controlled, but I tend to think a lot of that is the staff understands the abilities and limitations given the personnel and the stage they are at in the process of installing the system. We can talk about the lack of big plays and the number of trips to the red zone, but if they can take what they have right now - turn it into something that is very efficient when it is running on all cylinders - and grind it out, all the while with a defense that ensures you don't need to score impressive amounts of points to win, I don't mind that at all. As I said, it seems like the staff understands what it has, where they are at, and is even turning some deficiencies into strengths in some respects.

BlueMan80

October 7th, 2015 at 10:32 AM ^

Point of proof:

It's impressive to see how they are utilizing all of the offensive skill players this season.  Houma, Hill, Poggi, Johnson, Harris, Perry are all being used as role players instead of just relying on Kerridge, Butt, Smith, Chesson and Darboh.

They are playing a lot of guys, utilizing their individual skill sets, and getting the most out of them.  That's coaching.  Getting the most out of what they've got to win now.

bluinohio

October 7th, 2015 at 2:36 AM ^

totally agree, they've even mentioned that sort of thing on the podcast saying if the screen passes were removed, then Rudock's stats weren't that good.  couldn't you say that for just about any skilled position?  i mean, elliotts day doesn't look as good when you take out his 55, 65, and 75 yard runs.

wolverinestuckinEL

October 7th, 2015 at 5:30 AM ^

The screen passes were removed not because they are big plays but because they are all YAC and not a realistic indicator of how good the passing game is. They are a valid indicator of the offense but not really a good indicator of how Rudock was throwing the ball. And I don't think anyone dislikes the big plays its just that the offense struggled to consistently get first downs against Maryland. That is a problem if we can't sustain drives like we did against BYU going forward.

Ecky Pting

October 7th, 2015 at 8:40 AM ^

Because:

1) it implies that a pass was actually completed and

2) a pass was thrown sufficiently well to a receiver who was open enough to make a play after the catch.



Throwing a ball at a receiver's ankles, or to one with a DB on his back will nullify any YAC. This, a poorly thrown ball, even if complete, has a YAC opportunity cost...

LJ

October 7th, 2015 at 9:01 AM ^

That's true, but I think the idea is that those passes are very easy for the QB to complete, and also to get the YAC.  Screens are much more RPS dependant for their success, whereas fades, for example, are much more QB dependant for thier success.  Thus, when most of Rudock's passing yards come on screens, it distorts the stat as an indicator of how well Jake can do the difficult things we want him to do.

That said, the fact that screens are effective may mean that the defense is selling out on other stuff, and making all that other stuff (e.g., fades) more difficult.  So, that complicates the analysis as well.

Red is Blue

October 7th, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^

To me the point is that you can't just normalize for one factor, screeens.  If you take out the screens from Rudock's numbers and compare him to other qbs in different systems, that doesn't seem reasonable even if you take out screens from the other qbs.  Suppose the other qb operates in a passing spread, shouldn't there be some normalization of his numbers because of the nature of the system in which he operates?

CompleteLunacy

October 7th, 2015 at 8:08 AM ^

And id add..we've had these plays. Butt screen...Chesson jet sweeps...Smith's rumbling TD...etc



We've had big plays. We just haven't had a big play that is a deep pass yet. But I tend to think that is far more likely to change than not, especially as the players gain comfort and confidence in the system.



And I also don't like the "take that play away" game. Those screen passes still count. We already know Rudock's main problem this year has been throws greater than 15 yards or so. And yet they're still one TD away from 5-0 right now...patience, everyone. They're bound to hit a deep pass at some point...in Harbaugh we trust.

Moonlight Graham

October 7th, 2015 at 8:11 AM ^

we'll score the points we need with play CALLING not play MAKERS. Harbaugh, Drevno and Fisch will need to dial up the right play at the right time, like the double fake screen / pass to Khalid Hill that got us rolling against BYU or the jet sweeps against UNLV and Maryland. All the screen passes at the right times ... the 4th down coversion to Smith against Oregon State. The list goes on, and the offense has been executing them. 

I also remain skeptical, but less so. 

Bez

October 7th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^

I'm always skeptical of any team that has to rely heavily on screens.  I'm glad that they have been successful so far but those are the kind of plays that are the easiest for good defenses to take away once it's on tape.  Hopefully Rudock and the offense can start to get more consistent with the base plays, or Harbaugh/Fisch/Drevno are truly inventive enough to overcome the offense's deficencies.

trueblueintexas

October 7th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^

For the better part of the 90's and  early 2000's Michigan was known as one of the best screen teams in the country. That means they used them at the right time and executed them well. There were some pretty darn good teams during that time period and very few people would have claimed they were using screens to overcome offenseive deficencies. 

Just because two of Michigan's big plays against Maryland came on screens does not mean Michigan is relying heavily on screens. It means the coaches saw something, made the call and it worked. 

If Michigan was running 5 - 10 screens a game and getting 4 yards a pop I would be concerenced. I doubt Michigan has more than 3 - 4 in any game this year and they often times are going for good chunks of yards. 

charblue.

October 7th, 2015 at 12:10 PM ^

and the jet sweep were great calls for the situation and were well-executed. Otherwise, they don't go the distance. Don't complain that certain plays make the overall offense seem less productive, when before this game, Michigan was driving the ball on methodical marches to score and had only a handful of big plays.

In fact, teams game plan for explosion plays every contest to keep a defense off balance. Now, Harbaugh called certain things when the tendency of Maryland was to blitz, so that is why, for example, Drake Johnson went the distance on his catch. If you call it against the right pressure defense and you block it well at the point of attack, the play will go a long way, not necessarily a score.

Michigan needed to put some distance between it and the Terps last Saturday to keep the game in the rhythm of its control, and it took a few big plays to make it happen. But here's the thing Michigan scored 22 second half points, something it hadn't done in its previous games. And that made all the difference in the world. Michigan's offense is a work in progress, but each game will be different because each opponent presents different issues for the offense to overcome in order to score.

And so Michigan is always working on new ways to attack its next opponent. You wil see similar plays, sometimes with dissimilar blocking schemes but the same plays, and then tweaks off formations and late shiftng that forces the defense to react in a way that the blocking scheme is meant to take advantage of the late movement. It's up to the kids to execute. And that is why things haven't gone as smoothly as we like. But they'll get there.

Tater

October 7th, 2015 at 12:36 AM ^

The current situation is nothing like any of Rich Rod's teams.  Harbaugh has the full resources of the University, its boosters and its ex-players behind him.  He also inherited a roster that was recruited for the kind of ball he plays.  There are also a significant number of upperclassmen on the roster.

If anything, Michigan could turn out to be underrated right now.  If they win the next two, though, I have a feeling they will be ranked right where they belong.

JamieH

October 7th, 2015 at 10:15 AM ^

Rodriguez failed because he paid less attemtion to our defense than I do to the shows my kids are watching on Disney Jr.   The whole "Rodriguez only failed because he didn't have support" argument is tired.  Yeah, there were issues there.  They wouldn't have been a problem if Rodriguez hadn't repeatedly put the worst defenses in Michigan history out on the field. 

charblue.

October 7th, 2015 at 12:20 PM ^

It still requires cohesion to make it all work. But when you get great coaching and preparation, which we've seen from the first game, your team responds.

There were never any issues last year about player unrest. The team just didn't operate as effectively as it is now with more and better coaching talent available. And, there is no outsider problems impacting the program like last year.

Pundits are always playing catch-up. And because they want to sound smarter than they are, they then elevate the next great thing because they are afraid of missing the bandwagon after it gets rolling.

Michigan fans were uncertain what kind of team this would be and how it would play. So, I really think we should cut some slack here. It's reallt about the kids buying into the coaching and executing on game day. When that happens, you are bound to have success. The best thing now, is the confidence of knowing you will be prepared to win every game you play.

And even if you are considered an underdog, you feel like they are underrating your team's overall ability. I think the hype machine goes crazy if the Wolverines take the next two games.