Level of Concern With Running Game
So we saw a lot of positive things on Saturday, however the remaining item that is very concerning to me is the lack of running lanes that a o-line that should be very good is not opening up. To my untrained eye it looks like the lack of a pull threat is the main culprit as it is causing the o-line to be at a numbers disadvantage in the running game. You could see when Milton came in the running lanes started to open up and I think the defense was respecting the chance of a pull more. We are assuming the lack of a pull at this point is because Patterson is still banged up, and to me we are going to need to see the pulls at some point for this to be a good running game. Should the staff utilize more straight up power running to emphasize the strengths of the o-line and less RPO's?
September 30th, 2019 at 11:10 AM ^
Could be that they focused on the passing game and only put in basic run plays to keep some stuff off of film.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:55 AM ^
Seems no one ever considers this to be an option
September 30th, 2019 at 11:59 AM ^
This notion of "keep stuff off of film" has to go. When has this ever actually turned out to be the case 4 games into the season? Are we deliberately sucking at the run game because we're going to spring a new offense against OSU? You run the offense you designed and you run it almost all year-- the only exception would be if you start with a cupcake and have a big game after.
Still waiting on that brilliant Pepcat variation we're surely keeping under wraps until the OSU game.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:06 PM ^
Well, I do think we're going to see Shea keep it more often on the zone read. That will help the run game.
September 30th, 2019 at 1:45 PM ^
Rutgers also stacked the box often. The offense “every snap” video for this game (thanks, archive) frequently shows the OL with a hat on everybody and two Rutgers safeties in the hole. Initially, I thought the OL was doing poorly. They weren’t dominant, but they weren’t bad, and pass pro was excellent. I think Patterson had one hurry the whole game. The sack was on a scramble where he went OOB.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:23 PM ^
This. So much this.
I understand wanting to believe that we're going to unveil some brilliant scheme in a rivalry game, because...well...MSU had that one exceptional drive, and OSU seems to magically get better when they play us, and Iowa occasionally pulls magic out of its ass...
But that's not what we've been since, oh, probably 2006, when Carr was content to steamroll the first couple teams on the ground and then unleashed the passing game against Notre Dame.
I WILL believe that we can keep installing the new offense week to week, but yeah everyone seems to be waiting on those brilliant PepCat variations...
September 30th, 2019 at 12:53 PM ^
This.
I've never played but everything I've heard players and coaches say is "reps, reps, and more reps." Practice reps matter, game reps matter more, even vs bad teams.
Maybe certain plays or wrinkles are saved for a specific opponent or situation, but there's no way you're saving your bread and butter so that you can debut it against the best teams on your schedule.
Perhaps some of the former players here could comment on this. What was their experience as players when they played bad teams? Beat them with the plainest vanilla playbook possible, or use that game to get better at executing their core principles?
September 30th, 2019 at 2:34 PM ^
Remember last year coming into the OSU game, we all thought Michigan was going to break out all of the hidden secrets on O.... Turned out, there weren't any.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:11 AM ^
My concern is minimal. It's pretty clear Charbonnet is also banged up so they pulled him out when the game got out of hand, which is good. Charbonnet is clearly our best back, we need to keep him healthy.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:11 AM ^
At this point the best thing that can happen is that Michigan’s pass hame becomes threat number one, which will make teams respect the pass allowing Michigan’s backs to gain an extra yard or so per carry
September 30th, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
I do agree that I would like to see this offense be pass heavy, but I guess my concern against better opponents is a repeat of what we saw against Wisky where there was no effort made to establish the run. To me is not really the recipe to win against better opponents. The threat of the run still has to be there.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:14 PM ^
I think it was hard to establish the run when you get snowed under by a 21 point ham blasting on the other side of the ball. You can gameplan a run / pass balance ... But that goes out the window in catch up mode.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:37 PM ^
We weren't really running a true spread running game. The spread run offense is absolutely meaningless without the threat of the QB keeping the ball and running. Either they did not want to get Shea further injured, or they didn't feel the need to expose him against Rutgers, or both. My guess is that against Iowa we will see Patterson pulling or we will see something similar to last year's run game (meaning he's still hurt). I agree the holes were huge when Milton came in, but that may have also been the personnel out there.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:15 AM ^
We didn't break a ton of long runs against Rutgers. Which I suppose could be concerning. But Charbonnet, Haskins and Turner were regularly getting 5 yards. BVS and Wilson didn't have the best days, but the more talented guys were ok. I think it is something that could improve throughout the year. To the level we need it to? Not sure.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:16 AM ^
The run game, or lack thereof, was especially concerning against Rutger. They're the weakest opponent left on our schedule and we still couldn't do much.
My hope is that Charbonnet gets healthy and we'll be fine. If Patterson keeps his shit together we should be a pass first team with all of the WR talent we have.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:04 PM ^
This exactly. The lack of chunk plays from the running game suggest this isn't about failures of the OL to push around physically inferior front sevens. There is a design problem, and it's exactly what everyone thinks it is: the lack of a credible edge threat that is allowing EMLOS or whoever should be put into uncertainty shuffle mode to simply crash down from the edges.
This running game in the absence of QB pulls or other edge threats is worse than just lining up under center in the I and running power with Ben Mason or a blocky/catchy type leading the way. This running game can't work the way they're running it-- no amount of execution improvement is going to fix it. I'm perplexed.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:25 PM ^
The analysts on the post game show said both of UM’s opponents the last two weeks are setting up to stop the pass and not the run. Their words not mine but UM doesn’t have a big time threat at RB and so the last two weeks Wisconsin and Rutgers kept both safeties deep to help cover.
September 30th, 2019 at 1:33 PM ^
I would encourage you to watch the running plays and count how many blockers there are compared to how many defenders are ready to stuff the run. The lack of a ZR keeper is hindering the offense more than our RB ability.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:16 AM ^
The read option rush game relies on a QB keeper threat to be effective. Shea is injured and was not going to keep on a standard play. Rutgers just loaded the box. When Milton came in Haskins really moved the ball well because Rutgers needed to respect the Milton keeper threat.
Shea may be healthy enough to trap Iowa on a few keepers to open up the middle. If not, the run game will be non-existent as Iowa is stout against the run.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:20 AM ^
That is my concern, which is why I wonder if until the QB's are healthy enough to keep that maybe the staff should go with some straight power runs out of the Gun. I am pretty sure that was a component of Alabama's offense last year when Gattis was there.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:26 AM ^
I totally agree with you. Run more power plays out of the pistol. And set up a few play-action deep shots off the power look. It is in the offense, but they have only showed it at the goal line.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:20 AM ^
I feel like against Rutgers we were content to call Rock and run it into Paper over and over again. When we finally hit 3rd or 4th down and had to call Scissors for once, well, that's how you get a QB jogging into the endzone with no defender within 5 yards of him - 3 different times.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:34 AM ^
To be fair, of those 3 TD runs, one was a naked bootleg, one was a QB sneak, and one was a pass-play-turned-scramble. Those aren't plays that are going to sustain drives, they only worked because we were at the goal line. Everywhere else on the field, the threat of Shea running was virtually zero which is a problem when the run-offense is built off shotgun, read-option style plays.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:47 AM ^
Two naked bootlegs, don't forget Milton's. We burned them twice the exact same way: blasting into the middle of the line for two or three downs and then strolling in when we rolled it out.
You'd like those blasts up the middle to get it in. But maybe you can't when Rutgers is selling out to stop the middle to a degree that the Veteran of the Game could have successfully scored on the bootleg.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:21 AM ^
Nice job listening to the podcast and repeating the analysis as your own.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:24 AM ^
I actually haven't listened to the podcast but did I ever claim my analysis was somehow unique? It's a good discussion point though.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:23 AM ^
I was also thinking on the RPO's is the fact that the o-linemen have to hold up before blocking downfield if it's a pass part of the issue? Different than what they were used to with straight power when they could get shoot off the ball more.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:33 AM ^
I recall it is more outside zone blocking in the read option scheme which our OL has yet to master. They are built more for road grading power run plays and inside zone - they got good at that last year.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:24 AM ^
I don't know, seemed like at points that Michigan was getting a healthy 4-5 yards a carry. Wasn't a dominant day on the ground, and there weren't any big runs that I can remember, but the ground game was respectable.
Either way, the team's focus absolutely has to be in the passing game. You've got your three best weapons lining out wide. They're a big mismatch for almost anyone not wearing scarlet and grey. I liked what I saw this week in getting the passing game emphasized, getting all of those guys involved, because teams down the road are going to recognize that and back some guys off of the LOS, which in turn should open up more lanes in the run game and ultimately make the offense a more balanced attack.
If Michigan is to have any kind of chance on November 30th, the passing game has to be at its absolute best.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:27 AM ^
That is true, but I feel like some of those 4 or 5 yard runs were a lot of effort by the RB more so than great blocking. Still missing those runs where the RB isn't contacted until the second level.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:29 AM ^
I agree here. Run game is a concern based on first three games, but I thought they ran it down Rutgers throat for the most part with like 8 different backs. No huge runs to inflate the yards per carry, but I thought they paved them pretty well.
Rutgers caveats apply to all of this though. They fired the coach the day after the game. All was not well even by Rutger standard.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:17 PM ^
Someone shared a tweet earlier that claimed the Rutger AD had decided two weeks ago to fire Ash. Said they were sitting on it while they canvassed candidates. Whatever... Good luck, Rutger.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:27 AM ^
Both Ace and Brian on their podcast casually stated they weren't concerned about the run game but did not explain why.
I haven't seen much outside a few nice runs by Charbonnet against MTSU though. I'm concerned because they are not a balanced offense as of today. I'd give my level of concern a 7.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:35 AM ^
I think the idea is that a potent air attack will lead to more consistent running. Rutger probably expected a more run based approached and then got absolutely annihilated on the outside, so the run does not look particularly great in that game but has the potential to do when teams have to game-plan for Michigan as more of a passing attack. Pass to set up the run approach.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:24 PM ^
I think others have essentially said the same thing above but....From the podcast I felt like Brian and Ace saw the run offense with Milton in - aka a chance of QB run - and see what we CAN do in the run game.
Obviously Rutgers caveats apply, but if M had Patterson keep on a few plays early-on the interior run game would have been better. Since #1 Rutger, and #2 Shea and Dillon both banged up to various degrees, I firmly believe they asked Shea not to pull unless specifically directed by the staff. No offense to Haskins, but ZC and Turner would have done equal or better if they had the same holes once Rutgers had to honor the QB pull.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:28 AM ^
My concern lies mainly with short yardage. Against MTSU, Army, and Rutgers--not exactly heavyweights--M has struggled mightily in short yardage situations, particularly at the goal line. Is the offense so married to the spread that power running is out of the playbook?
September 30th, 2019 at 11:48 AM ^
^^this! Great point, I agree!
September 30th, 2019 at 11:51 AM ^
Moreover, didn’t Harbaugh talk earlier in the week about wanting to use Mason in short yardage situations? I don’t think we saw him in there as a runner or blocker even once.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:53 AM ^
Either Harbaugh is a liar or he's not implementing what he's saying they plan on doing.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:30 PM ^
OR -despite claims on the internet- he is NOT running the offense so he can only suggest and not enact change.
To the original point - did you not see the goal line stuff this week?? It was under-center - unlike weeks past- and although they did not use a traditional FB the did motion the TE in as a functioning FB on at least a few of those plays.
Sure the success rate was not great but I saw an attempt to incorporate some “manball” principles into the Gattis offense while trying to use the same personnel as the spread looks.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:48 PM ^
I did see the TE motion into the FB spot for 2 or 3 plays. But wasn't that our TE/WR hybrid (All) doing that? May explain the relative lack of effectiveness. I think you make a good point re: motioning into the I with the personnel on the field, make the D play the power run with their spread personnel, but something just seems to be off/missing. I would really like to see a 3rd and goal from the 2, or a 4th and 1 on the plus side of the 50, include Charbonnet running behind Mason, Bredeson, Ruiz, and Big Mike.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:40 AM ^
sometimes you just gotta pull and pray
September 30th, 2019 at 11:47 AM ^
Pass.....to open up the run. It’s how football is now these days. Running game has certainly changed throughout football. Harbaugh definitely uses the nfl philosophy on running the ball. Multiple carriers, and this season it looks like we’ll pass before we run.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:17 PM ^
I hope we continue to pass first. It seems to be the only shot we have. The 5 ypc running game against Rutgers will be 2 ypc against Iowa / MSU etc.
As has been said, if Shea can't pull the ball due to injury (or other reasons), then we need to run the ball in a more old-school way. There's no point in running the ZR if the pull threat isn't there.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:48 AM ^
Maybe getting Shea comfortable and in rhythm with the passing game was more of a concern?
Turner and Haskins averaged 4.5 and 5 ypc, so it isn't like we couldn't move the ball on the ground.
September 30th, 2019 at 12:18 PM ^
Hopefully that was the idea - Shea needs reps in the pass game.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:49 AM ^
Milton came in when the game was over and Rutgers was itching to get home and find out who the new coach might be. I wouldn’t read anything into what we saw from a terrible team that had already been destroyed during the last 10 minutes.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:51 AM ^
I think it's pretty troublesome given the fact that this is Year 2 under Ed Warinner, who has had great success, and Michigan has an experienced offensive front. 41 carries for 141 yards doesn't scream success, especially against to terrible Rutgers team. Even if you remove Shea's 4 rush (3 were short TD's), this team managed 3.7ypc.
Either this offensive line was seriously over-hyped or they are slow-moving to the new offensive changes. This offensive line unit (players and coaches) have been extremely disappointing through four games and I seriously doubt Charbonnet alone is going to change things.
They better get in gear, because it's only going to get tougher for them.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:52 AM ^
I was somewhat encouraged by the increased running "options" against Rutger--threats of QB keepers, WR jets and pitch options and the like--though the team was content to give the straight handoff 98% of the time. If the WRs get a few more of those, or Shea effectively keeps more, it should unclog the middle.
We saw this last year to some extent. Maybe we'll see it again as the new offense settles. If we don't, it will be a real slog against anyone with a pulse, Iowa included.
September 30th, 2019 at 11:54 AM ^
Can we stop with the Shea is injured excuse? If hes out on the field he is not injured. He clearly needs to pull the ball more, even it is to keep the defense honest.