M vs Utah, Friday Morning Snowflakes

Submitted by reshp1 on

I figured I'd start a thread for those that either went to sleep after the game or couldn't get MGo to load last, or to simply discuss the game after a night of sleep and sober minded, figuratively and literally.

Mine:

It went about how I expected, honestly. Thinking the team from last year, or even the one from the spring game for that matter, was going to enter Jim Harbaugh's submarine like a catepillar entering a cocoon and then re-emerge a month later as an ass-kicking butterfly was really just asking for disappointment. Even under Harbaugh, this was always going to be a work in progress.

The signs of incremental improvement, as a direct result of the coaching change, were there however, even if you had to squint a little more than expected. We played a good team tough on the road, at night, and looked better as the game went on. The staff seemed to make the necessary adjustments and find success despite the obvious deficiencies in RB and OL that we're now all too familiar with. Even the futility in the run game would have paid dividends in some RPS +3 plays downfield if Rudock could only hit the pass. Special teams looked solid to good, and even with the miss, it at least wasn't ugly (the extra point on the other hand....). This game is fairly analogous to the ND game last year in terms of the who-what-when-wheres, but I think we can all agree both the outcome and the feel of the game were totally different.

We left a lot of opportunities and very probably points on the field, and handed the opponent points as well. In a tight, winnable game, that always stings, but at the same time, I have full confidence it Harbaugh to make the corrections and I expect this team to continue to clean those up and make incremental improvements through the season and be on the verge of legitimately good by the end.  

Moonlight Graham

September 4th, 2015 at 8:16 AM ^

OP, I think your first paragraph is very much on-point, except the glaring thing I don't think any of us "expected as part of our expectations" was the Rudock interceptions and overthrows. Without those five plays, we had a good chance to win, possibly easily.

The best sign of incremental improvement was the lack of blatant coaching errors. However I was very uncomfortable sitting there watching Hoke-ian aspects like:

- Lack of urgency toward the end of the game, managing the early-to-mid fourth quarter clock like it was the 3rd quarter when down by two scores.

- Running plays straight into the back of the guard. Not sure why, but it's still there.

- Plays featuring AJ Williams as a target that would have been much more effective to Bunting or K. Hill.

I would have like to see fewer of Hoke's fingerprints on this game and far more of a Harbaugh stamp -- but like you said in your first paragraph, Rome wasn't built in a day.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

casmooth

September 4th, 2015 at 8:30 AM ^

I agree with your thoughts in general.  However, there is no way a Hoke led offense would have scored that second touchdown.  

 

I felt that Harbaugh had the team well organized, which is a large improvement.  He played with the cards he was dealt.  I'm still disappointed with the performance; however, the more I reflect on the game overall, I remain optomistic.  

HateSparty

September 4th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^

I was glad to see the competivieness of Harbaugh and the never stop attitude.  That last touchdown could be an attitude maker.  Knowing how to win is hard when the experiences are not there.  His will is a difference maker down the road.  

I am baffled at the playcalling, at times.  One that stands out was when he tried a sneak with Rudock that ended with Rudock on the ground immediately (Braden tripped him I believe) then the fourth down with a run up the middle (again Braden failed to block or hold the point of attack) and we turn it over.  If you are committed to those two plays....flip the order.  Oh..and bench Braden.  He sucked in so many instances.  We have no better option?  Scary.

reshp1

September 4th, 2015 at 8:53 AM ^

I do think Harbaugh is a huge step up, but I don't think it's the GERG to Mattison insta-fix most were hoping. This team plays and looks like Hoke's teams because by and large, they ARE Hoke's teams. I think people generally over state the effect of coaching, especially when Harbaugh has really only had 2-3 months where he could actually coach these guys. They played the way they did because that's the only way they know how. They may have been taught differently, practiced differently, but when the pressure is on, they still are going to default to what they innately know. It takes a long time for coaching to take and fix those bad habits, if it does at all. 

As far as the specifics:

 

- Lack of urgency toward the end of the game, managing the early-to-mid fourth quarter clock like it was the 3rd quarter when down by two scores. 

Disagree here. Without the pick six, they would have been in excellent position to make a comeback. They were down 7, with the ball and driving with 3 minutes left, that's exactly where you want to be. The last thing you want to do is rush a team that barely grasps your system at this point unless you absolutely need to. 

- Running plays straight into the back of the guard. Not sure why, but it's still there. 

See above

- Plays featuring AJ Williams as a target that would have been much more effective to Bunting or K. Hill. 

Agree here. The small element of surprise you gain when the blocking TE goes out for a pass is totally offset by the loss in play-making ability. AJ looked slow and unathletic, and for a big man had a very small catching radius as a result. 

mfan_in_ohio

September 4th, 2015 at 9:04 AM ^

Michigan gave up 31 points in UTL I, and it would have been worse if Tommy Rees hadn't dropped the ball inside the Michigan 10.  Michigan's D steadily improved over the course of that year, other than giving up 34 to a Luke Fickell team.  I think the offense will do the same.

I also agree about the use of AJ Williams.  I'm not sure there's a big difference between him and a fourth-string tackle, both in blocking and catching.

evenyoubrutus

September 4th, 2015 at 8:16 AM ^

Wilson's interception at the end of the half had no effect on the game, so Michigan was essentially -3 in turnovers and still only lost by a TD. You would expect Rudock's chemistry with his receivers to improve from week to week which will hopefully help his down field accuracy but I am a little worried that may plague him all year and prevent us from taking the leap to being a very good offense.

The defense looked very good but their linebackers need to improve in pass coverage. I think this was a problem last year as well.

Firstbase

September 4th, 2015 at 8:25 AM ^

I agree with this assessment. I mentioned in another thread that we couldn't seem to open too many creases in the run game, but our pass protection was stellar and made the lights go out in "Sack Lake City."

Let's not forget that the other side had a pretty stout front seven, and they clearly were stacking the box to stop the run most of the game and gamble that our passing game would be a bit lackluster.

Had Rudock connected on one -- just one -- of those long balls to Darboh, it would have changed the dynamic of the way the Utes would have played us.

Having slept on it, I feel generally optimistic that the coaches will have answers for most of our missed opportunities and break downs.

 

LJ

September 4th, 2015 at 8:48 AM ^

Yeah, they don't want to let us score there, but the only really bad thing that could have happened for them would be to let us score with enough time on the clock so that we don't have to go onside.  They let all the underneath throws be completed, which was the right move.  Clearly yards were easier to pick up on that drive than any other, and if we're only down by 7 there, who knows if we score that TD.

reshp1

September 4th, 2015 at 8:57 AM ^

You still have to find those zones underneath and hit those passes though. Rudock looked good doing it. Utah also brought pressure at least a few times as well, so it's not like it was Lloyd-esque prevent defense. I concede you can't really count that TD as "normal" scoring, but neither should it be completely dismissed either though. 

alum96

September 4th, 2015 at 9:25 AM ^

Not sure why reality netted you 6 downvotes.  If the shoe was on the other foot and our D conceded a late TD eveyone would say ignore that, it wasnt our real defense - we were in prevent and were fine with a late score as long as it did not happen fast.  I am sure Utah is not concerned with how we drove in that last drive and reading too much into rudock's ability to slice and dice a team giving him 10 yard cushion on every play is just that.

ijohnb

September 4th, 2015 at 9:02 AM ^

had no timeouts. It was going to be on-side even if we scored with 2 minutes left. Utah was playing soft, but Rudock started looking comfortable when the training wheels came off toward the end. I was very impressed with our wide receivers and I did not expect that. It is weird to say with 3 interceptions, but I bet this team is more aggressive through the air beginning next week. Also, with Devon Smith, a couple of "punishing" runs aside, I am not seeing the separation with him that resulted in him being a feature back. He has no burst and bad vision. I would like to see a committee approach at RB, and I hope The Drake experience is not over.

In reply to by ijohnb

wolverine1987

September 4th, 2015 at 10:00 AM ^

And not just that one glaring, wide open hole he totally missed while running into a guard (hopefully someone has a screen shot of that beauty). And I know that speed is not crucial for an RB, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen an RB that appears so slow as Smith. Very tough runnuer, which is why I'm sure the staff has him #1, but other than toughness I just don't see him as a #1 back. 

TheRonimal

September 4th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^

That was the main thing that was a major bummer for me in the game last night (the others were all of the interceptions). When Smith decided to run straight into the line, I just threw my arms up in the air. That was an insane hole he could've just exploded through, but he didn't. It's hard for me to expect much improvement in that area at this point. Hopefully one of the other running backs can figure it out.

On to Rudock: The overthrown passes were bad, but I would like to think that he could hone those in a little throughout the season as he plays more with the receivers. Same thing goes for the interceptions. They weren't all his fault, but a few of his passes seemed like passes that were forced because he just decided that's where the ball is going (felt the same thing about a couple of passes to TE's over the middle and even the TD pass to Butt, which was a great catch). Overall I'm still optomistic to see what this offense can become over the year.

Harlans Haze

September 4th, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^

4th down run in the 4th quarter. If so, you're right. Smith did not kick it to the outside, where it was open, but instead was met inside. But, that was right where he was supposed to run. Cole and Braden opened up a great hole. Poggi actually sealed off the LB to the outside. For some reason Kerridge went to block on the outside and Kalis pulled and, instead of going up the hole to clear the way, he hesitated, and kicked out, and slowed down Smith. By that time, the LB's filled the hole and stuffed Smith. Ironically, it might have been the best blocked run play of the night, unfortunately, it was blocked as two different holes. Yes, he had a couple mis-reads in the 1st half, but that play wasn't a mis-read. Maybe you're talking about another play, though. If so, please point it out.

 

In reply to by ijohnb

Blue In NC

September 4th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^

Totally agree here.  I am actually more impressed with the receivers that I expected.  Of all the backs, I thought Isaac looked marginally more impressive than Smith (ran hard but really lacks speed).  Green was mostly a non-factor.

And in some strange way, I was actually somewhat impressed with Rudock.  Yes, 3 INTs were bad and overthrows was frustrating but he also showed some good poise in the pocket and most throws were on target.  I think it will take several games to get a cohesive unit, but it may be an okay offensive unit by the start of the big 10 season.  The big question is whether we can get the running game going.  Other than losing, that was really my only big disappointment from this game.

Former_DC_Buck

September 4th, 2015 at 8:50 AM ^

But Utah left 6 points off the board with missed FGs, though long, were usually made by their kicker. They also kept your first TD drive alive with a stupid (on their part, it was the right call by the officials) late hit. You also should have been pinned on that last TD drive, but got to start at the 20. And Rudock's TD to Butt was a gutsy throw because it worked and because Butt did a great job taking it from the defender who looked like he had a hand on it. The announcers thought it was a great catch but a questionable choice.

But that is football, if not for the INTs you likely would have won. If what I listed happened it might have been a bigger loss. But who knows, the woulda coulda shoulda game is an easy trap to fall into. I do it everytime our loss to Florida comes up with the loss of Teddy Ginn after his opening kickoff TD.

alum96

September 4th, 2015 at 9:21 AM ^

We benefited net 3 by the 3 missed FGs.

We also benefited from a garbage time TD.  Utah was in prevent.  If UM was up 24-10 with 3 minutes to go no one would complain about our D giving up a late TD and would say Utah only scored because we allowed them to via prevent. So that last drive meant a lot less to me than many on this board and made the final score look better.

The fact we are rah rahing that our team did not give up down 14 says a lot about how much Hoke beat down this fanbase. That should be a given.

All that said Utah is not great and the teams did not look too dissimilar.  We just made bad errors and lost the most critical stat line in football yet again (TOs).

Blue In NC

September 4th, 2015 at 10:28 AM ^

True, but if our defense gave up 3 potential TDs on long passes (we went 0-3 vs Utah), I wouldn't feel as good about our D either.  Bottom line, Utah capitalized on more of their chances and effectively went +3 in the TO dept.  Michigan isn't good enough to overcome that on the road against a pretty decent team.

M-Dog

September 4th, 2015 at 9:28 AM ^

I took much joy in your loss to Florida, but you are right, the loss of Ginn early can not be overstated.  He was a key component of that offense and when that offense went off track, the defense could not do it all.  

Of course, I also take much joy in the fact that the loss of Ginn was self-inflicted by a level of Buckeye stupidity rarely seen even in Middle School.  But I digress. 

Brown Bear

September 4th, 2015 at 8:30 AM ^

This.
I am more than guardedly optimistic though. In time I know this staff will build the team to where we want them to be and I have a strong feeling we will see steady improvement week to week.
It was one game and I had built up unreasonable expectations for the first game against a tough opponent on the road.
This team needs to learn how to win and they will. They did not learn how to under Hoke and accepted defeat many times. This team didn't do that last night and that bodes well for the future.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

HarryScarface

September 4th, 2015 at 8:18 AM ^

Those interceptions were infuriating, but they weren't totally on Ruddock (looked to me like the receiver ran the wrong route). The team didn't give up like Hoke's teams did. Very hopeful for the season and the future.

Harlans Haze

September 4th, 2015 at 1:22 PM ^

The good defenses won't fear the deep ball at all. They'll risk letting Chesson getting open occassionally, and bet that they won't connect most of the time, to keep men in the box. Just like last night. Most scoring drives will have to be clock-chewing combinations of grinding runs and 6-7 yard passes to keep sticks moving. Penalites and turnovers will be absolute crushers. Hopefully, that recipe can garner 8, maybe 9 wins.