September 9th, 2019 at 10:48 AM ^
The offenses are completely different. The playcalling remains too conservative for people's tastes, and I think that's why some people have trouble differentiating.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:06 AM ^
Is it "completely different" though? As Hatter notes below we are running everything from the gun as opposed to under center, and as the OP notes, we are running no huddle but other than that what do you see different from last year?
Those are formation changes but not necessarily play call changes IMO. When you run a read option from the gun that just becomes a slow-developing inside zone run by our tailback when there's no threat of a pull by the QB. Same as last year. And the same coach, Warriner, is responsible for the run game concepts as last last.
The pass plays look identical to me. The lack of using the tailback in the passing game looks identical to me. The lack of screen passes looks identical to me. The over-use of our TE's in passing looks identical to me and the almost criminal ignoring of our uber-talented WRs looks identical to me. We've removed the fullback from the sets but other than that - what major changes do you see?
This is why I think Harbaugh is still playing a BIG role in the play calling. Gattis is perhaps making the "suggestion" on what we should run but I'll bet anything it needs to be approved by Harbaugh at some point in the process.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:00 PM ^
You're working from a data set that's way too small here. Michigan went into a shell on Saturday, which raises questions that absolutely need to be asked. But assertions about the passing game are incorrect, and one need only look at MTSU to see that.
Michigan threw a whole bunch in the first half against MTSU. They ran screen passes. They targeted WRs a whole lot. There are orbit motions that actually result in passes to the perimeter, and there are pass concepts that actually seem to deal with zone defenses effectively.
Whether Harbaugh is telling Gattis to throttle back is a different question, one that should be asked. Like, actually asked at a presser. But the design of the offense shows promise to me.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:05 PM ^
Did the first half against Army seem different to you? Genuinely curious as I thought the scheme seemed in the same realm as the MTSU game in my extremely limited opinion. There was just no way to get into rythme with all the turnovers.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:38 PM ^
The first HALF against MTSU you're absolutely on point. The 2nd half, when we threw 9 passes, sure looked the same as last year.
Most of the first HALF against Army I would also agree. But the second half, with 5 passes, sure looked the same to me.
Maybe Gattis gets the first half of the games and Jimmy takes over in the 2nd. Cause both games we went into a massive shell after half.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:47 PM ^
Or maybe what's occurring in the first half is dictating what happens in the second half?
At least in the Army game, its obvious that what occurred in the first half (fumbles + poor decision-making by Shea) resulting in the ball being taken out of Shea's hands.
There's probably a case to be made that if Shea can't handle the offense DC should be brought in, but I don't think what's happening is some bizarre split between Gattis and Harbaugh.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:55 PM ^
You're talking about different things. The first issue is play design, which, as we've discussed, has undergone some changes. Many of these changes were ones demanded by fans on this board after last season.
The second issue is actual play selection and the corresponding run/pass balance, something I documented extensively in the diary posted on the sidebar. There have been definite changes from half to half.
However, where the changes come from is an interesting question. It is quite possible for Harbaugh to be completely hands-off on the offensive design and gameplan, but then get on the headset during the game and say, "we need to run more." It's a lot different than dictating the gameplan on Monday and Tuesday (and, in fact, less productive, since a gameplan prepared for running ahead of time can include more practice and play design for it) to make this change.
But when the question is asked, "does the offense look any different?" The answer is yes. Orbit motions, RPOs, zone-breaking route combos, all gun? It's not the same.
It's the playcalling in certain time periods of the game that is in question. And in the second half, particularly last Saturday, the play selection looked very familiar.
September 9th, 2019 at 1:06 PM ^
I think we're in violent agreement on this point. I guess i should've said play design - yes, VERY different. Play calls? SSDD.
I think i'm hyper-focused on the end result - the play call which looks like a carbon copy of 2018 - and not the design of the play which as you correctly state, is quite different than last year.
September 9th, 2019 at 1:45 PM ^
That was my original point, exactly.
September 9th, 2019 at 10:49 AM ^
We're running literally every play from the gun. Not the case last year.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:57 AM ^
It was mostly the case last year, though. Except for the occasional beef set, Michigan usually ran from the gun, and often in short yardage.
At any rate, the blocking concepts are similar.
September 9th, 2019 at 10:50 AM ^
They're fumbling more.
There's nothing more to it.
Take out the fumbles, the army game is a comfortable victory. Take out the fumbles, the play calling probably doesn't go into a shell where they only trust Charbonnet with the ball
September 9th, 2019 at 11:00 AM ^
Take the fumbles away and Army most likely doesn't score, but what did Michigan's offense show you that made you believe they were going to score? Was it the 2.4 ypc? They still only managed 14 points in regulation. Instead of winning 24-21 in 2 OT, what...Michigan wins 14-0 and we're supposed to feel good about this?
A sloppy team is a reflection of coaching and Michigan's problems start up top with Harbaugh. We're in Year 5 of this regime and this team continues to make the mental mistakes, wonky offensive plays, and strategies. A QB who continues to underperform and an O-Line that struggles to consistently get a push up front.
Maybe Michigan's problems are far bigger than just fumbling the ball....
September 9th, 2019 at 11:05 AM ^
???
Michigan was already in field goal range on each of Patterson's fumbles--and was driving down the field just fine before the first. And, as the OP already suggested, the offense clearly got more conservative (and was moving less effectively) seemingly as a result of the fumbles.
So, how did our fumbling only affect Army's ability to score and not ours? Only 14-0 w/o fumbles? That makes no sense.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:10 AM ^
Just what is field goal range anymore?
I know nordin's got the bigger leg but the dude is still broken. I think his accuracy is a bigger gamble than Moody's length anymore.
Time to just let Jake handle the show.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:16 AM ^
Didn't Nordin break a kick distance record as a frosh here? I seem to remember him being pretty damn accurate from over 50 yards. I wonder what happened to him?
September 9th, 2019 at 11:56 AM ^
It's called the yips and there is no cure.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:11 PM ^
Like many of our MGoBlog brethren, the yips are rampant.
Mayo says there is a cure:
September 9th, 2019 at 12:32 PM ^
not the yips, the shanks, and this is how you fix it....
September 9th, 2019 at 12:36 PM ^
Speaking of field goals (and I haven't seen this mentioned.....but haven't read all 5,000 comments since Saturday)......why didn't Michigan kick the field goal to go up 17 -14 with around 4:00 - 5:00 minutes left in regulation?
They called a running play on 4th and 2 out of the shotgun that got stuffed (again). Don't you want to take the lead at that point and put the game in the hands of your defense? I understand the desire to get the TD and drive dagger into Army.....but handing the ball off 4-ish yards deep in the backfield doesn't seem to be the answer. I'd think that you'd want to take the points (and the lead).
September 9th, 2019 at 1:18 PM ^
That was 2 years ago. Last year he was Charlie Sheen for most of Major League 2
September 9th, 2019 at 11:20 AM ^
So that's a bit of a separate issue, but I completely agree with you. I feel confident with Moody inside of 50--and feel more confident in him from any distance relative to Nordin. Seems like you would more or less agree.
I believe the line of scrimmage was at the Army 33 on the first fumble. The second field goal would have been under 40 yards, I believe (weren't we at like the 21?). Again, it seems highly likely that we move the ball and/or hit some field goals, and use a more open offensive philosophy, if we don't fumble repeatably.
To be clear: None of this constitutes a claim that our offense is "just fine," or that turnovers are the only problem. It's just a response to the assertion that not turning the ball over wouldn't have changed the number of points we put up, which just seems silly to me.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:12 AM ^
Ok, I'll give you 10 points, not 14 so it's 24-0. Not a whole lot to cheer about there. It still doesnt answer the offensive struggles, poor QB play, horrendous run blocking, and piss poor play calling.
Conservative play-calling has been the thing for 3 years now.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
I would have been wholly content with a 24-0 win over army
September 9th, 2019 at 11:22 AM ^
Agree with you. I might have been a bit more okay with 24-0 than you, but, yes, we didn't play well in any of those areas.
[EDIT: I would also note, however--and this is to agree with the spirit of your post--that fumbling wasn't the principal reason that Army scored. Their scores "off of our turnovers" still required sustained drives that would likely have been just as effective had they come off of kick-offs. So, I guess I want to say that our fumbling effected our point total way more than it effected Army's. If we didn't turn the ball over, it might very well have been a 27-14 game.]
September 9th, 2019 at 11:34 AM ^
If you cover against Army (and 24-0 is covering) I think everyone would be happy.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:37 PM ^
As a guy that had $$$ on Michigan -23, yes, I would've been happy with 24-0 Michigan.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:18 PM ^
What does fumbling have anything to do with the passing game? You don't go conservative because of that. And if you don't trust shea with the ball then don't leave him in there
September 9th, 2019 at 12:29 PM ^
Because multiple fumbles + the end of half intentional grounding stemmed from poor pass blocking and/or bad decision-making by Patterson.
I think Hayes was responsible for the first fumble and Turner responsible for the second. Still think Patterson could have done a better job with the first.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:05 AM ^
If this if that....Imagine if the Fumble return for a TD counted like it should've. That makes it 21 - 0 maybe? Definitely left points on the board. I agree though, if we don't fumble do we just go three and out still?
September 9th, 2019 at 11:20 AM ^
it was 7-7 when Metellus recovered the fumble, so it would have been 14-7
September 9th, 2019 at 2:45 PM ^
Had that TD happened it would have erased a string of events that allowed a 14 point swing to Army instead.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:24 AM ^
First half drives:
Drive 1: Patterson fumbles with Michigan at the Army 28.
Drive 2: Touchdown
Drive 3: Fumble at the Army 21 after the Metellus TD was incorrectly called back.
Drive 4: Fumble by BVS at the Michigan 40 after Michigan had already racked up multiple first downs.
Drive 5: Patterson holds the ball, takes a sack and an intentional grounding to put Michigan at the Army 37 when they were at the Army 27. Nordin misses a FG.
Michigan was moving the ball each time they had it for more than one play (and the one time they had it for one play and fumbled, they shouldn't have as it should have been a TD).
But hey you know all this, you watched the game I'm sure.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
We didn't have a turnover in the second half and scored....one touchdown. That's not so good.
Running a 'zone read' without the read is a bad idea. Why not just put a 'fullback' in there and run a regular running play?
September 9th, 2019 at 11:17 AM ^
...Because they just handed the ball off to Charbonnet over and over again because putting the ball in Patterson's hands was disastrous in the first half in regards to turnovers and decision-making.
Its not what I would have done, but is it really that hard to fathom why they went that route?
September 9th, 2019 at 11:43 AM ^
Except that I don't believe Patterson's issues have ever been on designed runs. He only seems to get loose with the ball when he is scrambling or moving in the pocket. Hasn't been an issue on keepers, where he seems to tuck it and protect it better.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:58 AM ^
If he's injured the coaches probably don't want him to run.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:52 PM ^
So an injured Shea who doesn't ever pull on the option and is lacking zip on the ball is better than DMcC? Or is it possible that wasn't true in this game, but for reps/consistency/lack of controversy reasons the coaches wanted to stick with a limited Shea in the short run for a payoff in the long run?
September 9th, 2019 at 1:13 PM ^
I'm not comfortable running "zone read" without the read option. It's teaching a bad habit by having the QB do something that he shouldn't be doing.
If you are going to run a zone read offense, do it the right way all the time, or put in a full back and just run power.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:21 AM ^
And take out Armys interception near the goal line, and our fake punt conversion on 4th and 10, and Army beats the fuck out of us. This shit can go either way.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:27 AM ^
I mean, the fake punt is what we want from out coaching staff: Seeing a mismatch and exploiting it. That was just a good play.
I think the bigger issue in this game is that Michigan had all the tools to put this away in the first half and just blew it (and were also jobbed by the TD being called back incorrectly).
They then played into Army's hands in the second half in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the first half and that nearly cost them as well.
September 9th, 2019 at 3:22 PM ^
I think you hit the nail on the head. They stopped allowing anyone with a fumble to handle the ball which made it the Charbonnet show. Perhaps a "teaching moment"? I dunno, but it seems plausible and it fits the evidence.
I would have thought, however, if this is the case why not let McCaffrey have a shot at it? Maybe Jim was too pissed at that point to consider anything other than running the ball 45 times.
This gives me a wee bit of hope that once they get the fumblitis cured we'll see speed in space as it should be.
September 9th, 2019 at 3:36 PM ^
I think part of the angst, honestly, is that many came in drinking the 'speed in space' kool-aide coming out of Schembechler hall and expected Oklahoma's offense with Don Brown defense.
What we've gotten is a different offense with promise, but a crap load of execution errors and line play that isn't what we'd come to expect after last year (for some valid reasons). On top of that, Shea seems to have regressed (again after we were told he was 'lights out') either because he is injured, or making bad decisions, or both.
I think the reality is tough because we are now realizing that:
A) We may never be like Oklahoma, given QB play and general learning of the offense, and
B) while we may end up being very good, it may not happen till much later this year.
C) we are in real danger of losing games while the offense tries to find a spark and some consistency.
September 9th, 2019 at 10:58 AM ^
What this blog needs is a good gravy thread.......
September 9th, 2019 at 11:06 AM ^
Keith Jackson something something
September 9th, 2019 at 11:00 AM ^
Honestly I thought the offense looked better last year so far..
September 9th, 2019 at 11:02 AM ^
Bring back Pep?
September 9th, 2019 at 11:11 AM ^
Last year we started out the season barely cracking 300 yards in our opener. We were in our second year in the Pep system.
September 9th, 2019 at 12:27 PM ^
UM finished 2018 with the 21st ranked offense. So far this season after two games, and it’s only two games, UM is ranked 63. Maryland is #1.
Harbaugh panicked after reading MGoBlog and decided to change the offense when all he had to do was tweak what was already working.
September 9th, 2019 at 11:05 AM ^
Probably. Smarter guys than me were all agreeing that what we were running against Army was much different than what we ran last year. Both run plays and pass.
Stuff like that.