rc90

November 3rd, 2019 at 2:28 PM ^

To state the obvious, it's weird how bad the QB play has been since Harbaugh arrived. I don't want or expect Harbaugh to shit on Shea Patterson, but I'd love to hear his thoughts on what's gone wrong, whether it's poor talent evaluation, poor development, poor play-calling, or something else.

We are back

November 3rd, 2019 at 2:52 PM ^

It’s the talent at the position

qbs on the roster since harbaugh arrived 

Ruddock- best of the bunch and commanded the offense like we expect a QB to do so. 

Bellomy 

Speight- showed moments but he was coached up better than his abilities 

JOK- self explanatory 

Morris- I will always believe mono ruined his career. 

Malzone- never was a Big Ten caliber QB

Peters- Harbaughs first real miss, hasn’t shown much at Illinois 

Patterson- showed moments but is coached up better than his abilities, look back at Ole Miss never made reads. 
 

McCafferey & Milton- Jury is still out, will look really bad if either pans out to be Peters. 

 

 

jdemille9

November 3rd, 2019 at 7:33 PM ^

This is a tough one. Turnover at OC is definitely a factor but development and recruiting have been weird too. Easy answer is both but I'd lean more towards the OC turnover/philosophy. Pep, Drevno and Gattis haven't exactly done us any favors in the playcalling department. 

Some QB's didn't develop like I thought they would (Peters) but that could easily be a lower ceiling than we thought too. But we've gotten more out of some guys than I thought we would (Rudock and Speight).

Harbaugh got a lot out of Rudock (yes, RS Sr. but JH got every last drop of ability out of him) and Speight before Iowa broke him. Had some bad luck with JOK and Peters was a swing and a miss on the recruiting trail or lack of development - not necessarily Harbaugh's fault (not absolving him either) if a kid doesn't develop as expected. You can't turn everyone into Andrew Luck. 

I think Shea has been a victim of Gattis not playing to his QB's strengths. If we as fans can see Shea can't make the right RPO/zone reads and passing progressions it's gotta be obvious to the staff. More of the square peg, round hole BS we've seen since RichRod and Hoke. 

As said before, McCaffrey and Milton are still TBD and I honestly have no idea what either will end up being but I'd be surprised if McCaffrey wasn't the starter next year.

To me, and my layman's eye and opinion, McCaffrey "looks" like he could be a good one, has the pedigree and he doesn't appear to have any issues with confidence, or competence, when he's been in there (small sample size, yes). He's certainly not afraid to pull it and run, his passing is 'check back later' but who the hell knows. 

DHughes5218

November 3rd, 2019 at 10:35 PM ^

He was recently asked about the QB position development, as the reporter was trying to get answers to those questions and Harbaugh didn’t want to answer because he “don’t want to toot my own horn.” I think he’s pleased with the QB play and really minus the first halves of the Wisconsin and Penn State games, the offense has moved the ball really well. Early in the season they just killed themselves with fumbles. Things weren’t great Saturday, but it’s hard to complain about a 31 point win against anybody.

Ecky Pting

November 4th, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^

Considering Michigan's offense finished 2018 at #25 in SP+, the off-season coaching change - the change to which this drop in rating can be most attributed - does not appear to be having the desired effect. With 4 games left (incl. whatever bowl game), the prospect for matching last season's performance is not looking very great.

wolve1972

November 3rd, 2019 at 3:18 PM ^

While I understand what you're saying, a turnover here and there and who knows. But, yeah, Shea will have no room for error and will have to get rid of the ball quick. Everybody keeps talking about Chase Young but the real issue is the rest of the DL. It's hard at times doubling him because of the rest of the talent on the DL.  But, with that said, I think our defense matches up with their offense well, I guess we'll see.

jdemille9

November 10th, 2019 at 3:39 PM ^

I hear ya on not wanting to come into The Game with expectations, but it has happened before. Notable (recent) wins, and an almost win, include..

1995: #18 (8-3) Michigan beat #2 (11-0) OSU - ruining their undefeated season and a chance at a national title.

1996: #21 (7-3) Michigan beat #2 (10-0) OSU, in Columbus, again ruining their undefeated season and shot a national title. 

2013: unranked (8-3) Michigan ALMOST upsets #3 (11-0) OSU. 

So there is precedent that a Michigan team that has no business beating OSU can actually do that. Shea Patterson is no Devin Gardner but it IS possible Michigan can pull off an upset, especially at home. 

evenyoubrutus

November 3rd, 2019 at 1:56 PM ^

Am I the only one who feels like S&P isn't really passing the eyeball test this year? I honestly can't figure out how our defense could be ranked as high as it is or how Minnesota is a top 10 team according to advanced metrics 

Newton Gimmick

November 3rd, 2019 at 4:06 PM ^

Connelly said something about how they've had the luck of facing a string of backup QBs, and are beating up on the lower half of the Big Ten with their running game (while the conference itself is elevated).  Therefore they might be a smidge overrated.  The last third of the schedule is much tougher, so they will corroborate their ranking or drop accordingly.

Gulogulo37

November 3rd, 2019 at 8:21 PM ^

Someone talked about this after Penn State, but good teams score points against good defenses nowadays. That's just how it is. I know everyone hates Franklin and thinks he's the worst coach in the conference somehow, but he's not that bad, and they have some weapons (and they use them). Michigan's only really poor performance on D this year has been against Wisconsin.

If SP+ is really off, then Minnesota should get blown out, as it stands now they should be slight underdogs. Their rough start is a bit overblown. Their close wins sure as hell don't look any worse than Michigan against Army. One of their close wins involved a bunch of crazy bad turnover luck. And the last 4 teams have been weak, but they've hammered every single one of them. And yes, that matters. Just like Michigan struggling against a bad Army team was an indication of what might happen against Wisconsin.

lhglrkwg

November 3rd, 2019 at 2:44 PM ^

I know SP+ is near gospel to some, but the rankings don't make sense to me. Minnesota at #10? Washington, Iowa St, and Texas A&M in the top 20? Feels like whatever fancy stats they're using are getting duped because none of that passes the eyeball test

Gulogulo37

November 3rd, 2019 at 8:24 PM ^

A good exercise to think about is who do you put over them? People seem to have some ideal about what it means to be a top 20 team, but give us a few teams you think should be ranked above Washington, ISU, and A&M. It's harder than you'd think. Mizzou? No way. MSU? No. 5-4 Miami? No.

t's college football. Teams are flawed. That's why it's fun and crazy.