UTL vs. Bama and where we really are

Submitted by PurpleStuff on

As typically happens after a big loss, many people now think Michigan is a poor, talent deficient football team that will struggle mightily all year.  But when you go inside the Bama "domination" you see a familiar story that just had a different ending because the casting director replaced Glass Joe with Clubber Lang.

Last night we trailed Alabama by 20 points entering the 4th quarter.  Against eventual 8-5 team Notre Dame last year, in a game played at home before a wild crowd, we trailed by 17 entering the 4th quarter.  Bama killed us on the ground for 5.5 ypc.  ND posted 6 ypc.  Returning national champion AJ McCarron completed 52% of his passes for 199 yards, with 51 of those yards coming on a play where the DB slipped and fell.  No-longer-starter Tommy Rees burned last year's D to the tune of 69% completions, 315 yards, and 3 TD.  On the whole, ND churned out 28 first downs and 513 yards at 7.1 per play.  Bama posted 6.8 per play for 20 first downs and 431 yards.  In both games Fitz didn't play.  Against Bama his replacements picked up a meager 48 yards on the ground.  Against ND they picked up just 10.

So let's keep things in perspective.  Bama didn't help us out by fumbling twice without being touched by a defender (Bama turned it over one time at the end of the half to ND's 5) and the Denard magic never got going thanks to an overturned 4th down conversion.  We didn't play our best and Bama didn't make any mistakes to help us out.  But the fact is we looked a lot better against a far superior opponent.  If we play up to our ability the rest of the year things look really good.

JimBobTressel

September 2nd, 2012 at 11:48 AM ^

we got our butts kicked. Saban called off the dogs by halftime, and just kept running the ball. Look for positives in yards per play if you want, but Notre Dame was trying to score for four quarters on us, while Bama needed two to wrap it up.

Wolverman

September 2nd, 2012 at 11:49 AM ^

Our secondary was fine and to be 100% the only place we got dominated was our D line. We lost we looked bad but a lot of  it was self imposed. I heard people complaing Denard didn't run and folks saying he couldn't run there was no place to go... but they didn't even try. As far where we are as a program we're 4-5 years from competeing withe the national elites again.

 I hope if we got anything from that bama game it's that the players we have now will have to work harder in the weight room, film room , practice and games if they want to compete. That Bama game was the most embarrassing thing I've ever been associated with.

 When you get embarrassed like that you either curl up or you work harder. Lets hope they work harder. As far as being talent deficient, out of all the key players we lost last year 1 made an NFl squad.  We made a  freshman tailback look like a heisman candidate

Red is Blue

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^

I think "we made a freshman tailback look like a hesiman candidate" is misleading -- it makes it sound like anyone running against us would have done the same. This is a highly regarded freshman running back running behind the best (or at least one of the best) o-lines in college football.

Wolverman

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^

When a RB averages 5 yards per carry they have a pretty good game. The bama Running backs where going 5.5 yards before they got touched, so honestly yea anybody would have looked great. That Offensive line was just too much for our D line and linebackers to handle. Our safeties usually tackle a lot better than they did last night.

kb

September 2nd, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^

of this loss by fans and the media.  When you have the top SEC team that has stockpiled talent for years with unscrupulous recruiting methods and you give Saban the entire Spring and Summer to develop a game plan for Michigan, this is what happens.  Teams occasionally need a measuring stick game like this to put things in perspective - now Michigan has an idea of where it is as a team and how they need to play to get there.

Importantly, there are many things that will NOT happen as a result of last night.  First, recruiting will not suffer and there will not be decommits because of this game, so just get that out of your head as a fan.  Many teams have had losses like this (e.g., Oregon vs LSU last year, MSU vs this Alabama team, Clemson in their bowl game, Ohio vs the entire SEC, and the list goes on), and teams end up just fine.  Second, this loss is not damaging to the confidence or morale of the team.  Some people honestly think Michigan is going to crawl into a hole and not come out the rest of the year - well, this game is probably the best thing to happen to Michigan right now.  It is better to get a loss out of the way than march into the conference schedule being on cloud nine thinking you're the greatest thing since sliced bread.  if anything, this game will prepare is for the BIG schedule and help us win the conference this year.

M-Dog

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:03 PM ^

Unlike Notre Dame, Alabama had no weaknesses that we could eventually exploit.  

At UTL we were eventually able to exploit Gary Gray, and also let Tommy Rees exploit himself.  There was nothing that we were going to find in the Alabama game to pull a rabit out of the hat.

We're Michigan, so we don't like the idea that we are not one of the elite teams in the country. But we're not at this point.  Alabama is way better.  USC has shown over time to be way better.  There are a few more that we are not in the same league with this year - LSU, Oklahoma, possibly Oregon and some others.  

There are no Big Teams on this list.  The Big Ten is weak, at least when it comes to elite teams at the top of the conference.  We'll be able to compete with any Big Ten team and have a shot at the Rose Bowl.  (And then hope that USC has played its way into the NC game if we go.)

MrVociferous

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^

And looking to the future, I am encouraged by Hoke's recruiting.  To really compete against the cream of the crop, you need to be strong on the OL and DL.  Hoke is definitely addressing the OL, but we need a lot more help on the DL to be able to matchup with the top teams.  Adding guys like Pipkins and Taco are good starts, but they need to find some difference makers on the DL quick.

DanRareEgg

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^

Is near the top of a lousy conference. This season won't be too bad because the B1G is looking pretty weak. MSU needed a monster game from Bell to squeak by a brand new Boise team. Iowa and Wisconsin struggled against lower- and mid-level competition. Nebraska, Purdue, and OSU looked good against cupcakes, but who knows what that means. I think that overall we are talent deficient because there is very little depth, and it will be a couple years yet before we have a full roster of players that can compete against the likes of Alabama.

EDIT: Just got trolled by Google Ads. Alabama gear for sale!

PurpleStuff

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:02 PM ^

At this point I think Bama is legitimately the first or second best team in the country (and I don't know that anyone is close to them and USC).  In 2003 we won the B1G outright, beat a good OSU team by 2 TDs, and still got smoked pretty good against a USC team that split the national title.  In 2006 the same thing happened when we met an inferior USC team.  Bama looks closer to the former team than the latter and they had no problem with probably our best squad since '97.

Essentially, we learned we're not going to win our 2nd national title in the last 60+ years. 

EGD

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:16 PM ^

This is not our best team since '97.  Not even close.

With the exception of the 2001 team, I'd say Michigan had more experienced talent every season from '98 to around 2006 than the 2012 unit has. I would even say that the 1999, 2000 and 2006 teams arguably had better talent than the '97 team, though obviously none of those teams accomplished as much as the '97 unit.

Seriously, the 2006 Wolverines would trounce the 2012 Wolverines.

PurpleStuff

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^

I said, or meant to say, that the 2003 team was probably the best of the last 15 years, at least on resume (outright B1G champs, beat a top-10 OSU team that won a BCS bowl).  And they looked awful when they played a legit national title level team.

The 2006 Wolverines you are so confident in offered no resistance to OSU's offense (despite having 3 future all-pro seniors on the team) and got smoked by a 2-loss USC team.  The '98 team got demolished on D by Syracuse and ND.  The '99 team couldn't beat Nick Saban's MSU team, even with Tom Brady on the roster.  The 2000 team gave up 54 points to Northwestern.  The 2001 team lost 45-17 to a UT team that lost the SEC title game.  The 2002 team lost 34-9 at home to Iowa (a team USC smoked in the Orange Bowl) and lost to Ty Willingham at ND.  The 2003 team got manhandled by USC's d-line, and lost to an 8-5 Oregon team.  In 2004 we lost to Willingham again and 8-4 OSU beat us 37-21.  2005 we went 7-5.  2006 we couldn't slow down OSU (a team that was totally manhandled in the national title game) and got beat handily by a short of elite USC team.  In 2007 you get Oregon and App State.

You can make up all the fake match-ups you want, but the point is Michigan hasn't been at a level where they beat a legit top-2 team in a long time (you might have to go back to the 1940's considering Bo's bowl record), no matter what you think of our talent level in recent years.  I'm just glad we got to play Wazzu in '97 instead of finding out how we stack up with a truly elite team.

EGD

September 2nd, 2012 at 1:21 PM ^

You're right, I misread your previous post.

Nonetheless, I still say that Michigan usually had the ability to play with anyone until around '07.  Being outschemed (Purdue & Northwestern '00, for instance, or The Horror & Oregon '07) or out-executed (most of the other losses from '98-'07) is not the same as being completely overmatched talent-wise (Tennessee '01 and probably both USC games).

hfhmilkman

September 2nd, 2012 at 2:57 PM ^

The 97 defense with Woodson is better people give credit to.  And the guy who built it but who did not get credit was Greg Mattison.   I believe with their depth and ball control they could have handed Nebraska in a heads on matchup.   

I do agree on paper the 2003 team would be rated 2nd.  The only real weakness was Navarre could not deal with adversity.   The teams that could get in his face could force him into mistakes.   I forget the years but the Oregon and 2nd Iowa lost really burned.  It took Navarre 3  quarters to figure out there was a CAP on the field and overthrew every sideline pass by a yard.   If you recall back then that was a Carr stable to throw the deep out.   Then against Iowa he completely implodes in the 2nd half.   Carr did not help by recruiting the worlds worse special team coach.  Navarre still has a chance to win and overthrows a wide open receiver AGAIN.  I have never seen anyone build up so much good will since Steve Smith yet fail so badly when the burden was on him.   Even the Detroit Lions lit him up for 4 INTS.   But outside of Navarre those 2002-2003 teams in my opinion were Carr's most balanced.   A good QB who could read a blitz and not panic might have given UM a chance against USC.   If you watch the replay it was not like USC dominated.   It was just a handful of big plays and Navarre freaking out and missing the blitz keys.   There was also that weird interception off of Edwards ankles and the drop on the 1st drive.   So others contributed.

Yeoman

September 2nd, 2012 at 3:21 PM ^

That's bull. I can think of few Michigan players who dealt better with adversity than Navarre, who got an enormous amount of unjustified crap thrown his way just because the staff had gambled that Henson would stay, lost that gamble and had no choice but to toss an unprepared freshman to the wolves.

Navarre struggled with players in his face because he was trying to play quarterback in a lineman's body. He was never going to be Brady or Henne or even Drew Henson. That John Navarre had what success he did was amazing and he and his coaches deserve no end of credit for it.

Of course it would have been better if they'd not promised Henson they wouldn't recruit another qb and they'd had another star waiting in the wings when he bolted. It's not Navarre's fault that they didn't.

Jasper

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^

For those without long memories (or experience), this type of thing has happened before. Just a couple of samples:

* Recently: Oregon in 2007, in Ann Arbor. 39-7. After the game, their coach politely hinted that they could have poured it on even worse. For those without even short memories, this predated the hiring of Rich Rodriguez. Important detail ...

* Way back: Florida State in 1991, also in Ann Arbor. 51-31.

With a few pleasant exceptions (1997, most notably), Michigan has long been behind the handful of elite teams in overall talent. When they've been stacked on offense (the rule rather than the exception) they've had significant holes on defense (say, in the secondary other than the alpha corner of the moment).

If Hoke can keep recruiting at a high level, he could wind up with the most talented teams (again, overall) that Michigan has seen in many years. It just won't happen overnight.

PurpleStuff

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^

We also played this game without our very good RB, probably our most talented corner, and a guy who showed flashes of being a real talent at DE (and just having an extra big body in the rotation would have been nice up front). 

If Clark looks like a player the rest of the year, you are talking about a big loss.  Combine that with poor play, some bad breaks, and that opposition and the result really doesn't look catastrophic to me.

EGD

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:22 PM ^

The inverse of your post is that Michigan did not suffer a single blow-out loss between the 1992 Rose Bowl (34-14 to Washington) and the 2002 Citrus (?) Bowl (45-17 to Tennessee).  And even after that Tennessee game, blow-out losses were few and far between until 2007 (the only one I can think of was the 2002 Iowa game).  Michigan played with, and often defeated, top programs from around the country during that entire fifteen-year period.  

We don't have that kind of talent right now, but we are back to recruiting well and within a couple more years, I think UM will be back to the level where we can play with anyone.

Yeoman

September 2nd, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^

2002 Iowa was, indeed, the only 20+ loss between Tennessee and Oregon.

From Bo's arrival until that '92 Rose Bowl you mention, here's the full list of 20-point blowouts:

  1. 1969 Missouri 40-17
  2. 1984 Iowa 26-0
  3. 1991 Florida State 51-31

That's a total of 7 in 39 seasons from Bo's arrival to Lloyd's retirement.

We've now had ten in the last five years. There's still work to do, which we already knew.

 

snowcrash

September 2nd, 2012 at 2:06 PM ^

That was a blowout in every sense of the word. We got completely owned in every phase of the game and it was over before halftime. They called off the dogs after it got to 38-7 and let us score 3 garbage time TDs, but they could have beaten us 52-7 if they had wanted to.

DanRareEgg

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:31 PM ^

Historically I think it was less about talent deficiencies and more about Bo and his disciples not giving a damn about the non-conference outside of Notre Dame. You can poach a few examples like FSU in '91 and Oregon in '07, but mostly it was Michigan losing to teams that were, at least to my eyes, inferior. UCLA in '01, Washington in '02, Oregon in '03, and I'd even say Miami in '88. My memory doesn't go much earlier than that. You can throw bowl games in there as well. Bo, Moeller, Carr, and maybe Hoke as well were chiefly concerned with winning the B1G and just getting to the Rose Bowl. Anything else was gravy.

MrVociferous

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:58 PM ^

I think that's not giving any of those coaches much credit and looking back at history through some seriously rose colored glasses.  I highly doubt any of those coaches looked at a non-conference game as an "aww fuck it" occassion.  I mean, do you really think Bo looked at non-conf matchups with an attitude of indifference??  "Ahh screw it, its just FSU.  We'll focus on Wisconsin."  I really doubt that.  If you're a coach you want to win all of them regardless of what conference they play in.

PurpleStuff

September 2nd, 2012 at 2:54 PM ^

Michigan definitely didn't lose bowl games or non-conference games because the coaching staff didn't give a shit or because our team was designed for something else.  They lost because the other teams had guys like Bo Jackson, Warren Moon, and more recently Vince Young.

snarling wolverine

September 2nd, 2012 at 3:56 PM ^

We had some downright crummy luck, too, especially in Pasadena.  All of Bo's Rose Bowl losses were close games.  A phantom holding call in the 1990 Rose probably cost him the chance to go out a winner against USC. 

I also think that perhaps Bo didn't put a ton of emphasis on his bowl opponents.  He beat his share of top-notch opponents during the regular season (including many strong non-conference teams), but in the bowls it suddenly became much more difficult.

DanRareEgg

September 2nd, 2012 at 3:36 PM ^

But I don't think the intensity was the same. Was USC in the ' 07 Rose Bowl that much better than Michigan? What about Washington State in 1998? We should have pounded them, but only eked out a 5 point win. We're all of Bo's teams that lost in the Rose Bowl really not better than their opponents? I doubt it. Not that they didn't want to win, but rather they didn't have as much passion as in conference games. I don't know, maybe I'm just short-changing the PAC teams.

snarling wolverine

September 2nd, 2012 at 3:50 PM ^

It could be that there is something about our bowl preparation that needs to be improved.  Maybe we've treated too many of the bowl practices as de facto spring practices, rather than prepping exclusively for our opponent.  Bo's bowl record (5-12) is by far the biggest blemish on his career record).  Carr was mediocre, too (6-7) and while Hoke won his first bowl, it was not a great performance.  Only Moeller (4-1) seemed to have it down.

 

jmblue

September 2nd, 2012 at 5:29 PM ^

There may be something to this.  It's not just the super-elite teams that win a lot of bowls.  Joe Paterno and Barry Alvarez had outstanding bowl records, but we dominated them head-to-head.  Maybe we've always viewed the bowls as more of a reward than anything.  That's not the worst thing in the world if so, but it may have cost us a few games.

Yeoman

September 2nd, 2012 at 9:57 PM ^

I think Bo's bowl record might have been a bit better if they'd been allowed to go to bowls other than the Rose those first six years. Two of his very best teams got shut out altogether (and '72 wasn't bad either) and the only opponent they ever got was the very best team in the PAC in Pasadena.

Don

September 2nd, 2012 at 10:22 PM ^

Ever hear of these guys?

Ricky Bell   OJ Simpson  Charles White  Marcus Allen   Troy Palamalu   Junioir Seau   Warren Moon   Troy Aikman   Aaron Rogers   Anthony Munoz   John Elway   Jim Plunkett  Lynn Swann   Gary Jeter   Carson Palmer   Matt Leinart   Jake Plummer   Randall McDaniel  Dan Fouts   Teddy Bruschi   Terrell Suggs   Todd Heap   Marshawn Lynch  Tony Gonzalez   Haloti Ngata   TJ Houshmandzadeh   Keyshawn Johnson  Reggie Bush   Tony Boselli   Lincoln Kennedy   Mark Brunell   Olin Kreutz

This is just a tiny, tiny random sampling of some of the best-known PAC 10 players over the last 40 years. As of 2010, USC had the most NFL draft choices overall, and the most first-round picks, of any school in the country.

Why Michigan fans continue to believe that the PAC 10 doesn't produce huge amounts of talent is beyond me. You don't lose as many Rose Bowls as the Big 10 has over the last 40 years by a continuous stream of flukes. It's not because Big 10 teams "don't want it"—they've been outplayed and outcoached by better players and better coaches more often than not.

I've been in Ann Arbor since the fall of 1971, so I've been around for all 14 of the Rose Bowls we've been to in that time. And since that Rose Bowl of Jan 1972, I've heard Michigan fans boast about how the PAC 10 doesn't play a physical brand of football, that they're all finesse teams, and that when we play USC (or Stanford or UCLA or Washington or ASU or WSU) that we'll hit those west coast pussies in the mouth and that will be that. I heard it before our game with Stanford, and I heard (and read it) before our last RB with USC after the 2006 season. You'd think that after a 4-10 record in that time that Michigan fans would give up the ridiculous fantasy that PAC-10 teams can't hang with us physically, but then millions of people believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Some people are just stuck on stupid.

 

Yeoman

September 2nd, 2012 at 11:00 PM ^

This conversation seems to hit the board two or three times a year and every time I look into it I'm amazed at the talent Cal has put into the league. I'd take their alums against any other school--they can fill every position with a bit of plausible shifting (they might be one short in the O-line but I'll bet we can dig someone up) and some of it is real quality. Every other school has a major hole somewhere--no qb, no rb, etc., but Cal's even got two long snappers in the NFL.

Ernis

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:46 PM ^

I can imagine a scene in the Alabama locker room

Saban: You know they left their starting running back in Michigan because... get this... he got a DUI

Team: Just one?

Saban: Yes. And they kicked one of their receivers off the team for getting two DUIs and violating his probation

Team: What?? Coach, are you serious? That is crazy.

Saban: It's true. Those Yankees are tyrants. We would never do that to you guys!

lololol

True Blue Grit

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:22 PM ^

REALLY well last night.  That was a surprise to me.  Michigan often plays so-so or poorly in our first game, so we shouldn't overly panic here.  Yes, it's going to be 2-3 years before we have the kind of talent on the team to be competitive with a team like Alabama.  But, we'll get there.  I was encouraged at least to see how well Dennis Norfleet and Will Hagerup did.  They were bright spots for Michigan.  

Logan88

September 2nd, 2012 at 5:48 PM ^

Here's a scary thought: What if Bama didn't actually play all that well last night?

One, that means that UM got thrashed by a "meh" performance from Bama which would be even more discouraging for us and two, that means that every other team that Bama has yet to play can look forward to an even tougher challenge.

kb

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^

watching Alabama manhandle us reinforces why Hoke is recruiting and bringing in the big hosses on the OL and DL at Michigan again.  The game is won in the trenches and by pounding the ball down the opponent's throat, not with slot ninjas and spread offenses.

Bodogblog

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:59 PM ^

To that point, we need another elite DT in this recruiting class.  When our DL wasn't so small that it was getting blown back, they were holding their ground but not doing anything.  I can see Pip has potentially to hold his ground and then make a tackle (given some development time), but we need 4 guys who are 300+ (rotation/rest) who can do that at 1T and 3T. Even with our fantastic recruiting, I don't see that yet.  I think we should take 3 Pipkins/Hurst types every class.

MrVociferous

September 2nd, 2012 at 1:03 PM ^

The difference between the top teams and Mich right now, is that when they get a guy like Pipkins, they don't have to throw him to the wolves right away.  They redshirt them, then he's a backup for a year, and then maybe he gets in the rotation in year three.  Its going to take a few years to build the depth and talent on the DL.

Don

September 2nd, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^

Which makes the previous coaching staff's near-criminal bungling of Jonathan Hankins' recruiting even more damaging. He was a huge (6-3/315) DT out of Detroit who badly wanted to play for Michigan, but RR & Co. refused to offer him early because his conditioning didn't meet their lofty standards. Oddly enough, his conditioning was good enough for the program in Columbus that had been to three national championship games and that had owned us for seven straight years, and by the time we got around to offering him, he was gone. He's a pre-season All-American pick by a variety of analysts, and he'd look pretty good on our DL now.

I doubt very much that Hoke will make the same mistake.

PurpleStuff

September 2nd, 2012 at 4:46 PM ^

Hankins got an offer long before signing day (this was not a Rawls, Norfleet, Clark, etc. situation).  The assumption that he was dying to come to Michigan is just that, an assumption.  He visited here, Florida, Virginia, and OSU.  He picked OSU.  Maybe because they had been to 3 national championship games and owned us 7 years in a row.  Maybe because our fans were willing to accuse the coach recruiting him of "criminal" behavior if a player chose another school he realized that the guys he signed with might not be here much longer.

At the end of the day, OSU actually didn't offer guys like Fitz (100+ yard rushing day), Avery (game clinching interception), Black (key TFL near the goalline), Ryan (3 tackles, 1/2 sack), and Omameh (paved the way for two 100+ yard rushers en route to 40 points scored against Hankins and company) who all played a huge part in beating them for the first time since 2003.  I'll take the trade.