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.

MGoBlue96

September 2nd, 2012 at 9:27 PM ^

right? Florida's teams that won NC's recently had both slot ninja type players, and big athletic hosses up front that could dominate games. I don't disagree with the direction Hoke intends to go in, but it is a disgenous to say you can't win big with a spread offense, given the fact that Florida won multiple NC's running a spread offense.

steve sharik

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^

...my defensive gameplan would've been to play the quick DL and stunt them all night, trying to get penetration so the Tide OL couldn't get to the 2nd level so easily.  I think we played right into their hands by playing the bigger DL.  We tried quicker DL combinations, but by the time it happened, the damage was done, 21-0 1st quarter hole.

In the long run, though, I don't think any DL we played would've been a winner last night.  Just would've made it closer, and Floyd Mayweather would've made $3M he doesn't need.

GGV

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^

 

how does Michigan compare to

A) teams that don't oversign

B)  teams that oversign

Against teams that DON'T oversign, we are doing pretty darn well all things considered.  Brady Hoke is making things work with non-optimal players for his system.  

Against teams that DO oversign, we do about as well as probably should be expected.

Alabama oversigned by 11 last year.  Add that up over 5 years (including red-shirt season) and that's 50 or more players Alabama has to work with.  It also insures that they can sit kids for a year and bulk them up.  Remember, a lot of those oversigns don't just get cut or put on medical.  Some do decide to walk-on in hopes of getting the 'ship promised to them at a later date.

So, any conclusions drawn from last night's game about the state of Michigan football are invalid.  Apples and oranges.

 

maizenbluenc

September 2nd, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^

While it is a reprehensible practice, oversigning is legal, Alabama and LSU are able to put teams together like Bo and Woody did back when they had 100+ scholarships to work with. They just suck up all the talent for miles around, and thoe kids all still sign with Saban and Miles because they think think risk is worth the potential reward.

So until the cows come home, someone has to build a team in a cyclical way that they have the same depth of talent and can beat Bama anyway.

jjemrick

September 2nd, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^

 

Saturday

09/03/11
Golden Flashes Kent State Golden Flashes 

Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL
Won 48-7 ---
Saturday

09/10/11
Nittany Lions at Penn State Nittany Lions 

Beaver Stadium, University Park, PA
Won 27-11 ---
Saturday

09/17/11
Mean Green North Texas Mean Green 

Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL
Won 41-0 ---
Saturday

09/24/11
Razorbacks Arkansas Razorbacks 

Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL
Won 38-14 ---
Saturday

10/01/11
Gators at Florida Gators 

Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, Gainesville, FL
Won 38-10 ---
Saturday

10/08/11
Commodores Vanderbilt Commodores 

Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL
Won 34-0 ---
Saturday

10/15/11
Rebels at Ole Miss Rebels 

Vaught-Hemingway Stadium, Oxford, MS
Won 52-7 ---
Saturday

10/22/11
Volunteers Tennessee Volunteers 

Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL
Won 37-6 ---
Saturday

10/29/11
--- Open Date --- ---
Saturday

11/05/11
Tigers LSU Tigers 

Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL
Lost 9-6

(OT)
---
Saturday

11/12/11
Bulldogs at Mississippi State Bulldogs 

Davis Wade Stadium, Starkville, MS
Won 24-7 ---
Saturday

11/19/11
Eagles Georgia Southern Eagles

Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL
Won 45-21 ---
Saturday

11/26/11
Tigers at Auburn Tigers 

Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, AL
Won 42-14 ---
2012 Allstate BCS National Championship Game
Monday

01/09/12
Tigers LSU Tigers 

Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, LA
Won 21-0

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-11/sec/2011-alabama-crimson-tide-football-schedule.php

So we join the ranks of teams that were handily defeated by Alabama in the last year (and some of those teams were good/great teams). And we learn that Alabama can regenerate studs on defense like a reptile pops out a new limb.

The only reason it might feel like we are in trouble is that we are only 1 year out from the RR era, and big losses just bring back those bad feelings inside.

NO. It is not 2010. We did not just lose to MSU or Iowa or Penn State or Wisconsin or Ohio State and you can rest assured that Alabama is superior to Mississippi State.

The plane is not crashing into the mountain.

turtleboy

September 2nd, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^

That first quarter was the whole game, and also an outlier in the game. We weren't as bad as the score, but I would say Alabama was as good. We weren't "biggest game of the year" ready yet, at least in the first quarter of the first game.

LSAClassOf2000

September 2nd, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^

I would agree with this. Actually, if the first quarter doesn't happen, we lose to Alabama 20-14 in an otherwise respectable game against a physically superior Alabama. It's been hashed out in several other threads, but our  performance is more or less what Alabama's opponents last year averaged - indeed, in some respects, we did better. Even taking that into the conference sechedule leads me to think we'll be just fine. 

The first quarter did happen, of course, but what the outcome of the other three quarters says to me is that we have a staff that learns fast and makes adjustments which generally work regardless of the opponent, and that's certainly what you want out of them. We aren't at "Alabama level", but a performance which was statistically respectable against Alabama for the most part is a great sign. 

Yeoman

September 2nd, 2012 at 1:20 PM ^

For all the griping about the offense, that's the most points Alabama's given up to a FBS team since 2010.

I'm not sure why people expected (hopes, I can understand, but not expectations) this to go differently, or why seeing the expected result is changing people's expectations for the rest of the year.

Unless, of course, Countess or Lewan have serious injuries.

Sons of Louis Elbel

September 2nd, 2012 at 1:34 PM ^

Count me in the non-doom and gloom crowd. Bama is a clearly superior team, and in particular the strength of their team (the o-line, which it seems Ace correctly described as not only the top o-line in the country, but the top position group in the country) was up against one of the main question marks for ours. But last night was also one of those nights where just about everything that could go wrong for us did: not having Fitz (or a back-up they trusted - we all love Smith, but we know he's not truly an option as an every down back), Countess getting hurt, the ridiculous non-call on Denard's first INT (um, when you shove the receiver out of bounds downfield, isn't there something in the rulebook about illegal contact???), etc. If these things hadn't happened, would we have won? No, but it would likely have looked more respectable. Sometimes we're just not the best team on the field.

So, where do we stand going forward? Still don't know how hurt Countess and Lewan are. Obviously, if Lewan misses any time that could be a serious problem, but we can almost certainly live w/o Countess for the next 2 weeks. Our d-line is likely to improve - still won't be a strength against teams w/good o-lines, but again, they won't face one as good as Bama's the rest of the year. The special teams look as good as they have in awhile - Norfleet was terrific (granted, we got to see him far too much, but still), and who thought that our biggest problem w/Hagerup would be that he's now outkicking his coverage? Our offense: OK, I agree w/everyone who wondered WTF Borges w/r/t the playcalling. That needs to be worked out. But we'll have some time to work those things through a bit more in the upcoming weeks. This was true last year as well (which, I suppose makes a lot of people wonder why this is still the case, but hopefully we learned a few things last night).

And, oh yes: there wasn't anyone in the B10 East that looked unbeatable this weekend...

Greg McMurtry

September 2nd, 2012 at 1:52 PM ^

This offense needs a speed back as it currently stands. Smith is a 3rd down back and Rawls is a one-cut big back. Bama was just staying home on Denard all game on the read and he had to hand off, but the backs weren't cutting it.

mdsgoblue

September 2nd, 2012 at 2:39 PM ^

and thought I'd post this here as it's applicable to this thread and we don't need another one today.

Tale of turning points-



So I have watched the game over (ouch again) and took a pretty close look at the statistics from 2 points in the game on offense and defense that I felt things turned around.  I am no expert but I saw a major difference and something to build on.  The defensive stats really don't bear this out but IMHO there was visible evidence just from the way the team was playing.  This is caveated with "foot off the pedal with a lead" yadda yadda's.



Offense (This really stood out):

Att    Completions    PassYards    YPA    PassTD    INT    RushAttempts    Yards RushTD

4      12                    28                  .023    0               2       1                         3        0        

Turning Point: 3-9-MICH3(4:31) Denard Robinson was intercepted.

Touchdown. C.J. Mosley returned the interception for 16 yards.

Att    Completions    PassYards    YPA    PassTD    INT    RushAttempts    Yards    RushTD

7      11                    172                15.63  1               0        7                         28         1



Defense (simplistic analysis):

195 Yards and 31 Points

Turning Point:  3-3-MICH46(6:15) AJ McCarron lost 6 yards.

James Ross sacked AJ McCarron.

195 Yards and 10 points



So pretty simple and nowhere near to what I'm sure certain contributors on this board will crank out, but it did make me feel better.



GoBlue!

Edit:  Sorry about the formatting. aack!

VadoCaeruleus

September 2nd, 2012 at 6:21 PM ^

I was at the game and agree with most it is not doom and gloom yet, since we were overmatched in terms of talent and physicality. 

The thing that scares me and makes last nights game not comparable to UTL was that Alabama took their foot off the gas.  The game was essentially over after the 1st qtr and if they had maintained their 1st qtr intensity / personnel it could have gotten very ugly.  The final score last night did not reflect Alabama's dominance.

Waters Demos

September 2nd, 2012 at 9:04 PM ^

you guys will be fine.  Your recruiting is building M back to where it was.  Anything in the meantime is bonus; drinks with house money. 

There's no need for the kittens (wtf is with that [!]; what do cats have to do with football???), or drama.  Patience folks; enjoy these bonus years while they last with the players who are building the future.  Which is impossible around here.  Perhaps there should be a umich.edu ID and password requirement, but that would deplete site revenue.  And there are teenage boys to obsess over. 

Waters Demos

September 2nd, 2012 at 9:53 PM ^

Good points (Yeoman too - I'm just saving space).  You are right to point out an assumption.  As evidence to the contrary of my own, the site's proprietor is the one responsible for the cats[!]   On the main page[!]  (You may have also noted that under my proposal, I'd get kicked off too.  Which may be best for everyone). 

I have no problem believing there are steady long-time fans who post rationally while some students and alums do the opposite.  My proposal really would throw the baby out with the bathwater.  You're right to point that out.  But it's an easy distinction to draw.  How do you measure "rationality" and capture only those capable of it and excluding everyone else?

Good posts BTW, both of you.  Always challenge assumptions. 

Yeoman

September 2nd, 2012 at 10:05 PM ^

Read selectively. Install a kitten filter. Avoid the board for a few days after a loss.

Create a rationality filter for the 'net and you could probably sell it for good money...to the handful of people in the world who happen to share your definition of rational. I gave up trying to impose mine a long time ago.

Waters Demos

September 2nd, 2012 at 10:14 PM ^

Damn - another good post.

I don't mean to impose anything on anyone (strange as that may sound to some here).  And I get paid to decipher where lines are drawn and walk them as closely as possible.  But rational people can agree that anyone feeling like jumping out of a building and slitting their throats on the way down [figuratively speaking for clarity purposes] over a football game falls below the threshold, wherever it may be. 

And I still don't know what the significance of cats is.  I've always been confused about it. 

Ron Utah

September 3rd, 2012 at 1:57 AM ^

I have to admit, I felt awful on 'Bama's first TD drive.  After forcing 'Bama into 3-and-out on their first possession, after picking-up a first down only to be pushed back by penalties, after a booming punt negated by a good return, we succumbed to the power of the Crimson O-line and got pushed back into our own end zone.  It's not that I was expecting Michigan to be competitive with 'Bama, it's just that I was hoping...

That bad feeling of getting manhandled stayed with me on every TJ Yeldon run or McCarron completion.  Anger with the officials and the apparent absence of intentional grounding bothered me, as did the obvious size, speed, and strength differences.

But there was some good, too.  Borges' game plan was exactly what I thought we needed: isolate receivers and have Denard make easy throws against the one-on-one coverage we were sure to see.  The only problem was that Denard couldn't hit the easy seam/slant routes.  From beginning to end, he missed passes I know he can hit.  How do I know?  There is NO way Borges would have come into that game with those passes as the game plan without executing over and over and over in practice.  I believe the work will pay off.  As a side note, I believe the choice not to run Denard much wasn't just about protecting him--it simply wasn't there.  Watch the game and the way the 'Bama defense moves.  They were not looking to penetrate.  The were playing to contain, and they did that beautifully.  Borges would have called more QB runs if it had been there...but it wasn't.  No sense in banging Denard's head against the wall if there are better opportunities to beat the defense.

But what if I'm wrong about Denard being able to execute those throws in the future?  He didn't look too much improved as a passer, except on the deep throws.  He had better mechanics overall, but his accuracy was still lacking.  If we can't pass the ball more effectively than last year, then this schedule will take 11-2 down to 9-4, or even 8-5.  I was disappointed in Denard.

And now, for some sacreligious banter...while I love him as much as I have loved any Michigan player, while his smile, his leadership, and his character (shining brightly once again against 'Bama) hold a permanent place of gratitude in my heart, I have to admit that Saturday night I realized that I will be ready for Denard to leave after this fall.  Obviously, this works out perfectly since he is out of eligibility, but I am ready for Michigan to be back to a pro style offense and the MANBALL that Bo immortalized as our identity.  Yes, I love Denard and will love this year with him, but I am also ready for us to move forward with the plan and watch Hoke master the universe.

And maybe that's why when I woke-up on Sunday, I didn't have the usual post-loss hangover.  Maybe it's because 'Bama was clearly just the better team, and even our best day with our full line-up (Fitz, Countess) we would still struggle mightily against 'Bama.  Maybe it was that you could see that we never gave up.  But for some reason, I just don't feel nearly as bad as I thought I would.

I said in pre-game threads what I thought we needed to do against 'Bama.  We tried to do it.  We couldn't.  Denard couldn't hit the passes.  The running game was virtually non-existent.  And our defense couldn't stop the 'Bama O-Line.  And if we can't improve on those things this will be a long season.  But something tells me we'll be just fine; Denard will hit the slants.  The running game will be effective.  And our defense will be a Greg Mattison defense.  This is Michigan, fergodsakes, and Coach Hoke will keep us moving in the right direction.