What we learned today

Submitted by michgoblue on

Some observations about our team coming out of this game.  Many of these are not necessarily new observations, but confirmation of prior observations now that we have seen the team in B10 play:

1.  Our defense really is as bad as we expected.  IU has a good passing attack, no doubt, but they are a 1 dimensional team that can't run for crap.  They marched down the field on just about every drive. 

1a.  We are actually going to win a bunch of games, but to do it, we are going to have to put up 30+ points in every game.

2.  We are going to put up a ton of points, regardless of who is on defense. 

3.  Denard is as good as we all thought ,maybe better.  He is a game changer, and runs the 2-minute drill (1 minute this time) as good as any QB.

4.  V. SMith is not good.  Perhaps he needs more time to fully recover from his ACL injury.  He had the 50 yard TD run, but until the 10 yd line, we pretty much just ran through an open hope.  He couldn't consistently pick up more than 3 on the worst rushing D we are going to face.  WE need Cox to step up if given the chance.

5.  Time of possession = irrelevant.  Who cares how long it takes to score, so long as you score on just about every drive.

6.  Barwis = the real deal.  Despite being on the field for more than 2/3 of the game - often in long bunches of time with limited substitutions, the D never looked winded.

7.  Gallon needs more time before he is a return man. 

8.  Always bet on the "over." 

ST3

October 2nd, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^

Yes, our defense gave up 568 yards and 35 points today, but let's dig a little deeper. IU averaged 5.8 yards per play on 98 plays. If our offense wasn't dilithium powered, our scoring drives would have lasted a little longer than a minute or two. Let's say instead of us getting 45 plays and IU getting 98, it was split 50-50. That gives IU 5.8 yards per play * 70 plays = 406 yards. That's more than I care for, but not too bad. If our offense doesn't have scoring drives of 46 seconds, 1 minute 54 seconds, and 3 minutes 56 seconds, IU doesn't get that last TD of the 1st half.

IU was only 11 of 19 on 3rd down. I know, I watched the game and it seemed worse than that to me, but that's not horrible. That gets your defense off the field for 8 drives, except that they went for it 4 times on 4th down and got 2.

Good numbers: they punted 4 times. We got an interception. We stopped them twice on fourth down. Let's just face it that our expectations for the defense are going to have to be adjusted by the fact that our offense is scoring so fast. It's not the Michigan football of Bo, Gary, and Lloyd, but damn is it fun to watch.

P.S. IU 5.8 yards per play. UM 12.8 yards per play. UM 42, IU 35. Enough said.

greenphoenix

October 3rd, 2010 at 12:22 AM ^

This is a critical point. In football each team gets about the same number of chances to score (give or take one posession because of time running out at the end of each half). Michigan's average scoring drive was about six plays and about two minutes long. If there is any single statistic that you can take to the bar when you talk about this team, that is it. I have never seen anything like it.

Anyway, If that kind of efficiency keeps up, the defense against any competent offense (and say what you like about Indiana but their passing game today was outstanding, and their quarterback very good) will get a lot of plays and a lot of time of possession, not only because they want to keep the ball away, but because, frankly, it takes them longer overall to score.

This is another way that the insane numbers being put up by this offense make us reconsider our traditional indicators of a team's effectiveness. Time Of Possession? Throw it out the window. It's a waste. Total plays run? Even that is a little suspect, because Michigan will score in 4-8 and their opponents will need at least a dozen, generally speaking.

The defense on a team with an offense like this like this could actually be pretty good, and still have wildly disproportionate time of possession, as well as running a lot of plays, just because the ball changes hands so many times, and because the offense scores so fast. We do have to look at average yards per play, total yards, and the final score.

At the end of the day, though, it's the team that scores on a greater percentage of their possessions that wins the game. I thought that the defense did okay today. They shut Indiana down for most of the second half. They were putting ridiculous pressure on a quick-release passer with a three man rush, which meant that the line is good, and more importantly, THE ZONE WAS WORKING. The linebackers didn't make we want to die (although Roh, man, that's just mean, put the dude on the line, that has to stop). The crazy assignment errors that we saw in Notre Dame didn't happen. Indiana couldn't get their running game going, and it took a lights-out performance from the best wide receiver we've played against to keep them in the game.

So, lemme wrap up what *I* learned today:

Each team gets about the same number of shots to score

We do more with ours, and we do them faster than anyone else in college football

That kind of arrangement makes defenses look bad, even if they are not.

We are going to see a lot of games this year where we win by maybe two touchdowns, and it won't really be that close.

switch26

October 2nd, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^

I hope shaw and toussaint can play next wk.. I think toussaint can be one of those other running backs that can step up and show us what he can really do in the coming wks of the big ten.

neoavatara

October 2nd, 2010 at 11:58 PM ^

Not much.

We know Denard is dilithium.  We know our offensive line is for real.  We know our receivers are solid.  We know our RBs are good, not great.

We know our defensive schemes can't stop anyone.  We know our secondary can't stop anyone.  We know we have no faith in our kickers.

Maybe there are two things we learned.  First, our D is in great shape thanks to Barwis.  Second, Hagerup is decent when he gets going.

jamiemac

October 3rd, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^

Vincent Smith has had 7 TDs in Michigan's last 7 games

I dont know what the fuck else you people want out of the guy.

Also: Look who had the game winning block

YouRFree

October 3rd, 2010 at 12:10 AM ^

The D is bad, but not as bad as i thought it would be. Unlike the previous two seasons, the D this year can slightly improve in the 2nd half of every game (due to some adjustments?). In the Indiana game, our D had a few stops in the 2nd half, and our offense has many chances to make 2 TD lead in the 2nd half to seal the game, but they failed to do so. 

greenphoenix

October 3rd, 2010 at 12:31 AM ^

Full on nickel defense with Roh floating around in the backfield (?)

Lots of blitzing, especially for this team; they blitzed about ten times during the day, and had a lot of success with it. Often on early downs.

Good zone defense from the linebackers overall

Defense Line lining up wider and unbalanced on a lot of plays, which seemed to confuse their coverage. The sack that Banks got he basically walked past the left tackle, who seemed really surprised to see him come around.

Overall this was not the same defense, in terms of sophistication or structure, that we ran in the last five weeks, and what was really reassuring to me was that it was actually executed pretty well.

They are getting killed because they don't have a shutdown cornerback, so they have to rely on zone defense. Teams get a lot of short yardage plays against this strategy. They get a shutdown corner and this defense goes up thirty points in national rankings overnight because they can add another body to the line.

recruit, recruit, recruit

bronxblue

October 3rd, 2010 at 12:23 AM ^

What we learned today is that if an offense is able to run about 100 plays, they will carve up this defense.  Beyond that, IU showed that they are a dangerous passing offense and not much else, but that was nearly enough to beat a pretty good Big 10 team.  I do think that the defense will play better next week against MSU because what MSU does best (running the ball) is something that UM will be better able to stop than the short passing display orchestrated by Chappell. 

phill

October 3rd, 2010 at 1:12 AM ^

The defense was on the field a long long time. Overall they didn't do too bad. This game can be counted as one where the defence made progress, inspite of the ridiculous stats.

If our secondary gets better, as they have more experience, this defense will be good

Sommy

October 3rd, 2010 at 1:23 AM ^

What did I learn today?

Nothing.

They are who we thought they were.  I say that without a hint of irony.  I expected an efficient IU offense and a bad IU rushing defense.  I got an efficient IU offense and a bad IU rushing defense.

Someone said weeks ago that we stand a 50% chance of winning every game we have this year.  I firmly believe that.  This team is a mystery.  It's exciting and agonizing all at the same time.  Denard is having the greatest single season statistical performance of any collegiate player in the history of college football.  Our defense is an abomination.  We're 5-0 and could just as easily go 5-7 and I wouldn't be surprised.  We could go 12-0 and I wouldn't know what to say.  I feel like I'm learning about football for the first time, again.

I watched the game at a local bar today -- a friend of mine got up to use the bathroom twice and missed two incredible plays.  He was genuinely remorseful. 

What else is there to say?  Keep your eyelids pinned open, or you may miss another highlight.

50 years from now, if I'm still alive, I will probably not have any grandkids to talk with about this season.  Hell, I probably won't have any kids or a wife or anything of the sort.  But I'll still have the memories of this season and who is shaping up to be the greatest player in the history of Michigan football.

decadoug

October 3rd, 2010 at 7:54 AM ^

Our defense did better than I expected. They were on the field for what 2/3 of the game. Now part of that is because they couldn't get the 3 and out, or stop 4th down conversions. But a big part of that was because our offense scored so fast. Our defense needs work, no one disputes that, but they don't flat out suck. We're talking about such young guys playing their 5th college game. To have so many young guys out on the field for so long, and still have them playing hard and not giving up, I'd say they deserve a lot more credit than they get. As to the recruiting arguement, I'm not a recruiting expert, nor am I any kind of football expert, but maybe RR recruited so much offensive talent instead of defense, because he wanted people to see his offense in action. Now that we have the offense rolling, we look way more appealing to defensive recruits. The good recruits now have a reason to consider Michigan, because they know we have the offense to put up points and win games, which can turn into championships. I think RR was right to recruit heavy on the offense to start out, because bringing in defensive players would have slowed down the development of the offense, leaving more doubt about his ability to put together this insane offense we have now. Oh, what else did i learn today? We are 5-0, and no matter what happens next week, for this week, I will enjoy being 5-0. Go Blue!

MinorforPresident

October 3rd, 2010 at 9:07 AM ^

1. Indiana fans suck! Real classy move cheering when Denard went down. Next year I hope we beat you by 4-5 td's in Ann Arbor.

2. I get severe anxiety watching Michigan's defense and tend to throw various objects around my house.

3. I heart Denard.

4. These games give me another excuse to drink more silver bullets on Saturday.

GO BLUE!

92MGOBLUE

October 3rd, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^

First time on the forum here.

The offense looked awesome (despite the stalled drives in the fourth when we really needed them to decrease our own "pucker" factor).  I really feel like, because we score so much, that we have the potential to win any game this year.....if we play smart and don't turn the ball over. 

The scary part is, how can our defense be so bad?!  I know Indiana runs a complicated passing offense, but after 3 years we just have very little improvement on defense.  I gotta believe that Grob is a knowledgeable and great coach....so what gives?  Is it a lack of talent on D.  I mean, despite all the defections and injuries, it seems like we would still be able to be at least average.  As fast as our offense scores, we need a defense that is LAYERS DEEP.  We dont have that, and I fear that it will haunt us down the road.

Also, just out of curiousity, what is up with Josh Furman?  Does anyone have any info on him?  Is he going to be redshirted?  This kid looked awesome (on film and paper).  I keep expecting to hear his name but have not.  Is he going to end up a LB or a safety?  Any info would be appreciated.  Go Blue!