You're making my point for me. If you fire Harbaugh and your plan is to find the second coming of Jim Tressel (that you can't name) - you have no plan.
Point is, we are 2/3 of the way through the 2021 season and Michigan is 7-1 and ranked #7 in the CFP a season after the wheels fell off and Harbaugh cleaned house and brought in an entire new staff. Might be advantageous to see how this thing plays out.
If M could've seen the future in 2015, they would've hired the Philadelphia Eagles QB Coach and we all would've flipped our shit.
For me, it's incredibly hard to buy into the argument of, "I don't know who we should hire, but let's definitely fire Jim." Wut? Michigan has gone into a coaching search twice with no idea who their target was and has the 46-42 record to show for it.
Harbaugh has not been elite during his time at Michigan - but he has been good (we can argue that all day). If you are going to fire Harbaugh, fine, but there has to be an absolutely can't miss guy in the wings if you do so. I'd argue that guy doesn't exist today.
Again, I say to all the fire Harbaugh folks: "And hire who?" I don't say this because I don't think M can attract any top coaches, I say this because the top coaches that are being discussed for the USC/LSU jobs are not any better than Harbaugh.
For example, James Franklin is regarded as an elite HC and certainly better than Harbaugh among the college football community. Yet, he is 11-17 against the Top 25; 2-12 against the Top 10; 26-18 against the B1G East, has beat OSU exactly 1 time and is 65-31 overall during his time at Penn State. Compare those to Harbaugh's numbers. JH is 10-17 against the Top 25; 2-13 against the Top 10; 19-11 against the B1G East and 56-23 overall. Harbaugh's numbers are either better or exactly the same as Franklin's numbers.
So, back to the original question. If Warde fires Jim - who replaces him? In my mind, there is no one (that M would actually hire) that could come in on Day 1 and get a better result. Stuck in purgatory? Sure. But, for my money, it is better than the hell that USC, Texas, Nebraska, Miami and Tennessee are in....neg away.
Slightly off-topic, given the point of your article, but why is everyone always so eager to give James Franklin the title of "one of the best coaches in the country?" It is absolutely mind-boggling to me. Guy is 9-8 over since the start of the 2020 season. He's just lost 3 Big Ten games in a row for the 4th time in his career. He is 1-7 against OSU and 3-4 against M and Sparty. In the past 7 years, he has brought in better ranked recruiting classes than M exactly twice.
Yet, the narrative is that this dude is a made man and Harbaugh should have been gone 2 years ago. What am I missing?
If PSU/Iowa was a top 10 matchup, this most certainly is. Outside of maybe Georgia (who only beat a 4-3 Clemson team by 7), every top 10 has a fluky win or two, a loss or a resume that has some holes in it.
I’m also interested in looking at these underlying stats…
Yeah, this comment is a bit misguided. Jenkins was a 1,000 yd receiver in '02. He also only finished with 6 TDs for the entire season. Additionally, the #2 receiver on that team? A two-way player in Chris Gamble, who came in with only 499 yds and 0 TDs. The other 12 guys who caught passes that year only accounted for 577 yards and I challenge you to name any of them off the top of your head. Point is - don't make Jenkins out as some Biletnikoff Award Finalist. He was good, but he was also the only guy. Literally any of Michigan's wideouts would probably start opposite of Jenkins that year. Again, they had to insert Chris Gamble on the offensive side of the ball because they didn't have great depth.
I don't think you're wrong in terms of it "not working," yet with Harbaugh - but I do think that perception plays as much into this than anything else. For example, let's take a look at the QBs that have transferred from M during Harbaugh's time here: Morris to CMU; Peters to Illinois; Malzone to Miami (NTM); Speight to UCLA; Milton to Tennessee; McCaffrey to No. Colorado. Of these guys, only Speight was below a 4 star. All others were high 4's and all went on to new schools and put up essentially the same numbers (or worse) at their new destinations. You could make an argument that Morris improved slightly, but he still threw 17 picks during his one year at CMU. Speight is probably the best of the bunch and his play also deteriorated once he left Ann Arbor. Point being that Harbaugh probably wasn't the reason for their average play. And in Speight's case, he might have been the reason their play improved given the deterioration at the next stop.
Now, compare that to the guys that have transferred in to Michigan and have gotten major playing time (Rudock and Patterson). In one year under Harbaugh's tutelage, Rudock had a career high in yards thrown and TDs, resulting in a passing efficiency rating 11 pts higher than before he came to AA. Patterson's Efficiency Rate at M is also 3 pts higher than his time at Ole Miss - harder to compare other stats given his limited playing time in Oxford. Again, you could argue that Harbaugh raised the ceiling for both players compared to their previous stops.
Finally, through 5 games, Cade McNamara's Efficiency Rate is 157.9. That is 40 points higher than Rudock's first 5 games in 2015 (117.4) and 12pts higher than Speight's first 5 games in 2016 (145.8). Conversely, it's higher than Trevor Lawrence's first 5 games in 2019 (143.7) and almost identical to Andrew Luck in 2010 (157.5). Is Cade going to have a better year than Trevor Lawrence or Andrew Luck? Probably not, but again the argument could be made that through 5 games, Cade could be Harbaugh's best prospect since he's gotten to AA.
Simply put, the perception is that Harbaugh should be developing guys into Heisman candidates yearly. I think that's probably fair given the success he had with Luck and Kap a decade ago. He hasn't done that yet, but I do think the narrative that Harbaugh hasn't developed anyone since he walked in the door is also patently false. It's something that the Finebaums and Cowherds of the world have spewed and we as a fanbase have foolishly lapped up when things aren't going well.
Absolutely. It's possible that Cade had his bell rung a bit and that made him a bit more indecisive. I don't think Cade is Milton or O'Korn, but if he even completes half of the throws the OP talked about - the game looks different. I think the optimist's take is that it's good to get this type of game out of way against an inferior opponent. I would expect to see a sharper performance on Saturday.
I think your arguments above are fine - but you are indeed looking through rose-colored glasses. The good news here is that the plays are there. Guys are open and good routes are being run (for the most part). The bad news is that on all 4 of the incompletions you tagged above, the reason for the incompletion is a bad throw from Cade. Whether his double pumping and then throwing or a little too bouncy - all 4 of those throws should have gone for big gains or a score. They were all bad, but the two throws to the TEs were especially bad. The miss to Schoonmacher in the end zone is inexcusable and shaped the complexion of the rest of the game. And the next miss on an absolutely wide open All is certainly not the receiver's fault as you suggest.
Devil's advocate: The game reviewed was against Syracuse. The Orange just improved to 3-1 after beating Liberty last weekend. The same Liberty that was either #26 or #27, depending on which poll you look at.
Let's go ahead and take the defense's name out of our collective mouths when we are talking about how "bad" this game was. The D stepped up and allowed 10 pts despite being on the field for 43(!) plays in the second half - 22 more than M ran. The D did what was needed to win the game.
Which leads to a confirmation of the next point - Rutgers is not bad. Are they really good? Probably not, but they are ranked #53 in the SP+ (up 6 spots from last week) with a defense ranked on par with Florida and better than tOSU. At #53 they are ahead of teams like Wake Forest, IU and Ga Tech, and right behind BYU (52), UK (46) and NC St (42).
My goodness this is a take. I realize it's been said already, but hoo boy, you must have missed a lot of Michigan football over the past 20 years. I won't sit here and recite all the terrible halves of football that we have endured over the past 14 years because that would be counterproductive, but I will remind you of two things: 1) It was just that, a half. Not a game. A half. 2) Michigan won this game.
Before we all started screaming into a vacuum that let us force our own anxieties on the rest of the world, this game would have been remembered, by and large, as just that - a win. 4-0, on to Wisconsin. Stop complaining.
I'm sure that I am in the minority here, but I'm curious as to why there was so much excitement for Moorehead, other than experience at the position. He's been the OC/HC of a top 25 FBS Offense exactly twice during his 10 years at either of those positions. His 2017 Offense at PSU was prolific and his 2016 Offense was very good (outside of a 10pt showing in AA). Outside of that, his teams at Miss St ranked top-100ish and Oregon slipped inside the top 50 this year (albeit a very shortened season for them).
I'll join the chorus here reiterating that this is inconsequential because Michigan and all of us are going to have to endure at least 2-3 more seasons of Harbaugh. That said, I think the biggest factor you are missing is how bad Iowa State has been from a historical sense prior to Campbell's arrival. For me, the most compelling stat is that this year Matt Campbell and Iowa State will finish in the Top 10. For comparison - Iowa State has only finished ranked in the Top 25 as a whole TWICE in the history of the program. Sure, this is a strange year and there are anomalies throughout the sport, but I would argue Iowa State are not one of them. As others have pointed out, Campbell has had this program on an upward trend since 2016 by building a competitive and winning culture.
There is no such thing as a sure thing hire in College Football - none. That said, if Michigan were truly interested in changing the way that their football team was run from the bottom up, Campbell would be a fantastic hire. I don't believe that Michigan will go this route (now or ever), but whatever his next stop is - he will be successful.
Kind've missing my point, but ok. FWIW, Toledo was 35-39 in the 6 seasons prior to Campbell's arrival and was 35-15 during his 4 years there. No doubt Tim Beckman started the turnaround in 2010, but Campbell finished the job and then some. Finished in the top 25 for the first time in 11 years in 2012 and twice overall while he was there (something that hadn't been done since Gary Pinkel was HC). Averaged almost 9 wins a year for a program that averages 6-7 wins a year (1962- present). Toledo may have been a good MAC team before he got there (hadn't actually won a MAC title since 2004), but he raised them up "a bit."
I don't think you're completely off-base here, but I also think there's some holes in your argument.
- I'm interested in what warts you expect would come out after the honeymoon period with Campbell. It seems that he has improved the programs at both Toledo and Iowa St exponentially during his time there (both at least 4 seasons). Iowa St has reached levels that they've never seen before and there has been nary a negative word about the program or Campbell himself
- Hard to judge the guy's recruiting chops at a program like Iowa State. That said, some food for thought: Campbell was the first offer that current M signee JJ McCarthy had back in 2017. Guy has an eye for talent - but getting it to come to Ames is tough sell.
- I can't argue that Harbaugh wasn't the best coaching prospect available when he was hired in '15, but to say that Campbell is much less proven is not even close to accurate. When JH took the Michigan job, he had 4 years of FBS experience (San Diego doesn't cut it). If Campbell is the HC at Michigan in 2021, it will be his 10th year heading up an FCB program and his 6th year at a Power 5 school. Not including the NFL experience here for JH is probably not fair - but you could argue that his time in the NFL has not translated well to the college game or Michigan.
Finally, your last paragraph is where you lose me. Every Harbaugh success that you've pointed out, happened at Stanford. Every Campbell success you point out, happened in the last year. When JH got to Stanford, they were certainly bad and getting worse. But they had made 4 bowls (including a Rose) with Ty Willingham 6 years previously. This year Matt Campbell and Iowa State will finish in the Top 10. For comparison - Iowa State has only finished ranked in the Top 25 as a whole TWICE in the history of the program! He didn't resurrect the Iowa State program from the dead - there wasn't anything to resurrect before he got there.
We all need to prepare for Harbaugh to still be on the sidelines come 2021. No doubt, there is a laundry list of reasons to call for and expect his dismissal - but Warde isn't doing that. Instead, because this is 2020 and because there is a global pandemic currently affecting all of our lives and because it sounds like Harbs & Co. are doing the "right things" to keep player safety the priority - he be going anywhere, unless he himself decides to leave.
With that in mind, the "best case" scenario for next year is this: Don Brown is gone. Derek Mason comes in as DC. Gattis will leave because he is in the last year of his contract and is clearly being limited by Harbaugh. Warriner will be promoted to Co-OC. Harbaugh, realizing that he needs to make a move to appease the base, will bring in Nick Sheridan or Mike Hart to be the other Co-OC. This won't do much to move the needle and Michigan still doesn't get over the hump finishing 9-3.
You're right. Everyone on this board would gladly take the decade that OSU just finished over just about any decade M football has had - ever.
That said, I do think the OP is not too far off base here. OSU posted a 117-18 (.867) record in the decade and got a NC out of it. The only team with a better winning percentage is 'Bama at 123-15 (.891). The difference? 'Bama was in 6 of the 10 National Championship games played in the decade and won 4 of 'em.
Again, context is important here. Michigan and every other fan base not named Clemson would trade it all for a decade like OSU just had - but the argument can be made that it could have and probably should have been better for the team down in Ohio.
This question really comes down to, would M have been able to beat TAMU at home in Week 2, because outside of that, there is not a team on the schedule that could've hung with M even when they were figuring stuff out early on.
And, I think Michigan gets by TAMU in the same fashion Clemson did. An ok day by Lawrence/Patterson and some good defensive stops. The Aggies are not Wisconsin. While they have only lost to teams that are in the T10 this year, they have also only beaten Arkansas by 4 and Ole Miss by 7.
So, let's take it a step further; playing Clemson's schedule - how many B10 teams would be undefeated? I'll stay conservative and say 4.
Suffice to say, your implication that Gattis isn't calling plays anymore is a bit suspect at best. Where is the basis to say that, Gattis, who is now on the field will a playsheet in hand and verbally yelling instruction is no longer calling plays?
Hard to say that the trouble with this board is that there is no middle ground - when you are suggesting that a coach who could potentially go 49-16 in 5 seasons is, "doing well but not good enough." Pot, meet kettle.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but man.
I'm going to expand a bit beyond the original post. If Michigan goes 11-2 or 10-3 this year (the latter being more realistic), they will have 4 seasons in the past 5 where they've won at least 10 games. The last time that a Michigan team completed this feat was the '76 thru '80 seasons, where Bo went 10-2, 4 out of 5 seasons. Michigan won the B1G and went to the Rose Bowl in all of those 4 seasons.
When Michigan fans and critics talk about bring Michigan back, this is the era they are speaking about. Harbaugh is on the cusp of doing something that this program hasn't seen in 40+ years and there are still folks in the media and in this fan base that want to replace him.
It is frustrating that wins against tOSU and B1G titles haven't accompanied the winning that Harbaugh has brought back to AA - no arguments here. But you cannot deny that JH has brought this program back to the levels of consistent winning it enjoyed for decades before RR and Hoke got to campus.
Sooo what your are essentially saying here is that you, a supposed Michigan Football fan, are going to take some sort of sick joy in another Michigan fan's misery, when the team you claim to support loses to it's biggest rival. That sound about right?
Wow, good stat. It would be interesting to know the flip side of that as well. For example, Larry Coker makes the NCG the first two years at Miami (YTM) and then went 25-12 the rest of the way until he got canned. Same with Gene Chizik. Guy wins a natty in year 2 and goes 11-14 over the next 2 years. Those are definitely outliers, but it seems like I'd rather have the programs Osborne, Brown, Bowden built than the fool's gold.
Overall, I guess my point is, Michigan didn't hire Harbaugh to be the guy to get them over the "hump." Though, that is what the media and this fan base pinned on him. Michigan wasn't even good enough to have a hump to get over after RR and Hoke were through with them.
Of course you'll negged for this comment (and likely I will too for my response), but your overall sentiment here is on the money. The expectations that this fan base and media have for JH and the Michigan Football program are not aligned with the reality of college football in 2019 (or 2015 for that matter).
Dabo took over a program from a coach that had a .615 winning percentage over 9.5 seasons. It took him 4 seasons to crack 10 wins and 8 seasons to get Clemson to a NCG. During his first 5 years at Clemson, exactly 2 teams from the ACC finished in the top 10 nationally (#10 VT in '09 and #10 FSU in '12). He also went 1-4 against his chief rival. S.Carolina; and 2-3 in bowl games over those first 5 years.
In AA, JH walked in to a program that had gone 46-42 over the previous 7 seasons - and he cracked 10 wins in 3 out of his first 4 years. During those first 4 years, 11 B1G teams have finished in the top 10 nationally - with 8 of those 11 teams coming out of the B1G East. He is currently 0-4 against OSU and is 1-3 in bowl games.
It is correct to say comparing Dabo and Jim is apples to oranges. Dabo took over a program that had some recent success and played in one of the worst P5 leagues in the country. He struggled against rivals and in bowl games early but, given time, he brought them to be the powerhouse that they are today. Harbaugh took over one of the most scrutinized programs of all time in one of the most competitive P5 conferences in the country. In just 4 years he has brought the winning percentage up to .728 from .522. He has 3 top 15 finishes and a 29-7 record against B1G teams that don't play in Columbus, OH. If Michigan wins out (however improbable that sounds), his winning percentage will be .754 and he will have an identical record to Dabo when it comes to rivals and bowls...and folks are calling for his job. Unbelievable.
Couldn't agree more. After the Wiscy game, the 4 best "candidates" out there were Bronco Mendenhall, Kyle Wittingham, David Shaw and Dino Babers. Mendenhal and Wittingham aren't going anywhere and you couldn't give David Shaw enough money to replace JH again (not to mention that is an average coach at best). So that means you end up with Dino Babers, and somehow that puts M on a better path to win?
There is serious talk in our fan-base to replace a guy who has won 74% of the games he's coached at Michigan. That, not the on-field performance, is what we should be embarrassed about in 2019.
Michigan won a game this week against an inferior opponent on the road. At one point, they were up 28-0 and were out-gaining their opponent 347 - 57 despite having fumbled and missing a FG. When their lead dwindled to 3, they created 2 turnovers and scored 14 straight points to win by 17.
If this was any other team in the country, the narrative would have been that after they jumped out to a big lead, Michigan was guilty of beginning to look forward to next week and taking their foot off the gas. Instead, that narrative is that Michigan squeaked by and gloom and doom is around every corner. A lot of that thinking, perpetuated by folks on this board.
By no means do I think that this team will come out nest week at Penn State as a completely different team with all of their problems accounted for and solved, but this constant negativity, calls for JH's and Shea's job is exhausting.
Except when they put McCaffrey in for Shea against Wisconsin. Subbing him there was different than throwing him a few snaps against MTSU/Army. He finished the last drive of the 1st Half and played every snap in the 2nd until he was knocked out.
Would he have been the "savior" that this team needed? Who's to say. But, the fact that the staff turned the keys over to him says something, that unfortunately his injury has hidden a bit. Let's suppose that McCaffrey doesn't get hurt and engineers 3-4 scoring drives in the 2nd half (not hard to imagine as Shea almost got 3 scores), who starts against Rutgers?
My knee-jerk reaction to this post was shock to hear Brian straight up call for the benching of Shea. I thought the tone he was setting in the first two paragraphs was about patience during this transition, because eventually this thing will morph into what we all think it should be. So, I did some research on that '04 tOSU team to get some perspective.
Started ranked 9th, struggled to a 3-3 record and with a few close calls and at least one embarrassing loss. True Soph, Justin Zwick, was the starter for those 6 games. In game 7, they gave the knod to Troy Smith and the rest is history.
By no means am I saying that Shea Patterson is Justin Zwick bad. And I've never called for his benching, but if McCaffrey's healthy, maybe Brian's right.
I get the frustration. Relative to the expectations that this fan base (and the rest of college football for that matter) had when JH stepped through the door, the offense has been disappointing. That said, I think Brian outlines exactly why Michigan has not seen the success other programs have when they make a change in their offensive mindset. "Since November 20th, 2004, Ohio State has had zero sharp turns with their approach." Whereas our Wolverines have changed their offensive identity almost every 3 years since 2005 - creating an identity of flux.
4 years into his tenure as head man at tOSU, Tressel saw the need to change things up on offense (despite having already won a NC). tOSU lost 4 games that year including two embarrassing losses to Iowa and Wisconsin. Since that season, the Bucks have lost more than 2 games in a year only twice.
5 years into his tenure as head man at UM, JH has seen the need to change things up on offense. I have no way of knowing if the results will come even remotely close to what they've seen in Columbus. What I do know is that 5 games in to this transition, it would be asinine to pull the rug out and change course.
Great, well thought-out, post. I honestly thought your line of thinking was where Brian was going in his opening paragraphs. What we are seeing from this team on offense is the text book definition of the cost of transition.
It boggles my mind how many folks are jumping off cliffs after 5 games, when this team is 4-1 and coming off a W over a top 15 opponent. Amazing.
We agree that this is a huge game in the 2019 season, but this whole notion that this singular game will be a turning point or defining moment for the entire Harbaugh Era is way overplayed. My problem with this narrative is that when folks in the media talk about it, it is almost always framed with negative connotations, "Harbaugh loses this game and it's over at Michigan." I don't think this what you are doing - but it struck a nerve.
If Michigan wins this game and then loses one or more of the other big games on the schedule - what did this game really tell us? Additionally, if Michigan wins this game tomorrow, we will be having the same exact discussion in two weeks when a 5-1, top 15 Michigan team travels to Happy Valley to play a top 10 Penn State.
So, let's instead look at it this way. A win against Iowa tomorrow could serve as a catalyst for this Michigan team. It will put them back on track to achieve all of the goals they set out in August and should give us all a glimmer of hope as we head into a hellish October and November slate.
No doubt Iowa is a very good, solid team. But, Wisconsin has Jonathan Taylor and Iowa does not. This cannot be understated. Taylor accounted for 208 total yards against Michigan, which works out to roughly 43% of their total offensive output in that game....and he only had 4 carries in the 4th Q.
Meanwhile, before padding stats against MTSU last weekend, Iowa's trio of rushers was only 84/433 on the year at a 5.1ypc clip. While I agree that Iowa can look to the Wisconsin game as a way to exploit the M defense - they cannot replicate Jonathan Taylor or the output he brings to the table. Nate Stanley will have to play well for the Hawkeyes to win.
During the 2018 season, Michigan went on a 10 game winning streak that included a 3 game winning streak over ranked opponents where they outscored them 101-27. In 2019, they’ve started the year 3-1. Yet, “this was a football game that wasn’t a terrible viewing experience, and that’s something we haven’t had in a while.”
Undoubtedly the most depressing line in the post and the most revealing. Right now, Michigan is in the midst of the best 4 season record it has had since the 2003-2006 campaigns. 5 years ago this would have been cause for celebration after 4yrs and 20 losses under Brady Hoke. But, Michigan Football has been locked in purgatory since the 2007 season and the adverse impact that has had on this fan base is permanent. While I don't agree with them, I don't blame folks for the vitriol and for calling for JH's job. There hasn't been any Big Ten Championships, CFP appearances, National Titles or wins over Ohio State.
In the past, here is where I would ask for some perspective. That it could always be worse. Remember Brady, remember RR?! I won't do that today. Instead, I'll say that it could and should be better.
I don't know where you go from here. It's only the 3rd game of the season and, statistically speaking, there is time for this team to salvage every one of the goals they had 4 weeks ago. Unfortunately, history tells us that a turnaround won't happen and that it will more than likely get worse before it gets better this season. It's a weird time to be a Michigan fan, and I think Brian hit it on the head. That is probably it for the foreseeable future.
I've quite literally never brought up Alabama's 2018 defense. I have no idea why you find that a relative talking point in a discussion about the outlook for Michigan's 2019 defense. Has nothing to do with what we've been talking about.
No doubt, Shea's play is concerning for a variety of reasons. If he's truly hurt - don't start him against Army. The reads and overthrows are tough to comprehend because those were his bread and butter last year. I think Shea is the guy and will turn this thing around - but - if it continues into this weekend, JH has got to look at the alternatives.
Ok. Sounds like things have escalated a bit here. If it isn't an opinion - then what have you noticed from the play of the defense through 2 games that makes your thoughts a fact? So far all you've shared is last year's final ranking for Michigan and Alabama (why?).
Happy to share what I think. The Run D has only allowed 3 ypc on the year and kept Army's output as a whole to a 5 yr low (you might not find that impressive, but it is). The pass D hasn't been challenged much yet, but are only allowing 138.5 ypg. And those numbers are skewed by an irrelevant 80yd drive against 2nd/3rd stringers against MTSU. I'm missing where M's defense hasn't been impressive in the early going.
FWIW, stating "I think you're pretty clearly wrong here" is in fact, your opinion.
Agree to disagree. Can't really use the Army game as a gauge given their style of play. I'll grant you that DT could've looked better against MTSU - but overall this group looks like they will keep Michigan in games just like they have the past few years.
Okay, but the basis you are using for your argument that Michigan is not good, are the results MTSU/Army had against other teams. This isn't a good way to judge future results for Michigan.
Maaaaaan, stop with this BS. This argument is so tired. You are essentially saying that the transitive property is the end all be all, right? This is literally never true. If it was, Michigan should've beaten tOSU last year because Michigan beat Maryland handily earlier in the season and tOSU struggled badly. BUT, they didn't.
2 games have been played. Michigan won both of them. The Defense looks like a top 5 unit. Charbonnet looks like a dude. Shea has missed wide open receivers for TDs at least 5 times that, if caught, would've drastically changed the narrative around this team. Fumbles allowed the Army game to be tight. RELAX.
Wisconsin is good. Their competition has not been. USF and CMU are a currently on a combined 0-21 streak against FBS schools. USF hasn't an FBS team since October 20, 2018, when they snuck by UConn at home 38-30. CMU hasn't beaten an FBS team since November of 2017!
Again, Wisconsin is good. But, using wins over these two teams as a foundation of an argument as to why M will lose next week is comparing apples and oranges. Stop it.
Recent Comments
You're making my point for me. If you fire Harbaugh and your plan is to find the second coming of Jim Tressel (that you can't name) - you have no plan.
Point is, we are 2/3 of the way through the 2021 season and Michigan is 7-1 and ranked #7 in the CFP a season after the wheels fell off and Harbaugh cleaned house and brought in an entire new staff. Might be advantageous to see how this thing plays out.
If M could've seen the future in 2015, they would've hired the Philadelphia Eagles QB Coach and we all would've flipped our shit.
For me, it's incredibly hard to buy into the argument of, "I don't know who we should hire, but let's definitely fire Jim." Wut? Michigan has gone into a coaching search twice with no idea who their target was and has the 46-42 record to show for it.
Harbaugh has not been elite during his time at Michigan - but he has been good (we can argue that all day). If you are going to fire Harbaugh, fine, but there has to be an absolutely can't miss guy in the wings if you do so. I'd argue that guy doesn't exist today.
This is not factually correct. Michigan beat #8 Notre Dame in 2019 and #8 Wisconsin in 2016.
Again, I say to all the fire Harbaugh folks: "And hire who?" I don't say this because I don't think M can attract any top coaches, I say this because the top coaches that are being discussed for the USC/LSU jobs are not any better than Harbaugh.
For example, James Franklin is regarded as an elite HC and certainly better than Harbaugh among the college football community. Yet, he is 11-17 against the Top 25; 2-12 against the Top 10; 26-18 against the B1G East, has beat OSU exactly 1 time and is 65-31 overall during his time at Penn State. Compare those to Harbaugh's numbers. JH is 10-17 against the Top 25; 2-13 against the Top 10; 19-11 against the B1G East and 56-23 overall. Harbaugh's numbers are either better or exactly the same as Franklin's numbers.
So, back to the original question. If Warde fires Jim - who replaces him? In my mind, there is no one (that M would actually hire) that could come in on Day 1 and get a better result. Stuck in purgatory? Sure. But, for my money, it is better than the hell that USC, Texas, Nebraska, Miami and Tennessee are in....neg away.
Slightly off-topic, given the point of your article, but why is everyone always so eager to give James Franklin the title of "one of the best coaches in the country?" It is absolutely mind-boggling to me. Guy is 9-8 over since the start of the 2020 season. He's just lost 3 Big Ten games in a row for the 4th time in his career. He is 1-7 against OSU and 3-4 against M and Sparty. In the past 7 years, he has brought in better ranked recruiting classes than M exactly twice.
Yet, the narrative is that this dude is a made man and Harbaugh should have been gone 2 years ago. What am I missing?
If PSU/Iowa was a top 10 matchup, this most certainly is. Outside of maybe Georgia (who only beat a 4-3 Clemson team by 7), every top 10 has a fluky win or two, a loss or a resume that has some holes in it.
I’m also interested in looking at these underlying stats…
Yeah, this comment is a bit misguided. Jenkins was a 1,000 yd receiver in '02. He also only finished with 6 TDs for the entire season. Additionally, the #2 receiver on that team? A two-way player in Chris Gamble, who came in with only 499 yds and 0 TDs. The other 12 guys who caught passes that year only accounted for 577 yards and I challenge you to name any of them off the top of your head. Point is - don't make Jenkins out as some Biletnikoff Award Finalist. He was good, but he was also the only guy. Literally any of Michigan's wideouts would probably start opposite of Jenkins that year. Again, they had to insert Chris Gamble on the offensive side of the ball because they didn't have great depth.
I don't think you're wrong in terms of it "not working," yet with Harbaugh - but I do think that perception plays as much into this than anything else. For example, let's take a look at the QBs that have transferred from M during Harbaugh's time here: Morris to CMU; Peters to Illinois; Malzone to Miami (NTM); Speight to UCLA; Milton to Tennessee; McCaffrey to No. Colorado. Of these guys, only Speight was below a 4 star. All others were high 4's and all went on to new schools and put up essentially the same numbers (or worse) at their new destinations. You could make an argument that Morris improved slightly, but he still threw 17 picks during his one year at CMU. Speight is probably the best of the bunch and his play also deteriorated once he left Ann Arbor. Point being that Harbaugh probably wasn't the reason for their average play. And in Speight's case, he might have been the reason their play improved given the deterioration at the next stop.
Now, compare that to the guys that have transferred in to Michigan and have gotten major playing time (Rudock and Patterson). In one year under Harbaugh's tutelage, Rudock had a career high in yards thrown and TDs, resulting in a passing efficiency rating 11 pts higher than before he came to AA. Patterson's Efficiency Rate at M is also 3 pts higher than his time at Ole Miss - harder to compare other stats given his limited playing time in Oxford. Again, you could argue that Harbaugh raised the ceiling for both players compared to their previous stops.
Finally, through 5 games, Cade McNamara's Efficiency Rate is 157.9. That is 40 points higher than Rudock's first 5 games in 2015 (117.4) and 12pts higher than Speight's first 5 games in 2016 (145.8). Conversely, it's higher than Trevor Lawrence's first 5 games in 2019 (143.7) and almost identical to Andrew Luck in 2010 (157.5). Is Cade going to have a better year than Trevor Lawrence or Andrew Luck? Probably not, but again the argument could be made that through 5 games, Cade could be Harbaugh's best prospect since he's gotten to AA.
Simply put, the perception is that Harbaugh should be developing guys into Heisman candidates yearly. I think that's probably fair given the success he had with Luck and Kap a decade ago. He hasn't done that yet, but I do think the narrative that Harbaugh hasn't developed anyone since he walked in the door is also patently false. It's something that the Finebaums and Cowherds of the world have spewed and we as a fanbase have foolishly lapped up when things aren't going well.
Absolutely. It's possible that Cade had his bell rung a bit and that made him a bit more indecisive. I don't think Cade is Milton or O'Korn, but if he even completes half of the throws the OP talked about - the game looks different. I think the optimist's take is that it's good to get this type of game out of way against an inferior opponent. I would expect to see a sharper performance on Saturday.
I think your arguments above are fine - but you are indeed looking through rose-colored glasses. The good news here is that the plays are there. Guys are open and good routes are being run (for the most part). The bad news is that on all 4 of the incompletions you tagged above, the reason for the incompletion is a bad throw from Cade. Whether his double pumping and then throwing or a little too bouncy - all 4 of those throws should have gone for big gains or a score. They were all bad, but the two throws to the TEs were especially bad. The miss to Schoonmacher in the end zone is inexcusable and shaped the complexion of the rest of the game. And the next miss on an absolutely wide open All is certainly not the receiver's fault as you suggest.
Devil's advocate: The game reviewed was against Syracuse. The Orange just improved to 3-1 after beating Liberty last weekend. The same Liberty that was either #26 or #27, depending on which poll you look at.
Let's go ahead and take the defense's name out of our collective mouths when we are talking about how "bad" this game was. The D stepped up and allowed 10 pts despite being on the field for 43(!) plays in the second half - 22 more than M ran. The D did what was needed to win the game.
Which leads to a confirmation of the next point - Rutgers is not bad. Are they really good? Probably not, but they are ranked #53 in the SP+ (up 6 spots from last week) with a defense ranked on par with Florida and better than tOSU. At #53 they are ahead of teams like Wake Forest, IU and Ga Tech, and right behind BYU (52), UK (46) and NC St (42).
Food for thought.
My goodness this is a take. I realize it's been said already, but hoo boy, you must have missed a lot of Michigan football over the past 20 years. I won't sit here and recite all the terrible halves of football that we have endured over the past 14 years because that would be counterproductive, but I will remind you of two things: 1) It was just that, a half. Not a game. A half. 2) Michigan won this game.
Before we all started screaming into a vacuum that let us force our own anxieties on the rest of the world, this game would have been remembered, by and large, as just that - a win. 4-0, on to Wisconsin. Stop complaining.
I'm sure that I am in the minority here, but I'm curious as to why there was so much excitement for Moorehead, other than experience at the position. He's been the OC/HC of a top 25 FBS Offense exactly twice during his 10 years at either of those positions. His 2017 Offense at PSU was prolific and his 2016 Offense was very good (outside of a 10pt showing in AA). Outside of that, his teams at Miss St ranked top-100ish and Oregon slipped inside the top 50 this year (albeit a very shortened season for them).
What am I missing?
Is this a parody account?
I'll join the chorus here reiterating that this is inconsequential because Michigan and all of us are going to have to endure at least 2-3 more seasons of Harbaugh. That said, I think the biggest factor you are missing is how bad Iowa State has been from a historical sense prior to Campbell's arrival. For me, the most compelling stat is that this year Matt Campbell and Iowa State will finish in the Top 10. For comparison - Iowa State has only finished ranked in the Top 25 as a whole TWICE in the history of the program. Sure, this is a strange year and there are anomalies throughout the sport, but I would argue Iowa State are not one of them. As others have pointed out, Campbell has had this program on an upward trend since 2016 by building a competitive and winning culture.
There is no such thing as a sure thing hire in College Football - none. That said, if Michigan were truly interested in changing the way that their football team was run from the bottom up, Campbell would be a fantastic hire. I don't believe that Michigan will go this route (now or ever), but whatever his next stop is - he will be successful.
Kind've missing my point, but ok. FWIW, Toledo was 35-39 in the 6 seasons prior to Campbell's arrival and was 35-15 during his 4 years there. No doubt Tim Beckman started the turnaround in 2010, but Campbell finished the job and then some. Finished in the top 25 for the first time in 11 years in 2012 and twice overall while he was there (something that hadn't been done since Gary Pinkel was HC). Averaged almost 9 wins a year for a program that averages 6-7 wins a year (1962- present). Toledo may have been a good MAC team before he got there (hadn't actually won a MAC title since 2004), but he raised them up "a bit."
I don't think you're completely off-base here, but I also think there's some holes in your argument.
- I'm interested in what warts you expect would come out after the honeymoon period with Campbell. It seems that he has improved the programs at both Toledo and Iowa St exponentially during his time there (both at least 4 seasons). Iowa St has reached levels that they've never seen before and there has been nary a negative word about the program or Campbell himself
- Hard to judge the guy's recruiting chops at a program like Iowa State. That said, some food for thought: Campbell was the first offer that current M signee JJ McCarthy had back in 2017. Guy has an eye for talent - but getting it to come to Ames is tough sell.
- I can't argue that Harbaugh wasn't the best coaching prospect available when he was hired in '15, but to say that Campbell is much less proven is not even close to accurate. When JH took the Michigan job, he had 4 years of FBS experience (San Diego doesn't cut it). If Campbell is the HC at Michigan in 2021, it will be his 10th year heading up an FCB program and his 6th year at a Power 5 school. Not including the NFL experience here for JH is probably not fair - but you could argue that his time in the NFL has not translated well to the college game or Michigan.
Finally, your last paragraph is where you lose me. Every Harbaugh success that you've pointed out, happened at Stanford. Every Campbell success you point out, happened in the last year. When JH got to Stanford, they were certainly bad and getting worse. But they had made 4 bowls (including a Rose) with Ty Willingham 6 years previously. This year Matt Campbell and Iowa State will finish in the Top 10. For comparison - Iowa State has only finished ranked in the Top 25 as a whole TWICE in the history of the program! He didn't resurrect the Iowa State program from the dead - there wasn't anything to resurrect before he got there.
This is dumb, Campbell is 2-3 against OU at ISU and has already beaten OU this year.
We all need to prepare for Harbaugh to still be on the sidelines come 2021. No doubt, there is a laundry list of reasons to call for and expect his dismissal - but Warde isn't doing that. Instead, because this is 2020 and because there is a global pandemic currently affecting all of our lives and because it sounds like Harbs & Co. are doing the "right things" to keep player safety the priority - he be going anywhere, unless he himself decides to leave.
With that in mind, the "best case" scenario for next year is this: Don Brown is gone. Derek Mason comes in as DC. Gattis will leave because he is in the last year of his contract and is clearly being limited by Harbaugh. Warriner will be promoted to Co-OC. Harbaugh, realizing that he needs to make a move to appease the base, will bring in Nick Sheridan or Mike Hart to be the other Co-OC. This won't do much to move the needle and Michigan still doesn't get over the hump finishing 9-3.
You're right. Everyone on this board would gladly take the decade that OSU just finished over just about any decade M football has had - ever.
That said, I do think the OP is not too far off base here. OSU posted a 117-18 (.867) record in the decade and got a NC out of it. The only team with a better winning percentage is 'Bama at 123-15 (.891). The difference? 'Bama was in 6 of the 10 National Championship games played in the decade and won 4 of 'em.
Again, context is important here. Michigan and every other fan base not named Clemson would trade it all for a decade like OSU just had - but the argument can be made that it could have and probably should have been better for the team down in Ohio.
This question really comes down to, would M have been able to beat TAMU at home in Week 2, because outside of that, there is not a team on the schedule that could've hung with M even when they were figuring stuff out early on.
And, I think Michigan gets by TAMU in the same fashion Clemson did. An ok day by Lawrence/Patterson and some good defensive stops. The Aggies are not Wisconsin. While they have only lost to teams that are in the T10 this year, they have also only beaten Arkansas by 4 and Ole Miss by 7.
So, let's take it a step further; playing Clemson's schedule - how many B10 teams would be undefeated? I'll stay conservative and say 4.
Suffice to say, your implication that Gattis isn't calling plays anymore is a bit suspect at best. Where is the basis to say that, Gattis, who is now on the field will a playsheet in hand and verbally yelling instruction is no longer calling plays?
1. Yes. Dude seems committed to this program
2. DPJ, Collins. Black comes back for one more...
3. 11-2, speaking it in to existence.
4. 42-13
5. This week? RB and DLine rooms, should feel good about themselves. Special Teams and WR corps have underperformed (based on hype) this year.
Hard to say that the trouble with this board is that there is no middle ground - when you are suggesting that a coach who could potentially go 49-16 in 5 seasons is, "doing well but not good enough." Pot, meet kettle.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but man.
I'm going to expand a bit beyond the original post. If Michigan goes 11-2 or 10-3 this year (the latter being more realistic), they will have 4 seasons in the past 5 where they've won at least 10 games. The last time that a Michigan team completed this feat was the '76 thru '80 seasons, where Bo went 10-2, 4 out of 5 seasons. Michigan won the B1G and went to the Rose Bowl in all of those 4 seasons.
When Michigan fans and critics talk about bring Michigan back, this is the era they are speaking about. Harbaugh is on the cusp of doing something that this program hasn't seen in 40+ years and there are still folks in the media and in this fan base that want to replace him.
It is frustrating that wins against tOSU and B1G titles haven't accompanied the winning that Harbaugh has brought back to AA - no arguments here. But you cannot deny that JH has brought this program back to the levels of consistent winning it enjoyed for decades before RR and Hoke got to campus.
Sooo what your are essentially saying here is that you, a supposed Michigan Football fan, are going to take some sort of sick joy in another Michigan fan's misery, when the team you claim to support loses to it's biggest rival. That sound about right?
Wow, good stat. It would be interesting to know the flip side of that as well. For example, Larry Coker makes the NCG the first two years at Miami (YTM) and then went 25-12 the rest of the way until he got canned. Same with Gene Chizik. Guy wins a natty in year 2 and goes 11-14 over the next 2 years. Those are definitely outliers, but it seems like I'd rather have the programs Osborne, Brown, Bowden built than the fool's gold.
Overall, I guess my point is, Michigan didn't hire Harbaugh to be the guy to get them over the "hump." Though, that is what the media and this fan base pinned on him. Michigan wasn't even good enough to have a hump to get over after RR and Hoke were through with them.
Of course you'll negged for this comment (and likely I will too for my response), but your overall sentiment here is on the money. The expectations that this fan base and media have for JH and the Michigan Football program are not aligned with the reality of college football in 2019 (or 2015 for that matter).
Dabo took over a program from a coach that had a .615 winning percentage over 9.5 seasons. It took him 4 seasons to crack 10 wins and 8 seasons to get Clemson to a NCG. During his first 5 years at Clemson, exactly 2 teams from the ACC finished in the top 10 nationally (#10 VT in '09 and #10 FSU in '12). He also went 1-4 against his chief rival. S.Carolina; and 2-3 in bowl games over those first 5 years.
In AA, JH walked in to a program that had gone 46-42 over the previous 7 seasons - and he cracked 10 wins in 3 out of his first 4 years. During those first 4 years, 11 B1G teams have finished in the top 10 nationally - with 8 of those 11 teams coming out of the B1G East. He is currently 0-4 against OSU and is 1-3 in bowl games.
It is correct to say comparing Dabo and Jim is apples to oranges. Dabo took over a program that had some recent success and played in one of the worst P5 leagues in the country. He struggled against rivals and in bowl games early but, given time, he brought them to be the powerhouse that they are today. Harbaugh took over one of the most scrutinized programs of all time in one of the most competitive P5 conferences in the country. In just 4 years he has brought the winning percentage up to .728 from .522. He has 3 top 15 finishes and a 29-7 record against B1G teams that don't play in Columbus, OH. If Michigan wins out (however improbable that sounds), his winning percentage will be .754 and he will have an identical record to Dabo when it comes to rivals and bowls...and folks are calling for his job. Unbelievable.
Uggghh, "best performance from UM in a long time in a road environment."
You mean since last year at #25 when they won the game, kept Sparty to less than 100 yards?
Couldn't agree more. After the Wiscy game, the 4 best "candidates" out there were Bronco Mendenhall, Kyle Wittingham, David Shaw and Dino Babers. Mendenhal and Wittingham aren't going anywhere and you couldn't give David Shaw enough money to replace JH again (not to mention that is an average coach at best). So that means you end up with Dino Babers, and somehow that puts M on a better path to win?
There is serious talk in our fan-base to replace a guy who has won 74% of the games he's coached at Michigan. That, not the on-field performance, is what we should be embarrassed about in 2019.
Michigan won a game this week against an inferior opponent on the road. At one point, they were up 28-0 and were out-gaining their opponent 347 - 57 despite having fumbled and missing a FG. When their lead dwindled to 3, they created 2 turnovers and scored 14 straight points to win by 17.
If this was any other team in the country, the narrative would have been that after they jumped out to a big lead, Michigan was guilty of beginning to look forward to next week and taking their foot off the gas. Instead, that narrative is that Michigan squeaked by and gloom and doom is around every corner. A lot of that thinking, perpetuated by folks on this board.
By no means do I think that this team will come out nest week at Penn State as a completely different team with all of their problems accounted for and solved, but this constant negativity, calls for JH's and Shea's job is exhausting.
Bad day for the "keep Shea as the starter" crowd.
Except when they put McCaffrey in for Shea against Wisconsin. Subbing him there was different than throwing him a few snaps against MTSU/Army. He finished the last drive of the 1st Half and played every snap in the 2nd until he was knocked out.
Would he have been the "savior" that this team needed? Who's to say. But, the fact that the staff turned the keys over to him says something, that unfortunately his injury has hidden a bit. Let's suppose that McCaffrey doesn't get hurt and engineers 3-4 scoring drives in the 2nd half (not hard to imagine as Shea almost got 3 scores), who starts against Rutgers?
My knee-jerk reaction to this post was shock to hear Brian straight up call for the benching of Shea. I thought the tone he was setting in the first two paragraphs was about patience during this transition, because eventually this thing will morph into what we all think it should be. So, I did some research on that '04 tOSU team to get some perspective.
Started ranked 9th, struggled to a 3-3 record and with a few close calls and at least one embarrassing loss. True Soph, Justin Zwick, was the starter for those 6 games. In game 7, they gave the knod to Troy Smith and the rest is history.
By no means am I saying that Shea Patterson is Justin Zwick bad. And I've never called for his benching, but if McCaffrey's healthy, maybe Brian's right.
I get the frustration. Relative to the expectations that this fan base (and the rest of college football for that matter) had when JH stepped through the door, the offense has been disappointing. That said, I think Brian outlines exactly why Michigan has not seen the success other programs have when they make a change in their offensive mindset. "Since November 20th, 2004, Ohio State has had zero sharp turns with their approach." Whereas our Wolverines have changed their offensive identity almost every 3 years since 2005 - creating an identity of flux.
4 years into his tenure as head man at tOSU, Tressel saw the need to change things up on offense (despite having already won a NC). tOSU lost 4 games that year including two embarrassing losses to Iowa and Wisconsin. Since that season, the Bucks have lost more than 2 games in a year only twice.
5 years into his tenure as head man at UM, JH has seen the need to change things up on offense. I have no way of knowing if the results will come even remotely close to what they've seen in Columbus. What I do know is that 5 games in to this transition, it would be asinine to pull the rug out and change course.
Great, well thought-out, post. I honestly thought your line of thinking was where Brian was going in his opening paragraphs. What we are seeing from this team on offense is the text book definition of the cost of transition.
It boggles my mind how many folks are jumping off cliffs after 5 games, when this team is 4-1 and coming off a W over a top 15 opponent. Amazing.
Dang. Got me.
We agree that this is a huge game in the 2019 season, but this whole notion that this singular game will be a turning point or defining moment for the entire Harbaugh Era is way overplayed. My problem with this narrative is that when folks in the media talk about it, it is almost always framed with negative connotations, "Harbaugh loses this game and it's over at Michigan." I don't think this what you are doing - but it struck a nerve.
If Michigan wins this game and then loses one or more of the other big games on the schedule - what did this game really tell us? Additionally, if Michigan wins this game tomorrow, we will be having the same exact discussion in two weeks when a 5-1, top 15 Michigan team travels to Happy Valley to play a top 10 Penn State.
So, let's instead look at it this way. A win against Iowa tomorrow could serve as a catalyst for this Michigan team. It will put them back on track to achieve all of the goals they set out in August and should give us all a glimmer of hope as we head into a hellish October and November slate.
No doubt Iowa is a very good, solid team. But, Wisconsin has Jonathan Taylor and Iowa does not. This cannot be understated. Taylor accounted for 208 total yards against Michigan, which works out to roughly 43% of their total offensive output in that game....and he only had 4 carries in the 4th Q.
Meanwhile, before padding stats against MTSU last weekend, Iowa's trio of rushers was only 84/433 on the year at a 5.1ypc clip. While I agree that Iowa can look to the Wisconsin game as a way to exploit the M defense - they cannot replicate Jonathan Taylor or the output he brings to the table. Nate Stanley will have to play well for the Hawkeyes to win.
Wonder where Michigan would be ranked if they hadn't played Wisconsin...
During the 2018 season, Michigan went on a 10 game winning streak that included a 3 game winning streak over ranked opponents where they outscored them 101-27. In 2019, they’ve started the year 3-1. Yet, “this was a football game that wasn’t a terrible viewing experience, and that’s something we haven’t had in a while.”
What a time to be alive.
"This is probably it for the foreseeable future."
Undoubtedly the most depressing line in the post and the most revealing. Right now, Michigan is in the midst of the best 4 season record it has had since the 2003-2006 campaigns. 5 years ago this would have been cause for celebration after 4yrs and 20 losses under Brady Hoke. But, Michigan Football has been locked in purgatory since the 2007 season and the adverse impact that has had on this fan base is permanent. While I don't agree with them, I don't blame folks for the vitriol and for calling for JH's job. There hasn't been any Big Ten Championships, CFP appearances, National Titles or wins over Ohio State.
In the past, here is where I would ask for some perspective. That it could always be worse. Remember Brady, remember RR?! I won't do that today. Instead, I'll say that it could and should be better.
I don't know where you go from here. It's only the 3rd game of the season and, statistically speaking, there is time for this team to salvage every one of the goals they had 4 weeks ago. Unfortunately, history tells us that a turnaround won't happen and that it will more than likely get worse before it gets better this season. It's a weird time to be a Michigan fan, and I think Brian hit it on the head. That is probably it for the foreseeable future.
I've quite literally never brought up Alabama's 2018 defense. I have no idea why you find that a relative talking point in a discussion about the outlook for Michigan's 2019 defense. Has nothing to do with what we've been talking about.
No doubt, Shea's play is concerning for a variety of reasons. If he's truly hurt - don't start him against Army. The reads and overthrows are tough to comprehend because those were his bread and butter last year. I think Shea is the guy and will turn this thing around - but - if it continues into this weekend, JH has got to look at the alternatives.
Ok. Sounds like things have escalated a bit here. If it isn't an opinion - then what have you noticed from the play of the defense through 2 games that makes your thoughts a fact? So far all you've shared is last year's final ranking for Michigan and Alabama (why?).
Happy to share what I think. The Run D has only allowed 3 ypc on the year and kept Army's output as a whole to a 5 yr low (you might not find that impressive, but it is). The pass D hasn't been challenged much yet, but are only allowing 138.5 ypg. And those numbers are skewed by an irrelevant 80yd drive against 2nd/3rd stringers against MTSU. I'm missing where M's defense hasn't been impressive in the early going.
FWIW, stating "I think you're pretty clearly wrong here" is in fact, your opinion.
Agree to disagree. Can't really use the Army game as a gauge given their style of play. I'll grant you that DT could've looked better against MTSU - but overall this group looks like they will keep Michigan in games just like they have the past few years.
Okay, but the basis you are using for your argument that Michigan is not good, are the results MTSU/Army had against other teams. This isn't a good way to judge future results for Michigan.
Maaaaaan, stop with this BS. This argument is so tired. You are essentially saying that the transitive property is the end all be all, right? This is literally never true. If it was, Michigan should've beaten tOSU last year because Michigan beat Maryland handily earlier in the season and tOSU struggled badly. BUT, they didn't.
2 games have been played. Michigan won both of them. The Defense looks like a top 5 unit. Charbonnet looks like a dude. Shea has missed wide open receivers for TDs at least 5 times that, if caught, would've drastically changed the narrative around this team. Fumbles allowed the Army game to be tight. RELAX.
Wisconsin is good. Their competition has not been. USF and CMU are a currently on a combined 0-21 streak against FBS schools. USF hasn't an FBS team since October 20, 2018, when they snuck by UConn at home 38-30. CMU hasn't beaten an FBS team since November of 2017!
Again, Wisconsin is good. But, using wins over these two teams as a foundation of an argument as to why M will lose next week is comparing apples and oranges. Stop it.