FORMATION NOTES: Rutgers did some weird stuff. On a number of snaps they'd start off looking like an over, then move a LB down into a three-tech like spot while flaring a DE out. I called those under fronts, and since Rutgers is pretty small all over it was just a way to sow confusion. An example; Rutgers shifted from this:

To this:

There's a standup 3-tech and an "ILB" who is actually a cornerback. It's a bit weird.

They also ran some more conventional under looks.

For its part Michigan went back to a heavy dose of gun. Removing three goal line plays, Michigan had 42 shotgun snaps to 13 under center. (A couple of those were goal to go runs from the 5 and 2, respectively, FWIW). This was not a panacea but did happen to coincide with Michigan's best rushing output against a Power 5 team not named Indiana in a long time.

SUBSTITUTION NOTES: Line was Cole/Glasgow/Miller/Kalis/Braden the whole way. Green got the bulk of the RB snaps until he was knocked out; Smith and Hayes got the rest. WRs and TEs as usual, though Butt is working his way into considerably more playing time as the season progresses.

[After THE JUMP: torchclowns, multiple torchclowns]

This was less totally pointless.

That it was, and it makes the Shane Morris start even more inexplicable—let alone the decision to go with Shane Morris until he literally could not be on the field any more. Devin Gardner's got problems, but he's the best Michigan has.

Can't you be even a little positive?

I totally can.

Okay.

In situations that warrant such behavior.

Argh.

Does this not?

I mean, it does, a bit. They moved the ball, some, they scored three touchdowns, they didn't look totally inept. There was a bit near the end there where Michigan was kind of plowing them.

We are still trying to get hype about putting up 338 yards on Rutgers.

Maybe not hype so much as non-despondent?

All that has migrated a level higher than the football team for me. So let's look at the

charts

charts.

Devin Gardner 2013

Devin Gardner

This is a strong performance, so what's with the offense stalling and the like? The WRs had three flat-out drops, the OL drew four holding calls, and Gardner had what I think is the first-ever TAX when he took a thirteen yard sack instead of dumping the ball off. Oh, and he threw a horrible interception.

Gardner did seem a lot better but that was probably just the Minnesota game coloring my viewpoint.

Yes. Gardner's capable but erratic, and that's not going to change. He can float perfect passes to Funchess; he can do the same to Chesson with his little hop step thing, and then he can try that on a deep ball to Darboh and miss by ten yards:

Oh and also… this:

Oy. That might not even be a bad decision, it might be an attempted punt to Funchess that has a decent chance of working. Whatever it is, it is probably 20 yards off target. This is why you have technique, to prevent things from going this badly.

Gardner's athleticism was deployed on purpose in this game, more than once even. The run to the pylon for his first touchdown looked doomed for almost the whole play and then at the end it's not even close:

He also scampered for a touchdown on a waggle that Rutgers had specifically deployed a defensive back to blow up. After, Hoke told his radio show that…

"As coaches, you look and you see 'well, maybe this is the kind of quarterback we need to have,' " Hoke said Wednesday night on his weekly radio show. "And do some things, maybe, a tad differently but still (within) the framework of the offense."

And I vomitclapped.

The run game looked functional, for the most part?

Yeah?

This was the best performance from a Michigan offensive line in a long time. That protection number against the guys leading the nation in sacks and a run game that was picking up handfuls of yards on the regular without having anything super long to distort stats mean Michigan just about hit the 2/3rds positive number you want to see in the blocking and put up an excellent protection mark.

I have no idea why this happened or if it is replicable. When we've seen this happen on this team for one particular unit, the next test generally sees the unit implode.

But Gardner had a ton of time and when he got sacked it was usually on him or the WRs; without those sacks Michigan went for 5.5 yards a carry. That's pretty freaking good when your long on the day is 26.

So the line was good and the QB was good and Michigan got 336 yards?

Here's how Michigan's non-touchdown drives ended:

1. Third and two stuffed as OL fails to pick up slant.
2. Gardner has no one open on third and short, with Darboh particularly blasted off a route. He gets sacked.
3. Williams drops a pass on third and six.
4. Gardner sacked after good protection when he can't find anyone open.
5. Chesson hit before ball arrives on possible/probable conversion, no flag.
6. Horrible INT
7. Ref derp on Darboh conversion.

The wideouts did not help matters much, with three flat drops and those instances where nobody got open on third down, and the refs made some critical errors on third downs Michigan could have/did convert.

And they did get 24 points! I may be experiencing lowered expectations.

So… they ran?

Yeah.

A healthy chunk of this was some sort of structural issue in the Rutgers defense that saw Michigan pop outside the tackles frequently, with nothing approximating an edge set. One example:

That ended up with a holding call on Mason Cole but even without that Green is going to get a healthy chunk because no one forced him back to the rest of the defense. This was a theme.

Michigan ran this power counter a couple times, saw this, and then just started running straight-up power to similar effect. Rutgers DEs were either unprepared for this or playing it poorly. Continuing the themes: this was also called back for a totally unnecessary hold, this one on Kalis.

That seems bad.

It is bad!

That kind of seems like the same problem Michigan is having on defense.

And don't forget special teams. It is the same kind of imprecision seemingly resulting from a lack of focus. Field a punt on the four, airball a tackle on a tight end, hold when there's no need to even risk it… it's just kind of a holistic badness.

Improvement, though? Michigan did run effectively.

You are getting blips and bloops of increased understanding. When Green ripped off a big gain on Michigan's first drive it came on an aggressive slant that Kalis felt and stopped for:

That one was maybe a bit easier than some other decisions like that you might have to make because Kalis wasn't presented with a second level player. It seem like he sees he doesn't have linebacker and then the uh-oh clicks on. Can he deal with this slant if he sees a target? I'm a little dubious about that, but he did have more of a decision to make in the fourth quarter when he again anticipated a slant and sprung Green for a nice gain.

That's one step forward; here's one step back. It's a little hard to see with the zoom out here but Kalis gets put in a bad situation when his guy slants hard and Braden does not make the adjustment Kalis did in the clip above:

Often when a guy gets dumped in the backfield it's not his fault but the guy next to him who didn't perceive that his pre-snap read—I'm not covered—is invalidated by a slant.

Still, they were better, and when they did not elect to hold uselessly those runs popping to the outside were nice.

Well, since we're going with Smith now, how was Smith?

About how he's been. He pounded out some tough yards; I still think he needs to make more rapid decisions to go north and south. In the play linked just above he's probably doomed either way but once Kalis ends up in the running lane his only hope is to cut right behind that and try to bull his way through. This is is definitely a cumong man:

They gave him the first down but man Michigan blocked that better than two yards.

Is Khalid Hill emerging?

A bit. He had that block on Michigan's final touchdown drive that put a pretty good linebacker on his butt, and he had a similar, if less difficult, play earlier:

He also had a nice catch and run to pick up a first down. He seems to be cutting into AJ Williams's time, but that can only go so far since Hill doesn't seem to be the inline blocking type and Michigan is running a ton of 2 TE sets.

Meanwhile, Jake Butt should be more prominent perhaps.

I know he dropped one just before this. Shhh. We're being positive.

Receivers?

[0 = uncatchable, 1 = circus catch, 2 = moderate difficulty, 3 = routine]

ROUTES: Darboh –2, Chesson –1.

There was some stuff that I felt was route sloppiness. The Darboh PI-type-substance was one; I also thought that Chesson was some yards away from where he should be on this play:

Having two guys in close proximity is usually not good, and here it allows the guy tracking Darboh deeper to fall off him and make a play on the ball. It seem like Chesson needs to get to the sideline five or so yards further upfield so that no one can make up the separation between the WRs while the ball is in the air.

Heroes?

Kalis, Glasgow, Gardner

Maybe not so heroic?

The tackles, the receivers.

What does it mean for Penn State and beyond?

Here's a sliver of hope. It is trying to destroy you.