Midseason Expectations Reset: Offense Part II Comment Count

Brian

Previously: Offense Part I.

WIDE RECEIVER

30118976091_fbe3a58312_z

[Patrick Barron]

SEASON PREVIEW TAKE: Jehu Chesson was given top billing as the preview went with on-field production and Chesson's trajectory over Amara Darboh's offseason hype, but both guys were declared real real good. Chesson was expected to be a complete WR and off the board in the first couple of rounds of the draft; I was skeptical about Darboh's ability to get deep on folks.

Grant Perry was projected to be a solid third option, and nobody knew anything about who would emerge from the backups. Eddie McDoom was given a shout.

NUMBERS AT THE HALFWAY MARK: A pile of blowouts and profusion of tight ends has made for uninspiring numbers. Seventeen different Wolverines have caught passes, including three different fullbacks and five different TEs. Meanwhile the starters have been on the bench for most of the second half in each outing.

Darboh has indeed emerged as the top wideout with 25 catches for 400 yards; his 9.5 yards per target is an impressive number, and he's on the end of a quarter of Speight's passes. Chesson has 15 catches for 231 yards and has had some iffy plays on balls downfield, though he's been hurt by bad throws. Chesson's also got seven carries for 44 yards.

Here ends significant WR contributions. Perry has six catches, McDoom three, and Kekoa Crawford one. McDoom's been a frequent jet sweep runner.

FEELINGSBALL: This is what happens when you're hammering almost all your opposition and your quarterback is struggling mightily in the two games (Colorado and Wisconsin) in which second-half passing won't be interpreted as a slap in the face. The wide receivers have been hamstrung by the situation.

It has been a mild disappointment that both starters have failed to high-point a number of passes that weren't perfect but were good enough to force a PI or result in a spectacular catch. On the other hand, WR blocking has been excellent on Michigan's many crack sweeps.

UP OR DOWN OR EH: This unit gets an incomplete.

TIGHT END

29158510160_44dc8ae003_z

[Bryan Fuller]

SEASON PREVIEW TAKE: Jake Butt is the best receiving tight end in the country, Ian Bunting is set for a breakout, and look out for the Kaiju brothers, Ty Wheatley Jr and Devin Asiasi... but probably next year. Since we also cover all blocky/catchy types in that post, fullbacks Henry Poggi and Khalid Hill were both mentioned as potential X factors since they obviously had a lot of potential as blockers but had targeting or technique issues.

NUMBERS AT THE HALFWAY MARK: Butt had two inexplicable drops early and has since been Jake Butt. He's since recovered to post a 71% catch rate per S&P+, which is excellent, and 8.3 yards per target, also excellent for a tight end. His blocking was alarming to start but has settled in at "decent," which is a minor upgrade on last year. Bunting was playing a bunch but had not been featured; he's missed the last couple games with an undisclosed injury.

Meanwhile Hill and Poggi have grabbed the rest of the targets here. Hill's caught all eight balls thrown his way and is averaging the same 8.3 yards per target that Butt is. While some of that is scheme, Hill has made a couple of difficult catches. 

FEELINGSBALL: Meanwhile in things that don't pick up numbers: blocking. Butt is a bit better than last year, and the fullbacks have improved a great deal. Hill has had a few spectacular blocks where he blows through a linebacker without slowing and then gets to a third level player; these don't show up except in UFR and PFF, where Hill is clearly preferred by both metrics. I've been more enthused about Poggi than PFF; he's cut out most of the targeting issues that plagued him last year.

Meanwhile, Asiasi has emerged over the last few games. Against Rutgers most big runs featured Asiasi moving a DL and then popping out to blast a LB or DB. He's got a combination of power and agility that make him effective against just about anyone a defense fields, and at nearly 290 pounds his upside in this department is considerable.

UP OR DOWN OR EH: Asiasi's emergence over the last few games as a plus blocker—as a blocker who could be a difference-maker—is the main reason this spot feels like an upgrade over expectations. Khalid Hill whacking guys has also been an unexpected positive. Butt's been about what you expect.

OFFENSIVE LINE

29138032014_2305fcb50c_z

[Barron]

SEASON PREVIEW TAKE: Meh. Mason Cole was projected to be a very good player. Grant Newsome was fretted over, largely because Ben Bredeson was pushing him for the job. Ben Braden and Erik Magnuson were declared acceptable offensive linemen with little upside. Kyle Kalis was an infinitely frustrating mauler who blew assignments all the time, but was declared an X factor because if he could just figure things out...

NUMBERS AT THE HALFWAY MARK: OL don't have numbers.

FEELINGSBALL: The line has been acceptable. Newsome, the projected weak link, was exactly that before the knee injury that ended his season. He had some pass protection issues but was not a revolving door; on the ground he was an able puller and decent enough at the point of attack. Magnuson has somewhat exceeded expectations as he's combined with Kalis to be a powerful right side of the line. Pass protection issues have lingered for him, though. He's somewhere between some preseason NFL scouting, which saw him as a potential high pick, and my "eh, undrafted FA" take from the preview.

The interior has been about as good as expected but the star has been Kalis, not Cole. Kalis did indeed cut out the vast majority of the mental errors and round into the mauling five-star guard everyone wanted him to be immediately out of high school. Cole, however, has struggled against zero-tech nose tackles. (Michigan has played an inordinate number of 3-4s early in the year.) While I think Colorado's Josh Tupou is just that good, Cole's impact has been muted at C.

Braden has clearly and vastly outperformed Bredeson at LG to the point where the only explanation for Bredeson's playing time is injury.

UP OR DOWN OR EH: The guys who started the season were actually a slight upgrade on expectations because Newsome was not a problem. However, Juwann Bushell-Beatty has been shaky in relief. He's been beat on edge rushes a ton; he's taken holding calls; he's been iffy on the ground. He looms as a potential issue down the road, so this is a sad injury downgrade.

Comments

mgolund

October 18th, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^

getting an incomplete. Based on preseason expectations, I would give them an "eh". Yes, some of that is Speight. But, a lot of it is (as Brian pointed out) issues with highpointing, etc. Eh doesn't mean bad, it just means it's been okay. Which is what I've seen out of that group. Just okay.

lhglrkwg

October 18th, 2016 at 12:45 PM ^

At this point, the only thing keeping us from being Alabama II is QB and OL. Everything else is as they say "capital 'E' elite". If those two groups can continue to improve then we have a good shot at winning it all

maize-blue

October 18th, 2016 at 1:11 PM ^

I thought the passing game would be putting up bigger numbers at this point with Darboh, Chesson, Butt, and Perry. That's about a solid group of receivers you can have. 

I'm not sure if my expectations were too high or if they still need things to work out. However, it does seem that they have made the running game an emphasis since the first 2-3 games. Possibly that is why the passing game seems to be more pedestrian lately.

1VaBlue1

October 18th, 2016 at 2:13 PM ^

No need to pass when you're winning games by an average score of 50-10 - and the ONLY game you scored less than 45 in was against an elite defense...  The pass game gets a pass from me, not enough numbers to rely on for six games of action!

trueblueintexas

October 18th, 2016 at 1:14 PM ^

I think Brian was in a bad mood when he wrote this. Colorado, Wisconsin (and maybe Penn State) have been legitimate teams to play against. The others, not so much.

In those three games:

Colorado (45-28 final score, 38-28 entering fourth):

Rushing: 41 carries, 168 yds, 3 TD's (4.09 ypc)

Speight: 16/30, 229, 1-0

 

Penn State (49-10 final score, 35-3 entering fourth) :

Rushing: 49 carries, 326 yds, 6 TD's (6.65 ypc)

Speight: 21/34, 189, 1-0

 

Wisconsin (14-7 final score, 7-7 entering fourth):

Rushing: 44 carries, 130 yds, 1 TD (2.95 ypc)

Speight: 20/32, 219, 1-1

 

As a comparison, here is OSU's numbers against Wisconsin:

Rushing: 45 carries, 185 yds, 2 TD (4.11)

Barrett: 17/29, 226, 1-1

It's not like Michigan is playing like crap against their three toughest (with all due respect to Scott Frost, and remember, I said with all due respect) teams. 10 TD's on the ground in those three games. Raise your hand if you like 3.3 rushing TD's/game. Speight has a 3:1 INT ratio in those games. Most people would take 3:1 as acceptable. One of those passing TD's was a 46 yard bomb in the fourth to win the Wisconsin game. It's not like Speight hasn't delivered when needed. 

Given the opportunity to try and grind out the clock in the fourth and the severe injury to Newsome, I would say the offense has been exactly what this team has needed. It's not like a video game where you are trying to achieve certain passing and rushing goals before the game ends. Harbaugh is trying to win and develop.

 

maize-blue

October 18th, 2016 at 1:45 PM ^

My biggest optimism regarding the run game is that on multiple drives against Wisconsin they were running right at that defense and having success. They just couldn't finish drives with TD's and missed FG's. 

I think they are imporving little by little on the ground. 

Also, UM's running backs out produced OSU's backs by about 30-40ish yards against Wisconsin. Barret accounted for about half of their rush yards. Stopping or slowing his running is the key on 11/26.

stephenrjking

October 18th, 2016 at 6:16 PM ^

I think his pessimism is well founded, given the high expectations for the season.

1. The Colorado game wound up being a win with some margin, but the offensive success Michigan experienced was highly concentrated on stretching the Colorado defense wide and successfully running jet sweeps and screens. Speight's downfield performance was not good, and Michigan also struggled mightily with running between the tackles.

Speight's subsequent performances suggest that his inability to strike downfield was not a fluke. Meanwhile, teams like Oregon and USC have been able to carve up the Colorado pass defense for serious yardage.

2. Michigan beat Wisconsin and moved the ball on the ground somewhat well, but we are kidding ourselves if we think that the offensive struggles late in the game were just a consequence of Michigan being conservative. Once Wisconsin tied it, Michigan had to score points and had a number of possessions to do so, with full knowledge that any placekick would be a low-odds gamble. Failure to score could allow one fluke turnover or coverage slip (and there was one that Wisconsin failed to take advantage of) to give Wisconsin a lead.

Despite this, Michigan could not advance the ball well enough to score until the winning TD, despite a number of opportunities to do so. Harbaugh is not Lloyd Carr; he does not call plays thinking "We are capable of scoring here but let's not take the risk of actually trying to do so yet." 

In both of these games, Michigan played most of the game at regular speed, needing to produce points. In both games downfield passing was regularly a problem that stunted drives. And the running game, while pretty good against Wisconsin, was not a dominant force that Michigan could rely upon to dominate and score. 

Brian predicted 12-0, so the expectations are high. Michigan's performance so far has been good on offense, but nowhere near great. And great is probably going to be needed.

It's not to say that there aren't things to praise about the offense, but I think Brian is pretty much correct here. 

trueblueintexas

October 19th, 2016 at 3:02 PM ^

Regarding Wisconsin, the only reason the field goal options seem like low odds gambles is through hindsight. Going into the game there were questions about field goal kicking but not paranoia. Three misses later and questions turned into paranoia. Harbaugh does not seem like the type of coach to take low odds gambles with known data. Sometimes you have to play the game to learn. 

So, Michigan makes at least 2 of those 3 field goals, which was probably Harbaugh's expectation, and Michigan wins 20 - 7. Maybe 13-7 because Michigan probably doesn't go deep mid-way through the fourth with a 6 point lead. Your take on that game would be much different solely predicated on fieldgoal kicking.

socalwolverine1

October 18th, 2016 at 1:39 PM ^

Is Braden serviceable at tackle?  I'm asking because I watched Onwenu's performance against Rutgers along with several video clips since fall camp (including this week) where Glasgow keeps gushing how Onwenu is ridiculously difficult to go against in practice. Based on that, I'm surprised Big Mike hasn't been subbed in at left guard to see what happens.  

Ron Utah

October 18th, 2016 at 1:42 PM ^

My take so far:

QB - EVEN.  Was someone expecting an All-American here?  Speight has had a strong start with some hiccups.  Most of those hiccups come under pressure, but the occasional errant throw is concerning.  All that said, his QBR is high and he has made some great plays.  Now we need him to have a jump in performance for the second half of the season.

RB - UP.  Hard to see this any other way.  Smith is the steady, tackle-breaking monster we thought he was (who is amazing in pass pro); Isaac and Higdon have taken massive steps forward; Evans is a revelation.  Our best backfield in over a decade, but still without the game-breaking bell cow Michigan used to have every year.

WR - DOWN.  Chesson was supposed to be an All-American.  Yes, the opportunties are lacking, but there have also been drops and we haven't seen the same separation we saw last year.  Darboh has been pretty damn good, but a couple of drops in there too.  So while DOWN is the right answer, that's only because expectations were so high.  Still the best group in the B1G.

TE/FB - UP.  Jake Butt had a few uncharacteristic drops early, but he's back to himself and I expect his usage to increase against some of the better teams on our remaining schedule.  Bunting's injuries are disappointing, but damn, Asiasi is a player.  Hill is an exceptional Harbaugh FB and Poggi has made huge strides.  Hard not to love this group overall.

OL - EVEN.  I don't understand the downvote here.  Sure, we lost Newsome, but we weren't even sure he was going to start.  That he's been much better than expected is a bonus.  His injury hurts, and is the ONLY reason this is EVEN--Kalis, Magnuson, and Braden are all playing their best football.  Cole has only been good, instead of the anticipated Rimington-contender.  We'll see how LT plays out, but the right side of the line has been dominant, getting Michigan back to being a team that wins most short yardage and goalline battles.  About damn time.

Defense preview:

DL - EVEN.  Can't get much better than predicted, which is one of the best DLs in school history.

LB - WAY UP.  What was supposed to be our biggest liability is one of the best groups on the team.  The depth looks spotty, but McCray and Gedeon have been amazing at everything but pass coverage, and Peppers is Peppers.

DB - EVEN.  Stribilng is better than expected, Thomas is worse.  Everyone else's performance is on target.

Overall, my expectations for this team are up slightly, and I now feel like 12-0 is an expectation instead of a wish.

gbdub

October 18th, 2016 at 2:54 PM ^

This is an interesting question, since we did hear a lot of Bredeson chatter preseason and basically nothing about JBB. Could be that since the start of the season Bredeson has only played guard, so he doesn't have the snaps at tackle... in which case maybe we start to see him at tackle after the bye week?

On the other hand maybe he and JBB are just pretty close at this point and Braden still needs to be relieved by Bredeson occasionally due to nagging injury.

Detroit Dan

October 18th, 2016 at 3:39 PM ^

Here are some reasons we're averaging 50 points per game without tremendously exceeding expectations:  

  • Field position due to superior defense and special teams
  • More opportunities due to defense getting opponents' offense off the field
  • Depth -- scoring continues after game has been decided
  • More explosive running game.  OL may not be great, and there are no marquis running backs, but  rushing yards per game is way up

Alumnus93

October 18th, 2016 at 7:35 PM ^

not quite sure if Newsome was the weak link, after Harbaugh said at least once that he graded out as the best lineman.

philthy66

October 18th, 2016 at 10:34 PM ^

Our OL is getting good push on running plays and creating great pockets on pass plays. We're getting the best OL play in over a decade, so....How would you rank them? #1 through #4 or 5 or 10. Top 5 would be a good read. Top 10 would be a great read