Live and Die by the Run Game

Submitted by UMVAFAN on

I rarely post, but with all the talk about the offensive struggles, I was curious about how Michigan's rushing yardage over the past three years by game and how it correlates to success on the field. Since I don't have time to adjust for sacks, I used 125 yards per game as the threshold for deeming a game a successful rushing afternoon/evening. Here are the results:

2015: 4 games under 125 rushing yards, 3 losses during these particular games

2016: 4 games under 125 rushing yards, 3 losses during these particular games

2017: 5 games under 125 rushing yards, 5 losses during these particular games

The past three seasons, Michigan has only one 2 games when rushing for fewer than 125 yards (87 yards against Penn State in 2015 and 119 yards against Central Florida in 2016). The rest are all losses!

I know this is an overly simplistic and not very surprising if you know anything about football, but with so many irrational and over the top takes on how the season unfolded and what's killing our success, this is the statistic that matters to me. Whatever Harbaugh and Co. can do to ensure a successful rushing game is where the focus needs to be. The three things we need the most: 1) Better Offensive Line play -- great run blocking and average pass blocking, 2) An average or better QB that can make the play action pass a viable threat to make the run game more effective, and 3) Some game changing running backs that can break some big plays.

We saw spurts of #1 and #3 this year against weaker teams, but rarely saw #2. 

(For what it's worth, I looked at turnover differential as an important variable for predicting losses. In the past 3 years, Michigan has had a turnover differential of -2 or worse five times, with 4 of these resulting in losses. Two of these games were against teams we should have beat (MSU and South Carolina this year) and two were in toss up games (Utah in 2015 and OSU in 2016). The one game we had -2 or worse and won was against Minnesota in 2015.)

I know this was long, so don't neg too hard.

MGoBoard

Tuebor

January 3rd, 2018 at 8:16 PM ^

2 pronged approach. Better OL play needed to open up holes. Better QB play needed to keep safeties out of the box and out of those holes the OL has opened up.

Joined: 03/14/2011

MGoPoints: 17467

Jordan2323

January 3rd, 2018 at 8:28 PM ^

Version of the 4 wide we were going to use this year? Pep Hamilton coming in and us recruiting all those good wide receivers, along with a shaky line, wasn’t the rumor we were going to more of a passing spread to minimize weaknesses?

Joined: 11/09/2013

MGoPoints: 48909

Skidmark

January 3rd, 2018 at 8:28 PM ^

That Harbaugh has fallen behind scheme-wise on the offensive side
Of the ball as concerns the college game? He's not coaching a bunch of of NFL pro-bowlers. Theres a reason you see so much spread stuff in college these days. There's a reason the QBs in spread offenses rely on the sidelines for pre-snap adjustments. Even Alabama has made moves in this direction.

Joined: 12/19/2017

MGoPoints: 1092

Alumnus93

January 3rd, 2018 at 8:30 PM ^

Running game success is incidental and symptomatic, to the bigger need... And that is an elite OL. and we haven't had one since early 2000s. That, to me, is the biggest thing. Cole should have been a guard, or C... And we needed two bookend T of the old school Michigan kind. Instead, Newsome got hurt, Wilson and Hamilton went elsewhere, and there were no good plan B. And having these things, the OL would have been atypical Michigan elite... And could absorb a young QB somewhat, and the run game goes north of 125yd.

Joined: 09/10/2009

MGoPoints: 9684

Vigorous

January 3rd, 2018 at 8:33 PM ^

Michigan seems to building a solid set of RBs to play any different role needed. This is how the nfl runs and keeps everyone “fresh”. My main concern is that the college game isn’t as conducive for this approach. If someone, Karan or Kareem or Chris Evans, shows up with star potential, I want Michigan to feed that guy 25-30 touches a game and see what we can do with a stud. The OLine was getting there this year. I think it’s plausible.

Joined: 06/06/2015

MGoPoints: 355

micheal honcho

January 3rd, 2018 at 10:21 PM ^

I really see it as 80% a QB issue. Put even a guy like Lewerke on our O this season and how many more games do we win?
I see 4 for sure. MSU, OSU, Wisconsin and SC. Only Penn st seemed to be a game where we were overwhelmed and never in it.
Keep in mind, I use Lewerke because he is just capable not exceptional. Trade up for McSorley Mayfield or Darnold? We may be in the CFP right now.
Our pass pro was made at least 50% shittier by terrible QB play. I'm not sure what we look at when offering QB's but I think it's the wrong stuff. Screw mechanics, measurable's, combine drills etc. Show me the guy winning HS games with guts, instincts and intangibles and that's the guy I want. That's where the Hornibrooks & Lewerkes are found. To me Malzone looked that part in his HS career. It wasn't always pretty but he found ways to get it done. The instinct to feel where a rush is coming from, make that one step and snap a ball 10yds to that RB or TE to save a play. Where has that been for M? Find that guy and we win. That's my take.

Joined: 10/27/2010

MGoPoints: 2768

SCarolinaMaize

January 4th, 2018 at 6:42 AM ^

they scrap the inside zone and stick with power.  I'm sure they had a reason to flip flop around but it seemed IZ got killed every damn time and put them behind the chains, while they picked up about 4yds on power.

Joined: 06/17/2010

MGoPoints: 7173