Telling national stats: UM is 92nd in passes intercepted, 106th in fumbles lost, 115th in TFL allowed, 118th in sacks allowed

Submitted by Maizen on

Per Angelique.

Some other offensive stats:

Scoring O: t-80th Total O: 84th YPP: t-85th Run O: 63rd YPC: 84th Pass O: t-75th YPA: t-56th QB Rtg: 98th

That is some Hoke level incompetence.

MGoBoard

George Pickett

October 8th, 2017 at 12:58 PM ^

Weird.  It's almost like having an offensive staff with terrible or nonexistent track records yields poor results.

Maybe Harbaugh should consider hiring a RB coach who has actually coached RBs, an OC who has actually been an OC, and a passing game coordinator who has actually coordinated a successful passing game.

Joined: 03/27/2016

MGoPoints: 9928

True Blue Grit

October 8th, 2017 at 1:25 PM ^

I look at the offensive coaching hierarchy on this  staff and it's very unusual.  A lot of overlap, no one seemingly dedicated to WR's, two people coaching the OL, a guy with no previous experience coaching RB's, among other things.  We trust Harbaugh who has a lot more experience coaching than any of us, but he just may need to re-look at how he's organized this staff and make changes.  

Joined: 01/21/2011

MGoPoints: 32336

M-Dog

October 8th, 2017 at 1:49 PM ^

His approach to getting Don Brown, the best possible DC he could identify, was flawless.

When is he going to apply that same approach to OC and get rid of his relatives and old buddies?

The problem is that he fancies himself too much as an offensive guru to just let go, so he won't bring in a Joe Moorhead type and then get out of the way.

He wants an ambiguous, malleable offensive staff that he can interject his way into as he feels.

The result is the chaos and lack of identity that you see on the field. 

Can you imagine him trying to do that with Don Brown?

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257385

George Pickett

October 8th, 2017 at 12:59 PM ^

It's so much more than that. Literally every position on this offense has been somewhere between bad and horrendous.

Joined: 03/27/2016

MGoPoints: 9928

I Like Burgers

October 8th, 2017 at 1:19 PM ^

The downgrade from Black to Crawford was bigger than we thought.  Only becasue I just looked it up, both Perry and Black are/were catching around 66% of the balls they are targeted on.  Crawford is only catching 37% -- 19 targets, and 7 receptions.

Perry is a dependable possession-style receiver, but not a threat at all to take the top off a defense.  So that leaves Michigan with no receiving threats, and no threats in the backfield, which makes the OL's job even harder.

Joined: 10/06/2012

MGoPoints: 30575

M-Dog

October 8th, 2017 at 1:52 PM ^

There are 119 D1 programs that Newsome won't be playing RT for next year. 

And yet a large percentage of them will still figure out how to field a competent, coherent OL.

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257385

evenyoubrutus

October 8th, 2017 at 1:05 PM ^

I don't get it. At Stanford he had a clear upward trajectory in his team's success. By year 3 it was obvious to everyone that they were on their way to being a good if not great program, and he barely had more than half a dozen 4 star recruits on his roster at the time. Is his problem that He's going a little overboard with all the resources he has? Hiring too many high level coaches or thinking he can run too complicated an offense with the talent he's recruited?

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178179

evenyoubrutus

October 8th, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^

Yes you worded it better than I did. By high level I meant he's going out and getting guys to fill positions he doesn't really need filled. They have two OC's, two o line coaches. They don't have a receivers coach. Their RB coach is... not qualified to be a Big Ten assistant. But you look on defense and they have one man in charge and everyone has clearly defined rolls.

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178179

M-Dog

October 8th, 2017 at 1:57 PM ^

Yes, the Stanford thing is a mystery. 

He did much more with much less by year 3 at Stanford than he has done at Michigan.  And it's not like year 4 at Michigan is looking to be the magic year either.

What's different?  Was it all just simply "Luck" at Stanford?

Who exactly was his offensive staff during his Stanford run?

 

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257385

BursleyBaitsBus

October 8th, 2017 at 2:41 PM ^

Well now we know who the mastermind was given how Shaw became an excellent coach after Harbaugh left. Taggart was his RB coach which explains a lot too because he’s starting off well at Oregon. Drevno was always lackluster

Joined: 01/20/2016

MGoPoints: 12434

evenyoubrutus

October 8th, 2017 at 2:48 PM ^

Just seems like his coaching staff was much like his recruiting. He found a bunch of little known, underrated coaches (and players) and found a way to win with them. Many of them went on to do great things. It's a head scratcher that it doesn't seem to be happening here.

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178179

Scottwood

October 8th, 2017 at 8:39 PM ^

They aren't high level offensive coaches though- at least not in their current assignments. Pep was a fired OC, Drevno has never been a OC in NFL or D1 in college and he has his son coaching RB's even though he has zero experience coaching RB's. His son was basically handed a high paid position coach role at a major program w/ no experience or resume. All the meritocracy talk does seem hollow when he has his son on staff. That's always been glossed over but should be called out,

Joined: 01/08/2009

MGoPoints: 730

B1G Winning

October 8th, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^

With a halfway competent offense, Michigan would be a legit player in the Playoffs this year. The defense is just that good. The offensive staff is a tire-fire, and Harbaugh takes a lot of the blame. He's the one guy who can force changes, but hasn't thus far. The college game is vastly different from the NFL. You can't just run the clock down every possession while hoping for field goals like you can in the NFL. The Pro formation/manball is really fun to watch when you have the perfect personnel to run it. However, Michigan just scored 10 points, at home, against a team coming off of a 3-9 season. Meanwhile, teams like OSU and PSU continue to put up 40+ points a game, consistently. There's no reason for a school/team like Michigan to settle for such lackluster offensive play.

Joined: 11/08/2013

MGoPoints: 4583

M-Dog

October 8th, 2017 at 2:12 PM ^

Don Brown is the game changer here.  He brings a new reality to Michigan.

It is now clear after the fantastic job that Brown has done on defense after the departure of 11 NFL players that elite defense is here to stay at Michgan.

This changes the game . . . if Harbaugh originally thought he had to come up with an offense that could carry the entire team, he no longer has to.  A half decent offense alone will do it.

He can now install a basic college offense, like just about everyone else has, and play for championships.

He does not have to try to engineer an offensive miracle anymore.  We don't need to be the college New England Patriots any more.

Just install a basic college-level offense, coached by real college offensive coaches, and move on with your life.

Take yes for an answer.

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257385

AmayzNblue

October 8th, 2017 at 8:28 PM ^

We all loved what he did with Rudock. It’s just the Joes we got right now aren’t as decisive/confident as Rudock. If we execute what Jim is trying to do, we will look like a more innovative version of Stanford. Takes a lot of pressure off the QB when you can run consistently like Stanford, but we don’t have the Oline for it.

Joined: 01/10/2015

MGoPoints: 5016

markusr2007

October 8th, 2017 at 1:45 PM ^

They were 73rd coming into the game.
Might as well be 120th.
Michigan is going 7-5 this year. Probably 7-6 after we get douched by Auburn in a bowl game.

Joined: 10/21/2008

MGoPoints: 19372

BlueMk1690

October 8th, 2017 at 2:08 PM ^

But also let's be real here..we haven't got a lot of returning competence on offense and what we do have isn't all-conference or all-American level competence.

What we returned was 'serviceable' in much better general circumstance and has shown itself to be not adequate in more trying circumstances.

When you start over with a lot of new guys..you're not just dealing with younger versions of the players you lost. You're dealing with a new puzzle. You don't know what you've got. You have your practices, the spring game and all that but you really won't know before the mid-point of the season what you really have. You'll have guys that are raw but likely to improve, you'll have guys that can immediately contribute and you'll have guys that simply aren't good enough and won't be.

This is the same no matter if you're recruiting 3 to 5 stars or unrated to 3 star players. It's far from unheard of for 3 to 5 star players to never pan out. It happens on every team, even Bama, even Clemson etc.

The value of an 'experienced team' isn't just their experience..it's that you as a coach know that at this and that position you got a guy who can play, a guy to rely on. Michigan's coaches had very few players like that as the season began. I think we're in the middle of the painful process of sorting out the wheat from the chaff on this team.

 

 

Joined: 02/04/2011

MGoPoints: 12927

andrewgr

October 8th, 2017 at 4:00 PM ^

This would be a much more compelling argument if other teams weren't doing much better when fielding similarly inexperienced teams.

The Spartans, for example, are even younger than the Wolverines.

Ohio State won the first CFP Championship with one of the youngest teams in the country, including wins over the #13, #1, and #3 teams in the country while starting a 3rd string QB.

Georgia is looking extremely impressive with a true freshman at QB.  Harbaugh has had 3 recruiting classes, youth does not excuse such consistently mediocre quarterback play, with no obvious upgrade waiting for year 4.

And if Harbaugh ever manages to recruit at the same level as OSU or Alabama, he's going to discover that he gets one or two seasons out of his best players, because they're leaving early.  If you want to get that 3rd year, you need to play them as true freshmen.  That's why you see true freshmen in the 2-deep and playing significant snaps for Clemson, Alabama, and OSU.

So yeah, your argument sounds reasonable.  If there was no evidence one way or the other, I'd be pursuaded.  But I think there's quite a lot of evidence that college football teams can and do excel when playing lots of young players, and that even championship caliber teams are liable to play multiple true freshmen and redshirt freshmen.  

 

Joined: 11/15/2013

MGoPoints: 3059

BlueMk1690

October 8th, 2017 at 7:05 PM ^

Because every puzzle is different. They don't have the same players. There's also plenty of teams doing worse than we're doing with much more experienced players. There's different scenarios at each team and you're not always going to end up with a great one.

Let's face it, that's just *griping*. "I wish we had it like them" but that ain't happening. We got the guys we got.

And by the way, aside from their QB, Georgia is an extremely experienced team.

Joined: 02/04/2011

MGoPoints: 12927

M-Dog

October 8th, 2017 at 2:17 PM ^

Can somebody at least explain to me what the Harbaugh goal-state is on offense?

Who are we trying to be?

Is it Stanford?  Is it Texas Tech?  Is it Bo 2.0?

Because right now, all it looks like is Kirk Ferentz, without the excitement.

What specifically is it that Harbaugh is trying to get to?

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257385

HateSparty

October 8th, 2017 at 3:42 PM ^

I do not have insight but I believe their is strife within Harbaugh. Could be he is interested in NFL but made a commitment to family. Could be his religious beliefs interfering with his family reality, coaching conflicts. Not sure. Complete conjecture, probably irresponsible but I see something different. He isn't content.

Joined: 12/17/2014

MGoPoints: 27143