Just go away already, Red Wolves. I just wanted Arkansas State to quit. Michigan kept gashing them in the run game. Michigan kept stuffing their run game. And yet . . . Arkansas State wouldn't quit. It was 28-3. And then it was 28-10. And then it was 28-18 after a touchdown and a two-point conversion against Michigan's third- and fourth-stringers. So the final was closer than it should have been, because Michigan was trying to get its top players a rest going into the USC game next week. Those two teams are not just a 10-point differential away from each other. But the situation will be forgotten shortly and people will just look at the score. Good for Arkansas State for not quitting, but I wish they would have.
Hit the jump for more.
So . . . ummm . . . about Michigan's QB room. I don't know what to say that hasn't already been said. Every single one of Davis Warren's 14 passes was caught. Michigan caught 11 of them . . . and Arkansas State caught 3. Warren looks okay at times, but his bad throws are really bad. Ultimately, you're judged by how many games you win and how many points you score, and Warren isn't scoring a ton of points. His 2-1 record is decent so far, but victories are going to be hard to come by unless he improves. (And there's obviously a question about whether he even keeps the job moving forward.) He finished 11/14 for 122 yards, 0 touchdowns, and 3 interceptions; and he ran 4 times for 6 yards, including a nice 13-yard scramble.
What are the other options?
Here are my TTB Ratings for #Michigan's currently rostered QBs:
— Touch the Banner 〽️ (@TouchTheBanner) September 14, 2024
Jadyn Davis - 68
Jayden Denegal - 61
Alex Orji - 55
Jack Tuttle - N/A (transfer)
Davis Warren - N/A (walk-on)
I'm not always right, but I never had much faith in this group to produce a solid starter. I fully…
As mentioned above, I've missed before on QBs (Joe Milton, Shane Morris, etc.), but I don't have high expectations for the quarterbacks currently on the roster. I actually thought Warren was a steal for a walk-on, and I think that has been proven to be accurate. I didn't think he would ever be a starter, but if he was the mop-up guy as the #2 or #3 quarterback, I don't think anyone would be too upset. He was never supposed to be The Man. But you can see with the way Warren and Orji "command" the huddle that neither one is ready. The personnel look confused, Warren looks confused, Orji seems disconnected, there's just no field general. Reps and experience might fix this, but that takes time that Michigan doesn't have. Meanwhile, Alex Orji went 2/4 for 12 yards and 1 touchdown in clean-up duty after Warren threw his third pick. He badly overthrew speedster Fredrick Moore, had a pass batted down at the line of scrimmage, and completed a short arrow route to Hogan Hansen for an easy touchdown.
Is the offensive line starting to gel? Michigan no doubt made some improvements in the run game on Saturday, even if it was against an inferior opponent. I believe the Red Wolves were better on the defensive line than the offensive line - especially end Jayden Jones, who I thought looked tough - but Michigan was gashing them in the run game. The Wolverines unveiled Andrew Gentry as the extra offensive lineman, and he played 14 snaps lined up in the "tight end" position. If Michigan wants to play bully ball, I think it's necessary for them to use Gentry - or another tackle - to create unbalanced lines and get some extra beef. It's probably not a coincidence that Michigan's running game took off - albeit against an inferior opponent - when the Wolverines started adding beef and different personnel packages.
Running back controversy update. Kalel Mullings had 15 carries for 153 yards (10.1 yards/attempt) and 1 touchdown, including three 30+ yard runs. Donovan Edwards had more carries (17) but significantly fewer yards (82), though he still had a decent overall game in the running department (4.8 yards/carry, 1 TD). I thought Edwards started to run a little bit harder after he saw Mullings break tackles on his way to a 31-yard touchdown, so maybe Edwards is feeling the heat a little bit. I think it's pretty obvious that Mullings has better vision and a better overall feel for finding holes and making defenders miss, but if competition brings out the best in Edwards, that's a good thing. If Michigan wants to play its best, it needs to have both guys playing well.
Speaking of Edwards, I think he made some big gaffes. Looking back at a couple "bad plays by Warren," I think Edwards made some mental mistakes with play fakes and pass blocking. On Warren's first interception, he faked a power out of the pistol by opening to his left for the play fake . . . except Edwards went to the right. Michigan does run power using those same mechanics, so I think Edwards went to the wrong side. Then Michigan had a pass protection where they ran a "full slide" protection to the right, and if that was indeed the scheme, the back needs to step to the left. Warren opened to his left for a play fake, but Edwards went right, leaving a completely unprotected left edge. We can be critical of the quarterback position, and I think that's fair. But the coaches and other players need to be accountable for their roles in helping the quarterback be successful. If a senior running back is going the wrong way on fakes/protections, that's pretty inexcusable. In my experience as a coach, the QB is right on those things about 90% of the time. I do think sometimes things are moving too fast for Warren, but I would be pretty surprised if he made errors on both of those plays . . . and in fact, both of them look to me like they're protection busts by Edwards. (For what it's worth, Edwards got a 9.6 grade from PFF in pass blocking, so I think they agree with me.)
Let's hope Colston Loveland is okay. It looked like star tight end Colston Loveland injured his shoulder (separation, stinger, etc.) on his second catch of the day. He did come back for another reception, but he immediately left the game again after being tackled. He finished the game with 3 catches for 30 yards. Number two tight end Marlin Klein (3 catches, 43 yards) ended up as the team's receiving yardage leader, which tells us a lot about the QB production and the explosiveness of the receivers. Loveland is perhaps Michigan's most important offensive player, so if he misses time against USC or down the road, that's very bad news for the Wolverines.
The ceiling is low. If we're being honest, this team looks like it might struggle to be bowl eligible. They've struggled a little bit with both Fresno State and Arkansas State, and they looked totally overmatched against Texas. They will be underdogs next week against USC, and it doesn't get a whole lot easier down the stretch, with games against Washington, Oregon, and Ohio State. I do think the running game took a step forward, and the starting defense was solid. But there are zero explosive plays in the passing game, and there are way too many turnovers.
"I'm not always right, but I never had much faith in this group to produce a solid starter"
ReplyDeleteA year ago I was complaining about the disastrous results of our 22 & 23 QB recruiting ... but I was fooled by off-season hype, and realize now that I was actually too optimistic about the QBs
I've been asking about the extra OL. I can understand that we fell behind quick last week, but we're a running team with a crap QB situation ...line up the big boys and drain the dang clock! Keep Moss on the bench
Mullings may be RB1. They tried to make it work with Edwards, but the difference was stark - same game, same offense against the same defense ... Mullings was impressive (though not fast), while Edwards had the screw ups you mentioned and another bad attempt to pass block. He still needs carries, but his role should be offensive weapon, one that can make up for our lack of WR "playmakers" (a quote), and get some carries to keep the D honest and for the HR potential. The second RB half usage may be telling
*on the bright side, tickets for the WA game are dropping ... I'm almost certain to take the family up to Seattle
Where Michigan goes from here -- and how the go -- will determine the fate of Michigan football for a fairly long time. If they adapt and improve, and they show they can be competitve even in losses, then there's hope. But if Moore turtles, and Michigan shows little or no real improvement, then Michigan is facing at least three years and likely more as a 8-4 or 7-5 type program. I'm serious. Today's outing was ... not good.
ReplyDeleteNah
DeleteWith the portal, success is right around the corner. Especially if Moore's recruiting holds together
Tell that to Florida and Florida State.
DeleteHey, at least we're not Gator or Noles fans!
DeleteBoy howdy, isn't that true? I have a friend who's a big Gator fan ... or maybe was. He was riding high during the Tebow years, and he kept the faith early in the Muschamp years, but as that petered out, and then McElwain, then Mullen, then Napier fizzled, he doesn't express much of anything for the Gators anymore.
DeleteStaying on the mountain top is not easy. It takes more than a prestigious school name. It takes more than just money. A lot has to come together just right to find the gear to get to the upper-echelon of the sport.
@Anon
DeleteI'm curious what 'turtle' means here and if you just mean if they lose to USC you're going to be mad. Maybe the animal you want to reference here is the groundhog, having its day predicting the seasons. LOL
By "turtle" I mean retreating into things he thinks are safe, rather than honestly assessing the issues and addressing them creatively, and at times taking prudent risks. I imagine Moore is somewhat overwhelmed by the HC role, by following in Harbaugh's footsteps, and by the expectations on him. He can step up, or he can turtle.
DeleteThanks for clarifying. Though I'm not sure what risks he can really take.
DeleteChanging the offense to look like an Urban Meyer team to make the most out of Orji/Edwards/Mullings? Like Mgoblog wants? I don't know if that's a risk worth taking in late September. Maybe they should have seen this coming but the time to install a wholesale change in scheme was March not October.
What they can do is use different parts of the playbook and lean on different personnel packages than what they've done so far. I wouldn't consider that to be much of a risk though -- just try looking less like a wannabe NFL offense with 3 WRs and pass-catching TEs. Try looking more like Harbaugh offense, but modified to address the lack of high caliber blocking at TE that we've enjoyed from 2021-2023. Mullings and Edwards both in the backfield -- not really a risk.
Anyway, I think that's still pretty vague but I'll support your call for adapting and being creative. This offense HAS pieces on it. But it's not the pieces that we had the last 3 years.
OK... I'll clarify my last comment to say I think that putting in a new starter 3 games into your tenure, when you made a surprising (to most) offseason decision to start a walk-on, very much counts as a taking a risk.
DeleteSome coaches are very afraid to look wrong and choosing Warren over Orji looks like it might have been the wrong call. We'll see if it works, but win/lose/draw it takes some courage to open yourself to criticism like Sherrone is doing now.
I think you're putting too much on the word "risk" here.
Delete@Anon2:57, overthinking and rambling on & on are what makes it so easy to catch Lank in contradicting (and lying) statements
Delete@Anon
DeleteYeah that's fair. I suspect that if Michigan beats USC, Sherrone will get praised for taking risks. If Michigan loses to USC, Sherrone will get criticized for not taking risks. So specificity helps, because sometimes it's just the typical complaining to complain.
Thunder, you're a coach, so a question: have you seen cases where a coach plays people for reasons *other* than they're the best player for that position? If so, what kind of "other reasons" have you seen that influenced player decisions?
ReplyDeleteI ask because I'm really starting to wonder if, for example, they're playing Donovan Edwards at RB1 out of a sense of rewarding him for his past good play, rather than his present. I wonder if they're playing Guidice and Link because they're showing better "attitude" or "heart," and the coaches are trying to reward that?
Somewhere I read someone say that Link is actually pretty good at run blocking, but he is not good at pass protection yet. If true, then maybe the coaches are sacrificing -- to a degree -- this season to build for next and beyond.
So if you were to put on your best "coaching consultant" hat and evaluate what's going on, what do you think explains some of what we're seeing?
There are absolutely reasons to play other guys. Sometimes it's because guys aren't getting the job done in the classroom, have off-the-field issues, etc. Sometimes it's because a guy doesn't know the playbook. Sometimes it's because they have inconsistent effort. I remember Greg Mattison talking about "loafs" which he defined as a change in speed during a play. If a guy speeds up, he wasn't going 100% to start; if he slows down, he's stopped going 100%.
DeleteI think the Edwards thing is less relevant than some people think at this point. Who "starts" doesn't really matter if they're going to rotate backs as much as they do. Edwards got more snaps (33 to 20), but he probably should because he should be out there as a decoy and/or receiver.
I don't think the coaches are sacrificing anything in 2024 for 2025. This team is not likely to be much better next year, because they will lose all their defensive stars: Graham, Grant, Johnson, Stewart, Paige, and maybe R. Moore/D. Moore/Barham/Hausmann. With college football the way it is in 2024, you can't afford to just throw a season for developmental purposes.
I do think that Link is pretty good at run blocking. The thing is that I haven't been too impressed with Persi and Gentry when I've seen them over the past couple years, either. I don't think there's a great option at right tackle. I do like having Gentry as a giant extra lineman/tight end, though. I'm glad Michigan re-introduced that personnel grouping this week, because they need it to jump start their running game.
As for Giudice playing...I don't know. I think that was a bad decision from the jump. I'm not even a huge fan of Crippen, but moving a guy from DT to OG to C is just too big of a jump for me. You can create centers in college, but that's something that should happen from freshman year onward, not in like year four.
Something that nobody seems to be talking about is the fact that Michigan promoted tight ends coach Grant Newsome to offensive line coach. That's a lot more responsibility. I do think Newsome is a good coach and has a bright future, but how often does a first-year OL coach who's like 27 years old take over a national championship-caliber team? Every contender seems to be hiring 50-year-old veteran OL coaches, and Michigan has a guy who has never coached OL before and didn't play in the NFL. Now you don't have to play in the NFL to be a successful coach, but a 10-year career in the NFL lets you see a lot more film, maybe learn another position or two, be around pros, see NFL-level adjustments/terminology, etc.
Thanks!
DeleteFirst of all - I agree with everything Thunder wrote above. Great comment and very thoughtful. Bravo Thunder.
DeleteIn regard to the depth chart quibbling at RB, I'll ask the same question I've asked before.
Are there any examples of Michigan playing the wrong guy? Like the coaches went through all of spring and fall camp and then put a guy out there who disappointed, the fans called for the backup, and then the backup came in and was clearly better?
The last one I can think of was Mike Hart over David Underwood, but that was a true freshman and pretty quickly rectified. I think that was before early enrollment and Fred Jackson as RB coached didn't trust freshman to block, but they got over it with Mike in short order.
However, we've heard it - the call for backups -A LOT. We hear accusations of guys playing favorites. We've heard calls for Shane Morris, or Brandon Peters, or whoever was supposed to play instead of Joe Bolden, or Ty Issac. And in every case I can think of -- the coaching decisions proved to be correct or there was some mitigating factor (like an injury or youth or a comprehensive chaos-disaster in 2020 where fall camp did not exist). We heard it with Hoke on Bolden and Smith -- and then Harbaugh made the exact same call. We got so much pressure to see Shane Morris, but Gardner was clearly FAR better as a QB. I think the Michigan fanbase might be completing zero percent of it's collective passes here. Running for -2 YPC on many attempts.
So in general, I think we should trust the coaches when it comes to the pecking order on the depth chart. BUT - I will give the caveat that levels of trust vary. Jim Harbaugh (unassailable IMO) is not the same as a first time HC with a first time OC with a first time OL coach.
Change to Orji announced. If he goes out and the offense looks like it's rolling through USC, I think we will have our first example of not #trust the coaches, that I requested above.
DeleteBut does anyone expect that?
My read on the QB situation is that the coaches THOUGHT they were going with Orji for most of the offseason but the competition remained open always and then when Orji struggled late in camp they got cold feet and went with what they THOUGHT was the safest option for continuity and balance and a strong start for 2024. If it wasn't for a looming Game 2 against Texas they may have just left it open to a competition on the field (like the start of 2022) but they didn't have that luxury. Warren was given the reigns and trusted to manage the game and they didn't want to undermine him with an open competition. Give the senior the ball and hope he does well. A leap of faith.
Warren wasn't up for it. The coaches made a change.
Trust the coaches! probably!
I still think it would have been Tuttle starting in game 1 if he was healthy. Warren just does not have the talent to be a quality starter at this level. Not that Tuttle does, but I think he's a higher caliber talent and he brings more experience and age to the position.
DeleteIf Orji can't execute I think they'll end up going with the older game manager option...if Tuttle is healthy. But my track record of predicting the QB pecking order is... not good!
Lank, there have been plenty of times and examples when the coaches may have been wrong about starters. They latest example was Trente Jones from last year who somewhat outperformed Barnhart (at least at RT) and probably Hinton (although with his upside and the light schedule, trying him out was defensible). In RB terms, you and Thunder have long argued about snaps and starters and the coaches also were very slow to give a consistent starting role to Barrett. Arguably starting Cade in game 1 was a clear mistake when JJ was clearly better (although that was an open competition and probably done to ease the transition so not really applicable). But there are certainly examples of the coaches getting it wrong. I do agree with the general premise that most of the time, they backup is not as good and there is a reason for that player not starting.
DeleteI know I said it in jest before the season started that Michigan should run the Army offense. Given how bad the offense has looked, I seriously think we should play Orji as QB and Mullings as RB and run run run. At the very least, we limit turnovers, we let the defense rest, we limit the total number of plays per game. We would easily win 8 games this way. We probably won’t win 10 games or beat Ohio State but at least we have a chance to make the playoff.
ReplyDeleteYep. When I said this last week, it wasn't an endorsement of Orji as a QB or even a football player
DeleteIt's just that we have to protect our defense, and running the ball with Mullings, Edwards, Hall and Orji seems like a way to minimize the damage
The offense looks that bad
Play your best 11.
DeleteCoaches said that includes Orji. IMO, that includes Edwards, Bredeson, and Mullings too. Loveland, obviously.
Yet we see a lot of 3 WR sets.
I respect your opinion, and I don't think it's the worst idea in the world. I just don't think that's the way to go. I think you just find 100 different ways to run the ball, move the QB, play with personnel, pound it, and use the pass as a garnish. Any QB playing for Michigan this year should have between 14-20 pass attempts per game.
DeleteMichigan has the personnel to do funky things. They have multiple tight ends who can play, extra linemen who can play, a running QB, at least two functional running backs, some speedy receivers, etc. They're just not really being creative. Warren is a limiting factor when it comes to the pass game, but he's also not getting a ton of easy throws schemed up . . . and when he does, he's not hitting them (which is partly his fault and partly the receivers').
"They're just not really being creative."
DeleteThere are degrees of creative, and it seems they're barely trying to be creative. So the question is, Why? Do you suppose they don't think they need to, or because they don't see the creative options?
I can live with 14 pass attempts, especially if there's play action involved
DeleteI'll add that every pass over that 14-2o window is inviting disaster while getting away from what our OL does best and our best playmakers do (run the ball)
DeleteOrji is a gimmick. Run first, run often, and catch the D off guard with passes: mostly Edwards & Loveland, sometimes one of the WRs who can't get separation or track a deep ball ... sparingly to others
Hopefully Tuttle is close to ready ... He might get us to 8 wins
15-20 passes per game sounds about right to me if you're protecting a lead. Tougher when you're behind. But the goal is to be ahead, so I agree.
DeleteIn that world though, you need to be generating some explosive plays from your run game. Mullings and Edwards have proven they can do it - Orji too. There's strength in having at least 2 of them on the field at the same time.
The more interesting number to me (than 15-20) is the downfield targets beyond say 10 or 15 yards. That needs to be 4 or 5 of those per game. You can get a bunch of attempts with easy dump off throws or screens (which Michigan dramatically underutilized throughout the Harbaugh era) but what are we doing to stretch the field vertically, as well as horizontally.
I came away pretty encouraged. The score doesn't really tell the story of how the game was going. The issues that contributed to this not being a 40 point blowout are primarily on 2 things we already knew were a problem -- defensive depth and QB issues. The needle didn't move on those, and everything else was positive IMO.
ReplyDeleteDefense - the starters dominated as you'd expect. I think confidence should be elevated somewhat, regardless of the competition level. How good our 3rd and 4th string is -- that's more of a 2025 issue.
Run game -- make no mistake, Ark State can't tackle. Mullings and Edwards were running through arm tackles all day long. Nonetheless -- this game reestablished the run game and set a floor on what this team might be good at. They gave the ball to their RBs and they used Bredeson (one of their best 11) an appropriate amount and (as Thunder points out) we saw a return of the 6-man OL. The OL did it's job yesterday. That's a relief.
QB - we already knew the issues here. There's nothing really to be too encouraged about but what we saw yesterday (Warren struggling) was to be expected based on what we saw the first 2 weeks from the senior walk-on.
With Warren, it's not just the mistakes, it's the total lack of threat downfield. He can dink and dunk and put up a completion percentage that might impress some folks but the yards per attempt remain unimpressive. Through 3 games his best passer rating was against Texas 117. For reference, O'Korn put up a 102 in 2017 and Milton a 120 in 2020.
The hope was that as a 22 year old senior he would be composed and make smart decisions. He's made a few nice throws (late in Texas especially) but his accuracy is hit or miss and his decision-making is disastrous far too often.
The QBR numbers are even worse than the passer ratings -- Warren hasn't produced a single game that is even average (50). 37, 46, and yesterday 22. Orji hasn't played enough snaps for this to be meaningful but his passer rating is at 181 and he's put up an 83 and a 94 in the two games against cupcakes. It remains more meaningful that the coaches are so reluctant to have him throw.
But if you're a small sample statistics guy -- the move here is obvious. LSMOTGOO
I found Orji's performance encouraging and think he earned a bigger role. I'll disagree with Thunder about Orji looking disconnected though -- when he finally (for the first time this season) got a drive it was an efficient scoring drive. 9 plays 80 yards over 5 minutes. Run-heavy yes, but that's going to be our identity with any QB. Failed to convert on 3rd downs on the next two series but the offense looked coherent with Orji in there. I found it encouraging relative to the first 2 games of randomly putting Orji in for a play or two.
But let's not pretend. There's only dim highly unlikely hopes at QB -- Tuttle or Davis come in to save the day, Orji makes a leap in throwing when given a chance, Warren is lifted up by his supporting cast. The Orji/Warren/Tuttle remains unclear. Nothing new there.
I'm sticking to my preseason expectation of 8-4. If there are major injuries on defense that's going to move down. The defense is going to be solid. The offense is still working through finding itself (as we see with the playing time uncertainty at QB and OC and the use of the 6th OL). I have more hope today (Sunday) than I did Friday because I see some possible solutions emerging.
For the concerned/aggrieved, remember that the run game looked kind of off to start last year as well. This game felt like a step in the right direction. Both backs looked good, and Ben Hall looked like a respectable 3rd option as well. Orji looked more comfortable to me. When the blocking is there the run game will do well.
It feels like we have a foundation here. Onward - keep getting better. Hopefully we can pull an upset on Saturday.
"I'm not always right, but I never had much faith in this group to produce a solid starter. "
ReplyDeleteWeird flex. Don't pat yourself on your back too hard Thunder. The closest thing to a TAKE in your QB assessments (ranking a couple 3-star QB recruits lowely, not ranking a couple of backup types) is.... Davis - a highly ranked freshman with 4 seasons ahead of him after this one.
It's 2024 and between Orji and Davis there are 6 years of eligibility left between 2025 and 2028. Ori, a junior coming in notoriously raw and unpolished as a passer, garnered a lot of offseason hype but let's not pretend like expectations from most fans were very high, especially for this season.
Denegal - you can take a victory lap I here, it's clear he doesn't have it. He was a 3-star recruit that I can't remember anyone being particularly excited about.
And then the other two -- a preferred walk-on who hasn't started since JV football and a 7th year player who couldn't hold the starting job at Indiana (or stay healthy). You didn't rate them one way or the other but you've complemented them for their talents. Most people didn't expect them to be anything but backups when they came to Michigan.
Orji may not ever be a good starting QB. Davis may not ever be a good starting QB. But it's early to write them off. Hold off on the bragging and remember that before you wrote him off after 11 pass attempts over 2 seasons, you pegged Joe Milton the recruit as an 80s player ("80-89 = Very good starter in Big Ten; good chance of All-Big Ten; some NFL draft potential). If you look at what he did in the SEC and the fact that he's in the NFL today, that's a lot more accurate assessment of Joe Milton, Quarterback than where you ended up saying after his sophomore and junior seasons (when you liked McCaffrey a lot more).
For Orji -- Give it time. Be skeptical if you like but go to 80% not 100%. Just last week you were singing the praises of senior Ike Iwunnah who hadn't even played up until this year. QJohnson and Runyan are other recent examples of guys who emerged late in their careers. They looked kind of hopeless early in their career but eventually turned into quality starters.
I want to be clear that I also liked McCaffrey a lot more than Milton. I'm always skeptical of big arm talents getting overrated for physical attributes and tend to be more optimistic on undersized guys.
DeleteMy only claim to being "right" here is that I defended Milton from being so strongly dismissed after his first 2 years at Michigan and then the heavy handed criticism after he transferred after the 2020 disaster. Now that he's in the NFL after a successful college career at Tennessee, a more cautious and patience perspective proved to be correct.
We can all learn from our mistakes. Or we're doomed to repeat them.
8-4, AFTER you saw week1 ... when I said that in spring, you had a meltdown that led to an off-season of 'WR room has playmakers' (WRONG), and 'we do have options at QB' (even though you listed QB as #1 portal need)
Delete*you were right in that he was GARBAGE (a quote). Tennessee is no longer the ScreenRaid, Huepel has his AirRaid back
Just trying to help you be honest Lank. Not easy, but I do try
It wasn't much of a flex at all. I even went ahead and pointed out some glaring mistakes in my evaluations.
DeleteIt's honestly very weird that you're okay with judging Denegal but not Orji when they're both redshirt sophomores. You always bring up ages, but Orji is about 6 months older than Denegal. Orji has 7 career passing attempts, but he only passed Denegal's total about 30 hours ago.
If we can judge Denegal, we can judge Orji. If we can't judge Orji, we can't judge Denegal. Again...logic only works when it can be applied both ways. There was a time when Shea Patterson was starting and Dylan McCaffrey was the #2 quarterback, coming in to mostly run the ball. Then when the next year came, it was #3 guy Joe Milton who won the job...until the #4 guy took it from the #3 guy.
#4 only got it because #3 was GARBAGE (a quote)
DeleteWe all agree on that
@Thunder
DeleteI'm OK judging Denegal because he's not getting a whiff of mention on a team with a bad QB situation and an open competition at the position. Orji got playing time as a freshman and sophomore.* The team took JJ McCarthy off the field to have him run a package. And then he was competing for a starting spot, and continues to compete for the starting spot. So I see very different trajectories.
*Orji, like Milton, was getting snaps early. Limited snaps, where there was a backup ahead of him (last year it was Tuttle and the year before it was Bowman in Orji's case, McCaffrey in Milton's case) but he was still seeing the field in meaningful situation and generating some guarded hype. Denegal is on the roster but not part of the conversation for now, or in the future.
But ultimately, you have a point and so I'll concede. Denegal could possibly still bounce back and do something. He ALSO was expected to take time and still just a junior. It's not going to happen at Michigan for him, IMO. He's too far behind, IMO. But it could be too early to write him off entirely.
----------------------------------------------
Since you like stats - I'll point out that Orji has a passer rating of 175 for his career.
@JE
DeleteStill making up fake quotes. So thirsty. So desperate. So obsessed.
We DO have options at QB. 4 or 5 of them in fact. They just aren't very good - which explains the Portal. No inconsistency - that's your lil man fantasy.
We DO have playmakers at receiver. Loveland, Morris, Morgan, and Edwards are PROVEN playmakers as pass catchers, even if they were backups to older/better players they showed they can make plays. The issue stated in the offseason was the lack of proven down-to-down production that Johnson and Wilson and Barner brought to the table. No inconsistency - just your fantasy.
Conflating playmaking with overall production. 200 dUmB.
Conflating number of options with talent and experience. 200 dUmB.
Making up fake quotes. mIsLeaDiNG lIAr!
Hold em up.
5 of 7yrs recruit 0 or 1 top2oo WR, is not good enough ... two of those years we only took a total of ONE receiver ...
DeleteWe don't have enough for a competent starter at ea spot, let alone competition to drive development ... That's not good enough, and we're seeing it now
All other backups were trusted to throw the ball, even as backups. Not Orji. We're paying for it now. Gimmick guy who will have fans flinching with each pass attempt
Options? Options? We're defending National Champions numbnuts. We want & need QUALITY options, and then quantity to boost competition. There's a difference
We have Morris who has one play since Jr year of High School. Semaj has a couple. That's it. That's not "playmakers" (a quote), it's guys who have made A play ... there's a difference
Either too stupid to know or flat out lying again
Questioning the coaches has always been acceptable. Doesn't mean fans are right, but still. We have at least one example to answer your question just this year: Orji is a gimmick, but can be safer than the turnover prone, game managing Warren. Mullings was the featured back after halftime (FSU & ArkSt), and rightly so; Crippen looked a little better than Guidice; I hope this continues
Besides this year, Nolan Ulizio, JOK and Joe Milton are all guys who got benched by a guy who performed better
https://x.com/PFF_College/status/1835757293947752667
MELTDOWN!
Delete@jeLLy
DeleteWhat a chaotic, rambling, and insult laden post. More jElLLy than usual lil buddy!
I'll address the 3 examples you mentioned.
JOK - Peters sucked too! Recall back to 2017 what happened. Speight was the starter. JOK stepped in when Speight got hurt. Nobody - not fans, not coaches - wanted JOK replaced after Purdue. A few bad games later (including MSU and PSU defenses), coaches put Peters in and...he also sucked. Coaches afraid to throw downfield with Peters -- which they were right proved right about. Michigan won games they were supposed to win in the soft part of the schedule, despite Peters. Then Wisconsin happened and it was Peters turn to look like garbage. Then he get hurt and right back to JOK for OSU. He sucked. Back to Peters for the bowl game. He sucked. They both sucked. Not clear who was better but the coaches made changes. With a lost season it made sense to go with the 2nd year QB over the 5th year QB, and they did when they could.
Milton - discussed ad nauseum already. 2020 had no camp. Team wasn't well prepared. Coaches relied on their priors and chose the better QB (Milton in NFL/successful QB at Tenn vs McNamara no NFL/threatening to get benched at Iowa) to start the season. But Milton got hurt, he played like garbage, they replaced him with the guy who saved the day against tomato can edition Rutgers. Coaches made the right call for Minnesota and made the right call to change for Rutgers. Coaches had to interpret an injury but chose to ride with Milton who was the better QB before and after that injury.
Ulizio -- JBB was an improvement, but not by much. I don't remember much of a fan outcry about Ulizio specifically but this is a solid example.
I'm impressed and surprised. 1/3 is better than your usual 0fer.
In any case, each of these examples were at best, marginal improvements. For all the calls to replace this guy with that guy after pretty much every loss, that's grasping at straws.
Trust the coaches.
PS The OKorn/Peters situation feels about like what we have now. The vague hope is that Orji maybe bringing SOMETHING to the table with his legs. More realistically, we'll have 3 different starters this year, none very good, much like 2017. Right down to wasting a good defense. 8-4, like I said before the season.
Here's a quote for you jeLLy
Deletefrom me in the predicitons thread
"My HOPE is we sneak into a playoff berth. My EXPECTATION is fringe top 25. My WORRY is a repeat of 2017 where the D is good but the QB position is a struggle all year, OL fails to gel, WR aren't good enough, and the big talents (Loveland/Edwards) aren't quite good enough to put the offense on their backs."
I also said I considered lowering my prediction to 7-5 after Warren/Giudice rumors came out, but stuck to 8-4 (2017 record). If they lose to USC (as most expect they will) that will be more likely. I called out the 3 swing games: USC, Washington, Minnesota. Maybe need to add Indiana to the list?
Ignore the Ws ... move target to "marginal improvement" (a quote) and old excuses
DeleteEven that took two posts ... #rentfree
I stopped counting all my Ws a while back. Too many when arguing with 2ooDuMb
DeleteMGoPodcast finally conceding our WR problem, and very harsh on Edwards
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that Campbell wants the WRs to put up bigger numbers to help bump up recruiting. BUT -- Michigan hasn't really struggled to get top talent at WR over the years.
DeleteTop 200 composite recruits over the years
2017 class - 4 (Collins, DPJ, Black, Martin)
2018 class - 0 but nabbed Ronnie Bell
2019 class - 1 (Johnson) plus Jackson and Sainristil
2020 class - 1 (Henning) plus Wilson
2921 class - 0 but got Andrel Anthony
2022 class - 2 (Clemons and Morris) plus stealing Walker from ND
2023 class - 1 (English) plus Semaj and Moore and Bell
No, we are not Ohio State, but Michigan is consistently recruiting talent to the WR position despite running the ball on 15% more plays or whatever.
The PROBLEM at this moment in time is that Michigan gave HEAVY snap counts to Bell, Wilson, and Johnson and those guys played for a whole lot of years. The next generation coming up behind them has NOT waited in the wings (Anthony, Jackson, Henning are playing prominent roles elsewhere) or been busts (Clemons, Walker, English). Morris is kind of the last man standing.
So IF it's true that Campbell is trying to juice WR recruiting by playing more WRs -- that's not a great idea. Michigan has BEEN seeing their WRs get drafted into the NFL despite a heavy volume of targets. Scouts understand the context they played in (like Calvin Johnson playing WR in a run-heavy GATECH offense).
More importantly, it isn't working. Furthermore it isn't GOING to work, if the offense isn't effective or passing the ball effectively. It's a fool's errand and a bad approach to be leaning on the WR room for this 2024 team.
They are between a rock and a hard place though, without having pulled an in-line TE from the Portal. What to do?
-Don't pretend that Loveland or Klein can play like Schoonmacher and Barner.
-Use Klein as Loveland's backup.
-Never cover up your TE
-Play Bredeson 35+ snaps a game
-Lean into 6 OL sets, but prepare to throw them the ball, on the goalline at least, at some point.
"Never cover up your TE" is a little too much of a sweeping take. There are reasons to run unbalanced sets. Now I don't think Michigan should cover up Loveland very often, because he's the best passing threat on the team . . . and there are obviously limitations to doing it . . . but covering up a TE is a pretty standard practice for a lot of offenses, and it's done for a reason.
DeleteYou can add gaps to the offense, get defenses to misalign, get them to overshift in order to attack the weakside, etc.
@Thunder1o35, that level of absolutism smells like someone ignorant of the game
Delete@Thunder
DeleteI agree with this - the bigger issue is just that the blocking of Klein/Loveland when they are covered up (or not) is not up to the bar Harbaugh had established in 21-23.
That's it's not optimal use of Loveland only exacerbates the issue.
Our top 3 TEs last year averaged 95 snaps a game. This year the number is 83. 12 snaps a game fewer is a substantial shift.
ReplyDeleteLoveland's snaps per game are steady - 37 vs 36.
Bredeson is up 8 snaps a game - from 16 to 24.
AJ Barner led our TEs with 42 snaps per game.
Klein in comparison has 23 snaps a game. A drop of almost 20 mostly in-line TE snaps.
The season is young and it's too early to draw final conclusions from 3 games but there appears to be a trend here. It appears the Harbaugh offense is gone. The foundation of Harbaugh's identity is a dominant run game with heavy use of TEs, exploiting the additional gaps to create confusion and matchup issues. It was at Stanford, and SF, and at Michigan. The OCs changed, the personnel changed, but the heavy use of TEs did not.
I can understand the change from a new regime. But the timing - when Michigan's WR is bottoming out - is unfortunate. Harbaugh stuck to it even when there was a bounty of talent in the WR room. This staff doesn't have a single in-line TE who is a blocking asset at this point.
I don't know if I agree with that. Andrew Gentry's PFF grade right now is 69.4, which is pretty solid.
DeleteGentry is the new bonus OL but has not played very much. Playing him is one way to address the problem, but I have not seen a bump in 6 OL packages to address the TE personnel issues. Gentry seems to have replaced Jones, but Barner's snaps are going to OLeary, Bell, Charleston and company.
DeleteYou might want to compare % of total snaps because I assume (but have not checked) that total snaps from this offense are down a decent amount because the offense can sustain drives and stay on the field (despite generally weak competition).
DeleteYes that's a fair point Blue. Maybe next week.
DeleteI suspect that the WR snaps are up while TE snaps are down but you are right that context is relevant.
For reference, Michigan probably spent more time playing from behind against Texas than they did through all of the last regular season combined. So WRs could be playing more for that reason.
Rushing attempts are down.
101/3 games in 2024. Over common 15 games 563 (in 2023) vs 505 pace this year. About 4 fewer rushes per game.
Passing attempts are up.
361 in 15 games last year vs 78 in 3 games in 2024. Pace there is 390 over a 15 game season. About 2 more passes per game.
So snaps are indeed down slightly, according to my quick math.
This must mean the coaches trust Warren more than McCarthy LOL
I agree with Thunder regarding Newsome. Overall, I think this coaching staff has been built under the “this guy has been successful so we want to reward him” reasoning.
ReplyDeleteMoore is a first time head coach. Campbell is a first time OC. Newsome is a first time OL coach. Is it any surprise that the offense sucked? I agree with mgoblog that it is irresponsible that we did not even get a senior offensive analyst, especially given the inexperience of the coaching staff.
I agree with Thunder regarding Newsome. Overall, I think this coaching staff has been built under the “this guy has been successful so we want to reward him” reasoning.
ReplyDeleteMoore is a first time head coach. Campbell is a first time OC. Newsome is a first time OL coach. Is it any surprise that the offense sucked? I agree with mgoblog that it is irresponsible that we did not even get a senior offensive analyst, especially given the inexperience of the coaching staff.
I think a lot dropped onto Moore's plate, and he's at best treading water at the moment. I wonder if Moore has a mentor -- other than Jim Harbaugh -- who could serve as an unofficial advisor for some of these things? I think some of us internet keyboard warriors under-estimate what the role of a big-program head coach involves.
DeleteWhen Harbaugh took over in 2015, he had some staffing hiccups that went through until ... well, 2021. Think back to the earlier years: Drevno, Hamilton, McElwain, no receivers coach for many of those years, etc.
There are a lot of fans, parents, players, etc. in high school who don't even understand the responsibilities and intricacies of being a high school head football coach. And high school coaches aren't under the same scrutiny/pressure as college head coaches. When I was playing ball, I vastly underestimated the duties my coaches had. We just saw them at practices and games and meetings and such, but we weren't at the film sessions, the game planning sessions, the fundraising meetings, etc.
DeleteSo now add to that the recruiting, the fundraising, the player personnel decisions, the coaching personnel decisions, the interactions with the press, the coaches' meetings, the work with support staff (nutritionists, S&C, equipment guys, etc.). Moore certainly would have been a part of some of this stuff, but it's a much bigger job than a lot of people realize.
Sherrone Moore had the benefit of being elevated to HC within the program, so he had some familiarity with how things are done. But he was hammered by all the coaching staff openings. Imagine if he'd retained all the coaches -- Minter, Clinksdale, Elston, Herbert, etc.
DeleteOn the other hand, Moore -- who's what? 38 years old? -- is stepping into a role where he has to establish his credibility and authority, both with coaches that remained and coaches he has brought in. Just because he has the "Head Coach" label, it does not mean he automatically gets everyone's trust and respect; he has to earn it, and that can be a tricky business. My gut sense is Moore will do just fine in this area, but it's another thing on his plate.
So thanks for your coach's perspective on this ... your comments really help fill in the blanks for me sitting on the outside watching just the game portion, and not seeing all the other work that went into the 60 minutes of game.
I think having so many coaches in new roles is a real challenge. I think there is a lot on the new coaching staffs plate for sure. But I wouldn't put Newsome at the top of the list. In part, because Moore said he would remain involved in the OL room, and Newsome is a rookie OL coach but knows the job and the program. There's more stability at OL than anywhere else on offense.
DeleteThe overriding thing is losing 10 of 11 starters, losing your top 6 OL, and a substandard QB situation. Even if every coach from last year was back in AA we'd still be facing some substantial challenges and a drop off in performance.
Keep in mind the run game already dipped a bit from 2022 to 2023 when we went from Olu/Hayes to Nugent/Henderson despite keeping everyone else.
Now we're flipping 6 guys. The 7th man from last year (Hinton) looks quite good! The 8th guy (El Hadi) looks alright! But when you have to pull in your 11th and 12th guys or worse, because your 9th and 10th guys (Crippen and Gentry) aren't doing the job, it's going to be tough sledding even if you have a 40 year track record of success.
A players perspective. Trust the coaches. Practice matters.
ReplyDeleteA fans perspective. Snap judgements from the armchair. Games are all there is.
"I'm sure if we asked, there would have been an explanation," Klein said. "But us as players, we just trust the coaching staff to make the best decision for the team."
-Klein was "not too worried" about the offense needing to adjust to Orji. Said "Kirk Campbell has had a plan in place, and it's not like (Orji) hasn't played or gotten reps in games and practices over the last two years"
Iykyk
"More quotes:
Delete"What they can do is use different parts of the playbook and lean on DIFFERENT PERSONNEL PACKAGES what they've done so far"
"Play your best 11. Coaches said that includes Orji. IMO, that includes Edwards, Bredeson, and Mullings too. Loveland, obviously. YET WE SEE a lot of 3 WR sets."
"Don't pretend that Loveland or Klein can play like Schoonmacher and Barner.
-Use Klein as Loveland's backup.
-Never cover up your TE
-Play Bredeson 35+ snaps a game
-Lean into 6 OL sets, but prepare to throw them the ball, on the goalline at least, at some point"
That's just this thread. Soooo ... trust the coaches, until you don't.
Not even Lank believes Lank
Trust the coaches on the depth chart. I've criticized the coaches on other fronts like medical judgments for YEARS. You've argued to trust them there LOL, while arguing with me that we shouldn't always trust the coaches. Which is it? #200dUmb
Delete#context matters
#numnuts