Well, that was an unexpected nail-biter. I was spot on with my prediction of Rutgers scoring 13 points, but I thought Michigan would have a bit easier time on offense (I predicted 34 points). For two years in a row, Michigan has beaten Rutgers by just one score (they won 48-42 in triple overtime in 2020), and it's frustrating to an extent that the Wolverines can't play better despite being significantly more talented, especially on offense. Rutgers has mediocre players on the offensive line, at quarterback, and at tight end, yet they manage to scheme their way to a modicum of success. But a win is a win. We've seen these games turn into losses, so I'll take it for now.
Hit the jump for more.
Hire Sean Gleeson! I think I talked about this last year, but I continue to be impressed by Rutgers offensive coordinator Sean Gleeson. When Gleeson was at Princeton, I sat in on a clinic with one of Gleeson's grad assistants. It was one of the most impressive clinic sessions I've sat in on during my coaching career. Gleeson stresses defenses in so many different ways, and you can see that with how he finds weaknesses to pick on. With Michigan starting a redshirt freshman inside linebacker and then losing Josh Ross, Gleeson kept going back to the well of putting Nikhai Hill-Green and Kalel Mullings in conflict. And he does all those things with mediocre players. I think he could do some really explosive things with skill guys who can actually run, offensive linemen who can move their feet, and a quarterback who has an ounce of arm strength.
Cade McNamara was . . . something. It was a tale of two halves for quarterback Cade McNamara. After going 8/11 for 156 yards in the first half, he was 1/5 for 7 yards in the second half. Two things that happened in the intermediary were a) he got targeted by Rutgers defensive tackle Julius Turner, resulting in an ejection for Turner and b) he missed a wide open Luke Schoonmaker in the end zone at the end of the first half. It seemed like one or both of those events knocked him off his game. He then proceeded to miss a couple more wide open receivers in the second half. They weren't wildly inaccurate throws because McNamara is an accurate thrower overall, but they were just a foot or so outside the targets' catch radius. I also saw some frustration that he kept the ball on a zone read near the end of the game in a critical situation, but he did the same thing against Washington for a 9-yard gain against a safety blitz. I think Rutgers had an idea that Michigan might run McNamara on a zone read in that situation, so they sent a safety, but he stayed wide enough that when McNamara kept the ball, he couldn't get outside and ended up losing a few yards.
Michigan's offensive line isn't all it's cracked up to be. I know one of the talking points all season has been the excellence of the offensive line, but you could tell a game like this was coming. Michigan's line doesn't get a vertical push nearly enough to be considered a dominant line, and they benefit from a couple good running backs, who create a lot of things on their own. Rutgers did what they should have done, which was play a bunch of people close to the line of scrimmage, keep things hemmed in, and force Michigan to throw the ball. McNamara and his receivers need to be more consistent at beating man coverage.
A.J. Henning: 0 offensive touches. Michigan's punt returner, who broke out a 29-yarder and is so far averaging 16.5 yards per return, had 0 offensive touches. McNamara targeted the 5'10" Henning on a back shoulder fade, and that's it. Blake Corum averaged 3.2 yards per carry and Hassan Haskins averaged 3.4, but apparently they were the only ones worthy of touching the ball more than 2 times (Cornelius Johnson and Erick All had 2 catches each, including 23+ yard receptions for both). Michigan continues to fail to get its most explosive players the ball, which is why I continuously give lower TTB Ratings to skill players than I should.
What does this mean for Michigan? I'm not sure it means much. Good teams struggle sometimes with mediocre teams. There are a lot of jokes about Rutgers, but the truth is that they're one of the better coached teams in the country. They're maximizing their talent. Greg Schiano does a great job with their defense, Gleeson does a great job with their offense, they don't take penalties, and they don't turn over the ball (Noah Vedral's fumble at the end of the game was their first turnover this season). Michigan should beat Rutgers by more than 7 points, considering the advantages in talent, but sometimes you're going to have a stinker of a game. The first half is roughly the way Michigan should have played, when they had a 20-7 lead. The second half was their worst half of football all season, and they were outscored 6-0 against a well coached team. Hopefully Cade McNamara and offensive coordinator Josh Gattis learn a little something from this, but at least with Gattis, I think the chances are slim.
I'm not a Gattis fan particularly, but I've seen this kind of uncreative, ultra conservative play calling throughout Harbaugh's tenure at Michigan. Doesn't seem to matter who the OC is. Harbaugh is the common theme. I don't expect that they will learn anything from this. I would love to be wrong, but it hasn't happened in 6+ years. This is what we have.
ReplyDeleteSchiano is an excellent coach, his defenses are always sound, and have been for the most part the entirety of his career. Rutgers is gonna be a consistent pain in the ass program for the forceable future. I think they will make the Big 10, East the undisputed toughest conference in the country for the forceable future.
ReplyDeleteMcNamara threw some nice balls in the first half, then stood up in there like a man on a real nice ball and got blasted in the throat for his efforts. Looked to be a completely different guy when he got up. In the day, we'd say, "Got his bell rung." and then, "That's Football." but we don't do that anymore. So, I dunno on that one.
I've been blasted and subsequently rattled, so maybe that ....
What's inexplicable is the complete unwillingness to threaten their edges. So Washington, if they won't even try to stop the inside run, don't stop running inside, but in this game, Schiano said, "Enough!!!!!" and that was it. Gattis made no move to punish their corners for coming so hard, so often off of the edge. I can think of multiple plays we've already shown over , multiple times, the last three years that would have been wonderful constraints at minimum, and likely some nice chunks.
It's as crazy to me as Wisconsin refusing to run us over two or three years ago, which I view as an all timer since it cost them a win.
I do agree the B10 east is looking strong but "undisputed" is probably a big stretch. Especially if these small but varied "issues" OSU keeps having pop up continue and escalate.
DeleteAlso agree on the edges. The horizontal runs with our slots coming across are a staple but Gattis called none. I do think going 3 and out repeatedly limits your option...
Good win. I agree with most of Thunder's takeaway. The biggest one to me is reality check on the OL. It was always wishful thinking that this group would be dominant enough to allow Michigan to Stanford their way through the season, but the second half was pretty good proof that's not going to happen.
ReplyDeleteThe D was pretty good. I was encouraged by their second half resilience. Losing Ross cost them some yards but the bend-dont-break theme seemed to hold true. It was a good experience for the younger LBs and they should be better for it.
Lack of resilience on the other side though. Cade really did have a Jekyll and Hyde game that seemingly turned on that Schoonmaker miss. I don't think the coaches helped him out in several ways, starting with not calling a quick pass immediately. 5 seconds left so I get it - they thought they had the game in control - but you'd like to see the team go into the half staying in attack mode, including Cade who was playing as well as I've ever seen him play up to that point. Instead they went into the second half settling and playing careful. They missed on the proverbial knockout punch, because they didn't bother to take it.
What I'm a little concerned about is the up and down performances of Cade. I don't know how much is on Gattis and playcalling, to me it's chicken or egg right now with the pass game, but for supposedly being a "game manager" Cade seems to either play very well or totally go into a shell. You could have gotten whiplash between PSU Cade and Rutgers Cade last year and Washington vs MAC team this year, but this is the first time we've seen it within a single game. Small sample size granted, but I found it concerning because it wasn't an opponent driven thing this time.
So yeah, a bit of more of the same (mostly good) with a dash of reality check (don't let expectations go crazy). It's great to start off the year 4-0 and have dodged a potential upset. Ultimately it's good for this team to have seen at least a little bit of adversity because they've spent all of September sitting comfortably at home play mediocre to bad teams and now have to face much better tests on the road.
Rutgers has been a surprisingly good indicator of how good Michigan is. The good teams have blown them out (15, 16, 18, 19), the bad teams have looked like equals while going to OT (14, 20), and the mediocre team (17) looked better but not decisively so. So by that measure you have to say this team most closely resembles 2017.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not too worried about that. I think there's a decent chance Rutgers is a lot better in 2021 than they have been previously. As Thunder points out they seem to be pretty well coached right now and playing around their limitations. We'll have a much better sense for that against OSU next week but it's seems after last year that this isn't a Rutgers team you can just count on whipping around anymore.
Moreover, Michigan DID dominate Rutgers for a while there. So there's still a chance of 'good' even if the preseason expectation of "mediocre" looks more likely.
Schiano & Gleesom deserve a ton of credit. They looked MAC level in the first half, but continued to grind
ReplyDeleteCade & our WR aren't very good ... so why not help them with play design? Why make them out execute a prepared defense? How about some play action or RPO? Currently, our pass offense is isolated & easy to predict & defend. Why not throw out of the same formations & presnap motions that are currently bruising opposing defenses?
We don't out scheme, instead we assume our guys will always be better. Hell, I agree; bring on Gleeson ... the sooner the better
Well have we all come down to Earth now?
ReplyDeleteThis was my preseason bell weather game as Schiano's teams are well coached - regardless of talent. Preseason I had Michigan at 7-5 maybe 6-6 and after yesterday I'm sticking to it. Until Harbaugh proves me wrong I don't see this team winning any road game.
Wisconsin has been a turn over machine against both PSU & ND and that will be the only way Michigan wins next week. Should be a raheely exciting game. Michigan can't win on the road and Wisky can't hang unto the ball...........
Winner will be the team that wants the game least? Insert a soccer game score.
As I See It.........INTJohn
First half: 17 plays on the first DRIVE on offense
ReplyDeleteSecond half: 17 plays gets you down to almost the 2 minute warning
Some context to consider when discussing playcalls and/or Cade's ineffectiveness. It's one long drive's worth of plays we're talking about... Of course it felt like a lot more than that from the couch or the stands, for obvious reasons.
This is a bit of a common theme for Michigan over the last few years, but I just do not understand our inability (or unwillingness) to get other guys involved on offense in closer games. Henning most notably. Our end arounds to the slot guys have been successful all year to this point and yet we don't run a single one yesterday. No pop passes, no end arounds - just so bizarre to me.
ReplyDeleteIt has to be an unwillingness. The ability is there: we've seen it from time to time. But then the spigot is turned off, for reasons not revealed to us. But the ability is there, so it must be an unwillingness. And that's mystifying.
DeleteThrowback to Thunder's post game against the Huskies. No one (here at least) wanted airraid, and most conceded that you take what the Defense is giving you
ReplyDeleteBut we have not developed a pass game, 1/3 into the season. Perhaps they don't trust Cade? Okay, then why have him throw from 5wide? Where's the constraints? We don't have to go deep, or rely on a fade to the diminutive AJ Henning, but yesterday showed Wilson & Saint are dangerous in slants & crossing routes
We learned yesterday that a well coached, poorly talented team can stop a one dimensional team. How about a team with a little talent, like Maryland? Or a team that hates us, like sparty?
Gattis & Harbaugh don't just take what the D gives them; they are who they are. Run into a brick wall ... our identity is that we'll run over you, or die trying
Was Gattis that way before becoming OC of Michigan, or was that the effect of coming here and falling under the influence of Harbaugh?
DeleteWas McCarthy in the game at all yesterday? The stats don't show it. If the theory is correct that McNamara's bell was wrung by the targeting hit, then I'm not sure why the coaches wouldn't bring in McCarthy, at least for a drive or two.
Either: (a) McCarthy himself is injured from practice, or (b) the coaches were worried about having McCarthy injured if he came in, or (c) the coaches have less faith in McCarthy than they do a bell-wrung McNamara. None of those are pleasing to think about.
Something is not right at the heart of Michigan football.
Gattis is unproven. He never called plays or was accountable for a game plan until coming Michigan. Locksley called this out. Harbaugh took a risk.
Delete2019 got off to a rough start but the second half was very good. 2020 was a disaster but I don't know how much you can put on Gattis for that. But he didn't fix it. 2021 looks very conservative and Harbaugh-influenced but these things don't happen in a vacuum. Michigan doesn't have the personnel to throw 40 times a game and win, even against Rutgers or Washington.
It's an interesting thing to see play out over the weeks ahead.
"They are what they are." Interesting theory for individuals. Could it also apply to the offense as a whole. Or are you sure that they can get dramatically better by throwing a few more passes against Washington?
DeleteMaybe that cliche also applies to a limited QB and WR group down it's best overall player and two most dangerous playmakers with the ball in their hands are off at Texas and Washington. Maybe the OL is built around mauling brutes instead of nimble pass protectors too.
Nah, I'm sure a few more passes against Washington would turn McNamara into Montana, Sainristil into Desmond, and Baldwin into Braylon.
Typical Lank: can't make a point, so he argues against things not said, or makes sh:t
Deleteup
Cade & WRs aren't good? That's probably true. So why then, throw so much from empty sets? Why not tie the pass scheme to a run game that forces loaded boxes?
A couple more throws won't make them much better, but does give Defenses something to think about. 23yd completions to All & Johnson, or 50 to Wilson & Saint give loosens the box for our OL & RBs
This is what thunder praised Gleason for: putting defenses in a bind
Now, go back to ignoring me ... for your own health & well-being
Typical JE unable to follow the convo. Resorting to insults and fake accusations.
DeleteYou say "they are who they are" and I say consider extending that logic beyond your narrow view.
Oh well. You can only lead a horse to water.
More lies. I didn't insult you, and I made no fake accusation. As I say, if you have a point, why make stuff up?
DeleteThe point was made and you already argued with it.
DeleteOn the throw at the end of the first half. Looked like maybe the TE stumbled - perhaps that messed up the timing? But still should've made that connection.
ReplyDeleteI'm a big proponent of the argument that the coaches don't trust Cade but the idea that the second half struggles were based on that is pretty weak.
ReplyDeleteThe first 4 drives were all 3 and outs and the 12 plays featured excellent balance. 7 RB runs, 6 passes, 1 QB run. It didn't work. The 5th drive of the half was 7 straight runs and got Michigan a field goal attempt. It worked. even though Moody missed the kick.
If anything the argument that Michigan needs to throw more was proven incorrect. They tried and it didn't work, so they went back to what they're good at.
Wisconsin will do the same thing Rutgers did in loading the box and Thunder hit on the key point in his summary:
McNamara and his receivers need to be more consistent at beating man coverage.
The run game is the strength of the team but it's not so good that good defenses can't contain it. There will be tougher tests than Rutgers. This is what many of you have been saying and I agree. Answers welcome but if its just "throw more" that should acknowledge the risk of losing games to Rutgers and Washington by doing so. Michigan may or may not be a better team for it but they are 4-0 and could be 3-1 or even 2-2 if they were playing towards what they'd like to be rather than what they are.
I think the coaches are doing the right thing overall given the personnel they have -- though again I agree with attacking the edges more.