I was wrong. I predicted a 35-24 Ohio State victory, and it went almost exactly the opposite way. I didn't expect Michigan's offense to be able to keep up with Ohio State's, especially if Blake Corum was unable to play. Oops.
Pound the rock. Ohio State held up very well against the run for much of the game. In the first half, Michigan rushed for just 20 total yards, including just 6 yards on 2 carries for Blake Corum. They also used C.J. Stokes on 2 carries for just 5 yards. The second half turned into a completely different story. An injured Donovan Edwards, wearing a cast on his right hand, took over the game, carrying the ball in his non-dominant hand. He finished with 22 carries for 216 yards and 2 touchdowns. One was a 75-yarder where he outraced safety Lathan Ransom, and the other was a patient attempt where he waited for a crease and then gashed the Buckeyes for 85 yards. Even though Michigan wasn't successful in the first half, they seemed to wear down Ohio State's front.
Hit the jump for more.
Big plays galore. This was addressed repeatedly on the broadcast, but it's impossible to ignore that Michigan struggled to create big plays outside of Blake Corum all season, and suddenly everyone was scoring on long plays. Here's a list of Michigan's 6 touchdowns:
- 69-yard reception by Cornelius Johnson
- 75-yard reception by Cornelius Johnson
- 45-yard reception by Colston Loveland
- 3-yard run by J.J. McCarthy
- 75-yard run by Donovan Edwards
- 85-yard run by Donovan Edwards
Five the six scores came from 45+ yards out. Those types of explosive plays seem to come only against MAC teams at the beginning of the year. This type of thing happening for Michigan against OSU is unheard of. (And no, I'm not saying Ohio State is a MAC-level team; they're very talented, which is why this was so surprising.)
J.J. McCarthy played a great game. McCarthy wasn't flawless. There were some questionable decisions and some inaccurate throws. He finished 12/24 for 263 yards and 3 touchdowns through the air, plus 6 carries for 27 yards and 1 touchdown on the ground. But when there were opportunities for big plays, he made them. Earlier in the season, McCarthy would have overthrown guys like Johnson and Loveland. In this one he made catchable throws to wide open receivers. The first touchdown to Johnson was outstanding, because he had pressure right in his face and threw the ball outside to where only his receiver could catch it. Johnson was able to do the rest as he broke a tackle and he outraced the rest of the defense.
The pass rush was predictably bad. Michigan managed just 1 sack and no other quarterback hits in the game. The one sack came late in the game from Eyabi Okie. Ohio State quarterback C.J. Stroud did force 2 interceptions late in the game to defensive end Taylor Upshaw and safety Makari Paige, but that was in desperation time. He finished 31/48 for 349 yards, 2 touchdowns, and those 2 picks, but for the most part, the defensive backs did a good job of keeping things in front of them. The big exception was a one-on-one fade ball to Marvin Harrison, Jr. against Gemon Green, and Green had pretty good - not great - coverage where it was just a perfect throw and catch.
What a weird path for DeaMonte Trayanum. This past off-season, Michigan was looking for help at running back after Hassan Haskins left. Arizona State running back transfer DeaMonte Trayanum was available in the portal, and Michigan offered him a chance to play running back. Instead, the alum of Akron (OH) Hoban decided to pick the home state Buckeyes to play linebacker. Fast forward to the Michigan game, and he ran 14 times for 83 yards with 1 catch for 14 yards, whereas he made just 12 tackles on the season.
Speaking of position switchers. How about linebacker/running back Kalel Mullings? Mullings played running back in the spring when injuries were an issue, and he looked pretty dang good in the spring game. Jim Harbaugh told us over the summer Mullings would play both, and that was a big fat lie . . . until Saturday. There were reports this past week that Mullings was back to repping running back some. His first snap was a telegraphed short yardage run that we have seen Michigan get probably 25 first downs or touchdowns over the past couple seasons. It rarely fails, but Ohio State knew exactly what was coming and Mullings had no chance to gain a first down. Later in the game, Mullings lined up in an offset I formation for another short yardage run . . . except it was a jump pass to tight end Luke Schoonmaker, which went for 15 yards.
What does it all mean? It means Michigan is better than Ohio State. The Buckeyes have not felt the sweet taste of victory over Michigan since 2019. It also means Michigan should end up in the College Football Playoff, even with a loss in the Big Ten Championship to Purdue. You can't leave two one-loss teams from the Big Ten out of the playoff, and since Michigan won the head-to-head against Ohio State, Michigan is almost certainly in even if the Purdue game goes south. Michigan has a chance to be 13-0 going into the playoff. The CFP rankings after this week should be something like this:
- Georgia (12-0)
- Michigan (12-0)
- TCU (12-0)
- Ohio State (11-1)/USC (11-1)
Michigan has now won 24 games over the past two seasons, the best two-season win total in school history. Go Blue!
I would like to take this opportunity for a quick victory lap, as I had this one right. We were/are bigger, stronger and tougher than the Buckeyes..
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to genuflect, I'm above all of that kind of thing nowadays Lanky, it's ok if you do, if you want to.
Mike Sainristil had a helluva game, but "Whoa Nellie" he was beat like a drum on the PBU in the end zone. Had Stroud got it out, I'm pretty sure we still win, but there would have been significantly more nervous at the end. In his defense, he was reading whatshisname in their backfield when whatshisname their TE slipped away, but my heart was in my throat.
The second best part of this game for me is that I missed the first half. Pretty glad about that, might have saved some years for myself.
Oluwatami and Zinter were way, quadruple stout, late.
Roanman
LOL. Sure Roanman - happy to give credit where it's due but you'll have to remind me where that is. (Or specifically where I said otherwise to deserve the callout.)
DeleteSeems like yesterday was a great day for the RBs don't matter crowd (of one). I'm team OL/TE all day and they came through yesterday as they did last year.
Things I'm eating crow about -- Cornelius Johnson - came through! Mike Sainristil - (this is old crow I was eating in week 2 but I'll keep eating it because it tastes delicious) Braden McGregor. Things I'm handing out told you sos -- the pass game is good, the red zone isn't an issue, RB depth isn't an issue, OL depth matters, Olu was the biggest offseason addition, and Barrett's size isn't a problem.
https://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2022/11/ex-wolverine-updates-week-12.html
DeleteWhich only confirms what I have always thought, you don't read a word I type anyway.
Roanman
Delete@Roanman
DeleteIs that the link you intended to post? Because I don't know what our debate about QB accuracy has to do with OSU game. I read most of what you write on here (I think).
If you are trying to say completion percentage isn't important - I never disagreed with that. I made that point many times when arguing with Thunder about Jake Rudock being overrated and about Joe Milton being underrated.
Maybe that's not what you meant. I honestly don't know.
https://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2022/11/preview-michigan-vs-illinois.html
DeleteMy bad Lanky. It's two or three from the bottom where I'm talking about how tough it is to be 11-0.
I was rocked there for a minute, thinking that senility had finally got the best of me. Am relived to say that it's still at about 50/50 between lucidity and out to lunch.
Ha. OK. For the record I respect your posts even if I don't always agree with them. I try to read most of the comments here but with all the Anon stuff I certainly don't track it all.
DeleteSo the comment you made is this:
"I believe we win, by the way. The Buckeyes are significantly more talented throwing it around. But, they are not anywhere near as physical as we are. Not anywhere on their roster, really, but particularly across both lines of scrimmage."
So yes - tip of the cap on that. I did not expect to win this game. Not on the road. Not with Corum unavailable/ineffective. Even I thought that would matter but I was wrong.
It's less shocking than last year's win but even more impressive IMO.
I cheated a little. Usually, I don't take the time to watch OSU more than once or twice a year. This year for some reason, they were on seemingly every time I turned on the TV. I kept thinking, "Damn! These guys are nowhere near as physical as they used to be." and, "Day sure isn't Urban Meyer when it comes to running the football."
DeleteRoanman
Yep - credit to those who saw it coming. I saw the Northwestern game and a few others where the evidence was right there -- but I didn't think it was enough.
DeleteOSU made a very reasonable gamble to load up against the run and it worked for them very well until Cornelius Johnson and JJ landed those 2 haymakers. Once they backed off stuffing the run a bit we went back to the well and it was Edwards turn.
Really bad tackling on the first Johnson TD, but that's what they've been all year.
DeleteThe big plays were always there. It's just not how Harbaugh wants to win.
ReplyDeleteLike Bo, he wants a 15 play drive that grinds opponents down. The longer it takes the better. A small part of Harbaugh clenches up when Donovan Edwards breaks a 75 yard run LOL.
It's a very different philosophy than, say, Rich Rodriguez whose mind was always looking for the explosive play. RR saw a 5 yard run as a setup for 75 yarder next time. For Harbaugh it's about doing the 5 yarder over and over and over again till his opponents soul is crushed.
The big plays are risky and you don't take those risks unless you have to - that's the Harbaugh mindset. He's going to take a few shots every game - to keep defenses honest mostly - but until he has to do it (i.e., the opponents are a threat) he'd rather keep it simple and safe.
There's a risk in this approach that I think Harbaugh wouldn't acknowledge (namely that leave cracks open when the score is close and teams like Illinois or MSU can beat you if things break right) but there's also a significant benefit to having an identity you can lean into when the going gets tough -- or pivot away from when you want to surprise your oppenent.
Michigan spends it's time working on it's strengths (conservative grinding offense) and this leads some people to assume they are deficient in other areas. Michigan pounds with Haskins, or Corum, and next year they will likely pound with Edwards and Stokes or whoever else they add to the roster. That doesn't mean they can't pass or don't work on passing in practice (heard this a lot last week - so did Ronnie Bell LOL).
Michigan's strength is running - everyone can see that - but the pass game has been efficient and effective leading up to OSU. This is something that the stats showed and the eye test should have been telling people that we were close and it was not a systematic problem but a lot of "almost there".
Yeah, Braiden McGregor had the game you want from your tall, fast, not strong enough yet (hopefully) Edge. I was really happy for both of us on that part of the game.
DeleteHow are the people cheering for Clemson, TCU, USC, etc to lose feeling today?
ReplyDeleteHow are people feeling about wanting the OSU/UM game to have finality to it?
My opinion - I'd rather face TCU or USC or Clemson than have to face Georgia Alabama or OSU in the playoff.
Agree with your last point - would rather see TCU / USC / Clemson, and the gambling odds would bear that out. And so I personally changed my rooting interest accordingly after our game (wanted USC over ND). That being said, not going to be terribly upset if OSU sneaks into the 4 spot either - I think it's clear that we're the superior team and so the idea of playing OSU in a potential NC matchup isn't all that terrifying.
Delete@Anon
DeleteLast year, it was clear that Alabama was better than Georgia until it wasn't. Clarity can be fleeting. I think OSU might still be the Vegas favorite if there is a rematch. The nice thing about the finality of The Game is that is (or at least should be IMO) final.
I think you have a point about OSU maybe sneaking into 4 - mainly because they'd have a better shot at upsetting Georgia than anyone else (besides us).
My order of preference of opponents is 1. TCU 2. USC 3. OSU 4. Alabama 5. Georgia. I damn sure wish Clemson was still on this list...
As I said was possible at the time - rooting for Clemson/TCU/USC was against our interests (including probability of winning a national championship).
DeleteHad TCU and USC also lost we'd probably be staring at a playoff game against Alabama - which is far more frightening to me than TCU/USC.
It turned out to be against our interests only because we beat OSU. Obviously that changes the equation. Just not sure what your point is I suppose. Obviously rooting interests change based on new information.
DeleteIt only "changes the equation" if you assume the equation included a loss.
DeleteBad assumption.
Furthermore, if your assumption is M losses to OSU (because OSU is better presumably), then there's not much reason to root for a rematch.
DeleteYou're essentially rooting for a very specific series of events (M loss to OSU, M rematch W against OSU) that is exceedingly unlikely.
On top of that, even if you apply the "we'll need 2 cracks at OSU to beat them" mindset, you gotta considerate the flip side of that coin (that OSU could win a rematch after we beat them).
Bottomline: it was never in our interest UNLESS we lost to OSU - which we hadn't done. And then, even if we had lost to OSU - which we didn't - it might STILL not have been in our interests. But that's a whole other thread.
There was a non-zero chance that we lost to OSU. I care about one thing - maximizing our probability of winning a NC. This discussion is literally that simple. I'm not rooting for a specific series of events - I'm rooting for Michigan to make the playoff and will be pleased with any series of events that results in that outcome.
Delete"maximizing our probability of winning a NC" is a reasonable mindset but we didn't know (and really still don't know) how TCU, USC, Clemson, etc. play into that.
DeleteThere was a lot of confidence that the thing to root for was "maximizing the number of Big Ten teams in the playoff" because that equated to "maximizing our probability of winning an NC" but that logic was flawed. It was selectively pessimistic. It was also overly simplistic because it didn't consider the potential matchups within the playoff look like -- and those play a HUGE role in our chances.
It's a lot harder for Michigan to win a playoff if the 4 best teams in the country (Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, and Michigan) are in the playoff than if it's us, Georgia, and a couple teams that are lucky to be there. Teams like USC/Clemson/TCU are (or were) being considered thanks to a bunch of close wins - they never ranked inside even the top 10 based on fancystats). Playing them makes our chances for a natty MUCH better.
We see this now as fact but it was always a possibility -- Our chances of winning a national title are (probably) better if there are not 2 Big Ten teams in the playoff. The people rooting for that were rooting against our interests assuming we would lose. It's true that wasn't foreseeable as a certainty that we win but it was always foreseeable as a possibility. But one that was mostly ignored.
I think that was a case of selective pessimism and overly simplistic. My argument is if you're going to be pessimistic (thinking we would lose to OSU) that's OK but don't flip a switch and say you want to make the national playoff where we could have to beat OSU and Georgia both. If you're going to be that optimistic then just go ahead and assume we're going to beat OSU. In either case it didn't make sense to hope for TCU/USC/Clemson to lose. IMO
Agree to disagree, I guess. The math is fairly simple IMO that our chances of winning a NC are maximized (prior to knowing the result of the OSU game) if the Big10 is positioned to get two teams into the playoff. I think Michigan has a realistic change to win the NC in 2016, for example, if we had snuck into the playoff. Exactly the scenario that I want to avoid.
DeleteI don't agree with you on "the math" being simple at all. I think the odds of winning a playoff are higher without OSU in the playoff. See (example) math below.
DeleteI think you're talking about M's chances of getting INTO the playoff and conflating that with maximizing M's chances of WINNING the playoff. They're not the same thing. One is necessary for the other but not sufficient.
If you're a pessimist and assume UM is going to lose to OSU then the odds of winning a national title through the back door (4 seed that probably faces Georgia and then rematch with OSU) is very very small. [If you think M's chances are say ~30% to beat 1 UGA and ~40% to beat 2 OSU in a rematch that means something like a 10-15% chance of winning the natty once you're in.]
If you're an optimist and assume UM is going to beat OSU then you want the playoff path to be as clear as possible. In this case our odds might be ~70% to win against TCU/USC/Clemson and then ~45-50% to beat UGA in the final (assuming they win their first game which is like 80% at most) and, so something like 30-35%.
In other words you were more worried about the increase from 0% (not in the playoff) to 10-15% (with OSU / title path including 2 elite opponents) than the difference in scenarios once you are in ~20%. Quibble with the details of the math if you like but the point is that all playoff scenarios are not equivalent. It's not just about getting in or out.
I said this before the game - when I thought we would lose - and now that we've won it's pretty clear. To actually WIN a championship, our rooting interest is for weaker teams to be in the playoff than stronger teams.
Michigan never had much to gain from a hypothetical rematch with OSU in the playoff.
The math is crucial to this discussion and I just don't agree with your assumptions.
DeleteLet's assume that we have a ~20% chance of winning a NC today (65% to beat TCU / USC and 30% to beat UGA). We had a 50% of getting to this point (if you assume the OSU game was a coinflip) so prior to that game, our chance was 10% (assuming a loss would have left us out of the playoff).
Let's assume instead that TCU and USC had lost a game or two instead, and we were left with my preferred scenario (prior to the OSU game) of two B1G teams positioned for the playoff - for the sake of simplicity let's assume that results in a playoff of UGA, OSU, Bama and Michigan. Under that scenario we'd have a ~30% chance of beating the SEC opponent and ~50% chance of beating OSU, so 15% total. However, we're 100% likely to make the playoff in that scenario.
We're not talking a massive difference in probability here, but ultimately I want to make the playoff. Just appearing in the playoff is worth something to me, even putting the increased probability of actually winning a NC aside.
The assumptions you're making to get to 15% (with OSU in the playoff) vs 20% (with OSU out) are not unreasonable. However, you're ignoring the bias implicit in assuming a loss to OSU in the regular season.
DeleteThat's not 50/50 odds. Nor is that how our our fans (or Vegas) saw it. That's what it is now probably (for a rematch, per vegas insiders OSU would probably still be favored), but not what it was then when OSU was considered a touchdown favorite. M fans wanted favorable chances of 2 big ten teams to make the playoff (presumably for Michigan's sake, not OSU's, or any desire to see a rematch) because they didn't think they were going to win.
So if you assumed we were likely going to lose to OSU the first time (let's say 35% chance of winning) then you also need to assume we would likely lose to OSU a second time (35% chance of winning again). That takes your 15% closer to 10% and you then arrive at the 3 options being 0% to 10% to 20%. [In which case our respective sides of this argument both equal 10% and we're both equally right/wrong.]
HOWEVER, the other part of this that I think you are underselling is that there is tremendous value in not playing Georgia in Round 1. Because now you've got a 20%-30% winning a title without ever having to play Georgia (in the event they are upset). In other words, assuming chalk next week, I think our chances of winning a national title are better than 20% coming out of the 2 seed and thus not having to play Bama/OSU/Georgia in Round 1 and MAYBE not having to play them in Round 2 either.
Anyway I think we agree the probability differences are not massive. You see it as 15% vs 20% and I see it as a wider gap more like 10% vs 30%.
The other place we can agree to disagree is the value of backing into a playoff (without winning a conference title). I don't see it as all that valuable and (even though they DID win the conference technically) I don't really have any additional respect for MSU doing it in 2015. I know they were the 3rd best team in the division that got very very lucky. Then they got embarrassed in the playoff.
I'd rather go to the Rose Bowl, win that and have fun, then go to playoff and get waxed by Georgia again. It's a good year if you go to the playoff, but it's also a good year if you go to the Rose Bowl. Ending the year with a W means a lot to me (and I think to most fans TBH).
The other thing that means a lot to me is beating OSU. Right now they can't take that away from us, but a rematch very much could -- we saw that last year with Bama/Georgia.
The playoff isn't everything. A year's worth of bragging rights over OSU, the conference title, and playing in the Rose Bowl are all factors worth considering beside just 'making the playoff' to me. It's easy to conflate some of those things right now because they are so correlated but if you gave me a choice of beating OSU and not making a playoff and losing to OSU and making a playoff I choose the former.
All fair points. The view of "the playoff isn't everything" is relatively unique to Michigan and OSU fans IMO. There was an interesting thread on 11W earlier on the importance of the Michigan / OSU game and the overall sentiment was that a NC with a loss to Michigan would feel "tainted" - very interesting as I can't imagine too many fanbases would share that view. I guess that just speaks to the importance of The Game.
DeleteFWIW - 538 has us at 31% chance of national title if we get chalk next week (GA, UM, TCU, USC). They're not really looking at specific matchups or anything but that gives you a sense.
DeleteCan't really model the odds in a scenario where we lost The Game anymore but I'm sure they were much lower and I would guess 10-15% is in the ballpark.
You're probably right about it being somewhat unique but I think MSU might feel the same way about us. The feeling is not mutual - I'll gladly "suffer" an MSU loss for a national title. Not so for OSU.
DeleteOther rivalries I've experienced more closely like Texas and Oregon -- I think they'd gladly take the national title over the rival win for sure.
I think Michigan can lose the game against Purdue and stay in the playoff discussion, but just barely. If they lose to Purdue, they drop from #2 to #4. If they lose badly to Purdue, and look just terrible in the process, it's quite possible they drop out of the playoffs. I'm serious.
ReplyDeleteUSC and TCU can't afford to lose their championship games: they lose, and they drop out, ushering in a second SEC team, or OSU if they feel pushing the second SEC is a PR problem.
If Georgia loses to LSU, they drop from #1 to #2, or #3 worst case. If LSU convincingly beats Georgia, they start knocking on the playoff door. Either them or two-loss Alabama is pushed up, but personally I think there's not much love for Alabama being in the playoff this year.
If Michigan wins the game against Purdue, they go into the playoff seeded no worse than #2, and possibly #1, depending on what Georgia does.
If next Saturday is chaos, and all four top teams lose their championship games, then the playoff is Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Ohio State. And they'll seed so an all-SEC championship is possible, though that also opens the door to an all-B1G championship. 1976 basketball final all over again! :-)
DeleteI don't see how Michigan drops out of the playoff even with a bad loss to Purdue. They would only be a 1-loss team with the head-to-head over Ohio State. Even if Georgia and TCU stay undefeated, the only 1-loss teams would be USC, Michigan, and Ohio State. The CFP isn't going to take an 11-1 Ohio State over a 12-1 Michigan.
DeleteI'll admit it's unlikely, but a horrible loss to Purdue -- and especially with (heaven forbid) an injury to McCarthy -- might push the committee to resort to the "four best teams" argument and push Michigan out.
DeleteI scanned around various sites, and the push for two SEC teams along with OSU in the playoff is on. With enough chaos and enough PR, it's possible.
Yeah a JJ injury is the only way M is not in the playoff. If your goal is the national title then Michigan should be resting it's most important players (all the guys who were banged up for OSU), JJ, Edwards, Olu, Zinter, Hayes and a bunch more on defense against Purdue.
DeleteThat won't happen, thankfully, because winning the Big Ten championship still means something. But for those who were single-mindedly focused on the playoff and national championship it is absolutely the right move. Call it load management/injury management whatever. Some games matter more than others.
At the very least I hope Harbaugh breaks tendency and goes to the second string players quickly if Michigan can build up an early lead. Hopefully there's a lesson learned from Corum getting hurt in a mostly meaningless game against Illinois.
There was a point in the OSU game where J.J. had the ball, was running towards the left sideline, and was facing an OSU tackler. J.J. looked like he might slide, but then he tried to jump over the tackler. The tackler got underneath J.J. and could have caused possible injury by launching J.J. into the air. But he didn't, thankfully, and the play ended.
DeleteSo memo to J.J. -- if you have the ball and are running, don't do foolish things like trying to hurdle players.
Less worried about JJ running (which he probably won't do much of against Purdue) and more worried about JJ getting hit while throwing from the pocket (a la Cade).
DeleteI'd put the onus on the coaches to keep JJ healthy.
That play you mentioned though Anon was whistled dead (because of an OSU timeout before the snap). I don't know why there wasn't a flag on it.
Watching some of the Purdue game last night, they were getting worn down by Indiana. I would imagine the effect will be even more obvious against Michigan.
DeleteIt should be a bloodbath and the starters should all get a quick hook.
DeleteBarrett and Sainristil might be back next year. Both likely need 1 more year to make the pros.
ReplyDeleteRyan Day is no match for Jim Harbaugh. And CJ Stroud is monumentally overrated. Michigan's O Line is awesome. But they will be losing a lot from it. Are the backups ready?
I tend to think most draftable players should go so my guess is that Zinter, Keegan will probably join Olu and Hayes in the NFL. That's the top 4 starters all out the door which is pretty tough to make up.
DeleteHowever, Jones/Barnhart would probably return and then you've got Persi and El-Hadi with starting experience too. Not bad to rebuild an O-line with 4 guys like that.
Crippen looks like he'll get his red-shirt this year and the staff seem to love him. I think he's clear of any eligibility risk at this point (playing only against CSU I think) so we might see him against Purdue.
They'll take a step back in 2023 (because it's almost impossible not to) but the depth the OL showed this year is a great sign.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if all those guys leave for the NFL, but then again, we were a little worried about the departure of Andrew Vastardis and then he was replaced by Oluwatimi - a guy who might win the Rimington. So even if the line looks like Persi, El-Hadi, Crippen, Barnhart, and Jones right now, the blueprint is there for a good lineman or two to transfer in and do great things. The word is out that Michigan can develop a line now, which was not the case in the early 2010s.
DeleteI agree though I'm not sure there will be an obvious hole to plug into for a transfer like there was for Olu. (Crippen is only a sophomore). If they get somebody who is ready to start it may mean a departure from somebody else. I'd be shocked if they brought in two guys honestly. It's going to be pretty tough to find a better player than El-Hadi or whoever you think will be 4th best on that OL.
DeleteI think it was the mid 2010s when we had the problems. Even in 2011 you still had the carryover from the Rich Rod's OL which was mostly NFL guys and he had more coming in the pipeline (e.g., Jake Fisher). Hoke and Funk messed it up. Even Harbaugh needed multiple years to get things fully up to where we want them.
We were all wrong thunder!
ReplyDeleteJim Harbaugh's MICHIGAN is physically tougher than Ryan Day's ohio ... mentally, it's not even close!
Not all! Roanman, Charles Woodson, and most importantly THE PLAYERS ON THE TEAM believed.
DeleteMost fans thought Michigan would lose. I did too. If ever there was a place for it --> "Imagine if the players thought like this" goes here.
Ryan Day had Don Brown’s number. I think if Harbaugh had not hired Don Brown as DC, he would have beaten Urban Meyer at least once. UM under Harbaugh has always managed to score against Ohio even though the way they score last night was a surprise.
ReplyDeleteNot always able to score against OSU. 2015 was just 13 points as the offense with Jake Rudock was flaccid. 2016 was also a hot mess due to Speight injury and turnovers and they only got 17 points (including a 22 yard gift TD drive). 2017 wasn't much better (20 points, but 7 came on a 6 yard drive) with O'Korn.
DeleteIt really wasn't till Patterson/Hamilton helped modernize the offense (no more FBs) and QB position got better that Michigan started scoring on OSU. That also coincided with Don Brown getting cooked by Day so it felt like it didn't matter but it was a big change nonetheless.
I think the other side the blame lies on the offensive coaching wasn't good enough in 2015-2017 in part because of mediocre QB play and in part because Harbaugh likes to build an offense around a dominant OL and that wasn't there until 2018 (Ruiz, Onwenu, Runyan, Bredeson).
It took a few years to get through the whole transition from Hoke/Borgess incompetence to Drevno/Fisch stone-age approach to Hamilton/Warriner modernized version of the Harbaugh offense. We're finally seeing the vision of Stanford-era Harbaugh coming true in Ann Arbor.
It's a good thing Warde Emanual and SOME of the fanbase had the patience to trust Harbaugh to see it through.
LOL. "The offense with Jake Rudock was flaccid."
DeleteCorrection: The offense with Wilton Speight and De'Veon Smith - two of your favorites - was flaccid.
Jake Rudock: 19/32, 263 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT
De'Veon Smith: 10 carries, 23 yards
Wilton Speight: 6/14, 44 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT
I'm not arguing that Rudock was great that day, but to single him out is kind of silly when Michigan literally had its lowest rushing output of the season that day (57 yards).
It's a comment about the offense - which has a lot to do with the QB. It's pretty common to "single out" the QB because they are so integral to offensive performance.
DeleteMichigan's offense scored 13 points in 2015 with Rudock.
They scored 27 (17 in regulation) in 2016 without Rudock.
Smith was on both squads but a bunch of carries also went to Evans, Higdon, Peppers, Hill, Houma, etc. Nobody on the team was able to run the ball effectively against OSU in either 2015 or 2016 -- in large part because the QBs weren't very threatening. That goes for Speight and Rudock both. This seems like a relevant contrast to Saturday when OSU shut down M's run game, until the QB made them pay.
What's weird to single out is Speight's garbage time stats after Rudock 'led' the team to a 42-13 deficit. Who cares? Speight could have gone 8/8 with 2 TDs in garbage time and it wouldn't have meant a thing.
For all the credit you like to give to Rudock (while trashing Speight, Denard, and others) it seems pretty notable that the offense got better in 2016 than it was in 2015.
DeleteThe same thing happened at Iowa after Rudock left there.
Neat. Michigan's offense got better after Speight left. And of course that doesn't address the fact that Rudock was at Michigan in year one of Harbaugh, and a team is likely going to be a little better in year two or year three of a new system.
DeleteI didn't single out Speight. I listed his numbers with the context of two other players.
The only person who singled anyone out is you, and it was the guy who is (out of players with 100+ career attempts):
#2 in completion percentage
#8 in passing efficiency
#10 in adjusted yards per attempt
#12 in yards per attempt
He's ahead of Speight in every one of those categories, but you consistently talk up Speight and take shots at Rudock. It defies reason.
I singled out the QB position - naming the relevant starters Rudock, Speight, and OKorn. Contrast them with Patterson and beyond.
DeleteSpeight was not as good as I thought he was while he was here. I owned that when I saw what he did at UCLA. 5 years ago. You're still putting up posts that have Rudock among the best QBs.
Maybe it would have been different if Speight spent year 5 in AA like Rudock had the privilege of doing. That's right - it's a PRIVLEGE to show up at a program with 4 years of training ahead of you. It's a PRIVLEGE to sit the bench for 2 years before you start. We've seen the benefits of experience with Olu, Danna, and others. It's not a hindrance to show up at a program and be a guy with a ton of experience elsewhere. Especially in the case of coming from a program with similar philosophy like Iowa.
I'm not sure what stats you are referencing for Rudock but I would be happy to see them. Here is what I see when I compare Rudock in 15 to Speight in 16:
Similar passer rating (141 vs 140)
Similar completion percentage (64% vs 62%)
Similar YPA (7.8 vs 7.7)
Similar TD/INT (18/7 vs 20/9)
Michigan replaced Rudock with Speight and had no noticable drop off.
If you just looked at the stats you might think it's the same guy.
Speight was an OK starter. Rudock was an OK starter.
Spiderman points.
Michigan has done better since then - that was the point of my post. The offense has gotten better, in part because of coordinators, in part because of OL, and in part because of the quarterbacks.
You just don't like it because you STILL bring up Rudock as some sort of marker even though he was the QB equivalent of Deveon Smith. Rudock was fine - he filled a need, he brought a lot of value to the program for a year when we need it, but he was nothing special.
You like playmaking RBs and consistent efficient QBs who avoid mistakes. I like playmaking QBs and consistent efficient RBs who avoid mistakes.
DeleteIt's fine, we can have personal preferences and even let them bias our analysis to some degree, but there some facts to be reckoned with:
PRODUCTION
Smith had a more productive and impressive career at the college and the NFL level than Rudock. More NFL games and more NFL yards. More college starts, wins, and more all conference honors.
IMPACT
The Michigan offense got BETTER immediately after Rudock left and got WORSE immediately after Smith left.
CONTRIBUTION
Rudock played at Michigan for 1 year (after 4 years at Iowa where he lost his job). Smith stuck through a coaching change and stayed loyal at Michigan all 4 years and was a big part of the teams success in 2016 (as well as 2015). He beat out a host of players, including multiple 5-star recruits, and pretty much never got hurt.
Neither guy was good enough to flip the script against elite opponents or be an NFL starter, but both were good solid college players that played essential roles to hold off upset bids by Indiana.
---------------------------
I like Smith more because he was loyal and tough. You like Rudock because...I don't honestly know why you like Rudock so much. It's pretty inexplicable.
Michigan's offense got worse after Speight got hurt (in 2017). It was better in 2016 than 2017 or 2015.
DeleteIn 2015 Speight played 1 meaningful quarter and in 2017 he played 3 games (including wins over Florida and Cincinnati). In 2016 he started every game but one (which Michigan barely won over Indiana). Michigan was 9-0 before Speight got hurt and 1-3 (with the win over Indiana) after. In 2017 Michigan was 3-0 with Speight as starter and 5-5 without him.
Safe to say that Speight's injury/unavailability was hugely impactful.
Patterson was the best QB of the Harbaugh era until McCarthy. Even though he (seemingly) got worse between 2018 and 2019 (during the transition from Hamilton to Gattis).
Oh, NFL production and contribution matters?
DeleteGood. Now maybe you'll admit that Michael Cox was a better running back than De'Veon Smith.
It's somewhat relevant to assessing college careers. Always has been.
DeleteBut Cox gained 87 yards in his career. You find that definitive? He, Rudock, and Smith all fall in the same bucket on fringe NFL contributions (that are probably circumstantial for each). None of them were actually GOOD to have a meaningful NFL career. But they made it! Smith had the most productive PRO career (including NFL and other leagues).
As for college careers - Smith is the most accomplished and productive and it's not even very close. He beat out a bunch of guys, started for multiple years, and won a lot of games. Cox and Rudock chased transfer opportunities after losing out.
Smith vs Cox at Michigan: 2,486 yards vs. 180 yards (+2300)
DeleteSmith vs Cox total College: 2,486 yards vs. 953 yards (+1500)
Smith vs Cox NFL: 27 yards vs. 97 yards (<-100)
Smith vs Cox total Pros: 838 yards vs. 97 yards (+700)