Post Game Observations Michigan '14

[greyhammer90]

No he isn't. Saban showed him the door.

Yep. Any Michigan fan that thinks he left willingly is delusional.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Didn't he come knocking here first?

 

[palinurus]

I look at Michigan as a bit like ND during the Weis years; they have a bad head coach (who has talent at some level but as the top guy), who is still apparently recruiting well. That means that if they get somebody decent in there next, they might bounce back quicker than you might expect, as the Irish did when Kelly came in.

 

[Emcee77]

I look at Michigan as a bit like ND during the Weis years; they have a bad head coach (who has talent at some level but as the top guy), who is still apparently recruiting well. That means that if they get somebody decent in there next, they might bounce back quicker than you might expect, as the Irish did when Kelly came in.

Yep, I was thinking the same thing. Michigan right now is just like Weis. High expectations due to good recruiting that they just can't meet. Borges took the fall for last season, but Hoke is going to run out of coordinators to hide behind.

 

[IrishFaninTX]

I look at Michigan as a bit like ND during the Weis years; they have a bad head coach (who has talent at some level but as the top guy), who is still apparently recruiting well. That means that if they get somebody decent in there next, they might bounce back quicker than you might expect, as the Irish did when Kelly came in.

Oh the Weis years. I still cannot get over how bad our defense was when Weis was HC. We had a very dynamic offense most of his years (2007 and 2008 not so much). But the defense in 2009 is pretty much the only reason JC did not win a Heisman and we didn't make it to at least a BCS bowl and possibly the NC. We would have won every game that year with even a slightly better defense. We didn't lose any game by more than a TD but we also did not win more than 2 games by more than a TD. I know Kelly has not always been a fan favorite but I am so glad we have him instead of Weis. He can recruit and I feel we have a chance in every game with him at the helm.

 

[Emcee77]

Oh the Weis years. I still cannot get over how bad our defense was when Weis was HC. We had a very dynamic offense most of his years (2007 and 2008 not so much). But the defense in 2009 is pretty much the only reason JC did not win a Heisman and we didn't make it to at least a BCS bowl and possibly the NC. We would have won every game that year with even a slightly better defense. We didn't lose any game by more than a TD but we also did not win more than 2 games by more than a TD. I know Kelly has not always been a fan favorite but I am so glad we have him instead of Weis. He can recruit and I feel we have a chance in every game with him at the helm.

See, I think the bolded is a common misconception. During the Weis years, there was clearly something broken with our OFFENSE, not just the D. My friends and I would discuss it all the time, and it was tough to put our finger on it. It seemed like the offense was capable of scoring touchdowns, typically on spectacular passing plays to guys like Golden Tate, but it was not capable of executing consistently or reliably. We would routinely fail to pick up big third downs. The consistency just wasn't there.

Honestly, as I said above, Michigan on Saturday reminded me A LOT of a Weis coached team. They didn't really play badly on offense on Saturday night. They outgained us, in fact. But they couldn't sustain drives to get into the end zone or even the red zone, and we took away their big plays, and they couldn't overcome that. That experience of watching an offense that wasn't bad but couldn't win the game for you reminded me a lot of watching Weis-coached ND teams.

 

[PANDFAN]

See, I think the bolded is a common misconception. During the Weis years, there was clearly something broken with our OFFENSE, not just the D. My friends and I would discuss it all the time, and it was tough to put our finger on it. It seemed like the offense was capable of scoring touchdowns, typically on spectacular passing plays to guys like Golden Tate, but it was not capable of executing consistently or reliably. We would routinely fail to pick up big third downs. The consistency just wasn't there.

Honestly, as I said above, Michigan on Saturday reminded me A LOT of a Weis coached team. They didn't really play badly on offense on Saturday night. They outgained us, in fact. But they couldn't sustain drives to get into the end zone or even the red zone, and we took away their big plays, and they couldn't overcome that. That experience of watching an offense that wasn't bad but couldn't win the game for you reminded me a lot of watching Weis-coached ND teams.

i think we were just efficient w/ our offense on saturday

i strongly agree w/ you regarding Weis...it seemed we never marched down the field but rather big plays

 

[Irish#1]

No he isn't. Saban showed him the door.

Did not realize that...........Thanks

 

[irishfanjho15]

Hey guys. Been a long time. Fuck Michigan.

 

[Irish#1]

i think we were just efficient w/ our offense on saturday

i strongly agree w/ you regarding Weis...it seemed we never marched down the field but rather big plays

That was his schematic advantage. Like a chess match. Set 'em up with this and that and then go deep.

 

[Ndaccountant]

See, I think the bolded is a common misconception. During the Weis years, there was clearly something broken with our OFFENSE, not just the D. My friends and I would discuss it all the time, and it was tough to put our finger on it. It seemed like the offense was capable of scoring touchdowns, typically on spectacular passing plays to guys like Golden Tate, but it was not capable of executing consistently or reliably. We would routinely fail to pick up big third downs. The consistency just wasn't there.

Honestly, as I said above, Michigan on Saturday reminded me A LOT of a Weis coached team. They didn't really play badly on offense on Saturday night. They outgained us, in fact. But they couldn't sustain drives to get into the end zone or even the red zone, and we took away their big plays, and they couldn't overcome that. That experience of watching an offense that wasn't bad but couldn't win the game for you reminded me a lot of watching Weis-coached ND teams.

Not picking on you, but everyone (national media mostly) keeps repeating that like it's some proof that the score was worse than the game, especially when paired with the 4 TO differential.

However, consider this:

- ND had an average starting field position that was 15 yards better than UM
- At the half, ND lead 21 nothing, had yet to force a TO & had a 79 yard advantage. ND's offensive output was almost 60% greater than UM's
- When ND scored to go up 28-0 with 3:02 left in the third, ND had outgained UM 297 (includes penalty yards) to 175 (includes penalty yards) - a difference of 122 yards, or 70% of Michigan's output up to that point

After ND went up 28-0, the offensive game plan was to not turn the ball over, instead of chuck all over the field to play catch-up. Hence, ND production was basically non-existent (which needs to be corrected IMO) while UM racked up yards in the 4th that were basically meaningless.

The whole thing is a giant red herring.

 

[ulukinatme]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>It's a constant struggle feeling good about wins when the hiring and firing of coaches is so rewarding. Gruden is still out there...</p>— The Gold Seats (@NDGoldSeats) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDGoldSeats/status/509387950120255488">September 9, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Emcee77]

All good points, Ndaccountant. All I mean to say was that their offense wasn't Andrew Hendrix-against-USC inept; it just wasn't able to string together enough positive plays to sustain drives and get into the red zone. I agree that people are overusing the UM-outgained-ND stat. We kicked their asses thoroughly and no mistake.

 

[Ndaccountant]

All good points, Ndaccountant. All I mean to say was that their offense wasn't Andrew Hendrix-against-USC inept; it just wasn't able to string together enough positive plays to sustain drives and get into the red zone. I agree that people are overusing the UM-outgained-ND stat. We kicked their asses thoroughly and no mistake.

To be fair, that is a pretty low bar.

The way I view it, and the stats go along with me, is that once UM was down by a good amount (21-0), they were forced to make somewhat more aggressive throws. Once that happened, they put up yards, but also had 4 TO's, which is probably why they didn't want him throwing over the middle or improvising in the first place.

Michigan really took a dump after the first two drives (which I also think shows the adjustments and coaching of BVG). UM had 83 yards of offensive output (including penalty yards) from the 13:25 mark in the 2nd quarter to the 3:02 mark in the 3rd quarter. During that time, ND scored 21 points and had 212 yards of offensive output (including penalty yards). UM got absolutely abused in the 2nd and 3rd quarters.

 

[ickythump1225]

Not picking on you, but everyone (national media mostly) keeps repeating that like it's some proof that the score was worse than the game, especially when paired with the 4 TO differential.

However, consider this:

- ND had an average starting field position that was 15 yards better than UM
- At the half, ND lead 21 nothing, had yet to force a TO & had a 79 yard advantage. ND's offensive output was almost 60% greater than UM's
- When ND scored to go up 28-0 with 3:02 left in the third, ND had outgained UM 297 (includes penalty yards) to 175 (includes penalty yards) - a difference of 122 yards, or 70% of Michigan's output up to that point

After ND went up 28-0, the offensive game plan was to not turn the ball over, instead of chuck all over the field to play catch-up. Hence, ND production was basically non-existent (which needs to be corrected IMO) while UM racked up yards in the 4th that were basically meaningless.

The whole thing is a giant red herring.

 

[Emcee77]

To be fair, that is a pretty low bar.

The way I view it, and the stats go along with me, is that once UM was down by a good amount (21-0), they were forced to make somewhat more aggressive throws. Once that happened, they put up yards, but also had 4 TO's, which is probably why they didn't want him throwing over the middle or improvising in the first place.

Michigan really took a dump after the first two drives (which I also think shows the adjustments and coaching of BVG). UM had 83 yards of offensive output (including penalty yards) from the 13:25 mark in the 2nd quarter to the 3:02 mark in the 3rd quarter. During that time, ND scored 21 points and had 212 yards of offensive output (including penalty yards). UM got absolutely abused in the 2nd and 3rd quarters.

Right, see, I love this conversation because it is kind of fleshing out the comparison I was trying to make between Weis-era ND teams and UM on Saturday night. My point is that, in both cases, you could take a superficial look at the box score and assume that the offense played ok, maybe even well enough to win.

The offense at ND during the Weis years was capable of breathtaking spectacular plays, but it was not an efficient offense that had the discipline and attention to detail to execute consistently and reliably. We frequently failed to sustain drives.

Similarly (but without the occasional spectacular plays), Michigan racked up a lot of yards on Saturday, so a casual observer looking at the box score might say the offense played fairly well, despite the score, but if you take a closer look at the game, it clearly did not.

 

[ResLife Hero]

I enjoyed this immensely:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Fan's radio meltdown after ND loss is best thing u'll hear all day: <a href="http://t.co/PHmCnivGmz">http://t.co/PHmCnivGmz</a> Audio: <a href="http://t.co/L1fMQBxEw1">http://t.co/L1fMQBxEw1</a></p>— LostLettermen.com (@LostLettermen) <a href="https://twitter.com/LostLettermen/status/509427868573900801">September 9, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>