Good overview of yesterday's errors from Baumgardner.

Submitted by wolverine1987 on

I felt no emotion last night apart from disappointment. Anger I don't think is appropriate--this staff and team has more than earned the benefit of the doubt and allowances for a bad game. Anyway here's an article from Nick that collects many of the shortcomings last night, including:

-having only 10 men on the field--after a timeout--on the final field goal.

-the play call for a pitch to Higdon on 3rd and 1 in the fourth Q.

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2016/11/michigans_10-man_fiel…

 

schreibee

November 13th, 2016 at 9:22 PM ^

I was no part of compiling that comparison, but I can tell you I feel wholeheartedy (as does almost everyone in Michigan-land except you, apparently) that the subsequent 3 Hoke seasons demonstrated to my satisfaction that the 1st year was more fluke than anything else. 

I DO NOT feel that way about the upward trajectory in Harbaugh year 2.

I mean, how would you rate the job Hoke is doing as Oregon's DC, just as an example?

blueday

November 13th, 2016 at 9:45 AM ^

Harbaugh always seemed to adjust even series to series. Yesterday was just a mess. Kinda felt we were stubborn and forcing it which is very uncharacteristic. We shall see how we rebound. Another road game against a way better team in 2 weeks is not making me comfortable.

corundum

November 13th, 2016 at 10:59 AM ^

Darboh was straight up faster than the guy covering him most of the night. He was consistently open by running right past guys. Combine that with Iowa's terrible safties and I would have expected a lot more of the deep shots to be on post routes rather than down the sideline. Deep post routes give the QB the benefit of putting it high in the air and to the inside allowing the WR to adjust rather than trying to drop it in a bucket down the sideline.

BlueinLansing

November 13th, 2016 at 9:47 AM ^

not played well in Iowa City since 1994 or 1991, I can't remember details of either of those two games. 

Everything since then has been a once score game we either won by the skin of our teeth or lost.

 

You can probably even extend that back and say Michigan has only played well there 2 or 3 times since Hayden Fry arrived at Iowa.

M-Dog

November 13th, 2016 at 9:53 AM ^

Look, we don't like it but our critics were right - we were overrated, feasting on extremely weak teams in our home cocoon.
 
Then we took a punch in the mouth on the road by an inspired opponent in a hostile environment and we completely shattered like fragile porcelain, all these mistakes being the broken shards laying all over the field.
 
OK, so now we know.  We're not as good as we thought we were.  We're not as tough as we thought we were.
 
Same thing happened last year and we used it to get better.  Here's where our $10 million coach gets to earn his pay.
 
This is a wake up call that would have been nice to get earlier in the year, but it's not too late to make corrections and be ready for Columbus, which will be Iowa City times ten.
 

I Like Burgers

November 13th, 2016 at 10:28 AM ^

I'd say the defense and offense were both overrated. If you're a top 2 defense you don't struggle like that - even in the road. And if you're a top 5 or even top 10 offense, you shouldn't struggle that badly either. Both sides of the ball were overrated from playing against weak competition.

And the overrating of offense and defense leads to over inflated fan expectations.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

schreibee

November 13th, 2016 at 9:42 PM ^

And Dymonte, and LBs, and the center of the DL was getting moved, for the first time since IU/osu last year (injury caveats apply to those of course).

There's nothing much good to say about any facet of our play in this one, and much credit due to Iowa. Move on...

Funny to blame the terrible call to Higdon when Allen made the FG anyway, And how many men were on the field when Iowa missed a FG earlier? 11 I'm guessing?

We just did not play or coach well enough. Those are excuses.

Michology 101

November 13th, 2016 at 11:18 AM ^

Our defense played well enough to get the win, but I wouldn't say they played great. The 230 yard total is good, but 164 came against our run defense. We're suppose to have one of the best D lines in college football. Our coverage guys were great, but the D line was far from a brick wall last night. Iowa was able to do enough on offense by just simply running the ball. A team shouldn't be able to do that against our defense. We should be destroying teams that are playing one dimensional with only a run game. I'm talking pretty much a shut out.

JonnyHintz

November 13th, 2016 at 2:08 PM ^

Well let's look at the facts here. TD drive of 52 yards Safety (our defense didn't give up the safety) Field Goal drive of 36 yards Field goal drive of 21 yards. So our defense only gave up 12 points and Iowa gained a total of 109 yards on those scoring drives. That's enough to win a ton of games. Not much the defense can do when the opposing team is given spectacular field position all night. Not to say it was our best game defensively, but Iowa couldn't really muster much without excellent field position.

I Like Burgers

November 13th, 2016 at 2:47 PM ^

That was kinda my point.  They played like a top 25 defense, not a top 1 or 2 defense.  On the season, Iowa averages 153 yards a game on the ground, and Iowa outperformed that.  

If you're going to be a "historically great" defense, you should be suffocating teams.  Which is where we get into the whole overrated thing.  If you're going to be the best defense in college football or even a historically great defense (which is what some people were calling them) then that shouldn't happen.

Take Alabama going into Death Valley and shutting that shit down against LSU.  Now THAT is a great defense.

Wolverdirt

November 13th, 2016 at 11:24 AM ^

Iowa's lone td is a good example of the D's lack of recognition.  Iowa came out of a timeout on 3rd down, and if you watch it again, looked like they were simply setting up to score on 4th down.  Sounds crazy, but watch Beathard's throw which is very deliberate and sails out of bounds to the right side of the field.  Without hesitation, Iowa lines back up on 4th down, same formation, only this time they know exactly what the defense is going to do.  Easy throw and catch results in a td for Iowa.  Would've loved to have seen a timeout from Michigan before that 4th down snap.  Feel like the coaching staff should've recognized this setup.

jmblue

November 13th, 2016 at 12:16 PM ^

Quite simply, we should have recognized by that point in the game that Wadley was their security blanket.  On 4th and goal, they weren't going to go to anyone else.

Here's a crazy stat: on the 14 pass attempts that didn't go to Wadley, Iowa averaged one yard. He was all they had.

 

 

 

901 P

November 13th, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^

Interesting--I did think the third down play was kind of off, because it looked like Iowa gave up on it pretty quickly and Beathard just dumped it out of bounds. But that would be kind of an odd tactic, basically giving up a down to set up a fourth down play. Who knows--I hope someone asks Ferentz about it. 

I Like Burgers

November 13th, 2016 at 2:52 PM ^

I had the same thought watching that.  The throwaway was pretty quick, and then the way they stayed on the field and went right back to the same exact formation made that one feel like they had seen something on tape that they wanted to exploit.  It was like the third down was a test to see if Michigan had changed anything strategy wise prior to the game.  Kinda like throwing a hand in poker to figure out someone's tell.

snarling wolverine

November 13th, 2016 at 11:44 AM ^

The pass D was great, as expected.  The rush D was not.  Iowa had only one playmaker in its offense and we couldn't shut him down.  Surrendering 164 yards on the ground against this offense is disappointing.  I know their YPC wasn't all that great but the fact that they handed it off 40-some times shows how we were unable to take them out of their comfort zone.  We showed Beathard too much respect.  We should have cheated up the safeties and dared him to throw deep.

PSU held this same team to 30 rush yards last week.  The announcers clearly spelled it out at the top of the broadcast: "When Iowa can't run, it can't win."

 

JonnyHintz

November 13th, 2016 at 2:19 PM ^

That's what happens when you dont take a lead. Teams are able to continue their comfort zone when you don't put the game away. Iowa knew they couldn't pass against us. The running game was marginally successful, but due to the fact that we never took that commanding lead we are accustomed to, Iowa was able to continue to run the ball. You get that lead, teams start to panic. They realize their marginally successful plays aren't going to get them points fast enough. They get desperate and try opening up the offense. Trying new things they aren't particularly good at. That's what we have seen all season long.

Indiana Blue

November 14th, 2016 at 7:54 AM ^

then a very bad safety, gave them momentum.  That was right in front of us (15th row endzone).  The first play call (pass to Butt) wasted 1st down.  From the 2 run the fullback dive and try to get 3 or more yards ... then you have some space and have options.  But the delayed handoff on 2nd down was just a horrible call.

Go Blue!

trustBlue

November 13th, 2016 at 11:38 AM ^

Sorry, this was never a top 10 offense, even we were steamrolling the dregs of the B1G. 

But this is still easily top 5 defense, who only gave up one score on any drive over 50 yards. When you play teams who arent Rutgers or Maryland, RPS is going to give you a few first downs and some drives, period. 

I dare you to name a single team other than Bama (let alone 5) that has a defense that you would trade for ours. Washington? Nope Clemson? HAHA. OSU? Nope. Penn State? LOL.

Wadley won some 1-1 battles on the edge against our LBs/safeties. LB speed is soft spot in this defense, but lets not go all Chicken Little on the defense for giving up 12 points on the road. 

 

jabberwock

November 13th, 2016 at 1:00 PM ^

at all, still great-to-elite.  But they did appear under-preparred for what a lot of iowa was doing.

and they were on the field for 5.5 more minutes (which seemed like an absolute eternity).

This was the Wisky game on steroids.  

D keeps it's close (on the road at night no less!) and the O & special teams  repeatedly shit the bed,
and the neighbors bed,
and the entire Art Van showroom down the street.

I Like Burgers

November 13th, 2016 at 3:06 PM ^

My basic point was regarding calling the defense overrated.  If I came in here last week saying Michigan was just a top 5 defense or Alabama's was the best, people would lose their minds, point to various fancy stats, and this and that and say that this is clearly the best defense in college football and one of Michigan's best defenses EVER.  

Now, here we are after that Iowa game saying they are *just* a top 5 defense or the second best defense behind Alabama.  That's my point.  We thought this was the best defense in CFB or a historically great defense and its not.  Its still a pretty fucking outstanding defense, just not as good as we maybe thought.  Hence, its overrated.

Mongo

November 13th, 2016 at 1:34 PM ^

Defense is what kept us in this ugly game ... most of Iowa's points came off of our offensive miscues, lack of production, etc. Michigan DB's were outstanding and DL did its thing, maybe LBs could have stopped a few more runs. But, folks, Iowa gained only 3.4 yards per play for only 230 total yards - that is an outstanding performance. We lost this game in the other trenches - our OL was getting blown off the ball. OL got no push and pass protection was poor, maybe costing us our starting QB as well as the win. Got to play better than that, especially on the road. Can't hang this on the QB and WRs, game was lost in the trenches.

bronxblue

November 13th, 2016 at 10:09 AM ^

I don't buy for a second that the team was overrated.  They played about as badly as possible and still lost on a last-second FG.  Literally any of a half-dozen things don't happen and UM escapes with a win.  

They are still one of the top 4 teams in America; they are also behind Alabama.  But put UM on the field against Clemson, Washington, OSU, Louisville, etc., and I like their chances.  Complaints about "toughness" and fragility as the basest of taeks.  This team didn't freaking "crumble" under the pressure; they lost a football game.  It sucks, but that's it.  They aren't perfect, but play this game 100 times and UM comes out the victor way more times than not.  But sometimes it just isn't you day, and last night was one of those.  

OSU was always going to be rough, but UM still feels like the better team.  They can gum up OSU's passing game and Weber isn't as good, right now, as Wardley.  OSU has moments of terrorizing, but they also have struggled for stretches of the season and have looked mortal against solid defenses.

 

WeimyWoodson

November 13th, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^

Despite OSU looking mortal in certain games during Urban's tenure, when have they ever looked anything less than 100% when it comes to Michigan? Urban has some strong hate for Michigan and does a great job getting his team ready for that, where Harbaugh I feel treats every game the same. That is one of the differences in my mind. Need that extra little juice.

SpikeFan2016

November 13th, 2016 at 10:47 AM ^

Actually, I would argue 75% of Urban's OSU teams have looked less than 100% against Michigan. 

 

In 2012, a 12-0 OSU team was losing at home to an 8-4 Michigan team at the half, and only managed to escape by 5 points after not being able to score a TD in the second. 

 

In 2013, a top 10 OSU team let a previously anemic Michigan offense score 41 points and was a shitty 2 point playcall from being defeated by a 7-5 caliber team. 

 

In 2014, a 5-7 Michigan team was tied at halftime in Columbus, tied going into the fourth quarter and it was a 7 point game until there were 6 minutes left in the fourth quarter; this OSU team won the national championship. 

 

The only glaring exception to this was obviously last year. 

 

But hey, last year MSU lost at a Nebraska team at least as bad (record will be worse) than this Iowa team, and then went to Columbus 2 weeks later and won. So who knows. 

I Like Burgers

November 13th, 2016 at 10:36 AM ^

I don't know how you can watch Michigan's last two road games, watch Ohio State at home, and say that you think Michigan is the better team.  All of the problems Michigan had against MSU and Iowa they will have to face against Ohio State, but in a more hostile environment and against much better athletes.  Plus, Weber isn't the issue -- its Curtis Samuel.  A guy perfectly able to exploit all of the bad things you've seen the Michigan defense give up the last couple of weeks.

getsome

November 13th, 2016 at 11:27 AM ^

samuel is a beast.  hopefully don brown firms up his unit and calls to avoid getting completely gashed by RBs on blitzes bc samuel can take some of those 10-15 yard gains to the house.  the key with osu remains barrett though, hes obviously the x factor - michigan will need to dominate the LOS and force barrett to win the game from the pocket

M-Dog

November 13th, 2016 at 10:40 AM ^

This team didn't freaking "crumble" under the pressure

They didn't?  What game were you watching?

Go read the OP link again.  That's not grace under pressure.  That's not losing a football game, it's imploding under pressure that you are not used to.

There is nothing random about what happened at Iowa.  The team took a punch and crumbled.

OK, so that happened.  Season's not over and we have 2 more games to get up and punch back.