Harbaugh Monday Presser

Submitted by NeverPunt on September 3rd, 2019 at 9:58 AM

Summary:  (SIAP and if so mods feel free to delete but I didn't see it on the board, though parts of his comments have popped up on the board in various places)

On how young tackles played: They played well, Ryan Hayes was the offensive player of the game. Graded out really well alongside Ruiz and Bredesen. Fine blocks, good with his hands. Jalen was good as well. 

How Sean McKeon has improved: Run blocking, catching the ball, had that nice TD. Leadership and work ethic as well. Another guy in running for the Offensive player of the week.

On the new guys on D:  (Coach answers by running through basically everybody in secondary without much valuable commentary, Lavert missed the INT but played well, happy for Ambry and then is interrupted with a second question about cleaning up miscues). 

On cleaning up miscues on D:  Yeah. (Continues to answer the first question - Aidan, Kwity played well, Jordan Glasgow had good game - runner up for Defensive player of the game, Josh Ross played extremely well). Overall as a defense he thought they played well.

Update on guys who were out:  Jeter, DPJ, Runyan - all three have a chance to play this week.  Dwumfour - we'll see, haven't see him yet today.

Decision on Kicker? They were neck and neck with 1 kick separating them all camp. Moody was the one that was ahead - he would kick first one and then they'd rotate the next kicker for each drive. The guy who was "up" would take the extra point if a TD was scored instead. will keep that going next week.

How was it for him not calling plays? Still same focus for knowing play that was going to be run. He was into it so it didn't feel much different. 

How did he assess Josh Gattis' playcalling:  Thought it was practically flawless. He was decisive in play calling - thought it was  clear, clean, concise game. 

Value of Cam Cheeseman:  Cam had a perfect game. Got the special teams player of the week. He's just consistently good and brings a big body to the formations for punts/FG. He was good in protection and snapping was great. He is a great guy.

Evaluation of QBs:  Both did very well. Shea made some big plays. Ball handling is being addressed. Dylan made some big plays as well. Felt both ran the offense efficiently. So did Joe when he was in. They were accurate and ran the ball well, ran the offense well. Shea was really good against the blitz. Sideline pressure with the CB blitz.  Shea had a clean game in terms of getting them in the right protections and plays. The RBs had a perfect game in protection - every back was 100%. Zach Charbonnet had 9 for 9 - doesn't think any back has gotten that since he's been here. That's like WOW. There were some sophisticated protections going on, changes on the fly by the center, and it was just easy for him - he just handled it. That's rare - he's been around pro backs that don't do it that well. Tru, Christian, BVS had nice pick ups as well. 

Leadership from the captains: Really good. Those five guys are "the guys" - there's some others that are leaders. Khaleke, Ben, Carlo, Shea, Josh are really looked up to on the team. When they talk, people listen, and they're followed. They set a great example. 

Defensive player of the game?: Ambry Thomas.

On Vincent Grey? He played really well. Graded out in the top 6. 4 tacklets, tackle for loss, good in coverage. 

On a freshman RB picking up protections: Jay Harbaugh should get credit here as well. They were all on it. It's eye catching with Zach becomes it seems to come easily to him, which catches your attention. He was great running the ball and hits holes well, catches the ball well.  Christian Turner had some great runs too. The one he made on the boundary was outstanding - very few guys that can keep their feet in bounds there. Extra effort run was great. Ball security was great for this unit. 

On Giles Jackson:  Really good - just told him to SQUEEZE the ball. He was impressive and he's doing the kick returns, got in at WR. His role will grow more. 

With Ryan Hayes doing well, how does the line look with Runyan coming back?  Good question. Runyan is top three lineman on the team. Ryan was really impressive and it is a meritocracy all the way. Can he compete at the other tackle spot? Sure. 

On Tarik and the WR balance if DPJ returns: It's a great problem to have. Good to see C. Johnson get in and play well as well. Mike Sainristil had a good game and you'll see some good things out of him. Ronnie - felt he got held coming out of the break - seen him make that catch otherwise.  The team played well. Two questions we're asking ourselves -  (1) When we're playing really well - is that going to be good enough to beat the best teams on our schedule?  (2) When we weren't playing well - is that good enough to beat those teams?  We have to be ready to make those improvements in sprint mode. All those opponents looked good in week one so we need to get to our best as fast as we can and be successful as quickly as we can. 

On playing service academies:  Been on our mind a long time, we've been preparing for it a long time. Going back to spring practice - it's been on our mind - creating extra time in practice to prep for them. It's a great challenge. Heck of a football team last year - 11-2 last year, big bowl win. Unique offensive style. We're excited to play the game.  They're 5-4 vs us all time, we'd like to even that up.

LeCheezus

September 3rd, 2019 at 10:01 AM ^

I'm convinced some reporter has a familial relationship with Cheeseman.  That is the second press conference in a row someone has asked a direct question about him.  Who asks about the long snapper unless they put one over the punter's head?

KungFury

September 3rd, 2019 at 10:19 AM ^

Cant speak for the last one but this one was probably warranted. They asked about him being named special teams player of the week. So his name wasnt pulled out of nowhere. And I could see them wondering what a long snapper shows to win that distinction. Ambry on defense was clear. And hayes as a freshman in his first start is pretty clear. 

Hail2UM83

September 3rd, 2019 at 10:19 AM ^

Although the score was not what I expected, I am not too unhappy with the outcome. I have no doubt the turnovers will get cleaned up. I love the possibilities with this offense, spread them out and play catch with all our receivers. Charbonnet is better than advertised and the defense will continue to grow and improve. The cliche of sometimes good teams win ugly should apply here. Nick Baumgardner said it in the title of his article the other day too, right now it's okay to try some things to see what will work going forward. This team will be really fun to watch this year.

1VaBlue1

September 3rd, 2019 at 10:20 AM ^

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather that whole "creating extra time in practice to prep for them" thing be directed towards OSU rather than <insert service academy here>.  I get it, you want the academies because of what they mean to America, and because those kids almost deserve a center stage somewhere, but it just sucks to play them!  There is no good PR-type outcome - a close win and a loss are the same thing, but a blowout is just bad in the eyes of the country...

In other news, my thoughts during the game are getting reinforced through all the post-game words:  Tru Wilson's days at the top end of the RB depth chart are numbered (and currently in the single digits).  As solid as he is, the lack of athleticism has caught up.  That said, in case of injury, the position is still in good hands whenever he's in...

 

Edited to say 'top end of the RB depth chart'...

1VaBlue1

September 3rd, 2019 at 10:20 AM ^

Doubled up for your viewing pleasure!

(The internet at my work is unhealthily slow, which just amazes me...  I mean, do they think we're going to work?)

Maize N' Ute

September 3rd, 2019 at 10:28 AM ^

"How did he assess Josh Gattis' playcalling:  Thought it was practically flawless. He was decisive in play-calling - thought it was clear, clean, concise game."

Yeah, I don't know about that.  Good coach talk though.  

The lack of "speed in space" was disappointing.  It seemed like everything was just long bombs rather than creating one on one matchups using the whole width of the field. For having the whole Spring Ball and Fall Camp to work on this offense and going against a potential top 25 defense, this offense looked wonky, confused, slow and very raw.  

The overall feeling was "Eh".

 

Watching From Afar

September 3rd, 2019 at 11:10 AM ^

The lack of "speed in space" was disappointing.  It seemed like everything was just long bombs

The "long bombs" got the 2 best players on the field in 1 on 1 match ups for TDs. I don't understand how that is ever a bad thing. Bell had 2 TDs go off his hands, 1 of which was wide open. McKeon had 2 seams, 1 of which went for a TD and the other was almost a 20+ yard gain if not for the DB raking the ball out.

Black had another 2 RPO slants, getting him the ball with clean 5 yard bubble. Almost took 1 to the house if not for an ankle tackle.

The only thing missing were drags or flare screens/flat routes.

They threw passes everywhere from 5 yard slants, to 20 yard seams, and 40 yard bombs. That's getting the ball to multiple levels of the defense, to multiple receivers while picking on CBs, Safeties, and LBs.

And it was MTSU. You really think they're going to throw the kitchen sink at MTSU when giving Collins a 1:1 jump ball suffices?

SMart WolveFan

September 3rd, 2019 at 11:19 AM ^

Eh?

Not sure why the offense had you feeling Canadian?

Remember "fans?", #speedinspace is a concept an offense uses against MORE talented teams. If you have better athletes you might as well just throw it to the wide open guy :)

What I liked was, unlike last year when we only had 11 td passes of +20 yds all year, in this game we had THREE in an 8 minute span to three different receivers!

BornInA2

September 3rd, 2019 at 11:40 AM ^

"this offense looked wonky, confused, slow and very raw."

 I agree. It certainly wasn't what i expected, much less what I hoped for, after spring and fall practice. I have coaching and system-change fatigue, particularly for the excuses that go along with them regarding failure to execute and sloppy play. And, wouldn't it have been nice to have a fullback drive for those plays where we failed to punch it in from the 1? Mason would have scored us points there instead of costing us points floundering around on the defensive line.

Sure they blitzed a lot. But isn't this offense supposed to be fast and responsive and able to exploit that kind of thing? And while it may be no-huddle, it certainly wasn't fast: We had many plays where the ball was snapped with less than five seconds on the clock.

The offense felt clunky and ineffective against a wildly overmatched team.

Watching From Afar

September 3rd, 2019 at 2:28 PM ^

And, wouldn't it have been nice to have a fullback drive for those plays where we failed to punch it in from the 1?

Not being able to punch it in from inside the 3 was an annoyance, and having an I back formation to sledgehammer defenses for the 1-3 yards needed at certain times would be nice (and seems simple enough to include). But they're going with a new system so 100% buy in is a different approach than trying to mix and match approaches. Moreover, the whole play was slightly off-timed. It wasn't a failure of play calling or the system so much as they were just out of rhythm and messed up the exchange/the left side of the OL didn't get push. They didn't have Runyan over there and instead a RS freshman former TE who actually played quite well given the circumstances.

Sure they blitzed a lot. But isn't this offense supposed to be fast and responsive and able to exploit that kind of thing?

What do you call the back to back RPOs to Black? One of which was an ankle tackle away from going to the house for a 45+ yard TD? That's a direct response to a blitz and puts LBs in conflict with their assignments. Similar for the Black TD which was a PA bomb to your #1A/B/C WR covered by a guy who stood no chance.

Patterson started 15-20 for 180 yards and 3 TDs! You're letting the early fumble and low energy late game stuff clout your opinion of the game.

The offense felt clunky and ineffective against a wildly overmatched team.

Was missing the starting LT, #1A/B WR, and had the other 2 top WRs also spend time on the bench with cramps/dings. Yes, they need to do better against better competition, but jesus you guys can't take 1 bad snap without throwing your hands up and proclaiming the whole thing a giant disaster. 

MichiganTeacher

September 3rd, 2019 at 10:38 AM ^

Don't know if this was after the game or in the Monday presser - but Henschke at 247 quotes Harbaugh as saying " A lot of the offense that we've been practicing, we ran. All facets of it."

I don't know if Harbaugh's bluffing or not. But I thought that was an interesting comment given that Millen said, and many including me were kind of hoping, that Michigan didn't open up much of the playbook on Saturday.

reshp1

September 3rd, 2019 at 10:57 AM ^

I took that to mean the plays they practiced this week. Like, a lot of times you put plays in the gameplan you don't end up using for whatever reason, but this game they ran most of it. It'd make no sense they ran the entire offense, since there are plays tailored to each team every week, not mention there just aren't enough snaps in a game to do that.

GOMBLOG

September 3rd, 2019 at 11:17 AM ^

UM always saves the good stuff for OSU.  There will be a few wrinkles but this is what we’ll see most of the year.  Things will open up when everyone is healthy, but this is the offense.  

After watching the replay of the game, Ruiz got Patterson killed a few times.   The inside of the line, the vets, seemed to struggle more than the freshman OTs. 

jakerblue

September 3rd, 2019 at 11:36 AM ^

all facets is very different than all plays. They attacked short, middle, and long. They had RPOs, zone reads, play action, more of that arc stuff from last year. So they hit all facets, but there are all kinds of counters and wrinkles to what they showed. I don't think those two comments necessarily clash.

zapata

September 3rd, 2019 at 12:09 PM ^

Millen also said they didn't run any RPO's and he was just dead wrong on that. They ran two in a row, throwing twice to Black right before the strike to Collins in the end zone. So, Millen is frequently wrong.

I felt they used a lot of stuff, don't know why the commentators were saying they didn't open the playbook.

reshp1

September 3rd, 2019 at 10:54 AM ^

I'm guessing either he's not including Haskins in the RB's pass pro at 100% number, or he's only grading on not missing assignments. He had at least one pretty bad ole block that lead to QB pressure.

 

ST3

September 3rd, 2019 at 11:42 AM ^

Shea has to recognize the blitz is coming and hit his hot receiver. There were two crossing routes on that play. The first one was open, but he was looking at the longer developing one. Haskins got in front of the rusher, slowed him down, and gave Shea time to hit the first guy. You can't go through all your processions when the rush is coming. That's one thing MTSU did better than us.

1VaBlue1

September 3rd, 2019 at 11:35 AM ^

Booo!!!  But yeah, that kinda makes sense.  If he's in a walking boot on Saturday, he's probably not going to be football ready in 7 days.  Once the boot is off, it'll take a week to work out the kinks.  Might as well save him for UW...