Michigan is 23-0 under Jim Harbaugh when it rushes for 100+ yards, 1-6 when it doesn't

Submitted by Maizen on

The 7 games they didn't reach 100 yards rushing are as follows:

2015

Utah: 76

MSU: 62

PSU: 87

OSU: 57

2016

Iowa: 98

OSU: 91

FSU: 89

Formula for winning seems pretty simple. Going forward does Michigan abandon insize zone and/or move Cole back to center if getting the proper line call is an issue as Brian surmises because the OL has been an abject disaster this year. And it's not just the OL, RB's and passing game has been subpar all year. Offense looks like a hodge podge of ideas with no identity.

SysMark

October 2nd, 2017 at 1:49 PM ^

The maddening thing about these statistics, and you hear them every week, is they don't distinguish between cause and effect.  If you're winning you run a lot..if you're losing you pass.  Running for 100 yds doesn't necessarily cause you to win...it's at least equally likely to be the result of winning.

Not trying to be negative, just my take.

bklein09

October 2nd, 2017 at 1:59 PM ^

I get your point, but take a look at those 7 games. Michigan was almost never down by enough points to alter their game plan in order to make a comeback. Ohio State in 2015 is the only one where that may apply. The rest of them were close games where we just couldn’t run the ball when necessary. Oh except PSU in 2015. That was blowout right?

maquih

October 2nd, 2017 at 2:51 PM ^

Not sure what's maddening about that, that's how pretty much all statistics work.  Nobody said there has to be a cause and effect there, the statistics is just a statistic, and then it's up to us to ascribe deeper  meaning to it, if we want.

MichiganG

October 2nd, 2017 at 4:53 PM ^

I'd argue there's an even more important cause and effect element than simply 'winning = run' and 'losing = pass'.  The other aspect of cause and effect is that you're more likely to rush for 100 yards against teams with bad defense and less likely to rush for 100 yards against very good teams.

In essence, this may as well say: Michigan wins more against inferior opponents; loses more against better opponents.

Now, if the OP were to assess whether Michigan/Harbaugh is more or less dependent on 100-yard rushing games than other teams in similar situations, and if that showed a significant difference then we would be on to something interesting.

Bambi

October 2nd, 2017 at 1:49 PM ^

Moving Cole to center solves nothing IMO. Kugler despite missing calls is a good blocker at least. If Cole goes to C, who plays LT? We can't even find an RT. Pass pro would somehow get worse. Also that 100 yard line is pretty arbitrary. We hit 98 vs Iowa last year. Does 2 extra yards win us that game? Probably not. The difference between 90-100 yards isn't what matters, it's how many carries it takes us to get there. Because all this shows me is it's hard to run against good teams, we all knew that.

Bambi

October 2nd, 2017 at 1:58 PM ^

That only works if you say I can put those 2 rushing yards wherever we want. If that's the case give me any close Michigan loss in the past 10 years and I can add 2 rush yards to give us the win. On average, if we play that game the exact same way 100 times with 100 rush yards vs 100 times with 98, how many more does the 100 win? Considering most of the time those two extra rush yards will just have made a 3rd and 8 a 3rd and 6, or a 4 yard first down run from our own 25 a 6 yard first down run, not many.

MichiganiaMan

October 2nd, 2017 at 3:04 PM ^

.. in proper context. I can't recall a single game where we just stopped trying to run because it wasn't working or we needed to pass to catch up. I love Jim, but he's damn stubborn about power running. He long ago decided that he will live by it and die by it, so when we don't hit 100 on the ground it's absolutely not the case that the rushing attempts weren't there to accomplish it.

JonnyHintz

October 2nd, 2017 at 5:17 PM ^

Idk, look at the drive chart. Was there a 3rd and 2 on Michigan's final drive against Iowa? A first down and Michigan can run out the rest of the clock. That two yards would be pretty critical then.

JonnyHintz

October 4th, 2017 at 2:28 PM ^

Just pointing out the fact that you’re completely off base in your analysis. We weren’t losing the Iowa or 2016 OSU game. And we weren’t out of the other games (except 2015 OSU) so we didn’t abandon the run. 2015: Utah: 29 carries 2.7 ypc (M down 7 at half, 16 second half carries) PSU: 30 carries 2.9 ypc MSU: 33 carries 1.9 ypc (M led late, running game could have put it away) OSU: 25 carries 2.3 ypc (M down 11 at half, 9 second half carries) 2016: Iowa: 35 carries 2.8 ypc (M led until Iowa fg as time expired) OSU: 43 carries 2.1 ypc (M led all game until OSU late fg goes it) FSU: 36 carries 2.5 ypc (M down 14 at half, 21 second half carries) So your theory doesn’t hold any weight whatsoever. In games Michigan was down, they continued to run. The running game was simply ineffective in each of the games they failed to reach 100 yards

xcrunner1617

October 2nd, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^

I don't know how you can say the team has no identity? I think it's pretty clear what Harbaugh wants to run on offense. Just because they haven't been good at it doesn't mean the coaches lack a cohesive offensive identity.

Maizen

October 2nd, 2017 at 1:57 PM ^

Actually it's not clear. Are we an inside zone team? If so why isn't outside zone run as a constraint? Our west coast style passing game seem to complement a gap blocking scheme better but we hardly do that anymore. It's year 3 and we aren't any more apt at running one scheme than we are another. Do we have too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak with Pep, Turner, Drevno, Frey, Harbaugh? Michigan is 119th in TFL allowed this year, that's some Hoke type shit.

ken725

October 2nd, 2017 at 2:03 PM ^

I'm not sure if Cole moving back to C is the answer. Isaiah Hole on the Wolverine247 podcast made a point that the coaches made changes to the OL last year during the bye week. I think that is when we saw the pairing of Braden and Bredeson on the left side of the line. 

The spot that needs the most help right now is RT. One guess is Bredeson moves to RT and Runyan slots in at LG. Another move might be Bredeson to RT and move Onwenu to LG and slot Runyan in at RG.