bronxblue

July 7th, 2017 at 1:12 PM ^

This is always the problem with having to analyze a hundred teams - you rely on some broad metrics to understand non-glamorous positions such as offensive line.  So yeah, all three of those guys received either 1st- or 2nd-team recognition by the coaches or media, but they were also all undrafted and none was really expected to go save maybe a late-round flyer.  I don't blame him, because they weren't bad players by any means and they do need to be replaced by guys who, frankly, couldn't dislodge them last year.  But it was weird to see so much praise heaped on guys who were decidedly "fine" last year.

uofmchris

July 7th, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^

Keep in mind, even though the PSU game is earlier in the season than the Wisky and OSU game, the numbers suggest that Michigan could very likely be 6-0 heading into Happy Valley. That is nice momentum heading into that game. Penn St. has their bye week to prep for the Michigan game, but if you ask me, I'll take our momentum over their early bye week any day of the week.

A win at Jerry World could be the spark this team needs to get over the hump of losing close ''toss up'' games.

Can't wait!

5th Van Tyne

July 7th, 2017 at 11:02 AM ^

"That's where we are right now, fighting a losing battle against the spreadsheet people. Jim Hackett may be a nice guy and vast improvement on Brandon, sure. Not much has happened to indicate that he's anything but another spreadsheet person making the columns add up and importing what passes for creativity at other places."

 

Damn we were in such a low place three years ago. We had no idea Hackett was actually Michigan Jesus in disguise.

 

Perkis-Size Me

July 7th, 2017 at 11:41 AM ^

To hell with 2018. Let's go for it all this year. Simply put, there's never going to be a year where all the stars align perfectly for you in this game. 

In 2018, we travel to ND, MSU and OSU, and we lose Cole, Hurst, and McCray at a minimum. In 2019, we're likely going to lose Gary at a bare minimum, and who the hell else knows who might take off. There's going to be hurdles to overcome every year. Not saying there won't be growing pains with the freshmen, but no more "waiting until next year." The best programs don't say there's always next year. They say there's right now. 

I'd like to think Harbaugh would agree. 

 

AJDrain

July 7th, 2017 at 3:16 PM ^

We should absolutely try to win it all in 2017. Duh. Yes people are always going to leave, but we lost a lot last year and will lose very little going into 18, that's just a fact and thus we will probably (depending on how 17 goes) be ranked in top 5 or top 3 going into 18. It is right to look at 18 longingly. But it's also right to believe we can win it all this year, next year, and every year

bdneely4

July 7th, 2017 at 11:51 AM ^

is not filled with earth shattering info, but I think Bill is spot on with the analysis.  If we can catch a few breaks this year, we could exceed expectations with our young team.  I am a firm believer that we are not going to use the "wait until next year" meme with Harbaugh as our head coach and I believe he will prove it this year with another 10+ win season.

GO BLUE!

M-Dog

July 7th, 2017 at 11:58 AM ^

To all those IDIOTS that are saying things like "Harbaugh hasn't accomplished anything at Michigan, he hasn't beaten Ohio State, he hasn't won the Big Ten, he hasn't made the playoff, he's overrated." . . . drop what you are doing, click on the link, and read this section very closely:  

Harbaugh has done such a good job of raising the bar at Michigan that we’ve almost forgotten that thisthis, and this happened not even three years ago. He’s pulled off such a comprehensive turnaround that back-to-back 10-3 records feels ... disappointing?

Make sure you click on the thisthis, and this links and read every single word and watch every single second of the video.  

We'll wait.

Then come back here and tell us that Jim Harbaugh has not accomplished anything at Michigan.

 

Hotel Putingrad

July 7th, 2017 at 12:28 PM ^

or what he has managed to accomplish in 2 years. The issue for Michigan for a decade has been OL play, which must be a strength in order to overcome randomness like MSU in 15 and OSU last year. If we can finally get a running game going to take pressure off our QB and defense, we can win it all.

Ty Butterfield

July 7th, 2017 at 12:49 PM ^

Harbaugh has done fine and may be a victim of his own early success. Without Rudock I think the 2015 team would have struggled and have been lucky to win 7 games. 20 wins in two seasons is pretty impressive but it is easy to forget Hoke had 19 wins after his first two years. I think part of the issue is that in the end Michigan is basically right back where it was 10-11 years ago. A team that finds ways to lose games it should not (Iowa), and can't beat OSU.

sum1valiant

July 7th, 2017 at 2:22 PM ^

Do ypu think theres a chance in hell that this team goes 3-9 this year, as we did ten years ago? Do you think there's any realistic chance that this team will go 12-13 over the next two seasons (as Hoke did after his 19 wins that you mentioned)? If not, you can't say that the program is back to where it was ten years ago. This program is on an entirely different trajectory than it was ten years ago, I'm sorry that you missed the last couple of seasons, they were a lot of fun.

sum1valiant

July 7th, 2017 at 2:27 PM ^

Also, the Rudock comment is one of the most often used and asinine arguments in sports. Coaches play with the players they have, and recruit the ones they dont. Harbaugh recognized that he needed a Rudock to win, so he went and got him.

Don

July 7th, 2017 at 1:04 PM ^

It's instructive to compare what Harbaugh inherited to what Bo inherited.

The '68 team finished 8-2, second in the conference with the only loss to OSU, and was ranked #4 in the country going into the blowout loss to the Buckeyes. Along the way they beat #12 MSU by two touchdowns. The team had one All-American and 7 All-Conference members. There's a reason Bo always made clear that Bump left him a team with a lot of talent, and it's why he gave Bump the game ball in the locker room after the '69 upset of OSU.

The '14 squad finished a miserable 5-7, with two of those wins against App St and Miami OH. They got their asses handed to them by ND, MSU, and OSU, and the losses to Utah and Minnesota were not competitive. I was at the Utah game, and they looked as inept as anything I saw under RR. At no point in the season did Michigan look even mediocre. Michigan had no All-Americans and just one All-Conference member.

Harbaugh more than remedied that in his first season.

Sopwith

July 7th, 2017 at 4:55 PM ^

2008 just felt like a painful transition but we fully expected brighter days ahead as the system and personnel began to fit each other (and they did improve, just not fast or fully enough).

2014 felt like we were in freefall, plummeting toward an unknown bottom, playing uncompetitive ball against less talented teams. Rudderless, sinking, and hopeless.

SpikeFan2016

July 7th, 2017 at 12:32 PM ^

Great write up. 

 

His only logical flaw I can notice is his incorrect assumption that losing to Penn State in Happy Valley would relegate our role in The Game to "spoiling OSU's fun". 

 

This is objectively not true, unless:

  • After beating us, Penn State defeats Ohio State in Columbus, in which case OSU wouldn't be playing for Indy in The Game either. 
  • Michigan loses an additional Big Ten game. 

Could this final be the year where the three-way tiebreaker happens? Michigan loses in Happy Valley, Penn State loses in Columbus and Ohio State loses in Ann Arbor. Would definitely be interesting. 

It's the scenario we would've had last year had we not screwed up against Iowa (PSU lost in Ann Arbor, OSU lost in Happy Valley, Michigan lost in Columbus). 

 

It's bound to happen sometime. 

M-Dog

July 7th, 2017 at 12:36 PM ^

The three-way tie would not be too surprising.  I forget what the tie-berakers are after that.

If it's going to be a 3-way Big Ten East tie, I think 3 teams with 10-2 records are more likely than 3 teams with 11-1 records.  It's hard to see all 3 of us with just one Big Ten loss each.

NittanyFan

July 7th, 2017 at 1:03 PM ^

no joke .... the tie would be broken by a random draw.

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/archive/081011aaa.html

Now, I doubt this happens.  PSU will lose to Northwestern, or OSU will lose to Oklahoma, or something like that.  PSU's loss to Pittsburgh last year, of course, automatically removed them from winning a 3-way tie at 8-1, due to OOC record being up the tie-breaker list.

But the random draw is within the realm of the possible.  The conspiracy theories that some fans would invent in THAT scenario --- yikes.

SpikeFan2016

July 7th, 2017 at 1:15 PM ^

I disagree, and also a three way 7-2 tiebreaker would likely avoid the draw as it's more likely than not that if all three teams were at 7-2, at least one of the teams would have two losses to the other two. (We'd all have to lose exactly one game to another tied team and exactly one game to a lower East team or Big Ten West team). The tie also could be avoided if the teams had unequal number of losses to the West. 

DCGrad

July 7th, 2017 at 12:35 PM ^

How expectations change the perception of a 10-3 season so much. Back-to-back 10 win seasons is impressive especially reading those 2014 articles. Remember when Hoke apologized to MSU for the stake? He should have apologized to the Michigan fans for the 35-11 beating. I would be happy with another 10-3 season with wins over MSU and OSU. I expect a 12-0 regular season in 2018 and 2019.

bronxblue

July 7th, 2017 at 1:17 PM ^

Good preview.  I liked the point he made that this team is poised for 2018 and beyond.  And 9 wins feels solid; it's hard to see them going 3-1 or 4-0 against UF, Wisconsin, PSU, and OSU, and you have to assume this super-young team will have some brain farts.

I do wish he had talked a bit more about Speight, just because I think the numbers paint a better picture than people assume for him.  He was an efficient passer who could escape pressure, and had a big enough arm that the team could loosen up defenses.  If he can be that guy, then I think 2017 gets you 10+ wins an an "upset" of a team or two.  But if he struggles and they don't pull the trigger on a switch to Peters, for example, then they might struggle moving the ball vertically and that will cap the ceiling for this team.

M-Dog

July 7th, 2017 at 1:40 PM ^

He pretty much dismissed anything Speight did after he broke his collarbone:

It’s funny how your offense trails off when your quarterback breaks his collarbone.

  • First 9 games (9-0): Avg. score: UM 48, Opp 11 | Avg. percentile performance: 95% (~top 5) | Avg. yards per play: UM 6.7, Opp 4.2 (plus-2.5) | Michigan passer rating: 158.2
  • Last 4 games (1-3): Avg. score: UM 23, Opp 22 | Avg. percentile performance: 71% (~top 35) | Avg. yards per play: Opp 4.3, UM 3.7 (minus-0.6) | Michigan passer rating: 94.5

But I'm torn.  Yes Speight lit up poor competition.  But there were some hints of issues vs. better teams before he was injured . . . Wisconsin (1-11 on third downs, Yikes) and at Iowa before the injury.  

Does he think a healthy Speight would have meant wins vs. Iowa, OSU, and FSU?  He doesn't say that but he implies it.   

If Speight is the starter this year, we won't have to guess too long.  Our schedule is much more front-loaded with tough games on the road this year vs. FL and PSU.

 

uofmchris

July 7th, 2017 at 4:03 PM ^

I am 100% with you, but you know as well as I do, you can throw away everything when it comes to rivalry games - especially ones that are on the road.

 

Beating ND, MSU AND OSU on the road in one season probably has never been done before. I'd have to fact check that, but it is a daunting task regardless.

SpikeFan2016

July 7th, 2017 at 4:15 PM ^

Not only that, but we also draw both Wisconsin and Nebraska from the West, in addition to Penn State. Our third West draw is a road game against Northwestern, meaning we don't get to play either of the bottom tier West teams. 

 

The timing of some of those games is also difficult, particularly a three game in a row stretch of: vs. Wisconsin, @MSU, vs. Penn State. 

 

In 2017, we have 8 games with a win likelihood of about 85% of above, according to this article (Cincinatti, Air Force, @Purdue, vs. MSU, @Indiana, vs. Minnesota, vs. Rutgers, @Maryland). 

 

In 2018, we will likely have 7 games with LESS than an 85% chance of winning (@ND, vs. Nebraska, vs. Wisconsin, @MSU, @Northwestern, vs. Penn State, @Ohio State), as the number of "sure things" drops from 8 to 5.