There's lot's of discussion right now regarding Michigan's offense. Conceptually, there's a lot to like and there are solid weapons all over the field. So why do things feel... off? A quick glance at game thread comments and I often see things like, "we're running the ball too much," or "we're running on first down every time." These are old critiques, neither one true of the current offense, but why do they still feel apropos? 

Thesis: Harbaugh still approaches offensive rhythm in terms of 3rd-and-short management. This, and not run/pass balance, is what will spell doom against Ohio in November unless something changes philosophically.

1. While Michigan is throwing more (and doing so on 1st down), we still do so with the antiquated approach of managing the offense into 2nd and short or 3rd and short scenarios. It is what we do in those scenarios (and to a lesser degree what we did on 1st down to get to those scenarios) that breaks offensive rhythm and momentum. Unlike Ohio's offense, which for years has ignored down and distance in favor of just getting to the end zone as quickly and efficiently as possible while threatening the entire field laterally and vertically on any given play, Harbaugh offenses still pay too much homage to down-and-distance with the occasional deep shot or trickeration thrown in. When we are throwing on 1st down--and we certainly are with regularity--it's generally WR screens, quick outs, or short Tight End passes. The issue is that these functionally work the same as 5-yard runs. Fine and good. Certainly keep those! BUT, it still plays into tendencies regarding what Michigan is trying to accomplish on early downs (i.e. get to 3rd and manageable). This does not and will not put the fear of god into crashing safeties. This approach inhibits offensive momentum and rhythm by wasting 2nd and short downs, for example, on low-yield plays geared toward merely picking up the 1st down. Recall instead the 2006 OSU/Michigan game, OSU had a 14 to 7 lead in the second quarter. They were driving down the field when they got to a 2nd and 1 at the Michigan 39-yard line. What would Schembechler, Harbaugh, or the game-management lackeys do in that situation? They would almost certainly run up the middle or QB sneak Troy Smith into a stacked box for short yardage. Name of the game: beat the other team off the ball, get the 1st down and live to see the drive continue. But what did Tressel do on 2nd short? Play-action fake with a deep shot to Ted Ginn Jr.

Touchdown! OSU 21-7

Rarely have I seen a Michigan offense treat 2nd and short as a free chance to stretch the field. Philosophically, Harbaugh offenses play not to end drives (a stepchild of playing "not to lose"), whereas OSU offenses play to score by keeping momentum/rhythm flowing at all costs! The difference in approach and mentality filters down to coaches and players. When you have a lead and your first down runs are popping for 10 or 12 yards at home like last year's THE GAME, this approach can work. But if you have to play from behind, the requisite switch of mentality into "score now" mode is not in place. Going back to that same 2006 game, Carr had Henne come out guns blazing, throwing all over the field. You can see Henne checking out of runs at the line on numerous occasions. End result: 42-39 shootout loss in Columbus (dagnab that Crable helmet-to-helmet call!). This shootout type of game is what we are headed for in November. Our defense looks set to bend but not break. Can our offense keep pace? (Ironically enough, Lloyd freaking Carr did this same "all bets off" approach against Urban Meyer, Tim Tebow, and Benedict Mattison in 2007. Henne was dealing).

2. We should run the ball (we're Michigan and we have Corum, after all), but when we run, we are running into too many stacked boxes (with crashing safeties). Gotta find a way to check out of those when you don't have the numbers. Harbaugh has never paid much heed to the numbers game in the box. Klatt may also be right that it is better to establish the run with the pass vs the other way around in this day and age (again, see what OSU and Day are doing this year). We pay too much homage to the game-management, wear-down-their-d-line approach instead of sowing question marks as to what we might do on any given down. Defenses are not forced to guess enough. 

3. Last year, Harbaugh would go for it on 4th and short around the fifty yard line (as all analytics suggest one do), but he's returned to punting in those situations (see above on variations of playing "not to lose")

4. In the post-game press conference against Indiana this week, Harbaugh mentioned a whole Michigan drive being "off-script," as if that was out of the norm somehow. He wasn't referring to a single broken play; he was talking about an entire drive. This made me wonder how many of Michigan's drives are pre-scripted? If Michigan isn't just game planning one or two scripted drives at the beginning of each half, but rather a whole game's worth of them, then I'm beginning to wonder if some of the odd play-calling or odd QB/RB mesh "decisions" are actually stemming from too much adherence to pre-planned drive charts and not to the natural flow and rhythm of the game as it plays out in real time. Harbaugh seemed impressed that Michigan's 98-yard "off script" drive went so well. Uhh... maybe try that some more?