Author
Topic: #11 Michigan (0-1, 2-1) at #13 Wisconsin (1-0, 3-0) - Post Game
(Read 23419 times)

847badgerfan · « **Reply #42 on:** September 10, 2019, 05:02:21 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on September 10, 2019, 04:03:59 PM

I can't remember a season when Michigan wasn't more talented than Wisconsin. But I do remember three Wisconsin Big Ten Championships this decade, and five appearances in the conference Championship game. I concede that I'm feeling like the next conference championship is a little overdue.

Oh, and I remember that Chryst was hired the same year as Harbaugh (2015), and has a better winning percentage overall and in the Big Ten. And I remember that Chryst and Harbaugh each coached their teams to a single major bowl game since 2015, each appearing in the Orange Bowl, which Wisconsin won, but Michigan lost.

Alas, I also remember that Chryst's Badgers are 1-3 vs. Harbaugh's Michigan. That bugs me. And I hope it improves on the 20th.

M also had a Peach, and lost. UW also had a Cotton, and won.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #43 on:** September 10, 2019, 06:11:16 PM »

I mean, sure, and Wisconsin is 4-0 in bowls under Chryst, while Michigan is 1-3 under Harbaugh, but since the Orange Bowl is the only truly major bowl either has been in (Cotton and Citrus/Capital One are probably about on par, but a step down from the big four--much to the Cotton's chagrin), and arguing the merits of the Holiday vs. the Outback seems silly, I figured I'd just stick to the major bowl category. :-)

And MDot, a Big Ten Championship is a Big Ten Championship. Wisconsin has three of those this decade. Michigan? Zero. ;-)

Seriously, I don't at all doubt that Michigan always has more talent than Wisconsin. That's why it's such a big deal that Michigan's results don't appear to be any better than the Badgers', and in several ways are worse.

And none of that means Wisconsin will win in week 4, but man, I sure hope it does.

MrNubbz · « **Reply #44 on:** September 10, 2019, 06:34:32 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on September 10, 2019, 04:03:59 PM

I also remember that Chryst's Badgers are 1-3 vs. Harbaugh's Michigan. That bugs me. And I hope it improves on the 20th.

Gonna have to wait for the 21st

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #45 on:** September 10, 2019, 06:53:15 PM »

Quote from: Mdot21 on September 10, 2019, 12:42:40 PM

Lolwut?

Michigan’s receivers are the best in the conference pal. I think you need to watch more closely.

Nico and Tarik were wide open deep first couple games this year. Pretty much all game long. Shea missed both of them a lot. Even the long TD he hit to Tarik last week the ball was late af and Tarik had to come back to the ball. Ronnie Bell was wide open last week deep by 4 yards and Shea sailed the ball. Throw that one in stride that 6. That same game Nico was WIDE open in the back of the end zone by 3 yards and what does Shea Patterson do- throws the ball out of the back of the end zone into the stands. These WRs don’t suck. Their QB sucks right now.

You are way off here bud. Tarik Black, Nico Collins, and DPJ are all NFL draft picks at WR.

Eeesh. That's a lot of kool aid you've been drinking. I agree that this is perhaps the best WR unit Michigan has fielded since Braylon Edwards. Then again, Michigan hasn't had good wide receivers in awhile. I get the excitement, but I hear how amazing the Michigan receivers are every year, and every year they are thoroughly average.

As of this moment, Michigan ranks 10th in the B1G in average yards per catch. They rank 10th in TDs. They rank 10th in YPG, and they rank 8th in overall receptions. They rank 11th in yards per attempt.

Eh. I could be wrong. Maybe it is the QB again. Speight sucked, O'Korn sucked, Brandon Peters sucked... Patterson sucks now...

What about when Patterson was good last year?

Michigan was 8th in the league in receptions, 4th in the league in Percentage, 9th in yards per game. 5th in average reception yards.

Wide receivers in the NFL:

Ohio State has 7
Penn State has 4
Maryland has 2
Michigan State has 2
Illinois has 2
Purdue has 1
Rutgers has 1
Nebraska has 1
Northwestern has 1
Wisconsin has 1
Indiana has 1
Michigan has 1
Iowa 0
Minnesota 0

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #46 on:** September 10, 2019, 07:14:17 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on September 10, 2019, 02:34:39 PM

I don't see it, but if Michigan is truly that talented, across the board, then coaching is failing them.

I don't see it either. Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan all have about the same number of players in the NFL. That's probably a better indicator than anything.

I think we can probably blame the recruiting star system. Michigan and Penn State rosters look like they are full of 4 and 5 star players, but talent wise there isn't much difference between UM and Wisconsin, or PSU and Iowa.

UM fans have high expectations because they have the 3rd highest blue chip ratio in the B1G. In reality, it's pretty obvious that if a recruit chooses a helmet school they get a recruiting star boost.

Finally, talent can only do so much. A kid can have a bad (or good) day and swing the entire outcome of a game. How else would any school have a shot at beating OSU, anyway? haha

bayareabadger · « **Reply #47 on:** September 10, 2019, 10:30:57 PM »

Quote from: Temp430 on September 10, 2019, 01:38:58 PM

The fumbles, penalties, and missed assignments by Michigan’s offense are real. But the “turtle” play calling may have been intended to protect Patterson and give the D some rest. There may be some sandbagging going on too. I’m sure they had no intension of doing the full Monty against Army for Chryst.

This idea remains one of profound hope.

Each early season, some teams see bad offense and say "no, this is because we're trying to not be good just yet." It is most often not reflected in reality.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #48 on:** September 11, 2019, 12:33:42 AM »

Quote from: bayareabadger on September 10, 2019, 10:30:57 PM

This idea remains one of profound hope.

Each early season, some teams see bad offense and say "no, this is because we're trying to not be good just yet." It is most often not reflected in reality.

You talked about this a lot in the preseason, and I nodded my head in agreement. But isn't there a call for distinction here?

As I understand your point, it generally regards a healthy team whose base package fails to meet expectations. In those situations, the failure probably isn't "because we're saving the good stuff for later."

Yet that's not really what we're talking about when we consider how an offense will evolve as a key player(s) gets healthy.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #49 on:** September 11, 2019, 12:37:26 AM »

Quote from: Big Beef Tacosupreme on September 10, 2019, 07:14:17 PM

UM fans have high expectations because they have the 3rd highest blue chip ratio in the B1G.

I don't believe that rank is correct. I believe they are presently tied at #2 with PSU in BCR and are set to retake #2 alone next year when the anomalous 2015 transition class leaves BCR consideration.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #50 on:** September 11, 2019, 01:12:07 AM »

Quote from: Big Beef Tacosupreme on September 10, 2019, 06:53:15 PM

What about when Patterson was good last year?

Michigan was 8th in the league in receptions, 4th in the league in Percentage, 9th in yards per game. 5th in average reception yards.

[For clarity, were those Big Ten-only numbers (somewhat SOS-adjusted) or were they BigTen+OOC?]

You make a fair point. Still, I'd argue that "counting stats" for passing are somewhat underwhelming here because, in 2018, Michigan was run heavy by identity (and the offense was mainly built as a ball control unit to play off the defense which was #1 nationally until ... the last two games). Counting stats would similarly underwhelm if we were to judge the run games of Big XII air-raid teams by comparing their total rushing yards to 2018 Illinois (second best in the Big Ten in rush yards per game). In both comparisons, counting stats ignore efficiency and the ability to succeed when it counts.

The first sign of that, in the statistics you posted, is how Michigan's receptions and total yards numbers cluster so far below the cluster of comp% and "average reception yards" (though I'm not sure what you mean by that -- is it avg rec yards per game? per attempt? per reception?).

Now: Your intuition is somewhat fair. I'm just acknowledging the confounding variable: that we'd expect Michigan's offensive identity in 2018 to largely explain its (passing) counting stats on its own.

Now if you were to look at that and argue: well, then why are blue-chip WRs even signing with Michigan? Well now you've asked an interesting question. Of course, until nabbing DPJ, Nico, Black, and Oliver Martin in one class, top flight WRs really hadn't picked Michigan. Not appreciably, at least, since Mario Manningham and Adrian Arrington followed Breaston/Edwards/Avant.

In sum, whereas I disagree that the counting stats are a useful way to judge these receivers, I agree that the evidence to claim that DPJ, Black and Collins are *certainly* the best in the conference is necessarily weak.

I'd also make a different point, that for Michigan, receivers this good are a "use 'em or lose 'em" proposition. Use them, or access to the guys I mentioned plus Cornelius Johnson will dry up. Top end WR's are probably the singularly least durable aspect of Michigan's recruiting prowess.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #51 on:** September 11, 2019, 02:44:44 AM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on September 10, 2019, 06:11:16 PM

Seriously, I don't at all doubt that Michigan always has more talent than Wisconsin. That's why it's such a big deal that Michigan's results don't appear to be any better than the Badgers', and in several ways are worse.

I'd say that, for the Chryst and Harbaugh years (2015 to 2018), Michigan made a large jump from the dumpster (2008 to 2014) and surpassed Wisconsin as a program. Whether that change will last is more open to debate than whether the change happened in the first place. To an extent, the next game, but mostly the upcoming years will let us know whether or not they change back.
Anyway, because it'll be debated anyway, let's address the thing I said about Michigan surpassing UW (defined as Michigan having the better 4 years). Wisconsin plays in a significantly easier division, so it makes sense to look at things like efficiency stats and Harbaugh's and Chryst's performance versus all common opponents.

S&P+ (overall team score, national rank):

(advantage Harbaugh)

Head to head:

Harbaugh 2, Chryst 1 (advantage Harbaugh)

Versus the East, excluding H2H:

Harbaugh 17-7 (0.708), Chryst 6-4 (0.600) (advantage Harbaugh)

Versus the West, excluding H2H:

Harbaugh 6-1 (0.857), Chryst 20-4 (0.833) (advantage Harbaugh)

Common Big Ten opponents:
Versus Illinois:

Harbaugh 1-0 (1.000), Chryst 4-0 (1.000) (neither's advantage)

Versus Indiana:

Harbaugh 4-0 (1.000), Chryst 1-0 (1.000) (neither's advantage)

Versus Iowa:

Harbaugh 0-1 (0.000), Chryst 3-1 (0.750) (advantage Chryst)

Versus Maryland:

Harbaugh 4-0 (1.000), Chryst 2-0 (1.000) (neither's advantage)

Versus Michigan State:

Harbaugh 2-2 (0.500), Chryst 1-0 (1.000) (advantage Chryst)

Versus Minnesota:

Harbaugh 2-0 (1.000), Chryst 3-1 (0.750) (advantage Harbaugh)

Versus Nebraska:

Harbaugh 1-0 (1.000), Chryst 4-0 (1.000) (neither's advantage)

Versus Northwestern:

Harbaugh 2-0 (1.000), Chryst 2-2 (0.500) (advantage Harbaugh)

Versus Ohio State:

Harbaugh 0-4 (0.000), Chryst 0-2 (0.000) (neither's advantage)

Versus Penn State:

Harbaugh 3-1 (0.750), Chryst 0-2 (0.000) (advantage Harbaugh)

Versus Purdue:

Harbaugh 1-0 (1.000), Chryst 4-0 (1.000) (neither's advantage)

Versus Rutger:

Harbaugh 4-0 (1.000), Chryst 2-0 (1.000) (neither's advantage)

Common OOC opponents:
Michigan and Wisconsin did have BYU in common (advantage Harbaugh)

[An admission about using common opponents. Aggregating 2015-2018 means that these common opponents are sometimes shared on different years. Nevertheless, that just means it falls short of perfect. It's still a reasonable way to compare asymmetric schedule strength]

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #52 on:** September 11, 2019, 03:01:37 AM »

Quote from: MaximumSam on September 10, 2019, 01:16:35 PM

BTW, this by Gattis struck me as misguided.

"“He’s been banged up the past two weeks with oblique,” Gattis said. “Something that he’s struggled with since the first week of Middle Tennessee. That had no effect – I hope it had no effect on his decision-making from that standpoint. Like I said, every read run from the quarterback standpoint isn’t always going to be declared a pull. It’s numbers, angles, how tight is the defender, how wide is the defender? Is it too off the backside edge? There’s a lot of things that go into play there."

I dunno, that seems awfully complicated for a read the QB is supposed to make in a fraction of a second.

If true, I agree. But to me it comes off as standard covering for a QB getting bad press.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #53 on:** September 11, 2019, 03:13:11 AM »

Quote from: Temp430 on September 10, 2019, 07:13:52 AM

The Sept. 9th update and first paragraph of the article you link to:

UPDATE 1:30pm Sept. 9

I've heard from a pair of impeccable sources that believe most of Michigan's issues Saturday stemmed not from play-calling but from poor execution from its quarterback, Patterson being "rattled" and the coaches feeling frustrated by a 180 reversal in how the game plan was executed in practice and then how it was not in the game.

So, it's not Harbaugh yanking Gattis' chain.

This is a vague post ("impeccable sources" is a bit squirrelly), but I agree with the sentiment. The problem, as I see it, is that we don't know whether Shea can get healthy fast, let alone his level of play once healed. That is our biggest unknown. Dwumfour and Runyan are concern-1B. DPJ is the concern after that.
There's still time for it to all come together. They haven't lost yet. But the first alarms have already lit, and time is running out.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #54 on:** September 11, 2019, 07:57:23 AM »

MrNubbz · « **Reply #55 on:** September 11, 2019, 08:19:11 AM »

Don't get mad,get even

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: #11 Michigan (0-1, 2-1) at #13 Wisconsin (1-0, 3-0) - Post Game

847badgerfan

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

SFBadger96

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

MrNubbz

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

bayareabadger

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

Anonymous Coward

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

Anonymous Coward

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

Anonymous Coward

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

Anonymous Coward

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

Anonymous Coward

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

Anonymous Coward

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

847badgerfan

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21

MrNubbz

Re: #10 Michigan (2-0, 0-0) @ #14 Wisconsin (2-0, 0-0) - 2019/09/21