2019 Michigan Season Thread

[Mdot21]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/2019/03/24/chris-evans-finds-himself-outside-looking/3261534002/

Chris Evans article. In 2 weeks he’ll find out if he can win his appeal and come back in May. If not- he won’t be back until January of 2020. Sounds like Harbaugh is being as supportive as possible.

Hopefully he’ll be back in May. Knock on wood.

Chabornnet & Evans could be a really nice thunder and lightening duo. 

[Mdot21]

watching some of the video from one of the open spring practices, had 5 quick thoughts...

1) Shea Patterson and Joe Milton look like the best pure talents at QB. Patterson looks the most refined with the best mechanics and quickest release of all these QB's. Milton's release is lighting quick and the velocity/power he generates is absurd. McCaffrey and McNamara both look just kinda meh. Both have long, slow releases and the ball just doesn't shoot out of their hands the way it does with Patterson or Milton. McCaffrey's arm is just OK, and McNamara's arm looks kinda weak. Not buying all this McCaffrey might start hype. At all. Patterson is clearly the best QB on that team and the clear cut starter. As for Milton- that kid is a physical specimen. Not sure he'll ever reach his full potential, I always question whether or not you can really improve accuracy as a QB, but man holy shit is he physically gifted. Don't think it's an understatement to say he's Cam Newton-esque. He is absolutely massive at 6'5, 250+ with a howitzer of an arm.

2) Kwity Paye, Luiji Villain, and Aidan Hutchinson all look the part. That is exactly how you want defensive ends to look physically/athletically. Those guys look like future NFL players. Not quite Rashan Gary level specimen- very few are that level- but those guys aren't too far behind. And as good as Chase Winovich was as a player- he didn't look like any of these guys. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the productive player with the great motor every day over someone that looks the part but doesn't produce. All I'm saying- those 3 guys look like NFL draft pick defensive linemen. Josh Uche is up to 253 lbs and is a swiss army knife DE/OLB/Viper pass rush specialist, and Grad Transfer Mike Danna arrives in the fall. Those 5 guys should be a pretty good DE rotation with lots of production.

3) Ambry Thomas and Vincent Gray look the part at CB. I was really impressed with Gray's length and height and stickiness for a kid that size. Thomas is just a freak athlete. I think he's primed for a breakout season. Once LaVert Hill comes back, I don't think that CB room will miss a beat at all.

4) Jalen Mayfield should be the guy at RT. He looks physically ready now after redshirting and adding 20+ pounds. And he's much lighter on his feet than Andrew Steuber. It's just practice so you don't really know, but all the scuttlebutt has been those two have been neck and neck, and to me, if it's that close- you go with the younger guy with the bigger upside. And that's Mayfield.

5) True frosh WR Mike Sainristil looks great. Like really, really good. Surprised at how good actually. WR was already a position with an embarrassment of riches, and because DPJ and Nico Collins have both been out, Sainstril has gotten a lot of reps this spring. He's very shifty and quick in space, brings a dimension the bigger WR's really don't have. Sounds like he's going to play as a true frosh. Which is saying a lot about him because they have to get the ball to DPJ, Nico, Tarik Black, Ronnie Bell, and Oliver Martin.

Extra thought: RB position sucks. It's as bad as I've seen in years. They need to get Charbonnet healthy ASAP and get him going because he's the only RB on that roster with any real talent. And they better hope and pray Chris Evans wins his appeal as well. I really cannot believe how badly they recruited that position.

[Anonymous Coward]

McCaffery is actually my favorite QB on the depth chart. That doesn't mean I want him to start this year (no one should ever pass a returning starter who went 22-7 on TD-INT at 65%, including almost 500 rushing yards at 7.7YPC), but I do think he has a chance to be the best we've had at Michigan since Henson ... when he starts in 2020.

I also like that Dylan actually had meaningful game experience and already proved himself as unflappable down on the road versus ND. Rare leader / consistency / big game trait. I still remember prefering him to Shea after that game. Of course, then Shea put together a great season. But still DM made an impression on me early.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Stueber got starter reps over Mayfield. Could just be a motivational ploy, but when that happened with Runyan in the past, it proved to be predictive of the starter. When was the last time Harbaugh faked us out with spring OL starters?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't get to watch, but from reading it seems the offense is very different structurally. The I-formation is gone. They've gone more spread. Two-back sets were almost nonexistent, and for the few examples they were in split-backs formation. Sounds like 3WR formations ruled the day. There were some 2TE sets, but even those were not very Harbaugh-like as the TEs were both out wide. 

[847badgerfan]

So, no spring "game" in Ann Arbor, after all. Maybe Paul Chryst really is a trend-setter. 





https://gbmwolverine.com/2019/04/08/michigan-football-spring-game-details-wolverines-disappointing/

[bayareabadger]

I didn't get to watch, but from reading it seems the offense is very different structurally. The I-formation is gone. They've gone more spread. Two-back sets were almost nonexistent, and for the few examples they were in split-backs formation. Sounds like 3WR formations ruled the day. There were some 2TE sets, but even those were not very Harbaugh-like as the TEs were both out wide.

Wow, they've got an offense that looks like lots of offenses. That’s ... something I guess. 

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, they've got an offense that looks like lots of offenses. That’s ... something I guess.

Why the snark? This counts as news. The offense may be ordinary, it could even suck, but the fact that it is different now joins accumulating evidence that it will also be different in the fall. And ever since the Gattis hire that's remained an open question. 

Chipping away at enduring questions doesn't do it for you?

[bayareabadger]

Why the snark? This counts as news. The offense may be ordinary, it could even suck, but the fact that it is different now joins accumulating evidence that it will also be different in the fall. And ever since the Gattis hire that's remained an open question.

Chipping away at enduring questions doesn't do it for you?

It's hitting a small hobby horse of mine. Namely this:
Offenses can be judged on several sorts of axis I'll call them. Pro-style to spread, run-heavy to pass heavy, good to bad. There's predictable to unpredictable, but when push comes to shove, the people doing the predicting (defensive coaches) operate on a different level than most of us. 
And we, when push comes to shove care about one axis. Good to bad. But we often substitute any of the other axises for that one. The offense would be good if only it were more spread/wide-open/unpredictable. And we mix those words up. A bad offense must be predictable, or rely too much on two-back or whatnot. All the fanebases of all the bad offenses ask for the same thing (unless you root for a bad team Mike Leach actually coaches)
Difference in scheme doesn't equal difference in quality. 
Last year's Michigan offense was stupid diverse. It ran all sorts of 3-WR stuff. Ran a good amount of empty with a mobile QB. And split out TEs a good bit. It was pretty whizzy-gig in an era when most everyone runs similar stuff. BUT that QB was only so-so with accuracy, the WRs were pretty good but not loaded with killers, the tailback wasn't THAT great and the line wasn't that good. 

And because that offense was good not great and ran some I-form/singleback (even if singleback was hugely for play-action), it's treated like Lloyd Carr's 1998 offense. Running less two-back and more 3-WR, this doesn't matter unless you actually play football better. And you could play good football with a power playbook. (Last year, the offense might've been a bit too diverse, which is another story)

Technique, talent, execution and little things matter worlds more than the broad strokes of scheme. It's news, yes, but it doesn't say that much about the good to bad axis. It's a stand-in for hope. It just is. The "we're opening up the offense" is the counterpart to "the more aggressive defense."

The offense might well be better, but it won't be because their offense looks more like half of the MAC. It'll be because Patterson is better and the ground game is blocked and run better. Maybe it'll be all sorts of cooler, but if its cooler and unsuccessful, we'll be talking about Harbaugh and conservatism, and if it's the same scheme as this year and kills, Gattis will have opened it up. 

[Anonymous Coward]

We've had that conversation - recently even. I liked your take and thought I had assimilated it. This time my claim was different. For however cyclic and dull, I went no further than concluding the thing you can interpret about the newness on offense is that there actually is a new offense. No value judgement or prediction on the good/bad continuuum. Just acknowledging it's different in ownership and structure. Despite the dullness that's newsworthy because it runs counter to many predictions, for example that Harbaugh wouldn't "hand over the keys" or permit a no huddle offense.

As for an actual value judgment: the QB, I'm surprised to see you describe Patterson as meh-accurate. 65%, 22-7 (td-int) seemed peachy to me.

[bayareabadger]

We've had that conversation - recently even. I liked your take and thought I had assimilated it. This time my claim was different. For however cyclic and dull, I went no further than concluding the thing you can interpret about the newness on offense is that there actually is a new offense. No value judgement or prediction on the good/bad continuuum. Just acknowledging it's different in ownership and structure. Despite the dullness that's newsworthy because it runs counter to many predictions, for example that Harbaugh wouldn't "hand over the keys" or permit a no huddle offense.

As for an actual value judgment: the QB, I'm surprised to see you describe Patterson as meh-accurate. 65%, 22-7 (td-int) seemed peachy to me.

That’s fair. My knee just jerks hard at it. Maybe a bit over the top. I mean, his offense has always been interesting in its way. 
I’ll be interested to see what happens. If it’s different and how people react. It was most different last year, but Mich is in a tough spot where good isn’t good enough. 
I mentioned the accuracy thing becuase I went back and watched parts of the OSU and UF film and found some missed chances with very open receivers. I’ve not delved deep into the numbers, but Mich was a good ball-moving offense, slightly above average big play offense. 
Now that might be peachy, top-25 or so production. But if it is, and the defense is very good as it has been, we’re basically saying the run game taking a massive jump is what’s going to have to happen to get a Mich program that’s already very good to be elite. 

[MrNubbz]

Difference in scheme doesn't equal difference in quality.

Amen,fundamentals,mechanics,talent always factor in - the more things change the more they remain the same

[betarhoalphadelta]

Last year's Michigan offense was stupid diverse.
<snip>
(Last year, the offense might've been a bit too diverse, which is another story)

Technique, talent, execution and little things matter worlds more than the broad strokes of scheme. It's news, yes, but it doesn't say that much about the good to bad axis. It's a stand-in for hope. It just is. The "we're opening up the offense" is the counterpart to "the more aggressive defense."

I think this is an under-appreciated issue in the college ranks.
If Michigan's offense was too diverse for a bunch of student-athletes who have limited amounts of time to devote to actually practicing their scheme to execute it well, then the offense goes from "Good" to "Bad" on that axis VERY quickly. 
At the NFL level, I think scheme is more important. You have professionals who have the time to practice and learn to execute the entire playbook, so every player knows their responsibility on every snap. You have more reps. 
That's just not the case in college. Sometimes making the offense simpler makes it better, just because the players are able to execute. 

[Mdot21]

I think this is an under-appreciated issue in the college ranks.
If Michigan's offense was too diverse for a bunch of student-athletes who have limited amounts of time to devote to actually practicing their scheme to execute it well, then the offense goes from "Good" to "Bad" on that axis VERY quickly.
At the NFL level, I think scheme is more important. You have professionals who have the time to practice and learn to execute the entire playbook, so every player knows their responsibility on every snap. You have more reps.
That's just not the case in college. Sometimes making the offense simpler makes it better, just because the players are able to execute.

agree 100%.
Tempo and not necessarily simplicity- but not trying to do too much matters a hell of a lot in college. Look at Oregon under Chip Kelly. That was an offensive machine and they went fast and didn't try to do too much.
Harbaugh/Pep tried to do way too much crap the last few years. I think Mark Dantonio said after one of the MSU games a couple years back that Michigan ran 41 different formations that game. Like, C'MON man. These are college kids, not pros.