So, U of M fans; anything seen in Game #2, that you think would have changed the result of the ND game?
I guess I start and end with the obvious - that the (disastrous) first two ND drives are outliers against the M defense this year (and for the last few years). In a way it may also have been an outlier performance for Wimbush.
Especially the success ND had through the air. Those drives relied on pin perfect passes into great coverage. For example, on the first TD, the defender (Hawkins) in best position actually had the ball all to himself with two hands for an INT but upon contact with the ground, he didn't just lose it, he lost it in juuuust the right way to gently hand it to the undersized WR behind him.
So I guess I doubt the replicability of ND's offensive success. Of course, sometimes the offense wins, the end, but the game started uncharacteristically for both sides, and that seems rare, and least likely to repeat.
Possible caveats: Someone could argue that ND packed things in after their second drive. That's pretty early to believe but I can at least say "maybe". Though even that doesn't address the weirdness of those drives.
Irrelevant Elsewhere: I mean it's too early to have learned much about the Michigan offense. I suppose there is some opponent-invariant good news: in both games, Shea has been what we thought he was, which is a good thing. And the WRs have really improved from last year. This is not a comment that would change the outcome of the first game in a rematch, though.
More relevant but still irrelevant: the coaches seem close to switching out both tackles. Runyon and JBB were absolutely better versus WMU but not by enough to keep their jobs, I'd say. After all, they are what they are - insufficient players at the end of their road. My guess is that Hudson and Mayfield begin with similar or even worse results but (1) CAN improve because they are at the beginning of their road and (2) do so reasonably quickly.
