What Did We Learn? - Michigan

[Toe]

Finally getting back to this. This was a frustrating game to watch because it played out pretty much how I expected after the Cincinnati game. (Please, guys, tell me again how I was reading too much into the obvious problems we showed in that game! )

Underwood is clearly overrated, but the difference is that he has better talent around him (especially the line) and a more balanced offense overall. We can't run worth crap, so we're stuck with the 'short passes that function as an extension of the running game' approach. We seem to do that reasonably well, but it only gets you so far, especially in the red zone and in 'inches to go' situations. One area that was actually worse than I expected was pass protection. I wasn't expecting perfection, but yeesh. Thankfully we shouldn't face too many more D-lines that good this season.

As for the defense... aside from three busted running plays, they pretty were great! But those three busted running plays all went for touchdowns, so...

3 years and OL still plays soft and sh!tty like the My Pillow (not politics, I just think they are horrible).

*4 years

-EJ is pretty damn good

3.4 yards per carry - what a stud!

EJ got a grand total of five carries in the second half. For a whopping 10 yards.

Like I said, OL was bad but the OC wasn't helping them out.

I've harped on our running game plenty, but on that last part I would probably disagree. Holgo was at least trying to throw in some wrinkles on running plays, but even then it just wasn't happening. What was he supposed to do, keep calling more of the plays that aren't working?

 

[Mavric]

I've harped on our running game plenty, but on that last part I would probably disagree. Holgo was at least trying to throw in some wrinkles on running plays, but even then it just wasn't happening. What was he supposed to do, keep calling more of the plays that aren't working?

I think were were fairly predictable:

So, in the first half by my count (not counting the seventh possession):

Under Center - 7 plays, all runs
"Regular" shotgun (11 personnel, three wide) - 16 plays, 2 runs
"Heavy" shotgun (12 or 21 or tight formation) - 11 plays, 7 runs, shovel pass, screen

That seems to be pretty easy to pick up the tendencies: Under center we run (100%), Heavy shotgun we run or throw behind the line (81%), Regular shotgun we pass (87%).

Interestingly, one of the two times we broke tendencies on the Heavy shotgun they were cover zero (as our tendency said they should be) and we hit Barney down the seam.

I've not made it back to chart the second half but charting the first half seemed to confirm what it felt like watching the game.

 

[Undone]

Well we're not good with short yardage situations in the run game. And it's clear to opponents that we don't have the bruiser RB that's good in those situations.

But as to some of the other points made above, I was pretty confident this is what we'd see, because Holgorsen is kind of a Mike Leach disciple.

Like you said, @Toe, it doesn't really matter at mid field. But then it bites you in the backside in the red zone.

 

[Toe]

I think were were fairly predictable:

I've not made it back to chart the second half but charting the first half seemed to confirm what it felt like watching the game.

That part I would agree with - if we're under center, we're definitely running. But IMO that's only part of the story for the OC's job.

 

[Husker_In_WI]

That part I would agree with - if we're under center, we're definitely running. But IMO that's only part of the story for the OC's job.

I imagine we were setting up for some play-action (we have done it this year), but the OL was getting whipped so bad it wouldn't have mattered. Raiola would've been even more of a sitting duck in an under center PA scenario.

Against other teams it might though - having an obvious tell can be used to your advantage. Hitting the sweet spot of running enough play-action to pay off the heavy run tendency but not so much to have teams adjust to it is a tricky balance. If you're perfectly balanced maybe everything is a little easier, but you aren't going to absolutely kill them on PA plays unless they are very convinced you will be running. And I don't think drop back passes from under center have a place in the college game. So 100% run is too much, but against Michigan I get it - you can still vary the types of runs. And against worse defenses, hitting them with PA a couple times a game will work all the better for under center being a usually obvious run tell.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The game wasn't as close as the score, and Michigan would have found a way to win even if we got those 10 points in the first quarter.

But I don't think Nebraska is that far removed from Michigan. We can talk about the o-line that gave up seven sacks, but that same o-line allowed Raiola to complete 75% of his passes for 300+ yards. Dumping the ball rather than taking a sack is a learnable skill, but it's hard for guys like Dylan to give up the hero ball and completion percentage that comes with it. Coaches can also scheme for this better -- it's not all on the talent. Michigan's touchdowns were complete breakdowns. That's on defensive scheming and team chemistry, too. It can be improved.

Michigan stacked against the run and dared Dylan Raiola to beat them with his arm. Raiola was just good enough that other teams might not feel as comfortable with that strategy. Especially if Holgersen runs a few more designed slip screens to scare off the blitzes. The Huskers will have much better running games with the same personnel. Really like the emergence of Barney and Lindenmeyer as offensive weapons. Emmet Johnson is still good.

Special teams are so much better than in past years we might as well appreciate them. Penalties and turnovers aren't as cringy, either.

Cheer up.

 

[Mavric]

That part I would agree with - if we're under center, we're definitely running. But IMO that's only part of the story for the OC's job.

Yes, but if the defense knows what's coming - or can make a pretty good guess - their job gets a lot easier.

Especially if their edge guys can guess pass and pin their ears back.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the long runs we gave up in this game. Yes, we have a problem with our run defense.

We gave up 286 yards and three TDs in this game. I think the three TDs came on three plays that went for 166 yards. That means the other 30 Michigan rushes went for 4 yards per carry.

What I’m questioning is, if we didn’t give up those three plays, could we live with 4 yards per carry against a team like Michigan and how good our pass defense has been? I think we could.

So, like I said, we have issues here. But, I think these three plays are a different issue than if we were giving up constantly 6-7 yards per carry. We’ve had that issue before.

The question then remains, can we fix the problem involved with those three plays? I think that’s more of a defensive play call and LB problem than DL.

Am I wrong?

 

[MyBloodIsRed16]

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the long runs we gave up in this game. Yes, we have a problem with our run defense.

We gave up 286 yards and three TDs in this game. I think the three TDs came on three plays that went for 166 yards. That means the other 30 Michigan rushes went for 4 yards per carry.

What I’m questioning is, if we didn’t give up those three plays, could we live with 4 yards per carry against a team like Michigan and how good our pass defense has been? I think we could.

So, like I said, we have issues here. But, I think these three plays are a different issue than if we were giving up constantly 6-7 yards per carry. We’ve had that issue before.

The question then remains, can we fix the problem involved with those three plays? I think that’s more of a defensive play call and LB problem than DL.

Am I wrong?

Some of it just just comes down to the guys on the field knowing what's going on and just making plays. The 75yarder Buford comes up and just plain whiffs. If he just concedes he's going to give up a first down to save a long run knowing he's the only guy back there. Just come up and get a hand on him and maybe your buddies come and help. He didn't even slow him down. One of the other long runs RVP doesn't even try to shed his 1v1 block until the guy is 5 yards past him. On the long QB draw some bells have to go off in guys head and say something isn't right here. I also saw something we didn't see the first 3 games. When guys were stunting on the D line they were getting too wide. In the first 3 games I was really impressed how they would stunt and be right off the guys hip and directly in the hole. didn't happen against MI. Obviously they are a better team than the first 3 opponents. Also its not like Michigan kept going back to the well and gashing us on the same play over and over like certain teams did to Bo.

 

[Mavric]

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the long runs we gave up in this game. Yes, we have a problem with our run defense.

We gave up 286 yards and three TDs in this game. I think the three TDs came on three plays that went for 166 yards. That means the other 30 Michigan rushes went for 4 yards per carry.

What I’m questioning is, if we didn’t give up those three plays, could we live with 4 yards per carry against a team like Michigan and how good our pass defense has been? I think we could.

So, like I said, we have issues here. But, I think these three plays are a different issue than if we were giving up constantly 6-7 yards per carry. We’ve had that issue before.

The question then remains, can we fix the problem involved with those three plays? I think that’s more of a defensive play call and LB problem than DL.

Am I wrong?

I tried to do the same thing but my math must have been screwed up because I came up with a higher number when I took out those three run. But you are correct that it was 4.0 other than those three.

That's obviously not great. But I'd say that's not terrible against what is probably the best running team we'll face this year and one of the better running teams in football over the past few years.

And, to me, it wasn't necessarily the DL's fault on most of them (which has been the biggest concern for this season. On the 75 yard run we stunted a guy out of the hole and still had an unblocked safety who could have made the play. I would also fault the defensive call for putting us in a terrible position on the QB draw TD. And on the third one we still had an unblocked safety who whiffed.

So I would agree that the overall defensive performance wasn't as bad as the stats look. And our scheme was hurting more than it was helping (on those plays).

 

[Husker_In_WI]

I tried to do the same thing but my math must have been screwed up because I came up with a higher number when I took out those three run. But you are correct that it was 4.0 other than those three.

That's obviously not great. But I'd say that's not terrible against what is probably the best running team we'll face this year and one of the better running teams in football over the past few years.

And, to me, it wasn't necessarily the DL's fault on most of them (which has been the biggest concern for this season. On the 75 yard run we stunted a guy out of the hole and still had an unblocked safety who could have made the play. I would also fault the defensive call for putting us in a terrible position on the QB draw TD. And on the third one we still had an unblocked safety who whiffed.

So I would agree that the overall defensive performance wasn't as bad as the stats look. And our scheme was hurting more than it was helping (on those plays).

Our dilemma is the stunts are very effective on a down to down basis but when they fail, they fail spectacularly. I think we just have to hope we can clean up the tackling/getting off blocks/missed assignments (I don't think Shavers was supposed to bail with the RB on the draw), because we probably can't abandon a largely successful core piece of the defense.

https://black41flashreverse.substack.com/p/2025-michigan-recap-gaps

and their snaps vs. UM with a stunt had a 72.4% success rate, compared to a 48.0% success rate on plays without a stunt. This isn’t a post to say the stunts aren’t working or haven’t been more effective than base calls. They are working and have been more effective than base calls.

But what is happening is that Nebraska’s failed stunts — where the defenders are not correctly executing the movement or reaching their assigned gap as they switch spots — are getting the defense killed.

All three long Michigan runs — which I think more-or-less decided a close game in UM’s favor — came off a botched stunt movement, at least initially.