Like all Michigan fans, I am in shock. Following yesterday’s blistering 46-17 loss to Penn State, Michigan is now 2-5 on the season, its worst start since 1967. With immensely difficult games remaining on the schedule, it now seems a foregone conclusion that Michigan is en route to suffering its first losing season in my lifetime. Our record-setting streak of winning seasons and bowl appearances is at an end.
I never thought I would see this day. Hell, I never thought my children would see this day. But like all Michigan fans, I am not one to sit idly by and mope. I leave that task for the Irish. Instead, we Michigan faithful — we Michigan Men — are more inclined, in the face of such adversity, to identify and solve the problem. We mope for a while, but then we get up, figure out a way to win, and win. It’s that simple.
So here we are, at 2-5. What’s the problem? What’s not working? How do we fix it?
What’s Not Wrong: Debunking the Myth of the Freshman Team
Before we get into the problems facing the team, let’s first debunk the popular myth that Michigan ‘08 is bad because the team is young. It’s oft been said that with a more experienced quarterback, running back and/or wide receiver, Michigan would be better than it is. I don’t dispute some truth to that statement, but let me be clear: Michigan’s youth is not the root cause of its woes.
Consider, for example, 2004, when the premiere starting positions were occupied by a freshman quarterback (Chad Henne), running back (Mike Hart), and a senior receiver (Braylon Edwards). Despite such inexperience, Michigan finished the 2004 season with a 9-2 record, shared the Big Ten championship and paid a visit to Pasadena in January. In fact, the parallels between 2004 and 2008 are remarkable: Both seasons saw freshman quarterbacks (Henne, Threet, Sheridan) a freshman running back (Hart, McGuffie), a relatively experienced defense, a relatively inexperienced offense and several key returning seniors (Edwards, Minor).
There is, of course, one major difference between the 2004 and 2008 seasons that simply cannot be overlooked: In 2004, we had Lloyd Carr. In 2008, we have Rich Rodriguez. And therein lies the problem. Or problems, in the plural, as it were.
Problem No. 1: We fumble too much.
This is an obvious point, but not a minor one. With five games left to play in 2008, we have already amassed a season’s worth of fumble statistics. In only seven games, we have fumbled the ball twenty five times, twelve of which resulted in turnovers.
Compared to the last four seasons, the devastation of this statistic becomes apparent. Through five games, somewhere between seven and ten fumbles — three to five of which result in turnovers — is entirely normal. In 2008, we have nearly tripled those numbers. The fundamentals of the game, including holding on to the ball, fall to the coaches. There is simply no one else to blame. The inexperienced freshman team of 2004 made it work, so what’s wrong with the 2008 team? A lack of fundamental ball-handling education, that’s what.
Problem No. 2: Our third-down conversion rate is terrible.
In the four seasons prior to Richrod’s arrival, Michigan’s third-down conversation rate hovered somewhere in the 40-45% range. Under Richrod, it’s only 25%.
The question is: Why? What could Lloyd Carr do on third downs that Richrod cannot? Keep reading for the answer.
Problem No. 3: Our passing game is designed around small-yard gains.
Steve Threet and Nick Sheridan are common scapegoats for the abysmal performance of Michigan in the 2008 season. And I don’t dispute that Sheridan and Threet aren’t great. The problem with blaming the QBs for Michigan’s lack of success is that the statistics simply do not support that conclusion. Even as a freshman, Chad Henne’s completion rate was 60%. In subsequent years, he would continue to hover right around that 60% mark. Threet, by comparison, has a completion rate of 52%. Obviously Threet isn’t completing as many passes as Henne, but the 8% margin between the two is simply not that profound. As mediocre as Threet is, he’s connecting on more than half of his passes. (He’s also mounting more yards on the ground than any quarterback in Michigan history, now that the gameplan encourages quarterbacks to run on occasion.) The myth that Threet isn’t a good quarterback simply is not true.
The problem lies not with Threet’s ability to throw the ball, but rather, with how far he’s throwing the ball. In the 2004-2007 seasons, Michigan logged an average of about 200 airborne yards per game. In 2008, that number has been cut in half. Through five games, Michigan is now averaging little over 100 yards per game in the air. Threet’s completion rate rivals Henne’s (52 compared to 60), but his actual yardage is half that of Henne’s. Yikes. What’s going on here?
Eureka. The problem becomes obvious when you look at the yards-per-pass. In the 2004-2007 seasons, Michigan averaged 11-12 yards per pass before competion. In 2008, the Wolverines are averaging less than half of that, or about 5 yards per pass. Threet has a good arm and good aim, and he’s connecting on more than half of his passes. Threet’s not the problem; his playbook is the problem. Michigan is running much shorter passing plays than it used to, plain and simple. That’s not the players’ problem; that’s a coaching choice.
Is Michigan running short passing plays because they don’t trust Threet to air it out? Maybe. Could Threet improve as a quarterback? Definitely. But I don’t think either of those is the fundamental cause of Michigan’s lack of airborne yardage. The problem is that the playbook is designed for short passes. You can see this for yourself when you watch Michigan on third-and-long this year. Instead of running a play designed to pick up maximum yardage and get the first down, the offense run a play designed for moderate pickup of, say, 5 yards or so. Hence the lack of airborne yardage compared to previous seasons and the abysmal third down conversion rate. The players can get more yards, but they’re being told not to, period.
Problem No. 4: No identifiable marquee players.
No one questions that true freshman Sam McGuffie has started living up to his YouTube highlight videos. (I’ll say it again: Michigan is my favorite for the national championship… in 2011.) This kid is the future of Michigan’s running game, plain and simple.
But what about the present? On the ground, Michigan is averaging about 4 yards per carry, which isn’t bad. It is true that in the recent past, Mike Hart, even as a freshman, had superior numbers to McGuffie. (Hart averaged about 5 yards per carry during his tenure). But this is quibbling; today’s 4 yards per carry is awfully close, in terms of ability, to yesterday’s 5 yards per carry. So what’s the problem here?
Again, eureka. The problem becomes evident when doing a side-by-side comparison of Michigan’s past rushing leaders. Between 2004 and 2007, Hart carried the team, quite literally, on his powerful legs. Hart was the go-to guy, pure and simple, and his ground yardage evidenced that. In his worst season, Hart still averaged 80 yards per game, in 2005, a season wracked with injury for him. When he wasn’t injured, Hart consistently averaged more than 120 yards per game.
McGuffie, by comparison, is running less than half of that; he’s averaging only about 60 yards per game. Is this because McGuffie isn’t as good as Hart? Is this because the inexperienced offensive line isn’t blocking for McGuffie as well as it used to block for Hart? The answer is “no” to both of those questions. McGuffie’s yards-per-carry (4) are close enough to Hart’s (5) to show that McGuffie’s running ability, and the blocking he’s receiving, are comparable. So why as his yards so low?
In comparing the performance of 2008’s receiving leaders (Odoms and Mathews) with that of past seasons, the trend now finally emerges. Again, Michigan is putting up only half the yards it used to. But wait, we’ve seen this problem before! Threet is averaging half of Henne’s yards per game, McGuffie is averaging half of Hart’s yards per game, and Odoms/Mathews are averaging half of Manningham/Arrington’s yards per game. Everything has been cut in half. The trend is now obvious.
And finally, we arrive at the most fundamental problem with the 2008 Michigan football team: There are no stars.
It is no secret that great football teams rely on the individual efforts of great players. In the past, a hallmark of Michigan’s program was the presence of 2-3 marquee athletes, and that strategy has produced names that echo like gunshots across history: Brady, Breaston, Perry, Woodson, Carter, Howard, Harmon.
Who are the stars on the Michigan 2008 football team? There are none. Threet has begun to emerge as the starting quarterback, and McGuffie as the go-to running back. But already, there are rumors that the Threet/Sheridan tandem may be replaced as early as next year with kids who right now are celebrating homecoming… in high school. While I welcome the introduction of the “mobile quarterback” to the Michigan program, you can imagine how Steve Threet feels about that.
Brandon Minor, who played backup to Mike Hart for the last few years, has seen his senior year greatness evaporate in a cloud of dust that spells “McGuffie”. Perhaps this is why Ryan Mallett quit the team; maybe he saw the writing on the wall, too.
The harsh reality is that Richrod has not shown respect for the system created by Bo and Lloyd, a system that recruited great freshman and cultivated them in an environment filled with great seniors. Put in your time, give your due. Play backup for a few years, and eventually, we promise, you will fill that marquee role. Richrod has turned this system on its head. He passed over Minor, a great back in his own right, for McGuffie, who is also great. But has McGuffie put in his due? Has McGuffie been part of the system? No.
Richrod’s decision — to play the best players, regardless of seniority — is not necessarily a bad decision. But let’s be clear that it is not what Michigan has done in the past. If Sheridan and Threet are constantly competing against each other for the starting QB slot, I can’t imagine that’s good on team morale. I can’t imagine that’s good for encouraging either Sheridan or Threet from assuming the ultimate mantle of responsibility for the team’s success or failure, particularly when they both know that regardless who wins, that guy will probably be replaced next year anyway.
For the record, Michigan has experimented with a dual-quarterback system in the past, and it wasn’t successful then, either. In 95-97, Brian Griese and Scott Dreisbach competed for the position, and subsequent seasons saw a matchup between Tom Brady and Drew Henson. In those days, just as today, the dual-quarterback system was ridiculed for throwing off the tempo of the game and lessening the sense of responsibility felt by the team’s leader, the quarterback. Lloyd apparently learned from those lessons, but Richrod apparently has not.
Who is Michigan’s marquee quarterback? Is it Threet or Sheridan? Who is Michigan’s marquee receiver? Is it Odoms or Mathews? Who is Michigan’s marquee running back? Is it McGuffie or Minor? No one knows. And that’s the problem.
I can appreciate that in a “spread” offense, one of the purposes is to reduce or even eliminate reliance on marquee players by “spreading” the ball around the field. But the truth is that even in a spread offensive system, marquee players still end up getting the job done. Just ask Tim Tebow, Juice Williams or Pat White. Marquee players end up taking responsibility for the team’s success or failure, and as a result, they simply make plays happen, and that’s true regardless of the adjectives you use to describe your offensive scheme.
Solutions.
First, Richrod needs to return to fundamentals. All of these guys should have been taught, early on, how to run with a football in hand without dropping it. Sticky gloves are not the answer. The answer is hours upon hours of hard, grueling drills with a football in one hand. This is how Bo and Lloyd did it. Teach the fundamentals first.
Second, Richrod needs to open up the big-yard playbook. On passing, the quick out plays are fine, but the big-yard plays need to be thrown in more often. I believe Threet has the aim and power to paste Odoms and Mathews on the numbers 30 yards downfield. The playbook needs to allow him to do that. I understand that Richrod favors a “run first” offensive, but this is Michigan; it’s ok to find the guy in the corner of the endzone. Often.
Third, Richrod needs to designate the go-to guys. Seven games into the season, it’s past time to quit pansying around with deciding who your starters are going to be. He needs to sit down with Threet/Sheridan, McGuffie/Minor and Odoms/Mathews and make a choice amongst them. He needs to say “You’re the guy”, or “You’re not the guy”. Place the full mantle of responsibility in the hands of these young players, and they will make things happen. That’s what Michigan Men do.
