Rutgers @ Michigan, Saturday, September 28th, Noon EDT, BTN/Fox Video

[hack]

He's definitely helped bring quality three-stars to Michigan, and that would perhaps be missed.

[iam416]

DCs aren't concerned about Patterson being a run threat in the Gattis ZR/RPO offense. It's an alternate view of the ones that suggest the OL isn't blocking well or M's RBs aren't that good.

I've been trying to figure out the relevance of this particular "deep dive" -- well, sort of trying. It seems that all are agreed that M running game is garbage. The outcomes speak for themselves. As to the causes, there's apparently some disagreement. Your suggested reason is one that effectively allows one to conclude that running game ills are easily remedied. I mean, just let Shea run. That's it. Other options point to larger issues that are so easy to fix.

Is that the gist of this whole thing?

So, basically you have a 2018 Ohio State situation, but without the throwing benefits of Haskins. However, in this scenario, the QB can actually run but, for whatever reason, isn't.

[hack]

Presumably they're protecting him from injury, and therefore at some point in the future the running game will benefit once they add him back in. Or maybe once McCaffrey's back. But just like in years past, we're at the point in the cycle where Harbaugh learns that his offseason plan wasn't good, and it's time to simplify things and then add to them step by step. So just maybe it's that. Dunno.

[Jeff Buchanan]

...........So, basically you have a 2018 Ohio State situation, but without the throwing benefits of Haskins. However, in this scenario, the QB can actually run but, for whatever reason, isn't.

I think that what we have in assessing Michigan's 2019 season to date is this:

After Wisconsin, BPONE. That has affected perceptions and the willingness of critical voices to advance takes that are either poorly supported or not supported at all.

That's given rise to memes like Harbaugh has failed, the Gattis hire was terrible, Patterson has regressed, can't make reads, his timing is off ..... all of that along with questions about M's statistically poor ground game. It's a toxic environment where the search for the guilty parties by those outside the program takes precedence over rational analysis. That characterizes the classic reaction to disasters.

Fans who are seriously interested in finding the typically more mundane causes behind a disaster, in this case Team 140 not living up to what I believe were unrealistic expectations to begin with, look for some substance behind the various takes.

I think substance was behind the take I offered by expanding on the mgo Neck Sharpies article that appeared today. In that article it says, in terms strictly relating to Xs and O's, it makes it difficult for the offense to remove the conflict player from a run play to gain a numbers advantage and insure it will be successful if the D doesn't have to account for a QB keep.

DCs believe Patterson is not a run threat in the ZR/RPO Gattis offense they scheme for both pre-game and in-game. Accordingly, they coach their LBs and Ss to play the give at the mesh. When Milton was at QB and the keeper was an option for him, the video shows the conflict players reacting tentatively at the mesh and the run game improved.

Unfortunately, game video demonstrates there's substance to the view that running against Rutgers still should have been effective regardless because of Jimmy's and Joes. So, ????

I don't think we know why Patterson isn't a threat to keep but he has not been that threat in every game M has played so far. The run game has suffered because of that.

[lineygoblue]

Seems to me, defenses can ignore the 'pull' when Patterson runs the option. He never pulls, so they gang up on the first movement.

Or is that too simplistic?

[Jeff Buchanan]

......... it could be more robust ????

[iam416]

[hack]

Look I highly doubt that Jim Harbuagh would run a system with a systemic --

[Jeff Buchanan]

Let's be clear. The Michigan run game has something wrong with it. Seriously wrong? Its an eye of the beholder modifier. So, I'll ignore that.

Why is a reasonable question to ask. We both can settle on the naked proposition that M's starting QB doesn't present a run threat. Details are material to my understanding of the question. That's because, you know, I like a well supported proposition.

Gerdman ignored those details. I dont think it serves this particular Michigan Monday piece well to do that. Does providing details contradict his line of thought? No. Would his evaluation be improved with supporting details? IMO, yes.

[WM Wolverine]

Shea is pretty terrible with his reads on the ZR/RPO, which really hurts the running game.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I can think of two videos where by the look of how the play unfolded, he made a bad read. I've seen probably 2 dozen where it was questionable either way and another dozen where the read wasn't an option by play design.

[iam416]

[Dr. Strangelove]

3.5 a carry being good is all in your perspective. For example, an ant might consider that awfully impressive.

[Hannibal]

We are the only program in the county that for some reason can't run a fucking option.

[iam416]

Well, if you could then everything is fixed. And if Steven Threet was an RPO QB then RichGOD has a better first year.