The Wolverine: Covering University of Michigan Football and Sports
Issue link: https://comanpub.uberflip.com/i/1511544
DECEMBER 2023 ❱ THE WOLVERINE 65 M ichigan football and archrival Ohio State are heading toward another showdown of unbeat- ens — barring a major upset on Nov. 18. It would be the second straight time U-M and OSU face off with perfect records at the end of the year. That has never hap- pened previously in this rivalry. Yet as Michigan and OSU barrel toward this momentous occasion, discussion of what will happen between the sidelines has been sidelined. All anyone can talk about is the NCAA investigating if U-M impermissibly stole signs by advanced scouting, the Big Ten intervening to sus- pend head coach Jim Harbaugh for the rest of the regular season, and U-M and Harbaugh requesting an injunction to halt the suspension. As of Nov. 13, it was unclear whether Harbaugh will be on the sidelines at The Game. However, less than two weeks away, it is time to begin breaking down this matchup. It is unknown how much Harbaugh's absence would affect this game. It is also unknown how much permissibly or im- permissibly stealing signs alters the final score — any anonymous coaches saying it could be by 21 points are staying anony- mous because they know they are being ridiculous. Do they have an impact? Sure. Will they decide the outcome of the contest? Prob- ably not. Rather, The Game will be decided by which team can solve the other's defense on the ground. Michigan's defense is probably the best in the nation. The Wolverines are first in scoring defense (7.5 points surrendered per game), first in expected points added per play (minus-0.26), second in defen- sive success rate (33 percent) and fourth in yards allowed per play (4.23). Not only are they elite in the raw numbers, they are also at the top in the opponent-adjusted metrics, ranking first in Defensive SP+. However, OSU can make a similar argu- ment. One year after Michigan and Geor- gia burned the uber-aggressiveness of OSU's defense, coordinator Jim Knowles has dialed things down, and in doing so, the Buckeyes have patched up most of their leaks. They rank second in scoring defense (9.9 points allowed per game), second in yards allowed per play (4.04), sixth in expected points added per play (mi- nus-0.18), ninth in defensive success rate (35 percent) and third in opponent-ad- justed Defensive SP+. Both Michigan and Ohio State may be able to make plays through the air against these defenses. Michigan quarterback J.J. McCarthy has been one of the most ef- ficient throwers, and Ohio State's Mar- vin Harrison Jr., by far the most talented receiver, is always a lethal threat on the field. Nevertheless, even if both offenses can be successful throwing the ball, neither wants to be one-dimensional because, most likely, the opposing defense will tee off on their quarterback. Michigan's and Ohio State's respective offensive lines have displayed vulnerabili- ties in their pass protection. U-M's were most notable against Penn State when tackles Karsen Barnhart and LaDarius Henderson combined to surrender 4 pressures in just 11 passing snaps. U-M shifted to an all-run approach to neutral- ize the threat. OSU's vulnerabilities have been notice- able throughout the season, ranking 68th in Pro Football Focus' pass-block grade (67.3). Becoming predictably pass-heavy will allow the opposing defenses to feast as they tear after the signal-caller — U-M is tied for third in PFF's pash-rush grade, and OSU is seventh. As such, each offense will need to find balance with the run to keep the opposing defense unsure and on its heels. What is interesting, though, is both teams' rush- ing attacks have had struggles. This is most surprising for Michigan given the ground-and-pound offensive identity it has developed and fostered the past two seasons along with the star power of running backs Blake Corum and Donovan Edwards. Although U-M is 21st in rushing success rate (45.2 percent), it is only 65th in expected points added per run play (0.03) since, until the PSU game, there had been little explosiveness shown. The Wolverines, though, rattled off 5 ex- plosive runs against PSU's excellent run defense. Ohio State has been much worse than Michigan trying to run the rock. The Buckeyes are 79th in rushing success rate (40.4 percent) and 99th in expected points added per run play (minus-0.04). However, they may have found an an- swer with the healthy return of TreVeyon Henderson, who is averaging 117.7 rushing yards, 6.0 yards per carry and a touch- down in his last three games. He is the only Buckeye with more than 20 carries who has a positive expected-points-per- run-play average. Both Michigan and Ohio State may have a disappointing time trying to move the ball on the ground against these stout defenses. Whether Michigan can get Co- rum and Edwards (and McCarthy) into a running rhythm, or whether OSU's Hen- derson can find a seam in U-M's defensive line and rip off some big gains, will most likely decide the winner of this next his- toric version of The Game — not whether Harbaugh is on the sideline or a team's signs were stolen. ❑ INSIDE THE NUMBERS ❱ DREW HALLETT Rushing Success Will Decide The Game Michigan's ground game is led by All-American Blake Corum, who has 152 carries for 794 yards (5.2 average) and 18 touchdowns through 10 games. U-M is averaging 173.1 yards rushing per game, but most recently gained 227 at Penn State. PHOTO BY LON HORWEDEL Staff writer Drew Hallett has covered Michigan athletics since 2013. Contact him at drew.c.hallett@gmail.com and follow him on X (Twitter) @DrewCHallett.