The Wolverine: Covering University of Michigan Football and Sports
Issue link: https://comanpub.uberflip.com/i/1527978
NOVEMBER 2024 ❱ THE WOLVERINE 65 M ichigan football has under- whelmed through the first half of the season. Although the Wolverines have lost only one more contest than anticipated, the difference in how they have fared in their games has been very stark. They have fallen from seventh in SP+ in the preseason to 21st. This is mostly due to the offense. It is not shocking the unit has had its struggles, given U-M replaced its start- ing quarterback, top two receivers and entire offensive line. What has been surprising, unfortu- nately, is the leak in Michigan's defense. The Wolverines' defense was set to be elite again and keep the team afloat when the offense sputtered. They re- turned three likely first-round picks in defensive tackles Mason Graham and Kenneth Grant and corner Will Johnson, a terrifying tandem at defensive end in Josaiah Stewart and Derrick Moore and experienced veterans at safety. SP+ pro- jected U-M would be third on defense with a 6.9 rating — the expected points allowed to an average FBS team. However, Michigan's defense has not performed at that level. Although the Maize and Blue's scoring defense has plummeted from first to tied for 56th, the advanced numbers are much nicer to them. SP+ ranks them ninth in De- fensive SP+, and a top-10 defense is still very good. The drop in the rating is more noticeable though. It is now 14.8 — more than a touchdown worse than before. This slippage by Michigan is not due to its run defense. The Wolverines have been just as stout against the run as they were last year. In 2023, they allowed 3.00 yards per carry (seventh nationally) and a success rate of 34.6 percent against the run (10th). Through six games in 2024, they permitted 2.86 yards per carry (eighth) and a success rate of 30.1 percent against the run (third). Michigan also has given up the few- est number of 10-plus-yard runs this season (10). With Graham and Grant wreaking havoc in the middle and Stew- art and Moore on the edge, running backs have had no room to run. The problem for Michigan is that op- ponents have realized this and tried to avoid pounding the rock on the ground. U-M has faced the second-fewest run plays per game in the country (24). Instead, opponents have been happy to test their luck through the air — U-M has faced the second-most pass plays per game (43) — and in doing so, they have found the reason for U-M's slip- page. Michigan's pass defense has not performed well in key moments. On a down-to-down basis, its pass defense has been as effective as last year. Al- though the ranks are different—19th in 2023 and 31st in 2024 — their success rates versus the pass are nearly identical (37.0 percent versus 36.9). What has really changed is what hap- pens when U-M's pass defense is not successful. Last year, the Maize and Blue mitigated the damage. They were fifth in expected points added (EPA) per play against the pass (-0.23), tied for 15th in 10-plus-yard passes allowed (92 for an average of 6.1 per game) and tied for third in 20-plus-yard passes allowed (24 for an average of 1.6). This season, they have permitted of- fenses to gain more yardage and make bigger plays. They are 57th in EPA per play against the pass (minus-0.03), 128th in 10-plus-yard passes allowed (71 for an average of 11.8 per game) and tied for 79th in 20-plus-yard passes given up (19 for an average of 3.2 a contest). That is nearly double the number of 10-plus- yard and 20-plus-yard throws compared to last season. However, the drop-off does not trans- late to 30-plus-yard completions. The Wolverines permitted an average of 0.9 per game in 2023 and have allowed an even 1.0 per game in 2024 to date. This shows that Michigan's defense still does not have many huge busts but that it is making many more miscues on intermediate passes. After the Wol- verines' run defense stuffs the offense on first and/or second down, their pass defense then commits more mistakes on third downs, even in obvious passing situations, and allows the offense to bail itself out. This extends drives, gives foes more chances to score and wears down a de- fense that is thinner on depth. Michigan must tighten this up in the second half of the season, especially with three SP+ top-15 offenses still on deck in Oregon (fourth), Indiana (15th) and Ohio State (seventh). Defensive coordinator Wink Martindale's feel for calling blitzes and pressures has not been as smooth as it was for Jesse Minter last year, and de- fensive backs Jyaire Hill and Zeke Berry have been more prone to lapses than their predecessors, corner Josh Wallace and nickel extraordinaire Mike Sainristil. The Wolverines are more likely to fix this defensive problem than reassemble an entire offense during the bye week. If they can do it, they can elevate their defense back to elite status and finish 2024 strong. ❑ INSIDE THE NUMBERS ❱ DREW HALLETT The Leak in Michigan's Defense Through six games, U-M ranked 128th nation- ally in 10-plus-yard passes allowed (71 for an average of 11.8 per game), including this 12-yard touchdown reception by Minnesota's Daniel Jackson. 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.