Eddie McDoom
Let’s see more of this guy on offense . . . Eddie McDoom. Freshman backup wide receiver McDoom actually led the team in rushing with 53 yards on just 2 carries (33 yards, 20 yards). He’s the fifth leading rusher on the team, behind the four primary running backs (Chris Evans, De’Veon Smith, Ty Isaac, Karan Higdon) and ahead of Jabrill Peppers and Jehu Chesson. I wouldn’t recommend running more jet sweeps, but I do think the offensive staff could afford to spread the field a little more at times and use McDoom in the passing game. He has the speed to threaten teams deep, and he could also be used on bubble screens, crack screens, and such. Michigan has sprung Amara Darboh for some deep throws this year, but the short and intermediate zones can get clogged with all the tight ends and fullbacks. I would like to see some formations with Darboh, Chesson, and McDoom, which might cause some defensive coordinators and defensive backs some consternation.
Hit the jump for more on the game vs. MSU.
Let’s see less of this guy on offense . . . Henry Poggi. We’ve discussed on this blog before whether a spread offense or a pro-style offense is superior, and I have made the point that both can be successful if executed properly. One way to execute a pro-style offense effectively, in my opinion, is to play guys who can affect a team in multiple ways. Poggi is not that guy. He has 5 catches for 33 yards (6.6 yards/catch) and, aside from one early-season catch-and-run, hasn’t done much with the ball when he gets his hands on it. In order to make room for more McDoom snaps, I think Poggi might be able to come off the field a little more.
Let’s see more of this guy on defense . . . David Long. I’ve been a little surprised at how little the backup cornerbacks have played this season, especially considering all the blowout victories. Jourdan Lewis and Channing Stribling pretty much went the whole way against the Spartans, and at some point – even if it’s next year – the Wolverines are going to need Long (and/or Lavert Hill) to step up. If the coaches have the opportunity, I hope to see Long get a chance to play against the Terrapins and other teams down the stretch.
Let’s see less of this guy on defense . . . Noah Furbush. Earlier in the year, I was calling for more Furbush. And he actually acquitted himself pretty well in Saturday’s game when the Wolverines need a little more beef. I’m kind of reaching here because I mostly like the defensive rotations, but I think the Maryland game will be a ripe opportunity for Jabrill Peppers to make some plays. If the game gets out of hand, I’m okay with Furbush seeing a little more run, but this week should shape up well for Peppers to fly around defensively.
Play of the game . . . Amara Darboh’s one-handed catch. On a 3rd-and-15 opportunity, quarterback Wilton Speight scrambled left and threw high to Darboh. In a play reminiscent of last year’s BYU game, Darboh went up with his right hand and hauled it in for a 23-yard gain and a first down. It was the biggest highlight of his 8-catch, career-best 165-yard day. Honorable mention goes to Peppers, who kept the ball on a zone read only to be corralled by two defenders . . . except he spun between them and made them look silly on his way to a short gain. It didn’t amount to much and he should have handed off the ball, but it was a play very few others could have turned into a positive result.
MVP of the game . . . Darboh. He didn’t catch any touchdowns – even though one of his receptions could have been a score if he had kept his feet – but he helped keep the chains moving with a lot of clutch catches, including acrobatic snares and catches in traffic. His 165 yards are tied for the #21 most productive outing by a Michigan receiver. Quarterback Wilton Speight got him the ball and suffered some solid hits in the process, but I thought Darboh was the most consistent performer in the game.
You need to login in order to vote
I’m pretty sure that I caught Asiasi line up a couple times at fullback. I can’t find those snaps on either Parkinggod or WH hi-lite vids. I thought, “Of course, ramp up the heft from 265 to 285, Why not”? It does make sense, if indeed I really saw it, as Devin Asiasi is extraordinarily nimble by almost any standard at any size. I’ll take Hill and Asiasi at fullback. I do think Poggi has improved at finding somebody to hit.
I made a point of watching Chesson, to the extent that I was able. He doesn’t look as quick coming out of his stance or a cut on the very few cuts you can see. I’m prepared to concede that this may be as much illusion as my opinion that Darboh is faster, but I’m certain that Chesson is there because hurt or not, he’s still a demon going out to block. I found it interesting that Chesson and Asiasi were in effect the lead blocks on Pepper’s score. Both of them made at minimum decent contact in space.
You need to login in order to vote
I think Asiasi lined up a few times in the backfield as an H-back type, almost like a second fullback.
Agreed that Chesson doesn’t look quite as explosive as last season.
You need to login in order to vote
>> Let’s see less of this guy on offense . . . Henry Poggi.
Is Khalid Hill injured? I don’t recall any mention of him in the MSU game. If so, any word on seriousness of injury, or when he may be back?
So if we put on our thinking caps — and set risk of injury aside for now — and come up with creative ideas for fullback … who would we plug into that spot? Roanman mentioned Devin Asiasi. How about Rashan Gary? I understand he’s remarkably athletic and agile for 6’5″ 287 lb guy. I’m not sure the specific skills of a DE (hands and upper body movements) translate well to a FB position.
You need to login in order to vote
Hill played on Saturday. If we’re being creative…Maurice Hurst, Jr. was a high school fullback. But I also don’t think Bobby Henderson is a bad option if Hill were to miss time.
You need to login in order to vote
If I am not mistaken Hill was used a couple of times in short yardage situations.
Thanks for the awards post Thunder. You may get a bit self conscious when people ask for these when you are getting smoked by life’s other demands, don’t be. It is just one more testament to good articles of interest that you bring.
You need to login in order to vote
^^ This.
Your personal needs eclipse whatever requests come in on this blog.
But as GKblue says … the requests come in here because the content is so good. Your perspective has the right measure of reality mixed with fandom.
You need to login in order to vote
Thanks to you and GKBlue. I do take it a bit personally because I don’t think people understand how hard I work to put up content, but I guess I should look at it more positively in that people want to read my content. Not that I should let that go to my head, but it would probably be better for me to look at it that way.
Anyway, thanks for the comments and the understanding.
You need to login in order to vote
Tone can be hard on the internet. You should definitely take it as a complement (not a demand).
You need to login in order to vote
I’d like to see more of any wide receiver not named Darboh. We’ve thrown to a lot of guys this year, largely due to being in quite a few lopsided games, but no one other than Darboh, Chesson and Butt have been consistent producers, and even there, only Darboh has really lived up to expectations.
Harris and Ways are obviously never going to contribute, which is disappointing, and Perry had failed to take a step forward from last year. As far as the freshmen, McDoom certainly has speed and quickness, but having the ball handed to you is a lot different than having to get by a DB who’s jamming you, run a good route, get open, catch the ball with someone draped over you, and hang on when you get hit. As I’ve said betore, all of that is very difficult for a true freshman, speed and quickness notwithstanding (see Canteen, Freddie). Next year is another matter, but for right now, if one of our top 3 guys goes down, our passing game will be seriously curtailed. No one else looks ready to contribute consistently in prime time.
You need to login in order to vote
Harris played on the first series against MSU and was targeted on a deep pass. He was open but it was overthrown. He’s in the small group of potential starters next year. I doubt Michigan is going to run out McDoom and Perry and call it good. (Two smaller WRs is a viable strategy, I”m just saying it’s unlikely Michigan goes without a protypical bigger downfield threat.)
The winner between Harris, Ways, and freshman will likely come down to who executes their blocks most consistently. That may end up being Thunder’s guy Crawford.
I’d like to see more of the backups in general but McDoom, Crawford, and Johnson have gotten plenty of run this year (as compared to say backup CBs, LBs or FBs). The dubious assumption that underlines all this is that WR development hinges on having the ball thrown to them in games. I don’t think that’s the case. As long as they are comfortable on the field, executing blocks, and getting reps in practice, they are improving.
Moreover, I think they have some interest in padding the stats of their starters for the sake of NFL draft profile and (more importantly and related) recruiting. By that logic, which I think is defensible, they should throw to Darboh/Chesson/Butt if they are going to bother throwing at all.
If you are worried about this year: Michigan has Perry as a qualified backup for Darboh/Chesson. Harris and Ways are upperclassmen who have played plenty over the last 2 years. McDoom, Crawford have played plenty this year. They may not have a ton of catches but WR has arguably the deepest and most qualified group of backups on the entire roster.*
If you are worried about next year: there is clearly uncertainty but we’ve seen plenty from McDoom, Perry, and Crawford to know that the floor is very high. With a potentially elite recruiting class coming in at a position where freshman can contribute immediately, there’s little cause for worry. Especially compared to the situations at LB and DB.
Even QB is a position that concerns me more than WR. Speight will be back but the #2 and 3 guys are going to be eligible for grad transfer making it likely that next year’s backup will be a freshman or walk-on/Malzone.
*Not including the DL because the DL actually rotates all 8 guys, so the ‘backups’ there are guys like Marshall and Dwumfour.
You need to login in order to vote
“…having to get by a DB who’s jamming you, run a good route, get open, catch the ball with someone draped over you, and hang on when you get hit.”
That actually sounds exactly like McDoom’s first college catch.
You need to login in order to vote
If you line up McDoom in the slot, it’s very hard to get a jam on a guy there. First of all, it’s often against guys who are less adept at man coverage, but he also has a lot more room to work around you, so you’re putting yourself at risk as a defender. So even if McDoom isn’t great at beating press man (which I’m not sure of), there are ways to work around that.
You need to login in order to vote
Watching the game, I thought UM could have gone more to Khalid Hill on some of those 3rd and short, especially in the second half. Khalid Hill has been one of the most reliable short yardage back that we have. Why not use him?
You need to login in order to vote
I am a Khalid Hill fan as runner, receiver and lead blocker and think he has done very well as a FB. Looks like he carried the ball 4 times for 8 yards in short yardage situations against MSU.
You need to login in order to vote
They can’t overdo it. The key to executing the FB run is the defense expecting something else.
You need to login in order to vote
but perhaps they should use Hill at RB with Poggi as the lead…
You need to login in order to vote
Ha! Pass.
You need to login in order to vote
Agreed. Last year Sione Houma had a season total of 43 carries. I think 9 were in the bowl game so Khalid Hill is comparable.
You need to login in order to vote
Also, some of Houma’s carries came when he was the lone back in the I.
You need to login in order to vote
Why have we not been running any bubble and crack screens? Is the feeling that our Run Game is just that good? I wouldn’t mind seeing a few when we see 8-9 men in the box.
I have been calling for spread sets all season, especially prior to the Wisconsin game.
Speaking of screens, what is the story with Grant Perry?
You need to login in order to vote
I’d like to see more of Furbuh (and Bush, Gil, etc.) under the same logic that I want to see more of Hill, Long, Metellus, Kinnel and Hudson. On that note – did anyone else notice that Metellus was in during the 1st Q on Saturday? I found that surprising.
Agree with the rest of the awards. The near-total removal of screen plays in recent weeks feels intentional. I wonder if M isn’t keeping these plays on the DL to spring them on OSU or Iowa (who at this point feels like the only real threat to pull an upset).
You need to login in order to vote
That’s certainly a possible explanation, but I’m not sure how much sense it would make to do that. It’s not as if a screen pass is some super-secret new play that Iowa or OSU will never have run against their defense in practice, or ever seen from another opponent. Whether they have film on Michigan in particular running it this year is probably not much of a factor. Those teams know what a screen play looks like, and they will have practiced diagnosing and defending it. In the end, it all comes down to physical talent and execution, like most things in these games. Along that line, I’d rather our own guys have run screens a few times in real games before they try it on 3rd and 8 down four against OSU with 3 minutes left.
You need to login in order to vote
Agree with your point but it probably goes for our guys too. The screens are so ubiquitous that it’s hard to imagine either side will be unprepared to execute or defend them.
I’m not sure a screen is a great idea on 3rd and 8 as much as when the defense presents the opportunity. M may be encouraging OSU to try to cheat off of screens just so that they can hit it a few times that game. Screens seem like responses more than a strategy.
An alternative is that our excellent secondary blows them up so often in practice they stopped running them for a while. With OSU likely to do the same (due to talent and preparing against their own team), maybe M just doesn’t see this as a priority.
You need to login in order to vote
I just pulled down and distance out of a hat. The point was, it doesn’t seem like the best strategy to avoid running screens (or any play) until a critical moment in a big game, because you may be as likely to screw the play up yourself due to lack of reps against a real opponent as you are to surprise the other team and make a big gain.
I think the whole fanboy notion that the coaches should keep some plays a “secret” and not “give away the playbook” is hugely overblown. Ok, maybe if you’re playing a cupcake in game 1 and a top 5 team in game 2, they might keep some things close to the vest in the opener, but after 8 games, no. At that point it’s just silly.
You need to login in order to vote
Mostly agree, I just don’t think “real reps” are so critical to success.
The “don’t put it on film” argument is as dubious to me as the “real reps” argument. There are pros and cons. Doing something right once in a game doesn’t necessarily help you do it again.
I do think you have to be aware of what OSU is planning to stop, play off your tendencies, and introduce something new/unexpected. Prepare to surprise them – lots of ways to make that happen.
You need to login in order to vote
I know this is a different blog but I read Brian Cook’s take: “The only people who care about the particular game theory state that resulted in Saturday’s fourth quarter are the perpetually unhappy wing of Michigan fans and desperate Michigan State fans” and thought of some comments/commenter here.
The first drive was worrisome, as was MSU’s continuing to have better-than-expected success on the ground on subsequent drives despite no pass game whatsoever. (Brown playing a bit of bend but don’t break perhaps?) The 4th quarter stuff barely registers as significant.
You need to login in order to vote
On the topic of other blogs I have to commend Thunder here for having some tact and class. When I was growing up the attitude of Michigan fans was that the best way to handle chirping from MSU-fan was to ignore it. It/they were beneath you/us. Now I see some bloggers out there chirping and trash-talking as if this was a championship game.
I know the last decade has made things more hostile but… ‘act like you’ve been here/belong here’, not like you graduated from MSU-south.
Maybe I’m getting old and maybe I’d feel differently if I lived in Michigan but I’m turned off by some of the reactions I’ve read/seen/heard. It was a good win. It’s supposed to be a good win, but also a routine one. If you’re an M fan you should be worried about M, not what foolishness MSU is up to at the moment. That’s how I see it anyway.
You need to login in order to vote
Sorry, but the people who are saying that what happened in the 4th quarter doesn’t matter because that was all garbage time and State never had a chance to win are just simply wrong. It was 30-17 and they had driven to first and 10 on our 18 yard line with 2:27 left, moving the ball very easily. If they had scored within a few plays, they still had two time outs left, and could have gone for an onside kick or even kicked away and counted on getting the ball back with enough time to score again and win after three ultra-safe running plays by Harbaugh. They wouldn’t even have needed a mishandled punt this time. By no means was the game out of reach for them until after we stopped them on fourth down.
You need to login in order to vote
You realize that your argument is: if the 4th quarter comeback had been successful the 4th quarter comeback could have been meaningful?
No one is saying it was impossible just that it was highly unlikely. Just as a team down 35-0 at halftime can win 42-38. Yep – they can still win, but me you and everyone else knows they won’t. That’s why Dantonio kicked the FG down 20.
You are correct that MSU had the ball inside the 20 with a little over 2 minutes to go and were down 13 points. Michigan’s win probability never dipped below 90%.
Except for Stribling’s screwup Michigan had allowed 1 FG in 6 drives leading up to your “dramatic moment” when they were up 2 TDs with 2 minutes left. To put the most negative spin possible on it, MSU had scored on 3 of 8 drives. They would have had to have gone 2 of 2 AND stopped a Michigan team that scored on 5 of 6 drives before going into clock-kill mode.
Had MSU scored there, there could have been some drama. They didn’t – just like they didn’t for the vast majority of the game. That’s because Michigan was the far better team and played like it.
You need to login in order to vote
No, that’s not my argument. But since you’ve reached the point (again) of having to put words in my mouth, I’ll take that as a sign that you don’t have a real response to my points.
And no, it wasn’t just “except for Stribling’s screwup” that State scored their second touchdown. It was a 59 yard drive in five plays in 1:35 that put them within two scores with 7:26 left. “Screwup” is just another word for “he got beat”. That was not garbage time…State was still very much in the game at that point. If Harbaugh was really in “clock kill” mode at that point, it was a mistake, the same kind that cost us the game last year. They stopped us on the next drive and then drove 64 yards in 10 plays to the 18, so one of that “2 for 2” was almost finished. Michigan certainly wasn’t playing like the far better team at that moment. State had gone through our defense easily on two straight drives. It wasn’t until Pepper’s sack that the game was in the bag, but that drive could just have easily ended with them in the end zone, just as the previous drive had. I hope you’re not saying that we were just playing with them on that drive, and that we could have stopped them whenever we wanted. Because that’s the only way your argument makes sense.
Face facts. We eased up early, and let State stay in that game until less than two minutes to go. They never stopped trying and we did. You know I never said they had a better chance to win than we did, but they absolutely had a chance. I’ve seen teams come back in tougher situations than that, and so have you.
You need to login in order to vote
I will grant you that our prevent defense was not preventative enough. I would tend to chalk that up to a fluke mistake (Stribling) and penalties on the last drive, but it was certainly not how you want to close that game.
Does it mean anything for OSU – highly doubtful.
You need to login in order to vote
‘garbage time’ sounds like semantics. The game was decided, barring a miracle. And yes miracles can happen (see MSU ’15) but that’s the point – Michigan was playing to minimize those chances.
Analyzing these situations without considering the context (that Michigan was trying to drive as slowly as possible and minimize mistakes while MSU was trying to take risks to move the ball as fast as possible) is ridiculous. MSU didn’t “stop us” on the last drive of the game because the goal of that drive was to bleed time off the clock and not turn it over. Mission accomplished.
You’re comparing apples to oranges and calling apples superior because they are more red.
We eased up. Yes, that’s the point. We eased up because the game was decided.
Your definition of “very much in the game” is wildly unrealistic. There is many matchups where 2 TDsin 2 minutes are difficult but still doable. This was not one of those; as the rest of the game proved. You’re talking about a team with 34 passing yards through 3 quarters. What they got late – Michigan gave to them.
MSU never stopped trying to make it close. That’s true. Michigan wanted to win and move on. MSU wanted to cling to a semblance of pride because they are the petulant children of their petulant patriarch.
You can keep saying State was in the game but they weren’t. There’s actual data that invalidates this argument. Mark Dantonio’s statements and actions invalidate that argument.
You need to login in order to vote
What is meaningful is something that we’ve already seen before — the run game is not good enough to be effective on it’s own. It’s reliant on a passing game and/or screens and sweeps to create horizontal threats. We knew that already but this game was further affirmation.
That is something to watch for against Iowa and OSU. Michigan needs Speight to make the passing game go because the run game can be shut down if an opponent focuses on it.
You need to login in order to vote
More “ifs,” “could haves,” and “should haves”
This is football, and that logic goes both ways. We won, cheer up!
You need to login in order to vote