The Michigan Review

Critical Mass for the Wolverines

by Hal Borkow

Is anyone in the sports world still wondering who deserved the Heisman trophy last year? I hope not. If someone from Knoxville still claims that Peyton Manning was most deserving of the honor, show him the play of the 1998 Michigan squad. Without doubt, the current Wolverines have put the whole matter to rest. However bittersweet it is, Michigan fans can take solace in knowing that they were right all along as to who was last year's college football MVP.

The defending national champions have certainly struggled in the early going. What is most alarming perhaps to the Michigan fans was the manner in which the Wolverines lost their first two games. The defense (of all the units!) was embarrassed by two option quarterbacks. Against Notre Dame, costly turnovers in the third quarter led to mental breakdowns on defense. As for Syracuse, it seemed the Wolverines never even stood a chance. Donovan McNabb and the skill position players of Syracuse simply dominated the game. So, where does that leave the Wolverines as the Big Ten schedule kicks into high-gear? What must be improved and solidified?

One crucial area of the Wolverine game is its pass-rush. The 1998 Wolverines have missed both Charles Woodson and Glen Steele more than they could have ever realized. Woodson’s aggressive and physical coverage allowed the Wolverines to blitz its linebackers and safeties like mad-dogs in ’97. Steele managed to lead the Wolverines in sacks last year, saving his best performance for the biggest game of the year, against Ohio State. In that game, Steele recorded three sacks, including one on the Buckeyes' final series of downs.

But consider: as good as the Michigan pass rush was last year, they were doing it without David Bowens, the sack leader for the ’96 Wolverines. Despite the loss of Bowens, the ’97 Wolverine defense found players capable of stepping up as pass-rushers. Likewise, the ’98 Michigan defense is capable of creating its own identity, and it doesn’t have to be as thoroughly dominating as the ’97 Michigan defense. But for the season to be salvaged, it does have to keep Michigan in all of its games.

In Michigan’s first three contests the defense recorded only two sacks. Against the Spartans however, it was born-again, as were the Wolverines. Michigan tripled their season sack total from two to six, as they recorded four against Bill Burke (the stiffest quarterback in the state behind Scott Mitchell). The Michigan defense shut out the Spartan offense in the second half, and controlled the tempo of the game.

Simply put, there is no quarterback in the Big Ten with the same caliber athletic ability as McNabb. The Michigan defense proved that with their spirited if fruitless attempts at sacking him. For the most part, the Big Ten quarterbacks are pocket passers. Maybe these are the teams Michigan needs to play in order for the defense and the pass-rush to be successful. Whatever the case, the Michigan defense must pass-rush this season like it did in the second half against Michigan State. A good pass-rush will cover flaws in the secondary and undoubtedly create turnovers as well.

As for the Michigan offense, Michigan fans must not forget that it was an inconsistent unit in 1997. It is a testament to the greatness of last year’s defense that Michigan was able to go undefeated, as turnovers plagued the offense against Iowa and Notre Dame. And, an inability to move the ball on the ground in the second half nearly cost the Wolverines last year’s game against the Buckeyes. The ’98 Michigan offense must cope with key losses at quarterback, fullback, tailback, and center, among other positions.

If there’s one thing Michigan fans ask of Lloyd Carr, it is that he not follow the Ohio State model and rotate Brady and Henson depending on which player has the hot arm. It would be extremely difficult for Tom Brady to function at his highest level if he has to look over his shoulder every time he goes three-and-out. This is not to say that Carr can’t go with youth and play Henson full-time. What’s important is that Carr stick to one quarterback for the whole season.

Brian Griese succeeded last year not because he had amazing ability, but because he had the respect of his teammates. Their support allowed Griese to play with tremendous confidence and poise the entire season. For either Brady or Henson to be successful in 1998, one of them needs to know that he is the leader of the offense. I would be foolish to claim to know which quarterback is further along in his development. The Michigan coaches are the ones qualified to answer that question. But if Coach Carr wants to get the best results from either quarterback, he must play either Brady or Henson full-time.

The truth is that Michigan was not the most talented team in college football last year. The Wolverines succeeded because of spectacular team chemistry and one player that comes along in college football about every decade. The Buckeyes have had more pure talent than the Wolverines have had the past three years. But on the gridiron Michigan has come out on top because they know that talent alone does not win football games. Tenacity, heart, and performance under big-game pressure are just as important. The Buckeyes will be waiting for the Wolverines in Columbus. At that point in the year the maize-and-blue faithful can only hope that Michigan football is ready for the challenge.

Although Michigan has struggled out of the gate, the heart of the Big Ten schedule awaits the Wolverines. It should be noted that the last time Michigan started 0-2 was in 1988. Michigan rebounded that year and won the Big Ten. They topped off the year by defeating USC in the Rose Bowl. This is proof that Michigan can rebound and have a successful year. To do that, this 1998 team must find new leaders, and forge its own identity. Michigan football will succeed or fail this season depending on how ready its players are to step up to this task. MR

This article was published in the 7 October 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 17, Number 2).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.