Michigan played Florida, Cincinnati and Air Force so far. Florida has a horrible offense with a FR QB, especially for an SEC school. Air Force has no passing attack to speak of. Cincinnati did not have a great offense either. Michigan has a great DC, but they haven't exactly playing high-powered offensive teams yet.
Some thoughts from another board on the Boilermaker's offense:
"1) Jeff Brohm is an amazing coach and Purdue is going to be legitimately good sooner rather than later, but there are reasons to be skeptical of Purdue's offense, some statistical and some based on the eye test.
2) First, the level of competition they've played on defense has been absolutely abysmal. Louisville got completely lit up by both Clemson and North Carolina but held Purdue pretty much in check barring a few good third down passes in the red zone. 35 points against Missouri starts to look less impressive when you realize Mizzou coughed up an average of 37 to South Carolina (which has a bad offense) and Missouri State. Ohio is Ohio - I guess we can say that Purdue did better on offense against them than Kansas did, but not *that* much better. And Kansas has one of the worst offenses in FBS. It's too early for opponent adjustments yet, but these are three defenses who have let all opponents move the ball very, very efficiently against them.
3) Purdue's offense is designed to be an efficiency machine. They don't have any home run hitting backs, and their top two receiving targets are both capital P possession guys. But why is Purdue's offense efficient? It's because they run effectively as a constraint and a have a high completion percentage of short throws. But, but - they are not getting guys open short by throwing off a lot of three step drops. Brohm's offense uses a lot of precise and somewhat complicated routes to shake off man coverage and find holes in zones, and those routes take time to develop. Purdue gives up a lot of sacks for a precision throwing team, and once Louisville was up one score and the threat of the run was removed as a constraint, its pass rush was getting home on almost every play. Purdue's interior pass blocking is particularly suspect. Adjust for the quality of opposition faced, consider that their line is bad at pass blocking, add in the fact that Michigan's pass rush gets home quick, and Purdue's efficiency starts to look a lot less intimidating.
4) Purdue's run game is a sideshow. They used it effectively on short yardage against Louisville and it was just good enough to act as a constraint, but that's pretty much it. They pull their guards a fair bit to try to overpower one side and spring Fuller out wide, but they're not even going to try to run in between the tackles against us. And unlike Louisville I think we'll be able to keep them from converting on 3rd and short.
5) I don't think this is an offense that's going to be inefficient but hit its share of big plays against us. It doesn't pass the eye test - none of their receivers are threats to get over the top of the defense and they don't have a home run hitter at running back. Their big pass plays have mostly come off unforced busts by the defense or trick plays. They do use the tight ends down the seam effectively off play action, but we don't have to respect the play action and again, those plays take a little time to develop. There's just not much athleticism there.
6) Purdue has a big playbook and uses misdirection well (expect a lot of tunnel screens), but any success they have is going to be occasional RPS things. Our 3-3-5 is tailor made to smother an offense like this, Purdue's receivers aren't good enough to get open quickly against our DBs, and they're rarely going to have time to run slower developing routes. They'll do better than Florida or Cincy, but not by much. "