MGoBlog's new preview of the basketball and hockey teams is running through the printing press right now. Our 100% indie book is the same length as the football one—128 pages—and split about 2/3rds to hoops with the back 44 pages switching to State Street. The first copies should begin arriving in about two weeks. We sprung (for like $2k) for 1st class shipping for the Kickstarter backers this time so we can track orders and get them all to you expeditiously.
About the DraftStreet Deal:
So like the football book we've made this one $15.00 (if you get it shipped that'll tack on about $5.00 more depending on where you live). However thanks to our online fantasy game partner, if you don't have a Draftstreet account yet, you can still have it for $15 straight-up AND keep your $15 as a deposit on DraftStreet AND get another $15 in your account on top of that. Take that link to get here:
… and create your account. You'll also be able to use our code (77HATESDONKEYS but it should automatically apply if you take that link) on Draft Street for 100% on top of whatever you put down (so if for $15 you get $30.00 in your Draft Street account and a copy of HTTV Hoops and Hockey sent to you). When you're done with that they'll send you an email with a code to input into our store (make sure you use the link in that email) and a code to use there for free shipping. Once I've got word your deposit is in I can send a book.
Super bonus: This method of buying the book is most beneficial to us since we get paid double per book.
So to review:
- Take this link right here to the offer page.
- Create a new account on Draftstreet and deposit $15 or more, then watch whatever you deposited double (use the code 77HATESDONKEYS if it doesn't)
- As soon as you put in your deposit, DraftStreet will send you an email with a special link back to our store, and a code to use there to get you free shipping. If you don't receive an email, contact [email protected] and he'll get you squared away.
Caveats: there are some. 1) Limit's one per customer. 2) They're looking for new members so if you've already got an account there (even a free one) you'll be locked out, at least on that email address. Also locked out: Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Vermont, and Montana. Apologies to hockey fans in Louisiana and Arizona—try the store,
Order from the MGoStore It is $15.00. Shipping will make it about $20 depending on where you live and taxes, for example it's $21.49 to first-class it if you live in Michigan, $21.62 to send it to your cottage in Evanston, and $20.27 to have it sent to Louisiana Ice Arena in Carencro, LA, or the White House.
In Local Storentus Any Underground Printing outlet—including Moe's—in Ann Arbor will have it, and I may have some other venues in the coming weeks (if you have a store and would like to have a few copies there email me.
To see what's inside and who helped put it there, hit the jump.
Saved By The DBs: All this year Michigan has been plagued by giveaways (6 fumbles and 11 interceptions) and the defense has only 4 fumble recoveries. But, the defense has saved the day with 11 interception takeaways. Michigan has 1.6 interception takeaways per game this year as compared to just 0.5 per game in 2012, and 0.7 in 2011.
Keep Throwing The Damn Ball!: Knowing they would need to score points to beat Indiana, M opened up the offense with a record setting day passing the ball. But, with Indiana ranked #98 in defense rushing yards per attempt coming into the game, it was no surprise that Manball continued with a 63.5% run play percentage for the game and 61.28% for the year (ranked #17). Yards per rush for M is ranked #64. Michigan did open up on first down by passing the ball 36% of the time as opposed to passing just 22% on first downs previously.
MSU is ranked #1 in opponent rushing yards per attempt, #3 in opponent rushing play percentage (41.5%), and #1 in opponent rushing yards per game (at 59.8 YPG with the #2 team – Louisville – allowing 40% more YPG at 83.7). If Michigan is able to run the ball against MSU, I will be shocked!
With 63 points, Michigan improved to #8 in scoring offense but with 47 points allowed plummeted to #57 in scoring defense.
Synopsis: Thanks to the 2 fourth quarter interceptions by Gordon, Michigan's TOM for the game was 0.0 and for the year remains at – 2 (– 0.29 per game) which improved slightly to #81. Turnovers were not a primary factor in determining which team won the game. Prior to the two interceptions, Michigan had a disadvantage of 10.13 expected points and the score was just 49-47. The TOs had obviously kept Indiana in the game and they definitely had a chance to win. With those last two interceptions, M ended the game with a disadvantage of just 1.95 EP.
Gardner did not throw an interception but did fumble the snap from center on 2 yard line. Toussaint fumbled the pitch for his first lost fumble. Player Details: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).
National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).
This chart shows Expected Points for various yard lines.
This chart shows the basis of EP calculations for each turnover.
THE BIG TEN OVER THE HUMP
Everyone has at least six games in at this point in the conference, so effectively, we’re over the hump for the regular season already. I believe it might be safe to say that, at this point, there are at least a couple teams whose general trajectory could be at least estimated, one of them being Purdue. For Michigan specifically, we’re looking pretty competitive among our conference compatriots for the most part, so we do have that going.
SCORING OFFENSE AND DEFENSE:
Thanks in part to Saturday, Michigan is right up there in terms of scoring offense at an average of 42 points per game on the season, good for a solid fourth in the conference. Indeed, eight teams are averaging 30 points or more. Further, and again thanks in part to Saturday, Michigan is now eighth in the conference in scoring defense, but on the bright side, we did an Indiana team that is now precariously close to giving up 40 points per game on average.
TOTAL OFFENSE AND DEFENSE:
There was some buzz on my Twitter feed over the weekend about Nebraska’s defense being the worst, and this is not true at all. From a total yards allowed standpoint, it is fourth-worst in the conference, but again, everyone can pile on Indiana in this respect. Offense is not a huge problem for most teams in the Big Ten with nine teams getting 400 yards or more on average per game. That’s pretty good really. In the tempo-free world, the worst performers are Illinois, Minnesota and Purdue.
RUSHING OFFENSE AND DEFENSE:
So, for another week, there is not a whole lot of shock when you look at the best overall performances in the rushing game for the Big Ten, and as for Michigan, we did get a boost thanks to nearly 300 yards of rushing against Indiana. Even better, despite the Indiana game’s Tecmo numbers, we’re still saddled with the fourth-best rushing defense in the conference, and one of the best in the nation overall.
PASSING OFFENSE AND DEFENSE:
We played the team with the best passing offense. We experienced the best passing offense in the conference and won. We do have that to our credit. Michigan is in the top four here as well, so despite concerns, it is becoming a very productive aspect of the game. When it comes to defending the pass, much of the conference sits in a fairly narrow band of averages with some good performances on top, which is interesting really.
Interestingly, there is not much movement here from the previous week. The top performances sit clustered around 50% and then you have Penn State and Purdue, both of which struggle mightily to sustain drives. The defensive side of this seems to be a story of good to meh and then Indiana and Purdue.
I think it is fair to say that if you’re giving up more of these than you’re getting, then as is the case with third downs, you definitely have problems. You can see who has some issues definitely in this chart anyway.
SPECIAL TEAMS STUFF:
So I'm sure you can do this with a ton of schedules once you actualy start cross-referencing, but the facts are still laughable. The genesis behind this was when I looked at the rankings at 7pm tonight on my phone and had the reaction ... 'Missouri is #5 and Auburn is #14!?!?!?'
Let's start with Auburn. That's the lesser offense here.
Auburn beat Texas A&M. I'm surprised they jumped that much, but it's not unheard of.
For what it's worth, outside of A&M, Auburn has beaten the following teams this year: Ole Miss, Western Carolina, Miss St, Arkansas State, Washington State.
Now, Missouri. Oooooh Missouri, you bastards.
Two points to set up my argument:
- LSU's opponent win% is .500 (24-24). Their best wins are Auburn (previously unranked), TCU, and Florida
- South Carolina's opponent win% is sub-.500. Their best wins are North Carolina and Vanderbilt
OK, so Missouri went from "receiving votes" to #5 by beating Florida and Georgia.
- Florida & Georgia are unraked, both 4-3.
- Florida & Georgia's best wins collectively are South Carolina (see above), and LSU (see above). The other 6 wins between Florida & Georgia are against North Texas, Tennessee (2x), Toledo, Kentucky, and Arkansas.
- Missouri's other wins? Murray State, Toledo, Indiana, Vandy and Arkansas State.
It ..... gets ......... better:
The teams #5 Missouri has beaten this year ... below IS THE FULL LIST OF TEAMS THOSE SCHOOLS HAVE WINS AGAINST:
Campbellsville, Missouri State, Central Michigan, Jacksonville State, Tennessee Tech, Austin Peay (2x), Eastern Washington, Western Michigan, Navy (2OT), Arkansas Pine-Bluff, Troy, Idaho, Georgia, UMass, UAB, South Carolina, North Texas, Tennessee (2x), Toledo, Kentucky, Arkansas.
Ladies & Gentlemen, your #5 team in the nation, SOLEY because they play in the SEC.
Unlike last week, this is pretty positive. It was actually quite a bit harder to write, though, which makes me think that I’m more engaged when I’m in a bad mood. Let’s hope I’m not handed another opportunity to test that theory this season.
I like it when a flower or a little tuft of grass grows through a crack in the concrete. It's so fuckin' heroic. – George Carlin
Last week against PSU, the UM defense put forth an “heroic” effort to hold the Nittany Lions to 43 points over 4 OTs. It was the type of game where the obvious structural fissures and blatant player deficiencies you usually expect after giving up 43 points simply did not exist; you could pick at the seams but the whole tapestry did not unravel spectacularly.
Against Indiana, UM gave up 47 points in regulation, allowing 572 yards in total offense and 8 scoring drives that averaged 53 yards on only 5 plays per. On paper, it looked like most of the nightmare games UM had defensively under RR or any time they played a spread team like Oregon or Jarious Jackson-led Notre Dame under Carr. Just one of those games where the defense couldn’t get off the field to save its life, and the opposition was, at best, slightly inconvenienced on its way to the endzone.
But a funny thing happened on the way to eradication: the defense played well enough to win. In no way should that be construed as “great” or even “good” because, well, this is still a results-based sport and for all of the advanced metrics and acronyms, 7.5 yard per play (and closer to 8 if you factor out that last desperation drive) allowed isn’t going to cut it.
That said, this wasn’t a game where UM was outclassed or, really, even out-schemed. True, there were a couple of busted plays caused by the Hoosiers’ maddening tempo, including a 59-yarder to Latimer for the game’s first score as well as as couple of long completions in the 3rd quarter when Roberson found Stoner for a 42-yarder and Wynn Worst Waldo’ing for a TD. But in addition to the two interceptions recorded by the defense, there were probably 3-4 others that were close to being turnovers, including the 67 yarder by Hughes and a sequence in the 2nd quarter where Taylor (?) had a near-pick on Roberson that was followed by a crazy 33-yard TD to Wynn to pull IU within 7. As with last week’s post-Crisis final drive, those plays sometimes happen against you without rhyme or reason.
And after surrendering 23 points to IU in the 3rd quarter, the defense clamped down in the 4th, allowing only 7 points and forcing two turnovers (including a quick one after the Gardner fumble) as well as a game-ending sack by Frank Clark. For 3/4 of the game, the defense held IU to about a TD a quarter; a couple of breakdowns and luck made a 16-point win look closer than it was. And yes, saying a “couple of breakdowns” is like saying The Room had a “couple of issues” with editing and plot. Given all that, while I wouldn’t frame this game as a particularly heroic one by Mattison’s crew, it was at least “recklessly effective".
Best: The Only Defense is a Good Offense
I’ll get into my feelings about the offense later on (spoiler alert: MSU scored 42 points against IU in a single game!) but it must be said that the offense performed exactly the role it needed to in this game. IU’s offense is incredibly fast-paced and up-tempo; to steal a line from official MSU sponsor TapOut, IU tries to overwhelm the opposition with punches in bunches. Kevin Wilson, in-between absolutely eradicating Big Red gum and fuming during tense interviews with former UM offensive linemen, predicates a fast-strike offense that never wins the TOP battle because it doesn’t need to.
Early on, though, it seemed like the defense had IU basically figured out; UM forced a punt on 4 of the first 5 drives, including a couple of 3-and-outs. Of course, they did get tempo’d on a 4 play, 72 yard TD drive, but overall it seemed like IU’s offense was getting stymied by UM’s tight coverage and solid line play. At the same time, UM’s offense kept chugging along, scoring 4 TDs on their first 6 possessions and having a FG blocked because science.
But starting midway through the 2nd quarter all the way to the start of the 4th, IU started rolling with Tre Roberson and the defense had no real answer. All of a sudden, the defense couldn’t get off the field without giving up points, it seemed like IU had a 14 guys on every play, and my leftover Pad Thai tasted not like a bastardized version of a Bangkok dish but merely despair. UM’s only hope was to weather the storm by matching IU’s scoring barrage, one nutso drive at a time.
And that’s exactly what they did, with a couple of bumps along the way. Both fumbles were quickly rectified by Thomas Gordon INTs that UM was able to capitalize on, and the only other non-score on those 9 second-half possessions was a quick 3-and-out. There was no “field position battle” or alternative strategy by either offense; the goal was to score a touchdown on every drive, and while IU certainly was the faster squad out there, UM just kept plugging along at an efficient pace until IU’s mistakes caught up with them. The announcers characterized it as two boxers throwing haymakers; I thought it more like one of those 40-yard dash videos where a couple of players were superimposed on top of each other to distinguish individual progress during the sprint.
Both offenses were tenuously in competition with each other, but it felt more like a race to 60 points than anything resembling a pitched back-and-forth confrontation. It was admittedly somewhat surreal to watch, though in the joyous sense of seeing your team decimate an overmatched opponent and in the sense of, you know, the rest of the season.
Worst: The Shuffle
A football team is an ever-changing and evolving creature; due to injuries, performance, or purely feel, changes need to be made throughout the year to get as close to perfection as possible. With UM, the most significant and consistent changes have been made to the offensive line, which if last week’s special 27 for 27 didn’t drive the point home, is a bit in shambles. While the tackles are both experienced and will be playing in the NFL next year, the rest of the line is ludicrously young and/or inexperienced while also experiencing nearly week-by-week upheaval between the guards and center. Both Joe Burzynski and Erik Magnuson received their first starts of the year, replacing recent first-time starters Chris Bryant and Kyle Kallis, and once Burzynski went out due to injury Kyle Bosch stepped in as a true freshman.
While I do not doubt for a moment that these changes are due to both real and perceived lack of performance, one has to wonder if all of these changes are at least partially responsible for those deficiencies. The one thing you hear most often about an offensive line is that it benefits immensely from familiarity and maturation as a unit, that the more often these same 5 guys line up the better they’ll be as they learn the line calls, identify blocking assignments, and generally get a feel for how each other plays. But when you are replacing 3/5 of your line every couple of weeks with progressively less experienced players, while also installing a bunch of wonky-ish formations, you really shouldn’t be surprised if the same problems and holes keep reappearing. For example, on Fitz’s first TD on 4th and 1, the inside of the line was absolutely crushed; only be bouncing outside did Fitz find the endzone. Now, if that sounds familiar to you, welcome to the 2013-2014 Michigan Wolverines. Your pitchfork and Thundershirt is in the mail.
I know the stats say the line did a decent job (4.6 ypc on 54 carries) run-blocking and only gave up 2 sacks, but it again looked like a line in transition, which is not a positive sign 2/3 of the way into the season.
Best: Secret Santa
I’m not sure what the Secret Santa policy is on the team, but if I’m Jeremy Gallon I would give Devin Funchess all of the gift baskets given how his move to WR has opened up the field for Rocket Boots. While Funchess pulled in the lion’s share of the catches against Minny, Gallon has 21 catches for 464 yards and 3 TDs in the past two games and looks to be back to his All B1G-caliber mark most expected after the ND game.
Similarly, Devin Gardner has transformed from a terrifying pick-six machine into what most people expected when the year began: a dynamic playmaker who will make some bad throws but who can also pick you apart on the ground or in the air when the weapons around him are thoroughly deployed. Obviously the ultimate goal would be for Funchess to follow the Tyler Eifert model of terrifying TE/WR who can actually block on running plays, but so far his move to WR has not only led to great numbers for him (23.1 ypc and 3 TDs in the past 3 games, which would rank him #5 nationally if he kept it up for the year) but also a demonstrative improvement for the other players in the passing game.
Worst: Knowing is Half the Battle, Unless Said Battle is Against Indiana’s Defense
Jeremy Gallon started off UM’s second drive with a simple WR screen that he turned into a 70 yard completion. It was a great playcall at the time because the Indiana DBs had shifted their coverage distance from “city-sized” cushion to a “state-sized” one, and Gallon is hard enough to tackle when you are on top of him that giving him any space to move was an invitation for awesomeness. So a little later on, Devin Gardner took the snap, faked what I presume was a bubble screen, and handed off to Green for a nice gain. One can only presume at that moment, Heiko did something like this:
Certainly the liveblog exploded with a mixture of jubilation and confusion; happy that the playbook was opening up a bit but also wondering if either Al Borges was purposely trolling the fanbase or if he was seriously considering using gimmicky ideas like “misdirection” and “adapting to the defense.”
Unfortunately, I’ve seen this Al Borges before; it isn’t Good Borges or Bad Borges, but instead Irrelevant Borges because his playcalling was never tested by a competent defensive unit. Call me a Borges Denier, but I don’t even know if he was calling plays this week; a 14-year-old fan could have snuck into the booth and nobody thought to check.
IU couldn’t really stop the run, even when the offensive line brought out five Vuvuzelas and announced where they were going. Penetration and swarming sometimes led to stops, but even this offensive line was able to impose its will. Heck, the one TO by Fitz was due to Gardner trying a toss play that probably would have worked HAD THEY EVER PRACTICED IT. Even with this mishap, Fitz had his beast game of the year by a country mile, scoring 4 times while averaging 4.7 yards on 32 carries and a long of 27. And when a wide receiver sets a conference record while a QB sets both passing and total yardage records at the same school where Denard Robinson played Notre Dame and Illinois numerous times, you know the secondary was just escorting the ball to the receivers.
A win is a win, though, and 751 yards in total offense (on only 83 plays!) is 128 more yards given up against than any other competitor this season (Mizzou put up 623). Al Borges called a fine game and the offense executed immensely well. But the free-wheeling, spread-ish offense we saw by Borges isn’t going to stick around against the rest the conference slate, just like it didn’t against OSU last year, Iowa in 2011, or PSU this year. If anything, this game will simply be viewed as reinforcing the tendencies we’ve seen already, except that instead of averaging under a yard per carry IU’s derpitude resulted in a record-setting game. It remains an offense that screams ‘zig’ (Devin-centric attack with some up-tempo thrown in) while Borges remains determined to zag. It worked this week, but that’s the thing about Indiana: you only get to play them once.
Worst: Poor Secondary or
Best: Limited YACs?
If you haven’t gathered yet, I’m relatively positive about the defense this week, at least compared to my very lukewarm feelings about the offense. That doesn’t mean it was a great day by the unit, especially the secondary. As noted earlier, a couple of those long completions were due to dumb luck or great throws (Jourdan Lewis in particular was victimized by a great throw along the sideline), but IU clearly identified Raymon Taylor as a weak spot and attacked him mercilessly early on. He led the team with 4 pass breakups but also was in on 9 tackles, including 7 solo. By comparison, Countess was only responsible for 1 PBU and 3 tackles, and outside of a couple of plays seemed to keep pace. When one of your corners is seeing that much action, its usually not because he’s just flying all over the field, or at least not purposely doing so within the flow of the defense.
A number of IU’s long gains were because the secondary couldn’t get into position properly, either failing to align in the right coverage or simply trailing plays that started up before they were set. Outside of more preparation against this type of offense or “being better” I’m not sure how the unit can really improve on its performance, at least as currently constructed. Thomas Gordon’s two INTs definitely alleviate the sting a bit, though I’m guessing at least a couple of the long TDs were because either Gordon or Wilson failed to shift over to help out the DBs.
That said, there were relatively few blown plays resulting from missed tackles. The 67-yarder was somewhat due to a failure to tackle after the contested reception, and I’m sure I’m missing another couple plays, but usually a defender was there when the pass was completed to limit the damage. The longest run by a back all day (and apparently all year) was 20 yards, which is totally acceptable given the circumstances.
Best: I Must Be Drunk
This is apparently where I absolutely lose my mind and talk up the defense some more. Sure it was a cheap one at the end of the game, but Frank Clark had another sack and has 4.5 in 4 games. Given the speed by which IU gets the ball out, the two sacks recorded by the team are understandable. The line’s continued improvement along with Ryan’s return gives me hope that there might be some disruption forthcoming. And the linebackers, in particular Bolden, played reasonably well, though I’d trust Brian’s detailed analysis far more than my naked-eye observations. IU had some success running the ball, especially once Roberson took over, but it always felt limited, as if the defense was giving up 4-5 yards on the ground to protect against the pass. Probably something related to bending vs. breaking.
I’ve been reading Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, and if you haven’t read it yet I won’t spoil it except to say it is absolutely like every other book he’s ever written. It’s the type of book wherein you’ll be annoyed that he is playing a little fast and loose with statistics, the underlying results of papers, and how a quasi-fictional narrative can be spun in a pop-sci book, but also glean enough interesting anecdotes and believable results that you’ll feel slightly smarter at your next soiree .
Personally, I enjoy the books but take them with a hefty grain of salt; I definitely wouldn’t use them as citations but I have looked into some of the topics more deeply after reading his takes. And one of the stronger takeaways from this book is that strengths and weaknesses are often subjective, based purely on the perceptions and biases of each party involved.
The titular tale of David and Goliath is turned on its head, as Gladwell discusses the fact that powerful but immobile Goliath (who likely was suffering from the same condition that afflicted people like Gheorghe Muresan and Andre the Giant) was no match for the fleet-footed David because the battlefield favored the swift artillery, only nobody had considered disrupting the paradigm until the stone fell the giant. He then pointed to numerous other examples in which the “underdog” military held its ground against a superior force by fighting in an atypical style, and only when these smaller forces adopted more “classical” styles that favored numerical advantage over other factors did they start to lose. In effect, he argues, the status quo works best when everyone agrees to abide by its terms; deviate even a bit and the inefficiencies are there for the taking.
Watching IU on offense, I saw how their up-tempo offense could flummox defenses for games; when the offense is already lined up mere seconds after the ball is placed, the defense has a very small window in which to react and respond. On offense, you only need that one point of failure, that one missed assignment or sloppy tackle, to score. Your line doesn’t have to be big and powerful, and your skill players can be pretty average, because you are maximizing the issues created by slow-reacting defenders getting into position.
But on defense, everyone really does need to be on the same page, or at least a reasonable facsimile. That’s why you typically see the most successful defenses against spread attacks be veteran-laden; you need kids who can react to the formations with minimal communication from the coaches. RR’s offenses ran into problems when the PSU’s, MSU’s, and OSU’s of the world could keep pace. And that points to the reality that defenses are far more reliant on overall talent than offense; you can disguise coverages and blitz from as many angles as you want, but you need guys who JUST MAKE PLAYS to keep you in the game. IU doesn’t have that, and that’s how a pretty average offense was able to drop 63 points on them. I shudder to think how IU would handle a team like themselves, but more talented; OkSt. or TT would run them off the field by halftime, and I don’t even think the NCAA would let them match up against Oregon. It’s why when the clearly-aroused Glen Mason spoke of IU’s youth on defense and the expected improvement it would see as it matured, I had to scoff a bit. For all of Indiana’s polish on offense, that defense hasn’t been “good” in decades, and no amount of “coaching them up” and father time will matter if the players just aren’t that talented.
I guess my point is that while I’m never going to be a big fan of Al Borges or the offensive philosophy of this team, I care far more about how this team’s defense evolves and grows over the next couple of years. It is undoubtedly cliche, but you have to be able to stop the other guy at least a couple of times in order to win, and a dominant defense with a competent-if-infuriating offense feels like a more efficient outfit than a hack-and-slash offense with a sieve in the front 7. Obviously one can dream of both, but the fact we have yet to really see a team pull it off makes me think it is harder than one thinks. Given the coaching staff and the philosophy they have installed, I’m bracing myself to see the status quo shaken up once or twice a season but only as a tease.
Bestest: Bouncing Baby Programming Note
This is probably more personal than many of you care to know, but BronxBlueWife and I are expecting our first mini Wolverine in the next week or so. Because I am a shot-caller, I’m hoping the baby arrives during the bye week and I’m at least semi-capable of scribbling down thoughts thru the end of the season. But if not, this might become a less-frequent weekly, at least until the sleep deprivation shifts from a sharp pain to a dull, perpetual one.
Earlier this year, Seth had an incredible analysis of Gallon’s 2012 numbers that compared Jeremy Gallon's statistical output to receivers around the country in 2012 and Michigan receivers from 2005-12 (obviously post-Braylon). It basically showed that he’s been the best since Braylon for us.
Although I don’t think we’ll ever say Gallon was better than Braylon, it is interesting to see where yesterday’s numbers leave him both all-time, and with respect to single-season stats.
If you remove Gallon’s lowest and highest yardage totals this year (because 361 yards receiving is a major outlier) and apply it to 6 more games this season (assuming we don’t make the B1G Championship game and have 7 more), Gallon’s projected to finish the season with 1,348 yards receiving — surpassing Braylon’s single-season record of 1,300. That’s averaging of 86 yards/game the rest of the way.
At the pace he’s on, here’s roughly where he would finish (didn’t remove the max and min for TD and Rec because I’m lazy it doesn’t matter as much):
- Receiving yards-Season: 1,348 (Best-evaaa), already 19th
- Receptions-Season: 83 (4th-best)
- Touchdowns-Season: 13 (6th-best), already tied for 20th
- Career Yards: 2,679 (3rd all-time), already 11th
- Career Receptions: 167 (4th-best), already 13th
Career Receiving TD: 21 (7th all-time), already 11th
There’s a lot to factor in to where he’ll actually finish (ie. Can he stay healthy? How many blowouts will we have where we just don’t throw the ball in the second half? (lol) How will he perform against the tougher defenses ahead? etc.), but given how stressful this year has been, it’s nice to see Gallon putting together an outstanding year to finish out a highly productive career.
Thanks, No. 10/No. 21.