From Portage Northern.
Here's a list of recruits that will be on hand for the Michigan State game this weekend. There are some key visitors this weekend, and next weekend might actually be a bigger game for recruiting. As always this list will grow and shrink as changes happen. I had a request to add star rankings next to players listed, so all rankings will be according to Rivals. Continue to check back here for more updates as the come:
- Devondrick Nealy - (5'10", 175 lbs/ Slot Receiver/ Jefferson County, FL/ 3 Star)
- Marquise Williams - (6'3", 210 lbs/ Quarterback/ Mallard Creek, NC/ 3 Star)
- Jack Miller - Michigan commit
- Kellen Jones - Michigan commit
- Jake Fisher - Michigan commit
- James Elliott - (6'4", 305 lbs/ Offensive Line/ Pensacola, FL/ 3 Star) He'll be back in December as well. He's waiting for a committable offer. If he gets it, expect him to commit.
- Anthony Zettel - (6'4", 250 lbs/ Defensive/Offensive Line/ Ogemaw, MI/ 4 Star)
- Kishon Wilcher - (5'6", 154 lbs/ Cornerback/ Cass Tech, MI/ 3 Star)
- Cardale Jones - (6'5", 217 lbs/ Quarterback/ Glenville, OH/ 3 Star)
- Shan Wynn - (5'7", 148 lbs/ Wide Receiver/ Glenville, OH/ 3 Star)
- Damon Knox - (6'5", 265 lbs/ Defensive end/ Muskegon, MI/ 3 Star)
- Royce Jenkins-Stone - (6'2", 215 lbs/ Linebacker/ Cass Tech, MI)
- Terry Richardson - (5'9", 160 lbs/ Cornerback/ Cass Tech, MI)
- Matt Godin - (6'5", 253 lbs/ Defensive End/Tackle/ Detroit Catholic Central)
- Brian Blackburn - (6'5", 197 lbs/ Quarterback/ Crockett, Mi)
- Danny O'Brien - (6'3", 278 lbs/ Defensive Tackle/ Flint, Mi) Will only be there for the first half, because he has homecoming.
- Hunter Matt - (6'2", 187 lbs/ Linebacker/ Roosevelt, MI)
- Corey Smith - (6'0", 165 lbs/ Wide Receiver/ Buchtel, OH)
- Juwan Lewis - (5'11", 200 lbs/ Running Back/ Muskegon, MI)
Is hard to look at.
...however, happens to be so good-looking as to compensate for her ugly friend.
Now, this is not just a bad analogy or an excuse to look at a picture of Melissa Theuriau [Ed: Who needs an excuse?]; this is relevant to football.
In a previous post immediately post-UMass, I said:
3. It can't get any worse. Now, many of you may laugh at the implication that Wisconsin and OSU can't outperform UMass on Offense, but they pretty much can't. UMass dominated TOP - which will be the number one anti-Denard potion going forward...They employed the perfect beat-Michigan formula...
…and this came to pass on Saturday. Those who want to split hairs might argue that our defense against Indiana was worse than it was against UMass, and I am guessing some might argue the other way around. I would suggest we are debating insignificant differences in horribleness.
Where is the optimism in a defense that has twice in the last three weeks performed at or near its worst? They are called victories. Our offense has been sufficient to score more points than our defense at its worst has given up.
Why do I keep suggesting that this defense can’t get any worse? I, myself, was in a state of near gibbering panic at the thought of what Wisconsin and Michigan State might do against our defense. Then I laughed (I swear alcohol had nothing to do with it). This fear is grounded in the nightmarish unreality of a game without a clock. As of last check, we still have one of these at every game:
Quite simply, UMass and Indiana have both plumbed the depths of the worst case scenario that Wisconsin and MSU can hardly outdo, but may duplicate. They pretty much squeezed in as much offense as the 120th ranked Bend-Don't-Break pass defense is going to allow in a sixty minute game.
Both UMass and Indiana:
Dominated TOP as a mechanism to keep Denard and the Michigan Offense off the field (edit: AND limit the number of possesions). This is relevant in that it accentuates the horrid stats that our defense puts up.
Opponent TOP Michigan TOP UMass 36:67 22:22 Indiana 41:47 18:13
Specialized in long, clock-consuming, play-engorged series at the most damn inopportune time.
UMass 11 plays 53 yards 9 plays 67 yards 9 plays 79 yards 15 plays 70 yards Indiana 11 plays 77 yards 13 plays 99 yards 10 plays 72 yards 12 plays 50 yards 13 plays 80 yards
- (I cannot recall as many long drives as Indiana had in all my years of watching college football. They relentlessly attacked the fundamental weakness of the Bend-Don’t-Break philosophy: take what is given. These opponents, as gracious guests, ate from the buffet set out by our caterer, GERG Special Events.)
Had superb success in drive scoring percentage. I don’t know what the national average is here, but I am willing to bet that those batting averages are all-star worthy. A little help from the Mathlete here would be nice.
Score/Poss Scoring % UMass 6/11 55% Indiana 5/12 42%
So, in order for better teams to do more damage to Michigan than UMass and Indiana, one of the following things must happen:
- Better drive scoring percentage.
- Better defense against our offense.
- Intangible success (turnovers, special teams, injuries, etc.)
…all the while Michigan does not have an appreciable improvement in defensive performance or tactics.
Now, it is possible that a couple teams will score more frequently than did the two teams above, and it is probable that Denard and company will be defended better. And we know that the intangibles, our enemy in past years, will bite us sometime soon. But the prospects are not as grim as you might believe for a couple reasons:
- Chappell’s passes were surgical. I was astounded at his gutsy and precise activity over the middle. I would suggest, based upon propensity for interceptions, that NONE of the remaining QBs possess that level of precision. In other words, our zone passing defense that invites 65 attempts will likely extract more errors out of Cousins, Stanzi, Bolden, Tolzien and Pryor.
- Last year demonstrated that RR’s offense could be defended effectively without the “Pat White” prototype QB that stresses defenses. I have finally seen, like a child slowly realizing the truth about Santa, the RR offensive philosophy embodied in that magical, wide-open slant after Denard fakes a QB iso. Does any defense so ridiculously abandon their zone responsibilities to cope with Sheridan, Threet or even Tate? Of course not. I don’t think any defense that we will face will more calmly react to Denard than the first five have. Oh, most will do better, but marginally so. That includes Norm Parker and Iowa (I predict we shred them).
In the end, I am not predicting that we will finish 12-0 or even 11-1. What I am suggesting is that there is a point where defensive ineffectiveness reaches a saturation point in a Bend-Don’t Break strategy that debunks a dark fear in all our hearts that teams will score more and more and more. Teams will score, but the scoring will look pretty much like what UMass and Indiana scoring looked like. As long as Denard stays healthy, we will be in every game.
The proof will be coming shortly - I will return to mgoboard to take my beating these next seven weeks if this prediction doesn't come true: no Big Ten offense will score more than 40 points on Michigan (OK, maybe one in a perfect storm game).
And the final consolation I take is in the offensive line. Last year, our OLine was horrifying. This year it is a source of strength. Assuming (a big assumption) that RR knows both sides of the football, I see a parallel in our secondary that should possess real depth next year and show similar improvement.
[Ed (Misopogon): Bumped to diary for general diary-worthiness]
If, like me, you've heard "So and so is too small for the Big Ten" and wondered if that statement could be supported by data, you might find the following information interesting.
At the expense of some tedious data entry and time, I looked at the depth charts on the Rivals site for teams from several conferences. Shown here are the average weights for the O- and D-lines. (I thought those would be a reasonable proxy for overall team size.)
- Notice that our conference doesn't have the biggest offensive linemen. That would be the SEC.
- Our defensive linemen are noticeably bigger than those of other conferences (SEC excepted). I suppose that might be a reflection of the SMASHMOUTH football favored by Wisconsin, MSU, et al. Not sure, though...
- You have to go to the Sun Belt (!) conference to get relatively small offensive linemen. The Mountain West and WAC conferences are right there with the big boys.
Anyway, the numbers show that the Big Ten isn't anything special size-wise.
Another of my favorite myths or areas of silliness is this remark, which you often hear in pre-game shows: "X's offensive line outweighs Y's defensive line by Z pounds!!!" Of course it does. Any reasonable person understands that offensive linemen have a bigger average size. For the conferences, the average difference ranged from 21.9 to 35.6 pounds. Why state the obvious?
While we're on the subject of myths, one other thing:
The Badgers have just four offensive linemen in the NFL.
For all the glowing praise that Wisconsin's trained mastadons get, you'd think they'd have more players at those positions in the NFL. Four? Not overly impressive ...
All numbers included in this preview are using my PAN metric, Points Above Normal. PAN is essentially how many points above an average FBS team was a team/unit/player worth. For reference, an average FBS team is approximately equal to Illinois or a top team from the MAC.
All games against FCS teams are excluded, as well as any plays in the second half where one team leads by more than 2 touchdowns or any end-of-half, run-out-the-clock situations.
Post Game Notes
The numbers predicted a one-possession win for Michigan and that’s largely how they played out. I audibled against the numbers and said the score might be a bit lower because Michigan might try a UConn game plan, slowing it down and limiting possessions. If that was the gameplan, no one told Denard.
Running the ball was Michigan’s obvious advantage coming in. I projected its worth to be in the range of 9 to 15 points for the game. We ended at the high end, with +16 PAN for the game on the ground. Denard put up his usual +12, while Vincent Smith put up all of his +4 on the long TD run. In four qualifying games Denard now has 4 of the top 14 rushing performances of the season in PAN. Bryce Beall from Houston is the only other player in the country to have two top-30 performances.
The big separation came in the passing game. Every time Michigan dropped back to pass it was basically worth a point. Michigan was +17 PAN on 17 attempts and Denard was +19. In terms of overall quarterback performance, Robinson’s three top-15 performances (the BG game still cracked the top 50!) is compared with only one other player with multiple top-15 appearances.
Ben Chappell's +27 performance was the second-best overall QB performance of the year, and he now has three top-40 games. Robinson and Chappell are the #1 and #2 rated QBs in opponent-adjusted PAN so far this year. Chappell’s number may very well come down as he faces defenses tougher than those of Towson, Western Kentucky, Akron, and Michigan, but there is no doubt that he is an exceptional player.
Indiana’s ground game was labeled by me as a pillow fight going in, and you could say that it ended like that. However, it was a pillow fight that Michigan won. The Hoosiers ended the game –5 on the ground as contrasted with a +22 through the air. Every time Indiana ran the ball it was a time they didn’t throw the ball, and a win for Michigan. At least for Indiana’s sake, the running game kept Michigan from pinning their ears back and rushing the passer…with three.
On predictions outside of Michigan, I almost called the OSU-Illinois score outright, but correctly had Illinois covering. I correctly had Iowa winning but did not have them covering, and I almost called the Michigan St.-Wisconsin score. Minnesota couldn’t put a last minute rally together to make me correct but I did correctly have them covering. I did not see Alabama’s domination over Florida coming and the Stanford over Oregon pick was looking great at halftime but looked terrible by the end. Pretty nice week for my Big 10 picks but I missed big on both of the national games.
Even with all of the struggles on defense, the season total projection keeps on rising. My team ranking has now eliminated the pre-season component and is made up entirely of in-season performance, with 50% of the opponent adjustment coming from 2009 performance and 50% coming from 2010 performance. For some teams there is a wide variation on which form of opponent adjustment is used. Michigan looks much better (ranked #12) based on in-season adjustment, but is still #23 when adjusting opponents based on their prior year success. The hybrid of the two has Michigan a full game ahead of where they were projected going into Indiana.
10 wins is now projected to be the most likely scenario and the odds of running the table have risen to 1 in 18.
Michigan State - 20, 60%
Iowa - 15, 56%
@ Penn State - 48, 66%
Illinois - 46, 83%
@ Purdue - 80, 90%
Wisconsin - 60, 92%
@ Ohio State - 14, 37%
Between the loss to Michigan St and the move to eliminate the preseason portion of ratings, Wisconsin has taken a massive beating in the numbers this week. The move is almost certainly too far but we will find out more as the Big 10 season progresses. Illinois and Michigan St were the big movers up, while Penn St, Wisconsin and Ohio St all dropped back after worse-than-expected showings on Saturday.
Projected Big 10 Standings
After last week things looked like three tiers with a mess in the middle. After this week, things are starting to separate a bit.
- Ohio St
- Michigan St
- Penn St
Switch Wisconsin and Illinois and this seems pretty reasonable, even after so few matchups against quality competition overall. Penn St could be higher but this doesn’t look like a season where defense alone is going to get you very many Big 10 wins.
|8||Oklahoma St||Big XII||15.87|
|12||Texas A&M||Big XII||13.85|
|14||Ohio St||Big Ten||13.51|
|17||Kansas St||Big XII||12.61|
|20||Michigan St||Big Ten||11.99|
On a purely data-driven model like mine there are going to be some oddballs, especially since this is more of a power poll than a rankings. Teams are rewarded strictly for how they performed relative the competition, without regard to win or loss.
Of the biggest head scratchers, Stanford #3 and ahead of Oregon, the Big XII seems highly overvalued and Notre Dame checking in at #25 seems a bit crazy at first, but they went to the wire with both Michigan schools who are obviously both undefeated and their other loss was to the highly rated Stanford squad.
Okay, just a quick recap of the week that just passed. My predictor indicated UM would gain 522 yards of total offense. The offense gained 574 yards of offense, nearly 11% better than the predictor. The IU defense was predicted to gain 415 yards of total offense. They gained 568 yards, netting the UM defense at 136% of their projected output. Statistically, this wasn't their worst day (ND @ 144%), but it was still bad enough. Before the Indiana game, UMs defense was keeping teams to 99.34% of their normal yards on the season. That number is a fairly decent one. It took a huge hit this week and currently sits at 111.85%
On the brightside, UM's offense got better. Before the IU game, they were sitting at 154% total offense compared to what their opponents' defenses were giving up. With 574 yards of total offense, at 169% of IU's norm, the season average gained just over 6%. This margin kept UM above their opponents (MSU, Iowa) in the predictor. UM was also able to knock 12 yards off OSU's "lead" in their predictor.
As you can see above, I added the next metric into the equation: a scoring predictor. I've calculated two scores based on differing material. The hybrid yards/point includes all of 2009 and the completed games of 2010. One thing to note in the comparison between 2009 and 2010 for MSU is that their offense is scoring more frequently than last year. On the flip side, despite UM gaining a ton more yardage this year, they are actually scoring at a slower pace than 2009. Well, does this mean UMs offense is less explosive and MSUs offense is more explosive than they were a year ago? Probably not. In 2009, UM was one of the top 10 team in net punting. This enabled UM to have better starting position on each drive. Makes sense. UM 2010 has had pretty bad field position for most of the year. The positive with this is that if the defense can improve and got off the field without giving up field position, the offensive numbers could skyrocket.
My prediction based on limited stats and the hope that UMs defense shows up this week:
Interesting rank metric of teams UM will play/have played:
Previously: Week 4 includes discussion of weighted efficiency metric.
Michigan still leads the nation in weighted red zone efficiency. This week I've updated the metric to be slightly more accurate; we now use:
(Total Red Zone Points) / (7 * Red Zone Opportunities)
This takes into account missed extra points and two-point conversions.
|Rank||Name||Red Zone||Points||TD||FG||Weighted Eff|
|74||North Carolina St.||26||122||15||6||0.670|
|76||San Jose St.||9||42||4||5||0.667|
|77||San Diego St.||19||88||10||6||0.662|
|96||New Mexico St.||8||34||4||2||0.607|
Official source data here. One thing bothers me when I look at these stats and I wonder if it's an error or if there's something that I'm missing. After week 4, Michigan was 18/19 in the red zone. After week 5, we're apparently 20/21. But what about the fumble at the 2-yard line against Indiana? How does that not show up as a failed red zone opportunity (thereby putting us at 20/22)? This has got to be a mistake in the NCAA stats, right? What am I missing?
Erroneous data point(s?) or not, Michigan is proving to be very efficient when sniffing the endzone, collecting nearly 92% of expected points once the team gets inside the 20.