Diaries

Tales from the Dorkside: Guernica in Maize

[Editor's note: bumped. At this rate I'm going to be a spectator around these parts soon.]

Herein lies data. For those readers who prefer to skip my right brained musings in a tenacious fit to resist all culture and proceed directly to the left-brained portion of the show proceed to the So, How Goes It? section. Ahem…

The fallout from Michigan’s catastrophic failure against Illinois has left in its wake a fan base wretched in suffering. And anger. And chaos. And despair. A veritable Guernica in Maize. Pablo Picasso’s renowned painting might as well have been painted in the aftermath of last Saturday’s loss. The centerpiece of the painting features Michigan’s Defense (the horse) in the throes of death complete with Juice Williams as javelin gashing it right up the middle, exposing the gaping wound that is Michigan’s defensive barracks. 

All of the major players are shown:

• Terrorized souls engulfed in the inferno of buyer’s remorse (far right).
• Horrified and confused onlookers (center right).
• Dismembered soldiers , also known as The Legend of Tate Forcier: Heisman Freshman ;complete with shattered sword (bottom).
• Grieving mother clutching the lifeless corpse of her child (read.: hope; far left).

Even the Eye of Mordor (read: FreeP) is represented (top). Not to mention that weird looking bull thing with fire coming out of it’s butt (left). I guess that’s Brian?

Anyway, Such a scene makes the reasonable observer wonder—what is up the suck? Misopogon has thoroughly sifted through the immediately obvious symptoms of poor defensive play and walk-on starters to provide tremendous insight into the plight of the defense. He has emphatically demonstrated the task Rich Rodriguez and his man Greg Robinson have in front of them if they are to their save their jobs and save Ann Arbor from burning: fix the defense. Accomplishing this will not be easy and it will test Rodriguez’s mettle as a head coach. And it will take time.

So how goes it?

I think reasonable people would agree that it’s not yet time to render a final verdict…at least as far as the defense is concerned. So let’s focus on what is reasonable to evaluate Rodriguez on at this point in time: offensive production.  He’s had ample time to demonstrate core competencies in his area of expertise. He’s recruited his guys, has a reasonable amount of talent depth (inexperienced or not), and has had a reasonable amount of time to install his system.

Benchmark

The prototype I’m using as the model of what the performance of what a good offense should be will be the unit RR replaced, 2007 Michigan. That team had the requisite talent and experience at every single position:  an offensive line that featured two three time lettermen (Jake Long- RS Sr.  and Adam Kraus-RS Sr.), a three time letterman at QB (Chad Henne, Sr), a three time letterman at RB (Mike Hart, Sr), and three 2-time letterman at WR (Mario Manningham, Jr; Adrian Arrington, Sr; Greg Mathews, So). That’s as good a squad that a coach can ask for.

While the schemes employed by that offense are drastically different from what is currently being used at Michigan, the differences are irrelevant. Either is suitable for executing the mission: move the ball down the field and score points.

For the sake of thoroughness, I’ll stack them up against 2006 Michigan as well. Largely the same cast of characters but with fewer injuries. Reasonable or not, this level of production is what all Michigan fans desire or expect.

Performance Metrics

To evaluate the units I’m turning to very basic and universal categories.

Plays per Drive

This is a tempo-neutral possession metric. Evaluating Rich Rodriguez’s offense by time of possession is misleading since his philosophy is explicitly unconcerned with that metric. However, all offensive schemes seek to run as many plays as they can until they score.  So, this metric also allows us to evaluate execution at a base level as well. Plays-per-drive allows us to compare different schemes to each other.

The calculation of average and standard deviation for this metric omits the highest (yellow) and lowest (red) game averages since yards per drive are highly correlated with the strength of the opposing defense. The presumption here is that one good or bad game is a fluke. Games against markedly inferior competition (blue) have been omitted regardless of game outcome. Ahem.

What we see here is that Michigan 2009 has in fact improved over 2008 in this particular metric both in average plays per drive as well as in the standard deviation of this metric. However, 2009 lags 2006 and 2007 a little in regards to average but matches the 2006 campaign in terms of consistency. The average part is not very surprising.

The benchmarks have significant advantages over 2009 in terms of personnel and experience. However, the consistency part is a bit of a surprise. This year’s team, freshmen QBs, botched snaps, and miscellaneous turnovers included is as consistent as the 2006 unit and more consistent than the 2007 unit. Anyone who has had to improve a process knows that you get rid of deviation first, and then you shift the mean. In this case, there is the good fortune of the mean shifting on its own via player maturity.

Yards per Play

This is a category of raw production.  This is more in line with offensive strategic objectives such as controlling field position, getting into scoring position, and so on. Again, the high, low, and inapplicable data points have been omitted from the calculations of average and standard deviation.

Through the games played so far, the 2009 offense has improved significantly over the 2008 team and matches the production of the 2007 team. It is also the most consistent offense captured.

Points per Drive

The bottom line. Is the offense pulling its weight in the “outscore your opponent” equation? Again, the high, low, and inapplicable data points have been omitted from the calculations of average and standard deviation.



Once again, through the games played so far, the 2009 offense has improved significantly over the 2008 team, which was consistently bad, and beats the production of the 2007 team in terms of drive average and consistency. 2009 lags 2006 in terms of average but again, 2006 is a stout benchmark.

The Takeaway

Despite its glaring and soul dong punching deficiencies, the 2009 offense stacks up surprisingly well to arguably the best offensive unit Michigan has seen in approximately two decades, probably more like four, and maybe even six. DECADES(!).  And significant low hanging fruit remains (turnovers).

Regardless, after games like last Saturday’s we are right to break out the compasses and maps and graphing calculators to reevaluate just where the heck are we, exactly?

Here's where we are:

• Tate Forcier is a FRESHMAN who has played in EIGHT games.
• The rest of the offense are de facto true sophomores who have only shown signs of effectiveness in about 14 games.
• The defense does not have the breadth or depth of personnel necessary to meet the Michigan standard.

Recognizing that we have a major vulnerability in defensive personnel is in no way a slight against the Lloyd Carr stewardship. It is simple root cause diagnosis.  And, maybe RichRod can tweak a thing or two or three, here and there and over there. But, to suggest that the team has made no progress is simple ignorance at best and dubious ignorance at worst.

There is a big difference between excusing and explaining…that difference is responsibility. RichRod is responsible for his record, but its only fair to give him more time to hold him accountable as well. Forging the program into a consistent winner requires Rodriguez to demonstrate the full gamut of the requisite core competencies needed to be a successful chief executive in an elite college football program:  excellent recruiting, excellent motivating, and excellent personnel evaluation(coaches and players), and excellent focus.  If he succeeds, he will have vindicated Bill Martin decision and earned the respect of many.  If he wins it all, he will be the next Bo Schembechler.

Godspeed, RichRod. Godspeed.

[Editorial take: I don't think things are quite as sunny as the numbers suggest; in the comments it's noted that adjustments were not made for outliers like turnovers and special teams items. Michigan's gotten great production out of Olesnavage and Stonum this year. Also, Michigan has yet to face the #65, #21, and #6 defenses so far this year and will likely see their to-date respectable metrics continue to dip below the okay production of the 2006 and 2007 teams. The 2006 team was pretty good but only 38th in total offense and 26th in scoring. It may have been arguably the best collection of talent at Michigan, but it wasn't exactly set free to roam the plains, its majestic rippling muscles trampling over mascots that dare oppose it. Michigan is approaching the mediocre numbers put up by Mike DeBord.

Even considering that the progress made from year one to year two is obvious.]

Press release below; I've replaced the headline with my own snark.

Key takeaway: #6 Big Ten team gets either the #7 Big 12 Team or a CUSA team in a really terrible NYD bowl game. Another game in which the Big Ten has a theoretical matchup advantage. I don't like playing CUSA. I'd rather play a mediocre B12 team than some random CUSA team. Kansas State or Texas A&M is more interesting than Houston to me.

-----------------------------

COTTON BOWL STADIUM TO SORT OF CONTINUE NEW YEAR’S DAY BOWL TRADITION

DALLAS, TEXAS – Cotton Bowl Stadium, second only to the famed Rose Bowl Stadium in hosting [sic] more college bowl games than any other football arena in history, will once again be the home to a New Year’s Day intercollegiate post-season football game – the Dallas Football Classic [sic] -- following next year’s regular season.

                “The promise of a new bowl game helps ensure that the Cotton Bowl remains a premier [sic] venue for college football,” said Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert.  “The renovated stadium is a great site for games, as well as an affordable and accessible [sic] option for teams and fans.  We are excited to continue the bowl tradition at the Cotton Bowl and Fair Park.”

                The nation’s newest bowl, the Dallas Football Classic will utilize a unique rotation system involving three major conferences.  The Big 12 Conference, the Big Ten Conference, and Conference USA have all added the Dallas Football Classic to their future bowl line-ups, with all three agreements running through the 2013 regular season.

                Following is the four-year schedule (selection placement shown for the Big Ten and Big 12 excludes BCS selections):

January 1, 2011 – Big 12 (#7) vs. Big Ten (#6)
January 1, 2012 – Conference USA vs. Big Ten (#6)
January 1, 2013 – Big 12 (#7) vs. Big Ten (#6)
January 1, 2014 – Conference USA vs. Big Ten (#6)          

                (Should an “at-large” selection be required, Conference USA will provide a back-up team in years 2011 and 2013, and the Big 12 will provide a back-up team in years 2012 and 2014.)

                “Obviously we are honored that the Big 12, Big Ten, and Conference USA had the confidence to sign with us as we head into our inaugural season next year; they provide the key ingredients,” said bowl President Tom Starr.  “In addition, we felt it was very important to land the New Year’s Day berth, because that has always been the traditional date for college bowl games [that weren't terrible].  We have outstanding conferences, the best game date possible, and a beautifully refurbished stadium filled with heritage and tradition; I couldn’t be more pleased.”

                The game will become official after receiving its licensing from the NCAA at the annual post-season bowl meetings next April.

Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe:  “The Big 12 is pleased to have finalized its partnership with the Dallas Football Classic.  This is a great location for our players, coaches, and fans.  We also are excited about the match-up with a quality opponent from the Big Ten.”  

Big Ten Commissioner James Delany:  “The Big Ten looks forward to taking part in the inaugural Dallas Football Classic on New Year’s Day in 2011, the start of a four-year agreement to play in historic Cotton Bowl Stadium against a team from the Big 12 or Conference USA.  The Big Ten has played at least one post-season game in the state of Texas in every season since 1995.  With the number of Big Ten alumni in Texas, playing a post-season game in the City of Dallas is a natural fit and should provide an outstanding experience for our student-athletes, coaches, and fans.”   

Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky:  “For decades, college football fans have gathered at historic Cotton Bowl Stadium on New Year’s Day.  We are so pleased that the tradition will continue.  It is a special venue in a dynamic city.  We are excited to be a part of it.”

All numbers are points per game vs an average team. They are adjusted for strength of opponent.  No 1AA games or stats are included.  For more detailed questions on how the numbers come about, click here.

Rushing Offense

Expectation: +8
Reality: -7

WOW.  This was really bad, worse than I expected even.  Even if exclude the 0-4 at the goal line, its still a -1 on the day for a matchup that should have been annihilation.  It turns out it was, just in the wrong direction.  Michigan's rushing performance on the day was the second worst (before adjusting for competition which won't help them much here) performance of the weekend.  This was a full 2 TD swing, one on the goal line and another TD throughout the rest of the game. 

Passing Offense

Expectation: +2
Reality:+4

Hey look a win! But not as much. The bomb to Roundtree on 3rd and 11 was worth 5.6 points by itself.  Beyond that single play, the passing offense was nearly -2, or 4 points below expectation.  If big plays are now back in the passing playbook than this is a slight reason for optimism, if it was just a single fluke (in so many ways) play then it signals that things are absolutely not progressing in the passing game.

Rushing Defense

Expectation: -1
Reality: -16

So let's add this up.  Michigan should have been +7 in the combined ground games but in the end they finished -23.  A full 30 point swing on the ground.  At half time, both Illinois and Michigan were right at +2 in the ground games.  A draw was a win for Illinois, but it wasn't yet a disaster.  Then the third quarter happened.  Michigan went -9 for the quarter while Illinois went +8.  This is just on the ground and this is without any turnovers!

Passing Defense

Expectation: +8
Reality: 0

In a game where black was white and up was down, the pass defense was no exception.  The line on Illinois coming was that their passing defense stats were meaningless because no one had to pass against them.  That's exactly what happened to Michigan on Saturday.  Illinois had very little need to push the ball through the air because they were getting what they wanted on the ground.


Pace/Field Position

The pace and field position lined up just where Michigan wanted it.  Michigan had a field position edge of 22 expected points vs Illinois' 20.  Michigan had 12 drives for the game which is right at their season average.  Everything in this game played out just as predicted but with the role of Illinois played by Michigan and the role of Michigan played by Illinois.

Special Teams

Special teams were a lone bright spot for Michigan on Saturday.  Olesnavage had another solid day and the blocked punt could have been a big play.

Predictions

My Michigan prediction looked very good if you switch the two teams.  Unfortunately my bookie wasn't too keen on that idea.

Iowa vs Indiana - The final spreads ended up matched up pretty well, just didn't see all the points and turnovers showing up.

Michigan St vs Minnesota - Didn't have Minnesota to pull this one out, but did have them to cover and the over.

NM St vs Ohio St - The sweatervest kept the foot on the gas a while longer than I though, going two TDs further and enough for the cover.

Penn St vs NW - Kind of like the Iowa/Indiana game.  I had the final spread reasonably close but it was a different route than expected to get there.

Purdue vs Wisconsin - Had Wisconsin as a slight cover and obviously they blew the doors off the Boilermakes for a big win.

So we're not who we thought we were. Well, we're who we thought we were in August, but definitely not the team we thought we were in early October. Is it really all that horrible? Are we doomed for the next decade? Will there be a "Weis Diet" before we are in a New Years Day bowl game? Will JoePa say "You know what? I think I've done this long enough, I have other stuff in my life that I can do besides stomp around on the field and act like a coach" before we win a Big Ten title?

Very possibly. More so the latter than the former, but still. We're not good. Not even that close, really. We'll get better and better, but if the attrition rates continue to be what they are, it might be some time before we're going to have a double-digit win season.

I know the issue of attrition has been beat to death lately, but I figured I'd take one more whack at that dead horse with some colorful, insightful-
Charts?

Charts.

Original table and rankings is derived from Scout's ranking service, and the Modified Rankings I did by myself. If you don't agree, that sucks. Make your own damn diary.

NC stands for "Not Contributing" and can mean anything from "transferred" to "kicked off the team" to "buried so deep on the depth chart we're not even sure he still plays for us".

2006 Recruiting Class



Not a bad class by any means, half of the 20-man class was 4 and 5 star prospects. Then this happened:

Schilling- 5* to 4*

Graham- LB to D-Line

Slocum- NC

Mouton- 5* S to 4* LB

Boren- NC

Brown- 4* DB to 4* LB

Patterson- NC

Mixon- NC

Cone- 3* to 2*

Mathews- 3* to 4*

Banks- NC

Patilla- NC

Ezeh- 3* RB to 4* LB

Dorrenstein- NC

Wright- 2* to 3*

Kates- NC

Woods- NC

Andddd we got this:

We lost nine players, including four 5*s and both secondary players. Some pretty good foreshadowing for a few years down the line. And this is after both Greg Mathews and Obi Ezeh were bumped from 3*s to 4*s.

2007 Recruiting Class

Another pretty darn good recruiting class, with 14 of the 20 prospects rated 4* or higher. I wonder how this could get messed up. I mean even losing a few players here and there.. we had 12 4* prospects for god's sake- OH DEAR GOD

Mallett- NC

Helmuth- NC

Williams- 4* to 3*

Clemons- NC

Watson- NC

Webb- 4* to 3*

Rogers- NC

Herron- 4* to 3*

Babb- NC

Panter- NC

Evans- NC

Chambers- NC

Horn- NC

Huyge- 2* to 3*

Sagesse- 2* to 3*

And that led to this:

We dropped from fourteen total 4 and 5*'s to FOUR. I mean jesus. That's just awful. Half of the entire 2007 recruiting class is either gone or not being used. And besides Donovan Warren, the last two recruiting classes have now combined for a grand total of two 3* players in the secondary. Again, I am starting to see why we're not doing too well this season.

2008 Recruiting Class

Again, not a bad class at all. Fourteen 4* prospects alone in this one. And a nice, big 25 player class. Things are looking up in Ann Arbo- SWEET JESUS NOT AGAIN.

Cissoko- NC

Smith- 4* to 3*

McGuffie- NC

Fitzgerald- 4* to 3*

Wermers- NC

O'Neill- NC

Witherspoon- NC

Robinson- 4* RB to 3* WR

Mealer- NC

Cox- 4* to 3*

Hill- NC

Floyd- 3* to 4*

Morales- NC

Feagin- NC

I don't want to look at it, either. But that led to..

Ten fewer players yet again, zero 5*s (thanks, Boo-Boo) and six 4*s. And that's because I gave JT Floyd a fourth star. Just horrendous stuff.

So in those three recruiting classes (I'm not doing '09 just yet), the eight 5*s are now two, the thirty-one 4* players are now sixteen, and the 65 players total are now 36. Not exactly what anyone had in mind when the classes were actually coming in.

If the '09 class turns out to be a good one, and we lock up a few high-caliber players in 2010, I think we'll be alright in a few years. For this season (and potentially next), however, it's kind of easy to see why we're struggling against the likes of Indiana and Illinois. 

We don't have the depth that we should because our stellar signing day lists are down to almost nothing a few years down the line. I don't know what RichRod or any of the coaching staff can do to make sure future players stay out of trouble and on the field, but if these numbers don't improve significantly over the next few years, it's going to be a while before we're playing in January.

Any and all comments are welcome. Thanks for reading.

If I had not watched any of the last 21 Michigan games and judged the state of the program solely on the reaction of the majority of fans after the Illinois loss, I would need buckshot to get the taste out of my mouth. Considering how I felt while watching the game, I can certainly understand the sentiment held by the aforementioned majority. The game was brutal.  A PETA ad depicting the clubbing of baby seals would have been more pleasant to watch than the implosion after Illinois' goal-line stand.

This, of course, is an emotional reaction. So let's put away the pitchforks (for the pissed off out there) and the shotguns (for the depressed out there) and take a step back, and just look at this team's progress towards its goals.

Before the season, I openly predicted that we would go 6-6 in a diary.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/realistic-2009-prediction

Of the commenters that predicted, the breakdown went as such:

9+ wins (3)
8 wins (4)
7 wins(8)
6 wins or less (7)

Five of the seven commenters predicting 6 or less predicted 5 wins, nobody predicted 4 or less. So including myself, 8/23 or more than a 1/3 predicted a season to finish 6-6 at best. Over 2/3 predicted a best-case scenario of 7-5. Granted, 23 is a small sample size, but it's what I have.

Midway through the season we were 4-2 heading into a game against Delaware State, also known as the School for the Blind, so 5-2 was a given. It was at this point that I cautioned everyone to remain realistic about the team, and maintained that I felt 6-6 was likely. http://mgoblog.com/diaries/mid-season-analysis-how-are-we-doing

Far fewer member made predictions, but the general attitude in the comments was, "You're an idiot, Illinois is garbage, you're an idiot, we finish 8-4 at least, maybe 9-3, you're an idiot, neg-bang neg-bang neg-bang neg-bang neg-bang.... you're an idiot."

Again, this sentiment was based on emotion. Everyone was still high off the win over Notre Dame and the gutsy performance against Indiana. Nobody was taking into account that of 5 wins, two were against Michigan Directional, one was against Indiana, and the lone quality win was against Notre Dame.

'Lo and behold, after drubbing the blind kids from Delaware and losing to an Illinois team that either A.) finally played up to their potential, B) isn't very good but killed us anyway, or C) all of the above people are again reacting emotionally.

So, just for a moment, calm down everyone, and realize that our team is right where we thought we would be. If we beat Purdue next week,like I think we will, that will put us at 6-4 with two tough games against Wisconsin and Ohio State, teams that should beat us if they play well. So we end 6-6. Right about where 2/3 of us thought we would be.

As I said last June, "This [6-6] might seem bad, but considering a brand new scheme on defense and a reliance on young players, it’s not too bad. Especially when a few games could go our way (ND, Iowa, and MSU) and quickly change it to a 9-3 record. Realistic expectations are important."

Well, ND went our way, I was wrong on Penn State, and we almost pulled it off against Iowa and Michigan State. We have a new scheme on defense with limted talent, and our young players are playing like young players. 6-6 is realistic, and let's not lose our shit if that happens. The nature of college football lends itself to highly emotional reactions, and that's okay. But if we slow down enough to use calm objectivity, we see that we're living up to expectations.

They say laughter is the best medicine, or, at least, that's what it says in Reader's Digest, wherein this month we see gems of articles like "Four ways of looking at a wall" and "Woman who lost leg finds inspiration from disabled dolphin". I only thought there was one way to look at a wall, and I sure never have been inspired by a dolphin, disabled or not, but that's what RD is for: blowing your mind. 
In any case, I thought some humor might help alleviate the dong punch that was Saturday's game. So I went and did a little research of my own, and found some interesting historical tidbits that might shed some light on why what happened actually happened. Are any of these true? Only time will tell, my friends. Are any actually humorous? Probably not. 



Roy: I used to be happy

First up: Roy Roundtree. Turns out this is not the first time he's been caught from behind. Research reveals the following telling incidents from his past:

• Age 3. Roy spills milk on the kitchen table. Mama Roundtree chases as Roy heads for the front door and freedom. Mama catches him just as he was about to get out. Result: spanking. Also, the children lose all momentum in the constant struggle between parents and children.
• Age 10. During a spelling bee, Roy gets nervous as his word is "does not have elite speed" (ok, actually it is a phrase). He bolts for the exit, only to be caught by the lunch lady, who runs a 5.5 forty (FAKE!). He is forced to spell the phrase, which is unfortunately quite easy for him. 
• Age 17. Girlfriend wants to "have some experiences together". Roy is nervous, as he has never done stuff like that before. Roy bolts for his car, but the girlfriend catches him just as he puts the keys in. Result: Roy loses virginity.
• Age 18: And then there was the polar bear incident...

                  Roy getting chased by a polar bear. It also ends poorly.

So, as you can see, getting caught from behind isn't always a bad thing. It's too bad Roy's girlfriend doesn't play for Michigan too. She has top-end speed. Same for the polar bear.

Also unearthed: a famous series of chess matches between Coach Rod and the Zooker. Little known fact: both are chess grandmasters. More known fact: neither seems much like a chess grandmaster. Here is a recap of their games:

• Game 1: Zook throws rook at Rich, catches him in the eye. Result: Rich forfeits (can't see the board).
• Game 2: Rich attempts to move pawn one square ahead for four straight moves. Unfortunately, Zook has entire defensive line there, including an extra pawn.
• Game 3: Rich moves queen into winning position. Unfortunately, Queen fumbles the ball. Zook's bishop scoops it up, only to be punched in the nuts by an angry pawn.

              They even made a movie about them: Zooker (left) and RichRod

So in all cases, had we known of these chess games, we might have guessed that the Zooker had the strategic edge on Coach Rich. Who would have thunk it?

Finally, we have the dong punch. Brian already mined this for all it is worth, but who can leave a nut crack like that alone? As it turns out, the U of M players have been nut punching each other all year in what Barwis calls "our new way of saying 'well done, mate!'" For example:

• After the winning TD pass in the Notre Dame game, Shoelace went up to Tate and "congratulated" him right in the scrotum. 

Actually, that is the only highlight from this season, and hence the only nut punch. But you can see why Ortmann did what Ortmann did. He was just saying "good job" to his Illinois pal. Should the Big Ten really punish such sportsmanship? 

So that's it. With all the calls for Rich's head and the decay of Michigan football, let's keep in mind: "it's only football". Which means of course "it's only really important to a bunch of us who are not really affiliated with the team in any meaningful way, but it sure can ruin our saturday." So, a saturday was ruined. Now for the good news: only three more saturdays left.