Diaries

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.

Rush Offense vs Illinois

Michigan O +4 (7th) vs Illinois D -4 (112th)

After two rough games against Indiana and Michigan State, Michigan's running game has bounced back nicely, albeit in losses, the last two games.

Game - Rush+

Game - Rush+

Def	Week	Total Off	Rush	Yards	TD
Indiana	4	-0.91	47	153	3
Michigan State	5	-3.23	25	61	0
Iowa	6	8.50	43	190	3
Penn State	8	6.01	33	134	1

Meanwhile, in Big 10 play Illinois has been gashed three times and had decent games relative to competition against both Ohio St and Indiana

Game - Rush+

Game - Rush+

Off	Week	Total Def	Rush	Yards	TD
Ohio State	4	-0.34	45	239	2
Penn State	5	-12.07	40	338	5
Michigan State	6	-9.11	43	195	2
Indiana	7	3.10	30	157	0
Purdue	8	-6.12	38	228	3

If Michigan is going to have any chance of getting to 8-4 on the season and making more than the basic step forward this year, they are going to need to dominate this matchup.  There won't be a bigger advantage on the schedule this year and things should and have to come together here.

Pass Offense vs Illinois

Michigan O +0 (54) vs Illinois D -2 (88)

This matchup won't be a huge advantage for Michigan but it will be very interesting to see how Michigan manages the play calling and the run pass splits.  The one thing that shouldn't happen is interceptions.  Only two teams in all of 1A have gotten less value out interceptions than Illinois.  Illinois has only produced 3 points of value from picks, which is a full 2 TDs less than the average 1A team.  Any picks on Saturday will be a major disappointment.

Rush Defense vs Illinois

Michigan D -1 (90) vs Illinois O +0 (51)

If Illinois has one advantage this week, this is where it's at.  The good news for M is that they are coming off their best performance of the season, posting a +4 against a very good Penn St rushing attack.

Game - Rush+

Game - Rush+

Off	Week	Total Def	Rush	Yards	TD
Indiana	4	-5.30	32	209	3
Michigan State	5	-1.71	47	206	3
Iowa	6	-1.41	32	98	1
Penn State	8	3.72	38	178	0

Illinois is also coming off a very solid +4 rushing game and has posted positive values in three of its five Big 10 games this season.

Game - Rush+

Game - Rush+

Def	Week	Total Off	Rush	Yards	TD
Ohio State	4	-1.02	31	111	0
Penn State	5	3.00	32	152	1
Michigan State	6	5.16	26	155	1
Indiana	7	-1.62	38	190	0
Purdue	8	3.96	34	194	2

If this game gets too close for comfort, it will probably be because Illinois has found an opportunity to exploit the Michigan rush defense.

Pass Defense vs Illinois

Michigan D +3 (29) vs Illinois O -5 (110)

For all the painful big plays given up by Michigan's past defense this year, the totally of their efforts have stayed surprisingly strong.  Through four Big 10 games, Michigan's pass defense has played better than average against the passing games of all four teams.

Game - Pass+

Game - Pass+

Off	Week	Def Total	Att	Comp	Yards	TD	INT
Indiana	4	1.83	39	22	258	0	1
Michigan State	5	2.83	30	21	212	0	2
Iowa	6	5.60	40	22	269	2	1
Penn State	8	0.14	29	18	218	4	0

With 4 games that graded out well but didn't feel like they went well, this week presents an opportunity.  Illinois has posted 2 solid games, 1 bad game and 2 total disasters against Michigan state and Ohio State.

Game - Pass+

Game - Pass+

Def	Week	Off Total	Att	Comp	Yards	TD	INT
Ohio State	4	-11.48	32	17	59	0	3
Penn State	5	-0.39	39	22	247	1	1
Michigan State	6	-17.26	34	15	117	1	1
Indiana	7	3.03	38	23	255	2	0
Purdue	8	-6.15	30	17	128	0	1

With Illinois bringing out their third QB of the season on Saturday, you would think that would favor Michigan but with as bad as the Illini passing game has been this season, it's hard to imagine it getting worse.

Pace

For the second straight week, the Big 10's fastest paced offense will face one of the slowest.  After taking on Penn State's grind it out pace last week, Michigan will face an Illinois offense that averages nearly 20% fewer possessions per game.  Despite the bad loss, Michigan was able to get the number of drives they wanted last week, I would look for them to do the same again this week.

Special Teams

Michigan +1.1 (25) vs Illinois -0.9 (70)

Michigan should have a solid advantage over Illinois on special teams on Saturday.  The kicking game and kick returns both slant heavily towards Michigan.  The punt teams are virtually identical while Illinois has a slight advantage on kickoff coverage.  The way to tell that Illinois is not good on special teams, however, is that they are significantly worse than Michigan on punt return, even when accounting for fumbled returns.

Prediction

Going through this preview, Vegas must know something about Michigan or Illinois than I do because I have a hard time seeing this as a touchdown game. 

Michigan 35 Illinois 14

Elsewhere in the Big 10:
Indiana 3 Iowa 26
Michigan St 25 Minnesota 24
NM St 0 Ohio St 31
Penn St 33 Northwestern 3
Purdue 20 Wisconsin 28

THE MODERATOR: Next up, Michigan head coach John Beilein. He welcomes back four starters from last year's squad, including Pre-Season All-Big Ten selection Manny Harris. Coach, we'll start with an opening statement and then open the floor for questions.

COACH BEILEIN: We're excited to get the season going. I think we're really playing an attractive schedule that will be demanding out of conference, and then when we have the 18 Big Ten games now and the depth of talent in returning players in the Big Ten, it may be one of the most challenging schedules I personally have ever played and maybe Michigan's ever played in a long time.

But we're going after it. And we're excited about it.

THE MODERATOR: Questions.

Q. You've been able to rebuild the program just by letting the guys know they can trust in you. They talk about your influence on them and several Michigan high school coaches have talked about that. Would you talk about the trust factor that you've built back at Michigan?

COACH BEILEIN: I think it's the way we've tried to coach for a long time that really if you have a relationship, really strong relationships with your players, that they will, they'll usually -- adds a lot of credibility.

You use those old adages. I hate to use the cliches, but they don't care how much they know until they know how much you care. Rules without relationships equals rebellion. Those are two that we use all the time. But you have to build those relationships and then you have that trust. So it's just the thing that we've always done as a coach. And hopefully it's one of the things that can make our program special. And I don't think we're alone in this. I think a lot of coaches, successful coaches do the same thing.

Q. One of the kids on your team, Zack Novak, could you talk about his development from when he came on campus. He was suspended one game and all that just talk about how he's developed not only on the court but as a person.

COACH BEILEIN: First of all, he's in the business school. He's been admitted to the business school at the University of Michigan, which is a great honor to him.

He is a wonderful kid whose body has really changed from probably being a 225-pound probably just slightly overweight, small forward, whatever position is, he's sort of a hybrid of doing a lot of things. He played the two-man and four-man for us last year. Not too many people get to do those two tasks.

And he's really just -- he's done a great job of being a leader. As a sophomore I would say he's one of our leaders, and it gives us a great combination of a kid who can shoot and a kid who can really do a lot of the glue-type of things to keep a team going.

He dives on the floor probably more than anybody. Takes charges as much as anybody. Those are winning plays that win games. Everybody looks at the scores and the rebounds and all those type of things. Sometimes there's a lot of winning plays in there that separate us from the other team.

Q. You obviously have this program turning in the right direction. There's a lot of positives, a lot of high expectations this year. Because of the recent past and the struggles this program went through to get to this point, have you told the kids: You know, let's not get too high on this thing, let's be a little cautious going into this season?

COACH BEILEIN: You know, I wrote them a letter at the beginning of the year or just before we got here about how this was -- we're still hunting. Until we can get Michigan to point where they're in the NCAA tournament, this is normal to be in the NCAA tournament, we haven't turned anything around yet. I think that's where Michigan belongs. If you're in the tournament every year, dang it, you've got a chance of winning it.

That's where we want to go, sustain the program. So this is the second year with a very aggressive schedule, that's what we have to do. So I don't think we've lost that hunger or anybody's thinking about last year as much as saying, hey, hopefully we have a good team and we're going to be playing with the big boys all year long and let's see what we can do.

Q. With the ethics committee stuff and the board of directors voting today, kind of what's your take on what has initially been proposed?

COACH BEILEIN: Boy, there's so many things. Overall, I was in favor of many of the things that they're going to vote about today, but I can't be too specific. But I think we're making progress in some pretty significant areas, I think, according to what we'll see what happens to that.

Q. You played a tough schedule last year with UCLA and Duke. Could you just talk about the value of playing some of those tough teams in the non conference portion of the schedule?

COACH BEILEIN: I think when you have the right team, there's great value in it. When you don't have the right team, it can really ruin the confidence of your team. I think teams have to be very careful about when they do schedule like this.

And it usually comes down to the last couple of games who you're going to play. Are you going to bring in a guaranteed game or are you going to take on another difficult team? And really one of the reasons we do it to make sure that we get -- we've had UCLA at Crisler. Duke at Crisler. Now it's UConn at Crisler and the following year it will be Kansas at Crisler.

That's the back end of things. And in the meantime you have to go to Allen Fieldhouse and try to get a W. But I think we have enough of those games that it gives our kids a great taste. It's just difficult that we've had to space one in the second semester.

It looks like we may continue to do that. But we've got to be very careful of that because of how tough the Big Ten schedule is in the second semester.

Q. Do you worry about the NBA talk with Manny Harris and a little bit with DeShawn Sims being a distraction? Or have those guys handled that stuff well?

COACH BEILEIN: I think if you frame that correctly it could be a great motivator for them that you want to -- we want our guys, if they're going to be going to the NBA want to have careers in the NBA. In order to have careers in the NBA there's a lot of things that you need to be able to do, whether it's getting all your assignments in on time and doing all the tests that you have to do off the court of handling your personal business is a big thing.

So you use that as part of this. This is going to help you if you're fortunate enough to have that opportunity. So we try to use it as a positive there. And some days you want them to practice like there's NBA scouts all over your practice. But, then again, in games you may want them to play like there is no NBA.

This is your only opportunity to play basketball, make the most of it because it's right here and right now is really what's most important.

Q. Can you talk about what you feel the conference schedule is like right now? Is there too many games? Too few games with the 18-game schedule?

COACH BEILEIN: It's been difficult for us, because we have -- the opportunity to be on CBS TV with a big game in the second semester has really cramped ours together. I particularly am not in favor of the times where you play. I think this year we have -- let me see how does it go again.

It starts on a Sunday and then it's a Wednesday, then it's a Saturday, and then it's a Tuesday. There's like five games in a row. And it's very difficult to go through those stretches with the amount of travel that we have to do.

At the same time, everybody's doing it. And everybody has -- you know sometimes when you're playing somebody, it's not who you're playing, it's where you're playing them and when you're playing them that really will make a difference in some games.

So it is difficult. But thank goodness we have -- I was with Gene Keady last night and they're talking about playing a Thursday-Saturday game, leaving on Wednesday and coming back Sunday. So those are tough days, too.

It's part of this league with the footprint that we have that there's a lot of travel involved. We're very fortunate to be able to do it mostly with charter planes and quick bus trips.

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.

Expected Points - Offense

Expected Points - Offense

Off	G	Expected Points	Actual Points	Diff	Drives
Penn State	7	21.31	26.71	5.40	10.29
Purdue	8	23.82	27.00	3.18	12.13
Michigan	7	24.83	27.29	2.45	12.43
Wisconsin	6	23.84	25.67	1.83	11.50
Michigan State	7	22.83	24.29	1.46	11.57
Ohio State	8	22.38	23.75	1.38	10.63
Northwestern	7	21.96	23.29	1.32	11.71
Iowa	7	24.84	22.57	-2.27	11.29
Indiana	7	23.89	20.71	-3.17	11.29
Minnesota	8	21.36	17.50	-3.86	10.63
Illinois	6	19.10	10.33	-8.77	10.50

Michigan falls from 1st to 3rd after putting up a net 8 points (10 scored -2 for the safety) on offense vs 26 expected, the third worst variance nationally last week.  Illinois is several levels below the basement at -9 on the season.  No team has done less with less.  Despite having a significant disadvantage in field position, they have still managed to greatly underdeliver lower expectations.

Expected Points - Defense

Expected Points - Defense

Def	G	Expected Points	Actual Points	Diff	Drives
Penn State	7	20.72	7.29	-13.43	10.43
Ohio State	8	21.12	11.75	-9.37	11.25
Iowa	7	19.27	11.29	-7.99	10.71
Purdue	8	25.95	24.00	-1.95	12.38
Michigan	7	26.71	25.00	-1.71	12.71
Northwestern	7	23.87	24.14	0.27	11.71
Wisconsin	6	20.78	22.00	1.22	11.17
Michigan State	7	22.18	23.71	1.53	11.29
Minnesota	8	20.53	23.88	3.35	10.63
Indiana	7	21.23	25.14	3.92	11.00
Illinois	6	21.19	28.33	7.14	10.33

Penn State moves to #1 in the country in points allowed vs expected at -13 on the season.  Michigan drops just below Purdue into 5th while Illinois is again a distant 11th at +7 although their defense hasn't been buried in quite the whole that their offense has.

Offense - Season+

Offense - Season+

Off	G	Value	Rush	Pass	Yards
Penn State	7	6.03	1.36	4.67	407.86
Michigan	7	4.46	4.27	0.18	355.57
Michigan State	7	2.85	-0.96	3.82	385.29
Wisconsin	6	1.96	1.48	0.48	386.50
Purdue	8	1.56	0.08	1.48	397.50
Minnesota	8	0.24	0.37	-0.12	288.75
Ohio State	8	-0.68	0.85	-1.53	357.75
Iowa	7	-2.89	-1.63	-1.26	345.29
Indiana	7	-3.09	-2.13	-0.96	351.57
Northwestern	7	-3.85	-4.88	1.03	384.29
Illinois	6	-4.99	0.42	-5.41	319.50

Despite last week's woeful performance, Michigan holds its #2 spot in the conference due largely to the strength of PSU's defense.  Even though the Nittany Lioins come in 1st in the Big 10, they don't even crack the top 20 nationally.  Once again, all together now, the Big 10 is not a good offensive conference this year.

Michigan does hold a solid lead in running game at nearly +4.5 and there virtual 0 in the passing game doesn't look so bad when you see only Penn St and Michigan St are above +1.5 for the season.

Defense - Season+

Defense - Season+

Def	G	Value	Plays	Rush	Pass	Yards
Iowa	7	10.74	61.29	2.42	8.32	278.86
Penn State	7	9.99	59.29	4.19	5.80	245.29
Ohio State	8	9.45	66.88	1.57	7.89	279.50
Michigan	7	1.91	70.43	-1.43	3.34	390.14
Wisconsin	6	1.74	59.83	3.24	-1.50	336.50
Purdue	8	0.79	71.50	-0.77	1.56	362.00
Michigan State	7	-0.08	69.57	1.94	-2.02	350.14
Minnesota	8	-1.98	73.38	-0.12	-1.86	408.63
Indiana	7	-3.39	72.57	-1.24	-2.15	395.29
Northwestern	7	-4.50	63.86	0.49	-4.99	357.29
Illinois	6	-6.49	66.17	-4.20	-2.30	416.00

Michigan actually moves from 6th to 4th this week, an inconsequential move mostly due to the closely packed middle of the conference.  Iowa, PSU and OSU are head and shoulders above the rest of the Big 10 and all 3 are in the top 11 nationally.

Michigan's overall numbers didn't change much although the run defense strengthened it rating and took a direct hit to its passing defense.

ST - All - Per Game

ST - All - Per Game

Team	G	Total	Kick	KO	KR	Punt	PR
Ohio State	8	1.53	0.51	1.02	0.39	0.38	-0.76
Minnesota	8	1.45	0.33	0.24	0.08	0.64	0.15
Iowa	7	1.39	0.61	0.33	-0.23	0.59	0.09
Michigan	7	1.06	0.72	-0.10	0.28	0.74	-0.58
Michigan State	7	1.01	0.55	0.19	0.08	-0.04	0.24
Wisconsin	6	-0.12	0.19	-0.35	-0.43	0.63	-0.15
Illinois	6	-0.91	-0.91	0.46	-0.29	0.73	-0.89
Penn State	7	-1.07	-0.32	0.34	-0.37	-0.56	-0.16
Indiana	7	-1.23	-1.12	-0.24	1.31	-1.38	0.20
Purdue	8	-1.40	0.84	-0.01	-0.96	-0.61	-0.67
Northwestern	7	-3.08	0.56	-1.04	-1.21	-0.71	-0.68

I think these numbers should be properly normalized this week.  Michigan bumps past MSU into the #4 spot on the list at about +1 per game.  The punt team is #1 in the Big 10 and the kicking game is #2 while the numbers are brought down by the poor punt return unit.

Team - Turnovers

Team - Turnovers

Team	Fum Lost	Int Thrown	Fum Forced	Passes Int	Total
Ohio State	-8.05	-24.84	17.85	44.67	29.63
Iowa	-3.29	-36.61	22.10	41.56	23.76
Minnesota	-19.49	-22.92	34.76	28.90	21.25
Indiana	-13.48	-16.38	26.52	24.43	21.09
Northwestern	-29.25	-20.70	23.90	25.45	-0.60
Penn State	-11.31	-19.97	11.34	17.72	-2.22
Michigan State	-19.06	-18.02	16.78	15.87	-4.43
Wisconsin	-14.47	-33.83	16.63	22.72	-8.95
Michigan	-27.15	-21.59	7.12	22.63	-18.99
Purdue	-37.05	-38.92	32.39	20.10	-23.48
Illinois	-17.04	-26.84	11.54	2.64	-29.70

Michigan falls to #9 in the conference as turnovers have cost the team 19 points on the season.  They are 9th in fumbles lost, 5th in interceptions thrown, dead last in fumbles forced and 6th in passes intercepted.  Pretty average on the interception front but terrible in both directions on the fumbles.  At what point do the fumble gods turn in our favor?

Conference Rankings

Conference Rankings

Conf	Total	Offense	Defense	ST	Pen	Yards	D Yards
SEC	6.47	2.14	4.32	0.11	-0.19	369.43	327.35
Big XII	5.43	1.74	3.15	0.67	-0.26	392.72	352.25
PAC 10	4.38	1.77	2.27	0.48	-0.27	375.51	364.19
ACC	2.78	1.61	1.46	-0.46	0.33	355.01	353.33
Big East	1.91	1.30	1.00	-0.41	0.05	366.54	352.31
Big Ten	1.63	-0.01	1.88	-0.14	-0.21	364.50	349.07
Mtn West	-0.90	-1.46	0.40	0.03	0.27	356.55	357.08
WAC	-3.17	-0.75	-2.38	-0.10	0.10	388.82	392.58
Ind	-5.40	-0.18	-5.47	-0.52	1.55	343.09	389.02
C USA	-6.65	-2.09	-3.64	-0.78	-0.29	361.47	405.59
MAC	-6.85	-2.49	-2.56	-1.84	0.08	342.92	380.92
Sun Belt	-8.75	-2.49	-5.19	-1.15	0.16	378.11	413.34

Still sitting just behind the Big East at the bottom of the BCS auto-qualifiers.  The offense rating nearly broke into the positives on the week while the defense held its #4 spot.

First, a recap of last week.  Maryland v Duke probably should have been the pick.  17-13 win for Duke, 2 TDs and a FG beat 2 FGs and a TD. 5 total turnovers and special recognition goes to Duke for having 12 penalties for 100+ yards. 

In other games, Purdue beat Illinois in the "Michigan's Near Future" Bowl 24-14.  It was 21-7 at half, and went on from there.  Spectacularly bad 3rd down conversion % (4-14 and 4-12).  Both teams put up over 300 yards of offense, and yet only scored 38 points.

CU v KState.  Wow, nothing like 2-11 on 3rd down and winning.  But, Cody Hawkins is still Cody Hawkins and threw 2 picks to add to CU's 2 fumbles.

And yes, WSU v Cal was as lopsided and I probably should have expected.  Jahvid Best getting 13 carries for 159 yards and 2 TDs should sum that up.

So, onto this week.

NC State v Florida State.  Yes, NC State is 3-4, but the wins are:  Murray State, Gardner-Webb, and ok, Pitt.  They've lost to Duke and BC.  Florida State is in the same boat.  Amazing win against BYU, then went out and lost to South Florida and BC and gave up 27 points to North Carolina.

Nebraska v Baylor.  I could have picked any one of about three Big 12 games, since most of the mid-level teams have played no one.  Hopefully the Huskers won't have 8 turnovers again, but then again they might.  Baylor is, as always, Baylor.  They have not been competitive against the state of Oklahoma this season, and also are sporting a loss against Iowa State.  When you lose to UConn in football, you're probably not good.

The bottom of the barrel award goes to: Western Kentucky v North Texas.  0-7 playing 1-6.  The one win:  Ball State.  Fun Western Kentucky fact:  they haven't lost by less than a TD this season.

Pam&Ray will be calling Purdue v Wisconsin, which looks to be competitive.  Actually, I think Michigan v Illinois will be the Big 10 Ugly Game of the Week.  Hopefully it won't rain.

EDIT: I changed the TO numbers for M in 2001 per the comments below. The MGoBlue site apparently has bad data for 2001. This actually reinforces the conclusions, though.

I posted a board topic on U/M turnovers a few days ago. I'm also in the midst of taking a look at turnovers throughout the FBS and doing an analysis of what the heck TOM (turn over margin) means.

There has been a lot of stuff posted about the turnovers M has been experiencing and what the cause might be. I decided to look at RR's experience with turnovers at WVU and compare that with turnovers at M before RR and during RR.

Here are the turnovers for RR at WVU:

WVU	INT	FL	Tot	Opp Int	Opp FL	Opp Tot	TOM
2001	19	13	32	11	13	24	-8
2002	9	6	15	19	15	34	+19
2003	8	12	20	21	15	36	+16
2004	11	11	22	16	9	25	+3
2005	7	10	17	17	14	31	+14
2006	8	9	17	16	8	24	+7
2007	6	15	21	16	18	34	+13
Average/Game	0.8	0.9	1.7	1.3	1.1	2.4	+0.7

Here are the turnovers for M for the same time period:

U/M	INT	FL	Tot	Opp Int	Opp FL	Opp Tot	TOM
2001	9	13	22	11	7	18	-4
2002	7	10	17	16	10	26	+9
2003	10	9	19	14	7	21	+2
2004	12	9	21	16	11	27	+6
2005	8	10	18	12	11	23	+5
2006	8	4	12	12	14	26	+14
2007	14	13	27	14	15	29	+2
Average/Game	0.8	0.8	1.6	1.1	0.9	2.0	+0.4

Here are the turnovers for M for the RR era:

U/M	INT	FL	Tot	Opp Int	Opp FL	Opp Tot	TOM
2008	12	18	30	9	11	20	-10
2009 (8 Games)	10	8	18	7	4	11	-7
Average/Game	1.1	1.3	2.4	0.8	0.75	1.55	-0.85

Here is the summary:

Average Per Game Summary	INT	FL	Tot	Opp Int	Opp FL	Opp Tot	TOM
WVU	0.8	0.9	1.7	1.3	1.1	2.4	+0.7
U/M (2001-7)	0.8	0.8	1.6	1.1	0.9	2.0	+0.4
2008/09	1.1	1.3	2.4	0.8	0.75	1.55	-0.85

My conclusions:

• Turnovers are NOT a result of the RR "system".
• Turnovers were very high in RR's first year at WVU but came down after that.
• So far TO Lost has been unusually high for M in the RR era and TO Gained has been unusually low.
• There are still 4 games to go this year. Last year TO Lost for the last 4 games was 6 and TO Gained was 5 for a TOM of -1.

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.

And...we're back.  After a brief delay, the NCAA decided to place all of the game play by plays and so in abbreviated form, BtN returns.  Won't do a recap from the carnage on Saturday, but look for the team rankings tomorrow morning and a Illinois preview tomorrow afternoon.

Quarterbacks

Performance of the week: You don't want to know, but you already do. Daryll Clark's performance was worth a full 10 points on Saturday, good for 16th nationally.  Kirk Cousins comes a close second for a solid (but absolutely not spectacular) performance against a great Iowa pass D. On a national level it should be noted that the worst performance of the week went to Mr. Golden Child himself, Tim Tebow for going -13 with a pair of pick 6's.

Player - QB - Season

Player - QB - Season

Player	Team	G	Value+	Value	Rating	Yards	Rush Yards	YPA	COMP%	TD	INT
Daryll Clark	Penn State	7	6.08	5.91	142.48	233.71	25.33	7.75	61.14%	2.00	0.86
Kirk Cousins	Michigan State	6	5.63	5.71	133.41	216.33	17.60	7.59	60.82%	1.17	0.67
Mike Kafka	Northwestern	7	3.96	6.58	126.74	267.29	46.57	6.68	65.00%	1.29	1.00
Tate Forcier	Michigan	7	3.33	2.90	122.52	159.71	38.86	6.69	54.49%	1.29	0.71
Joey Elliott	Purdue	8	2.77	2.05	127.90	249.00	36.75	6.99	60.00%	1.75	1.25
Terrelle Pryor	Ohio State	8	2.65	3.47	132.60	171.25	72.63	7.61	55.56%	1.50	1.00
Scott Tolzien	Wisconsin	6	2.17	0.29	126.70	210.50	21.60	7.30	61.27%	1.17	1.33
Ricky Stanzi	Iowa	7	1.60	0.32	124.29	210.43	12.29	7.15	54.37%	1.57	1.14
Denard Robinson	Michigan	5	1.33	1.32	37.11	17.40	43.80	5.12	41.18%	0.00	0.80
Ben Chappell	Indiana	7	1.21	0.22	122.12	211.29	6.20	6.63	60.54%	1.00	0.71
Keith Nichol	Michigan State	5	1.12	1.71	133.90	100.20	18.40	8.95	51.79%	0.60	0.60
Adam Weber	Minnesota	8	0.91	-0.32	109.73	177.88	9.50	6.81	53.59%	0.75	1.38
Juice Williams	Illinois	6	-1.69	-4.17	106.09	157.83	52.00	5.92	54.38%	0.67	0.83
Eddie Mcgee	Illinois	4	-2.78	-2.66	50.58	22.75	12.00	3.64	36.00%	0.00	0.50

Daryll Clark holds onto the top spot with +6 (24th nationally).  Tate manages to moves up a spot to #4 despite a very listless performance against Penn State.

Running backs

Performance of the week: Brian has touched on this a number of times but we have to get Minor more carries.  Despite only 12 carries and 48 yards for Brandon Minor, the value he added on Saturday was more than any other Big 10 back.  9 of his 12 runs were positive value, he converted two 3rd downs and picked up a TD.  I guess its a down week because that performance (helped because it came against Penn St) is your performance of the week.

Player - RB - Season

Player - RB - Season

Player	Team	G	Value+	Value	Rush	Yards	TD	YPC	Rec Yards	Rec TD
Carlos Brown	Michigan	6	2.88	3.79	8.50	62.33	0.50	7.33	29.75	0.25
Brandon Minor	Michigan	6	2.23	2.04	11.33	53.83	0.83	4.75	1.00	0.00
Evan Royster	Penn State	7	2.16	3.02	17.29	89.86	0.57	5.20	23.00	0.17
Jaycen Taylor	Purdue	5	1.84	2.48	6.20	36.60	0.80	5.90	38.00	1.00
John Clay	Wisconsin	6	0.89	1.56	23.50	107.67	1.17	4.58	17.00	0.00
Larry Caper	Michigan State	7	0.89	1.13	11.57	47.43	0.86	4.10	23.50	0.00
Adam Robinson	Iowa	7	0.84	0.03	17.14	80.86	0.57	4.72	13.40	0.00
D Eskridge	Minnesota	7	0.68	0.64	7.43	30.29	0.43	4.08	10.00	0.00
Ralph Bolden	Purdue	8	0.59	1.36	18.88	89.13	0.63	4.72	23.38	0.13
Brandon Saine	Ohio State	8	0.52	1.14	10.13	53.25	0.00	5.26	23.83	0.00
Duane Bennett	Minnesota	8	0.39	0.08	8.50	35.00	0.63	4.12	8.40	0.00
Darius Willis	Indiana	5	0.17	1.13	14.80	80.40	1.00	5.43	21.00	0.00
Daniel Dufrene	Illinois	5	0.09	-0.31	7.60	30.00	0.20	3.95	13.67	0.00
Jordan Hall	Ohio State	4	-0.24	0.26	8.75	35.25	0.25	4.03	5.00	0.00
Dan Herron	Ohio State	5	-1.06	-0.22	13.00	44.60	1.00	3.43	17.00	0.00
D Mccray	Indiana	5	-1.14	-0.39	8.80	45.60	0.20	5.18	10.00	0.00
Zach Brown	Wisconsin	5	-1.30	-0.87	8.40	30.00	0.20	3.57	7.00	0.00
Arby Fields	Northwestern	7	-1.47	-0.77	7.43	22.57	0.29	3.04	10.25	0.00
Brandon Wegher	Iowa	7	-1.66	-1.95	12.43	45.86	0.43	3.69	15.00	0.00
Jacob Schmidt	Northwestern	5	-1.79	-0.66	8.20	28.40	0.00	3.46	29.50	0.00
Glenn Winston	Michigan State	5	-2.52	-2.06	10.80	36.00	0.40	3.33	6.00	0.00

Michigan dominates the RB rankings, with Brown and Minor taking the top 2 spots.  It should be noted that even though they platoon, the carries aren't that high. If these two can keep up their production and get another 10 carries a game between them, it would be worth nearly a FG a game.  You can take the plays away from the passing game even, they don't have to be incremental, because the passing offense has been a flat 0, no value added to date this year.

Wide Receivers/Tight Ends

Performance of the week: A new entry cracks the top spot this week.  Andrew Brewer from NW who went for 135 yards and a touchdown against Indiana was worth 12 points.

Player - WR - Season

Player - WR - Season

Player	Team	G	Value+	Value All	Rec	Yards	YPR	TD
Keith Smith	Purdue	8	7.93	6.32	7.38	96.38	13.07	0.50
Eric Decker	Minnesota	8	6.66	4.47	6.25	94.75	15.16	0.63
Andrew Brewer	Northwestern	5	6.16	4.17	5.00	74.80	14.96	0.80
Aaron Valentin	Purdue	8	6.14	4.09	5.25	62.88	11.98	0.88
Blair White	Michigan State	7	5.97	3.93	5.57	77.29	13.87	0.71
Devier Posey	Ohio State	8	5.52	2.08	4.75	64.50	13.58	0.75
Derek Moye	Penn State	7	5.19	2.10	4.29	65.86	15.37	0.43
Tandon Doss	Indiana	7	5.18	3.21	6.29	81.57	12.98	0.29
Marvin Mcnutt	Iowa	5	4.65	2.88	2.20	50.60	23.00	0.60
D J-Koulianos	Iowa	6	4.61	2.14	3.50	58.50	16.71	0.17
Graham Zug	Penn State	6	4.41	3.27	4.17	48.67	11.68	0.83
Tony Moeaki	Iowa	4	3.87	1.32	2.75	42.00	15.27	0.75
D Belcher	Indiana	6	3.80	0.99	4.67	54.00	11.57	0.17
Garrett Graham	Wisconsin	6	3.78	2.36	4.50	53.33	11.85	0.50
B Cunningham	Michigan State	7	3.77	2.11	4.29	49.14	11.47	0.29
Z Markshausen	Northwestern	7	3.75	1.60	7.86	74.71	9.51	0.29
D Sanzenbacher	Ohio State	7	3.71	2.88	2.71	55.43	20.42	0.57
Keshawn Martin	Michigan State	4	3.49	1.21	1.75	43.00	24.57	0.50
Isaac Anderson	Wisconsin	6	3.43	2.85	3.67	57.83	15.77	0.17
Arrelious Benn	Illinois	6	2.85	1.54	4.17	47.83	11.48	0.00

With Eric Decker now out for the season, it appears like the top spot is Keith Smith's to lose.  Once again, no Michigan receivers manage to qualify.