Do the Offensive Stats Tell a Different Story?
I worked on this post as a response in another thread, but I thought it might get buried and thought it might spark some interesting discussion. I compiled these stats in response to a post which stated that Michigan offense has been "historically terrible." Now, I will admit there have been some historically terrible stats put up (PSU and MSU games), but I think the stats below might tell a bit of a different story -- perhaps one in which the OC's job should not be in question.
Thoughts?
Currently, in FBS (B10) Michigan offense is:
- 63rd in Total Offense (10th B10) w/ 411.6 ypg
- 24th in Scoring Offense (5th B10) w/ 37.9 ppg
- 79th in Rushing Offense (10th B10) w/ 154.9 ypg
- 86th in Total Rushing Yds (10th B10) w/ 1239 yrds
- 99th in Rushing Yds/Attempt (11th B10) w/ 3.7 ypa
- 21st in Rushing TD's (3rd B10) w/ 23 TD's
- 44th in Passing Offense (4th B10) w/ 256.8 ypg
- 57th in Total Passing Yds (5th B10) w/ 2054
- 5th in Passing Yds/Attempt (1st B10) w/ 16.3 ypa
- 62nd in Passing TD's (8th B10) w/ 13 TD's
- 61st in Red Zone Offense @ 83.3% (as an aside, the best team in the nation in Red Zone Offense is FSU, scoring 97.8% of the time it enters the Red Zone. The Big 10 is well represented in the high end of this cateorgy with NWU being #2 @ 97.1%, Minnesota is #3 (REALLY?!?) @ 96.7%, and OSU is #9 @ 93.5%. Michigan has 36 Red Zone attempts in 8 games, while NW has 35 in 9 games, Minn has 30 in 9 games, and OSU has 46 in 9 games)
Individual players in FBS (B10):
Gardner:
- 23rd in Total Offense/Game (1st B10) w/ 307.9 ypg
- 21st in Total Yards (1st B10) w/ 2463 yrds
- 34th in Total Passing Yds (2nd B10) w/ 1989 yds
- 6th in Passing Yds/Attempt (1st B10) w/ 9.8 ypa
- 46th in Passing TD's (5th B10) w/ 13 TD's
- 115th in Rushing Yds (13th B10) w/ 474 yds
- 77th in Rushing Attempts (10th B10) w/ 113 attempts
- 41st in Rushing TD's (5th B10) w/ 9 TD's
Gallon:
- 12th in Total Receiving Yds (2nd B10) w/ 898 yds
- 11th in Receiving Yds/Game (1st B10) w/ 112.6 ypg
- 38th in Yards/Reception (4th B10) w/ 18.0 yds/rec
- 22nd in Receiving TD's (2nd B10) w/ 7 TD's
Funchess:
- 81th in Total Receiving Yards (5th B10) w/ 557 yds
- 17th in Yards/Reception (3rd B10) w/ 19.2 yds/rec
- 89th in Receiving TD's (14th B10) w/ 4 TD's
Fitz:
- 74th Total Rushing Yds (11th B10) w/ 595 yds
- Infinity in Rushing Yds/Attempt (27th B10) w/ 3.7 ypa
- 13th in Rushing TD's (1st B10) w/ 11 TD's
- 14th Rushing Attempts (2nd B10) w/ 163 attempts
Conclusion(s):
- Despite the fact that Michigan cannot run the ball (79th in Rushing Offense, 86th in Total Rushing, and 99th in Rushing Yds/Attempt), Michigan can score rushing TD's (21st in Rushing TD's). Obviously, Gardners 9 Rushing TD's help this a great deal, but Fitz is leading the B10 in Rushing 10 with 11, and in 13th in FBS. Seems like something is working in the run game, and it's not just Gardner being an uber-athletic QB that is deadly on bootlegs and/or scrambles in the Red Zone.
- Michigan gives the ball to Fitz a great deal (2nd most Rushing Attempts in the B10). But, he's just not getting much for it -- only 3.7 ypa (Poor Fitz).
- Fitz scores a TD every 14.81 carries, and Garnder scores a TD every 12.55 carries. That's a TD every 13.8 carries between the two.
- Gardner is a very good passer, and were it not for his early season INT binge, he'd be considered one of the best in the nation.
- Gallon is AWESOME!
- Funchess is a BEAST!
I know there are a lot of Michigan Men/Women on this board who simply hate Borges and want him gone right now. I know that these same people are still smarting and holding a grudge about games from '11, '12, and especially '13. I am NOT trying to be an apologist for Borges. I am simply trying to point out that the offense, depsite only being able to aveage 3.7 ypc rushing due to unacceptably bad OL play, is STILL able to score and put up some pretty good numbers. Further, Gardner, Gallon, Funchess, and even Fitz have nationally respectable numbers.
Again, I am NOT saying that Borges is a great OC. What I am trying to show is that if Michigan's OL was even B10 average, it seems likely that Michigan's offense would be off the chart good. A great deal of that is Garder, IMO, but I think 11 rushing TD's for Fitz is very impressive, and totally out of character for a team that seems to struggle running so much.
Be nice guys, I spent a lot of time compiling these stats. If there are any errors, I'll try to correct them. I hope y'all find this at least slightly illuminating. Let's try to have a civil conversation, and let's hope that Michigan's offfensive weapons ADD to their numbers.
Beat the Huskers!
Go Blue!
November 8th, 2013 at 10:48 PM ^
I'm not really making an "analysis" per se, just putting out the stats as best I could compile them. In doing so, it seemed to me that this meme that "Michigan's offense under Borges is historically bad" just didn't seem to be the case.
Am I saying that the offense is good? No, I am not. I am as frustrated as everyone else about the complete lack of running game, and the OL's seeming inability to block even the weakest teams on the schedule.
The thing that I am NOT willing to do is go on the war path and call for a coaching change without first trying to understand what the possible causes may, or many not be. There has been a great deal said about the youth of the OL, that is certainly a factor. Is it the de facto factor, I doubt it. But, in looking at the stats its surprising to me that certain aspects of Michigan offense are actually decent nationally, and are at or near the top of the B10. Please don't give me, "well the B10 sucks" either. All I am saying is despite the fact that Michigan has no running game, it's starting RB is leading the B10 and is in the top 13 in Rushing TD's. Doesn't that seem odd to anyone? What is says is that Borges is doing SOMETHING right. Maybe it's not enough for many of you, but to claim that the offense is a complete dumpster fire is false, IMO.
November 9th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 10:58 PM ^
Like those new annoying commercials "And is better," it sure would have been nice to have excellent offensive coaches AND excellent defensive coaches.
With Mattison, we immediately became a top 20 defense, and have consistently stayed there (or close thereto). No mention of needing some new recruits, no blaming RR's lack of recruiting on defense, no issues of "youth/inexperience," etc. Excellent coaching, immediate and consistent results. Those results were also consistent with Mattison's sustained excellence and success at high level positions, and the demand for him in coaching circles.
On offense, after jumping 50 spots from 2008 to 2009, and then jumping another 50 spots to a top ten offense in 2010, we regressed to a top 50 offense in Borges' first year, and regressed further in his subsequent years. Again, this is consistent with his one year stint at California (everyone fired), his two year stint at Indiana with Gerry DiNardo (3-9 first year, 2-10 second year), his four year stint at Auburn (consistent regression, until fired before bowl game). He did have a good year in the Mountain West in 2010, where SDSU played all of one game against a BCS automatic qualifying (i.e., major conference) team.
Unfortunately, it looks it is going to take Michigan longer to learn from history this time around, and it will be a shame if by the time we bring in excellent offensive coaches we don't have Mattison around anymore. And is better.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:06 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:20 PM ^
The current Michigan offense is scoring more points per game than that 2010 team.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:25 PM ^
maybe newtopos puts more emphasis on yds/game than pts/game.
November 9th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^
While it's true that scoring offense is more important to winning games, it paints a flawed picture when judging how well the offense moves the ball forward (you know, the offense's job). Winning the field position battle makes it easier for the offense to score, and a field goal kicker + D/ST touchdowns contribute to scoring offense that are less dependent on the offense itself. The 2010 offense had very little help from the rest of the team to help with either getting 3 points from a drive ending within the 30 or starting drives beyond their own 30. An additional small factor involving touchbacks gaining an extra 5 yards in field position on kickoffs also clouds the issue.
Meanwhile, total offense judges how well an offense can move the ball forward; given that only the offense can move the ball forward, it would seem to be a more reliable metric. If any downside exists, it's that a good offense that consistently gets bad field position will appear better than that same offense with consistently good field position. However, if an offense is consistently scoring with good field position, there's little reason to judge it negatively anyway, so the discussion becomes moot.
November 9th, 2013 at 1:09 AM ^
I mean, sure, it's the end goal of the offense, but just looking at raw Td number's isn't gonna tell you much.
For instance, Toussaint with 11 touchdowns has more than Duke Johnson, TJ Yeldon, Carlos Hyde, or Ameer Abdullah, and the same amount as Melvin Gordon. If you think he's having as good of a season as any of those guys, you could be justifiably committed to an insane asylum.
The disconnect there only shows what we all see, that this offense is maddeningly inconsistent due to a number of factors, which include things both within and outside of the coaching staffs control. Most of this show's up in the offensive line play, and while I certainly concede that this year's line was never going to be even average with the roster situation, at least some of the issues fall on the coaches. They haven't improved as the season goes along, they've been shuffled around and put in bad positions at time, and the playcalling has been uninspired.
The first two are pretty squarely on the coaches. It's their job to put the players in a position to succeed and to make them better football players. We haven't seen them become better football players, and constantly shifting the line around trying to find a quick fix is not only not helping, but stunting their development. The playcalling is what it is, I'm not expecting crazy Art Briles magic, and Borges is very limited with what he can do because of the O line. Other people know far more than me about the intricacies of calling an offensive football game. What I do know, is that Borges has already shown some serious deficiencies with regards to calling a game, and that he certainly hasn't been able to help his cause this year.
November 9th, 2013 at 1:23 AM ^
that we're a very mediocre football team. There are very few things we're actually good at. It's what my eyes are telling me, as well, so this is no surprise.
November 9th, 2013 at 2:48 AM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 6:21 AM ^
Just for grins, I took the average of the team rankings you listed and M is averaging 54 th best (6-7 in B1G). So, no, the offensive stats don't tell another story. Middle of the pack offense with higher end talent including senoirs at both tackles, wr and running back and a RS junior QB whose individual stats aren't bad and for whom I would argue is playing well after getting over the derpy interceptions.
November 9th, 2013 at 7:20 AM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 8:02 AM ^
Now to the main point of your post: I fall pretty much in line with our DC in that I'm not a stats guy. Now I don't think they are meaningless by any means, but I don't think they tell the whole story either.
When you look deeper at things like the way we've won games, who we've played, who we put yards up against etc. I think we see an even worse story than the one you tell in your post where you mention only stats.
What I will say is that there is one guy on the offensive side that I think is doing a great job and that's the wr coach. The wr coach has developed the talent the team has brought in, but the rest of talent remains seriously undeveloped to this point.
What I find hard to swallow is all these other teams in the country who put just as much (if not more) underclassmen on the field and manage to field a good product. They also see that product improve over the course of the year. We have seen none of that.
Now you might say "yeah, but those are teams like Alabama, LSU, Stanford etc. and they are the best teams in the country" and I'd agree with you. The thing is though, this is michigan and those are the teams we should be comparing ourselves to, not the rest of the country.
Now if you're happy with how things have gone so far with AB I'm happy for you, I really am, I wish I could be as satisfied with mediocrity. The problem is I can't, and watching the team I love struggle as badly as they have the past two years has been more than I can take from a sports fandom perspective.
I don't hate AB or anyone else, especially other michigan fans who want to keep him. I'm almost as sick of the fighting amongst us as I am of the ineptitude of the offence. We simply disagree and that happens sometimes, but one thing is for sure, we all just want this team to succeed. If they can do that with AB, great because I don't care who helps them succeed, just that they do and to this point AB hasn't given me cause for optimism with his work as a whole, that's why I would prefer another option at OC and every offensive assistant save the WR coach.
We just disagree I guess, it happens. We can still be civil and debate things like adults, and I hope that's how this goes in the future.
November 9th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^
What I find hard to swallow is all these other teams in the country who put just as much (if not more) underclassmen on the field and manage to field a good product.
On one of the gameboy diary posts this week reshp proposed a metric for offensive line experience that assigned a number to each lineman, based on experience level, for the probability he'll bust an assignment, then multiplied those numbers to get the probability that someone will bust on a given play. It was pretty ad hoc but I think it's a reasonable approach to assessing line experience.
Call it the Reshp Bust Index.
Nobody'd run the numbers at the time, but I've now pulled 89 current FBS lineups, including every competent offense. The ones I haven't looked at yet are basically the dregs of the Sun Belt and MAC, the FIUs and Easterns of the world.
Michigan was 86th of 89. The only lines more inexperienced than Michigan's are Arkansas, UCLA and California. UCLA is essentially Michigan's equal on offense despite having a likely late first-rounder playing QB. Arkansas and Cal are absolute tire fires.
yeah, but those are teams like Alabama, LSU, Stanford etc.
Stanford's an interesting case. I think I counted 19 upperclass linemen on their roster, though I might have accidentally included a couple of walk-ons in that. They've been recruiting classes of 4-6 linemen every year since Harbaugh got there, and it shows. They're starting two fifth-years and two fourth-years and Andrus Peat, who had to beat out at least half a dozen older tackles to win the job.
They're the anti-Michigan.
The only true parallel to Michigan is UCLA.They're the only other school that simply chose not to recruit linemen in sufficient numbers to sustain a program. And they're suffering, and surviving, just like Michigan is.
November 9th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
November 10th, 2013 at 7:47 PM ^
I think he was using rivals. For some reason their database has the wrong class for about 2/3 of the country. A whole lot of teams look like they[re playing a lot of underclassmen if you subtract a year from everyone's age.
LSU has three third-years and three second-years, which is definitely a lot younger than typical. (They lost a senior guard to a concussion during camp.) Whether that's younger than Michigan's depends on how you see the learnng curve for a lineman. I think there's a lot less advancement between years 4 and 5 than there is between year 1 and 2, or year 2 and 3. Fifth-year Lewan looks a lot like fourth-year Lewan to me. He's as good as he could ever get playing against this level of competition; he needs to move on, to get better.
But LSU's the one true success story I can find out there for a young line. They're not just surviving; they're good.
---
Lines I've found with multiple freshmen linemen (these are based on the most recent starting lineups, Cal wasn't starting three freshmen until they decided to burn the boats a couple of weeks ago):
California, UCLA (3)
Arkansas, Bowling Green, Michigan, Navy, North Carolina, Purdue (2)
The only teams with multiple freshmen on the interior are Arkansas, Michigan, Purdue and UCLA. In conference play those teams are a combined 6-16.
November 9th, 2013 at 8:16 AM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 9:55 AM ^
What I think needs to be done is adjust the statistics for strength of the defense. From the eyeball test Gardner is a great athlete who when matched against inferior talent obliterates. How many times have we witnessed Gardner easily evade a rusher against CMU or Indiana. The knock against Borges is not that we are unable to put up big numbers against overmatched teams but when matched against a defense with comparable talent.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:01 AM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 11:22 AM ^
first of all, sorry for my impending semi-personal thread jack.
second: thanks for all the constructive posts you've authored this season, you've usually been a voice reason and insight when discussing the nuances of football. I've learned a lot.
That being said, I've noticed you and sometimes Space Coyote, etc. get entangled in some in-game threads where you're not at your best.
I don't know if you ever participate in the live-blogs or not, but that shit is pure ID. Half of the commentors are drunk, and the other half aren't wearing any pants. It is a free-for-all steam vent of release in which little rational will ever see the light of day.
This blog has so grown in popularity, and the live-blog has become so fast & overcrowded (few see their comments posted) that it has spilled over into the in-game board threads.
I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to say except maybe don't get too invested in the game-thread, and leave the majority of your thoughful posts for the infinately more sober weekday crowd. I'm not really trying to tell you where & when to post, but I was concerned about SC's frustration with the boards, and his mulling over not contributing here anymore.
I'd hate to see you get burned out as well fighting battles where so many of the commenters are drunk and only half serious in their views anyway.
You have excellent arguments, even if they differ from mine at times., but I fear they are just a waste of time when the boards decide en masse (during a frustrating game) that the pitchforks and meth must be brought out of the closet.
It's an internet message board mob anyway, they're harmless, and won't remember much the next morning anyway.
The mods do their best to control the worst aspects, and everyone could use some more discretion, but for now it is what it is.
Gird your loins.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^
and experience—or lack thereof—of the interior OL on a nationwide basis. Lotta number crunching there...
November 9th, 2013 at 10:10 AM ^
IMHO at the end of the day, you have to beat the teams you are supposed to beat (PSU '13 for example) and at least be competitive with rivals (MSU, OSU).
Stats are one thing. Showing up and putting your players in the best position to win the most important games is another.
Seems to me that Hoke/Borges have an antiquated notion of offensive football. To them it seems to be all about trying to get the best pro prospect recruits at Michigan and using your talent advantage to beat the other team. Michigan used to be one of those teams years ago. The simple fact is that the college game has changed. In fact, the college game is now impacting the PRO game...not the other way around anymore.
My point is - scheme and strategy can level the playing field when it comes to talent disparity. Michigan needs to update their offensive mindset to this century.
November 9th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
People need to settle down. It was one game. As much as it pains me to say this, MSU is really good, and their defense might be the best defense we've played in a decade. That defense was not as physically gifted as Alabama's, but it was probably better overall.
Sure we've had a couple of close wins versus bad teams, but we are not a bad football team overall. Everyone needs to take a chill pill, it was one game. We can get back on track with a win versus a weak Nebraska team.
It's time to rally the troops, we will still win 10 games this season, book it.