Historic Michigan offense?
I started a research project earlier this week and haven't had a chance to finish it yet, partially because it is a ton of work. However - I am 90% certain of this conclusion despite not chasing down every data point: over the last 24 days, you have witnessed the most prolific 4-game stretch of yardage output in at least 42 seasons, since Bo's takeover as head coach. In fact, if you remove the BGSU game and the 721 yards in that one, I am pretty certain that the first 3 weeks of the season resulted in the most prolific 3 games in the same time span.
2) 2000 season - 446 yards/game (216 rushing, 230 passing)
September 28th, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^
These numbers are staggering.
One follow-up question: When's the last time we scored 100 points in a two-game stretch? I'm stumped on that one. We've scored 107 in the last two. We have a solid chance of getting to 150 for three games.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^
61-7 over Houston
52-28 over Iowa
113 pts in consecutive games
35 were scored in both the preceding game and the following, for 148 pts in three consecutive games and 183 for four consecutive games.
September 28th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
1901 to 1905 was a pretty dominant stretch by Michigan.
Of course I think the amount of time the game was played was different, there was no passing, or very little (I forget when passing was allowed by rule, but in general Yost was against it)
and also it seemed that a lot of those early games that were blow-outs, the other team would just give up before the regulation end of the game.
But wouldn't it be cooler to say we haven't seen scoring like this in 100 years. Cool because of how awesome it is now, but cooler because way back when Michigan always won the National Championship, this is how dominant they were.
Of course that team in 1901 had a pretty good defense. Well at least scoring defense, since no one scored any points all season against Michigan in 1901.
That's pretty good isn't it? Maybe like never ever replicated?
September 28th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
Scoring was different in that era, in 1903, for example, TDs and FGs were both worth 5 pts (after a TD, no two pt conversions, only kick for one). I've never seen a breakdown on TDs vs FGs for those Michigan teams, only final scores.
September 28th, 2010 at 10:43 PM ^
...to say that, yes. On the other hand, given that we are considering a situation where it is possible we haven't seen scoring or yardage like this in a century (!), I think we are talking about some good offense, regardless of whether we can prove it with statistics.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
Houston and Iowa in 1992, those were some impressive offensive displays in back to back weeks. And don't forget, Grbac didn't play in that game against Houston. He was out with an injury. If he was in, the score might have been worse than 61-7.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^
In Big Ten play last year (8 games), Michigan was 9th in total offense.
Maybe that's why I'm so nervous compared to last year. This is going to sound odd, but until Michigan starts rolling over B10 defenses, they are unproven. Michigan needs to keep that underdog attitude.
Keep that chip on their collective shoulder.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
I feel your trepidation, but remember that last year the offense really struggled once Tate was hurt and the passing attack was nullified and Denard was very 1-dimensional. This year, both Denard and Tate can both run and pass the ball effectively, the running backs are actually healthy, and the offensive line and WRs have far more experience and, frankly, talent than in years past. I am fairly certain that teams like Iowa and OSU will slow down the offense, but barring a catastrophe I still see this being a 25-30 point-per-game against an average B10 defense and some BGSU-type numbers agains the Purdue/Illini/IU-type teams.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
but until I see it happen on the field I'm going to be on pins and needles. I can't remember being this jacked up for the Big Ten season to start.
This M team has so many great kids. I want them to wreak havoc on the B10 so bad.
September 29th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
My sentiments exactly. I'm pumped and ready to go out and talk some trash but, until we're sitting on about 7 wins, I'm cautious as hell about it.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^
First, we have played no one. Those offensive numbers will slow down. That doesnt mean we can put up gaudy numbers in the big 10...but we won't keep that pace.
As for wins, I would be more optimistic if our defense were in the bottom third of the big 10 statistically. If we had a middle tier defense, we would be in the national title hunt.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^
We've actually played a more difficult schedule than most of our conference rivals. See this diary:
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/bigten-strength-schedule
So if stats are a function of a team's schedule, our conference rivals should be putting up bigger numbers than us. Sparty should be putting up twice as many yards and points, given that their schedule has been half as difficutl.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:29 PM ^
It's true that the Big Ten has been playing many crappy teams but it's still going to be a whole new ball game when conference play starts. So I'd rather look back at these stats once the season is over.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
but it's not that hard to see us ending up w/fewer than 8 wins. Weather, in particular, could play a factor. Much as I would love to believe that Dilithium's a mudder and that no amount of wind, rain, sleet, or hail could disrupt his passing, I would still be quite happy, and not that surprised, w/a 7-5 season.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:49 PM ^
that it will only rain/sleet/hail when we have the ball?
September 28th, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^
but my guess is that a spread offense would be less effective than a smashmouth running game in bad weather. Certainly mud would seem to take away some of Denard's advantage. But that's probably a good subject for another diary: how spread offenses do in REALLY bad weather.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^
I remember a few years ago when Michigan played at Northwestern...it was rainy and muddy. Justin Fargas ran wild on the Wildcats and was named the #1 RB. Then, in better weather over the next few games, he didn't fare as well and eventually Lloyd Carr put him on special teams duty. At the time I figured he only did well against Northwestern because he was able to cut well in the mud while everyone else lost a step reacting.
Point being, mud/rain may appear to take away some of Denard's advantage, but it may take away even more of the defenses abilities, especially the larger lineman, giving Denard a net gain.
I keep saying "may" because, bottom line, hard to say how it will go...but no reason to be pessimistic. Like you, however, I'm not counting on wins, just think we have a pretty good chance. Anything could happen.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
West Virginia can have terrible weather at times, and it didn't seem to be an issue for RR's offense. Both the offense and defense have to play in it. It's not like the defensive guys have perfect footing while the offensive guys are slipping.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
to make an accurate comparison to the previous UM teams you listed, I think you should take out UMass. None of the other UM teams listed had a 1-aa team on their schedule.
2000 season: what makes those numbers so impressive is that Henson missed the first 3.5 games. Navarre was either a true freshmen or redshirt freshmen starting the first 3.5 games.
September 28th, 2010 at 6:39 PM ^
At this point in our lives, isn't it fair to say that downplaying 1-AA opponents is completely unfounded?
September 28th, 2010 at 8:11 PM ^
Do you really think BG was better than UMass?
September 28th, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^
If I'm not mistaken, the I-A/AA separation has only been around for about 30 years. Before then they were all D-I. In any event, UMass is one of the top teams in that classification, and definitely better than some I-A teams.
September 28th, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
With DRob, UM has the edge because it is essentially a 12 to 11 man advantage unless you count the refs at OSU. His ability to read the defense, once the LBs commit to either the run or the pass, they are dead. He is uncanny the way he can make a small target for the tacklers by the way he twist his body as he hits the line and makes them miss what should be a relatively easy tackle. Once he sees a small hole, he is gone. He just has to learn to go out of bounds or hit the turf when a defender has an obvious angle for the tackle.
I predicted UM would win at least 9 games at the beginning of the season and I am sticking to it. After seeing Tate and Devin last week, I feel very confident that we can reach those goals.
Go Blue!!
September 28th, 2010 at 11:12 PM ^
Wow on the stats!
Let me add something I've noticed on the long runs Michigan has made. Quite often there is tremendous blocking downfield.
The long TD by Denard against BG might be illustrative. You'll see four would-be blockers - including two linemen! - running as fast as they can to run interference 40 yards downfield. There are two others downfield, including #79 (!!) bumping a defensive back just enough to prevent him from making a tackle.
It is a truly extraordinary effort made by several players which results in six more points.
You can watch the play here on you tube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23McW4jq_c
There have been other runs like that. When Denard busted loose against ND, he didn't have a caravan, but he had some amazing blocking, both by the OL and by the WR's.
Those amzing efforts remind me of the Superbowl 100-yard interception return by the Steelers a few years ago. About five or six Steelers were either throwing blocks on the return or getting in the way of tacklers. As I recall, a couple Steelers accompanied the TD maker into the endzone!
That kind of repeat performance happens because of exceptional coaching. It's what helps to make champions, too. It also means no matter how bad the MI defense might be this year, the offense has the potential to keep each game exciting and perhaps even winnable, barring a rash of interceptions and fumbles.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:42 AM ^
about that run is that we actually blow about 2-3 blocks at the start of the play, but that causes the BG defenders to get overconfident and overpursue. It was actually pretty poor blocking up front. But I def agree that the effort in downfield blocking this season is the best I've ever seen. Dorrestein did a great job staying with the play.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
but is there any way, in the form of statistics, that we could see how this team stacks up with the great M offenses from back in the day (1901, 02, 03, 47, 48)? Is there even anywhere where those stats could be found?
September 29th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
how well the offense works with the right guys in the right places. Had D-Rob been able to enroll early last year Michigan likely would have had a winning record, I think.
Comments