yes plz
How Good Is The Offense? Are We Really Asking This?
Filed under:
Emotionally, this is an odd week for me. I find that I don't care about Ohio State at all. They're a very good team that's going to win in a not-that-competitive game on Saturday, like they always do. I get irritated at the hurr hurr coming from the Ohio State blogosphere but mostly because Michigan's so far from their level that it seems like a waste of time.
My hate still exists but it's focused internally, as the emails pile up and message boards pile on because I have the audacity to say if it was my decision I'd keep Rich Rodriguez on the condition he reshapes the defensive staff in such a way that we can expect them to do one boring thing reasonably well. I've explained why. In a sentence, the offense is excellent and should maintain that level over the next two years as the defense digs itself out from a massive hole.
This has caused the wing of the Michigan fanbase that thinks keeping Rodriguez is absolutely insane to search high and low for various metrics in which Michigan doesn't rate well. They can't take any of the basic stats...
| Category |
National Rank |
Actual |
National Leader |
Actual |
Conf Rank |
Big Ten Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense | 10 | 257.36 | Georgia Tech | 319.36 | 1 | Michigan | 257.36 |
| Passing Offense | 30 | 257.18 | Hawaii | 391.18 | 2 | Indiana | 283.27 |
| Total Offense | 5 | 514.55 | Oklahoma St. | 552 | 1 | Michigan | 514.55 |
| Scoring Offense | 15 | 36.82 | Oregon | 50.7 | 3 | Wisconsin | 40.91 |
| Sacks Allowed | T-11 | 0.91 | Stanford | 0.36 | 1 | Penn St. | 0.91 |
…and they certainly can't take any of the advanced metrics that rank Michigan second* and fifth nationally, so they resort to things like in-conference points per drive. Michigan is tied for third in the league in that metric.
If you are using this stat, you have decided that Rich Rodriguez should go and are backfilling reasons. If you're trying to downplay Michigan's second-half points against Iowa, Penn State and Wisconsin, you're doing the same thing. Michigan got back in those games by scoring often and quickly, by bombing away. Michigan scoring drives against Wisconsin lasted 3:57, 0:22, 2:19, and 2:57. They could do this because defenses were aligned to stop Michigan's powerful ground game even with big second-half leads, which is why Denard Robinson racked up a bunch of deep completions against single-covered WRs in the second half. Prevent defenses do not give up sixty yard touchdowns to tight ends, as Penn State did.
The whole reason the FO stats exist is to smooth out differences in opportunities and schedule strength as best they can and they indicate that whatever problems Michigan has don't include being the nation's #15 scoring offense against a schedule with two real nonconference opponents and without Northwestern (82nd in FEI D) and Minnesota (98th).
David Brandon's got a tough decision ahead of him—something it only seems that people who are still in favor of Rodriguez returning acknowledge—because the offense is elegantly constructed and deadly. Michigan's quarterback couldn't throw a pass straight in the first half and the receivers couldn't catch it when he did, but they still ended the day with more points than any Michigan team had scored against Wisconsin since 1990. The 31 they put up on Penn State were the most since 2000. They're solidly in the top five of the best metrics available with two seniors and a sophomore quarterback. They're going to obliterate the best rushing YPC mark Carr put up since the turn of the century by over a yard and finish in the top 20 in passing efficiency.
Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic. Period. I'm tired of being vilified for using numbers in non-abusive ways, but that's what we've come to. My hate week is about other Michigan fans.
*(FEI ranks Michigan second but has not been updated for last Week's games. Since Michigan put up a touchdown better than Wisconsin's scoring average any drop from Michigan will be minimal.)
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:29 PM | 
I used to love this week
I used to love this week
November 24th, 2010 at 9:53 AM |
I couldn't agree more. It's
I couldn't agree more. It's
I couldn't agree more. It's been a bit one sided and living in Ohio doesn't help. But I just tell them to stfu and remember who leads the series and who is the winningest program in college football history.
“What the mind can conceive, the mind can achieve and those who stay will be champions.” - Bo
][V][
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:31 PM |
There is nothing wrong with the Michigan offense...
There is nothing wrong with the Michigan offense...
that wouldn't be solved with a mediocre Michigan defense. Unfortunately we are several light years away from having a mediocre defense.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:07 PM |
Several years away
Several years away
I find it fascinating that someone was neg-bombed on another post for saying something very similar:
We're light years away from playing with the top teams in the Big 10 and that worsens when Nebraska comes in next year...Anyone who thinks we're a year away is living in Fantasyland.
Perhaps his use of "light years" was a bit dramatic. But anyone who thinks this defense can improve in one offseason to the point where it resembles the good (not great) defenses in the conference is probably being overly optimistic.
I'd love nothing better than to be wrong with this opinion. But I'm just hoping for improvement.
If only Coach Mo hadn't gotten so drunk.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:08 PM |
Maybe
Maybe
Because light years is a measure of distance and not time?
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:07 PM |
Distinction without a difference.
Distinction without a difference.
The Theory of Relativity reminds us that space and time are equivalent.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:31 PM |
Sophistry
Sophistry
A clever response, but sophistry nonetheless.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:14 PM |
Hasn't Illinois basically
Hasn't Illinois basically
Hasn't Illinois basically just done what we hope to accomplish next year? They were abysmal defensively last year and have vastly improved with a change in coordinators. I really don't see why it is so impossible to imagine that happening to us.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:18 PM |
I think their "vast improvement"
I think their "vast improvement"
has shown to be a little bit of a mirage the last three weeks, getting shredded by us, Minnesota, and Northwestern without their starting QB.
They've improved, but perhaps not as much as it looked like four weeks ago.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:48 PM |
ILL v NW
ILL v NW
Getting shredded is giving up 20 points, only 3 in the 2nd half and forcing 3 turnovers? I'll take it.
I love a hoppy ending!
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:51 PM |
Ok, maybe shredded is too strong a word
Ok, maybe shredded is too strong a word
but my overall point is still valid. They looked like a top 15 defense when we played them, they aren't. Top 40 or 30, maybe, but not elite.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:29 PM |
give me
give me
give me top 40. Hell give me top 60 and we win 10.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:45 PM |
top 60? me too please.
top 60? me too please.
top 60? me too please.
"Play hard and with great effort"
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:08 PM |
Auburn's defense is currently
Auburn's defense is currently
Auburn's defense is currently ranked 59th, so you might be selling us short on that 10 wins prediction.
"...what do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?"
"Fix the cigarette lighter."
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:15 PM |
Consider Oklahoma State:
Consider Oklahoma State:
#1 in Total Offense
#78 in Total Defense
10-1, ranked #9 in the BCS.
And they're starting almost entirely juniors and seniors in their defense, so they don't have the inexperience excuse.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:31 PM |
Auburn is averaging 28.5
Auburn is averaging 28.5
Auburn is averaging 28.5 points and 355 yards a game on defense, in the SEC, and they are on the cusp of the BCS Title game. Currently we're doing 5 points and about 100 yards a game worse than them. Is it really so hard to imagine improvement next season that approaches this level of competency with a healthy Woolfolk, Floyd, and Martin? A more experienced Demens and Gordon? A more mature Avery, Christian, and Vinopal?
I don't think we are as far off as some want to believe.
"...what do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?"
"Fix the cigarette lighter."
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:04 PM |
How many Sophomores
How many Sophomores
How many Sophomores are in Illinois' two deep on defense this year?
This will take time because the players we have are young and not fully developed.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:54 PM |
Taking this question
Taking this question
Taking this question literally, the answer is:
11 freshmen and sophomores are in Illinois's defensive two-deep this year.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:30 PM |
A better assessment
A better assessment
is that last Saturday, they started 1 freshman (DT) and 2 sophomores (CB, Bandit), 5 juniors and 3 seniors.
Of the other defensive players that participated, there was 1 freshman, 3 sophomores, and 1 junior.
So either the two-deep you're referencing isn't accurate, or Illinois doesn't sub very much on defense and being on the two-deep doesn't mean much.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:02 AM |
Which translates to.......wait for it
Which translates to.......wait for it
2 freshmen, 5 sophmores and 3 juniors the previous year (before the transition) which is what we are really looking at here.. They were in a very similar situation last year as we find ourselves this year.
The hope for us lies in the fact that Ill. showed dramatic improvement while bringing in a new DC (which some think will set us back) and keeping most of the personel (who were a part of a horrific defense the previous year) the same.
This shows that it is reasonable to expect improvement next year if a new DC is brought in.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:21 PM |
Totally disagree
Totally disagree
As has been pointed out in a million other threads, we don't need the defense to be Michigan 1997. In fact, the defense will never look as good as some other defenses because our offense will give the opponents more opportunities because we score and score quickly.
That being said, we just need a mediocre defense and competent special teams, which is definetely possible next year. Also, next year will be the year when Rodriguez has a few seniors he actually recruited playing. I think we should keep Rodriguez. And next year he has to have a really good year. (There are always extenuating circumstances but I am expecting 9-3 and zero blowouts suffered.)
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:34 PM |
[T]hey resort to things like
[T]hey resort to things like
[T]hey resort to things like in-conference points per drive. Michigan is tied for third in the league in that metric. If you are using this stat, you have decided that Rich Rodriguez should go and are backfilling reasons.
This is disappointing to hear from Brian, especially coming in the wake of blublooded's excellent diary. Is Brian really suggesting that blublooded's entire analysis was designed to find a reason to get rid of Rodriguez? It certainly didn't read that way to me.
We know the offense is good . . . what's wrong with using advanced statistics to truly understand how good, and where the hidden weaknesses may lie? In saying that there's no merit to this analysis other than backing into a chosen argument, Brian sounds like the hack newspaper reporters who complain about sabermetrics.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:35 PM |
No it's
No it's
the comments that people have been saying that the defense let up in the 2nd half which is absolutely false because the offense can get Michigan back into the game in a hurry.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:39 PM |
???? I quoted the part of
???? I quoted the part of
???? I quoted the part of Brian's post that I took issue with, which seemed to directly target blublooded's analysis. I wasn't defending random commenters who claim that we only scored in the second half because Wisconsin let up, so I don't know how that's relevant to my comment.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 PM |
It's relevant to your comments
It's relevant to your comments
because you thought that that blueblooded analysis has something to do with Brian's comments when in fact, he's referring to the posters commenting under blueblooded's analysis topic.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:55 PM |
No
No
"If you are using this stat, you have decided that Rich Rodriguez should go and are backfilling reasons."
Some people who are using this stat support RR, they just think its a useful stat.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:03 PM |
Thank you. Either Brian's
Thank you. Either Brian's
Thank you. Either Brian's comment was directed at blublooded, or it was poorly worded and gave that impression.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:29 PM |
I don't think it was poorly
I don't think it was poorly
I don't think it was poorly worded. Read the quote in context, he is clearly referring to people using the stat to try to argue that our offense is not that good, not to people who cite the stat at all.
By that reasoning he would also be complaining about himself since he also mentioned this stat.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 PM |
There hasn't been
There hasn't been
a defense we've played that has let up at all. They've all played the same schemes and same personnel throughout the entirety of every game. Wisconsin up 24 was running the same thing in the 2nd half. Adjustments at halftime (as well as I'm sure a good yelling) lit a much needed fire. Had the offense started earlier, that game could have been different (though not likely the outcome based on defensive execution).
"I figure if I can get two degrees from Ohio State, it might be close to Elliott’s undergraduate degree" -- Brock
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:21 PM |
I think that is what is so
I think that is what is so
I think that is what is so distressing--the "had the offense started earlier" excuse can be applied to 3 of our 4 losses (our offense against MSU never really came around). One or two slow starts is expected but three starts to seem like a pattern, We can debate the reasons until we are blue in the face but the fact remains that when we needed our offense to keep pace with the other teams', it didn't.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:08 AM |
Actually
Actually
For MSU we had two interceptions in the end zone. If those go for touchdowns things are very different. Our offense was doing ok against them other than the turnovers
November 24th, 2010 at 11:12 AM |
And that is why I'm inclined
And that is why I'm inclined
and encouraged to let this play out until Robinson and the rest of the underclassmen finish their careers.
Listen, our first-year starter sophomore quarterback just broke an amazing record like it was nothing in his first full season starting, stands alone as the first ever to reach 1,500/2,000 (with two games remaining to extend that record), has improved from non-threat passer with garbage playing time to mediocre passer giving defenses fits in a single off-season, and has two full years left at the helm with an entire group of underclassmen getting better right along with him.
To be able to look at two interceptions in the endzone and see the difference in a game we lost by 17 to a team about to win the conference with the defense we have in place right now is amazing based on what we've seen in the past two years. Does Sr. Denard Robinson makes those mistakes? I don't know. But I'm willing to let it ride to find out.
"I figure if I can get two degrees from Ohio State, it might be close to Elliott’s undergraduate degree" -- Brock
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:43 PM |
I agree wholeheartedly, and I
I agree wholeheartedly, and I
I agree wholeheartedly, and I hope that nothing I wrote led you to believe the contrary.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:47 PM |
I prefer the air-cooled burble of one of these
I prefer the air-cooled burble of one of these
But yeah. 19 returning starters. Give this guy a chance dammit.
If we don't destroy people next year, I'll eat my words. But we will be stupid good in 2011. We've beaten all of the teams we were supposed to beat this year (save maybe PSU). I picked us to go 8-4, the only difference thus far was I thought we would beat PSU.
For all the "This is Michigan! 8-4 is UNACCEPTABLE people" I know it's Michigan - look at the roster. This isn't a "Michigan" defense with 4-7 NFL-caliber players on defense. Your expectations must change year to year. 8-4 would be GREAT for this group of extremely hard working 18-22 year olds. Next year we should contend for a big ten title.
If you're a fan support your team, support your coach. And hate OSU.
"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:01 PM |
For all the "This is
For all the "This is
For all the "This is Michigan! 8-4 is UNACCEPTABLE people" I know it's Michigan - look at the roster.
Besides the roster, I'd also point to recent history: most of the "UNACCEPTABLE" crowd are the "HIRE A MICHIGAN MAN" crowd... lest they forget The Horror under Carr's watch with a stacked, senior roster.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:25 PM |
You are correct
You are correct
And just a remember this anecdotal evidence-we went 8-4 the year before we won the national title in 1997 and we went 7-5 the year before we were 11-0 and one game from the national championship. The thing that we have in common with those teams, they returned the majority of their roster.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:40 PM |
we have a QB on just his 12th
we have a QB on just his 12th
we have a QB on just his 12th start
How long are we going to keep counting Denard's number of starts. The offense is good, it will get better, but way too many people are all about saying "Denard is basically a Freshman" and will probably continue saying next year "Denard is only in his 20th start"
12 starts isn't a small number for a college QB. He's been in he system two years. This isn't Tate from last year, who was only in his first year and was a first year starter. This number of start argument is lame, and should probably stop. Cam Newton is just going to be starting his 12th game too. Saying "he's only in his 12th start" comes off as saying he doesn't have any experience and hasn't played college football for 4 years so please please please give me comfort.
And the "left 7-21 points on the board" could be said for most college teams, including all the Carr teams, who people seem to think were all terrible and it was only made worse by screwy thought process thinking that they never missed opportunities and still only managed their crappy average.
\douche rant
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:50 PM |
We know the offense is good .
We know the offense is good .
We know the offense is good . . . what's wrong with using advanced statistics to truly understand how good, and where the hidden weaknesses may lie?
Because there's no use to these "advanced" metrics other than to try to say the offense isn't as good as every useful metric says so we can FIRE RICHROD
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:00 PM |
Because there's no use to
Because there's no use to
Because there's no use to these "advanced" metrics other than to try to say the offense isn't as good as every useful metric says so we can FIRE RICHROD
What, then, is the purpose of the "useful metric[s]?"
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:08 PM |
The useful metrics are the
The useful metrics are the
The useful metrics are the ones that say to retain Rich Rod, silly.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:11 PM |
Ugh.
Ugh.
You ANGAR me with that comment. I'll freely admit that I don't know which statistics Brian is referring to in his post, and I'm not a fucking sheep but I believe him when he says you're (I'm throwing you in there since you're defending it) cherry-picking one stat that serves a onesided purpose.
I'm certainly not happy about the state of the program these days, but I can see the forest through the trees. I don't know how any sane, logical person can ignore the youth of this team and just say hurr, fire him, (the hurr part isn't directed at you, as you've generally backed up your arguments but there it is) and think it's going to fix the issue.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:18 PM |
Question
Question
Has Fuzzy argued for Rodriguez to be fired? Perhaps he has, but I haven't seen it. I ask simply because I'm observing that people who disagree that the offense is the 8th Wonder of the World or who are frustrated that it only kicks into high gear against top Big 10 competition seem to automatically be assumed to be part of the "Fire RR" crowd.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:21 PM |
Thank you. I haven't argued
Thank you. I haven't argued
Thank you. I haven't argued for Rodriguez to be fired. I don't want him to be fired (assuming we replace the defensive staff). I like our offense.
Yet some people have ANGAR because I thought blublooded's diary was great, and defended it accordingly. And in their mind, I'm the irrational one. Bizarre.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:48 PM |
Maybe he didn't
Maybe he didn't
But his posts over the past week or so certainly made that impression on me.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:22 PM |
Please point to one post that
Please point to one post that
Please point to one post that gave you that impression. (Not that there would be anything inherently wrong with suggesting that Rodriguez should be fired, but I haven't done so).
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:19 PM |
Hey prick, I'm defending
Hey prick, I'm defending
Hey prick, I'm defending blublooded's well though out diary as having value beyond saying "fire Rich Rod," which is something that blublooded never advocated. Since I'm not in favor of firing Rich Rod, how do you get off suggesting that the only reason I would advocate the stat is if I want Rich Rod fired.
Another point -- the stat in question didn't suggest that our offense was bad in any way, and it was only one statistic in a very thorough and useful analysis.
Here's a tip -- when you start off by saying that you're not sure what the argument about, maybe you should stop right there before casting aspersions.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:44 PM |
Prick? Mua?
Prick? Mua?
You've been spouting this crap in damn near every thread for the past week or so. If you don't want Rodriguez fired, you sure fooled me. Cherry picking statistics isn't hard to understand, it's a tool for people make ridiculous arguments.
Thanks for the insults and name-calling though, always plays well. Especially when I tried to make a point to be somewhat respectful.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:20 PM |
Yes, you were very respectful
Yes, you were very respectful
Yes, you were very respectful when you (i) accused me of "cherrypicking stats" when I did nothing other than say that someone else's analysis was worthwhile and he shouldn't be raked over the coals, and (ii) suggested, based on god knows what, that I'm part of some FIRE RICH ROD brigade.
And now you say I've been spouting "this crap" -- not sure what in the hell you're referring to -- in damn near every thread for the past week or so. Yes, you've been a peach.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:41 PM |
Well
Well
I didn't mean you were cherry picking stats, I said/meant that you were defending the guy(s) who are. Subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
I guess I'll have to go back and re-read some threads, but again, I got that impression somehow.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:20 PM |
Could you be
Could you be
Could you be more conclusory?
Blublooded had a very thoughtful, analytical diary using these metrics. Nothing in that diary suggested that Rodriguez should be fired. Sometimes people perform an analysis to have a greater understanding of something, not as a means to an end.
Read his diary. Tell me there was "no use" to it.
I repeat my earlier claim, now targeted towards you: You sound like a hack sportswriter complaining about newfangled sabermetrics. "We don't need these darned statistamatics, a pitcher's win total is all we needs ta know!"
and now I hate it. Michigan please get better soon. Not being competitive in this game is too hard to take.
www.bighouseblog.com