How Good Is The Offense? Are We Really Asking This? Comment Count

Brian

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.)

Comments

msoccer10

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:58 PM ^

How about arguably the most important reason of all? He has clearly demonstrated that the most important thing to him is his players. He has their (and their families) best interest at heart and he will not compromise the well being of a player for a win (or to save his job).

For example I give you the Illinois game, a game that Rodriguez had to win or he likely loses his job. Denard has a mild headache. Forcier comes in and fumbles his first snap. I bet you a million dollars Miles or Kelly put Denard back in. But not our coach.

Also, think about Elliot and Brock Mealer. Rodriguez could have encouraged Mealer to quit football because of his injury and recruited another guy in his place for the following year. At the time he had enough offensive linemen. But he stuck by the kid and his family and got Brock working with Barwis.

He instills an attitude in his players. If you do not work, you don't play. That attitude has cost us a few good atheletes, but the players that come through will be better men because of it.

And finally, with all the shit he has been through the last three years, I feel like he has handled himself with a lot of class. Think about some of the other shit that comes out of coaches mouths when they are going  through the negativity that Rodriguez has endured. He is a Michigan man in my book, now and forever. I am proud to call him one.

Hobbes

November 23rd, 2010 at 8:40 PM ^

Sticking by Vlad Emilien after his injury and reaffirming his scholarship offer while other programs backed off is another good example of what you describe, and while that decision may have cost the team a usable scholarship in the short term I think, over the long term, it's the kind of principled decision that builds programs you can be proud of.

Although, it is a little funny that I'm wishing he would be a bit less principled and stop being so damn loyal to Gibson et al., in much the same way that Lloyd stubbornly stuck with DeBord and Gittleson.

Enjoy Life

November 23rd, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^

The offense has been very good. But, it is unforced errors (overthrown wide open receivers, dropped passes, etc.) that have prevented it from being off the charts.

The unforced errors are far worse than the TOs as far as points left off the board.

If the offense just gets rid of the unforced errors and does not stop themselves, a win is assured against osu -- regardless of what the defense does.

AgonyTrain

November 23rd, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^

Amen.  If RRod is willing to completely overhaul the defense and give the new coordinator discretion on position coaches I don't see why DB wouldn't give him one more year.  The offense is amazing given the lack of upper-classmen and having a true sophmore quarterback that improved roughly 1000% in the off-season.

Any resistance to replacing the cronies on the defensive side or bringing in a real DC would make me much more open-minded to a Harbaugh or someone of that ilk.  RRod has to take responsibilty for what is going on with that side of the ball and show he will make the necessary changes to rectify the situation.



Go Blue!

msoccer10

November 23rd, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree.

First, I am firmly in the camp to keep Rodriguez for at least one more year. He has already done enough this year regardless of what happens.

But I think if you are going to judge the head coach on the total program, you have to let him run the show. If Rodriguez wants to change the defense, he should. But what if he feels we should keep the defensive staff because of things we don't see or know about?

If the defense doesn't show improvement next year Rodriguez is gone. So it is up to him to figure out how best to make that happen, whether it is with these coaches, or others. If he is really a terrible judge of coaching, then he isn't fit to stay head coach and forcing him to make a change he doesn't believe in will only delay the inevitable.

NOLAWolverine

November 23rd, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^

I am in the NOLA airport about to hop on a flight back to Detroit for the holiday. I am dreading hearing from my MSU fans about how they need "lil sis" (as they call us under RR) to win in order to send them to their first Rose Bowl in my lifetime. Watching the game with my college friends on Saturday will quickly devolve into this message board if we fall behind. My only hope is that this Saturday is instead an upset that ends Tressel's reign of terror and gets Denard mentioned with the likes of Woodson, Howard, and Biakabatuka 

blueheron

November 23rd, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^

RichRod's merits and future aside, if the past three seasons have clearly shown anything, it's that way too much of our fan base is emotionally dependent on Michigan football having winning seasons.  (Note: I'm not thinking of the thoughtful and semi-thoughtful MGoBlog posters who don't care for Rodriguez.  I also do not believe that there's anything really unusual about Michigan fans.)

Spoof Football

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:12 PM ^

I believe the exact opposite is true: the guys who put too much emotional dependence on Michigan simply can NOT accept that this hire could turn out to be a mistake. Heck, fancy numbers that seem to prove to them Michigan's offense is so "deadly" belie the fact that yes, it IS deadly, unless you are a Big Ten title contender. But you know, only a "raving lunatic" must be able to watch this offense and see that it is relegated quite ordinary until the outcome of said games against teams with a pulse is decided.

The vitriol Rodriguez supporters hurl at those who disagree that Rodriguez will deliver the goods also shows the insecurity their side feels. Ad hominem attacks ensue immediately upon posting displeasure with this man who, to many, is not right for the job and has rendered UM football an embarrassment to the proud tradition it has been built on.

Brian seems to be losing it, like King Beaver of Scout. They are squarely in the Rodriguez corner and for some reason feel compelled to have cast their lots with this guy, then defend them with all the aplomb of the average playground bully, and cannot fathom that they, and Michigan, might have made a mistake here.

blacknblue

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^

I have absolutely no problem admitting that I am emotionally dependent on Michigan Football.  When Michigan does well, I am happy, when they do not do well I am not happy.

This is why come saturday I will be locked in a room in a room by myself when I watch the OSU game.  Simply because over the last couple of years I have proven that I am likely to hurt somebody during that game if things don't well.  And I hate to see what I might do if Michigan actually wins the game.  I might wake up Sunday morning married. 

And honestly I have no problem with that.  If I didn't feel that way I would just cheer for MSU since they seem to be having a good season.

maximus_spaniard

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:16 PM ^

You sir, hit the nail on the head. This losing is making a plenty of people pissed, embarrassed, etc, and are letting those emotions rule them. Fortunately, DB seems like someone who will not be making decisions based on emotions, or even based on fans' emotions, but with facts in hand. And with facts in hand you can only conclude that:

  1. Our offense has improved over these 3 years. Improved in such a way that we are top 15 or better in many categories, despite this being a still young, inexperienced team.

     
  2. Defense and special teams have regressed. Period. No sugarcoat. There are reasons (different from excuses) for it. Some responsibility is on the coaches, mainly the retention of the talent. Some people criticize the recruiting, but remember we have been subject to a lot of negative recruiting, due to NCAA Investigation, losing, coaching job uncertainty, etc.

     
  3. With only one of the 3 components working at a respectable level (i.e. offense vs. defense and special teams) our W-L record has improved, we are going to a bowl game, we'll get the 15 extra practices, etc that will be important to set us up for next year and beyond. If we "are what our records says we are" then we have improved, period.

     
  4.  If we have improved and the program has an upside (who can even deny this?) then RR should come back, with changes in the defensive staff.

     

We as fans need to apply the "Those who stay will be champions" to ourselves as well. It is hard to take these losses, but we are headed in the right direction. If we stay the course, we'll be champions. Period.

SirJack

November 23rd, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^

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....

Hm, on this site at least it seems to be the opposite. The people who are wholly in favor of RR think it's absurd even to question whether he is the right coach for Michigan, and seem to assume that Brandon, through various arcane codes and signals, is showing that he won't consider getting rid of RR anytime soon.

Many M fans who are critical of the current staff seem to acknowledge it's a very difficult decision.

dr eng1ish

November 23rd, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^

But this is also the only site that I frequent (besides obviously In RR We Trust) that has positively endorsed keeping RR, so it's not surprising.  The critics here know they have to be thoughtful and considering of other ideas, lest they get neg-blasted into oblivion.  The supporters don't need to worry about that. That tyranny of the minority is one of my issues with the points system.

As an aside I'm 100% in favor of bringing RR back regardless of the last 2 games.

TartanAlex

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^

Agreed. Great post Brian. At the moment defending RichRod - while acknowledging the real problems on the defense - feels a bit like being one of the lads at Rorke's Drift. There are an awful lot of Zulus circling the outpost, armed with very sharp spears...

But we know how "Zulu" ends, don't we?

Anyway: there seem to be some people who expect perfection on every drive and think that the offense is failing if that's not achieved. Way to guarantee disappointment, eh?

Bando Calrissian

November 23rd, 2010 at 4:54 PM ^

Which is a lot riskier proposition than your defense keeping you in ballgames.  You're a lot better off needing your offense to score 2-4 times in a ballgame (between touchdowns and field goals (remember those?!)) than depending on the other defense being bad enough to let you score 5-7 times.  It's one more added variable.  Instead of a good defense requiring just an iffy offensive effort at the very least, you have a bad defense requiring a good offense AND a bad opposing defense.

We can't sit here and say it's OK for the defense to be mediocre because RR is an offensive genius and we'll always be able to put up 25-30 points.  That's lunacy.  Offenses can be shut down by an inspired defensive effort.

AAB

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^

this doesn't make any sense.  There are exactly as many variables in play regardless of whether a team has a great defense and a bad offense or a bad defense and a great offense.  The point of a great offense (and as we've seen this year actually) is that you don't need "the other defense [to be] bad enough to let you score 5-7 times."  Michigan has played several truly excellent defenses this year.  That they were excellent defenses did not stop Michigan from raining fire on their heads when it wasn't shooting themselves in the foot.

This just sounds like a restatement of the myth that defense never takes a day off, but that's crap.  Ohio State and Michigan both had great defenses in 2006.  Both got absolutely shredded by excellent offense when they played each other.  A great defense requires an iffy offensive effort and that it's not playing an opposing offense that's so awesome that it can overwhelm the great defense.  It's exactly the same. 

AAB

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^

Do you have a better chance of winning if your offense scores 14 points a game or 40? Your argument appeared to be that it was easier to win with a bad offense and a good defense than vice versa.  I think that's nonsensical.

If, on the other hand, you're saying "it's easier to win with a great offense and a great defense" then I obviously agree, although I don't find that to be all that insightful.

Bando Calrissian

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^

It's easier to win with a great defense and an offense that only has to be mediocre at worst. 

 

Michigan made a tradition on winning with great defense.  Now we're saying all of that wasn't necessary?

AAB

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^

we're saying (or at least I'm saying) that it's equally easy to win with a great offense and a defense that only has to be mediocre. 

I don't give a crap what Michigan's traditions are.  I don't care if Rich Rod's style is a complete departure from what Michigan traditionally did.  I care if it's a viable way to win tons of football games.  We've seen this year that, despite many, many protestations to the contrary, Rich Rodriguez's spread option offense can work in the Big 10 -- in fact, it can absolutely torch people even when it's leaving multiple touchdowns on the field every game

Would I prefer to have a great defense? Yeah, but I always wished Michigan's offenses were better under Carr.   But I'm pretty firmly convinced that even an average defense will win Michigan big 10 championships.  That it's the flip side of how Michigan used to do business is irrelevant. 

Bando Calrissian

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^

"Tradition is something you can't bottle. You can't buy it at the corner store. But it is there to sustain you when you need it most. I've called upon it time and time again...There is nothing like it. I hope it never dies."

- Fritz Crisler

AAB

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^

about the Michigan football program (and its fanbase) is its rigid allegiance to its past.  That Michigan fans have honest, serious debates about what Bo would have thought of Rich Rodriguez is, to me, absurd, and a sign of a fundamental problem within the fanbase. 

Michigan's tradition is a fantastic thing that should be celebrated.  That tradition should in no way dictate what style of football Michigan plays in the future.  "How it's always been done" is the way that organizations become obsolete. 

dnak438

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^

(1) Bando is right.  It is better to have a great defense and a crap offense than the other way around.

(2) They are not mutually exclusive.  It is possible, indeed necessary, if you want to win consistently, to have both.

(3) Sure, Michigan has had a tradition of winning with great defense.  They have also had a tradition of winning with great offense.  I don't see how any of it is relevant.  Is RR anti-traditionalist?  If so, I don't see it.  The spread has deep historical roots.

dnak438

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 PM ^

in terms of perception.  But I think that most football enthusiasts would agree that a great defense with a bad offense is scarier to opponents than the opposite.  In part this is because if you have a great D/terrible O you can do certain things to stay in the game: slow the game down, play field position, and hope that you get a random score or two on offense, sort of like the Baltimore Ravens when they won the Super Bowl.  Maybe this applies more to the NFL than to college football.  In any case, I do think that it is increasingly difficult for teams in NCAAF to have great, shut-down defenses.  You don't see it very much anymore.  Even great defensive units, like Alabama's last year, give up points from time to time, so it's not really a viable strategy to be a super-defensive team.

I'm more interested in this issue of "Tradition" because it can be manipulated in so many ways.  All of the following are passably true:

  1. Michigan has a tradition of great defense.
  2. Michigan has a tradition of great offense.
  3. Michigan has a tradition of hiring from within the coaching ranks.
  4. Michigan has a tradition from bringing coaches from outside the program.

You can't just pick and choose which ones are important based on how you feel about the current regime.

MI Expat NY

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^

If you can score 5-7 times on any defense, you don't need to be great on the other side of the ball to win.  

Great on one side of the ball and ok on the other side is pretty much a guaranteed 9 win season.  Very good on both sides of the ball probably guarantees a 10 win season.  Great on one side and very good on the other is what it takes to win national championships.

In my mind it will be easier to bring the defense up to ok and eventually very good while maintaining a very good to great offense under Rodriguez than being able to maintain a very good to great offense while developing a very good to great defense under an unnamed coach. 

cp4three2

November 23rd, 2010 at 6:22 PM ^

Rich Rod's best offense hasn't kept us in big games the way Lloyd's worst ones did.  Like Brian said, the offense is really good.  Can it get better?  Yeah, does it matter if the coach only coaches the offense?  No.

 

This is one of the better offenses Rich has coached.  It hasn't kept us in games the way Lloyd's absolute worst did.

betheballdanny

November 23rd, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^

I've been pro-coach my whole life.  I'm old enough to remember Bo, I was too young to see issues with Mo, loved Lloyd, and am pro RR.

I remember several arguments with my friends who wanted Lloyd to go because his offenses were terrible, even though he won national championships with defenses and those boring offenses.

Now we have RR, and the offense is the "don't change the channel or you might have to watch the defense twice" awesome, and is strangly keeping us in games like Lloyd defenses used to do.  People are still arguing for him to go.

I wish people would just accept the fact that the defense is hated by a higher power and embrace the fact that the offense is a thing of beauty and is going to get better the next two years. 

If our probation with the AMSHG doesn't expire next year, it doesn't matter if Buddy Ryan is the coach, so lay off RR... but pile on GERG.