How Good Is The Offense? Are We Really Asking This?
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 6:17 PM ^
This post is garbage. This ranks up there with the crap that Brian posted about Lloyd Carr following the Morgan Trent book quote issue. This really is a new low for Brian, and I hope he will eventually realize it.
" If you're trying to downplay Michigan's second-half points against Iowa, Penn State and Wisconsin, you're doing the same thing."
Are you kidding me? Did you watch those games? Those games were blowouts and the opposition had it in the bag when UM went on those runs. Sure, the ability to put up those points is impressive in and of itself, but to ignore the context in which they were put up is ridiculous. Were the opponents running a prevent scheme? No, but if you've ever played any sport or watched ANY sport (not just college football), you know that it is easier to score when the outcome of the contest is determined. Hell, watch bowling on TV. The guy who is shut out gets up in the tenth frame and throws a turkey all the time. The pressure is off of you and the edge is gone from the opponent. This is a trend with this offense and it is an issue. The belittling tone of this statement is just garbage and a hack job.
"so they resort to things like in-conference points per drive."
What's wrong with this stat? Pace of play and number of drives per game are markedly different with UM's system than it is with a "traditional" attack. That increased pace and number of drives directly affects the stats you put in the box. This gives the opponent more opportunities to score too. There's absolutely nothing wrong with normalizng the points based on drives. What good is being ranked so high in scoring offense in points per game if the opposition is getting so many additional chances that you're still losing?
"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"
I'm not a fan of 14 year old girl texting language, but this literally deserves a lol. Really? Do you read the comments on your own site? The OVERWHELMING tone on this site among Rodriguez supporters is that this is an easy call and anyone who thinks it isn't is an idiot. Posting something like this is beyond comprehension.
"Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic."
I don't think anyone is logically arguing that Rodriguez doesn't have a good offense and it isn't a factor in his favor. The arguments I've seen, blueblooded in particular, are looking to actually breakdown where some of the issues with the offense are. To just look at national rankings and not acknowledge that this offense has not been able to keep pace and keep games competitive against the top tier of the Big Ten is short sighted and appears to be biased. That's a legitimate concern.
"My hate week is about other Michigan fans."
Classy. Tim seems to be rubbing off on you.
In summary, this was a really poor post and way beneath the quality that this site maintains on a regular basis. You came around to the mistake you made in the whole Lloyd needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with Brandon post, I can only hope you do the same here.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
No, but if you've ever played any sport or watched ANY sport (not just college football), you know that it is easier to score when the outcome of the contest is determined.
And if you've ever played, you know that these contests weren't determined until at least mid-way through the 4th quarter, well after the Michigan scoring runs.
What good is being ranked so high in scoring offense in points per game if the opposition is getting so many additional chances that you're still losing?
The point is that stat is a poor argument against the offense. It doesn't matter how many opportunities your opponent gets if you have a good defense. Regardless of relativity, you and the opponent will get pretty much the same # of drives. # of plays is another matter, and that battle is also heavily reliant on defense.
(I'll finish this later.)
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
It doesn't matter how many opportunities your opponent gets if you have a good defense.
This doesn't make sense. Even a good defense will give up more points if its opponent has more possessions. A defense that gives up 30 points on 10 possessions is generally better than one that gives up 28 points on 7 possessions.
Similarly, you would rather have an offense that scores 28 points on 7 possessions than 30 points on 10 possessions, would you not?
Points per drive is thus a useful statistic in assessing the true strength of both an offense and a defense.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:20 PM ^
If I have a defense that is bad but I protect it w/time-consuming drives, I'll still give up a lot of points. See: most of Lloyd's teams or this year's Wisconsin.
But if I have an defense that is good, it can allow fewer points than the terrible defense even with twice as many drives against it as said terrible defense. See: Oklahoma 2009. Struggling offense w/o Bradford, but they still played fast, giving the opposing O a lot of possessions. Their great D kept them in games.
Similarly, you would rather have an offense that scores 28 points on 7 possessions than 30 points on 10 possessions, would you not?
Not necessarily. If Team A plays Lloyd/Ferentz/Wisconsin ball and I play RichRod/Malzahn/Oklahoma ball and A gets 7 possesions per game and I get 10, I win every time.
Points per drive can be useful, but only in the context in the # of drives per game, which the people Brian are talking about ignore.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^
I don't really follow what you're saying.
"If Team A plays Lloyd/Ferentz/Wisconsin ball and I play RichRod/Malzahn/Oklahoma ball and A gets 7 possesions per game and I get 10, I win every time."
I don't understand how your scenario is possible in a real game. How can one team get 7 possessions and another get 10? Does the team with 10 recover multiple onside kicks?
"If I have a defense that is bad but I protect it w/time-consuming drives, I'll still give up a lot of points."
True, but you'll give up less than if you gave them the ball more.
"Points per drive can be useful, but only in the context of # of drives per game, which the people Brian are talking about ignore."
I just don't understand this. Honestly, please expand on this because I am missing the point. PPD is an average, so the number of drives shouldn't matter, because at most, one team is getting a +1 advantage on drives.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:49 PM ^
I'd rather have 10 possessions per game and score 30 than have 7 possessions per game and score 28 b/c 30 is more than 28.
Yes, if I have 10 possessions per game instead of 7, then (except for onside kicks, messing up coin flips, and fumbled KOs and punts) the opponent will also get more...but again, this is all dependent on the defense and it's ability to stop the other team from scoring.
There is no way to tell whether a team that plays fast makes its opponent's offense more or less effective, nor is there any way to tell the same effect for a team that plays slow.
Maybe the D for Team X plays better the more it's on the field (e.g. 10 possessions), maybe it plays worse. Who knows?
Assuming that the D will give up the exact same ppd regardless of the # of possessions it faces (and other factors like momentum swings, sudden change, starting field position, etc.) is narrow minded, just like pointing to only one statistic as evidence.
Anyway, this is the bad stat for M and they're 3rd in the league with a 1st year true soph. at QB and only graduates 2 starters? Sorry, I think you're just saying, "They're not awesome, they're just very good."
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:12 PM ^
Your last line is right on. I think that is what people are trying to say, and I don't think that's unreasonable. I think Brian attacking anyone who says that and then claiming that anyone who looks at PPD (seemingly at all) is trying to backhandedly find a way to build a case against Rodriguez is crap. I fully stand by my statement that Brian's post was crap.
Anyway, I think I see what you're trying to say now. All of the game factors you mention definitely will move the PPD around, but in the end, it's an average for an entire season, and I think at some point all of those factors would even out among teams. UM having such bad units on O and ST could make this worse for UM, I can admit that. It's certainly possible that some defenses may play better the more they're on the field, but I am still having trouble wrapping my head around the notion that they're likely to allow fewer total points (the ultimate end goal) if they face 10 possessions as opposed to facing 7. I didn't try to claim this was a bad stat for UM, I just didn't like the way it, and blueblooded by connection, were attacked. UM's numbers in this stat are solid.
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:28 PM ^
...you think Brian's post was crap b/c he was pointing out that RR critics only choose to find the one stat (among several telling ones to choose from) that doesn't support a great offense?
I really think that you (and others who are offended) don't like his post simply b/c he called people raving lunatics.
I bet we could go back to the '97 defense and find a very important stat that wasn't very great. Would you think it crazy for someone to say, "See, the '97 Michigan defense wasn't great"?
(By the way, I appreciate that you're disagreeing w/o being disagreeable. Thanks for arguing w/o hating.)
November 24th, 2010 at 12:15 AM ^
I think Brian's post is crap because of the five bolded quotes I put in my original response. I really don't think you will find any RR critics who would say the offense isn't good, it's very good. But the big push from RR supporters, Brian included, seems to be that this offense is such an amazing machine that it would be suicide to abandon it, even in the face of the butchering of defense and special teams. So I don't think it's unreasonable to take a look at the big assumption about the offense in greater detail. Writing off the fact that the offense hasn't been able to keep up in the first half as unimportant to the overarching assumption of the offense's awesomeness just seems insincere, if not downright manipulative. The tone towards the readers and the bump then attack of blueblooded's diary also struck me as mean spirited and unprofessional.
(and I agree, it's nice to discuss without the anger, much appreciated. For what it's worth, I'm on the fence with RR. I see both sides and I just don't know what the right answer is.)
November 24th, 2010 at 1:05 AM ^
But the big push from RR supporters, Brian included, seems to be that this offense is such an amazing machine that it would be suicide to abandon it, even in the face of the butchering of defense and special teams.
I can't speak for Brian, but I would classify myself as a supporter of Coach Rod. I think, however, he's made some big mistakes (obviously, and I think even he would admit he's made mistakes, probably not to the level he should, at least publicly). Mainly, he originally decided to delegate the defense, but the problem is his confidant with the defense hasn't been the DC. This is irrational ime.
Anyway, I don't think the argument is that we are abandoning a current amazing machine. I think we would be abandoning a very good machine run by relatively inexperienced operators (players), and this machine will only get better over the next couple of years.
Regardless of who our head coach is, we will still have major building to do on defense and special teams. But if we switch head coaches, we are certain to also add the offense to the rebuilding project.
And since we are close to being a good team (similar W/L improvement in the next two years will be a New Year's bowl or better next year and a run at the NC in 2012), it doesn't make sense to change unless you can prove that things will not improve. In other words, you must show that a team with 18+ returning starters will not get better. Even if you acknowledge that the offense will improve, those in favor of switching regimes must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defense and FG unit will continue to be abhorrent. And since both areas are so mind-numbingly young, I don't see how anyone can reasonably make that case.
Moreover, it isn't unreasonable to argue that the defensive staff has made players better as they get older, with a few exceptions. Obi isn't better, but Mouton is, Van Bergen is, JT Floyd is, T. Gordon is, C. Gordon is, Demens is, Martin is. They helped BG improve into a 1st round stud. Roh is and isn't better: is at DE on a 4-man line, but isn't b/c they rarely played him there.
Now, the main thing that needs to change is that they need to decide, schematically, what they are on defense, and the DC needs to define that, I don't give a shit what the assistants (who aren't gurus by any measure) want. If Coach Rod really wants 3-3-5, then he has only a few options as DC, with Casteel being the best fit, not only b/c he knows the scheme, but also b/c he has the familiarity with, and the respect from, the current defensive assistants. If Coach Rod really believes it isn't about scheme, and Coach Robinson will stay, then they need to run what he wants, and the assistants need to master that scheme and terminology. If it's too confusing for them, they aren't qualified to be a position coach at any FBS school, let alone Michigan.
November 24th, 2010 at 12:47 AM ^
...you think Brian's post was crap b/c he was pointing out that RR critics only choose to find the one stat (among several telling ones to choose from) that doesn't support a great offense?
No, I think Brian's post was crap because he assumed that anyone who thinks that points per drive is a valuable stat is a Rich Rod critic, which you seem to do as well. There was nothing in blublooded's diary, which started this brouhaha, that suggested he was anti-Rich Rod or trying to put down the offense. He simply suggested, based on his analysis of which stats are most telling, that the sophomore-led offense, while very, very good, is not YET the unstoppable juggernaut that the yards per game stats suggest it is. Have we gotten to the point where someone can't make this observation without being attacked as a heretic and publicly shamed?
I think points per possession is a more valuable statistic than points per game for the reasons laid out above. I would rather my team score 28 points on 7 possessions than 30 points on 10, for the simple reason that in option A your opponent has to average more than 4 points per possession to defeat you, while in option B your opponent need average just over three points per possession. I understand your point that number of possessions will affect how many points are scored in an average possession in some way, but still think that, on the whole, ppd gives a better sense of offensive efficiency. And this is hardly a novel theory -- it's become general accepted that points per possession is the best measure of offensive and defensive capability in basketball, and obviously many are moving this way in football as well. This doesn't make me a lunatic Rich Rod hater, and the implication that it does is what has pissed me, and others, off.
To be clear . . . I LOVE THIS OFFENSE. Just because I may think it is only, say, the 12th best offense in the country instead of the fourth doesn't mean I'm dissatisfied. Especially since I recognize that it is led by underclassmen, and will get even better in the next two years. That blublooded, tf and others like to analyze the minutiae of the offense and examine perceived weaknesses doesn't mean that they think Rodriguez sucks -- it just means that they like studying the offense (its a hell of a lot more fun than looking at the defense) and assessing whether their perceptions of its (relatively insignificant) flaws are accurate. If Brian wants to argue why points per possession is not a meaningful statistic, I'd love to read it -- that's why I'm constantly on this blog. But impugning blublooded's motives and insulting him after bumping his diary, which he obviously put a lot of effort into, to the front page was a classless move.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
Check out the half by half box score of the UM / Gardner Webb game from Sunday. Man, Gardner Webb is just about even with UM, too bad they got themselves in that 22 point hole in the first half, because man, without that, they could have been right there.
I disagree with the claim that those three games weren't essentially in the bag before the middle of the fourth quarter. When you get that far behind at half time or in the third quarter, your chances of coming back are incredibly small. Everything went right for a few minutes against Iowa to get close, but there were still too many obstacles to overcome. Did you really think at any point during the Penn State and Wisconsin seconds half there was anything approaching a reasonable chance at UM winning?
I didn't word the last block quote well. I mean that having a high scoring offense on a lot of possessions isn't necessarily representative, because you also allow the other team equal chances. So, if you score 3.0 PPD and put up 36 in an 12 possession game, you would still lose to a 3.4 PPD team even if their total point scoring average was lower because they "normally" play at a slower pace. This is a pretty well accepted metric in basketball, as far as I know.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^
I did
I thought we still had a chance in both. As the game got deeper, more so PSU than Wisco obviously.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:49 PM ^
That shred of light I saw in the 2nd half quickly evaporated once it was evident our defense was powerless, completely powerless to stop Wisconsin's running attack. Like, not even close. Imagine having a decent defense...man, just one or 2 extra stops in that game would have made a huge difference.
Really, same thing could be said for PSu as well, though defense was powerless against teh pass.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
And the PSU fans around me were getting real antsy as we attempted the comeback in Happy Valley.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:39 PM ^
In games against Iowa, Wisconsin, and Penn St, we were down less than two touchdowns with plenty of time left. Ask Iowa if the game was "in the bag" when they were up a single score with 10 minutes to play. Or ask Wisconsin if the game was over holding a 10 point lead with over half of the 3rd quarter to play. Again, in many of the games, MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, we had opportunities to score early, but were stopped by ourselves - as my earlier post mentions: Lewann penalties, Denard int's in the endzone etc. Very few defenses have stopped with any sustained success this season. Or really none for that matter. But you probably wanted to fire RR the moment he and Rita showed up in A2.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:44 PM ^
but its still kinda bad.
Calling out other fans for wanting to fire RR is one thing. Calling them out for daring to question just how amazing the offense is weak.
Still...the Lloyd thing was just...awful. This is just dumb frustrated rant.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^
comment ever.
This gives the opponent more opportunities to score too.
aaaaaaarrhrhrhrhghghgh.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:48 PM ^
Instead of your indulgent douchy noise thing, could you explain to me how pace adjusted offense is so inferior to total points scored?
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^
Another candidate with an agenda. If you are seriously trying to argue, for instance, that Dave Brandon doesn't have a tough deicsion because of the tone of comments from some of the fanbase you are an idiot.
November 24th, 2010 at 12:20 AM ^
A, the agenda thing. Go to hell. EDIT - Removed unnecessary vulgarity on my part.
B, I think you're the idiot. Your Dave Brandon / decision / tone of comments thing doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think you read what I wrote.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^
To just look at national rankings and not acknowledge that this offense has not been able to keep pace and keep games competitive against the top tier of the Big Ten is short sighted and appears to be biased.
While I agree with some of your sentiment, to not acknowledge that this offense is under immense pressure because of the worst statistical defense in UM's 100+ year history is also myopic. Even the best offenses struggle early against good defenses - Oregon against Stanford this year, Auburn versus LSU, etc. It happens. But those teams had the luxury of a defense that could force the opposition to punt more than once a game. You can't wholly judge this offense's ability by national stats, but to ignore the massive holes they tend to be put in is also an impossibly high standard for any team to meet.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^
That's a good point. The offense is in a terrbile position and I'm sure they feel a ton of pressure. It's not an easy position. Maybe for some reason they flourish when they're so far behind they just throw caution to the wind and let it fly. If that's the case, the challenge to the coaching staff would be to find a way to get them to do that right away.
For the record, I think the offense is good, it's exciting, and it's a major positive in Rodriguez's favor. But there are some flaws and the tone of Brian's post seemed to be an attack on anyone who dared to question anything about it, and that aggitated me.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
where you finally have it right. Denard has made it clear that he gets anxious and its also true that the offense has immense pressure to score all the time bc of our terrible defense.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
it's easier to score points in the second half when you're down a few score, you're dreaming. Did anybody watch the NC game last year? Ask Alabama's defense if they loosened up when they were ahead. Pretty sure Gilbert and the "amazing Texas offense" wasn't the reason they came back and made it a game.
Call a spade a spade.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:25 PM ^
because it should clearly be avoided.
Did you actually watch the iowa game? As I recall, Iowa had a third down, up by 7, which if Michigan stopped them on would have resulted in a punt and a chance for Michigan to tie the game.
How could you seriously say that iowa had the game "in the bag?"
As for hating other michigan fans, why take a potshot at Tim? Showing how to keep it classy?
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^
As for the Iowa game, yeah, I think that was in the bag for Iowa. UM had a great rally and made it interesting, but too many things would have to go perfectly for that to actually work out.
Tim... it's not hard to find examples of him taking uncalled for shots at readers, so it fit.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:28 AM ^
we actually had Iowa at 3rd and long twice on their second to last drive. Iowa was up 35-28 when they started the drive with just short of 7 min left in the game.
3rd and 9 at IOWA 41 Ricky Stanzi pass complete to Marvin McNutt for 17 yards to the Mich 42 for a 1ST down.
3rd and 8 at MICH 40 Ricky Stanzi pass complete to Adam Robinson for 26 yards to the Mich 14 for a 1ST down.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:53 PM ^
But we are on your points.
<br>
<br>YMMV, but I'm amazed how many people felt those losses were close. If double digit final scores weren't enough, or that we never really had the ball that often with a chance to tie or take a lead (it's like being down a basket when the other team has the ball, but they shoot much better than 50% against our defense), or so many people who have been around a lot of football really felt like the opposition was in any real danger...just wow. There seemed no desperate panic on their part. Maybe Iowa was the closest, but more due to the crowd trying to will them back...not anything on the field. You don't have to let up in scheme, or bench players to let up. It's a natural human emotion in all levels of sports to let up mentally a little...even more so with kids. That's why so often right when you take a two score lead that you give it right back up...you get complacent and the other team gets desperate.
<br>
<br>The tough decision bit stuck out to me too. Maybe no one who's always wanted Rich gone no matter what can see any reason to keep him, but Brian really must have stopped reading his own site. Show me anyone who thinks Rich is gone, no question, but the most trolling trolls...and then show me any number of legit reasonable posters who say with a straight face Rich is back no matter what happens the rest of the season, and they can "tell" Brandon has already made his decision. Then tell me that it's the keep Rich Rod people who are struggling with it, and not the "I'm not sure what Brandon should do, particularly till the season ends" crowd. He's just out to lunch with that statement.
<br>
<br>Still, it's better than a disingenuous strawman that there's anyone saying fire Rich Rod because of his offense. At best someone may be countering the more prevalent idea that the offense is do wonderful that it offsets historical bad D and putrid special teams. Because if the idea that great balances awful, what if it's just real good and awful? I can show posts that state he's running the best offense in the history of the Big Ten. Show me a post that says "Fire Rich because his offense sucks". Good luck.
<br>
<br>And "Tim must be rubbing off on you"? Ouch. Harsh. But......
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
In economics terms, the past three years are a sunk cost. You shouldn't be making any decisions on the future just because you've invested 3 years into the RR project.
The ONLY factor you should weighing is this: from 2011 - 202X, which coach will turn in more Big Ten titles, National titles, and Rivalry game victories?
We have data points on RichRod at Michigan, and we have data points on Jim Harbaugh at Stanford. If you think RR will do better from today forward than JH as head coach of Michigan (assuming he would come), then you support RR. If you answer JH, then making the change is the only rational choice.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
Brian, while I acknowledge that I don't know what your email inbox looks like, I think this is a little over the top. Personally, I'm not sure what to make of our offense. That's not to say that I think it's bad, or a point against RR, or anything like that. Obviously, it's pretty good. But I have a hard time understanding how an offense that looks so good on paper seems to have so much trouble scoring in the first halves of games. In our last six games, we've had only one high-scoring first half. Consider:
MSU - 10 points in the first half.
Iowa - 7 points
PSU - 10 points
Illinois - 31 points (the clear outlier)
Purdue - 7 offensive points
Wisconsin - 0 points
Why is it so hard for us to score in the first halves of these games, only to suddenly open the floodgates in the second half (when we should be under more pressure, if anything)? I don't have an explanation. I do think it's only fair to acknowledge that while we generally finish games with good statistics, there is a bizarre Jekyll and Hyde tendency to this offense, and it's resulted in us regularly having to dig our way out of 20-point holes. For you to assume that anyone making note of this is operating in bad faith is unfair. Don't forget, at the end of the day, we are your clientele. No matter how obnoxious some email writers may be, it's never a good idea to lash out at the people that pay the bills.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^
The idea is to be ahead at the end, not at halftime. I could give you reasons why the 1st half number were low (QB inexperience, bad Kicker), but it seems you have pre-conceived notions that will not be dislodged
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
Umm, if we finished up ahead at the end, no one would be complaining about our performance in the first half.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:48 PM ^
Michigan was also in a pretty deep whole before they started scoring. The offense has struggled to adjust to better teams' initial defensive game plans. Once they adjust, or the opponent lays off to prevent the big play, they run pretty well.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:11 PM ^
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:11 PM ^
a deep whole sounds difficult to come back from, at least compared to a deep half
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:02 PM ^
The simplest solution is usually the best. I don't UFR games or know half the football of Brian or most guys on here. Still having watched 25 years of football on TV, I have noticed it is normally way easier to score when you are way behind.
Maybe this is true because defenses have already done their job and the urgency of the individual players has dropped?
An offense that isn't doing it it when it counts against good teams, isn't great by my definition. It can be seen as having great potential, if it is doing really well at all other times.
This offense is. So it is fair to say it has great potential.
Mincing words about the offense isn't of value. Give it to Rich that he has a great offense if that is the claim.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:17 PM ^
I think if we all try hard enough to remember the first half of these games, a big part of the answer has nothing to do with the defenses we were facing. How many of these games did we have drives in the first half the were stalled by unforced errors. Remember MSU? Two redzone interceptions that were thrown behind two different open receivers in the endzone. Wisconsin-overthrown touchdown pass, missed field goal. Purdue-Crap hole rainfest game. In every first half you've stated above there were "easy" mistakes which left points on the field. I refuse to look at this season and apply revisionist history- it's not because these defenses were too good. Remember watching these games and thinking" shit he just dropped a touchdown, first down, big play" or "he just over/under threw a touchdown, first down, big play " he missed the hole" or "should have kept it"? I'll bet you've muttered, yelled or thought these things a million times. That's because there's been a TON of unforced errors this season. To my mind the reason behind these errors has more to do with the inexperience and youth than the defenses we've been facing.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^
This is a free site, man.
I'd be willing to wager that Brian has resisted the temptation to cash the value of the site in on more than one occasion and could find work as a sportswriter if he wanted/needed to. We, on the other hand, would be left in a desert of misinformation and contorted facts without mgoblog. It's the standard for a reason. Brian is that reason, not the 'clientele'.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^
That Brian makes his living off of. By pageviews, clicks, and donations. If that stuff stops happening for any reason, Brian goes back to being an unhappy engineer. It's a great value to be sure, but let's not act like it's a work of charity or a hobby anymore. And insulting your customers isn't great business if you want to keep doing it, though it's completely within anyone's rights.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:55 PM ^
When my alarm went off this morning NPR was talking about some entrepreneur who was helping people market themselves more effectively in online dating services. One of this consultant's clients was concerned that her "bio statement" was maybe too honest, and that she would scare off potential mates. The consultant stopped her short and said "sometimes its a good thing to scare off certain people."
I think right now Brian IS an unhappy (information) engineer(+). If his niche is serving a certain clientele that makes him enjoy his job, perhaps he shouldn't sugarcoat.
November 24th, 2010 at 12:12 AM ^
I never said this is for charity, only that we aren't clientele. The audience amasses of its own volition to hear what Brian and other critical observers of Michigan think. You say that Brian is insulting his customers*, I say he's stating his unabashed opinion without worrying whether people agree with him or not. (Who's the free press now?)
If mgoblog ceases to exist, Brian Cook will be fine. Believe that. Something this interesting doesn't grow on its own. Being able to cultivate it is a marketable skill/talent which he can ably document.
Please, Brian has outgrown these mofos...
*who don't pay for a fucking thing, by the way; we aren't customers we're free-loaders farming out our need to critically scan the internet for information about something we're interested in at zero cost. People need to get over themselves and say "thanks, holmes /fistbump". Customers (page-views, clicks) don't pay Brian, [Google] does because he's created something interesting enough to generate traffic on a daily hourly consistent basis. Something interesting enough that prominent/national websites like, you know, The Detroit News, Yahoo!, and ESPN, link to on a regular basis. Are you serious? Brian isn't in want of a paycheck, all he has to do is say "let's do this" like so many, less talented, others have done before him. Your joke is funny; I'm laughing.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:36 AM ^
When he quit his job and started doing this for a living. When he's doing it on his own free time for fun, then he's doing us a favor. This obsessive ring kissing thing where we should bow to his kindness for doing it is the only laughable thing. Google isn't paying him because he writes well....he could be writing War and Peace is his basement and they wouldn't give a fuck. They pay because people see it; they click on the site. One way they do that is by writing and adding a lot of content that's truly free, because he's not sending checks out to those he front pages. Which in turn creates discussion and more clicks. And if he discourages that by baiting and switching, and holding things up to just turn around and insult them, he's going to have people wonder why they would want to do that. He's already got the original diarist feeling that way, so it's not a stretch that less repeat work and new work is created just from fear of that; with less reason to read the site all around, less clicks, less reason for anyone to pay him for the site.
<br>
<br>That's his right if he's feeling sick of this, and would rather go write somewhere else. But if he DOESN'T, it's a pretty bad business model. But don't pass off this bullshit that they're not paying him for views, but for quality content. By that reasoning the Freep would have gone out of business long ago, rather than just printing crap to get a rise put of people. Why is a click there going to be the difference between their success or failure (print only!!!!), but clicks don't mean a damn here?
<br>
<br>People who scream "strawman" probably shouldn't be saying stuff like "if Brian decides to leave us there will be no where to find the truth about Michigan Football Whaaaaaaa!!!!". If he wants to do something else, there will be ten bloggers fighting to take his place. They may not be as amusing, or have such a way with words, but it's not like Michigan Football becomes a void. Amazingly, it existed before MGoBlog. It's great work, a frat forum, and generally, from the distance he wisely keeps himself, he seems like a pretty nice guy, but somehow the hero worship thing gets taken a bit far.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:43 AM ^
It's all a matter of perspective, just as everything is. Hero worship. Pshh, [bite me]. You want to make a recurssive argument...I don't give a fuck. Google pays him becuase people click, why do people click? I give the guy his do because he has done something a lot of people would like to do but have not done and/or cannot do. What, Big House Blog, Holdin' the Rope, Maize 'n Brew, so on, so forth, are going to fill the void? Bullshit. No offense to those guys (I haven't actaully read their stuff, then again maybe that's evidence in and of itself) but they haven't because they can't...or maybe they're just playing "prevent blogging"?. The "ten bloggers fighting to take his place" will all suck, guaranteed. Whatever, it's beside the point.
People who scream "strawman" probably shouldn't be saying stuff like "if Brian decides to leave us there will be no where to find the truth about Michigan Football Whaaaaaaa!!!!".
I "screamed strawman" because you attacked an argument that I didn't actually make which is, you know, the definition of a strawman argument. I didn't "scream" it because I fear for my own ability to understand shit. On the contrary, I'm thankful for mgoblog for providing me satisfactory cover against arguing with douche-bag idiots if I feel like avoiding them. Regardless of that gratitude, I do believe that having a singular, credible, and intelligent voice against bullshit is valuable, whether [some portion of the self-amassing audience] agrees with it or not. Fuck 'em, let 'em generate their own self-amassing audience.
Mgoblog the number 1 team specific blog on the *entire* internet, man. Do you really think some dude can just step in and fill that void? Please. That's as ridiculous as saying that Michigan's 2010 offense isn't fucking sweet.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^
How is it that, with a 7-4 record and a team that is doing pretty much exactly what we all expected they would do at the beginning of the year, I still want to stab my face off?
Granted, the defense needs to be fixed. Fine. Looking at the plethora of reasons (age, experience, depth, cornerback health, etc. etc.) at the beginning of the year, a bad defense should have surprised nobody.
But goddamn it, I've already waited three years of my life, slogged through NCAA investigations (which were fraudulent), suffered through walkon QBs and freshman QBs and an O-line made of duct tape and dread with the hopes of one day seeing a competent offense and it's finally here and all these people want to do is blow it all up.
We're so close to being good, and you (figurative) bastards want to take it away because you're impatient.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:54 PM ^
He has 6 Big Ten wins in 3 years. Let me say it again, 6 Big Ten wins in 3 years. He is 1-12 soon to be 1-13 against Mich St, Wisconsin, Ohio St, Iowa and Penn St. How is that improvement? Beating Indiana every year and fattening up on a soft non conference schedule is not going to cut it. Beat somebody relevant in the Big Ten. I can't understand people being content as a bottom feeder in the Big Ten. RR is a joke, and is in way over his head.....
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:05 PM ^
Rephrased pres70:
BUT HE DID X AND THEN I WAS SAD. LET ME SAY IT AGAIN, HE DID X AND I WAS SAD. HE DID X. HOW IS THAT GOING TO MAKE ME HAPPY? DOING X WILL NOT MAKE ME HAPPY. DO Y. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE BEING HAPPY WITH X. HE MAKES ME SAD.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:37 PM ^
This made me laugh more than any comment in recent memory.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
I'm going to print that out, frame it, and hang it in my cubicle.
"When brown ball goes to that side, I am sad. When brown ball goes to other side, I am happy. Brown ball should only go to other side, not that side. Why is this game so hard?!"
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
No, I'm not kidding.
Comments