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 7:29 PM ^
Hold on a second...
6 Big Ten wins in three years??? I had no idea!
Thank you for sharing this knowledge; I will now flip my opinion of FRAUDriguez.
P.S.- people aren't content with Michigan being a bottom feeder, but some people believe that Rodriguez, given his impressive track record, will correct mistakes he made, as well as circumstances outside his control, and the program will be a consistent winner again as early as next season. And hiring a new coach doesn't automatically make the team 14-0.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^
Congratz you are the first person to recieve a point from me ever, now that might have something to do with the fact that I just learned how give points, none the less you are still the first. I hope this moment rates up there with your first lay, first child, and your first "I told you so" post when RR brings this team to greatness.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:25 PM ^
Thank you. It is an honor and a privilege.
I'm commenting on a sports blog (from Mom's basement, of course), so naturally I've not had my first lay, and thus don't have a child. I have the "I told you so" post ready to go, but I also have an alternate version that boils down to "I told you Brady Hoke would be the coach in 2011."
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^
I've been handing +1's out like candy on this thread! +1 to you, good sir!
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:19 PM ^
Let's fire our coaches every 3 years! Sounds like a recipe for success! Because I heard coaches really like coming to schools where they must succeed before the talent they recruit matures or be fired.
I fucking hate our fans.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^
You act like firing one coach after three years is already a trend. Coaches understand the situation their putting themselves in. Look at ND, they actually have a trend of this sort of thing and still get what are perceived to be good coaches.
And you do understand about 99% of the Michigan fanbase, regardless of feelings toward RR, want to change DCs at a more extreme rate than 3 years right?
November 24th, 2010 at 1:38 AM ^
Look at ND, they actually have a trend of this sort of thing and still get what are perceived to be good coaches.
So you'd like to become Notre Dame? Right.
It would not be a trend, but it would still be ridiculous. You fire a coach after 3 years if he's obviously detrimental to the program, not if he has improved every year and produced the best offense the program has had in over a quarter century.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:52 AM ^
But they are getting very respected coaches (at least before the come to ND) even with what's happening.
And I think you have to look at what is more detrimental to the program, keeping a guy around you (in this case DB) thinks won't reach the goals that have been set, or canning him right now. I don't have a side on this, I'm just saying how I see it
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
You always seem like a relaxed dude; credit goes to the avatar. I agree 100%: we have put in the pain, now why on earth would you want to give up right before reaping the rewards?
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^
I was thrilled when RR was hired and have been a strong supporter for 2 2/3 years. So I think I agree with Brian - we've shown great improvement on offense and with a new DC (empowered to bring in his staff and scheme), I'd be more than willing to retain RR. I think that's the best choice.
To me, changing coaches at this point will only prolong the turmoil.
On the other hand, how on earth can we be so bad on defense and special teams? Geez. The head coach is ultimately responsible. This is the fundamental reason I have jumped off the RR bandwagon. I am really not sure he can be successful here. I used to believe. I want to believe! But my faith is shaken.
I really have loved the offense this year but really, what if we hadn't won the lotto with D Rob. Would we be even be close to the production we see now? Nope. We'd be lucky to be 5-7 again this year.
Don't flame me. I'm not a RR hater (in the spirit of full disclosure, I WAS a Carr hater). I guess I've learned that change doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
I would be open to Harbaugh, but don't think a change for change sake will bring us back. I think the solution is for Brandon to have a heart to heart with RR at the end of the season and demanding thorough coaching changes on defense and special teams - and then holding Rich Rob accountable.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
We didn't "win the lotto" with DRob. RR has found explosive players everywhere he's been (Shaun King, Pat White).
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
This is part of the problem with how people think about RR. We did not "win the lotto" with Denard. RR recruited him and then groomed him for greatness. The guy should at least get the credit for the things he has done well.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^
for Denard to play quarterback. So... if Michigan won the lotto, Michigan was also the only team to buy a lottery ticket for Denard Robinson's recruitment.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:30 PM ^
This was probably said somewhere, but, I'm sure our "points per drive" are only 3rd in conference because of missed field goals, and going for it on fourth down because we have a terrible field goal kicker.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:44 PM ^
That is why the defense sucks. Need more T.O.P.
/idiots
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:00 PM ^
I'm not in the fire RR bunch (I'm on the fence), but everyone here, regardless of how they feel about RR, agrees our D has no depth. Therefore the players that have to play get pretty tired when our offense is only on the field for 2 minutes at a time.
I'm not saying TOP wins games, but having possession does matter, both for defensive recovery and emotionally/mentally. You can't tell me our D wasn't demoralized as Wisconsin continued to chew up clock at 5 yards a pop for that whole second half and wasn't tired too.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:48 PM ^
I sense that RR is a good guy. HIs offense is exciting to watch. I've been for bringing him back for most of the year, but now, I think if we could get Harbaugh, maybe we should.
I don't think that makes me a raving lunatic (other qualities, maybe, but not those particular thoughts.)
In evolution, one gene can make a huge difference in a species ability to survive. The competitive margins are so tight. In athletics, the margins are extremely tight, too. Look at olympic champions, i.e., swimming times, skiing times, etc., the margins of victory, (of selection), are often miniscule.
I think RR can build a consistently winning program, but my sense is that to build a program that consistently competes for national championships you need an especial coach. For me, his lack of attention to the D and special teams do not speak to that ability.
Maybe he's a top 12, top 15 coach. My sense is that Harbaugh is maybe a top 10, maybe a top 7 or 8 coach who will get better. Plus he has the Michigan blood line and I think that counts for something, as does being a former pro quarterback. I also sense that his teams are tougher, more physical. His presence emanates more power to me than RR's does.
Again, I like RR. And if he's retained, I think we'll continue to improve, possibly even win a national championship. But in the long run, I think his ceiling is lower that Harbaugh's.
The margins are victory are so tight that any slight advantage can have significant long-term payoffs.
Peace unto you Brian. And thanks for all yous dos.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:54 PM ^
This is the problem with the whole "X coach would have done better" argument. We have no idea how another coach would have performed in these circumstances, and guessing based on somewhat-related circumstances and intuition is simply not enough. I'm not saying RR is the best coach in the world, but divining how one coach would have performed in a given situation because it fits your argument isn't really fair.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
Rich Rodriguez's resume in 2007 was far more impressive than Jim Harbaugh's is today. There is 0 reason to assume Harbaugh would be more successful here than Rodriguez.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
But we already have data on how successful RR can be at Michigan. And we have data on Jim Harbaugh in another quality conference, and as an offensive and defensive recruiter.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:49 PM ^
I'm not so sure about that. If Harbaugh goes undefeated the rest of the year - the bowl game being the only tough matchup -- this season will surpass Rodriguez's best year at West Virginia, in a tougher conference, and with far more recruiting hurdles (high academic standards, historic joke of a program).
Remember, even Rodriguez's best seasons at WV included losses to the South Florida's of the world.
A disclaimer, which seems to always be necessary these days - I WANT RODRIGUEZ TO WIN AND DON'T WANT HIM TO BE FIRED.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:48 PM ^
I'm not sure if this year's Pac-10 is any better than the 2007 Big East. This year's Pac-10 is basically Oregon and Stanford followed by a whole lot of 4,5,6 win teams, even allowing for USC's disqulaification. It is a foregone conclusion that the conference won't be able to fill its bowl requirements, and might only have 4-5 teams with a winning record at the end of the year. In 2007, the Big East had 6 teams finish with 6 or more wins, and a 7th finish 5-7. Considering there were only 8 teams in the conference, that's pretty good. And just to be a stickler, South Florida was 9-4 that year - not that bad IME. So no, I don't necessarily buy that Harbaugh's success this year should be discounted wholly, but its not like he is blowing through a Big 10/SEC-level conference.
November 24th, 2010 at 12:25 AM ^
Fair point, didn't realize that the Pac-10 was so crappy this year. Though, as a NJ native who cheers for Rutgers as my second team, I watched a lot of Big East football during the Rod at WV years, and I stand by my assessment that most of the teams in their (like South Florida) were crap, with overinflated records because they were feasting on their incompetent Big East brethren.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:01 PM ^
in his last three years at WVU.
Rich Rodriguez at WVU:
- 2001: 3-8
- 2002: 9-4
- 2003: 8-5
- 2004: 8-4
- 2005: 11-1
- 2006: 11-2
- 2007: 10-2 (did not coach bowl game)
Jim Harbaugh at Stanford:
- 2007: 4-8
- 2008: 5-7
- 2009: 8-5
- 2010: 10-1 (to date)
Rodriguez's resume in 2007 was much more impressive than Harbaugh's is now. There is no basis whatever to assume that a different coach would perform any better here. It's a guessing game. Past success is an indicator of future success, not a guarantee.
What I see is a desire for instant gratification rather than any rational thought.
I stand by my statement.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^
I'm not on the "fire rr, harbaugh now!" wagon, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Being in the thick of the race for tops in the Pac-10 2x season in a row, producing back-to-back Heisman candidates (at different positions) while also being the coach at Stanford (!) with all its attentant academic restrictions, lack of fanbase, and inferior national recruiting profile, is nothing to sneeze at. In my mind, it's a lot tougher to dominate the Pac-10 from Stanford than it is to dominate the Big East from WVU.
Also, his defenses are solid (and he has not history/reputation of undercutting his DCs)
All that being said...
Am I the only one that remembers Harbaugh slamming M as short-selling football player's academics to get an edge on the field? Mike Hart said he considered Harbaugh to not be a true Michigan Man, and while that sentiment was probably too strong, I still don't see him as an honorable type. DUI + slamming your alma mater in the national media? Ice cold, man.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
Salk said that intuition should lead a respectful intellect. It is fair.
And the tougher presence thing, I'd bet on Harbaugh.
Here's a quote from primatologist Frans de Waal about the hierarchy that is established unconsciously in every conversation between two people. . .
" . . . when a voice is filtered, removing all higher frequencies, one hears nothing but a low-pitched hum. All words are lost. But then it was found that this low hum is an unconscious social instrument. It is different for each person, but in the course of a conversation people tend to converge. They settle on a single hum, and it is always the lower person who does the adjusting. This was first demonstrated in an analysis of the Larry King Live television show. The host, Larry King, would adjust his timbre to that of high-ranking guests, like Mike Wallace or Elizabeth Taylor. Low-ranking guests, on the other hand, would adjust their timbre to that of King. The clearest adjustment to King's voice, indicating lack of confidence, came from former Vice President Dan Quayle.”
I think RR adjusts to Harbaugh.
That's leadership baby, and that strength is communicated to all the players on an unconscious level . . . and that counts, too, in the margins.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^
I guess...thanks, but it has also been said that "I may have been lucky with some sort of intuition, but I believe in training a great deal." Harbaugh is a good coach, and what he has done at Stanford is commendable. But we are judging a man off year 5 of his regime versus RR at year 3, and that is simply not fair. I know UM has more talent and resources than Stanford, but Harbaugh had a meh record until last year, and really only took the leap this year when his players finally worked their way into his system. My point is, trusting your intuition is fine if it is fully-informed, but if it makes too many generalizations and leaps of faith, you are left with nothing more than a guess dressed up with biases.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^
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.
You don't care? I thought you were a Michigan fan? OSU is a very good team, but I find your lack of faith...disturbing. Sure, our defense sucks, but like you argue in your post, our offense is really very good. And for how good OSU is on defense, their offense isn't exactly the best in the nation. Granted, it doesn't take much to exploit Michigan defensively...however OSU isn't exactly Oregon on offense. They're good, better than last year...but Pryor still armpunts and makes bad decisions once in awhile.
I really hope the team proves you wrong. And I really hope you care on Saturday and that you're just lying to us in your post. Because quite frankly it's sad if you don't. It's not like a mediocre 7-4 team has never beaten the other #1 team before...hey wait a minute, how about 1996, or 1969? Yeah, I know, completely different teams...but why can't they do it this year? Great offense, crappy defense...it's not too different from crappy offense, great defense (except being a much more volatile situation). But why not?
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
Please do not move my content--which was intended to be dialogue-provoking--to the front page if it is merely to be a set up for personal attack and insult.
This is an abuse of power. I am disappointed.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
I didn't perceive your diary to be a criticism of the offense or of RichRod, so I liked the work you did on it. Brain could be referring to people who used your work as a launching pad for a FIRE RICHROD screed, so perhaps this is a misunderstanding.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:16 PM ^
This isn't a democracy. Any content that any of us put up here is fair game. Anywho, your content succeeded in provoking dialogue.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^
I honestly don't think Brian was attacking your post. He seems to be pointing more to the droll attacks you find in the comments for or against RR. I thought your post was pretty even-handed, and it seemed like Brian wasn't disagreeing as much as noting that in spite of the team's offensive struggles against good defensive teams, it is still an objectively "good" offense.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^
I liked your post, too. I think hard work and transparent analysis should always be respected -- maybe disagreed with, but respected. I also think you raise an interesting question -- why does the offense appear to be more effective when behind than when ahead?
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^
Furthermore, if Brian disagrees with PPD as a metric, he should offer a proper rebuttal instead of calling you a raving lunatic.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
Assuming you're speaking to Blueblooded, here is what Brian said:
Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic.
I don't think he was referring to Blueblooded.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
You have your vocal defenders. I think you're great.
On a side note, we should hang out more. Maybe rent an apartment together?
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^
Blublooded, your diary was indeed dialogue-provoking. When I first saw it on the main page, I must admit I questioned to myself how something that could at least be construed as going against the theories of the creator of this blog, and the vast majority of its commenters and diarists, ever made it to the main page. With Brian's post this afternoon, I finally understood: you were made into the straw man for those nameless, faceless e-mailers who allegedly claim our offense "isn't any good." That's unfortunate.
Still, nice work on your diary. Causing people to think, and maybe even question, is a good thing.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
I agree. The idea to front page someone, thus helping fill his content level (which is truly being done for free, helping page hits to make him money), only to just later tear it apart is bush league. Even if Brian was attacking the reactions, or the emails, or whatever, of a VERY similar content to what he just front paged is going to come off as a related attack, whether it was meant or not. If that was the case, some notation that this is not re: the diary I just bumped is either sloppy, or if intended, classless. Certainly not what I see would encourage people to make content to make Brian money. I feel for him if he's having a bad email day; but we can't read the content of those, so we don't know what he's railing against, or even if it has anything to do with us. Best left for a letters column then. But in a shortened holiday week with Ohio State coming up, I can't imagine this was the best use of time for content.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
The guy who has 23,000 + MGoPoints is criticizing the site founder for doing something to increase page views (assuming that's true and not just Brian venting about something that frustrates him because it's still, you know, his site).
That's... what? Ironic? Disingenuous? Douchebaggy? Help me out.
November 24th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^
But a fair point deserves a response. I believe he has every right, and is in his best interest to increase pageviews. As you correctly point out, I've helped him a great deal in that area. It's a business, and treat it as such. But there are good and fair business practices, and shady ones. I think taking someone who is adding content for free, and not content of the "delete this nonsensical crap", but worthwhile, if "Controversial", front paging it to highlight it ONLY to turn around in a very short time and rip it apart is well within his rights, OBVIOUSLY created page views, but isn't the way I'd want to do business with someone. No one every said he didn't have the right to say it, and it's silly because no one could stop him if they wanted to.
I did say, but I will posit that maybe I didn't make it clear enough - what people have said that it wasn't a direct attack, it was about "those other guys", could be completely true. In fact, it makes a lot of sense, and is in character. But the timing of it looks awful. I'm sure you can think of other situations where something is done innocently, but the timing looks bad. Because he JUST front paged it, and then had a harsh article attacking very similar, if not the same points. I didn't make clear enough, but this could have easily been fixed by being more direct in the rant who it was directed towards ("those dirty emailers"), or a * saying *this is not directed at Blueblooded's well thought out article, which, even though I don't agree with, and have problems with, is fairly argued....it's towards some of the people who have taken this and taken it to far flung idiotic levels. Maybe it wasn't thought out, but the timing of it looks like crap.
So yes, if he took a low blow just to increase pageviews, it comes off as very Freepish. If it was an honest error in the heat of the moment, I can respect that. But it isn't one very hard to correct.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:44 PM ^
I'm pretty sure that any mod (or some mods) can put stuff onto the front page. Just because something gets bumped to the front page doesnt mean that Brian did it.
<br>
<br>If miso put it on the front page and then Brian reads it and goes "this is retarded I will refute this".
<br>
<br>In sum don't bitch about Brian. This is the fucking Internet it's his site he can do whatever the fuck he wants. Get over it.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^
I'm pretty sure that any poster can complain about what mods do. Just because a site mod can do it doesn't mean it's not a low-blow.
In sum, don't bitch about MGo forum posters venting. This is the fucking Internet, it's his account and he can do whatever the fuck he wants. Get over it.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
November 24th, 2010 at 1:48 AM ^
So if someone else other than Brian or Tim are calling themselves that just because they are a Mod, it seems a stretch. And it was bumped for "interestingness", not "so the piss can be taken out of it".
<br>
<br>The rest of your post, considering the week you've had and how much you've whined about it may make this the most hypocritical thing ever posted on this site; unless you have obtained enlightenment or something.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
I find that I don't care about Ohio State at all.
I must have reached acceptance.
I'll be rooting for the good guys, but I know a loss is coming. Probably be like 2007 or 2009. Dominated but the score looks close.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
It's young and decimated; odds for its betterment are stronger than for the offense.
But sound as the arguments for retaining Rodriguez are, I think there's ample possibility that we progress less, in a tough conference, than supporters hope, and find ourselves back in this (divided) position next year. At, say, 8 and 5. It would be Civil War.
And I have to admit I've come to dread football games more than enjoy them. Not that a lot of over-invested fans aren't already like that. . .
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^
the defense is ALSO a reason to retain RichRodIt's young and decimated; odds for its betterment are stronger than for the offense.
Sorry, no. After three years, Michigan is wallowing near the bottom of the NCAA in total and scoring defense. This is not a reason to retain the staff.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 PM ^
I think the DC needs to go, but I do think Brandon will consider the defense's youth and inexperience - and the potential returns next year - when gauging the trajectory of RR at UM.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:31 PM ^
you would argue that considerable strides can't be expected of them next year? That wouldn't be reason to retain? Of course I'm right. It may not be reason to keep the D staff. . .
Comments