Lizard Brain Tornado Apocalypse Derp Derp Derp Comment Count

Brian

10/15/2011 – Michigan 14, Michigan State 28 – 10/15/2011, 6-1, 2-1 Big Ten

tornado-witchdenard-throwing-msu

right via Melanie Maxwell/AnnArbor.com

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING THROWING 30 YARDS DOWNFIELD IN A CYCLONE

YOU'RE ASKING DENARD ROBINSON TO BE JOE MONTANA IN A TRASH TORNADO

YOU'RE COMING OUT FIVE WIDE

RUN THE FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Brian Cook's brain channeling Mike Valenti, 3:07 PM 10/15/2011

---------------------

The now rapidly developing lizard brain theory of college football coaching states that there is a certain level of pressure above which rationality goes out the window and coaches revert to who they really are. It came to me in a horrible epiphany when Lloyd Carr punted in the 2005 Ohio State game less than a quarter after going for it on his side of the field. Coaches panic, go to their binkies, and then try to convince you otherwise in the post-game.

Different coaches have different levels. Ron Zook reverts to the lizard brain on the opening kickoff of every game. Kirk Ferentz makes it about five minutes in. We don't know about Tressel because he constructed his team such that the lizard brain was right. Les Miles exists on an entirely different axis with taffy on one end and victory on the other. He is the only one who escapes. The lizard brain is unavoidable.

Al Borges's lizard brain kicked in after Vincent Smith ran for two yards on Michigan's first offensive play of the second half. First and ten after that:

  1. Robinson sacked for –9 yards
  2. Smith rush for two yards
  3. Gardner incomplete
  4. Robinson incomplete
  5. Offsides MSU
  6. Gardner rush for four yards
  7. Robinson rush for –1 yard
  8. Robinson slant complete for 34 yard touchdown
  9. Robinson sacked
  10. Robinson rush for –1 yard
  11. Robinson INT

While this doesn't paint a pretty picture for the run game, either, after halftime Michigan passed on 60% of its first downs, got one completion on a short route that turned into a big gain when Roundtree broke a tackle, and did nothing else.

For the game Michigan tried to pass at least 41 times*, averaging 2.8 yards per attempt and giving up a defensive touchdown.

TWO POINT EIGHT YARDS

DEFENSIVE TOUCHDOWN

RUN THE FOOTBALL!!!!

Sorry. Sorry.

Michigan tried to run the ball 26 times and averaged… oh, Jesus… 5.2 yards per carry. Fitzgerald Toussaint got two carries, Denard twelve.

I just realized this is what it's like to be Walter Sobchak.

calmer-than-you-are

MARK IT 2.8.

(This is not a threat against anyone's person. Do I look like Will Gholston?)

So, yeah. There is no way to put this without getting an email from some guy concerned about his eleven year old without resorting to Bloom County methods. That was the dumbest goddamned $%&*^-*$#*ing #&!$brained dip*&%$ mother*(%$ing horse_+$# goat-&^%t &%$*y-infested $%^&stick playcalling I have ever &*$ing seen in my life. I see you, Valenti. I get it now. I get it.

----------------------------

ON FOURTH AND ONE AL BORGES HAD THE QUARTERBACK, WHO IS THE MOST DANGEROUS RUNNING QUARTERBACK IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL, TURN HIS BACK TO THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE AS IF EVERY DEFENSE EVER CONCEIVED AGAINST THE GUY DOESN'T HAVE EDGE CONTAIN OF HIM AS THEIR FIRST THREE PRIORITIES

----------------------------

ON FOURTH AND ONE AL BORGES HAD THE QUARTERBACK, WHO IS THE MOST DANGEROUS RUNNING QUARTERBACK IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL, TURN HIS BACK TO THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE AS IF EVERY DEFENSE EVER CONCEIVED AGAINST THE GUY DOESN'T HAVE EDGE CONTAIN OF HIM AS THEIR FIRST THREE PRIORITIES

-----------------------------

THAT AGAIN

-----------------------------

Okay, okay… sorry. Sorry. I'm vented.

What we have to deal with now is the cold certainty that the honeymoon is over and our football coaches are football coaches, like they always are, and we cannot assume that everything will be honeydew and game theory from now on. Hoke punted on fourth and short-ish from inside the opponent 40. Borges did that above.

That's okay, really. Given the crapfest we endured on offense I almost can't blame Hoke for the punts. And in many other situations I prefer an offensive coordinator who wants to throw when he's in trouble to one who wants to go into a shell. The Morris/upperclass Gardner offense won't put the Ferrari in neutral until the second half. Recruit like they're recruiting and coach like it seems they can and eventually we'll get to a nice place to be.

In the near term, though, those happy thoughts over the first few weeks about Borges adjusting to Denard evaporated in a flurry of sacks after which you look at the receivers and there are three guys thirty yards downfield with no one between them and the carnage. You can fake it against defenses that can't play, but when it comes down to it the combination of Borges and Denard makes everyone wonder that bad old question about whether he should really play QB. IE: the worst-case scenario from the offseason.

A certain genre of Michigan fan will say this was always who Denard was, but last year he completed 58% of his passes for 9.3 YPA and a 12-9 TD:INT ratio in the Big Ten. Whatever his limitations were they seemed a lot less limiting last year, when Michigan stressed the defense to the edges and exploited the ruthless equation of the spread: a running quarterback means someone's open if you can just find him.

I don't blame Borges for that. You can't up and be someone else at the drop of a hat. If we are again pointing the finger of blame it's aiming at Rich Rodriguez for not deserving a fourth year. I do blame Borges for throwing almost two-thirds of the time when that should be inverted. The incoherent grab-bagginess of the offense is a natural effect of hiring a pro-style guy with a spread offense. Running Denard twelve times in a trash tornado is not.

So here we are, with football coaches instead of magical fairies who can do anything. That sucks. The honeymoon over, life re-asserts itself.

*[I'm not sure how many QB carries were scrambles. I counted the 8-yard Gallon scramble as a pass.]

Non-Bullets of I Wish They Were Real Bullets

Hurray clowniformz! So much for a one-time thing. It's as if they knew they would need to both play and look like Yakety Sax:

That's the third time this year we've had a uniform stunt, this one the ugliest and stupidest of them all*. It's like Dave Brandon took in the majesty that is the Spartan Stadium game experience and said "someday this will be mine." Chengelis's headline on the subject

Spartans, Wolverines compete with fashion statements, too

…is even more evidence that Dave Brandon Gets It less than anyone has ever not Gotten It before.

I had a wow experience. Did you? Everyone looking forward to the analwowing in Dallas next year when we take our freshman defensive tackles and paper-thin offensive line into a game we are absolutely not prepared for? CEOs are psychopaths.

[Bonus: last time we did this was 1976, the very heart of the era when people lost their minds about fashion. We lost then, too.]

*[No, that guy on every message board who could spin Denard Robinson's arm being torn off by William Gholston as a positive for the program, they did not look good. A sane political system would prevent you from voting. You suck. I'm sure you've got a comment all lined up to complain about the complaining. Bring it, I've got an itchy trigger finger today.]

Obligatory personal foul section. Yeah, it was ugly. The truly sad thing was that band of morons getting away with 120 yards in penalties without losing. If we had a sane offensive plan and/or a plan to deal with snap jumping those personal fouls are only 10% enraging—the intent to injure bits—and 90% hilarious Sparty being Sparty. That's where we are as a program right now: we can play the stupidest 85 people ever assembled on one football team and still lose by two touchdowns.

Gholston should obviously be suspended at least two games for the helmet rip—as bad an intent-to-injure play as the Reynolds-Sorgi incident—and the punch, which has been established by the great Jonas Mouton Suspension Fiasco as a one-gamer. There was also a less obvious judo chop that forced Lewan out of the game for a few plays. I bet nothing happens, because that's the way life goes.

This is the second consecutive year a player has been knocked out late after the game is decided by a dirty hit. Look at Dantonio's jaw… you are feeling very sleepy… you cannot put together incidents to see a pattern forming… so much… fake… bible… Spock.

I guess targeting other football players is progress relative to beating up mechanical engineers en masse.

Edge destruction. Early candidates for big negative days in the defense UFR: Roh and Ryan, who were targeted by the MSU offensive coaching staff to good effect. MSU's first TD drive was a series of easy outside runs as those two got destroyed. They improved a bit as the day went on but were clearly a weak spot targeted effectively.

Woolfolk also got pulled after a series or two; he's obviously hurt. Avery was the nickel corner since MSU doesn't spread to run much.

Man, Baker. It kills me whenever I see a really good running back go against Michigan because the mind immediately plugs that guy into rotation at the RB spot post-Minor and groans. Baker is one of those guys, a leg-churning tackle-breaker who would turn a lot of Michigan's two yard runs into five or six or more.

Penetration. They had it. Michigan didn't. Why not?

One part: It's clear all these late-developing passing routes are exposing the Mark Huyge we saw trying and failing to block for Tate Forcier as a sophomore. After a year of being covered up by the spread 'n' shred he's back to allowing sacks on a three man rush.

But the interior line? I saw Molk ole guys. Molk! How is this year four of MSU using a simple parlor trick of slanting under at the snap without two different coaching staffs being able to do anything about it?

Old school punting. Positive of a sort: When asked to coffin-corner punts Will Hagerup does a pretty good job. Haven't seen that in 15 years—you know it's old school when Sap is referencing Harry Kipke when handing out helmet stickers.

Why "of a sort": if you can coffin-corner a punt you probably shouldn't be punting.

The Minnesota plays. Doesn't seem too smart to have run a zillion new things against Minnesota now, does it? Michigan brought out the sprint counter once and it got stuffed—would MSU have been prepared for it if they hadn't seen it against Minnesota? Since Michigan isn't running the QB stretch that motion was a tipoff the counter was coming and an expected counter is a dead counter.

Here

Inside the Box Score points out a huge swing play:

The refs did miss one backwards pass from Cousins, who clearly let go of the ball on state’s 37 and hit his receiver’s hands on the 36. The explanation was really lame, something along the lines of Michigan didn’t recover the football right away. The way I saw it, the ball hit the ground and the Michigan defender bent down and picked it up. What am I missing?

With no one around the ball except Wolverines if that's correctly called that is a potentially game-changing defensive score. This isn't a bad offsides penalty or uncalled false start, it's a touchdown being wiped off the board because the refs blew it dead too early. Very frustrating. I thought they were supposed to let it go if it was too close to be sure about now.

Also there is this:

Our leading tacklers were Gordon, Kovacs, Roh, and Countess, with 8, 6, 6, and 6, respectively. Do you notice what’s missing? Linebackers. Demens was the leading tackler among the linebackers with 5. I noticed this week that Touch the Banner was high on Demens for last week’s performance against NU, but Brian was critical of him in the UFRs. I think this game was the tie-breaker. I don’t think our LBs were productive enough. Baker gashed us all day long. His longest run was only 25 yards, yet he gained 167 yards on 26 carries. State was consistently able to pound the football against us.

How many times did MSU linebackers shoot out to the sideline on plays that looked like they were going to work and hold them down to a few yards, and how many times did Michigan linebackers do that? That's not always on the linebackers—could be on the M OL not getting out or DL not taking on doubles effectively—but given what we saw against Northwestern I'm betting some of the big chunk plays from Baker see linebacker minuses aplenty.

Hoke for Tomorrow is briefer. I would like to interject about this amongst the things learned:

That strong winds + Kirk Cousins > strong winds + Denard Robinson.

Cousins averaged 5 YPA and threw a backwards pass that should have been a disaster. Drops had a lot to do with it but it's possible the wind messed with both WR and QB, which is even more reason that throwing 41 times in the trash tornado was inexplicably dumb.

Elsewhere

Media, as in stuff. The official site valiantly found highlight-type-substances in the wreckage:

There are also postgame interviews if you'd like to watch everyone on Michigan's team refusing to answer questions about the personal fouls. Mike DeSimone collects pictures from across the world.

Blogs. Come on, Braves and Birds picture comparison. Come on. The Hoover Street Rag does something long and complicated that I don't understand. Parody of a bad NBC hour-long drama? Mathlete says Michigan underperformed expectations by 28 points, his worst number of the season for all of I-A. Various bullets from MVictors. Touch the Banner also has them.

BWS says something about little brother, which no offense whenever I hear the word "brother" in relation to Michigan State now my eyes glaze over. Holdin' the Rope recaps. MZone as well.

National variety from Doctor Saturday:

On seven trips into MSU territory after the opening possession, Michigan punted on five and turned it over on downs on a sixth.

Series by series, punt by punt, the sense of progress over the first half of the season dissolved into a disheveled mess. The running game stalled. The two-quarterback shuffle failed to gin up any semblance of a steady passing game, or a big play with Robinson lined up as a wide receiver. The pass protection broke down. In almost every aspect, it was Michigan's worst nightmare: At the exact point on the calendar that optimistic starts began to give way to collapse each of the last two years, the Wolverines  looked like a team on the verge of collapse.

Newspapers. Michigan fell to 17th/18th in the polls. I did not find anything else of a newspapery variety that is open in my tabs.

Comments

RagingBean

October 17th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^

For sheer awfulness nothing topped having to keep track of the game via George Blaha and some idiotic Sparty Slappy on WJR all afternoon because I was driving across Indiana and Ohio to a wedding. I had little to no idea what was going on at any time because they were both so busy making my ears bleed that the game made little sense til I could watch a few highlights that night.

MileHighWolverine

October 17th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

Why is the media ignoring the thuggery here?  For f*%^'s sake, Gholston is on ESPN's frontpage?

He could have seriously hurt Denard and no one is talking about it.....am I taking crazy pills? 

If I were Hoke I would call in any favor I could to get this out in the open w/o it being traced back to me.

I cannot let this go no matter how hard I try.

Eye of the Tiger

October 17th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

I felt we should have been attacking the perimeter more, and doing REAL ACTUAL ZONE READS where the QB and RB both sell the run and it's not clear who has the ball until they are both at the LoS.  That 4th and Inches was particularly bad.  

That said, Brian--you really have your blinders on about our offense in the Big 10 last year.  You present stats on Denard's passing and running...but what about against MSU in non-wind last year?

PASSING: 17/29 for 215 yards and 1/3

RUNNING: 21 carries for 86 yards

Those are not good numbers.  Sure they're better than this year, but it's hard not to imagine we'd end up in a roughly similar place had there been no 40mph wind, at least in terms of passing.

As for his running, he averaged only 2.3 yards/carry this year against MSU, so that's actually MEASURABLY WORSE than his YPA (5.2 yards per attempt).  

msoccer10

October 17th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^

Last year we moved the ball against State. The part of last years numbers that weren't good are the interceptions, which were crippling but not Rodriguez's fault.

The wind was obviously a factor, but the offense would have been better this year with 10 returning starters. Instead it is worse. There is no evidence I have seen to the contrary.

BlueVoix

October 17th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^

I really fail to see how the offense is that much worse.  We're a different offense, and arguably less exciting, but we control the ball better, hold on to it (at least the RBs do), and have put up a good number of points against everyone but one team.  The teams we have played this year are better on defense than the teams from last year, so naturally you see a slight statistical drop.  It's not fair to say the offense is definitely worse until we play the full slate of games.

msoccer10

October 17th, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^

Yes, we do need to see what this team does against Iowa, Illinios, Nebraska and OSU. And the numbers for the beginning of the season aren't bad. Top 30 before the MSU game.

But at this point last year Denard was completing better than 60% of his passes, we had a lot more yards and everything seemed easy. This year its a struggle. Nothing seems crisp on offense the way it did last year and our stats were better up to this point last  year.

I don't think the teams we have played this year are better on defense than last year to this point. To me it seems about the same, without doing the stats research.

And I have made several posts in this thread about our offense last year compared to this. Let me just say, I like Hoke. I think he will end up with a much better career at Michigan than Rodriguez had. Our team is exactly where I expected them to be this year (actually, maybe a little better) I figured we'd be 5-2 or 6-1 (depending on the ND game). I thought our defense would be better but our offense would take a step back, which I think it has.

For the rest of the year I am looking for a few things. Do we keep improving each game? Do we finish 9-3? Do we beat OSU? Does our team collapse down the stretch? If this team keeps improving and we don't tank like the last two years, Hoke will have proven he is the right man for the job, even if we are suffering some pains on offense right now.

Ed Shuttlesworth

October 17th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^

Last year's offense did not seem "crisp" against good teams who hadn't throttled down.  It seemed "shitty" against those teams.

Denard is a mediocre passer and we have averageish running backs.  Those aren't the raw materials for an elite offense as college football is played in 2011.  (And, no, our offense wasn't elite last year, other than maybe in yardage it could run up before fumbling or throwing a pick (**), or against defenses who didn't care about giving up yards.)

(**) As in the three picks Denard threw against Sparty last year.  The idea that Denard's picks are simply random chance and destined to revert to a blissful mean, is batshit insane.

Eye of the Tiger

October 17th, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^

Which is the same thing that happened against Penn State (when down 31-10), Iowa (when down 28-7) and Wisconsin (when down 24-0).  In none of those games was the outcome in question.  

Against Ohio and Purdue, our offense was just bad.  

 

ForeverVoyaging

October 17th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^

Trying to convince Brian we didn't have the single greatest offense in the history of college football last year is futile. We scored 24 points on MSU and OSU combined, and all he can talk about for the next 6 months is how we put up 3 touchdowns on Wisconsin in garbage time.

If only Brian could convince the NCAA to let them score football games based on total yards instead of, you know, actual points . . .

coastal blue

October 17th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^

You seriously don't get it. 

It's not that the offense was the greatest thing ever last year.

It's that it showed potential to be great and could have gotten there this year. 

I can't believe people cannot fathom it in their dense little heads that maybe, just maybe, running an offense he was comfortable in and having a capable defense to back him up, Denard might have improved this year and in turn, seen the offense take another step forward. 

In reply to by coastal blue

blue in dc

October 17th, 2011 at 4:06 PM ^

I don't see how people who have so much faith that the offense would have been better at scoring reconcile that with the Mississippi State game. At that point, Denard had a full year of experience under his belt and we had a ton of time to prepare, but still, we saw the same old same old - can't score against a decent defense.
<br>
<br>Unless RR was better than Borgess at teaching Denard to throw downfield, I think we'd still be having problems scoring against good teams.

MGoNukeE

October 17th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^

 

Trying to convince Brian we didn't have the single greatest offense in the history of college football last year is futile.

Just like it apparently is futile for him to try to convince you that you're using a strawman to refute Brian. His position has always been that the offense was one of the best in the country at moving the ball forward (which all offenses are trying to do at all times), but scoring offense was plagued by turnovers, field position, field goal kicking, and untimely penalties. Of these, two variables are outside the offense's control, while turnovers are correlated to a first-year underclassman QB and penalties were mostly due to Lewan being a redshirt freshman (some receivers also had holding/PFs kill drives). Had the offense been able to mature for another year or two (and the defense/special teams not been putrid), scoring offense would also have been very high in the country.

But seeing as how those opposed to last year's offense will never believe Brian when he uses stats/advanced metrics to support his opinions, this is probably a waste of time too.

EDIT: beaten to it by Coastal Blue.

MGoNukeE

October 17th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^

If the offense is good at moving the ball forward, that means field position would improve and FG kicking made easier because of the offense. Defense/special team contributions to field position and FG kicking are negative enough such that the offense can be good at moving the ball forward but less good at scoring points.

Also, not sure which advanced metrics you're referring to, but FEI for 2011 is highly influenced by last year's ratings until after this week. I just checked FEI, and so far offensive rankings aren't available for 2011. Until they are, their current ranking is irrelevant.

Don

October 17th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^

According to ESPN box score:

Denard: 18 carries for 42 yds total, long of 15; take that long run out, and he ran 17 times for 27 yds, or 1.58 yds per carry.

Vincent Smith: 8 carries for 37 yds total, long of 26: take that long run out, and he ran 7 times for 11 yds, or 1.57 yds per carry.

On the other side of the ledger:

Edwin Baker: 26 carries for 167 yds total, long of 25; take that long run out, and he ran 25 times for 142 yds, or 5.68 yds per carry.

That's a meaningful difference.

schnoxl

October 17th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^

You can't pull out outliers on only one side, especially when the distributions are heavily skewed to have a lot of small runs and an occasional large run. Pulling out the long runs is cherrypicking and a meaningless way to analyze the statistics.

Also, you didn't remove Denard's sacks when calculating his rushing yardage. Without those he's at 5.4 YPC. You also have to remove Gardner's sacks when analyzing the team rushing performance.

schnoxl

October 17th, 2011 at 7:31 PM ^

Stats 101 is where you assume everything is normally distributed and thus learn a lot of things that are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong when applied to any other statisical distribution and almost every real world application. I hope you weren't insinuating I don't have a familiarity with Stats 101.

Removing only the big runs is deliberately distorting in this case because the distribution of yards per carry is not Gaussian and probably better estimated by an exponential or a power law. Big runs are not outliers caused by measurement noise: the measurement noise can be at most +/- 1 yard! They are predictable events that are part of a running back's entire performance. Taleb would call them the black swans.

If you're going to massage your data in order to prove your point, you need a better reason than "That's what they do in Stats 101." Smith's numbers are still not good compared to Baker's without any need to resorting to statistical trickeration. Robinson's numbers weren't up to his usual standards, but the math used to get this meaningless YPC stat is nonsense.

 

Eye of the Tiger

October 17th, 2011 at 8:43 PM ^

But that was unclear from your false assertion that removing outliers is unacceptable.  It's a basic practice that should be well known to you IF you have studied statistics, even at the introductory level.  

If you run 

2, 3, 3, 2, 5, 3, 56, 3, 3, etc...then 56 is an outlier that skews the distribution.

 

 

schnoxl

October 17th, 2011 at 9:26 PM ^

OK, I'm willing to admit my sentence was poorly constructed. I did not mean to imply that removing outliers is universally poor procedure. But since you're going to be an ass about it and accuse me of being an ignoramus, it's time for me pull my argument from authority card.

Confession time: I didn't take Stats 101 at Michigan. I took Stats 620, 621, and 625 at Michigan. Is that enough for you? Google my user name, then find and Google my real name. Look up the name of the workshop I helped run last month. Look up the numerous papers I have written on stochastic processes. Then keep on telling me I know nothing about statistics.

"If you run 2, 3, 3, 2, 5, 3, 56, 3, 3, etc...then 56 is an outlier that skews the distribution." Sure it skews the distribution, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not important. Believe it or not, sometimes distributions are naturally skewed!!! That 56-yard run is the difference between Barry Sanders and Kevin Jones and that is really damn important when fairly evaluating running backs. You do not remove outliers blindly assuming a Gaussian distribution, which is what you do if you have taken Stats 101 and never actually considered the deeper reasons as to why you perform statistical procedures and when you should perform them.

Removing the longest run in order to make your statistical comparison is massaging your data and is the football equivalent of a baseball announcer saying "Brandon Inge is 3 for 11 against southpaws on day games on Thursdays." It's cherry-picking. The fact that it's OK in Stats 101 doesn't mean it applies here.

 

blue in dc

October 17th, 2011 at 11:53 PM ^

If you run 9 times for 1 yard and 1 time for 91 yards, you average 10 yards a run. This is very different than running 10 times for 10 yards a pop. In the second case, you'd be an idiot not to keep running, in the first case, i'd rather remove the outlier and not assume I'd be getting 10 yards a pop. I haven't taken stats 600 so my thinking may be wrong.

schnoxl

October 18th, 2011 at 7:01 AM ^

They are different sure, but that's why you shouldn't assume taking the mean explains everything. You don't need to remove the outlier to understand why you'd rather have the second guy. My points are:

1) Don't remove outliers if they don't diminish your point. You don't need to remove outliers to show that Edwin Baker had a better day than Vincent Smith; and

2) Good procedure (which is different from commonly used procedure) is that you don't assume inconvenient data is an outlier. If it's an outlier, you explain why it doesn't belong. For example, in a data set I work with, we remove one subject as an outlier because the experimenter reported that he/she didn't obey the conditions under which the study was being conducted (he/she took some drug that wasn't allowed, I think). In that case, I've explain why it's not part of the distribution.  That 91-yard run is just as much part of the distribution as all the others, as football is a game of a lot of short plays and the occasional long play. I used Barry Sanders as my example because that's how I remember him: lots of runs of 0,1, or 2 yards, and then occassionally busting out a 15+ yard one. Sanders's 5 YPC for his career hides a distribution that I think was somewhat less than optimal for an RB.

That doesn't require high level stats knowledge. It just requires thinking about what sort of distribution you'd expect and want from YPC.

Eye of the Tiger

October 18th, 2011 at 2:19 PM ^

And shouldn't have implied that.  Given your experience in statistics and this last post, that's clearly not the case.  But this set me off:

"Pulling out the long runs is cherrypicking and a meaningless way to analyze the statistics."

I had a problem with the know-it-all/patronizing tone of that, while disagreeing with the statement.  I apologize if I went too far in my reaction though.  I shouldn't have said the thing about Stats 101, and should have just stated the opinion that it's fine given the circumstances of Denard's running.  With all the post-Sparty panic and return of the tiresome "CC" debate infecting the board, I guess I was feeling a little too prickly.  

So to get more serious about things, how would you analyze the data then?  I would pull the outliers if they do skew the distribution, as the other guys did, but first deduct the sack numbers (as I don't and never will understand why the NCAA pulls sack numbers out of rushing stats when they're pass plays).  If when removing the sack numbers, there's a high and low outlier, I'd remove both.  

 

schnoxl

October 18th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^

Sorry if I sounded patronizing. I think that removing the outliers requires a good justification and I just don't see it in this case. I think the numbers look pretty bad for Michigan even with the long runs included. Sacks don't count in my analysis because they're passing plays not running plays.

If I were to pull outliers, I'd pull the highest and lowest designed run for each player, just to be symmetric. In this case, I'd just say, looking at all the data says Vincent Smith had a bad day, and pulling out the high & low runs says he had a really bad day.

I got a little carried away. I was in full on XKCD "Something is wrong on the Internet" mode.

hfhmilkman

October 17th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^

Bowden took a strugglinger QB in Charlie Ward and put him in the shotgun and he won a Heismen.  Mr ultra conservative took a head case in Troy Smith and put him in the shotgun and nearly won a NC.  Mack Brown, the most basest of lizard brains who could not out scheme a rock put Vincy Young in the shotgun and told him to adlib to a NC.

What does our Ocoordinator do?  He takes the most explosive spread QB in the nation and sticks him under center.  If you have a Indy Race Car, don't use it to haul dirt!!!!  If MSU and Oregon meet in the Rose Bowl is there any doubt in the obliteration?  At the college level unless you have an absolutely dominating defense because you can pick the best ten players every year to play at your school, the spread be it run or pass based is going to destroy the conventional under center teams.

Look at the NFL.  Name the teams that are destroying opposing offenses.  NO, GB, and NE all give spread looks at least 60% of the time.  How come half the NFL is reverting to the 3-4 when 15 years ago 95% of the league was 4-3? 

Al Borges is out of date.  I had an extreme amount of trepidation that Borges was going to blow it.  This is a team with the entire offense back.  Another 7-5 year is going to be an extreme set backwards since next year could be utter destruction.

 

RobSk

October 17th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^

Dude, that's just absurd. 7-5 is not going to happen. Purdue, Iowa, Illinois, OSU, Nebraska.

They will beat Purdue. To predict that the team that was within 20 yards of tying the game on the road against the 2nd best team in the big 10 is going to go 0-4 against the other 4 teams is nonsensical. At this point, 1-3 is a pessimistic outlook there. I think they will go 2-2 in those games, and 3-2 overall in the remaining games, for a 9-3 season. That's a pretty damn good year (better than I predicted). 

While I agree with you (and Brian) that Borges didn't do the things he needed to do to adjust properly to the situation, I think that of the remaining teams, only OSU has a defense anywhere close to as talented as MSU. Further, to somewhat disagree with both Brian and yourself, I thought MSU played the right D and played to stop the run all day. We played to counter that instead of playing to our strength. While it didn't work, I'm not clear it was a mistake.

      Rob

BILG

October 17th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^

Putting it on the play calling.  4th and 1 was a horrible call, agreed.  But them having 9 men in the box the entire game was a function of the weather and Denard's inability to throw a 10 yard out.  If you recall, the same thing happened last year with your beloved RR making the play calls in nice weather.  Every good defense shuts the gimmick offense down.

I know you would never dare entertain the idea that Denard isn't a Big Ten QB, but perhaps its time you analyze all of the past two years instead of finding the 10 plays from this past game that support your bad play calling claims.

Run Fitz?  Why.  They stacked the box.  Might as well run Denard and use the rb as a blocker.  An effective run game from a rb with 9 in the box is impossible, unless running behind Wisconsin's O-line against Huron High School.

Has Borges figured out the best way to utilize Denard...absolutely not.  But genius RR couldn't beat good Big Ten defenses with a pure spread option.  It's no the fault of Borges that we have no go to play on 3rd and 7 when the defense stacks the box and blitzes. It's the reality of having a qb that can't throw accurately.

micheal honcho

October 18th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^

Easy now, comparing Auburns 2010 offense to anything RR ever ran is just a little bit disingenous dont you think??

Auburn's QB never even approached the # of rushing attempts that Pat White or Denard did.

Auburns QB could exploit a D using his downfield passing skills which forced defenses to respect the traditional "vertical" game. When this occur's it frees up the "horizontal" game and allows an athletic QB like Cam to take advantage with his legs.

Auburns QB was the size of a linebacker.

I wont accuse you of comparing apples to oranges, but definately apples to pears.

Blue boy johnson

October 17th, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^

I thought the team played hard but not good and I am cool with that, at this stage of the program against a good team, and MSU is a well coached, good team. I don't get the disconnect of calling this a 5 loss team and then having a caniption fit when the "fall" to 6-1. Falling to 6-1 in a game they came close to winning. Expectations: lower them.

If you are of the opinion that M would have been better served running the ball, you may be right, but I don't think anything was going to work with the lack of blocking going on out there. M's O-line needs to play better to give passing or running any chance of working

What I see are too many people with their feelings hurt because Michigan lost a football game and as usual, lashing out, in need of a scapegoat. As for me, I will be tuning in in a couple weeks looking forward to seeing M in action for the 8th time this season.

You only get 12 or 13 opportunities to watch M football a year, how about trying to enjoy at least one of the games? Ask not what Michigan football can do for you, ask what you can do for Michigan football.

Crying about playing Alabama and crying about playing a shitty schedule doesn't really add up. Just sounds like someone is having a temper tantrum and lashing out at the Evil AD because M lost a football game.

bronxblue

October 17th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^

Ilargely agree.  I think Brian's annoyance with the Alabama game is, as he noted, it is a money-grab and not a home-and-home game.  This team was going to be destroyed by a good Alabama team regardless of where it was played, but coupled with the Evil Pop, the multiple "throwback" jerseys, the lack of water on sweltering days, etc. is starting to show a pattern of a guy who wants to make money, not necessarily keep in line with the traditions of the program.