Michigan Museday Charts Shoe's Arm

This game or the 5-3 purdue game? (I think that was the score).  It was probably the NW game because we lost and it wasn't all that close.  Plus, the wind with the rain and snow changing back and forth.  I actually stayed until the end of the 3rd quarter, which is more than most I saw.

...is that even with a lot of massaging to take out outliers and provide a balanced comparison, the overall result is pretty close between 2010 and 2011.  I think this is also the issue that FEI has when it separates the offense and defensive metrics.  Also special teams can have an affect on the playcalling, which then alters the balance between calling passing plays and calling running plays.  Consider for example the averate field position in 2010 versus 2011, and the improvement in 2011 from beginning to end.  First effect in 2010 is that the defense allowed so many touchdowns that the majority of drives started from the 20. Also different between 2010 and 2011 is the number of turnovers spotting the Michigan offense in favorable position.  Both of these affect the kind of playcalling that is going to happen.

Overall football is a composite game that cannot easily separate offensive and defensive performance unless you have enough data to really compare each kind of play against itself.  This in fact is what it sounds like Borges and Mattison do as coordinators, compare performance of specific plays against the previous performance of that play.  And even for them it's difficult to boil it down to "just Denard" because there are 11 people who have a job to do, and failure of any one job has an effect on the play execution.  For example, is it a passing "success" that Denard underthrows Junior in double coverage when Junior ends up with the ball?  According to Borges and Denard it is for two reasons.  Borges stated that he coached the QB's and WR's to use an underthrow as a way to defeat close coverage.  And Denard knows that Junior can outjump almost anyone.  How do you judge that play against ND as a bad decision?  especially in a result based scoring system?

I've replayed the TD pass to Odoms over and over.  Watching the play from the camera angle on the sideline, it looks amazingly open and the defenders look dazed and confused.  Watching the replay where it's more from Denard's angle of view, I can't believe how he saw that opportunity and put the ball on the money like that.  It seems like Denard held on to the ball so long that both Junior and Odoms had completed their routes.  Somehow Junior sees Odoms start to cross under the safety and Junior cuts back outside dragging a defender with him.  Then Odoms crosses in and finds the spot that open because Junior left it.  The LB that was helping on Junior underneath is completely confused and crashes into the deep coverage safety, and that allows Odoms to sprint into the end zone untouched.

I'm sorry, there is no way that Borges drew that play up that way.  That play happened because Denard had been destroying OSU with his running, and because there is a high comfort level between the WR and Denard.  Also watch Denard's footwork during the delivery compared to before the delivery.  Lots of bouncing and head moving until it's time to throw, then he lasers it into Odoms.  That was a Pro-Style throw in my eyes, aided by the fact that the LB spy covering Denard is NOT blitzing because Denard is NOT Henne.

I believe that Denard improved on his passing skills, reading, footwork, and accuracy, because Al Borges says he has.  I believe the offense will continue improving because all the coaches are returning.  But watching the results of the offensive execution, especially that pass to Odoms, will continue to be inconceivable.

That's why they play the game, and that's why I watch the game. Inconceivable.

I never said there weren't growing pains because clearly there were. What I said was that over the course of the conference season Denard was as good or better than he was over the same time period in 2010. He certainly seems as good right now as he ever was in 2010 because while in 2011 he started bad and got good in 2010 he started good and got worse.

Regarding the capping; if Denard throws the ball 30 yards in the air it doesn't make sense to cap that at 20 yards. That pass is harder and has more variance, which is why DSR% is lower, but by not giving it full statistical credit your are artificially limiting the ceiling while still taking full accounting of the basement. In RichRod's offense Denard's long passes were catch and runs. In Borges' offense, Denard's long passes were long passes.

Regarding the selective viewing of stats; Denard completed a pass to a double covered Hemmingway one time. The amount of play that gets makes it seem like he was doing it every week. I don't see why you would strive to remove the WR's contribution to one set of plays while ignoring such a contribution on another set of plays. Or ignoring the contribution of the scheme. If we're going to harumph about Denard throwing to a wide open Gallon 30 yards down the field in the ND game then why aren't we also concerned about Denard hitting a WR on a five yard slant who then runs for 70 yards because the defense was fooled.

What happened happened. If you're going to ignore or purposefully devalue some plays (especially ones that are very important in one scheme  but not another) then you are not really giving an accounting of the stats. You are instead trying to make the stats show want you want them to.

 "YPA was lower in 2011 both before and after the capping,"

Against 'real defenses' the YPA from 2011 was larger.

" against real opponents Denard's 6.55 YPA is better than his 6.30 in 2010."