You couldn't have saved "Welp" for this?
A Pit At The Bottom Of The World
Well aren't we just a barrel of good news on a snowy Tuesday in February.
Gardner had good runs in many games. What would happen to these statistics if you limit it to analysis of running backs only. I think Gardner's runs were more or less independent of the blocking of the offensive line. In other words, I am wondering if Michigan was even worse than these extremely poor numbers indicate.
Adjusted Line Yards take every carry by a running back and apply those percentages. (We don’t include carries by receivers, which are usually based on deception rather than straight blocking, or carries by quarterbacks, which are almost always busted passing plays unless they involve someone like Tim Tebow or Cam Newton.) Those numbers are then adjusted based on down, distance, situation, opponent and whether or not a team is in the shotgun. (Because defenses are generally playing pass when the quarterback is in shotgun, the average running back carry from shotgun last year gained 5.36 yards, compared to just 4.16 yards on other carries.) The adjusted numbers are then normalized so that the league average for Adjusted Line Yards per carry is the same as the league average for RB yards per carry (in 2011, 4.31 yards).
I'm not entirely sure but I think that Bill includes them for college, because you kind of have to in college.
Bill confirmed in an email that he includes QB runs now but he's worked out a good way to separate them out. Gardner's conversion rate at 47% was almost double that of the RBs - Fitz was 29% and Green's was 25%. Ugh.
does luck factor in here at all? please say yes. please tell me that we're 126 in luck.
Is this a bell curve with a chunky middle, with "awful" and "elite" a relatively small slice on the periphery? If so, maybe those numerically small incremental improvements could yield tangible results.
If not, Imma buy some canned food and head down to the cellar once the B1G season starts.
It's relatively linear. Another 7.3 points gets Michigan to 80th, another 7.3 to 60th, etc.
so there's nothing whatsoever to make us happier?
Recognizing your question as rhetorical, I'll still make an argument to make us feel better (although I'm not sure it's correct):
Overall, one would expect these metrics to remain relatively stable at the majority of programs, because on a year-over-year basis offensive systems tend to remain stable and year-over-year schools tend to recruit the same sorts of linemen. And there are reasons for that this stability in rankings may not control w/r/t Michigan.
Look at Wisconsin (as an example of a school with historically good line play). They are going to recruit the same offensive line candidates from the same basic pools of talent year-over-year. They are following the same figurative recipe, with essentially the same ingredients (outliers like Joe Thomas notwithstanding). So we would not expect a lot of movement. And being at the bottom of these listings does not necessarily mean coaching heads will roll. Akron, UMass, CMU - they'd not admit it aloud, but they are lining up about where they should expect to. So with the same staffs coaching the same sort of athletes, we'd expect relatively stable rankings at the lower end too. That there are not a ton of quantum leaps seems intuitively correct.
Now look at Michigan. We have had generally depleted line classes since Carr's exit, for various reasons. Now, at last, we have some retention of linemen. And we have an OC now who we can expect to have a consistent philosophy and not "Borges" our line by tinkering and slavishly trying complicated schemes that don't work. All those factors suggest a fundamental change that does not exist in many of the other low-performer's programs. While the Arizona example stings, it also is a data point involving a significant change of offensive philosophy and approach resulting in a big jump. And the quality and size of our line recruits continues to improve. Essentially, we have a new (simpler) recipe, with better (and more mature) ingredients.
See - that should make us happier.
(Pay no attention to the fact that Schofield and Lewan have left the team, so our tackles are a huge question mark. And to the fact that Butt is hurt, so TE help will be scarce. Oh Jebus, where were those canned goods?)
How about this as well:
A marginal improvement in the offensive line may still have resulted in wins vs PSU, Nebraska and Iowa. Yeah, it sucks to lose to our two biggest rivals but 10-2 has a much different feel than 7-5.
In other words, this could still translate to 9-10 wins next season, especially as the defense progresses naturally.
"While the Arizona example stings, it also is a data point involving a significant change of offensive philosophy and approach resulting in a big jump."
This is all we have to hang our hats on. That a simpler Nuss system that is a better match to the player's skills and experience will be enough to show serviceable improvement.
I think this will happen, but it won't be enough to realize the dream of lining it up and playing manball. Borges was right about the "We're a couple of years away" thing.
What to do until then? Spread 'em out and let Devin be Devin. Thank god we have one last year of a running QB. Next year this won't be an option.
YOUR NUMBERS SUCK AND LA LALALALA IT IS BASKETBALL SEASON.
Reading that hurt my heart.
We need to start a puppy.gif thread again...
"One of them is a hundred-spot leap from 119th to 19th at… sigh, Arizona in 2012."
WE'RE STILL DIGGIN OURSELVES OUT FROM THAT CRATER AMMIRITE?!?
[comment brought to you by CoCo Puffs]
Offensive line depth post-Rodriguez = crater. Indisputable.
I still like being on the cutting edge of football rather than the stone age but I'm just one guy and that is just one guys opinion*. And don't bring up Bama. We ARE NOT Bama in case you needed a reminder.
*[opinion brought to you by Maybelline]
So you're just yelling things about Rodriguez even if they don't have anything to do with the offensive line, then.
At least you've got those witty sign-offs at the end of your posts goin' for you.
It has to do with the offense. So it has something to do with the offensive line.
To be fair, I'm not yelling. I'm at work right now. I am thinking about what I'm going to write moments before my fingers hit the keys on my computer. Definitely not yelling. Although if I did yell what I actually thought it would be extremely awesome in every way except for my bank account.
I like Fig Newtons. Not that shit strawberry newton garbage either. The orignal Fig Newton.
[comment brought to you by Image Comics]
i make $400/hr working from home ask me how! this is not an offer of prositution and by responding you are confirming you are not law enforecement.
[comment brought to you by Work from Home the Hard Way]
He will not be happy till every UM fan writes an hand written apology to RR for his time at UM.
[comment brought to you by "Faqall" for all you needs when you run out of them.]
and I suspect this won't be too well received either, but here goes:
The thing that really scares me is that SDSU is pinned down deep in our world with an O-line that was recruited by... well, you know.
I'm just hoping that bears AB's signature rather than his former boss's.
I fear the O-line coming into the season. However, there is reason for hope.
Our guys were highly regarded during their recruiting. It's not a matter of talent, it's clearly a matter of coaching and their learning curve, which is closely related to coaching.
Nussmeier can't afford to preside over an offense that was as disorganized on O-line as ours was last season if he wants a head coaching future. Hoke clearly has confidence in the guy, at least enough to dump a good friend and colleauge to make the change in coordinators. So if the line isn't getting it done, I would expect that Nuss will insist on a change in line coaches and whatever else he thinks needs to be done, quickly.
It's interesting that the Arizona O-line jumped 100 spots (!) when RR went there, but I'd guess that has something to do with his read option and blocking schemes that really do make the most out of talent on a roster.
less than ideal in that he lost 3 NFL lineman to the draft from the previous year? Bama is STOCKED with talent and any struggles they had were more just missed assigments between mauling people for 7+ yards a carry rather than getting 2.2yds a carry.
Is game experience really a benefit to the OL? It was all awful experience. The kind that should give them nightmares. If you're a young MMA fighter that's gotten beaten to within an inch of his life in a few outings in the ring, does that experience make you any better than someone that's never been in the ring? Or say you were an "experienced" architect that's had 4 of his 12 buildings collapse. If anything, I would think that experience would make you worse since your confidence would be super low and you'd be expecting bad things to happen.
Developing/rebuilding some sort of confidence is going to be job #1 for this OL in the offseason.
Good friend notwithstanding, if the 2014 season is remotely close to what last season turned out to be, Hoke could be looking at Ann Arbor in his rear view mirror. Hoke had no choice in getting rid of Borges.
The problems, from my perspective, are in all areas. offense, defense and special teams. I keep telling myself it is the youth movement, but there was so little improvement over the course of the season last year, that I am starting to worry about the team and coaching staff are going in different directions.
Not every recruit turns out to meet expectations, but something just seems wrong.
When we almost lose to Akron and Connecticut.....
This is reassuring. I forgot how bad our line actually was this year.
Ah yes the offseason reminders of how bad we sucked :(
Well, this is what the off-season is for. Yes, if the players don't get better, if the OT replacements aren't competent, and if a revised scheme under Nussmeier doesn't bring things together, then we are in for a rough 2014. But any of these working out positively could have a big impact.
I have the most confidence in the impact of the OC change. Remember screaming at Borges (that is, the tv) during games last year? Not a small amount of our incompetence was Borges doggedly running into stacked D's, while refusing to dump balls to not-covered slot receivers. Take our worst games last year and imagine not merely competent but even good play-calling, and things would have been a lot better. I think this year's OC change would have swung at least a couple of games last year. So if we have a +2 shift just on the OC change, if the guards + center are decent in a much-simplified running attack, if the new OT's are decent, and if the defense does take a step forward (also a reasonable expectation), then we could have a good season. I think this is more likely than your worst case scenario, and I swear that I am sober.
The thought that OL immaturity causes a head coaching change is truly a nightmare, but I think we can count on DB not to do that.
My wish is for Nuss to do two things:
1. Install a base run play that we can execute effectively to gain 2 yards almost every time and
2. Allow DG to audible at the line of scrimmage. Last year might have been profoundly different if DG were allowed to switch running plays to pass plays when there were 9 in the box and uncovered receivers.
Who is this on Brian? Is this simply the fallout from Rich's lack of offensive line recruiting, players leaving the program, Hoke/Borges/Funk - who?
If your analysis is correct we're pretty much fucked next year which may lead to a regime change which may lead to more instability in recruiting and so on and so on and so on. Who owns this problem in your opinion?
And would things have been different at all if we had not changed coaches in 2011? Would Rich be dealing with the same shitstorm that Hoke now has on his hands?
What if Bill Martin had paid up for Jeff Casteel?
What if the freep jihad hadn't resulted in sanctions?
What if the previous regime hadn't been sabotaged by insiders?
/dismissive wanking motion
What-if Carr had hired Harbaugh when Jim wanted to be QB coach at Michigan back in the early 2000's. It would not have been hard to imagine a scenario where Harbaugh moves up to OC for a couple years before taking over as Head Coach when Carr was ready to retire threby resulting in an uptick in play-calling and recruiting prior to 2008 and none of the transition turmoil we saw with RR.
But wasn't senior James Rogers part of the secondary?
I think you just made his point stronger.
Assuming you're referring to a bowl berth, RR took Michigan to a bowl in his third year and built the team that went 11-2 the year after he was fired. So, no we wouldn't still be waiting for our first bowl berth.
Now that I know you're so delusional you believe Michigan missed a bowl game in his third year, it's easier to ignore everything you say about Rodriguez.
Yep, from 3-7 wins in only three years. Improvement!
I would say that it was a little of everything. The depth chart and experience level was obviously less than ideal. This problem was exacerbated by Borges not having a base run play and sticking with it so the young O-Line could focus on learning one thing.
I think if they had stuck with a base run package they could have become competent enough to force the defense to respect it, which in turn takes pressure off Gardner, which allows deeper routes, which prevents the shorter routes from constantly being jumped, which opens up the run game, which....
You'd think that Hoke and Mattison would have seen this coming.
LOL. He said "Stuff Rate." 30%! Fires Borges, oh wait.
haven't you heard ... IT'S 2014 !
BTW - the fact is that Borges just didn't execute .....
I searched, but couldn't find the number. I assume it was better than this.
That means we fell a bunch of spots, with 2 returning senior tackles.
Adj Line Yard rankings, 2005-2013:
60, 43, 54
108, 83, 2.
19, 70, 118.
So: frustrating mediocrity in late Carr era, and then one huge peak with Denard at the center and total failure surrounding.
easy solution: give denard eligibility forever.
Any theories as to why Michigan has been so mediocre/terrible except for Denard? Is it conservative play-calling? Running pro-style offenses?
Denard was ridiculously good at football?
Is there a possibility that you have a regression to the mean (or in this case a drift upward)? I recongize it is linear but scheme makes a difference, experience makes a difference, and running the ball in particular in the middle makes a difference. I guess same personnel is more likely to head to the mean than a personnel change but if you can regress downward aggressively or progress upward (changing from 19 to 70 or 83 to 2) then you would think that a 30 point upward drift would be feasible especially with a scheme change?
I think most of these stats rely on a consistency of variables and therefore on a population basis may have a definable end point. But statistics fail many times because though they normalize for populations, they don't factor variable changes in individual cohorts. I feel that the same can be said here. It also explains our defensive line (that and how experienced they were but again there you have a variablity in the cohort - Mike Martin and Ryan Van Bergen being older and wiser).
I would argue that it wasn't Denard that was responsible for that peak -- it was Molk. And, by extension, the previous coaching staff, with their ability to get linemen to meet or exceed their expectations.