Shotgun Yesterday, Shotgun Today, Shotgun Tomorrow, Shotgun Forever Comment Count

Brian

denard-shotgun

via flickr user larrysphatpage

Almost nothing drives me more insane than someone who proclaims certain numbers to be bad because these other numbers are better without suggesting a mechanism that would make this true. Via Slate, Murray Chass provides the canonical example:

The stats freaks who never saw a decimal point they didn't worship were ecstatic last year when Zack Greinke won the American League Cy Young award while winning only 16 games. Felix Hernandez, who won 19 and whose 2.49 earned run average was second to Greinke's 2.16, would have been my choice, but the stats guys "proved" that Greinke was the correct choice because of his statistical standing in formulaic concoctions in which we mere mortals do not imbibe.

—Murray Chass, murraychass.com, May 9, 2010.

This makes me clench and unclench my fists helplessly. It seems impossible that you could be this venerated New York Times baseball writer without picking up on the fact that AL pitchers have no control over how many runs their team scores. The fists clench and unclench because attempting to model an argument with Murray Chass about this quickly leads into a cul-de-sac where Chass says something condescending about something he doesn't understand and repeats it ad nauseum as if he believes "no blood for oil" or "drill, baby, drill" is a coherent, self-contained, impregnable point of view.

Presenting Jonah Lehrer, who actually manages to write for Wired despite being able to compose the following:

Consider the case of J.J. Barea. During the regular season, the backup point guard had perfectly ordinary statistics, averaging 9.5 ppg and shooting 44 percent from the field. His plus/minus rating was slightly negative. There was no reason to expect big things from such a little player in the playoffs.

And yet, by Game 4 of the NBA Finals, Barea was in the starting lineup. (This promotion came despite the fact that he began the Finals with a 5-for-23 shooting slump and a minus-14 rating.) What Dallas coach Rick Carlisle wisely realized is that Barea possessed something that couldn't be captured in a scorecard, that his speed and energy were virtues even when he missed his layups (and he missed a lot of layups), and that when he made those driving floaters their value exceeded the point score. Because nothing messes with your head like seeing a guy that short score in the lane. Although Barea's statistics still look pretty ordinary — his scoring average fell in the Finals despite the fact that he started — the Mavs have declared that re-signing him is a priority. Because it doesn't matter what the numbers say. Barea won games.

A man who writes for Wired ascribes JJ Barea's value to "nothing messes with your head like seeing a guy that short score in the lane." Fists clenching and unclenching due to impossibility of refuting argument that stupid. Plenty of other people have tried to do so. Some guy at Deadspin who pointed out that the Mavs are amongst the most stat-obsessed teams in the league. A Baseball Prospectus guy tore apart Lehrer's introductory car analogy, in which car buyers who focus on a couple of barely relevant but easily understandable numbers instead of the important, hard-to-quantity data are Bill James, not Joe Morgan.

It doesn't matter, though. These articles always have a tautologically number-negating logic. The argument goes:

  1. I don't understand statistics*.
  2. People who understand statistics don't understand intangibles.
  3. ???
  4. Therefore my understanding is superior.

Now let's talk about Denard Robinson and last year's offense.

*[This lack of understanding can be many things but is always at least this: statistics are a suggestive tool, not math gospel. To be fair, some people use statistics like they are a golden hammer. These people are very annoying and should be yelled at. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. ]

Y WE NO SCORE GOALPOINTS

y-u-no-easydenard-fumble

This came up a lot in the aftermath of the Spring Game, when the quarterbacks strove to make themselves indistinguishable from walk-ons and quite a lot of people put finger under collar and went "uggggghhh." This was met with a round of backlash largely consisting of people pointing at select—sometimes hilariously select—statistics from last year's team in an effort to prove the offense wasn't really that good.

The favorite was a focus on the first halves against good opponents, when Michigan did not score points. This did not escape notice even around here:

The Ohio State game has the power to make whatever happens in it seem like Michigan's season in microcosm, and so the overriding theme of the 2010 season is looking up at the scoreboard at halftime to see Michigan on pace for about 500 yards and about twenty points. Michigan had 238 yards and seven points this time around and instead of a competitive game we got the usual.

Michigan was frustratingly spectacular at getting to the half with almost 300 yards and something like ten points on the board. But using points to evaluate the output of an offense is like using wins to evaluate a pitcher. Events outside the entity you are trying to evaluate have so much impact on that number, it is only a fuzzy explanation of the story.

I have engaged in message board fights and observed many more about whether the Wisconsin game was a failure on the offense's part. At the half the score was 28-0 Wisconsin and the game was as good as over, whereupon Michigan came out of the locker room and scored three straight touchdowns against the UW defense. This would have made the game interesting if Michigan could have forced the Badgers to pass, ever.

My fists do the clenching bit whenever anyone tries to claim the Wisconsin game was evidence Michigan should move away from the spread. The Michigan offense's entire first half:

  1. Michigan drives from their own one yard line to the Wisconsin their 35 before punting.
  2. Michigan drives from their 28 to the Wisconsin 13; Seth Broekhuizen misses a 30-yard field goal.
  3. Three and out from the 36.
  4. Three and out from the 40.

(There was also a meaningless two play drive at the end of the half.) That's not a great four drives. It is a great seven drives if you consider the next three. Meanwhile, the final touchdown against UW is often dismissed as "garbage time" but Badger tacklers on that drive include JJ Watt, Patrick Butrym, and Aaron Henry—all starters—and Michigan hit Roundtree three times for more than 20 yards on a three-minute march. That was not Wisconsin's goal. Even if you still dismiss Michigan's last couple drives as garbage you have to acknowledge that the defense's inability to make them meaningful robbed the offense of opportunities to impress for real.

But you're sitting there and your fists are clenching and unclenching and everything is black and doom and blacky black doom, so maybe it's hard to tell.

Transistors don't give a damn

CLOUDcrying-buckeye

This is the disconnect. While what seems like a fairly large subset of the fanbase saw wholesale collapse in the Wisconsin game, computers saw two units failing immensely and an offense that put up 442 yards on a defense that gave up 321 on average, scored 31-ish points (computers will credit the offense with acquiring the field position for the field goal and deduct the miss from the special teams; if they deduct from the garbage TD they will use a lower denominator when trying to figure out expected points) on a defense that gave up 21. Statistically, Michigan's offense was at least a standard deviation above the mean against the Badgers.

While the Wisconsin game is the biggest outlier between the offense's actual and perceived performance, it's instructive. It is often lumped in with the crap from last year along with Iowa (tenuous case indeed there), MSU, OSU, and the bowl game. There is no reasonable case it should be. This is why statistics are useful, because meat-emotions often overwhelm our capacity for reason.

These are the questions I think we should be asking in our most robotic voices:

What aspects of last year's performance project most strongly to next year's?

There are three reasons for the gap between points and yards: field position, field goal kicking, and turnovers. The latter two combined to see Michigan's redzone scoring rate rank 109th nationally. The first two are almost entirely out of the offense's control. The latter was a huge problem all three years under Rodriguez. However, turnovers notoriously do not correlate year to year, are heavily dependent on quarterback, experience and saw Rich Rodriguez consistently in the black at West Virginia.

Michigan's turnover issues aren't fate, should improve naturally, and are not related to the spread. Most of Michigan's other issues at turning yards into points are not really the offense's.

That leaves an inherent flaw in the spread offense as a potential culprit that has the potential to repeat next year. Point in favor: Michigan was even worse in the redzone in 2009, finishing with just 49% of available points. Point against: Auburn and Oregon finished in the top ten last year. Further point against from a Football Outsiders study of the NFL:

We took … 20 overachievers and measured their performances the season after said overachievement; while their DVOA [ed: something value over average, a fancy stat they have designed to smooth out noise.]  in the red zone that initial season exceeded their total offensive DVOA by an average of 33.3 percent, in the following season, their DVOA in the red zone exceeded their total DVOA by an average of 1.3 percent. In other words, the teams' performances in the red zone mirrored how they did outside it, implying the overachieving was a fluke.

We also can measure this by using correlation coefficients, a way of measuring the relationship between two variables that results in a number ranging from minus-1 (at which the two variables have an exact inverse relationship) to plus-1 (at which the variables have a perfectly positive relationship). The correlation between a team's performance in the red zone and its overall offensive performance, year to year, is 0.08 -- essentially nil. Teams simply do not exceed their performance in the first 80 yards once they get to the final 20 on a regular basis.

The evidence suggests Michigan's red zone struggles should revert to the mean; the things that made the offense less than the sum of its yards last year are all small sample size outliers.

What's left that does correlate, or at least correlates better? Everything else. On a play by play basis Michigan's offense does well in standard and advanced metrics, and returns ten starters. If they should be better but weren't (because of things that should revert) and can expect similar performance next year (because of all the returning starters), then what should happen is that the expected and actual meet somewhere south of #2 nationally but well within the schwing range.

Is it better to play to Al Borges's strengths or the offense's strengths?

In 2008 this was easy since the offense had no strengths. In 2011 it's a difficult question. Michigan's transition demands that Borges or Denard (and, importantly, the OL) leaves his comfort zone. This is necessarily going to be suboptimal for someone.

The spring game suggests it will be vastly suboptimal for Denard if Borges gets his way, and it seems a lot easier to change playcalls than turn Denard into Jon Navarre. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. The last few years I've documented the ever-evolving Michigan run offense. Rich Rodriguez kept ahead of the curve by constantly adding new wrinkles to the ground game. He was able to do this because of his vast experience with the spread 'n' shred. Al Borges is a smart guy with a lot of experience but his history suggests his inventiveness may be more oriented towards the passing game. If a good chunk of offensive effectiveness is staying ahead of the game, Borges might be able to do that better from a pro-style offense.

But the following is true even in the NFL:

Shotgun formations are generally more efficient than formations with the quarterback under center.

Over the past three seasons, offenses have averaged 5.9 yards per play from Shotgun, but just 5.1 yards per play with the quarterback under center. This wide split exists even if you analyze the data to try to weed out biases like teams using Shotgun more often on third-and-long, or against prevent defenses in the fourth quarter. Shotgun offense is more efficient if you only look at the first half, on every down, and even if you only look at running back carries rather than passes and scrambles.

With an offense outright designed for the shotgun featuring a quarterback whose main asset is his legs, the cutting-edge effect would have to be absurdly important to make the offense more effective from under center.

Does I-form pro-style help you win in ways undefined by conventional statistics?

This is Brady Hoke's theory when he denigrates the zone-heavy spread offense as an impediment to having a good defense. A quick glance at the top defenses in both conventional and fancy measures suggests this is unlikely. TCU, Boise State, and West Virginia  were the top three teams in yardage defense. WVU, Missouri, Oklahoma, Auburn, Oregon, and Mississippi State are all in the top ten in defensive FEI. There appears to be little if any problem with having a top defense opposite your spread 'n' shred offense as long as you account for the increased pace of the spread.

Is it worth sacrificing effectiveness down the road for immediate results?

Unknowable, but there's no better way to quickly put the question marks on Brady Hoke's resume to rest than by having a breakout first season.

Extensive Conclusion Section

denard-shotgundenard-shotgundenard-shotgun

MOAR SHOTGUN PLZ

Comments

gbdub

July 1st, 2011 at 4:46 PM ^

Go back to basically any post that said anything remotely positive about RR's offense (or negative about Borges) and you will find a large number of posters taking every opportunity to say how bad our offense was. Usually it goes something like this: "Well sure we did great against Illinois and Massacusetts, but against anyone with a pulse we were TURRIBLE. Yards don't win games, ONLY WINS MATTER" etc. If one points out that we were still better than average against Wisconsin (points and yards), OSU (yards), whatever, they will respond "well yeah but that was all garbage time yards don't win games look how much we lost by" etc. This post by Brian is an attempt to refute that.

ForestCityBlue

July 2nd, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^

Or more important even than points is wins.  In that category we woefully underperformed.

To me his reliance on FEI in Michigan's case is like a defense mechanism, a way for Brian to protect himself from the truth.  We moved the football and put up a lot of yards, but we had trouble scoring in the red zone, we had trouble stopping the pass, we could not kick worth a damb.  And then to drag out a comparison of under center vs. shotgun just seems...well...desperate. 

If he is looking for a meaningful stat (beyond wins and losses) he should try first of all "Defensive Passer Rating" which would likely tell him that we were completely incapable of stopping the pass and as a result we had no business winning football games.  We did manage to win a few not because we were able to run the ball so effectively, but because our "Passer Rating Differential" was a positive number

What excites me about the staff that Hoke put together is that Borges is a West Coast passer efficiency guy on offence and Mattison will have a possitive impact on all aspects of our defence, including Defensive Passer Rating.  There is nothing wrong is regressing in terms of how many yards we put up on the board if we improve enough in how we stop the pass to generate a possitive Passer Rating Differential.  And the likelihood that improving that stat will improve things in the win/loss column is very likely.

Because, in the end, the only stat that matters is wins and losses.

chitownblue2

July 1st, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^

Also, Zack Grienke, as an american league pitcher, has literally no control over his team's offensive output, so at least 1/2 of the data that goes into wins is irrelevent to his performance.

But football offenses have some control of what they do every single drive, right? Obviously, field position can improve or worsen chances, but they still have a chance to score. There's nothing Grienke can do to make the Royals (at the time) put 7 runs on the board.

So this analogy doesn't work for me, at all.

AAB

July 1st, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^

Zach Greinke has no control over random chance or what the defense behind him does.  That's why  baseball has developed a number of "defense independent" (DIPS) metrics to evaluate a pitcher based solely on what the pitcher actually has control over (essentially, strikeouts, walks, and flyball rates).  They acknowledge that a pitcher has control over some aspects of his job, but that some aspect of "runs given up" will not truly be his fault, either because his defense is terrible, or because he just got plain unlucky.

FEI is essentially a DIPS metric for offense.  It recognizes that an offense has control over itself to a large extent, but refuses to penalize an offense for what it can't control (field position, special teams, at least some parts of turnover margin).  

AAB

July 1st, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^

Here's what I think we disagree about: I think Michigan's FEI rating is a better predictor of how Michigan would do if they played Iowa, Ohio State and Wisconsin 100 times each than the 17 points scored is.  I think Brian's view of the offense has more predictive value, which is what I care about when we're discussing how Borges should run the offense.  

chitownblue2

July 1st, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^

I really don't think "scheme" is the reason our offense failed or succeeded. We had no running back, and we turned the ball over a ton (for the third straight year). You can run wishbone, spread, pro-style, whatever, and those things will get you killed every time. Looking at one of the worst red-zone offenses in the country, then saying "IT'S NOT THE OFFENSES FAULT WE DIDN'T SCORE MORE" doesn't make sense to me. This post would have you believe that so many things regress to the mean that we may as well field a team of kittens coached by a narcoleptic 4-year old girl.

AAB

July 1st, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^

that "red zone offense" is an independent skill from "regular offense anywhere on the football field."  The main real argument in support of that theory -- that the spread gets bunched up and can't operate in tight quarters -- runs into the problem that Oregon and Auburn were awesome in the red zone.  

We're talking about 12 games.  I think "it was shitty luck" it a valid explanation for what went wrong in the red zone.  

AAB

July 1st, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^

If turnovers were completely random (and I'm not suggesting they are), then someone would be 109th in total turnovers entirely as a result of bad luck.

And assuming turnovers aren't random, the most obvious explanation for the non-randomness would be having a first-year starting quarterback, which we won't have next year. 

No one is arguing that Michigan "really" scored way more points last year.  They're trying to figure out how many points Michigan would score next year if the offense didn't change a thing. Unless you're arguing that Michigan's scheme caused it to have a crap-ton of turnovers, then I don't think Michigan's turnover ranking is all that relevant for figuring out what the offense might do next year. Especially since Denard will have another year under his belt.

MGoNukeE

July 5th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^

I'm assuming you're referring to scoring percentage, where Michigan scored only 79% of the time in drives to the end zone (82nd in the country). If you're referring to points per red zone possession (a more logical metric for success in the red zone), Michigan was 24th in the country, with 40 of 56 possessions resulting in TDs and 4 possessions resulting in field goals. That's hardly one of the worse red-zone offenses in the country; in fact, Michigan's red-zone offense probably ranks even higher if TD % is looked at.

Data: http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2010&rpt=IA_teamredzone&site=org&div=IA&dest=O

GCS

July 1st, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^

But they have very little control over how many points the other team scores (turnovers leading to scores are the exception here). Nobody would've been so upset over the offense's first half performance if the defense hadn't given up 28 points. Since the defense was a complete atrocity, though, people felt it was acceptable to condemn the offense.

chitownblue2

July 1st, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^

Nobody is condemning the offense. I haven't seen a single person ever say "Michigan had a bad offense."

Saying "I'm not sure we were the third best offense in the nation (or whatever FEI has us at)" is not condemning the offense.

This entire argument is a enormous strawman.

GCS

July 1st, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^

That statement is not condemning the offense, but that's not the type of statement Brian is arguing against. He's arguing against the belief that Michigan must move away from the spread in order to have any real success. That offense would've been plenty good enough to succeed if it wasn't teamed with the worst defense in Michigan history.

chitownblue2

July 1st, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^

I think the addition of "scheme" into the conversation is pointless. No scheme is inherently better or worse than another one - we failed to score because we couldn't kick, and we turned the ball over like crazy in the red-zone.

It seems to me that I'd worry more about executing properly than the play-calling, because what we DO know is that all of Rich Rod's WHIZ BANG X & O proficiency didn't stop us from being woefully inefficient.

GCS

July 1st, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^

You are correct that no scheme is inherently better than another, but there is one scheme that the returning core of Michigan's offense has been recruited for and been practicing for the last three years. That scheme is the one that the players are most likely to execute properly.

GCS

July 1st, 2011 at 2:45 PM ^

No, I thought he should have went to the spread in 2008. A large part of that reasoning, though, is that I believe the 2008 offense was destined to be a gigantic pile of fail no matter what scheme it ran. I have no problem with Borges eventually moving to his ideal offense (to be fully implemented by either Gardner or Morris), but I think the potential of the current players would justify a more gradual transition this time around.

BigBlue02

July 1st, 2011 at 3:56 PM ^

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that changing the scheme for 1 returning starter, a sophomore offensive lineman who was the only offensive player drafted since Lloyd left, is the same situation as changing the scheme for 10 returning starters, losing only 1 offensive lineman?

Also, as a freshman QB, threet wasn't going to be good in any offense, including under center. His problem was accuracy and bad decisions, which he was still poor at as a junior.

BradP

July 1st, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^

I slightly disagree.  Auburn and Oregon both had very aggressive defenses that were strong up front.  Oregon often went with a 4-4 Cover 1.  They dominated the line of scrimmage and made the offense beat them with big plays.  They didn't trot out an undersized 3-3-5 that couldn't hold the line and was succeptable to getting bullied and worn down.

 

BradP

July 1st, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^

Field position and time of possession.

Time of possessions in the first half of the Wisconsin game:

Wisconsin-  4:07

Michigan- 2:31

Wisconsin-  5:07

Michigan-  3:23

Wisconsin-  6:45

Michigan-  1:49

Wisconsin-  2:28

Michigan-  :54

Wisconsin- 1:05

 

That is an undersized defense getting beaten down and worn out, and the offense made matters much worse, as even when it was successful it left its own defense gasping.

 

:

03 Blue 07

July 3rd, 2011 at 9:25 PM ^

Can you show any objective correlation between TOP when you take out games that are out of hand already (when a team is running out the clock) and success? I'm pretty sure this concept of  "TOP as important statistic when controlling for game still being in doubt/close" has been obliterated by objective evidence on this site (through cites to studies on the issue) and throughout the internet within the last 5 years or so.

dcwolverine1993

July 1st, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^

comparisons between SDSU last year and Michigan last year.  If we're arguing whether we should move more toward D-Rob and spread vs. Borges and WCO, shouldn't we at least look at what they both did last year?

BradP

July 1st, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^

Auburn and Oregon both had 1000 yd rushers who weren't QBs.

Michigan's offense last year seemed really good at a few things but completely incompetent in a lot of things.  That would lead to statistics that would cause one to think exogenous factors were causing the downfall.

SC Wolverine

July 1st, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^

One thing we can be absolutely sure about is that the offensive line is not going to do much zone blocking.  That alone largely dictates what kind of running game we will have.  What is not sure is how much shotgun we will run.  The answer probably will be "more than you thought when Borges came in as OC."  It will be interesting to see how the offense develops -- I think the need to develop probably costs us the ND game -- but hopefully by the Sparty game our d will be pretty decent and our offense will have become pretty darn explosive again.  (And, yes, "pretty darn explosive" is a technical term).  The big issue, then, will be Denard's ability to avoid throwing interceptions when he is in the pocket.  In my view, that will be the single biggest determinant of our success in 11.

Kilgore Trout

July 1st, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^

Two things stand out to me about the red zone offense and why it wasn't good (other than the obvious lack of ability to make a field goal).

1.  A lot of the offense's productivity in the non-red zone was predicated on the Denard-draw-oh-noes play and the threat of running it at any point.  When space gets tight in the red zone, that play is a lot easier to defend.

2.  The lack of a true #1 RB.  The read option is a lot less scary when you're not really afraid of the RB.  If Minor had ever been able to stay healthy in 08 or 09 or if someone would have established themselves last year, I think there's a lot better chance of success in the red zone.

GCS

July 1st, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^

(other than the obvious lack of ability to make a field goal)

I can't believe how much this gets overlooked, though. How much worse would any offense look if it was touchdown or nothing when you got to the red zone?

J.Swift

July 1st, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

Against mediocre-average teams, we had a good to great offense.

Against strong teams, we didn't have a prayer.   Why?  stop Denard, or slow him down dramatically, game over.  Other than Denard, we did not have the talent /experience / size / coaching to win games against the top tier of the league.  Don't take my opinion, take Brian's:  go back and look at his predictions for the Ohio State and Wisconsin games. 

gbdub

July 1st, 2011 at 3:56 PM ^

Wisconsin is still a lousy example - we did significantly better against Wisconsin offensively than the average team did. Not only in yards, FEI, or some wacky stats, but points. We just didn't have that many drives, no field goal kicker, and the D couldn't make a first-half stop.

Mitch Cumstein

July 1st, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^

but does the argument that Wisco let their foot off the gas knowing they could run the ball every down and score on every possession affect the way their defense played?  I think it did.  They had no sense of urgency.  What did it matter if they came up with stops?  I'm not saying they consciously dogged it, but I think if the game was close, their defense would have tightened up.  Just a possible explanation. 

gbdub

July 1st, 2011 at 6:06 PM ^

Wisconsin was a very good team last year. Most of their wins ended up "out of hand" at one point or another, so most teams got plenty of "garbage time". We still did better than average. The only teams that scored more points against Wiscy than Michigan were Iowa and MSU.

Besides, I would think Wisconsin's motivation up big at half time in the Big House would be higher than normal, given what happened in 2008.

DustomaticGXC

July 1st, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^

As a former football player I can tell you that the offense being able to score doesn't make the defense care less about stopping the other team.  Defensive players tend to be fanatics.  They want to stop every play of every possession, regardless of what the offense is doing.  And Wisconsin in particular prides themselves on two things:  running the ball, and playing stout defense. 

 

And based on what I say from them in about 5-6 games I watched, they're coached to not quit regardless of the score.

 

 

M-Wolverine

July 2nd, 2011 at 9:05 PM ^

It's simply because they started playing better on offense and defense, and nothing to do with how you play? Bo must have been wrong when he said the upset was in the mind of the favored.

BigBlue62

July 1st, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^

Any news on Wile? Is he expected to be the kicker this year?

Is it worth sacrificing effectiveness down the road for immediate results?

Isn't that a little binary?  From what invterviews I've seen of Borges, doesn't he seem to imply he'll be running a "blend" - accomodating Denards ability to run but obviously "transitioning" to a Pro-Style offense?

soup-er-UM

July 1st, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^

I think the argument that turnovers would have reverted to the mean because they generally do is a bad one.  It looks particularly bad when you juxtapose these two sentences: 

The latter was a huge problem all three years under Rodriguez

 

Michigan's turnover issues aren't fate, should improve naturally, and are not related to the spread

If they "naturally" revert how could Michigan be so bad all three years under Rodriguez?

Never

July 1st, 2011 at 6:01 PM ^

...would reference this statement.

"However, turnovers notoriously do not correlate year to year, are heavily dependent on quarterback, experience and saw Rich Rodriguez consistently in the black at West Virginia."

Year one: first year starter as QB.

Year two: first year starter as QB.

Year three: first year starter as QB.

soup-er-UM

July 1st, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^

Three things here - first, denard played quarterback two years ago a pretty decent amount so saying "first year starter" is true but not really representative because it implies we expected the same number of turnovers in 2010 that we did in 2009, and denard obviously had more "experience" in 2010. Second, even with experience I don't recall (although I didn't look it up) turnovers going down as 2010 progressed. I actually think they went up as the season went along. Third, I don't know but would like someone to look up if most of these turnovers are interceptions or fumbles - I would grant that INTs might decline but if memory serves I think most were fumbles, which I wouldn't think would correlate to QB experience at all.

chitownblue2

July 1st, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^

As an aside, I'm amused that the opinion of this blog, and many other people, regarding Hoke's offense is based nearly exclusively off of a single comment made to a reporter when he said he didn't like zone blocking.

Callahan

July 1st, 2011 at 7:38 PM ^

You mean the spring game where we ran the QB run on the first play for 60 yards then spent the rest of the time working on the shit that needs to be worked on? Do you really think that Borges and Hoke are so dumb that they would look at the first play and then just say, "fuck it, let's run the shit we struggle with" in a game?

I'm not suggesting you consider the spring game to be an enormous success offensively because it clearly wasn't. But have some perspective. To quote Allen Iverson, we're talking about practice.

wolverine1987

July 1st, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^

I have often thought that the last couple years, and apart from doing so on the goal line or 4th and 1 (because QB sneaks etc) it just seems to me that the shotgun is superior both for passing and running. Now the stats seem to confirm that. Even in pro style offenses, what is so optimal about taking a snap and shuffling backwards to either hand off or throw? It seems safer, faster, and easier and better to be in shotgun 100% of the time. Am I missing something?

EGD

July 1st, 2011 at 6:27 PM ^

There was a really good article on Smart Football about this a few years ago.  Here is a link to it: http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2007/12/shotgun-gun-and-shotgun-spread-offense.html

Probably the main piece of wisdon that stood out to me from the article was Dan Mullen (then Florid OC) saying, basically, that there isn't much difference but teams should use one or the other and not mess it up:

"The footwork of the QB changes as does timing for pass plays. The 'mesh' point for hand-offs to the RB change as well. Now Florida offensive coordinator Dan Mullen says this is one reason they run shotgun almost exclusively, so they can practice just one thing and get good at it."