Can Michigan Make "The Leap" Offensively in 2012
As Michigan enters year #3 with Denard starting the season at the helm and year #2 under OC Al Borges, I did a deep dive into teams that have made the leap into offensive greatness. A handy guide to going from a good offense to an elite offense in one year.
In making predictions you are always safer predicting things to regress towards the mean. I wanted to look at the teams that have gone from good but not great offensive teams to truly elite teams in one season. There were some surprisingly strong correlations within this group.
1. A quarterback with experience returning.
2. The same offensive coordinator as the previous year
3. Continuity in your receiving core
These three three aren’t sufficient conditions for making the leap, but they are necessary conditions.
From 2004 to 2011 there were 20 teams, including 2010 Michigan, that increased their offensive EV+ rating by at least 4 points per game and ended the year above 10. I wanted to take a look at these 11 teams to figure out what was necessary to make a jump like this, what might seem necessary but wasn’t and how many teams fit this same criteria but couldn’t make the leap.
Returning Quarterbacks
It’s not rocket science to say that having a returner at quarterback is a good thing, but the exceptions to this rule prove it as much as anything. Of the 20 teams to make the leap, five didn’t technically have a returning starting quarterback. Two, Auburn 2010 and Stanford 2009, did it with future first overall draft picks. Wisconsin 2011 technically counts but Russell Wilson was a three year starter for NC St before arriving in Madison. Tim Tebow got quality field time on a national championship team despite Chris Leak’s position as starter. The final exception was Oregon 2010 when Darron Thomas stepped in to great success.
The returners themselves take all forms. There are runners like Josh Nesbitt from Georgia Tech in 2009, Pat White at West Virginia in 2006. There are pass-first athletes like Robert Griffin on Baylor 2011 and Vince Young on Texas 2005. There are future first round picks like Sam Bradford at Oklahoma in 2008 and Matt Leinart at USC in 2005.
Three times it was done with multiple quarterbacks seeing action. Michigan in 2010 saw returning starter Tate Forcier make regular appearances during the Denard Robinson injury hour every Saturday. Cincinnati didn’t miss a beat in 2009 when Zach Collaros stepped in for injured starter Tony Pike. Arizona State had the same story in 2005 when Rudy Carpenter replaced the injured Sam Keller.
How many years at the helm wasn’t a significant issue. There were as many teams who made the leap with second year starters as third and fourth starters combined. The only team to do it with a non-transfer four year starter was Northwestern in 2005 under Brett Basenez. Zac Robinson did it in his second year at Oklahoma St in 2007, Chase Daniel did it at Missouri in his third year of four running the offense at Missouri.
Not all the QB’s developed within the program, either. Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers and Ryan Mallett all accomplished the task after transferring from a previous school or Junior College.
Offensive Coordinators
On average, about 35% of BCS programs turn over their offensive coordinators in a given year. For teams making the offensive leap it drops to 10%. Charlie Weis found his famed “Decided Schematic Advantage” in 2005 (only to lose it thereafter) with Brady Quinn. Arkansas and Ryan Mallett where the only others to accomplish the feat, but the presence of head coach and offensive guru Bobby Petrino indicates the continuity was likely high.
Returning Receivers
Teams making the leap returned 75% of their value from their receiving core, nearly fifty percent higher than the average team (53%). Only four teams returned less than 60% of their receiving value from the prior, and those teams all managed to make the leap due to ultra efficient passers, Tim Tebow, Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers and Vince Young.
Missing The Cut
Returning Running backs
My crusade to bury the position of the running back continues. Teams making the leap where all over the map on returning RBs. Texas and Northwestern both made the leap in 2005 with virtually no non-QB carries returning from the 2004 season. Baylor, Michigan, Florida and Cal all did with only marginally used carriers returning. On the flip side USC returned Reggie Bush and LenDale White in 2005. Georgia Tech, Oregon, West Virginia and Missouri all returned over 80% of the previous years carries.
It’s not that having a key ball carriers returning is a bad thing, it’s just not necessary to make the leap.
Recruiting Rankings
Just like the running back question, the recruiting rankings are mixed bag. Cincinnati, West Virginia, Cal, Northwestern and Baylor all made the leap without the benefit of a roster full of 4 and 5 star recruits. USC, Auburn, Florida, Texas and Oklahoma always enter a season stacked. Better recruits = better results is true but Better Results = Better Recruits is often incorrect.
Odds of Making It
Of teams that meet criteria 1-3 above (with 3 being defined at 60%) and are within 1 standard deviation of +10 EV+ (4.4 or higher) 25% make the leap to +10 or higher. 40% of this group improves but not to an elite level. That leaves 35% of teams to regress under this environment. The worst offender is Michigan State in 2006. Poised to become a potentially great offense under Drew Stanton, Sparty fell apart and dropped from a +7.2 in 2005 to a –2.6 in 2006.
Can Michigan be that team
With the loss of Junior Hemingway, Kevin Koger and Martavious Odoms Michigan falls below the 60% threshold (38%). All of the other criteria fit nicely for Michigan and when it has been done without the aid of returning receivers, its come on the back of a Heisman level quarterback performance. If year 2 of Al Borges Denard Fusion Cuisine comes together, that doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility. I won’t be on record predicting a leap like year for the 2012 Michigan offense, but they are one of a handful of schools that I would even consider.
38%?! Wow, that's even less than I thought it was. It's moments like this when I shake my fist at the sky and mutter Stonuuuummm!
Great analysis as always, and I remain fairly optimistic if only because Denard.
Very true, but the situation would be more unconventional. I know at least you would feel more optimistic about the receiving corps and the on-field results would probably back that up.
Today's secret ingredient....the Tight End.
I'm liking those guys to really step up and provide a lot of receiving productivity (states Captain Obvious). I also think that Denard is going to be very efficient this year with another year with Borges under his belt.
Looking forward to a very good offense! Go Blue!
Only four teams returned less than 60% of their receiving value from the prior, and those teams all managed to make the leap due to ultra efficient passers, Tim Tebow, Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers and Vince Young.
It's kind of funny to think of Tebow and Young as "ultra-efficient." Obviously, their running ability opened things up enough to compensate for their so-so accuracy. That could happen here, too.
I have a pinup poster of the Mathlete on my bedroom wall. Or at least, what I think he looks like:
Mathlete, I apologize in advance for this. you're not the only one to do this, but it drives me slowly bonkers that many bloggers I read make the same mistake.
It's "corps", not "core". A core is at the center of an apple. While you could be talking about the center/most important part of a team, like: "The core group of receivers caught 75% of the passes" you are referring to a central group within another defined object.
Corps refers to a group of organized people. The most common everyday use is probably very familiar: "The United States Marine Corps." Using both in a sentence: "A core group of strength coaches train the receiving corps."
But yes, moar Al Borges Fusion Cuisine plz.
/end spelling rant, feel free to neg away now.
/core vs corps seems to be a strange phenomenon of internet misspelling. Most people get Their/they're/there and your/you're down but not core/corps. Also it's vs its seems like a lost cause.
/I am or was engineer, I swear.
I think a lot of people misunderstand that it's supposed to be a military metaphor. The word "core" probably occurs more often in everyday language, so people probably just assume it's a "receiving core."
(The it's/its thing bugs me as well.)
Won Too Three Fore
I love the Marine Core
Simpli - Fi!
...not that many people get the their/they're/there or your/you're differences correct either. The funniest ones are those who correct someone else on their spelling or English use, but then muck up something else during their rant.
Yeah that drives me up a wall as well. However your rant is sufficient so I will rail no more against the subject.
Though not qualified in the least, I enjoy a good word-use quibble, but it seems to me that there is a use of core that works here. Not OED, but per Mirriam-Webster it can mean a basic or essential part, as in "the staff had a core of experts". In my book, that is close enough. Strange to have a thread like this without seeing "Hemmingway", though.
Awesome topic and post. Good breakdown.
Is there any correlation between field position rankings and improvement? Or maybe I don't know enough about EV and the better question is: does EV remove field possession and give a metric of efficiency regardless of starting position?
EDIT: I might just need to find the post describing EV...
How is receiving value defined? I'm assuming it's production rather than playing time, in which case I think it's important to remember that Roundtree was our leading receiver two years ago with almost 1000 yards, before falling off last year. Could give us some unaccounted for bonus points, unless that's already factored in. If so, carry on.
The screen pass will be the secret weapon on 2nd and longs. Rivalry games, perhaps. /armchair tactician
If these coaches were in their fifth year there would be a mean. They are not, nor, at least in terms of schemes and coaching, are the players. Last year was pure transition. This year is the beginning of stability.
If we've learned nothing else from last year, we have learned that coaching can have an impact all out of proportion to any other variable. Despite my deep and abiding respect for the Mathlete's analytical capabilites, I think he's missed something here. The impact of coaching changes can far out way the number of returning starting receivers.
Further just how far does the offense need to "leap". We were more effective last year, especially against "quaility defenses" that we were in 2010. Perhaps our receiving corps is not quite a solid as last year, but every other aspect of offensive skill positions have improved.
My bet is that Denard will have his break out year. The receiving corps will step up and someone, probably Roundtree, will emerge as our big threat receiver. Toussant will take another step in what will become a legendary Michigan career.
Well, we lost Koger. He only had 244 receiving yards but he had 4 TDs. That's a pretty big chunk of our scoring in the passing game.
I don't think Borges will try to go to his favorite offense. I expect him to mix things up a lot and use spread formations, like the 2nd half of last years B1G season.
Roundtree will probably pick it up where he left off 2 seasons ago...and I'm sure we will see a surprise TE/receiver emerge.
I still think having an established RB will help to open up the offense. If Robinson improves his passing game we are sure to have a more prolific offense!
I don't think a huge leap forward offensively is necessary for this team to achieve their goals. Last year, they were third in the Big Ten in total offense, higher than MSU and Iowa but lower nationally than five teams they beat: Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, Northwestern, San Diego State and Western Michigan. They were also second in the Big Ten in scoring offense, again higher than both of the teams that beat them. A similar level of production as last year with more consistency, i.e. looking like close to the same time at home and on the road, should be enough to at least be a serious contender for the division title.
Of course, we won't really know what we have on offense until Borges unveils his masterpiece against Minnesota. Dude hates him some gophers.
...Offensive line, where we are leaping from, and SOS.
Regression to the mean is always the easier path. UM improved on their scoring from 2010 to 2011. They worked their way into the top quarter. When you start at/near the top, you actually can't make a leap. UM could theoretically get into the top 5 (that would be a leap), but they'd rather hang onto the ball than score as quickly as possible. A change in philosophy, but one that led to actual wins. I'll take wins over RichRod points any day.
Finally, strength of schedule has to be factored in. We aren't playing in a vacuum. I believe the first team we're playing has a pretty good defense, for example. Ala-something....It's generally accepted we'll have a harder schedule than last year.
The offense COULD get better, but (Borges year #2 talkity talk aside) it would take a lot for a leap to occur.
The offense scored just over 34 points a game. IMO, that should be enough to win them all, especially if we do not regress on defense. So, I ask if it is possible to find the statisitical liklihood that we score fewer points than last year (with all the key factors mentioned above).
Second, there were only 2 games where we needed to score more points. I wonder if it is statistically possible to see how much scoring improvement we can expect for our "worst" games, rather than scoring improvement over our season average.
I do expect the offense to have more success passing which will make it even easier to run. Having said that, it will be very difficult to put that on display in the first game. Offenses often take a bit more time to gel early in the season than defenses, and starting out of the gate against a defense like Alabama's is not going to be easy. As others have pointed out, to have the same number of wins as last year, this team will need to perform at a higher level because of the schedule. Last year the defense shined. This year the offense needs to step up.
With the loss of OL and receivers, how will they improve? Are you putting it all on Denard?
Barring injuries on the OL, they have an opportunity to play at or near the level of last year's OL. I wouldn't put it all on Denard, but yes, a majority of it will depend on him, and I have confidence that in his second year working with Borges, he will be better than he was last year.
to me about the offense and their success is how well they play against the good defensive teams. Borges has all summer to work on plays that exploit teams who load up the box, key on Denard running, and play man press on the outside. We will see a very similar defensive philosophy against Alabama that VaTech employed. In the past this has really shut Denard down, and this will be everything IMO. If it works, every team we play will use that blueprint (although they might not have the athelets to excecute it). If we beat it, we could be up to big things this year. Go Blue!
Great job, but seems to be missing one of the most important - if not the most important - factors in offensive production - the offensive line.
Teams are certainly more likely to make a "leap" if they bring back their best o-linemen and less likely to make a leap if they lose everyone.
2012 UM loses its best o-lineman -- and possibly its best player overall -- and doesn't have a lot of depth. Whether or not Barnum and co. are able to at least be a decent replacement is clearly one of the main factors as to whether or not this offense makes any kind of "leap."
I agree on the importance of the offensive line but I haven't been able to find a quantifiable metric that correlates offensive line to offensive success. Not saying that it doesn't exist, just that if there is no way to quantify it and measure its affect on the variance then there is no effective way to include it.
What about # of returning starts on the O-line? Phil Steele has been saying for years that there is a strong correlation between teams that bring back (I believe) more than 60 starts and offensive success, while teams that bring back less than 30 or something often struggle.
1- QB: Denard. Enough said.
2- RB: Toussaint. I think he is better than Denard. I think he can win a heisman this year or next.
3- WR: Roundtree. His catch against ND says enough.
4- WR(s): Gallon/Dileo. We have plenty of "2nd" WRs. We have decent depth in that position. If Denard can improve his passing game, our WR playmaking ability should not be a problem.
5- TE: Brandon Moore. Pretty similar to Koger. We all know how good of a year Koger had last year. I believe that he is more athletic than Koger.
6- FB: Hopkins. Good fit at the FB. He can keep defenses honest with his running ability and blocking ability.
7,8,9,10- Barnum, Omameh, Schofield, Lewan. 4 returning offensive starting linemen who are all very good and experienced. Can't wait!
11- Mealer? If he wins his position battle, I hope he does great. He has a great story. Haven't seem him play much, but hope he can do well.
Comments