FG kicker? We don't need no stinking FG kicker
First, disclosure:
One, I'm probably one of those guys here last fall who made Brian do the GI Joe "Kung Fu Grip" thing with his fists.
Two, I pissed off many here with my-Aykroydian Point/Counterpoint response to someone's diary post last November, here, in which I attempted to quantify why despite all the glorious yards last year's offense racked up, it wasn't great, or even good. Scoring DOES SO matter -- you're dead wrong on that point, Brian. It's the whole point of the exercise on offense -- to score. And amazingly, as I pointed out last fall, last year's team wasn't any better at scoring in the first halves of Big Ten games than the 2008 Sheridan/Threet offense. For pointing that out, I was emaciated for my "dishonest" and unfair and amateur statistical acumen, and for my selectivity in looking up only first-half stats of Big Ten games when my intention was to, uh, look up the first-half stats of Big Ten games -- when the damn things tended to be decided in the RR era.
Third, for those who don't know, and despite my criticisms of the 2010 offense in particular, I was and remain a big supporter of Rich Rod's. The guy got a bum deal, was undermined from the get-go. And I wanted his spread offense to fly -- like so many of you, I was way more than ready for its arrival. But all his sins on defense (primarily his selection of, and handling of, his defensive coaches) count as one of his two biggest self-inflicted wounds. The other was his inability to get his team -- even his beloved, potentially dazzling offense -- to play without making so many inevitable killer mistakes (and on offense, not just mistakes by his first-year QBs). There was a disconnect between what he was trying to accomplish on offense and defense.
The 2010 offense:
In November I wasn't, and still am not, prepared to say the 2010 M offense was great. Or even good. It's a results-based world, folks, and last year RR's offense made so many mistakes -- by second- and third-year starters, not just Denard -- that it did not score enough when the game was in the balance. Because when it mattered against the five toughest Big Ten opponents (MSU, Iowa, PSU, Wisc, OSU) -- that is, when the game was anybody's to win early on in those games -- the Michigan offense wasn't good. Wasn't good at scoring. And more often than Brian and many of you probably think, or are willing to admit, it wasn't even often good at moving the damn ball at all. Just as often happened in 2009 in such games, Michigan's get-go success in the first half at moving the ball vs The Big FIve of the Big Ten didn't result in many points, didn't last, and would usually result in the offense going stone cold before halftime. Meantime, of course, our defenders played as 11 turnstiles under some awful coaching. Result? Huge halftime deficit. Happened in all five of those games last fall. But, boy, when we fell behind by two to three touchdowns, hooboy! Our offense became an unstoppable buzzsaw, right? Well, except against MSU and Ohio State. But, hey, everybody wants to believe that no one could stop the offense in the second half, so I'll leave it alone.
Thesis:
And so. To the real point of this diary....
Earlier today, I read Brian's most recent post on Denard and the shotgun, in which he revisited this whole issue, and said in part: "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...."
I recall having the feeling last fall that the lack of a decent field goal kicker wasn't that awful an issue, because it seemed we were often converting those fourth-downs when a normal team would attempt a field goal. Today I decided to peruse the play-by-play of the eight Big Ten games last fall to see if that hunch was correct.
It was ... more than even I dared believe.
By my count from the official play-by-play logs, the Michigan offense attempted 16 fourth-down conversions in Big Ten play last fall. Nine were either obvious go-for-its (e.g. trailing by 21 to MSU in the 4th quarter, with a 4th-and-10 on the MSU 28, when every team in America would eschew the FG attempt), or UM was not in FG range (e.g. at Purdue, 2nd quarter, 4th-and-1 at UM 46).
The other seven fourth-down attempts I am dividing into two groups: (1) FG is the likeliest option and only a riverboat gambling coach or a team without a FG kicker would go for it, and (2) FG is only a possible option, either because it'd be very long, or because there was only 1 yard to gain for a first down so going for it is a viable option. The results:
(1)
| FOE | QUARTER | SCORE | 4th and ... | 4th DOWN OUTCOME | DRIVE OUTCOME |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSU | 1st | 0-0 | 3 @ MSU 28 | 4-yd rush, 1st down | FG |
| Illinois | 2nd | 14-21 | 6 @ Illinois 30 | Incomplete | Illinois takes over |
| OSU | 1st | 0-0 | 8 @ OSU 28 | Incomplete | OSU takes over |
(2)
| FOE | QUARTER | SCORE | 4th and ... | 4th DOWN OUTCOME | DRIVE OUTCOME |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa | 1st | 0-0 | 1 @ Iowa 29 | 8-yd rush | M touchdown |
| PSU | 2nd | 7-14 | 1 @ PSU 13 | 3-yd rush | FG |
| Illinois | 2nd | 7-14 | 9 @ Illinois 33 | complete for TD | M touchdown |
| OSU | 2nd | 0-10 | 2 @ OSU 34 | complete for 13 | M touchdown |
Bottom line? If we had tried FGs on all seven of those drives last year, even if we had Adam Vinatieri circa 2002 [Ed-M: or Jason Hanson, ever. /Lionsfan] and he went 7-for-7, the most UM could have scored was 21 points.
As it was? UM got 27 points out of those drives. Six more points.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. We were all correct when we began screaming early last season for Rich Rodriguez to just go for it on 4th down every time in the red zone.
2. Brady Hoke should continue this practice, forever, unless Adam Vinatieri [/Hanson] can lose 10 years off his legs and regain some college eligibilty.
3. So much for the lack of a FG kicker hurting the offensive scoring output of last year's offense, because it actually HELPED it to score more points than it would have otherwise.
4. Brian is down to two factors to explain UM's lack of offensive scoring output -- poor field position, and turnovers.
---
BOTTOM LINE:
We can all dredge up whatever stats we want to, but seven months of digesting last fall's regular season has led me to this conclusion: RichRod's spread offense is a thing of beauty ... when it works. His version of the spread, with his UM players, seemed to work best against bad defenses, and bogged down when it mattered against decent to good defenses. It was sometimes a sumbitch of an offense last year in the second half, when UM usually trailed and trailed badly. But you can't find any statistic to explain how a team with a three-score lead plays softer on D, which schematic decision plays right into the spread offense's strategic aims. That, to me, explains to a certain extent why last year against Big Ten teams UM in the second half scored touchdowns more times (16, excluding Illionis OTs) than it punted (12). On its own that is an amazing statistic. But it's more than offset by the fact that in first halves, UM scored 12 TDs compared to 14 punts, 6 lost fumbles and 5 INTs; FGs made and missed were even, shockingly (3-3).
The lack of a decent RB and the mistakes -- the damn inevitable mistakes -- are what kept RichRod's offense last year from greatness. Not the defense. Go pore over the play-by-play of the MSU, Iowa and Ohio State games. Those games were there for the taking until midway through the 2nd quarter. Even the Penn State and Wisconsin games were close at that point. But then the M offense sputtered and became almost as dead as the defense until halftime in those games.
The UM defense actually played pretty well in the 1st quarter of the MSU, Iowa and Ohio State games. Look it up. Indeed, there was nothing in those pivotal three losses to prevent UM from jumping out to a big lead and forcing the other team to play catchup .. except a good or great scoring offense.
Might this year's team, with a grizzled Denard, have truly been dynamic -- "great"? If a real Big Ten-quality RB had emerged, and RR was able to drastically reduce all the damn mistakes, then yes, it very well could have. Alas.....
My original comment did not convey my full incredulity. So please consider this a codicil to my earlier post:
JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST... missing a field goal means you score LESS POINTS than you would have had you made the goddamn thing. Your argument is like saying having a shitty hitter in your baseball line-up improves your offense because you can pinch-hit for him with someone good. Sure, sometimes you can pinch hit for him sometimes, but (a) you can pinch hit for a GOOD player, too, and (b) SOMETIMES HE HAS TO HIT, AND HE SUCKS AT HITTING. Michigan still could have gone for those 4th down plays if they'd had Adam Vinatieri on the sidelines, but it also would have been nice to have had the option to take the three freeking points from the 20 yard line every now and then.
Jesus.... I... Just...
FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
... and changes your pants, take another read.
Michigan eschewed at most seven field-goal attempts in Big Ten play. AT MOST, seven.
By doing so they wound up scoring more points on those very seven drives (27) than they ever possibly could have scored on field-goal attempts (7 x 3 = 21).
And this might be particularly difficult to grasp, but each time if they'd scored 3 on the field goal, they forfeited their chance on that drive to score a touchdown.
(Hey, I aim to earn each and every one of those FUs.)
I might be drunk, but I agree...
Too often we pissed into the wind where a field goal kicker would have at least helped, although I'm not sure that covers up a porous defense or a second half offense (which I think the OP has a good explanation for...)
Overall, the blame doesn't lay on either side of the ball, but a complete combimatiom of them both.
Also, there is this...
So bring on next year
Not sure about this part:
Overall, the blame doesn't lay on either side of the ball, but a complete combimatiom of them both.
It's a combination, yes, but if we're assigning blame for last year's problems, I think it goes something like this:
- 80% defense
- 15% special teams
- 5% offense
In Big Ten play (the only stats I went over), UM attempted 7 brown-through-yellow-things, and made 3.
3/6 in 1st halves, 0/1 in 2nd halves.
3/7 is bad but, IMO, not gawdawful. Even though both FG kickers were gawdawful. How that can be?
On the season, factoring in all the non-conf misses, I'm sure the stat plummets more to your recollection.
Going 3-for-7, with a couple of other would-have-kicked-it-but-went-for-it-because-we-can't-kick (your Category 1 stuff) somehow helped output?
Was it the end of the world? No. But that's a couple of points per game average to the negative. Which means it made things worse, not better.
Not necessarily, if in fact it's true that going for it on 4th down is more optimal than kicking a field goal (in which case you forgo four to seven possible points, depending on the kick's outcome). In at least one instance that I can recall (Illinois), we went for it on a 4th and long and scored a TD. That was the statistical equivalent of two made field goals, not counting the PAT. That has to be factored into the analysis.
It's likely that, all things considered, it was a wash, and didn't really affect our scoring average. Anyone arguing that this was the primary reason we didn't put up Oregon-like scoring numbers is crazy.
Except for a handful of games, I have attended every home game since 1966; and some before that; and watched every game televised since then.
Last year's team was the worst by far of any I have seen, because to me, the RR teams were getting worse. Yes we had Denard, but the play calling became so predictable, and he became so overused, that we damn near killed him. That is what our opponents said; we knew what Michigan was going to do. By the time the Big Ten season started, the offense sputtered and then stopped.
I enjoy all the statistical stuff that Brian and most of you refer to when sizing up the team, but often it seems to miss the point. Simply put; we couldn't stop 'em' and we couldn't catch 'em. And, it did not seem to me that we ever really hit anybody, except for Brandon Graham when he was here. A statistical analysis is a guideline and a starting point, but not the be all and end all.
So I agree with Nonair. I don't care what offense or play call results in points so long as we score. I mean 7 points is 7 points no matter what you do to get them. The attitude and yes toughness of the old Michigan teams has been missing. I like that Hoke is literally teaching attitude and toughness. I like that this staff is literally teaching how to play, not just talking about scheme.
I hope and trust that we get to a balanced attack and unpredictability on offense. I trust that we will rip some heads off on defense this year. It sounds like these kids are rowing that same boat. Giddyup Go.
you are saying the lloyd carr offenses were not predictable?
That's pretty irrelevant. If he admits that Lloyd's offenses were predictable, it doesn't alter his stance that the 2010 offense was predictable -- a stance taken from quotes of opponents after the games. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Last year's team was the worst by far of any I have seen
Did you black out from August 2008-November 2008? I can't possibly agree that the RR teams were getting worse -- the defense certainly was, and I'm not saying he should have been retained, but the teams weren't getting worse.
I read your early paragraphs, felt bad that you had been allegedly victimized, and decided to agree with you. That WAS an ineffective offense, especially when it matters. You can make statistics say whatever you want them to, and in this case, the stats are being manipulated to support an offense that would not work in the big ten.
In your "bottom line" paragraph it seems odd to me that you claim the defense played well against MSU, Iowa and OSU. Michigan gave up 34, 38, 37 points respectively in those games. Now if points matter as you have made a large point in this post why does it not matter for the defense to be judged as playing well?
In 2007 Lloyd Carr's last year if Michigan had given up 34 points every game their record would have been. 2 wins 9 losses and 1 tie. (would have to take the bowl game out as they wouldn't have made it.
I'd have to go back to the play-by-play logs to nail this, but I think UM forced three-and-outs on the first one or two Iowa drives, on the first two Ohio State drives, and forced punts (not three-and-outs, IIRC) on the first two MSU possessions.
By midway through the 2nd quarter, all three foes were pantsing the D pretty bad.
So a few drives means that the defense "played well?" If the offense has a few good drives does that mean they played well also?
The defense in those three games played well for a quarter, or a bit less, or a bit more. That's it. I never said anything but that.
Just like in those same games, the offense by and large was hit and miss -- more miss than hit in the first half, more hit than miss in the second half.
As painful and (still) shocking as it is digest, RR's Michigan teams in three years played one strong Big Ten game from start to finish in all phases of the game -- at Minnesota in 2008.
"The UM defense actually played pretty well in the 1st quarter of the MSU, Iowa and Ohio State games. Look it up. Indeed, there was nothing in those pivotal three losses to prevent UM from jumping out to a big lead and forcing the other team to play catchup .. except a good or great scoring offense."
Ya I read it wrong.
I guess Michigan has never had a great offense. If the first quarter is what matters then 2007 was atrocious for the Wolverines. Michigan was far and away better in the first quarter for 2010 then they were in 2007 with Henne/Hart and company.
You lost me at "I pissed off so many here..."
You have to look at every field goal situation differently because there are many factors in play: how much time is left relative to the score, is it an obvious situation to go for a FG, is the coach eschewing a field goal because he does not trust his kicker, was the third down play called with the intent of going for it on 4th down and how did that effect the conversion rate, etc...If Michigan had a decent FG kicker for those AT MOST 7 drives its possible they score another 9-12 points.
bad kickers = good
more yards = bad
3/7 not so bad
young players making key mistakes = system won't work in B1G.
I'm so confused...is there any chance you could watch all the B1G games for every team and determine if there is a chance their defenses played unusually well in first halves of games? Also, I'd like to know the stats on what players may have performed coitus the night before the game, as we all know that would have led to dimished abilities in the first half and, after a great deal of fluid intake at halftime, would have led to better second half offense. these are real and important things to consider people. they are not just stats i made up or convoluted to my liking in order to give Brian the dreaded "i told you so".
I think he meant emasculated.
Good grab.
I'm not mathlete, but would it makes sense to break down each B1G team's effectiveness into something like points per 100 yards of offense? Seems like that might give a good comparison of UM's offensive efficiency. If this has already be done, please ignore.
Scoring DOES SO matter -- you're dead wrong on that point, Brian.
^^^ Goddammnit, come on people. Does anyone acually read what Brian writes?
+1 for the entertaining post...On many occasions I screamed "!@#$ the kicker!"
Thank you for validating my visceral and abhorent behavior during the 2010 Football Season. I am officially healed. Happy 4th!
/s -smidgen
Im not a statistics guy, which means my opinion technically cannot count here, but here goes anyway....
The three games against MSU, Iowa and OSU (PSU was not televised in my area) would have likely gone differently if the offense had scored in the first half the way people on this blog keep insisting the stats say our offense could. Our defense was awful, and the only thing that might have helped would have been a LEAD. If you watched those games, you cannot help but have had the feeling that if UM had gotten off to a fast start, gone up 14-0 or 10-0, that things would have gone differently. Even on our d, Iowa was not built to score 45 points FROM BEHIND.
So often, people on this blog are turning to stats to tell me things that just aren't passing the simple eyeball test. In short, stop pissing on my head, and telling me its raining. I watched the games, too, and our offense wasnt able to score to take a lead and remove pressure from the d, any more than the d was able to stop opponents and take pressure off the o.
How about when your "field goal" kicker can't kick off straight and hits two straight kickoffs in the fourth quarter out of bounds during an attempted comeback vs the Hawkeyes, killing all comeback momentum. Don't downplay the kicking game. It played a role in RichRod's demise. Last year brought back visions of 1979 when we had a FG kick blocked that could have beat ND and a punt blocked that cost us the season-ending game vs Ohio State. Embarrassing.
I believe we had a punt blocked in a 2-point loss against Purdue and missed an extra point in a 2-point Gator Bowl loss to North Carolina (where successfully kicking all the PATs would have tied the game).
Let's face it, the reality of this argument falls somewhere in the middle. Anyone defending the offense based on yards is immediately disputed by someone calling 'scoreboard' and anyone bashing the offense will be met with an avalanche of stats with an emphasis on yards. Brian did an admirable job trying to summarize this situation in his post, but there are some things that are difficult to answer when you study a complicated game played by young kids/men and filled with emotion.
- Did it take too long for the coaches to adjust in the first half?
- Was the offense or its implementation flawed in the redzone when you can't SPREAD out the D?
- Did the opponents go more into prevent mode when up big?
- Were the players too up tight or pressured in tight situations and more prone to turnovers? Thus they played more relaxed in second halves?
In the end there were many reasons that Rodriguez was fired, and the offense wasnt on the top of the list. But it did hurt him a lot that in the biggest games he not only lost but they felt like blowouts for much of the game. If just one or two of those games saw the offense start strong he probably saves his job.
I don't know if the offense was as good as the stats suggest, but it would have been fun to find out. But RR wasn't going to get a guy like Mattison to come in and fix the D so maybe it wouldn't have mattered.
as soon as the writer said, "The guy got a bum deal. Was undermined from the get-go."
Both are false and the narrative supporting such assertions is just as false. Efforts to revise history by RichRod apologists don't change the facts.
RR cannot win in the Big Ten and he proved it, and the "bum deal" was never true. It is a laughable claim to make for any coach who goes 6-18 in conference play. Did Bill Lynch get a bum deal at Indiana? Coaches who win don't get "undermined," coaches that prove they cannot win suddenly blame it on a "divided fan base. It's a complete joke. Here's a cure for underimining: Win some games in the conference in which your team plays. Or at least be competitive.
RR screwed up the first team he had all on his own, he made the recruiting decisions to bring in players who could not stay in school, he established the one-man offense and the three worst defenses in school history, which may as well have been pylons on the field for the opposing offenses to run by. If he had gone 6-2 every year in Big Ten play instead of averaging 2-6, suddenly he's not undermined, he's still the coach. I'll buy the argument that yards of offense are a meaningful stat in a game or two in which other factors contributed to the team falling short. I don't buy it as a three-year statistical excuse.
Judging a coach by wins, over time, is the right way to judge him. Especially when his teams didn't just lose -- his very best team from his last season was non-competitive against the best teams on the schedule, never even flirting with victory in those games. Hard to believe there are still people out there seeking out stats to defend him after what we just witnessed for the past three seasons. He was making Michigan mediocre for the next decade, and he just about had us there. A fourth year for him, and we would've been doing well to go. .500 in the Big Ten. Indeed, we would not have hit that mark.
There about five threads going on right now that feel like the same broken record.
I haven't seen (maybe it's happening from a few people, but I haven't seen it) anyone saying "We should have kept RichRod because his offense was unstoppable." People aren't "defending" him in that sense -- Brian certainly isn't, and the OP isn't either.
The whole point of the original discussion was that there were a lot of good things going on offensively, and while RR deserved to go because of his overall failures, the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.
In other words, everyone here agrees RichRod didn't get the job done in terms of wins and losses. But given that most of the team was recruited by him and has exclusively run his systems, it's worth analyzing the positives and negatives of what he did and figuring out how to effectively move forward. It seems reasonable to think we can do that without the people who are pointing out positives from the past few years being called "RR apologists" or whatever (not saying you did that, just saying that's happening quite a bit and it seems to be the overall tone of your post).
I felt that the spread ought to work BETTER in the red zone, or at least inside of 10 yards or so, simply because of forcing the d to send men all the way out to the sidelines, thus effectively removing a corner from being able to break down onto an off tackle run. Even though the depth is compressed, simply spreading the width of the field, as opposed to compressing every guy on the field within the hashes seemed a no brainer way to make it easier to go up the middle .
As for the stat guys' points, well, yeah, Im a scoreboard kind of guy, and I feel the way I do, because when we look at a successful season, we always start with wins and losses, THEN might break down into HOW many yards did Tim Biakabatuka slam down OSU's gullet? But wins and losses are always first, and are ALWAYS decided by who scored more points.
I gather that the attempt being made here is to disassociate the offense's performance from the the disadvantages the d and kicking game forced upon them, and analyze it in a bubble, but I feel that fails because I often saw a winded, tired d take the field after yet another sub 2 minute scoring drive our offense blew right past some oposing d. Next thing you know, UMASS is running around our guys, because they're freaking tired, and they aren't the Bill's d from the late 80s.
I was and remain a big supporter of Rich Rod's. The guy got a bum deal. Was undermined from the get-go.
Do you really feel this way, or did you just tack this onto your post out of fear of getting negbanged? I don't think these kinds of disclaimers are necessary anymore. As the months have gone on, peoples' blinders are coming down. It's no longer taboo to note that going 6-18 in the Big Ten (3-0 against IU and Minn and 3-18 against everyone else, no less) is catastrophically bad. I think he's a nice guy and I wish him well, but he didn't get it done here.
Results:
| Def PPG | M Scored | Diff | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uconn | 22.00 | 30 | 8.00 |
| ND | 20.23 | 28 | 7.77 |
| BG | 33.58 | 65 | 31.42 |
| Indiana | 34.00 | 42 | 8.00 |
| MSU | 22.31 | 17 | -5.31 |
| Iowa | 17.00 | 28 | 11.00 |
| PSU | 23.69 | 31 | 7.31 |
| Illini | 23.46 | 67 | 43.54 |
| Purdue | 28.75 | 27 | -1.75 |
| Wis | 20.54 | 28 | 7.46 |
| OSU | 14.31 | 7 | -7.31 |
| Miss St | 19.85 | 14 | -5.85 |
| TOTAL | 279.72 | 384.00 | 104.28 |
If you're rejecting advanced stats (FEI) which actually measure whether the game was in the balance, then just go back to the basics. There's plenty of noise in there but you're still looking at a team that generally scored 33% more than opponents typically allow.
Be careful not to mistake lack of perfection for non-awesomeness. I watched a lot of Oregon games last year, and there were plenty of times when their well-drilled, spectacular offense made huge mistakes, because they're 18-22 year olds.
I'm addressing the field goals in Dear Diary today.
I knew you were lurking here somewhere with some insightful analysis. Looking forward to it (although I have a feeling the scoreboard/stats divide won't be significantly altered).
The failure of driving down the field time after time and walking away with nothing to show for it can crush all your momentum. I understand that 27>21, but the amount of disapoointment in a 12 play-70yrd- 0pts drive is devastating. We need a kicker!!
IMHO I think we would be better off with having a great PK then FGK. I dont have any statistical data, but all i can remember is every opp. starting drives around the 40yrd line after every kickoff, run one play and be beyond mid-field!!!
I watch a ton of non-Michigan football games every season on TV, just like the rest of you. And one thing that always bugged me last year was that it seemed like every team in America had a solid field goal kicker. Remember when UConn's no name kicker booted a 52 yard FG in the cold, December weather to give them the Big East title? Our kickers couldn't make chip shots in 70 degree weather.
We still would have struggled big time last year but missed field goals, especially easy looking ones, are a real momentum killer. 2 missed FG's in the Notre Dame game took promising drives nowhere. We should have had that win wrapped up earlier than we already did...not that I didn't love the Hollywood finish. We tried a 40+ yard FG in the Illinois game and that stunned me. If it was a miracle for us to make a 20 yarder, why did RichRod think we had a chance at double that? I believe we attempted a couple in that travesty of bowl game that weren't even close either.
Those of us familiar with our long history know that FG kickers have never been our strongest point despite names like Mike Gillette, Remy Hamilton and JD Carlson. Between 1990 and 2006, we were dead last in all of college football in FG %. (That was something we discussed often on Rivals before I moved here). It was never pretty but we could make do and it wasn't asking too much to get a 30+ yarder. Last year went far worse than anything I had ever seen. There is no excuse for a kicker to not be able make a 25 yarder.
Hayden Epstein have an eligibility left?
Between Rivas, Epstein and Remy Hamilton, that seems crazy if correct ... we had a couple crappy years mixed in, but it seems like we generally had average or good field-goal kickers during that time.
Just curious, where did you see that stat?
field goal kicking has been so poor at Michigan? I believe they recruited top high school kickers and yet they failed miserable at Michigan.
As a side note, these statistics are interesting but do not take into account the human element. Many games start close because teams are feeling out each other. As the game progresses, the talent of each team begins to make adjustments. Often under BO when interviewed at half time, based on his remarks and demeanor it was obvious he was confident he would win despite the half time score reasonably close.
It was an old link from around 2006. I can't find it now. It said we were dead last for 1-A teams during that time period. That surprised me too.
Off the top of my head, JD Carlson was so/so in 90 and 91. Peter Elezovic was awful in 92 and 93. Remy Hamilton made 26 FG's in 94 but dropped off the following season. Kraig Baker, decent during the championship year and Jay Feely decent the following year. Hayden Epstein was very inconsistent from 98-01. He had lethal kickoffs but I remember him missing many FG's. Phillip Brabbs, GOD bless him for that kick in the Washington game but he was awful all year.
I wish I could find the link but it's expired.
Why is it that Penn State and Iowa are considered in our "toughest" opponents, but Illinois and Notre Dame aren't? I understand that in this post the discussion is mainly about the Big Ten, but let's be clear here: Notre Dame ended up 8-5 and Illinois ended up 7-6 (and beat Penn State...), yet somehow Iowa (8-5) and Penn State (7-6) are considered better opposition.
As for the diary, saying that not having a quality field goal kicker is somehow beneficial to an offense is preposterous. You must at least have the option of being able to complete a field goal for going for it on fourth down to be an advantage against a good defense. Also, field goals serve the purpose of stopping the bleeding. It can be deflating to a team to march down the field and then miss a field goal.
Finally, the 2010 offense was good, with flashes of greatness. But that shouldn't be the real argument: The real argument should be over this question: was it going to be better in 2011?
I enjoyed reading your piece and the way you explained your reasoning.
However . . .
Not so fast my friend.
As you alluded to football is all about field position & scoring while preventing the opposition from doing the same.
I am resolute in the belief in spite of all your arguments that kickers score lots of points and are a necessary part of any successful team's arsenal. As a longtime Michigan fans we all have experienced the dire consequences of games turned by unsuccessful attempts to split the uprights.
In order for Michigan to compete at the highest level again we need superior talent at this as much as any other position on the field.
In order to Lead, we need the Best.
I don't care how many stats you throw around to try to prove your point, it defies logic to come to the conclusion that a bad field goal kicker helps your offense. Go back and watch the games from last year and count how many times the offense was put in awkward, difficult situations because we couldn't make a field goal when that was the obvious path forward. Plus that screws with a team psychologically when they know they don't have a reliable option for that in case they fail.
Comments