Historic Michigan offense?

Submitted by danross on

 

I started a research project earlier this week and haven't had a chance to finish it yet, partially because it is a ton of workHowever - I am 90% certain of this conclusion despite not chasing down every data point: over the last 24 days, you have witnessed the most prolific 4-game stretch of yardage output in at least 42 seasons, since Bo's takeover as head coach. In fact, if you remove the BGSU game and the 721 yards in that one, I am pretty certain that the first 3 weeks of the season resulted in the most prolific 3 games in the same time span.

 
We have put up 2,258 yards in 4 games. The next closest 4-game stretch I can identify ended with the Notre Dame beatdown in 2003, when we put up 439 against the Irish to total 2,013 yards over 4 games. That required crossing seasons though to pick up the win over Florida in the 2002 bowl game. Within the same season, the next closest is 1,947, which represented the first 4 games in 2003 and ended with the road loss at Oregon. In short, we have exceeded the previous 4-game maximum by TEN PERCENT, or over 200 yards.
 
Our season average is over 564 yards/game, with 331 yards rushing and 233 passing. The top 5 most prolific seasons in modern history compare as:
 
1) 1992 season - 467 yards/game (268 rushing, 198 passing)

2) 2000 season - 446 yards/game (216 rushing, 230 passing)

3) 2003 season - 446 yards/game (175 rushing, 270 passing)
4) 1990 season - 433 yards/game (265 rushing, 168 passing)
5) 1976 season - 430 yards/game (345 rushing, 85 passing)
 
We are producing 20% more yards/game than the previously best performance in 42 seasons. Current rushing and passing averages would individually be the 2nd best, ever, respectively. The obvious counterpoint is that Big 10 defenses will beat these numbers down. Iowa, Penn State, Wisconsin and Ohio State all have top 20 defenses currently, and all but Wisconsin have played top 20 teams already. However, even a substantial decrease to an average of 418 yards per game over the last 8 games would still MATCH the best performance ever. With not-so-great defenses Indiana (52nd), MSU (51st), Illinois (48th) and Purdue (59th) remaining on the slate, all signs point to possibly the most prolific ground-gaining machine the modern program has ever seen.
 
Coach Rodriguez's teams own the two best single game yardage outputs in program history, with 727 yards against Delaware State and 721 yards against Bowling Green. In both games, we exceeded 460 yards rushing, which represent the 2 of the 3 biggest rushing performances ever, topped only by the 1970 victory over Iowa (468 yards rushing). Yes, those aren't great opponents, but we have played tomato cans for a long time, with Bo playing Long Beach State at one point (526 yards in that game), and Mo/Lloyd having a much less competitive MAC and Big 10 in the 90's. Some epic performances in modern history:
 
1) Wisconsin 1988 (W 62-14) - 628 total yards (413 rushing, 215 passing)
2) CMU 2003 (W 45-7) - 615 total yards (342 rushing, 273 passing)
3) Indiana 2000 - 562 yards (282 rushing, 280 passing)
4) Iowa 1970 - 561 yards, (468 rushing, 93 passing)
5) Minnesota 2007 - 561 yards (307 rushing, 254 passing), BTW Henne and Hart sat out that game
 
In sum, we have the #2 offense in the country and the #1 rusher in the country after 4 games. Our QB leads the Heisman race, and talking heads are questioning where other players in the country might be if only they played for Michigan right now. It seems clear that the dominating offense everyone envisioned under Coach Rodriguez is here after 2 rebuilding years. And that is something to be encouraged about.
 
It is difficult to see us winning less than 8 games at this point, and I think the excitement and progress the team has already shown easily removes most reasonable uncertainties about RR's tenure into the 2011 season. A 2009-like slide isn't out of the question, and we may lose several games against the tough portion of the schedule, but the odds of RR not coming back given where we are seem very low. Finally, we lose only a few guys off of this year's offense (Schilling, Dorrestein, Webb) in a position group where we are pretty deep. Next year's offense could be even better.
 
Certainly we need to keep recruiting skilled offensive guys to keep the momentum, but the obvious need is to develop the young defensive guys we already have and find someone (presumably younger or new) that can actually play linebacker. If we can field a middle-of-the-pack Big 10 defense, 2011 could be a special year.
 
Bring on the Hoosiers!

Comments

jmblue

September 28th, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^

These numbers are staggering. 

One follow-up question: When's the last time we scored 100 points in a two-game stretch?  I'm stumped on that one.  We've scored 107 in the last two.  We have a solid chance of getting to 150 for three games. 

Blue in Seattle

September 28th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^

1901 to 1905 was a pretty dominant stretch by Michigan.

Of course I think the amount of time the game was played was different, there was no passing, or very little (I forget when passing was allowed by rule, but in general Yost was against it)

and also it seemed that a lot of those early games that were blow-outs, the other team would just give up before the regulation end of the game.

But wouldn't it be cooler to say we haven't seen scoring like this in 100 years.  Cool because of how awesome it is now, but cooler because way back when Michigan always won the National Championship, this is how dominant they were.

Of course that team in 1901 had a pretty good defense.  Well at least scoring defense, since no one scored any points all season against Michigan in 1901.

That's pretty good isn't it?  Maybe like never ever replicated?

WolverineHistorian

September 28th, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^

Houston and Iowa in 1992, those were some impressive offensive displays in back to back weeks.  And don't forget, Grbac didn't play in that game against Houston.  He was out with an injury.  If he was in, the score might have been worse than 61-7. 

caup

September 28th, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^

In Big Ten play last year (8 games), Michigan was 9th in total offense.

Maybe that's why I'm so nervous compared to last year.  This is going to sound odd, but until Michigan starts rolling over B10 defenses, they are unproven.  Michigan needs to keep that underdog attitude. 

Keep that chip on their collective shoulder.

bronxblue

September 28th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^

I feel your trepidation, but remember that last year the offense really struggled once Tate was hurt and the passing attack was nullified and Denard was very 1-dimensional.  This year, both Denard and Tate can both run and pass the ball effectively, the running backs are actually healthy, and the offensive line and WRs have far more experience and, frankly, talent than in years past.  I am fairly certain that teams like Iowa and OSU will slow down the offense, but barring a catastrophe I still see this being a 25-30 point-per-game against an average B10 defense and some BGSU-type numbers agains the Purdue/Illini/IU-type teams.

neoavatara

September 28th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^

First, we have played no one.  Those offensive numbers will slow down.  That doesnt mean we can put up gaudy numbers in the big 10...but we won't keep that pace.

As for wins, I would be more optimistic if our defense were in the bottom third of the big 10 statistically.  If we had a middle tier defense, we would be in the national title hunt. 

jmblue

September 28th, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^

We've actually played a more difficult schedule than most of our conference rivals.  See this diary:

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/bigten-strength-schedule

So if stats are a function of a team's schedule, our conference rivals should be putting up bigger numbers than us.  Sparty should be putting up twice as many yards and points, given that their schedule has been half as difficutl.

svf

September 28th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^

but it's not that hard to see us ending up w/fewer than 8 wins.  Weather, in particular, could play a factor.  Much as I would love to believe that Dilithium's a mudder and that no amount of wind, rain, sleet, or hail could disrupt his passing, I would still be quite happy, and not that surprised, w/a 7-5 season. 

svf

September 28th, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^

but my guess is that a spread offense would be less effective than a smashmouth running game in bad weather.  Certainly mud would seem to take away some of Denard's advantage.  But that's probably a good subject for another diary: how spread offenses do in REALLY bad weather.

kalamazoo

September 28th, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^

I remember a few years ago when Michigan played at Northwestern...it was rainy and muddy.  Justin Fargas ran wild on the Wildcats and was named the #1 RB.  Then, in better weather over the next few games, he didn't fare as well and eventually Lloyd Carr put him on special teams duty.  At the time I figured he only did well against Northwestern because he was able to cut well in the mud while everyone else lost a step reacting.

Point being, mud/rain may appear to take away some of Denard's advantage, but it may take away even more of the defenses abilities, especially the larger lineman, giving Denard a net gain.

I keep saying "may" because, bottom line, hard to say how it will go...but no reason to be pessimistic.  Like you, however, I'm not counting on wins, just think we have a pretty good chance.  Anything could happen.

jmblue

September 28th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^

West Virginia can have terrible weather at times, and it didn't seem to be an issue for RR's offense.  Both the offense and defense have to play in it.  It's not like the defensive guys have perfect footing while the offensive guys are slipping. 

funkywolve

September 28th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^

to make an accurate comparison to the previous UM teams you listed, I think you should take out UMass.  None of the other UM teams listed had a 1-aa team on their schedule.

2000 season:  what makes those numbers so impressive is that Henson missed the first 3.5 games.  Navarre was either a true freshmen or redshirt freshmen starting the first 3.5 games.

maddogterry

September 28th, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^

With DRob, UM has the edge because it is essentially a 12 to 11 man advantage unless you count the refs at OSU. His ability to read the defense, once the LBs commit to either the run or the pass, they are dead. He is uncanny the way he can make a small target for the tacklers by the way he twist his body as he hits the line and makes them miss what should be a relatively easy tackle. Once he sees a small hole, he is gone. He just has to learn to go out of bounds or hit the turf when a defender has an obvious angle for the tackle.

I predicted UM would win at least 9 games at the beginning of the season and I am sticking to it. After seeing Tate and Devin last week, I feel very confident that we can reach those goals.

Go Blue!!

I Like Winners

September 28th, 2010 at 11:12 PM ^

Wow on the stats!

Let me add something I've noticed on the long runs Michigan has made. Quite often there is tremendous blocking downfield.

The long TD by Denard against BG might be illustrative. You'll see four would-be blockers - including two linemen! - running as fast as they can to run interference 40 yards downfield. There are two others downfield, including #79 (!!) bumping a defensive back just enough to prevent him from making a tackle.

It is a truly extraordinary effort made by several players which results in six more points.

You can watch the play here on you tube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23McW4jq_c

There have been other runs like that. When Denard busted loose against ND, he didn't have a caravan, but he had some amazing blocking, both by the OL and by the WR's. 

Those amzing efforts remind me of the Superbowl 100-yard interception return by the Steelers a few years ago. About five or six Steelers were either throwing blocks on the return or getting in the way of tacklers. As I recall, a couple Steelers accompanied the TD maker into the endzone!

That kind of repeat performance happens because of exceptional coaching. It's what helps to make champions, too. It also means no matter how bad the MI defense might be this year, the offense has the potential to keep each game exciting and perhaps even winnable, barring a rash of interceptions and fumbles.

LGenius

September 29th, 2010 at 1:42 AM ^

about that run is that we actually blow about 2-3 blocks at the start of the play, but that causes the BG defenders to get overconfident and overpursue. It was actually pretty poor blocking up front. But I def agree that the effort in downfield blocking this season is the best I've ever seen. Dorrestein did a great job staying with the play.

Tha Quiet Storm

September 29th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^

but is there any way, in the form of statistics, that we could see how this team stacks up with the great M offenses from back in the day (1901, 02, 03, 47, 48)?  Is there even anywhere where those stats could be found?