State of the Offense
[Ed: bumped for general interestingness.]
Wisconsin head coach Bret Bielma made the following statement after the Badgers 48-28 victory over Michigan on Saturday:
"We're not the spread offense, so it's not sexy," he said. "We're not on the [top] of everybody's wish list. But I tell you what—48 points is fun."
This, after Michigan’s vaunted offense had stalled out at inopportune times and Wisconsin’s pro-style attack had done as it pleased throughout the game en route to 48 points on 558 yards with only one punt along the way. The Wisconsin offense had more fun than Michigan’s.
Despite claims that it cannot be successful in major college football, there is little doubt that the spread offense, in general, works at the highest level of the NCAA. The top two teams in the nation this season, Oregon and Auburn, both employ it in some fashion. The spread is viable, just as the pro-style is viable. However, there is wide variation in productivity across teams within the same basic offensive scheme.
Michigan’s spread offense this year has been something of a revelation, thanks largely to the ascendance of Denard Robinson. The feats that Robinson has accomplished as a true sophomore in his first season as a starter are truly remarkable. This is virtually indisputable. With two games remaining in the season, 
he has already broken the all-time FBS rushing record for a quarterback and has become the first player in NCAA history to pass for 2,000 yards while rushing for 1,500. His season has been an historic one.
Behind Robinson, Michigan’s offense has been at the top of the Big Ten and in the top five nationally for much of the season in terms of yards per game. Big plays abound, and 500-yard games have become more the rule than the exception. This prolific output has created much buzz around the offensive side of the ball (and stand in stark contrast the immense struggles of the defense). Indeed, the offense has almost single-“sidedly” carried the team to victories against Illinois, Indiana, and Notre Dame, and its fluency has become the loudest argument for Rich Rodriguez to stay at the helm in Ann Arbor beyond this season.
However, the offense has been outshined in Michigan’s losses. In these contests, Michigan's offense didn't just fail to play like a top-five unit nationally. It wasn't the better unit on the field during the game. In these games, Michigan produced 377, 522, 423, and 442 yards against Michigan State, Iowa, Penn State, and Wisconsin, respectively, while yielding 536, 383, 435, and 558 yards. Michigan’s maligned defense was party to these opponents’ gaudy offensive outputs, but Michigan’s offense did not keep pace. Not surprisingly, these four opponents also have some of the best scoring defenses of the teams that Michigan has faced this year, and the question arises as to whether Michigan’s “sexy” offense can be successful against good defensive teams.
The offense has improved in three seasons under Rodriguez, and, even now, it remains young. Its leader, Robinson, is a true sophomore, as is starting tailback Vincent Smith. The starting offensive line has only one senior [ed: depending on the health of Perry Dorrestein] and the wide receiver corps has none. One could argue that there is still room for growth and that the trajectory demonstrated over the past two years under Rodriguez is positive. Still, it bears examining exactly where the offense is at present. Is it an unstoppable force or a paper tiger? Or something in between? This analysis dissects the Michigan offense with one game to go in the 2010 season.
Yards, scoring, games, and drives
Michigan’s offense works fast. There is no huddle. They get to the line of scrimmage quickly. They gain yards in chunks. They score in a flash. All of this, in part, leads to shorter times of possession per drive, which generally leads to more drives per game (the defense giving up long, run-laden drives to the opponent notwithstanding). Michigan, as of November 19, had the most drives in the Big Ten this season (105, tied with Illinois) against BCS competition. Wisconsin had the fewest number of drives in the Big Ten against BCS opponents with 71.
A more useful way of understanding offensive effectiveness than looking at yards per game is to examine what an offense does with a typical drive. The importance of drives was illustrated in the first half of the Michigan-Wisconsin game, as Michigan had only four full drives to work with. What a team does with a drive is a means of measuring offense that allows for fair cross-team comparison. As of Friday, Michigan averaged 2.57 points per drive (PPD) this season against BCS teams, good for third in the Big Ten, behind Wisconsin (3.72) and Ohio State (3.19) and tied with Iowa.
Table 1 - Points per drive against BCS opponents
| Team | PPD |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin | 3.72 |
| Ohio State | 3.19 |
| Michigan | 2.57 |
| Iowa | 2.57 |
| Michigan State | 2.53 |
| Illinois | 2.39 |
| Northwestern | 2.00 |
| Penn State | 1.84 |
| Minnesota | 1.77 |
| Indiana | 1.48 |
| Purdue | 1.10 |
Calculated with data from www.cfbstats.com: drives = punts + fumbles lost + interceptions + failed 4th down conversions + FG attempts + TDs
Michigan’s offense is above-average relative to other teams in the conference in this stat but not as dominant as the yardage number suggest. Stated alternatively, this statistic suggests that Michigan scores a touchdown roughly one out of three drives against BCS competition. When taking into consideration the number of drives in which an offense has an opportunity to score, Michigan's offense is still among the leaders in the Big Ten.
“Michigan’s offense can score on anybody”
It goes without saying that an offense typically performs worse against a better defense. One would expect an offense to do less with a typical drive against a good defense compared to a bad defense. However, with Michigan this season, this relationship is ambiguous. Table 2 shows Michigan's BCS opponents’ points-allowed-per-game (PAPG) against BCS competition alongside Michigan’s PPD against them.
Table 2 - Michigan's PPD by BCS opponent and opponent's scoring defense against BCS competition
| Opponent | PAPG | U-M PPD |
|---|---|---|
| Iowa | 17.9 | 2.33 |
| Michigan State | 21.4 | 1.81 |
| Wisconsin | 22.4 | 2.55 |
| Notre Dame | 23.5 | 1.75 |
| Connecticut | 24.2 | 3.44 |
| Illinois | 26.8 | 3.00 |
| Penn State | 27.4 | 3.10 |
| Purdue | 30.1 | 1.40 |
| Indiana | 40.7 | 3.50 |
Calculated with data from boxscores at www.mgoblue.com and team statistics from www.cfbstats.com
Michigan’s most productive games, in terms of PPD, came against Indiana, Connecticut, Penn State, Illinois, and Wisconsin, in that order. Against these foes, Michigan’s PPD was better than what would be considered average in the Big Ten this season and better than their own average through the Wisconsin game. Indiana has the worst scoring defense among Michigan’s nine BCS opponents, and Michigan’s offense enjoyed their best PPD output against them. Otherwise, Connecticut has the fifth best scoring defense, 
Penn State the seventh, Illinois the sixth, and Wisconsin the third. Michigan’s worst PPD came against Purdue, who has a poor scoring defense (eighth among opponents), but weather conditions during that game may explain this apparent deviation. Further, it could be argued that Connecticut’s relatively low points-allowed-per-game is due their membership in the Big East and a weaker slate of BCS competition. Regardless, with a sample size of well over one hundred drives, opponents’ scoring defense does not predict Michigan’s PPD with statistical significance (p = .42). These results would appear to support claims that Michigan’s productive offense can “score against anybody” and could perhaps provide evidence against arguments that Rodriguez’s spread offense cannot succeed against good defensive teams.
All drives are not created equal
The success of a drive varies in importance based on the circumstances of the game. Scoring a touchdown when the score is tied is more valuable than scoring a touchdown when down 30. One criticism of the Michigan offense this season is that it struggles to capitalize on opportunities to extend leads and put teams away. Table 3 shows that Michigan has scored a touchdown on 48% of drives when the game is tied, 44% of drives when they are behind, and only 17% of drives when they are ahead. This difference in scoring percentage across these three situational categories is statistically significant (χ = 12.12, p < .05). Michigan’s drives are apparently more successful when the score is even or when they are behind. They have scored touchdowns at a much lower rate when in position to go up by multiple scores.
Table 3 - Michigan's situational drive scoring outcomes (count and row percentages shown)
| No points | Field goal | Touchdown | PPD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahead | 34 (81%) | 1 (2%) | 7 (17%) | 1.21 |
| Tied | 10 (44%) | 2 (9%) | 11 (48%) | 3.61 |
| Behind | 22 (51%) | 2 (5%) | 19 (44%) | 3.23 |
Calculated with data from boxscores at www.mgoblue.com
A further criticism of Michigan’s offense is that it not only fails to put games away when presented with an opportunity, but also that it is successful against good defenses only when the game is already out of hand, that is, when the opponent is ahead by a wide margin. In all games against BCS competition, Michigan has scored touchdowns on 46% of drives that begin with them down by ten or more points; they have scored touchdowns on only 30% of drives that begin with them within ten points, tied, or ahead. This difference, however, is not statistically significant (p = .21). How does this difference bear out against good defenses?
The best defenses Michigan has faced this year are Iowa, Michigan State, and Wisconsin, which are also three of the top four teams in the Big Ten (along with Ohio State). Against these teams, Michigan’s offense has performed well when they are down by ten or more points. In these large-deficit scenarios, the offense has averaged 2.80 PPD, above their overall season average and toward the top end of the Big Ten. When down by ten or more, they have scored touchdowns on eight of 20 occasions, a rate of 40%. When the game is close (i.e., when Michigan is within ten, tied, or ahead) the story is considerably different for this team. When the game is still in the balance, Michigan has averaged 1.43 PPD, with two field goals and two touchdowns (14% rate) in 14 opportunities—this is significantly worse than when the deficit is large (χ = 4.87, p < .10).
Table 4 - Michigan's situational drive scoring outcomes against top defenses (count and row percentages shown)
| No points | Field goal | Touchdown | PPD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Down 10+ points | 12 (60%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (40%) | 2.80 |
| Within 10 points, tied, or ahead | 10 (71%) | 2 (14%) | 2 (14%) | 1.43 |
Calculated with data from boxscores at www.mgoblue.com
The data show that Michigan’s offense has been poor—as bad as the worst Big Ten teams’ average PPD output—against the best teams in the Big Ten when the game is close. Their most impressive offensive work against these good teams has come once they already trail significantly, in which case they have performed above-average relative to average Big Ten PPD standards.
So is the Michigan offense an elite offense?
Looking at the success of offensive drives, a statistic that controls for the pace of the game and the number of overall opportunities an offense has, Michigan has a good offense relative to the rest of the Big Ten—they are tied for third in productivity with Iowa, behind Wisconsin and Ohio State. Michigan averages the most yards per game and has scored the second most points in the conference, but they have also had the most opportunities to accumulate yards and points, most likely due to the fast pace at which they execute their offense, the quickness with which they have sometimes scored, and their high rate of turnovers. They are third best in the Big Ten at capitalizing on drives.
So, is Michigan’s spread offense under Rodriguez elite? The answer appears to be, “circumstantially.” They perform very well when the game is tied or when they trail. The offense struggles, however, to pull away when they have a lead. Further, the offense has
struggled in close-game situations against the best Big Ten teams. There is much variability in how the offense performs, dependent, in part, on the score of the game when the offense assumes possession.
This situational inconsistency may be attributable to a variety of factors (e.g., youth and inexperience on offense, conservative play-calling when ahead, nerves), and one can speculate as to which are most salient. These analyses are intended to deconstruct the offense and offer a more nuanced picture of the state of that side of the ball, beyond a rough yards- or points-per-game. With the travails of Michigan’s defense this season, it is tempting (and perhaps healthful) to look at the offense as being “solid” and not something to worry about. Compared to the defensive unit, this may be true, but there are interesting and complicated phenomena at play with Michigan’s sexy side, as well.
Other tidbits from the data
Starting field position does not significantly affect the likelihood of the Michigan offense scoring a touchdown (odds ratio = .98, p = .20).
Michigan’s offensive productivity, in terms of PPD, is highest in the first quarter (2.81), followed by the third (2.72), fourth (2.33), and second (2.00) quarters.
Michigan’s offensive productivity against good defenses (Iowa, Michigan State, and Wisconsin), in terms of PPD, is highest by far in the third quarter (3.50), followed by the fourth (2.63), first (1.43), and second (1.11) quarters.
Michigan has yet to score on its third drive of any game versus a BCS opponent this season; its highest PPD is on its second drive of the game (4.22).
There is variation in the point outcome of a drive, that is, some drives end in zero points, some in three, some in seven. This variation may be due to factors associated with the opponent (e.g., the quality of their defense) or factors associated just with the drive (e.g., whether the team is ahead or behind when the drive begins). Cluster analyses show that almost 100% of the variance in Michigan’s points earned on a drive is due to factors associated with the unique drive. This suggests that our opponent, per se, has little bearing on the outcome of a drive, once one takes into consideration unique aspects of the drive, such as the how far ahead or behind Michigan is.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:00 PM ^
While I think I see what you're trying to say, it doesn't seem to make any sense ... I really don't understand how "scoring quickly and giv[ing] the ball right back" is a bad thing. The point is to score and to stop the other team from scoring. If anything, scoring quickly puts pressure on the other team, exactly the type of pressure you seem to ascribe to Michigan's offense.
When the defense is that bad, it doesn't matter what kind of offense you have. If you have a conventional, run-oriented offense that runs clock and punts more often, you're not changing the score at all, you're just taking time off the clock ... and this season, that would hurt Michigan more than help them. The problem has been first-half execution, not late-game leads that they couldn't hold.
If anything, this is an ideal situation to run a high-scoring offense. If you're not going to stop the other team much, you're going to need to score more often, and that's one idea behind this type of offense.
The problem with "basic football" thinking is that it implies it's okay to give up the ball, even though a) winning is determined solely by points scored vs. points allowed and b) it's much easier to score when you have the ball. In any other sport where possession equals scoring control, you wouldn't feel comfortable giving up the ball/puck/whatever. Football should be no different ... I think the main reason people believe this in football is that for decades, coaches have been rewarded more for being risk-averse than for being successful. As more coaches find success with strategies that involve higher risk, more coaches will adopt similar strategies, and "conventional" thinking will change.
November 24th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
zlionsfan,
You're obviously not familiar with the Denny Green quote which basically says, "if you're kicking, you're winning..." or something to that effect. What I am TRYING to explain, and you guys keep missing, is that punting is NOT always a bad thing. Basic offensive football strategy says, do NOT turn the ball over, control the clock, and win the "field position game." This latter aspect of the game is very much tied to the punting game. If you start your drive on your own 20 (I think Michigan started on average on its own 28 this season so far) and drive tyhe ball to the 50 (30 yard drive), and then stall, more times than not you should be able to pin the other team inside their 20 yard line. In such an instance, you've now flipped the field position -- if they start from the 10 (40 yard punt) and they drive that same 30 yards and stall, they're at their own 40, they punt that same 40 yards, and you get the ball back on your own 30...you're now AHEAD 10 yards in the field position game.
I realize that this is ultra ultra conservative, but in time, statisically, you're going to have the ball in-side FG range or on a short field which makes it easier for the offesnse to score. However, given the fact that the Michigan defense almost NEVER holds a team to a 30 yard (2-3 first down drive) Michigan CANNOT play this kind of conservative field position game that has been the staple of offensive football strategy for 100's of years. Scoreing quicking in most CERTAINLY NOT a bad thing, it is a great thing...if you can then win the field position battle on the insuing opponents drive. If, as Michigan does, you score quickly, and then either get scored upon (sometimes just as quickly) or LOSE the field position game, you're going to suffer the statistical consequences in the long run.
This is my point, Michigan and its sophomore QB have realize that they MUST score quickly, and on every possession (not saying that they're not always trying to score) OR ELSE they are very very likley to give up a score themselves. If DR knew that more times than not the defense was NOT going to give up a score, he might be more comfortable, more relaxed and patient with his reads, and therefore more successful overall. Think back to 1997, for example, how many times did the offense stall, and we as a fan base never worried? We didn't worry because we knew that the defense was going to stop the opponent, and that over time, the field position game would be won, and Michigan would score. The same is NOT true in 2010, and the offense most certainly knows it...not to mention that having no real FG threat from any distance adds uncertainty and pressure.
Do you understand now?
November 22nd, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
...or do I only see the 1 point that I upvoted? I would expect a cascade of points to reward this kind of analysis.
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^
Lol, thanks for the nod. There were actually about eight or nine up-votes. I think the brahs are in rabid RR defense mode on the boards the past couple days, and nobody feels much like paying attention to facts right now. I'm planning on putting together something similar after the season is over.
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
As some have said, this does not in any way try to rationalize our scoring and yardage with respect to turnovers. This is a glaring omission on an otherwise well done analysis. Unfortunately, it undermines the analysis. Zero points are scored on turnover drives. This is largely a factor of Denard's youth and Jeremy Gallon not liking to hold on to or catchi the ball. And I do not agree that most turnovers are in the second half. Remember MSU? Note that MI is 115th on TO margin. OSU is 5th. How do you not account for this?
Also, we are 3/10 on FGs.
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
It would be interesting to see how these stats looked if you removed, to what extent you can, the role played by the special teams and defense. That way you could get a cleaner look at what the offense alone produces without the noise of what's being contributed (or not, in this case) by the other units.
For the special teams, one might calculate PPD if Michigan had an average FG percentage by merely adding the points achieved if Michigan made whatever an average number of their attempts would be.
For defense (and some special teams), I realize that you state field position doesn't affect the chance of scoring a TD (a finding that very much surprises me) but does field position affect the chance of scoring points? It must. Right? This would be a heck of a lot more work but you could figure expected points based on average field position and then make a delta from points actually scored.
Anectdotally, it strikes me that because Michigan's defense struggles, even when they stop the opponent the opposing punter is often in a position to pin Michigan deep.
Turn overs are another area where a poor or unlucky defense may hurt PPD. It seems that often, good defenses like OSU, set the offense up with excellent field position through the turnover thereby increasing the chances of scoring.
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
Im not worried about the STATE OF THE OFFENSE...How about the STATE OF THE DEFENSE? Imagine if we had some what of a defense, this would be an ELITE Team. Oh ya and we need someone who can actually kick the ball.
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
Great work and great post. Really informative reading.
Michigan’s offense works fast. There is no huddle. They get to the line of scrimmage quickly.
Getting to the line of scrimmage quickly is true. I've also noticed that UM tends to stay at the LOS for an extra beat or 2 a lot of the time. Usually, UM gets set, Denard looks over to the sideline, there is some communication, and then either more instructions are given (I assume changing the play) and players readjust before the snap or the ball is just snapped. Either way there is time for the D to possibly recognize what is coming.
I've been watching Boise State games this year. I like the way that BSU sometimes breaks the huddle, gets to the line and snaps the ball very quickly not allowing the defense to set up or prepare for what is coming. I'd like to see UM put in this kind of a wrinkle. Even with a huddle, this type of fast tempo can be very effective.
I've also watched Oregon a little bit, too. It seems like they often call 2 plays in the huddle (maybe?) and no matter what the result is from the first play, they, get to the line and snap the ball in seconds on the next down to really catch the D off guard. Seems to work great as a change of pace. I'm hoping we see more of this from the O in coming weeks and years.
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
Great work in pulling this data together, I appreciate the insight into situational effectiveness.
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
Beautifully done, mathematically sound--and best of all, it dovetails perfectly with what we see in reality. I think the key to improving the PPD in pressure situations, or with leads, will be improving the skill position talent. Having a tailback who can keep a drive going by himself, or receiving options that can make big plays out of low-risk passes, will take a lot of the pressure off of Denard.
Peace
Ty
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
about our offensive efficiency and how/when we put points on the board. The analysis is excellent.
Even given this data, I still don't understand why the hell we start out so slow against the better teams and pick up steam later. The data doesn't really talk to that issue. It seems like we are always 21 points in the hole before we start to see some real spark in the offense. I wish I knew what to credit that to: inexperience, adjustments, the other team getting bored, etc. Hopefully it is something correctable. If we can score first and put the pressure on the other team, I could see the opponent getting buried by us. I still daydream about what could have been against little brother had we scored on that first drive.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
Three points that severely undermine your analysis:
1. Relative starting field position is not normalized in your PPD statistics. This is a glaring omission as our defense and special teams have been unable to generate shorter fields for our offense on a consistent basis. "All drives are not created equal" also applies to the reduced probability of scoring drives when an offense faces longer fields.
2. We are 4/13 on field goal kicking on the year. To examine our offense only, your PPD must normalize with an average kicker. This would also decrease the PPD of offenses that have above-average kickers.
3. I think your drive data includes "drives" that ended with fumbles on special teams, no? Such possesions should not be included in your measurement of the offense's PPD.
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^
I'll address your points as best I can, in order:
1. I should have made it clearer in the diary (I think I mentioned it in a comment), but our starting field position is included as a control in the statistical models that I ran--it doesn't affect the modeled relationships between situation and points and it isn't significant itself (which, as another poster said, is surprising). In terms of comparing our PPD to other teams, the omission of starting field position is a weakness. I didn't have time to go through and calculate the starting field position on every drive for all of the other Big Ten teams, so you could reasonably argue that we have a lower PPD than Wisconsin because their average starting field position is better than ours (although the gulf between their PPD and ours is pretty large).
2. We are punished in our PPD for having a bad kicker. Again, this only affects the comparisons of our PPD to other teams'. As for our situational PPD, we have the same bad field goal kicker when we are ahead as when we are behind, regardless of opponent.
3. The data only include offensive drives. The reasons for a drive yielding zero points are (a) a lost fumble by the offense, (b) an interception, (c) a punt, (d) a missed field goal, or (e) the end of the half/game (this last category accounted for only five drives and was excluded from the analysis). A fumble on special teams doesn't affect the results.
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^
Cool, thanks for the response.
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
I understand point number 2, but it seems to me there are certain scenarios (game score or time of game) when coaching decisions would dictate going for it rather than a field goal. So while it may not be statistically significant (wouldn't know unless you ran the data)...having a bad kicker certain MAY influence the points per drive in all facets of your analysis.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^
(along with kicking) as a positive for this offense.
Think about what you said "Starting field position does not affect the likelyhood of this offense scoring points". If that were true for all teams then the game of football would be played much differently. Essentially, there would be almost no punting or long kickoffs. Given our D performance this may not be a bad idea.
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
addressing a question raised several times on the board.
But qualitative/subjective analysis still answers for me:
- Denard/Tate = Denard elite certainly, Tate can get there w/ better preparation
- Lewan/Omameh/Molk = elite potential, or nearly there; Huyge above average
- receivers are above average with potential to be much better
- do need an elite-level RB to step up
Execution has hurt us continuously: Turnovers, dropped passes, penalties, obvious missed blocks. Mistakes vs. lack of talent or ability. That doesn't come through in PPD. They're young and haven't played their best game yet. All back next year
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
David and another poster beat me to this, but I'd really like to see how our offensive numbers change with just a league average kicker. We've left 29 points on the field this season on missed kicks alone - ignoring situations where most teams would have attempted a FG and we did not because of our crappy kickers. So we leave on average just under 3 points per game on the field as compared to a perfect kicker. How does that change the numbers in your analysis?
Not that it does us any good, but it would be interesting to know the true impact of that glaring hole on the roster.
I think I agree that we're a very good and vastly improved offense, but not an elite one yet. That's actually encouraging to me since it means there's still opportunity to grow next season despite setting all of these offensive marks this year. Turnovers, special teams, and the running backs all have obvious room for improvement just to get to league average. Even the WR, as good as they've been, drop a fair amount of passes (though I have no comparison to opponents or past seasons to know if they drop more than average). On top of that, imagine if we got the occasional turnover from our D to put us in better field position!
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
Doesn't "pulling away" normally require your own defense to stop the other team? It's hard to "pull away"—or catch up—when all you're doing is essentially trading touchdowns, like we did in the second half with Wisconsin.
Very interesting read nonetheless.
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^
By that I'm simply implying that the offense hasn't done as well when they are given the ball with a lead. It is certainly hard to pull away with a defense as bad as ours, but nonetheless it has happened on 43 drives this season against BCS opponents that the offense has gotten the ball with a lead intact. This means that the defense, at some point, got a stop. On 68 drives, though, the offense has started our behind or tied, probably due in large part to the defense hemorraging points.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:04 PM ^
This makes sense. Even without the statistics there is a feeling from watching every game that for whatever reason the offense tails off somewhat when they get close or in the lead. On a number of occasions I think it has been because of turnovers.
I think you alluded to this, but are opposing defenses playing us differently when we get close or ahead? My sense is they may get more aggressive and we haven't always handled it well.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^
Excellent, excellent analysis. I have a feeling this will replace the "Decimated Defense" as the most-linked to diary during heated arguments in the offseason.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
I agree with TennBlue that our still-young offensive players are not dealing with the pressure in big games, and it probably doesn't help their poise when they know the defense is also having issues.
As far as defense = frenzy goes, it's hard to play with that attitude when you don't appear to know what you're doing in the first place and there are stuffed animals on the sidelines.
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^
Savvy basketball analysts have realized that tempo adjusted stats are where its at, but football seems to lag behind with many dubious arguments about intangible effects of offense on defense and vice versa still being brought up. Theres no question context matters more in football than basketball, but it doesn't override the value of tempo stats like PPD. I don't think theres a better offensive team stat available.
Your analysis highlights how little the total yards and especially total points really tell you. You watch this offense and you know it CAN move the ball very effectively but it also regularly struggles, and also has too many turnovers. The top 5 rankings in some offensive metrics seemed to be overrating the team and you present a compelling case for why/how they do.
Bravo.
Overall, 3rd in the Big 10 seems fair for this offense, maybe a bit higher if average FG success occurred, but still well below OSU/Wisc. Considering how sophomore-heavy this offense is, thats a great sign for next year. I'd expect this offense to lead the big 10 next season.
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
First, thanks for putting in what must have been an immense amount of time to put this together. This was truly impressive.
What was also impressive was that you conducted this analysis without any type of "and that's why we should keep RR" or "see, the offense isn't that good so fire RR" commentary.
To me, this really puts our offense into perspective. WE are much improved. Based upon your numbers, we are in the upper 1/3 of the B10. And, that is without a kicker, which situation I would hope will change next year. And, as you pointed out, that is with a good amount of youth at kep spots. At the same time, we are not the ZOMG WACKO NINJA offense that many think based purely upon yardage and total points put up.
What we are is somewhere above average but below exceptional - let's call it good. And for a team with this much youth and a true soph QB in his first starting year (which is almost always a recipe for disaster), that is fine by me.
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:13 PM ^
how effective is RR's offenseive scheme against BCS competition, but then narrows down to how effective is the execution by this particular team in this particular year. I say, repeat this analysis in another year or 2 when we have 3 year starters (especially at the skill positions) on offense and our defense is light years better (I hope). I am betting that you will find that this offense is just as good if not better than any other offense.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^
Great post, and a great bit of analysis. As others have noted (and maybe you responded and I just missed it), but I think everyone should temper the findings a bit by remembering that this offense is basically the first one RR has had with a semblance of the players that it needs to perform optimally. Tate was decent as a starter last year, but RR's spread offense works best with a dynamic running threat at QB as well as RB, and next year hopefully one of the freshmen makes a splash while returning starters like Shaw and Smith can take the next step. Right now, a major reason why the offense gets bogged down against good defenses is that the opposition basically shadows Robinson and dares him to throw/hand off, usually with less-than-desirable results. Next year, those 3-4 yard zone read handoffs will hopefully turn into longer games, and Denard's progression as a passer should make the play action and deep crosses far more dangerous. At this point, I totally agree with your analysis and the general conclusion that the offense is pretty good but not nearly as good as the statistics infer, but with the caveat that it is an incomplete offense we are seeing.
Still, great work, and I look forward to future posts.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:35 PM ^
You can sense it in each drive. I have never watched an offense under so much pressure. with thecataclysmically dismal state of the defense they know on the inside that absolutely every drive counts. They need to score on every drive. Compound that with a kicking game that could be outdone by a 12 year old punt pass and kick winner and you have an offense that needed to start every drive after receiing a kick-off, generally deep in their own territory.
A good statistic is to review the performance after receiving a kick-off. Compare team to team with this as a starting point. Never the momentum of a stop and a received punt. Always after another opponent TD.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:06 AM ^
...It is implied in the OP that you divided total points scored by # drives. If so, then you need to subtract defensive TDs, KOR TDs, and Punt Ret. TDs from the points. If you already did this in your calculations, I suggest you edit the OP so that readers clearly understand this. If I also missed this, I apologize.
If you did account for non-offensive points, then defense and special teams clearly factor in. Does anyone (including yourself) really believe that OSU's offense is better than Michigan's? Would you trade offenses with them? I sure as shit wouldn't, not in a million years. Defense and special teams? In a heartbeat. (Imagine a team with our O and OSU's D + ST...yikes, engrave the crystal ball.)
November 24th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
Just offensive touchdowns went into that calculation, Steve. I didn't make that clear in the subscript.
Further, I wouldn't rather have OSU's offense. I like our offense, and I think it's unfortunate that some people have taken this diary to mean the opposite. This was intended to be more a look at how our own offense has performed situationally, just comparing it to itself in different game scenarios, not as a comparison of our proficiency to other offenses'. I think some level-headed readers gleaned that, but I probably could have been clearer. The Big Ten team PPD chart was a way to contextualize what our general PPD means. Comparing PPD across teams runs the risk of bias due to differences in average field position and strength of schedule (though I tried to control for that the best I could by just looking at offensive stats against BCS competition), as some have pointed out.
Everybody's emotions are clearly running high right now. I'll revisit this after the season.
November 25th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
This makes a lot of sense, and seems to jibe with the eyeball test. And also with RR's frustrations about inconsistency. Potent offense. Exciting. Scores in bunches. But the dazzling numbers are a little deceiving (even though Brian kind of suggests otherwise). Hopefully, that will change soon, though, as the team matures.
Thanks for this.
Comments