What Does Great Offense Look Like and How Close is Michigan?

...factors seem to be trending in the right direction.  I just can't see how the team won't do enough to earn RichRod a fourth year.  I'm going with 8-4.

I ain't so good with the 'rithmatic and whatnot; thank God for Youtube.

When we have a receiver that is worthy of the #1 jersey, who will stretch the field and draw two sets of eyes, the run game will be that much better and so will the offense.  Great data!  I would love to see our defense analysis as suggested in a previous comment.

Go Blue!

Now thats an offense, and if you watched near the end he took out Brian kelly's ranked cincy. If you look at the OLine in WVU, it was alot smaller than the one he has in UM. I wont be surprised next year if the defense turns out to be descent. They have some solid plaers that are goin to play, and Greg Robinson won 2 superbowl rings as DC, im sure he'll get them prepared before the season starts

Very, very interesting way to look at offensive trends over years. I'd like to see something similar done for the defense in yards against per play as well? I am wondering if we could see similar trends.

I'd love to have more consistency out of the running game. If we can be a team that can not only get big runs, but also plug away and move the ball down the field, we'll be solid.

That of course, depends on the development of the passing game, and if/or Denard is the starting quarterback. Lots of questions, many answers to look for in the fall.

but still has a ways to go.  If you look at the big ten rankings for just the 8 conference games played, UM's offense ranks in the bottom half of just about every significant offensive stat.

Scoring Offense - 9th

Pass Offense - 7th

Rushing Offense - 6th (based on yds/game if you look at yds/carry they drop to 8th)

Total Offense - 9th

Pass Efficiency - 8th

First Downs - 9th

4th Down Conversions - 11th

Red Zone Offense - 11th (the good sign is they had more red zone attempts then anyone else, the bad news is they did a really poor job of converting those into points)

3rd Down Conversions - 6th

Sacks Against - 10th (which probably hurts the yds/rush attempt noted above)

TOP - 11th (if RR gets the offense going the way we hope I doubt UM will ever be 1st in the this stat but don't think they'll be this low either - maybe middle of the pack)

If RR gets to stay for the long haul and he gets the offense we all envision I don't think UM will ever lead the conference in some of those stats (TOP, first downs - hopefully lots of big plays not grind it out drives.

I think they're making progress and we should hopefully see an improved offense, but I think we're still a year away from seeing what most of us might consider a 'great' offense.

Thank you.

This is high-quality stuff.

I think we will have a very good offense next year. We have two quarterbacks with experience, a experienced offensive line, and a loaded slot wide receiver position. If Michael Shaw and Darryl Stonum break out like I expect them to our outside wide receiver and running back postions will be really good as well.

I think (wish) that the QB situation this year is going to make a hugh difference for the positive.  If our D can hold up and play better than expected it will open even more up for the Offense.

Looking at Michigan 2007 vs. 2008 its crazy how close those charts are before the 20 yd mark. Could this type of analysis be used to "predict" what we could reasonably expect to happen next year?

Mathlete: thank you once again.

With solid offensive snaps last year, the graphs may have shifted even more favorably.  I remember quite a few exasperating moments after the injury.

Question: do these stats include Baby Seal U?  It might be interesting to see data for B10 only games between 08 and 09, to keep a relatively consistent opposition.

Is there no way to extrapolate from the first two years and the expectation of a WV07 eventuality, where we might hypothesize the offense to be this season?

Great work as always and thank you.

Also, the Mich09 line makes some kind of sense to me that I can't quite put my finger on.  It sums up what I remember of Tate's game somehow.

Anybody else laugh with the line: "...the Carr offense excelled in the 0-3 and 10-20 yard ranges" ?

mathlete = pure genius

awesome work

...the offense will improve in terms of x% of plays gaining y yards or more per play, that may or may not yield a higher scoring or more time-consuming offense.  An offense's ability to score is directly related to the performance of the team's defense and special teams.  Even if the defense is poor, a different kind of poor can lead to different offensive results.

Suppose that the defense is generally solid, but gives up big plays.  In other words, lots of 3- to 5-and-outs and lots of 25+ yd. scores.  The offense gets the ball back quickly and has more possessions in which to move the ball and/or score.  Result = higher scoring offense.

Now suppose that the defense is a bend-but-don't-break type that gives up a lot of time-consuming drives and is so/so in the red zone, giving up some TDs while holding the opponent to a decent # of FGs.  The offense gets the ball back slowly and has fewer possessions in which to move the ball and/or score.  Result = lower scoring offense.

Both defenses may yield the same # of ppg but have a drastically different effect on its offense's ppg and, therefore, wins and losses.

In terms of what to expect out of the defense, remember that it is experienced and best-coached on the line and ILB positions and green on the perimeter and in the secondary.  This suggests an ability to be successful in run situations and unsuccessful in passing ones; i.e., good on 1st-and-10 and 2-and-long runs and poor in 3rd-and-mid to 3rd-and-long, as well as giving up big plays. 

This is exactly what happened in the scrimmage for the 1st D against the 2nd O (read: not good offense) and I expect this to happen during at least the early part of the season.  Naturally a defense wants to limit big plays, but if I had to choose b/w giving up 2 long TDs a game and giving up 12/16 on 3rd down conversions, I'd take the former every single time.

I always enjoy reading your diaries and, like others, would love to see something similar for the defense. Awesome job!

I've never seen an offense visualized like this before.  Excellent work.  If this got broken down on an game-by-game basis, would there be enough pass snaps to make the numbers statistically worthwhile?

Peace

Ty

but lock your y-axis!

Mathlete, as always the the analysis is tremendous.  Mostly because I also believe we are this/close to having an elite offense, too.  But I don't think the offense will have the same kind of profile (run/pass distribution, yards per attempt) as WVA in 2007, and that will have an impact on the offense. 

WVA in '07 had a 70/30 run/pass distribution and only gained 159 passing ypg.  That's OK when you have a Pat White, a Steve Slaton, and weak WRs in a weak Big East, but stronger Big Ten defenses and UM's level of talent at WR and slot will likely force a more equitable run/pass distribution.

I see the UM 2010 offense having a profile similar to Oregon, 2007-2009. For those 3 seasons the Ducks averaged 455 ypg, with 255 rushing ypg and 200 passing ypg.  They averaged anywhere from 5.3 to 6.2 yds per rushing attempt, and right around 7 yds per pass attempt.  They did this with a 60/40 run/pass distribution, and they've averaged 38.7 ppg over the last 3 seasons.     And they won 9, 10 and 10 games over that span.  We'd take that, wouldn't we?

Incidentally, the Ducks have had a middling defense during that period as well.  I don't know if that's because they give up lots of yards because the offense plays at such a fast pace (giving opposing offenses more chances), or if they're actually pretty meh.  At any rate, I think that's the profile and the model.