Answer the Wisc. Offense debate for yourself: UM v. Wisc. on BTN now
I'd love to watch it, but I'm scheduled for a waterboarding at noon, and after that I'm planning to spend the rest of the day pulling out my beard hairs one at a time.
I defintely prefer the power rushing attack, but just because the spread didn't fully develop for us doesn't mean it is a terrible offense.
Sounds fun, but I think I would rather watch games in which we don't get our ass handed to us.
They ran at us straight up the middle 24 times in a row and we couldn't stop it.
Sure, their offense was good, but this was mostly due to our epic FAIL of a defense.
To be fair, it wasn't just our defense who couldn't stop them for a damn. And our defense was (apparently) better than Indiana's.
I watched up until the missed FG. I can't relive that nightmare anymore.
I like Spielmans response to the kicking game being mental. He said "don't give me that mental stuff just kick the ball through the uprights from 25 yards out"
All part of a new series: Ugliest Games in Big 10 History. Next week, Michigan vs Michigan State 2002. Stay tuned for our special marathon, "Each of Northwestern's 34 Straight Losses From 1979-82 in 60 Minutes: Per Game."
Brian mumbling "ignore scoring, only focus on yardage being one standard deviation above the mean" vs. Everyone else on the planet thinking he can't see the forest from the trees now constitutes a debate? Wow.
Quite a few people agree with Brian. Being down by 9 with most of the 2nd half left does not equal us getting demolished.
...because of the defense
No, it was because of both sides of the ball (and special teams can't be overlooked either). Every time Wisconsin scored, our offense got the ball back. In order for Wisconsin to build that lead, they had to stop our offense, which they did all first half. Otherwise we would have kept on tying the game.
We had 5 possessions in the first half. 1 missed field goal. 1 we got back with 30 seconds to play in the half at our own 15 yard line. So you are basically saying our offense was awful because they didn't convert on three 1st half possessions. Some of the best offenses in the nation were shut down 3 times in the first half. Those same teams were probably not down by 24 at the half. It wasn't the offense, it was the defense.
The 93 rose bowl for an occasion just like this.
Only down 9 with 9min left in the third...we have a chance!
Damn, we need Stonum this year. He was the man in this game. Great catches.
Offense was fine. Defense was just turrible. Hurts to watch, but it can only get better, right?
An offense that scores zero points in a half is not fine. Thanks to our complete failure to show up in the first half, in all three phases of the game, we faced a deficit (24-0) larger than any we've overcome in school history.
That 2nd round draft pick by the Chargers still has me scratching my head.
Maybe the Chargers don't use defensive schemes that use "containment"
I couldn't really bear to watch, but I did just catch the last series. The field and the uniforms looked really pretty in the late fall sunshine. That was the only thing good about it.
Please, Lord, let this season be much better.
You must be stupid if you don't agree with me. Stop using your feelings to judge what you saw.
In 2007 Michigan had a team loaded with offensive talent. Hart, Henne, Manningham, Arrington, Long, they were stacked. Michigan scored 21 points against Wisconsin that year in a loss gaining 320 yards total.
Last years team scored 28 points against Wisconsin and gained 442 total yards.
In both games the defense was horrible and cost Michigan the game.
Yes, completely ignore the catastrophic injuries to Henne and Hart in 2007, and ignore 2010's points coming almost entirely once Wisconsin stopped giving anything approaching max effort. Ridiculous.
If I remember correctly the 2007 Wisco game was the 2nd to last game of the regular season, and was not as important as the final game vs OSU in terms of winning the b10 and going to the Rose bowl. A win vs. Wisco and a loss vs OSU would have been the same as a loss and a loss (cap 1 bowl, due to the terrible non-conference performance at large BCS was out of the picture). As such, if my memory serves me, Henne and Hart played very limited roles in that game. So the list of 2007 offensive talent at our disposal in 2007 doesn't reflect what was actually on the field against Wisconsin.
Mallet (another NFL draftee) threw 3 TD's against Wisconsin that game. He threw two picks but Henne threw one himself that game. Hart didn't play but the rest of the offense did. While one could make the case that Michigan was saving things for OSU the following week that would fall flat a bit. Michigan scored 3 points the following week against OSU in which Henne and Hart played the entire game. They must not have saved much...
Most definitely did not play the entire game the next week. I was sitting in section 11 and remember Henne making multiple trips to the locker room during the game.
Henne was 11/34 in the OSU game. Hart had 18 carries for 44 yards. The defense played one of their best games all year against OSU and the offense sucked.
Henne and Hart weren't even close to being healthy that day. Their horrifically low production should make that clear. They saw the field for one reason: they were seniors against OSU.
Henne was 11/34 in the OSU game. Hart had 18 carries for 44 yards. The defense played one of their best games all year against OSU and the offense sucked.
Please don't use the fact that Ryan Mallett is an NFL draftee as a point of favor with him. There's a big difference between what a guy does his freshman year and what he does after 3-4 years of development.
Second, you can't heal season long injuries in a week or so. It was a long shot that they would be healthy by OSU, but one that they had to take if they wanted to win the Big Ten Title
Almost like Denard being a first year starter? One that was hurt numerous times throughout the year? Combine with Shaw being hurt? In fact Shaw didn't play in the Wisconsin game...
That is a valid excuse right? Or is a double standard being used?
In 2010, Denard Robinson was a sophomore and a regular starter. Ryan Mallett in 2007 was a true freshman backup who was pressed into service when Henne went down. A more apt comparison would be Mallett 2007 : Denard 2009. Both were dreadfully inaccurate passers as freshmen.
It's true that we weren't entirely healthy for UW last year, but Denard almost certainly was healthier than Henne at the end of 2007, and I don't think Shaw (who has never rushed for more than 400 yards in a season) can be compared to Mike Hart, our school's all-time leading rusher, in importance.
But anyway, if you want to argue that the Wisconsin game, alone, can't be used as a condemnation of last year's offense, I don't disagree. I don't think single games can be used to prove a point. My issue with last year's offense was that in every week from MSU onward (save Illinois), the offense was shut down for long stretches and did most of its scoring in desperation time. One week can be a fluke. Seven times in eight games? Not so much.
So you don't want to use one game to prove a point, right? Why don't we look at the whole season then, because with all of that talent on the 07 team, they had to have had a better offense as we all know the 2010 offense was shut down way too much.
2007 Michigan Offense:
26.1 points per game (9th in B10)
373.5 yards per game (10th in B10)
2489 passing yards (8th in B10)
1993 rushing yards (6th in B10)
2010 Michigan Offense:
34.3 points per game (3rd in B10)
500.9 yards per game (1st in B10)
2998 passing yards (2nd in B10)
3013 rushing yards (2nd in B10)
And before you decide to tell me how often Henne and Hart were injured or the level of competition, remember that people bitch all day about RichRod running Denard too much because he didn't make it all the way through many games. And remember, for every time the 2010 team put up 42 against UMass, 65 against bowling green, and 67 against Illinois , the 2007 team put up 38 against a shitty ND team, put up 32 against Appy State and lost, put up 33 against EMU, and put up 48 against purdue. So for as much as you want to hate last year's offense, they played a similar schedule and vastly outperformed the 07 offense that had 5 players drafted into the NFL. Oh, and both teams won 7 games. I don't know why we started comparing the 07 offense to last year's anyway.
I agree with you, but we won 8 in 07, plus the bowl win against Florida.
For some reason I thought we won 7 in 07. We definitely won 9. Maybe I was counting the Appy State and Oregon losses as 2 each.
I honestly don't know the answer to this question, but a proper comparison would be to look at the number of yards/points per possession, when the team was within 10 points (arbitrary but you get my point) of their opponent. The big criticism of the 2010 team was that they put up those stats in meaningless situations.
This argument has gotten to a point that I don't understand. What are you trying to prove? That the 2010 offense was better than the 2007 offense? Who cares? I mean why does that matter at all? Are you assuming that Hoke wants to revert directly to the 2007 offense?
I didn't bring up the 07 offense. It was brought up and then it was compared to the 2010 offense. Either way, my point was that our offense in 2010 was better than any offense we have seen for a very long time and was at the top of the B10 in most categories. So for all the bitching about when we scored against good opponents, we played pretty much the same schedule as every year and outperformed all of those offenses. It really isn't that tough to see that this offense was good. For everyone saying we padded our stats with big scores against Illinois (who was a bowl eligible team) and bowling green, I was pointing to years in which our offense padded stats against a 3 win ND and a shitty purdue by scoring nearly 90 points against the 2 of them. I guess if you want to look at individual games and say "see, against Wisconsin we didn't score in the first half" you can. But considering we played the exact same schedule as every other year, why not just look at overall numbers, in which we had a very, very good offense. If your point is that we struggled against better defenses, then I would say "no shit....most good defenses tend to be, you know, good."
I don't disagree that our offense was good last year. I just think it is a weak argument to say well team X played against cream puffs too, so obviously we can compare the entire sample of team Y even though the cream puffs may have been different or in different quantity. I mean beating a team 50 to 0 vs beating 2 teams 100 to 0 are blow outs either way, but will make a big difference on total stats.
Just remember everything being said and use their standards for this years team. The excuse mobile will be driving all over these boards is my guess.
So there wasn't said "excuse mobile" driving all over these boards in 2008 or 2009? If Hoke doesn't get the job done after 3 years, he will be treated just like Rich.
Whoever said there wasn't? Of course since you were critical of said excuses you'll be sure not to make them for Hoke. Right?
/doesn't hold breath.
I was not critical of said excuses. I was drinking the cool-aid like everyone else. Looking back on it, I feel pretty stupid. But I guess that is what being a fan is all about, always being optimistic.
And Rich is still never coming back. Deal with it. And if Hoke has a losing record his first two years and gets luckier than hell not to have one in his third year, people will be running him out of town. The difference will be this site will be leading the way rather than still making excuses 6 months after he's gone.
The best part of watching that game was the announcers talking about how Brady Hoke was a freat coach
Using the official MGoBlog definition of a good team (Any team that is 7-6 or better and was not beaten by a Rich Rodriguez coached team, thus giving an individual the full opportunity to condemn him as a total failure and place no positive credit in his pockets for anything good that occurs in the Michigan football program over the next three years), this is how their offenses fared against Wisconsin last season:
Michigan (7-6): 24 plays, 100 yds, 0 pts, 0 TOs, 1 missed FG
Northwestern (7-6): 18 plays, 68 yds, 3 pts, 3 TOs
MSU (11-2): 24 plays, 145 yds, 6 pts, 2 TOs
OSU (12-1): 26 plays, 94 yds, 3 pts, 0 TOs, 1 missed FG
Iowa (8-5): 32 plays, 185 yds, 14 pts, 1 TO
TCU (13-0): 18 plays, 142 yds, 14 pts, 0 TO (only 3 drives. Wisconsin held onto the ball for an absurd 21:28 in the first half)
So what does this tell us about our offense? Absolutely nothing. I don't think anyone would consider MSU or Iowa's offense better than OSU's, but there they were, outperforming the Buckeyes. Northwestern managed 32 less yards and 3 more turnovers, yet outscored us because, as always, the offense isn't the only part that matters in putting up points.
In short, using one game vs. one team to judge whether or not a unit is successful is ridiciulous. It would be like watching Oregon and Cal last year and coming to the conclusion that Oregon had a terrible offense. Or watching us play Purdue and coming away saying "Hey, the Wolverines don't look that bad on the defensive side of the ball".
Using the official MGoBlog definition of a good team (Any team that is 7-6 or better
Since when is 7-6 ever considered a good season for Michigan?
The record itself is atrocious. That we were lucky to even be 7-6 (we went 4-0 in single-digit games) is worse still.
If over .500 is atrocious, what is under lifetime under .500 (47-50) called? What is 5 seasons under .500 (out of eight coached), with a sixth being 7-6 called?
Which isn't to say he won't do just fine at UM. He won't be undercut at every turn, he brought in Mattison, nearly every starter is returning, etc., etc. Bill Stewart put together three straight years of 9-4 with excellent assistants. We should be able to return to that kind of success.
At Michigan. Learn to read.
In all honesty the offense did fine against a solid defense. Only one offense all year scored more points on Wisconsin (MSU had special teams punt return). The defense dug us a hole. Sure the offense was far from perfect, but they moved the ball and scored four TDs on a defense that never gave up five.
I have no problem saying that the offense played well in the second half, and it deserves some credit for not giving up. But I can't call it a good overall performance when we scored zero points in an entire half. When you're heavily-dependent on one side of the ball to win, it can't afford to run hot and cold.
Well if we are only judging the offense in halfs, I would say it goes like this:
The offense played extremely well in the 2nd half (a very good offense ususally doesn't score 42 per game, which is what our 2nd half offense was on pace for)
The offense did not play very well the first half (as scoring 0 in a half is much more common, but would have been helped out by a competent kicking game)
When you combine an extremely good half with a not very good half, you get a decent overall performance. So by your criteria, the two taken together looks to be a pretty good performance against an 11-1 team with a good defense. So which is it, was it a "not good" overall performance or not?
Arguing that Michigan's offense was not good enough, especially in that Wisconsin game, is like arguing that the moon should outshine the sun. It is absurd.
Even in the first half, the offense had two drives that would have been considered successful if they were delivered by a team that bothered to field a defense.
Possession 1: 1st and 10 from our one yard line, 35 yard drive and a punt to flip the field position
Possession 2: 50+ yard drive into the red zone earning a field goal attempt
Possessions 3 and 4: 3 & out resulting almost directly from a case of butter fingers.
In the third quarter the offense caught fire and scored as such.
RR did not suck at everything. At MIchigan, RR sucked at fielding a defense. RR sucked at fielding a kicking unit. He was fired because of the defense. He is legitimately very good at fielding an offense, and did so at Michigan.
jmblue, please, please, please respond to this. It is what I have been arguing for, it seems, months now. Can't we agree on the following:
- the Michigan offense was excellent last year, at times spectacular, and probably would have gotten better this year (point in favor of RR if we're going there)
- the Michigan defense was atrocioius last year, at times unwatchable, and probably wouldn't have gotten all that much better this year (point against RR)
- the Michigan special teams, well, really just the kicking game, were atrocious last year, at times unwatchable, and it is completely unknown whether they would have gotten better (point against RR).
Look, jmblue, you won. You got the outcome you wanted. I fucking cannot understand why you have to crap on Michigan's offense last year when there is so much other stuff to crap on. I believe you are one of the people who have complained that there is a lot of knee-jerk revisionist history in support of RR on this blog. But what I see is people like you (jmblue) totally unwilling to concede a very simple point when your rhetorical opponents are conceding so many others.
To recap: it would be insane revisionist Orwellian history to try to claim that Michigan's defense was good last year. But no one is making that point. I think it is equally insane revisionism to claim that Michigan's offense wasn't good last year. Was it perfect? No, of course not. But it was pretty fucking good. You can concede that point without fearing that anyone will take that as a softening of your dogmatic stance against RR.
But I don't see a problem with your bullets. The one thing I will say, is that the turnovers were bad. That is something against the offense. And unlike many of the posters here, I don't think that was random. I think that was a systematic problem with RR's approach. I will admit some of that may have had to do with the youth last year, but not all. I think its suspect to just chalk up TO's into the youth column when RR's offenses didn't take care of the ball for 3 straight years (granted we were young, but still). That being said, the offense was good last year, I don't think that means we should necessarily run it exactly next year though. I'd like to see some common ground between what Borges is comfortable with and the personnel. I mean look how forcing GERG to run a 335 turned out.
The main culprit of turnovers for 3 straight years was a freshmen QB or 1st year starting QB who should have been a redshirt freshman. Those 3 straight years were all led by someone who shouldn't have been on the field. The systematic problem becomes much less systematic when someone with very little experience is running an offense full of very little experience.
I get the argument, my point is a good fraction of TOs were not from starting a first year QB. Look at the TO stats from the last 3 years (having trouble wtih a table right now so I list them).
- Year: FUM-lost, INT
- 2010: 29-14, 15
- 2009: 29-13, 15
- 2008: 29-18, 12
The point is, I don't know how you can look at those fumble numbers and just say "well, young QB, should go away automatically". That is a problem that transcends the inexperienced QB play IMO.
Because accepting that RR did anything at all well is difficult for some people. Its the same way with Lloyd. People defend him as the greatest coach ever or hammer him as horrible. Neither is true of course but the lines are drawn. This board is worse than political arguments most of the time.
Yes the offense was good last year, but so was SDSU's. They averaged more points per game than we did. They were incredibly diverse, running I-form, shotgun, zone read, two tight ends, 3 wide, etc. Gorgeous Al thew the sink at his opponents and in the process had a thousand yard runner and two thousand yard receivers..
He's on record as saying he'll use Denard wisely, that he'll run more shotgun than ever before. He's not a man who's wedded to a system.
I think everyone needs to step back from the ledge until we see what the offense really looks like next year. I'm betting we're going to be pleasantly surprised.
"Brian is a champ at putting together a great blog with something for everyone (from recruiting insight to player profiles to formation analysis...to, regrettably, pictures of cats). He is, however, not one with any credibility when it comes to talking about Hoke, Hoke's staff, Hoke's potential or anything having to do with the well-accepted notion that RR flopped in A2. "
Insightful and well said. I think this blog would be much improved if Brian would leave the analysis to those who played college football and/or is a coach. Those who rely on more than just selectively derived, questionably generalized stats to say something. Brian should stick to doing what he does best, such as providing a secondary source for the broad range of information that is out there, as well as a platform for conversation - and not what he does worst, which is try to craft original information.
Wisconsin buttfucked us without the courtesy of a reach around, then put our teeth on the curb and stomped the back of our heads in, then had their women buttfuck us with a strapon. Trying to justify that game as any sort of positive is a waste of time, and probably should earn you some time in the psych ward.
That's a good way to put it.