Aome Interesting Thoughts on "Progress"
So everybody thinks this team has progressed in Year 2, right?
Well, in my own inimitable way, I' going to poke a few holes in that theory.
First, the record last year at this point was 2-8; this year it's 5-5. So, at face value, that's a three-game improvement.
But let's dissect it a bit more. Now, I know offensively, there has been some improvement. I admit that can't be argued against too heavily (but I'll try). This really won't be a statistical look at things, more of a "Big Picture" look--I'll leave the numbers to the stats guys, and I invite them in.
Let's take a look at comparable games first.
Two MAC schools. Last year, they were Miami and Toledo. This year, WMU and WMU. I'll concede that this is where the improvement is most glaring. UM thrashed their two MAC opponents this year by a combined score of 76-24. So the Big Picture says we at least showed MAC schools are mere fodder for Rich Rodriguez now. Last year, of course, saw a tepid 16-6 win over Miami and the disastrous 13-10 loss to Toledo.
Now, let's look at Notre Dame,Purdue, PSU, Illinois, and Michigan State (Not necessarily in that order).
Against MSU, UM was tied last year 21-21 going into the 4th quarter. This year, the score going into the 4th was 13-6 (their favor), and they opened the 4th with a TD to go up 20-6. Until that point, they had pretty much controlled the game and UM didn't respond until there were about 6 minutes left--and we forced OT. But they won, and their team this year is far worse than last year--but last year was at UM, this year on the road, so that game is a wash--NO PROGRESS.
Penn State: Last year, against a much better PSU team (by all accounts here, too), UM led at halftime IN Happy Valley. This year in Ann Arbor, we scored first--and then they dominated the rest of the game, winning by 25--last year they wound up winning by 29. NO PROGRESS.
Purdue: Last year on their home turf, they stunned UM with a last-second trick play to win 48-42. This year they overcame a 24-10 halftime deficit to win by two in Ann Arbor, 38-36. Last year's offense scored 35 (Ododms had a punt return for TD); this year's offense scored 36. The defense stunk both games up. NO PROGRESS
Illinois: Last year in Ann Arbor, we had a lead (at the half IIRC); this year in Champaign-Urbana, we had a halftime lead--in both games they came out and destroyed us in the second half. Last year's team was better than this year; this year's Illinois team was an absolute abomination heading into the game. NO PROGRESS
Notre Dame: I'm luke warm on the progress. Last year's team was killed by turnovers, expecially by our special teams, which led to 14 points for them. This year our special teams resulted in 10 points for us, and we won a last-second thriller. Last year's defense gave up 28 points; this year's gave up 34. Last year's defense was, as mentioned, forced to defend a short field of less than 20 yards twice in the first quarter due to muffed kick returns and another short field after an offensive turnover. This year's defense was just torched all game long. But, we won, soooo--I'll grant PROGRESS here.
So the remaining games to dissect are Indiana, Iowa, and Delaware State (this year) Vs Northworstern, Wisconsin, and Utah.
Utah: Last year, a pretty solid showing against a team that went undefeated and roughed up Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Not bad. This year, Delaware State, a non BCS team that is terrible even by non BCS standards. And even though last year's team might have only beat Delaware State 42-6 instead of 63-6, NO PROGRESS.
Indiana (Northworstern): Well, last year's loss to NU was by a score of 21-14, and this year UM beat Indiana with a last-second comeback 36-33 in Ann Arbor. However, Indiana is 4-6 (1-5), and last year, Northworstern went to a bowl game. NO PROGRESS
Iowa (Wisconsin): Well, last year's team beat Wisconsin (a bowl team) with a stirring comeback. This year's team hung in there admirably against an Iowa team that is 9-1. Last year's Wisconsin game was in Ann Arbor; this year UM was on the road, at night, and it was a pretty electric atmosphere there. Lat year, WIN; this year LOSS; Iowa has not earned a ton of respect (and had virtually none from UM fans heading in--many here said UM would win and the Hawks were over rated). Due to the win last year--NO PROGRESS.
So overall, I see little to no progress. Expecially with the collapse over the last three games, which has seen UM outscored in the second half by a combined score of 75-12. And sorry, but two of those embarrassments were to teams UM should have, and needed to, beat. Not getting it done against teams you should be better than (and have more talent than), when you NEED TO, is a major no-no for a coach at Michigan, and one who has such a stellar reputation with seemingly most Michigan fans.
Rodriguez and his staff are tossing a huge bucket of pig blood on the fur coat that was UM football before he took over.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:08 AM ^
He is just spreading the blood around on the coat and rolling in it. Last time Michigan was fur coat, Woodson had a rose in his mouth. Since 1999-2000, more of like a fleece-pullover type deal. I cannot share in your remembrance of a dominant, "envy of the civilized world" type program that last existed in... well, never. Michigan was good, and will be good again. It is a legitimate question to ask whether or not it will be with RR. It has just been asked, a lot.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:09 AM ^
We've had two bad losses, and the rest were either tied (MSU) or 2-pt games (Iowa, Purdue) after regulation.
This year > last year.
Also, did you honestly just compare Delaware St. to Utah, or did I misinterpret something there?
November 9th, 2009 at 9:22 AM ^
That doesn't hold water. We only had three "bad losses" last year - Illinois (bad loss again), Penn State (bad loss again) and Ohio State (????). Hell, we lost to the undefeated Utah team by only 2 points.
The problem last year, and this year, was not the magnitude any individual loss, but the number of total losses. In that area, can you really say you've seen improvement? Last year we had three wins, this year (assuming we lose out) we'll have four [Michigan has 5 wins. If you're talking about quantity not quality, you have to count DSU - PaulVB]. Last year, one of our non-conference games was against an undefeated Utah team - this year, we replaced Utah with a MAC team, which makes up the difference. Last year we had two wins in the Big 10, this year, we're likely to have only one.
If anything, I'd say our results during the Big 10 season carry more weight than results early in the year when teams are still finding their footing. Our Big 10 performance has regressed since last year.
Of course, if we pull out an upset against Wisconsin or OSU, this analysis will change dramatically. But right now, it takes some very selective citing of evidence to say that we've shown improvement.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
Toledo was a "bad" loss by all definitions except final point differential.
And I think you need to look at both sides of the ball separately. Our offense has gone from tragically bad to competent with a tendency to make errors. We are scoring more points and getting more yards. Offense is better.
Defense, despite being historically bad last year, is not better this year. But isn't that what we expected? We did lose 3 lineman and our senior corner back (who is playing in the NFL by the way). We also lost his heir apparent at corner in Cissoko. Combine that with changing coordinators and recruiting issues and it isn't surprising that its not improved and in fact is probably worse. All along I felt like the D would be bad and it would need the offense to carry us. So far, it hasn't been quite enough. Still, we don't turn the ball over on our twenty, give up an onside kick and then miss an extra point, we probably win that game. Defense is playing well enough to win if we don't make mistakes elsewhere.
Special teams, as bad as they are this year, are probably not worse than last year. Sadly, they aren't any better though. I find special teams to be the most disturbing unit on the field.
So, two units no worse than last year. One unit better. At least two more wins on the year. That is progress. Not what we wanted, but better than a year ago.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:50 AM ^
You DID miss the point of the "comparison" of DSU to Utah: It was just a scheduling comparison. As in, we lopped off a good team and replaced it with a sure-fire cupcake win.
Don't hurt yourself trying to read my posts.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:12 AM ^
for not really saying anything. If you can't see this team has made progress then you don't know a thing about Football. Take the offensive players from last year, have they improved, YES. Take the defensive players from last year, have they improved, some. With 3 different DC's in 3 years its hard to improve that much. Give RR and GERG some time to get their schemes taught and their own players to teach them to and then let's see if there is enough progress for all the fair weather fans before we start calling for his removal.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:07 PM ^
You're going to need to go a bit farther than just claiming it as fact. Who has improved? How? How did Minor Improve? Brown?Odoms? Stonum?
November 9th, 2009 at 5:45 PM ^
just turn off the TV on Saturdays, you'll save some money on electricity.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:25 AM ^
Notre Dame obviously was an improvement over last year.
The MAC schools also. But do they really count?
Comparing the Big Ten rematches for continuity's sake, last year Mich offense accounted for 36% of the total scoring against MSU, PSU, Ill, and Pur in total. (MSU and Pur were closer than last year, Ill and PSU actually beat us worse this year than last.) So far this year Mich scoring was 37%. Marginal improvement.
Last year, we were 0-4 in those games, same so far this year. No improvement.
Last year we had two Big Ten wins, one accidental and one dominant. So far this year we have our accidental win. We need a dominant win over Wisc or tUoOS so as to not regress.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:38 AM ^
Would you settle for two more "accidental" wins? Would that indicate progress?
November 9th, 2009 at 8:45 AM ^
No doubt accidental wins are better than losses.
It is an incredibly better situation picking apart whether winning really means you are good than whether losing really means you are bad.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:33 AM ^
So let me ask you:
Do you think last year's team would beat this year's team?
If your answer is no, then by definition, progress has been made.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:43 AM ^
Because Rich Rod's imaginary record against himself is a more accurate measure of progress than his actual record as Michigan coach against the Big Ten.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:06 AM ^
But the OP can postulate comparing last year's games to this year's games? I understand that he's comparing same (or similar) teams; but when it's convenient, MSU isn't as good last year, so that equals no progress. What the OP fails to remember is a controversial crappy TD call that helped us last year.
We played Iowa extremely well on the road. You can't necessarily look at outcome (e.g. wins) and determine progress. Respect the process. If you're going to measure wins as the only metric, fine, but don't pick and choose what wins matter and which one don't.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:17 AM ^
The thing is we showed progress against MAC and ND. No doubt. DS doesn't count.
Where we have shown regression is against the Big Ten. Sure we played Iowa well on the road this year, but we also got beat worse by PSU and Ill this year. So far no clear and distinct progress in Big Ten, which is what really matters.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:28 AM ^
Illinois and Penn State excluded, we were in every game this season that we lost and had chance to win. Things happen, losses happen. I think most people expected a 7-5 season. If we finish 6-6, is that really all that off?
November 9th, 2009 at 9:34 AM ^
That's a really big "if." A win against Wisconsin or Ohio State would certainly make people feel better about the year, but you can hardly assume that. Add to the fact that Delaware State simply doesn't count, and there's a real risk that we finish 4-7, with seven straight losses to end the season. Yes, that would be really far off from even the modest expectations that most of us held.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:44 AM ^
Fair, but let's wait until the season ends.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:29 AM ^
How much progress did we really show against ND, though? We lost to Notre Dame last year not because we were dominated, but because we turned the ball over six times. This year, playing at home and getting some very fortunate breaks, we edged them. While the result was many times greater, in hindsight is it really indicative of vast improvement?
November 9th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
"We lost to Notre Dame last year not because we were dominated, but because we turned the ball over six times."
Good God there are some bad arguments in here. I mean, I could make a strong case that we would have beat Illinois and Iowa if we didn't turn the ball over. The loss to Purdue basically came down to an onside kick (a kick that may or may not have gone 10 yards). This year's Notre Dame team is MUCH better than last year's team. They have two legit Heisman candidates AND Floyd. The Michigan St loss came down to an interception in overtime. Last year State smoked us. Anyone who watched the game knows that. The fact that it was tied in the 4th quarter is a small miracle (and the result of one of the worst calls in the history of college football).
The bottom line is, the offense is much improved. They're scoring roughly one more TD per game than last year (even if you disregard Delaware St). And that's with a 19-year-old undersized true freshman running the spread option for the first time.
The defense is about the same as last year, which is to say it's bad. Rich Rod has fixed half of the team in one season. We've gone from a bad team on both sides of the ball to a bad team defensively. This is progress.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^
In the five rematches (four Big Ten plus ND), our offense went from 117 points scored in 2008 to the same in 2009. Our defense went from 209 points allowed to 171 in 2009.
Avg Score in rematches
2008 - 23-42 loss
2009 - 23-34 loss
Not including ND (Big Ten rematches only) the offense actually regressed by 17 total points.
Using the rematches is more important because these are staffs that have seen the RR offense before. It is troubling that we have not made offensive progress in the rematches.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:22 AM ^
Again, you're picking and choosing stats here. We put up 13 on Illinois, but turned the ball over how many times in the red zone? 3? 4? Same with Purdue (should have easily hung 40 on them on Saturday). A lot of this has to do with our freshman QB with happy feet. Some of it is just random.
And why are you limiting things to the Big Ten? We couldn't score on Toledo last year!
November 9th, 2009 at 10:33 AM ^
So be it. But it is what it is. Scoreboard only, against teams that have seen us before and probably know better what to expect, we haven't done any better offensively.
I am just looking at the Big Ten because if this program is going to be an elite national program, first it has to be an elite Big Ten program.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^
I've watched every game the last two years, and saying "we haven't done any better" is somewhat disingenuous. This offense, unlike last years, can *move* the ball.
Someone here posted a stat about overall offensive production and the numbers didn't lie. We're moving the ball very well and have improved in YPC or maybe it was YPG. That said, the problem is we move the ball 80 yards in 2 minutes (or less) and then turn the ball over. Which has happened *a lot*.
Once we get turnovers under control, the offense is crazy good. We are putting up great numbers when the offense isn't shooting itself in the foot and Tate hangs onto the ball. It is far and away a *vast* improvement over last year's squad in that regard.
In games this year where we have two turnovers or less, we are *averaging* 35.6 points per game. Last year same stat? 20.7
edit: I didn't include Deleware St. either
November 9th, 2009 at 10:19 AM ^
"The Michigan St loss came down to an interception in overtime. Last year State smoked us. Anyone who watched the game knows that. The fact that it was tied in the 4th quarter is a small miracle (and the result of one of the worst calls in the history of college football)."
To paraphrase, Michigan State smoked us this year. Anyone who watched the game knows that. The fact that it was tied at the end of the game, after we couldn't move the ball until our final possessions, is a small miracle.
And let's not get carried away pumping up a Notre Dame team that hasn't beaten a ranked opponent and just lost to Navy.
I'll reiterate -- if we wind up losing our last seven games against non-high school level opponents, including winning only one game in the Big 10, no rational observer can consider that "improvement" over last year. There may be explanations for the failure to improve -- such as the loss of starters from what was already a bad defense -- but that doesn't change the fact that we haven't shown the overall improvement people were hoping for.
But if it makes you feel better to insult my rational comments and to blame the Purdue loss on that pesky onsides kick, go right ahead.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:28 AM ^
"There may be explanations for the failure to improve -- such as the loss of starters from what was already a bad defense -- but that doesn't change the fact that we haven't shown the overall improvement people were hoping for."
Of course not. We have improved offensively. We still suck defensively. This has been discussed AD NAUSEAM on here for weeks. The defense is not good. We are starting two WALK ONS. The offense is putting up 32 points/game, even with the soul-crushing red zone turnovers. Slice up the numbers any way you want...those are the facts.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:11 AM ^
to play that game. i could say we lost to Ill, IA and Purdue this year based on turnovers alone. but for that, we are 8-2 right now.
the team is clearly better this year; destroying the mac teams instead of just competing with them. that alone is proof of improvement. unfortuneately, we are losing the close ones in recent weeks; very common for young teams. they will translate into Ws next year and beyond.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:26 AM ^
The only MAC team we destroyed was Western. Eastern played us close until halftime. That aside, I'll acknowledge we certainly looked better against MAC teams this year than last. But isn't how we finish the season a more important gauge of our progress than how we started, when teams didn't know what to expect from our freshmen and weren't necessarily prepared for our offense? If we go winless from here on out, I think 1-7 in the Big 10, with that one win being by the skin of our teeth, is a more accurate way to measure the team than the fact that we looked great against Western three months ago.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:43 AM ^
The OP also somehow managed to come up with a magical game between last year's UM team and this year's Delaware State team
November 9th, 2009 at 10:22 AM ^
While it's an impossible-to-answer hypothetical, I'll bite. No, I don't think this year's team would beat last year's team, if Threet was healthy. I think this year's defense would make Threet look like Juice Williams. Sheridan, we can still beat - he'd put up 28 points, tops.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:40 AM ^
We are not improving as a whole and that is painfully obvious. The offensive gains are counter-balanced by the defensive losses and we still fumble too much, still don't tackle well and still look lost for long stretches. Furthermore, the "bare cupboard" that many claim was left for RR is not being restocked with the talent we are accustomed to seeing at Michigan.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:15 AM ^
This misnomer that we are no longer recruiting top players with Rodriguez is foolish. Is this based on one incomplete class (2010)? If not, look at our Rivals star breakdown over the past few years and show me when we stopped restocking the cupboard.
Year: 5*-4*-3*-2*
2005: 1-10-11-1
2006: 2-9-7-2
2007: 2-5-12-1
2008: 0-17-6-1
2009: 1-13-6-2
November 9th, 2009 at 9:07 AM ^
While, I would disagree with Indiana/ Northwestern, because a win is a win, I get your point.
The issue is that you can't compare point totals, because our O was inept last year and our D just underperformed.
On D, we lost Seniors (Jamison, Taylor, Trent, Harrison, Johnson, and Panter-to be complete) who all started on Defense. That is pretty rough to recover from, especially when Defensive recruiting hasn't been great.
If you do the same comparison and separate the O and D, you would probably come to the conclusion that the D has regressed significantly, while the Offense has definitely progressed.
Now, if you look at expectations for next year, the D loses Graham and Brown (maybe Warren, if he goes pro, but nobody has any indication of this). The real question is how do they progress under Greg Robinson, who will provide some stability and an entire off-season of coaching D.
On Offense, we lose Ortmann, Mooseman, Mathews, and Minor. All of these positions should have solid replacements, so again, the real question is how the team performs next year vs last and this year.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:38 AM ^
Actually you have it backwards. In the five rematches (four Big Ten plus ND), our offense went from 117 points scored in 2008 to the same in 2009. Our defense went from 209 points allowed to 171 in 2009.
Avg Score in rematches
2008 - 23-42 loss
2009 - 23-34 loss
Not including ND (Big Ten rematches only) the offense actually regressed.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:28 AM ^
for these 5 games: ND, Indiana, MSU, PSU, IL, Purdue, I get
2008: 20 - 35 (loss)
2009: 26 - 34 (loss)
Removing ND, I get
2008: 20 - 35
2009: 23 - 34
While not great, that is progress.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^
You listed 6 games and included Indiana who was not on the schedule last year.
Five rematches are ND, MSU, PSU, Ill, Pur
2008: 23-42 loss
2009: 23-34 loss
Without ND
2008: 25-44 loss
2009: 20-34 loss
November 9th, 2009 at 10:27 AM ^
If anyone wants to look into our strength of schedule last year compared to this, I'd be interested in how that affects what people think about progress. I don't have a really good idea, but I almost want to say our SOS is stronger this year.
Doesn't really make Toledo's result any less bitter, but I think we've played better against a better schedule.
And as a clarification, Indiana 2009 != Indiana 2008. So I'm not looking at generalizations. I'm talking legitimate team strengths.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:40 AM ^
and just using Sagarin's ratings as they're easily available:
2008: SOS (final) is 44th
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt08.htm
2009: SOS (through 10 games) is 96th
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm
November 9th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
Be careful, that goes against the prevailing hive-sentiment that we've shown marked improvement this year.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
So it's nowhere close to what I thought. I'm sure playing OSU and Wisconsin should increase the SOS a bit. I guess the big switch was Utah for DSU. I forgot to take that into account.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:29 AM ^
if there was a way to remove the DSU game and just look at D1 strength of schedule, although I don't know how much of a difference that would make. And I don't know if Sagarin is necessarily the best measure either, it was just the one that was most handy.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:00 PM ^
Sagarin isn't the best measure. It doesn't fit the counter argument to my contention that the team isn't progressing.
Dammit man, if it doesn't fit, you must debunk it!
November 9th, 2009 at 12:04 PM ^
We haven't played two of the toughest games of the season yet. The SOS will end around the same. Maybe slightly lower because of Delaware State.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
this is really directed at me or not, but I'm not trying to debunk Sagarin at all. I honestly don't know if he is the best measure of SOS. I tend to think he is pretty good, but that's mostly based on the fact that he's been around forever. But if someone thinks someone is better, I'll listen.
And yes, any improvement shown this year should be balanced against what is apparently a weaker schedule.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:20 PM ^
Sagarin is he best, no doubt about it.
This yar's schedule includes witless and winless EMU, Delaware State, a (at least) five-loss MSU team, Penn State is considered not as good as last year (unless that changes to fit the counter argument--remember Jamie Mac's pre-game prediction?), MANY here think OSU is worse than last year (again, that may change to fit the counter argument), Illinois is worse than last year (plus, as many UM fans love to point out, their coach is Ron "LOL" Zook).
Here's something: Many here and all over UM Cyberspace, constantly make fun of Mark Dantonio, Charlie Weis, and others like Ron Zook. Well, UM fans pretty much think that if a gguy not named Lloyd Carr is coaching Michigan--he is a fucking GENIUS who "just needs to get his playerz in"and the whole, laughing world just doesn't get that (because they don't know anything about football). If a guy is the coach of any other team, he is a big bag of poop.
But those guys are pummeling our Walks on Water Rich right now.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^
Again just looking at rematches,
PSU, MSU, and Ill all have worse current Sag ratings than they finished with last year. Pur and ND have better current ratings. So SOS is a wash at best, and is probably lower this year.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:36 AM ^
at this point in the season, we are only a small number of plays away from being 8-2 rather than the 5-5 we are right now. I'd call this progress over a 2008 with virtually no bright spots.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:12 PM ^
Oh, that is a wonderful argument. I tried to make that one myself, and even with my friends Bud Weiser and Fuzzy Math, it just takes too much of a leap of faith.
For starters, we have about 2 or 3 plays against Indiana that saved us from a loss. Also, against Notre Dame, we were just "small number of plays" (including the play casuing the Michael Floyd injury) away from a loss.
See? Two can play that game! It's almost as much fun as buying a new pair of sunglasses because the future is so bright!
Now, the losses: MSU: I'd say we were about 15 plays from beating them.
Iowa: Well, at least five (the turnovers), the 70 or so they ran, and of course, the X number it would have taken for us to drive down the field and hit a field goal at the end.
Penn State: I'd say we were about 85 plays from beating them. Assuming, of course, that on 40 of them we don't snap the ball into the Lake Superior, and on 40 of them we find a way to cover their tight end, stop van Royster, discover Darrell Clark and some kid named Zug, Zoog, or the Big Zugowski, and remember that it is OK to A) at least look at a wide receiver whilst he is lining up for a play (and maybe be in the same area code as him before the play starts--COACHES should tell you that) and B)Not suck
Illinois: See above, just use different names, and expecially remember all the plays their running back just simply walked past our defenders, whilst he had the ball, and asked them if they "wouldn't mind just getting out of the way"
Purdue: Hmmm...OK, maybe 15 plays away. Now, THAT'S PROGRESS!!! LOLZ
You guys are something. Remember, I'm not saying we shit can TMG after this season, but any progress HAS been marginal at best, and if you don't see that, then YOU don't "know anything about football"
November 9th, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
Please don't do that here. Seriously.