Did we really show improvement on Offense?
In response to the question of whether we actually improved on offense or not in the B10 this year, I offer the following thoughts.
see Brian's post:
http://mgoblog.com/content/postmortem-how-much-did-they-actually-improve
It is certainly possible to cherry pick stats to try to prove a point and I think Brians points are on the whole well balanced in the above.
However, for me at least, if I was trying to measure improvement for college football in the big10 relative to peers my hierarchy would start with Wins, then Offensive Points scored to measure the offense relative to others and Defensive points allowed to measure the D.
As for Wins, none of the other stats, no matter how hard you look at them, get you to a bowl game and that is the goal.
For offensive points scored in the Big10 and measuring the offense, we were exactly the same as last season 22.1 points per game scored in the Big10(and that includes the 14 points the defense put on the board for us). Relative to the competition we went backwards. 8th in 2008 and 9th in 2009. So others improved at scoring points but we didn't move. Sure we felt more confidence in our offense, but it didn't translate to an improvement in points scored (which is the goal of the offense).
For defensive points allowed in the Big10 and measuring the Defense, we allowed 33.5 in 2008 and 33.2 in 2009. Actually, we improved purely on the basis of points allowed from 2008. However, relative to conference we went backwards here to from 10th in 2008 to 11th in 2009.
So, strictly speaking we went backwards on offense relative to Big10 and backwards on Defense relative to Big 10 from 2008 to 2009. Since my initial point was it is all about the wins, that is consistent with the story of offense and defense, We went from 2 wins in 2008 to 1 win in 2009.
No matter how we hard we try to explain that our offense improved and our defense did not, strictly speaking the improvement in offense primarily shows up in the warm and fuzzy feelings we had from the 4-0 start. Unfortunately, relative to the competition in the Big10, we did not show improvement on either side of the ball.
MGoBleu
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 PM ^
I sure am glad that the 2009 season is over, at least for our team. Pain and suffering can be replaced by optimism. Or not.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
I think you just had to simply watch the games to say "yes, this year our offense was better".
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^
I felt it to watching the games. It felt like we improved. It felt like we were better. But at the end of the day it really didn't translate into anything tangible. Backwards on wins, offense, and defense relative to the Big 10.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 PM ^
But look at the non-conference:
2008: Lost to Utah, Beat Miami (NTM), blown out by ND, and lost to TOLEDO.
2009: Beat ND, and blew out all MAC and I-AA snacky-cakes (for the first time in several years, Lloyd years included).
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
your point here.
well, i do. but i cant honestly believe you're arguing "Well we beat MAC teams."
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
The sad thing is, Brian made the same argument in his article, ie "last year we lost to Toledo and this year we crushed Western, so our offense if much improved."
Isn't our performance for the last eight games of the year a better indicator of where we are than our performance in the first three games?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
In the first 3 games the team was relatively healthy. Without Minor, Molk and Odoms the offense suffered. SHOCKING!
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 PM ^
And Minor didn't play in many games last year either, including in the early games that some point to in arguing how much worse our offense was last year. I'm pretty sure we also had some injuries last year as well.
Basically, people are so desperate to say that our offense improved by leaps and bounds that they'll make any excuse possible for poor performance this year, while refusing to make any excuse for the team's performance last year.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^
The only excuse that last year's team performance needed was Sheridan/Threet. This year was different because of the drop-off after the injury to Molk occurred.
The best OL, best RB and best WR were all injured for extended periods this season. It's reasonable to expect a drop-off in offensive performance.
Also, Tate was playing hurt from the 4th game on.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 PM ^
You're talking Big Ten when its convenient and overall when its convenient. Minor was injured for the non-conference last year but healthier for the Big Ten Schedule. This year, he couldn't put back-to-back weeks together. He was way healthier during last year's Big Ten season.
No one has said the offense has improved by "leaps and bounds". You say that people are saying that, but I don't think anyone actually has.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 PM ^
Some people have. Those are the people I'm refuting. If you don't think the offense has improved by leaps and bounds, then we agree, and there's no reason to fight.
I take issue with your claim, though, that I'm "talking Big Ten when its convenient and overall when its convenient." I've been pretty consistent in my claim that comparing Big 10 performance is the best way to assess this year's team versus last year's team, both because it involves more common opponents and because performance in the first three games of the season is not the best indicator of a team's actual quality. Any reference to the early schedule is to refute things other people have said, not to affirmatively support my arguments.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:20 AM ^
I was talking specifically about Minor's injury, but I'll give it to you because I think you've been reasonable.
Howeva, the parsing of the schedule seems to be a bit of a contortion given your presentation of the point you are trying to make (i.e: subtle improvement, obviously). Yes, I see what you mean and I think what you say is valid. But, to strip out the a team's performance when they are at their best and conclude that they are barely better at all seems like you're trying too hard to make that conclusion (restated: it's clear that they barely got better). ND is an actual common opponent, Toledo and EMU are surely comparable, as are WMU and Miami(OH). Again, I think focusing on the Big Ten is fine just agenda driven.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 PM ^
I pretty much see the same thing that you're saying. The 2009 team scored fewer points against the majority of common opponents from 2008 (PSU, IL, WI, Purdue and MSU). The margin might not have been great, but it also doesn't indicate visible improvement. In the interest of full disclose, the 2009 team scored more points this year against ND and OSU.
This is really hard to say, but the Sheridan/Threet combo was actually clicking at points towards the end of 2008. They scored 17 first half points against PSU, put up 42 against Purdue and dominated Minnesota. In fact, I'd say that the Minnesota game from 2008 is the best one that Michigan has played in the past two years against Big Ten competition.
While I haven't seen a lot of people claiming that the 2009 offense has improved by "leaps and bounds", people clearly tend to think that it was significantly better and I'm not so sure that was the case.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 PM ^
The question is, "did the offense improve?"
Last year, we averaged 16.5 ppg against Utah, Miami (NTM), ND, and Toledo. This year, we averaged 38 ppg (a 130% improvement) out of conference, even excluding the Baby Seals of DSU. Including them, we averaged almost 45 ppg.
Does that mean the offense was "good?" No. But ignoring those games, and looking only at the time period where Molk, Odoms, Koger, Forcier, Minor, and/or Brown were hurt, is an unreasonable shrinking of the sample size.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^
seems to me Utah was a good team last year. which team did we beat this year that was a good team?
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 PM ^
But isn't that the argument 60 year old sportwriters use when they say "Dammit, Jeter is the best defensive shortstop in the game, whatever your newfangled sabermets . . . saburmatrus . . . statistics say!"
I worry when Brian of all people falls back on the "anyone who watches the game can see . . ." trope, rather than using legitimate stats to prove his point.
I think the stats set forth in Brian's article show what many of us pessimists have been saying: Sure, the offense "improved," but not by leaps and bounds (as many had claimed), which is disturbing given that virtually all important offensive starters were back and we no longer had DEATH at quarterback.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 PM ^
Sheridan vs. Forcier.
The End
December 4th, 2009 at 5:20 AM ^
But i'd take Sheridan over Threet any day of the week.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^
The goal for Michigan should not be to make a bowl, but to win a National Championship. We should be taking bowls for granted.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 PM ^
IF actual opinion THEN
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:15 PM ^
No, my opinion is that a bowl game and 8 wins should be the goal next year. We have to get used to lowered expectations, unless Rich Rodriguez really turns it around quickly. I'd be content if we beat 2 of MSU/PSU/OSU tandem and had a winning record at this point.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^
You could statistically tell me that we were worse this year than last and I would still argue against it.
Just as Beavis said, if you watched the games, it was better. I actually felt we had a chance to win every single game we were in...except for Penn State, where the team forgot to show up for whatever reason.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
You would argue we weren't worse in the Big10 this year than last?
I did watch the games. Everyone feeling better primarily comes from starting 4-0 and coming off a season where we went 3-9. It doesn't say anything about how we performed against the Big10 competition.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
Just saying everyone's good feelings came from the 4-0 start doesn't make it true. Like he said, it felt like we had a chance to win every game this year, aside from the PSU game. That didn't happen last year. That's where I got my warm fuzzies from. I wasn't tempted to turn off almost every game at half time (I didn't turn any of them off, I always watch the entire game, but last year was tempting).
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 PM ^
Derek Jeter is the best defensive shortstop in baseball! My eyes tell me this is true!
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^
I think that more telling than ANY statistics is the overall product on the field.
Put in a tape of our best offensive game from 2008: Minny maybe? Purdue?
Then watch tape of our best output this year: ND?
Ya, I'd say that will answer your question.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
...seriously. I know the ultimate goal of offense is "score points," but they really don't tell the whole story.
Take, for example, the last two Michigan/Ohio State games. Last year, Michigan scored 7 points, and looked TERRIBLE. There was no way in hell we could have moved the ball consistently with that offense. Sheridan (bless his inaccurate soul) could have attempted 100 offensive possessions, but the result would have been the same.
This year, Michigan scored 10 points. Minor improvement in points, HUGE improvement offensively. We moved the ball (semi-)consistantly, and if it weren't for some unfortunate turnovers, we could have scored a heck of a lot more. As Brian pointed out, it was possible to watch this year's game and imagine a scenario in which Michigan could win. Tell me you can say the same about THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzrn06hyX-o
December 4th, 2009 at 12:28 AM ^
.....the OSU game is only one example. It was nice to see. They looked better againt ND, too.
However, did they look better against MSU? Purdue? Wisconsin? Illinois? The answer in all cases is a push at best (and probably "no".)
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 PM ^
I don't know how you can look at a team that went 3-9 in 2008 and then went 5-7 in 2009 and not say the offense improved.
Furthermore, I don't understand why this point needs to keep getting argued.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 PM ^
As I see it, MGoBOard will go like this over the next 9 months:
December: Were we better than last year?
January: What's the deal with all the 3-stars?
February: Why didn't we get more defensive backs?
March: Where's KoB?
April: Insider info from spring practice: Tate looks good
May: Should we redshirt DG? He looked so fast in the spring game...
June: OMG when will summer end?
July: Diclemeg returns. It's all about Denard, Part 2!!!
August: Insider info: Woolfolk moves to DE.
September: WE MISSED YOU DAVID MOLK
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
I'm not saying we didn't improve. But the argument that "we must have improved because we won two more games" is just senseless.
Last year we didn't play Baby Seal University, a team that, without exaggeration, ANY Division I-A school could have defeated, even the team that lost to Toledo last year. So that's one win. And one of our losses last year came against an undefeated Utah team, which we replaced this year with a winless Eastern Michigan team. That's two wins. Basically, the fact that we won "two more games" this year than last comes down to the fact that this year, unlike last year, we played a high school team and the single worst team in Division I-A. That's evidence of improvement?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 PM ^
"i'm not saying we didn't improve". kinda funny,fuzzy cuz then all your arguments point to the fact that it wasn't us who improved, it was our competition that got worse. when i look back on the season i think about the games we were in on and had a chance to win. just look at the 2008 MSU game vs this years game. yes we improved.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 PM ^
Wow, thanks for telling me how I really feel. I had no idea.
Let me sum up.
I think our offense improved this year. But I think our offense was still very, very poor. Others seem to think that our offense improved by leaps and bounds. The statistics do not back that up.
Regardless of whether we improved or not, the argument that "we improved because we had two more wins" is stupid, in light of the teams that those wins came against. Dundee, you may not get it, but this is not the same as saying we didn't improve -- it's just saying that this particular argument does not prove that we improved.
An illustration:
Poster A: The earth travels around the sun. I know this, because sometimes when I drink a lot of beer I get dizzy. Drinking beer makes me more attuned to such movements.
Fuzzy Dunlop: The earth may travel around the sun, but the fact that you get dizzy when drinking beer doesn't prove that, it just proves you have no tolerance.
Dundee: Fuzzy, you say "the earth may travel around the sun," but its kind of funny that all your arguments point to the fact that Poster A is just a stupid drunk. You don't really believe that the earth travels around the sun, you Rich Rod hater.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:38 PM ^
well at least your making me laugh. using a drunk as an analogy for pointing out negatives in what most people are trying to find some or any positives is stupid! did our offense improve yes. is 2 more wins evidence, yes! data and statistics can be used for anything you wanna show. in the end it's wins that count. FLA's offense is probably down this year, but does it matter? not to the team and the won loss record. was the season a big disappointment? for me? hell yeah! but i'm sure not gonna dwell on all the negatives. like teams and coaches they try to "build" on the positives and just "limit" they negatives. not try and find ways in which the positives aren't really positive. besides isn't the world flat and at the center of the universe?
December 4th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
it seems based on you post you would agree that 1 less win in the big 10 in 09 means we didn't show improvement relative to the big 10.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:38 AM ^
The 3-9 vs. 5-7 argument isn't really a good comparison, especially when you consider that Delaware State was one of the five wins. Who knows what would have happened if that had been a another BCS school or a high level MAC school (CMU)? Also, that could be countered with 2-6 vs 1-7 in Big Ten play which is a more fair "apples to apples" comparison.
The 2008 and 2009 teams each got two wins against BCS competition. Does any other stat really matter?
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 PM ^
We really did show improvement on offense. End o' story. Pointing to wins is ridiculous - that's a whole buncha other factors to that. To say the offense didn't improve because we didn't have more wins is extremely sketchy. If we averaged 50 points per game and went 0-12, where does the blame lie? You'd be a fucking idiot to say our offense - just like you'd be a fucking idiot to say the Big Ten's #1 scoring offense didn't improve off of last years abysmal performance.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:21 PM ^
Doesn't appear you did. I never said the offense was worse because they didn't win as many games. I was comparing offense based on points scored against Conference opponents. Unless we are in the National Title hunt, the Big10 is what counts.
Our offense scored just as many points per game year to year and actually relative to the other big 10 schools we dropped to 9th place in points scored in the Big10.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:27 PM ^
Did you watch the games this season?
Its not a question of whether or not the offense improved....the question is why come it didnt improve enough to net us more wins.
Thats what we should be breaking down, where more improvements can be made to keep the offense progressing.
Its a laughable assertion to make that the 2008 offense was a better one than the 2009.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 PM ^
That should have been voted best post humorous
Nothing is funnier than WHY COME!!!
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:44 PM ^
The point isn't that the offense didn't improve.
The point is that the offense didn't improve nearly as much as people assume it did, which is disconcerting given the upgrade at QB and the experienced players returning.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 PM ^
You didnt read my post either where I said the question should not be whether or not the O improved, but why and where did it not improve enough to get us more wins and what needs to be done from there.
I am not concerned about the state of the O in the least.
The D? Yes. But, the offense did more than enough to make this a bowl eligble team, IMHE, in 2009.....and, that is a big step up from the 2008 O. I really dont give a flip what you and some of the other naysayers use a metric to try to prove your theory that we're on crack for being excited about the O improvements this year.
The problem was the offense had to be near perfect, given the D woes the second half of the season, in order to win games. And, with true frosh QBs you cant expect perfection. The O will need to carry the load next year and the question we should be posing and breaking down is what needs to be done to get to O closer to the state of perfection needed to overome the shaky D in the foreseeable future.
Otherwise, I am not wasting one second this offseason feighning high and mighty concern over the offense. I've seen what it can with skilled QBs, now I eagerly await to see what it can do with skilled and more game experienced QBs.
Thinking about the D might force me into a more potent strand of pot if I spend too much thinking about.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 PM ^
Obviously we disagree. You are not concerned about the offense, I am. There's no need to be a prick about it.
We do agree that the defense is the greater concern. But the original post was about the offense, so that's what I was talking about in this thread.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:05 AM ^
Go back and look at the video of last year's games against Utah, ND, Ohio State and MSU. And tell me again that the team was not better this year, on BOTH sides of the ball.
Give me a break.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:32 AM ^
If you think this year's defense was better than last year's defense, you are the one with short term memory.
And do you really want to use last year's Utah game as a point of comparison? We lost by two points to a team that finished the season undefeated and ranked in the Top-5. You're using that as an example of a terrible performance?
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 PM ^
The last two years have been like having a loved one with a terminal disease. I Love them but It's a relief when its over. Now I get to sit on my ass for ten months and wait for September. I've been spoiled for so long. FML
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 PM ^
You do realize, that college football, is just, college football?
What an insult to people who actually have family members with terminal diseases.
Get some perspective.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:45 PM ^
I love me some Michigan football, but at the end of the day, it's a game.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 PM ^
I said today that Tater's post about Tigers wife being happy about all the money she would get from her divorce being the single worst post I have ever read on Mgoblog since I started reading over a year ago.
Now someone trumps it in the very same day.... I know this is the offseason after a very tough year, but come on, have some respect.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 PM ^
Another interesting way to view the '08 squad versus the '09 squad is head to head, which one would win. Hands down, the '09 squad would win: the '08 offense wouldn't BE capable of taking advantage of the '09 defensive woes, while the '09 offense would have more success against the '08 defense because a) we could use our offensive weapons more effectively b) our quarterback in '09 is a bigger threat to run than the guys in '08, and c) they would be given many more times to run the offense considering the number of three and outs last years team had. Oh, do I need to mention HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL!!! to the '08 squad?
No question in my mind there has been improvement and there will be even more next year, GO BLUE!!! ANY YEAR!!!