Hoke besting Rodriguez by 118 points
Brian's latest weekly "Dressing Down of Borges" post, and I suppose the first 150 pages of "Three and Out" have got me to thinking. Besides the obvious record differential, just how has Borges's "grab bag" offense fared compared to last year's?
Through 8 games, it comes down to...Borges losing. 283-278, 5 points. To be fair to Borges, this assumes that Michigan wouldn't have scored in the fourth quarter against Western. So yeah, with equal time Borges's offense would probably be beating Rodriguez's.
Just for fun, I decided to look at the defenses through 8 games. You come up with Hoke winning 117-240, a difference of 123 points.
So yeah, that looks like a net difference of 118 points. We can argue strength of schedule I suppose, but Umass, Bowling Green, and Indiana weren't exactly loaded either. Age and experience caveats still apply.
In conclusion, Hoke Uber Ales. Cant wait to see that 2012 class suit up(or better yet-redshirt!) Gotta love the direction of this program.
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
What would have happened had RR brought whats his face from WV with him. This is a point I don't think we've considered enough. I run hypotheticals thru my mind at least 50 times a day, on what might have been had we got that dude. I also put on sad songs like Gilbert O'Sullivan's, alone again naturally, when I think about this.
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
You sir need a life.
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
Really dumb comparison. What did you think Rodriguez's players weren't going to get better. Didn't think underclassmen were going to better with more experience? That was a first year starting quarterback putting up 2700 passing and 1700 rushing. Rodriguez clearly didn't have a clue wtf he was doing. GERG is gone! Thank god for Mattison. Love the new coaches, but you need to think this thru before creating another Rodriguez-Brady Hoke shitfest.
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
I get, in one sense, that you can't completely compare 2010 to 2011. The only final comparison is on the field: that's why you play the game.
But what can you compare? For crying out loud, sports blogs are all about comparisons. How did this player compare to that player? This team to that team? Etc., etc. Generally, whoever ends up with the short end of the stick finds a way to rationalize away the comparison.
I do believe the big difference between 2010 and 2011 is in the defensive coordinator AND the defensive position coaching. Even with the year's experience, the skill level on our defense is lacking. I don't want to be disrespectful to our current team. In fact, I salute them, as they have maximized their performance and largely been able to mask their weaknesses. Having said that, the reality is that in raw speed and strength, they have limitations.
I don't agree with everything over at "Michigan Monday," (www.theozone.net) but I do largely agree with his assessment of the skill level on Michigan's defense (lacking.) Gerdeman wrote,
I'm of the opinion that from here on out any losses incurred this season will be simply because of lack of talent, and not lack of coaching. That might not seem like much, but it's significant. Coaches are finally giving this team an opportunity to win, even if they're outmanned.
Borges has largely held serve, and regressed only slightly on offense. He has certainly not been our worst Debordian nightmare. But the huge difference with the defensive performance has more than compensated for the small regression on offense. I actually think that the offense lost the MSU game. If Molk didn't tip the snap, if Fitz was running that game, if Denard wasn't passing so much in a trash tornado, if we had those two fourth quarter calls back, and if the officials didn't blow the backwards pass from MSU dead, we easily could have won that game. Gholston's antics did not lose us that game. (Yes, I know, you can't do woulda, shoulda, etc., but you have to.)
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
Sorry 2600 passing, and 1700 rushing. This about GERG versus Mattison (DEFENSE). Not Borges vs Rodriguez. Didn't know Richrod was a DB coach early on in his career(sarcasm) Because I'd take Richrod over Borges any day in the offense world.
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
They're both good, if somewhat gimmicky, offensive coordinators. I think Borges is more flexible, though.
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
about the team, not Denard Robinson. The team averages more yards per carry on the ground. The team averages more yards per pass through the air. The team turns the ball over way, way less. The team showcases a much more diverse offense. I don't root for the University of Denard Robinsons. I root for the University of Michigan Wolverines. There's not a single guy in the top-5 on the team in rushing the ball that runs for less than six yards per carry (Robinson, Toussaint, Smith, Shaw, Rawls). There were two last year (Robinson and Toussaint, with Toussaint only getting eight carries). I don't care about scoring 65 points against Bowling Green to inflate the stats. Granted, Michigan is about to face the best defenses they'll see all year (other than Michigan State), but right now, the offense averages more points, more yards per play, less turnovers and already matched Rodriguez's best season in terms of win. Sorry if I prefer that to however Denard Robinson's numbers dropped off.
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
...and people got on me when I started the thread about MGoBlog topics that need to die...
Carry on.
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
So many posts I want to respond to in here... Must.. Resist... Engaging.. in Flamewar...
But I gotta say I think it's kind of ridiculous how taboo the subject of Rodriguez has become. It's natural to compare last year's performance to this year's. People have become way too sensitive about it and can't differentiate between an actual shot at Rodriguez and and just an interesting comparison. Just because the guy went out on bad terms we can't talk about him? As if he's a the handicapped kid in class? Or the ugly girl on the cheerleading squad? I get that we've belabored just about every point about his regime on here, but as the season goes on more comparisons arise that get some people more excited about the Hoke era, like this one. I don't think it was a knock so much as a signal of progress. We don't need an automatic self-destruct mechanism every time the name RichRod comes up in a post.
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
I don't disagree with your points. It's just that when a thread is titled "Hoke besting Rodriguez..." and then uses the bluntest possible and least useful measuring stick to say that Hoke is better than Rodriguez, then the things you suggest in your very sensible post are not being done.
The futility of this kind of argument is that the only thing that makes sense is to compare actual Hoke/Borges and actual Hoke/Mattison with hypothetical 4th-year Rodriguez/Magee and hypothetical Rodriguez/GERG (or his replacement). In the NFL when you have a team of 3 to 15 year veterans, it makes sense to compare from year to year. But when you have a team of 18-22 year olds it does not make any sense at all.
Two other points: the B1G was good last year. It sucks ass this year. So there's that.
Second, and this always makes me completely insane, several people have pointed out that M's defense got worse last year as the year went on. But our schedule got tougher as the year went on. If M has trouble with Nebraska and Braxton Miller's legs, will that mean our defense is getting worse? No, it will mean that Nebraska's offense and Braxton Miller's legs are good.
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:45 PM ^
You critisize the orignal posters metrics, but then suggest using metrics that don't exist. If he used the worst possible, could you suggest real ones that would be better?
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:14 PM ^
No. It is futile. There are too many moving parts.
I think you can compare recruiting and locker room vibe and the way practices are run. Those don't rely on the development of bodies and cerebral cortices of young men and on the quality of the opposition and on the weather and on other hypotheticals like Dee Hart and Kris Frost.
So no, I can't suggest better metrics.
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
Obviously Mattison is better than GERG. However, isn't there also something to Hoke's idea of the offense trying to control the game also contributing to it? Instead of spinning our wheels and quickly scoring TDs we're giving our D time for adjustments, etc.
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
No.
There doesn't exist a good argument anywhere regarding whether a team should score using longer drives than shorter drives. The prevailing argument from Brian is this:
When a game is still in question, the long-term goal of any offense is to score more points than the opposing team. The amount of points an offense can score on any given drive is 6 (plus the 1-or-2 point attempt). This amount does not change whether the team takes 3 plays or 30 plays to reach this total. Thus, if an offense CAN score TDs on every play, it will. If the offense cannot accomplish this feat, the offense will strive to accomplish its short-term goal, which is to get a first down. Never will an offense actively prevent itself from achieving its long-term goal just because it can achieve its short-term goal many times.
On the other hand, the defense has only one goal: to get off the field ASAP.
There is no argument anyone has made so far (regarding giving the defense rest, clock management, etc) that refute the basic premise behind having an offense and defense.
November 2nd, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^
Now of course there is nothing wrong with scoring as many points as quickly as possible, but sometimes the best way to ensure you score more than the other team is to keep the other team's offense off the field. I don't think just slowing down all game long is usually a sound strategy, but if you're up against an offense that's far superior to your defense, why not use the last 3 minutes before the half to score and not let the other team have a chance to score instead of trying to score in 30 seconds and giving the other team 21/2 minutes to score?
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
imagine that, a bunch of sophomores juniors and seniors turning in better numbers than a bunch of freshman sophomores and juniors. THAT NEVER HAPPENS
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
It is often suggestedbthat with another years improvement, we would have seen even more improvement from RR's offense, so staying the same is really falling back. While I get the theory, shouldn't you also be able to see that effect within a season? Shouldn't The offense at the end of the season have been better than the offense at the begining of the season?
<br>
<br>Mississippi State gave up 19.8 points and 356.8 yards a game last year. We scored 14 and had 342 yards of offense. If we were on a trajectory for offensive greatness under RR, shouldn't we have done better?
<br>
<br>
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^
Oh my god I hate this argument. Why should Michigan be the only team getting better? You know there's another team out there, right? They're getting better too. So maybe the other team is getting better at a faster rate than our team is getting better, but that doesn't mean it's not happening for our team.
The truth is that Michigan's defense sucked last year, but it was only exposed against the better teams we played against at the end of the year. If M's defense against OSU had hypothetically played against UConn, we would have kicked UConn's ass even harder. And, had we played Wisconsin's week 1 offense with our week 11 defense, we probably wouldn't have given up 42 points.
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^
You partake in this argument everyday, I would have to say you love it. FYI, to you and about 20 others who argue these very points everyday, we already know your position 1000 fold.
November 2nd, 2011 at 9:34 PM ^
Wat? I have never made this point on this blog. I have made the "proper comparison" of hypothetical 2011 RR to actual 2011 Borges point.
But I have never talked about how fucking idiotic it is to observe that your team doesn't blow out the good teams at the end of the schedule as much as they blew out the shitty teams at the beginning of the schedule and conclude that your team is regressing.
Until now, that is.
November 2nd, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^
Many people on this board tout how good the offense was last year and how even though it is good this year, there is no way it wouldn't have been better this year with RR. I am just musing about whether that is an actual fact. Lots of facts are trotted out about how good the offense was last year with a first year quarterback. I am merely pointing out that with a full season under his belt, we scored less and had less yards than other teams averaged against Mississippi State. I am wondering why this should lead me to believe that we would have gotten so much better this year
November 2nd, 2011 at 6:57 PM ^
How good the offense would be under RR is impossible to know without discovering an alternate universe or a time machine, and even then it's only one alternate universe out of a nearly infinite number of them. Even with stats, all one can find is correlations, not necessarily causation. Maybe if the players knew RR would be around this year, they would have played better against MissSt, or worse, or with pink jerseys and bonnets with wings. Each of those is a possibility. Even the statistics are not one-for-one correlations. There are probability fields, not absolutes. If we played [insert hypothetical lesser team] 100 times, we'd beat them 98 times. A betting person takes us to win, but has to realize that there's always the 2% possibility, which collapses into 100% in reality if we lose to [lesser team]. In other words, in a mathematical alternate universe where RR coaches this year, we would win between 0 and 12 games. How many exactly--that's not only impossible to say, it's a non-question. There's X% chance of 0 wins, Y% of 1 wins, etc., and we don't even know what those percentages are. In other words, comparing RR and Hoke is not only a waste of time, but it's absurd (in the philosophical, metaphysical and existential, not to mention comical, sense).
Sorry for going off, but c'mon people, let's move on.
BTW: Nothing in particular you said in your thoughtful post, blue in dc, set me off--just a convenient starting point for my pointless rant.
November 2nd, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
In other words, comparing RR and Hoke is not only a waste of time, but it's absurd (in the philosophical, metaphysical and existential, not to mention comical, sense).
Gracias, amigo.
November 2nd, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
November 2nd, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
RichRod ran the spread early and exclusively hoping it would pay dividends later.
November 2nd, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^
Jesus Tap dancing Christ. If you seriously think that inheriting the offensive talent of Threet/Sheridan, injured Minor, the 2008 OL. Matthews and freshman Odoms is equiavant to inheriting Denard, Touissant, the 2011 OL, Roundtree and Hemmingway, then I don't think we can have a rational discussion.
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
You knew damn well before you clicked on this thread that a rational discussion was out of the question.
November 2nd, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^
In comparing last year and this, you also have to factor in the relative success of the defense. That has meant the offense is on the field a little more and also has had significantly better field position. When you factor in the lost quarter and the fact that in most games there hasn't been a need to score in the fourth quarter, I'd say the offensive productivity is very close. The question that we'll never definitively know the answer to is whether using last year's offense with all the returning starters would have produced a significant offensive improvement.
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
Instead of facts. I don't have the stats either, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that we have had more offensive possessions this year. It could be the opposite, as last year we were in shootouts more often and the defense returned us the ball quickly by allowing the other team to score. Not to mention the all-the-time no huddle, quick possession. I would guess the offense last year had more possessions to score. Our defense has returned the ball this year, but many times not with great field position. I don't know whether we've had better or worse field position.
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:15 PM ^
Rich Rod's offense was prolific. He was fired for his abyssmal defenses, which showed no sign of improvement whatsoever in 3 years. The new coaching staff, which includes two defensive coaches from the 90s glory days, has so far taken a 100-something ranked scoring defense and transformed it into the #7 scoring defense as of 10/30. Time will tell if this trend continues.
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
Exactly what are you comparing? Hoke, Rodriguez, Borges, Mattison, Magee, GERG??? I can't tell because you use Rodriguez to represent all aspects of last years team, even though there was a full coaching staff working, and yet single out Borges instead of Hoke for this year. What is this post trying to say?
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^
We know Hoke is better. RR is gone. Let it be.
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:16 PM ^
Hoke Uber AlesPerhaps. But what about porters or stouts?
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^
What a lazy post.