How Good Was the 1997 Offense?

Submitted by Ziff72 on

Yesterday I stated in another thread that the 97 defense carried a horrid offense to the NC.   I was taken to task by a couple of posters that the 97 offense was anywhere from underrated to good to could score when they wanted Lloyd just held the reigns.   Not sure why but this kind of surprised me that more than a few people stuck up for that offense.  I asked a few people the rest of the day that question and most agrred with me that it was anywhere from mediocre to blah.  

As we have seen the last few years people have a big difference on what they think is a successful offense so I wanted to get a board wide feel on where we slot this offense from 97.  Put your vote in from 1 to 10.   10 being 95 Nebraska's run game mixed with Spurriers 97 fun gun passing game and 1 being 08 Michigan.    I know a lot of guys have stats already worked up so please use some stats to back up your claims if you can.  

The guys in the other thread made me reconsider my own opinion and looking at the stats and production I don't think they were good but maybe they weren't as bad as I remember.  I'll give them a 4.   My quick stat check looked at the last 11 years of Lloyd's tenure.

Pts per game they were 10th of a 11 years.

Pass yds per game they were 10th of 11 years

Yds per carry they were 6th of 11 years

That would seem to support my argument depending on how you feel about Michigan' offense during this period, but as we've seen with some of the advanced stats that have come out there are a lot of factors that go into those pretty generic  stats so I can be swayed if you have a good point or stat.

Have at it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Darth Wolverine

February 7th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^

I think they were good, but not spectacular. They obviously did enough to win, but of course the defense was the main reason Michigan went undefeated.

nyc_wolverines

February 7th, 2012 at 3:48 PM ^

Texas came tantalizingly close to beating the Tide with Gil Garrett (sp?) at QB. That Tide team was nowhere near as good (even with Julio Jones, Richardson and Greg "nothing is secret" McElroy) as this year's Tide team. Trent Richardson > Ingram in my book.

Ziff72

February 7th, 2012 at 10:26 AM ^

I guess that is a fair statement other than the OSU game.  We scored 20 and had a punt return and int return for a td.   With a 20-0 lead and being tasked with just burning clock and not turning the ball over they did neither in almost blowing that game in the 2nd half.

Ziff72

February 7th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^

Hutchinson and Backus were freshmen so they were not the same guys that drove the bus for the 99 and 00 offenses.   The 2 Chris's were warriors but they were not top flight running backs.  They were Novak and Douglass.

Not saying you're wrong but they were 10th in scoring out of 11 years of Lloyd.   If you feel we were 1 of the best offenses in the country during that time period you could make that case.  Then you would be saying M. Debord and S. Parrish were geniuses.

Todd Plate's n…

February 7th, 2012 at 10:27 AM ^

as AAMICHFAN said, they executed well, especially in tight situations.  I feel like they were very close to be explosive if two things could have happened: Lloyd opening it up a bit and Woodson being a bigger part of it (which I know was not realistic given his D and return duties).  

 

MSHOT92

February 7th, 2012 at 4:53 PM ^

of coaching against Woodson in HS...and for my money...he was a better tailback than a DB if you can believe it. Against HS competition he ran wild. And our league at that time was pretty stout, a number of teams that same season made it pretty deep in the playoffs. With that said, while perhaps not overly explosive, the offense was precise. They got it done. One of the biggest knocks I have against LLOYD ball (and there are many in my world) was his ULTRA-conservative nature that cost us a few games by sitting on the ball rather than blowing a game open...I've never been a fan of handing a team their ass unless it's ohio....however I think there is a point in today's game that a five point lead let alone 20 simply isn't safe anymore parcticularly when you do little more than sit on the ball. I recall a msu game where we put up 14 points in the blink of an eye going into half with 28 points headed to the locker room...the second half was over before it started.

lunchboxthegoat

February 7th, 2012 at 10:27 AM ^

football outsiders: 

 

 

60. 1997 Michigan Record: 12-0 Conference: Big Ten Best Wins: def. Ohio State (10-3) 20-14, def. Washington State (10-2) 21-16 Blemishes: none Point Differential: +208 (322-114) Only Alabama and Notre Dame produce more teams on this list than Michigan ... and yet, only one Michigan team from after 1950 makes an appearance. (The conservative offensive approaches of both Bo Schembechler and Woody Hayes clearly did not impress the Est. S&P+ formula.) It is a bit unexpected, then, that the 1997 Wolverines, one of the most expected of recent champions, is the one to make it. In Lloyd Carr's third season running the show in Ann Arbor, Michigan began the season ranked 13th but managed a share of the national title with Nebraska thanks to an efficient offense and an explosive defense. How good was Michigan's defense in 1997? So good that they never gave up more than 16 points to any of the four Top 10 teams they faced. So good that they produced the first defensive Heisman winner since voters started focusing on just one side of the ball. So good that it got them on this list despite an offense that ranked just 26th in Est. S&P+. The Wolverines began the season by crushing No. 8 Colorado, 27-3 (after the game, Colorado coach Rick Neuheisel said "We have to rebuild ourselves emotionally."), spotted Notre Dame a 14-7 halftime lead before coming back to win, and held off No. 15 Iowa in Ann Arbor. In late October, Michigan was ranked fifth in the country, then made their move. They whipped Michigan State thanks to five interceptions (including this one by eventual Heisman winner Charles Woodson), then mauled No. 3 Penn State in Beaver Stadium by a 34-8 margin. Combined with Nebraska's fluky escape at Missouri, Michigan jumped to No. 1 in the AP Poll. They did nothing to earn a downgrade -- they handled No. 23 Wisconsin and No. 4 Ohio State to finish the regular season undefeated, then knocked off Ryan Leaf and No. 8 Washington State by a 21-16 margin to win the AP title.

They seem to suggest that this offense was pretty good, 26th in CFB that year. Not dominant by any stretch but certainly not a liability like some people are claiming.

Ziff72

February 7th, 2012 at 10:35 AM ^

That's a good article.  I can't put 26th into context but they don't seem to think it is good when they use the word "despite".   I'd say they thought it was average to bad.  26th can be taken a lot of different ways.

 

"So good that it got them on this list despite an offense that ranked just 26th in Est. S&P+  

lunchboxthegoat

February 7th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^

I think you're misunderstanding what they mean. This is a list of the top 100 teams based on point differential versus expected point differential (normalizing for strength of schedule). Most teams on this list have elite offenses and defenses in their given year. 

1997 Michigan basically blows up that mould by having an ULTRA dominant defense and a good to very good offense. 26th in S&P+ is probably one of the better outputs from the Lloyd era, just based on his coaching style. We traditionally just ran out the clock or sat on leads late in games, didn't blow up the scoreboard unless we had to and played it very conservative most of the time. 26th suggest that we were in the top 3rd of college football offensively for that year, pretty darn good, just not elite. 

MI Expat NY

February 7th, 2012 at 10:39 AM ^

You have to remember, that at the time, there wasn't a whole lot of offensive variety in college football.  The spread was in its infancy.  "Air-Raid" style attacks were in its infancy.  I would imagine that offensive efficiency rankings at the time had a far stronger correlation to overall talent than it does now.  There weren't 25 MAC/WAC/CUSA teams lighting it up on offense, skewing the rankings.   

restive neb

February 7th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^

I have to believe Neuheisel was primarily referring to his quarterback (Detmer?).  I remember watching that game, and actually feeling sorry for the kid.  He looked like he was terrified to take a 5 step drop, knowing that he was going to get crushed.  It's probably the only time I've ever felt bad for an opposing quarterback.  I hope I can feel that way again soon.

Hail-Storm

February 7th, 2012 at 10:27 AM ^

I became a true fan my freshman year in 98, so I didn't follow the team closely enough to give them a good evaluation.  I would like to point out that they did go up against a guantlet of a schedule. Colorado, ND, PSU, OSU, this was when the Big Ten was probably the power conference and had many programs at their defensive peaks. Michigan's coaches clearly ran the offense as a low risk offense, so it may not be fair to evaluate how good they were (see Alabama this year, or Tresselball for recent comparisons).

On the other hand, I know that when they did need a big play they relied heavily on Charles Woodson, which tends to make me believe they didn't have the full complement of playmakers on offense we've seen in other Michigan offenses.

In the end though, what they accomplished means that they were good enough, which probably makes this a somewhat moot point. 

Bando Calrissian

February 7th, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^

Great line, one great receiver, one great tight end, Woodson pitching in, a committee backfield, decent quarterback, and rock-solid execution of an offense geared exactly to their strengths.

It wasn't terribly exciting stuff most of the time, but it worked.  

MI Expat NY

February 7th, 2012 at 10:35 AM ^

Those guys, with the exception of Adami, were young.  Their best years were ahead of them, Hutch and Backus in particular.  

The 1997 offense was solid.  Talent was there, but besides maybe Tuman, I'd be hard pressed to say that any position group was the best at Michigan in the 1990's.  They may have been held back by Lloyd's natural tendencies and the dominance of the defense, but it was far from being spectacular.  

UMdad

February 7th, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^

They were better than average, but were not flashy or spectacular.  Howard was a solid running back and the back ups were strong runners as well.  Streets was an NFL caliber receiver and Griese, Shea, and Tuman were also NFL caliber skilled players.  Add to that multiple NFL linemen and I can't see how you can call that offense "average."  What it was was methodical and lacked the flashy plays. 

Noahdb

February 7th, 2012 at 10:31 AM ^

I think most coaches would like to have an offense that "horrid." 



The offensive line was phenomenal. You had three players that spent at least a decade in the NFL in Steve Hutchinson, Jon Jansen and Jeff Backus. You had a center in Zach Adami who was all-conference that year. 

You had an all-american TE in Jerame Tuman. He also spent about a decade in the NFL. Aaron Shea would come in as an H-back and she spent about five years in the NFL.

At QB, you had Brian Griese, who was good enough to spend 10 years in the NFL. You also had the option of bringing in two other future NFL QBs in Scott Dreisbach and Tom Brady.

In the backfield, you had Anthony Thomas, Chris Howard and Chris Floyd. They all played at least three years in the NFL. 

At WR, you had Russell Shaw and Tai Streets (who played five years in the NFL). You also would occasionally see Charles Woodson at WR. 

That's a pretty remarkable amount of talent on one side of the ball. Had they been required to score 35 points a game, they certainly could have done so. 

Ziff72

February 7th, 2012 at 10:46 AM ^

That offensive line was very young Hutch and Backus were freshmen.  They were not dominant yet.

Check the stats.   Tuman and Streets had less than 30 catches a piece.   Streets was hurt for part of the year.  There was a reason they had to bring in Woodson. 

I guess the finger points directly at Debord.  

You can look at this 2 ways.  They were one of the lowest scoring teams of Lloyds career.  Either they didn't score because they didn't have to or how did they not score with such a dominant defense setting them up for easy scores time and again?

OSU had a great defense that year, but we were overmatched in the biggest game of the year.  It looked like LSU going up against Alabama. 

The interesting game that year was Iowa.   We were terrible in the 1st half and forced with opening it up in the 2nd half the offense did perform.  

Meeeeshigan

February 7th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^

I definitely remember them managing games well: running a lot, not turning the ball over, eating time of possession some. They may not have been spectacular, but I seem to remember them not putting that awesome D in too many terrible situations. I also remember feeling supremely confident whenever that D came on the field ("Are we going to score on D this time? When's the turnover coming?", etc.). Good times.

restive neb

February 7th, 2012 at 10:41 AM ^

Lloyd never used his weapons unless he had to.  With the 1997 defense, he almost never had to.  He mostly asked one thing of that year's offense:  Don't screw it up.  That isn't a recipe for putting up gawdy stats.

Edit:  To add to my point, Brian Griese was not the most talented quarterback on the team that year.  The reason he was the starter, in my opinion, is that Lloyd trusted him most to not screw it up.  He was consistent and smart, so he didn't make many mistakes.

Bill in Birmingham

February 7th, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^

This is correct. And like it or not, the philososphy of letting a great defense win for you, while asking your offense to just not screw it up, still works in college football today. It may not be as much fun for fans* as running up and down the field on offense, but with a defense as good as that one was, it is a sound strategy.

*I found watching the 2010 Michigan offense as much fun as any unit ever. However, I found watching the less interesting 2011 Michigan offense playing a with a good defense win a lot of games much more fun.

 

lilpenny1316

February 7th, 2012 at 10:43 AM ^

When the season started, the schedule was rated as toughest in the nation.  ND was trending down.  Baylor was bad.  Colorado was average.  The only other conference team to win a bowl game was Purdue and we didn't play them.  So the schedule was set up perfectly for a dominating defense and a senior QB who can manage games and play within himself.

Michigan's offense was this:

1. Run the ball with the Chris Howard, Clarence Williams and Anthony Thomas

2. Play action QB waggle to the tight end.

3. Throw mid-to long-range a few times to keep the offense honest.

I think it's fair to say there have been more talented offenses at Michigan, especially at the skill positions.  But the defense and the schedule was able to take the pressure off the O, minus the Iowa comeback.

SFBayAreaBlue

February 7th, 2012 at 10:46 AM ^

With Woodson, pretty good.  Without Woodson, eeeeeeh....  Look at the 1996 offense to get an idea.  No Biakabutuka.  A-train was just a frosh and wasn't trusted in key situtations yet.  But you did have a senior QB and upperclass backfield.  The offense was efficient, especially in the redzone.  One reason ppl say it was good but reined in is you know, because Lloyd.  Also, Tai Streets and Tuman lit it up a bit in the rosebowl when we changed gameplan a bit.  You'd be right to say the defense carried the offense.  They got the ball back quickly, and often in good field position.  The only game where the offense really looked great was against Penn State and you'll note that both woodson and A-train had good games then (it was late in the season and A-train was getting more carries because howard lacked speed and williams lacked...everything but speed...)  Most of the season Streets hadn't really shown much except that he wasn't yet up to the Mercury Hayes, Amani Toomer level.  Our best passing play that year was the bootleg to Tuman.  

You could point to Iowa if you wanted to make a case for how good the offense was, but that was a strange game with nearly everything going wrong that could go wrong, and somehow we managed to put 21 points up in the second half for the comeback.  

hfhmilkman

February 7th, 2012 at 10:58 AM ^

I am in the camp that the offense was average at best.  The defense absolutely bailed the offense out a number of times.  For example the offense all but gave the ND game away.  Yet the defense stuffed ND despite them seeming to play the entire 2nd half in UM territory.  I also recall Griese did not have a very good half against Iowa.  And of course there were the mistakes against OSU.

When your best offensive player is a defensive player, that is not saying much for the offense.  Down the stretch Woodson was by far our most dominant player on offense. 

Schembo

February 7th, 2012 at 10:59 AM ^

They were efficient when they needed to be.  And, if I remember correctly they took care of the football.  There was major concerns about the offense going into the season which was reflected in their poor preseason ranking, but they suprised alot of people with how good they were at times.  Woodson lining up at receiver added a nice dimension.

Butterfield

February 7th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^

Good thread and good points of view and most of all, after the White Pony meltdown, civility.  That has to count for something. 

I shared my personal opinions on this topic in the other thread, but I'll consolidate them here.  It was a very solid offense.  They were not spectacular and they weren't filled with guys who were threats every time they touched the ball.  But they were effective (perhaps outside of the OSU game) at scoring pretty much anytime they needed to.  With the '97 defense, they often didn't need to and were tasked with simply running clock.  I would argue that is why YPC is low - Chris Howard and Floyd were very good running backs that were certainly capable off moving the chains.  But everyone and their mother (and opposing defenses) knew that in the 2nd half we'd see a bunch of inside the tackles power plays and Lloyd was absolutely comfortable punting it away and laughing as the defense caused another 3 and out. 

The defense didn't allow a second half TD the entire season until garbage time against PSU - if that doesn't support getting uber conservative on offense with a lead I don't know what does.  It may not have been beautiful or record breaking, but it was a damn effective offense that did exactly what it was tasked to do.  I give it an 8. 

bluebrains98

February 7th, 2012 at 11:35 AM ^

Definitely agree with the OP. 1997/1998 was my senior year, and I can tell you that the students were much more excited for the defense to take the field. And, we knew it at the time and used to talk about it. It was strange, but we just kind of waited for the offense to finish up so the fun could begin.

mfan_in_ohio

February 7th, 2012 at 11:50 AM ^

The 1997 team scored at least 20 points in every game that year.  That's something that the 2011 team can't say.  There were also very few games where Michigan had to throw the ball in the fourth quarter (Iowa, Washington St.), and the offense executed perfectly in those situations.  The Iowa game is actually a great example of the offense winning a game that, in most years, Michigan would have lost. 

 

hfhmilkman

February 7th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^

I disagree that the Iowa game was a great comeback.  We absolutely lucked out in that the Iowa defenisve player commited pass interference on a five yard route on 3rd and I believe 15.  If we had to punt, our offense was ill equiped to drive the field in 2 minutes.  To go undefeated you have to be good and lucky.  Against Iowa we were lucky.  UM turned the ball over 3 times and gave up multiple big plays on defense.   It is not like we lit the 4th quarter up.  It was pretty much the defense stoning Iowa for the entire 2nd half.  With the exception of the last drive I doubt they had three first downs?

Not that I am bagging on the offense.  I thought Carr did a great job realizing what he had and getting the most out of it.  The team reminded me of the Parcell's coached Giants teams of the late 80ties.  The forumla was control the clock, minimie mistakes, and a dominant defense to bail you out of trouble.

cozy200

February 7th, 2012 at 2:59 PM ^

Felt like iowa usually does That game was honestly not as memorable though and im gonna go with an ok offense with an amazing defense. It wasnt a great offense by any means, but good teams find a way. Tim dwight.. White lightnin. Havent heard that name in forever. Damn im getting old.

WolverineHistorian

February 7th, 2012 at 1:45 PM ^

I agree with you about the pass interference on Tai Streets.  However, Iowa was kind of lucky themselves.  17 of their 24 points were scored thanks to special teams disasters on our part.  Their second touchdown was thanks to a Griese interception that was returned to the 1 yard line.  Their third touchdown was Tim Dwight's punt return for a score where the ref missed a block in the back.  Their field goal was set up thanks to Dwight returning a kickoff 60 something yards to our 25 yard line.

We outgained Iowa in total offense 390 yards to 186.  Griese's interceptions made that game closer than what it should have really been.

 

markusr2007

February 7th, 2012 at 12:23 PM ^

It think Michigan perfected 5 plays that year, mostly out of an offset I-formation:

1. The QB waggle play with Griese to TE Tuman about eleventy billion times that year.

2. A middle post pass to Charles Woodson for a big gain or 6

3. FB Chris Floyd on a 36 tackle trap

4. TB Chris Howard 41 outside pitch

5. Screen pass to Aaron Shea in the right flat.

Sometimes Marcus Knight made a nice snare here or there, and there were some nice screen passes to TB Chris Howard, but that's pretty much it. 

Most opponents knew all this was coming. I mean, how could they not? In terms of offensive tactics, every Michigan game was a carbon copy of the previous one. Despite this, Michigan made a lot of defenses looks surprised.

 

DefenseWins

February 7th, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^

I agree that the offense was good enough to get the job done.  That is obvious by the results.  The 97 defense affected the strategy of the offense for the most part.  However, I don't think the offense was as good as some seem to think.  It was an average offense for most of the year.  Had the offense been above average, a few of the wins that year would have been blowouts based on  how the defense played.  Instead, they were tight, 97 Michigan Defense style wins.

I never understood how teams did not see the PA TE Waggle coming!!!  We seemed to run it every third play from what I remember.

I loved that team, and they will always be my favorite team for what they accomplished and how they did it with defense.  But I don't think the offense was that great, just solid.

EGD

February 7th, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^

I think part of the difficulty in judging the '97 offense is, that was a very up-and-down unit.  Consider: the '97 offense dominated against Colorado, Penn State, and a couple of cupcake teams (Baylor and IU).  But the '97 offense struggled against ND (socring just 21 points and committing numerous turnovers), Ohio (scoring only 7 points and failing to put away the game late despite multiple opportunities), MSU (scoring just 23 points despite 6 takeaways), and even a couple inferior opponents, like Northwestern (a sloppy 23 points) and Minnesota (just 24 points against an awful team (3-9 finish, 1-7 Big Ten).  Then there were games like Iowa and WSU, where the offense was terrible early but came on strong at the end to win.

There is no question that team had loads of offensive talent--especially on the offensive line and in the backfield.  But the only real good wide receiver on that team was Streets, who played through injuries for most of the year, and Woodson, who was a primarily defensive player. Chris Howard, the opening day tailback, was also hurt late in the season.  It was not an offense that struck fear into the hearts of its opponents.  It is difficult to criticize that team when they went 12-0, but keep in mind that the offense almost gave away two games (ND and Iowa), and in several others the offense was just kinda there while the defense destroyed the opponents.