Michigan 2012 vs. Michigan 2011

I think the biggest change of strength was the 2011 Defensive Line vs the 2012 Defense. While the 2011 defensive line was definitely stronger, I believe the defense as a whole on an average basis has improved in 2012.

the jury is still out on this one. if we run the table from here than i would definitely give the 2012 team the nod. even if we have one more loss i would so long as it was a competitive loss that isn't the debacle that was iowa last year.

I would bet money, and a lot of it, that Michigan would win that game.

A lot of snowflakes like this could really be diaries with more work.  You could go through the stats of the 2011 team through the same number of games last season.  Compare top performers of last year vs this year. Unit vs unit production and see where there is more or less statistical production from last year to this year.  That's the kind of thing people coud really have a discussion about.  You really just gave your opinion with nothing to build off of.

I think that on offense our receivers/tight ends are more athletic with Funchess and Gardner but less experienced. And therefore more prone to mistakes or a tendency to disappear (i.e. lack of targets or receptions) during a game due to lack of separation.  Our line is bigger and more suited to the Borges offense but also less experienced.  Denard and the RBs are pretty much the same.  If the receivers go with athleticism rather than inexperience and Denard does his thing then this offense is better than last year.  That is with regards to potential rather than actual on field performance though.

On defense, our D-line is the new unit and I think that they are also more suited to the Mattison system.  Due to the size and athleticism of Campbell and Washington I think they are a better fit against the run because they can effectively occupy the O-line and allow linebackers to flow to the ball.  Their inexperience with regards to technique hurts with pass rush though, sometimes also against the run.  Mike Martin could just go all beast mode on fools. The loss of Countess hurts but the rest of the defense are the same guys with more experience.  Overall, I feel when the D-line does what they are supposed to this years defense is better than last. The pass rush is worse but I think good coverage helps cover up those warts to some degree.

What people said about this being a better team with a worse record seems pretty accurate.  However, if the team plays to its potential I think they can definitely run the table.

Well, one thing a lot of people said prior to this season is that there is a good chance that the team this year would be better, but with a worse record.



It's useful to remember that Michigan was a dodgy work in progress at this point last year, too.



It will be a lot easier to tell after the State game.

The strength of Brady Hoke has been improving from day one.  Last year's team didn't really come together until about the Illinois game.  Before that, the defense was generally average (see: Western Michigan and Notre Dame games), and the offense was finding its footing.  This year it's been much the same story, except the improvement has been coming quicker.  Team 133 is way further ahead now than Team 132 was at the same point in the year.

All this to say: let's compare the teams at the end of the year.  Interesting things happen once you leave September and early October.

Along the same lines of thinking of the OP I've been pondering what was Bo's best team.  For my money I'd go with the 1977 squad but a case could be made for any of the teams from 72-74, 85 and even the 88 squad (especially when you look at how they lost their first two games in heartbreaking fashion and then steamrolled everything in their path after that)

FWIW I think this year's team is probably a bit better but will probably end up with a worse record when all is said and done.

Silly me for thinking there'd be actual stats in this post...

of nature against each other, like matter vs. anti-matter, will be a tragedy, not only for the teams involved, but for our planet. All nations must band together, to ensure that such a conflageration never takes place.

So far I'd say the team last year was better. They had a much better offensive an defensive line, less denard interceptions and this point, and better wide receivers/tight ends. Fitz also had a better year last year than so far this year. Also I think Hemingway single handedly saved about 5/6 interceptions for Denard and theres no one that can do that this year.

This team will be better...especially if you give this team a full strength Countess, Hopkins, etc.

Aside from that, I see this year's defense creeping into the game changing range, whereas last year it was Just gloriously miraculously competent.

Statistically, I am sure last year's offense was better, merely because we didn't play Alabama, and ND's defense was not yet a game changer at that point. I don't think Denard is magically a worse passer now. He just had a bad game.

If turnover margin is going to be used, then it is fair to point out that the aberration this year is actually a single game. This year, our turnover margin to date is -0.8, but only -0.3 in the last three games. Consider that we have, after five games, 4 fumbles recovered, 2 fumbles lost and have intercepted 4 passes while throwing 10 of them (8 turnovers gained to 12 committed). Subtracting out the aberration, which is likely ND, those statistics become 4 fumbles recovered, 1 fumble lost, 2 interceptions for gain with five intcereptions thrown, which I believe comes out to a turnover margin of zero (4 recoveries, 2 INTs to 1 fumble lost, 5 INTs thrown, or 6 and 6). Nevertheless, I think that particular statistic is definitely on the mend right now.

For comparison, our turnover margin after five games last year was +1.0.

Someone didn't get the memo that the only acceptable threads are on the length of players' hair, people affiliated with the Michigan sporting world dying, or pressers in which platitudes are repeated ad nauseam.

Denard's speed 2009/2010/2011/2012

It is hard to compare, but then, that's what the internet is for, isn't it?

There are plusses and minuses on both teams.

2011 Plusses:

• Center . . . how can you really replace Molk?
• DL . . . Martin was a beast, and wth Van Bergen, Heininger, and Roh, you had a pretty good, pretty complete DL.
• WR . . . Hard to replace someone like Hemingway, and Martavious was pretty good as well.
• Easier schedule.
• Turnover margin. That was something to behold.

2011 Minuses

• Experience under Brady and position coaches. Hard to do a ton in year one.
• Particularly, Denard was in year one with Borges, and wasn't doing much with passing other than jump balls.

2012 Plusses:

• Experience. With a full year and a half, two Springs, two Fall practices, terminology, stability of coaching, the entire team benefits.
• Denard is better at passing. Go ahead, argue with me if you want. But I do not see nearly the jump balls we had in 2011. Denard may never be a "great" passer. But he has improved significantly. I put his failings in several places, listed largely in order of importance:  1) The time for the OL to gel. 2) Time for the WR corps to run crisper routes (Gardner in particular,) for Funchess to get the hang of things, for Roundtree to get completely healthy, 3) Alabama's sick secondary; 4) ND's T'eo - a great, disruptive LB. 5) Borges' playcalling. I really don't think it has been that bad, but I think he was a bit too optimistic vs. ND, a game that could have been called differently and given us the win.

2012 Better than expected:

• WR Corps. Devin Gardner is obviously going to be a great receiver, and Funchess an incredible Tight End. Gallon is already there, and just needs the ball in his hands. Dileo, Robinson, and Darboh all have potential to be a tremendous supplement to the other three.
• OL. They are turning into a strength, and also giving time for our freshmen to redshirt and gain experience.
• DL. BWC, Washington, Pipkins, and Roh are doing a fine job.
• Secondary. I was worried with the loss of Countess, but Taylor and Avery are doing just fine.

2012 Minuses.

• Mealer vs. Molk. I actually think Mealer has done a very good job, but you don't replace someone like Molk and stay at the same level.
• Schedule. All the road games, and Alabama, ND, Ohio, all being much better.
• Turnovers. Season isn't over, and I agree with Mattison or Hoke that if we get all our positive turnovers in the conference, that'd be a fair trade.

I'd really like someone to run the numbers, but from my perspective, 2012 is just a better "TEAM," even though there are several individual "players" on the team who were better last year (Molk, Martin, Van Bergen, Hemingway.) We had to expect a regression to the mean with turnovers, and we've always known the 2012 schedule was brutal.

We won't know til the games are played, but I wouldn't be surprised for us to win out through Thanksgiving, and for Ohio to be a tossup with a reasonable chance we win. If we win out the regular season and have an identical won-loss record to 2011, that would be a clear demonstration (in my mind) that 2012 was a better team than 2011.