the TOs against OSU, in my opinion. Ball ripped away from Smith and Drob. Great pressure forced Tate into throwing a ball up for grabs and Howard made a nice play on it.
here's one vote for "John Beilein's head in a Futurama jar"
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Michigan offense actually better against stronger defenses
November 28th, 2010 at 10:54 PM
#52
Nothing fluky about
November 29th, 2010 at 12:06 AM
#53
Alright folks
I'm starting to lose faith in this blog. What did I say here that was so neg-worthy? Because I disagree with the OP? Is there something wrong with having an opposing viewpoint?
November 29th, 2010 at 12:13 AM
#54
I think it has something to
I think it has something to do with your implied assertion that numbers and data aren't important and shouldn't be used. We should just rely on our guts to tell us how good the O is. This is how you are coming off to me, and it sounds outrageously ignorant. You're coming off sounding like : "I know you've got evidence and numbers and stuff, but my emotions tell me otherwise."
November 29th, 2010 at 12:59 AM
#55
Well, ok
I guess I'm not saying it well then. I'm not implying stats are bad, and if I was then it was a misunderstanding. I'm just trying to say that they don't always tell the whole story. Especially looking at one or two in isolation.
And in regards to the second statement (about my emotions telling me otherwise), there's more to the evaluation of football than pure numbers...I don't think that's emotions. Maybe I'm wrong. I am certainly no expert at football though, so perhaps I should refrain from saying those types of things.
November 29th, 2010 at 12:14 AM
#56
Just for starters:
"My nomination for worst. post. ever." will get you negged everytime. Grow a pair and deal with it. If you think it's the worst post ever, fine. Don't whine about getting negged when you sound like an asshole, which you all but admitted you did.
November 29th, 2010 at 1:05 AM
#57
Welp, I'm a horse's ass. Sorry then.
My attempt at wit and humor was clearly misguided. Consider that statement withdrawn.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:24 PM
#58
Umm, no one said anything
Umm, no one said anything about Harbaugh, and no one said the offense wasn't that good. We said that the stats put forth by OP don't really prove anything meaningful. Apparently we can't take issue with silly stats without being irrational ZOMG RICH ROD SUCKS haters?
November 28th, 2010 at 9:34 PM
#59
Scoring Stats
November 28th, 2010 at 10:26 PM
#60
Again, take out the outlier
Again, take out the outlier Illinois numbers, and there's a steady decline.
November 28th, 2010 at 11:28 PM
#61
Illinois is not in the top
Illinois is not in the top group for scoring defense.
November 28th, 2010 at 11:40 PM
#62
Yes, I know. Take them out
Yes, I know. Take them out of the middle group and there's a steady decline.
November 29th, 2010 at 12:37 AM
#63
Yes, there is a steady
Yes, there is a decline and as you have touched on a bit turnovers, starting position, youth/inexperience, etc. are all factors that effect an offenses ability to score. This is why I chose to use yards for my initial analysis. As the team matures those yards will turn to more scoring. The team is at a point where they don't respond well to adversity. When they overcome that, they won't just be able to move the ball on anyone, they'll be scoring at will.
November 28th, 2010 at 9:29 PM
#64
yards don't win you games,
yards don't win you games, points do.
In the last 7 games:
MSU: 24th Scoring Defense: UM (scored) 17 points - L
Iowa: 7th SD: UM 28 points - L (shut out of the first half)
Wisconsin: 29th SD: 28 points - L (shut out of the first half)
OSU: 3rd SD: 7 points - L
November 28th, 2010 at 11:16 PM
#65
Congrats on beating USC.
Congrats on beating USC. Could you hold a symposium for Big 10 fans and remind us what it feels like?
Also, the points thing is spot on and is a function of turnovers and the terrible field position the defense gave Michigan.
November 29th, 2010 at 12:00 AM
#66
Exactly
As 3x Super Bowl winning coach Bill Belichick says:
"Stats are for losers. The final score is for winners."
November 29th, 2010 at 12:10 AM
#67
That's great, but his teams
That's great, but his teams usually have good stats to go with the wins.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:31 AM
#68
Irish!
Good to see you again.
Your boys in SB made you proud vs USC.
Congrats!
November 28th, 2010 at 9:31 PM
#69
Grasping
So essentially you were able to find a stat that shows that our offense didn't shit the bed against the best 5 teams we played this year. OK, congratulations I guess. I wish that translated into first half points.
November 28th, 2010 at 9:38 PM
#70
This is honestly one of the
This is honestly one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on this blog. In games against "good" opponents (excluding Illinois, they are not good or even above-average) mIchigan has rounded up a grand total of 34 points in the first half against msu, iowa, psu, wisconsin, and ohio state. They accumulate yards when they are done by 3+ touchdowns (which they were in every one of these games at one point) and are forced to throw the ball in obvious passing situations. These useless statistics you posted mean absolutely nothing and if you think michigan has been better against good opponents we have not been watching the same team this year.
November 28th, 2010 at 9:42 PM
#71
Why is Illinois not even
Why is Illinois not even average? Stop changing the story so it fits your preconceived notions.
November 28th, 2010 at 9:47 PM
#72
Ironic.
Stop changing the story so it fits your preconceived notions.
Isn't that exactly the premise of the OP's "statistical breakdown"?
November 28th, 2010 at 9:51 PM
#73
He's presenting alternative
He's presenting alternative information, not denying facts. That Illinois team had outstanding games against OSU and MSU, two of the top offenses in the conference. You can't say that's false.
November 28th, 2010 at 9:52 PM
#74
What story am I changing?
What story am I changing?
November 28th, 2010 at 10:39 PM
#75
The story behind the numbers
The point is that our offense is the football equivalent of the Jaguar. Looks great, hauls ass, lots of cool bells and whistles, but it breaks down way too much at the most inopportune times.
You either believe that another year under current management is going to work out the kinks in the system that causes it to break down (e.g. inexperience, bad luck, pressing to make up for the lack of a defense, pressing to make up for the lack of a kicking game, etc.), or you believe that our offense is inherently flawed and needs new management to fix it, or you believe it doesn't matter either way since RR is beyond redemption.
Regardless, these are statistically relevant data points that show the promise this offense has. They also directly point out that the offense isn't a BMW yet or it would be scoring on par with Oregon so clearly there are issues as well.
No need to be dicks and to call out the OP for good, relevant, data points. This board is looking more and more like Mlive by the day. A lot of people (maybe all of us) need to take a week or two off from this board and from Michigan football. I wonder what would happen if Brian just shut her down for a bit...
November 28th, 2010 at 9:39 PM
#76
If they move adopt a
If they move adopt a new scoring system where you can cash in yards for points at a little plaza toll window behind the end zone, I'd support it. We'd be better than 7-5.
November 28th, 2010 at 9:56 PM
#77
I would be interested to get
I would be interested to get a comparison of how many possessions we got for these games. I would imagine they are higher than against the bad teams since the OSU/Wisconsin/Iowas scored on us more. That and what everyone else said... points.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:02 PM
#78
It's easy to be snarky
It's easy to be snarky about the difference between total offense (by yardage) and scoring offense. If (and how big of an "if" that is is up to you to decide) we can cut down on the turnovers and get a Division I-A placekicker, we'll get that fixed.
It's easy to be snarky about the difference between scoring offense and wins. If (and how big of an "if" that is is up to you to decide) we can fix the defense, we'll get that fixed too.
The idea that people shouldn't post anything that highlights anything positive about Michigan football, because we just lost badly to Ohio State, is sad. Just sad. I get that misery loves company, but geez.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:03 PM
#79
This times a million.
This times a million.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:05 PM
#80
Ok cool
Once the offense makes even less mistakes, (there has been less this year than the past two years though), and we get a top 25 defense, (yes top 25, no "at least mediocre", it has to be top 25), we will consistently get to BCS bowls.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:31 PM
#81
I'll say one thing
Find a kicker and things will be a lot different. How many missed field goals did Michigan have this year? Nine and 2 missed XPs. How many times did they go for it on 4th down within field goal range, only to turn the ball over? The answer is quite a bit. How many touchbacks did Michigan have on a kickoff? Seven and 3 kickoffs went out of bounds. Those are sad stats that need vast improvement.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:56 PM
#82
This is a simplistic and
This is a simplistic and misleading analysis. How much of the game did the starters play against weak defenses? How much more aggressive was the playcalling against strong defenses than weak? How much more risky was the playcalling against strong defenses than weak? Is the spike of turnovers against stronger defenses a function of youth or injury or playcalling that exceeded the capabilities of the players?
November 28th, 2010 at 11:13 PM
#83
If I'm not mistaken...
RichRod normally puts his 2nd string offense in before the other team puts in their 2nd string defense. I seem to remember Jeremy Jackson getting tackled by Chekwa (sic?)
Same with Wisconsin. If you think Beliema took his starters out before Rodriguez, you're on crack.
All the other questions in that jumble of a paragraph don't even make any sense, so I'll leave them alone.
November 28th, 2010 at 11:35 PM
#84
Sorry, but this simply isn't
Sorry, but this simply isn't true. Jeremy Jackson and Jeron Stokes played a lot because Hemmingway and Odoms were both out and we often play four receivers at a time. We also rotate WRs a lot. It's not some indication that RR pulls starters. You'll know the starters are pulled when the QB leaves the game and he's not hurt.
November 29th, 2010 at 1:20 AM
#85
How is our offense young?
We dont have a bunch of seniors, but our O does have adequate experience..you dont get to have 10 5th year seniorss every year. I would guess our offense is close to average as far as experience goes
November 29th, 2010 at 2:03 AM
#86
I'll trade you a first year
I'll trade you a first year tight end / receiver / running back for a first year QB everyday of the week. The specific location of the inexperience matters...ah, fuck it.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:54 AM
#87
Our offense is young too
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/different-look-importance-experience
Not as young as our D, but young compared to the elite teams.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:54 AM
#88
Where is the Win/Loss column
Where is the Win/Loss column in this chart?
