Michigan/ND 2011 vs Michigan/ND 2010 Offensive Performance: A Comparison
Presented without commentary.
2010:
16 possessions
10 punts
4 touchdowns
2 missed field goals
25% success rate (up to 31.25% if missed field goals are considered half of a "success")
2011:
13 possessions
5 punts
3 interceptions
5 touchdowns
38.5% success rate
September 12th, 2011 at 5:52 PM ^
September 12th, 2011 at 5:57 PM ^
Too many variables to make comparisions between these two years and come away with any valid conclusions. In other words, there is no truth.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:04 PM ^
I think you are undervaluing how badly interceptions are damaging to a team. If Denard makes that last INT an incompletion, then the team can line up for a FG(not a gimme but still) and potentially tie the game there. Sometimes a punt isn't the worst thing in the world, especially since we(hopefully) have a defense with a pulse.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^
But there are also different kinds of interceptions. A pick on a deep ball is functionally equivalent to a punt. Two of his three INTs were basically that - they cost us the ball but did not put the defense in a bad position. (IIRC, ND did not score any points off our turnovers.) After the last INT, ND took over at its own 20, same as it would have after a missed FG.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:20 PM ^
But you still lose the opportunity to kick that FG which is a pretty huge deal, especially to tie the game in the second half of the 4th quarter.. Also the screen pass that was picked off was not a functional punt and put our defense in a huge hole. I know nothing came of it because the D stepped up, but that doesn't, in my opinion, affect how we should judge how potentially damaging the INT was. I just think 500 yards with no TO is better than 450 yards with 3 TOs in the vast majority of situations.
EDIT: Just to be clear Denard is awesome in both cases.
September 12th, 2011 at 11:02 PM ^
I agree that turnovers are bad. But punts and missed FGs are bad, too. Those two missed FGs in last year's game were de facto turnovers. I don't know how you can argue that they were somehow "better" than the endzone interception. Both had the same end result.
In any event, let's not pretend that last year's offense was good at taking care of the ball.
September 12th, 2011 at 11:39 PM ^
I'm not trying to pretend that they were somehow good at preventing turnovers, but they did better at that last year against ND than they did this year. Maybe I missed all that griping in the offensive UFR thread against Western that Denard did well because he "didn't turn the ball over". . Also the missed FGs were special teams mistakes, I think you take them into account when evaluating the team as a whole(hence the new coaching staff), but not really the offensive performance. Although I kinda feel like we're all arguing semantics here, either offensive performance(500 yards and 28 pts or 450 and 35), should be good enough for Ws if we want to be back to being Michigan again.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:09 PM ^
sample size too small.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:15 PM ^
OK, now the commentary.
I wasn't posting this to prove anything - of course the sample size is too small. Rather the point is to rebut those on the main page who are pointing to last night's game as evidence that the Notre Dame game proves that Borges' system isn't working, that the offense is regressing, etc., etc. It proves no such thing.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:23 PM ^
522 yards of offense in 16 possessions in 2010; 452 yards of offense in 13 possessions in 2011.
It's dependent somewhat on field possession, but yards per possession were 35 this year, 32 last year.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:23 PM ^
2010 - Denard is amazing = W.
2011 - Denard is HolyShitICan'tBelieveWhatJustFingHappened = W.
Therefore if Denard is amazing or HSICBWJFH UM will win.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^
Denard is HolyShit!
September 12th, 2011 at 6:29 PM ^
From your general demeanor and prevous posts, you've already given your commentary: You want this to stand as the facts!! that this shows anyone critical of this year's win is wrong and that this shows our new offense is actually better than our old offense. This is definitely an excellent way to prove your point and draw a conclusion.
For instance, you didn't know this, but I'm Greg Robinson's mother. Yep, 121 year old Loretta Robinson.
Here are the offensive stats for Notre Dame in 2010 and 2011 against Michigan presented without commentary:
2011:
13 Posessions
4 TDs
1 Field Goal
4 TOs
4 Punts
34% success rate if a field goal is half a success
2010:
17 Posessions
3 TDs
1 Field Goal
3 TOs
8 Punts
2 End ofs
20% success rate if a field goal is half a success
MAN, I know I said presented without commentary, but those second numbers are just POPPING off the screen. I mean it is almost TOO MUCH TO TAKE!! Our defense under GREG ROBINSON is actually BETTER than our defense under its new supposed guru GREG MATTISON. I guess ole' GERG MATTISON's rep (lol!) must have been relying on Mr. Lewis and Mr. Reed too much eh? UM just cannot get this hiring firing thing down when it comes to DC's can it???
Bring my son back Mr. Brandon, he's certainly better than this 34% success rate has-been you have working for you now!
September 12th, 2011 at 6:36 PM ^
Actually, funny guy, as I say above my point isn't that this year's offense is necessarily better, but that the evidence doesn't support those who are crying "the sky is falling" based on the Notre Dame game.
As for the defensive statistics, not really comparable given that Notre Dame was playing a walk-on for almost half the game last year. No such outlier in the offensive stats.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:39 PM ^
Don't try and save face.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:51 PM ^
Its the same as I thought last year. Any system that puts up a boatload of points late is fundamentally a working one.
My comparison of the two ND's game goes a little different, Fuzzy.
Last year, it was all Denard. Yes, Roy caught a big third down pass on the final drive. but, the whole game was the magnifcent play of Denard, carrying the team from start to finish on O
This year? Tons more heroes. Denard put up the numbers. he was awesome. ONE OF THE BEST LEADERS TO WEAR A MICHIGAN JERSEY....But, his teammates won the game. A scintillating run by my boy Vincent....the WRs won the game practically. All of them made huge plays.....not to mention, and this gets us a bit OT, but there were defensive heroes and playmakers emerging in this game
Honest to god, I dont know what people want sometimes. Saturday night ruled. We might not be back, but holy hell there is some SWAG back on this team, yo
Also: 35 points on 50 plays.....isnt that like FEI Gold?
September 12th, 2011 at 7:03 PM ^
There's some funky compartmentalization going on around here regarding Denard. People are simultaneously arguing that he's 1) a once-in-a-generation superstar and 2) only capable of succeeding in the RichRod offense. It doesn't work that way. A coach can "screw up" a guy like Steven Threet. He can't screw up Denard. Denard will be awesome in any offense. He just put up 446 total yards and five TDs - on a day when (to hear some tell it) he was "misused".
September 12th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^
Me? Funky? Surely, you jest
I just want peeps to know, though, that I'm not one of the guys who feels like you can screw up Denard. I dont think I've posted anything along those lines.
Agreed with your post
Denard, misused. lol. he clearly has no chemistry with Hemingway or Gallon, so telling him to throw downfield to them is the worst.
Also, as a total aside, but its on my mind, so I am saying it.....remember when Gallon and Smith were on their way to being marginalized by the coaching staff?
September 12th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^
September 12th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^
no offense, but this pick-and-choose statistical analysis is pretty awful.
look at the rush offense last year vs. this year, just as one example.
the biggest difference is that last year, we *systematically* moved the ball down the field.
this year, it was almost all yardage via jump balls and broken plays. if that is good offense, we are in for a long year.
that said, it is certainly too early to judge; probably best to let Borges have a few more games before jumping off any bridges...
September 12th, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^
September 12th, 2011 at 9:25 PM ^
i would beg to differ about "missing your point". your point was pretty clear.
what i didn't agree with was your choice of statistics. you can pick and choose a subset of stats to make a point, but shouldn't you really be looking at *all* the relevant stats? certainly no one can look at the rushing stats side by side and even say that they were close. the passing game is a more interesting comparison, but still: do you remember how many *easy* yards we got through the air last year? this year it was dominated by jump balls. if our offensive success is predicated on jump balls, i think we're in for a longer year than you might think.
anyhow, this is a silly squabble. the next many games will be a much better judge, as you say. i think we all look forward to seeing how they come out...
September 12th, 2011 at 10:00 PM ^
September 12th, 2011 at 8:59 PM ^
look at the rush offense last year vs. this year, just as one example.
We're averaging 5.8 per carry. Last year we averaged 5.6. We just don't have as many attempts per game.
Now granted, our average will probably drop as the year goes on, but last year's rush offense was not that effective when the ballcarrier wasn't Denard - and his production declined as the year went on and the hits accumulated. He rushed for nearly 900 yards in the first five weeks last year, and 800 in the final eight.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:12 PM ^
i meant in the ND game only (that seems like the only fair comparison).
last year: 7 ypc
this year: 4.4 ypc
including the western game is a bit unfair, dontcha think?
but everyone seems to be in bandwagon mode, so why not: yes, everything is going to be great, you're right.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:30 PM ^
September 12th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^
Nice post.
This year, it is totally cool to judge the offense based on a bad half but please ignore all bad halfs from last season.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:10 PM ^
And no, I have no intention of editing out the word "halfs."
September 12th, 2011 at 10:40 PM ^
Clearly, Hoke gets it.