Michigan's "High-Powered" Offense
Somehow, this just gets funnier everytime I see it.
Carr's fault. Get ready for about 20 of those posts here.
In all honesty though, I think if the defense was better we'd have more offensive players on that list. W/L's have a lot to do with post-season recognition.
Fewer players than Illinois, Purdue and Northwestern? 3rd from the bottom doesn't equate with our W/L, and if our offense is "great" and defense "horrible," why are we the only ones recognizing it? It seems to me that the coaches recognized Denard for being a one-man show.
We aren't seeing the fruits yet. We see the potential. This offense has some glaring weaknesses (fumbles, drops, no clear-cut #1 back), but these are situations that should be remedied as time goes on. What I see in this offense is limitless potential as these kids grow in strength and smarts. Those other teams ahead of us are at their ceiling, and good for them.
When Denard isn't a first team player, it loses a lot of credibility IMHO.
Is that they voted him OPOY but not onto the first team. I wonder if that has ever happened before.
It makes perfect sense. At this stage Denard is more of an offensive curiosity than a guy you'd want to QB your team in a must-win game due to his consistency and fumbling issues. If he can cut down on the turnovers next year he'll make the first team with ease.
I agree that you need to take these rankings with a grain of salt. They are an imperfect measure of the Michigan team and its potential going forward. They definitely lose credibility by not having Denard on the first team.
Can someone just make me an all-Dreads team? We're 7-5. You are what your record says you are. I'll be disappointed when next year's Big T-E-N team isn't filled with Wolverines.
The smartest thing RR said about youth is that he's got 18 and 19 year olds going against 22, 23 year olds. That's a big difference physically. More Barwis for everyone.
There ain't no sense looking up a dead dog's ass...
Well we all know the MSM couldn't be wrong.
This offense is about the whole, not the sum of its parts. For example, we're not likely to have a star, play-making receiver on this offense because we don't throw as many bombs deep that are jump balls. Our offense is based on players fitting into specific roles in the system, so while we may not reap many individual awards, the product will be solid.
So the guys who talk about offensive yardage to say "the offense is awesome" are nuts, but the guys who cite polls about individual players to say "the offense sucks" have got it figured out? Interesting.
Post-season awards have always taken winning into account. Denard had great individual statistics. His record, particularly in conference play, was not that good.
This is not to deny his achievement, which would be significant in any league, and in any year. But he had a losing record in the conference. Part of that is attributable to Michigan’s poor defense, but Michigan also had long stretches of offensive ineptitude, especially against the better opponents.
I can fully understand voters who take that into consideration.
This is a stupid conclusion drawn from the Big Ten awards. The sum of all parts equal the whole. Just because there are not 11 guys from the offense on the list of best position players, that has no bearing on the effectiveness of the offense. The converse of that is also true. Also, as an aside, I'd much rather have one Denard on the list than several other positional players. In other words, one Denard equals a RB, FB, and at least one WR.
And now I'm pissed that I took time to respond to your thread. Damn you.
It's a team game, and individual awards shouldn't matter. That being said, there are plenty of reasons why we are not on the awards list:
This offense is about scheme, not players. Obviously, you need talent, especially at QB and OL, but most of the reason it's successful is because it puts people in space with a chance to make plays. On some of the throws Denard made, the receiver was wide open, because the design of the play took advantage of the defense. Smith and Shaw are not great backs, and they can't power through a line for 3 yards every play, yet we average over 4 YPC because they get open space through Denard's run threat and good OL blocking.
Another reason we are not well-represented is "we should be" is that there are biases all over the media and coaches. QBs are judged on their ability to throw and hand off, not get first downs, so Dan Persa and Tolzien are ahead of Denard and Pryor. WRs are judged on circus catches they make that highlight reels, not little things like getting open or blocking. People have confirmation bias toward the players that they picked in the preseason, so they looked at guys like Kerrigan and Clayborn more closely during the season, and automatically put them ahead of players who may or may not have outplayed them during the season. The fact that Mouton made second team is pretty good evidence of this. Raw statistics, not adjusted for pace or situation are given way too much weight.
Finally, the coaches and media don't have time to watch 44 total games over the course of the Big Ten season. They probably watch 1 or 2 games a weekend, plus the highlights of the others. They don't have nearly enough information to make objective judgements of all the players on all the teams. They are mostly just making these pointless lists up as they go along.
I could care less what the coaches in the B10 think about this offense. If you look up and down these lists in any conference, you'll see guys on there because of their name, the school they play for, etc. that don't make any sense. I have seen this offense go from one of the worst in the nation to one of the best in 3 years, and that is enough for me.
And as to next year, the relevant metric is returning B10 honorees.
#6th ranked offense in the country using mediocre offensive talent -- must be great coaching by RR.
How many from Michigan made this list a year ago?
Wait, I can answer that.
Last season, not a single Michigan players made either the coaches or medias first or second team all Big 10 on offense.
You're telling me 4 made it this year and its somehow a bad thing?
For the record, offense, defense and honorable mention included, MIchigan had 4 total guys on those lists last year, and three (BG, D-War and Zoltan) were in their final season at MICH.
We have almost three times as many this year. Thats not a bad step towards the top of the league, IMHE. Considering most of the selections this year for MICH are back, plus some stars in the making not on that list (think Denard, Lewan, as examples), I would expect another bump closer to the top in 2011.
the fact that we have such a low number of all-conference performers is obviously much more important than the fact that we are #1 in the conference and #6 in the nation in total offense.
OP, as an exercise, why don't you try to name as many of Oregon's starters on offense as you can, not including Darron Thomas or LaMichael James... GO!
So these stats mean that we have 4 offensive players getting mentioned and 7 on the defense?? Doesn't this alone tell us that you have no point whatsoever?
All Big Ten Awards tend to go to upperclassmen, which is why there's LOLs like Persa coming in over TP and Denard.
6 - Iowa
4 - Michigan
30 - Iowa
12 - Purdue
11 - Michigan
And yet Iowa finished the season 7 and 5, Just like Michigan. Purdue was 4-8 yet somehow had 1 more better player than Michigan?
Your vorpal sword swipe at the keep Rich Rod camp instead provides ample evidence of the decimated defense/cupboard was bare meme -- if Michigan can do as well as it did with only 11 'good' players, how will it do when it continues to recruit good to very good classes? (and there's a consensus that Michigan is at least in the top four of the Big 11+2 for recruiting for next year).
I'm at this point highly ambivalent about whether to keep or can the coach, but this is a ridiculous argument.
This just pissed me off.
Michigan's performance in the last two games essentially killed their chance of getting post-season rewards. What do you expect? Media voters are big on team performance. Michigan will be near the top of that list next year.
I agree with the voters. We have a very talented QB and a scheme that takes good advantage of his skills (though it does leave him with a lot of bumps and bruises) - but I don't think we're stacked up and down with NFL talent by any means.
We basically have a flag football offense. You put your early pubescent 6th grader at quarterback who can outrun everybody. When you're playing against a dud team, he can do even more than the best passer in the country since he can simply outrun everybody. On the other hand, when you go up against a team that can match your athleticism, your team's scheme is so bad that you simply have no chance to compete. Why do you think even teams like Minnesota, Northwestern, and Purdue put together upsets on occasion, while the only win Michigan has had against a ranked team in 3 years ended up being a dud Wisconsin team that floundered?
Also, how do you respond to building an offense entirely around one guy when that guy finished maybe 3 games all season? There's a reason that little runners keep away from the D-Linemen and Middle linebackers, and why the successful spread teams go to the air when they play against big time defenses.