A Note of Caution on the Offense
I've seen a lot of posts and comments in recent days to the effect of "best offense ever!" Let me be clear -- I am extremely excited about this offense and our players, and can't wait to see what happens in Big 10 play. But to paraphrase Winston Wolf, let's not start sucking something something just yet.
Against Connecticut, a mediocre BCS team, we scored 21 points in our first four possessions, but then were held in check (10 points) the rest of the game.
Against Notre Dame, a mediocre BCS team, we scored 21 points in the first half (with the frequent benefit of a short field due to interceptions of backup QBs), and then were shut out until the final drive of the second half. We punted 10 times.
In our next two games our offense curb-stomped an FCS and a MAC team, and looked amazing doing so.
Again, this is not to say that I'm a doubter. I'm not. I think our line is amazing. I think Dernard is made of dilithium. I think we have a deep, talented and fast wide receiver corps, something I couldn't have imagined two years ago. I think we have some talented runningbacks, and hope that one of them (Touissant?) emerges as a true top-tier back to complement Denard, and make the team even more dangerous. I believe that the last two games showed a team coming together and perfecting the offense, and are NOT just the result of poor competition.
That being said, I also remember last year, in which we were extremely excited about our offense through four games, but then we managed to score fewer points per game in Big 10 play than we had in the disastrous 2008 season. (Do the math - sad but true).
Hopefully in the next few weeks we treat Big 10 defenses like glorified Bowling Greens. Until that happens, some tempered expectations might be advisable. Pride goeth before the fall, and all that.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:19 AM ^
I agree on tempering expectations.
However, I also think we were going easy on UConn in the second half. So I'm not sure that counts for much.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:36 AM ^
I actually think we dialed it back against ND also when Crist was out of the game and got really conservative. Both of those games I noticed that once we got a lead we kind of took the foot off the gas a little.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
with the UConn analysis (with a caveat of why would we want to take it easy on anybody in the first game when we need to get some miles on the sea legs so to speak). i completely disagree that we scaled it back or took it easy on ND when Crist was out. WHY would we want to take any chance that nd could come back. i believe we were not as efficient as we could have been in our execution of our offense. not that we were scaling it back! we did win, however and we are rolling! GO BLUE!
September 30th, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^
I wondered that about the UConn game, too, but we did start running the I-formation on the last series or two. That seemed to be a pretty clear signal of "We're just going to burn the clock."
September 29th, 2010 at 9:21 AM ^
I feel way worse about our offense now. Thanks for that. Gosh, that would've just been terrible if I was excited and stuff.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^
Yea - I cant imagine how the OP feels about our defense...
September 29th, 2010 at 9:21 AM ^
Thanks for that.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^
The offense is scoring over 40 points per game, and is a top 5 offense nationally.
Naturally, we should be worried.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^
once vs. UCONN and only had the ball 3 times in the 2nd half. Of those three times we had a 96 yd td drive, a 75 yd fg drive, and a final drive where the goal was to run out the clock and still picked up 51 yds before losing the ball on downs. So I don't think UCONN should temper expectations. ND 2nd half valid though.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
ND 2nd half valid though.
Except I think we stopped ourselves as many times as they stopped us due to (some very iffy) penalty calls against us. I think we score at least two more TD's if not for that.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^
<Insert Buzz Killington joke and/or video here>
September 29th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^
And done.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:29 AM ^
Don't you DARE temper my expectations. I will allow my expectations for this offense to be tempered when I see another team stop it.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^
Gird your loins. Very soon you'll get a comment advising you to "sack up" or "stop being a pussy" or the old reliable "man up, you wimp." Since it's morning, somebody will neg you for "pissing in my corn flakes." Of course, expressing even the tiniest degree of reservation about how fantastic Michigan is exposes you to the always classic "you're not a real Michigan fan" or if you're lucky, "go root for Sparty, brah."
September 29th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^
You're right, Don. Being excited sucks. I'd rather watch my football (which I think we all do for enjoyment, right?) whilst looking over my shoulder for the other shoe to drop.
This is supposed to fun, dude. Why not be excited? We may not get to be excited later.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
Tell that to this Iowa "student."
But the more I think about it, as a current UI student, the only thing motivating me to try hard in school, or even go to class for that matter (as sad as this is), was the possibility of a national championship this season.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^
People do get pissy whenever someone suggests something potentially negative about the team.
But sometimes, those criticisms-of-criticisms are valid. In this case, I'm not sure how we can say that cause for concern arises from the UConn game and Notre Dame games. Against UConn, the coaches took their collective foot off of the gas early, which is why they "only" scored 30. Against Notre Dame, The offense moved the ball all over the field all game (527 yards is a damn fine performance on the road and on a slow track), and were pretty much stopped by (a) terrible field goal kicking, and (b) ridiculous yard penalties that created a bunch of 1st-and-20 and 1st-and-25 situations.
And as for the curb-stomp games... sure, they played cupcakes. But as the OP noted, the offense curb-stomped said cupcakes. As bad as BG's defense was, the offense set a record for yards against a Division 1 opponent, and were within 6 yards of the Baby Seal game. And that was with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th string for most of the game.
We all remember last year, and we struggle to keep that dread of a repeat, stuck in the back of our throats, from erupting as projectile vomit all over our shiny new offense. But early impressions, statistical reality, and Occam's Razor suggests that the offense is for real. Will it continue at this pace? Maybe not. Hell, probably not. But It isn't smoke, mirrors, and fairy dust. Offense good. Enjoy.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^
I expected some negs, and don't really care about that. But it seems that some person with way too much time on their hands is now going through all of my past comments and negging them. For my horrible crime of saying "the offense looks great, let's see them do it in the Big 10 before we anoint them best ever." It's just sad.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
Someone with too much time on his hands. I disagree slightly with you analysis, but there was no reason for a retroactive uber-neg.
I've attempted to restore some balance, as well as your point total. Go now in peace.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^
Agree with keeping expectations in check but keep in mind we have a lot more depth/experience on offense this year.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:32 AM ^
...but you missed one very big difference between 2008/09 and this year: our offense is not turning the ball over nearly as much. Oh, and our dynamite stick QB can go the distance given the smallest of creases.
I'll add that I see IU's DLine as pretty weak. They will be hard-pressed to stop our running game. I'm predicting another 500+ yard game and 40-ish points.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^
Out of 120 NCAA FBS teams, total defense rankings:
- UConn #54
- ND #103
- BGSU #120
UMass is a FCS defense and our average yards per play re-enforced that.
Then again, part of the reason these teams aren't ranked highly in total defense is b/c they played against our offense.
Let's take out Michigan stats for the above teams.
- UConn's D average is 297.67 ypg; we had 473 against them.
- ND's avg. is 401 ypg; we had 532.
- BG's avg. is 465.67; we had 721.
I think our offense is very good, but let's hold off on the "best in the country" label for now. I will be more than willing to apply the label if we can put up good numbers against:
- Iowa (#1 total D, 227.5 ypg)
- OSU (#5, 240.25)
- Wisconsin (#16, 265.25)
- Penn State (#18, 275.75)
September 29th, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
We don't need no stinkin' field goals!
September 29th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
I'd rather score a touchdown, don't know about you...
September 29th, 2010 at 9:38 AM ^
This is not 2009 and most certainly not 2008. Ever since RR left WVU I have been excited to see his offense in the Big Ten. This is the first year RR has had the potential for the offense to work as effectively as the glory days at WVU. 2011 will be even more special! Go Blue!
September 29th, 2010 at 9:54 AM ^
Yes, sir. I remember telling somebody last September that the offense would get better, and that by 2011 they could potentially be sickly good. Teams will have to concede that the only way to beat Michigan is to control the ball and the clock, execute long Teutonic death march drives, and outscore us. Which, of course, against our current defense...
If RR ever puts a quality defense on the field, which he absolutely MUST and SHOULD be able to do with the facilities and tradition and recruiting power of Michigan at his disposal, he will entrench himself for a long run as the Michigan HC.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:44 AM ^
The thing about the ND game...
We had 530+ yards and nearly 300 on the ground. We only scored four times, but we missed two field goals and our special teams+defense put us in terrible position all day. Plus, we have one or two bad drive-killing bogus penalties. We had non-scoring drives of 43 yards, 40 yards, 51 yards, 36 yards, and 38 yards that day.
I was looking at our scoring drives yesterday, and I was amazed by how long our drives have consistently been. We have only 3 scoring drives less than 50 yards, and we have 7 TD drives of 90+. Terrible defense and kick returning have deflated our scoring numbers considerably.
I'm trying to keep my expectations for the offense for Big Ten season in check, but I'm having a tough time doing it.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
How many 3 and outs have we had on the season? The ability of our offense to sustain drives and move the chains (even when they don't result in points) is what makes it one of the best Michigan offenses that I can remember.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
i did not realize that we had 7 drives of plus 90! that is impressive with how quick we could score on any given snap! Wow, even being tempered a bit with the caution makes me shake my head and raise my arms up with the rock and roll signs and let my tongue hang out! Jammin we are, jammin we will be! GO BLUE!
September 29th, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
OP, I see your point about tempering expectations. We haven't played any defenses that have given us a stiff test, so we don't know how we will do when we do. The obvious answer is that we may not do as well against better defenses - seems intuitive.
HOWEVER, some points to consider:
1. We are a top 5 offense - nationally. Have we played some pretty easy teams? Sure, but guess what - so has just about every other team. It's not as if our schedule, with UConn and ND was easier than anyone else's schedule in the Big Ten (with the exception of OSU and PSU, who each played a legit OOC opponent). So, while everyone has played some soft games, our offense has dominated more than other offense have dominated.
2. Will our offensive production drop off as we play some tougher B10 defenses? Maybe, but the same will be true of other schools. Also, while we will be facing tougher defenses, this is an offense let by a QB who, for all intents and purposes, is playing in his first real season. I would expect that he will also get better over the course of the season. Since he is such a dominant part of our offense, his progression over the course of the season will likely more than account for any increase in talent on oppposing defenses.
3. Open playbook. RR and other members of the team have said that they have only opened about 1/2 of the playbook, and that they hope to open more of it over the course of the season. If we are a top 5 offense with only 1/2 of the playbook, imagine how effective we will be with more of that playbook introduced. Again, this should more than account for the level of difficulty of the defenses that we will be facing.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
Obviously ND is not real good, but for Michigan to take a young, unproven QB and offense into that game, in that rivalry atmosphere on the road, and hang 500+ yards on them is still pretty impressive. For instance, is anyone discounting what Stanford did to ND last week? Offensively at least, I doubt their performance was any better than ours, and they are the #9 team in the country.
It's natural to want to guard against over-optimism, but c'mon folks--enjoy it! Denard Robinson is the most electrifying player I have EVER seen at Michigan. I can't get enough of watching this kid play. And he is only a sophomore. We're not going to win every game this year, but we are a lot better and the upside is pretty steep.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^
I find it interesting that while the OP will respond to my (and others') half-assed responses to nitpick and correct and whatnot, this well-reasoned and well-written response is ignored by the OP. He'd rather correct the little things wrong in other meh posts rather than wholeheartedly debate with someone who has demonstrated a good faith response.
Perhaps that means the OP 1) isn't really willing to consider the possibility that he is wrong, 2) is overly negative, and therefore 3) is kind of a dick. Just thinking out loud here.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^
Wow. You call me a "dick" and wonder why I don't engage your "good faith response."
You want to know the real reason I've been relatively silent on this thread? Because my original post -- which was even-toned and not pessimistic -- resulted in me getting neg-bombed by idiots who crawled through my past posts, and in people such as yourself completely mischaracterizing what I said. I said my piece, and didn't really feel the need to repeat myself ad nauseum just so jackasses could have further comments to neg and mischaracterize.
Instead, I limited myself to responding to simple, non-controversial factual errors. And most of those objective factual responses (eg "we punted 10 games against Notre Dame", in response to someone who said we punted 4 times against Notre Dame and Connecticut total) got negged. I don't really care about negs, but I don't feel the need to engage hysterics who, contrary to your claim, don't really seem to want to discuss anything in "good faith."
To be clear for the future -- If I'm not engaging you, it's not because I'm intimidated by your "well-reasoned and well-written responses". It's because you've proven yourself to be an asshole and I don't intend to waste any more time on you.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^
I will accept the fact that although we have won 4 games, they were not all "quality" opponents and we did not win by huge margins. However, I was listening to an interview with Rich Rod earlier this week where he said he was really happy that he got the wins he did without having to open up his playbook. When questioned if he has been holding things back he said that he didn't want to give too much for Big 10 schools to scout.
If MSU didn't run the "little giant" against ND would we really be ready for it defensively? Everyone always has the thought of "watch for the fake" but every time MSU punts the ball on October 9th (and I hope it is a lot) we will be watching for the fake. What do our opponents have to watch for aside from an insane QB that they can't contain, a stable of RB's, and a bevy of receivers that can each step up when needed?
September 29th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
I'm not sure what the point is. Yes, we have been stopped occasionally. Do "elite offenses" never punt? We punted what - 4 times against in 2 games against BCS competition? I'd say that's still a pretty good clip.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^
Honestly, it is better to have the ball than not, but a punt is not always a bad play
I would rather see a draw on 3 and a million which gains 4 yards than a crazy pass which gets picked off
I know the offense is sweet, but as the gambler would say...you gotta know when to hold em and so forth
September 29th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^
Last week the Lions were driving for a possible tying score at Minnesota, 4th down and 2 at the Minny 40 yard line. I said: "Watch. The Lions will punt it into the end zone, we gain 20 yards of field position, which Brett Favre will re-gain on his first play. "
All this played out exactly, except instead Adrian Peterson took the ball 80 yards to the house on the first play. Game over. I like teams to be agressive, especially inside the other team's 40. ESPECIALLY the freaking Lions, who haven't won a road game since the Clinton administration. Shit, you never know when you will be that close again.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
the real stat is how many times after you punt does the opposing team take the ball and score
if you punt then get the ball back nothing lost
However, on 3rd and 8 on your own 25, you have to punt
September 29th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
Call me crazy but I'm never punting on 3rd down.
September 29th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
You so craaazy.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
We punted what - 4 times against in 2 games against BCS competition?
We punted 10 times against Notre Dame.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
I agree with the sentiment that the offense might not be the best in the country, but unlike last year it has been consistently dominating competition irrespective of gameplans. Teams rush 4 and try to keep the receivers in check, Denard runs for 4-5 yards or sucks in the LBs and lofts a pass between the levels. Teams blitz, Denard and the RBs gash them for huge gains. The WRs are blocking and still finding seams, the offensive line is keeping the defenses at bay, and the running game is dominant. So yeah, maybe the offense is not #2 level, but it certainly can put up yards against some of the best in the country.
And as much as people poo-poo the defenses UM has faced, let's also remember that some of those dominant defenses coming up have done so against mediocre competition. In Iowa's only game against a good offense, they gave up 366 yardsto an Arizona team that has a good passing attack and not much else. OSU looks pretty good, but Penn St. didn't look particularly good against YSU or Temple, and Alabama dropped 409 yards on them even though they were playing without the Heisman trophy winner and took their foot off the gas in the second half. So while UM will certainly play better defenses going forward, few of them have shown they can slow down such a dynamic offense.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
There is no way in hell M punts 10 times if they didn't have drives blatantly sabotoged by the Big Ten refs. I swear, whenever the B10 refs go into South Bend they are so frickin' paranoid about being seen as biased TOWARDS their conference team that they end up FUCKING their conference team instead!
Seriously, allow ND to use Big East refs for that home game.
Having said all that, I agree that we need to temper our bravado until the offense gets it done on the field against... I don't know... at least 1 or 2 decent B10 defenses!
If the M offense is still destroying everything in its path up to the bye week? Then it will be time to sing from the mountain tops a little bit.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
I agree that this game should use non-Big Ten refs. It is like they go out of their way to not look like homers. The best way to not look like homers is to take them completely out of the equation.
That being said - several of those calls were legit. And we won.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^
Might be easier and our offense might not be as good in the big ten!
<br>
<br>Wow thanks professor! I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!
September 29th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^
We have a QB ESPN can not get enough of and the nations leading rusher! But it's still not good enough for some people. What's next #5 should start? This is not your daddy's Blue get over it!
September 29th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
Yes, that is an entirely accurate summary of my post. You nailed it to a tee.
"Our offense looks amazing, I feel positive about it, but let's see us do it against the Big 10 before we get hyperbolic" = "I'm not satisfied! I don't like this new-fangled offense! Start the white guy!"
September 29th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
I don't think anyone expects us to do to Big 10 defenses what we just did to Bowling Green. What we just did to Bowling Green I'm pretty sure is still illegal in most states.
Our offense against Notre Dame had its struggles but still, when the time came down to it, they couldn't be stopped when we needed a touchdown to win the game.
I don't think this is the best offense we've ever had, but how could we know that yet? If Denard does this for 8 more games, then maybe we can have that discussion. For now, I'm going to enjoy the fact that we have the ultimate gamebreaker at quarterback and he's got skill position players that can make big plays too.
Expectations are what they are, but when someone shows me a way to effectively contain Denard for 60 minutes and it results in a loss, I'll start worrying about the offense. For now, I'll continue worrying about defense and special teams, but let me at least enjoy the offensive ride for the time being.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
I don't think anyone expects us to do to Big 10 defenses what we just did to Bowling Green. What we just did to Bowling Green I'm pretty sure is still illegal in most states.
Perhaps, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect us to do to Indiana what we did to Notre Dame. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect us to do to Michigan State what we did to UConn. Sure it will be tougher sledding when we run into OSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin, but this offense is still capable of putting up 300+ yards on just about anybody. Whether that's enough with our defensive deficiencies is the question.