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 10:04 AM ^
I can't believe how many times I've seen Denard's name spelled wrong. I mean, would you spell Jesus wrong? Cmon man, dernard is just wrong, but kinda funny too.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
to reign in my enthusiasm, especially when I think about what happened last year after starting 4-0, but I'm having a rough time. This offense is really coming together and I'm even holding out hope that the D will make a few stops in conference play.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^
Blasphemy.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^
Guys my ex-wife decided to post aka "fun police"
September 29th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
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.
This. Right now the burden should be on a team to show that this offense can be stopped. Each week is a new opportunity for a defense to stop MICH, and so far it hasn't happened.
There is always uncertainty about a unit's "true" capabilities. Always. So while it may not mean much that MICH is statistically one of the best offenses right now, it is EQUALLY meaningless to point out that we don't truly "know" as much we need to about this offense.
This week it's "we haven't started conference play." Next week it'll be "that was just Indiana." And the week after that it'll be "Sparty's defense isn't very good." And on and on and on.
I will remind the poster, though, that there is at least one meaningful fact that gives confidence to the idea that the 2010 offense is better than (and not much like) the 2009 offense: 2009 Purdue was the first game MICH outgained an opponent, whereas 2010 UConn (aka the first damn game) was the first and it has continued on in the next three games. This is different. Really it is.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
2009 Purdue was the first game MICH outgained an opponent, whereas 2010 UConn (aka the first damn game) was the first and it has continued on in the next three games.
That's completely wrong. The 2009 team outgained Western Michigan in the first game, Eastern Michigan in the third game, and Delaware State in the seventh game, all times by a wide margin. The only team it didn't outgain before Big 10 season commenced was Notre Dame.
And hate to break it to you, but Notre Dame outgained us by three yards this year. If you're trying to point out differences between this year and last year, you're not doing a great job of it.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
This is not completely false, just not termed correctly. 2009 Purdue was the first BCS team we outgained all year. And yes the fact that we were so badly outgained by ND(especially as the D went to prevent and gave up 40 quick yards at the end of the game) is proof that this offense sucks.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
OMG ND OUTGAINED US WHICH MEANS THE OFFENSE SEWKS!
Yep, that's exactly what I said. You are accurately summarizing my statements.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
But what you are doing is deliberately misrepresenting facts in order to forward your argument. You say we scored on 21 points on our first 4 possessions(3 out of 4) and that we were stopped the rest of the game vs UConn(only 10 points). What you don't mention is that there were only 4 more possessions in the entire game and of the both ended in UConn territory(1 missed FG and 1 TO on downs). You claim we punted so often vs ND, yet neglect to mention that we shot ourselves in the foot 100 times and still gained 532 yards. is it probable that our offense will slow down against better defenses? Yes, but that reasoning has to do with superior athletes on the opposing sides and better coaching, not with our offense execution up to this point.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
Seriously, did you honestly expect the crowd to say "oh look this guy thinks our superexciting and statistically dominant offense has room to improve and would like us to NOT be so excited about the offense WHAT A GREAT IDEA I LOVE CONSCIOUSLY NOT BEING OPTIMISTIC AND EXCITED I LOVE WAITING FOR BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN!"...?
Stubbornly pessimistic people are no fun. You have every right to be stubbornly pessimistic, just don't expect praise for it.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
Purdue 2009 was the first BCS team that Michigan outgained. The second to last game of 2009 was when that happened.
UConn 2010 was the first BCS team that Michigan outgained. The first game of 2010 was when that happened.
This year really is different and better. Be happy about that.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
I just walked past Denard Robinson in Angell Hall a couple minutes ago. Was awed by the awesome. Victories will continue to come.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
There was a stretch in the second half against ND that I couldn't tell if our offensive playcalling was lousy, execution was lousy, or if ND's defense was simply winning the RPS battle...
Either way, ND is the closest we've seen to a competent defense thus far and you can bet this is as good an indicator we have to what our offense will do in the B10, give or take a hundred yards.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
Let's think about it this way...how many questions has our offense answered so far?
1) Can Denard run the offense effectively, make the appropriate reads, and get defenses to respect his arm such that he can dominate games? Check
2) Can our offensive line take control of the game and provide the lanes and the time for #1 to take place? Check
3) can our wide receivers get open and make big plays on their own? Check
4) Can Denard take us down the field with his arm in a clutch game situation when time is a factor? Check
The only question remotely unanswered I guess is 5) Will a running back step up and be THE guy?
I'm not even sure we need an answer to that to continue to dominate on offense, although I'd love it if it happened...
6) The most important, can we do all the things we've done so far against our Big 10 rivals? Either way, we've improved so much so quickly (Denard has only started 4 games at QB ffs) that it's hard not to feel good about what we've done so far.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
This might qualify as being a nattering naboob of negativity
Come on, man. Have a little fun and stop worrying..
It's gonna be ok. Besides, I'd rather have folks talking hyperbolic excitement about the offense than dissecting, say, the hidden meaning of Harbaugh's words anyway.
2010 is not 2009.
Besides, I think your revisionist history is a bit off. I was at the UConn game. They never held us in check. That's laughable. Game was never in doubt with the ball in the offense's hands. And, as for ND, thankfully we had that short field during Denard's TD run. That play never would have worked if had to go 90 yards.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
The word is "nabob". How dare you call me a "naboob". What am I, a breast made of sodium?
(First time I assumed it was a typo. Second time . . .)
September 29th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
more worried about our defense, but hey that's just me
September 29th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
But it will not stop.
I expect a better win - loss than last year.
I expect a bowl game.
I do not think those are unrealistic.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
has been severely underrated so far. Seriously, we have run like 8-10 different plays...total. We have run the same damn thing over and over against 4 different defenses and they just have no answer. They know what's coming and can't stop us because people just aren't missing their assignments on offense. Just imagine how good we will look when we start dabbling in the other 90% of the playbook, provided that our execution stays at a similar level.
I'm not worrying until given a strong reason to worry. Even then, I might not. I'm not expecting 13-0 here.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
While I think it's true we're getting a bit too excited, I don't think your look at the last 4 games does justice to the offense either.
True, we didn't score on almost every drive against UConn and ND, but another thing to keep in mind is that we still racked up a metric ton of yards in both games. These didn't result in as many points thanks in large part to a penalty killing the drive, or because of a missed field goal. If we don't shoot ourselves in the foot, we probably score on many of those drives. How do you know we probably score? Because when we don't get a penalty, we have been scoring on most of our drives. I'd have to go back and check to be sure, but I'll bet that you can count the number of drives we've been stopped on out of field goal range and without the hinderance of a penalty on one hand. If it's more than 5, then I'll bet it'd be under 5 again if you also remove the drives Denard had to come out for a play or two during the UConn and ND games.
We're not 65 points/game good, but we are definitely 400+ yards/game good if we're executing like we have been. We'll jus have to see how many points that's worth each game.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
Tate/Minor/Molk injured last year, offense slowed down. We're much deeper everywhere this year
<br>One of these days Denard is going to make some mistakes. How does he and the rest of the offense handle that? Last test
<br>Otherwise they're going to get better and better
<br>
September 29th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
So your reasons for pessimism are that we only scored 30 points against UConn(never mind we only did that in 3 of our 9 games against BCS opponents last year), had a sloppy offensive game against ND(legitimate concern) in which we only had 530+ yards and we curbstomped two pasties? Of course we're not going to average 40 points in the Big Ten, but I don't see a reason we can't be a top 3 offense in the conference based on what we've seen so far.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
The Offense thanks you for you caution but assures you not to worry.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
Fuzzy,
I guess I don't see what your point is. It seems like you're qualified, hedged, and modified enough that your premise is that "the offense could be better".
Like the disagreement we had about the RB's yesterday where you saw fit to point out that it would be better to have a REALLY AWESOME RUNNING BACK, the only possible response to your post is "no shit?". Of course there is room for improvement. But writing a diary about just seems like you're trying to annoy.
September 29th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
Fuzzy,
I guess I don't see what your point is. It seems like you're qualified, hedged, and modified enough that your premise is that "the offense could be better".
That's not at all what I said. Not even slightly. I said that I think the offense has looked great, BUT it might be premature to be annointing them the "greatest offense ever" (which I've been seeing in recent posts), until we see how they performin the Big 10. That's it.
I haven't qualified, hedged or modified anything. I've been consistent to my original post, which expressed OPTIMISM, not pessimism, about the offense. But people with poor reading comprehension have been accusing me of saying things ranging from "the offense sucks" to "start Tate", which is ridiculous.
For some people, it seems, if you say anything other than "this offense is a ridiculous juggernaut that will surely lead us to glory in the Big 10", you are saying the offense is crap. Which is ridiculous, and kind of proves my original point that people are getting hyperbolic a little too early.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
RRod knows our defense stinks, and doesnt want to get stuck in a shootout. Once we built leads, I think he just wants to run time off the clock and make the other team take chances. RRod also probably wanted to really limit the playbook once he knewthe offense could score at will. Teams stopped us once the other team made adjustments on the few plays we ran. GO BLUE!!!!!
September 29th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
where our offense stumbled a little. And based on Brian's review, ND's late line shifts may have been the primary reason. I trust the coaches have already figured out a way to counter that in the future.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
I'm shocked - shocked! - that a poster who spent the entire offseason trashing Rich Rodriguez is now "concerned" about the football team. Never would've seen that coming.
September 29th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
I'm shocked - shocked! - that a poster who spent the entire offseason trashing Rich Rodriguez is now "concerned" about the football team.
1- WTF are you talking about? Seriously.
2- I am not "concerned". I never said I was "concerned". There's a difference between being "cautiously optimistic" and "concerned."
September 29th, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^
I think you're right about the neg-banging. Critics of RR, especially, always seem to get punished just for voicing dissent, no matter how reasoned it may be. Seems to defeat the purpose of a great blog like this one. Without the critics, there's nothing to debate (other than uniform colors) and the place becomes an echo-chamber. Can't we reserve the neg-banging for the true flamers and miscreants?
September 29th, 2010 at 2:38 PM ^
You guys are dumb, you are really dumb, for real.
What we have here is the "rational ones" being criticized by the "positive police", I find you both annoying.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^
About as annoying as the high horse people who are above all this "petty arguing" and are far too good to post on this blog?
September 29th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
Why are you bothering me with such drivel. By the way, I agree, I hate those assholes too.