PF/PA Comparison 1997 Team to 2016 Team

Submitted by Rdog on
When I used to follow the NFL more closely my favorite stat for comparing teams was the points for/points against ratio.   I found this to be the best single predictor for comparing teams, particularly late in the season.  
 
The chart below compares 97 to 2016:
 
  1997 Results     2016 Results
  PF PA     PF PA
#8 Colorado 27 3   Hawaii 63 3
Baylor 38 3   UCF 51 14
Notre Dame 21 14   Colorado 45 28
at Indiana 37 0   Penn State 49 10
Northwestern 23 6   Wisconsin 14 7
#15 Iowa 28 24   Rutgers 78 0
agger
#14 Michigan State
23 7   Illinois 41 8
Minnesota 24 3        
#3 Penn State 34 8        
#24 Wisconsin 26 16        
#4 Ohio State 20 14        
#7 Washington State 21 16        
  322 114     341 70
             
  PF/PA  2.824561404       4.871428571
As you can see the PF/PA for 2016 is much better.   I think there are several reasons for this.
 
1)  Our offense is better at scoring points.    The 1997 team may have had more future NFL talent than this year's team but due to Lloyd Carr's uncreative and risk averse offense it was not very good at scoring points.  Michigan has already scored more points this year than they scored in 1997.
 
2)  The slightly easier portion of the schedule is behind us.   This is not as great a factor as I first thought it would be.  Michigan has already played the #2 and #3 threats for this year but stll have OSU to face.  On the other hand, Rutgers and Hawaii were pretty weak teams.
 
3)  I think this defense is more effective than the 1997 team.  I watched every game in 1997 and the big difference that I can see is there is more team speed on the 2016 roster ths is matched with a more aggressive defensive scheme.
 
4)  This year Michigan is averaging 5.5 yds per carry while the 97 team averaged 3.97 yds per carry.  The 97 team featured Anthony Thomas and Chris Howard as running backs.
 

BLHoke

October 26th, 2016 at 9:27 PM ^

After catching one of the breaks of the century to even remain undefeated and drawing a 2 or 3 loss Tennessee team that could never win the big game in their bowl.

I will always believe in my heart of hearts that Tom Osborne announcing his retirement toward the end of the season was a carefully crafted ploy that wound up swaying the coaches poll in their favor at the end... That, and there was probably some retribution from those that were still pissed that Chuck won the Heisman over everybody's favorite SEC darling, Peyton Manning.

JohnnyV123

October 26th, 2016 at 1:48 PM ^

I vividly remember in preseason 1997 asking my dad (I was 11 at the time) if he thought Michigan had a chance this year at winning it all.

He said eh Michigan's good but they have a really tough schedule so I don't think so. Coincidentally, my brother was saying the same to me preseason this year so I am hoping history repeats itself.

BLHoke

October 26th, 2016 at 2:36 PM ^

That is the main reason comparing these two defenses is hard to do and probably unfair... They played SEVEN teams that were ranked in the top 25... 6 of them were top 15, OSU and PSU were legit NC contenders and Ryan Leaf was one of the 3 Heisman Finalists.

I love and appreciate this year's team for so many different reasons and statistically, it will likely go down as one of Michigan's best, probably THE best... But while not being the team's fault in any way, this year's schedule is charmin soft in comparison. Yes, Wisconsin has been somewhat of an unexpected surprise along with Colorado, but Iowa has disappointed, MSU has imploded, and while not looking like it to begin with, OSU is, in fact, feeling the effects of losing some much talent and experience to the draft. Plus, just for fun... Woodson > Peppers until JP returns a punt for a TD @ The Shoe, strikes "The Pose", becomes the 2nd primarily defensive player to win the Heisman & delivers a NC.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

jmblue

October 26th, 2016 at 4:19 PM ^

They played SEVEN teams that were ranked in the top 25... 6 of them were top 15, OSU and PSU were legit NC contenders

Keep in mind, the rankings in the OP are those at the time of the game and not those of the final polls. Colorado was a huge bust in '97, finishing 5-6. Likewise, I don't think either Iowa or MSU (both 7-5) finished 1997 in the top 25, and PSU (9-3) turned out to be more of a top 15 team. When all is said and done, based on the final rankings, our 2016 schedule might well be comparable to 1997's, and possibly even tougher.

BLHoke

October 26th, 2016 at 9:22 PM ^

When they start a season with 10 of their 12-14 teams in the top 25 depending on how far back you go... And then most or all of them end up with 2+ losses. "It's because they awllll have to plaaaay each uthurrrr!" Living in the south, I can't tell you how many times I've heard that reseasoning/excuse. Like all conferences don't have to "play each other".

Also, during that era, the Big Ten was what the SEC was to the BCS era. UofM, PSU & OSU were all in or around the top 5 late into the season. Iowa was ranked as high as #6 at one time if I'm not mistaken and had Tim Dwight & Tavian Banks (early season Heisman hype). The conference was loaded back then.

leftrare

October 26th, 2016 at 1:29 PM ^

It's very possible that M breaks the modern era season scoring record set at 460 in 2003. They only need 120 more points to do it. Think about that: one of the best M defenses in history is paired with what will be, at least nominally, a historically productive offense as well.

leftrare

October 26th, 2016 at 2:09 PM ^

The reason I qualified with "in the modern era".  they scored 600-something in 1903.

It is kind of shocking what THIS team has done offensively. SOS caveats of course, but somebody else pointed out that M has handed every opponent on the schedule so far its worst loss of the season.

 

 

stephenrjking

October 26th, 2016 at 2:13 PM ^

I love how well Michigan is playing, but I will say that I am still not convinced that the offense will be exceptional against quality defenses. Our one go-around with such a defense this year yielded very mixed results and only 14 points; even the 23 we could've had were we to field working kickers in that game isn't all that impressive. 

Michigan is good at leveraging its physical advantages against inferior opponents and getting points. It is less clear how they will handle defenses like Ohio State, Clemson, and Alabama, which are athletically on par with or superior to Michigan's offense.

leftrare

October 26th, 2016 at 2:20 PM ^

about defenses faced so far.  In fact, I've spent this week looking at the defenses M faces in the next five weeks because at this point, hard to see any opponents offenses scoring beyond 15-20 points.  Which actually means that a vintage Lloyd Carr/Ferentz-ish offense is probably sufficient and the one we're looking at this year seems better than any of theirs, save for maybe 2000 and 2003.

 

 

LSAClassOf2000

October 26th, 2016 at 1:32 PM ^

I wonder what the tempo-adjusted stats on points for and against were  for 1997. One metric for 2016 to date, for example, is that we gain an average of 0.629 points per play, which among FBS offenses is #3 nationally, and as you expect, we are #1 in this metric on defense at 0.167 points allowed per play. We are averaging about 73 offensive snaps per game this year and defending about 56 snaps. It would be interesting to see the efficiency comparison to 1997 here. 

J.

October 26th, 2016 at 2:38 PM ^

The crazy part is that the defensive efficiency is limited by the number of three-and-outs this defense generates.  For example, I count 38 offensive plays for Illinois -- 23 rushes and fifteen pass attempts.  So, Illinois actually scored 0.211 points per play, raising Michigan's average.

Amazingly, those 38 plays came on 11 drives, for an average of 3.5 plays per drive.  (They had two one-play drives; one was their TD and the other was the pick).  At this rate, it's going to take a long time to improve the play-based efficiency numbers. :-)

CriticalFan

October 26th, 2016 at 3:12 PM ^

After ransacking the internet, I have found only that:

UM offense averaged 25.0 passes and 43.1 rush attempts (68 plays) per game, and scored 322 points. 322 / (68.1 x 12) = .394 per play.

UM defense allowed 24.3 passes and 30.7 rushes per game (55 plays), and allowed 114 points. 114 / (55 x 12)  = .172 per play.

Game by game stats or box scores are proving disappointingly difficult to track down.

 

lhglrkwg

October 26th, 2016 at 1:33 PM ^

Well it's a good think that team had a great defense because they sure weren't lighting the world on fire on offense. That's probably an 8-4 team if that defense drops from elite down to just good

stephenrjking

October 26th, 2016 at 1:56 PM ^

Michigan had the #1 defense in 1997, but roughly the 45th ranked offense. Bill Connolly's S&P+ for that season (which is based on raw points) rates Michigan only 6th in the nation due to that offense.

But it was never going to be any different. With a defense that good, Lloyd's naturally conservative tendencies were actually appropriate for the team in that era. And this is particularly true given that the 1997 offense was one of the three LEAST talented offenses Lloyd Carr fielded in his Michigan career.

Tuman was a good player, and junior Tai Streets was a good player, and Chris Perry did a good job, and Anthony Thomas was a real contributor as a freshman, and the OL had some good young talent, and Griese really did what he needed to...

But Michigan fielded better, more productive players at all of those positions at other times in the Carr era than they did in that particular season. 

For Michigan's purposes, it was enough.

By the way, don't call that defense slow. They were brilliantly athletic. The sport has indeed sped up a bit, and this year's defense has amazing speed and talent, but Michigan had speed all over the field that year.

funkywolve

October 26th, 2016 at 2:15 PM ^

I've seen some posts about all the NFL talent the '97 offense had but the reality is most of the talent was extremely young in '97.    The skill position players might be the least talented group that Carr ever had.  The starting wr's (Shaw and Streets) combined for something like 45 catches for 500 yds on the year.

The oline was a work in progress at the beginning of the year as they only had one returning starter from the '96 season.  Hutchinson and Zieman had been on the dline until the spring of '97 when they were moved to the oline.

stephenrjking

October 26th, 2016 at 2:22 PM ^

Griese made a good career for himself in the NFL, and Streets was able to contribute for a few years. Thomas, obviously, played for four years and then started in the NFL for a couple. Most of the other skill players had cups of coffee at most; the OL was not yet fully mature, for example.

That's not a lot of NFL talent, and very little top-end. Just in terms of the Carr era, it's pretty low. Streets was an excellent player for Michigan, but would you take him over Terrell, Braylon, or Mario Manningham? At running back, Carr benefitted from guys like senior Anthony Thomas (far better than his freshman form), senior Chris Perry, Tim Biakabatuka, and Mike Hart. Would you take Chris Howard over any of them? Was Brian Griese a better QB than Tom Brady, junior Drew Henson, senior John Navarre, or Chad Henne?

Just by the standards of the Carr era, 1997's offense doesn't rate well. It doesn't mean they weren't a championship offense, because they were, and when the time came to win games (Iowa and Washington State especially), they made the plays. But it wasn't loaded with talent and it wasn't remarkable.

But when combined with a generational defense and an all-time great in Woodson, it was enough. And Carr knew it was enough.

J.

October 26th, 2016 at 2:42 PM ^

Don't forget, there was a reason that Woodson played offense.  It's not like Lloyd Carr had a Harbaughian history of two-way players.  Woodson and Carr both understood that the offense needed the help.

The 1997 defense was absolutely elite, and the offense was designed to play for field position and the occasional big play.  The offense's primary responsibility was to avoid putting the defense behind the eight ball.

MgoBlueprint

October 26th, 2016 at 2:09 PM ^

I'm not sure how fair or effective it is to compare the score from the two seasons given how much the game has changed in twenty years. Pro style offenses led to a slower pace and lower scores in '97 versus the spread offenses we see today. It's apples and oranges.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

CoverZero

October 26th, 2016 at 2:12 PM ^

The 97 D would have been very good without Woodson...however the amazing Woodson made them very great. 

This year's squad is more balanced and less reliant on a single player.  Lots of great contributors. 

drzoidburg

October 27th, 2016 at 5:22 AM ^

Anyone else notice the 7 ranked teams in this ridiculous comparison? Schedules are so much laughably easier now. Imagine UM playing 3x P5 teams the same year when they cancel Arkansas to dodge even 2