Pure Statistical Regression (I'm looking at you, Al Borges)
I've accepted the near fact that Borges will be back next year, but after the 2013 sports year (Detroit & UM fan) this research was strangely cathartic. It's like I need to quantify just how terrible the decisions being made actually are.
I am also of the mindset that changing the entire regime would be a bad move at this point. (Which was also my position following the 2010 Gator Bowl ... arguing at the time a coaching change wouldn't guarantee anything, and if made a regression over the next few seasons was likely. I wrote the italicized text below before Hoke was hired):
"2011: Sets up great for UM, say they go 10-2 ...
2012: Nightmare schedule. 8-4 is possible, with another loss to OSU
2013: Say there's under-achievement ... is 8-4 gonna [cut it]?
So in 3 years at Michigan, the new coach has "regressed". Of course no UM fan thinks this is possible ... But it's 100% possible, and even probable. In the scenario above, UM has won 0 Big Ten titles, 0 BCS games, and is 1-2 against OSU?"
Here are the statistics against retaining Borges. I'm sure I'll get the usual "oh, you're cherry-picking statistics for your own agenda" responses, but ... um ... there's a plethora of ripe cherries to pick here, and it's a slow Monday.
Median/Avg Yards Per Season:
2011 (Jr Denard): 418 / 404.7
2012 (Sr Denard): 389 / 383.1
2013 (Jr Gardner): 365 / 373.1
-
12 games less than 300 yards offense (2-10 record)
- 3 in 2011, 4 in 2012, 5 in 2013 (4 of last 6 games)
-
9 OT periods played in those 39 games
- 116 total yards, 3 TDs, 30 pts
Avg Offense, home:
· 466.5 yards per game (21 games)
· 7 games over 500 yards, 2 games under 300
Avg Offense, road:
· 314.6 yards per game (14 games)
· ONCE over 400 yards (2011 NW)
Avg Offense, neutral:
· 267.3 (4 games [Bowls & ALA 2012]
· High is 355 yards (2012 SCAR / Outback Bowl)
December 30th, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 4:23 PM ^
A pretty obtuse analysis.
You shouldn't point out the regression in games late in the season or road games without allowing for factors like quality of opponent or the expected change for home v. road performance in general.
This was the season we bit the bullet and took greater strides toward the offense we want to run in the future. Denard had graduated and many of the players recruited for the new style were working their way into the lineup. Devin isn't ideal. The upper classes were depleted as well.
It should come as no surpirse 2013 was a struggle, particularly on offense.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^
is how good and important.
a) Denard Robinson was
b) having an experienced offensive line is.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
Denard ain't walking back through that door. And in college, you're never guaranteed to have an experienced line (injuries, wash-out, etc.). OC's job isn't limited to succeeding with 5 RS Srs on the OL and a once in a lifetime offensive weapon.
December 30th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^
Well golly! This here post be worthy of a got dang thread of it's own!
December 30th, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 10:43 AM ^
Take a look at the median / average as well. The 373.1 is getting propped up by a couple of huge games as the median is significantly lower (unlike the other two years).
Two thoughts that come to mind here:
1) Why on earth did we ever (a) give Borges an extension and (b) make him one of the top 3 highest paid OCs in college football?
2) It is amazing that our best offensive year (2011) was basically Borges saying, "Fuck it, I'm going to run what these kids know best - the read option". When he was able to install "his" offense, we meaningfully fell off.
I have heard that #1 above is why you won't see Brandon force Hoke's hand when it comes to firing Borges this offseason. Doesn't want to look 'dumb' after just giving him a big extension / pay his buyout. After 2014 though, I expect this entire staff to be gutted.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:44 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 2:48 PM ^
Now I'm hungry.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:44 AM ^
The NFL is already abound with coaching changes. If Hoke were to make a change when would it occur? Should it happen this week or wait until after NSD or some other date? What are the chances we get a change? I personally don't think any changes are coming, but if one did it would be Borges and/or Funk, but I'm concerned with how long we will have to wait to know for sure.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:49 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
It's as shady as you would expect - most teams keep their coordinators through NSD to mitigate potential recruiting losses.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:58 AM ^
IMO, was guilty of this in 2010/2011. Waiting solves nothing. Once you know that what you have isn't cutting it, take action.
Brandon could have let RRod go after osu 2010 and aggressively gone after Harbaugh (SF didn't offer him until late Dec), etc.
But he waited. And part of our underachievement this year can be attributed to the makeshift 2011 recruiting class which resulted.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
We reached out to Harbaugh's people in December. Harbaugh wanted to wait. He really wanted to coach Stanford in the Orange Bowl, and would give his final answer after.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:59 PM ^
it was back in October through the back channel. Harbaugh almost went to Michigan but changed his mind when NFL came calling. SF was the team that would've pulled him away from it bc he lives in that area.
December 30th, 2013 at 4:20 PM ^
How do you know this?
December 30th, 2013 at 5:00 PM ^
I'm not real comfortable naming sources on this, but there are quite a few people who can back this up.
I don't think there was much else we could have done to get Harbaugh. Like Miles in 2007, he wanted to finish the season with his current team, and this time around, we respected that. I'm not sure that playing hardball and forcing him to decide a month earlier would have worked. Unfortunately, the NFL also wanted him and when the 49er job came open, we were out of luck - his wife reportedly wanted to stay in California, and he'd always had ambitions to be in the pros eventually.
It's just really hard to land an established coach. Very few schools pull it off. Pretty much the only time it happens is when the coach is out of the college ranks and wants to get back in - as was true for Saban, Meyer and Spurrier.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^
While it is popular to bash Borges, the defense regressed mightily this year.
Year Avg Yards Allowed Avg Points Allowed
2013 367 26.5
2012 320 19.9
2011 322 17.4
December 30th, 2013 at 10:52 AM ^
This is the chicken or the egg theory. Does the defense struggle because the offense turned the ball over, didn't sustain drives, and put them in bad places? OR did the defense struggle getting off the field, getting take aways, etc to help the offense like they did in 2012.
Probably a case of both sides of the ball being down from 2012 season.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^
Statistically speaking the offense was worse off from 2011 to 2013 (~55 yards per game lost versus 35 yards per game given up by our defense).
The points allowed, however, would seem to suggest that either:
1) We got really, really lucky in 2011 (and since Brian beat it into everyone's brains that our fumble recovery % was amazing that year - I'm guessing we did)
2) Our 'bend but don't break' defense broke a lot more once teams got into the red zone (e.g., we gave up a lot of 30 yard field goals in 2011 that turned into 10 yard TDs in 2013)
December 30th, 2013 at 11:04 AM ^
But somebody needs to be blamed so we'll stick with fire Borges...
December 30th, 2013 at 3:03 PM ^
It seems like the D struggled no matter what the O was doing. Even in games where we put up tons of points, the D struggled mightily. Copper Bowl being the most recent example where KSU was able to do whatever they wanted starting on the very first drive of the game where they systematically marched down and scored. Then followed that up with another long scoring drive.....then another......then another.
Our D deserves equal blame but at least Mattison proved the first year that if he has the right guys, he can put a dominant D out there. Borges hasn't had the same performance so everyone is clamoring for him to be fired.
1 more season will give us an answer and hopefully we can continue the recruiting so by year 5 A.RR, whether it is Hoke and Co or someone else, we'll have the guys we need in place to dominate again - or at least be competitive.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
The biggest thing that bugged me about the defense is in 2011 we saw an agressive, attacking defense to this year where they sat back and teams could dink and dunk their way down field. It has been extremely aggrevating, espically the bowl game, to watch teams move their way down field.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:03 AM ^
While I don't think you're doing it, there is an all too common trend within this blog that you have to take sides, especially when attacking the other side of the argument.
Either it's all on the coaches or it's on everything but the coaches. It's either all on Borges or not at all on Borges.. It's either all the OL or not at all the OL. It's either because of inexperience or something else. It's either execution or playcalling. It's either offense or defense. Etc, etc.
Well, the a major excuse/reason for the defensive struggles are the same as the offensive struggles, and it all starts up front on the LOS. People will surely make the argument that all teams rotate in young guys, but that misses the point. Michigan, on both sides, was forced to play multiple young players completely in the rotation (not in situational rotations) this year, and as far as technique and fundamentals it showed.
On offense, it's been addressed many times. Young interior makes it so you can't run the ball very well inside. Also struggles in pass protection. You only have a few other options and when those get snuffed out you run out of options to out-scheme the opponent and rely more heavily on execution, which isn't a great thing to lean on with youth.
On defense it hasn't been discussed as much, but up front there is significant youth as well.
WDE rotation: Mario O should have redshirted last year due to his extreme lack of size, and is still undersized as a true SO that should be a RS FR except for lack of depth. Taco is a true FR. So you're option to avoid youth is to not rotate at a position that typically rotates often.
3/5-tech: Heitzman is a limited ceiling but decent RS So. Godin is a RS Fr. Wormley is a RS FR. Glasgow is a RS FR Walk-on. So you're option for experience here is Black, who is undersized inside, nominally a 5-tech, but is forced to play even some NT because of lack of depth and experience at that position. FWIW, 5-tech and NT are probably the two positions requiring the most technique, meaning the most experience, and this is where Michigan didn't have it.
3-tech/NT: Henry is a RS FR. Pipkins is a SO (and got hurt). So your options are Black (undersized), Washington (presumably hurt), and Ash (who hasn't developed for whatever reason). Basically, you have no rotation, again, at positions that typically have rotation.
So you have an influx of youth that is struggling to do their job from a fundmantal and technical standpoint, which hurts the LBs, which hurts the safeties, which hurts the CBs. Both sides of the ball start up front, and that's where Michigan is the youngest. The defense could hide it a bit more, but it was still evident. I made a point against KSU that there was little GMatt could do schematically to get the defense to play better, the problem was they were just getting beat. That's the same argument I made for the offense most of the season. Now, that still comes back to coaching and getting the players to learn enough of something to do it well enough to execute, but it's execution issues either way, and issues that you would expect to get better as the entire rotation gains experience, and young guys like Taco and Henry and Wormley can start their careers as situational players that are tasked with doing a limited number of things instead of the whole gambit because there is no one else.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:12 AM ^
Space - two questions:
1. What is your prediction for next year? Given that it would seem you fall more into the "youth is the root of all evil" line of hinking it would seem you would be quite optimistic about our prospects for next year and beyond.
2. How shocked were you that Chud got the ax? I did not see that coming at all and I think he's being made the fall guy in a power play with Banner.
Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:23 AM ^
1. I think the team will be drastically more consistent on both sides of the ball. That tends to lead to improvement overall. I think from a fundamental and technical standpoint you will see a lot of improvement, but I honestly don't know how much of an improvement you'll see in the record (though I suspect it's at least an improvement in that area too). I think the range is 8-10 wins next year in the regular season, but I think they more handily beat the teams they should beat and appear more competitive in games they should be competitive in (and the perception of how they are competing improves, so you don't get the Nebraska type games).
2. I was very shocked and confused by that move. I thought Chud took a team that people thought would be terrible and made them competitive almost every week. And that's with losing what looked like a promising QB in Hoyer. Now, the record still was bad, and the end of the season flopped pretty hard for them, but I just don't see the point of not letting the guy at least try to establish something for more than a year. Whoever they bring in next won't do any better, IMO, than Chud would have next year, and it really screams of making a move for the sake of making a move, which is a bad motto. Getting too much like the NBA for my liking. Don't like how coaches are treated at all in the pro ranks especially.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
Thanks. I 100% agree with point #2 and hope like Hell you are right on point #1!
Have a Happy New Year my friend.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:56 AM ^
I agree with #1, though I'm more concerned with the inside of the defensive line simply because, again, there is limited experienced depth. Pipkins will be returning from a bad tear and is already a junior, and the guys behind him are more freshmen or undersized tackles that you move over. That feels like a recipe for more gashing by good running teams, though I guess the experience in the front 7 outside of that could mitigate.
I do expect the offense to be better next year in terms of running the ball, but breaking in two new tackles seems like a tall order even if those guys have probably seen gametime at other positions this year. Do you expect the improvement to come along that line, or will the backs simply be stronger and better conditioned?
December 30th, 2013 at 1:15 PM ^
I bet the backs make small strides forward, a better understanding of cutbacks, how to attack the LOS, etc. That will certainly help, but if there is improvement, it really needs to start up front in my opinion.
December 30th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
this is surprising. I'm glad that some people think that after losing Lewan and Schofield that our OLine will be better, but I personally have a very hard time believing that. Yes, the guys on the interior should be (somewhat) better. But by how much? And how much better do they all need to be in order for there to be a real improvement? Let's not forget that this may be the worst OLine play we've ever seen at Michigan, at least in modern history. How can we trust a staff that just coached one of the worst Bowl losses I've seen? (and yes, the RichRod one was worse, no need to think about that anymore)
I am looking forward to the next year though. To me, the team seems poorly coached and the bowl game was a disaster - the team was not inspired to play, even the defense. If those aren't warning signs, I'm not sure what is. But we'll see, and who knows, things may turn around. I am always hopeful for the team - perhaps a naive optimist. Life is better that way I think. But I am sure having my doubts, and not sure how anyone can feel very confident going forward.
December 30th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^
And losing the OTs will present other problems. But an OL that is consistent in doing a decent job is always better than an inconsistent OL where some do a great job and others miss. I don't you see either of our OTs consistently dominate the pass rush or kill DEs like we did Lewan, but if we have OTs that are fairly consistent and do their job, I would expect some improvement. I don't expect the same upside, because I don't think you have the ability to have a Lewan combined with a consistent interior anymore, but you are more likely to see a consistent line. Being able to run a little up the middle and being able to protect the interior more consistently will go a long ways to defenses needing to do more things to stop Michigan. Same with Michigan's defense (teams will need to do more things to beat them if the DL gets more consistent).
For example, look at MSU's OL and DTs. None of them really standout like a Lewan, or even a Schofield. But all of them are consistent in doing their job. As far as last year, they were a pretty bad group that had some injuries, rotated a lot of guys, and then got better despite losing, considered by many, their best OL (McDonald) and best OT (Burkland), on top of losing their best blocking TE. It goes back to it being the sum of the parts and the baseline of the whole, rather than individual pieces. And you can say that MSU develops players, but when has MSU's staff really ever developed OL since Dantonio got there? Leads to believe it's not just something magical at MSU as far as their OL getting better a year after a lot of guys had experience and then gelled.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:51 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:56 AM ^
Yes, they happened at times, and I agree with some of Spielman's criticism of "not knowing where to bounce plays", but a lot of those LB issues were because: a) OL were getting up on them immediately, and b) the DL was getting too leveraged at the POA forcing the LBs to have to fill too much space.
CBs have been inconsistent, and the bowl game looked like a step in the wrong direction, but over the course of the year I find it hard to agree that they didn't improve overall. IMO, it all comes back to the fact that the LBs had to try to make up for the DL, so the safeties had to make up for some of the LB responsibilities. That left the CBs on more of an island, and that's what made the defense what it was.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:19 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^
I do think Washington was hurt; he seemed unable to stay on the field and was a non-factor most of the year. I thought Clark improved as the season progressed, and Countess and Taylor played decently all year but did have some bad games toward the end. That happens.
December 30th, 2013 at 1:05 PM ^
RVB added leadership to the front seven that hasn't been seen since he left. While he wasn't voted captain, he certainly took on the leaderhip role.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^
I don't care about the yardage given up, but almost 7 points given up MORE per game vs. 2012 is awful. that's enough to cost us games (and it did).
December 30th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^
Those 7 points, while I agree are bad, are also due in part to inconsistent offense and a more pass oriented (read: more snaps in a game) offense. Seven is still too many more points to give up, but there are other issues that can be rolled into that additional number.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:49 AM ^
this was a great post that is full of logic and stats...so naturally half the board will hate it and blame you for having the audacity to want a competant OC
December 30th, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^
I thought it would be.... but then realized it's just a listing of yards per game with zero context. I thought we might be getting some regression analysis given the title. This is really basic. I'd sure like a competent OC and I'd love to see a comprehensive analysis of his failings here but this isn't it. No offense to the effort. I just clicked in with different expectations.
December 30th, 2013 at 1:09 PM ^
What determines wins and losses, points or yards? A team can march up and down the field for hundreds of yards, but if they aren't putting points on the board, those yards are meaningless.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:49 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
young OL, DL, etc. One should do a quantitative analysis of each season. Did the team improve during the year? By how much? How much was coaching and how much exogenous stuff (e.g., playing an elite defense such Alabama or MSU, or a soft defense such as Indiana)?
I believe that this coaching staff has not been able to improve each team significantly each year. That is a sign of a below average coaching staff. Whatever we think of KF at Iowa, he is a good, not an elite, coach because his teams improve and he does it with 2-3 star players. The same can be said of MSU's staff.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:52 AM ^
"I believe that this coaching staff has not been able to improve each team significantly each year. That is a sign of a below average coaching staff."
Although generally I agree with this statement, especially from the offenses stand point, how do you explain what Mattison did his first year with a GERG defense, bascially the same players, and turn them around to the D they were in Hoke's first season? I mean, that was some coaching...
December 30th, 2013 at 10:54 AM ^
maybe a 4-3 is just that much better than a 3-3-5.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
but the amount of improvement they did? I mean 100-and something to...what was it... 17th or that area?
December 30th, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^
This is going to be an unpopular thing that some people will try to "out" me with, but the 3-3-5 is a perfectly fine defense. Just as a staff, you need to understand the system inside and out like you do for any other system. You need to learn how to adjust it for heavy schemes. You need to know how to adjust it for spread schemes. You need to know how to change techniques and calls based on situations and teach those things properly.
The fact that the Michigan staff lacked proper teaching and understanding of the 3-3-5 is what made it fail at Michigan, not the scheme itself. Like any other scheme, there are strengths and weaknesses to it, but in and of itself it is no more flawed that other schemes. The difference between GERG (who proved himself at least respectable at Texas) and GMatt and Co is that GMatt and Co came in and taught a scheme (4-3 Under) and taught it well with technical and fundamental aspects to guys with experience (especially on the DL), and therefore the defense improved and improved quickly.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^
I've been saying for years that the 3-3 was not the problem. I have ran it with great success as a defensive coordinator, as well as a 4-3. The 3-3 is a totally different animal that most people don't really understand and you give some great examples of how you need to adjust. When I switched to the 3-3 from the 4-3 there was a learning curve on how to adjust and I don't think GERG ever really knew how to make those adjustments.