So factoring in one additional loss at least for Denard's injury, it looks like people were pretty spot on.
alternate headline: man does job
So factoring in one additional loss at least for Denard's injury, it looks like people were pretty spot on.
You realize we weren't putting up points against Nebraska with Denard, right?Pretty big jump to assume we win if he doesn't get injured. Obviously we would have had a better chance, but come on Nostradamus.
I think between OSU and Nebraska, Michigan pulls out one of those with a healthy Denard. And yes, we were about to go up 10-7 and were moving the ball reasonably well.
We weren't necessarily putting on an offensive masterpiece against Nebraska, but we were moving the ball with some competency, not going 3-and-out every drive and putting our defense right back on the field. And given when Denard went out, we had a first and goal at the 6, I think it's fair to say that the game certainly has a good chance to have a different outcome if he doesn't get hurt there. Or if Devin was capable of coming in for relief.
You do realize that we were in the redzone when Denard went out. Furthermore, we were moving the ball against UNL and keeping their offense off the field. They didn't score most of those points untill the defense got worn out with all of the three and outs. I felt extremely confident before Denard got injured.
OSU is a different situation, but if Denard played the entire UNL game healthy, we win, IMO.
with both Denard and Burkhead playing. Rex missed the entire game and the guy was 1st team all B1G. We'll never know, but it would have been a better game with both squads playing their best. That's football.
We were starting to move the ball effectively right as Denard went out (in the red zone, also). Our defense held their explosive offense very, very well, until the end when our offense couldn't stay on the field for more than a play or two.
Looking back on the season, ND, MSU, NEB, NW, and OSU were all toss ups decided by 1 score or less. We went 2-3 in those games as opposed to going 3-2 and finishing at 9-3. Probably not reasonable to expect to win every toss up. Injuries and everything else considered, it happens.
And by the way, what was snarling wolverine smoking?
This is the only way it would make sense... Go 12-0 in regular season, win B1G championship game, win the rose bowl (cuz we won the B1G, and their champ gets auto bid to Pasadena) and win the national championship game (because we are so great we play two bowl games in less than a week and win both). But yeah obviously he/she was a little off on that presiction
You could factor in a number of items to say that people were spot on... You go down that track you could pro forma the season to 12-0.
Ok, but in general, people don't factor catastrophic injuries into predictions.
... But I am frustrated at a lot of back-pedaling I hear/see on season expectations.
I am first to admist I expected a 10-2 season. Not pleased.
with Devin at QB (especially with Denard at running back).
We also really underrated ND.
It takes a stronger man than myself to ever utter such words.
I predicted 10-2 with losses to Bama and Nebraska but I can't help but feel like we should be 11-1. Al Borges cost us 2 games with his playcalling and Denard going down against Nebraska basically lost us that game. Just wasn't our year.
Borges cost us two losses? Really? Bama was a blowout. Nebraska was because we had no QB. And Borges wasn't the one who threw 600 interceptions at ND. Borges cost us one loss. OSU.
Well, when we did what we did at Nebraska , that's kind of on the offensive coordinator. Especially after three quarters of it.
If anything, this year is a good reminder of how much luck and randomness is involved in a college football season. OSU and ND seemed to have every break fall their way. Same with the Nebraska. Michigan? Not so much.
I waaayyyyy overrated MSU. BOOOOO, me. At the time I was sure they were headed to the Rose Bowl.
would be so shitty though. ND, Nebraska and Ohio were easily winnable. That's what is so frustrating.
Notre Dame - Denard's worst game ever
Nebraska - the great Bellomy experiment
Ohio- Borges decides to call plays with his head up his butt
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go punt my neighbor's cat.
Given the schedule I thought we would go 8-4 during the regular season. Tough to win @ ND, NE and Columbus all in one year. Eventually Hoke will build the talent level of this team to the point where we will start winning these tough road games. Though it may take a few more years. But if he keeps recruiting like he is we will have a very good team. Now I would like to see us snag some more 5 star skilled WR and RB's!
How did people get to 15-0? 12 game regular season + B1G championship + Bowl Game + ___?
.... were nearly wins, but neglect the fact that the MSU game was closer to a loss than any of those were to wins. On top of that, Northwestern was another loss without an incredibly improbable catch by Roundtree. We are at least as close to 6-6 as we are to 10-2 or 11-1, if not closer.
Good second post.
We could have been 11-1, if we would have won the close losses and Robinson was not injured in the NE game!
it doesn't make the losses to Bama, ND, NEB, and OSU any more bearable. I agree with grozzy—we're closer to 6-6 than we were to 10-2. Which makes it difficult to prevent the small slivers of doubt from creeping in, however irrational they might be.
It is interesting to revisit these predictions now if for nothing else to see what we thought based on essentially no data back in August. Thanks for sharing these figures, of course, OP.
One interesting feature of this data, I believe, lies in the subset of people who simply predicted the regualr season score(i.e., their prediction equalled 12) - those people averaged a prediction of 9-3 with a standard deviation of 1 game in either column. It doesn't mean much really, except maybe that when people disregarded the bowl for purposes of their prediction or did not use the default perfect season, they weren't far off the mark this year. It lends credence to the idea that subsets of the fanbase, such as MGoBlog regulars, have a good grasp of their team overall, even if we might be disappointed emotionally with 8-4.
I remember the media saying that we'd be a better team but our record would be worse because of our schedule. Well, they got it half right.
I was pretty accurate. I knew the schedule is brutal. I thought we would be 8-4 at this point but that it would be good enough to go to the Big 10 championship game. I had a bad feeling about Alabama and Notre Dame. I still feel good about the program and think it is heading the right direction
Let's face the facts, this has turned into a horrible year. Not just based on the fact of Michigan's mediocre record, but the 2 teams that we hate the most are undefeated. That's just rubbing salt in the wound. Thank God for Ohio's sanctions or I would have to be on suicide watch right now haha
Is stupid, but is my new favorite ID.
Don't forget, UM will likely play aTm in the bowl game, so we will likely get to do this again.
Actually, I think you end up against a pissed off Georgia. They will probably lose to Bama and then Florida will get the second SEC BCS spot. So they'll fall to the Capital One against you guys. Assuming Nebraska beats Wisconsin, that is.
My fear is that we don't think big. If our goal is to win the Big Ten Championship, we're talking beating the likes of Indiana, Purdue and Illinois and oh yeah, we have to get past Ohio State, whose goal is to win the National Championship. Different mindsets. And I don't know if our "Win the Big Ten" mindset and all that comes with it can take on a national stage mindset. Recruiting a great defense is imperative, but let's not forget we need the Charles Woodsons, too. (the big playmakers who change a game)
I can see both sides of this argument. If the goal is to win the national championship, this year that goal was already essentially lost after a lopsided loss in the first game. Then what do you do?
Even being undefeated is no guarantee of a spot in the BCS championship game if there are two other undefeated teams at the end of the season (and it's happened before, of course). Given the anti-B1G bias among voters (even Ohio wouldn't have been ranked #1 or #2 and they ARE undefeated) you have a recipe for disappoinment. There's really only one goal entirely within the sphere of control of the team, and that's the B1G Championship.
Good stuff. The season basically played out the way most expected - Alabama was a legit loss to most, ND and OSU were close games on the road, and Nebraska was the only real surprise-ish, but winning on the road in Lincoln even with Denard would have been tough. As many noted, this year's record was probably going to be worse even if the team was better than last, and 8-4 with a bowl game looks about right.
The Defense played well enough to win every game except Alabama. I don't think anyone was expecting the Offense to have so much difficulty scoring points. Except for FGs, the special teams were a liability this year, too. Most of us worried about the D-line without Martin and RVB, but there wasn't as much as a fall off as expected. The real problem was the O-line and the receivers.
I also predicted every single defeat as well. This season went almost exactly like I thought it would--save for Denard's injury.
original post, it doesn't count.
By the way, I also predicted Denard's injury and the correct score of every game. :)
I always think the team is going to be the "leaders and best," and I always end up making excuses for them at the end of the year. I haven't been right about the team since 2005, before I even knew about MgoBlog.
Michigan averaged 3.08 losses per year under Lloyd Carr (40 in 13 seasons). Unfortunately, many have equated three losses per year with "excellence" or "leaders and best." I did it as much as anyone else, but I have always found myself making excuses for Michigan: a bad call here, a bad break there, too many injuries, etc.
With the rise of the SEC, better depth in the Big Ten, the Big Ten/SEC bowl agreements, and the addition of the Big Ten Championship game, the typical Michigan performance since 1995 is probably going to result in four losses per year.
That is NOT "leaders and best;" it is mediocrity. It is what I hoped Michigan would avoid when they decided to hire a coach with a contemporary offense.
The bottom line is that after all of the excuses and all of the rosy predictions, we are looking at a very realistic chance of a five-loss season from David Brandon's hand-picked staff.
For some reason, David Brandon, like many Michigan fans, doesn't understand that it is possible to have a contemporary offense and a great defense. Ohio and ND are doing just that, and are currently undefeated.
Al Borges is going to get two five-star QB recruits to work with next year, Devin Gardner and Shane Morris. If Michigan is ever going to transcend the last twenty years of mediocrity and once again become a truly elite team, it's time to take the handcuffs off of Al Borges. It's time to let the "mad scientist" come out.
Sadly, though, for too many Michigan fans, and for David Brandon, "mad scientist" means the coach passed on first down twice in one game. Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it. We are going to need to see the field spread out a lot more. It is more than possible to spread the field within Borges' base offense.
Michigan is going to have to understand the apparent paradox that it is easier to run up the middle if you spread the field out. They are going to have to look a hundred miles west and a couple of hundred miles south and realize that the spread does work in cold weather.
Then, they are going to have to give Al Borges permission to do whatever the fuck he wants.
there was ONE coach in all college football, IIRC, who had had as good a record as Lloyd over a comparable span: Tenneessee's Phil Fulmer. Fans ask too much.
Now, I can tell you flatly that I HATED the way that Lloyd played so conservatively, taking a knee two minutes before halftime, etc. But the guy succeeded in Hall of Fame fashion.
That's what I'm talking about - the WHAT IF? What if we didn't run it up the middle 20 times? What if, instead of walking away from the playcalling in the first hafl, we built on it in the 2nd? What if Lloyd hadn't been so conservative? Would we have won more games? Or did we really hit our ceiling and it had nothing to do with play calling? Same with Borges. I tell my kids all the time, don't be afraid to try really hard. As hard as you can. Don't hold back. If you do, you'll always wonder what could have been. What a crappy feeling to have.
So are you actually saying that "they" are not allowing Borges to call the plays that he wants to? And who is "they" anyhow? Are you saying that David Brandon is instructing Borges on what he can do? Or the fans? Or the Illuminati? International financiers? Communists?
Maybe if we start reading the blog linked in his signature we'll find the answers to all of these mysteries.
I was kind of with ya until you started blathering on about offensive strategy. You clearly have never watched a SDSU game that Borges coached or even remember Auburn's ridiculous offense in the early 2000's. Al loves set plays, gadets sets, spread elements, base power, and straight up bombing the ball down field like we have seen the last four weeks. I think is it intellectually dishonest to not see the genius in his offense. Even yesterday their corners and safeties were totally confused. Oline couldn't block effectively enough, just not talented enough. Problem is Borges makes a couple bad calls or Devin or Denard lock on one route and you all of a sudden think he is a terrible offensive coordinator. Careful for what you wish for. What, people want Loeffler? How's he doing at Auburn? Can't be him, only Chizik, right? Psst...
We need more talent. RBs, oline and big but quick/faster WRs. We need a solid offensive line for gods sakes. Things would have been different had the oline played better. And the D was on their heals in the first half far too much.
the schedule was absolutley brutal this year- I don't care how down the conference is. we all knew several things going into this year:
1) road games @ NU, OSU, ND, Bama in Dallas to start
2) We had Denard at QB and a tire fire beyond him (with the move of Gardner to WR), and Denard isn't exactly used sparringly in the run game (point here is you have to expect him to miss some time).
3) We were REALLY thin in the OL
4) DL was a big ? going into the season. NO depth and NO pass rushers on the DL
5) The WRs are lacking a bit of talent/speed
6) we are 2 years removed from the RR era of down recruiting and S'ship numbers.
of course, #6 is related to #2-5.
2011 was an amazing success and the D has turned around greatly. But the program isn't curently at a level where we can take all these points and expect 10-11 out of 12 wins. There just isn't a lot of talent on the field right now, beyond Denard & Devin & Lewan. Schofield is a very good player. Defense has a couple good young LBers and Jake Ryan will be a star the next 2 years. The DL stepped up, but still aren't at a talent level where M has been in the past.
I never understood the 10-11 win predictions. Too many homer picks there and too much optimism to start the season. AFA this post goes, i think the biggest point to be made is the shape of the bell curve. the median/mean don't tell as much as the shape of the distribution. there were maybe 2-3 people predicting LESS than 8-4. more people picked greater than 8 wins than picked 8 wins exactly.
I also LOVE the 8-4 unacceptable crowd coming back out of the woods after a long hiatus. For all the reasons I pointed out above, this isn't a 90's-2007 8-4 M team. this team is at a much different talent level than even 2007 which I think was amazingly top heavy in talent and very undertalented over all with Henne, Hart, Long, Manningham, Graham and not a lot beyond that.
Predictions are obviously always easier to analyze in hindsight. Folks can easily say if they were right or wrong because it's just the end result being analyzed. The problem is that it completely ignores HOW the results were obtained. I didn't officially predict in the preseason thread but thought 8-4 most likely, 9-3 would be good, considering our schedule and talent. However, after watching how the ND, NEB, and Ohio loss occurred, it causes me to think we underachieved to a certain degree. Thinking about the losses is and will be frustrating for a while. Oh what could have been...
Bama and Nebraska were beyond our control. (There's no way that throwing DG to the lions at Nebraska can be assumed a victory, even if it was preferable, IMO, to Bellomy.) Yesterday and at ND we could have won the game--and the college football landscape would look quite different if we had.
So--agreed. I picked us at 8-4. But we could be sitting here at 10-2 feeling very good about ourselves. . . possibly waiting to get creamed in our bowl. :)
also also, love the people who think we were *this* close to 9-10 wins (even 11!!!!) but fail to recognise THE MOTHERFUCKING NORTHWESTERN GAME, let alone MICHIGAN STATE. cognitive dissonance at it's finest.
this is an 8-4 team. it is EXACTLY the record we deserve to have based on talent, depth, experience, injuries and the home/road schedule.
if you're just as close to 6-6 as you are to 10-2, then 8-4 is right where you should be.
I guess the question is, what can we reasonably expect? I think we should reasonably expect the team to improve over the course of the season. That's what's hard to stomach about Notre Dame and Ohio State. Both those teams improved over the season. The Notre Dame I saw last night was not the same team we played. And while I think Urban Meyer must have been high when he said yesterday that his team could play with any team in the country, they definitely improved over the course of the season. Why didn't we do that? Why did Denard not get better? Why did our offensive line not get better? Why did our running backs not get any better and in some cases, got worse? These are legitimate questions. And for all the talk of this being a good season considering the schedule, we still should have seen improvement.
How did OSU improve over the season? They squeaked out a win over a bad badger team in OT, MSU, probably should have lost to a horrible Cal squad as well, and don't forget Indiana.
The only thing you could honestly say improved was the defense which was a function of people coming back from injury and pretty much nothing else.
In mid October, they had to scramble in the 4th quarter, and OT to get a win against Purdue at home. In mid November, they beat us at home, keeping us scoreless in the 2nd half, and didn't need OT to do it. That's improvement.
And last week they needed OT to beat an equally terrible Wisconsin team and Braxton Miller had his worst game of the season. Improvement from one game to the next and calling it seasonal improvement is a joke.
Additionally, the second half was lost by Michigan not won by Ohio State. The game was absolutely there for the taking. That's why it stings so much, they were completely beatable and Michigan beat themselves with turnovers and some terrible play calling.
Mainly by finding that their FB made a pretty good MLB.
As for their offense, "they are who we thought they were" Braxton or bust. I thought we did a pretty good job except for the up the middle runs by Hyde. I am curious to see if that was scheme or performance based.
In my epinion it all comes down to talent WendyK. Honestly, you looked at a team that had less talent than the year before, and we are far from a talent rich team. Ohio's top 42 players are way more talented than ours . ND, well, debatable but they also haven't played as tough of a schedule as we have. They had the toughest schedule on paper at the season's start, but it turned out it be easier than most expected. Same could be said for ours to a degree, but overall, we maxed out on our ability and are who we are right now.
I can live with that explanation but the thing is, no one - no coach - is ever going to give that explanation. Who's going to say, "Hey, I'm doing all I can with these guys. This is it." When Borges said he could make a MIchael Vick out of Denard, I sort of believed him. Sort of.
for the season until now.............I am torn between 9 - 3 and 8 - 4..............still not quite sure - I will get back to you
I did not see the loss to Nebraska coming. I expected a win against MSU this year. I think what surprised me the most was the OSU game. That was seriously winnable and probably should have been won. We'll probably see all the plays in the bowl game that we should have seen in the second half against OSU.
It'll be a few weeks before I get over that game.
I just thought Denard as a senior would work some magic and win one of the two between Nebraska and OSU. Obviously he didn't get that chance. I still think we beat Nebraska if he doesn't go out. How we do against Ohio, I can't really speculate. We knew Denard going down would be bad, and it was.
I don't know if this is fair. Fans are going to be homers. I personally don't like to ever predict a loss. Given how the year actually turned out, with Alabama/ND/Neb/OSU all winning 10+ games, I don't think our season was too surprising.
My preseason prediction:
Best case: 10-2
Worst case: 7-5
I was right on target, and correctly pegged our losses -- 'Bama, ND, Nebraska, and OSU. The worst case scenario would've resulted from a loss to those and one of Iowa/Illinois (thought they'd be decent this year)/Northwestern.
About our offense:
I jumped on the fire Borges bus, but have walked away from the ledge. His playcalling is baffling at times, but I have to remember that he doesn't have the players he wants for his system yet. I was a huge Rich Rod supporter, even throughout the darkness, for that very same reason. It would be hypocritical to call for Borges' head because his offense under-achieved with players he didn't recruit. Also, we played two teams likely in the NCG and probably Big Ten champion Nebraska and undefeated Ohio State. It's not as if our schedule was a cakewalk.
Next year will be a huge barometer year in terms of our offense, IMO. So, Borges gets that.