Rushing statistics and the offensive line
In my most recent diary, I claimed that the offfensive line was not terrible. I'm still seeing people claim that they are, so I thought I'd check some statistics. I prefer quantitative analysis over qualitative conjecture. The first thing I checked was individual rushing yards per carry.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/player/_/stat/rushing/so…
There are 124 teams in I-A. De'Veon Smith is 50th in I-A with 6.0 yards per attempt. Derrick Green checks in at #71 with 5.7 yards per attempt. So that "terrible" offensive line has allowed not one, but two running backs to be in the top 75. That's not great, but it's not terrible either. I'd say it's about average.
The other criticism you see is something like this, "of course we gained yards, we were playing Rutgers." So let's look at our opponents.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/posi…
Utah is 14th in yards per attempt, and ND is 17th. Those are two pretty good defenses. Minnesota is 45th and Rutgers is 63. Those are two pretty average defenses. And last but least, Miami (OH) is 96 and Appy State is 119. Those are two pretty bad defenses.
So in conclusion, the running game has been average against average defenses.
We are 2-4 because of turnover margin and some head-scratching coaching decisions. I think 5-7 or 6-6 are still real possibilities. Which is not what I expected coming into the season, but the offensive line is not the reason why we are underperforming expectations.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
CJ Brown at Maryland and Sudfeld at Indiana are in the same level of Nova. Indiana has no defense but will score on us. They also have the best RB we will face this year. Better than Cobb and you saw what Cobb did to us. Maryland has 2 NFL WRs - who is going to cover them? Lewis is the only CB I trust right now. And I dont trust the safeties at all - they left Countess out to dry last week on that busted play.
We're going to need to score 30+ to beat those 2 teams. This defense is average. Nova just threw for 400 yards on it. Rutgers was in multiple 3rd and longs, and converted at a 50% clip. One of these weeks one of these teams will have a bad week combined with us having a good week but right now thats the main hope for a win. Which is sad.
Northwestern's defense has made big improvements the past 2 weeks, dominating PSU and Wisconsin. They are going to give us all sorts of trouble.
I wont even bother discussing MSU or OSU. 2-6 in the conf at this point would be a victory.
October 7th, 2014 at 5:59 PM ^
No, a meltdown would be 2-10
I still want to think PSU is winnable, but PSU can't run the ball which means... they'll be throwing a lot against our not-so-good pass rush and banged up secondary... so... yeah...
October 7th, 2014 at 6:25 PM ^
October 7th, 2014 at 3:53 PM ^
Too bad they don't keep track of "QB Hits" at the college level.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
PSU has the #2 rush defense in the nation. We'll see how we do this week.
I think the OL was one of the worst in UM history for run blocking last year. Now we are saying we are better than the worst in Michigan history. True - but low bar.
If you split D. Green and D. Smith's stats out for App State and Miami OH here is what you have
D Smith
- 7 carries, 30 yards
- 4 carries, 5 yards
- 9 carries, 57 yards
- 10 carries, 31 yards
Total = 30 carries, 123 yards. It's decent at 4.1 yards per carry
D Green
- 13 carries, 25 yards
- 14 carries, 59 yards
- 6 carries, 6 yards
- 12 carries, 74 yards
Total = 45 carries, 164 yards. It's not that good at 3.6 yards per carry
On a 12 game basis that extrapolates out to about 1150 yards combined from our 2 featured backs when playing teams our lineman don't outweight the competition by 50 lbs. Or 100 yards per game (which will be a tough level to get vs either PSU or MSU). Contrast that to what Cobb did against our defense, when rush defense is our core "strength".
So against any competition that is not bottom 20 in the nation, we're averaging around 3.8 yards per carry. Much better than last year. Mediocre overall.
October 7th, 2014 at 5:32 PM ^
last year our leading rusher was Fitz who had 185 carries for 648 yds or 3.5YPA, 49.8 yards per game
if you take out his 32 carries for 151 against Indiana thats 153 for 497 or 3.25 yds/A
and remove the 24 for 120 he managed against Uconn and we end up with
129 carries for 377 yds or 2.92 yards per carry over the other 11 games last year.
34 yards per game for our leading rusher...
October 7th, 2014 at 8:37 PM ^
Right - but Fitz included the PSU for 27 for 27 and the MSU -48 game. We still have those opponents ahead of us. Projecting 95 yds per game from our RBs due to the past 4 games is not something I am going to do. I am just saying if they kept this pace we'd at least be mediocre. Sub 1000 yards for your featured backs in CFB is piss poor - our top 2 backs probably won't get to 1000 combiined. Some tougher defenses lay ahead. Both MSU and PSU are better run defenses than ND. MSU's whole defensive philosophy is built on destroy the run and force your QB to beat us 1 v 1 in the air.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:08 PM ^
these sports statistics don't utilize medians instead of mean. if the point of statistics is to have some sort of predictive insight into the success of an upcoming play, i feel like accounting for the huge runs (which are unlikely to happen on any given play) by using median would lead to better predictive value.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:21 PM ^
Interesting thought. I agree that median may be more predictive of the outcome of a future rush, but that isn't necessarily the only insight you wish to get from a rushing statistic. The fact that a super fast running back is more likely to break an 80 yarder is better reflected in the mean, and it could be argued that mean is a better indicator of the ability of a running back based on his chances of ripping off a big one. Mike Hart probably looked fantastic based on median but only average based on mean. The ideal answer of how to measure a running back is somewhere in between the two (I don't know the actual stats for Mike Hart, I was just using him as a theoretical example).
In the end, mean is simply easier to calculate, which is the real reason it is used in online stats.
October 7th, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^
I agree that median might be more useful than average for many things, but for RB you do want to take into account a guys probability of breaking big plays. The median for pretty much every back would be 4 yards, so you wouldn't get much meaningful info.
There are some advanced stats that address this but football overall is still WAY behind in publishing useful info. For RBs it's especially acute, as the criteria for success varies so much on situation (down and distance).
The bigger issue here is sample size. Evaluating people based on 50 carries won't tell you a real story since one outlier can blow the whole thing.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^
As to the OP's comments on what do blame aside from turnovers...and passing... it is the inability to put together 5-6 nice plays in a row. And nice plays include plays that fail. There is often a hold, a drop, a TFL within a 4-5 play span. And this team cannot do 2nd and 11 or 3rd and 14. Unlike a Gary Nova led offense. So once you get past 3-4 plays into any drive you have to begin to assume the mistakes happen imminently. And most of the time that will be a correct assumption. The inability to play soundly for more than 3-4 plays in a row is on the coaching staff.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:29 PM ^
I totally agree. We seem to be able to go 40 yards fairly routinely (all the first drive FG attempts this year,) but it's the rare occasion when we can sustain a drive and go 75 yards for a TD.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^
and to add insult to injury, our return teams haven't been very good and the defense has hardly forced any turnovers. So not only does the offense have problems sustaining drives, they very rarely start with good field position.
October 7th, 2014 at 5:35 PM ^
Michigan is TRYING to create sustained drives but it might be a mistake. The Borges boom or bust approach was inconsistent but won us some games. Michigan might need to push that direction further because we seem to have outgained teams we lost quite badly too.
October 7th, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^
The lack of long passes in the offense is pretty obvious. I realize long passes force the oline to pass protect longer but at some point you need to try and get chunks, especially when you have an athletic 6'5" wr.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:26 PM ^
I'm not upset about the O-line that much this year. But I feel like the offense is predictable, and I feel like the opponents know what Michigan is going to run. 3rd and short? You better believe Brady wants to manball it. The problem is they aren't using the talent they have to the best of their abilities.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:35 PM ^
If we end up 6-6 I will eat a lemon.
And like it.
October 7th, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^
averages 3.4 YPC when you remove App State and Miami OH games. Woopty doo Basil! Microscopic improvement! Hell of a season.
October 7th, 2014 at 5:06 PM ^
One other thing that might indicate some improvement on the line and by extension in the running game is looking at net yards as a % of total positive yards perhaps. I could be off, but this one seemed like it might be interesting for that.
Using the Michigan stats archives, we rushed for 1,634 net yards last yards, 2,144 plus yards against 537 negative yards. That makes net as a % of total positive yards 76.21%.
This year so far, we've managed 1,085 net yards, 1,232 positive yards against 137 negative yards, again per the archives, so now the same ratio - net as a % of total positive yardage now 88.07%.
That seems like a definite blocking/efficiency improvement is hidden in there. It might not be the most telling metric, but I've wondered about different ways you could use rushing yards to show offensive line performance.
Interestingly, we are now at 66.40% percent of last year's total net rushing now, so all goes well in this aspect of the game anyway, we might be on track to exceed - by a bit - last year's total. Small, but visible improvements.
October 7th, 2014 at 5:17 PM ^
This seems to match what my eyes are telling me with respect the running game. We finally have an "average" rushing attack, yay! But it seems the most of the issues of the OL are in pass pro.
October 7th, 2014 at 6:59 PM ^
1)Hoke was/is stubborn and he can't understand why he doesn't wear a headset and he actually wore a headset at BallState and SDSU. Michigan is the only place he has not.
2) Funk was terrible at developing players at Ball State and developed no one. The o line coach before Funk was responsible for 12-0 was that guy actually was good but he burnt out making way for Funk.
October 7th, 2014 at 10:35 PM ^
reality is never what you think it is- wouldn't have guessed that about the headsets
October 7th, 2014 at 7:36 PM ^
look-- you can have a GOOD-OL, and STILL have Poor Ocalls
AND-- you can have a Poor-OL and actually have Good Ocalls. On this point-- it has to do with Out-Flanking, so to speak, the OL-problems while trying to move the OL forward in quality play.
On these last points-- I spose Borges might have been actually pretty good.
But Schembechler ALWAYS pointed to that FIRST conference game as Absolutely VITAL for the season. And by extension-- the Quality Of OL-play had to be ready. And supporting Ocalls for that matter.
Instead-- for The CONFERENCE OPENER, you had Hoke CAVE to the Gibberish of The Email Mob, and Start Morris. With The Nuss-O delivering Nothing Meaningful.
The Nuss-O, has had a couple of Quarters of Meaningful Ocalls-- at Rtg. And the PaS-D, is gonna Soak That Up . . .
October 7th, 2014 at 8:00 PM ^
now-- in The Schembechler Days, the Vital Nature of The Conference Opener was ONLY Exceeded by the MSU-game.
Back then-- the MSU game was often Front-loaded on the conference schedule, usually the SECOND conf-game.
so-- there you have it. A One-Two Dynamic-- which most likely would Define The Season. And he went on to have An IN-credible record in these two games.
He never forgot the Absolute Shock of Losing AT-MSU in his first year-- 1969. The Loss left an Indelible Mark on him . . .