Staggering Steps Back in Offense Year over Year - The Stats

Submitted by alum96 on

Not that this is new information at the 40,000 foot level but Mlive took a look at some stats of the offense and Devin year over year at the granular level and it's very telling.  Somewhere Borges is lighting a fat cigar and saying "ahem...".

If you haven't been keeping track at home, UM has scored 6 offensive TDs in the past 5 games.  What has struck me is the almost complete lack of big plays.  Both years the offense was mostly a tire fire against Big 5 conference opponents in moving up and down the field methodically - but last year we had games (OSU, ND, Indiana) where Devin went Vince Young Jr.  There has been none of that this year.  Last week's bomb to Funchess was one but against a well coached DB that's an INT.

Gardner is actually completing a higher % of throws but each completion is for about 4 yards less.  Still you'd think 12 yards a completion would be ok. 
 

Some data thru 7 games (recall last year the wheels fell off in the last half of the year):

Points scored

  • 2014:  21.7
  • 2013:  42.4

Average yards

  • 2014:  340.0
  • 2013:  446.4

First downs

  • 2014:  126
  • 2013:  158

Third down conversion

  • 2014:  41%
  • 2013:  49%

Touchdowns (both offense and defense)

  • 2014:  18
  • 2013:  39

Third quarter scoring

  • 2014:  38-24 in favor of opponents
  • 2013:  94-50 in favor of UM

TFL allowed (woo hoo improvement)

  • 2014:  41
  • 2013:  55

Gardner attempts / completion % (3/4 less game in 2014 v 2013 - due to Minnesota)

  • 2014:   91-144 (63.1%)
  • 2013:  107-175 (61.1%)

Gardner average yardage thrown (16 less completion = 676 less yards):

  • 2014:  1103 yards (12.1 ypc)
  • 2013:  1779 yards (16.6 ypc)

Gardner TD v INT:

  • 2014:  6 TD / 8 INT
  • 2013:  13 TD / 10 INT

Gardner rushing:

  • 2014:  57 carries, 259 yards, 3 TD
  • 2013:  95 carries, 520 yards, 9 TD

 

JT Barrett as a first time starter at OSU behind a completely retooled OL for a comparable:  107-164 (65.2%), 1615 yards (15.1 ypc), 20 TD 5 INT,  78 carries 383 yards 4 TDs.

LINK.

SFBlue

October 20th, 2014 at 5:22 PM ^

I see a lot of continuity between how  the Michigan offense played after the Penn State game last year through the Penn State game this year.  (The Ohio game being the anomoly.) 

switch26

October 20th, 2014 at 5:26 PM ^

The difference is our OL...  Go back and watch some of gardners first starts after Denard got hurt and he looks like a different QB.. 

 

A solid amount of time to sit in the pocket and make some easy decisions..

 

It is appalling to see how much better OSU's O-Line has improved over ours..  By this time our line should be pretty solid and they are still terrible..

 

We have 2 juniors and several other lineman that have 1.5 years+ of play time and a few guys who have more than 2+ years of experience working with Funk.. but they aren't getting better.

 

Funk should have been a package firing with borges last year and he wasn't..  Hoke stuck by him and it will eventually be his undoing among a boatload of other problems

glewe

October 21st, 2014 at 1:48 PM ^

I maintain that it's Wellman and not Funk.

Funk can scheme and teach technique, fundamental, etc. as needed. Funk has had success with this in other conferences. Technique and fundamentals are unlikely to change with competition level. But Strength and Conditioning is one of the biggest variants between higher level and lower level competition--ie. MAC/MWC vs. Power 5.

One of the reasons the match-up between Bama and Michigan in 2012 was so bad was because of the complete and total physical dominance of Bama, starting with their simple size. That informs strength. Wellman, on the other hand, has only had success in lower level conferences. He's the common thread that seems to deteriorate when the level of S&C increases.

The number of injuries and good-not-great DL seem to point to this too.

JT4104

October 20th, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^

Pretty clear this comes down to Hoke, Funk and Gardner being in his own damn head.

The beat downs Gardner got to end the year last year are still on his head and he is worried about screwing up every time he drops back and just cant get out of his own way.

Plus last year Devin did have a WR who could create seperation from a defender and there isn't one on this roster who can do that.

I think Heck has to come in to question in this catergory as well.  At this point I just dont think these young men are responding to this group of coaches, I mean a few here and there have improved and I could argue they are all on D.

alum96

October 20th, 2014 at 5:37 PM ^

Speed kills.  I get getting a bunch of larger WRs to fit your scheme but there is a happy medium out there,we should have a 5'11". 6'0 guy somewhere in our scheme with 4.4 speed - you need to  stretch a defense.  That was supposed to be Chesson I guess but I have not really seen any burner speed out of him.  So now they say it will be Drake Harris.  But there is almost no vertical threat in this offense anymore.

alum96

October 20th, 2014 at 6:13 PM ^

We'll see at the combine but he strikes me as a more of a 4.6 kind of straight line speed guy.  You'd see Gallon blow by people and somehow be so wide open a few times a game.  He timed at 4.45 with a low of 4.39.  Funchess is a very big man and I dont expect him to be a 4.4ish guy - there are maybe 2 guys that size who can run like that off the top of my head, AJ Green and Calvin. 

I'm just going by eye test rather than a specific 40 time - there has to be a poor man's Desean Jackson or Sammy Watkins a team like UM can land every 2nd or 3rd recruiting class.  Maybe a more raw WR / athlete type who would develop over time but every time is on the field you have to worry about him even as a decoy.  I mean that is basically Chesson's role right now - he doesnt see the ball much at all but he is not stretching defenses as a vertical threat.

funkywolve

October 20th, 2014 at 6:34 PM ^

that Funchess might have not blazing speed but he still has good speed and with his size the fact they haven't tried to utilize him as a deep threat is kind of perplexing.  If your a DC, i'm guessing you really don't want to see your corner one on one with Funchess 30-40 yds down the field so if UM was sending Funchess deep, the defense would almost certainly be rolling a safety that way.  You might not complete a ton of deep throws to Funchess but you might open up the rest of the field for the other receivers.

alum96

October 20th, 2014 at 8:46 PM ^

Agree with you on route running but this is year 3 in the system.  It's not an excuse if he is not running crisp routes.

As for Gallon guy ran a 4.39 at combine with a 4.45 official.  That is pretty elite speed; I think people underestimate his speed.  The elite of the elite are 4.35.  He just lacks NFL size.  Still surprised he did not get more of a chance as he could be a poor man's Wes Welker type.

UMAmaizinBlue

October 20th, 2014 at 8:28 PM ^

Gardner is "in over his head". He simply (and accurately, IMO) states that the abuse Gardner took last season due to sacks, hits, and pressure got in his head and caused a mental block affecting his confidence.

GoBLUinTX

October 20th, 2014 at 8:32 PM ^

numbers he put up against OSU, much of which happened after his injury, and his stellar performance against Appy St are aberations?  Could one of you more learned members explain how or why Gardner completely flipped from Appy St to Notre Dame?  In other words, what happened against Appy St that had Gardner so shook up against Notre Dame? 

westwardwolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 9:19 AM ^

Do you understand that one game does not make your point? Was that the first time ever in your life you've seen someone play a game hurt and play really well? 

You're treating it like you just saw Jesus walk on water or something. 

GoBLUinTX

October 21st, 2014 at 1:15 AM ^

Jus the sight of those gold helmets did it?  Interesting.  So we're to understand he found his mojo just in time for Miami (OH) only to lose it again at the first sight of a Ute?

What do you think, will he come out of his shell for Indiana, Northwestern, and Maryland, or do you think we've seen the last of Devin Gardner?

Tulip Time

October 21st, 2014 at 1:42 AM ^

I think it was partly the gold helments and partly the people under them.

I don't understand what you're saying. Appalachian State is a terrible team. Notre Dame is not. Miami is a terrible team, Utah is not. 

I mean, Gardner's steady decline since 2012 is well documented. OSU last year was an amazing performance that was also an outlier. Other than that you're pointing to games against FCS App State and winless-in-over-a-year Miami and saying that they should be the norm when all the evidence we have points otherwise.  Even his game against Miami wasn't particularly good.

I just don't understand what point you're trying to make.

 

Yeoman

October 21st, 2014 at 2:03 AM ^

By the time you're done throwing out all the outliers there aren't many games left.

Gardner had nine games last year where he threw for more yards than he has in any game this year, including App State. That includes four of the five games in the supposedly disastrous second half of the season, after he'd supposedly been broken by the o-line and Borges's play-calling. He threw one interception in 170 passes in that disastrous stretch last year; he's thrown 8 in 144 this year. It doesn't seem to matter what metric you use--the break in his performance was between last year and this year.

That basically leaves two plausible explanations: the injury and the change in OC/QB coach. And the injury explanation seems to fail in the face of the OSU performance.

westwardwolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 9:03 AM ^

You mean last year when he had Jeremy Gallon, SR Drew Dileo, two NFL tackles, a healthy Jake Butt on top of Devin Funchess?

You mean when we put up negative rushing yards in back to back games because DG was taking sacks rather than throwing picks?

You mean the Northwestern game where NW dropped anywhere between 3-20 interceptions?

You mean the worst four game stretch of offense since at the very least 2007 and probably ever?

You mean an opening 7 game schedule that has 5 out of 7 games that were more difficult this year than last year?

You're really pretending like there aren't explanations for last year being better than this year?

You're saying an injury means a guy can't have one great game when he plays his heart out against a rival? 

That's like saying "Well, Michael Jordan is in his 40s and he's not playing as well as he did with Chicago, but last night he scored 50 points! So obviously the reason why his season stats aren't as good boils down to the fact he changed teams and not his age!"

You're smarter than that. 

 

Yeoman

October 21st, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^

  oFEI rank
2007 0.001 56
2008 -0.167 81
2009 -0.027 66
2010 0.652 2
2011 0.472 9
2012 0.267 25
2013 0.173 42
2014 -0.126 74

That "worst stretch of offense" in program history resulted in a Fremeau ranking that's the best Michigan offense in the database that didn't include Denard.

This year's offense has regressed almost to the level of Threet/Sheridan.

Do you think this year's offensive talent is as bad as '08? Worse than '09? Do you really think it's such a stretch to propose that a big part of the problem is the change in offensive style to something that's less suited the particular talents of this team

People around here were so fixated on "getting rid of the negative plays" and "27 for 27" that we threw out the touchdowns with the bathwater.

westwardwolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^

Again: 

4 games, 10.5 points by the offense in regulation, three games of sub 200 yard offense, two games of zero touchdowns in regulations, both Iowa touchdowns created by short fields, etc. It goes on. 

What touchdowns? 

I'm not someone who claims that the 2010 offense was actually the second best offense in the country. In fact, I laugh at the idea. So to me FEI as total fact is pretty pointless. 

I've already explained to you why you are wrong on numerous other posts. Take it or leave it. 

Here's a tip: Watch the games. It will do wonders for your analysis. 

sleeper

October 21st, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^

the problem is the offense as a collective. An O-line that can’t protect or open holes to get the running game going, add to that receivers who get no separation and constantly running 8-10 yard routes over and over, he has little to no margin for error. It just seems in watching the offense that every throw has to be in a tight window with us rarely throwing to open receivers. I will use Barrett as an example, you watch one of his games and they have receivers running open all over the field with him rarely having to squeeze a pass into a tight window.

UMgradMSUdad

October 20th, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^

With an offense that makes as many mistakes as Michigan, the lack of big plays is a real problem.  I don't see Michigan sustaining long drives against the MSU defense (they haven't been able to do that against any decent defense so far this season), so the only real hope I see is for some big plays.  That's the only way IU scored last week, and that seems to be the weak point of the MSU's aggressive play on defense.

Gob1ue22

October 20th, 2014 at 5:32 PM ^

As much as people think Nussmeier is really sucking, I'd like to wait until the end of the season for these types of evaluations. He may have just not had enough time yet with these players and getting them all acclimated to his new system. If he's as good as advertised before the season started, he should be showing some strides in improvement by the OSU game, if not before. Let's see, this week will be a good benchmark to see if there have been any improvements against a good defense. 

Gob1ue22

October 20th, 2014 at 5:35 PM ^

Also: I think we simply need to clear house on position coaches. If Hoke wants to be a "hands off" type of ceo coach, that's fine, but at least let Nuss get his own competent guys in place. Maybe Hoke's guys worked out at Ball State and SDSU, but not against top notch D1 competition. 

GoBLUinTX

October 21st, 2014 at 2:06 AM ^

seven game records, because Michigan has only played seven games thus far this year.  Obviously if we want to compare year over year we'll have to wait until all 12 games have been played.  

I think what's inconvenient is that the much heralded Doug Nussmeier offense shows up as a pathetic excuse for football, scoring less than 22 points per game.  Through seven games fully 20 fewer points per game than the much maligned and denigrated Al Borges offense.

westwardwolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 9:36 AM ^

Speaking of inconvenience:

That Al Borges offense had:

Taylor Lewan

Michael Schofield

Jeremy Gallon

Fitz Toussaint

Drew Dileo

Those are five proven guys (offense never looked better last year than when Dileo was involved) who can play, on top of:

Devin Funchess

Devin Gardner

Jake Butt

Now this year, Nussmeier has:

Devin Gardner, year removed from being destroyed all season

Devin Funchess, hurt

Jake Butt, coming back from injury

Everyone else is unproven and/or young, save perhaps Glasgow and, I dunno, Chesson?

Don't get me wrong: They should still be doing better. But its not some big surprise that they've lost the ability to spark themselves to a random big point outing when you lose a guy like Gallon (who gave you two #1 threats) and two NFL linemen in Lewan and Schofield, on top of Dileo, healthy Funchess, fully healthy Butt, etc. 

westwardwolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^

Or maybe it is? 

Two best linemen and the best receiver lost. Devin Funchess is left as the lone proven bit of talent, outside of DG. Toussaint and Dileo, other proven guys, gone. 

Now, Funchess is hurt, Butt is working his way back. 

Who are the weapons? Darboh? Chesson? Green? Norfleet? Which one of them was lighting things up last year? 

Devin's legs have been cut off. Is that Hoke or Nuss? If its Hoke, then there isn't much one can say about Nussmeier. If its Nussmeier, then he's an idiot. 

 

Yeoman

October 21st, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^

(1) Hoke tends to stand off from his coordinators on both sides of the ball; he certainly does on the offensive side since it's not his area of expertise.

(2) Nussmeier's new, Hoke is not. If you're looking for an explanation for changes since last year doesn't it make sense to look at what's different?

westwardwolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^

Wrong about Borges? No, not at all. We'd be probably around where we were if Borges didn't have Lewan, Gallon, Schofield, Dileo, Toussaint and a healthy Jake Butt and Devin Funchess to lean on last year. 

Possibly wrong about Nussmeier? From what it looks like it could be true. 

Troll on brother, troll on. 

westwardwolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 1:39 PM ^

Sure: Like personnel? Oh right, that doesn't fit what you're trying to say, lets ignore all those posts. So in your mind, Gallon, Lewan and Schofield didn't exist last year. Somehow, Borges had a few good games with the likes of Braden, Chesson and Bars or something. 

Unlike you, I'll actually respond to your argument: Yes, which is why I have said that its entirely possible (and in some ways there is no doubt) that its Nussmeier's fault that the offense is playing poorly. However Hoke is the one who brought up that Gardner's running ability was not being used to save him so he could make it through the season. I think its possible that the head coach might lean on the offensive coordinator on something like this, especially if he thinks that Devin getting hurt last year had more to do with his running and less to do with him getting drilled in the pocket. 

Maybe, maybe not. 

alum96

October 21st, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^

Westward

Can you do the same analysis for OSU offensive losses year over year and get back to me?

Off top of my head - the 2nd/3rd best RB in the Big 10 lost, a 5th year senior Qb lost (injury), 4 out of 5 OL lost.  I am not sure on the WR or TE situation.

Their losses were more severe than ours.  We still returned a star WR and a 5th year senior QB.  Fitz was a very average runner most wanted out of here - and a horrid blocker.  Dileo -bless his heart - had all of 15 catches last year in a much more prolific offense.  Let's not get revisionist.  The major losses were the 2 tackles and Gallon.

I get your general point but the drop has been titanic and other teams dont make these excuses.  Arizona State lost 9 of 11 starters on defense - is playing 3 TRUE freshman on defense, and has been playing a backup QB the past 3 games and beat Stanford and USC and is 5-1 and top 15 in the nation using an example outside of the Big 10.  Good coaches find a way. 

MileHighWolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 6:44 PM ^

I would guess it's an issue of terrible coaching on our end (of which I assume Hoke is mostly to blame) combined with not being anywhere near as deep on talent pool as OSU.

I think Hoke is just that bad....when you have 2 OC's fail so badly, one who had previously shown competence at prior stops, that falls on the HC. 

MileHighWolverine

October 21st, 2014 at 7:49 PM ^

@Yeoman - How can you say that when the OL that was a total disaster last year lost the two best players on the line and replaced them with a true FR with no college experience or strength training and a guy with a bad back? 

Doesn't the fact that a true FR, who isn't all that good yet, beat out our other more experienced 4-5* linemen give you pause at all as to what the problems are? 

Seriously, how do you say that with a straight face? 

Yeoman

October 21st, 2014 at 9:31 PM ^

(1) Because of the size of the drop. It's not the ordinary drop during a program's rebuilding year; we've dropped to the level of Miami (O). We're #74; they're #76. Is there a single player starting for Michigan this year that Not-That-Miami even bothered to offer? Or that wouldn't likely have started there as a true freshman, let alone now?

(2) Because the o-line is the one piece of the offense that's grading out better in the UFR's than it was last year. The extra year of experience on the interior seems to be mattering more than the downgrades at the tackles.

WW's argument that the problem is at receiver is plausible (for all our grousing at each other, I think he and I basically agree that a lot of the problem is the lack of any downfield threat--we disagree about how much of that is Gallon and how much is the change in scheme). That the problem is a downgrade in the o-line doesn't make sense, since the line is apparently improved.