good luck with that
Last week we saw Points Per Posession for the offense as a tempo free metric to see how good our O is. With that in mind I wanted to look at PPP for our defense. This is a little tough as the NCAA doesn't put it all together so you have to go back to each drive and pull in the drive numbers. So I went ahead and did that for 2010 so far and got this...
|1||-9||0||Punt||71||7||Rush TD||53||3||FG Good|
|5||48||3||FG Made||19||0||Punt||79||7||Rush TD|
|8||49||0||TO on Downs||24||0||Punt||24||0||Punt|
|9||42||0||TO on Downs||77||0||EOH||70||7||Rush TD|
|11||66||3||FG Made||26||7||Pass TD|
|4||64||7||Rush TD||99||7||Rush TD|
|9||69||7||Rush TD||33||0||TO on Downs|
|10||8||0||Punt||50||0||TO on Downs|
Note that the items in italics were not counted as I decided they shouldn't be counted - a couple other EOH drives were counted because, at least to me, it seemed obvious the other team was definitely trying to score.
All that data chrunched in this:
Ok, so thus far our D is giving up just over 2 points/posession - hmm (and OMG, Thank God IU wasn't as efficient as UMass). That doesn't sound that good - rather than compare it to tOSU or MSU I thought I'd compare it to our 2009, since most of us have a pretty firm grasp on what we thought of that D (I'll update with the rest of the Big Ten next week but I don't have the time just yet). Also, for 2009 I used our first 4 and Delaware State. Chart...
|Opponent||Western||Notre Dame||Eastern||IU||Delaware St|
|1||6||0||Punt||69||0||FG Miss||8||0||Punt||80||7||Rush TD||-1||0||Punt|
|3||6||0||Punt||56||3||FG Made||79||7||Rush TD||-5||0||Punt||5||0||Punt|
|4||0||0||Int||76||7||Pass TD||8||0||Punt||67||7||Rush TD||2||0||Punt|
|6||-14||0||Punt||17||3||FG Good||36||7||Rush TD||52||3||FG Made||14||0||Punt|
|9||80||0||TO on Downs||17||0||Punt||6||0||Punt||8||3||FG Made||14||3||FG Made|
|11||85||7||Pass TD||36||7||Rush TD||55||0||TO on Downs||72||3||FG Made||76||3||FG Made|
Again the italized EOH drives were not counted in the following:
Ok, great, so now we know exactly much worse our D is this year than last year but we also played Sparty last year so let's see how that turned out...
|10||45||0||TO on Downs|
So using that same Sparty 137% over achieving you end up with the D doing this...
Eeek! So how many point are we looking at? Well, the average number of drives faced thus far in 2010 per game is 12 and the average number in 2009 was 13. Last year Sparty had 11 countable drives so I'll call that a wash compared to this year. With that in mind where does that leave this years D vs Sparty?
Well - 2.91*11 = 32 points and if we give them another posession they get 35 points.
Summary - well, it looks like comparing this years data to last years data our D might be giving up another 14 points in this game but our O is also much better. The next natural step is to look at how MSU is performing this year compared to last and merge the two sets of data but, as I said, that's for another week as it's already Thursday and I've got work to do!
My prediction (knocking on wood, throwing salt over shoulder, every other non-jinxing thing you can think of) UM 38-MSU 35 (I think we'll get a 27 yard FG at some point along the way).
I welcome any suggestions/additions and I'll try to update this weekly and expand it to all of the Big Ten and just have summary data in the future so as not to make it too long.
Update: I've updated with the fixed numbers for the IU EOH TD and pushed the prediction to 38-35 - maybe that 27 yard FG will come at the end of the game?
Update 2: For Mat - I've run the Offensive numbers comparing ourselves to last year and, in a word, NNNOOOO!!!!
Keeping UMass and DSU in the calc I ended up with our O only getting 57% of it's expected output (OUCH!) with about 1 posession more per game. Even if we throw in that extra posession our expected offensive output is only 2.058 pts/posession leaving us at 25 points. Of course 09 was bouyed by the DSU game pulling in over 5pts/possession so if we take that out that game you end up with an expected offensive output of 26 for 11 drives or 28 for 12 drives.
Basically, our O is going to have to do MUCH better against their D than they did last year if this is going to be a win because last years O didn't do squat (60% <= squat).
Also, something of note to give hope for this years O vs last years (even after accounting for drive efficiency) is the massive decrease in number of negative yardage drives (not just plays but entire drives!).
2009 negative yardage drives through 4 OOC + IU = 9
2010 negative yardage drives through 4 OOC + IU = 2.
I'm still sticking to my prediction but, hopefully, the UM O will do better against MSU than it did last year otherwise we're going to be hurting.
In case you're curious our O, as mentioned in another diary, is at 3.614 PPP. If Sparty is going to get the 35 points predicted above and we get 12 posessions we'll need 3.166PPP to get to 38 or 3.5PPP to get to 42 - both below our season average.
Again - knocks on wood, throws salt over shoulder, yada yada yada...
So, I am watching WolverineHistorian's typically outstanding summary video on YouTube and trying to see if the conventional wisdom on "soft" corner play is accurate. I start grabbing screenshots. What I think as soft corner play, say here...
...may not be? Is a better definition of soft corner play that, when the ball is snapped, the defender doesn't close if needed? Because what little I could find of Patrick Peterson doesn't show him playing all that much closer to the LOS:
Well, a little closer. So, someone who knows coverage schemes edumacate me. Are these "soft"?
Or is "soft" a nonsense term that really is an indictment of instincts (closing on a short pass, being able to recover if the receiver turns it up field, etc.) rather than cushion?
There has been much angst and hair-pulling on the board over the performance of Michigan's defense, and particularly, the commitment to the 3-3-5 stack scheme. I happen to be one of those who thinks this scheme is in place largely to make do with current personnel and to cover the inexperience in our secondary. Gerg, from my perspective, is doing a fine job, and our defense is doing as well as they can. They know they aren't the same caliber as a typical Michigan defense, but they're not throwing in the towel.
I find it wickedly delicious that we are likely committed to Gerg and the 3-3-5 for at least a couple more years. Why? Largely because of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme. Specifically, I think that with a 8 - 4 record or better, you don't change things. In a sense, because of the Shafer flameout, Gerg will be given more time. (if Gerg was the first DC, you could contemplate a change. As the 2nd under RR, he gets a longer leash, as to release him would be for RR to admit failure.) You simply can't change the DC again. Whether you like the 3-3-5 and Gerg, going to a 4th DC would be disastrous. Also, because of the lack of emphasis on recruiting defense adequately, and because of the Demar and Cissoko and Turner and Emilien flameouts, none of which Gerg can be blamed for, it is likely he will be given several years to get skilled athletes in place, before he is judged.
This, for someone like myself who thinks the 3-3-5 is a good scheme, and Gerg is a good DC, is just fine. But it must be schadenfreude for those who love Michigan yet dislike Gerg. Like him or not, I don't think he's going anywhere, anytime soon.
Indiana dropped back to pass over 70 times.
- 64 passes
- 2 sacks
- 1 int
- Chappell is listed as running 7 times for -5 yards
I am going to go out on a limb and say were are not getting enough sacks.
I don't have the numbers, but it did look like Chappell got hit a ton. I think our pressure and blitz packages were good at getting to the quarterback.
My question is this...if we are getting decent pressure or at least a bunch of quarterback hits (some of them after he released the ball and illegal) why aren't we getting more sacks?
I would say its b/c our secondary is playing too soft. I got sick of watching the QB get hit as he threw the ball to a reciever with a DB playing a soft 5 yards behind. If the secondary played a bit tighter we may give up a few more big plays, but I would think we would also get a bunch more sacks. I say this b/c in the split second the QB has to decide if he wants to throw all he sees is his own player, if there were a DB in the area he may think twice pull the ball down and take the sack. Thats just my opinion.
I know our Defensive philosophy is to make a QB beat us, but we shouldn't make it too easy for them.
Below is a summation of team offense and defensive ranking stats (based on 120 FBS teams):
Rushing Offense 3
Passing Offense 38
Total Offense 2
Scoring Offense 9
Rushing Defense 37
Passing Defense 120
Total Defense 102
Scoring Defense 73