Following This Year's Offensive Stats by comparison
I have been following this the past few weeks out of curiosity. The production has already surpassed last years 12 game total. It has also passed 2006's 13 game total.
| 2009 | 2010 to date | |
| Pass | 2380 | 2555 |
| Rush | 2234 | 2663 |
| Total | 4614 | 5218 |
By comparison the last good year.
| 2006 | |
| Pass | 2538 |
| Rush | 2282 |
| Total | 4820 |
Stats via mgoblue.com
November 17th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
That is quite telling...
November 17th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
But....but everyone knows the spread can't work in the Big Ten. How can this be?
November 17th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
While yardage is impressive, compare points instead. What your numbers don't show are the TO's.
As far as the 2006 team goes, you go with the yards, I will go with the 11-2 record.
Here is a little piece from Wiki re the 2006 team and their defense.
The team earned the Big Ten rushing defense statistical championships for all games by holding opponents to 43.4 yards per game. The team also earned the Big Ten rushing defense statistical championships for conference games by holding opponents to 50.9 yards per game. They were the conference leaders in quarterback sacs for conference games (3.3 sacks per game) and all games (3.3 sacks per game).
November 17th, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^
thank you for officially pissing on our parade, Debbie Downer.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:10 PM ^
right, lmao
tell'em HI HATERS
November 17th, 2010 at 7:12 PM ^
Get the stars out of your eyes and learn to analyze data. Yards don't mean a ton when you don't have the points to go with them. Comparing this team to the 2006 team is a joke. The 06 team was arguably the best Michigan team in the last decade with arguably one of the best D's I can remember. The NFL is full of starters from that team.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^
Umm.. the defense in 2006 was leaps and bounds better than this defense, which might have something to do with the 11-2 record. Michigan went into happy valley that year and didn't even have to try on offense to win - compare that to this year.
I'd be willing to wager that this year's offense coupled with the 2006 defense, Garrett Rivas and Mesko would be 10-0 at this point as well.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
2006 offense: 29.23 points per game
2010 offense: 37.70 points per game
Your points about the defense are not relevant - the OP was discussing the offense. Offensively, this is without question one of the most prolific in the program's history. This is Fielding Yost level of performance.
The defense is a work in progress. We are all well aware of that.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
So you would take the 2006 "offense" over this one, because of the better defense in 2006???
November 17th, 2010 at 7:49 PM ^
This is an illustration of the limitations of statistics. The 2006 offense did not need to score many points to win. The 2010 offense clearly does need to score a ton to win, and even so, it's been outscored three times in six conference games. I do think this offensive staff is better than Carr's, though.
November 17th, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
well forfeit the rest of the season. Damn sophmores and freshmen turning the ball over on purpose just to make our lives miserable. Damn them all.
November 17th, 2010 at 8:19 PM ^
What the fuck does the 2006 defense have to do with this argument?
November 17th, 2010 at 9:19 PM ^
Offense and defense are always interrelated. Because the 2006 D dominated most opponents, we could Lloydball our way to victories. We can't do that now. We have no choice but to try to score every possession, given our poor defense. To just look at the scoring average and assume that this year's O is clearly better is questionable. We had a ton of offensive talent that year - more than we do now, IMO.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^
then the 06 team gave up 1 billion yards to wells...
November 17th, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^
D went out the window in that game, but it was still one of the best games I have seen in a while. The No. 1 and No. 2 teams in the country pounding the crap out of each other play after play. There were great offensive players on both sides, including a Heisman QB on OSU. Sometimes you just score points.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:16 PM ^
November 17th, 2010 at 7:26 PM ^
With all due respect, the OP did make the comparison to the 2006 team, a team with an excellent, but very different style of offense.
I'll go with any style of O that wins.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:33 PM ^
Ok sounds good. Why don't you take this year's offense and compare to any of our past offenses ever. How does it look?
The OP probably compared it to the 06 team because that team was 11-2 and featured numerous future NFL players. The OP didn't even mention defense. I don't know why anyone on here did.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
November 17th, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
Roy Roundtree, David Molk, and and Denard may not be future NFL headliners, but they - and the rest of this offense - are way better than the 2006 outfit. In every facet.
The 2006 team had an excellent defense(though ultimately not great when they got shitcanned by the 2 best teams on the schedule). Offensively, Michigan's 2010 unit is the best in recent history.
November 17th, 2010 at 8:00 PM ^
What the hell are you talking about? You really think that 2010 Michigan has a better running back, or that Roundtree + Stonum/Hemingway are better receivers than Manningham + Arrington?
For that matter, Chad Henne 2006 > Denard 2010 as far as the big games on the schedule go. Denard has the potential to win the Heisman, but at this point he's also a sophomore who is still a little raw around the edges. I will take Denard 2011 over Henne 2006 however.
Save your hyperbole for situations that somewhat justify it.
November 17th, 2010 at 8:33 PM ^
I couldn't care less who's a "better RB." Mike Hart obviously has a pedigree none of our current backs have. Well guess what? Denard counts as a runner, and he's been Mike Hart's equal as a rusher. And the team, as a whole, OBLITERATES Michigan's 2006 unit. Denard/Smith/Shaw/Hopkins have put up production unheard of during the Carr years, and most of these guys are underclassmen.
As for WRs, what exactly is so hard about declaring Roundtree/Stonum/Hemingway as better receivers than Manningham and Arrington? Just look at the numbers. Our guys have been good, and while none of them are as individually talented as Mario, they've put up great numbers when given the chance in a run-heavy offense. This isn't farfetched.
Chad vs Denard isn't even a comparison. While Chad may have an "NFL arm," Denard's passing effiency shits all over Henne's, and Henne had a much more experienced team around him. Denard is just learning to PLAY QB, and he's got better numbers across the board.
So there's nothing hyperbolic at all about declaring Michigan's 2010 offensive unit as a better one than 2006. In fact, it's rather fucking retarded for people like you to sit there and equate NFL standing with how good these guys were in college. Henne, Hart, and Manningham may all be better NFL players than the guys we have, but the guys we have are currently setting the Michigan record book on fire, and they just started playing together. So, in closing, my comments were absolutely justified, and you're a bumbling fucking moron.
November 17th, 2010 at 9:26 PM ^
If you want to argue that our current offensive design is better than Carr's, I agree with that. I don't agree that we are more talented, especially in the receiving corps. Our receivers, quite frankly, benefit from our offensive design and our mobile QB a lot more than Manningham/Arrington/Breaston benefitted from the rock-rock-rock offense. It was a lot easier to double Manningham than it is to double Roundtree. If you could put Manningham in this offense, it'd be unreal. (BTW, when looking at his stats, you need to note that he missed several games late in the season after having his knee scoped.)
November 17th, 2010 at 9:36 PM ^
It's irrelevent that Manningham was a better receiver in an absolute sense than Roundtree, because "talent" isn't counted on the scoreboard. Roundtree for whatever reason, produces at a similar level - in his first 12 starts, he had over 1100 yards receiving. You can argue talent all you want, but what's relevent is results - and this offense has superior results.
November 17th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
Love it. Only one issue I have with the comparison between the two teams--tempo may have something to do with 2010's better numbers. A yards per play comparison would be more apt, though I would guess the 2010 unit still comes out way ahead.
November 17th, 2010 at 9:39 PM ^
Chad Henne was good in big games?
November 17th, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^
He totally owned OSU and USC
November 17th, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^
I don't really understand the posts on this thread talking about the overall quality of the 2006 team as compared to this year.
The OP was talking only about offenses here.
Statistically, the 2010 Michigan offense is one of the best in the modern era when it comes to yards, points, etc.
Despite all that, however, we are nowhere near an Oregon level of efficiency because of the TOs and occasionally sloppy play.
But to me that is exciting because it means we still have a lot of room to improve. This offense has not hit its ceiling under RR and is still putting up crazy numbers!
Its just like Denard. His stats are insane, but its obvious when you watch him play that he can get MUCH better in the next few years.
That is all win IMO.
November 17th, 2010 at 8:05 PM ^
November 17th, 2010 at 8:13 PM ^
Lets just enjoy the direction, this is a team on the rise and next year will be competing for the Big Ten championship. I for one am glad to be back to a place which I have grown verrrry used to.
looking forward to the weekends and the bowl season, thanks to all
November 17th, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^
I can only see this getting better each year. I'm sure the Freep and Drew Sharp would ignore all of the facts if they actually saw this- Much less comprehended it.