A Pit At The Bottom Of The World
OR: MICHIGAN'S 2013 OFFENSIVE LINE
![10259113955_9d2a34096e_c[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/A-Pit-At-The-Bottom-Of-The-World_A190/10259113955_9d2a34096e_c1.jpg "10259113955_9d2a34096e_c[1]")
Bryan Fuller
This isn't actually a column, though it is titled like one. I just, I mean, you know… Bill Connelly at Football Study Hall has these metrics that attempt to rate offensive lines by massaging the available stats in a way that attempts to remove outside influences.
It's difficult, of course, to evaluate the coordination and strength of five to seven guys with crude tools like rushing yards. It's like bashing your XBox with a rock in the hopes it will interpret that as a desire to open Netflix. But no matter how crude the tool, Michigan's 2013 offensive line stands out as the pinnacle of inky blackness.
The stats:
ADJUSTED LINE YARDS
A yards per carry mark modified to hack out long runs and emphasize getting across the LOS. Yards 0-4 are counted 100%, 5-10 50%, and yards past eleven dropped; TFLs are magnified by a factor of 1.2. So a four yard run is worth four points, a ten yard run is worth seven points, a twenty yard run is worth seven points, and TFLs are all 20% worse than they are in the normal stats.
MICHIGAN'S RANK: 118th of 126.
WAIT, THERE WERE WORSE SAD SACKS? Yes. Miami (Not That Miami), SDSU, Cal, FIU, CMU, Akron, Sothern Miss, and UMass. Just above Michigan were WMU and Buffalo. This is the company we are keeping. If you look further and further up you find West Virginia, Virginia Tech, South Florida, and Purdue. Looking up at Purdue.
LINE YARDS ON STANDARD DOWNS
IE, not passing downs. Hold on to your butts.
MICHIGAN'S RANK: 126.
GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY. Michigan acquired 2.19 yards per attempt in this metric. #125, Florida International, was at 2.25.
LINE YARDS ON PASSING DOWNS
Give up and punts.
MICHIGAN'S RANK: 107
THAT SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD! They had a lot more practice at this activity than other teams.
"OPPORTUNITY RATE"
A stat with a dumb name that is a straight percentage of carries going for at least five yards. Ohio State was #1 with 56%. That sounds impossible.
MICHIGAN'S RANK: 111th.
ARE ANY OF THESE GETTING OUT OF TRIPLE DIGITS? Nope. And here's the thing. I am about to give you the number here. 34.5%
THERE IS NO GODDAMN WAY OVER A THIRD OF MICHIGAN'S CARRIES WENT FOR FIVE YARDS. I remember three, myself.
POWER SUCCESS RATE
Third/fourth and short conversion rate on runs. "Short" == one or two yards. Includes goal line carries.
MICHIGAN'S RANK: 120th.
YOU'RE ABOUT TO TELL ME ANOTHER IMPOSSIBLY HIGH-SEEMING NUMBER. 52%.
ARE YOU TELLING ME MICHIGAN MADE IT MORE THAN HALF THE TIME WHEN THEY RAN ON THIRD AND NOTHING. Yes.
LIES. Probably.
STUFF RATE
Percentage of runs going for zero or fewer yards.
DON'T EVEN BOTHER TELLING ME. 126th.
I TOLD YOU NOT TO TELL ME. 30% of Michigan's runs didn't get past the line of scrimmage.
ADJUSTED SACK RATE
This one is rather complicated. From Football Outsiders:
Sack Rate represents sacks divided by pass plays, which include passes, sacks, and aborted snaps. It is a better measure of pass blocking than total sacks because it takes into account how often an offense passes the ball. Adjusted Sack Rate adds adjustments for opponent quality, as well as down and distance (sacks are more common on third down, especially third-and-long). More here.
MICHIGAN'S RANK: 112th. With two tackles about to be drafted.
WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME
You knew the above things in your heart. The above things are a gremlin sitting on your heart, giving it noogies when your thoughts turn to football. I should not have brought them up without a reason.
Here it is: unless Al Borges was as incompetent as Greg Robinson running a 3-3-5 defense he didn't know anything about, there isn't much chance that Michigan gets into a place that would allow them to have a definitively positive season next year unless the defense is capital-E elite. I took Connelly's data dump and looked for big shifts in adjusted line yards to the positive.
It's not a good look. There are approximately 842 year-to-year transitions in the document; 70 of them are leaps of 50 or more spots. (One of them is a hundred-spot leap from 119th to 19th at… sigh, Arizona in 2012.) Amongst the truly weak, improvement is expected… barely. Teams ranked 80th or worse from 2005 to 2011 saw an average increase of 7.3 points in this metric. That would take Michigan from 118th all the way to 101st.
While this is still bashing something with a rock that is a pretty grim baseline to attempt to deviate from. Michigan's particular circumstances do not scream deviation, meanwhile. They lose two really good tackles. The depth chart at that spot is now flat-out scary, and the interior line looks like it will still be composed entirely of underclassmen and a former walk-on. In fact, Graham Glasgow is probably going to be the only upperclassman anywhere on the line.
So pray that every nasty thing said about Al Borges here was true, because it looks like the only hope for a Mattison-like bounce is an equal level of coaching malpractice from Doug Nussmeier's predecessor. Otherwise, digging out of this might take so long that Michigan changes coaches again.
February 19th, 2014 at 9:10 AM ^
I disagree, and I watched the games. It's not like they stopped Indiana, Kansas State, and Ohio State all through the first half and then collapsed towards the end of the game. The only game all year where that really applied was the MSU game. This squad was statistically on par with the shitty 2008 unit that got Scott Shafer fired, which is saying a lot because 2013 team played probably the worst slate of offenses that a Michigan team has played in 20 years. There were tons of opportunities for a mediocre defense to pad its stats against abysmal teams like Akron, UConn, and an injury-depleted Nebraska. The only truly redeeming quality of the defense was that they were good at forcing drive kiling interceptions. Beyond that, the defense was a sieve that almost never forced three-and-outs or made tackles for loss.
Speaking of 2008, the "the defense was good but they were always tired" logic was used that year too. It was as invalid then as it is now.
February 19th, 2014 at 9:35 AM ^
anyone that didn't watch all the games didn't see the Michigan D cave to both PSU and OSU.
Who knows what might have been against KSU. KSU possessed the ball four times during the 1st half, every one of those possessions started on their side of the field. Of those four possessions the D gave up three TDs. When the team most needed the D to show up they choked.
No team should expect to win games when they only score 14 points, but it does nobody any good to allow the opposition to score at will. As for the two games above, Michigan scored more than enough regular time points, 34 and 41 respectively, to beat both PSU and OSU if the D does their job.
Do I excuse Borges and the offense, not on your life. Neither do I give Mattison and the D a pass. If the Michigan O shows up against Nebraska and Iowa they win those games. If the D shows up against PSU and OSU they win those games. That's the difference between 7-6 and 11-2.
February 18th, 2014 at 8:43 PM ^
February 18th, 2014 at 8:54 PM ^
February 18th, 2014 at 10:39 PM ^
February 18th, 2014 at 10:47 PM ^
Let us hope we have the same turn around on the o-line that we did on defense when Coach Mattison took over. Then let us hope that we don't need any more turn arounds for awhile(ever).
February 18th, 2014 at 11:16 PM ^
By year three of his stint at Colorado State, Funk's squad was averaging 2.5 yards per carry (114th out of 119th). In year four, they improved to 3.8 yards per carry (71st out of 120), on their way to a 3-9 record. Improvement, huzzah!
February 19th, 2014 at 1:42 AM ^
THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK IS DOES THE BACK TO BACK REVERSE PHILOSOPHY REMAIN A STAPLE OF THE MICHIGAN OFFENSE UNDER NUSSMEIER???!
February 19th, 2014 at 8:46 AM ^
Firing Borges was probably the right thing to do, but I'm not optimistic. The offensive line has looked noticably worse every year since Hoke arrived. The current staff harvested the quality upperclassmen that were put in place by the previous staff. That previous staff also left some holes but there's absolutely no indication that Darrell Funk could have developed anyone had they been here. I never buy "youth" as an excuse for a team that gets worse as the season goes along, and that's what happened with Michigan last year. A young team with competent coaching has problems, but it improves. "Youth" was thrown around as an excuse for RichRod's terrible defenses, and it was bullshit then too.
Michigan's offensive line last year was a piss poorly coached unit. It's obvious from looking at it. You don't need charts or fancy stats to see it.
February 19th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
34.5% of our runs went for 5+ yds.
30% of our runs went for 0- yds.
Brian - does that combined number (64.5%) stand out from the rest of the teams?
February 19th, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^
...and that was WITH a two time All American and offensive lineman of the year as an anchor.
Gawd please let it be Borgess' fault...
Comments