Hoke besting Rodriguez by 118 points

Submitted by ClearEyesFullHart on November 2nd, 2011 at 10:30 AM

     Brian's latest weekly "Dressing Down of Borges" post, and I suppose the first 150 pages of "Three and Out" have got me to thinking.  Besides the obvious record differential, just how has Borges's "grab bag" offense fared compared to last year's? 

     Through 8 games, it comes down to...Borges losing.  283-278, 5 points.  To be fair to Borges, this assumes that Michigan wouldn't have scored in the fourth quarter against Western.  So yeah, with equal time Borges's offense would probably be beating Rodriguez's.

     Just for fun, I decided to look at the defenses through 8 games.  You come up with Hoke winning 117-240, a difference of 123 points.

     So yeah, that looks like a net difference of 118 points.  We can argue strength of schedule I suppose, but Umass, Bowling Green, and Indiana weren't exactly loaded either.  Age and experience caveats still apply.

    In conclusion, Hoke Uber Ales.  Cant wait to see that 2012 class suit up(or better yet-redshirt!)  Gotta love the direction of this program. 

Comments

Erik_in_Dayton

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^

Seriously, though, can we stop with the Hoke v. Rodriguez stuff?  It doesn't help anything.  The players on the team have been coached and influenced by both, and I doubt they're interested in pitting the two against each other.  Both were Michigan coaches.  We are Michigan fans.  End of story. 

Erik_in_Dayton

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^

To start, I didn't see Brian's latest post about the "grab-bag" offense to be a knock.  Second, comparing the schemes/techniques is different than just posting numbers.  I would be very interested in a post about the differences in scheme and technique between the Michigan defense of 2010 and the Michigan defense of 2011.  You just posted numbers.  You also framed it as Hoke besting Rodriguez, which is a very specific way of framing the issue.  As others have noted below, there is a lot that goes into what makes a unit better or worse from one year to another.  I don't doubt that coaching has a lot to do with the defense's improvement, but it's not just coaching.  In any event, there is no point in pitting the two coaches against each other. 

ClearEyesFullHart

November 2nd, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^

     " You just posted numbers." ?

     You do know what blog you're on, right?  Tell me there wouldn't be 20 pages of front page rant and 2000 posts if these numbers were reversed.  Then I'll call you a liar to your face.

     Give me an advanced metric that means more than wins/losses and points for/points against and your argument will have merit. 

     Funny how an "apples and year old apples" comparison turns into an apples and oranges comparison when it doesn't agree with your stubborn beliefs and expectations.

Erik_in_Dayton

November 2nd, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^

Give me an advanced metric that means more than wins/losses and points for/points against and your argument will have merit.  

A couple of points:

A. I'm not arguing that the 2010 defense was as good as the 2011 defense.  I can't imagine anyone doing that. 

B. Brian routinely breaks down what it is that Michigan is doing on plays (or a given play).  I would be very interested to see examples of what Michigan is doing differently from this year to last when it comes to, say, defensive lineman technique. 

C. I don't mind you posting just the numbers.  That's been done several times.  What I mind is turning it into "Hoke v. Rodriguez."  That is my main point. 

bluebyyou

November 2nd, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but how can you say we are beyond the Rodriguez years when the bulk of the players were recruited by Rodriguez?  His stamp on the program will diminish but will still be in existence, for good or bad, for several more years.

As far as Brian goes, it is indeed his blog, but I have yet to see where someone has been throttled just because they disagree with Brian, assuming there is some logic to the different opinion.

jaws4141

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^

I see nothing wrong with your post.  You provided facts and are just comparing 2010 stats with 2011.  The most important stat is wins.  If you compare Rodriguez's first season win total to Hoke's first season win total Hoke has more than doubled RR's.  He'll probably triple it before the season ends.  That’s a tough nut to swallow for some folks on here.

 

Lionsfan

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^

Obvious Improved Defense is Obvious.

I don't think you can just handwave away the Age. Last year we had quite a few 1st time starters, and now they'll all older. Someone a while ago posted about Florida's Defense 2007 vs 2008. In 2007 they were near the bottom I believe, and after all their young players had a year of experience they got better. It's why Alabama was never going to repeat last year and why Auburn had shot this year; you have a young team 90% of the time your going to struggle than if you have an older team

lexus larry

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^

Coached by none other than G. Mattison.

Coaching a bunch of freshmen/sophomores in the secondary.

Who got torched in the 2008 Capital One bowl.

Amazing that people will spin coaches/schemes/player experience to fit their arguments...

Excellent points about the difficulty of repeating...which is why the end of Cooper/beginning of Tressel (and continuation by Tressel) was so hard to watch...they were always slotting in sophomores and RS freshmen around experienced, capable juniors and seniors, blowing out inferior teams so the back-ups got meaningful reps, etc.  Shouldn't be THAT hard to figure out how to use the roster to best advantage...not SEC (ess-eee-see) medical hardship/annual schollie reduction advantage, but just using strengths and depth to build the foundation for long-term success and excellence.

Wolverman

November 2nd, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^

 some holes in your logic.

 1. we have a few first year starters this year also.

 2 if experience was the issue last year there would have been some improvement during the season last year . ( which there was'nt , it actually got worse as the season progressed).

 I'm giving credit where credit is due and the defensive coaches have done A LOT better of a job this year getting the players ready for football.

lexus larry

November 2nd, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^

Mike Martin with two functioning tree-trunk legs for games 1-6 in 2010, and broken broom sticks for games 7-12.  The rush (such as it was) is diminished, the double-teams against him are gone, etc.

TWolf has been nearly as non-existent this season with the multiple injuries as he was last year.  Although other players cutting their teeth in the defensive backfield last year provide a basis for the expectation of growth physically and mentally coming into this year.

Yonkers

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^

thats not the point really, we dont need to score massive amounts of points because we usually keep the other team out of the game with our better defense. The systems are still different and it doesent help denard is having an off throwing year. Were still winning be happy

restive neb

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^

This year's defense has put the offense in better position, and has even managed to score a significant chunk of those points.  Therefore, I'd argue that your quick analysis undervalues the differences in both offense and defense year-over-year

ClearEyesFullHart

November 2nd, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^

     Some have said the defense creates more "3 and outs" giving the offense better field position and more posessions, and there's likely something to that.

     Some have said that the offense has gotten conservative or back up laden late in games this year when victory is in hand, and there's likely something to that.

    Some have said that Robinson's tendency to force the ball into coverage could have been partially conditioned into him by 3 years of playing from behind, and there's likely something to that, too.

     Many variables--too many to control for, I would agree.  I would still argue that points for/against is the best(flawed) metric we have.

Wolverrrrrrroudy

November 2nd, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

Or you could argue, that our horrible defense last year gave our offense the ball back more often by letting the other team score so quickly on big plays.  Our offense may be at a disadvantage this year in terms of possessions because our defense is playing bend but don't break instead of broken.

 

 

 

sheepdog

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^

I would seriously hope that RR '11 would be beating RR '10 if he were still our coach.  Who really cares who is beating who through 8 games.  What matters is that the team improves and we compete for the B1G Ten Championship this year and every year.

 

Moleskyn

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^

That's exactly what I was going to say. The comparison just isn't fair and doesn't make sense. If RR was working with this offense, who knows how many points/yards they would have put up by now. My guess is a lot more than what we have right now.

It's an exercise in futility though, because the reality is that the offense has been very good this year, and it means nothing to speculate about what RR could have done with this year's offensive personnel.

So, who's ready for some bird hunting this weekend?

Wolverrrrrrroudy

November 2nd, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^

The problem is that our offense was not getting better towards the end of last year, it was regressing.  RR wasn't showing progress on offense at the end of the season so why would you guess it would be better now.  Did the starters who returned somehow gain a year of experience after the  Ohio State and bowl games?

unWavering

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^

I think we can all agree that Hoke is doing well and we are all happy about that, but this is a poor way to compare coaches.  2010 team != 2011 team.  Can we just stop comparing anyway?  It's pointless.  Hoke is doing well, let's hope he continues doing well and look forward to the future.  Examining the past isn't a futile exercize but there's no way to effectively compare RR's performance to Hoke's, so can we stop trying to do that?

CRex

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^

Stuff like this should really only be pulled out if/when someone bitches about how "RR's would have had a better 4th year" or something of that nature.  Use it defensive when someone goes anti-Hoke and pro-RR.  Don't just drop it in its own thread and beg people to start a flamewar.  I definitely use this kind of stuff when I find myself in a conversation with someone who is anti-Hoke, but I don't start those kind of conversations.