Key to winning our last 2 - score moar points chart
In all 8 wins, we have outpaced our opponent's "points yielded per game" average. Conversely, in our two losses, we failed to score more points than what State and Iowa give up on average. Therefore, the easy conclusion is, we need to score more than 23 points against Nebraska and 19 vs OSU (using today's stat line). Here's a simpleton's chart I put together between my first and second cup of coffee this morning.
| Rank | Team | PPG/avg | W/L | Score | Diff |
| 1 | PSU | 12.9 | x | - | - |
| 2 | Michigan | 15.5 | x | - | - |
| 3 | Wisconsin | 15.8 | x | - | - |
| 4 | @ MSU | 16.5 | L | 14-28 | -2.5 |
| 5 | @ Illinois | 18.6 | W | 31-14 | +12.4 |
| 6 | OSU | 18.9 | |||
| 7 | ND | 20.9 | W | 35-31 | +14.1 |
| 8 | SDSU | 22.1 | W | 28-7 | +5.9 |
| 9 | Nebraska | 22.2 | |||
| 10 | @ Iowa | 23.8 | L | 16-24 | -7.8 |
| 11 | EMU | 24.6 | W | 31-3 | +6.4 |
| 12 | Purdue | 26.1 | W | 36-14 | +9.9 |
| 13 | @Northwestern | 28.3 | W | 42-24 | +13.7 |
| 14 | WMU | 29.6 | W | 34-10 | +4.4 |
| 15 | Minnesota | 34.6 | W | 58-0 | +23.4 |
| 16 | Indiana | 36.0 | x | - | - |
Here's more flimsy data: in home games (sans Minnesota cuz they suck and all) we have outpaced our oppenent's defensive average by an average of 8.14 points per game. Therefore, I predict we're going to score 31 points against Nebraska and 27 against the Bucs. Mark it down, Donnie.
I am not a statistician, I don't play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I'm sure you're shocked at all 3 revelations.
Have a good morning and Go Blue!
November 13th, 2011 at 8:30 AM ^
Gives up 22.2 points?!? Wow I did not know that, I'm even more confident were going to win. Anyways it's about time we get another shot at them from the damn bowl game where their players and fans stormed the field when the game wasn't over. That essential may have cost us the game winning td.
November 13th, 2011 at 8:37 AM ^
What DEFINITELY cost us the game was the awful officiating. The refs blew a clear pass interference call on Manningham on our last drive.
November 13th, 2011 at 8:51 AM ^
Nebraska is certainly a good team and a physical team, but I do like our chances. Nebraska is a team that would have crushed us last year, but with our much improved defense - I think we can win this. Nebraska hasn't looked bad per se, but they haven't looked like anything special in most of their games.
November 13th, 2011 at 8:59 AM ^
You got to give us credit as a fan base. Who else would be debating/bitching about the outcome of a meaningless, third tier bowl game SIX YEARS after it was played? And that crazy people (like me for example) not only remember the game as one giant screw job but can remember specific plays from that game?
My favorite memory from that Alamo Bowl was Lloyd losing it over yet another blown call (the Sun Belt officials used had never actually ref'd a game with reply before -unreal) and the announcers saying when the camera zoomed in one one particularly young looking offical::
"That's Lloyd Carr. And he's yelling at ME"
November 13th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
I remember one moment in that game where Kirk Herbstreit just chuckled in disbelief and said, "Sun Belt."
November 13th, 2011 at 9:00 AM ^
Screaming like a mad man at Tyler Ecker to pitch the friggin' ball to Breaston on that last play?
November 13th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
That was my first and only Michigan game. I sat in the corner of the endzone. I had a great view of the non-call of PI and the non-Ecker pitch. Sad day. I drank a lot that night.
November 13th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
my future and current in-laws saw behind the curtain of my crazy Michigan fandom. I don't think things have been the same since
November 13th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
to do with it
November 13th, 2011 at 8:34 AM ^
I'd have to say
<br>•shut down D I.e. Last game
<br>•limited turnovers (win turnover margin)
<br>•run and set up play action
<br>•personally I think I'd like to see Gardner play and throw the ball (I'm a denard fan but I'm really beginning to come to the realization he's a liability during passing downs (40% of the offensive game) not good)
November 13th, 2011 at 8:46 AM ^
Sprint rollouts with Denard is my problem. We want him to set his feet yet every pass play is designed to throw on the run. Show me a QB that has a high completion percentage doing that. I am not saying Denard is a great passer but play action and having him stand in the pocket seems a bit more effective. Especially since the pass rush is so worried about containing him that they focus more on maintaining their rush lanes. Devin is not ready by any stretch.
November 13th, 2011 at 8:59 AM ^
I think we need to start doing the playaction fakes out of the shotgun (i.e. QB OH NOES). Also, the delayed QB draw needs to be reused, because Molk has the ability to push inside defenders and wall them off.
Secondly, the key to this Nebraska game will be to limit the damage done by Burkhead.
Taylor Martinez will not beat us, but Burkhead might.
November 13th, 2011 at 9:18 AM ^
How about the pass off the delayed draw? LB's are just crashing the A gap, the middle of the field has to be wide open. We made a living hitting Roundtree on that seam route. We have yet to offer an answer to a defense selling out against the run. Dink and Dunk until the LB's back off or at least play back on their heels a bit. Then go back to running it straight at them. At least that stupid ass formation with Devin and Denard didn't make an appearance.
November 13th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
QB OH NOES. They've nearly gone the way of the bubble screen, and I can't see why.
November 13th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
Were available yesterday. Haven't re-watched but it looked like ILL was stacking safeties over slots, especially early in the game, and crashing the OLB to take that play away.
<br>
<br>Probably because it destroyed them last year.
November 13th, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
I think bringing in Gardner is a HORRIBLE idea, unless of course Denard is injured.
Gardner has shown a LITTLE promise, but let's not forget that he looked NO better than Denard at all in yesterday's game, in fact, he probably looked worse. If he hadn't completed that 1 TD pass, I think people would still be thinking he can't run this offense whatsoever.
Fitz is what made the offense work under Gardner, not Gardner. His longest rushing gain was 5 yards and he went 2/5 passing (yes, i know small sample size), but I just can't get over these assumptions that somehow a guy who really hasn't shown any reason to believe he's better than Denard is getting so much support for replacing him
November 13th, 2011 at 8:35 AM ^
finally healthy, so how about some bubble screens, in the last couple of games please...
November 13th, 2011 at 8:41 AM ^
I completely forgot about that, but what really irritated me was people storming the field, that should be some type of flag/interference. Now that I think about it to hell with Nebraska, I f@&king hate hearing about their 1997 NC. We would've destroyed them.
November 13th, 2011 at 8:49 AM ^
Too bad Hoke didn't have this info earlier, so on the 4th and 1 we could have kicked a field goal. We would have scored 17 - above MSU's average and won the game 17-28. Just kidding. Nice work.
November 13th, 2011 at 9:07 AM ^
This doesn't make sense. Who cares if we score more points than they give up on average if we don't score more points than they do? That's like saying, "Well, we scored 20 points on LSU, which is better than the average they give up. Too bad their offense scored 50."
November 13th, 2011 at 9:21 AM ^
the chart works. Notice the "-" marks before the two games we lost, and the "+" marks on the rest...
November 13th, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^
Just because the chart works doesn't mean the argument does. If we had scored exactly the opponents' average points given up in both of those games, we still lose them. (Yes, I know it's impossible to score .8 points.)
Unless the point is "we should score more points because it increases our chances of winning."
November 13th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
I'm going to go out on a limb here: I guarantee we will win our next two games if we outscore our opponents.
I think the point is that our defense is actually capable enough that in games where we score more than out opponents typically yield, we have a good chance of winning.
Dont stomp on the positive vibe...
November 13th, 2011 at 9:24 AM ^
Yea, but if you do that, then you can't talk about how awesome our offense was last year against MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, etc. You didn't know that we scored more than their averages those games?
November 13th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^
This was just one man's early Sunday morning contribution to general discussion. Don't take it as gospel. I'm presenting this as hard data that we should use as the basis of our upcoming game plans. Sheesh.
November 13th, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^
certainly help us win
November 13th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
Although, I think we'll need a little more against each. I see us needing at least 31 against Nebraska and 27 against OSU. Not because I think we will allow 30 and 26 respectively, but if like yesterday we have that lapse in offensive production, we might need more points to offset a run that the opposition may have that makes me uncomfortable.
I'll take 31-23 over N and 34-17 over OSU.
November 13th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^
PPG seems a lot like Points Per Game
November 13th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
If we can outscore them, I think we can win.
November 13th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^
The Nebraska game looks like it could be a higher-scoring affair. They obviously aren't Oregon but I don't see us shutting them down like we did Illinois. I like Michigan's chances, but I think we are going to need in the high 20s or 30+ points to win that one. I think we'll have to come out with more of an open game-plan and take some chances.
Ohio State, on the other hand, looks like it could be a defensive struggle. I think 20 points could well be enough to win that game--but it will be more important for the offense to limit mistakes and not give OSU any short fields.