Offence against first 7 Big 10 opponents, this year vs last

Submitted by Drake on November 14th, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Saw this scout, this is why we have 1 win in conference

2008 Offense PPG - 24.3 against the first 7 Big Ten Opponents

2009 Offense PPG - 23.4 against the first 7 Big Ten Opponents

2008 YPG - 304 ypg against first 7 Big Ten Opponents

2009 YPG - 323 ypg against first 7 Big Ten Opponents.


gpsimms not to…

November 14th, 2009 at 6:26 PM ^

The "Rich Rodriguea jump" happened with a second year QB at WV. Considering that every pass AND run in this offense depends on the qb making a read, one can see why it's so hard to run as a true freshman. At the beginning of the year, we hoped experienced RB's can carry this team. Unfortunately, in this offense it just doesn't work that way. It goes through the qb, it always will. The "jump" on offense comes next year. 2nd year qb. Please, please, PLEASE, do NOT start gardner next year. It'd be asking for it.


November 14th, 2009 at 6:26 PM ^

I don't really see the correlation. Those stats look really similar, and 1 point less per game paired with 20 more yards per game says nothing about the difference in wins in coference play this year as opposed to last. Overall, that's just one more touchdown and 140 yards of total offense in conference play.

I think tha defensive stats are more telling (and I'm too lazy/drunk to look them up, but you know they're worse than last year).

Kilgore Trout

November 14th, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^

I think that was the point. Even though the offense looks a lot better this year, the numbers don't really show any improvement. So the record isn't any better. I think most of us can agree that last year's Big Ten season was essentially a 1 win campaign. (Wisconsin win being nothing short of a gift from the gods)


November 14th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^

Regardless of what the stats say, the team improved big time and I would take this year over last year in a heartbeat. It seems like the last phase for RR is to adjust to big 10 competition, so the young team will make adjustments.

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 14th, 2009 at 6:41 PM ^

I'm suspicious of any post that begins "regardless of what the stats say." We have scored fewer ppg in the Big 10 than we did last year, the defense has obviously gotten much, much worse, and we're finishing with a worse Big 10 record. How can you say that the team has "improved big time"?


November 14th, 2009 at 6:56 PM ^

Are you saying you would take last year's team over this year's team?

Also, if Texas was averaging 550 yards and 50 points a game a few years ago, and this year they only average 400 and 40 or that a bad thing? Stats are not everything. I still like our team this year a lot better than last year, even if they did better statistically in most categories, but we have 5 wins so far.

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 14th, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^

One of those wins is against a high-school level team, and one is against a winless MAC team. To say that we're better than last year simply because 5 is greater than 3 is just not true.

And no, I never said I would take last year's team over this year's team, so don't put words in my mouth. I said I haven't seen a big improvement, particularly in the Big 10 portion of the schedule after teams have had an opportunity to scout and prepare for our offense. How am I wrong?


November 14th, 2009 at 9:18 PM ^

I have said it before and I will say it again - last year, we lost to 1 MAC team and beat the other 16-6. This year we were up 31-0 at the half of 1 MAC game and won the other 45-17. If you don't think this year's team is leaps and bounds better than last year's team, you haven't been watching the games.

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 14th, 2009 at 10:57 PM ^

I've been watching the games. But I think that the final seven games of the season give a better indication of where our team is at then the first three games. Do you really think that the early season Western and Eastern games are better indicators of our team's progress than the past seven games against Big 10 competition? Can you point to anything in the past seven games (not including Baby Seal University) that indicates that Michigan is "much improved", as you say?


November 15th, 2009 at 8:05 PM ^

Why can't we look at baby seal university? Do you think last year's team would have put 63 points up on the board against this year's Delaware State team? Why are we only taking into account the last 7 games when looking at progress to last year's team? What you are asking is if this team has progressed from the beginning of the year to the end, not whether or not this team is much improved from last year's team. If you are asking in the last 7 games if we are much improved from the beginning of the year, I say hell no. But that wasn't what we were discussing. This team has looked bad in B10 play but if you actually watched last year's team play, you can tell this year's squad is much, much better.


November 14th, 2009 at 6:36 PM ^

Tate has been a revelation at QB, and a second year of seasoning will help. Pass protection obviously needs to improve, but the running game seems competent when used consistently and you get a sense that some more depth on defense will make a huge deal.

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 14th, 2009 at 7:18 PM ^

Hate to be a negative Nelly, but the offense hasn't improved much statistically despite returning the entire offensive line, all of the WRS, two senior RBs, and replacing a walk-on QB (who started 8 games) and a freshman QB (who starting four games) with a true freshman QB, who we all thought was much better equipped to run Rich Rod's offense. Everyone knows about the defensive travails, but the lack of significant improvement on offense is also extremely disconcerting.


November 14th, 2009 at 9:23 PM ^

(Going into today's game)

This year's offense is ranked 44th in total offense, 22nd in scoring (32 pts/gm). Sure, throw out Baby Seal U, but the rankings and scoring numbers don't drop off that much.

Last year's offense at this time was 109th in total offense and 86 in scoring at 21.4 pts/gm.

That looks pretty significant to me.


November 14th, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^

What he means is that last year we did poorly and this year our offense is very similar in production and thus, we are doing poorly again.

He was comparing the two seasons' offensive production, not contrasting them.

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 14th, 2009 at 11:02 PM ^

Give me a break. In their desperate search for something positive to take from this year, people are saying some ridiculous things. Indiana has one win in the Big 10. Indiana is not a good team. They are far, far from an 8-3 team. If you listen to some people on this board, every team that beat us is amazing, we are 5 plays from being 9-2, etc. etc. Our team is not good. Stop living in denial.


November 14th, 2009 at 11:47 PM ^

Indiana has had some really bad luck this year. Yeah, I don't think they are 8-3 or whatever, but they are a couple of plays from being bowl eligible. That Minny team last year lived and died because of a crazy turnover margin, and this year they regressed a bit in that department and so did their record.

I have a sense that Indiana is going to be a legit team in this league moving forward.

But yeah, people here try to rationalize after losses like today. It's called MGoBlog, not MGoNeutrality.


November 14th, 2009 at 7:26 PM ^

Michigan has scored fewer points in against every common Big Ten opponent in 2009 than they did in 2008. That includes PSU (-7), MSU (-1), Wisc (-3), Purdue (-6) and Illinois (-7). Not big discrepancies in some cases, but still fewer point in every case.

I'm not sure exactly what that says, but it says something, right?


November 14th, 2009 at 7:40 PM ^

The 2009 team made comebacks and was in every one of the first six games until the end.

The 2009 offense has quick strike ability and is competent.

The 2009 defense is worse. It's the worst defense I have ever seen in the Big 10. The four is good, the back seven is miserable.

Another year under Robinson and hopefully a stud LB and safety and we'll be competent next year. That combined with the QBs getting another year in the system and 8 wins should be doable. 6-6 or worse next year and we'll be starting this all over again.


November 15th, 2009 at 2:31 AM ^

I think that this defense might be worse than last year's. It should be after losing W. Johnson, T. Taylor, T. Jamison and M. Trent.

There's reason to be optimistic about the offense for '10. Most players will be back and more experienced in the system.

Eight wins is pretty important for next year because anything less than that and we probably will be (and should be) doing this all over again.

los barcos

November 15th, 2009 at 4:46 AM ^

everyone of those names you mentioned has been blasted on this blog. 2 got drafted, none before the second day. morgan trent has been the biggest punching bag here since stevie brown (what?). we werent losing all americans. how quickly we rationalize this season vis a vis last year


November 15th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^

We lost six starters on defense from what wasn't a very good unit to begin with, and then we lost one of their replacements (Cissoko) a month into the season. It shouldn't be that shocking that we're bad now.


November 15th, 2009 at 12:50 PM ^

I don't think there can be much doubt from people who watch the games that this year's offense is better than last year's. However, our scoring average has recently dropped because our red zone efficiency has fallen off a cliff. Illinois was the most blatant example - we had seven red zone trips against Illinois and finished with 13 points. We've gone scoreless in at least one redzone trip in six of our last seven games, which is shocking. I can offer no explanation for this, other than that defenses may be finding ways to confuse our freshman QB.