Two stops per half = win?

Submitted by karpodiem on November 15th, 2010 at 10:05 PM

At the beginning of the season, a friend of mine predicted that if defense could yield two stops per half (scoreless drives), we would win.

Withought digging through all UFR's, does anyone know if this has held true? I think it might, actually (which is kinda weird/cool).

Comments

jmblue

November 15th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^

It was not true for MSU or Iowa.  We had two or more stops in each half in both of those games.  Against PSU, we had only one stop per half (not counting their final kneeldown) - we might have been able to win that one with an extra stop in each half.  But in general, that's setting the bar extremely low. 

tasnyder01

November 15th, 2010 at 11:31 PM ^

I don't think anyone here is going to research that, but if you were to research it on say Thursday night before the game, I think not a few people would appreciate this information.  It'll give us something extra to bet over/think about during the game.  I'd love to hear "Just two stops baby, that's all we need."

Please do some research on this topic and get back to us.  I for one am interested.

FrankMurphy

November 15th, 2010 at 11:52 PM ^

Against Iowa, we held them to a three-and-out on their first drive, scored a TD on our first drive, then held Iowa to another three-and-out on their second drive.

So, no.

rtyler

November 16th, 2010 at 3:53 AM ^

That's not exactly fair.  His friend might have been saying that with its pretty good offense Michigan can win games, if its pretty awful defense can get just two stops per half. It might not be a blanket statement about all teams or all football games, just a prediction for this season for Michigan. It seems like the kind of formula a head coach might work out out and give his defensive coordinator as a target in a situation like we are in where one half of the team can't be reasonably expected to perform up to par. It would be interesting to see if, when the season is over, that prediction holds true. I would include the turnover caveat.

GoBlue007

November 16th, 2010 at 5:08 AM ^

Unfortunately, distracting Bielema with doughnuts (or cheese given the geographic location) would be more effective than the proposed strategy above.  Reason: moreso than our defence, I think our offence needs to step up.  Wisky defence is fast, especially their DBs, Shoelace will have to really step up.