We Have the Best Offense In The Country

Submitted by HeismanPose on September 26th, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Net Total Yards:

1- Michigan - 2251

2- Oregon - 2240

3- Nevada - 2116


Rushing Yards:

1- Air Force - 1576

2- Michigan - 1325

3- Oregon - 1287


We're also ranked 51st in passing yards, 9th in total points, 5th in first downs, and 5th in third down % (53.7) .  And then there's Denard, who still leads the nation in rushing yards and is 16th in passer rating, between Kirk Cousins and Stephen Garcia.  Pryor is 12th.


I know it's early, but it's worth noting what Rodriguez has accomplished in the first month of the season.  Did anyone, in their wildest dreams, think our offense would be this good?



September 26th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^

The defensive numbers are bad but kinda interesting.  We're 93rd in total yards allowed (exactly 400.0/game) and 64th in points allowed (23.0).  Howeva, we are middle of the pack in rush yards allowed (62nd) and are tied for 15th in interceptions, with 6.  It's not ideal, but "bend don't break" is kinda sorta working.  Considering the personnel we have, I think the D is pretty much playing to expectations.


We are a few good defensive recruits away from being a legitimate FORCE.  But I guess a lot of teams can say that.


September 26th, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^

and we were burned for TDs on screens/delays by ND (but for TV review and the ND back barely stepping OOBs at the Mich ~30), Iowa (Moeaki sp?), and the last OSU TD.

Opposing offensive coordinators knew GERG had little reason to trust his coverage last year.  What else was GERG going to do?

It'll be nice not to have to be so predictable.


September 26th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^

Michigan scored nine TD's yesterday and never punted.  I think that they only turned the ball over on downs one time.  It's hard to get more total yards when you're taking it to the house almost every time.   I guess that you could argue that Denard might have scored faster (or avoided turnovers), thereby increasing the number of possessions but I think that it would have been hard for M to squeeze out many more yards yesterday.

ND Sux

September 26th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^

the stats.  NO I did not think the offense would be this good.  High hopes yes, but slightly lower expectatations. 

I did expect fewer turnovers though, and that is another big reason for the success so far.


September 26th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^

is exactly why he was hired here. His offense has taken a few years to solidify for the Wolverines, and the players are now in place to excecute his mayhem of a scheme.  I can't wait to see how  our wins keep piling up the rest of the year. This will create a few surprises in recruiting, and I bet we get a few guys by next Jan who aren't even officialy considering UM right now. Go Blue! Beat IU!  


September 26th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^

In my WILDEST dreams, we are #1 in all these categories, have scored TDs on every single offensive posession, and are averaging close to 80 PPG. 

Since I keep my hopes and expectations grounded in reality, I am extremely happy with this offense thus far.  Denard still leading the nation in rushing despite only playing the first quarter yesterday is outstanding.


September 26th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^

Interesting stats..  I did expect them to be good this year, but i didn't think Denard would be that good.  I guess when he was tearing our D up it was a preview of what was to come.


The season is still very early so im not holding my breath.  Anything can happen against better Defenses.  It will be interesting once we play MSU. 


September 26th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^

We've got a true sophomore QB, two underclassmen on the o-line and just two seniors (one of whom was more than adequately replaced when he got dinged yesterday), zero seniors at wide receiver or RB, and a group of talented backs just beginning to hit their stride. 

Yes, I have a boner.


September 26th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^

Hell, if we only had a mediocre defense we'd be pretty tough to beat. If we had a truly stout defense we'd be essentially unstoppable.

As it is, getting to six wins and beyond is going to be a wild ride. Whatever happens, it's going to be an entertaining year.


September 26th, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^

True.  But I guess we can operate under the assumption that nobody has.  Here are the national rankings of the defenses we have played:


UConn - 54th
ND - 103rd
UMass - Cupcake
Bowling Green - 120th (!)


Here's Ohio St.:
Marshall - 101st
Miami - 8th
Ohio - 41st
E. Michigan - 114th


Michigan St.:
W. Michigan - 47th
FAU - 89th
ND - 103rd
N. Colorado - Cupcake


And all of the Big Ten defenses, because HOLY SHIT I'm bored today:

Iowa - 1st (227.5 yds/game)
Ohio St. - 5th (239.3)
Wisconsin - 16th (265.3)
Penn St. - 18th (275.8)
Illinois - 48th (333.0)
Michigan St. - 51st (337.8)
Indiana - 53rd (338.3)
Purdue - 59th (349.5)
Northwestern - 77th (373.8)
Minnesota - 85th (387.0)
Michigan - 93rd (400.0)
Notre Dame - 103rd (433.8) - LOLZ


September 26th, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^

My boredom knows no bounds:

UConn - 53rd (394.0 yds/game)
ND - 36th (426.3)
UMass - Cupcake
Bowling Green - 91st (327.0)

For what it's worth, we held both UConn and Bowling Green to around 50 yards below their season averages.  Notre Dame went wild on us.  If you really want to stretch it, though, they pretty much hit their season average if you take away the 95 yards TD implosion.


September 26th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^

I looked up Sagarin's updated ratings (still not "WELL CONNECTED")

Grouped as I see it

   6 OSU 118

  16 Iowa 128
  24 PSU   66
  28 Mich  77
  37 Wisc 133
  43 NW  96
  45 MSU  157

  51 Ill  113

  85 Ind  200

  91 Minn  94
  93 Pur   129

(In my groupings, I didn't allow myself to override Sagarin's orderings. If so, I'd bring NW down to be grouped with Illinois.)


September 26th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^

Heading into the season I anticipated that the offense would be very good running the ball and hit a lot of big plays, but I did not expect that Denard would be as efficient as a passer, or that our offense would be able to control the ball, convert third downs, and sustain long drives as well as it has. 


September 26th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^

I, for one, have always liked the RR hire. I always watched longingly at his ninja offense when he was at WVU, wondering why Michigan has never had that kind of speed. I was excited when he got here, and hope like hell he stays for a long, long time. Now just imagine if the offense keeps it up all year, but the D continues to kill us. Our head coach (who is widely known as an offensive guru...) will be on the hot seat for dismissal, despite creating (again) the most, or maybe second most exciting and potent offense in the country. I understand that despite the fact that its not totally his fault that the D is a bummer, it is his problem. And I've heard all the platitudes about defense winning championships, but I think I would literally cry to see this regime and its offense go.  


September 26th, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^

Just for reference, I looked up the defenses Oregon has played because they seemed to be putting up massive numbers as well.  Here they are by total defense:

New Mexico - 118
Tenn - 66 (helped by beating Tenn-Martin 50-0)
Portland St. - 117 (FCS)
ASU - 49

So for all the talk about the fact that UM has not played a good defense, Oregon certainly has not been challenged much themselves.  I think the takeaway from these rankings is that UM finally has the type of destructive, soul-crushing offense that we all envisioned when RR was hired.  It just took a little longer than we expected.

Sextus Empiricus

September 26th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^

the Ducks for style points.  There wins are convincing over bad teams - and they never were in a 21 - 14 game with New Mexico or Portland State.   With Stanford downing ND with style as well - I don't think as much of the B10 pollwise as others.  UMass still happened no matter how good BGSU makes me feel.

Deciding who is more dominant is a good thing though no matter who comes out on top.


September 26th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^

Although we might have had 800 yards with Robinson in the entire game, it is not like our offense wasted opportunities scoring on its last 6 drives.  It wouldn't have been easy, but the fact remains we could get 800 at some point.


September 26th, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^

I don't think  it's likely to happen.  To get that many yards, you need to not only move the ball like crazy, you also need to start most of your drives very deep in your own territory.  If you get turnovers, that gives you less yardage to gain before you score.  Thanks to our currently crappy special teams, we've started a bunch of drives close to our own goal line, but that may not continue.

We nearly played a perfect offensive game yesterday.  We had 11 possessions and scored nine TDs.  The other two possessions we drove to the opposing 36 and 26.  So we missed out on 62 yards.  Gaining them would have given us 783.  The only way to gain more would been to either 1) commit some additional offensive penalties that would force us to have to gain more yards or 2) get one more possession.  The latter almost happened, with Vinopal's INT, but even if it had, there were only 20 seconds left. 

Basically, we'd need a perfect combination of things (flawless offense plus crappy special teams plus lots of offensive penalties or possessions) to get 800 yards.  But it is fun that it's even in the discussion. 


September 26th, 2010 at 5:32 PM ^

I know it's awesome and fun to look at these stats but the level of competition has been so poor thus far, it's silly to get too excited over them.  We only need to look to last year when Michigan had the #4 ranking nationally in scoring offense vs. non-conference opponents and #6 ranking nationally in total offense vs. non-conference opponents.

Against conference opposition, Michigan's offense fell to a meager 22.1 points/game, good for 83rd in the country and 96th in country in total offense.

Obviously, injuries to Molk and Forcier had a lot to do with that but even with them in, Magee and RR had few answers when Big Ten defenses shut down their first option.  Since quality of out of conference opposition varies so much and the sample size we're working with is so tiny (3-4 games), such early season rankings shouldn't be more than an amusing curiosity.


September 26th, 2010 at 5:57 PM ^

Yeah, right.  Why should Michigan fans get excited about our team?  Why should we enjoy the most exciting player in college football?  Why should we enjoy the most exciting offense in college football?  Why should we have the unadulterated nerve to think that Michigan is "back," and that a bowl is forthcoming.  Apparently, if you had your way, we would all hang our heads in anticipation of impending disaster. 

Today, though, you are not having your way.


September 26th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^

We should enjoy the WAY Denard plays, his smile and joy and devastating decisveness he brings to every play.  But he himself says that he cares nothing for the stats.  We should adopt his approach, especially when it comes to early season stats from a small number of games against opposition that is proving itself poorer by the week.


September 26th, 2010 at 5:58 PM ^

This year is not last year.  People need to stop making this comparison.  Our offense gives defenses an entirely different look with Denard in there than with Tate.  If you want to compare this O to anything, you have to look at WVU's offenses with Pat White.