Michigan rushing game has not been elite for years. It's been "meh"
A recent thread discussed the need to rush the ball effectively, particularly this year with Forcier at QB. One poster said we had had a sub-par rushing attack since 2003. Other posters, citing Mike Hart and yards per game since 2003, argued that we have had a relatively good rushing game. I commented that yards per attempt was a better gauge of rushing effectiveness and said by that standard we were not that strong, and signed off. It then occurred to me (belatedly) that I should probably provide some evidence of that and make sure my initial reaction wasn't full of shit. So here goes. I compared yards per attempt for us vs. yards per attempt for OSU since 2004. I think it validates that comparatively, we have been "ok", but not at the level we would want.
Here are our last few years rushing yards per carry, per mgoblue stats:
08--3.9
07--4.0
06--4.3
05--3.9
04--3.8
Here are Ohio State's, per their site:
08--4.6
07--4.6
06--4.6
05--4.7
04--4.0
That is a significant difference in rushing effectiveness over time. I'm sure there are tons of other stats out there, but this seems at minimum, a stat that needs addressing.
I agree that we have not been elite. I think some of that is that Michigan's offensive line, for the most part, hasn't been up to Michigan standards the last several years. I also think part of it is that we were arguably a pass first team for some of those years, whereas OSU was and probably always will be a run first team.
I think we are now back to a run first team (partly because of our QB situation, but also because of the new scheme). I also think our OL will be much improved this year and that should contribute to better yards per attempt. However, our lack of a passing game hurt our rushing attack last year as teams could just load up on the line of scrimmage. If we can keep them honest through the air this year I think we have a solid running attack.
i think ur overlooking the type of offense the michigan ran under lloyd carr. when you run the ball 70% of the plays, teams tend to stack against the run. We werent the type of team to bust out 20+ yard gains. but Hart consistently picked up 4-6 yard chunks, and rarely got stopped for a loss. i do think that ypc is an important stat, but when you weigh in other factors, like teams knew we were running the ball and still couldnt stop us, i think our running game was damn good over the past 5 seasons
you can say that. Not to nitpick words, but "damn good" isn't really supported by those stats. I looked at OSU because despite the differences in scheme they are at our level (above it the last couple of years of course), play in the same conference, and despite periodically adopting spread schemes, have also been a "run first," conservative sort of team.
We didn't run the ball 70% of the time under Lloyd Carr. It was more in the area 55%-60% of offensive plays, which is comparable to most collegiate AND NFL teams.
Was good.
One comment I would have on this analysis, is that you have to remember that OSU had a running QB in place over this span. Considering running QB's tend to have very skewed statistics when it comes to yards/attempt, this could affect the numbers. Also, I would say this is more indicative of our inability to break the big play in the run game more than having a consistent running attack. Yards/attempt is a bad metric in college football because of the variability in the talent of the defenses, and the ability of some break away speed backs to rack up big numbers on a few plays against mediocre defenses. However, Hart was never going to have those games because his top end speed was just too slow.
Wasn't really a running QB, although he did use his feet more than usual. I agree about Hart though.
Troy Smith was a true "dual threat" QB. Too many times this is confused with "running QB" which isn't the same thing. Pat White was more of a running QB because his running was clearly superior to his throwing. However, Troy Smith could do both equally well. Could be why he won the Heisman.
You're right.
I agree with the basic attempt, but you need to take out the impact of sack yardage, which counts as "rushing yardage", as that really doesn't have anything to do with the quality of our rushing attack. It could also partly explain why OSU, with Troy Smith, hard higher YPA.
"Yards/attempt is a bad metric in college football because of the variability in the talent of the defenses"...
If that's true, what would you suggest? Yards per game would be skewed even more. Two 500 yard games, of a sample for the season of 12, could skew that average a lot more than yards per attempt would, because of the higher number of attempts.
Unfortunately, I don't really think any general statistic is worth anything in college football. There is too much variability amongst opponents and playing styles, and way too small of a sample set, for any general statistic to mean much of anything. You really need to do in depth adjusted efficiencies while removing outliers (which is still a problem based on only 12 games and the fact that most of those games aren't even similar with blowouts, etc.), but the general stuff gives people something to talk about and the media something to hype, so it's a tolerable evil. In this case you would want to compare UofM vs. a Big Ten team with a similar style QB in the Big Ten games where they played against the same teams, and remove any sack yardage (sorry, but comparing a team with Chad Henne with a team with Troy Smith is not a good comparison). That would be a start any ways.
if i were you.
The comment that most stats in college football are "worthless" sort of stumped me--too many responses were possible-- so I let it go
somehow college football is immune to statistical analysis?
Don't bring this up to the "Pryor should be a WR" crowd.
for the hell of it, here's Penn State's average rushing per carry, same time period:
08--5.2
07--4.8
06--2.8 (!)
05--5.1
04--4.6
Apart from last year, (ad that's debatable) PSU's QB's haven't really been Troy Smith running caliber have they?
As was just mentioned, I can guarantee you those numbers would be a lot closer if you take out sack yardage from Michigan's running totals. I'm sure Henne racked up negative yardage in running... (UPDATE: Henne ran for -315 career yards and Troy Smith ran for 1150 career yards)
So OSU should be penalized because Troy Smith had less negative plays than Chad Henne? You realize that UM (God I'd hope so) had a better YPA passing than OSU right?
Also, Troy Smith, was sacked 10, 14, and 18 times (04/05/06).
Chad Henne, 29, 21, 24, 16(Injured) (04/05/06/07).
So Troy Smith was more elusive AND OSU had a better offensive line. Both of which support the thesis that UM has been an inferior running team to OSU in the past 4/5 years.
Additionally, Troy Smith had a YPA passing of about 8.3. Chad Henne, 7.0.
So, OSU basically shredded people from 2004-2006 with Troy Smith. Nothing new there.
in the non-Troy Smith years, as well. Not casting any dispersions, but the more I see the more I'm not even sure how the proposition can be debated. Look at PSU's numbers, and just to keep it going, here are Georgia's for the same years. Although likely Georgia was a bit more pass happy than we were, they run a lot of pro-style offense with drop back QB's, in a tough conference:
Georgia
08--4.5
07--4.5
06--4.1
05--4.6
I agree with you completely. OSU had a better offense then ours lately with all aspects included, but this original post was intended to argue that Michigan had a "meh" running game the last 5 years, and therefore, needed to be improved. It was argued this way due to the data that was put forth. And I'm not necessarily arguing against that. My only point is that the data does not "necessarily" support the intended argument. That's all.
This is going to be ridiculous, but let's assume Michigan ran the ball 50% of the time and passed 50% of the time. Let's say every time we ran the ball, we gained exactly 10 yards, and every time we passed the ball, we got sacked for 10 yards. Every time. Therefore, it would appear our running game averaged 0 yards per attempt. However, we actually got 10 yards per carry every time we attempted to run the ball. Our running game was fantastic and our passing game just sucked for whatever reason (receivers couldn't get open, QB went into the fetal position, whatever). If I then argued with you that we had a crappy running game over that year, would you agree with me? This is obviously a very extreme example, but I hope you see what people are getting at.
Not sure I follow; Your first paragraph has UM w/ a better YPA passing than OSU, but further down you list Smith as 8.3 YPA vs. 7.0 for Henne.
I hadn't looked it up at the time, hence the "(God I'd hope so)". Turns out they didn't, and I felt even worse about myself. It was tragic.
I'm sure.
But why should sack totals be removed? I've never understood why the NFL does that. If a QB scrambles for positive yardage, it counts as rushing yards, so why shouldn't a sack count against the rushing total, too?
Regardless, I think we can agree with the original poster that our running game has been fairly inconsistent for a few years now. I think it's more due to having a lot of so-so offensive lines (the units, I mean - obviously, there were some individual stars, like Long).
The reason I think sacks yardage should be removed, at least for this argument, is because we are trying to compare running game. When you have a passing play that ends up as a sack it doesn't have anything to do with our running game.
based on what you want to mention. The OP seems to want to talk about the running game specifically, so it seems prudent to remove it.
CFBstats.com is the greatest reference website on the internet.
Anway, national and Big 10 ranks in YPA since 2004.
2008-73 B10-7
2007-61 B10-9
2006-42 B10-6
2005-57 B10-9
2004-68 B10-7
but I do think the running game with Hart was actually still quite good because his median per carry was significantly better. I'm not sure where they ended up getting posted, but I did do some work on Hart relative to other Big Ten backs and showed pretty decisively his ability to avoid negative plays made the relatively poor average play up. To the point where we had an a better than average running attack? Perhaps, but definitely not dominant. I lay the blame squarely on the OL, which was largely bad outside of Jake Long and David Baas from 2003 onward.
I think it was the primary culprit in the program's decline, though coaching at other positions (Safety and LB) were clearly issues. The individual units in general seemed to be carried by stars and in the absence of those savants, the technique coaching was not up to par.
Relatedly, if you look at where Lloyd's last batch of coaches ended up, the only one with a real star to his name is Loefler.
Your last point is very telling. Think about Bo's family tree (which included Don Nehlen, Bill McCartney, and Cam Cameron in addition to Moeller and Carr) and then think about Lloyd's. No Carr assistant has gotten anything better than a MAC head coaching job. His most successful protegé to date is probably Brady Hoke, who, in spite of his strong season last year, still has a losing career record.
People need to stop getting hung up on sex appeal. Long TD breaks are nice, but they aren't necessarily necessary in order to characterize a 'back or rush offense "elite".
For an extreme instance, if I were to choose between two imaginary running backs A and B, with the below statistics, then I would do so as such:
A: 5.0 YPC, 30 Carries/Game, 150 Yards, 2 TDs (wherein, in this instance, 28 of 30 rushes go for exactly 0 yards, and 2 runs go for 75 yards and a TD).
B: 5.0 YPC, 30 Carries/Game, 150 Yards, 2 TDs (wherein, in this instance, 30 of 30 rushes go for exactly 5 yards, 2 of which begin at/within the 5 yard line and yield a TD).
By the way, earlier I stated "I would do so as such", and by that I was alluding to the decision-making mechanism that leads me to prefer 'back B (with whom Hart shares much in common, or is at least more closely associated). To be sure, consistency (a low [preferably: non-existant] standard deviation of yards gained between rushes) is the single-most valuable rushing asset... and that comes without mentioning the demoralizing effect such consistency can have on defenses (well, at least it came without mentioning until now).
Sorry but to put it bluntly, our rushing attack hasn't been that great over the last 5 or 6 years.
I loved Mike Hart as much as the next guy, but his inability to make the big play hurt us in a lot of ways.
And no, sack yardage should not be removed from a teams YPC, and long runs should not be passed off as outliers or as simply having "sex appeal". Fact is, most college teams have big play threats in their running game, and we haven't had that for a long time. People emphasize the importance of having a big play or home run threat at running back for a reason.
Most college running backs should be able to average 4YPC, but what separates the average to good backs from the great ones is their ability to bust off long runs and make big plays.
Let's compare two great Big Ten running backs for the sake of comparison...
Mike Hart
Frosh- 1455yards 9TDs 5.2YPC
Soph- 662yards 4TDs 4.4YPC
Jr- 1562yards 14TDs 4.9YPC
SR- 1361yards 14TDs 5.1YPC
Totals- 5040yards 41TDs 5.0YPC
Chris Wells
Frosh- 576yards 7TDs 5.5YPC
Soph- 1609yards 15TDs 5.9YPC
Jr- 1197yards 8TDs 5.8YPC
Totals- 3382yards 30TDs 5.78YPC
So even though you have two players who by numbers alone, are fairly comparable. However, one of them was drafted with the 36th pick in the 6th round, pick number 202 overall. The other will most likely be a top 15 selection and was a top 5-7 pick before he ran at the NFL combine.
Why is this?
Breakaway speed. Chris Wells has it, and Mike Hart doesn't, and the kicker is that Beanie's draft stock has FALLEN because NFL scouts think he has a LACK OF BREAKAWAY SPEED!
We all loved Mike and Chad and all of those guys. They were probably the most lovable group of Michigan players of all time, but as Brian put it awhile back, "they won our hearts and not much else".
Sooner or later we have to face it. There was a reason Mike and Chad went 0-4 against OSU and 1-3 in bowl games.
I agree up to the last part, where the answer is defense and really bad coaching (2004/2005).
I apologize (admittedly hollowly) to any of you whom I'm about to call "idiot"...
However, anyone that reads my post above (wherein, in that hypothetical and hysterically unlikely situation, all confounding points of comparison are controlled for to allow an aphoristic "apples to apples" discussion) and concludes that they'd prefer (of the two "equally productive" running backs) the one with 28 zero yard rushes and 2 seventy-five yard barn burners per game... (pausing to compose myself) Well, shit, that person is doing little more than mindlessly splashing about in a kiddie pool of idiocy.
Seriously, though, every coach in the nation would frantically scramble for a theoretical RB that can NEVER run for fewer than 4 yards. After all, that opens the door for an AUTOMATIC first down every three downs. Ugh.
And now that I've typed, possibly, the meanest post of my life... I'm going home. Long day.
was no mean
I greez, sense this post makes none.