This Is Michigan; This Isn't Michigan Comment Count

Brian

11/19/2011 – Michigan 45, Nebraska 17 – 9-2, 5-2 Big Ten

6369740057_ef96bdd470_b[1]

Eric Upchurch

In the aftermath of Saturday's flamethrower job, everyone from the coaches down to emailers is saying that felt like Michigan, usually with emphasis. Picking one at random:

Great game Saturday - I think it was at least partially Nebraska-fueled, but man that FELT like Michigan.

Quick, it's any game from 1998 to 2007 against a spread offense or mobile quarterback. How do you feel? Good? Bad? Have you stopped reading this column to shiver in a corner at the idea of Carlyle Holiday? Troy Smith? Donovan McNabb? Armanti Horror Edwards?

Yes, you have. For the Ohio State fans who persist in reading this column because it's willing to send Michigan fans into catatonic seizures, Michigan fans felt pretty damn bad about going up against mobile quarterbacks during the Carr era. They also felt this during the Rodriguez era but it was a lot harder to parse out a specific mobile-quarterback-related fear when Indiana's putting up more than 30 every year.

Quick! It's any game in which Michigan has an 18 point lead against a mid-level Big Ten team from 1998 to 2007. Nevermind. You're still having a seizure.

Quick! It's a team with Tom Brady, David Terrell, Anthony Thomas, Steve Hutchinson, Mo Williams, and Jeff Backus. How many yards per carry do they average?

No, seriously. I'm asking this one. How many yards per carry did the Orange-Bowl-winning, Tom-Brady-featuring, three-NFL-OL-including-a-hall-of-fame-guard-deploying 1999 Michigan Wolverines average?

3.2.

Seriously. Michigan finished 79th in rushing offense, 24th in passing offense, and ran more than they passed. Tom Brady—Tom Brady!—averaged 7.2 YPA. In the Orange Bowl they fell behind 14-0 because they kept running their awful run offense at Alabama's #2 run defense. They'd finish with 23 carries for 27 yards.

Quick! Fourth and four from the Ohio State 34 up two with three minutes left. What does Brady Hoke do?

--------------------------------------------

I was wrong. I was mad when Michigan hired Brady Hoke because I though it was a capitulation, that it was Michigan returning to the things that made it such a frustrating team to root for once Lloyd Carr stopped having the best defense in the universe.

Carr coached his team like they had an awesome run offense and an awesome defense no matter the facts on the ground, which led to the most frustrating stat anyone's ever compiled. From Vijay Ramanujan's article in your copy of HTTV 2007:

Michigan's fourth quarter woes from 2000 to 2005 … have been the thing holding it back from truly elite status the last several years. Alarmingly, Michigan entered 18 games over that period of time with a lead smaller than 10 points and went 8-10 in those games. They were under .500 when entering the fourth with a small lead! When tied or facing a similarly small deficit, Michigan was 6-1. In all games in which Michigan trailed by any margin they were 8-8.

That is the kind of thing that gets you pawing at the air in your sleep, moaning "no… not again." It's incontrovertible evidence of terrible game management. Hiring Hoke felt like returning to that, like returning to debates about "scoring offenses" and looking at every mobile quarterback on the schedule like it was a loss waiting to happen.

This is not the case. It turns out as I was sitting in the stands burning up inside as Rocky Harvey scatbacked Illinois to victory or Michigan punted itself into oblivion against OSU, Brady Hoke was standing on a sideline burning up inside, whether it was at Michigan Stadium or somewhere in the MAC. Hoke does not want to lead by 17. He wants to lead by 21, dammit. If anything, the playcalling this year has been too aggressive what with the constant unleashing of the dragon.

grossman_badge[1]

Al Borges wears a t-shirt with this on it every Casual Friday

That made me mad in the immediate aftermath, but what happens when you put a Michigan program together and… like… use it? What happens when you're Lloyd Carr without the crippling fear of something going wrong? What happens when you go from weak-tight to loose-aggressive?

----------------------------

For one, you leave the desiccated corpses of Nebraska strewn around you as you leave the field. Afterwards, Bo Pelini sits in his locker room shaking like Don Cheadle in "Hotel Rwanda." When you win games, you win games comfortably. No one gets nervous in the fourth quarter of San Diego State. The offense is pretty much the offense; when its horns get pulled in it's because you're on your own four up 21 and that's the move. Sometimes you do the audacious thing in the important game, not the tomato can before the important game. Mobile quarterbacks don't automatically rack up a billion yards. And when the right move doesn't work out and someone asks you about it, you say "that's how it's going to be."

So when people say this "feels like Michigan," I agree and disagree. In the immediate post-hire column featuring Will Smith robots I said "to me, getting back to being Michigan means going 9-3 and losing to Jim Tressel." Since 1993, Michigan has lost at least three games every year save '97, '99 and '06; since Jim Tressel's arrival Michigan has beaten Ohio State once.

If this feels like getting back to Michigan, it's the Michigan of your dreams, the Michigan you left back in Peoria when you shipped to Saigon. You've got one good picture of her and she's that pretty every day in an ugly place.

"This Is Michigan" is about the idea, not the reality—at least not a reality from the last 20 years. So far. Days like Saturday inch us closer to the picture in our heads.

Media

There were enough videos to warrant a VOAV, which was posted yesterday. This from Boyz in the Pahokee is worth a repost, though:

Via Eric Upchurch and the Ann Arbor Observer, our Nebraska photoset:


As always, the above photos are Creative Commons licensed.

AnnArbor.com's photoset can be found here. I'm just saying?

image

I'm just sayin'.

Maize and Blue Nation also has photos. MVictors grabs the obligatory Bri'onte Dunn shot.

Bullets

6369842179_2bc725a744_z[1]

via Eric Upchurch and the Ann Arbor Observer 

brady-hoke-epic-double-pointBRADY HOKE EPIC DOUBLE POINT OF THE WEEK. I'm tempted to hand this to Lavonte David for 17 tackles, 14 of them solo, 2 of them Y U SO FAST ankle-grabs on a Denard Robinson one step from engaging turbo. But he plays for Nebraska and we only talk about players who play for Michigan.

If we can't give it to David, it's again Fitzgerald Toussaint's to have and hold. He's got his own bullet below explaining why. Runners up: Mike Martin, Denard Robinson, and Jordan Kovacs.

EPIC DOUBLE POINT STANDINGS.

2: Denard Robinson (Notre Dame, Eastern Michigan), Brady Hoke (San Diego State, Northwestern), Fitzgerald Toussaint (Purdue, Nebraska)
1: Jordan Kovacs (Western Michigan), David Molk (Minnesota), Ryan Van Bergen (MSU),  Mike Martin (Iowa), JT Floyd(Illinois).

Fitzkreig continues. 138 yards on 29 carries and three monster games in the last four. The exception was a 16-carry, 58-yard performance against Iowa when many of his attempts were run from under center.

As a result, I saw Toussaint compared to the following tailbacks over the weekend: Mike Hart (this was me but not just me), Tim Biakabutuka, and Chris Perry. Except fast! I went with Hart because the way Toussaint dodges guys in a phonebooth is reminiscent of #20 and his cuts in narrow areas are what makes the zone game work. Toussaint doesn't have Hart's pile-pushing power but he compensates with Except Fast! He's also been very secure with the ball. (Knock on wood.) I don't recall any fumbles from him this year; that's pretty good for 143 carries.

It took longer than everyone wanted, but I declare him broken out. He needs 191 yards against OSU and in the bowl to crack 1000 for the season; I bet he gets that and enters next year in the conversation for best back in the league. I'll have to go back and check how Northwestern held him to 25 yards on 14 carries. That's nuts.

Weekly Borgeswatch. It's to the point where the scattered –1 yard power plays from the I don't even bother me anymore. They're like old friends reminding me of the spread's superiority for this personnel and how our offensive coordinator has also come to this conclusion, albeit grudgingly.

I thought this was another strong game from Borges. He debuted a pro set that saw Michigan bust a couple of big gains; the flare screen got blown up the second time he went to it but it was effective overall. Outside of that he largely let the offense do what it was recruited to do: run zone from the gun. It worked to the tune of 238 yards.

While the averages for Denard (4.4 YPC) and Fitz(4.8) aren't electric a lot of that is due to Michigan's struggles near the goal line. Those two had eight carries from within the Nebraska seven on which they gained 7 yards total; carries outside of goal-to-go situations averaged 5.3 between the two main weapons. Without Lavonte David who knows what they would have been.

Unfortunately, goal to go is kind of important. Those struggles combine with last week's goal line stand by Illinois* to create the closest thing to a worry possible coming off a 45-17 win. Michigan got lucky on a dubious pass interference call and had to resort to a fake field goal to punch in short touchdowns; on both short yardage TDs Michigan had to bounce to the sideline. Going up the middle was futile.

I wonder why Michigan has never tried to replicate** the virtually unstoppable Gator Heavy package that was Florida's go-to short yardage package during the Tebow era. This was a complaint I had during the RR years, too. I like the idea of giving the D seven gaps to defend and providing Denard two lead blockers that can attack any of them, plus a tailback.

*[I guess you could toss in Iowa's successful goal line stand but that was executed in adverse conditions.]

**[Michigan did briefly feature a double H-back set in 2009 that was kind of like Gator Heavy but they never used the full-on heavy. They always had two WRs.]

odoms-touchdown-nebraska

via Melanie Maxwell/AnnArbor.com

Weekly Denardwatch. There were a couple of scary throws I'll have to see on replay to determine whether they were bad ideas or fit in narrow windows—guessing the former—but 61% completions and 10 YPA are pretty good. Yeah, a big chunk of those was a chuck-and-pray to Roundtree but at least that wasn't into double coverage. The safety couldn't get over in time. Roundtree also had a step on Dennard… it wasn't in the same class some of the ND armpunts were. Meanwhile, the Odoms touchdown gets an "I be like dang."

I thought the INT was fluky; some people on the twitters disagreed. I'm not saying the batted ball was fluky, but the dude knocking it to himself and catching it… eh… doesn't happen so often. That's more on the playcall than Denard. Asking a short guy to float it over a tall guy has resulted in two interceptions this year that I'm not sure Denard can do much about other than be six inches taller or eat the ball on a screen that seems open.

There was progress.

6369700739_9e2c668f34_b[1]

Upchurch

The above was part of that. When Denard pulled up to throw to a short dude streaking across the endzone my Michigan rolodex flipped to the first interception he threw against MSU last year, where he had the exact same route open and chucked it well behind his guy.

I'm guessing Denard's DSR is in the mid-60s range he seems to have established as his Big Ten baseline. That's a step up from the days when he was struggling to complete anything against the Eastern Michigans of the world. Transition costs here seem mostly paid. Now it's about getting him that extra increment.

The rumors are not true. Do not listen to Heiko: I had nothing to do with the lack of power in Michigan Stadium. I did not make a commando raid Friday night after seeing the image of Pop Evil in the stadium and Do What Had To Be Done. I have an alibi—I was at the hockey game—and if I had done it I would have taken out the north scoreboard, where Special K's speakers are.

Way to go, whoever you are. Excellent work by random student who I assume is an engineer to start counting down the playclock after M took a false start penalty near the goal line in the first. Note that Hoke stepped forth to take blame for the penalty:

"That's on me," he said. "I should have called timeout. For me to not do that, that's bad coaching."

Straightforward dude.

Second Zookian clock management incident. Coaches are always too conservative with their last timeout and this tendency bit Michigan after they ran a couple times at the end of the first half. After Robinson biffed by trying to get to the sideline instead of reading the block Toussaint had made on the closest defender, the clock burned 30 seconds before the third down snap.

I know you want to have that timeout for a field goal attempt but in a situation like this you know the clock is going to run and you're not sure that will be the case down the road. A spike is a quality option with five seconds left; not so much with 48.

This is a nit. I'm going to name my firstborn "Hoke Gametheory."

Helmet to ball. Yes, people who keep telling me about fumbles, the last few have been Michigan's doing. Not so much the ones where people just drop the ball. Terrence Robinson may have just earned a fifth year—it looks like Michigan will have room for him even if they take 28.

Fluck. Michigan's still recovering an inordinate number of the fumbles caused. No, this is not coachable.

I don't always talk about game theory*, but when I do I prefer it to be about going up 17 or 21. Last week I was totally cool with Michigan running a QB draw with Gardner on third and goal from the ten to go up 17; I was similarly cool with the field goal team running out for a chip shot on the fourth and one.

It's a similar situation: up 14 about halfway through the third quarter against a team that's struggling to move the ball. Getting that third score is all but game over. That said, Hoke made it clear in the postgame presser that they had scouted that particular situation and got the look they wanted:

Can you talk about picking the spot to fake the field goal? “We had put it in. It’s the one Penn State used against us in ’95? I think it was ’95 up there. [We] wanted it on the right hash, [and] they gave us the look that we wanted. Even if we had kicked the field goal, Drew Dileo -- having him as a holder, he’s such a smart football kid. He did a tremendous job with it. You got it, you might as well use it.”

Until he runs a fake field goal against the same team he ran a famous fake field goal the year previous—and takes a timeout before doing so—it's all good.

Less than a season into the Hoke regime it's clear his natural inclination is to be aggressive in close situations. That should pay off down the road—it hasn't so much this year because when Michigan wins they win by a lot.

*[LIES!]

BCS watch. Saturday night's events all but guarantee Michigan a spot if they take care of business on Saturday. They're now ahead of the Big 12 runner-up, which will either be a three-loss Oklahoma or an Oklahoma State team coming off back-to-back losses, one of them to Iowa State. Pecking order:

  1. Houston (auto)
  2. Alabama
  3. Stanford
  4. Michigan
  5. Big 12 runner up
  6. ACC runner up

You can flip Stanford and Michigan if you like. There are no scenarios that see a 10-2 Michigan left out; even if the SEC can put a third team in because of an all SEC West title game, Michigan is an easy pick over a 10-2 Arkansas. To be safe you're rooting for Okie State in Bedlam.

Now, about getting to 10-2…

[UPDATE: a reader informs me that this is misunderstanding of the way three teams get into the BCS from a single conference. #1 and #2 have to not win the conference, so LSU would have to lose to Georgia and Alabama and LSU would still have to be 1-2. That is… not impossible, actually.]

Here

Inside the Box Score has cat photos and commentary:

In the first half, with us up 10-7, Denard threw an INT on a screen pass. I’m starting to think he’s too short to throw middle screens. Anyway, the defense responded with a Kovacs TFL, a Van Bergen pass deflection, and Demens and Martin tackling a WR on a screen for minimal yardage. It wasn’t quite the three-play sequence that bursted impetus against Illinois, but it reminded me of that. Neb had to settle for a 51 yard FG. Our defense basically said, we’ve got our O’s back.

Word.

The announcers thought Kovacs was acting a little when injured to slow down Neb’s hurry up offense. For the record, he stayed out for the duration of that series, so I don’t think he was faking. Screw you Urban Paschman for suggesting such a thing.

Are we really at the point where a team that has two injuries in a game gets accused of slowing the game down on purpose? This wasn't the Michigan State defense's fainting couch act against Iowa.

When I think of NU, I think of Northwestern. Since they have B1G seniority over Nebraska, they should get the NU acronym. That leaves either UNL or Neb for Nebraska.

Blog policy is to bestow "NU" on the winner of the NU-NU game. When not in possession of "NU," Northwestern shall be "NW" and Nebraska "UNL." It is my hope this eventually spawns a rivalry trophy: large block N and U letters that the winning team paints their colors after a victory.

Hoke For Tomorrow on various people who had good days:

Denard Robinson - The best game in a long time for our leader and best.  Denard looked completely in control of the offense.  He was patient, waiting for plays to develop before zinging a TD pass to Gallon or cutting behind his blockers for a TD on the ground.  Best of all, Denard finally hit a receiver perfectly on an endzone bomb.  He made some more questionable reads on the read option, but overall it was a great performance.

If you hit up Blue Seoul's OSU/Nebraska scouting report the Cornhuskers' long touchdown probably looked familiar:

6356147793_7b61309c71[1]

6356148407_8289c2cfcb[1]

So there you go: the coaches don't read the blog.

Elsewhere

Unwashed blog masses. Maize and Go Blue has a newspapery recap. Schadenfreude can be had at Corn Nation's game thread and post-game thread. TTB runs down the recruiting visitors. MNBN has a wrap up. BWS talks about Rich Rodriguez. I only talk about coaches who coach for Michigan. M&GB gives thanks. So does the HSR. MGoFootball bullets.

MZone autopsy:

Want a little more perspective?  In its 13 games last year, Michigan gave up 458 points.  Through 11 this season, they've surrendered 172.  In other words, to equal the punchline that was 2010, Michigan would have to give up 144 points -- in EACH of its remaining two games (OSU and the bowl).

I am annoyed that this is followed by a reference to the scoring offense as if the defense doesn't have anything to do with putting said offense in a position to succeed. The offense has dropped off a bit, and criticisms leveled at Borges after MSU and Iowa are still valid. 

Meanwhile, Touch The Banner officially enters haterz territory:

Obligatory discussion of J.T. Floyd.  Nebraska's one huge play was a 54-yard touchdown bomb to Brandon Kinnie, who torched Floyd so badly that all Floyd could do was grab onto Kinnie and hope for a pass interference flag.  Prior to that play, Kinnie had 19 catches for 192 yards and 0 touchdowns on the season.

This is true. Also true: that was the first 50 yard play Michigan has given up all season and the first time Floyd has been burned deep on a pass, complete or not, all year. Even Woodson got burned by Boston that one time. JT Floyd is a good corner.

In the the wider view, Adam Jacobi declares Michigan's trenches a "winner" and Nebraska special teams a "not winner." His quick hits:

WHAT MICHIGAN WON: Michigan's bid for an at-large BCS bid is still alive as the Wolverines begin preparation for Ohio State. We're told that's a rivalry. What Michigan proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the defense is legit. Nebraska managed just 11 first downs and 254 total yards on the day, and while that's partly a function of the turnovers, it's also a function of Michigan's performance; the Wolverines forced 10 4th downs on 13 opportunities.

Hinton:

And it was, if not exactly the kind of vintage "This is Michigan" mashing Brady Hoke invoked throughout the offseason, at least as close as this particular team has come to its own platonic ideal. Denard Robinson took every significant snap at quarterback, carried 23 times, looked sharp as a passer and accounted for four touchdowns. Tailback Fitzgerald Toussaint went over 100 yards on the ground for the third time in the last four games, adding a pair of scores of his own. The offense as a whole held the ball for almost 42 minutes. The defense held Nebraska to a season-low in total yards and matched a season low in points. The 'Huskers didn't convert a third down until the end of the third quarter.

In a matchup of apparent equals, the only aspect of the game Nebraska "won" — or came close to winning — was average yards per punt. And that doesn't include the punt Michigan blocked.

Media, conventional. My man Nick Baumgardner on the lopsided time of possession:

One of the residual effects of Michigan's stellar defensive day was a lopsided time of possession battle.

The Wolverines held the ball for 41:13 while Nebraska had possession for just 18:47.

"Residual effects." My man.

Jerry Palm has placed us back in his BCS predictions in an odd place:

Sugar Bowl

Jan. 3
New Orleans, La.
SEC vs. at-large
8:30 p.m. ET, ESPN
Comment: With both SEC teams in the championship game, the Sugar Bowl will need a replacement and Michigan will be very attractive. It ends up taking an undefeated Houston over the Big East champion.

Palm has the LSU-Bama rematch as the title game, which opens up a weird slot for M. I'd rather play a running team than Case Keenum. BONUS WEIRDNESS: Palm puts Penn State in the Hawaii Bowl in place of someone else who can't fill a commitment. No idea why he thinks the #3-5 Big Ten team isn't locked into an actual Big Ten bowl. SIDE NOTE: Adding Nebraska makes the Big Ten's bowl matchups far more palatable.

Rothstein says the special teams were… wait for it… special. Robinson had no idea he'd tied Brady's record for touchdown passes, but instead of "WAT" he said "excuse me?"

Wojo column:

This wasn't the final piece of evidence, but it certainly was the most compelling. What happened Saturday in Michigan Stadium is what used to happen. A big, physical foe rolled into town and ran smack into a wall of pads. The Wolverines' 45-17 rout of the Cornhuskers was their best game of the year, by far, and the loudest statement of the Brady Hoke era, by far.

As the final minutes ticked away, the crowd began an old-new chant. "Beat Ohio!" cascaded from the student section, in homage to Hoke, whose personal homage to the rivalry is to refer to the Buckeyes simply as "Ohio."

Beat Ohio? Uh, that's a good idea. After seven straight losses in the rivalry, Michigan (9-2) has a great chance to do it, with Ohio State (6-5) in complete disarray.

I quote him because he's the only columnist in a 500 mile radius who doesn't compulsively hit enter after each mark of punctuation. Also he had cake.

Andy Staples:

The defensive improvement is perhaps the most shocking element of Michigan's renaissance. The Wolverines did not sign a bunch of five-star freshmen who raised the talent level. They have succeeded largely with the same players who finished 2010 ranked 110th in the nation in total defense (450.8 yards per game) and 108th in the nation in scoring defense (35.2 points per game). We knew coordinator Greg Mattison could coach, but we didn't know he could work miracles. Through 11 games, the 2011 Wolverines have allowed 312.6 yards per game and 15.6 points per game. "Fundamentally and technically, they're playing what they're coached to do, and they're playing together," Hoke said of his defense. "It's been fun to watch."

The Nebraska view is essentially "why are you punching yourself in the face?" A lot.

Comments

Yinka Double Dare

November 21st, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^

8 or 9 wins should have been the expectation given the number of guys coming back, and Hoke would have gotten a ton of credit for hitting 8 or 9 wins.

But 1) they may hit 10 or 11 wins, which is past expectations, and 2) the defense is something he and his staff rightly are getting all the credit for.  We're past where it's just credit that would solely be right place right time kind of credit.

Beat Ohio.

MI Expat NY

November 21st, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^

Don't get me wrong, If you told me we would be 9-2 and 8.5 point favorites headed into OSU, I'd have taken it in a heartbeat.  But, part of our record comes from pretty much everyone in the Big Ten being awful.  8 or 9 wins was under the expectation that Iowa, Northwestern, and OSU would be better than what they were.  The only team we've played that has over-achieved has been MSU, and not by all that much.  Take away the hail mary victory over Wisconsin and they're pretty much in the realm of what people expected.  

I guess all I'm saying is that more people would have been predicting 10 wins knowing what we know now about how our schedule would shake out.  

You're absolutely right about the defense, though.  What Mattison has done is nothing short of miraculous.  

jmdblue

November 21st, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^

and we are recruiting better talent seemingly without any baggage.  ....and we aren't dealing with some sort of real or media-invented controversy every 10 weeks or so.....If RR were still here we'd have a group of undersized 3 star O and D lineman coming in next year and we'd all be praying that RR knew what he was doing (with regard to recruiting).  Now we have pretty much the players we pursued and we know (to every exent possible) that BH knows what he is doing.  The future is incredibly bright.  If RR were still here and we had 9 wins, but our D was still giving up 30+ against every decent team it faced I wouldn't be so confident.

greenphoenix

November 21st, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^

However, Rodriguez should get some credit for this year.

1) Talent is easily 80% of a team's success.Experience is a huge factor. As an aside, I thought BWS' article about Rodriguez only coaching "schemes" was deeply unfair. He wasn't coaching schemes, he was coaching underclassmen, especially on defense in the last year. Who knows with GERG. Agreed, terrible hire.

2) Football teams don't spring out of nowhere. Skills, strength, endurance, and football knowledge are accumulated in layers over time. The team's success this year must be in some way related to what happened in the previous three years.

3) All that being said, The team has exceeded expectations, both on the Offensive and Defensive side of the ball; I thought they would regress enormously on the offensive side, but Borges has accepted the team he has, and is winning with basically RR's offense. So good for him. And Mattison. Wow. There is some coaching there.

I'm tired of imagining what would have happened had RR stayed. My casual estimate is that we would be 9-2 or 10-1 at this point, but who cares. The immune system rejected him. This is the new regime and the townsfolk are behind it.

I just wish people would stop burning the dude in effigy after he's gone. He's a good coach, he inheritied an utterly shitty situation, let it go.

M-Wolverine

November 21st, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^

To have a whole post saying how "this Michigan" is different than the Carr regime, but people have to "let it go" when comparing it to the Rich Rod regime? You can say let it go for everyone in the past, or be ok with critical comparisons, but I can't understand how you can be on differing sides of the same view, depending on the coach involved.

M-Wolverine

November 21st, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^

Brian's shouldn't critique Carr's conservativeness in this post, or said he should be ripping Rich here instead?  That's all in your imagination.

The difference is that I'm logically consistent.  And you dodged the question. If you had said "Brian, really what's the point of comparing Carr to what Hoke does...he was a good coach, it's in the past, let it go." then you could be logically consistent too. Because while I fully support Brian being able to compare it to whatever he wants (and anyone else too...and freely have it argued in return), you want certain people to be protected/treated with kid gloves/left without mention except in glowing terms, but anyone else? Have at them. That's just hypocrisy.

Yeoman

November 21st, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^

...but the odds are determined by the number of people around the ball carrier at the time of the fumble. It might be worth looking at film of this year's fumbles vs. fumbles from some prior year, or a random selection of fumbles elsewhere in CFB, to see if there's any contribution from having more defenders in on, and around, the tackle.

Has anybody ever done a study like this? (Not necessarily re Michigan, but anywhere.)

dragonchild

November 21st, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^

Speak for yourself, Brian.  This does feel like Michigan, but I never forgot how Carr's Wolverines played.

Yes, there was always an unhealthy affinity to the power run up the middle, but frankly the idea that the team was always about the power run is a strawman and a myth.  The Tom Brady years were more WCO than "three yards and a cloud of dust".  The reason why Carr always lost his games in the fourth quarter is because he'd pass on a blue-chip stock for being too risky.  Does this sound familiar?  Punting on 4th-and-2 from the 40-yard-line with less than 5 minutes to go in the fourth quarter. . . down two scores.  The opponent would then happily take the ball and bleed out 3-4 minutes off the clock.  Michigan would get the ball back with just enough time for a last-gasp drive, except the only thing left to play for would be pride.  This would happen all the time.  Against schools with better game management (basically all of them), Michigan would need to be up by at least eight points in the fourth quarter to win.  On the upside, that also means that Michigan doesn't have a historical habit of blowing leads late.  But against option QBs we were often behind anyway because Carr would groom his defensive lines into a line of tree trunks that could push back a tractor but couldn't catch one if it had a bad wheel.

What "feels like Michigan" is mainly an offense that controls the tempo of the game, and a defense that limits quality opponents to two TDs a game.  They may not always win, but frantic-pace shootouts were never Michigan's style.

 

P.S. Fumble recoveries can and are coached.  The abnormally high success rate is an anomaly, yes, but it's not truly random either.  You can't coach the ball's bounce, but what Mattison has done is hard-wire the defense to jump on loose balls.

Ziff72

November 21st, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^

Despite years and years of data, you present the 1 man who above all else knows how to fall on fumbles.  Aren't we forunate.

If this is true prove it.  Mattison has coached at Michigan(ahh the days when we knew how to recover fumbles 94-96) then ND, Florida and the Ravens.  Produce for me that stats that show how those teams fumbles recovered % spiked when GMAT was there and I'll support you with upvotes every chance I get.

 

Needs

November 21st, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

Just to back this up, here's the FO blurb on fumble recoveries...

Recovery of a fumble, despite being the product of hard work, is almost entirely random. Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year. The odds of recovery are based solely on the type of play involved, not the teams or any of their players. Fans like to insist that specific coaches can teach their teams to recover more fumbles by swarming to the ball. Chicago's Lovie Smith, in particular, is supposed to have this ability. However, since Smith took over the Bears, their rate of fumble recovery on defense went from a league-best 76 percent to a league-worst 33 percent in 2005, then back to 67 percent in 2006. Last year, they recovered 57 percent of fumbles, close to the league average. Fumble recovery is equally erratic on offense. In 2008, the Bears fumbled 12 times on offense and recovered only three of them. In 2009, the Bears fumbled 18 times on offense, but recovered 13 of them. Fumble recovery is a major reason why the general public overestimates or underestimates certain teams. Fumbles are huge, turning-point plays that dramatically impact wins and losses in the past, while fumble recovery percentage says absolutely nothing about a team's chances of winning games in the future. With this in mind, Football Outsiders stats treat all fumbles as equal, penalizing them based on the likelihood of each type of fumble (run, pass, sack, etc.) being recovered by the defense. Other plays that qualify as "non-predictive events" include blocked kicks and touchdowns during turnover returns. These plays are not "lucky," per se, but they have no value whatsoever for predicting future performance.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics

Yeoman

November 21st, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^

They examine a commonly-held opinion, do a study with a fairly small sample size, fail (as they expect) to find any statistically-significant evidence for the effect predicted by the commonly-held opinion...and then claim that the null hypothesis has been proven.

What they can reasonably say is that they've established with such-and-such degree of confidence that no effect greater than a certain size exists. But instead we get "no correlation whatsoever"..."says absolutely nothing"....

If they've done a proper analysis they don't seem to have published it on their website, or at least I couldn't find it.

This is a common error among the first generations of stats-oriented analysts of sport; I've seen a lot of it in baseball too.

Yeoman

November 21st, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^

Baltimore was dead last in fumble recovery percentage the year before Mattison arrived, and by a wide margin. They improved to 9th in the league his first year.

Fumbles are low-frequency events and it's very hard to get statistical significance out of single-season comparisons. The chances are good that this was a fluke; I certainly wouldn't claim otherwise.

But lack of significance caused by small sample size isn't proof of randomness either--it just means you can't tell one way or the other.

dragonchild

November 21st, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^

It wasn't foremost on my mind, but it doesn't really mean anything either.  Except that Carr stopped caring, so our defense began to slip.

8-10 with a slim lead going into the 4th is making a mountain out of a statistical molehill.  "10 or fewer" is a cute way of NOT mentioning the majority of those leads were less than a single TD.  Yes of course I would prefer Michigan went 18-0 in those games.  But they didn't go 4-14, either.  They were mediocre.  Middling.  Not very good.  But, albeit sans evidence, within a standard deviation of what I'd consider average.

BlueUPer

November 21st, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^

My buddies and I had this same conversation Saturday, back home at the Hoop N Holler Tavern.  (Come on up snowmobiling!)  

No this is the new Michigan!   We are on the verge of epic greatness! 

Can we get our own TV channel!!

 

funkywolve

November 21st, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^

If OU loses to Oklahoma St and Kansas St beats Iowa St, Kansas St will have sole possession of second place.  Not to mention KState will definitely be higher in the BCS rankings than OU.

michgoblue

November 21st, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^

Great piece, overall.  Some comments.

1.  The whole "feels like Michigan again" thing:

I am one of the people who has been saying that it finally feels like Michigan football again.  And, while I see your stats and the points that you raise, I still hold strong to my view that it "feels like Michigan" again.

When I say that it "feels like Michigan" I am not so much referring to wins / losses.  Or agressive / tentative play calling.  Or anything that is quantifiable.  I am referring to a feeling in the program.  A feeling that regardless of who we are playing, we are going to win.  A feeling that if we need a stop, our defense can come through.  A feeling that led you to accidentally refer to us as a 10-win team (which you have now corrected) - because like me, you feel that we are going to kick OSU's ass on Saturday.  That feeling has been missing these past three years.  Even during the years in which we struggled under LLoyd (in particular 2007), there was always a feeling that we would win any given game. 

To me - and I do not mean this as any criticism of RR or any attempt to debate RR - that feeling has been missing for the past three years, and even the first half of this season.  The feeling of "we will win" was replaced by "I hope we don't get killed by this team."  When I was a student, it was a given that we would always beat Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, NU, Iowa and MSU, even when we didn't.  Having routed Illinois and Nebraska back to back, for me at least, the feeling of "this is Michigan, we can win any game" has returned. 

 

2.  "The offense has dropped off a bit, and criticisms leveled at Borges after MSU and Iowa are still valid. "

Hoke admitted during this last presser that Denard was actually banged up around mid-season (something that many on this blog suspected).  It is likely that this impacted the playcalling, in particular the decision not to run Denard as much. 

 

2plankr

November 21st, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^

Outstanding post, both parts

I dont think its that Borges is begrudgingly getting anything that he didnt know all along.  Just like he and Hoke told us he was going to do, he tried to limit Denard's carries early in the year, especially when he was already injured.  (tiny EMU players have less risk of hurting him when they ran him a lot).  And they were training him in a system that they are going to use next year and beyond

If the transition costs of sticking with their system a little too much are losing two games we might have lost anyway no matter how they schemed, while winning 9(so far) that we might NOT have won anyway, I'll take it

I do admit I'm in the faction that pretty much supports the coaches no matter what...

MI Expat NY

November 21st, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^

I'm going to go ahead and call BS on your EMU line of thinking.  Injuries happen in football, and it often has very little to do with the opponent.  People seem to forget that the first injury that really limited him long term last year occurred against Bowling Green.  

coastal blue

November 21st, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^

So let me get this straight:

You think that Brady Hoke and Borges decided to sacrifice our best chance of winning against MSU and winning the Big Ten by not playing to our strengths so they could save Denard for November....after they ran him 20+ times against EMU, SDSU and Northwestern? 

Great coaches, but somehow I doubt it. I think we've just seen Hoke/Borges come around to what needs to be done to have us achieve victories. 

coastal blue

November 21st, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

But then I question the logic in running him 20 times in those three games I mentioned above. You would expect him to have a lighter workload there and be fresh for MSU, then a lighter workload against Purdue to be fresh for Iowa. 

I honestly just think the coaches were working things out. Frustrating, cause a few plays differently and we're looking at one of the great Michigan seasons of all time. 

uncleFred

November 21st, 2011 at 3:02 PM ^

Pretty much across the board, on both sides of the ball, the individual players have improved almost every game. They have made similar improvements playing as a team. Also the offense and defense packages have changed as the season has progressed. 

The notion that the team could have played as effectively a month ago as they are playing now, or that they would have executed various plays as proficiently, had only those plays been called, is highly speculative. It's fair to say that if they could have the plays would have been called.

I'm convinced that if we were able to switch this season's order swapping the position of UNL and MSU games, we'd have beaten MSU and lost to UNL by similar margins. The single constant this season has been improvement as the players have grown in the new system. 

Considering the last few years, if we win the next two games, I'll consider 2011 one of the great Michigan seasons of all time. 

michgoblue

November 21st, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^

I think that the undisclosed injury to Denard - which Hoke has now admitted was present during the middle of the season - existed and dictated some of the calls.  My the time of MSU, Borges knew full well that the strength of the offense for now lies in Denard operating out of the shotgun spread.  When the game was on the line against ND, we went to the shogun spread.  When the game was in doubt in several of the first few, Borges shifter to primarily spread stuff.

His reluctance to do so against MSU and to some extent Iowa indicates to me that the injury - now confirmed in existence - played a role.  If, for example, Denard had bruised ribs or even a fractured rib, he would not be able to run.  (Remember against Iowa and Illinois when Denard took off, he headed for the sideline, not into the open field - this is very non-Denard).  Another possibility - the "boo boo" on his elbow that required a minor procedure - perhaps Denard was advised by docs not to take too much contact on it.  Again, this would prevent him from operating out of the spread, since he couldn't really run.

I just think that those who criticize Borges don't get that this guy really has been around for a while, has had tremendous success and spends a lot more time observing this offense than any of us, so if he didn't go to the style that works best, there must be a reason other than his love of the pro style.  Because I would be that he loves winning more.

coastal blue

November 21st, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^

it seems entirely possible that Al Borges can be a really good OC and still have had a poor game plan against MSU/Iowa (too a lesser extent) in his first year at Michigan. 

I don't buy that Denard's injury was that serious, because he certainly didn't play like he was hurt. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's not the feeling I got from the game. 

And I'm sure that Borges likes winning and I'm really not sure why people even try to bring this up. Does it sound smart or witty to point it out because its obvious? I don't get it. Obviously he likes winning, but he hadn't faced a defense of MSU's caliber yet - closest was Notre Dame and until all hell broke loose, we really struggled - so I think it's possible he didn't have his gameplan down. The fact that we were still doing so many of the same things against a bad Iowa defense 3 weeks later confirms this for me. The fact that we looked very different this week...yeah. 

And yeah, you're right. If we had Fitz to run 20+ times against State and Denard to run 20+ times and only throw 18, I think we win that game too. Kind of my point. 

CRex

November 21st, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^

During losses I have this little mental conversation with myself: Fan Me: Argh, why, why, why. Crappy offense, why are we doing this dumb stuff. Brain: Hey remember the DeBoring Era? Fan Me: Kind of, not really. Brain: Right, because we could shotgun 6 beers at the stadium, lurch into the stadium, and still guess the play 60% of the time. When I'm senile and can't even remember the name of our kids, I'll still remember hearing "Chris Perry carry" over the speakers. Guess how often the sober defensive coordinators were able to guess DeBord's calls? Fan Me: Well yeah, but... Brain: So what did you keep saying? Fan Me: "I want an OC who tries something new sometimes...". Brain: Right which is what we're doing. Oh and then we had 2009. Installing the new system at all costs. Liver never recovered from that one. Liver: Soooo much scar tissue.... Fan Me: But but the option works so well. Brain: Yes until midway through the season when Denard is dead by the 3rd quarter, EVERY DAMN GAME. So we used heavily Tate and pissed away Gardner's redshirt with that style of play. Only Tate's not here anymore to ball our asses out in triple OT is he? Fan Me: But if we just ran a little more.... Brain: Then we'd be starting whats his name that Bellomy kid would be our starter against tOSU because your genius plan would have Denard dead by the 7th game and Devin dead by the 10th game. Or maybe you'd prefer hearing Jack Kennedy freestyling under center? Fan Me: Well okay... Brain: Damn right bitch, respect my authority.

michgoblue

November 21st, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^

I totally agree with this.  Every time I start to buy into the "why don't we run Denard more, OMG this is frustrating" I remember that last year we ran him a ton, and by the time we go to the latter part of the season, he was dead.  And, death aside, he wasn't that effective because the better defenses just stacked the box and forced him to the air, where he hadn't really had much success.  By forcing Denard to actually throw, Borges is making him into a better, less one-diminsional QB who will have a chance of (a) living to play in the OSU game at something close to full strength, and (b) having success against OSU because OSU will have to somewhat respect his arm.

coastal blue

November 21st, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^

he was dead to the tune of 100+ yard games against Iowa, Penn State, Wisconsin and OSU. 

Carry on believing that Denard is a frail porcelain unicorn. 

jmblue

November 21st, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^

Denard was knocked out of all of those games, save PSU.  What's better for the team: Denard rushing for 100 yards in 2.5 quarters and then getting lost to injury, or Denard rushing for 80 yards and staying healthy for 4 quarters? 

What I really like about this year's offense is that we can have an effective run game without needing Denard to give a superhuman effort.  His mere presence on the field constitutes a threat that the defense has to account for and opens things up for Toussaint.  We don't need to run him a ton, just enough to keep the defense honest.

coastal blue

November 21st, 2011 at 4:50 PM ^

Denard was knocked out of MSU, Iowa and Illinois this year on fewer carries was he not? 

There is no logic in saying the coaches were "saving" Denard when they ran him 20+ times against three of the weakest teams on our schedule or trying to compare games in which he was "injured" or "knocked out' of games last year when he's been knocked out of games on fewer carries this year. It's a physical game. He's a smaller qb, he's not Tim Tebow. He might  get shaken up here or there, but he hasn't, in two years, save Illinois when he had concussion like systems, been "knocked out" of a game where he couldn't come back if needed. 

Do you honestly think he couldn't have come back in against Iowa, Wisconsin or OSU? If those had been one score games, he would have been back in there. It didn't happen this way. 

You say that we don't need Denard to give a superhuman effort and that's true. Toussaint has been a second half revelation. But in our best offensive performance to date, Denard had 23 carries against Nebraska, compared to just 18 pass attempts. To me, that balance is a lot more effective than what we saw against MSU and Iowa. Especially when 4-8 of those carries end up with him just stepping out of bounds. 

It's really okay to say that the coaches didn't have their offensive gameplan down in the first 9 games of their first season with someone else's personnel. It's actually something one would expect and I'm extremely happy they've figured things out. 

Edit: I know he wasn't "knocked out" of Iowa and MSU in the sense that he didn't come back. I'm just saying he had to take a series off and then come back. If we had been down by 3-4 scores, they probably would have just sat him. 

Wolverine MD

November 21st, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^

OU is deploying the "Gator Heavy" formation with their backup QB Blake Bell for 3-4 weeks. They lost their bruising tailback to an ankle injury and have been left with Vincent Smith-type running back in his stead. In short yardage, I've seen OU fail from this formation once (and that was an attempted pass). Just about every time this kid runs it, it's first down or touchdow.  Guess it helps he's 6'4 255.

stubob

November 21st, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

Oklahoma drove down the field to set up the scoring TD. The brought in the aforementioned huge QB (dude looked like a TE), a FB and a TE/H-back. They just plowed into the endzoe to be down one. It looked like Stoops was going to run it again to win, but the offense got a false start called and they kicked to send it into overtime.

I don't know if we have enough huge guys to pull it off, though. Maybe Devin/Hopkins/Koger.

Ziff72

November 21st, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^

I think the Odoms TD was basically the point guard pulling up for a 3 on a fast break and yelling NO! until he makes it then you say YES!

Odoms was double covered and when Denard let it go he had no idea he would be open.  The Neb safety makes a terrible play to allow this to happen.   It was thrown in a good spot, but a good play by the safety and it's picked.

msoccer10

November 21st, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

Odoms was actually 5 yards past the safety at one point. Denard was looking at the other side of the field and many fans started screaming when they saw Odoms burst past the last defender. Live I thought Denard screwed up because he waited too long. By the time he did let it go the defender had recovered a bit.

But I totally disagree that the safety had a play on the ball. That was the best throw Denard has made as a Wolverine and the only person who had a shot at the ball was Odoms who caught it in full stride. It was a laser rope.

CRex

November 21st, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

The "Hoke Hiring" post that Brian links to has the the hiring presser embedded.  I just spent the past 15 minutes listening to the "THIS IS MICHIGAN" part.  Also the part where Hoke reminds a certain asshole journalist that he has 5 Big Ten championship rings and a NC ring.  

BrownJuggernaut

November 21st, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

I'm not sure how surprised we should've been with Hoke's aggression. Since he came to Michigan, he has preached the importance of having a tough, strong team. We've joked about "Manball." When I think of strength and manliness, I think aggression is coupled with it. I also think that accountability, one of the Hoke principles, is a part of it too. His players have put in the work and now he trusts them. He shows it with the aggressive playcalling. He trusts that the offense or the special teams will get the first down. If not, he trusts the defense. I think either way, that shows confidence in your team. 

He says he's not a numbers guy, but doesn't seem he makes very strong calculated decisions? He's like the Tom "durr" Dwan of football coaches.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 21st, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^

Coaches are always too conservative with their last timeout and this tendency bit Michigan after they ran a couple times at the end of the first half. After Robinson biffed by trying to get to the sideline instead of reading the block Toussaint had made on the closest defender, the clock burned 30 seconds before the third down snap.

I know you want to have that timeout for a field goal attempt but in a situation like this you know the clock is going to run and you're not sure that will be the case down the road. A spike is a quality option with five seconds left; not so much with 48.

I don't agree with this, if only because I just watched Florida State fuck this up so epically on Saturday in more or less the same situation.  With 30 seconds left on the UVA 35, needing a FG to win,  they ran up the gut to get to the 30 (making it a makeable-for-their-guy 47-yarder) and then called their last TO.  Everyone on the FSU sideline and in the huddle knew the clock would run after the play, and they knew this before the play, and then knew they were already in FG range, and didn't plan to spike the ball.  WUT?  They then took an unnecessary shot at the end zone, which was broken up, and then called a sideline pass meant to be completed and then taken out of bounds, stopping the clock and setting up the game-winning FG from about 40-42 yards.  But the pass was ruled complete and inbounds, and the clock ran out.

If you spike, you cost yourself the shot at the end zone, but so what?  Not having that timeout, on the other hand, meant they almost got burned by the unthinkable: a complete pass, inbounds, with not enough time to set up for the FG and no timeouts to stop the clock with.  If you know the clock is running, get up there and spike it!  In the 2-minute offense with between 60 and 30 seconds left, the offense should always, always know ahead of time: If the clock is still running after the play, SPIKE, except on fourth down.  The only thing that bailed out FSU was that the pass was luckily reviewed as incomplete; the call on the field was complete with the clock moving.  Because that kind of thing can always happen, the final timeout should always be the last card you play as a last resort.  Not the first option for stopping the clock.

Of course, then there was Ron Rivera coaching the Panthers yesterday in Ford Field and calling his last timeout after a Lions run play at 2:06.  WUT??  How do you burn your last timeout to save six seconds?  Is the 2-minute warning a surprise to this guy?