Coach’ Corner: Did UM Improve in 2010, A Look At Both Sides Of The Argument.
Posted at 8:00am — 12/15/2010
Coach’s Corner: Did UM Improve in 2010, A Look At Both Sides Of The Argument.
Several months ago, GBMWolverine placed forth an obvious statement that does not qualify for the label truly remarkable. The general statement essentially posited the view that the won and lost record of the Head Football Coach at the University of Michigan would not be the sole, or perhaps even the dominant criteria in the smoldering decision concerning whether or not Coach Rod would be retained. The above line of thinking was set forth by the less than rousing statement by Director of Athletics, David Brandon, before the 2010 season in stating Coach Rod will (now would) be Michigan’s coach this year. Further statements seemed to logically imply that team improvement, probably across the board, would be the leading criteria in any such decision.
Therefore, here is a GBMWolverine look at the question of team improvement from the 2009 team to the 2010 team.
At the onset, please be advised that the “analysis” will discuss both quantitative data (called statistics, etc) and qualitative data, called comments. The statistics are somewhat skewed by the high scoring 2010 overtime win against Illinois. But there is some regressing to the mean, at least offensively, due to the 2009 Delaware State inflated yardage. So, in statistics, with a big enough sample error evens out; at least in theory.
Our fine readers may want to keep in mind the forever to be remembered quote of Mark Twain: “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
The record:
Michigan went from a disappointing 5-7 mark in 2009 to an improved 7-5 in 2010. The Big Ten record also improved two games to 3-5 from 1-7. This improvement is in the eyes of the beholder, sufficient or non-sufficient? A won-loss record is the simplest and most dramatic empirical piece of quantitative data, but by itself should not be sufficient to make a determination of improvement. Qualitatively, one may safety say that the 2010 team was clearly better in certain areas and regressed in others, a not uncommon phenomenon in any large venture.
The offense:
Michigan clearly improved from 2009, and there is one primary, overriding reason: the play of Denard Robinson, the offensive MVP of the Big Ten.
The quantitative look at the offense is summarized below. All stats were taken from the MGOBLUE official site.
Stats … 2009 … 2010 … Result
Points scored … 29.5 … 33.8 … +
First downs-rushing … 120 … 144 … +
First downs passing … 107 … 128 … +
Rushing yardage … 2234 … 3013 … +
Passing yardage … 2380 … 3000 … +
Fumbles/fumbles lost … 28/13 … 29/13 … push
Average per pass … 7.2 … 8.7 … +
Touchdowns rushing …27 … 35 … +
Touchdowns passing …15 … 21 … +
Total Offense … 4614 … 6011 … +
3rd Down conversions … 40% … 46% … +
Time of possession … 26 minutes … 27 minutes … push
The qualitative analysis follows thusly: Clearly the offense was indeed improved over the course of the year across all facets of measurement. The black eye is fumbles (and actually total turnovers). The quarterback play of Denard Robinson has pumped up the rushing and passing totals. It is stated here for agreement or disagreement that the ability to better implement the passing game downfield was a catalyst for the big improvement in passing game yardage, sans the threat of Denard running. There are of course other factors in the improvements, namely better numbers from the wide-outs, especially Roundtree, and an improving offensive line, one that still struggles against big, talented athletes. Enough has been said, the offense has improved due to talent and natural maturity. But one glaring deficiency remains: the overbearing number of fumbles this team produces.
And now for what all of you have been waiting for, with superb patience, the statistical breakdown of the defense.
Stats … 2009 … 2010 … Result
Points allowed … 27.5 … 33.8 … –
First downs-rushing … 115 … 113 … push
First downs passing … 103 … 135 … –
Rushing yardage … 2063 … 2252 … –
Passing yardage … 2657 … 3123 … –
Average per pass … 7.3 … 8.1 … –
Touchdowns rushing …20 … 30 … –
Touchdowns passing …18 … 18 … push
Total Offense … 4720 … 5375 … –
3rd Down conversions … 37% … 42% … –
The qualitative look yields the obvious, based on the above statistics, Michigan’s defense, at least statistically, was worse off in 2010 than 2009; a feat some, but few, thought possible. Any attempt to isolate lack of performance is futile, since the misery is almost equally distributed though all units. Michigan gave up over 5300 yards and no team is going top-ten or championship hunting with that resume.
The special team statistics, as one would beforehand conclude, are cut and dried and presented below. Only this year’s stats will be listed. Last year Michigan had an All American punter in the great Zoltan and adequate field goal kicking from a senior red-shirt.
Punting … 43.6 yards (Hagerup only) … push
Field goals … 4-13 … Opponents 19-21 … –
Kick returns21.1 … Opponents 21.4 … OK
Punt returns … 5.4 … Opponent … 9.8 … –
All numbers and opponent comparisons on kick returns and punt returns are slightly down from 2009. The fumbles on the punts were the greatest concern. So, the 2010 special teams were not of Virginia Tech quality, but hardly the brunt of any Michigan problems, excepting of course the extreme field goal difficulties that caused changes in game strategy not always conducive for team success. Keep in mind that while the kick return yardage for the opponents looks down, the opposing returners had the advantage, especially early on, of catching the ball near the ten yard line. The combo of that plus the 21-yard average put opposing offenses a few yards ahead of ideal expectations.
The individual units are sometimes difficult to quantify, no unit more so than offensive linemen who are frequently judged by yards per carry and amounts of sacks given up. The yards per carry was very high this year for the UM offense, but be guarded in that Denard’s numbers skewed the team average upwards. The sacks given up were acceptable. As such the offensive line and backs can claim improvement, although the numbers may be somewhat deceptive.
The quarterback rating, rushing yardage, and passing yardage were all on a significant upswing. Once again the big factor was Denard Robinson.
The receivers were a mixed bag with very good games and down games, big catches, and shocking drops. But overall improvement can be claimed, led by our favorite Roy Roundtree
The defense’s only major difference from 2009 to 2010 was the graduation of Brandon Graham and D. Warren departing school, leaving Michigan with only Roh at the edge (when he played there). Take every unit and the problems and results are almost identical, regardless of the perceived cause(s).
The pros for program improvement:
And so on the offensive side of the ball the program is heading in the right direction. The offense was flat-out scary early on and shows evidence of being unstoppable in the near future. As stated before, chalk much of the credit up to quarterback and offensive line play.
If top recruit Dee Hart, who many believe will recommit to UM if Coach Rod is retained, makes his way to Ann Arbor, a major weapon, one Slaton-like, will only make the offense more dangerous and take the heat off of Denard Robinson to be a one-act opera.
Michigan’s two extra wins, largely if not totally due to offensive improvement, provide a bowl opportunity for the first time in three seasons against a decent team from America’s best conference. The benefits of the extra 15 practices cannot be overstated.
The two game difference was of course Illinois and Purdue, two teams that Michigan found a way to lose to in 2009, but found enough of a difference maker in the offense to beat in 2010.
While some would not agree, UM did beat Notre Dame on the road, a task that even in the down times in South Bend, is still difficult. UM also narrowed the gap between themselves and perennial Big Ten power Penn State on the road. Finally, Coach Rod has a track record of success that hopefully can carry over to UM if given the time.
The arguments against team improvement:
Despite an additional two wins, UM still was unable to beat any of the top 5 teams in conference play (MSU, OSU, Iowa, Penn State, and Wisconsin). UM for the third year in a row finished with a sub .500 record in The Big Ten and tied for 7th. The offense is better, but the defense is not any better and may actually have regressed. UM still does not have a signature win within the conference. The special teams have also regressed and were just horrible at times this season, most notably the field goal fiasco.
The team once again faded in the middle of the season as the competition level increased. The offense, and the entire team, is too reliant on Denard Robinson, heaven help us if something happens to him!
Think it over and decide for yourself.
Written by GBMWolverine Staff
Go Blue — Wear Maize!