Announcement

**hack** · February 20, 2018, 12:21 PM

Rather than the by-committee playcalling, IMO it's the position coaching that is the relatively bigger thing to worry about.

**WingsFan** · February 20, 2018, 12:44 PM

Harbaugh hip replacement - more later

**hack** · February 20, 2018, 02:16 PM

Interesting. Good luck coach!

**hack** · February 20, 2018, 02:18 PM

None of this still makes any sense, so it's time for the varyous Varyses to put their little birds to work. The team hired an OL specialist as analyst when it has an OL problem? The team hired a WR coach when it already had a passing-game coordinator who sucks as QB coach? I'm not suggesting that Warriner is going to be the double-secret clandestine OL coach while Drevno gets to keep the title, or something like that, but I've got to imagine that this shakes out into a far-less nebulous situation soon enough. It would really suck if this is what it is.

**Detroit Dan** · February 20, 2018, 04:38 PM

Thankfully, all this stuff doesn't seem to bother me. I'm still full of optimism based upon the two previous recruiting classes.

2017 sucked because of QB play, although all 3 had their moments. Incremental improvement may be enough. I have to wonder about the coaching, but Harbaugh's got a good track record so I'm confident he'll do what needs to be done.

In the meantime, the basketball is enjoyable.

**Jeff Buchanan** · February 21, 2018, 07:55 AM

Maybe some hopium for the masses .......

There's a post at mGo that takes Bill Connelly's returning production rankings a step further by inserting Shea Patterson's passing stats from 2017 into the calculation for M. Connelly concludes that returning passing and QB productivity has the highest correlation with wins in subsequent seasons than other factors. You can read his article here:

2018 CFB returning production rankings: Clemson’s ready. Who else?

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/1/31/16950222/2018-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience

Also: It’s put-up-or-shut-up time in Ann Arbor, and the Pac-12 South’s got a long way to go.

In Connelly's analysis M has 74% returning offensive production and that number is depressed by M's terrible passing stats for 2017. If you plug in Patterson's 2017 passing stats, M's percentage increases to 100%.

There are some issues with the mGo calculations and these are freely admitted in the article. Primarily, Patterson's numbers were achieved in a different system playing teams in a different conference. Amyway, if you lke this stuff like I do, it's an interesting read; some of the comments are also worth viewing:

Another (Alternative) Look at Returning Production | mgoblog

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/another-alternative-look-returning-production

With Bill Connelly recently releasing his returning production rankings (link below), I wanted to take an admittedly more simplistic look at returning production on our schedule and in the Big Ten. I've started with the offenses and might do a defensive version if this is well-received. I think the best barometer for what a team returns on offense is the raw percentage of yards produced from the previous season. For the purposes of this exercise, I have factored in Shea Patterson's 2017 statistics as if he were to be declared eligible in the fall, because by most accounts he will be. Numbers for every team in the conference and on our schedule in the chart below, sorted by Total Percent Returning. Team 2018 Returning Pass Yds/2017 Pass Yds 2018 Returning Rush Yds/2017 Rush Yds 2018 Reurning Rec Yds/2017 Rec Yds 2018 Return Off. Production/2017 Off. Production Total Percent Off. Production Returning Michigan 2931/2259 1805/2310 2078/2226 6814/6795 100% Wisconsin 2689/2689 3025/3121 2011/2689 7725/8499 91% Purdue 3270/3270 1944/1970 2158/3270 7372/8510 87% MSU 2793/2798 1614/2182 2289/2798 6696/7778 86% SMU 3789/3823 2396/2397 1502/38/23 7686/10043 77% Maryland 1721/1940 1881/1940 840/1940 4442/5820 76% WMU 1978/1978 1469/2697 1584/1978 5031/6653 76% NW 2873/3040 746/2264 1917/3040 5536/8344 66% Iowa 2473/2473 305/1810 1689/2473 4467/6756 66% OSU 626/3679 2607/3405 3659/3679 6892/10763 64% PSU 3736/3772 939/2212 1404/3772 6079/9756 62% ND 2326/2326 1598/3501 1099/2326 5023/8153 62% Illinois 382/2098 1082/1267 1527/2098 2991/5463 55% Indiana 1252/3188 1476/1561 1493/3188 4221/7937 53% Minnesota 0/1513 1371/2178 1186/1513 2557/5213 49% Nebraska 192/3330 1345/1290 2297/3330 38347950 48% Rutgers 676/1387 454/1765 741/1387 1871/4539 41% Some Notes: Obviously this shows how important it is that Shea be declared eligible. Without him, we return only 672 passing yards, which drops us to 67% returning overall (there's a slight chance that would cause Wilton to come back, which would put us at 76%). Some may point out that Shea accumulated his passing yards in a different system with different teammates, so it might not be accurate to simply transfer 100% of his production to our team for this exercise, and that is a fair critique. That being said, I think the larger point with including Shea's numbers is that Michigan is bringing in a guy who has started 10 games in arguably the best conference in the country - that is a huge talent and experience boost to an offense that is now plenty experienced outside of the QB position. Wisconsin brings back nearly everyone from the 41st ranked S&P offense. The only major loss is obviously Fumagalli. Fumagalli was Hornibrook's go to, so we will see if that affects their passing game. They do get Quintez Cephus back from injury, however. Purdue loses their top two receivers, but brings back everyone else. Jeff Brohm should see more improvement this year and Purdue probably gets up to 8-4 or 9-3. A couple big boys in the conference need to make sure not to overlook them this year...or do overlook them and get upset, that's fine with me. Michigan State returns a lot as well, but they are dangerously thin at RB. Michigan also returns a higher percentage of receiving yards than MSU, which Connelly believes is most indicative of offensive improvement. Ohio State's numbers are deceiving. They lost JT Barrett who had a great statistical year, which puts a huge dent in their returning passing yards and a significant dent in returning rush yards. However, in limited action, Haskins actually put up better numbers than JT, and, to make that even scarier, nearly 100% of OSU's receiving yards return. They lost far more on defense than they did on offense, but OSU's offense is going to be a problem this year as long Haskins transitions smoothly to full-time starter. The poor get poorer. Minnesota, Nebraska, and Rutgers are the only teams on this list that return fewer than 50% of offensive production. PJ Fleck has no Quarterback returning that has thrown a pass, and Scott Frost barely has one at Nebraska. Meanwhile, I had no idea that last year's pretty bad Rutgers was actually very experienced. Rutgers is hoping that losing bad seniors is actually addition by subtraction (except they lost an impressive RB in Gus Edwards and the electric Janarion Grant, so probably not). Finally, Notre Dame returns both QBs (one was okay, one was pretty subpar as a passer) who played last year, but returns less than half of both rushing and receiving yards, and are even thinner than MSU is at RB. Plus, this chart has not taken into account Offensive Line losses, which Notre Dame has suffered in losing two probable first rounders in LG Nelson and LT McGlinchey. I think they are going to struggle mightily to move the ball against us in Week 1. Penn State is in a similar situation with their QB (who is actually good) returning, but the vast majority of rushing and receiving yards departing, and they should see an offensive set back year as well. Bill Connelly's Article: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/1/31/16950222/2018-ncaa-…

**iam416** · February 21, 2018, 08:04 AM

Dan is always a breath of fresh air. He has all the unbridled enthusiasm of The Oracle without the ill-temper.

Heh, the comments are great, Buchanan. I like the notion that if Speight played all games last year M goes 11-1 and that M is at least 90% to beat Sparty this year.

**Hannibal** · February 21, 2018, 08:07 AM

Pretty much the same clown coaching staff, other than our ridiculously talented WRs actually having a position coach this year. But we lost our only competent OT and pretty much everyone else is the same.

**Jeff Buchanan** · February 21, 2018, 08:38 AM

Surprisingly, to me anyway, OL returners had the lowest correlation with subsequent wins of any of the offensive categories.

IMO, the OL is key to the offense. Just an anecdotal sense, nothing else. I'm not sure any of the fancy-stats have figured out a way to determine the contribution of the OL to success on offense. It's all eyeball at this point.

I'd like to see someone, or find it if it's already been done, do an analysis of the correlation between PFF grades of a team's OL and it's predictive value with respect to wins.

**iam416** · February 21, 2018, 08:46 AM

I think the problem with returning productivity is that it entirely ignores what is replacing lost productivity. What would make this piece far more valuable is correlating new starter PFF w/ recruiting ranking or, perhaps, by program. For example, we know that Alabama first year OL average X PFF in their first year.

The other problem -- related -- is that the correlation comes from all 128 teams. I totally get how returning players matter at schools like Akron, Arkansas State and M -- where you're relying on years of program development to get mediocre talent up to snuff. But, at the elite programs it doesn't seem to matter all that much.

In 2016, of course, Ohio State lost everything and everyone and made the CFP. This year Sparty and M bring everyone back and OSU returns virtually in terms of QB productivity, loses 2 key OL, several key DL and a top 10 NFL draft CB. Does anyone really want to bet against OSU in the East, though?

**Jeff Buchanan** · February 21, 2018, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by iam416 View Post

.........In 2016, of course, Ohio State lost everything and everyone and made the CFP. This year Sparty and M bring everyone back and OSU returns virtually in terms of QB productivity, loses 2 key OL, several key DL and a top 10 NFL draft CB. Does anyone really want to bet against OSU in the East, though?

Probably not. The problem is that we really have nothing but history to base this on. It's backward looking where as fancy stats do have predictive value even with their inherent faults.

IMO, with respect to 2018, you could be victimized by osu's history, especially it's recent history. M fans, most of them, except maybe members of the Hanni cult, have been victimized by M's past history no matter how far back it went.

If you apply Connelly's data to predicting osu's 2018 success, things don't look so rosy for your boys. YMMV...... and I know your's will so, I'm making this post for the benefit of M fans. Heh ...:D

**iam416** · February 21, 2018, 11:55 AM

Indeed. Things also rarely look rosy for Alabama.

**Jeff Buchanan** · February 21, 2018, 12:30 PM

Yeah, well, Bammer cheats...... and don't try to tell me you didn't lead the charge in criticizing the use of their inherent leverage that got them into the final 4.

**Detroit Dan** · February 21, 2018, 04:03 PM

Don't try to bridle my enthusiasm! <rears up on hind legs>

**WingsFan** · February 22, 2018, 12:54 AM

Announcement

Please support the Forum by using the Amazon Link this Holiday Season

Michigan Football, Team 139, 2018 Season

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment