I know you're incapable of disagreement without shitting on people. I know that's the way you are, and it's been explained to me in PM that you've been doing it for five years now and there's no way you're ever going to change. It's a shame we have to share an enthusiasm for Michigan football.
Blah, blah, blah. And I know you insist upon the correctness of your nonsensical ideas and then fall back on your "woe-is-me everybody's picking on me and my spreadsheets schtick." Stick to the debate.
Pass plays gain about 7 yards per attempt in college football. Run plays gain about 4 yards per attempt. But teams don't pass on every down. Why? Because pass plays are inconsistent compared to run plays. With Denard's runs, the distribution is more like a pass distribution - feast and famine.
You see, this is what you've done this whole discussion. You make unsubstantiated statements as though they are gospel. But you've been demonstrably wrong at every turn. Please support your assertion that Robinson's runs are "feast or famine," and thus Michigan doesn't move the ball "consistently." First you said his ypc were low in the Big Ten losses, but then I showed you that he averaged nearly 6 ypc in the Big Ten, which is, of course an outstanding average. Now you're saying it's feast or famine. But where's the famine? In Michigan's 5 Big Ten losses last year, Denard carried the ball 106 times. Only 23 of those carries, or 21.7% resulted in a gain of fewer than 3 yards. And the worst individual game in that regard was against Sparty, where 6 of his 21 carries (or 28.6%) gained fewer than 3 yards. In case you're unaware, gaining under 3 ypc on only 21.7% of rushes is an outstanding
result. I'm not sure whose offense you think DOES move the ball consistently, but for example against us last year, OSU gained under 3 ypc on 18 of their 45 rushes, or 40%. In Auburn's insane 65-point, 330-yards-rushing performance against Arkansas, they did so on 13 of 49 carries, or 26.5%. There is simply nothing to the argument that Denards rushes were feast or famine. While there was certainly a good deal of feast, there was remarkably little famine.
If you look at correlations between winning and losing, passing yardage is largely irrelevant, while rushing yardage is not. I would argue that with Denard's run distribution, his rushing yardage should be treated more like passing yardage. Because Michigan does have more three-and-outs than most teams.
Please back up this theory. Michigan was certainly not among the Big Ten leaders in fewest 3-and-outs, but its percentage was 37th best in the Country (71% of drives resulting in at least 1 first down). Here's how Michigan's 3-and-out situation was in the 5 Big Ten losses (other team's 3-and-outs in parentheses). Denard had 2 three-and-outs vs. OSU (though Tate also had two) (3); 2 vs. Wiscy (0); 2 vs. PSU(1); 2 vs. Iowa (4); 4 vs. MSU (2). So by my count, with Denard at QB, Michigan had a total of 12 3-and-outs in 5 Big Ten losses, while our opponents had 10 3-and-outs against our abomination of a defense while going 5-0. And beyond that, of those twelve 3-and-outs, in only 3 of them did Denard run the ball more than once. In the great majority of them, he passed the ball at least twice. The moral of the story is, if you want to avoid 3-and-outs, have Denard rush the football. If you want to punt, give it to Vincent Smith, or have Denard try to throw it.
It's a nuanced argument. If you can't keep a straight face, perhaps you're not mature enough for a discussion board.
Oh, snap. Good one. You called me too immature for the internet!
Seriously, there is not a reasonable person alive who believes Michigan did not move the ball consistently with Denard running it last year. The team was #12 in the country in percentage of drives lasting at least 10 plays. Football Outsiders had Michigan #2 in the country in S&P rushing and #5 overall, and #2 in offensive efficiency. Your impression just does not comport with reality.