U-M vs. OSU: Tale of the Tape

The Ohio State defense is one of their best ever, and A.J. Hawk is being called by a long-time U-M insider as the best college MLB ever. How does Michigan match up -- both defensively and offensively? Here is our season-final "Tale of the Tape" ... this time including commentary as well.

Ohio State versus Michigan. Their Big Ten rankings for the various statistical catagories. This time we'll look at offense vs. offense, defense vs. defense.

OFFENSIVE STATS:

- Scoring Offense: OSU 5th @ 33.3 ppg; U-M 7th @ 29.6 ppg
- Total Offense: OSU 7th @ 403.3 ypg; U-M 8th @ 395.6 ypg
- Rush Offense: OSU 4th @ 196.7 ypg; U-M 7th @ 177.7 ypg
- Pass Offense: U-M 7th @ 217.9 ypg; OSU 10th @ 206.6 ypg
- First Downs: U-M 8th, OSU 9th
- 3rd Down Efficiency: OSU 2nd @ 47.7%; U-M 7th @ 43.0%
- Red Zone Efficiency: OSU 6th @ 82.9%; U-M 7th @ 79.2%
- Time of Possession: OSU 1st @ 32:10; U-M 2nd @ 31:41
- Sacks Given Up: OSU 5th @ 1.6 per game; U-M 7th @ 1.9 per game

Individual Offensive Stats:
- Rushing: Antonio Pittman is 5th @ 111.0 ypg
- Passing: Chad Henne is 8th @ 203.3 ypg; Troy Smith is 10th @ 182.2 ypg
- Passing Efficiency: Smith 1st @ 160.3; Henne 8th @ 130.8
- Total Offense: Smith 5th @ 238.7 ypg
- All Purpose Offense: Ted Ginn 7th @ 134.5 ypg; Pittman 8th @ 123.4 ypg; Steve Breaston 9th @ 122.3 ypg
- Receptions/Game: Jason Avant 2nd @ 7.0
- Receiving Yds/Game: Avant 2nd @ 90.0

Conclusion:
Both teams are in the middle of the pack offensively. U-M may have the edge in passing, although OSU's high passing efficiency rating means they make the most out of their completions (Troy Smith rolls out and completes long passes). OSU has the edge in rushing, although the appearance of a healthy Mike Hart could more than even up the rushing attacks. OSU's 3rd down conversion percentage is excellent, again attributable to Troy Smith's run/pass abilities on 3rd down. Both teams have excellent Time of Possession stats, meaning they know how to control the ball -- OSU with the running game and Smith's scrambling, U-M with the short passing game and, if/when Hart is healthy, the running game.



DEFENSIVE STATS:

- Scoring Defense: OSU 1st @ 14.2 ppg; U-M 4th @ 18.7 ppg
- Total Defense: OSU 1st @ 277.3 ypg; U-M 3rd @ 340.6 ypg
- Rush Defense: OSU 1st @ 78.7 ypg; U-M 4th @ 137.9 ypg
- Pass Defense: OSU 1st @ 198.6 ypg; U-M 2nd @ 202.7 ypg
- Pass Efficiency Defense: U-M 2nd @ 113.1; OSU 3rd @ 114.5
- Opponent 1st Downs: OSU 1st; U-M 3rd
- Opponent 3rd Down Conversions: OSU 1st @ 27.6%; U-M 3rd @ 35.7%
- Red Zone Defense: OSU 2nd @ 75.0%; U-M 9th @ 86.0%
- Sacks: OSU 1st @ 3.8 avg,; U-M 6th @ 1.8 avg.

Individual Defensive Stats:
- Tackles: A.J. Hawk 5th @ 10.2 tpg; David Harris 9th @ 8.0 tpg
- Sacks: Bobby Carpenter 2nd @ .8 spg; Hawk 3rd @ .75 spg; Mike Kudla 5th @ .65 spg; Lamarr Woodley 8th @ .5 spg.
- Tackles For Loss: Woodley 2nd @ 1.39 per game; Hawk 3rd at 1.2 per game; Carpenter 5th @ 1.05 per game

Conclusion:
OSU leads the league in most defensive categories. Especially impressive are their 3rd down, sack, and tackles for loss stats. However, Michigan has been been increasingly strong defensively as well, and have seemed to have figured out the running-QB-led spread offense.



SPECIAL TEAMS STATS:

- Net Punting: OSU 1st @ 39.3 yds; U-M 7th @ 36.3 yds
- KO Coverage: OSU 2nd @ 43.0 yet yds avg; U-M 3rd @ 42.1 net yds avg
- Punt Returns: Santonio Holmes 3rd @ 14.7 yds avg; Ginn 5th @ 12.2 yds avg; Breaston 4th @ 12.9 yds avg.
- KO Returns: Ginn 2nd @ 29.6 yd avg; Breaston 4th @ 26.9 yd avg
- Field Goals: Josh Huston 1st @ 85.7%, Garrett Rivas 2nd @ 73.9%

Conclusion:
Here is where the game could hang in the balance -- special teams. Breaston, Ginn, Holmes -- their individual stats could well determine the outcome of the game.



MISC. STATS:

- Turnover Margin: U-M 3rd @ +.4 per game; OSU 10th at -.5 per game
- Penalties: U-M 1st (best) @ 31.3 ypg; OSU 5th @ 47.5 ypg

Conclusion:
IF the turnover-margin averages hold for this game, U-M wins.

The Michigan Insider Top Stories