Here's an idea:
let's hire a very well regarded coach, who runs a system completely different from ours.
lets give up our power I system for the spread.
our new guy is an offensive guru, the defense will take care of itself
will the in-house power structure accomodate getting away from the style of play we are accustomed to?
Tell me the difference.
During the 2008 season, when things were horrible like WHOA on offense, some people asserted that Rodriguez should be running a Carr-style under-center set until he recruited the players he needed to run his Spread & Shred. This was shot down because, as it was put over and over, "He'd have no idea how to run it", and it would make it difficult to recruit for the offense he wanted, "We'll be running the offense you like... in two years." People accepted this and were unhappy whenever the O faltered, which was often, but accepted it as necessary to bring the team into the future. It's not really the offensive stumbles which got everyone upset anyway. It was the worsening defense and uncompetitive losses. When we won, it was good, but when we lost, we REALLY lost.
When Borges was hired, people had hope because he had run spread style offenses before. He might be able to make what he's got work better than Rodriguez did. And you know what, he is. Talent deficit or no, Borges isn't trying to make Stephen Threet run. But it doesn't always work. Sometimes, in spending a while trying to integrate what he wants to do, Borges gets away from doing what the offense is best at. People get upset. "Run out of the shotgun full time! More Zone Read! MOAR BUBBLE SCREENS!"
My question is, is it merely the fact that Borges has done these things before that's earned him less understanding for WHY he is not doing these things? Has his more varied experience shortened his rope? I think it has, and I don't think that's fair.
Borges has a plan for the Michigan offense. A place he wants to get it to. Just because he has experience with the Spread doesn't mean he should be expected to run it while Denard is here. It would make recruiting worse, and it would be unfair to the fans and the players when we suddenly had to go through an offensive transition in year three rather than year one. Give Borges the same rope as you gave Rodriguez on offense in the first couple of years. When he runs plays that don't really seem to fit the offense, don't say "Why not the other play?" Not the other play because that's not where he's taking Michigan, and it would hurt us later if he did.
He has an obligation to install the BEST package for him andthe players he will recruit right away, rather tahn preserve a momentary flash in the pan. At least our losses have been competetive.
Reading through the coverage on Penn State, I realize how much we have to be thankful for at MIchigan. The practice hours debacle, the coaching debate, all of it, pales in comparison to Sandusky and PSU.
For that matter, what Tressel and TP and everyone else at Ohio did doesn't even begin to compare to Sandusky and Penn State. (I suppose they're relieved in Columbus: "Finally!! something big enough to take the focus off of us! ESPN will leave us alone now!!")
It struck me, how would I feel if this tragedy had happened at Michigan? What about Ohio? Or even Michigan State?
The Fab Five scandal, practice gate, coaching change from RR to Hoke, Moeller's resignation, they all fade in comparison.
I really feel bad for Penn State fans. How do you recover from something like this? Your honor, your reputation, are in ruins and tatters, all gone.
It has been hard reading Three and Out. You feel as if our dirty laundry is out in public, and that the infighting and pettiness is revealed for the world to see. However, the scrutiny from Bacon and the book are like a walk in the park compared to the proctological exam PSU is going to go through.
We have an awful lot to be thankful for!
Thankfully, Denard had the season that he did. His athleticism forced the media, other coaches, and Michigan fans to acknowledge that he is a unique talent that needs to be utilized AT QUARTERBACK. Hopefully the inherent, often unfair, pressure that is placed on incoming Michigan coaches (see RR) will be positively applied to Al Borges and Brady Hoke in order to inspire a prolific offense at Michigan that is a hybrid of both Borges' and Robinson's areas of expertise.
It is discouraging that Al Borges has a history of being an offensive coordinator that seems set in his ways, considering the personnel he will have to work with for the next few years. I’m hoping that the success of Denard and this year’s offense will have an impact on Al Borges’ philosophy from day one. Brian mentioned that his traditional West Coast style utilizes the threat of the pass to set up the run. What are the chances that he abandons this even a little bit by using the threat of Denard’s legs to set up the pass? I’d like to be optimistic but given Borges’ track record, I’m not.
Brady Hoke acknowledged that he has a special talent in Denard, and hopefully he believes it as much as we do. If it isn’t already apparent, I was irate about the firing of RR, but I completely buy in to Hoke as a Michigan Man who will do everything he can do to win. Hopefully he will insist that his passion for putting Michigan first rubs off on Borges. It really is not that difficult to adapt if one can swallow their pride and admit that there are other ways of doing things. West Coast offenses use similar blocking schemes as we have these last few years. We have a diverse stable of running backs that can run isos and also get to the outside. Implementing the zone read and its associated pass-looks into what Borges knows and loves would be a smart basis on which to build what he envisions as our offensive future.
I think the majority of us are hoping for an offense similar to last year’s, but also realistic that this will probably not happen. Are there any instances in which a West Coast style OCs has implemented the spread option INTO his traditional offense to adapt to personnel/changing times? Does anyone agree that implementing a few zone read packages into the Borges playbook would be beneficial not only to this team, but for the long run in Ann Arbor? I understand that we want coaches to teach what they know, but I think we’ve all seen the effectiveness of dual threat quarterbacks and the offenses that can be built around them (See this year’s national championship teams).
Nevertheless, I wish I was more optimistic about seeing a hybrid of Borges and Rodriguez on the field this fall, but I’m not. Any words of encouragement would be appreciated.
This post is in reference to the below post about Rosenberg writing Harbaugh is unlikely to come to Michigan.
Today, Rosenberg ran an article stating the following:
So I expect this to come down to San Francisco or Ann Arbor. My gut says he ends up at Michigan, but I don't know.
As for his thoughts if Harbaugh turns Mich Down:
No, if Brandon offers the job and Harbaugh says no, it will be only because he likes the 49ers' opportunity more, or because something didn't feel right about the U-M regime.
He writes two articles/updates on the same day - this only says one thing.
Plain and simple, no one knows! Chillax peeps.
See the full article below.
Alright, legitimate post time.
Brian's post on the front page regarding the progress of the basketball team since the essential reformatting of the squad, namely the axing of the entire coaching staff by Beilien and the willingness to let two experienced guys walk has gotten me thinking. The basketball team has clearly benefited via addition through subtraction. They are playing better with less experience, and, one could argue, no substantial addition in talent. (Yes, we've got some exellent young guys, but the guys that are gone weren't too shabby).
So the question becomes, was it the changeover in staff that has created the bulk of the positive change this season? Is it Bacari Alexander and the rest that are to be most credited with this solid success?
If so, I want to know what you all think that means for the football team. We've already tried changing D-Coordinators. Didn't work. However, there is some consensus that the initial change was simply because fans, alumni and everyone else needed a sacrificial lamb after that attrocious 2008 season. I'm not sure if we can count the inditial D-Coordinator change when we try to decide if replacing more staff will help the team this time.
The other factor to consider is that, as opposed to the Basketball team, we're not looking at a fresh bevy of talented but inexperienced faces for next season. For the first time in a while, we're going to finally return an experienced, established squad that is familiar with their position coaches and scheme and so on.
Keep in mind that this is not just defensive either. Though the offense was clearly killer this past season, it also had its share of problems. Most notably, turnovers (fumbles) and, in the later season, substantial red zone issues (kicking game withstanding, because I don't even want to get into that).
Obviously, some changes in the coaching staff need to be made. I guess at the heart of the matter is this question:
In light of the basketball team's early season success after a wholesale staff changeover, assuming Rodriguez remains as coach for the 2011 season, and considering both the returning experience of the team AND the problems that plagued a variety of position groups this past season, exactly how much of the staff do you think Rodriguez should replace? Is D-Coordinator enough? Should he gut the defensive side of the ball and bring up position coaches from all over? Do any offensive guys get it?
I don't care so much WHO you want to see brought in as who you think, ideally, needs to be replaced to see the squad perform at a much higher level next season.