What would you like to see change on offense?
In 2010, our offense was our strength, but let's face it, it was a bit wobbly and inconsistent. Everyone knows about the turnovers, but I also felt we had increasing trouble running the ball and getting yards on 3rd down. Oh, and that "failing to score after driving" thing.
A lot of people have speculated (rationally) that we'll see a drop-off in productivity (in terms of yards) as we transition from spread-and-shred to "west coast spreadish" or whatever, and Brian has demonstrated the concerns many of us have about, regardless of rhetoric, Borges bringing more "square pegs into round holes" solutions.
On the other hand, maybe there are things we can do a lot better once we incorporate some more formations, short passing routes and so on. I, for one, think a hybrid offense is both plausible and, in some ways, desirable.
I'd like to see:
*More time-killing drives, so we can keep our young defense rested and tire out some of the big, lumbering front 7s we'll face
*More dump-off pass options when receivers are covered downfield, thus cutting down on interceptions
*More screens without the word "bubble" in them, to take advantage of when our opponents blitz us
*More crossing routes to our stable of fast slot receivers, complete with downfield blocking for more YAC
Now, I'm not saying we move all the way to West Coast in year 1. This would be a huge mistake. But if Borges is smart, he'll expand our offense's repertoire rather than try to transform it overnight. Personally, I think these additions--alongside the spread-and-shred stuff that worked for us this year--would help cut down on turnovers and give us more options for controlling a given game.
What changes do you think would be both advantageous and reasonable to expect?
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:33 AM ^
I would like to see us score more points then our opponents.
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:35 AM ^
Ooo, risky answer.
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:34 AM ^
i know carr ran it every once in awhile, but the qb quick passes out ot the left then runs to the right sideline and the WR throws it back to him.....if it worked for Navarre, Henson, Brady i cant imagine it not wokring once or twice for Denard
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:37 AM ^
The defensive unit scoring some pick 6's. That would be some sweet offense!
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:39 AM ^
3 Yards and a cloud of dust...thats what I want to see!!!
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
If we turn into 3 yards and a cloud of dust, I will probably lose a lot of interest; It's bad enough watching us play Wisconsin every year.
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:49 AM ^
Aggressive toughness, with smashmouth Big Ten aggressiveness and toughness. And bigger.
/s
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:51 AM ^
Haven't seen a trick play in 3 years! Double reverse or a throwback to Denard! How about flea flicker?
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:54 AM ^
I would like to see a little more power run game and a little less designed runs for denard. With that said, I would like denard to take off more from the pocket instead of forcing passes.
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:57 AM ^
That sounds like a recipe for success!
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:57 AM ^
If I could just get the sense that each and every player knew their assignment and I felt comfortable that we weren't risking a turnover every play I'd be happy.
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:29 AM ^
The old-fashion "double pass" play that Michigan's used forever. Basically, Denard throws a screen, and then the WR throws it back to a wide open Denard.
PA Roll-outs with Denard's speed would be dangerous. He also seems to throw accurately from a run.
Denard needs to know when to get out of bounds, and not take needless hits. An extra 4 yards (in most situations) is not worth him going head-on with a linebacker.
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:32 AM ^
Drops were huge last season and that could definitely use improvement. I lost count of the number of times Denard made a perfect throw and it was just not caught despite being very catchable.
I'd also like to see more post catch ninja skills like Hemingway vs Illinois.
And lastly, as much as I like Vincent Smith overall, I'd like to NOT see him on a 3rd and 1 situation.
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:05 AM ^
Can we please get someone to kick a field goal? Is there a stud on the M soccer team that could kick for us? Did you know that OSU's kicker is 27 years old? When are we going to start paying for players again? This is clearly the only way to win - ask Cam Newton and his Dad.
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:31 AM ^
...as a "must have" for every lineman (both offense and defense) going forward. We need more mental toughness in the trenches. Maybe Hoke's 9-on-7 drills will help instill this?
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:05 AM ^
His "mental toughness" led to a lot of stupid penalties.
January 23rd, 2011 at 6:25 AM ^
1000 yards rushing out of a single running back. This will give us 9 to 10 wins.
January 23rd, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^
no, it won't.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:11 AM ^
I disagree. With our offensive talent, a legitimate backfield threat other than our Quarterback will allow our offense to get over the hump and actually score points instead of churn yardage. Do you have an actual opinion on this?
January 24th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^
1000 rushing yards does not translate to wins. Last year, UConn had 2 rushers get over 1000 yards and went 8-5.
Remember that there's this thing called defense. Remember also that this offense will look considerably different next season.
January 23rd, 2011 at 7:07 AM ^
...is every drive result in no penalties and a touchdown.
Well... you asked!
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^
average starting field position
3rd down conversions
time-of-possession
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
2. RBs that can carry the ball more than three times without getting hurt.
3. A staff that won't keep Stephen Hopkins on the bench in favor of VS on third-and-one.
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
1. Better production from RBs in terms of stats.
2. A Dynamic Running Back to emerge, and to not only be consistent but dynamic at RB.
3. More motion a la Auburn and Oregon.
4. I don't care about how often we go to I formation/ under center, but it needs to be more effective when we go to it (see 1&2).
5. An upperclassmen starting at QB (check).
....and really a QB who is a little slower, I mean Denard's ridiculous speed is interfering with my desire to watch conservative MANBALL next fall : D
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:37 AM ^
1. Toughness
2. Effort
3. See #1, #2
January 23rd, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
means nothing.
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
Fewer turnovers.
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
This x a gazillion
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:50 AM ^
I don't want to see Michigan running their smallest guy (V. Smith) into the line on third and short. That was pretty infuriating and never worked.
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
Some out routes.
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
January 23rd, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
Balanced attack with multiple formations. Stop the mistakes. Score points when opportunity arises. Hit some people hard.
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
Definitely more of a power running game. Also need to develop more shorter routes that aren't just bubble screens. A lot more slants and 5-10 yard crossing routes would be nice.
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
and we rode it to a national championship in 1997: naked bootleg with a pass option to a wide open TE. This was Griese's bread and butter and I can't imagine not scoring a TD every time with Denard having the option to run it up the sideline or pass it to a wide open TE.
Please, Santa, I've been a good boy this year (so far). Make it happen.
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:44 PM ^
When you have a consistent threat when you hand it off. So yeah, I'd love to see it too, but it's not gonna happen until a real threat at RB emerges.
This past year, the most effective version of this we had was Denard starting to run and then throwing to a wide-open WR or TE. Early in the season, this was near unstoppable. Later on it was stoppable, though, and I think the fact that the naked bootleg is so high percentage makes it desirable. But as it stands, LBs will just follow Denard and the DBs crowd the field right in front of him so he throws an INT. If someone in the backfield becomes a 20 carry/100 yards a game type, then this becomes a serious option.
Then there's the second problem, which is that you need to line up under center and hand off a bunch before you can run this effectively. We'll probably do more of that this year, and do it more effectively, but as soon as we lined up under center last year things got ugly. Another reason why we didn't run this play, and preferred other types of fake-the-run-throw-the-pass plays.
Finally, Denard needs to really learn when it's best to run and when it's best to pass. As promising of a QB as he is, his decision-making skills need improvement. His biggest advantage in the waggle/naked bootleg would be faking out the defense one way or the other, a la Vince Young. He's not good at that yet.
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
MOAR POINTS
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^
that is all
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
The turnover ratio would be first.
Second would be a consistent lead RB who can get at least 4 on first down, and who can convert in the red-zone and on short-yardage downs.
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
... throw to an OPEN Maize and Blue guy, or pull it down and run, or throw it OB.
(I think we beat MSU that way...).
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:08 PM ^
throw it ACCURATELY to an open guy.
Roundtree was open at least twice against MSU and Denard just threw behind him.
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^
I pulled my hair out several times when he was stuffed on third and one.
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:02 PM ^
I'd like to see us do something in the red zone. Something that doesn't end in a missed FG or a turnover.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:19 PM ^
We had some of the worst red zone offence that I have ever seen. We couldn't score any touchdowns in the red zones and it was horrible. I hope that Hoke can fix that up.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:33 PM ^
to see the turnovers cut down!
January 28th, 2011 at 9:38 PM ^
Field goal tries that don't spike my blood pressure.