Bright, Sunshiny Unverified Voracity
Site update. It took a little longer than we thought it would but we have restored commenting abilities for IE users. This serves as your regular reminder that you should switch to Chrome or Firefox. Also, users should be able to upload avatars again. Also I updated the "MGoElsewhere" menu a bit so it contains links to twitter feeds for both Tim and Tom.
The destruction of the innocents. Basketball beat Northwestern 75-66 yesterday as Jordan Morgan went ham (11 of 13, 27 points) against the Phantom of the Opera and John Shurna failed to exist. Shurna's been limited much of the season and apparently picked something new up recently. His last three games are a DNP against OSU and two games in which he played around 25 minutes but only attempted 5 field goals. Michigan may have gotten a little fortunate there.
I don't have a ton to say that UMHoops didn't cover in the link above but some praise is in order for Morris, Hardaway, and Douglass for setting up Morgan's monster night. Almost all of Morgan's baskets were assisted and even on the ones that weren't his teammates were setting him up in excellent position. Example: Douglass had an excellent post feed—in a year when any post feed is a rarity—that allowed Morgan to immediately spin baseline for a layup. Northwestern's D is terrible so this may stand as a career game for Morgan but it was good to see him be so efficient after that Ohio State game where going up soft cost Michigan badly. Morgan started the game off in similar fashion before becoming ruthless.
Meanwhile, at one point I exclaimed "shoot that!" when Hardaway passed up an open three. Progress all around. I wasn't even that mad about the terrifying Northwestern run because it was four straight three pointers, two of them challenged to the point where there could have been a foul.
Kenpom moved a bit afterwards. Not losing a game Michigan was only mildly favored in pushed the season prediction to almost exactly 17.5-13.5 and increased the chance of reaching 9-9 and therefore the bubble to 16%. Slightly beating the prediction moved Michigan up to 52nd, one spot behind Michigan State.
More fodder for next year's optimism. The Only Colors tracks an individual stat called PORPAG that sort of mimics baseball's VORP. (The usual caveats that basketball is a team game and you don't know about defense, etc., apply.) A quick glance at their top 15 shows Darius Morris sixth. That's excellent. More excellent still is that only four players in the top 15 are going to be around next year: UW's Jordan Taylor, Morris, Shurna, and IU's Jordan Hulls. The rest are seniors or Jared Sullinger. So not only is Michigan returning everyone but the rest of the Big Ten is getting hammered by graduation.
This is not a throwdown. So one part of the now confusingly diverse Maize 'n' Brew crew got sick of my repeated assertions that The Process was the worst way to acquire any new head coach, Brady Hoke or not. The result was this very long post that asserts Michigan's most recent recruiting class is "awesome" and makes other arguments that I don't even know what to do with. Since that post's been disputed by another of that site's contributors and effectively countered by a long message board thread here that's surprisingly light on snark and image macros. I'll forgo a response (other than, you know, this) because Mets Maize made it pointless:
One Small Step for Hoke, One Giant Leap for Hokeamania
There you go: the events of the last month delivered with maximum pith. Nothing has changed the fact Michigan had a candidate pool of one in their coaching search that started in January that they were probably going to start no matter the result of the bowl game.
Hopefully we'll start seeing some reason for optimism other than Mattison soon. Nothing in the intervening weeks qualifies, not even Jason Whitlock's endorsement.
Wasted effort. The Sporting News's Dave Curtis went to some trouble to find out that converting third downs is a good idea. It's gotten play a few places because it's February 10th and the long hard college football offseason has started. I don't like this because I am all mathy and stuff and this…
All five BCS bowl winners ranked among the nation’s top 13 teams in third-down differential. The differential statistic, not officially computed by the NCAA, takes a team’s third-down conversion rate on offense and subtracts its opponents’ third-down conversion rate.
…is not useful at all. "Drives are good," it says.
Worse, it places undue emphasis on third down itself when first and second down are equally, if not more, important. This has unfortunately succumbed to linkrot but back in the day I did an analysis of third downs by distance and frequency, coming to the unsurprising conclusion that short was good and great third down conversion rates are often more indicative of what you did before third down than anything else. Just looking at third down rates is goofy because first and second down contribute to the distance you have to go—you're really looking at "first and second and third down conversion rate," which is fine if you want to look at that. Just don't make it seem like third down is really really important when your number doesn't control for the effects of first and second.
Old news. I got distracted writing posts on the 4-3 and Tim Hardaway that ballooned into way longer thing than I thought they'd end up being, so some items fell through the cracks. You've seen these already if you read anything other than the front page here.
One: Wojo interviewing Brady Hoke. Amongst the increasingly familiar Passion For Michigan, Denard As NFL Vick, and Tremendous Toughness segments were a couple of things that are not familiar. One was Hoke saying he was "pissed off" at Michigan's factionalism the past three years, which is a refreshingly blunt way for a coach to say anything. The other was the admission that beer had a role in shaping Hoke's physique:
Q. Did you just drop a hint you were a bit wild back in your college days?
A. Uh, yeah, for two years I really didn't have the best goals in mind. I wanted to play football and try to drink every beer in Muncie, Ind. And I tell parents that on visits.
I'm trying to ignore the bit that follows wherein "funnest" gets deployed. Football coaches and grammar, man.
Hoke comes off as likeable, down to earth, etc. Even if you're of the opinion that ADs tweeting out old Jason Whitlock articles as evidence in favor of anything is awful, at least the guy he hired has a solidly positive rootability factor.
BONUS:
Q. How often do you chew a kid's tail?
A. Oh, usually daily.
Do yourself a massive favor by taking that out of context.
Two: De-emphasizing Denard, a little bit. This is almost a week old and has the freshness of Abe Vigoda but:
"To a degree … we're blowing a lot of it up," new Michigan offensive coordinator Al Borges said. "In our offense, I don't see Denard rushing for 1,700 yards, and I told him that. But I could see him rushing for 1,000 yards, and I could see him throwing for that 700 or 800 he didn't rush for."
Hives hives hives hives hives… mmm smaller, treatable hives. Borges later praises Denard's completion percentage as a couple other coaches make noises about a running game that looks "a little different" and emphasizes more "downhill" running. It then throws this in at the end:
Michigan was eighth nationally in total offense, averaging 488.69 yards, 13th in rushing (234.54), 25th in scoring (32.77) and 36th in passing (250.15).
…and returns ten starters. I'll come around on Al Borges after he's got a tall strapping fellow bombing it for 10 YPA but the chances I don't spend next year bitching about the misapplication of Denard Robinson are slim. I'm not even sure how you get him 1,000 yards if he's taking snaps from center. You can only run so many waggles and Incredibly Surprising QB Draws. As always, I hope to be pleasantly surprised. Hoke uber alles.
Etc.: Michigan picks up a 2013 hockey commit; JT Compher is a forward from Illinois who seems high-end, like first-round OHL pick and easy NTDP pick high-end. We'll see if that holds up as he ages. Mets Maize on the Northwestern game. More justified hockey grumbling. Spring game will be April 16th. Michigan football documentary series planned. The Wolverine Blog points out that the guys who "couldn't shoot ever" now can and that's probably another thing we can add to the list of reasons Darius Morris is awesome. Scot Loeffler becomes Temple's OC.
February 10th, 2011 at 4:58 PM ^
You really can't ever resist taking a shot at Rodriguez, can you?
February 10th, 2011 at 9:31 PM ^
and asked the same thing above. It's almost like RR personally violated Nate Volk in some way and now he is going to let everyone know how screwed over he was.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^
Shouldn't be hard to improve upon what Rodriguez had going and the offensive production last year -- after all, what did that guy (and his staff) know about offense?
February 10th, 2011 at 5:24 PM ^
I know that Nate Volk's shot at RR was umprovoked, and unnecessary. But, as to the substance of what he said, it actually is not entirely unreasonable:
" He only needs to be more efficient against good teams, value the ball better than the 08-10 versions, and keep Robinson from getting beat to a pulp."
This is true. Our offense piled up great stats, but "against the good teams" we (1) didn't take care of the ball, (2) were not efficient, and (3) did allow Denard to get beaten to a pulp.
It is not unreasonable to expect that if we can take care of these issues, even if our stats are less gaudy, we will be a better offense "against good teams," which is something that we clearly were not this past year.
I do think that RR is a good offensive mind, but I don't think that his 2010 offense was as good as the rankings made it out to be - to me it was an offense that was capable of putting up a shit ton of points against inferior competition but of doing precious little against better competition.
By the way, cool avater image.
February 10th, 2011 at 6:41 PM ^
I understand our offense put up tons of huge numbers and had tons of big plays. But it was not nearly as efficient as it could of been. Many points were left on the field, I can remember multiple awful playcalls inside the redzone and RR's inability to adapt to the fact that his kicker couldn't kick. RR may be an offensive genius (and I didn't even want RR to be fired), but I truly believe any competent OC in the country could have put up similar amount of points this season with Denard.
February 10th, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^
How exactly do you adapt to having no field goal kicker? We pretty much stopped attempting anything but chip shots / 4th and 13 situations by halfway through the season.
And to the whole inefficient offense meme, DENARD ROBINSON WAS A FIRST YEAR STARTER. A first year starter who had essentially nonexistent mechanics 12 months ago. HE WAS GOING TO MAKE MISTAKES. He was (hopefully still is) going to improve. Do you think those were called interception plays?
February 10th, 2011 at 5:20 PM ^
SHHHHH I think I hear the noise of a street urchin.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:45 PM ^
"He only needs to be more efficient against good teams,..." Oh, is that all?
I'm not that concerned about the defense, mainly because I have low expectations. We're not going to have a good defense next year. But, thanks to coaching competency and maturity, we're not going to have an atrocious defense. We're likely to be average to slightly below average. Throw in a maturing version of last year's offense, and I'd be more than ok with this. But right now, the offense is a question mark. Its success last year was largely due to the marriage of Denard's unique abilities and Rodriguez's system. Now we still have Denard's unique abilities, with a new system that is purportedly being designed around him. But then there are the question marks. We don't know exactly how Borgess plans on getting him those 1,000 yards. We don't know how Denard's passing ability will translate to a west coast style passing attack. We don't know what kind of chemistry Denard and his receivers will have in a system where both will have to make the right read on every play. We don't know if our "downhill" running backs will stay healthy (Touissant), hold onto the football (Hopkins) or solve whatever mystery problems were keeping them off the field (Cox). That is a lot of unknowns from what is supposed to be our "good" side of the ball.
I feel that being optimistic is thinking that next year we're very good on offense, providing similar to slightly declining offensive production from last season. With an improved defense, that's probably good enough for 8-4/9-3 or maybe 10-2/11-2 if we get some MSU/Iowa style luck. Pessimistically, I could see the offense slipping down to slightly above average if Denard doesn't take to the new offense very well and Borgess proves unable to fully utilize Denard's legs. If that happens, we're probably fighting for bowl eligibility again.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^
We threw the ball just short of 30 times a game last year when you add up all the QB's production. I would hope that fewer Denard runs doesn't mean more Denard throws to offset that.
Hopefully any dip in Denard's rushing production is made up for by an increase in the production of the tailbacks, not an attempt to get more from Denard's arm.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:27 PM ^
It's interesting that this Borges quote has been out there for almost 2 weeks, and this is the first time that anyone has said this. Great point. Our running game under Denard was pretty much non-existent outside of Denard.
According to Fred Jackson (recent interview in DetNews, I believe), this was by design, where the RBs functioned largely as lead blockers.
We know that Denard will not run 20+ times per game, so his runs will decrease. I agree with you that hopefully these runs will go to the RBs, and not into many more throws. Denard actually threw plenty last year.
Of course I think that much of this will be dependent upon whether one of our RBs can step up and establish themselves as able to take on a load and be effective.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:46 PM ^
I think the health of the running back position and the way games played out had a lot to do with the direction the offense took. Shaw (like Minor before him) couldn't stay healthy and everybody behind him on the depth chart put up about a yard less per carry. Add in that the team was often playing catch-up (or just "keep pace") and it seems nuts to take the ball out of the hands of the guy putting up 6.6 yards a carry who can also throw the ball downfield.
A healthy Shaw or healthy/improved versions of Fitz/Hopkins will be a big key next year if the offense is going to fire on all cylinders.
February 10th, 2011 at 6:08 PM ^
We may have stumbled upon a critical drawback to the Rodriguez offense: the use of tailbacks as lead blockers for the QB may significantly increase their odds of injury. Being a lead blocker is a thankless task that results in many violent collisions. Fullbacks get the crap beaten out of them, and they usually go 240 or more. Asking a 210-pound tailback to play that role may be too much. When you see Minor, Brown, McGuffie, Shaw and Toussaint all go down with serious injuries in a three-year span, it may not be a coincidence.
February 10th, 2011 at 6:23 PM ^
The use of those guys as lead blockers wasn't really all that common until this year when they implemented a bunch of non-read plays for Denard. Minor got hurt because he tried to truck a linebacker on every play (something he was awesome at). McGuffie was tiny and got rocked on that kickoff return against OSU as well as a few times carrying the ball. I think Toussaint and Brown were born with nagging injuries.
Mike Hart seemed to get dinged at least every other year and he was never a lead blocker. I remember Clarett having loads of little injuries during his one big year at OSU. I think it is just the nature of the position.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
Thanks Brian! Its good to be back after almost a month. This is my first post after the IE user problem.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:32 PM ^
The picture of all those empty seats pisses me off. If you were willing to sit in the upper deck, you could have showed up before tipoff, had two tickets for $9, a free glossy Darius Morris picture, free popcorn, and a $5 gift card to the M-Den.
Any posters here in Metro Detroit who weren't there. . .what was your excuse?
February 10th, 2011 at 5:46 PM ^
February 11th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
Good point on the 6:30 games. They are killer. I don't understand why the BTN double header can't be 7 and 9. Getting out of work at 5, 5:15 getting home to get my kid and getting there is next to impossible, and I've already sunk the money into season tickets.
February 10th, 2011 at 11:28 PM ^
Great deal, GREAT game, great time with my son. Sad that the place was half full.
February 10th, 2011 at 11:48 PM ^
Yeah, I hate seeing Crisler half full as well. I think the main problem is that everyone expected the team to be terrible this year, so not that many people bought season tickets. I'll give it a pass for the remainder of this season, but next year it shouldn't be less than 75% full for any game.
I assume Dave Brandon will do some kind of football-basketball season ticket deal, because they really aren't doing a great job of marketing it right now. The renovations should help as well.
February 11th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^
That for the last game of the full Fab Five at Crisler, lots of tickets were available the day before the game...?
February 10th, 2011 at 5:45 PM ^
"I'll come around on Al Borges after he's got a tall strapping fellow bombing it for 10 YPA but the chances I don't spend next year bitching about the misapplication of Denard Robinson are slim."
And I suppose running Denard (mostly on called plays with no deception) until he got banged up or knocked out is a proper application?
Also, I'm not sure how much of Borges' offenses at SDSU and Auburn Brian has actually, you know, seen. There are torrents available. Dude runs plenty of shotgun.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:54 PM ^
To me, this is the film/tape to look at. McNown was constantly moving outside the pocket. Plugging Denard into virtually the same offense gives him loads of rushing opportunities (and the ability to make more out of those he takes than McNown could). Throw in a half dozen designed runs and you're giving Denard the 10-15 carries a game that I think would be ideal for his effectiveness and health.
The question is, do we have a back who will step up and be the Skip Hicks/Deshaun Foster that keeps the defense honest and allows us to pound the ball on first/second down.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:46 PM ^
I'll come around on Al Borges after he's got a tall strapping fellow bombing it for 10 YPA but the chances I don't spend next year bitching about the misapplication of Denard Robinson are slim.
Brian, if you find yourself doing that, keep this in mind: Denard was knocked out (at least temporarily) of eight games last year, and in four of those he never returned. It's one thing to ask a 250-pound bull like Cam Newton to carry it 20 times a game, and another to ask that of a guy built like a wideout.
February 10th, 2011 at 11:41 PM ^
This is true, but it's also true that everyone on here was complaining that V. Smith was constantly wasting downs with 1 yard runs into the opposing D-line. What was the alternative? At what point in a game do you clip the wings of the best weapon on the field? We had a solution for this: his name was Dee Hart. Hopefully some of Fred Jackson's hyperbole will actually start turning into great RBs. This, or major improvement in Denard's abilities as a pocket passer, are the only solutions to limiting Denard's runs without losing offensive production.
February 12th, 2011 at 12:51 AM ^
February 11th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^
I think there is a happy medium that we can all agree would be a proper application of Denard. I don't think Brian is saying he won't be happy unless Denard runs 25 QB power isos a game. I think he is saying that a misapplication of Denard would be him handing the ball off 30 times a game, passing 30 times, and having 5 rollouts.
FWIW, I think Brian is being overly pessimistic here. I don't see either of these extreme scenarios unfolding, which makes me think Borges will find the happy medium.
I have been one of the leading proponents of the "the coaches know a fuckton more about football than Random Internet Man" meme, and I think it needs to be applied across the board. Borges might not be a revolutionary like RR, but he's been around the block and I doubt he will be unaware of or unwilling to use the special talents of Denard. My guess is that Denard will run a lot less than he did last year, but not so much less that his talents will be wasted.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
...El Jeffe. Using extreme examples to make points is good for generating angry replies, bad for generating illumination. So tired of the haters whether they are RR, DB, LC, BH, or AB haters (hoping this comment is buried so far in here that it won't spawn the cliched series of responses).
February 10th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
RR/Magee's usage of Denard on ISQLDs (Incredibly Surprising QB Lead Draws) was nominally less imaginative or predictable than Carr's ISQDs.
Those goddamn predictable lead draws were a huge waste of Denard's ability. Get some misdirection going. Try to fool somebody, anybody, and increase the chances of getting Denard loose in open space for cryin' out loud.
I don't want to hear bellyaching in the Fall with rosy memories of the 2010 offense that scored 7 points against OSU. I expected more creativity and progression out of RR's offense and I never saw it. Mississippi State knew exactly what we were going to do and shut it down quite easily.
Bellyaching should only be warranted when our 2011 offense is less effective against good teams than our 2010 offense was. That is NOT a tall order to fill.
February 10th, 2011 at 6:57 PM ^
but I'm just going to sum up everything I had to say with this: You apparently don't understand the read option offense.
February 10th, 2011 at 8:05 PM ^
Less and less read option plays were being called against the talented defenses we faced. And in general this is the problem with Brian NOT doing a UFR of the OSU game. If he really wanted to prove his point with data he could analyze all the play calling of all the games. I'd hypothesize that the read option became less productive later in games, and also later in the season. Thus by the time of the OSU game they knew how to perform the LB scrape to defend the read option.
Also, once your defense puts you incredibly behind in points, the OC must start call more high yield plays, like say a pass downfield.
Another interesting analysis could be an over/under on Denards average yardage per game and the yardage in each game he played. I wonder how many Big Ten games were like the ND game?
I don't know if it was a lack of talent from our running backs, or just the high learning curve of Rodriguez's read option system, but from my watching of games it really seemed like Wisconsin and OSU especially shut down the running play production, with the exception of those plays where the tight end became a full back and the tail back became a second full back for Denard.
Running Backs get pounded on their arms and shoulders constantly from all the tackling. This is fine if all you do with your arms is hold onto a ball. Getting your shoulder pounded over and over and then trying to throw the ball far and accurately is just not going to happen.
the bottom line is this, if Denard is in the offense, then exciting things are going to happen. Not because of the scheme he runs, but because he is Denard.
This discussion is pointless speculation until we see the spring game. At least for guessing what Al Borges will do. Someone who likes math could demonstrate from the past season how effective read option plays were while the season progressed.
Brian has given up on analyzing all of the past season. Unfortunately he's still drawing conclusions from that incomplete analysis and applying them to baseless speculation.
February 10th, 2011 at 11:46 PM ^
I think the lack of read play production came down to the lack of elite RB talent. Denard making the wrong read was often no worse than V. Smith making the right read. Knowing this, opposing Ds could just force the read to be handoff every time, since our tailbacks couldn't exploit the advantages of the read-option.
February 10th, 2011 at 8:24 PM ^
Great last paragraph. This really says it all.
February 11th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^
February 10th, 2011 at 6:17 PM ^
It seems like Brian has already made up his mind to bitch about the Al Borges offense.
I hope I misinterpreted that.
The reason I come here instead of going to the MSM is because I believe the guy who runs this blog is NOT some prejudiced hack.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^
I really hope Borges does a great job. And I will consider it a great job not by the total offensive numbers but by how much the offense helps us win games. But I think what Brian is trying to say is that it is hard to imagine a situation where Borges can change the formations and terminology used and still have an offense that is as productive as Rodriguez 2011 (w/ Dee Hart) would have been. That isn't Borges fault exactly. And I think Borges can be very successful here eventually, but Rodriguez knew how to get the most out of Denard. Anyone who thinks that you could get more than Rodriguez did out of a true sophomore first time starter without a complimentary running back is fucking crazy, imhe.
February 10th, 2011 at 6:20 PM ^
That remains to be seen what happens in the fall, but I pray, and with Borges I think there's a decent chance it comes true, that I don't have to watch Smith get the hand off on 3rd and short and try to run it up the gut.
February 10th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^
is not my favorite word, either. But if it helps Hoke relate to 18-22 year-old young men who run fast and hit hard, I'll learn to live with it.
February 10th, 2011 at 11:48 PM ^
I dunno, he better clean that up or the bluehairs will think he's an uncultured hillbilly. Hopefully he's never enjoyed a Disney animated film.
/s, but not really...
February 10th, 2011 at 6:46 PM ^
how bashing on RR is in poor taste but ripping Borges when we haven't even seen the offense yet is okay. You don't have to be blindly optimistic but you could at least give him a shot before you start complaining. I don't care if we don't set offensive records against Illinois and Delaware St. as long as we score more than 7 against tSIO. Some consistency would be welcome.
February 10th, 2011 at 8:51 PM ^
Borges has had elite level success at multiple stops. SDSU had a top-20 offense last year. Auburn was a top-15 team every year he was there and Borges posted the best offense in the SEC twice in four years (with a different QB and RB) while also being named offensive coordinator of the year by Rivals in 2004. At UCLA he was twice a Broyles Award finalist and the team had back-to-back top-10 finishes with one of the best offenses in the country. In one year at Oregon he posted over 400 yards a game. Boise State went to the 1-AA championship game in his second and final season there. Before that he put up huge numbers at Portland State. Other than not being able to make Indiana good in two seasons (which, Who could?), his resume shows quality at every stop.
On the other hand, Greg Mattison hasn't been a college DC since 2001. Notre Dame went 35-25 when he was there and never won a bowl game, while posted a number of embarassing results on his watch. They surrendered 41 points to Oregon State in the Fiesta Bowl. Surrendered 42 points in the first half against MSU once. Completely flabergasted by Joe Tiller's spread offense and the bubble screen to the tune of 350 passing yards by Billy Dicken. Twice steamrolled by Stanford. Lost to MSU because an all out blitz on 4th and long allowed freshman Jeff Smoker to easily complete a 68 yard game-winning TD pass. Etc., etc., etc.
In other words, not an unmitigated success. He then couldn't get another coordinator gig so he stayed on as Ty Willingham's DL coach and recruiting coordinator where, despite being "the best recruiter ever", he oversaw ND's atrocious 2004 recruiting class (which featured six 2-star commitments out of sixteen signees). He then caught on with old friend Urban Meyer who gave Mattison the co-DC label, despite the fact it appears Charlie Strong ran the show. Even if we want to give Mattison credit for his role in Florida's solid defense, his presence doesn't appear to have been missed as the team posted back-to-back top-10 defenses with Strong at the helm after his departure to, of all things, coach linebackers for the Baltimore Ravens (a move folks generally don't make if they are running the defense at an elite college program). A year later, Mattison was the default hire to coordinate the star-studded Ravens defense following Rex Ryan's departure, and unsurprisingly Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, etc. played pretty well.
It looks to me like we have one coordinator we should be really excited about hiring and one we should remain leery on. For some reason, the conventional wisdom seems to disagree with me on which one is which.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
I think the problem Brian has with Borges is that he is changing the offense. I believe that if Rodriguez had stayed, and with Dee Hart and all the returning starters, that we would have had the best offense in the country and the Heisman front runner. By having a coach who doesn't run the spread come in we may be setting ourselves up for the future but we are also changing what was a dynamic offense that would have likely been a lot better in 2011. Its like the old addage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
And as far as coming up short against OSU and Miss State, OSU had a really good defense and if Denard didn't miss a wide open Roundtree and if we had a kicker we score at least 17 on OSU in the first half. Auburn, the national champs only scored 17 on Miss State. We went for it on 4th down in field goal range (for a normal kicker) twice, so our offense delivered more points than the national champs. I think the idea that our offense didn't perform against the better competition we faced is a specious argument because of our kicker and a true sophomore first time starter belies the fact that we were able to move on those teams but didn't score because of shit outside Rodriguez's control. That plus the fact that no team inthe country put up big numbers against the better teams we faced. That is because they were good teams, not because there was a fundamental problem with our offense or the coaches.
You have a good point about Mattison. I think the recruits aren't looking at it the same way though. I have already read several quotes along the lines of " Ray Lewis is my favorite player and the Ravens D is awesome so I am really excited they hired this guy."
February 11th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^
I agree that our offense would've been great next year under Rodriguez/Magee. I'm just pointing out that it should still be great under Borges, even if it looks a little different. The reason they will be so good is because they return the best offensive weapon in the conference, the 3rd leading receiver in the league, 3 really good returning starters on the o-line, a talented stable of backs, and three productive senior wideouts. When you have those weapons and a smart guy calling the shots, there really isn't much need for worry on our part.
The bullshit about systems and "square pegs" was retarded three years ago (our offense would have sucked under any offensive system ever conceived of by mortal man) and it is just as dumb now. These "systems" are still asking players to do most of the same stuff (namely, play football) and in the current era acting like there is some sharp dividing line between "stuffy old pro style" and "spread n' shred" is silly. Everyone uses the shotgun and multiple wideouts from time to time. Pretty much everyone runs some version of the zone read (I've seen Threet do it at ASU, in fact) whether with their QB or a Wildcat (another annoying bit of nomenclature) player.
As for Mattison, until he actually lands a defensive player with as good or better offers than Michigan (still hasn't happened yet as far as I can tell), I'm going to reserve judgment on the whole "every recruit would go gay for this guy" meme.
February 10th, 2011 at 7:09 PM ^
that the once-proud peeps of this board have drunk all the kool-aid registered trademark and are lying around like Odysseus's crew waiting to be eaten by the Cyclops/Jim Jones' followers sprinkled through the surrounding Guyana jungle. I mean, have some pride, dude. At least say you're suspending judgement/waiting to see don't just chew the fat guy's willie as if you went to Purdue or someshit. It really is possible to like him and wish him well and still think Brandon blew it.
February 10th, 2011 at 10:09 PM ^
That someone who went to Michigan wrote this poorly written paragraph. Though I always find it funny to see someone who's in the Cult of Rich Rod calling others Kool-Aid drinkers.
February 10th, 2011 at 11:50 PM ^
I don't know, I find the juxtaposition of classic Greek literature references with poor grammar and tasteless sexual imagery to be fascinating, if not particularly enlightening.
February 11th, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^
February 11th, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^
I'd be proud to count you among Michigan's finest.
February 10th, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^
I'll be honest here, I stopped paying attention about the time "the process" began.
So I'm gonna have to ask the stupid question.
With regards to Borgess putting Denard under center?
Huh?
I'd have to rate that move far more ridiculous than anything GERG came up with, including Roh at linebacker.
February 10th, 2011 at 8:51 PM ^
This whole post seems to be just sarcasm and misguided anger masquerading as analysis, but the one comment that stands out as the most inane is this one:
"Hopefully we'll start seeing some reason for optimism other than Mattison soon. Nothing in the intervening weeks qualifies, not even Jason Whitlock's endorsement."
You haven't seen any reason for optimism from the moment Brady Hoke stepped behind the podium when he was introduced? Come on. None of us can predict the future, but if you cannot see any reason for substantial optimism in the way our new coach has gone about his first month on the job, then you're never going to see it. The way he has handled himself has been nothing but refreshing, along with the way he has represented the university and interacted with current and future players. He has a lot of excellent tangible and intangible qualities and I get a little tired of unsupported predictions that everything will get worse offensively just because the predictable spread run by RR piled up a lot of yardage against weaklings, making for some pretty, meaningless stats because it could not score against quality teams.
For every stat this site continues to rely on to cast dirt on the new coaching staff, the simple counter-argument is Michigan went 0-6 last season against the six best teams on our schedule. Constantly dwelling on rushing stats means nothing. Those are averages run up against the weaklings on our schedule who were unable to tackle Denard -- but ranking high in rushing and much lower in scoring tells us a lot. When push came to shove, we got shoved -- for three seasons, not one. So be honest. No strong team had any problems keeping us out of the end zone, and that's really all that matters.
I therefore don't get the point of the attacks on Al Borges, who is a highly qualified coach who has run lots of great offenses that do something the RR offense cannot: Score against physically imposing teams. I do not understand the constant praise of Rodriguez's offense. It did not succeed in the conference in which we play. You can't win a national title without winning the Big 10 first, no matter how flashy it looks.
I don't know if Brady Hoke is the next superstar in coaching, but I think he's a pretty damn good coach. And I think he gets Michigan, and it shows. He has shown a lot of class, including toward Rodriguez, and including wisely staying silent as RR makes stupid comments about how he "didn't get to finish the job" (of completely destroying the football program, I assume) and how "we were just about to turn the corner," which is a galling statement after our final three games against Wisconsin, Ohio State and Mississippi State. Yeah, we were turning the corner -- right in to an oncoming locomotive known as our 2011 schedule.
And based on Hoke's track record, I see no reason why he will not excel at Michigan starting this fall with a team that will be much more able to compete against the teams we play every year. So not only am I pleased with what he has done so far, I am more far more optimistic than I would be if RR had been given a fourth year. It's not even close in my mind.
Comments