the last time I saw Brian dismiss an M team as being overmatched and having no chance, we were heading to the Capital One Bowl to take on a Heisman-winning spread QB.
Here's to hoping he's right again.
Emotionally, this is an odd week for me. I find that I don't care about Ohio State at all. They're a very good team that's going to win in a not-that-competitive game on Saturday, like they always do. I get irritated at the hurr hurr coming from the Ohio State blogosphere but mostly because Michigan's so far from their level that it seems like a waste of time.
My hate still exists but it's focused internally, as the emails pile up and message boards pile on because I have the audacity to say if it was my decision I'd keep Rich Rodriguez on the condition he reshapes the defensive staff in such a way that we can expect them to do one boring thing reasonably well. I've explained why. In a sentence, the offense is excellent and should maintain that level over the next two years as the defense digs itself out from a massive hole.
This has caused the wing of the Michigan fanbase that thinks keeping Rodriguez is absolutely insane to search high and low for various metrics in which Michigan doesn't rate well. They can't take any of the basic stats...
|Rushing Offense||10||257.36||Georgia Tech||319.36||1||Michigan||257.36|
|Total Offense||5||514.55||Oklahoma St.||552||1||Michigan||514.55|
|Sacks Allowed||T-11||0.91||Stanford||0.36||1||Penn St.||0.91|
…and they certainly can't take any of the advanced metrics that rank Michigan second* and fifth nationally, so they resort to things like in-conference points per drive. Michigan is tied for third in the league in that metric.
If you are using this stat, you have decided that Rich Rodriguez should go and are backfilling reasons. If you're trying to downplay Michigan's second-half points against Iowa, Penn State and Wisconsin, you're doing the same thing. Michigan got back in those games by scoring often and quickly, by bombing away. Michigan scoring drives against Wisconsin lasted 3:57, 0:22, 2:19, and 2:57. They could do this because defenses were aligned to stop Michigan's powerful ground game even with big second-half leads, which is why Denard Robinson racked up a bunch of deep completions against single-covered WRs in the second half. Prevent defenses do not give up sixty yard touchdowns to tight ends, as Penn State did.
The whole reason the FO stats exist is to smooth out differences in opportunities and schedule strength as best they can and they indicate that whatever problems Michigan has don't include being the nation's #15 scoring offense against a schedule with two real nonconference opponents and without Northwestern (82nd in FEI D) and Minnesota (98th).
David Brandon's got a tough decision ahead of him—something it only seems that people who are still in favor of Rodriguez returning acknowledge—because the offense is elegantly constructed and deadly. Michigan's quarterback couldn't throw a pass straight in the first half and the receivers couldn't catch it when he did, but they still ended the day with more points than any Michigan team had scored against Wisconsin since 1990. The 31 they put up on Penn State were the most since 2000. They're solidly in the top five of the best metrics available with two seniors and a sophomore quarterback. They're going to obliterate the best rushing YPC mark Carr put up since the turn of the century by over a yard and finish in the top 20 in passing efficiency.
Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic. Period. I'm tired of being vilified for using numbers in non-abusive ways, but that's what we've come to. My hate week is about other Michigan fans.
*(FEI ranks Michigan second but has not been updated for last Week's games. Since Michigan put up a touchdown better than Wisconsin's scoring average any drop from Michigan will be minimal.)
the last time I saw Brian dismiss an M team as being overmatched and having no chance, we were heading to the Capital One Bowl to take on a Heisman-winning spread QB.
Here's to hoping he's right again.
lol some people in this fan base are a joke.. So much for people standing behind a program.. reading some of the posts below are really pathetic and some read like an MSU fan is writing them
I don't know what everyones fucking expectations were when RR got here, but i thought minimum 4 years to get us back to a normal michigan season like 9 - 10 wins possibly.
Anyone who thought 1 or 2 years with what we had in 08 you are living in a hole.
Even my friend who was all conference big ten WR last year for NW thought that it was gonna take time. He thought they would be stupid to get rid of RR after just 3 years..
I don't know what everyones fucking expectations were when RR got here, but i thought minimum 4 years to get us back to a normal michigan season like 9 - 10 wins possibly
You thought this in December 2007? I don't believe that for a minute..
Sorry dude, but i remember having this exact same conversation with my dad after we found out who all was going to be leaving the team. It was pretty evident our Offense was not going to be good the next year with everyone leaving and with RR changing the whole system.
Couple that with the fact that it took him a while at WVU i didn't think it would be any different here.
but I sure started thinking that in January of 2008, once it sank in that the bulk of the remaining talent on the team was graduating and there was almost nothing left.
I valiantly hoped that a bunch of guys who had displayed no particular talent to that point would somehow mature and step up to fill the rather large number of rather large holes, but by and large it never materialized.
I was pretty sure we'd lose to Utah to start the 2008 season, and while I didn't really expect 3-9, I wasn't too surprised by it. It simply confirmed that the remaining talent was every bit as bad as I was afraid it was.
So Zeke Markshausen thought this team was going to struggle? Good to know.
Nobody in the fanbase expect 3-9 followed by 5-7. I was reading here and other places, and most expected no worse than 7-5 followed by a return to 9+ wins. It's Michigan - this team hadn't had a losing record in a lifetime. So no, I don't believe anyone who thought this was going to be the past 3 years in UM football.
I do think that the time sentiment increased after losses to the likes of Toledo and Utah (even though Utah turned out to be awesome).
Once i knew threet or sheridan would be the starting QB, i knew we would have a tough time getting to a bowl no question.. No knock on those guys, but neither of them were fit for RR's system and i knew it was gonna be tough for them to win period.
I didn't expect them to only win 3 games, but i didn't think they would go to a bowl, maybe im the exception
my initial hopes were 6 wins in 2007 to keep the bowl streak alive. i was hoping the D could do this on its own; knowing the O would not be good. not so much.
year2: i was hoping for 8 wins.
year3: i was hoping to contend for big10 (9+ wins).
here we are in year 3 with 7 wins, hoping to get at least 8. so UM is one year behind schedule according to my expectations (and i bet the expectations of a lot of others). and year 4 could be like my year 3 hopes. i think it would be premature to fire RR because our (my) expectations are behind by just one year.
i hope DB lets year 4 play out and if progress isnt made, then i cannot give any strong support for RR. he would have had 4 years.
Let's all remember Brian is doing a UFR in which Brett Bielema's merry band of neaderthals obliterate us.
I realize this, but in doing his statistical UFR, doesn't it make it all the more ironic that he's lashing out at M fans like blublooded who not only put in the trouble to do statistical analysis, but also try to share it with the community? Slamming him as a "raving lunatic"? If he doesn't apologize, he should at least put himself in TWIS.
However great Michigan's offense is, the fact remains that MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin and PSU have outscored it this year in head-to-head match-ups. I don't want Rodriguez fired, yet I'll admit that fact. Heck, it's hard to deny it. But I guess it's easy to call someone a lunatic.
3rd in conference PPD (points per drive) makes a lot more sense in the context of our record than raw yards per game, which... like, don't correlate to much if we're under .500 in the Big Ten. Don't call people lunatics for pointing out more refined ways of looking at our offense in the larger context of our season. Refute it, accept it, or ignore it.
I do not believe this is lashing out at blublooded and I think he should clarify that. That was an epic and very interesting diary.
I was referring more to a mood where you are liable to yell at your dog, your fanbase, your computer, your shoes, whatever. Some things deserve it more than others but they're all bearing the brunt of a lot of frustration.
I'd definitely like to think Brian will wake up in the morning, look at this, and be like "I wrote WAT?!," but that doesn't mean blublooded shouldn't have vocal defenders until this clarification happens.
Definitely agree this is more frustration more than rational Brian talking, though. Happens to the best of us.
That being said, I still say this diary should make it into TWIS!
I dont' know if PPD is a fair way to compare the offense to other teams.
1. First and most obviously: our FG kickers blow. That is undoubtedly suppressing our PPD in relation to pretty much every other team. I guess you could say that's part of the offense (I always thought of place kicking as special teams) but it's hardly the fault of Denard and Co, who are the ones gaining all the yards for use in that metric.
I wonder what each team's PPD would be if you removed points gained from FG from all Big10 teams (including UM)? This would allow us to compare TDs per drive, which is a way to isolate the offense from the kicking units.
2. PPD have no correlation to the teams ability to move the ball down the field, simply with their ability to get points. Take a hypothetical where through some stroke of brilliant luck, a team's offense always got the ball on the opponents 10 yard line (The other team's punter is really, REALLY terrible ^.^). They would probably have a really high PPD, but that wouldn't tell you much about the ability of the offense because the field is so short.
Granted, I'd probably take that situation, but nobody has punters that bad in real life, right? Ideally there'd be an even more refined metric to measure points per drive per yard from start of drive to end zone. Or PPDPYFSoDtEZ for short.
3. I think we can all agree that the PRIMARY reason we're below .500 is the fact that our defense couldn't stop a bag of drowning kittens if it was about to crush another, EVEN SADDER bag of drowning kittens. Defensive incompetence is more than sufficient to explain our losses.
Blaming the offense when it's averaging 30+ points and 450-odd yards / game (compiled in post way below) is like the Kaiser blaming the Reichsarmee for not winning the Battle of Jutland*. I mean, the german army almost never lost a battle in WWI but were starved out because the Kriegsmarine couldn't break the British blockade.
I'm not saying whether this is a reason to keep or fire RR. That's a value judgement for each person to make. But to say that the offense isn't good, despite most standard accepted statistical measures saying "They're pretty good,' by invoking a weird derivitive strikes me as a bit disingenious. Especially when the defensive %@#$-storm is more than enough to explain our losses.
*This may have been the most esoteric similie I've ever made...but it kind of works. Hell, I'm gonna run with it.
I totally agree that a better field goal kicker would send our PPD up significantly (in fact I brought up the same point to blublooded). However, the fact is, FGs produce points, and while this is debatable, I think it's reasonable to argue that it's reasonable to judge an offense on how many points are produced during the course of the game.
Also, again, it's worth realizing that while we score a lot of points per game, our opponents score even more when they play us. 30ppg is impressive, but if that's accomplished by virtue of executing plays faster to create more possessions per game, it's a bit miselading, because while we create more possessions for ourselves, we ALSO create more opportunities for our opponents. Hence, while Wisconsin may not (usually) score more points than us, by virtue of the way they play, they force the game to be played in a shorter number of possessions. In a game where we had a roughly equal number of possesions (excluding TOs), Wisconsin outscored our offense.
Obviously our defense is rough this year, but it's worth at least considering some of the stats about our offense (e.g. getting blanked at halftime, having opponents score at a higher rate than us, how many drives end with 0 points, etc.)
I think looking at PPD (where we're tied for 3rd in the conference) jives with more of the gametime experiences and record this year than yards per game. What good are yards that don't result in points? Also, with PPD, we see how potent our offense is when taking out the bias that goes towards extra possessions.
Regardless of whether you think PPD is a great metric, though, I would hardly toss it in the dustbin of "raving lunacy"
So now anyone who doesn't bow down at the altar of Rich Rodriguez is a "raving lunatic"? Very nice. Just paint anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% as a crazy person and then you don't have to even address their issues.
I hate to break it to Brian, but if he hates Michigan fans so much, maybe he shouldn't run a freakin' Michigan sports blog. This place already neg-bombs the crap out of anyone who dares to not toe the party line, so the representation around here is ridiculously scewed pro-Rodriguez. Let me give you a hint--a huge part of the Michigan fan base wants Rodriguez gone, and they aren't "raving lunatics".
All stats and metrics are great tools for analyzing what is going on. Here's a better one--the score of the game. And in every Big Ten game against a good team this year we've been blown off the field, falling behind by over 21 points. Sure, the team made a valiant effort to come back, but how many times do you think you can come back from being down 21? That's the kind of thing that happens once in a great while. It certainly doesn't happen on a weekly basis.
As for claiming that second half points count just the same, that is certainly true. But how many times in our history (you know, back when WE were the ones up 21+) did you see Michigan teams have some let-downs after staking big leads? IT HAPPENS. This year, teams get way up on us and then inevitably let up a little bit. Then we charge back, and they wake up and put us away. Just like we used to do to teams.
You want to support Rodriguez despite his failure to actually win Big Ten games? Go ahead. The offense is certainly more than capable of scoring lots of points quickly and that is a positive in a sea of negatives. But pointing out what a disaster every other phase of the team has become under Rodriguez and saying that maybe, just maybe, the head coach is responsible for those things and isn't doing his job well, is far FAR from being a "raving lunatic".
What a lunatic.
I'm with you on this. Especially the point about the point system driving out people with differing opinions. There is a sense that the group of people who frequent this blog are representative of the fan base as a whole, and I don't think that's true. You're right, there's a large part of the fan base that wants him gone, and they are not all lunatics.
Oh stop with the dump "point system keeps people away" nonsense. I have never once negged someone who made a coherent argument that I didn't agree with. I will neg people who are clearly trolls or who spout off about something with little basis in reality, fact, and/or has t been brought up 100X before. People don't post anything, don't really contribute, then act like they are "speaking to power" when they complain about not being taken seriously. It's a message board on the internet - nobody is forcing you to post here, and the only thing the point system does is stop people from creating posts that have to be taken down later by the mods. I don't always agree with Brian, but he has been right far more often than not, and I do think this blog represents a not-insignificant portion of the fanbse and, I hope, displays the type of logic and thoughtfulness you expect to see out of Brandon and co.
EDIT: Meant to be in response to OP of this thread.
"I have never once negged someone who made a coherent argument that I didn't agree with."
You're one of the few, then. Seems par for the course, even with the neg-penalties, especially in this particular discussion.
Case in point.
You could try to read the post. Here, I'll quote the raving lunatic part to make it easy for you:
Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic.
He's responding to the idea that the offense isn't actually even that great. If you think he should be fired due to the failures to find a kicker and field a competent defense, that's your prerogative. Note that he admits this:
David Brandon's got a tough decision ahead of him
Yeah, he's condescending: to people who think the offense isn't an argument in favor of keeping Rodriguez. Because those people are nuts. He doesn't make a value judgment as to the arguments against keeping Rodriguez, though he says personally he thinks he should be given a year with a new defensive coordinator and non-young midgets.
I guess it depends on what Brian meant. Did he mean that anyone that thinks the offense isn't enough of a reason to keep Rodriguez is a raving lunatic? Or did he mean anyone who won't acknowledge that the offense has been a bright spot is a raving lunatic? When someone starts throwing out terms like "raving lunatic" it woud probably behoove them to be a little clearer, since that's the kind of insult that tends to piss people off.
I've yet to run into ANYONE who thinks Rodriguez should be fired specifically for the offense. What I HAVE run into are a lot of people who don't feel the offense is quite as fabulous as the numbers indicate, and feel that the offense is NOT a good enough reason to keep Rodriguez around in light of the rest of the problems with the team. When you're sitting at halftime of the Wisconsin game looking up at 24-0, it is hard to argue with this line of reasoning. If the argument in evaluating Rodriguez is "ignore the defense and special teams, we have an unstoppable offense", then I think you have to expect the offense to at least score before the game is completely out of hand.
If someone is really trying to say our offense sucks or something like that, then yeah, that's pretty silly. However, it is far from crazy to point out that our offense has been AWOL in the first half of our 4 losses, and that that is concerning and possibly an indication that the offense isn't the uber-unstoppable force that the numbers say it is.
I'm pretty sure there would be almost no one saying anything about the offense if we weren't dealing with what is probably the worst defense in Michigan history and possibly the worst special teams too.
I'm sorry, I didn't read your epic comment because all I saw was WAAH WAAH WHY DO PEOPLE NEG ME WAAH WAAH.
reminds me of the post earlier this year "GERG CANT HEAR YOU HE HAS SUPER BOWL RINGS PLUGGING HIS EARS!"
Plus one for the Patrick Roy reference.
Especially amazing considering you appear to be from Atlanta, where hockey is little more than a mythical idea played by polar bears than an actual game played by real, live northerners.
Let me give you a hint--a huge part of the Michigan fan base wants Rodriguez gone, and they aren't "raving lunatics".
I honestly don't think there is a huge portion of the UM fan base that wants him gone based on the polls I've seen around (Annarbor.com had one recently), and frankly the only "part" of the fanbase that really has a say in the matter in David Brandon. MGoBlog does not represent the entire UM fanbase, but nowhere will you find such a representative sample. I will say that those who want RR gone tend to speak in words like "tradition" and "this is UM" instead of providing much in the way of evidence or tangible arguments as to why the past few years have been so down. I think Brandon has looked beyond and realized that this team is incredibly young and has struggled as a result. That very well falls in part on RR and his staff, but to act like any other coach in America would have stepped into the situation and not suffered similar growing pains is not acknowledging the reality in 2007 and 2008.
My God you're a whining redacted. Get a backbone or scrub that quote from and picture of Bo. And get a different handle. I was here first.
This is Brian's site. No paywall, and a forum he has graciously kept open for any ill-informed, uninformed or fully informed Michigan alum or fan to express his or her opinions on basically any subject regarding Michigan. You don't like his opinion or the points system or his intolerance for dissent, then don't read, don't visit, just GTFO.
Brian---um, the team, the team, the team. The day that "hate week" turns into "your hate week" is troubling. The Game is about the team. Hate week is about that team down south. Period.
Let's not mix our opinions with the truth of the greatest rivalry in sports. I hope for a retraction of that comment.
how someone negged you for this comment. So I restored it to proper balance. Some people on this blog need to take a chill pill, especially with regards to RR, and wait for the rest of the season (including the bowl game!) to play out.
I'm sorry, but Brian does get to have his "hate week" just like you get to have yours. And if Brian isn't feeling it this year, not only can't I blame him, but he's probably being much more honest than some of us have been about this. The platitudes have been spouted, the lip service has been paid, the dogma repeated, but just like some people aren't in the "holiday spirit" in December because of stuff going on in their lives, some people aren't in the "Ohio State week spirit" this week because of what has happened this season, or the last three seasons, or the last six seasons. You want to tell them to cheer up and get in the spirit, that's your prerogative, but understand that others might not be right there with you because they're dealing with some stuff.
Brian opens by pointing out that something that I have been looking for a way to encapsulate for the last 48 hours: Ohio State is piling on because it's what they do, but it feels wholly unnecessary this season because the self-loathing and open hostility in the Michigan fan base is as vitriolic as anything coming from Columbus. We're sniping at each other because there's nothing else left to tear down. We're at war with each other because it feels like the only fight we can win right now.
Is it possible to rationally expect that the game on Saturday will not go well for Michigan while hoping, in whatever irrational part of our brains hope lives in, that Michigan pulls off something that could more than likely be qualified as a minor miracle? I certainly hope so, because this is the dichotomy is what is getting me though this week. But wanting Michigan to win and expecting Michigan to win are two different things and it would be my hope that we as fans can appreciate the difference without denigrating those who are being honest about their feelings.
Let's not mix our opinions with the truth of the greatest rivalry in sports. I hope for a retraction of that comment.
Dude, it's Brian's blog. Blog, as in, short for "web log." As in, an on-line, written log of the author's opinions and feelings.
I'm not questioning Brian's authority to write his own opinion on his own blog. I am countering/questioning his opinion that we each can have our personalized hate week against whoever is aggravating us. Whether you hate ignorant fans, poverty, the TSA, whatever, "hate week" and "the game" have a historical context that in my opinion is to be respected.
Instead of focusing on the raw metrics, which has the Michigan O fifth-best or second-best or whatever in the country, I'm just gonna say that from what I've seen the 2010 offense has not been a great one. We were not competitive against any good Big 10 team this year, with only the possible exception of Illinois. Against Iowa, MSU, Wisconsin, Penn State we were down by three scores in the fourth quarter--that's not a competitive game. The defense gets the lion's share of the blame, obviously, but if the offense really was that tremendous we would've at least been in a couple of those games.
The offense's primary weapon this year was Denard's legs. All of those ridiculously open deep routes happened because of that. But we struggled running from the RB spot, struggled with the WR screen game which is so important to a running spread, and had really, really shaky passing in passing situations. Turnover problems continued. For Michigan to have a successful season (9 wins) next year, the offense is going to have to improve, in more than just an extra-year-of-experience kind of way. The team is sloppy on both sides of the ball.
Obviously it can score; but how good would this offense be without Denard? And how often does a talent like that come along? Why did we get blanked by Wisconsin? And why did we only put up 17 vs. State? The offense is good, but its not magic. And it has put a ton of gaudy statistics up against really bad teams that I see people leaning on really hard.
Its true. I'm not a huge fan of Rodriguez; but frankly, I'd rather just win. He'll get another year and I hope it all works out really well. My fear is that we spend another year going down this road, and maybe Denard gets hurt early; so our offense goes from vaunted to pretty good. And our defense is just a little better. So then next year we go 6-6 or 7-5 with alot of people saying 'Just wait till next year! Just wait till he gets more of his recruits!'
I think our team is like a top fuel dragster. It may go like hell down the track, but there is a damn good chance the thing will just blow up too.
So DB's choice, in my eyes, is hope that the thing stays together for everything to fall in place just right. If it does, he looks brilliant. If it doesn't, its time to change and we've blown one more year.
It was pretty good with Tate against Illinois, which other than that game has been a pretty good defense.
One one of the places where I give RR alot of credit is that the offense doesn't even seem to hickup with Tate coming in; when his game is so much different from Denards.
But I don't think Tate will put up the same numbers over the course of a season. Even over the course of a game you'd see D's starting to adjust to him, and he is easier to adjust to than Denard.
One more thing; If the offense needs to kill the clock, can it? What if it just needs a long drive to give the D a breather? Can it do that? Honest question.
That's a pacing issue. The clock is still moving after basically every play, so if we slow down it should work (though slightly less effective as their defense won't be as gassed).
The final 10ish minutes of the 4th quarter against UConn were eaten up by one monster drive that didn't even result in points. It was just a huge clock killer.
The offense is strong, and among the better ones in the country-- it's just that its performance is more towards tied-for-3rd-in-a-very-competitive-Big-Ten than "ZOMG 100 yards/game more potent than the #2 Big Ten offense!"
It's not a crippled hot rod (?) like you two seem to be making it out to be. Also, our offense is run by SOPHOMORES for heaven's sake. You guys need to chill out.
It still my opinion the offense isn't rounded out; and its too QB dependant. That said, you make a good point about it being run by sophs. And, its what's there now. I'll be cheering for UM this weekend. I hope to God they win. I'd be on cloud nine if the D rises above itself and slows itself down, and Robinson shreds OSU.
I'm not expecting it, mind you, but that's what I'm cheering for and the hope is in the back of my mind. Nothing would make me happier than to have my concerns shown to be unfounded. But its okay to have questions and concerns about this Michigan team. That doesn't make one a bad fan.
I'll defend to the (digital) death your right to say it, you raving lunatic, you!
I--I think his name is, like, Date or Fate or Kate or something. I hear he's doing pretty okay when he gets to play?
I'm just messing with you. But honestly, It looks to me that while Denard takes this offense from good to OMG WOWZORS (IMHO anyways) I think with forcier we'd still have a pretty decent offense. The guy has what can only be described as "sick moves" despite not having the top end speed of robinson.
(I hear that ILL linesman is still looking for his jockstrap after Forcier juked him in the OT)
"Instead of focusing on quantifiable data, I'll instead go with my uninformed personal opinion."
no need to say anything
Fisking a noob.
Instead of focusing on the raw metrics, which has the Michigan O fifth-best or second-best or whatever in the country, I'm just gonna say that from what I've seen the 2010 offense has not been a great one.
Translation: Sure "numbers" and "statistics" say that the offense is good. But I know better. Trust me.
The defense gets the lion's share of the blame, obviously, but if the offense really was that tremendous we would've at least been in a couple of those games.
So when evaluating how good the offense is, we're going to hold the defense's incompetence against the offense. If the defense gives up 100, the offense is only good if it scores 101. Gotcha.
The offense's primary weapon this year was Denard's legs.
You mean Denard Robinson? The guy no one else wanted as a QB, and that many (myself included) assumed would end up as a slot receiver? The guy RichRod recruited and took from a true freshman with a 45% completion percentage to the first 1500/2000 guy in history in ONE YEAR? Yep, that pisses me off too. Besides, the offense seems to hum along pretty well with Tate.
All of those ridiculously open deep routes happened because of that.
That's not an accident. That's the design of the offense. It isn't as if defenses aren't TRYING to defend the pass. It's called "the spread" for a reason.
But we struggled running from the RB spot....
Mike Hart's career average was 5.0 YPC. Chris Perry was at 4.6 YPC. Michigan is currently averaging 5.2 YPC from non-QBs, despite nearly all of them being injured at one time or another... and that's excluding our best runner, Denard Robinson.
...struggled with the WR screen game which is so important to a running spread...
Any evidence? Cause I've seen stuff like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUJbocSx2YE and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwyRW7EXo5I and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpsEa0aRikY and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UQJTRN4gEo....
...and had really, really shaky passing in passing situations.
You mean like in the second half of games, when Michigan was down big? Isn't half of the argument that Michigan does all of their scoring in situations where they already trailed, which are BY DEFINITION passing situations?
That is all. For now.
That was srsly the best "F@#k-You-And-The-Horse-You-Rode-On" I've ever seen. Well done.
feel free to break that cardinal rule more often. Thank you.
Fucking git' em.
That is all.
Despite how good the offensive numbers are, what is lost is how good they could be with more possessions. If the D could force more three and outs and allow less time (and soul) consuming drives, the offense numbers would be more gaudy.