Let's Not And Say We Did

Some people love this. In my mind they all look like this… and could be coaching Purdue. I would not want to get in a conversation with any of these people because they would have very strong opinions about things they know nothing about. They would repeat inane aphorisms as if those were the final word on any subject, and they would regard any dispute as evidence of a diseased mind. I have talked to these people on the radio some. It's not fun. I close my eyes and imagine the exact dimensions and color of their mustaches. They are boringly consistent.

This is classic Brian Cook, absolutely slathered with a clever sarcasm that is only equaled by its rational intelligence.  It's like watching those old movies of pre-accident Chuck Close painting... or in this case, Denard running.  Bravo, my friend.

Don't get me wrong, I hate what you're saying and I hope you couldn't be more wrong about next season, ya big naysaying bloggy freak... but that's some good stuff right there.

I am hopeful and very cautiously optimistic that Hoke understands what pieces he has and how to be successful with them. Every interview he has had he has talked about how he knows he has to adapt and use the talents of D Rob and everyone else. I am hoping he finds a nice balance of the power game mixed in with plays that maximize the best parts of our offense from last year. That type of balance would be perfect in terms of being able to control the clock, have huge plays and be unpredictable.

This is why I will not quickly get over the firing of RR. I can't for the life of me understand why we couldn't have just hired a D-Coord (ala Mattison) and kept RR to run a top 5 offense nationally that was only going to get better. No....but instead lets install a new coach with a losing record that wants to change the system to the way we used to do things, which in the end, didnt necessarily work out so well. 3 years was not enough time to makeover an entire program. I was unhappy with the status quo before RR was hired. A reversion to the old way is not progress!

I'll be extremely happy when our power game isn't Smith up the middle.  No offense to Smith, as he's a terrific athelete, but that's just not his game.  If Toussaint or Cox are able to pound it up the middle effectively, our offense is just going to be that much harder to stop.  Hoke's not an idiot.  He'd be a fool to ignore what Denard brings to the table.  Over time we'll probably transition fully to a pro-style offense, but for the time being, a mix of the two is probably ideal for these players' skills.

just step back from the ledge.  You just had a bad dream ...

Can we actually see what's really happening on the football field, prior to assuming the fetal position.  Remember ... the biggest issue with the past 3 seasons was the Defense, not the offense.  This offense will produce no matter what scheme it runs ... precisely because of Denard and the experience we now possess.

Let's have a little faith & Go Blue !

I like this post because it spells out the same reason for cautious optimism that I'm feeling. I pray to God that Hoke is full of coachspeak and realizes the offense doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing change into a downhill manball power play toughness competition.

There are quite a few different looks/systems Borges can use from different parts of his career. I'm most excited about the way he's been able to shift the run-pass ratio to suit his offenses (most recently heavier on the passing so we'll see what he does with Denard's speed). I know our offense won't be Oregon 2010/Oklahoma 2009 but we will still have solid production and a good running back emerge...

...That's what I'm telling myself, at least.

I'm coming down on the coachspeak/setting tone side of things. It's too hard to imagine that coaching at Ball State and San Diego State doesn't teach how to adapt to the resources at hand.

1.  I think it remains to be seen how the coaches take advantage of the relative strengths of the o-line.  If a man lines head up on Molk or Omameh they were going to have to deal with them directly.  If not, regardless of the scheme they get to move to block someone else.  I'm working under the assumption that Borges has seen a variety of linemen and have thought about how to use them to the fullest advantage.

2.  Perhaps, the best way to cut down on Robinson's turnovers is not to run him to the tune of 1700 yards.

3.  Borges has said he's going to use some shotgun too, so it's a matter of seeing.  I'm working off the assumption that if Borges sees A works and B doesn't then he'll do a lot more of A and not so much of B, irrespective of what A and B are.  What coaches intend to do is more relevant for games 1 and 2; what seems to be working is more relevant for games there on.  For example, did you think Beilein thought at the start of the year that he'd be running this much man and pick & rolls?

Bottom line is that it's fine to have an eyebrow raised and perhaps point out what could be a mistake, but I would drink myself in a stupor because dumb was pre-ordained.

Brian just watch some SDSU from last year and relax.  They did a lot of work from the shotgun and had a tiny fast tailback.  Hoke is just practicing good politics.

I'm hoping that Hoke knows that the majority of people are too damn stupid to know the difference between MANBALL and any other non-spread offense.  If it looks different and works, there will be no complaints from anyone that we're not following the "three yards and a cloud of dust" mantra. 

Because out of the 2 practice-type heavily-edited videos we've seen from spring practice.... Denard is running with the ball tucked in both of them. Multiple times. I'm hoping it's coachspeak, and by "Power Run" Hoke is thinking "QB Power" 

Denard has run in all the practice videos I've seen... back away from the ledge for now

Postings like this are always what keep me coming back to MGoBlog.

My parents are old school and have become 100% Hoke Kool-Aid drinkers who are excited about his "Michigan Manness" and "tough" pronouncements, so I listen to a lot of stuff about how wonderful a coach he is despite the fact that (like me) they don't know anything about football outside the fan's perspective.

When I hear them going on about this stuff, I've been thinking to myself "I hope we're not trying to go back to the future, cause as much as I loved the Bo years, it's clearly a different era in football".

Now Brian's been able to put that vague thought into clear prose the way only he can.

I basically agree with most of what Brian just said, but would add that part of the reason why RichRod's offense is so good is because it is a set of plays that forces the defense to defend so many things at once. In order to achieve that sort of success, you have to run an entire offense built around base plays - the QB power/ISO play last year, with a little zone-read.

If we're going to be huddling between plays, and only occasionally lining up in the shotgun, then it is impossible for our offense to be that productive. Period. The spread is a schematically superior offense to the pro-set because it wins the numbers game every time.

Brian is right: you are insane to think that running a pro-style offense with our talent (even or maximum potential talent) is going to produce a run game that is anything close to what we' saw last year. And imagine what would happen if we actually had the stud RB to compliment Denard.

Of course, I recognize games are measured iby whether or not you win. My hope is we don't go totally boneheaded on offense, and evidence suggests we won't, and start playing some serious defense.