A worse record than Rich had.
Let's Not And Say We Did
Michigan's ground game stopped being effective in 1995.
I'm not sure if Jon Chait was reacting to the latest MANBALL quote from Brady Hoke or not, but when an article titled "You Can't Go Home Again" pops up the day after Michigan's new head coach says this:
"Once we get the power play down, then we'll go to the next phase. You know, because we're gonna run the power play."…
"We don't have a lot of fullbacks." Hopkins works out well at FB "for a lot of the old 49ers stuff" with split backs. Hoke wants fullbacks to block so hard they "come in at about 6-3, and leave the program at 6-1." …
It's hard to think otherwise. Of course, even ESPN folk have picked up on Hoke's love affair with the word "toughness"—the article could have been spurred by anything Hoke's said over the last three months. There are consistent reports that Hoke makes condescending comments about the spread at alumni events. Manball? Manball.
Some people love this. In my mind they all look like this…
yes, that's the Beckmann aficionado
…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.
My hope is Hoke is a brilliant, innocent-as-snow delegator or a con man. He's got a quarterback who was an All-American as a true sophomore last year because of his legs. He's got an offensive coordinator whose track record suggests he prefers to air it out and that things get desperately bad when MANBALL advocates push him away from his mad bombing ways. He's got a set of running backs best described as underwhelming, a center who can teleport his way into tough reach blocks, and a guard who can block Manti Te'o twenty yards downfield. If the offseason could be spent fixing whatever it is that causes Robinson to turn the ball over willy-nilly, Michigan's offense would be insane. According to statistical things it already is.
Switching to an actual pro-style offense would be doing exactly what Michigan did last year when it installed the 3-3-5 despite the total unsuitability of its personnel for the scheme. It would be exactly as stupid. It can't be as bad statistically because instead of true freshman two star Ray Vinopal backed up by a duck, next to a walk on, and vaguely in front of more freshmen you have ten returning starters and Denard Robinson, but it would be just as dumb. If Hoke's bravado about being a bunch of tough bastards who love grinding out four yards on a power play is true I'm worried for the immediate and long term future of the program in the same way I was when hiring Greg Robinson caused me to dig out a picture of Tweek.
On the other hand, Beckmann aficionados love that stuff, and so do the newspapers that are no longer read by anyone other than Beckmann aficionados. English has developed lingo to distinguish words meant to be true from words meant to produce inoffensive newspaper blather: the latter is coachspeak. Rich Rodriguez was beyond awful at coachspeak. Hoke is a grand master. When IBM develops "Jim" and challenges Hoke to a duel, Watson-style, Hoke will destroy his opponent so badly smoke will come out of its nonexistent ears like that robot asked to rhyme something with "orange" in a story I read when I was eight. Hoke will lament Jim's lack of toughness.
This is a real skill the last three years have shown is way more important than you'd think. It's a relief when every press conference is Hoke being gently tickled on the belly and fed peeled grapes, and telling everyone you're establishing a mindset of toughness is fine. It's something that will help the program in the long run.
As long as you don't believe yourself. It won't help as much as winning a crapton of games, and even if the defense gets vastly better the best way to do that next year is to have an offense that puts up points, and the best way to do that is to very gently shift the offense towards your long term vision while still keeping Denard in the Heisman race.
This isn't 2008, when Michigan was screwed no matter what offense they put in. Getting Michigan's offense to go from explosive but inconsistent to world-destroying is a matter of getting a kicker, finding a good running back, working on Denard's reads and accuracy, and leaving everything else the hell alone. Michigan can't reasonably do that because they've got new coaches, but how hard is it to run a QB lead draw and follow that with QB Lead Oh Noes? The secret of Michigan's 2010 offense is that the zone read was hardly used. The other secret is it was a power running offense, one more effective than anything Michigan's run in at least the last decade and probably a lot longer.
Michigan YPC Career Leaders Since 1949 (min: 100 carries)
Michigan YPC, Team, Since 2001
Borges should install his passing game immediately and Michigan should start running power schemes more frequently—power did feature occasionally last year—if they want to, but lining up under center to hand it off to Vincent Smith isn't going to be any better of an idea in 2011 than it was in 2010.
You can run a "pro-style" offense, but run it from the shotgun and run downhill using Denard Robinson as one of three primary tailbacks. You can't get rid of the scare quotes because he's Denard Robinson. If you do run a no-scare-quotes pro-style offense he's not Denard Robinson anymore. He's the guy handing off and you're walking back into the days where Michigan averaged less than four yards per carry and ran 65% of the time.
I think Borges knows this, but Hoke's coachspeak is going to make this the most terrifying spring game of all time.
pretend national championships that don't actually exist because college football doesn't have a system that actually crowns a real national champion. Well in that case, Lloyd was way better than Bo....
P.S. he was 6-7 against OSU off the top of my head. Note the number for OSU is BIGGER than the number for Michigan.
Than REALLY pretend yardage championships.
0-3 had a bigger number for OSU, too.
that those were stupid arguments. He said something about RR not beating OSU. Yeah, like we were freaking kicking their asses before that?
Is more than 0 and 0%, yes.
we were also 1-6 against OSU in 7 years prior to the RR era...That is kinda more relevant because it was a trend that had already been set.
You must have hated the trends of the last 3 years, since we added just about every Team not from Indiana to that trend.
But I did point out that the OSU thing was not some new losing streak that just happened to start the last 3 years.
Then it stands. You were taking to task a pretty stupid argument. I just find it funny so many can try to tear down a highly successful regime (maybe not you) to defend the failures of another.
was also stupid. Bo didn't win a f'ing MNC and nobody seems to have a problem with that.
We had lots of 3rd and 2 - we usually gave it to V. Smith, who ran it up the middle for 1.5 yards. I worried less about 3rd and 7, because 50% of the time Denard would dance around for awhile and then pick up a miraculous first down.
I get it, you liked our play calling except for when we used the running backs for actually running the ball because they sucked at it. I guess the coach must have been a stupid ass for even having them in the game then. Why not add another "slot ninja" and leave the running to the QB entirely?? Now thats revolutionary, hell maybe you could implement that, win a few conference titles in an ultra weak and depleted conference and become the next "offensive genius".
Rich Rod's coaching career, never have so many made so much out of so little.
You can have a legitimate debate about whether RR should have been hired here, or should have been retained. But to belittle the WVA record the way you do, is in fact, ignorant. It wasn't just media types or Bill Martin who had a hard on for RR--actual football people all over the country had and have respect for him. That is not a product of smoke and mirrors. Urban Meyer and Bob Stoops are not really the kind of guys to go travel to another coaches place and get pointers on his offense without that coach impressing them.
I liked our playcalling except when we did things that Hoke and Borges both say they want to do more of.
Hey, look. It's another person who can't figure out what the FEI is.
FEI says Hawaii & Air force have occupied the same "rare air" as Michigan did last year. I dont aspire for Michigan to become Hawaii or Air Force. I aspire for Michigan to once again become Michigan. Remember, stats are most often quoted by LOSERS reaching for something to hold on to.
Maybe stats are most often quoted by people with an IQ high enough to enable them to read a chart properly.
Michigan's offensive FEI was .603 and ranked 2nd last year. Hawaii's was .044 and 53rd. Air Force's was .139 and ranked 39th.
Air Force and Hawaii are not on that list.
Not sure if you can read but it adjusts for things like strength of schedule.
As for Air Force and Hawaii. Air Force is a very solid program with a dynamic offense and Hawaai made it to the Sugar Bowl with no defense so their offense must have been pretty good. What is your point again.
I'm not sure why you assume you know what list I am looking at. You do realize that FEI has a list of all 120 teams, correct?
And if Michael Honcho is looking at the same list you are that doesn't even have Air Force and Hawaii on it then his IQ is even lower than I previously suspected.
What was your point again?
Thank you . You now aspire for us to be like Air Force or Hawaii. All we need to do now is transfer our program into a weak ass conference & hire Rodriguez back.
Look back a couple years my friend, both of those schools have occupied places in the top 10 in past years. They were never considered elite programs, just fancy offenses. Is that what you want Michigan to be??
Yeah! 9 wins or bust!
you would spend that much time writing a response, yet you take no time to look at any facts or statistics or understand some of what actually occurred last year. We were not in a lot of 3rd and longs and the ones we were in were not a deficiency of the offense. Many of the 3rd and longs were due to untimely penalties by a young and very talented left tackle, or a illeagal procedure (which are more common with younger teams, of which we had). A bigger problem was the 3rd and shorts where we tried to run Vincent Smith up the middle.
The bigger problem, and this is a BIG secret, was that our defense was atroucious and our special teams was non existent. This magnified any mistakes we made on offense.
If you wouldn't pick last years offense above any other offense of the last decade to be paired with another defense, than you are either a stuborn fool, or an idiot that doesn't understand football. Personally I'm guessing you are option three which is a combination of both.
Edit: I understand that numbers are scary for you and you are more of a HOKE SMASH type of person, but in case you are wondering, here is a nice breakdown (halfway through the article) on our issues on 3rd and short. And by issue I mean, running Smith rather than Denard with extra blocker or Hopkins.
Those stats in the article tell me EVERYTHING. We only had 26 occasions of 3rd and short the entire season?? and you dont see an underlying problem?? That 2.16 3rd and shorts per game. What were the rest of our 3rd downs?? oh yeah. 3RD AND ROD.
tells me everything. You are lazy and refuse to do any research to back up your stance. Our offfense was not an issue.
42 - 28
17 - 31
28 - 17
31 - 20
67 - 17
27 - 34
28 - 34
7 - 39
14 - 18
Above is a comparison of last years offensive scores to the Henne, Hart, Long 2006 one hit from a national championship scores, which consisted of quick strikes from Henne in many games. The big difference? The OTHER side of the ball.
the massive failures of fundaments during pretty much every game. Things such as ball security? Ring a bell?
just so I'm clear. Using offensive stats, (like scoring and yards) are not allowed. But using stats (ball security) and "fundamentals" is ok. Guess I'm an idiot for believing that our first year starter true SOPH0MORE quarterback lead an amazing offense. Yes, now that I look at it, his lack of fundamentals with fumbles and interceptions easily trumps his insignificant offensive stats (149.48 QB rating) and record runing yards.
I don't know how many times we have to say this, the offense was not hte problem. It was the defense.
Brian did not state that Borge does not know how to coach a dynamic offense. His fear seems to stem from a head coach that does not specialize on one side of the ball, forcing his scheme on a coordinator. I know this is a stretch to think this could happen at Michigan *cough* RR forcing 3-3-5 on Gerg *cough*, but it is a possibility. He is fully hoping that this is coachspeak.
I direct you to review the UFR from the 2011 season. Your claim that Rodriguez's offense consistently left us in "3rd and Rod" is patently inaccurate. This offense struggled against tougher defenses in the Red Zone and our lack of kicking game left us empty-handed more often than not, but it moved the ball effectively.
What I don't look forward to is watching us break the huddle on our opponents 38 on 3rd and 4 and running off-tackle for 3 yards and then punting...probably into the endzone for a 15 yard net change in field position.
WTF. He mentioned Purdue because of the moustache.
Instead of speculating about what might happen based upon coach nothing-speak, I'm going to watch the torrent of San Diego State's bowl game and get excited for a multi-faceted, exciting offense that will take advantage of the unique talents of Michigan's offensive talent.
Everyone will be complaining about everything by middle of September. Why poison the well during a time of optimism unless you're predisposed to hope someone fails?
I just want the spring game to get here. I'm tired of the speculation. I just want to know how much I need to freak-out/obsess/worry/celebrate between mid April and the first game of the 2011 season.
I think Borges knows this, but Hoke's coachspeak is going to make this the most terrifying spring game of all time.
Let's keep in mind that football is a team game, not just a matchup of offense vs. offense. Greg Mattison is about as accomplished a defensive mind as RR is as an offensive mind. That side of the ball should be in good shape in the long run, although it will take some time to get its feet wet in 2011. Now, the side of the ball that the HC does not specialize in. Who's better: Borges or GERG? I don't think there's much debate here.
You don't have to be super-awesome at everything to be a championship team. You just can't be bad at anything. RR was bad on the defensive side of the ball. Unless he can be reunited with Jeff Casteel, this may forever be his Achilles' heel. I don't see a glaring weak link on this staff. Our OC and DC have both coordinated undefeated, championship teams (2004 Auburn may as well be considered a national champ given what went down with USC). We're not talking about having a GERG-like disaster manning one whole phase of the game.
You make a good point, but you can't reference Borges 2004 mythical NC as proof he is a good coordinator when Greg can flash 2 Super Bowl rings and a Big Twelve Championship ring on him. It's no contest.
I understand people wanted Rich gone but just say it was a bad fit. The guy has proven to be a great coach. He has had success wherever he has gone and most importantly other coaches come to him for advice.
Rich rod was and is a good man from everything ice read about it. But he was too proud and too stubborn to make this team any better. He knew Gerg couldn't run that d but he fired Scott schaffer as his sacrificial lamb and was stuck with gerg. He made mistakes and couldn't right the ship because he couldn't admit he was wrong. That is why I am glad he is gone. The offense would have been even better this year and was one versatile pounding back away from being the beat offense ever. But the defense would have been just as bad. Those players with another year under them would have still lined up wrong, been in the wrong position , and would have been still coached wrong. The results would've looked verily similar to last year. Guaranteed!
I agree completely...but let's be clear. Gerg had nothing to do with that d. He clearly was put in a position to coach something he had no idea of what it was. That mess was rich rods fault all the way and I'm glad he is gone
Well, yeah. But if he'd at least been a 3-3-5 guru like Casteel, we could have managed. It seems apparent that RR really needs one of those guys, since he is convinced that that's the right defense to run.
So you're telling me your glad RR is gone? You've only said about 10 times now, I just need to make sure.
After watching the Poinsettia Bowl, I don't share your concerns. I think we'll be OK.
Everyone is gonna be cautiously optimistic about this offense. But ...basically statistics are stupid. I mean great, we put up a lot of points and the offense looked really good last year. On the other hand we got stuffed a lot and had 3 and outs when we payed good teams. It would be nice to hold the ball for once and keep other offenses off the field for a while. I loved that we could score on any given play but if we had to run for 6 and denard wasnt doing it, we would NEVER get those yards. I absolutely love the fact that we will be running downhill, and I love even more that dr will be a change of pace running the ball after the 230 pounders hit the los ....boot legs should be awsome!
Hey, look. It's another person who can't figure out what the FEI is.
Totally, putting up alot of yards is awesome. But how about controlling the ball and making the most out of the yards with points. Scoring quickly was the worst possible thing last year as it just exhausted our defense and kept them on the field.
oh god the stupidity
"QUIT SCORING SO QUICKLY, DAMMIT!!!
yeah, that was the problem
that's been fisked to death dude
Apparently you missed the "scoring on any play is awsome" sentence. But it was score or be scored on the next play. We would like dome balk control. If we payed the Ellen Keller institute of the blind evrrythings game fine, but we had zero offense against any good teams. You have to be able to line the ball to get first downs. You are another math and statistic loser that clearly doesn't know what's going on
but can you explain/ quantify what you mean by zero offense against good teams? I understand we had some lower scoring outputs, but didn't we score quite a bit against most of the teams we played (hence the number 2 FEI).
Also, could you show some kind of correlation between time of possesion and wins? Again, I am slow, and can only understand the statistics that have proven that there is absolutely no correlation between time of possesion and wins.
I just wish that there was some other explanation of why we lost last year. Like, instead of our problem being our offense was too good, and that caused us issues, maybe it was because our defense was bad or something, and we missed almost every field goal, including the 30 yard chip shots. *sigh* if only.
I'm just glad I won't have to watch an offense like that again and have to worry about us scoring to quick, or on any given play.
Yeah smart ass. If we didn't have the ball we were getting scored on. I am pretty sure high score wins, right? Our defense when playing even remotely good was constantly on the field getting pounded by there offenses. Rewatch the bowl game
Hey, look. This guy STILL doesn't understand the FEI.
Wow loser. You love FEI. Do you sleep without. Does it call you at home? Please, find something better to do with your time. I'm pretty sure know one cares what you post.
His point is that FEI takes strength of opponent and scoring efficiency into account while ignoring garbage time - ergo the idea that we were only good on offense against bad teams or when we were already way out of contention does not hold up to statistical analysis.
I believe we got scored on almost every possesion in that game (52 pts pretty well confirms). Not sure how that hurts my argument that our main problem was our DEFENSE last year, and our offense was pretty good.