Let's Not And Say We Did

Loved the writing style, as always.  Couldn't disagree with the content more.

1.  I know that many loved our offense last year, but in the end, running Denard so many times got him injured almost every game.  One day, one of those injuries is going to be serious, and keep him our for more than a few plays.

2.  The offense last year put WAY too much on Denard.  He was asked to throw 30 times amd run 20+ times.  Again, too much focus on one guy, and if he goes down (again, as he did almost every game), we are in some serious trouble.

3.  While I know that this will not be well received by some (Ziff, Brian, etc.), our offense was amazing against crappy teams, moved the ball well but couldn't score when the game was close against decent teams, and completely ineffective against good teams.  I, for one, would take an offense that is was less statistically dominant, but which can put up more than 7 points against OSU.

4.  Running backs - I wouldn't sell them so short as to call them underwhelming.  Smith and Shaw, perhaps.  But Hopkins is a beast - he looked decent last year AS A TRUE FRESHMAN.  I can't wait to see what he can do in a power set with some experience under his belt.  Cox has all of the tools to be a monster RB - he just needs to learn the offense.  Fitz is about as hyped as any recent RB at Michigan - he just neds to be healthy enough to see the field and we might have a star. 

Overall, I guess that for the next year, there will probably be a divide amongst those that loved last years offense and believed that we were only a few tweeks away from being Oregonesque and those (like me) that believed that our offense really wasn'y suited to compete against the upper tier B10 teams and welcome the change.  Both groups have valid (and some invalid) reasons for their belief.  Regardless, I trust our current coaches and think that they will make the right calls.

Brian notes: Rodriguez is awful at coach speak and Hoke is the "grand master".  Absolutely!  I doubt anyone would disagree.  To deny effectively relating to recruits, the media, and the fan base is necessary for being a successful head football coach at Michigan, is to deny the necessity of oxygen in useful breathable air.

Beyond that, no one knows who is the better football coach and only 1 guy currently has the opportunity to show his skill level.  A guy made a point on here yesterday that Rich and Hoke have a strikingly similar record the last 5 years. We should probably step out of our cocoon a bit. For every excuse apologists can cook up for Rich's results at Michigan, there are Hoke supporters who can make his previous 5 years at BSU and SDSU seem like the work of Frank Leahy. That's the relative nature of comparing two men in the same profession.

Brian's a great writer. These negative posts about Hoke are a combination of disagreement with something that is already done and a lack of wider perspective.  Welcome to the world of message boards. That probably describes all of us in some way.

Bottom line: perception is reality to a great degree when leading a big time program. No sense griping that Hoke gets that and is trying to make our team better using that skill.

Brian, 

We had RR for 3 years and he put together one of the worst coaching records in UM history. I don't give a crap what our RB YPC were last season at the end of the day all that matters is W and L's....and we had WAY too many L's. I don't care if RR wasn't given a fair shake. RR is gone, so lets stop beating the dead horse and move on. PLEASE.

Lets give the coaching staff a chance before you climb to the roof of the building and start yelling about RB YPC in a 7-6 win season that saw UM get DESTROYED vs. OSU and in the bowl game. Borges has REPEATEDLY said he is going to work with the talent we have and has lauded Denards running ability. He's said he wants him to have 1000yds rushing. Whats wrong with that? Why do you care if Denard gets 2000yds rushing or he gets 1000 and another back gets 1000???? again lets give the coaches a chance to work with the players. Sure RR wasn't given this chance BUT YOU CAN'T GO BACK AND CHANGE THAT. JUDGING THIS COACHING STAFF BEFORE THEY DO ANYTHING ON THE FIELD ISN'T GOING TO MAKE IT ANY BETTER EITHER OR SUDDENLY MAKE EVERYONE FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT RR.

Finally, games ARE NOT WON AND LOST BASED ON YARDS. Stop clinging to the stats that make you feel good. The only stats that matter are Wins and losses. I'm sick and tired about hearing about these gaudy stats that UM had last year. 

I think there is a legitimate concern that a pro style offense would handcuff your best playmaker, but no matter how many times the staff talks about how they intend to use Denard's abilities to the fullest extent, Brian seems to think that MANBALL quotes from Hoke trump all other comments.  The truth is that when Michigan needed a tough yard in the last 3 years, it was very difficult for them to get it in league play.  Maybe there is or isn't a beloved chart or graph for that, but ask yourself how long you held your own breathe on 3rd and 1 inside the 30 yard line of the opponent knowing we couldn't kick a field goal. 

Another misconception on the message boards is that while we are going to single blocking that we've thrown out the zone blocking.  All teams use both single blocking and zone schemes these days.  The difference is that we'll feature single blocking and mix in zone versus the inverse we've had the last of the LC years and all of RR.  Both have their strengths and weaknesses and one is not superior to the other if used in the right context.

Many have already reported that the QB power is part of the package, bootlegs, zone reads, and other Denard friendly plays are in the offense as practice reports have trickled out.  I think round pegs are going into round holes on both sides of the ball, which is a nice change to what we've seen as a defense for the last 2 years. 

To a football coach, it is always better when the QB has other players take some of the load and what the charts tell me is that we need to get Denard some help.  Another point Brian didn't mention for whatever reason is that teams cannot scheme a pro style offense with Denard like they did the spread offense.  Against inferior talent, Denard was unstoppable.  Against the upper echelon of Big Ten teams he was mortal.  Teams attacked off the edge to force Denard to make decisions rapidly in the read game.  They can't do that as easily in a pro style offense insomuch as the offense is not 100% QB-centric.  If Denard's passing and the RBs prove that defenses have to respect all 11 guys out there, then he'll have moments to exploit that within the framework of the offense.  I'm sure the stats will go down, but at the same time, if the offense can be efficient and chew some clock and the defense proves to be competent, then the wins will come.  I would trade a throttled down offense for a competent defense anyday because the last two years have been brutual to watch and there was never a Saturday that I thought we couldn't lose except Delaware State.  How explosive was that offense against UMASS?  As a defensive coach, I would fear Denard more in the pro style offense if he can beat you with his arm because I would have to account for him which leaves me short on the backend.  Playing man free or cover 1 against a pro style is very high risk.  Playing cover 2, cover 3, or quads leaves to much room for him and the RBs.  If I had to defend him in the spread, I would use edge pressure and hope my guys could get him on the ground consistently.  By pressuring him, I can play those zones because I am cutting down his time to read and throw with my pressure(hopefully).

Better tell you this now, so you're not disappointed later.

Sometime after you marry that girl, you will be confronted by something much more powerful in an argument than facts backed by reason. These are "feelings." Feelings trump all argument because they have mystical powers. When you confront these feelings, do not turn to science or logic or ironclad proof -- she doesn't care about the argument itself but whether or not you're willing to put all logic aside once in awhile so she doesn't have to go through life pretending like she isn't 10% crazy (or have that 10% pop out somewhere else in her life).

This is all a way of saying everyone is actually irrational in our own ways, and we are incapable of ever seeing it. Most of us accept this and do most of our existing in spheres where we can be rational, but like wives when they're with their husbands, sometimes we all need to go to our irrational places and JUST BE LISTENED TO DAMMIT!

I think for men, a lot of us use sports (many others use politics) as the place to expel that 10% of our minds that doesn't want to think straight. Granted, some people can be completely irrational 90% of the time, but I would guess the overwhelming bulk of the supposed idiots tickling the Hoke belly for toughness quotes are here because Sports for most is just a vacation from reality.

Since being under center is something Denard hasn't done in awhile,it makes sense he would practice there.Initially,  I had the same reaction as Brian with the power play manball comments by Hoke, but that will just be one facet of our offense and one that I believe is key in redzone situations and late in a game with a lead.  It's basic. Hoke is concentrating on teaching the basics first, what's wrong with that.

Personally, I think getting Denard away from taking a pounding with 25+ carries is a good thing and will make him even more dangerous late in games and keep him on the field entire games. The pounding he took was taking a toll on his passing game IME, something RR would never admit.

I'm gonna venture to guess that his 6.3 ypc goes up this year.

Yeesh, we could call it "manball" or the "power play" or "inside runs" or "three yards and a cloud of dust."  Frankly, we could call it "sucking cock," too.  Whatever we call it, I really don't give a rat's ass, as long as it's effective.

If Michigan is good at "sucking cock" this fall, I will be very happy.

Good post Brian.

Man - leave your phone at home for a day and you miss a clusterfrick.

Honestly, I'm done trying to parse coachspeak, and while I understand Brian's concerns with Hoke's off-handed dismissal of a legitimate offensive scheme and a return to some amalgram of 3rd-down bombs and 3-yard dives, but at this point it is time to just wait.  It sucks as a fanbase to have no idea how the team that muddled through 7-6 will be under a sub-.500 coach, but getting worked up over Freep Fellatio and some all caps offensive philosophies won't help anyone. 

Personally, I expect a return to the offenses we saw under Carr - full of NFL-sized players running schemes that mash up average defenses and have trouble working against elite defenses.  So basically, what we saw last year with RR's offense, though maybe with less total yardage. 

This team, like all elite squads, will live and die with its defense, and so the focus should be less on how Denard will be under-utilized (because he almost undoubtedly will) and more on how Mattison, Hoke, and co. will ressurect a unit that has been between abysmal and walking-in-on-your-parents-doing-it-on-a-Krusty-the-Clown-themed-sex-swing since 2006.  That crater on defense was what killed RR, and what will kill Hoke regardless of if he runs pro-style, spread, triple-option, or "suck cock."

How could this year be more terrifying than 2008?  Changing RR's offense for SDSU's offense is far easier than changing a pro style to a read option attack.

You crucify the fanbase for not getting behind a coach and then you spew out this crap before the team has even played a single game, before he has finished his first spring practice. You are a hypocrite and you need to get over yourself. Your blog has a lot of great content but currently none of it is coming from you. None of this nonsense is helping our beloved school in any way. At this point I am dreading this season on the blog if you continue on this path. 

Disagree big time with Brian on this one.  How many points did we put up against OSU last year with "all the offensive pieces"?  7.  After our first drive, how many did we put up against Miss St. while they were scoring 52?  7.  Against MSU? 17.  In just about all the key games, the "high powered" offense shat a brick.  If they had averaged 30 against those teams then Brian would have a leg to stand on here, but they didn't, so personally I have no problem watching Hoke and Borges work the offense into their system with the pieces they have.