Michigan Museday Won't Be That Guy
Remember, remember the 5th of November, the Manball treason and plot.
There's plenty good reason the Manball treason should ever be forgot.
After Notre Dame I picked out Michigan's success running the ball under center versus from a shotgun and found this:
| Formation | Plays | RUSH YPA |
|---|---|---|
| I-Form | 3 | 2.33 |
| Ace | 0 | n/a |
| Shotgun | 14 | 7.46 |
| Total | 17 | 6.06 |
That was two games into the Hoke and Borges era, in the first test against a real defense. A bit of clunky install was expected, if not such a big disparity. Also expected was that Borges would at that point still be running a lot of Power before inevitably realizing the personnel is simply way better at spreading and shredding. Runs from under center that weren't in goal line or 3rd/4th down situations were throwaway downs to set up passes. Runs from the shotgun were mostly 1st down plays that went for good yardage.
Once Michigan got down early it was sit back and turn on the guns.
Here's Michigan's ninth game of the season:
| Formation | Plays | RUSH YPA |
|---|---|---|
| I-Form | 8 | 3.25 |
| Ace | 6 | 2.67 |
| Shotgun | 10 | 6.20 |
| Total | 24 | 4.33 |
… and this is why a small subclass of zealots are already plotting to blow up Parliament.
The ace (not THAT Ace) stuff was 1/3 Denard Jet, which Iowa was prepared for. I tried breaking this up further into inside and outside runs but the sample sizes got too small to be of any use. However I did find that the seven inside runs from the I-form got about 3.57 YPA. It was around 5 until Iowa started sending the linebackers right into it, which counts as making them cheat and opening up some of those passes . So let's not pretend Borges doesn't have an offense when he ISOs with Hopkins followed by Toussaint; it's just nowhere near as good as putting Denard in the gun.
A Desperate Disease Requires a Dangerous Remedy
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
I believe King Hoke and Lord Borgesham are aware of this, which is why the 4th quarter comeback was 27 plays of straight shotgun.* Why they are doing it is the real question. If they're really Manball zealots like Hoke's been telling us they are since he got here, this year doesn't end well.
There's an alternative hypothesis, one I've been hesitant to mention because it would need a mountain more data than we have (or a quote from the coaches…Heiko?).
Perhaps each week the offense game plan is preparing the defense?
If there has been any rhyme or reason to the Borges grab bag (except the Denard Jet package which has five complimentary plays) it's that Michigan's offense tends to come out running its version of what the opponent does a lot of.
----------------------------------
* There's one play where they cut back too late from another game and missed the formation – it was a pass to Hemingway I think.
----------------------------------
See: trend. Against interior zone loving Iowa, Michigan ran I-form ISOs almost like a base play. Against Purdue it was outside running (although the Wolverines could do whatever they wanted really). The offense versus MSU was slants and TE flares set against the occasional (QB) power off tackle, exactly what Dantonio does with Cousins and Baker. With Northwestern he lined up in all sorts of formations and ran zone to pass, calling everything but Kitchen Sink Z Right while Denard did his best impression of Dan Persa. SD State uses the tunnel screen and I-form and got this started…
JOIN THE TUNNEL SCREEN AND POWER FROM THE I-FORM LIBERATION SOCIETY
STILL WORKING ON THE COLOR SCHEME
NOW ALSO WORKING ON THE NAME
tTSAPFTILS DOES NOT ROLL OFF THE TONGUE
…in the UFR. Minnesota…I don't know, they don't have an offense so we made one up.
All of these plays are Michigan offense plays, for example they ran a lot of the power off-tackle using Denard against MSU. But they're also the closest plays to what the opponent is running.
I need way way way more data to make this more than a hypothesis. It's not a theory. But if we do have a mimic offense, it's not hard to find a reason: Defensive Improvement. Getting this defense from the bottom to gloriously better-than-mediocre has something to do with linebacker alignment and coachspeak words filled with hard consonants, but it also might have a little sacrifice coming with it in the form of offensive grab-bagginess. 
Perhaps the parts of the Michigan offense most like the opponent's are emphasized each week in order to maximize both units' preparation for that opponent?
That's the best reason I can think of for why, nine games in, Michigan is still going with offensive game-planning that doesn't maximize the talent available to them, until it's the 4th quarter and it's time to cut them loose. Hopefully they've also been using the time saved having the 1st team defense face the 1st Team Mimics to be preparing like hell for Ohio State. Maybe they're preserving Denard so that they can unleash the Denard and Toussaint interior running game from hell. If all this beats that backwards, filthy, imperialist scoundrel of a nation to the south, it'll be worth it to this subject at least.
Handle note: Everyone else uses their name these days, so Internet mask removed. I'm Seth. Misopogon=Seth. No, I never learned how to pronounce "Misopogon" – I think the first and last o's are short and middle one is long.
November 8th, 2011 at 8:59 AM ^
"...Why is Bruce letting Harvey take the fall for this? We all know Harvey Dent isn't Misopogon!"
November 8th, 2011 at 9:06 AM ^
November 8th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
When toddlers try to say that it sounds like "Shesh"
November 8th, 2011 at 9:17 AM ^
NEEDZ MOAR MOSIPAGAN!!!1!!
November 8th, 2011 at 9:17 AM ^
I think Borges probably calls the plays on game days that he thinks give Michigan the best chance of winning. Borges must see some value in running plays out of the I. I won't bother debating this because it has become accepted here that anything out of the I is stupid and dumb and I would be wasting my time.
You are free to disagree but searching for some other answer doesn't make a great deal of sense.
November 8th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
If Borges really believes that the I-form gives Michigan the best chance to win, then I'm very concerned about his ability to be the OC. It is blindingly obvious that Michigan gets less YPP from that alignment. I would hope that someone with his experience level would understand that more YPP is better than less YPP.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^
Of course he realizes more YPP is better. It's easy to look at someone's work and assume they don't know what they are doing if you don't understand the reasoning behind it. I'm sure you could learn a thing or two from Borges if you both sat down and talked offensive football.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
I own NCAA Football 99-12'. I'd crack an egg of knowledge over that head.
November 8th, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^
Hey, thanks for all that insight into what you think he's doing. You can't say he knows what he's doing if you don't have some sort of example that demonstrates that he knows what he's doing. Otherwise you're just talking on a message board. Wait a second...
November 8th, 2011 at 9:26 AM ^
Just because Borges calls plays that he thinks give Michigan the best chance of winning doesn't mean that those plays in actuality give Michigan the best chance of winning. That is what some people are asserting (I suppose I'd put myself in that group). I think the results are pretty clear that this offense is more effective in the shotgun. You're claiming that it doesn't make sense to search for another answer, but doesn't it, if Borges calls plays that aren't [as] effective?
November 8th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
Perhaps Misopogon's... er, Seth's hypothesis carries some weight. If the offense is practicing a "mimic" offense of our opponent every week, perhaps Borges thinks that the plays that give us the best chance to win are the plays that we've been practicing all week.
I'm not sure having the first team offense practice plays that mimic opponent's offense has much more of a positive effect than having a scout offense run against the D, but hey, what do I know. It's a possibility, and if it's the main catalyst behind our defensive improvement, I can't disagree with it.
Also, if Seth's theory holds true, that would be taking a page straight out of Bo's book. That's how he prepared the '69 team for the Ohio State game, and that's how they won it.
November 8th, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^
I would probably classify this line of reasoning an emerging hypothesis.
I think a lot of this "stuff" is Borges playing Wii from the booth. You can kinda tell he likes the idea of having Denard drop back and go through progressions, but it's "square peg, round hole" to my eye. It just doesn't fit the skill set -- at least not in game situations. Denard seems to be at his best when he can make a quick decision. Keeping a Ferrari in first and second gear seems silly.
I still think we can win eight, possibly nine games if we "unleash hell" and go for broke offensively. I say this understanding that part of the offensive strategy is keeping our defense on the sidelines.
It will be interesting to see how we respond next week.
November 8th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
I agree; 3 games left put the peddle down throw everything Pro set out the door and just hammer to the finish.
I mean the concepts are there, the execution is not. This gives you spring ball to get everything squared away in year 2.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
No reason for the last game - keep them guessing up until then if you can win doing it.
[Edit: my view beating Nebraska is all about stopping Rex Burkhead.]
November 8th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^
Taylor Martinez scares the heck out of me. At least his running does.
November 8th, 2011 at 9:21 AM ^
just blew my mind a little bit. I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but please oh please oh please don't let me get sucked into this one.
Too late.
November 8th, 2011 at 9:26 AM ^
if this is the case, I feel real good about the last 3 games, we pretty much play 2 1/2 spread run teams..
November 8th, 2011 at 9:26 AM ^
if this is the case, I feel real good about the last 3 games, we pretty much play 2 1/2 spread run teams..
November 8th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. It was given at least some support by Hoke's statement that "Practicing against a pro-style offense breeds a toughness"(when Hoke was asked why he was running plays from under center).
However, it could also be something as simple as Michigan prepping the defense for that week's opponent, spotting something that was working for the scout team and saying, "Hey, maybe this isn't a bad idea."
I do wish your running evaluation was broken up Denard/not Denard. There is a lot of circular thinking that goes on around here. People are complaining that they aren't running Denard 25 times a game. Then someone brings up how Denard's performance fell off a cliff around mid-season last year. Then someone justifies it saying that Denard's left knee was swollen to the size of a basketball. They just dont make that connection--25 carries, Beilein ball knee...its like the gears only turn in one direction.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
Other than, when you look at the stats after a year, the numbers don't say he fell off a cliff. The numbers say he met tougher competition and went from "Vince Young sucks compared to me" to "very good player, especially as a first-year starter".
Denard OOC stat line:
57/80 71.3% 731 4TD 1INT 9.1YPA
79/688 6TD 8.7YPC
Denard B1G stat line:
98/170 57.6% 1585 12TD 9INT 9.3YPA
166/955 8TD 5.75YPC
Looking back at the numbers, it definitely seems like the SOS got much better, and Denard didn't do as well against better defenses (duh). Going back and looking at our current SOS, it's very troubling that Denard isn't slicing through these mediocre to poor defenses we've played (MSU excepted).
November 8th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
If Michigan is still winning the games in which Rodriguez would have pounded Denard into oblivian, and can pull it off in such a way that Denard may actually have something left in the tank for OSU, who the hell cares what his stats look like?
November 8th, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
Winning games doesn't fall on Denard. Denard's rushing and passing falls on Denard, and that's what those stats measure.
November 8th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^
it's the losses to MSU and Iowa where we ran (seemingly?) sub-optimal plays when spread/Denard plays were having success.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
And if we are talking about his rushing ability, he still put over 100 yards on the ground against Iowa, Penn State, Ohio State and Wisconsin on about the same amount of carries he received against SDSU, EMU and Northwestern this year.
That's why I'm not sure about the whole "saving Denard" theory. Where was this preservation against the weakest possible part of our schedule?
November 8th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
I can only speculate as to the answers to your questions, but plausible explanations abound.
At the time of those early-season games, they were viewed as "cant lose", the defense was still developing and unproven and all stops were pulled out. With 6 wins in the bank and all opponents respectable, there were no more "cant lose" games.
Or...
Michigan has actually put together some little bit of non-Denard running game, which obviously was not happening early in the season.
Or...
The fact that most of the yards Denard accumulated last year in the games you mentioned(except Iowa...but good lord, did you see him throw the ball in that game?) occured when Michigan was down multiple scores and the game was out of hand.
November 8th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
When he was 13-18? There was one terrible pick in there. I actually just watched the every snap video for that game and our offense was more let down by stupid penalties than anything else.
And most of the OSU yards came in the first half. 102 yards against Penn State came before the score got to 21-10.
Also, an overlooked part of the Wisconsin game: Last time they can to Ann Arbor they gave up a 19 point lead and lost in agonizing fasthion. Something tells me they didn't just quit last year.
We had a pretty good thing going on offense last year. Maybe it was the only good thing, but it did exist.
November 8th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
When Denard got knocked out of last year's Iowa game in the third quarter, how may points did Michigan have on the board? Lemme check. 7? 7 freaking points, and you're using that as an example of offensive efficiency?
And this may be a novel concept, but did you ever stop to think that maybe opposing coaches realize that they've got a little less margin for error when they're playing Michigan this year? That they might be a little less concerned about "building depth" and getting ready for next week's game?
And if you want to throw the MSU game this year in there as a comparison...You saw what they did to Martin last year. You saw what they tried to do to Denard this year. If Denard's legs had been featured in that game we wouldn't be discussing Denard's performance against Iowa right now, we'd be discussing Gardner. And Denard would be recovering from surgery.
November 8th, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^
when talking about the 2010 offense forget something simple: No one is arguing it was perfect. The argument is, that in the exact opposite manner of the defense, it was on the right track.
You just outed yourself as having no idea what you are talking about in regards to last year's games by saying you remember Denard not throwing the ball accurately, yet he was 13-18. I'm telling you that many of our drives were derailed by penalties and - get this, other parts of the game effect the offense...you can throw that into your scrapbook of novel concepts - that the defense/special teams did not put the offense in a position to succeed. Michigan's field position in comparison to Iowa's in this game was atrocious. Almost all our drives started deep within our own territory. By comparison, 4 out of 5 Iowa touchdown drives started past their 35 yard-line.
Our offense was always up against it last year. This year, they aren't, but we've lost that upward trajectory built by last year's unit. It may be for the best in the long run - due to the improvement of the defenes in regards to the coaching change - but this year it is extremely annoying to see the same guys out there last year who looked on the verge of something special, stagnant against the 72nd ranked defense in the country.
Your last two paragrahs are nonsense. What the hell are you even talking about in the second to last paragraph? That MSU and Iowa took it easier on us last year to prep for games the next week? Somehow I doubt that MSU would overlook their 5-0 rivals or that Iowa would be thinking about whoever was next on their schedule as they came to Ann Arbor.
Denard may have gotten banged up last year, but he played many physical defense and was always out there the next week, still putting up good numbers. Unless he is hurt and the staff is keeping it under wraps, not running him more is detrimental to the team's success.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^
So all the Borges angst isn't originating from anything Rodriguez did, its coming from comparisons to what hypothetical Rodriguez MIGHT have done this year? At the risk of raising Brian's eyebrow, how is this more fair than comparing Rodriguez's 3-9 to the 8-4 or 9-3 record Bacon suggests(p. 380 T&O) Michigan MIGHT have had if Carr had toughed it out another year?
hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit/
November 9th, 2011 at 3:02 PM ^
You might be the single dumbest person I have ever encountered.
I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.
What I do know is that you responded to a reasonable post with nothing but nonsense, probably because you are clueless.
I'm not even going to get into any Carr/2008 debate with you because even after you are proven wrong there, you'll just move on in desperation to some other barely connected topic in hopes that I'll have less knowledge than you there...but of course, given that you don't even know what occured in last year's games, its highly unlikely you'd ever find it.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:50 AM ^
I'm glad you asked man. I like you, and I dont want you to feel like your reading level is keeping you out of the conversation, so I'm going to try to put things in real simple terms you can understand.
When someone decides that it is a crime against humanity to compare what Rodriguez achieved in 2008 to what Carr/Miles/Hoke could have achieved, and then goes out of his way to hold Borges to the standard of what he thinks Rodriguez would have achieved, that's hypocrisy.(see notes section at bottom)
When one person questions the other person's intelligence, and uses their own inability to comprehend the debate as proof, that's IRONY.
Do you see the difference? Isn't learning fun?
Now, just for background, my position is that Michigan's offense to this point has been about as good as their offense last year. Debatable, I'll grant you, but I think we can all agree its likely within a standard deviation.
Are you still with me little buddy? Ok good.
I have to concede that my memory of Denard in last year's Iowa game was pretty much limited to the pass that sailed a million miles over Stonum's head into the waiting arms of an Iowa defender. Perhaps it was ingrained in my memory because it was a carbon copy of the play that sealed our fate against Iowa the year before(well, it was Hemingway's head in 09, but you get my point). I guess on my tombstone they'll put "Here lies a man who was unaware that Shoelace had decent(although ultimately meaningless) stats in a game where he put 7 points on the board." Because clearly nothing I did after that even mattered. I guess I can live with that.
My contention was that much of the criticism that Borges has been receiving was due to the romanticization of our memory of Rodriguez's offense. In terms you might understand, we're all looking at last year through "Grobin tinted glasses" when in reality the statistics are quite similar year to year.
You still following? Almost done, and then we can get an ice cream, k?
Then when you suggested, "I think you and many people when talking about the 2010 offense forget something simple: No one is arguing it was perfect. The argument is, that in the exact opposite manner of the defense, it was on the right track." That was an epiphany for me. Not only does Borges have to live up to what Rodriguez DID, he has to live up to what he MIGHT have done this year. That struck me as incredibly unfair and hypocritical(as we discussed above). That was the first sentence in the post I responded to, and while you did reinforce this idea in the following paragraph, you wrote a good deal of other things after that, so I can see how you might have forgotten it. Sometimes you have to read things twice to understand, and that's ok.
*notes: That's John U Bacon's 8-4, 9-3 projection, and he was assuming that Mallett would have stayed if Carr had stayed. I wouldn't make that assumption, I was thinking 6-6 or 7-5, but hell, Bacon has a hell of a lot more inside information than me.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
Michigan is averaging 445 YPG.
That doesn't include the WMU game.
November 8th, 2011 at 9:37 AM ^
Would this make Hoke the anti-RR since lots of people thought RR only used the defense to prep the offense?
November 8th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^
I can't believe this would actually happen at this level in college football. Does the defense really need the first-team offense to run the opponent's plays to get them ready? If so, that says a lot about the defense, no?
November 8th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^
Ideally, you have your redshirting freshman and third string players play scout team to get both offense and defense ready. Since we only have 73 scholarship players and many of them are freshman or not highly regarded by the recruiting services, maybe the the coaches don't think those guys are good enough to give the first team a good run to prepare them for the upcoming opponent.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
November 8th, 2011 at 10:25 AM ^
Maybe it says a lot about this defense
November 8th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
This Seth guy writes a lot like like Misopogon.
/Gets to end of article
Ohhh, he is Misopogon. Trippy
November 8th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
Maybe Borges is calling plays to preserve Denard. Obviously, Denard's production is down from last year, but it is definitely on purpose. It is hard to run Denard 20-25 times per game and not have him beat up.
As we all remember, Denard did not finish 10 games(!) last year. If Denard is hurt from getting beat up week after week, we wouldn't be able to 'cut him loose' when we need him anyway.
Hoke and Borges are expecting some growing pains during the offensive transition in order to bring along the running game, Denards downfield passing, tight end play, etc. I just hope we do what we need to do against Neb and OSU in order to win, since they are the last two games anyway, then a month off to heal.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^
Preserve him for what, exactly? If you don't unleash Denard against MSU or Iowa on the road, when Michigan is very much in contention for the B1G title game, when are you going to use him?
November 8th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
Out of 13?
That seems a bit high.
November 8th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
I think "missed part of" 10 games is true - "didn't finish" 10 games is not.
November 8th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
Last year:
UConn: Devin Gardner got one rush at the very end.
@ND: finished
UMass: finished
BG: Came out early with game well in hand, Forcier went ape.
@Indiana: Forcier came in for one pass.
MSU: finished.
Iowa: Came out in 3rd quarter, Tate led almost-comeback
@PSU: Denard got a ding and Forcier threw two passes. Denard finished.
Illinois: Denard went out with a booboo and Forcier kept the lamp lit.
@Purdue: Denard got a booboo and Forcier got about 9 snaps, but Robinson didn't come out until almost the very end.
Wisconsin: Denard came out for a booboo late in the game, and stayed out because it was a blowout.
Ohio State: Tate came in for the 2nd half but then Denard came back in.
November 8th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^
Here is where I saw that...the last sentence of this article.
I know I know...Bleacher Report.
Regardless- he went for over 4000 yards last year as a QB/RB and got banged up - my point still stands. Although, I agree with the above poster - Denard should have been unleashed much sooner against Iowa and he was pretty well contained no matter what we tried against MSU.
November 8th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^
And only now did I even notice that first "o". I always thought it was "Mispogon" (long o then short o)..
November 8th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
The Misopogon, or Beard-Hater, is a satirical essay on philosophers by the Roman Emperor Julian. It was written in Koine Greek. The satire was written in Antioch in February of March 363, not long before Julian departed for his fateful Persian campaign.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
It was a self-deprecating play by the emperor heading into Antioch when he knew he would be unpopular, is why I latched onto it in the first place.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
on offense.
Reasonable working hypothesis now needs to be tested, preferably through direct question to Hoke by Hekio.
If I am Clever Hoke, however, I realize that Iowa and Ilinois are easier to beat than Nebraska and OSU, and maximize my opportunities where I have maximum chance of winning. Ten and two is (sadly, WAS) ten and two, whether we beat the Illini and Iowa to get there or Nebraska and OSU.
And--of course--learning to run the shotgun to perfection under gameday conditions arguably further maximizes your chances to do the same against Nebraska and OSU. In my alternate universe THAT would be manball: doing what you want to do when you want to do it because you are so accomplished at it and have the talent TO do it.
Show them your gonads on defense; show them your tailights on offense. And let people who are insecure in their personhood talk manball doodoo on their couches.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
Great.
Last week it was "Gimmickball". This week it's "Mimmickball"
I hate you Brian Seth.
Comments