Spring Game Extrapolations: Offense
Nothing will ever bring home how bizarrely intense people get about spring football than Orson's annual in-depth review of Florida's spring game. It's the closest he gets to being a conventional team blogger, a straightforward piece of analysis long enough to be a Marky Mark Mangino post livened up by Orson's tendency to call things a "boiled bag of rat innards". Orson is writing about defensive tackles. It is April and college football is bored.
Michigan's got one of those this weekend and these are the things I'll be extrapolating answers from the tiniest filaments of evidence about:
Is Can Have Tailback
Michigan's tailback last year was Denard Robinson and when it wasn't Denard Robinson it was people being enraged that Vincent Smith wasn't really fast or falling down past the line of scrimmage. This year some variety of pro-style offense will be deployed; having a tailback becomes significantly less optional.
Your candidates:
- Vincent Smith, the 5'6" Pahokeean who was the leading non-Robinson rusher last year with 601 yards. He took 136 carries to get those—4.4 per—and struggled badly against anything approximating a good defense.
- Michael Shaw. Carlos Brown 2.0 averaged a full yard per carry more than Smith mostly because he got hurt after the Bowling Green game.
- Michael Cox. The Loch Ness Monster is reputed to be a stallion of a man capable of great feats. Unfortunately he is 50-50 to run towards the correct endzone on any given play.
- Stephen Hopkins. Hopkins had some fumbling issues and only ended up with 37 carries last year but his size made him an effective lead blocker for Robinson and his rushes promised a Minor-like downhill moose down the road. We're a bit further down the road and Hopkins's new head coach loves him some moose.
- Fitzgerald Toussaint. Toussaint has been vaporware in his first two years. Maybe he can stay healthy for the next twenty seconds.
There is also The Greatest Player In The History Of The World According To Two Jacksons. Thomas Rawls enters with the sort of hype you can only get by being a generic late-rising three star coached by Fred Jackson's son and recruited by Fred Jackson. Since he didn't enroll early we won't get to test the Jacksons' theory that Thomas Rawls encompasses the power of the sun and gently warms the earth each morning.
Looking for: A somewhat lighter, faster Hopkins with a grasp of what he should do. He's probably going to be the best back on the roster and he's now in a system that loves/needs a guy like him.
Fearing: Vincent Smith looks pretty much the same and still has a lock on the top TB spot. It's plausible that Smith's injury lingered into last season—remember he tore that ACL during the OSU game, so he had well under a year to get ready—and that he'll display a lot more speed and agility two years removed from it. If that's the case then maybe he can be a decent Big Ten starter. If he's still the same guy he was last year and he's still at the top of the depth chart and he's getting a lot of carries from the I when Denard could be doing something, guh.
Will only believe three games into the season: Cox as Herschel Walker. That guy is never going to play. He's a redshirt junior and couldn't get a carry last year even when half the tailback corps was injured and the rest was Smith and freshman Hopkins. And this is at tailback, the position where you can leap into the starting lineup on day one if, say, you're a human battering ram who runs like a gazelle. The only RB in recent Michigan history to get noticeably better late in his career was Chris Perry. Everyone else was the same guy they always were.
The Roundtree Question
What do you do with the Big Ten's second leading receiver when his production was predicated on the threat of Denard Robinson running and his position only sort of exists in the platonic ideal of a MANBALL offense?
The answer to this is probably "nothing." Borges said something about running a ton of three and four wide this season. Even if that's forced it sounds like Borges is going to roll with it, especially because his best wideout seems most comfortable in the slot—kinda need to have three WRs to have a slot—and the tight ends are sparse and stone-handed. Late-era Carr teams based out of three wide even after Steve Breaston had moved on to the NFL. Borges is more of a bomber than Carrbord and just spent a couple years running one of those "West Coast" offenses that throws damn near everything out there. So… yeah, expect three wideouts.
Okay, then, but the further question is: what will Borges do with the guy? Roundtree went nuts last year when the threat of Denard Robinson sucked safeties up and saw him stunningly wide open against Notre Dame and Indiana and Illinois and several other times besides. Can Borges run what he wants to run and surround Roundtree with nothing but grass?
Looking for: Michigan safeties to fail spectacularly because they can't decide whether to take Denard or stay back. If you can't do it to Michigan safeties you can't do it to anyone.
Fearing: Borges can't evolve the system to keep ahead of defenses and get those almost free touchdowns. I'm sure he can emulate QB Lead Oh Noes but Michigan had to keep re-arranging it to prevent safeties from showing up in the wrong place at the critical moment. Borges is a smart guy but his knowledge is in another arena. I'm not sure he'll be able to create as many opportunities with Denard's legs.
Will only believe three games into the season: Jeremy Gallon on the field.
Okay, You Run Power, But How?
Michigan ran POWER last year. They didn't run it much, but they did use it as a counter to the constant stretch action. It was fairly successful as a changeup. That move was part of the shift in Michigan's offense away from a true zone read to an odd QB-as-TB thing people called "QB iso" and didn't know what to do with—the AP put him on their All-America team as a "back." Like Rodriguez coming into DeBord's already extant stretch offense, Hoke is walking into a situation where his guys have some clue about what the new stuff is.
Unfortunately, we've seen bits and pieces of power plays run from under center in the practice videos that have invariably been stuffed. This is rock hard evidence it is not a good idea. So, like, what I'm saying is that if you've got Denard Robinson and you want to run power you might as well line up in the shotgun and run it with Denard Robinson, right?
A secondary question: how serious is Hoke about his distaste for zone running? He seems like a pretty hands-off guy when it comes to the offense, but if there's one thing he's stressed on that side of the ball it's that the team "will run power" and fullbacks will have their spine compressed and whatnot. This is something of a problem because Michigan has just completed the transition away from hampeople. Mike DeBord installed a zone stretch running game in 2006 and Michigan started recruiting to it. That first class was David Molk and Mark Huyge, now redshirt seniors.
Everyone recruited since has been either a relatively light and mobile spread OL or a prototypical left tackle. The prototype will be fine in any system; guys like Molk and Omameh and Ricky Barnum might not be. If Michigan spends the offseason putting beef on the interior line it might work out… or it might give them a bunch of tweeners not particularly good at anything.
Looking for: QB power.
Fearing: RB power.
Will only believe three games into the season: Michigan guards as effective drive blockers.
Lamarckian Denard
EVOLLLLLLLLLVE
It was at last year's spring game that Robinson went from a freak show who should be moved to tailback to a freak show who should be in the Heisman running. He can't improve that much again without melting anyone who watches him, Ark of the Covenant style, but he was still pretty raw last year. He had bouts of drive- and game-crippling inaccuracy; he occasionally joined the Rex Grossman "f*** it, I'm going deep" club; he was restricted to a set of limited routes that teams adapted to as the leaves turned. He should progress. How much?
Looking for: Incremental improvement.
Fearing: Uncomfortable on drops and still prone to chucking slants well behind his receivers.
Will only believe three games into the season: hopefully that Denard Robinson can do anything.
"... his production was predicated on the threat of Denard Robinson running ..."
That doesn't seem fair to Roundtree. He's not overly strong or fast, but he has an "it" factor as a receiver that I think would useful in a MANBALL setting.
I agree about Roundtree. You could say that everyone's production last year was predicated on Denard's running. For better of worse that's what the offense was centered on.
Tree is prone to some drops but if he minimizes that he'll be fine in any offense. He's great at finding the open spaces when running after the catch. He can block too. I loved when he cleared the way on the outside for Denard's 87 yard TD run in South Bend last year.
No prediction?
/s
This might be the most generic spring game (or semblance of) in the history of college football.
I just don't know what to think about these spring games and scrimmages. I love hearing the rumors, watching the video, and will enjoy watching the spring game, but for every good thing done on one side of the ball, it's something bad happening on the other side. Hopefully, we can just see if anybody steps up under pressure.
from what i remember vincent smith looked pretty good against osu in 09. if he has some of that same burst and wiggle 20 months post-injury he could be okay, particularly as a change-of-pace guy, sorta like warrick dunn when mike alstott was compressing spines for the bucs a few years back.
also, the 'face-melting ark of the covenant" line may be brian's funniest ever. seriously.
I think he gained all of 25 yards on 10 carries. He did score on a nifty move. But really? 2.5 yards a carry? And he didn't last the whole game before being injured.
Not good.
but in any case the stats weren't really my point...all i really remember is that we made maybe one good offensive play that day, and that he was the one who made it.
Vincent Smith has looked "good" against virtually no one except DSU in 2009. He has looked serviceable against a few teams and bad against several.
Nah, I'd have to change the first sentence to "DSU, EMU, and BGSU."
It really does tick you off that Vinny had more touchdowns in 2010 than Cox had carries, doesn't it?
We're arguing about nothing, however. If Cox is better than Vinny I want him on the field too. For whatever reason, RR trusted a one-kneed Smith to any other RB on the roster. Hopefully, if someone on the team this year is better than Smith, he gets on the field.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
Nah, that stat doesn't tick me off at all. I haven't thought about it and don't really care.
I just think Cox is a better back. And so is Shaw. And if he can stay healthy, I think Toussaint probably is, too.
when people talk about a change of pace guy they are talking about a team substituting a smaller faster player for a bigger stronger runner. By putting Smith in for almost every other back on the team, you are putting in a smaller, slower runner. Yes, that is a change of pace, but not the kind you want.
Dunn was a speedster, Smith is not.
Brandon Minor got much better during the course of his career at Michigan. If Lloyd had the foresight to redshirt him while he was stuck behind a young Mike Hart, we would be commenting now about having to replace one of the best rushers in Michigan's recent history.
Kill the MANBALL meme.
I don't understand how anyone could watch San Diego State's bowl game last year and not think Borges is bringing anything other than a wide-open, exciting, and multi-faceted offense to Ann Arbor.
If Michigan is actually able to run I-right 34 Blast on 3rd and 1 this year, all the better.
I agree. With what I have seen of Hoke and Borges' offense, we are not going to turn ourselves into Wisconsin. I think Hoke talks a lot in "coach-speak".
Pretty sure Brian himself stated that RR deserved to go after the bowl game. He is not a RR lover just skeptical of a coach who has a career losing record. Meanwhile, your constant bitching about anything skeptical of Hoke is on par with the staunch RR supporters here.
yet! I support coach Hoke. I think he is a great guy but I think I'm like Brian and just cant figure out how from day 1 Hoke is "the man" and RR was being shit on the second he stepped on campus. Everyone just wants Michigan to win but the slamming of RR still is retarted and not giving Hoke a chance is also retarted. Brian can lay-off Hoke but the RR bashers need to let it go also. Hopefully in the end we are cheering as Hoke is holding a crystal football at the end of one of these seasons.
RR was being shit on the day he stepped on campus? BULL.
That is total revisionist history. He had problems stemming from his West Virginia divorce and the national media ate it up. With actual Michigan FANS, he wasn't truly shit on until it became obvious that his teams were, well, shit.
What do you define as "actual Michigan FANS?"
I was a sophomore in fall 2008. The West Virginia accent and the words "spread offense" demonized him from day 1 to a healthy amount of my classmates.
There was a large percent of the fanbase that never accepted RR. This is a fact, not revisionist history. What could be revisionist history is how much this affected the team and wins a losses. Ultimately, this did not make RR lose 22 games in three years. Thats on RR. Thats why he is gone.
It is fair to say that there was a large percentage of fans who never liked or accepted RR. It is unfair to say that caused his demise here.
April 12th, 2011 at 11:13 PM ^
there is a zero point zero percent chance that he is correct in his predictions - but it's his blog so he can say whatever he wants.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
there is a zero point zero percent chance that you use anything other than a zero point zero percent chance when referring to the odds of Brian doing something.
Where did I say anything about a prediction? He did not predict anything but said that RR deserved to go.
His skepticism, as well as mine and others, are founded on the fact that we now have a head coach who has a career losing record and is changing an offense that Denard thrived in. That is not unreasonable.
Also, you are fucking tool and bigger douche than I can imagine for calling Brian a freeloader for providing excellent content on a subject we all love, Michigan Sports. If you really feel that way then find a nice tall cliff and throw yourself off it.
First year-spring ball.
1. Is the defense taking proper angles and TACKELING?
2. Is the offensive line firing out and hitting people?
3. is the center to QB exchange solid?
4. Do we have a legit safety?
I expect we see some mistakes and I expect we see moments of brillance few and far between.
Take the time to watch Texas or the LSU scrimmage on ESPN to help reset your Spring Game expectations.
I don't agree with you on many things, but this time you're right. The "manball" thing got old almost immediately.
I don't understand how anyone could watch San Diego State's bowl game last year and not think Borges is bringing anything other than a wide-open, exciting, and multi-faceted offense to Ann Arbor.
Simple explanation: the people calling this offense "MANBALL" probably didn't watch the bowl (or any of SDSU's other games).
on the radio last night Borges said this offense is nothing like the SDState offense from last year. he said that because of the talent they have in Denard. So I'm taking it to mean that the offense will be even more wide open than their offense least year,but he even said you cant go on what their offense was like last year.
Boy, my afternoon of sparkly optimism just went down the toilet. Thanks.
If the offense looks bad, the defense will look good. You can hang your hat on that if you want something to be optimistic about. Given the Tate and Denard breakouts of the last two years, somebody will probably generate some excitement. I'm wagering it's one of the backs, Will Campbell, or most likely, the Death Star, Devin Gardner.
I think you've been coming to the wrong place.
<br>
<br>Having said that, even I am not seeing the overabundance of negativity here that we have of late, like some are seeing. There's still some snark, but it's not coming from as hostile a place.
Was this blog ever about snark-free sparkly optimism? If we can all take off the Hokebottle glasses for a second, probably the most pessimisstic thing Brian has written since the Mattison hire was the North Dakota hockey preview, and no one thinks Brian has an irrational hatred of Red Berenson.
To expect less than snark from the man who brought us Tacopants and DOOM is to be nostalgic for a past that never existed.
I brought DOOM to the forces of Hell back in 1993.
was that I'd be nervous about the OFFENSE. But despite 10 starters returning, I am. That's what happens when you have a new scheme which, by design, has your QB doing less of what he's good at, and more of what he needs lots of improvement in. Hey it might be great, and work perfectly, but it certainly is more of a question than I think most assumed it would be.
they're spending more time in the spring working on the new stuff that Denard's not as comfortable with so that he'll be more comfortable with it by fall. And then they'll sneak in the stuff he's naturally brilliant at and let somebody else's defense deal with it.
And hopefully he'll actually be healthy enough to do the stuff he's good at for 12 full games this time around. Asking a 193-pound quarterback to throw the ball 30 times AND carry it 20 more per game is a bit much from a physical standpoint.
I really hope the offense still functions, but damn if Brian doesn't put doubt in my mind.
He isn't sold on Cox. That's Brian's own opinion, but others on this board, as well as the GBMW recap, have been hinting that he may emerge as our starting tailback.
Also, apparently the defense smacked around the offense on the Saturday scrimmage. That hasn't happened in a good while in Michigan football. The offense is learning a new system and the defense is getting proper coaching and personnel assignments.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
Interesting perspective from Brian.
I think Cox is going to be a pleasant surprise in this offense.
I think all the coaching in the world on the defensive side of the ball will not pay off as much as some people think. We lack talent, size, experience (again) as we move into next year. Mattison may be good, but he is not a miracle worker.
I don't think the curious decisions regarding who saw the field and who didn't were limited to the defensive side of the ball, unfortunately.
First, you have the inexplicable decision to keep running Gallon out to receive kicks, in spite of his repeated demonstrations that he didn't have the slightest clue how to field them.
Regarding the RB use, I'm still puzzled by what happened during the MSU game. After our initial drive, our running game gradually became pretty ineffective, until Hopkins was brought in, I think in the second half. On two successive carries he bulled his way to six and then seven yards, and was moving the pile very convincingly in a physical manner that hadn't been displayed before. For a brief moment, those of us in the stands were encouraged about a revived running attack, but after those carries Hopkins was taken out and didn't play the rest of the game. There was no mention of injury, and Hopkins didn't fumble as far as I can recall. I don't know if keeping him in would have resulted in a victory, but he gave the appearance of being the hot hand. Why would you not keep giving him the ball, at least until he proved that his first two runs were flukes?
Rodriguez's personnel decisions overall deserve an F+. They were worse on defense, but offense wasn't so great, either. His running back usage at Michigan was ridiculous, and I'm not even just talking about Cox. His use of McGuffie as a full-time back, Smith as a short yardage guy, Hopkins in odd situations, Brown on the goal line against Illinois, etc. It was all just ridiculously ridiculous.
That seems a bit harsh. I wouldn't give him anything above C-, but I think he at least had his moments (Denard, WRs, a couple of O-line spots).
If you're referring only to positions where the decision might have been difficult, yes, I can see where you'd say F+.
the next running play might have been 3rd and 1 which meant that Smith was going to get the ball and try to run between the tackles.
but also tired of the "manball" horse, which is a dead one. Just look where "wussball" has gotten us.
Make no mistake about it Hoke and Borges run the zone play. If you watch SDSU, they run quite a bit actually. Coach Hoke's comments in regard to the power play should be viewed as more of a message to his players that they will be more physical than a bold statement of stubbornness to a roomful of reporters. I happen to agree that "zone, zone and more zone" type teams struggle greatly when they need to be physical. Especially against, you know, good teams.
Brian loves to tout the offensive numbers last year, and yeah they were great. What didn't look great? The scoreboard. We ran by physically unmatched teams and gained yards on good teams only to shut down inside the 30 and get our brains beat in.
If we face such a "natural recruiting disadvantage", as has been Brian's argument since the coaching search began, then wouldn't we want to shorten the game by playing ball control and clock management? Three QB sweeps out of bounds for a net of 4 yards didn't do it for us against anyone greater than / equivalent to Notre Dame last year.
Don't drink too much of the kool-aid. After watching SDSU four times last year I really believe Borges is very flexible. (Uh, in coaching. I can't say for sure that dude could touch his toes.)
The "recruiting disadvantage" argument is silly. Someone crunched the numbers awhile back and found that under Lloyd Carr, we had the highest aggregate recruiting rankings in the Big Ten - higher than even OSU. It was very rare when we faced a genuinely more-talented opponent. Our home state may not be loaded, but we've always been able to pull talented players from around the country.
If we ever had a recruiting disadvantage, it was the last couple of years, when lots of defensive recruits talked about how they disliked the 3-3-5, a lot of WRs were uncertain if they'd get enough touches in our offense, and when pro-style QBs were completely out of the question.
OH GOD BRIAN WROTE A POST THAT IS NOT 100% POSITIVE MUST FREAK OUT ABOUT HOW MUCH HE HATES HOKE AND WANTS RICH ROD'S BABIES.
You wrote a good response - to a post that was decidedly not the OP. Brian mentions MANBALL only once, and there he immediately dismisses it to suggest that Borges will probably run a lot of 3-4 WR sets to get Roundtree on the field.
As for power running, Brian makes a good case that this team is not built for it, and in fact has been built for the zone running scheme that Hoke himself says he doesn't like since 2006 (which you may remember from such things as "11-2" and "coached by Lloyd Carr, not Rich Rodriguez"). Brian then expresses some optimism that the power game was useful as a change of pace despite his skepticism of it as a base offense.
Reactionary griping about Brian's skepticism is significantly more annoying (and adds much less to the conversation) than Brian's skepticism.
This post is a pretty fair assessment of what could go well or poorly on Saturday. If all you want to talk about is your opinion of stuff you think Brian said a month or two ago, then it's you (this is a plural you not directed only at chewieblue), not Brian, that needs to move on.
Comments