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.
But "wussball" really illustrates how stupid "manball" sounds.
you cant read anything on that site without some sly back-handed swat at RR.
many QB sweeps last year. Off-tackle mostly. But hey, exaggerating to make a nonexistant point is fun.
The context of Hoke's negative talk about zone blocking or the spread actually was pertaining to it's negative effect on the defense working against it practice after practice. I don't think it was a rigid philosophical view on the only offense he thinks works.
If you look at our defense steady decline against power running teams the last 3 seasons, the coach may have a point.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^
You may be right regarding the context, but do keep in mind that one thing everyone here seems to agree on is that they want MANBALL to be nothing but coachspeak, or, in Brian's words, a "platonic ideal".
In other words, we hope that Hoke doesn't actually mean precisely what he says. Since "what he says" is all we really have to go on till the team hits the field, I'd hope you and others would be a bit more understanding of people who have skepticism that stems from taking the coach's words at face value.
Im confident Al will be able to find a balance for our offense but he will have to be creative. might i suggest using D Gardner at QB with Denard lined up in the back field and all the possibilites of plays that could come out of the qb option. They should at least have a trick play of sorts to bust out on little brother and that team down south.
No reason to dwell on or 6 or 7 deep Rb woes :P. How bout a Effn Kicker?! we would have had 9 wins last year with a kicking game ::(
in the fall, and from all accounts Hoke isn't having any more luck with the guys we already have than Rich Rod did.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
This is unfortunate - I never believed that the special teams woes were all or even mostly Rich Rod's fault, but, since we fired him anyway, I had been holding out hope that I was wrong.
I can't wait till we can be confident of whooping their ass without needing trick plays to do it.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
When was the last time we tried to rely on trick plays to beat either of those two teams? Heck, we haven't beaten either of them in 7 or 3 years.
at QB, and still with the "we should put somebody else at QB and put Denard somewhere else" nonsense.
April 12th, 2011 at 10:07 PM ^
i'm not given Devin the starting job or anything buddy. believe me i love Denard and his skills as much as anyone. In football today you have to cultivate new ideas and mold them into something achieveable. change the game. fortunately at UM we have had those players that have changed the game from a skill stadpoint to a scheme standpoint. so dont high horse me man. anything is possible and I think this could be an exciting wrinkle.
April 12th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^
You're special.
dont forget my lunch money *#*$*
I don't really get the feeling of pessimism some people are gettting from the post. I mean all it seems to me is a best case/worst case scenario list and to take each worst case as being a criticism of the new coaching staff seems to be unfair.
Exactly. Some people just can't MOVE ON from their position that Brian needs to MOVE ON and leap into Hoke Defense Mode without even reading the post. There's some thoughtful stuff in here that's worth debating.
Didn't Hoke run stretch at BSU? I seem to remember Nate Davis working out of the gun approximately 100% of the time. Admittedly it wasn't Borges, but I don't think Hoke has a problem with zone.
April 12th, 2011 at 10:49 PM ^
1. I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people here feel that the owner of the blog isn't entitled to his opinion. What I find ironic about this is that we get better info here than paying for it at the premium sites, and it's all free. Though much of it is because of some great contributors, most of it is because of the work Brian has put in.
I guess what I'm really saying is that it really takes a dedicated and entitled freeloader to bitch about free lunch.
2. V Smith never looked fast even in HS when he was running around people. He has always had a smooth stride, subtle moves, and deceptive speed. It's part of how he was so successful before his injury. I think he will be back to full speed, and he should be a reasonable option at running back. But he will never, ever appear fast.
It really takes a dedicated and entitlted freeloader who makes a living by leveraging the images and slogans of the University of Michigan to spend months using his blog as a megaphone of negativity toward the new coach. The good news is that he has zero point zero percent chance to influence the situation.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
Are you serious?
a complete and total ass. Wait a mintue....are you coach Hoke? Because I don't even remember the RR fan club taking criticism so personally. Let it go.
The comments directed at Brian are tame in comparison to his reaction to Hoke. Doubt he takes it personally either. If you are going to dish it out you better be able to take it as well.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
Some of us click the "Make a Donation" button from time to time and actually, you know, pay for the content this site provides.
The negativity on this board toward Brian is beyond ridiculous. After three years of getting your hopes up only to have them trampled on, I think he's entitled to some skepticism. I was a RichRod supporter all the way up until about November of this past year and I'll be a Hoke supporter now. However, just because someone wants Michigan to win doesn't mean it's going to happen and voicing those fears isn't trashing the new coach, it's being realistic and trying to soften any future dissappointment that may or may not happen.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^
Is there because Brian is making assumptions even though Brady Hoke has yet to coach one game yet at Michigan. This is the kind of crap that we do not need in our fan base. Sure it is fine to second guess and debate what they should have done, but I repeat they have not even played a game yet. All Brian and some others on this board are doing is setting themselves up as "I told you so" when Michigan loses their first game. I am sorry, but I would highly doubt if most of these know it alls on this board have ever played a down of football in their lives. They sound like some stat geeks that sit at their computer all day.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
Is there because people who rip on Brian are making assumptions even though Brady Hoke has yet to coach one game yet at Michigan. This is the kind of crap that we do not need in our fan base.
Skepticism and optimism are equally valid at this point - frankly, an objective observer would probably have both, since we had a good offense and awful defense last year and are changing both. We're bloggers and message board trolls, not cheerleaders. No one is or should be obligated to hold a particular opinion one way or the other, least of all the owner of the forum in question.
No one is talking about being a cheerleader, but there is a big difference between questioning if Hoke should have bee hired and ripping on offensive system that has not even played a game yet. That is not constructive and plain stupid. Like I said previously, it seems to me that all these bloggers are doing is setting themselves up to look like some sort of genius's when Michigan losses. They sound like they should be coaching instead of coaches that have been in college football for years.
I prefer the Hoke strategy, which entails that "fullbacks will have their spine compressed," to the RR strategy, which entailed that "Denard Robinson will have his spine compressed."
heading to my first spring game this weekend. Any suggestions on what all is going on. I've heard about the Alumni flag game pre...
what's the... you gotta do this while your in Ann Arbor?
Leroy Hoard!
After that night's game, there will be a lot more pessimism around here. We got a bit lucky catching the Irish early last year after their regime change & with QB injuries. They built some momentum later in the season and will probably be in good shape to destroy our work-in-progress team. And with the national tv exposure, it could be an embarrassing storyline.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
I think ND will be a much more formidable opponent that could well beat us. That said I dont have the fears of them "destroying" us or "embarrasing" us that I would have if the previous regime was still in charge. The increased focus on D will keep us in games. Thats what a D is supposed to do, not just occupy the space between offensive possesions. I think we'll be competitive in every game this year because our D will do what is supposed to do, no we wont have a dominate D this year, but at this point competent is going to make us "look" much better, even if our offense is ony 80% of what it was last year.
Comments