Unverified Voracity Steamy About Many Things Comment Count

Brian

Site note. Had some issues getting and converting the game this week—my UFR process is byzantine—so UFR will be delayed until Thursday/Friday. It's a bye week, be chill.

Reminder. This is what Michigan wore on Saturday:

UM_MSU_Gordon-thumb-300x451-91668[1]

I hadn't seen a good shot of the sleeves, which miraculously manage to make the whole ensemble seem even dumber-looking. If you run across a picture from this game in five years you are going to laugh at the clown uniforms like people laugh at that one year a bunch of teams wore stormtrooper shoulders.

The MZone points at a prescient slippery slope prediction and says get used to it. Michigan's the first team to get their Arena League on twice in one year—even the pro combat victims only have to put up with it once.

How does this happen again? There will be a fuller discussion in the UFR of this, but it is absolutely maddening to see MSU time those double-A-gap blitzes with Molk's head going down and never get a check or read in their face. Molk on this:

"They did jump our snap count," Molk said. "They knew us, they knew how we played and how our plays were going to start."

Michigan State's Trenton Robinson originally told The Wolverine on Saturday his team could anticipate Molk's snaps because he bobbed his head down, then back up before he hiked the ball. …

Molk said Michigan recognized this during the game, but could not adjust because of the crowd at Spartan Stadium.

"Making an adjustment came down to our ability to communicate, and with the crowd noise, it sort of covered that," he said. "It puts us into a tough situation, and something we have to react to, and we weren't ready to react. They got us, no doubt."

During the game? They've done this the last three years! For Michigan to have no answer to the instant A-gap blitz into the fourth quarter is a massive, inexplicable coaching failure. Not once did Michigan block that, not once did they bring Molk's head up to reveal the blitz and then check into another play. There was no one in the center of the field for a dozen snaps and Michigan didn't use this at all.

Upside: At least this blows up the halftime adjustments meme. Downside: it's been replaced with the "Michigan State was tougher" meme, which even Molk is repeating. I guess that's the effect of an offseason in which every other word out of Hoke's mouth was "toughness." I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing MSU outcoach Michigan for the fourth straight year. It's not toughness when no one has an angle to block the same linebacker five times.

Boo-boo, line edition. Via a pouty-looking WCBN sports director hanging out in Sweden:

Taylor Lewan limping around campus with a giant boot on his left foot/ankle. Looks uncomfortable.

Somewhere on the coaching film there is evidence Gholston swept the leg. Of this there can be no doubt.

Obligatory Gholston-Dantonio statement. Anyone who's surprised that MSU is ham-fistedly taking a page from the Gene Smith playbook by declaring Saturday's events an "isolated incident" in an attempt to keep a starter on the field hasn't been paying attention. Dantonio's established a pattern. Ending a kid's hockey career with a sucker punch doesn't get you kicked off the team, every year there's a posse of 20 guys getting together to beat up some engineers, etc. etc. etc. This is the way he wants his program. End of story.

Bielema don't care. I've been annoyed with the program's public reaction to the above, possibly because it seems like they're lying through their teeth for better PR. This doesn't make me right, it just makes me annoyed. In contrast, Bret Bielema is a guy who gets his digs in:

"We'll do our talking with our pads and we'll do it between the whistles."

This is the only guy in the league who was able to call Tressel the asshat he was instead of going with that tragic hero/tragedy business that Carr and Dantonio did or refusing comment like everyone else. He also runs up scores like there's no tomorrow—it's clear he's something of an asshat himself, but these days I'll take any public figure who says what he thinks instead of what someone says he should think because it looks prettier in the paper.

Ain't hearing you about a deranged prosecutor. In the aftermath of the personal-foul-fest over the weeked the WSJ assembled their number-crunching team and came up with a list of the dirtiest rivalries in college football as measured by personal fouls of a late/unnecessary hit variety. A number are expected. One in particular is not:

RIVALRY PER GAME BIGGER OFFENDER
Auburn-Georgia 5.4 Georgia 59%
Duke-North Carolina 5.2 N. Carolina 69%
UCLA-Southern California 4.8 UCLA 54%
N. Mexico-N.Mexico St. 4.6 N. Mexico 65%
Kansas-Missouri 4.2 Missouri 76%
Michigan-Michigan St. 4.0 Michigan St 80%
C. Michigan-W. Michigan 3.8 Western 58%
Brigham Young-Utah 3.6 Utah 61%
NC State-North Carolina 3.4 N. Carolina 59%

All of those are competitive series save North Carolina bludgeoning Duke annually.  Maybe they're just mean dudes at UNC—they're the only team to show up twice.

Of course, this pretends the personal foul stuff is a two way street, which it isn't in certain cases. On a per team basis your winners are:

  1. UNC (vs Duke)
  2. MSU
  3. Missouri
  4. Georgia

So… yeah, UNC hates Duke a lot. Either that or it's impossible to not get personal fouls for unnecessary roughness when you've got a lot of illegally acquired future NFL players and they've got eleven mewling kittens.

The fresh take NOTline*. Magazine writer Chris Jones came up with a fresh take that really adds to the sporting zeitgeist: you shouldn't say "we" when you are identifying the team you root for because you are not on the team. Awesome, dude. Thanks. For your troubles SBN's Andrew Sharp effectively compares you to Whitney.

Sharp has ten reasons a fan might break out the we but doesn't hit the reason I do it periodically: it is a convenient linguistic trick. If I am discussing the Michigan-Michigan State game and wish to refer to the teams by words shorter to read and type, I can either continually re-introduce the team names and briefly refer to whichever one is the most recent antecedent as "they." That's potentially annoying and confusing. The other option is to dump them entirely in favor of "we" and "they," which clearly indicate who is who while preventing constant repetition of already established facts—that we are indeed talking about Michigan and Michigan State.

It would take a fun-hating mutant whose super power is pedantry to object to this, which is why someone who works for a newspaper or magazine writes this column every three months.

*[BOOM.]

Trouba: pretty good. Hockey 2012 D commit Jacob Trouba is good, first round good. As of late he's pushing his way into the top half of the first round:

Defenseman Jacob Trouba (U-18 U.S. national team development program): He is most likely to land in the top 10 picks and could crack the top five if he keeps progressing. He's 6-1 and 170 pounds, and he can skate well, fire the puck with authority and show a physical presence.

"You hate to say a guy can do it all, but this guy can do it all," said former Calgary Flames general manager Craig Button, an analyst for NHL Network.

Trouba checks in tenth on Button's list of top prospects at TSN; forward commit Boo Nieves is on his watch list. He's seventh to ISS. Nieves also features as a "riser":

Boo Nieves, LW, Kent HS
Nieves has rocketed up the charts after showing off his stuff with USA at the Ivan Hlinka on top of several favorable viewings last season. Nieves is a skilled, offensively productive center who has the potential to grow into his body. He has great hands and displays a real high level of skill. He also has better then average skating, utilizing a smooth stride that provides him with a top gear when required.

He's still not in ISS's top 30.

Comment truth. Let me pull this out from the depths of the game column comment thread:

With our personnel, I think most people would want Rodriguez running the offense. They would just want him to stay far, far away from the defense.

The dirty little secret is this: This game was the cost of doing business, by deciding for a full scale switch from the head coach - who didn't earn himself a 4th year based on results, everyone settle down -  on down, rather than just going after the massive problem that was the defensive coordinator and staff. Now, in the long term it was probably the right decision, but in the short term, we have set ourselves up for frustration. …

[discussion of last year's game vs this year's game with focus on field position and yardage]

So reality is this: Because Rodriguez was defensively incapable, he lost his job. In turn, Hoke was hired and he brought in Mattison, a guy who has proven - along with having a more experienced secondary - to be one of the best hires in college football. He also brought in Borges, who isn't the proper fit for our offensive talent. It's not his fault and as has been stated, won't be a problem in 2 years time. But this year, we're going to have to suffer through another flawed season, which to me is incredibly frustrating given that a spot in the Big Ten title game is there for the taking.

That is exactly where I'm at. We had to deep-six Rodriguez and the coaching hire appears to be working out about as well as anyone could have hoped, but burning Denard's career in an offense he's not suited for is killing me. Shades of gray exist.

Etc.: Basketball ranked 20th by Rivals. Smart Football on combining quick passes with runs and screens—this is like extending the zone read concept to linebackers downfield. Michigan Monday in case anyone thinks the Sparty == Dirty meme is restricted to homers. Lake the Posts also jumps in with outrage(!).

Comments

Promote RichRod

October 19th, 2011 at 4:46 PM ^

This is why it's hard to compare coaching situations.  RR inherited almost nothing when he took over.  Success in year 1 would have been difficult for any coach.  I'd say half of all D-1 coaches would have struggled to reach .500 taking over our team in 08.

Hoke is inheriting a lot of talent.  Success coaching this group of individuals, especially with our schedule, should be easy for any coach.  I'd say half of all D-1 coaches would be able to pull out 8-9 wins, minimum, in Hoke's situation.

Personnel and experience is everything.

M-Wolverine

October 19th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^

He's returning a lot of players. He's not returning a lot of talent. The defense is probably very comparable talent wise to the offense Rich was left with....and probably worse if you consider the players who left early or transferred. As bad as it was in 2008, it wasn't the 100something offense. And the offense, other than maybe minus Denard, who's obviously VERY debatable (see the reaction this week) isn't really more talented than our defense in 2008. There were some good players on it. I'd say if you took the two units, the most talented player might be Graham. So 2008 offense = 2011 defense and 2008 defense = 2011 offense. Just because they're returning doesn't mean they're great. We have really good QB talent, but small and/or slow receivers, no standout back (heck, is anyone even as good as Minor?) and two lines with maybe 3 above average guys on them (with one maybe headed towards greatness), and a defensive back 7 where a former walk on is your best player.  Some of it started with Lloyd, but Rich didn't improve the situation, he made it worse. 

And I'm not sure the Big Ten isn't better now that it was in 2008. Yeah, maybe not as good as in 2010, but Wisconsin was mediocre, Illinois was far worse, Michigan State wasn't as good....while Penn State was better, and Ohio State "might" have been better (they could end up pretty similar, and really they didn't deal with suspended talent back then...and may have the same record.)  

M-Wolverine

October 19th, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^

You wrote that DB took a gamble and threw away a known quantity for "not a slam dunk", which kinda insinuates that Rich was a known, good quantity, and WAS a slam dunk. Not saying that it was a crapshoot either way. So I didn't make it up...you just don't even read what you write.

And you go further than say the defense might have improved to the level Hoke has improved it, which based on their track record doesn't seem very likely, but you use the caveat that it would have been likely due to whoever Rich replaced GERG with. Which assumes A. that he was actually going to replace him (because who knows if Rich agreed to that or not) B. that he could get someone as good as Mattison (which you want to talk about track record without huge failure) and C. that he would get ANYBODY who doesn't suck, since he seemed to be 1 for 3 at hiring DCs, and was going to have a much tougher time with 4 getting someone in that situation. That's a lot of assumptions vs. "an ex-Pro/Florida/ND/Michigan DC is making the defense better".  If that's what you consider good reasons...well, ok, whatever.

The Hoke "stinking" part is you stating that Hoke was more of a gamble than Rich, and Rich was a known quantity. Rich's Michigan known quantity when Brandon made the decision was that he had sucked at Michigan. That's what was known. Doesn't mean he couldn't have turned it around. But it's more of a gamble at that point than Hoke, who at least has a clean slate....and is at worst going to start 6-6 rather than 3-9.  And most likely better. So the idea that we traded a sure thing for a big risk is asinine. 

And I don't think a lot of what I'm saying is reading Brandon's mind...just his words. What did he want? "Defense"..from everybody. And him saying something to the effect that he was considering where the program would be in 2015 as well as today.  And I guess the recruiting was an assumption, sure...but if our lackluster recruiting over the last 4 or 5 years wasn't worrying, seeing the state of it right now would be terrifying, and set us back even more years. And that's where the real concern is. But if you don't think a manager is thinking about the long term implications of his decision rather than just the immediate results, I don't know what to tell you. If you think that's playing psychic, so be it.  

You saw it as an "elective" coaching change, whereas a lot of people don't. And at least one of them was David Brandon. Because unlike you, I don't think he goes into changing football coaches at Michigan like he's changing curtains. An assumption, I know.  But I feel pretty confident in it.

BlueVoix

October 19th, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^

Well, the turnovers are pretty much no longer random.  The team has been taught to wrap up, something that didn't happen last year.  Or the year before.  So the offense shooting itself in the face, something we would have all been delighted by the last two years, is probably maybe not just a statistical anomaly, but rather the way the defense plays.

Also, your last paragraph has all the logic of a YouTube comment.

unWavering

October 19th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^

Hoke was not hired to make an immediate improvement on the offense (a ridiculous standard to set, since that was the only part of RR's era that wasn't a total failure), rather to stop the bleeding from RR's futile defenses which were getting worse by the year, as well as get rid of the off-field problems, whether they were real or not.  He has done both of those things, and he has gotten us to 6-1, which is just about the best case scenario for any coach this year, including RR. 

Maybe you should remember that it takes time for any coach to get his system in, and to expect him to do that in year one is nothing short of ridiculous.  It made sense to Dave Brandon to get rid of RR, not because he thought that another coach would be better this year, but because it would be better in the long run.  I don't know what's so hard to get about that. 

As for not jumping to conclusions about the D being better..... wake the fuck up.

jmblue

October 19th, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^

But if you have to tell your head football coach to "keep your hands off the D" . . . why bother keeping him around at all?  You're giving him a vote of no confidence in an entire phase of the game.  The only plausible way RR could have returned was if he (on his own) came to the realization that he needed to rethink the way he operated on that side of the ball.  If the AD is dictating personnel moves, you've got a mess on your hands.

ak47

October 20th, 2011 at 12:27 AM ^

Thats a stupid thing to say. Richrod refused to get his hands out of the defense, that was one of his biggest problems.  Trying to say what would have happened would be like saying a good coach thats a shitty recruiter could have done so much better with better athletes, well guess what its part of the game.  Just trying to ignore one of richrods biggest flaws and pretend like it would have gone away this year is disengenious to his tenure here and the progress Hoke has made.

Wolverrrrrrroudy

October 20th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^

It is also true that RR leading this offense still may have only generated 14 points against State. 

RR offense put up a whopping 17 points at home (7 in Garbage time) in good weather in his third year of implementing his system against the Spartans.

Also we scored a whopping 21 points in the last two games of RR.  I'm not so sure he had the Offense in a better position that we are now.

ak47

October 21st, 2011 at 12:42 AM ^

why exactly did pointing out the fact that just looking at the final score wasn't an accurate representation of the performance of an offense get marked as flaimebait? Are we not allowed to say the offense wasn't incredible last year on this board with a reasonable argument? Jesus christ you'd think some of the people marking these are rich rods kids or something

STW P. Brabbs

October 19th, 2011 at 1:45 PM ^

From an aesthetic standpoint, they're goofy and clown-like.  Big bumblebee stripes with an all-white uniform makes it look like a girls' soccer uniform.  Aesthetics are subjective, you might say (though certainly there are some boundaries to that - think of someone who says, 'I think you're just wrong to say that Kathy Bates is unattractive - she's actually gorgeous..) 

But the uniforms also represent a decisive break with tradition - especially since this is the second time this year we've pulled this shit, and this time there wasn't even any fucking excuse like the first night game at the stadium.  It represents the athletic department's shift toward chasing additional dollars at every turn, even though the athletic department was already significantly in the black.  It represents the fact that we now have a team of marketing fuckheads trying to develop the 'brand' at all costs.

And broader than that, it represents the overweening narcissism of the athletic director.  I've never seen an AD in my life who tries so hard to get his own face on TV and in print.  I've never seen someone so clearly obsessed with putting his own thumbprints on Michigan's athletic department, rather than trying to respect what is great about it and making improvements where necessary.   These jerseys are just one more stone in the giant monument that Dave Brandon is trying to build for himself in the athletic department.

Also, they're fucking ugly.

Mitch Cumstein

October 19th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^

I specifically remember after the Illinois OT win DB hugging RR in front of the camera and saying something like "you've had a great week" (b/c the NCAA investigation ended too).  This whole

"WAAAAH the AD treats Hoke so much better than RR" needs to end.  I'm fine with people fully knowing the kind of shit RR took and feeling bad for him and holding the AD accountable, but outside of that what do you want to happen?  Do you want the AD to treat Hoke like RR just to "make things fair"?  That is an honest question.

Seth

October 19th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

The Big-House blog article you linked to is also just asking questions:

Does Dantonio give the special benefits that Tressel took a blind eye to? I don't know.

Does Michigan State have a secret underground facility that tortures babies and gives smurfs AIDs? I don't know; I'm just asking questions!

Surely somebody can dial up a diary around these parts with a better timeline of the Disciplinary Misdeeds of Dirty Dantonio's Dork-Beaters that doesn't make completely unfounded accusations?

Magnus

October 19th, 2011 at 1:30 PM ^

Brian, I guess I would like you to be more specific when you start touting last year's offense over this year's offense.

The way it seems to me, Brady Hoke and Al Borges gave the I-formation a look early in the season.  It didn't work so well, and now they've settled into running mostly shotgun formations.  We're very much running a spread offense right now, although it's typically got a tight end rather than four-wide.

If you're upset that the bubble screens have disappeared, then say so.  But Denard has never been a good passer downfield.  He propped up his completion percentage last year based on completing a bunch of bubble screens, many of them inaccurately thrown and failing to give the receiver much of a chance to run after the catch.  Other than that, Denard is missing some very easy throws, making bad reads, or just flat-out making stupid throws with poor mechanics.

Denard couldn't get it done in the Big Ten last season, and he's off to a rocky start again this year (3 touchdowns, 4 interceptions in the Big Ten this year).  Rodriguez couldn't change that, and maybe Borges can't, either.  At some point you're probably going to have to admit that Denard isn't a Big Ten-caliber quarterback.  He's a great athlete playing quarterback.  And that's fine if it wins us games, but so far when the games actually matter (a.k.a. during conference games), he's failing quite miserably.

PurpleStuff

October 19th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^

The bubble screen isn't just an easy completion to boost the QB's stats, it is an essential part of what makes a spread offense successful (stretching the field horizontally to open up rushing lanes and big plays over the top).  Not running it ever is the reason those QB Oh Noes have not been nearly as successful this year as they were last year (Denard's legs alone weren't the cause of the overreaction at the line of scrimmage).  Never getting the ball quickly out of Denard's hands also allows a defensive line to tee off on him.

On Saturday we had Denard line up with limited blockers in the shotgun, never hand the ball off, and attempt to chuck the ball into a wind storm and/or run for his life.  The fact that he didn't have success when the coaches attempted to have him run a shitty version of the run n' shoot against that defense and in that weather isn't really an indictment of Denard's ability to be a successful Big 10 QB.

Magnus

October 19th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^

The bubble screen isn't the only play that gives the spread offense its name.  As you said, the spread offense "spreads" the field horizontally - not just to pass, but to run.  We tried running the ball and we were unsuccessful.

The "spread" is not the same thing as the "spread option."  Oklahoma runs the spread.  Oregon runs the spread option.

PurpleStuff

October 19th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^

This is patently untrue.  The backs carried the ball ten times the entire game (six times in the last 11 possessions).  They gained four and a half yards per carry.

We made zero attempt to consistently run the football and on the whole the backs were fairly successful when given opportunities.

I'm also not saying the only way to run the spread is through bubble screens, but that you have to do something like that in order to keep the defense honest.  We did nothing of the sort on Saturday.  Everything was either Denard dropping back to chuck it downfield or the occasional zone read handoff to Vincent Smith right behind the center.  If you make no attempt by any means to spread the defense horizontally or attack them on the edges, you shouldn't be running your offense almost exclusively from the spread formation.  Our only attempt to attack the edge came from Denard on the fly sweep, and those ended up being the most successful plays we ran all day.

Magnus

October 20th, 2011 at 5:19 AM ^

What?  So suddenly Denard/Devin's runs don't count as running the ball?  Did Pat White's runs not count as running the ball?

Vincent Smith had one nice run for 26 yards.  Outside of that, the running backs had 9 carries for 18 yards.  When 90% of your carries average out to be 2.0 yards per attempt, I don't think that's "fairly successful."

profitgoblue

October 19th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^

I took everything Meyer said during that broadcast as the gospel.  He was spewing all kinds of knowledge and I ate it up.  To him (and now to me) it was clear that Michigan is not running a spread offense, at least not anywhere close to what it did last year.  And that fact, if indeed true, makes it clear that last year's offense fits this year's personnel much better.

 

Erik_in_Dayton

October 19th, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^

I wonder if there is any coach in the country who could truly implement an offense that isn't his offense, so to speak.  I wonder if Meyer could run a pro style offense particularly well or if Paul Johnson at Ga. Tech could run a pro style offense.  My guess/hope is that Borges has done a pretty good job of trying to run parts of an offense that he doesn't fully understand(just as Paul Johnson wouldn't fully understand it and just as Urban Meyer wouldn't fully understand a pro offense, or so my guess goes). 

Magnus

October 19th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^

DISCLAIMER: I forgot to include the stats against Minnesota in Denard's Big Ten statistics.  He did very well against the Gophers, who are a piece of s*** Big Ten team, but still a conference opponent nonetheless.  Regardless, Denard has done poorly against both Northwestern and MSU.

dpelluzzo

October 19th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

my posts that are actually speaking logically are getting deleted let me repeat. to those that say 'last years offense wins this game'.

last years offense scored 17 points....

1) playing the beloved spread and dead

2) at home

3)  in near perfect weather conditions

4)  against a worse msu defense

5) that was not coming off a bye week

the offense as a whole was bad. i think borges panicked and tried to outsmart the room on the 4th & inches. the o-line was beyond terrible. both QB's missed wide open WR's when the actually had time. the RB's missed several blitz pickups and the WR's didn't fight for balls the MSU db's broke on.

for those who want the RR offense, go root for pitt.

 

 

 

ak47

October 19th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^

We didn't just get outcoached, msu was a better team who wanted it more. While I don't agree with a lot of the playcalling our offense got beat on every level, not much you can do with that. Also picking up and adjusting on a blitz is the job of the center and QB, if molk saw a problem and kept tipping the count that's on him.

lunchboxthegoat

October 19th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^

please, elaborate on how MSU "wanted it more."

 

This is the most insane, unfounded, ridiculous and obnoxious comment made after a team loses. Its not like Michigan walked into Spartan stadium and said "yea, it would be nice to win...but let's just have a good time, show off our bitchin new uniformz and GTFOOH." 

ak47

October 20th, 2011 at 12:34 AM ^

Its possible for both teams to play hard and one team to want the game more.  You see it in basketball and soccer when one team just gets a majority of the 50-50 balls.  In that game I saw every matchup that was pretty split go to MSU, thats what I mean. Winning this game meant everything to them, it meant a lot to michigan, but it wasn't the barometer by which they are going to measure the season and that extra little motivation is the difference when you are going for a 50-50 play, its harder to quantify in football but thats the feeling I got watching. I didn't think michigan didn't want it, it was just a relative measure of how much sparty wanted it more.  Also I still disagree with the coach bashing, if the WR's don't beat the CB's the Oline can't beat the dline and the running back can't beat the LB's there isn't much a playcaller can do thats going to change that.  Our offense moved because of stupid fouls, without those we never wind up in those not scoring frustrations just in those we can't move the ball frustrations. We were lucky to be in the game and generally if you are that beat no amount of playcalling will save you.

2plankr

October 19th, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^

Man, it sure does suck having the #15 offense in the country in FEI, what a waste.

Pretty weird to see people bitching every time we take a snap under center, then bitching every time someone jumps the snap count in shotgun, and not seeing the connection.

You may want to add "helps with varying snap count" to this post

http://mgoblog.com/content/mailbag-safety-strategy-double-banner-shotgu…

ak47

October 20th, 2011 at 12:38 AM ^

All after we were down 24-0 nothing at the end of the first half.  We never got within one score of the badgers the entire game and to act like they didn't take their foot off the gas is just straight up naive and is one of the biggest fallacies on this board. An offense isn't good if it doesn't start scoring until you are already down three scores everytime it plays an above mediocare defense.

PurpleStuff

October 19th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

The problems on offense are being caused because Al Borges is trying to run Rich Rodriguez's offense.  WE spent essentially all day in a spread look on Saturday without doing any of the things that make a spread offense difficult to defend (attacking the edges with quick WR screens to stretch the defense horizontally, option/variety in the running game, etc.). 

That and the coaches refused to make Denard's job easier by handing the ball off from time to time.  Against Northwestern, even without having much success on the ground, Denard still handed the ball off 23 times (for just 58 yards).  Forcing them to defend the run, even though they did it successfully, opened up the defense to the tune of 19 yards per completion and a 42 point outing (despite three turnovers). 

In bad weather, against a much better defense, with two backs having some success (44 yards on just 10 carries) we didn't do that on Saturday.  That allowed State to tee off.  Even if they are guessing the snap count, consistent efforts to run the football (or do anything besides have Denard drop back and run for his life) negate that advantage somewhat. 

 

PurpleStuff

October 19th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^

You can run zone blocking from a conventional set with the goal of running downhill.  Mike Shannahan has done it for years in the NFL.  This crazy, wild-eyed offensive innovator named Lloyd Carr ran zone schemes almost exclusively for a large portion of his tenure at Michigan.

Blocking scheme familiarity should not be a barrier to doing what Borges/Hoke claimed they wanted to do (run first, downhill, tough non-spread offense).  The problem is that they are instead trying to run an offense they are unfamiliar with and are having trouble getting into a rythm calling plays and keeping the defense off balance.

jackw8542

October 19th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^

"Denard Robinson threw 24 passes, and a full one-third of them (that's eight for any Spartans reading this) were thrown at least 15 yards downfield."

Love it!

jackw8542

October 19th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^

In my opinion, the uniforms were awful, particularly the "Victors Valiant" long sleeves.  As someone said, there is no reason for these hokey (no pun intended) uniforms when our uniforms are already true classics.

STW P. Brabbs

October 19th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^

The comment regarding the coaching switch that Brian references makes a crucial, mistaken assumption: that it was possible to keep Rodriguez and hire a new defensive coordinator.  First, there is not guarantee that Rodriguez would have hired someone competent, let alone effective.  Second, and more importantly, it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to hire a well-qualified DC in a situation where one more poor year would almost definitely result in Rodriguez being fired anyway.  Actually, I think it was reported somewhere on this blog that that's what actually happened (I've been mostly staying away from the Bacon threads - is it in his book?) 

So really, what Brian thinks is comment truth is at some level similar to the people who thought the ideal situation would be for Rodriguez to stay one as OC. 

It's too early in the year, and way too early in the tenure of Hoke and Borges (and Mattison, for that matter) to draw grand conclusions from this game.  Hell, there's still another whole year after this one to try to figure out how to win games with Denard at QB. 

Brian used to be really good about falling back to cold analysis and withholding hasty judgment during Rodriguez's time here.  Doesn't seem to be the case any more.

(Partially, I think that this is because Rodriguez's offense, though not extremely varied, was almost classically beautiful in its logic.  There were constraint plays, and there were obvious ways that plays worked off one another.  Brian's engineering soul will always glow at the thought of those Rodriguez youtube videos in front of the white board.  But when things ground down for that offense, there was nothing to fall back on - not a great deal of flexibility there.  Borges, seems to be experimenting with what works and what does not in an apparently non-systematic way.  Sometimes he does some stupid shit, no doubt - the 4th and inches play won't be forgotten for a long time.  But Broges' entire philosophy is based on this kind of experimentation and 'feel', while Rodriguez's offense looked so rational in part because he was going to implement the logically-constructed playbook he had created over the course of a career no matter fucking what (don't read this as a Run The Pro Style With Threet type of derpfest - it's just a different philosophy.) 

/Longest parentical ever'd