2011 was magical, but the delay in instituting "his" offense likely hurt Brady Hoke

Sometimes a good coach doesn’t work out because the pieces don’t fit.  There is little doubt that the transition to a spread offense was tougher than even Rich Rod himself could have predicted.  And while bringing power offense to Michigan in 2011 would have meant sacrificing the talents of Denard Robinson (who likely would have transferred if asked to play RB) and our only bowl win since 2007, I wonder if it would have been better for Hoke (not for us as fans)?  If Brady Hoke had gone 5-7 in his first year with a new offense, is it plausible that the 2014 version would have looked much better?  

I am NOT making the case that Brady Hoke should have been retained.  I am pointing out a fact in college football: Change is hard.

Brian wrote an impassioned case for Dan Mullen yesterday, whom I believe would be a very good hire for Michigan.  There is, however, a big risk: the transition to Mullen’s offense takes too long and the impatient fanbase forces another coaching change.

What I wanted to do was to breakdown every player on our offense’s two-deep and to what system/style I believe they are best suited.  Keep mind that every program mixes elements of different systems, but the most successful outfits have an established identity with corresponding constraints that can maximize their personnel.  Part I is a brief breakdown of the systems, part II will explore which players fit each style.

Power football says, "I am going to punch you in the face," then does it

Power Running: The hallmark of any “power” running team is using an extra blocker at the point of attack to open lanes for the ball-carrier.  In today’s college football, that almost always means using pulling offensive linemen, since fullbacks are less and less common.  Motioning TEs and H-Backs are also used.  Power can favor both power and speed backs, and makes the reads for the ball-carrier simpler.  Increasingly, however, these schemes are mixed with zone blocking.  Examples: Stanford and Wisconsin

Zone concepts threaten multiple gaps on every play

Zone Running: Simple to explain, hard to master.  Just the block the guy in your zone, and, if that defender is secured, move to the next one.  The zone system is popular because of its versatility: nearly every play gives the ball-carrier at least two choices (and a cut-back) and forces defenses to play very controlled, or risk giving-up a big play.  The drawback is that a good guess by a defensive coordinator or player can blow-up a play, since the O-Line is moving laterally off the snap. Many offenses focus on either inside zone or outside zone.  Examples: Alabama and Iowa

Spread-to-Run can be smashmouth and fullbackian

Spread-to-Run: Spread offenses all have one thing in common: their intent to force the defense to “declare” itself pre-snap.  A spread-to-run team utilizes a mobile QB to add an extra blocker for the defense to deal with, and then tilts the math further in its favor by optioning off defenders.  While the O-Line predominantly uses zone blocking in most schemes, there are lots of programs (Auburn, Miss. State) that incorporate power and lead concepts as well.  The passing game is set-up by the run, and usually involves simple plays and patterns that allow the QB to make his decision pre-snap, or set-up the defense with play action.  Examples: Auburn and Ohio State

160 feet never looked so wide

Spread-to-Pass: Bias alert!  This is my favorite college offense.  The wide hash marks of the college field force a defense to show its hand pre-snap.  A QB in the shotgun can see the whole field, and, by using receivers spread to the sidelines (or close) can determine with a high rate of success what type of defense (man, zone, help over the top) he is looking at.  Of course, having a mobile QB certainly helps add another element to this offense, but its primary function is to open the field for easy yards and chunk plays with those pre-snap reads that often come from the sidelines.  Examples: Baylor and Notre Dame

Most "pro-style" college offenses are actually hybrids

Pro-style: This scheme mimics the multiple formations and concepts used in the NFL.  There is a lot of under center work for the QB, and route combinations (triangle, high-low, smash, levels, etc.) set-up challenging scenarios for the defense to read-and-react to quickly by threatening multiple layers of the defense and forcing uncomfortable match-ups.  When run correctly, I believe these are the most difficult offenses to defend.  The trouble is, they’re awfully hard to run correctly.  QBs are required to make multiple reads on each pass play and routes must be run with extreme precision.  Pro style offenses can use the pass to set-up the run, or vice versa.  It’s getting increasingly difficult to find a pure pro-style offense in the college game.  Examples: LSU and Michigan State

The truth is that all offenses use some combination of these concepts, but, again, most build off of a single style and related constraint plays.  Establishing that identity early in a coach’s tenure is vital, because repetition is a player’s best friend.  Next week I'll match each player on our offensive two-deep with a system that I believe fits him best.