2 minute offense
Aside from a couple of wild Denard overthrows, the offensive philosophy employed by M on that last drive should be used as the base offense. Denard's strength as a passer is to give him multiple options, contrary to a really accurate drop back passers who can pin-point a pass to a designated receiver running a predictable route. In addition, take away the time crunch and that type of old-school moderate length pass happy "Charlie Ward spread" gives Denard substantially more lanes to run through with the secondary more focussed on covering multiple receivers spreading the field out. M had some success from the i today with one or two wideouts, but IMO, M should try to spread teams out early and often. The wide receivers are not apt to make the the big play deep off playaction, thus, the threat of the run does not intimidate defenses because there is really no deep threat there. And don't tell me that the success was due to a "prevent" by Iowa, they run the same defense all game.
The offense is searching for an identity. After watching that fourth quarter, I say run the "two minute" from the jump.
November 5th, 2011 at 7:35 PM ^
Not sure what you mean by touchdown shoelace, as he has been loathe to scramble this year. And those sets have also led to a lot of INTs.
The larger point is that I doubt anyone here sees anything Borges doesnt see. I have no problem with criticisms of the coach, as long as they come from someone who understands that a) the coaches want to win even more than we do, b) the coaches know a lot more about football than we do and c) the coaches have a lot more information about the teams strengths and weaknesses than we do. i dont see that out of most of the people complaining today
if something they do seems inexplicable to us, 95% of the time that says more about us than it does about them
again, i'm not saying coaches are beyond reproach. just understand that, the vast majority of the time, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. that doesnt mean i want people to stop complaining, i just want them to understand their own limitations when they do so
November 5th, 2011 at 7:44 PM ^
And my limitations are immeasureble. As for the Touchdown Shoelace comment, what we are running does not lend itself to quality scambles or quarterback keepers, the defense remains bunched up ready to pouch if and when Denard decides to keep it. My suggestion is to stretch the secondary, horizontally as well as vertically, leading to successful 8-10 yard keepers, not 80 yard touchdowns, though I think the ladder would be far more likely as well if the defense is tracking multiple receivers.
Your point is well taken. Go Blue.
November 5th, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^
Now you're just desperate.
You did not mean to use beg there.
You know it, I know it.
Beg doesn't even make sense there.
Look at your keyboard.
Nice try.
And what argument? You weren't even involved.
I just enjoy the occasional verbal joust with someone who is clearly outclassed.
November 5th, 2011 at 7:59 PM ^
right. because when you asked me "please dont start this", that wasnt begging. i see you dont understand what the word "know" means either. perhaps a dictionary might help? you are flailing. again, the guy who is forced to resort to juvenile attacks is really not in a position to call anyone outclassed
November 5th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^
I am not at all an opponent of the spread, or part of the AHH MUST USE MANBALL ALL THE TIME crowd; i'm just pointing out your logic, i.e. "well since the 2-minute drill is so effective why don't we just use it the whole game?!" is flawed. Things change towards the end of the game, or when you're down 3 scores.
November 5th, 2011 at 6:43 PM ^
No, it isnt. An ad hominem is basically saying 'your argument is invalid because you are stupid". I'm not saying his argument is invalid because he is lazy. I am saying he didnt make an argument because he is lazy, in this particular instance.
November 5th, 2011 at 7:00 PM ^
"With the 108th defense in the country complementing them and incompetent special teams as well. This makes a difference. If you give Michigan the field goal they missed, they had more points."
?
November 5th, 2011 at 7:08 PM ^
Right but its not a complete thought. If the defense is that bad, chances are they were scored on quickly, giving the offense many opportunities with average field position. Of course its possible they gave the offense few possessions with bad field position. Thats why its important to see average field position and number of possessions.
Regardless of all that, "idiot" meets the definition of an ad hominem, "lazy" does not (in this context obviously)
November 5th, 2011 at 8:49 PM ^
But that didn't happen. M getting scored on quickly, I mean, at least by Iowa (and Wisconsin and OSU).
I don't really understand your argument. You are defending Borges on the grounds that M has the #15 FEI in the country. Other people are saying that M under Rodriguez this year (plus Mattison--key counterfactual point) would have done better. And the fact is that M had the #2 offense in FEI last year. So aren't you making the other guy's point? That going by FEI, M would be better with Rodriguez this year, and that's not even counting the likely improvement in the team over time.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:40 PM ^
what he is talking about.
He believes with all his heart that Al Borges is doing a better job with Rich Rodriguez's offensive players than Rich Rodriguez would this season. I can't even believe I just typed that sentence out or that there is someone out there that believes it.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:06 AM ^
I have never said that the offense or playcalling is better than last year. My argument is that #15, while not #2, is still pretty damn good, and really not deserving of the knee jerk second guessing that is going on right now. I have said in this thread and elsewhere that there is nothing wrong with complaining about the coaching, as long as it comes with an acknowledgement (not necessarily explicit) that a)the coaches want to win at least as much as we do, b)the coaches know more about football than we do and c)the coaches have access to a TON of information about our players and other things that we do not
thats not what i see going on here. if people didnt like the playcalling, thats fine, they are certainly entitled to that opinion. i disagree, and i will again cite a BEAUTIFUL play in the 1st quarter where they motioned hemingway out of the triple stack, completely confused the D, got him wide open and he dropped it. maybe i'm wrong, maybe i'm right, but thats not even really important. what i am saying is that calling borges an idiot, saying he should be embarrassed for collecting a paycheck, is way out of line, and is the kind of stuff that hurts the program
November 5th, 2011 at 6:38 PM ^
but anyway... your argument is awful. You're saying our terrible defense made our offense worse? How does that work? I smell bs.
Also, even if I give Michigan the missed field goal, it's 9 vs 10, and since we missed an extra point this year, it's basically tied. Michigan did have a fumble inside the red zone last year, but we had an interception at the 5 yard line this year.
November 5th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
never mind.
the cluelessness between you and 2plankr has become unbearable.
November 5th, 2011 at 8:02 PM ^
talk about cognitive dissonance
"I just enjoy the occasional verbal joust with someone who is clearly outclassed"