You always need more montage.
here's one vote for "John Beilein's head in a Futurama jar"
You always need more montage.
Fred Jackson as Yoda: Great Jedi, he will become. Cross between young Anakin and Obi-Wan, his powers are
To take the serious route on Manball, I look at it like this. Manball is what Wisconsin played against us last year. They ran it and ran it and ran it. It's doing what you want and the other team can't to anything about it. It's not about a gimmick offense that tries to put players in wide open spaces. It's one on one,beating your guy and nothing they can do about it.
Is that you Rip VanWinkle? Did you wake up after having missed the last decade? That gimmick offense has been the preferred offense of most of the champions.
Speaking of Rip VanWinkle; I think somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed. You have a tendency to be a little cranky, by cranky.
06 Florida (though a hybrid pass-run)
'03 LSU and USC
With '07 LSU being kind of a hybrid multiple offense style team.
So actually, there's a slight edge to pro-styles teams, if you've been watching the last decade. But suffice to say, it's pretty close, and you can win with any offense if ran well. The real difference? Just about all those teams (other than Auburn...and maybe LSU in '07) had really good defenses...
Thats also only 1 pro style in the last 6 years
I'm curious which Auburn and Oregon teams you are talking about that had impotent offenses against good teams. Seriously I would love to know this. Oregon was held under 37 points twice, and Auburn put up massive stats in the best conference in college football. Neither team had a particluarly great defense yet their offenses carried them to undefeated regular seasons.
Yeah, I totally agree. It's a battle of wills. It's about not giving in. I don't think it has to do with physical strength necessarily as it may imply. I do think there's an aspect, especially on the line of scrimmage, of beating up your opponent. I view it as more of a philosophy: a way of life.
I've been manballing every single aspect of my life.
So how did wisky fair against that gimmicky 3-3-5 defense TCU runs?
Well to be fair, TCU knew what they were supposed to do and knew how to line up when they played, our players did not.
Man I wish negs were back....you're seriously throwing that out there?
It was actually a 4-2-5 but same difference. Also that gimmicky 4-3 with a really stout MLB that Sparty had.
"It's not about a gimmick offense that tries to put players in wide open spaces. "
I'm sorry but that makes zero sense to me. I hope our offense puts lots of people in open space. What would the alternative be? Hoping our wide recievers are always covered and our running backs have no holes to run through. Yeah, that sounds much better.
Also, it is not a gimmick, just becasue most people don't understand it does not make it a gimmick. It might not be" smash mouth" in your face football, but it involves out smarting the defense not just running them over everyone still has to block. You say you want to beat a guy one on one, well hell if you do that on offense that means that there is one guy left unblocked to take on the ball carrier. That is why good offenses almost always have at least one guy that requires the defense to commit an extra defender to them. Guys like Denard and Braylon who required an extra guy to help, that opens up someone else. That leaves someone else in wide open space which is why we had guys wide open last year because to steal a saying I learned from Mattison when I was younger we "changed the math" to take away one of their guys. Can you do that with a prostyle offense? Yes, but it requires elite players at the skill positions and outside of Denard we don't have those guys.
What happens to teams like Wisconsin when they can't run the ball and impose their will? When teams can line up against them and go one on one or change the math in favor of the defense? They tend to lose those games (I am from WI and have seen it many, many times)That is why manball is not always a good idea and why we really won't run it as much as people think. Or just go out there and play linebacker and let Odoms crack block you, then come back and tell me that isn't whatever the hell manball is.
"What happens when teams like Wisconsin when they can't run or impose their will?"
What happens is they could lose. I never said that Manball will make you undefeated. Teams lose somtimes no matter what offense they run. I was just tired of seeing us look awesome on the first drive and then get figured out and not even score again. Against good teams anyway.
Might have had something to do with a first year starting qb. Just saying...
or it could have to do with the fact that we might score on the first drive, punt the next three and the other team would be winning 28-7. At that point your game plan is pretty much shot to shit and when you're a running football team a 21 point deficit is hard to overcome with that first year QB.
it is not a gimmick, just becasue most people don't understand it does not make it a gimmick.
Actually, I think our opponents (at least the decent ones) understood it fairly well. That's why we had trouble putting points on the board as the season wore on.
I don't get this argument and it needs to stop. The reason we, as well as most college teams, score less points later in the year is because they play better defenses. We played pretty much the same schedule as we do every year and we scored quite a few points. I don't remember anyone saying the offense was bad chad henne's senior year when they only scored 3 points against OSU
There can only be one reason? I don't agree. Yes, defenses (except for Illinois) seemed to figure us out and many of our points were scored later in the games, once the result was not so much in doubt. So no, the argument "doesn't need to stop".
Our offense sputtered for more than one reason. Better defenses seemed to handle us pretty well and we played better defenses later in the year. Of course, the offenses we played against later in the year didn't provide any evidence for your theory that most college teams score less later in the year (48, 57, 52).
By the way, your one-game example from 2007 is funny. Yes, we scored only 3 against OSU, but our final five games saw the following offensive production - 34, 28, 21, 3 and 41. We scored 24.6 ppg on the season and 25.4 in the last five. We scored more that year in the end of the season. Perhaps what "needs to stop" is the mis-use of stats where a closer look reveals the opposite of what was reported.
Oh, they averaged 25 points per game. What did our sputtering offense average for the year? Also, its funny we question why our offense scored late in games and then take half this post to trumpet SDSU's offensive output against TCU (as they were down 3 scores most of the game)
What did our sputtering offense average for the year?
Well...If you read my post, you'd see that I listed the average. Or, you can always google it. If you are asking about 2010, you can google that as well.
...take half this post to trumpet SDSU's offensive output against TCU
You should share what you're smoking. I haven't once mentioned SDSU or TCU in this thread. I'm not sure what your deal is, but your theory about offensive production decreasing as a season wears down is refuted by the facts of the year you specifically cite (2007). In any event, there is reason for more than blind optimism this year and some folks (although maybe not the majority here) are excited for the future. Others (i.e. you) seem to prefer being stuck in the rut of the very recent past.
Sorry Dad. I'll stop it immediately. If you don't get it, don't chime in.
You are correct other teams figured it out to a degree. I was thinking more about the fans who say it is a gimmick, they are the ones that don't understand what is going on. While our offense did slow down you can't really blame it all on them. It is hard to make adjustments when you are only on the sideline for three plays and the other team scores a TD. (Plus sometimes I think we were just to bullheaded to change) There was also a lot of pressure on them to score 50 every game and I think that sometimes that pushed the young guys to try and do to much. Figure in crappy field position all the time because of giving up TD and then only getting to the 20 on an even worse KR. Those things are hard to overcome when you are playing against a team that is talented and well coached. But, yes all college coaches have figured out how to stop (or at least slow them down) the spread, except maybe Ron English. Not all of them have the talent to do it though.
It's not about a gimmick offense that tries to put players in wide open spaces. It's one on one,beating your guy and nothing they can do about it.
And what, if you're spreading the D out they're just standing there while the O doesn't have to do any work to beat them to that wide open spot?
I mean, seriously?
I don't really care one way or the other what offense we run as long as it gets the job done, but the implication that you don't need to do anything in a spread offense is just asinine.
"Scotch, Scotch, Scotch...."
That is the best manball yet.
I really don't have anything as far as manball goes, but I do have a link that compares Brian to a muppet (muppets!!!) - Benny Rabbit.
Just drive 27 mph and make a right turn.
They sure do look cool though.
It means not letting Wisconsin run the ball 35 times in a row down your throat.
At Alabama. Thats manball
They can't be, they are a one back set. Which means no FB and three WR. According to what I have been reading that would make it a gimmick. However, the QB lines up under center most of the time, but they still run some gun. I really don't know if they run enough from under center to over come the three WR's on the field though. Someone should make an equation of how much FB you need on the field. Perhaps if you run it with two TE's that will make up for the lack of a FB. Also, I could be mistaken but I believe they run some zone blocking, which would be a strike against manball. Other than all of those issues I would say it's probably as close to manball as you can get.
Manball is putting HARD butter on a slice of rye bread, as opposed to putting that Spread shit on a Pillsbury doughboy biscuit
the spread and shred?
Google that or "dong forest".
Has Hoke ever actually used this term? I thought this was just a term that Brian invented to be funny (and a little bitter).
How do all of these seasoned MGoBlog readers (looking at you, jmblue) still not get Brian? He's a cranky, sarcastic, deeply loyal, and frequently pessimistic young cuss who occasionally gets his bitch on. So what?
The only thing dumber than trying to figure out how to run MANBALL, as if that were a real thing that actually existed in reality that is real, is complaining that Brian is being no fairsies to Brady Hoke by invoking the MANBALL meme.
that one of the originators of "The Every Three Weekly" would use humor, snarkism, and satire in his sports blog?
I guess I just don't see it.
The annoying part about the "manball" meme to me isn't that it's unfair to Brady Hoke. If Brian doesn't like him, that's up to him. There are certainly players/coaches I don't like.
The annoying part about "manball" is that it's inaccurate and - as you can see in this thread - gives the wrong impression about Michigan football. It's like if I started calling Rodriguez's offense a "passing spread." Well...no. It's not.
Magnus, while I often disagree with what you say, you are 100% right. I cringe every time I have to type that word.
Whereas "Tacopants" was an accurate description of an actual player on the Michigan roster.
MANBALL is snark, a joke. It is not what we will run (not even Brian suggests that) - it is what crotchety blue-hairs think we should run, what they think is Michigan Football run by Michigan Men. When they hear "toughness" and "downhill running", it is visions of MANBALL that make them tingly in their Depends. It is why they hoorahed the hiring of Hoke and harrumphed the rise of Rodriguez.
You are not the target of the critique inherent in the MANBALL meme, nor is Al Borges, and not really Brady Hoke. Stop taking it so seriously, because most of the people who do are the ones who get so irritated by its use.
Point of the day. So right.
I create content and marketing campaigns online for every kind of website under the sun. Brian is in the upper 1% of all writers I read on a daily basis. The best sports blogger bar none. He is all those things you say and also infuriating at times. But he gets the joke and I think everyone reading needs to as well. Definitely have to appreciate the quality. Throw in Tom's recruiting and the grade out of every play for football games, and you have a hell of a place for the fans.
I truly don't think that the manball is the kind of offense U of M will run. I think it will probably look like what the spred and shred was supposed to look like under the old regime. There is a reason that the last guys really went after Devin Gardner. They only used 60 % of the playbook last year. I personally wanted to see more hback/TE sets, some I form power sets in the red zone. This was stuff they practiced, just never got implemented. Honestly though, the reason some of us use the manball meme is because this kind of rhetoric, coupled with the Michigan Man crap will kill the program.
as a side note, can someone tell me what a pro style offense is. when i watch pro football, i see alot of 3 and 4 receiver sets. I see qb's spending significant time in shotgun formations. I see alot of zone blocking being deployed with other schemes. I don't see alot of " Downhill running" in the old meaning of the term. I see alot of slot receivers making plays in space, i see alot of runningbacks catching passes out of the backfeild. Whether or not the bluehairs or talking heads on CFL want to admit it, the spread has made it way into pro ball, hybrid offenses are the way of the future,we shouldn't be holding on to vestigial schemes, we should be innovators you know.......the leaders and the best
There's a difference between the "spread" and players having a hoolahoop or two worth of space to occupy in the field. In a nut shell, generally teams employ the spread in order to use pretty simplistic plays, where the tempo of play and alignment of players creates bubbles for the offense to go after. Meanwhile pro style offenses are more likely to use more sophistocated/(And more in general) route combinations to create bubbles in the defense. There's really not much of a difference between run games, although option running teams generally fall more under spread teams than anything else. Neither is really more or less creative by nature (See: Oregon and Boise State), and there's tons of overlap between the two. If you want to look at a team that is near purely pro style, look at Stanford last year.
We already had our innovator, he just couldn't get the support he needed/get players to execute fundamentals at a half-way acceptable rate. And if Hoke does the opposite he'll be wildly more succesfull.
I thought the overall principle behind the spread was to create 1on 1 matchups with defenders. i see this alot with the combo routes that are preferred in the passing schemes used by the NFL. the Larry szonka/Earl Campbell style running back is extinct in the Nfl as far as i can tell. It is also somewhat mystical that people think the running qb is some new spread derivative that has never worked in the NFL. Steve Young, Steve McNair, and Donovan Mcnabb did alright . I have stated before, if given the choice between Warren Moon, and Steve Young, ill take Steve young everytime
That's what I mean with bubbles, that was poor word choice on my part as it was pretty vague. By "spreading" the field you can, for example, create a bubble on the edge (CB vs. Slot and Split receiver) where you can toss a bubble screen out to. While a pro style attack would run a Smash (Corner + Hitch) route combination to isolate the corner and force a decision. Those are just the two extremes I think. Chip Kelly and Rich Rod (more so) are the two closest to an end of the spectrum I've seen, their whole game is almost entirely alignment based.
Yes, the MANBALL business is unfair to Brady Hoke and a bit annoying. But, how can anyone not at least see the *attempt* at humor here? If you negged it, I'm assuming that completely escaped you. I actually thought it was pretty funny.
It was funny until it got to the "Rocky" reference (which was very early in the post), because "Rocky" is one of the worst sports movies of all-time. Any boxing movie in which punches cause people to spin 360 degrees is worthless. If I wanted to watch fighting that unrealistic, I'd just fire up "Street Fighter II" and SONIC BOOM my way to a championship.
Ha! I still liked the original post, but I think your point on Rocky is on-target.