Brian's Post translated to Twitter
"Borges not stupid=Denard in shotgun."
This would have saved us from picking at that scab.
Just to review
1. Offense will look a lot like last year to the average fan.
2. The only time you'll see extensive use of the I formation will be
a. Against the MAC teams
b. 4th qtr when we have large leads
SDS was in the shotgun and 3 wides a ton last year...and he didn't have Denard. To think we are going to line up under center 80% of the time is madness.
I have a hard time believing ANY coach would stable Denard like some are attempting to suggest.
I think you may be forgetting Mike Debord...thank God he's long gone
Except Brian can't write anything that isn't an apologia for RR. Also he cherry picks stats. I mean it's like RR cut his wedding cake with his FEI or whatever. And either he's oblivious to what a W looks like when it's in the "Win Column" or he hates "Victory".
People can be so very much narrowminded I sometimes don't know. I mean, who hates Winning?!? How can people like that exist?
/s
Something tells me you are a little narrow minded towards Brian.. Pretty sure he's said enough towards responses like yours. Let it go.
Maybe people would stop responding to Brian's posts in such a way if he didn't continue to interject the purported "awesomeness" of RichRod's offense into nearly every discussion. The overwhelming majority opinion is our offense last year had significant issues (turnovers, couldn't score in the first half against the better 50% of our schedule, no running game aside from Denard, red zone inefficiency) and Brian is alone on some island, divorced from reality, writing FEI missives to place in bottles to be tossed out to sea. If he'd stop it, no one else would bring it up, but he continues to use his bully pulpit to fire off this Bizarro revisionist history manifesto about the RichRod era that easily 75% of this board doesn't buy into. Why shouldn't they respond?
It's starting to remind me of this episode of Family Guy where Peter signs up for the Renaissance Fair to be a jouster and the trainer goes "DOES THE CONCEPT OF A GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE GET YOU SEXUALLY AROUSED!?!" and Peter yells "Sir, yes, sir!" with a really possessed look on his face. Only it's Brian, not Peter, and it's RichRod's Spread and Shred, not the concept of a geocentric universe...
Yes our offense had issues, but for some reason some posters here try to claim we were a mediocre or a not good offense. It was not the #2 offense as FEI said, a point literally no one here has ever tried to argue. Anyway you try to slice it, however, it was a top 3 offense in the Big Ten last year AND it didn't have the stat booster of going against our defense for a game(something everyone aside from Minnesota and NW had). So it's possible that Brian's Wisconsin anaylsis was misguided(I happen to agree but do think it's a very debatable point), but what should not be reasonably disputed is that Michigan's best chance of success this year is playing to the strength of their talent and still using a heavy dose of Shotgun based attack. Yes, Borges should start the transition to the West Coast, but it would be stupid(and I don't think Borges is stupid) to try to have a complete switch to the WCO with a special talent like Denard here. This is the fundamental point Brian was making and for some reason people like you deliberately ignore it.
I'm not ignoring his main point. The issue is he spends 50% of his post NOT making his main point (slow transition = better results in 2011, shotgun = good), and instead goes into some tangent about how we were actually really, really good offensively vs Wisconsin, which is (a) ludicrous, and (b) even if it was true, completely off-topic.
I also think he gets alot of flak for his long introduction attempting to liken stupid things people have said about intangiables vs stats to make it look like every one not in a bunker somewhere wearing their RichRod Brand Tin Foil hat is some idiot who doesn't understand statistics. Or likewise, that anyone who doesn't simultaneously discredit the same stats Brian conveniently chooses to (again, not for the sake of his near-universally agreed upon main point, but for the sake of his off-topic Spread-and-Shred love poem) is also some sort of rube. It's insulting.
Nowhere in Brian's original post does he write that "we were actually really, really good offensively vs Wisconsin"
If it's an implication of what he wrote, then it is a very subtle one, but it doesn't absolve you of exaggerating and extending the point beyond itself to make your own case. That seems intellectually dishonest, especially when it seems as if you take little heed of the post's actual content.
Ultimately, if you want to read each of Brian's posts about the spread, and the offensive performance of last year's squad, as an "insulting" "love poem", do so. Methinks you think there's no other way to read Brian when he writes about the offense and what he hopes Borges will do next year and that makes me sad.
Brian is a pretty smart dude, I mean he can't be as inflexible or insulting as you make him out to be. Or maybe he is. I have no idea.
Clearly that's Brian's point. (PS if it isn't obvious I'm with you)The hastily added unibrow and mustache are a nice touch.
Edit: This picture, tiled, is my new desktop background and I can't stop giggling like an idiot. Well done chunkums.
Also, as much as Brian claims to be a firm believer in statistical analysis, he has no problem explaining away statistics that contradict his arguments (e.g., that our offense was in fact quite poor in red-zone efficiency) as "random variance." Variance is like his get-out-of-jail card, to be used to explain away almost anything. We ranked near the bottom of the country in turnover margin all three years under RR, but he kept insisting that this would even out - even though RR's WVU teams weren't particularly turnover-free, either.
Brian's a fan, not a journalist. I like him best when he acknowledges this. He's not at his best when he pretends to be another Phil Steele. He can't put aside his fandom and personal biases enough to be effective at that. For instance, whenever Lloyd Carr's teams would do little offensively for three quarters and then score a bunch out of desperation in the fourth, he'd take that as a sign that Lloyd was doing something wrong in the first three quarters. But when RR's teams did little offensively for three quarters and then scored some in the fourth (e.g., MSU, PSU, Iowa, Wisconsin), he takes that as evidence that RR was coaching an awesome game all along, and that it was just "variance" that we didn't score more earlier. (Was it just variance that our awesome offense scored a total of 21 points in our last two games, too?)
Variance is every statistician's get out of jail free card. Just sayin'.
1. You think Brian's posts are divorced from reality, despite citing no real evidence to back it up.
2. You continue to read Brian's posts, which upset you because you are certain they are divorced from reailty.
3. You then bitch about the posts at every opportunity.
Which is a lot like someone who...
1. Thinks pistachio ice cream sucks.
2. Keeps choosing to consume pistachio ice cream.
3. Bitches about pistachio ice cream at every opportunity.
Vote with your feet and read another blog, dude. It's what rational consumers do.
Damn, only after I wrote out a whole exasperated response to this did I notice the /s at the end. Oy vey.
Touche.
right? Either that or you're a flamer or troll.
We will still see the shotgun formation quite a bit. Although, we will probably see more designed passing plays rather than a playaction pass tor every passing play.
And of course there will be designed runs for Denard. He is a playmaker, they won't take that away from him completely.
I have confindance that Borges will tailor the offense to our personal. He ran a offense when he was at Auburn that very much suited Williams and Brown, and SDSU looked completely different for Lindley and Hillman. He has shown himself to be very adaptable, and I don't see a reason he would change now.
Coaches dream of having players like Denard.
Borges has an opportunity to set quite a legacy for himself over the next 10 years. He's inherited an elite player and an OL that could be special. Then comes Devin and a slightly different but maybe equally impressive skillset. Then Morris, and probably the O that Borges would be most comfortable with.
This will be the year he's most uncomfortable. But it will all be worth it, Gorgeous.
Obviously we don't know for sure what things are going to look like in the fall, but every time I hear/read interviews with Borges, he sounds like a true tactician. Our offense may not run as smooth as last years, maybe better. But he's going to put in a plan that will help it run at it's maximum efficiency with this particular roster. I am getting very excited.
The next two years are obviously key for Borges. He'll either be remembered as the guy who unleashed "Michael-Vick-but-Fast" upon the Big Ten, or the guy who ruined "Pat-White-but-Fast". Given Denard's play last year, there's not much in between.
Offense will look a lot like last year to the average fan
I'll bet you $Texas that you're wrong about that.
I doubt we will be seeing any zone read or nearly as many QB draws
The average fan will see us in shotgun and you will see Denard run. So while the offense will be different, to the average guy who just likes to call 97.1 and bitch it will appear the same.
Zone reads?.....not much. You are right.
QB draws?...are you insane?...This was the most effective play in college football. To not use it would be negligence and the whole staff should be fired. This will not happen. Denard will have at least 10 runs a game.
Raback it.
The average fan will see us in shotgun and you will see Denard run.
By that logic the average fan wouldn't see much difference between Justin Verlander and Tim Wakefield. After all, they both start on the dirt bump thingy and throw baseballs toward the catcher guy. So I guess if we're including people like Wife in South Bend in the "average fan" category, then maybe you're right. But anyone who has actually watched football will see a very, very significant difference.
Besided, how many traditional "quarterback draws" do you think Michigan ran last year? 'Cause by my math, it was like 10. Maybe 12. The type of running Denard did last year, which was a combination of zone reads and QB Isos, is WORLDS away from the traditional draw you'd see in a West Coast scheme, both in design and execution.
I know it's just practice clips, but in all kinds of practice clips from the spring, we saw Denard running zone reads, so I feel like that's here to stay. I do agree with you, however, that it will not look like the same offense. The spread option is just not a Borges thing. If any coach could come in and run any offense, then why would we ever pay top dollar for new coaches?
Not unlike the business world, they should be familiar with the business of football and be able to adapt. Alan Mullaly ran an aerospace company before turning around an auto business.
People have strengths and tendencies, and normally you want to play to those, but in some extraordinary circumstances, you've got to work outside the the comfort zone. Denard is extraordinary circumstances.
Yes I agree Gerg seems to refute this. But Northwestern coaches learned the spread and went with it - they weren't experts at the time.
The O will be different from last year, but plenty of runs and plenty of QB Oh Noes. My lord, why wouldn't you? And that requires plenty of shotgun
Coaches should be able to adapt, but the spread option is quite the different beast from what Borges is used to. I really hope he's a fast learner.
...or just the straight QB run. They ran that play way too often last year and Denard had to absorb some hard hits.
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta!
I agree that a average fan will never Brice the difference between this year's offense and last year's offense. We will run plenty of shotgun, and there will be plenty of qb keepers or designed runs.
<br>
<br>For those who say "but what about the Zone read", re-watch last year - we didn't run as much zone reads as you think. Not saying we didnt run it - we did- but not nearly as much as many think.
<br>
<br>A to brian's post - the picking at the scab analogy is right on - we all know that Brian is a staunch defender of RR and his offense - and he is entitled to his opinion, being that this is like, his blog. But, why open the wound? There will always be a divide between the "RR and the spread are evil and suck" crowd and the "one more year ad we would have broken every offensive record ever" camp.
Was that there is no reason to throw away the baby with the bathwater. Some things didn't work last year (OMG SOMEBODY PLZ TACKLE SOMEBODYYYYYYY...), but some things were working very, very well.
In fact, I think if we were boiling Brian's entire post down to one tweet-sized summary (like the OP says), it would be: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Also, the bathwater was pretty good, as far as bathwater goes.
I think, after reading Brian's post, that what Borges might do (if he watched any of the game film) is use a mix between 3 wr set and 4/5 set with a long field and use i form and "bruising football" more in the red zone to keep turnovers to a minimum and hold possesion... with such a strategy we could potentially have the best of both worlds.
Don't you all get it... we are running the Wing T formation out of shotgun, allowing us to utlize 4 running backs (QB being one of them).
and the poster are overplayed.
I like to think Borges wasn't just blatantly lying when he said what we saw in the spring game is not indicative of what we'll see in a real game. There was plenty of ZR and ranting and raving in practice about Denard outside of just that game.