Could Bill Martin Have Been Partially Right?

Submitted by Webber's Pimp on

Before anybody rips my throat out I want to elaborate a bit more on the question I've just posed. 

To start let me say that I have been and still am a Brady Hoke supporter. Still, what happened last night was completely unacceptable. In a game of this magnitude to have your team come out this flat after all we've been through over the past 12 months raises serious questions about the direction of the program. We really laid an egg and I'm sure many of you have had your foundations shaken to the core. With that being said I want to discuss the head coach, the offensive philosophy  and what it is that we need to turn the program around...

1. Bill Martin may have been on to something when he hired Rich Rodriguez. Rrod, imho, did a horrible job recruiting along the offensive and defensive  lines. But there's no arguing with the fact that we could move the ball at will and put up tons of points. I'm not saying Rodriguez was the right man for the job, but in today's age of college football you have to be able to put up points. And against quality defenses Michigan has struggled mightily to put up points. And please don't tell me Ohio had a quality defense last year...

2. By all accounts  Hoke is a believer in "man-ball" football philosophy. In a nut shell we want line-up in front of you and blow you off the ball. We're a team that likes to run first in order to establish the pass. If you want to call that a "Pro-style" offense then so be it. But we should all keep in mind that offenses in the NFL are constantly evolving and many these days have incorporated spread concepts. The NFL is a passing league and the numbers support this. Thus the 2 yards and a cloud of dust mentality in my view is no longer valid. 

3.  To win with a pro-style offense in the college ranks these days , a program has to have elite talent. Alabama and USC both come to mind here. Now keep in mind that both of those programs are running their systems with our nation's elite high school talent. Hoke has recruited well while at Michigan but he has not out-recruited USC or Alabama. This is particularly true on the defensive side of the ball. Alabama and USC are winning games with dominant defenses. USC won a game yesterday in which they suited up 60 schollarship athletes. How did they do it? By suiting up elite (best of the best) talent. The same is true of Alabama. Dominant defenses make up for any short comings both of those programs may have putting up points with their prostyle offenses. 

4. Doug Nussmeier obviously did very well at Alabama. But again, I have to question if he can replicate the same success at Michigan when he has to run his offensive sets with less dominant offensive linemen and less overall talent at the skill positions. Or for that matter without an elite defense bailing out the offensive unit. It's an open question and only time will tell. But if last night was any indication, we're in for a very long season.

Bill Martin took allot of flack from the press and on this board for his selection of Rich Rodriguez. But last night's result has left me wondering whether or not Martin had it partially right. Given that Michigan cannot out recruit the southern school elites or the west coast powerhouses in order to run its pro-style offense, I'm wondering if we do have to change with the times and implement an offensive philosophy that utilizes spread concepts as a fundamental premise (w/ strong O-Lines of course!). That's what Notre Dame is doing these days and it seems to be working perfectly fine for them. They've went as far as to change the natural turf on their field in order to run their track meet system of football. And it's gotten them to the point where they've even managed to play for a national championship as recently as 2012-13.

uofmfan4

September 7th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^

Stopped at point #1 because that's false. We could move the ball at will against Delaware State and Indiana, but we couldn't do shit against good defenses. RR's offense was fool's gold.

michWolves2580

September 7th, 2014 at 10:31 AM ^

It's not patently false at all. When the game was close and we were able to call mix down plays with balance we were able to move the ball against anyone. A downside of the defense giving up points on every single drive is you have to play catch up and you become unbalanced. 

chally

September 7th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^

How about scoring 7 against OSU in 2010, when the RichRod offense was at its best?  Or 14 against Mississippi State?  The 17 we scored against MSU at home?

The previous year, we mustered 10 against OSU (at home) and against PSU (also at home). We scored just 13 at Illinois.  Illinois!  We did manage to put up 20 points in a loss to MSU, but on just 251 yards of total offense (we had more than that last night). 

RichRod's two BEST seasons gave us five games with 14 or fewer points (OSU, OSU, PSU, Illinois, Miss. State).  Hoke's two WORST seasons gave us . . . six games with 14 or fewer points (Alabama, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Nebraska, MSU, Kansas State).  Two of those games featured our backup QBs.  

Last year, our offense averged 6.60 yards per play.  The year before, it was 7.42.   RichRod averaged 6.75 in 2009 and 7.95 in 2010.  I'm not seeing the drastic drop off in offensive performance that motivated this thread. 

MGoNukeE

September 8th, 2014 at 12:08 AM ^

Michigan gave every one of its opponents one of its worst outings defensively. Mississippi State was the lone exception, where all reports indicate the coach lost his team. Sometimes the team had trouble scoring, but if the offense is gaining yards consistently it's hard to pin scoring problems on the offense; #2 in FEI reflects this. 

The rest of your post brings up past years like they're somehow relevant to the discussion. The only insight past years give into future performance are trends, like how Rodriguez's defenses regressed and offenses improved each year, while Hoke's offenses regress and defenses perform consistently somewhere between good and elite (not sure of the trend persay, but slight dropoff from the very-lucky 2011 season is expected and still a net positive). What aren't relevant are 11-2 with a Sugar Bowl victory or 3-9 or the 2009 MSU game. All we as fans can do is look to the future and project what teams led by a coach WILL do; deifying Hoke for 11-2 in 2011 and begrudgingly hating Rodriguez for 3-9 in 2008 are useless.

nowayman

September 8th, 2014 at 9:58 AM ^

A strawman is a misrepresentation of the other side's argument that the responding poster creates simply to refute.  

Pointing out that the 2008 offense, which was coached by Rich rod, was bad against a bad team is very much on topic.  

Now you can say it's a bad argument based on the fact that it's a rebuilding year, sure, but it's not a strawman.  

bjk

September 7th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^

in our much-maligned RR-era defense started with his vaunted O handing the ball over to quality opponents on the M side of the field and generally just not keeping up, or frequently, against opponents like MSU/'10 or Wiscy/'10, just never really showing up at all.

I say this as one of those people who thought ditching RR after three years would only consolidate our progress toward becoming the tire fire ND was for 20 years before hiring Kelley. Hope I'm wrong, but it is six years and counting.

Sideline

September 7th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^

These offenses are similar; but what I remember about Rich Rod's WVU offense and what he runs now at Arizona are they are more focused on the run. Oregon uses the spread to do both... Mariotta torched the Spartans Defensive Backs multiple times yesterday bc they crept down focusing on that spread-option run and he tossed deep bombs.



Arizona is still going to be a successful team, and good for Rich Rod... Unfortunately he wasn't going to succeed here because of how he NEEDS his athletes to be successful, he's not big on adaptation. At Arizona he's been given time because they don't need to win now... Arizona is not Michigan. With that said, please don't schedule Arizona.

TheSacko221

September 7th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^

He wasn't going to work here because the mentally challenged get off my law fan and alumni didn't want him. Arizona embraced him and he has done very well there. I would argue ahead of schedule. To say he is given time to get his players is crap.



He had enough good players to compete, but not the support. Sad truth is the Big Ten is a dinosaur and will remain so because the fan bases scream tradition when any change is shown.

snarling wolverine

September 7th, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^

Oregon's offense is more complex.  There are a lot more packages and pre- and post-snap reads.  On the whole it demands more from the QB as a passer.  He has to be able to quickly diagnose the play and find the guy who inevitably gets open.   They often have a mobile QB to add an extra dimension but that's not really integral to their scheme.  The TB carries it most of the time.

Rich Rod's offense is built around the QB being a major running threat (if not the primary threat) and the passing game is complementary to that.  The passing game is relatively simple, with only a small number of reads, which is partly how guys like Forcier and Denard can step in pretty quickly and achieve good results.  But if you can stop the QB on the ground and force him to win through the air, that's where things break down because there are only so many different passing options to him, and they can become predictable. 

MGoNukeE

September 7th, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^

despite being complete revisionist history.

We didn't consistently SCORE against good defenses, but we consistently moved the ball against them. In 2010, Michigan gave every opposing defense one of its worst defensive outings of the season except the lost-our-locker-room bowl game; hence how it was rated #2 in offensive FEI despite the blowouts.

On a side note, does anyone know what happens to a top-30 defense that gives up 67 points in one game? They stop being a top-30 defense. That is what happened to Illinois in 2010. The conclusion stands: a good defense is only good because offenses don't fare as well against them. In contrapositive terms, if an offense does well against a defense, the defense isn't good anymore.

PeteM

September 7th, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^

I'm a bit tired of this debate, but we scored points against Iowa and Wisconsin in 2010 -- we just couldn't stop them.  Regardless, RichRod ain't coming back and the question now is where we go from here.  I would like to see Hoke get this year, and absent a disaster next.

Blue2000

September 7th, 2014 at 10:53 AM ^

"I would like to see Hoke get this year, and absent a disaster next."

If you don't think last night was a disaster, I assume that you think Hoke deserves next year unless he somehow burns Michigan Stadium to the ground.  

Tkriz

September 7th, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^

We moved the ball against Wisconsin in 2010 after we were down 24-0 and we were down to Iowa 28-7. Both teams took the foot off the gas and then we were able to score. The offense during rr years was good vs not good teams is valid.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Michigan4Life

September 7th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^

then Michigan should've scored pts because ND did take their foot off the gas.....

In reality, Michigan was down at halftime because defense did not force a single punt which makes it impossible for offense to get into a rhythm. If it was that easy, then Michigan wouldn't be shut out last night, wouldn't they?

Blue2000

September 7th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^

Brady Hoke's manball offense couldn't even move the ball against shit defenses last year, like Akron and UConn.  The offense is exponentially worse than it was during Rich Rod's last year, when we finally had a decent amount of his guys in to run his system.  Besides, the notion that Rich Rod's 2010 team couldn't move the ball against team has been repeatedly demonstrated as false on this site.  That team had serious turnover problems against good defenses, yes, but unlike Hoke's most recent teams, that one legitimately was young (Denard was a true soph).  Rich Rod's offenses were getting better.  Is there any way to argue that Hoke's offenses aren't getting worse?

Michigan4Life

September 7th, 2014 at 1:46 PM ^

UTSA is a legit team who is a favorite to win Conference USA.  Size doesn't matter if you can play.  UTSA can play and they nearly beat Arizona at home in front of a very good crowd. UTSA has 23 senior playing and it is an very experienced team who is not afraid of anybody.

They beat down Conference USA preseason title favorite, Houston at Houston with ease.

nowayman

September 7th, 2014 at 2:33 PM ^

Did you see their qb play?  

They are decent defensively, maybe.  

We are now arguing about how Rich Rod's offense getting stymied by UTSA isn't an indication that his offense has problems.  

I win by default.  Let me go craft a trophy that looks and tastes just like a sandwhich and give it to myself.  

bighouse22

September 7th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^

Except RR was able to beat Oregon last year and has Arizona on the rise.  Although the transition was slow the record was improving.  Recruiting started to falter because of the lack of support from the get go!

If given time and support he would have succeeded here! I saw it posted somewhere else, but Michigan is becoming like KMart or Sears!  Once a powerhouse, but stuck with stale and old ideas about how to run the place.  

Change or Die!  That is how it works in Corporate America and that is how it goes in College Football.  Look at the powerhouse schools that have come back, they have all gone outside for coaches and evolved.

Florida - Went outside and got Urban Meyer to win NCs.  Not a Florida man or SEC man.  Just the best available.

Alabama - Went outside and got the best available, not an Alabama man.  Multiple NCs.

LSU - Went outside and got Saban, then Miles.  Not an LSU man or SEC man in either case.  Multiple NCs.

ND - Went outside and got Brian Kelly.  Not a ND man, but a NC winning coach in DII.  Played in NC game in recent past.

MSU - Went outside and got Dantonio.  Not a MSU man, but a D. Coordinator on a NC winning team.  Multiple B1G titles.

The spread or some hybrid of the spread is the way there!  Hell even Saban has made mention of migrating to a spread of some form with Kiffin.

I personally don't like a run spread, but rather prefer a spread offense that is more of a passing version.  I think you can win with a manball system, but you need the right type of hard ass coach.

 

ijohnb

September 7th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^

to the core.". Yep. For the first time in my adult life I really don't care about Michigan football. It seriously depresses me. Like actually contributes to mental illness. We suck. And I don't see a day when we don't. Wake me up for basketball season.

bigfan2959

September 7th, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^

My hope is in Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the dead.  The exploits of young men are nothing more than a minor recreational pass time to follow.  Don't get depressed.  These are just meaningless games that will be forgotten soon. Sport teams nearly always disappoint anyway.  Only one team ultimately wins the championship, and then there is always next season when the team normally losses again.  It's complete folly the way people spend some much money watching these events, buying jerseys and such.