First of all, the fact that you are actually comparing SDSU's performance against top 25 teams to Michigan's is just another indication of how far the Michigan program has fallen in the past 3 years. As for our offense, touting how many points we put up against one top team who was playing a borderline prevent defense when we scored said points doesn't exactly strengthen your argument. I'll admit, I wasn't thrilled about the Hoke hire. That being said, I feel better about the direction of the team and am looking forward to not being embarrassed against good Big Ten teams.
By the way, you must be so proud of yourself by taking an (annoying) meme, and turning it into a noun. Congrats, you're awfully clever.
Doc, the poster you agreed with called the spread a "gimmick." Are you advocating that opinion as well? You said "this," and added your own point, but I'm not sure if you, too, actually agree that the sprerad offense is, in fact, a "gimmick," and that the pro style works because it "isolates matchups." X's and O's wise, that statement by the guy you said "this" to is monumentally moronic/asinine. I didn't respond to that poster because it's so stupid that I figure most people reading just brush it off; however, you're staying in the fray, so I want to clarify whether you, too, hold the "gimmick" opinion. It's a yes or no answer. If you do, then we can engage. If not, then there's no need really- I can just let that guy's one incredibly ignorant post go, and continue on with my day.
teams in recent years running the Spread, were just running a gimmick offense that was figured out right? If the coaching staff is smart the offense will be a mix of spread and prostyle. You act as though the offense won't still have some spread elements. I agree with your point about not judging the team until they get some more practices, but I can't stand your ignorant viewpoint about the spread.
It's only a gimmick offense if you run a dozen plays over and over again. Some of those NC teams ran a spread that exploited matchups. It sure didn't look like they did that last year, at least against upper tier defenses. It seemed more like go out and run our same stuff and if we get stuffed so be it, but no serious change up at the half or from game to game.
DAMNIT, who let Gary Danielson on the board?
Let's look at the last three NC games.
Last year: Oregon's "unstoppable" offense Vs Auburn's "unstoppable" offense--both spread offenses. Well, I think the final score was something like 24-22, and both offenses were held in check by good defenses. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the spread to be the be all end all.
Alabama Vs Texas two years ago: Alabama's Tressel-like running game, pass when you have to pro style backed by their ferocious defense and clobbering Texas.
Okalahoma Vs Florida: Again, two "unstoppable" offensive juggernauts that were each scoring about 50 points per game. The final score was 24-14.
And last year's "record-breaking offense" for Michigan? Came up lame in the Big Ten against teams not named Indiana or Illinois (and it was Forcier who led the victory over Illinois). Against Purdue, UM managed 20 offensive points. Hmmmmm
"If the coaches are smart" they will do what they do best and coach to that. Rodriguez was granted the benefit of the doubt by his army of supporters here (why would he NOT coach a spread, even with Threet and Sheridan? It's what he knows, right?) to go spread at all cost (including players and his job).
Not gonna happen this time. Yes, Hoke and Borges can work to go with the players' strengths--but what if there really aren't many? What IF Denard is pretty much just a runner/option QB? Do they lay him out to get killed this season as well?
How about this: The coaches need to coach what they know and want this team to do, and what identity they want. They should be allowed to do it. They either coach the players up to that, or recruit to that (BOTH, hopefully), and let the results determine their cussess or failure.
people who were bitching and moaning about RR running a Spread with players who may not fit the offense in 2008, despite there being very little returning experience and talent, are now saying it's alright if the current staff does the same thing with these players. The difference between the two teams is this team has returning talent and experience. Of course I already know what your idiotic opinion is of Denard Robinson from another thread. If the offense doesn't peform this season, the only explanation would be that the coaches didn't utilize the players in an appropriate manner. Do you honestly disagree that a mix of spread and prostyle wouldn't fit the current players the best?
Rodriguez was an abject failure while here and his system was turned to crap when it faced good teams.
Rodriguez came in with more ammo at his disposal than people want to admit. It didn't work out for numerous reasons--not the least of which should be considered as "Poor Richie the Victim" And outside of Denard and Devin, didn't really seem to be able to recruit offensive talent, let alone defensive talent.
And you talk about "talent"--two of the top three receivers are holdovers from Lloyd Carr (Stonum, Hemmingway). No running back has emerged as even being serviceable. The offensive line? Who the heck knows, really? The tight ends--Koger, Moore, Watson--Lloyd Carr recruits.
Defensively--these guys seriously lacked, oh, EVERYTHING last year--outside of the Carr guys like Van bergen, Martin, Demens--and an occassional bright spot like WALK ON Kovacs and Ray Vinopals One Great Tackle.
Rodriguez left some "talent"--WHERE? (Again, outside of Denard, Devin and Roundtree)--and it is debatable whether he would have been able to get the most out of Gardner. Experience? Yeah, well--but most of it bad.
Hoke is starting over.
Are you kidding me with this? Jake Ryan looks to be a stud in the making. Taylor Lewan could very well be a future top draft pick. Omameh could be receiving big ten honors in the near future. Carvin Johnson is looking good for a true sophomore. Courtney Avery could end up being a very solid corner for the next few years. Marvin Robinson has all of the physical tools a coach could ask for and just needs some more coaching, which isn't all that surprising for a true sophomore. Please just shut up.
than I thought you were, if you honestly believe the current staff is starting over on the offensive side of the ball. You say what offensive line, based on what exactly? You realize two o-line starters were out for this game right? This is a good o-line when the starters are healthy.
And you missed the point of my post, it wasn't about who gets credit for recruiting who, it is simply that there is returning offensive talent and experience to work with this year, as opposed to the situation in 2008.
Sean Ornery, re: your "offensive theory" arguments: You sound like someone arguing for the Box Offense over the Wing-T in 1950, the Wing-T over the Wishbone in 1970, over the Wishbone instead of the West Coast offense in 1990. If you can't understand why the spread is successful when executed, from an x's and o's standpoint (here's a hint: the same reason the Wing T and Wishbone were in their day, except with a much more lethal pass element: accounting for the QB as a rusher), then I don't know what to tell you. Making blanket statements about a theory of offense that is both tactically and theoretically sound when properly executed really makes it difficult to take any of your other points seriously because it's such a glaring, base level lack of comprehension/judgment that it clouds anything else you say. Like if we were talking science and you could explain string theory, but thought the world was flat (although I think that the world not being flat actually ties in to string theory...in some way that I can't articulate properly).
Maybe a guy named Coly McCoy going down led to Texas getting beat by Alabama.
How you can indict the spread offense because a true freshman seeing his first meaningful snaps since high school couldn't beat Alabama is beyond me.
Than again, you don't think Denard is any good.
so we got an expert here.....No matter what offense you run, you are going to win with talent, plain and simple. Alabama and LSU do not run spreads. Auburn and Florida incorporated spread looks and philosophies on plays but not a true spread offense as say a Oregon. Just cause you go three-four wide doesn't mean you are running a spread...Look at the patriots team, green bay, I guess you call those spread offenses. Its not about being ignorant to the spread, its about employing an offense, better yet a mentality that is effective by exposing match ups and talent with 11 on 11 football and a pro style is most effective at that. Hence why its called "pro style" because its ran in the Pros...gimmicks don't work when talent is much more level
and Florida weren't true spread offenses. They ran almost excuslively from the Shotgun and utilized alot of read option elements, option elements, QB runs, with 3 or more WR's a large majority of the time. What the hell do you call that?
depending on the specific play, you call it a spread look, as UM will do this year as well. as I said, just cause you incorporate 3-4-5 wides, have read options, doesn't mean you are running a spread offense, you incorporate spread philosophies with the personnel you have Are you seriously going to compare THE UF offense with Chris leak with the UF offense of Tebow...? those are both spreads right??? or are they.....we are so quick with the semantics of football, we listen to commentators and analysts call an offense a spread and everyone's an expert......watch the subtleties of the game....all Im concerned with is whether our UM men will win their 1 on 1 matchups, we do that, we win...pro style is the better way of utilizing that...thats all I'm saying.
UMFam:
1. Calling people "son," is a dick move. HowEVA, it does seem that you haven't actually examined your opinions on offensive football in at least a decade, so perhaps you're old enough that everyone is younger than you, and therefore using "son" is in your regular parlance. 2. You really don't understand the spread. At. All. 3. Why oh why are teams in the NFL visiting with Urban Meyer and other college coaches, and then employing "Wildcat" type looks? 4. Seriously- do you not realize the entire purpose of the spread as run by Rich Rodriguez is to create and exploit one-on-one matchups?
It seems that you may be referring to pro-style passing attacks, where you look for single coverage, and go to it. Here's a hint: that's what you do in the spread also, both passing and running. Do you understand the purpose of the bubble screen? To get a slot ninja SINGLED UP ON A LINEBACKER OR SAFETY. That's just one example.
Anyone referring to the spread offense as a "gimmick" is simply ignorant. 5 out of the last 6 national champions ran a version of the spread, and two some of the best offneses in the NFL (New England, Indianapolis, New Orleans) run versions of the spread as well.
People are arguing over the wrong thing, here. It's not a contest between spread or pro-style, it's all about how well you run it. Oregon runs a great spread, so they win. Alabama runs an effective pro-style offense, so they win. There's no "better" choice here. The one consistent you'll see is that all those teams playing for the championship, spread OR pro, also played strong defense. Nobody ever won a championship on one side of the ball.
suited to run one style or another. The current players are not suited to run strictly a prostyle offense, hence the reason why there should be some Spread elements as well. To be clear I expect this to be the style we will see from Borges and the offensive staff, a good mix of spread and prostyle elements.
By that same logic we never should have hired RichRod because the players we had were pro-stylers. The Hoke hire was not made to optimize our offensive success this year. It reflects a policy decision based on where Brandon wants this team to go in the long run.
difference between the two situations. What returning starters or contributers did we have in 2008? The offfense in 2008 was going to struggle no matter what the coaches did, that is not the case this year. There is no reason that the coaches can't utilize an offense with some of the prostyle elements, but also spread elements to take advantage of the talent on hand.
I never said I was opposed to the hiring of a prostyle coach/coaches, as long as they could incorporate some spread elements that could take advantage of the unique talents of guys like Denard. And if the coaches don't do that and the offense struggles, they should face the same criticism that RR faced in 2008.
The difference is fallacious. If we were even lower on talent, it could be said it was an even worse time for the transition. Regardless, it has nothing to do with why richRod was fired three years later (for what he did in his third year, not the first year) and what Hoke should do his first year. It was proper for RichRod to run the spread from th start. It is equally proper for Hoke to begin the transition.
As to the degree of remaining talent...that is a subjective assessment. We have a mix of good and even some great players. Most outside observers aren't filled with the fear of God by our roster, though.
the transition is fine, but the coaches shouldn't go full bore and scrap any non-prostyle elements, considering they have returning talent and experience to work with. That returning talent and experience did not exist in 2008, and as result there is a difference between the two situations. The offense has a chance to be successful this year, the 2008 offense was basically a doom kind of situation. I think the coaches are intelligent enough to utilize the players correctly and you will see a good mix of prostyle and spread elements. Do you disagree that a prostyle/spread hybrid isn't the best approach to take this year?
First, Hoke and Borges have repeatedly noted that they are not scrapping everything "not spread." They have said they're adapting to synthesize the strengths of the existing players. Probably we saw less of that today because it is the new aspects of the game which require practice.
Secondly that "lack of talent" RichRod inherited included the two most priductive RB's RichRod had here, two of the best recievers, the most significant defensive players, etc. etc....
Really, the point is all this fuss and bother over the 15th practice is a little absurd. RichRod apologists love to bewail that everyone and everything was against him from the start, and his setbacks were because of blah blah blah. I have no opinion on any of that. My suggestion is you watch Hoke's team play maybe an actual series before condemning the new regime. To do less is just a little absurd.
We scored 28 points against WI -- the second highest of any team that faced them.
Let's see -- Auburn (perhaps you saw how they did last year) put up 17 points and 348 yards against Miss. State, which had one of the best DCs in the country. Michigan put up 14 points and 342 yards -- 3 points less and 6 yards less.
Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices. You got your old time Bill Stewart/Lloyd Carr -- you never have to feel threatened again!
And say -- how many yards did Carr's masterful use of Henne, Hart, Long, Manningham, and Arrington put up against OSU in 2007?
I'm not in opposition to the spread, I just didn't think the philosophy of a spread we had the last few years won us many 1 on 1 matchups, whether its o line v dline, receivers or RBs, and it wasn't because of talent, it was more so getting our talent in position to win that match up. Teams incorporate spreads into pro style offenses because it can exploit match ups, and we should do that. but sometimes its better to have our O line against their D line, LB on RB, WR on DB and see who makes a play,.
Yards don't mean shit when you can't put points on the board when it counts.
Wow dude, put down the RR kool aid. Those two teams put up 48 points and 52 points on us. Last I checked yards and points scored don't mean much when you got blown the fuck out. Rich Rod wasn't the Offensive Coordinator, he was the head coach, he was responsible for the whole show.
and Oregon ran that man on man stuff all the way to the national title game??
What about Florida and the Tim Tebow era or the 2008 Oklahoma Sooners they beat in the national title game...Texas and Vince Young ring a bell? Pat White Dennis Dixon etc....4 out of the last 6 NCs ran the TRUE spread and LSU was multiple...Bama FYI is a one back zone team. There haven't been a lot of great I form teams either but the trend may reverse
Anyway, there have been tons of really good spread teams so please cut the crap.
both had defenses...we had hair care products.
6-6.
9-3.
That you will become one of the biggest trolls on this board and will eventually be banned.
You'd be wrong of course but you are free to predict that.
I am degenerate and would like a piece of that action. What are the odds we are talking about for ipfw getting banned?
IPFW chances with the ladies is as good as a squirrel mounting a doberman....c'mon, panic after a spring game?? The offense is new, on top of the fact that they kept it pretty vanilla, and the D looked encouraging. Go play somewhere
This won't be the worst M defense in history.
No, but it could be the worst offense.
But you beat me to it. "Threet passes... for a loss of 4."
And the spring 2008 game was a highly accurate preview of what we were going to get that season from the offense.
Come to think of it, 2009 was pretty accurate as well. An injection of moxie from the young kid made a spectacularly bad offense look like it might be kinda competent with flashes of good. And it turned out to be.
2010's spring game made me think: "Sweet fancy Moses, Denard got really, really good, and this defense is going to be the worst we've ever seen" (even before Angry Cornerback-Hating God unleashed the Kraken). Pretty much what we got.
Suspect this one was a good preview, too. Some spectacular runs by Denard mixed with many spirit-numbing innacurate throws from drop-back pocket passing, because hey why not, when you've got the prototype Heisman-quality spread QB, why not make him learn 7-step drops? And I think we'll get what we saw on defense-- not the most talented ever, but it will look like it's being organized by an adult for a change.
Unlike the past two spring games, I won't be watching the highlights from this one 70+ times this summer. That I can predict with 100% certainty.
This sums it up perfectly. And it's disheartening. Even if the overall win total doesn't drop significantly simply because we will finally have a competent defense, spending the next five months thinking about a competent defense but a huge regression on offense and the waste of one of the best talents ever in college football, who by every account is a great kid and loves our alma mater, is just not something that encourages me.
Love your avatar. That said, the last spring games were meant to make the offense look good to create a positive impression about the program. It made the first string offense look unstoppable. It made the second string offense look unstoppable. Neither string was unstoppable, merely explosive. And all of this because opur first string defense couldn't stop a pack of hamsters from marching downfield.
I won't be watching this a lot either. RichRod's offense was exciting to watch. It just wasn't that effective. Spring games look bad. That;s the correlation to the first two spring games you mentioned. The last one was really a propagand a piece. Give it time.
The offense should be fine. Borges even said during the press conference that the goal today was to work on the stuff Denard doesn't do as well--like the drop back passing. I think you'll see a lot of rollouts and quasi-spread looks from the offense in the Fall. If Denard learns to tuck and run and turns the ball over a little less, Michigan could have a significantly better offense on the final scoreboard than last season.
The defense is still going to be a work in progress, but as you said, it's nice to think they have a coherent strategy in the works. They'll get torched a few times, but the days of three straight records for most points allowed in a season should be over.
"Sheridan...(long, annoyed pause)...kept the ball...sacked for a loss of 2, it's 3rd and 11."
It took me a while to figure out a scenario where Michigan would have had a 2nd and 9 in 2008, because on the surface it means they gained yards. More plausible:
1st and 10 (Michigan 8 yard line): Defense has too many men on the field -- 5 yard penalty
2nd and 5: Backward pass out of bounds for a loss of 4
April 16th, 2011 at 11:27 PM ^
That's almost painfully true. Gosh we were something else that year.
I would argue he's not a fan in 2011.
It won't be. They were obviously working on the new passing game, with the QB run game taking second fiddle for this practice (for obvious reasons, injury and otherwise), but I bet that facet shows up game day, and the offense is pretty damn good come week 1. You are being fickle as shit on this thread. Patience.