Melodramatic much? It was blowing 20-25 mph, raining sideways at times and 45 degrees.
Those are Rich Rod era excuses, we've move on.
What an inacurrate, dickhead, beating-a-dead-horse thing to interject with. Come on, man. Was that even necessary?
I forgot, they play the games in the fall under perfect conditions each time.
It has to be the worst! I mean, after fifteen practices and a lineup filled with more second-stringers and spare parts than a Yuogo, they can't shred an improved defense? Who ever heard of such a thing. I mean, RichRod Khan's offense was unstoppable after fifteen practices! Unstoppable!
are for the ESPN boards, head on over there OP, and you'll be in good company.
13-0 bcs champ. Suck it.
My bad 14-0 BCS champs. SUCK IT
I'm sorry but after that I am filled with the feeling that the offense is going to be awful and I can't make a guess about the D-fense, because the quality on the offensive side is alarming and how can you use that as a reference point?
Denard is not a pocket qb(and I love Denard), I kept telling myself they won't ruin him, but honestly I don't think its overreacting at all. Denard was horrible on most of his throws, you can say they havent had enough time, but that doesn't change the fact that he cannot throw accurate passes. That is not his strength and never has been... I understand the issues, but honestly lining Denard under center, in any offense other than the spread, is just a waste of talent. Im not blaming anyone honestly, just observations...
And all this talk about our defense being better is a waste of breath, I believe it will be better, but honestly what made you think that watching this practice? Them picking off inaccurate passes, or stopping mediocre running backs running up the middle? If I hear someone else boast about how Brady Hoke promotes tradition I'm going to vomit. Why do we have to throw away a dynamic effective offense and replace it with what every single Michigan fan wanted to blow up under Carr.
I feel gross... I cannot make a prediction of wins and losses, but I can make a prediction that I will be pulling out just as much hair as last year! Square pegs in round holes, a total lack of regard for anything but tradition, Denard's passes closer to defenders than receivers, loosing streaks to rivals that may never end, 3 yards and a cloud of dust... Oh my!
from muppets who don't suck.
If you had a Gonzo or an Animal avatar, then we might listen to you.
Rizzo is the best muppet (since muppets tonight), I like the fact that sometimes there are many many Rizzos and all of them are snarky. Gonzo is cool, but I always thought his nose looked like a slong, and Animal reminds me of what is essentially wrong with children, endless energy. Still all muppets are winners in my book.
I actually had no idea that this site used Muppets to celebrate, I just love me some Muppets.
Muppet Show, you can't be the best Muppet (Sesame Street excluded).
"Rizzo first appeared in episode 418 of The Muppet Show, as one of a group of rats following Christopher Reeve around backstage."
Without him, till he was an "extra", I'm not thinking that exactly makes him vital.
<br>
<br>Ok, ok...was he a Muppet baby?
<br>
<br>(No, wait, a negative might be a plus in his favor....)
Rizzo was never a Muppet baby, but honestly could you see a cartoon rat on a kids cartoon show. Though we never did see the lady with the socks face, could have been Rizzo the whole time...
Would have been AWESOME.
April 16th, 2011 at 10:00 PM ^
You actually know what show your muppet avatar first appeared in?
Surely there are sadder things to admit, but right now I can't think of any.
April 16th, 2011 at 10:35 PM ^
No, I wiki'd it, that would be a bit much.
April 17th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
Okay, I feel better about talking with you now.
The M promotion of Brady Hoke and tradition is just pathetic.
Because the media's theme of Rich Rod and "change" was measured, restrained, and barely discussed at all back in '08. The MSM are idiots. Get used to it.
But worse is that a ton of people eat it up, which drives the MSM to produce more and more content like it.
Last year's offense was neither dynamic nor effective. It was explosive. The thing about explosions is that they only last for a few seconds. The offense was based entirely around treating a magnificent, undersized quarterback like a running back. our offense, in other words, was history's most eccentric wildcat offense. It proved very effective against fair to middling teams. It also proved impotent against good teams. It was also unsustainable- If denard ever got really hurt, and that was coming, it would be the end.
And while the offense was working itself up to greater combustability, the defense went nowhere for three years. I'll say that again- our defense went nowhere, with no sign of trending upwards. That matters more than if our offense HAD been effective and consistent. You can't win with offense alone.
You are right about the offense being explosive and not always effective, I always thought last year that the spread was so streaky, but mind you the stats:
| Michigan | Nat'l Rank |
| Scoring Offense | 25th |
| Total Offense | 8th |
| Rushing Offense | 13th |
| Passing Offense | 36th |
It was effective and could have been better if only for a lick of defense. I didn't think Rich deserved another year, but our offense was top 10 last year, and than the new staff comes in and basically ignores what worked best last year. With the defense being so shotty last year and probably much of the same this year (hopefully not, but realistically), how can you afford to dump what worked? Its the same thing as when Rich came in, forget defense and lets get this offense up to par, only this time its forget offense we have to fix the defense. You aren't gonna win any games with a shotty defense and by making Denard throw.
The most alarming thing I heard during the game was that Borges had no running plays for QB in his playbook, and so he added 5. Wow sweet.
Do you think we ran last year?
Did they really say he had no running plays for a QB in his playbook? I was listening to the WTKA audio. Why don't we ask Mattison to implement a 3-3-5 as well? Uggg.
Wellll...I see what you're saying, and there's some validity to it. I agree, it kind of is altering things back to status quuo ante bellum, but her ethe issue was really that the fan base, by and large, wasn't going to accept a second shot at the spread offense experiment. Don't get me wrong, I think the whole "old guard hates good offenses" line of attack on Hoke is a boondoggle, but it was hard to see another spread coach stepping in. I mean, who would it be? Grahame? I think Grahame is actually a better coach than RichRod was (in that I think RichRod gave birth to the spread, but it has evolved past him), but Grahame brings so much of the same baggage...hyper offense in a less threatening league, with no defense.
I thjink the RichRod experiement left a sour taste in a lot of mouths. Not just in ancient, Bo-era relic mouths, I mean the fanbase at large. You probably wouldn't have seen a lot of support for another spread coach, and we needed some solidarity more than we needed strategic continuity. Hoke hasn't got everyone behind him (re: spread offense affecienados), but no one probably could have done any better.
The last thing to note about the categories you reference above: they really don't mean much. They are skewed by the teams we ran over roughshod, and by the fact that every drive was a long drive, courtesy of our defense. It really didn't translate directly to wins. What i'm saying is, we were certainly closer to a powerful offense with the spread, but we were a long way behind, say, Oregon. I don't think Hoke inherited that much to work with, beyond the quarterbacks. Think about it: how many runningbacks do we have? Richrod collected them. Now how many of them are actually effective? To have that many scholarship RBs with not one really viable option beyond you quarterback is absurd.
I'm saying a spread coach might have (WOULD have) had a smoother offensive transition, but that's short term thinking. The Hoke hire reflects a long term policy decision Brandon made about Michigan's future, and where he wants it headed. If that means a less dynamic year on offense than we might otherwise have had...that was considered acceptable.
Honeslty I hope it works, because I'll be watching even if they suck, and if this goes on for much longer I might loose my wife or mind, maybe both.
But good points and I hear ya, even about the stats you are right, we put up sick numbers against the middle class, still I'm just hoping that we don't revert to the conservative oppression on offense. Thought Carr did have some mean comebacks...
Don't be too discouraged. I watched a lot of Hoke's games at SDSU and he really isn't that conservative. He started out the game against Utah with a passing spread drive that was just a thing of beauty. And against Navy...well, i'm also a Navy fan and expected to see SDSU get rolled, but that was just a flashy game Hoke put together.
This really isn't a Bo-nostaligia offense. I think it looked sloppy today because it's new and they're working on weak spots (like running). I think in the long run it won't be as flashy as a true spread, but it won't be as stodgy as TressellBall.
I hope it works too and don'y know why we can't adopt more of last years offense. All I know is I was often completely bored by watching Lloyd's offenses until they got behind or the last game aginast Florida. Watching the scrimage was extremely painful, I thought Debord was making the calls. Hoping it all works out, I'm not prepatred for "we need 3 years to get our system in place", again.
RB position not in terms of their production last year, but in terms of the talent level. Your right that none of those guys really established themselves last year or played that well, but there is still talent at the position. I expect one or two of the RB's to really step up this season and be more productive. If I had to guess I would say Hopkins, Shaw or Touissant. Saying there are no RB'S for the new staff to work with is pretty misleading, there are guys who have the talent to be productive, even if they weren't able to show it last season.
And as far as the offense in the general I disagree with the notion that there isn't that much to work with. The starting o-line has experience and talent, and the wr position has some good talent and experience as well.
As to the 'Backs, I can only go with what I've seen. Also, RichRod as much as accepted he couldn't wring production out of his backs, which is why he rode Denard as much as he could instead of using the 'Backs to take pressure off him,a s he did with White.
I'm not attacking tehy're talent. Maybe RichRod di a poor job developing them. the point I'm trying to make is that having so many runningbacks with not one real performer is...well, it says something. You can interpret for yourself what exactly it says.
The O-Line? We'll see. They were fairly highly thought of last year, but they got owned by physical defenses. The real question to me is not whether they're good (I think they are) but whether they can do better than under RichRod (underachieved) and whether it will translate to success under a pro-style...can they get push, being the salient question.
I think the receivers are great, except for drops *cough* Roundtree, Rbs might have talent, but last year I just didn't see any of it. Rbs of old that turned out to be great showed signs of it early, I'm just not seeing it and its perplexing cause we recruited a slew of them, hopefully it will just turn out they weren't great for spread but than again they were recruited with this in mind. I didn't mean the offense has no talent, just that this type of play calling is not utilizing it the best it could be.
aimed at you. That was a response to Belisarius's post.
Was "I didn't have any designed running plays for a QB a year ago, or the entire time I was at SDS. I've already put 5 in because of his unique skill set." So it doesn't sound like he's done.
Are you making a case that he should be a running back?
<br>
<br>And hey, isn't it great how Hoke promotes tradition?
<br>
<br>I'm waiting....
No Denard doesn't seem to have the longevity to be a rb, I just wish they would have kept the spread, or at least made a less defined change. Like when Rich had Mallet and yet it seemed like there was no effort to retain him. Why waste the talent you have?
"And hey, isn't it great how Hoke promotes tradition?"
My mouth is full of vomit!
Just saying even a running QB isn't going to win a lot of games if he can't throw at ALL, even in a spread. You don't want the spread, you want GT's option offense. Or the Wildcat.
I think the flaw of last years offense was definately Denard's inaccuracy, mainly in his unablity to stretch the field, but he was good on short routes and you combine that with his running ability and it worked nicely. But if you take away his running ability (this year), which took heat off the mediocre passing, and make him rely on his okay arm, and mediocre running backs (who were not good last year) it looks like death.
the problem was, Denard was already a runningback, just one who also threw on occasion. That's why RichRod's system was unsustainable. Whther it was the Pat White/Slate one-two punch combo, Tate Scrambling, or Denard at "Super-wildcat," RichRod usually had one go-to gimmick and a few wrinkles he'd add on to it. Pat White worked. denard as "super-wildcat" was never going to work the same way.
But why would they take away the one thing he does well? Thats all I'm getting at, I feel a tremendous amount of panic because you take away 75% of his game when you make him sit in the pocket.
Well...let me run this by you. i think Borges was trying to send us a message when he started Denard out with that run: "I understand." I really think he was showing us he gets what you're saying- and look at the result! Why didn't we see much of it after that? Because I think this less about proving what we can do in the long run than it was about getting Denard familiar with what he is not yet and needs to become familiar with.
I always thought Robinson's career would depend on his ability to evolve or die. That is...the run could set up the throw, but he couldn't take the abuse that went along with that. it's desirable for him to learn how to set up the run with the throw instead...and I think that's what we're headed towards. He just needs practice instead of relying on what he can do as a crutch.
Maybe he can't do it at all...hell, i don't know. But I think his future and our futures depend more on him adapting to get better at dimensions beyond the run. just a thought.
I was so happy to see him bust that huge run early, hopefully this is the case, and hopefully Denard starts to develop an accurate arm. Cause Devin did not look good today at all either. Kinda scary I thought he would look better today, but today outside of that first run was devoid of hope. That big TD run was a break down on defense.
April 16th, 2011 at 10:08 PM ^
about our traditions? They're pretty damned important to me, and to 99% of our fans.
Winning is job #1 of course, but no reason we can't have both.
April 16th, 2011 at 10:38 PM ^
No, I think tradition is important, but its the fettish Michigan fans have with it. It trumps everything, oh the spread didnt work perfectly, run back to the Carr-Bo days, we'll be okay as long as we just run the ball and have no creativity in our offense.
7-5 + a W in a bowl. At times we'll be happy. At times we'll be sad. But winning the bowl game confidently will make us excited for 2012.
8-4 with Denard starting. D will be improved, O will be just fine. We will beat either MSU or OSU, but not both. Bam.
2012= 14-0.
Although it's still early, it looked rough. I am hoping for a Texas A&M style of "Pro Style" football; still fast paced when needed, incorporating elements of spread and allowing the QB to tuck it under and run when needed. They just looked confused. I'm not even convinced the defense is THAT much better, since the interceptions were bad decisions by the QBs. We'll see how it is come September.