I'll Miss the Spread Offense
Winning is our number one priority. So whatever system Michigan's offense operates in is fine by me as long as we outscore our opponents.
That being said, I have to admit that I will miss the tempo and creativity of the last few years. Whatever the outcome, it was exciting. We were fun to watch (offensively at least). I enjoyed seeing our players go out there and set up across the entire field... then score 3 plays later. Then come out in the next possession and do it again. Guess I'm feeling as though we'll never see somthing like that again in Michigan unless we're running a 2 minute drill.
Attending school during the last years of the Carr Era, a lot of us grew acustomed to the predictability and lack of imagination of our offensive play-calling, two things Rodriguez's offense will never be accussed of (for a change). So, although I'm not saying our offense will return to the pre-historic play-calling of the Carr Era (which in my opinion was pretty boring for the most part), I will miss seeing the offensive mindset we experienced this year and how it energized our crowd every play.
Pro-Style Offense or not, I hope we keep up that excitement. However, after what we've experiened the last few years, I'll take W's over an exciting offense any day. They don't have to be mutually exclusive though... so I'm expecting modern play-calling and big plays out of our skill guys regardless.
Get it going Borges...
January 21st, 2011 at 8:24 AM ^
Honestly, I don't remember a lot of creativity while Rich Rod was here. There were 5-10 plays that were run over & over again.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:51 AM ^
I thought there would be more creativity myself....funky sets, 2 QB's lining up and totally juking everyone out of their jocks, etc. I loved me some RR (no homo), but I was surprised that after 3 years the offense never really evolved. Sure it got better/more efficient, but still kinda stale at the same time. I groaned every time I saw that zone read get blown up.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:53 AM ^
i thought our offense this year got incredibly predictable and not very creative. To me it felt like 2007 when we ran the stretch to the left with mike hart and jake long 50% of the time instead we ran zone read 50% of the time.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^
ya i agree, it became so predictable. Part of it was Denard not making very good reads at times, and he was also pretty poor at executing his fake handoffs at times. It took so long to develop defenses knew exactly what he was doing.
Part of it though i thought was the fact that we had no RB that were very dynamic like denard.
If we had steve slaton or devine in our offense things could of looked very different.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^
I don't think it was so much Denards reads as it was the actual play calling. There was a lot of zone read with missed reads but there were a lot of the same plays called. Not much variation in wr routes and the same called run plays.
January 21st, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
I think many people miss the point of RR's offense. It is not a finesse offense. It is as much about power as it is about misdirection. It worked best with Slaton and White b/c White could make perfect reads and Slaton was a homerun threat on every play. If you watched WVU when RR was there, White would keep the ball and run over and over again to the same side of the field, then White would hand hand the ball off on the third or fourth try and Slaton would bust a 70 yard TD. We had a first year starter who wasn't even the best person at running the zone read playing QB and our RB corp instead of Slaton. It looked unimaginative b/c it didn't work with these guys.
January 21st, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
"Didn't work with these guys" may be a bit strong, considering they obliterated multiple U-M and NCAA offensive records this year. That said, I tend to agree with your point--it's the players that make an offense unstoppable, not just the scheme.
January 21st, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
I did not see a lot of creativity with RR. When RR came to Michigan I thought that we would for sure see some crazy things and after looking at the big picture I didn't really see anything that was "creative". The one thing that seemed to work was to use the speed of Denard to pull up the DB's and then throw it real quick and that may have been it. More times then not I thought the teams we played were much more creative than we were. I do love me some RR but wish he would have been a little more creative in his packaging. Overall, I think when you watch every snap of every game you become accustomed to the offense - same as we all did with Carr and were beginning to do with RR. Its like you can guess with a high probability what the play is going to be by the line up and situation.
January 21st, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
But that's pretty much how I'd put it. I kept hearing about how creative RR's offenses were, but if you sub in "zone read" for "zone left", it was a lot like watching LC's offense. I would alternate between thinking "wow, great run by Denard" and "when are we going to do something the opponent doesn't expect?"
Another concerning thing for me was thinking why we weren't throwing the outs / slants / 10-yard stop routes when everyone on the D side was coming up to the box to stop Denard. It seemed like that would be a great playcall more times than we actually tried it. Now, maybe it was the playcalling, but I can't help but think that our talent at QB and WR (passing-wise) may not be up to snuff for this year's offense.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
Very good points. I also couldn't understand why there couldn't be a creative package with Tate and Denard on the field at the same time. It wouldn't have hurt to do something, AT LEAST a play with the two on the field at the same time.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:25 AM ^
January 21st, 2011 at 8:28 AM ^
I certainly enjoyed the spread as well...for the most part. When the RB's had holes to run through, I really liked the system. But when our RB's had nowhere to go, I really didn't think the system was that innovative and it seems to me that the playbook for some reason shrank as last season went on, especially in the passing game.
Regardless, the quick scoring possibilities were always fun to anticipate. But I think I'll get just as much joy if we can go Wisconsin on somebody next year and run 30+ times straight right at them while racking up a few TD's.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:31 AM ^
but not others. Not sure if it was execution issues, better defenses second half of the season, or the repetitive play calling referenced above. I hope we can be creative next year to utilize our excellent offensive assets. I think there is a young man on the team with a huge smile and rocket boosters for legs who might help out, along with a bunch of other players who have one more year of experience.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:31 AM ^
January 21st, 2011 at 8:35 AM ^
will miss the Spread more.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:50 AM ^
Denard may miss the spread, but not for the reasons most may think. I think he will miss RR O only because in that system it was all about Denard reading the D and making the descion. In the Borges O they will be more of a design type of run, which I would hope would promote more blocking schemes to assist in Denard breaking more big runs. Also I think Denard will excel more as a passer in this O, than he did under RR regime. Borges will work with Denards footwork and make him ready for the NFL.
This is just my opinion, but I feel very strongly about it, especially after listening to Borges speak in his interview with Doug Karsh.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:37 AM ^
He'll likely throw in some spread option in order to effectively use Denard's talents as he knows that he doesnt have a prototypical pocket passer to lead this offense.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^
No lie. I had a bad dream last night that Denard transfered to Texas. Man am I glad it was just a dream.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^
I believe those are called "nightmares". Yikes.
January 21st, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
Night Terrors of Lyme disease proportions.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:40 AM ^
The offense that Rich Rod ran was extremely fun to watch but my god was it frustrating. We would go from looking unstoppable and averaging 15 yrds a play on one drive to 3 and out on the next.
RR didn't put the emphasis on defense and special teams that is needed to compete in the big ten and that is what eventually did him in. But one thing is for sure - his offense was fun to watch
January 21st, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^
based on the bowl results.
Denard is exciting because he is Denard, just like Braylon is exciting because he's Braylon, and Woodson is exciting because he's Woodson.
It doesn't matter what the scheme is as long as Denard gets on the field. And who knows, maybe having an OC who is so good at passing schemes ends up improving Denard's reads to the point that's he's quick enough progressing through the reads to know when to run.
I know people think the NFL is boring. I don't think it's boring, but it does have a very level talent pool. This year the Eagles were not boring, and the playoff game with Woodson versus Vick was not boring.
And I actually wish Brian would complete his UFR's for OSU and the bowl game so we could finish the analysis of the Run Option Read spread system. According to FEI OSU and Mississippi State were the two best defenses that Denard faced. Now I don't think that the Run Option failed, I just think that those defenses had the talent to defend it and make Michigan one dimensional on the offensive play calling.
And that is another thing a good defense could help prevent. Losing a dimension of the offense makes it significantly more predictable. Being behind two or more scores forces you to be more predictable. And no matter how flexible and talented the offense is, poor field position increases the opponents probability to stop the drive.
My only fear is that the Auburn history of Al Borges seems to say he emphasized throwing it long a lot. I don't think we have enough talent to make that an emphasis, I think we have talent for crossing routes and slants, and if one of the OLB's or Safeties has to be snooping for Denard, that's one less person covering those routes.
And that means people running in Space bitches, Space
January 21st, 2011 at 8:41 AM ^
I loved the no huddle fast tempo and the ability to score on almost any play. Based on watching the SDSU-Navy bowl game, Hoke's offense will be more interesting the Carr's but much closer to it that RR's. I suspect it will be more like when Moeller was the coach - we were more aggressive then.
While this has been debated ad nauseum, I would have been just as happy with RR and Mattison as DC.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
January 21st, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
The way I read it, Mattison never would have come here to coach under RR. If he had, he probably would have been told to run the 3-3-5 / hybrid / whatever defense and the results may have been....disappointing. One of the "dealbreakers" with RR was his insistence that DCs run his defensive system.
January 21st, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
Mattison didn't know RR, Hoke did. That's the difference there.
The other point is that nobody good was going to come because of job security. I'm assuming DB told RR that the 3-3-5 was done at Michigan and that he needed a Randy Shannon, Mattison type hire to stay on, which didn't happen because of the hot seat.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
The Detroit News did an article (sorry, I have no idea how to link) that made it crystal clear that Mattison is only here b/c of Hoke. It sounded like he wouldn't have left the NFL even if Harbaugh was the HC. So, RR and Mattisoin was never, ever a possiblility.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:41 AM ^
January 21st, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^
Let met start off by saying that I was a RichRod supporter up until after the OSU game this year. I truly felt that he could get it going here, and it appeared he would at the beginning of this season. The problem is, it appeared he would at the beginning of last season too. By the time I had seen the performance put up against OSU, he had lost my support. PURDUE played them tougher.
The way I see it, DB had to get rid of him because of all of the negativity. RR broke many bad records, though not all of it was his fault. RR also didn't help his case by putting out some of the worst special teams and D on the field of any team. The offense was great, but only when we weren't facing good opponents. The we started facing good teams and look what happened:
MSU - 17 pts
OSU - 7 pts
Miss St - 14 pts
There were just too many reasons not to keep RR by the end of the season, and I for one agree with his termination.
January 21st, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
January 21st, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
You wanna look at the overall picture? 15-22. Broken records for worst loss in a bowl game, 2 years without a bowl game, and some of the worst defeats in UM history. We only ever beat ONE B1G team with a winning league record. You cannot look at RR's tenure here and claim it as a success, especially when looking at the big picture.
I realize that the situation that RR inherited was difficult, but there is no excuse for fielding such awful defenses three years in a row, along with terrible special teams. I don't care how "good" the offense was, you can't win games without a defense or special teams. You need to stop drinking the RR kool-aid. He's gone, and good luck to him, but it just didn't work out here.
EDIT: Also, you seem to be the one cherry-picking, with your one Illinois example. You also forgot to mention that we gave up almost as many yards in that game and won by the skin of our teeth. The game has other phases, you know.
And how can you claim that the offensive inconsistency was caused by youth, and not coaching? We had a very deep and experienced offense this year, aside from a first year starting QB. Give me a break. 2 out of the 3 phases of our game were in triple-digit rankings this year and that is on the coach. Can you imagine the defense being this bad if Les Miles was signed in 08'? (Not saying I wish Miles was hired, but just using him an example)
January 21st, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
We had a very deep and experienced offense this year, aside from a first year starting QB.This HAS to be a joke. If this were true, we wouldn't be losing one offensive starter and going nuts about QB depth.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^
Almost everyone that started on offense this year had at least 1 year of starting experience. This offense wasn't overloaded with seniors, like you're trying to suggest, but it was loaded with a bunch of guys who have been playing together for a while.
Also, we wouldn't be going nuts about QB depth if Forcier wasn't gone. That didn't happen til after the season.
Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you have to be condescending.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^
as long as you continue to move the goal posts.
First you attack the offense by cherry-picking stats that make it appear like they can't score on good defenses. You blame this on coaching because apparently 1 year of starting experience translates to "very deep and experienced."
Failing that, you then attack the defense and claim there's "no excuse for fielding such awful defenses three years in a row."
Then you say fuck it and say 15-22 is all that matters.
Stick to a damn point and back it up. You look like an ass.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^
You won't like any of what I have to say because you disagree with me. You criticize my arguments, but you make none of your own for me to criticize.
The original argument was that RR should be gone, and I have supported that in multiple ways. You have yet to write one compelling argument otherwise. Go away.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^
Your original argument that I took issue with was that our offense was only good against bad teams. You cherry-picked three examples to back it up (poorly). This is a thread about the spread offense.
"Go away?" Are you six?
January 21st, 2011 at 1:45 PM ^
Ok, I get it. We are only talking about the spread offense. Now your argument is what, exactly? If I am "cherry-picking," you should be able to refute it with abundant examples that say that our offense was able to perform well against good defensive teams.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^
READING COMPREHENSION
January 21st, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^
He provided 2 examples. Great. Looks like you're cherry picking
January 21st, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^
That were good defensively?
We put up 28 on Wisconsin despite getting blanked in the first half. There's another one.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
You make some semblance of an argument. Ok, so here are our point totals vs. "good" defenses:
MSU - 17
Iowa - 28
Wisc - 24
ILL- 67
OSU - 7
Miss St - 14
That's an average of 26 pts. Not terrible, but not shockingly good either. However, there are more terrible performances in that group than great.
Here's my point. We are 1-5 in those games. Having a spread offense that is "top 10 in the nation" is irrelevant when you can't win against good opponents. That is why I mentioned that Rich Rod should have been canned. Did I stray too far from the subject?
January 21st, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
why put 67 pts v ILL as a measure of Michigan's Offense?
45 pts in regulation is a better # to use.
Just a pet peeve of mine. The OT stats badly skew performance #s. It drives me crazy when I hear sportscasts talking about players/team stats in OT games and there is no notation that it was gathered in 3 OTs or something like that.
January 21st, 2011 at 4:41 PM ^
Yes, yes you did.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
January 21st, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^
You made it clear that you think RR should have been given more time with a better D coordinator. I made the case otherwise, which is impossible to do without examining all phases of the game. I probably shouldn't have turned this into an anti-RR conversation, but I got entrenched into my argument, and kept rolling with it.
Saying we have a top 10 offense doesn't mean shit when we can't beat anyone who is decent. I'm sorry you will miss the spread offense.
EDIT: Sorry, the guy above made it clear he wanted RR to stay, not you. But that is where my thought process came from.
January 21st, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^
January 21st, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
You cherry-picking fucker.
PSU -14
Oregon - 7
OSU - 3
This is what happened when the 2007 offense faced good teams. Were they only good against bad teams?
January 21st, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
At least we won one of those games. What is your excuse for the worst three years of UM football in history? I don't have to cherry pick to show that RR is justly gone.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:44 AM ^
...can be a double-edged sword. It often means the defense doesn't have much of a chance to rest and regroup.