I am predicting 9+ wins this season for UM based soley on QB play and here is why...
The difference between this year and last year is that we have a QB that is comfortable running the Spread option read (sor). Last year we didnt have a qb that was comfortable. I personally believe that this offense isnt all that hard to understand on paper. From my understanding of the sor at the line of scrimmage you 1-look at the formation of the defense and decide if there is enough space in it to make a throw to a receiver/rb in space, 2-if there isnt going to be space in the formation then run an option read 3-hike the ball and read the crashing DE and either hand it off or keep it. I dont think this offense is schematically difficult to grasp. The difficulty with this offense is making that read on the DE. Last year our QBs could not consistently make the read. It takes a lot of time getting comfortable with this read and Tate has been doing this for years in highschool.
I think RR was right when he said any QB could be successful in this offense. They have to be able to make the read or the offense will not go. There were several times last year where the very athletically Navarre like Steven Threet was executing all 3 of those steps resulting in large chunks of yardage.
I also think a good defense is always led by a good offense. If we can hold onto the ball and maintain long drives this will allow our defense rest resulting in better execution when they are playing.
What do you all think?
Easier said than done.
"easier said than done". just this kind of attitude is why the big house is notorius for it's deathly silence.
I had assumed it was all the blue hairs refusing to yell, oh and acoustics.
Unfortunately, I think winning 9 games is going to take more than improved QB play.
That being said, you never know what could happen. There is no doubt the team will be significantly improved
I don't know that the read was employed all that much last year. Knowing that the QB's were not suited to it, I don't think it was employed nearly as much as we will see it going forward. Those plays looked like reads but I think most of the time it was called as a zone run or the QB was given the "keep" call. This would obviously take the reading part out. I'm sure it was used some, but we will see it more and more as this season progresses. As far as 9+ wins, that would be great! Let's just not forget that while our QB this year will be better suited to the offense, it will still be a true freshman that we have to be a little patient with! I would love to see 9+ though!!!
and agree with your sentiments. Matter of fact, I would say that a lot of what you said in the OP is pretty obvious.
I do, however, think that this offense can get rather complicated if a QB is able to handle it. I hope Tate or Devin can develop the nuance in this offense, since I think they'll be able to handle the basic requirements that Threet and Sheridan failed at.
While I think we will go 7-5 this year, 9-3 isn't out of the question. I was watching the MSU game yesterday and was surprised that we were so close even with our crappy play. We could have made a bowl game last year with all the close losses, and with a much better QB, a better O line, and Minor playing with 2 arms, we could have a nice season. There isn't a game on the schedule that is a for-sure loss.
We can't have as many bad breaks as last year either (knock on wood). The ball has bounce our way at least a little more this year by the law of averages doesn't it?!?
Or past performance is no indication of future results. Looking at it simply, if a coin is flipped tails 50 times in a row, there is a 50/50 chance that it will be tails the 51st time.
And yeah, it should.
I agree. With all of the improvements on offense and Stevie Brown out of the Safety position, I definitely see 9-3 or even 10-2 as a possibility. Where I see 1-2 of our losses coming from, though, are games like ND last year where we give the game away even though we play so much better.
The ceiling is always 12-0 and the floor is always 0-12. Nobody can say otherwise.
I will say otherwise. Michigan could go 13-0.
is WVU. But I don't see them beating illiteracy.
Not going to happen.
I may have to change my original 9-3 prediction.
9 wins solely on QB play +
1 win from improved OL play +
2 wins from improved defense +
1 win from everyone "buying in" this year =
_
13 wins.
Sometimes, I wish football was more like math.......
a bit more, like less turnovers and a solid defense; let's remember the "D" is going through it's third DC in three years, that's got to be confusing. I like what you wrote though, let's hope it comes true. :)
Improved qb play, definetly!! I don't think it is possible to have qb play less than or equal to last year.
1. Tate had such good coaching he does not have to change his throwing mechanics as most freshman QBs do.
2. He enrolled early to get adjusted to campus life, our weight & conditioning program, and play with college level talent to adjust to the speed of the game (enrolling early is a relatively new phenomena. Comparing him to past frosh performances is not accurate).
3. His deadly accuracy will allow short passes for guys in space to make move/keep running.
4. More little, fast widgets to create mismatches. Defenses can't cheat to the side Martavius is lined up on for bubble screens and such.
5. All of the improved offense will keep the defense off the field and in better positions than they were put last year. Last year's defense may have been better, but I believe this year's defense will perform better for the above reasons.
All this said I believe 9 wins is a reach, but I'd take it!
that I learned my lesson last year about making assumptions with first time starters.
7 wins would be a good season, with us "being in it late" in a handful more.
Boring! I want more dammit!
was that none of our QBs were any sort of a passing threat and allowed the opposing D to crash 8 guys every down. So with Minor and Brown in the backfield and some good slot guys if they crash 8 we can toss it out and let the jet packs roam free.
I get what you're saying and agree for the most part, but I don't see how you came upon 9+ wins. Are there nine teams in particular that you think the QB improvements should merit a win over them as opposed to last/past season(s)? Not trying to be an ass or anything, legitimately asking.
There's no one that we absolutely can not beat. It's unlikely we win 9, but it could happen.
but I was wondering how QB improvements would lead to a solid 9+ prediction. The toughest games on the schedule would be OSU and PSU, plus away games at Iowa and Illinois. We would need considerable defensive improvements to beat Illinois besides the improved QB situation. The first away game of the season is at MSU, which will be tough for any of the QBs, especially a freshman. I'm not saying these are all losses by any means, I was just wondering if there were 9 games in particular involved in this prediction.
I was basing that off of what rrod did at WVU. I wasnt thinking any teams in particular. Good question though. I love all the dissecting you all do on my post. It helps me to improve my writing and to look at other points of view.
Is that a 42-cup beer pong game I spy?
Clap. Clap. Clap.
45-cup beirut, brah, 45.
I would have to agree with you. the 1st year for coaches is the year to get all the bugs out and the 2nd year is the turn around most of the time.
1. Pete Carroll went 6-6 his 1st year at USC, the next year they went 11-2 and won the orange bowl!
2. Rich Rod went 3-8 his 1st year at West Virginia, 2nd he went 9-4.
3. Nick Saban went 7-6 at Alabama, next year went 12-2.
On paper it looks like we should improve A LOT.I just ope it happens on the field.
TRUE FR QB.
9-3 would require extreme luck on the injury front.
We went 9-2 with Henne and went to the Rose Bowl his freshman year. Navarre's freshman year we went 8-3 and won our bowl game. And Navarre wasn't all that special freshman year.
those two examples are completely non-applicable to the 2009 Michigan football team. Braylon Edwards is not walking through that door. Also, Navarre was a redshirt frosh.
Agreed but keep in mind that Pat White was a Freshman when he won the Big East the fist time and he did not have Braylon Edwards either. I really think that 9 games will be a cieling but I do not think it will be that far out of question.
Pat White was a redshirt freshman.
I like the optimism, but lets temper our expectations just a little. Nine wins is a reach, it's possible, but our defense would have to hold up their end very well for that to happen. I'm not saying it won't, but a lot of things would have to go our way. Here's hoping...
ok yeah ur right. but this year, how about we help the d out by yelling our asses off?
give them that extra boost and also it will make it harder for the away team's offense. it obviously worked for the wisconsin game, now why don't we do it every game?
I'm with ya
AAAAAAAAAAAMEN
Navarre's freshman year we went 8-3 and won our bowl game. And Navarre wasn't all that special freshman year.
Navarre's freshman year (2000) is immaterial to this discussion. That year, Drew Henson was our starting QB. Navarre was the backup and only started four games because Henson was injured. In those four starts, we won against two creampuffs, lost at UCLA (when Navarre had a horrible game) and then fell behind by a ton at Illinois before Henson came in and saved the day. Henson played the rest of the season.
There is absolutely no way we would have gone 9-3 with Navarre playing QB all season. He was really, really bad. If we'd had to have started him all year, we would have been fortunate to make a bowl. That was the year our D set a lot of bad records (which the 2008 D went on the break).
We got rid of a lot of players who weren't "with the program." I think this creates a team atmosphere infusing confidence and morale to win games. We were in a lot of games last year, and you will realize that by watching the Big 10 channel.
Rich Rod will have the intangibles down to a science and win games. I just hope we start becoming a high octane offense, which will put less pressure on defense to win games for us.
None of the teams will be used to Michigan's offense and defense, so we still have the element of surprise and uncertainty on other teams. I think 7 wins is a very low, but conservative estimate. My only hope is that the pollsters will give Michigan credit and rank them in the top 25 appropriately, instead of having to get to 7-0 just to crack the top 25.
I think if we are 4-0 we would be ranked. By then we would have beaten ND, who's ranked, and WMU is no slouch. 5-0 at the highest with the win @MSU added to those two.
4-0 gets you into the high teens/low 20's by that point. OH YEAH.
moar koolaid.
Why on earth would the pollsters start us in the top 25? inquiring minds would like to know...
To say that none of our opponents will be used to our particular offensive & defensive schemes is just incorrect. There are teams within our own conference who run versions of the "spread" offense. Northwestern has been running a similar version for around a decade now. Illinois also runs a "spread" offense. PSU & OSU both utilize elements of the "spread" from time to time, too.
Our offense is a run heavy spread and we're the only team in conference to use the run heavy spread. Everyone else is basically a pass spread with what appears to be a traditional run game.
To say that West Virginia is a lot like Oklahoma will be a mistake.
If Forcier is our quarterback, we won't run more than 60% of the time... it won't be run heavy.
saying "...will have the intangibles down to a science." makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. if you could get these 'intangibles' to a science then they would no longer be intangible
If you look at how many games Carr lost by 10 or more points compared to other coaches who coached over 100 games, I think you will find a shocking stat. I can't remember getting blown out by more than 14-21 points compared to all the other good teams during Carr's era, so he had the intangibles down to an "art" and kept all the games close and avoided blow outs.
We were pretty much in every game we played, but for the most part was not a good come from the behind team in the last few minutes, especially on the road. That was our weakness under Carr. If Rod plays to win and blow out every game, we may get in trouble like Oklahoma does whenever a close game is played. I think last year was a good lesson for Rich and the team to learn how to handle close games better.
I don't think Carr's teams suffered fewer blowout losses than other elite programs. No top-notch program gets blown out much. What really separated us from the other elite programs under Carr was the large number of close games we played in. We had fewer blowout wins than the likes of USC, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, OSU, et al. We found ourselves in more close games than those teams did, and a lot of our close wins came against teams that, on paper, we were greatly superior to.
I think you're absolutely correct, and it's the main reason I wanted Carr gone.
Great teams occasionally get upset, but they don't consistently play down to their weaker opponents as much as we did.
I like the optimism, but... I'm willing to wager $50 on the under if you're setting the line at 8.5 wins.