Isn't a good measure of an offense's success?
a vitally important recap of all the dumb tweets sent during the Harbaugh coaching search
Isn't a good measure of an offense's success?
in the form of penalties and turnovers caused by having an incredibly young offensive football team.
is not a good excuse for penalties and ball security. How many times did Mike Hart fumble the ball as an underclassman? What about Kevin Grady? Who saw the field after that?
I think he's saying it's problematic because Michigan can score 50+ on Del St and 50+ on Illinois and 40+ on Indiana because they have to, to win the game and it throws the whole calculation off. If Michigan could get up 30-7 on Illinois with a good defense, you ride your backups the rest of the game and win without scoring 70 points.
That can be said of any offensive statistic. We gained 721 yards of offense against Bowling Green, for example.
hence why I said against the 4 or 5 best teams
I'm saying points scored is a bad measure because there are a lot of things involved in how many points your team scores other than your team's ability to move the football down the field.
the last 5 games. FAIL.
Unless you have a top 10 defense only 14 points will lose the game every time.
And it's a very good measure for Michigan since or D and special teams didn't score crap.
I'm saying things like penalties, turnovers, dropped passes and horrific field position (caused by our terrible special teams) are all (largely) random variables (or variables caused by youth that won't be so young next year) that artificially depressed Michigan's scoring numbers in a way that hides the underlying strength of the offense.
scoring offense wasn't a really problematic measure of offensive strength.
Why is it problematic? Because it makes RR's offense look less good than the yardage numbers? Points win games.
so RBI are really good measure of batters.
Yes, at the end of a game, the team with the most points wins the game. Thus, points scored is a perfect predictor of past success. But it's far less solid as a predictor of future success, as things like turnovers and penalties (both of which are at least in part a result of starting freshmen and sophomores all over the field) and random fluke crap can muck up the analysis.
But aren't those mistakes part of playing offense? Sure, when we didn't turn the ball over, drop passes, get penalties, over throw receivers, miss blocks/cuts/holes, or get injured, we had the best offense in America. But those things all happen, and if you aren't putting points on the board, I don't care how many yards you rack up between the 20s.
that those mistakes aren't evenly distributed, and aren't necessarily (or even likely) a function of the underlying strength of the offense. Those things you mentioned happened to a greater extent to Michigan, in large part, because it was playing a bunch of young players, and young players are more likely to commit false starts, drop passes, and throw picks. But that doesn't really tell us anything about how good the offense would be next year if left completely untouched, because it gets pretty much every guy back with an extra year of experience.
The argument here is that there are better metrics to predict how good the offense will be going forward than points scored per game.
you can make a case for Denard's misreads as being young, but the other guys (Stonum, Hemingway, Roundtree, Smith, Gallon [returns]) all had significant time in the offense before this year. Not buying the "inexperience" thing, man.
How about all those bowl practices (equivalent of spring ball) for improving? We scored 14 points in the bowl game...again, not buying it.
I think the point is that if our offense never made a mistake, we would have scored a lot more points. How can you argue with that logic?
the point is that if you take away mistakes THAT ARE UNLIKELY TO BE REPEATED NEXT YEAR (sorry for the caps, but I can't italicize on chrome), then the offense was amazingly strong and will be even stronger next year.
You can't say they were unlikely to be repeated next year when it was a consistent problem across three years. Once is a datapoint. Twice is a statistical anomaly. Thrice is a trend.
We had a first year starter every single one of those three years.
I don't think anyone was pointing to QB play as the problem in this offense. I think you're really reaching here. Look at all the other position players (RB, WR, KR, etc, etc). Not knocking anyone personally, but as examples: V. Smith and Gallon. Ball security was a major issue. Hasn't Gallon been returning kicks for 2 seasons now? Hasn't Smith played almost two full seasons in the RR offense? There's no excuse for the lack of fundamentals and if they had a problem with them, they shouldn't have been on the field! I hate to say it, but that's coaching.
For as much as people talked up denards pass efficiency and hated his injuries, they sure seem terrified to have him not run 20+ times a game. Ever think maybe if we run a more traditional Michigan offense with 8-10 denied runs mixed in he's going to be WAYYYYYY more wide open when he runs since they're not spying on him every play (and if they are, kudos to our passing game) and he won't have to leave 8 of 12 games?
This argument makes way too much sense. Have you taken your irrational pills yet?
Totally agree. Even if RR stayed, I expected Denard's carries to decline, as long as our RBs stepped up a bit. I see no problem burning a defense for 20 or so yards a few times a game when they aren't expecting it and taking less hits. As long as we can use the threat of him running to draw safeties up, well be alright.
I'm not sure his carries would have dropped. Pat White's remained high even after two outstanding tailbacks emerged (Slaton and Devine). What declined was the number of pass attempts.
Yeah, but IIRC Denard carried the ball more than White did. So his carries probably would have dropped down to Pat White levels which would have increased his chances of staying healthy.
The existing depth and talent on the offensive line should provide great comfort. This isn't 2008.
if denard stays, there's nothing to worry about.
How will Denard do as a drop back passer forced to read defenses like he never has had to before? If even if he is QB it will be a a completely new and foreign offense. He will struggle and the Denard you saw this year is gone with this OC hire. I'm not even sure he will see the field as a QB in this offense.
Im sorry but I thought he said he could fit the offense to fit the talent on the team? Not sure I have to watch the pc again. Or maybe it was DB that said that?
That was what DB said, but what are the actions. To hire someone with zero spread experience. Everyone is glossing over the fact that this offensive staff will install a new offense that will have zero familiarity for our QB's. This will not be a smooth transition, had Denard or Tate ever run a pro style offense with a completley different set of reads and progressions?
Brady Hoke will adapt with what RR already has in place. With MM staying that will help out HUGE! I just really hope everyone rallys around BH. All the former players seemed pretty pleased with the hire. Sure he isn't the sexy pick. Give him a chance, he did turn SDSU around. I'm all in, sure the PC and pounding on the podium has been done. But I was excited with the passion!
I'm sure he's seen sportscenter and knows what Denard is capable of. Not saying he is going to go 100% spread, but there are ways to work elements of the spread into any offense. Look at Stanford's offense this year....Andrew Luck was to be the consensus #1 player in the draft and ran a pro style offense at Stanford yet still had around 500 yards rushing this year.
Denard's talents can be utilized in any offense.
How will a coach with zero, and I mean zero spread experience work elements of the spread it into his offense? You would not think the 3 3 5 would be that hard to implement but it was a bitch for Gerg and he had a crapload or experience. Everyone is trivializing the effort of this transition.
OP: you need to change your profile name to BUZZKILL
It seems to me, just listening to the press conference, and knowing what Borges' offense did at SDSU, that they will find a way to use Denard, probably for the betterment of his own NFL potential. That may involve keeping him at QB and throwing more or it may involve using him more in a Percy Harvin/Florida type role. Either way, it seems Denard wants to stay.
That horrible OC's offense scored more points per game than ours did in 2010 - and I didn't see any Denard-like superstars on the roster.
I also don't see a sample size greater than 1...
Well it's an aggregation of 13 games each, so the sample size is actually 13.
about Al Borges, makes me a little bit uneasy. His resume seems pretty mediocre to me. I'll hold off judgement on him though, until we see what he does here.
As far as using Denard skills, I have to believe that Hoke is smart enough to take advantage of his running skills. During the coaching search, my opinion was that any coach who wouldn't utilize Denard's running skills extensively had no bussiness being coach here. Like I said , I am inclined to believe that Hoke will be smart enough to use them.
And would people stop with this switching Denard to another position meme. He has shown that he is in fact a qb, he does have some things to get better at, but the guy was a first year starter. Michigan best chance of winning next year is with Denard as a QB, with both his passing and running skills being taken advantage of.
The last thing I'm worried about is our offense.
Not to mention, worry is useless.
gives you something to do for a while, but it doesn't get you very far
have to run the spread option. Just pieces of it. Maybe he will be able to incorporate some triple option plays and speed options out of the shotgun too. There are plenty of ways to get Denard runs.
Incorporating the read option shouldn't be that hard anyways. The players know the plays. I'm confident the coaching staff will be able to educate themselves on it and some of the keys.
I wouldn't expect him to run for 1500 yards again but I still think he will break the 1k mark barring injury.
What I'm more wanting to see is who will win the RB job.
This is amazing, like to simply flip a switch and a multi year pro style OC will understand how to do this. Did anyone read Brian's analysis of Borges? Don't expect Denard to simply take off from where he ended this year in a new offenses and don't expect a guy that has never had a running QB to suddenly figure it out.
It is what it is but it will be a problem.
I'm scared that my employer's IT Department is tracking all the time that I've been on this site over the last week.
Spiders. Spiders on the field.
the DEFENSIVE improvements? We have tons of returners on D and we are bringing in a coach that ran the same system, and he KNOWS how to (unlike GERG)!
I'm not saying we will turn onto a D powerhouse and carry the team right away, but this "OMG OMG Denard can't get a hiesman and we will be terrible on offense" is not the entire story. We had the worst D in Michigan history in 2010, I'm at least excited that under Hoke we will not see that again. I'll take that along with a less potent offense next year.
We aren't bringing in a coach that ran the same system. Hoke's DC ran the same system - in fact some credit him as being the creator of that system. Before he joined Hoke's staff Hoke ran a 4-3 pretty exclusively.
Yes, exactly. Expect the defense to be better and the offenses to be worse. But with a better defense and a ball control pro style offense games will be lower scoring. Just don't expect lot's of long runs. Think of one of Carr's 8-4 teams (or worse depending upon the QB situation) and that is what i expect.
I just finished reading, "The Hot Zone". It's the scariest thing I have ever read.
As far as Michigan goes, I am more afraid of the future of recruiting. Can Hoke recruit? Like the offense however, we will not know until we actually see what happens.
87000 press releases that say he is a great recruiter.
Hoke has yet to recruit at Michigan as a HC. He has not had to go head to head with Tressel, Dantonio or Saban. When he was an assistant he had Lloyd to close the deal. He might be great at getting a 3 star to commit to Ball State, but can he get a 5 star to turn away from Tressel? Any mention of that in those 87000 articles you have read?