our offense will be fine, relax.
Peppers at 10, which seems low.
our offense will be fine, relax.
and people are supposed to be excited, but how is this not blind optimism?
Whether people want to admit it or not, we're bringing in a coach and an offensive coordinator who have no experience running the spread option and who don't seem to be too fond of the zone blocking schemes that our guys spent 3 years figuring out.
Either the coaches are going to have to adapt massively to run a system they don't really know, or the players are going to have to adapt massively to run a system they don't really know.
I'm not sure why people are so confident that we're going to be fine just because Brady Hoke refused to use Ohio State's name in a press conference.
none of our players have run a passing spread offense, and probably don't have a very good idea how to run a passing spread offense. The reads are completely different, the focus of the offense is different, the blocking assignments are probably different.
This isn't a trivial transition we're talking about here, unless Hoke intends to leave the basic structure of the offense unchanged -- but there isn't really an indication yet that he intends to do that.
All offenses use some form of zone blocking. Also offensive lineman are usually some of the smartest guys on the team. They will pick up any changes pretty quickly. The biggest pro/con for an offensive line is continuity which we have. We will still have a good offense returning next year. Why I am I so certain you ask?
Players make plays and we have them. Schemes are for fans to debate over. Denard's abilities will factor in heavily what ever type of offense we ultimately run.
IIRC, our team pounded the ball down Iowa's throat last year while running a one back formation. I'm confident that the transition to a pro style system won't be as drastic as the spread. Watch the first drive after Molk is injured :
awww the good old days!
Coaches coach football and good coaches can adapt. I believe Hoke is a good coach. RR could not adapt and that was his downfall.
God kills a kitten.
When Rodriguez had Shaun King, he threw the ball 60+% of the time. When he had Pat White, he ran the ball like 70% of the time. When he had Denard Robinson, the team was actually fairly balanced between passing and throwing. Rodriguez was really, really good at adapting his scheme to his players -- which just serves to illustrate how difficult transitions from one system to the other can be.
How'd that offense work out with Threet at the helm?
There is only so much adapting you can do. If RR walked into Michigan with the reigning B1G player of the year, I think he could have adapted to him.
Instead, he got Steven Threet (and oft-injured Sam McGuffie and the oft-injured Brandon Minor at RB).
- 1 for using "B1G
He didn't adapt at all. He walked into a team built to pound the ball and throw the ball over the defense's head. He tried running the spread with that even though his line wasn't agile enough and his QB wasn't mobile. Adapting is using the players how they are meant to be used until you get your players.
FWIW, I don't think he should have adapted because no matter what you are going to have a down year during the transition and if you try to transition over a multi-year period, you will never transition completely. But, just because I don't think he should have tried to run I-Form doesn't mean I'm willing to pretend that he did try to adapt.
He walked into a team with zero talent at running any system, and did his best to make it work. Rod actually left the program with FAR more talent than when he got here.
Hoke has not shown anything except similarities to RR.
1. Fire everyone (even from a pretty high performance offense)
Think of what RR might have done if he had simply kept the entire defensive staff intact when he was hired?
So Hoke come in and plans no transition (aka the hiring of dead music comedian Victor Borges as DC) and will shoehorn spread personal to the i formation. I was willing to give Hoke a pass until he decided to junk the current offense completely. Isn't this the same decision RR made that pissed everyone off?
Also why fire Barwis? He seems like an top notch strength coach. Because you need to sweep out all of the old for your system. Don't football coaches understand the concept of transition?
He came into a team that had 1 real starter back on offense, a nearly new offensive line and huge drop-offs from the year before at the skill positions.
It is absurd when people use 2008 as an argument that RR "didn't adapt". So do you mean to tell me that if he'd taken over after 2005, Chad Henne would have been running the ball 15-20 times a game? If he'd come into a team with talent, you would have seen an offense that looked a lot like the one we beat Florida with in LC's last game.
No amount of "adapting" would have saved the 2008 offense.
uhhh he ran that one sweet quarterback keeper against Wisconsin. I'd say it worked out pretty damn swimmingly.
without a QB who can execute, linemen who can block effectively and RBs who are continually injured.
I think our offense improved significantly once RR had an opportunity to bring in players who can block and pass. I have tremendous respect for Threet but he needed to throw to Stonum, not Tacopants.
RR is gone. He didn't adapt his offense when he was here, and look how well it worked out....EXTREMELY WELL. A completely revamped offense was at the top tier of the conference in just 3 years and produced the Offensive POY.
Every hopeful remark about Hoke doesn't have to be a snide shot at Rodriguez, and especially in this case where it's a stupid comment.
The RR bashers won, he's gone, let it go and move on.
7 points against osu, 14 in the bowl game, lots of points in garbage time after we were blown out.
I will admit the team racked up yards, but the inability to score against an even decent defense most days did NOT indicate a completely dominant offense. It was the Denard Robinson show and a bunch of rb's who could not get it done. And when Denard was off, it was the hand off to v smith and watch him get 1 yard show.
Hoke is a good coach yet has a losing record overall. RR had nationally ranked teams and won BCS games, but couldn't adapt? This isn't HS you can recruit players for a system and when RR started out he didn't have players and was brought in to change things because we wanted to win NCs not Big Ten titles.
We'll see if Hoke can adapt quickly because he doen't have the talent to run the offense he wants. This team was zone blocking when LC was here and Hoke wants to do away with and try to line up mano-a-mano. That hasn't work so good us on short yardage situations when we went to the I. Molk is a prime example of someone not built to block one on one. He's mean and nasty, has a quick step and can get to the next level but he's not going to be pushing 320lb guys around head up.
His OC basically uses the West Coast offense which is probably best suited to Tate who is no longer here. Short, quick accurate throws is the base and neither Denard or Devin has been in this type of offense. The WRs and QBs need to be on the same page as every route has various options depending on what the D is doing. Wrong reads by either can lead to disaster.
Rich Rod was brought in to change a program, and to update Michigan to be competitive nationally and against the Buckeyes. If you are changing a program you don't adapt to the old ways, you teach your new ways.
However, the bosses changed and old way is now the new way again.
Fuck! Now we're down to comparing performances in crappy bowl like this? Hoke may be fine but he does not have the upside (or downside) of RR. He will be a good solid coach and we will compete with Wis, MSU and Iowa for 2-4th place in the Big ten at 8-4 with 9-3 in good years.
To paraphrase an earlier post we've settled for the fat girl, and while she may be enthusiastic, she ain't getting any prettier.
...Hoke & Company will be somewhat flexible as to the offensive scheme. One would logically think that aspects of last year's offense would have to be incorporated into the new scheme since it was largely effective -- sometimes ridiculously so.
Just like RR said he would adapt, Hoke says the same stuff. But in actions he hires a OC that is completely i formation with zero spread knowledge. With Gerg we know how well that sort of thing works out.
exactly my thoughts.
The problems RR"s teams have had in his words are "execution." Hoke will bring true fundamentals back into M.
Does anyone really care how we score as long as we score? I mean 7 points counts for 7 points no matter how you you get there. The play of RR's teams against actual defenses has been abysmal.
Relax. The Marines have landed.
Don't worry, once Barwis gets a hold of Brady Hoke you can kiss those love handles good bye!!
Fired Barwis, evidently being recognized as one of the best does not count if you are not a "Michigan Man".
I am scared of Earth bound asteroids.
I hate fucking snakes. Seriously
Imagine if you were on a plane. Shit would get serious quick.
Is Samuel L. Jackson on the plane? His presence or absence would seriously affect my level of fear.
Yeah, I mean, 95% of that plane died. At least he saved the hot stewardess and the retarded kid he was guarding. So if Samuel L. Jackson is on the plane, you better be a hot chick or under Sam's watchful eye. Or be Kenan Thompson.
Well I did learn how to land a commercial jet playing flight simulator...
During a stay at a Holiday Inn Express?
Not sure. But I was drinking a Samuel Jackson at the time if it is any conciliation.
I mean, the bastards move so fast and don't have any freaking legs! They just wierd me out, man!
You can just spoon the snakes if it scares you that much.
I'm scared of snakes on a plane.
Edit: Beaten to it
Me too. I know I sound like a little b*tch but snakes freak me the hell out!
oh how I hate those bastards!
Midgets and old furniture freak me out too!!!
Tarantulas may be the scariest thing on earth.
Spiders scare the shit out of me in almost any context, but we had a class tarantula in 8th grade and that thing was awesome. Luckily it never tried any funny business while we were handling it or I would have pooped myself.
Snakes....why does it have to be snakes?!
because you know we really don't need anymore motherf*cking snakes on this motherf*cking plane
stop fucking snakes. Seriously.
If anything could bring the Michigan fanbase together, it's the threat of annihilation, right?
I'm scared of quicksand.
IS the elephant in the room. Sorry couldn't resist.
Same worries, but I think it will work out.
Great. Fat jokes about our coach. Everyday we become more and more like that religious school in Indiana we've had moderate success against the past few years...
coach was 2-1 against ND
Nothing personal...just one little fat joke and you guys negbang me? Good thing Uncle Phil wasn't hired.
He's going to have to learn to be a pocket passer, is what I gathered.
Makes me think he's going to be gone.
I felt there were two ways to interpret the press conference comments: (1) an offense will be built around his skills, taking advantage of his running ability (2) or his skills will be put to use at a different position. With Tate gone, and the chances of getting a QB who can step in and play, pretty slim, Hoke would have to be an idiot not to go with the first option.
Either way, I don't think they're going to turn him into a pure pocket passer. That option makes NO sense.
As a Michigan fan I hope Denard stays. But if he is asked to switch to a different position it would probably be best for Denard to leave and go somewhere his talents can best be used.
HTF is a OC with zero experience with such a thing going to make that work. It's all bullshit. I was with you right up until Hoke hired this OC. He has NO IDEA how to use someone like Denard as a QB.
Take one of these...
Do you have that in cherry flavor? Also is that a chewable? These are important questions for someone living in NambyPambyVille...
250000 mg? I hope you have a tasty beverage to wash that thing down; it's going to be like eating a biscuit.
His express statement that he would find ways to use Denard's dual thread ability wasn't enough for now?
I want him to be more explicit, just like I'm sure Denard does too. Does that mean moving Denard to slot receiver and running screen passes to him? Does that mean running the wildcat with him? Does that mean play action rollouts?
Hoke has never utilized a dual threat QB before so I think these are reasonable questions for him to address. Why is he bringing Borges with him in the first place? I'd like all these things answered ASAP.
Right now I'm content with Denard reportedly staying after a brief meeting, and the promise that they'll go more in depth.
Hoke isn't about to draw x's and o's at his introductory press conference. He hasn't utilized a dual threat quarterback, but the material is out there and shouldn't be hard for him to pick up.
Just give it time, I'm confident that between Denard, Hoke and Borges, they'll come up with several good answers given enough time.
Ugh. See the 3-3-5 and Gerg for the answer to that one...
Scheme vs. Plays.
Big, big difference.
Nobody expects or wants Hoke to come play zone-read option football. That's as ridiculous as the people who wanted RR to play Sheridan as a five-step drop back passer using LC's playbook. We hired a change, but he'd be an idiot not to adapt certain plays to use Denard's incredible running ability.
A rational thought from someone not dozing off after drinking all of the coolaid. His hire of Borges basically says "fuck you Denard" as a QB. He could have found someone with some spread experience and transitioned to a more of pro style offense. But instead he showed the exact same inflexibility as RR when he came in.
I don't think it's drinking Kool-Aid to say "wait and see."
What we know for now is Borges history (which admittedly is not a RR or Chip Kelly playbook), we know that Hoke and Denard have talked, and we have reports from the team indicating Denard is staying.
Why not wait until we have some actual answers before hitting the panic button?
Find me any examples of a pro style OC running a dual threat QB offense successfully. There may be some as I have not done the research, but as we saw with Gerg you can't expect coaches with zero experience with something to be great at it right away. If Hoke hires Smith as QB coach or someone like that then I will be encouraged but I expect another pro style hire that further marginalizes Denard.
I guess I am the only one that really enjoyed watching Denard last year at QB while everyone else pines for the likes of John Navarre.
We're not looking for an entirely new scheme a la Gerg. What Denard needs is some designed QB run plays. At the very least, Hoke can go look into Tressel's playbook with Pryor and copy/paste. Tressel's calling of those plays isn't anything like running a true dual threat QB, but there's no reason Hoke can't utilize them more.
I'm sure there are other examples, but like you I haven't done the research.
If Denard transfers, who gets pinned with all the blame? Hoke? DB?
If Denard leaves we have a 5 star QB waiting in the wings.
I know we all want to give Denard that warm fuzzy feeling to get him to stay, but at some point we might want to consider how to build up DG. Just sayin'
So you want to go with another basicly inexpierenced qb next year? We have one of the most electric athletes Michigan has ever scene. If they can't figure out a way to keap Denard at qb I will be pretty disapointed.
I think we should just let this play out before attributing blame. We have no idea about specifics of the offense. DB and Hoke both said they have a special talent in Denard and that will be important to adapt the offense around him. And teammates have all sounded extremely positive (almost certain) that he will be staying. RELAX.
FWIW, he is telling fans that he is staying. I don't know if that is PR on his part or if it is legit, but it is what he is telling people.
Can you read? Look at the OC hire that Brian wrote about. He has no idea of what to do with someone like Denard. I'm sure it will all turn out okay but don't expect a happy trouble free transition.
How about we just stop blaming and get on with our lives and look forward to next November when the Hokester elbow drops Tressell from the top row of Michigan Stadium? Blaming isn't going to help winning next year.
As of now, I'll blame you. Regardless of his decision (crossing my fingers he stays), we have to resist the urge to let it become a point of contention for our new HC and our recently un-pimped AD. Just roll with it, if he leaves wish him well, and let's look forward to 2011.
Anything good or bad with the football program is squarely pinned on DB. DB caved to the pressure and made a change, when a fourth RR year may have been the turning point.
Hoke is just a very lucky guy at the right place at the right time. He will just do his job as he knows how to do it. If he fails, the question will be "why was he hired in the first place".
This isn't 2008.2
We aren't losing an immense amount of NFL talent from the O side who have started for 2-4 years (Long, Henne, Hart, Manningham, Arrington, who else stuck?)
We're returning 9-10 starters. Talented starters. Having the pieces is at least as important as using the pieces. This time we won't roll SheriThreet out there behind a just-converted D-Tackle to throw it to freshmen and hand off to more freshmen.
Look at returning starters and take a deep breath
Talented spread starters. Everyone is trivializing the transition to a pro style offense much like the move to the spread - we thought RR would win 6-8 games his first year. Hoke has chosen to throw the baby out with the bathwater which is his prerogative, but I think he could have done a better job or transitioning offenses just like RR could have done.
I probably owe joeyb royalties or something...
He stole Hobbes from me.
I told you I was sorry and I would change my icon once everything died down. It hasn't died down.
It's okay, I forgive you. You may keep it, things never are goinmg to settle down.
That is a very revealing update.
I think that Hoke might be able to construct at least most of an offense with what is there now - key word here is "most". Give him a shot at recruiting his own sort of player on this one.
I'm REALLY Scared About Our Offense!
And that is a huge problem I have with the hire because up until Monday our offense was our strength. Now I am scared about all facets of the team.
I don't want to be "that guy" but our offense wasn't all that good when it mattered. If you take the top 4 teams we faced vs. the top 4 teams we faced when Lloyd went 7-5 in 2005, Lloyd scored like 15-20 more points total on them than RR did with this "great" offense.
It did help us win games this year, but only because our defense was beyond putrid. I'm still a believer that defense wins championships no matter your offense.
as Brian points out regularly when he was a kid scoring one TD was usually 1/3 of the way to winning a game...and we seem to have forgotten that lately because our defense has been so bad. You shouldn't have to score 50 points a game to win.
if scoring offense wasn't a really problematic measure of offensive strength.
generally that is true, which is why I narrowed it down to the top 4/5 teams we faced...I did the calculation last week so I can't really remember it super specifically. I mean truly looking at it we score what, 24? points on OSU in 3 years when they scored 100 on us? That to me is not a successful offense. If it doesn't work against the best team we play, it doesn't work.
Against the five best defensive teams we faced (OSU, Iowa, Miss St, MSU, Wisc), we scored an average of 18.8 points per game. That's not going to cut it.
And how many points per game did those defenses let up for the entire year? Since 3 out of those 5 had top 20 defenses in the nation, I would say 18.8 is above average. And why does no on include Illinois when looking at the top defenses we faced? They ended up, what, 5 spots behind MSU in defensive rankings? They were in the top third of all defenses. I guess that wouldn't fit with the "our offense played like crap against good defenses" meme though.
A crappy defense puts pressure your offense, this is way too simplistic to simply say we did not score enough. Face it we had a good offense that was almost fantastic. How many wide open drops or misses did we have. I've been watching since 1969 and i can never remember as many wide open runs or passes. if our defense did not blow so completely it would have even been better.
Against the quality teams, we scored fewer points than most teams did. Against Wisky, OSU and Iowa (and PSU), we barely scored until the second half, when we were down by 20-plus. And, of course, OSU and Miss St basically stoned us altogether. We'd open the game with a couple nice drives. Then the defense would adjust. Done.
I agree that stats don't count when you are down by 3 or 4 scores. The national champs think that way as well. They didn't come back from 21 down at all this year. They actually lost to Alabama because they fell behind. Amazing you missed that.
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?
skewed by big games on little opponents the 1st half of the season.
Last 5 games we averaged 14pt a game. Not too impressive.
Lets kill the "we had the best offensive ever and now it will be crap" meme because it is not true.
I'm concerned about a good offense losing its star player or shoehorning him into the wrong system. I have no desire to watch Denard Robinson to become Terrelle Pryor (in football terms). Our offense had the opportunity to become great with a returning QB star, a strong(?) group of wide receivers, and the emergence/healing of one of our running backs. Instead, we are tossing out the spread for no good reason; Hoke is not an offensive coach, and is supposed to be versatile.
If we finish 40th in offense, are we supposed to be excited because our defense is a lot better, or can we be irritated that we are squandering talent for no good reason?
Are you fucking stupid?
Have you heard the things TP has said versus what Denard has said?
You think Denard isn't smarter and more willing to learn than TP?
Hoke specifically says he sees DR leading this offense.
I'm worried about us having O-lineman trained and conditioned for zone blocking and we now have a coach who has openly announced his hatred of zone blocking. That can't be good. This new offense may well neutralize most of our previous offensive strengths.
Obviously a mobile QB has worked in a West Coast system similar to what Borges is bringing - it tore up the NFL for big chunks of this year.
Do you folks think Denard would work in that sort of a set-up? The zone read aspects didn't particularly seem to be his strongest points, moreso just the "running ridiculously fast" part, and the "moves smooth as an eel" part.
I know it's obvious, and as a non-coach I am lacking the language to describe parallels - I'm looking for opinions from people smarter than me here.
We will be fine.
Hoke is a smart coach. Knows more about the game than all of us.
Denard isnt going anywhere. And Devin Gardner can play in basically any system.
Some folks need to stop listening to sky is falling bloggers. E-pinion, no sugarcoat
Not everyone is as bad at using preexisting talent as RR. I actually think he's one of the worst because his system requires certain things. We'll see how Hoke and Borges do, but give the guy a god damn chance would you please? He's been coach for a day now.
I don't have a problem with how Rod transitioned- because he was a spread guy, so he needed to get the parts in place to run the spread. But Hoke's transition won't be Rod's. Borges is different - he can adapt his offense to the existing talent. There will be a drop off, but with the veterans we have and the fact that Borges has had success, it shouldn't be disastrous.
Can you show me an an example where Borges took over a spread team and did a transition to a pro style. I'd love to see it.
But I'm basing this off the fact that on the front page, Laces' high school coach says "Denard heard Borges can run the spread," and the fact that pro style is, by definition, a little bit of everything. If Borges truly is a "pro style" coordinator, he should use the spread concepts he knows to allow Denard to flourish. I hope.
I'm more worried about creativity and deception, things that Lloydball utterly lacked (pre-snap shuffling of the FB to the side you're about to run to and wondering why it doesn't work against OSU and USC, a passing game consisting of quick outs and bombs to Braylon/Manningham and never throwing between the hash marks, etc.)
I have faith in any scheme, offensive or defensive, as long as you don't do the same damn thing over and over and over and make a concerted effort to prevent the other team from knowing what you're about to do.
We just hired brady hoke.
Have some faith! Hoke understands Michigan...he will be just fine.
People make it sound like teams and coaches run/know one offensive set. Maybe when you're in pee wee, but I'm pretty sure these guys will know what they're doing. "Pro-style" doesn't mean I-formation and quick outs every play. It's a blanket term just like "spread" is. I wouldn't worry about it right now.
Is even more of a blanket term than spread is. Pro style is pro style because it's a little bit of everything - the criticism of using it in college is that the kids can't learn any system really well when they're learning every system, and the result is they won't be able to take advantage of a defense's constraints. This was a big criticism of Ohio State under Jim Tressel. The advantage is that it can be adapted to your personnel - whereas when Rod ran the spread here, he had less leeway to adapt it to players who weren't suited for it. But when he did have his players in it, they had the potential to be explosive. At least that's how the argument goes. Take it for what it's worth.
You watched last season's games and you are REALLY scared about the offense? I understand your concern is because of Hoke's OC but regardless of who got hired on as coach the offense has enough returning talent that fielding a respectable D is what's occupying my concerns. After the defense, being able to actually kick field goals is the second on the list. The offense next year will be fine.
spotty at best last year against top teams. Do you really think Hoke is going to come in and change it all (he will) and we are going to be BETTER?? Just not going to happen.
We had an offensive genius in RR and he struggled against better defenses. Hoke is in no way in RR's class when it comes to running an offense. Not even close.
We will struggle again from the simple fact that we are blowing it up and starting over.
Denard will not be nearly the threat he was this past season simply because we will not be running an offense taylored to him like we just did. He will be much more "vanilla" in this offense. Take my word for it.....this season will be a huge struggle.
Are you seriously saying that RR was an offensive genius? Maybe he was against BGSU, Delaware, Indiana, and Illinois but what happened against MSU, OSU, Wisconsin, Iowa, OSU and Miss. St? Not much. Against Iowa & Wisconsin his offense only put up points when the game was over.
You are right about Hoke he's not labelled as an offensive genius, he's the head coach and is accountable for the offense, defense, and special teams. The defense and special teams were awful under RR and he attempted to pass the blame. The team might actually display a tough attitude and may actually be feared again.
UM returns almost all the starters this year and will get Woolfolk back plus others from injuries on the defense. UM will be much more improved this upcoming year
I agree, he may have been an offensive genius in the Big East but def. not in the Big Ten
If you were to query college coaches he would be a considered a genius. He had a first year starter at QB. He sucked at a bunch of stuff but he is considered to be a great offensive mind. We were not the best at execution and sucked so bad at defense that impacted the offense. The pressure to score on every drive tends to put a lot of pressure on your offense.
Blame RR for lot's of stuff and errors but not his credibility as an offensive mind.
As mentioned elsewhere, he is an offensive genius. Everybody that talks about the spread run talks about how he is such an innovator in it. Yes, our offense was sloppy - with a sophomore QB - but there is no question in my mind we would've been Oregonesque next season.
He didn't get it done here because of defense. It made all of us sad. He'll learn and move on and kick butt somewhere. Hoke will kick butt here.
Our offense will be just fine. It will be a mix of our beloved big ten offense with a splash of the spread. Hoke is not an idiot he knows what Denard can do and he will use him properly and develop his passing skills to make him even more explosive.