Michigan's Offensive Evolution
A lot of talk everywhere about the offensive transition, Manball, RR's offense, Spread etc. Eveyone has an opinion on what we should be doing, but I wonder if this year may change Hoke's and Borges's feelings on what they should be running and wether or not Borges can come up with up with an entirely new offense?
It's clear from Hoke's background that he is willing to allow his coordinators run the show with a lot fo freedom. He has run all sorts of different offenses in his 10 years as a head coach.
Borges has been around forever, appears pretty flexible and pretty smart.
So my thinking is is that our #1 QB for the next 3 years is likely going to be a guy who's best asset is his legs. Over the course of those 3 years Borges is going to continue to tinker with his offense and I wonder after those 3 years when Shane Morris probably takes control of the offense we are not some type of hybrid offense somewhere between Wisconsin, Stanford and Oregon.
Do you think after a couple of years Borges and Hoke embrace the spread or do you think we'll end up like we were with most of the runs out of the I with a pro style passing game and it will look like we picked up where we left off with Henne, Hart and Manningham?
I think some form of the spread is here to stay and they'll add some power elements and we'll look like ND's offense a little bit when Shane gets here. I think Borges is like a kid in a candy store trying to figure out all the different type of plays that work now that he has a guy like Denard.
I might kill Brian by using the name Debord, but is it possible we'll look like the Debord Citrus Bowl offense against Florida in 3 years? Everyone seemed to enjoy that offense.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
are a hybrid to some degree now. (except Sparty who runs 6 play total). The real good teams don't need to define what kind of offense they run. They run an offense called exploit weaknesses because they have the talent to just pick on what a particular defense may be vulnerable to. Look at Bama, they run I-formation, standard shotgun, pistol, designed keepers without athletic QBs, option read. Michigan will get there, and being forced to kind of peice together a patchwork offense may actually have long term benefits as opposed to telegraphing a standard philosophy.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^
The perfect example of what you mean is: The Patriot. They don't impose their will on a defense. They decide what a defense's weaknesses are, and exploit them mercilessly. One game that might mean rushing 30 times, or throwing 15 screens, and another game it might mean throwing 60 times. I remember a Halloween game (or something like that) a few years ago against the Steelers, when the Steelers had the best rushing defense in recent memory. Tom threw it like 60+ times, they virtually never ran the ball.
That's how an offense adapts to the defense. The problem is, are college kids smart enough to be able to handle that kind of reprogramming week to week. They aren't spending 40 hours with film -- officially, at least.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
I tend to agree with you that most of the styles are being blended, but there are still plenty of scheme teams...Wisconsin, Oregon, Auburn.
Not sure if it matters but the biggest grab bag offenses among the elite teams are probably Alabama that you mentioned, LSU, Ohio St and Penn St. All of which tend to under perform to their talent on offense.
Not sure if that is coincidence or overloading the kids with too much stuff, but it is kind of interesting. That came off the top of my head as I thought about it. What do you think. Am I missing someone who does the grab bag pretty well?
September 30th, 2011 at 10:25 AM ^
describe LSU, Bama, etc. as underperforming, as they week in and week out face very stellar defenses. They are opportunistic. They may not rack up a lot of yards and it may not always look coherent, but they always make the right play at the right time. I don't necessarily think an offense has to be altogether "good" to be effective. In other words, if LSU and Alabama are underperforming on offense, consider me on the underperformance bandwagon.
And the Patriots are a perfect example of what I was referring to. Their offensive philosophy is whatever works.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
Borges is a West Coast guy. I think he is genuinely trying to adapt his style to Michigan's current personnel but eventually he's going to return to what he knows best.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
how Borges has adjusted to Denard's strengths over the first 4 games. Perhaps what is also getting lost is that this is also an adjustment to the strengths of the offensive line and its zone blocking.
Thus, I suspect that Borges realizes that for these 2 years, Michigan is going to have to run the spread read option offense. And they will be very successful at it. And by the time Denard's eligibility is up, Borges is going to be an expert on the spread read option offense as well.
Which offense will he really know better at that point? Will it matter? Will the lesson from these two seasons with Denard really be to run what you know, or run what is best suited to your personnel?
One thing is for sure, that Borges will have a miore options in his playbook.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:40 AM ^
1) it is obvious by the who we are recruiting
2) they are trying to install it now, but any good coordinator calls plays to his players strengths.
3) Borges would probably be running a lot more of the west coast offense now if Denard was effective throwing downfield
I think Borges could make the same argument that RR made (that the cupboard was bare)...not meaning that we don't have great athletes, but we don't have the size or type of players to run the pro-style offense at all.
I am very proud of our guys for the way they are playing and I DO think Denard will get it going. In fact, if he improves his passing and Michigan contnues to win, I think he returns to the center of attention for the Heisman - easily.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^
But consider a guy like Gardner... home grown talent, high ratings... likely would have gone to Michigan under Carr, RR or likely Hoke. If the kid has additional features (e.g. mobility) then why wouldn't Borges keep some of the "new" stuff? And if it proves pretty successful, why not start recruiting non-statue QBs? Running the ball as a QB won't clearly be the first option, but it should always be a legit threat. I hope, at the minimum, that stays true.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
I think Gardner will be a huge weapon in the coming years. I also think that more and more high school kids are working on their running ability - so recruiting pro-style QBs that can run will be more prevelant in the future. Aaron Rodgers is a great example...classic pro-style QB that is dangerous on the ground.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
while Gardner can run, he's more like a pocket QB that can also run a bit, rather than a running QB who can throw (e.g. Denard).
In other words, I thought Gardner was a really good passer and that he would be treated similar to a Shane Morris rather than Denard.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
Agreed. When talking about Ryan Lindley, one of the NFL draft services said his upside involved his classic QB ability, but that he would struggle in the NFL due to his inability to escape the pocket and get yards on the ground.
September 30th, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^
i am curious what kind of qb borges perferres to run his offense? I know his only qb recruit here, bellomy is a pocket passer but still has decent speeed in his game.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
... Forget Heisman chatter. We had that last year in Denard and two years ago in Tate (Geeze).
I just want to win some games this year, to not start 6-0 then fail miserably in the big ten play. Lets pull out a couple wins vs the Iowa , Sparty, Penn State, OSU likes this year.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^
Denard is a one of a kind type player, and yes I will miss seeing QB runs. But I will be able to move on easily if we bring in a sick HB, and watch crazy HB runs for a change.
I understand what your saying, running QB's are fun, they are fun in video games, they are fun to watch and it is a useful threat. But you know what else is fun, Andrew Luck. We have Shane Morris coming in, the number one Pro-style QB in the nation, and if we can put the peices around him (which shouldn't be a problem for these coaches) just because we return to a pro-style offense doesn't mean we won't have a dynamic one at that. Welcome the change, excuses aside, what we've had lately isn't working even if it was excitin at times.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
You do realize they run Luck.
Luck ran for a ton of yards last year. Stanford's offense was pretty impressive last year I liked their blend of power and passing with some spread concepts in there.
September 30th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
in 2010 were 55 attempts for 453 yds.
In 13 games he averaged about 4.25 carries and 34 yds/game.
I wouldn't exactly say that's rushing for a ton of yards.
September 30th, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
Luck was only sacked 6 times in 2010.
My point was more to the poster who said they ran Luck and he had a ton of yards. While 450 yds is pretty good, one also has to consider how many of those yards were on scrambles too.
In 55 attempts, 6 were sacks. Throw in one or two scambles/game and Stanford probably only called 2-3 plays a game where it was designed for Luck to run.
September 30th, 2011 at 1:12 PM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
Which is not bad at all.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
My confidence is really in Borges figuring out how to call plays for Denard's passing ability than it is for Denard improving as a passer. On this basis, I think the passing will get alot better, but the change will really be on the part of the OC. Either way is fine.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
You aren't seriously comparing the roster Borges inherited with the roster RR inherited, are you? Are you really comparing having the reigning Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year at QB with having a choice between Steven Threet and Nick Sheridan? Or a roster full of upperclassmen with a gutted roster playing true freshmen?
September 30th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
I actually agree completely with this. RR's bare cupboard was comprised of people who never should've been starting. Borges' one complaint could be that he has an entire team returning that is unsuited for his scheme despite being excellent at what they do. That's like complaining that the free corvette someone gave you is the wrong color.
September 30th, 2011 at 3:59 PM ^
I think it's more like complaining that the free corvette you were just given isn't suitable for three-ton hauling . . . but yeah.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^
Brady Hoke has stated that part of the reason Michigan is still practicing a pro-style attack is that going up against a pro-style offense breeds a toughness and accountability for the defense.
I am not a football coach. However, there is ample evidence that individual players on Michigan's defense have improved more than can be accounted for by age and experience. Is it a coincidence? I dont think so.
That is why I dont think Michigan will ever invest fully in a spread offense again. I also dont think that Borges is done pulling alien technology from the wreckage of Michigan's 2010 offense. And as you suggest, in the future this experience probably broadens Borges's horizons in terms of sneaking a tailback in for the quarterback every now and again.
But I think Denard will likely be the last Denard we see at Michigan. They're looking for (and are hoping they have found) Tom Bradys instead. I cannot see Michigan using a quarterback as their primary running option ever again, and in the future when a QB does take off, it will be behind giant earth-moving offensive linemen.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
...but I seriously hope that our coaching staff will not be that short-sighted. Even if you are running a pro-style offense, a mobile QB > a non-mobile QB. And the bit about spread teams having bad defenses is so demonstrably false that I only hope it was just media-patronizing coachspeak.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
Saying that spread teams have bad defenses IS a pretty bad generalization. Its like saying that white kids are bad at basketball, or that asian kids are good at math.
However
If Brady Hoke can prepare his team better when they're facing an offense under center, if that is how he teaches, who are you to say that his methods are unsound? Can you deny that, coming into the year, defense was a lot more concerning than Borges and his offense? The fact that the pendulum of concern is swinging back in the other direction is evidence that his plan is working.
Contrary to popular belief, the man has got a pretty good track record of turning pretty bad teams into pretty good teams. Maybe we should let him do his job.
September 30th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
I don't think he said that he turned them into powerhouses year-in, year-out. He said that Hoke has turned bad teams into good ones. There is emperical evidence of that.
September 30th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
You're acknowledging that his track record suggests that he can build a team...but then at midnight he turns into a pumpkin? Are you actually holding it against him that he wanted to move up the coaching ladder to land his dream job? That being Michigan's head coach? Seriously?
September 30th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
I think Hoke will win plenty of games with us...because I think we have the best defensive coordinator in the nation.
That's some high praise for Coach Hoke. It's almost like saying that Blake McLimans is a good basketball player...because Tim Hardaway Jr. is the best scoring guard in the nation.
p.s. It would have been hard for Hoke to continue his success at Ball St (or SDSU) because, well, you know - he left for a better job.
September 30th, 2011 at 11:35 AM ^
You're trying to say that Michigan's defense against Mississippi State naturally progressed into Michigan's defense against San Diego State simply by aging 9 months?
And you're right, Michigan will probably regress the year after Hoke retires. This is clearly evidence that he is a bad coach(go ahead and turn your sarcasm meter up).
September 30th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^
I wouldn't compare Mississippi State's team to San Diego State's. Their offenses though? San Deigo State dropped 35 on TCU at the end of last year(over 10 points more than any other offense, including Wisconsin). Then they dropped 34 on Utah the next week. You can make a case that SDSU's offense under Hoke/Borges was actually better.
September 30th, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 4:56 PM ^
I guess I figured that since San Diego State returned 8/11 starters including their NFL hopeful quarterback and tailback from the 16'th ranked offense in the country, they might be pretty good.
I guess that's the difference between you and me. When Michigan held that offense to 7 points, I was pretty impressed. Watching that bowl game, I distinctly remember not being impressed.
But lets put it on the board as they say. If another football team on SDSU's schedule holds them under 7 points, I will admit that firing RR was a bad idea. If they dont, you admit that Hoke was the right man for the job. Bet?
September 30th, 2011 at 5:45 PM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 6:28 PM ^
I think we're both probably missing the forest for the trees. I made inferences from your comments that I probably shouldn't have. No reason at all you cannot hold both opinions, I was merely trying to come up with betting stakes that would be difficult for both of us. My point is merely that whatever Hoke is doing with the defense, it appears that it is working, and at a rate not explained merely by age and experience.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
Michigan that we have known and loved for years, has always had a great back, great receiver, and average to good qb. It will be a pass 1st qb that steps onto that hallowed ground that we fill every saturday in the fall.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^
Are you aware that a man named Bo Schembechler coached this team for 20 years?
Not sure how old you are but go find youtube and check out some video from Wolverine Historian and get back to me. Michael Taylor, Rick Leach, Steve Smith, Dennis Franklin all statues back there.
September 30th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
Did you really just say that Michigan has always had average to good QBs? I need some clarification there. Do you consider pumping out NFL starting QBs to only be "good" QBs when they were in college? If so, I say you are crazy. Henne, Navarre, Brady, Griese, Collins, Grbac, Harbaugh, etc. would fit in the "great" category if you ask me. And I would put Denard in the "great" category as well. So I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with your classification with respect to past and current QBs.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
When Hoke speaks of toughness, he's really talking about an attitude and a mindset. Using the Power running schemes as the framework to provide toughness was just a metaphor, and now a somewhat confusing metaphor. As the year has progressed what I think has happened primarily to the defensive players is that they have significantly improved their fundamentals and techniques. Tools that every junior and senior should be using as second nature. If you listen to the players, they talk about how much time they spent in pads in fall camp, and the defensive line has spoken about all the individual attention they receive from the head coach and the defensive coordinator on top of their actual position coach. This is where the toughness is coming from, practiving fundamentals and techniques for a significant portion of practice time. And now it's looking like the secondary is benefiting from practicing fundamentals. The improvement in Floyd, a semi-experienced player is not coming from a sudden infusion of talent, or recovery from an injury. It can only be coming from teaching and learning, effort on the coaches part, and effort on his part.
My speculation is that Rich Rodriguez in addition to making poor defensive staff hires, greatly emphasized the learning of his schemes on offense as the majority of practice time. Then, because he did not rely on his seniors to schedule "voluntary practice", and instead used coaches who weren't supposed to be coaches, but no one in the athletic department could seem to find a way to call them somethign other than coaches, Michigan gets penalized, and has to reduce practice time even further. Fundamentals went out the window, and were already out the window with the defense. They worked less in pads, and more on learning plays/schemes on offense, and unlearning schemes on defense.
The improvements in this team are not coming from running power formation plays. It's coming from a hundred little reasons bundled up in key words of "toughness, agressiveness, Michigan Team" The outside world doesn't really need to understand the details of how these words get used, because the results are really what we are after.
Denard, and the offense the way it is now is a very challenging offense to play against exactly the way it was used by Rich Rodriguez. And what's so awesome about that is the players, more and more, are the ones elevating Denard as the one of a kind player, and beginning to use him as the comparison that all other players on other teams are measured against.
Ryan Van Bergen's statement is a perfect example, "Well I almost caught Denard once, so I figured i probably could catch him (SDSU RB)"
September 30th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
September 30th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
I see where you're going Ziff...and I like it
I would love to think along with you that what RR started, and Denard scratched the surface last year and is capabale of, could remain some kind of constant since Denard makes it look so beautiful.
I have to agree with Cleareyes though in that there will never be another Denard (Or Cam Newton or Michael Vick). Denard is a great football player, not so much a great quarterback. However, if somehow we could clone him and keep him or his type at QB for generations to come...I'd take it. In reality though, I prefer the odds of 'This is Michigan' attracting more Tom Brady's and even Chad Henne's than Terrelle Pryor's(!), etc
Although I like the QB West Virginia is runnin with...hmmm
September 30th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
Devin Gardner is actually closer the prototype Borges seems to be looking for than you think. Shane Morris has a fantastic arm and would qualify as a "pro-style QB," but he's no Navarrish statue.
bama blue mentioned Aaron Rodgers, who's a prime example. Morris actually reminds me a lot of a lefty Rodgers. It would be rather nice if he turns out the same way.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
I don't know what people are expecting really. We aren't going to lead the nation in offense with Borges. We won't be Wisconsin either... We had a great offensive coach and we fired him to attain more balanced success.
Borges isn't RR and never will be just as GERG is not Mattison and never will be... Borges is obviously better at his craft than GERG is at his, but the similarities remain, IME.