Michigan switching from spread to pro set--Omaha World-Herald
Nebraska perspective on Michigan's new offense:
"Denard Robinson is someone you know.,,,was voted Big Ten offensive player of the year....All of which leads to this question: Why in the world would you change offenses with a returning quarterback like Robinson, who gained 502 yards HIMSELF against Notre Dame?"
rest of article:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110818/SPORTS/708189778
August 19th, 2011 at 9:14 AM ^
I don't read articles by guys with the last name Barfknecht.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:40 AM ^
I have a somewhat similar rule. I only read articles buy guys named Ace.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^
You must really like what Ace is selling.
August 19th, 2011 at 1:30 PM ^
You must really smell what the Rock is cooking.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
Something tells me you would not buy a scarf from a man with that name either.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:54 PM ^
That's for sure.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:15 AM ^
You change the offense because Denard Robinson is a once in a generation talent but you are building a program for the future. The coaching staff has already said they are making adjustments to maximize his skills. That includes less chances to get hit in the new offense and therefore stay on the field. I like what Borges said about wanting DR to make plays not miracles.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:19 AM ^
As optimistic as I am that the offense will be effective this year, I think the majority of us would be much more confident in the offense if we were continuing to run a spread scheme. I understand that the pro set should keep Denard relatively healthy, although I think saying that changing the offense is a great idea sounds like us trying to convince ourselves..
August 19th, 2011 at 9:29 AM ^
I still don't understand how exactly a pro set is any more likely to get hurt than the spread. Last year, Denard was running and usually getting tackled by at worst the faster linebackers (who could catch up to him) or DBs (ditto). I can imagine a situation now where he is standing in the pocket trying to go through a 3 receiver progression and gets hit on the blindside by some massive DE, the way Matt Stafford got hurt last year. Is that any better? If anything, I would rather have him be tackled by the skinny guys downfield 5 times than sacked by a D-lineman once, particularly in the mess of bodies and legs that is a pocket.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:41 AM ^
To Denard Robinson. And I think him being sacked is less likely than Stafford being sacked because if Denard goes through 2 reads, even 3, and sees no one open he'll take off and not stay in the pocket. Yes, I know he didn't do that last year but all reports from camp have said that he's doing that this year.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
I believe Brian wrote an article on that several years ago. Apparently a pro-style QB is indeed more likely to be injured than a spread QB. That being said, that analysis is "in general." When you watch your QB exit more than half of the games with injuries sustained while being tackled in the open field, it's pretty difficult to want him to run into said open field just as much, or more.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
.. QBs of the different schemes. Yes, pro-style QB's are more likely to take that one big hit from a big player, but is that better or worse or any safer than a QB who rushes 25 times and takes a hit probably 20 of the rushes, and your adding those to any sack or hits he does take in the pocket as well.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
Denard rushed 20+ times in several games last year - tackled on about every play. He might get sacked once a game this year?
He also got hurt a lot last year. Based on this...I welcome the new offense.
Besides, we are still playing with all the same players, its not like its a new offense with new players. They are all good enough to make the adjustments and score points.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:08 PM ^
Which was a surprise in itself. But it only accounted for being injured. Not hurt. Which is a big difference in football. Denard was didn't really miss games during the season, but he didn't make it through games. And even less considered was when he was in there, he lost a step towards the end of the season due to nagging injuries. The study didn't account for any of that.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:34 PM ^
Any hit or awkward landing you take can potentially cause injury. Denard hurt his knee on a fairly benign-looking play against BGSU last year. When you consider that he isn't very big and has an injury history (he missed at least one play in eight of our 13 games last year), we've got to be careful how often we use him - especially now that we don't have a backup QB with a full year of experience playing behind him.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:34 AM ^
This is not meant as a dig on Borgess, but RR knew the spread like the back of his hand and was able to throw in a subtle tweak when defenses would begin adjusting to the current schemes. Borgess' area of expertise favors more of a wide open passing attack, and there isn't much history of a Denard-centric spread in his many years as a coach. I think our spread sets this season have the potential to be frustrating compared to what we saw last season, as its a little more like unchartered territory for our coaches.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
In a perfect world Rodriguez would have stayed on as offensive coordinator (or at least an overpaid consultant) for the remainder of Denard's college career. However, the scenario of both Michigan offering the position and Rodriguez accepting was about as likely as Gerg winning coach of the year. The offense probably wont be what it could have been, and I think we've all accepted that. It's probably still going to be pretty darned good.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
The way I've thought about it would be comparing Oregon and Stanford last year, where the ceiling for a Rodriguez offense would be similar to Oregon and for Borges would probably be similar to Stanford. The Oregon offense was more explosive and higher scoring, but would anyone here be upset if our offense was "only" as good as Stanford's offense last season? Especially if that was paired with a competent defense trending towards excellent?
August 20th, 2011 at 12:13 AM ^
I remember watching stanford's bowl game and wishing I was seeing winged helmets on Harbaugh's team. That was how football should be played, in my opinion.
Spread n shred seems well enough, but I have no faith in its long term viability.
Guess I should say something else curmudgeonly now.....
August 20th, 2011 at 12:26 AM ^
double post
August 20th, 2011 at 12:24 AM ^
smashmouth as well
GBR & Hail Victors, may the best squad win
August 19th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
That was pretty much my dream solution as well, but I know it would never be able to happen. Considering how good the offense was last year with a sophomore qb who was more like a freshman in many ways, the ceiling this year would have been almost non-existant.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
That's interesting to speculate on. Could Brandon have stalled on the coaching change in an attempt to pigeonhole RR out of coaching another team next year, in a bid to get him to remain on the team as an OC?
Unlikely, but not impossible...
August 19th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^
Interesting thought...And I'm not David Brandon...but I'm thinking your idea might fall a little closer to impossible on the Unlikely to Impossible spectrum...
August 19th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
I would imagine that the main part of the spread that they are keeping is going to be the QB power (at least for running plays). You don't really need to tweak that play much, it's basically just give the ball to DR and let him do his thing.
August 19th, 2011 at 3:15 PM ^
Nice subtle tweaks against Mississippi State, Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State and Wisconson. Fast drives and turnovers kill defenses. Both sides of the ball need to be considered when making calls. Cloud of dust running plays and incomplete passes and huddles make for a boring game but a rested d. Bore me and win. 15-22 worst record at Michigan does not seem to be great tweaking. I don't care how many yards DRob runs for or if he even plays. I don't care about who the head coach is or if the QB wins a heisman. All I care about is winning with class. Now get of my grass.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
Fast drives... kill defenses. ... Cloud of dust running plays and incomplete passes and huddles make for a boring game but a rested d.
Wow, you must not have read The Mathlete's post.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:12 PM ^
How people killed that part of the post because he only considered the drive right after the long drive, and not any cumulative effect over the game.
August 20th, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^
A valid point. But has there been any actual research into that, or is just assumption and speculation? As others have pointed out, I can still think of numerous fast paced offensive teams that tended to score quick and yet still played great D.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^
This is not meant as a dig on Borgess, but RR knew the spread like the back of his hand and was able to throw in a subtle tweak when defenses would begin adjusting to the current schemes.But really, how many tweaks did he throw in last year? Did you notice many changes in the O as the season went on? IMO, while our overall offensive design was solid, our play selection was overly limited. We seemed to fall into a "QB iso on 1st/bubble screen on 2nd/inside handoff on 3rd" playcalling rut as the year went on.
August 20th, 2011 at 12:10 AM ^
Um, yeah, I fall into this camp. Subtle tweaks my ass, our change of pace was when we had to sit Denard and bring in Forcier, who ran the offense differently, and frequently made decisions that baffled everyone from the coaches to the announcers, but still got the job done every time.
As great as Denard is, he cant gain a single yard from the sideline. How does our record look if Forcier isnt the backup? Can DG lead the team on game winning drives (in the case of Illinois, over and over and over?) I'm glad we didnt have to find out.
With luck, Borges will be able to see that, and prevent us from having to find out this year, too.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^
Those of us who peruse/spend every waking minute on this blog are rather spoiled in terms of the depth of coverage. An outsider or national pub will never spend enough time researching something like this to accurately report what is actually happening. I certainly would question it too, if in fact Borges was bringing in, what connotatively we all think of, when we hear the term "pro-style".
I do really think we are at a great advantage going into the ND, both from the mental aspect of what Denard did to them last year and the lack of material for them to look at to gameplan.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
Because despite Denard's godly talents we still only put up 14 points in some games? Because we'd like to keep him healthy the entire system? Because it shows that Michigan is about the team and not one player?
...Nah.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^
I don't think that Denard's usage last season was a statement that Michigan was more about one player rather than the entire team. The offensive line created gaping holes for him to run to and the WRs found space. It's clear that Denard's productivity attests to the fact that he was used correctly. If you have a guy who can re-write the record books, you use him. In the same way that Biakabatuka rushed for 317 yds vs Ohio or when Chris Perry carried it 52 times against State. It has always been about the team.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^
In all fairness, the author is not a Michigan fan and almost certainly did not watch all 13 of our games last year. On paper, our offense was prolific and to outsiders it may sound like he has a valid point criticizing the change from the spread to a pro style offense. But in reality, the gawdy numbers the offense and Denard put up wasn't against the top teams in the Big Ten. The flashy spread offense sputtered against OSU, MSU, Wisc and Iowa. The game plan last year was to score a bunch of points and not worry about ball control and time of possession. That plan failed when we couldn't score 40 points against the big boys.
I couldn't be happier that Hoke is going back to a power run/West coast offense. There will be a bit of a learning curve to be sure, but I think our team will benefit in the long run. And I think we will and are attracting better talent because of the switch.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
the "why?" question posed was more of a rhetorical flourish the way I read it.
And though I know a Nebraska paper doesn't offer UM fans any special insiight into your team, thought you guys would like to hear how the change is viewed by a divisional rival.
I'm sure your coaches think this will improve your offense (Nebraska's scrapped our offense too, but that was a no-brainer after last year), and I know your D will be better. Personally, I think UM has as good a shot as anyone to win the Legends.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
Sure, I'm happy to hear what a divisional rival thinks, thats why I read the article. I was just pointing out how poorly informed the author was by merely relying on statistics to formulate his opinions. And I think we would all appreciate an article from a rivals perspective that does in fact, provide us with some insight to our team. But this article wasn't one of those.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^
Mr. M:)
August 19th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
First off, since when does this blog start threads with some article from a random city that says something that everybody has read 15 times?
It seems to me like just another chance for "spread and shredders" to get in their piece. You guys are right....we will not rack up 700 yards against crappy teams, but guess what, Denard will have so much more opportunity in this offense to get out in the open field via boot leg and scramble that it is foolish to think that we won't be better off for it (this doesnt even factor in the defense portion of getting more rest in games and more reps in practice against an offense that competitors run).
I think everyone just forgot to watch the last 3 games, and also seemed to forget that when we actually started gaining yards agains Iowa, it was after the Denard-spread had been ditched since he was injured. Personally, Id rather see ball control and respectable games against top teams than to score 60 instead of 30 points against teams that are one level above Lake Orion High School.
August 19th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
My exact feelings on this issue, 100% agree. Denard could also benefit from sliding this year when he reaches the linebackers instead of eating a tackle from one.
August 19th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
November 19th when, hopefully, a HEALTHY DRob and the offense are in complete syncronization.
August 19th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
HELLO! WE'RE NOT INSTALLING A PRO-STYLE MANBALL OFFENSE.
We're adding West Coast pro-style formations and plays to our offense from last year. Borges has been very clear about this...WE WILL STILL RUN MOST OF WHAT WE RAN LAST YEAR.
We'll just ALSO run more power run plays (which we already ran last year, yes from the I-form) and more route-based short and medium-range pass plays. We'll run more playaction passes too.
Why is this so scary to people? All these schemes--spread n' shred, air-raid, west coast, power running--they're all just means to an end, to getting more points than the other guys. Despite racking up yards like hotcakes, we weren't actually very good at that last year. On defense, we need a sea change. On offense, we need to adjust the arsenal. All signs--AND I MEAN ALL SIGNS--point to a much, much less drastic shift in the playbook than in 2008/
August 19th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
August 19th, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
Obviously there will be an adjustment. It will adjust every year as it should. Hell, it will even adjust game to game, and given Borges' REAL offensive genius to run multiple systems successfully at multiple schools, it will adjust even play to play.
The last time a new coach came into a program and wouldn't adjust one iota off of a predetermined system, the winningest program in the history of college football lost 9 games.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:00 PM ^
August 20th, 2011 at 12:04 AM ^
Well, actually, the system is exactly why that offense was horrible. Even my wife could watch it and ask why the hell the coach was asking the players to do the things he was. If you got to see Threet play at A state at all, it had to have boggled your mind as to why he would be asked to run around with the ball, when he can throw and read a d like that. As for Sheridammit, I feel he was a player who didn't get a fair shake at all in his career, and the system was the reason why.
And we don't have to score 33 points a game, if the defense isnt giving up 35. That's part of the point. Even when the d got a 3 and out, the offense would score or punt less than 2 minutes later. They weren't helping each other.
August 19th, 2011 at 9:24 PM ^
at least couple times that they will still run a decent amount of what you saw last year and that there looking to have a mix of some of the old stuff and new stuff, I am apted to take the man at his word. I doubt Borges is just blowing smoke up people's rear ends, he clearly intends to still run a decent amount of spread concepts and utilize plays that take advantage of Denard's feet.
August 19th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^
August 19th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
And the lines between "pro-style" and "spread" get more blurred every year in college football. Pretty much every team in the country has a shotgun package, an I-formation look (we did last year), a 2-TE set, etc. The zone read - once an exotic play dreamed up by RR after a mishandled snap in practice - has become so common that half our opponents ran it against us last year.