Oregon Observations And How We Can Be Better
Watching Oregon, I have to say I was a bit surprised. They do a lot more stuff than we do. Now, I realize that Denard is only a sophmore, and is making his first series of starts, but I really think we can do some of these things and they would make us even more explosive. Let me say at the start I'm not saying our offense sucks. I know people are going to say "500 yards against Iowa rabble rabble, one of the top offenses in the country rabble rabble." I would counter with A) we can always be better and B) rabble rabble right back at ya. Finally, I know UCLA isn't a good team, but that doesn't change that Oregon's offense was much more multi-faceted than ours appears to be, at least to my eyes.
1) Oregon does a lot more motion things before the snap. They will have a RB split out wide and motion him in next to the QB right before the snap. We put our RB's out wide sometimes, but it is always a pass play or a Denard draw. I think it adds another element of guessing if we sometimes motion them in to RB. They also have the RB switch sides of the QB right before the snap, again, giving a confusing look and a last second switch on some of the defenses reads and keys. I think these kind of things make defenses make late reads and adjustments and make us that much more difficult to defend. I really see no reason why we can't do this.
2) They do a lot more play action, particularly off the zone read. As others, including Brian, have said before, why don't we do more play action? It seems like we only do two PA plays, the Denard freak out throw to the slot, and the fake hand off roll out with a pulling guard as a blocker. What Oregon does often is do a play action zone read, and the QB stays in the pocket. Perhaps we don't do this because Denard isn't tall enough to sit in the pocket or something, but it is a really good compliment to the zone read and just adds another play action to the arsenal that makes us harder to defend.
3) The midline. Again, this has been talked about by Brian ad nausem but after watching it for the first time, seriously, why can't we do this. Oregon mixes it up, they do zone read playing off the end and then later will do it off the DT, and back and forth again. It just gives the defense one more thing to worry about and doesn't let them practice all week just playing with the ends and training the team what to do in that play. I can't comprehend our reason for not doing this.
4) Finally, and there is only so much Michigan can do about this, LaMichael James is a playmaker. He keeps defenses honest in the zone read because he is so explosive and talented. If Denard had anyone like that with him in the backfield, yikes. I know a lot of people are expecting and hoping for Dee to be this guy, and hopefully/maybe he is, but adding a RB like this will really take our O to the next level.
Besides not having James on our roster, we can do the first three. I'm baffled as to why we don't. First year, our offense just sucked, last year, our QB's were freshman. Most of our starters are in year three, and the QB's have had a year to learn the base offense, and should be capable of adding these wrinkles. I hope we start to be more versitile and less predictable, and I would love an explanation for why we don't do these things.
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
It is his first year starting too is it not? So there goes that excuse.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
He's a redshirt Soph who played as a true freshmen then redshirted last year so you're kinda right knda wrong.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
touche'
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
If playing as a true freshman is 13 rushes for 42 yards and completing 16 of 32 passes which is third behind Masoli and Roper. That is mop up duty as the third string guy, not I am starting this guy since he is so good. His redshirt last year was due to injury, but may not have unseated Masoli anyway.
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
is still a year in the system. Our secondary can attest to that.
October 22nd, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
Yeah but most of that was in one game against Boise State who had a 4 td lead and he almost brought them back. IIRC they ended up only losing by 3.
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
Next year, redshirting a sophomore qb who was third string as a true freshman sounds good to me.
October 22nd, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
We will do those things. And then people won't have to wonder anymore.
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^
Oh dear God I'm disappointed with an offense that is #2 in the country, with the nation's leading rusher.
Hear that Rich Rod? YOUR SECOND RANKED OFFENSE ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
Oh wait - the offense is the second best in the country?
There's your explanation as to why they "don't do those things."
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
I understand your points. But, in my opinion, our offensive numbers have been inflated by playing against CRAPPY teams during the first 5 games. During the last two, not so effective. (Yes, 500 yards, but games are decided by points, not yards).
So, a serious question to you: Do you believe that our offense is better than Oregon. And by better, I mean that if we both played the same quality team - let's take Wisconsin, for example - who do you think would score more points?
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^
Right. Our offensive numbers were inflated by putting up 500+ on Iowa and about 380 on Michigan State.
Oregon's numbers certainly weren't inflated by playing New Mexico, Portland State, Tennessee, and Washington State.
No, I don't think Michigan's offense is better than Oregon's. However, I do believe it's better than at least 115 other offenses in the FBS. That's why I think it's absolutely moronic to spend time suggesting ways for it to improve.
The reason why Michigan lost against Michigan State and Iowa had to do with turnovers, field position, and defense. There was nothing wrong with the offense that would suggest they have to change a scheme so some message board poster can get over an Oregon inferiority complex.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
Not sure why the hostility is necessary - I was just asking a question and presenting a viewpoint different from your own.
I am NOT suggesting that our offense is bad, but that when faced with decent competition, we did not do well. Did we put up yards? Sure, and if the outcome of a game is decided by the total number of yards, we would be undefeated, and likely on our way to a NC. Unfortunately, it is not. And
As for it being "moronic" to suggest way to improve the offense, I don't see how it is ever moronic to seek improvement. Even that which is good can be better. You yourself said that Oregon has a better offense. Shouldn't we strive to make the improvements that would allow us to be better than them?
Finally, on your point that we lost the last 2 games because of defense, field position and turnovers, I don't disagree. I am sure that we both agree that it is difficult to win games when you can't stop the other team and regularly give up 30+ points. On the field position point - again, I agree. This was not helpful. But, on turnovers, I disagree. Sure, some of the turnovers were just poor throws or flukey things like the Smith fumble. But others (including some of the poor throws) were the direct result of MSU / Iowa forcing Denard out of his comfort zone. Both teams effectively stacked the box on us. An offense with more variety makes such a game plan more difficult.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
As for it being "moronic" to suggest way to improve the offense, I don't see how it is ever moronic to seek improvement
How about we leave this to the coaches, who I am pretty certain are spending the bye week for ways to seek improvement of the team?
Watching another game, cherry-picking the things they do well, and then whining that Michigan should do the exact same things insults the players who are obviously playing well, and insults the coaches who have spent time installing their system with the players.
Everything being argued here is jejune. The game plan exists, and nothing a message board poster writes is going to change it.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^
Yeah what kind of a fan dreams about how their great offense could be even better and wants to share his thoughts with other diehard Michigan fans.
We shouldn't talk about anything the coaches won't listen to.
/s
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
Dude, this is a message board on a Michigan fan blog. What do you expect people to do on here but talk about Michigan football? We are not robo-faxing these suggestions to RR. We are not accosting Denard on the street asking him to do these things (who could catch him anyway).
We are fans talking amongst ourself about topics related to our program that interest us. That is all. I really don't get this whole "we should not be discussing these things because the coaches know what they are doing and don't read the boards anyway." Talking about ways for your team to improve, bandying about ideas and dreaming about how great your team could be if they tried things that you think are good ideas are part of the fun of being a fan for some people.
Not trying to make this a personal attack, but if this is a topic that doens't interest you, then just don't read it. But, your lack of interest doesn't mean that the rest of us shouldn't discuss.
October 22nd, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
Everything being argued here is jejune. The game plan exists, and nothing a message board poster writes is going to change it. Isn't that true of everything on this whole blog? Why does it even exist? Why are you here? And why have you participated enough to rack up nearly 10,000 mgopoints on something so meaningless??
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
And wait a second.
You stated that some of Denard's problems were the direct result of being forced out of his comfort zone.
So, you think it's a good idea to implement, mid-season, elements of Oregon's offense? How exactly would Denard be in a comfort zone learning new elements of an offense he's never had until he saw it on ESPN on Thursday night of his bye week? Please advice.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^
No, I don't think that it would be a good idea for Denard to work in something new that he saw on ESPN mid-season. I do, however, think that it would be a good idea for RR and his offensive team to work in new wrinkles - whatever wrinkles he had at WVU - throughout the season. And to some extent he has done this.
I think that the whole point of this thread is not that RR should do this for the PSU game, or any specific game, but that if the offense did have more diversity, it would be more effective. Just that.
October 23rd, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
...here's the thing; it's not scheme or wrinkles making the difference with how Pensa has been dealing effectively with Sparty in the first half. Rather, it's Pensa making a single read then acting. Where Denard had difficulty with Sparty (and Iowa when available) was his speed in making the read against those defenses.
I would suggest that Denard will continue to improve this season (he's not going to see defenses any better than Iowa or Sparty...possibly tUofOSU but we'll see about that) and the area where the coaches have to target is inital read/recognition speed. Denard cannot pat the ball making two and three reads since it takes away from his real effectiveness as a multi-faceted throw/run threat.
He's only going to get better with that (provided he doesn't get killed running)...
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^
to speculate. We wouldn't want to have an intelligent conversation debating offensive schemes on a college football blog. Get over yourself. Can anyone debate/post on here without all this negativity. JFC...
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^
I wasn't saying our offense sucks, I even anticipated that people would say that is what i'm saying and addressed it. All I am saying is, their offense seemed to have more options than ours, and trying to have an intelligent convo as to why we don't do some of those things. Don't know who that guy is so pissed
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
There are some people on this site that do not like to hear anything that resembles criticism of the way that our coaching staff is handling / coaching the team (which, by the way, I didn't think that you were doing).
I also don't understand why they are so sensitive to this topic. Were these same people equally sensitive to the criticisms being levied against Lloyd Carr? I would guess not - some were probably the same people criticizing Carr on a regular basis.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
I think part of the problem is that every day we have more posts on what RichRod needs to do to solve all the team's problems, but it is impossible to implement all of these things. Eventually, the "If we only did this, the team would be much better" posts get tiring.
- The 3-3-5 doesn't work, we need to switch to yet another scheme, never mind all the other schemes we've tried the past couple seasons that didn't work either
- Coach Rodriguez spends most of his time with the offense and special teams and mostly leaves the defense to GERG, he needs to take personal responsibilty for the defense
- The offense fails to execute against good defenses, Coach Rodriguez needs to emphasize execution
- All these other teams are running the midline with great success, Coach Rodriguez should add that
- I saw Oregon on TV and their offense is spectacular, we should copy them because they wouldn't have problems with Big Ten defenses like we did the last two weeks (except when they play a Big Ten defense, or a WAC defense for that matter)
Eventually, all of these posts get really annoying
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
I really think the negative press associated with RR (fair or not) has caused a lot of die hard RR supporters to overcompensate and take anything that could remotely be deemed as criticism and accuse you of being a hater and unsupportive of the team. Its really annoying to say the least.
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
It has nothing to do with whether you support the team.
It's the arrogant idea that a random football fan can turn on a television, watch three hours of football, and have the perfect solution for the perceived problems of your favorite football team.
Mind, we're talking about the problems of the nation's #2 offense.
The arrogance in crafting "solutions" to a finely purring machine, to a guy who created his system and has been coaching now for over 20 years, is the heart of the problem. It has nothing to do with being a "hater" or a "supporter."
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
I don't want to re-hash some of the same points that I have made about, but:
(1) our finely purring machine didn't look so fine against MSU and Iowa. It has, however, looked great, but only when racing against go-cart defenses.
(2) the guy who created the system and has been coaching for over 20 years - he has not had such a great run since arriving in AA. Not a criticism of him, but let's keep a bit of perspective when saying that RR cannot be criticized.
(3) nations #2 offense - see my comments upthread, as well as comment #1 in this post.
(4) Arrogant to discuss football - the OP was just saying that he would like to see certain of these aspects of the offense. He never said that he knows more than RR, and he never said that he has a perfect solution to the team's problems. He is just a fan saying that he would like to see some more offensive diversity, and that in his lay opinion, since we run a siilar offense to Oregon, these would be good ideas.
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^
As for your point number 1, I think our offense was purring against MSU and Iowa for the most part and we just coughed up a few hairballs that have nothing to do with scheme (turnovers and penalties). I blame that on youth (Denard/Tate interceptions and Lewan penalties) than on Rodriguez not installing more plays that resemble Oregon.
October 22nd, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^
I think those "hairballs" are a result of the other teams playing well.
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^
The answer is yes regarding Carr, because OPs like the one above are veiled in the arrogance that: (1) football coaches don't know how to coach their own team; but (2) I'm a fan and I know how to improve something that the coach has been developing for 20+ years; and (3) I can post on a message board and fix my favorite team's problems.
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
I don't see how I am being arrogant by saying that "here are some things Oregon does that are interesting, why don't we do them, please discuss." As a fan, I find it fun to talk football strategy, particularly with others who enjoy my same team. I in no way said RR is an idiot, or that I know more than him, or that I can solve all the teams problems. Why get so offended over a discussion on football strategy? If this board can't have discussions like this, then why does it exist? You read way more into my post than is there. Anyone who has paid any attention to my posts over the last year knows I am a huge RR supporter, that doesn't mean I can't discuss football strategy. Get off your high horse
October 22nd, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
I agree. Just as there is a passive and active citizen, there is a passive and active fan. A passive fan takes everything at face value and adapts to the situation on the field, while the active fan - knowing full well they are neither coach nor football genius - enjoys a lively discussion of all things team related, which include observations and recommendations on how to improve the team. An active fan is always looking for improvement (because improvement is always possible), and as long as their perspective is thought provoking and avoids sweeping ignorant statements there is no reason why a conversation should not be had. Asking tough questions of the coach and debating the answers is partly why I enjoy this blog, even though I know full well that those questions and the eventual answers (if answers can be found) will enact no change at all. It is fucking fun to think about the potential of the team and speculate on why this potential has not become reality. It is not necessarily a slap in the face of the coach or anything of this nature.
Personally, I enjoyed the premise of your post. Although, I do believe we are not at the talent level of Oregon yet - talent that allows Oregon to take more chances both offensively and defensively.
October 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
And they were doing that when we were winning 8 or 9 games. Heck, I'm not releasing any newsflashes by saying I was obviously a big fan of Carr. But even I had times when, like the OP, I wondered if we could do this better, or they made flat out mistakes (The bowl game vs. Tennessee comes to mind where he thought being conservative and keeping the ball away from the Volunteers would be better than just letting it all hang out and let the chips fall where they may, but go down firing. Knew that was failure from the start). But it didn't mean I wanted him fired. Just like if someone says there's some things Rich could do better, it's not a FIRE RICH ROD screed.
It's funny, I wonder if people who get all upset about "they know their job better than you do" take that to all levels of business. If they see a movie, do they ever say anyone is a bad actor? (I mean, he's in a movie! He knows way more about it than you!). Do they every criticize business decisions by CEOs, or Politicians? (Have YOU ever been President?!?!) Or do they ever think their boss is doing something, well...stupid? Not all jobs are brain surgery or rocket science. You can figure out some basis things that seem right or wrong in most jobs, without having done them.
By the reasoning of some people, that they have the job, they must be great at it, no one would ever get fired as a coach. I mean, hey, they know more about coaching than the guy who is firing them! No one who has every done a good job before is ever Peter Principled. Jobs should be for life. But funny, we know it doesn't work that way. Because guess what, Tim Brewster knows way more about football than you, I, or the other guy. Doesn't mean he should still have a job today.
October 22nd, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^
OP is not suggesting a scheme change, he's suggesting new wrinkles and making an already leathal offense more leathal. I like where his head is...
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
The OP was just saying that we have been a bit predictable the last couple weeks which I think is a fair point. He was also saying that in order to make our offense even MORE dynamic than it already is throwing some new things in there might make us even tougher to stop.
I love our offense and think it is great. But I also agree with the OP that we can be even tougher to stop by throwing some new things in there like the midline and some motion.
Chill, dude.
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
The amount of tough guy smart-asses on this board is ridiculous.
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
It's what they do.
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
on two good (to great) defenses, but only have 45 points to show for it. The difference: execution.
Yards mean nothing when you turn the ball over because of predictability and poor execution. Points are all that matter in the end. And if we get technical, 21-28 of those points meant nothing because they were against prevent defenses that were just trying to prevent quick scores.
Do you think Iowa is worried about the fact that they got outgained by over 150 yards against Michigan?
October 22nd, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
right now, fwiw. 532/game to Oregon's 569/game (if my calculations are right after last night's contest). Okie St. is slightly more productive than M on a per game basis.
But YPG is only one metric, and I don't think the most important one. Scoring Offense: M's tied for 17th at 36 PPG. Pretty damn good, but not even close to Oregon who's scored 134 more points than Michigan to date, averaging 19 more PPG than M through 7. That's nearly three TDs better. (Totals as I have them: M=252 total points. O=386 total points). Interestingly, Oregon's Offense has 13 turnovers to Michigan's 12. So they're stopping themselves about the same clip Michigan is. However, their D has come up with 25 TOs through last night (leading the nation .... next closest is Troy with 21), which is likely setting them up with short fields/easy scores. At times at least.
Anyway, if someone wants to speculate about some things about how Oregon might be doing it, seems like a valid discussion topic. How in the hell that offense might be getting nearly 20 points a game more than michigan is interesting to me.
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
This is something that I have been saying for a while, as well. We run a similar style of offense, we no longer have freshmen at the playmaket spots, and yet what we run is so vanilla, by comparison. As a result, teams with decent defenses like Iows or MSU were totally able to key in on the strongest aspect of our offense - Denard's feet - and effectively stop us from putting up lots of points. Yes, we had turnovers, but those turnovers are partially the result of the defenses taking us out of our comfort zone.
Great points.
Oh, and on the RB thing, I think that is obvious - we do not have a LaMichael James, and having one would be a good thing.
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
You need to execute the basic offense properly before you start adding in wrinkles.
We'd score plenty of points if we executed properly. I know trick plays and flashiness are exciting, but if you can run your base offense and score easily, why do anything else?
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^
But against our lat two opponants - the only quality defenses we have played all season - we didn't execute the base offense effectively. In fact, one could argue that the predictability of our base offense that allowed both Iowa and MSU to game plan so effectively to stop us from scoring the 35+ points we need to win games.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
One could also argue that we should get better at executing the base offense instead of adding even more wrinkles to execute poorly. In fact, one could argue that those wrinkles won't help until we get better at executing the base offense.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
Terrible interceptions, penalties, and fumbling is not the same as Iowa and MSU stopping us.
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
Is it a coincidence that Michigan's offense began committing terrible interceptions, penalties, and fumbles at a heretofore unprecedented rate when facing the two best defenses on their schedule so far?
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
Scoring 24 points through 7 quarters against our only solid b10 opponents so far has turned into, "we racked up a million yards and stopped ourselves". Yes we scored 21 points in the 4th after facing a 21 pt deficit and I don't really think the game was ever in question (either game really). I would answer your question by saying that I do not think it is a coincidence.
That being said, 2 games isn't a great sample size, so let the season play out and see how the O does against the other solid defensive opponents we play.
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^
You can really spin an argument.
I wonder if K. Ferentz ever thought the game was in doubt? 6 minutes to go facing 3rd an 8 up 7. "You know what call whatever play you want it don't matter our defense has them contained"...uh coach they've scored a td 3 stright drives.
I can spin it too 500yds of offense against the #2 defense, blah blah blah.
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
While I agree that MSU and Iowa are the best defenses we have played against, I don't think they shut us down. We could score much more easily against earlier teams so we didn't need to throw the ball on 3rd and goal before. That being said, our "predictable" offense still had players in position to put up at least 35 points against State (two interceptions and an overthrow to Stonum) which was enough to win and at least get into the 30s with a chance against Iowa, if it weren't for those penalties and turnovers. False starts can be attributed to an offensive lineman being more worried about the quality of a defensive player but I don't think you can blame a game plan for that.
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^
I would expect we will see glimpses of our offense incorporating these kinds of items in 2011. And in 2012, starting with the Alabama game in prime time on a big stage, all of our opponents should see UofM dishing out an offensive blitzkrieg, similar to what Oregon put on UCLA last night. This type of play / execution is what Coach Rod was brought to UofM to install. We are good and we can and should always be striving to get better.