I was pretty fried after the super Michigan game yesterday and chilled watching the other games. I basically focused in on the offenses except for Penn State where I tried to figure out both. The line up was as follows? Like 6 hours of really fast thumb wrestling that lasted until 1:30.
UVA v. USC
Stanford v. UCLA
Oregon v. Tennessee
PSU v. Bama
Like 6 hours of really fast and tiring thumb wrestling that lasted until 1:30.
UVA, USC, Tennessee, Bama were pure pro set every down that I watched, with some extra receivers peppered in on passing downs. Here and there, Stanford and Penn State looked like it ran a little of the spread in the Texas Tech mold but with less receivers. But not every down. Hard for me to tell but looked more pro style. UCLA ran the Indiana Pistol we saw last year, but last night it shot blanks. Ugly. Oregon was a lot like us.
I have watched a million games, but in reality you can take what I know about attacking a defense, roll it into a ball, and shove it up a fly's ass.
To me the only offense that looked like it could have competed against any of the defenses on those fields was Oregons and Michigans. Stanford and Alabama had excellent defense,s with USC right behind.
From a visual standpoint and the demands it placed on the defenses, the pro set attacks appeared to be way easier to defend. These reasons that stood out: the quarterback was rarely a regular factor running eliminating a huge worry for the defense and taking one player off the chess board, the formations were the same play to play making it less guess work, there was no legitimate threat to run on an obvious passing down and distance, and the amount of field that was being used didn't tax the defense.
Oregon on the other hand was wearing down their opponent and forcing all sorts of oddball packages and rotations.
The recurring feeling was Tennessee has to play perfect or it was 6. Like handling a plutonium rod with an egg shell coating. You got the same feeling during our game when we had the ball.
We are dealing with a continuing development period but it is looking very worth it. In light of Armani's comments this week about the offense, I have to say that I disagree with him. This style is very exciting to watch and explosive. Underdog teams like UVA and Penn State would have been better off being more unconventional.
Plus, not every team has a defense like Bamas and Ohio States, or guys like Ronald Johnson on USC where it pays to be more vanilla.
Maybe being 2-0 and watching a guy like Denard is making me a spread snob or something. But I thought the same thing last year during Tate's run as starter.
Do you other Michigan fans look at our offensive style more positively the more you watch it?