Our "New" Offense
We've had a lot of hand wringing as a fan base over the last 2 months as MANBALL has taken over the reigns of the gimmick spread offense. Much of the worry has been over the utilization of Denard and how he will be used. I'm not sure of anything , but let's go off the base assumption that Borges and Hoke are good,smart football coaches. Then let's look at last years offensive results.
| OFEI |
OFEI Rk |
Team |
FBS Rec |
FEI Rk |
OE |
OE Rk |
FD |
FD Rk |
AY |
AY Rk |
Ex |
Ex Rk |
Me |
Me Rk |
OSOS |
OSOS Rk |
| .805 | 1 | Auburn | 13-0 | 1 | .641 | 4 | .783 | 10 | .593 | 9 | .232 | 6 | .123 | 76 | .026 | 3 |
| .603 | 2 | Michigan | 6-6 | 55 | .398 | 14 | .708 | 37 | .548 | 16 | .197 | 16 | .190 | 12 | .055 | 14 |
| .561 | 3 | Arkansas | 9-3 | 7 | .296 | 20 | .718 | 32 | .531 | 21 | .218 | 10 | .120 | 78 | .030 | 4 |
| .560 | 4 | Alabama | 9-3 | 3 | .537 | 7 | .811 | 2 | .602 | 8 | .243 | 3 | .135 | 55 | .057 | 15 |
| .551 | 5 | Wisconsin | 10-2 | 12 | .591 | 5 | .767 | 14 | .605 | 7 | .172 | 24 | .198 | 9 | .128 | 50 |
| .517 | 6 | Stanford | 11-1 | 2 | .810 | 2 | .794 | 7 | .660 | 2 | .187 | 19 | .215 | 3 | .203 | 71 |
| .455 | 7 | South Carolina | 8-5 | 16 | .252 | 24 | .777 | 12 | .525 | 23 | .177 | 22 | .115 | 83 | .039 | 7 |
| .434 | 8 | Florida State | 9-4 | 18 | .078 | 44 | .687 | 49 | .484 | 36 | .122 | 67 | .130 | 67 | .017 | 2 |
| .428 | 9 | Navy | 8-4 | 32 | .570 | 6 | .788 | 9 | .607 | 6 | .177 | 21 | .221 | 2 | .295 | 88 |
| .412 | 10 | Nevada | 12-1 | 29 | .812 | 1 | .795 | 6 | .656 | 3 | .220 | 9 | .212 | 5 | .337 | 91 |
| .406 | 11 | Virginia Tech | 11-2 | 5 | .396 | 15 | .704 | 41 | .537 | 19 | .178 | 20 | .111 | 93 | .065 | 18 |
| .399 | 12 | San Diego State | 8-4 | 40 | .355 | 17 | .669 | 66 | .516 | 27 | .225 | 7 | .092 | 105 | .208 | 74 |
| .398 | 13 | Oklahoma | 12-2 | 9 | .260 | 23 | .705 | 40 | .517 | 26 | .136 | 51 | .193 | 11 | .068 | 19 |
| .367 | 14 | TCU | 12-0 | 10 | .518 | 9 | .798 | 4 | .620 | 5 | .237 | 5 | .140 | 48 | .363 | 98 |
| .338 | 15 | Oregon | 11-1 | 4 | .512 | 10 | .799 | 3 | .592 | 10 | .224 | 8 | .179 | 16 | .207 | 73 |
What initially sticks out is Michigan at #2, but look down a little further to #12 and see SDS( maybe they do know how to utilize talent). Even if you were a critic of last years offense take a look at that list and look at the records of those teams( I think we'd take most of those). Of that list of 15 who returns 10 starters(that would be 1...us) Of that list who returns their QB(6-Mic, Ore, Okl, SC, FSU,SDS?) Of that list who had a 1st year starter running the team?(3-Mic,Ore,Aub) Can we better than #1? Can we be #1+? We're already #2 and #1 is taking a hard dive next year and probably 3,4 and 5 as well.
Our record is an extreme outlier on this chart compared to the other teams. Our defense and special teams had to try and conspire to hold our offense back last year.
What's the point of this? Hoke can try to fire the troops up with MANBALL all he wants, but Borges has run all sorts of offenses and had pretty good success. We have a lot of experienced talent and transition or no transition we should be looking at an offense that should be similar to last years in terms of look and production. Borges will run it out of his system and we'll be under center a little bit more, but we're going to be good..real good.
So to those of you who are worried about the offense just relax and imagine what our record will be like with Mattison shoring up this defense to an even mediocre level. The offense is going to be great. Get ready for more fireworks in 2011.
Michigan 2011 BT Champs
Edit-Pretty cool I got this out 15 minutes before Brian stole my thinder on the main board. Hoke is just playing to the crowd, Denard will be in the gun a lot next year...a lot.
Freaking Oregon and Auburn and their turnover margins... Wait what? Those were spread option teams that played in the NC?
Do you have evidence beyond 3 years at Michigan demonstrating that RR's offense is particularly turnover prone?
Do you have evidence that RRs offense can work in the Big 10? Sure, the spread and shred had at Tulane in CUSA and W. Virginia in the Big East. This is a whole different ballgame, and face it, Michigan was getting DESTROYED running this system in this conference and from my observation there wasn't any hope our performances against the conference's top tier would improve over time......it just wasn't happening.
The Pac 10 is a pretty physical conference, and Oregon did all right, especially against Stanford and USC. Rich Rod's problem is that he can't adjust at all once the game starts. He had this problem at WVU as well, consistently jumping out to big leads and just hoping to hold on. His teams don't play downhill in the second half the way Oregon and Auburn did with their spreads this year. All of the yards we gained last year proved the offense can work in the Big Ten, but we need defense and an ability to punch the ball in to the end zone from close range. The latter is a problem Oregon had in the NC game as well, so maybe that is a system flaw. Also, no power iso's to Vincent Smith. Ever. Ever Ever.
In the spread, is there a particular way you have to hold the ball that leaves it vulnerable to a forced fumble or does the scheme require you to overthrow or throw behind receivers?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
The turnovers at Michigan were an abberation in a Rich Rod coached team, resulting from the smite of the Lord Jesus Christ punishing Rich Rod for leaving the great state of West Virginia (or so WVU fans like my father will have you believe). Overthrowing/bad throws come as a result of starting a different quarterback all three seasons, none of whom had any extensive experience at the collegiate level. The Big Ten defenses aren't using mind-melds to force bad throws or drops. The point is that this type of offense CAN work in a physical conference if it is run properly. Michigan's was not. People talk about the B1G shutting down the spread like we're the premier conference in the universe, yet we get housed in bowl games year after year, often by teams that spread the field.
I do not like the premise that you cannot play tough if you run a spread. I think the manball, passion, toughness etc adjectives are overrated. Regardless of scheme you have to play it tough. So lets call by the real names which may be spread, west cost, power football, etc.
Now for those who love Wisconsin smashmouth what happened in the Rose bowl? Lets look at who is playing for the BCS. Last year we had 2 spread teams. Year before the runner up was a spread team. We can argue about who might have won if the QB stays in the game. Year before, another spread team won in Florida. LSU beat OSU the year before. So two conventional offenses there. Year before Florida beats OSU. In that case the loser was running the spread to some extent. And of course in 05, Texas won with VY. So the pansy spread can hang with manball. It is not a domination. But certainly not a gimic.
I am not saying one is better then the other. College football has a lot more rock/paper/scissors. The good coaches will make sure their teams are tough regardless of the offense played and will adjust to what they have.
If Hoke thinks he can uproot 330 pound DT's out of the middle with our sub 300 line instead of making them run, more power to him. I would certainly hope he would realize the strengths of the line and use it's agility. Four years from now if he wants road graders, we can all pretend we live in Madison.
If Hoke thinks he can uproot 330 pound DT's out of the middle with our sub 300 line instead of making them run, more power to him.Common lazy meme. The only two linemen under 300 pounds last year were Molk, who was our best lineman despite this, and Lewan, who was a redshirt freshman sensation. Someone did an actually O-line statistical analysis of the Big Ten last season and Michigan was in the top half. The "undersized" meme is pretty old.
March 24th, 2011 at 10:28 PM ^
It's not that it's old. It's that it's stupid.
Below are the weights of the starting o-lines for "power" teams in the Big Ten, as well as Notre Dame:
| Tackle | Guard | Center | Guard | Tackle | Team Avg. | |
| M | 6'-8", 294 lbs | 6'-5", 308 lbs | 6'-2", 287 lbs | 6'-4", 305 lbs | 6'-7", 321 lbs | 6'-5", 303 lbs |
| OSU | 6'-7", 299 | 6'-3", 320 | 6'-5", 293 | 6'-4", 313 | 6'-8", 300 | 6'-5", 305 |
| MSU | 6'-5", 298 | 6'-4", 310 | 6'-5", 285 | 6'-5", 295 | 6'-5", 312 | 6'-5", 300 |
| PSU | 6'-3", 298 | 6'-4", 323 | 6'-3"286 | 6'-3", 306 | 6'-4", 310 | 6'-3", 305 |
| Iowa | 6'-6", 300 | 6'-3", 300 | 6'-2", 275 | 6'-2", 273 | 6'-5", 295 | 6'-3.5", 289 |
| Wisc | 6'-7", 327 | 6'-5", 323 | 6'-5", 313 | 6'-4", 315 | 6'-6", 322 | 6'-5", 320 (!) |
| ND | 6'-4", 290 | 6'-5", 351(!) | 6'-3", 301 | 6'-5", 295 | 6'-5", 297 | 6'-4", 307 |
| Position Avg. | 6'-6", 302 | 6'-4", 319 | 6'-3.5", 291 | 6'-4", 300 | 6'-6", 308 |
Nonbullets
- Our Offensive Line is not undersized; in fact if you take our ND's OG (who must make Boren look fit and trim), all of our starters are "average" size at worst
- Holy hell is Wisconsin's line huge!
- Iowa has the "smallest" OL, which I find kind of suprising (corn-fed midwesterners and all)
Info for B10 teams was taken from Rivals depth charts, except Michigan's, which I got from mgoblue.com (because that was the only team I actually knew who the starters were)
The entire thread can be found at http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/size-our-offensive-line-meme
Great post.
Granted, SDSU played in the MWC conference last year, but check out these numbers,
QB Ryan Lindley, 243-421, 57.7%, 3830 yards, 28 touchdowns, 14 interceptions.
RB Ronnie Hillman 262 attempts, 1532 yards, 17 touchdowns, 5.85 avg.
WR Demarco Simpson 67 receptions, 1220 yards, 8 touchdowns
WR Vincent Brown 69 receptions, 1352 yards, 10 touchdowns
Whichever way you slice it that's a helluva offense. I don't think we'll have two 1,000-yard receivers due to the depth and number of guys we've got, but I'm not worried at all where this offense is going.
But if Denard throws for 3800 yards, life will be good.
I'm gonna just stop trying to convince people (Brian) that Hoke's offense isn't the end of the world. or even bad. its merely incorporating what Michigan lacked most last year. ball security and time management. the spread ignores these incredibly important features of an offense and Michigan's d needs more time off the field. so everyone chill out and accept that these coaches are being paid to make the best decisions and have way better data and experiences to make these decisions.
I think you're wrong on both assertions; namely, that the spread ignores ball security and time management. That's a ridiculous statement. I think every coach puts ball security up near the top 3 most important things on offense, regardless of the scheme. That is a very safe assumption, I think. And as far as time management goes, the spread that Rodriguez ran/runs is all about time management. Its just a different kind of time management than Michigan has been used to. His purpose was to get his offense as many touches as possible.
(Oh, and telling people to chill out only offends.)
right, it isn't as if the spread generally doesn't preach ball security as any other offense would. it's just that we were bad at it last year.
Ball Security? You honestly believe that permutations of an offensive system that was run by BOTH teams in the MNC game ignores ball security? At no point in playing NCAA Football 2011 did I have the option to call "throw the ball into triple coverage" or "fumble the ball after being sandwiched between two LBs" plays. Turnovers are the result of players either being careless, random chance, or (most likely) being inexperienced. And guess what - if next year's offensive squad struggles to pick up pats of Al Borges' offense, expect to see a spike in picks and fumbles. So if you wonder why you haven't convinced people like Brian about this line of thinking, its because it is irrational.
Oregon scored a bajillion points last year and had a very good defense, so don't say the spread offense "ignores" the defense. Every offense is about scoring points, because that takes the most pressure off of a defense. You score 7 points 2 out of every 3 times you touch the ball, the defense only has to stop the opposition 1 out of 3 times to keep pace, and you can even concede FGs. I know that is simplistic thinking, but it highlights the reality that as long as the offense does its main job, the defense will experience a net benefit. Yes, I'm sure some guys wish they had more time to rest on the sidelines, but with the number of stoppages and timeouts in an average CFB game, I doubt anyone outside of the large defensive linemen really ever feel like their play degrades significantly because of being on the field too long. The reason the defense was creamed the last few years wasn't because they were tired - it was because they had no depth and precious little talent at key positions. They weren't tired when good offenses bombed them in the first half of games, and they weren't tired when good offenses destroyed them in the second half of games.
So just stop trying to knock an offensive philosophy for why UM stunk the past few years on defense, because the reasons they stunk have a whole lot more to do with how that unit was composed and run than how the other side of the ball performed.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
See, Oregon had 24 total turnovers. They were lucky enough to have 37 gained to balance that stat out. Michigan had 29 lost and only 19 gained, therefore ball security was a failure overall. All I'm saying is that new offense will be focusing on ball control way more than RR's era. The spread is too easy to get caught up in "oh shit pass it downfield far cause we're panicing" whereas a slow, methodical aproach can still yield great results yet also manage the clock and game tempo. I'm never gonna say I'm against Denard breaking loose for a 80 yard play, but he cannot and will not do that every play. We can't keep setting him up just hoping he'll bail us out in a few plays with a huge gain cause that won't work against good opponents.
And even mentioning NCAA 11 made me completely stop reading your post.
ive never completelty understood the time management criticism. so instead of denard running for an 80 yard touchdown, you would prefer he bust into wide open space only to slide after 15 yards so that the defense can get more rest? we hardly even used the sprint to the line and quick snap strategy last season.
"Getting Michigan's offense to go from explosive but inconsistent to world-destroying is a matter of getting a kicker, finding a good running back, working on Denard's reads and accuracy, and leaving everything else the hell alone"
From Brian's front page post. I couldn't agree more with this. I know Rich Rod is gone, but I can't help the sick to my stomach feeling I get when I hear about our new offense. The way I look at it, upgrading our defense to a mediocre level and getting a kicker would have been far easier than installing a very likely less effective offense, and therefore needing far greater defensive improvement.
Not entirely sure why you'd call the spread a "gimmick" offense. Florida and Auburn have won national titles with that "gimmick" offense, as you call it. Utah demolished 'Bama in the Sugar Bowl with a spread. Oklahoma has been to BCS game after BCS game (with mixed results, of course) with a version of your "gimmick" offense. I'd be careful how you label successful aspects of the game like that. Our offense was potent last season using a spread. You just further reinforced that. Don't lose credibility by saying uneducated things like calling a spread offense a "gimmick". If anything, it's anything but, given how it's taken over college football the way it has. Almost every team has a version of it, one way or another, most making it the staple of their offense.
why can't we do both. Denard is just to good! He was under center alot in high school,so that will help him out. We need to mix the OLD STUFF in with the NEW STUFF.GO BLUE!!!
As everyone rags on belaboring the same points about how "all we needed was a decent defense" and how we were merely the victim of too much "youth". I picture myself as an indiana fan. They probably have spent the past 25 years pining for a "decent defense".
As far as using the youth arguement for turnover & penalties breaking up drives, yeah its got some merit, however Henne was able to play as a frosh, along with Hart, Manningham & far to many others over the years with far less mistakes then shoelaces made. Some of this just has to be laid on the scheme.
Those who tout the national championship game as evidence of the effectiveness of the spread, did you watch it?? How many turnovers did those teams have in the first quarter alone?? Like 5??How many points did those "high powered" offenses score?? It was the team with the better athletes on the defensive side of the ball that won that championship and every one for the past 10yrs. This is the only consistent factor in winning the big one .