QB Job "Wide Open"

Submitted by The Mad Hatter on

Not much new information in the article, more of a summary of things we already know.

I really like that Drevno plans to organize the offense around the strengths of the QB, instead of putting a square peg into a round hole like we've been doing since 2008.

 

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/03/michigan_qb_job_wide_open_offe.html

Sauce Castillo

March 4th, 2015 at 9:26 AM ^

I'm very interested to see what happens in the spring game assuming they have a real game.  I know it's not the end all be all for who will start at qb but I feel like we will get some pretty good indications of where things stand.

turd ferguson

March 4th, 2015 at 9:44 AM ^

Even in 2011, Hoke and Borges did much more to adapt to the talent on the roster than people remember.  They tried to lay a foundation for future years' manball, but the 2011 offense looked much more like RR's 2010 Michigan offense than Hoke and Borges's 2010 SDSU offense.

The Mad Hatter

March 4th, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^

one comment counts as "gratuitously shitting" on anyone.  

And my point in the OP of this thread was less about QB play specifically and more about the team in general.  

Look at the record since 2008.  Highly rated recruiting classes and generally shitty on field results.  

 

gpsimms not to…

March 4th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^

I'd say the Denard offense was round peg, round hole, while the Tate offense was like 17-gon into a hole defined by its circumscribed circle.  It fits, almost completely even, but there were still some gaps which could only be filled in by IT'S ALL ABOUT DENARD.

Finally, as I mentioned below, 2008 was toothpick into round hole.

Michael

March 4th, 2015 at 9:56 AM ^

The more relevant question is how do you run any attack with a freshman Threet, walk-on Sheridan, and a combined 3 starts on the offensive line. If you're suggesting that we would have been any more successful running a pro style offense (which RR's staff didn't have experience doing anyway), then you are mistaken. 

But hey, there's never a bad time to beat a dead horse seven years after the fact!

MichiganTeacher

March 4th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^

I disagree with the notion that a) RR couldn't have done better with the personnel he had, and b) it's ok to just give up on a season.

Would it have been a great season if he had somehow kept Mallet, utilized the talent on defense, played a system the offense was built  for (to the extent that it was built), and coached with more skill and a greater focus on the present over the future? Probably not. But it probably would have been better than it was.

IMO the idea that RR could not have done better in 2008 is just not true.

BigBlue02

March 4th, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^

The defense was actually good in 2008 and Threet sucked as a pro-style QB as a redshirt junior. I don't think he gave up on the season as much as returning 1 starter on offense and replacing 4 year starters at QB and RB, the 2 most important positions on offense, is going to be a re-building year no matter how you look at it. I actually remember quotes about seniors on the 08 team that would purposefully take plays off because they didn't like the coaches, so it seems that the players gave up on the season more than the coaches. Was it Trent that it was implied gave up? I thought it was a CB. Either way, that offense was going to be awful without Mallett no matter what happened in 08.

Mr Miggle

March 4th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^

Then what? Is he ever supposed to install his own system, the one he was hired to run? If Mallett stays, then it's three years running a system completely foreign to his staff. If he doesn't then maybe it's four years of Threet. A year with ten new starters on offense is an opportunity to teach and install a completely new system. It was always going to involve some setbacks to make such a radical change. Picking a year when the offense was going to struggle regardless seems like as good a time as you're going to get.

If you want to blame someone, maybe you should consider Bill Martin. RR did what he was expected to do on offense when he was hired. If Michigan wanted a coach that would run a system best suited to the existing personnel, they could have hired one. Here was Martin's quote after the hire was announced.

"I am thrilled to have Rich Rodriguez as Michigan's new coach," athletic director Bill Martin wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press on Sunday. "Rich brings an exciting brand of football to Michigan Stadium. We welcome the entire Rodriguez family to Ann Arbor."

At the time, most fans were clamoring for a change in offensive philosophy. Who could forget Carr's last game, when the offensive game plan showed some creativity?

JonnyHintz

March 4th, 2015 at 2:13 PM ^

You plan your offense around the players you currently have. In the meantime, you recruit the players to run YOUR system. That's where the Forcier, Robinson, and Gardner's come in. Once you have your players, you transition to your offense. Mallett transferring was probably inevitable.

But you put Threet back there and you let him drop back and pass the ball. Not sit there and do zone reads all day. You let Brandon Minor pound the rock. Once you get Forcier and DRob, go ahead and implement that style. But not when you don't have the personnel.

It doesn't have to be a 3-4 year process. But when you have a pocket passing QB and a big, bruising tail-back, why exactly would you run spread options and zone reads? That's a blatant misuse of the talent on hand. That's what is going to create a 3-9 team. Granted, it would have been a rebuilding year anyway, but 7-8 wins were a real possibility.

Again, it can be a gradual transition. As you mentioned, the Capital One Bowl in Carr's last game. Add some creativity to the offense. Maintain the pro-style elements, add some spread concepts. RR decided to go full-out spread option, zone read.

Chitown Kev

March 4th, 2015 at 3:14 PM ^

told me that RR wasn't a great coach but a good coach and a bit of a one-tricl pony (granted, it's a very good trick.

 

I believe that RR had run an air-raid type of spread at Clemson and that may have been a better fit for that 2008 team (pluse, Joe Tiller proved that air raid can suceed in the Big 10)

JonnyHintz

March 4th, 2015 at 3:37 PM ^

Exactly. He could have easily used his first season as a transition year. He had the pieces to be semi-successful using any type of pro-spread mix. Run a pro-style with spread concepts. Simple. Instead, he went all out towards his offense. The results are a 3-9 season.

The fact that some people are insinuating that he was correct in how he coached that first season is just mind-boggling. I don't understand how you can justify throwing away a season. This isn't the pro's where throwing away a season gets you a top pick in the draft. Every win is important in college. So why is throwing away a season a good thing?

As I said, any type of transition season should have easily yielded a 7+ win season. The decision to implement full-out spread-option is the reasoning behind a 3 win season. There's no way around it. Hoke's first season is a perfect example. They adapted to DRob. They didn't completely change their plans, but they added read-option concepts to utilize his skill set. The results were an 11 win season.

The Mad Hatter

March 4th, 2015 at 3:51 PM ^

You are absolutely correct.  Although I've been told many times by people on this board that it was unreasonable to expect RR to adjust his offense.  He is a read option coach, that's all he knows, that's all he needs to know, and it would be impossible for him to learn anything else.  Also, he can only be successful with one specific DC.  No one else.

There was no excuse for a 3-9 season with the talent on that team.  8-4, 7-5, hell, even 6-6, but not 3-9.  The cupboards we not that damn bare.

I fully believe that first season sealed his fate.  No matter what he would have accomplished, short of a Big 10 title in year 3, he was always going to be the guy that snapped the bowl streak and gave Michigan its first losing season since the 60's.

Mr Miggle

March 4th, 2015 at 3:59 PM ^

with a different offense is just crazy. 4, maybe. He only won 5 games the next season with Tate and 7 with Denard in 2010.

Sheridan played only because freshman Threet was wildly inaccurate. Sheridan was a walkon because he didn't have a D-1 arm and was no threat to throw downfield. But those guys and 4 new starters on the o-line are winning 7+?

Hoke's first season was so completely different. Rather than 1 returning starter on offense, he had 10. He had a lot more and better options than RR. I'm not defending RR's overall job performance, but this particular criticism always annoys me.

JonnyHintz

March 4th, 2015 at 4:52 PM ^

No no no. Sheridan played, because he was the only QB on the roster who was even remotely mobile. Threet did not have the mobility to run a read-option and at 6'6", didnt fit the Pat White mold RR coveted. But certainly had the arm to be a drop back passer. So yes. A drop back passer with the running backs we had, and the schedule we had, in a pro-style or similar offense, you are looking at 6-7 wins EASY, with more a definite possibility. It was by no means a Rose Bowl team, but they were MUCH better than 3 wins. Unless you mean to tell me we weren't good enough to beat Toledo, Purdue, Northwestern, and Illinois. In which case...well I won't even get into questioning your sanity.

Now let's compare to Hoke. Are you telling me, if Hoke had restricted the number of times DRob scrambled in every game, made him take snaps strictly from under center, and called plays as though Henne was the QB, that we would have went 11-2? No, that was a product of Hoke and his staff playing to the strength of the roster. You are correct, it was a talented and veteran offense. But Hoke and Borges fit their offense around the talent of those players. Had they not, they wouldn't have been an 11 win team. Flat out.

Mr Miggle

March 4th, 2015 at 6:01 PM ^

Take away Long, Hart, Henne, Manningham, Arrington, Boren and Kraus and you're expecting a similar result. 2008 was easily the worst OL Michigan ever had until possibly 2013. Threet wasn't going to have time to sit in the pocket. He started the season at QB. He didn't get benched because he wasn't mobile. They always knew that. He got benched because his passing was terrible. You mention Brandon Minor, but you ignored Carlos Brown and Sam McGuffie, who were well suited to the spread.  The OL were relatively small, also possibly better suited for a spread.

That team was going to be terrible on offense. You're right that it could well have been a little better if RR had run a different offense. But no more than that. We saw how ineffective the 2013 team was with that OL. You'd be sacrificing something at the time you're going to install your new offense. Wait until you have the players for it, but then you're teaching all of your existing players a new system. Expect some growing pains.

It's funny that so many people here decry Hoke's burning of redshirts. Isn't that exactly the same choice? Either use a player who might make your team a little better this season, or save him so a future team will be better. When you lose, you've made the wrong choice, whichever it was.

JonnyHintz

March 4th, 2015 at 7:15 PM ^

That 2007 team, features a schedule where we lost to a breakout Oregon Ducks team and a fluke loss to Appalachian State. So in what essentially boils down to a 9-3 season (as you can't justifiably say we shouldn't have at least beaten Appalachian State), plus the bowl win we went 10-3.

Now replace Appalachian State with Toledo, who went 3-9 that season as well, and Oregon with Utah. Now again I'm not saying that RR would have been 10+ wins. As you mentioned, it was going to be a rebuilding year regardless. But taking into account the wins against Miami, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. You mean to tell me Carr didn't leave enough talent behind to manage a win against:

Illinois: 5-7
Toledo- 3-9
Purdue- 4-8
Northwestern- 9-4

Is that honestly what you're telling me? Michigan had talent. They didn't have a player development issue. Rich Rod just didn't fit his schemes to the ability of the players. You're telling me with that schedule, they couldn't have managed 6-7 wins? Honestly?

Mr Miggle

March 4th, 2015 at 8:37 PM ^

I have no idea why you think that team was so talented. Because they have Michigan on their jerseys? They were seriously lacking at QB and OL, with practically zero experience aside from Schilling. That's extremely hard to overcome.

Do you remember that Utah team went undefeated, beating Alabama. We lost to them by 2 points. Was that really worse than getting thrashed by Oregon the previous season?

They scored 42 points against Purdue and lost. Gave up 45 to Illinois. A different offense doesn't win those games very often  I don't see why we should have expected a win against a 9-4 Northwestern. Toledo's only TD came on a 101 yd. interception return off of Threet. That was a definite low point, but if you're counting fluke losses as victories for Carr, maybe you should count that one too. They also won a game against Wisconsin they had no business winning on paper.

CalifExile

March 4th, 2015 at 3:56 PM ^

"You plan your offense around the players you currently have."

That's what RR did. Unfortunately, with Hart, Henne, Long, Manningham, Arington et al., leaving, he didn't have a lot of good, experienced players returning. Sophomore OL Schilling was great, but it was too much to expect him to carry the team.

JonnyHintz

March 4th, 2015 at 4:55 PM ^

Really? Please explain how having the 6'6", #9 ranked Pocket passing QB run the read-option is fitting to his skill set. I, and anyone else who knows a damn thing about football, would LOVE to hear this one.

No, RR came in and they were deadset on zone read, read-option, spread option offense from the very start. Nice try though.

JonnyHintz

March 4th, 2015 at 2:01 PM ^

RR could have easily adapted his offense to fit the skill sets of his players. Possibly keeping Mallett in the fold in the process. He also kept Fred Jackson on staff, who could easily have put his hand in the offensive philosophy and bring that pro-style element.

Point being, Rich Rod went a little too spread-happy a little too quickly. He should have eased into it. If he had, Michigan wouldn't have suffered a 3-9 season. Hoke did a more gradual transition. With DRob, he had a ton of planned QB runs. Keeping the option as part of the play calling, and led that to an 11-2 season. Now point out to me where anyone on Hoke's staff had prior usage of he spread option offense?

But yes, I think if Michigan had maintained any resemblance of a pro-style offense, they would have fared much better than 3-9 including a loss to Toledo. Wouldn't have likely been an elite season, but wildly more successful than 3-9.