Rushing comparison Bo and Lloyd teams
A nice article at Rivals by Jonathon Chait that compares/contrasts the rushing attacks of Bo and Lloyd teams.
I think most on this site realize that Carr's teams were featured the passing game. He also noted how Bo was fond of the WVU option attack.
Which era do most people beleive to be old fashioned Michigan football?
It's a free article.
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1203875
March 24th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
I was just about to post this. Thank you for the refresh button. It is a good article for anybody trying to avoid work today (cough) like myself (cough), that's for sure.
March 24th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
Most people that refer to Michigan style of football have no idea what they are talking about. Bo ran several different styles of offense over his 20 years at Michigan. The thing I always found funniest was that RR ran the offense closest to what Bo ran over his 20 years at Michigan. Bo and Rich were more alike in offensive philosophy than Mo and Lloyd.
I disagree with Chait on the common belief that Michigan was always physically superior and out muscled teams. Bo's teams won because of execution. Most of our RB's at Michigan were on the small side. The only part of Michigan that you can say may have been big was the OL. Bo demanded the OL be agile and in shape, but he did have some big boys as well.
Defensively Rich and Bo again were similar in philosophy, unfortunately Bo was much better in the execution. If someone can recall a giant big stud DL for Bo please point him out. Bo's units relied on undersized guys that hit like hell and attacked the ball. The Messners and Hammersteins were the prototype in Bo's defensive schemes.
Whenever someone brings up big bad Michigan I think back to Bo's story of the Sugar Bowl against Bo Jackson. When Bo Jackson saw the size of the defense he laughed we were so tiny. He wasn't laughing afterward when he said it was like I being stung by a swarm of bees. They told a similar story when we played in the Orange Bowl against Oklahoma. The myth that Bo just rolled out 5 star behemoths on teams is false.
The Michgan way is using hard work, discipline and toughness to overcome your opponent. The style of play is irrelevant.
March 24th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
"If someone can recall a giant big stud DL for Bo please point him out."
So true ... for whatever reason Bo didn't appear to value big, disruptive defensive linemen. Kevin Brooks (who didn't do much in the pros) is the only guy that comes to mind. He played in the mid-'80s and was about 6'6" and 270.
It's not that guys like Messner (whose career, IIRC, was cut short by an injury) weren't effective. I just think the defense back then could have been improved by a few guys like, say, Cortez Kennedy.
March 24th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
+1 to you sir!
....from one man who, like you, personally watched everything you described.
March 24th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
That 2000 Orange Bowl was a perfect example of not being able to run the ball against a big time opponent. We got down 14 points twice in that one because of Lloyd's dedication to the run. Once he figured out that David Terrell could not be covered we made two quick comebacks. It was only in the 4th quarter after airing it out did the A-train finally break through into the endzone. I was sometimes frustrated by Lloyd's stubbornness to run immediately, and not go to the pass first to set it up.
March 24th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
The triple overtime game against Sparty in 04 was also a good example. Lloyd just kept having them run, run, run. In the 4th quarter, all the fans were screaming and begging him to pass the damn ball. But we didn't go deep and start the Braylon show until there was 7 minutes left in the game and we were trailing 27-10.
The Orange Bowl against Bama, the running game was non-existent. But Brady kept throwing and the SEC champs couldn't stop him. A-Train would have had a second TD in the 4th quarter but he fumbled it away at the 1 yard line.
March 24th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
Chait wrote (when describing a subset of Michigan fans): "We're going to return to old-fashioned Michigan football."
Along with BIGGER and TOUGHER, that's the sort of thing you hear from Michigan fans that couldn't find a certain orifice with two hands and a mirror.
I liked these parts, too:
"But at least they showed up in big games, right? Not really. I figured that games against Ohio State and in bowls were a useful measure of big game opponents, since Michigan played the Buckeyes and a bowl team every year. The box scores go back to 2001. During that time, Michigan averaged just 92 yards rushing a game against Ohio State and its bowl opponent."
"That's not to say Michigan was bad under Carr. Far from it - the team consistently won at a high level, and it seemed to play its best with its back against the wall. But Michigan was not a great power rushing team under Carr. It was, for the most part, a great passing team, relying on its line of NFL-bound passers and receivers to pull out games."
Somehow that seems to be in conflict with SMASHMOUTH.
In college football if a team is sacked the yardage lost from the sack is counted negatively towards the teams rushing yards. In the pro's, the yardage lost on a sack is counted negatively towards the teams passing yards.
While it's true Carr's teams didn't consistently put up great numbers against OSU and their bowl opponents rushing, it wasn't like they were consistently bad. I looked at the rushing totals if the yards lost to sacks weren't included and this is what I came up with:
OSU
'01 - 136
'02 - 133
'03 - 170
'04 - 82
'05 - 35
'06 - 162
'07 - 41
Bowl Games
'01 - 110
'02 - 108
'03 - 118
'04 - 135
'05 - 152
'06 - 56
'07 - 175
Not great but not bad especially when you consider that with the exception of OSU in '01 and '04 and the bowl opponent in '02 and '05 Michigan was facing a team ranked in or very close to the Top 10.
That's an interesting point, but I'd counter with the idea that the rushing stats for *most* teams would look better if you took sacks away. Notable exceptions may include Georgia Tech, which is very run-oriented. (That is, their numbers wouldn't change much by ignoring sacks.)
Four of 14 games over 150 yards is "not bad"? And four of 14 games under 100 yards is "not bad"? AFTER you add back sacks?
We, sir, need to compare definitions. I'm worried that, in your next post, you'll describe Rosie O'Donnell as "not bad". :-)
March 24th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
When Hoke said he was bringing back "old fashioned Michigan football", I think he was referring to the Defense not so much the offense. Borges will likely employ a West Coast pro-style offense, which Michigan has never been known for before. Though I agree he was also referencing the need to play with toughness and discipline as well.
March 24th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^
Doesn't there have to some analysis of yards per carry to make this a valid comparison? I would think that if Bo ran the ball twice as much as Lloyd, then you would expect his teams to average more rushing yards. That doesn't say anything about effectiveness. After all, a 92 yard effort from a Lloyd team combined with a 280 yard passing game probably would have worked out well most of the time.
March 24th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
Bo's teams always played 60 minutes and executed pretty close to flawlessly. As time went on, I thought Lloyd Carr's teams were not executing as well and sometimes, strangely (like at the Horror) failed to play anywhere near potential. RR just didn't really get long enough for us to fairly judge him, although I will say I loved the heart and effort level of the players he brought in, but the biggest difference was certainly defensive execution - there wasn't any. With Bo, everyone knew what to do on every play. With Gerg, people seemed to be in places where it would be impossible for them to do anything even if they had a clue as to what they were supposed to do. The positioning of Demens on many plays being the most visible example.
March 24th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
had both a dominant rushing attack and an offense that produced two NFL QBs. But that offense didn't really fit with Chait's thesis, so it was conveniently left out.
March 24th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
Moeller was pretty innovative. It was a shame his whole regime got cut short he mixed the run and pass better than any coach we've ever had. I don't have the stats to back it up but he had a similar(but much more successful) run as Rich. The offense was pretty dynamic but the d seemed to cost him some crucial victories.
March 24th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
rum and coke, as well. One bad night sure can mess things up. Damn shame.