Simplify the Offense a little bit
Seems like the biggest positive about the game yesterday was that maybe, just maybe, RRod realized he needs to simplify the offense a little bit. Could be wrong but his calm demeanor and comments after the game about remembering sometimes that Tate is just a freshman make me think he is planning on narrowing the focus of the offense to cut down on mistakes. Let the young guys go and play instead of having to over think everything.
At least I hope that is the case. I don't want to see our QB's checking the sidelines for changes to a play when they should be focusing on not having a terrible QB/center exchange result in a safety ever again.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:48 PM ^
Interesting point you make. I was thinking about this also...the offensive play calling is a bit 'scizophrenic" (sp) and they lack an identity.
They have the ability and personnel, to be a power running team featuring the TBs, especially when Molk is healthy...so IMO they should go more to that and use Tate's ability on play action.
Scrape the zone read runs which dont often work and get Tate in dangerous situations, use the TEs and slots more on shorter routes and still keep the occassional bubble screen outside game.
But....right now it seems like the play calling is all over the place and not consistent in terms of allowing them to get some rhythm and momentum going.
btw...whatever happened to Mark Moundrous?
October 25th, 2009 at 8:17 PM ^
Hmmm I think he's behind Kevin Grady at FB. And since the offense hasn't used FB's much, and Grady has been healthy, well, I don't think he's going to see the field much.
I do think he's on special teams, still. He's a RS junior so he'll be back for next year.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^
I'll be surprised if the passing game is not opened up more as the years go on.
Tate's abilities in the spread read running game reach a cap vs good to very good defenses. I'd personally like to see the staff take advantage of Tate's accuracy in the passing game. I know it's a lot to ask for now, Tate is only a freshmen. Going forward it's crucial IMO to take advantage of our talent at WR. I know Michigan's strength will be the running game, that's RR's specialty, but to ignore the talent of Stonum, Hemingway, and our other WR's would be ridiculous.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^
Since he designed this offence, I think that he probably knows more about it and how to use it than all of the rest of us put together. Not to mention that he sees the players in practice everyday.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:11 PM ^
but i didnt see these receivers getting open on pass plays, let alone come back to the ball when Tate was scrambling. I dont know what it is (was) but that was very frustrating. I guess i have been used to seeing a Breaston, Manningham, or Edwards that was always a go to guy. I dont see it with this crew so far. Our tight end seems to be the go to guy.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:16 PM ^
were players who were open down the seam but there were several drops especially from the TE position which is disappointing. This is a result of PSU defense liking to run a lot of cover 3. The weakness of this ocverage is the seam route. USC was able to exploit the coverage by throwing the field downfield along the seam, last year in the rose bowl.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:53 PM ^
I wouldnt place blame on the wide recievers, they were open lots of times. Tate just had no protection to look for them
October 25th, 2009 at 8:19 PM ^
From the stands, I saw quite a few of our WRs get open. However, they mostly got open deep, at times when Tate was often running for his life. They may need to do a better job coming back to the ball.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:19 PM ^
In the post-game presser, a clearly deflated RR talked about how he shouldn't expect too much from true freshman. That made me feel like he was saying they were going too fast with the playbook. I expect a more simplified playbook.
If you looked at what's worked recently, the running game has been a lone bright spot. They performed fairly well yesterday and against Iowa. In fact, the last two drives in the Iowa game were almost exclusively the run with a little bit of Odoms. I expect that to be the case going forward because at least with that offense you can beat Illinois and Purdue. Now, Tate is going to have to play better under a more simplified system if he wants to keep his job. Getting Robinson in on run-option with limited short passing should continue because there's potential in the run game.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:41 PM ^
Agree with other posters who said the ground game appeared to be working well early in the game. It is also less prone to mistakes and negative plays. It seemed like after the Denard fumble the coaching staff got away from it (the score probably had something to do with it though). The team operated behind the sticks as a result because they just couldn't execute in the passing game on first or second down. I'd like to see us use the ground game a lot more considering this is such a young team and is bound to make mistakes. It is easy to slow an offense when one penalty, dropped pass, missed block, bad snap, etc. puts them in third and long and the D can just tee off on the QB. I would prefer the play calling resemble what we did on that opening drive (a lot of runs and a few quick passes) with the occasional shot down field for a big play.
That being said, I obviously defer to the wisdom of the coaching staff. I also think that Rodriguez continues to coach for the future (as I think he did last year). These young guys are never going to be able to execute the full offense if they don't ever try to run it in a game and I'd rather take the lumps now if it means a chance at a national title caliber offense in a few years.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:36 PM ^
I'd be happy with a contending Big Ten caliber offense in a few years after watching yesterday's fiasco.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:36 PM ^
The problem with simplifying the offense too much is that you become too predictable. Time and healing for Forcier's AC joint and concussion will improve the offense more than any simplification of the playbook. A little bit of execution and some more defense would be helpful, too.
UM has enough in the tank just the way they are to TCB against Purdue and Ill. That will get them to seven wins. If they do that, they just need one inspired performance resulting in an upset the last two games to get to 8-4, and should have a winnable bowl. If they get to nine games this year, nobody really has any reason to complain.
Even 7-5 with a bowl victory would be a major improvement over last year.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:34 PM ^
I agree with simplifying the offense. I would love to see more bootleg rollout pass with a slot or end dragging across ala Griese to Tuman. (I think this would be a perfect play call for Dennard in particular, but successful with both young QBs)
I would love to see more I-Formation with Angry Power Running Brandon Minor with a full head of steam following Kevin Grady. I also liked the Quick Pitch Play to gain the corner with Carlos Brown.
The sky is not falling. Stay focused. This is the first game, we were not competitive. 4-0 was not expected. 5-3, still surpasses most expectations. We need to stop the wide spread panic, and back biting. Let's win the games we should: Illinois and Purdue, and hopefully be competitive in the remaining two games OSU and Wisconsin, and steal one or both of those games.
GO BLUE
October 25th, 2009 at 9:19 PM ^
I absolutely loved that bootleg play to Tuman. IIRC, anytime we were in trouble that season, they trotted out the bootleg and it worked every time for big yardage.
I also would like to see some I formation with our stud RB's.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:35 PM ^
Like I said, you don't need to simplify. Rich Rod knows what he is doing. There is going to be a learning curve. We are young and inexperienced. It is going to take time. This is the year of turn around and year 3 is the break out year. Tate said it himself, "We have to stop beating ourselves and I have to make better reads."
October 25th, 2009 at 9:07 PM ^
I do agree that we haven't really established our offensive identity, especially in the passing game. Who is our go-to receiver? Odoms? He's the only guy on the team averaging over two catches a game, but even he's only averaging 34 receiving yards a game, and most of his receptions are made pretty close to the line of scrimmage. We've thrown TD passes to nine different players, which is pretty remarkable, but no one has caught more than two. I feel like Tate hasn't really found that guy that he knows will make a big catch when we need it. Mathews might be the best option down the stretch run. We'll see.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:46 PM ^
if by simplifying the offense, you mean getting the receivers to catch the damn ball, i am all for it. dropped passes on 3rd down resulted in at least a half a dozen punts.
i, too, would like to see more running of minor and brown; the obvious strength of the team.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:35 AM ^
Not only have we lacked the ability to pass consistently, but they are all short yardage plays. Once in awhile you have to set up a formation to get stonum or hemingway 1 on 1 on the outside and stretch the field. Teams don't seem too concerned about the deep threat and that really hurts the run game. As the young players gain experience, along with a few explosive recruits, I am excited about the possibilities of this offense!