For those who tell you the spread won't work in the B10
ESPN just ran a list during the WV-Pitt game:
Offensive Formations of the Top 10 teams-
Spread:
Florida, Texas, TCU, Boise St, Oregon
Pro Style:
Alabama, Pitt
Triple Option:
Georgia Tech
And my favorite-
"Undecided":
Ohio State
if only you could be good and run spread football...
(And while the competition may not be the best, it's not exactly tropical in Boise)
Edit: I just noticed in their usual wisdom ESPN had 9 top 10 teams. The other would be Cinncy, also a spread team.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:10 AM ^
Chad. Baby. Weak. Very, very weak. The lame ol' "Sorry guys, but my wife's got my balls in a vice" move? For real? And then you say, "I might have to avoid these boards because my marriage can't suffer it."?!?
Please, you'll avoid this board 'cause your ego can't handle getting it's ass kicked by multiple adversaries.
Personally, I like you. You want me to talk to your wife for you? Gimme 3 posts....
November 28th, 2009 at 1:10 AM ^
Then why aren't they 9 of the top 14 TEAMS?
And you're really stretching if you're calling Oklahoma a Pro Style team (ooohhhh, Rich runs I formation- pro style offense!), and veer/option is a lot more spread option/wildcat than pro style. Though he has a more able throwing QB, Rich Rod really wants a running offense.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:20 AM ^
Just the last two years LSU, Georgia, USC, etc hovered around the top 10. Do you think I'm stupid. I assume if Bama wins the NC and Iowa, tOSU, and any other Pro team wins and finishes in the top 10 now you are wrong?!?!?!
A team that can go under center is always a more diverse and better O. OU does in fact go under center and run down hill at times. UM has also ran down hill and should more IMO. I did not add OU, with deceit and in fact I have been very open with you guys. Were as you guys have tried silly, slight of hand stuff, that was quite weak really. Some of which you queried without knowing the outcome. I'm a junkie and have been in many of these stupid debates.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:11 AM ^
To answer your first question, yes, I do.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:32 AM ^
WVU was in the Top 10 nationally in either scoring or total defense in 2007, possibly both. Maybe NFL scouts didn't draft them because they were scared and confused by the 3-3-5 scheme, but you are gonna have a hard time arguing that RichRod is incompetent when it comes to corralling a good defense.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:44 AM ^
You don't know wtf you're talking about.
In 2007, WVU ranked 6th nationally in scoring defense and 8th in total defense. In 2009, they are ranked 32nd and 44th.
Also, to address another one of your ridiculous points you made elsewhere in this thread, keep in mind that they put up these defensive numbers while their spread offense was scoring 40 points a game and giving their opponents more touches.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:56 AM ^
you just completely destroyed your earlier argument that college spread players have difficulty adjusting to the NFL. if your premise is correct, you should have have more defensive players making the NFL from spread offense teams. yet, WVA only has 2 defensive players out of their 11. seams proof that the spread offense does NOT hinder one's ability to make the NFL.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:28 AM ^
I don't agree with his conclusions at all, but they guy at least is bringing facts to the argument and not being a dick.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:53 PM ^
and suggest a team excelled, or dominated said system or team. I also can't believe someone suggested on the college level with equal talent the spread is the superior system. I hate the spread and I love it when Iowa plays against it and I hope and pray no one ever brings it to Iowa City. If you tackle well in space, have fast athletic Lbers/Sftys and are disciplined it can be stopped quite effectively. Quite frankly I have watched about 120 football games this year and in my opinion the defenses are starting to catch up quite rapidly. Let me re-say that. The athletic defenses that can tackle are starting to.
The spread hasn't undone tOSU or UM. Poor preparation and bad execution/ball security/inconsistent offense has undone them. Same with Iowa. Look at 2006 and 2007. They still played outstanding D. In fact in 2006 when they played vs one of the most explosive O's in UM history they lost 20-6. Finally the D wore down because we had absolutely horrendous offensive play.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:54 PM ^
But are you arguing against yourself here?
You cite a 2006 Michigan team with ridiculous offensive talent, and Iowa held them to a managable 20 points. This year one of the most average Michigan offenses ever in the Big Ten tore Iowa up, really only stopping itself all day. Your examples are pro spread.
(And yes, other defenses did stop U-M's offense, but there the difference between caused turnovers, and unforced errors, which almost all of the Iowa game ones were).
November 27th, 2009 at 11:14 PM ^
You don't think I was leading right into that. I have read over here for months. Iowa throws a pick 6, gives up 319 yards to a team that averaged 384. Gave up a slow time consuming drive to give up the final TD, and UM didn't have more than maybe 5 plays past 10 yards. One broken pass play by Odoms were he was pinned in and got away for 35. Did you watch Iowa play this year. Their O was still maddeningly inconsistent. Honestly if our D plays like that vs UM next year, color me extremely happy. 20 points and thoroughly controlled UM's explosiveness. Go back and look at the play, by play. You'll be shocked. Iowa gave up very, very few long plays this year and we played plenty of spread teams. I love playing vs the spread. As I went back and watched tape and read play by plays I printed out, Iowa almost seemingly allowed teams to run and flat dominated the passing attacks until it was time to shut them down and they did.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:39 PM ^
384 versus not always the best competition. Would have killed for 319 yards versus a lot of the better teams.
You must not have watched a lot of the Michigan games with all those games you watched, because there was quite a bit of lack of explosiveness as the year went on. As execution went downhill.
The truth is the spread is to create space for athletes, but to make plays, not necessarily break big ones only. An option read system can be designed to run the ball, and often isn't designed for deep passing. It can nickle and dime and slow bleed with the best of them. That's been Michigan's defensive problem for years.
And the days where you can bend but don't break and wait for the other team to screw up are long gone. It'll work versus the lesser teams, but you'll let the better ones tear you apart.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:57 PM ^
I'm just telling you it shortened your advantage vs the Iowa's of the world. Maybe not others, but Iowa for sure. 1st off surely a football guy like you'll will admit teams get better, worse and better again all the time. We caught you at your best and although many of you thought you had that game vs us, you could easily look at it both ways. We started in a hole per usual and then held on. tOSU caught a game, but down UM, they gave up 318 yards and gave up 13 plus plays of 10 plus including 3-20 plus and one of 43. Now vs tOSU you scored 10 and vs us you scored 21 plus the pick 6. But we totally limited the big plays. So stats may be confusing or deceiving but I am very happy with the way our D played and Iowa will be just as good on D next year. As I said today and to several UM fans when RR was hired, you just helped Iowa a great deal. We can handle the spread and I wont have to worry about future 6-3 NFL WR's out jumping us on the edge or in the end zone for TD's. If we can play consistent O (our problem) and RR wont field a Lloyd Car D (which I will concede had gotten slow and soft) we will be fine IMO.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:18 AM ^
Actually, I don't know that we were at our best. The slide had already started the week before versus MSU, and the offense had played better before, without all the maddening turnovers, and a QB that had actually been able to practice in previous weeks. And it really started the slide of the defense. Much caused by Iowa, and which they took complete advantage of. (I mean anytime you can get TWO TE's wide open, you're doing something right).
And while hiring Rich Rod may be very good for Iowa, it was about the offense. It's completely possible an offensive-centric mindset could neglect the defense enough not to make Michigan a concern at all. But that would be a testimonial on the coach, not the system.
Which still doesn't address why do many top team coaches have picked that system as the one to excell in.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
iowa couldn't stop minor, even with UM's mediocre O-line. UM rushed for almost 200. that usually wins games. yes, UM had 319 yards, because the O-line can't pass protect. that will improve. i will concede the point on limiting big plays. that wasn't iowa's D, though. UM had limited big plays all year.
UM also will not give 5 turnovers away like they did this game. that's the sole reason Iowa won. unforced errors; muffed punt; int thown into double coverage, etc. not the stellar play by the D.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:22 PM ^
blame TO's or officiating. It's a losers argument, but a fumble is never an unforced error unless they just drop it and that didn't happen. Further more Iowa hit's so hard, and baits so well, it's tough for me to just give a free pass on a INT being an "unforced" error and I know you get my drift.
I don't consider Iowa's pick 6 unforced per se. And isn't the spread supposed to get people in space and run away from them i/e: big plays. Seriously I went back and counted. UM had 3 or 4 plays past 10 yards and one past 20 (actually 35) again if that is your spread we are set. Go back and look at the points Iowa has given up vs spread teams and you'll be shocked. Going back to the 17 they gave up vs Texas Tech in 2001. They rarely give up 20 plus and very rarely 30. In fact if you take the time to research you'll find they also coincided with horrendous offenses for us. That has been our Achilles heel.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:48 PM ^
I'm sure statistically games where you turn over the ball 5 times have no relational to the outcome of games. To discount the most important stat in football doesn't seem like a firm understanding of the game.
And I question how many times YOU watched the game when you say that "no one just dropped the ball", when in fact Forcier did just that, untouched. Likewise, the final interception thrown to no man's land was hardly "disguised" enough to cause it to be THAT off target. The muffed punt? The safety not self-inflicted mayhem?
Frankly, the only turnover seemingly with some defensive cause was the fumble by Minor. A senior RB should be hanging onto it, but I can credit a good hit when I see it. And there's actually a defender there.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:02 AM ^
I give....................Iowa turned the ball over 6 times vs IU and won by 18. You turned it over twice and won by 3 vs them. We turned it over 4 times vs NW but they still got them and capitalized. In fact we threw 3 pick 6's and fumbled in the end zone this year, but you don't see me making excuses. Who again is lacking a grasp of anything. I've laid it out there for you. Just know I'm glad UM plays the spread.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:36 AM ^
You're really comparing the results of the 2nd best team in the Big Ten vs. Possibly the worst team in the Big Ten to the worst teams in the Big Ten playing each other? (All the while ignoring Indiana's TO's to offset). As well as the results of that 2nd place team playing an upper half team. You're illustrating my point, by showing a good team can overcome those errors vs. a bad team, while not being able to do so against a pretty good team.
In any regard, you seem to be picking the odd example, while ignoring the overall trend. Execeptions can be found to anything, but stats show TO margin as one of the top indicators of who wins or won a game. It'll be interesting to see Iowa's bowl draw, and how they handle it, particularly if they get the BCS game they deserve.
But stop using outliers as your arguments. As someone who knows something about football, I'm sure you'd say that the Iowa-Indy game was one of the strangest turnarounds a game has ever had, and is hardly a common occurance (not coming back and winning after being dominated, but coming back and dominating after being dominated- the former happens all the time, the latter, not so much). Likewise I see the Michigan-Iowa game in the same category. Most games turnovers ARE as much a product of defense as offensive mistakes. But the case where there are that many without hardly any of them being forced is the exception. Which is why it's more annoying than the many other times we've turned the ball over ad nauseum.
But you're welcome to go back and check the film and tell him how I'm wrong by showing mw how Iowa forced all those turnovers.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:40 AM ^
Iowa sucks. Good luck in your bowl game.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:03 AM ^
Your grammar makes your posts unreadable.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:59 PM ^
runs the spread, just not very well.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:04 PM ^
Because they haven't fully committed to it yet.
Actually, versus us, the only offense that worked for them was the spread option principle stuff..
November 28th, 2009 at 12:32 AM ^
you guys are committed to believing that the "spread" is "it". You have to be as you are pot committed. But here is the rub, the only team Texas played with a defensive pulse they got 16 points. UF has played several very good Defensive teams and struggled mightily.
TCU got 14 vs Clemson and who else has they played with a top level D? The spread is fine, it really is. I don't like it but it is fine. It will not revolutionize the Big 10 however anymore than it already has.
LSU, Bama, USC, Iowa etc these teams will not play the spread full time and they will be fine. UM was prototypical QB's, WR's and O-linemen. That's not what they are now and I think it's a mistake. They needed to fix their D, not their O!
I will say though I believe RR is a good coach and should have been retained. Firing him would've set UM back 5 years. I just think it was a poor direction to go from the start. Now you have to hold on. They'll win games. The only error is UM fans are trying to convince themselves the spread will make them NC' Champs 8 times over the next 12 years and I don't see it. You will still struggles scoring vs the OSU's, PSU's and Iowa's. Those teams play good D, and they can play in space. I assure you Iowa isn't intimidated by the spread.
Chad
November 28th, 2009 at 12:35 AM ^
Chad,
I agree with you. I also prefer a pro style offense with NFL QB's and WR's. In addition, I don't necessarily believe in schematic advantages. Any system can work. Florida runs the spread and may be winning their third NC in four years. Alabama and Ga Tech are both highly ranked with a pro style offense and a triple option offense, respectively.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:01 AM ^
"Florida runs the spread and may be winning their third NC in four years."
And, from whom did Meyer learn that offense?
I'm shocked how everyone discounts how we led the conference in offense with a TRUE FRESHMAN quarterback. Reality check, please. If our defense allowed only 20 points per game we would likely be playing in a BCS game with a TRUE FRESHMAN quarterback. Anyone who thinks this offense doesn't belong in the Big Ten must be on acid.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:59 AM ^
You keep using one individual game as a counter example, and not trends, or ongoing programs.
You want trends, tied to individual game results? Who has won the National Championships over the last number of years? Florida, LSU, Texas. Spread teams (LSU a mix, admittedly). And how have the vaunted defenses you mention done against them? OSU has been shredded, 3 times. USC still can't find a way to adjust to it, and no one plays better D than them. And often they've been playing against spread teams. Oklahoma. OSU with Troy Smith. And actually those losers have put up a decent amount of points against pretty good D's on the winners. They were blowouts in some cases, but not 28-0. More 45-24.
This year none of those teams offenses are at their best over the years. And you can find just as many examples of Alabama or Iowa or USC's offense laying an egg (who have they scored against but...).
And yes, there are those who think just an offense change will suddenly mean bi-annual National Championships, but I think the last two seasons have moved that contingent to the fringe.
But let's likewise not turn a one year Iowa resurgence into "the Ohio States, The Penn States, the Iowas" either. (Penn State for that matter too). It's been Ohio State's League, and we're just all trying to get a nut. But a two year run and a one year run after being a lot closer to last than first for a number of years does not a big boy make. Frankly, you question who did those offenses play well against, but who has Iowa beat? A horrid OOC, a Penn State team that's been best up by the only good teams they play, and...? The Big Ten blows....
November 28th, 2009 at 1:00 AM ^
Chad, baby, you're throwing out strawman arguments left and right here. No one is saying the the spread is going to have Michigan winning 8 of 12 Natty C's, I'll settle for more than 1/2 NC over 40 years. Is that greedy of me? Do tell.
How did Michigan's prototypes do against equal competition (OSU and Bowl Games) over, say, 2001-2007? RichRod wasn't brought here b/c his scheme is any real advantage; you're right about that. He's here because he's demonstrated that he can establish an elite-ly competitive culture at a major FBS prgram. And, oh yeah, he know's what the ef he's doing scheme-wise. Michigan was getting pantsed by its true competition since Tessel got to the Big 10. Hangin' out, with it's wangin' out. The scheme changes came along with the coach, once the other candidates that were preferred either rejected Michigan or were not offered the job (or whatever the eff actually happened).
As for struggling to score, we shall see. You realize that Michigan turned the ball over twice in scoring position against OSU, right? Two INTs by a true freshman QB. If you want to take that as steady state, then knock yourself out. I think it probably has more to do with being tainted by watching Ricky Stanzi play all the time.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:22 AM ^
Wait - this guy is a Hawkeye? ROFLMAO.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:31 AM ^
iowa is not a real program. please stop using iowa and michigan in the same sentence as it is starting to make my ears bleed. your arguments make no sense and are scattered across time and space without any rhyme or reason. do some research, maybe play-out a mock trial or something in your head. whatever you decide, please leave the mgocommunity out of this, we have suffered enough. my regards to your wife.
thanks,
david
November 28th, 2009 at 12:25 AM ^
IMO spread offenses can be successful in the Big 10. Any offense (pro style, triple option, etc.) can be successful. It comes down to talent and execution. UM is catching up on the talent side of things. The next step disciplined execution of the system. They showed flashes this year and I expect them to continue to improve and become more consistent.
Let's just hope the defense improves drastically next year. Michigan won't be competitive until it fields a serviceable defense.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:12 AM ^
What the hell is going on here. OK so I guess Iowa will always have an amazing defense that can stop any spread offense? Iowa lost to Northwestern and Illinois LAST SEASON.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:17 AM ^
That was a thread ender. LOL
BTW, how can you be "almost Korean"? :-)
November 28th, 2009 at 10:24 AM ^
NW scored 22 and Illinois scored 27, hardly record numbers and Iowa turned it over 5 times vs NW and 3 more vs Illinois. Now I hate excuses. Iowa turns the ball over unfortunately and I get that. Others in this very thread though have used it to excuse UM. I use it to show once again that in the last several years an astute football fan will look to Iowa and see our Offense has been heinous at times and a spread wont make us turn the ball over less that’s for sure.
Finally this isn’t about Iowa. I’m not comparing our universities. I am only using a “median” that I know the most about as an example. UM is a storied great university that has chosen to go to the spread. I think it was anti-Michigan, and some of your more affluent football minds would agree. Please don’t treat me like an Iowa homer. I’m not saying we are better that would be disrespectful to come on here and do, not to mention idiotic.
Chad.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:04 PM ^
You can't use "but they're doing it!" as an excuse to use turnovers as an excuse. You stated that they are all caused, so you're contradicting yourself, or being a hypocrite. Saying that turnovers matter is at least sticking with a consistent theory and not suddenly saying, oh, but not in those games...
You've also stated that the spread hampers defenses, and if defenses cause turnovers, and Iowa turned it over a lot in games against spread teams, then spread team defenses must be good enough to win those games.
So, if 27 and 22 isn't a lot of points (though when Michigan scored it against Iowa, the turnovers weren't any cause for more points being scored, according to you), and you still lost, there's two conclusions. One, your pro style offense isn't scoring enough points to get more than that meager amount, or two, your defense that is so good against the spread needs to be a lot better and hold them to even lower amounts.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:12 AM ^
I really enjoy these boards and yours has been a great read. But as should be obvious I signed up last nite and began to post in Epic fashion. Clearly I’m a crack addict and need to stay away. With that said, I’m not 100% sure what evidence or counter points you showed. You did make some true comments for sure, but not anymore “clear” proof than what I have said. Some kids work in the NFL, some don’t. I feel confident a well-read, articulate guy like you has seen the same articles chrociling some GMs/scouts feelings on "some" spread guys, so to go further would belittle us both.
Lastly you have succinctly said what I must have not said well enuff. The spread will indeed work as many “schemes” systems will. It can work at UM but it will NOT set the Big 10 on its ear at so it seems we agree after all. Execution, effort, focus and defense, defense, defense is what wins football games. I believe limiting touches is paramount to playing good defense especially if your O is a turn over machine like yours and ours was this year.
Chad
November 28th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
And then I have to take a break already. I’m to obsessive…….
Insulting your intelligence?!?! Here is a theory of mine. Pete Carroll in Iowa City would not continue to sign top 10 classes and KF in Tinsel town would sign higher classes though admittedly not as good as Pete, so please who is insulting who. My point remains and I was clearly not comapring them now.
Honestly the guy with defensive/NFL points I don’t get at all sorry. As for West Va’s great D in 2007 I’d hoped someone would go there. That was their best D in 7 years and they gave up 235 points (against admittedly solid competition). The next year they gave up 221. This year they have given up 216 vs the best Big East in years. Why do fans do that? Grab a “ranking” and pretend like it proves their point. It doesn’t.
Back to the Defense and recruiting thing. West Va wasn’t bringing in top shelf D talent like UM needs, will he now? If RR gets credit for West Va’s recruiting now, Stewart gets some of his past credit as well, as does the Michigan name for RR now. See it’s a circular argument and one people use to help prop up their guy.
Here is the rub,I didn’t mean to compare Iowa to UM. Michigan is “the” university. My thoughts were this. The rest of the world is catching up to the UM’s, USC’s etc! But the Boise St’s didn’t get REALLY good until they played real D, nor did TCU, nor Utah etc. The spread is nice, but it still takes world class D. Iowa wins because of their D, and pretty much just that.
Now to be fair, I will concede Iowa failed of late because of terribly bad O. So it’s not just cut and dried. In fact many of you likely don’t know this, but Iowa is the 3rd winningest team in the Big 10 since 2001 (1 game behind UM) and the 4th winningest since 1981. But had it not been, for 4 things you’d likely be lamenting us as much as tOSU over the last 8 years.
1)…Horrendous, injury riddled, Epically bad QB play from 2006 to 2007.
2)…Terrible entitlement/attitude, thug behavior that started in 2005 in my opinion.
3)…Some serious complacency from the top down in 2006 that took a year to dig out of.
4)……Suspensions, transfers, coupled with injuries and the inexperience that resulted. You guys know about that.
The point being it is all so fragile and the right fit is paramount. In my opinion a strong D is the number one catalyst to winning & controlling games and I hope Iowa never goes spread.
Lastly do you think I don’t know UM, Iowa State, tOSU a few others, didn’t run on Iowa. In fact I’d guess astute football fans would see Iowa’s D was a little different from past years, but really better and more dominant than ever. Tressel was terrified to let Pyror throw down field vs us and he should have been. Iowa was weaker inside this year than they have been in years. They were also more explosive to the edge and off the edge. And although I don’t agree UM didn’t have big plays this year as they did. They certainly were worse vs Iowa. Iowa also ridiculously limited Big plays this year vs everyone.
In closing I have enjoyed chatting you guys up, but it is all about your D. If RR can make it happen there you are set. It won’t be the spread that does it but rather the D. My belabored point is I can’t believe they didn’t go that direction, same goes with ND. Go with a strong defensive mind and all else will work out. Again just my opinion.
Chad
PS………once again I’m not saying Iowa is better than or passing UM. That would be silly and truly I don’t even care. My goal is to win 10 plus games and let things fall were they might. I don’t even care if we go to a BCS game and really would prefer we don’t jump Boise. I’d like to play the SEC as we play them very well. I just love college football, and the Big 10.
PPS……………I happen to be quite well paid as a negotiator/closer so although you are free to your opinion it is biased, and fortunately my wife and 4 home schooled children would offer a more educated opinion.
That last bit was just to be ornery by the way. Here is to hoping UM can regain their rightful spot and Iowa can hold on!
November 28th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
Chad, you're all over the place. The basis of this thread is the spread offense's ability to succeed in the Big Ten. You've relented on that point. Now you're saying that Michigan needs to play better Defense which isn't a point anyone on this thread has disputed in the slightest. Another straw-man argument from the master debater.
As for RichRod's ability recruit defense we'll have to see that play out. In his first complete class he landed a stud (Will Campbell) who should continue to develop and has shown flashes of his ability late in the year. Craig Roh is a flat out stud. We haven't even seen Justin Turner, Vlad Emilien, and Anthony LaLota play. Then there's this year's class which though incomplete has some nice talent in it. All with a really bad W-L record over two years. All of those guys should be significant contributers this coming season, so we'll see if that talent is insufficient.
What is Bill Stewart's track record as a head coach? He's only been head coach once, at VMI from 1994 to 1996 and went 8 - 25. Please, let's let Stewart actually accomplish something by his own merit before suggesting he can hold a candle to Rich Rodriguez. Not saying he can't, just saying there's not a whole lot to say that he can.
My opinion of your rhetorical ability is based on the arguments and tactics you've presented in this space. I stand by my assessment.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:01 PM ^
Howdy dropped back in just in time it seems. 1st off your assessment is clearly flawed right from the start. Right off the bat in my 1st post, I clearly said not only can the spread work it most assuredly has in the Big 10 in particular. Therefore right from the begining we can conclude your logic may indeed be flawed if not your reading skills at least. I also said it isn’t new like many on here like to think. You know suddenly UM has reinvented the wheel right here in the Big 10.
I also followed the conversation as you took it, so if it was all over the place grab your mirror. I only refuted your ancillary comments about West Va, Stewart etc. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt as you do RR.
Ultimately unless you can go back and review where I started and see you are mistaken about what I said it would be fruitless to continue. Really the man below is dead on. It most assuredly comes down to talent and ability to execute and run what your sytem is. My feelings, and they were rooted in sound logic, is that ball control O’s lends itself to better D and this isn’t a new thought postulated by me. In fact though I fancy myself a sharp chap I have certainly not presented a new idea here in the last 24 hours. All mute as you have accused me of something I in fact did not do. Resorting to suggesting I conceded when in fact I have not. I still think it is the wrong offense for UM, I never said it wouldn’t work.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:12 PM ^
Dude, I think you might actually be insane. I’m not mistaken about what you said, you are. Look at this direct quote from the post you made November 28th, 2009 at 12:32 AM currently numbered #73 in this thread:
You will still struggles scoring vs the OSU's, PSU's and Iowa's. Those teams play good D, and they can play in space. I assure you Iowa isn't intimidated by the spread.So, in short, when the spread comes up against a good Big Ten defense it loses. Hence the spread can’t work in the Big Ten. If you’re going to back track, again, its cool. I see it’s your m.o. So yes, I accuse you of maintaining the position that the spread wont work in the Big Ten, because you argued that position until it was clear to you that you were wrong. Everytime you brought in a new point, I addressed it as best I could. As a rebuttal you brought in another weak and tangential point (i.e. a straw-man). You’ve done it again in the reply above. As for the idea of ball control offense, I’m familiar with the strategy. I have not said a word to argue against its validity. ANOTHER straw-man. But let me smoke that one two. Allow myself to quote yourself lest I be guilty of misstating your position.
My feelings, and they were rooted in sound logic, is that ball control O’s lends itself to better D and this isn’t a new thought postulated by me.Yes if the offense keeps the ball away from the opponent, then the defense will give up fewer points and yards. That is not the same as playing good defense; actually that’s not playing defense at all, by definition. And once again, saying that a lot of people subscribe to that idea does not constitute proof. Ball control strategy works as long as you’re better than the other team in talent and/or execution. If you commit a mistake --penalties, turnovers, missed field goals and so on, you find yourself in a pickle. When you have better talent than the opposition and you minimize the errors mentioned above, an up-tempo offensive strategy gives you more opportunities to leverage your advantage and therefore increase your chances to score and therefore reduces the impact of turnovers. Of course there’s a limit to this idea (5 turnovers can not be glossed over).
November 28th, 2009 at 7:08 PM ^
you are reaching a conclusion that is all your own. Holy snikes the idea that seems to escape you is this…………. Michigan playing the spread will NOT give them a “new” advantage vs good D’s. I said they wouldn’t have anymore of an advantage in the spread against a good D than they would otherwise. Man alive………………Are you aware what you are saying?
I could pull up countless examples of spread teams making a good D look bad, just as easily as I could the opposite. The two are mutually exclusive. With prodding from Mwolverine I just stumbled on to the realization that the spread has NOT increased scoring over the last several years. So it isn’t a huge leap (you know about that right) to assume the spread has not taken advantage of sound D anymore than any other brand of O. My premise today, yesterday, and tomorrow is just that. The spread isn’t better and just as likely to be stymied by good D as any other Offense. It isn’t that complicated. You want me to be saying something other than what I am.
Chad
November 28th, 2009 at 6:55 PM ^
Here you go friend…………..I don’t know how to do what you did with the box thing so I’ll cut and paste my very 1st quote. Again this is my 1st quote using sign language here so you can see what I am saying………………….
“””””””””1st off the spread, as has many different offenses, has already worked in the Big 10. NW, PU, Illinois and PSU/tOSU have used it to varying degrees for many, many years. I honestly don't get the infatuation people have with the spread or the belief that it is "new".””””””””””””
Now please cut that up if you will!
November 28th, 2009 at 7:13 PM ^
Sweet. So you're denying a direct quote by yourself. Not only that you supply a quote, presumably from yourself, that shows you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. And that you’ve backtracked.
Please find an instance where I've said that the spread will be an advantage for Michigan. I've said the exact opposite. See my post from last night November 28th, 2009 at 1:25 AM. In it I said “scheme doesn’t matter”. That's the whole point of this thread. Look at the very first comment for Pete's sake.
In the post you responded to above, I specifically talked about up-tempo strategy as contrasted by ball control strategy. Tempo has nothing to do with scheme. You're trying to equate up-tempo and spread, which is not the case. If Michigan would've run a two-minute pro-style offense more often in the last half of the Lloyd Carr days things maybe we would have beaten Ohio State a few more times or won a few more bowl games. So to summarize, I said up-tempo is better than slow tempo given that you execute well and have a talent advantage, and I stand by that. I said nothing about spread vs. any other scheme.
Your straw-man move has gotten tiresome. At least acknowledge that you changed your mind or that you misstated your position at a minimum. Then I would at least respect you a little more.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:45 PM ^
Go find the quote I don’t know how to do it, but it was absolutely the very 1st thing I said. So filtered thru, (again the 1st thing I said), it helps to put the following in context. You are so desperate to make up or infer something different than what was said you are making yourself look silly.
The box you quoted did indeed say what you posted, but that doesn’t say UM will struggle because of the spread. It says you will “still” struggle vs good defensive teams regardless. Point being spread UM isn’t any more likely to dominate good defenses than non-spread UM. Holy crap I can’t believe how far you have reached for this slice of peyote. And here in lies the rub………….you need that not to be true. I don’t have vested interest other than my opinions. You do. You are so desperately trying to say I said the spread will not work, when Purdue made it work 15 years ago.
Seriously I don’t need your respect; and I have not changed my premise. You wont admit it even though I have backed it up, and frankly though I am indeed compulsive I’m not gong to live my life vicariously thru the thoughts of message board eyes. I’d just as soon us get along, but your respect, come on.
Chad
PS...........you love that straw man bit eh?!?!
November 28th, 2009 at 7:59 PM ^
And now we have the trifecta of behaviors of someone losing a debate: backtracking, extensive use of the straw-man ploy, and now name calling. The name calling is the worst of all as at least the others are based in rhetoric.
You still haven't addressed these points:
-When did I say Michigan will have an advantage by running the spread?
-What does ball control offense have to do with forcing the opponent to punt (i.e. playing good defense)?
November 28th, 2009 at 6:53 PM ^
Also if you could please help me understand your theory on over matching talent?!?! Iowa has indeed stock piled some terrific 2-deep defensive talent but they don’t over match anyone on offense. Maybe on O-line I suppose, but Iowa’s QB play and WR play has been spotty at best. (Wr’s have been a little better this year) and that wont improve in a spread that takes more timing and more of everything. It is such a tired old theory that the spread proponents continually perpetuate.
Furthermore from game to game a team imposes their will or doesn’t. The spread isn’t over matching anything. Go look at the amount of scoring over the last several years. It is the same as it has been over the last several years.
That doesn’t even address teams executing better game to game or series to series, not with standing the presence of good or bad Defense.
It also doesn’t address the question of what makes a team talented? One that executes and if it is, what makes them talented one week and not the next.
Or how about this conundrum. OU waxes Okie St, who beats TT who waxes OU. Who was more talented and who executed better?!?! Obviously the team that won I guess, and it may have been the better of two “bads” in some cases. Honestly you succinctly pointed out it all comes down to execution and your system is immaterial though I sense you don’t want that to be true, though I swear you said that yourself earlier.
I have to tell you, when I stumbled across the reality that scoring is not “up” over the last several years that pretty effectively ends the thought process that the spread has changed much, no matter how you slice it.
Chad
November 28th, 2009 at 7:29 PM ^
Iowa's strategic choices are immaterial here. But I'll reconcile it for you anyway. Iowa runs a ball control offense because they execute very well (when Stanzi's not throwing to the other team or behind receivers, and so on) and because their advantage is good defense. By playing good and dependable defense and limiting the opportunities the opponent has to score, Ferentz hopes to edge people out.
An offense that has a talent advantage (or parity at least) and executes well, should want as many opportunities to score as possible so that the negative effects from turnovers, penalties, and other errors are minimized.
Having a good defense has nothing to do with having a good offense. Playing good defense is about having good players who have a good understanding of what they're being asked to do. There might be a fatigue factor but, that's has to do with poor offensive execution more-so than time of possession. If Iowa, or Michigan State, or whoever goes 3-and-out a bunch of times in a row, then their defense is likely to show effects of fatigue too.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^
For a guy who doesn't like excuses, you like to number and bullet them.
The point truly being that no one has said if you have the spread you don't have to play D. So there's no reason for you to not to want to run the spread at Iowa, because it should have no relation to the D they should play. You've tried to make cases that they were somehow related, but not really explained why that doesn't make top teams.
Mainly because in this day and age, the rules have shifted to the offense, and while you still need great D to slow down teams to a manageable level, you need to score points too. Because the other side has. National Championship games are not being won 10-3 anymore. 45-28 maybe. And your own prior example shows that. If you're playing great Iowa D, and holding people to 28 and 20, and still losing those games...you obviously need to score more points. In the 30's is a lot of points. It used to be a HELL of a lot of points. But the amount of times you're going to hold someone to 10 is pretty rare now, so you better have a D that can hold someone to 28, and and O that can score 40.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^
That hurts a little as I am giving you reasons, not saying if we had done this or that we’d have done better. It’s apart of the game and I’ve been clear on that and you know it. Playing devils advocate you might say without those struggles Iowa doesn’t get their collective heads out of their arse and get it together so I most assuredly am NOT excusing anything. I believe one is followed by 2 and so and so on………usually things are indeed tied together like ball control and D.
Also M, I do not agree with your premise on O but I do think 90% of the college football landscape that doesn’t follow closely would agree with you.
I have some stats for you, that aren’t necessarily indicative of much other than scoring is NOT going up as I think most would assume. A quick cursory look at the total offenses stats on Yahoo shows so far this year 39 teams have averaged 30 plus per game. In 2008 there were 37, in 2007 there were 49, in 2006 there were 39 and jumping clear back to 2003 there was also 39. The spread has not revolutionized College football scoring. Although the media has perpetuated that, and us fans have sucked in, it isn’t true. Scoring is NOT up and that is a stat that is hard to twist.
Chad
Pretty shocking eh............I'm not sure I even expected that.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:29 PM ^
to my other thought. It seems the spread has not impacted the scoring much after all.
Incidentally you guys have challenged me and I thank you for that. Why I never went this direction before I have no clue. Here is some more good stuff………..
In 2003, 25 teams held others to under 20 ,points a game. UM was 7th and Iowa was 10th.
In 2007 there 20 with Iowa at 16th and UM at 23rd
In 2008, 24 teams did the same and Iowa was 8th and UM was below 50th.
In 2009 there were 23 teams and Iowa was 11th with UM again down the field.
Here is something intriguing……………..in 2006 there were 42 teams who held the opposition below 20 points while there were 39 who scored at above a 30 pt clip. Wow what a dichotomy.