It's about having the players and experience to execute the playbook.
Say what you want about our team this year, we definitely saw improvement on offense.
Give it 1-2 more years and we'll be humming on all cylinders and unstoppable
It's about having the players and experience to execute the playbook.
Say what you want about our team this year, we definitely saw improvement on offense.
Give it 1-2 more years and we'll be humming on all cylinders and unstoppable
Has fake tatas? Huh. That one totally slipped by me.
the media always trying to hit Michigan when they are down. They are all trying to twist everyone's words and use information that is inaccurate. There are a lot of stories out there about Rich's press conference after the OSU game. They are all trying to make Rich look like he is the devil or something. Of course if Michigan would some how win the Big 10 next year then they will all be saying that they were telling everyone to just be patient. I actually agree with everything Rich said in his press conference. I just hope the players and recruits don't read all of this negative press and believe all of it. I know that OSU is scared because they know that if Michigan gives Rich time that their streak of beating Michigan will be gone and reversed. They know that they will not be able to compete with that much speed.
lol.. evidence for the spread -
Big Ten record vs spread offense teams outside of the big ten:
1(Cap one bowl) - 4204348349343573492394
or when Urban Meyer went WTF when Henne gave the read option type hand off to mike hart on the first play!
i.e. us running some spread in Capital one bowl.
There was not one zone read play in that game, FWIW. I don't think any citizen of this planet actually would buy a Henne keeper.
In fact, Lloyd Carr went out of his way during his interview that game to say that Michigan was NOT running a spread offense.
EDIT: for a typo
I pointed you for it, because you make a true statement. But let's not forget that that alone does not a spread make. It wasn't Rich's spread, that's for sure, but truth is we got away from the zone read a lot this year (after strangely forcing it more last year). A lot of the principles were more of a passing spread. Not that far off from the type of spread the Patriots run quite a bit of. But what do they know? ;-)
I know im going to get negged for this but...I have proof the spread works in the Big Ten. Remember (sigh) '06 Ohio State.
I don't think too many people here doubt it's going to work. The question, as we know, can Coach Rod get the defense where it needs to be in the next two years.
I sure hope so, I love what he brings to Michigan. The people who don't embrace change, are the ones who get left behind.
"The people who don't embrace change, are the ones who get left behind. "
I prefer to call these people "mentally challenged," although I appreciate your diplomatic efforts.
Yeah did you see the part where the commentators said that rich rod deserves a lot of credit for those teams who are in the top 10 & runs the spread.oregon & florida to be exact. We have the pioneer of the spread zone option read.rich will take the big10 by storm like he did with the big east.
That was pretty good, but I found more humor in how Bob Davie kept saying "West Virginia is just trying to get to where they were before 2007, so badly" over and over again.
I'm pretty sure that Michigan fans would like to get back to where they were in 2007 (9-4 record) too.
Well, I am one who will quibble with that. I definitely haven't enjoyed Michigan's two losing seasons. However, it's pretty clear to me that Rich Rod is going to EXCEED where Michigan was in 2007. The talent level is quite impressive and is very young, and GERG is a fantastic coordinator. Michigan will be back to 9-4 next year.
although I was getting permanently frustrated with Michigan throughout the Henne-Hart-Manningham years.
that's a good one, raleighwood, LOL.
If you have the right players it will work. With equal talent on the college level the spread is the more potent scheme. It will never be so in NFL because you can't afford the risk to the quarterback.
Ohio State's problem is that Pryor is not a good passer and that will always limit what they can do versus good defenses. He can roll over weaker teams but the better ones will expose him.
The best examples of the spread destroying Big Ten teams come from three games:
'06 OSU vs. Florida
'07 Oregon vs. Michigan
I'm really excited for what we're going to be. I would LOVE to hang a 41-14 on OSU next year.
EDIT: For the record, Florida did put 35 points on us in the Capital One Bowl. Luckily, their secondary sucked.
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". In my opinion we are only a few years away from some of these kids seriously second guessing their decisions to play in a spread offense because of the difficulties some kids have of adjusting at the next level. Over the last couple years multiple NFL people have mentioned the problems they have with "evaluating" and retraining some of these kids. As a rival fan I was giddy when UM went to the spread as I personally thought in some capacities it would level their advantages. As a huge college football fan, a Big 10 fan and a debater of sorts, I was shocked they went that direction.
Whenever I hear NFL scouts mumble that shit in the future I will laugh and think of probable 2009 Rookie of the Year Percy Harvin.
Exception, not the rule.
Yeah , Michael Crabtree really had a tough time adjusting. So has Chris Johnson. And Drew Brees.
Rashard Mendenhall. Wes Welker. Joe Flacco. Matt Forte.
Yeah, all those guys suck.
You caught me. I said none of them worked and you proved me wrong. Solid work.
PS....................Percy Harvin, Crabtree and many of the WR have worked as it is a different adjustment. However, many linemen have gone undrafted and so have the QB's Some of the record setting WR's have struggled too, but lets not worry about them, because obviously we are dealing with definitives as they relate to your agenda. Clearly there are only points for your side.............insert Heavy eye rollhere.
John Navarre, Drew Henson (I know, I know), Scott Driesbach, Todd Collins, Chris Perry, David Terrelle, Anthony Thomas, the mighty Braylon Edwards, and the list goes on and that's just Michigan guys.
Dude, they question was about the transition from college spread to NFL ranks. If you actually looked at data, I'd bet that there's no actual difference.
Shall we look at record setting QB's 1st.................Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't make it so. I'll bet their are 50 articles chronicling the problems. listen this is dumb. Honestly I don't care. My team doesn't run the spread your's does. If you love it so be it. I don't, but don't accuse me of making crap up when you know I'm not.
Why wont you actually address the point? Maybe I haven;t been clear. My point is that scheme doesn't matter. I have provided counter points to the idea that NFL talent developed under the spread can not thrive in the NFL as well as the idea that NFL talent developed under pro-style schemes thrives under in the NFL. All you have is, basically, "disagree all you want, you're wrong because of a private reason I'll keep to myself."
If there are 50 articles, give me 5.
Restating, the scheme doesn't matter and you haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary.
that these kids are being brought in to play and WIN for the University of Michigan. Not to get them ready for the NFL. If they are good enough and have the skill set while playing here, it won't matter what scheme they played in.
This is a Michigan blog and we should be worried about what they can do for Blue.
Why are we even still having this debate? The 'spread is dead' meme is only used by people that are a few crayons short of a tool shed.
dealing with a short tool shed are those short changing ANY system. The option still works, so does the flex bone/veer, wing T, etc, etc...............If you believe in it, can teach it and are passionate about it, it will work. To me a Pro set that incorporates all things is the best. Not to mention play action, down field running games with a top shelf TE are almost impossible to stop when they are executing properly. That and increasing your touches also increases the oppositions touches. Call me old fashion but I want to limit your touches and control the game.
Then why does only, now 1, of the top 10 teams currently run it?
If my team is better than your team and my team will gain more yards per play than your team on average, then I want us both to have more touches, not less.
the weather in W.Virginia isnt drastically better than it is here. Not to mention playing on the road vs. teams like UConn, Rutgers, Pitt and Cincy didnt seem to hamper WVUs offense all that much. Not going to look up the weather almanac but WVU scored.
45, 38 and 45 points in November in Morgantown and Cincy in 05.
45, 42, and 41 in Morgantown and Pittsburgh in 06.
38, 28 and 66 in Morgantown and Cincy in 07
All of the above games in November where gets just as or almost as cold, windy and rainy as it does in the midwest.
Why, because he had better players for his system.
or did he have Pat White. Do people realize that West Va only has like 11 kids in the NFL right now. While teams like UM have 33, OSU has 37, PSU has 29 and Iowa have 25. Furthermore out of those 11 only-TWO are defensive players. They did not ever play that good a D regardless of where the proletariat suggest they ranked. In fact they actually play better D now and frankly have had better recruiting. Say what you want about Stewarts game management, but he recruits better than RR and plays stouter D. I watched them tonite and have several times.
Furthermore of the top 14 scoring Defenses (not always the best indicator for the record) 9 are Pro style O's. If you count Oklahoma who still goes under center quite a bit & Air Force (veer/option) it's 11.
How does that break down if you limit the time frame to when WVU actually started sending players to the NFL? Also, Penn State is a spread Team and has been for at least 3 years now. And how can you leave Florida off this list with a straight face? If you put Florida, West Virginia, and Penn State up against Michigan, Ohio State, and Iowa over a reasonable time frame, say the last four drafts, I bet the numbers are much more even.
As for recruiting, did WVU recruit a better class than Michigan in 2009? How's 2010 looking? There's no data to support your point that Stewart recruits better then Rodriguez. Quite the opposite actually.
Connecting defensive production to offensive scheme is...uh....well....silly (which is code for dumb in my world). At least without putting forth some data suggesting they are correlated which I have yet to see anyone do.
guys are data hounds but seriously this isn't that tough.
Under RR (verify yourself) they routinely recruited in the 30's to 50's. Stewarts best class has been 27th the past two years. RR's best was the class Stewart finished in 2007 (23rd). The rest were in the 30's with many in the 40's or 50's.(52nd in 2005 I believe) UM helps him recruit now. Of course they didn't recruit better than UM, do you understand the point?!
Ironically you unwittingly added PSU to the list (people conveniently call them spread or not spread to further their point) when they have dropped a little recently per NFL talent as has UF. Both had in the upper 30's awhile back. Iowa on the other hand is rising every year seemingly. Even when they were down. That's because they run their practices and whole operation like an NFL team and you hear it talked about every Pro Day.
As for the offense to defense correlation if you don't see it now you wont after I explain it, but in short. The more you limit a teams' touches and control the ball, burn clock the better your defense typically plays. Why do you think Iowa plays the way they do? They are defense 1st, 2nd and 3rd and so is Nick Saban. I'd take either coach over most (not all) but most every spread coach.
And while $aban may be one of the best coached in the game, if you don't mind all that cheating stuff, let's not really be putting Kirk up there. I mean, he was almost fired like a year ago. All that NFL talent he keeps sending, and he was scraping the bottom of the Big Ten. Though it was the police blotter that had him in more trouble, admittedly.
I'm sorry. I'm not an Iowa homer and I know we have our failings. Many of which start with our moronic fans IMO. Yes he was being chastised and we do have serious offensive failings from year to year (game to game really) As for our NFL talent we are no USC or tOSU or even UM, but defensively and TE/O-line we are pretty darn good. Even in 2006/2007 we had several future NFLers. So I'd agree we had some serious coaching deficiencies, though I 'd say they were as much character and effort related as anything. But I must also say, I personally believe KF and staff are better talent evaluators than they are even coaches. You may not know this but we have like 13 plus 2 star kids in the NFL right now. Many of which played as Frosh.
Our failings aside I still believe in the system. I love play action passing and Pro set O!
I'm ok with heated discussions and won't neg you for them like some, as long as you come back with fact and can back it up. As long as someone isn't being profane, or insulting or ridiculous, bring it on!
And I'll think you'll find as long as someone isn't trolling, a reasonable opposing fan is welcome here. And it's not like there's a lot of Iowa hate here, other than normal Big Ten rivalry. I know a lot of people wanted Iowa to win the conference over OSU for sure, and even Penn State. There's been a lot of good history between our two schools. And I'd guess they're falling 7th or lower on most people's conference hate...though big 80's fans may differ...throw in a half dozen OOC obnoxious teams, and that doesn't even rate.
And speaking of which, if we can put up with an Irish fan because he's reasonable, a Hawkeye is no problem. Just be ready to bring it strong!
You're a smug mofo ain't ya? I actually like it. Go ;head with your weak-ass self. But answer the question. All you have is a hypothesis; that’s an unproven concept in case you didn’t learn that in college (making an assumption there). I acknowledge it as a valid concept but until correlation is demonstrated, that’s all it is. You either have not or can not demonstrated such evidence. That was the point of that statement. Capiche? (P.S. That means “do you understand” in Italian).
Now that I have you backtracking on the Stewart v. Rodriguez in direct recruiting competition over the last two season lets talk about advantages. Yes, RichRod has the Michigan brand to help his ability to recruit. Stewart has WVU’s national profile, built by RichRod, as a brand to help his ability to recruit. This can’t be denied. Stewart’s ability to recruit can’t be assessed until his recruits are actually starting for his team. That is not yet the case.
As for the idea that Iowa is becoming an NFL pipeline…okay. Yes Iowa is the most awesome producer of NFL talent in the conference. Nay, the conferences.
I think we can come to some agreement as I said above I get you guys and I do apologize for being a tick disdainful. You are taking some serious liberties here if you think I was back tracking. You just missed what I was saying. I hope you see if nothing else I debate for a living so I'd never enter into an argument that compares the recruiting power of the winningest program in history to West Va that has sucked for most of their existence. I also never said Iowa was a talent producing juggernaut as I wouldn't have offered up their obviously deficient number had that been my intent. I find it interesting that little ole Iowa who recruits classes from 25th to 50th is the 18th best at the time and apparently moving up.
I also can't give RR to much credit as the best classes West Va has signed have come since he left. As far as what Stewart does with them that is coaching and development, not necessarily recruiting, though I'll concede it is obvious Iowa's classes have been way better than their rankings and if that's your bent I concur.
First off, stop insulting my intelligence. You went from saying Stewart is a better recruiter than RichRod to Stewart is better than RichRod when on a level playing field, which is impossible to assertain because Stewart has never had to recruit without having the benefit of the RichRod effect. You want to say his effort has nothing to do with what Stewart has been able to land but this is a stupid premise. Flat out.
If this is what you do for a living, you suck. And not in a “damn this guy is good” sorta way. More like in a “damn, I can’t believe this guy sucks this much” sorta way.
Iowa is irrelevant to Michigan’s aspirations. Sorry bud but, Michigan aspires to more than 2 half championships every 10 years. I respect Kirk Ferentz and what he has been able to do at Iowa, of all places. But, stop using Iowa as a proxy for Michigan. It works in the very short term; it’s terrible in the significant term.
i could easily argue that WVa has had a better program the last 30 years than iowa.
And if you can do that, you might as well go for history. Because Iowa was garbage before Hayden.
Why has Stewart been recruiting well? Maybe because RR turned WVU into a prominent enough program to draw in those recruits.
Actually I forgot to give your Florida's numbers. I usually include, them because people are shocked, but I thought I'd hold them out this time. The number is and this is with a straight face and off of ESPN's NFL players per school page..................31, as I said it was higher a couple eyars back. Being honest, which I know many can't be....again with the heavy eye roll........there are many reason's why this may be and it isn't just because of their Offensive system. But it does show, they aren't necessarily the most physically gifted and that D is still they key.
The highest for the record are tOSU, USC, Georgia, LSU......you know Pro set teams.
So if they're sending far less talent to the NFL, but winning the college games, beyond being better for, you know, the actual college teams, it must mean that they are being better coached, or have a better system, if they're winning and besting those other teams with less talent.
And LSU has morfed in a couple of posts from a spread team to a mixed offense to primarily a pro set team? And if you mean that's what they're doing now...how's that working out for them?
BTW, I'm watching Boise right now who carved up that Sooner defense you wanted to include on your great defense list....as did Florida, and GASP West Virginia.
I almost edited that out as I saw that it had an obvious rebuttal, but it has other outlets and I so love the debate game. As it is however I have to rock out tonite as I am in boo koo trouble from my wife right now. These board suck me right in. I've actually avoided them for sometime. May have to go back to that. C-ya and good convo.
It IS addictive. Kept me on here much longer than I planned. But keeps the mind fresh.
And don't be afraid to hop back in. I'm sure there's dome discussion you'll agree with. And on this board, I've seen people dig out of much deeper negative point holes. Sometimes multiple times. I think I've had posts lose more points than you have total. LOL
There are a lot more of us than there are of you here... ;-)
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....
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.
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.
To answer your first question, yes, I do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Iowa sucks. Good luck in your bowl game.
Your grammar makes your posts unreadable.
runs the spread, just not very well.
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..
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.
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.
"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.
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....
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.
Wait - this guy is a Hawkeye? ROFLMAO.
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.
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.
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.
That was a thread ender. LOL
BTW, how can you be "almost Korean"? :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
PS...........you love that straw man bit eh?!?!
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pretty shocking eh............I'm not sure I even expected that.
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.
You don't have to have scoring go up for it to be more effective. Simply the teams that are scoring the most have to be using it. Because if the average stays the same (or even moreso goes down), and the most points are bring accumulated by those teams, it just means teams running other systems are scoring even LESS points. So, even if lots of spread teams score the top points, or even increase average scoring, it could just mean the remainder offenses are getting stopped at an alarming rate.
The goal is not to score more than has ever been scored before, but score more than everyone else currently. Because you could have more than any year before, but if everyone else is past that point too, it doesn't matter. What matters is who is scoring the most now, and what are they using to do it.
Top scoring teams in college football
(By Jake Trotter)
Published: Nov 18, 2009
Last year, 10 teams — including Big 12 schools OU, Texas Tech, Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma State — averaged more than 40 points a game. This year, only three schools — and only one Big 12 team — are. A look at the top 5 scoring teams the last two seasons:
School, Scoring average
1. Boise State, 43.6
2. Texas, 41.6
3. Houston, 41.1
4. TCU, 39.2
5. Nevada, 39.1
1. Oklahoma, 51.1
2. Tulsa, 47.2
3. Texas Tech, 43.8
4. Florida, 43.6
5. Texas, 42.4
Spread teams, eh? (And yes, I still think you're insane if you think Oklahoma's primary offense is a pro style).
I said they went under center, please find where I said their primary O was a Pro Set?! Honestly I’m already in an epic battle with the other cat over his maniacal inferences so cut me some slack here.
But in any regard, you said they went under center enough to consider them a pro set team (at least in your view.
"Furthermore of the top 14 scoring Defenses (not always the best indicator for the record) 9 are Pro style O's. If you count Oklahoma who still goes under center quite a bit & Air Force (veer/option) it's 11."
I mean, who doesn't go under center at times???
TT, I'm not sure Okie St does.............quite a bit is 15 snaps out of 70, and with their TB's plus Qb issues I'd honestly like to know that answer, myself.
Other wise please stop, your and my convo has been more advanced than this.
I don't think you're shocking anyone by telling us that Iowa has had a pretty good football program for a number of years. Though you can always pick a convenient date to get the numbers to match the point you're trying to make (because if you go back a more natural 10 year, you have a '99 1-10 Iowa season, and a '00 3-9 season...that's why I only consider all time stats...the true test of time :), Iowa has been right up there with modern Wisconsin, and PSU post Big Ten entry as the best team after the Big Two. Then you have that tier of MSU, Illinois, Purdue, and maybe recent NW. Minnesota probably lagging a little, and of course Indiana bringing up the rear.
And in the effort of full disclosure I’m not above being convenient certainly………LOL
In that spirit we are all college football junkies I presume and we can all grab games (OSU’s spread is getting annihilated right now & OU’s is the beneficiary of some solid D leading to optimum field position) that prop up our point. I love football and really truth be told I miss OU and Nebraska wish boning and optioning it up and down the field, with IM Hip, Jarvis Redwine, Jamelle Holloway and Marcus Dupree (one of the greatest TB’s to play the game who indecently caused Switzer to go to the I while he was there because he wasn’t as good in the veer) but I will watch any team play including the WAC & MWC at 12:00 at nite.
I'm NOT a fan of the spread, per se. I think any system can work, if done right. I just think Michigan is excited to be on the cutting edge, rather than two steps behind the trend as usual. Now the hope is Rich can make the NEXT step of change, and isn't just stuck in his ways.
But really, I don't like how the spread is taking over college football. Not because I don't like the system, but because it's becoming too much like the NFL...where everyone runs the same thing. One of the things I loved about college football was that, that one week you could be playing an option team, another a deep passing team, next a dink and dunk spread Purdue type, a power running team, and then a pro style. It was the variety that was one of the things that make it so glorious, and one of the many things that made it more enjoyable than the pros. Now it's becoming much like the copycat league.
And we're not getting The Battle for Oklahoma here, so I'm off for FSU-Florida.
UF is going to rock FSU it seems.
This whole argument is ridiculous. For anyone to say that a teams offensive formation had anything to do with their success is just dumb. Want to know why Oregon is up now? Because Nike turned it into Wonderland over there and they're getting better recruits because of it. West Virginia had the best line in the country, a top five QB, and two track-star runnningbacks in 2007. They also had a damn good defense. Other side of the coin, want to know why Alabama is so good? Because they're full of freak athletes and they move people off the ball. They don't put up points because they don't want to. This whole argument is shattered by bad teams, why are there bad teams if these offenses matter so much? Well, maybe its because the players blow. Why did Greg Robinson's scheme struggle this year? Is winning the Super Bowl easier than playing in the Big Ten? Good luck making that argument. It's because he didn't have very good players.
West Virginia had the best line in the country, a top five QB, and two track-star runnningbacks in 2007.
Interesting that you say this, because neither White nor any of their five OL starters was a blue-chip recruit. Do you honestly think that WVU would have gotten the same production out of that group using a pro-style offense?
Anyway, it's amusing that you dismiss the importance of offensive systems as ridiculous, yet attribute Oregon's success to the brand of shoes they wear. That's rational.
Oh you don't think that new facility Oregon has because of Nike hasn't brought recruits in? You must not encounter a lot of 18 year olds. I don't care what any recruiting service said, if that was just an absolute truth USC would still be undefeated. Really they would have, because that team moved people off of the ball, you can't have a bad team and be effective in a pro style, or spread. Regardless, you can't defend that point, because its based purely on conjecture.
Oregon's recruiting may have picked up a little since the facilities received an upgrade, but they still have never - ever - landed a top 10 recruiting class. (And yes, recruiting services on the whole have been good at indentifying talent.) Take a look at their recent recruiting classes and you'll find a ton of 3-star guys, with the occasional blue-chipper mixed in. They are performing a lot better on the field than one would expect given their recruiting performance. Maybe their staff is incredibly good at finding talent. Or maybe they are using an offensive system that takes full advantage of their available talent.
Anyway, I'm still curious to know what your basis is for claiming that 2007 WVU had "the best line in the country" and a "top-five QB". Neither recruiting rankings nor NFL scouts agreed with these assessments.
Again, you can't prove they wouldn't succeed in a "pro-style" offense. What you can prove is that these are some really good players, I don't know if you saw them just blow USC off the ball all game, but they sure did. Good teams are good because they play good fundamental football, not because of how they line up before a play.
Your position relies on the assumption that the recruiting experts flat-out screwed up evaluating the talent of Oregon and WVU. Given that the recruiting rankings have been shown to be generally very accurate (a 5-star recruit is much, much more likely to become an All-American than a 3-star), that seems unlikely. The more likely explanation is that these schools were/are using systems that maximize their talent. It's telling that the biggest overachievers (relative to recruiting rankings) consistently are using some sort of spread offense.
No my position is based on watching these teams play. Maybe Chip Kelly is better at teaching fundamentals. But I saw Oregon's line go man to man and drive USC off the ball, WVU did the same thing in 2007. Thats not because they had their skill guys spread out, it's because they manned up and beat the guy across from them.
4 things will never change in football and all one needs to do is look at Iowa or UM over the last couple years to see its veracity.
1) Can you dominate the O & D line?
2) Do you have above average QB play (the Big 10’s problem as a whole of late)?
3) Can you hold onto the ball………?
4) Can you play smash mouth sideline-to-sideline D when your O goes in the tank and it always does at some time?
It really is that simple. The system is of a lesser concern, and yes Oregon dominated the lines and USC with their 800 High School All-Americans did not. That is the number one reason how teams that recruit lower ranked kids compete. The spread means little. Good job!
Boston College, Wisco, Iowa et al would disagree. So would last years flavor of the month Mizzou, KU, etc, etc, etc...........
Once again the defense is the key. KU and Mizzou suck.............wait for it…. not because they can't play good O, but their D blows. The system, like Ga Tech’s who many said was outdated are immaterial. Heck I honestly think the Wing T would light up college football, but the spread being the “best” at maximizing talent because it is the flavor of the month is inconclusive at best.
This star argument is amongest my favorites but it has gotten so old and tired and mostly futile that I won’t get to deep here. I’ll say this. There is so much talent out there anymore that is miss-ranked that you could field several teams of exclusively 2 star kids that could compete at the highest level. Yes on a blurry out of focus level there is a correlation but seemingly there are countless examples every year, and over the last several that completely obliterates its’ veracity. Both ways mind you. Right away Iowa 25, Purdue 25, Wisco, 21, Va Tech 24, Oregon, 23 and BC 21 prove that you don’t need to have very high rankings to find lots of talent. It doesn’t also always translate to W’s!
Ironically enuff, I must be prophetic (despite being all over the place…..Eye roll again) as I knew it would come to this hence why I mentioned recruiting earlier.
Once again NFL alumni is the truest gauge for a teams recruiting abilities based on talent. Not W’s but pure talent.
Oregon has been up and down for a decade. If their talent level had taken a major leap due to facilities, they would have leveled off.
And I don't know that USC losing is a good example for "talent wins out". Because even a down USC team is going to have more talent than anybody, and the NFL will agree in April when they take more players from there than Oregon.
Well tOSU who hasn’t recruited like USC for the last 10 years still has more NFLers so I’m not sure that’s exactly true but I like that you agree the NFL draft is the truest testament. Yes I still get that tOSU recruits well, but they were no USC.
PS................I don't get the negative points and I guess I don't care but it is interesting
The better question is you're comparing OSU's recruiting rankings to Oregon? OSU has been at the top of the recruiting rankings for years....before USC, because they were hauling in the talent BEFORE USC's resurgence.
Honestly and here is were I can sometimes be a little sarcastic so I’ll refrain. I don’t like being that way (though sadly it seems natural at times) and I have enjoyed dialoguing with you, but USC has recruited studs for years. So has Texas and all those SEC teams yet it still didn’t keep USC and Texas from being miserable for much of the 80’s and 90’s. I honestly don’t think the causal fan & especially the College football Royalty really understands how fragile and fickle it really all is.
Talent doesn’t automatically equate to W’s anymore, and you can be talented and a good coach and still go 14-10 over a 2-year period. It happens and when it goes away it’s tough to get back. Coming back full circle it is this reason that I thought the spread was a mistake for UM and the same reason I now feel they need to see it thru with RR.
Wait, is it talent or system? You keep going back and forth...
But you're just wrong on the talent levels of USC and Texas during that stretch, and proving my point by it. Forget "Rankings" (though I'm sure they'll show the same parallel, because USC was NOT getting top 3 classes every year back then), and just look at the teams around them, and how they did. Or heck, where Michigan has gotten their recruits.
When USC was down, other Pac Ten teams were up. And not just in the conference, but around the country. You had powerhouse Washington teams, good Oregon teams, and a real rotation of teams from the Pac-10 going to the Rose Bowl (ASU, Stanford, UCLA, WSU). Why? Because they were all raiding Cali for talent that is now locked down by USC. And suddenly, all those programs outside of Oregon are usually pretty bad, and inconsistent at best.
Texas is an even better example, because Texas wasn't even the best team in their state for that period. It was Texas A&M every year that was good (kind of a faux good, but good record at least). Because they were getting talent that is now going to Texas. And now, they suck. Texas is good, so they've locked down the state. Michigan used to have a regular pipeline to Texas recruits, but while it still trickles, it's not as easy as it was when Texas was down. Michigan made hay by going to states where powerhouse teams were down and poaching talent because Michigan isn't that talent rich. Cali when USC was bad, Texas when Texas was down, Louisiana when LSU wasn't anything to speak of, and Penn. when PSU wasn't up to par.
Ohio is the perfect example of that. Most of our best players came from Ohio...till Tressel took over, and has done a much better job of locking down his state. And while there's enough to go around, evidenced by the amount of players Cooper sent to the NFL, the upswing in on field accomplishments down there is related to not losing their best and brightest to other schools. If the Howards and Woodsons of the world (among many, many others) had stayed at home....Cooper might still be the coach down there.
just started recruiting good again so be it, but it isn't logical and you know it. No way Texas in Texas and USC in Cali ever recruited poorly. They just didn't get coached up for whatever reason in my opinion. I have tried for years to find archived recruiting rankings from then, but I’ll assure you both teams were still top 20 recruiters.
You really don't think there's a difference between finishing Top 20 annually in recruiting, and Top 5?
I guess, but again there isn’t a team in the country that rolls more kids into the NFL than tOSU and I’m just spitballin’ here, but I bet they have averaged classes around 12th or so?!??!
Furthermore, Tenn, USC, Miami, FSU et al have helped to prove to me there is a whole lot more going on than signing top 5 classes for success to happen.
Tenn, Miami and FSU haven't had top classes for years. But maybe it comes from our schools perception of what constitutes a top class.
As for OSU, rather than say what's been said-
The term "spread" is so vague it's nearly meaningless. What does our offense have to do with, say, Texas Tech, for instance?
At 4:30pm on 11/28/09, Gary Danielson declared on national television, "the spread is working." Of course it was in the context of Tim Tebow's last Florida home game, so he was understandably overcome with emotion.
Pro-style offense works when you can outsmash the other team. It works because teams like Alabama and old-school Michigan can just load up their team with amazing talent and just out-execute the other team. It works, and no one is really denying that. If you face a team with equal or better talent, though, there's not much you can do.
That said, the spread offense is a smarter offense, IME. It allows a team to do more with less. The execution is more difficult, but the results are better. You don't have to outsmash the other team when you can outsmart them. As it was intended to do, it allows for a team with less talent to win.
Of course, defense is important as well, especially on the BCS level. I would argue that a team with a strong spread offense and a killer defense would probably do really well in CFB. I think there's a team down south that does that...and I think they've won two national championships recently...