What's YOUR ideal offense?
My question comes from one of the letters Brian answered in today's mailbag. Brian said Oregon's or Oklahoma's.
It's a good question for all of us, so what's yours?
For me, I'd say it's either Wisconsin's or the Air-Raid offense Mike Leach ran at Texas Tech. Let me explain:
1. Wisconsin. They play smashmouth, ram-it-down-your-throat, classic Big 10 football, which I always have and always will have a soft spot for. But unlike the stereotypical "3 yards and a cloud of dust" version, Wisconsin scores a lot of points and has a lot of big plays. How do they do it? Well, first of all, the dominate at the LoS with a crew of serious maulers. Unlike the Ron Dayne days, though, they back this up with tailbacks that are as elusive as they are tough. Montee Ball is the perfect example of this: he's 5-11, 210lbs and runs a 4.46 40-yard dash. Then there's Wisconsin's underrated passing game. Tolzein completed more than 70% of his passes in 2010, which means they got the yards almost every time they tried to. This year, with Russell Wilson, they look like they've seriously leveled up in that regard, and can also use the QB as a running threat as well. As good as LSU, Alabama and Oklahoma's defenses are, I don't think anyone can stop Wisconsin when they have the ball.
2. Leach-era Texas Tech. Just look at the numbers mediocre QBs behind mediocre lines put up against legit defenses. This **** works. And, in my humble opinion, it's very elegant. At the LoS, you simply line up more targets than the defense can account for, and use misdirection, fakes and complex blocking to get guys open as quickly as possible. This might not work as well in the Big 10 as in the Big 12, given the generally higher level of defensive play beyond the elite level, but I've liked it since the first time I saw it, and hope Coach Leach finds a good new home soon.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^
I would take last year's offense with a legit RB threat
October 18th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^
Not trying to resurrect an RR argument, but I appreciate this scheme and the additional options it offers
October 18th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
offense is a lot different than RR's offense at Michigan. Part of it is they're used to the system and another is they have a legit RB who is a HR threat. Even though Pat White can't throw worth a lick, WVU offense continues to be dominant in running game because they give defense a lot of stress on worrying about who to defend. They also have an excellent FB in Owen Schmitt who isn't a bad athlete himself. They would use Schmitt at FB dive or White/Slaton out in the perimeter.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^
The pain of losing Dee Hart.... still feelin' it.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^
Rich Rod's version of the spread when he has the personnel he wants. It's why I hope he gets a major job, but one that doesn't involve playing Michigan every year.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^
Houston Cougars - pardee/jenkins era.
that run & shoot, with Ware/Klingler, 1989/1990, when manny hazard had 142 catches in one year, chuck weatherspoon ran for 9.6 a carry, and they lit up everyone.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
The Chad Henne/Braylon Edwards/Jason Avant/Steve Breaston/Mike Hart soulless killing machine, coupled with an offensive coordinator that knew more than "Run off tackle" and "short pass to the TE". The passing spread we deployed for the Gator Bowl, coupled with a punishing power run game.
I dislike the Leach's offense, as it has the potential to stall out against good teams or in very windy conditions.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
Rich Rod's spread. If his offense ever got elite players it would score 50 points a game
October 18th, 2011 at 4:29 PM ^
The one I used with Texas Tech in NCAA Football 2004 that scored triple digits almost every week.
October 18th, 2011 at 9:19 PM ^
Man ideal strategery in NCAA football 2004 is to sub in your fastest player (generally a CB) at QB, run hail mary with 5 receivers, then qb scramble. Works every time.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:29 PM ^
Wisconsin is fine. I can see the attraction
Texas Tech is good as well, but you can't say that it held up against elite defenses. You may be able to beat me with stats here, but I'll go from recall and say that most years when they played in a big game they were dismantled by Oklahoma and Texas. I recall a bowl game against Ole Miss where they were smoked as well. Leach never had elite talent so I'm sure his scheme would work very well with similar talent, but I don't recall them doing much against the Big Boys when really other than Oklahoma they never really played anyone anyway.
Give me Georgia Tech with Denard at QB, Hopkins at A Back, Toussiant at B Back, Smith at C back and Hemmingway as my alley oop guy when you bring 10 in the box and I'll go to war against anyone in the country with Paul Johnson figuring out how to get Denard loose on the edge.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^
The GT offense is definitely interesting, and I love Hemingway, but I'll take Calvin Johnson as the deep threat over anyone (especially since he came from GT).
October 18th, 2011 at 4:40 PM ^
vs. Texas:
2006: L 31-35
2007: L 43-59
2008: W 39-33
vs. Oklahoma:
2006: L 24-34
2007: W 34-27
2008: L 21-65
Of course, the overall record of 2-4 against those teams isn't good, but TTU never had great defenses under Leach so the win/loss isn't just on the offense. Allowing 59 and 65 is pretty terrible for a team with a winning record.
October 19th, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
But ideally, you'd have a guy more like Devin at QB, and maybe have Denard at one of the WB positions. Only because the QB probably takes more hits in that offense than anyone else or even the one we currently run. Man, when that offense is humming though, it's tough to stop.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^
Michigan's offense, but with Devin under center and Denard being used in the slot and at RB.
If nothing else, the fact that Devin can actually see over the lineman should be good for a few completions and deep balls that we don't get with Denard.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^
I want a pro style attack out of the shotgun with the ability to go under center. Power run with vertical passing, basically what Oklahoma runs.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:33 PM ^
O. That's ideal. Maybe Borges will retain some of the Denard stuff for when Devin and Shane Morris QB the team. That very well could be ideal.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:34 PM ^
Rich Rod's offense with Terrelle Pryor. If he was in that offense, he'd DOMINATE.
/s
October 18th, 2011 at 8:44 PM ^
Maybe if you play 9 out of 10 times he would.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^
Huge, nasty line with uncanny speed. Backs who punish poor defensive form. QB/WR combo that may not be OMGWOW!!!! to look at but is an ever present big play threat without making too many mistakes.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^
for the same reason I hate Wisconsin's. I get that it's super effective, but, man, it's just not aesthetically appealing unless Trent Richardson is going ham.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^
Why does it matter if it is "aesthetically pleasing"? They get the job done, and done better than most. Part of me longs for the old Michigan football that beat the crap out of every opponent just because they were bigger and stronger, and executed better. That's part of the mystique that we used to have. It was intimidating that we could force our will on opponents, rather than have to pull off all this fancy stuff so we can get by them.
By no means am I saying we have to run off the left tackle every play. I just want to be bigger and better than everyone else.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:07 PM ^
I think everyone would agree that the first priority is having an offense that is best-suited to winning games in the BIG. But if we're talking about our "ideal," dreamworld offense, then I think it should not only dominate opponents but also rack up the style points.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:14 PM ^
I suppose I'm more of a function over form type of guy.
October 18th, 2011 at 8:46 PM ^
You can incorporate design into the functionality. Call it the "Bauhaus" offense.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^
Oregon's offense entertains me greatly. Wisconsin's entertains me not at all. I'll gladly watch Oregon beat a team by 40, but wouldn't watch Wisconsin do the same.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:46 PM ^
Well, I took the question to mean what sort of offense would you want Michigan to field.
For a random, neutral team I too would much rather watch an Oregon/WVU type offense, but victory for Michigan would be much sweeter if it came in the form of soul-crushing dominance. Spread offenses might be plenty scary, but I've never seen one make an opposing team's fans wish the game ended early.
Edit: My ideal offense would be a ground-spread like RR's last year, only with more triple option and less Denard throwing. I would literally cringe and close my eyes when he threw the ball in big games last year, because I could somehow just sense an interception coming. The rest of the time I was giggling like a little girl at the annihilation.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:03 PM ^
I'd rather Michigan ran a really entertaining offense than a brutally-effective-yet-boring one. I'd probably prefer that even if it meant a win less a season.
October 18th, 2011 at 7:12 PM ^
Really? If they took a knee every damn play and relied on the defense to score points while winning 9 games, I'd be happier than the coolest thing ever winning 8. It's all about results.
October 18th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^
If I were an Iowa fan I'd hate football, even during seasons where they went to the Rose Bowl. Watching Kirk Ferentz run off tackle and punt from the opponent's 30 would rob me of my will to live.
Wouldn't you rather have been a fan of Texas Tech during the Dread Pirate Leach days than Iowa, even if Iowa was winning more games? I feel like at some point how you're doing it has to matter as well.
October 18th, 2011 at 7:46 PM ^
Assuming I was born an Iowa fan? I might not like every off tackle blast, but I sure as hell would be an Iowa fan.
I feel for you, because if Michigan gets really, really good, their offense if going to become really, really boring. When great teams don't have to have much variety in playcalling, they tend not to have much variety.
It really weirds me out when people say they'd prefer a certain style over wins. I just can't imagine preferring a loss because the team might bring in some offensive genius if things didn't go well.
We're never going to agree here. Winning ugly rocks next to losing pretty.
October 18th, 2011 at 7:36 PM ^
You aren't the first person to voice this opinion on here but I don't understand how you and those similar to you have developed that line of thinking. I am obviously of the opposite belief - that is, the only thing matters is the final score being in favor of Michigan. So help me understand if you will: When, to you, did Michigan football become more about style and less about winning, or has it always been that way? What is your earliest Michigan football memory? Do you remember 1997 or are you too young?
Just trying to wrap my arms around what to me seems like a radical way of thinking.
October 18th, 2011 at 8:17 PM ^
I remember 1997 very well.
I get the "living and dying as a fan" thing. I pretty much went to the University of Michigan because of their football team (much to my parents' horror). But that mindset only really makes sense to me if watching the team is enjoyable. Otherwise it's just masochism. I can't imagine being a Penn State fan or an Iowa fan and having to root for my team in a 6-4 game. I mean, can anyone really say "well, we almost lost to Ball State, and it was an excruciating experience, but we ended up winning, so that's all that matters"?
At the end of the day, sports are about entertainment. And yeah, winning a big game is almost always entertaining no matter the score (the Michigan-Wisconsin game with David Terrell was not fun to watch, but we beat a good Wisconsin team so it was fun). But there's something not that enjoyable about watching a team slowly exert physical superiority en route to a convincing but not exciting victory over a mediocre opponent. As someone who prefers great offense to great defense, I'd rather watch a team air raid or spread and shred its way to a less convincing win.
But I'm probably the only Michigan fan in the audience for the 2007 Oregon game who wasn't all that angry at what was happening because, holy shit, Oregon's offense that day was the coolest thing ever, so I'm not sure I can give you any insight into fans as a whole.
October 18th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^
I'm with you AAB. Not on the Oregon part, beacuse that was there and it was awful, but I agree that a big part of the fun is having a team that's fun to watch, which is why I think I enjoyed the last three years just as much as some of the late-Carr years.
October 18th, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^
Is how did you get to the point that you would choose a college for it's football team that you didn't find entertaining until the last 3 years, well after you became a fan. Because for all our lives we've been a lot closer to the teams you hate rather than the one's you love.
October 18th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^
When Oregon came into AA after the horror, I was praying for an early end to that game.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:41 PM ^
Oklahoma's.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:41 PM ^
i pine for UM 2000's offense. pro style with a qb who was a threat to run.
hutchinson, backus, goodwin, m williams, a-train, askew, joppru, henson, terrell and walker
October 18th, 2011 at 4:45 PM ^
One that scores more points than the other team.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^
Oregon, or Gus Malzahn.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
Oklahoma's multiple formation, blur-speed tempo offense. Preferably with a good and well-conditioned defense that can handle a 3 and out that takes 12 seconds off the clock.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:50 PM ^
Their coaches have said they "don't have an offense, [they] just run plays." As I interpret it, that means they just pick and choose things from various offensive systems to fit their personnel and to exploit matchups presented by specific opponents.
It's kind of the opposite of the Lombardi-esque base & constraint approach, whereby you master a particilar way of moving the ball and then develop constraint plays to punish the defense for cheating to stop it. But you can't argue with the results.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^
I would love to see more pistol offense "THIS SEASON" would provide the downhill running Hoke is looking for, and still puts Denard/Devin in the best situation for being able to use their mobility.
Would also like to see more use of the "diamond" formation we saw briefly vs Minnesota due to the multiple threats it presents to a defense.
In the future, I would love to see something like Malzahn has brought to Auburn, I think if an offense can work in the SEC it will work in B1G.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:55 PM ^
The Washington Huskies have some similar personnel to UM and they have been running a bit of pistol this season to good effect. However, I am concerned that the pistol looks silly.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^
God, the possibilites of that formation. Misdirections, double passes, play-action, etc. And you could even switch in Denard and Devin as the quarterbacks. It does not have to be Devin all the time.
I know some of us may complain then that we are taking the ball out of Denard's hands, but I just think the rewards are too good to give up.
I have to stop now before I drool onto my laptop and render it useless.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^
What we would have had this year if the entire fanbase hadn't gone crazy and actually given a shit about the rules.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:05 PM ^
Wait, what?
October 18th, 2011 at 5:41 PM ^
This.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:16 AM ^
if by "the rules" you mean the win-loss record, i agree.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^
I would love to see a smash mouth running game similar to Wisconsin's that ran at you with the speed and tempo of Oregon.