What would you like to see change on offense?

Submitted by Eye of the Tiger on

In 2010, our offense was our strength, but let's face it, it was a bit wobbly and inconsistent.  Everyone knows about the turnovers, but I also felt we had increasing trouble running the ball and getting yards on 3rd down. Oh, and that "failing to score after driving" thing.  

A lot of people have speculated (rationally) that we'll see a drop-off in productivity (in terms of yards) as we transition from spread-and-shred to "west coast spreadish" or whatever, and Brian has demonstrated the concerns many of us have about, regardless of rhetoric, Borges bringing more "square pegs into round holes" solutions.

On the other hand, maybe there are things we can do a lot better once we incorporate some more formations, short passing routes and so on.  I, for one, think a hybrid offense is both plausible and, in some ways, desirable.  

I'd like to see:

*More time-killing drives, so we can keep our young defense rested and tire out some of the big, lumbering front 7s we'll face 

*More dump-off pass options when receivers are covered downfield, thus cutting down on interceptions

*More screens without the word "bubble" in them, to take advantage of when our opponents blitz us

*More crossing routes to our stable of fast slot receivers, complete with downfield blocking for more YAC

Now, I'm not saying we move all the way to West Coast in year 1.  This would be a huge mistake.  But if Borges is smart, he'll expand our offense's repertoire rather than try to transform it overnight.  Personally, I think these additions--alongside the spread-and-shred stuff that worked for us this year--would help cut down on turnovers and give us more options for controlling a given game.  

What changes do you think would be both advantageous and reasonable to expect?

The Baughz

January 23rd, 2011 at 12:39 AM ^

Agreed. I like V Smith, but I cant understand why he got a lot of carried on 3rd and short situations. I enjoyed the spread, but I felt like last yr RR should have implemented some more I form on 3rd and short situations with a guy like Hopkins. I just want a RB to emerge and become a go to guy to take some pressure of Denard. There is going to be a major battle for that starting RB job.

gobluerebirth

January 23rd, 2011 at 2:04 AM ^

IMO the spread is fun when it's rolling, but when it's dead and you don't have that flow that spread offenses need it fizzles out. I supported RR fully but I do prefer the pro style. I hate being really worried in short yardage situations. Like when it's first and goal from the 1, and I'm thinking we have a 50/50 shot of getting in(in 4 plays, Illinois will do that to you). I get tired of seeing all of our plays from the shotgun too. I also prefer the pro-style in the video game.There's my life story.

mgoSk

January 23rd, 2011 at 12:26 AM ^

Many have talked about the PA boot with Denard, and I, for one, would be all for that. What I'm envisioning (2TE 2WR single back set, left hash) is run action weakside, strongside TE block then release into the flat, weakside WR runs a shallow slant right, strongside WR fly route, and the RB, depending on the situation, could have a wheel route or flare to the weak side against the flow of the rest of the pass patterns. If the run game can get going, this kind of play could be deadly.

JD_UofM_90

January 23rd, 2011 at 8:26 AM ^

(in B10 play) to be more like Stanford in their bowl game this year (mini huddle, 350 plays, multiple formations, motion, shifts, etc) then not huddle like we did last year and run about 25 different plays. 

The first time I see the new offense, shift a formation and/or put someone in motion before the snap, I may tear up a little, out of utter joy....

UMAFA08

January 23rd, 2011 at 12:30 AM ^

A feature back or two to take attention away from Denard (Toussaint, Shaw, Hopkins, V. Smith, anyone). That being said, I don't want to see Borges let Narddog's 4.3 go to waste. Chances are, of course, Denard won't have the same rushing stats this year, but I would hope Al has a plan to use his feet too (roll-outs, designed snap-runs, QB draws, etc). Even as efficient as Denard was this year passing the ball (top 20 passer rating), we'll probably see a little bit more maturing in his throwing game (get the picks down in the single digits this coming year).

bgreen98

January 23rd, 2011 at 12:38 AM ^

I don't agree with the wobbly and inconsistent statement.  I think the fact we had no kicking game and that the defense rarely put the offense in decent field position probably made it seem that way.  This was the most exciting offense I've seen at Michigan and I would hope they wouldn't modify it too much.  I don't have enough time to comment on the changes needed for the defense and special teams.

Eye of the Tiger

January 23rd, 2011 at 1:42 AM ^

The turnovers and 3-and-outs. Plus the fact that our offense rarely played a full four quarters of effective football in conference play. Would field goals have saved us against Wisc, OSU or Miss St.? Don't think so. Maybe against 1 of the other conference losses. Consistent and non-wobbly, low-turnover+more-1st-downs performance could have saved us in all 3. Being more consistent and less wobbly on offense would have paid tangible benefits. Having more consistent, low risk chains-moving plays (crossing routes, screens, waggles) could help that and turn "promising" into "as promised." And win Denard a Heisman :)

MadMagician48

January 23rd, 2011 at 12:38 AM ^

No change on offense. Just more experience (a 2nd year QB for once) and running back as good as Brandon Minor and hope he stays healthy. These 2 things were the only things that were missing.

BigRedWolverine

January 23rd, 2011 at 12:40 AM ^

"wobbly and inconsistent" may be the best way to describe it.  I was drinking the Kool-aid before big 10 season.  Very quickly it became apparent our offense was vastly overrated.

Tater

January 23rd, 2011 at 1:40 AM ^

Bullshit. The offense wasn't overrated; it was under-experienced.  They had a true Sophomore QB in his first year as a starter, minimal upperclassmen, and were 9th in the FBS in net total yards.  How on earth can anyone without an agenda call that "overrated?"

There were plenty of things to bitch about, but the offense being "overrated" wasn't one of them.

._.

January 23rd, 2011 at 9:34 AM ^

Offense was definitely overrated. Hell it still is with people listing the yardage statistic and ignoring the fact that we wasted hundreds of yards over the course of the season.

 

Not sure how you can get so mad about that fact. Our offense can both be overrated and under-experienced, those aren't mutually exclusive.

BlueDragon

January 23rd, 2011 at 1:21 AM ^

As a true-blue fan of TRULY old-school Michigan football, going back to the Crisler style of attack sounds like a great idea to me.  We can throw in some single wing too while we're at it!

REDvsBLUE

January 23rd, 2011 at 12:52 AM ^

I also like the Oklahoma diamond formation.  

 

Some 2 QB plays with Denard and Gardner.

 

Hold onto the ball.

 

Less runs to Vincent Smith, more passes to Vincent smith

BostonWolverine

January 23rd, 2011 at 12:54 AM ^

There's a play in the old school M playbook - I don't know what it's actually called, and I can't find a video of it. But my dad and I always called it "The Michigan Play." I'm sure you all remember it:

It's a quick play fake to a running back, followed by a weakside rollout, after which the TE is almost invariably wide open for a first down (and more).

If someone can find video of it, I would love to see it again. I love that play.

jfox

January 23rd, 2011 at 1:00 AM ^

Especially the one other teams do where the qb lines up as a wr. The defense couldn't afford to ignore Robinson like they do almost every qb that lines up out wide.
<br>I know multiple QBs on the field has been joked about a lot in the last 2 years but in the case of a trick played I'd love to see it.
<br>Denard coming around in motion on a reverse pass would also be fun to watch.

The Denarding

January 23rd, 2011 at 1:08 AM ^

1)  Run Game

2)  Execution  - these kids are young so this is to be expected, but execution of the playbook.  

Complain all you want about zone stretch left but we executed it the same way every time.  I hope this coaching staff throws in more waggles, more roll outs and naked bootlegs.  I think they will still keep the qb iso because with a good secondary running game or vertical passing game iso becomes huge.

oh and

3) THROW IT TO THE TIGHT END....FOR THE LOVE OF GOD....HE IS WIDE OPEN....WITH HIS ARMS WAVING....

Sac Fly

January 23rd, 2011 at 1:23 AM ^

... The two things I hated during games.

1. Vincent smith is averaging 2 YPC and still getting the ball.

2. Quarterback draw goes for 20 yards, 10 QB draws and 15 yards later were still trying it.

A little change of pace would be nice.

milhouse

January 23rd, 2011 at 1:19 AM ^

I'd like to see us run something similar to the Spread HD that Penn State ran with Darryl Clark and Evan Royster.  It always seemed to me to be a spread offense developed from por style philosophy.  They seemed to be able to keep teams guessing because they could just as easily run up the gut as spread you out and hit quick slants.  They'd throw deep enough to keep your safties honest.  I think this would be a good mix to match the abilities of our coaching, talent, and conference needs.  That being said, I thought RR would mold hisoffense into something similar once he got here.  Therefore, I don't expect tosee this next year.

Eye of the Tiger

January 23rd, 2011 at 1:23 AM ^

Aren't they. Take a look at our disadvantage in ToP. Take a look at our average drive time. Even our average scoring drive time. If we can institute more effective ways of holding on to the ball--better third down performance, more 1st downs, more drives ending in points and, yes, when necessary managing the clock so there's a bigger break for the defense, ie when they are obviously tired and sagging--it's a net win for us. Pooh-poohing the obvious advantages being able to do these things can bring in the right situation baffles me as much as pooh-poohing hurry-up does when that brings advantages. It's all about what a given situation demands.