Woolfolk injury create more pressure on offense?
This is not a post asking if an offensive player is going to switch to corner. On the other hand, how can the offense help the defense? Taking care of the ball is a great start. The coaches have certainly preached plenty about it. Plus I think they might rely even more on the running game, which leads me to believe Denard is more likely to start. U of M lost the time of possession by over 7 minutes per game last season. Of course, the defense not getting off the field on 3rd down is partly to blame, but the offense not sustaining drives gets some fingers pointed at them too.
The defense will most likely be far from good this season. In the Purdue and Illinois games last year, the offense had opportunities to add to leads and didn't come through. Can the offense rise to the occasion and support the D?
August 18th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
If the offense can avoid 3-and-outs and turnovers, our D might not be too awful. The problem is our drives never last long because we snap the ball quickly, or go 3-and-out. Hopefully we can learn to take longer drives if need be.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^
It also depends on how the defence performs though. We're all freaking out about the CB situation but if the front 6/7/8? plays well then the CB's won't need to be fantastic. Or they'll be just fine and we don't have to worry.
What's ironic is that we're freaking out about true frosh starting at CB and yet another true frosh could play a huge impact in helping the defence. Will Hagerup. If Hagerup is as good as reports say he is, then he could be vital in giving the opponents long fields to work with when we give them the ball.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
who wouldn't make the All-Big Ten team, yet people are panicking as if we lost Charles Woodson.
Our secondary would be bad with or without Woolfolk, it just got a little worse, except now we can play young guys there. Regardless of whether Woolfolk played or didn't, the defense was/is going to give up alot of points.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
I completely agree with you here, Woolfolk wasn't that dependable of a game changer at CB. Sure, he was our best, but games this team wins are going to be determined by the offense. The one positive thing I get form this is, somehow this D performs and RR keep his job, you are going to have a ton of experience on D next year with Woolfolk returning. That could almost be exciting.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
Michigan goes from experienced corner in Woolfork to various meh recruits fighting for their right to be thrown into the lions den all while the other starting corner has the ability to be outrun by a 215 lb runningback from Indiana at any time. Keep in mind Woolfork played out of position last year.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
You spelled it Woolfork not once, but twice...I mean seriously, all of this news about him and you still can't spell his name?
August 18th, 2010 at 6:30 PM ^
I'm going with Tloy Woorfork from now on
August 18th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^
Been up since 4 am. So yes, I am serious. Secondly, "all this news" doesn't apply to those who work during the day and fear surfing the internet will bring Toyota suit ninjas to dispose of me. If I could time travel from my collegiate experience in gaining Michigan football news in a quick and efficient fashion then I would have done so. Then I'd yell time paradox.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
I completely agree.. I know our Secondary was already bad.. But what Troy really gave us was his speed. Other than that it isn't like he was a shutdown corner..
The key is our team improving a bit in so many different areas.. If we improve our t/o's by half the amount of what we had last year it will help. If we can have some sustained drives it will help. If our bigger D-line can get more pressure on QB's it will really help. If our LB play is better that will really help out.
Also anyone heard anything more on Marvin Robinson? Was he going to play Safety or LB? From a physical standpoint I could see him being able to help our D this year, but who knows.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^
if the defense is going to give up a lot of points, maybe they don't, maybe all of those returning players got better, faster, stronger....know the system more and are able to bring the youngsters along a little quicker.....we won't know any of this until sept. 4th and beyond.....Plus the offense being better as it should be will also take pressure off of the D. All those careless turnovers, 3 and out's....Special Teams turnovers.....Football is a game of inches, our D gave up a lot but was constantly put in bad situations by the other two facets of the game.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
maybe all of those returning players got harder too.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^
A little worse is probably an understatement. We are replacing the only cornerback with significant experience with a probable true freshman who to date has not beaten Floyd as the other starting corner. I always hate it when people pretend that unproven players who are behind on the depth chart are going to be only a minor step down from the existing starter.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
If the offense can score a lot of touchdowns, that will help the defense!
August 18th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
If they score more points, we will need to score more points to win.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
Hmm, that is an interesting theory. I'm assuming your basing this on the standard number line and basic inequality?
August 18th, 2010 at 5:38 PM ^
I'm not clear on all the details, I just know that my theory wasn't proven until after the LHC was turned on.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
...I bet you'll see the offense try to grab a big lead early, then switch to a more conservative time and football possession oriented set of plays.
Unless of course every game is a shoot-out in which case yee-haw!
August 18th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^
I think we're in yee-haw land
August 18th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^
I am going to be so blacked out for kickoff of the UCONN game
August 18th, 2010 at 4:54 PM ^
On the Denard comment, I think the exact opposite is more likely true. We are more likely to be down due to a couple of home runs by the opposition. Therefore, a crisper passer such as Forcier may get a boost from this. How ironic that the player that called out Tate may very well be one of the reasons he keeps his job...
August 18th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
Actually I was wondering who the QB was on the play that Troy got hurt. I'm not suggesting anything intentional occured. More like, this just may come under the mantra: Karma is a Bitch.
Troy's comments must've tweaked the Michigan Hating's Gods' noses ...
August 18th, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^
That line of reasoning assumes that our offense will be more quick-strike with Tate under center than Denard. I think it may be just the opposite. Denard is a threat to go the distance himself and he will put pressure on defenses to stay honest. If they cheat safeties up, the deep ball will be open all day.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
Adrian Peterson is a home run threat too. There's a reason that Favre will have the ball down a score with time expiring. Incompletions stop the clock. First downs stop the clock. Not that we'd run a two minute offense in the 3rd if we were down 10, but why waste time with a lot of 7-8 yard runs.
I'm not sure who the most explosive is, and honestly, I don't think anyone on this board can be sure. But I know that I screamed bloody murder when we had to drive 90 yards with limited time against Iowa and Denard stepped onto the field. A simple rule in football exists that you pass more when you're down...
August 18th, 2010 at 7:33 PM ^
You're missing the point. Indications are that Denard's passing has improved to the point that he can now hit those deep balls, unlike last year. And they'll likely be more open when he's in the game because his running ability will force opposing defenses to cheat up. Tate is not much of a running threat, which makes it easier for opposing defenses to stop the run without bringing up safeties - and in turn, may make it harder for him to complete the deep ball.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^
and maybe now we will need to score 35+ a game. The O will have to be outstanding game in and game out for us to have a chance this season.
I will be ok with 7-5 this year leading to 9-3 next year.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^
...but now that T-Wolf is likely returning next year we're bringing back either 19 or 20 starters. I would be kinda disappointed with 9-3 and a 3rd-year QB in the pocket.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^
and maybe now we will need to score 35+ a game. The O will have to be outstanding game in and game out for us to have a chance this season.
I will be ok with 7-5 this year leading to 9-3 next year.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^
I think the Woolfolk injury puts a little more pressure on the offense, but I thought they were already under a lot of pressure before the injury. Last year, our defense was pretty awful, especially the LB's and DB's. I really wasn't expecting things to get much better this year because we lost arguably our two best defensive players in Warren and Graham.
Before the Woolfolk injury, I thought our offense was going to have to put up a ton of points and we would basically have to win shootouts every week. The Woolfolk injury probably means they'll have to put up even more points, but I always thought the offense was already under a lot of pressure to produce points this season.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:22 PM ^
We may have go to into Texas Tech mode on offense to counter what we give up on D.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^
I just got finished reading Tuchman's The Guns of August. Sometimes, you've got to be staring down the white hot barrel of defeat before you really decide its time to Fuck. Shit. Up.
For those who haven't read the book... It's August 1914, and the Germans invade neutral Belgium in a massive assault on the Allied forces of France, England and Belgium. Over the next six weeks, they overran Belgium and plunged south to a level with Paris, (they closed to within 20 miles of the city). France, alone, had lost some 300,000 troops in a month holding off the German advance, (unsuccessfully, to that point).
Then, the Germans blundered. Just when they had victory in their grasp, the German First Army wheeled away from Paris to try to finish off the French armies. The British were on the run, led by a panty waist commander who had, literally, lost his nerve. The Kaiser went so far as to have victory medals struck for his forces.
It was time to rally, and the Allies did. Conceived first by Gen. Gallieni, the Military Governor of Paris, he realized that the Germans were showing their flanks. Suddenly, the Allies turned around, made a stand at the Marne, and beat back the Germans. Although war would last four more years, it was the beginning of the end. From that moment, Germany could no longer win.
It's time for cran. Fuck. Shit. Up.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
Impossible as it may seem, there is reason for hope. As the OP asserts, that hope lays in a vastly improved offense.
The role of the offense this year won't be merely to outscore the other team, but also to keep its offense (and thus our defense) off the field as much as possible. Maybe they will plan to use most of the time on the play clock before snapping and run the ball a lot to keep the clock moving. Then they must consistently move the chains.
Like last year, our secondary won't merely be bad. They will also lack depth and upperclassman bodies, and will thus usually be exhausted by the 4th quarter. Yet again, our defense will be playing their JV against the other team's varsity.
However, we finally have a varsity team on offense. We have improved line depth, an experienced receiver corps, and very likely improved QB play (with possible breakout play from Denard, IMO). If they can dominate, they can minimize the error opportunity of our DB's.
A dominant (or at least solid) D-line can also minimize error opportunity.
Good coaches cringe at these kinds of setbacks but then adjust to them as best they can. RR is a good coach; now that the offense could be on the verge of a breakout, he has options at his disposal for making adjustments in overrall game strategy that can help to hide/minimize our liabilities.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
clock like the Bo teams of the 1980's, we will have nothing to worry about on D. I know we run a hurry-up but it would help our D to let a few more seconds than normal bleed off the clock before running the next play.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^
my idea would be a departure from RR's standard mode of "score fast, score often, exhaust the other team." I guess I'm just thinking that the situation with our secondary might require an adjustment in game strategy. I do understand that this might just be stupid fan-think.
The fact remains that we can be very optimistic about the offense. I'm convinced that part of the failure of the defense the last 2 years was that they were on the field too much. When neither unit is truly storng these problems feed each other in obvious ways - O can't move the ball, so D is on the field too much, so the team gets behind, so the O feels more pressure to score, so they throw more, which leads to quicker 3 and outs, which means the D is on the field too much, etc...
There is serious, fact-based reason to be highly optimistic about the offense. I refuse to believe that after 25 years of lighting up defenses for several different schools at several different levels in several different conferences that RR has suddenly forgotten how to run his offense.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^
The Maple Street Press mag for Notre Dame "Here Come the Irish" had an interesting article on an offense's tempo. The author proposed a formula to estimate the time teams spend between snaps (depends on time of possession adjusted for rushing attempts, passes, kickoffs, turnovers, etc.). Obviously, he couldn't watch every game with a stopwatch. Michigan was rated as the third fastest team in the country, averaging 25.3 seconds between snaps. U of M lagged behind only Houston and Middle Tennessee and was just ahead Texas A&M, Northwestern and Oregon. I was surprised we were that high as I don't recall a lot of jet-type tempo, though if I'm wrong let me know. I was thinking that with another year of experience, deeper lines, and another year of Brawis maybe we would run some/more jet. The view above suggests we go the other way. I dunno, I think we have to become more aggressive and developo a swagger on both sides of the ball.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:39 PM ^
I had the ND game in favor of us. With their spread offense I have a lot of fear now. I hope everything I read about team speed is correct.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:46 PM ^
Go to bed your'e tired, it will all be better in the morning.
We gonna see what these boys are made of come September 4.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:08 PM ^
Look at it this way...
In RR's 1st season, the offense was a giant question mark but the defense was supposed to be the strength of the team. Alas, they were terrible. In his second season, it was again the same story. So, here we are in year 3 where the defense is supposed to suck. Let's hope they follow the pattern of opposite expectations.