My point is, as MANY have pointed out, we were in the wrong weight class here.
If many other people have pointed this out, then did you really need to create a new thread to restate this?
My point is, as MANY have pointed out, we were in the wrong weight class here.
If many other people have pointed this out, then did you really need to create a new thread to restate this?
Because it was only partially about that, but I can see why you'd jump on that
that this needed to be a thread. Your analysis was good but it would've done just fine as a response in one of Brian's posts. The last thing that we need is another thread with someone espousing their personal opinion on why we lost. There have been plenty of opportunites for that in a multitude of other threads. The first couple of paragraphs were fine and could've led to an intersting discussion about what annoys you on MGoBlog but the rest were largely unnecessary.
Whether you agree with the OP or not, in fairness it was not just about why we lost this game. He is addressing several broader points about how the offense is perceived/analyzed in the Borges era with Denard.
If you look through the ensuing strings of responses it actually stimulated a pretty healthy discussion.
finding that quote near the end of the post. Nothing the OP included in his post was worthy of a new thread. He could have just as easily have posted this as a comment in reply to one of Brian's theads earlier today. The analysis is fine but there's no reason that he needs to create a thread to let the rest of the MGoBoard know that he disagress with Brian.
I only posted this because I think a number of people would agree on me. If this was unoriginal content, I would have posted it in one of the numerous other threads, but more likely not at all. Yes, this is about me disagreeing with Brian, but I think many people agree with it and like to see their opinion expressed, even if through someone else. I don't think suppressing an opposing view is constructive.
three times :)
I understand that there was probably no way to win the game. However, isn't it the job of the coaches to take their best possible shot at winning every game? Should we have just quit after the first quarter when it became apparent that Alabama had better players?
So, assuming the coaches are trying to take their best shot at winning, do you really think running Vincent Smith as many times as they did (yes those were runs, not read options) gives us the best chance at winning? I mean, historically Denard has had far more success running the ball than smith. Additionally, after about 5 runs we had sufficient evidence that simply handing it to Smith wasn't really an effective play. I trust the coaches to an extent, but carries 6 to however many he had were simply asinine. I mean, maybe they did just pack it in and hope no one else got hurt, but I certainly don't want a coach to quit once he realizes the other team has better players.
So I think Brian and others, who may not be football coaches, are justified in being frustrated with the coaches.
Of course they shouldn't give up, and they didn't, nor did the players, and I think I made it clear that they may have had marginally more success running Denard more often, but my question is what would have been the outcome if they had? If Denard got hurt there would be more cries about what a waste it was, similar to the people wondering about running defensive starters on special teams...
Response to Note 1:
He needs to read both the DE and the LB so that he doesn't pull and eat a face full of scraping LB. I think maybe it's you that doesn't understand.
How does he read a linebacker that has not read the play yet, or is reacting to the outcome of the QB's read? The linebacker has three options:
If Denard keeps and the LB goes with Denard, Denard must beat him, which should be relatively easy given Denard made the decision and the LB is reacting. The idea, from my understanding, is that the read option gives you 11 on 11, so in any case Denard must beat 1 man, whichever man that may be.
The whole idea of the read-option is to create a numbers advantage by "optioning off" 1 defender. The goal is to be 11 vs. 10 in favor of the offense. This could be an end or a LB, depending on how the O-line chooses to block it.
I think we are talking about different things. By "11 on 11" I meant that the QB is in play as a threat on the play. Of course the option is designed to remove a player from contention of making the play, but you are choosing a different route, essentially. Either way, the defense has 11 players in the play every play, whereas the offense typically has only 10 on a run (especially with the piss-poor bootleg sells going on these days). What I am trying to say is that the option lets you select, to some extent, how the defensive players match up with the offensive players. Two simple examples:
Your chances of reaching second level are much higher.
Who he reads is also dependent on the type of defense the other team is running. In a traditional 4-3 you are right the DE is almost always the read (although sometimes this is not true as mentioned before) but for the 3-4 the read could very commonly be a linebacker.
It's actually 10 vs 10 because the guy running the ball can't block for himself. So essentially you create an even playing field by optioning off that defender when normally, defenses have a 2 man advantage. (9 blockers vs 11 defenders)
I know the play he is referring to in note 1 and I am pretty sure that most of the handoffs to Vincent Smith were NOT reads, they were called handoffs. For most of them Denard wasn't reading anything it was a called play.
What are you basing this on:
most of the handoffs to Vincent Smith were NOT reads
Two things. First, when I was watching it live it looked to me like they were pulling a guard and blocking the DE, meaning Denard doesn't read the DE and it is a straight handoff with no read. Hence it isn't even the play you are describing, it is a traditional run from the shotgun, as far as I can tell.
Not to say every Smith carry was not a read, but it looked to me like most of them were.
Second, Denard has a history of tending to keep on the read option far more than handing it off. In every game I have ever watched him, he has never handed off more than half of them, especially in tight games.
Not to say that is airtight proof. When Brian analyzes the replay maybe I will be wrong. Still, it did not look like a read option to me when I saw it live.
I see, and you could be correct about the guard pulling (I likely missed that if it happened), but the basics of a zone read are the same in that the QB has a key, just like a standard option, and it is possible they switched that key to account for the pulling guard. Also maybe not.
Regardless, expecting a QB to make multiple reads before deciding to keep or hand off the ball is illogical, when making multiple reads when passing the ball can be difficult enough, and you are reading two positions that are at the same time reading your play.
Huh? How is making a run read illogical? It's easier than making a pass read, or at least no more difficult. Or a triple option... Runners are tasked with making reads all the time. It's a key part of football.
Honestly, that's hardly possible. He might have a pre-snap read on the linebacker, but it's just not possible to read both during the play. During the play, the one and only the end is the read.
Not that Michigan really runs the zone read anymore. That was more of a Rich Rod thing. The have been running a bit of speed option here and thera as well as the inverted veer (which is essentially the zone read, but the playside end is in conflict, not the backside end.)
They have been running a variation on the zone read where the H back or the wing on the playside, traps the backside end and Denard will pull the ball and run once in awhile.
No, he's right. The QB reads the DE and the DE only. The LB doesn't enter into the equation until after the QB makes his decision. This is as simple as I can make it:
The end has two choices, take the RB or the QB. The QB has two options, keep it or give it to the RB via handoff or pitch. As you can see, each of the QB's options are directly linked to one of the end's choices. The QB reads the end, and makes the decision to keep it or handoff/pitch it. Nothing the LB does would alter that decision, because the ball can't end up in the hands of whoever the end is going after. And most of the time, the LB is going to be reacting to what the QB does anyway, so obviously the QB can't read someone who's reading him.
Running the ball is pretty much always a one read and go, for RBs too. You don't have time to do anything more than that if you're going to gain any yards. Passing the ball is where youmake multiple reads. Even then, for some mobile QBs(like Vick when he was at VT), you read one receiver and if he's covered you run.
The typical, tradiional, run-of-the-mill zone read looks at whether the end crashes But that is because in the typical, traditional, run-of-the-mill zone read, that end is the one left unblocked. Some plays absolutely call for reading a linebacker. Or a tackle. Or the punter. Okay, maybe not the punter. But those first couple are legit:
There are a bunch of ways to run a "zone read," and a million variants thereof.
Exactly, you can't know the read without knowing exactly what the design of the play is, including any pre-snap reads and calls for the defense faced. It's impossible to say that the zone read option ALWAYS reads the DE.
Also, for the record, there's no way of knowing how many actual zone reads we've been running over the last two years and how many are simply plays with zone read action where the ball carrier is called in advance (either in the huddle or based on pre snap reads).
I don't think the point of the OP was that you always read the DE. I think that the point was that the QB doesn't read two players. He reads the DE or the LB, but not both. He reads the DT or the LB or whatever ad infinitum, but not multiple defenders. That's the point I got anyway, which is absolutely correct.
EDIT: Ok, that totally wasn't his point after reading it again. But if it was he would be totally right about that, so......yeah......
I really tried, but it was so disjointed that my thoughts kept bouncing away. I finally had to just give up. I'm sure it was great, though, considering the disclaimer at the beginning.
Oh man, it really was great.
Haha thanks for the humor. Disjointed thoughts are a result of my own fatigue, and there was much more clarification I could have/should have done, but already tl;dr.
I hate peope who second guess the coaches week after week. First of all, people don't watch hours upon hours of film on an opponent like the coaches have.
Second, people aren't at practice, and don't have a grasp on what football practice is like from week to week. Coaches understand their players' strengths and weaknesses. People forget that these coaches have dedicated their LIVES to football. It's their job. They know what they are doing. If they are calling plays a certain way, there is a reason for it. The worst D1 coach has literally forgotten more about the game then some dude watching from his couch on a Saturday. They like winning and keeping their jobs too much to not do it the best way that they can.
Finally, coaches don't win games. Players do. Behind every bad play on Saturday, there is a player not doing their job. I guarantee it. Coaches jobs are to put them in the best position to be successful, and I think this staff works hard to do just that.
Same dudes in my section always yell at the coaches "give your head a shake" about play calling still get "Bernard" Robinson's name wrong.
Is what it is
I don't disagree with your comment about D1 coaches forgetting more about football than fans who just watch. Howeva, you can't deny there are varying degrees of capability when it comes to D1 coaches. Just like any job, there are people who can do it exceedingly well, those who do a good job of it, and those who probably should not be doing it. At my company it was the 20, 70, 10 rule. 20% would lead the way, 70% would be good employees who followed the leaders, 10% needed to be shipped out or moved on to something that fits their skill set better. This is a scary thought when applied to dentists, doctors, pilots, etc. And yes, I always wonder what percentage a new mechanic falls into.
Anyway, long winded way of saying, there are probably some D1 coaches who should not be doing what they are doing.
I'm kind of disappointed that you didn't challenge Brian to a duel at the end of your post. I thought this was a gentlemen's blog.
There is a small part of me that believes if included it would have read like this -
"I challenge Brian to a dual."
Outside of 2012 and 2013 Bowl Games and the 2014 Playoff, the Cowboy Classic was the toughest game Michigan will play for years to come, but by then we should be well caught up. Our schedule from this week through 2015 actually looks pretty weak considering the strides we've already taken, and the potential we're soon to realize.
We very nearly ran the table in the B1G last year: http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-11/big-ten/2011-michigan-wolverines-football-schedule.php
We have a good chance of refocusing and running the table this year: http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-12/big-ten/2012-michigan-wolverines-football-schedule.php
But the years to come give us even more home games: http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-13/big-ten/2013-michigan-wolverines-football-schedule.php
multiple bye weeks, with inferior non conference opponents: http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-14/big-ten/2014-michigan-wolverines-football-schedule.php
and a lack of tough, consecutive road games: http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-15/big-ten/2015-michigan-wolverines-football-schedule.php
Getting handled by an opponent we dislike was rough, but another light at the end of the tunnel is that Brandon, Hoke, Borges, Mattison, and co. are setting their sights much, much higher than contemporary Alabama, or USC. They are extremely ambitious, and amazingly, even more capable. Last year we were saying "is this the best recruiting class..." this year we're saying "is THIS the best recruiting class?!?!" and it seems evident that we'll be hearing that same thing every year for a number of years to come. Combine unprecedented recruiting with better defensive coaches than the ones we just faced, more ambitious, complex offenses than any we will face, and you get potential for an offense more explosive than USCs or Oregons, mixed with a defense possibly even more capable than Bamas. Can you imagine how good we'll be when Shane and Peewee are upperclassmen?
It's a little difficult to see after the rude awakening we had to start the season, but we're watching the groundwork of something very special. Michigan has the potential to be unstoppable in the near future. Hoke already has a half class, and a full class of "his guys" on campus, with another full class waiting in the wings. By the time a class comes in and meets an entire roster of players recruited by Hoke we could have the best team Michigans ever fielded.
I don't know, I read it, and sure you're entitled to your opinion, but my opinion is you're wrong. The main issue here is this statement:
From my perspective, does not understand football scheming well enough to make SOME of the statements he does [see note 1].
What drives me crazy is that the biased thought process leads to unfair or incorrect assumptions. I am sure that Denard's few runs of the game, upon further analysis, will show a larger YPC than Smith's. Well, yes, they will because they were the exception, THEY WERE THE "CONSTRAINT" PLAYS. They are the plays that catch the defense offguard or cheating, so they can find some room that the standard plays may not. The problem is if you keep going back to them, they are not constraint plays, they are just more stopped plays.
A common theme around here is how "NFL ready" much of Alabama's team is. How many NFL teams run an offense around the read option? That, to me, is very telling.
;I apologize for the rant but I just see this loss as the confirmation Brian needs that RR's offense was the tactically best in college football (not saying he wants RR as our coach, in any regard), and I think I speak for a number of people who have not voiced their opinion.
Edit: Damn, you fixed half of them.
Not sure what happened. I fixed some of them and tried to fix the rest and now I can't edit it. Oops.
"I was at the game and was watching those read options... A play that sticks out looked like a read option, but was a pass (is that a veer? I don't know that terminology here) and there were TWO Alabama defenders literally standing there waiting for Dendard to take off running."
Making statements like this will undercut your point. What point in the game? We could be talking about anything at this point. Maybe it was true play action. Maybe it was a run/pass option based off of the inverted veer. Were the defenders LITERALLY standing there (who? where? the backside DE and LB?). Maybe you misremembered. Who knows?
And you processed and analyzed this in the seconds that this play occurred instead of much rewatching of the tape? I mean, if that's the case you could make a lot of money in an NFL booth. You'd have more credibility if you broke down that specific play and pointed out where Denard consistently pulled back to pass or gave the option handoffs.
But I don't see much of substance in this post. I mean, isn't Brian entitled to think (if he even does) that a run-first spread (whether it's RR's or Chip Kelly's) is the tactically best? And isn't he entitled to think that it is the best with respect to Denard's skill set? You obviously disagree but I don't see you advancing any compelling argument. In fact, I see the opposite: you assert what you need to prove, namely that
the biased thought process leads to unfair or incorrect assumptions.
Clarification should have ensued, but what I meant was that what I find typically follows is that giving Denard the ball more often would have changed the outcome. You're right, though.
Yeah, but Brian hasn't said that running Denard would have changed the outcome. And Brian has repeatedly stated that Denard is mediocre to bad at the zone read, and prefers designed QB runs from shotgun.
"Brian doesn't like things he can't quantify like brand or luck".
I think you misunderstand quite badly. Brian likes luck just fine, he (and mostly the Mathlete) just make a point of pointing out when something is luck, and the stats support this.
As for the brand and Brandon, if anything that's an area where Brian (and myself to be honest) wish there was less quantification. Sure selling a random assortment of jerseys gets you some quick short term bucks, but I think you lose something valuable.
And in any case, how does a dislike of Dave Brandon have any bearing on the quality of Brian's (or anyone's) football insight?
As for the brand and Brandon, if anything that's an area where Brian (and myself to be honest) wish there was less quantification. Sure selling a random assortment of jerseys gets you some quick short term bucks, but I think you lose something valuable.
You watch your mouth about jersey sales. How else could we have turned the tide in Ohio? Huh? HOW???
Yeah but those were regular non-bumblebee jerseys, an Hoke sold 'em himself with good old fashioned charm.
He didn't sell them with charm. He sold them with hotcakes. Or, wait, did they sell WITH hotcakes or LIKE hotcakes??
We did not outscheme ourselves because, even if we ran things differently, THERE WAS NO WINNING this game with the current state of our program.
How can this possibly follow? If Michigan had run the Maryland-I the whole game and ran ISO plays, would you say that we didn't outscheme ourselves because the game was lost? If we had punted on each and every 1st down, would you still claim that it didn't matter because we were going to lose no matter what?
This seems like a much more reasonable position:
@Alex_MnB: Not to say that Michigan's gameplan was great, but Alabama would have still dominated defensively regardless.
Constraint plays? Like they weren't expecting the fastest guy on our team to get some carries? They aren't ever going to forget about denard and sell out against vincent smith running into a bunch of free alabama linemen.
Kind of my point, lost in there somewhere. The meltdown around MGoBlog affects all of us, but differently.
though, is that it keeps the defense honest. You don't run a constraint play 13 times and the 'primary' play three or four times. You run a constraint play just enough to keep the defense from cheating toward what you really want to do, or when you think it will burn a D that is already cheating.
It started okay, but this still just seems like mental masturbation on the part of the OP.
*Note 1 - I have seen Brian analyze a play stating that Denard is looking at the end and the LB to decide to keep or not to keep. You read the end, and that is it, expecially with a 5'10" QB.
I think that Brian is all for some good criticism, but this statement is incorrect. Alabama runs a 3-4 defense. The read on that defense would be the WILL or JACK linebacker (depending on which way the play is going). Who you are reading doesn't depend on the height of the QB - it depends on how the defense is lined up.
The point isn't incorrect, you just missed the point, I believe.
The WILL or JACK linebacker is, for all intents and purposes, the end in a 3-4 defense. When the QB reads him, he's not reading anybody else. Which was the point that you seem to have missed: the QB is reading one player, not two.
Ummm...not sure if serious.
The assertion was that the QB reads the defensive end because he is 5' 10". Whether you call a LB an end at this point is fairly moot, because he makes this the central argument against Brian's football knowledge. Let me repeat it for you so you don't miss it -
You read the end, and that is it, expecially with a 5'10" QB.
The dislike about that sort of talk is mainly around how you can basically pre-write a story about a game and just fill in the blanks with whatever names you want.
It's hacky and insulting to imply that in a goal line situation one team wants to score more than the other team wants to deny them that score. I'm sure you've noticed that Brian does awknowledge intangibles, whether it be Mike Martin's passion, Zach Novak's grit, or Jordan Kovacs' smarts. Some things are real and can be awknowledged. Other statements like "Michigan wanted to win the Sugar Bowl more than Virginia Tech" are just plainly stupid. it's hacky journalism at best and does nothing but fill column inches by doing the least amount of work possible.
Anybody who comes up with a sports and/or engineering background can probably be counted on to dislike "luck". It is not better to be lucky than good, its best to win. You guarantee victory by eliminating or minimizing stray variables that might hurt your chances. Luck can explain things like recovering 75% of forced fumbles or winning a casino jackpot. It is silly to continue to predict that such things will continue to happen.
Putting it another way, you can explain the past as being influenced to a certain degree by luck. You should not use something that is inherently up to chance to try and predict the future.
Aren't the major disagreements on this site centered around times when Brian argues something IS based on luck, and the readers disagree? E.g. fumble recovery rate, regression to the mean, etc?
If anything, Brian is a defender of luck.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with Brian, but this whole post is a mess.
In response to the criticism of Brian:
Brian has always been reactionary and emotional whenever something significant happens (good or bad). At this point it's almost a part of his shtick. It's one of the aspects of Brian's writing that has made this blog so endearing to thousands of Michigan fans. It's also one of the reasons Brian can become temporarily insufferable (like in the aftermath of the Hoke hiring). You have to keep in mind that Brian is one part fan, one part journalist, and one part analyst. Occasionally the fan in Brian bleeds into the analysis, usually after something extreme takes place. That's not to say that he's always, or even mostly wrong when it happens, just that you should keep that in mind when reading his analysis post Alabama (or an event of a similair magnitude).
In response to the criticism of the game plan:
I was honestly shocked at the "rage" a lot of people displayed after the game. Not because I didn't expect people would be upset about a 27 point beatdown on national television, rather, that people genuinely believed a different outcome was possible.
Not to toot my own horn, because Zeus knows I hoped for a far different outcome, but most of the things I thought would happen, happened.
I think even the most starry eyed Denard optimist has to admit that when DRob has come up against "elite" defenses over the course of his career, the results have generally been awful. I love Denard, but I expected his ceiling for that game to be 2011 Michigan State type numbers (9-24 123 yards - 1TD-1INT - 18CAR 42 yards - 2.7YPC - 1TD), which was essentially what we got, minus 8 carries and plus a 71 yard bomb.
Based on what I saw, giving Denard 10 or 15 more carries would have only been slightly more effective than handing it off to Vincent Smith, and probably would have resulted in Denard being more banged up than he was.
The only real path to victory was the one Michigan was given, with Denard having to make accurate throws into the very small windows in Alabama's pass defense. Michigan also desperately needed to win the turnover battle. When neither of those things occurred, the outcome was basically a given. Denard simply wasn't going to beat Alabama with his feet.
Well said. I think Brian's emotion is what makes this blog great.
I imagine everyone or nearly everyone thinks that we lose that game no matter what. My only problem with the play calling was that we went with a strategy that was bad the few times we went with it last year against lesser defenses (Iowa, MSU, etc.). We knew the game plan wasn't going to be succesful, yet we did it anyway.
Denard would have gotten beaten up had we run him, but I think we also would have had more success. He can do things that everyone else available couldn't. Smith and Rawls weren't going to make Bama miss. We needed runs like one of the few Denard called runs where he made a guy miss near the line of scrimmage and scampered out of bounds after a nine yard gain. He was the only weapon we had that could do that in the run game.
If we really didn't run him because we didn't want to get him beat up in a game we couldn't win, I guess I can accept that reasoning. I do think the fan base wouldn't offer up that defense with a less popular coach, however.
Finally, to end this post on a positive note. It looked like Denard was much more willing to scramble when he didn't have anything in the passing game. That bodes well for us against defenses not stacked with NFL talent.
Against a defense like Bama's the offense must keep them honest. Michigans offens can't do that because of the limitations in the passing game. The good news is Michigan shouldn't face another defense that can stop the run until they play Sparty. The bad news is we will lose a fifth straight game to Sparty if our defense can't stop the run. I just hope the defense keeps improving. I can't handle another loss to MSU.
To be fair, Alabama's offensive line is on another planet compared to Sparty's rag-tag bunch of converted players. Bell is good, but he won't run all over us like Yeldon did.
Brian understands scheming better than urban Meyer , man.
They didn't run Denard a lot because they didn't want him to get murdered. They hoped his passing ability progressed enough to make Bama pay for playing the run. It didn't. He was either off target, the receiver ran a sloppy route, or they played great defense (or was able to shove receivers down when they felt like it). We've seen this before it's nothing new. That's my take anyways.
agree with your post, but I respect you for posting it..At the end of the day, this is a blog...
I was going to say almost literally the same thing in this post, so I will just say I second this.
At the end of the day, this is a blog...
And at the beginning of the day, it is a 14-piece Ginsu knife set. I CAN CUT TIN CANS AND THEN TOMATOES, GODDAMNIT
YOU HAVE NOT HAD CAPRESE SLAD UNTIL YOU'VE HAD IT WITH TIN CAN DAMMIT
At this point after looking at so many posts about why this or that happened, it is getting very tiring.
The basic fact is this, we lost to a great team that we are no where close to at this point in time. Our Dline is too inexperinced, our QB is from a different system, and our WR's are an average of 5 10". With the exception of Devin. With our recruiting we will get there, it will just take a while.
So lets all do ourselves a favor, take the advice from the players and don't let the loss carry on.
We moved on from orgeon and app state, IMO this isnt as bad as those loss's.
Just think of how sweet it will be when all those MSU fans who were throwing crap at us end up losing to us.
So please, move on and get over it. There is no point in any of it anymore.
I really don't think we were doomed to lose that game from the start. There were a LOT of plays in the first half that, had they gone our way, we would have been very competitive and perhaps even won the game.
In particular, Denard several times overthrew wide open receivers that would have at least gotten a first down. Alabama also got two trouchdowns off of two turnovers on us. Don't forget that missed facemask that, as a result of Lewan's penalty on the same play, effectively killed the drive rather than force a do-over on the down. Make a few of those receptions and take away the turnovers, and we're maybe down a touchdown at the half, if that.
Make no mistake, Alabama has the better team, and that's why the things that happened, well, happened, but even in our current state, they were in fact beatable. We just didn't execute anywhere near well enough to make it happen and it'll be a year or two before we can go toe to toe with them and be able to recover form some of the mistakes we made.
The keys to winning most football games are running the ball (we couldn't; they could) and stopping the run (we couldn't; they could). Regardless of whether a few passing plays were there or not, it was somewhat inevitable that we were going to lose that game. I'm not saying it was 100% etched in stone, but it was close...
And now two questions remain for this season of college football -- (1) Is what we saw of Alabama what we'll see every game?, and (2) Is there any team in the land that can match them?
I tend to believe what we saw of Alabama is what we'll see going forward. I think what we saw on Saturday was a pretty good read of what Alabama's team really is this year.
As for (2) ... we'll see ... but I tend to think the team to beat is Alabama. The Arkansas game in two weeks will be the first read on this. USC's win over Hawaii doesn't tell us much.
I would normally agree w/ what u just said but the NFL is proving otherwise. Take Detroit, they can't run the ball at all but they have DECENT PASS PROTECTION AND A QB THROWING TO MEGATRON. The patriots do close to the same. So I'd say its more u need an accurate qb with some good wrs to overcome the lack of a run game. We had neither or good pass protection so in turn got killed.
You would have to admit in Detroit's case, that the run keeps the defense honest. For the record, the top 3 running backs for Detroit piled up these stats in 2011 -
Jahvid Best - 390 Yards, 4.6 YPC, 65 YPG
Kevin Smith - 356 Yards, 4.9 YPC, 51 YPG
Maurice Morris - 316 Yards, 4.0 YPC, 20 YPG
That really isn't something you want to leave unattended.
But the NFL has also bastardized the rules to an extent that it's becoming Arena Football. And while that's still what makes an offense most effective, they do have a tendency to come up against less talented or successful grind it out teams, and losing the big game.
The Giants have twice shown the dangers of not controlling the line of scrimmage against the Patriot's high flying offense, And the Steelers keep making it to Super Bowls when everyone expects the Patriots or Colts or someone like that to get there.
You can do it a lot of ways. But I think he original point that it all starts with running the ball and stopping the run stands. If you can run, you can probably pass it too. If you can pass it, there's no guarantee it'll open up the run.
Anyone who watched Denard score on that six-and-goal knows how dangerous he can be as a runner. He had nothing to work with, he wormed his way through the pile, and he got SIX YARDS. Smith would've bounced off the back of an o-lineman. Sure, maybe they were keying on Denard, but the great thing about him is that he generally gets positive yardage because he's so elusive. I have to think if he'd had some designed runs in there (not many, but 10-15 runs for the game sounds about right), we would've had another touchdown at least.
As I stated to my Bama fans, this is a game we would have loved to play in the 90's and up until about 2007. We were built to handle Bama and they have simply caught us in a transition period. I mentioned that 2015 is the mark on wall for me. That being said, I thought that their "NFL" defense did not bring near as much pressure on Denard as I anticipated nor ol SEC-loving Herby mentioned. Denard did miss several crucial drive extending passes. This was a type of game where a Braylon or Terrell or Manningham would have fared very well.
Our running game did about exactly as I anticipated. I'm okay with the lack of designed Denard runs althought I wish he would have scrambled a couple of more times. I truly think that is where he could have caused a crisis with the Bama D.
I, for one, cannot wait for the UFR. I am anxious to see how PeeWee and the other freshman performed. I am NOT so anxious to see the ratings for our linebackers. My gut reaction was that our DL fared better than the LBs.
I think giving Denard time to throw was to some extent planned by Saban. The Bama Dline was plenty effective on running plays. If Denard had started throwing lasers, I think Saban would have dialed up some blitzes.
I disagree with most of your points but I upvoted your post anyway. I was dreading a rant when I clicked, but I thought iyou made your points but in an even-handed way, and that's a good thing.
I don't know nor pretend to know enough about football schemes to comment on much or the OP, but a couple of things do stand out to me.
1) The whole multi-paragraph disclaimer makes you sound like a douche bag, as though you think the posters here are mindless blog fans and we need to be told to be objective; the whole disclaimer takes up nearly a 1/ 4 of your post. If it had been a sentence or two, it wouldn't been as bad, but I found your lengthy disclaimer insulting. It made me doubt your judgment and motives from the very start.
2) Your claim here suggests you must not read the blog that much or you are just making shit up.
Everyone writing here seems to hate DB, or at least I never seem to see anything positive posted about him or his decisions around here.
Especially this one:
"I apologize for the rant but I just see this loss as the confirmation Brian needs that RR's offense was the tactically best in college football (not saying he wants RR as our coach, in any regard), and I think I speak for a number of people who have not voiced their opinion."
Dude, you are so off base on this comment. I believe Brian's fondness of RR's offense is only based on the fact that Denard is the starting QB, and likely gives a Denard-led offense the best chance to be successful. Denard is obviously more talented at running the ball than he is as a traditional QB. I highly doubt without Denard at the helm, Brian would even be bringing this up.
If anything, Brian seems even more fired up by the Borges Swiss Army offense, which seems deliciously wonky. But we don't have the pieces for that yet.
But I think the dude just likes intricate offense. That's his mind set. And there's nothing wrong with that. From Rich to Bill Walsh to Spurrier and lots of successful football minds love the offensive strategizing. Others, like our current staff, are more defensive minded. Which interests me more, but all versions can work. As long as you get someone to take care of the side you have less interest in. (I mean, I'd say Bill Belichick is a defensive guy, but he obviously realizes when he doesn't have the defense he better score a lot of points, and gets guys who can do it). I'd like a bit more defensive analysis, but there's nothing wrong with Brian writing to his passion.
"Everyone writing here seems to hate DB, or at least I never seem to see anything positive posted about him or his decisions around here." - Deep Under Cover
As late as yesterday afternoon, there was a thread where numerous people were supportive of Brandon and his scheduling of this game, as well as supportive of what he has done for the university's athletic programs in general, so this statement is not exactly true. If you search back through the site, many threads revolve around decisions driven by David Brandon, and there is a sizeable contingent of MGoBloggers that are generally supportive of his running of the department, though we may criticize individual decisions or individual aspects of those decisions.
is my Homeboy
Brian is one of many many voices here. I am sure we have all had the thoughts you are expressing. Once Brian gets a thought in his head, he will defend/support it well past the point of reason, and Denard being able to run on ANY defense is one of his favorites.
In general. it might be more helpful to address these topics when they come up, rather than to write one giant "Brian is so stupid" post. You might be surprised how well your ideas are received. There isn't a lot of censorship here.
And as to the whole Cowboy classic experience...Bama does that to everybody. We're just too close to the situation to recognize it. The only team to beat 'Bama last year scored 9 points in 9 quarters. Michigan's output against Bama would have tied them for second best last year. Denard/Scheme/the offense wasn't the problem on Saturday.
Michigan may never see an offensive line like that again. Thank God for that.
I think this may be the most down I have ever seen Mgoblog. I guess I wasn't reading the blog as heavily during the last Rich Rod years, but I've never seen the board as depressed as it has been since Saturday.
haha, the most depressing speech in football film, as if i needed to see that.
Compared to after the Penn State loss, this place is downright happy. The current air is more like the aftermath of the Gator Bowl, I think. Sure, people are pissed and down, but there's also a sense of numbness that just wasn't there for Penn State 2010 and The Game 2010.
To add something I was thinking about last night, I just don't get it. If we had scheduled the Patriots for week one and lost 150-0, would that change anyone's outlook going forward? We know we won't play them again, and there isn't a comparable team on the schedule. Sure, it sucked getting killed like that, but Alabama being great has nothing to do with how good or bad ND/MSU/Nebraska/Ohio are.
When it gets real bad Brian locks the blog. We're not even close to that.
We haven't even reached DEF-COM 4 (mods start drinking heavily at their desks) yet.
I think Brian and other contributors on this site have to be critical of coaching philosophy and decisions, even though they will readily admit the coaches know WAY more then they do; just as you are being critical of Brian even though he probably knows way more then you do. As much as he has stated that he is a fan, he has an obligation to be objective. I think coach Mattison would tell you that the all out blitzes on 3rd and long weren't necessarily the best idea in retrospect especially since Alabama had them sniffed out and called screens against them all day. The point is even our coaches aren't perfect, they make errors and objective sports writers have an obligation to point out those errors.
I think Brian's position on the offense is that it should be predicated around Denard's running. I don't think this is that bold of a position since our best offensive showings from last year were also his better rushing days. I personally don't believe that our offense can be successful if we rely on Denard to beat other teams solely with his arm, which is what we tried to do on Saturday. I understand we were playing Alabama and that they were keyed in on preventing him from running, but you can't allow a team to take away the one thing you do best. Do you think Denard would be our starting quarterback if he had the speed of Elvis Grbac (not going to pile on Navarre)? I don't, so how can you win with a game plan that limits how much he runs? I think these are legitimate questions and yes I am sure an increased workload would have exposed him to injury, but then what was the point of playing the game? We were outmatched physically, they executed better then we did, they seemed to have better talent, and at the end of the day our coaches were probably out-coached. I think given the final score even they would admit that there were things that they needed to do differently to give the team any sort of chance to win. So how is anything Brian has said out of line?
The only thing that bugged me about not running Denard was that we basically conceded it wouldn't work. Rather than matching our strength against theirs, we basically said, naww, you're better we're going to do what you want us to do.
Bama game planned to keep Denard from running. I don't think we would have had a ton of success, but I would have liked us to at least try. As it is, we don't really know how good Denard the runner is against the best D's we play, because Borges won't run him in that situation. I think that's what Brian meant when he said Borges outsmarted himself.
I am not certain why you care so much about another persons opinion. I could care less if Brian likes pizza. I know I like pizza. I don't want to convince him to like pizza the same way I do because that would be crazy. He is free to enjoy pizza or not enjoy pizza just as I am. He may not like olives and maybe I do. I don't want to convince him to like olives. Why would I want to do that?
You are not qualified to say whether you like olives or not.
Personally, I think that the most interesting thing about this blog is that everyone has pretty much the same emotional response to games but expresses them very differently. A sociology major should write a thesis on this blog. It would be pretty darn interesting.
IMO, the most interesting of all discussions is that the AD is good/bad. Where else other than here would anyone ever talk about an AD? It just goes to show you the depth of our knowledge about the program - from the ground up - thanks to all of the informed and intelligent contributors on the blog, including someone like the OP who is brave enough to voice his opinion.
That said, I'm not a huge fan of these kinds of threads. I'd rather that these kinds of things be addressed in a personal email to the subject involved but this one has invoked some interesting discussion (so far).
I am sick of people saying that Alabama was that much more talented. I think experience, scheme and execution are bigger at that level of football than talent is. Execution was the biggest part of the problem on Saturday. Scheme offensively was also a problem IMO. I'm not saying Alabama doesn't have more talent or depth, they do, but if you scheme and execute perfectly you can overcome talent.