2 minute offense

Submitted by ijohnb on November 5th, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Aside from a couple of wild Denard overthrows, the offensive philosophy employed by M on that last drive should be used as the base offense.  Denard's strength as a passer is to give him multiple options, contrary to a really accurate drop back passers who can pin-point a pass to a designated receiver running a predictable route.  In addition, take away the time crunch and that type of old-school moderate length pass happy "Charlie Ward spread" gives Denard substantially more lanes to run through with the secondary more focussed on covering multiple receivers spreading the field out.   M had some success from the i today with one or two wideouts, but IMO, M should try to spread teams out early and often.  The wide receivers are not apt to make the the big play deep off playaction, thus, the threat of the run does not intimidate defenses because there is really no deep threat there.  And don't tell me that the success was due to a "prevent" by Iowa, they run the same defense all game.

The offense is searching for an identity.  After watching that fourth quarter, I say run the "two minute" from the jump.

Comments

Geaux_Blue

November 5th, 2011 at 5:32 PM ^

if i had to guess this was an effort to see if all the pieces were in place to go with the offense Hoke et. al would like to run or if they need to use the crutch (elements of last year's offense). injuries and poor throws didn't help but at times MANBALL did seem to work. in the end, though, i wouldn't be surprised if there's not as much of an aggressive push to force the offense into their scheme moving forward as this loss pushes them to move forward with their best effort. i don't think this was the round peg square hole of 2008 but i think it was a bit of a rush by the coaching staff to do things their way and hope for the best.

on the upside, kovacs came back WAY earlier than i had heard out of practices which was obviously good.

Nick

November 5th, 2011 at 7:21 PM ^

is fighting this philosophical battle everyday.  During the bye, they clearly re-emphasized the power run game and while they might be slightly better at it as a result, it is still sub-optimal with this roster.

The coaching staff was put in a situation where their comfort zone was a bad match for that of the roster.  The fact that the gameplan has leaned to the conservative shows they would like to be able to win a game a certain way and will only revert to alternative plans of attack if need be.

I think the staff feels the multiple formations makes us harder to defend, but really defenses just get a break from Denard.

This loss is on the players and the refs as well, but the offensive staff (we dont know if its more Hoke or Borges influencing the philosophy) is just stubborn.

Maize 'n Chew

November 5th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^

If not the 2 minute offense, at least something to keep the defense from getting a chance to setup.  IIRC we ran the no huddle very effectively last year.  It's one thing to put Denard under center and try to make him a pro style QB while saying you still encourage him to run when the opportunity presents itself.  It's another thing entirely to ignore the fact that tempo is at least a modest part of what made the offense successful last year.

And enough with all the trickeration and putting in Devin Gardner.  Just enough already.

2plankr

November 5th, 2011 at 6:13 PM ^

Thankfully, our coaches arent that insecure.  probably why we had the #15 FEI and #8ypp offense going into this week.  because they dont listen to internet lombardis, and trust their decisions

im also thankful that they dont feel the need to give you the 95% of the information that goes into their decisions that you are ignorant of.  that would be detrimental to the team, and futile

MGoBlue96

November 5th, 2011 at 7:02 PM ^

we saw today looked nothing like we had seen all year.  Unless you can find another game where Borges called 70-80% i-formation plays for most of  the game, and showed a limited number of formations. For most of the year the ratio of Shotgun/Spread concepts versus prostyle concepts has been reversed, in comparison to what we saw today.  I don't how it can be stated any simpler, this team is not built to run the i-formation as their primary formation, but yet Borges tried to make them something that they aren't through the first 3 quarters today.

And it's not like Borges called a particular good game against State either, when he didn't do anything to counter their blitzes.

turtleboy

November 5th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^

seeing as how our qb is not a prototype pinpoint pocket passer. It would be nice to see him work on getting Denard into some kind of an offensive rhythm instead of trying to exclusively outscheme defenses. Denards rushing has gone waaay down lately as well. Too far down. That is not so good. It is good to see him making adjustments when things aren't working.

ijohnb

November 5th, 2011 at 5:37 PM ^

was not in a prevent defense.   Please become familiar with what a prevent defense really is before stating that a team was playing it.

ijohnb

November 5th, 2011 at 6:16 PM ^

you point to some blitzes they were running at all, the entire day?  A prevent defense employs like 6 defensive backs.  Often a defensive lineman drops back into coverage in a prevent.  Pull up M v. Colorado 93 on the last drive.  That was a prevent.  Iowa had the same personnel on the field that they had the rest of the game.

2plankr

November 5th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^

Yes, I can.  They ran corner blitzes often, especially on third downs.  I remember some zone blitzes to get pressure in the middle during most of the game.  They brought the house on all 4 downs at the end when they stoped us.  But again, semantics.  Iowa pretty much never changes their personnel/scheme.  But sometimes they blitz out of it, and sometimes they run a sagging soft zone, like they did when we moved the ball at the end.

MGoBlue96

November 5th, 2011 at 6:21 PM ^

idea what Iowa likes to do on defense? They aren't a team that blitzes, in fact they are a team that seldom blitzes and rushes four for the most part and keeps both safeties deep. That has been the style of defense they have played for several years now.

Argueing that Iowa was playing prevent because they didn't blitz makes no sense, since Iowa rarely blitzes even in non two minute situations.

MGoBlue96

November 5th, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^

see those corner blitzes your refering to. It looked like typical Iowa to me. And they also moved the ball relatively easily to cut the game to 8 points, so it wasn't like the final drive was the only drive they had after spreading Iowa out and stopped trying to a power i-formation team(which they aren't).

MGoStrength

November 5th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^

Look, Denard is our best runner.  Granted we don't want to run him so much he gets hurt.  But, he is best running (and throwing for that matter) from the spread option or scrambling on a pass play.  If we set him up under center it takes away our best weapon, Denard running.  And, Denard is not good enough of a passer nor our recievers good enough, nor our line big enough to be effective with him under center.  That only works against inferior teams.  That will never work against the Nebraskas, OSUs, MSUs, Wisconsins, PSUs etc of the B1G.  Sheesh

MaizeAndBlueManGroup

November 5th, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^

Don't forget that Iowa's 2 minute defense played a big role in that. Iowa was purposely sitting back and keeping everything in front of them which is why moving down the field at the end looked so easy.

MGoBlue96

November 5th, 2011 at 6:04 PM ^

when they cut it to 8 as well.  The fact of the matter, is that Iowa is a team that plays like that for the entire game. They generally only rush 4, keep both safeties back and try and keep plays in front of them.  There are one of the more conservative defenses in  the country, conceding intermediate and short plays to prevent the big play.

Michigan should have been spreading them out before the fourth quarter, as there was a clear difference when they went to the Shotgun and spread the field. Trying to run a power I--formation through the first three quarters was not getting anywhere, and this team is not built for that. It made no sense whatsoever, and wasn't what we had seen for most of the season.

coastal blue

November 5th, 2011 at 6:20 PM ^

yes, idiot. With the 108th defense in the country complementing them and incompetent special teams as well. This makes a difference. If you give Michigan the field goal they missed, they had more points. 

Fact is, Michigan running RRs offense + Mattison's defense wins against MSU and Iowa this year. It's sad that they could not be found in the same year. 

coastal blue

November 5th, 2011 at 6:45 PM ^

Here is an actual point:

It doesn't matter, but something tells me that Denard and co. in the offense they ran last year, coupled with this year's defense, would have won their two close losses. Why, you ask? Because having a second year in the same system with a maturing quarterback seems like it would be progressive, whereas learning a new one breeds the potential for regression.

And, the reason for the idiot, was because the post I responded to was the usual drivel that takes nothing into account but the usual "durr, spread can't work, big ten = nfl+" attitude".

I negged you because you added nothing to the conversation. 

Hope everything is cleared up. 

2plankr

November 5th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^

So you are confusing fact with opinion.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Your justification for attacking him personally rings hollow.  If his argument is so weak, and you choose to respond to it, the absolute worst way you can do so is with an ad hominem attack.  It is neither productive nor polite.

I never asked, nor do I care, what anyone votes on anything.

coastal blue

November 5th, 2011 at 6:56 PM ^

I just don't necessarily consider the phrase "fact is" anything but a turn of phrase. 

And please, stop using ad hominem because you think it makes you look smart. Three posts in a row is quite enough. I get it. 

The "attack"  - as your dramatic 15 year old girl brain deemed it - was followed by reasons in the original post, based upon last year's special teams and defense. 

You clearly do care, as you made a point to mention it. 

Case closed. 

 

2plankr

November 5th, 2011 at 7:03 PM ^

more personal attacks, awesome.  wanna know how i know i'm winning this argument?

can you point out where i made a point to mention it?  i suspect that you confused the word "beg" with "neg", which does not surprise me at all, its consistent with everything else you have said here

feel free to continue trying to redefine the word "fact" though

ijohnb

November 5th, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^

I understand what you are saying.  Iowa was not exactly bringing the heat big time in the last few minutes, and I understand the Hoke is trying to bridge the gap between what was and what is to be.  But the fact of the matter is that Denard has proven entirely more effective this year in what can be described as playground football, muttiple receivers, multiple routes.  It severely limits the defenses ability to blitz because there is one or two dump off routes immediately available due to the blitz.  And if they bltiz from the wrong place, TOUCHDOWN SHOELACE. At the beginning of the year, OK, install the offense of the future and pay your dues.  But we are in the hunt for a substantial bowl game right now.  It is time to conform the offense to what has worked so far this season.