Eleven Warriors analyzes why RR & Spread failed at Michigan
(Note: I struggled with whether or not to title this OT in the subject line. However, it is about Michigan, and Ohio, so I didn't go "OT," even though it is yet another RR rehash.)
Over at Eleven Warriors, their current headline article is (link:) The Spread in the Big Ten: Why Did Rich Rod Fail at Michigan? This is a followup to an earlier 11W column on Meyer's Spread Failures. I am posting this NOT so there can be another discussion / flamewar about RR & "what went wrong" with lots of hand wringing and readers lining up for or against RR & the Spread. As mentioned here many times, "No Moar RR!!" Rather, I find it interesting that Ohio is looking at this, and wondering what Meyer will bring with the spread. They clearly are curious, and trying to ascertain what to expect in Ohio's future.
FTR, the writer (Fulton) suggests that RR's failure was due to not adapting the spread beyond it's origins. I disagree, and so do many of the 11W readers. RR's offense was doing well by 2010, and would likely have improved in 2011. The major problems, as every mgoblog reader already knows, were:
- The defense (Schafer, Gerg, RR meddling, lack of bringing Casteel with him from WVa.)
- The special teams.
- Lack of institutional support. (Carr et al, not paying enough to bring in Casteel.)
- RR's failure to fully understand and embrace Michigan culture (including Ohio rivalry.)
- RR's failure at diplomacy (Josh Groban, anyone?)
They also give Hoke and Borges credit for a number of things, including "getting" Michigan, and adapting to current personnel.
February 24th, 2012 at 12:06 AM ^
Our offense was the 9th best offense in the country last year and we played the same (probably tougher) schecdule as every other year. How is saying they were pretty good giving them too much credit?
Looking at the defense this year, it was really overrated. Against ND, MSU, OSU, and Nebraska, we gave up 27 points per game. Our defense got too much credit....they actually weren't that good because they played poorly in those 4 games I pointed out.
February 24th, 2012 at 7:47 AM ^
They weren't 9th they were 24th.
February 24th, 2012 at 12:07 AM ^
Our offense was the 9th best offense in the country last year and we played the same (probably tougher) schecdule as every other year. How is saying they were pretty good giving them too much credit?
Looking at the defense this year, it was really overrated. Against ND, MSU, OSU, and Nebraska, we gave up 27 points per game. Our defense got too much credit....they actually weren't that good because they played poorly in those 4 games I pointed out.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:03 AM ^
except for the fact we lit them up for 45 in regulation and 67 after overtime. They beat Penn State and had the same record as Penn State and were 1 game behind Iowa.
The only reason people try to include them in the good/decent teams is because we beat them and that would give credit to the 2010 offense.
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:33 PM ^
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:14 PM ^
Even without taking pre-snap tempo into account, spread offenses are designed to score faster than pro-style teams. They create big plays and score in 3, 4, and 5 play drives. They are also more susceptible to having short, ineffective drives because, with some exceptions, there aren't many 3 or 4 yard plays to make 3rd downs easier to convert.
Even a no-huddle pro-style is generally going to run the ball conservatively, looking for 4 and 5 yard gains, eating clock, with the purpose of the no-huddle approach primarily to limit defensive substitutions. Payton Manning's Colts ran no-huddle and snapped the ball with 2 seconds on the play clock pretty much every down.
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:15 PM ^
February 23rd, 2012 at 6:22 PM ^
Yes, I am suggesting exactly that. It may sound ridiculous to you, but there are a whole bunch of believers that scoring too quickly puts too much of a burden on your defense. You may want to read up on the history of the Run n' Shoot offense and why teams like the Lions and Falcons dropped it in the early 1990s - it was because they couldn't rely on the offense to be able to run clock in the 2nd halves of games to seal victories. If two offenses both score 75 percent of the time but one takes 8 minutes to do so while the other takes 2 minutes, you have effectively improved the chance your defense is rested for the opponent's next drive.
By the way, a no huddle offense is designed to keep a defense from substituting, not huddling. Defensive huddles are pretty much unimportant but getting the right personnel packages in is hugely important.
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:58 PM ^
It is amazing nearly every team in the top 25 runs some sort of spread if it makes the defense so tired. I am surprised anyone runs it at all if it is so ineffective.
February 23rd, 2012 at 10:12 PM ^
Teams that can attract the top talent generally (not always, but in most cases) run traditional pro-style offenses. The spread is an often effective attempt at evening the playing field for teams that aren't able to attract the best players because, schematically, it relies less on physically outclassing your opponent and more on outscheming them. So if you're Northwestern and you have no shot at playing with the big boys using an I-Formation, the spread is a wonderful thing. When you're a Michigan (or Alabama, or Ohio, or USC) and have your pick of the country's top talent, you generally see those teams run low-risk, less turnover prone pro-style offenses because they can rely on the talent to use its superior strength, skill, and speed to beat inferior talent. Simply put, there is no need to outscheme someone if you are flat out better than they are. The exception is Oklahoma, who continues to run a fairly conservative version of the spread with a ton of talent.
As to your ridiculous assertion that nearly every team in the top 25 runs the spread in some form, I call bullshit. Here is the final AP poll from this past season: 14 teams could be considered primarily spread teams while 11 would be considered by most to be primarily pro-style teams. Eight of the top 11 ran pro style, including both participants in the MNC.
Spread (Yes/No)
1 | Alabama (55) | 12-1 | No |
2 | LSU (1) | 13-1 | No |
3 | Oklahoma State (4) | 12-1 | Yes |
4 | Oregon | 12-2 | Yes |
5 | Arkansas | 11-2 | No |
6 | USC | 10-2 | No |
7 | Stanford | 11-2 | No |
8 | Boise State | 12-1 | Yes |
9 | South Carolina | 11-2 | No |
10 | Wisconsin | 11-3 | No |
11 | Michigan State | 11-3 | No |
12 | Michigan | 11-2 | Yes |
13 | Baylor | 10-3 | Yes |
14 | TCU | 11-2 | Yes |
15 | Kansas State | 10-3 | Yes |
16 | Oklahoma | 10-3 | Yes |
17 | West Virginia | 10-3 | Yes |
18 | Houston | 13-1 | Yes |
19 | Georgia | 10-4 | No |
20 | Southern Miss | 12-2 | Yes |
21 | Virginia Tech | 11-3 | No |
22 | Clemson | 10-4 | Yes |
23 | Florida State | 9-4 | No |
24 | Nebraska | 9-4 | Yes |
25 | Cincinnati | 10-3 | Yes |
February 24th, 2012 at 12:10 AM ^
So more than half this year's top 25 ran the spread. And the 2 national championship teams from last year ran it as well. So basically, any type of offense can be successfull if you have the right players. Huh. Exactly what I said.
February 24th, 2012 at 12:44 AM ^
February 24th, 2012 at 8:04 AM ^
that LSU ran an offense of any kind.