Would you rather have a good OC or DC?

Submitted by go16blue on January 19th, 2011 at 7:05 PM

While the ideal would be to have both (duh), the past few years we have had a great OC, but very bad DCs. Going into the new regime, we seem to have a great DC, but a mediocre OC. So, mgocommunity, what would you rather have?

Comments

Champ Kind

January 19th, 2011 at 7:09 PM ^

I'd take whichever is the opposite side of the ball from the head coach's expertise.

If everything was equal, I'd probably say defense.  That could be in large part due to the nightmares that remain from last year.

Papochronopolis

January 19th, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^

How sure are you that Magee was a great OC?  Remember RR was the main driver of that offense.

I also would say that Borges is better than most OC's Michigan has ever had.  He's at least much, much better than Greg Robinson was at DC

Mitch Cumstein

January 19th, 2011 at 7:12 PM ^

Technically, if you have the best D possible, you can win games w/o fielding an offense.  Barring massive onside kick success, the same is not true the other way around.

Waters Demos

January 19th, 2011 at 7:16 PM ^

This is often said, but I believe it to be true.  If the other team cannot score, and you're more likely than not going to find a way to score at some point (blind squirrel theory), then you win.

I hate "first to 56" football when it involves my team (I think JLS is quoted as having said it once [douchebag]).  It's entertaining as hell when it's not my team, however. 

mwolverineforlife

January 19th, 2011 at 7:23 PM ^

Since our defense was giving up so many points, our offense was more prone to failure despite their greatness, because they weren't getting the ball enough. If we could have forced a few three and outs and gotten some stops, we could have put up sinful amounts of points. With a rock solid defense and a mediocre offense, the offense will put up points once they're on the field long enough.

burntorangeblue

January 19th, 2011 at 7:23 PM ^

A well-coached offense is sooooo much more gratifying to me as a fan.  No matter how much fight is in a defense, they'll give up scores.  And when they can't rely on scoring coming on offense, even the best units get deflated.  Muschamp was a firey dude, and there was talent top to bottom on UT's D, but they just couldn't get it done with no help from the O.

It seemed different when the offense was the strongly coached unit, because they very much dictate the pace and tenor of the game.  Defense gives up a long drive, no problem, lets go score.  It just feels less Sisyphean when the O is the better unit. 

MadMagician48

January 19th, 2011 at 7:23 PM ^

I would base it on what the head coach’s weakness is at. Good OC, if head coach is a defensive minded and vice versa, but it’s not a realistic scenario. You try to pick the best on both sides.

BywaterE5

January 19th, 2011 at 11:08 PM ^

If you have to pick between a good OC or a good DC you shouldn't be a head coach.  I just want the O to bail out the D when they have a bad game and vice versa.

 

Another gratuitous Ginger

MichiganStudent

January 19th, 2011 at 8:08 PM ^

DC by far. If you can stop other teams, you put them in poor field position and create turnovers. Therefore, even average OC's will put up points because the defense is so good. 

jmblue

January 19th, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^

 the past few years we have had a great OC,

Disagree.  I was very underwhelmed by Calvin Magee.  I frankly expected a lot more offensive creativity from him.  We were about as predictable in our playcalling as we were under DeBord.  Only in one of his three years were we actually good on offense, and IMO that was far more due to Denard's individual brilliance than anything Magee did. 

But anyway, I'd always take the great DC.  I think it's more difficult to build a great defense than a great offense.  On offense, one great player (especially at QB) can carry the show.  Defense is much more of a team effort.   

King Douche Ornery

January 19th, 2011 at 9:04 PM ^

Have we all forgotten 1997?

Michigan's defense that year should quell any arguments about this subject. i know there was a massive amount of talent there, but it was well coached and motivated. I recall about two or three touchdown drives by the ooposition the entire season--I mean long, field covering TD drives.

Lloyd played into that--Michigan didn't score a whole lot against opponents that year and didn't need to.

Woodson took away half the field and anytime anyone dared challenge him--ZOINKS!

Defense, defense, DEFENSE!

As one guy who was ready for Rodriguez to be run out of town, I'm willing to admit if Michigan had even a top 50 defense this year--ZOINKS! Rodriguez would be shopping for an island in Lake Michigan on which to build a mansion. If he had been able to manufacture a top 20 defense--He'd have won the NC this year and the next three.

I'll take a defense that is NAILS because it sets the tone for the entire team and seems to always be something you can fall back on.

bringthewood

January 19th, 2011 at 9:11 PM ^

For entertainment = OC

Winning = DC

I actually really enjoyed our offense last year and it's entertainment value outweighed some of the crappy defense.  I'd rather see a 65-63 overtime win than a 10-7 win and I've seen both.  I'm not really looking forward to a more traditional offense but am looking forward to some semblance of a defense.