This Week's Obsession: Dual Threat Comment Count

Seth

9740847797_94594d5bf7_b

[Fuller]

The weekly roundtable wonders about this whole "let's not get another Gardner" plan (that isn't the plan). Our depth chart:

9743849178_81f954ce5e_o
What, my Henson-ian athleticism isn't good enough for ya? [Upchurch]
  • Brian Cook: Field General!
  • Seth Fisher: Legit 4.4 Speed!
  • Ace Anbender: Top Recruiter!
  • Heiko Yang: Huge Arm!
  • Blue in South Bend: Super Accurate!
  • Coach Brown: Reads Defenses!
  • Mathlete: Academic All-American!

This one comes from the mailbag, a guy appropriately named "Dual Threat." If you notice a whole lot of positivity in it, it's because it was sent before last Saturday. I'll posit his question as he sent it:

My point of view is we should be recruiting more dual threat-ers. While Morris and Speight are no doubt going to be good pocket passers, leaving the running aspect of the position off the table leaves a huge hole in the offensive arsenal going forward.

I feel dual threat QBs are going to be the future of dominant college football programs going forward (I see Alabama as a current exception, not the norm in the future). Would you not sacrifice a bit of QB passing ability for a chunk of QB running ability to open up that attack dimension? Wouldn't you be foolish not to? Thoughts?

Brian: It's clear that all things being equal, Michigan's going to prefer advanced passers to guys who can glide for 35 yards without looking like they're moving particularly fast. And that's a little bit of a bummer to me, since a guy who can make people pay with his legs opens up many more possibilities in your offense. 

What remains to be seen is whether Michigan is going to completely eschew athletic types that need some molding. Would they go the Charlie Weis route and recruit Terrelle Pryor as a wide receiver? I have nothing to base this on but I don't think so. If there's a Gardner or Pryor in the area, Michigan will probably go after them as hard as they would Morris.

[Jump]

We have no evidence to support this because there's an utter dearth of dual-threat types in the Midwest this year. Ohio State chased two out-of-region guys who ended up at Clemson and LSU before settling for a generic three-star from Georgia whom two of the three sites who split QB rankings declare a pocket passer. There was no one in the Midwest any power school pursued who even vaguely fits the definition of dual threat except maybe DeShone Kizer, a 6'5" guy with a 5-second 40 who seems to be listed as a dual threat largely because of his skin color. (See: Campbell, Jayru.)

Meanwhile, in 2015 there's a bounty of California pocket passers and 2016 features Messiah DeWeaver, who seems like he wants to go to Michigan and will be good enough to get his offer. It might be a while before we get any referendum on whether Michigan is going to completely deprioritize being able to run for seven yards an attempt in its QB recruiting.

-----------------------------

Coach Brown: I've always been the kind of guy that thought a running quarterback is the only way to go. This even goes back to my early video game days of always finding the QB with the highest speed rating and going with him, even if a pocket-passer type was rated much higher overall. I know that example isn't close to what it shakes out to in real life, but my thought process in choosing a starter or a recruiting target would be similar.

IMG_5076
Ack too runny. [Upchurch]

A quarterback that can run adds a completely new dimension to the offense that defensive coordinators have to gameplan for. If you have a statue as a QB, that is a huge threat the defense no longer has to worry about. To me Denard was a little too much of a running quarterback, as we saw solid defenses weren't threatened by his passing ability and keyed entirely on his running attack. Devin SHOULD be much more balanced as far as arm strength and accuracy are concerned. Until recently I would've said his decision making too, but after last week that has become a question mark too.

College football offenses are definitely favoring that type of quarterback right now and a lot of the top 25 teams have what is considered a dual-threat guy at the helm or at least a guy with some mobility. Aaron Murray is an example of a pocket-passer type with good athleticism. He was originally recruited as a dual-threat type, even though now his offensive scheme doesn't really require him to be.

The QB position at Michigan looks like it should be in good shape with Shane and Wilton, but I definitely have always been in favor of a quarterback who can hurt the opposition with his feet. Michigan has always had a tough time defending those kinds of players so why not utilize that if you can?

Of course the ultimate bomb to this whole theory is, of course, Alabama. They do it the way Brady Hoke wants to do it. Studs on the o-line, bell cow running backs, NFL type receivers, and a smart, consistent QB. AJ McCarron doesn't get a lot of hype or throw out video game numbers like a Marcus Mariota, but he has multiple national titles and a clean jersey.

If the coaches at Michigan can do it this way with success anywhere near what Alabama has had, I'm all for it. Until then, I'll stick with my opinion that a QB needs to be able to scramble and pick up yards on the ground.

-----------------------------

Seth: You know why Michigan didn't lose to Akron? Because when our quarterback had one of those passing off-days that quarterbacks have, and the line wasn't able to establish a running game because of all the things, once again Michigan turned to the bottomless well of Rodriguezian quarterback legs and…

click to bring up lightbox

…hey look we're winning again. How many times in the Hoke era has Michigan come in with a plan of THIS TIME WE'RE TOTALLY RUNNING POWER and then have to scrap that when the game is on the line? I'm asking your question, aren't I? I feel you; let me answer you.

I am of the opinion--like Coach Brown--that football is a game that was designed to be played by athletes, but the bigger your roster and more time you have for practice the more you can get out the specialists. Before Devin Gardner and Denard Robinson there were Rick Leach, Harry Newman, and Benny Friedman. Running QBs aren't a recent takeover; they're a return to normal.

The reason the NFL became a league of overpaid, over-tall white guys who sling it 40 times a game is the league bent every pass blocking rule and made it nearly illegal to lay your hands on the studmuffin, who is also the product's lead spokesman and the subject of 85% of easy-to-write stories the media will gleefully manufacture to avoid having to learn what an inverted veer is.

1145530
Speight comes with all you see here, including like five more blue-chip recruits. [Scout]

College football doesn't afford you the practice time to learn all of the routes and stems that Brady or Manning have mastered. For a time NCAA teams went a-slinging because the shotgun let you Ty Detmer people to death but you couldn't run from it. With the spread and zone read and pistol variation, and a QB with legs, now you can again, and that's why running QBs are again the dominant offensive tools in college football.

That said, everybody is after "athletic" QBs these days, and you can't have everything or coach everything. So Michigan is going to trade the thing that is at a premium value in order to max out on other things. With Morris and Speight they found guys who get the ball to large, talented receivers all over the field, AND who can act like a second recruiting coordinator, bringing in more than enough talent elsewhere in the lineup to offset their limitations.

So yeah, if you can reach into your back yard and find a Devin Gardner who can pass, run, lead a team and study like a champion every year GO GET THAT GUY, but honestly that guy doesn't come along all that often. The NFL still wants Ken dolls with SUPER THROWING ACTION arms, and somebody can make a killing providing them. Because that type of QB is by nature more erratic on a game-by-game basis, it's not the business I would have gone into, but it's a respectable niche that comes with other benefits. George Campbell!

-----------------------------

tumblr_lx6idpc7uM1qm9rypo1_1280
Remember when people used to always be yelling "Put in Kapsner"? Also: if Michigan's cornering the market on Tom Bradys while getting the occasional Henson, I mean, how upset are we really?

BiSB: I think the 'mobile QB' debate sets up somewhat of a false dichotomy. The question isn't really "do you want a running quarterback or a passing quarterback?" so much as it is "what do you look for first?" This regime obviously looks to the throwy stuff first, and when in doubt the better passing quarterback will probably get the offer. And surely we have seen the last Denard-like creature in a winged helmet for the foreseeable future (/sigh), but it seems inconceivable that Borges doesn't appreciate the benefits of a guy who can pick 'em up and put 'em down. He is still using Devin's legs, just in more traditional ways.

Bottom line: you don't NEED a super-mobile QB to run a West Coast system. Steve Young did it, but so did Joe Montana. The thing that concerns me is that a mobile quarterback is a hell of a safety net. If Kovacs was Brian's binky these last few years, mine was QB Iso. I'm a believer in math, and I enjoy watching a running attack that starts with a +1 in the blocker-to-defender department when compared to a traditional running attack (whether through QB power or through optioning a defender into irrelevance). If they stop doing the easy stuff to generate mathematical advantages (plz keep running the veer, k thx), the onus will be on Borges to manufacture those advantages. That seems like a less secure bet.

On a related note, let's not confuse Shane Morris with Chad Henne. Morris wouldn't be confused with Vince Young, but it seems like he has enough mobility to at least SHOW defenses some of the same clubs that are in Devin's bag. Is one option keeper in every ten option gives enough to slow a defensive end down? I don't know, but it's worth a shot, even if Shane's keepers are worth 8 and not 40.

-----------------------------

Ace: I'm not sure anyone on this blog is going to say that they'd rather go full-blown pocket statue instead of having a quarterback who can run—all things being equal, you'd have to be insane not to want the latter—and I think the coaches feel the same way, albeit not as strongly. Shane Morris may not be a Denard/DG-type; he still has the capability to escape the pocket and move the sticks with his legs. Wilton Speight is more statuesque; he was recruited because he can really throw the deep ball, and obviously Al Borges is pretty big on that. The ability to execute Borges's passing game is priority one; being able to move around may not be too far down the list, however.

861009
But no, seriously, we can trade this for running zone reads that aren't actually reads if you want. [247]

As Brian mentioned, the 2014 class is completely devoid of good dual-threat QBs with any interest in Michigan who are actually dual-threat QBs. We know the coaches are at least considering a dual-threat guy in the 2015 class, as Heiko noticed CA TX QB Sheriron Jones's name on a whiteboard in Al Borges's office; depending on which site you look at, another California QB under consideration, Kevin Dillman, is also considered More Than Just A Pocket Passer™. A couple other dual-threat prospects, Anthony Ratliff (from the same school as Channing Stribling) and Cinjun Erskine have interest as well. While the coaches may not have had any idea what to do with Denard Robinson, they seem comfortable recruiting a quarterback that can run as long as he can also execute in the passing game, and that's fine by me. We won't have another Denard at quarterback; we will have more polished passers, and some of them may be able to run, too.

If Michigan isn't going back to the spread—news flash: they aren't—then I'm fine with this. With the talent being built on the offensive line and at the other skill positions, they don't need somebody is going to carry the offense in the air and on the ground. I'd prefer to see a guy with some mobility taking snaps, and for that to be utilized—as Bryan noted, MATH—but it'd be nice to see what a pinpoint passer can do once Michigan can actually execute POWER and boasts receivers who are Jeremy Gallon But Tall. If that pinpoint passer can run, great. If he can't, they'll have plenty of other weapons—including what should be a kickass defense, which counts as a weapon—to help them win games.

9180287-large
Honestly, this is the game you picked to highlight overvaluing of running QBs? Oh, low-variability offenses: YES.

Mathlete: For a program like Michigan, on its current recruiting trajectory, the question is how do you beat Ohio State and whoever you face in a major bowl game. It's not that there aren't going to be other quality programs, but on Michigan's best years, it's going to be defined by those couple of critical games against teams with elite talent each season. The sample size on mobile quarterbacks on elite teams is still fairly small, there does seem to be some evidence that the most potent offenses with mobile quarterbacks are fantastic about seizing any small advantage for a massive pile of points, but they get caught up against big physical teams.

The prime example is obviously Oregon and if you look at the teams that have tripped them up, you have LSU, Stanford, Ohio State and Auburn in recent years. It's always dangerous to draw big conclusion from such a limited sample, but there could be something to the idea that this style of offense struggles when facing the best defenses. One thing that seems like a trend is that the path to the national championship is great defense and a low variability offense. With that said, I agree with the idea that it's all about who is available. I think Denard and to a greater extent now Devin have shown them that the QB run can be a great security blanket for the staff. Given two guys to chose between now, I think the staff would go for the guys with running ability now, while they probably wouldn't have done that a couple years ago. But I don't see them ever going after any quarterbacks who they don't think can be elite passers first.

Comments

uncleFred

September 18th, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^

and an exceptional center who called the offense for the line. Discounting losing his talent, his leadership, and his experience as irrelevant to the loss of effectiveness in the 2012 line under cuts the credibility of your argument. The scheme change has far less to do with that line's struggles than simply the loss of experience and in some cases talent.

 

ca_prophet

September 18th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^

"That same OL, minus Molk, ran very very well in '10 and '11." Boy, it's almost like losing the best center in the country mattered a lot. Who could have guessed, after watching the Sugar Bowl? And gee, I wonder who rolled up all those yards? Why, look, it was the best rushing QB in NCAA history! Wonder if that had anything to do with it? More seriously, lets look at our line. If we had Alabama level talent and experience that was playing this bad, that's one thing; looking at coaches and scheme would make sense. But we don't. We barely have depth; we have virtually no experience on the interior line and that can't be laid at the feet of anyone still at Michigan. Who on the line is underperforming in a way we shouldn't expect given their ratings and experience, especially with their linemates? Even Lewan famously had a miscommunication at an inoppertune moment last year - that happens, and it happens a lot more with people who both haven't played and and haven't played with you, no matter how talented. The point is that we knew we'd have concerns about the line, and while young talent should improve by years end we are not there yet. In an ideal world, you recruit a new OL every year, redshirt them, and work them into the two deep (some will wash out, get hurt, etc.) as redshirt sophs, then start them the next 2-3 years. We have a huge crater in that pipeline, and that, more than anything else, is causing our OL struggles. Next year will likely be similar but shaped differently - we might have a solid interior with Bryant/Glasgow/Kugler/Kalis and stuttering tackles with Magnusen and Braden, as they get blooded. Finally, Borges and Funk aren't getting fired (or if they are, I'm losing a lot of respect for Hoke; scapegoating people is never good management). Talk to me when the first lineman Hoke recruited graduates and at least we'll have data; right now we have nothing but "we sucked on Saturday, it hurts, and I want to blame someone because my team doesn't win all the things".

UMaD

September 18th, 2013 at 4:21 PM ^

My points of contention are this:

First off, the team ypc fell off even with Molk, from 2010 to 2011.  Secondly, Molk was great, but ultimately - one guy on a line of 5 including a top 10 NFL pick.  Most of the offense came back including senior Denard (until he got hurt).  Should have been enough to offset his loss, which I don't mean to diminish. 

I'll just say that I thought Rodriguez would get 4 years too.  No one is immune from perceptions and public pressure.  Hoke has built up a lot of goodwill, but I don't know if it will be enough if we're going to be as bad as I think we might be next year (on offense.) 

You see how some people can react badly to one close victory.  An entire season of frustration is a much bigger deal.

 

uncleFred

September 18th, 2013 at 9:16 PM ^

that Rodriguez did not get a fourth year?

You know had he gone 11-2 in any year, hell even 8-5 in any year the odds are he'd still be around. He did not. He thought that Michigan football was only about winning. It is not. Don't get me wrong, winning is extremely important, but at Michigan the head coach is expected to do more than win. 

Brady's focus on bringing in young men of character and teaching them what character matters, is more than just mouth sounds. Forging men and women of character is what Michigan has been about longer than the football program has existed. Sports at Michigan are expected to showcase the process of creating young people of character. Period. I don't think that Rodriguez ever understood that. 

To paraphrase Brady: Character wins in life and character wins on the football field. 

You may react badly to a season of frustration, but Brady and his staff have a lot of credibility in the bank. Most of us won't like the rebuilding process if 2014 is worse than 2013, but we'll hang in there because we understand what is going on and are willing to wait a bit longer to see character win championships. Which, given three or four more years, they will. 

UMaD

September 18th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^

Without Gardner next year, I don't see them putting up points.  They'll need a run game to do it - I'm not sure we have the materials to provide it. I think Gardner is gone.

With our D we can still win some (most?) games but OSU,etc gonna be very tough.

Wolfman

September 18th, 2013 at 7:57 PM ^

For Gardner to declare this year, the remainder of his year would have to be as solid, minus the td pick vs. ND to even have him consider it. If he played at that level for the rest of the year, we would undoubtedly enjoy a real nice season. However, inasmuch as he has not yet reached two full seasons of football and the fact that more highly thought of qbs, i.e., Braxton have stayed around until their game is NFL ready, I can't anticipate Devin not doing the same.       ^But getting back to topic, NW appears like it may be among our three toughest opponents this year, and although much like the rest of the conference, they haven't played a strong schedule to date. However, without looking up the stats, I feel strongly that I would be correct in guessing they are probably the most efficient offensive team in the conference at the qb position when you consider both passing and rushing efficiency from their two-headed qb. Both have proven to be pretty damn good, and that's something we might want to look at. Instead of full dependency on a dual-threat, maybe Pat is on to something by keeping the two different types around and playing them both significantly.  If DG had been ready when Denard went down at braska, who knows??????   Just sayin...................

Indiana Blue

September 18th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^

The guy I remember being the first dual threat QB was Roger Staubach when he was with Navy ... yet hardly anyone thinks of him as a dual threat because of his NFL career.  In terms of Michigan QB's - there seems to be a lot of Morris / Leach comparisons (probably because of both being lefies).  However I personally hope that Shane becomes a leader on the field like Jim Harbaugh.  Harbaugh was mostly a pocket passer, but had a great field sense when the playcall was a QB draw.  Just ask ND !

Go Blue!

markusr2007

September 18th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^

whether a pure accident or by design, Al Borges actually "ended up" coaching and coping with some pretty mobile QBs (run threats) over the years:

John Charles, Portland State, 1992

Tony Hilde,  Boise State1993-1994 - most prolific rushing QB in Boise State football history - 1000 yrds rushing and 19 TDs career.

Tony Graziani, Oregon, 1995 (81 attempt, +236 yds - 2nd leading rusher on team)

Cade McNown, UCLA, 1996-1998 & Corey Paus 1999-2000

Kyle Boller, California, 2001

Gibran Hamdan, Indiana, 2002

Auburn, Jason Campbell

Denard Robinson 2011-2012 & Devin Gardner 2013-2014, Michigan

Charles, Hilde, Robinson and Gardner are probably all in their own special league though in terms of speed and run-threat.

Historically, he hasn't coached many John Navarre-"Ted Cassidy" types at QB

 

Hannibal.

September 18th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^

The argument that spread offenses get shut down by great defenses doesn't work for me anymore.  When a spread offense gets "shut down", it means that they only score 17 points.  When a pro style offense gets shut down, it means that they score 3 points.  Thus, Oregon was "shut down" by Auburn in the national championship game, but nobody notices that Alabama only scored 6 points against LSU in their first meeting in 2011.   Or, at least, nobody attributes that low point total to the fact that the spread supposedly doesn't work.  Also, Oregon had 449 yards of offense that game and 23 first downs.  If that's shut down, I'd love to know what people think of the performance of the Michigan offense in almost every bowl game that we have played in since Bo became the caoch.

Does everyone remember our 2000 offense?  Drew Henson, a bunch of fifth year seniors on the offensive line (including two future long time pros Jeff Backus and Steve Hutchinson), Anthony Thomas, David Terrell, and Marquise Walker.  Against Wisconsin they only scored 13.  Against MSU, they scored 14.  They ended up getting completely stuffed in the run game against OSU that year and they only had two scoring drives that were longer than 43 yards. 

And if there is any offense that has the ability to embarrass a great defense it is the spread.  What A&M did to Alabama this past weekend can't be ignored.  What Oregon has done to more teams than I can count can't be ignored.  What WVU did to Georgia and Oklahoma in a couple of BCS games can't be ignored.  The reason why we are seeing so many running QBs might be because coaches simply have finally stopped trying to invent reasons not to use them.  You can only use so many excuses to explain away the insane numbers that offenses with mobile QBs put up before you have to conclude that the excuses are bullshit. 

Hannibal.

September 18th, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^

They go 7 points on a pick six.

They got another 7 points on a drive that started inside OSU's 20 because OSU had to go for it on fourth down.

Basically they scored 24 genuine points that day.  Not a "shutdown" by any stretch, but OSU wasn't a great team that year either.

Just illustrating that elite pro-style offenses don't put up big numbers every week the way that spread offenses are unreasonably expected to. 

Hannibal.

September 18th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^

Any offense can score enough points if they get the ball on a short field a bunch of times.   Michigan punted six times and turned it over twice (once on downs).  They only scored on drives that started in their territory twice.  24 points came off of three interceptions (one in Buckeye territory, one of which was a pick six) and a turnover on downs at OSU's 18 yard line.  Considering how many posessions they had, it was a mediocre offensive output that looks artificially large because Michigan was +4 on turnovers if you include turnovers on downs, which in this context, you should, because it is a change in posession without any movement in field position. 

Sometimes points don't perfectly reflect what the offense does.  Michigan only scored 30 on UConn in 2010, but that was a more dominating performance than some games where we have seen the team score 40.  And the OSU game was one minor example mixed in with two much stronger ones to show how what was easily our most talented offense of the past 20 years didn't blow people off of the field the way that people expect an elite offense to do it.

Wolfman

September 18th, 2013 at 1:09 PM ^

is the statement that was made to the effect that the term spread offense seems to automatically mitigates passing accuracy whereas the opposite is much closer to the truth. Only when Borges prematurely and mistakenly tried to immerse Denard into his system did his accuracy plummet.  A decent dual threat passer should see his completion percentage rise by at least 10 % pts merely by the fact that he forces the dbs to respect the los and realize the danger of a great runner breaking into the clear.  This was proven simply by watching our receivers stand about 10 yards deeper than the deeper defender hoping Denard would look up long enough to find them.  Hell Devin is throwing for over 60% basically working out of the standard pro set that now includes the pistol as well as the center exchange.  Personally, I like a deeper exchange inamsuch as it allows the qb from the time he receives the snap to keep eyes downfield, instead of having to turn and in make the decision much more rapidly than he would had he been in the throwing motions beginning his reads with the first receiver almost immediately after taking snap.  That is why quick slants and smaller receivers do so much better in this type of offense.        ^When we return to having OL depth of the past we can revisit this. Hell, even with those, teams knew that Lloyd was so damn stubborn, much of our rushing came late in the game after we had been forced to pass to make up the difference or to jump start our offense.  Our defense, even at its best, seemed to have just the opposite effect on opposing offenses because they were able to run an  unpredictable offense based on down and distance and our weakest links.  So much to be said for this offense, and OR's problems over the years-basically a loss a year- stems from the defensive side of the ball and not the offensive.  You get a good passer and the spread will make him great. You get a great passer and a weak OL will make him less than optimum.  You get the best of both worlds, ala Devin Gardner, Johnny Manzel, Marriota, et. al., and it gives you a lot of options to work with. 

dragonchild

September 18th, 2013 at 1:22 PM ^

Good points, although I don't know if a team that scores 17 points off 400+ yards of offense is a sign of success.  Spread tends to increase scoring at the expense of increasing variability as well.

In any case, don't blame pro style for Michigan's anemic offensive performances.  Carr liked to run power against stacked boxes even more than Borges did in the infamous Iowa game.  It wasn't the scheme; it was the predictability.  That's like blaming a car for losing a race when the driver refused to shift out of first gear.

Hannibal.

September 18th, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^

It wasn't the scheme; it was the predictability

Maybe, but when was the last time that you heard a complaint about an offense like Oregon's being "predictable"?  Maybe their offense does have some predictability, but  it is also easier to execute in the event that the defense knows what's coming.  If you ask me, it comes down to simple math.  Running QB = +1 blocker.  4 wide receivers on the field = only six men in the box to stop the run and fewer potential blocks to be beaten.  I'm not sure that I understand the argument about variability.  If you are talking about points, I'm okay with a scheme that bottoms out at 17 but can still explode for 50 against a team with a pulse when the alternative is a scheme that bottoms out at 6 or zero.

Space Coyote

September 18th, 2013 at 1:59 PM ^

It's not about the system. Time and time again people make this mistake and act like it's about the system. It's about players and coaches and how they fit into a system, whether those players are better and whether those coaches are better within that system than the other guy is at their system. No system that is used is infallible or defective on its own.

Case and point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team

For every pro-style team that has bad games, I can point to spread teams that have as well. But you can't point to the best offense and say "see, that system is the best". In fact, maybe there is something more to it than that. This isn't an argument for or against spread teams or mobile QBs, it's an argument that saying certain schemes are inherently vastly better than others is a mistake.

Hannibal.

September 18th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^

It's not about the system.

There is a mountain of evidence that has been piling up over the past decade or so that suggests otherwise.  A&M racking up over 600 yards against a Nick Saban-coached Alabama defense is the latest and greatest example. 

For every pro-style team that has bad games, I can point to spread teams that have as well.

I don't know about that.  For Michigan's pro style offense, a bad game meant that a highly experienced offense filled with guys like Jake Long and Mario Manningham would score 3 points and 91 total yards against OSU.  For Michigan's freshman-loaded, talentless 2008 team, a bad game meant 7 points and 198 yards against OSU. 

Space Coyote

September 18th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^

From 2007 when Michigan had a RB that was consistently hurt, only a half a line, a QB without an arm, during a shit storm, and give that as evidence that pro-style bad day gets 3 points (Note that that OSU team only put up 14 points that day against a relatively mediocre defense, then later went to a national championship, and put up 24 points on the eventual MNC LSU team with a great defense; the conditions were awful that day).

But a 2010 team, on a nice day, that went on to play in a Sugar Bowl, only put up 7, with only a single OSU opponent scoring less than that on the season.

Perhaps the most apt comparison is, considering conditions and all, was a spread offense in WVU that put up a steller 7 points against an unranked Pitt team in 2007. A Pitt team that didn't go to a bowl.

So you can hand pick data all you want. I used data from the same program to show that you can have crappy days in great conditions with a spread system that compare to crappy days in awful conditions in a pro system. I then also showed the same thing can happen to a spread offense when conditions get crappy.

Hannibal.

September 18th, 2013 at 3:41 PM ^

Really?  I don't remember that specific criticism.  I remember people basically shrugging their shoulders and concluding that the entire team, including the coaches, had quit.  I also remember that the usual missed field goal and 2 turnovers were a big factor.  As well as a bunch of dropped passes.  The offense had 14 points and 200 yards in the 1st half against a defense that was considered pretty good before it looked like everyone basically just packed it in. 

dragonchild

September 18th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^

"there could be something to the idea that this style of offense struggles when facing the best defenses"

I've been saying this for years, although I don't have anything to back it up except more anecdotes.  It's tough to stop the spread with even a good defense and it's not like ANY offense looks good against elite defenses, but there seems to be a point where it just fails altogether.  Don't ask me to prove it because I can't; consider it a theory.  Durability of the QB and fumbles are concerns, but I also think it's just that it's very hard to block for a QB that makes plays with his legs.  Ideally you run block but you can defend the veer with a scrape exchange (easier said than done, I know).  The QB is more dangerous when there's a legit pass option or a green light to scramble on called passes, but then what does the O-line do?  Bear in mind the O-line isn't even looking at the QB.  Devin Gardner has had problems moving around in the pocket and ruining his protection's blocking angles.  The statue QB gets picked on a lot but at least the O-line has a pretty good idea of where the guy is and can thus block for a guy they're not looking at.

Obviously a lot of this can be mitigated with coaching, but that's a LOT for a QB to absorb in the transition from 18-year-old HS graduate to starter.  The numbers game favors spread option and it absolutely shreds mortal defenses, but elite defenses can shut it down because at some point you're asking the O-line and QB to do too much.

hfhmilkman

September 18th, 2013 at 1:16 PM ^

If were going to talk about what Oregon did not do, why is Texas, Florida and Auburn excluded?  Vince Young was unstoppable as a duel threat QB despite playing a defense loaded with future NFL talent.  Newton was able to destroy every SEC defense.  And then there was Tebow who was the perfect college spread QB.    

My take between power and spread is that power reduces variablility and you are more likely to beat teams by grinding them to powder.  Wisconsin was the classic example.  The problem is what happens when you meet a bigger badder team?  YOU GET GROUND INTO THE GROUND.  So power is ultimately a recruiting battle.

The spread increases variablity.  With one elite QB and a few skill players a team with inferior talent on paper can destroy a superior opponent.  Is there any doubt that the 1998 Michigan team was superior to Syracuse at 90% of the positions.  But one man made a mockery of a defense returning 8 starters.  The flip side is you are dependent on a QB making the right decision.  Joe Tiller depsite not running spread & shread struggled when he was no longer able to recruit a superior QB.  This in my opinion is a vulnerability of any spread.  Game managers do not work.

I would say that the advantages of duel threat QB is worth it.  I would say look at what Wisconsin was able to do with Russel Wilson.  Ground & Pound worked against inferior teams.  But savy teams could exploit the fact the QB was just a manager.  Enter Wilson and Wisconsin was suddenly able to compete at an elite level.

If you had a duel threat type QB in 2007, APP State never happens.  Because when all else is falling apart, you can have your duel threat QB just run.  This is the basketball equivalent of someone who can just dunk the ball when every jump shot just is not falling. 

Hannibal.

September 18th, 2013 at 1:23 PM ^

The spread increases variablity. 

I am not even sure that I agree with this anymore.  I don't see the pro style offense as being a dependable offense that guarantees you a win against shitty foes.  With Carr, it got us into trouble repeatedly across four separate offensive coordinators.  I can't tell you how many crapfests that I sat through against teams like Indiana and Northwestern, wishing that we had a potent offense that could just blow those teams off the field and take advantage of our massive talent difference. 

M-Wolverine

September 18th, 2013 at 2:50 PM ^

Two Heisman winners and a guy who should have won the Heisman.

Yes, if you have one of them you're going to make defenses look silly.

Which is kind of the point of that Brian makes- theses guys don't grow on trees.  Most are passers who can kinda run, or runners who can kinda pass. We're going with the former. But no one is turning down a guy who is truly great at both. There just aren't that many of them.

Space Coyote

September 18th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^

I can tell you, the only way to go is with a QB that is 5'6", has a weak arm, is highly inaccurate, and has some of the worst speed on the team. But if he could punt... man, let me tell you what, we would have been somewhere.

And that's about all I have to say on this topic, because I really only see this discussion going south from here.

markusr2007

September 18th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^

In southern California I notice more high school teams are running the Hal Mumme Air Raid/Chip Kelly no huddle speed series offense (Oregon-style) with huge playbooks and like 10 seconds between plays.  I'm not sure about the midwest or East coast high schools, but I think this is becoming a growing trend right now.  The emphasis on defensing this, is strange. It took defenses about a decade to figure out how to shut down the wishbone (around 1983 it was over).  But nobody has figured out how to slow down spread offenses consistently.

And what the NFL is looking for? The idea of a professional football QB running the ball on 3rd down isn't  an obscene notion anymore.

Space Coyote

September 18th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^

Air Raid and spread offense have evolved drastically over the past decade or so, almost to the point that lumping them all together is as stupid as lumping all systems that put a QB under center as the same.

As for a difference in schools, you'll see similar trends in Texas and Florida. Those schools also get spring practice, and practice more in the Fall, and have longer training camp, and take "Varsity Football" as a class.

But the theory of spread and air raid also just makes sense for winning high school football games. You are neglecting a lot of technique for raw skill in those offenses. You get to go up against defenses that are tasked with tackling in space and actually covering relatively complex route concepts. 

But if you don't have those athletes, a lot of the wishbone, single wing, etc type offenses can and will work in high school. That's because you are tasking the defense to consistently be fundamentally sound. It's also difficult to defend. But when most schools went to it, it became familiar and easier. So basically, it's really just two different approaches at the same outcome.

markusr2007

September 18th, 2013 at 1:22 PM ^

against 8 or 9 inferior conference teams and 100 scholarships. But against like powered teams (Ohio State) and (Notre Dame), and then against "West Coast" passing offenses, Bo's teams struggled to adjust.  Seemingly every damn Rose Bowl Michigan defenses got shell shocked by kids named Evans, Moon, McDonald, Van Raaphorst and Marinovich.  Goddammit it just pisses me off to be reminded of the promise and the resulting failure.

BluCheese

September 18th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^

Don't remember it the same way.  Bo didn't get "shelled" by anybody.  I recall getting hosed by Pac-whatever ref's on many an occasion. From Bentley:

Jan. 1, 1970  Rose  Southern California  L  3-10   Bo Schembechler  (heart attack)
Jan. 1, 1972  Rose  Stanford                   L  12-13  Bo Schembechler
Jan. 1, 1977  Rose  Southern California  L  6-14   Bo Schembechler
Jan. 1, 1978  Rose  Washington              L  20-27  Bo Schembechler
Jan. 1, 1979  Rose  Southern California  L  10-17  Bo Schembechler
Jan. 1, 1981  Rose  Washington              W  23-6   Bo Schembechler
Jan. 1, 1983  Rose  U.C.L.A.                   L  14-24  Bo Schembechler
Jan. 1, 1987  Rose  Arizona State           L  15-22  Bo Schembechler
Jan. 2, 1989  Rose  Southern California  W  22-14  Bo Schembechler
Jan. 1, 1990  Rose  Southern California  L  10-17  Bo Schembechler

Kfojames

September 18th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^

All depends on how well the coaches/program feel that they can recruit top rated OL recruits along with top level RB's and WR's. If they can do that on a consistent basis than the priority on a pocket QB is more understandable. But the OL has not solidified itself yet this season and if we hadn't had Devins running ability than we might be sitting at 1-3. To me the OL is the key and always will be the key in determining what kind of QB philosophy you go with. Without a solid OL you can't run the ball effectively and that then negates any PA game not to mention just good pocket protection. However we are still maybe just 3/4 of the way through a culture/philosophy transformation form a past regime that did not put a premium on OL or even WR to an extent. I'm curious to see what this week brings and then a bye to see if Funk and the rest of them can't get this OL going.

Kfojames

September 18th, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^

I think if you have balance across the board offensively you set yourself up for pretty good success. You're not totally spread and you're not totally Pro. Just have good playmakers and recruit the best kids you can for a balanced attack. Maybe with a slight lean towards a down hill attack

bronxblue

September 18th, 2013 at 2:25 PM ^

I just want UM to bring back Dual Threet - Nick Sheridan and and Steven Threet's garage band for the halftime show against App St. next year.

But seriously, I agree that the coaches will recruit dual-threat guys in the region and let them by QBs; no Pryor for WR will happen under Hoke.  But this is an offense that values downfield throwing, and guys like Denard couldn't cut it and so I doubt we'll see fringe throwers like that picked up.  Personally I love the Devin-types, but I've seen enough spread QBs turf balls to realize that it isn't a perfect offense and can actually be detrimental if you need to score quickly late in games.  And as the Mathlete noted, talented, physical team that can overwhelm lanes and hit QBs on runs find ways to slow them down.  

I was there when Henson stepped on campus, and he had the type of elite throwing and running skills you want.  Hoke and co. would let him run around a bit and probably have some designed runs.  He'd also be asked to lazer-beam throws down the sidelines on the regular as well, and he'd probably be good at it.  I've always viewed offenses as needing to (a) be really good at what they do and (b) force the defense to respond in ways they aren't good at.  So if you are a running team, force your opposition to respond and hope they aren't good at defending on the ground.  Similarly, if you like to air it out, then complete 65-70% of your passes and force the other team to cover you.  Dual-threat QBs are great because they allow you to play right- or left-handed depending on the opposition, but lots of "dual threat" QBs like Denard, Pat White, Tebow, Miller are just fast guys with moderate passing ability.  If they have elite talent around them it may still work, but if the offense relies on being able to complete a decent number of passes I'm fine with the focus being on passing QBs with mobility over shoehorning bad passers into the offense.

M-Wolverine

September 18th, 2013 at 2:55 PM ^

I imagine we'll go after the best pocket passers around the country, and the good but not great dual threat guys will come from our backyard; Michigan, Ohio. For us to heavily try and get a runner from California he's probably going to have to have shown some interest in us first. (The grew up loving Michigan kid).

markusr2007

September 18th, 2013 at 2:40 PM ^

I mean, regardless of the athletes on deck, there were teams that ran Wing-T. Power-I pt Wishbone, because "that's just what their coach runs" and presumably was most comfortable and familiar with.  It's probably still rare for a H.S. HC to switch offensive playbooks year to year to adjust to the sudden inheritance of a Howitzer at QB -- or not.  Many NFL QBs recall running inappropriate offenses to their talents in H.S.  I agree that all offensive sets can have a good or equal rate of success at the H.S. level. 

Looking at winning percentages, I find the evolution of offenses interesting:

1970s - the top 5 winning programs were Alabama, Oklahoma, Michigan, Nebraska and Penn State.  Alabama and Oklahoma ran wishbone offenses. Michigan and Nebraska ran Option I, and Penn State ran a pro-style passing offense.

1980s - the top 5 winning programs were Miami, Nebraska, BYU, Oklahoma & Clemson. Oklahoma ran wishbone & Option I. Nebraska ran Option I. BYU and Miami ran pro-style and Clemson under Danny Ford featured multiple sets.

1990s - Top 5 winning teams were Florida State, Nebraska, Florida, Tennessee and Michigan.  All of these were more pass-centric pro-style offenses with a lot of shotgun pretty much, except for Nebraska which was clinging on to it's Option I religion under Osborne/Solich.

2000s - Top 5 - Boise State, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, USC  - Most of these offenses were pro -set with some dabbling by Texas and Ohio State in the now pervasive spread option fad.

2010s - Top 5 - Oregon, Boise State, Alabama, Stanford, LSU.  The last 3  (Bama, Stanford, LSU) are MANBALL (pro set) teams. Maybe Michigan's decision to return to that tradition is the right way to go? 

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2010&end=2012&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct

 

Michigan Arrogance

September 18th, 2013 at 4:22 PM ^

the evolution of pocket passers is interesting. back when they invented the forward pass rules (1920s) there weren't many guys who had the passing skills to throw it. Rockne used it of course, and M with Friedman, but very few could pass it effectively. Partly b/c the ball was more spherical, partly b/c so few kids grew up trying to throw in pick-up games and HS programs. No skill development. thus, almost no one could beat the D by throwing over the top, play-action etc.

now, fast forward 20-30 years and more kids started throwing the ball, but still, only the best of the best and skilled of the skills could operate the pro-style. the 50s saw very good passers, but but almost exclusively in the NFL.

the point is, you need a VERY high skill level of QB to operate the pro-style effectively. No turnovers, VERY accurate, etc. great decisions, can read the D. without that skill that backs away safeties and forces LBers to cover receivers, OF COURSE the running QB will be more effective (x-tra blocker, easier reads, etc).

JustDangle17

September 18th, 2013 at 4:40 PM ^

the orignial post keeps bringing up that alabama is the exception that they can use pocket passers to win....so in the BCS era you saying QBs like:

Chris Weinke

Josh Heupel

Ken Dorsey

Craig Krenzel

Matt Mauck

Matt Leinart

Matt Fylnn

cant win?

i know there are obviously dual threat qbs that have won as well, but its been proven pocket qbs can also win