Where's the Manball?
Even before Brady Hoke started answering questions like this…
Q: How will Denard Robinson fit in this offense?
A: This is Michigan!
Q: What do you think about the goings-on in Columbus?
A: Though we have great respect for the Akron State Golden Bobcats, this remains Michigan.
Q: What kind of off—
A: THIS IS MICHIGAN TREMENDOUS
Q: You—
A: TREMENDOUS VAN OUSTANDING RIVER
/teaches journalist about Mad Magicians
…he expressed a certain disdain for fancy things like zone running, which is neither fancy or new or soft and has been used by teams from the Super Bowl Champion Denver Broncos to, you know, Michigan under Lloyd Carr. He swore up and down to everyone who attended the coaches' clinic that "A-gap power"—three yards and a cloud of dust, think Jehuu Caulcrick—would be Michigan's signature play. He has expressed a certain approach to offense that sends spread friendly folk like yrs truly and Braves & Birds into twitchy fits. His stated approach is neolithic.
So… like… WTF?
SAN DIEGO STATE 1st DOWN RUN/PASS BREAKDOWN, 2010
| Date | Opponent | Surface | Result | Rush | Pass | Penalty | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/04/10 | Nicholls St. | Grass | W 47-0 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 23 |
| 09/11/10 | @ New Mexico St. | Grass | W 41-21 | 8 | 13 | 3 | 24 |
| 09/18/10 | @ 18 Missouri | Turf | L 24-27 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 17 |
| 09/25/10 | Utah St. | Grass | W 41-7 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 18 |
| 10/09/10 | @ Brigham Young | Grass | L 21-24 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 12 |
| 10/16/10 | Air Force | Grass | W 27-25 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 16 |
| 10/23/10 | @ New Mexico | Grass | W 30-20 | 8 | 12 | 2 | 22 |
| 10/30/10 | @ Wyoming | Turf | W 48-38 | 2 | 15 | 3 | 20 |
| 11/06/10 | Colorado St. | Grass | W 24-19 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 19 |
| 11/13/10 | @ 2 TCU | Grass | L 35-40 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 7 |
| 11/20/10 | Utah | Grass | L 34-38 | 2 | 25 | 2 | 29 |
| 11/27/10 | UNLV | Grass | W 48-14 | 14 | 13 | 3 | 30 |
| 12/23/10 | + Navy | Grass | W 35-14 | 14 | 12 | 1 | 27 |
| Totals | 92 | 154 | 18 | 264 | |||
San Diego State passed on 63% of its first downs. In tight games* SDSU passed on 79% of first downs. This was not a catchup effect. Missouri led by more than one score for all of 41 seconds; against Utah SDSU ran out to a 27-10 lead before bleeding it away down the stretch. This has something to do with Ryan Lindley and some all-conference receivers but SDSU was very slightly run biased in 2010 (51%), managing a respectable 4.8 YPC. In 2010, especially when it counted, San Diego State passed to set up the run.
Where the hell is A-gap power? Why the hell did The Mountain West Connection write this about Hoke's candidacy for the job?
Hoke would bring in another non-traditonal Big 10 offense to Ann Arbor. It would be a spread offense, but instead of having an offense where there is a dual threat quarterback he plays three, four and five wide receiver sets.
In short,
Where's the manball?
*[Missouri, BYU, Air Force, TCU, and Utah. CSU excluded because the narrow scoreline was due to a touchdown with 2:43 left.]
Is the manball in previous teams?
Hoke's previous SDSU team threw even more but was not very good. They were especially un-good at running, so numbers from that season reflect necessity instead of philosophy. And Hoke only had two years in San Diego, so maybe he wasn't able to mold his team into the A-gap power six fullback monstrosity he yearns for.
How about the apex of his Ball State career?
BALL STATE 1st DOWN RUN/PASS BREAKDOWN, 2008
| Date | Opponent | Surface | Result | Rush | Pass | Penalty | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/28/08 | Northeastern | Turf | W 48-14 | 12 | 12 | 2 | 26 |
| 09/05/08 | Navy | Turf | W 35-23 | 12 | 13 | 1 | 26 |
| 09/13/08 | @ Akron | Turf | W 41-24 | 14 | 13 | 3 | 30 |
| 09/20/08 | @ Indiana | Turf | W 42-20 | 12 | 9 | 3 | 24 |
| 09/27/08 | Kent St. | Turf | W 41-20 | 8 | 17 | 1 | 26 |
| 10/04/08 | @ Toledo | Turf | W 31-0 | 11 | 13 | 0 | 24 |
| 10/11/08 | @ Western Ky. | Turf | W 24-7 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 21 |
| 10/25/08 | Eastern Mich. | Turf | W 38-16 | 8 | 11 | 2 | 21 |
| 11/05/08 | Northern Ill. | Turf | W 45-14 | 7 | 14 | 4 | 25 |
| 11/11/08 | @ Miami (Ohio) | Turf | W 31-16 | 9 | 12 | 0 | 21 |
| 11/19/08 | @ Central Mich. | Turf | W 31-24 | 13 | 8 | 2 | 23 |
| 11/25/08 | Western Mich. | Turf | W 45-22 | 8 | 11 | 0 | 19 |
| 12/05/08 | + Buffalo | Turf | L 24-42 | 10 | 19 | 1 | 30 |
| 01/06/09 | + Tulsa | Turf | L 13-45 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 9 |
| Totals | 136 | 167 | 22 | 325 | |||
Hoke's first downs under Stan Parrish were also pass-biased. Again, Nate Davis had something to do with that but Ball State was significantly more run-biased than 2010 SDSU: 520 rushes to 405 passes, with those rushes picking up 5 yards a pop. A team that ran 56% of the time threw on 55% of first downs.
HOWEVA, that's not a huge difference from late-era Carr behavior. I know this surprises you. I clicked the link three times just to make sure it wasn't having fun, but in 2007 Michigan passed on 54% of first downs despite playing Ryan Mallett for significant chunks of the season. They also ran on 56% of all plays. That may be an artifact of Michigan not being able to run very well (4 YPC; insert infamous stretch against OSU here). In 2006, a monstrously run-biased outfit (62% at 4.3 YPC while the passing game was averaging 7.7) was 50-50 on first down.
Is the manball in the offensive structure?
Meanwhile, Chris Brown has the most interesting single factoid in Wolverines Kickoff 2011. It's about SDSU's bowl game, the one after which Ken Niumatalolo said "that's as good of an offense as we've seen." In that game, the Aztecs ran more zone-blocked plays than gap-blocked plays en route to a rout. Here's an inside zone:
A few plays later the Aztecs would bust out their first power of the night. Notably, it was a "constraint" play—one designed to keep the defense honest. They lined up in a pro set and handed it to the fullback for the second time all year. On third and two they manballed up. Result:
Starting running back Ronnie Hillman averaged 8.1 YPC without any distorting 80-yarders (long of 37) and finished the day with 228 yards. San Diego State's defense did not appear to have a stroke while watching this.
So how does that jive with this?
When asked recently about the influence of Oregon’s offense, Hoke subtly revealed his disdain for the tactical shift Michigan experienced under Rodriguez. He is convinced that modern spread option offenses can be counterproductive to the core values of smashmouth football and are, therefore, to be avoided.
“Right, wrong or indifferent, when you’re zone blocking all the time -- when you’re playing basketball on grass -- you practice against that all spring, you practice against it all fall and then you’re going to play a two-back team that wants to knock you off the football,” Hoke said. “I don’t think you’re prepared.
It… like… doesn't. Unless Hoke just wants to have some power around so his defense doesn't turn into a bunch of lily-livered ninnyhammers and doesn't actually care how much it gets deployed in actual games. This would be good for the next couple years when what Hoke wants and what Hoke has will be severely mismatched.
Is the manball curling up in the fetal position with a narrow lead?
Unfortunately for manball-is-just-talk theorists, that above-mentioned close-ish Colorado State game featured an event familiar to Michigan fans. After Colorado State scored with about three minutes left to draw within five, SDSU ran three times for two yards and gave the ball back to the Rams having run only 53 seconds off the clock. They ran on 2nd 7 and 3rd and 9. Very MANBALL.
The way the Aztecs lost the Missouri game is also terribly familiar. They picked off Blaine Gabbert with 1:47 left, ran 25 seconds off the clock, and punted on 4th and 8 from the Missouri 35. It took the Tigers two plays to score the winning touchdown. To be fair, freshman Ronnie Hillman caused coaching blood vessels to explode when he ran out of bounds on the first play of the drive and the Aztecs did throw on third down. To be ruthless, that throw was a screen or something equivalently conservative (it lost a yard) and once it was completed the situation was 4th and 8 for the win or a 20-yard punt. Hoke chose the punt. He chose poorly.
Against Air Force the Aztecs faced a 4th and goal from the two with about nine minutes left. They led by eight. Hoke called for the field goal team. That's not indefensible*; it is conservative. Hoke watched his kicker Broekgibbons it anyway.
On the other hand, in the Utah game San Diego State kept firing after leaping out to a big lead (obviously). There's no evidence they ever put the scoring offense away except in a couple of end-game scenarios.
*[It's probably the right call. Going from 8 to 11 forces the opponent to score two TDs to win instead of one and a two-point conversion. Getting the touchdown gives you a tie in the unlikely event an option team with 12 points so far gets two touchdowns and a conversion in the final nine minutes. A failure does leave the opponent on its own two.
As it happened, Air Force did score two touchdowns in the final nine minutes. Unfortunately for the Falcons, sandwiched between them was a one-play SDSU touchdown drive and they lost anyway.]
The things that are said contradict each other
Hoke says he wants the team to act in a certain way—toughness toughness toughness—while simultaneously saying he will not futz with Al Borges. Al Borges has shown a predilection for lots of vertical passing and apparently does not care one way or the other about gap vs zone blocking. Hoke says he dislikes zone running and uses it plenty. He's recruiting large men to squash men who are not quite as large but has maybe 1.5 tight ends and Denard Robinson right now.
What Hoke wants is clear, and what he has is not what he wants. The record implies that he'll be relatively flexible. Michigan will still see a drop in yardage/fancy metric performance because they're spending time revamping instead of refining, but if under center isn't working they'll ditch it. Hell, against Navy SDSU's first drive formations looked like this:
- Shotgun 3-wide
- Shotgun 3-wide
- Shotgun 3-wide
- Shotgun 3-wide
- Shotgun 3-wide
- Shotgun 3-wide
They even ran a zone read. It went for a yard, but by God they ran it. When push comes to shove I think Michigan will go with what works, whatever that is.
August 11th, 2011 at 4:15 PM ^
that was a solid summary of the philosophy / psychology / metaphysical enigma of MANBALL ... I will be packing up my notebook & pen now, professor. it was a pleasure to hear you speak. handshake.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
Is that you? Are you back?
August 11th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
It's not even internally consistent. Brian is somehow accused of blind love of the spread and for using "Manball" to make money. It's possible that both are true, but it seems pretty unlikely. (Sidenote: It's okay for the MIchigan Athletic Department to make money but not Brian?).
My favorite part, though, is the phrase "this is how it appears on the surface." So you embrace superficiality? Go read ESPN then.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
My favorite part is the contention that "Manball" = wealth for Brian. Are there tons of people out there googling "Manball?"
Actually, there probably are.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:30 PM ^
in that there is no thing, much less something Hoke promised, called Manball. This has to be something like the 4th post Brian has written obliterating a straw-man MANBALL offense argument no one actually made.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^
I think you need to chill out a little bit IMO.
Brian is not ESPN or the FREEP or some other major sports network bringing in millions of dollars by writing "controversial" articles with catchy headlines. In fact, oh ya that's right I am on this site FOR FREE!!!
Also, you criticize Brian for being pro-spread but anti-modern athletic department as if those things are mutually exclusive.
What exactly does the type of offense someone prefers have to do with RAWK music, a french fry mascot, and night games?
It seems to me you are trying to paint people with a rather large brush. Either you are old-fashioned and like MANBALL (ha! I said it!), noon games, and only male cheerleaders. Or you are modern/progressive and want games played on Thursday nights because of the ESPN prime coverage, think we should ditch the marching band completely, and make the big house 500,000 seats.
To me, trying to lump people into one of two categories is stupid, not to mention impossible.
So Brian likes what he saw on offense last year. So he's skeptical of going back to some Carr-like conservative decisions, he's worried about killing Denard's career, he dislikes the RAWK music, is tentatviely ok with a night game but hates the jerseys. All those things are possible simultaneously and do not make him a hypocrit as you seem to be suggesting.
August 11th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
I didn't neg you, but boy are you dumb, not to mentiion full of ridiculous animosity. Talk about "on the surface"-- it's apparent you don't really understand his opinions--to you it all reads like "RR GOOD--HOKE BAD."
To be clear, I am not responding because you disagree with Brian--that's all good. I'm calling you out because A- you are being a dick about it, and B- you clearly don't understand his POV
August 11th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
You criticize someone for being "a dick" but you, yourself, lead off by calling that poster "dumb". I always find hypocrisy fascinating.
August 11th, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^
Point made. My other criticism stands. And he is, if not dumb (I will submit that he is not) being dim.
August 11th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^
but your insults and name calling can never hurt me.
August 11th, 2011 at 4:03 PM ^
It's funny that for someone questioning Brian's "mocking" of Hoke and the hire, you sure do bring out the claws. I won't neg you because it doesn't matter, but maybe try to embed your (somewhat) valid point in less MLive-level vitriol.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
Great read. I love anything where people get more in depth on what Coach Hoke has done. I didn't follow him that closely beyond the TCU game and the Poinsetta Bowl. I am convinced the power play is about mindset, especially for the defense to prepare itself for the physicality on our schedule. As others have pointed out, Borges calls the games. Brian hit the key point about Hoke's history that we can all agree is a good thing: so numbers from that season reflect necessity instead of philosophy.
One could argue that recently we saw too much rigidity with philosophy trumping necessity at every turn. Rather than worrying about being the smartest guys in the room, this staff seems more concerned with grounding fundamentals and then achieving the desired results in a flexible way.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^
These wildly incorrect claims about his plans for the offense could be because a) it makes no sense to reveal your playbook to the press and hence future opponents, b) in fact, it makes sense to lie about them, and c) he knows what Michigan boosters want to hear.
If he's really that crafty, I love this coach.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
This is EXACTLY what I was thinking regarding "Manball". Well stated.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^
"If you zone- block all the time you gonna end up living in a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER! Now you kids are probably asking yourself, 'How can we get back on the right track?' MANBALL!"
August 11th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^
Nice Chris Farley reference.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
You seem to be pretty down on Hoke trying to instill toughness in his team. In order to be a certain way you have to think a certain way and develop that into the culture of the team. I don't get why your hating so much on Hoke still when he has not done anything wrong yet... Sure if we go through the whole year and have a record of 3-9 and all he does is run the A gap every play with his back, then everyone will have the right to complain as much as possible.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^
Isn't Brian's point that Hoke will NOT try to run power all the time? I don't get that Brian is hating on Hoke here; he doesn't like Hoke's talk but the point is that the talk is probably just that...
August 11th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
I know Brian doesn't think hoke will not run the power all the time. My main point is why doesn't Brian like Hokes talk. Hoke hasn't been saying "we will run the ball every play" yet thats sort of what it seems like brian is extrapolating from what he is saying.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^
I think Brian and others only dislike Hoke's talk because they fear it might translate into bad tactics (i.e., play-calling). If that's not true (as this post suggests), I doubt many people will have any problem with the way Hoke talks - the recruits sure like it.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
Hoke never spoke about run, run, run playcalling. His "manball" remarks were about being tough on both sides of the ball and that RR's spread O doesn't emphasize that.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^
Didn't he specifically say that the power run would be the "signature play" of the offense? (I believe it came out of the coaching clinic.) That's more than just coach speak about being tough, that's an offensive philosophy.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^
of a return to the offenses that Michigan ran when I was a student in the 90s -- run, run, run up the gut, even when you have NFL talent at QB and WR and the opposing defense is single-covering the WRs, until you are down at the half and you come out firing, with enormous success.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^
I sort of enjoyed the offenses that we ran in the 1990s. Especially when I was rushing the field after we beat OSU to go to the Rose Bowl for a shot at the NC, and when we won the Rose Bowl to win the NC. Those years were a lot better than the past few.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^
Any offense was going to be remembered fondly playing opposite the '97 defense. However, the offense itself wasn't exactly all that productive, despite plenty of future NFL talent on the roster.
August 11th, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^
In what world has a football coach not tried to instill toughness in a team? Even failed coaches want their guys to be tough - Chip Kelly pushed his Oregon kids incredibly hard in practice to "toughen" them up for the season, and they went to the MNC game. Of course, few people would call that team "tough" in the classical sense. Winning games makes you "tough", not how you practice.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^
Just win, baby.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
I guess I really am crazy...
August 11th, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^
Watching that Poinsettia Bowl footage make me think SDSU is going to be a very game opponent, especially given the extra motivation of playing their former coach.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^
We need some games, and need them fast. It feels like we're focusing so much on semantics cuz thats all we have.
It will all start to be clear in a couple of weeks
Go Blue, Go Hoke
August 11th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
... the analytical equivalent of "taking a politican at their word" when their voting record "clearly indicates otherwise". Everyone says what they need to say to keep the press happy, please boosters, get elected and generally establish a mentality about themselves/their team. Instead of just interpreting the votes/playcalls, there's unnecessary backtracking to review meaningless statements to the press that could mean anything.
Article Summary: Playcalling History = Indicates Personnel Based Flexibility
Nothing else need be said.
Anything else related to "MANBALL" references is nothing but inference, inferences that are inherently biased by one's own fears/proclivities.
Nobody knows how Hoke will handle future offenses, but it's plainly obvious that he will defer to Borges and allow him to build it based on the roster personnel (for this season), and then rebuild/tweak the playbook depending on future recruiting. I highly doubt that with someone as talented as Shane coming in, we dip to 65% running plays regardless of down.
That's just paranoid.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
Yes, this. Exactly.
One of the main things we learned over the last three years that a Michigan coach should not be too honest with the media. RR was pretty honest with the media and told them what was on his mind. He was killed for it.
By contrast, Carr was a master at talking in sound bites that sounded great, but didn't really say anything. Q: Whose your quarterback? A: I like'em both. Well no kidding. If he didn't like them both he would't have give them scholarships. This told us nothing about who would play but sent the Michigan fanbase into fits of debate over two quaterback systems. What we got was playing whoever was hot until one guy sealed his role as "the guy." You know - what always happens at any position.
Hoke clearly learned under Carr. He was asked about his offense and said things like "power" and "toughness." He also said that Denard would play under center more and he doesn't want to zone block all the time. The press all loved it and treated him well. But did he really say much of anything?
August 11th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
I hope this finally puts to rest the fears that anyone had that we were going back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust.
Of course that fact should have been completely obvious to anyone who watched any portion of a SDSU football game from last year. You can't always beat the DERP out of the willfully ignorant though.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
It seems to me that we'd learn more about what the offense will be not from listening to the defensive line coach-turned head coach who says "I try not to get in Al's way", but more to Al Borges, who said they'll both zone and assignment blocking, QB keepers, shotguns, and spreads, and double tights.
Just my opinion.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
to post up the MANBALL wasn't always great comments:
Harken back to FSU posting 51 on a Mo D with LC in the coaching staff
Or, to paraphrase BH's comment about lacking technique made Donovan McNabb a first rounder...what did MANBALL D make Armanti Edwards and Kordell Stewart? (That stupid Hail Mary still showing up in commercial contests makes my blood boil) Who was the DC for Kordell? Who was D-line coach?
I severely doubt D-Line technique allowed McNabb to look like a hero. A stubborn adherence to a fixed D scheme may have contributed, no?
Who can forget allowing Northwestern to put 54 on the board? Again, where was the MANBALL?
I know we're on the cusp of a new season, everyone starts at 0-0, and hopes and dreams are high for the future...let's keep things in perspective about how great the past was, and how bad quite a bit had really gotten by the mid-2000's.
As pointed out yesterday, LC's last 6 against OSU weren't the fault of anyone but that staff, and the MANBALL-esque philosophy stubbornly applied.
Not intended as flammable material, just felt it was a good place to try to inject some open-minded reality and introspection...
August 11th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
Got it, Lloyd Carr = Brady Hoke. Wonderful. We can has national championship then too?
August 11th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
Yet couched in caustic tones to drive a point in a overly dramatic and flammable fashion.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^
And it would seem the Borges press conference addresses this issue -- you actually customize the offense around your skills and do not cram the skill into a "scheme."
The MANBALL MANTRA is just that --- the BHAG for the program, the 30,000 foot lofty goal. The implementation of MANBALL is being handled by Mattison, Borges and the other coaches.
MANBALL isn't a literal term, it's a state of mind ...and to that end, THANK GOD we're back to being MEN around MICHIGAN!!
August 11th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^
Good to see Brian now starting to sift through the SDSU data, rather than assume Hoke is a carbon copy of Carr. This whole silly debate could have been avoided if more people were familiar with SDSU's team last season. It did not look like it ran a Carr/DeBord offense.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:00 PM ^
Bingo.
Brady Hoke may come across like a beefy, less-than-sophisticated guy who wouldn't be caught dead with a glass of white wine or volume of Kipling in his hand, but he's proven to be extremely canny in his media relations. He knows the hot buttons of the digruntled Michigan fanbase, and how to push them in a way that's to his own advantage, and the constant references to getting tougher is part of this. At least in football terms, he's given ample evidence that he's pretty damn bright, especially when it comes to dealing with people.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
I'll toast to Brady with bottomless white wine after every victory, MANBALL or otherwise.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^
I like a good sauv blanc, but bottomless hurts the head
August 11th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^
August 11th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^
I think a lot of what he says is for the fan base, but he's also forging a mind set for the players to rally around. He's trying to create a physical team to compete in the B1G, but also convince the players that they are tough as nails.
August 11th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
That's one thing I noticed right away; despite his simpleton exterior, Hoke is very savvy with his public statements and knows how to deal with the media much better than Rodriguez or even Carr did. One of Rodriguez' faults was that he didn't know how to deal with the media. He tried to win people over by just being himself, but he usually ended up talking too much without ever managing to say the right things. Carr, on the other hand, simply hated the media and often didn't try to hide it, coming off as a jerk or a curmudgeon in the process. Hoke strikes the perfect balance between Carr and Rodriguez. He's always friendly and genuine in interviews, but he doesn't talk too much and deftly dodges stupid or controversial questions that are intended to get him in trouble, all without seeming evasive or combative. The way he bitchslapped Drew Sharp in his intro press conference without looking like an asshole is a prime example. Rodriguez would often respond to stupid questions with wordy, borderline-incoherent analogies to West Virginia that were met with blank stares. Carr would give journalists cold stares followed by cryptic remarks that could be interpreted as a veiled attack on something or other. Hoke has managed to get all the sportswriters to eat out of his hand without falling into any of their traps. The guy is a PR genius.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^
I was wrong about RR and so were you.
Michigan was soft the past three years because of RR's obsession with the spread and neglecting defense and special teams.
A good coach adapts to the talent on hand. RR didn't, Hoke and Co. seem like they might.
Talking about being tough, smash mouth, and playing man ball does not imply run left strategy every play. It implies not getting run over by 300 lbs Wisconsin meat machine.
Your logic is too binary, you can be tough and creative. He will let Borges do his thing.
Variety is a nice thing to have. If you can't bang it into the endzone you will put up ridiculous stats...500 yards a game, and have only 21 points to show for it. Games are won inside the red zone, and if you can't pound it in, all the yards in the world dont mean much.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:00 PM ^
...to kickoff: 23 loooooooong days
August 11th, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
Seriously, football cannot start soon enough.
August 11th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
...the point of my comment was to point out that posts of this sort are becoming increasingly unimportant because we will soon be able to see with our very own eyes just what kind of offense Michigan runs. I'm glad that Brian has done some of his patented in depth analysis to determine that maybe, just maybe what Hoke says and the product that he intends to deliver are different animals.
It's been evident for some time that the whole MANBALL meme is ludicrous. As others have noted, all you have to do is look at last year's SDSU offense. Several posters actually did this months ago and disspelled this notion. Borges is a long time practitioner of West Coast Offense-based systems. It's what he did at Auburn, for instance. West Coast Offense =/= MANBALL. It just doesn't.
If you didn't get that Hoke was using rhetorical devices from the minute he opened his mouth, you weren't paying very close attention to "I'd have walked to Ann Arbor for this job." [That's a paraphrase as I didn't bother to look up the actual quote.]
Comments