Illini DB supports Brian's Spread Zealotry
Submitted without editorial.
"Their spread offense was a little more complex," he said. "Everybody says that's not football, but they won games with that system. Anything that helps your players be successful, that's what you do.
1.jpg) |
2.jpg) |
| Eric Bronson/BronsoPhoto.com |
"I guess their coaches knew that. They used that as a tool for him to throw."
Plenty of intangibles enter into any given football game. Saturday's may involve the sting Wilson still feels over the memory of watching the back of Roundtree's jersey growing smaller.
Yes, there is a circle on his calendar. There's also a vow in his heart, however humble it may be.
"I've never been on a defense that had 60 points scored on them," Wilson said. "That's something that hurt really bad, and that I'm going to have to live with for the rest of my life. No one will ever score 60 points on a defense that I play on, ever again."
November 9th, 2011 at 8:37 AM ^
Gosh, I know I'm just rehashing what a lot of us feels, but I need to say these three things:
1) Coach Hoke gets my support because every coach should get a chance to install their philosophy, with their recruits, which takes at least four years.
That being said...
2) While Coach Rod may not know the defensive side of the ball very well, his offensive schemes worked
3) Al Borges, I beg you to please suck it up and throw in more zone reads and BUBBLE SCREENS.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:11 AM ^
The problem I have with the whole, "run the shotgun spread and shred now to win games!!" attitude is exactly your point. Its clear that Hoke and Borges want to install a different system that the recruits down the line will run. I think any offense can be successful with good athletes and superior execution. Right now we have athletes that aren't trained well enough to execute the system the coaches want to run.
The question I have is if the coaches decide to go all shotgun/spread right now to win as many games as possible, will it hinder training and development for the system they want to run next year or the year after? I think for this reason gradually installing the new system as the new personnel enter is the best way to go about it. Maybe Borges/Hoke have been a little too aggressive with the implementation of the new system, but its a fine line between moving towards the future and winning in the now.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:16 AM ^
I respect your point, and it is a tough balance. It's a little difficult because we have so many returning starters.
And it's not so much the "spread vs. no spread" as it is the play calling out of the pro-style. I don't mind when Borges calls those roll-out throwback screens out of the I-form (i.e. Vincent Smith vs. Notre Dame) as much as when he calls these jumpball bombs to Jeremy Gallon.
When Coach Rod had Steven Threet and Nick Sheridan, he tailored his "spread" to their skills. Notice he didn't call zone reads because there's no way the DE is biting on their running ability. Perhaps Borges just needs to call plays, regardless of "pro-style" or "spread," that play to the strengths of his current players.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
I definitely agree with you here. Install the part of the new offense that best suits the current roster. Scrap the part of the old offense that doesn't suit the current roster. That can be a good starting point for a transition b/c it emphasizes the current team's strengths and begins to implement the new system.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
But we did call zone reads in 2008. Probably more than we did last year with Denard. Denard didn't seem to pick up on it too well till a bit this year, but he didn't run it very much last year. One of the reasons our offense was so bad in 2008 is that we ran plays like that and you're right...they didn't have to respect the run at all from the QB position. Which wasn't the case as much with Tate.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement here.
I just find it amusing that the board has finally come full circle, and is now ready to praise Rodriguez for his flexibility in tailioring his offense to best fit Threet and Sheridan.
November 9th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
Neither Threet nor Sheridan would be very good (in fact, borderline terrible) in ANY system, and Threet proved this at ASU.
The 2008 offensive line would also have been terrible in any system.
Our current offensive personnel has proven to be extremely effective in at least one offensive system.
The other problem is your raw dishonesty. No one is prasing Rodriguez for 2008 outside of the user you responded to.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
I tried to make it clear that I wasn't taking any sides on the debate. I'm fairly strong in my conviction that the level of talent on offense in 2008 was abysmal, but that's not the point.
I wasn't trying to characterize the one statement as somehow characteristic of the board as whole. I still think the one instance of arguing that Borges should emulate the flexibility shown by Rodriguez in 2008 is funny, considering the vast amount of server space that's been dedicated to arguing from the opposite premise.
I, uh, guess you didn't think so.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
The offense wasn't that good last year people, it went 3 & out faily often, turned the ball over on a regular basis and spent 3/4 of big ten games waiting until the second half to get started. There is a reason teams like texas tech don't ever actually wind up winning the whole thing because if your offense is so risk reward you don't just need an average defense you need a great defense to win, its an unsustainable plan. How quickly people forget the frustration of falling behind by multiple scores against every average defense we faced. Yay we beat illinois by a lot, we also lost to a pathetic penn st team and finished below .500 in the big ten, thats 70% on the defense but the rest is on the offensive philosophy not adjusting to the weakness of the defense.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
We fell behind last year, not because we had an average defense, but because we had one of the worst defenses ever. The offense suffered from turnovers last year, many of them in very important spots on the field. Both of these are huge points that you neglect to mention. You can't really argue that the offense wasn't that good. It moved the ball down the field incredibly well. We just didn't always score because of turnovers and an insanely bad kicking game. You shouldn't conflate the score with the overall offensive performance.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
Year: YdPG, PtsPG
2010: 488.7, 32.8
2009: 384.5, 29.5
2008: 290.8, 20.2
2007: 385.1, 27.2
2006: 370.8, 29.2
2005: 384.2, 28.8
2004: 386.5, 30.8
2003: 446.7, 35.4
2002: 381.2, 27.8
2001: 359.2, 26.7
2000: 446.1, 33.7
1999: 386.6, 30.1
1998: 380.8, 27.6
1997: 387.7, 26.8
1996: 381.9, 23.1
1995: 395.4, 26.0
1994: 415.7, 27.5
1993: 404.7, 28.5
1992: 466.9, 35.9
1991: 419.7, 35.0
So, if last year's offense wasn't that good, Michigan has had maybe only 2 or 3 good offenses in the past twenty years (2003, 2001 and 1992).
...and if your response is "that was all against UMass!" - the reason we lost to Iowa (31 pts), PSU (31 pts), Wisconsin (28 pts) and barely beat Illinois (67 pts) wasn't b/c of the offense -- it was b/c the defense was absolutely terrible.
BTW - we fell behind by multiple scores against ND this year. I will now remove that from the win column, as coming from down 2 or 3 scores when you are losing is not allowed.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
That our highest scoring offenses had maybe our most immobile QBs ever. Probably because they had huge, great offensive lines, and threw the ball a lot. (Followed by the more mobile Henson and extremely mobile Denard/Tate).
November 9th, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^
It's kind of an apple and oranges comparison IMO. Bo/Moeller/Carr offense was ball control pro-style. It limits the amount of possessions you'll have in a game, you rely on your defense to make stops and you should be alright. RR's offense was no huddle, which tries to maximize the amount of your possessions (not to mention a defense that allowed some quick scores as well). I'd like to see an offensive efficiency statistic comparing last year's offense to ones of the past. PPG doesn't tell the whole story.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
Although....
2011: 428.1 YPG, 32.7 PPG
Last year Michigan had 6 games in which the team scored 30+ points out of 13 games. This year Michigan has....6 games in which the team has scored 30+ points in 9 games. Last year the team had 3 games in which they scored less than 20 in 13 games. This year 2 in 9 games.
Yes, we've had a couple bad games offensively folks. But let's maybe not freak the f**k out just yet.
November 9th, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
...as I wasn't freaking out about this year's offense, just replying about last year's offense , but since your reply is attached to my post, I'll give a quick comment:
If we average 30+ points a game against Illinois, Nebraska and OSU, I'll be ecstatic. More likely, we'll average around 17-24 pts. That, also, won't cause me to freak out. I don't expect even very good offenses to light up good defenses every single time (unfortunately, I think this year's offense is just pretty good, based on its "meh" performances against ND, MSU and Iowa).
Plus, this year, we actually have some field goal kicking - not great, but competent. Last year's FG kicking was (for whatever reason) absymal - with decent FG kicking, last year would have had probably 2pts more per game.
In any case, I don't want to get to much into all the possible permutations. You get the idea - last year's offense had definite room for improvement (see FG kicking, red zone turnovers) but it was pretty d*mn good historically, esp. accounting for its youth.
November 9th, 2011 at 8:58 AM ^
"winning games with that system" that he speaks of?
November 9th, 2011 at 9:03 AM ^
Dude, I support Coach Hoke 100%, and I hope this doesn't happen, but it isn't inconceivable that we could lose these last few games. If that happens, we would finish with the same record as last year, despite having a much improved defense. That would be very disappointing, because it would suggest that an offensive system that produced 6000+ yards last year, returning 9 starters (minus Stonum and Schilling) is massively underachieving.
I hope that doesn't happen, and I don't think it will, but it's certainly not unbelievable.
Go Blue!
November 9th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
correct, we might win the same number of games and that would also mean that we lose the same number of games. so if wins and losses end up being equal, don't we have to look at how those were accomplished? if we use eked out as 0, a loss as -1 and destroyed as -2, a win as 1 and destroy at 2
2010 v 2011
UConn - convincing win 1.5
@ND - eked out win 0
UMass - destroy 2
BGSU - destroy 2
@IU - eked out win 0
MSU - destroyed -2
Iowa - destroyed -2
@PSU - destroyed -2
ILL - eked out win
@PUR- convincing win
Wisc - destroyed
@OSU - destroyed
MiSU - destroyed
2011
WMU - convincing win 1.5
ND - eked out win 0
EMU - destroy 2
SDSU - convincing win 1.5
Minn - destroy 2
@NW - convincing win 1.5
@ MSU - loss -1
PUR - convincing win 1.5
@Iowa - loss -1
in 2010 after 8 games, UM had a -0.5 for an average of -.0625, barely an eke out win. in 2011 after 9 games UM has an 8 for an average of .89, almost a full win. so i would argue against underachieving as a whole team.
this tells me, and my gut agrees, that michigan is losing better and winning more convincingly. i guess you could argue that this year swapping purdue for illinois means the schedule is easier this year and gets harder. there are a million gaps in this, but this is really all i had time to do between emails.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
Let's just invent whatever convenient sliding scale metric makes our personal opinion look legitimate.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
That is pretty much what every blogger/journalist does to make a point. Picks the obscure stat that best proves their opinion and runs with it.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^
isn't really a "stat" no matter how obscure. There aren't even any metrics to what differentiates "convincing win" from "destroy".
November 9th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
as a "destroyed". Any game in which an onside kick must be recovered in the 4th quarter in order to restore a more normal pulse rate is competitive, I would argue.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
Was a "convincing win" either.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
I like what you did here even though it looks like some think it is unprofessional. We are clearly winning more games decisively and losing better. The guy below you is a P.O.S. for his negativity, you didnt say anything about how the offense was bad, you just showed the difference in TEAMS not offenses.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
if i thought this was a scientific study at all, it would be a diary. simply trying to show a relative way to see how the record might not be the best thing to look at to compare teams. i am sure that the mathlete could work something up that took into consideration opponent strength, home field advantage and manner of victory. the negativity could be a little more sceptical than hateful, but whatever, its the internet.
and yes, i forgot how close the UMass game was. it gets worse then.
November 9th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
"so if wins and losses end up being equal, don't we have to look at how those were accomplished?"
No.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^
"if wins and losses end up being equal, don't we have to look at how those were accomplished?" Yes. And we also need to look at how much easier the schedule is this year. Minnesota and Northwestern are a lot easier than Indiana and Wisconsin.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
Losing Schilling was pretty bad considering that we haven't really been able to field an effective offensive line this year.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:01 AM ^
November 9th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^
Illinois is a bell weather game for Borges and what the future holds for Denard...no doubt. The future beyond Denard is going to have to play itself out in the seasons post Denard.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:28 AM ^
"Brian's spread zealotry. Submitted without editorial." Great to start the day with an oxymoron. It's not quite as obvious as something like "miscellaneous only," but it still qualifies.
As for "spread zealotry" in general, the results are pretty clear. In the last five years, spread teams have won three BCS titles, and the "Oversigning Bowl" participants have won two. It doesn't take a "zealot" to see or acknowledge that the spread is an offense that is good enough to win championships.
As for Michigan, it doesn't matter, because the "mad scientist" is now in charge of the offense, and deserves the full support of the fanbase. As the team gets more comfortable, we are starting to see more misdirection. Well-done misdirection and unpredictable playcalling can maximize the talent on the field, no matter what formation is being used.
I think Denard' senior year could end up being a great one.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
I think Denard's senior year will be one where we constantly debate whether he or Gardner should be starting. But that's just me.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
We hired Mike Martz?
/dies
November 9th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
The issue is talent, not scheme. Those teams have great players, many of whom are likely to be playing on Sunday. McShay identified over 10 guys on the field between the two teams in that game that will get drafted.
Last week, Michigan began a string of 4 straight games, where they have fewer possible NFL level players than it's opponents.
We hear all the time that Carr left the cupboard bare. Good heavens, you'd have to conclude that Rich left it totally stripped and resold for parts.
The idea that you can outscheme teams with better overall talent and sound coaching takes a beating week after week on the field. Here amongst many, it's still religion.
The Rodriguez era was nothing if not an object lesson in why having an eye for big-time talent and recuiting it is a must. Reason: everytime we ran into a team with better players and competant coaching we lost and lost bad. Now thanks to good coaching we only lose by a little.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Wat? Which are the players from last year's #2 FEI in offense have poor talent? And which of the players that are currently respectable on defense that are almost entirely RichRod recruits have poor talent?
I agree with your general point about good coaching, but wouldn't you agree that
- Good offensive coaching + good spread talent = good offense 2010
- Good defensive coaching + good defensive talent = good defense 2011
There's no doubt that M's talent level FOR THE PRO-STYLE OFFENSE THAT BORGES WANTS TO RUN is not where it needs to be, and it is also true that there is a gathering storm on the O and D lines. But it seems to me that we have plenty of talent now. It's just a matter of the coaches' learning how best to use it and the players' getting used to doing what the coaches want.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
And just like the last couple years of draft have been pretty thin, and the blame was on Lloyd, do you see the next couple of years of draft being filled with Michigan players, and highly picked players at that? Not really.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
But that means 2/5 ran other systems. And are probably favored to make it 3/6 this year. Which still means the spread can work, maybe even better. But it's not the only way. But over those 5 years, 4/5 have had really good defenses. And looking to be 5/6. And if you took that back even farther, I think you'd find a landslide.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
Our offense last year lacked consistency. It's great to know that if you need to, that you can score in three plays, but it's also nice to know that if you can march the ball down the field over 7 mins and then score. Against better teams the big play will not always be there. If you can productive line up and run simple plays for 5 yards at a time your offense is going to be productive no matter who you play.
Michigan is adjusting to a new system, but they are very slowly adjusting to a new system. If you asked our linemen to just line up and create holes they wouldn't be able to. Not because they're not good enough, but because they're not using to playing that way. But now they're doing more of that. Not on every play but they're working enough in so that a year or two from now they will be able to just line up and knock defenders off of the ball when they need to.
There are a lot of things in Michigan's offense that works, more importantly there are enough things in Michigan offense that works without asking Denard Robinson to run the ball 30 times a game. The puzzling part is how often Al Borges will find something that works and then go away from it.
But that's just what I think.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
It's truly shocking to me that people still think that the reason we lost games these past three years is the offensive system we ran.
In 2010 especially, I would assert that it's more accurate to say the only reason we WON any games was our offense.
Rather, it seems we have a sect of apologists who instead of honestly questioning the offensive regression, insist that there IS no offensive regression because "the offense wasn't that good last year."
November 9th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
The only year of the last 3 that I would blame the offense is 2008, which was a transition year. Similar to this year.
I think its hard to question that there is an offensive regression this year, but its easy to answer why. Everyone and their mother knew this was going to happen. I'm not sure why everyone is so bent out of shape about it. This is what happens when you change coaches/coordinators. Especially a change this drastic. Could Borges be doing a better job playing to the athletes' strengths? sure, but at the same time its hard to blame him for trying to run the offense he was hired to run.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
It's interesting to attempt to analyze exactly why we're taking steps backwards offensively, but I'm not advocating for a "Fire Borges" movement.
I just get pissed when people reject reallity and replace it with their own due to grudges/man-crushes.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^
I DO blame Borges, but don't insist on the "Fire Him ASAMFP" reaction...
November 9th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
I blame Dave Brandon.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
While the numbers do show a small regression, many people who loved the offense just assume it would have been even better this year, so they assume the regression is even bigger.
<br>
<br>While there are reasons to think it would be better, I still have not heard anyone that believes that explain the Mississippi State fiasco. With time for Denard to heal up, with a full year of the offense under his belt, with plenty of time to prepare, we still couldn't do as well against Mississippi State as its average opponent.
<br>
<br>There are limitations to our personnel and Denard's abilities that do hurt and it's not clear to me that more experience woyld have overcome them. While our running game other than Denard has gotten better, it's still not great. Denard still can't throw downfield, would RR have fixed that?
<br>
<br>Just because I don't think the offense has regressed as much as you doesn't mean that I don't understand that the defense and special teams were the real problem last year
November 9th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
Isn't using anyone from Illinois for advice on defense only a half step above asking the village idiot?
November 9th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
When Tate played a whole lot, including the end of the game (and the maybe layers after that).
November 9th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
"Everybody says that's not football, but they won games with that system."
We did?!?!
November 9th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
For all the cheering toward returning to an RResque offense, we need to remember how totally ineffectual the RR offense was when it mattered against more accomplished defenses. It got mauled vs MSU/OSU/Miss St. Not to mention, it got Denard hurt due to the load he carried, being a relatively skinny player.
I personally have no problems moving more toward a pro style, but Borges just needs to have better answers for the vanilla cover 2.