What's YOUR ideal offense?
My question comes from one of the letters Brian answered in today's mailbag. Brian said Oregon's or Oklahoma's.
It's a good question for all of us, so what's yours?
For me, I'd say it's either Wisconsin's or the Air-Raid offense Mike Leach ran at Texas Tech. Let me explain:
1. Wisconsin. They play smashmouth, ram-it-down-your-throat, classic Big 10 football, which I always have and always will have a soft spot for. But unlike the stereotypical "3 yards and a cloud of dust" version, Wisconsin scores a lot of points and has a lot of big plays. How do they do it? Well, first of all, the dominate at the LoS with a crew of serious maulers. Unlike the Ron Dayne days, though, they back this up with tailbacks that are as elusive as they are tough. Montee Ball is the perfect example of this: he's 5-11, 210lbs and runs a 4.46 40-yard dash. Then there's Wisconsin's underrated passing game. Tolzein completed more than 70% of his passes in 2010, which means they got the yards almost every time they tried to. This year, with Russell Wilson, they look like they've seriously leveled up in that regard, and can also use the QB as a running threat as well. As good as LSU, Alabama and Oklahoma's defenses are, I don't think anyone can stop Wisconsin when they have the ball.
2. Leach-era Texas Tech. Just look at the numbers mediocre QBs behind mediocre lines put up against legit defenses. This **** works. And, in my humble opinion, it's very elegant. At the LoS, you simply line up more targets than the defense can account for, and use misdirection, fakes and complex blocking to get guys open as quickly as possible. This might not work as well in the Big 10 as in the Big 12, given the generally higher level of defensive play beyond the elite level, but I've liked it since the first time I saw it, and hope Coach Leach finds a good new home soon.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
The current Green Bay Packers offense with Derek Sherrod at LT in 2 years, but with 2003 Ricky Williams at tailback.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^
A spread offense with a quarterback who can run and not a running back that can throw. So basically Oregon's offense. If you listened to Brian Kelly on Gameday he specifically said they want a QB who can run (Dennis Dixon is playing in the NFL as a QB for example).
Growing up a Michigan fan I have memories (nightmares) of Donovan McNabb, Vince Young, Troy Smith escaping would be sacks and getting first downs. I always wanted someone like that and thought RichRod would make that happend. Denard is great but he is more a runner who can throw vs. a thrower who can run.
A Michigan example would to be imagine our offense against Florida but add in a few zone reads by our QB.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
if run right, it's pretty much impossible to defend.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^
My ideal, as someone upthread said, was the offense that we ran with Henne, Hart, Braylon, Avant, Breaston, etc..
But, with Al Borges as OC and Hoke as HC (no disrespect to Lloyd).
Borges would have been WAY more creative with that level of elite talent, and Hoke (last week aside) would have gone for it more on 4th.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:27 PM ^
The one that best fits the players.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^
The offense that scores at least one more point than the defense allows every week would seem like the ideal offense to me. Preferably an offense that is capable of long, time consuming drives to give the defense a rest. It wasn't always pretty and it certainly didn't set records, but the 1997 offense is the best we've seen here at Michigan in the last 50 years since they, ya know, won every game. I'll take Griese, Tuman, Floyd, Streets, Knight, Howard, and that amazing O-Line back if they come with Woodson, Ray, et. al.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^
What an incredibly simplistic, and inaccurate, way of looking at things. The offense and the defense are largely (not entirely) independant of each other. Would you call an offense that averages 3 points per game that happens to accompany a defense that never allows a point the best offense ever?
The fact that we almost never have a defense as good as the '97 defense is the reason you need a good offense. The whole problem with Lloydball is that it played like we had an awesome defense, and frequently, we didn't.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:58 PM ^
My point is it doesn't matter what team scores the most or looks the prettiest. Offense can only be judged against the results of a defense. Wins and losses matter, and in your example, the offense that scores 3 ppg is a very effective offense because it scores enough to win every game it plays in. I do wholeheartedly disagree that offenses and defenses are largely independent of each other. Some systems set defenses up for failure more easily than others.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:08 PM ^
If you can point to some data that certain systems lead to hugely better/worse defenses (independant of pace), I'd love to see that. As for calling my example an effective offense, I think you're crazy. It's an extremely ineffective offense coupled with a phenomenally effective defense, which leads to wins. It gets results, but that has nothing to do with the offense being good. Was our offense last year a terrible offense because we gave up 30 some PPG on defense?
October 18th, 2011 at 6:21 PM ^
Yes, our offense was ineffective in 6 games last season. Effective in 7. The job of the offense is to score more points than your opponent. If they do that, they are effective. If they don't, they are ineffective. You absolutely cannot, in my humble opinion,separate offense and defense.
I don't think you have to look much further than Michigan's offense 2009-2010 (I will throw away 2008 because I'm not sure what that offense was) to see an offense that often set the defense up for failure. Too many 3 and outs, putting the defense (however bad) back on the field just seconds after they were out there for a long drive by the opposition. Too many turnovers. Even when they were successful, they were often successful too quickly, once again putting the defense back on the field. When compounded by the pace the no-huddle offense was run at, it simply required the defense to be superhuman in terms of stamina.
It is no coincidence (again, my opinion), that Michigan's spectacular defense in 1997 owes a substantial part of its statistical success to an offense that ate up clock and rarely turned the ball over, forcing opponents to go full fields against a rested defense.
I'm not taking any sort of tone with you so I'd appreciate it if we could keep this discourse on the civil side.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:39 PM ^
Okay, we simply disagree on the extent to which they're related. I think if you put the '97 offense on last year's team, they don't make it to 7 wins. That defense was awful no matter how far the opposing offense had to go. Likewise, I think the 2010 offense coupled with the '97 defesne would have been by far the best Michigan team of the last 50 years.
October 18th, 2011 at 7:27 PM ^
I respectfully disagree. I believe the 2010 offense was certainly flashier but not better (from an effectiveness standpoint, not a statistical standpoint). As an example: The 1997 team scored 20 points on #4 ranked, 10-1 OSU. The offense accounted for 7 of those - Woodson's punt return and Weathers INT return (blocked XP) accounted for 13. The 2010 team scored 7 (all offense) points against #8 ranked, 10-1 OSU. So they scored the same amount of points against relatively similar OSU teams....but the '97 offense put the defense in far better positions than what I remember from last year's offense. I posit that if you pair the '97 defense with the '10 offense there is 0 chance of improving on the team's record and some chance (how big or small, who knows) of the record declining.
I agree that the 1997 offense wouldn't have hung 65 on Bowling Green, but does that matter? I'd be happy to return to the days of 42-0 and 49-3 whippings of MAC opponents, which I feel both Borges and Mattison's systems COMBINED will accomplish in the long run.
October 18th, 2011 at 8:03 PM ^
Your "example" just so happens to be the statistical outlier. That was our offense's worst game. Nice cherry-picking job.
Do you honestly think the '97 offense coupled with the '10 defense would beat Illinois? Indiana? UMass? Try making the same argument.
October 18th, 2011 at 8:11 PM ^
My "example" is a statistical outlier on both ends. 7 points was amongst the lowest offensive outputs Michigan put up against anybody EVER during the 90's.
Purely opinion of course, but yes, the '97 offense/'10 defense would have beaten all of those teams in dramatically different fashion. And not left the defense hang out to dry. Instead of a game in the 60s against Illinois, I think you'd see something in the 20s. With a sizeable edge in TOP to Michigan.
Do you think the '10 offense/'97 defense would have completed the season better than 12-0?
October 18th, 2011 at 8:36 PM ^
I just don't see how the offense in the Illinois game last year was possibly putting the defense in a bad position. By scoring touchdown after touchdown, you put the defense in a bad position? I agree with you that three and outs make it harder for the defense, but I guarantee you that the '97 offense had way more three and outs than the '10 offense, and way fewer first downs. That's part of the reason the '97 offense wasn't as good as the '10 variety.
October 19th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
I can't find any records of 3 and outs dating back to '97, but the 1997 Offense averaged 21 first downs per game and did not play a MAC opponenet or FCS team. The worst team they played was probably Baylor out of the Big 12. The 2010 offense averaged 23 first downs per game. They played an FCS team and a MAC opponent.
The 1997 offense controlled the ball for, on average, 32 minutes and 29 seconds per game. The 2010 offense controlled the ball for, on average, 27 minutes and 10 seconds per game. Over the course of the season, the defense effectively played an entire game (well, 2 actually because of the expanded 12 game regular season schedule) than the 1997 defense. And we're supposed to believe that the effects of playing an entire extra game are irrelevant on defensive performance?
October 18th, 2011 at 8:57 PM ^
This conversation is ridiculous. The offense's job is to score points. The defense's job is to stop the other team from scoring. I have said this numerous times: if the defense wants to get rest, they should force a 3 and out every time they are on the field.
October 18th, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^
Butterfield, I get what you're saying, and I like the debate everyone is having here. I, too, used to think along similar lines. However, in the past 5 years or so, I've changed my thinking because there isn't data to support the idea that time of possession impacts defensive performance in the manner you're alluding to. This is a debate that's been had over and over again over the past few years. To me, it does seem that there should be some corellation, just from a common sense standpoint, but so far (and I've looked), I've never seen a data set that indicates that there is actually a corellation. In fact (and I'm too lazy to look up now), I'm fairly certain that there's a lot of data suggesting the converse is true; that while field position matters, TOP does not affect defensive performance in any significant way. It's kind of a "Moneyball" sort of thing, where what was once long-accepted has been shown upon closer examination to be false.
October 19th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
It doesn't say that ToP doesn't impact defensive performance, it says that it doesn't generally (as in almost always) do so.
I don't think Oregon's or Auburn's defenses in 2010 played worse because of their quick offenses. But those teams had talent, and more importantly, depth. When you can substitute quality players in at every position for your starters, you're good to go. Given that the defense has depth, it makes sense to have your productive offense out there as much as possible.
But a team with one of the worst defenses in the country, and without depth? Different case there. Our defense wasn't just bad, it was an injury factory as well. Doesn't more time on the field mean more chances for injuries? And if you lack depth, doesn't a higher chance of injuries also mean a higher chance of injuries to desperately needed players who don't have able substitutes ready to come in for them?
Time of Possession is a tactic, not a rule. Sometimes it's functional; sometimes it's not.
October 19th, 2011 at 5:46 AM ^
I was waiting for you to drop the "Offense scores too quickly" line. it was inevitable. That invalidates your opinion in my eyes immediately. Which is too bad, because I agree, in principal that an offense's success inevitably will be measured against the success (or lackthereof) of the defense.
But to actually suggest that it's a bad thing to score on quick strikes is ludicrous, and makes me quite happy you're not in charge or anywhere near in charge. If you can score every play, that's a good thing. . .
Would you prefer that Denard pulls a peyton manning and slides down in the open field, just so the offense can run more plays? you do realize how ridiculous that is, right?
yeesh.
October 19th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Ridiculous to you, maybe, but not to everyone. For instance, study the use of Mouse Davis' (and later June Jones') Run and Shoot offense in the NFL. Detroit AND Atlanta dropped the system not because they weren't scoring points with it (they were!), but because it was leaving their defenses vulnerable and they couldn't run clock to secure leads in 2nd halves to save their lives.
Question: Did Payton Manning win the game because he slid down in the open field? I honestly don't remember. But if he did, that sounds like a good offensive play to me.
The goal of an offense is to score more points than the other team. Not to score as many points as possible.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^
One example would be Notre Dame's offense against us this year, at the end of the game.
Sure, had they not hit that TD, they might not have gotten a TD at all. But leaving us 30 seconds gave us time to beat them, and we did.
How quickly you score doesn't really matter at the end of the day, except to the point at which you are successful.
A. IF you plod down the field and take 6 minutes a drive, but score 5 pts/drive, and limit your opponent to 3 pts/drive...YOU WIN.
B. IF you race down the field and take 3 minutes a drive, but score 5 pts/drive, and limit your opponent to 3 pts/drive...YOU WIN.
If scoring efficiency goes the other way--in either scenario--YOU LOSE.
October 19th, 2011 at 5:14 PM ^
Only thing I would add to this otherwise perfect post is that the offense in Scenario A is giving their defense more rest. Based on observation of football games for around 15 adult years (much more if you count games I watched in my childhood), it sure as heck seems like well rested defenses play better and are less likely to be pushed off the ball, etc. Can I prove it with any sort of stats or evidence - nope.
October 20th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
Depends on your personnel. There are some teams, like Oregon's, that are built for this. Oregon's defensive recruiting strategy centers on getting larger numbers of solid, athletic defenders, rather than smaller numbers of dominating starters. They substitute constantly, which mitigates tiredness. The idea is that they know their offense will score quickly (or give up the ball quickly), so they went out and got the personnel to compliment that on the other side of the ball.
Other defenses are not built like this. Michigan's defense in 2010 (and 2011) is the perfect example. We don't have much depth at all, so tiredness really actually is an issue.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:35 PM ^
I think the spread to run systems are all pretty amazing for their efficiency and versatility. Rich Rod's spread (especially if he could have gotten someone like Denard to get the ZR down pat), Oregon's system, Urban Meyer's offense with Tebow at Florida. All of those teams were great at putting the dynamic players in the open field and punishing teams for trying to contain said dynamos.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:01 PM ^
As an addendum, any offense is better when it is run as a hurry-up. The idea of controlling the clock and all that is ridiculous. You want to score quickly and play every down as quickly as possible so as to maximize your offensive possessions and thus, scoring oppurtunities. Teams like Oklahoma and Oregon that get off 80+ snaps per game are just beautiful, and crush a defense FAR more than big, burly linemen and 30 second breaks between snaps ever could.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:08 PM ^
Yeah we'll see about that when Alabama plays LSU.
October 18th, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^
October 18th, 2011 at 5:36 PM ^
I would have an offense based off of a lot of option plays. From shotgun and pistol, I'd mix up Read Option, Veers, Inverted Veers, etc. on different linemen so they couldn't cheat on it. I'd also throw in some speed option. I'd use Pistol, I Form, and Wishbone to do Triple options.
Passing would look like a passing spread with some WCO concepts mixed in. Particularly, pre-snap reads to determine WR routes. It might even be that a play call is actually 2-3 plays and the defense determines which to run.
The RB would be a Brandon Minor type where if he would consistently use the lower numbers in the box to break a tackle and run for another 30 yards. My QB doesn't need to be a burner, but needs to be mobile. It's more important that he can throw accurately, can make good reads, and does really good fake handoffs for the options and PA. I'd have some utility-type players that can play multiple positions, e.g. TEs that can play receiver, HB, and occasionally FB as well.
There would be no-huddle with lots of pre-snap motion, a lot of times moving utility players around to completely change formations. Maybe we start out in Wishbone and then motion to 3WR shotgun or 3TE I Form.
Honestly, there would probably be alot in the playbook to know, but I like to have a reasoning for everything so that I can figure out why we do things a certain way. I would expect that same thing in all of the players. You'd have to have mostly upperclassmen, but younger players could work their way in by learning a package of plays well, then moving onto the next package.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:35 PM ^
Sounds great for NCAA 12, but you do realize you only get 20 hours a week to get this done.
October 18th, 2011 at 7:03 PM ^
Yep, that's why you need upperclassmen to run it. A lot of the options are very similar. It's all based on zone blocking. So, it's not impossible to practice a lot of the concepts over and over again with different plays actually being run.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^
Gimme USC with Reggie Bush, Leinart, White, and Dwayne Jarrett minus the NCAA sanctions.
October 18th, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^
almost wrote it, had to check if someone else did first. I completely agree.
October 18th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^
UM 1990's
October 18th, 2011 at 5:52 PM ^
What's YOUR deal?
October 18th, 2011 at 6:00 PM ^
Too funny.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:04 PM ^
Al Borges with Shane Morris and a legitimate threat at runningback. An offensive line that moves defenses off the ball would be a nice touch too.
October 18th, 2011 at 7:49 PM ^
Why not Gardner??
October 18th, 2011 at 6:07 PM ^
Surprised to not see much mention of the offense Dana Holgorsen put together at Oklahoma State (he's working on implementing it at WVU now). It's similar to the Mike Leach style Airraid, although it's got its unique aspects. It's awfully hard to stop.
October 19th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
How so? Seems a lot like Leach's system to me, only with a better talent base.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:10 PM ^
w/o question the best O in the land.
2nd - 2010 Michigan with a dominant RB and a non-flaky Tate Forcier (as backup).
October 18th, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^
I want 10 Jake Long's on the field, and one Denard. We would only attempt ~5 passes a game because I don't know about Jake Long's hands yet, but can you imagine the downfield blocking?! Jake Long would be pancaking everybody. I imagine Denard would average 600yrds rushing/game, with a 30 yards/rush average.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^
My question was really not Michigan-specific. It was just to get an idea of what Brian's favorite offense is, and why.
As for me, I like Gus Malzahn's offense. A physical spread that seems quite easy and quick to install, uses a considerable amount of deception and is made extremely dangerous with a great athlete at QB. Of course, Auburn's roster has not been short on NFL talent in the last few years, but still.
I love Oregon's offense too...although when it's not clicking, it can be really ugly. I guess I just have bad memories of '08-present Michigan looking completely undersized and manhandled when running a little fella into an unblocked defensive line.
October 19th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^
My sentiments exactly...it's a thing of beauty when firing on all cylinders, but kind of awful when they play someone who knows how to scheme for it.
Actually, that's a general thing about speed-based spread-option offenses. The power-based ones are more functional against top defenses, I think (see: Tebow-era Florida, Auburn 2010, etc.), but they're also not as pretty or fun to watch.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:43 PM ^
Al should use some pistol. That way denard can still be in the gun and we can have a downhill running game.
October 18th, 2011 at 6:45 PM ^
October 18th, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^
30 points game and controlling the ball for at least 50% of the clock so the defense our defense is at least as well rested as the opponent. Scheme doesn't matter to me so long as we have the right offensive line and skill position players to run that scheme.
Square peg, square hole.
October 18th, 2011 at 11:24 PM ^
I agree with BILG: the specific scheme doesn't matter that much to me. If you have coaches who know the scheme well, believe in it, can teach it, and the players with the physical and mental capability of running it well there will be success on the field. The hard part is getting all that together. A couple key players can make the difference between an offense scoring 21 points per game and one scoring in the 30s or 40s.
Btw, I live in Oklahoma now, and the local fans are critical of Oklahoma for their red zone scoring. They are especially poor at picking up 3rd and one or two yards. I do think even the best offenses often have at least one area of weakness. Also, in the Bob Stoops era at OU, it was Mike Leach who began as the OC. Stoops previously was DC at Florida and said he wanted Leach because his Kentucky offense was the most difficult team to prepare for at the time.
October 18th, 2011 at 7:05 PM ^
Give me Wisconsin's offense this year with Russell Wilson at the helm. They can maul you up front and hand off to two great RB's in Monte Ball and James White, and then they can turn around and toss it deep to a great receiver in Nick Toon (when healthy) or run play action to a great tight end in Jacob Pederson (U.P. native).
October 18th, 2011 at 7:22 PM ^
The Nebraska offense from 1994 and 1995. I really love offensive line play and Nebraska's at that time was brutal, yet elegant. It didn't work very well if they got behind, but they didn't really have that problem those years. By the way, it's very, very different than what Paul Johnson is running at Georgia Tech.
There also is a significant advantage to doing something different than everyone else. When Nebraska gave up the option, they were just about the only team running it in NCAA football, so as long as they could find a kid who could make the reads, execute the pitches, and move alright, it was really difficult to stop them.