Jump to content

hail2mich

GDT: Nebraska at Michigan 11/9/2013

Recommended Posts

I guess I don't really follow. Are you saying that bad players can regularly beat better players just because of scheme? Maybe occasionally. The game plan may not be, but winning and losing and the ultimate success of the program is to a large degree talent dependent. There does seem to be a lot of correlation between recruiting and winning in NCAAF.

The point is, when you're going against other ranked opponents, top 10 teams especially, you aren't going to have a considerable talent advantage.

If you can't have success against opponents as talented as you, then you really aren't that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't really follow. Are you saying that bad players can regularly beat better players just because of scheme? Maybe occasionally. The game plan may not be, but winning and losing and the ultimate success of the program is to a large degree talent dependent. There does seem to be a lot of correlation between recruiting and winning in NCAAF.

Scheme has ton to do with football success. Obviously talent does too.

If you want to grade the talent on a scale of -5 to +5, and give it a negative number, that's fine. If you want to grade Borges on the same scale I don't see how he's not negative as well tho. As such I don't know why you wouldn't look for someone better this off-season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is probably a scheme that better utilizes the talent at their disposal this year that would result in more wins. I don't know if a failure to use that scheme is an error or not. There may be some value to coaching your guys to the scheme you are comfortable with and will be using in the future. There is nothing inherently wrong with manball if you have the guys to run it. We don't have that currently, but maybe next year.

The current team is not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I'm leery if Borges is a good coach for manball. That's my issue. Manball is coming, the talent for manball is coming, and it can work. Is Borges the guy to ensure that it does work tho?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TBF - How many effective workarounds are available to a team that can't block? :dead:

At some point the talent differential will overcome all else. I tend to suspect this group of kids just are not that good.

Run some bubble screens. Spread them out and run quick passes. Run some slants. Run some screens.

How do teams beat the blitz all the time? It's not rocket science, teams have been beating all out blitzes from the beginning of football.

How do you NOT beat an all out blitz? Run up the middle. Run play action with no running threat. Tip all your plays.

Michigan's offense is as bad now as Michigan's defense was under richrod. Like it was with richrod, part of that fault is on the previous regime's failure to recruit. But likewise, part of it is on the current regime for continuing to run a system that it's personnel cannot run effectively and failing to adjust to the reality of the talent (or lack thereof) around you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bo had a sub .500 record against ranked teams.

When he went against teams on more of a level playing field talent wise, he wasn't all that good.

He wasn't horrible, but he is arguably the most overrated coach in CFB.

If your gameplans success is dependent on you being more talented than your opponent, then you're not a very good coordinator.

He built Michigan into a top 5 program for a decade, he is hardly overrated. He resurrected the program and made them into a juggernaut; setting the table for a level of success we may never see again.

He was hardly perfect. He was way too conservative in the big games which cost Michigan a couple national titles. But keep in mind that they were in position to win MULTIPLE NATIONAL TITLES. When is the last time Michigan could say that in football?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is probably a scheme that better utilizes the talent at their disposal this year that would result in more wins. I don't know if a failure to use that scheme is an error or not. There may be some value to coaching your guys to the scheme you are comfortable with and will be using in the future. There is nothing inherently wrong with manball if you have the guys to run it. We don't have that currently, but maybe next year.

The current team is not good.

The problem is, that I think there is something inherently wrong with manball. I think it's the scheme that most relies on your team having more talent than the other team, which is much less common for any team that isn't Alabama to rely on these days.

I think that's the reason that it's fallen so out of favor in the NFL and the league has become so full of passing. Which is funny, since Al Borges is supposed to be an NFL guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, that I think there is something inherently wrong with manball. I think it's the scheme that most relies on your team having more talent than the other team, which is much less common for any team that isn't Alabama to rely on these days.

I think that's the reason that it's fallen so out of favor in the NFL and the league has become so full of passing. Which is funny, since Al Borges is supposed to be an NFL guy.

I don't disagree. You need superior talent to run manball. Stanford does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree. You need superior talent to run manball. Stanford does it.

This goes to where you think you can create a sustainable advantage. If the theory is that O-line play is an area where good coaching can teach players to do complex and difficult tasks and you believe you can put together a program to do that better than other teams, then that is one way to build a durable advantage for your program so it can play beyond its raw talent.

I'm not saying that is my view or trying to judge whether it's a sound concept, but over the years I have certainly heard college coaches going as far back as Bo espouse that kind of logic.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hoke knows his OL wouldn't be good enough for any kind of elite QB or RB, so Gardner and Toussiant are sacrificial lambs this year. Ideally, the OL gels during the remaining games and in spring training so Morris can start at QB and Gardner can move back to WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree. You need superior talent to run manball. Stanford does it.

With the spread, you can easily get away with having a QB that can't throw at an elite level if he's athletic. You can get away with an OL that isn't huge but is instead agile. You can get away with receivers and backs that aren't big if they are quick and fast. Throw in the fact that you can do this all with relatively younger guys.....the QB doesn't have to make advanced reads, and the OL doesn't need multiple years to bulk up. I don't know if I would call those guys of inferior talent, but they sure are a lot more prevalent coming out of high school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the spread, you can easily get away with having a QB that can't throw at an elite level if he's athletic. You can get away with an OL that isn't huge but is instead agile. You can get away with receivers and backs that aren't big if they are quick and fast. Throw in the fact that you can do this all with relatively younger guys.....the QB doesn't have to make advanced reads, and the OL doesn't need multiple years to bulk up. I don't know if I would call those guys of inferior talent, but they sure are a lot more prevalent coming out of high school.

I would say it is inferior physical talent. And like you said it can work with younger or smaller guys because of the scheme.

You are talking about a Rodriguez style read option, right?

You can also spread the field and use a passing spread, which I think relies more on physical ability than misdirection. I think that isn't too far from what Borges wants to run. He just can't do it right now because his line can't block so he needs to keep guys in to max protect so they have a puncher's chance.

I miss rich rod's offense. Shame what happened during his tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say it is inferior physical talent. And like you said it can work with younger or smaller guys because of the scheme.

You are talking about a Rodriguez style read option, right?

You can also spread the field and use a passing spread, which I think relies more on physical ability than misdirection. I think that isn't too far from what Borges wants to run. He just can't do it right now because his line can't block so he needs to keep guys in to max protect so they have a puncher's chance.

I miss rich rod's offense. Shame what happened during his tenure.

Yeah, I'm talking about the RRod/Oregon spread. I honestly don't understand the A&M/Baylor/Clemson style so much. Except watching the Baylor/OU game I was amazed to what extreme Baylor spread the width of the field....I think when the had the ball on the right hash, there'd be 2 receivers outside the numbers on the left sideline! That sure got people out of the middle of the field, and I imagine it would simplify the blocking scheme immensly as there'd typically only be 6 in the box, max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...