Lorain Steelmen

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.

truebluefan. Excellent post! I also have been accused of being part of an 'MCC', but in all honesty, I just wanted UM to win, and believed that ANY new coach here, should be supported while running our program. Call me 'old fashioned'. I also agree that RR's offense could have succeeded, but in the end, RR failed, because he hired the wrong DC(s). Also, he had to relie on very young players. Looking forward to 2011, we really don't know how Al Borges will do, and, the defense will still be 'young', and 'short on bodies'. So far, I like Hoke, and I hope he makes it, but I also know, he must beat osu this year. ( I think he understands that as well.) My observartion continues to be that UM has played without 'passion, (particualry, on defesne since 2001. That simply has to change, if UM wants to be considered, seriously, as a major football power. We have NOT been in that group since 2001, with the brief 'flurry' in 2006.

truebluefan

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.

Indeed, Greg Robinson was by far RR's biggest gaffe at Michigan. That guy cost him his job. In essence, you could say RR cost him his own job because he hired and retained GRob for two seasons, all the while pushing the 3-3-5. Now, the 3-3-5 isn't schematically a bad defense in any league. It worked well at WVU, even against stout competition like Oklahoma and Georgia. It's just that GRob proved that he had no idea how to run it (see linebackers lined up 1 yard behind the LOS). And the guys on D displayed poor fundamentals to boot. It didn't matter if they were freshmen or upperclassmen. That is a recipe for disaster. Definitely, the problem wasn't the offense at all. For example, it was a defense that couldn't adjust to or stop Wisconsin on 30-something straight running plays in the second half. It's demoralizing for an offense to sit on the bench getting cold knowing full well that they'll HAVE to score on their next possession just to keep the game to within a score or two or three. And forget FG's because those guys couldn't hack that either. All in all, I do look forward to this coming season under new leadership. And this is despite the claim that I'm part of some "MCC". This couldn't be further from the truth. I am mainly concerned that our O line was developed in a zone blocking system. Hoke made it clear his dislike for zone blocking saying that it's like 'basketball on grass'. Sorry, call me an MCC-er but THIS doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy. Bottom line is I want Michigan Football to win and be exciting to watch on both sides of the ball. I think that's what any true Michigan fan wants right now.

David Vande Bunte

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.

I know I am starting to get repetitive, but what good does 35 points a game do you when your defense gives up 38? Yeah, RichRod brought in an exciting offense. I don't recall anyone really complaining that Michigan was boring when they had the ball. The problem wasn't the offense. The problem was that when Michigan was on defense, they were terrible. For as much fun as the offense was to watch, the defense was as horrible to watch. When we watched the offense to see the huge plays Denard was capable of, we then had to turn around and watch all of the huge plays that the defense gave up. We enjoyed watching Denard run for a 70 yard TD, but we hated watching the defense give up a 70 yard TD strike. With RichRod, it was 100% offense, 0% defense. It was like the NHL in the 80s, when nobody knew how to play defense.

DonAZ

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 3:28 p.m.

I'm not sure I agree with everything you wrote, but I agree with some of it. I think Rodriguez would have done very well at Michigan had he a somewhat effective defense. He had that at WVU and the results are clear. So your comment that the hiring of Greg Robinson sealed RR's fate may well be very true indeed. But he didn't have a decent defense ... he had an awful defense. And there was absolutely no indication of where the improvement would come from. I'm not even convinced he would have replaced Greg Robinson after 2010 had he been allowed to return. I don't think it's in Rodriguez's management style to make those hard calls. That's no slam on him -- it's not my strength either. But sometimes those calls need to be made. As for the notion of football being a "great young offense mind" game ... that I'm going to politely disagree with. But as I've said over and over again, this is NOT a choice between "spread" and "three yards and a cloud of dust." Alabama wins football games with some pretty fundamental things -- defense, ball control and a good running attack to work with the passing. In 2009 Greg McElroy was hardly considered an "explosive" QB ... but he was effective and with Mark Ingram the run threat was sufficiently present to keep opposing defenses honest. My very strong hunch is we'll see Robinson in the shotgun about half the time or even more. We'll get to see Robinson break off his trademark runs. The BIG question is -- will we see anyone else contributing on offense? Will see a credible running attack -- other than Robinson -- emerge? Will we see opposing defenses getting burned by focusing too much on Robinson?

David Vande Bunte

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.

Thank you, Blu. When it comes to Michigan football, I don't particularly care who coaches, as long as their philosophy works. When some people look at the pro-style offense, they see shackles on the legs of a mobile QB. I don't. I see opportunity. I look at the matchups, who is going to be on the field for the other team, what will they have to do to defend, etc. A highly mobile QB in a pro-style offense is simply hard to account for defensively without creating a defensive hole elsewhere.

Blu n Tpa

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 4:12 p.m.

Don, you weren't even in the Top 100 of those who "need to worry,... alot"! Nice comment about DRob's production vs team success. To win a personal award these days you have to have a winning team, like a 10-2 or 11-1 record, at least. It's not always fair but it is the way thing are so Michigan needs to win so DRob can win. Simple as that. DVB, I do like the way you think. Between the two of you I don't feel the need to post cause you two have already covered what I was going to say, and you both do it better than I would have. Worries? I have a few but QB isn't even near the top. TiM Go Blue?

DonAZ

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.

"But if you need to worry, and some of you seem to need that, alot." That would be me! :-) My worries for the upcoming season: o David Molk at center goes down with another injury o We never establish an effective inside running game o The defense, while improved, still can't stop the 3rd downs o No effective kicking game emerges

DonAZ

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 3:11 p.m.

Exactly.

DonAZ

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.

Agree that Borges is going to be under some scrutiny this season. Many people want to see the "2010 Denard" this coming season. Anything less than Denard being a one-man highlight reel is going to be fodder for criticism of Borges. I'd disagree with the comment that RR utilized Robinson's potential to the fullest. I'd argue that there's an EVEN MORE potent QB available in Robinson. His individual rushing/passing numbers may diminish, but the team effectiveness can improve. Yes, passing efficiently is going to be key. So too will be establishing a running game other than just Denard. And yes, part of that will be an INSIDE runnng game. Football is not just about running to the corner. (Sometimes I think the most important stat for a team is efficiency of conversion when 3rd down and less than 5 ... because if those pesky 3rd and 1 or 3rd and 3 downs can be converted ... man-o-man ... look out.)

Txmaizenblue

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.

well said

David Vande Bunte

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.

Agreed with Don, and let's not forget that Denard played in a pro-style offense in high school. This isn't Denard learning the pro-style, it's Denard relearning it. There are advantages that Denard will have this year that he didn't have last year as well. Namely, more blockers, and more running threats to draw defenders. Under RichRod's offense, there was usually only one player in between Denard Robinson and the defender, it was usually a HB, who only has mediocre blocking abilities. In a pro-style offense, in addition to a HB, at times there will also be a FB and/or TE on the field as well. FBs and TEs are much better trained in blocking than RBs. There will be more people capable of blocking if he needs to scramble. More blockers means more potential open holes to hit, means more potential big gains. Further, since Michigan is going to try to feature the running backs more, it means that defenses will not be able to cheat up and commit a linebacker to simply cover Denard, because it means one less guy in position to stop the RB. The idea is to make the defense worry about who ends up with the ball, instead of being able to ignore the RB and focus entirely on Denard. Opposing defenses last year were able to treat Michigan like NFL defenses did the Lions in the 90s. Stop Barry, you stop the Lions, Stop Denard, you stop the Wolverines. By increasing the amount of ball carriers, you force the defense to be more honest. What happened when Barry had a fullback blocking for him all year under Bobby Ross's pro-style offense? He got over 2,000 yards. Blockers matter.

DonAZ

Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 4:09 a.m.

Oh, c'mon ... give Borges a little benefit of the doubt. He's already said in interviews that he plans to run the shotgun more than he ran it at SDSU last year, and he admitted he ran it a fair amount at SDSU last year. If Robinson was used the same way in 2011 as he was in 2010 the defenses would tee off on him. Assuming he stayed healthy -- a huge assumption -- the secret to beating that offense was figured out late last year. What the nay-sayers don't seem to realize is Robinson can be far MORE of a threat than he was last year. The heck with the rushing/passing numbers. When the final record was 7-6 with no meaningful victories ... the emptiness of those numbers becomes apparent. My faith in Borges may be misplaced. Time will tell. But this belief that Borges is going to run Robinson under center every play with 3 out of 4 plays being fullback off tackle is just CRAZY talk. Won't happen. You'll see.