This article contains some of the same type of thinking that has been repeatedly brought up on this board, and needless to say, I simply don't understand it.
But if that was going to be the case in 2008 -- and he should have seen it coming -- then it should not have been the end of the world to have stuck with a more conventional offense that would have taken advantage of Michigan's existing personnel, which was plenty good.
Right because our unconventional offense cost us the game on Saturday... 42 points! Against an admittedly bad Purdue team, but still, 42 points!
Listen, the offense has struggled, OBVIOUSLY. I will not for one second say that it hasn't cost us football games this year, it has, but so too have other facets of this team. Raise your hand if you feel that offensive struggles were unexpected entering this season. Yet again in this article we have a "fact" that is nothing more than a "belief" that this team would somehow be better by running different sets. Again, the thinking here is that somehow the transition to this offense would be better accomplished by simply delaying its implementation. I don't agree with that, I don't agree that the transition would somehow be smoother by waiting to run the offense that this staff runs. Auburn ditched their offense halfway through the year and have they suddenly become a solid offensive football team?? After firing their OC on October 8th, they've put up 22, 17, and 7 points... losing all three contests. A huge jump in production over their previous set of games.... or not at all.
I don't understand the thinking that says our suspect line would somehow block better in a pro-set, and our young QB would somehow be more accurate (as if the routes are somehow different), and our receivers would be more open.
The goods were here to have had at least a decent, bowl-worthy season in 2008.
I don't think this is a valid point, it's nothing but conjecture and yet I keep seeing people continue to recite it as fact. It's as though we played 2008, got into the DeLorean, came back, and played it in a pro set just to compare. I guess I missed the memo about the trip back. Last year's team was going to win the National title too....
It's not personnel. It's what's happening to it that scares the bejabbers out of anyone who knew that Michigan in 2008 was not dealing with an empty cupboard.
The fullness of the cupboard isn't the issue, everyone here understood the number of starters coming back, but the new players quality was unproven and unknown. The areas of the team that weren't empty (d-line, corners, and running backs) have seen their shares of ups and downs, and the ones that have been mismanaged the worst in my opinion are on the defensive side of the football.
There were areas that needed help -- offensive line, secondary, etc. -- but as many areas as the teams that have beaten Michigan in 2008 faced coming into this autumn?
Name an opponent that returned less starters please. We all know the loss to Toledo was inexcusable, everyone here understands that... of course so too was the loss to App State the year prior with a FAR better football team.
There was no need to write off Rodriguez's inaugural season simply because he lacked a true spread-offense quarterback.
Yep that's all we lacked, a qb.... and an o-line, and a group of safeties, and a cohesive group at linebacker, and experience at the receiver spot. Let's run down that starting lineup eh? No team in the country has freshmen contributing a higher percentage to their yardage... but hey, all we needed was a spread QB and this team would be gravy. I don't think so. One player doesn't make a team, there are a number of areas that need addressing here.
You want to know one area where I think scheme is costing this football team? It ain't on the offense. Take a gander on the other side of the football, where this gentlemen actually questions the level of effort of the players... as if they aren't playing their butts off every Saturday. Purdue had the football for.... 38 minutes Saturday. Did the D quit? Nope. Did the defensive staff make ONE adjustment? ONE?! No. It's this erroneous notion that the offense alone is costing us games that I don't get, our defense is giving up more points per game than we've seen in a LONG time (over 30 points a game at this point I believe).
Michigan's football fire has been snuffed in ways that extend far beyond the scoreboard and won-loss column.
I haven't seen this team quit once this year, I haven't seen this team do anything that makes me question their "fire". His "proof"? That after a blown coverage that lead to a TD, two of the players in the secondary looked at each other... GASP!!!! That NEVER happens on teams that are doing well.... or it happens on every blown coverage I've ever seen, I can't remember.
I saw a 2-6 football team play its butt off on Saturday, I saw a team that was handcuffed by its scheme on defense (yes I actually can disagree with schemes), I saw a team that had every opportunity (again) to pack it in and quit, and instead they drove down and tied the game with a minute to go after blowing not one, but two 14 point leads. That they lost is a product of missed tackles, a gift TD on a dropped punt, and some darn solid Purdue play-calling to end the football game. It was not a result of doused fire, it was not a result of lack-luster effort.
Here's what worries me right now, and it's the defensive side of the football. Anyone who actually watches this team can see how this offense will be able to move the football, it's the short-comings of the D that have me concerned. I cannot believe that we continually trotted the 3-3-5 out there time and again, I simply cannot understand the thinking behind it, and Rodriguez needs to explain why in God's sweet name we didn't change up after being rung like a bell for 270 yards in the first half alone. Why you would limit the BEST group of players on the team (the d-line) and give a true freshman all day is inexplicable. We can get to QBs with four down linemen, you don't have to sacrifice the ridiculously soft coverage with our D-line. Instead you put 3 down-linemen in the game, let Purdue double team people like Jamison and Graham or allow a lineman to pick up a blitzer, and give the kid all day to make very simple throws.
He also needs to explain why this team CONTINIUES to be unable to tackle anyone on first contact. Sadly this problem is not new, we saw that with Herrmann, we saw it with English, and we're seeing it now with Shafer. It's damning that it continues, and I think Rodriguez and Shafer have to answer for it. It's November, you learn to tackle in pee-wee football, why are we still bouncing off guys on 3rd and 7 when we have them stopped short only to allow drives to continue?
I am concerned with Rodriguez on the following fronts:
1. Lack of defensive adjustment
2. Bringing in Shafer, who so far has not lived up to his "stop me before I blitz again" billing
3. Not making it crystal clear to Threet that he HAS to keep the football on the read-option for the offense to continue to be effective, Threet was not an option QB, you have to instruct him what to do. The offense actually looks competent when he is a threat to keep the football.
4. Again on the defense... I just don't get our approach. In situations where we should've been in press coverage and forcing their qb to make plays yesterday we sat back in a soft zone and gave him all day.
5. Fundamental deficiencies: our turnover problem has cost us more football games than our 3-and-out prone offense this year, our tackling problem has cost us time and again as well. That sort of stuff all falls under "the little things teams do to win". Frankly, our deficiencies here are unacceptable. The players and the coaches have to take responsibility here.
I have faith that this offense will grow into something special in the future, you are free to disagree as you like. What worries me is just how ineffective our defense has been and how we haven't been able to address or adjust to its deficiencies as the year has gone on. That falls on Rodriguez and that falls on Shafer.
I do not, however, question this team's heart.