- Joined: 6/25/2008
- Location: BFE, Ohio
Re:Offensive Coordinator Doug Nussmeier's Top 5 Problems
Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:00 PM
Nussmeier is a good coach, but if you're under the impression that he radically changed Alabama's offense and is going to be able to magically apply some sort of wizardry to this Michigan roster so it suddenly resembles the last two years of smashmouth Alabama football, you're daydreaming and haven't been paying attention.
But that wasn't even my point. The "schematic advantage" is something Michigan has very specifically stayed away from. "Schematic advantage" is what Malzahn at Auburn, Kelly at Oregon, Meyer at OSU, etc. utilize. Stretching the field horizontally and vertically, stressing the defense at every imaginable point until it breaks. Hoke isn't interested in any of that, and neither is the offensive coordinator he just hired from Alabama. Lining up and bullying the guys in front of you isn't "schematic advantage." It's the oldschool 1970s era "manball" that Michigan and Michigan fans have a fetish for.
At Ohio State, they line up with 3 wide to spread the field, clear the box, and let 240-pound Carlos Hyde rumble up the middle with little resistance.
At Michigan, the goal is to try and be what Stanford and Alabama have become. Line up in the I, with two tight ends, basically tell the defense what you're going to do, and then do it anyway because your guys are bigger, stronger, faster, and better than their guys. It can work out just fine, when you actually ARE bigger, stronger, faster, and better than the other team. When you're not, you look foolish as you plunge your fullback into a stacked line that loses the Rose Bowl because MSU knew it was coming.
Michigan is not, has not, and will not be about obtaining a "schematic advantage."
after the last several years of UM fb (besides 2011), I wouldn't mind having stanford/bama results in the past two years. besides that, what usually happens when a team that has a schematic advantage (oregon, using your example) plays a physical style FB team (i.e. stanford)?
malzahn, meyer, helfrich (oregon HC), etc are great coaches and very creative, but even in today's game, FB comes down to blocking + tackling, as well running the ball and the ability to stop the run. these two components largely determine the success of a FB team
For every game that you point out like Stanford beating Oregon there is a TCU beating Wisconsin, Oregon and App State beating Michigan, Texas beating USC, and Utah/A&M/Auburn beating Bama.
i knew this would be mentioned, so let me just say that I should have put the word usually in size 40 font, as in, more often than not, when a flash-and-dash/basketball on grass/glitzy teams play teams play more physically tough and fundamentally sound teams, the latter tends to fare better. yes, texas beat USC with probably the most naturally/freakishly talented college QB in the history of the game. yes, A&M beat bama with arguably the most talented dual threat QB ever. but again, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, teams that are tough, physical, and fundamentally stout will have more long term success, and are less reliant on individually freak talents like vince young, manziel, and one in a million chance endings (iron bowl)
The fundamentally sound part I agree with...the tough/physical part I do not. TCU beat Wisconsin because they were more fundamentally sound even though they pushed around the Horned Frogs defense with ease. In the end though TCU held Wisconsin to its worst offensive performance of the season. Before the current 2 game win streak Stanford has over Oregon, Oregon had a 2 game win streak where they beat Stanford by 21 and 23....even though Stanford was the tougher more physical team. These were Stanford teams that went to BCS games, in fact their record over those 2 seasons was 23-3...the 3 losses were to Oregon twice and Oklahoma State another team less physical than they are.