- Joined: 9/4/2002
- Location: Florida
Re:Offensive Coordinator Doug Nussmeier's Top 5 Problems
Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:20 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)
It's 2014 and we're still dealing with this???????
More than not is not even an accurate statement (there's zero evidence to support the claim that pro-style or power running teams have a higher winning % than spread teams). There is no "what usually happens" it varies from game to game and team to team. Even worse is the idea that a spread team, no matter the variation, is not tough, physical, or fundamentally sound. Or ignoring that there are pro-style teams that are soft, finesse, and have shotty fundamentals. It has ZERO to do with scheme. Despite the nonsense that some coaches may spew (mainly those who prefer a power run offense) a scheme does not make you tough, or physical, or play with better fundmentals. X's and O's don't create those things.
The idea that because you run out of a 3 or 4 WR set as opposed to a 2 WR set with a TE and FB, automatically makes you less tough or less physical is absurd and an absolute fallacy. It sounds nice, it makes for a great soundbite but it's patently false.
Toughness, physicality, and fundamentals exist independent of scheme.
"Only the good ones come to Michigan"