Around the Big Ten

[WM Wolverine]

LSU uses a lot of spread with 3-wide and a lot of option...

I don't see a whole lot of talent in Iowa City; on either side of the ball. They've been hurt by ND & Wisky taking the better talent in Illinois while fighting NW, Purdue & the Illini for the rest. They've got the bottom three B10 teams on their schedule (Gophers, Hoosiers & Boilermakers) so they shouldn't have much problem winning 6 or 7 games.

[SeanB]

Those old fashioned teams with 14+ play drives have also found that those fast defenses they have play a helluva lot faster and better when they get to watch said drives!

Like talent said, TOP is pretty telling. Great defenses don't spend all game long on the field.

[lineygoblue]

Still, its frustrating to sit in the stands, and watch your team score 7 hard-earned points on a 14 play drive ... only to see the "spread" team come out and scoot down the field and score the matching touchdown in about 63 seconds.

[Mike]

That's fine. Then put that D back on the field for another 14 plays and see how they feel. Much like Michigan's did in the fourth quarter against Wisconsin last year is my guess.

[lineygoblue]

I'm sold on the TOP "big" team that scores in the long drives, Mike. No problem there.

But you have to admit, .. when you complete that 14 play drive that ends in a TD, and you leave time on the clock ... and the spread is less than a TD ... that long drive can end up meaning nothing if the opponent scores quickly.

[Mike]

The ability to answer with a quick TD is a great asset for a team, no doubt. I think we're in agreement, however, that keeping that team off the field by possessing the ball yourself is the best option. Sometimes coaches come up with schemes that are a little too cute for their own good when the basic principles of football haven't changed all that much: Control the line of scrimmage and you control the game.

[lineygoblue]

I agree, Mike.

But you know what I'm talking about. All those great teams by Lloyd who had All-Americans on the OL .. dominating the little jitterbug teams ... then just when you think you got them, .. they score a quickie and it feels like all that hard work just went down the drain.

But, I have learned my lesson. In the B1G, the recipe for success is a strong running offense, and a stout hard-hitting defense. I'm ready to stick with that.

[Mike]

Yep. No need to reinvent the wheel. Knock people off the line of scrimmage, block, tackle.

[hack]

Run/pass balance, please.

[SeattleLionsFan]

That's fine. Then put that D back on the field for another 14 plays and see how they feel. Much like Michigan's did in the fourth quarter against Wisconsin last year is my guess.

Why the assumption that the Defense is powerless to shorten the 14 play drive??

[Hannibal]

Buchanan:

Football remains a fairly simple game. You block. You tackle. You don't turn the ball over. Now, there's no doubt the offensive game has changed over the past 30 years. It's hard, IMO, to understate the impact Bill Walsh had on the game (to the extent you credit him with the WCO). But the WCO is fundamentally premised on ball control. At it's core, it's not particularly radical.

I think the spread stuff -- plays per game, etc -- diverges from the core of what wins at this game. Just like, e.g., the infernal run and shoot nonsense of the David Klingler/Andre Ware days.

As Entropy noted, Florida and Auburn were able to win with spread-type offense thanks to supremely talented QBs that could provide a power running game. The vast majority of spread teams lack this element and it kills them against good defenses. And, numbers be damned, I still value TOP, especially if my defense isn't particularly great. I still think there's something profoundly soul-sapping about 16 play drives that you just don't get with big plays. When Wisky shoved it up OSU's ass last year in the 1st half, it was so goddman frustrating. It has to take it's toll on the defense. Like you said, "military ruggedness".

I think that the run-and-shoot and spread principles have had more of a lasting effect upon the game than you give them credit for. The ideas of controlling the line of scrimmage and good fundamentals haven't changed. But a few things have changed. One is that quarterbacks are simply a lot better than they were 30 or even 20 years ago. Another is the 85-scholarship rule. And yet another is the rise of the attacking pressure defenses and zone blitzes that became popular in the '90s. This has opened up the game to where you can win with a variety of styles. And it has also changed the game to where you can no longer just out-execute your opponent every game. You have to at least have some schematic advantage. "You know what's coming, try and stop it" doesn't apply anymore. Superior athletes can't drag shitty offensive coordinators across the goal line.

Everyone looks back on the run-and-shoot as a complete failure. The irony is that the three teams that ran it in the NFL (Atlanta, Houston, Detroit) were all terrible teams when they adopted it, and all of them enjoyed unprecedented success when they used it. The only playoff victory for the Lions in my entire life came when they used the run-and-shoot. It worked because even with shitty quarterbacks like Rodney Peete and Erik Kramer, the defense had to respect the four wide receivers on the field. That left only six guys in the box to shut down Barry Sanders, who ran wild that year and accumulated a lot of yardage without many big runs. Immediately after that one victory, they scrapped it and hired an old school offensive coordinator who brought back the tight end, fullback and power running game. And then the offense went to shit. Barry's productivity dropped like a rock. And that is because they still had shitty quarterbacks, but now defenses could pack the box and key on Barry with 8 guys every single play. It is at this point in his career where Barry became known for being a running back who frequently lost yardage but broke one or two 70 yard runs per game. He was a lot less effective that way.

Last year, Michigan had a pretty good posession offense. It was better at posessing the ball than most of Lloyd's teams. Contrary to popular belief, it went on lots of long drives, and also contrary to popular belief, it still moved the ball and ran well against good defenses. We had 160 rushing yards last year against OSU -- in the first half. The only time that a Lloyd or Moeller team did this was in the Biakabutuka game. We ran 46 plays in the first half of The Game last year. We couldn't score because we had terrible terrible special teams and because we lost two fumbles. This was also the story against MSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

Last year is the only year where I can remember us consistently rushing for 150+ yards against good defenses. None of Lloyd's teams did this. Absolutely none. Even the incredible 2000 team loaded with future NFL draftees. Drew Henson had to bail us out of a couple games that year. Ditto for 2003. Our running game was garbage that year against Oregon, Iowa, and Minnesota. The truth is, the running game for just about any pro style team disappears when it comes up against a good defense. When two teams with great defenses square off, the running game usually disappears and the game is decided by special teams and QB play. From what I have seen, the spread actually keeps the running game viable in a big game. RichRod's last three WVU teams rushed for 382 yards, 311 yards, and 349 yards in their bowl games from 2005-2007. Those are incredible totals. I think that a Michigan team has rushed for over 310 yards in a bowl game exactly once in my lifetime (the 1991 Gator Bowl against Ole miss).

Rodriguez couldn't win in the Big Ten because his teams were turnover prone, and his defenses were terrible. His defenses weren't terrible because his offense couldn't hang onto the ball. They were terrible because they were just terrible. Terrible in the first quarter. Terrible in the 4th quarter. Terrible after a 3-and-out. Terrible after an 11 play drive for a touchdown. Terrible with good field position. Terrible with bad field position.

I don't see posession and spreads as being mutually exclusive. I think it might be somewhat the opposite, actually. Nowadays, to defend a spread, you've got to be vanilla, and this cuts down on the big plays. To defend a pro-style team with a fullback and a tight end, you can pack the box and aggressively rush the passer. And to some extent, a running spread like RichRod's is a throwback to the 70s when you could run a QB-centric ground attack, rush 45 times a game for 350 yards, and then throw the occasional pass to a wide open guy who's standing alone, waving his arms because the defense is so overcommitted to stopping the run.

[iam416]

To me, it just feels different. Not exactly persuasive, I know.

To defend the spread, it's quite possible it's a victim of its own success. That is to say, it's an effective way to mask an average OL (or worse), especially against mediocre teams. That's why, in fact, so many mediocre teams were early adopters. So, the offense looks great. But then, when you run up against a good DL, it gets roughed up. And it's not that a more traditional offense wouldn't run into the same problems. Maybe it's that a more traditional offense is more honest -- you know where you stand with it in all phases b/c all phases have to be good. In the spread, D-Rob, e.g., can cure deficiencies against most defenses. So, against good defenses, it's "exposed".

I still think the lack of a power running game ultimately makes it less effective, but that's JMO.

As an aside on two points: (1) M's terrible FG kicking probably netted out close to zero last year -- M always went for it when other teams would kick -- I know that's how they scored their TD against OSU (a net +1 for the game, I think) -- going for it from the 31 or 32 in a close game; (2) Ohio State managed to rush for 150 yards every game last year except one (Indiana...wtf?)...I was actually surprised by that.

[whodean]

Hanni, I think you are discounting time of possession in your equation, even if a team is averaging 2-3 yards per rush many times it is smart to continue to grind it out to gain a big advantage at the end of games.

Also, maybe its just my perception but didn't our TOP in conference stink last year? Regardless of what you think about the offense's ability to score that puts the team at a disadvantage eventually.

[drok]

I think our TOP last year was more a function of the defense being able to get off of the field.

[drok]

**unable**