Gattis offense

I don't want to get too deep here or go into the analytics of the point of my post but I think I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that 12 years ago Michigan  tried a forward looking approach to the offense when they hired Rich Rodriguez and the fan base absolutely shit their pants. There was a rebellion of epic proportions and I don't believe that any level headed fan can deny that (see 3 and Out).

Now, a decade plus later and golden boy Harbaugh tries a similar  tactic and all of the sudden it's the most anticipated thing in Michigan football history. WTF??

I'll make a few points in favor of the move (a move in which I am in favor of BTW) however I have to wonder where the outrage is and why doesn't it seem like 2007 all over again?

Also..... I'd like to state for the record that I wasn't a complete fan of the RR hire but at the same time I was even less of a fan of the way he was treated and run out of town.

Some of you people here will NEVER admit that there was actually a plausible reason to hire RR and to help UM football mimic the paradigm shift (offensively) that was taking place in college football at the time.  

Let's be perfectly fair,  RR was only trying to implement exactly what Dabo Sweeney was trying to do and has done at Clemson. In fact I can name over a dozen recruits off of the top of my head (starting as far back as sammy watkins) that were HIGH clemson and UM targets. The direction of the programs were nearly identical in terms of offensive vision. but I digress on that point and I'll continue with 5 bullet points on why UM failed in 2007 and how the points speak to why I believe UM fans of today are okay with Harbaugh's move to turn the Offensive reigns over to Gattis.


1)  blue blood mentality - UM has traditionally been 3yds and a cloud of dust and UM holds dear the word tradition like no other university on the planet. The spread offense RR tried to implement was doomed from the start but let a blue blood implement it and all is well.

2) ryan mallet - remember that guy? RR takes over and the future of the program transfers. Threet and Sheridan. enough said. Harbaugh has a stable of solid QBs that can run both styles of offense.

3) No emphasis on D - Evident by the numbers Miss St put on UM in RR's last game. Greg Robinson was probably the worst mistake RR made in his tenure.

D
O
N

B
R
O
W
N

4) O line - Finally, for the first time since 2005-2006 UM has a very talented O Line across the board. RR sprinkled in stars (i.e. Lewan) but he never had a line of road graders. RR wanted a fast, agile, slim O line. Harbaugh can implement his new Gattis Offense while keeping his traditional road grader O line. I think that appeases the masses.

5) talent gap - There was never a time under RR that UM was even close to O$U in talent and depth. IMO there was never going to be a scenario in which RR was going to win a rivalry game. The UM fan base realizes that's not the case now and I think that keeps the pitchforks in the barn.


This topic can be a rabbit hole for discussion but I'm curious to hear what other UM fans think.

Defense will hopefully give the offense time to gel.  Also RR never had the talent that JH has this year.  Jimmys and Joe's win more games than X's and O's.

Sandy- I for one, think your analysis is very fair.

I agree for the most part. Coach Harbaugh has his players and knows the conference. Rich Clod (I use this name for reasons other than his coaching ability- he's a good coach, shitty person) didn't have any players and had no idea what he was getting into with the conference. True, 3-9 never would have happened if Mallet would have stayed. I still agree with Mallet's decision to leave though (I didn't want him to leave but it was the best move for Mallet himself).

RR would have done better (maybe) if he had the support of Blue Bloods and Coach Carr but I don't believe that was everything. I can't and won't argue about your lack of D post. Why RR thought that we could just outscore everyone I have no idea. I think the talent gap goes squarely on RR's shoulders, if he was a better coach he would have gotten better players. Simple. Hell he had an NFL QB in Mallet and basically ran him off.

However we do owe RR some thanks. We never would have had the Denard experience without him. At first I was concerned about Denard but he turned into a true Michigan Man.

Mallett was an a-hole from all I've heard from those on campus and a couple of guys on the team at the time. he was successful at Arkansas but has been a zero in the NFL as one team after another has come to the realization that his physical skills can't over come his 10 cent brain and lack of inter-personal skills.

And RR did not run him off- he had decided to leave before he met with RR.

Bo2, I have to take serious object to your statement: "...[RR's] a good coach..."

Why do I object?  You also provide the answer: "...lack of D... Why RR thought that we could just outscore everyone I have no idea."

Nor have I, friend, nor have I...

ADDENDUM to my immediately-preceding comment to Bo2: let me clarify:

Guy, I KNOW there are lots of successful---VERY successful--coaches who unquestionably PREFER offense to defense.

Check the word: PREFER.  Far, far different from "Totally ignoring the importance of" defense...which in this dimwit's mind RR indisputably did.   And it showed in the year-to-year deterioration of our defenses, even as his own recruits came in.

Shit, look at the difference even Brady Hoke was able to get out of the D-players (Martin, Roh, VanBergen, Kovacks, Campbell, Demens) on our 2011 team vs. the way RR let them stagnate in 2010 (only a year prior).

Yeh, The bizarre thing is that RR himself played D-back in college. His best W Va teams had decent defenses, without looking it up, I think one was ranked 25th or so in defensive efficiency- but at Mich and Arizona, his defenses were horrible. As others have noted, his character was pretty bad too.

wshoes wrote:

Yeh, The bizarre thing is that RR himself played D-back in college. His best W Va teams had decent defenses, without looking it up, I think one was ranked 25th or so in defensive efficiency- but at Mich and Arizona, his defenses were horrible. As others have noted, his character was pretty bad too.

When Castillo? stayed on at WVa RR did not have backup plan. I firmly believe that if he had come to UM with RR the defense would have been much better. But when he didn't RR searched and found Schaffer who he didn't mean with at all and then took a flyer on Robinson, who had some moderate success as a DC in the past, but not enough and he was an embarrassment.

michmike wrote:

Bo2, I have to take serious object to your statement: "...[RR's] a good coach..."

Why do I object?  You also provide the answer: "...lack of D... Why RR thought that we could just outscore everyone I have no idea."

Nor have I, friend, nor have I...

I'm grasping at straws here but maybe RR thought that the B1G TEN was such a joke offensively that he didn't need to stress defense?  Not stressing defense is also a PAC-12 thing which explain why he lasted at Arizona until his douchebaggeryness caught up with him.

It's easy to criticize now when we see how it turned out but we had already been turned down by the Rutgers coach and Lloyd had helped torpedo Les Miles. We were a little desperate and got one of the hot names in RR who Bama had tried to get the year before.There was also a perception that Mich was stuck in the past and needed to modernize.

Glad it us all in the past and think we are in a good place now (now we just need to beat OSU and win the BT).

The worst thing about RichRod is that he led to Brady Hoke, who was simply incompetent.

dwoody wrote:

The worst thing about RichRod is that he led to Brady Hoke, who was simply incompetent.  

"Worst thing"?? I dunno, Woody. Worse than his (RR's) 15-22 record?

I personally feel B.H. was definitely the LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS...though of course it's a relative thing and open
to debate. What's (thankfully) NOT debatable is that both deplorable regimes are IN THE PAST.

But Brady helped us get rid of Dave Brandon and eventually led us to Jim. When we are back on top we will appreciate it more this time.

...and the darkest hour is just before dawn.

dwoody wrote:

...and the darkest hour is just before dawn.

No cliches 'woody....

Name that song.

dwoody wrote:

Name that song.

The collected words of Winston Churchill?

dwoody wrote:

Name that song.

Emmylou Harris. I feel like a trump supporter, I just used Google!

"Dedicated to the One I Love" ---Mamas and Papas.

Right you are, MM!

michmike wrote:

"Dedicated to the One I Love" ---Mamas and Papas.

They must have stolen it from Churchill. JK

wshoes wrote:

michmike wrote:

"Dedicated to the One I Love" ---Mamas and Papas.

They must have stolen it from Churchill. JK

READ YOUR HISTORY there, Shoozie! Old Winnie harped on "Their FINEST Hour"...though he no doubt spoke in terms of
DARK hours during the early years of WWII. But it was the above which is better remembered.

Though not as famous, IMHO, as his post-Dunkirk evacuation speech, when things probably looked the bleakest they were
to look for the entire war for Britain: "We shall defend every village...we shall fight in the streets, in the hills, in the seas...
we shall never surrender...for we would rather see London laid to ash and ruin than that it should be tamely and abjectly enslaved."

I have to agree with William L. Shirer ("Rise and Fall..."); that particular speech will rank with the greatest ever made down
the ages...

michmike wrote:

wshoes wrote:

michmike wrote:

"Dedicated to the One I Love" ---Mamas and Papas.

They must have stolen it from Churchill. JK

READ YOUR HISTORY there, Shoozie!  Old Winnie harped on "Their FINEST Hour"...though he no doubt spoke in terms of
DARK hours during the early years of WWII.  But it was the above which is better remembered.

Though not as famous, IMHO, as his post-Dunkirk evacuation speech, when things probably looked the bleakest they were
to look for the entire war for Britain:  "We shall defend every village...we shall fight in the streets, in the hills, in the seas...
we shall never surrender...for we would rather see London laid to ash and ruin than that it should be tamely and abjectly enslaved."

I have to agree with William L. Shirer ("Rise and Fall..."); that particular speech will rank with the greatest ever made down
the ages...

I agree Mike, but in my defense they did call the movie ....

Cass Elliot was one of the all-time heat vocalists Voice like silk.

fishgoblue22 wrote:

Defense will hopefully give the offense time to gel.  Also RR never had the talent that JH has this year.  Jimmys and Joe's win more games than X's and O's.

two games in and I find myself re-reading this post. I think Fish had the best response   ^^^  SEE ABOVE  ^^^   and I think we're going to see how his point holds up this weekend.

I for one am starting to wonder out loud whether or not Shea has hit his ceiling in this offense. If that is the case then it's not good enough and I have no issue with being on record as saying so. I understand he's banged up, I understand the new playbook is a lot to take in, I understand UM is leaning on a true Frosh RB, I understand that DPJ is out, blah blah blah.... But I'm staring to think that McCaffery might be a better option at this point (purely from a toolset/upside point of view) although I don't think he has a better grasp of  college football than Shea does.

I'm also wondering that with all of his upside in this specific offense, why we haven't heard more about Milton challenging to get in the game.

discuss

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

I'm also wondering that with all of his upside in this specific offense, why we haven't heard more about Milton challenging to get in the game.

I never bought any of the hype surrounding Milton.