Examining the Company Line...

A few friends and I were discussing this interesting point the other day, and I think it's a fun hypothetical:

If Lloyd Carr were still the head coach in Ann Arbor, with Mike DeBord and Co. still around, what would be the expected record for this upcoming season? No other changes in the team here, Mallet is still gone, Arrington and Manningham too. You really think the "experts" would be predicting the same season of woe for the Wolverines? Let's save that for just a moment.

For all those doom and gloomers regarding the offense, I invite you to look back at our offensive output over the past several years (highs in bold). Not exactly overpowering in any way, shape, or form...

2007 - 27.2 points/game, 68th in total offense (dear God...) ---> 9-4
2006 - 29.2 points/game, 38th in total offense ----> 11-2
2005 - 28.75 points/game, 55th in total offense ----> 7-5
2004 - 30.83 points/game, 46th in total offense ----> 9-3
2003 - 35.4 points/game, 15th in total offense ----> 10-3 (oh what could've been... @!#% punt formation)
2002 - 27.7 points/game, 52nd in total offense ----> 10-3
2001 - 27.5 points/game, 70th in total offense ----> 8-4
2000 - 33.9 points/game, 11th in total offense ----> 9-3

West Virginia under Rodriguez?

2007 - 39.6 points/game, 15th in total offense ----> 11-2
2006 - 38.8 points/game, 5th in total offense ----> 11-2
2005 - 32.0 points/game, 50th in total offense ----> 11-1
2004 - 30.0 points/game, 26th in total offense ----> 8-4
2003 - 28.9 points/game, 72nd in total offense ----> 8-5
2002 - 30.4 points/game, 18th in total offense ----> 9-4
2001 - 21.3 points/game, 80th in total offense ----> 3-8

Now then, I can foresee a lot of people pointing to that 2001 number in Rodriguez's first season at WVA and going berserk... but take a moment and glance up at our offensive outputs for the '01 campaign in Ann Arbor... just about 6 points more a game and an offense that was marginally better ranked (although undoubtedly 10x more talented than what WVA had at the time) and you get 6 more wins and 5 less losses. Does anyone here want to try to argue that Michigan has had less talent than West Viriginia over any of this time period? Anyone? Not me, that's for sure. Is it not at all conceivable that PERHAPS, just MAYBE, Rich Rodriguez knows what he's doing from a game planning, X's and O's, and play calling point of view? You know, the kind of ability that means he doesn't exactly HAVE to have a Pat White on his team for that team's offense to be functional?

But what about the pre-Rodriguez WVA team? Perhaps that offense was solid and capable, and his new system set them back until they got the hang of it? Here we go:

2000 WVA - 27.9 points/game, 73rd in total offense ----> 6-5

So, um... not exactly the most catastrophic drop in the world eh? Even with the most complex, highly finnicky, player-specific-offense-that-man-ever-created?

Every time someone starts going all "woe is us" or "hahahahaha" regarding this year's offense and completely ignores the following, it drives me crazy:

1. The offense here has hardly ever been lights out over the past 8 seasons, despite being choked with talent across the field more often than not. It has been mostly slaps to the forehead infuriating with momentary bursts of brilliance. If you could've taken a snapshot of each and every Michigan fan's expression after the opening drive of the bowl game this year you would've seen two things: A) Joy and B) Rage... we had been waiting for that for YEARS.

2. Our returning defense certainly holds the potential to be a solid unit, which, might occasionally figure into an outcome come fall.

3. For AGES we Michigan fans have howled about the play calling, absolutely SCREAMED about it, I'm one of the chief perpetrators believe me... I can honestly say that the removal of DeBord from the press-box already has this new offense off on the right foot.

So now that we have a guy who's regarded as one of the top in the game at scheming and game planning and running an offense... why are we all jumping off bridges because we have an inexperienced offense? Isn't it conceivable that less talent (for Michigan standards) with better play-calling and game-planning and conditioning somewhat evens the equation out a bit?? You think the Michigan advantage in talent might be worth one more TD a game than what the Mountaineers had in '01? Because if you do, you're looking at an offense that is right on the average of the past eight units we've put on the field numbers-wise. A thought worth considering when you're lobbing out predictions of a record that hasn't found the books in over 40 years.

When I talked about this on one of the boards I post on, I stated that I don't care one iota about those who go on and on about running "his system", the important point (as I see it) is that the guy will try to put the ball in his play-makers' hands and if the past is any sort of indicator, he'll be aggressive about it... something we've, as Michigan fans, all been BEGGING for over the past decade. What people seem to miss is that you don't have to run the exact Pat White WVA offense for things to work. Let's just imagine if Michigan decided to relentlessly use it's best players... the few times that they took this approach, the results have been pretty nice: ND '06... Florida '08... OSU '03... MSU '02, etc. You could also look at any drive late in a game where they found themselves in a dire situation and were literally forced to open up the offense... another angering trend that had many of us going "duh".

It's not exactly a huge stretch to say that we've gone X-3 and X-4 for ages running half-back traps nearly exclusively to the left side and then throwing over the top 3 times a game to an all-world receiver. Sure that's a generalization, but it's not like you've walked away from many Michigan games going "whew, we just out game-planned them there"! All of the jokes about running to the left on first down and wide receiver screens behind the line of scrimmage on 3rd and 7 aren't actually jokes, they've been tried and true predictions over the years. Imagine how Steve Breaston might have developed with someone in place who might have had a better idea of how to use him?

When Michigan finally went for broke this New Year's Day, the result was the highest bowl offensive output in a century... Suffice to say that aggression when combined with talent can have some nice after-effects. Now listen, I fully understand that we don't have that offense this year, and I'm not trying to argue that we wil not miss a beat. BUT, Rodriguez will have players at his disposal who have the ability to do things with the football. His job is to figure out how best to get them the ball in the best position to do something with it, you know, take advantage of things the defense will give... He happens to be pretty good at that sort of thing if you glance back at his extensive track record. He also has a chance of finding a few solid football players out there in Maize and Blue. The running back position is as deep this season as it has been in years, despite those outside the program not being familiar with all of the names, Michigan still trots out a number of wideouts who will be dangerous, and I think it will be interesting to see how we integrate Carson Butler into the offense at the TE spot.

Where people seem to get stuck is in thinking that because Rodriguez "can't run his system" they automatically assume that he can't field a competent offense in any regard. Folks, it doesn't take a ton of complexity to put points on the board. When I look at the defensive potential along with the schedule, I don't see a lot of instances where Michigan will have to score 35 a game to win. Perhaps I am mistaken?

So back to my original question, do you think the predictions for the upcoming season would be as universally dour if the old staff were in place? Allow me to answer for you: the answer would be no. Predictions would be middling, likely another 4 loss season sort. I can draw a lot of parrallels between this upcoming year and the Wolverines' 2001 campaign. You may recall 2001 as a year of utter dispair heading into the season, Michigan had just graduated Anthony Thomas, and later in the spring lost Drew Henson and David Terrell to early jumps to the MLB and NFL... That season represents the low water-mark offensively over the last eight years... 70th overall... the result? 8-4.

For years the accusation has been that Michigan has gotten by on superior talent... I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that the last coaching staff had an approach that focused more on perfecting execution than trying to seek out any and all weakness in the opponent and how to attack them. I imagine if we boiled down the approach, it was essentially: "We have the better players, if we play well, we will beat you". That will not work this season, and I think it's also safe to say that Rodriguez has NEVER relied on that approach. He has been forced to figure out how to win with lesser talent, how to attack opponents and create matchups that favor his team, how to plan and prepare his teams... he's proven this, and it's because of this that I think that he'll be capable of fielding an offense that will be better than the "miserable" that has been the company line all off-season. No, the huge talent advantage won't be as apparent this year, but the coaching advantage will be, and I think many are overestimating the effects of one, and underestimating the impact of the other.