But I suspect fans that wanted to see more running than they saw with Rees would have seen more with Denard. But much of it might have been as a result of 'extending the play'. We definitely would have seen a lot of read option.

Year One might have been the low point in Kelly's tenure.

- No text -

Tough to tell. Its certainly an interesting question. Given the available alternatives on hand (ie, Devin Gardner and a whole lot of nothing), he might chosen to keep him at QB.

As others have noted here, its interesting that Borges and Co. kept trying to shove Denard into the pro-style sets in spring practice and early in the season, only to realize that he's at his best when basically going free-lance. The results could have been drastically different if Michigan had opened with a tougher slate last season.

- No text -

from an offense that had ranked in the nation's top 10 in 2010. No matter what scheme he was running, that's a significant advantage.

UM last year that you brushed upon that, in my humble opinion, directly contradicts the Hoke/Borges did a great job coaching in "developing" UM's offense last year.

Like Texas when Young was there playing under OC Greg Davis, UM's offense with Denard actually preformed better with less (coaching) structure and more reliance on his QB's natural ability to run, extend plays and cause defensive breakdowns by putting pressure on the defense.

In contrast when Borges employed a structured system that offense went absolutely nowhere against every halfway good defense it faced (see 1st half of ND game). It went nowhere because structure contains Robinson and doesn't allow him to play with the dynamism that is his strength.

I might be wrong about this but I think Rodriguez's 2010 offense probability statistically performed better than Hoke's 2011 offense. All that said Borges is an excellent coach and will in time cobble together a very good offensive unit at UM.

While the data might suggest that adapting is the better option, Kelly's past experience, particularly at Cincy, suggested that his system could be implemented on the fly without too much trouble.

Rodriguez inherited a power running, pro-style offense. He immediately switched to a high-paced, spread offense.

The result? Absolute shitty seasons in the early part of his tenure.
He stuck with his system, recruited to fit his system, and develop players in his system. He sold early playing to his earliest recruits. Recruits and players bought into his system, and he changed the offensive identity of the team.

Kelly has been following the Rodriguez plan. Tear down the existing structures of the program. Create a new foundation, and then build on that.

Kelly went with Crist and Rees. Neither guys were the answer. If EG or AH are starters, then Kelly is back to square one.

Rodriguez had to survive some lean QB years as well before Pat White started.

But with ND's situation, I support Kelly's approach. Coming off of Scattershot Charlie, a defined, constant system is what the program needed.

and my mind has been failing me miserably. In my googling for an answer, I did turn up a Sports Illustrated article on the 1986 game against Michigan, which we lost. It references Holtz running his 'wishbone' attack with Steve Buerlein at QB and with Tim Brown getting 10 or so carries. I can't imagine that running the wishbone was the best use of Steve's talents and I often wonder why that team was 5-6 with a QB who would go on to play 10 years in the NFL and a future Heisman winning WR. I'd appreciate a recap of that year from an offensive scheme perspective if anybody's memory is better than mine.