"now for us, I dont agree with the assessment going spread would fix our problem problems long term unless we get the oline fixed. getting it fixed means competing at a top 10-5 level annually"
I have to bring this up again because the bolded quote above is where we are not communicating. I have addressed this multiple times. I'm not saying that going spread will magically fix any core problems we have. That isn't my assessment. My assessment is that going spread is a natural fit for the program going forward. In stating that I am making the assumption that our OL will get much better under a competent staff no matter what we run and that the putrid line we have currently is a freakish outlier. Going spread does not mean that we don't run the ball. Going spread does not mean that we cannot utilize multiple personnel groups. It means that whatever the personnel group is that we have in that we spread them out thus spreading the defense out.
To touch on the OL again, the line we have now is IMO the worst OL in P5. We all know that UM isn't exactly known for it's offensive lines but it has never been this bad and it is very reasonable to expect that it will not be this bad going forward. What exactly do you mean by getting the OL fixed? You say fixed means competing at a top 5-10 level annually. Do you mean the team being ranked in 5-10 range annually? Do you mean the offense being ranked in the top 5-10?
Again, I really don't think we are that far apart. Honestly, I think that semantics is where most of the disconnect is.
