or the Beef Jerky Sasquatch?
or the Beef Jerky Sasquatch?
Speaking as a member of the "over 32" crowd, below are the five Wolverines that I "grew up" with and would most like to meet:
1. Denard Robinson - obvious reasons
2. Desmond Howard - obvious reasons
3. Charles Woodson - obvious reasons
4. Drew Henson - his story is very interesting
5. Daydrion Taylor (the kid that was paralyzed at Penn State - I'd like to know how he dealt with the injury and about his life after football
Hart doesn't interest me as much as it seems that his outspoken-ness reveals most of his personality. There are lots of defenders that I'd like to have a chat with but the above supersede each of them. The only one I really want on that list is Tyrone Wheatley but there's no space for him in the Top 5.
As a greying member the over 32 crowd myself I find your inclusion of Drew Henson a little weird with so many great and interesting players to pick from. I never had a crazy hatred for him like some nut poster on TWIS, but he essentially chose the Yankees over Michigan and helped cause a major shift in the program's course of history (think of Navarre's day in the 2001 OSU loss, Tressel's 'guaranteed' first win). I suppose it would be interesting to get the inside scoop of how everything went down, but that was a pretty controversial and difficult choice and I think it had a big effect on the program and the second act of Carr's career. I can't think of a more devastating early exit.
That's exactly my reason for wanting to talk to him. He seems like a very interesting person, especially now that things shook out the way they did.
1A. Rick Leach
1B. Rob Lytle, RIP
3. Tom Brady
4. Charles Woodson
5. Dieter Heren
Leach and Lytle are the first two Michigan players I remember. They had names created for Bob Ufer to say. I thought Brady got screwed over by Lloyd Carr, and history has proven me right. Plus, he's Tom Brady. Dieter Heren was a linebacker/special teams player. My brother and I would practice kicking field goals in the backyard growing up, and when he was kicking I tried to rush in and block the kick. I was always Dieter Heren in those situations.
Regarding shotgun vs. under center, I thought one of the perceived drawbacks of the shotgun was a greater chance of having a bad snap. I love me some Dave Moosman, but he would be the case in point here. However, if you run the shotgun the majority of the time and practice that snap regularly, I don't think it's any more risky.
Actually just the 4-3 Under in general - think of it more like a 3-4 than a 4-3.
Bear with me - Just think of the WDE As a linebacker with his hand on the ground, and boom, you've got a 3-4 Defense.
That's ND is a 3-4. Now if their closest LB (on the line, over Lewan) had his hand down...
Boom, 4-3 Under.
In a 4-3 Under your WDE is more similar to a Rush Linebacker in a 3-4 (think Woodley) than a traditional 4-3 DE (think Peppers). In the 4-3 Under your 3-Tech DT and SDE are more similar, while your WDE and SAM are more similar (just one has a hand on the ground).
A two yard dive on first and goal from the one is a touchdown. Just sayin.
on your OWN one yard line, thus the discussions of Safeties and 2 points
I'm assuming this line is what confused things:
The next time your coach calls for a two-yard dive on first and goal from the one, grit your teeth and know it's the percentage play.
First and goal from your own one means a lot of false starts and holding penalties.
Just an aside, remember when MSU had to punt on fourth and goal in their bowl game v. Alabama? Beautiful.
My pet peeve from the 1 yard line is changing the count or changing the play, and in the ensuing confusion a lineman moves and presto, you've got yourself a 5 yard penalty, resulting in 2nd and goal from the 6. Just run the damn play.
Edit: I guess I'm on the wrong end of the field, but actually it is the preferred end. Who the hell wants to run plays from your own one yard line. Your better off if you don't put yourself in the position of having the ball on your own one. My philosophy is never start inside your own 30
score points without letting the other team score any. Sometimes I'll flip it, to keep the other team guessing. But not for long.
On first and goal from your own 1, you're screwed no matter what play you run...unless you're in the spread, evidently.
Brian - curious as to what college spread QB's you're referring to as being successful in the nfl?
Spread is a very general word. The spread offense that Oklahoma runs is vastly different from the one that RR likes to run. Sam Bradford's been successful, but he was in a passing spread. There's really only 3 QB's I can think of that have come from spread offenses in college where the QB was asked to run the ball a lot that have had various levels of success in the nfl: Vick, Alex Smith and Cam Newton (so far).
I think he means any kind of spread, so you get to count guys like Brees who ran a QBs-don't-run spread in college.
versus shotgun, not running quarterbacks versus non-runnning quarterbacks. Point is a great college QB who is still making great throws and making his reads isn't any less likely because he threw mainly out of the spread to fail in the NFL than one who was taking it from under center.
but you've got plently of guys that made the transition successfuly who ran a lot in college as well including Kordell Stewart, Elway, Young, McNabb, Cunningham, McNair, etc. . .
And as far as running the spread in the pros, Tom Brady has run a lot of 4 and 5 wide receiver sets out of shotgun ever since he started for the Patriots. I think a lot of this is overblown. You run what you are used to and Borges and Hoke have run a lot of under center stuff w/ full backs and tight ends in the past so that is what they would normally fall back on. But Borges has already shown an ability to adjust and Hoke seems to let Borges do what he wants.
Manball is more of an attitude than a set of plays that must be run. I think Hoke is just setting the tone. He doesn't mind if we scheme to get fast players in space. What he demands is that if we need to get 2 yards, or if we need to prevent the other team from getting 2 yards, that we can put our heads down and knock the opponent off the ball.
I think in some of these examples you're confusing mobile QB's with guys who ran a lot.
Steve Young, 3 year starter: 7733 passings yds, 1048 rushing yds. He barely averaged 350 yds rushing/year and I bet a lot of those were on passing plays where he scrambled.
John Elway: 3 yr starter (played a little as a freshman): 9349 passing yds, -279 rushing yds. He averaged a whopping -90 rushing yds/ year. Yeah, he ran a lot.
Kordel Stewart's career at Colorado: 6481 yds passing, 772 yds rushing.
Donovan McNabb, 4 yr starter: 8389 yds passing, 1561 yds rushing.
Steve McNair, 4 yr starter: 14,496 yds passing, 2327 yds rushing.
Randall Cunningham, 2 year starter: over 8000 yds passing, 942 yds rushing.
As I mentioned above, I think in most of these instances you assumed because they are mobile QB's, they ran a lot in college. Other than McNair, the guys you mentioned barely averaged 350-400 yds/ rushing. Due to their mobility, most of those yards probably came when they were scrambling and not on plays that were designed for them to run.
Great almost compliment. IMO he's the most underrated guy on defense. Plays hard. Fundamentally sound. Never comes off the field. Makes plays when his number is called.
Could use a couple more average guys like that.
Random story about shotgun versus under center....
I live in Chicago and earlier this year they interviewed Jay Cutler on the radio about the porosity of his offensive line. They asked him whether it would help to take more snaps from shotgun. He laughed, and answered emphatically "no". When they asked why, he said that they didn't understand football well enough for him to explain it to them.
Besides the obvious douche-bag response from Cutler, this confused me. Maybe Cutler has taken too many big hits thanks to his OL, but he seemed to think shot-gun was a bad idea. I still don't understand why.
But to me it comes down to being able to manipulate the defense. With our roster, there are more dangerous things we can do from shotgun. We don't scare anyone from under center because it neuters Denard and there isn't a game breaking WR, a dynamic RB, or someone else to force the defense to adjust to. We need a go-to play from under center that scares a defense and opens up other things. So why not......THE OPTION? A handful of times per game you put Shaw and his speed in and you run the variations of the option.
Maybe it is risky and hard to teach when it isn't part of your base offense, but I think it would be electric and a way to scare teams when we line up in the I-form.
unless Cutler doesn't think he can catch shotgun snaps. At least in the gun, he'd have a second or so to realize his line had collapsed. (Or maybe he doesn't want to take that half-second to make sure he catches the snap ... but is that really different from making sure you have an under-center snap? I honestly don't know.)
I think the option is extremely risky if you haven't practiced it a lot, and practicing (conventional) option plays takes away from practice time for the parts of the offense Borges would like to run and the parts he'll have to run for now. I mean, you're throwing the ball backward, often behind the line of scrimmage. Lots of things can happen, and many of them are bad ... particularly because they would involve giving the ball to someone not named Denard while still behind the line.
Bill Walsh hated the shotgun because of the split second the QB must take his eyes off the linebackers in order to catch the snap. He preferred to have his QB under center so he could read the defense continuously. Not saying he's right, just thought it is an interesting perspective form a pretty smart coach.
when the QB is under center and sacking Cutler because he doesn't know how to move around and make something happen, putting *him* in shotgun just means that the sacks will happen a second or two later as Cutler stands back there dreaming up ways to blame his admittedly weak offensive line for his likewise lackluster play. I've been neutral on Cutler in the past, but sheesh, I'm doubting he makes it to the end of the season with the Bears, one way or the other (demoted, injured, traded again for Kyle Orton, etc.).
My guess here with Cutler not wanting to switch to more shotgun comes down to timing. I remember the Mike Martz offense here in Detroit was all about timing and the receivers running proper routes. Under center Cutler will be able to stay in motion an develop a ryhthm knowing if he takes a 5 step drop then x receiver will be here, if he's covered, then y receiver will be here.
When you have a more sophisticated pro style offense, timing is more important and it helps the QB to base that timing on his dropbacks from under center.
That type of offense puts tremendous pressure on the offensive line to pass protect for 5 and 7 step drops. The payoff is if you're timing is right, and you're players are all doing their job, you can't stop it.
Slanted his defensive linemen relentlessly.
This is how he got away with 210 lbs Timmy Davis and the even smaller walkon white kid who's name I can never come up with at middle guard on some of his best defenses.
There were a couple of years where Bo didn't have a defensive lineman on the field within 10-15 lbs of legendary Buckeye fullback Pete Johnson. We had guys slanting into gaps on every play and getting into the fat boy's knees before he could get his feet moving and his pads down. This worked out nicely on most plays as they ran the option two out of three downs (I'm exaggerating, but not much) out of what I call the Power I.
We usually caused enough pile to force Cornelius Green to bend his path slightly away coming down the line of scrimmage with Archie which gave Donny Dufek and whoever had Corny another instant to get there and hit em.
Among the idea's behind the 3-3-5 that Gerg seemed unable to grasp was the notion that your three down linemen slant on every play, the linebacker behind them reads the slant and steps into the other gap, making the slanting lineman "always right" ... "correct".
Thank you, excellent easy to understand explanation. You seem a little too familiar with all this, were you on the team.
I was in my preferred seat in the end zone dead between the uprights where you can see what's going on.
It was just all very, extremely, exceptionally important to me back then and as such is burned indelibly into the same brain that struggles periodically to come with the names of my kids.
Hey .... yeah you ... the youngest one ... yeah you, what's your name again?
As an aside I was the first person in the world to know that Lantry missed.
G&$ D^$% M&*^%&% F&$%^*&^ M*&$%^ F**$%^& G(^ M(^&*%^ F*##%^&
Tai Streets = our own example of football scholarship/basketball walk-on.
You know what's funny? When you know the person in other people's avatar
The reason why coaches prefer the "under center" snap is that hypothetically speaking, there should be less margin for error on the center-quarterback exchange. In a shotgun set, the center is throwing the ball under his legs back to the QB, whereas in an under-center position, the center is handing the ball to the QB.
Many will say hiking the ball in a shotgun set isn't difficult, but when you are running 500-750 plays per season and every snap counts, there is no margin for error for coaches who are being paid millions and can lose their job on one play.
I don't have the statistics to prove this theory (some of you probably have stats to actually disprove my thinking), but that's one coach's perspective.
1. It requires the QB to take his eyes off the defense for a moment to watch the snap.
2. It forces the QB to count his "drop" in his head instead of actually dropping back before throwing.
It is a very interesting point. I have to admit, I spent the beginning of nearly every offensive play for the last three seasons panicked about this. My wife especially hated it on the short yardage and goal line plays.
The remarkable thing is how few bad snaps we had. After the badness of 2009, one of the huge positives was the number of good snaps. Still, I didn't want to mention it because I didn't want to jinx it (superstitious much? sigh). Then, we had continued success last year and I didn't want to jinx it again.
In my mind, the key is that you practice it, and practice it, and practice it.
I think something you are highlighting is how lucky we have been to have Molk. Besides accurete snaps, he is very quick and able to snap the ball and still get out of his stance and block quickly. I think it is harder to shotgun snap and hit your block than under center snap and block.
Not advocating but I've heard that an advantage of taking the ball under center is that you don't have to take your eye off the defense to catch the snap. There's also those 2008 Moosman snaps.
(unless you're shuffling the fullback argh)
I was doing fine, minding my own business, enjoying the post, almost to the end, when this comment literally made me laugh out loud. Well played, Brian. Well played.
Not seeing Jake Long on any of the mancrush lists???
But in a good way, ya know?
If my team had committed 6 consecutive personal fouls after making it first and goal, I'd be doing more than just gritting my teeth.