Because the I-formation is rather fundamental to what they would like to eventually do with the offense, I doubt it would completely go away. However, do I think they'll go spread option if other things aren't working? Yes, because they have the best spread QB in the NCAA. They haven't forgotten what Denard can do when he's at his best.
Does the I-Form Experimentation End in B1G Play?
Borges offense is west coast passing with power run game. Eventually the offense will go that route, but most qb's struggle with west coast passing and take 2 or 3yrs to learn. Denard will have to continue working on this as will the other qb's.
This will pay big next yr ............though you don't see it now, next yr is when the benefit comes.
It takes to long to master for it to be constantly effective at the college level. Bill Walsh, the creator of the West Coast, said it takes three to four years to master. That goes for both QBs and WRs because both must read the same thing out of the D. Very seldom in college do you have that 3-4 year window with the same QB and WRs.
Much like Borges' results as an O coordinator (IMO) the results of this offense vary greatly. When players are together a long time time such as Montana and Young w/ Rice the results can be tremendous.
I would gladly bet you a pop of your choice on this not paying off next year for many reasons, but primarily Denard is not a pro style QB and our O line is not suited for man blocking. 32 yards against EMU in the first quarter playing under center was all I needed to see. What happened in the 3rd quarter against SDSU when we went mostly under center? As long as Denard is our QB abandoning the spread is a stupid idea.
I have one question:
If the WCO is so difficult to master at the college level, how come LaVell Edwards was so successful with his version of it at BYU?
Once again, I refuse to second-guess Borges. He is giving us a very nice hybrid style, and striking a balance between enabling Denard to perform to the best of his abilities and installing what will eventually be "the" offense. As we saw against ND, Borges knows exactly when to loosen the reins on Denard.
At this point, the more looks the team gives opponents, the more they have to prepare for. That's pretty cool in my book.
have been successful in a "hybrid" offense between two such different styles? That is one of my scheme concerns
I think LSU would disagree with that, after WVU torched their defense operating exclusively from the shotgun.
This isn't hard to understand. Our offense will be good when we have a good offensive line. It has been a weakness for several years now. It pretty much solves the mystery of why we are unable to run the ball with anyone besides Denard.
What is the explanation, then, for the fact that Vincent Smith is averaging 8.5 YPC and Toussaint 5.5?
I doubt it. The I-form is used later in games to chew clock without having to run Denard. I hope the Hopkins experiment is over until he learns how to hold onto the ball.
Why would we allow opponents to better focus in on Denard (in the shotgun even more than they already do) by reducing the number of formations that we run, and how would that help us win games?
Is it legal in college? I can never get a straight answer. If it is, I would love to see it run for at least one series just to say I saw it, like that midget pinch-hitter for the A's.
Is that he runs worse, passes worse and turns over more out of the I. Not sure that the old I formation is some big secret that defenses cant crack given that 80% of teams run it and we cant do squat out of it. So, if I were an opposing coordinator I would be pleading for more I form.
I don't think this is true. He had plenty of terrible throws out of the gun yesterday too. He also had all 4 passing tds against notre dame from the I. They've clearly increased snaps from shotgun but they will not do away with the i
.....he's just as good as last year, and in others, mariginally better. Completion percentage aside for a second, he's averaging 8.7 yards per pass right now compared to 8.8 last year. He's averaging 7.8 yards per carry versus 6.6 last year. He passed for 18 TDs last year and rushed for 14 TD - he's on track to have comparable statistics this year if the trend holds.
Putting numbers behind it says the I-formation stays AND Denard is allowed to be Denard.
I don't think that you can expect the trend to hold because as we've seen the past two years, the competition gets much stiffer after the first four weeks (well, after Minnesota) .
I also don't think that you can really put completion percentage aside. It's an important statistic. Yes, Michigan will probably hit some big pass plays along the way this year to help skew the stats but you can't really count on them. The key is to consistently hit the high percentage pass plays and that's not happening right now.
I didn't put it aside to ignore it - I put it aside because it's a totally different discussion (as shown over the past 24 hours repeatedly on this board). Quick math favors shorter passing routes if we're going to use him extensively (key word) like that - that's my basic position. As always, he is his own ultimate weapon and there is always, well, warp drive for a touchdown.
It is a problem - a big one. Last year, Robinson completed 182 of 291 for a percentage of 62.5%. Right now, he is 35 of 72, which is 48.6%. For simplicity of discussion, say he were to match that statistic this year exactly - he would have to go 147 of 219 the rest of the way, which is a 67.1% completion percentage. I say that doesn't happen, however....
...say they switch to the short passing plays, as have been effective in the past, and he could do that. His passing game, in my estimation, is going to have to evolve from these plays.
lol.. check Denard's numbers/trends by game 4 of last season... we just haven't played a real defense. Last year, denard was a lot better from game 1-4
Run I can buy. Some of our play action passes were his best throws though. And I don't have season stats, but against ND we threw more TDs, and we didn't turn the ball over more. Not saying the I is better. Just that you can't really back up that everything is worse.
Even if Denard never becomes proficient from the I, it makes sense to give the rest of the team a chance to gain experience for the future with Gardner and Morris
I thought that the I was somewhat more successful yesterday than it's been. We'll have to wait for the UFR (or someone else with access to the tape and a lot of time) to be sure, but that was my impression.
Did Rodriguez's spread formation experiment end in Big Ten play back in 2008?
Well...I don't think anyone believes that this coaching staff is as stubborn as rich rod's
Leaving aside the pointlessly inflammatory nature of your staement, I'm pretty damn sure that this coaching staff is MORE stubborn than Rich Rod's.
Had RR stubbornly clung to Shafer (and let him run a defense) after his first year instead of panicing, he and the team would probably have been better off.
I think Hoke & staff are supremely confident (at this point at least), and they are more than willing to be stubborn about the decisions they've made. The team respects this, and so far the coachs are pretty rock solid walking the walk.
Wait, you didn't actually mean to suggest the laughable argument that Nick Sheridan was somehow going to be Tom Brady reborn if RR hadn't installed a spead offense were you?
That horse was beaten to dust 2 years before you joined.
I'm not sure what Hoke's staff has done to demonstrate "stubbornness," but regarding RR, I don't agree at all with the Shafer example. Shafer was an outsider, not part of the WVU staff. He was brought in when the preferred inside candidate (Casteel) wouldn't come. By midseason, RR decided that the insiders (Tall and Gibson) would win out over the outsider, Shafer. I don't see that as an example of flexibility. When you revert back to your old ways at the first sign of trouble, that's a pretty stubborn thing to do. Keeping Shafer onboard - and telling the postiion coaches to shut up and accept him - would have been the flexible thing.
When he said "I like winning too much not adjust" we would have done enough to win enough games to not be all time bad and he'd still be coach because he wouldn't be behind the 8 ball after year one.
If you can't move the ball on eastern out of the I, no one is going to panic trying to prepare for it. Look at the game yesterday. Michigan ran primarily out of the shotgun until they were up by three touchdowns, and after SDSU scored, they went back to the shotgun for the 4th TD. If they can get more than 2 ypc out of the I and if Denard can make effective throws out of the I, then we might start seeing more of it.
it's not an experiment.
And McColgan is a very good blocker but Denard is going to have to leave the pocket to get the ball over the D-line.
are we gonna ever see them?
It's kinda disapointing how Shaw was projected (competing again Fitz and hopkinds) to be the starting RB before the season started and i dont remember seeing him at all yesterday.
and how is evans eligibility issue going?
This. Love the kid but his arm is what it is at this point.
I rarely ever post, but I'm so sick of the "Denard can't throw" crowd around here I gave in to my worse judgement.
This is the first time Denard has ever been coached on being a pro-style passer. Relatively speaking, I think he's doing a great job.
Also, Borges and his staff, who have a bit more experience at coaching qb's than the folks on this board, believe that he has all the potential in the world to be a solid pro-style passer.
To all those saying, "Denard's arm sux", please stop acting like you have any idea what you're talking about.
Edit: Not that either of you did that, this just seemed like as good a place as any to express these feelings
"Relatively speaking, I think he's doing a great job."
Relative to what? He's completing 48% of his passes and has a 1-to-1 touchdown to interception ratio.
Relative to anyone doing anything for the first time, pitted against the very best at a given activity for a given age range.
I could be wrong, but it would appear that every other coach Denard's ever had has said, who gives a shit about his throwing motion, it's good enough given his legs. Borges is the first coach not doing that.
Have you ever tried to change your throwing motion (with footwork), or your basketball shot, or your golf swing? How long did it take you to become competent with your new motion after breaking down what you've done for most of your life?
Now let's say that while you were working on changing said motion, you were also competing against division one athletes?
Tiger Woods got to lay low and not compete in majors while he reworked his stroke, (Tiger Woods jokes most applicable) - he wasn't facing top-tier competion and scrutinized by a national audience while he did it.
All due respect Magnus, as I've enjoyed your posts on the board for quite some time, but I think you should listen to coaches who have more experience developing nfl level qbs than you and exercise a bit more patience before declaring Denard's arm to be a bust.
Well, as soon as I see a coach suggest that he CAN indeed play quarterback in the NFL, then I'll just assume that his arm is a detriment to him and the team right now. But I'm not suggesting that he should play another position, so I'm not exactly calling him a bust. All I'm saying is that the majority of the evidence so far suggests that he's not a capable passer. I believe he's thrown 25 touchdowns and 21 interceptions in his career so far.
By the way, I have changed my basketball shot and my pitching motion...and while I'm still not a great shooter and never turned into a great pitcher, it wasn't an extremely difficult task. Those things CAN be changed at his age.
(I'm not suggesting that Denard doesn't want to change. I have no idea how much his coaches want him to change, whether they work on it much, how much he believes he can play QB at the next level, etc.)
"Well, as soon as I see a coach suggest that he CAN indeed play quarterback in the NFL, then I'll just assume that his arm is a detriment to him and the team right now."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the above statement, you feel that if a college qb isn't NFL caliber than his arm is necessarily a detriment to him and the team.
I'm pretty sure there are college qbs who no coach ever suggested "CAN indeed play QB in the NFL" whose arms weren't detriments.
"All I'm saying is that the majority of the evidence so far suggests that he's not a capable passer."
I agree on the evidence so far part, but a little suspicious of this being all you were trying to say.
You seem to imply that you also believe he's not going to improve much, based on what I would agree is compelling evidence. I seem to imply he will improve, based on what I stated above and the glimmer of capable passing he's shown when he does set his feet.
Who's right? No one knows.
I just felt you were holding your point a bit firmly because you made that assumption about his passing in your scouting repots years ago and some part of you (like every human being) wants to be proven right.
Similarly, I'm holding on to my point a bit firmly because I'm a Michigan homer.
You are mostly correct. If a quarterback in the Big Ten isn't an NFL-caliber quarterback, he probably won't be successful in college. There's too much talent in the Big Ten for mediocre quarterbacks to be good. Now there are going to be exceptions for teams that run a great deal of option (Nebraska, Northwestern, etc.) or teams who hand off the ball 50 times a game (Wisconsin). Right now you'd be lying if you said that Denard's poor accuracy and decision making weren't hurting this team. His legs have made up for some of those deficiencies, but he won't hold up carrying the ball 20 times a game and at some point, a team (Nebraska, Ohio State, someone) is going to dominate us up front and he's going to have to beat somebody with his arm. He hasn't really shown he can do that yet.
You're correct that I want my "scouting report" to be right, but I would also be thrilled if he turned into a solid passer and became the best quarterback in the history of college football. Imagine a kid who could run for 200 yards a game and still be an awesome throwing quarterback. He would be unstoppable! Unfortunately, that's just not the reality...and some people saw that coming years ago. That's why only a couple teams offered him as a quarterback, and that's why he's completed less than 50% of his passes in all but one season since high school.
His arm is fine. It's his head that's the issue at this point.
There is a lot for him to absorb under fire in the new system. You can almost see the wheels turning when he steps back to pass, he is not natural at this point.
When the light goes on and he picks it up he will be fine. When will that be? Unfortunately, it may not be until after this season, similar to how he improved from 2009 to 2010.
A good passer is a good passer, regardless of formation.
So your explanation for the fact that Denard has clearly regressed as a passer from last year to this is that "he has more gameday nerves than he has in the past." I mean, really?? Which is a more likely explanation for his regression from decent (not claiming good or very good) passer last year to poor passer this year? Your explanation of "nerves" or the simple fact that 1- he is making reads that he never was asked to make last year, 2- his receivers are running routes and making adjustments that are different from the last two years, and 3- he is being asked to read more progessions, make different decisions and use different footwork due to this year's passing scheme and I-Form? I mean really? Why do some people not see that there is only one explanation that makes sense for his regression, going into the year that most QB's make their greatest improvement?
What is the "one explanation" that makes sense? Does he need laser eye surgery?
Which add to new coordinator and new passing scheme. Would you like more? As a coach, you know full well that his passing scheme is totally different, along with what is asked of Denard. That is the only variable that is different. Another example: every press conference includes talk about Denard's footwork. How often was that a topic last year? Yet you and others simply say Denard has always been always inaccurate. What is your explanation for his clear regression just when he should be improving? He's just regressed and that's that?
My explanation is that he's just not a very good passer, which is what I suggested when he sucked (as a passer) during his freshman year and coming out of high school. He has poor mechanics and, while I'm sure he's been taught otherwise, he hasn't changed them. I've also stated several times that Rodriguez did a great job of figuring out the three throws he could make with some regularity (bubble screens, hitches, and the wide open slant) and called those plays over and over and over again.
Do you remember Denard throwing lots of posts and corners and flies last year? I bet you don't, because Rodriguez didn't make him throw those balls. When he did, they were poorly thrown or Junior Hemingway made amazing catches to pull them in.
To me it's not a regression. It's Denard being what he has always been, an inaccurate passer. It's just that he's being asked to make different throws, and he's incapable. If the guy isn't standing completely still, running a bubble screen (which is an easy throw), or running wide open about 10 yards away from him on a PA slant, it's going to be a crapshoot whether Denard can hit him or not.
EDIT: By the way, I knew what you meant - my reference was to the laser eye surgery that our receivers had the past couple seasons. I was joking in the original comment.
for the coaching staff to deal with a quarterback that is not a very good passer:
--Bench him and bring on a better passer that is better at executing the offense. This runs the risk of Denard switching positions or transferring, but Denard's loyalty to Michigan makes the latter unlikely.
--Change the playcalls to better utilize Denard's limited passing ability. This is not impossible, since Denard completed 62% of his passes last year.
Since I think his running ability is too much to sacrifice just to bring in Gardner and company, the best option for the coaches is to modify the playcalls to better utilize Denard's limited passing ability. Ideally, Borges already knows this and is programming Denard to not be 2010 Denard until he is needed in the Big Ten schedule.
I think this is spot on. I love Denard like everyone else but he is struggling as a passer becuase he is not making good decisions and still doesnt have the footwork and mechanics to be a decent passer. I also think that the argument that states that the solution is to go back to last years passing scheme is rediculous. People have a pretty selective memory of last years offense and fail to bring up the fact that it was not that good against solid to good defenses. We needed a change on both sides of the ball and now we have to let the coaches do what they need to do.
"Do you remember Denard throwing lots of posts and corners and flies last year? I bet you don't, because Rodriguez didn't make him throw those balls. When he did, they were poorly thrown or Junior Hemingway made amazing catches to pull them in."
Magnus, that is my precise point. How are we in disagreement then? Denard has regressed, and perhaps I should be more precise, in his RESULTS. New passing scheme equals different demands on him that are emphasizing, instead of minimizing, his deficiencies. If we return, as I've said before, to Rodriguez style passing routes, we will see Denard's results go from awful to serviceable--and that's all we need to be a great offense.
If you're looking strictly at results, then I don't see the problem. The results that matter - as far as the team goes - are wins, losses, and to a lesser degree, points. So far Michigan is 4-0 and averaging 32 points per game.
Yes, it's a regression in pure numbers, but the only way to reverse that trend is to run an offense that a) the coaches aren't comfortable with and b) bogged down in the red zone because hitches, bubble screens, and wide open slants don't work quite so well when everybody's packed into a small area inside the 20.
...bogged down in the red zone because hitches, bubble screens, and wide open slants don't work so well when everybody's packed into a small area inside the 20.
This meme is only backed up by Michigan's red zone efficiency ranking 82nd in the country last year, which is a poor metric because it gives a red-zone TD the same value as a red-zone field goal. In terms of points per red zone possession, Michigan scored 40 TDs and 4 field goals out of 56 trips to the red zone, good for 24th in the nation; this is only improved when looking solely at red zone TD percentage, which means Denard's throwing concerns did not hinder Michigan in the red zone in 2010 aside from his interceptions against MSU (YTMSU).
While this is susceptible to the "Michigan's offense was good against bad teams but bad against good teams" meme, I would need a diary-length post to confirm/reject this theory, since the definition of "red zone" is very arbitrary in stat books.
Also, Denard was a 47% passer (IIRC) in high school, a 45% passer as a freshman, and is now a 48% passer. I think it's rather odd that you're considering this season an outlier and assuming that he's an accurate passer who's somehow being misused, rather than considering the conclusion that 2010 - when he was a 62% passer - was an aberration and might not be replicated.
what can happen with a scheme and routes that minimize his deficiencies. And I'd like to return to that.
I dont think that the offense was as great as people think it was last year. In some ways, this is the root of the disagreement of Borges' playcalling this year. Last years offense put up some great stats but look at what they did agaisnt good Defenses. I mean, they scored 7 points against OSU and 14 points against Mississippi State and overall did not look impressive.
even really good offenses often struggle against good competition, that is the nature of the game. See Oregon in the title game last year for example. Second, I'm not here to say the offense was impeccable last year, it wasn't. But it managed to have a scheme that allowed Denard to run AND made him a serviceable passer. That is the missing link this year
OSU had the 2nd best defense in the nation and we actually did better than average against them. I noticed you left out the other top 10 defense we faced last year. Weird.
That sums it up.
That said, by scheme, I don't necessarily believe it's as simple as formation. RR designed plays with simple reads. Contrary to the selective memory of some on here, Denard was hitting corners, digs, ins, outs, covered slants, etc. He was a solid passer, not great, but good enough for what the offense was trying to do.
while I disagreed, I did it in a respectful sort of way--maybe it didn't come across that way and if so that wasn't my intent. Now on to your reply. I look forward to you offering a reason beyond "nerves" and "he's just bad" as the explanation why a QB that, factually and every other way, was a decent passer last year, has regressed just as he should be making the most improvement as a passer, his junior year.
Now, on one side of the aisle we have your "nerves" and "he's just bad" explanations. On the other side we have:
-The clear and incontrovertible fact that he was a decent passer last year and was able to move the ball that way, with 63%, 2500 yards and 18/11
-the fact that he has a new system: while the shotgun runs are mostly the same as last year (with the exception that some are using power blocking not stretch) the passing scheme is different:
-receivers this year have reads to make that didn't exist last year--that's how West Coast systems work
-Denard has reads to make that didn't exist last year. He has tio anticipate the read the receiver will make while also anticipating the defenders.
-He has to go through progesssions that did not exist last year. Last year it was "one key one throw"
-he is being coached to a different style of footwork than he's had--hence all the footwork discussion he and the coaches do this year.
-And he is sometimes now under center, which means backpedal, go through progessions, anticipate reads, and throw. NONE of this he had to do last year. He DID do that as a HS Senior--and look Ma! 47% completion percentage.
Now, a good passing QB can do this stuff and should be expected to do this stuff. HOWEVA, Denard is not a good passing QB. THAT'S WHY, Rodriguez had a simple passing scheme that mostly eliminated all of the above that I just listed. Why? To minimize Denard thinking about anything other than throwing to that one guy right there.
That's my analysis. Yours is "nerves" or he's just bad.
I'll let coaches and rational people decide which one of our explanations "is a joke"
analysis that's your perogative. Meanwhile Al Borges is busy moving to easier pass routes and reads for Denard to have more success with.
I never once stated Denard was an accurate QB. He never has been. But his RESULTS have been far, far better, because of the deficiency limiting scheme he had last year. It doesn't make much rational sense that he would regress so thoroughly in precisely the year that he should be making his greatest improvement, and there is an explanation sitting there--an explanation that the coaches themselves anticipated prior to the season--but you choose to ignore that. Feel free to believe that the mental game, footwork and reads have nothing to do with how accurate a QB is. Coaches would all disagree with you, but maybe they don't know that much.
We did score the 3rd TD from the I-form, albeit on a fake. I think that we continue to see I-form, if for nothing else than to keep the defense honest.
Having multiple offenses isn't a bad thing to give other defenses plenty of looks and confusion. Denard's accuracy has dropped this year but that is mostly due to less bubble screens or quick out routes that RR's offense used that this one does not. I would be okay with giving Denard some easier throws to make, but the fact is he's going to have to improve downfield accuracy in order for the offense to sustain drives.
Don't abandon the I, just use it more to Denards strengths. Rollout, play action, screens and draws instead of runs up the middle and drop backs.
I understand the backlash, but I also feel there may be something fundamentally less effective about the I-form when you have Denard.
In the shotgun, before the play even starts, the defense has to worrk about the RB, a pass, or Denard running. We've seen the nightmares this causes for D coordinators.
I think the shortcoming the offense faced in B1G play the last two years came more from the fact that we were playing mostly underclassmen against mostly upperclassmen and that we didn't have a servicible RB - could be wrong though.
In the I-form, before the play even starts, the defense only has to worry about the rb or a pass. Denard can run on a rollout or a qb sneak, but I feel this limits his dynamite, either by allowing more time for the defense to read the rollout, or less room for Denard to run on the sneak.
I understand that Borges wants to install his offense, and he's obviously 1,000,000 times more flexible that RR, but I think that Brian and the OP are correct in being skeptical of the I-form when it keeps the most explosive player in college football under center.
You know what else "limits his dynamite"? Throwing interceptions and incomplete passes.
The dude ran for 200 yards yesterday, and you're complaining about his limitations when running the ball. We're talking about his limitations as a passer...which are significant. An open receiver is an open receiver, whether you start the play standing up, sitting down, under center, from shotgun, blindfolded, in the stands, on the sideline, or standing on one foot. Yes, he's made bad reads in the passing game (he's been doing that for three years), but the more egregious errors are the wide open receivers that he misses.
"You know what else "limits his dynamite"? Throwing interceptions and incomplete passes."
I couldn't agree more. Would you say he's more likely to throw interceptions and incomplete passes out of the gun when defenses have to worry about his legs as a primary weapon or in the I form when the only immediate running threat the defense has to worry about is our tailback?
"We're talking about his limitations as a passer..."
I couldn't agree less. This thread is about Michigan running the I-form versus the shotgun for the rest of the season - not about Denard's limitations as a passer.
I will agree that Denard's shitty passing stats are an excellent point to refer to in this discussion, overall, however looking at the entire scope of this thread and my comment that you responded to... that's not what we're talking about here.
To miss wide open receivers in both formations. It has nothing to do with how open it gets them and everything to do with throws that are no where near close.
My problem with the I-form offense with Denard at QB is it takes away the best play action play in the NCAA: The Denard fake run. As we saw this weekend and many times last year, no play action comes close in effect or reliability to Michigan's "Denard take two steps towards the LoS". I'm glad Borges finally called it this week, and hope to see it used a few times a game throughout the season.
Good grief... We've run that play literally every week so far this year, sometimes on multiple occasions. You act as if this is the first time Borges pulled it out of the archives.
Go back, watch the first few games over, and then smack yourself in the forehead.
This play is a once or twice a game call not the basis for a passing offense. To say that lining up in the I takes this play away is like saying lining up in the shotgun takes away the flea flicker.
Honestly, right now Borges is not calling it as much as he would like, IMO. However, we need to keep some element of the I-Form/Pro Style offense for two reasons:
1. We can hardly get much worse at it, and at some point, things are likely to click with more practice and usage in game situations.
2. It makes it harder to defend the Spread/Shotgun elements of our offense. Last year when we were more one-dimensional, we had more problems scoring and moving the ball later in the season as people started to adjust to our game film.
I think that the offensive line and runningbacks are not that far off in being able to consistently run the ball out of the I formation. In the replays I have seen the line looks pretty solid at pulling and vs SDSU looked like they got some push. I honestly think that the biggest issue is that we havent been able to complete anything deep consistently and defenses have been selling out on the run.
This year, once B1G play starts, the I will exist only as a change up or as something to work on when the game is in hand. It will not be the bread-and-butter O formation.
It's biggest problem is not Denard, it's that we can't run out of it. This has been the biggest dissapointment with it. Denard may get his footwork straightened out, but we are not going to get a new set of O Linemen this year.
It will be the O formation of the future, but it is a couple of recruiting classes away. We are blessed that we have Denard until then and that Borges knows how (and is willing) to play to his strengths.
I think one of the main reasons why we cant run out of the I is because we cannot pass the ball downfield. If we were able to get some balance than I think you would see the running game open up more outside of just the spread.
It would be interesting to go through Hoke's presser transcripts to see how many time he's mentioned they need to improve "blocking at the point of attack." Seems like a weekly mantra. These O-lineman were not recruited to run the I-form power. That doesn't mean they don't do it well from at times. But as Brian repeatedly points out, when you have a guy like Molk who is a master of the zone scheme reach block, or a guard like Omameh with the agility to take out LB's on the second level but is no iso-road grader, you're not playing to your strengths.