This was posted in the mgo.licio.us links… but maybe worthwhile to converse about?
How to stop Denard? Put him under center, says RR
I agree with RR, but that is because I basically think that every QB should be in the shotgun all the time, other than at goal line or third and inches. I just think being under center is inefficient, particularly in his case, but really for all QB's.
Agree. I think Mathlete has statistics that demonstrate this, as well. The shotgun is just straight-up better.
I have a serious suggestion for the OP. Change the link from the Free Press, which is nothing more than their own hack-job summary of the Yahoo Sports interview, to the original-content link:
The Free Press has no ownership of the original interview, and it certainly doesn't deserve our clicks. I expect that for very good reasons, it will be a very cold day in Hell before anyone from the Free Press gets an interview like this from Coach Rodriguez. I think it is just better to listen to the whole interview in context. Rather than the Freep's continued baiting of the Hate-RichRod meme.
I think you are right on the mark. It won't be difficult to change as they are using both schemes now anyway.
The one point I would raise is how would RichRod know if putting Denard under center would work or not as I doubt that was ever considered during his tenure at Michigan.
He knows because it isn't better for any quarterback to be under center.
The title of this post made me initially think the content of this would be much more negative, but in fact it sounds more like, at least in terms of intentions only, RRod's just thinking out loud re: looking out for Denard. No need to beat a dead horse, we all have our fingers crossed that Denard stays healthy.
Better in the shotgun. Who cares if my mom said it, if anyone can't see that then they are missing something.
However, the point is to take the focus OFF of Denard. Yes, if Denard is the focus on every play, then RR is right. But what we saw last season is that this has diminishing returns.
I don't know if the point is to take the focus off Denard, but cleary their is a huge benefit to having many options on offense. It also only benefits Denard to work under center. He can do it and if he is effective at both - he will be a bigger weapon all the way around.
When Denard is in the gun, he is the focus of the entire offense. While he can be effective, as tthe season went on last year, teams were able to key in on him, and his output trailed off.
Denard under center removes some of the focus on him. It forces teams to account for an actual non-Denard rush attach, a pass attack and, oh yeah, the best running QB in college football.
To me, this makes us far less one-dimensional.
That's a good point, because no halfback rush play has ever begun from the shotgun.
I think the other poster was referring to the designed downhill rushing game, which seems to be what Hoke is coaching up versus frequent reads and options. QB under center, the RB already has momentum by design at the LOS to go between the tackles. QB in shotgun, the RB is getting the ball 2-5 yards from the LOS, without momentum, and the run is typically a read or option instead of a designed power play.
If you can run "power" (simply, designed and fundamentally sound downhill plays), you can open up into reads and options off of that after establishing offensive rythym. "Power" is merely synonomyous with sound downhill fundamentals in Hoke-speak.
It makes us more one dimensional because when Denard goes under center, the defense no longer has to account for his running (aside from bootlegs and dropback qb draws). The whole point of Denard in the shotgun is to make us multi-dimensional--the defense doesn't know if it will be a tailbuck run, a qb run, or a pass.
Frankly,'d love to see Borgas throw some of that in there Saturday. The triple option is difficult to defend if you don't have the time to prepare for it. Using it a hand full of times a game would force other teams to spend time preparing for that and less time on something else.
Sure, that would help, but there's no question that the threat of Denard running is significantly reduced when you go under center, and the loss of that threat makes it more difficult for the other skill position players to be successful because more attention can be focused on them.
I think we'll see more bootleg-type play calls against ND when Denard is lined up under center. You can't bootleg every time, but you definitely have to account for Denard after he fakes the handoff up the middle, then rolls out. If there's green space ahead, then run, Denard, run. If Hemingway, Roundtree, or Koger is wide open downfield, then pass, Denard, pass. I'm hoping for major production out of bootleg/waggle plays.
I don't think anyone can disagree with RR's statement (as it showed last year) but by putting him under center, it also gives the defenses different looks and formations. Denard could arguably be more lethal if he gets in a rhythm throwing the ball and our backs step up and contribute. Predictability was an obvious problem against bigger, faster defenses last year (Iowa, Sparty, tOSU, Wisconsin).
You just named the 4 best defenses we played last year, including 2 of the 10 best defenses in the nation. I would think the bigger faster part of the equation was the problem, not the predictability.
I will also say this: Denard was not a great passer last year and a very large reason he had the amazing stats he had was the offense he was in making guys wide open. So the speculation that he might be dangerous and he could be lethal under center is just that....speculation. Denard's best asset until proven otherwise are his legs, not his arm.
...yes I did but weren't we one of the best offenses in the nation on paper?
You are right, the best offense Michigan has had in the past 30 years was a paper tiger and it was the reason, not the defense, that we only had 7 wins.
If your point is that our offense played worse against better defenses, I would like you to find an offense that doesn't play worse when facing the 2nd best and 8th best defense in the nation. Also, if you think last year's offense wasn't great, what did you think about our offense against Western? Even without playing the 4th quarter, we probably wouldn't have gotten to our offensive output of last year's UConn game. Were you outraged that the offense was not as good as that bad offense we had last year?
I'm really more concerned about how we do against the best defenses, because those defenses are usually fielded by the teams we have to beat to fulfill our season goals. I don't care if we beat WMU 34-10 or 97-10, but I would rather beat OSU and Wisconsin and MSU and the other top teams by 1 point, even if it is because our offense dominated TOP and scored just enough to win than watch them go 3 and out until the game is out of reach, as we saw against our primary opponents last year. Against ineffective, overmatched defenses, our offense did great; against competent defenses, it did very little.
Our offense did better than the average against Wisconsin, Iowa, and even Ohio State. Our offense was good enough to win 10 games last year. If you think anything other than our defense was the reason we couldn't achieve that goal, I don't know what to tell you.
he said something many others think, that DR isn't as effective under centre as he is from the shotgun. I think if people are honest, they will admit that they feel the same way. Does that mean the team can't be as effective with him under centre, no, but certainly you won't see him put up the numbers he did last season if the majority of his time is under centre.
I still say RR is a class act. He is constantly getting baited into saying something negative about UM and avoids doing so. He qoute about the fact that his time at UM would have been a tough one for any coach was an example. He could have said it was made difficult because of who he was and the fact he wasn't accepted, but he doesn't. Good luck to the guy IMHE.
the best way to stop Denard was to have him run the ball 25+ times a game and wait for him to get hurt
“Being the right fit is important and being in a place where they thoroughly understand exactly what you need to do to build a top-level program,” Rodriguez told Brando.
Really? Lloyd had greater success than Rich had at WVU before coming to UM.
"Being the right fit is important and being in a place where they thoroughly understand exactly what you need to do to build a top-level program,” Rodriguez told Brando."
Rich's problem is that UM did thoroughly understand exactly what you need to do to build a top-level program, problem is they weren't seeing it from him.
Coach Carr took over an already top-flight program. Coach Rodriguez took a pretty good program and turned it into a national championship contender.
A futile hope, perhaps, but let's all just agree that Coach Rod didn't fit at U of M and move on.
I was a huge Rich Rod supporter and thought he'd be our Urban Meyer. Sorry, it just bugged me that he seemed to be blaming our high expectations.
I'm really intrigued at where he ends up.
I'm looking forward to seeing what he does next too. College football is more interesting w/ Coach Rod in it even if he's not the best choice for Michigan.
The thing that suck is that seeing him with a potent offense is possibly years away. He's got to land a gig somewhere, then go through another process of building the team to fit his vision, and then of course, it will take time before the team can execute the offense well.
my only problem is this feels like a guy who had his girlfriend dump him, and then complaining that her new boyfriend isn't treating her exactly like he would like him to....
The comment that made me roll my eyes was when he said, "sitting in the pocket is what's going to get him hurt" yes because he didn't get injured ONCE last year!!!!! smh
This just in: RichRod still pretty sure he would make an excellent head football coach for Michigan.
The AD gave him a night game. He just didnt keep his end of the deal and have a successful enough football team to keep his job.
RR is overstepping his bounds as a non-partisan analyst by bringing up stuff like how he never got a night game and how he thinks Michigan doesn't know what it takes to build a successful program. He just sounds like a whiner saying these things. No one GAF that he never was able to play a night game. I wish RR would just stick to the X's and O's and treat Michigan like any other team he analyzes.
His shotgun talk is...correct.
but I have to agree completely with your third statement.
DR has a gift. If this is confusing to any of you, just ask any opposing defensive coordinator where he'd rather see Robinson. If you eliminate the threat he poses on a spread field by sticking him under center, then you damn well better be replacing it with something just as potent, or you're just gimping your offense.
As far as the overblown cliche that running "25 times a game will get him killed", it's not the number of runs, it's the quality of the run. I saw at least 2 QBs go down last weekend that were not scrambling, and didn't see the defender. Leave Denard primarily in the gun. Let Denard see the defense and I have as much, if not more, confidence in him staying healthy as when he's putting his back to the defense.
Hoke is adjusting his scheme to fit his players while RR demanded his players adjust to fit his scheme.
The quarterbacks RR had to work with when games were being played in 2008 were Sheridan and Threet. Should RR have fit the system to support Sheridan and Threet? BRCE doesn't think so, and you haven't refuted this.
OTOH, your primary argument is criticizing Rodriguez for not retaining Ryan Mallett when Hoke was able to retain Denard Robinson; that is an issue with player retention, not poor scheming. Had Rodriguez managed to keep Ryan Mallett on the roster and then decided it was better to use him the same way Threet/Sheridan were used, your argument would make more sense.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but there is a solid argument to be made that RR's offense of choice was a key component in Mallet's transfer - IE, he didn't want to play in it. I think he's verbally alluded to this, hasn't he?
Further, Threet was a 4-star, elite-11 QB. One could argue that he had the talent to be an adequate QB in a scheme for which he was suited - as a matter of fact, he was an adequate QB at Arizona State last year.
RR has run an offense that played to the strengths of a passing QB. Just because mallett didn't think he could run one that fit his skill set doesn't fall on RichRod, that falls on mallett. And in that instance, you should probably blame Martin, not RR, for not bringing in the exact same type of coach that Lloyd was.
Furthermore, your Threet reference is not really being honest. Yes, Threet was good not great at ASU last year. QBs tend to get better when you you compare them from their freshman year to their junior year. If in 2008 you thought to yourself, "man, if threet were under center more, this offense would be great and he would magically become more accurate and throw fewer interceptions," then we weren't watching the same games. Threet as a freshman starting QB was not good and definitely not as good as junior Threet, and a switch to a pro style offense wouldn't have made him much better if any.
At that point, it's all hypotheticals, our opinions may vary.
I think we can agree that Threet wasn't suited for 10+ carries a game, given the two injured shoulders and double-concussion he endured as a result, not withstanding his "not being good at running". I think that Threet would have been somewhat better (though by no means good) in the DeBord offense.
I agree to a point, but Threet was concussed a couple times last year, in a pro style offense. He wasn't good at running, but he wasn't good at passing either. Also, we will agree to disagree on weather Threet would have done better in any defense. I remember watching the replay of that Wisconsin game. We wouldn't have had to come back from anything had threet not been awful. I remember seeing 3 horrible overthrows/underthrows in the first half alone where we either would have picked up a 1st down or scored a TD. I don't think the offense is what was holding back Threet. I think Threet being a poor QB and being a Freshman held Threet back.
I love your argument that RichRod should have adjusted his offense to a quarterback that wasn't on the team and then you use Hoke and Borges adjusting to a QB they do have as proof of something. What? I have no idea.
Also, comparing a drug using QB who fell in the draft because of character issues to an all around nice guy who is an amazing team leader as a true junior only shows why we shouldn't take anything you say in regards to RichRod and Hoke seriously.
No, Mallett was not on the team when RichRod was actually running the offense. He transfered and we got to see what the offense looked like with a walk-on and a redshirt freshman running it.
But I'm confused as to why you even brought up Mallett. Are you suggesting that RichRod should have, during the 2008 season, changed the offense to fit a QB who wasn't on the team? If you want to argue about RichRod not doing enough to keep mallett on the team, argue elsewhere because that isn't what you were arguing earlier.
Let me guess, you are going to suggest he didn't use those 2 amazing WRs in his offense too, right? You know, the ones who got drafted
Serious question: do you actually think people take you seriously? You hate when people speculate about the Ryan Mallett situation and then write sentences like this:
"Maybe the NFL caliber receivers would have stayed if they thought they would see the ball."
RichRod chose not to talk to him and Mallett left."
And since you put so much stock into internet rumor, Manningham and Arrington hated Mallett and were not sticking around anyway.
Also, either you completely ignored the point that everyone is making or you don't get it. Adjusting a system to redshirt freshman Steven Threet, who is not playing football anymore and had 1 mediocre season as redshirt redshirt junior, is not at all the same as adjusting your offense to junior Denard Robinson, who had the best season as a dual threat QB in the history of college football last year. What makes you think if RichRod actually had taken over with Mallett at QB (the fantasy world you like to live in where he is the QB throwing to 2 future NFL QBs), he wouldn't have adjusted to the talent? And just so you know, the offense that trotted out there in 08 had 1 player drafted, who was a redshirt sophomore offensive lineman. Tell me again where all this talent he didn't adjust to was?
I doubt that R^2 wanted DR to run the ball 25 times a game. However, our RB's did not perform. In order to win R^2 called the plays that gave UM the best chance to win. If our RB's can do better fine. However, there will be games this year where DR should run 25 times. Troy Smith ran 25 times on us in a game out of a spread look.
So question for the board. You know that every time you call a QB run you get 6 ypc. Every time you call a RB you will get 3.5 ypc. You know this as a certainty. Is there anyone on this board bold enough to state they would still only give DR 10 touches because he of injury concerns? If the difference is 4 verse 5, you even it out. But in the first situation I would rather have DR have 25 carries for 150 yards and my RB's 20 for 75, then DR have 10 carrries for 60, and my RB's 35 for 100.
When we play a team with a good run defense, that is going to be the situation. Other then Lewan, the Oline is not a bunch of road graders.
Every time I call a RB I get 3.5 ypc? Then I run it every play, resulting in a very long TD drive, eating lots of clock. Boom
getting 6 yards per carry and therefore getting twice the number of touchdowns. /s
I doubt that R^2 wanted DR to run the ball 25 times a game. However, our RB's did not perform.
The QB is always going to carry the ball a lot in a Rodriguez offense. If the tailback is a star, then they simply don't pass the ball much. In 2007, WVU had an embarrassment of riches at tailback (Slaton and Devine) and its QBs still carried the ball 243 times. WVU ran the ball 74% of the time. That's probably how our offense would have looked if he'd stayed.
Consider the 2010 UConn game - a game we won by 20 points (and thus theoretically didn't need to overuse our QB as a rusher). Denard carried it 29 times and the tailbacks 28 times, while we attempted only 22 passes. That was very reminiscent of RR's WVU days. If we hadn't trailed in so many games, we'd have put up more stat lines like that.
Al Borges has already shown himself to be more flexible than RR. I'm confident that if the under center stuff isn't really working, he'll phase it out. Rich Rodriguez is a very creative football coach but he's definitely a stubborn man and the idea that Borges shouldn't be seeing what he has under center is ludicrous.
You just called the same person, "not even remotely creative" and "eclectic."
Not to defend BRCE's statements about the Carr regime, but he wasn't saying that. He said:
Carr: Stubborn and not even remotely creative.
RR: Creative yet stubborn.
Hoke: Flexible and eclectic.
Did CBS hire this dude to analyze football or to make daily remarks that no one is interested in hearing, and that will only be heard by michigan fans who pass the word along in order to scoff at their former coach?
He is analyzing football. Denard plays football. Is he not permitted to talk about Michigan in his new job?
We've disagreed about that, and I think that sometimes you've been unfair.
But here, you are being fair, and sensible, and I owe you that acknowledgment. Although I don't understand the Brandon part.
Rodriguez is an analyst this year. Under contract to a major media corporation (CBS) to provide analysis of college football, and answer questions. He is being asked questions, and is answering them to the best of his ability. He will be under a microscope as to everything he says. It is silly to think that Rodriguez wouldn't have some different ideas about coaching strategy, apart from Brady Hoke. Personally, I'd just like to hear what they are. This is a top-level BCS football coach, and we will almost certainly only have one year of him in this media-exposed role. I am just going to enjoy that for what it is. It would be nice, if Rodriguez could say some things that would teach the CBS audience about his ideas on football coaching and strategy. It is really a whole lot easier to be a Michigan fan in 2011 if you give both Rodriguez and Hoke the respect that both of them so very much deserve.
“Being the right fit is important and being in a place where they thoroughly understand exactly what you need to do to build a top-level program,” Rodriguez told Brando.
Here, the emphasis is on 'you,' where Rodriguez is referring to himself with respect to Michigan. The issue here is that there are numerous ways to build a top-level football program, but Rodriguez only knew of the way HE was accustomed to building a top-level program rather than, say, the way Bo Schembechler did it, or how Moeller or Carr continued Bo's success. In this case, it is reasonable that Michigan (that being Dave Brandon and other alumni that thought Rodriguez didn't 'get it') truly did not understand how exactly Rodriguez was building a winning program, since it was much different than what they were accustomed to.
Also, was running Denard in the shotgun the reason why Rodriguez didn't win and got fired? I think Denard's performance last year proves that, among his failures, Rodriguez knew how to use Denard effectively.
Edit: Jack beat me to it.
And though maybe even the more likely one, it still could possibly be taken as "what you (you guys, the program) need to do". So their view isn't inaccurate, because none of us are inside Rich's head. I don't automatically assume the worse, so I think your position is maybe likely more valid, but I don't know it. Frankly, it's just another sign that Rich doesn't choose his words very carefully (or doesn't care to). When Brandon makes a compliment of liking what the program is doing under Brady, people constantly read into it that he's bashing Rich Rod. I don't know why when Rich says something it automatically has to be taken as the best possible meaning.
In both Brandon and Rodriguez's case, they need to be given the benefit of the doubt in their comments regarding Michigan. Brandon should be allowed to comment on how he likes the way the program is being run, while Rodriguez should be allowed to answer the constant questions regarding his stay at Michigan without every answer being brought into question. The exception to this, of course, is when it's painfully obvious that either person is blasting the other (Rodriguez deserved to be criticized for questioning Brandon's job qualifications), and if Brandon speaks of how Hoke is better than Rodriguez because of (insert irrelevant job qualification here, like Hoke's knowledge of the city of Ann Arbor without needing a map), any criticism of him would also be justified.
In this situation, I think Dahblue's stance that Rodriguez definitely meant that Michigan has no clue how to build a top-level team is not sufficiently supported by Rodriguez's quote. While it's true that my interpretation is also not 100% supported by Rodriguez's quote, I am also taking the stance of giving Rodriguez the benefit of the doubt, where the burden of proof is not required.
Fast version: You're right, but understand that my position of needing sufficienct evidence to justify criticism is constant regardless of who the accused party is, whether it's Rich Rodriguez, Dave Brandon, Brian Cook, Braylon Edwards, Osama bin Laden, Lloyd Brady, or even Dahblue.
If being fired disqualified someone from being an anaylist, there would be none.
Ok, I'll be that guy:
RR knows how to stop people? [/sarcasm I think]
No offense, Rich Rod, but you thought the best way to use steven threet was in a spread option.
you thought the problem with Threet was running the spread option...
/Chad in Burn After Reading-ed
or is it about the TEAM winning.
Saying that putting Denard under center will limit his production and saying that putting Denard under center will minimize your chances of winning are two different things.
The way our RBs played last year (and Denard's level of passing skill) made those two things synonymous last year. This year? Guess we'll find out.
Why wouldn't the former coach of Michigan, who also recruited our most high-profile player, be asked questions about Michigan football and Denard?
All he can do is give his opinion and considering that Denard was fairly successful last year in the shotgun, is his really that wrong?
Quite frankly, the rest of you are beyond petty at this point. Its a good thing you weren't being quoted by any sort of media or you would be hiding in shame at your ignorance.
thank you coatal blue.
There's not a lot of scoffing here. RR makes a valid point. He just approaches the game from a different philosphy than the current staff (e.g., impact of the type of O you run on your own D, both in practice and in game). M tried his philosophy. It worked very well last year on O (albeit with a once-in-a-lifetime athlete at QB), but the other elements were horrific. Hence change. His comments are of interest but not very relevant.
The best way to use Tim Tebow is in the shotgun. The best way to use Cam Newton is in the shotgun. The best way to use Tom Brady is in the shotgun. The best way to use Denard Robinson is in the shotgun.
RR feels the best way to use anyone is in the shotgun and he always will feel this way because it's the only offense he knows how to run. Borges is going to ensure that over the next 2 years Denard is comfortable and effective in and out of the gun. By the end ofthe year, Denard will be far more dangerous operating in the spread-power hybrid than in just the spread due to all of the wrinkles Borges will add to the offense over time. Denard will be effective without being in the gun all the time and he will likely be healthier longer.
Recruits at the QB position are now seeing us operate like many professional teams and this is a huge plus.
Btw, RR built a top tier team when the spread was new and defenses hadn't figured them out yet like when Alabama power figured out Texas spread in the national Championship game. It seems nearly all the teams that are successfull using the spread now run a mix of spread and power both. Borges is doing the same and Denard will flourish.
It probably didn't help Texas that McCoy didn't make it out of the first quarter. The backup QB's mobility and ability to run wasn't even close to what McCoy possessed.
You do know that both teams in the title game last year were all spread all the time right?
and I think Borges realizes this. Also, I believe RR means to make Denard a pocket passer, not just lining him up under center.
He's expressing his opinion. Seems stupid to argue about it. From his personal experience and success, the shotgun is "where it's at" and the best formation. Tom Osborne, Barry Switzer, Bear Bryant and Bo Schembechler probably would all disagree because they ran option footbal out of the I or wishbone. It probably does help the QB survey the field better.
Borges hasn't really unfurled his playbook yet. Once DRob starts flicking some screen passes out of various pro-sets to Shaw and Touissaint that go the freaking distance a la Skip Hicks and Deshaun Foster, I'm sure that even RichRod will be going: "Oh yeah, now I see what they're doing there. Nice."
Is whatever way secures a win, while also focusing on keeping him healthy for the entire season. Both options (shotgun / under center) provide the defense things to think about and to honor with their set up, the more we have the D thinking the better. We don't need to run up stats in early games we just need to win the games. This is important so we still have a healthy Denard when we need him at the end of the season against (Nebraska, OSU, B10 Championship game). He's not going to get clobbered in the shotgun any worse than he will running 20+ times a game.
I don't think we should have him taking unnecessary hits early in the season that prevent him from being able to improvise (Be Denard) when we really need him later in the season. All YPG, YPA numbers diminished as competition got stiffer last year, as well as Denard was dealing with more nagging injuries.
I couldn't care less what Denard’s stats are this year, if we win every game... and neither does he.
Also, don't care what Rich says... old news, wish him well in whatever he does. But he’s just a reporter now, I only care what the current coaches have to say.
Go Blue, Keep Denard healthy (until we need to release him, yea like the Kraken on opposing D's!)
Sorry RR, you seem like a nice enough guy and I will be forever grateful to you for Denard, but you really should stop talking out of your a$$.
I know you want to posture yourself as the architect of our turnaround who just ran out of time but you shouldn't feign a concern for Denard's safety when your offense by design puts QB's at significant risk. I don't know how many times I heard you say, "I'd like to have 2 or 3 QB's I can win with." That's because it's impossible for a QB in your system to stay healthy for a full season.
The way you keep Denard productive and healthy is to do exactly what Borges is doing. Reduce the total number of plays the offense runs by slowing the pace; design plays that our running backs can get yards with; keep the opp. defense guessing with mutiple looks (including under center); and wear the opp. defense down with long sustained drives instead of running no huddle. This has the added benefit of allowing our D to rest, recover and stay fresh.
RR's offense is designed to wear out opposing defenses with fast pace. Unfortunately, it has the negative side effect of gassing his own defense.
The big LEAST says you're wrong. Pat White & Slayton had the unique privlidge to play under an innovative offensive coach in by far the weakest conference in the country. Remember, UConn won that conference last year, meaning RRod's Wolverines, while not good enough to finish near the top of the Big 10 last year, would have dominated the Big Least as demonstrated by defeating its eventual champion.
I'll jump on the RR as football genius wagon just as soons as he wins a conference championship in a real conference. Until then he's just another coach. Only time will tell whether we or he missed the boat. I'm betting its more "he" then "we".
Pat White stayed relatively healthy. Do you think if he'd played consecutive weeks against Alabama, Auburn, S. Carolina & Florida he would have stayed healthy?? He stayed healthy because he was in the big least.
Even Juice Williams, a bigger, stronger athlete than Pat White, could not stay healthy in the Big 10 running Zooks version of RR's offense.
As far as his record vs. Hoke. Thats a matter of fact I dont dispute. Hoke has something to prove just like RR did. Only difference is that I think Hoke knows it and RR never figured he had anything to prove. That somehow his stellar record in a castrated big east(check his record while Miami & Va tech were around) gave him carte blanche to to ram whatever schematics he wanted, with whatever assistant/chronies he wanted right up our blocked M shaped asses. Wins be damned, records be damned. We'll win eventually and this bunch of arrogant, self entitled pricks wil just have to sit on their hands and wait for it to happen.
The genius thing was my honest belief that in some ways RR is a real football innovater and offensively might eventually be considered a genius of sorts. Only act 3, if it takes place in a major conference against top level teams week in and week out, will reveal that to all of us. And if he takes over a Goergia or a Washington or a Texas Tech and wins consistantly, I"ll be the first on this site to say "we" missed the boat. Acting like his greatness is somehow a forgone conclusion is just premature IMHO. He needs to sharpen his edge against some tougher stones before I tip my hat to the man.
Hoke has a humility(although not to our rivals) that begats a man that understands the entire task laying ahead of him. Make no mistake, he stil has to get it done on the field and hang some B1G championships on his belt before he gets knighted among the great MIchigan coaches.
The job of the offense is to score touchdowns. The job of the defense is to stop the other team's offense. If our defense under RichRod wanted to be less tired, they should have gotten off the field after 3 plays instead of letting the opposing offense march down for TDs. Guess what, weather the offense scores on 1 play or 10, the score will still be 7-0 and the defense will still have stop the other team.
Also, I love random internet guy calling out established FBS head football coach for "talking out of his ass" about Denard Robinson, the guy he made the best dual threat QB in the history of college football last year.
The author of this site did a very good analysis of runing verses not running and the odds of staying healthy. I believe it was determined that there is no difference. It does not matter if you are being tackled on a run or being hit on a sack. Football is a game of violence. Do you limit the touches of your star running back to 10-15 out of fear of injury? I hope the Titans do not listen to folks on this board and limit Chris Johnson to ten touches.
What any player can do is protect themselves. Some runners know how to take a hit or make hits glancing blows and/or go down when there is nothing left to gain. DR could probably do a better job of that. I agree that it would be nice to win games with DR getting only ten touches. However, in the signature games, I believe UM needs him running 25 times(Troy Smith) to have a chance. We will lose if we are unable to score 30 points against the likes of Wisc, Neb, or OSU.
The problem with DR being under center is the options of what he can do to pressure the defense go down.It will be easier to defend DR. All the zone read runs go away. DR under center running is not nearly so useful. Also any run under center in a passing down gets tougher because he is running away from where he wants to go first. If we had road graders like Wisc maybe under center works. But not with this line.
against any defense RR put up. Isn't "stop" a defensive term?
Denard is a play-maker from any position on the field ... and the 2011 Wolverines will prove that!
Rich Rodriguez ran an offense that put Denard in the shotgun 99% of the time.
Anyone shocked or upset that he may believe this is the best way to employ Denard Robinson needs to have their fucking heads examined.
No shit, if he thought it was the best way to employ Sheridan/Threet he certianly wasnt going to use Denard any other way.
Hell, I dont think he would use Tom Brady any other way, he'd just scream at him to hurry the hell up on 3rd and 9 because we cant give them the ball back fast enough. Its all about the TEMPO man the TEMPO I say.
I recall watching him yelling hurry up to the fieldgoal unit. Of course you wouldnt want to take your time and maybe actually make the damn kick, just kick the f-ing thing cuz the clock's running and I want to get my offense back on the field!
I thought RR would have said the best way to stop Denard is the 3-3-5
What wut....Damn. All hail GMATT.
+161 to you! That made my day.
Best use of Denards talents to maximize Denard's success, put him in the gun. 100% correct.
Best use of Denards talents to maximize the team's success, TBD.
Teams success is not the same thing as a great Denard season. Last year Denard had the greatest season in the history of football. Result: Loses to little brother, Wisconsin, Ohio, and an ass whoopin in a bowl game. Its not about Denard its about the Team.
This is ridiculous. How on earth can you argue that our starting QB having worse numbers will have a positive effect on our team? I think you are a little confused as to what you are arguing. Denard did everything humanly possible to help us win games last year. Denard had very little to do with any of the games you mentioned above (although his two int's in the redzone did hurt us against MSU). Denard did not have anything to do with our defense being shitty last year.
Not only is it better to have Denard in the shotgun, in my estimation, but he can really be more lethal overall when he isn't running the ball 700 times a game. He will be even better than he is now if they create a situation on offense where he can finish games, and Denard being even better than he is now would be beyond the current level of "f*cking awesome".
The flip play to Shaw in the 2nd play shows how deadly Denard can be under center. That's a play Michigan hasn't had enough speed in its backfield in a long long time. You can only run that once a game, but once you put that in the mind of the end man, Denard/Borges can play all kinds of games with that. Just imagine Denard running that naked around the end, and not up against the end zone.
Rich Rod..Who's that? Does he coach or something? Bottom line is he is gone now and I could give a fuck less what he has to say......