I preface this with the statement that I am not the most knowledgeable football mind. With that out of the way, I noticed that Michigan use the I-formationon offense much more against Iowa than I've seen this year. Was this something that was employed to exploit an Iowa weakness the coaches saw on film? Was this directly in reaction to MSU keeping their backside defensive ends at home? Any information/thoughts are appreciated.
I-Formation vs. Iowa
I think others have mentioned that a lot of this was in response to Molk going out of the game.
I don't understand that logic. We run most plays out of the shotgun, so Khoury almost certainly has practiced more in the gun than under center. And if shotgun snapping were his weakness, why wouldn't we have gone to the I last week, when Molk went down against MSU? I think it's more likely that we felt our running game would have more success against Iowa's D out of the I formation. We also ran a lot of I-formation plays last year against them.
No. Molk goes out of the game and on literally the next play we are in the I-formation for the first time all game. Seems pretty easy to make the correlation. We do that a couple more plays then go back to the shotgun and the snap almost gets away from Denard. The I-form was used to prevent bad snaps at a crucial point in the game then we got behind big, had to pass and didn't see it much more, if at all.
If you're concerned about snapping, why would you go to a formation you rarely run, in which a bad snap often means a turnover? A bad snap in the shotgun is often less of a problem than a bad snap under center. The five-yard head start gives the QB time to pick it up.
Did you watch the OSU game last year? Hard to pick up a ball when it's rolling into your own endzone.
Almost our entire first drive was I-Form. I think Molk went down a few plays in, so I don't think that's the reason. I could also be remembering incorrectly.
But he put literally in italics, so you must be wrong.
I must say I don't get this critique. How else are you supposed to indicate a point of emphasis through typing? Didn't use them to say my point was necessarily the final verdict. I just find it less obnoxious than using caps or putting something in bold.
Isn't literally emphasizing your statement already? Do you need emphasis on the emphasis?
All (my) joking aside, I think he's saying one of us is remembering it incorrectly and since you emphasized yours so much, it must be me remembering incorrectly.
any possible mistakes a back-up center would make in a shotgun formation
Milk goes out. Khoury comes in and we go to the I-Form.
This has been discussed already a ton on this board..
Molk went out
Are YOU an idiot?
No need to be a dick about it
Not only are you being a jerk for no reason, you're probably wrong. I doubt it had anything to do with Khoury coming in.
Khoury coming in and the very next play we are under center for a good portion of that drive. I'm sure that had nothing to do with it? Why wouldn't we want denard under center!
I have no idea why you're being so dismissive. One would have thought that getting periodically negbanged into negative points would have taught you a little humility.
Last year we also used the I extensively against Iowa. That was with Mooseman at center, starting his third game in place of Molk. We had not used the I against MSU the week before, nor did we use the I last week after Molk first went out. I think it's very likely that we planned all along to run some I against Iowa, and that we simply were confident that Khoury could handle it.
Michigan used the I-formation long before Molk left the game. Thus, it was not a reaction to having a Khoury in the game. True, they did use it again with Khoury, but that is neither here nor there. The original question was why did they use it to start the game and through the game, Molk or no Molk.
Open mouth, insert foot, tough guy.
Probably wanted to give Khoury time to practice snaps before going to the shotgun too much.
This was used primarily in short yardage situations. Lining up in shot gun requires a deeper hand off and the RB doesn't get a running start. He must wait for the QB to hand off, leading to a slower developing play. I believe we handed off to Hopkins a few times out of the I formation when he lined up at fullback.This is a quick hitting type of play which is more effective in short yardage situations.
We did this as well last year against them. I think it may be that we simply wanted to run faster-developing running plays against their defensive front.
It was fine except I don't think Smith is the right back for a short yardage situation from the I.
sometimes comes out and does a tribute to the other school during pre-game or halftime? Well, we just wanted to make the Iowa folks feel welcome by stepping it up a notch and spelling out an " I " on the field for them, during the game.
It seemed to really take away that Nard Dog rushing attack I have come to know and love.
My thought at the time was that Michigan is the #1 offense in the nation and got there by running the zone read and then they come out in the I-formation. But it worked so I didn't complain (and am not complaining now). It was just interesting to see that the scripted plays of the first drive were run from a completely different offensive set.
The fact that we can also churn out runs from the I form is awesome. How hard is it to defend a team that puts out 4 wide one play and runs out of the power I the next play? Defenses don't have enough time to switch personnel to those adjustments at the rate we run plays. We would be unstoppabler.
Are we talking about the same game in which Denard rushed for 105 yards in 2.5 quarters? It's amazing how we take his production for granted now.
I expect Denard to get at least 200 yards in 2.5 quarters. This power running formation is ruining our spread offense!!1! Fire RR NOW!!1!1!1!
I'm surprised that we haven't seen any pistol formation yet. Oregon seems to have success with it. RB gets a downhill run and QB gets time like in the shotgun,