Michigan in the pistol
After watching Nevada against Cal a few weeks ago and then UCLA torching the longhorns this past weekend, i think the pistol could be a good alternative to our usual 3 and 4 wide shotgun sets. We have had trouble at times running the ball with our running backs consistently. The pistol provides the downhill running of lloyd carr era, but also would allow Denard the space he needs only being 5'11 to see over the line a bit better on passing plays. I think it would be interesting to see our personnel use it as a package from time to time.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^
I was never very critical of Shaw. I did say that he doesn't seem to have the ability to be "special" which I still stand by. He's not a superstar in the making or anything. I'd still rather have him get the majority of the carries if Vincent Smith is the other option, though...
October 5th, 2010 at 6:39 AM ^
I've never seen Magnus get negged like that. As much as I'd like to see Fitz play, I trust the coaches to play the backs that fumble the least. If Shaw and Smith aren't fumbling in practice, those are the guys to get the carries.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^
which is why we need d hart to take the pressure off of denard.
September 28th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^
If the running GAME continues to operate at such a high LEVEL regardless of the PRODUCTION of the running BACKS, why do we CARE who runs the BALL?
The running game is exceedingly productive. This is like complaining about Calvin Johnson because he's a mediocre fiddler, or Santonio Holmes for being a can of olives.
September 28th, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^
Well, yes. Are you suggesting the offense is perfect, and there is no conceivable room for improvement? Despite Denard's amazing performance against Notre Dame, we did punt ten times. Wouldn't a potentially amazing offense be even better if we had an incredible RB threat to complement Denard?
(Those are rhetorical questions, by the way).
September 28th, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^
Rhetorical or no:
Yes, I think suggesting scheme changes to the #2 rushing offense (in yards AND yards per carry) in college football is stupid. What if we had an amazing RB to pair him with? You mean, so we could take carries away from the guy leading the NCAA in YPC?
September 28th, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^
1. I didn't say we should make any scheme changes. I said the OP's idea was stupid.
2. Are you actually suggesting that it would be a bad thing for this offense to have a top tier runningback? Because Steve Slaton hurt Pat White so much? Way to show faith in Rodriguez, to suggest that he couldn't use a top-tier runningback effectively without hurting the overall offense. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but this sounds like one of the stupidest thing I've ever heard on these boards.
September 28th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
I'm not suggesting it's a bad thing to find an elite running back. What I'm saying is that specific point (having an awesome player at a position would be good) is so blindingly obvious that I hardly see how it merits mention. Of COURSE I'd like Steve Slaton. I'd also like Jake Long and 2000 Steve Hutchinson,Jerry Rice, and Gandalf.
But Steve Slaton, Jake Long, 2000 Steve Hutchinson, Jerry Rice, and Gandalf aren't on this roster, so it's really a moot point, right?
The real issue, from what I can tell, is "are you concerned that the running backs are not more effective?". My answer is "No, because at their current production level, we are the second most effective running game in NCAA Football, so I don't give shit who's running the ball."
September 28th, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^
That would be awesome if we had Gandalf on the roster, though I think he would play defense ("You shall not pass!").
September 28th, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^
The Black Night gave his all for the defense of his bridge. I would think he would give the same effort and intensity defending our goal line.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
The Black Knight had plenty of moxie, but he (quite literally) got gashed. I think we've got too many guys like that starting on D already.
BTW, I hate to be a spelling nazi, but it's Knight with a K. And as all French soldiers know, it's pronounced "ka-nig-it."
September 28th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
2. I see your point, but at the same time, if Denard is this effective running, why stop him? You do what puts you in the best position to win.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^
:****(
September 28th, 2010 at 9:31 PM ^
If the running GAME continues to operate at such a high LEVEL regardless of the PRODUCTION of the running BACKS, why do we CARE who runs the BALL?
Because Denard running the ball 30 times a game is bound to get him dinged up? Because he's missed parts of three games already due to getting bruised and beaten?
September 28th, 2010 at 11:33 PM ^
The silver lining of Denard going out of the game was the fact that the number 2 QB gained valuable playing experience.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
The fun part of dealing with Magnus is that he's so stubborn about his beliefs that you can present facts to him and he'll ignore them, thus exposing himself as an ass.
Because Denard running the ball 30 times a game is bound to get him dinged up?
Uh, playing Denard for 60+ plays a game is bound to get him dinged up. I think what you mean to say is "Denard running the ball 30 times a game is bound to get him dinged up <i>more than a normal QB</i>."
But in fact, there's no evidence to suggest such a thing. Once again Magnus clings to his gut, the facts be damned.
September 29th, 2010 at 8:20 PM ^
Let's see here...
Since Denard usually isn't going to get much contact when handing off the ball, handoffs usually aren't going to get him injured. So those plays can be discounted (although he has blocked on a few plays).
Denard has passed the ball 57 times, and he has been injured on 0 of those dropbacks. That's an injury rate of 0%.
Denard has rushed the ball 79 times, and he has been injured on 3 of those rushes (injury = missed at least one snap). That's an injury rate of 3.8%.
3.8% > 0%
If these injury rates continue for the remainder of the season, we can expect Denard to get hurt on about 1 out of every 25 runs. However, he could drop back a billion times and not get hurt once.
(I know that's kind of ridiculous...but luckily for me, my gut feeling is backed up by the statistics.)
So is it safer to have him pass the ball and hand off the ball more often than running it? Absolutely.
I'm not going to continue this discussion, because you're obviously incapable of having a conversation without hurling insults, calling names, etc. But in the words of Les Miles, "Have a great day."
September 28th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
They looked great the last two games against FCS and MAC competition, but they struggled mightily against BCS teams.
You might note that those two games against BCS teams were the first two games of the season and that the other two were the third and fourth games. The trend is positive. The backs are gaining experience and seem more comfortable finding holes, and the OL is gelling more and more (the addition of Lewan helps, too).
September 28th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
Hence my statement "[h]opefully the last two games weren't just the product of poor competition and we've fixed some things, and this will show in the coming weeks."
