I think the coaches are probably OK with continuing to do what's gotten them to #2 in total offense.
Michigan in the pistol
Second place is just the first loser. And the only way to move up to #1 is to radically change the offense. Maybe a Navy-style triple option crossed with some Spurrier Fun and Gun, and just a dash of the Phil Jackson triangle attack.
I like the way you move. Can we work the Carolina 4-corners into there somehow? That would really spread them out, although we'd have to be careful to avoid the offsides penalties . . .
Run the Picket Fence at 'em. Worked for Hickory High...
40 minutes of hell would work wonders for our D also. This is pure genius.
That up tempo offense out of some high school in the midwest. They sub fresh legs in every minute and anyone can score at any time. Tempo is key to shoot, with a hurry-up type style. Huh, why does this all sound familiar?
If only I had thought of that, then I could have had massive posbang too.
All that would do is give Denard less room to move around in.
It hamstrings a team that can snap the ball in the shotgun... so instead of getting 5 yards to start the play you get 2 or 3 yds. There is no upside to this formation in my opinion unless u have a center who cannot snap the ball 5 yards.
We have had trouble at times running the ball with our running backs consistently.
Have you seen the NCAA rankings wrt Michigan football? How can you possibly make this statement? I think messing with anything this offense has done the first four weeks of the season would be patently stupid (or, Brewster-esque).
Michigan's offense is top-5 in college football. Evidently, not goodt enough for the OP.
I agree that, given our offense's performance, suggesting a major change like this is profoundly stupid.
I disagree that there is no reason to be concerned about the performance of our RBs. They looked great the last two games against FCS and MAC competition, but they struggled mightily against BCS teams. Hopefully 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. But let's not act like our RBs have set the world afire thus far.
Notre Dame schemed for the RBs to get stuffed and for Denard to do all the rushing. How did that turn out?
I'm not sure why the running game concerns anyone in the Michigan fanbase at this point.
"I'm not sure why the running game concerns anyone in the Michigan fanbase at this point."
Because we only had 421 yards on the ground last week!
He's not concerned about the running GAME.
He's concerned about the running BACKS.
The running BACKS have been subpar this year against UConn and Notre Dame. They've only been good (and that's a relative term) against perhaps the worst two teams on this year's schedule, UMass and BGSU.
Being concerned about the running BACKS is a legitimate concern.
Or its just being a overzealous worry wort. Look, these kids have talent, but are also seeing their first taste of legit first team in action. I've seen these guys play live three times. They will be fine. Whats the point of being a nattering naboob of negativism? We'll be alright with our stable of backs. It's the LAST thing I am worried about with this squad.
Try to enjoy this ride a bit more, my friend
Just because we have an awesome QB doesn't mean we should just forget about the running backs.
Just because someone points to weaknesses on the team does not mean the person is not "enjoying the ride" or is "being negative." It is worthwhile to discuss flaws that an opponent may try to exploit, or deficiencies we may need to address through recruiting.
In other words, just because we have Denard doesn't mean we are not allowed to talk about unpleasant facts.
Except it is NOT a flippin' flaw of the team
Smith made plays running, catching and blocking vs UConn. He knows how to score when he gets touches in the red zone.
Shaw has ran harder in four games this year than during his first two season combined. How do we beat ND without his 20 yards or so receiving on that final drive?
These guys are playing their roles, doing it well and we have other options that are slowly getting warmed up. You have to let these guys get their feet wet and used to being the go-to guys before dismissing it as a weak link on a team.
Just because Magnus thinks it is a flaw does not make it so. I wonder if he thinks Denard should still play WR and that he would never become a legit college QB?
So, yeah, I do question if he is enjoying the ride.
Look, I am not not trying to critcize our running backs. My point is that someone should be able to post something other than "every player on our offense is OMG awesome" without the response being , basically, "pipe down and enjoy the ride." The see-no-evil, speak-no-evil crowd is getting extremely old. It's the same thing every week:
"Our free safeties need to get better. We can't be giving up 95-yard TD passes to opposing tight ends." Response: "Stop criticizing our freshman, you hater. We won the game so shut up."
"Our defense has got to improve. Surrendering 37 points to an FCS team is a bad sign." Response: "Whatvever. FCS teams are awesome. Plus we have Denard so who cares about defense."
"Our running backs are doing okay, but we still don't have a real star at that position." Response: "The running backs are fine. It's okay to get 2 yards on first down because Denard will get 20 yards on second down. Now why don't you and your punk ass take that negative attitude down to Columbus where it belongs."
How am I being a nattering nabob of negativism? I didn't say "our RBs suck!" I said that they didn't perform well in the first two games (which Brian said as well -- is he an overzealous "worry wort" [sic] too)? I also said that they looked great in the last two games, and I'm hopeful that this was because we fixed whatever problems existed and not just the result of poor competition, but that we'd find out for sure in the next few weeks.
It's ironic that someone who's written an untold number of diaries and message board posts analyzing this team to death is suggesting that someone who merely mentions an issue should sit back and enjoy the ride.
I was mostly responding to Magnus with that commentary, since he is the leader of our RBs Suck Club.
And, yes, Brian Cook is indeed a worry wort. Awesome dude, but he does worry way to much.
Uh, I am responding to Magnus.
Magnus said "he's [referring to me] not concerned about the running GAME. He's concerned about the running BACKS."
You responded "or its just being an overzealous worry wort."
My apologies, but you can see why I thought you were referring to me.
I totally understand, it's not a big deal.
It's just I have not argued with Magnus for a while, I'm properly caffeinated and ready to go
Bottomline: I like our stable of backs. They're doing fine and everything that's being asked of them right now. The biggest issue I have with them is Fitz taking over Brandon Minor's role as perpetually dinged up tailback becasue I want to see that kid play.
Agree with you wholeheartedly on Fitz. I'm hoping that he's the top-tier back that makes or offense unstoppable.
By the way, I'm not the leader of the "Our RBs Suck Club."
I'm the leader of the "Vincent Smith Should Not Be a Starting Running Back Club." There are other guys who are better.
The last time I beat this drum, Brandon Minor was sitting on the sideline and watching Sam McGuffie average 4.0 yards a carry. McGuffie's currently averaging about 3.3 yards a carry for Rice...so...you know...maybe I should be cut some slack.
Yes you are. Or at least you sound like you're running for the position half the time.
It's one thing to question how little they've been used and a better distribution of offensive production and all that stuff, but you constantly rag on the tailbacks quality and talent. You have basically ignored all of Smith's and Shaw's positive play to prove in order to be critical. And that's lame. And the polar opposite of how I enjoy football season, so we're bound to bitch at each other.
Our tailback depth chart is not a weakness. Perhaps how we're using them is. But these kids have game. I've seen it on the field. Sorry you cant see it.
The order of the depth chart is the weakness.
Ok, that I could buy.....but our tailbacks themselves are not a weakness on this team. And that seemed to be yours and others tenor here. Couldnt disagree more if that were the case.
The guy you want to kick to the curb, though, on this depth chart has shown a nose for the end zone and has been a really good blocker. Lot more to Smith's game than meets the eye.
The guy I want to kick to the curb (and by "curb" I mean third or fourth on the depth chart) also has only averaged 3.75 yards a carry against FBS opponents in his two-year career.
He did have a nice TD run on Saturday where he broke one tackle, but for the most part, he doesn't make people miss and doesn't break many tackles. I'm sorry if I want our starting running back to average more than 3.75 yards a carry and be able to create on his own. I know those are really high expectations...
You admit on your blog that you don't watch the games, and that you glean your expert analysis from box scores.
As a result, you do not have the backing of context, play-call, or down and distance, from which to make a reasoned analysis as to Smith's effectiveness.
Neither do I.
But your repeated pining for Michael Cox and Fitzgerald Toussaint is just irrelevant. Smith, despite tearing his ACL 10 months ago, is deemed a superior option by the coaches currently in charge of the #2 rushing offense in the country, who spend hundreds of hours with these kids all year.
Smith gets tough inside yards (perhaps his average is under four because he gets short yardage carries where the D knows what is coming? again, I can't confirm it, but you can't deny it), doesn't fumble, runs through tackles, and gets first downs and touchdowns. You're right - he should sit.
I now await your over-elaborate self-serving response that will change no one's minds here but will placate your soul.
When did I admit that?
I said I didn't see the first 1.5 quarters of the UConn game. And in my analysis of that game, I said, "Here are my thoughts on what I saw..."
Then I said at another time that I can't always watch the games on time (because I have a job), but I watch a torrent or tape later.
I've watched every minute of every game this year, except for the first 1.5 quarters against UConn.
So your statements are factually incorrect and completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever, since the entire basis of your post has been debunked.
Vinnie Smith's TD run vs UConn was the best run by a MICH tailback not named Brandon Minor in more than 2 years. The play should have been a no gain, instead it was an 11-yard TD run. He also was a boss all day blocking, at various times nuetralizing Greg Lloyd, one the country's most physical LBers, and other would be UConn tacklers. Not sure Denard scores on his own TD run without Smith blocking. I dont care about his ypc because that only tells a small part of the story.
Like I said you dismiss everything good this kid does to chirp about a ypc average and use your acerbic tone to demand better.
There is more to the game than a box score. I would have expected a football coach to grasp that. Again, I agree others should get carries, but I dont think Smith deserves at all to lose his spot or place in the rotation. He is a very valuable player to this team.
Not to mention: he's not really the starting RB either.
Vinnie Smith's TD run vs UConn was the best run by a MICH tailback not named Brandon Minor in more than 2 years.
...except for a couple runs by Michael Cox last season. And if you like long runs, then guys like Carlos Brown and Michael Shaw have him beat.
I've also seen some of our other running backs block well, and I've seen Smith miss some blocks. Not that he's a horrible blocker, but I don't think he's the superb blocker many make him out to be.
you dismiss everything good this kid does
Did I or did I not say above that he had a nice TD run on Saturday? I've said the same on my blog, too. I give credit where credit is due. I just think he gets too many carries.
Not to mention: he's not really the starting RB either.
Smith has started at least one game, and he's tied for the lead in number of carries (44) with Michael Shaw. If he's not a "starter" then he's as close as one can possibly be to having that title.
If you are talking about Cox's great runs vs Delaware State or Carlos Brown's house job against EMU, I think Smith has them both beat on competition against alone.
It happened in the first quarter of the UConn. game You must have missed it, lol.
No, I saw that run on a replay.
And I'm talking about Cox's run vs. EMU. Yeah, UConn is better than EMU, but Cox's was still way better.
That on this team, with our O-line and receivers, McGuffie woud fuck.shit.up.
Absolutely. A couple years of Barwis with his talent and he'd be tearing it up with this o-line. The '08 offense was just bad all around. Anyway McGuffie left for personal reasons and that's fine by me, hope he's doing well at Rice. Would have loved to see him stay as a Wolverine.
The last time I beat this drum, Brandon Minor was sitting on the sideline and watching Sam McGuffie average 4.0 yards a carry.
To be fair, Magnus, the last time you beat a drum about playing time decisions is when you wanted Denard shifted to WR.
You've been right, you've been wrong.
That's not true. I never said Denard should have been moved to wide receiver. I said that he had to play QB through at least 2010 because of the lack of quarterback depth.
I did, however, say that he should throw the ball less and the numbers (14-for-31, 2 touchdowns against DSU, 4 interceptions against real teams) backed me up.
Right now Denard is better than I (or anyone else) expected him to be as a quarterback, but his position is right in line with what I wanted/expected.
Barring injury or some unforeseen discipline issue, Forcier will be Michigan's starting QB in 2010. I'm putting the chances at 1% that Denard is our starting QB this year
I fully believe that Robinson will play some quarterback in 2010, but his 2009 performance followed by running track makes me think that the coaches and Denard have realized that quarterback will probably not be his permanent position.
Denard is not a good quarterback
I guess I'm just saying that maybe you want to wait before you wrap your player evaluations in a shawl of infallibility.
Right . . . which, like I said, just about everybody believed. I was wrong about Denard. I've stated that before.
But I never said that he should have switched positions by now. You even verified that with your block quotes above.
That being said, the running back position is a whole different animal. As I said above, running backs are either good enough to contribute fairly early (freshman or sophomore year) or they simply aren't going to be that good. Quarterbacks show a natural progression with more experience; I just thought that Denard was beyond help, but just about everyone agrees that going from Denard 2009 (45%, 4 interceptions, etc.) to Denard 2010 (70%, Heisman candidate, 1 interception) is just short of miraculous.
Eh. I'm pretty sure you said Denard would never be a successful NCAA QB and that he should play something else after this year. I can't prove it, because wading through your 30,000 posts is rather unwieldy.
I guess I just felt compelled to point out, while you (again) patted yourself on the back about being "right" about Minor, that you've also be wrong.
Did I say he wouldn't be a good QB? Yes. I was wrong. Like I said in the above post.
Did I say he should have switched positions? No.
I have been wrong before. There's no denying that. I also wasn't a big fan of Ryan Van Bergen when he came out of high school. He has outperformed my expectations, although he's been pretty invisible so far this year.
But when it comes to running backs, some things are glaringly obvious that many refuse to acknowledge.
So glaringly obvious that Rich Rodriguez, Calvin Magee, and Fred Jackson can't see it.
I know they can be wrong - they have been wrong (Marell Evans and Austin Panter over Mouton and Thompson, Roundtree's lack of PT until late last year). But I'm guessing that the question of "Cox, Smith, or Shaw" is not "glaringly obvious" in the way you feel it is, or three coaches with long histories of competence at high levels would see it.
Running back is not a position that requires a great deal of adjustment. Plenty of running backs are capable of contributing - and being stars - when they're freshmen or sophomores, because the position relies mostly on physical talent, not mental development. It's the same reason that young running backs in the NFL are able to contribute as rookies or second-year players.
If Smith and Shaw aren't lighting the world on fire right now, they probably never will. They're serviceable, but they're not stars.
And personally, I'd like Michigan to have an elite back because I don't want Denard running the ball 30 times a game. And if teams start scheming to take the ball out of Denard's hands, it sure would be nice to have a running back who can consistently gash the defense.
I'm not being a worry wort. I'm just pointing out a weakness on the team.
I dont know where to begin here, so I'll just fous on the players in question.
You're crazy if you think Shaw and Smith--Shaw in particular--are just serviceable and that either has reached a ceiling of sort, which you're clearly implying since they're not tatooed with all conference accolades as underclassmen or whatever your own personal hope/expectation you have set for them. Shaw has been a pleasant surprise this season, especially the added physical tone to his style. I suggest you go watch the first half of the UConn game where he had 60 total yards. Or the game winning drive against Notre Dame. This kid can play.
Some freshmen and sophomore backs emerge as stars. Some. They are the minority. There are more cases where it takes until their upperclassmen years to really have a legit impact on the field. We have five talented options, all of whom I trust at this level, so I would agree with you that I'd like to see more involvement from them. But, you're already thrown two productive players under the bus and deciding they're not worthy of play just so you can play Internet critic bullet point style.....thats why I keep getting on your case regarding the TB critique. Outside of being in agreement on the concept of more touches for the tailbacks in general and more appearance by the other guys, I just cant agree with you that Shaw and Smith cant get it done, espcially Shaw.
You're right. Freshman star running backs are the minority...but that's often because they have upperclassmen blocking their way to the playing field. It's not necessarily because they improve a great deal from their freshman to their junior/senior years.
And I think you're mislabeling my feelings about Shaw. I don't have a big problem with Shaw. My big problem is with the way we're using Smith, in that we're using him too much. Smith and Shaw have the same number of carries, but Shaw is a big-play threat, he has better receiving stats, he breaks more tackles, and he has better rushing stats. Shaw should be getting the ball more than Smith, and Cox should be getting a handful of carries, too.
Like I said, I wish more guys would get touches, too. I grew up on Bo Ball when like 3-4 tailbacks would get carries a game, i.e. Morris, White, Perryman, Wilcher in the mid-1980s and Hoard, Boles, Bunch, Jefferson in the late 1980s. Not to mention QB carries as well during those times.
While I dont think either tailback has been 'meh' and I still think you're overlooking Smith's good plays, which we can agree to disagree on that aspect, we're on the same page yearning for involement from the others. I've been eager and excited about Fitz for some time and I know how high you are on the Cox kid, as I am too.
I still think your judgements on Shaw after the opener were incorrect. Wrote so in a Diary (with a link to TTB!!). If you've come off of that, then I'm sorry for not noticing and crushing you for something you wrote almost a month ago. Uh, lol?
Thread is getting long winded, but I have to say I have been very impressed with how physical Shaw has run. And I didnt think he had that game in him.
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...
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.
which is why we need d hart to take the pressure off of denard.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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."
That would be awesome if we had Gandalf on the roster, though I think he would play defense ("You shall not pass!").
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.
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."
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.
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?
The silver lining of Denard going out of the game was the fact that the number 2 QB gained valuable playing experience.
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.
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."
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).
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."
is going to go out as quick as you can say ""Indiana runs the pistol." I mean, what is the utility in that formation. A half shot gun, I just don't see it bringing much to the table. It looks like running backs get a better head of steam running out of the shot gun than the pistol. All the headaches of a shotgun snap with few of the benefits. It is a gimmick, and its days are numbered.
(Speaking of shotgun snaps, not to nit pick a 4-0 team, or one of our best players, but does it not seem as though Michigan's snaps are irresponsibly and consistently low right now?)
are gimmick. This is my biggest pet peeves when uninformed fans see formation(s) that aren't popular(yet) say that it's a gimmick offense. Obviously, it didn't work for Nevada who is #4 in the country in total offense. It's like people saying that RR's offense is gimmicky because it's a spread offense.
Pistol offense is a very good formation because it provides downhill running and it doesn't tip in the direction of runs because the RB is lined up right behind the QB. You can do playaction, veer, zone read or any other conventional running plays.
Man, you really hate the Pistol, don't you?
How do you know it's a gimmick? Can you see into the future? No, it is a viable offensive formation with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages, like every other formation.
How do you know it's a gimmick? Can you see into the future?
Clearly this matter can only be resolved by calling on the one person on this board who CAN see the future...the man...the myth...the legend...
shows how much you know how pistol offense formation works. You're like any other idiot fans who keep insisting that RR's offense is gimmicky.
During the BGSU game there were a lot of oddly low snaps.
Molk had a few that were low, Tate fumbled one - when he threw deep and Roundtree (?) drew a PI penalty.
I don't think it'll be a problem. We won't have 4-5 bad snaps that essentially killed drives like we did last season against IU.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we run a few plays out of the pistol against OSU last year? However, if I remember correctly, said plays were woefully ineffective...
You are correct, we ran a few plays out of the pistol against OSU last season.
We also showed some defensive looks we've never shown before.
The coaches definitely seem to keep a "save for OSU" page in the glossary of the playbook.
R-E, R-E-G, R-E-G-R-E-S-S. REGRESS, REGRESS, REGRESS.Clap, Clap, Clap.
Putting up JUST 721 yards in a game against a D1 opp is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Hey Rod, check out this new Pistol offense and dump your "read-option" bullshit that has only got you so far ( BCS bowl wins, job at Michigan, Heisman candidate QB etc).
BJ0017 just did you job for you. You can thank him later.
i thought you were serious...
The reason that teams go to the Pistol from the Spread is that they would like their backs to run more "downhill" versus laterally to a cut. A big powerback will find more success in the Pistol that in the RR Spread. Have you looked at our backs? With the exception of Hopkins, their skill sets are better fitted to run laterally and cut on the outside zone or to plant their foot in the ground and hit the cutback on the inside zone. Also, the Pistol changes the mechanics of the "zone read." WHY IN THE HELL WOULD WE MESS WITH THAT? Coach Rod is adding wrinkles every week (See the double flex TE formation from last week). The Pistol changes backfield mechanics and that would be absolutely stupid to do.
Michigan = Ranked #1 in Total Offense
Michigan = Ranked #1 in Rushing Offense
Come on man...
The reason that teams go to the Pistol from the Spread is that they would like their backs to run more "downhill" versus laterally to a cut. A big powerback will find more success in the Pistol that in the RR Spread.
I totally agree it's unneccessary, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it inserted as a wrinkle at some point.
I definitely remember him saying last year in preparation for Indiana that we have some plays out of the pistol in our playbook. We also have some plays out of the I formation. Just because we have plays in our playbook doesn't mean that is our new offense. As you say, it could be a wrinkle, and something extra for teams to prepare for. Nothing wrong with that.
I wouldn't want to run the pistol against a team that runs the pistol in practice everyday... against a defense that sees it every day. At least not as a gimmick
Four backs plus Denard in the backfield, one lined up behind QB pistol like. Obviously a run but many options. I think this would be legal, right?
That would be illegal. There would be five men in the backfield and only six on the line of scrimmage.
Hm... I know that our Offense is fine, so I would assume that you're talking about moving Denard to Defense and implementing a new Pistol Formation on Defense.
... I like it?
Cuz I'd take more of this:
Are pistols even allowed in Michigan Stadium on Saturdays? I saw that bottled water has been outlawed so I have to assume that firearms would not be welcomed . . .
What's with the embedded base64 images all of a sudden? Is this a new Firefox feature or extension?
Was that really necessary? I'm very happy with our ground game right now, and I don't see a need to throw in a new formation, but it's worth discussing.
- 1 tablespoon olive oil
- 2 tablespoons butter
- 1 clove garlic, minced
- 6 skinless, boneless chicken breast halves
- 1 (16 ounce) package linguini pasta
- 1 onion, chopped
- 1 cube chicken bouillon, crumbled
- 1/2 cup water
- 1 1/4 cups heavy cream
- 3/4 cup milk
- 4 green onions, sliced diagonally into 1/2 inch pieces
- 1 cup grated Parmesan cheese
- In a large saute pan, heat oil, butter and garlic over medium heat. Add chicken and cook until juices run clear. Remove chicken from pan let cool and slice diagonally into long strips. Reserve oil in pan.
- Meanwhile, cook pasta according to directions on package. Drain.
- Reheat oil in pan, add onion and saute, stirring often, until onion is soft but still white. Add bullion cube and water; bring to a boil and simmer uncovered for approximately 10 minutes. Stir in cream, milk, green onions and Parmesan cheese.
- Place pasta in a bowl, layer chicken slices in a decorative pattern over pasta, pour sauce over top of chicken and around pasta. Garnish with parsley or any herbs you desire. Serve immediately.
what %? Sounds good.
Ahh, how I love the recipe posts...
I subscribe to the FoodNetwork "Insider" service and it is clear you don't know anything...
Shallots and Peccorino are much better fits for this recipe.......Green Onions and Parmesian are square pegs you are trying yo fit into round holes!!
BOOM (famous chef guy)-ED!!
We have had trouble at times running the ball with our running backs consistently.
Reality disagrees with you.
Just FYI, the D. Robinson listed isn't a running back.
Taylor Lewan - DNP
Notre Dame game
Taylor Lewan - DNP
his playing time related to the coaches' perception of the contribution that he could make to the team during those games.
I like TL as much as the next fan and hope that he really is "the next Jake Long." That doesn't change the fact that the production from our RBs hasn't been all that you and I hoped for throughout the season so far.
I'm pretty sure we agree that we hope our backs (all of them, not just Shaw and Smith) will continue to produce more along the lines they showed against BGSU.
Speak for yourself. I'm very happy with how our backs have performed since Lewan has entered the rotation, opening up more holes for them. If you don't want to believe he's a great player, fine. But my own lyin' eyes show me that he's special.
I think he's a very good player who is going to get better. I expect him to be All American, maybe as soon as next year.
I'm going on a bit of a tangent here but I don't think TL had that big of an impact. Yes he played very well but from what I could tell, Huyge wasn't exactly struggling. I wouldn't have said that last year, however, as Huyge did struggle at times.
Look I'm all for allowing the "Denard doesn't count as a RB" technicality, but to what end? If Michigan is putting up huge numbers on the ground, what does it matter whether the RBs are only getting a few of those yards?
Denard is putting up these numbers within the offense. The results are not a fluke. Quit pretending otherwise.
OMG DENARD ROBINSON IS ACCOUNTING FOR TOO MUCH OF A GOOD OFFENSE SOMETHING MUST BE WROOOOOOOOONG!!!
Take a look at the average per carry for our principal RBs. 2.4, 2.4, 3.2 and 3.6 are not impressive numbers. (The other carries shouldn't be considered because the data base isn't large enough). More yardage per carry from the RBs is likely to result in more scoring and less need for DR to carry so often.
I'm trying to figure out why it's sooooo effing important to get the ball out of the hands of the most exciting player MICH has seen in years.
Because he shouldn't be running the ball 28 or 29 times a game.
Yes, he's great. He's awesome...
...aaaaaaand he's missed parts of three games already this year due to minor injuries and bruises. The more he runs, the more likely it is that one of these minor injuries turns into a major injury.
Because he shouldn't be running the ball 28 or 29 times a game...The more he runs, the more likely it is that one of these minor injuries turns into a major injury.
Prove that last. Show me evidence that a QB who runs a lot is statistically more likely to get hurt than a QB who runs less. (Hint: an MGoDiarist has a running study, and I believe s/he has yet to find a statistically significant increase in risk for the running QB).
And if you can't prove that "the more he runs, the more likely it is that [he gets] a major injury," then your first assertion is actually counterproductive, as far as the offense is concerned.
If we're going to be honest about reality, I am wondering why your reality excludes the 2 most recent games MICH has played. Just curious.
1. The OP said we have had trouble "at times," not every time the RBs touch the ball.
2. More importantly, Connecticut and ND are more representative of the quality of defense that we will see in the Big Ten than UMass and BGSU.
It's called "technically true, but collectively nonsense." I hate using it because the person that coined it is a moron and it makes me feel like one too, but here I go...
I think if one put in enough modifiers and disclaimers into a "concern," then you could argue that the "concern" is technically accurate. Okay, "only the RBs" and "only at times" may be true...and that means what, precisely? Collectively, what is the concern being expressed here? That the offense isn't doing well? Really?
Keep in mind the goal of any offense is to move the ball and score points. If that is being achieved, should we really care how it's being achieved?
I don't think so, but some people disagree. Some people seem to accept as given that if Denard accounts for a large percentage of an offense that is one of the best (if not THE best) in the nation, then something is wrong. I don't get that, and I would appreciate it if someone would explain it to me.
The reality is the offense is moving the ball and scoring points lots, and is doing it by running lots. Reality disagrees with the general concern that something needs to be "fixed" with this offense.
Denard is awesome. The offense is awesome. The offense would be a little bit better if our running backs averaged an extra two yards per carry when facing Big Ten level defenses. In addition, when other players are more productive, it will make DR more productive.
Are we good now?
The offense would be a little bit better if our running backs averaged an extra two yards per carry when facing Big Ten level defenses.
I'm wondering when a statement like this would not apply. I think you could say this every year, for every offense, forever. It is a meaningless statement.
In addition, when other players are more productive, it will make DR more productive.
Again, I'm wondering when this would not apply, and why this means anything. Remember the OP is using an assertion like this to justify radically changing the offensive scheme. I'm wondering why more practice reps and game time in the existing offense won't accomplish the same thing.
The poster had a shitty idea that used weaselly and thus meaningless observations to try and justify his shitty idea, and you're still defending this shitty idea. Sometimes the world is confusing.
He didn't suggest radically changing our offense. He suggested adding a pistol package, just like we have an I-form package and a Jumbo package.
The thing is, we already have a pistol package. We used it last year against Ohio State. I'm sure we will use it again this year.
I never said the Pistol is "a fix" for our offense. It doesn't need "fixing." I'm just saying there is room for improvement by our running backs. I would like to see our backs take up more of the load, which incidently is Coach Rodriguez' position as well.
One of my complaints about teams like Boise State is that they don't have to go through a bruising, physical season like teams in the Big Ten do. Playing a Big Ten season wears down players so it would be preferable to save some of the wear and tear on Denard.
The only way we should install the pistol is to get our defense ready to face it against Indiana and tuos.
Okay lets not prepare for it and let them hang 33 up like they did last year you moron.
even when you have no idea what I was going to say.
Uh, hello? He's an oracle! I think he knows a leeetle more about what you were going to say than you do, mmmkay?
I don't need to know what you were going to say to tell it was going to be a dumb, ignorant comment. Can you please tell me what "wut" means? moron.
Guess the high road is under construction.
you spelled "moran" wrong
Adding the Pistol is basically the equivalent of lining up 4 wide vs. 3 wide with a TE. All the plays are going to be pretty much the same, just look a little different for the defenses.
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
The pistol has the QB only 4 yards off the line of scrimmage, whereas the traditional shotgun lines the QB 5-7 years behind the line. So, in fact, the pistol is even WORSE for a smaller QB like Denard
We haven't even seen everything this offense has to offer yet, considering that Denard has only started 4 games and Rich Rod has been slowly opening the playbook more...OP needs to figure out a magical defensive scheme to jumpstart us, the offense is doing fine on its own.
The pistol actually has some advantages - the position of the RB doesn't tip off the defense to the direction of the play, downhill running, and play action - while still being able to run zone read. That said, I don't think there is any reason for us to use it.
After watching the Arkansas-Alabama game, I was thinking that our offense would actually do well if we went to a traditional pro-style offense. This way, we wouldn't need to rely so heavily upon our terrible (i.e. top 5 in the country) running game so much. It would also remedy some of the flaws in this offense that have us mired at #2 in the country (!!). Plus, who isn't bored of seeing Denard take it to the house over and over again. Making this switch just makes sense to me.
Even more distressing was that on Saturday, our offense continued to roll even with backups in there. I miss the old days of having a gigantic dropoff in production once the starters left, back when our scheme was predictable and easy to defend.
If we do that, do you think Mallett would transfer back to run the offense? (Denard could play tailback or something, who cares?). It would be great. Just like the good old days. Maybe Lloyd Carr would come back and coach again! It'd be just like being back in college watching Griese and Brady and Hensen. Except nothing like that.
The pistol provides the downhill running of lloyd carr era
I don't understand how any running style wouldn't be downhill. Rarely do you see a horizontal-based running attack, even if the point is to get to the edge. RR's offense is incredibly effective, and changing just because Nevada was able to put some points on the board ignores the fact that this team is averaging north of 40 points a game. Now, if there was an Uzi or sniper rifle defense that would help to shore up the secondary, then I'm all four it.
Lots of running plays aren't considered to be "dowhill." When you're trying to run a sweep, that's specifically NOT a downhill running play...because all the defenders are running with you toward the sideline.
When thinking of running downhill, think of defenders as trees. If you're skiing and the trees are whizzing past, then you must be going downhill. If not...well...you must be doing cross country skiing.
Er, I'm guessing you don't ski too often.
The RB is a few yards closer to the los, he gets the ball faster and can hit a hole sooner than out of shotgun or I formations.
The RB isn't any closer in the pistol. The QB is. So the back receives the handoff running perpendicular to the line of scrimmage, rather than parallel to it. This is thought to offer great advantages. I personally doubt it really matters. I guess it might help a little on a short-yardage play (since the RB might get the line a split-second faster), but you could just use the I formation there instead.
Crazy Idea People, thanks for letting us in on your off the wall non-fact based theory, I'm sure your lunch break is almost over so get back to work... BOOM, MGoRoasted!
DOOD! Guys! Did you see that awesome reverse, pitch, pass TD by the Chiefs this weekend? RR should soooooo do that. /s
...but I think I see what the OP is saying. If the offense uses an actual pistol, they could probably back off even the best defense in the country and score on every play.
Worked really well for the offense in Last Boy Scout.
Because leading the nation in yardage just isn't good enough.
I think we should start from scratch.
In fact, we should go to a pistol offense and a rifle defense.
We can nickname the whole team "The Firing Squad."
is breaking a lot of convention using two TEs mainly as blockers for UM's rushing attack, in addition to an OL that is turning out to be quite talented. Normally, he wants the opposing DEs to run wild and move themselves completely out of position. It's not that I don't like the Pistol. Chris Ault was very innovative. But I view it more as a modified I-formation, it is just another offensive set, out of which you can run a lot of ISO rushing plays, play action pass plays, option, etc. It's very flexible, but not complicated either. I do think it's a challenge to defend, not because it's power anything, but because there are so many different things you can do out of the Pistol set very quickly and very easily. Not simple to prepare for, as I'm sure Michigan's defense is finding out this week. Indiana runs and passes quite well out of this set.
Does it have value for Michigan. Maybe on occasion, but with one back sets Rodriguez seems to prefer I-formation and bringing in the heavy artillery to block.
I see the pistol as a formation more than an offense as well, but it is really interesting.
What part of the zone offense run during the Mike Hart era included downhill running? The run game was almost exclusively sideline to sideline running with Hart looking for a crease. The earlier Carr era stuff was a lot of traps and iso plays, but it evolved into something far less downhill than this offense's (awesome) running game.
The only rational thing to do is fire RR and get a better offensive strategist in here. There is clearly no way a RB can succeed in the current offensive package.
My head spins with all the changes. It must be even more frustrating to be on the team, dealing with all the change. All we need is to continue to expand the playbook with the current setup. I believe that as Denard improves, and we add more receivers and secondary reads and slots to the available choices, we will be just fine. I think going to the Pistol would be a tragically BAD IDEA.
It is absolutely amazing how much people on this board freak out when someone makes a suggestion. All the OP was bringing up is the idea of inserting a few plays out of a pistol package. I don't see at any point where he has said the offense is terrible and needs to be completely remade. He's not saying that Denard should have less carries. He didn't say that the running backs suck. He didn't say RR was an idiot and needed to be fired. (All of these are things that have been attributed to the OP.)
The guy made a suggestion that wouldn't be hard for the team to implement as we know that they are in the playbook. We also know that the RBs have had a lack of production against BCS opponents. Why is it that pointing out some simple facts and giving an idea to fix it is so horrible?
Also, for those of you saying that it would be insane to take carries away from Denard, I simply don't understand you. Would you rather be a Defensive Coordinator scheming to stop Denard, or a DC scheming to stop Denard and a couple of running backs who could go for a 1000 yards this season? Personally, I think it would only improve Denard to have a more diverse running game.
I mean, it really got out of hand fast.