Michigan in the pistol

Submitted by BJ0017 on

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.

CalifExile

September 28th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^

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.

jmblue

September 28th, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^

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.

BlueGoM

October 2nd, 2010 at 1:04 AM ^

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. 

cfaller96

September 28th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^

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!!!

CalifExile

September 28th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^

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.

Magnus

September 28th, 2010 at 9:38 PM ^

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.

cfaller96

September 29th, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^

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.

Go.

cfaller96

September 28th, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^

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.

cfaller96

September 28th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^

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.

CalifExile

September 29th, 2010 at 12:21 AM ^

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. 

Dark Blue

September 28th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^

 

Okay lets not prepare for it and let them hang 33 up like they did last year you moron.

 

Dude way to revert to name calling, even when you have no idea what I was going to say. How old are you? 12 or 13.

I'm gonna take the high road here, but maybe you should think a little bit before you post

 

 

joeyb

September 28th, 2010 at 2:23 PM ^

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.

MGoRob

September 28th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^

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

Braylon 5 Hour…

September 28th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^

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.

sbeck04

September 28th, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^

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.

michgoblue

September 28th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^

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. 

jmblue

September 28th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^

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. 

profitgoblue

September 28th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^

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.

bronxblue

September 28th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^

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.

Magnus

September 28th, 2010 at 2:44 PM ^

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.

jmblue

September 28th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^

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.

ander2ta

September 28th, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^

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!

steelymax

September 28th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^

...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.

markusr2007

September 28th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^

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.

Zone Left

September 28th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^

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.

MGrad

September 28th, 2010 at 3:46 PM ^

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. 

/s