Option before the snap?

Submitted by Deified on

Watching Oregon and Auburn's offense had led me to question why Michigan does not motion anyone before the snap.  Now I am reading, from Brian, that MissSt also runs quite a bit of motion before the snap, which ties into their somewhat pistol offense.

When comparing the mis-direction and options available, as shown by Oregon and Auburn, and the stagnant backfield from Michigan, it seems as if there is opportunity there for us that we are not taking.  If we are a team of smaller-sized speedsters, compared to the rest of the Big Ten (arguable), then why are we not taking advantage of this by getting that jump and throwing off the defense with mis-direction.

It seems to me that with only the zone read that good defenses can maintain assignment and contain us more so than if we use mis-direction and pre-snap motion.

Please someone smarter than me tell me why we do not do this...

BigTex

December 8th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^

...but I still wonder if we have just seen the surface of the RRod playbook.  With a full year under his belt running the offense, Denard and Co. will be much better suited to get to the next level of the playbook next year.  While there were certainly ups and downs this year, I think RRod wanted to see the guys grasp the base of the offense before adding in the next layer of bells and whistles.  However, my theory is purely conjecture though.

And yes, it would be cool if the next level of our offense actually included real bells and whistles...think of the madness!

nazooq

December 8th, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^

The offense is extremely mistake-prone.  Since they turn the ball over at a high rate running simple plays, it stands to reason that they'll turn it over even more if they try to get fancy.  Once they cut down on their turnovers (which we all hope happens next year thanks to Denard's soon to improve decision-making) the coaches will be more confident installing more complicated plays.  If the offense is just as turnover-prone next year, well, that's the kiss of death for the Rodriguez era.

sbeck04

December 8th, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^

Perhaps because we are in our 3rd first year starr and they are keeping things simple? Maybe it never occurred to them to use misdirection or motion? Another possibility is they feel they don't need to use these gimmicks to move the ball. Etc etc.

True Blue in CO

December 8th, 2010 at 5:32 PM ^

from the RB's and WR's versus the QB.  Would help make the QB runs more of a surprise and hopefully reduce the wear and tear on our special QB.  A bowl game might be a great chance for the coaches to add this to the game plan.

Blue Bunny Friday

December 8th, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^

This isn't meant as a REPOST! ANGAR comment. It's been a month since I've seen it brought up, and it's a good break from the OPs that have dominated lately. Just pointing out that there are a lot of posts on this subject here:

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/question-coaching-minded-why-no-motion

Honestly, I think BigTex has the most likely explanation above and I think that's the conclusion that was most supported in that old thread...

switch26

December 8th, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^

One major reason i don't think we do really any of this is because we don't have a game changing RB right now..

 

At WVU RR had Pat white, steve slaton and noel devine..

 

If we can get an every down back that can actually break tackles and provide some elusiveness then we will probably see some of this.

D hart shows a lot of what he is looking for, as well as toussaint.  Yet we didn't really get to see what toussaint could do at all.  He had 8 carries all season and who knows if he was fully healthy when he played a bit at the end of the year.

MadMonkey

December 8th, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^

It would be interesting to see if "motion" plays created more YPP than "static" formations.  I would also be interested in seeing whether spread offense teams using "motion" incur more procedure penalties.  

Victors5

December 8th, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^

Hopefully next year Justice Hayes can become our version of Percy Harvin. He seems like a good fit to be motioned into the backfield from the slot.

Topher

December 8th, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^

Motion can confuse a defense and reveal their weaknesses, but that depends on whether the offense confuses itself with motion. Teams also use a lot of dummy motion with no real tactical purpose except making the defense think something's going on.

You can get a lot of the same results of motion with pre-snap shifts. I do recall seeing Michigan shift a lot. 

Asmith1912

December 8th, 2010 at 8:55 PM ^

I think the best example of a confusion based offense is really in what people are seeing with the wildcat offense. Since denard adds in the whole "throwing the ball" wrinkle, it would in theory create more havoc. My question is whether or not Rod has ever extensively used motion (I think Brian said in the main page post that he did rarely) and also whether or not there is confidence in the team in allowing a slot to run the ball (obviously with a Justice Hayes this becomes moot)

Kal

December 8th, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^

At the very least, pre snap motion would allow Denard to recognize more of the D's coverage scheme and change the play/read to his advantage.

Oh, and for the record, I definitely agree that we need to be able to fully execute the "simpler" plays in our offense before we dig into the bag of tricks. We already shoot ourselves in the foot with false start penalties and other youth related mistakes, no need to overcomplicate it more for them... yet.

MightAndMainWeCheer

December 8th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^

The pre-snap motion serves two purposes in the spread.  (1) on passing plays it allows the QB to see if the defense is playing man-to-man or zone and (2) it sets up the option play.

On passing plays, it would be nice to send a WR in motion so that we can see how the defense reacts and adjust the routes based on the coverage the defense shows (i.e. if a defender follows the WR, the defense is in man; if the defense simply shifts, they are in zone).

Pre-snap motion on running plays is designed to set up the traditional option where the QB either (i) hands it off to the motioning slot receiver or (ii) fakes it to the motioning slot receiver and then runs an option with the RB.  The problem with this setup is that Gallon and maybe Odoms are the only WRs that I would honestly want to see running the ball; otherwise we are better off just handing the ball off to a RB or having Denard keep it and using the WRs as blockers. 

Likewise, we don't run the option b/c Denard is the best runner on our team.  I would much rather have the RB acting as a lead blocker on a QB dive/keeper than have our offense option that defender and force Denard to pitch it to a RB who is a lesser runner.  Assuming that the RB can make the block on a QB keeper, the two plays are functionally equal except that the keeper features Denard as the ball carrier and the option will likely see the RB carry the ball b/c the defense will force Denard to pitch.

If Denard were to go down for an extended period of time and Tate was our starting QB, I would very much expect us to start running a lot of option plays.

Likewise, I'm assuming we don't motion on passing plays b/c we don't motion on running plays so it would be obvious to the defense that we are passing.

I would assume that our offense is pretty much fully installed.  I think most people see the limited number of formations and assume that we have so much more to install, but that is actually the genius of RR's system.  He runs a limited amount of formations and a limited amount of plays but each formation/play combination has many different variations and blocking schemes.  Each variation is designed to counter the defense's adjustments (e.g. the HB pulling across the formation vs acting as a lead blockers, WRs blocking on bubble screens vs running seams, blocking down and pulling guards vs zone stretch plays, Cam Newton play vs zone read, etc).

I don't see why we should hand the ball off to slot receivers just for the sake of doing it; instead I prefer that our best playmakers have the ball the majoritiy of the time.

Kal

December 8th, 2010 at 7:17 PM ^

Well stated, definitely great insight. Do you think if an elite RB emerges (Hart, hopefullt) we could see some option pitches just to make the defense respect both Denard and the back? Especially considering we like to run the QB sweep type play where Denard tries to find the outside running lanes, but I feel like towards the end of the year defenses weren't giving up the edges... wouldn't a speed option help open them back up?

MightAndMainWeCheer

December 8th, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^

If a defense is containing well enough to stop the QB sweep, I would assume they would be containing well enough to stop the speed option. 

Hopefully having that elite runner will make the frontside plays (i.e. zone stretch, inside zone) more of a threat which will then require the defense to overcompensate to the playside.  This will then open up the QB keeper to the backside with the RB as a lead blocker (or maybe even running the option as you suggest).

Obviously the coaches may determine that they want to start limiting the shots that Denard takes and start running some option, especially if a RB steps up to become an equally viable threat running the ball as you suggest.

Space Coyote

December 9th, 2010 at 12:34 AM ^

Is it often limits that players options.  It's like moving the pocket or bootlegs, it narrows down the field for the QB.  Motion tends to narrow a lot of the routes, where as players start in a particular position (and stance) that gets them off the line and upfield as quick as possible.

Now there are still advantages of motion, and I would like to see more motion, but that could be the mindset of the coaching staff.