when I saw this break, I was like...dang
...says Denzel Valentine of Big Ten Tourney favorite MSU, which is 5-7 in its last 12 games. Cumong, man.
when I saw this break, I was like...dang
There is alot of plays that I would like to see corporated with Denard, but they just dont happen
The misdirection plays don't burn Mattison's aggressive D.
Isn't that basically the That God Damned Counter Draw?
Norfleet in the Wildcat, I am a genius!!!
MSU used to run this play all the time in the John L. Smith days. It burned us every time (and was the reason for the near loss in 2004 that necessitated the Braylon comeback game)
And Tressel ran it in the 2010 game with Boom Herron scoring on it
Tressel used a whole bunch of plays to score bunches in 2010
And in 2008. And in 2006. And in ... aww hell.
And we never ever would defend it or call it ourself. I can still see the MSU running backs set up and us overpursuing the play time and time again. And like the OP, I wanted us to run it cause based on our inability to defend it, the play seemed unstoppable.
MSU killed is with it. ND runs it all the time. And WE ran it last year a few times (with Fitz).
This is far from "groundbreaking" sorry to burst the bubble.
I think we should run it more, especially because anytime Denard sprints in a direction, he moves the defense, just like the Vince Smith screen pass vs. ND last year (which is almost the same play, just a pass rather than a handoff).
What we need to run more that we don't is the Denard QB Iso/Pass to the slot that we ran in the Rich Rod years. The play vs. ND and the play vs. Illinois both worked to perfection. We do run the play-action RB power/quick flip over the linebacker to the TE or slot WR a lot, but that always seems predetermined by Denard. I'd like to see the first play where he can run and keep it, or flip it over the line to a wide open receiver.
I think it's similar to read options - Denard just doesn't have that innate sense of when to pull or hand-off, for whatever reason. It's less for he and Borges to worry about if pre-determined.
BTW the Funchess TD was that play run to perfection. Now the ND LB's have something to think about other than crashing on Fitz/Denard. Already he (Funchess) is a much more threatening receiver than Koger. Not a better player, but a more worrisome receiving threat.
2004. Braylonfest vs. MSU.
If we had lost that game I'd be seeing that sprint counter draw to DeAndra Cobb in my nightmares.
"I be like dang."
Also, this is a lot like the counter draw, a bit different blocking scheme, and a much more convincing roll out.
14 yards on the jet sweet play Saturday, granted it was against a weak defense. I wouldn't be surprised to see him more as the season wears on in plays/packages designed for his skill set. He is just too good to keep off the field. One of two of my favorite players from the 2012 class.
He's 161 pounds. I can't imagine he can take more than a couple snaps a game without dying until he puts on some weight.
He's 161 pounds but only like 5'5". He looks like a pretty solidly built guy to me.
The kid is JACKED!
Look at the guns on the guy. It's not all about weight. The kid is solid, and he knows how to take a hit. I think before the year is over, he's going to be a BIG part of the Michigan offense. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get some important carries versu ND this week. He's getting better every week, and Borges is no doubt got a cashe of plays to highlight his skills.
He is more likely to take a big hit on a kickoff return than he is being in on an offensive snap.
What if Gardner took the snap and Denard acted as the running back? :-O
threw it back to DG?
I'd just like to see us run this play in general. It doesn't require a pitch and the blocking scheme seems similar enough to be adapted to/from other run plays we're already doing so it wouldn't be too hard to install...
It'd be great with Norfleet, it would probably work just as well with Toussaint and would still work with Smith. After running it a few times you could have Denard keep on it, which (even if not effective) would probably open it up again later by keeping them over-pursuing him.
I'm about 99% sure that we've run this play before. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we saw something similar to this against UMass. IIRC, we ran it with a pulling tight end or U-back. For some reason, I have this image of us running it against NW last year in my head, but I'm not going to go looking for it.
Didn't we run this play with Fitz against Purdue last year?
Probably. I'm pretty sure we used it a good number of times last year.
This might be the play to which you refer - it's one of several counters we ran against Purdue, although for some reason I remember them being mostly of the pitch variety, one of which resulted in a 50-plus yard run for Toussaint.
With Norfleet and Denard...it would be...Gorgeous.
This is essentially The Play That Works Every Time in its misdirection, except without the liability of Denard turfing it. Also, this version puts the RB on a little bit more of an island, whereas TPTWET gets a few blockers out there
Which brings up a related question: can we please please please run TPTWET with Norfleet? If it works so well with Smith, why can't it work even better with Vincent Smith... only faster?
Because you need time for the blocking to set up. Something an experienced player like Smith knows and a frosh like Norfleet is learning.
/s...well kind of not....yeah....not really.
Hahahaha, why don't we sit the next few plays out and let Uncle Fester call them like always?
BTW, I agree that it would be an awesome play with Dennis Jetfeet.
We ran pretty much this play (albeit with a less delayed handoff) against Ohio last year. Fitz broke a 46-yard run on it. Watch it at 1:58 here:
This is a great example of the subtle differences between the ND offense and our own. Our play is a counter based play. The pulling linemen allows for the RB to turn the corner and get going downhill as quickly as possible. The ND play is more of a draw. It has a sprint out pass look with a draw coming back the other way. Both plays would be effective in our offense, especially if the rollout pass packages were gaining positive yards.
it out of the wildcat and hand it off to Denard
I think that play would be good with any running back we have. Norfleets speed would potentially make it even better, but it seemed to work even better against an aggressive D like MSU has.
Wow. I said the EXACT same thing when I saw that play last night about Denard and Norfleet. It would be killer.
Dollars to doughnuts we see a ton of new stuff vs. MSU, just as plays were saved for OSU last fall.
I doubt it. Borges is saving up all of his trickeration for the Minnesota game as usual.
It relies on an over-agressive defense. If teams play more base and force Denard to throw, it could be trouble. But if Denard dictates that defensive flow, I don't see why we wouldn't incorporate more counters.... and who better than Norfleet?
If a team will over pursue Everett Golson, they'll definitely over pursue Denard...
The entire film to game plan.
One of the reasons it works so well for ND is it looks just like a speed option, as Golson keeps it a bit longer, and, for a moment or two, the RB appears to be a pitch man.
It's definitely different than our counter play, and I think could be more effective, but remember that we don't really run much speed option to set the play up.
EDIT: Notice that Golson takes 6 or 7 steps to the right before the reverse, but on our play, Denard only takes two or three steps before the counter happens...that is a subtle, yet big difference between the plays, and I think both can work quite nicely for us.
I've always held that gripe. 2-3 seconds is not a long enough delay. Now granted, it's entirely dependent on our line controlling the LOS (derp) or being able to hold on that long. Can we do that against the ND front 7?
"We'll last longer than we will against that Death Star."
Didn't we run this a few times against Minnesota last year?
While I agree that play could be used effectively by the Michigan offense, I think the suggestion leads to more questions. In particular, I was similarly intrigued by Alabama's effective use of four running backs. Which leads ultimately to my central theme; Which is, our coordinator appears to place limits on the offense without exploring inventive or creative options. I am convinced we have the athletes to terrorize opponents if arrayed creatively. What is it that precludes a three back set? Four receivers AND a tight end? Option sets? etc. C'mon uncle Fester..