Shoelace at RB?
http://michigandaily.com/content/carlos-brown-limited-minor-should-have…
From the article:
"In the last rotation, Forcier ran the play at quarterback again, but with Robinson at running back. Though it wasn’t practiced during the first part of practice, the play could potentially give the opportunity for Robinson to pass the ball to a receiver off the pitch."
Is it possible that we not only see Shoelace line up at RB, but also a little trickeration out of the formation?
October 8th, 2009 at 11:06 AM ^
If it did happen, I could only see it used sparingly. I'm sure the coaches want to keep Nard Dawg as healthy as possible given our QB situation.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:00 PM ^
Ouch. Denard all ready has a nickname, and the phrase "Nard Dawg" is just painful.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
obviously not an Office fan
October 8th, 2009 at 11:08 AM ^
open to the public you can be guaranteed it is purely for the purpose of wasting the oppositions time practicing and scheming against it.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^
Haven't they had plays where DR lined up in the slot. I'm sure it's an evolution of looks in an attempt to throw in some misdirection.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:14 AM ^
Not to knock His Holy Dilithiumness, but shouldn't he learn to pass from under center or the shotgun before trying it out of a sweep?
Actually, since Forcier is the guy who's better at throwing on the run, you know what would be really cool: if the snap goes to DENARD, who then pitches to...Forcier, who then can pass or turn upfield.
Run this with a tailback in motion out of the slot and you've got the defense all over the place I think.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:20 AM ^
as long as the plan is throw only if wide open. Otherwise, just tuck and run it in for a td. Win/Win
October 8th, 2009 at 11:38 AM ^
I remember a game in 97 where Brian Griese was under center with Charles Woodson lined up as a wideout. Griese got the snap pitched it to Woodson who in turn threw it back across field to Griese who had a wall of blockers and not enough player around him for yards.
Imaging that with Robinson catching the final pass.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
Navarre as well, I'd tend to think it might not work as well with DRob since people would actually believe he might actually still be involved in the play. With those guys it was a total "WTF?" moment.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
If that guy in No. 16 can do it, why not this guy?
October 8th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
Ah yes, the Transcontinental, Navarre style.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
where Brian Griese caught the pass was @Wisconsin, week after the huge win at PSU, week before the showdown against OSU in Ann Arbor.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:23 PM ^
I'll be smiling all day now! That thought is so full of awesome it should be running through everyone's dreams...
October 8th, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^
We ran that play (the "Transcontinental") many times under Carr. It was probably his favorite trick play. Some of the times we ran it successfully:
1997 Wisconsin (w/ Griese)
1999 PSU (Henson subbed for Brady, who faked an injury, for this one play)
2001 Illinois (Jermaine Gonzales filled in for the struggling Navarre for this play)
2003 Minnesota (the "Elephant Stampede")
There were a few other times we ran it, but it didn't work. I think we tried it in the Orange Bowl against Bama.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^
The Future Is Now.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:39 PM ^
Preferably with a direct snap to either.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^
Is it possible? Why yes, he could physically line up as an RB.
Will we see trickeration? Who knows. It's been said a kajillion times, but I'll say it again: The LAST thing we need is for Tate and Denard to both get hurt. Why allow the chance for that to happen in the span of 10 gut-wrenching, 2x4 to the face mimicing seconds.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:29 AM ^
we've still got Nick and Coner ...
...
...
...
October 8th, 2009 at 11:31 AM ^
It's funny to say that... but it's not funny!
October 8th, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
I can't STAND the word "trickeration".
The word "trickery" would be just fine, but broadcasters love to invent words it seems nowadays (And names, if "Whirrrfork" counts).
It's almost as dumb as the PBA (bowling) sportscaster who invented the term "Hambone" for getting 4 consecutive strikes. It USED to be called a 4-Bagger. But no, that actually made sense.
[Disclaimer: My dad always watches PBA; I just suffer through it in the same room. :( ]
I know you didn't make it up, so I'm not ranting @ you, BlockM. Just at the word in general.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:31 AM ^
Yeah, I agree. OP's syntax, not mine.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^
Ah, didn't notice OP had it too. I don't blame fans using it, I blame the people who made it up.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
The English language would be one big mass of confusing awkward neologisms if we did not blame the messenger. People should not pass on foul words just like they should not pass on a virulent contagion.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:59 AM ^
I heard it during the MSU game and wanted to vomit. Another one I hate (I hope its not correct) is audiblizing, as in 'Zoltan has the freedom to audible-ize at the LOS'. Isn't it just call an audible?
October 8th, 2009 at 12:35 PM ^
the term "receiveratification" every time a receiver nods his head in approval after a play. Actually, I have never heard this term, but I imagine I would cringe.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^
of "razzle dazzle" to hearing trickeration again.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
Smoke and mirrors.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:48 PM ^
I can't STAND the word "trickeration".It's not even a word; it's crap. It's crappy crap.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:37 AM ^
where the RB and QB got game ending injuries on the same play?
October 8th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^
Has there been a time this season where it was worth the risk? I'm not saying it would happen, or even that there's a high percentage chance it would, but the added benefit of having them both on the field doesn't justify the risk IME.
You've got to admit, if it did happen somehow, this board would explode with the force of several atomic bombs from people calling for RR's head.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:24 PM ^
design plays while taking into consideration the state of mind of people on this board.
I don't remember which coach said this (I think it was Dungy) but here goes (not an exact quote):
"You can't coach football if you are perpetually scared of your guys getting hurt. It is a physical game. Guys are going to get injured. "
Even considering your ridiculous scenario, would it be that much worse to lose DR and TF on the same play as opposed to consecutive plays? This sort of thinking seems pointless to me.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^
I'm sure he doesn't. All I'm saying is that I think a lot of the people that suggest this kind of thing now would be the some of the first to call RR out if something went wrong. That's just how it goes.
You're right about it being highly improbable, and there are about a million ways they could both get hurt. (OH NO! DON'T LET TATE AND DENARD RIDE IN THE SAME CAR BECAUSE IT COULD CRASH AND THEN THEY'D BOTH DIE AT THE SAME TIME!) Maybe we'll see it, maybe we won't, but I think there's enough reason not to do it to outweigh the advantages at this point.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
I like to have my playmakers on the field, in whatever capacity best helps the team...with some notable exceptions of course.
I suppose this would include tossing the #2 QB option as a RB/scatback with a stable of backs like ours, or Zoltan as TE even if he can play the position. Actually, I would love to see Zoltan as TE. That would be win.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
Yes, but we have names for those types of people such as stupid, whining second-guessers and we don't let them run the play-calling.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
We must install security measures like the executive branch of govt. has, that way we'd never lose all of our key guys.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:34 PM ^
play CB, return kicks and punts, and play RB! I mean what can possibly go wrong?! Wait, why would I want to ask John L. Smith about playing your backup QB on special teams, let alone a position he doesn't play in practice!?!
October 8th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^
I just think we have to be careful with how we use our QB's.
What are the benefits of using D Rob for an occastional trick play or two in the slot or at RB? As compared to the negatives of getting him injured by being exposed to taking unnecessary hits.
Sure anyone can get hurt on any play, at any time. But there are risks involved in using your QB (regardless of how fast) in those sorts of roles.
The last thing we need is for Denard to get hurt serving as a running back. That leaves you-know-who as the #2 QB. And we all know that Sheridan=Death.
Keep the guy at QB and have him run QB oriented plays.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:38 PM ^
While DR appears to have the physical tools to be an excellent RB, the real issue isn't DR getting hurt. It's that spending snaps on things other than QB is the base offense for DR is a waste of time. He is very green and needs all of the snaps he can get to be effective at QB, not RB.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
I personally would like him to spend all his time mastering the zone read at QB, and receiving snaps rather than worry about maintaining pitch relationship while rolling out not to mention trying to read the safety at the same time.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:29 AM ^
We have the Coner for all trick plays.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:08 PM ^
others get confused when he spits them in a gangsta rap style.
yo yo, check this out
1-2, 1-2...damn it Moose, I didn't say 'hut'
October 8th, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^
...can we stop the fretting about both Tate and Denard getting hurt? Jesus H. Christ. How often do you ever see two people get hurt on the same play? It practically never happens. And if Forcier gets hurt, I don't care who's still healthy - whether it's Denard, Sheridan, or Cone - we're going to suck at offense.
So why don't we just keep Forcier off the field at all times because he might hurt? Oh yeah - because it would help us win football games.
I can't believe the lack of logic some of you are spewing forth:
"Oh no, please don't play all the good players. One of them might get hurt! Yeah, we might lose the game, but by God, we'll be at least partially healthy!"
October 8th, 2009 at 12:01 PM ^
We need to be smart because of our lack of depth but we also need to win games. We cannot pussy-foot around all season hoping to not get hurt. THIS IS FOOTBALL and we need WINS. Put the best guy on the field to help us win. It kills me to see DR not on the field, but we need at least a threat at QB if Tate goes down.(did I just contradict myself? I think you get my point)
The injuries in the past years, including this year, have made us all very jittery. We are due some games, if not seasons, here without major body part malfunctions.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:02 PM ^
I hear you dude. I agree that you don't want to play scared. And I think it would be stupid to not use your best players out of fear of injury.
But I am just advocating playing smart. And IMO, it's not worth the risk to use D Rob as a RB (or even in the slot too often). If a guy gets hurt trying to help the team....well, shit, that's the breaks. As bad as it might suck. I am just saying be smart about it.
Remember, Moeller used Tyrone Wheatley to cover punts and he got hurt doing so. That in my mind was unnecessary and it ended up hurting us at the RB spot.
Again, just my opinion.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:22 PM ^
IMO, so I think we should get him on the field in other ways, either at RB or slot. He is dynamic and we could use his speed on the field, but I don't think there is any way he will be a better QB option than Tate, at anytime in his career. I know, he is our backup this year, and it would be better to save him until we have Gardner as a backup, but I agree w/ Magnus we are in trouble if Tate goes down no matter who the backup is. None of these guys will be able to come close to keeping the offense moving the way he is. I also agree w/ Magnus that its stupid to sit a guy because he might get hurt, play the best players and go for it.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:50 PM ^
Are you nuts? Why would you possibly think that?
"Because Tate is so good"? What?
Rodriguez seems to think he is coming along just fine as a freshman QB, there's a lot to learn you know.
I don't think RR or Rod Smith would be wasting all those snaps on him if he weren't worth it.
Is he crazy fast and electrifying? Yes, and AS SOON AS HE"S READY he'll be an amazingly fast, electrifying QB.
Won't that be great.
Right now, Tate is better, so he gets the most snaps and starts each week. He was put into this position due to his lifetime coaching, early enrollment, talent, and an incredible will to win.
But you know what? D-rob MIGHT still have more upside after 4 years than Tate.
Who knows. Right now the coaches feel that D-robs potential is worth the reps for short term emergencies AND long term development.
I think the mighty shine off of Tate's codpiece is blinding a lot of folks who don't remember how most freshman QB's actually play.
Besides, everything will change in QB land next year anyhow if we can get Gardner signed, sealed and delivered.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:21 PM ^
I think a lot of us are unintentionally comparing Robinson to Forcier when judging whether or not he can be an effective qb. In all fairness, Robinson is probably much closer to where a true freshman quarterback should be. Tate is just doing very well. Give Robinson time to develop and be coached at the college level. Remember, Tate has had a lot of supplemental coaching prior to college and was here for Spring ball. I'm not saying that Robinson could be a better qb in the future than Tate, just saying he will be better than he is now, and who knows what the future holds. We are also all assuming that Gardner doesn't come in and shake things up. I personally don't think it will happen, but who knows.
Edit: Jabber, should have read your comment before posting mine. Great minds...
October 8th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^
+1 for this. At this point, we need to put the best players in place to make plays. Denard may not be the best option but if he is, then it's OK to play him even if he might get hurt.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
but here's the lineup we should use on offense:
QB: David Cone
RB: O'neil Swanson
TE: Jon Bills
OL: Jareth Glanda, Tom Lindley, Zac Ciullo, Christian Brandt, Adam Barker
WR: Jon Conover, Joe Reynolds
Slot: Jordan Owens
Yes, we'd suck, but at least I'd be able to relax and stop worrying so much on every play.