Think Denard's snaps in wiscy week were actually for this week?
I have to believe we are going into this game with a balls to the wall approach in terms of scheming..that being said, could the full week of practice Denard got with the 1's have been intended to get him ready for this week?
Just to be clear, I am just indulging in mindless speculation here (the reason god made message boards in the first place), no inside info from "guy who knows a guy' or Facebook or any crap like that.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:43 AM ^
Denard got extra reps because Tate broke a rule and was being "punished" or something like that.
Going balls to the walls is a good thing if it's controlled. I'd like to see a trick play or two, but at this point our offense hasn't been consistent enough to convince me that we could execute well enough to actually, you know, trick a defense. There's a reason trick plays aren't employed more often, and that's because when they blow up, they blow up BIG. I'd rather see good execution than a triple reverse Mathews back to pass oh shit fumble touchdown defense.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:56 AM ^
But you can't say watching the "triple reverse Mathews back to pass oh shit fumble touchdown defense." would any more painful than :
"okay 3rd and 8, Tate drops back, get rid of it kid, get rid of it, dammit get rid of it, you CAN THROW IT AWAY DAMMIT, crap CRAP sack fumble TD".
I was not suggesting we go trick play on every snap, I meant a lot more involvement for Denard unlike the usual:
" Okay thats the obligatory 1-2 snap called run, followed by the pity snap thrown his way in the last 30 seconds when we are down by 30".
November 18th, 2009 at 10:43 AM ^
is misplaced, I believe. The coaches are going to call the game in the way they think gives them the best chance to win. While I believe we'll see some new looks, I'm not expecting any crazy Denard and Tate in the backfield triple reverse option double pass wildcat stuff.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:53 AM ^
Tressel is going with balls across his nose...
November 18th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^
Yeah, I dont get the meme that the coaching staff is going to coach more extra better this week - they are going to scheme for OSU when they play OSU just as they schemed for PSU when they played PSU. What comes extra this week is in the heart and souls of the players - the meaning that is attached to the game that should (i.e., better) affect performance.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
There may be a list of a few "catch the D off guard" plays that have been worked on, but use of such plays is entirely dependent on the circumstances in the game. Probably no more likely this week than last or the week before if certain circumstances would have presented. I think there will be some wrinkles that we have already seen to a certain degree, but I doubt they will involve Denard. He really has not been much of a weapon since early in the season and often his snaps result in minimal gains, with disaterous consequences possible on every occassion. He will be dangerous in this system somewhere at some point, but I would prefer that they don't experiment too much this week.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:25 PM ^
is Denard passing out of the RB spot. Or, Denard passing out of the QB spot. Also, going to other options on our bread and butter plays, i.e. Tate runs that go pass, etc. Can Brandon throw? That would be a surprise as well!
November 18th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
Was he on a mission from God?
In all seriousness I would LOVE to see a Denard package with tons of SHORT QUICK PASSES schemed...I think this could negate some of their D-Line's awesomeness.
Sorry for the caps...I hate myself sometimes.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
"that being said"--while it might make you feel smart to type that, generally means, "however"
Now stop it with the over thinking the thing. Rodriguez has absolutely zero tricks up his sleeve, and the game plan will be as boring and vanilla as always.
That being said, I do look for some players who we haven't seen that much getting into this game, expecially if it gets ugly and Rodriguez wants to get more and more of Hizz Guyss in there to enjoy pounding the Buckeyes so mercilessly.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^
if your head did indeed explode, not one person here would be sad and the average IQ of this board would receive the biggest boost since THE KNOWLEDGE took his regular Sarkisian predictions elsewhere.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:55 AM ^
Just because he disagrees with you and a lot of the rest of us and doesn't pussy foot around when he tells you doesn't mean he's stupid.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:11 AM ^
comment to make then I am fine with it ( I have possed him enough times for that), but focusing on sentence framing and randomly taking a shot at RR ( "HIZZ GUYSS"), thats just classless.
If you feel that's okay, then fine. I don't.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:08 PM ^
because King of Belch accounts for roughly 40% of the aggregate funny of mgoblog. Misopogon did some stats on this the other day.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:29 PM ^
belittling, dickish, and offensive.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
Hey man, easy on THE KNOWLEDGE
.
yes
.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:06 PM ^
all nit picky and demand polished English composition on message boards, allow me to critique your critique of "that being said."
Nit Pick One
"Being" is the real the culprit in that clunky phrase. There are several reasons why but largely these: 1) it's unnecessary 2) and it implies some kind of bizarre simultaneous action with the action in the subsequent clause. Take your 3rd sentence, for example: as you "look for some players" are you simultaneously saying all the mumbo jumbo in sentences one and two--i.e., is all that "being said?" I don't think so, but this is what the grammar indicates.
While "That being said" is clunky and you have issues with it (rightly so), "That said" is a perfectly acceptable construction. "Having said that" is also fine, but not as simple and therefore not as preferable to those who advocate brevity.
Nit Pick Two
"That said" (or bastard sibling "that being said") doesn't "generally mean 'however'" as you claim. It could stand in for "however," sure, but it doesn't as a rule. It simply indicates the speaker (or writer) has stated something that's accepted, and is now moving onto the next point, which may or may not be related.
Take the following examples:
or
Nit Pick Three
I find it hard to believe such ordinary English usage as "that said" or it's ugly cousin "that being said" makes anyone feel any smarter than you feel by playing Miriam Webster and instructing some poster on the meaning of such a phrase, which isn't quite correct anyway.
You see?
And yes, I feel like a genius.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:40 PM ^
But any variation of "That being said" implies "however" and I'm not going to allow it to go unnoticed.
I kind of like "Having said that"
But overall, it's a phrase that is best left out of any conversation.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
Why do you have a problem with one and not the other?
November 18th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
favorite people.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
I kind of liked the formation we lined up in on the first play at the beginning of the Wisconsin game, with both Denard and Tate in the backfield. I could see a lot of potential for that formation in this game.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
I was already to neg you until I realized you said vanilla would win the game......good call.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^
Any time we line Denard up in the backfield with Tate and....wait for it.....do NOT run Denard! It is super crazy 'n all, but it might full someone. Hopefully 11 someones.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:08 AM ^
That play is becoming as obvious as the Calvin Bell reverse when suddenly Terrell and Walker come out of the game.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:16 AM ^
Those weren't even trick plays we ran them so much. But hey, I'll take an 8-10 yard play anytime.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
I understand punishing Forcier for whatever he did but to not have him take snaps in practice then play him the whole game seems like it could hurt the team. I'm sure RR has his reasons - maybe it was in fact to get Robinson some prep for this week. I would still like to see Dennard get a chance to run some whole series early in the game, including throwing a pass. Otherwise there is simply not going to be any deception when he comes in.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
Am I alone in thinking that if Denard is in and he fakes a run towards the line and then backs off, the entire D will be watching him and someone will be open?
November 18th, 2009 at 11:16 AM ^
You're probably right. The question is whether the D-Line will be in the backfield already by the time he backs off. I'd like to see them try though.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^
Put me in the catagory of posters who didn't want to see Denard at any position but QB because of the risk of injury and possible Sherideath.
Now, though, it is the last game of the season; the risk of injury is pretty much irrelevant at this point. I hope to see at least ten plays that RR hasn't run this year. And I hope to see Denard in the game a lot.
An occasional trick play would be great, but they don't need to go too far. It is possible to have trick plays but keep them simple enough that a young team can execute them. An occasional pass-back from Denard to Forcier, for example, would work well if saved for the right situation. Faking a reverse or end around to Denard and seeing if it creates a mismatch in the secondary would be nice, too. And, of course, Denard is capable of an option pass if someone becomes grossly open.
The only thing I really don't want to see is the people who are asking for trick plays bitching after the game if they don't work. And that is the problem with trick plays: if they work, you are a genius; if they don't, you are an imbecile.
I'm hoping they work and it becomes a moot point.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:53 AM ^
blitz the crap out of them, please.
I can't stand another Saturday of watching the opponent take 8 minutes to go down field and, of course, still score.
they're going to score, so make it quick and give our offense lots of chances.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:14 PM ^
with that is that our coverage behind a blitz is so horrible that even an unblocked blitzer still allows a 5-6 yard pass to a wide open receiver. I'm thinking of a specific play against Wisconsin where I think Stevie Brown came free and they still got a first down. Brian mentioned it as well. That's the frustrating thing about this year is that when we make the right call we still get beat.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:07 PM ^
Man, if you want to talk about a guy that's pretty much disappeared, Denard Robinson has nearly been non-existent in the last 3 games. It will be interesting to see how he's incorporated into the offense this Saturday.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
The only problem I see with trick plays is that most of them require TIME to develop. We rarely have time in the backfield to develop a simple deep route so I really don't see us trying a whole lot of "trick" plays. I do see, as someone else already said, us running 8-10 new plays and 1-2 new formations. If we don't, I will be a little disappointed considering you KNOW OSU will have new stuff to show on offense, they do it every year.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:24 PM ^
throws deep where the receivers did get sort of open but were way overthrown by Tate.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
Unfortunately I don't know what "balls to the wall" means in Rodriguez's system. Hopefully I will be enlightened come Saturday. I'd love to see the mindless critics silenced.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^
that.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:57 PM ^
I'm not real sure what to expect. It does seem that Tressel always tries some new shit in "The Game". I don't know how much trickery we should expect from Rodriguez. Hell, whatever it takes to win. They can run the "fumblerooskie" every play for all I care, as long as it puts up points.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
The only trick play I've seen come out of RR is where the offensive line stands still, confusing the defensive line, and hoping that Threet (last year) or Tate this year can "gun" the ball down the field to a streaking WR. With that being sad, every time Michigan ran this play last year and the few times this year, it's failed pretty miserably.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:22 PM ^
That play is actually designed to catch the defense offsides, if they're over the line and ours doesn't move, it's a free play or five yards.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:41 PM ^
I think we’ll see a play action long ball from denard this week. It should be open b/c I’m sure you’ll see 9 stack the box.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:15 PM ^
I agree, why would you line DRob up at RB, Slot, WR the last three weeks, if you don't plan to build off of it?
November 18th, 2009 at 9:09 PM ^
This is the week that we can finaly put to rest THE question:
How fast is Denard?