Thoughts on an offensive wrinkle
October 18th, 2010 at 9:58 PM ^
Never heard that one before. You should coach a football team or something
October 18th, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^
kinda talked about here for a little bit http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/please-no-qb-controversy
i dont see why we dont at least try it unless theyre saving it for the osu game
October 18th, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
this thread has been stated a million times buddy. I have nothing against the post, but expect guys who have like a million points to neg you.
To the constructive side: I just don't see this happening. Are you suggesting we put D at RB? He's too skinny to take that punishment....wait, that's what they said about him at QB running this much. The one point that I will make is that it's just too unorthodox, and while it might work I doubt it'll be implemented.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:50 PM ^
Tried to post my first video and failed. sad face
October 18th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
Are you suggesting we put D at RB? He's too skinny to take that punishment....wait, that's what they said about him at QB running this much.
Well, Denard has missed at least one snap in 6 out of 7 games this year due to injury. So maybe "they" were right when they said he's too slight to carry the ball so much.
October 18th, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^
I will agree with you on that. My sarcasm is not very good on the internet.
October 19th, 2010 at 1:43 AM ^
Or maybe people just get injured sometimes when they play football.
October 19th, 2010 at 6:33 AM ^
You're right. Every quarterback in the country misses at least one snap in 6 out of 7 games, including 3.5 quarters of one game and 1.5 quarters of another.
So in about 1 out of 3 games, we should expect our starting quarterback to miss half the game due to injury. Yeah, that sounds like a recipe for success.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:43 AM ^
I agree with your assessment about protecting Denard but I imagine the OP's scenario would actually have Denard running the ball less than our current reality. He would be in rotation with other RBs (even if he's primary) and Tate would be the starting QB at that point.
Note - I'm not advocating what the OP is calling for but it wouldn't surprise me to see RR try something like this against OSU since each year we've saved some wrinkles for that game.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
Um, if I remember correctly, Denard was clear to come back in for both of those games where he missed multiple quarters. So he didn't miss them because of injury. Injury caused him to go out initially, but he was fine afterwards.
October 19th, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^
It's five of seven games. Denard never missed time against UMass or MSU.
I think the larger point is this: a running QB is likely to get more nicks and bruises, but it's in the pocket where any QB is more likely to suffer a serious injury.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^
I don't think it was a trick play or anything. If D-rob was in the backfield and Tate got the snap then I would assume the defense would treat him as a tailback. The defense's secondary would probably be cautious of a tailback pass.
That's just what I would think if I were a defensive back.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:05 PM ^
Bear in mind that one of the reasons a running quarterback is so effective is because he has an additional blocker when he keeps. Unless you want Denard to be that blocker, this isn't a great idea.
That being said, I'd bet we see this at some point this season as a trick play, maybe in the bowl game.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^
are tough to pull off unless you plan on running the set with both QBs in for more than just a few plays. I prefer to see one solid starter at QB running regular offense. If you're gonna run tricks, use they guys you regularly have on the field to have a better chance of catching the D off-guard.
What I saw against Iowa was a Michigan offense that was wearing out the Iowa defense. To me, Iowa's D started looking gassed about midway through the 3rd quarter. Trick plays weren't necessary, just a 5th quarter.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^
Cool idea. I'd love to see that. Don't worry about whether everyone or anyone agrees with it.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
Obviously this has been discussed ad nauseam. But I still can't believe we haven't seen this yet. Maybe he's saving it for a really tight game or for OSU? Think of all the possibilities. DRob could take it from Forcier and run or pass, Tate could snap it and run or pass. We should have this package. It'd be so hard to defend.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
Our offense is too young to get wrinkles (our defense too). But I would use sunscreen and a nice manly smelling moisturizer for good measure...
October 18th, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
I'd rather rather see Denard get a quick pass as a receiver where he could take off or pass it forward as the CBs pull up to tackle. I would think most CBs would give him a big cushion on the LOS.
October 18th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^
I watched him warm up with Gardner before the UConn game and one of DG's passes went right through Denard's hands and hit him square in the face. At first my heart sank at the thought that he could have possibly dislocated his eye or broke his nose but then he smiled and the world was right again.
October 18th, 2010 at 11:54 PM ^
Quick note/caveat: I am not a OC, nor Mathlete, nor Brian, nor Magnus. This might be dumb, I just can't see why right now.
Forcier bubble screen to D-Rob. If the WR misses the lead block, he does a forward pass over the defender's head. If the block is scored we've got the fastest guy on our team in a 1-v-1 situation on the outside. Not sure how the safeties play our spread tho... if there's an extra defender over the top this is just a normal bubble screen.
October 18th, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^
It's much different TAKING the handoff on a read option than it is HANDING IT OFF. It's something that the QBs and RBs work on for a good deal of time before perfecting it. If you don't believe me, ask Nick Sheridan and Sam McGuffie.
Besides...what's the point? With both Forcier and Robinson in the backfield, you have one mediocre scrambler of a QB (Forcier) running the ball or a great runner (Robinson). With Robinson and Another Running Back in the backfield, you have one great runner (Robinson) and one mediocre running back (Smith/Hopkins/Shaw) running the ball.
I just don't see the net gain of putting Forcier and Robinson back there together.
October 18th, 2010 at 11:04 PM ^
If you want to pull shenanigans like this, I think using Denard as a decoy is probably the best option.
Otherwise, I would just use a WR or RB with some high school QB experience to chuck the ball downfield. It would draw less attention.
October 18th, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
October 18th, 2010 at 11:54 PM ^
I think you're on to something here. With us possessing only the 2nd best offense in the country we CLEARLY need to shake things up and on that side of the ball and try something radical like you suggest.
October 19th, 2010 at 4:31 AM ^
ORRR.....*Mayyyyyyybe* we could even put Denard in a Percy Harvin-type role, amirite?
October 19th, 2010 at 7:29 AM ^
Damn it, put D-Rob in there at kidker to see what he's got. Worst case, he gets a field goal blocked and sends some kick-offs out of bounds. That would put us on par by my calculations so why not give it a shot?
October 19th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
I don't get this strategy at all. What is the better read option threat, Denard and Shaw/Smith, or Tate and Denard? I sure hope that Shaw and Smith are more dangerous runners than Tate. If we run the read with Tate and Denard, people will stack up against Denard and make Tate keep it every time. I'd rather have Shaw running to the weak side than Tater.