more denard impromtu scrambling. especially when there is no one within 10 yards
What would you like to see change on offense?
I would like to see more than 1 senior on the field.
I want the smash mouth Michigan football back, on both sides of the ball.
[here is where I would totally imbed "All Star" by Smash Mouth if I had the ability to do so... it never works for me, ever. link anyway? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xxQs34UMx4]
Go tell Mike Martin and David Molk that they're timid pu$$ies and that they need to learn how to SMASH the guys across the line.
- - -
Or, were you just being sarcastic?
- - -
It never seems to end.
Turnovers, Deep Balls, Establishing the Non-Denard Running Game, avoiding a coaching change crater in productivity, in no particular order.
fewer drive killing penalties average more than 4 yards per carry by the entire RB corps. Fewer dropped balls and more RAC yardage.
More I-Formation. Get back to punding the rock. More screen plays. (Not bubble screens) Take more chances down the field.
For what it's worth, I-Formation was terribly unsuccesful for us this past season.
Punding the rock sounds like something 13 year old boys do after discovering internet porn. Not sure I want to see more of that next year from our offense.
We aren't forced to go for it on 4th and > 5 from the 20-25 yard line because we actually have a kicker we can have confidence in.
Let me correct you
"We aren't forced to go for it on 4th and > 5 from the 20-25 yard line because we actually have a kicker"
More consistent production from the running backs, and the roll-out waggle play off play-action (how can this be defended with Denard?).
but be able to switch from 'spreadish' to 'grindish' on the fly and keep the defense off balance in terms of size as well as philosophy.
Me too - I like the faster pace.
A mix of vertical passing and pro-style run sets, mixed in with hurry up and spread options here and there. Basically, exactly what Borges ran at SDSU in 2010.
i'd like to see the offense on the field for a little more extended amount of time, let the boys on D get a little air and rest
Keeping Denard from being injured in every game. He needs to be involved heavily in the offense but he doesnt need to be the WHOLE offense. Someone needs to step up and help take the pressure off him. How about a power run game. That usually helps.
You make a sincere post , but as soon as you started talking about time of possession I had to invalidate your post as you must be Marty Mcfly sent ahead from 1985.
Everything can be better but seriously we had a sophmore at qb starting for the 1st time and 1 Senior on the field and we finished 2nd in FEI. The criticism of the offense needs to stop.
The best we can hope for is that Borges clicks with Denard and we are #1 next year.
Yourfree? Just leave. If I have to hear about "smashmouth" football anymore I'm going to puke.
There is huge improvement the offense can make. FEI is great and all, but you have to score points on a more regular basis. The offense's performance against Wiscy, OSU, Miss. State, etc. was appalling at times. Youth can account for a lot of that, like you stated, but the running game sans Denard has to improve.
Playcalling got a bit repetitive as well, fwiw. I agree that maturation will lead to more points, though. So will a competent kicker.
The O has a lot of room for improvement I agree. Scoring points is much more random than people think. With a play here or there we could have scored 30+ on Miss St pretty easily. The key is being able to move the ball and we did that as well as anybody.
This has been beaten to death but in the MSU game we marched down the field the 1st 3 possessions and should have scored every time. I think we scored 30+ against Wis. Not sure how appaling that is considering they were a top 10 team.
I'm not sure how everyone got so spoiled but many of Lloyd's best offenses don't come close to the 10 offense.
All of the points against Wisconsin came in the second half. They let up a bit in the third because they were up 24-0 and then they turnded the D back on in the fourth.
The Mich State game is a perfect example of a young offense, though. Not as many mistakes in execution and we'd of had at least a closer first half.
I hate how the points we scored in the second half of games don't count because the other team let up. The only reason everyone repeats that tired shit is because we didn't win the game. I am guessing the national champs like the fact that when they were down 24 to Alabama everyone decided to keep stats in the 2nd half.
If you look at the stats it's obvious. We scored 21 of 28 points in the third quarter. Wisconsin let up in the third and turned it back on in the fourth.
That's the dumbest fucking thing I have read in a while. The only obvious thing about that is you like to make up reasons why times when the offense plays well don't count but times when they play badly do.
So by letting up, I assume they put in the 2nd and 3rd string defense, right?
Michigan had the ball more in the third because Wiscy scored quicker than they did in the first half mainly due to having better field position on a few occasions. Wisconsin didn't quit defensively but they likely felt safer at 24-0 than at 0-0 or 31-21. The offense was also helped by two turnovers in one quarter, which isn't something that happened under the 2010 defense very often. The offense could never assume that they had the defense to back them up.
The offense was dangerous, for sure. But when you have three three-and-outs in the second quarter it doesn't exactly help you. Neither does missing a field goal from 30 yards. The execution wasn't at the level of a top team. The offense was explosive but not consistent.
You can't go an entire half of a game, at home, and not score and still be considered a great offense.
Auburn scored once in the first half of the Alabama game and 0 points at home the second half of the Mississippi State game. Oregon scored once in the first half against Cal this year. Making up rules about when you score, where you score, and how you score are ridiculous. Such as this:
When you go an entire 2nd half of a game and eke out a 3 point win, you can't consider that a great offense. This is why Auburn's offense wasn't very good.
When you eke out a 2 point win and against a shitty Cal team and only score once in the first half, you can't consider that a great offense. This is why Oregon's offense wasn't very good.
Basically, you are saying that the offense being good or not is dependent on when they play well. It is also pretty dumb to say that if you win, then you can count the offensive stats but if you lose, you can't. You even went on to break it down to individual games and which quarters they played well in. This is why I said that was fucking dumb. That is like saying "see, our defense held BCS-bound and Big East Champion UConn to only 14 points, therefore our defense was inconsistent but really wasn't that bad."
How about the seven points the entire game against OSU? How about the 14 scored against Miss. State? Or the 17, at home, against a Michigan State team that ended up ranked 39th in points against? Again, the offense was good. The offense was explosive.
It wasn't elite because they didn't score enough. You can gain all the yards in 1:30 that you want, but if you don't put points on the scoreboard, it doesn't matter. Oregon scored two more touchdowns a game than Michigan did, on average. Oregon scored at least 37 points in ten games this season. Michigan scored 37 or more in four games this season. Their offenses aren't comparable whether you look at one game or the whole season.
Jesus tap dancing christ I feel like I am taking crazy pills.
What about the 67 we put up against Illinois, who had the 37th best defense or the 550 yards and 28 points against Iowa, the 15th best defense? See, that is what happens when you have a really fucking good offense that is extremely inconsistent because you are starting a first year true sophomore QB along with an entire team of underclassmen who turn the ball over too many times. This is why you can't just cherry pick numbers when the offense plays bad....because they played really well at other times. Usually you use end of the season stats because, you know, that means you look at the entire offense, not just those that fit your argument. Even if you say our scoring offense wasn't good, it was still in the top 30 in the nation. That is pretty fucking good. And when you point to all of the good defenses we might not have played well against, you aren't point out anything other than offenses do worse against good defenses. I never said our offense was as good as Oregon's....not many offenses in the history of college football were. Like it or not, this offense was arguably the best you or I or anyone has seen in our lifetimes.
This offense set numerous University of Michigan football records. That is pretty fucking good.
And I've said numerous times it was good. I also stated in a seperate comment on this topic that youth was the main reason for it not being consistent. The only point I'm trying to make is that they didn't score consistently enough to be put in elite status.
Did you watch the Wisconsin game? Did you, personally, think we were in that game?
I personally don't think we were in that game. This means absolutely nothing when you look at what our offense did. I can tell you with certainty that Wisconsin didn't give up in the 3rd quarter and then turn it back on in the 4th quarter as some might have you believe. That isn't very smart. Were we in the Iowa game that everyone thinks the 2nd half stats shouldn't count? Considering it was a one score game with 8 minutes to go in the 4th quarter, yes we were. Does any of this actually matter? No...unless you are delusional enough to think with an offense like Michigan's that any one of our opponents gave up in the 2nd half because they thought they had it in the bag.
The O has a lot of room for improvement I agree. Scoring points is much more random than people think. With a play here or there we could have scored 30+ on Miss St pretty easily. The key is being able to move the ball and we did that as well as anybody.
No, it's not the key. If it were, we'd be talking about installing new "yardboards" at Michigan Stadium, instead of scoreboards. And I can't imagine that you genuinely believe what you're saying about yardage being less flukish than points scored, or you wouldn't be arguing that "the O has a lot of room for improvement." If we truly were one of the 10 best offensive teams last year, there wouldn't be much room for improvement.
We scored 32.8 points per game last year. That's decent. It's not great. Toss out the 22 points we scored in the three overtime sessions, and we averaged 31 points per regulation game. Most national-championship teams these days are scoring 40 ppg or more. Oregon, Auburn, Stanford, OSU and Wisconsin all did so. We've still got a ways to go to catch up to those offenses.
is aided by having a field goal kicker that can kick accurately, or a defense that can consistently get stops to give the offense good field position. Thus, the offense was good at moving the ball but often had to move the ball farther than top teams in the country; this led to reduced scoring output. Thus, in order to observe how well the offense and only the offense performs, yardage statistics are a better metric to use. It's true that yardage isn't perfect--good defense and special teams can shorten the field an offense has to travel--but the offense and only the offense is responsible for gaining yards.
On a side note, it would be an interesting diary to look into how Michigan's offense ranks in scoring offense when special teams and defensive points are removed from the equation.
*shines Mathlete signal in the sky*
Yeah. We were thisclose to beating Wisky and Miss St.
Because they have the personnel on defense to rotate in 20+ players a game. We lacked that depth. Meanwhile most of our opponents, especially the ones that drubbed us, could and did pound our sorry defense into submission. Not that it was too hard. But our terrible defense was also a tired defense. So why, pray tell, would being able to hold on to the ball for a larger proportion of game time not be an effective way to mitigate our biggest failing?
This is the problem with the new school rejection of ToP as a useful metric...it fails to take into account the context. The exact inverse of the problem with the old school insistence on ToP as a necessary strategy. Yes, sometimes playing relentlessly uptempo works to your advantage, as it did for Oregon every game this season save the last one. But for us, I only saw one Big 10 conference game in which it did--Illinois. In every single other game we could have benefitted from being able to control the tempo of the game.
I'm not--and wasn't--saying we should drive 9 minutes every drive. I'm saying I'd like to see us have the ability to do so when it's strategically advantageous.
We didn't really play up tempo all that much. Are base play was a qb iso off tackle how much more ball control do you want?
If you go ball control or fast tempo it doesn't matter the key is getting 1st downs. The reason the defense wore down is we had few subs and they couldn't get off the field. It had nothing to do with the offense.
The argument makes no sense. Our base play is Denard off tackle. Should the coaches instruct him to fall down and not score to keep the clock moving?
Old school or new school TOP is stupid.
I dont know what team you watched every saturday. Are pace was pretty up tempo, sometimes we would go three and out in less then a minute. Look at the Wisconsin game are defense played great till they where tired, you can not have your defense on the field that much it just doesn't work.
Your defense is too young, fundamentally unsound and running a confused scheme.
Oregon, we were not.
Our offense and defense will both be more mature next year, but our defense is unlikely to be as good or deep as Oregon's, so we should still aim to keep them off the field so they're at least well-rested.
Learn how to use it.
Are is a verb. Our is a posessive pronoun.
Funny that's indicative of a midwest accent. Our and are sound the same.
TOP isn't stupid when you don't score and your defense is awful. Wisconsin led the league in TOP and they scored the most points. Michigan was dead last by an entire minute.
Sorry, I've yet to read a compelling argument for ToP either way. Why just say that you'd like the offense to be more effective? If they score every time it won't matter how long they hold the ball. Doesn't the issue reduce to that?
and this play at 00:45. It's unstoppable when Denard pulls off a couple good runs in a row.
Denard actually hadn't had any success running the ball prior to that play. I don't think that's a play that requires a ton of set-up carries by Denard. Any time the QB advances toward the line of scrimmage, the defense has little choice but to bite.
I'm all for keeping that play in the book (and I think we will), but I don't think we need to call 10 QB isos a game to set it up.
exact same play we burned Illinois on, on the first play of the game
What you said about passing. I can remember numerous occasions when it was third and five. Denard would be rolling out and have the primary receiver open for an easy first down. He tried to force it further downfield with minimal success. With maturity and coaching he will make good decisions in these scenarios and our offense will be better for it.
I would like to see anyone other than the QB be able to pick up a Fing 3rd and 1. Whether its out of I-formation, Single back, Shotgun, or Pistol.
Agreed. I like V Smith, but I cant understand why he got a lot of carried on 3rd and short situations. I enjoyed the spread, but I felt like last yr RR should have implemented some more I form on 3rd and short situations with a guy like Hopkins. I just want a RB to emerge and become a go to guy to take some pressure of Denard. There is going to be a major battle for that starting RB job.
IMO the spread is fun when it's rolling, but when it's dead and you don't have that flow that spread offenses need it fizzles out. I supported RR fully but I do prefer the pro style. I hate being really worried in short yardage situations. Like when it's first and goal from the 1, and I'm thinking we have a 50/50 shot of getting in(in 4 plays, Illinois will do that to you). I get tired of seeing all of our plays from the shotgun too. I also prefer the pro-style in the video game.There's my life story.
Insert Mike Cox into the running game and take some pressure off Denard. Does inserting a decent field goal kicker count? I will gladly take less yards but more points and a more consistent point production from game to game. I hope we turn the ball over less next year.
never punt. TD every possession.
And a kicking game will help that as well.
Many have talked about the PA boot with Denard, and I, for one, would be all for that. What I'm envisioning (2TE 2WR single back set, left hash) is run action weakside, strongside TE block then release into the flat, weakside WR runs a shallow slant right, strongside WR fly route, and the RB, depending on the situation, could have a wheel route or flare to the weak side against the flow of the rest of the pass patterns. If the run game can get going, this kind of play could be deadly.
Everytime I see "wheel route" I can't help but thinking of the Illinois game.
Definitely. I omitted the reference for those who were able to block that memory out. However, no one would have bad feelings about it if Shaw, Touissaint, etc. take one all the way via the wheel route.
We got a clutch 1st down conversion at the start of the 3rd OT using a wheel route vs. Illinois. That was pretty nice.
Play action pass to fullback in the flat. Or Koger. Who I think will have a monster year.
Less basketball on grass!! Only smash mouth footbaw!! More zone left!! Denard under center!! I form!!
Huddles and motion before the snap.
Huddles!! Great idea. Let's make our offense as unlike Oregon and Auburn as possible... Not like they're doing anything right....
(in B10 play) to be more like Stanford in their bowl game this year (mini huddle, 350 plays, multiple formations, motion, shifts, etc) then not huddle like we did last year and run about 25 different plays.
The first time I see the new offense, shift a formation and/or put someone in motion before the snap, I may tear up a little, out of utter joy....
A lot of the victory formation
Is that during the game or at the end when we are winning? Because if you think they should run the victory formation at random I like your style. It's a bold strategy and will keep other teams on their toes
A feature back or two to take attention away from Denard (Toussaint, Shaw, Hopkins, V. Smith, anyone). That being said, I don't want to see Borges let Narddog's 4.3 go to waste. Chances are, of course, Denard won't have the same rushing stats this year, but I would hope Al has a plan to use his feet too (roll-outs, designed snap-runs, QB draws, etc). Even as efficient as Denard was this year passing the ball (top 20 passer rating), we'll probably see a little bit more maturing in his throwing game (get the picks down in the single digits this coming year).
Footballs sailing between the uprights and over the crossbar after having been kicked.
I don't agree with the wobbly and inconsistent statement. I think the fact we had no kicking game and that the defense rarely put the offense in decent field position probably made it seem that way. This was the most exciting offense I've seen at Michigan and I would hope they wouldn't modify it too much. I don't have enough time to comment on the changes needed for the defense and special teams.
The turnovers and 3-and-outs. Plus the fact that our offense rarely played a full four quarters of effective football in conference play. Would field goals have saved us against Wisc, OSU or Miss St.? Don't think so. Maybe against 1 of the other conference losses. Consistent and non-wobbly, low-turnover+more-1st-downs performance could have saved us in all 3.
Being more consistent and less wobbly on offense would have paid tangible benefits. Having more consistent, low risk chains-moving plays (crossing routes, screens, waggles) could help that and turn "promising" into "as promised." And win Denard a Heisman :)
No change on offense. Just more experience (a 2nd year QB for once) and running back as good as Brandon Minor and hope he stays healthy. These 2 things were the only things that were missing.
Smith not being used on short yardage situations.
Bullshit. The offense wasn't overrated; it was under-experienced. They had a true Sophomore QB in his first year as a starter, minimal upperclassmen, and were 9th in the FBS in net total yards. How on earth can anyone without an agenda call that "overrated?"
There were plenty of things to bitch about, but the offense being "overrated" wasn't one of them.
Offense was definitely overrated. Hell it still is with people listing the yardage statistic and ignoring the fact that we wasted hundreds of yards over the course of the season.
Not sure how you can get so mad about that fact. Our offense can both be overrated and under-experienced, those aren't mutually exclusive.
So where should our offense have been with all of our inconsistent underclassmen?
This should be good.....
It should have been putting up more than 7 or 14 points against good teams.
I kept saying, "goddammit! don't run another useless draw play!"
But with Denard, I say run the QB draw all day long.
It worked so well last year, right?
in some form of pro-set, the QB draw may be the only time Denard's number gets called.
play-action QB roll out hitting wide open tight end crossing to the sideline. michigan football.
the double wishbone.
As a true-blue fan of TRULY old-school Michigan football, going back to the Crisler style of attack sounds like a great idea to me. We can throw in some single wing too while we're at it!
I also like the Oklahoma diamond formation.
Some 2 QB plays with Denard and Gardner.
Hold onto the ball.
Less runs to Vincent Smith, more passes to Vincent smith
On the field at the same time. I like it.
There's a play in the old school M playbook - I don't know what it's actually called, and I can't find a video of it. But my dad and I always called it "The Michigan Play." I'm sure you all remember it:
It's a quick play fake to a running back, followed by a weakside rollout, after which the TE is almost invariably wide open for a first down (and more).
If someone can find video of it, I would love to see it again. I love that play.
It's called the Waggle. I agree - it's a great play. It needs to see more use, because Denard and Koger would be great in it.
Especially the one other teams do where the qb lines up as a wr. The defense couldn't afford to ignore Robinson like they do almost every qb that lines up out wide.
I know multiple QBs on the field has been joked about a lot in the last 2 years but in the case of a trick played I'd love to see it.
Denard coming around in motion on a reverse pass would also be fun to watch.
would like to see tons of play action passes!!!
1) Run Game
2) Execution - these kids are young so this is to be expected, but execution of the playbook.
Complain all you want about zone stretch left but we executed it the same way every time. I hope this coaching staff throws in more waggles, more roll outs and naked bootlegs. I think they will still keep the qb iso because with a good secondary running game or vertical passing game iso becomes huge.
3) THROW IT TO THE TIGHT END....FOR THE LOVE OF GOD....HE IS WIDE OPEN....WITH HIS ARMS WAVING....
Fewer fumbles, which I imagine will occur with the impending change in scheme.
... The two things I hated during games.
1. Vincent smith is averaging 2 YPC and still getting the ball.
2. Quarterback draw goes for 20 yards, 10 QB draws and 15 yards later were still trying it.
A little change of pace would be nice.
I'd like to see us run something similar to the Spread HD that Penn State ran with Darryl Clark and Evan Royster. It always seemed to me to be a spread offense developed from por style philosophy. They seemed to be able to keep teams guessing because they could just as easily run up the gut as spread you out and hit quick slants. They'd throw deep enough to keep your safties honest. I think this would be a good mix to match the abilities of our coaching, talent, and conference needs. That being said, I thought RR would mold hisoffense into something similar once he got here. Therefore, I don't expect tosee this next year.
we will see more field goals being made!
Aren't they. Take a look at our disadvantage in ToP. Take a look at our average drive time. Even our average scoring drive time. If we can institute more effective ways of holding on to the ball--better third down performance, more 1st downs, more drives ending in points and, yes, when necessary managing the clock so there's a bigger break for the defense, ie when they are obviously tired and sagging--it's a net win for us.
Pooh-poohing the obvious advantages being able to do these things can bring in the right situation baffles me as much as pooh-poohing hurry-up does when that brings advantages.
It's all about what a given situation demands.
I would like to see us score more points then our opponents.
Ooo, risky answer.
i know carr ran it every once in awhile, but the qb quick passes out ot the left then runs to the right sideline and the WR throws it back to him.....if it worked for Navarre, Henson, Brady i cant imagine it not wokring once or twice for Denard
The defensive unit scoring some pick 6's. That would be some sweet offense!
3 Yards and a cloud of dust...thats what I want to see!!!
If we turn into 3 yards and a cloud of dust, I will probably lose a lot of interest; It's bad enough watching us play Wisconsin every year.
Aggressive toughness, with smashmouth Big Ten aggressiveness and toughness. And bigger.
Haven't seen a trick play in 3 years! Double reverse or a throwback to Denard! How about flea flicker?
I would like to see a little more power run game and a little less designed runs for denard. With that said, I would like denard to take off more from the pocket instead of forcing passes.
That sounds like a recipe for success!
If I could just get the sense that each and every player knew their assignment and I felt comfortable that we weren't risking a turnover every play I'd be happy.
The old-fashion "double pass" play that Michigan's used forever. Basically, Denard throws a screen, and then the WR throws it back to a wide open Denard.
PA Roll-outs with Denard's speed would be dangerous. He also seems to throw accurately from a run.
Denard needs to know when to get out of bounds, and not take needless hits. An extra 4 yards (in most situations) is not worth him going head-on with a linebacker.
Drops were huge last season and that could definitely use improvement. I lost count of the number of times Denard made a perfect throw and it was just not caught despite being very catchable.
I'd also like to see more post catch ninja skills like Hemingway vs Illinois.
And lastly, as much as I like Vincent Smith overall, I'd like to NOT see him on a 3rd and 1 situation.
Can we please get someone to kick a field goal? Is there a stud on the M soccer team that could kick for us? Did you know that OSU's kicker is 27 years old? When are we going to start paying for players again? This is clearly the only way to win - ask Cam Newton and his Dad.
...as a "must have" for every lineman (both offense and defense) going forward. We need more mental toughness in the trenches. Maybe Hoke's 9-on-7 drills will help instill this?
His "mental toughness" led to a lot of stupid penalties.
1000 yards rushing out of a single running back. This will give us 9 to 10 wins.
no, it won't.
I disagree. With our offensive talent, a legitimate backfield threat other than our Quarterback will allow our offense to get over the hump and actually score points instead of churn yardage. Do you have an actual opinion on this?
1000 rushing yards does not translate to wins. Last year, UConn had 2 rushers get over 1000 yards and went 8-5.
Remember that there's this thing called defense. Remember also that this offense will look considerably different next season.
...is every drive result in no penalties and a touchdown.
Well... you asked!
average starting field position
3rd down conversions
2. RBs that can carry the ball more than three times without getting hurt.
3. A staff that won't keep Stephen Hopkins on the bench in favor of VS on third-and-one.
1. Better production from RBs in terms of stats.
2. A Dynamic Running Back to emerge, and to not only be consistent but dynamic at RB.
3. More motion a la Auburn and Oregon.
4. I don't care about how often we go to I formation/ under center, but it needs to be more effective when we go to it (see 1&2).
5. An upperclassmen starting at QB (check).
....and really a QB who is a little slower, I mean Denard's ridiculous speed is interfering with my desire to watch conservative MANBALL next fall : D
3. See #1, #2
This x a gazillion
I don't want to see Michigan running their smallest guy (V. Smith) into the line on third and short. That was pretty infuriating and never worked.
Some out routes.
I would like to see more positive plays by the Eb's. Minimize denard injuries by limiting the designed runs.
Balanced attack with multiple formations. Stop the mistakes. Score points when opportunity arises. Hit some people hard.
Definitely more of a power running game. Also need to develop more shorter routes that aren't just bubble screens. A lot more slants and 5-10 yard crossing routes would be nice.
and we rode it to a national championship in 1997: naked bootleg with a pass option to a wide open TE. This was Griese's bread and butter and I can't imagine not scoring a TD every time with Denard having the option to run it up the sideline or pass it to a wide open TE.
Please, Santa, I've been a good boy this year (so far). Make it happen.
When you have a consistent threat when you hand it off. So yeah, I'd love to see it too, but it's not gonna happen until a real threat at RB emerges.
This past year, the most effective version of this we had was Denard starting to run and then throwing to a wide-open WR or TE. Early in the season, this was near unstoppable. Later on it was stoppable, though, and I think the fact that the naked bootleg is so high percentage makes it desirable. But as it stands, LBs will just follow Denard and the DBs crowd the field right in front of him so he throws an INT. If someone in the backfield becomes a 20 carry/100 yards a game type, then this becomes a serious option.
Then there's the second problem, which is that you need to line up under center and hand off a bunch before you can run this effectively. We'll probably do more of that this year, and do it more effectively, but as soon as we lined up under center last year things got ugly. Another reason why we didn't run this play, and preferred other types of fake-the-run-throw-the-pass plays.
Finally, Denard needs to really learn when it's best to run and when it's best to pass. As promising of a QB as he is, his decision-making skills need improvement. His biggest advantage in the waggle/naked bootleg would be faking out the defense one way or the other, a la Vince Young. He's not good at that yet.
that is all
The turnover ratio would be first.
Second would be a consistent lead RB who can get at least 4 on first down, and who can convert in the red-zone and on short-yardage downs.
... throw to an OPEN Maize and Blue guy, or pull it down and run, or throw it OB.
(I think we beat MSU that way...).
throw it ACCURATELY to an open guy.
Roundtree was open at least twice against MSU and Denard just threw behind him.
I pulled my hair out several times when he was stuffed on third and one.
I'd like to see us do something in the red zone. Something that doesn't end in a missed FG or a turnover.
We had some of the worst red zone offence that I have ever seen. We couldn't score any touchdowns in the red zones and it was horrible. I hope that Hoke can fix that up.
Field goal tries that don't spike my blood pressure.