Think we'll be spread option next year? I don't.
There obviously has been a lot of talk about keeping Denard here. Coach Hoke stated in the press conference that he believes in doing what's best for the team, and that means putting your best players in a position to be successful. One could easily infer that means that he will put Denard at QB and run a spread offense. Coach Hoke followed that by saying that usually means doing what's best for the player.
What if, however, he believes that putting Denard in the best position to be successful means he could be most successful at WR or RB? What if Coach thinks what's best for Denard is to play a position other than QB b/c he won't play QB in the NFL?
We can only go by what we know. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. Coach Hoke's teams have never run the spread, nor has OC Al Borges ever run it. As a former coach I can tell you that your best chance of success is to coach what you know. Since they a) don't like the spread and b) don't know it, I'm guessing that you won't see us running a spread offense.
The only way you'll see us running spread option is if the entire new offensive staff goes and visits with someone who runs it well. In my opinion, that leaves three options:
- Chip Kelly
- Urban Meyer
- Rich Rodriguez
First, we know that Coach Hoke despises an offense based on the outside zone (aka Stretch). (Boy, he must have hated watching his own offense during his time as DL coach at Michigan.) That would eliminate options 1 and 3. Besides, there's no way the new staff would go to the old staff and say, "Can you teach us your offense, please?" That would leave them with visiting Urban Meyer.
It would be a nice fit. First, he's unemployed, so he could actually come here and be a consultant, if you will. Second, he believes in inside zone and gap schemes like power, counter trey, and iso.
Inside zone is still zone blocking, but it's not about reaching the outside shoulder. It's basically the playside tackle base blocking the DE while the rest of the OL works combo blocks. The objective is to get vertical push on the DL, then come off to LBs working downhill--let them come to you. The RB is a downhill runner and he gets one cut into the hole. The hole isn't pre-determined, but the cut into that hole happens (in theory) at the LOS or on the defense's side of it. In outside zone, that decision (or cut) happens in the offensive backfield.
Regardless, I don't think you'll see Michigan in a spread option offense, and I believe it would be in Denard's best interests to transfer to Oregon.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
I don't recall anyone saying we'd run exclusively spread option. Either way, SDSU ran spread option plays this past season. We don't have to run one offensive style. A lot of teams run multiple styles.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
Here we go again with the OMG HOKE HATES ZONE BLOCKING stuff. I ask again: Based on what? On that one column some guy in San Diego wrote?
Look at the first drive in the Pointsettia Bowl. Every formation was 3 WRs, 1 TE, 1 back standing next to the QB in the shotgun. Whoa, a spread! Granted every play but one was a dropback pass, but that one running play looked oddly like a ZOMG ZONE READ handoff.
Do I think they'll run the spread option next year? Hell no. But that doesn't mean they won't incorporate elements - if Denard stays. When has Al Borges ever had a Denard to work with? Never, that's when.
Edit: If this whole thing was a joke, well done.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
The zone read requires the option of the quarterback keeping the ball and running with it. Ryan Lindley was not a running quarterback, so he wasn't reading anything as to whether to keep the ball or hand it off.
The only option involved might be to hand it off or throw it. I don't know enough of SDSU's playbook to know if their plays involved in-play pass/run option reads or if everything was preplanned.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
The only option involved might be to hand it off or throw it.
That was pretty much the only option that we ran last year, anyway, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem for Denard.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
but my point was more that I'm uncertain if SDSU's offense used any true options at all. Borges is going to do what he knows how to do, not invent some completely new scheme in a couple months just for one player.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
Yeah, I tend to agree that you're right about what Borges will do. I just don't think it's that big of a deal because I don't see Denard as a player who needs to be pigeonholed into one particular scheme to be successful. He has made it very clear that he wants to be a quarterback, not just a running quarterback. He did almost all of his damage on the ground this year on non-option running plays. I just don't think the offense needs to have many, if any, option components for Denard to be successful.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^
taking most of the comments from posters I respect, I don't think we'll be running a run option. And without having any experience to make this comment, it seemed to me that against Wisconsin, OSU and the Bowl game, we quickly went away from calling run option plays after the first quarter. Or it seemed to me that those defenses adjusted to the run option and were stopping Denard and the running back. And even though we switched to passing, we weren't getting the huge openings because the secondary was staying home to cover.
And overall Denard was still fumbling too much, I hated watching the replays of the OSU game and Denard's fumble during the freaking basketball game.
I know everyone is excited about Denard, but I think Devin Gardner has the size to take the punishment of running more than Henne ever did. I know Dennis Dixon was skinny like Denard, so maybe Oregon does something different with their plays than Auburn does, but if Oregon runs a more heavy Run Option, like WVU under Rodriguez then I'm hoping Denard stays and changes to something more like passing from Shotgun and scrambling a lot for 30+ yards when it's there.
And yes, I loved watching the Green Bay and Philadelphia game, and the matchup between Woodson and Vick. Damn that was an exciting game. If Pro Style means Peyton Manning and "spread" of some degree means Michael Vick, then I agree with the majority of posters here that don't want to see "pro style".
I don't think we're going to see pro style with this team and the talent assembled. I don't think we can if we wanted to.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^
The first running play in the Poinsettia Bowl may have been a straight hand off, or it may have been a zone read option. It's hard to say without knowing exactly what the play call was. I will say that it looked like the ZR to me, as Lindley kept the ball on the RB's belly for what seemed to be a long time. ZR style.
Whether Lindley is a running quarterback is immaterial. Threet wasn't a running QB and he ran read option plays. I've seen other thundering non-gazelles run it. I want to say I even saw Peyton Manning pull the ball on a read option and run once this year but I wouldn't swear to it (it may have been someone else).
You are 100% correct though is that we don't know without knowing their playbook.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:46 PM ^
because that would be called a walk option. If there is one thing Peyton does not do well, it's run.
Drew Stanton ran some read option plays, against Chicago and Green Bay, I think. To no one's surprise, the DEs bit like cats on tuna ...
January 13th, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^
Don't even go there, dickhead.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
You want what's best for you, not what's best for him. Okay, Mr. Mefirst.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^
I am bristling at your knee-jerk reaction that Denard will not be able to flourish here and should transfer.
It is WAY too soon to be putting any seeds of doubt out there.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^
From what I saw this year, when Denard dropped back to pass he stayed in the pocket. In my opinion, he didn't run enough. He was inconsistent, but showed great touch and arm strength as a passer. He just happens to also be rediculously fast. The potential is there and I don't see why he should be anything but a qb. I guess what I'd like to hear is what his limitations are as a qb that would prevent him from becoming a pro. How do his mechanics compare to Vince Young?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
Since we all seem to be getting wrapped up in this type of offense debate. Think Jim would have kept the OC we had, and just gone away from his pro-set? We are supposed to not like Hoke because he won't run the spread, and most here would seem to be much happier with a JH hire?
Maybe I'm confused as to my reasoning for not wanting Hoke, and readying myself for the plunge off the ledge.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
I think those disappointed on Brady Hoke hire are taking David Brandon's words as being made against Rodriguez. I think they are being made against Harbaugh. Brandon's statements that he talks to Harbaugh all the time and for years communicates to me that they have a long time relationship because of all their ties to the University of Michigan (both played football at Michigan, both played for Bo, both are alumni, etc. David knew jack Harbaugh in a player to coach relationship, Jim knows him in a son to father relationship)
So David Brandon knew long ago that Jim Harbaugh is about Jim Harbaugh and wants to coach in the NFL and that hiring Jim Harbaugh means hiring someone who's dream is NOT to be the head coach at the University of Michigan.
Despite Harbaugh's impressive, recent albeit short resume, he does not fulfill a key requirement for Brandon's hiring qualifications. Brandon knew that before the season started, and that's why I believe him when he says Jim Harbaugh was never a candidate.
Nothing against Harbaugh, but I don't think he would have taken the job. He has the job he wanted. He has his dream job.
And so does Brady Hoke.
So did Bo.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
people are confusing spread with shotgun here...in all honesty.
go look at what Auburn did this year, they weren't necessarily a "spread team" they run a ton of formations with a TE or H-back, but because they are in the gun they're considered "spread". Auburn's running game was completely power football, power, counter, veer, and some zone sprinked in. Same with Florida under Meyer.
Looking briefly at what Borges did at SDSU, they were in a ton of 3WR 1TE sets.
Now those teams also used 4 and 5 wr sets, and I'm sure Borges will have the ability. I don't think Borges will limit himself, I think his offense can adapt.
Will it be Rich Rod spread offense, nope. But I don't think it has to be for Denard to be successful at QB. You can run the QB without being "spread" with 4 WR. Heck, UofM was that most of the season operating with a lot of H-back and TE looks.
Nobody know's what's going to happen, but it's not the end of the world yet.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^
Lots of Bo teams had running qbs but they were never spread option. Also, teams like Nebraska have had extremely successful running qbs (like Tommy Frazier and Eric Crouch) without running the zone read. I think the biggest thing Hoke and Borgess have to do is put Denard in position where the threat of his feet open the passing game up for him like Rodriguez did. In order to do that you have to let him run and not just on scrambles. I don't care what you call it, as long as other teams have to gameplan to stop designed runs for Denard.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
So you're probably right about us not being a spread option. But, someone posted a thread on the board about... brace yourself... the pistol. Before all you pistol haterz jump down my throat, I would like to say that I'm neither advocating or admonishing it, but I am simply intrigued after listening to the Nevada/BC game. Steve, as a coach, I would really like to get your prespective on the fundamental principles of it. What are the advantages/disadvantages? Do you think it is easier to implement than a pure spread option, and could it be a viable option for us? I know the coaching staff had to prepare for Nevada, so perhaps they picked up a thing or two along the way?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
has Borges run the Pistol before?
If he hasn't, I would not bet any money that you're going to see it.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
You should go to smartfootball.com and search it.
What little I know about it is:
1. It is predicated on spreading out the defense while still having a downhill running game. Most spread option teams (like us, Oregon) are based on outside zone. Guys who want to run the ball like to have the ability to run downhill, and the outside zone takes away from that.
2. There is the potential for more traditional type option run game b/c the QB is much closer to the LOS, so you can do more inside veer, midline, etc.
3. To get the advantages of spread-option, you must bring another RB into the backfield. Once you do that, you aren't spread, imo. Two backs is two backs, I don't give a rat's ass where you line up your QB.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:40 PM ^
So now we know. You are a Madden freak, and you never played the game. Good for you, how about you write another diary about all the rest of the things you know nothing about, like being a good fan, a good father, a good Christian, or a good human being. Any questions?? "I hope RRod gets a job, comes back into AA, and kicks our ass!!" Your quote.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:08 PM ^
You're sure making a good case for being a good human being, however.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:56 PM ^
is that there is a difference between the pistol formation and the pistol offense. My understanding is that a good bit of the value of the pistol comes from variety, and that perhaps that is the distinction.
For example, the Lions used the pistol formation occasionally when Shaun Hill was the QB, but infrequently, maybe 3-5 times per game. The problem with that is that you don't see it often enough to make any assumptions about it as a defense. OK, they're in semi-shotgun, so what? We'll just sit back and wait for Hill to throw the ball.
If they had run a pistol offense, and Hill was lining up 50-60 times in those formations, then the defense gets enough looks for the option aspects to work better, because now you're running several different plays in the same game from the same formation with similar looks.
I suppose to that extent, using a handful of pistol plays isn't much different than using a bunch of formations in the first place: you're just checking to see if the defense can line up differently if it needs to, you're not necessarily testing their ability to identify plays by formation and personnel.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
I largely agree (though obviously I don't want Denard to transfer), but I think he showed last year that he is more than a RB dressed up like a QB. Denard has touch and and strength down the field, and I could see him utilized like Rick Leach was (admittedly before my time, so based on anecdotes and youtube). You could line him up under center or shotgun and run him with a run-pass option. Kind of like what VT did with Vick, or what Pryor sometimes does with OSU. Hoke seems like a smart guy and putting Denard at WR or RB and starting another first-year QB would kill this team, and I don't think Hoke wants to relive RR-2008.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:47 PM ^
He ran a lot. He also threw a lot.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^
thomas is a soph next year, no?
michigan or ga tech might be better options than sitting out a year to potentially be a backup
January 13th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^
If Denard can't play QB here he should transfer. There's no two ways about it.
If he can play QB here then I think he needs to talk to the coaches and see what they are envisioning. What they are envisioning had better be good. If he doesn't like what he hears he should transfer.
If Borges wants to take Denard and make him play like Chad Henne except running a little bit then the kid needs to go somewhere with a coach that has a brain.
I think the coaches will try to make it work and god I hope they do.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
What if Hoke denied the transfer? Considering M's shortage at QB would he pull a paterno?
Can we get Threet back, he has one more year of eligibility left
January 13th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
We didnt run a lot of zone read, spread option this year
Bottomline....if you feel Denard can succeed only in a spread and shed type system, then deep down you dont really value him that highly as a quarterback to begin with.
Both Denard and Devin Gardner can succeed and max out their potential in any well coached offense.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
God knows only spread offenses can utilize mobile quarterbacks.
Someone should have told that to Michael Vick before he played pro-style for 3 years at Virginia Tech. Or before he got to the Eagles. Or the Falcons.
Someone should have told that to McNair. And Steve Young. And Culpepper.
Those idiots.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
Shit, I've never agreed with you more. I need to go take a shower.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
God knows only spread offenses can utilize mobile quarterbacks.
Someone should have told that to Michael Vick before he played pro-style for 3 years at Virginia Tech. Or before he got to the Eagles. Or the Falcons.
Someone should have told that to McNair. And Steve Young. And Culpepper.
Those idiots.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
Denard Robinson is a running QB. He is not necessarily a spread option QB: he did not run that system in high school. There are many other ways to exploit a running QB.
I see zero chance that Michigan will run the spread as its base system, if Hoke brings in an OC who has never run that system. But that doesn’t mean they’ll waste Denard’s ability to run the football.
I also see a near-zero chance that Denard will be moved to RB or WR. His obvious strength is where defenses need to respect his ability to pass or run. If you make him one-dimensional, you just make him a worse player. I think we saw pretty clearly this year that he cannot take the punishment of running the ball too often.
On top of that, with Forcier gone and no commits in the current class, Michigan is left with only two scholarship QBs. It cannot afford to move one of the two to another position, leaving the team with Devin Gardner and no backup. Any QB that Hoke attracts at this late date is likely to be a mid-level three-star guy who will need lots of seasoning before he is ready to play Big Ten football.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^
We don't know what Denard Robinson considers success. Maybe he's as real and as humble as the press makes him out to be. Maybe he loves Ann Arbor and Michigan. (I did. A lot of you did too.) Maybe he thinks he can develop into a first rate D1 quarterback, even in a non-spread and shred offense and he wants a chance to show he can do it in another scheme. Maybe he really does love his teammates.
We'll find out, but we don't know.
"Best for Robinson" could mean transferring to Oregon or any of the schools that didn't offer him a chance to play QB in the first place, or it could mean staying. My sense of the kid is that it's not all about football. I hope not, anyway, for his sake, no matter what he does.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:43 PM ^
Denard is a team guy all the way. Wins = happiness
January 13th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^
Steve Smith left here because we got rid of the spread, right? Rick Leach?
Here's why Denard does not equal Mallett:
Mallett was a statue QB who was going to be asked to run an offense that REQUIRES a mobile QB - running is not something he could do.
Robinson is a mobile QB being asked to run an offense that requires him to throw. Well - he already throws.
Are we going to assume that Borges, in 20+ years of being a college OC, is incapable of drawing up QB draws? Are those plays so mystical that they may escape his ability? Sure, we'll lose the option plays, but those didn't work very well anyway. Most of Denards yards came on called runs. We can still call runs without 4 WR's on the field, if I recall.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^
I wish we could have got Urban Meyer
January 13th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
There are many ways to exploit the talents of runner like Denard. I'm not even sure whether, in the end, RR's spread was the best way to go for Denard. Obviously, Denard's stats were eye-popping. But he got pummeled. And the offense became increasingly predictable and defensible; it stagnated in the red-zone; teams just keyed on Denard, and boom. It became kinda one-dimensional.
I like the idea going hybrid, pistol -- whatever mixes things up more for Denard and, more importantly, the team. Vick. Troy Smith. Tony Rice. Etc.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
if we might try to run some sort of offense like tOSU ran with Troy Smith. I really don't know if that would be something that Denard would be willing to roll with or not, but Devin Gardner would be a perfect fit in that type of offense.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^
No way either of these ideas comes to fruition. I mean no way. Just voicing them so they're out of my head:
1. Triple-Option offense. We've got a great, quick, relatively young offensive line, a stable of running backs, and the perfect QB. Hopkins and Cox would be great 2-backs, Smith and Shaw and Toussaint as 3-backs, and of course Denard. Doesn't necessarily have to be run out of the I-tight, does it?
2. Keep RR affiliated with the program until he gets a new job. It seems at this point RR will have a year off. He lives in Ann Arbor, knows the current players. It might help prevent another exodus.
I know why 2 won't happen, why it can't. Like I said, it's musing.
Honestly, I would guess that Michigan's offense would transition to something akin to Ohio State's, where Denard/Devin get a designed escape hatch to run away from a blitzer. So much of OSU's offense with Pryor is when he runs away from pressure for 9 yards when any other guy would be brought down. For those familiar with VT's offense with Mike Vick, that's actually more what I'm talking about.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
I never, at any point, wrote that Denard could only be successful in a spread option offense. I wrote that the spread option offense is what he would be most successful in, and that he should be at a school that runs it if he wants to translate his game to the next level.
1. We know, for sure, that he's successful in this offense b/c he set NCAA records.
2. We have no idea (though we can reasonably guess) that he would be successful in any offense.
Therefore, I think it is in the young man's best interest to be in an offense in which he has done things no other player in the history of the game has done. Is it in his best interests to stay here and take a chance that he will be an NFL draft pick in an offense he's never run before?
If you say yes to that last question, I believe you want Denard here b/c you want your team to win, not b/c you think it's in the best interests of the young man.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^
I don't understand why playing in an offense that doesn't exist at the next level would help him "translate his game to the next level."
Wouldn't showing he can play in an offense similar to those in the next level help him translate his game to the next level? Like, if he started the "translation" now?
January 13th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
Steve (or anyone with expertise): What do you think about the offenses that Texas ran with Vince Young, and what VT did with Taylor? I didn't see a ton of either, but it seems like they
1) had designed QB runs as core plays but
2) weren't spread option/zone read-based
And might be useful models as Hoke transitions back to more typical pro-set stuff. I seem to recall that Texas's didn't feature a ton of demanding pro-style throws under Young. And you certainly couldn't say that it didn't maximize his abilities.
Worth considering is that Denard did get banged up a lot this year, so as a smaller guy might actually WANT to run a little less. Plus his strong consistent desire to play QB might indicate that's he's interested in trying to continue improve his passing and ability to read coverages.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
From Brian:
"As far as running quarterbacks go, current SDSU starter Ryan Lindley had –162 yards in two years under Borges, and his other guys were Brandon Cox, Kyle Boller, Horrible Indiana QB Du Jour, and Jason Campbell. None of these guys would win a foot race with John Navarre save Campbell, and he would only tie. Campbell had 30 yards rushing as a senior."
So it's safe to say Borges has 0% experience of an offense for a QB with running skills, yet many are 100% sure he will use Denard in an appropriate fashion?
Uh, ok.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^
Well, the one thing to ask is whether he's ever had a QB with legitimate running skills to work with. Now, if the answer is no, that might be because he's never recruited one, but it's reasonable to suggest that we wait and see what he comes up with before we say that he doesn't have the ability to use Denard appropriately.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:01 PM ^
1) Hoke clarified his comments regarding Denard on the radio this morning:
“I got to spend about 20 minutes with Denard yesterday and we’ll sit down together again today. But I can tell you one thing about Denard, we all know what a terrific football player he is, but what a terrific kid. Just the time I’ve got to spend with him and his personality and everything about him, I really, really am impressed with. There’s no question he believes in Michigan, he loves Michigan and he’ll be a big part of our program. I’ve seen enough of him to know he can be the quarterback of the Wolverines.”
2) Borges does have experience with a running QB, it's just from a while ago. Cade McNown ran quite a bit during his 4 years there:
| Year | Lge | Team | Age | # | GP | Att | Yards | TD | % | Y/G | LNG |
| 1995 | NCAA | UCLA Bruins | 18 | 18 | 11 | 71 | 311 | 5 | 4.4 | 28.3 | |
| 1996 | NCAA | UCLA Bruins | 19 | 18 | 11 | 88 | 223 | 4 | 2.5 | 20.3 | |
| 1997 | NCAA | UCLA Bruins | 20 | 18 | 11 | 79 | 237 | 4 | 3.0 | 21.5 | |
| 1998 | NCAA | UCLA Bruins | 21 | 18 | 11 | 75 | 182 | 3 | 2.4 | 16.5 |
Granted those numbers aren't great, but they include sacks (can't find how many there were each year). Who's to say that he won't utilize the talent in front of him appropriately? At the very least, this shows that he's not afraid to let his QBs scramble.
While I don't think we will be running a spread option next year, that does not mean we won't transition to a shotgun-based west coast offense with designed QB runs to maximize the talent we have. These guys work with the talent they have, they're not going to shove a round peg into a square hole and ask DR to do nothing but drop straight back and throw. That would just be bad coaching.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^
I think that they might be a chance that we run the spread, Brady Hoke seams like the guy that would adapt to what we have at the moment.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:42 PM ^
just like Bo used to run a couple of wishbone plays here and there. But we will not run the spread as an offense.
Heck, I'll be happy if we can just get Denard out from under center in the Hoke/BeBord, I mean Hoke/Borges offense.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^
I get pessimistic whenever I hear we're going away from a zone blocking scheme, because I think we have the best zone blocking line in the game next year, or close to it. Molk (now a senior) is the first guy in the country you'd want at center in a zone blocking 2011 offense.
I think a lot of what was taken for "fancy" offense under RR came down to the effectiveness of a guy like Molk against better defenses. Against mediocre or worse defensive linemen, Molk could get those consistent reach blocks, and was really effective at scoops and other hallmarks of zone blocking. When he gets one of those with a guy like Denard behind him, look out. Against better defenses, we didn't get those blocks so much, not because Molk played worse necessarily but because the difficulty level of such blocks is already high and made higher by the effectiveness of the interior defense. He couldn't get it done against Mississippi State, whose best defensive attribute was its interior line, right? Or Penn State. Or Wisconsin. Or Ohio State. All teams with great tackles.
In one-on-one blocking last year, Lewan stood out the most to me. Schilling at times maybe. Omameh was mediocre in the trenches and dominant downfield. Huyge and Patterson were pretty much just guys who fell apart against top competition (Purdue's ability to get Kerrigan against these guys was a big factor all game, remember?)
So it comes down to Molk.
I guess what I'm saying is even with really good zone blockers, zone blocking gets trumped by good interior defensive line play, which is probably being mistranslated as "doesn't work in the Big Ten." There may be some validity there.
If I'm drafting an offense from scratch for this O-Line two-deep:
| Lewan (So/Jr) | Barnum (Jr/Sr) | Molk (Sr/5th) | Omameh (Jr/Sr) | Huyge (Sr/5th) |
| Schofield/Huyge | OR Campbell (Jr/Jr) | Khoury (Jr/Sr) | Mealer (Jr/Sr) | OR Schofield (So/Jr) |
... I get really interested really quickly in the development of Campbell, Barnum and Schofield, and make my determination based on their strengths. Ultimately turning these guys into man blockers is going to end with them getting manhandled unless guys down the depth chart turn out to be "hogmolllies" (for lack of a more descriptive word) who were only struggling to crack the depth chart because of downfield whiffing.
The growing pains to get this offensive line were profound. Remember, in 2007 we started running it with Long, Kraus, Boren, Mitchell, and Schilling, and the result was a lot of three-yard runs where Long crushed the playside end, and then Hart was caught from behind by a guy Alex Mitchell's girth never had a chance of delaying. It cratered in '08 except for the emergence of Molk and the momentary success of Minor RAGE. Finally this year it started coming together with the addition of Lewan and the maturation of Omameh. Had any of the talented backups emerged as better options than Schilling and/or Huyge 2011 would have been its apex.
I can get behind a transition back to man blocking, especially because Michigan is one of the few schools that can justify doing so given the program's ability to recruit athletic big men for every O-line position (man blocking puts greater emphasis on weak links). Really, the best way to beat Ohio States every year is to line up guys of equal size and talent to their typically large and very talented D-Line, and make 'em say "uncle." On the other hand, the way to really run up the score on the less talented is to zone around them for 8 to 88 yards per play.
But doing so this year pretty much puts us right back to 2007 again, doesn't it? What's the point of having David Molk if you're going to send his tough and quick but decidedly tiny butt into the legs of a DT each time? What's the good of Omameh if you're not freeing him to get to the 2nd level and hone in on linebackers? What happens when the offense hinges on Huyge holding up against a conference (still) full of fantastic defensive ends?
Comments