justingoblue

September 14th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^

That's exactly what I think. I also think he isn't necessarily needed against EMU, and probably not for SDSU or Minnesota, so if they want to put him under center all game or on the bench in the third I'm fine with that too. I want to see OSU get Denarded too, not just ND.

jlvanals

September 14th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^

One of the biggest problem's we're going to face down the road is that we're asking our kids to run two totally different offenses.   Beyond not repping one system and gaining a comfort level with it, the problem with shoving a 5'10 speed demon into an I-Formation (which is inexcusable to run in general as it is the least efficient formation in football) is that his 3-step drops are going to get consistently batted down and it functionally eliminates him from doing anything but attacking the outside on an option.  Also, our fullbacks blow, so you're taking a position we have very good depth (WR) and replacing it with a walk on who fumbles on the 1 foot line. 



I also don't know that I would write off any of those games (other than EMU) as autowins.  We didn't run the ball well  out of the I-form against Western Michigan and I don't know how the RBs are going to suddenly get better now.  Regardless of comfort level, Borges is taking a top 10 offense in college football and severely hamstringing it.  The first three quarters against ND should provide a wealth of evidence as to how far Borges will go in trying to ram these square pegs into his round hole.  We should have lost that game due to his intransigence but for an improbably lucky string of events.

Nick

September 14th, 2011 at 6:59 PM ^

Ive read all your comments here and I have exactly the same gripes as you.  Completely agree with everything you've said.

Why be sub-optimal when you don't have to?  The blueprint to success is available.  Its called last years game tape.

jmblue

September 14th, 2011 at 7:22 PM ^

I'd argue that an offense that can't function out of the I is itself sub-optimal.  What "success" did we enjoy against OSU and Mississippi State?  A truly great offense can operate out of both formations.  The only way to get there is to get more reps out of the I.

jlvanals

September 14th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^

didn't want the Post to be tldr.  The article was the subject of the post, I was asked later what my problem with I-form was and I explained it  See my comments above.  Cliff's Notes:  I-form stacks three of your players in a row, condenses space, makes it easier to defend as a general rule, although can be useful if your team is physically better than the other squad and/or normal expectations for yards are not applicable (e.g. goal-line).

HouseThatYostBuilt

September 14th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^

I don't necessarily think the I-form is generally easier to defend. Yes, it does condense space, but that can be just as much of a disadvantage for the defense as it is for the offense. It's more difficult to get to a ball carrier when multiple teamates are surrounding him and blocking for him.

On the other hand, spread formations give more direct access to the ball carrier, but oftentimes a lone defender is responsible for making the stop. It's really just a speed vs. size thing.

jlvanals

September 14th, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^

But you can run those exact same plays, while out flanking your opponent, out of an ace formation, motion over the H-back if you need to.   This isnt just a spread vs. I-form critique, its more a critique that the flexbone, ace, etc. can accomplish the exact same aims without wasting a dude in the backfield.

Fuzzy Dunlop

September 14th, 2011 at 3:02 PM ^

An I-formation is "inexcusable to run in general"?  

Now that it's clear we're dealing with an idealogue, there's no sense attempting a rationale discussion, so I'll abstain other than to note that Hopkins is certainly not a "walk-on."

jlvanals

September 14th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^

Is tactically inferior to almost any other formation one can draw up.  Of course this is just my unvarnished opinion, but a good deal of o-coordinators I've talked to feel the same way.  I have no problem with pro-style offenses in general, but an I-form is useful in very limited circumstances, if the offensive coordinator wishes to have a tactical advantage.  That last phrase is key.  The reason Wisconsin does it so well is that they believe they are physically superior to their opponents (most of the time they are correct) and that, despite not using the fullback more optimally to outflank the defense (as a TE in an ace form) or to force the defense to cover a slot receiver with an LB (WR in an ace slot/shotgun/whatever), they can beat your front 7 (functionally 8) by mauling them and using the fullback as insurance.  One of the big downsides of an ace set, shotgun, etc is that when the RB is carrying the ball, there is typically no lead blocker, thus no one to clean up in the event of a missed assignment or if the defense happens to overload your playside with a blitz.    While this shouldn't happen often, it is a sort of "cost of doing business."  Sometimes the defense guesses right, but over the course of a game, the foregone yards by bunching 8 of your 11 players in the tackle box, 3 of them lined up like ducks in a row shouldn't equal the extra yards you could have gained by more optimally using your personnel and the space on the field.  Hence why Wisconsin has a ton of 20 play drives spanning damn near a quarter of football (shorter gains, less risk of negative plays). 



The I-form IS useful in goalline situations where the risk of going backward is significantly more damaging than the upside of going further forward, but even then one could make a strong argument that a flexbone or diamond formation accomplishes the same tasks better by giving the offense more options (think playcall. With a flexbone you're challenging the offense horizontally, but not vertically, which isn't a problem inside the 10, eg. not much vertical space to challenge.  With an I-form, you dont have the same motion with BOTH sides of the field tested).  I always ask people this: what does an iform fullback dive really accomplish from a tactical standpoint?  No one I've talked to has ever given me an answer that another formation/play doesn't address better. 

Anyway, you are correct that is a personal bias/preference, but I'm not just talking out of my ass and am certainly no spread ideologue as you suggest.  :)

TESOE

September 14th, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^

Wisconsin has no 20 play drives this year...they are a different team with Wilson...in fact they are the proto type of what Borges is going after IMO.  If Denard and Michigan can match that I'm happy with I form - under center - whatever.  They are averaging 2.5 min scoring drives.  Granted they did close out UNLV with a 7 minute drive.

Wisconsin drive chart through 2 weeks...

Start Time Time Poss Drive Begin # of Plays Yards Gained Results
15:00 3:11 WISC 35 7 65 Touchdown
10:08 1:56 WISC 44 6 56 Touchdown
4:18 3:40 WISC 20 8 80 Touchdown
10:44 1:54 WISC 35 4 65 Touchdown
1:45 0:31 WISC 44 3 56 Touchdown
0:44 0:44 WISC 41 3 52 Field Goal
12:14 1:46 UNLV 28 4 28 Touchdown
9:27 0:42 UNLV 42 2 42 Touchdown
2:53 1:44 WISC 15 3 4 Punt
11:41 2:18 WISC 16 3 -5 Punt
7:20 7:20 WISC 26 11 56 End of Game
12:15 1:29 WISC 18 3 7 Punt
9:53 1:18 ORST 14 3 14 Touchdown
6:30 6:16 WISC 6 11 45 Punt
11:53 4:11 WISC 49 8 61 Touchdown
5:33 5:06 WISC 28 12 82 Touchdown
15:00 2:51 WISC 20 6 65 Touchdown
7:23 2:16 WISC 10 3 11 Punt
3:29 3:34 ORST 43 8 43 Touchdown
10:58 3:16 WISC 13 5 43 Punt
2:38 1:56 WISC 19 5 26 Downs
AVERAGE 2:45   5.6 42.7  

 

Needs

September 14th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^

We won't really know if Wisconsin is effective with Wilson this year until they play Nebraska. Right now, they're playing teams they're so physically superior to that scheme doesn't really matter. (This is a perenial problem with Wisconsin's OOC schedule.)

TESOE

September 14th, 2011 at 10:55 PM ^

Give Wilson his due.  He has a 237 rating (2nd in the nation.)  That is performance against anybody be they UNLV or an FCS team.

All I'm saying is the OP is using hyperbole and that detracts from whatever point he is trying to make.  Wisconsin didn't have  a 20 play drive last year either.

Kids and grown men will line up in I formation long after we are all dead.  It works fine when executed well.   Schematic advantage is overrated relative to talent, training and teamwork.

Blue in Yarmouth

September 14th, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^

was all on the running backs. The blocking on their runs was horrible. Shaw and Fitz can run the ball, they have proved that. Why Hopkins got so many snaps in that game is a little mind boggling though. 

Personally I would like to see them let Denard play out of the gun all season and run their offense from there, even if it isn't going to be a spread. It is clear we are doing better in those instances as far as yards go. 

I would like to see them give him a legit shot at taking a run at the heisman, and he could do it if the play calling cooperates.

big10football

September 14th, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^

I don't understand your thought process. Do you really think that Borges should have come here, after 20 years of experience as a coordinator, and simply learned how to run Rich Rod's offense? Did you expect him to go back and study Rich Rod and McGee's playbook from last year to figure out how to run an offense with Denard, then try to emulate Rich Rod's playcalling so that we have a seamless transition in year 1?

The guy has an offensive system that he runs, just like every other Offensive Coordinator worth his salt. He watched both quarterbacks run the system in the Spring and Fall and felt that Denard could work well within the system. He also made a lot of changes to accommodate Denard's skill set. I think that it's silly to think that he's just going to come in, study Rich Rod's offense, and try to do everthing the offense did last year. He has to install his offense at some point, now is as good of a time as any.

The team is struggling on offense because they are learning a new system. They are struggling much like most teams that try to transform their offensive philosophy. I watched BJ Daniels last year struggle mightily in a new offense under Skiip Holtz and Todd Finch. He made horrible decisions, missed wide-open receivers, and was inaccurate. However, he worked hard over the offseason, learned the offense (as well as the rest of the team) and on Saturday he set career highs in completions and yards in less than 3 quarters of play. Growing pains are part of the process. Just because something didn't work in the second game after instaling a new system, doesn't mean that it is hopeless. It probably means that it needs to be practiced more.

Blue in Yarmouth

September 14th, 2011 at 3:20 PM ^

He wasn't great at anything anyway, so who cares if someone asked him to change what he was doing.

Denard, on t he other hand, has proven he is one of the most dynamic players in college football today. He set NCAA records last year for pete sake, as a first year starter. Daniels is not even close to the same.

I would agree that in most cases...probably 99% of the cases....you don't change your system for a player. This is one of those instances though, in my opinion. when you have a once in a life time player like Denard. BJ Daniels....not so much. 

big10football

September 14th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^

But my point is simply that you cannot expect a new offensive system to run efficiently in the first year that it is installed and just because plays don't work the first time they are used in a game, doesn't mean that they are a lost cause.

I expect Denard to have some ugly moments this year, but I still think that he will be great under Borges after a year of games and another offseason. It's like if a kid learning to ride a bike fell and scraped his knee and decided that he's never going to ride a bike again. You can't run in the opposite direction at the first sight of pain. It's going to be a slightly painful process, but I still think that next year's Denard will be great. Imagine what the offense would look like if he becomes an efficient downfield passer.

The struggles are expected when installing a new system. Whenever the struggles take place, it isn't a "told you so" moment for those who think we should only run out of shot gun. It's a natural part of the process.

BlueInClearwater

September 14th, 2011 at 5:53 PM ^

Anecdotes about knee scrapes and whatnot aside, we are so much more effective running the offense primarily out of the 'gun, that's what we should do because we want to win football games. Borges has the intelligence to figure out how to incorporate his offense with the spread while Denard is our QB and game by game, month by month, have his west coast pro-style system in place by the time Gardner is the QB. In the meantime, while Denard is still playing for Michigan, we would like to win as many football games as possible, and trying to get a 6'0" tall, dilithium-infused, electrifying player like Denard to run the same offense as you would install for John Navarre is silly. Look at the first 3 quarters before Borges took the ball and chain off of him if you want evidence (look I know Borges doesn't drop passes, ect.). If you want to run the offense from under center all day just because it is what Al Borges has done for 20 years and score like we did the first 3 quarters of the game and average under 3 YPC, then more power to you. I think Borges should do whatever is most effective to put points on the board to win football games and running our O from the 'gun is more effective, man.

BlueInClearwater

September 14th, 2011 at 5:31 PM ^

All the above poster said was that he wishes the offense was ran primary out of the 'gun for the rest of the season. Not that he had to come in and study Rich's exact offense and emulate his playcalling, that's ridiculous. A lot of college teams run a spread offense based primary out of the 'gun and most, if not all of coordinators that run it, did it without emulating Rich's playcalling. Denard is more suited for the 'gun for obvious reasons and our team YPC is wayyyy higher when we run from the 'gun. He doesn't have to do everything that Rich did last year, I do not know where the hell you're getting that from, we just get better results (although only two games worth of sample size) from lining up in the 'gun, dude. This may be hard to believe for you but Rich Rod didn't invent the 'gun. Also, as the other poster replied, BJ Daniels is a bad comparison to our situation anways, he is nowhere near the threat on the ground Denard is, he is a mobile quarterback, but not in the same hemisphere as far as exploiting whoever he is playing with his legs like Denard can.

joeyb

September 14th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^

The "offenses" are not that different. The WRs are running the same routes and making the same blocks. The RBs run where the hole is. The main difference is the OL blocking in different schemes and they have to start somewhere. They don't just learn a blocking scheme overnight. It took RR 3 years to get the OL to where they needed to be. Do you think that they are going to stop movement toward a Power blocking scheme until Denard is gone? That means we are just prolonging our woes until the 2013 season. Practice makes them better. If they don't take the opportunity to run I-Form the next 3 games, then they won't get any better at it.

Inexcusable = unacceptable = four-letter word around here

What's the difference if Denard 3-step drops or sits in the pocket from shotgun? Are you saying you want him throwing from the run on every play?

Denard can take a 3-step or 5-step drop while the back 7 drop into coverage and then sprint up the center of the field. PA Boot will allow Denard to run if nothing is open, he just seems to refuse to do it.

Hopkins fumbled. He's a RB. McColgan is our FB and he caught a pass for a 15 yard gain and a first down in the game.

Someone did the math; they took out Fitz's long run and his goalline runs and he averaged soemthing like 4.8 YPC, which is pretty good. Adding those back in makes it better.

If anything, the first 3 quarters of the ND game show what happens when Denard completes fewer than 30% of his passes. When Denard completed 70% of his passes in the 4th quarter we actually moved the ball and scored. There is no offense that is going to work when the QB is completing 25% of his passes, except maybe Navy's. Guess what, though...their QB is under center. O_O

BigBlue02

September 14th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^

I don't really know what to tell you if you think throwing from the gun and taking a 3 step drop are similar.

Also, if the RichRod experiment taught us anything, at the very least, it taught us to be patient with an offensive transition.

gbdub

September 14th, 2011 at 8:19 PM ^

Yep, and the other 30% have been pretty ineffective. That may be fine against EMU if you're trying to add wrinkles or change things up, but against MSU etc. having 30% of your plays go for naught will kill a lot of drives (as it did against ND).

Yes, games against lesser opponents are a good opportunity to try some under center play action and power run concepts. Buyt why waste valuable snaps practicing something you know will be ineffective against the meat of the schedule?

Here's the rub: Our shotgun spread offense last year was good but not good enough to beat the top B1G teams. Our I-form under center run game will definitely not be good enough to beat the top B1G teams (because we lack a non Denard running threat to make play action believable and we haven't practiced it much). Even if a RB does emerge, that RB will still be inferior to Denard's running ability. So we have two options: perfect the shotgun stuff (even introduce some pro-style concepts into the shotgun game) so that our shotgun spread plays are good enough to beat the best of the B1G. OR let our shotgun spread skills stagnate / regress in an attempt to get 3.0 YPC out of our 2nd best runner.

Basically, if 70% of your plays are consistently more successful than 30% of your plays, why keep calling and practicing the 30% instead of perfecting the 70%? Save the under center stuff until we have the personnel and another offseason of practice.

blacknblue

September 14th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^

I agree we already know this team can score quickly and get big plays. I would feel alot better about the offense if they showed the ability to consistently move the ball and not be so streaky. A strong running game moving north and south is the easiest way to accomplish that.

jlvanals

September 14th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^

Is that we lack the personnel to manufacture a strong running game out of an I-formation.  We have one true outside receiver (Hemmingway), on the other side we're stick a slot guy on the outside (Roundtree is the best fit, but we had Gallon in there as well).  Plus, youre taking out a position that we have depth, experience and talent at (slot) and replacing it with a fullback where we have neither depth, experience or talent.   Add to that a 5'10 speed demon QB who now lines up IN FRONT OF two potential blockers, effectively eliminating him as a power running threat.  Also, as I pointed out above, 3 step drops are functionally eliminated since he's going to get so many passes batted down.  And starting under center gives him less time to read the defense/blocks. 

On top of this Borges is running two disparate systems which is not good for any offense.  Usually as an o-coordinator you want your kids to run ~10 plays or variations thereof for 80-90% of your snaps.   The more plays and blocking schemes you ask your kids to learn, the lower their level of comfort with the entire system, or in this case two systems. 



I hope this works out as much as anyone, but Borges seems to want to keep asking our kids to do things they simply can't do.

BlueVoix

September 14th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^

McColgan has played in 25 games.  While I'm as impressed as anyone by Gallon's breakout performance this week, I'd like to see more from him before labeling him - or any other third WR - as more important or "better" at their position (an almost entirely subjective matter when you're comparing a RS Senior FB and a RS Sophomore WR).

Steve Watson is probably your number two FB, if Hopkins doesn't get the call.

bronxblue

September 14th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^

I'm not defending the OP's argument, but McColgan basically recorded very career high (yards, runs, catches, etc.) in that game against ND.  Nothing against the kid, and I think he'll be fine in this offense, but he was never really used by RR except in special teams.  Just because he's been here for 4-5 years doesn't mean he's "experienced" on the field.

BlueVoix

September 14th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^

I was dismissing the OP's statement about FB not having experience or depth, which is ridiculous when you have a player like McColgan backed up by Watson or Hopkins.  That he doesn't get touches doesn't mean he isn't experienced in what a FB is suppoed to do.  Block, followed by occasionally getting out in the flat for a catch.