HUGE difference. ONE MORE TIME...PAY ATTENTION....RichRod's offense is a gimmck offense, to start with because he has a 5' 11" 175 wide reciever playing QB, who is supposed to run the ball more than anyone else on the team. It's a read option offense not a spread offense. A "spread offense" uses a prototypical QB and is primarily a passing offense.

Nebraska's offense in the 90's evolved from the triple-option offense of the 70's which evolved from the Full House ISO offenses of the 50's. All of which were the norm for their day. Nebraska's formations looked more like the Pro Offenses of the period, except they ran the option(not triple option) 75% of the time.

bigkahuna;577953 wrote:So, you're telling me that Troy Smith DIDN'T win the Heisman and play Florida with a more spread oriented team? Did they still line up in the I? Of course, but 2006 OSU was without a doubt spread oriented. Also Illinois with Juice Williams had a few really good years.

After watching this year's team. I truly feel that the "spread" can/will work in the Big 10. Of the 5 loses we had this year, I think 2 or 3 of them could have been won with a much better defense (Looking at Iowa, Penn State, and one more between MSU,Wisky,OSU). My personal opinion is that RR has improved every year as far as records are concerned.
If he doesn't go at least 8-4/9-3 next year, then he is gone.

Only if M*ch*gan's defense would have been good enough to hold OSU to a field goal or shutout. You might have wanted to have left them off that list. The others they did put a few points on.

Big Gain;578149 wrote:More ignorance. Troy Smith DID NOT quarterback a "spread offense" at Ohio State. Troy Smith rarely ran on a designed running play. How oftern does RichRod's QB run on designed running plays? You don't recall Pitman and Beanie running out of the I-formation with Troy Smith handiing them the ball? Ohio State ran out of multiple and diverse formations when Troy Smith was QB at Ohio State.

Are you that fucking retarded to where you can't read? I specifically said that they ran the ball out of the I often. However, I remember them going "spread" quite a few times that year as well. You're right, they did go multiple, but a lot of people considered them more spread oriented that year.

Scarlet_Fever;578184 wrote:Only if M*ch*gan's defense would have been good enough to hold OSU to a field goal or shutout. You might have wanted to have left them off that list. The others they did put a few points on.

I'll give you that.

Big Gain;578180 wrote:HUGE difference. ONE MORE TIME...PAY ATTENTION....RichRod's offense is a gimmck offense, to start with because he has a 5' 11" 175 wide reciever playing QB, who is supposed to run the ball more than anyone else on the team. It's a read option offense not a spread offense. A "spread offense" uses a prototypical QB and is primarily a passing offense.

Nebraska's offense in the 90's evolved from the triple-option offense of the 70's which evolved from the Full House ISO offenses of the 50's. All of which were the norm for their day. Nebraska's formations looked more like the Pro Offenses of the period, except they ran the option(not triple option) 75% of the time.

ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU. What is the difference between the zone read and single wing offense? So is Auburn not a gimmick offense because Cam Newton is BIG? Was Texas gimmicky with Vince Young? Over 3,000 yds passing and over 1,000 yds rushing when Texas won it all in '05. That too was a zone read offense, but I don't recall anyone calling his numbers gimmicky. Maybe you'll all just shut up when Devin Gardner runs the offense because you know, he's closer to Pryor's size.

The Zone Read offense is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the Single Wing offense. The Single Offense had 2 tight ends. The Single Wing QB never touched the ball, he was used as a third pulling guard. He lined up right behind and between the strong side guard and strong tackle. He trap blocked or kicked out on off-tackle plays and was the lead blocker on sweeps. The Single Wing center, the most importand player in the Single Wing offense, never looked up when he centered the ball. He centered the ball to either the Fullback or Tailback. He actually lead the Tailback by 3 feet as the Tailback was a half count in motion when the ball was centered for an off tackle play or sweep. Those 2 backs lined up behind the 2 guards. The Tailback always behind the weak side guard and the Fullback always behind the strong side guard. The Tailback was always a half yard deeper than the Fullback. The Tailback ran the ball 80% of the time. There was a Wingback who always lined up beside the Strong Side Tight End and also was more of a bocker than a runner or reciever, except when running counter plays and reverses.

What you're thinking of is what was called the Single Wing "Spin Series". Which simply was the Tailback getting the snap from center and either handing off to the Fullback or the wingback in mortion or faking a hand off to either, then spinning around and running the ball himself. There was ABSOLUTELY NO OPTION, the hand off to the fullback or wingback or the fake/spin and run by the Tailback were specific called plays with specific blocking assignments for each play.

A successfull Single Wing Offense rarely used the "Spin Series" or passed the ball.

Auburn's offense and the Texas offense looks/looked nothing like Rich Rod's offense.

Devin Gardner will never play QB at Michigan. Rich Rod and his offense will gone before that occurs.

It's the same basic design though. You can't argue that. So Denard is a tailback instead of a fullback. The bottom line is that the philosophy of both are the same. A formation doesn't make an offense.

that_guy;577664 wrote:Agree 100%
Rodriguez was one of the top 3 bad hires I can remember in recent college football:
1) Keith Gilbertson- He flat out just didn't care, did nothing recruiting and the once solid Washington program still hasn't recovered (partially because of following this bad hire up with another one)
2) Bill Callahan- Just like Rick Rod, square peg in a round hole
3) Rick Rod
Next on my list is USC's hire of Lane Kiffen



You have to cut your losses at some point. After watching today's game can you honestly say he's close to competing with OSU? He's been there three years, and they still are pretty much garbage.

As an Ohio State fan, it's fun and all to crush Michigan every year, but I'd enjoy it more if they were at least a decent team, rather than a Big East type team wearing Michigan colors....

The Big Ten does not need U of M to be relevent, for the Big Ten to be relevent. Mihcigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State, Nebraska and Ohio State being relevent is more than enough. Hell, in the new Big Ten Michigan isn't even in the same Division with Ohio State. OSU and U of M might not even play each other the last game of the season every year anymore.

I don't give a shat if Michigan never has above a .500 record in the Big Ten ever again. I'd feel a little sorry for those born in Michigan, raised in Michigan, lived in Michigan most of their lives or went to U of M. However, the front runner/bandwagon U of M fans can suffer the rest of their lives.....OR jump ship.

bigkahuna;578260 wrote:It's the same basic design though. You can't argue that. So Denard is a tailback instead of a fullback. The bottom line is that the philosophy of both are the same. A formation doesn't make an offense.

The ONLY thing that is simlar is there is a direct snap from center, even that is dissimilar because the single wing center NEVER looks up before the snap. NOTHING else is even close. A successful Single Wing offense only passed about 10% of the time, just to keep the defense honest. The Single Wing offense was a POWER offense, 80% of the time running just 2 plays, Tailback off tackle to the strong side or Tailback sweep to the strong side.

The Single wing never used any wide receivers. The Single Wing used two of the 5 required backs primarily as blockers not runners or receivers.

So Michigan running a QB ISO or HB off tackle primarily even with 4 wide and those 4 receivers blocking isn't the same thing. What does the center looking up have to do with anything? He still blocks.

Terminology is different, but the philosophies are the same. If running was the corner stone of the single wing, look at Rich Rod's offenses in West Virginia, they were a HEAVY running team. You can look some things up for yourself, a lot of football historians, or whatever you want to call them, refer to this zone read offense as the modern Single Wing.

Texas' offense of the Vince Young days were different than Rodriguez's offense? How? I remember several people referring to that as "vintage Texas zone read." Please explain to me how these offenses are different.

I now understand why you have Big Gain on your IL LJ. He is delusional, and he doesn't approve of anything if it's not done by OSU.

There have been several other schools over the past 10 years that have run the exact same zone read offense as Michigan does, but yet those are different, and Michigan is "gimmicky." Like I said before, explain to me how these are different. You say the Single Wing and the Zone Read are completely different, even though they are not.

It's kind of funny, Michigan ran the "spin series" as you called it under Crisler and little bit of Yost. Yost was from WV too. So, this is really nothing new to Michigan.

Big Gain;578180 wrote:HUGE difference. ONE MORE TIME...PAY ATTENTION....RichRod's offense is a gimmck offense, to start with because he has a 5' 11" 175 wide reciever playing QB, who is supposed to run the ball more than anyone else on the team. It's a read option offense not a spread offense. A "spread offense" uses a prototypical QB and is primarily a passing offense.

Nebraska's offense in the 90's evolved from the triple-option offense of the 70's which evolved from the Full House ISO offenses of the 50's. All of which were the norm for their day. Nebraska's formations looked more like the Pro Offenses of the period, except they ran the option(not triple option) 75% of the time.

And running the spread of a variation of the spread offense isnt the norm right now? Look at the top teams, a good deal of them run a variation of the spread. Hell the 2 teams likely to meet for the BCS title game both run "gimmicky" offenses according to most.

Denard is a QB, dunno why you think hes a Wr playing QB. Assuming you're an OSU fan, Michigans Wr for a QB has passed for nearly as many yards as OSU's QB playing QB. You're obviously just trying to get a rise out of Michigan fans by calling him a Wr, kudos to you...guess it worked a little bit.

LJ;578163 wrote:I have Big Gain on my IL, didn't know he had said anything to you till MB quoted him. Sorry.

Its all good, I can see why youd have him on your IL lol.

Norm would mean 75% of teams run the spread option. Never going to happen. You saw what Ohio State did to Oregon's spread READ OPTION offense. You saw what Ohio State did to Michigan's spread READ OPTION offense. Saban choked or Auburn wouldn't be playing Oregon.

90% of the schools that recruited Denard wanted him to play wide receiver. The only way he plays at the nest level is if he plays wide receiver.

bigkahuna;578603 wrote:I now understand why you have Big Gain on your IL LJ. He is delusional, and he doesn't approve of anything if it's not done by OSU.

There have been several other schools over the past 10 years that have run the exact same zone read offense as Michigan does, but yet those are different, and Michigan is "gimmicky." Like I said before, explain to me how these are different. You say the Single Wing and the Zone Read are completely different, even though they are not.

It's kind of funny, Michigan ran the "spin series" as you called it under Crisler and little bit of Yost. Yost was from WV too. So, this is really nothing new to Michigan.

Have you ever played in a Single Wing offense? Have you ever coached a Single Wing offense? Have you ever thoroughly studed the Single Wing offense? I've pointed out the VAST difference between the Read Option and the Single Wing, what have you done to prove your positrion in the debate? The only thing I've seen is akin to "Because I say so."

The "spin series" is NOT what I call it, it's what ALL coaches and players who have coached or played in a Single Wing offense call it.

There is ZERO "read" in the Single Wing. There is ZERO "option" in the Single Wing. The Single Wing is a POWER offense. The Read Option is a SPEED offense. MORE PROOF. Make a list for us of all the reasons you think the Single Wing is quite similar to the Read Option. We patiently, yet eagerly, await your list.

bigkahuna;578596 wrote:So Michigan running a QB ISO or HB off tackle primarily even with 4 wide and those 4 receivers blocking isn't the same thing. What does the center looking up have to do with anything? He still blocks.

Terminology is different, but the philosophies are the same. If running was the corner stone of the single wing, look at Rich Rod's offenses in West Virginia, they were a HEAVY running team. You can look some things up for yourself, a lot of football historians, or whatever you want to call them, refer to this zone read offense as the modern Single Wing.

Texas' offense of the Vince Young days were different than Rodriguez's offense? How? I remember several people referring to that as "vintage Texas zone read." Please explain to me how these offenses are different.

Two Tight Ends and NO wideouts in the Single Wing is due to the Single Wing being a POWER offense, ZERO deception. Or as I've heard it said, "Here we come, stop us if you can." The Read Option is a SPEED offense and is based on spreading the field, with several wide receivers, deception and speed, NOT power backs. If you were knowledgeable at all about what a Single Wing center must do you would not say whats the difference. Yes the Single Wing center must ATTEMPT to block. Imagine this if you're capable. As a center you come to the line of scrimmage and there is a down lineman playing opposite you. You look between your legs to center the ball and that down lineman shifts and now a LB is over you and you are incapable of seeing the shift. Even more disconcerting, that down lineman when you look between your legs shifts to the gap on your right or left and shoots that gap. Again you could not see what that down lineman was doing because you CAN NOT look up until AFTER you center the ball. ALL snaps by a center in any type of a spread is always made looking at what the defense is doing before and during your snap. ONE HELL of a BIG differnce for the Center in the 2 compleely different offenses.

A "modern" Single Wing ONLY because there is never a QB under center. Is not Robinson refered to as Michgan's QB? The QB in the Single Wing NEVER touches the footbal. The QB in the Single wing is in actuality an EIGHTH offensive lineman. How many offensive linemen are there in the Read Option offense?

The BIG differne is once Vince Young left for the NFL Texas no longer ran that offense. RichRod would NEVER change from running HIS offense.

Seriously, who the hell told Paladin about this site. He was a dumbass on JJ and he's still a dumbass on here.

Big Gain;578618 wrote:Have you ever played in a Single Wing offense? Have you ever coached a Single Wing offense? Have you ever thoroughly studed the Single Wing offense? I've pointed out the VAST difference between the Read Option and the Single Wing, what have you done to prove your positrion in the debate? The only thing I've seen is akin to "Because I say so."

The "spin series" is NOT what I call it, it's what ALL coaches and players who have coached or played in a Single Wing offense call it.

There is ZERO "read" in the Single Wing. There is ZERO "option" in the Single Wing. The Single Wing is a POWER offense. The Read Option is a SPEED offense. MORE PROOF. Make a list for us of all the reasons you think the Single Wing is quite similar to the Read Option. We patiently, yet eagerly, await your list.

The neighboring school that I went to ran a single wing.

The part you are missing is that I am saying they are the exact same thing. They aren't. The zone read is an evolution of the single wing. You say it's not because there aren't double tights. A FORMATION DOES NOT MAKE AN OFFENSE. You can run the triple option like Nebraska did in the 90's and never run an I-Formation. You can have a spread passing attack and never go into shotgun.

You want a list? Here you go...

The single wing used a tailback, fullback and quarterback. Any of these players could get the ball direct snap from center, while the other 2 blocked. The deception is there because you don't know who is going to get the ball hiked to them. The zone read typically has a a quarterback and tailback, and sometimes a fullback. The ball can go to any of these based on the quarterback's decision. He can keep it, or hand it off. Sometimes he can straight hand it off. There is the deception. Both styles make the defense key on anyone in the backfield because anyone can get the ball. In the single wing, the tailback, who is usually lined up behind the center, is the feature back. In the zone read, the quarterback, who is lined up in the same position is the feature back. Like I said before, the terminology is different. In the single wing, you have double tights and an unbalanced line to have more blockers than defenders. In the zone read, you spread them out to have more blockers than defenders in the interior. I don't know how many times Michigan lined up with a TE, a wing (usually TE) and the running back all on the right side of the formation and you run a quarterback power to that side. See the similarities there? It's the same as an unbalanced line, with the run going there. Do you want something more?
As you stated before, the spin series, or buck lateral was a part of the single wing. Like I said before, Michigan ran that back in its hay day as well. With the spin/buck series, you have virtually the same aspects as the zone option/read offense of today. Are they mirror images? No, but there are similarities there.

Now, it's your turn. How is was Texas' offense with Vince Young and even Colt McCoy and Cam Newton's Auburn offense different or not gimmicky when Michigan is? Hell, what about Florida?

I drain 3's;578824 wrote:Seriously, who the hell told Paladin about this site. He was a dumbass on JJ and he's still a dumbass on here.

Who's paladin?

Hb31187;578613 wrote:Its all good, I can see why youd have him on your IL lol.

Hb, I think we both need to add him to ours. He must have gotten lasik eye surgery with a scarlet laser. It's completely engrained in him.

I drain 3's;578824 wrote:Seriously, who the hell told Paladin about this site. He was a dumbass on JJ and he's still a dumbass on here.

+10000000000000

bigkahuna;578847 wrote:Who's paladin?

It's Big Gain. Paladin was his name on JJ.

He believes he is much smarter than everyone else. Also, don't ever question any OSU coach for any reason, because to him, they can do no wrong. Before long, he'll bust out his stupid little words like "ilk" and "neophyte" to try to make himself sound smart.

Why is everyone arguing about what offense they run anyhow? The type of offense isn't the problem. It will work in the Big 10. It has worked in the Big 10. The problem is they don't always execute. And when you don't execute, it doesn't matter what offense you run, it won't work.

Michigan did not execute when it needed to against OSU. The End.

WebFire;579437 wrote:Why is everyone arguing about what offense they run anyhow? The type of offense isn't the problem. It will work in the Big 10. It has worked in the Big 10. The problem is they don't always execute. And when you don't execute, it doesn't matter what offense you run, it won't work.

Michigan did not execute when it needed to against OSU. The End.

this

Web, I agree with you. I just sick and tired of people calling Michigan's offense gimmick.