ADVERTISEMENT

Two Major Points About Our Former Offense

JudgeDD

Silver Buffalo
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2010
1,405
4,199
113
Inevitably, tagging along with all the OC talk on the board lately, have been the critiques of our offensive scheme of the past few years. I've mentioned both of the following points before on here. And I'm sure it's just me who reads these two repeated fallacies like fingernails on a chalkboard (for you younger guys, a chalkboard was the precursor of the whiteboard and the SmartBoard). I offer these thoughts in an attempt to ease my pain.

1. There is no READ OPTION. It is redundant. Think about it. Both words, in essence, mean the same thing. Every Option is a Read. The correct terminology for the scheme is ZONE READ - zone blocking with a QB read. Yes, many football gurus make this mistake. Yes, even some coaches make this mistake. It doesn't mean it isn't still a mistake. Let's up our collective football vocab on here and adopt Zone Read as the acceptable term. Really, you sound at least 10% smarter just saying it.

2. Marshall doesn't run the ZONE READ (formerly known as the Read Option). Most of our running plays are variations of Inside or Outside Zone - handoffs with zone-blocking concepts. There is no read. Contrary to popular belief, we have not been trying to take a dropback QB and force him into a QB-running offense. It also isn't that Litton won't run; it is, instead, that he isn't being asked to run. Marshall's Zone runs are similar to those run by every NFL team. No one is upset that Tom Brady isn't running more. It's because he isn't supposed to. And neither is Litton. At most, we have called just a couple true Zone Reads in any single game. The vast majority of Litton's handoffs are just that - HANDOFFS. He isn't supposed to keep the ball.

Now, you can be upset that we have not been running the ZONE READ, and believe that we should be using our QB's legs as well as his arm. You can be angry like I am, when we have often left the traditional "read" defender unblocked but still don't read him and he runs down the play. But you can't be critical (of Litton, at least) that he doesn't run enough. And you can't be critical of our coaching staff for "trying to fit a square peg (dropback passer) onto a round hole (zone read scheme)." That has not been happening.

Oh, and you can't say read option.

Thank you for letting me get this off my chest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToesMU
That's because he either quickly got rid of the ball whenever there was a hint of pressure. I think the sack statistic in evaluating an offensive line is as useless as time of possession. As I recall in a number of our losses we had a clear time of possession advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwolfHerdfan
Our OL isn't that good man. Neither is the coach. Year in and out we are told how good it is and it's not
 
Our OL isn't that good man. Neither is the coach. Year in and out we are told how good it is and it's not


Agreed. Development is an issue. Our Oline is lean and slightly weak. They are conditioned to sit, wait and contain. I would prefer to see our guys finish opponents and open holes or at least put their hands on opponent and drive them down the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HerdFan73
I actually thought our OL was greatly improved from a year ago. We had 3 Fr playing and I thought they did a bang up job. Another winter in the weight room will help them run block in the fall.
 
Agreed. Development is an issue. Our Oline is lean and slightly weak. They are conditioned to sit, wait and contain. I would prefer to see our guys finish opponents and open holes or at least put their hands on opponent and drive them down the field.

The OL is lean (by coaches' design) and young, but not weak. The reason you don't see our OL drive and finish is a result of scheme, not ability--something that frustrates me at times. Perhaps our new OC will ask something different from his OL.
 
The OL is lean (by coaches' design) and young, but not weak. The reason you don't see our OL drive and finish is a result of scheme, not ability--something that frustrates me at times. Perhaps our new OC will ask something different from his OL.

The Oline has many young players with tons of ability. It will be interesting to see how their abilities are developed and utilized. S&C is vital to a programs success. I find it interesting that there's little attention or conversation surrounding the effectiveness of MU's S&C/Nutrition program. IMO, a having bigger, stronger guys up front is a must especially with the addition of a new QB. The D line appears to be getting thinner by the day as well. With the decrease in # of players at that position, it will be of importance that our linemen are strong , well conditioned and remain healthy on both sides of the ball. Our success next season will depend upon it.
 
Last edited:
The OL is lean (by coaches' design) and young, but not weak. The reason you don't see our OL drive and finish is a result of scheme, not ability--something that frustrates me at times. Perhaps our new OC will ask something different from his OL.
So while we throwing Legg under the bus and your venting. I want to vent!

Why does our coaching staff recruit so many kids with social and academic risks that our turnover left our roster in 2016 so thin we could not field a competitive team and in 2017 it was so young we struggled?

Does Doc really understand that character matters?

And does he understand how to build a roster that is built for success of the long-term without peaks and valleys?

Also does he give his coaches the ability to have a say in who we offer and bring in to the team?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31Herd55
ADVERTISEMENT