Receivers in the spread

RE: Receivers in the spread (Mwolves25)

Thu, 22 May 2008 07:01:55 GMT

The spread just needs wide outs who can beat their defenders one-on-one.

RE: Receivers in the spread (egami)

Mon, 19 May 2008 12:17:40 GMT

It depends on what types of QB's and WR's RR continues recruiting. If we get more true Spread Option QB's then I don't know that those types of WR's are of any inherent great benefit. If we get QB's that have down field passing ability, then there is no question a mix of WR types could prove potent. Just look what New England did last season in the NFL. But at the college level I wouldn't say they are needed for success.

A lot of people forget that Manningham, on paper, isn't that ideal player....he's 6 feet even, not the fastest 40 time, but he makes up for it in "game speed" and by being a play-maker.

It's just generally going to be interesting to see what RR can do with the Michigan recruits. At WVU he had to adapt the system to the players he was able to get. Here, he's going to essentially have pick of the litter with our name recognition.

A lot of Michigan fans I've read comments on various boards have insinuated for a LONG time that we need to run a Spread offense of sort. Imo, it doesn't matter what offense we run at UM so long as we aren't as conservative and predictable as we were under Carr/DeBord. Lining them up and banging pads worked up through the latter part of last century. However, we'd be fine today running a more USC-like Pro offense, which incorporates some Spread aspects but most importantly isn't as conservative in nature, versus what we were doing.

In the end, change was needed...we went the RR route, which means Spread O, I don't really care so long as we are in BCS games and beating Ohio State.

RE: Receivers in the spread (GoBlueChevy)

Sat, 17 May 2008 11:46:07 GMT

When I started this thread I made the mistake of thinking that Manningham and Arrington left for the draft early for similar reasons that Mallet did which probably was not the case.

I think we all believe that because of the program Michigan is, there is potential for Rodriguez to develop the most potent spread attack that college football has seen. I believe utilizing Manningham and Edwards type receivers is a key component to accomplishing this.

RE: Receivers in the spread (mazebacker70)

Sat, 17 May 2008 06:02:21 GMT

I think the thinking is the smaller WR are tougher to catch and tackle.

RE: Receivers in the spread (ScottsdaleBlue)

Fri, 16 May 2008 22:23:22 GMT

Take WVU's spread the past couple years and add a few more 4 star and 5 star players. That's what we are looking at for Michigan.

Go Blue!!

RE: Receivers in the spread (MaizeRage6320)

Fri, 16 May 2008 20:03:39 GMT

Receivers in the spread don't have to all be tiny. Rich couldn't exactly recruit the bigs to catch passes at WVU when he had Slaton and White in the backfield, so he got what he could. Little guys are crucial for the inside slot positions, but if the offense is going to have balance it needs guys who can stretch the field and go up to fight for the ball. Everyonbe has this idea that the spread is all about speed and little guys. Last I checked, a white guy who ran it pretty well at Utah went #1 overall in the draft.

Rich Rodrguez will get a blend of big guys and little sneaky guys, balancing out the passing game all while making the spread even more lethal.

RE: Receivers in the spread (MichFan4Life)

Fri, 16 May 2008 17:17:00 GMT

ORIGINAL: maizecraize215

Clemson is my second favorite NCAA football team. The beginning of the year they are as good as any team, at least lately, but then they have a bad loss and don't seem to recover. I love when Clem and FSU play at the beginning of the year. They are always hyped up.

I was at last years Clemson-FSU game, place was nuts. Once again made me wish Michigan would climb aboard the night game scene.

RE: Receivers in the spread (maizecraize215)

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:50:55 GMT

Clemson is my second favorite NCAA football team. The beginning of the year they are as good as any team, at least lately, but then they have a bad loss and don't seem to recover. I love when Clem and FSU play at the beginning of the year. They are always hyped up.

RE: Receivers in the spread (OC Michigan Fan)

Thu, 15 May 2008 19:51:57 GMT

and they were the 1981 National Champions.

That was the first issue of Sports Illustrated I ever got! #22 on the cover, I think?

Anyway, my point wasn't to knock Clemson U. Just saying that for not doing all that much lately (have they finished in the top 20 recently?), and still having Bowden as the head coach, they sure seem to suddenly be attracting top recruits.

RE: Receivers in the spread (Crispy)

Thu, 15 May 2008 16:00:15 GMT

Also, back when I was young (that would be the 80s), Clemson was the ACC football powerhouse. Not that that is such a big deal, but they are still hold the most all-time ACC conference titles, and they were the 1981 National Champions.

So they have some history, too.

RE: Receivers in the spread (MichFan4Life)

Thu, 15 May 2008 15:36:31 GMT

ORIGINAL: OC Michigan Fan

What's up with Clemson all of the sudden in the recruiting world?

Ever been to Clemson's campus? Climate is warm, athletic facilities are 2nd to none, co-eds are unbelievably good looking, just about all the educational buildings are new(at the very least they all seem to be no older than 10 years). There is nothing not to like about Clemson, I`ve been there twice now and I kid you not the moment I got back from the trip I looked into transferring (sadly they don't have a criminal justice program )

RE: Receivers in the spread (2WalterSmith2)

Thu, 15 May 2008 14:50:57 GMT

If you're not comfortable with "hitting someone up," maybe you shouldn't help with recruiting.

RE: Receivers in the spread (ScottsdaleBlue)

Thu, 15 May 2008 14:29:26 GMT

Maybe I should give RR a call and say i would be more than happy to be his local recruiter.

Also, there seems to be a lot of "hitting one another up"....

"I've talked to Shavodrick Beaver even more. When he committed he hit me up on MySpace and said, 'I'd love to have you (at Michigan). Hit me up so I can holler at you not just about football, but about life in general.'

"So I hit him up and ever since then we've been cool. We've been talking just about every day."

RE: Receivers in the spread (OC Michigan Fan)

Thu, 15 May 2008 12:31:28 GMT

What's up with Clemson all of the sudden in the recruiting world?

RE: Receivers in the spread (section26)

Thu, 15 May 2008 12:05:47 GMT

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/OPINION03/805150306

RE: Receivers in the spread (MichFan4Life)

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:18:31 GMT

ORIGINAL: deuce22

I don't think they've necessarily been dismissed. We already have those types of guys on the roster as opposed to absolutely 0 of the speedy slot type guys. I definitely think a bigger deep threat kind of guy still fits the offense and will still be a dangerous weapon that can loosen up the D. When RR had Chris Henry he used him tons, I think it's more likely a case of RR having a harder time luring quality guys in that mold to WVU...that and I don't think Pat White is the best deep passer.

I think there are lots of people that will be surprised at what UM's offense looks like and develops into. It seems there is a tendency to think of RR's O at WVU in the run happy White/Slaton era as set in stone this is RR's offense, while forgetting what it was like before they were there or how it was when he was at Tulane and Clemson.

Bingo, we already have outside guys in Hemmingway, Stonum, Matthews, Clemons(even though we've play him at slot). We have no one naturally suited to play the slot on the roster so our recruiting reflects that. And we're not going after as many slot guys as it may look like, Bryce McNeal(6'2 180lbs) is not being recruited to play in the slot, neither is Rueben Randle(6'3 195), neither is Josh Gordon(6'4 215), or Cameron Gordon(6'2 195).

RE: Receivers in the spread (deuce22)

Mon, 12 May 2008 12:15:20 GMT

I don't think they've necessarily been dismissed. We already have those types of guys on the roster as opposed to absolutely 0 of the speedy slot type guys. I definitely think a bigger deep threat kind of guy still fits the offense and will still be a dangerous weapon that can loosen up the D. When RR had Chris Henry he used him tons, I think it's more likely a case of RR having a harder time luring quality guys in that mold to WVU...that and I don't think Pat White is the best deep passer.

I think there are lots of people that will be surprised at what UM's offense looks like and develops into. It seems there is a tendency to think of RR's O at WVU in the run happy White/Slaton era as set in stone this is RR's offense, while forgetting what it was like before they were there or how it was when he was at Tulane and Clemson.

Receivers in the spread (GoBlueChevy)

Mon, 12 May 2008 11:55:40 GMT

As we all know since Rodriguez stepped in that he has gone after the smaller and speedy type wide receiver to fit into his offensive scheme as excel in the open spaces that the spread creates. I have been wondering why the prototypical "Michigan" receiver is dismissed as not being suited for the spread. We have used these lumbering and physical receivers for the past 20 years and have always had a deep threat at that position. Is vertical passing/the deep ball automatically taken away with the base defenses that teams use to stop the spread? Why wouldn't it be beneficial to have a big physical receiver to compliment an arsenal of speedy and shifty receivers?