Crimes Against Manpanda Comment Count

Brian

11/5/2011 – Michigan 16, Iowa 24 – 7-2, 3-2 Big Ten

devin-gardner-fumble-iowa

Melanie Maxwell/AnnArbor.com

When Iowa punched in their final touchdown on Saturday the clock read 10:42 and Michigan had acquired 166 yards of offense. Forced into a hurry-up shotgun on their final three drives, Michigan matched their production from the first 50 minutes in the last ten. Denard Robinson ran 4 times for 23 yards; Vincent Smith had an 11 yard carry. Robinson was 10 of 18 for 126 yards* as Michigan scored, punted, and then wound their way down to the Iowa three.

You know what happens from there: with space compressed, no time to run, and Iowa blitzing up the middle on every play Robinson chucks one out of the endzone on first down, gets 49% of a touchdown on second, sees Smith drop 100% of a touchdown on third, and watches Roy Roundtree get interfered with on fourth. Ballgame.

Shifting circumstances make drawing judgments difficult… or at least they would if the late surge hadn't brought Michigan up to 323 yards, seventy-five less than Penn State, twenty-five less than Louisiana-Monroe, and better than only Tennessee Tech amongst Iowa opponents.

This now a trend. Michigan's played three games against BCS teams with winning records. In each they've fallen behind by multiple scores. Yardage in those games before entering desperation chuck mode: 130 (Notre Dame), 226 (MSU), and 166 (Iowa). Whatever the plan is, it doesn't seem to be working against teams better than Minnesota.

Better than Minnesota most weekends, anyway.

------------------------

In retrospect, the red carpet laid out by the Purdue defensive ends was MANBAIT with Iowa City the trap. Running against Purdue was easy from any formation, in any direction. This naturally got Michigan's coaches thinking they had ironed out the issues from earlier in the year, so they did more of it. It even worked for a bit. When Michigan came out with a bunch of I-Form in the first half they got yardage on a series of pounding iso plays.

The outside stuff went nowhere, though, and eventually Iowa adjusted to the iso thumping. When the dust cleared Smith and Toussaint averaged 3.6 yards a carry between them. Sacks excluded, Robinson nearly doubled that at 6.6. He got 11 carries, just like he did against Michigan State.

I just don't get it, man. The next person to draw a contrast between how Rodriguez adapted his offense to Threet/Sheridan and Borges did to Robinson gets the mother of all eyebrows cocked at them. On a team with one reasonable tight end, half a fullback, and Denard Robinson, Michigan goes play action from the I-form… a lot. They run Robinson about as often as their third down back. Game over.

This was the fear throughout many (many) offseason columns full of fretting and spread zealotry. It was the fear after the delirious Notre Dame game:

The thing I really really hated about the first three quarters (other than everything) was the way the offense made Denard mortal. This extended beyond the usual reasons 90 yards of offense in a half make you homicidal. Not only were we lost and hopeless in our first serious game after returning nine starters from one of the nation's most explosive offenses, but the guy who didn't transfer when his offense got fired out from under him was busy playing out everyone's worst-case scenarios.

I don't think I can take football games in which I'd rather have Alex Carder than Denard Robinson. A return of freshman Denard looking like a sad panda is too depressing for a multitude of reasons but mostly because just look at him:

denard-robinson-is-a-sad-panda

Shoehorning him into an offense that doesn't fit him is a crime against man and panda and manpanda. He had to be dying in the first half as he flung balls to Tacopants and ran waggles the entire stadium could predict. People twittered me about moving him to RB so Gardner can get on the field.

Iowa 2011 is to "Denard Robinson can't play QB for Brady Hoke" as Ohio State 2006 is to "Jim Tressel owns Michigan." It's the moment the premise goes from fear to fact.

There's still time to change this, like there was still time for someone, anyone, to beat Ohio State after Football Armageddon went the wrong way. But… man, it doesn't look good. Michigan has three games left plus a bowl of some variety. If they're going to avoid tailspin part three they'll have to figure out a way to pick up more than 200 yards in the first three quarters against the #6, #41, and #14 total defenses. The only way they've managed to crack 20 points against anyone of similar caliber is by closing their eyes and playing 500.

We've gone from a world in which Robinson is a genre-redefining All-American "back" to one in which the only reason there isn't a full-fledged quarterback controversy is because we've seen the backup go full Mallett whenever inserted into the game—this weekend it was usually after the actual offense picked up 20 yards. Robinson's legs have been relegated to sideshow, and the main event isn't pretty.

*[This does count the eight-yard completion that was wiped away by a defensive holding call. While you're down here in this aside I should explain that I picked the points at which to determine "chuck it" time like so:

ND: Michigan goes down 24-7 and gets the ball back at the tail end of the third. If you want to move that out a possession Michigan squeaks over 200 thanks to the 77-yard Hemingway catch and run and subsequent TD.
MSU: Pick six. Not that it mattered; M had 250 for the game.
Iowa: The hurry-up touchdown drive.]

Bullets

Good thing we avoided that second-half collapse thanks to the toughy tough toughness instilled by Brady Hoke. Like the second-half adjustments, that meme isn't looking so hot. At least the second-half thing had something more than a win over Purdue arguing for it.

On playing 500. I took a lot of crap the week of the Notre Dame game for having reservations about the offense. Crap-throwers are wrong: a more experienced Robinson surrounded by returning starters has doubled his INT rate. He's dropped to 54th in passer efficiency, shed 0.3 YPC, and still has three of the five toughest defenses on the schedule to play.

Denard has limitations. They are severe. He has assets that offset those. They are not being used effectively. He was an All-American last year and is being derided as plain "not very good" on blogs; he won't sniff a Heisman vote. He's gone backwards. The question is why. Candidate answers:

  • Losing Martell Webb, Darryl Stonum, and Steve Schilling.
  • Losing Rich Rodriguez.
  • Aging backwards like Benjamin Button.

I'll take door B. [usual tedious disclaimers for people who aren't arguing with things I actually write anyway]

On whatever that was. BWS brings some ugly numbers on a day with plenty to choose from:

In the first three quarters against Iowa, Michigan had 20 first downs. They ran the ball on 14 of them and gained only 50 yards for 3.57 YPC, mostly because Iowa broke tendency and played a single-high safety defensive front, stacked against the run.

I don't know everything that's ailing the rushing offense but you can't live with that paltry return if you've got Denard at QB.

I'll have to hit the tape for a full breakdown but Rothstein($) says Michigan ran their three-wide shotgun set 31 times, which is not many when you consider the final three drives had 24 shotgun snaps on them. He doesn't appear to be counting four wide shotgun stuff in that number, because Michigan ran plays from the spread on more than seven of their other 51 snaps. Right? I don't even know anymore.

The bipolar defense. Usually a 300 yard day will not see the opponent put up 24 points unless there's a ton of turnovers or a non-offensive touchdown or two. Michigan managed to cough up that many points despite the yardage because all other drives went nowhere. Drives in rough categories:

  • Long touchdown marches of 76, 78, and 62 yards.
  • 17 and 28 yard four-and-outs (ie: first down on a chunk play on first play of drive, then bupkis).
  • Five drives of nothing. One ends in a FG after the fumble.

Not a whole lot of in-between. This has no significance, it's just weird. If Michigan had been able to move the ball at all the defense's ability to boot Iowa right off the field would have set them up with some short stuff eventually. We've come full circle when the offense's ineptness is making the defense's performance look worse than it actually was.

I guess no turnovers is a bummer.

The first thing I loathe about the Hoke era. Second-and-long I-form big play action. So unbelievably predictable it hurts. Last week it ended up in a sack that put Michigan in third and twenty; this week no one was open and there was an end in Robinson's face because everyone in the state knew it was coming.

Devin package. If Michigan can't run a straight dropback pass with Devin Gardner in the game because they don't trust him to throw and don't trust Robinson to be a real receiving threat, the Gardner package—which has devolved from a potentially confusing Mad Magicians reincarnate to "watch us run or not run this jet sweep"—is no longer viable, if it was ever viable at anything other than throwback screens.

Since when do you know how to gamble? I do not like the version of Kirk Ferentz that realizes it is not 1960. I was counting on Ferentz spurning expectation three or four times in this game; instead he goes on fourth and one from the Michigan 39 (the unsuccessful sneak), goes on fourth and seven(!) from the Michigan 34, and is about to go for it on fourth and one on the Michigan 43 when his kid picks up a false start. His profit from the two decisions to go: the game-winning points. Boo.

If Zook goes on fourth and three from the Michigan 40 I'm going to have a fit.

Wither Jake Ryan? I don't know what to make of Jake Ryan's absence. Michigan went with Beyer (SLB) and Clark (nickel DE) instead early, then worked Ryan in a little bit as the game got late. He didn't seem injured—he made the play on the late third-and-one that set up Michigan's unsuccessful last-ditch drive. Suspension? There has to be some external factor.

Second alarming thing: even with Ryan limited, Cam Gordon did not appear. That's a precipitous drop. He is moving towards Bolivian.

dr09[1]

Des Moines Register

Martin. Balling. Pretty much the only thing Iowa fans were mad about was the play of a particular guard of theirs; this was because Martin was lighting him up all day. If the linebackers had played well Coker would have had a 3 YPC day because so many plays hardly got to them.

Linebackers did not have a good day. There is a downside of having Chris Spielman doing color for your game when you are a person who purveys football analysis for a living: he steals your thunder. About two seconds after I declared that Desmond Morgan was "killing" Michigan, Spielman was pointing it out in telestrated glory. A big chunk of Iowa's second touchdown drive was on Morgan. He was pulled shortly after for Hawthorne and returned later, presumably chided.

That's life with freshmen. Good thing we won't be starting any next—aw, hamburgers. /shakes fist at Rodriguez

Scrambling. The universe believes Denard Robinson should be very good at scrambling and thus asserts he is. Unfortunately, repeating this enough does not make it true. However, in this game it seemed like there was nowhere to go. With certain limited exceptions Iowa was barely pretending to rush Robinson, instead sitting their defensive linemen around the LOS in a picket fence. In that situation Denard should have surveyed and hit his checkdowns, which he did on Michigan's first-half touchdown drive and would have a few more times if the Iowa DEs weren't so intent on this contain business that they can leap up and bat down floaters to Smith.

Going for two. A not-very-important game theory note: Michigan should have gone for two when they scored to cut the lead to nine. You have to go for two sooner or later; going earlier allows you to adjust your strategy based on the result. There were a couple people arguing that you need to "keep it a one score game" by kicking the extra point, but it's not a one-score game if you're down eight. It's a one-score game 40% of the time and a two-score game 60% of the time. Knowing which one helps you play correctly when you get the ball with five minutes left, for example.

Second game theory note. Ace and I had an argument on the podcast about the playcalling on the last series, with Ace taking the same position MGoFootball does:

What you do with :16 to go after getting a first down at the 3 yard line…

Hindsight, just sayin’, etc., but I don’t think the timeout should have been used before you give Denard a shot to either run a power play or rollout and find a running lane on 1st down. Ideally, Michigan hurries to the line of scrimmage, gets set faster than the defense, and off Denard goes.  TD’s may have ensued. So, as the day would have it, Michigan calls their final timeout with 16 seconds left on the clock.

I side with the coaches here. The fourth down play came with two seconds left. Unless you are snapping the ball on the ready for play—not feasible—you are giving away your fourth down. I'd rather keep it than have the ability to run once in three downs instead of four. YMMV.

The thing that rankled was watching Michigan run 10 to 15 seconds off the clock on a play earlier in that drive. If they get that play off quickly Michigan can save their timeout and threaten Iowa with a run.

ap08[1]

Obligatory ref section. It's never good when you lose and Mike Pereira is featuring your game above the fold. Pereira says "punt" on the Hemingway catch:

I love it when replay stays with the call on the field when there is judgment involved, along with facts. In my mind, whatever ended being called on the field — incomplete or a touchdown — would have stood in replay. That’s how close this play was. …

The call in Michigan-Iowa game Saturday involved more than just facts. It involved the issue of control, before and after the ball hit the ground. Adding that element makes this ruling far more difficult than just a ball just breaking a plane. It’s questionable whether Hemingway had total control of the ball when his arm hit the ground. And it’s also questionable if he maintained control after the ball contacted the ground. If 50 people were in a bar watching this play, half of them would rule it an incomplete pass and the other half would rule it a touchdown. That’s reason alone to leave the call the way it was called on the field, and I agree with that decision 100 percent.

You can replay that until the sun expands and it's still going to be too close to call. It was going to stand whichever way it was called on the field. That's life.

But I totally disagree with Pereira about the fourth down play…

And, by the way, forget the notion of pass interference on this play — either defensive or offensive. There was not enough to make either call. Same thing on the final play of the game on the slant pattern. The contact by the Iowa defender was not enough for pass interference, no matter what time of the game it was — the first quarter or the fourth quarter.

Bull. I mean:

Roundtreelastplayiowa[1]

Wrapping that hand around the back of the player is a call all day, every day.

So that sucks. As ref screwage goes it's only a 3 out of 10 since it probably wouldn't have mattered. Even if the call is made, Michigan still has to score, get a two-point conversion, and win in overtime to make it matter. That's a 10-20% shot.

I'll have to look at the interception more closely but I didn't think that was egregious. Guy did get there early but that's the kind of play that often gets let go.

McNutt. Pimp.

dr19[1]

Des Moines Register

Iowa wide receivers are in a fertile period, aren't they? Someone should just follow Eric Campbell around offering whoever Iowa does. Sign me up for Amara Darboh.

BONUS Iowa skill player coveting! I remember Marcus Coker as a recruit who was vaguely on Michigan's radar in 2010 but things never got serious. Michigan grabbed Stephen Hopkins; Coker floated out there hoping for a single decent offer before committing to Iowa in August. Other suitors: Wake Forest, Minnesota, Kansas State, and Maryland.

I don't get that. Coker's the sort of physical package that should be drawing offers from most of the Big Ten and he played at Maryland power DeMatha. It's not like RR was the only coach to whiff on the guy, I guess.

Here

I thought this was the most interesting bit about the press conference:

What went wrong on Coker’s last TD run when nobody even touched him? “Well they got to the edge and we were really trying to stack up the middle. It was a bear defense. Without seeing it, I have a feeling that the six probably got scooped out of his gap and then [Coker] got downhill pretty fast.”

Six == just outside the tackle and presumably the "bear" LB.

Inside the Box Score is oddly formatted but on point about a weird personnel decision:

Thomas Gordon had zero tackles. There was a board post on this topic yesterday. I don’t understand how you take your 2nd leading tackler out of the lineup. I get that his getting a lot of tackles is part of the position he plays, but he sure looks like one of our best 11 defenders to me. Additionally, Gordon is listed at 208 pounds on the roster, and Woolfolk is 191. When you are playing against Coker and those corn-fed hawkeyes, I want MOAR BEEF on defense. I’m not going to complain about Woolfolk. I understand wanting to get an experienced, 5th year senior, and team leader on the field, but if I was Gordon and lost my job due to intangibles I’d be “upset”. (The actual word is “pissed,” but I recently learned Mom is reading my diaries. If you notice a change in tone, that’s the reason.)

Gordon was upset, and posted something about "P O L I T I C S" on twitter/facebook/whatever his social network poison is.

I must disagree with Hoke for Tomorrow:

So that happened.  I had promised myself before the game that I wasn't going to get all emotionally invested in the outcome.  I could feel the disappointment coming all week.  Iowa was coming off of a loss that made them look much worse than they really are and Michigan was traveling to their house.  Michigan was coming off of a "validating" win over an overmatched Purdue squad, were already assured of a bowl invite, and had equaled last year's win total already.  There was no question which team had the most to play for and the game was sure to reflect that.  No surprise: it did.

Michigan had a good shot at a division title before the weekend. I award them 16 Wanting It points to Iowa's 13 in a totally made up exercise I just executed.

And the Denard slide started a long time ago.

Elsewhere

Media. Photo gallery from AnnArbor.com. I enjoyed Kevin Koger's Bruce Lee impression:

kevin-koger-ninja

Melanie Maxwell/AnnArbor.com

Unwashed blog masses. MVictors:

My line lately to people who ask before the game is this—Denard’s going to get six to eight opportunities to really hurt the opponent with his arm.  He’s got to cash in on two, maybe three.   He didn’t Saturday and I’m getting more and more frustrated.   Despite Brian’s speculation, I’m sure they travelled to Iowa City and East Lansing with Borges’ head completely in tact but I don’t get the insistence to put Denard behind center.

Speaking of Denard, something not there with his wheels.  Michael Spath tweeted that’s he’s become a “cutter”, as opposed to just beating people to the edge.  I’ve noticed this too and since Michigan State I just haven’t seen that extra burst. 

The Iowa perspective is rapturous about their defense since we managed to score less than Indiana and Minnesota. The commenters deploy the usual defensiveness about the refereeing. This list of grievances is something:

i usually don't like complaining about the officiating, it's a part of the game, it is what it is

but them complaining is just not right when you look at the whole picture. we got one slight favor at the end of the game. there were a slew of terrible calls throughout the game that went in Michigan’s favor.

the refs lost track of what down it was while michigan was driving in the first quarter, effectively giving them a free timeout, the official threw a pi flag on the wrong receiver, which was thankfully called back, we got nailed on a questionable offsides that kept a Michigan drive alive in the third, and they got away with a pretty blatant chest bump on a fair catch that should have been interference. I can remember very few calls during the game that went our way unti lthe very end.

When your most outrageous outrages include a flag that was picked up and the refs resetting the clock you might be protesting too much.

Doctor Saturday:

There's a lot to question about this offense, specifically: Denard Robinson's run:pass ratio; the persistent presence of backup QB Devin Gardner, to no apparent effect; the persistent absence of an every-down tailback. But it all seems to stem from the basic uncertainty that follows a coaching change: How does a coaching staff with a specific, ingrained philosophy integrate a lineup built for a completely divergent philosophy? Before the season, coach Brady Hoke and offensive coordinator Al Borges promised they weren't stupid enough to ask the reigning Big Ten Player of the Year — as a sophomore, no less — to be something he's not. For the most part, that's been true — especially when the offense has sputtered early against the likes of Eastern Michigan, San Diego State and Northwestern.

Against the best teams on the schedule, though, manageable second half deficits have been cause for a makeshift air show. Against Notre Dame, incredibly, heaving the ball almost indiscriminately after three stagnant quarters actually worked in the fourth. Against Michigan State, it didn't even come close. Today, at least, it came close before coming up short.

Various bullets from Maize 'n' Blue Nation, Touch The Banner, and the MZone. Holdin' The Rope has flashbacks:

It's hard to be mad when you've seen this story over and over again; if you're surprised by the ending then you should probably pay a little closer attention. This is what Michigan has done for years. In the interest of putting a name to it, we'll simply call this the Ben Chappell Theorem; that is, that if Michigan plays a team with multiple glaring weaknesses/an air of general incompetency that has already failed in the face of the opposition of other inferior teams, then, it must necessarily follow, that not only will Michigan not exploit those weaknesses (or what are ostensibly weaknesses, i.e. Michigan State's offensive line) effectively (usually not for lack of some trying, though), they will make certain players look like All-Americans in the process. An enormous shadow of a mouse becomes something much worse in the shifting tectonic plates of light and dark. Just as Michigan made former Indiana QB Ben Chappell look like the greatest thing ever on one afternoon, Michigan continues to make the mediocre look exceptional.

Comments

chisf

November 7th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^

I thought he was more accurate Saturday than most games (save for the deep balls, which he can't throw anyway).

I wonder how much the abscence of the short passing game is on Denard missing open guys underneath.  His decision-making has never been a strong suite.

Kilgore Trout

November 7th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^

I actually thought this was one of Denard's better games throwing the ball.  He didn't seem to throw many off his back foot and seemed to actually make some checkdowns.  He had the obligatory qb just drops the ball at Iowa moment and a tough INT where he tried to force it into a tight window where the DB either made a nice play or interfered. 

The deep ball thing is frustrating.  I guess you have to keep trying it to keep defenses honest, but I don't see a reason to throw one to anyone but Hemingway.  Hopefully Stonum can fill that role next year. 

champswest

November 7th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

we only completed 48% of our passes (against a poor pass defense team) and they complete 67% of their passes (with a QB that nobody is talking about).

We are fast becoming a one dimensional team (and that one dimension isn't even that good).

chisf

November 7th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^

Brian, I don't understand the post.  

You argue that the coaching staff didn't use Denard properly.  Which is fine.  But you then link later to the post showing that the Denard slide began last year.  In that post, Denard's stats from the 9 games this year are almost identical - running, passing, and INTs - to the last 8 games of last year.

coastal blue

November 7th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^

about Denard's drop in production is getting far to much praise on here. 

Guys:

It was his FIRST YEAR as a starter. His numbers dropped when playing 7 defenses that were in the top 50 over the last 8 games. It was bound to happen. 

The fact that his numbers are the same or worse in these first 9 games against worse competition is not proof that he has been solved, its proof that the system change has affected him for the worse. Instead of getting repitition and practice in what he's been schooled in, he has had to adapt to a system that does not play to his strengths and the experiment is failing. 

Honestly, how anyone can look at those numbers and triumphantly state "Aha! Denard maxed out as a first year starter and has been completely figured out and has no hope to improve" is beyond me. 

Magnus

November 7th, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^

It was Denard's first year as a starter, but it was his second year in the system.

This is Denard's first year in Borges' system.

Didn't we all know that there would be some regression for Denard as he changed systems?  I mean, isn't it always normal to assume that kids will backslide a bit when they run overhauled offensive systems.  It's not just a Denard thing - it's a quarterback thing. 

Denard's numbers were inflated last year due to the nature of the offense (lots of screens and hitches, fewer downfield throws), and now we're seeing that he's not very accurate or very smart at distributing the ball.  Wow, what a surprise.  It's not like anybody predicted this type of performance a long time ago...such as, I dunno...all those college coaches who wouldn't recruit him as a quarterback.

Huntington Wolverine

November 7th, 2011 at 3:17 PM ^

"now we're seeing that he's not very accurate or very smart at distributing the ball"

I'll buy this if he's still struggling with decision-making and accuracy next year like he is now.  As it is, I think most of the struggle can be chalked up to your earlier point - learning a whole new system that requires different skill sets and techniques.

Magnus

November 7th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^

Here's the thing about last year, though, that nobody seems to understand:

Denard WAS inaccurate last year.  The completion percentage is bound to fool some people because it was above 60%, but he was CONSTANTLY throwing too low or too high to wide open receivers, making them jump or dive or turn around on simple bubble screens.  I remember many, many occasions where Hemingway, Stonum, and Roundtree had to contort their bodies in strange ways just to catch bubble screens and hitches, which impeded their ability to run after the catch.  Denard has always been inaccurate, even when completing passes.  He's been that way for 2.75 years now, and I don't see it changing in the next 1.25 years.

coastal blue

November 7th, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^

It is bold to make such an innacurate statement. 

I just watched the Every Snap videos from UConn, Notre Dame, Iowa, Wisconsin, MSU and Illinois....and you are wrong. Were there some inaccurate throws? Yes. Was it anything like what we've seen this year? Absolutely not. Considering you have a blog about Michigan football, making a statement like this is absurd for someone who should have watched every game intently.

I saw a few examples of what you are saying, but I saw a hell of a lot more drops by our wideouts. 

I don't think Denard is Kellen Moore or Colt McCoy, but acting like he was woefully incapable of throwing the ball accurately last year is a false statement. 

ForestCityBlue

November 7th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^

Dittos.  Could not agree with you more.  I remember watching the first spring ball highlight videos with Denard and thinking to myself..."my goodness he can't even throw a nice tight spiral. Look at that wobble ball."  Still to this day he struggles with throwing a nice dart of a ball.  He is not a QB.

ForestCityBlue

November 8th, 2011 at 9:41 AM ^

Ummm...he won that mostly with his legs, throwing screens, and wide open receivers (this RR's credit...but many of those throws required help from the receivers).  Watch, really watch the balls that Denard throws, then go watch some of the top college QB's in the nation.  Watch the beautiful balls they throw.  Watch the good decisions they make.  Then watch Denard.  He cannot throw the football.  He makes terrible decisions.  Because of that, defenses can key off on him.  One of the reasons our season imploded last year...other than the lousy defense...is that when it mattered, we could not keep defenses honest and open up running lanes because WE CANNOT PASS THE DAMB BALL.  For the most part this is on Denard.  He throws a lousy ball, has terrible footwork, and makes bad decisions.  Nice kid with great character, but not    a QB.

robpollard

November 7th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^

.. were during that slide period.

Denard racked up 381 yards (PSU), 367 yards (Illinois) and 360 yards (Wisconsin).  Those are #4, #6, and #7 in the history of Michigan football (going into this year; I think Denards' ND 2011 game moves these down a peg).

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/mich/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/fbl-guide-2011-records-1.pdf

(Pg 16)

Against PSU, Denard had 4 TDs (1 passing) and 0 INTs
Against Illinois, Denard had 3 TDs (3 passing) and 2 INT
Against Wisconsin, Denard had 4 TDs (2 passing) and 1 INT*

Denard had some games with huge success in the 2nd half of last year.  Also, logically, some of the better opponents (e.g., OSU and MSU) also limited his game.  But if we expect any QB to get 300 plus total yards + multiple TDs in EVERY game he plays, regardless of competition, we're deluded.   No QB in Michigan history has done that.

And to anticipate a possible reply, if you think Wisky or PSU was "letting" Michigan score in the 3rd quarter/early 4 quarters of that game, I guess I would like either evidence or sound reasoning to that effect.  For example Bielema saying "Well, I thought I'd let them score 21 points in the 3rd quarter, even though we blew a 19-0 lead the last time we were here to the worst team in M history.  I like to keep it interesting.  Plus, I never like to just destroy opponent; I don't want to embarrass anybody and run up the score - I never do that."

*Also, as far as I can tell, he lost zero fumbles in those games, but box scores don't provide quick details

Enjoy Life

November 7th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^

IMHO Denard is not getting very many snaps in practice where he is running the ball. The coaches are trying to get him to stay in the pocket and you can see that he is reluctant to run.

Last year DRob got lots of snaps (almost all?) where he was asked to run and encouraged to run.

The coaches have not only changed the offensive game plan but have made DRob hesitant when he does run. Result = Not Good.

Ugh!

raleighwood

November 7th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^

It was right to kick the extra point to cut it to eight.  You can't afford to be down nine (two full scores) at that point in the game.  Get it to eight and take your chances toward the end.

It was wrong to use the timeout during final drive.  I realize that it's risky to spike the ball and burn a down.  However, you still have three shots from close range which should be sufficient. It also gives you the chance to, you know, run the ball one time.  I'll never figure out why Denard was in the pocket on all four attempts and never rolled to the right.

Did the ref rule that Hemingway was out of bounds or didn't have control (or doesn't it matter)?  If he ruled out of bounds, that clearly wasn't the case as his knee touched in bounds.  If he was actually saying that Hemingway was juggling the ball at the time he went out then I can understand it.  Personally, I think that the ref blew the call on the "in bounds" issue but that lead to the "possession" issue upon further review.

  

ShockFX

November 7th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^

"It was right to kick the extra point to cut it to eight.  You can't afford to be down nine (two full scores) at that point in the game.  Get it to eight and take your chances toward the end."

You're looking at it the wrong way. If you're down 15, and you need to score 2 TDs, you also will need one 2pt conversion. It's better to be down 9 with 4 minutes left than down 1 with 10 seconds left. You are going to get the information on if the 2pt conversion is good or not, the sooner you have the information the better.

AAB

November 7th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^

you still might be down 2 scores.  In fact, there's approximately a 60% chance (I think that's about what 2 point conversion rates are) that you're down two scores.  You just don't know it yet.  The sooner you go for two, the sooner you know how many scores you're down, and the sooner you can adjust strategy accordingly.  

MI Expat NY

November 7th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

the official clearly slapped the ground, indicating that he didn't feel he had possession all the way through the catch.  I don't think the endline had anything to do with the call.  The official saw the ball come in contact with the ground and then shift.  I didn't see anything that could overturn that judgment.  It was extremely close.  The ball touched the ground.  It may have shifted.  Those are the breaks.  

Drill

November 7th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^

Can Heiko please ask Borges a question regarding the under center vs shotgun plays and come at him with some numbers and statistics?  I mean, I'm sure Borges knows the numbers, but I would like to see him answer why he is using an obviously sub-optimal strategy when there are some clear and simple adjustments he can make (and obviously is capable of making, as we resort to them when we're way down and trying to come from behind).

iawolve

November 7th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^

It is time to sit him, he has not been the same since the injury and honesty that sucks. I'm sorry, however, his game at Iowa was a poor show and I don't see Gordon playing worse, only better.

jackw8542

November 7th, 2011 at 3:38 PM ^

I was so distressed by some of the things I saw # 29 doing (or failing to do) that I left the TV to go to my computer to look up the number on the roster.  He is a great guy, but he looked more like he was getting in the way of people with a chance to make plays than doing anything of a positive nature.  There was one play relatively early in the game where it looked like the ball carrier could be tackled after about a 5 or 6 yard gain by one defender only to have Woolfolk run into our player as he was trying to make the tackle and have the play continue to pick up yardage.

jmblue

November 7th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^

Brian, your Denard hypothetical is missing a possible answer (which I suspect is the correct one):

-Defenses have caught on to his tendencies. 

This occurred in week 6 of last year.  Since that point, Denard has not played like an All-American QB.  His stats over the first nine games this year are a virtual carbon copy of his stats over the last eight games last year (when he had RR coaching him).

Denard's ultra-hot start last year (905 rush yards and a 69.6% completion percentage in the first five weeks) are what made him an All-American, not what he did later on.  I mentioned this in more detail here:

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/denards-dropoff-production

coastal blue

November 7th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^

that is at all accurate, is that its improbable that he could keep up the pace of the first 5 games for a whole year. 

Your conclusion is based on results in the event of a regime change that has a new offensive philosophy producing worse results against worse teams than the second half of last year and it makes no sense that you do not acknowledge this at all. So you're saying that EMU, SDSU and every crappy team just plugged in the film and voila, they stopped Denard? Maybe he is struggled last year because the teams got better and instead of being allowed to improve in the offense he was recruited for, he has been forced to become something he isn't and THAT is why he is declined. 

Give it a rest. Please. 

MGoNukeE

November 7th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^

Did you ever respond to the critiques of that study in your thread? I didn't see anything.

Comparing every Big Ten team in 2010 to all the games played in 2011 is apples to oranges because 2011 stats are strengthened by 3 cupcakes and Minnesota, which Denard played better in (duh). In hindsight, I actually did the math for you that removes OOC + Minnesota out of 2011, which showed Denard's passing has been consistent with 2011 (YPA-wise) but his rushing stats are lower by over 1 YPC. If he was a threat while running the ball (as he was in 2010 during the games you claim he dropped off), the (short) passing game will open up more.

MGoNukeE

November 7th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^

My point is that Denard's passing YPA should be able to improve on last year's 8.1 YPA if he were more of a threat to run the ball. I didn't articulate that well previously, mostly due to frustration that jmblue continues to cite his board post that has been both brought to question by several posters and not refuted by him.

OysterMonkey

November 7th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^

And for comparison's sake, I took this year's numbers and compared them to the same opponents from 2010. So this reflects Notre Dame, MSU, Purdue and Iowa:

  2010 2011
Comp% 62% 46%
Y/Attempt 6.8 8.3
Y/Comp 10.9 17.9
INT% 5.6% 6.1%
TD% 3.7% 7.1%
Y/Carry 5.8 4.4

I don't really know how to judge the passing numbers. Maybe the sample is just too small to make any sense, but there's a significant drop in comp% with a big jump in YPA; interceptions at a slightly higher rate this year, but more of his passes are going for touchdowns.

No debate about the lowered effectiveness of his rushing, though I didn't remove sacks so maybe there is a debate.

I don't know, man. I just don't know.

MVictors97

November 7th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^

Long term Hoke and Co. are doing whats best for Michigan and recruiting while still doing the best they can to untilize the talent they were given.  Borges use of the Michigan offensive personel is MUCH better that what we saw RichRod and McGee do in 2008.  After last weeks win over Purdue, one of Michigan's top 2013 RB recruits mentioned how important it was to see Michigan utilize a little bit of the power game.  How does Michigan go and get pro-style  players when they run all spread for the next two years? There are people on board calling for Borges head and saying UM should have brought in someone that runs the spread. Why? Because we have Denard Robinson? What happened to "The Team, The Team, The Team".  It sounds like Denard, Denard, Denard. Everyone wants the whole Michigan offense to revolve around one player.  Contrary to what Spielman said over and over, the top B1G defenses love to see UM's offense revolved around Drob.  It makes it that much easier to stop. See Michigans 2010 losses. I dont understand why everyone continues to point out how the much better the spread plays are than the pro. LET IT GO! Michigan is going in a different direction. If UM continued to run the RR offense 100% of the time this who knows if Morris and Kalis and those guys are even interested.. UM is 7-2 with a chance to win out still. People must have forgotten what it felt like in 08 when UM went 3-9 and it was a complete in embarssment to everything UM has ever stood for.  Everyone needs to stop crying for a return to the spread everytime Michigan under performs. 

ijohnb

November 7th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^

that everybody wants them to return to Rich Rod's "spread," and I disagree that most of the frustration right now is directed at coaching staff.  The fact of the matter is, if Denard is not being specifically told "don't run," he is passing up on major opportunties that are presenting themselves from the offense that is being run.  I think you are hearing as much frustration with Denard as you are that directed at the coaching staff.

gbdub

November 7th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^

It's not like pro-form has worked all year and the guys had a bad day - if that were the case I'd agree with you.

But the only thing that has worked with any sort of consistency is Denard spread-type plays. Right now, those plays give the TEAM the best chance to win. It's not about Denard, it's about the team - but the team needs Denard (our QB and best individual player) to be featured more, doing what he does best.

Basically, our offense has 3 flavors:

A) I-form that we always play-action from because we can't run from it except against Purdue

B) RichRod Spread Lite (now with speed option!)

C) Inexplicable one-play Gardner packages that either result in fake jet sweep, rollout to short run, or armpunt DOOM

Borges keeps choosing doors A and C far too often, even though B consistently gets significantly more yards per play and better suits our personnel. Particularly egregious is going to C after A or B just worked beautifully.

MVictors97

November 7th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^

that that the 08 Michigan team was less talented that any team going back to the early 60's? I agree that the 08 team is less talented than this team.  But 3-9.. They were that bad?  Taking two terrible QB's and forcing a full out spread offense on them when you have a had full of more than capable RB's.

All I was trying to say is that Borges has been MORE willing than RR to adapt to his talent.  Maybe Borges needs to incorporate more spread but its not like he has gone full blown pro style with these guys.

Pibby Scott

November 7th, 2011 at 3:38 PM ^

if i'm under the impression that any defense slightly better than the "bleeding eyes" level of 2010 gets us one or two more wins and probably saves RR's job.

Screw it. I'll come out and say it. I thought he should've been granted a fourth year without question and to have the talk about whether to re-up after the 4th, but in all liklihood should be the fifth. Three years just isn't enough time to establish a college program. But whatever. I'm leaving the hill, I think. Or I'm trying to. Losses like this make it hard. I've been trying not to feel bummed about this all since the Josh Groban thing.

 

/sorryRRsupporterhere

*this also shouldn't imply I don't like Hoke. I do like Hoke.

msoccer10

November 7th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

"the 08 Michigan team was less talented that any team going back to the early 60's? I agree that the 08 team is less talented than this team.  But 3-9.. They were that bad?"

Absolutely. That is exactly what we are saying. Name any year where we had only 1 returning starter, and that a sophomore? Name any other team since the 60s that had essentially 1 BCS quality qb on the entire rotster, and that a red shirt freshman who has never played a down of college football.

Our top two running backs were hurt most of the year. We had no #1 receiver (sorry Matthews). It definetely was the least amount of talent the Michigan offense has had since the 60s and probably the least ever.

BRCE

November 7th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^

The fact that you were pos-banged for that post is a pretty big indictment on the reading comprehension level of this board.

I was strictly talking about '11 vs. '08 in offensive approach. Threet and Sheridan were not going to look good in any offense. This has been said a million times over yet some (ahem) still don't buy it.

And yes, 2008 was the least talented Michigan team since the 1960s. It's not even close, really.

lunchboxthegoat

November 7th, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^

but the comment fits here just like it did there. 

I think you've been sitting next to open paint cans if you think this team would have won a substantial number more games running the pro-style offense. That offensive line was in shambles at best. It was certainly not the strength of the team or anyting you could have relied on heavily. The non-underclassmen on that line were: David Moosman, Tim McAvoy, Mark Ortmann and Corey Zirbel. I'd post the sophmores, too but I think I've made my point. Exactly one player who wasn't a freshman on that line made an impact at Michigan and/or beyond and that was Steve Schilling. I don't care what offense you ran. They were inexperienced and they were not good. You were going to struggle on offense regardless.

profitgoblue

November 7th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^

I hear what you're saying and I totally get it.  The problem is that your analysis can be spun differently.  Recruits that are looking at Michigan that you mention are great.  However, if Michigan was going to run the spread they would be getting looks from other recruits that are just as great but play a different game. 

I agree with you that Borges is trying to shift his scheming to match the current players much better than Rodriguez did and that shows the difference in personalities.  But that is not why Rodriguez was hired - he was brought in knowing that he was going to change the offense entirely from day one.  That was the package that Martin & Co. purchased.  That was not the same arrangement when Hoke & Co was brought in.

And I think everyone will agree with you that long-term success is important.  However, for the kids on the team now, winning now is the most important.  So the discussion has to focus on the best way to help the team win, and that is clearly utilizing Denard to the best of his abilities, which I think myself and others do not believe is happening. 

Sure, its a team game, but using that statement in this case is merely a paper tiger.  The team wins when its best attributes are being accentuated.  And one of Brian's points (I think) is that is not happening right now.

NateVolk

November 7th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^

Face it. Iowa probably has better players overall then we do. At best we're even with them. In a road game you'll need some breaks because you won't play perfect against a team with equal talent.  I love our guys and they are tough competitors. However, so were Iowa's guys and State's and coming soon Nebraska and Ohio. 

If it were a pick-up game, I would have traded offensive personnel with Iowa no questions asked. One of my first picks would have been Vandeberg at quarterback. I'd choose Denard if he were able and willing to play h-back or slot. That's the reality of where we are at.

These games against middle or better league competition are going to be tight fits for the next year or two while the roster gets rebuilt with consistent 4-star and up talent.

Brian as always makes a compelling and well-thought case on the playcalling and scheme end of things. In fact, lots of people on here do. Still, give me better players though and we'll make a lot of plays work that didn't on Saturday. That's football. The ultimate game of resistance. 

If we learned anything from the Rodriguez era and  so far this season: you are probably not going to win many big games in the Big Ten just outscheming or playcalling teams with good talent. They have good coaches too.