Michigan Museday is Uncomfortable Under Center
Yahoo gallery. HT: hart20.
Around suppertime Monday my synapses kicked in again, and I could think about anything from that game other that GURGLE GURGLE, BAWWHHHH, and 'WHHAAAAT?'. The first thing that came back was the 77-yard pass to Hemingway while wearing Kapron Lewis-Moore as an ankle bracelet. Then the rest of the memories returned, and I remembered I was getting aggravated earlier about how ridiculous it was to be using Denard Robinson like John Navarre. Chris Brown's Twitter feed wasn't helping:
…and neither was watching Henne and Brady demolish each others' defenses from under center on Monday. Of course Denard is Denard and makes magical unicorn rainbows, so hell why not have the best rushing QB in history sit in the pocket then lob an end-zone fade to a 5'9 receiver? I'm not being totally sarcastic: the guy may be 6'0 but he can also stand 
outside the pocket with a 300-pound defender hanging on his legs like your sister's kids after dessert, then chuck a perfect zinger from his back shoulder to a receiver behind the coverage. By this point any other QB would be eating turf; Ben Roethlisberger would be eating turf.
Magical Denard is magical and is actually capable of throwing perfect spirals with a rusher in his face from a 7-step drop if you ask him to, and he is getting better at doing so. He's obviously still learning the technique—Hoke in the Monday presser:
He was the first one to come off the field after one [bad play] and say, ‘My footwork was bad.’ So that’s good to see.
I think we can safely extrapolate this was after the first interception. To actually say the I-form is responsible for any more than that (and that flimsy) we're gonna need to dig a bit deeper. And since memory of formation beyond that and the "Shades of Aaron Shea" fullback pass betrays, let's just look at all the plays run under center vs Notre Dame (mega thanks to Boyz n da Pahokee, who gets a long overdue points bump for his Every Snap Videos):
"DRV" = which play in that drive, so 3 is 3rd play, etc.
| Qtr | DRV | Ball | Dwn | Dst | Play | Player | Yds | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | M20 | 1st | 10 | SACK | Robinson, D. | 0 | |
| 1 | 3 | M33 | 1st | 10 | RUSH | Hopkins, S. | 2 | MANBALL 1 |
| 1 | 3 | M31 | 2nd | 10 | PASS | INCOMPLETE | 0 | |
| 2 | 1 | N45 | 1st | 10 | RUSH | Hopkins, S. | 2 | MANBALL 2 |
| 2 | 2 | N43 | 2nd | 8 | PASS | Hemingway, J | 43 | TOUCHDOWN |
| 3 | 2 | M29 | 2nd | 10 | RUSH | Hopkins, S. | 3 | MANBALL 3 |
| 3 | 4 | M43 | 1st | 10 | PASS | INTERCEPTION | 0 | Footwork was bad. |
| 3 | 2 | N6 | 1st | G | RUSH | Shaw, M. | -2 | |
| 3 | 3 | N8 | 2nd | G | RUSH | Robinson, D. | 7 | |
| 4 | 4 | N1 | 3rd | G | RUSH | Hopkins, S. | 0 | TOUCHDOWN |
| 4 | 2 | N45 | 2nd | 15 | PASS | McColgan, J | 15 | 1st Down |
| 4 | 5 | N14 | 2nd | 7 | PASS | Gallon, J. | 14 | TOUCHDOWN |
| 4 | 1 | M13 | 1st | 10 | PENALTY | PENALTY | -4 | |
| 4 | 3 | N26 | 1st | 10 | PASS | INTERCEPTION | 0 | Why? Why did you throw this? |
| 4 | 5 | N21 | 1st | 10 | PASS | Smith, V. | 21 | TOUCHDOWN |
| 4 | 3 | N15 | 1st | 10 | PASS | Roundtree, R | 16 | TOUCHDOWN |
That's 8 plays where bad things happened (<4 yards to turnover) from under center, and 7 where good things happened (counting Hopkins getting stuffed and fumbling as a "good thing"), and accounts for about 35% of the offensive plays yet 100% of Michigan's scoring plays on the day (WHHAAAAAAT?). Those six in microcosm:
- Jump ball to Hemingway in single coverage. Is short (that's good) and Hemingway makes a play then dives for the pylon. (GOOD)
- Denard rolls out, finds nobody, magically picks his way through a forest of ND defenders to get to the 1. (LUCKY…that we have Denard)
- Goal Line. Hopkins runs straight into leaping linebackers, fumbles, Denard picks it up and accelerates into the end zone.* (LUCKY)
- Perfectly executed Incredibly Surprising Waggle that finds McColgan open on a wheel, and brings back memories of Aaron Shea. Then again if Carr did this on 2nd and 15… (GOOD)
- Drops back, has to loft ball over collapsing defenders, Gallon goes up to get it, and Gary Gray becomes the Stevie Brown(-3) of Notre Dame. (LUCKY)
-
Perfectly executed fake-bootleg screen. Smith makes this happen by out-accelerating a tackle then slipping through a few more before 'Tree can get the last block. Note: this was out of ACE Twins. (
LUCKYEDIT: GOOD--I hear you board. This is the kind of under-center play that plays to these guys' strengths) - Smith motions out of the TB spot to split end and…Ah hell, you deserve to relive it. (Ufer style)
Let me know when your synapses are functioning again. Actually, don't. Watch that a few more times.
When you've woken up and convinced yourself all over again that this is indeed real life and the score will be like that forever, I see 15 plays run under center of which eight did nothing and at least four or five only did something only because a fumble bounced right to Denard or Gary Gray can't cover. The touchdowns are red herrings. Wonderful, magical, sapphire herrings.
Not counting goal line, kneel downs, 3rd and long/short, and times when we needed to get 80 yards in 30 seconds or whatnot (i.e. the last two drives), Michigan ran 61.76% of its plays out of the shotgun. So this is still a 60% spread offense. When you break out the yardage on the remaining plays, it's easy to see why:
| Formation | PASS YPA | RUSH YPA | TOTAL YPA |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-Form | 12.00 | 2.33 | 7.64 |
| Shotgun | 14.63 | 7.46 | 10.19 |
| Total | 13.50 | 6.06 | 9.31 |
(the one sack was from the shotgun, and counted as passing yards)
It's early in the season and Denard is still learning how to run this offense and by "this offense" I mean like 40% of the offense, with the rest being the stuff mostly similar to what he did last year. It does seem his recurring accuracy problems are related re-learning dropback QB footwork but except for when he says so directly it's hard to see how that affects the efficacy of formations.
The big thing is the rushing! Small sample and all but against our first real competition (and ND is a good rush defense) Michigan put up better-than-Rich-Rod numbers out of the gun and was broken-Hart-vs.-mid-aughts OSU out of the I. The staggering difference in rushing yardage out of the I versus shotgun may be as simple as Denard's rushing ability versus that of the RBs: had Hopkins found the cutback lanes in his two rushes under center perhaps that I-Form rush YPA is up around a Lloydball-ian 3.5. That's still a huge difference. Denard in the gun means Denard as a rushing threat. Notre Dame mostly chose to play the rushing threat and force him to pass (and this worked pretty well), and yet he still got 7.46 YPA because one guy in the hole is never enough.
Two games into a new staff, got the W, very limited sample, receivers are the receivers, his legs are his legs, not likely to face a better MLB than Te'o, caveat caveat caveat caveat, but at this point (caveat caveat) I don't think lining up under center is working.
---------------------------------------------------------------
* It was watching this play that I realized I had seen enough of Denard running that I can recognize his unique style…like you know how you could pick out a Mike Hart moving silhouette with no other clues? I think I could do that with Denard now.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
if we succeed, it's skill/talent? And if we make mistakes, it's bad luck?
September 14th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
if we succeed, it's most likely a mixture of some luck, skill, talent, and coaching. Similarly, if we fail, it's most likely a mixture of lack of skill, bad luck, bad execution, lack of athleticism.
September 14th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
This strikes me as an accelerated version of what RRod was doing last year. If the memory left after I blocked part of the season out serves me correctly, RRod was trying to develop a functional I formation set as a change-up to the regular formation. If it functioned correctly, it would strike me as a great weapon in the old offense to let us slow down the game when we need to put in defensive adjustments, rest the defense, surrive crazy weather, ect. There were plent of cut-back lanes in the I we showed on Saturday, if we could just get a back that becomes a run threat and makes the play-action marginally plausible I think our dual offense could be pretty potent.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
This is only the SECOND GAME that Denard has played under center, and since the WMU game featured a grant total of 39 offensive snaps - half of which were in driving rain - this was really hhis first full game in the new offense.
We all knew that there would be an adjustment period and some growing pains - hell, Hoke and Borges both warned to expect growing pains. But, over the course of the season, I expect Denard to steadily gain comfort in the new offense such that his production from under center should get closer to his production from the gun.
By the way, I think that Borges gets all of this and recognizes that when we need to score or if the game is on the line, he will need to operate from the gun - for now, at least.
I expect that for the next two weeks, assuming that our defense shuts down EMU and SDSU, we will see Denard take well over 50% of his snaps from under center to work on him comfort level.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
But I want to point out that "the touchdowns are red herrings" is going against that whole "results based charting service" attitude. You're clearly looking through some tinted lenses at that point.
And before you jump all over me, I want Borges to put out an offense as close to last year's as possible, so I am in agreement with the overall theme. But you can't just say "ignore the fact that all our points came from under center."
September 14th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
The only results based charting you need to look at here is yards per carry. We get a lot more out of the shotgun. I felt it was obvious to everyone watching the game that our offense was struggling. We don't need play action from the I when we have Denard. Just having the ball in his hand with him as a running threat (ie shotgun) holds the linebackers the way play action is supposed to. So if you aren't getting the running back production out of the I it doesn't make sense to use it. Now every team needs to switch up the looks once in a while but I agree with some of the posters above that I would rather it be like 80% shotgun.
I would be interested in seeing what the breakdown is for yards per carry for our running backs out of shotgun vs. the I. I am guessing (small sample size caveats apply) that the non-Denard average is also better out of the shotgun, because a defender has to account for Denard's legs even when he doesn't run it. In most circumstances, Denard's legs are less of a threat when he's under center.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^
I thought the play action out of the I actually worked pretty well, just wasn't executed. If you watch one of the rollout pass where Denard decides to keep it and gets zero yards, he had a TE absolutely wide open right in front of his face and didn't throw it. That play only failed because of a lack of execution, it was drawn up very well. I think that Denard will get more comfortable with the additions to the playbook and begin to run them more efficiently with time. I wouldn't just scrap it simply because it wasn't executed very will the first time it was used in a game.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^
In this game the play action was very successful. The long passes were mostly out of I form play action. But I think Denard will always have time to throw because teams rarely do an all out blitz on him because if you get out of your lane he is gone. And if that's the case, the play action doesn't add a whole lot. I think he could have chucked the ball up to a receiver from the shotgun or play action and the footwork would have been better from him in shotgun.
And I totally agree that the problems with the offense so far are not because the scheme is bad. I just think, for now, Denard is much more effective in the shotgun. By the end of the year or next year, who knows.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
1. The screen play was not lucky. It's a great play, especially when you have dilithium and everyone wants to overpursue him.
2. " Michigan ran 61.76% of its plays out of the shotgun. So this is still a 60% spread offense. " I really can't believe the silliness of this comment. Just because a play is run out of the shotgun doesn't mean it a spread offense play. I haven't studied the film, but I know there was plenty of pro-style shotgun plays, which is a very common formation when you have an undersized QB in a pro-style offense.
3. I still don't by that Denard can't run a prostyle offense (with heavy doses of shotgun for sure) We all know he'll never be the Grbac/Collins/Griese/Brady/Navarre/Henne archetype. On Saturday he made some horrific throws. Some of them were bad decisions, and the rest were horrible accuracy, and he got away with more of them than he should have due to great reciever play and lousy coverage (not to mention ND wackiness in red zone). The decision-making problem can be corrected in time, and the accuracy can be improved - of course he'll never be Brees or Brady. His biggest detriment is his height, but he more than makes up for it with his athleticism (this just in...). He has one of those "live arms" that is possessed by only a few men on earth (Michael Vick, Denard, Kordell Stewart, come to mind.). If he learns the reads, makes better decisions, and can improve his accuracy he has the basic tools for greatness. Remember he's not been running this offense very long. Borges has proven so far that he knows what he has. He just needs to coach him up on the offensive philosophy. I would like to see more rollouts to allow him to create and improvise more easily, but that doesn't mean you HAVE to run the spread. By the end of the year he's going to be Troy Smith or Michael Vick (college version).
September 14th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
1. A lot of people have said that. I re-watched again (after several times last night while writing) and, well, what can I say? It was an excellent playcall and excellently executed and I guess it plays to the strengths of the players we have, and... I give up: this is the type of under-center play that when executed like this the personnel we have is perfect because they need to respect Denard's legs and that made ND overcommit to the play action, and it also works because Smith jet-bugged away from a tackle that probably catches A-Train or Perry.
2. Again, you got me. I went beyond the scope of my article there. The point was only to assess formations. The statement is true (even under center they use 3- and 4-receiver sets) but I didn't show that in this article.
3. I don't disagree that Denard can run a pro form offense. Vick's the closest thing in the NFL to Denard and he's mighty effective. Denard is a B+ pocket QB who can probably get to A- if given enough time to get comfortable with the footwork and knowing where everyone's gonna be so he can find McColgan open, etc. However he's an A+ spread QB. Either way he is more effective running pro concepts out of the shotgun than from under center.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:51 PM ^
I loves me some Denard. And this clouds my judgement. But if you catch me with my guard down, I would have to admit that my innermost fear is that Denard is not even a B+ pocket QB, and that he will not ever be even a B+ pocket QB.
I feel like I'm calling one of my own ugly, but he is not a pure passer. He is short and has small hands for a pocket QB. That's OK, he is what he is. Tom Brady is never going to run for 1000 yards either.
Denards magic starts with his legs out in open space. Once he's there all things open up. Denard in the pocket may never be more than just a change of pace look.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
you are an idiot. you blame the poor throws by denard on the system. he made the same bad throws last year.
1st quarter – the interception on the screen pass to Vincent smith. This ball was horribly overthrown. There was an nd lineman in front of denard but he was engaged by a Michigan OL and didn’t even contest the pass. He didn’t need to put that much air under the ball.
2nd quarter – denard rolled out right and threw back to Hemmingway who was one on one. The pass was not even close. Odds are Hemmingway comes up with the catch if the pass is anywhere near him.
2nd quarter – roundtree is open on a corner route and the ball is overthrown. The ball grazed roundtree’s hands but it’s a very difficult catch. The pass should have been more accurate.
2nd quarter – a big 3rd down and Hemmingway is WIDE open on an out. Easy first down but the ball is thrown behind him. Again, accuracy issues.
3rd quarter – denard floats a ball to gallon double covered on a post for an INT. mccolgan is wide open on a wheel route up the sideline.
4th quarter – another 50/50 ball thrown to gallon guarded by Blanton (6’2” corner). INT in the end zone.
4th quarter – just under 2 minutes left. Right before the smith screen for a score. Hemmingway runs a post route and is single covered. Denard misses badly on what should have been an easy pitch and catch.
these are denard problems. you're so blinded by your love for him that you can't even be the least bit critical of him when he makes bad plays?
September 14th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
There are some who think that, if Michigan isn't adept at operating from under center, they shouldn't do it.
There are others who think, if Michigan isn't adept at operating from under center, they should learn to do it.
Borges is going about this the right way -- he's still doing 70% shotgun, but gradually implementing the I-formation because, in the long-run, it will make the offense better to have more balance, stronger performances from the running backs, etc. Sure, there are growing pains in the interim, but hopefully those are far less by year end, and he's not throwing away the year by insisting on diving into his system headfirst.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
But Ithink you can have a balanced attack out of the spread with RBs having strong performances. There are other schools that run the ball well out of the shotgun, and don't exclusively run the QB. I hpoe Fitz is healthy the rest of the season and I think, whatever offense we run, we'll see that balance.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
I just remember the few times last year that we had to go I-form in short yardage systems, and looked incompetent doing it.
I also remember Oregon, the team that represents the pinnacle of the spread offense, struggling in the red zone against Auburn.
I am not anti-spread by any means, but I am anti-flexibility. I don't like the concept of a system in which a quarterback is totally uncomfortable going under center -- there's a reason most teams still do it, there are situations in which its effective, and anyone who wants to play quarterback should know how to operate under center, even if its for only 15% of the plays.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
I think Denard from shotgun gives us the best chance at winning. But I do think we need some under center. I agree with this "anyone who wants to play quarterback should know how to operate under center, even if its for only 15% of the plays."
September 14th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
The I-form, as you point out has always been at least a small part of our offense. These same players have been practicing it for years, and when it comes to game time, under two different offensive coordinators, we have been terrible at gaining yardage with our running backs. At what point is it being inflexible to continue to do something (even if only a handful of times a game) if it's unsuccesful?
I disagree with your Oregon example. That was a team that over-achieved in terms of offensive line performance. Over the last few years, when they've run into great d-lines they've struggled, not only in the red-zone but in all areas of the field. The true pinnacle of the spread offense was Florida (or Auburn last year), neither team struggled in the red zone, of course having huge battering rams for QB's was helpful.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:35 AM ^
Well, gaining yards with running backs is a pretty important part of football. As I note above, I'm of the "if it's not working, fix it" mindset, rather than give up on it altogether. To answer your question "at what point is it being inflexible to continue doing something . . . if it's unsuccessful," the answer certainly isn't "two games into a new coordinator's tenure."
If Borges was trying to force-feed the ball to RBs 20 times a game, I'd agree with you. But it seems right now that he's trying to find something that works without forgetting the Denard's legs are the real meal-ticket, which I think is the right way to go about it.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
That's fine. I'm not bitching about the playcalling right now so much as saying I think there's a clear difference at this point in efficacy between shotgun and under-center. Improving the latter comes at the cost of efficiency. I'm willing to do that against Western and Eastern but wasting three snaps on trying to establish Hopkins as a run threat out of the I-form is a little unproductive when you're running against Nix and Te'o.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
I will take issue with Brian terming the screen pass TD "lucky". While I agree that after the left side of the line whiffed on their blocks/wandered around aimlessly it was lucky to get the TD, the playcall was excellent and if either of the guys out in space picks up the defenders they're supposed to, that is a touchdown just the same. I can't really quibble with the rest of your analysis though.
It's the "Braylon chuck" offense which we used to run with Henne and Braylon. It's just now run with people who maybe aren't as athletically attuned to such a scheme, but hey, it worked. Do I believe it will continue to at a similarly effective rate? No, but that doesn't mean we should completely disregard it as ever being useful again.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:25 AM ^
Who's calling it lucky, not Brian. But yea, I agree it's not a lucky paly.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^
If I were not currently at a hearing right now I'd slide in the "Jump to Conclusions" doormat.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
Such a special player and person. In his post game interview he even throws a shot out to Tate three years ago starting the Notre Dame gut shots. Through everything that has basically been a season and a half, 43 touchdowns, going on 1900 yards rushing etc. Don't we owe this kid a chance to show us what he can do?
<br>
<br>Limit his carries to keep him healthy. Continue to work on the tailbacks and hopefully we find our guy. But let Denard be Denard. I've been watching for Michigan football for twenty years and he has been the most amazing and exciting thing I've seen yet.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
Gosh Darnit People, read the fawking bylines!!!!!
September 14th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
You know those optical illusions where your eyes become so accustomed to seeing an image that they continue to see it even after its removed?
It's kind of like that. Whenever we see an article complaining about Denard being under center, the brain reads the byline as "Brian".
September 14th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^
Sorry!
My brain is easily fooled. I thought it was Brian. My bad.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
If Smith evading tacklers is "lucky" then aren't all of Denard's runs out of the shotgun "lucky?" After all, he's evading tacklers.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
We have to run it now because this is training for everyone, including all the backups on the 2 & 3 deep squads, who will become future starters. This is critical for the OL as they are most responsible for creating success in the I formation running game ... not just the running backs or QB.
Just a learning curve, that is obviously more apparent when playing a good defensive front 7 such as nd. This will imprive over the season. In the meantime, I thought Borges made the right adjustments in the clutch.
Go Blue!
September 14th, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^
It seems at this point that the I-formation should really only be used as a small mix-up to our shotgun spread. What I would like to see is less drawn-out waggle plays forcing Denard to stay in the pocket and throw over big defenders and more sprint-out plays that move the pocket and give Denard a throw-run option. The throwback screen is a part of this package. Forcing Denard to sit in the pocket and make three reads is not the way this offense will succeed and fully utilize the dilithium.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
This is what happens when you sit down at the computer and say "let's write a post discrediting the I form. Let's take a gander at the data."
If you're going to describe the Vinny Smiff TD as lucky then there's no contrary data point you are not capable of ignoring.
The fact that every Michigan score came out of the I form is the kind of data that bears further examination. Waving it away as lucky strikes me as closed minded.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
Confirmation bias is what you're saying, but that's not at all what I did. This came together pretty unorganized: I spent most of my evening getting the data organized then watching the game again to chart which plays were which. Only then did I think to post just the under-center plays instead of the whole chart. And only after screwing around in Pivot Tables did I stumble across the big disparity in rush yardage between the two sets.
This isn't an indictment of the I-form as a concept, or even as something Michigan can run. It's saying that results-based charting isn't giving a full picture of the efficacy of the two sets.
A big thing I noticed that ended up not being part of the scope of the final article was how they tweaked the shotgun plays. On the first (and only) Hopkins run from the gun there's a DT who beats (Barnum? Molk? couldn't see) and Hopkins doesn't bounce far enough from him to get into the otherwise pretty big hole. If he gets past that great play by the DL, the play basically puts Hopkins one-on-one with momentum against a linebacker 3 yards downfield. Later Michigan ran this same play except Denard had a loooooong mesh and then pulled the ball and FOLLOWED the RB. Sure enough the same hole was there except Denard got past the DL better than Hopkins can and instead of one-on-one with that LB there was a lead blocker to spring Denard for big gains. They did this at least twice for 20+ yards.
If you're looking for evidence of how Borges is tweaking the Spread 'n Shred positively, that's a great example of something RR's teams only ever did by accident after a QB should have handed off and instead pulled and had to follow his RB.
I'm REALLY excited to see what else Borges can do with these guys from the Gun. RR was all about getting a waterbug one-on-one with a guy in space but getting Denard 2-on-1 with a lead blocker is a recipe for being like dang. Meanwhile I'm fine with using some plays here and there (especially against Eastern) to continue refining Pro concepts, especially the way they use receivers and timing. I just don't see that as being Denard's forte -- he's the opposite of a robot out there and seems to resort to his instincts faster than trusting a rote.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
matrix of every shotgun snap before I have an opinion.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
I have that -- did that at the same time. I'll post on Google docs tonight and you can take a look.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
More masturbatory writing by Misopogon. Do me a favor, the next time you are at your keyboard simply write:
My terrible strings of words give me erections, so when I write I write a ton of nothing, too fucking much of nothing, until I have me a nice narcissistic full one. Then I jerk off to my nothing, and imagine you the reader jerking off to my nothing too, which feeds my ego and coerces me to write additional terrible strings of words, more nothing. But deep in my heart I know you the reader ignore my many words, and that I should write less, but if I tone down my long-winded and terrible nothingness I shall never gain release again, so here comes another fucking post.
If you substituted every post with this instead it would get the point across in half the time.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^
That's pretty rough criticism for 1200 words. Would you care to elaborate, or, you know, offer something productive?
UPDATE: if you thought that was long, I urge you to skip Dear Diary this week because it's Looooooong. This is entirely the fault of too many good diaries. Why am I telling you this anyway? Sorry I killed your cat.
September 14th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^
I though this was the most useful in terms of actually introducing facts into the debate
September 14th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
But this doesn't look anywhere near as bad for Denard in the I as I thought it would given all the handwringing there has been.
<br>
<br>First, I really struggle with discounting the small fact that we scored all of our touchdowns out of the I. I know many people around hete know more about football than I do, but aren't touchdowns kinda important?
<br>
<br>Second, in comparing all f the plays under the I to allof the plays in the shotgun, you are not just comparing how Denard performs under center, you are also comparing how our running backs performed from the I. A big part of the reason that our numbers under the I look worse is that our running game other than Denard kinda sucked.
<br>
<br>I see ten plays where Denard was throwing
<br>
<br>Sack - 0
<br>Incmplete - 0
<br>Touchdown - 43
<br>Interception - 0
<br>Scramble - 7
<br>First down - 15
<br>Touchdown - 14
<br>Interception - 0
<br>Touchdown - 21
<br>Touchdown - 16
<br>
<br>Average 11.6
<br>Good plays 6, bad plays 4
<br>
<br>Note - did not go back to see if penalty was on pass play or run play.
<br>
<br>I also didn't do all the work you've done to break out plays in the shotgun, so I don't have a new avearage for that, since the shotgun plays aren't broken out, we also don't know how the good/bad play percentages compare.
<br>
<br>I also have some quibbles with the subjective part of your analysis. While there is clearly healthy debate about whether the jumpball strategy is a good one, Borges said in his interview that it was an intentional strategy. Therefore it seems that Denard was able to effectively run the play he was asked.
<br>
<br>I haven't gone back to look at the total number of plays run in each quarter, but looking quickly, it doesn't seem that Borges significantly changed his gameplan with regards to use of the I - it just seems Denard became more comfortable. Imagine that, as you do more of something, yoy get more comfortable with it.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
Is problematic.
It's okay that shotgun/spreadish gets more YPP than under center if under center/pro-stylish got us the TDs. That's THE WHOLE POINT. Diversity in the playbook gives us the ability to confound defenses and disrupt schematic advantages.
Did those spread-option plays score us a lot of points? NO. They did get us a lot of yards, something we also excelled at in 2010. But for most of this game, as for most of 2010, we couldn't get the damned ball in the damned endzone against good defenses. This is where the 40% comes in, and in fact, where it came in during the 4th quarter of the game.
So let's re-examine it:
When we were under center, ND brought guys up, to pressure Denard into bad throws and stuff the run. For 3 quarters, it worked. Then it didn't, because Denard started finding the WRs in single coverage...WHO WERE ACTUALLY OPEN THROUGHOUT THE GAME, but who Denard either missed or who dropped catchable balls. Most of these were nerves issues, as Molk said in the post-game interview. The only conclusion you can draw from this is that it's NOT A PROBLEM OF SCHEME, but of execution...something that can be improved by practice. As it happens, we executed well when it counted.
Also, as others have pointed out, the VS TD and Gallon TD were not luck..they were DESIGNED to be like that. I'd also say the broken plays were not entirely luck either...in order to get pressure and contain Denard, ND had to give its CBs single coverage on the WRs. They were doing this all night (in both shotgun and i-form packages), and without aforementioned nerves issues, we would have taken more advantage of this.
So please be more open-minded and qualitative about the i-form stuff. My only concern is that the Hopkins-up-the-middle-on-1st-downs ploy didn't work. So maybe it's time for Borges to add some more pure West Coast stuff: checkdowns to the halfback and short drag routes to the TE on 1st downs, draw plays on 2nd, etc.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
Sample size too small to know yet whether UM was lucky because they worked so hard and made good calls or whether, as it looked to me, Denard connected on a string of highly improbable passes no matter how skilled he is.
That said, great win, but man I wish that had been Ufer calling the game. I got chills listening to that call. I still miss him (being old enough to do so).
Also, I just decided that when I get my Denard Fathead I want it to be just a silhouette of him running, slightly tilted forward, ball tucked tight in his arm, head up, with that incredible and powerful stride in full gear. No one else looks anything like him.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^
Wouldn't it be better to rate the success of each play as a positive or negative rather than look at total yards per play? This way a successful third and one conversion from the I formation would be considered better than an eight yard rush gain on third and ten from the shotgun. It would be interesting to use this system to look at all the plays and then look at the percentage of successful plays in terms of the I and shotgun. I am not saying that it would disprove your theory but rather that yardage by itself can be misleading.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
It skews the yardage gained a bit too. If every 3rd and 1 or 2 you run out of the I, where the goal is to get one or two yards, it can be very successful, but doesn't give you a big yardage output. (Yeah you could break it...but that's not really what the blocking is designed to do. You don't instruct the player to bounce outside so he can go to the house when he's more likely to lose yards and not get the 1st). And A shotgun play isn't going to be a run play out of short yardage situations, but only long ones. So there's no skewing it down.
Which ties into why the sack in the shotgun was put as a passing loss, rather than a running one. Beyond going against old school statistics, in the modern sense, can you really say when Denard is running or not? I mean, you can tell the designed plays, sure...but for that to be fair, any time (from any formation) Denard took a pass play and took off with it, breaking it big, you'd have to count that as passing yards. You can't just take out the negative from the shotgun because it suits the meme, but leave the positives in.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^
Actually I had the sack sitting alone and then decided it's a passing loss. That was a drop in the bucket and only made the Shotgun passing stats look a tiny bit worse.
I took out all the 3rd and shorts, and also all the 3rd and longs. What you see there are stats from 1st and 2nd downs, plus 3rd and 5 or 6, nothing from the goal line (except I counted Denard's I-form rollout-to-run from the 8-yard line and that helped the I-form rushing) and nothing from the last two plays.
Seriously I tried to take as many unfair outliers out of it as I could.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
September 14th, 2011 at 2:46 PM ^
You say 1 in spread. Mispogottn says 2. Any idea why?
September 14th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
the concept of this column. Shouldn't it be called "Misopogon Museday?" Every single post on the blog is about Michigan already.
September 14th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
the coaches to put our players in the best position to succeed. We all said this last year as well. We didn't think the coaches were putting players in a position to succeed and it seems to be happening again (at least at he moment).
I think you gave a nice rundown of the position groups and what they are best suited for. It is clear that the players we have (not just Denard, but the entire team) are better suited for a spread style offense, or shotgun offense at the very least.
What I think (hope I should say) is that Borges is trying this I form stuff out in the OOC schedule to see if it will be viable come time for the B1G schedule. Hopefully they have learned to run it effectively by that time, and if not I hope they give it the boot entirely. When it is clear that one thing works better than another I think it only makes sense to use that.
Again, I just want Borges to put our players in the best position to succeed and the limited sample size we have currently suggests that's the shotgun. I don't like to say this, but for the first three quarters it looked a lot like a coach stubbornly trying to do the same tiing over and over even though it wasn't working. Thankfully that stopped in the fourth.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^
Best part of the passing offense this season is no more bubble screens, get those little shifty guys downfield and in space and they will make plays.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^
I disagree. The best part about the passing offense is that Borges is a passing master and while it'll take some time to learn them all, his routes will end up being way more effective than RR's. Rodriguez used mesh routes from time to time but mostly his passing game was right out of high school -- flags and posts and outs and bubbles/stuff out of the backfield against single coverage that work because opponents sell out to stop the run. The few teams (Iowa, OSU, MSU) who could passively defend against the run made passing difficult but they'll have a harder time once the WRs learn the Borges way of exploiting zone coverage.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:10 PM ^
This may wind up having less to do with Denard's ability under center, and more to do with the O line's and RB's ability under center.
It may turn out that we just do not yet have the O line and RB's to run an under-center based offense. If that part is not working (and it's not at this point), then Denard's comfort level and ability are beside the point.
We will be able to operate successfully with Denard in an under-center oriented offense when we are able to operate successfully with our O line and RBs in an under-center oriented offense.
What happens if we are not there yet and won't be until we get different personnel? Then we go shopping for something that works in the interim.
When Bo lost Jim Harbaugh in 1984, he tried to run the Harbaugh offense with backups Russ Reid and Chris Zurbugg. It was not working. So Bo, old supposedly inflexible Bo, dusted off the playbook and ran the '70s option. That they could run. He picked up a few more wins because of it. When Harbaugh came back the next year, he reinstituted the "new" offense.
If the under-center oriented offense is not in the cards (and we'll know by MSU), then we need to go with what we have in our back pocket . . . Denard in the open.
Comments