Can Gardner Threaten Defenses on Read-Option Looks Without Carrying the Ball?
Can a conservative gameplan designed to protect Gardner's health still utilize Gardner's running ability as a threat to influence defenses?
This question came up, most recently, in today's Hokepoints thread. MCalibur argued for a much more intense use of Gardner as a runner, and was universally shot down by people like me who believe that a significant Gardner injury basically ends Michigan's season.
But can he force teams to account for him in the running game anyway?
Grantland has an interesting piece from Chris Brown of Smart Football that seeks to discern what kind of offense Chip Kelly will run in Philadelphia this year. One of the interesting revelations is that Chip can run his basic scheme with or without a running quarterback without changing its basic tenets. And, further, that Chip strongly preferred that his QBs in Oregon hand off, regardless of the actions of the unblocked defender.
And the statistics bear this out. Oregon's two most successful years occurred under the guidance of perhaps the least impressive, and certainly the slowest, quarterback of the Chip Kelly era: Darron Thomas. Thomas wasn't exactly Tom Brady in the pocket, but he wasn't a gamebreaker either, and those of us who watched Oregon in those years remember how infrequently he made plays with his feet.
Oregon won the Rose Bowl at the conclusion of its 2011 season; I don't think any of us would be disappointed with that kind of result this year. Darron Thomas that year? 56 carries, 206 yards, 3 touchdowns.
Yet Oregon was not lining up in the I-formation. They were running their diet of inside and outside zone reads, inside zone gives, and occasional reverses. Thomas wasn't a huge threat, but his presence required the coverage, or at least hesitation, of the unblocked defender; the result was space for LaMichael James and Kenjon Barner to run through.
Michigan does not run the spread concept anymore, and we do not have LaMichael James in our backfield, but the principle is the same. If the rumors of a pistol look are true, I would be unsurprised (but overjoyed) to see Michigan running pistol read-option looks to its tailbacks where Gardner almost always gives. This uses Gardner's speed as a threat while still keeping his running totals low. Frankly, as Kelly does, the only time Gardner would ever pull would be when the defense completely ignores him--and then he has the space to make them pay, and to protect himself. Two or three of those carries a game and the concept has done its job.
Combine those carries with perhaps one or two designed draws and Gardner's propensity for scrambling and you have 8-10 low-risk carries per game but also a fully realized threat that the defense must account for on every play.
August 13th, 2013 at 1:38 PM ^
But it's what I've always anticipated Michigan's offense to do this year, even from under center. Expect DG to roll a lot after handing the ball off. Why? Because it prevents the backside EMOL from crashing down and gives the RB a better cut back lane. Same with the read option type stuff. Only keep it when the run is so obvious that handing it off would spell disaster. Other than that, you are just forcing the defense to remain honest so that they can't collapse on the RB. DG doesn't get hit, but still essentially provides half a block just because of the threat of his legs.
August 13th, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^
Washington more-or-less did what you describe with Robert Griffin last year. He only ran the ball eight times per game, and a number of those weren't called runs. He none-the-less seemed to make a big difference in Washington's running game by making the defense account for him on every play.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^
Griffin also got physically destroyed by the end of the year. Granted, that was against NFL defenses, but we can't take that risk with Gardner.
August 13th, 2013 at 3:08 PM ^
He fell victim to a shitty as field and his owner was too stupid to put FieldTurf in for him knowing they were running spread/read-option elements in Washington, D.C. in December and January or a "natural" field (which was basically a sand pit).
August 13th, 2013 at 3:14 PM ^
The play on which he was hurt was also a called pass.
August 13th, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^
Football is a violent game, man.That's all we *know*. Griifin did get worn down and badly injured, but is he the only QB this has ever happened to? It happens to all of them. He's a famous and recent example and his injury plays in the the completely logical fear laid out by Zone Left, but the data does not support this conclusion.
Other current NFL QBs that fit the mold: Colin Kaepernick (remember how he got the job in the first place?), Russel Wilson, Cam Newton, Mike Vick. Vick has been injured, sure. That makes him the same as Tom Brady, Carson Palmer, Matt Stafford, Alex Smith, Ben Roethlisberger Joe Theisman and a list longer than my arm.
Football is violent, Quaterbacks get injured.
August 14th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
There is also definite flea-flicker potential out of that play.
August 13th, 2013 at 1:40 PM ^
August 13th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^
Devin definitely heeds my yells of "RUUUNNNNNN" way better than Denard ever did. When there was no one open last year, Devin was really good about recognizing it and running downfield which usually got him 10+ yards. That's a big asset for a QB to have (the recognition ability)
August 14th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
Yep. Gardner also is very good at keeping his eyes downfield when he starts to take off and recognizing that he can still throw it before he crosses the LOS. That makes him really tough to defend.
August 13th, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^
No more running the QB please. Unless he has to improvise or can scramble to get the 1st down and slide when he gets it.
August 13th, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^
Scared the $#!7 out of me. All I saw was a long title and for some reason I skipped over the first word. I read "Gardner Threaten" and clicked on the title and started to read the content. I became a very confused man.
Nothing wrong with the title, just my own personal freak out.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^
You can cuss on the internet, you know.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^
Whoa, whoa, whoa. What the flippity doo-da are you talking about?
August 13th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^
Whoa, whoa, whoa. What the flippity doo-da are you talking about?
August 13th, 2013 at 4:10 PM ^
But now you're just being crass.
August 13th, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^
even with a fake carryout. It's simply an either inside or outside zone run play. A true read option play is when the OL leave the defender unblocked for the QB to read. If it's a designed give, it's not a read option. Rich Rod and Borges does it a lot with Denard because of his inability to read defense.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^
I'm aware of the difference between the plays. Obviously, Chip Kelly is, too--but he emphasized a strong preference for the running back to get the ball, even on plays that appeared to be genuine options.
August 13th, 2013 at 4:31 PM ^
There would just be a strong propensity to handoff, but you still have to read the end, DT, or LB as the case may be.
August 13th, 2013 at 5:22 PM ^
August 13th, 2013 at 11:43 PM ^
If there's a defender unblocked for the QB to read but the QB's read is "give the ball unless he is completely ignoring your existence" then it's a read. That's basically what he's suggesting Chip Kelly did.
August 14th, 2013 at 12:23 AM ^
on a read option by leaving defender unblocked. That's why there's an inside/outside zone plays if you don't want the QB to run. Team would know that the QB wont' keep and go after the RB for an easy loss.
August 15th, 2013 at 10:54 AM ^
You're missing the point. You're saying it, and still missing it.
August 17th, 2013 at 12:00 AM ^
I'm saying because I know I'm right. You can't just have designed give with an unblocked defender because they'll just go after the RBs.
Chip Kelly, Rich Rod and other coaches just don't do it because their QB can't read defense to save their life(like Denard or Tebow for example). They simply just go with inside/outside zone if they want to do it without risking their QB.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^
Conceptually this is really no different from a play-action fake designed to freeze the linebackers on a pass play. The threat of something happening (Gardner running) forces defenses to account for his presence - even if he doesnt actually do it very much. I will say, however, that if he NEVER keeps the ball defenses will figure this out pretty fast and simply ignore him. Much like last year when Denard ran the speed option where he NEVER pitched the ball. Defenses figured this out and stopped accounting for the pitch man.
So I guess my answer to your question is no, they cant threaten defenses if Garner doesnt ever carry the ball. But if he does carry it once or twice then Hell yes so they know its possible.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:59 PM ^
I'm still waiting for Denard to throw the ball against Ohio State.
August 13th, 2013 at 4:18 PM ^
Don't forget that the play-action makes the defense think about the RB getting the ball (as much or more so than the QB keeping it). Because we'll now have a running game and a QB who can throw, our offense is going to be so much more dangerous.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:20 PM ^
Posted in the Hokepoints comments, but reprised here 'cause I done been called out.
I guess I'm just not that concerned about him getting hurt. My concern level is the same as it was when Henne, Navarre, Henson, Brady, Griese were back there. I dont think QBs that run are any more susceptible to injuries than QBs that don't run. I don't propose mine as the definitive study, but it is a study and I am not aware of another that attempts to objectively answer the question re: QB Fragiltiy.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/qb-fragility-update
To be clear my position is that the likelihood that Devin will get injured has little (probably nothing) to do with how often he runs the ball. We all agree it would be bad if lost him, I just dont think there's anything we can do to help avoid it. How do we know he won't get lit up while the interior of the o-line develops? We don't. ND's d-line is pretty dope...
I threw out 10-12 runs/sacks/scrambles a game as a target based on what I think is a reasonable split assuming 500-600 total carries by all rushers. In fact, in the 5 games Devin started at QB last year he accounted for at least 23% of the teams rushes in each game. That is exactly what I'm talking about. I really dont think that is a wreckless amount of exposure but ultimately the precise calibration isn't the main thrust of my argument. I'm not suggesting a spread option, but rather FORCING the opposing defense to guard against his legs by deliberately running with him with whatever frequency is necessary to make them honor the threat.
The offenses lead by the QBs in my original comment weren't Spread Option offenses (not sure about Dixon), they were Prostyle offenses with a gazelle under center.That's what we have. They were potent offenses, thats what we want. The notion of playing it safe out of fear that Devin Gardner can't take a hit is laughable to me. Actually, it seems like the Notre Dame thing to do.I bet Al Borges is not afraid to deploy Devin Gardner with his full arsenal of abilities. Michigan is not good enough to win the B1G and beyond by playing it safe; we haven't been for a LONG time.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:39 PM ^
Vince Young and Dennis Dixon were running earlier versions of the zone read. The concept is still young in football terms.
I think we can assume there are two broad types of injuries, let's call them usage and independent. Usage injuries are the body breaking down gradually from overuse and independent injuries are the blown out knee from a bad hit. Everyone wears down over the course of a season, but Gardner probably isn't running enough to really break down. Independent injuries are what we're really worried about. My view is that an independent injury is more or less a really independent event. Each hit is a probability of injury, therefore more hits equals more independent trials. As the number of trials increases, you're more likely to have that independent event occur.
Gardner is the franchise just like Denard was in 2011. There is risk in increasing the number of hits on him. I'm all for using that capability to give us the advantage we need to beat Notre Dame and Ohio State or to win a game we're struggling in. You're right, we can't win a conference title without taking that risk. If he runs off a zone read from the pistol in the first quarter against UConn, I'm going to have a heart attack.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:58 PM ^
I think your analysis is mostly correct - after all, all things considered Denard was pretty durable despite running many times (often 20 or more) per game. In the RR years he'd tend to miss a series or two here or there, but last season was the first time he missed extensive time. And ultimately, Denard's injury last year was something of a freak occurance - it wasn't that bad of a hit, just hit at the wrong spot.
The case for limiting Gardner's carries is that perhaps the "wearing down" of 20+ runs and tackles doesn't take you out of the game, but does ding up your arms and shoulders enough to throw off your passing game. In other words, getting tackled repeatedly doesn't keep you from popping up and running again, but mayb it takes some power and accuracy off your throws.
On the other hand, even QBs who don't run at all take hits. And often those hits are worse - blind side sacks, or being hit just after delivering the ball when you're relatively defenseless. The late hit rule limits that, but it still happens pretty frequently. I'd say those are the sorts of hits more likely to be the "freak accident" that injures you in a meaningful way. We need some stats here, but anecdotally it seems like QBs get seriously injured (as opposed to dinged) almost as frequently as RBs, despite taking many fewer hits, because the hits they do take are the bad ones.
Denard's legs seemed to limit those sorts of hits - blitzers were less likely to come screaming at him recklessly because if they missed, he'd be free to break a long run. I think the OPs proposal would actually be the best of both worlds for Devin. A few called option runs a game would force defenses to respect him not only in the running game, opening up lanes for the RB, but also in the passing game, making violent sacks less likely.
August 13th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^
This doesn't really strengthen my argument, but there is another aspect of mobile-QB injuries that is overlooked. One of the NFL arguments against running the QB is that your QB is more likely to be injured. There are statistical arguments against this.
However, what is not frequently mentioned is that a QB whose ability to move the offense is partly due to his mobility will be harmed more significantly by certain injuries than by passing-only quarterbacks. If, say, Tom Brady and Colin Kaepernick suffered identical ankle tweaks that slowed their cuts and straightline speed considerably but had little effect on their throwing motion and power, there would be a significant difference in impact. Brady might be a bit gimpy moving around the pocket, but his ability to throw would be unaffected and the offense would be unchanged. Kaepernick, on the other hand, would no longer be able to threaten to run from the pistol, and defenses would stop having to dedicate a player to stopping him. As a consequnce, San Francisco's running game would be harmed, as would (potentially) its passing game as a result.
Just look at how terrible Washington was when it played a wounded RGIII who couldn't run last season. It makes a difference.
August 13th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^
While I'm impressed with your deployment of the subjunctive mood here, you're presenting a theory as fact with absolutely nothing to support it. Washington won all of the games you're pointing to (including the one he didn't play in) except for the last one vs SEA which you may recall was decent at that point in the season.
When a team loses their starting QB at any level, bad things happen the most of the time.Just look what happened to Michigan when Denard went down...oh wait...
August 13th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^
You make a good point here: This is just a theory of mine.
Though it should be noted that RGIII, even before his knee blew out, was in much worse shape during the Seattle game than in any other contest.
August 13th, 2013 at 7:00 PM ^
What makes you think a healthy RG3 could do something a healthy Colin Kaepernik could not do? SFO got kilt by SEA in their week 16 showdown. K-I-L-T. So a healthy RG3, with an inferior team, would have fared better? For real?
August 13th, 2013 at 10:30 PM ^
you had me until kilt
August 13th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
Of course this would affect Kaepernick more than Brady, but that is because Tom Brady is a worse runner than Kaepernick. What if both players received identical wrist tweaks? Then Brady's offense would be hurt much more than Kaepernick because Kaepernick is a worse passer than Brady. Neither team could rely on pinpoint downfield accuracy, but with Kaepernick that would be okay because he could still use his legs to put pressure on the secondary to defend against the run game.
In the end, the question still becomes whether or not running the QB 10-12 times a game increases the rate of injury versus being a strict pocket passer. In the case of minor tweaks, then one has to break it down by type of minor tweak (whether it affects passing or running), which would be pretty impossible with the data currently available.
August 13th, 2013 at 4:42 PM ^
It's not unfair. The point is that an offensive gameplan incorporating schemes based upon the ability of the quarterback to run the football is more vulnerable to injuries than one that is not. This is primarily in response to the "running QBs more likely to get hurt" trope, which I find questionable on the face.
If you look at a given quarterback's overall ability to run the offense, a quarterback whose productivity is based partly on his running ability has a greater chance of having the injuries that every quarterback is vulnerable to affect a significant part of his game.
You've referenced Kaepernick, who is an interesting case. Kaepernick experienced much initial success in the passing game, but I don't know that we've yet seen proven how much (or if) he is superior to Alex Smith from a pure passing game perspective. However, he was far, far more effective at moving the offense, and a significant reason for that was the threat that he posed as a runner. If his ability to run is neutralized by injury, but he can still throw, his passing skills are the same but the way the defense plays changes and one may find that he is not all that much better than Alex Smith (or Jay Cutler, or whomever) as just a passer.
The thing is, the passing game is so crucial to any high-level offense that you cannot flip around and say the same thing about a wrist (arm, elbow, shoulder, etc) injury. An injury that affects a quarterback's ability is a disaster for any offense, no matter how mobile the QB.
I think you're mistaking my post about injuries (in a nod to MCalibur, I probably should have used the term "may" rather than "will" as this is just a theory) with my argument about Gardner. As I said, this really has no effect, or even a negative effect, on my OP argument.
But here's how we can quantify it in easy-to-personalize terms: Take Michigan's Denard-based offense in the last two seasons. Think of our offense this year. Imagine Denard and Devin suffering high-ankle sprains.
The Denard-based offense is in deep, deep trouble with such an injury. Denard, bereft of his mobility, cannot threaten defenses with his legs. His passing abilities remain inadequate. The offensive line cannot get enough of a push for any running back to be successful. Our offense is like Michigan State's.
The Devin-based offense is under the gun, too. Devin can't scramble for yardage in the same way, and any read-option looks are useless. However, Devin can still pass, and while the offense struggles, it can still move the football at times.
Same injury, different players, different offenses, different impacts. See what I mean?
August 13th, 2013 at 7:01 PM ^
I dunno, Steve. Michigan seemed to do OK when it lost Denard last year. It might have been better on the whole. The Nebraska game was a disaster because Bellomy had no business being out there. If we had Tate Forcier or even a Shane Morris available, it looks less ugly, no? Do we win? Dont know but thats a more complicated question. Once a valid QB was inserted, things were fine. Doesn't that sorta shut this whole theory down at the starting line? It's probably the most extreme true example available in favor of the theory, and it fails.
How many times do you really see a Byron Leftwich situation? Just seems like a convoluted argurment to me.
August 14th, 2013 at 12:26 AM ^
is false when he has one of the strongest arm in the league and has good accuracy to go with it which is why the offense work because of his ability to make every NFL throws.
Also, the Pats offense were fine without Brady when he got hurt. Matt freaking Cassell got a similar production when he filled in as a starting QB for a year and this is a QB who never saw significant time in college. There's evidence for it.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:18 PM ^
Go Blue!
August 13th, 2013 at 2:26 PM ^
To add to what MCalibur said http://mgoblog.com/diaries/follow-qb-fragility. Mike Shanahan has argued that he will actually protect his QB in running him regularly, by reducing the aggressiveness of defensive ends and avoiding big hits in the pocket.
With Borges preferring a longer slower-developing pass game than many programs, it would seem wise to me to put the DEs and LBs on their heals by using Gardner as a run threat consistently (by that I mean 5-6 times per competitive game, not including scrambles).
August 13th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^
It should be noted that while Gardner ran quite a bit last year and presumably will frequently record postive-yardage carries this year, his carries typically had a much different character than Denard's. As most of us recall, the option plays dried up, and Gardner's rushes came from dropbacks and scrambles. For whatever reason, Devin is much more of a natural scrambler than Denard, and did far more damage pulling the ball down than Denard ever did from passing looks.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:33 PM ^
August 13th, 2013 at 3:25 PM ^
Gardner might be smart enough to get out of bounds but a lot of the designed runs for Denard made it really hard for him to get to the sidelines unless he broke the run for big gain.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:34 PM ^
August 13th, 2013 at 2:47 PM ^
The whole premise of my statement is the Hokepoints entry where sacks and scrambles are counted as rushes along with the suggestion that with this exit of Denard, Michigan would revert to the pre-richrod level of QB rushing share: 10%-ish. That would be a shame and extrememly frustrating for us all.
Everyone is saying the same thing: tomato. I say 8-10, you say 10-12. Some say "low risk rushes" or "called rushes" I say simply "rushes". No one wants to see Devin get injured.
what the hell are we actaully debating?
August 13th, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^
Good question. I don't know that this is a debate so much as meeting of the minds to figure out how much of Devin's running ability can be harnessed for the benefit of the offense without unecessarily exposing him to what would, to this team, a disaster of an injury.
I have no idea if Al will actually use his run threat at all, but my thought with this post was to explore the possibility that Devin's running ability could be exploited without significantly increasing his vulnerability to injury. A "here's how this could work" type of thing.
It starts with the premise that an ideal offense would run Devin a fair amount, since he is fast and even NFL teams recognize the advantages of such a concept, but that this ideal is counterbalanced by the absolute necessity of protecting Devin from injury.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^
In other words, pretty much a first down just waiting to happen.
Just look at Marriota's rushing stats from last year. 752 yards on 103 carries. That 7.1 ypc.
Darron Thomas was a nightmare as a senior. Only 55 carries but 500+ yards. That's 10+ ypc.
I don't know how often Kelly's QBs handed off or kept, but the reason opposing defenses HAD to account for Oregon QB was because they were extremely effective runners, and had a way of keeping the pressure off the the very talented Oregon RBs.
I think Michigan would be wise to use Devin Gardner with real rushing carries from these sets, so that they can augment off the play, as so many teams have done before - like 2004 and 2005 Texas and 2006 OSU.
I'm pretty sure Michigan is going to prefer to protect Devin Gardner from the probability of getting hit, so the results for any runoption plays will be predictable. Defenses will simply key on the UM running backs and that will be that.
That said, Michigan could have a decent play-action passing game with Gardner.
August 13th, 2013 at 2:54 PM ^
I think you've read the post (or the stats page) wrong. In 2011, Darron Thomas ran 56 times for 206 yards, 3.7 ypc. These stats are per sports-reference.com. He rarely kept the ball and did not do a lot of damage when he did; however, the look was just enough to cause regular hesitation from the unblocked defender (not always the end; like other teams, Oregon switched around which defender it left unblocked) to create numerical mismatches for James to run behind.
Marcus Mariotta, in contrast, is a much faster runner and did run quite a bit more last year.
August 13th, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^
Rarely utilized Troy Smith's running ability. He carried the ball 72 times for 204 yds. Over 13 games that's 6.5 carries/game for about 15 yds/game.