Deconstructing The Denard Debate

Submitted by michgoblue on

During the week after the MSU loss and in the days since the Iowa loss, there were countless threads and comments attempting to analyze what is wrong with Denard or with the Al Borges Denard fusion.  I think that there are some valid arguments, but there is so much noise surrounding the issue.  My attempt to address each of these arguments and consolidate the discussion into a single thread:

1.  Al Borges has turned Denard into a "caged animal" by prohibiting Denard to take off.

There are several plays against Iowa where Denard had an oen running lane, but didn't take it, electing instead to throw the ball.  Frustrating, I agree, given his speed (and relative lack of success through the air.  I saw a few posters claim that Denard did not take off because Borges has beat it into his head that he shouldn't run.  To me, this is nonsensical. 

Borges has said on numerous occasions that he wants to Denard to look throw, but to also use his legs to punish defenses.  When Borges and Hoke have talked about limiting Denard's runs, it is clear that they were talking about designed QB runs or spread option read runs.  If we want to look for the true answer to Denard's lack of scramble, look to Denard's own words from the presser when asked about this.  He said something to the effect of, "I didn't see the open lane because I was looking down field."  One of Denard's biggest problems (discussed below) is his lack of vision. 

2.  The QB Lead - where has it gone.

It has largely gone away.  There is a 50/50 divide on this blog about whether this is good or bad.  My personal view is that it is a good thing that we do this less.  While it was effective to some extent during the first half of last season, its effectiveness lessened considerably over the second half, and Denard took too much of a beating.  By 9 games in last season, Denard had missed significant time in several games, and he played injured for most of the second half.  At least this year, his punishment has been lessened, and he has stayed in most games.

3.  Denard's effectiveness has gone down because there is now tape on him.

I saw a poster make this point in one of the other threads, and I think that this is a great point. During the first half of last season, Denard was a new player with no tape - no way to scout his tendencies, and therefore his natural abilities were able to take over (also caveat about weak first 1/2 competition).  By the second half of 2010, MSU had tape and came up with a great way to stop Denard.  Future opponents had this tape and since then, have been able to come up with ways to limit his effectiveness.  This doesn't mean that Denard is no longer effective, but that during the first 1/2 of 2010, his effectiveness was artificially inflated.

A great example of this.  I recall the announcers during a game in mid-2010 calling Denard's pump fake followed by a run "one of the greatest weapons in cfb."  Look at this year - defenders don't even bite on the pump fake because now they have figured out that if he actually throws, it is unlikely to hurt them.  Not a criticism of Denard - this is a normal thing, players have tendencies and once those tendencies are understood by others, they are easier to defend. 

4.  Denard's vision issues - what's the deal?  Does he need to go to Stonum and Rountree's eye doctor?

Denard lacks field vision.  This is becomming increasingly clear.  He consistently throws into tight or double coverage when there are receivers arm wavingly open or running lanes that you could drive a bus through.  This has not improves.  For many quarterbacks this is a problem until one day, they suddenly make the jump.  Denard, please make this jump soon.

Is some of this on coaching?  Perhaps, although he has exhibited this flaw under two entirely different coaches.  Is some of this on the change in system?  Sure, he may have finally clicked at this point in the season had the system stayed identical.  More likely, however, is that Denard is simply not a good decision makes. 

Many QBs have a single flaw that really brings down their overall game.  Henne, for example, never felt pressure coming until it was too late.  (the jury is still out for Henne as to whether this will impact his career).  But, this lack of vision is getting to be a real problem as we are not only leaving points on the board, but we are giving up points off of turnovers.

5.  Denard in the new system - can it work?

I personally think yes.  I know that many are down on Denard, but I thought he played his best true QB game.  He stayed in the pocket (ok, sometimes too much), and even moves the pocket on plays.  He also made nice short throws, and essentially marched us down the field 80 yards on the last drive, even with receivers dropping balls all day.  To me, he looked like a QB today - once he makes the next step forward, I actually think that criticism of his vision aside, he is starting to get better in this offense.  That said, his deap ball sucks, but that is what it is. 

6.  Devin - should he be playing more?

No.  I loved the 2-QB set when it debuted.  Now I agree with the announcers that it is causing Denard to lose rhythem.  I think that Devin has potential, but he is currently a lesser Denard.  Can't run as well, worse decision makes RIGHT NOW (inexperienced, not a criticism), and doesn't look all that much better theowing it RIGHT NOW.  I would stick wiht Denard, and maybe work in the 2-QB set when we are either leading or really struggling.  Caveat:  if we break it out against OSU with all new wrinkles (such as Mike Martin as RB or V. Smith as TE or Denard as left tackle) and success, I reserve the right to change my opinion.

7.  Has Denard lost a step.

Yes.  He is noticably slower.  If you remove the hype, had never watched him play before and jsut watched the last few games, you would not say, "OMG he is faster than a cheetah strapped to a jet pack."  You would say "that QB can move pretty well."  On his few runs, even his 2 longish ones, he looked good, but not great.  He is definitely missing his burst.  Is he injured?  Fatigued?  Not sure, but he is not as explosive as in the past.

That's it.  I hope this leads to some good discussion.

willywill9

November 7th, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^

Disagree slightly on 4 and definitely on 7.
<br>4- he's finally using check downs, not perfect but finally he's recognizing he doesn't need to force a big play.
<br>7- to me , it looks like he's allowing/waiting for blocks. I think this is borderline blasphemous! Solid post though consolidating the open questions.

artds

November 7th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^

Theres only so much Borges can do with DR in the passing game. Does anyone recall the last time we had a QB under 6'0 who could effectively throw the ball against B10 competition?

BigBlue02

November 7th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^

You could have stopped after "do you remember the last time we had a QB under 6 foot." And if you are going to ask that, why don't you ask if anyone remembers the last time a first year starting quarterback was the big 10 offensive player of the year.

michgoblue

November 7th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^

I don't think that the coaches view it as wasting his talent.  Look at last year.  RR definitely did a great job of playing to Denard's talents by not having him chuck it deep or hand it off too often.  What was the result by this point in the season?  Denard was banged up to hell, decent defenses figured out how to stop our somewhat one-dimensional attack and Denard couldn't make them pay.  If his only talent is running, then he should be a running back (which I am not advocating for, since I think that he is capable of doing more).  Throwing deep, even if the throws do not hit their mark, forces defenses to account for that and play their corners and safeties back more.  This somewhat prevents them from stacking the line.

justingoblue

November 7th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^

Dan Persa is 6'1 and has had his way with Big Ten defenses for a while now.

Just going off of passing numbers in Big Ten play from 2010, Denard had more yards, YPA and TD's than Scott Tolzein did. He threw more interceptions and had a lower completion percentage, but Denard was completing at 57.6% against Big Ten defenses last year. That's not Drew Brees, but I think everyone here would take Denard at that number for Big Ten play this year without question.

justingoblue

November 7th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^

Whatever it was that happened Saturday, it needs to end now or we are seriously effed. A below average defense just kept Denard Robinson to 55 yards and 4.6ypc, which is something I thought I'd only say if he was on crutches taking snaps.

To put that in perspective, Iowa allowed 5.6ypc to Marqueis Gray, who has been hurt all year and isn't a terribly amazing runner to begin with. I don't know if that's a Denard injury, Borges incompetence, Denard incompetence, OL issues, whatever, but it can't keep up this way if we're going to have any shot at winning these next three.

Iowa is allowing one yard per game more than Nebraska on the ground, and OSU and Illinois are much, much better than that. We could easily lose all three of these games if something doesn't happen to get Denard playing better. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that, adjusting for opponent, that was one of the worst rushing games Denard has played since getting to college.

sheepdog

November 7th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^

to GAME PLAN.  Was it just me or did the first three quarters look too scripted? I know Borges is a pro-style power guy, but lets face the facts...Iowa has struggled all year at stopping mobile QBs.

I think winning games is the top priority, regardless of how fast or slow, or how badly they want to continue to install the new offense.  Sure, they were trying to win, but it didn't seem like they really "went with what works" until the 4th quarter.

BrownJuggernaut

November 7th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^

There is definitely an element of predictability right now. This is particularly true for the 2 QB sets where you know someone is going to run the ball and if not, it will be a back screen. I personally prefer when Denard runs it on his own and isn't having the ball handed off to him. You know what direction Denard is going on those plays. When he's running the ball out of the shotgun, he has more ability to improvise and do his thing. 

markusr2007

November 7th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^

I can't say I'm looking forward to the day where Michigan has a head-to-toe pro-set offense fully installed with a John Navarre at QB and the predictable playcalling that usually comes along with it - some of it witnessed on Saturday. 

These pro offense reforms are painful at the start, but I'm sure that in the end Michigan will be way better off because that big I-formation on 3rd down and long will work 60% of the time every time.

 

 

 

michgoblue

November 7th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

I agree that Borges could be doing more to aid in this transition.  I was critical of RR for running the spread n shred with Threetadin at QB, and I am somewhat critical of Borges doing the same by running the pro sets with Denard.  The thing that leads me to defend Borges is that he is still mixing in spread concepts, to play to Denard's strengths.

As I write that last sentence, however, I think that a revision in necessary:  The only thing that leads me to defend Borges is that he WAS mixing in spread concepts, to play to Denard's strengths.  He does seem to have started to phase those out, despite the fact that those were the only effective aspects of our offense.  My only speculation is that Denard may be hurt, which prevents him from really taking hits (he still has a bandaid on his elbow, which if he herely had a cyst drained, wwould not be the case).

jackw8542

November 7th, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^

When I look at the play calling from week to week, it seems as if Borges is erratic.  There were a number of plays in the Purdue game (some picture paged) that seemed to force a D to make tough decisions.  We did not see them this past weekend.  For example, the 3 wides that had different routes along one sideline that tried to force a DB to make a bad decision seemed to work against Purdue but were not tried (at least I didn't see them) against Iowa.  The kind of running plays that gave Toussaint some cutback lanes against Purdue weren't being used.  Instead, we saw one deep ball after another that had no chance of doing anything except wasting a down.

Borges needs to figure out what our offense can do and do that, instead of trying, every other game, to pound a square peg into a round hole.  From my seat on the couch, it looked to me like his play calling doomed us against MSU and against Iowa.  Against Purdue, it looked pretty good and creative.  Unfortunately, it was against MSU and Iowa that we needed good and creative, and there we got a combination of predictable and not happening.

Deep Under Cover

November 7th, 2011 at 3:17 PM ^

I find this stance completely unfair.  I do not put all of the blame on Denard, nor all the blame on Borges, but I don't see how you can put no blame on Denard.  The fact of the matter is he is a quarterback and wants to play quarterback, so it is completely reasonable to expect Denard to hit more passes, even if they aren't cupcake throws that RR fed him last year.  It is completely unreasonable to say that your QB cannot be expected to hit any pass that isn't a hitch or bubble screen.  Do I think we should run more of those easier passes?  Sure, but to throw away everything the OC knows because you can't expect your QB to complete those passes is BS.  You can't say he is one of the most talented players in the country and then argue against the expectation that he complete rudimentary passes or the occasional long ball in stride.  He is fast and has good running vision, but to earn the title of "one of the most talented" at this point he needs to make more quarterback-type plays.

I wonder if we don't run more screens with Denard and bubble screens because of the number of balls batted down.  It seems the only screens we run are when DG is in, and he has a good 4-5" on Denard.  I can definitely see a well-timed end or outside linebacker batting a bubble screen or just picking it off.

I am not doubting DR can pick up his game (and I don't mean to sound down on him), I know he has it in him, but until he does he can't just be called one of the best players whose coaches aren't utilizing him.  He is in position to make plays, and great players will do that.

Tyang

November 7th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^

can we just shut up and let the football program do their thing. losing hurts and we all get frustrated. buy what ever we post on here just to vent doesn't mean 2 cents to the coaches or the players. I am guilty of it too. but thas why we sit behind these computer screens and the players are the ones playing, and the coaches are coaching. if you wanna feel like you can change the team or the program, or know all the answers to why we lose games. than go play ncaa football 2011 on your ps3 or xbox360.

michgoblue

November 7th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^

1.  "you wanna feel like you can change the team or the program, or know all the answers to why we lose games. than go play ncaa football 2011 on your ps3 or xbox360."

I never said that I wanted to change the team or the program.  Just thought it would be interesting to have a consolidated thread to discuss something that we all find interesting.

2.  "what ever we post on here just to vent doesn't mean 2 cents to the coaches or the players"

See response above.  In fact, I don't think I offered any advise to the coaches or players. 

3.  "can we just shut up and let the football program do their thing"

Why are you on a message board devoted to Michigan football if you don't want people to engage in discussions of Michigan football?  Hell, why are you on the blog?  Shouldn't Brian just shut up and let the football program do their (sic) thing?

BlueinTC

November 7th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^

staying in pocket and throwing while not seeing the open space or the coaches saying don't run.   I think he's too focused on trying to become a pocket passer and missing the open spaces.

I think he can work in this system, but he has to be aware when nobody is open to RUN.

BlueTimesTwo

November 7th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^

Frankly, I would rather see Denard's downfield throws be jump balls for which receivers have to fight than balls thrown five yards past the receiver.  The former have a chance of being completed (and effectively serve as short punts if picked), while the latter are just throwing away downs (which eventually result in punts anyway).  Even though it may have been luck, against ND Denard's bad throws were at least catchable.  Seeing passes that have zero chance of being caught does not threaten the defense, while downfield passes that the receiver gets a hand on before being broken up might make a defense think twice about our passing game.

joeysos33

November 7th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

Denard is not slower/less explosive that is rubbish. I can't stand when people here try to break everything down like you know, when you don't. Talking about tape? Sorry but Denard has done nothing in meaningful big 10 games in his career, so again rubbish. Just take a chill pill and let the season play out. In July 8-4 was looked at as a good scenario for the year. I still think that gets surpassed, let the coaches adjust, the players play, leave the analyzing to the pro;s who have the job title.

a2_electricboogaloo

November 7th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^

If we can't analyze the games we watch?

Yes, I hate it when people start the 'ommggggggg denard=worst qb ever put in Denard/Bellomy/Kennedy' threads, but there is nothing wrong with a poster creating a well thought out breakdown of how a player is performing.  Hell, thats why most of us come here, to read and discuss about what we see each saturday. 

hart20

November 7th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

You have no idea if what Borges and Denard are saying is the truth. Denard isn't going to call out his coach for telling him not to run, that's why he's Denard. And if the opposing team isn't afraid of Denard pump faking, the blame is most certainly on Denard. He needs to make them scared of the pump fake by being able to complete passes. 

AMazinBlue

November 7th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^

The OP has identified many of the things I have been thinking and saying while watching games.  My frustration with Denard's accuracy hit an all-time high on Saturday.  As did my frustration with this offense.

I think Denard gets "tunnel-vision" and when looks downfield he doesn't see the other half of the field, there are many examples of this from the ND game through Iowa.

I think the "looking downfield" and not seeing running lanes is plausible and an unfortunate by-product of trying to improve his passing abilities.  The problem is Denard is missing wildly to many times on open receivers and it was IMHO the main reason we lost to Iowa.  I think there were at least two TDs that were missed out on by severe over throws.

Denard is trying so hard to be a passing QB that he has lost the "vision" to run.  I'd take his running over throwing any day of the week.  Borges' play-calling isn't helping Denard at all.   Borges is slowing going the way RR did, but in the oppositie direction.  Borges is kinda "forcing" Denard away from his strengths and trying to turn him into a QB he simply is not, a pocket passer.

Let Denard be Denard and sprinkle in passes when they fit.  And...keep DG on the sidelines.

Wolverman

November 7th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^

 i think he is trying to be a more patient runner ( waiting for blocks). The thing is last year it was his first step that made him so dangerous. Look at tape when Denard decided to run or when there was an oh shit dropped snap and he ran on a broken play. He was 5-10 yards down field before the defense even thought hey he's running.

 Denard can be a good passer in the big ten but he needs to drop some of his bad habits quickly. His decision making for one has to be a lot better ( i mean his a juniour after all new scheme or not you can't throw into double and triple coverage)

 Borges said fromt he start he wants Denard to have a 3 sec clock to check down and if nobody is open he wants him to run. Since this is not happening I'm guessing this is on Denard or the O-line. We have 3 winnable games left #GoBlue

BigBlue02

November 7th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^

Considering this is nearly identical to the offensive players last year and he was the best dual threat QB in the history of college football, I am going to guess it isn't Denard or the offensive line.

michgoblue

November 7th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^

Denard was the best dual threat QB for 1/2 of a year last year.  Watch him over the second half - when the defenses were real and had some tape on him - and he was not all that great.  A few nice runs, a few good throws, but large chunks of games were spent in frustration with picks, incompletions and missed reads.  Did you watch the OSU and MSU (Gator) games?  If so, how can you say that Denard is the best dual threat QB in the hostory of CFB.  He was not as good as Pat White, Troy Smith, V. Young, M. Vick, D. McNabb and countless others.  Sorry, not trying to br critical, just realistic. 

Denard's speed allows him to put up insane numbers against crappy competition, because his speed is so far ahead of everyone else on the field, that he cannot be stopped.  It is like the kid playing bball at the playground who is 6'6" when everyone else is 5'8" - he dominated.  When he plays against guys who are 6'3" or guys who have the atleticism to box him out, his dominance disappears.  Denard benefits from having a sizable athleticism advantage against crappy competition, but when that advantage is narrowed, he struggles.

Denard is an awesome guy - despite all of this, still one of my all time favorite Wolverines - but it is not entirely the play calling or Borges.

BigBlue02

November 7th, 2011 at 9:24 PM ^

Against Wisconsin, Denard had 350 yards of total offense and 4 touchdowns. Against Ohio State, he had more yards and touchdowns than Chad Henne his senior year. Against Michigan State, he had 300 yards of total offense and 2 touchdowns (although the INTs weren't good). Against Mississippi State, he had 300 yards and 2 touchdowns. Against Illinois he had nearly 400 yards and 3 touchdowns. In all of these games (our toughest games), he averaged around 300 yards and more than 2 touchdowns.

I don't understand where all of this "Denard hasn't done anything in the B10" argument comes from. Just because he wasn't getting 500 yards and 6 touchdowns doesn't mean he wasn't good. He played quite well in B10 games last year. Just because the team didn't win doesn't mean he played poorly.

justingoblue

November 7th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^

98/170 57.6% 1585 12TD/9INT 9.3YPA

That's Denard's stat line for just Big Ten games. You mentioned the Gator Bowl which isn't included here, but I think this shows his Big Ten numbers are good. And this isn't even counting his excellent running ability and the numbers he put up in that facet of his game.

Firstbase

November 7th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

The only way Denard is slower is if he has an injury. You don't get noticeably slower from one year to the next at their level of overall fitness and young age (unless you stop working out and eat donuts morning, noon and night).

I really think his success last year was because he was asked to run and also make super quick decisions with the ball. Now he's being asked much of the time to drop back and go through progressions. I just don't think that's in his skill set at this point. 

Quick slants, fast short routes, keeping defenses off-balance... that's why he was so effective last year in my opinion. 

 

His production reduction isn't problematic in and of itself. It's the three or four poor decisions he makes in the games that's really throwing a wrench into the works.

 

TyrannousLex

November 7th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^

He can't be run like he was last year. There's no ready backup to step in and replace him. So who's to say that RR wouldn't have looked at this situation and played more conservatively with Denard this season? Or if he didn't, that he would lose a string of games because a true sophomore had to come in for the injured Robinson.