November 6th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
Pretty much.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
That Borges pointed out was when he got to UCLA his qb was 10 in the conference in passing that first year. Then he lead the conference the next. I don't think denard will lead the conference but it seems his decision making is just awful. Next year he should be more comfortable and make so
<br>E better reads.
<br>On the overthrown ball to roundtree it looked on the screen that he could have tucked the ball and ran for at least 4" yards of he would have looked right.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
I disagree...He does make bad decisions, but a big part of his problem is simply not hitting the open guys. He doesn't lead them well and has a hard time locating his deep ball. I think it all comes down to his footwork, as it is just horrible. I think if he will need to work hard to correct that problem in the offseason if he wants to take the next step.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
also drop the fucking ball all the time.
i kind of wish Denard would scramble once in a while. Why does he never scramble?
November 6th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
Because he doesn't really have QB instincts. The true tell is that when he drops back to pass, he's pretty much entirely unaware of the running lanes that are open.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
the blame should go to the coaching staff. It's about putting your players in the best position to succeed and they aren't doing that with Denard. This is the fault of the offensive coaches for not truly adapting to the strengths and faults of their current personnel. Denard is a small quarterback. He isn't able to stand back in the pocket and sling the ball all over the field. Balls will inevitably get batted down and intercepted and that's not his fault. He can't miraculously grow five inches overnight and turn into Dan Marino. He is who he is and that's a great system quarterback. It's just about putting the right system around him and giving him a chance to be the best player on the field.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
perfectly.
It's really unfair to Denard to base his expectations on one fluke month and all the surrounding media hype he received in September 2010.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^
Denard running works. It's simplistic but effective. Borges is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole by making him a pro style QB. Against better teams it take patience, stick with it and we will have put ourselves in the best position to win the game.
November 6th, 2011 at 3:53 PM ^
November 6th, 2011 at 6:43 PM ^
I dunno, he was like 50-50 during the Iowa game between getting good yardage and getting stuffed. I think bottom line is the O-line needs to open up good running lanes for him to hit and they struggle to do that against good defenses. I think they need to figure out a different way to get him out into open space, like *cough* bubble screens *cough*
November 7th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^
Sack excluded: 22, 19, 14, 5, 5, 3, 2, 2, 1, -1, and -1 yards (obviously not in that order)
So yeah, you're about right. 6 of his 11 runs went for 3 yards or less, three went for 14 or more. So he averaged around 6 1/2 ypc, but had no runs between 5 and 14 yards. The lack of red zone run calls is weird though.
| 1st and 10 at MICH 31 | DR rush for 1 yard to the Mich 32. |
| 1st and 10 at MICH 23 | DR rush for 5 yards to the Mich 28. |
| 1st and 4 at IOWA 4 | DR rush for a loss of 1 yard to the Iowa 5. |
| 1st and 10 at MICH 37 | DR rush for 3 yards to the Mich 40. |
| 2nd and 6 at MICH 35 | DR rush for a loss of 1 yard to the Mich 34. |
| 2nd and 7 at IOWA 32 | DR rush for 19 yards to the Iowa 13 for a 1ST down. |
| 3rd and 2 at MICH 48 | DR rush for 22 yards to the Iowa 30 for a 1ST down. |
| 3rd and 3 at IOWA 50 | DR rush for 2 yards to the Iowa 48. |
| 4th and 1 at IOWA 48 | DR rush for 5 yards to the Iowa 43 for a 1ST down. |
| 2nd and 1 at IOWA 34 | DR rush for 14 yards to the Iowa 20 for a 1ST down. |
| 2nd and 10 at MICH 23 | DR rush for 2 yards to the Mich 25. |
November 6th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
What you are saying, is that against the best part of our schedule last year which included these teams:
(Total Defense rank)
12-1 OSU (4)
11-2 Wisconsin (20)
11-2 MSU (43)
9-4 MSU (49)
8-5 Iowa (25)
7-6 Penn State (35)
7-6 Illinois (38)
and Purdue in a mudbath, he is averaging basically the same stats he is this year against 9 teams that are far weaker than the above teams? Only MSU this year and possibly Notre Dame make it into those numbers, yet he has regressed to the same level of production against worse competition.
This doesn't sound like a Denard problem, it sounds like first year quarterback hitting some rough patches in his first year as a starter and then being forced to adapt to a new hybrid offense because of a system change, thus destroying his chances of progressing from his decreased numbers over the second part of last season.
November 6th, 2011 at 9:40 PM ^
that the OL, RBs, and WRs are also 1 year better/ stronger.Except for Touss, everyone has seemed to take a step back.
I think it's Borges, but that's fine as he needs to run his system and next year the O will improve.
November 6th, 2011 at 10:27 PM ^
We basically agree, I'm not sure what your point is in regards to my post.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
with the last paragraph. I do think Denard would be doing a bit better than he is now with RR, but that's just the way it goes. I think Borges has done pretty well given the situation, so the main hope is that Denard gets a lot more comfortable in this system between now and next Septemeber.
November 6th, 2011 at 6:19 PM ^
Last year, we pretty much had to score 40 to have a chance.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^
Every bit as much as the interceptions, the wasted attempts like we saw yesterday really hamper the offense at times. Those plays where he has so much time that he stands, surveys the whole field. catches up on some class reading for Monday, and then uncorks a bomb 10 yards past a clearly covered receiver. With no pressure, you can't make throws like that. Iowa and actually many of the Big Ten teams the last couple years have seemed pretty cool with getting no or minimal pressure. The strategy they have adopted is conservative pocket, stay at home, and let the guy throw.
You never see that in big time college football. Even the run first guys usually will chew you up if you don't pressure them. This is a huge problem for Michigan's offense. For all the pressure a Denard lead draw plays can put on a defense, our pass plays put no pressure on the defense at all. They don't respect our passer to lead a drive against a non-prevent defense.
Since it's been proven that Denard running over and over again can't beat good teams, we're left to cross our fingers and hope for a deviation up from the mean with the passing.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
Wait. Your argument is that when you compare apples to apples (snackycakes 2010 vs. snackycakes 2011) Denard 2010 kicked the shit out of Denard 2011, but when you compare apples to oranges (non-snackycakes 2010 to snackycakes 2011 + MSU and Iowa) the numbers are about the same so his performance against snackycakes 2010 must have been an aberration?
Wouldn't an equally plausible hypothesis be that when Denard is used properly against snackycake competition he puts up insane numbers, but when he is used improperly against snackycake competition he puts up pedestrian numbers, as most QBs do?
The relevant comparisons will be:
- All 2010 vs. All 2011
- Snackycakes 2010 vs. snackycakes 2011
- Non-snackycakes 2010 vs. non-snackycakes 2011
Of course, we won't get to make these comparisons until the season ends.
Finally, this whole post strikes me as yet another attempt by jmblue to discount the sucess RichRod had with Denard, and to try, for reasons that completely elude my understanding, to make it seem like the offense under RR wasn't good. I don't understand why you persist in doing that.
It seems to me that the following things can all be true:
- The offense was good under RR but the defense was horrible.
- The offense under Borges isn't as good as it was under RR, particularly the part about using Denard effectively, but the defense is way better under Mattison.
- When plays are designed that fit Denard's strengths, he is good. When he is asked to do things he isn't so good at, he isn't so good.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^
think our offense was at a huge advantage before MSU tought How to Defend Denard - 101 to the rest of the B10?
November 6th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
for being a smart man.
i really don't at all agreee with OP and you've done a nice job stating why I think OP is silly without my having to scratch my noodle coming up with sentences and stuff to communicate the stuff in my noodle.
/imfatandlazy /alsodying
November 6th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
I don't disagree with anything you said, and I agree that the comparison isn't really apples to apples. That being said, I think there is something to the fact that Denard hasn't been able to consistently performed well against quality opponents. Regardless of who the coach was. I think that is the point of the OP, which is hard to argue.
Also, what is Denard being asked to do now that he isn't so good at? If you say, throw it deep, I'd like to see one play where Denard HAD to throw it deep and didn't have a short or intermediate option. I think the problem here is Denard is just not making correct reads, and not making the throws when he does make the right read. This is not something unexpected given the change in system. Remember Denard was a 1st year starting QB last year, but it was his 2nd year in the system. So in a lot of ways, he is less experienced now than he was last year. I think we need to give him, and Borges a bit of a break here. These things take time.
If you saying he just isn't good at throwing the ball in general? If that is the case, maybe we need to re-evaluate the position, but I disagree with that.
November 6th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^
Whatever he is being asked to do this year, it isn't working. I don't know what "that" is, but when your completion percentage goes from 62% to 52% and you already have more interceptions than you did all last year, it is pretty obvious he is being asked to do something different. Ususally your decision making doesn't drastically decrease when you do the same things.
November 6th, 2011 at 3:35 PM ^
Just b/c it isn't going swimmingly right now doesn't mean Denard "can't" do it. Borges and Denard need a little time to get comfortable in each other's system. I think its way out of line to expect Borges to run the exact same offense as last year. Then we'll run into a problem where the OC isn't comfortable with the offense, which in my opinion could be worse than the QB not being entirely comfortable. It just takes some time.
November 6th, 2011 at 2:06 PM ^
After reading your post I have come to one conclusion. I am seriously ready to munch down on some snackycakes.
November 6th, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^
Also, fwiw, I remember Denard having some lingering injuries as the season progressed last year.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
those numbers really paint the picture...and its not pretty. its not so gross you want to rip it off the wall but you definitely hide it in the guest bedroom. denard is an athlete that lines up at qb. the proof is in his reads and his throws. ive run out of fingers and toes to count the number of long throws hes missed...by yards. the wr might not always be open but halfway the time he doesnt even give the wr a chance to make a play. and he doesnt check down hardly at all (latest exception being the koger pass out of the flat vs. iowa).
bottom line is that denard is what he is - a runner. um needs to run him more. law of averages says you run him enough and hell break a big one. that should help open up the passing game so he can make easy throws to open wr's. i dont think you can play to not get him hurt - "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" and i dont think you can play him in borges offense. heres to him proving that statement wrong next year but its not gonna happen this fall.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
Every bit as much as the interceptions, the wasted attempts like we saw yesterday really hamper the offense at times. Those plays where he has so much time that he stands, surveys the whole field. catches up on some class reading for Monday, and then uncorks a bomb 10 yards past a clearly covered receiver. With no pressure, you can't make throws like that. Iowa and actually many of the Big Ten teams the last couple years have seemed pretty cool with getting no or minimal pressure. The strategy they have adopted is conservative pocket, stay at home, and let the guy throw.
You never see that in big time college football. Even the run first guys usually will chew you up if you don't pressure them. This is a huge problem for Michigan's offense. For all the pressure a Denard lead draw plays can put on a defense, our pass plays put no pressure on the defense at all. They don't respect our passer to lead a drive against a non-prevent defense.
Since it's been proven that Denard running over and over again can't beat good teams, we're left to cross our fingers and hope for a deviation up from the mean with the passing.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
those numbers really paint the picture...and its not pretty. its not so gross you want to rip it off the wall but you definitely hide it in the guest bedroom. denard is an athlete that lines up at qb. the proof is in his reads and his throws. ive run out of fingers and toes to count the number of long throws hes missed...by yards. the wr might not always be open but halfway the time he doesnt even give the wr a chance to make a play. and he doesnt check down hardly at all (latest exception being the koger pass out of the flat vs. iowa).
bottom line is that denard is what he is - a runner. um needs to run him more. law of averages says you run him enough and hell break a big one. that should help open up the passing game so he can make easy throws to open wr's. i dont think you can play to not get him hurt - "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" and i dont think you can play him in borges offense. heres to him proving that statement wrong next year but its not gonna happen this fall.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^
Every bit as much as the interceptions, the wasted attempts like we saw yesterday really hamper the offense at times. Those plays where he has so much time that he stands, surveys the whole field. catches up on some class reading for Monday, and then uncorks a bomb 10 yards past a clearly covered receiver. With no pressure, you can't make throws like that. Iowa and actually many of the Big Ten teams the last couple years have seemed pretty cool with getting no or minimal pressure. The strategy they have adopted is conservative pocket, stay at home, and let the guy throw.
You never see that in big time college football. Even the run first guys usually will chew you up if you don't pressure them. This is a huge problem for Michigan's offense. For all the pressure a Denard lead draw plays can put on a defense, our pass plays put no pressure on the defense at all. They don't respect our passer to lead a drive against a non-prevent defense.
Since it's been proven that Denard running over and over again can't beat good teams, we're left to cross our fingers and hope for a deviation up from the established mean with the passing.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
that this comparison is borderline insane and the fact that people are nodding along in agreement with it makes me sad to be a Michigan fan.
Edit: I agree with El Jeffe above. It really is crazy the lengths people will go to deny any kind of positive Rodriguez may have contributed to the program.
Acting as if a first year starter could not possibly get better in the same system in year two or using his numbers under a new coordinator as evidence that he is maxed out as the QB from the second half of last year makes no sense, yet here everyone is saying "Oh, definitely, that must be it."
November 6th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
The problem I have with this comparison is that Denard's schedule was more difficult in the final 8 games of 2010 than the entire season of 2011. What happens to Denard's 2011 numbers when you take out the 4 off-season games and Minnesota (the rough equivalents of the first 5 games in 2010)? Just finished the analysis:
Rushing: 70 carries, 283 yards, 4 TDs, 4.04 YPC, 70.7 YPG
Passing: 52/100 (52%), 810 yards, 8.1 YPA, 202.5 YPG, 6 TDs (6%), 5 INTs (5%)
For the most part, Denard's passing has been consistent with all of 2011, though straight-up completion percentage isn't the best way to measure this. We might be better off using Brian DSR to determine if there's been a dropoff. OTOH, his rushing yards fall off significantly; despite having half of his season's carries in the second half of the season. [EDIT: this doesn't remove sacks, so his YPC may be closer to his season average (though the fact that Denard's taking sacks is a regression from last year by itself)]
In any case, it is disappointing to me that Denard could not improve over (the end of) last year despite his second year starting at QB, but learning a new system will undoubtedly slow down anyone's learning curve.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^
last year against any good team with a functioning defense denard couldn't move the ball at all this year against real defense he continues to have trouble moving the ball. so Jmblue is probably right.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:00 PM ^
the 2010 offense with its first year starter - who did move the ball against MSU, OSU, Penn State and Illinois, though he often made boneheaded errors to end the drives, because, you know he was a first year starter - was definitely a finished product with no hope of ever improving. Definitely should scrap the whole thing and start Devin Gardner.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
Patently untrue. First off, the issue people complain about the offense last year wasn't moving the ball but capitalizing on drives. There were too many times we drove down the field only to turn it over on downs or miss a field goal in the red zone. Thus people stated our high offensive rank was an illusion. Whether that is true or just the product of lacking a RB, kicker, and relying completely on Denard is for another argument. As Jeffe and a few others pointed out, the passing numbers aren't necessarily indicative that Denard has been the same QB over the last 8 games of 2010 and this year.
The teams Denard played at the end of 2010 were the much better versions of the Big Ten with above average to really good defenses. The fact that Denard's numbers from Eastern Michigan this year match his numbers from TSIO or Iowa (last year) is very concerning. As Jeffe points out, the comparison needs to be made about the easy teams from 2010 to the easy teams from 2011. There Denard's numbers have dropped off. It is tough to analyze the good teams from last year to this year because we haven't played all of them yet and the Big Ten sucks this year (more so than usual). The fact that Denard (and Michigan) cannot capitalize on the terrible status of the Big Ten is ominous (mainly for Denard and his role in the offense). Watching yesterday's game displayed the issues we are having as the coaches try to transition to their preferred offense. This was going to happen and I am sure part of Denard's struggles come from the very basic fact that most players (particularly QBs) struggle in their first year of learning a new offense. Combine that with Denard's limitations as a passer and the frustrating attempts by Borges and Hoke to turn this team into more of a traditional offense, and Denard is going to struggle, as our offense will do as a whole.
It is just dissapointing because with the state of the Big Ten and the amount of players UofM returned, one could (and reasonably should have) hope that Michigan would finish off with a decent record in the Big Ten. This is not out of the picture, as Illinois is not that particularly impressive and neither is TSIO or Nebraska. Plus homefield advantage is huge. We could end up doing well.
The best point the OP makes is his last paragraph about other teams having tape on Denard. Completely true. This helps teams defend him much more easily. Recognizing that he hesitates to run when he has endless green pasture in front of him and will try to force throws is a significant advantage for D coordinators. Nonetheless, Denard's dropoff this year is disturbing and the blame can be spread across numerous individuals (including Denard). I don't think most people would expect Denard to become a great QB as he seems to lack the touch and the ability to diagnose defenses as a great QB has, but given his natural ability as a runner it is justifiable to expect him to be a pretty good college QB, and this year has put a significant damper on it. Nevertheless, I am hopeful and trusting that Denard will take steps and as he learns more of the system will get better as Borges will become more adapt at using Denard. Practice makes perfect after all.
November 6th, 2011 at 10:43 PM ^
i agree with what you said but would like to stress a few points. denard is more than just a pretty good QB. He is an outstanding QB and great football player. however, he obviously has on O coordinator that doesn't play to his strengths and it has cost us both losses.
i would like to see the stats of when denard goes under center. i would bet they are not good and i cringe every time he does so. the offense clicked yesterday when denard moved back to the shot gun. he made plays both running and throwing.
just one game i would like to see him go from the shotgun the entire game and run a few more misdirection plays and bubble screens. this would open up many more big plays for denard and the other skilled players.
Borges please open your eyes and see what you have here. our QB set offensive records last year as a first-year starter. the O is being stifled more by borges this year than by the opposing Ds.
November 6th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
Yeah, he only had 260 yards and 2 td's.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
You make a solid point. Denard's production the last dozen and half games hasn't been where we want it. But I'm not ready to lose faith. Denard's arm has made it a long way since his freshman year here and I'm sure it will continue to improve. We have to give him some credit... He has shown us some strikes. When he's just sitting in the pocket, he can throw the ball on target just as good (which is average) as the other qbs in the Big 10. My issues with Denard thus far is probably what everyone's issues are: 1) He seems to lock on receivers. He doesn't seem great at checking down/going to his 2nd and 3rd options. On several instances we've seen receivers wide open yet Denard misses this as he's locking on the primary like Jerry Sandusky on a lathered up prepubescent boy. 2) This doesn't even need to be said, but his back-footed throws are a killer.
But I support him 100% and would only trade him for a handful of other qbs. I love what Denard represents off the field. We have to keep a few things in mind. Denard is going through as drastic of a coaching change as one could. While Borges has kept a decent amount of RR's spread in our running attack, most of our passing game has been MANBALL... A lot of playaction, a lot of the 12-15 yard stuff and very little, if any, of the bubble screen & QB PA to hit the seam. Just take a look at his yards per pass attempt between 2010 and 2011. He's completion percentage has taken a 10% hit but his YPA isn't far off from last year. And while wideouts will always have their share of drops, Junior had some uncharacteristic drops early in yesterday's game.
Denard is the same running threat as he's always been, teams are just able to prepare for it whereas in September/October of 2010, Denard was a different breed of athlete to the Big10, and even nationally for that matter. This offense will be magical (yes, i just used magical) when it all comes together. When defenses want to put 7 or 8 in the box, Denard's arm will be competent enough to make the defense pay. And when the defense is forced to play balanced, Denards legs will be there. I think this was kind of the game plan the coaches wanted against MSU.. We're going to pass the ball 30 times and then Denard is going to beat you with his legs. But the wind killed us. The progression this will take time. Once Denard is comfortable reading through his progressions, this offense will be very difficult to stop. I don't think the same could be said for RR's offense. He was doing all the bubbles and giving Denard 20 some carries but we saw how that turned out at the end of last season.
I was more pissed about the playcalling in the MSU game than yesterday. We tried to go deep 3 times in a row against state... something which should never happen with our QBs. Yesterday, we still ran the ball over 30 times as a team. Fitz got 16 carries.. I would have liked to see Denard get a few more, but his passing wasn't terrible enough to go away from it.
November 6th, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
The Sandusky situation is an all-around downer.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
Yep. He caught a bunch of teams unaware last year -- he wasn't even announced as the starter until right before the first game. Then teams got their bearings. He's been essentially the same dynamic yet flawed QB ever since.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
Here is what I don't understand. Michigan's offense at the end of the game was unstoppable......SO WHY NOT RUN THAT THE WHOLE GAME?
If it works, keep doing it. If not, start running the ball out of the I.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^
Iowa wasn't even trying.
November 6th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
And more of a prevent at the end of a game. Also, last year Denard was throwing to a lot of wide open receivers because that's what RR's spread was meant to do. But he was running 25 times a game too. There was a lot of talk about that being too much. Also, The new coaching staff Wants to run a non-spread offense as they are not spread coaches. Evident by the non-use of bubble screens, etc. The problem, it seems, is that they want to transition into a non- spread O but as they do they are playing less and less to Denard's strengths.
November 6th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
If they were playing a prevent, then why did they have Praeter attempting to play bump and run coverage on Roundtree and then not have a safety over the top to cover Roundtree if he got past the block at the line. Doesn't sound very soft or conservative to me. Additionally, why was Denard trying to beat them deep numerous times with only single coverage on the WR's. It really didn't seem Iowa was playing softer at the end of the game. Additionally, after Iowa scored to go up 24 to 9, Michigan marched down the field immediately with enough time for two possessions afterwards. I can't believe Iowa was completely playing prevent for most of the fourth quarter.
November 6th, 2011 at 5:07 PM ^
He's ran 20+ times 3 times already this year, mainly against weaker competition...its confusing why we wasted those attempts against the weaker teams on our schedule, rather than against MSU or Iowa, when passing became more diffcult.
November 6th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
Al Borges has been doing this "offensive coordinator" thing for a while. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's made a career out of it. You really think that if it were that easy we wouldn't have been running "that offense" the whole game?
You're saying that, with 2 minutes left, Al threw up his hands and said, "Hey, what the hell? Nothing's worked so far so now I'm just gonna run a completely different scheme for this last drive and see if it works!"
I really have a hard time believing it's as simple as that. Tell me, what would we be saying if Denard hadn't overthrown Hemingway on that deep ball in the second quarter? Or if we had scored at the end of the first half? Combine that with our last drive, and that's three touchdowns we missed by a hair. Would you still be complaining that Borges was running the wrong scheme if we had won 37-24?
No, we did not have the greatest offensive game ever, but to reduce it to a matter of scheme in this particular case is a hasty move. In football you win or lose, live or die, and the difference is just an eyelash.
Let's see how the offense does in the last three games, particularly the last two home games.
November 6th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
So when Al said they went into a different offense at the end of the game, you think he was lying? Also, yes, I do believe Al looked at the offense he was running the first 3 quarters, noticed we hadn't done shit, and went into a 2 minute drill offense, which worked much better.
Also also, I don't think you really know what you are arguing. "If Denard hits Hemmingway or we score at the end of the 1st half"......That is the whole problem. Hitting a deep slant and short slant into tight coverage are not Denard's strengths. Which is exactly why everyone has a problem with the playcalling - because Denard is consistantly being asked to do those things.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
Last year, Denard was a true sophomore in an offense that, while playing largely to his strengths, requires a ton of repetition and gets exponentially easier with experience. This year, Denard got a different OC with an entirely different philosophy. While some stuff stayed the same, he was still tasked with learning a whole new offense and tinkering with his mechanics. In addition, reads at the line last year were signaled in by the staff whereas this year they're his responsibility. I have zero doubt that with another offseason in the system we will see dramatic improvements from senior Denard. The only question is if the dropoff from the line depth will be too significant to overcome. Denard's ceiling is not his so-so performances against top tier defenses.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
Liked the conclusion in particular. I think people overlook this:
"It may be simply that because opposing defenses did not have much game film of him to watch at the beginning of 2010, they could not come up with effective gameplans, but as the season progressed, opposing DCs caught on to his tendencies, and this has continued this season. He is going to have to develop further as a passer if he wants to become as effective as he was 14 months ago." - jmblue
Reasonable assessment, and I pretty much agree. Thank you.
I do think that they are - a tweak at a time - trying to reinvent him because of where the staff wants to go with the offense. I think the question a lot of people have right now is - how fast do you incorporate him into Borges-land? Do you manage that as the previous staff did and say we run this and that's it, or is it better to try and meet Denard in the middle, even if you don't prefer to do so? I think, simply by virtue of the fact that you have a player like Denard, that the answer is the latter.
November 6th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
What we are seeing is why schools didn't recruit Denard as a Qb. He doesn't fit into a pro-style offense. He is an amazing athlete that is/was perfectly matched to RR's offense. This one...not so much.
I love the kid, but he's gonna have to make some huge strides in the offseason.
November 6th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
I am just not seeing the same burst he had last year.