Denard v. 2011 SEC Starting QBs

Submitted by Kramer on

After watching the game live in Dallas I thought Denard actually played pretty good and looked good throwing the ball.  After re-watching the game on TV upon my return my impression was that he played even better than I originally thought.  Many people of the internets disagree with this statement, so I went back and looked at the starting QB stats for every game Alabama played last year against an SEC opponent plus Penn State.  Below are those numbers.

  Completions Attempts % Yards TD INT
SEC + Penn State 11 21 56 109 0.4 0.9
Denard 11 26 42 200 1 2

If you take into account that Denard didn't get much help from his receivers (a couple drops, Gardner rounding off some routes) and remove the 1 INT that was blatant pass interference, Denards numbers are on par, or significantly better in every category save %.  The pass to Gallon was picture perfect, along with many other throws that were dead on.  I believe Brain's UFR will prove this out.  Sure he had a couple bad throws and reads, but every quarterback does, especially when playing a defense the caliber of Alabama.  No QB threw for more yards against Alabama last year than Denard did on Saturday.

I also have the team rushing numbers from last year which are interesting.

  Rushes Yards TD
SEC + Penn State 29 58 0.2
Michigan 29 69 1

Overall I think Michigan did just about as good as could have been expected, and on par or better than the vaunted SEC did against Alabama last year.  Granted this year's defense is not last years, but from watching Alabama very closely the past 3 years, I'd bet this defense ends up being better than last years.  The cliche "they don't rebuild, they reload" couldn't be more fitting.

willywill9

September 5th, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^

People are writing Denard (and Michigan) based off this game.  When in reality, his stats weren't that bad.  The Offense lacked complete continuity, and that's the problem, but his statistics would have been much worse last year.  He is an improved player, and I think we'll see that in B1G play.

unWavering

September 5th, 2012 at 2:00 PM ^

The thing is, not every SEC opponent is super-good, despite what they want you to believe.  These teams included Vanderbilt, Florida, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Mississippi State, and Auburn.  In fact, the only SEC teams they played that were as good or better than us are LSU and Arkansas.  Arkansas' offense would be a good measuring stick, but LSU's offense was not that good.

So, we did slightly better than a lot of crappy teams.



EDIT:  I do not think that this game should be used as any sort of indication of how we will do this season, I'm just voicing my opinion that the stats you provide do not tell us what you want them to.

Kramer

September 5th, 2012 at 2:03 PM ^

 

Arkansas (Wilson) had the following stats:

22/35 for 63%, 185 yards, 2 TD and 1 INT

Arkansas Rushing:

19 rushes for 17 yards, No TD

They threw the ball more, and with a much better percentage, but if you remove the PI INT and account for Denards rushing TD, I'd say the numbers are comparable.  Michigan went for bigger shots, thus lower %, but had more yardage.

coastal blue

September 5th, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^

Also, Arkansas had better more experienced receivers. 

I think we just have to accept the following:

Alabama is a great team.

Their offensive line is the best we will see all year and there is no reason to panic about our DL.

Brady Hoke and Al Borges probably figured it was a lost cause going all-out to win this game

While it probably wouldn't have made up 27 points, not having Fitz hurt us

Our offensive personnel doesn't fit our OC

That the above fact doesn't mean we won't have a pretty good offense in games where Borges decides its worth giving Denard some carries. 

We still have the whole Big Ten season ahead of us, with no Big Ten team looking particularly strong. 

All in all, this loss gets chalked up to having 3 coaches in 6 seasons and our trigger-happy AD signing a contract before our program was stable enough to schedule such a game. 

readyourguard

September 5th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^

The only way we'll know if any of these post-game justifications amount to a hill of beans is to let the games play out. For now, they're just rhetoric from a fanbase licking its collective wounds.

MGlobules

September 5th, 2012 at 2:19 PM ^

which is what makes it valuable. The statistics adduced contain many limitations, but they show that Denard's performance was more or less on par with the SEC and PSU's performance against Alabama last year. No more, no less. Given that the fans were shouting "SEC," as if the conference had beaten us, and Brent Mussberger was insinuating that we weren't SEC quality, the analysis has value.

To me, at this stage, it seems like the Johnwaynebutthurtsuckitupcharlies are spinning their wheels more than those who are carefully picking their way through the wreckage for the signs. I mean, that's what you do after every game, win or lose, right? How many times can you tell your fellow board members to suck it up, and just how much does that really get your rocks off?

/rantover, but take that anti-intellectual sh*t outta here once and for all

MrVociferous

September 5th, 2012 at 2:58 PM ^

That's a big, big difference and is not more or less on par.  If your coworkers were all doing the same job as you, and were making $56k a year, and you were making $42k a year, there is no shot in hell you would say "we make more or less the same."  You'd be saying those jackasses make 35% more than I do for doing the exact same thing.

MrVociferous

September 5th, 2012 at 3:28 PM ^

1) Not sure how you thought this was a reply to you...

2) My response was to MGlobules who said "The statistics ...show that Denard's performance was more or less on par with the SEC and PSU's performance against Alabama last year."  So to answer your question, MGlobules said/implied that 42% was more or less 56%.

3) But now that I am replying to you, I think throwing out the percentages is a pretty big stat to throw out when you're trying to compare QBs.  I think most coaches out there would rather have an accurate QB than one that puts up big numbers with a bunch of incompletions.

scooterf

September 5th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^

I don't think any amount of rationalization will really make me feel better. The only thing that will do that is results against non-Alabama teams. 

His Dudeness

September 5th, 2012 at 2:07 PM ^

I am sad for Denard. He doesn't fit the Borges system and Borges is kind of forcing him into it a little bit. Most of our fanbase (who I have spoken with anyway) are just waiting for him to graduate instead of watching what could have been one of the most spectacular senior seasons in history. The kid is obviously not the best thrower, but if you have him running it often enough, it opens up the passing game. But what do I know? I wanted Borges to run Rawls between the tackles and Vincent Smith outside the tackles. Stupid me.

coastal blue

September 5th, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^

Very true.

The kid plays one of the greatest games I've seen a Michigan player play to end The Streak and beat Ohio (And even though Ohio was 6-6, remember Michigan lost to a 7-5 and 8-4 Ohio team while LC was coaching, with far superior records) and people still can't wait to see him out the door. 

I think its because they view him as the remains of the RR era and because they hate RR, they just want all memory of him erased. That's why last year's 11-2 season is all down to coaching, coaching, MICHIGAN FOOTBALL, toughness and coaching.

Other, more rational fans, don't dislike Denard, they just want to see a staff line up with its personnel and Denard being here stands in the way. I feel that this is the majority of the fans and they aren't really that upset by it, they are just being realistic. 

I think we will still have a very good season, but I feel it will be a lot easier being a Michigan fan in two years. 

WolvinLA2

September 5th, 2012 at 2:55 PM ^

But is Borges forcing him into his system? Didn't Denard have like 1200 yards rushing last season? Didnt we run from the gun for the better part of the year? I know we're not running full on spread offense, but I don't think Borges is forcing Denard into anything, I just think that Denard running a lot wasn't part of the game plan for this particular game, and that's OK. Had Denard settled down just a bit at the beginning of that game, we might be talking about his 300 yard passing game against the country's top defense, and no one would care about Borges forcing anything.

Yes, a lot of people are excited to get back to old school Michigan offense, but none of that is Borges' fault.

Oaktown Wolverine

September 5th, 2012 at 3:58 PM ^

Not sure how much more different this would have been under RR dude. Denard only ran 11 times against Missisipi State in the 2011 Gator Bowl.

 

I thought Denard looked much more poised in the pocket, and has definately come a long way in his passing game. Cheer for that, and cheer for our 11-2 BCS bowling winning team, instead of individual stats.

GetSumBlue

September 5th, 2012 at 2:08 PM ^

I don't think Denard threw the ball well (accurately). The most frustrating thing is that he misses some medium throws pretty badly, but then he hits Gallon on a beautiful ball for what should have been a TD.

Gob Blueth

September 5th, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^

And after rewatching the game, I'm actually pretty pleased with our offense.  Our bread and butter plays got shut down by their defense being fantastic.  But when you look at some of our well executed passing plays, our bubble screens, Denard's few runs, and Vince "Devin" Smith's couple of nice runs, I'm pretty confident in the rest of our schedule.  1 big game of experience for Gardner, plus less elite defenses, plus Toussaint, plus Denard's usual early excitability/nervousness calming down = a pretty good offense.

On a related note: Andrew Maxwell scored 0TD's and threw 3 INT's against a defense that gave up 18.8 pts/game last year.  Denard scored 2 TD's and had 2 INT's against a defense that gave up 8.8 pts/game last year.  MSU should quiet down until they can back it up.

Kramer

September 5th, 2012 at 3:13 PM ^

Just looked up a mock draft (the first one from the google search) and they had 4 Alabama defensive players going in the 2nd round (Milliner CB, Lester S, Mosley LB and Williams DT). I'd bet that some of them move up throughout the year and the results are similar.  I'll bet you $1.

bleednblue

September 5th, 2012 at 5:33 PM ^

Weren't Milliner, Lester, Mosley, and Williams on the team last year?  I'm pretty sure they all saw significant playing time too.  So these 4 were on the the field in addition to the other 4 who went in the 1st round.  So by your estimation, last year's Alabama defense had 8 first rounders on the field and the Alabama defense that Michigan just faced put 4 (potentially) on the field.  See what I mean?  Not the same.

Kramer

September 5th, 2012 at 6:40 PM ^

Yes, they did all play last year, just like there are talented players playing significantly for the first time this year who will be high draft picks (like 5 star safety Clinton-Dix).

2/3 of their dline returned and their average rivals ranking went up with the one loss being a 3 star senior replaced by a 4 star senior.

They started a so, jr and 2 srs at linebacker last year, all 4 stars. This year it's 2 so's, 1 jr and a sr, all 4 stars with the exception of now the senior is a former 5 star.

They replaced 5 star Kirkpatrick with 5 star Milliner, Lester got a year older, they replaced a 4 star sr with a 3 star junior cb and now start a 5 star so at safety instead of a 4 star sr.

All that is to say I think this years Alabama D is just as experienced and talented as last years.

Like I said, they don't rebuild, they reload. They have more than 4 high draft picks on this years team, I just mentioned the 4 that are supposed to go in next years draft. Pretty sure Haha and Depriest will turn into high draft picks among others.

bleednblue

September 5th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^

Sorry but you can make numbers look however good or bad that you would like them to look when constructing a narative like this.  The offensive statistics do not tell the entire story.  True, Denard may have thrown for more yards than almost anybody else did against Alabama last year but, you're totally overlooking the personel changes on the Bama defense that occured.  Hard to argue that last year's Alabama secondary was not significantly better than this years when you take into account that they lost two 1st rounders back there (not to mention a high 2nd rounder coming off the end during passing downs). 

What you're presenting may make you feel good and serve as some consolation but the reality is that you're comparing apples to oranges.

MrVociferous

September 5th, 2012 at 2:36 PM ^

You lost me there man.  Other QBs have drops and "not much help" and whatnot too.  You can't discount that.  Also, that was not blatant pass interference.  Milliner made normal contact with Roundtree before the ball was throw which is allowed.  And either way, that pass was probably getting picked.  Milliner had solid position on Roundtree and would have been in a better position to make the catch.

coastal blue

September 5th, 2012 at 2:47 PM ^

If we say that Arkansas was the most comparable opponent, remember that last year Arkansas had a future NFL QB and three 4th round WRs in their passing attack. 

This year, Denard has a QB starting his first season as a WR, a slot guy forced to play outside and Jeremy Gallon. 

I think this pretty much negates Bama's losses in the comparison and really, there wasn't anything about that defense that made me think they would be anything less than last year's crazy 8.8 PPG unit. 

willywill9

September 5th, 2012 at 2:49 PM ^

You don't know that it would have been picked. That was an outstanding play by that CB... simply put.  That could have happened to any QB.  The pick 6 was a bad decision, but as I rewatch that play i see Schofield getting pushed back, so the pressure was there.

MrVociferous

September 5th, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^

But when Denard released it, not much good was going to happen because his receiver was pinned to the sideline (and was in the process of getting shoved to the ground).  If Roundtree stays on his feet, Milliner still has the best position on the ball considering it was thrown more to the center of the field than the sidelines (toward Roundtree).

Point being, I don't think that would have happened to most QBs because I don't think most QBs would have thrown that ball because Roundtree was completely covered.  It was similar to the pick 6 -- Denard locked onto a receiver and threw it regardless of what the coverage said.

Sten Carlson

September 5th, 2012 at 3:54 PM ^

You make two complete leaps and another outright falsehood. 

First, it WAS blantant pass interference as the ball had left Denard's hand when the contact was inititated.  It was close, but the ball was gone -- watch the replay again.

Secondly, to say, "that pass was probably getting picked" is ludicrously unsupported.  It was a fade, and one that never developed because Tree was laying in the Bama bench.  It might very well have been a 50/50 ball, but to say it was probably getting picked is asinine.

Lastly, how can you say Milliner had solid position on Tree when Tree wasn't able to complete his route?  Maybe he was going to run right by him, or give him a inside fake, that he would have bit on.  Bottom line, the play never developed enough to make anything but a guess at what would have happened.  I am all for expressing what you think might have happened, but your statement isn't stated as opinion, but as fact.

Red is Blue

September 5th, 2012 at 4:01 PM ^

Agree with the point about other QBs numbers not being adjusted.  Further, if you're going to play the "what if game", why only take away the things that made Denard look bad?  For example, what if you take out the 71 yd completion to Gallon, then Denard's numbers don't look so hot (about same yds, lower % completion, 2x interceptions). 

thereverend

September 5th, 2012 at 2:42 PM ^

I think this goes to prove that the SEC is not greatly superior to every other conference; Alabama is greatly superior to other SEC teams + everyone else. Alabama is the current juggernaut; these teams seem unstoppable for a few years, but eventually end up like everyone else. (I.e.; USC, ND, FSU, UF--- these have all enjoyed their respective streaks.)

Tuebor

September 5th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^

This game puts Michigan under the radar for the rest of they year.  We use the underdog theme to roll through the B1G and take on USC/Oregon in an epic Rose Bowl game.

UofM-I-Hart

September 5th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^

The same game? Denard did terrible, along with everyother person pn the team at almost everything. Besides the 1st drive on defense of course.

Blue in Yarmouth

September 5th, 2012 at 3:05 PM ^

To be honest, I have been wondering what all the angst has been about related to the loss. I didn't think we had a chance in this game and actually thought we played pretty well at times, at least enoiugh to give me hope for the rest of the season. 

I watched USC's  game and IMHE (which isn't saying a lot) I thought Alabama looked far superior to them. I think we just played to future national champions and faired about as well as any of us would have thought we would have faired against the national champs this year. We aren't there yet, but we're on the right track. And remember, in a few years it will be our offensive lines that the commentators are drooling over and calling the best in the country given how Hoke has been recruiting.

Let's not lose hope, it's the first game of the season.

Bodogblog

September 5th, 2012 at 3:41 PM ^

We got killed, but I don't think it was as bad as it seemed.  I can't wait for the rest of the year.

Either way: be glad we're now talking in these terms against a team like Alabama, where 2 years ago we were all wondering whether the run defense against UMASS was really as bad as it seemed. 

Mr. Brownstone

September 5th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^

Take out the words "If" and "remove" from the second paragraph and your justification doesn't look so good. Plain and simple Denard had a bad game. I do agree however that it was mostly due to the Alabama defense.

Tater

September 5th, 2012 at 4:04 PM ^

It is nice to see someone put the numbers next to the concept.  The bottom line, still, is that it's no disgrace to get your hat handed to you by Alabama.