Devin should start at QB

Submitted by BILG on

I know this is sacriledge in these parts, but I will go forth anyhow.  An analysis of why we need a qb change.  This is not out of panic mode as many will attest, but instead from watching our offense struggle the past two years whenever facing a top 25 defense that stacks the box.

1) Denard is not a qb unless he is in a spread option attack

Denard is an amazing athlete that needs to be on the field all the time.  I totally agree with that.  He is also a great kid and leader on this team.  However, trying to run a hybrid offense with him simply won't work.  As a drop back passer he does not look the part.  You can say, "new system", "needs time", etc, but nobody can deny that Devin look the part as a passer.  Sure he is not there yet, but he stands in and throws bullets....not always to the right man yet unfortunately.  Some of Denard's thows are just mind boggling punt looking ducks.  He is not that accurate and has to think about his footwork.  There is  reason other schools did not recruit him as a qb.  Even in RRs system we struggled against good d-lines because if you make an offense one dimensional (in our case force Denard to throw), then you are predictable and play into the defense's hands.  I love Denard and he should still be in on every play on offense, and we need to run a bunch of plays where he is the centerpiece, but if the run is being taken away we need our most accurate passer under center.  He is not that guy...even Coach Hoke said so yesterday.

2)  Don't delay the inevitable

Denard will not be a qb in the NFL and it is very likely Devin would start over him next year.  Devin has already closed ground on him in terms of playing time and it is clear as we transition back to a more pro-style balanced attack that Gardner fits the mold.  Denard is not Michael Vick....Vick is taller and was always more accurate, even as a freshman in college.  It is a disservice to Denard to not train him for his future in the NFL as a slot man / return man.  It is also a disservice to Gardener to not have him get the qb training under center he deserves.  Gardner plays a very similar game as one Vince Young....except he has much better mechanics and accuracy.  Also, the Shane Morris era is around the corner, and Devin probably should get 2-3 full years as starter befor Shane takes over in his sophomore year.  Let the natural qb play qb, and let the most athletic player on our team stand next to him as a qb/rb/wr hybrid in the backfield. 

3)  Spread has not worked against one good Big 10 defense in two years

For those of you who wish to cry heresy, "how could I throw such a great kid under the bus" etc, please realize none of this is personal.  It's about the team.  I love Denard, and he needs to be on the field.  This is just a realistic assessment of his abilities and what we have seen the past couple years.  As a passer, his deep throws are jump balls, he struggles to set his feet, and he is innacurrate on out patterns.  His best throw are laser slant throws, but he often makes the wrong reads on blitzes, especially on obvious passing downs.  Gardner on the other hand, does not have happy feet, looks the part of a division 1 qb, and has had much less playing time and opportunity than Denard.  We will continue to rack up yards against the Minnesotas and Purdues of the world, but we will not improve for the future or be able to consistently beat solid big 10 defenses with a gimmick offense. 

OK, go ahead and rip me a new one with the usual...."stop your panic", "one bad game with wind", "Borges called a bad game", etc.  But realize this assessment is from observing the last two years, not just yesterday.

On a positive not....Greg Mattison is a freaking genius.  While a couple of the missed tackles yesterday were sadly reminicent of the RR era, what that man has done with the defense in one year is nothing short of magical.  All this in spite of a slew of injuries on that side of the ball.

Go Blue

DustomaticGXC

October 16th, 2011 at 10:41 PM ^

last season.  Very competent.  What is happening this year is bad coaching.  Not bad coaching in the "they don't know how to coach" sense, but in the "they don't know how to play to Denard's strengths" sense.

 

Say what you will, but Rich Rod knew how to get passing production out of Denard.

wlubd

October 16th, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^

You're correct in that he did make 3 points. Now whether or not they were any good is debatable. Everything in the OP is conjecture based on IMO an irrational view of what we're trying to do on offence this year, and from someone who apparently didn't watch the game yesterday. Is Devin maybe better suited for a pro-style offence? Yes. Are we running a typical pro-style offence this year? No. Did we play a good team yesterday? Yes. Were we measurably better with Devin on the field? No. You could make the argument we were actually worse. That's what it comes down to for me. If OP thinks Devin gives us a better chance to win then fine. He needs a more compelling argument if he wants to convince people he's right.

panthers5

October 16th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^

Advantage Devin:

You can actually run a pro-style set, which is what this staff intends to run. The pro-style is what this staff believes will make us the most successful in the long term.

Devin has the arm strength to make all of the throws. You want to get your outside wideouts involved outside of jump balls, then Devin gives you the best chance.

Putting it into tight spots. Devin's arm strength is far superior to Denards, you want to hit some throws farther down the field, he is your guy.

Koger, we have one of the best weapons who is not used because imo our current QB can't see over the LOS, and this makes it much harder to throw over the middle.

Devin is creative enough to make plays with his feet and throws better on the run.

Shaqsquatch

October 16th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^

Denard isn't the only reason that pro-style isn't working for us. The entire offense was built around the spread, we don't have players big enough at nearly any position (OL, RB, WR) to support a pro-style offense yet.

And you really need to stop parroting the "TEs don't get any catches in the spread" meme the media has been harping on for all of our games this year. The TEs are getting plenty of action now, just like they were getting last year, and the years before.

panthers5

October 16th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^

I tend to disagree and thank you but I am intelligent enough to fomulate my own ideas without you suggesting where they come from. Rivals and Scout did a nice piece on how often the TE's in OUR offence were targeted , and it was something like 2-3 times a game.

I am not saying the TE's don't see balls thrown their way because of the spread, I am saying because Denard is 5'10 and can't see over the LOS.

Jinxed

October 16th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^

Jr. Hemingway would play in any type of offense(he had osu and Miami offers). Fitzgerald Tussaint is bigger than Mike Hart. David Molk and Taylor Lewan will both be NFL linemen once they graduate.(I'm not sure where the "not big enough" meme started.) The reality of the situation is that we have not been successful with the pro set because Denard Robinson is not a pro style QB. He can't make the throws or the reads and as long as he's under center, defenses will send 8 rushers and stop any sort of running game. If Devin was in at QB with Denard on the slot, a lot of stuff would open up for the offense. We'd actually have to commit to it in order to see the change though... Not try it for 2 random plays and then go back to the same ole stuff.,

freernnur5

October 16th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

I think the not big enough comes from the fact that they spent 3 years in RR's offense which favored faster offensive linemen. As such the strength programs they went through were probably different than what Wisconsin's linemen would go through in terms of favoring movement and lateral quickness over straight up bulk and being 300+.

Compare our offensive line to that of Wisconsin's, which builds their players for a pro type/power game. The weights of the players from MGoBlue.com and UWBadgers.com. (Note: I added Barnum since he is normally a starter)

Taylor Lewan - 302

Michael Schofield - 299

David Molk - 286

Patrick Omameh - 299

Mark Huyge - 302

Ricky Barnum - 292

18 31 29 16 38

Wisconsin's line: (forgive me if I have LG/RG or LT/RT swapped, I couldn't find who starts where)

Ricky Wagner - 320

Travis Frederick - 330

Peter Konz - 315

Kevin Zeitler - 315

Josh Oglesby - 330

You can also look at their backups where the lowest weight is their center at 305 and the highest weight is a tackle at 345.

So by this Wisconsin outweights us by 26.4 lbs. per offensive lineman. Those guys are built to be able to punish the guys across the line from you, whereas our guys are able to move quicker, especially on pulls (one area where Molk excels).

Its different ways that you can have your guys built, and right now we have spread type offensive linemen. Thus we are better at zone blocking than we are power blocking. It is just the fact that we are dealing with players built into RR's system and it takes more than one offseason weight program to change that.

freernnur5

October 16th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^

I picked Wisconsin because I know that they are built to run the power set and will always be built in such a way for as long as Bielema (spelling?) is there. I don't know what else each team runs and whether or not those teams are built for a spread or a power formation.

Give me some time and I will bring up the average of the starting 5 for each team as listed on their rivals depth chart and I will make a ranking so that it is statistically fair. Sorry I was trying to make a quick response. 

freernnur5

October 16th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^

Average weight per offensive lineman for each B1G team: (if anyone knows what each team runs and can add that in that would be appreciated)

 

Wisconsin - 322                 
Penn State - 304                   
Nebraska - 301                      
Northwestern - 301
Minnesota - 300
Ohio State - 299.6
Illinois - 299.2
Michigan - 297.6
Purdue - 295.8
Michigan State - 292.8
Iowa - 290.8
Indiana - 280.4
 
As you can see we are the 5th smallest offensive line in the B1G. 
 
Links for each team's depth chart that I used since it was the best information I could find:

Jinxed

October 16th, 2011 at 4:56 PM ^

Aside from the fact that Wisconsin's line is really fat and Indiana's is really small, that data doesn't really say much. Penn's line is 2% bigger and Iowa's is 2% smaller than ours. I doubt that difference is statistically significant. Also, the fact that MSU and Iowa have smaller lines, yet have been running a pro set for the past few years proves my point. This finding deserves its own thread.

freernnur5

October 16th, 2011 at 5:54 PM ^

Well there were some small caveats in that I think one team's numbers were brought down significantly because they had a 250 lb. lineman or something like that. 

I just think we are slightly undersized to run the Power that Hoke wants. Those small differences can make a huge difference, especially where you bulk up.

I guess it would be more fair to look at Michigan teams of the past to see a change. I'll go for the last pro style we had pre-RR which was 2007.

Jake Long - 313

Adam Kraus - 296

Justin Boren - 310

Alex Mitchell - 313

Mark Ortman - 297

That line averaged 305.8 and the lightest person among the backups was 292 with most everyone close to 300. I think this is the direction the coaches are trying to head back to, so that they can run the Power and I think recruiting shows some light in that:

Kyle Kalis - 305

Blake Bars - 275

Erik Magnuson - 275

Caleb Stacey - 280

Ben Braden - 319

Also if you look at possible remaining targets:

Zach Banner - 295

Jordan Diamond - 290

Joshua Garnett - 275

Now I know that weights will shift somewhat as they lose bad weight and put on good weight, but it seems that some of them can break the 300 mark. Granted, I don't know how all of this could work out, just trying to see if the information can show anything. It is all speculation now, but Hoke has said in the past he wants to return to Manball and starting in the trenches is the key to doing so.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/652475.html

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=683&yr=2012

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=4&pid=6&yr=2012

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=4&pid=3&yr=2012

turd ferguson

October 16th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^

There's nothing wrong with asking this question. Yes, Denard's an amazingly likable kid who can be amazingly fun to watch, but it's not like he's the only great kid on this team.
<br>Personally, I don't know who should start - I haven't seen enough of Devin - but I want the coaches to feel like they can do what's best for the team without having an entitled part of the fanbase scream "How dare you?"
<br>I think debate is fine with arguments from each side; I'm just not a fan of the "you should be banned for mentioning it" crowd.

M-Dog

October 16th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^

I sincerely believe in my heart of hearts that the coaches feel like they can do what's best for the team without having an entitled part of the fanbase scream "How dare you?".  So this debate is just for the amusement of us fans.

That being said, I think it is a valid discussion for us to have.  The OP made sincere ligitimate points.  I don't agree with some of them, or rather, I think he's missed some other important points, but he does not deserve to be negged or censored because he brought this up. 

michwolves1995

October 16th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^

the playcalling needs to be better to suit denards style of play. and how can we have a passing game when we dont have any running game at all. they just zero in on denard. that is not fair for him

yahwrite

October 16th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

When the D takes away the running game the qb needs to be able to exploit the holes in the passing game. Michigan has good receivers. Devin appears (with limited playing time as evidence) to be able to throw where he wants to, although it may or may not be the right read. Denard is like my golf game, he knows where he wants to go with the ball, but doesn't consistently get it to where he is aiming.

Bobby Boucher

October 16th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^

Are you freakin kidding me?  The offense performed much better when Denard was taking the snaps, hands down!  You forgot one important argument.  Denard, who happens to be the most dynamic player in college sports, is a junior and will improve as a senior. 

How are we even talking about this?  Any coach with half a brain is not going to do that to your best athlete.

panthers5

October 16th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^

Thank you and I agree completely. Saying Denard isn't our best QB isn't throwing him under the bus. If you watched when Devin was at QB and Denard at WR the MSU defense was scared to death. They didn't know how to defend Denard motionion towards the football. Having him at multiple positions opens up things for everyone.

Do we not remember Percy Harvin? He was all over the place, and having a weapon like that opened up everything for all included.

Ike613

October 16th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^

I completely agree Devin has the potential to be a greater threat in the passing game.  I also agree that this is exactly what is needed to help the offense be more balanced against better defenses long-term.

However... we still have no true running game outside of Denard.  So until a true power running game emerges, Gardner in as the QB only works if Denard is right there beside him ready to take direct snaps, options, etc and provide the running threat.  And ultimately Devin is not ready yet anyway.

This season you have to stick with Denard because he's gotten us to 6-1 and Devin could still use more time.  NOW, next season, having Devin in the shotgun with Denard alongside him in the backfield is scary.  You get the best of both worlds... better passing and Denard's ability to run. 

Honestly, I think a situation like this is inevitable because I don't see Denard's passing improving enough with another year to rule out Devin, and I don't think 1 year is enough time to fix the OL and running game in order to not need Denard's running ability in the game at all times.

Simply put, Denard is our best overall option this year... next year I like Devin but you still can't have 1 without the other until we start to see development in other areas like the OL.

DustomaticGXC

October 16th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^

Percy Harvin winning Offensive Player of the Year as a QB, or breaking his conference's all-time total yardage record in a season as a QB.

 

Are you seriously trying to argue that a replacing a kid who owns Michigan (132 years of football excellence) and NCAA records AT QB with a kid who hasn't started a game is a good idea?

 

Learn to call plays that Denard can execute, Al.  They exist.

NOLA Wolverine

October 16th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^

Does anybody have any evidence to offer up other than the hype we've generated here about Devin's alleged passing ability? This small increase in passing ability does not offset the abscence of Denard's running ability. Devin may or may not be a better passer, and the fact that it's not obvious should be a red flag, but it is certain that he is not the same running threat, if hardly one at all. Denard's running ability is the only hope we've had on offense since Tate had to leave. I'm sure we could start Devin next time and get away with one, but we would all see that once Iowa rolled in that we NEED Denard's running ability to survive. We should be more worried about our offensive line play than QB play, because that's where we lost the game.

panthers5

October 16th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^

So you can't see how much stronger Devins arm is the Denards? That is something that needs to be studied and broken down?

 

Devin has two rushing TD's so I am pretty sure he is mobile enough to get himself out of some jams with his feet.

I agree with your observation does Devins throwing offset Denards running, well only if Denard can run. Denard had how many yards vs MSU?

This is the point, I want to see Denard play well against great teams, not average and below.

NOLA Wolverine

October 16th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^

Really? How much stronger? Denard can put the ball pretty much anywhere you need it. Does he make the correct decisions under pressure? Almost exclusively no. Does he make the correct decision under ideal conditions? Certainly not enough. That's the key point. Quarterbacking is decision making, and I've seen nothing from the spring game or from Devin's play so far this year to justify taking out Denard. And I couldn't care less how mobile or immobile Devin is as a scrambler, that's not the point. The point is he is not taking that QB Iso/Draw or QB Power up the middle, he stops his feet before contact still to this day, and is not going to be a running threat for us. I'd be fine with that if he was a markedly better decision maker than Denard, but I've seen nothing to suggest it.  

panthers5

October 16th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^

I will say this, I played alongside a guy name Byron Leftwhich, and I am pretty sure if I had to compare either of the two to his arm strength it would not be Denard.

If you recall Urban made several references to Denard not having a strong arm yesterday.

Decision making:

How can you even begin to evaluate Devin? He is brought in for situational plays. Given the chance like against NW he proved how good he can be.

There is a reason that Denard was not being recruited as a QB. I have seen enough of Denard against good teams to see he has yet to take over through the air. If he has please show me evidence.

NOLA Wolverine

October 16th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^

Okay, then where does Denard go? Is he going to learn the protection schemes to play runningback for us? Because god knows we're going to need a major effort from our backs to protect against Iowa, Nebraska, and Ohio State. Is he going to play slot and try to get the routes timed up with Devin in 2 weeks just so that we can run him on the jet sweep play 3 or 4 times? Or are we just going to turn him into a special formations player, where he comes in about 2 or 3 times a drive to run what we've been doing with him outside of the QB position thus far? That doesn't sound much different than benching our playmaker. 

Jinxed

October 16th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

We give up on winning vs any top 20 defense because Denard is our playmaker and we have to play him at all times regardless of what happens. This freaking fanbase reminds me of the Broncos fanbase with Tim Tebow. Some people in this blog have become bigger fans of Denard than they are of the Michigan football team.

DustomaticGXC

October 16th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^

at receiver cuts his touches down by about 85%.  That's ridiculous.

 

Putting him at RB means teams have an extra tackler when he runs the ball compared to now when he runs the ball.

 

Option plays with Denard and Devin aren't as potent as with Denard and (insert current RB here).

 

And have you seen Devin's decision making skills?  They were terrible yesterday.  My God, he thought he could run for a first down on 4th and 22.

MI Expat NY

October 16th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^

I would rather Al Borges study Spread offenses (or really just watch the second half of last nights Oregon game) so that we have more elements of an offense that takes full advantage of one of the most explosive players in college football.

And I don't want to hear any of that B.S. that spread offenses don't work.  Florida and Auburn have both won national championships running pure spread offenses out of a conference, that I hate to say it, has been much tougher teams 1-6 than the Big Ten has been.  Talent wins games under almost any system.

I know it's not fair, but if Hoke had hired a spread based offensive coordinator to go with good Greg at defense and this team is 8-0 right now.  I like Al Borges.  I think in three years we're going to be very, very happy to have him.  But right now, his attempt at a hybrid system is holding us back (although running purely his system would be worse).

EnoughAlready

October 16th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^

Hoke should have hired an O coordinator because of ONE player on Michigan's offense.  That's the claim.  Or Borges should forget his history and philosophy, modify the offense entirely, because Denard is a dynamic runner who can't pass.

Sometimes I wonder if people think before they post.

ForeverVoyaging

October 16th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^

I've been banging on this drum for a while, but I'll say it again: with a pass-only QB, you can always find someone else to run the ball. With a run-only QB, every team sells out against the run and you see a lot more results like yesterday. If we continue to insist on starting Denard, then at least acknowledge the futility of running any offense other than a purely ground based option scheme.

umchicago

October 16th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^

denard threw for over 2,500 yds last year; despite being dinged-up in every game.  he also completed over 60% of his passes.  and for people that say he can't play against good teams, i also call BS.

he actually had a solid game against Wisky, but no one notices because our D was pathetic. he also played ok against OSU.  we were still competitive until he was knocked out right after half and tate took over.

he also had one of the best games ever against ND last year; both passing and running.

so there is evidence of him playing well against good teams.  and we were a bad borges call away from tying the game in the 4Q yesterday, and that was with denard not at his best.

Crentski

October 16th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^

One loss and people are already calling for DG? It's crazy talk. It's funny how the same people saying this are the same ones who screamed DOOM if Denard left.

tbeindit

October 16th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^

this is ridiculous.  This happens everytime Michigan loses or struggles.

DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER GARDNER IN THE GAME?!

He did no better than Denard, if anything he did worse.  Remember his game with significant gametime?  Minnesota?  Yeah, what were the headlines after that?  Gardner was good, but NOT ready to be the starter.

Denard is the best player on our offense.  Stop jumping the gun.  Gardner is NOT ready and you'd be taking a top 10 national qb off the field.  Insane

turd ferguson

October 16th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^

I'd be fine with Denard. I'd be fine with Devin. I'd even be fine with seeing both of them over the course of a game. I'm not a fan, though, of alternating within a series. It just seems to knock everyone out of rhythm and make post-change plays too rushed.

Blaze09

October 16th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^

I think doesn't realize that the second they try to do that, he will leave. Yes "The Team, The Team, The Team!", but do you really want to just throw away one of the most dynamic players in the nation, and it's not because he has character flaws.

I know that's not really what the OP meant, but it's people out here calling for it. Denard came here because he wants to be a QB. If that's what it takes to put the ball in his hands in a winged helmet, then let it be. Cut down on the deep passes, try more intermediate routes and see how it works.