Does the I-Form Experimentation End in B1G Play?
It seems like we are putting in the I later in the games and having Denard work on his game. Obviously, the results are less than stellar. It seems like the idea is to try and get Denard as much game time as possible in the new offense, regardless of whether it works or not (we are up, so why not?).
The question for the board is, do you believe, like I do, that if things aren't working come sparty that the O coordinators will abandon the experiment to win games? I sure hope so.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
My explanation is that he's just not a very good passer, which is what I suggested when he sucked (as a passer) during his freshman year and coming out of high school. He has poor mechanics and, while I'm sure he's been taught otherwise, he hasn't changed them. I've also stated several times that Rodriguez did a great job of figuring out the three throws he could make with some regularity (bubble screens, hitches, and the wide open slant) and called those plays over and over and over again.
Do you remember Denard throwing lots of posts and corners and flies last year? I bet you don't, because Rodriguez didn't make him throw those balls. When he did, they were poorly thrown or Junior Hemingway made amazing catches to pull them in.
To me it's not a regression. It's Denard being what he has always been, an inaccurate passer. It's just that he's being asked to make different throws, and he's incapable. If the guy isn't standing completely still, running a bubble screen (which is an easy throw), or running wide open about 10 yards away from him on a PA slant, it's going to be a crapshoot whether Denard can hit him or not.
EDIT: By the way, I knew what you meant - my reference was to the laser eye surgery that our receivers had the past couple seasons. I was joking in the original comment.
September 25th, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^
for the coaching staff to deal with a quarterback that is not a very good passer:
--Bench him and bring on a better passer that is better at executing the offense. This runs the risk of Denard switching positions or transferring, but Denard's loyalty to Michigan makes the latter unlikely.
--Change the playcalls to better utilize Denard's limited passing ability. This is not impossible, since Denard completed 62% of his passes last year.
Since I think his running ability is too much to sacrifice just to bring in Gardner and company, the best option for the coaches is to modify the playcalls to better utilize Denard's limited passing ability. Ideally, Borges already knows this and is programming Denard to not be 2010 Denard until he is needed in the Big Ten schedule.
September 25th, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^
I think this is spot on. I love Denard like everyone else but he is struggling as a passer becuase he is not making good decisions and still doesnt have the footwork and mechanics to be a decent passer. I also think that the argument that states that the solution is to go back to last years passing scheme is rediculous. People have a pretty selective memory of last years offense and fail to bring up the fact that it was not that good against solid to good defenses. We needed a change on both sides of the ball and now we have to let the coaches do what they need to do.
September 25th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
"Do you remember Denard throwing lots of posts and corners and flies last year? I bet you don't, because Rodriguez didn't make him throw those balls. When he did, they were poorly thrown or Junior Hemingway made amazing catches to pull them in."
Magnus, that is my precise point. How are we in disagreement then? Denard has regressed, and perhaps I should be more precise, in his RESULTS. New passing scheme equals different demands on him that are emphasizing, instead of minimizing, his deficiencies. If we return, as I've said before, to Rodriguez style passing routes, we will see Denard's results go from awful to serviceable--and that's all we need to be a great offense.
September 26th, 2011 at 8:26 AM ^
If you're looking strictly at results, then I don't see the problem. The results that matter - as far as the team goes - are wins, losses, and to a lesser degree, points. So far Michigan is 4-0 and averaging 32 points per game.
Yes, it's a regression in pure numbers, but the only way to reverse that trend is to run an offense that a) the coaches aren't comfortable with and b) bogged down in the red zone because hitches, bubble screens, and wide open slants don't work quite so well when everybody's packed into a small area inside the 20.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:37 PM ^
...bogged down in the red zone because hitches, bubble screens, and wide open slants don't work so well when everybody's packed into a small area inside the 20.
This meme is only backed up by Michigan's red zone efficiency ranking 82nd in the country last year, which is a poor metric because it gives a red-zone TD the same value as a red-zone field goal. In terms of points per red zone possession, Michigan scored 40 TDs and 4 field goals out of 56 trips to the red zone, good for 24th in the nation; this is only improved when looking solely at red zone TD percentage, which means Denard's throwing concerns did not hinder Michigan in the red zone in 2010 aside from his interceptions against MSU (YTMSU).
While this is susceptible to the "Michigan's offense was good against bad teams but bad against good teams" meme, I would need a diary-length post to confirm/reject this theory, since the definition of "red zone" is very arbitrary in stat books.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^
Also, Denard was a 47% passer (IIRC) in high school, a 45% passer as a freshman, and is now a 48% passer. I think it's rather odd that you're considering this season an outlier and assuming that he's an accurate passer who's somehow being misused, rather than considering the conclusion that 2010 - when he was a 62% passer - was an aberration and might not be replicated.
September 25th, 2011 at 3:36 PM ^
what can happen with a scheme and routes that minimize his deficiencies. And I'd like to return to that.
September 25th, 2011 at 3:42 PM ^
I dont think that the offense was as great as people think it was last year. In some ways, this is the root of the disagreement of Borges' playcalling this year. Last years offense put up some great stats but look at what they did agaisnt good Defenses. I mean, they scored 7 points against OSU and 14 points against Mississippi State and overall did not look impressive.
September 25th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^
even really good offenses often struggle against good competition, that is the nature of the game. See Oregon in the title game last year for example. Second, I'm not here to say the offense was impeccable last year, it wasn't. But it managed to have a scheme that allowed Denard to run AND made him a serviceable passer. That is the missing link this year
September 25th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^
OSU had the 2nd best defense in the nation and we actually did better than average against them. I noticed you left out the other top 10 defense we faced last year. Weird.
September 25th, 2011 at 10:45 PM ^
That sums it up.
That said, by scheme, I don't necessarily believe it's as simple as formation. RR designed plays with simple reads. Contrary to the selective memory of some on here, Denard was hitting corners, digs, ins, outs, covered slants, etc. He was a solid passer, not great, but good enough for what the offense was trying to do.
September 26th, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^
Read all three of your "explanations." Not one of them have a damn thing to do with him spotting an open receiver 10 yards down field and double taco pants'ing it into an interception gift for a late-arriving safety five yards behind him. Technical issues don't even begin to describe it.
Your analysis is a joke as is your high school girleriffic use of "I mean, really???"
September 26th, 2011 at 9:03 AM ^
while I disagreed, I did it in a respectful sort of way--maybe it didn't come across that way and if so that wasn't my intent. Now on to your reply. I look forward to you offering a reason beyond "nerves" and "he's just bad" as the explanation why a QB that, factually and every other way, was a decent passer last year, has regressed just as he should be making the most improvement as a passer, his junior year.
Now, on one side of the aisle we have your "nerves" and "he's just bad" explanations. On the other side we have:
-The clear and incontrovertible fact that he was a decent passer last year and was able to move the ball that way, with 63%, 2500 yards and 18/11
-the fact that he has a new system: while the shotgun runs are mostly the same as last year (with the exception that some are using power blocking not stretch) the passing scheme is different:
-receivers this year have reads to make that didn't exist last year--that's how West Coast systems work
-Denard has reads to make that didn't exist last year. He has tio anticipate the read the receiver will make while also anticipating the defenders.
-He has to go through progesssions that did not exist last year. Last year it was "one key one throw"
-he is being coached to a different style of footwork than he's had--hence all the footwork discussion he and the coaches do this year.
-And he is sometimes now under center, which means backpedal, go through progessions, anticipate reads, and throw. NONE of this he had to do last year. He DID do that as a HS Senior--and look Ma! 47% completion percentage.
Now, a good passing QB can do this stuff and should be expected to do this stuff. HOWEVA, Denard is not a good passing QB. THAT'S WHY, Rodriguez had a simple passing scheme that mostly eliminated all of the above that I just listed. Why? To minimize Denard thinking about anything other than throwing to that one guy right there.
That's my analysis. Yours is "nerves" or he's just bad.
I'll let coaches and rational people decide which one of our explanations "is a joke"
September 26th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
Football is not baseball. Metrics, schemes/plays on paper and scientific reasoning cannot form the whole story. The proverbial eyeball test still matters in this sport. It matters a lot.
People can say the reads and routes are harder, but many of the throws Denard is missing are NOT difficult. He HAS been "just bad." Sorry if that's too primitive of an analysis for you. Furthermore, the passes he's completing are screens or often being hauled in by receivers after being thrown too high, behind or into double coverage.
Sorry but traditional numbers aside, it is hard to believe that there has been a less accurate starting quarterback in FBS this season. And Denard's not the only one going through a scheme change right now.
September 26th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
analysis that's your perogative. Meanwhile Al Borges is busy moving to easier pass routes and reads for Denard to have more success with.
I never once stated Denard was an accurate QB. He never has been. But his RESULTS have been far, far better, because of the deficiency limiting scheme he had last year. It doesn't make much rational sense that he would regress so thoroughly in precisely the year that he should be making his greatest improvement, and there is an explanation sitting there--an explanation that the coaches themselves anticipated prior to the season--but you choose to ignore that. Feel free to believe that the mental game, footwork and reads have nothing to do with how accurate a QB is. Coaches would all disagree with you, but maybe they don't know that much.
September 25th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^
We did score the 3rd TD from the I-form, albeit on a fake. I think that we continue to see I-form, if for nothing else than to keep the defense honest.
September 25th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
Having multiple offenses isn't a bad thing to give other defenses plenty of looks and confusion. Denard's accuracy has dropped this year but that is mostly due to less bubble screens or quick out routes that RR's offense used that this one does not. I would be okay with giving Denard some easier throws to make, but the fact is he's going to have to improve downfield accuracy in order for the offense to sustain drives.
September 25th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
September 25th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
I understand the backlash, but I also feel there may be something fundamentally less effective about the I-form when you have Denard.
In the shotgun, before the play even starts, the defense has to worrk about the RB, a pass, or Denard running. We've seen the nightmares this causes for D coordinators.
I think the shortcoming the offense faced in B1G play the last two years came more from the fact that we were playing mostly underclassmen against mostly upperclassmen and that we didn't have a servicible RB - could be wrong though.
In the I-form, before the play even starts, the defense only has to worry about the rb or a pass. Denard can run on a rollout or a qb sneak, but I feel this limits his dynamite, either by allowing more time for the defense to read the rollout, or less room for Denard to run on the sneak.
I understand that Borges wants to install his offense, and he's obviously 1,000,000 times more flexible that RR, but I think that Brian and the OP are correct in being skeptical of the I-form when it keeps the most explosive player in college football under center.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
You know what else "limits his dynamite"? Throwing interceptions and incomplete passes.
The dude ran for 200 yards yesterday, and you're complaining about his limitations when running the ball. We're talking about his limitations as a passer...which are significant. An open receiver is an open receiver, whether you start the play standing up, sitting down, under center, from shotgun, blindfolded, in the stands, on the sideline, or standing on one foot. Yes, he's made bad reads in the passing game (he's been doing that for three years), but the more egregious errors are the wide open receivers that he misses.
September 25th, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^
"You know what else "limits his dynamite"? Throwing interceptions and incomplete passes."
I couldn't agree more. Would you say he's more likely to throw interceptions and incomplete passes out of the gun when defenses have to worry about his legs as a primary weapon or in the I form when the only immediate running threat the defense has to worry about is our tailback?
"We're talking about his limitations as a passer..."
I couldn't agree less. This thread is about Michigan running the I-form versus the shotgun for the rest of the season - not about Denard's limitations as a passer.
I will agree that Denard's shitty passing stats are an excellent point to refer to in this discussion, overall, however looking at the entire scope of this thread and my comment that you responded to... that's not what we're talking about here.
September 25th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^
To miss wide open receivers in both formations. It has nothing to do with how open it gets them and everything to do with throws that are no where near close.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
My problem with the I-form offense with Denard at QB is it takes away the best play action play in the NCAA: The Denard fake run. As we saw this weekend and many times last year, no play action comes close in effect or reliability to Michigan's "Denard take two steps towards the LoS". I'm glad Borges finally called it this week, and hope to see it used a few times a game throughout the season.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
Good grief... We've run that play literally every week so far this year, sometimes on multiple occasions. You act as if this is the first time Borges pulled it out of the archives.
Go back, watch the first few games over, and then smack yourself in the forehead.
September 25th, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^
This play is a once or twice a game call not the basis for a passing offense. To say that lining up in the I takes this play away is like saying lining up in the shotgun takes away the flea flicker.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^
Honestly, right now Borges is not calling it as much as he would like, IMO. However, we need to keep some element of the I-Form/Pro Style offense for two reasons:
1. We can hardly get much worse at it, and at some point, things are likely to click with more practice and usage in game situations.
2. It makes it harder to defend the Spread/Shotgun elements of our offense. Last year when we were more one-dimensional, we had more problems scoring and moving the ball later in the season as people started to adjust to our game film.
September 25th, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^
I think that the offensive line and runningbacks are not that far off in being able to consistently run the ball out of the I formation. In the replays I have seen the line looks pretty solid at pulling and vs SDSU looked like they got some push. I honestly think that the biggest issue is that we havent been able to complete anything deep consistently and defenses have been selling out on the run.
September 25th, 2011 at 5:40 PM ^
I didn't know that the I-form was "experimental". Is the jump shot "experimental" in basketball?
September 25th, 2011 at 5:53 PM ^
This year, once B1G play starts, the I will exist only as a change up or as something to work on when the game is in hand. It will not be the bread-and-butter O formation.
It's biggest problem is not Denard, it's that we can't run out of it. This has been the biggest dissapointment with it. Denard may get his footwork straightened out, but we are not going to get a new set of O Linemen this year.
It will be the O formation of the future, but it is a couple of recruiting classes away. We are blessed that we have Denard until then and that Borges knows how (and is willing) to play to his strengths.
September 25th, 2011 at 6:02 PM ^
I think one of the main reasons why we cant run out of the I is because we cannot pass the ball downfield. If we were able to get some balance than I think you would see the running game open up more outside of just the spread.
September 25th, 2011 at 7:25 PM ^
It would be interesting to go through Hoke's presser transcripts to see how many time he's mentioned they need to improve "blocking at the point of attack." Seems like a weekly mantra. These O-lineman were not recruited to run the I-form power. That doesn't mean they don't do it well from at times. But as Brian repeatedly points out, when you have a guy like Molk who is a master of the zone scheme reach block, or a guard like Omameh with the agility to take out LB's on the second level but is no iso-road grader, you're not playing to your strengths.