Dr. Saturday's "Premature Assessment" of Michigan
Matt Hinton, AKA Dr. Saturday, released his "random, too-soon" look at the 2009 season on Friday. Most of his stuff is pretty good but I don't agree with it all. The o-line was not a total disaster; they were fairly competent in the run game. And I take some issue with his linking of a January post from Brian re: Greg Robinson becoming DC and the supposed fanbase-wide consternation. It's now July and GR has had 6 months to integrate himself into the program; I think the Doc should have looked for a more recent pulse reading.
Anyways, here it is:
Premature Assessments: Michigan picks itself off the mat
I think "a little stressed out" is more than fair. Dude's an unknown quantity at this point. Much of the rising optimism can be attributed to the fact that that always happens the further you get from the debacle and the closer you get to your chance to prove everyone wrong.
Yeah, my main gripe was the linked article from January. If this "assessment" was done in, say, February or March, I wouldn't have any problem.
I thought it was pretty good stuff from Dr. Sat, as usual. I would say that I think Forcier can be more of a downfield threat than Hinton thinks. His arm looked strong enough in the spring game to complete some throws down the field, especially if the running game is really rolling and he has a lot of time.
The great thing is that Tate doesn't even need to be a downfield threat in order to invigorate the offense in a major way. Try to imagine last year's offense if Threet/Sheridan had hit the majority of the slants, outs, and screens.
about having a qb who can throw it downfield. Last year whenever I saw Sheridan or Threet wind up I felt like we were just lofting up a prayer. I agree that Forcier has a stronger arm and def has potential to throw a few deep balls/game.
Threet's arm was strong enough (probably even stronger than Tate's). He was just horribly inaccurate because of poor mechanics.
Threet was a redshirt freshman, playing hurt with a mediocre receiving corps in a system he was laughably ill equipped for. Judging him at all seems sort of wrong, if we had hired anyone from the Bo-Mo-Lloyd line, he would have been in a lot better shape out there.
Threet was my favorite player last year, and I'll continue cheering for him at ASU. That said, I don't see how the Bo-Mo-Lloyd line would suddenly correct his problem of throwing the ball 5 feet over the wide open receivers. Which is hilarious in the sense that red shirt freshman QBs normally struggle with reads and progression, not hitting the open man. I actually think Threet *COULD* wind up in the NFL someday if this does get corrected. To me, he showed excellent pocket awareness (he took few sacks and didn't display the patented Henne side step INTO the pressure technique) and also made few bad reads, as was shown by his INT totals. For a RS Frosh, I'd rate that as pretty damn good despite traitorous elbows.
Then again, maybe the argument is that without having to learn a new system the time could have been spent on his technique, in which case you're right.
Although some have seemingly convinced themselves otherwise, if Miles or Schiano were hired it is likely that Mallet would still be here. Arrington & Boren would've been here, too. I don't blame Rich Rod for any of those players deciding to leave, though.
Yes, I meant the latter point about working on it. And I also agree with Jay that at least Boren and Arrington (possibly Mallet, though I'm unsure) being around would have made the whole offense better.
With finite practice time and Threet having to learn to run the zone-read properly, Threet probably spent marginally less time learning traditional qb skills than he would have under Carr.
Edit: You said something to this effect yourself. Nevermind.
Brodie, I agree your assessment of Threet and was going type something very similar until I got yanked away from the computer.
Before his numerous injuries caught up with him, Threet was serviceable QB in the system last year. Sure, Tate will be a better fit, but I still think losing Threet will be a blow this team feels around game 4 or 5, when Tate starts playing a freshman and there really is nobody else to go to.
Downfield will be nice, but I am more excited to see someone hit the swing pass in stride. If I had to watch another game of swing passes travelling a total of 10-15 yards ending up 5 ft behind a guy so he has to stop, catch the ball, and then get creamed, I was going to explode.
Exactly. So often during games last season we were in a game before the complete ineptitude of the QB showed up. Missed swing passes and other stupid mistakes pulled our offense off the field. Most games I couldn't stop thinking, "That play was so close to working."
Fairly competent in the run game: While I have no statistical evidence, I'd say it's hard for 5 linemen to open up holes against 8 men in the box with a QB that can't run nor throw.
Good review overall, but I keep seeing these statements that Tate can't pass down field. I have seen quite a bit of video where he does as much.
is stupid, but it'll be good for us if the rest of the football world, including our opponents, believes it. They're in for a surprise.
Standard minor quibbles:
1) The defense was actually very good until it wasn't (I mean this seriously). That means the big plays it gave up killed it's average yards per play. IIRC, this also tended to happen later in games as the defense wore down from the offense never being on the field. Brian reference a statistical break down of this somewhere.
2) "The '08 offensive line was an unmitigated, all-hands-on-deck disaster that sent the offense spiraling into one of the deepest, darkest holes in the universe -- last in the conference in passing, pass efficiency, scoring and total offense, and truly among the worst overall units in the country." The offensive line may have been a 'black hole of suck', but I'm pretty sure the QB play was even worse, and the QB play wasn't terrible because of the Oline. Even when protected the QB play was atrocious. Notice last in passing, but NOT IN RUNNING! Despite facing like 8 in the box at all times, the offense managed to run the ball. Also, Dr. Saturday, I'm pretty sure you are aware that the 2008 YPC was higher than the 2007 YPC. No excuses for not referencing this here. I don't even think Threet was sacked that much; Sheridan was because he held onto the ball way too long.
3) Tate is capable of stretching the field with his arm. All this really entails is the ability to hit tight ends 10-15 yards down the field. His arm is definitely good out to 50 yards, and I don't recall Ryan Mallett's howitzer stretching the field even with Manningham and Arrington.
4)"...and should be further whittled into the nimble zone blockers Rodriguez's scheme requires, as opposed to the steamrolling grinders they were recruited to be." Debord used a full on zone blocking scheme.
I like Dr. Saturday on the whole, but never really agree with his conclusions. On a high level they aren't objectionable, but when you dig into them they are frustrating.
On Mallett, I recall the Minnesota game wherein he and the Michigan JayVee's pretty much played the whole game, and dominated, but I saw very little downfield throwing, because his accuracy was lousy. Instead, he accomplished his downfield success by pitching to Manningham on the sidelines and allowing Manningham simply to burn Minnesota for 90 yards. (He also missed Manningham the first time he tried that too, a really bad miss. It was funny, because you could just tell Manningham wanted to beat the crap out of him for his off target throws at that point.)
Without a guy like that, accuracy to 20 yards is WAY more important to stretching the field.
Tate has the accuracy to hit Koger (or Webb, or whomever) 15-20 yards down the center seam which can vertically stretch the defense. This also keeps the defense from loading up 8 men in the box.
I actually found Doctor Saturday's take reasonably accurate. I agree that he overstates how horrible the offensive line was, but I think it's hard to quibble with his conclusions.
I agree with the the major conclusions.
Last years OL was bad. Check.
The offense was horrible. Check.
People are worried about the defense. Check (especially after watching the Tate hi-lite vid--ugh--hopefully just backups and not being able to hit the QB.)
Best case scenario, 7-5, seems reasonable.
Worst case, 5-7, gulp, could be worse if injuries and horribleness strikes.
I think the worst case is more like 2-10, but the most likely worst case (if that even makes sense) is probably 5-7. Going 5-7 is still a two game improvement, and while it would suck, depending on how the games actually play out, might not be that horrible. If the team is losing like 41-35 type games, I think that would nearly as painful as last year.