Great Time For a Bye Week For Denard

Submitted by bryemye on

Part of me wonders if I'm in denial, but I somehow don't feel THAT bad about the game on Saturday because it seems like the offensive woes are mostly down to some coachable problems. Parts number 1-19038109283 of those problems is down to Denard not setting his freaking feet when he throws on so many of his passes, with the game Saturday being the most stark example of this.

I know it's easier said than done, especially when the kid is constantly thinking "should I run it now?" the instant protection breaks down at all but at the same time it seems like something a QB coach can drill like crazy during the bye week to reaffirm things that were empahsized during the summer. Denard threw like crap on Saturday but the list of people who can throw accurately without setting their feet in a trash tornado is very, very, very short. I can think of Cutler, Favre in his prime, and that's about it although I'm sure there are a couple more. The point is most people need good mechanics to be successful at all throwing the football, especially in those conditions.

That's something that's totally coachable and if our QBs hit a couple more of the WIDE FREAKING OPEN RECEIVERS on some of those plays, who knows how the game turns out? I am curious upon seeing UFR (as painful as that will be for Brian to do) just how much more we should have been calling designed runs. My instinct watching the game, especially the first half, is that we were just missing a ton of wide open passes and that Borges was getting us touchdown plays that the kids just weren't executing. I hated that 4th and 1 call but all in all I thought Borges wasn't being rewarded for his great calls and getting killed on his quesitonable calls. Again, this is what UFR is for.

Until we see UFR though: did people have this same impression about the offense (especially in the first half)? Am I totally fixating on something that isn't anywhere near as important as some other stuff? Do people think the coaches can right the ship during the bye week so we see markedly better execution in the next game?

HighSociety

October 17th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^

of an effect on deep and medium balls, Cousins was very accurate on those throws and got screwed by his stonehand receivers.

Denard's problem was a complete lack of coverage awareness and his tendency to panic and toss up jumpballs, not sure how much of that can be corrected in a week or two.

bryemye

October 17th, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^

Cousins is better at throwing a football than Denard. Hard to get much debate there. It was always going affect him less.

Perhaps the effect was psychological, I don't know. It seemed to me like his throwing was particularly awful; maybe this is correlation not causation.

I totally agree that his tendancy to panic has a lot to do with the problem I'm noting: not setting his feet. This comes from a lack of comfort, which hopefully time will help. I really, really just want to see some improvement on this and some evidence that the coaches decided this was the thing they had to improve right now with the kid. The line didn't ge thim a ton of time in this game but he definitely had more room than he was using.

MGoBeer

October 17th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^

Im not bashing Denard but why do you think mechanics that have surely been worked on all year including the offseason will magically be fixed over two weeks.  Hoke and Co. have mentioned how beat up the team is and so the bye will be good for getting the guys some rest and heal time but now Denard and team are going to have to relive the negatives of this game for two weeks instead of getting to redeem themselves against their next opponent.  I hope Denard isn't listening to any of the chatter about DG getting the start (in the media, I assume Denard isn't a big MGoUser) otherwise he could have a couple rough weeks.

bryemye

October 17th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^

I think a week of just drilling mechanics and not gameplanning will see more progress from Denard. The offseason was a time when he was definitely working on this hard but he was also swimming in a new playbook. Since then I'm sure a lot of time has been opponent-specific, especially recently. Now I'm hoping the coaches will use this week to re-stress throwing mechanics by itself rather than doing it in the course of the gameplan (which also has had some significant time devoted to running him in the Denard Jet, apparently).

People have to refocus on their mechanics all the time and time to do just that often helps. Look at baseball pitchers, for instance. This is a particularly bad case but that means that the improvements made will be greater according to diminishing returns to scale, etc.

When Denard does set his feet and throw properly his accuracy is really pretty good. It's not like he has some crazy hitch in his delivery like Tebow or something. He just seems to refuse to set his feet sometimes and throws off his back foot, feet parallel, whatever. That tends to stem from being indecisive and panicking when under pressure, in part, but I think it needs to be drilled into him a bit more so in those moments of panic it's more natural for him to come back to it. I'm sure the coaches realize this because they talk about it all the time and I'm really hopeful they plan to drill the hel out of it here in this bye week since they have more time than they've had arguably since spring ball or something.

In other words I'm not asking them to perform miracles, just really focus on something they haven't had time to focus on for a while. I think they will and I think it will make a noticable difference. Maybe I'm blindly optimistic on that.

MGoBeer

October 17th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^

I just feel like all season I've heard Denard, Hoke, and Borges stress how he needs to work on his footwork and mechanics.  I completely agree that Denard is so much more accurate when he sets his feet and transfers his weight correctly.  In games though, Denard seems to be a very instinctive player and when a quarterback his size has a 300 lb defensive tackle in his face he may never use correct mechanics.  His first thought seems to be to step back and hurl it up.

mgowill

October 17th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^

I will be waiting patiently for the UFR this week as well.  I felt like there wasn't any help for Denard.  He was on an island Saturday.  It was Denard versus the front 7 (sometimes 8 or 9!).  There were a few times that a receiver running a quick hitch route would have saved him from a sack.  Really  though, I am no expert on football strategy, but it just felt like a screen or something or a run to the outside (Shaw?) would have spread the defense out and allowed Denard to make some slant passes.  All I keep thinking is square peg/round hole.

ND Sux

October 17th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^

you are new, so asking is no problem.   Someone already answered you, but I'll add that the Defensive UFR comes out Wednesday afternoon (3-4 ish), and the Offensive UFR comes out on Thursday afternoon (3-4 ish).  Brian does a great job of breaking down the plays, plus he's fairly entertaining, so you won't want to miss these. 

Also, there is a fair amount of anti-newbie on this board, which for the life of me I don't understand.  Tread lightly for awhile and don't be douchey (always good advice), and you'll get the hang of what's acceptable and/or frowned upon in no time.  Welcome. 

unWavering

October 17th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^

2009 and 2010.  We are not out of the woods yet.  The team this weekend looked a lot like last year's team coming up way short against stout defenses. 

I'm not saying we are going to finish 1-4 the rest of the way, but we clearly need a lot more work, and 6 and 1 doesn't get us anywhere except a crappy bowl.

In reply to by ijohnb

bryemye

October 17th, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^

I just didn't feel like thinking about it for that long. Of course there are many more and Elway is a great example. A lot of guys who people think of as having an absolute cannon are great examples.

JewofM

October 17th, 2011 at 3:31 PM ^

I am sure we can all think of strong armed quarterbacks. One of my personal favorites, is the mullet man himself Jeff George. The man had a cannon and just think what he could have done if his mechanics did not suck. People think Denard throws off his back foot. I can hardly remember seeing a pass from George that wasn't thrown off of his back foot.

In reply to by ijohnb

Tyang

October 17th, 2011 at 7:44 PM ^

they had bad games, but nobody questions their throwing ability, if Denard could throw, it would've been a bad game, but he can't throw, so its him being a bad quarterback. west Virginia was successful with pat white because he can throw. not throw the greatest, but better than Denard.

michgoblue

October 17th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^

Obviously, this is a Michigan blog and the poor performance of our Heisman-candidate / best player is going to be a topic of discussion, but the number of threads dedicated exclusively to the topic of Denard is over the top, especially since none of them say anything different.

We all know the following:

1.  Good

-Denard is fast, like really fast

-Every time Denard touches the ball there is the potential for a broken play or missed assignment to turn into a TD.

-Denard is one of the most effective runners in CFB

-In the spread, Denard has been very, very effective at times

-We have seen instances where Denard can actually throw the ball

 

2.  Bad

-Denard lacks touch

-Denard is an interception machine

-Denard's fundamentals are not so very good

-Denard is not an ideal candidate for a pro-style offense (which is actually not what we are running anyway)

-Even in the spread, Denard has struggled mightily against good B10 defenses

-Better teams will stack the box and we have seen how that works out

 

3.  Devin Gardner - let's discuss him, as well

-He is a freshman, for all practical purposes

-We all know how well freshmen QBs do - we have seen how that works out

-He hasn't shown much in his few snaps - and yes, caveat, he has never had enough consistent snaps to establish a rhythm

-He is more accurate and has a stronger arm than Denard

-He runs less fast than Denard

-He is NOT going to bump Denard as the starting QB - it is just not going to happen, so there is no point in discussing it.

-But, he IS going to get to play more in that 2-QB set that Borges has worked in, and in that set, there will be times where he throws to non-Denard players

 

I think that this sums it up.  If I left anything out, please reply.  But if not, how about no more Denard should / should not start topics?

Note: Not directed at OP - your post was actually well reasoned. 

bryemye

October 17th, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^

I'm just looking for optimism here and wondering if this game was really as bad an indicator as people seem to fear.

Honestly I'm optimistic that this is the worst I will see Denard play in terms of setting his feet. It felt so egregious to me during the game and it has to be something that's relatively coachable. I think the coaches' biggest failing this week on the offensive side of the ball was a lack of getting the offense to a better place execution-wise. Maybe that means a smaller package of plays we can run better.

victors2000

October 17th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^

that you aren't on any antidepressants. I feel BAD about the loss; we didn't just lose, we looked bad doing it. I'm not pointing fingers on why we looked bad, but we did. What makes it worse is that I actually let myself believe that this year was different, that this brawl with MSU would see us be more improved, that we WERE as good as our record.  We were outcoached and out played. They even out penalized us and out fumbled us and still won going away. I now find myself staring at the rest of the schedule and seeing it littered with potental losses amidst the cold winter winds.

So...are you on drugs?

bryemye

October 17th, 2011 at 3:15 PM ^

The team couldn't have executed much worse against a pretty good defense and we weren't blown off the field (or around it like the trash). The defense missed some tackles and infuriated me but honestly didn't play that badly and got off the field more than enough. We just couldn't sustain drives in and through the red zone and I think a lot of it was down to quarterbacks missing some easy throws.

I guess I'm putting it down to an incredibly bad day for the quarterbacks and that's something I'm thinking about whether it can be fixed. UFR will say more.

The line play on both sides was also very suspect. Lewan looked hurt. Blah blah blah I'll stop now.

michgoblue

October 17th, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^

It is obvious that you are upset about the loss, as we all are.  But it really was just one game.  Did it highlight some flaws?  Of course.  Did you really think that we would go 12-0 during the regular season?  That having new coaches would magically make us into the Michigan of the late 1990s overnight?  Of course not - you are a rational fan, who just got his hope up like the rest of us. 

I don't like seeing people be so sad, so let me try to cheer you up:

We are 6-1.  Of the teams that we face:

1.  Purdue - can we agree that this is an auto-win?  The teams that we have beaten are almost all better than Purdue.

2.  Iowa - toss-up to likely win.  Our defense should be able to stop them.  They are not the type of team that will exploit our "edge" weakness.  Also, I don't see them stopping our offense like MSU did.  I just don't think they are that good.

3.  Illinois - toss-up (and that is in my post-Sparty beat down depression).  Is Illinois that much better than NU?  Certainly they are far worse than ND.  I still think that this should be a win, but it will not be easy.  They don't have the front 7 to do what MSU did.

4.  Nebraska - could go either way, but I am willing to be negative and call this a likely loss.  Their offense has potential, but Taylor Martinez could be suspect, especially if we dial up the right type of pressure.  Also, their D is not so good this year.  But, probably loss.

5.  OSU - toss-up.  They have QB issues, we have QB issues, they are in flux, we are in flux, greatest rivalry negates most imbalances in both directions - 50/50.

So, if we beat Purdue, split the Iowa / Illinois toss-ups, and lose to Nebraska, we are 8-3 going into OSU.  That game will determine whether we go 8-4 or 9-3.  Going into this season, who here wouldn't have said they would be happy with this result?   Hell, if we beat both Iowa AND Illinois, we may be 9-3 going into OSU.  Just saying that you shouldn't get too negative after one loss, even a bad one.

UM Indy

October 17th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^

9-3 going into OSU, but obviously you meant 9-2.  If we struggle with, or God forbid, lose to Purdue, sound the alarms. 

You make some good points and, like you, I am trying to keep things positive and in perspective.  IF we get in on the 4th and (less than) 1 drive, the game could've been very different.  IF they give us the ball on the Cousins lateral, the game could've been very different.  We were basically dominated and still had a chance.  That's a far cry from games the last couple of years. 

Tyang

October 17th, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^

I'd rather lose to purdue than Msu. Thas how bad it is when u can't stick up for your program, because all sparty fans has to say is, we beat u. we can say we beat notredame, we can say we won the bigten (if we dis this year), but all they have to say is we beat u, and u can't say a Damn thing back. I'd rather be 2-10 with wins over Msu and Ohio.

jmblue

October 17th, 2011 at 10:24 PM ^

That's crazy talk.  If we win the Big Ten (or at least finish ahead of MSU), we can say we had a better season.  I'll take a good season over a terrible one with a rivalry win.

BigRedWolverine

October 17th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^

Cousins seemed to throw alright. stop using wind as an excuse.  Denard had all offseason to improve and did not.  To expect him to fix anything in a bye week is delusional.

GRFS11

October 17th, 2011 at 9:10 PM ^

Any team we beat in the last two years, we should probably beat this year.  That would put Purdue and Illinois as wins.

 

At Iowa:  if we can correct at least a couple of the mistakes we made at MSU, then we should win this one.

 

Nebraska:  going to be tough, as this is still potentially the game to go to the BiG championship.  Being at home will help, as they don't have anyone who has ever played in the Big House.  Toss-up, but if we lose, we lose.

 

Ohio:  I'm not convinced they are any good at all.  Their defense is decent, yes, but I think we match up exceptionally well to their offense.  I'm sure the game will be close, as Michigan will try to give it away at some point, but win here, and we could end up 10-2 on the season.  It's easily forseeable.

 

Then again, if we don't fix our mistakes, 8-4 is easily forseeable too.

jmblue

October 17th, 2011 at 10:28 PM ^

Why do we match up exceptionally well with OSU's offense?  We're arguably better at defending the pass than the run.  We lack speed on the edges, and they've got plenty of it at tailback/quarterback. If we can force Miller to throw, we should be in good shape, but I don't know if we can.

Tater

October 18th, 2011 at 12:10 AM ^

Like the spread, changing to the WCO usually doesn't see benefits until the second season. Of course, the pompous windbag in the AD's office scheduled the Alabama game for next year, so even with Michigan being better, it may not show up in their record.

The bottom line is that most Michigan fans are probably going to have to be patient and not expect any miracles from the current staff or put any unrealistic expectations on individual players.  Besides, there's still plenty of football to be played.  While a lot more games look losable after Saturday's performance, they are all still winnable, too.  

9 wins will continue the pattern of improvement RR started.  Anything over 9 wins is a major bonus.  This team could lose as many as five games this season, but they could still run the table with a few breaks, too.  I just plan on enjoyiing as many victories as they can give us.