How to stop Denard? Put him under center, says RR

115 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
September 8th, 2011 at 10:12 AM
#1
wolverine1987
wolverine1987's picture
Joined: 07/07/2008
MGoPoints: 2935
How to stop Denard? Put him under center, says RR

Interesting RR comment:

 

“When he’s in the shotgun surveying the field, whether he’s running or throwing it, he’s one of the best weapons in college football,” Rodriguez said. “And when I saw that game, they’re still doing a lot of that because that’s what he does well and sure, you’re worried about him getting hurt a little bit but I think you also get hurt when you have your back to the defense, standing in the pocket waiting and trying to find somebody open."

His earlier quote in the article was as in my headline. Cue the RR bashing/defending.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110908/SPORTS06/110907065/Rich-Rodriguez-...

"Everyone gets dumped Gabe. Let me give you some advice: a little coverup on your Adams Apple will make it appear smaller. Which will make you appear less like a transvestite." 

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
September 8th, 2011 at 10:16 AM | This was posted in the (Score:0 Overrated)
September 8th, 2011 at 10:21 AM | Just saw that. Didn't see on board. (Score:3 Normal)
wolverine1987
wolverine1987's picture
Joined: 07/07/2008
MGoPoints: 2935

I agree with RR, but that is because I basically think that every QB should be in the shotgun all the time, other than at goal line or third and inches. I just think being under center is inefficient, particularly in his case, but really for all QB's.

"Everyone gets dumped Gabe. Let me give you some advice: a little coverup on your Adams Apple will make it appear smaller. Which will make you appear less like a transvestite." 

September 8th, 2011 at 10:57 AM | posted from iPhone (Score:1 Normal)
ryebreadboy
ryebreadboy's picture
Joined: 12/02/2010
MGoPoints: 1797

Agree. I think Mathlete has statistics that demonstrate this, as well. The shotgun is just straight-up better.

Denard has spent the offseason working really hard and smiling at people.

September 8th, 2011 at 11:30 AM | A serious, non-snarky suggestion to the OP. (Score:5 Normal)
Section 1
Section 1's picture
Joined: 06/29/2009
MGoPoints: 14358

I have a serious suggestion for the OP.  Change the link from the Free Press, which is nothing more than their own hack-job summary of the Yahoo Sports interview, to the original-content link:

http://www.yahoosportsradio.com/shows/rich-rodriguez-staying-involved-6732/

The Free Press has no ownership of the original interview, and it certainly doesn't deserve our clicks.  I expect that for very good reasons, it will be a very cold day in Hell before anyone from the Free Press gets an interview like this from Coach Rodriguez.  I think it is just better to listen to the whole interview in context.  Rather than the Freep's continued baiting of the Hate-RichRod meme.

 

 

September 8th, 2011 at 10:29 AM | I think you are right on the (Score:1 Normal)
bluebyyou
Joined: 09/07/2009
MGoPoints: 2709

I think you are right on the mark.  It won't be difficult to change as they are using both schemes now anyway.

The one point I would raise is how would RichRod know if putting Denard under center would work or not as I doubt that was ever considered during his tenure at Michigan.

September 8th, 2011 at 11:59 AM | He knows because it isn't (Score:1 Insightful)
cbuswolverine
Joined: 08/14/2008
MGoPoints: 1778

He knows because it isn't better for any quarterback to be under center.

September 8th, 2011 at 12:25 PM | The question is (Score:2 Normal)
M-Wolverine
M-Wolverine's picture
Joined: 10/04/2009
MGoPoints: 39217

is it better for any OFFENSE for a QB to be under center.

"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk

September 8th, 2011 at 1:18 PM | If you go by average yards (Score:4 Normal)
gbdub
gbdub's picture
Joined: 02/16/2010
MGoPoints: 2493

If you go by average yards per play, then no, it isn't.

September 8th, 2011 at 10:19 AM | The title of this post (Score:2 Normal)
rederik
rederik's picture
Joined: 03/21/2011
MGoPoints: 255

The title of this post made me initially think the content of this would be much more negative, but in fact it sounds more like, at least in terms of intentions only, RRod's just thinking out loud re: looking out for Denard. No need to beat a dead horse, we all have our fingers crossed that Denard stays healthy.

"Long time listener, first time caller."

September 8th, 2011 at 10:21 AM | He is (Score:5 Normal)
Kennyvr1
Kennyvr1's picture
Joined: 07/28/2010
MGoPoints: 1214

Better in the shotgun. Who cares if my mom said it, if anyone can't see that then they are missing something.

Oh how I hate ohio state...

September 8th, 2011 at 10:22 AM | Agree with RR... (Score:4 Normal)
neoavatara
neoavatara's picture
Joined: 08/01/2009
MGoPoints: 1584

However, the point is to take the focus OFF of Denard.  Yes, if Denard is the focus on every play, then RR is right.  But what we saw last season is that this has diminishing returns.  

neoavatara.com/blog

September 8th, 2011 at 10:41 AM | Excellent Point (Score:3 Normal)
Wolverrrrrrroudy
Joined: 11/30/2010
MGoPoints: 160

I don't know if the point is to take the focus off Denard, but cleary their is a huge benefit to having many options on offense.  It also only benefits Denard to work under center.  He can do it and if he is effective at both - he will be a bigger weapon all the way around.

WolverRoudy

September 8th, 2011 at 10:51 AM | Precisely (Score:1 Normal)
michgoblue
michgoblue's picture
Joined: 11/16/2009
MGoPoints: 11227

When Denard is in the gun, he is the focus of the entire offense.  While he can be effective, as tthe season went on last year, teams were able to key in on him, and his output trailed off.

 

Denard under center removes some of the focus on him.  It forces teams to account for an actual non-Denard rush attach, a pass attack and, oh yeah, the best running QB in college football. 

To me, this makes us far less one-dimensional.

September 8th, 2011 at 10:55 AM | posted from iPhone (Score:3 Normal)
ryebreadboy
ryebreadboy's picture
Joined: 12/02/2010
MGoPoints: 1797

That's a good point, because no halfback rush play has ever begun from the shotgun.

Denard has spent the offseason working really hard and smiling at people.

September 8th, 2011 at 12:00 PM | I think the other poster was (Score:5 Normal)
NYWolverine
Joined: 08/16/2008
MGoPoints: 354

I think the other poster was referring to the designed downhill rushing game, which seems to be what Hoke is coaching up versus frequent reads and options. QB under center, the RB already has momentum by design at the LOS to go between the tackles. QB in shotgun, the RB is getting the ball 2-5 yards from the LOS, without momentum, and the run is typically a read or option instead of a designed power play.

If you can run "power" (simply, designed and fundamentally sound downhill plays), you can open up into reads and options off of that after establishing offensive rythym. "Power" is merely synonomyous with sound downhill fundamentals in Hoke-speak.

E to the S Go Blue, Class of '04

September 8th, 2011 at 11:09 AM | Actually... (Score:4 Normal)
LJ
LJ's picture
Joined: 07/05/2008
MGoPoints: 619

It makes us more one dimensional because when Denard goes under center, the defense no longer has to account for his running (aside from bootlegs and dropback qb draws).  The whole point of Denard in the shotgun is to make us multi-dimensional--the defense doesn't know if it will be a tailbuck run, a qb run, or a pass.

September 8th, 2011 at 11:59 AM | Not really. You still can run some triple option (Score:4 Normal)
SalvatoreQuattro
SalvatoreQuattro's picture
Joined: 11/30/2010
MGoPoints: 2859

Frankly,'d love to see Borgas throw some of that in there Saturday. The triple option is difficult to defend if you don't have the time to prepare for it. Using it a hand full of times a game would force other teams to spend time preparing for that and less time on something else.

"The Ruhr will not be subjected to a single bomb. If an enemy bomber reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Hermann Göring: you can call me Urban Meyer!"

September 8th, 2011 at 12:33 PM | Sure, that would help, but (Score:2)
LJ
LJ's picture
Joined: 07/05/2008
MGoPoints: 619

Sure, that would help, but there's no question that the threat of Denard running is significantly reduced when you go under center, and the loss of that threat makes it more difficult for the other skill position players to be successful because more attention can be focused on them.

September 8th, 2011 at 1:21 PM | Bootleg run/pass options (Score:1)
Naked Bootlegger
Naked Bootlegger's picture
Joined: 01/28/2011
MGoPoints: 1222

I think we'll see more bootleg-type play calls against ND when Denard is lined up under center.   You can't bootleg every time, but you definitely have to account for Denard after he fakes the handoff up the middle, then rolls out.   If there's green space ahead, then run, Denard, run.   If Hemingway, Roundtree, or Koger is wide open downfield, then pass, Denard, pass.   I'm hoping for major production out of bootleg/waggle plays.

September 8th, 2011 at 10:22 AM | I don't think anyone can (Score:1 Normal)
icefins26
icefins26's picture
Joined: 02/01/2009
MGoPoints: 10564

I don't think anyone can disagree with RR's statement (as it showed last year) but by putting him under center, it also gives the defenses different looks and formations.  Denard could arguably be more lethal if he gets in a rhythm throwing the ball and our backs step up and contribute.  Predictability was an obvious problem against bigger, faster defenses last year (Iowa, Sparty, tOSU, Wisconsin).

September 8th, 2011 at 11:15 AM | You just named the 4 best (Score:2 Normal)
BigBlue02
Joined: 06/29/2009
MGoPoints: 1853

You just named the 4 best defenses we played last year, including 2 of the 10 best defenses in the nation. I would think the bigger faster part of the equation was the problem, not the predictability.

I will also say this: Denard was not a great passer last year and a very large reason he had the amazing stats he had was the offense he was in making guys wide open. So the speculation that he might be dangerous and he could be lethal under center is just that....speculation. Denard's best asset until proven otherwise are his legs, not his arm.

September 8th, 2011 at 11:17 AM | ...yes I did but weren't we (Score:2 Normal)
icefins26
icefins26's picture
Joined: 02/01/2009
MGoPoints: 10564

...yes I did but weren't we one of the best offenses in the nation on paper?

September 8th, 2011 at 12:08 PM | You are right, the best (Score:0 Normal)
September 8th, 2011 at 12:31 PM | More concerned (Score:1)
jackw8542
jackw8542's picture
Joined: 10/30/2010
MGoPoints: 532

I'm really more concerned about how we do against the best defenses, because those defenses are usually fielded by the teams we have to beat to fulfill our season goals.  I don't care if we beat WMU 34-10 or 97-10, but I would rather beat OSU and Wisconsin and MSU and the other top teams by 1 point, even if it is because our offense dominated TOP and scored just enough to win than watch them go 3 and out until the game is out of reach, as we saw against our primary opponents last year.  Against ineffective, overmatched defenses, our offense did great; against competent defenses, it did very little.

In the morning he would read the Bible with another coach. Then, in the afternoon, he would go out and cheat kids who had probably saved up money from mowing lawns to buy those raffle tickets. That's Jim Tressel.

September 8th, 2011 at 1:44 PM | Our offense did better than (Score:1 Normal)
BigBlue02
Joined: 06/29/2009
MGoPoints: 1853

Our offense did better than the average against Wisconsin, Iowa, and even Ohio State. Our offense was good enough to win 10 games last year. If you think anything other than our defense was the reason we couldn't achieve that goal, I don't know what to tell you.

September 8th, 2011 at 10:27 AM | I don't think there's anything to bash... (Score:4 Normal)
Blue in Yarmouth
Blue in Yarmouth's picture
Joined: 02/18/2009
MGoPoints: 2414

he said something many others think, that DR isn't as effective under centre as he is from the shotgun. I think if people are honest, they will admit that they feel the same way. Does that mean the team can't be as effective with him under centre, no, but certainly you won't see him put up the numbers he did last season if the majority of his time is under centre.

I still say RR is a class act. He is constantly getting baited into saying something negative about UM and avoids doing so. He qoute about the fact that his time at UM would have been a tough one for any coach was an example. He could have said it was made difficult because of who he was and the fact he wasn't accepted, but he doesn't. Good luck to the guy IMHE.

September 8th, 2011 at 10:35 AM | seemed to me (Score:5 Normal)
Benoit Balls
Benoit Balls's picture
Joined: 11/27/2010
MGoPoints: 865

the best way to stop Denard was to have him run the ball 25+ times a game and wait for him to get hurt

ALWAYS remember the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules

 

September 8th, 2011 at 10:45 AM | This is what really annoyed me (Score:-1 Flamebait)
September 8th, 2011 at 10:59 AM |   "Being the right fit is (Score:-1 Flamebait)
September 8th, 2011 at 11:26 AM | Apples and oranges (Score:4 Normal)
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 6798

Coach Carr took over an already top-flight program.  Coach Rodriguez took a pretty good program and turned it into a national championship contender. 

A futile hope, perhaps, but let's all just agree that Coach Rod didn't fit at U of M and move on.

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra

                         

September 8th, 2011 at 11:47 AM | Yeah, I agree (Score:4 Normal)
cp4three2
Joined: 08/03/2009
MGoPoints: 791

I was a huge Rich Rod supporter and thought he'd be our Urban Meyer.  Sorry, it just bugged me that he seemed to be blaming our high expectations. 

 

I'm really intrigued at where he ends up.

September 8th, 2011 at 12:06 PM | I hear you (Score:3 Normal)
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 6798

I'm looking forward to seeing what he does next too.  College football is more interesting w/ Coach Rod in it even if he's not the best choice for Michigan. 

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra

                         

September 8th, 2011 at 12:25 PM | The thing that suck is that (Score:1)
Louie C
Joined: 11/16/2009
MGoPoints: 2034

The thing that suck is that seeing him with a potent offense is possibly years away. He's got to land a gig somewhere, then go through another process of building the team to fit his vision, and then of course, it will take time before the team can execute the offense well.

"It's the only place to get the inside story on Wolverine football, so blee bluhh tahh!" - Bo

September 8th, 2011 at 10:47 AM | my only problem is this feels (Score:1 Normal)
Big Will the Gazelle
Joined: 08/03/2011
MGoPoints: 297

my only problem is this feels like a guy who had his girlfriend dump him, and then complaining that her new boyfriend isn't treating her exactly like he would like him to.... 

The comment that made me roll my eyes was when he said, "sitting in the pocket is what's going to get him hurt" yes because he didn't get injured ONCE last year!!!!! smh

 

"...when the ole' season is over, you and I know, it's going to be Michigan again; Michigan!"

September 8th, 2011 at 10:49 AM | This just in: RichRod still (Score:-1 Flamebait)
September 8th, 2011 at 10:57 AM | Please RR, enough. Hoke is (Score:-1 Flamebait)
September 8th, 2011 at 11:01 AM | The AD gave him a night game. (Score:3 Insightful)
huntrt1
Joined: 01/27/2011
MGoPoints: 39

The AD gave him a night game. He just didnt keep his end of the deal and have a successful enough football team to keep his job.

September 8th, 2011 at 11:54 AM | RR is overstepping his bounds (Score:0 Normal)
September 8th, 2011 at 12:04 PM | His shotgun talk (Score:1)
cbuswolverine
Joined: 08/14/2008
MGoPoints: 1778

His shotgun talk is...correct.

September 8th, 2011 at 1:41 PM | It sounds harsh... (Score:2 Normal)
Aequitas
Aequitas's picture
Joined: 09/22/2008
MGoPoints: 709

but I have to agree completely with your third statement.

DR has a gift.  If this is confusing to any of you, just ask any opposing defensive coordinator where he'd rather see Robinson.  If you eliminate the threat he poses on a spread field by sticking him under center, then you damn well better be replacing it with something just as potent, or you're just gimping your offense.

As far as the overblown cliche that running "25 times a game will get him killed", it's not the number of runs, it's the quality of the run.  I saw at least 2 QBs go down last weekend that were not scrambling, and didn't see the defender.  Leave Denard primarily in the gun.  Let Denard see the defense and I have as much, if not more, confidence in him staying healthy as when he's putting his back to the defense.

"Do not disturb my circles."
 

September 8th, 2011 at 2:13 PM | Hey, all caps guy- Neither of (Score:-1 Flamebait)
September 8th, 2011 at 2:42 PM | Then you're arguing the wrong point. (Score:0 Overrated)
September 8th, 2011 at 2:56 PM | I'm not saying I agree with (Score:4 Normal)
chitownblue2
chitownblue2's picture
Joined: 06/03/2009
MGoPoints: 7077

I'm not saying I agree with it, but there is a solid argument to be made that RR's offense of choice was a key component in Mallet's transfer - IE, he didn't want to play in it. I think he's verbally alluded to this, hasn't he?

Further, Threet was a 4-star, elite-11 QB. One could argue that he had the talent to be an adequate QB in a scheme for which he was suited - as a matter of fact, he was an adequate QB at Arizona State last year.

wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog

September 8th, 2011 at 3:18 PM | RR has run an offense that (Score:-1 Trolling)
September 8th, 2011 at 4:23 PM | At that point, it's all (Score:2)
chitownblue2
chitownblue2's picture
Joined: 06/03/2009
MGoPoints: 7077

At that point, it's all hypotheticals, our opinions may vary.

I think we can agree that Threet wasn't suited for 10+ carries a game, given the two injured shoulders and double-concussion he endured as a result, not withstanding his "not being good at running". I think that Threet would have been somewhat better (though by no means good) in the DeBord offense.

wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog

September 8th, 2011 at 8:06 PM | I agree to a point, but (Score:0)
September 8th, 2011 at 3:03 PM | I love your argument that (Score:-1 Trolling)
September 8th, 2011 at 3:40 PM | "wasn't on the team"??? (Score:1)
dahblue
dahblue's picture
Joined: 11/09/2009
MGoPoints: 1516

Things always get crazy when RR comes into play.  You think that Mallet wasn't on the team when RR took over?  Wrong.  He was on the team.  He left after the hire.  Whatever the reason he left; he left after RR came aboard.  You can't begin an argument with a false statement and expect it to have any value.

In any event, yes RR should have adjusted his offense to whomever the QB would be.  RR was stubborn, lost 9 games and eventually, his job.

September 8th, 2011 at 4:09 PM | No, Mallett was not on the (Score:-1 Trolling)
September 8th, 2011 at 4:20 PM | Mallett (once again) was ON (Score:0 Flamebait)
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.