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

Submitted by wolverine1987 on

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…

Section 1

September 8th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^

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.

Dark Blue

September 8th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^

I have all the faith in the world that Al Borges knows exactly what he's doing. If the year goes on and Denard isn't as effective from under center I'm sure we'll see that look less and less. 

 

 

bluebyyou

September 8th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^

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.

rederik

September 8th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^

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.

neoavatara

September 8th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^

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.  

Wolverrrrrrroudy

September 8th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^

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.

michgoblue

September 8th, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^

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.

NYWolverine

September 8th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^

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.

LJ

September 8th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^

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.

SalvatoreQuattro

September 8th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^

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.

Naked Bootlegger

September 8th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

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.

icefins26

September 8th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^

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).

BigBlue02

September 8th, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^

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.

BigBlue02

September 8th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^

You are right, the best offense Michigan has had in the past 30 years was a paper tiger and it was the reason, not the defense, that we only had 7 wins.

If your point is that our offense played worse against better defenses, I would like you to find an offense that doesn't play worse when facing the 2nd best and 8th best defense in the nation. Also, if you think last year's offense wasn't great, what did you think about our offense against Western? Even without playing the 4th quarter, we probably wouldn't have gotten to our offensive output of last year's UConn game. Were you outraged that the offense was not as good as that bad offense we had last year?

jackw8542

September 8th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^

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.

BigBlue02

September 8th, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^

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.

Blue in Yarmouth

September 8th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^

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.

cp4three2

September 8th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^

“Being the right fit is important and being in a place where they thoroughly understand exactly what you need to do to build a top-level program,” Rodriguez told Brando.

Really? Lloyd had greater success than Rich had at WVU before coming to UM.

HighSociety

September 8th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^

 

"Being the right fit is important and being in a place where they thoroughly understand exactly what you need to do to build a top-level program,” Rodriguez told Brando."

 

 

 

Rich's problem is that UM did thoroughly understand exactly what you need to do to build a top-level program, problem is they weren't seeing it from him.

 

Louie C

September 8th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^

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.

Fort Wayne Blue

September 8th, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^

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

 

dahblue

September 8th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^

Please RR, enough. Hoke is adjusting his scheme to fit his players while RR demanded his players adjust to fit his scheme. We saw the result of RR's approach and he is certainly not the guy to say what will be successful at Michigan. Frankly, his shotgun talk is...whatever...maybe just an analyst analyzing.

What gets me are the newest whines - that he wanted a night game but the ad wouldn't give him one and that Michigan doesn't know what it takes to build a successful program. Enough of the woe is me act.

yoopergoblue

September 8th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^

RR is overstepping his bounds as a non-partisan analyst by bringing up stuff like how he never got a night game and how he thinks Michigan doesn't know what it takes to build a successful program.  He just sounds like a whiner saying these things.  No one GAF that he never was able to play a night game.  I wish RR would just stick to the X's and O's and treat Michigan like any other team he analyzes.

BRCE

September 8th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^

You continue to prove yourself to be one of the dimmest posters on this board. When RR is being discussed, you get all your cliches, half-truths and shallow criticisms loaded for bear, logic be damned.

I will say this one more time, knowing it has almost no chance of sinking in through your remarkably thick skull:

DENARD ROBINSON IS WORTH ADAPTING TO! NICK SHERIDAN AND A FRESHMAN STEVEN THREET WERE NOT!

 

 

Aequitas

September 8th, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^

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.

dahblue

September 8th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^

Hey, all caps guy-
Neither of those two was the starting QB when your boy was hired now, before you start screaming about "everyone knew mallet was gone", you may recall "everyone" (at least the loudest voices here) said Denard was gone with the Hoke hire.

MGoNukeE

September 8th, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^

 

Hoke is adjusting his scheme to fit his players while RR demanded his players adjust to fit his scheme.

The quarterbacks RR had to work with when games were being played in 2008 were Sheridan and Threet. Should RR have fit the system to support Sheridan and Threet? BRCE doesn't think so, and you haven't refuted this.

OTOH, your primary argument is criticizing Rodriguez for not retaining Ryan Mallett when Hoke was able to retain Denard Robinson; that is an issue with player retention, not poor scheming. Had Rodriguez managed to keep Ryan Mallett on the roster and then decided it was better to use him the same way Threet/Sheridan were used, your argument would make more sense.

chitownblue2

September 8th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^

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.

BigBlue02

September 8th, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^

RR has run an offense that played to the strengths of a passing QB. Just because mallett didn't think he could run one that fit his skill set doesn't fall on RichRod, that falls on mallett. And in that instance, you should probably blame Martin, not RR, for not bringing in the exact same type of coach that Lloyd was.

Furthermore, your Threet reference is not really being honest. Yes, Threet was good not great at ASU last year. QBs tend to get better when you you compare them from their freshman year to their junior year. If in 2008 you thought to yourself, "man, if threet were under center more, this offense would be great and he would magically become more accurate and throw fewer interceptions," then we weren't watching the same games. Threet as a freshman starting QB was not good and definitely not as good as junior Threet, and a switch to a pro style offense wouldn't have made him much better if any.

chitownblue2

September 8th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^

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.

BigBlue02

September 8th, 2011 at 8:06 PM ^

I agree to a point, but Threet was concussed a couple times last year, in a pro style offense.  He wasn't good at running, but he wasn't good at passing either. Also, we will agree to disagree on weather Threet would have done better in any defense.  I remember watching the replay of that Wisconsin game.  We wouldn't have had to come back from anything had threet not been awful.  I remember seeing 3 horrible overthrows/underthrows in the first half alone where we either would have picked up a 1st down or scored a TD.  I don't think the offense is what was holding back Threet.  I think Threet being a poor QB and being a Freshman held Threet back.

BigBlue02

September 8th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^

I love your argument that RichRod should have adjusted his offense to a quarterback that wasn't on the team and then you use Hoke and Borges adjusting to a QB they do have as proof of something. What? I have no idea.

Also, comparing a drug using QB who fell in the draft because of character issues to an all around nice guy who is an amazing team leader as a true junior only shows why we shouldn't take anything you say in regards to RichRod and Hoke seriously.