Joyner on Denard
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/insider/news/story?id=6387993
KC Joyner has an ESPN Insider ($$) article on Denard and the "new offense"
Noteworthy snippets:
However, nervous Maize and Blue fans should take comfort in the fact that, just as the Cowboys' shotgun offensive changes weren't as great as generally thought, a detailed look at the 2010 season shows why Robinson and company have already mastered a number of the passing elements they will be asked to use in the new system. Based on the abilities and promise shown by Robinson as a passer last season, there is good reason to believe that he could thrive in Hoke's system in 2011 and lead one of the top passing attacks in the country.
Robinson also posted terrific numbers last year when throwing to Junior Hemingway (12.2 YPA on 26 targets) and Martavious Odoms (12.1 YPA on 15 targets). If those totals could be added to improved numbers by senior Darryl Stonum (6.1 YPA on 45 targets), it could make for one of the top passing attacks in all of college football.
This is not to say that Robinson's game was error-free, and there are clearly areas in which he'll need to improve if he is going to ultimately succeed in the Wolverines' new system in 2011. His 5.6 percent bad decision rate means that just over one in every 20 of his passes was a mistake on his part that led to a turnover or a near-turnover.
That is an unacceptable figure, but could easily be cut in half if Robinson merely finds a way to stop staring down his receivers (a habit that accounted for six of his 13 bad decision throws last year).
Even with those blunders, however, Robinson was able to post a top-20 mark in passing efficiency last year. If he can combine some error-correcting improvements with a gameplan that takes full advantage of the aerial skills he and his receiving corps displayed last year, it could vault him to a top-10 passing efficiency total.
There's some great charts and other stats and what not that COULD help some people here back off the ledge after the spring game
I'm not too worried about Denard in the new offense, because I know Al Borges will take advantage of his running skills. However, I still have major questions about his ability to throw the ball accurately. Denard is much better at hitting stationary targets sitting down in a zone than he is at hitting moving targets. I also don't think we'll see the same leap from 2010 to 2011 as we did from 2009 to 2010 as far as throwing the ball goes. I don't think this year's offense will be as explosive as last year's, but hey, with a competent defense, we could still win a couple more games than we did.
Defense, defense, defense.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
If it means 9 wins this year I would take it. I also question how much improvement can be made over the summer. I do take some solace in that if I had to put this on anyone to have the heart and work ethic to get it done Denard is the guy.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
I don't think he can make another 09-10 jump. His jump from 2009 to 2010 was AMAZING. as in "maybe a running back" to B1G POY, top 20 passer efficiency, etc. He can't possibly improve that much again (if he can... hello heisman!) But he's shown the will and drive to improve, so he will. How much is the big question
Even a small improvement in passing accuracy would be huge.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
Is spot on...Also, keep in mind the play will be much slower and the players will be much fresher and stronger each down. I understand the opposing D also will have more time, but let's face it, Denard is dictating the play = advantage; and Denard is faster than everyone on the field = advantage.
Denard will be fine. I think we will notice a big leap from 2011 to 2012; similar to the leap we saw him take from 2009 to 2010. Simply because he is so gifted and once he has a year under his belt in the system (comparable to RR from 2009-2010) we will again see him think less and just make plays.
I'm excited and I hope everyone is patient this year as the team learns under a new coaching regime. This will not be an "overnight" fix. But we will surely see signs of what's to come!
Happy Easter everybody.
April 20th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
If you look at the defensive rankings from 2010 you will see a couple different telling bits of information:
We gave up on average 447 yards a game for a 12 game schedule. (5375 yards total) Let's just call it 450 for numbers sake. That put us at 108 in the nation.
Now let's say the defense improves at a rate of 50 yards less given up a game which would equal out to being 4800. That's only a 575 yard difference extrapolated over those 12 games.
Now that may not seem like a big deal but that difference would move us up to 80 in the rankings, and I'd like to think one or two more wins. Part of that may be "changed" in that our offense may not be as explosive as Magnus put it, but I still think that this modest change would translate into more wins.
If you want to get crazy and say we gave up 100 less yards a game (end total 4300) we're now getting closer to the top 50...
I don't know if this is possible, but with Mattison engineering a better defense and hopefully calling better plays coupled with a weaker Big Ten doesn't make the possibility that insane...
The threat of the run was what made Denard the passer he was. His HS completion percentage was awful- 262/576 or 45.5% as a three year starter and only 100/231 or 43.3% as a senior while running for 500+ yards. I'll have to see Borges utilize him properly before I believe it. Just once in the spring game I would have loved to see the fake run/pass play that led to WRs running wide open down the seams last year. Denard didn't look comfortable from under center or going thru his progressions while in the pocket last Saturday.
Borges is a West Coast Offense guy and even Bill Walsh who created the offense said it takes 3 to 4 years to master it. With players constantly leaving at the college level you have to wonder how things will play out.
You're preaching to the choir. I'm not really enamored with Denard Robinson as a quarterback. I was somewhat supportive of the idea that he should change positions if Forcier were going to stick around (which he didn't, so it's a moot point). He didn't impress me as a QB recruit, he didn't impress me as a freshman, and he still had some glaring weaknesses as a sophomore.
But I do have a fairly high confidence level in Borges, who has had mobile/athletic quarterbacks before and done well with them. I'm hoping Denard can at least learn how to run the waggle from under center, turn around and hand the ball off, and then run a good deal of shotgun spread type stuff.
Denard is so-so, but at least now he'll be coached by an offensive genius? Interesting . . . .
My biggest concern for Denard is actually his bad decision making percentage - given another year in the same system, we could have expected that number to naturally decrease as he became more comfortable. But with a new system, there's going to be a lot more going on in his head. We're probably going to have to deal with at least as many interceptions as last year.
As for accuracy, I think Denard has it - as long as he can throw the pass on a rope. He's yet to demonstrate ability for passes requiring touch and 3D trajectories.
I'd be more confident if this was written by someone who watched all the games rather than a guy looking at numbers. The old offense resulted in lots of plays with receivers wide the fuck open and I'm nervous about how Denard will fare when that isn't the case. I am slightly optimistic though, because that kid sure surprised everyone last year and who says he can't do it again?
April 20th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
those anxious fans who relive every down tend to magnify their team's faults a whole lot. With both Denard and Darius Morris--especially midway through the season--you would have thought they were lousy players, rather than among the best in the country at the stuff they were most criticized for. Football, like most sports, is a game where you have to routinely fail in order to prevail. And fans have ridiculous expectations, forgetting that it's the tension and failures that make the breakthroughs such fun.
It is an interesting article, no doubt. It overlooks a few things, in my estimation.
1) Denard was throwing mostly from the shotgun last year. Which, hey, they may do this year. But if he is asked to do 5 and 7 step drops from under center, that is a different way of doing things and something Denard appeared uncomfortable doing. That could result in a drop in stats.
2) Denard sets up his passes through his running. How many times did we see guys incredibly wide open because the defense was freaking out about him running. Again, the offense might incorporate that into this years team, but we don't know. If they don't, that will see a dip in production from Denard as well.
All in all, good article, and I personally am not freaking out about Denard. I think he and we will be just fine on offense. But I just thought that article overlooked some things that potentially change the analysis.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
I really hope they bring back the fake QB dive/power and throw to wide open Roy Roundtree.
That said, Denard's interception count was pretty high for a guy who "threw the ball to wide open receivers". There were certainly cases where receivers were wide open, but I think Denard can and will prove to be able to make tight passes. He improved last year, and i trust he will again this year.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
Note, I didn't say every single pass was to a wide open receiver. I was just remarking that it happened often enough that if they don't have that play in the playbook, it will take away a decent chunk of completions/yards. Also note that I am not down on Denard, I think he'll be fine, I was just pointing out some oversights in Joyner's analysis.
April 20th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
Totally fair, just didn't want to take away credit where it was due. That and i really hope we bring that play back... it was so successful, like, video game play successful.
the only defense I noticed freaked out once Big Ten play started was Illinois. Wisconsin, OSU and the Bowl game all had a defensive performance/plan that kept the coverage tight despite the use of "QB Oh noes" play. Even Michigan State kept the pass coverage on enough to not only prevent the big passing play, but also got significant drive stopping interceptions.
Denard's surprise factor is gone. MSU, Iowa and PSU seemed to have some difficulty containing the entire Denard X Factor package, and I would argue even last year's defense would have turned those games into wins, but against the true top end quality of the schedule, especially SEC speed, Denard was shutdown. Typical for games at the end of the season when everyone has plenty of video to look at.
Denard will have to work a lot to gain the skill of dropping a ball to a receiver such that the defender can't affect it. To me this is the big thing Magnus keeps stating. I agree with Magnus that Denard is not going to be able to improve this enough to be an elite QB talent.
BUT, even Rich Rodriguez wasn't going to be able to improve the situation without a true running threat. No matter what plays are called, we just did not have a running back that could threaten any other defense we faced. Until we get that, we are never going to see a defense take a LB off of Denard as a runner. And Denard will get beat up, or just not gain yardage.
I will though keep my mind on the positive and glass half full, and picture Denard running 7 on 7's to the point where he emerges with the kind of touch that he needs to drop it into Hemingway, and to hit a flaring RB on the run. Cause those kinds of things will draw a defenses attention away from covering Denard.
Remember if you do it all the time, it's not a surprise. Denard got his yardage against ND because it was a surprise.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
I mean no offense to the OP and appreciate him/her sharing the information. I merely want to make an observation/statement:
Is anyone else out there fed up with all of the talking heads in sports? I mean, what the f-ck does KC Joyner know? I understand that these people need things to discuss and its always good to learn more about Michigan football and get good "press" but ,really. Predictions and opinions like this are silly and do not help me at all. I take the opinions of guys like DG Destroyer, Magnus, TomVH, and Brian much more highly than talking heads like these guys at ESPN. Unless they are reporting hard facts, I could care less about the words that come out of their mouths. Anyone else with me?
April 20th, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^
Just sharing info/analysis from someone out there who crunched a lot of numbers. I have no doubt the Mathlete could have done the same analysis and had a much more elaborate and accurate version... but this one is out there so I shared.
I'm bored at work, what do you want from me!>!>!!>>?!?!?!?! /S
April 20th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
You know I appreciate you and your posts (in fact, I'd like to meet you in the back seat of your Jeep - /gay). I just took the moment to vent about how I hate talking heads and their predictions that only get my hopes up. I want to go into the season very cynical so that I do not get crushed again like last season. I cannot physically or mentally take another season like that. I will literally self-implode.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
But I'd recommend avoiding the back seats of Jeeps. I actually don't have any experience in my own, but as someone who's 5'11'' I had to drive the jeep with the seat all the way back. The rear seat... aint got much room:
April 20th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
it's the offseason, there are little to no facts to talk about, so conjecture is all there is. if you don't like it, don't read it.
personally, i'm just happy michigan is back on the radar enough that espn is writing articles about us again.
April 20th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^
I don't think that he was saying that he had any particular issue with this or any other article. Or that he didn't mind reading this type of coverage.
He was just commenting on the growing number of ill-informed "sports journalists" out there. It is a fair point. I have read so many Michigan-related articles over the past few months that were written by individuals with far less knowledge than most of this board has of Michigan sports. Sure, like profitgoblue, I am an addict of M content and I read everything there is, but I do agree that the number of journalists who write without having even a basic understanding of their topic is annoying.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
I agree...he doesn't know anything more than that genius who ranked the "top 100" NFL players yesterday. It's all pointless, worthless filler.
Also, no offense meant toward the OP
April 20th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
there's a difference between guys bloviating about "issues" in sports and people trying to crunch the numbers--looking for the take-aways. Okay, so he doesn't supply the whole picture, but here's a guy who takes a reassuring view after a lot of people got their knickers knotted about Saturday (me included). I find it calming, especially to be reminded that Denard can be a pretty good passer.
So much was riding on Denard last year--must have been hard. I'm hoping that with some of the weight off he DOES show a nice jump. People looking for nine wins, though. Woah.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
I'm still hoping beyond hope that Borges becomes one of THE hot offensive coaches by developing a hybrid attack. Hoke's description of Borges as someone who is "addicted" to X's and O's is probably the most heartening set of words that has come out of the program all year. Of all the pro set attacks, the WCO is probably the one that can be most easily tweaked into a hybrid.
It doesn't have to be the spread option, but teams that win championships are spreading out the field. We'll have to see how attrition goes, but he could run WCO plays with four wideouts as his base offense. At its best, it would still create mismatches, and still create one on one matchups with the running back and a LB once he gets through the line. The RB should win that battle most of the time.
Consulting the team and letting them keep four or five spread option plays wouldn't be a bad idea, either. At any rate, the coaches will figure out what they want to do and with whom. And they have to wait and see how much attrition happens.
In a standard coaching change, attrition happens because players figure out that they don't fit in and/or won't be getting much playing time. Players in this situation will be doing both themselves and the team a favor by going somewhere they can play and freeing up some schollies.
I'm guessing that a couple of little slot guys who are buried on the depth chart will end up in the MAC somewhere, as will a couple of guys on defense. Hopefully, nobody who was going to be an important piece leaves. But I bet there is a lot of lively discussion among the coaching staff this summer.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
I have a feeling that we will see play calling much more similar to last year than what we expect. There was a lot of the new stuff at the spring game, but what would be the point in repping things that all parties know well enough already? He doesn't need to practice running the stretch or lead. Sure there will be some of this new stuff but I highly doubt Denard won't be in the shotgun most of the time.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
April 20th, 2011 at 11:03 AM ^
Denard is a running quarterback and our entire offense hinged on that fact last year. He had the same major accuracy problems last year, it's just that the receivers were open enough because teams loaded the box to stop the run, atleast at the begining of the year. If he doesn't draw so much attention with his legs, he doesn't play QB for us last year. I could write an article making similair claims for Darren McFadden as a QB, ignoring the fact that people really gave up the pass and focused on stopping him on the ground. With no runningbacks, last years offense was as effective as it gets, and it should be duplicated this year for him.
I can't really understand how Brian Kelly is the only coach in America who can implement multiple systems to fit his various QB's all in the same year. But if Borges and Hoke want to push forward with the west coast theme and not destroy Denard Robinson in the process, they better figure out how. I'm sorry, but adequate system QB's do not go 4 for 14 and miss pretty much everyone they throw to. An off day for an adequate QB would be multiple bad reads and interceptions, not failing to execute the offense entirely. I really hope what was shown in the spring is not what we plan to do with Denard in the fall.
April 20th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
A viable explanation I read (so this is not my idea) is that the coaches ran a lot of I-formation, play action, pro-style stuff because that's what they NEED to practice. If Denard can't handle it well, then they can always go back to more shotgun/spread stuff, which they know he can do from last year's performance. But the idea was that they should work on his weaknesses rather than his strengths.
I don't know if that's exactly what the coaches were trying to do, but it's plausible.
April 20th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^
Plausible and it accomplishes two things:
- Michigan gets more practice on the facets of their offense in which their weakest.
- Disinformation and limited scouting data is disseminated to our rival camps giving them limited material to gameplan and a false sense of security.
1 is very plausible. 2 is less so, but my inner James Bond so wants it to be true.
That's pretty reasonable. My post may seem to write of the Borges/Denard relationship too soon, with an entire summer left to innovate and fit the offense to Denard's strengths its not hopeless yet of course. I don't know much about Borges, but I've seen that he doesn't seem too maried to a scheme. There's plenty of time for it to work out, but if that form of the offense we saw in the spring half-game (1 hour, really?) was a goal and not a trial, things aren't looking up.
April 20th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
My optimistic outlook next year is that the D improves which in turn cuts into opposing teams time of possession. The extra possessions in effect negate the slight regression the offense takes next year. If this happens expect 9-10 wins and a happy fan base.
April 20th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
Anyone ever notice last year, that if there was one person who was completely wide open and Denard overthrew him it was almost always Darryl Stonum.
Maybe Darryl can grow taller during the summer.
footwork and "Three Second" releases - regardless of the number of drop steps - 3/5/7.
7 on 7s will help with routes and TIMING. Lead your receiver and trust he will be at that spot to catch it on the run. Competition from DG is going to be good for both of them.
No worries -