Opinions on Tony Dews

Submitted by MGrether on
One of the coaches I was sad to see go was Soup. The last two years, there was a lot of criticism about Dews as a coach, as it seemed like his receivers were underperforming. What are the thoughts about him now as a coach?

BrayBray1

November 11th, 2010 at 7:59 AM ^

Year One- Threet/Sheridan to Tacopants ALL DAY LONG

Year Two- Better, Tate only a Freshman though

Year Three- Much improved, our receivers are doing what we thought they'd do.

Next Year- Look out.

mgokev

November 11th, 2010 at 8:11 AM ^

I don't necessarily look at yards per catch to judge a WR's ability (and to some extention the coach's ability).  A lot of those statistics falls on the QB's ability to get them the ball, and then by association, the OL's ability to provide a certain timeframe of protection for the QB.

That said, I have really been impressed with the WR's grasp of the offense.  There doesn't appear to be much miscommunication between QB and WR which is a testament to their coaching and time spent on book work.  Additionally, the downfield blocking of our WR's have improved yearly, which is another testament to not only the coach focusing on an important aspect of this offense, but the WR's selling out and dedicating themselves to the greater purpose of the team as opposed to fueling their own ego with their stats.

The teamwork, selflessness, and work ethic of not only this position group, but all position groups in general, gives me more faith that this coaching staff knows what they are doing.  What many people overlook is not just the quality of play on the field, but the quality of the individual off the field.  I have been more than impressed with our team from the latter, and am confident that the former can only improve with time.

WestCBlue

November 11th, 2010 at 8:16 AM ^

except that he has done very well with the receivers across the board.

Aside from the obvious, the catches, etc.  The down-field blocking has been great to spectacular and has sprung several TDs.  

Each time I watch the games I'm very impress by the receivers, all receivers constantly blocking.  It is a difference maker in this offense.

Magnus

November 11th, 2010 at 8:18 AM ^

I think Dews is doing a good job, and it seems like he's a good recruiter, too.

However, I still think Erik Campbell was a great WR coach.  The thing is, the receivers this year really aren't doing too many complicated things.  They're running hitches, bubble screens, go routes, and slants.  They're clearly working hard and catching the ball, and I'm not complaining about Dews.  I just think that Campbell taught in a more complicated system.

mgokev

November 11th, 2010 at 8:26 AM ^

I agree with your sentiments on Campbell.  

I have always wondered how much the type of offense can affect the perceived quality of a position coach.  In other words, would Dews be able to put out similar performance in a pass heavy/complicated system?  At the end of the day, I guess as long as our WR's are doing what they need to do in this offense (screens, hitches, blocking, etc), then I'm happy.

gater

November 11th, 2010 at 9:12 AM ^

The knock on a lot of spread programs is that the receivers never run complex routes.  They just don't need to.  This was talked about ad nauseum when Michael Crabtree was drafted.  I haven't heard one way or the other about RR's spread, I hope it does a little better job preparing these guys for the pros.

joeyb

November 11th, 2010 at 9:20 AM ^

I know that they don't need to, but I would assume that at some point they will as defenses start catching up with the small set of plays that we run. I'm not suggesting that they will start putting in double move routes, just that I think we will get a majority of the passing tree down as the QBs develop.

jg2112

November 11th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^

Of course, if there had to be a negative slant written about the wide receivers, five days after they managed to only account for what, 400 yards passing and at least 4 receiving touchdowns, Magnus would find it.

Who gives a toss if they're running 3 yards downfield, turning around and yelling "HEY DENARD LOOK AT ME." In 10 years no one is going to look at the record book and discount Roundtree's record day because he didn't run "many complicated routes."

But of course, if one is always looking for the negative, one will always find it.

Say Magnus, we missed your game recap this week. I'm waiting to read your write up and to read how bad Vinny Smits was this week.

MightAndMainWeCheer

November 11th, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^

Are you sure the WRs have an easier time in this offense?  I would assume that they still need to run option routes in this offense so I'm guessing it's no less or no more complex than Lloyd's system.  I would think that all receivers will run 6 or 7 basic routes regardless of offense.

It looks like the reads are easier for the QBs (in the passing game only) in this offense.  Obviously the reads in the running game are complex b/c of scraping defenders and LB/CBs coming up to contain.  In the passing game, however, it appears that our QBs are only reading one side of the field; I have yet to see a play where the QB looks to his right, sees nobody open, then looks to the left and fires the ball to a receiver. 

I'll admit that the "four verticals" and "four hitches" pass plays, while effective, are not necessarily the most complex plays for both the QB and WRs.  Then again, maybe simplifying the reads to one side of the field is strictly a function of having a QB in his first year starting, and the next few years we will see Denard given more reads (not sure if this is necessary though)?

bronxblue

November 11th, 2010 at 8:20 AM ^

I have really liked what the receivers do blocking for Denard and co., and they have made some really nice catches in traffic and for crucial downs.  Considering the near-constant changes at the QB position over the years, I think the WRs have done well out there.  I guess my only complaint would be that I'm not sure if they are completely comfortable yet with Denard at QB and the threat of housing it on every scramble.  At times, they like the rest of the team seem caught a little off by him taking off, leading to some missed blocks.  Still, minor quibble, and one you would expect. 

icefins26

November 11th, 2010 at 8:30 AM ^

As Magnus said, Dews is an excellent recruiter.  While you want position coaches to well, coach, you also want a large chunk of their abilities related to recruiting.  He seems to have a really good personality that appeals to recruits.

In other news, because I don't want to start a thread on it, Hollowell dropped to a 3-star and Tony Posada dropped to unranked on Rivals.

burtcomma

November 11th, 2010 at 8:52 AM ^

Year One -   We are supposed to block who?

Year two-   Better, but not quite there yet

Year Three-  Much improved, btr than avg Michigan line over past 10 years

Next Year -  Awesome baby!

mongoose0614

November 11th, 2010 at 9:37 AM ^

Why is there this myth that old U offense was so complex and complicated.  That is very a very obtuse viewpoint right along with our current offense is simplistic.  This drives me nuts and is flat out wrong.

These things are important to me in order of importance IMO:  Yes I understand all of these are important............

1.  Can they recruit (win with jimmy's and joe's not x's and o's)  

2. Do the WR's block (team mentality) and do it without holding (lazy) and clipping (shows discipline)

3. Do they find seams (coaching the understanding of the game). 

4. Do they catch the ball consistently.  (last 2 weeks need improvement)

5. Are backups developed for depth

I think our WR's have gotten better every year and Dews does very well.  

Don

November 11th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^

Former UM QB Michael Taylor has appeared on WTKA's Sunday morning show for a number of years, dating back to LC's tenure. One more than one occasion he commented on the simplicity of the routes we ran while Lloyd Carr was coach, specifically mentioning the relative absence of double moves, for example. I don't think that our passing game under LC was regarded as particularly complex by most college football analysts, but that didn't prevent it from being damn effective in most of the games we played.

Considering how our offense is doing overall, it seems strange to me to be focusing on our perceived strengths or weaknesses of our receivers—that's not where our problems lie.

iawolve

November 11th, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^

He finally has their WRs blocking downfield, spent the last three years coaching the all time receptions and total yards leader at UI (DJK) and turned a QB into a WR during his sophomore season who is looking really good (McNutt). The guy knows how to coach has has many fans here locally.

Alternatively, Dews has been solid and has the pressure of having to recruit since both coordinators do not. I would like to see our WRs fix the random affliction of the dropsies and that would be about it.

 

griesecheeks

November 11th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^

One thing I like: We have some capable depth at WR. Remember back in the dinosaur age, if our 4th/5th receivers saw the field, it was most likely a run. Rarely would you hear: Doug Dutch for 22 yards and a first down. Currently, if you're in the game, there's a good chance you'll get the ball. See: Gallon, Grady, T-Rob. I definitely credit Dews with getting all of their receivers into a position to produce when called upon.