Paradigm Shift Re: Running QB
It's obvious, and we all know our offense has changed immensely under RR's new regime. It hit me (again) right between the eyes, though, how complete the paradigm shift has become today when I was reading "The Wolverine Now" and read this in regards to Devin Gardner's performance on Saturday:
Gardner did not excel running the football, averaging just 4.2 yards per carry, but he showed great promise in the passing game.
ONLY 4.2 yards per carry??? Are you kidding me?
Just last year Michigan fans would have been drooling over a stat like that. Only three years ago, I'd be surprised if the quarterback posted positive rushing yards at all considering sack yardage counts against the total.
To me this is a testament to just how spectacular D Rob (and D Gardner) has been and the promise he (they) brings to the offense moving forward.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^
"Navarre lost only 2.6 rushing yards per carry, once sacks were discounted," would have at one time been perfectly acceptable praise.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
Navarre would've gotten high praise if he merely moved his legs in a scissor-like motion, creating the illusion of running (for the record, he never did).
September 28th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
Navarre wasn't exactly recruited as a dual threat quarterback for a system designed for the quarterback to run the football. The guy did occasionally throw the football, so I hear. Set school records with throwing, as a matter of fact.
Devin will be fine - but there were plenty of times he looked panicky and practically forgot which direction he was supposed to run on Saturday. Against the same defense, Shoelace had 129 yards in 5 carries - an average of 25.8 . . . something much larger than 4.2 yards per carry. Just sayin'.
September 28th, 2010 at 7:59 PM ^
As evidenced by the OP's use of the phrase "paradigm shift" in the title, the point of this thread (at the risk of oversimplifying and doing a disservice to the OP) is pretty much to declare "Hey, the helmsmen in our backfield aren't apples anymore. By golly, these things are bone fide oranges!" So yeah, don't disagree with you.
September 28th, 2010 at 10:42 PM ^
the display Navarre put on during his run against Minnesota. You can't bring down a 6-6, 235 pound quarterback running full steam down the field.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^
Because they were a running QB that ran a lot.
Oops! Sorry! Those were other posts.
Never mind.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:47 PM ^
Especially as regards performace judgements - awful, acceptable, good, amazing. In this system, what is an awful day for the quarterback? What does it take to qualify as amazing? I think that this is part of the reason for the Denard hype - the closest we can come to a comparable is WVU with White/Slaton. However, without watching all of that film, I'm guessing that Rodriguez has adapted his offense and the prongs of its attack to account for defensive schematic adjustments in the meantime.
Part of what has made me giddy on Saturdays this fall is the thought that at this point, Denard and the rest of the offense might only be good. As his reads get more accurate and faster, as he gets a better understanding of the nuances of the offense, as the communication among players and between players and coaches improves, it would stand to reason that the offense can only stand to get better. This is without mentioning the O line, which has played well but could be even better. Given the relative youth and inexperience of the offensive two-deep, here's the really fun question: what if so far we're only seeing "acceptable"?
September 28th, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
Same players (mostly), same coaches, similar competition. The team is extremely young, yet we are witnessing some of the most exciting football ever played in Ann Arbor.
I know it still comes down to winning, but this season has been fun -- really fun -- to watch. Three yards and a cloud of dust? Screw that, I want to see our offense put up 1,000 yards against a Big 10 opponent!
RichRod if you can recruit a defense like the offense you have assembled, you will join the Michigan Pantheon and bring The Game back to the center of the national college football scene where it belongs (to me the BCS NC is icing on the cake).
September 28th, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^
Good point. I was still stuck on the first part of what you said, which was exactly the point of my post.
I hadn't even graduated to the "what if this is only acceptable compared to what it COULD be?"
+1 to you for shooting my 'hope' level through the roof.
September 28th, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^
wow JUST 4.2 .. better have him grow those dreads out for the next 2 years lol
September 28th, 2010 at 7:53 PM ^
Well, think about what you'd consider acceptable for a tailback. Is 4.2 a great average for a back? Not really (though I'd consider it acceptable against a strong defense).
September 28th, 2010 at 8:06 PM ^
Emmitt Smith"s career yards per carry average is 4.2.
September 28th, 2010 at 8:59 PM ^
The NFL is a different animal entirely. Run defenses are much tougher.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^
While I think Smith was overrated, he was also a victim of his own longevity. He played until he was 35, which didn't help his average per carry. His yards per attempt dropped every year in his last five years except his last, when it rebounded to 3.5 from 2.8.
At his peak, I think he was a very good back. Still, in his peak years he was playing behind the best line in football on the best team in football. He played for a long time after that team started to fall apart, but he was only average after the Super Bowl years.