"Rodrick Williams Jr.'s 10-month old, 2-foot-long savannah monitor named "Kill" gets the RB some strange looks when they go for walks together."
Our line Devin needs to get the ball out quicker. But who knows what's going to happen.
I agree. He seems to be locking onto Gallon maybe a bit. Not sure why they're not trying to utilize Dileo on shorter middle crossing patterns. He might not be a burner, but the dude is a stud. And I don't know if Funches is going through a bit of a sophomore slump but its disappointing to me he hasn't been more
Involved. I am eager to see the changes that come in the bye week. Definitely see some changes coming in the offensive line. Gardner is a beast, and is going through a funk. But he will bounce back sooner than later. More worried about the Oline than him.
His decision making is not good at this point - that and the porous OL are the reasons behind our turnovers and closer than needed games the last two weeks.
Devin is a slacker when carrying the ball. I say take the 98 jersey away till he deserves it.
Good idea, coach. Let's do whatever we can to further shatter whatever sense of confidence he has left. I'm sure that will help us win ballgames. It's not like he is visibly shaken on the sidelines already. We should probably completely paralyze him with fear of making a mistake.
I'm not sure what post number #1 was, but I can imagine it was just as shitty as this one.
Pullng the #98 jersey doesnt go far enough IMO to punish him for having a game not up to MY standards. I say rip the wings off his helmet and make him play without them for a game or two....that'll show him!
And besides...it worked SO well in the past.
What will make Devin think....taking the Legend Jesey away or if he continues with turnovers should we throw Shane in and how long before we start looking for another Offense coordinator.
I mean, it's probably the worst one I've ever heard... but in a technical sense it IS an idea.
You waited two years to make that comment?
I've always found it ironic that some (all?) of the very people who call out football players for being "lazy" and being "slackers" are likely themselves slacking off from doing work by visiting mgoblog.
Actually his decision making on his turnovers this week were fine - his accuracy was just off. For what it's worth, it was pretty windy at the game and that may have affected his deep throws to Chesson.
His fumble is hard to blame on him - he got sandwiched between his own O-line and fullback.
He was tentative, though, and that put him in bad situations. I think it was just a function of him playing without confidence last weekend. Hopefully he gets past that quickly.
He has to do a better job squeezing the ball and fitting in a gap quicker. On a sneak you can't hesitate while picking your gap, he needed to find his gap immediately and stick it in there. But the ball should never be loose on a sneak, the whole defense is trying to swat it out, he's got to do a better job there.
The fumbles ARE his fault. Sorry man. It's big boy football and when you tote the rock, you should NEVER drop it. Running with it in one hand half the time is a BAD habit that has to stop. I like DG tho. Hope he gets his head back on straight before big ten starts.
The scheme isn't killing us. It's a combination of bad luck, bad form, and bad decision making. Keep in mind that both of Gardner's picks could have been caught. The first would have been hard, but the second was a well thrown ball and our receiver was simply outworked for it. The butt fumble really sucked though, and Gardner needs to be way more careful with the football. Nothing you can do about the bad bounces like that punt return except teach the kids to run like hell when the returner calls them off.
The return team seems far too casual. The punt was a result of someone not realizing there was no reason for him to be where he was and every reason for him to be at least ten yards from where he was. He has to be in front of the return man, not behind him and, as many have noted, not anywhere inside the ten yard line. What really scared me was Norfleet on the kickoffs. There was one time where he had decided not to return the kickoff, let it sail over his head into the endzone and just trotted away. Meanwhile, the ball almost stayed in the endzone (just barely after an agonizing delay trickled beyond the end line) and was a live ball that Connecticut could have fallen on for a touchdown. That's a live ball, and we cannot just have our returners "assume" that it will make it through the end zone.
If it bounces anywhere in the end zone, it's a dead ball.
1. In Wikipedia, it says: "If the kicking team recovers its own kickoff in the end zone in any version of the game (something that, as previously mentioned, is impossible in high school football), it scores a touchdown." It also notes that in high school football, as soon as the kick enters the end zone, it is a dead ball.
2. In Football for Dummies, it says: "A member of the kicking team can recover the ball in the end zone and be awarded a touchdown."
It was always my understanding in college and professional football that a kickoff was live unless and until the ball went out of bounds (either on the sideline or the end line of the end zone) and that the kickoffs I mentioned were live until the ball went out the back of the end zone.
Examples of instances where a touchback would be awarded include when:
A kickoff or punt touches the ground in the receiving team's end zone before being touched by a player of the receiving team.
"When a free kick untouched by Team B [i.e., the receiving team] touches the ground on or behind Team B's goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B."
The whistle is blown the instant the ball hits the ground.
Happy to be shown wrong.
I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the ball is dead if not touched by the receiving team in the end zone. BUT....you are more than welcome to continue criticizing the returner for not following your own set of personal kickoff rules.
our we lose...
In fairness, I think the OP meant that he thinks the NW, Neb., and OSU games will be offensive shootouts in which Michigan will need to score a lot of points to win, whereas in the other games Michigan probably won't need a ton of offense to come out on top.
When he was struggling we did go to quick slants,he just missed the throw. Borges also called a screen that was blown up. Borges attempted to stick with run game but with no threat of pass the box was stacked. The play calling is fine, it's the execution that is lacking.
I would +1 this, then sign into my other 4 accounts I use to put all my posts up to +5 to plus this post more...
Whoops, I mean, +1
Al was trying everything he could think of to get the offense going. Just as you pointed out, he tried screens and slants; these should have been easy completions. I recall one slant where he threw the ball about 5 yards behind Gallon?
I really don't think things are overly complicated as it stands. Devin is not focused right now .....period. There are many instances where players other than Jeremy Gallon are open and he just doesn't get them the ball. Most of his shorter throws vs. Uconn were inaccurate too, and the oline isn't helping things either.
Moving forward I would like to see:
- More two TE sets
- Funchess occasionaly lined up at WR
- More Norfleet
- try HB Counters
- run/pass option rollout
- a few 5 WR sets
- Touissant rush forward for no gain instead of moving laterally for -2 yds.
- A few delay routes for the HB
- an offensive line
kind of flexibility is predicated on an effective run game though. I kind of think the OP is right. My problem with the offense is that it has a transient theme, it seems that we come out in varied, inconsistent formations on every down. Not that you don't want to mix up your offensive play calling, but I think you want a consistent, repeated "base" look that fall back to and rely on. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with the running game is that we have not forced our guys to make it work. We have a couple of unsuccesful attempts and then quickly go to like a jet sweep or option to try to generate a ground game, and I think it disrupts the flow of the offense to a certain degree. Our defense is not going to break often, at least not against Minnesota. I think it is actually time to play, wait for it, MANBALL and really stick with for a while. That likely means taking a couple of three and outs on the chin in order to really try to establish it. I would go from the i, I would run Fitz or god forbid Green, (wait I know, he is a freshman and we all know that freshman can never ever succeed or possible have any positive effect on a college game /s) behind a full back over Lewan and the left portion of the line. I would do it, and do it, and do it (I see you LL) until it works. We have to get that going, simple as that.
Mike deBord, welcome to MGoBlog!
Schematically, or as far as making things easy for Gardner, the formations are not the problem. Michigan runs the same plays regardless of formations, there are just small tweeks to the plays to adjust to the different look, but everything remains consistent for Gardner and for the most part for the OL (the only real change will come from how the D front changes).
You could argue that maybe Michigan should run less 2 TE formations, as without Williams, you are putting two inexperienced blockers on the field to block (Williams played, but was still somewhat limited it seemed). But formation as far as simplifying things for the offense isn't really an issue.
Less snark, more substantive: man ball up the gut running worked out well against Akron, but only after Akron sold out to stop the outside zone.
Conversely, against UConn's (and ND's) stronger interior defense, outside zone running was the most successful. In other words, our variety has been a net positive. We're not good enough to be one dimensional.
All of that kind of flexibility is predicated on an effective run game though.
One minor quibble, all of that is predicated on an effective run game that forces the defense to sell out on the run. If defenses are lining up 8 and 9 in the box right off the bat, then that other stuff can be effective, even if your running game isn't producing. The end result is the same whether your effective running game forced extra defenders in to stop the run, or if that's the way defenses are game planning against you: you have less defenders to stop the other stuff.
is going to be turnover prone for the rest of his career. He is going to be exceptional to watch at times, and other times he is going to be wildly erratic and prone to mental lapses with the football. We have enough of a sample size of Gardner at this point to know that is going to be his MO. I agree with the OP to the extent that the more the ball is put in his hands with discretion, the more extremely frightening variables are going to come into play. What I am saying is that I don't think this team has a choice but to absolutely ensure and prove that we can run the ball straight at you and at least play you head up at the line of scrimmage. Off left tackle. It has to be done. Our offense cannot survive if it can't be done. If I were coaching this team, I would tell the offensive line we are running down your back. If you can't make that happen than you got problems and you are going to have to get them figured out. Those are young guys but they are damn talented guys, and were not recruiting to get pushed into the backfield 3 yards on every play. Whatever the defense is running, we need to go at them at the core and now back away from it because we get stopped on a couple of ocassions. Our offense is being too reactionary and not telling teams were doing it regardless of what you do. I am not one of your old school guys about offense that say 3 yards and a cloud of dust is the way you play football, but jokes aside, with the lack of really explosive deep receivers, if we cannot play "Manball" and control the interior line of scrimmage I don't know if there is much can be done right now.
Until Gardner finds his mojo again, I agree we should be keeping it simple and straightforward for him as much as possible. Long term, he's way too explosive to keep limited, and we're just not that good else where to be able to dictate our will, especially against better defenses. One of the interior guys is a damn talented recruit, the others are a walk-on and a fairly middling 3*. We have a pretty good sample size of what happens when defenses are able to key up our tendencies and just stack the box to stop the run. Being one dimensional and predictable is the last thing this offense needs. We don't need trickeration necessarily, but we do have to be multiple enough to get the OL into advantagous RPS+ situations, or at least keep LBs from screaming for the LOS every snap, for them to have a chance.
In response to ijohnb: your opening sentence stating "Gardner is going to be turnover prone for the rest of his career." may be the most ridiculous statement of many I have seen posted. I was able to personally witness the transformation of Vince Young from "dear God, why are the coaches playing him" to "dear God, thank you for Vince Young" to "dear God, what happened to Vince Young". You have no idea what can happen. The same people who were hoping Vince Young would never see the field again when he was in his first year of starting are the same people who have a #10 Texas jersey hanging in their closet today.
The most ridiculous statement you have ever read. He is nearing the middle of his junior year and he has accounted for 10 turnovers this year. How much career do you think he has left to disprove that statement. Look, don't turn this into me hating on Gardner. That is not what my post said and you know it. One good game against ND does not a Vince Young make. Don't act like he is flawless.
He started half of last year, and four games this year. It's certainly not out of the question that he makes serious improvement between this year and next.
I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't significant improvement in the later half of this season as he moves into his 14th, 15th and more starts.
Gardner has 9 career starts to his name. QB more than any position is about playing time, not age. Gardner has 9-10 starts left this year and 13-14 starts next year ahead of him. That's 22-24 games to prove what he will be remembered for. Look up Johnny Manziel's, Peyton Manning's or any other QB's stats for their first 9 collegiate games and see how Gardner's upside and downside compare.
EDIT: this is in response to ijohnb's response.
And say Gardner's problem isn't that he's "not focused". There are other issues, being focused isn't one of them.
and the second-guessers infesting this board. Shit happens to teams. Every season is not full of dreamscape wins. Losing does actually happen. Nobody is more aware of what to do than the coaching staff and certainly not anyone on this board.
Michigan is 4-0 so no losing has occurred yet. Sure it has been ugly but they have found ways to win.
I am agreeing with you but Michigan has not dropped a game. Fans are always expecting things to be better.
lost me at Bo Pelini was right.
You mean the Nebraska fan uproar over Pellini's comments was misplaced? He was really talking about posters on MGoBlog?
You mean the Nebraska fan uproar over Pellini's comments was misplaced? He was really talking about posters on MGoBlog?
But it's a good illustration why most staff and players feel the same way; they just don't get caught saying it.
I mean, the more proper way to say it is probably Rich's "Get a life" speech, rather than the F-bomb tirade Pelini had.