If you're gonna go please be in the first round.
A Question for Borges: What Happened to the Veer?
November 5th, 2012 at 10:14 AM | 
Dude.
Our offensive
Dude.
Our offensive
November 5th, 2012 at 10:30 AM |
Love me some Denard, but
Love me some Denard, but
Love me some Denard, but Kenjon Barner would like to have a word with you...
November 5th, 2012 at 10:41 AM |
Eh.
Pac 10 defense is
Eh.
Pac 10 defense is
Eh.
Pac 10 defense is historic levels of bullshit.
And Barner has an OL.
wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog
November 5th, 2012 at 12:23 PM |
CTB2,
Thanks for putting this
CTB2,
Thanks for putting this
CTB2,
Thanks for putting this into perspective. I now understand that our Offense is probably the worst in the B10 if not for a certain super freak athlete who by the grace of G-d decided to stay and save our O. Commence depression.
November 5th, 2012 at 6:32 PM |
Our offensive performance
Our offensive performance
Our offensive performance against Minnesota was 380 yards. That's comparable to our pre-Denard injury pace against Nebraska (a defense that doesn't suck) and our performance against MSU (a defense that doesn't suck).
It's worth pointing out a couple of things. First, nearly all of that yardage came in the final three quarters. It looked like it took Gardner one quarter to get comfortable again, and then he and the offense were outstanding. Second, we scored five TDs. Against MSU and Nebraska, we didn't score any. Also, Minnesota is not quite the terrible defensive team you're making them out to be. They're ranked ahead of Nebraska in all the team defense statistics.
Now, I'm not arguing that Denard should be moved, but I think you're trying a little too hard to discount Gardner's performance on Saturday. I would say that was the best passing performance by a Michigan QB this year.
November 5th, 2012 at 10:34 AM |
No.
No.
No. One good performance against Minnesota should not decide who the starting QB is. Recall that Sheridan looked good against Minnesota in 2008.
Michigan's offensive style requires more players that have greater interactions with the Higgs field.
November 5th, 2012 at 9:40 AM |
I
I
I think the coaches knew Denard wasn't going to play and designed a gameplan around Devin.
THIS IS MICHIGAN
November 5th, 2012 at 11:00 AM |
Really?
Really?
Ya think?
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
November 5th, 2012 at 9:45 AM |
Kennedy was the 2nd string QB
Kennedy was the 2nd string QB
Kennedy was the 2nd string QB and you wanted Borges to run Devin more?
Yes I got him a gift. He had a kidney stone. You piss a rock through your pecker, you deserve more than just a pat on the fucking back.
November 5th, 2012 at 9:49 AM |
All of the above
All of the above
I think there are many reasons. In order, I'd say:
- Jack Kennedy was the 2nd string on Saturday.
- Jack Kennedy was the 2nd string on Saturday.
- Devin doesn't have that much experience running veer.
- Seriously, Jack Kennedy was the 2nd string on Saturday.
- After the 1st quarter funk, we were moving the ball just fine without any further risk.
- The Oline has been having issues block ISO, let alone veer.
- For real, yo. Jack Kennedy was the 2nd string on Saturday.
November 5th, 2012 at 10:13 AM |
Who was the 2nd string QB
Who was the 2nd string QB
Who was the 2nd string QB again?
November 5th, 2012 at 10:06 AM |
I was kind of wondering why
I was kind of wondering why
I was kind of wondering why they didn't run Devin on the first few drives as well, but I didn't know about Bellomy being hurt. In the end it didn't matter bcus Gardner ended up with about 20 yards per completion. One thing is clear ... Devin sees the field MUCH better than Denard does. If Denard holds the ball for longer than 3 seconds, bad things happen. If DG holds the ball for several seconds, he either scrambles or finds an open receiver. He wasn't getting ANY help from his offensive line either, especially up the middle. Now lets just pray DG somehow gets a redshirt, lol.
November 5th, 2012 at 12:52 PM |
Against a better D, Gardner
Against a better D, Gardner
Against a better D, Gardner would have taken several more sacks while yakety saxing behind the line of scrimmage (see MSU 2011).
He can get away with a lot due to his athleticism and size, but he did make some poor decisions that worked out better than they probably should have.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:19 PM |
True, but I think when you
True, but I think when you
True, but I think when you consider the lack of preparation and the lackluster performance by the O-line, he played very well. I also liked how he showed an ability to scan the entire field and get the defense spread out. It helped the run game because Minnesota realized they couldn't survive with 10 in the box. You can't really compare Devin & Denard, but I think DG has a higher ceiling.
November 5th, 2012 at 10:11 AM |
I recall 2 or 3 called runs
I recall 2 or 3 called runs
I recall 2 or 3 called runs with Gardner.
But I also can't remember Gardner ever, as a QB, making an earth-shattering run. The best I've ever seen him do was his 12-ish yard scramble on Saturday. He's fast, yes, but I think he lacks acceleration. We probably didn't run much veer because Gardner isn't that good a runner.
wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog
November 5th, 2012 at 5:59 PM |
I think his straight line
I think his straight line
I think his straight line speed is good, but he doesn't juke especially well. I think the IV is actually a pretty good play for him, since he's got some size and can get going north/south. I wouldn't want to see him run a reverse though.
...the Canadians make up for it with their emotion and classic ice-dancing skill.
November 5th, 2012 at 10:56 AM |
Maybe
Maybe
It's because we were dominating and didn't need the QB runs?
Still think we should keep them in our playbook.
HAIL.
November 5th, 2012 at 12:41 PM |
All of the above
All of the above
Considering the first, and previous 2nd (probably currently 3rd) option at QB were both injured, the guy you're having start has been playing WR for the last several months, and the line hasn't been blocking all that well... Seems like the IV would've been both risky, and in all probabily, ineffective. I would guess that it wasn't part of the game plan at all since DG doesn't seem to be able to dance through traffic the way DR does.
Regardless, the gameplan worked. It's a curious absence of our base running play, but not a terribly surprising one given the circumstances. I would suspect that the Inverted Veer (that isn't really an inverted veer apparently - learn something new every day) will probably dissappear from the playbook fairly soon anyway. If not next year with DG then the year after (or two if Gardner gets that redshirt).
I just can't see us running Morris up the middle with our bulldozer line; even if it would/could be effective.
November 5th, 2012 at 12:53 PM |
No Prayers Needed
No Prayers Needed
I bet every time Devin was hit or took off running Al started praying. "Please god don't make me put in Kennedy until garbage time!". Also it was smart taking out some of the read from a wide reciever playing QB.
Denard might just run with a little more recless abandon now that he know he has a really good backup. We all know the horror of safety Denard againt Alabama. Maybe the games a little closer if they don't have to worry about losing shoelace.
November 5th, 2012 at 4:18 PM |
Didn't see much inverted veer vs. Minnesota
Didn't see much inverted veer vs. Minnesota
I'm sure with more reps Gardner could improve his reading skills on that play and other derivative plays.
We'll see inverted veer by Northwestern next week. They've been living and breathing that stuff since the Randy Walker days.
What's weird that as much as Fitzgerald's NW offense runs this formation with inverted veer option play, the Wildcat defense seems utterly incapable of stopping it.
November 5th, 2012 at 6:33 PM |
Did we need it? We scored 35
Did we need it? We scored 35
Did we need it? We scored 35 points without it.
Dude.
Our offensive performance against Minnesota was 380 yards. That's comparable to our pre-Denard injury pace against Nebraska (a defense that doesn't suck) and our performance against MSU (a defense that doesn't suck).
Minnesota's best rushing defense performance against a BCS school was allowing 6.4 YPC to Northwestern. We averaged 3.6, and it would have been under 3 ypc had Fitz not broken through on the garbage possession.
The upgrade from Denard to Gardner throwing, such as it is, is not worth sacrificing the only human on earth that can make our sad-sack rushing game look capable.
We have THE BEST RUNNER IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL, and people want him to play WR.
Un-fricken-believable
wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog