A Question for Borges: What Happened to the Veer?
We now know that Devin Gardner was basically Michigan's only serviceable quarterback Saturday. Bellomy was hurt (and it's pretty obvious it was legit, given his absence from warmups and Kennedy's insertion in garbage time) and Denard was unavailable.
We also suspect that Al Borges isn't a huge fan of using a quarterback in designated runs, and that starting next year the "Let Denard Run" portion of the playbook will be mothballed. He had a week of Devin Gardner as his first-team quarterback, knowing that Denard and Bellomy might not go.
The result? A gameplan that completely ignored the quarterback as a runner. Devin's a pretty fast guy, but his running plays were mostly improvised, with a light helping of traditional drop-back draws. There were no veers where Devin actually could have made a run read. No QB isos or sweeps. We just saw what might be our QB next year; did we just see a preview of our new offense?
My question: Did Borges remove the QB run plays from the gameplan because he preferred Gardner as a more traditional drop-back-and-occasionally-scramble QB? Or did he merely take runs out of the plan because Michigan absolutely could not afford to have Devin get hurt?
This question is in good faith; I think either answer is reasonably valid, and on this weekend at least the Manball grind-and-torch-clock huddle offense was absolutely perfect for Michigan. The second quarter was brilliant. This question is relevant, though, because if Devin starts next year but has a valid backup or two, he can still do damage in an inverted veer that seems to work pretty well.
November 5th, 2012 at 5:54 PM ^
My personal theory has been that Denard is so intent to prove he's a quarterback - perhaps because of the legions of mouth-breathers who think he should move to the slot, though I hope that he doesn't look online for such-like nonsense - that he holds on to the ball far too long.
I think he also lacks some natural feel for pulling it down, too, but I think this exacerbates the problem. It's maddening thought - I agree that if he was just more decisive about pulling it down he'd be close to impossible to defend, as opposed to just plain' old damn scary to terrifying. To borrow soccer parlance: 'unplayable.'
November 5th, 2012 at 8:27 AM ^
Anybody else think that this week DG should get the start and put Denard at WR? I just think that our offense is alot harder to defend with a downfield passing threat and would be good if we could throw in a few plays with Denard at QB to keep the d on their heels
November 5th, 2012 at 9:14 AM ^
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
November 5th, 2012 at 9:30 AM ^
November 5th, 2012 at 9:41 AM ^
Eh.
Pac 10 defense is historic levels of bullshit.
And Barner has an OL.
November 5th, 2012 at 11:23 AM ^
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 5:32 PM ^
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 9:34 AM ^
No. One good performance against Minnesota should not decide who the starting QB is. Recall that Sheridan looked good against Minnesota in 2008.
November 5th, 2012 at 8:40 AM ^
November 5th, 2012 at 10:00 AM ^
Ya think?
November 5th, 2012 at 8:45 AM ^
Kennedy was the 2nd string QB and you wanted Borges to run Devin more?
November 5th, 2012 at 8:49 AM ^
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 9:13 AM ^
November 5th, 2012 at 9:06 AM ^
November 5th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^
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 12:19 PM ^
November 5th, 2012 at 9:11 AM ^
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.
November 5th, 2012 at 4:59 PM ^
November 5th, 2012 at 9:56 AM ^
It's because we were dominating and didn't need the QB runs?
Still think we should keep them in our playbook.
November 5th, 2012 at 11:41 AM ^
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 11:53 AM ^
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 12:47 PM ^
I personally think the game we played vs Minny was the future of Michigan, minus the crappy O Line play. Seriously I'm sick of them being pushed all over the place every fucking week. Lewan is not ready for the pros and I don't care what people say here. Just my opinion
November 5th, 2012 at 3:18 PM ^
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 5:33 PM ^
Did we need it? We scored 35 points without it.