Not too much here, but still some information. Like I said, its short.
this guy evidently hired to work for AD
Not too much here, but still some information. Like I said, its short.
Denard really is a public relations dream for the university. Talk about a kid who gets all the attention in the world and does a great job of staying modest and thinking of his teammates and the school first. The more I hear from denard and other members of the media I really believe that when the season actually starts we are going to see alot of Denard running and shotgun plays that he can excel in. I am really excited to see what situations Borges puts the offense in.
Part of the interview drove me a little crazy when Curtis asked if it was hard to think pass first. It's one of the biggest misconceptions about Denard. Everyone (3rd parties) thinks of him as a scrambler, but very few of his runs were on pass plays--the vast majority came on designed QB runs or options. He is a running quarterback, not a scrambler.
Here are the stats for two guys when they were first time starters during their second season on a college campus.
Guy #1: 162-288, 56.3%, 2,575 yards, 8.94 YPA, 13 TD, 4 INT
Guy #2: 182-291, 62.5%, 2,570 yards, 8.80 YPA, 18 TD, 11 INT
The first guy is Andrew Luck. The second guy also led the Big Ten in rushing with 1702 yards and scored another 14 TD's on the ground.
Denard is the truth.
Luck had Heisman runner up Toby Gerhardt to hand the ball to, Denard didn't. Denard was both Andrew Luck and Toby Gerhardt last season. That is mind boggling.
Yes, but he paid a pretty big physical price for it, which is why I do not want him carrying the ball that often again. I'll take a healthy Denard that rushes for 800-1000 (which should be sufficient to offer the threat of the run to opposing defenses) over the very banged-up Denard we had last season.
The OP was comparing the passing stats between Andrew Luck's first year starting and Denard's first year starting. I was merely pointing out the fact that Denard also was the teams star running back. Next year I hope we rarely use Denard in designed runs. I think less than 10 designed QB runs a game will be enough to keep defenses honest and allow Denard to shine. I'd like to see him scramble instead of forcing bad throws.
Is he was playing in the perfect system for his talents. Oh man if we gave RR at least one or two more years....blah blah blah, get mad at me neg me, its true...yup no defense, yup yup yup, 25 scholarship defensive players two years ago, 8 freshman playing, bad d coordinator, yup yup yup, whatever. Blah blah blah.
I'm as big a Rodriguez fan as there is, but acting like any coach ever could somehow stifle Denard is insane. It is always about the players. Worrying about next year's offense is just as dumb as acting like coaching "ruined" last year's defense. Denard is going to have the best WR corps in the conference, an experienced and talented offensive line, and hopefully a back or two who can provide a counterpunch. And he's only going to get better with experience.
This offense is going to melt people's faces next year.
But if you think our offense is going to melt peoples faces off you have another thing coming.
Idea what a big picture looks like.
would like to have a word with you. The nightmare that was Stevie Brown at safety under LC was drafted and BG went from average to beast mode. Taylor Lewan and numerous other recruits look like they are going to be very successful.
Seeing as how stretchgate was approved by the compliance department you can't put that on RR. If you noticed the last couple years the team on the field has been really young which would be attributed to the lack of recruiting towards the end of the regime prior to RR.
You didn't finish the argument very well.
I'm sure someone has said this before but I think the way you put it is great. For the most part RR's only success was due to Denard. Without him there would be no argument of whether he should have been fired or not. I'm sure he is not the only coach who could have been successful with such a dynamic player.
Phil Jackson wouldn't have rings without Jordan, what's the point?
No one has any rings under Rich Rodriguez.
And for all of his offensive awesomeness, why couldn't he recruit a complementary running back for Denard?
I had hope after the Illinois game that we could just hang on until the defense matured.
Then the Wisconsin, OSU and Bowl game sucked the air right out of that balloon. Especially when Mississippi State completely stimied even the awesome Denard.
The real point that you are missing in the discussion, is that Al Borges knows how to call all the same plays that Rich Rodriguez called. In the Spring Game Al Borges called a QB run to start things off, and Denard ran for more than 50 yards without being touched
The staff understand Denard and know what he can do. What they had him practicing were all the things that will make the people around him more awesome and preserve him through an entire game.
Even if you could prove that Rich Rodriguez would have succeeded if he stayed, it is no longer an interesting discussion because it's irrelevant.
I wish we would just discuss the coaches who coach Michigan.
Obviously if you change an entire culture it takes at least 4-5 years..RR had Dee Hart coming, etc. You know RR was driven out the second he got here, if you don't know that then you don't know much, and now we are back St square A. Be mad at that comment, be optimistic about the future, great. Do what arrogant, ignorant M fans do. Great.
Having players like Denard and DG on the roster make this whole will he/won't he Zeke Pike soap opera a little bit easier to deal with. I am assured that Denard will most likely play a couple more years at AA and DG thereafter.
Is he was playing in the perfect system for his talents. Oh man if we gave RR at least one or two more years....blah blah blah, get mad at me neg me, its true...yup no defense, yup yup yup, 25 scholarship defensive players two years ago, 8 freshman playing, bad d coordinator, yup yup yup, whatever. Blah blah blah."
Idk if this is intended to be a joke but I HATE when people say Denard's success as a qb doesn't matter because of the offense he played in. Thats like saying Andrew Luck's success is invalid because he is in a pro style offense and "he was playing in the perfect system for his talents". Production is production and whether you like it or not translation to the NFL has ZERO-listen to me now- ZERO effect on college success. Everyone who keeps b*tching about us getting back to traditional michigan football seems to want to glaze over the fact that Bo ran an option offense and coached a small, fast, swarming defense much more similar to WVU/RR style not MANBALL.
Bo ran the pro style?
All those 3-back wishbone looks with an option QB in Michael Taylor in 1988 and 1989.....i must have missed that era of professional football
It's called tailoring your offense around your best players. It's what good coaches do. Did Bo run that same wishbone with Harbaugh?
Yes, he did. All the time. Harbaugh ran a lot of option football and passed a ton out of play fakes from said bone/option looks, usually to a wide open Eric Kattus.
And the immediate QBs before and after him were running QBs and used the option even more frequently (Steve Smith and Michael Taylor)
Bo began moving away from the wishbone with Jamie Morris (1984-1987) IIRC. Though he still used it for short-yardage and red zone.
He started out with the option, but was able to see it wasn't successful anymore, and he was intelligent enough to change with the times. Jim Harbaugh seemed to be the first person he actually trusted to pass the ball.
As for Michael Taylor, Bo had to run option with him becuase, despite great speed and leadership skills at QB, Taylor's hands were too small to pass a football very well. This was unfortunate, because he had a rocket arm when he played on the baseball team. Despite his "wounded duck" passes, Taylor somehow ended his career as Michigan's all time leader in passing efficiency.
Here's a quote from Gary Moeller:
"He's kind of a Joe Kapp, throw-it-end-over-end guy. He's not a great physical thrower. We all know that."
Bo found a way to make Michael Taylor's skill set work. I hope Borges can do the same for Denard. If nothing else, Denard has already mastered "coach-speak." That could take him a long way if playing in the NFL doesn't work out.
Just because Bo passed the ball a bit more with Harbaugh doesnt mean he ran a pro style offense. Nothing Michigan really ran through 1989 on Saturday resembled anything the NFL was running on Sunday. It was still a very collegiate driven offensive philosophy. And, why change since nobody beat him.....except ND who ran a ton of option themselves and beat him mostly with their small, quick defensive front against our big slobber knockers up front
The poster above who said Bo ditched the option and ran pro style the final half of his Michigan coaching career is portraying an inaccurate version of Michigan history. Steve Smith was a 3-year starting QB in the early 1980s and Michigan was not running pro style. Nor were they with D Brown and Michael Taylor his last three years as a coach.
UM went pro style in the fall of 1990. And, the change in styles could not have been more marked or obvious. If Bo ran pro style, then Moeller ran the run and shoot.
Revisionist history is saying that Steve Smith and all the other QBs in the second half of Bo's tenure ran a pro style offense. Just because you line up in a I-formation and pass a little bit more than the QBs did in the 1970s, doesnt make it a pro style offense. What Bo ran throughout the 1980s was still decidedly a collegiate football offense....and it was decidedly still effective.
Are you contending we were a pro style team in 1983? When we regularily ran the ball more than 60 times a game and passed it less than 20 a game? How many pro QBs in 1983 were second on the team in rushing attempts and rushing yards like Steve Smith was his senior year. He would have flirted with 1,000 yards had he not missed some games early in the year. I dont know what you call it--other than damn strong since it added up to a win over OSU and a Sugar Bowl bid--but there is no way it was a pro style
Michigan flirted with elements of pro style, for sure, during the 1980s, but is throwing deep to AC, really pro style or just running a play to take advantage of your best guy? Ditto for McMurtry or Calloway.
Michigan turned into a pro style team almost over night when Moeller took over. The 1990 offense could not have been more different than not just the 1989 offense, but most of the entire offenses we'd seen in Ann Arbor throughout the previous decade.
Also, just because Elvis played parts of 4 games early in 1989 due to injury doesnt mean he capped Bo's career. The whole offensive strategy centered around a running QB, there was reason why the O struggled with Elvis, and that was because the team was not yet drilled or schemed for his skills. 1989, Bo's last, was capped by Michael Taylor and a machine of a college rushing attack that could hit you from an assortment of formations, with an assortment of different backs. And, it looked nothing like the pro teams that were taking over the NFL at the time like SF, Washington and Cincy.
Bo was a great coach, but he would laugh at the notion that he ran a pro style offense. So would Jim Harbaugh, if you could pull him away from his Civil War history books long enough to ask him.
I'm not changing my argument at all. Michigan wasnt a pro style team in the 1980s thats my argument.
And, I never said they were an option team, just that that they ran iit a lot with running QBs throughout the decade, and, as such, to call them pro style is a misnomer. Taylor and Smith ran the option a lot, however, even if the bone only came out in the red zone during Taylor's days. Pro style teams dont rely so much on the legs of their QB, especially not back then. Bo got to his last 2 Rose Bowls behind such legs
Michigan became a legit pro style team in 1990, flirting with elements of it the previous several seasons aside. Steve Smith and Michael Taylor did not run pro style offense the five years they collectively were the starters.
Bo was a versatile coach who ran a myriad of types of offenses anf formations. To pigeon hole and say he ran a pro style offense exclusively the final half of his career at Michigan, which you asserted, is not factual. Its not about just formations, its also about playcalling, style and strategy, and Michigan did not run its offense in a pro style spirit. And, yes the fact they did lean frequently on wishbone and/or option is evidence that what they were running wasnt a pro style offense, when did the Bears do that? How many times did Jimmy Mac run the ball, for example.
Was Michigan different in the 1980s than they were in the 1970s? Yes. But, not because they went full blown pro style like you asserted. Bo just discovered the pass and altered his excellent collegiate schemes accordingly.
Maybe they ran pro style in the 1988 Hall Of Fame Bowl? When Moeller was in charge that day. Probably tried to kill Bo form his hospital bed with some of that playcalling, so the program could go full bore pro style earlier than it actually did.
I also think this is getting to be a silly argument
As a MICH historian, I just dont think you can say we were a pro style team until 1990. But, of course, they incorporated elements of it. The phrase you used earlier abdout beginning to migrate towards is something I agree with, just not any assertions that MICH was a true pro style team in the 1980s. And, I dont think thats what you're saying either; just like I wasnt really saying they were an option team.
Bo's D lines where always small. I remember a bowl game against Auburn in '84 where they were laughing at how small our D line was.
Denard would do poorly this year.
...between DRob and Mattison made me smile.
Mattison must have read Pickelman's post-game interview last year...I'm going to remember that when Lewan and Omameh make donkeys out of him and the Lansing front seven next year.
I don't know why I know who Kevin Pickelman is because nobody from Lansing's football team is or ever will be relevant. (for RCMB lurkers)
I think this is proof that having a good coach on any position makes your whole team better. The D-Coordinator firing up the offense as well? Sounds great to me. We have some very talented, professional coaches. Can't WAIT for September.
i'm concerned about one part:
we don't want a blind defensive coordinator
Is the indiana player doing a face palm?
As in "trying to tackle Denard is pointless"
First Embed! I'm Pumped!