Stat of the Evening

Submitted by TheGhostofYost on

With two returning 1000-yard rushers including a record-setting QB, a former near-1000-yard receiver, and an experienced OL with a top 20 pick at LT, this offense just did something that hasn't been done at Michigan in 50 years.

The last team to be held without a TD three times in one season was the 2-7, 1962 squad quarterbacked by Bobby Timberlake.  They were shut out 4 times, and scored more than 14 points just once.

AMazinBlue

October 28th, 2012 at 9:31 AM ^

Denard makes Al look good and bad.  Denard is the only true play-maker on this team.  One on 11 will never work.  The RBs are not a threat and the receivers are n't either.  One because they aren't very good or overally fast and two because Denard isn't a very good throwing QB.

Denard is a runner,  He has produced the vast majority of the offense over the last three years.  When he is not there, nothing works.  That is on the coaches.  Relying on Denard to throw his way out of trouble is a bad idea, that is on the coaches.  Not having any kind of suitable backup QB or any semblance of a running game is on the coaches.

Without Denard we could lose the rest of our games.  Without Denard Minnesota is NO lock.  If that happens, Al B will be in big trouble, but as been asked above, who do you replace him with?  Loeffler is not the right answer to that question.   Hell, Mike DeBord is a better answer than that.

NateVolk

October 28th, 2012 at 10:08 AM ^

If you listen to Hoke in the post game last night it was more pointed than the usual coach speak about the offense.  He seemed fatigued from the lack of touchdowns. I think what we are seeing this season is a back and forth balancing act. Notre Dame tipped the playcalling more conservative and it worked for a while. 

Now they'll probably look to add on some more wide open type stuff hoping it can be done without lots of turnovers. We just don't have great talent at the skill positions right now, especially when Denard is out. Seriously any of Nebraska's front line skill guys we saw last night would start for Michigan. Same thing with State and probably Notre Dame.

As great as he is, the existence of Denard has probably caused receivers and backs to shy away the last couple classes. Especially the receivers. If you are a kid who is wanting to go NFL, you are looking at an offense that is vanilla college spread with tons of quarterback runs and a quarterback who is hit and miss with his accuracy. 

You are going to say thanks but no thanks. Really what we are seeing is more a product of the transition back to a pro style offense than anything. All that aside, if Denard stays upright, this team can absolutely win out.

 

UMgradMSUdad

October 28th, 2012 at 10:08 AM ^

Offenses are easy to defend when there is no credible threat of a passing game. Borges definitely shares much of the blame, but Denard is a mediocre at best passer, and our best receiving threats are two first year starters at that position. We shut down Nebraska's offense, too, until Martinez started hitting some passes.  

PurpleStuff

October 28th, 2012 at 11:56 AM ^

Denard completed 62.5% of his passes as a true sophomore and threw an interception 3.8% of the time.

Since then he's completed less than 55% of his passes and thrown an interception 5.7% of the time.  His QB rating dropped by 10 points last year and dropped by another 12 this year.  Roy Roundtree put up 246 yards and 2 TD in one game against an Illinois defense with multiple draft picks that shut down RGIII in a blowout bowl win.  That was in one game as a sophomore.  He's put up 175 yards and 1 TD this year in 8 games.  That was with no Fitz in the lineup and Taylor Lewan playing as a freshman. 

The same players are producing drastically inferior results instead of improving throughout their careers.  Acting like they are the problem is kind of ridiculous. 

MGlobules

October 28th, 2012 at 11:08 AM ^

Hoke. We don't know if he's demanding conservative from his OC. 

I do think that somewhere along the way they lost faith in Denard, though, and that Denard is objectively performing worse this year, which makes me a little sad. 

And while putting Gardner at wide receiver looked fascinating at the beginning of the season, it hasn't worked out. With Bellomy so obviously frightened out there and underperforming last night, we could have had other options at QB; I like Hoke AND Borges, and don't think you judge them on a debacle like last night's, but the Gardner decision hasn't worked, and is clearly on them. 

Don

October 28th, 2012 at 11:23 AM ^

but what's just as important to me is the virtual disappearance of our running game aside from Denard. I would agree that Fitz doesn't seem to be the player he was last year, but it's an unavoidable fact that one of the reasons he's been so ineffective is that he simply has no holes on a large number of his carries. With the same QB and the same RB and most of the same receiving corps, I think you have to point to the OL as the main culprit. They're fine in pass blocking, but they're simply not getting any push in the running game. I think the loss of Molk is far more serious than most people thought it would be, and the replacements and shifiting around has not compensated.

HighSociety

October 28th, 2012 at 12:01 PM ^

but no way in hell he should ever be starting on a UM offensive line, same goes for Omameh and Barnum. Schofield is the kind of player in the past Michigan would plug in to replace injured guys on the line but on this team he's a starter.

 

 Run blocking has just been pathetic this year but Hoke has done a great job addressing this need through recruiting so the future should be bright.

blueheron

October 28th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^

"... no way in hell he should ever be starting on a UM offensive line ..."

I hope you're prepared to go all the way back to about 2001. Is that the case? I say that because, with a few exceptions, it has been a long time since Michigan has been an O-line factory.

And, no, one guy (David Baas / Jake Long) with NFL ability doesn't make a factory.

I also think you're being too harsh on Omameh. He had his moments in the prior regime. He's just not a straight-ahead run blocker. Neither is Barnum. I'm honestly more bummed about Schofield.

HighSociety

October 28th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^

"I also think you're being too harsh on Omameh. He had his moments in the prior regime. He's just not a straight-ahead run blocker. Neither is Barnum"

 

 

This is part of my point, these are not the kind of players UM has traditionally had starting on the offensive line, they got blown up by a not particularly dominant Nebraksa D-line.

blueheron

October 28th, 2012 at 1:26 PM ^

Fine, but you didn't say "traditional" (which I assume is meant to be synonymous with smash-mouth) in your post. You said something like "A Michigan offensive line." It implies that our current guys aren't good at anything.

Agreed, yes, Barnum and Omameh wouldn't have worked for most of Lloyd's early teams. But, I'm guessing the nameless obese corn-fed guys of Lloyd's later years (excepting Long and Baas, of course) wouldn't have "reach blocked" too well, either.

Those guys were recruited for another style, so I'm not going to come down on them too hard. They don't have the talent to succeed in any style (as would be the case with Jake Long).

PurpleStuff

October 28th, 2012 at 2:21 PM ^

The style issues you mentioned are one part of the problem and the structure of the offense is the other.

This team regularly lines up in spread type formations with multiple wide receivers and then never does any of the things that make those offenses effective.  We don't attack the shallow flats at all and teams don't respect our alignment as a result.  Teams keep three linebackers in the game and we are blocking conventional defenses with one fewer blocker when that happens.  When we go to two backs in the shotgun we never give the big/other back the ball so again no one is ever fooled.  Up until last night we were running play action that looked nothing like our actual running plays so again no one was fooled.  We'll do something unconventional once to great success (the speed option and the throwback screen are prime examples and the inverted veer is getting that way) and then run those plays into the ground even as teams recognize immediately what is happening and come screaming after the receiver/ball carrier.  There is never a counter in place.

Look at Arizona yesterday or Michigan in 2010.  See how many players have to be blocked for a running play to be successful.  Notice how simple the blocking scheme is and how quickly running plays and short/screen passes develop.  See how many defenders are crowded into the middle of the field.  See how many receivers are all alone in the middle of the field (they hit a 3rd and 22 for an uncovered 60 yard gain yesterday against a talented USC secondary). 

Instead of doing that, we are running slow developing plays, make our guards pull on every running play while largely eliminating the zone schemes that were so successful recently, telegraphing plays by formation and personnel, and making life easier on opposing linebackers and safety who don't have to run sideline-to-sideline and aggressively defend the perimeter to avoid having Devin Gardner pick up 5-10 free yards and maybe run over a tiny corner for a big gain. 

There may be a tradeoff to doing it Borges's way if you have a prototype NFL passer, but as the situation stands his way of doings things is making everybody's job harder and as a result the offense is less successful than it should be.

ole luther

October 28th, 2012 at 8:42 PM ^

At the risk of starting something here, there's a possibility that may have been overlooked.

First - a few points.

I know that the players should be held accountable for their actions.

I know that the coach's try to turn them into responsible people.

I know that when a young person screws up, he should be held accountable and if in a position of the spotlight, even more so......but......

what is the possibility that keeping Fitz out of the Bama game not only affected him, but maybe some of the other players as well.

I'm not saying I disagree with the decision, I'm merely stating the fact that these guys still really are kids without the life experience that most of us share and they've accepted this limelight lifestyle where they'be been told since high school that they are exceptional.

Fast forward to a 1000 yd season and hype up the Bama game and then take out one of your most obvious weapons from the previous year and these inexperienced, young men may have just been affected by that.

That game was hyped beyond belief. The pressure put on everyone involved. The kid screws up. You make the decision to hold him out of the game and send the message to everyone else who busted theri ass all off season that punishing him is more important than rewarding you.

Again, I don't disagree with punishing him, but you can't have it both ways. Send your best to play the best and punish later, or risk something else.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Sione's Flow

October 28th, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^

My thinking is that this problem is on both on playcalling and Denard's inability to improvise in this offense.  As long as he stood in the pocket a couple of times last night, he should've immediately tucked the ball and ran.  I know Denard is trying to prove to everyone that he can be a QB in the NFL, but ultimately it may not be up to him.  Borges and Hoke should both should make it clear to Denard that he should make his reads but take off if the opportunity presents itself.  It was infuriating watching the offense last night.  Bellomy could be a decent QB, but wide receivers catching balls that hit them in the hands would be a big help too.