Agree. Imagine what it could be like when we have 2-3 WR's and even more RB's. Of course, the QB's may not be a mobile.
Agree. Imagine what it could be like when we have 2-3 WR's and even more RB's. Of course, the QB's may not be a mobile.
Of course, the QB's may not be a mobile.
I think the current coaching staff will always prize arm-strength, accuracy, and decision-making over mobility and speed in their QB recruits of the future. Still, I can't imagine how Hoke and Borges could look at the production they're getting out of a player like Gardner and not think they wouldn't like another player like him under center in the future.
If you can get all the variables I mentioned above in a kid who can move as well, I don't know why you wouldn't pursue him. And, since we have tangible evidence that we know how to utilize a player with those skills, it doesn't automatically put Michigan out of the conversation for those dual threat type players of the future.
1) Guys like Gardner don't come around often and are hard to find/ get.
2) Our OL is not at the end state for Hoke/ Borges. They want Ben Braden out there (look at our OL recruits, they are all monsters).
Think of a strong RB (Green in 1-2 years) running behind a huge OL, TEs and WRs that are tall, block and make plays. That is what I think Hoke/ Borges want in an offense. They are fine with zone reads and stretch blocking, but they want to be able to knock Nix back 2 yards every play (and are recruiting for it!).
Hey, Morris has some legs. Not like Gardner, but I bet he at least has some threat of tucking the ball and going
If Devin Gardner continues to play at an elite level and earns awards and trophies and goes high in the NFL draft, then recruiting and signing "the next Devin Gardner" becomes at least a little easier. Perhaps a lot easier.
I am totally on board with dual threat QB's from here on out. Look how many times we've been shredded by those types over the years. Look what Devin did to ND Saturday. Do want.
I think Hoke and Borges have a great vision for our offense of the future. But I'm a little worried about putting all our eggs in the basket of recruiting guys who are able to physically dominate our opponents. If your guys are simply better than the guys across from them, then you'll win the game. But occasionally you will come across guys who are better than yours - like Nix/Tuitt against our interior OL this year - and what then? It's awesome to have someone like Gardner who can make the offense work even when your standard inside runs aren't going anywhere and the opponent is getting some good pass rush. I'm in favor of recruiting pass/run QBs rather than pure statues.
We need to chill. Our whole interior is RS Sophomore and RS Freshmen. Thry fact that Gardner wasn't running for his life every other play against Nix and co. is a success in my eyes. They won't face a better DL unit all season.
I agree. I hope we can go after some Russell Wilson-esque kids in the future. Someone who's primary threat is to beat you with his arm, but if he has to, he can tuck it and run, and in almost all cases, probably beat you doing that, too.
Have to wonder if the system proves to be effective this season and next, if it will effect the philosophy of QB recruiting moving forward. I'm not convinced we win the game with a true pocket passer at QB.
I agree. Gardner made several gigantic runs in this game that I'm not sure a classic Michigan QB would've made. I can remember at least
Those were all huge plays. If we have to rely on a strict run or pass then I'm not sure we convert any of those
Kinda disagree. I think the ND line is way better than any other line we will face, until possibly January
I was pleasantly surprised by Borges' prep. By them switching to the zone read mid game it helped keep the offense moving where i expected it to slow down.
If Gardner and Gallon were the stars of UTL2, Borges was a close third. What a coaching staff we have here.
This easily was Borges' best job calling at game since he's come to Michigan and should sweep aside any fears folks might have as to his ability to manage an offense. The way he chess-moved Bob Diaco's defensive play-calling was really impressive. Had Devin not derped that one play, we easily could've beaten ND by 2.5-3 TDs.
Really looking forward to the MGoBlog crew's take on this in the podcast.
is that the WR personnel tips whether they will run or pass. When they pull Gallon and Chesson and Dileo and put in Reynolds and Jeremy Jackson, it is always a run.
I know that Brian has mentioned this before and will probably mention it again, but it is way too predictable. You know that if fans in the stands notice it, opponents are too.
Otherwise I agree that it was a well-called game. Borges did a great job of using Gardner's legs judiciously and some of the play calls were just perfect.
DG read soft coverage, it was a designed run play, but DG flipped it to Jackson. They threw to Reynolds as well.
All teams will have tendencies, Michigan included. But they will mix it up a bit. You don't need the defense to think there's just as good a chance to pass as run. You just need the defense to respect the fact that you could pass, and if they don't you'll take advantage. With DG's ability to audible, I think it's fair to say that is the case. You still want to get your best personnel out on the field for the given situation.
Obviously the personnel thing doesn't stifle the offense. Two things, though:
So obviously we'll have to wait for the UFR, but I'm guessing that when it's Reynolds and Jackson in at WR it's pretty much 100% runs.
But my point is that it doesn't matter, as long as defenses are forced to respect it. When Denard went in last year, defenses perceived he couldn't throw. But he was very successful until defenses lost respect for the throw because they realized he couldn't. But as long as defenses respect it (it's like the QB splitting out wide with a wildcat formation) then you're alright.
And I believe Michigan had all 3 TOs left at that point. I think the plan was to try to catch ND off guard with the run. If I'm not mistaken, the OL had run blocks on that play as well. Find it hard to believe they'd run a designed quick pass to Jackson (it wasn't even a bubble, it was soft coverage and Jackson just turned in and received the pass; which is something Michigan has run for years and did so against South Carolina to Reynolds).
the OL was run blocking (I watched it again). My mistake.
I am in general agreement with you, although I'm not sure that I would go so far as to say that "it doesn't matter, as long as defenses are forced to respect it." I've never played any organized football, but I imagine that it has to matter, if only a little bit... but I'll happily admit that I know much less about such things as you and other members of the MGoCommunity that have real football knowledge.
You are correct, obviously there it may matter a little in certain sense. But in how much it matters in the net of it all, it's probably marginal. If your best blockers are out there but they think your probably running, well, it's probably a net zero. At the same you get to rest or coach up some other guys on the sideline that you'll need for other situations, so it becomes a net positive.
I probably should have clarified a bit better. I do think the defense will change keys and maybe attack run faster because of personnel changes. But I think in the overall scheme of things it is a benefit, even if only marginally.
Thanks for being patient with me!
I have always subscribed to the Bo Schembechler concept that you give coaches 5 years to get their own people in before expecting miracles. I found it ironic that Borges was subject to some of the same criticisms that RR was: not adjusting to personnel, etc.
I still think the spread is the way to go, but I have been willing to suspend judgment until Borges has the kind of people he wants. AFAIC, the most important factor here is that everyone is working together again, and there aren't any "Michigan Men" telling HS coaches not to send their kids to Michigan.
This team looks a lot more like an Al Borges team than the previous two did. They have the personnel to execute most of what he wants to do. It's easier to be a "mad scientist" when you have a full supply of beakers, microscopes, and petrie dishes.
The best thing about Borges is that he tailors his offense to his QB. That said, after DG, I wouldn't expect to see Morris running the read-option very much. He can move, but not like Denard or Devin.
My hope is that they take out the percentage of option/QB running and add in the same percentage of 4/5 WR Air Raid attack with Morris. Not a ton, but to go power one player then spread you out and hit you like the old Oklahoma teams would be nice to see. That's what the Packers, Patriots and Broncos all do.
We have a couple of coordinators that are very "MULTIPLE" in their attacks. That's awesome, IMO. I don't say we run a pro-style offense, I don't say we run a 4-3 defense. We're multiple on both sides.
That said, Borges still makes a horrible playcall way too often. That trick play vs. ND last year when we could've gone up and controlled the game. @ MSU a couple of years ago, he called a horrible play on 4th and 1, Brandon Moore missed a block and Denard go destroyed, then the worst was trying to pass vs. ND this year when Devin through that pick.
Why even put the QB in that position? That's the coordinators fault. It's 3rd and 12 from the 10! Even if you get a first down, you've still got 80 yards to go for a touchdown. Run a draw and maybe you get lucky...if not, punt and switch the field poition and kill more time when you're up 14.
And devin takes a safety the plays are good calls? I thought those were poorly executed well called plays, rather than vice versa. If you avoid every play that challenges your players, then we are screaming about DeBord.
Just the nature of high-risk plays. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Those plays go the other way and they are credit to Borges' genius.
Michigan's punting game was one of the weak spots against ND. The way UM had been punting and covering punts up until then, I don't think they were going to flip the field position.
Seriously, you're giving Borges shit for calling for a pass play on 3rd and 12? One of the things that people love about this coaching staff is their aggressiveness, but you're saying that we should be sitting on a two score lead with almost an entire quarter left against a team that had been moving the ball easily? That's ridiculous.
Oh, but Borges made a bad call against Notre Dame last year, so your point is proven, I guess. What an insipid post.
if anything I thought the team wasn't aggressive enough this game. how many stretch/zone left plays were called on 1st down (not sure what the play was, but it was almost every 1st down. we thought deboard was back for a moment)
Those first down runs were the reason that the play action worked as well as it did Saturday night. This is the kind of thing that frustrates me when talking with people after any given game.
I'm sorry. Question the first two, alright, I disagree but that's fine. The third one though?
Let's go through these one by one.
@MSU. Receiver was wide open for what would have been a game tying TD for a defense that was heavily keying a run up the middle. All these people are pissed about Michigan pounding the ball up the middle against OSU last year and pissed when Borges doesn't do it. Your living revisionist history. If it would have worked you would have sung his praises until the cows came home.
@ND. I've been over this. He saw something in the defense. He set up the play the previous drive and the safety was crashing down leaving the corner route open. The play was set up to work. The O-lineman didn't get out and block his guy as he was supposed to and a defender got in Smith's face. Again, a great call that maybe wasn't prepped enough for every situation (a LB blitz) resulted in a bad play.
vsND. It was third and 12 from the 16. You honestly think Borges shouldn't call a pass because he's worked DG is going to back track 20 yards into his endzone and throw the ball lightly into a DL's hands while being hit. Everyone has always been pissed about being conservative. Just running the ball in the gut would be equivalent to punting on forth a 1 from the ND's 40. Blame the playcall to not give him protection. But to say that was an awful call. To ask "why put your starting QB that has been great all game in a position to run backwards 20 yards and throw it to a DL?" What the hell kind of stupid question is that?
If I were an OC, I wish I could think 1/2 as good as Borges in game. I think all those calls were above average when talking in the context of the game. People here would've bitched endlessly if we ran on 3rd and 12. We were moving the ball with ease for the most part. And if Gallon, Dileo, and Chesson/Jackson are on the field for a pass... You know they can make it happen. Toussaint proved even he can get involved in the passing game... Making Devin's legs that much more of a threat. That offense is turning into something that is becoming very special.
Borges called a good game. 41-30. 41 points on one of the best defenses in college football? Out scoring our opponents 100-39 in two games? 50.0 points avg a game? Borges >> us.
I expect better from you Yost...
When it was blocked vs. OSU and scored us a TD later in the year.
Tom Brady but more mobile.
well I tihnk Devin's ceiling is higher than Tom Brady, its really down to how much the tools between Devin's ears mature over the next couple years. he has all the phsycal tools to be a Hall of Fame Caliber QB. Same could of been said for Vince Young as well though and we know how that turned out.
Tom Brady might just be the best pro QB ever, man. There is no higher cieling. Easy does it. Love me some Gardner, but pump the brakes a touch.
he is great because of whats between his ears. he is above average at best as far as phsyical tools. Basically what i'm saying could be true of a ton of QBs, they have the ability, but at that point it comes down to the mental part of the game.
I mean look at Brady in college, yeah he may of gotten a bit of a raw deal, but he couldn't beat out a raw but more phsyically talented QB.
I remember he clearly beat out Drew Henson during the season.
Break it down however you want, brother. In the long history of the NFL, no one has accomplished more than Tom Brady. If we're talking mental aspects of the position, you can't get to Brady's level without it. And Gardner clearly has a ways to go. Virtually all of his mistakes are mental. Seven games as starter or not, those are pretty bad decisions.
Again, LOVE Gardner. Been on the hype train tooting the horn and everything, but...we dont need to say things like he can be better than Brady.
I completely agree with you on this. I will say this for the point that was raised: Gardner does provide some options, only at the college level, that Brady could not. However, the Brady was not the great college player meme is a fact that Coach Carr did not do his best job of managing the roster with Brady. It's a travesty that he wasn't in a position to even be all conference. I was thinking Saturday night that this is next to Brady's Orange Bowl, this is the best game I have ever seen a U of M quarterback play.
Henson kept getting on the field because Carr made him really stupid promises when he recruited him, not realizing he had a HOF NFL QB on his roster already.
The big problem analyzing Brady is that, moreso 15 years ago than today, coaches were still analyzing QB's on the wrong metrics. They put way too much emphasis on physical tools and things like arm strength and far too little importance on accuracy, quick release, and ability to deliver the ball under a heavy rush. Brady is one of the best ever at those last 3 things, especially the latter 2. But he didn't "look" as good as some other QB's. He wasn't as strong, wasn't as muscular. There was an ESPN doc on him that showed his NFL combine and his non-QB related drills like the shuttle were terrible. Of course when they interviewed him, he said "Why the hell would I care about a shuttle drill? When do I ever do anything like that on a football field"? And he's right.
Sometimes coaches don't even know how to evaluate how a QB throws against heavy pressure until you put a them on the field in game conditions and actually see it happening, since you don't have your QB getting clobbered in practice.
Plus, let's try to remember that Henson in 2000 was pretty damn good himself. He probably would have been a 1st round pick if he had stayed for his senior year. So it wasn't like Brady was competing with chopped liver. It's only because Steinbrenner paid to get Henson out of football that he never became anything in the NFL.
looks like you've totally bought into the espn-style hype about how "Brady couldn't even beat out a true freshman at Michigan and is now the greatest QB of our generation!"
BRADY vs. HENSON (1998)
BRADY vs. HENSON (1999)
So you may want to rethink your comment that "he couldn't beat out a raw but more phsyically talented QB."
Our current offence reminds me of a more agressive version of the OSU offences that gave us fits in the 2000s. mobile QB and a mostly prostyle offence with sprinkles of spread option mixed in.
You think spelling is a motherfucking grammar issue?
I could have sworn it was a motherfucking capitalization and punctuation issue.
He just wanted to use the kitty picture.
No actually. The poster below is correct in that I just wanted to use the kitteh picture and grammar nazi is the more commonly used term. Besides it sounds like you could use more kittens in your life. Lighten up a bit.
You think I sound like I could use more kittens in my life because I mimicked the wording of your meme? Also weird!