He didn't put 21-0 on Borges, obviously. Read it again.
good luck with that
He didn't put 21-0 on Borges, obviously. Read it again.
I'm sympathetic towards the "run Denard more" theory but Denard wasn't playing on our defense, so even if they did run him more I question how much it would have helped.
Truth is Alabama had better athletes across the board. Running Denard might have helpd the offense a little and kept it close(r) but unless Denard was going to play defense too it wouldn't have changed anything.
Attacking Alabama through the air knowing they would be focusing on stopping the run is not a bad game plan. The execution was the problem - also there were some reads where Denard could have kept it but decided to hand it off.
I think just about all of those were the zone reads where Denard actually isn't making a read, the play call is just to hand it off. I don't think Denard kept it on more than 1 or 2 of those "reads" last night
Why not have fielder and cabrera bunt more since the opposition won't expect it? Borges bunted all game with Denard taking away our best HR threat.
Couldnt have said it better myself.
If it had been Ohio State or Michigan State I'm sure Denard would have carried the ball plenty of times. I don't think the coaching staff values being Cowboy Classic Champions enough to put Denard in harm's way.
Denard's stats against Alabama's D
McCarron's stats against Michigan's D
You can't really complain about the numbers Denard put up considering how other qb's have played against Alabama, given, it was last year. His speed as a rusher was neutralized by the speed of the Bama D. And, if Fitz was there Denard's opportunities as a runner would've improved a little.
230 yards? Really?? It felt like about 600.
Denard's 200 passing yards against Alabama would have been the third best passing performance against Alabama last year. Only Florida and Arkansas managed more yards passing, and 200 is much better than the 2011 opponent average of 111 yards. Alabama made the running game more than difficult, but relatively speaking, Denard was doing OK in the air.
Take away the pass to Gallon and he was 10/25 for 129 yards.
Take away Bama's long TD pass and McCarron was 10-20 for 148 yards. What's the point of "taking away" a play? It happened.
I don't think Denard was as inaccurate as the numbers suggest. He had several passes that were on the money but were either dropped or knocked down. There were a couple of deeper throws to Gardner where I think Gardner reacted poorly to the ball. I thought the WRs' shaky performance made Denard look worse than he was.
The Michigan coaching staff is smart. I did not expect Robinson to carry the ball very often in this game because they didn't want to get him killed. We need him for the top goal of winning the conference. The coaches knew AL was clearly superior in every way.
You can lose to Bama once, or you can lose to them 12 times. They made the right choice.
We didn't play to our running qbs strengths because we feared he was going to get hurt? We should just play another sport if that is our mindset. We would not have won even if we did but we could have at least been competitive and kept a bad rematch in the narrative. No chance now.
Which sport were you thinking of? I bet Denard would be one hell of a pinch runner in baseball...I like where your head is at. Way to think out of the box.
Some of the decisions not to run fall on DRob - he chose not to scramble when guys weren’t open and he chose to hand it off on the read plays.
The other thing is this - The primary goal for this season is to win the B10. If DRob gets hurt our chances of doing that are greatly reduced.
When the QB hands the ball of ten times in a row on "read" plays, it's pretty clear that there is actually no read involved.
Or it means that Bama was coached to always defend that play the same way. They didn't fear our backs and rightly so.
Such a tough guy! I think if Borges had come out with an RR'esque "run Denard 35 times" game plan, and he got pummeled, all you whiners would be in her crucifying Borges.
Simple equation: Bama is never going to let Denard run, never ever. You do not run a guy like Denard into the teeth of a defense waiting for him to run. Bama is so good specifically because the take away your bread and butter and make you do what you really don't want to do. You tough guys saying, "go play another sport" would be crying your eyes out if Denard got hurt and basically any chance of a B10 Championship was flushed down the toilet. Beating Bama takes an equally talented team, and Michigan doesn't have it, on either side of the ball. Why sacrifice your most important player by sending him on what basically amount to a kamakazi mission? So he rips off a few runs, our defense couldn't stop an off tackle play all game -- Bama didn't need to pass at all.
Remember, this is preseaon. This is a game where you see what you've got. Well, we are no where near Bama, but we have some positives. Gardner will get there, Denard passed well at times, Ryan played well at times. Stop with the RUN DENARD crap. We need him, and it likely wouldn't have mattered.
Nobody wants 30 carries but 15-20 with some misdirections mixed in would have made the O much more competetive.
Perhaps chicago, perhaps.
Here's the #1 issue on both sides of the ball: Michigan's OL and DL aren't back to an elite level. It's very simple when you look at it objectively. Michigan, historically, was a team that was ALWAYS going to be hard to beat in the trenches -- where the game is won and lost.
Unfortunately, the Big Ugly factory that was the University of Michigan fell into disrepair about 5 years ago. Low and behold, Michigan's OL and DL are devoid of elite 5th year Sr. talent -- who would have been freshmen in 2008 -- and it shows. Bama's 2nd string OL -- hell maybe even their 3rd string OL -- is better than Michigan's starting OL. It won't be like that forever, but for now, Hoke is recruiting is ass of in the trenches, but we're going to have to be patient.
Seems reasonable and he wasn't really trolling or anything.
We aren't a bad team, we were just outmatched. I feel like a humiliating loss like this will motivate us, and despite what "experts" say about a 9-3 finish, I can honestly see us going 11-1, as crazy as it may sound.
I can see trying to keep him healthy, but if this is going to be the game plan for the rest of the season, we're in for a long year. If Denard isn't allowed to be Denard we'll probably end up 7-5 or 6-6. Defenses are going to key in real quick on the "throw it up and pray" play calling.
That will not be the game plan for the rest of the season. First, we don't play another defense with Alabama's talent. Second, someone else mentioned execution which was the bigger issue than the game plan. The Denard run was not available often. Alabama is good enough and well coached enough to game plan a defense that stops Denard from running effectively.
I agree, however Bama was stacking 8 in the box nearly every play. The Lb's of Alabama are extremely well coached and are rarely out of position, there was no opportunity for Denard to take off in the open field. Also, remember that Denard had gotten hurt multiple times in this game, so I'm sure Borges didn't want to risk his qb's health in a nonconference game that was also the first game of the year.
From sideline to sideline, from line to backfield, Alabama was demonstrably bigger, faster, and stronger on both sides of the ball. It was like watching a JV team play the varsity. I didn't see a single guy on our side who looked like he would be a starter for the Tide.
Exactly. You can the same for LSU and Arkansas too. This is why the Big Ten gets no respect as of late.
We are the most dangerous football team when Denard, runs the ball, 'fer godsakes!!
Seemed pretty clear to me that Bama's D-Line was going to make Denard give it to the RB on the zone read every time. That probably took away 5 - 7 potential running opportunities for Denard. I don't fault Borges for not dialing up QB iso as much, but I do think Denard could've tried to scramble on pass plays a bit rather than chucking it up.
On a side note -- unfortunately, it is clear that none of our receivers can fight off a DB for a 50/50 ball like Hemingway could. Gardner could be that guy, but he just looks too inexperienced playing WR now -- several times he turned the wrong way or slowed down as the ball was coming, only to then to have to make an awkward stab at catching it. He needs to learn how to position himself in a way that boxes out the DB and lets him high-point the ball -- not an easy task, but for him to become a serious WR threat he will need to do this quickly. I think he can do it, though, just might take several games for him to adjust.
1) There were run options on plays that he didn't take.
2) More accurate/successful passing and route running would have in turn opened up the run.
3) Successful running in Borges' improvised system requires another runner to complement and take pressure off of Denard. Past Fitz we clearly do not have a feature back, at least not yet.
4) For better or worse, they began to shy from exposing Denard already in the middle of the second quarter. At that point you knew this was a disaster.
5) Alabama shut us down. Running Denard more would have meant running Denard into the teeth of the Alabama D (see 4 above).
The game feels like a bigger disaster this morning than it did last night, and that's sobering. I understand that Brandon is enthusiastic for UM, but scheduling Alabama was a mistake. Two years from now we still get beaten by Alabama, but then we say we're getting there.
Score could have been worse.
I love all the "fuck it" we didn't stand a chance against Bama so why run DRob and risk and injury. Maybe that is why UM got their asses kicked because the coaches had the same game plan. Do you think Saban would ever say, I'm not going to run Lacy because Bama can't beat LSU. WTF? Denard made the choice not to run. He had lanes a few times during the pass and gave the ball up when he should have kept it during the run numerous time.
LSU is in their conference thus affecting their conf title hopes. This game was meaningless in that regard so why risk even more injury in a meaningless game?
they are trying to win 12 games, you know that right?
Do you think Saban would ever say, I'm not going to run Lacy because Bama can't beat LSU.
That's not a good comparison. Lacy is a tailback; his primary job is to carry the ball. He only needs to be healthy enough to hold the ball. Denard, as our quarterback, needs to be healthy enough to not only run the ball but also throw accurate passes.
I think the plan was to try to keep the game close while limiting his carries, knowing that this was going to be the hardest-hitting defense we'd face all year. We may have run him more in the fourth quarter if the game was close. We ran some read plays where he could have kept the ball if Bama went for the tailback, but Bama (naturally) didn't do that. As for him not scrambling when it was there, I agree, but that's something he's always done, including under RR.
Denard said post game that he missed a lot of reads. Making the correct read on that play never has been natural for him.
what was with all those vincent smith off tackle runs? ran it maybe 8 times and it never went well except i guess that one time
I was saying the same thing. It felt like they just kept running that play over and over and I was losing my mind. You've got Denard trying a feeble attempt to sell the pass that not one Bama guy bit on every single time they tried it. I was also mind boggled when I saw Countess on ST's when the thinnest position on this team is DB and he's the best one. Avery looked lost out there in relief of him. I also felt Bama got away with a lot of non calls like the hit of Roundtree out of bounds on the interception, the Demens head shot etc. The blue print on how to beat this years team was laid out last night. They better shore up the run defense or this could be a long season.
To attack this Bama team is through the air, without question Denard was not going to beat them with qb draws and crap like that. Musberger mentioned a million times what kind of challenge Arkansas was going to be in 2 weeks....why???? Because their great passing attack. People need to relax, if you took of the Michigan glasses and looked at this game objectively beforehand you should have known that a blowout was definitely a possibility...right now the B1G is at a different level than the SEC. This game will make Michigan better, they will not see another team all year with those kinds of athletes in the trenches on both sides of the ball....time to chill out and realize Alabama is pretty good, better than anybody else on our schedule.
Ugh, I was hoping I had just dreamt that first quarter. Rude awakening...
Everybody except a couple guys who have demonstrated football knowledge over time on here is doing the equivalent of speculating on nuclear fusion where their greatest level of experience is putting a lighter to their rump and farting.
This run Denard more argument is tiring. Check Denard's running stats against like State or Virginia Tech last year. Probably the best two defenses Michigan played. Big physical defenses with excellent coaching all keyed on the lead draw (Denard's bread and butter play) He didn't do anything in either game.
Those two teams wish they had a defense like Bama. Throw in maybe the best offensive line in college football against your shakey defensive line and it's blowout city. Running Denard more would not have prevented that and perhaps injured him. Then the whole season is in jeopardy.
If you can't execute pass plays when teams are stacking the box, you can't quarterback for Michigan. He can but he needs guys to catch and run the right routes.
Or lose by trying to do the things you've NEVER done well before, while not trying to do the only thing you've ever done well at? I know the answer for me, I guess yours is different.
I have to go back to be sure, but the first few plays were slants and bubble(!) screens which is exactly what everyone was on Borges case about not doing last year when teams stacked the box against the run. I though we had abit of success on those plays later. You gotta take what the d gives you. We tried a few long throws, but if the corners seemed like the were on an island, you have to try vs playing into a wall of defenders. I mean, it may not have been the best way to keep drives alive, but those two long completions were the only meaningful offense we had. I also think Denard in practice =/= Denard in games so it's likely the throw first gamelan seemed more viable coming out of practice.
So in 2008 we get the spectacle of Steven Threat being force fit into the personna of Pat White. Now we see Denard having to pretend that he isTom Brady. What do both of these situations have in common? Stubborn, idealogue, tunnel vision coaching that is oblivious to the talents available to them and utterly committed come hell or high water to do things "their way". Rich Rod didn't have bad offensive schemes, he was just too stubborn to plot a reasonable transition plan. Now we have to watch Al Borgias neuter the most exciting player in football. It is either arrogance, stupidity, stubborness or even all of the above. Hoke needs to deal with this. They can do what they do best, very well, and they do what they don't do best.....Sure, they were overmatched by A's offensive line and that was probably the game right there. But gee Al, are you just trying to break Denard's spirit? Just what the heck was that?
Michigan offense wasn't filled with juniors and seniors in 2008. if threet had been a returning 3000 yard passer, they may have gameplanned a little differently.
The biggest limitation of the WCO is that the QB doesn't have any room to run until he proves he can complete passes. Denard never completed enough to create any room. When you add the sheer number of athletes that Alabama has amassed through loopholes and whatever perks they offer recruits, the math isn't all that hard to do.
Running Denard through this defense while they were waiting for him would have been irresponsible. There really wasn't any point in getting him injured in a game that Michigan wasn't going to win.
You can't blame the coaching staff for this one. Sometimes, the other team just has better players.
The season. With how loaded our schedule is, save that for the tight BiG games. We are not yet at a point to stand toe to toe with Bama yet