I don't know which is more painful: reading this or the full leg wax I had this morning.
"It's a lot easier being a drug dealer than an AAU coach" - this guy. Tell me something I don't know. I mean, don't think but have never tried either.
11/5/2011 – Michigan 16, Iowa 24 – 7-2, 3-2 Big Ten
When Iowa punched in their final touchdown on Saturday the clock read 10:42 and Michigan had acquired 166 yards of offense. Forced into a hurry-up shotgun on their final three drives, Michigan matched their production from the first 50 minutes in the last ten. Denard Robinson ran 4 times for 23 yards; Vincent Smith had an 11 yard carry. Robinson was 10 of 18 for 126 yards* as Michigan scored, punted, and then wound their way down to the Iowa three.
You know what happens from there: with space compressed, no time to run, and Iowa blitzing up the middle on every play Robinson chucks one out of the endzone on first down, gets 49% of a touchdown on second, sees Smith drop 100% of a touchdown on third, and watches Roy Roundtree get interfered with on fourth. Ballgame.
Shifting circumstances make drawing judgments difficult… or at least they would if the late surge hadn't brought Michigan up to 323 yards, seventy-five less than Penn State, twenty-five less than Louisiana-Monroe, and better than only Tennessee Tech amongst Iowa opponents.
This now a trend. Michigan's played three games against BCS teams with winning records. In each they've fallen behind by multiple scores. Yardage in those games before entering desperation chuck mode: 130 (Notre Dame), 226 (MSU), and 166 (Iowa). Whatever the plan is, it doesn't seem to be working against teams better than Minnesota.
Better than Minnesota most weekends, anyway.
In retrospect, the red carpet laid out by the Purdue defensive ends was MANBAIT with Iowa City the trap. Running against Purdue was easy from any formation, in any direction. This naturally got Michigan's coaches thinking they had ironed out the issues from earlier in the year, so they did more of it. It even worked for a bit. When Michigan came out with a bunch of I-Form in the first half they got yardage on a series of pounding iso plays.
The outside stuff went nowhere, though, and eventually Iowa adjusted to the iso thumping. When the dust cleared Smith and Toussaint averaged 3.6 yards a carry between them. Sacks excluded, Robinson nearly doubled that at 6.6. He got 11 carries, just like he did against Michigan State.
I just don't get it, man. The next person to draw a contrast between how Rodriguez adapted his offense to Threet/Sheridan and Borges did to Robinson gets the mother of all eyebrows cocked at them. On a team with one reasonable tight end, half a fullback, and Denard Robinson, Michigan goes play action from the I-form… a lot. They run Robinson about as often as their third down back. Game over.
This was the fear throughout many (many) offseason columns full of fretting and spread zealotry. It was the fear after the delirious Notre Dame game:
The thing I really really hated about the first three quarters (other than everything) was the way the offense made Denard mortal. This extended beyond the usual reasons 90 yards of offense in a half make you homicidal. Not only were we lost and hopeless in our first serious game after returning nine starters from one of the nation's most explosive offenses, but the guy who didn't transfer when his offense got fired out from under him was busy playing out everyone's worst-case scenarios.
I don't think I can take football games in which I'd rather have Alex Carder than Denard Robinson. A return of freshman Denard looking like a sad panda is too depressing for a multitude of reasons but mostly because just look at him:
Shoehorning him into an offense that doesn't fit him is a crime against man and panda and manpanda. He had to be dying in the first half as he flung balls to Tacopants and ran waggles the entire stadium could predict. People twittered me about moving him to RB so Gardner can get on the field.
Iowa 2011 is to "Denard Robinson can't play QB for Brady Hoke" as Ohio State 2006 is to "Jim Tressel owns Michigan." It's the moment the premise goes from fear to fact.
There's still time to change this, like there was still time for someone, anyone, to beat Ohio State after Football Armageddon went the wrong way. But… man, it doesn't look good. Michigan has three games left plus a bowl of some variety. If they're going to avoid tailspin part three they'll have to figure out a way to pick up more than 200 yards in the first three quarters against the #6, #41, and #14 total defenses. The only way they've managed to crack 20 points against anyone of similar caliber is by closing their eyes and playing 500.
We've gone from a world in which Robinson is a genre-redefining All-American "back" to one in which the only reason there isn't a full-fledged quarterback controversy is because we've seen the backup go full Mallett whenever inserted into the game—this weekend it was usually after the actual offense picked up 20 yards. Robinson's legs have been relegated to sideshow, and main event isn't pretty.
*[This does count the eight-yard completion that was wiped away by a defensive holding call. While you're down here in this aside I should explain that I picked the points at which to determine "chuck it" time like so:
ND: Michigan goes down 24-7 and gets the ball back at the tail end of the third. If you want to move that out a possession Michigan squeaks over 200 thanks to the 77-yard Hemingway catch and run and subsequent TD.
MSU: Pick six. Not that it mattered; M had 250 for the game.
Iowa: The hurry-up touchdown drive.]
Good thing we avoided that second-half collapse thanks to the toughy tough toughness instilled by Brady Hoke. Like the second-half adjustments, that meme isn't looking so hot. At least the second-half thing had something more than a win over Purdue arguing for it.
On playing 500. I took a lot of crap the week of the Notre Dame game for having reservations about the offense. Crap-throwers are wrong: a more experienced Robinson surrounded by returning starters has doubled his INT rate. He's dropped to 54th in passer efficiency, shed 0.3 YPC, and still has three of the five toughest defenses on the schedule to play.
Denard has limitations. They are severe. He has assets that offset those. They are not being used effectively. He was an All-American last year and is being derided as plain "not very good" on blogs; he won't sniff a Heisman vote. He's gone backwards. The question is why. Candidate answers:
I'll take door B. [usual tedious disclaimers for people who aren't arguing with things I actually write anyway]
On whatever that was. BWS brings some ugly numbers on a day with plenty to choose from:
In the first three quarters against Iowa, Michigan had 20 first downs. They ran the ball on 14 of them and gained only 50 yards for 3.57 YPC, mostly because Iowa broke tendency and played a single-high safety defensive front, stacked against the run.
I don't know everything that's ailing the rushing offense but you can't live with that paltry return if you've got Denard at QB.
I'll have to hit the tape for a full breakdown but Rothstein($) says Michigan ran their three-wide shotgun set 31 times, which is not many when you consider the final three drives had 24 shotgun snaps on them. He doesn't appear to be counting four wide shotgun stuff in that number, because Michigan ran plays from the spread on more than seven of their other 51 snaps. Right? I don't even know anymore.
The bipolar defense. Usually a 300 yard day will not see the opponent put up 24 points unless there's a ton of turnovers or a non-offensive touchdown or two. Michigan managed to cough up that many points despite the yardage because all other drives went nowhere. Drives in rough categories:
Not a whole lot of in-between. This has no significance, it's just weird. If Michigan had been able to move the ball at all the defense's ability to boot Iowa right off the field would have set them up with some short stuff eventually. We've come full circle when the offense's ineptness is making the defense's performance look worse than it actually was.
I guess no turnovers is a bummer.
The first thing I loathe about the Hoke era. Second-and-long I-form big play action. So unbelievably predictable it hurts. Last week it ended up in a sack that put Michigan in third and twenty; this week no one was open and there was an end in Robinson's face because everyone in the state knew it was coming.
Devin package. If Michigan can't run a straight dropback pass with Devin Gardner in the game because they don't trust him to throw and don't trust Robinson to be a real receiving threat, the Gardner package—which has devolved from a potentially confusing Mad Magicians reincarnate to "watch us run or not run this jet sweep"—is no longer viable, if it was ever viable at anything other than throwback screens.
Since when do you know how to gamble? I do not like the version of Kirk Ferentz that realizes it is not 1960. I was counting on Ferentz spurning expectation three or four times in this game; instead he goes on fourth and one from the Michigan 39 (the unsuccessful sneak), goes on fourth and seven(!) from the Michigan 34, and is about to go for it on fourth and one on the Michigan 43 when his kid picks up a false start. His profit from the two decisions to go: the game-winning points. Boo.
If Zook goes on fourth and three from the Michigan 40 I'm going to have a fit.
Wither Jake Ryan? I don't know what to make of Jake Ryan's absence. Michigan went with Beyer (SLB) and Clark (nickel DE) instead early, then worked Ryan in a little bit as the game got late. He didn't seem injured—he made the play on the late third-and-one that set up Michigan's unsuccessful last-ditch drive. Suspension? There has to be some external factor.
Second alarming thing: even with Ryan limited, Cam Gordon did not appear. That's a precipitous drop. He is moving towards Bolivian.
Des Moines Register
Martin. Balling. Pretty much the only thing Iowa fans were mad about was the play of a particular guard of theirs; this was because Martin was lighting him up all day. If the linebackers had played well Coker would have had a 3 YPC day because so many plays hardly got to them.
Linebackers did not have a good day. There is a downside of having Chris Spielman doing color for your game when you are a person who purveys football analysis for a living: he steals your thunder. About two seconds after I declared that Desmond Morgan was "killing" Michigan, Spielman was pointing it out in telestrated glory. A big chunk of Iowa's second touchdown drive was on Morgan. He was pulled shortly after for Hawthorne and returned later, presumably chided.
That's life with freshmen. Good thing we won't be starting any next—aw, hamburgers. /shakes fist at Rodriguez
Scrambling. The universe believes Denard Robinson should be very good at scrambling and thus asserts he is. Unfortunately, repeating this enough does not make it true. However, in this game it seemed like there was nowhere to go. With certain limited exceptions Iowa was barely pretending to rush Robinson, instead sitting their defensive linemen around the LOS in a picket fence. In that situation Denard should have surveyed and hit his checkdowns, which he did on Michigan's first-half touchdown drive and would have a few more times if the Iowa DEs weren't so intent on this contain business that they can leap up and bat down floaters to Smith.
Going for two. A not-very-important game theory note: Michigan should have gone for two when they scored to cut the lead to nine. You have to go for two sooner or later; going earlier allows you to adjust your strategy based on the result. There were a couple people arguing that you need to "keep it a one score game" by kicking the extra point, but it's not a one-score game if you're down eight. It's a one-score game 40% of the time and a two-score game 60% of the time. Knowing which one helps you play correctly when you get the ball with five minutes left, for example.
Second game theory note. Ace and I had an argument on the podcast about the playcalling on the last series, with Ace taking the same position MGoFootball does:
What you do with :16 to go after getting a first down at the 3 yard line…
Hindsight, just sayin’, etc., but I don’t think the timeout should have been used before you give Denard a shot to either run a power play or rollout and find a running lane on 1st down. Ideally, Michigan hurries to the line of scrimmage, gets set faster than the defense, and off Denard goes. TD’s may have ensued. So, as the day would have it, Michigan calls their final timeout with 16 seconds left on the clock.
I side with the coaches here. The fourth down play came with two seconds left. Unless you are snapping the ball on the ready for play—not feasible—you are giving away your fourth down. I'd rather keep it than have the ability to run once in three downs instead of four. YMMV.
The thing that rankled was watching Michigan run 10 to 15 seconds off the clock on a play earlier in that drive. If they get that play off quickly Michigan can save their timeout and threaten Iowa with a run.
Obligatory ref section. It's never good when you lose and Mike Pereira is featuring your game above the fold. Pereira says "punt" on the Hemingway catch:
I love it when replay stays with the call on the field when there is judgment involved, along with facts. In my mind, whatever ended being called on the field — incomplete or a touchdown — would have stood in replay. That’s how close this play was. …
The call in Michigan-Iowa game Saturday involved more than just facts. It involved the issue of control, before and after the ball hit the ground. Adding that element makes this ruling far more difficult than just a ball just breaking a plane. It’s questionable whether Hemingway had total control of the ball when his arm hit the ground. And it’s also questionable if he maintained control after the ball contacted the ground. If 50 people were in a bar watching this play, half of them would rule it an incomplete pass and the other half would rule it a touchdown. That’s reason alone to leave the call the way it was called on the field, and I agree with that decision 100 percent.
You can replay that until the sun expands and it's still going to be too close to call. It was going to stand whichever way it was called on the field. That's life.
But I totally disagree with Pereira about the fourth down play…
And, by the way, forget the notion of pass interference on this play — either defensive or offensive. There was not enough to make either call. Same thing on the final play of the game on the slant pattern. The contact by the Iowa defender was not enough for pass interference, no matter what time of the game it was — the first quarter or the fourth quarter.
Bull. I mean:
Wrapping that hand around the back of the player is a call all day, every day.
So that sucks. As ref screwage goes it's only a 3 out of 10 since it probably wouldn't have mattered. Even if the call is made, Michigan still has to score, get a two-point conversion, and win in overtime to make it matter. That's a 10-20% shot.
I'll have to look at the interception more closely but I didn't think that was egregious. Guy did get there early but that's the kind of play that often gets let go.
Iowa wide receivers are in a fertile period, aren't they? Someone should just follow Eric Campbell around offering whoever Iowa does. Sign me up for Amara Darboh.
BONUS Iowa skill player coveting! I remember Marcus Coker as a recruit who was vaguely on Michigan's radar in 2010 but things never got serious. Michigan grabbed Stephen Hopkins; Coker floated out there hoping for a single decent offer before committing to Iowa in August. Other suitors: Wake Forest, Minnesota, Kansas State, and Maryland.
I don't get that. Coker's the sort of physical package that should be drawing offers from most of the Big Ten and he played at Maryland power DeMatha. It's not like RR was the only coach to whiff on the guy, I guess.
I thought this was the most interesting bit about the press conference:
What went wrong on Coker’s last TD run when nobody even touched him? “Well they got to the edge and we were really trying to stack up the middle. It was a bear defense. Without seeing it, I have a feeling that the six probably got scooped out of his gap and then [Coker] got downhill pretty fast.”
Six == just outside the tackle and presumably the "bear" LB.
Inside the Box Score is oddly formatted but on point about a weird personnel decision:
Thomas Gordon had zero tackles. There was a board post on this topic yesterday. I don’t understand how you take your 2nd leading tackler out of the lineup. I get that his getting a lot of tackles is part of the position he plays, but he sure looks like one of our best 11 defenders to me. Additionally, Gordon is listed at 208 pounds on the roster, and Woolfolk is 191. When you are playing against Coker and those corn-fed hawkeyes, I want MOAR BEEF on defense. I’m not going to complain about Woolfolk. I understand wanting to get an experienced, 5th year senior, and team leader on the field, but if I was Gordon and lost my job due to intangibles I’d be “upset”. (The actual word is “pissed,” but I recently learned Mom is reading my diaries. If you notice a change in tone, that’s the reason.)
Gordon was upset, and posted something about "P O L I T I C S" on twitter/facebook/whatever his social network poison is.
I must disagree with Hoke for Tomorrow:
So that happened. I had promised myself before the game that I wasn't going to get all emotionally invested in the outcome. I could feel the disappointment coming all week. Iowa was coming off of a loss that made them look much worse than they really are and Michigan was traveling to their house. Michigan was coming off of a "validating" win over an overmatched Purdue squad, were already assured of a bowl invite, and had equaled last year's win total already. There was no question which team had the most to play for and the game was sure to reflect that. No surprise: it did.
Michigan had a good shot at a division title before the weekend. I award them 16 Wanting It points to Iowa's 13 in a totally made up exercise I just executed.
And the Denard slide started a long time ago.
Unwashed blog masses. MVictors:
My line lately to people who ask before the game is this—Denard’s going to get six to eight opportunities to really hurt the opponent with his arm. He’s got to cash in on two, maybe three. He didn’t Saturday and I’m getting more and more frustrated. Despite Brian’s speculation, I’m sure they travelled to Iowa City and East Lansing with Borges’ head completely in tact but I don’t get the insistence to put Denard behind center.
Speaking of Denard, something not there with his wheels. Michael Spath tweeted that’s he’s become a “cutter”, as opposed to just beating people to the edge. I’ve noticed this too and since Michigan State I just haven’t seen that extra burst.
The Iowa perspective is rapturous about their defense since we managed to score less than Indiana and Minnesota. The commenters deploy the usual defensiveness about the refereeing. This list of grievances is something:
but them complaining is just not right when you look at the whole picture. we got one slight favor at the end of the game. there were a slew of terrible calls throughout the game that went in Michigan’s favor.
the refs lost track of what down it was while michigan was driving in the first quarter, effectively giving them a free timeout, the official threw a pi flag on the wrong receiver, which was thankfully called back, we got nailed on a questionable offsides that kept a Michigan drive alive in the third, and they got away with a pretty blatant chest bump on a fair catch that should have been interference. I can remember very few calls during the game that went our way unti lthe very end.
When your most outrageous outrages include a flag that was picked up and the refs resetting the clock you might be protesting too much.
There's a lot to question about this offense, specifically: Denard Robinson's run:pass ratio; the persistent presence of backup QB Devin Gardner, to no apparent effect; the persistent absence of an every-down tailback. But it all seems to stem from the basic uncertainty that follows a coaching change: How does a coaching staff with a specific, ingrained philosophy integrate a lineup built for a completely divergent philosophy? Before the season, coach Brady Hoke and offensive coordinator Al Borges promised they weren't stupid enough to ask the reigning Big Ten Player of the Year — as a sophomore, no less — to be something he's not. For the most part, that's been true — especially when the offense has sputtered early against the likes of Eastern Michigan, San Diego State and Northwestern.
Against the best teams on the schedule, though, manageable second half deficits have been cause for a makeshift air show. Against Notre Dame, incredibly, heaving the ball almost indiscriminately after three stagnant quarters actually worked in the fourth. Against Michigan State, it didn't even come close. Today, at least, it came close before coming up short.
It's hard to be mad when you've seen this story over and over again; if you're surprised by the ending then you should probably pay a little closer attention. This is what Michigan has done for years. In the interest of putting a name to it, we'll simply call this the Ben Chappell Theorem; that is, that if Michigan plays a team with multiple glaring weaknesses/an air of general incompetency that has already failed in the face of the opposition of other inferior teams, then, it must necessarily follow, that not only will Michigan not exploit those weaknesses (or what are ostensibly weaknesses, i.e. Michigan State's offensive line) effectively (usually not for lack of some trying, though), they will make certain players look like All-Americans in the process. An enormous shadow of a mouse becomes something much worse in the shifting tectonic plates of light and dark. Just as Michigan made former Indiana QB Ben Chappell look like the greatest thing ever on one afternoon, Michigan continues to make the mediocre look exceptional.
I don't know which is more painful: reading this or the full leg wax I had this morning.
are so expensive i've taken to "face plucking" and boy is that ever painful.
but right now everything is painful so i'm sort of lost in a wash of pain.
I don't know you and I don't think we've even ever "interacted" on this board, but this is the second comment I've seen from you today that sounds as if you may be having some real-world troubles. As a fellow human being with at least one shared passion, I just want to say I hope things aren't too difficult and that your friends and family are there for you if your situation actually has or does become difficult.
My Situation is good, apart from it being and becoming in the process. difficult. However, Pibby knows how to take care of himself. I'm going to keep reading and posting my own brand of inane thinking in hopes that someone seeks to "engage me" for a little verbal "tête à tête amoureux"*
*i goggled this.
for being a good human being.
Of when we went to "Nascar" as Hoke called it. Even spielman called it. We went Shotgun-no-huddle and lit them up. Spielman said "this is the 2010 Michigan offense" and... It worked! It worked well! The big thing for me is, there are 10 returning starters from last year. They know how to do the shotgun-no-huddle. it works. Run more of it.
MORE NASCAR PLEASE!
/only Brady Hoke's Nascar. Actual Nascar sucks
The sad part is that everyone* knows this, except apparently Borges and Hoke. Thanks, guys, for trying to shove that square peg into that round hole, but only when it matters most - you know, against good teams we need to be at our best to beat so we can contend for the division title.
Let's run the diamond-Fritz with all kinds of wrinkles against Minnesota so we can win 59-0, but let's do ineffective I-form PA crap against defenses who know what's coming before we start calling the cadence. Yeah, great.
[*everyone as in, those in the know who read and write the content on the blog, many commentators and analysts, and grandmothers in Fenton who have watched the team over the last few years.]
I love Denard. I think maybe Borges is covering up for him by not calling running plays. there has to be a reason why denard is not running as much. denard doesnt look at explosive as last year. i think denard is hurt, there can be no other possible reason, or any reason that i like.
And Denard last year was much more explosive in the early games than in the late games. I know the competition got tougher, but it was obvious to me as early as the MSU game last year that he was not getting through seams nearly as quickly as he had been in prior games. I was convinced that he was banged up, and it turned out to be the case. I think he's banged up below the waist again this year, too. He is simply not as lightning quick and fast as he has been in the past. He's still faster than anybody else on the field, but it's not the DR we saw in 2009 or early 2010.
I agree, although I also think it could simply be a function of defenses catching on to his tendencies and adjusting accordingly. He declined not only as a runner but as a passer last year from MSU onward. Over the past 17 games, Denard has thrown 22 interceptions. Eight of those games (and 10 of the INTs) were under Rich Rodriguez, so you can't pin it all on the coaching change.
I agree with everyone that he hasn't been himself, but I believe it was the Purdue game where I recall one particular run where he put he head down and looked to be running downhill and blew by like 3 guys. Does anyone know which play I'm talking about?
Or maybe he's really afraid to lose him to injury knowing that still-too-green Devin is the only other option at this point. Hoke knows how important the OSU game is, arguably more important than a bowl game (other than the Rose Bowl). Notice how I said arguably.
Hate to bring up any sore points, but Tate was a really good remedy to a bruised and/or having an off day Denard. Aside from all his shenanigans, he had a lot of confidence and swagger.
I think Tate could have run this offense better, sadly.
I don't think it's a stretch at all to think this offense would look a lot different if Tate was around.
I would rather have Denard. I like him as a person more. Plus, he has more potential.
I completely agree that Denard is a better option, but I think you can use Denard more to his potential (run him more) if you have a realistic, proven backup. Especially when that backup is someone who will attack defenses in a completely different way.
My feeling on his lack of explosiveness is that he's having to wait more. I feel that on most QB leads and powers, he's waiting for his linemen to get there before he can use his burst. Sometimes it works, he had a 15-20 yard run in the second half where he waited and waited, and then, bam, he was gone around the corner to the outside. But most of the time, I feel like by the time his linemen are in a position to make a block, the rest of the defense has converged a bit, depriving him of a lane to burst through. He's forced to pick his way through the crowd.
i can see that, but his explosive burst, doesnt seem there. he seems slower, still faster than most, when he hits holes. i love and hate it when he runs, because he is out best runner, but i hate seeing get hit. i know it's football, but everytime he runs, i hold my breathe.
But there was one sweep in the second half, going to the right/top of screen where he had the corner, and a bunch of blockers in front cutting off the edge, and I thought "that's 20-30 yards", and Denard didn't get to the spot and round the corner as fast as he usually does, and it was a nice modest gain, but it seemed like a big play developing. And my group all wondered "is he healthy"? Because as you said, he's not slow, but that burst that makes him that much faster than everybody else didn't seem there on Saturday.
(Which, if true, might explain the less runs, and the directions out of bounds...so he doesn't go from banged up to out).
i call it the notre dame burst. the defense had angles, but he outran them. this year, guys have angles and he seems to get caught. maybe better angles. also, i do think denard is getting much better at his reads. i was happy about his checkdown to koger and the int was off a deflection. i think he is getting there, obviously not fast enough for all of us. he still has work, i think he just needs some health.
I say its all in Denard's head. Personally, I think he's trying so hard to fit Borges's mold and fit into the new offense that he's changed his approach to the game. I think he wants to throw and is mentally fixated on throwing. You can see it especially in this past game when Spielman is waxing about Denard using the throwing lanes to run through. But he's not doing it and I don't think its because he's slow or because the coaches are saying don't run (maybe they are???). I really think its because he's trying to be more of a pure passer. Maybe he thinks he has to prove something to the coaching staff. Who knows. Either way, I miss the old Denard.
After the first few games, Denard and Borges made a ton of comments about him not setting his feet right; feet, feet, feet. Based on this, it seemed he was being trained to focus perhaps too much on it.
Imagine him looking to throw and just thinking "set your feet, set your feet" when what he needed to be thinking about was "OMG triple-coverage, checkdown..." or "tuck and run."
Now I can't imagine the Gardner shared-time is helping. You're right. I don't think he wants to be a running back and he's desperate to prove he can throw. The worse it turns out, the more he'll feel he needs to throw and the deadly spiral continues.
Absolutely. He's being taught to try to become something he isn't. The real shame is that it may cost him his spot.
agreed, not allowing Denard to run outside zone in favor of the power and sweep are big factors and nothing but stubbornness on the part of Borges/Hoke
We didn't use pulling linemen last year. Maybe that is why he has to wait where he didn't last year.
Denard went out of bounds at the end to avoid a hit. With the kind of burst he had earlier in the year, he probably could have turned that corner and gotten down the sideline for 6.
The just don't work this year. Too many bodies stacked up in the middle to stop him.
He needs to run when nobody is open, though. He seems to stay in the pocket no matter what. How many times do you see him standing there looking for receivers that aren't open but about 10-20 yards of open space in front of him and you yell "RUN".
They need to ease off on restricting his improvising. Not sure if it's Denard taking the pocket passer teachings too far or the coaches saying don't do it, but whatever, RUN the ball if noone is open.
If you mean Denard's designed runs don't work this year to mean he isn't breaking 60-80 yard touchdowns, then I agree. But he is averaging over 6 yards a carry. That is plenty effective.
At this point, as long as they run Denard for OSU I will be happy. Beating OSU is a must, in my mind, for this year to be considered a success. Anything else is gravy. If we have to suffer a few loses keeping Denard healthy for OSU, I am OK with that.
Not exactly a Fountain of Hope.
Not that it's not warranted, of course. But as I get older, I seem to get over the losses a little faster. And then I go to work on Monday and this blog does everything in its power to prevent the wound from healing. And I love it. I love how much I hate the team I love.
Er something like that.
as i thought i would be. perhaps i was just heartened to see michigan in something that looked like a big ten game again, not some ridiculous conference USA shootout. they are not great, they are good, but are improving. no reason to slit wrists just yet.
Run Denard more....why didn't the coaches think of that....is he able to stay healthy as it is???How many games did he finish last year on the way to the worst 7-5?How many snaps did he miss against iowa?What's the over/under on missed snaps against Ohio or Neb?
Denard got 30 carries a game last year..hes gotten 11 the last two games. If they're no going to run him there's really point at having him at qb.
Exactly right. The entire rationale for Denard as QB is running a lot and then the threat of running. Take that away and you might as well have anyone else in there (I am not advocating this). Run him. If he gets hurt that is what happens in football and I'll be sad. I'm sad now.
Actually, Denard got 19.8 carries per game (256 in 13 games) last year. This year he's averaging 16.3. That's not a huge difference. He just isn't getting the kind of monster yardage on his rush attempts anymore (SDSU/EMU excepted). But that was also true over the second half of last year.
As you know, by a couple early season games where a version of the spread was the default option. Now that we see what the coaches really want, especially against good teams, I think it's very fair to say that Denard is not running nearly as much as last year. And IMO he should be running much more, and doing what he is doing under Borges much less.
Did you watch Gardner these last few weeks?
trying to make a point by simply asking questions? Isn't it better to just stake your claim, instead of asking leading questions that reveal a misunderstanding of Brian's position?
Completely disagree on clock management at the end. Give me three plays and the threat of Denard running. I don't think I would have even run Denard. The thing is, though, that you have that threat. Iowas LBers are not very good. You make them sell out on any Denard threat to run and there will be someone open. Also, did Michigan not have the damn ISU tape? For crying out loud they beat Iowa on like 3 back shoulder throws with no one as good at catching them as Hemingway. In our situation, I would have run 4 of them.
I'm with you. Clocking the ball, gives us three plays, at least two of which we'd have the whole offense available (the play before the TO and the last play). I'd greatly prefer this to three plays where the coaches felt they had to throw and a fourth play where the offense is available (but unused).
A- Passing into tight spots at the goal line that requires accuracy and touch.
C- Rolling with run/pass option.
The right answers are so obvious to me that I am at a complete loss how 4 plays were called that require A.
That's the play I would run the speed option (or something like that). Last play of the game regardless, why not run it?
you'd think we had all three timeouts and 45 seconds the way some of you are handling this situation.
Do you want to call a play that gives the best chance of scoring, or do you want to make sure you have 4 plays to score? IMO first down you call a run/pass option for Denard--that is the type of play that gives you the best chance to score--because running is what Denard is best at. I think you want plays that have the best chance, given what you know of your team and QB, at success.
Two of the plays weren't really passes into tight spots. He kind of threw it up to Junior to see if he could go get it. There wasn't a lot of traffic around the receiver. The pass to Smith (if I remember right) looked like a little bit of a busted play, but was almost a TD. The fourth I expected a roll out or a QB run, but Roundtree probably makes that catch if he's not interfered with. The ball was on target. I don't see how the play call was at fault there.
Without a timeout, you have to call fairly quick developing plays or you run out of time. If Denard had rolled out on one of the earlier plays and thrown an incomplete, the last play may never have happened.
were just under-executed...
On second through fourth downs, Denard's throws were spot on.
(which reminds me: The referee intrigue is totally saving Vince Smith from being Goat o' the Year -- well, first runner up to Borges for not going power on 4th and inches against State).
There are a million (or maybe just half a dozen) reason why M didn't score on that last series. Denard ain't one of them.
I think Denard screwed up on the first down. Hemingway had his man beat and if Denard lofts it to the corner rather than back to the middle, its an easy TD. Maybe Hemingway ran the wrong route, but he was gesturing to the corner and Denard threw it to a totally different area.
Play calling and referees where the main ones. Which is my point. And people discissing the 12 seconds left that we had are missing another point IMO: the point is to score, not to be able to have 4 plays in those 12 seconds. What plays give the best chance to score? All things being equal- A Denard run or run/pass option.