Denard's INTs: Bad play-calling, bad decisions, or both?

Submitted by Moleskyn on

Simple question: were Denard's interceptions a result of bad play-calling, bad decisions, or both?

I haven't seen any replays, and I don't have the time to sift through video to see for myself, but I feel like Denard got really lucky on a lot of his passes. There were a handful of passes that he just chucked up to his receivers and we were fortunate enough to come down with some of them (tell me, Kirk Herbstreit, did Denard really underthrow the TD pass to Gallon on purpose?), but that also led to 2 interceptions. Does that fall more on Borges, or Denard? Obviously, it is Denard's responsibilty to make good decisions with the ball, but did he not have any other options on those plays, or was he locking in on a receiver and forcing the passes? I know Borges likes to stretch the field with the passing game, but Denard really seemed to be forcing the ball a lot, and I don't think you can expect sustained success with those kinds of throws.

Brhino

September 12th, 2011 at 9:52 AM ^

Well, he threw one of them into double coverage, he threw one of them to tacopants, and he threw the one that was supposed to be a screen pass to tacopants who was sitting on the shoulders of his cousin, fajitashorts.  So from my perspective it was a combination of bad decisions and inaccuracy.

Blue in Yarmouth

September 12th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^

after watching the game it seemed evident that it was part of their gameplan to throw jump balls to their WR's. Given that I think that was the plan, I don;t think you could say they were bad decisions on Denards part. Also, I don't think it was really bad play calling either since it worked more often than not. It did lead to two interceptions, but it also lead to three touchdowns and a few other big plays. I have to wonder about throwing it up for grabs to a 5'9" WR, but he did pretty well.

This is just my opinion and I should state that I am still basking in the after-glow of the win Saturday night, so take it for what it's worth. 

Moleskyn

September 12th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^

Revel in the glory of awesome win. Seriously, it was great to win that game.

I think you're saying that this is more on Borges then, if that is what he wanted Denard to do. But I would disagree with you that the playcalling wasn't bad. If that was what Borges was wanting to do, I think that is bad playcalling. Sure, it worked out for us more often than not on Saturday, but is it reasonable to expect that same success rate on jumpballs? I would say no.

I'm just looking ahead, and if our gameplan revolves around chucking up jumpballs to our receivers and hoping they come down with it, I just don't think you can expect sustained success doing that.

rbgoblue

September 12th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^

Part of the jump ball fest was the result of ND's coverage.  Usually when you have a WR in 1 on 1 coverage and especially when you can see the defender has his back turned (I'm looking at you #4), you throw it up to your receiver who has the advantage, considering the two most likely results are a catch or pass interference (or in the case of the TD to Rountree, BOTH!)

Denard threw his fair share of bad passes, and the UFR will likely shed some light on this on Wednesday, but he was victimized by some untimely drops by his receivers as well.

Moleskyn

September 12th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^

And you bring up a good point WRT the drops. Most, if not all, of the drops that I remember were catchable balls. They weren't perfectly thrown (from what I remember), but in my way-less-than expert opinion, if it's close enough where you can get both hands on it, you should be making the catch. I am sure those drops frustrated Denard, and added to the discombobulated feel of the offense.

Needs

September 12th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^

ND was playing inside leverage much of the night,presumably to take away slants and other quick hitting stuff in the belief that denard's strength is not as a downfield passer. It also gives the outside dbs better angles in run support. One way to defeat that coverage is fade rtes, especially when there's no over the top help. I expect future defenses to try to bait denard into those throws by showing outside and then rotating a safety over the top (or bailing into 3 deep) but on Saturday that help wasn't there.

JJL

September 12th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^

I felt he experienced a lot of luck on some of those passes to. Gallon and Junior made a couple of really nice grabs. I think I read somewhere though that throwing the jump ball like that was on purpose because they thought ND's corners were not good at adjusting to the ball in the air and they felt our receivers could make plays on them. Either way it did seem a few of those balls were basically thrown up for grabs.

artds

September 12th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^

The pass to Vincent near mid field was a weird call assuming it was executed like it wad drawn up. I
<br>
<br>The one in the endzone was forgiveable.

tjl7386

September 12th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^

Denard's strength is not in the long ball that Borges likes to run and it showed in the game. I think he felt like in the 2nd half he was going to have to win the game for Michigan so he did make some high risk throws which in hind sight were not the best decisions but the WR's were able to help him out and make some great plays on the ball in the air..

I hope that in the next couple of weeks we see Borges work on a shorter pass game where we let Denard and most of our slot ninjas do what they do best and create a play after the catch. In the end all that matters is a Michigan Win! Go BLUE!

Mdjohnny5

September 12th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^

Didn't love the play calls on offense; they called the whole game like we were down 20.  Nearly every pass was for 20+ yards, which is the kind of throw Denard is inconsistent with (that is a kind way to put it).  They need more of those quick 6-7 yard hits that Denard threw so well last year; then they can mix it up with the run and they can have a methodical offense that keeps the D off the field.  Seemed like they were risking a lot going for so many home run plays; thankfully a few hit home.  There is no way that works against everyone though.

 

 

Vasav

September 12th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^

6-7 yard passes are what the West Coast offense is about - and as long as your QB can make the reads, it seems perfect for Denard's (and our receiver's) strengths. Hopefully, as the season progresses Denard will get better at those reads and we'll start to see a bit more consistency in our offense.

08mms

September 12th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^

I'm looking forward to watching some of the tape today.  I assume the D was doing something right that was keeping the short passes from being a viable strategy since borges employed them to pretty great effect at SDSU.  

jmblue

September 12th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^

You guys have to keep in mind that ND was crowding the line of scrimmage.  Not only was the run not there, but the short passes were going to be tightly contested as well.  Borges did what an OC should do - take what the defense gave.  We were going to have a tough time moving the ball on screens and quick outs against the defense ND dialed up.

Moleskyn

September 12th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^

Agreed. Denard just looked out of rhythm all game. The only pass where I remember thinking "Sweet, Denard looked really comfortable making that throw," was in the 4th quarter (I think?) when he hit Roundtree over the middle for (what would have been) first down yardage, but it got called back because of holding.

I was hoping Borges would call some shorter, higher percentage pass plays, just to help Denard get comfortable and find some sort of rhythm, but it never really happened.

El Jeffe

September 12th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^

As for the 3rd INT, on the one hand, if it were his first read it would be bizarre. But if you notice in the video (I couldn't get it to embed and start at the right time), it looks like it's his second read, unless he's looking off the safety so he can go to Gallon, his first read. Which, again, if true, would be bizarre. That's a great play when your receiver isn't 5'8" or whatever.

 

Hannibal.

September 12th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^

Bad decisions/accuracy by Denard.  But with that said, it's questionable whether he should be asked to be making the throws that he is making.  At some point, it becomes bad judgement by the OC to ask him to make those plays.  There are better ways to keep a defense honest than for your short, inexperienced-in-the-pocket QB to be dropping back and making downfield throws. 

The jump ball that Gallon caught for a TD was either a terrible throw or a terrible decision.  You don't throw a jump ball to a 5'8" receiver unless you are playing NCAA on your PS3 on the easiest difficulty level.

NOLA Wolverine

September 12th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^

And we tried them agaisnt Notre Dame. There we're alot of drops and other "erratic" throws in the first half before we reverted to running the zone read/throwing it deep. But you don't think we ran the wildcat last year? QB Iso and QB Sweep were the center pieces of the scheme, and we always seemed to come out incredibly strong until those two plays wore out their welcome. You can have different formations and run some quick series passes, but you're going to have to have more solid plays than QB Iso/Sweep and play action down the seam to not be a wildcat offense, atleast to me. Execution was the overriding failure last year, and there's not much to point to outside of those plays that we had consistency (positive consistency) with. 

cbuswolverine

September 12th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^

I don't think we ran a single play out of the wildcat formation last year.

Denard had close to 300 attempts last year and completed over 60% of his passes.  Just because some don't think he should be asked to do his best Elvis to Desmond impression over and over again doesn't mean they believe he can only be used as a wildcat quarterback.

Vasav

September 12th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^

1) While Denard has accuracy issues, for the most part his big problem is the deep ball. In the first half, with single-coverage over the top, instead of a jump ball he'd try to throw deep balls and missed his receivers. In the second he threw jump balls and our receivers made the play. If there's more safety help over the top, he'll probably be asked to make more underneath throws.

2) The jump ball to Gallon isn't such a bad decision if you have a corner who's struggling to turn his head around.

Bluestreak

September 12th, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^

I think plays should be kept low yard (5 - 15 yards) for Denard. I really don't feel comfortable with him spraying the ball around praying that one of our receivers goes up and gets it.

That double coverage pass to Hemingway could have easily been an interception (see what happened to Rees when he tried to connect with Floyd in the endzone)

My point is that while we got out of prison in this game with the chips falling for us, we can't rely on it in every game. As a surprise change of pace - sure - but as bread and butter plays - no.

Vasav

September 12th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^

As many people posted, the jump-balls seemed to be designed - and for the most part they worked. Even the one that was picked I don't have a problem with play-call or decision wise - ND finally played the ball.

The picked screen pass wasn't a bad play call - it was actually there for a lot of yards. But it was a terrible throw - Denard panicked a bit and threw it before he got a look at Smith, and so he threw it to Tacopants.

The one into double-coverage, with the FB open on the sideline - that was a bad decision.

I really hope Fitz gets and stays healthy for the B1G schedule, or Vincent Smith sees more time or Shaw or Hopkins step up - a RB will give this offense a dimension that will let Denard complete some underneath passes. But our receivers also need to catch those - just as much as the 4th quarter was our receivers making plays and making Denard look good, the first half 2-9 was dropped passes as much as it was terrible throws.

SFBayAreaBlue

September 12th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^

on the screen, it was bad execution of the fake by Denard and throwing in a panic, so it was just a bad throw, the call was great.  The 2nd INT was a bad decision to throw by Denard into a guy who was pretty well covered.  The last INT was probably on Gallon not doing enough to turn around his defender and make a play on the ball. 

g_reaper3

September 12th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^

Denard just doesnt look comfortable as a drop back passer.  As for the risky passes, I think you have to when you are down late in the game.  Hopefully Denard gets more comfortable back there over the next stretch of easier games.

UMfan21

September 12th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^

One thing I haven't seen mentioned was that zinger to Koger which seemed to finally ignite the offense.  On a night when Denard was off and WRs were dropping passes, Koger caught a bullet and seemed to start some momentum.  He did the same thing against Western, grabbing a tough pass and giving the offense some hope.

I'd like to see more passes to Koger, I think he's earned them.  I coudl be wrong, but it feels like they have only gone to him twice and he's made both (difficult) catches.

somewittyname

September 12th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^

all the jump balls came because we were desperate and they were our only real chance at that point. Earlier on in the game there were far fewer of them but the passes Denard was supposed to be making were either getting dropped or thrown off target. I do think that Hemingway is easily the best jump ball WR we've had since Braylon. Pretty much anytime he's in a single coverage, I think a jump ball to him is a good play.

imafreak1

September 12th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^

In his post-game presser, Hoke specifically said that the INT at the goal line in the 4th was not a bad decision by Denard.

The thing about the jump balls is if it's single coverage and the DB is chasing, it's an almost impossible play to defend. It will also lead to a lot of PI calls. There will be interceptions when the safety comes over to cherry pick or the DB isn't in bad position but then it's just an arm punt.

It's what Michigan did when other things didn't work and they won. I'm not going to criticize teh strategy that got Michigan 28 points in the 4th quarter.

jmblue

September 12th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^

Maybe we won't have any more 23-second 80-yard possessions, but if our receivers are going to be single-covered all year long, I don't see why we can't continue to have success downfield.  I don't know why so many people have issues with the jump balls.  Tai Streets, Marquise Walker, Jason Avant, Braylon Edwards - all these guys made a living outjumping DBs to the ball.  Expecting a QB to hit a WR 40 yards downfield in stride is asking a lot.  Just give him a chance to make a play on the ball.

Lac55

September 12th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^

Denard just has a long way to go and a lot to work on in regards to being a Quarterback. He's inaccurate and telegraphed a couple of throws. Just the difference in systems where in the spread the reads are different and WR's are usually wide open. The more reps he gets the better off he will be.

Hank Scorpio

September 12th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^

Back shoulder throws and jump balls are extremely effective whenever you've got a corner/defender who's either shorter or significantly slower than your target.

That said... you obviously don't want to have to rely on jump balls, especially when they're into double coverage (!!!!) b/c most safeties have the play in front of them and they're gonna see the ball go up.

Hemingway is a big kid and he can provide a mismatch a lot of times, so I'm okay with jump balls to him when he's one on one. He'll win that battle most of the time, he's good at posting up his guy and making a play.

neoavatara

September 12th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^

There is no question the mistakes were Denard's fault. Maybe Borges needs to put him in better positions instead of long hail mary passes, but Denard should not have thrown the screen or the second pick.  The last one, well, we were trailing, and still it was a bad decision. 

TennBlue

September 12th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^

The bomb to Gallon with 8 seconds left was the exact same play that he'd thrown an interception over the middle on earlier.  There was a guy on a wheel route on that play, as well - completely uncovered.

 

They pulled that play out and ND obligingly went into the same coverage, expecting Denard once again to force it to Hemingway over the middle - and there was little Jeremy on the wheel route with no one within 20 yards.  I'll give Borges and Denard some credit for seeing that one.

Born Blue

September 12th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^

The first time they ran that play, Denard's interception, it was the fullback on a desert island, who might have had enough green in front of him to score!  So, yeah, I was glad to see them go back to it later for two HUGE gains!  Take what the defense gives you! That's the trademark and mantra of a good OC.

burtcomma

September 12th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^

A big reason why we saw deep one on one coverage was the threat of Denard running kept others near or in the box.  Take a look at the last long pass from our 20 on the wheel route again, ND kept a couple of players in to spy on Denard in case he took off afraid that we would just send our guys deep, run off the d-backs, and turn Denard loose.  Play calling on offense and defense is about the whole package of what someone can do to you, not just a single play.  After last year, ND was going to make Denard beat them throwing the ball...and, in a weird sort of way, they succeeded!

Born Blue

September 12th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^

The Security and Exchange Commission makes disclosure mandatory, hence the expression, "Past performance is no indication of future performance."  That said, what's all the stress over whether or not the "jump balls" will work in the future?  Listen, evey DC we face will look at this game film, and try to aviod getting burned by these type of plays, but they worked against ND because of in-game adjustments!  If ND had eight in the box with tight coverage outside, then the slant and quick outs (you know, the 5-7 yd routes the board is screaming about) would not be available.  If, in the 1st half, there were no running lanes and the defense was only giving up the "long ball" and the accuracy and catching wasn't there, the the option left is to STOP overthrowing WR's and give them a chace, via jump balls, to do what they proved in the summer they could do! (see post game interviews)  ND DBs only once showed they could out perform UM's WRs with the ball in the air, result, the 3rd INT.

So, for the record, I am not concerned with whether or not this approach will work in the future, all I want is for sound, in-game adjustments to continue to be made to take advantage of what the defense gives us!  Go Blue!

Bb011

September 12th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^

The actual INT's were mostly denards fault. Take for example that screen to smith, he wayy overthrew him for the INT. If it was a good pass smith had the blockers for a first down at least. That one just sailed on him and isn't really anything to be worried about though.

Muttley

September 13th, 2011 at 10:44 PM ^

On the first one (screen) Denard was unnecessarily lax with his footwork, and his fling badly missed the mark.

The second one (over the middle) was a bad decision.  The safeties are playing center field there and Denard lobbed it up to them.  I was surprised the ND defender didn't call for a fair catch.

The third one (by the endzone pylon) was as much on Gallon falling down as on Denard.  Denard through four underthrown jump balls into/near the endzone where the offensive guy usually has the advantage.  The dice turned up 3TDs and one INT.  A decent  aggregate outcome, if you ask me.