Scout analysis on Denard, with Comments from Henne and Griese
An interesting read on Denard and what it takes in the transition from the spread on Scout.
I think I have read Brian Griese's comments somewhere before, but this bit:
The benefit is if they develop that running game and give him an opportunity to hand the ball off more, they’ll throw the ball from the pocket with the linebackers and safeties reacting to a real running game. Then they can have the naked game off of that, where he has run/pass options. He has plenty of talent to throw the football to. You could see guys wide open in that kind of an offense because did you fake the ball or did you give it? The linebackers have got to make that read. ‘If he keeps the ball, we’ve got to get back into pass coverage to defend the pass.’ But the third aspect of it is, okay, they did a good job on the run and they did a good job on the pass, so now I’m just going to tuck it and run it myself. That is a dynamic that in that offense as a third read can be so dangerous.
is how I was feeling last year: basically if we had a viable run threat other than Denard, then the three way level of uncertainty that a defense would have to account for, would undo them. (i.e., they wouldn't just have to defend against Denard)
The article says we'll have to be patient in the transition, but both Chad and Brian think Denard will get through it (albeit Chad hasn't met Denard personally). This is in line with my feeling that next year is Denard's year for serious Heisman contention.
I disagree that the talent level is too low to win the B1G. I personally think that the talent is there but the previous coaching staff did not know how to utilize the talent. Year 1 there was an obvious lack of fundamentals that had not been there in the past. In year 2 there was more of the same. Last year was supposed to be the year that the problem was supposed to be fixed but again, it was not. If Hoke and Co. can fix that ( which seems to be a big focus point for him) I think the on field product will be much improved. Not saying that we will win in Indy but don't rule it out either.
Even last year when one would expect to see improvement as the season processed the same guys were making the same unforced errors in November as they were making back in September. I for one am looking forward to the re-emphasis on the fundamentals and toughness, I believe this will make a huge difference as the season wears on.
I lost faith when the same unforced errors were made in January after many of us had believed that the five weeks of practice would have allowed the underclassmen to take advantage of what had been, by then, a full year of play. Instead, the same mental errors that had been made in September and October persisted into January. That was when I finally, and reluctantly, concluded that the players were not progressing and that it almost had to be a result of poor coaching, particularly on defense. I have high hopes that the coaching will bring our defense along very rapidly this year, so that we will be able to take advantage of the higher level of experience on good players with positive attitudes.
One thing never changed for me last year, and that is that I really respect the players on the team. I firmly believe (or hope?) that this year will be better because of the combo of good kids and good coaching.
On defense, the secondary is one giant question mark. Wolfolk was good but no threat to be all-conference when he was healthy. JT Floyd has never showed much. It's not clear what Avery can do. Kovacs does some things well but will never be fast. Carvin Johnson isn't very fast either.
The linebackers are Kenny Demens, who has been good but not all-conference good so far, surrounded by two question marks. Who will the weakside LB even be? Is Mike Jones healthy?
The D-line is: Mike Martin, an excellent player but not Bradon Graham good; Will Campbell, who has yet to show that he can be a productive player for a full season; RVB, very solid but not elite; and Roh, who had a disappointing season last year (however much that may be on the coaches).
As for the offense, you have a system that will play away from Denard's strengths to at least some extent. You also have a lot of good-but-not-great RBs.
The WRs have already lost Stonum. After that you have: Hemingway, a very good player; Odoms, who you have to love but who is limited by his size; Roundtree, who drops a good amount of passes and who lacks speed; and Stokes, who hasn't shown much.
At TE you have Koger, who has all the talent to fit really well into this offense but who will need Denard to get him the ball. He also has yet to show that he can be a guy that you count on to make big plays (he admittedly didn't get much of a chance under RR).
At OL you have a bunch of guys who are better suited to make reach blocks than to line up and run people over. More, Lewan is recovering from a reasonably serious injury.
On special teams you have: A great punter; a giant question mark at kicker; and a bunch of returners who have shown the tendency to drop the ball.
I hope I'm very wrong about Michigan's chances this year, but the above is my "if I had to put money on it" take on the team. It leaves me thinking 6-6 as a record.
We'll all sleep so much better now ...
In all seriousness, your concerns outline the fears we all have.
B1G championship this year and MNC next year? Everything is looking good for the long run, but let's not forget where we're starting. A team that gave up 65 points to Illinois last year is not going to win the league this year.
the B1G Championship this year, but that I would rather have that than a Heisman winner. Heisman tropies are bragging rights, Championships mean more. Heisman trophies don't get recruits as much as championships due. Of course, cars, tats etc help too. I like winged helmets, myself.
If the Illinois game were some kind of outlier performance for the defense, you might have a point. I won't bring up what happened in the other 12 games on that side of the ball.
he has this year. The triple threat can be very effective. IMHO, that is how Smith and Pryor hurt us the most. Defenses are protecting against the tailback, and the passing game and then the QB tucks the ball and runs for 20 yards. Or, when you see him roll out or get flushed from the pocket, you fear his speed, so you hesitate or think run support and receivers are wide open. I saw so many times that Pryor shot-putted the ball to receivers that didn't have a defender within 10 yards of them. If, and it is a big if, we can develope a decent running game, Denard could be very effective in this offense (and suffer a lot less wear and tear).
is that Denard is the most dangerous player on the field regardless of what team we play. To project how he will do this fall is blindly guessing.
I'll take my chances with a more "seasoned" Denard as even more of a threat this year vs. last. Show some faith, man !
Go Blue !
will be the key to this offense this year. If they open holes for the backs and allow DR to get comfortable handing the ball off, and keep blitzers and LBs from slipping thru to get to Denard, he could be very successful early. If denard takes a lot of hits in the backfield while attempting to throw, he might get skiddish and start throwing early to avoid the rush.
Although, with his feet, I can't see him getting hit too squarely as long as it's not blind-sided.
My thoughts:
I too think the O-Line is the key to this whole thing. Denard is clearly a talented athlete (if not a QB) and may possibly make another leap again this year in reading defenses and throwing the ball (and hopefully footwork under center). I would like to think the running backs will be better with this new staff and offfense than the old, but that is yet to be seen as well.
However, with Hoke moving to more of a power game up front the O-Line is going to have to adjust and this will be key to us controlling the line of scrimmage and giving DR time and holes for the backs. Even with improvement to DR and the backs (asssumed), a major step back on the line could blow up any improvements to the other.
I agree with Griese and believe Denard can be even more effective when the defense has to think harder about what the possibilites are.
I'm not sure how Denard can win the Heisman if Devin is our starting quarterback? Maybe as slot ninja or running back?
Hey. Nice one. You're pretty sneaky. You even used the MGoBlog-coined phrase "slot ninja" to cover your troll tracks.
Is that you?
He'd be a better return man then QB.
Didn't Smith win the Heisman? And after he altered his game to run less?
This was supposed to be in reply to MaizenBluC above.
Smith was on a 12-0 team. If Michigan goes 12-0 I'd say Denard's Heisman chances greatly improve regardless of his numbers. The Heisman committee loves them some undefeated QBs.
My response was less for winning the Heisman than for the way Smith adapted his game during his career. He started out as mostly a runner, then became more of a dual threat, and finished as a passer who could run when needed.
I am looking forward to the 4th quarter when a fresher/less beat up Denard has the chance to jock tired linebackers and D-Backs while scoring multiple touchdowns.....It won't even be fair.
He will be even better when he is not the primary ball carrier. Go Blue!
Denard really should never have the kind of numbers he had this year. If he's accounting for that many yards it's a sign he is the only weapon on offense and that is bad. If we have 500+ yards, with 450 of them coming from Denard and he is still in the game it means two things:
1. We have no run game
2. Our defense sucks so despite the fact we have 500+ yards, we do not have a comfortable lead.
Ideally come the 4th, Denard is drinking Gatorade and a backup is getting reps.
That being said though, half the time the Heisman is just awarded to the QB or RB on the #1 team in America. If we keep winning and move up in the rankings, Denard might get Heisman talk.
A strong running attack brings safeties up and puts linebackers on their heals. A strong passing attack keeps safeties back and leads to blitzing linebackers. These two work in tandem to put opposing pressure on a defense.
But how does a running QB fit in?
Since this isn't man-to-man defense (like in basketball), a running QB doesn't necessarily take attention off a running back or vice versa. Safeties can still roll up to the line and limit damage, regardless of it the running threat is a QB or a RB. The position from which the effective running comes from is a secondary issue. RR used Denard as a RB so I don't really consider it to be a 3rd prong of the attack or any different than say using a fullback instead of a running back. The 'triple-threat' isn't made up of 3 equal components. The only way that works is if you create a spacing threat of inside and outside runs, but Denard and the RBs were both primarily running between the hashmarks.
However, a running QB can be a 3rd prong of the attack is if he can scramble out of passing plays. This leads to safeties and linebackers leaving receivers open to account for the runs. In my opinion the QB rush is just a 3rd option, as Griese says.
In other words, you still have to be able to run and pass effectively, regardless of how good of a runner your QB is. (Though there are obviously some coordinators out there who have figured out how to make it work - but Borges doesn't seem to fit that mold.)
Bottomline remains the same:
1. Denard has to get more accurate and reliable as a passer, particularly in Borges' system.
2. The running backs have to be more effective to take pressure and wear off Denard.
3. Denard has to develop better instincts when it comes to scrambling.
I think Brian has covered this before, but bootlegs only work if they're unexpected. Griese's example can't be the staple of an offense just an occassional wrinkle, that is made more threatening with the added threat of QB running out of it. You still need a good (conventional) running game to make it work.
I'm not counting on that. My hopes lie in maintaining a shotgun-based attack that still uses Denard as a RB about 15 times a game but figures out a better way to use our RBs effectively and utilizes routes that Denard is good at throwing to.
A "real running game"? Michigan had their best YPC average in the last decade by over a yard. Does Griese think Denard runnning pro-style is somehow going to confuse linebackers and safeties more than they did last year? Guh.
My thoughts exactly. This is the old guard of Michigan football having more respect for the ways of olden times more than an understanding of modern football.
A real running game is when you gain yards by carrying the ball beyond the line of scrimmage. Check? Check.
Alright. Lets examine that logic for a second. Taking the lead of the first post, YPC average. If I offer you, as coach both of the following senarios for the upcoming game, which will you choose.
1. Gain 80yds in 1 run, 40 on another, and nothing on 18 attempts for a 5 YPC average.
-OR-
2. Gain 10 yds on 5 carries, 5 yds on 10 carries and 2 yds of the reamaining 5 carries for a 5 YPC average.
Which would you prefer?? Which leads to a better chance of winning assuming same defensive performance for both teams.
I'll just revise your quote slightly.
"A real running game is when you gain yards by carrying the ball beyond the line of scrimmage on every or almost every play. Check? Check."
Perfect answer, because you've just made my point. All you'll get is 14 pts because the rest of your drives will be 3 and outs. Better start building that defense.
So I'd say I have to agree with Griese and the Old Guard of Michigan football. When did that rushing offense help us when we really needed it? The best way to control the tempo (and hence, the outcome) of a game is to generate long (in terms of time) scoring drives built on your run-game. If it can't do that, then you're skating on thin ice. Bo is surely rolling in his grave over the way proponents of the spread have come to redefine a "rushing game." Look at last year's National Championship. Despite Oregon's vaunted 50 ppg spread offense, Auburn controlled the pace of the game from the get go.
In any case, in the context of the quote Griese doesn't seem to be referring to our running game as a whole, just the part of it that didn't include Denard.
For what it's worth, I'll take "three yards and a cloud of dust" any day of the week over "longest run in Notre Dame Stadium history" if it means beating our rivals in the Big Ten and winning Big Ten Championships. Because that's all that matters at the end of the season.
This is dumb. How in any way is rushing for more yards per carry detrimental to your team's chances to win ball games? Hint: It's not. The reason UM didn't win was because it had the worst defense in Michigan history. It got the coach deservedly fired, but to act like the running game(as in the amount of rushing yards you gain, I don't see how that's a redefinition. Denard's rushing yards went right up on the Michigan scoreboard like Mike Hart and Chris Perry's did) was even remotely responsible for our lack of success is beyond wrong.
And you use Auburn of all teams as an example of why spread rushing attacks dont work? Really? The team that on any 3rd or 4th and 2 just bowled Cam Newton forward to get the first down. Auburn's defense and offensive line controlled the line of scrimmage, that's the reason they won the game. It would have been the case whether Oregon cica 2010 or Oregon under Joey Harrington, so Oregon's offensive style is irrelevant.
I wasn't trying to say Auburn's rush offense was the epitome of success. In fact, it has little to do with Auburn whatsoever. My post was about what Oregon did NOT do. I was trying to argue that the intrisinc nature of Oregon's offense prevented them from being able to control the tempo of the game. When Auburn's defense showed its hand, Oregon couldn't match it. Since there was no way Oregon was going to put up any long, 80 yard scoring drives (Note: because their offense was not predicated towards doing so) the best they could do was hope for a lucky break. Yes, Auburn's offense was pitiful, which is why Oregon was still in the game in the fourth quarter.
I never said that having more rushing yards per game can be detrimental to a team's success. But it's not about numbers, it's about strategy. Three yards and a cloud of dust makes it so that your offensive success does not depend upon whether or not the other team's defense will blink and give up big plays. Everything is directly under your control. This is why last year's offense could not score in meaningful situations against a mildly competent defense.
Just try to keep in mind that the game is typically not all about stats.
"Just try to keep in mind that the game is typically not all about stats"
Says the guy essentially throwing out Time Of Possession, quite possibly the most worthless major football stat, as the key reason why we (and Oregon) lost.
You know Oregon's tragically flawed offense did destroy every other team they played and win the Pac 10? It could be that they simply lost to Auburn because Auburn happened to have a better team irrespective of the offensive approach.
And I'll be that guy and say that if the standard for success is ONLY winning the NC and nothing else, then maybe "bo_lives" shouldn't be the one making that argument.
That's where you're wrong. You do realize that the last 8 times we played Ohio State, the team that won the time of possession battle won the game? Ever think there might be a little bit of correlation there? No, it is not a perfect analysis and I never said it was. But to act like it's one of the most worthless stats in college football is just ignorant.
Yes, Oregon tore up the Pac 10 just like Rich Rod tore up the Big East. Big fucking deal. They played... Stanford and a handicapped USC? It's easy to get lucky once or twice but not more than that. Oregon would have placed middle of the pack in the Big Ten or the SEC. As for the NCG; so you're arguing that the best offense in the nation put up 19 points because Auburn was just... better? What the hell does that mean?
And I just shake my head at that last comment. Where did you get the idea that I said the standard for success in college football is winning the NC? If you would have read my previous comments you would know that I believe the standard for success is winning good conferences like the Big 10, the Big 12, and the SEC. Bo won 13 of those in 21 seasons, so don't you dare take a cheapshot at the winningest coach in Michigan football history.
The problem with your analogy is sample size. Over the course of a long season, YPC balances out long run anomalies. Try to deny it all you want, last year's UM team will probably be the best rushing UM outfit we'll see in a long time. Now we'll do almsot everything else better probably and that's why I'm optomistic we can win 8+ games, but Griese's quote is misguided if not flat out wrong.
Also, our DC doesn't see things the way you do. He's said he doesn't care how fast the offense scores, it's the defense's job to get off the field in 3 plays and get their rest that way.
I have to be honest, sarcastic Magnus is my favorite Magnus
I think (and by extension I think Griese is saying) that the team as a whole, would have been more successful if we had a run threat in addition to Denard.
I realize Griese's contention is that manball is the way to do it. That is where my opinion differs. The past two seasons, if we had even a tackle-able from behind Mike Hart, our offense would have been way harder to defend, and thus more effective.
Change "real running game" to "real threat from the tailback position" and his point is spot-on. Denard had to shoulder too much of the load on the ground last year. We overused him and he took a beating. His effectiveness dropped as the season went on, probably due in part to his physical ailments and also due to defenses overcommitting to him on read-option plays.
How can Brian be trolling on his own website?
I wonder if this is the work of the same people who neg TomVH or There are... posts. aaamichfan and manwiththemoves, I'm looking in your direction.
I'm hoping for an undefeated season and a Heisman winner. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd take the undefeated season.
If we win more games this year I could give a fuck less what Denard's stats are. That should be his attitude as well and I am willing to guess it is because he seems like a great team player.
but denard has an exceptional arm IMO. He needs to work on his reads and decision making, which is obviously a big part of playing QB.
Check out this throw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op1QcZwgPNY
I don't think many people question his arm strength. It's more his accuracy and decision making that are the issues.
Heisman? I would be thrilled if he won the B1G let alone the freaking Heisman.