 |
| Jerald Robinson almost made two one-handed catches. Unfortunately, he dropped both. (image via Boston.com) |
We didn't learn much from this game. I didn't really see anyone stand out in this game and make an unexpected impact. There weren't any big plays on special teams, Michigan struggled to get much pressure on the quarterback, none of the second-teamers stepped up to have a great game, etc. A few players saw their first action (Graham Glasgow, Curt Graman, Justice Hayes, Joe Kerridge, Kristian Mateus, Jordan Paskorz, Steve Wilson) and a couple guys record their first statistics (Justice Hayes had 3 carries for 19 yards and 1 touchdown; Mike Kwiatkowski had 1 catch for 16 yards), but this team still has some problems that aren't quite fixed.
Turnovers, please? Michigan is one of 11 teams in the FBS to have zero interceptions. Michigan had a chance in this game, but cornerback J.T. Floyd misplayed a long ball and let it sail harmlessly overhead. Paul Gyarmati did recover a muffed punt, though, so at least we've got that going for us. I'm looking forward to when Michigan gets some good cover corners on the field.
Vincent Smith is Spider-man. That 19-yard reception along the left sideline was ridiculous. He caught the ball, got hit immediately, spun like Kristi Yamaguchi, and kept running. I've never been a huge fan of Smith as a feature back type of player, but I'm going to miss his multi-purpose skills after this season.
Oh by the way, f*** you guys. UMass running back Michael Cox, who played for Michigan from 2008-2011, had a pretty solid game for the Minutemen. He ended with 18 carries for 76 yards (4.2 yards per carry) behind a bad offensive line with not much of an aerial attack. There were a couple plays where he ran east-and-west when there was no hole, losing a chunk of yards. But he had some impressive runs against a Michigan defense that should have been able to clamp down on the running game. I never really thought Cox was a superstar, but I did think that he deserved a shot to play when the aforementioned Smith was being used as a feature back. The knocks on him were always fumbling (he never fumbled at Michigan, though there was a botched exchange in this game), learning the playbook (I didn't see any missed assignments in this game), and running east-west too much (perhaps a fair criticism). The kid is a decent running back. Also, he looked huge.
I'm scared for Michigan's offensive line. The coaches are clearly aiming to redshirt all the true freshman offensive linemen, which will only work if all the starters stay healthy. Joey Burzynski got quite a bit of playing time at right guard and did an okay job, but the backup tackles (walk-ons Erik Gunderson and Kristian Mateus) were like revolving doors. I still wasn't impressed with Michael Schofield at right tackle, either. I thought he played better as a guard last season.
Devin Funchess and Devin Gardner look like studs. Funchess (2 catches, 34 yards, 1 touchdown) outran a safety for a touchdown and caught a low pass in traffic. Gardner (2 catches, 48 yards, 1 touchdown) grabbed a crossing route, outran a safety, tiptoed down the sideline, and launched himself across the pylon for his score. Gardner could have had two more long gainers, too, but he was badly overthrown by Denard Robinson.
Speaking of Robinson . . . I'm probably just a Debbie Downer, because the guy accounted for 397 yards and 4 touchdowns. But he also threw a pick-six, fumbled on the goal line, and missed several open receivers. I don't understand how he can have such poor throwing mechanics after four years of playing quarterback for a major college program. He steps way to the left of his target, lets his arm drop, and throws off his back foot too much. Even the Devin Funchess touchdown pass showed terrible mechanics. Obviously, that play worked out okay, but he did the same thing on the pick-six and it cost the team a touchdown. The kid completed 67% of his passes, threw for 3 scores, and ran for 106 yards. He was the most dominant player in the game. Obviously. But good grief, he's frustrating to watch sometimes.
Frank Clark looked like a stud. UMass didn't run much option, so Clark didn't have much of a chance to look confused and lose outside contain. But he has a knack for knocking down passes at the line of scrimmage and ended up with 3 tackles, 1 tackle for loss, and 2 pass breakups. I predicted in the game preview that he would notch his first two career sacks, and while that didn't happen, he abused the opposing tackles and was clearly the most disruptive pass rusher on the field. If he can mature as a player and stay out of trouble off the field, he could be a solid NFL prospect in a year or two. I also liked what I saw from freshman linebackers Joe Bolden and James Ross.
Good assessment all around. Glad to see you are up on Clark. Re Denard: We've seen this story before - Denard looks good against weak opponents, looks mediocre against strong opponents. He offers too many exciting gains for the other team to go along with the exciting gains he offers our own. We all love the guy, but, as you discuss, he has not shown the progress that he should have - he looks like a junior QB, or perhaps a 2nd year starter, at best. It really now appears that keeping him at QB was not in his long-term interest. It was questionable before, now much less so. Just think - if he had been moved to tailback a year or two ago, he could have bulked up and just use his natural cutting and running talent. Or if he had been moved to the slot, he could have learned to run routes. Now he has little hope of tailback, receiver, or QB at the next level. He's been an exciting player here at Michigan - to say the least; its been good to have him around for many exciting moments, but I look forward to the next epoch of Michigan football. And I hope his future is as bright as that toothy smile. But toothy smiles dont win football games.
ReplyDeleteI don't quite agree with the "good against weak opponents, mediocre against strong opponents" line. Last year he was under 50% completions against EMU and SDSU, while he was fantastic against Nebraska and OSU down the stretch. I think he's played pretty well this year, aside from the interceptions. (I know, you can't take the interceptions away.) Against Alabama, he was victimized by some absolutely fantastic CB play (they broke up 4-5 good throws) as well as some poor recognition by his receivers (particularly Gardner). The last two weeks he's continued to be pretty accurate and has thrown for a very high YPA, despite having a rebuilt WR/TE corps. I think our passing game is taking a significant step forward and will only continue as our WRs/TEs settle in.
DeleteI don't quite agree with the "good against weak opponents, mediocre against strong opponents" line. Last year he was under 50% completions against EMU and SDSU, while he was fantastic against Nebraska and OSU down the stretch. I think he's played pretty well this year, aside from the interceptions. (I know, you can't take the interceptions away.) Against Alabama, he was victimized by some absolutely fantastic CB play (they broke up 4-5 good throws) as well as some poor recognition by his receivers (particularly Gardner). The last two weeks he's continued to be pretty accurate and has thrown for a very high YPA, despite having a rebuilt WR/TE corps. I think our passing game is taking a significant step forward and will only continue as our WRs/TEs settle in.
DeleteJames - for every one exception you can make to the "strong against weak opponents, weak against strong opponents" argument I made (well, it would have sounded better that way), I can point to probably 10 games that support it. Of course there are exceptions. Nonetheless, you and others are saying that he has taken a step forward, despite all the over and under thrown balls, the interceptions, and the persisting poor mechanics. I am obviously skeptical, but since there are enough of you all making the case, I'll give it more credit and look harder for evidence from here on out.
Delete@Anon 5:28
DeleteI seriously doubt you can back up your claim, and I would also volunteer that you'd be forced to dismiss teams like 2010 Illinois as a "strong opponent" because we beat them. See, when a team loses, they're generally considered to be weaker than before.
A third point: most players in general perform better against weak opponents than strong opponents.
"...But toothy smiles dont win football games."
DeleteI'll just comment in general on this type of sentiment I've seen kicking around. Denard Robinson had the best day any QB at the University of Michigan has had in the last 50 years (and probably more) against two of our biggest rivals -- ND (2010) and OSU (2011). Literally the best. If someone can find another QB who had a better day, I'd love to see it. Go ahead and look up Steve Smith, Rick Leach, Jim Harbaugh, Tom Brady, Drew Henson, Chad Henne, etc's stats - no one will really come close.
Without his amazing performances, there is a zero percent chance we would have won those games. No one in football wins games by themselves, but his performance as the QUARTERBACK in those two games was off the charts. QBs are allowed to both run and throw, so evaluating him as a passer solely misses the point. Those were not, by a long shot, the only two games in which his great performance has been the key factor in us winning (e.g., Air Force this freaking year).
Does he play well every game? Nope. Mich State is but one example. There are many valid criticisms of his game (e.g., pick six), some of which have been mentioned, and should continue to be mentioned if he continues to do them.
But this stupid pining for a future without Denard Robinson is ridiculous. Enjoy what you have now. We'll have plenty of time to celebrate (and assuredly complain about) about the Michigan QB in 2013, 2014, etc who is a "decent passer."
Pretty much on the money. One of my biggest concerns is that, even against weak and undersized defenses like UMass and AF, we got stuck with a LOT of short yardage and negative yardage running plays. Those are drive killers against teams where we won't be able to throw the ball as easily as we did yesterday. Our passing game simply isn't good enough to overcome that against a Notre Dame or a Michigan State.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, DR can be very frustrating...he plays a passer on TV, but he just isn't one. Not against defenses that matter, anyway. But still ask the QB gods to keep him healthy, because if he goes down, we may not win another game. It was abundantly clear that, despite the coaches expressing a fair amount of like for Bellomy in spring and fall practice, he is totally incapable of moving this team if he were called upon in prime time. Contrast that to Oklahoma State, whose backup QB threw for 347 yds and 4 TDs yesterday.
I agree that Bellomy has not looked that good in clean-up time this year, but I am a firm believer that you cannot judge a back-up quarterback from garbage time. You can only really see how a back-up will play when he is under pressure - when the starter is out earlier than expected or even when he might be fighting for a starting role, when the game is riding on him; in other words, when all the immeasurables factor in. Denard is definitely our best option now, but we should hold off on judging Bellomy.
DeleteYou realize Bellomy was playing with the second team offensive line, right? Consisting of ~3 or 4 walk-ons? No offense to them, those kids work hard, but I don't think it's fair to judge Bellomy when the kid literally had no time. You see Magnus's comment that they were like turnstiles?
DeleteYou realize Bellomy was playing with the second team offensive line that Magnus compared to revolving doors above, right? Kid had literally zero time.
DeleteSo...you're not buying into Brian's meme of Denard's vast improvement as a passer?!?
ReplyDeleteDenard is what he always was: a good athlete pretending to be a QB. A QB completing 54% of his passes with a 6-4 TD to INT ratio (with 2 of those INT's being Pick-6's no less) is not a real QB, especially if it is his 3rd year as a starter.
Denard is a nice guy, a good teammate and an exciting (albeit frustrating) player to watch but I, for one, am looking forward to UM getting a decent passer under center in the near future.
I warned everyone after Denard's 2010 season that his completion percentage that year was an aberration. Rich Rodriguez gave him easy, easy passes to complete and he inflated his stats with bubble screens and those little play-action pop passes to Roundtree. Borges has started to catch on and is calling bubble screens, screens, etc. but his downfield accuracy still isn't there.
DeleteI'm looking forward to that too, but I'm a little concerned that we've put all of our eggs in the Shane Morris basket. There's no such thing as a sure-fire star at QB in college, whether they're a 5 star or not (just ask Texas or Florida). I'm not even sure Gardner or Bellomy can do much next year, and if Morris doesn't pan out or gets hurt, what does that leave us with in 2014 and beyond?
Delete@ Anon 3:39
DeleteI'm not sure worrying about what happens if all of our scholarship QBs explode is a legitimate worry. I mean, what if all of our linebackers break their legs in the offseason? What if our entire offensive line falls off a cliff?
Well, I'm not even talking about ALL of our scholarship QBs. The question remains, if Morris doesn't pan out, who else do we have for 2014 and 2015, when we'd hopefully be ready to compete at a really high level? Even if Gardner gets a RS year, which is by no means certain, neither he nor Bellomy are championship caliber QBs
DeleteFirstly, there are plenty of championship teams without superstar QBs...including the 1997 Michigan team. AJ McCarron is not a star, either.
DeleteSecondly, if you seriously think we're going to compete in the national title in the next five years, you're drinking too much of the maize Kool-Aid.
@ BlastBeat88 10:19
Delete"Secondly, if you seriously think we're going to compete in the national title in the next five years, you're drinking too much of the maize Kool-Aid."
Why not? We have just as good a chance as anyone if we continue to recruit well and our coaching staff stays stable. That is over one full recruiting cycle and if we keep bringing in better and better players I see no reason as to why we cannot at the very least compete for a MNC in the next 5 years.
Going to disagree on Denard...he may never be RGIII but I think he has made major strides in his accuracy, particularly the deep ball. Though his numbers were ugly against Bama, he threw the ball accurately. The pick six was a bad decision, but the other interception was strictly Roy Roundtree's fault for being tossed aside like a rag doll.
ReplyDeleteDenard's deep ball has looked better (at least when he's not under pressure). And in the short game he's been quite efficient. Just needs to work on decision making.
The other INT was the referee's fault for not calling a penalty, but regardless, it was a throw that should not have been made. I'm not as mad about that one as most/all of the others. Denard's deep ball is still meh. It's not any better than it ever was.
DeleteRegarding Robinson -- agree, but given the adulation everyone gives him as "the most electric player in college football," any move by Hoke to move him out of the QB role would have been met with howls of protests and derision. Hence his still at QB. That and the fact there really hasn't been an alternative.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure Magnus isn't recommending that he be moved from QB.
DeleteI don't think anyone is calling for him to be moved from the QB spot. That doesn't change the fact that he's a poor-to-mediocre passer.
DeleteMy point was there have been some who suggested Robinson would have been better suited as something other than QB. Look at the first "anonymous" post above -- "It really now appears that keeping him at QB was not in his long-term interest." That's not an isolated case.
DeleteI'm NOT saying anyone in authority s actively or seriously suggesting he should be moved NOW ... my point is there are some (and perhaps many) who suggest Robinson is better suited as something other than QB.
Rodriguez wasn't going to do that because Robinson fits RR's offensive model fairly well, provided he stays healthy. He would have fit REALLY well had another running back emerged to provide a credible alternative running threat.
So the question is would Hoke have considered it? My point is "No" ... and the reasons I gave above -- (a) would have been a PR nightmare had he raised the subject, and (b) he didn't really have an alternative.
And I'll just throw in ... Gardner's NFL prospects are *much* better served by going to WR.
DonAZ @ 2:38PM:
DeleteI believe the poster stating that "...keeping him[Denard] at QB was not in his long-term interest" was simply referring to Denard's NFL prospects (at least that is the way I interpreted it). If that was his intent, then I agree with him completely.
Denard has zero chance of playing QB in the NFL but has never played any other position in college so he will be completely unprepared for whatever positional move he ends up making. It will likely cost him a lot of money on draft day as any team taking Denard is doing so purely on athletic potential and will draft him much lower than he might have gone had he had a chance to hone his skills in college at a more appropriate position (WR or DB, most likely).
On topics other than Denard ...
ReplyDelete* I think Vincent Smith is an awesome "in space" player. That shows up in tight 1-on-1 running situations (as it did yesterday and way back in the spring practices of '09), slot receiving, and pass blocking. Too bad he's tiny and not super-fast.
* Is it fair to say our O-line pass blocks way better than it run blocks? I'd say the former will be more important against ND and its weak secondary.
* I wonder if anyone could have predicted that Clark (as a 215# low 3-star) would blow up so quickly?
Yeah, I think our offensive line is decent at pass blocking.
DeleteI certainly didn't think Clark would get this big this quickly, and his position was unclear coming out of high school. I expected him to play SAM, and I think that's where the coaches had him pegged originally. Considering his struggles with outside contain and the option, I can understand why they prefer him at DE.
Love how everyone dogs on denard against lower level teams.. I remember last yr he went off on the last half of the schedule against good teams, then everyone wants to suck him but once he does 1 wrong thing ppl wanna hate on typical Michigan fans .. Easy to blame someone denard just so happens to be the one everyone and their brother does its hard to be efficient when your run game isn't there your oline isn't great therefore denard has to do w.e he can to make a play. We all know when he has a running back it takes pressure off him that allows him to make good reads and nickel and dime you that's what he does best. Get off him damn
ReplyDeleteI've been critical of Denard all along. I'll give credit where it's due (basically every time against Notre Dame, his 2011 game against OSU, etc.), but overall, he's just not a very good quarterback in the traditional sense of the word. His passing statistics support that opinion. With his running ability opening up pass routes, he should have much better passing statistics. Instead, he completes about 55% of his passes and throws a ton of interceptions. Over the last two seasons, he's thrown 26 touchdowns and 19 picks.
DeleteDenard will never be great pocket passer, but that doesn't stop him from being a great college quarterback. It looks to me like he is much improved this year from last year (the rest of the schedule will show if this is right). His accuracy is much better. He has learned to step up into the pocket against a pass rush and make plays. Look at the touchdown to Devin Gardner against UMass. It was a beautiful play that he would not have made last year. He is also learning to scramble on passing plays when no one is open like on his touchdown run yesterday.
DeleteHis biggest issue in the past has been how to handle a hard pass rush against press coverage.
His ability to hit V. Smith in stride on swing passes and hit receivers quickly on a 3 step drop (if this continues) along with being able to step into the pocket and make plays and to scramble when no one is open will make him extremely difficult to stop this year. I think this will carry over against the good defenses remaining on the schedule.
My guess is that if you take Woodson's statement last week about Cutler, insert 'Denard' for every 'Jay', and you get what our opposing defensive coaches teach their backfield about playing Denard.
DeleteDenard would probably have a heisman or two by now if he went to Oregon. I'm not sure I'd expect anything different with mechanics. Arm slot changes are incredibly difficult to achieve, especially in college. And he does so many things with fakes and scrambling in the pocket that he doesn't get many reps as a pocket passer in the traditional sense that I'm not sure you can teach him that classical footwork. If he's stepping forward for a play action he almost has to throw it off his back foot if he's going to hit Funchess on that streak, because if he waits a beat to get squared up it's probably too late. He's never going to be a guy whose first step involves getting feet square to his first read and moving his feet through the progressions.
DeleteI disagree about the footwork thing. Plenty of players have gone through spread schemes with play action fakes and such, and not all of them have thrown off their back foot like he does. I can deal with the arm slot thing, because guys can be accurate if they have a 3/4 delivery. But very few people can get away with abysmal footwork.
DeleteI have to wonder if Denard would've been a better passer if he'd played under Borges for his entire career. Redshirting as a freshman, learning proper throwing mechanics, playing 4 years under 1 system. He'd be a Junior right now, probably making better reads, too.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't learn much about the team, but I did like some of the play calls, like the one-blocker screen to Toussaint. This game was a chance to experiment on both sides of the ball.
ReplyDeleteI think Jerald Robinson should probably have hauled in the pass in the endzone and definitely hauled in the second one he dropped.
Couple of things:
ReplyDelete- Ricky Barnum doesn't look great to me. I rewatched some of the game looking for the weak link on the OL, and Barnum seemed unable at times to hold up 1-on-1 due to poor leverage. It seemed like Mealer typically blocks to the right, double-teaming with Omameh, leaving Barnum 1-on-1, where he let his guy collapse the pocket more than once. Lewan is a brick house, and the other guys seemed to do their jobs, more or less, from what I saw. Kerridge missed at least one block pretty badly that led to Fitz being taken down in the backfield. I was impressed with Funchess as a blocker, as well as Gardner. Fitz looks good as a blocker.
- Fitz ran well. I think the criticism that he should've "busted it upfield" more often is unwarranted, as there just weren't holes, due either to lineman squeezing through or linebackers going untouched. He bounced it outside because he had to, and he made something out of nothing more than once. Our RB production would have been a lot worse if Rawls or Smith were the lead backs.
- Our DL gets shut down way too easily with 1-on-1 blocking. Our linebackers are being engaged by offensive lineman seconds after the snap, and we weren't punishing them for that by winning 1-on-1 matchups from the DL position. We look like a mediocre-to-bad defense against the run. Nobody on the DL is skilled enough to give us an edge there.
- Denard: I wish he wouldn't go for the deep bomb so often. On our second drive he threw two balls in a row 40 yards downfield in the air, only to see them fall harmlessly to the turf. Maybe once every couple of drives (cf. once per GAME under Lloyd Carr) is reasonable, but c'mon. The bubble screen always seems to be available, especially since the opponents linebackers are committed to the box. The TE pass should be used more, too, at least until the opponent shows they can take it away. Deep bombs seem to have roughly 25% success. Bubbles and TE passes seem to have around 75%. The percentages make it senseless to throw deep so often.
Agreed on Barnum. I've never been impressed with him.
DeleteI also agree with your comments on the DL. The back seven is mostly the same, but the front four is in flux...and so far that has made all the difference with this defense.
The other (non-Denard) topic that I wanted to comment on was the fact that this game basically confirmed (for me at least) that UM's defense is in fact much worse than 2011. I know UM only gave up about 260 yards and 6 points on defense, but UMass had fared EVEN WORSE than that against UConn and Indiana. Let that soak in for a while...UConn and Indiana.
ReplyDeleteUMass had a higher ypp (3.9 vs. 3.8) against UM than against Indiana, higher ypc (3.1 vs. 2.2) and a much higher third down conversion rate (7 of 17 vs. 4 of 18). The comparative numbers are even more depressing when put up against UConn: UMass had higher ypp (3.9 vs. 1.3), higher ypc (3.1 vs. 0.1) and higher third down conversion rate (7 of 17 vs. 3 of 15) against UM than UConn.
Conclusion: UM's defensive struggles are not a mirage and not a result of playing an elite team (Bama) and a triple-option team (Air Force). UM's defense just isn't very good this season and it all starts with the crappy D-line play.
Two things to keep in mind. One, last year's defense didn't look that great in September either. Two, UMass apparently got its best O-lineman back from injury for this game, and going into the game they thought they'd perform better because of it.
Delete