 |
| Captains Denard Robinson and Jordan Kovacs (image via AnnArbor.com) |
Let's see less of this guy on offense . . . Thomas Rawls. Rawls appears to be a guy who's just not quite good enough at any one thing to be a major player. He wasn't quite coordinated enough to tiptoe the sideline for a touchdown, he's not quite fast enough to get to the outside, he's not quite big and powerful enough to run over linebackers in the hole, and he doesn't have great vision. I do think he'll get better at sticking with the play and finding the hole, but not necessarily in one week.
Let's see more of this guy on defense . . . Marvin Robinson. Robinson hasn't played a ton of defense this year, but he has been a capable tackler. He'll never light the world on fire in pass coverage, but he looks like a capable replacement for Jordan Kovacs next year. I would have liked to have seen him a little more on Saturday, although the Ohio State game might not be the best time to trot out projects.
Let's see less of this guy on defense . . . Josh Furman. I really just don't see a future for Furman at safety. The kid has good speed and does an excellent job on special teams coverage, but he gets caught flat-footed whenever he's not attacking downhill. He might end up like a Darnell Hood or Anton Campbell, a guy who's a special teams demon his entire career but rarely sees meaningful time on defense.
Play of the game . . . Denard Robinson's option pitch to Fitzgerald Toussaint. There were longer plays, plays that scored, and perhaps more athletic plays. But I'm choosing this one because of the creativity behind it and its success. Out of basically a wishbone formation, quarterback Devin Gardner took the snap from under center and handed it off to Denard Robinson going right; Robinson then pitched the ball to Fitzgerald Toussaint, who gained 14 yards before getting tackled. It was an exciting play to watch because it seemed to open up all kinds of possible plays for Robinson out of the backfield. Unfortunately, it ended with an ugly injury to Toussaint.
MVP of the game . . . Devin Gardner once again. He finished the game 18/23 for 314 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 1 interception; he also ran 9 times for 37 yards and 3 touchdowns. It was a Micah Hyde interception away from being a game with virtually no faults. Of course, it helped that Iowa's defense had no clue how to play football, so thanks, Iowa!
"... he's not quite big and powerful enough to run over linebackers in the hole ..."
ReplyDeleteThink so? I know he got whacked by that Alabama safety, but it doesn't seem that he's had many chances to do the only thing (IMO, anyway) that he has any chance of doing well. (Aside: I think he's exactly the type of player that makes old-school Michigan fans pine for a time that never was, specifically, when Michigan pounded the ball at will against every team they faced, even the Pac Ten in bowl games.)
As far as Furman is concerned, any thoughts as to why he was ever moved to safety? Is he just too thin to get up to LB size? It seemed that he was recruited as an LB.
Rawls might get there eventually in the power department, but otherwise, he's just not doing much. He thinks he's faster than he is, which is why he tries to bounce everything outside. Once he realizes this isn't high school, then things might change.
DeleteFurman was recruited to play the linebacker/safety hybrid position in the 3-3-5 stack that Rich Rodriguez wanted to run. Once Rodriguez left, the new coaches kept him at safety. I don't know that he's really tried to put on weight, but I have heard that he was struggling to bulk up. It sounds like he's just one of those guys with a fast metabolism. If he got up to 235 or 240 lbs., he might be able to do something at SAM, but right now he's hovering just about 200, which leaves him in No Man's Land.
My guess is his best position would have been fullback. He was a good RB in HS. Furman is one of those guys that coaches projected on defense based primarily on measurables, rather than actual defensive performance in HS (also Cam Gordon, BWC, etc.). Maybe if he had not missed most of the spring, the coaches would have given him a shot at FB or WR. As it stands, he likely plays his last season next year and finishes as a solid special teams guy. That's nothing to be ashamed of.
DeleteFurman's not a fullback at all, and he's not a WR, either. He's a RB or an OLB (or a S, I guess).
DeleteI'm curious as to why you don't think he's a WR. I think he has the size and speed to excel at the position. Have you seen him in 7 on 7's and he doesn't have good hands? Does he not run good routes?
DeleteHe's just not a smooth pass catcher, and I have doubts about whether his skills would translate well to route running. There's a reason that most teams were recruiting him for his defensive skills and not for offense.
DeleteI wouldn't mind seeing Norfleet play, I've predicted he'll be our featured back at some point in his career, but your discussion ignores our top option at RB - Denard Robinson.
ReplyDeleteDenard is better than Devin at QB when healthy, but with Toussaint out: our best offense is probably with Denard at RB. Potentially having his throwing ability as a threat is just icing on the cake.
With you on Rawls, but the timing is a little strange. I actually thought he showed some nice ability to get the extra yard this game - and that's something the coaches seem to really value. But yeah - he's nothing special and will never be a game-breaking talent. There's just not many alternatives after Toussaint and Denard are gone. That's why I think Norfleet will eventually force his way in.
RE: Marvin Robinson - if he's still a 'project' as a RS Junior, that's not a very good sign. I think he'll fight for a starting spot next year, but I'd guess he loses. The coaches seem to prefer Wilson as the top DB off the bench right now. I'd expect Wilson and Gordon to start next year, with Robinson the top backup.
RE: Furman - there's still some time for him to figure things out, but the odds decrease by the day. Things will be much more open when Robinson and Gordon graduate.
Pretty sure Gardner also fumbled once. Devin was great but Yeah - Iowa was atrocious, so was Minnesota and Northwestern's secondary was a joke. Devin's facing a very different challenge next week.
If Rawls got an extra yard after contact, then he was running poorly before contact - he only averaged 2.8 yards per carry.
DeleteRobinson is a true junior.
Yeah, Rawls isn't good. Which is why I argued that it was ridiculous to want to bench Toussaint to play him, even for a handful of snaps. My point was just that it was nice to see him seem to "be who he is" a couple times yesterday. He seems like a good short-yardage thumper, but I think that's it.
DeleteHe'll look good if the OL starts making big holes, but so will most guys.
Lanko wrote: "Denard is better than Devin at QB when healthy"
DeleteI disagree ... I think Gardner has what Robinson is sorely lacking -- the credible deep ball. Robinson is clearly faster than Gardner, but Gardner is *fast enough* to make first downs and evade pressure in the pocket.
When Gardner is in the game (and assuming the O-Line and receivers are doing at least what they should do), then defenses can't stack the box and challenge Gardner like they do Robinson. We've seen Gardner can overcome that. We've seen Robinson often times can not.
That said, I agree with you about having Robinson in at RB ... for several reasons:
(1) If he can grip the ball that opens up some other passing options defenses would have to worry about (this is your point).
(2) Robinson seems to have pretty good vision and patience to find holes if the O-Line opens them. In that sense he might be our best back at that particular element of the running game.
(3) Robinson is not going to be a QB in the NFL. Giving him exposure at RB these last few games gives NFL scouts something to think about when considering what they'd do with Robinson at the next level.
I am hoping beyond hope that Gardner starts and plays full game against Ohio State, regardless of Denard's health come Saturday. Our offense is more multi-dimensional with Gardner at QB and Robinson in the backfield.
I agree with you. Devin seems to be the more competent quarterback. Also, I hate Lankownia.
DeleteDevin is a MUCH better scrambler than Denard. To me, THAT is the greatest element he adds. Now you can run from pass plays and convert a lot of 3rd downs...But our run game just isn't as good without Denard at QB. Obvioulsy putting him at RB mitigates that, but I don't think it gets you back 100% of what you had.
DeleteDevin does look a lot better as a passer -- against TERRIBLE defenses. I think that's easy to overlook. Devin had a bad INT and a fumble, even against overmatched Iowa. I think it's a close call but I have faith in our coaches. I don't think they'd screw that up, especially with their schematic preferences. There's just not any reason for them to play Denard if he isn't the best guy.
I don't think these games will affect Denard's draft stock much, but while I always thought he was headed for RB, it might convince some personnel people that it's a viable option.
Were these defenses really worse than UMass, Air Force or Illinois? Honestly, Denard never looked as good as Gardner has these last three games.
DeleteI'd be curious to see his productivity running the ball out of the RB position vs QB (going off of blocking numbers alone.) I have a feeling a version of the QB play action to a wide open funchess or dileo is coming. All he'd have to do is float it out there. Anyone else think Denard can actually throw the football relatively fine? The pitch on the option play by Denard... wasn't that with his right hand?
ReplyDeleteGod, I hope we beat Ohio State.
WillyWill9
This is definitely a chance for Borges to get creative. He clearly is in a comfort zone now with a more consistent passing threat in there. Not having a feature RB available for the game is a disadvantage. But having Denard as an X-factor, who can not only make plays but attract attention, is a nice alternative.
DeleteDenard may not be able to throw well enough to run a two minute drill. But I would bet he could chuck a couple passes adequately on trick plays.
It's easy to be in a comfort zone when the defenses stink. Borges didn't seem in a comfort zone against Nebraska, or MSU, or Alabama, or Notre Dame - because those teams have good defenses.
DeleteI agree that Denard can probably makes some throws. I expect him to try. Don't envy OSU having to prepare for everything that could come at them saturday.
I agree that Borges didn't seem in a comfort zone in those games, but perhaps the QB he had to work with was a reason? (BTW, Nebraska is not a very good defensive team.)
DeleteIt seems to be a common theme that people are dismissing Devin's accomplishments because he has been going up against "bad defenses." NW, Iowa and Minny all have better defenses than Illinois, Purdue, UMass and Air Force but I don't recall UM fans discounting Denard's offensive production against those defenses.
ReplyDeleteIn the modern era of CFB, a QB's primary job is to throw the ball (teams have RBs who can be used to run the ball), so Devin is actually a better QB than Denard even when Denard is healthy.
It seems that many people will bend their minds to fit around the idea that Denard is infallible, despite his statistics suggesting otherwise. Great runner, poor passer. It might be too early to judge how good Devin Gardner can be, but I think it's fairly clear that he's a good runner and a good passer.
DeleteI make the point above that Gardner is "good enough" at running.
Delete"Good enough" is an important theme. The athlete who is *great* at everything is very, very rare indeed. Better to be great at things that are important, and "good enough" at others.
Robinson is great at running when there's a seam to exploit ... nobody will catch him from behind. If he gets past the initial rush defense then it's going long ... potentially all the way if the safety doesn't angle properly. But Robinson is only "good enough" at times in passing. Other times he is not good enough ... at times he can be not good at all.
We have yet to see Shane Morris in college play, but my sense is his mobility is a solid "good enough" and his other skills are very good to maybe great.
Haha - you don't recall people dismissing Denard for his accomplishments against bad defenses? You must not read Michigan blogs very often.
DeleteI've never heard anyone call Denard infallible.
The QB's primary job is to get his team in the endzone.
But hey, maybe Anon does know more about football than Brady Hoke, Al Borges, etc.
Denard RAN for over 200 yards against AF and Purdue. If he was a running back doing that, a traditionalist like Anon would be going nuts. But because he was also throwing passes, that's somehow unsatisfying.
DeleteYeah, Devin has looked real good against bad defenses -- Denard looked even better against bad defenses. That's not really the issue that anyone has had with Denard, it's been how he produces against quality defenses. Sometimes it's been good, many times it hasn't.
Ohio State isn't at Alabama's or MSU's level, but they are probably are at Nebraska's level. It's going to be a brand new challenge for Devin.
Yeah, Denard ran for over 200 yards and is a great runner...and what has that done for Michigan over the past four weeks? It got him hurt. Meanwhile, Devin has the ability to stand back in the pocket, throw the ball, and run about 5-10 times a game and still move the ball down the field. And he was responsible for 6 touchdowns this past week, which is just as productive as Denard has ever been. We're scoring about 38 points per game with Devin at the helm against Big Ten teams. I'll take it.
DeleteLanko -- Can you ever make a rebuttal to opinion that differs from yours that does NOT involve you ridiculing the poster? Is that even possible for you?
DeleteI contend that Denard did NOT look better against the weak defenses he played against. He merely got his yardage on the ground rather than through the air. I prefer a QB who threatens a defense with his arm over one who threatens them with his legs. That doesn't make my opinion right or wrong, but I SHOULD be able to express that opinion without being belittled by you simply because you disagree.
@Thunder
DeleteRobinson's played a lot more football his senior year than Henne did and he never run. It's football, people get hurt, including QBs who run and those that don't. As a coach, I think you know that well.
In no way am I criticizing Devin's performance when I point out that: hey, the starting QB did pretty darn well against crappy defenses too. I've been saying all year that Gardner was a good QB and would start next year, while others were talking about Bellomy and Morris.
@Anon
Don't know if it's you or not but some Anon poster on here said they "hate Lankownia". My comments are pretty mild in comparison. I don't think it's ridiculing someone to suggest they don't read a lot of Michigan blogs, you might take it as a complement. And if you state for a fact the backup is better than the starter it's fair to say you think you know more than the coaches.
Yeah, Henne got hurt as a senior...and was very durable prior to that. Denard has popped in and out of the lineup throughout his career, getting replaced by Tate Forcier, Devin Gardner, and Russell Bellomy at various times.
DeleteYeah - and Henne started his freshman year because Guttierez was hurt. Henne is beside the point.
DeleteThere is no evidence that facing tackles while running across the field is any more dangerous than holding on to the ball in the pocket looking around for an open receiver. When someone on mgoblog looked at the data a few years ago, they found no difference in injury risk. If anything, they found the greatest risk was to guys like Gardner who ran only occasionally.
Thunder/Magnus -- given Rawls's underwhelmingness thus far, and the uncertain timing of Fitz's return, what are your thoughts on moving Stephen Hopkins back to tailback for spring practice and beyond? Between Kerridge and Houma we've got enough depth at FB to make that possible. Assuming Borges intends to run a lot more I-form next year, Norfleet and Hayes are too small to be every-down guys, and I don't want to count on Deveon Smith or Derrick Green or any other true freshman coming in next fall and starting right away at tailback.
ReplyDeleteI've never been a fan of Hopkins's running ability, either, but I do think he can offer something as a fullback in a pro set. Michigan's spread tendencies over the past few years have sort of prevented him from having a big impact with the ball in his hands, but there might be a few more handoffs to the fullback in the next couple years once Denard Robinson is gone. Hopkins offers some running ability that I don't think Kerridge does, and the jury's still out on Houma, though I think Hopkins/Houma are pretty similar in overall running ability.
DeleteI wouldn't really see the point of moving Hopkins. I don't think he would bring anything to the table that's not already provided by Rawls, Shallman, DeVeon Smith, etc.