Sunday, October 28, 2012

Nebraska 23, Michigan 9

She's better than any pictures from the game, I think.
The QB situation.  I don't even know where to start.  Denard Robinson was playing okay before he got hurt (6/11 for 55 yards; 10 carries for 46 yards).  After that all hell broke loose.  Redshirt freshman backup quarterback Russell Bellomy entered the game and threw eleven or twelve straight incomplete passes.  He finished the game 3/16 for 38 yards and 3 interceptions, along with taking 2 sacks.  His receivers dropped some passes, but mostly the throws were inaccurate and uncatchable.  At some point Devin Gardner should have been inserted as the quarterback.  Brady Hoke and Al Borges have insisted that Gardner is their #2 quarterback, and while that obviously hasn't been true, even the #3 guy should be given a shot when #2 can't get the job done.  The Wolverines were down by a touchdown or less for most of the game, and Gardner might  have been able to provide a spark.  He's obviously not the best quarterback in the land, but he does have some athleticism to improvise if the play breaks down.  Bellomy looked absolutely lost.

Al Borges anger?  Am I mad at Al Borges?  A little.  The throwback screen to Jeremy Gallon has become way too predictable, for one.  But I'm certainly not mad at him for calling the plays he did after Bellomy entered.  Borges gave Bellomy some easy throws early, and Bellomy threw them into the ground or sailed them over the receivers' heads.  What plays should an offensive coordinator call for a guy who's bad at running every play?  Aside from running the ball, which wasn't working (Fitzgerald Toussaint had 15 carries for 38 yards), there's not much an OC can do.  Nebraska blitzed Bellomy on passing downs, and they sucked up on the short routes because Bellomy doesn't like to throw downfield.  If I remember correctly, he threw exactly two passes beyond 15 yards; the first was an incompletion to Roy Roundtree in the endzone that was incorrectly called pass interference against the defense; the second was to a double-covered Devin Gardner that turned into an interception.  Bellomy is terrible at this stage in his career.

Quarterback recruiting and development.  I have been beating this drum now for a couple years, but Brady Hoke should have taken a quarterback in the class of 2012.  Michigan is apparently down to two quarterbacks on the roster: Robinson and Bellomy.  Gardner has been limited to wide receiver exclusively.  Even if the freshman isn't good, he would at least give the Wolverines another option if Bellomy stinks it up as the backup.  Hoke offered just eight quarterbacks in the 2012 class, and none really seemed to be heavily pursued.  Additionally, I'm still annoyed that Rich Rodriguez burned Devin Gardner's redshirt back in 2010.  From what I understand, the belief is that he will not be granted a fifth year of eligibility, and now he's a true junior instead of a redshirt sophomore.  Even if Hoke wanted to develop Gardner as the heir apparent to Robinson, he would only have a year to play the position.  Both of Michigan's most recent coaches have failed to handle the quarterback position appropriately over the last few years.

Michigan's run defense was excellent.  By the end of the game, Nebraska was wearing down the Wolverines a little bit.  But even with some big runs by running back Ameer Abdullah and quarterback Taylor Martinez late in the game, they combined for 159 yards on 38 carries, which is just barely over 4 yards/carry.  If Michigan's offense could have stayed on the field longer and kept them in the game, I doubt the Wolverines would have had the same kinds of breakdowns.

Michigan's secondary was burned several times.  Raymon Taylor was torched.  J.T. Floyd was beaten a couple times and picked up two pass interference calls.  Jordan Kovacs was beaten.  Thomas Gordon was beaten for a touchdown, albeit by an illegal pick.

The referees were terrible.  It went both ways, but the refs were bad.  The early 55-yard catch by Roy Roundtree was ruled as a reception on the field, and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it; yet overturn it they did.  Vincent Smith's diving attempt that launched the ball up into the arms of P.J. Smith could have been overturned just as easily as the Roundtree play, but the interception was upheld.  Bellomy's deep ball to Roundtree shouldn't have been called pass interference against Nebraska.  There were numerous holding calls that they missed, including against Taylor Lewan, who has been committing way too many infractions.  Nebraska also took a penalty for targeting Jeremy Jackson, but the defender led with his shoulder and hit Jackson in the chest, not the head.

Much of this could be fixed if Michigan could run the ball.  Outside of Denard Robinson, nobody on Michigan's team can run the ball effectively this year.  Michigan's interior offensive line is weak, and honestly, it's the two most experienced guys who are playing the worst, in my opinion.  Ricky Barnum and Patrick Omameh, both of whom are fifth year seniors, have often failed to get a push.  Center Elliott Mealer has been mediocre, but he hasn't played much in his career.  Offensively, Michigan doesn't have an identity.  The offensive line has been pretty healthy, but they can't run the ball; both quarterbacks have been subpar in the passing game; the receivers are average.  Unless Denard Robinson is running the ball, Michigan is ineffective.  Now Michigan has gone two consecutive games without a touchdown, and you can't put your defense in that type of situation consistently and expect to win.

44 comments:

  1. I agree across the board with everything you said. That was pretty frustrating to watch last night. If DG really has been getting reps at QB as Hoke has stated he should've got a shot last night. Instead the coaches were content at going 3 and out or throwing picks, not letting our defense get a breather. I still don't see why people are so frustrated with Borges though, he's only playing the cards he was dealt the best he can. Hopefully this goes down as a lesson learned and they take a decent QB in every class.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not necessarily down on Borges because of this game... it's just there seems to be a certain level of predictability (particularly with the play action, screen to gallon. It stopped working against MSU, and it definitely wasn't working against Nebraska.

      That said, the only thing that really baffled me, was the lack of Devin Gardner when still within 1 touchdown. If he's the Long-term should Denard go down, how can you not have him ready for that game? The whole "we don't have anyone at Wide Out" is crock. DG wasn't doing anything, and we didn't have anyone able to get him the ball even if he was.

      WillyWill9

      Delete
  2. I agree most of all with the QB comment. You absolutely have to have a horde of QBs at the college level, and that becomes even more important when most of your QBs are currently spread-style rather than pro-style. And it's not like the staff values scholarships so much that they couldn't burn one on a lowly ranked QB. I mean, we've offered scholarships to long snappers, fergodsakes. When I look at Michigan 2-3 years out, QB worries me more than any other position on the roster. Next year just looks terrible.

    And it also didn't look like Borges had a plan for whether Denard went out. The plays were the same as when Denard was in. I understand that a little bit; you can only teach so many blocking schemes to your players in limited time, but at the same time you should be able to avoid utter, complete ineptitude. Bellomy did look jittery, but how many snaps has he had in practice if Gardner is the supposed #2? And if Gardner really is the #2, why didn't he see the field.

    ARGH!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with all of this. The offense is obviously tailor made for Denard. So when the back-up comes in, I don't expect to see all of the same formations and plays... especially the inverted veer (or whatever you call it). Not expecting a completely different offense, but at least some differences.

      Why QB was not a huge priority in last year's class, I will never understand. I assumed that the staff was very comfortable with Bellomy, because we already know that Gardner is a shaky QB. Shane Morris looked like a future 5-star from his HS sophomore play, but he started showing some chinks his junior year and this year, he has obviously lost some confidence as a senior. He is not a legit top 100 player anymore, so the deal to not offer any other QB's in his class was premature. Maybe it would be an option to bring in a dual threat QB with position flexibility in '13. If the guy is an "athlete", they would still be honoring the commitment to Shane, but they could still start the kid out at QB for "depth purposes".

      They can recruit all of the lineman in the world, but the QB is still by far the most important position on the field.

      Delete
  3. How much of the running back problem can be pinned on Fred Jackson?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it about pinning blame? I'd be curious to see if there's a breakdown out there between running last year, and running this year. Is it poor blocking? Is it that RBs are missing the holes?

      Delete
    2. I think its all about the blocking. As magnus said, the interior Oline is garbage. They are just awful. Barnum is the worst offender Ive seen, he constantly gets knocked back and gets no push. We have no depth at oline thanks to recruiting under RR and its showing up now. We are a sorry offensive team at every position save qb. And the only reason QB is above average is because denard's exceptional running ability vastly outweighs his shortcomings as a passer.

      Delete
    3. I don't think any blame can really be put on Jackson. Fitzgerald Toussaint looks slower, but that's more about Toussaint and/or the strength/conditioning program. Jackson has coached enough good running backs that I don't think we can really question his coaching ability at this point.

      Delete
  4. I was screaming for Devin. Gotta think his shoulder injury from a few weeks ago keeps him from throwing.

    - Lee

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hopefully everyone now understands the importance of having your QB stable flush with guys. Your main guy goes down + back-up doesn't deliver = You're dead in the water. For this reason, I would like to see Michigan take a second QB IN THE CURRENT CLASS. Get a big time WR and another QB, you have a stable of RB's, another is just a luxury....

    Put it this way, what if in 2009 Michigan had locked up Tate Forcier and said "we're good, solid 4 star kid, we're good with this, we don't need any one else." Where would the team be then!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they promised Morris they would not recruit another QB in this class. The problem with that, even 5 star QB's are not a sure thing. Look what happened to Texas with Garrett Gilbert or Florida with John Brantley. Just because he's a Rivals "Top 100" player does not guarantee success. I don't even wanna think about a scenario where Morris does not work out...

      Also, look what BOB has done with Matt McGloin in his first year. Coaching matters and I have not seen any improvement in Denard's passing game to give me confidence in Borges.

      Delete
    2. Don't take this the wrong way, but there's a saying: "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken s***." Not that I hate Denard or anything, but he's never been a good passer and hasn't really taken to coaching, either from Rod Smith or from Al Borges. He's the best we have, but maybe he's just not good.

      Delete
    3. I tend to agree ... Denard is what Denard is, and isn't likely to change much. To that end I think Borges ought to just finish out this year letting Denard revert back to what he's most comfortable with. The grand experiment to form him into a better QB just didn't work.

      Delete
    4. To continue your (in my mind, misplaced) quasi-food metaphor of "chicken salad", let's look at the "chickens":
      - Denard Robinson: as a sophomore, completes 62.5% of his passes, 18 TDs & 11 INTs, 8.8 Yards per attempt. All those numbers got worse his junior year and have continued to get worse his senior year.
      - Russell Bellomy: a recruit brought in by this staff, with decent, if unspectacular, offers (Boise State, Purdue, Colorado). Still, in his second year in this system, goes out and displays zero competency, playing one of the worst games of football by a QB at Michigan in quite some time (e.g., lowest completion % of anyone with 10 or more attempts since 1975).
      - Devin Gardner: the #1 dual-threat QB three years ago. Looks raw when he has played spot duty in the last two years, but displayed a good arm and ability to "make plays" (of both good and bad variety). Now is apparently so bad, he can't beat out Russell Bellomy.

      All the QBs, including Denard, certainly have flaws (of the multiple variety). I think the "not good" here, though, doesn't belong mostly with them. All three QBs have either gotten worse or not progressed remotely as one would expect under this staff.

      Delete
    5. Bellomy "brought in by this staff"
      I'm pretty sure Bellomy was a RR recruit.

      Delete
    6. Well, Anonymous, you would be absolutely wrong.

      Delete
  6. Hopefully everyone now understands the importance of having a solid stable of guys at QB. It is for this reason that we need to recruit another QB IN THIS CLASS. Get the big time WR, Dawsons spot to another interior lineman, and a QB. It's too risky to not have a stable of at least 3-4 when the equation is roughly; main guy goes down + #2 guy can't get it together = You're dead and nothing can save you.


    Put it this way...what if in 2009 Michigan had said "You know, we just locked up this Forcier kid, solid Socal 4 star QB, we're good, let's spend that other QB slot on something else." Where would Michigan be then!? Bent over a work bench with the B1G ten and everyone else lined up running a rape train on them is where they would be. And that's where they'll be this year if Denard's elbow issues persist. GO GET ANOTHER QB!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The targeting penalty when the defender lit up Jackson was called for the defender leaving his feet and leading with the helmet. That used to be a variation of spearing, and now they call it regardless of whether the head is actually contacted and with what body part.

    The rest of the calls you mentioned were pretty awful. I will commend the refs for preventing excessive rowdiness, which was a reported problem even before the game.

    Denard has become our Peyton Manning in that if he goes out for extended time, we're totally screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also, I blame the NCAA in part for Gardner's redshirt status, mostly for allowing Alabama to get away with exploiting the medical redshirt system while not granting other schools anywhere near that kind of leeway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we only have ourselves to blame for Gardner's status. He played when he didn't have to, and then we continued to dress him for most of the rest (if not all) of the season. Why should they grant a medical redshirt to a guy who's dressed for every game?

      Delete
    2. I think we only have ourselves to blame. We played him when we didn't have to, and then continued to dress him for games after the medical redshirt deadline. Why should the NCAA grant a player a redshirt if he's dressing every week?

      Delete
    3. They shouldn't. But they evidently do. I'm railing against them for inconsistency and nothing more.

      Delete
  9. Lotsa problems here in my semi-educated opinion:

    1. Barnum, Omameh, and maybe even Schofield are niche O-line guys. Put them in a spread offense and maybe they look better. They don't look like smash-mouth guys at all.

    2. I'm not sure what's up with Fitz, but I think his inability to run is partly due to the line mostly not being suited for "push."

    3. I honestly don't believe that Rawls could run effectively with this line against good defenses.

    4. Our receivers don't seem to reliably get separation. RichRod's recruiting in that area was, oddly, not that great.

    5. Bellomy has a weak arm and he lacks confidence at this stage.

    6. Our secondary is mediocre overall. No big news there. I think T Gordon is better suited to strong safety.

    Need to stop now ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Agree with that. I think it might be beneficial to bring in Burzynski for one of the 2 guards, probably Barnum, and see what he's got. I wouldn't mind seeing Schofield moved back inside either. It would just be a question of who takes his spot and if the staff are willing to burn a redshirt.

      2) Agree but he has, this season, had a tendency to panic and immediately bounce the ball outside. Not good. Put your head down and get a couple. Don't take a loss.

      3) Disagree. Get him going downhill (Out of the I) and he falls forward for 3. It's better than losing yards from the shotgun over and over.

      4) Disagree. Gallon and Roundtree were open a number of times but the QB either didn't see or weren't capable of getting them the ball.

      5) Yep.

      6) I think this is the first bona fide 'bad' game the secondary has had all season so the mediocre label can stay in your back pocket for now. But they were dire last night.

      Delete
  10. We just have to hope that Bellomy takes the same path as John Navarre. Remember, Navarre got thrown into that UCLA game on the road and went 8 for 28.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So I guess I'm still wondering why they didn't even seem to try to use Rawls. He must be deep in the doghouse because if you can't even get a rushing attempt (that I remember anyway) in that game you must be doing something very very wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eh, I think Toussaint actually did pretty well with what he was given. There wasn't a whole lot of blocking there. I don't know what Rawls could have done better.

      Delete
    2. So what's your sense for the next two or three years, knowing what you know about the recruits coming in? Can the Michigan offensive line get better and run blocking so future RBs might have a better chance?

      Delete
    3. I don't know if the 2013 OL will be better than this year, but I think 2014 and beyond will be pretty darn good. I don't think it really matters who the RB is - the OL should be good enough to make our running game go.

      Delete
  12. I mentioned this earlier, and think it's a good place to reiterate. I'm worried about next year because of all of this. Bellomy and Gardner are not Michigan caliber qbs. More worrisome to me is the OL is going to be 80% new, with Schofield as our only returning starter. Problems are coming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm hoping Lewan returns, too. Either way, I'm strangely confident about the future of Michigan's offensive line. I like the incoming freshmen, I like Kalis, I like Bryant, etc. They might not be great next year, I guess, but they should be pretty solid in 2014 and beyond.

      Delete
    2. I am also confident about the '13 OL, as long as Lewan comes back. If not, who knows. At least you will have legit competition at most of the spots, among some pretty good prospects. This year, there was basically zero competition. When it comes to OL, I would say that experience is nice, but it is not more important than talent.

      Delete
  13. Not as sure about the run defense--the averages are a little misleading. Michigan controlled the interior very well, and stuffed Nebraska up the middle, but had real trouble controlling the edge. It seemed to me that Michigan did not have enough speed on the field to beat Martinez or Abdullah to the corner or stretch those plays out, especially when Nebraska ran from spread formations and Nebraska's wideouts could block the safeties. (And Nebraska's WRs take blocking seriously, don't they?)

    Anyway, I think that 4 yard average is a bunch of stuffed middle runs but longer gains on outside runs. Not sure how Michigan was going to stop that without changing personnel to get more speed out there. Nebraska ain't Michigan State.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the edge was a problem until the fourth quarter, when Michigan's defense had been out there for a long time and the offense was probably causing them to lose a little bit of their fire. Michigan was holding up fine on the edge until then. Abdullah had 23 carries for 83 yards and Martinez had 13 carries for 29 yards outside of those late, long runs. Obviously, they earned those additional yards later, and I'm not trying to take those away from them. My point is simply that Michigan was holding up just fine until very late in the game.

      Delete
    2. The defense has some weaknesses, but holding holding Nebraska to 23 with very little offense in their house is not a bad result. It would have been nice to get out to a lead because Nebraska offense plays pretty poorly from behind.

      Delete
    3. I am really disappointed with Borges. The play calling is awful. The lack of flexibility to create a game plan to the strengths of the group is laziness.

      General O summary:
      OL is sub-par run blocking, but good pass blocking. The latter doesn't matter because the QBs are lucky to hit the broad side of a barn and when they do hit the target, it is likely to be dropped. They have a bunch of north-south runners. Based on defenses loading the box, their dependence on the running game, and the terrible run blocking of their OL, they need to run with 12, 21, or 22 personnel and preferably with the QB under center to throw in some play action and to allow the RBs to build up speed and run to their strength, north-south. If teams already know you're going to run...why not get personnel in there that can actually assist the OL with blocking?

      Delete
    4. What are "the strengths of the group"? I don't see any strengths except Denard running the ball.

      Delete
  14. Magnus, I'd love to get your commentary on what I thought was an excellent post by purplestuff on MGoBlog:

    "We simultaneously do and don't run a spread formation, read-option offense. We spread the field with extra receivers but don't run the short passing game stuff required to make teams alter their approach and defend the perimeter. So we're running into the same fronts with fewer blockers (I call it the un-spread). When we do so we're pulling guards every time (something these guys aren't as good at) and telegraphing plays early enough for teams to attack the mesh point instead of quickly optioning off one defender and using a zone scheme with maybe the occasional wrinkle to block everyone else. We hardly ever even run the straight zone-read stuff any more (inverted veer has pushed that out of the offense, which makes the north/south criticism of Fitz a little silly). In the passing game, linebackers and safeties are able to drop into coverage knowing they won't get consistently gashed on the perimeter (while easily recognizing and ignoring our play-action fakes) and Denard is forced to either throw into traffic or try to chuck long bombs over the top of the defense. Obviously that hasn't proved a recipe for success.
    Denard is never going to be Peyton Manning but he can and has been a very successful passer. Borges just doesn't seem willing or able to do the things that would make his job easier, and the run game suffers from the same problem. I doubt Denard's fundamentals have gotten worse but his numbers have. Dramatically. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't really have much to add to that. I agree somewhat with what he wrote, but he's a little erroneous in a couple spots, in my opinion. First of all, the zone read stuff has disappeared because Denard isn't good at running it; he's better at the inverted veer. I disagree that Denard has been a very successful passer. He has never been good at throwing the ball, even in 2010, which was his most impressive statistical season. The plays Rodriguez ran were extremely simple, and Denard succeeded against overmatched teams...and performed poorly against good defenses. Those short throws only work if the deep throws work enough to keep the secondary honest.

      Denard's problem is that he is only good at a very small set of things. He is good at running the ball...from shotgun...on quarterback isos and the inverted veer. That's just about it. He can't throw the ball downfield consistently, he can't run a pro-style spread, and he can't run an offense from under center.

      I wouldn't mind Denard running some bubble screens, which I think would open up the running game a little bit. But other than that, I don't know what Borges can do at this point. I have said for years that Denard isn't a good passing quarterback, and people insisted that I was wrong...yet three years later, people are still complaining that he can't pass consistently. Some of us saw this coming. It's frustrating that it took so long for a large chunk of the fan base.

      Delete
    2. The 'traditional' bubble screen has been dealt with pretty ably by teams like MSU. Man coverage on the outside takes away any really easy yards. Ohio State ran a few and didn't get a whole lot out of them. But there are a bunch of easy 3-step passes that play off the fact that those alley defenders often have seam/flat/force responsibilities.

      The other thing I got from watching OSU is their empty package, which I like. Any team that wants to play 2 high is probably not putting 6 in the box either. Makes it easier on our blocking assignments for power or IZ. But you pretty much have to have a 3-step package if you want to run the run plays. And we don't. So it's a no go.

      Also, I think Purple Stuff is wrong about our Unspread. We never ever go 4 wide and we're very commonly 2 back. Against State, we rarely offered 4 vertical threats and gave them plenty of opportunities to go to their blitz packages. They're premised on not having to defend more than 3 downfield threats and 1 underneath. We were ready for them, but we didn't make them pay for over-committing guys to the box. What's more annoying is that often times our TE is Funchess and we're not credibly threatening to give him the ball. He's almost always blocking and he's not very good at it when matched up with a front 7 player. Why play Jeremy Jackson at WR when you've got Funchess?

      Borges hasn't been inventive in his use of Denard and doesn't know how to maximize his skillset. We should be a 4/5 wide fast tempo zone run and play action heavy team that uses a decent amount of dink and dunk. I.E. RR gave Borges a blueprint. Instead, we're a team that runs Inverted Veer until we're behind the chains and then we're fucked.

      All of that crap said, this is an offense with real talent problems. It has Denard's legs, Lewan and Funchess. That's not a ton to work with and part of the problem has been, like you say, expectations.

      Delete
  15. Magnus, I'd love to get your commentary on what I thought was an excellent post by "PurpleStuff" on MGoBlog:

    "We simultaneously do and don't run a spread formation, read-option offense. We spread the field with extra receivers but don't run the short passing game stuff required to make teams alter their approach and defend the perimeter. So we're running into the same fronts with fewer blockers (I call it the un-spread). When we do so we're pulling guards every time (something these guys aren't as good at) and telegraphing plays early enough for teams to attack the mesh point instead of quickly optioning off one defender and using a zone scheme with maybe the occasional wrinkle to block everyone else. We hardly ever even run the straight zone-read stuff any more (inverted veer has pushed that out of the offense, which makes the north/south criticism of Fitz a little silly). In the passing game, linebackers and safeties are able to drop into coverage knowing they won't get consistently gashed on the perimeter (while easily recognizing and ignoring our play-action fakes) and Denard is forced to either throw into traffic or try to chuck long bombs over the top of the defense. Obviously that hasn't proved a recipe for success.
    Denard is never going to be Peyton Manning but he can and has been a very successful passer. Borges just doesn't seem willing or able to do the things that would make his job easier, and the run game suffers from the same problem. I doubt Denard's fundamentals have gotten worse but his numbers have. Dramatically. "

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm glad someone else seems to have noticed a steep drop in OL productivity. They don't seem to get any push at all up the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm definitely worried about the OL and the coaching they're getting there. The work being done on the opposite side of the line underlines the paucity of growth in our OL. They seem to have stagnated pretty immediately after Frey left. It's gotten to the point where I think Funk is the most likely to be the first Hoke assistant to leave the program, after Borges.

    That's probably not a belief that most hold and I willingly admit that it might be way off base. The guy can clearly recruit his ass off. I am definitely concerned though.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just hope they show one clip of film to Denard all week... the one where he got knocked out of the game. I was yelling for him to coast out of bounds, instead he tries to cut it up for what??? maybe 2 more yards before getting trucked by at least 2-3 guys that were between him and the endzone. Especially if he is already dinged up or nursing nerve damage (where is the protective elbow sleve or wrist protection, whereever the damage was at protect it, like it could hurt his throwing too badly). He has to know that the extra yard there is not worth the risk of him not finishing the game; if that wasn't obvious before is should be after the rest of that game!

    ReplyDelete