262 replies to this topic

[WayBackVazquez]

Tate Forcier heading to Miami

ESPN Forcier chooses Hurricanes

"Miami had the best opportunity," Forcier told ESPN. "There is so much positive energy around this program and I really want to be apart of it. I love these coaches an feel like they are the right guys for me. I had a great visit and I really want to be a part of the rebirth at Miami."

Tate is not going to Miami, and appears to have completely lost his shit.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

At least we know he'll be playing somewhere this fall. Either for Happy Dale's intramural flag football team, or for an FCS school.

[Zososoxfan]

Just popped in to say that recruiting is going swimmingly right now for the Incredible Hoke and Co. These guys have hit the trails hard and are picking up quality commitments left and right.

The hemmhoraging in Columbus is also making it quite a bit easier for Hoke to make his inroads. I love what I'm seeing and hearing so far.

[jsinger121]

APSE_sportmedia

Schefter said deal was in place for Jim Harbaugh to be hired by Michigan before 49ers deal. #APSE

[sachmoney]

Just popped in to say that recruiting is going swimmingly right now for the Incredible Hoke and Co. These guys have hit the trails hard and are picking up quality commitments left and right.

We have a top 5 class as of right now, but with numbers we should regress to a top 10 class, which is still solid. Whether we remain a top 5 class depend on whether we can get Kalis and Dunn most likely. If we can get guys like Pipkens and a top WR like Stanford or Burbridge (if he qualifies) we will be set. I'm really excited about our recruiting class.

[bowiac]

Starting to look like the staff was perhaps overeager with recruits/underestimated their ability to attract the top guys. With Kalis now on board, they might lose out on Jordan Diamond because of good, but not necessarily elite guys like Ben Braden. Same story with Pitman, and probably a couple others yet to come.

I would have probably done the same on the bird in hand theory, but kind of a shame nonetheless. Also if they struggle this year on the field (which I expect they will - I tend to think this years team will be worse than last years), then those high end guys are probably more likely to defect. I've been kind of wondering if that's how they plan on getting to 26 recruits when there's only 18-20 clear spots available.

[grsharky7]

We have a top 5 class as of right now, but with numbers we should regress to a top 10 class, which is still solid. Whether we remain a top 5 class depend on whether we can get Kalis and Dunn most likely. If we can get guys like Pipkens and a top WR like Stanford or Burbridge (if he qualifies) we will be set. I'm really excited about our recruiting class.

I have to imagine with the turmoil at OSU, Michigan has it pretty good on the recruiting trail right now. I saw a quote on the bottom line the other day, I believe it was Kalis, said something along the lines of he wasn't going to OSU because they were gonna be punished for something he didn't do. Michigan should strike now while the iron is hot. OSU doesn't have a long term coach and has sanctions hanging over there heads. PSU is always in flux because nobody knows what Joe is going to do from year to year. Only Wisconsin is really got everything going good right now in the B10.

[Zososoxfan]

Starting to look like the staff was perhaps overeager with recruits/underestimated their ability to attract the top guys. With Kalis now on board, they might lose out on Jordan Diamond because of good, but not necessarily elite guys like Ben Braden. Same story with Pitman, and probably a couple others yet to come.

I would have probably done the same on the bird in hand theory, but kind of a shame nonetheless. Also if they struggle this year on the field (which I expect they will - I tend to think this years team will be worse than last years), then those high end guys are probably more likely to defect. I've been kind of wondering if that's how they plan on getting to 26 recruits when there's only 18-20 clear spots available.

I have to say I disagree a little bit. Getting the momentum started, especially in Ohio, was crucial to the successes you're seeing now. You also can't discount the development of the OSU scandal - i.e. it wasn't clear in January how it was going to play out (and still isn't, but at least we have a better idea). Furthermore, I'm not worried about missing out on Diamond or Peat because if they tell the staff they want to commit, Hoke and Co. will take them in a cocaine heartbeat and leave recruiting for another position for another year. Their focus this year was on recruiting the lines.

As for predictions about this year's performance, I'm more optimistic than you. I think they can go at least 7-5 and expect them to go 9-3 (with losses to Nebraska, @Iowa, and one other one that's not OSU to finally got off the schneids). The defense should be vastly improved mostly by being more stout against the run, having fewer younger players on the field, and schemes that let them react quickly and attack. The offense will score less, but wont have to score as much and D-Rob can make the difference.

On a completely different note, I got my ND night game ticket last night. Couldn't be more excited, even though I'm taking the first flight out Saturday because of a prior commitment.

[ethangl]

I've been kind of wondering if that's how they plan on getting to 26 recruits when there's only 18-20 clear spots available.

They just won't renew the scholarships of the guys they don't want.

edit: and also possibly ask one or two of this year's lesser recruits to grayshirt, depending on numbers.

edit again: and medical scholarships are always a popular way of thinning out the roster.

Edited by ethangl, 12 July 2011 - 12:35 PM.

[bowiac]

They just won't renew the scholarships of the guys they don't want.

edit: and also possibly ask one or two of this year's lesser recruits to grayshirt, depending on numbers.

edit again: and medical scholarships are always a popular way of thinning out the roster.

Isn't this basically why we all hate the SEC? I'm fine with greyshirts so long as they're done up front, but asking someone who has already committed (and presumably stopped visiting other schools) to do so now would make me pretty unhappy. I'd also be pretty obviously upset with not renewing scholarships for guys short of graduation. I'm a little more OK with denying 5th years to some kids, although some of those kids will still have not graduated yet, right?

[ethangl]

It's not out of the realm of possibility that a fringe guy would commit under the agreement that if the numbers break down in a certain way, he'd be asked to grayshirt.


Re: pulling scholarships, what typically happens is that a player finds somewhere else to play before it comes to that -- he'll get nudged in that direction in the post season exit interview. I think that during a regime change coaches are even more frank as they are not even dealing with "their" guys.

[sachmoney]

Starting to look like the staff was perhaps overeager with recruits/underestimated their ability to attract the top guys. With Kalis now on board, they might lose out on Jordan Diamond because of good, but not necessarily elite guys like Ben Braden. Same story with Pitman, and probably a couple others yet to come.

I would have probably done the same on the bird in hand theory, but kind of a shame nonetheless. Also if they struggle this year on the field (which I expect they will - I tend to think this years team will be worse than last years), then those high end guys are probably more likely to defect. I've been kind of wondering if that's how they plan on getting to 26 recruits when there's only 18-20 clear spots available.

Two things:
1. Braden really impressed the staff and the scouts that were watching when he camped at UM. He may not be Jordan Diamond, but he's a strong guard and could possibly get a fourth star during the season. Additionally, OL is sort of a crap shoot on rankings as it seems it is mostly based on size and physical ability than technique. This is why you see places like Wisconsin not always getting elite talent at OL but churning out solid lineman. I think Braden will be a good player for Michigan.

2. Every time Diamond has been in the area, he has come to visit Michigan. I think his family really likes the school, but his coaches have made him wait to commit to help some of his teammates get a look. His mother is aware of the Michigan's numbers as far as OL commits is concerned, but I don't think it's at a point where they are completely looking elsewhere. The staff made clear that they would take 5-6 OL and it is looking increasingly likely that they will take one more guys whether it be Peat, Diamond, Banner, Garnett, or Bisnowaty. I'm not really concerned about missing out on an OL.

As far as numbers, we've already seen two guys transfer and things could change over the course of the season. I don't know how I feel about the not extending offers to certain guys, but it may be necessary to turn the team around quicker. Just seems sort of a sleazy non-Michigan/non-Big Ten thing to do, but whatever.

I have to imagine with the turmoil at OSU, Michigan has it pretty good on the recruiting trail right now. I saw a quote on the bottom line the other day, I believe it was Kalis, said something along the lines of he wasn't going to OSU because they were gonna be punished for something he didn't do. Michigan should strike now while the iron is hot. OSU doesn't have a long term coach and has sanctions hanging over there heads. PSU is always in flux because nobody knows what Joe is going to do from year to year. Only Wisconsin is really got everything going good right now in the B10.

We got Kalis. He is the consensus number one player in the state of Ohio. It looks like we could turn one of their other highly touted prospects (Dunn) as well. It would be a huge blow to OSU and a great addition. Hoke and Co have already captured 9 recruits out of Ohio including 6 of the top 22 and are in play for a few more of the top players (Wormley, Washington, Stanford, Dunn). I've been very impressed with Hoke's ability to lock in our core recruiting bases.

They just won't renew the scholarships of the guys they don't want.

edit: and also possibly ask one or two of this year's lesser recruits to grayshirt, depending on numbers.

edit again: and medical scholarships are always a popular way of thinning out the roster.

We already have a guy greyshirting for 2013 (Jeremy Clark). He would have gotten a scholarship for 2012 if Jarrod Wilson (so excited about him) hadn't committed. They made it clear to Clark beforehand, but Clark had already decided that he wanted to go to Michigan and committed. I believe Clark will pay for school on his own this fall and start working out with the team after the season. I'm not a huge fan of greyshirting, but I think if you make it clear to the player what is going on before he makes a decision, then there's really nothing to complain about. The decision is then in the player's hands and he holds the option to go somewhere else.

Edited by sachmoney, 14 July 2011 - 05:37 PM.

[Zososoxfan]

Development in the OSU sanctions saga:

Ohio State's strategy was to lay blame for this whole mess on Tressel and a handful of players, whether you believe that's fair or not. The NCAA appears to have bought that argument pretty much wholesale, and indeed, it must be said that investigators have no other evidence saying otherwise. Ohio State also released the transcript of a five-hour interview of Tressel by the NCAA in February. Tressel said he knew NCAA sanctions were "inevitable" when he first learned what his players were doing but that his "heart was torn out" out of concern for his players. He said the NCAA case didn't have as much ramification, to him, as a federal drug investigation.

http://espn.go.com/b...-for-ohio-state

[bowiac]

Well, Kellen Jones has helpfully vacated a spot... Apparently kicked off the team for allegedly assaulting a woman.

[WayBackVazquez]

Season tickets have arrived.

Let's Go Blue!

[ethangl]

One of the better recruits from your last class heads home.

[WayBackVazquez]

Good riddance. He was an NCAA violation waiting to happen.

[Dick Pole Upside]

So some of the general comments say:

• Stokes: hasn't done enough to break the two deep, with two years left unlikely to make significant contribution
• Posada: not sure why he left, but (allegedly) arrived on campus not up-to-snuff conditioning-wise/overweight. When the two deep firmed up and he wasn't there, combination of these factors (and, speculatively, probably others) contributed to departure
• Barnett: don't know why, but no one screaming too much about this one... Many expressed concern about he and his "handler"... an acknowledged significant talent loss, but was also viewed as a risky commit.

Some wondered why Hoke et al continued to recruit some kids hard when it looked on the surface as if only a few spots were open... well, suddenly Hoke's statement that they'll take a "full" class (~26) comes into better focus.

[bowiac]

Some wondered why Hoke et al continued to recruit some kids hard when it looked on the surface as if only a few spots were open... well, suddenly Hoke's statement that they'll take a "full" class (~26) comes into better focus.

These are not inconsistent viewpoints. Every departure can be spun as either a kid leaving of his own accord to pursue better opportunities, or as the sort of nefarious oversigning practices we're all pissed at the SEC for. We don't really know the truth.

The Posada situation looks the worst to me honestly. Kid wasn't a super high recruit in the first place and Michigan was probably his best offer. Not being on the 2 deep shouldn't have scared him off, since he was a freshman - almost no true freshman makes their school's 2 deep at offensive line. There's a line somewhere between telling a kid you expect more of him in the future conditioning-wise and telling him it's unlikely he'll ever see the field where I become uncomfortable with it, especially when offensive line is the position which has been probably best recruited for 2012. I don't know what happened with Posada, and I have no reason to think Hoke pushed the kid out, but I can't rule it out either.

[Dick Pole Upside]

Fitz Toussaint named starting RB today over Mike Shaw. JT Floyd named starting CB over Courtney Avery. I like both these moves.

Looking forward to seeing a revamped defense tomorrow. Paper thin along the defensive line, but cannot possibly be worse than the last couple of years.

Cautiously optimistic.

Go Blue.

[sachmoney]

I am super excited for the Brady Hoke era.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

Fitz Toussaint named starting RB today over Mike Shaw.

He was hurt pretty much all of last year, but every time I see this kid run... just pure explosive. If he's not a fumbler, he might well get a lot of headlines early this season. Reminds me a lot of Tshimanga Biakabutuka.

[Dick Pole Upside]

I liked the offensive set up today and the way Hoke and Borges stayed patient and methodical with the run. Toussaint did okay for a debut, and it seemed Michigan tried to have him run between the tackles while Shaw handled the wider runs. Smith was an effective third option. Robinson looked more or less comfortable under center and in the offense as a whole, which is good. His short/medium throws were just okay, but he still has no touch or feel for anything deep.

Defensive line did not look very good at all, in my opinion. Mattison did a nice job dialing up blitzes as the game wore on, and this obviously was the difference. DBs covered well in spots, were too loose in others. I'm not sophisticated enough to determine when receivers were running loose whether it was the defensive call vs. skill gap.

One thing I did notice is that the defense seemed to tackle much, much better. There were several sure-handed tackles in the flat that would have been huge trouble if not for good tackling. Not nearly as many plays where poor angles were taken, or opponents slipped out of arm tackles.

Let's not talk about special teams.

All in all, I'll take it and run.

Meanwhile, Brian Kelly looks like he's going to throw a clot over on NBC.

Edited by Dick Pole Upside, 03 September 2011 - 08:49 PM.

[Zososoxfan]

Not much to add here, DPU pretty much nailed it. Will be interesting to see how the players respond to handling opponents of similar size and pedigree. However, I expect the coaches to pore over the tape of this game and make adjustments. As DPU said, positives were 1) blitzes, 2) big defensive plays, 3) tackling, 4) offensive strategy, and 5) receiver play.

While big defensive plays are a result more so than a cause, UM needs these positives to stay intact. I'm certainly not worried about #1 (I heart GM) and am fairly confident about #3 and #4, but I'm not sure the receivers can hang onto everything like they did today. Koger had a couple of nice grabs, Roundtree, Dileo, and Hemingway all had the glue going, but I wouldn't count on that display consistently going forward.

That should be offset however, with better d line play and harder coverages. I fully believe that the coaching staff told players that if any big plays over X yards happened, there would be hell to pay, so the DBs stayed back and kept everything in front of them and tackled well. I think it's reasonable to expect them to do the same to start next weekend, but also rush 4-5 most of the game, since the blitzes likely wont be as effective and ND can probably handle them better anyways with Michael Floyd and whoever ends up at QB.

All in all, a good start. Special teams notwithstanding.

[sachmoney]

GAME DAY IS IN ANN ARBOR

From @cbfowler's Twitter:


Ingalls Mall looks beautiful as does the campus. I can't wait to get to this old gal.

Anyone else going to be around this weekend?

[Zososoxfan]

GAME DAY IS IN ANN ARBOR

From @cbfowler's Twitter:


Ingalls Mall looks beautiful as does the campus. I can't wait to get to this old gal.

Anyone else going to be around this weekend?

WOOT! Checking out a Manu Chao show on Friday, so I'm flying in on Saturday morning. Normally this would be a problem, but I guess this game is being played at night or something, so it should be ok.

I hope we see both ND QBs Saturday, because that means that Kovacs likely decapitated one of them on a safety blitz.

[tims4wins]

Starting to think we need a different quarterback in this offense. Denard just can't pass.

[redinchicago]

Starting to think we need a different quarterback in this offense. Denard just can't pass.

Well, I'd say it is a work in progress for sure. What I like about Al Borges is he is adjusting 'his' offense around Robinson. They are obviously still trying to find that balance between Al's offense and how he can use Denard's abilities. The under center sets and play action aren't there. Though the TD pass to Vincent Smith to the weakside was a great call and good execution by everyone.

Pretty sure the offense will get somewhat smoother as the year goes on.

[Dummy Hoy]

Well, I'd say it is a work in progress for sure. What I like about Al Borges is he is adjusting 'his' offense around Robinson. They are obviously still trying to find that balance between Al's offense and how he can use Denard's abilities. The under center sets and play action aren't there. Though the TD pass to Vincent Smith to the weakside was a great call and good execution by everyone.

Pretty sure the offense will get somewhat smoother as the year goes on.

I was remarking on this last night- it's really a sign of great coaching to be flexible enough to use the players you have.

[Dick Pole Upside]

I agree with you both: I think the offense will get better as it goes, and I also think it's great how obviously flexible both Borges and Robinson are trying to be.

Robinson did well last year with some of the slants and seam passes. We saw a few seam passes last week to the TE, but not much last night. Haven't seen any slants that I can recall. I don't know if the slant route is incompatible with Borges' preferred offense, but receivers like Odoms and Roundtree thrive on it.

Still shocked that Michigan pulled that one off.

[repole]

The atmosphere at the Big House was absolutely incredible last night, far and away the most exciting sporting event I've ever been to.

Michigan was lucky to win, most of Denard's passing yards seemed to come off jump balls that our receivers won more often than not, which doesn't exactly give me the most confidence going forward, but ultimately I think the offense will keep evolving to a point where Denard is comfortable and not being forced to throw deep jump balls so often.

I was probably about as pessimistic about the Brady Hoke era as anyone, the idea of a two TE, under center offense made me want to vomit, but Borges and Hoke have done a nice job of adjusting their offense to fit this roster, and defensively Mattison made some nice adjustments last night at half time that Greg Robinson simply never would have made.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

I was remarking on this last night- it's really a sign of great coaching to be flexible enough to use the players you have.

Hoke is a coach. Not light praise in that statement.

I am concerned what happens when they hit the road for the first time next month, visiting Northwestern and Michigan State. Denard is starting to take a beating again, just like last year. The defense is still pretty bad in pass coverage, and depends on getting to the quarterback quickly.

[WayBackVazquez]

The atmosphere at the Big House was absolutely incredible last night, far and away the most exciting sporting event I've ever been to.

Have you seen this? So cool.

EDIT: Link corrected.

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 12 September 2011 - 12:50 PM.

[Fred not Lynn]

Your link takes me to an NFL box score - which I don't think was the intention...

[WayBackVazquez]

Your link takes me to an NFL box score - which I don't think was the intention...

But the Jets lost!!!

[Fred not Lynn]

Have you seen this? So cool.

EDIT: Link corrected.

The U of Michigan Athletics Photo Services guys do awesome things. Granted they have an awesome subject in Michigan Stadium, and really cool expensive toys to work with, but the outcomes are great!

[WayBackVazquez]

Psyched to get to my first game of the season this weekend, and ready to party with these ladies:

[Dick Pole Upside]

Well, it's pretty clear that Mattison knows how to make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t. He and the rest of the defensive staff have done a really good job of game-planning this season with mediocre talent. The tackling remains sure. There was better performance from the d-line today, though not great. They continue to be both lucky and opportunistic on defense. There are some "glue" guys (Martin, Van Bergen, Demens, Kovacs) who are keeping things under control, and some new faces are starting to "get it", although with expected inconsistency (Hawthorne, T. Gordon, Morgan, Ryan). Woolfork is terrible in run support but is playing hurt, and he and Floyd have been more than respectable in coverage at the corners, yielding few big plays. Blake Countess came in today and had a solid debut.

As for the offense.... yeesh. Borges is clearly still searching to find a set of plays and concepts that Shoelace is comfortable with, but Denard has regressed as a passer. I don't know the finer details of the offensive system Borges has installed, but Robinson is clearly uncomfortable with his reads, and his decision-making and touch remain horrible. There is zero rhythm to the offense right now. Borges is doing what it takes to win by leveraging Robinson's running talent, but we all know that he will get crushed if he maintains a 20-carry pace. Yet it seems to be the essential element allowing Michigan to score at all.

Vince Smith is underrated... he has become the Kevin Faulk of the Wolverines, seemingly getting max yards out of every play with a nose for the end zone. Toussaint runs hard, and generally fits the mold of a serviceable tailback. Let's not forget this is Toussaint's first extended action as well. Under these circumstances I think he's done fine so far. I think Hoke and Borges would prefer the physical dimensions of Hopkins, but Hopkins continues to be sloppy with ball security and appears to have inherited Michael Shaw's penchant for brain farts.

Poor Roy Roundtree, Junior Hemingway, Martavious Odoms. Those 3 have nifty playmaking ability (if not top end speed), but are lucky if they see 2 balls apiece each game. This is something that needs to be solved, and like NOW if Michigan wants to go .500 in the B1G.

I'm happy with the win. SDSU was a decent opponent, though they shot themselves in the foot a number of times. The Wolverines should capture the Little Brown Jug next week, but after this will be the point at which we'll see if their B1G chops are legitimate or not. (I know, competing this year would mean they are a couple of years ahead of schedule.)

[sachmoney]

The announcers ripped Woolfolk on the play he lost contain, but if you actually watched the replay, he was blatantly held. His main problem right now is that he can't stay on the field.

The rest of the secondary looked better. The tackling was solid. I too was impressed with Countess. I don't think we should be surprised because all he did at the camps was impress. Everyone has been down on his size, but he looked strong and his tackling was great. His receivers were making catches, but they weren't getting much more than that. JT Floyd had his moments. Thomas Gordon too.

As far as the running game is concerned, it's weird. I want the coaches to give the running backs more carries so one of them can prove themselves, but they fumble and don't earn the coaches' trust. The coaches need someone besides Denard to step and earn some carries. We face Big Ten competition next week, and I really hope someone steps up so Denard doesn't get killed against better competition (Brian of mgoblog anticipates a 300 yard game for Denard next week).

As far as Denard's performances, I've been a little disappointed, but he's thinking too much right now. On the second interception, he clearly could have run the ball, but he tried to force it in. He's had happy feet sometimes. There have been some drops. There have been some bad throws. I think Borges needs to study what type of plays get the best throws from Denard, especially in terms of footwork. A lot of Denard's passes seem to sail when he's on the move. I would probably try to work in some quick short passes.

Also, we are the current holders of the Little Brown Jug right now, so next week is to retain the trophy.

[Dick Pole Upside]

Also, we are the current holders of the Little Brown Jug right now, so next week is to retain the trophy.

'Capture' was the wrong word for me to use... I think we win the game (and retain the Jug) as well.

I agree with everything you've posted.

I don't think the defense is going to get "fooled" in the B1G this season. I still have traumatic flashbacks of all the futile bad angles taken by LB's and DB's last year. Generally speaking, everyone seems to be in the right position so far (notwithstanding the last ND TD). With that being said, they should beat Minnesota and I think they'll handle Northwestern, though it will be tough. Purdue is horrendous. Michigan should filet them on Homecoming. All the other B1G games are either tough road games or games where we'll be underdogs (yes, even against an Ohio team without a clear identity yet).

There has also been a lot of talk about how thin the Wolverines seemed to be at most positions coming into the season. I'm actually quite pleased that the coaching staff seems to be developing a little bit of depth in certain spots. Schofield and Khoury on the OL. Fitzgerald, Beyer, Herron and Hawthorne bring depth for LB (with Cam Gordon still hurt). Avery and Countess at DB, Robinson and Carvin Johnson at S. Big Will, Q and Heininger on the DL. So where we heard about Barwis' superior conditioning program* and the fact that Michigan players could run all game long, now we've got a flotilla (okay, that's a tad hyperbolic) of useful players that can be rotated in with very defined positional responsibilities.

I like it.



*not a knock on Barwis, just a disagreement with the philosophy of running the starting 22 into the ground without having adequately coached back-ups available.

Edited by Dick Pole Upside, 25 September 2011 - 09:24 AM.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

At this point, the defense would have to allow 45 points per game the rest of the year to match last year's historic ineptness. I have some level of confidence that there's enough emphasis and coaching talent to prevent even getting close.

However, the team needs a quarterback. Minnesota is truly awful, and the team will be motivated to start out the Big Ten season. But I see the road game at a mediocre Northwestern, with a big game at Michigan State on deck, as a difficult trap.

Hoke is in a spot with Denard. He sets records. He's a great kid. He works hard. He fills highlight reels. Hoke can't put in Gardner as long as Denard is winning. But yesterday's Denard won't work in the Big Ten.

I do think Denard is playing hurt. Running backs can still set records if their legs are good. Quarterbacks need arms in perfect functioning condition. You can't look at how Denard is throwing and see a healthy arm.

[Dgilpin]

I said last season, I didn't think the team would be able to take the next step with Denard as the QB. He just isn't a good enough passer to be the starter on a championship contender. In an ideal world Gardner would be the starter, and Denard would be an explosive 10-15 play sort of player that could cause huge match-up problems. But like Chem said Denard is too successful, popular, and good of a kid to bench which puts Hoke in a tough stop. It appears the Big Ten is a bit down this season, so I think Denard will be good enough to keep Michigan in games once they start to find some play which work for him. However next year Hoke is going to be a real bind, and which I believe will negatively effective his future success if he doesn't start to get Gardner some serious playing time to allow him to develop.

[sachmoney]

Okay, so like I was saying before, I've been disappointed with how we've worked on the things that we need to work on (as in we haven't really worked on them). It seems like we're relying on Denard running a lot. It's what's successful. It sets up the rest of the offense. We do need to get Denard work under center, we need to get the running backs work to have someone take the bulk of the load, and we need Denard and the passing game to get in sync. In addition, we want to get a big enough lead to give Gardner some work as well.

So I ask:
What type of balance do you want in the running game: Denard vs Running Backs? If you have a particular favorite back or you want to go into more detail about which running back you want carrying the football, by all means, give us the splits.

How many passes do you want Denard throwing per game? I mean strictly to get the work in. We can talk bigger numbers as he gets more effective, but for that improvement to happen, we'll need some baseline numbers.

At what point do you feel safe enough to work on the passing game and the running game through the running backs as far as a lead? We've seen Denard throw some picks and we've seen the running backs fumble. These plays are prone to mistakes, that's why we've tried to stick with what works. However, once you get the lead, you can't keep putting Denard in harms way. It's a cycle we need to fix.

At what point do you put in Gardner to get him some work as far as the score? I'm fairly confident that he can take care of the football, but he might not put the same points on the board as Robinson.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

So I ask:
What type of balance do you want in the running game: Denard vs Running Backs? If you have a particular favorite back or you want to go into more detail about which running back you want carrying the football, by all means, give us the splits.

I would like to see Denard limited to ten runs per game. I think Toussaint is the best back on the team in terms of size and explosiveness. I think Vincent Smith is worth a few carries as well, getting him to the edge as a change of pace.

How many passes do you want Denard throwing per game? I mean strictly to get the work in. We can talk bigger numbers as he gets more effective, but for that improvement to happen, we'll need some baseline numbers.

About 25 would be nice.

At what point do you feel safe enough to work on the passing game and the running game through the running backs as far as a lead? We've seen Denard throw some picks and we've seen the running backs fumble. These plays are prone to mistakes, that's why we've tried to stick with what works. However, once you get the lead, you can't keep putting Denard in harms way. It's a cycle we need to fix.

As we head into the real season, Denard running the ball 20-25 times per game will not move the football consistently. It's not a matter of "safe," it's a matter of need.

At what point do you put in Gardner to get him some work as far as the score? I'm fairly confident that he can take care of the football, but he might not put the same points on the board as Robinson.

They might have the opportunity against Minnesota this week, because Minnesota is really, really bad this year. But after that, we're not going to have any Gardner opportunities. He's going to have to improve through practice.

[WayBackVazquez]

As we head into the real season, Denard running the ball 20-25 times per game will not move the football consistently. It's not a matter of "safe," it's a matter of need.

Why would you say that? I'm not saying I want him running the ball that much, but the reason why is not because it won't move the ball, it's because he's unlikely to stay healthy that way. But why would you think that a run play that features your most talented runner with an extra blocker, and keeps the defense of balance because of the threat (however small) of pass would not move the ball consistently? I would think Denard running the ball 20-25 times a game would generate a better result than pretty much any running back in college football doing the same, and certainly better than giving it to any of our backs 20-25 times a game. Agreed that any kind of passing game would better that result, but the result will be good.

Denard averaged 21 carries per game in the Big Ten last year. And the team averaged 470 total yards in those games.

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 27 September 2011 - 01:29 PM.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

Why would you say that? I'm not saying I want him running the ball that much, but the reason why is not because it won't move the ball, it's because he's unlikely to stay healthy that way. But why would you think that a run play that features your most talented runner with an extra blocker, and keeps the defense of balance because of the threat (however small) of pass would not move the ball consistently? I would think Denard running the ball 20-25 times a game would generate a better result than pretty much any running back in college football doing the same, and certainly better than giving it to any of our backs 20-25 times a game. Agreed that any kind of passing game would better that result, but the result will be good.

Denard averaged 21 carries per game in the Big Ten last year. And the team averaged 470 total yards in those games.

It wasn't consistent, though. In the losses, the YPC were down and the turnovers were up (they were -13 in turnovers in Big Ten play). It was a big-play offense. And that put a lot of pressure on the defense - with record-breaking results.

When he runs more, he absorbs more hits. This, in turn, reduces his accuracy as a passer. We saw that last year. And I still suspect they're hiding a shoulder injury.

That's why it's not consistent. One, because you can't have both an accurate passer and a guy who absorbs 25 good hits every game. And two, because once the passing threat is diminished, good teams with good athletes on defense can contain Denard. He'll still gain 100, but he won't gain 200.

I think Michigan is ideally suited to an option-style Flexbone where Denard can line up in one slot and get his hands on the ball 20-25 times per game. Defenses would have to overload his side of the formation, which would open up the passing game for Gardner.

[WayBackVazquez]

It wasn't consistent, though. In the losses, the YPC were down and the turnovers were up (they were -13 in turnovers in Big Ten play). It was a big-play offense. And that put a lot of pressure on the defense - with record-breaking results.

Uh, ok. He averaged 5.74 ypc (or more than Mark Ingram's career average) in the Big Ten losses. The team averaged over 420 yards of total offense in those games. It averaged 22 first downs in those games, compared to 23 for the opponents. You know what the offense's worst performance of the year was? Miss State. The game where Denard ran the ball the fewest (though he still averaged 5.4 ypc), and threw it the most.

I know you're incapable of admitting you're wrong and will continue to develop your creative interpretation of "consistent," but I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face. The team most certainly will move the ball consistently with Denard running it 20-25 times per game, and it did so last year.

Yes, Denard throws a lot of interceptions. Your theory is it's because he's fatigued or injured as a result of running the ball too often. My opinion is that it's because he's a shitty passer. We can agree to disagree, but IMO if we see decreasing his runs by 50% and increasing his passes by 50%, the team will be a lot worse for it.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

I know you're incapable of disagreement without shitting on people. I know that's the way you are, and it's been explained to me in PM that you've been doing it for five years now and there's no way you're ever going to change. It's a shame we have to share an enthusiasm for Michigan football.

Pass plays gain about 7 yards per attempt in college football. Run plays gain about 4 yards per attempt. But teams don't pass on every down. Why? Because pass plays are inconsistent compared to run plays. With Denard's runs, the distribution is more like a pass distribution - feast and famine.

If you look at correlations between winning and losing, passing yardage is largely irrelevant, while rushing yardage is not. I would argue that with Denard's run distribution, his rushing yardage should be treated more like passing yardage. Because Michigan does have more three-and-outs than most teams.

It's a nuanced argument. If you can't keep a straight face, perhaps you're not mature enough for a discussion board.

Denard was a very accurate passer early last season. Then he took a lot of big hits, sat out parts of several games with a variety of injuries. And he's been a lousy passer since. You can see his motion is different, like he's flinging it instead of throwing it.

You may be right that the team will be worse off if his runs decrease and passes increase. If so, Michigan will not win more than three Big Ten games regardless of what it tries on offense, however.

[WayBackVazquez]

I know you're incapable of disagreement without shitting on people. I know that's the way you are, and it's been explained to me in PM that you've been doing it for five years now and there's no way you're ever going to change. It's a shame we have to share an enthusiasm for Michigan football.

Blah, blah, blah. And I know you insist upon the correctness of your nonsensical ideas and then fall back on your "woe-is-me everybody's picking on me and my spreadsheets schtick." Stick to the debate.

Pass plays gain about 7 yards per attempt in college football. Run plays gain about 4 yards per attempt. But teams don't pass on every down. Why? Because pass plays are inconsistent compared to run plays. With Denard's runs, the distribution is more like a pass distribution - feast and famine.

You see, this is what you've done this whole discussion. You make unsubstantiated statements as though they are gospel. But you've been demonstrably wrong at every turn. Please support your assertion that Robinson's runs are "feast or famine," and thus Michigan doesn't move the ball "consistently." First you said his ypc were low in the Big Ten losses, but then I showed you that he averaged nearly 6 ypc in the Big Ten, which is, of course an outstanding average. Now you're saying it's feast or famine. But where's the famine? In Michigan's 5 Big Ten losses last year, Denard carried the ball 106 times. Only 23 of those carries, or 21.7% resulted in a gain of fewer than 3 yards. And the worst individual game in that regard was against Sparty, where 6 of his 21 carries (or 28.6%) gained fewer than 3 yards. In case you're unaware, gaining under 3 ypc on only 21.7% of rushes is an outstanding result. I'm not sure whose offense you think DOES move the ball consistently, but for example against us last year, OSU gained under 3 ypc on 18 of their 45 rushes, or 40%. In Auburn's insane 65-point, 330-yards-rushing performance against Arkansas, they did so on 13 of 49 carries, or 26.5%. There is simply nothing to the argument that Denards rushes were feast or famine. While there was certainly a good deal of feast, there was remarkably little famine.

If you look at correlations between winning and losing, passing yardage is largely irrelevant, while rushing yardage is not. I would argue that with Denard's run distribution, his rushing yardage should be treated more like passing yardage. Because Michigan does have more three-and-outs than most teams.

Please back up this theory. Michigan was certainly not among the Big Ten leaders in fewest 3-and-outs, but its percentage was 37th best in the Country (71% of drives resulting in at least 1 first down). Here's how Michigan's 3-and-out situation was in the 5 Big Ten losses (other team's 3-and-outs in parentheses). Denard had 2 three-and-outs vs. OSU (though Tate also had two) (3); 2 vs. Wiscy (0); 2 vs. PSU(1); 2 vs. Iowa (4); 4 vs. MSU (2). So by my count, with Denard at QB, Michigan had a total of 12 3-and-outs in 5 Big Ten losses, while our opponents had 10 3-and-outs against our abomination of a defense while going 5-0. And beyond that, of those twelve 3-and-outs, in only 3 of them did Denard run the ball more than once. In the great majority of them, he passed the ball at least twice. The moral of the story is, if you want to avoid 3-and-outs, have Denard rush the football. If you want to punt, give it to Vincent Smith, or have Denard try to throw it.

It's a nuanced argument. If you can't keep a straight face, perhaps you're not mature enough for a discussion board.

Oh, snap. Good one. You called me too immature for the internet!

Seriously, there is not a reasonable person alive who believes Michigan did not move the ball consistently with Denard running it last year. The team was #12 in the country in percentage of drives lasting at least 10 plays. Football Outsiders had Michigan #2 in the country in S&P rushing and #5 overall, and #2 in offensive efficiency. Your impression just does not comport with reality.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

As far as these runs are concerned, a low YPC would be under 7, because they're substituting for a passing game. You can use under 3 as a demonstration of famine, but it's arbitrary. I would set it as whether the play was above or below the average for the down-and-distance. I would also look at standard deviation.

It is difficult to compare to 119 other programs, because so few teams use the quarterback as their primary running back. When Denard drops back in passing situations, something he does on most plays, it still very well may be a designed run or an option pass.

They were tied for 10th worst in the country in number of plays run by their opponents.

Can you break down the 3-and-outs based on first versus second half? That might be illuminating, as well. During the Rodriguez era, Michigan was outscored 320-305 in the first half of its games during the second half of the season. But it was outscored, 371-193 in the second half. Michigan had a 4-16 record in those second-half-of-the-season games.

I'm not arguing that Denard runs are bad for this particular team. Get that through your head. I know it's tough for you, because your first instinct is always to pick a straw man and shit on it. I'm arguing that this type of reliance on a running quarterback creates an offense that can't move the ball consistently against better opponents. They get used to it, and he wears down. Hence the focus on the second halves of games in the second half of the season.

Hoke may well be locked into this game plan, like it or not.

Rushing yards in college correlate with winning at .56. Passing yards at .17. Turnovers at -.39. Team with less incomplete passes at .55 (part of my feast or famine theory). Sadly, and this will upset you greatly, this comes from one of my own spreadsheets.