Tag: Denard Robinson

The Quarterback Competition: Spring 2010 Highlights

Five Questions for the Spring Game

Michigan fans should keep a close eye on sophomore safety Carvin Johnson (#13) this Saturday

Everybody else is doing it, so I might as well join.  These are the five things I’m most interested to see on Saturday.

1. Who will play free safety?  And will they be any good at it?
I am on the record as thinking Ray Vinopal should be the starting free safety in 2011.  Of course, Vinopal transferred to Pitt a few weeks ago, and now there will be another brand new starter at FS this year.  Nobody appears to want the starting job; the punishment for earning the job is a broken ankle (Troy Woolfolk), transferring to a Big East school (Vinopal, Ryan Mundy), or public embarrassment and a forced position change to linebacker (Cam Gordon, Steve Brown).

Sophomore Carvin Johnson will be the likely starter at FS on Saturday.  He hasn’t quite earned the hype that Gordon earned in spring last year, but that didn’t turn out so well for Michigan, so maybe practice observers are showing some restraint when evaluating the safety position this year.  I have some questions about Johnson’s long-term viability at the FS position – he’s more of a strong safety, in my opinion – because of his speed.  But Brandent Englemon wasn’t particularly fast, either, and I would be ecstatic if Johnson played as well as Englemon did in 2007.

2. Which of the running backs emerges from the pile?
I’m also on the Michael Cox bandwagon, which you probably know if you’ve ever visited the site before.  Last year Cox was the most impressive runner in the spring game (unofficially, he had 6 carries, 38 yards, and a 22-yard TD run).  For some reason unbeknownst to me, the number of carries he got in the spring game matched his entire 2010 regular season total, too (6 carries, 56 yards).  In competitive situations, that gives Cox approximately 25 carries, 207 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 3 rushes of 20+ yards (I don’t have stats for the 2009 spring game).

But I’ve been touting Cox as the team’s best runner since late 2009, so my opinion clearly doesn’t carry much weight with the coaching staff.  Other options include Stephen Hopkins, who has reportedly shared first team duties this spring with Cox; Michael Shaw, who’s really fast and not much else; and Vincent Smith, who’s average at everything except height.  I don’t really know which one will come out of the spring looking the best, and the coaches have essentially stated that nobody has separated himself from the pack.  For now I’m expecting to see Cox have the most impressive day, but I’m trying to have an open mind.

3. Who’s going to play WILL?
Maybe I’m the only one, but I’m pretty nervous about the weakside linebacker position going into the 2011 season.  For all the criticism of Jonas Mouton the past couple seasons, I think he would have been perfect as an inside linebacker in this defense.  Unfortunately, he’s graduating just as a suitable defense and coaching staff gets installed.  Meanwhile, his potential replacements include converted safeties, a transfer, and a guy poking his head out of the doghouse.

The starting WILL seems to be redshirt sophomore Mike Jones, a 208-pounder who looks like a safety walked up to the line of scrimmage.  But no, really, he’s a linebacker.  In case you’re wondering, that’s approximately seven pounds lighter than Steve Brown was back in 2009 when he was an undersized outside linebacker.  Brandin Hawthorne, another converted safety, has seen some time at WILL but is even smaller at 203 lbs.  Marell Evans transferred back to Michigan from Hampton and has one year of eligibility left.  And finally, redshirt sophomore Isaiah Bell has seen a bit of playing time on the weakside, but he doesn’t seem to be like a viable option.

Evans might be your starting WILL in September, but with incumbent MIKE starter Kenny Demens out this spring with a shoulder injury, the Hampton transfer has reportedly been the #1 middle ‘backer.  I’ll be curious to see how Jones and the others stand up to linemen and fullbacks, but hopefully they can channel some Ian Gold and Larry Foote action.

4. Will we see any positive signs from William Campbell?
In all honesty, Campbell ought to have been a redshirt freshman in 2010.  If that were the case, it wouldn’t be quite so concerning that he hadn’t done much on the field yet.  But now he’s going to be a junior, and he had better start producing soon if it’s going to happen.  I really can’t think of a better staff in college football to get the most out of Campbell, so if it’s going to happen for the big guy, this is his chance.  I’m not that familiar with defensive line coach Jerry Montgomery, but head coach Brady Hoke and defensive coordinator Greg Mattison both have outstanding track records with defensive linemen.

I mean no offense to Ricky Barnum – or whoever’s lined up opposite of Campbell – but if there’s anyone I hope to see get destroyed on Saturday, it’s him.  If Campbell can turn into a playmaker at the 3-tech DT position, that takes some of the pressure off Michigan’s rush ends and undersized weakside linebackers.  I have a hard time seeing someone with Campbell’s outsized body and personality fade into obscurity, so let’s hope his play matches his gusto.

5. Will Denard tie his shoelaces?  How close will the quarterback competition be?
I have no doubts that Denard Robinson will be the starting quarterback on Saturday.  You don’t bench a Heisman candidate that quickly, no matter how good the backup plays.  I didn’t believe the Devin Gardner hype in spring 2010 because true freshmen simply aren’t very good, but now . . . I might put some stock in it. Gardner has always seemed to be a better fit in a pro-style offense than the spread, so I think this offense suits him more than Robinson.  Denard’s decision-making and accuracy scare me a little bit, although I admit his improvement from 2009 to 2010 was pretty incredible.  There’s a possibility that he will make a similar leap in 2011, but last year’s spring practice reports about Denard were glowing.  This year’s . . . not so much.

Gardner has the stature, the arm, and the poise to be a franchise quarterback.  In the long run, I fully expect him to be a better signal caller than Robinson.  Whether that happens in 2011, 2012, or beyond, I think #7 will carry on the tradition of great Michigan quarterbacks.  The problem with the QB situation is that even if Gardner proves to be the best quarterback on Saturday (and in August practices), Michigan doesn’t have the depth at the position to move Robinson to running back or wide receiver.  Perhaps the two best athletes on the team are Michigan’s only two quarterbacks.  I can think of worse problems.

Inside Michigan Football: April 2, 2011

I’m not sure how long these will be left up, so enjoy them while you can:

Who cares what you call it?

Brady Hoke says “tough” too much.  Whatever that means.

I try not to turn my blog into one of those that calls out competing* blogs in order to establish some sort of superiority.  Because, after all, the blogosphere has been kind to me.  The guys at Maize ‘n’ Brew asked me to join them, MGoBlog and The Wolverine Blog link to my site on occasion, etc.  My blog is mostly for my pleasure, not because I want to get rich or win any awards.

But Brian over at MGoBlog wrote a post today that bugged me a bit, so I’m responding at length.  He takes issue with Brady Hoke’s comments about running the “power play” and makes tongue-in-cheek comments about “manball” and “toughness.”  I just don’t see the point.

Brian says:

There are consistent reports that Hoke makes condescending comments about the spread at alumni events. Manball? Manball.

He then goes on to suggest that all people who agree with Hoke’s offensive and verbal philosophies are old, mustachioed, and averse to change.

Well . . . okay.  So what?  Football’s rules have largely been the same since the forward pass was legalized.  Eleven guys on the field, four downs to get ten yards, etc.  The emergence of the single wing offense in recent years blew people’s minds.  How can you have a running back taking snaps and gaining yards?!?!?!  Well, it’s because football is football.  Blockers need to block, runners need to run, receivers need to catch, tacklers need to tackle.  People didn’t figure out how to stop the single wing before it disappeared around the time of Al Capone.  It just got boring.  So teams started running the wishbone triple option.  Then they started running I-formation plays.  Then they took out the fullback and created the run-n-shoot.  Then they put the quarterback in the shotgun formation and gave him five wide receivers.

What’s the common theme?  All of them work.  You know, if they’re run well.  Paul Johnson is making the triple option work at Georgia Tech, Chip Kelly runs the spread-n-shred at Oregon, and Bret Bielema scored 83 points in one game using good ol’ fashioned power running at Wisconsin.

It seems Brian is infuriated that Hoke would be audacious enough to speak condescendingly about the spread (and zone blocking in particular), but this is what coaches do.  Bo Schembechler liked to run the ball and never shied away from his disdain for throwing the ball.  But his teams ran the ball well, so it was okay.  Mike Leach threw the ball all over the place at Oklahoma and Texas Tech and thinks throwing the ball gives him an advantage over teams that run the ball more.  It works.  Why does it matter?  If Brian were asked, I bet he could completely eviscerate other successful blogs.  He could find fault with their advertising, their commenting formats, their content, etc.  In fact, he does this type of thing quite often, at least as far as content goes.  He thinks his blog is superior to others.  If he didn’t, he would change.  And that’s fine.  But if those blogs are gaining readership and making money, then it’s all just useless babble.

Of course, much of his stance is based on the fact that Denard Robinson, a Dodge Viper in a Jeep Wrangler world, is Michigan’s quarterback.  Robinson possesses the talent to be perhaps the most electrifying spread option quarterback in the history of the game (however short the history of the spread option is), but now he’ll be playing under a coach who eschews zone blocking and likes fullbacks.  And it’s true that Robinson was a Heisman frontunner at one point in 2010, a record-breaking signal caller who took the country by storm with his speed, elusiveness, smile, dreadlocks, and failure to tie his shoes.  That’s not something that should be completely dismissed.

But when it comes down to it, a coach has to meld a player and a system together.  He shouldn’t change the system to fit a player, and he shouldn’t abandon a talented player just because the player isn’t an ideal fit.

Hoke said . . .

Once we get the power play down, then we’ll go to the next phase.  You know, because we’re gonna run the power play.

. . .which makes Brian unhappy.  He talks about how Michigan has athletic linemen and a tiny starting running back (Vincent Smith), which doesn’t exactly make you think “power run.”  Power plays are usually left to mammoth offensive linemen, battering-ram fullbacks, and tailbacks with thighs like tree trunks.

Except Michigan’s offensive line was already inching its way toward 300 pounds across the board, Hoke ran plenty of split back sets in 2010 at San Diego State, and running backs coach Fred Jackson has essentially said, “Vincent Smith will probably not be our starter in 2011.”

The power is the base play of Brady Hoke’s philosophy.  Just like any intelligent person wouldn’t have expected Rich Rodriguez to run many powers and whams from the I-formation in 2008, Brian shouldn’t expect Hoke to run loads of quarterback iso’s and and zone stretches in 2011.  That’s not Hoke’s game, or Borges’s.  Rodriguez ran the zone read option with two stiffs at quarterback, Nick Sheridan and Steve Threet.  They were game stiffs, but they shouldn’t have been in an offense that required them to run so much.  Michigan won three games.  Put those guys in a pro-style offense, and I bet they would have won . . . four (the same three plus Toledo).  The difference is minuscule.  Meanwhile, those running backs, linemen, and receivers gained experience that allowed them to improve in 2009 and then 2010.  The growth of David Molk and Martavious Odoms, for example, would have been stunted if they had to play in a pro-style offense that first year.  Molk wouldn’t have had practice with the timing and accuracy of those shotgun snaps, and Odoms might have spent the year sitting on the bench.  After all, who needs a 5’9″ freshman receiver when you’ve got a two-back, I-formation base set?

And why wouldn’t the power play be the first thing for Michigan’s players to learn?  You don’t hire Rich Rodriguez to run the counter trey, you don’t hire Mark McGwire to teach your hitters how to bunt for a single, and you don’t hire Christina Aguilera to teach you the National Anthem.

10. I-formation, three-wide – Power run
11. I-formation – Play action pass
12. Shotgun, three-wide – Pass
13. Split backs – Power run
14. Shotgun, split backs – Screen pass
15. Shotgun, three-wide – Pass
16. Shotgun, three-wide – Zone read option
17. I-formation – Power run
18. Shotgun, three-wide – Pass
19. I-formation – Play action pass
20. Single back, three-wide – Pass
21. Shotgun, three-wide – Pass
22. I-formation – Play action pass
23. I-formation – Power run
24. Shotgun, three-wide – Pass
25. Split backs – Pass
26. I-formation – Naked bootleg pass
27. I-formation – Draw
28. Shotgun, three-wide – Draw
29. Shotgun, four-wide – Pass
30. I-formation – Play action pass
31. I-formation – Iso run
32. Shotgun, split backs – Pass
33. Single back, three-wide – Pass
34. I-formation (on the goal line) – Power run
35. Single back – Dive
36. I-formation – Play action pass
37. I-formation – Zone run
38. I-formation – Play action pass
39. Shotgun, three-wide – Screen pass
40. Split backs – Power run
41. I-formation – Play action pass
42. Split backs – Screen pass
43. I-formation – Pass
44. Split backs – Dive
45. Shotgun, four-wide – Rollout pass
46. Shotgun, four-wide – Pass

I’m using “power run” a little loosely because I don’t want to break down every play – this isn’t a UFR – but the strategy of using a fullback and a pulling lineman is there.  Fifteen of those plays (or about 33%) are either based on power running or, in the case of play action, the threat of the power run.  These numbers are only based on one game against a very good team, which SDSU trailed for most of the time.  But when roughly one-third of a coach’s offense is rooted in a single series of plays, you can’t just scrap the whole thing.

I think the mindset regarding Denard has morphed into “Give him the ball every play and don’t let anyone else mess it up.”  Which is fine until your quarterback carries the ball almost 300 times in one season and misses time in ten out of twelve games due to injury.  As we saw this past season, the threat of Denard Robinson running the ball was practically just as dangerous as him actually running it.  There were all kinds of examples of wide open receivers running free because Denard took a single step toward the line of scrimmage.

There are multiple ways to use his speed, not just as a 300-carry feature back.  He can run the naked bootleg (seen in the above playlist), he can sprint out from the shotgun (seen in the above playlist), he can run a quarterback draw (not seen above, but SDSU’s quarterback was s….l….o….w), etc.  Run a play action bootleg and see what defensive end or outside linebacker can handle him out on the edge.  It won’t look the same as last year, but it can be effective.

Brian also complains about Hoke’s frequent use of some form of the word “toughness.”  I agree that it’s a platitude, but welcome to coachspeak.  Find me a coach who doesn’t use the word “tough” more often than a Ford commercial, I dare you.

Furthermore, watch Michigan’s team in 2010.  Third-and-short on offense?  Michigan can’t line up and run the ball.  Third-and-short (or third-and-medium, or third-and-long, third-and-a-parsec)?  Michigan can’t get a stop.  Need a broken tackle?  You won’t get it from Shaw or Smith.  Need a tackler to stop someone in his tracks?  If it’s not Jordan Kovacs, it’s probably not happening.  I won’t question any individual player’s toughness, but the team as a whole could use an injection of it.  All coaches preach toughness, but if it takes Brady Hoke repeating the word “tough” until his face turns blue to get his team to actually play like it, then I’m fine with it.

Conclusions and predictions:

1. Rich Rodriguez’s 2010 offense was good.  So was Brady Hoke’s.  Brady Hoke is not Rich Rodriguez.  And despite both being somewhere between chunky and fat, Al Borges is not Calvin Magee.
2. If Brady Hoke can teach his players how to run the system, it will be successful.  If he can’t, it won’t.
3. The zone read option won’t disappear completely from Michigan’s offense, but it doesn’t really matter.  Denard Robinson rarely ran it for Rodriguez, and it wasn’t very effective when he did.
4. If Ronnie Hillman can run the power frequently and gain 1,500 yards on the ground, then Michigan can find a running back on its roster to run the ball with some consistency.  That player will not be Vincent Smith.
5. Coaches will continue to say “tough,” coaches will continue to say “execute,” but the next time a platitude in March decides the outcome of a game in November will be the first.
6. My advice to impatient and angry Michigan fans is to wait and see what happens.  I wasn’t a huge fan of the Brady Hoke hire when it happened, either, but I am very confident that Michigan will improve defensively.  This offense probably won’t be quite as explosive as the 2010 version, but an above average offense combined with an improved defense should improve upon the win total from last season.

*I don’t know what else to call them, but we all know they’re more popular blogs than mine.

Review of 2010 Season Predictions

Denard Robinson was the star of the show in 2010

One of the reasons I started this blog a couple years ago was to record my thoughts and predictions in order to go back, see what I said, and see if I was right.  With the 2010 season completed, I thought I would go back and check out what I said prior to the year beginning.

First of all, here were my 2010 Season Predictions.

And here’s a rundown of how accurate those were:

STARTING QUARTERBACK
Prediction: I said Denard Robinson would start the opener but that Tate Forcier would have an opportunity to take most of the snaps by the end of the season.
Actual: Denard Robinson started the entire season.
Accuracy: 50%

LEADING RUSHER
Prediction: Denard Robinson with approximately 800 yards.
Actual: Well, I was right on the player, but wrong on the yardage.  Way wrong.  Robinson ended up wtih 1,702 yards on the ground.
Accuracy: 100%
LEADING RECEIVER
Prediction: Roy Roundtree with 60 catches for 900 yards
Actual: Roundtree had 72 catches for 935 yards.
Accuracy: 100%

LEADING TACKLER
Prediction: Jonas Mouton
Actual: Mouton led the team with 117 tackles, beating out safety Jordan Kovacs by a slim margin.
Accuracy: 100%

LEADING SACKER
Prediction: Ryan Van Bergen with 7.5 sacks
Actual: Van Bergen led the team in sacks, but it was a down year in that category – he ended up with only 4.
Accuracy: 100%

LEADING INTERCEPTOR
Prediction: J.T. Floyd
Actual: Cornerback James Rogers and safety/linebacker Cam Gordon each had 3.  Floyd only had 1, but he missed half the season with a broken ankle.
Accuracy: Incomplete due to Floyd’s injury

ALL-BIG TEN FIRST TEAM
Prediction: Center David Molk and kick returner Darryl Stonum
Actual: Molk was the right choice.  However, the coaches decided to save Stonum for his offensive duties, giving the job to a couple mediocre returners instead.  With a surprisingly good season, Denard Robinson was also named to the first team by the media.
Accuracy: 33%

LEADING SCORER (NON-KICKER, NON-QUARTERBACK)
Prediction: Roy Roundtree
Actual: Running back Michael Shaw scored 9 touchdowns to lead this category.  Roundtree and running back Vincent Smith were second with 7 touchdowns each.
Accuracy: 0%

BREAKOUT OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Prediction: Denard Robinson
Actual: Robinson was definitely the breakout player of the year on offense.  He was in the discussion for the Heisman, was the Big Ten Player of the Year, and generally wowed Michigan fans and college football fans in general.
Accuracy: 100%

BREAKOUT DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Prediction: Ryan Van Bergen
Actual: Well, nobody really expected much from the defense, and that’s what they got – not much.  Van Bergen had a decent season with 37 tackles, 8.5 tackles for loss, and 4 sacks.  But I think the real breakout star was middle linebacker Kenny Demens, who surpassed incumbent Obi Ezeh and finished third on the team with 82 tackles.
Accuracy: 0%

MOST DISAPPOINTING OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Prediction: Vincent Smith
Actual: I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Smith was somewhat less effective than is expected from a starting tailback at Michigan.  He finished the year averaging 4.4 yards per carry and – other than a long run against Indiana – was generally ineffective as a complementary runner to quarterback Denard Robinson.  Roundtree might be an option here because of his play in the final few games of the season, but Smith was ineffective for the majority of the season.
Accuracy: 100%

MOST DISAPPOINTING DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Prediction: Cameron Gordon
Actual: While Gordon was a disappointment after all the hype he received in the spring and summer, he wasn’t a complete failure.  He actually made some plays from the free safety position (3 interceptions), but he didn’t have the speed or awareness to stay there and moved to outside linebacker.  But the bigger disappointment was Obi Ezeh, the fifth-year senior middle linebacker who lost his job mid-season to redshirt sophomore Kenny Demens.  Ezeh ended the year with 58 tackles, which is exactly 24 fewer than Demens . . . and 8 fewer than J.T. Floyd, the cornerback who missed half the season with a broken ankle.
Accuracy: 0%

GAME PREDICTIONS
Win against UConn
Loss to Notre Dame
Win against UMass
Win against Bowling Green
Loss to Indiana
Loss to Michigan State
Win against Iowa
Win against Penn State
Win against Illinois
Win against Purdue
Loss to Wisconsin
Loss to Ohio State

OVERALL PREDICTION ACCURACY:
63.9%