Picture Pages: Devin Gardner's Near Interception Pity Party Comment Count

Brian

SITE NOTE: due to this taking longer than I wanted it to and triple OT, UFR will be in the evening today.

Devin Gardner threw many passes that hit Northwestern defenders on Saturday, a good number of them I CAN'T BELIEVE HE DROPPED THAT interceptions. There were moments when I was going over the game where it seemed like it wasn't really all that bad because of thing X or thing Y, and then moments where it was very, very bad. So I thought I'd pull this out of a larger UFR discussion and try to evaluate just what happened on the various passes on which Gardner's throws hit Northwestern players.

Normally I wouldn't put batted passes in here, but there were a few incidents where batted passes were the only thing separating Northwestern from yet another pass that hit them in the hands and was inexplicably dropped, so they are also added.

Category #1: Understandable Items

#1: Gardner gets a heavy rush due to a bad blitz pickup, escapes it, and tries to throw late to a covered Devin Funchess; ball gets batted down at the line.

throw-3

That's probably a PBU at worst, and he's under heavy duress.

#2: Michigan botches a freeze play when Northwestern jumps but does not cross the line. Gardner thinks he's got a free play and tries a back shoulder fade to Gallon that could be farther outside; it's a nice play by a DB who seems totally bailed out to come back to the ball and a poor one by Gallon not to break this off sooner once he perceives the DB is way over the top. The DB actually reads this obvious back shoulder opportunity before he does; he should be breaking back so that he gets to the ball before the DB.

throw-6throw-7throw-8

#3: Third down rollout on the next play sees no one open. Gardner tries to fit it in to Dileo anyway, and leaves it a little inside of where it should be. Gardner's about to be hammered and goes for it.

roll-1

This wasn't really close to an INT and you might as well try for the first down.

Category #2: Death-Defying Really Bad Ideas

#1: The first incident of this variety happens three minutes into the second quarter. Gardner drops back, pump-fakes a slant to Funchess, and then throws it.

throw-1

He does get pressure from another crappy slide protection on which Lewan ignores a DE, and unless Gallon is open deeper to the outside the best case scenario here is a sack if he does not throw the ball. That was the move.

#2: Gardner bobbles a snap on third and three and comes up firing a wheel route that NW jumps and is thinking pick six on; they blitzed and left Jake Butt screamingly wide open.

throw-2

The snap bobble takes Gardner's eyes off the defense and contributes here. Still: turrible.

#3: Michigan fortunate to have a slant batted down at the line as Northwestern undercuts whatever Gardner is looking at, in fact with two guys in Butt's case.

funch-slant

Gardner had Gallon as an option on the other side of the field.

[After the JUMP: another category, and evaluation.]

Category #3: Guys Popping Up In Bad Places

One of the themes of the day was Northwestern dumping guys into areas they expected Michigan to throw and getting those throws, often because Michigan had few other options. You may remember that a bunch of throws to Jeremy Gallon seemed scary because they had to get over a defender, and that's because Northwestern was dropping an end to his side on play after play.

throw-4

This was mostly just scary, as that DE ended up about six inches from batting the ball three or four times. I know that OCs hate it when you throw over dropping defenders, because the windows there are small and the result if you miss it is the sort of PBU that flutters into the air for the rest of the secondary to pounce on, but on a lot of these throws Gardner had no better options.

de-drop-1

The first play here was a Gallon drop, the second a completion.

This one was another pass batted at the line that Michigan was fortunate to get away with:

This is a bad read, too, but I have sympathy for Gardner as Northwestern is clearly sitting on this exact thing and gets it.

Again, options there are Gallon or Funchess not particularly open or thing Michigan does all the time and Northwestern is hoping they will do. On the next third down a similar thing happens, as Michigan rolls the pocket hoping for a comeback route to Chesson and NW just runs a guy under it.

This is a terrible decision on which his best option is to throw the ball out of bounds and set up fourth and four, which is a terrible option when you have a minute left and are down three points.

At least he didn't throw this pop pass on which Northwestern is waiting to have the ball clang off their hands.

Excelsior!

Conclusions

It wasn't as bad as it looked because it was worse. Gardner had two or three balls knocked down at the line that were headed for at least PBUs and possibly interceptions if anyone on Northwestern had been familiarized with the idea of catching a football. And for the most part these were on him. Even if you have nowhere to go, the play is usually to eat the sack and live to fight another day. There were six passes on which Gardner threw into near-INT coverage without a mitigating factor. That is brutal.

Borges really did not help, though. Michigan's first throw over about 15 yards occurred with under a minute left in regulation, that a fly route just over Chesson's head after the rollout sack to put Michigan in second and twenty-three. That was the first time Michigan even looked at one—they didn't try to get some deep throws off only to be thwarted by pressure. It was windy, but it wasn't that windy, especially when you've got this offense.

Like the last two games, Northwestern had several instances where they were basically reading Borges's mind on key plays late. Even most of the completions to Gallon were a foot away from trouble with Northwestern dropping DEs into his area most of the day. Quarterbacks don't usually have the number of opportunities to throw near INTs that Gardner did in this game, and this is against a Northwestern secondary that is not particularly good.

For most of the day, Michigan had nothing with which to respond. They broke Butt to an out route on the pop pass for six yards. That was about it. It wasn't until the last play of the second overtime and first play of the third that he made an adjustment by sending Gallon on open post routes, the first of which was dropped by Gallon, the second of which was winged wide by Gardner. "We didn't execute" is approved in re: those two plays. Better late than never, I guess, but taking 3.5 quarters to adapt usually means your great idea comes on the bus ride home. The rest of the day was spent with hitch after hitch that was dangerous and blanketed pop passes, etc.

10898327294_ee778119e1_z[1]

Bryan Fuller

The regression question. How much of this is on Michigan not having anyone open versus Gardner not being good at quarterbacking versus Borges not being a great QB coach is unknown. Gardner seems to be regressing, like Denard seemed to regress before him. While there are a lot of reasons Gardner's decision-making is going the wrong direction—most prominently the barbarian waves charging through the offensive line—this is verging on a trend.

Is there a counter-trend in Borges's career? Unfortunately, he's bounced around so much that it's almost impossible to get a read on whether he can develop a quarterback. The only extended stints in his career were from 1996 to 2000 at UCLA and 2004 to 2007 at Auburn.

At UCLA, Borges had Cade McNown, who went from an INT-mad sophomore with a 52% completion rate to a 10 YPA, 3 TD : 1 INT guy his last two years. After McNown left, three UCLA QBs combined to have a miserable year in 1999, with freshman Cory Paus becoming the starter and putting up 6.8 yards an attempt on under 50% completions. Paus got better the year after with a 9.0 YPA, ok TD/INT ratio, and 56% completion percentage, whereupon Bob Toledo got broomed. Paus was basically the same player under the new regime. Complicating matters: Toledo had been UCLA's offensive coordinator the two years before he was promoted, so it's tough to suss out what was Toledo and what was Borges.

At Auburn he was definitely in charge of everything. After one year of Jason Campbell that went very well, Borges had Brandon Cox, who had a degenerative muscle disease and went backwards, finishing his career with his worst YPA (6.6), 9 TDs, and 13 INTs. These are literally the only serious data points we have here, as those are the only stints of his career that have lasted longer than two years other than this one. (Borges has a knack for showing up at places just before the coaching staff gets canned.) Can Borges develop a quarterback? I have no idea. It doesn't help that he had a QB coach at San Diego State who had some hand in developing Ryan Lindley.

Comments

PeterKlima

November 20th, 2013 at 2:47 PM ^

I am trying to figure it out.  Has he had enough time? I am not sure.  But, I am offended when someone shoves an opinion down your throat that essentially says "both Gardner and Denard regressed under AB" based on....

 

...an interpretation of "potentially picked" passes against a defense that is really good at picking passes.

 

Talk about DG's INT rate over the year, talk about his decision-making....but let's ot jump to the overly broad conclusion he has necessarily regressed and then start to analyze AB.

 

Its just dumb.

Blue in Yarmouth

November 20th, 2013 at 3:31 PM ^

and I don't want to seem like I am piling on because that honestly isn't my intent. As I said previously, I am no expert in football and its finer points. I love to watch it but have a very limited understanding of the many intricacies within the game. That, in a nut shell, is why I have a problem with people simply making statement like "Al Borges should stay" and not backing it up. 

Basically I rely on other posters (who are much smarter than me) to relate why they believe something rather than just state that is there belief. That way I can read (my reading comprehension is pretty good) their thoughts, weigh their arguments and decide on which side I fall. 

To this point I hear some very good reasons why people believe AB should get the boot and then a lot of "I think he should have more time" with no other reasons. That makes it pretty difficult for a person like me to make an informed decision so I have to either refrain from making one or fall on the side who actually provide reasons for their stance.

As for the regressing bit, I guess one could argue that our QB's have failed to develop rather than saying they have regressed, and with my limited understanding I couldn't argue with either. What I can say though, is that they have definitely not developed. That is plain for even me to see.

MGoLogan

November 20th, 2013 at 4:03 PM ^

Good comment.  I guess the reason I am still in "wait and see" mode in regards to Borges is that there really is no play call that does not require the OL to block.  In all my years watching football I have never seen an OL that gets so confused by a simple line stunt or blitz.  Coaching is a huge part in this but, and this sounds like an excuse but that doesn't make it less valid, experiece along the OL is the larger reason.  I am willing to give this team, and offensive coaching staff, one more year to mature and hopefully improve in all aspects, as one would expect.

bronxblue

November 20th, 2013 at 4:30 PM ^

The last part is the crux of the argument against Borges, and one you stated succinctly.  Over the past three years, the team has struggled to develop a QB or RB (and maybe at the WR position, though I'm not sure anyone other than Funchess has possessed the type of talent and youth to really qualify for growth.  First Denard and now Devin have played worse as their careers have progressed, and whether that is regression or poor coaching almost doesn't matter because the end result is an inferior product at a key position.  The team is consistently one of the top INT teams in the country (25th this year, but 17th last year and 10th the year before), and the only reason this year has taken a bit of a downturn is because the team isn't throwing much downfield the past couple of games (the TD:INT ratio has been pretty consistent-ly bad).  

 

Space Coyote

November 20th, 2013 at 4:42 PM ^

I think there is a huge and important distinction between "failed to develop" and "regressed".

And I've tried to point to improvements in his technique, his ability to move in the pocket, his mechanics, and starting to step into throws occasionally as areas where DG has shown improvement. I've also noted that DG has lost confidence, found it to some degree again, and then got destroyed by no fault of his own. A lot of DG's struggles stem directly from the OL struggles and not from him "not improving". I get that people don't like to get caught up in those things, but I think there are very important distinctions there, and as many people that say "it's clear that DG has regressed", to me, as someone that has coached QBs, I've seen very clear improvement from DG. If you gave DG the same team he had against South Carolina, under the same circumstances South Carolina was in, and erased the fact that he's been hit 9000 times this year, I'd bet a lot of money that he would play significantly better in that game.

Now, I can't prove that, and people will jump on something I said, likely with a statistic or "are you blind?!", but I have seen improvement in DG where if there weren't other factors surrounding the situation, he would be a significantly better player today than he was last year and even to start this season. And that says a lot because most players don't improve a whole lot during the season.

Now Denard is a different story, and this may be a reflection of Borges's preference in QBs. QBs that come in highly raw tend to revert to that technique when they get pressured or lose confidence. It's a natural reaction, they've thrown the ball tons of times since high school, those mechanics are ingrained in them. Someone that starts with good mechanics will fall back on that foundation. Well, maybe to put it simply, Borges is better at taking someone with a solid foundation and having them take the next step to reading defenses, finding touch, footwork, whatever, than he is at trying to teach QBs to break certain mechanics. I'm not calling Borges a super genius and other guys stupid in comparison (this is just an example), but there is a very real difference between your 9th grade Algebra teacher and your grad level Partial Differential Equations prof. I certainly don't want those two teachers switching places. One could argue that Algebra is more important (fundamentals) and the other is more complex, but one could also argue that the PDE prof likely wouldn't be able to teach the simpler thing as well as the high school teacher.

gbdub

November 20th, 2013 at 5:21 PM ^

Could the algebra teacher v. PDE prof analogy extend to Funk? Lewan has publicly expressed support for the guy, and the Kuglers were apparently impressed. He's recruiting well. But the results on the field are lousy. Could that speak to a super knowledgeable guy that impresses and refines advanced practitioners but struggles to impart the basics to the very raw?

Space Coyote

November 20th, 2013 at 5:48 PM ^

I guess it could, but I don't think you really have a choice as an OL coach about the technique guys come in with. It's a much more difficult position to be selective with. All of them come in raw outside the few coach's sons and what have you, and even them to a degree because they haven't seen all the things you will in college.

I think all of them know their stuff, the idea was to speak to what they may be better teaching. So I want people to keep that in mind when I compare Funk to Frey. The reason someone like Lewan or a coach's son may like Funk more is because they will learn it all. In a way, they are more prepared for the NFL and learn more in general. Now, do they eventually become as good? That can be argued either way I think, depending on how they advance at multiple styles compared to how much further they advance in a single style. But I can see why those guys would be impressed with Funk, is what I'm trying to say. But I don't think the analogy works as well with Funk as it does with a QB coach. Now, it could be because of that it just takes longer for the kids to get it. That's a possibility I guess.

Blue in Yarmouth

November 22nd, 2013 at 10:00 AM ^

I appreciate the reply with some real information. I guess I should have been more clear in my post that I, too, believe there is a distinct difference between regressing and failing to develop but thought that some people may be using the term interchangably. 

As I said in my post, I don't have the gift that you (and some other posters) have for breaking down the finer points of football so your input is valuable to me. 

For me (with the admitted untrained eye) I watch this team and just come away with the impression that they don't have an identity and their offense simply looks a mess. I know a good portion of that is likely due to the line play (which could be attributed to poor coaching and thus lack of development, simply lack of experience or a combination of both). To me though, what we aren't seeing is any improvement as the year has progressed.

At the beginning of the year we were playing worse competition granted, but we were moving the ball. The problem then seemed to be turnover related. I know we have played some defenses that are better than those earlier ones, but even against Nebraska we had negative yardage. 

We saw some running against NW and I really hope that is a product of our guys improving and not just that it was NW, but only time will tell. In all honesty, I really hope that all this can be blamed on youth and inexperience on the oline and all the coaches are top notch, that just seems hard to believe right now though. I said this before, if one guy fails a class it's easy to say it's the students fault, but when you have an entire class failing (5th year seniors looking lost much of the time) then that's generally the teacher. 

As for AB, I have no doubt in my mind that he is a great guy with more football knowledge in his pinky finger than I have in my whole body. What I can't understand is how a guy like me can predict with a high degree of success what type of play is coming. Now I can't tell you exactly that the run will be X or the pass will be Y, but if you have narrowed it down to whether the play will be a run or pass you must be ahead of the game right? Honestly, based on down, distance and formation I predicted what type of play would be run while watching the NW game and I got far more right than wrong...Me...a guy who doesn't know football, watch film or study opponents. The opposing teams DC and players must have had far greater success than I did. To me that's a problem.

Anyway, again I would like to thank you for your input as I do appreciate hearing both sides to a debate. As I stated previously, I really hope everyone on the "keep AB and the offensive staff in tact" are right too, because that's likely what is going to happen, and at the end of the day I just want this team to win and couldn't care less who is coaching them. It's just hard for me to believe that the best option is the staff we currently have on that side of the ball. 

MI Expat NY

November 20th, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^

1.  Brian specifically said he wouldn't normally include batted balls in a discussion like this but for the fact that the passes in question were at best going to lead to pass break ups.  Maybe the first and third batted balls in question would fit your "tight window" description, but looking at player positioning, I highly doubt it.

2.  They've had 8 interceptions in 6 Big Ten games, 4 of which coming off Nebraska's backup QBs.  Even using your one stat, when you use a little critical reasoning, it's fair to conlcude that interceptions doesn't paint a picture of a great NW secondary.

3.  As people pointed out above, you're simply wrong about Denard not regressing statistically.  But even if you want to say that he didn't, wouldn't his lack of progression during year two of pro-style coaching be a bad sign?

4.  Nobody is concluding only based on these several passes in this one game that Gardner has regressed.  If you can't see that he's regressed, then you're simply in denial.  

It's funny that in your zeal to paint everything Brian writes as the incoherent ramblings of a Borges hater, you yourself write a post filled with the incoherent ramblings of an obviously biased Borges incompetence-denier.  

PeterKlima

November 20th, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^

1. Specifically disclaiming something and then relying on it, does not abslve you of your logic sins.  "I know you can't rely on this type of data, but (here I go relying on it).  Anyway, PBUs is not the story here, it is about interceptions.

 

2.  I never said the NW secondary was great.  I said they were great at getting interceptions.  Didn't Michigan (and every other team) play back-up QBs this year?  You can't throw those out just for NW and say they really weren't great at interceptions.  In fact, even if you start throgin out certain interceptions just for NW and not other B10 teams, they still lead the conference.  Stop nitpicking one point about one stat and then say it is critical thinking. In order to look behind the aggreate number, you have to delve into advanced stats by looking at each teams INTs and the propensity of the QBs theyintercepted to throw such balls, the strength of schedule, how many pass attempts they face, etc.  Unless you want to do a REAL excercise in critical thinking, don't just undercut part of the stat.  You have to use the wholestat for everyone.

 

3.  I was wrong about Denard?  People were right about that?  Really?  Please point out who looked at what type of challeges a spread QB faces and how they over come them. Please explain this post a few games into last year (before Denard's injury).

http://mgoblog.com/content/hokepoints-denard-under-center

Hmm... that seems to indicate progression.  But, please keep assuming I am "clearly wrong."

I am not.

4. Ah, the eye test.  Love it.  You cant argue with something you just "feel."

 

 

bronxblue

November 20th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^

Interesting discussion points.  Gardner had some horrible throws, and there were a couple he just shouldn't have made.  At the same time, though, when you have predictable routes and/or 2-man formations there is only so much you can do.  I remain amazed that there was no "deep" pass until the end of the game, but at this point I guess the offense just isn't designed for it save max protect or something breaking down in the secondary.

As for Gardner regression, the face remains he's a worse passer than he was last year but the team around him is demonstrably worse as well.  The line is not keeping him clean, the RBs can't do anything on the ground, and since there isn't a viable backup he can't run nearly enough to keep teams honest.  I remain convinced that Borges is not a particularly good QB coach, and trotting out McNown and Campbell ignores guys like Cox and Paus.  And for as good as McNown was in college, he was a mess in the pros and (maybe this is a bit of Ryan Leaf-itis and Joey Harrington-ecular), but QBs around that time from the Pac-10 had a penchant for being dominant in college despite seemingly being pretty average QBs.  

Regardless of whether or not Borges comes back (and I'm 99% sure he comes back at least one more year), he needs to find a QB coach/advisor to handle those duties.  Denard and Devin are competent QBs in college and looked lost the more they were taught by Borges, and I'm not inclined to give him any more slack on that front.

bdsisme

November 20th, 2013 at 2:25 PM ^

I completely agree with your assessment.  I also want the team to find a QB coach, but to do so Michigan needs to eliminate one of the current assistant coach positions (or restructure/reassign coaches).  We have more coaches on the defensive side of the ball (especially when you factor in Mattison and Hoke coaching the DL), so that side has more candidates.  My first preference would be Mark Smith (due to the presence of Manning and Smith being somewhat unheralded in resume, recruiting, and coaching circles).  Second preference would be Ferrigno (TE/special teams).  A dedicated QB coach could also "help" Borges with general OC duties (and recruit off campus, unlike Borges), although who knows whether Borges would accept any help.

Third option is for Hecklinski to take both the WRs and the QBs -- Hecklinski was a QB back in his college days, and a pretty good one at that.  I realize that's a lot to put on one assistant's plate, but remember that he is currently the recruiting coordinator (or whatever the title is).  I say give Manning the "recruiting coordinator" job and then Hecklinski might have time to coach both WR and QB.

Reader71

November 20th, 2013 at 2:44 PM ^

Impossible. The QB coach that has to also coach 10-12 WR is not a QB coach. QB is such an intricate position that the coaches need to be able to focus on them exclusively on the field and in the film room. If Borges is overwhelmed, Hecklinski would be worse. I like the idea of a QB coach though.

bronxblue

November 20th, 2013 at 4:34 PM ^

The problem is that due to NCAA regulations, they'd have to eliminate some other coach (likely the ST) to open up a space for a dedicated QB coach.  I guess you could try to double up at RB or something, but that seems like a tough situation given the RB coach is usually a major recruiting force first, a "coach" second.  I mean, Fred Jackson is a fun guy to listen to but I don't think he's done much more than talk the past half-dozen years.

It's a tough situation, one that I imagine won't be remedied without a switch at OC.  Since that doesn't seem likely, I guess the only hope is to keep sending the QBs to off-season camps and hope they don't forget what they learned there, because Borges seems to have a pretty spot record as a molder of QBs.

Gandalf the Maize

November 20th, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^

The question of whether Gorgeous Al has a track record of developing quarterbacks is a really important one. My first thought is that it should receive a bit more treatment in a post of its own, but with all that bouncing around it sounds like it's difficult to say too much.

The guy's been a D1 OC for 20 years if you include Boise State in the early 1990s (which was actually D1-AA at the time), and we have all of 3 data points for whether his quarterbacks improve. McNown = yes, Cox = no, Paus = maybe. If you include Denard and Devin then that's probably 2 more in the "no" pile. 

My 2 cents? 

 Cent 1 - It's not the smartest thing to hire someone who has bounced around so much because it's really difficult to tell whether they're (a) good at long term development, (b) good when taking people by surprise (i.e., before the rest of the conference gets wise to them), (c) come into good situations, or (d) just aren't very good. I realize this is hard to do in big time college football, because programs constantly take fliers on people who have shown success after two or three years so there aren't many people around at lower level schools who have demonstrated long terms success.

Cent 2 - I'd bring in a dedicated QB coach with a track record of QB development even if it's at lower levels. No clue about the number of assistant coaches you can have, but this seems like a way to potentially improve the situation in future seasons without the risk of mixing things up too much (e.g., if you fired the OC).

Gandalf the Maize

November 20th, 2013 at 3:54 PM ^

Lindley Stats

  • Pre-Borges: 57% comp, 6.2 YPA, 2.1 interception %
  • Borges 1: 55% comp, 7.0 YPA, 3.7 interception %
  • Borges 2: 58% comp, 9.1 YPA, 3.3 inteception %
  • Post-Borges: 53% comp, 7.1 YPA, 1.8 inteception %

I think I would give Borges a positive here for QB development considering the increased YPA, despite the fact that completion percentage stays about the same and interception percentage increases slight from pre-Borgesian times. Brian did mention he had a full time QB coach at SDSU, so make of that what you will. Thanks for pointing this out.

mvp

November 20th, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^

We sat in the Michigan section in the NE corner.  For most of the game, we had a great perspective on not only how frequently our wideouts were in single coverage but also the depth and spacing of the safties.

As has been brought up many, many times, how do you not keep throwing high sideline passes to a single-covered Devin Funchess?  Shouldn't that be an audible just about every time?

I understand the comment about deep routes needing time to develop and that time being precious especially considering the OL woes.  What I don't understand is why you need the time...  Isn't it just as effective to take a 3 step drop and throw in rhythm to a wideout on a fly pattern for 15 yards as it is to take a 7 step drop, wait, survey the coverage, wait some more, and throw a 35 yard pass?  Actually, isn't it easier?

The argument against these passes, I think, is when your recievers are getting jammed on the line and the timing is hard for the quick pass.  That hasn't seemed to happen since the MSU game.

My 8 year old son wants Devin to throw the ball on *every* play.  (To be fair in his football viewing years, he's never seen a dominant Michgian tailback...)  I'm not quite in that camp yet, but single coverage on Gallon, Funchess, or even Chesson should at least be an audibled deep ball at least 25% of the time.  Right? or am I crazy?

CompleteLunacy

November 20th, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^

I'm generally fine with waiting to see how the Borges offense will develop here over the next couple of years. But I don't particularly like the idea of him being the Qb coach. But I don't really have a good reason why besides like, feelings.

How many OC's around the NCAA are also QB coaches? Is this a relatively common thing? 

colin

November 20th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^

How representative are the videos posted? I see soft corners and lots of field pressure, which means Devin should be looking to the field hitch. They're open in at least 2 of the 4 vids after the jump. And the field pressure is tipped by the safety lining up directly over the nickel to the field. 

...I'm definitely willing to bet that Devin is making a lot of bad reads, but I don't know how to divide responsibility between him and Borges. If NW is just running a lot of field pressures and DG refuses to recognize them, I think I'm willing to let Borges off the hook somewhat.

Smash Lampjaw

November 20th, 2013 at 4:45 PM ^

I did not see the game, due to bad hotel Internet in Paris (by the way, it is hard to follow a game with just the live blog), but as I look at these pictures, the Michigan players look like electric white and yellow, while the NW players are almost invisible. Doesn't a team have to play in its colors? Maybe Michigan should adopt a camouflage strategy.

wolverine1987

November 20th, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^

He has great tools, he's intelligent, he can make all the throws and also runs well. But his decision making seems awful, and worse, it is not improving. He should get a pass for MSU and Neb, as almost every QB, even great ones, look poor when they are running for their lives all game. But that wasn't the case against NW and he simply made terrible throws.

What do others think?

 

Monocle Smile

November 20th, 2013 at 2:41 PM ^

Firstly, he's definitely still hurt. Just watch the way he runs or even heads to the sidelines during time outs. That is a half-broken dude.

Secondly, he's come to expect immediate pressure to the point where he's seeing ghosts. He's not the only QB to suffer from this; it will go away when the OL proves trustworthy between games.

Thirdly, he's the only thing keeping us alive half the time. He still accounts for a crazy amount of offense. If the burden were lifted, we'd probably see less of the hero-mode stuff.

Lastly, the one at whom eyebrows should be cocked is his QB coach. There's not exactly a impressive chain of precedence there.

mvp

November 20th, 2013 at 2:49 PM ^

I think it is easier to maintain your confidence/cockiness when you have a positive feeback loop. 

Even after the ND game that was in question.  The end-zone pick-six was a poor decision with an even poorer result.  A game in which we should have cruised to victory was then in doubt.  That was followed by a pick-six the following week against...AKRON.  After a bunch of turnovers in the first four games, the jokes online the first bye weekend were along the lines of, "At least we know Michigan won't be minus in the TO column this week! Ha Ha!"

I think all of that has collectively weighed heavily on Gardner.  After the Nebraska game, my comment was that he was playing scared.  Scared to take a hit; scared to throw an INT.  After MSU/NEB my wife's comment was that he needed to get his Mojo back.

If nothing else the lack of negative feedback loops (the INTs against NW that *could* have happened but didn't) coupled with the two successful scrambles on 4th down on the last regulation drive, the OT success, and the win are hopefully the things he needs to get right in his head.

In the last few games of 2012, it was clear to me that compared to Denard, Gardner was more decisive about when to run and when to throw.  That seemed to carry through into the first part of this year.  In Michigan's struggles this year, I think all of that has him thinking too much right now.  He doesn't have the confidence that whateevr he chooses will just, somehow, work.  If he can get that back, he'll be the QB we all hoped he was.

MGoLogan

November 20th, 2013 at 2:55 PM ^

I think Devin is certainly an elite talent, but for whatever reason (I know most here will say Borges, and they may be right) he really struggles with the mental side of the game.  He still seems unable to decipher between man and zone defenses, he still has trouble coming off his first read (pass rush is certainly a factor here) and his accuracy is still a problem.  Hopefully next year we will see some improvements in the OL thus equating to improvements in both Devin and the running game, which will in turn help the passing game.

PeterKlima

November 20th, 2013 at 3:01 PM ^

I think this is dead on.  He had all the physicalskills, but needs to mature and show mental fortitude. 

 

He gets so up and down based on his own play.  A QB should be even-keel and a calming influence as a leader.

 

He doesn't see things (or see them fast enough).

 

I hope he can develop the mental side of the game more in the future.  It is looking like the experience is helping though.....

Monocle Smile

November 20th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^

A QB should be even-keel and a calming influence as a leader.
I disagree entirely. QBs can be excitable and emotional and it's fine as long as they have short memories and the team rallies around them. Plenty of successful college AND pro QBs have been firebrands. I actually think Gardner does have mental fortitude. I can't remember him falling apart once after a pick-six or a turnover. He generally gets more aggravated at sacks or failed runs, which I agree he can get better about.

Indiana Blue

November 20th, 2013 at 3:08 PM ^

that Devin has excellent QB skills.  There is no question that he is beat up ... I think he's been sacked 21 times in the last 3 games alone.  Devin is not a pocket passer.  He's a gifted athlete that is being asked to be a pocket passer.  Look at a typical Michigan set lately, 2 backs and a TE (to "protect" against the blitz) leaves us with 2 receivers.  Uh ... 2 receiver patterns were the standard for Bo, some 30 - 40 years ago.

Devin with 3 - 4 receivers and a strategy to move the ball passing would then 1) curtail blitzing from the opponents, 2) open up the field for his scrambles, and 3) actually set up our running game.  

As I sat there with my son at Northwestern, I told him how lucky he was because he was witnessing a 1970's version of football.

Go Blue!

mrkid

November 20th, 2013 at 2:38 PM ^

Every time you put that awful shadow on pictures, a litter of kittens die. What is this, 1999? Amirite? 

I am frustrated with Gardner but I don't want anyone else at QB right now. Unfortunately, I don't think the OL is helping evaluate his ability as a QB. To me, the biggest problem is the lack of ability to go through his progressions, which is probably caused by his lack of time in the pocket.

I don't think this is on Borges. His plays are getting guys open but Gardner can't find them in time.

Salinger

November 20th, 2013 at 2:59 PM ^

Okay, so we know the interior O-line is a tire fire and Devin has had a problem as of late getting rid of the ball. 

Borges' solution? Three-step drops all day long to hitch after hitch. Granted, it seemed that NW caught on to this strategy pretty quickly and there needs to be a counter to that. However, the counter is a deep pass to stretch the offense, a play Michigan cannot execute because the interior O-line can't hold up to the pressure.

What is the solution then? If quick passes don't work and we don't have the time for the long passes, and we can't run the ball, should we just go with the Offensive Strategy utilized in The Waterboy? Offense downs every play?

FURTHER...

This whole passing canundrum makes no sense considering this team's average yard/completion. 

WHY CANT WE DO ONE THING RIGHT CONSISTENTLY?

 

Monocle Smile

November 20th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^

NW was dropping DEs and LBs underneath short passes to counter the gameplan. Going deep becomes much easier once the other team stops blitzing like mad, which is what Nebraska did. Once the rush backs off, then you go deep. It doesn't matter so much how well your OL holds up against the blitz when you go 6 blockers against 4 rushers, one of whom is a LB. Catch them in underneath coverage with a deep pass; don't throw the bomb against the blitz.

MGoLogan

November 20th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^

This goes back to the mental side of the game I mentioned earlier.  When a defense is blitzing they are also making a sacrifice in coverage.  It falls on the QB to read the blitz presnap and determine his hot route and where the blitz is coming from.  There are different ways to play coverage behind a blitz (Cover 3, Cover 2, etc.) but I would argue it is easier to go deep against a blitz than it is against a standard coverage package.

BluCheese

November 20th, 2013 at 3:39 PM ^

I think a lot of people are overlooking Ryan Lyndley -  Al's last QB before Michigan.  Here are his numbers at SDSU.  Al was hired in Dec of 2008 so was responsible for the last 2 years.  To my untrained eye that looks like decided improvement.

Year   G   Att    Com   INT   Yds      TDs   Eff.       
2008   11  427  242     9       2,653   16     117.01

2009   12  437   239    16     3,054   23     123.44  

2010   13  421   243    14     3,830   28     149.43  

TennBlue

November 20th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^

Which made Borges (and Lyndley) look a lot better.  Vincent Brown (WR) and Demarco Sampson (WR) were major receiving targets and were drafted in 2011.  He had Ronnie Hillman (RB) with him in the backfield, and Gavin Escobar (TE) was a significant contributor to the 2010 team as a freshman, drafted in 2013.

 

That's a lot of talent for a MW team, which is part of why they did so well.

TennBlue

November 21st, 2013 at 12:40 AM ^

Rather, I was pointing out that SDSU had a lot of NFL-caliber talent, playing in a rather weak Mountain West conference.  Hence, Ryan Lindley's stats are somewhat inflated due to SDSU beating up on a lot of bad teams in 2010.

 

As it was, they played only 4 teams with a winning record in 2010 (in contrast, Michigan played 9 teams with winning records in 2010), and only one BCS team (Missouri). Had they put up those numbers in a BCS conference or without all those NFL-bound players I would have been a lot more impressed. 

 

Overall, it supports the suggestion that Borges needs superior talent in order for his offensive philosphy to work.  Given an unusually talented offense in a weak conference, he cleaned up.  Good for him - seriously.  However, we've seen that he struggles without that advantage in talent which is going to be more common in the Big 10.

umfanchris

November 20th, 2013 at 3:51 PM ^

One thing I don't see many people mention is that Devin stares down his recievers almost every single pass play. Rewatch each one of those clips above and you will see Devin look the direction of his reciever the whole way. Of course Northwestern is getting a good beat on him because he doesn't try to hide who he is throwing to.

Also I am glad that Brian pointed out the QB regression we have had under Borges. I never understood why Borges got so much praise as a qb guru. He did a good job with Cade McNown, but Cade was also one of the top qb prospects in the nation and had 3 years of expierence before he had a good year. Would you expect a top rated high school recruit to get a lot better in 3 years of starting? I hope so... He walked in to a Senior Jason Campbell at Auburn with a loaded offensive squad which many of the players later went onto play in the NFL. Can you really say that was Borges? Ryan Lindley was good at San Diego State, but like Brian said he had a QB coach there. So how much credit can you really give Borges for that?

imafreak1

November 20th, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^

I think it would be more accurate to describe Devin's play as inconsistent rather than regressing.

Arguably, his best and worst games came in weeks 2 and 3 of the season. He has certainly cut down on the turnovers as the season has progressed though.

What seems consistent to me is if you rely too much on Devin's arm, he will make mistakes. Unfortunately, Michigan has no choice but to put the game on Devin's arm.

Ron Utah

November 20th, 2013 at 4:13 PM ^

It looks to me like DG is only looking at one option in almost every single one of these plays.

Our strategy against Northwestern appeared to be based on 3-5 step drops, quick reads, and short passes.  So perhaps DG was being coached to only make one read, but I seriously doubt it.

Almost every single one of those plays had someone WIDE open or much more open the target DG chose.  I was yelling at Devin all game...he did NOT do a good job reading the defense.

In section three, starting with the youtube clips, here's what I see:

  • Funchess wide open on the hitch on the far side
  • Can't see much, but Dileo is doubled and Funchess is in single coverage over the middle
  • This needed to be thrown higher so that only Chesson could get it or it would be OOB
  • Thankfully he didn't throw this ball (and the scramble was great), but Chesson is wide open for the hitch on the other side of the field

Working backwards, here's what I see in category #2:

  • Butt open on the hitch, but DG choses a bracketed Funchess
  • Jake Butt wide open
  • DG again chooses the only option that is double-covered; hard to say if Funchess was really open without seeing more screen

Gardner did not have a great game, and I understand that.  He's been getting hit on almost every passing play.  But AB's plays were getting guys open pretty consistently on most of these near-INTs, and DG missed the reads.