Under Center Issues

by Beauford on Sep 14, 2011 11:05 AM CDT in Michigan Football

Some caveats: this is not to say that Denard Robinson is incapable of becoming a pocket-passing quarterback with a deadly ability to run built in. This is saying that the offense, as it's built right now, is not as effective from under center as it is out of the gun. Let's take a look at every play run from under center against Notre Dame, courtesy of mgoblog:

Qtr	DRV	Ball	Dwn	Dst	Play	Player	Yds	Note
1	1	M20	1st	10	SACK	Robinson, D.	0
1	3	M33	1st	10	RUSH	Hopkins, S.	2	MANBALL 1
1	3	M31	2nd	10	PASS	INCOMPLETE	0
2	1	N45	1st	10	RUSH	Hopkins, S.	2	MANBALL 2
2	2	N43	2nd	8	PASS	Hemingway, J	43	TOUCHDOWN
3	2	M29	2nd	10	RUSH	Hopkins, S.	3	MANBALL 3
3	4	M43	1st	10	PASS	INTERCEPTION	0	INT
3	2	N6	1st	G	RUSH	Shaw, M.	-2
3	3	N8	2nd	G	RUSH	Robinson, D.	7
4	4	N1	3rd	G	RUSH	Hopkins, S.	0	TOUCHDOWN
4	2	N45	2nd	15	PASS	McColgan, J	15	1st Down
4	5	N14	2nd	7	PASS	Gallon, J.	14	TOUCHDOWN
4	1	M13	1st	10	PENALTY	PENALTY	-4
4	3	N26	1st	10	PASS	INTERCEPTION	0	INT
4	5	N21	1st	10	PASS	Smith, V.	21	TOUCHDOWN
4	3	N15	1st	10	PASS	Roundtree, R	16	TOUCHDOWN

That comes to 16 total plays run from under center, of which 4 were TD's, 1 was a TD that I think we can all agree shouldn't be replicated (Denard's fumble recovery), 1 went for a first down, 4 were so-so gains, 4 went for no yards, and 2 were INTs. My disagreement with Mgo's analysis of this is that I'm not sure you can count Denard's fumble recovery as a "positive" play. The result was positive, the means were a huge negative. I'm going to throw it out of the equation altogether. Even with it in, it doesn't change much.

6 of these plays were unmitigated "bad" results: 2 INTs and 4 zero yard gains. 3 of these plays were good, but not nearly as good as "average" out of the shotgun - about which more later. These include those designated with misopogon's MANBALL reference. 6 of these plays were positive results, including the the FB wheel route, all TD's and a Denard scramble for 7 yards. That means, with fumble-whoops-TD! excised, that you're looking at results like this from under center:

bad: 40%

Below Average: 20%

Positive: 40%

35% of Michigan's plays were run from under center, with the remaining offensive plays being run from shotgun. Let's take a look at the Yards Per Attempt from each:

Formation	PASS YPA	RUSH YPA	TOTAL YPA
I-Form	12.00	2.33	7.64
Shotgun	14.63	7.46	10.19
Total	13.50	6.06	9.31

The big number to pay attention to there is rush yards per attempt. That is a significantly lower percentage from under center than from out of shotgun. What this does is render the "under center playfake" pointless. We're not a rushing threat from under center. We are from the shotgun. When 35% of your plays are run from a formation that you're not very good at running from, you become 1 dimensional, and when you become 1 dimensional you throw interceptions. The majority of plays run from under-center were either turnovers, negative yards, or middling gains that were far out-gained by their shotgun counterparts.

Apparently, you also throw touchdowns. This argument is not to take away from those - those were great plays. Let's take a look at the scoring plays:

1) Denard throws a jump-ball to Hemingway who makes the catch and dives for the pylon

2) Denard drops back, throws a jump-ball to Gallon who goes up and gets it.

3) Denard runs a very well drawn-up screen to Smith who picks his way through defenders for the TD. This play was an awesome call, but not exactly awesomely executed. Smith made a tremendous individual effort to find the endzone as his blockers totally whiffed in front of him.

4) Denard throws jump-ball to Roundtree in the corner, pandemonium ensues.

Now I understand that scoring plays are scoring plays, and bitching about them is the equivalent of bitching about rainbows. But which of these scoring plays feels like something that is sustainable as the primary weapon of the offense? Jump balls to tall receivers? This might actually work, I'm not saying it won't, but it is a concern. The one scoring play I felt really good about - the screen to Smith - wasn't even executed well from a blocking standpoint:

Fast forward to 9:08 to see two linemen whiff on one guy.

Do you really feel particularly good about running a system that relies so heavily on jump balls? You might! I'm not saying that it's 100% bad, I mean, we have the receivers that can do it, and Denard throws a pretty good jump ball. I'm still leery, and for reasons why see "Denard throws pick number 2 in endzone." FWIW, here's Al Borges' thoughts on jumpballs, and he's the only one who really matters:

What are your thoughts on throwing jump balls? "I’ve changed my thinking on this as a coach over the years, particularly on deep balls. I remember way back when I was coaching at Oregon with Chris Peterson, and we were talking about throwing the ball deep, and I always used to have the philosophy that if you throw the ball deep, overthrow them so the ball’s not intercepted. And I remember Pete telling me, he says, ‘We got a couple guys who can go get it. Let us touch it.’ I argued with him. Today, he was totally right. The ball has to go up to an area where [the receiver] can touch it. Now, you have to make it so that only the good guy can get it, and when it is a jump ball, the worst you can get is an incomplete pass.

Is throwing jump balls part of your game plan? "We don’t want to throw it up for grabs. But we want to give our receivers, who are good receivers. Jeremy Gallon, who’s not a big tall guy, but can go get high balls, and Junior Hemingway, who is a big guy. We want to give them a chance. And Roy Roundtree, for that matter."

Not to be lost in this whole thing is the fact that we did indeed run 65% of our plays out of the shotgun. These plays were, on aggregate, more effective than the 35% from under center. When Michigan had to make hay, we were largely operating out of the gun. What I don't understand then is why we're not out of the gun even more. It has better YPA, utilizes our primary weapon more effectively, and isn't relying on the "under center look" to keep defenses honest. The mere fact that our QB is deadly on the ground keeps defenses honest, and from under center we lose that.

The numbers show under center doesn't work as well as shotgun. That's the evidence to this point. Where do we go from here? Well, Al Borges is going to continue to operate out of both formations. This means that execution has to get better in order to have a viable offense from under center. Borges and the coaching staff will work on this, and I have no doubt that they'll get better as the year goes on. Fortunately we have Eastern Michigan coming in this weekend that will hopefully allow for some more gametime reps. I'm not saying that the under-center offense is "bad" and shotgun is "good." I'm saying that the shotgun offense is more productive right now than from under center. I'm also saying that I believe our personnel are better suited to generate yards and points from shotgun than they are from under center. This is not to say that our personnel can't improve from under center, it's just that as of right now - with this extremely limited sample size - I think we should be operating even less from under center.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'd be happier if there were fewer pure jump balls in total...

Seemed like most of the completions in that highlight reel were Michigan receivers either out-jumping or out-maneuvering defenders to catch poorly-thrown footballs. This is annoying to me. Only that second-to-last throw looked to be a throw in-stride, and if that ball were five feet to the right it would have been a TD rather than a long gain. Still, good game, and let’s see this continue.

by Doshi on Sep 14, 2011 12:33 PM CDT reply actions

Michigan scored 5 touchdowns (not four like you said in this article) from the I-formation. 4 of these were passes, one was on the huddle.

Michigan scored 0 points from the shotgun formation.

Beauford doesn’t think Robinson is suited to throwing from under center.

Denard averaged a first down per ATTEMPT on passes from under center.

Most of Michigan’s rushing yards from the shotgun came from Denard.

Michigan’s RBs were equally incapable of running from the shot gun, as the are in the I.

Denard Robinson was responsible for 98% of Michigan’s yards.

Denard Robinson has more Yards from the ND game than other player in college football as of now.

Opinions:

Having one player responsible for 98% of your yards is dangerous, especially when he spends a significant amount of time on the bench due to injury.

When you are losing by a significant amount, it may be a good strategy to throw fade routes (or “Jump Balls” to tall receivers. Case in point: Braylon Edwards v MSU.

What would Yzerman do?

by Huzilla on Sep 14, 2011 4:27 PM CDT reply actions

I appreciate the comments

I really do, but Huzilla, if you’re going to comment negatively you should really try to read the article. Actually read it.

If you had, you know, read the article you would have seen where I said this, regarding the 4 TD’s vs 5 TD’s:

…4 were TD’s, 1 was a TD that I think we can all agree shouldn’t be replicated (Denard’s fumble recovery),

Then, later in the article, I said this:

That means, with fumble-whoops-TD! excised, that you’re looking at results like this from under center…

2 opportunities to see that, 2 times where you apparently decided that it wasn’t worth reading, yet worth commenting on.

The issue I have with the I formation is not that Denard is incapable of passing from it. I actually said that:

Borges and the coaching staff will work on this, and I have no doubt that they’ll get better as the year goes on….I’m not saying that the under-center offense is “bad” and shotgun is “good.” I’m saying that the shotgun offense is more productive right now than from under center. I’m also saying that I believe our personnel are better suited to generate yards and points from shotgun than they are from under center.

The main thrust of this is that the rushing totals sucked from under center, and were pretty good from the shotgun. The rushing ability of Denard is the most potent weapon this offense has. By putting him under center, you’re allowing the defense to say “he’s probably not going to run” and therefore they can sit back 25 yards from the line of scrimmage, and force Denard to throw to receivers who are well covered. Alternatively, you can run the shotgun where the mere threat of Denard running sucks the safeties up to about 10 yards off the line of scrimmage, and have him hit wide-open receivers. The jump ball worked this game – I’d rather have him throwing to wide open receivers.

Nothing in your comment is pertinent to what I actually wrote. I do not think that this offense is as good from under center as it is from the shotgun, and oh hey, the number’s say that too. Regarding the fade routes – I see your of the opinion that is a sustainable offensive model. I remain unconvinced. It certainly worked against ND though, so we’ll see.

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

-H.L. Mencken

http://maizenbrew.com

by Beauford on Sep 14, 2011 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Ok. Let's discuss.

Thanks for the response Beauford.

I appreciate that you interact with your commenters. I really do

My bad on the 4 TDs thing. When I read it I thought you meant 4 TDs as in 3 throws and 1 fumble recovery.

Let’s talk about two theoretical problems with the Spread. Critics of it often say 2 things.

1). It struggles to score from within the 20 yard line.

2). It struggles to get a vertical passing game going.

These were two things that happened in the game against ND.

Here are crticisms that I have with your argument. They may not be points your bring up in your post, but it’s not like you spent that much time thinking of reasons why using less shotgun may be good. Please consider them.

1). Aside from Denard, the Michigan was equally incapable of running from in the shotgun as I formation.

2). If Michigan wanted to run with Denard, they can always run w/ him in the shotgun.

3). Michigan ran more plays against the shotgun and didn’t score. DIDN’T SCORE.

4). You chose a really small sample size: one game. Running from the I was fine against Western. Obviously WMU isn’t Ohio State, but the Spread didn’t do well against good defenses last year either.

5). Obviously fade routes aren’t sustainable. But it’s not like Michigan runs them every play. We run them when there’s a good time. Was there ever a time we faded when you thought it was a bad time to? Obviously, “jump ball” has been a play that’s worked for Michigan in the pat, as I pointed out.

6). Michigan is averaging 35 points this year and scored more points against ND this year than it did last.

7). In a Dave’s last post, you said Denard struggled passing in non-shotgun formations. Is this no longer a worry of yours? I don’t think Peyton Manning even averages a first down per attempt. I could be wrong.

8). Denard was responsible for more yards in the ND game than any player has in FBS football in two games.

9). Denard accounted for 98% of Michigan’s yards yesterday. Is this sustainable? Do we want this to continue?

10). Michigan ran 16 plays under center. 5 were TDs. 2 more were what you would consider “positive”. That means that there were ONLY 9 times when Michigan was under center and it didn’t work well. NINE times. Even Rich Rod ran it under center a couple times a game. You are complaining about 9 times when Michigan was under center. I’m pretty sure I can go through the Rich Rod era and in EVERY game I will find at least 9 times when I wished Michigan had a better between-the-tackles running game or a QB who could throw a jump ball to a tall receiver.

What would Yzerman do?

by Huzilla on Sep 14, 2011 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions

A wise man once said,

“Points, being what wins games, are the stat that that I’m focused on primarily.”

^That wise man was you.

http://www.maizenbrew.com/2011/3/2/2024011/what-happened-to-rich-rodriguez-pt-3

What would Yzerman do?

by Huzilla on Sep 14, 2011 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions

Ah - now we're getting somewhere

1). It struggles to score from within the 20 yard line.

2). It struggles to get a vertical passing game going.

I do agree with these two points in general. I am thrilled that against ND we were 5 for 5 with all TD’s from the redzone. That didn’t happen last year, or does it even happen ever? I don’t know. That was extremely encouraging.

Regarding the vertical passing game, I still think the shotgun “spread” formation is better for this particular team than an under-center look. During the game, the ND safeties could key on coverage when we were under center. That’s because they knew that it was probably not a Denard-designed run. I’m not saying Denard has to run out of that shotgun formation, I’m just saying that the threat of him running is so substantial you get WR’s wide-open more often than not. So, I think Denard himself is capable of throwing out of either formation. I think he’s throwing more often to loosely covered receivers out of gun, and into more tight coverage from under center, which is why I think the under center stuff is a bit harder. Shotgun makes Denard a better QB. This is my opinion.

5). Obviously fade routes aren’t sustainable. But it’s not like Michigan runs them every play. We run them when there’s a good time. Was there ever a time we faded when you thought it was a bad time to? Obviously, "jump ball" has been a play that’s worked for Michigan in the pat, as I pointed out.

6). Michigan is averaging 35 points this year and scored more points against ND this year than it did last.

I do think that well-timed fades are a good thing. And what’s more, Denard seems to be good at throwing that back-shoulder fade. What I want to avoid is throws like Endzone-INT and the one where Hemingway went up and got it, but it was a duck into double coverage. Result=good, method=bad.

10). Michigan ran 16 plays under center. 5 were TDs. 2 more were what you would consider "positive". That means that there were ONLY 9 times when Michigan was under center and it didn’t work well. NINE times. Even Rich Rod ran it under center a couple times a game. You are complaining about 9 times when Michigan was under center. I’m pretty sure I can go through the Rich Rod era and in EVERY game I will find at least 9 times when I wished Michigan had a better between-the-tackles running game or a QB who could throw a jump ball to a tall receiver.

This isn’t a comparison to the RichRod era. At least, I’m not trying to make it one. I’m trying to say that this team, right now, with current coaching staff, knows shotgun formation better than I formation, and is built to run it. What’s more is that Borges knows his stuff from the gun – we’ve seen well executed zone-reads, etc. Why not just run it a little more if it’s more effective?

"Points, being what wins games, are the stat that that I’m focused on primarily."

This is where things get dicey, because I agree with you that points is all that should really matter. Again, complaining about TD plays is like complaining about Olivia Wilde, so bear that in mind. I just think that those plays – the scoring plays – had nothing that would have precluded them from being run out of shotgun where Denard has a lot more ability to make something happen IF those throws aren’t there.

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

-H.L. Mencken

http://maizenbrew.com

by Beauford on Sep 15, 2011 7:20 AM CDT up reply actions

Response

“This isn’t a comparison to the RichRod era. At least, I’m not trying to make it one. I’m trying to say that this team, right now, with current coaching staff, knows shotgun formation better than I formation, and is built to run it. What’s more is that Borges knows his stuff from the gun – we’ve seen well executed zone-reads, etc. Why not just run it a little more if it’s more effective?”

I think what I’m trying to say is that what we’ve run is not very different to what you think an ideal number of times to be under center is. According to your own analysis, there were only 9 times in the entire game when we did not get a “positive” result from under center.

Continuing with my “points argument”….

A majority of Michigan’s TDs this year have come off of play action. We may not gotten that many yards off of our RBs, but defenses are respecting them enough to allow for good matchups in our vertical passing game. And also, one of your main arguments for the spread is that the threat of Denard taking off makes defenders over pursue. The Vincent Smith TD was an example of how it can work from under center. Obviously, Smith made the play happen, but I think it’s safe to say that that’s a play that Borges will work on in practice. With proper blocking and practice, those Run/Pass option plays from under center can become a huge asset.

Also, I think one of the main arguments for more under-center snaps is to protect Denard’s health, which is a topic you have not yet addressed.

What would Yzerman do?

by Huzilla on Sep 15, 2011 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions

This is an issue you have addressed in past posts

“The offense, which made Denard the Big Ten Player of the Year also put that talent on the bench with injuries during significant portions of games. The offense, as much as it made Denard Robinson the threat that he is, was also a liability with his health. Having a threat like Denard isn’t worth much if he’s on the bench with a concussion.” -Beauford 2/11/11

What would Yzerman do?

by Huzilla on Sep 15, 2011 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Now vs Future

I’m new as a registered member and have always appreciated the writing here as I’ve been reading this blog for a long time. I have some comments on your article Beauford but don’t in any way intend it to be disrespectful.

When discussing running shotgun, i.e. spread, versus running under center, i.e. power and/or pro style, there are some things that need to be taken into consideration.

1) What the team knows. This plays right into your point that the team understands and knows the spread and as such should be running more of it as it is more effective. Obviously the better you know something the more effective you’ll be doing it. Good point and won’t argue with that as you were pointing out in your article.

2) What Al Borges and the offense want to accomplish. Power plays and the pro style offense are the future and because of that the plays need to be learned, practiced and put into games. As you mention 35% of plays were under center. For the offense to become familiar and productive with the pro style and power plays more of them need to be run in real world, i.e. game day, situations. You can only practice something for so long but until you experience it in a game you’ll never know where the players stand in that learning process.

1 is now and 2 is the future. I look at it like this. We can continue down the road with what the team knows but never accomplish what the coaches are trying to do with the offense. Or we implement a little bit in games from week to week and eventually get to where we want to be. If we sit at option 1 at what point do we get to option 2? When Denard leaves? If we wait until then we end up with an offense that still only used a spread offense in a game situation. At some point sacrifices have to be made to get where we need to be and there will be growing pains because of it.

I do believe Al Borges is doing a much better job of slowly incorporating his offense and ensuring that Michigan continues to use its bread and butter. The alternative to this is the last 3 years. At some point the change will have to be made and i prefer to take the path of doing it slowly.

by bosefus on Sep 14, 2011 9:06 PM CDT reply actions