Thursday, October 21, 2010

The Denard INT: It was Denard's fault (2)


Earlier today, I broke down Denard's interception against Iowa on Saturday. Now let's take a look at how similar it was to the 2009 interception.

2009

2010
Here are the two pre-snap alignments. In 2009, Michigan was in a five-wide set, whereas in 2010, Michigan showed three receivers, a tight end, and a running back. The scheme behind the play is essentially the same, however:

2009

2010
As you can see, in both plays, Michigan begins with four vertical receivers and one player running an underneath route. Instead of Vincent Smith running a route from the backfield, last year, Michigan had Martavious Odoms running a drag route below the linebackers who were carrying their receivers. But the scheme of each play is the same: put pressure on the two deep safeties by making them choose between two different receivers, and trust your quarterback to make the proper read on the defensive coverage. Both times Denard made the same mistake.

2009

2010
This is the read that Denard missed both years. As you can see, Hemingway in 2009 and Stonum in 2010 are both pulling up on their fly routes. They are very likely instructed to do so if they see the deep safety keeping everything in front of him. Meanwhile Odoms and Smith are both open underneath. If Denard has more patience, necessitating the playside corner to cover the underneath route, the hitch that Hemingway and Stonum both ran will be open. In 2010, Denard wasn't afforded that time, but he certainly had it in 2009. Regardless, the correct decision on both of these plays was the check down pass.

This is what Denard needs to improve on more than anything: advancing his understanding of the complex passing game and reading defenses. This is one of the biggest jumps from high school to college, and given how behind the 8-ball Denard was coming into Michigan, it's understandable that he wouldn't be able to make this read properly. This is the decision a true freshman would make. We can only hope from now that Denard starts to improve on this kind of defensive reading.

6 comments:

Nick said...

Love the analysis.

I'm not well versed in specific plays, but in these screencaps it seems to me that Iowa is completely unafraid of Denard's legs. He's set in the pocket with the cement shoes of John Navarre. If he simply rolls out, wouldn't that suck in the DBs and open up his receivers?

Chris Gaerig said...

That's one of the theories, at least. With more patience and possibly a roll out, the playside corners/linebackers will have to suck up on Denard to cover not only Smith/Odoms in the flat but also the QB scramble. This should open up the hitch route that Denard misidentified on both plays.

Nick said...

By contrast, Tate's staple play is to roll the pocket and it works. Seems ironic that Denard is the better runner but remains planted on throws while Tate is the one using his legs to open up the field.

The few times I have seen Denard throw on the run (at ND, for instance) it yields six easy points. Has the scheme gotten away from this or has he lost confidence in his ability to throw on the run?

Chris Gaerig said...

It's not so much that the scheme is changing as teams are defending it differently. Defensive ends (and occasionally blitzing linebackers) now play contain on most downs, worrying more about keeping Denard in the pocket than getting sacks. This forces Denard to stay in the pocket and beat teams by making the correct read, which he's proven he can only do occasionally.

This is one of the reasons that I criticized RichRod in my Iowa game column: teams have started to react to his schemes, but RR hasn't counter-acted this change.

Nick said...

I see - Tate is able to roll more because teams aren't keeping contain.

As sacrilege as it may be to suggest, is Tate a more effective QB going forward? His running ability isn't as good as Denard's, but it's good enough and more than compensated for by his throwing accuracy.

Chris Gaerig said...

Well that's not exactly right. Denard doesn't roll on this play because it's not a designed roll out. He's supposed to stay in the pocket and make the correct read (the check down in both instances). Rolling out immediately would cause problems as the OL isn't blocking for it. But if he does scramble out of the pocket (like Forcier is wont to do in such situations), it could open the deep hitch or a QB scramble for decent yardage.

This is a designed pocket passing play, and that's fine. We're not expecting Denard to run on every play and pick up 20 yards because this isn't NCAA 10. If he does manage to get outside of the pocket with time, he'll have more options. But in the end, this is a passing play that's asking him to make the right read and make the proper throw. He didn't do that and it cost Michigan.


Post a Comment