Can Denard Survive 29 Carries/Game-- Should He Have To?
Denard Robinson is the most spectacularly explosive quarterback in college football today; I think few would disagree with that. Dilithium, Shoelace, Judge Dreads, Sonic, or whatever you want to call him-- the kid has got moves. Given the impressive results of the season so far (875 yds. of offense in TWO games!), critics seem to have only one refrain left to fall back on--
Yeah, you have a great QB, but with 28 carries a game he'll never survive through the Big Ten portion of the schedule. [side note: the Wall Street Journal wrote a textbook article summing up this objection today]
The point of this diary isn't necessarily to refute this argument, though it's relevant to the main question at hand, which is this: Is our offense incomplete without a home-run-hit running back?
ON THE QUESTION OF CARRIES:
Last year we had a 4-headed rushing attack (Minor, Brown, Smith, Shaw), of whom only two rushers returned, Shaw and Smith. Although they split carries, it is worth noting that in the entirety of the 2009 season, neither Shaw (42 attempts) nor Smith (48 attempts) had as many carries as Denard has had in two GAMES, a total of 57.
In fact, Mike Hart's carries for his banner 2006 campaign (318 attempts), when averaged out over the full 12 game season, came to about 26.5 per game... less than Denard's current 28.5.
While Denard is not the first incredible dual-threat quarterback in recent years to rack up yards on the ground and through the air, his carries are pretty far out there. Vince Young and Pat White both never averaged more than 16.5 carries a season while playing for Texas or WVU, respectively. Tim Tebow did manage to net an impressive 18 carries a game during his senior season, often in battering-ram, short-yardage plays, but even then, a pretty far cry from 28.5. Again, this isn't to say "ZOMG INJURIES" but more so to note that even the most successful dual-threat quarterbacks of the past decade have had far more balanced offenses that relied on fewer QB rushes than Michigan has thus far.
These numbers should come with the caveat that Denard will be getting far fewer touches against UMass, Indiana, and Bowling Green. Furthermore, with regard to risk for injury, he is being tackled mostly be second-level defenders, as opposed to getting gang-tackled by linemen, as is more often the case with dedicated running backs. That being said, as before, this is not a question of risk of injury (though that is relevant), but rather:
Why Are We Not Relying More On Running Backs?
Well, the answer isn't too difficult to see at the moment. Thus far this season, the numbers are underwhelming for both Shaw and Smith:
MICHAEL SHAW
| Stats Overview | Rushing | Receiving | Fumbles | |||||||||
| YEAR | ATT | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD | REC | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD | FUM | LST |
| 2008 | 42 | 215 | 5.1 | 48 | 0 | 6 | 32 | 5.3 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 42 | 185 | 4.4 | 22 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 20 | 60 | 3.0 | 15 | 1 | 4 | 44 | 11.0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Projected | 120 | 360 | 3.0 | 15 | 6 | 24 | 264 | 11.0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
VINCENT SMITH
| Stats Overview | Rushing | Receiving | Fumbles | |||||||||
| YEAR | ATT | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD | REC | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD | FUM | LST |
| 2009 | 48 | 276 | 5.8 | 37 | 1 | 10 | 82 | 8.2 | 21 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 21 | 68 | 3.2 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 21 | 5.3 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Projected | 126 | 408 | 3.2 | 13 | 6 | 24 | 126 | 5.3 | 11 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
In the Notre Dame game, our non-Denard rushing attack was a paltry 30 yards. On the season, both RBs are averaging 3 yards per carry for about 10 attempts a game. These are underwhelming numbers.
Yet that's pretty surprising that for an offense as capable as Michigan's of producing jaw-dropping 87-yard rushing touchdowns on any given play when Denard touches the ball. And it is also puzzing that behind a very competent senior-laden O-Line, the longest play for scrimmage for a running back thus far this season is 15 yards.
I submit to you that this doesn't mean that we should rely on Denard more, but rather, that Rodriguez needs to dial up more run plays to establish a rhythm and determine where our RB attack is going to come from this year, because right now, that's pretty unclear.
Obviously these numbers can be expected to go up, and yes it is only 2 games, but at the moment, the Michigan offensive identity is basically all Denard Robinson, all the time. If he can't get the ball into Roundtree's hands or seems stymied on the ground at some point in a close game, what are our other options? Is it balanced to put that much weight on one player's shoulders? How successful have we been in establishing a rhyhthm running the ball with our RBs, or even discovering reliable homerun-threat running plays? Even Pat White could hand off to Steve Slaton every once in awhile when the pressure was on:
STEVE SLATON
| Stats Overview | Rushing | Receiving | Fumbles | |||||||||
| YEAR | ATT | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD | REC | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD | FUM | LST |
| 2005 | 205 | 1128 | 5.5 | 52 | 17 | 12 | 95 | 7.9 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 248 | 1744 | 7.0 | 65 | 16 | 27 | 360 | 13.3 | 67 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 211 | 1051 | 5.0 | 58 | 17 | 26 | 350 | 13.5 | 51 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
BOTTOM LINE:
If past history is any precedent, a balanced offense and healthy QB play necessitate fewer carries by Denard and higher-level RB play. People keep saying "Rodriguez has finally found his Pat White-style quarterback," but they forget that effective Rodriguez offenses also had unbelievable stud running backs like Steve Slaton and Noel Devine lining up in the backfield, too. Amazing as our offense is, I really don't think we're that close to the ceiling, yet.
As we are only seeing the beginning of the Denard Robinson era, hopefully the current offensive balance is just a part of the growing pains and we'll be able to keep terrified opposing D-Coordinators up at night fearing runs, throws, or QB keeps equally.
GO BLUE!
September 12th, 2010 at 7:05 PM ^
I have no idea whether or not 28 carries is too many or will result in injury. However, for perspective, consider that if DR averaged 28 carries per game for the entire season (and he won't, as noted), he'd rank in the top 8 for carries per game for all players since 2004. Only guys like Kevin Smith and Donald Brown carry more than 28 carries per game.
September 12th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
I'm just curious but what are the fans of our biggest rival think of Denard? I'm guessing that they are not thinking too much about him at the moment, as there are still nine games to go before we face you guys and the fact that you are taking things one game at time what with a possible National Championship on the line. Still what is the feeling towards the threat that Denard appears to be? Concerned? Don't care? Etc?
September 13th, 2010 at 7:33 AM ^
To be honest, it's kind of refreshing to see someone on your team that even gives me mild concern. I realize how insulting that sounds, but under RR (even the final year under Lloyd) there hasn't been anyone that worries me at all.
That being said, I'm withholding judgment of the team in general. Denard is clearly very good, and there's no question about it. I haven't seen anything from the rest of the team (aside from the usual suspects - Molk, Martin, Schilling...) that leads me to believe that Denard isn't carrying this team by himself. I think that's a reasonable assessment, based on the defensive performance and lack of performance by the RBs.
So I'm at a loss for the right word. I guess I'm "worried" about Denard in the sense that we have to gameplan against him (assuming, of course, that your offense ends the season looking as it began the season). I'm not "worried" about Denard in the sense that I think he's going to beat us single-handedly. If I'm being honest, I think we've got the best defense in the country; conservatively, let's call it a top ten defense. I'm not a football guru, but from what I've read (and seen RE: Oregon) our defensive scheme (Half Eagle; Half Under) is particularly effective against the zone read and its variants. I think that with proper game planning, we can keep Denard to a relatively modest 100/100 day (or less).
So I think he's great. I think there are other factors that might limit him (i.e. the rest of the team and the opposition he that he will face). At any rate, he'll get a good chance to test his mettle against Iowa.
September 12th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
if Denard continues to average 8.0 ypc and 28.5 carries per game (not that he will, just hypothetical here) he would end up with over 2,700 yards on the ground. He's also projected to pass for over 2,500 yards. Those are Robo-Henne like yards through the air.
September 12th, 2010 at 7:16 PM ^
I wouldn't be surprised if Denard was pulled after the first series against UMass and after the third against Bowling Green. I think Denard will be fine. We have plenty of (knock on wood) softer games well placed and a bye week to lessen his load...plus I have a feeling that Tousaint will be a beast with the ball in his hands.
September 13th, 2010 at 1:50 AM ^
September 12th, 2010 at 7:21 PM ^
This misses the point. As I mentioned on a Board post, Denard is no more likely to get injured than any other feature back (maybe less, as he gets the Barry Sanders treatment of being corralled rather than slammed). The real concern is 68 touches, combining the risk a pocket QB faces with the carries.
However, RR's offense does not expose the QB to devastating pocket hits a la Theisman but relies on quick developing plays where the defense is reluctant to "pin their ears back."
I think the net risk to Denard is probably on par with a feature QB or a feature RB.
September 12th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^
Dan, I like your creative point about Denard getting corralled rather than slammed; I think it's valid though I don't really know how to quantify that in looking at the attendant risks of excessive carries for Denard. That being said, as I pointed out, very few feature backs get the kind of touches that Denard does on rushing plays alone, much less when he's trying to pass. Furthermore, most feature backs are not sub-6 ft., 180 lbs.
I hope that you're right and Denard faces no appreciably higher risk of injury than any other CFB player. I'm just saying that, overall, I'd like to get a more balanced offense so that it's that much harder to defend against our offense top-to-bottom, with a positive externality of yet further reducing risk of injury to Denard.
September 12th, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^
September 12th, 2010 at 9:38 PM ^
your avatar is terrifying
September 12th, 2010 at 8:31 PM ^
I'm not so concerned that the carries will get him injured - I'm more worried that he's going to be totally worn down by the end of the season. As well conditioned as all of these guys are (especially Denard), they're working hard on every play, and regardless of whether they get hurt, that takes its toll, in terms of speed and explosiveness. I'd like the Denard we've seen in the first two weeks of the season to last to the end of it. I'm sure Rich Rod would as well, and I'm assuming that as a result, they're going to spend the next three weeks finding their other offensive contributors in the backfield.
September 12th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^
Slightly OT, maybe, and not directed at the original poster, but I'm tired of hearing about how "X will not survive the Big Ten" where X = some aspect of RichRod's routine (which, to his detractors, often involves some type of midget).
Really, are the players in the Big Ten any bigger than those from the SEC / Big 12 / Pac 10? Are they any faster? I'll bet the M*V product is about the same across the BCS conferences.
If that's the case, why not just say "High Division One football?" Dantonio worshipping aside, I don't buy the idea that the Big Ten is meaningfully more SMASHMOUTHARRRRGGGGGHHHH than the other conferences.
September 12th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
September 12th, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
...this many carries throughout the season. Let's try not to make too much of two games. Joe Stapleton of the Daily takes on the topic here.
September 12th, 2010 at 7:53 PM ^
If, heaven forbid, Denard gets injured, our offense will still be better than last years...and last year we had a decent offense.
September 12th, 2010 at 7:59 PM ^
Denard is as in shape as anyone in the country. He hardly takes any big hits because it is nearly impossible for people to get an angle on him. By the time the Big Ten season starts we should have an established back ready to take some of the pressure of DR. Fitz is a viable option but we have yet to see him in action. I would think DR will average 18-20 carries a game through the rest of the season, and that will be fine with him.
September 12th, 2010 at 8:02 PM ^
I submit to you that this doesn't mean that we should rely on Denard more, but rather, that Rodriguez needs to dial up more run plays to establish a rhythm and determine where our RB attack is going to come from this year, because right now, that's pretty unclear.
I'm a little surprised both Hopkins and Cox have seen so few carries. I'd really like to see some physical inside running from our RBs, something like we saw from a healthy Minor the last couple of years. It'd be a pleasant change of pace and complement Denard Robinson's speed.
September 12th, 2010 at 8:26 PM ^
September 12th, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^
I have heard that our RB's are not doing a good job from a few people now however I do believe that if they had a consistent work load that they would produce 5-6 ypc. They block, block, block, catch a ball, block, block, run, block, block, block..... If they were to get the ball a few times in a row or even receive the ball on the actual option type pitch I would bet that you would see one of the 2 main RB's break one big which would dramatically increase their averages (watching a replay of the game now - 50 + secs left - love this game). At the end of the day its about opportunity, if the RB is not getting a consistent opportunity then they will produce low averages. We are fine at RB, as long as they catch balls and keep setting blocks.
September 12th, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^
I have heard that our RB's are not doing a good job from a few people now however I do believe that if they had a consistent work load that they would produce 5-6 ypc. They block, block, block, catch a ball, block, block, run, block, block, block..... If they were to get the ball a few times in a row or even receive the ball on the actual option type pitch I would bet that you would see one of the 2 main RB's break one big which would dramatically increase their averages (watching a replay of the game now - 50 + secs left - love this game). At the end of the day its about opportunity, if the RB is not getting a consistent opportunity then they will produce low averages. We are fine at RB, as long as they catch balls and keep setting blocks.
September 12th, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^
the RBs are overly focused on protecting the ball given the emphasis on it this year. As a result they're not hitting the holes as hard as they should IMO.
September 12th, 2010 at 8:32 PM ^
I haven't seen too many bad reads by Denard Robinson through two games. To me that says that the defenses we are facing are choosing him as their poison and crashing down on the running back most plays.
Of course there are a lot of designed runs for Denard Robinson as well, but if the read on read option plays is almost always to keep it, well, Denard Robinson will blow you up. I would think that when teams start to focus on containing him, the running lanes will be there for our backs and they will get their carries/yards.
September 12th, 2010 at 8:48 PM ^
I would guess that if we asked Denard he would say "If that's what the team needs that's what I'll do." I love his attitude even more than his playing.
September 12th, 2010 at 8:51 PM ^
If Denard carries the ball over 25 times a game it means we're in a dog fight against teams like Illinois, Indiana, even Bowling Green. This would obviously be not good for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to Denard possibly wearing down.
September 12th, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^
Dee Hart?
next year though...
September 12th, 2010 at 9:26 PM ^
beat me to it. :)
September 12th, 2010 at 9:25 PM ^
i hope one of our RBs finally have a big game so we don't have to write this year off and put all our eggs in the D Hart basket. Imagine how many big plays Denard could pull if we actually had a compelling threat at RB.
September 12th, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^
Ultimately, it will wear him down. There simply is no way.
But that doesn't mean much. First, like said above, if Denard is playing much into the 2nd qtr in some of the upcoming games, that would be a bad sign. Hopefully the game is over by the 1st qtr next week.
Ultimately, we will need one of our backups for a critical play here or there. It is rare not to have that happen. I don't know specifically what Tate has to do to get out of the doghouse, but I hope it happens, because we very likely will need him at some point.
September 12th, 2010 at 9:36 PM ^
If Denard is the team player that he says he is, I say we put in Gardner in some of these cupcake games. It gets him some valuable playing time, and it'll save Denard for when we really need him(see last half of schedule).
September 12th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^
For the next two weeks I certain hope his workload goes down substantially. Hell, next week I hope we barely see the guy. Rest him while you can and get Tate some snaps against UMass.
I just wish one of the tailbacks would step up and be a force to take a little of the pressure of Denard.
September 12th, 2010 at 10:49 PM ^
with a "double option and a RB change-up" instead of the triple-threat that a fully capable RR offense presents?
IMO, we are going to have to score 35+ points in some B10 games to win. As long as the O-Line dominates as it has in the first two games, that is possible. But what happens when our O-Line faces a better defense or our WRs face a better secondary? Three threats are harder to stop than two.
September 12th, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^
No and No.
Not only will he take the beating that an RB normally takes, but he'll be taking shots as a QB as well. I'll be stunned if he makes it through the whole season.
Hopefully Fitz. Toussaint will be healthy and ready to go soon, sounded like he was going to be the main guy until he got hurt. We do need a Slaton to our Pat White.
September 13th, 2010 at 12:00 AM ^
I think the best comparison to Denard, by far, is Pat White, but I was curious how QBs back in Nebraska's option-based glory days would compare to the QBs mentioned here. Oddly enough, very similarly - I'm kind of surprised at how few carries they have, actually, but you do have to remember that there are a lot of pitch plays in the triple-option that result in contact, but don't show up as a carry. A few representative years by the high-profile guys:
Tommie Frazier (1993) - 11.3 carries/game
Tommie Frazier (1995) - 8.8 carries/game
Scott Frost (1997) - 14.7 carries/game
Eric Crouch (2001) - 16.9 carries/game
So, waaaaaay less than 28 carries per game. I was curious about Jammal Lord, though, since he was the last real sledgehammer of a QB at NU, and there's a lot about Denard that reminds me of Lord (although Lord never did learn how to throw, unfortunately...)
Jammal Lord (2002) - 17.9 carries/game
Jammal Lord (2003) - 16.5 carries/game
Still a long ways from the insanity of 28 per. Take heart, though - Lord started all 27 games over those two years, and he took a pounding like none of the others on the list. (Frazier is the only to miss a significant number of games, and that was due to blood clots, not typical on-the-field injury.)
September 13th, 2010 at 12:31 AM ^
If Denard was a statuesque, immobile pocket QB throwing forty passes a game, would he be able to survive the 29 or so direct hits he would take while delivering the ball?
September 13th, 2010 at 2:18 AM ^
My own 2 cents:
Denard Robinson has only two starts. He will probably see more time more time on field early on -- even if the score is 38 - 10 -- to give him more experience.
Until a RB distinguishes himself, Denard will get an elevated number of carries. (Rich Rodriguez did seem to enjoy winning these last two games.) He may not get the same astral productivity, but he'll get a lot of carries.
Denard is the Plan A running attack. He goes down, I'm sure Tate Forcier could pick up the passing yards -- perhaps even a few more, and some of the running yards, but where would the team make up the rest of the running yardage?
Denard has had to come out due to injury in both games this year. An injury doesn't have to be a broken leg, like Michael Vick. It could just be geting knocked about Forcier or Sam McGuffie. Or nagging injuries like Brandon Minor or Carlos Brown. Or getting his bell mysteriously rung for a half like Dayne Crist of Notre Dame.
Could this be part of the decision not to redshirt Devin Gardner? Is Gardner our Plan B running attack? With things as they stand, if he's the second string QB, it looks like he's the Plan B running attack.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:17 AM ^
September 13th, 2010 at 5:58 AM ^
Comments