Any word on Denard?

Submitted by Oscar Goldman on

Has anyone heard much regarding Denard?  I have seen posts about K Grady's twitter and talk of "everyone" staying, but am looking for any info.  I think Hoke would be an absolute fool to not tailor the offense around Denard, regardless of his system/philosophy at this point. 

JDNorway

January 13th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^

I agree that the term is mostly used for players whose system is different from the pros.

I think Henson had the talents to be successful in any system. Navarre/Grbac/Collins were definitely system QBs who would not be as good in west coast offenses as in more run-centric offenses, but that term probably would never be used about them.

MGoCards

January 12th, 2011 at 8:11 AM ^

Denard's not a very good QB. 

Remind me why people take you seriously again. You're some kind of coach, right? A good one? I'd find that hard to believe. Denard Robinson is a very good, championship-capable QB. I hope he gets a chance to win that championship, even though that certainly means he'll have to do it elsewhere.

Magnus

January 12th, 2011 at 8:19 AM ^

There's nothing like a personal insult from a random internet dude.

Anyway, if Denard were a good quarterback, I would say so.  He's not.  As Brian Kelly said (and took heat for), he's a running back who can throw.  He was even named an All-American at running back.  He's a very good runner.

However, he's very inaccurate as a thrower and isn't very adept at reading defenses that aren't man coverages.  There's a reason that guys like Pat White, Antwaan Randle-El, Brad Smith, and Eric Crouch aren't playing quarterback in the NFL - because they're not good quarterbacks.

gbdub

January 12th, 2011 at 9:02 AM ^

I respect you, Magnus, but c'mon. Passing is not the be-all, end-all of a QB - moving the ball is, and Denard did that more successfully than just about anyone this year. He's a better quarterback from that regard than all but a few, and had respecatable passing efficiency stats.

Besides, how many true sophomore first year starter quarterbacks are highly accurate and great at reading defenses?

Magnus

January 12th, 2011 at 9:08 AM ^

I understand all that, but Denard isn't built to succeed in a pro-style offense or at quarterback in the NFL.  He's good for the zone read option, and he could probably be a pretty good wishbone option QB, too. 

But all of the games in which he performed exceptionall were games in which he had outstanding days running the football.  If you force him to pass, he's going to be ineffective.  To me that's not a good quarterback, unless you're going to run some sort of option.

I wouldn't call Eric Crouch a good QB, either, but he obviously played extremely well for Nebraska, won a Heisman, etc.

bluenyc

January 12th, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^

I think Denard improved greatly passing the ball.  I know he is small but don't you think another spring of practice will make him even better, maybe a pretty good passer.  In the bowl game, he had some pretty good passes with touch.  There were too many drops this year by the WR's.

MGoCards

January 12th, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^

I wouldn't call Eric Crouch a good QB, either,

Which, again, leads one to question your definition of "good." That you could look at Denard or Eric Crouch or Pat White and say that they aren't "good" college QBs is just absurd. It's sort of like if I said that, say, Ike Turner wasn't a "good" guitar player. Would he have played surf rock as well as Dick Dale? Probably not. If I slotted him into Slayer, would he have fit in easily? Probably not. But he was a "good," even great, guitar player. And playing guitar and comparing guitarists is much more abstract than football. In football, we have metrics that determine exactly how well a QB moves the ball and generates offensive yardage and scoring. Denard is very "good" at those things, by any metric. 

WolvinLA2

January 12th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^

Eric Crouch and Pat White were good QBs for the offense they were in.  However, neither of them did shit in the pros (Crouch wasn't even given a chance to).  Just because you're good at being a running QB doesn't mean you'll be good at running a pro-style set, which is what we'll be running now.  I don't want Denard to leave, but saying Denard will be a good pro-style QB because Crouch and White, then that's a pretty bad argument.

If your argument is simply over what makes a QB "good," then OK, but what does that have to do with anything?  What makes someone a good spread/option/zone read QB is no longer relevant WRT Michigan football.

3rdGenerationBlue

January 12th, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^

But agree with Magnus. I'm not even convinced Denard is that good at making decisions in the zone read. Some of it is a function of experience but there were plenty of times that he made the wrong read. That said - he needs to stay at QB because Michigan doesn't have enough depth for him to switch (yet).

dakotapalm

January 12th, 2011 at 9:22 AM ^

Pot, meet kettle.

You insulted what Denard does.

That guy insulted what you do.

Seems awfully hypocritical to get annoyed when he asks why people take you seriously (questioning how good you are at what you do) when you have just stated that Denard is not good at what he is supposed to do.

BigBum

January 12th, 2011 at 7:00 AM ^

Maybe but the first sign that Hoke is worth his salt will be his ability to coach to his players. There is no reason for Denard to leave. His skills are solid and packages can be made for him. Hoke will have to utilize what he has and recruit what he wants. Test number one, keeping Denard. Test number two, transforming the defense.

GoBlueGB

January 12th, 2011 at 3:17 AM ^

in my mind it may be smart for denard to stay, everyone was saying the denard couldnt have success in the nfl.  When Hoke comes in and denard continues to grow under a pro set, it may tell nfl scouts that he could suceed in the nfl

Magnus

January 12th, 2011 at 8:23 AM ^

Your criticism was vague, because of course the opposite of my statement is that Denard WILL play quarterback in the NFL.  But you know that's very, very, very unlikely to be true.  So you won't argue with my statement.  You just pop in here, make a random criticism, and say "Ha ha!  Look at this!" without actually arguing the point.

Do you think Denard is going to play quarterback in the NFL?  (And by "play quarterback" I mean be listed as a QB and actually have a chance of seeing the field aside from Wildcat-type plays or occasional direct snaps.) 

Ghost of Bo

January 12th, 2011 at 3:20 AM ^

It's a good sign, at least, that Denard was at the team meeting. Mike Cox confirmed that he was there. Tate, however, was not. May the speculation begin. Cox is also a very artful dodger of media questions...

 

Magnus

January 12th, 2011 at 6:58 AM ^

He shouldn't have put it on Facebook like that.

HOWEVER, if I were Mike Cox, I would be rejoicing, too.  The kid has 19 career carries for 169 yards (8.9 yards per carry) and 2 touchdowns, and he can't even get on the field because Rodriguez is insistent on playing a 5'6", 180 lb. kid who fumbles a bunch, can't break tackles, and can't outrun anybody.

UMDrumline

January 12th, 2011 at 3:19 AM ^

I think it will also depend on what RichRod does.  If RichRod finds a new job in the near future, Denard is more likely to follow.  If it appears that RichRod is taking time off, I can't see Denard leaving unless Hoke says he has to move to another position.

Brady Bacala

January 12th, 2011 at 3:29 AM ^

If RichRod sits out the year (or more? (unlikely)) as expected, then Denard would be transferring before his senior year and would have to sit one out during the first year of RR's hypothetical new tenure.  If he decides to leave it would only make sense to put in his papers sooner rather than later.  This would mean S-E-Cya.  Unless, of course, he stays and things go terribly wrong during the upcoming season or RR lands somewhere soon and does some major snake oilin'.

MIdocHI

January 12th, 2011 at 3:27 AM ^

Denard will stay.  I watched the Pointsettia Bowl, and SDSU did NOT play a pro-only set. They will adapt to Denard. Hoke is too smart to run off the Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year.  He needs him, and he knows it.  If he is half the recruiter people claim he is, then Denard will be back. 

Besides, I watched the BCS title game, and Denard is a better quarterback, including drop back passing, than the Oregon quarterback, whom I have not seen previously.  With Tate's elgibility in question, Hoke will not alienate Denard.  He will start Denard at QB as he should and evetually transition to a medical red-shirted Devin after Denard has graduated.

GoBlueGB

January 12th, 2011 at 3:32 AM ^

i agree with you Midoc, that denard is the better QB.  How many times did Oregons qb, make the bad read in the read option to be lit up or have his rb be destroyed in the backfield?  Denard has grown and not only has become a very talented QB, but he also has become a smart QB.  The thing is that I dont see Michigan using the read option anymore, but denard can use his skills in any way possible

JDNorway

January 12th, 2011 at 8:09 AM ^

His read "option" was very rarely a true option play. I base that on what I saw during the games and comments by more knowledgable poster on this board. I'm not saying that makes Denard good or bad, just that the absence of a read option based offense doesn't affect Denard's ability to contribute all that much. If he gets to run around, he'd be good, if he has to read defenses and pass a lot, he'll be mediocre at best.