landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
If we did that, no one would know who had or hadn't signed with us until they actually enrolled.
I don't think that's so much of a bad thing. I think we all obsess over recruiting a bit much and sometimes I think the recruits just want a little bit of anonymity. Say what you will about how DB handled the CC, but I did like that it was Fort Schembechler again with no leaked info to undermine things the way it do for RR.
WIth Magee going to take the Pitt job and Hokes previous statements about the spread I'm very nervous about losing Denard taking off for the Panthers. Hopefully Hoke can instill some Hoke-A-Mania in Denard and keep him in Ann Arbor.
FYI... Hoke has employed different versions of the spread during his tenure in Ball State and San Diego State. The ONE comment where he appeared to sound completely anti-spread is being blown out of proportion. One of the main criteria in DB's hiring was that the HC would be able to tailor his approach around the talent at hand. Hoke has proven he can run the spread... mainly, because he HAS ran the spread.
Offensive style should not be a concern. Hoke's a good coach, and he'll implement a system fitted to our players' skills.
So he was for the spread before he was against it?
When asked recently about the influence of Oregon’s offense, Hoke subtly revealed his disdain for the tactical shift Michigan experienced under Rodriguez. He is convinced that modern spread option offenses can be counterproductive to the core values of smashmouth football and are, therefore, to be avoided.
“Right, wrong or indifferent, when you’re zone blocking all the time -- when you’re playing basketball on grass -- you practice against that all spring, you practice against it all fall and then you’re going to play a two-back team that wants to knock you off the football,” Hoke said. “I don’t think you’re prepared.
“I think there’s a toughness level (required in college football). I still believe you win with defense. That’s been beaten into my head a long time, but I really believe that. The toughness of your team has to be the offensive front and your defensive front.”
AFAICT, he did not speak to the media, like other players did. Tomorrow he meets the new coach, that's when we'll know.
Awesome, he might take the most dangerous and dynamic player in college football and put him at a different position than the one he broke numerous NCAA records at as a true sophomore, first year starting player. Genius.
If he's not guaranteed the starting QB position then he should transfer. Plain and simple. You don't come into a program with one of the best QBs and move him, especially when he could be starting at almost every team that runs the spread, including Oregon!
Tate agrees with you 100%
Gotta side with AAA here. I love Denard, love him; however, let's not forget that Devin Gardner not Denard was our highest rated QB recruit and for good reason. He has the size you can't teach, can make all the throws, and will be able to stand in the pocket and read defenses (and run when he has too). Recruitniks were gushing over his coachability and football smarts (not to mention his arm). Yes you can not teach Denard's speed but Gardner could actually be the one who takes us to the next level. I would like to see Hoke use them both, really show us something dynamic (not at the same time), but Denard leaving does not spell doom for us.
Look at SDSU's offense last year for proof that we could be explosive - QB: 3800 yards passing with 28 TDs, RB with 1500+ rushing with 17 TDs, 2 WR's with 1200+ receiving and they scored 35 ppg which is better than our 32.7 ppg. Things are not looking so bad :)
Ratings on high school kids are near worthless if you ask me. They are simply a way for individuals to allegedly assess "talent." These third-party assessments cannot truly identify a kid's upside or true potential. I'm sure Gardner will be great one day, but Denard is outstanding now. I will be extremely disappointed not so see the starting QB job as Denard's to keep. SDSU's quarterback stats are immaterial. DIfferent player, different team.
I just want the transition to go smooth, bringing back as many returning starters always helps!
So did Randel-El. Indiana wasn't exactly winning a ton of games. Denard needs to do what's best for himself. I don't want to see a "sad Denard". But, secondly, he needs to do what's best for the team. If he decides what's best for himself is staying, than he should be willing to play whatever position helps the team most.
why not adapt to Denard for the short term, and then adjust the system accordingly after he graduates? Maybe I really don't get it - but why don't coaches (RR included going back to his 1st year) adjust to what talent they have? Obviously over time, recruit the athletes that fit the coaches vision, but be pragmatic in the meantime. It is Hoke's job, and he knows more than I do, but it just seems to make sense, no?
Hoke can take one look at the depth chart and see a much more adaptable guy in Devin Gardner. Goodbye Denard, hello 4th straight year of starting a newbie QB.
Even if RR were the coach Denard would have had to compete to be the starter. Just ask Tate.
I would assume Tate's grades and the fact that he wasn't at the team meeting mean we're down to two scholarship quarterbacks. Make it one if Denard leaves. I heard about the only significant recruit Brady had at SDSU for this year is a quarterback. Wonder if he'd come. Now I'd say we had better add a QB to this class.
Could this hire help us with Cardale Jones (and maybe Glenville in the process)?
But I don't think Denard will have any problem competing for the job if given the opportunity. I believe he knows he needs to improve his pass reads anyway if he wants to take the next jump (as a college QB) so if Coach Hoke tells him he will get a fair shot at QB in the system they implement we may be ok. Then again, it depends on where (if anywhere) RR lands (stated in the prev post).
I'm ready for the worst. I'll cry like a 2 year old for 1/2 a day if he leaves but I'll get over it. Barely! Oh dear, please stay!
I love the support Grady is giving out so quickly, but I agree that it doesn't mean a lot, yet. He may truly mean it, but a lot can change and I don't think anybody will be surprised if a few players decide to take their talents elsewhere. I really hope nobody leaves, but it could definitely happen. If any players are leaving, I hope they leave soon so they could possibly be raplaced through recruiting. That is really my biggest question about Hoke. If he can retain some recruits, I'll be impresses.
The best thing for Denard would be to move on, and I would support that decision. Hoke has made it clear he has no interest in the spread.
yes, i believe that word you're looking for is "goodbye" or possibly "godspeed". who should expect him to give the school a chance who never gave a chance to the one head coach who gave him his chance to play QB?
Michigan never gave Rodriguez a chance? He ruined his own chances by fielding a team that gave up 35.2 points per game. And this was a very experienced offense in 2010, and they still couldn't put up points against teams like OSU, Wisconsin, MSU, and Mississippi State.
Rodriguez had his chance. He blew it.
I'm really sick of hearing how RR didn't get a chance. I would have been fine with giving him one more year, but the blind followers and apologists are tiring me out. The 'nobody supported RR' is getting very old too, because IMO it is BS. Aside from a few nay-sayers early on, it wasn't until 2010 when we had NO DEFENSE and too many turnovers that I started hearing the hate.
Rich will land on his feet, and when he does, I'll be happy for him and his fan base. Right now I'm supporting our new HC so idiots on this board can't say 'nobody supported him' later on.
you're saying we won't be hearing, 'he just needs more time! it takes time to transition from the spread to pro-style. plus the one blown recruiting class left us with no depth!'???
because that will sound familiar.
Also (my third time referencing this, sorry) look at SDSU offensive stats from last year, very impressive.
Denard is a QB. Other offensive schemes can utilize his skills. He can throw the ball.
I could see Borges utilizing him well.
exactly. the guy can play quarterback. the only way that he's not playing quarterback is if devin or tate explodes in the offseason as denard did this past year. would anyone really object to that?
quarterback is the position that worries me the least going forward.
And I hate to say this, but look at Pryor and Tressel. Pryor is a huge dual-threat, but he is heavily utilized as a pocket passer. Dual-threat QB's can be dangerous and effective in non-spread situations. Everybody calm down. If not, Brian may give us another time out.
I often found myself wishing Denard would run more from the pocket when receivers weren't open. That is when a lot of dual-threat guys make huge gains running b/c the D is dropped back in coverage.
Hoping to see Denard stay, I would like him make some gains before his junior year as far as his passing consistency. Lets see cut down on throwing off his back foot. I am not so sure that the read option was his thing. I think he struggled reading when to keep the ball and when to handoff. There didn't look to be much improvement on this as the season went on and the schedule got tougher. Sure he did great against bad defenses. I think he's very capable of growing as a passer and improving like he did before his soph. season.
If Denard is in the pocket, there will be a lot more open receivers. Teams must contain, which means open lanes for our streaking receivers.
Listen, maybe Denard can help the team in other ways. I mean, what are his chances of starting in the NFL at QB? If he wants to play in the NFL, maybe he starts the transition now (Hester like). I know he wants to play QB, but I'm also thinking he wants to do what is best for the team and his family in the long run.
Denard can still play QB in a wildcat formation with Hoke, but he will not be running the same O. However, if he is that good of a passer, I'm sure he will compete for the job as every other player will do.
Lastly, does anybody really know if he only wants to stay spread? He could love how Hoke utilizes his skills. We are all so quick to assume. If you think Hoke hasn't been watching U of M games all year you're wrong. He knows what he is getting. He is a smart guy...have faith. Denard will do what is best...We'll support his decision as he has supported his team the past two years, regardless of his choice!
I don't think Tate is really an option anymore. He wasn't at the team meeting, and hasn't been heard from since he was sent hom form the bowl game.
I would say that Tate is not here now and wont be in the fall. I am not sure why we haven't heard anything yet but I assume that we will hear somthing very soon in regards to him not playing at Michigan anymore. Hope I am wrong.
Denard's not a very good QB. I'm sorry, but he's not. I hope he stays, but I don't necessarily hope he's our QB for the next two years, at least not if we're going to run a pro-style offense.
"Denard's not a very good QB" on this board, because everyone loves Denard (and they should). But I agree, mostly because of the turnovers. Part of that is youth/inexperience, but not all of it. Denard is a fantastic kid and he made great strides from 2009 to 2010, but IMO a coach who gets him to switch postions (RB, WR, kick returner?) will be doing him a favor. I see him playing on Sundays for sure, but maybe not a QB.
Regardless, there is nothing not to love about Denard. He's a great guy and great talent, and M fans should be proud that he chose to come here.
I believe that Denard can make Percy Harvin look like a no-talent scrub. But I don't see him as a QB, never did. Our offense was a one trick pony and good teams could contain Denard. If Hoke doesn't want Denard at QB, I hate to say it, but thems the breaks, Shoelace....
Denard is one of my favorite Michigan players ever, no one has ever made me laugh out loud at offensive plays the way he does.
However, I respectfully agree with you that he is a system QB. He needs the right system to play that position, and that system has to value his running abilities. He will not find such a system in the NFL and he will be playing football for no more than two more seasons if he is desperate to include "throwing passes" in his job description.
For my own sake, I really hope he stays and turns into a Randle-El/Ward/Boldin/Brady Smith type playmaker (yes, I know that they are different style players, but all were QBs who found success in the NFL at different positions). He can split his time at QB and receiver this season and depending on the development of Gardner/stud recruit QB, his senior season as well.
Then maybe we can watch dilithium on Sundays, while Pat White is busy playing minor league baseball. It's a shame the NFL cannot utilize superb running QBs with mediocre passing abilities, but the reality is these guys will not be throwing passes in the NFL on a regular basis any time soon. End of.
This "system quarterback" bullcrap only means one thing- not like NFL quarterbacks.
So, I guess Drew Henson is a "system quarterback" because he's not in the NFL?
There can be no argument that John Navarre was a system quarterback. He's not effective in any system a part from a drop back and throw it to talented receivers.
Drew Henson's not in the NFL because he chose to play baseball for several years and never got back to the level he was before he left Michigan.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't insult Denard. I made an observation based on the play that millions of people have seen. Not all criticism is insulting.
Meanwhile, the poster above has no idea about my personal strengths and weaknesses or my coaching ability.
Meanwhile, the poster above has no idea about my personal strengths and weaknesses or my coaching ability.
"The only good college QBs are NFL QBs."
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.
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
denard is a dual threat QB who wants to play in a spread offense. the team played terrible all year with him under center because thats not his game. it will be the pryor in the wrong offense at ohio state result.
Don't sound so bad after 15-22
Denard isn't going to play QB in the NFL, whether he sticks around Michigan or not.
Here comes Magnus, with his definitive final statement on the matter.
Here comes uniquenam with his vague criticisms of me, despite the fact that he knows (or should know) that 5'11", 193 lb. quarterbacks who aren't very accurate, don't read defenses well, and run really fast don't play quarterback in the NFL.
My criticism wasn't vague, but I'll clarify it with a rather pointed one:
You give too many statements that ring with finality.
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.)
Fair enough;i just don't think it's fair (or intelligent) to write off a player after one year as a starting qb.
The thing that I dislike about you the most is that you are making me associate a smiling Brandon Graham with whiny, bitchy comments.
You should learn to compartmentalize.
Have you been around Denard? He's easily 6', not 5'11. And probably bigger than 193 too.
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...
I wonder how the rest of his team reacted to his facebook update after RR got fired. I'm hoping some of the leaders had a talk with him about making the right decisions moving forward.
I didn't see the facebook post. What was said?
I hate to say it, but my gut is telling me that Tate has played his last game in a Michigan uniform.
I don't have a link or anything, but he was very happy about RR being fired. I just thought that his comments were immature and he should have never put it out there.
Edit, found what he said:
"BYE BYE COACH ROD! finally!! party at my crib haha ;)"
Who are we talking about again? Mike Cox, Tate, Denard or someone else? Sorry, kinda confused on who posted the rude message.
It was Mike Cox's facebook statement and/or tweet when RR got fired. I can't see Denard saying something like this.
Man, what a cox.
If I recall correctly he later changed it to "dick rod." Not cool, IMO.
Not on facebook, no.
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.
I can't agree more without veering into talking negatively about an athlete. Something I don't like to do.
But Vincent Smith doesn't fumble! At least that's what people on this board kept insisting whenever I expressed dissatisfaction with him getting all of the carries.
True. He only fumbled about 5 times this year. That's all.
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.
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'.
He could go to Pitt now that they hired Magee and run the same system. Obviously wouldn't shock me to see some of RR's staff go too.
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.
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
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.
I heard on the radio tonight that one of Hoke's first phone calls was trying to get in touch with Denard to keep him on board.
He just had the reigning Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year, and a First Team All-American fall into his lap... I'd call him before I called my family to let them know I got the job.
Why don't we give Hoke a chance to actually make it to campus before we start putting words in both his and Denard's mouths?
....how about letting him actually try to get something done before calling him a failure?
It seems critical to keep Denard, and have him play at QB. Tate seems to be gone, leaving us with only DG besides DRob, at QB. Must, must must keep DRob at QB.
I think that the first real chance to test Hoke's mettle will be to see how well he is able to retain the current players and how much of the recruiting class he can salvage.
I think denard is going to stay. I think that Bradon made it clear he wanted someone who could adjust their style based on the available talent, e.g. Denard Robinson, and then tweek it again for Gardner
Michigan was one of the only schools who promised Denard a chance at QB. That is one of the reasons he came here. He was very raw, and many thought that he could not be a QB. Well, to RR's credit, he was developed and is a a very good spread QB. With further coaching and experience, he will develop even more into a very good QB in any system. The potential has been developed, and now, everyone can tell that QB is a good position for him. He may not remain a QB in the NFL, but in college, he will remain there and thrive.
not in the pro set or even out of the shot gun.
Denard is a transcendent talent. He has the ability to thrive in virtually any offense.
Hoke is getting a bit of a raw deal here, because if you watch video of his offenses at SDSU and Ball State, you'll see that Hoke likes to use multiple sets. His offense is different from Carr's, as Hoke does open things up a bit more, by spreading the field and utilizing roll outs.
Nate Davis ran for over 300 yards his junior (and final) year at Ball State, and he was not someone you would describe as a mobile QB. So the opportunities are there for the run, granted there are only going to be a tiny fraction of the designed run plays that Rich Rod's read option offered.
Mike Vick didn't run a read option offense and was as dangerous a runner at the quarterback position as anyone in the history of college football. IMO Denard is every bit as explosive running the football as Vick (probably more), and while he doesn't have Vick's arm, Nard Dawg's passing stats from this past season easily beat anything Vick ever did at Va Tech.
While the read-option probably fits Denard best, I don't think it's wise to make the assumption that Denard won't produce at a high level in another style of offense. I'm sure Hoke will tailor his packages to fit Denard's skill set.
I don't understand why Denard would leave. First off there is no read option QB starting in the NFL. So in order to play at the next level, Denard will either become:
A) Proficient passer, good at reading defenses while utilizing his speed. (Mike Vick/Pat White hybrid)
B) All around athlete AKA Brad Smith, Antwann Randle-El, Percy Harvin.
Michigan would serve him well either way.
I don't understand why Denard would stay
The skills sets that Denard has could be served better in a number of other spread friendly offenses with a coach, staff and talent that would maximize his value.
Not very different than the decision Mallett made.
Selfishly I'd love to see him stay. He'd probably reduce his total future earnings by doing so.
Because he would be a waste as a dropback passer IMO
He's ideal for a spread offense QB. That much is clear.
Not saying he'd leave but I can't imagine him handing the ball off 40 times in a game like Carr would have done. Waste of talent.
I can see him playing a role like Andy Dalton, who runs some read but is a good passer. I don't think he would hand the ball off that many times under Hoke et al. They would use him at his strengths. Besides, Denard ran the ball way too much last year mainly b/c we didn't have a Noel Devine kind of guy, and that took a big toll on him.
If Denard wants to be a NFL QB, then staying here is good for him. If he wants to make the NFL regardless of what position, he should stay here as well, assuming there's a good supporting staff. I know Denard will make the NFL, but probably not as a QB. Randle-El played QB full-time at Indiana, but ended up being a pretty good receiver in the pros.
The problem is that Denard isn't a very good passer.
of passing (why would they be, when the run the read-option).
Maybe not...but Shaun King did pretty well for himself, and he wasn't nearly the runner that Denard, Dantzler, Pat White were. He gained a fair number of yards on the ground at Tulane, but he also had a fair career in the NFL in a pro-style offense and took the Buccaneers to the NFC championship game, if I'm not mistaken.
uh, Tim Tebow?
I will be the first person to say that I loved watching Denard last year, I mean I often screeched over his electric runs, but its not armageddon if he doesn't stay. We have a more than capable qb on the roster in Devin Gardner, and yes he will be raw, but hes the better passer of the two anyways.
I'm not diminishing what Denard has done, but can he play qb outside of Richies system? Didn't we say goodbye to him when we fired Rich Rod? I fear that if we keep trying to put the square peg into the round hole we will be replaying the Masoli situation all over again, and I think my eyes may melt if I have to watch that unfold.
that Brady will adapt to his talent, unlike his predecessors. I really liked RR, but his refusal to slowly faze the spread in at the begining (when we didn't have any spread type guys), and his refusal to develope any special teams or defense did him in. Hopefully Brady will realize that this is a spread offense and run a few spread plays until he gets "his guys".
A QB that specializes in the spreadnshed...A coach who thinks the spreadnshed is a joke. I think we all know the answer to this one.
development as a passer. Hopefully we can land a top QB coach.
playbook. If he can quickly get somewhere and use that accumulated knowledge, we know it best fits his skills. I would cry but watch him every chance I get. This has been another painful gd stretch for Michigan football, though--just ouch.
Denard stays through spring practice and then makes his decision. What difference does transferring now or in 4 months make to when he can play again? Since San Diego State ran a spread offense and Tate may not have the grades, I'm thinking Denard stays as one of only two scholarship QBs. Did Denard say that he wanted to be a QB, or did he want to be an RR style QB? I think it was the former.
Regarding Denard, he is impossible not to like...obviously a great talent and as nice a person as we have seen around Michigan for a while.
I took a look at his last seven Big Ten Games, when we started playing some serious teams. Realizing that he was only starting as a QB in his first year, the numbers suggest that there is definitely a lot of room to get better. I just can't see him surviving as a running QB in the NFL He and we were fortunate he didn't have a long term injury last year. I have seen the numbers showing the differences between spread and drop back QB's, but what those numbers don't take into account is the size of the QB.
Then you have the performance numbers. Starting with Michigan State and ending with OSU, Denard had a 57 % completion percentage and had 9 TD's against 9 INT's. He averaged 187 passing yards per game. Rushing, he averaged 105 yards per game, which figure was aided by a huge game against PSU. In the seven games, he had two runs greater than 20 yards. I don't know how many fumbles Denard had, but there were a ton.
Make of these numbers what you want, but you would think he might want to listen to someone else before leaving,
As far as Gardner goes, there was a reason why Tate was the number 2 last year once Gardner had a chance to play. From having gone to every home game and getting there early enough to watch pre-game warmups, Gardner has a big arm, but he is totally unproven. My guess is that Tate is gone.
Bottom line, I sure hope to hell Denard stays around. It might be the best thing for him, and it sure would be a good thing for us.
Denard must be feeling like Mallet did when RR was hired. I hope Hoke sits down with him right away and and has a candid conversation about how he WILL fit in with the new system.
Maybe, but Mallett wasn't a lock to stay even if the coaching change never happened.
Mallet knew that RichRod was instituting a system where he wouldn't fit, regardless. I would be most surprised if the total lack of coaching flexibility in failing to utilize the talent at hand would be perpetrated again.
From what I've heard he was smiling yesterday at the team meeting and threw the ball around a little bit.
I'm not saying it's insignificant, but Denard smiles 99.9% of the time and he's a QB...
Could have meant anything...
I desperately hope he stays- some players are more than stats, ability, etc.
Even if he is/isn't a great QB (I say he is), you've got to recognize that Denard's character is second to none.
He says what he means, he gives his all, he doesn't slander or disrespect, and the list could go on and on.
That is invaluable in an age when players can just get on FB and bash a coach who just got fired.
Denard is the kind of player that parents show their kids in hopes that they turn out like he did- this is coming from a father of two.
The one thing that hurt Denard more then anything is the tailbacks were so average that they just keyed on him and said lets see what you can do.
I'm kind of baffled as to where this "Denard is not a good QB" business comes from. He is the first player to ever rush for 1,500 yards in a season and throw for 2,000. In his true sophomore year, first year as a starter, he completed 62.5% of his passes for 8.8 yards per pass attempt. This was with absolutely no help whatsoever from his receivers in the final three games of the season. Roundtree probably accounted for 150 yards of drops against Wisky, OSU, and Miss State. His 18/11 TD/INT ratio isn't great, but it's not terrible, and Christ sakes, folks -- he was a first year starter. Even with his mediocre TD/INT ratio, he ended up ranked #20 in the nation in passing efficiency. Ahead of "real" quarterbacks like Landry Jones, Stephen Garcia, T.J. Yates, Matt Barkley, Nick Foles, and Taylor Potts. He was a significantly better passer than Brian Griese, John Navarre, and Tom Brady all were in their first year as a starter. Yes, I said Tom Brady. In his redshirt junior year, he threw 15 TDs and 12 INTs. The offense sucked most of the year and he averaged less than 8 yards per pass attempt. But people didn't say he didn't belong at QB, because he was tall, slow, and white.
I understand what you're saying, but it's not extremely difficult to throw the ball to a wide open receiver like Roy Roundtree (see his TD against Mississippi State, for one) or Terrance Robinson (see his one catch against ND) when the defense is sucking up because of the run threat.
If you put him in a pro-style offense, that run threat is somewhat diminished. If he has to sit in the pocket and try to throw to win...well...you get games like Ohio State and the two MSU games.
Oh, and if Tom Brady were quarterbacking Rich Rodriguez's offense, I would probably say that he's not a good QB, too.
Almost every first year starter we have had has sucked being forced to sit in a pocket and throw. Remember John Navarre?
And it is easy to make those throws, but the reason the defense is stacked against the run is because of Denard and the very good (if not great) offensive line. Look at the whole package. Denard is not a great pro style QB, but he is a very good college QB, with the potential to be Heisman-caliber one. He already has good passing stats as just a sophomore, with more distance to climb to reach his peak than Navarre, Henne, and the like had at this point in their careers. Some of it is due to the system, but if that's the case, then why not keep at least some of the system intact?
Isn't the defense sucking up because of his ability, which, is to his credit?
And, why is the measuring stick whether or not he can run a pro style offense or whether or not he'd play QB in the pros?
Some of the best players in CFB football history were lousy in the NFL, if they even made it.
That doesn't mean he's not very good.
I agree that he doesn't fit the mold- but fitting molds isn't the only path to being good at something.
The QB position shouldn't be defined by NFL trends, but success at the current level of the player in question.