The best position on the field for fast guys?
This may be looking ahead a little bit, but with reference to OSU ... how much better would their offense be if they played Bauserman (I think???) at QB and used TP as a wide receiver? I understand everyones desired to have a mobile, Vince Young-type QB. But, it seems like a lot of teams are actually weakening themselves trying to get that.
On a Michigan related note, could we find a better use for Denard Robinson? I'm not saying he'll never make it as a passer, but the kid currently has shades of Steve Breaston, doesn't he?
October 15th, 2009 at 2:41 PM ^
Has shown 0 propensity to drop deep balls and make electrifying KO/punt returns against Texas.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:46 PM ^
Fast guys are better off as ball boys: http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/blog/2009/10/06/bears-ballboy-almost-as…
October 15th, 2009 at 2:47 PM ^
is with the ball, running towards the end zone
October 15th, 2009 at 5:34 PM ^
i tried to play that position in high school, but my coach said i was too slow. also, that i was cut.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:52 PM ^
the "also, that I was cut" made me laugh right out loud and call my wife over to read it. well done
October 15th, 2009 at 2:47 PM ^
Do well at any position on the offense, as long as he has a little more experience under his belt. I like him at qb tho
October 15th, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^
Maybe he can fill in at center until Molk gets back.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:52 PM ^
On a 3rd and 25
October 15th, 2009 at 3:11 PM ^
imo corners need speed the most.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:14 PM ^
I wish I could say THIS IS THE LAST TIME ANYONE SHOULD SUGGEST MOVING DENARD FROM QB BECAUSE HE IS HERE AS A QB and that would be the end of it at least until the 2011 season.....
....but we'll at least 50 more threads on the subject by the Illinois game.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:53 PM ^
D Rob is at UM because they offered him an opportunity to play QB. If he wanted to play other positions, he probably would have stayed home and gone to Florida. I still think D Rob can turn into an even faster Pat White, and RR can use both him and Forcier the next four years.
Imagine what a nightmare it would be for an opposing coach to prepare for both of them them when they have had a few years in the program. I definitely wear maize and blue-colored glasses, but I think Forcier's upside is to be another Doug Flutie, and D Rob's is to be another, albiet smaller, Pat White.
How in the living fuck do you prepare to play against THAT?
October 15th, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^
to strike a nerve, jg. I didn't know you were so sensitive.
The thread is moreso a general conversation about the best uses ... not whether we should move Denard. For all of the pub running spread offenses get, I still think there is some merit to having your most athletic players play a position other than QB. I think this is especially true with a guy like Terelle Pryor, who should/could/would dominate at his size, speed, and strength.
Also, regardless of what we recruited Robinson to do, if he doesn't improve at QB, we're kind of wasting him by not letting him see the field more. Not since Charles Woodson lined up on offense in 97 have I seen a player freak a defense out as much. Maybe it would be good if 11 defensive eyes had to be on a slot receiver while Tate played QB, Minor, Brown, Shaw, et al. were running backs, and Stonum, Koger, Hemmingway and Odoms were other receivers.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:26 PM ^
This is based on no more than a feeling, but I'm starting to believe that RR is not as set on Forcier for the long term as the rest of the country. I know Iowa wasn't attacking, but I sure liked the looks of that second to last drive against the Hawkeyes, shades of P. White. Come from behind passing drive = RR offense not working as it should....
October 17th, 2009 at 12:02 AM ^
If Rodriguez could run Denard 50 times a game, then I might agree with you. But since quarterbacks actually have to, you know, pass and maybe even hand off sometimes, I strongly disagree.
I say again: Denard has worse passing numbers than 2008 Nick Sheridan.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:58 PM ^
Thank You. I was starting to think I was the only one who felt that way around here.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:09 PM ^
In space?
October 16th, 2009 at 3:32 AM ^
are you talking about Zoltan?
October 15th, 2009 at 4:30 PM ^
DRob's speed and bulky build suggest to me that he could be amazing at some other positions, and I am not convinced that he will ever be a great QB. To me, it is telling that other schools did not recruit him at QB. It is very possible that Forcier stays ahead of him, and Gardner beats Robinson out for the backup spot (and possibly beats out Forcier too). If so, I'd love to see him at slot, on punt returns, and in the backfield with an occasional down-field throw. In response to your question, I think QB is the best position to have a fast player--if they can throw. I don't think you should have a QB who can't spread the ball around, no matter how electric they are on the ground. He is young. He may learn to throw better, but other coaches did not see that kind of potential in him. I'm skeptical he will ever emerge as a legit throwing threat.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:26 AM ^
Nobody recruited Pat White as a quarterback besides WVU. He did alright. Same goes for Tommy Frazier, Jamele Holloway, Scott Frost, Vince Young, and I'm sure a bunch of other run first quarterbacks who have won national titles. This is college football. Land of the option, wishbone, zone read, or any other offense that asks your quarterback to make fucking plays even if he has no chance of playing in the NFL. D-Rob is a quarterback, and my guess is he'll be a damn good one if we give him a shot and support him. The kid is a true freshman and he will only get better. Same goes for Tate. We have two fantastic kids at the position and should be amped as shit about the future of this program.
Go Blue!
October 16th, 2009 at 7:22 PM ^
It's not so much that he can't throw, though his accuracy could use some work, but rather he needs to learn to make the right read, and then make the right read without hesitating.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:03 AM ^
???????????????????????????????????????
October 15th, 2009 at 4:59 PM ^
He was a Top-Ten rated defensive back coming out of high school...
I know it's a weird concept (and kind of an aside)--but sometimes you might want to recruit guys who have played the position you need to fill, rather than pretending that chocolate milk,a sand pit and a warm body is all you need to fill roster holes.
Just sayin'
October 15th, 2009 at 5:06 PM ^
Dang KoB, I've actually been pos-banging you for awhile, and you're down to -643. What'd you do?
October 16th, 2009 at 1:08 AM ^
Trying to have Vince Young as your QB hurts your team immensely.
Oh shit, I just looked it up and he lost one game his last two years in college, won a Rose Bowl and a National Title.
Never mind, turns out Vince Young is rad at football and trying to have him on your team is a good idea.
OP is retarded, my sincere apologies.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
I said Vince Young-type of QB ... and I also said "trying". VY was something of a once a generation type of player. Everyone trying to chase that with guys that aren't performing nearly to VY's level might be wasting the talent of a guy that shouldn't be lined up at QB and the talent of the other guys on offense that aren't seeing the ball distribution a traditional QB generates.
Again, using TP at OSU, if he were an outside receiver, he could be a nightmare ala Braylon Edwards/David Terrell. Instead, his indecision at QB is causing their offense to stagnate, wasting both his talent and the talent of the player's around him.
So, if you happent to get Vince Young on your team ... awesome. However, more than likely, by trying to get him on your team, you're going to end up wasting a really good wide receiver and a lot of other offensive talent.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:43 PM ^
Pryor has lost three games as a starting QB, all to top-ten teams. He went to a BCS bowl as a true freshman and is likely headed back to one this year. Most QB's don't even see the field by this point and yet he's had tons of success. Pretending he's struggling to the point where a position switch sounds like a good idea is ridiculous.
October 16th, 2009 at 7:29 PM ^
But I think the reason OSU went to a BCS bowl last year and they've only lost 3 games with him has a lot to do with their defense. I don't think anyone has questioned the fact that OSU's offense has struggled and that Pryor has not developed very well.
Also, this is more an academic question. As in, where would he best serve Ohio State? Has OSU been successful with him at QB? Yes. Could they be a more explosive/better offense with a better passer under center and TP as a wideout? I think so. I was curious as to what other people's thoughts are.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:29 AM ^
Let me see, you win games by scoring more points than the other guy right?
So I guess somewhere on offense.
Let me see . . . . is there an offensive position that virtually guarantees you have the ball in your hands during every play?
Thinking.
Tackle? No no, thats a "Big Ugly".
Thinking.
One of them "End" thingies? that are allowed to catch the ball during full moons or something?
No No, thats not it either.
Anyway, whatever that position is that always gets you the ball and lets you "make plays".
Whatever that position is I'd make Denard do that (since he's the fastest) and I'd also tell him to go do it really fast towards the other guys endzone.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:07 AM ^
The "Quick."
October 16th, 2009 at 5:44 PM ^
Speed alone means next to nothing when it comes to choosing a position. Every position benefits from having a person who, all other attributes being equal, is speedier than another. Where a player goes on the field should be determined by other attributes. Tall, bulky, hands, core strength? Wideout. Agile like an epileptic cat? Slot. Ability to learn and run a system, make reads, throw a ball? QB.
Take my skill set: bulky in all the wrong places, at negative one steps after having lost one due to age, crazy eyes. Natural fit at MGoBoard commenter.