Borges says it's possible Devin could line up at another position?
Granted he said "anything's possible" when the question was asked (around 10:20 in the presser). But he didn't act as if the idea was far fetched.
I wonder if this could be a way to get both guys on the field more often while being more palatable than Denard losing the "full time starting qb" title?
Hey, It's a bye week right?... Thoughts (non-snarky prefered)?
October 26th, 2011 at 4:24 AM ^
This may go against popular opinion around here but if we're gonna line a QB up at another position why Devin and not Denard? You're keeping the less talented passer in the QB spot and the less athletic/dynamic player in a WR/RB spot. Granted Devins decision making needs a lot of work but i'd prefer it to be the other way around.
October 26th, 2011 at 4:40 AM ^
There's always a backlash because Denard is our quarterback. Then you ask why, and the response is that you can't take his legs off the field.
If his arm is worse enough than Devin's, and he were put in as a RB, the defense would still have to respect his legs. Maybe not in the vein that he could fake a few steps and throw, but how often does he do that anyway? Play-action doesn't work as much because defenses know our most dangerous runner is the QB. If we had PA going to Denard, it might be a different story. It could even be argued that Denard could get a pitch or handoff and then drag the safeties down and throw, if it's that important.
Sidenote to the OP: It's not a bye week anymore. Sure, it's been basically a long week, Purdue is not really that contentious an issue, and everything's probably been discussed, but the point remains.
October 26th, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
I would love to see Devin line up at QB out of the shotgun with Denard next to him and see them run a zone read.
October 26th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^
is having so much trouble pulling. LIke he said, anything is possible.
October 26th, 2011 at 8:47 PM ^
they could run a mean option.
October 26th, 2011 at 4:49 AM ^
I agree.
But that discussion's been done to death and it's going nowhere. I'm curious to see if something like this could help with the politics of it... Which seemed to play a major role in the earlier debates.
It may boil down to semantics in large part. But if it helps get Devin on the field more often I wouldn't mind them playing that game.
Edit for the post that got in above me...
"Sidenote to the OP:..."
Noted.
I'll leave though, for all of the reasons that you listed.
October 26th, 2011 at 9:04 AM ^
There have already been plays when Denard has lined up in a different position
October 26th, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^
I think you want packages with both options. That way, when you bring both of them out on the field, they don't know who to expect under center. This is the same concept that the wildcat runs on. The QB does not come off the field, but instead lines up out wide so that the defense can't sub personnel for it.
I think we will see 2 formations with Devin lined up out wide. One will be a traditional 2-4 wide and the other will be some formation that lends itself to more creative plays like a diamond bubble. Then you'll see Denard and Devin on the field at the same time for something like 20% of the game, working it's way up to 50%.
October 26th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^
Lining DRob up anywhere by QB makes him one dimensional. Being two-dimensional is why he is so very scary to oposing defenses.
October 26th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
While Denard is clearly the better running back, I think Devin is a better wide receiver based on his height and stuff I saw when he was a recruit. And I don't agree that Devin is a more talented passer. He is taller and had better passing stats in high school but we haven't seen anything in college that suggest Devin is a better passer. Its all just speculation based on high school recruiting.
October 26th, 2011 at 4:42 AM ^
I think Borges is just trying to be sly and not give up any info on what type of personnel/formations the opposition might see. Wouldnt read too much into it.
October 26th, 2011 at 5:28 AM ^
He can kick onside kicks for us, run and grab the ball, dance around a little bit, and then throw a lateral across the field to Denard and Denard can run for a TD. The play would be so amazing that the refs would forget that the kicking team can't advance onside kicks.
October 26th, 2011 at 8:22 AM ^
Pretty sure you can't advance the ball on an onside kick
October 26th, 2011 at 6:39 AM ^
Watch for Devin at the worm position in the victory formation. That was probably the stupidest question asked at yesterday's presser.
October 26th, 2011 at 7:02 AM ^
backfield from the gun from time to time would do wonders. That is a wrinkle that I have been waiting for since Devin set foot on campus. But again, it has all been said.
October 26th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
"A transient ischemic attack (abbreviated as TIA, often referred to as "mini stroke") is a transient episode of neurologic dysfunction caused by ischemia (loss of blood flow) – either focal brain, spinal cord or retinal – without acute infarction (tissue death)."
October 26th, 2011 at 8:10 AM ^
Iowa's leading receiver (all-time in several categories) is a converted quarterback. I don't see this happening but there is an argument for getting talent onto the field.
October 26th, 2011 at 8:27 AM ^
Devin is gonna be lining up at WLB or SLB, whichever one isn't playing well.
October 26th, 2011 at 8:30 AM ^
It's a game week. There are precious few of them throughout the year. Do not neglect the importance of each and every one.
October 26th, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^
He said anything's possible? Does this mean my dream of Mike Martin at RB will probably be realized?
Let's not read too much into two word responses during coordinator press conferences.
October 26th, 2011 at 8:46 AM ^
Really? We're making threads out of 2 word politically correct responses?
When asked if Rawls was going to receive more playing time...he said something "he might."
That doesn't mean we should be looking for him to start the next game.
Mattison says Clark and Beyer will be contributors...and then he talked about Beyer spelling Jake Ryan for FIVE plays.
We make so much out of the politically correct responses in press conferences. Coaches aren't going to give you anything that is truly going to make an impact in a game or tip off the opposing team in a press conference.
And so what if we used Gardner at WR and DRob at QB...does anyone really think it would be for more than 2-3 plays? In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter.
October 26th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^
You mean you don't think BWC would be a better fit? Sure Martin is a total badass, former wrestling champ and all, but Campbell has like thirty pounds on him.
October 26th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
Campbell was in as a RB or FB during at least one goal line package under Rodriguez. I want to see something new.
October 26th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
I do not remember that at all. I'd bet you're right, I just don't remember that situation.
October 26th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
I didn't remember which game either until I googled it just now. MGoBlue.com's bio for Campbell says it was in 2010:
saw game action at fullback in goal line package against Notre Dame (Sept. 11), blocking on Stephen Hopkins' one-yard touchdown run
Clearly he didn't get the ball, but I remember thinking that was an awesome idea at the time.
October 26th, 2011 at 8:44 AM ^
Denard and Devin are two of the most dangerous playmakers in college football. When they are on the field together, they should scare the bejeezus out of opposing defenses. But Borges needs to recognize what we are, and what we are not. Using both as slash players with unpredictable explosive plays is effective. Muting both down to tepid, watered down, west coast bleh defeats the purpose. If we are going to put both on the field, pull the lid off the playbook and let's get them unleashed.
October 26th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
Calling Devin one of "the most dangerous playmakers in college football" at this point in his career may be overstating things by just a little, or a ton.
At this point in his career, Devin is a highly-touted QB with a ton of potential, who should develop into a dominant starting QB in the mold of Vince Young. But, right now, he is not there.
Also, "tepic, watered down, west coast bleh"? As to the "bleh" part of that, have you watched SDSU last year? Nothing tepic about their offense. As to the West Coast part - we are not running a west coast offense. We are running a variation of the spread offense that we ran last year.
October 26th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Devin is?
October 26th, 2011 at 9:01 AM ^
Reading this thread is like watching a train wreck. I can't take my eyes off in horror. I am so ticked off.
- We would not have won vs. MSU with Devin at QB.
- Denard is screwed by having a completely new OC and schemes.
- Everyone who proposes Denard move isn't listening to Borges . . . the changes he has brought don't happen overnight.
I just need to stop and walk away.
October 26th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
Who is to say that he ever will? People assume that he will beat MSU and OSU on pure faith and nothing of substance. Denard is a terrible passer and more than likely will always be a below average passer.
<br>
<br>The simple truth is that until Denard beats MSU or OSU these type of posts will continue to be written.
<br>
<br>The thought of Denard versus Bama scares the crap out of me. If he thinks MSU hits hard just wait until he plays a Saban defense. Eek.
October 26th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
I assume Denard will win
- When he has an OL that can deal with blitzes
- When he has an OL that can deal with a DL that times the snap count.
- When he has an OL that knows how to pull.
- When he has receivers that can regularly get open.
- When has a year working with Borges under his belt.
- When he has a running back who can get yardage.
- When he isn't playing in a lousy trash tornado.
- When Michigan has a DL that can regularly get penetration.
Yeah, sure, a lot of quarterbacks could when if all those things were happening. And would have, could have should have is always frustration city. But heh, isn't the Internetz all about speculation?
Regarding MSU, I can't believe no one is giving them any credit. Mind you, I hate them, but they are not a bad team. Even though Bielema is guilty of coaching miscues, MSU beat them, more or less fair and square. And all we hear is that the Big 10 is down, nothing about the fact the MSU is actually pretty good. I am so looking forward to seeing the team prove this on the field over the rest of theason.
However, sadly, I'll have to agree with you (that until Denard beats MSU or Ohio, these posts will continue to be written.)
October 26th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
Michigan is 6-1 and everyone is ready to write Denard off and this season. Look we're going to get to another bowl game we have a fairly young team a great recruiting class coming in. Everyone just needs to calm down. Denard will figure it out. Perhaps the loss now will take some pressure off him and he can just go out there and play.
October 26th, 2011 at 9:01 AM ^
If that happens I hope Russell Bellomy is ready to burn his red shirt.
October 26th, 2011 at 9:05 AM ^
Let denard return a kick. Just imagine if he found a seam...
October 26th, 2011 at 9:17 AM ^
Instead I'm imagining 11 guys with a 60 yard head start running at full speed towards our starting QB.
Now if this was at the end of a bowl game, or against Ohio, down 7 and needed a huge return, I would be willing to take the risk.
October 26th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
I had an alcohol infused argument about this last season. Down seven against OSU with less than thirty seconds on the clock, I'd be all for putting Denard back there (as long as he semi-knew what he was doing catching).
October 26th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
That's a terrible idea not only because he could get hurt, but because we've never seen him catch a ball in a game. I'd put the chances of a muffed kick at about 40%.
October 26th, 2011 at 9:07 AM ^
in that game MSU had last Saturday?
October 26th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^
Although the players didn't have RR pissing in their ears and offering to sign transfer papers, there had to be plenty of players who were thinking of transferring when the coaching change happened. In all probability, we have Denard Robinson to thank for keeping the team together.
For staying and then for stepping up to the plate and being a true leader, which is what QB's do, Denard has cemented his place at the position. Then, of course, there is that little matter of "over 300 yards of total offense a game" that Borges said he would be a "fool" to take out.
Devin is doing a great job of being a backup right now. He is learning the position and keeping himself ready. He is doing what the coaching staff is asking. If he plays, it is a bonus, but it has to be within the framework of Denard being "the man."
October 26th, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
Like another poster said, people are reading into this WAY too much. Why would we put Denard in the gun and Devin at WR over say, I don't know, anybody that plays receiver? That doesn't make any sense.
Now, the formations we've seen with Devin in the gun and Denard in the slot is probably all we will see. There are many wrinkles I can think of from this formation. No need to go putting a backup QB as a "decoy" as WR. Kind of defeats the purpose, no?
October 26th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Other than he is 6'4" and would be a match up problem, can throw on a double pass, and run decently I have no idea.
October 26th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
He's not a receiver and wouldn't be respected as such.
The end.
October 26th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
Coachspeak. Move along.
October 26th, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
Well Devin is 6'4 and fast. Also, when he was being recruited he went to several camps as a WR and dominated competition, so there's that.
Specifically, look at 1:21 of this video:
He has some serious ups
October 26th, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
it says he is a:
Quarterbac
k
October 26th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
Did you watch the whole video? Denard's position says quarterback on our roster.
October 26th, 2011 at 9:44 PM ^
Just being a video Nazi pointing out the incorrect word wrap at the beginning of the video for the word Quarterbac.......k
Anyways, that's just like your opinion, man......
October 26th, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
Didn't we already have this same discussion re: Tate and Denard?