September 16th, 2010 at 9:38 AM ^
Better question for defenses...shouldn't there be more X's up there?
September 16th, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^
1 QB. 11 linemen. Put in Martin at slot receiver, Roh at wide receiver, and Van Bergen as a running back. Let them build up a little steam and cya later.
September 16th, 2010 at 9:54 AM ^
But I worry about him running 80 yards to block for Denard. Seems unhealthy. Anybody remember Shaun Rogers running back that interception he got while with the Lions a few years ago? Totally unstoppable, but after a 45 yard run, they had to give him a bunch of oxygen!
September 16th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
Keith Traylor of the Chicago Bears had an INT that was the funniest return I have ever seen. the 2001 bears were good and part of the reason was they were great at forcing turnovers and defensive TDs. Traylor was one of 2 HUGE DTs (listed at 340, the other was 360) and he somehow got his hands on a pick. the return was hilarious to watch as he was surrounded by teammates blocking, he was trying to give the ball to one of them... amazing.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
He moved pretty good for a big guy. He kinda looked like he was lost while running.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
at 0:16 when the rest of the players reach him... he just starts looking for someone to give the ball to... I love me some 350lb lineman rumblin down the field
September 16th, 2010 at 10:18 AM ^
I like the commentator saying how the earth is shaking as he is running down the field.
September 16th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
The commentary Immediately after the interception during the replay "and now it's all instinct"...just beautiful
September 16th, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
September 16th, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^
classic
September 16th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
Depressing part about seeing this is, we lost the rest of our games that season(maybe won one more not sure) and then went 0-16 the next year.
September 16th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
So awesome. He gets tackled at :22, his teammates start to celebrate, cut to QB reaction, cut back to pile, cut to cheering fans, back to dejected QB, and finally at :35 they pull an opposing player out from the bottom of the pile!
September 16th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
I'm surprised Bo didn't try something like this (ten guys on the line and a direct snap to the ball carrier).
September 16th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
... I thought this was going to be another post about the Tate Forcier Quadruple Option. The comic was awsome....
I think we now have a new Denard Robinson Triple Option... Run, Pass, Win......
September 16th, 2010 at 9:41 AM ^
That is pretty funny. And I agree, I think there needs to be some more X's up there for the defense. Thanks for sharing this Six Zero.
September 16th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
if you think the next two games are not about establishing balance.....just wait.
September 16th, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^
Or does the depiction of Coach Rod look more like Schiano than Rod?
September 16th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
"Are you thinking what I'm thinking Pinky?"
"I think so Brain, but me and Pipi Longstocking...what would the children look like?"
September 16th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^
All he has to do is give it to the only player in the nation who is DILITHIUM Charged, remember!?
FUCK YOU ND. You lost, because you were out-coached. So much for getting rid of the cancer that was Weis. =D
Besides, it isn't RR with the easy job, it's Brian Kelly. He has already been heralded with the status of ND SAVIOR just like every other coach you've hired in the past decade. I think he is going to be great there, but we're better. And RR is still "fighting for his job" according to some fools.
RR can have whatever game-plan he want's. He is the genius who revolutionized an offensive scheme, and is now fucking shit up with it. All prop's to RR for everything he has done at Michigan, and what is about to come... Go Blue!
September 16th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
A Michigan coach standing in a room full of people telling them he was going to run the ball down their throats and they were welcome to try and stop him. I know I'll remember it, I just know I will.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
I understand the mainstream press' and oposing fans' need to simplify things, but I'm already more than a little tired of this "Michigan's offense is just Denard" and "RR is lucky because he stumbled upon Denard." Some points to counter this:
1. Offensive line is much improved as noted in the UCONN UFR (and probably the ND UFR, yet to be posted). There are holes for Denard to run through. No doubt he would not be nearly as successful with last year's line after Molk was hurt. On pass plays the protection has been outstanding and on many run plays blocking at LOS and downfield has been excellent.
2. RR and his staff developed Denard. Compare the Denard of last year to the QB you see this year. You see someone who understands the offense and knows where to put the ball. You see a QB-centered offense that works with the right player at the trigger. Gee, maybe coaching has something to do with DRob's improvement? And maybe RR schemes have something to do with DRob's success? Remember, no other teams wanted to give DRob a shot at QB. It was either CB or WR. RR recognized his talent to run QB in the spread and offered him as a QB.
3. Passing yards are not soley attributable to great quarterbaking. Receivers have to get open and they have to catch the ball, sometimes making tough catches. I'd say Denard has been amazingly accurate so far, but the receivers are getting open, something that was not happening consistently last year. Credit the run game for opening this up.
4. Defense is improved, although total yards allowed do not necessarily show it. Turnover margin is much improved, and both pass and run defense appear to be better, despite giving up big plays. Last year, we could not stop the run or the pass PLUS we gave up big plays. This year, run and pass defense on average downs are decent, even if big plays are sprinkled in here and there.
It's clear to me this is a jump forward for RR in year three as his systems start to take hold and players understand their responsbilities better. Denard has been awesome, but there are plenty of players helping him to be awesome. That being said, losing him would set the offense back somewhat. I'd argue it would not be devastating, but with our options being an unprooven freshman QB or a passing QB who runs some (combined with a backfield that has yet to demonstrate it can carry the load), our balance would probably be disrupted without Denard.
Guess we just have to accept that for the people who hate RR, nothng will ever be good enough. He will always be lucky or a cheater or both.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
It's kinda funny how Michigan's offense sucking in 2008 and being mediocre in 2009 was "all Rich Rod's fault" (round pegs in square holes, little linemen, blah blah blah), but now that our offense is good, "it's all because of Denard and Rich Rod doesn't do anything but tell him to run."
September 16th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
This is how human being always respond to these types of things, as if no planning, no effort was involved in achieving success.
My favorite presser response was to the question, "When did you know Denard could do this?"
Coach Rodriguez - "When we recruited him"
For these things I can usually find comfort in George Bernhard Shaw,
"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don’t believe in circumstances. The people who get on in their world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can’t find them, make them." George Bernard Shaw.
For me this season is just a treat to watch. I don't want to break it down and analyze where it came from, and how it's going to be next year and for the future, I just want to appreciate it as it is.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^
Again, this "one-man-team" sentiment makes me laugh. Through necessity, Rodriguez has had to build a team of interchangeable parts. Would Tate and Devin be as good as Denard? No - that's why Denard is starting. Could the other two put up points as well? Yes. When Rodriguez says they have 3 QBs who can start, I believe him.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
Agreed. Mainstream press always needs to simplfiy things into one-liners that are quick and easy to deliver. Real evidence - which is presented in analysis like Brian's - takes time to uncover and these national and local (Drew Sharp) reporters don't want to spend the time it takes to have informed opinions. I have so very little respect for the Pardon the Interruption guys of the world, since it's clear they can't possibly have the knowledge they are required to in order to comment intelligently on so many different sports and teams. They just go with their gut feel, and it's almost always OUTRAGE!!! at this that or the other. Once someone has an emotional opinion, it's very difficult to change that opinion because contrary evidence is usually dismissed through ad hominems or confrimation bias.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
BUT I think there's a fine balance between one extreme of 'OMG Denard is your entire season what if he gets hurt?' and 'Any QB will do this in third year of our new system.' That downplays the effort, progress and talent of Denard and also puts false hope in the system as a whole.
In truth it's a little bit of both system and Denard. We wouldn't be quite the same without him, and he'd probably not be the same player in another uniform.
If you ask the mainstream media what would happen if Shoelace went down, they'd waste little time digging our grave and putting on their dancing shoes. I suspect most of us wouldn't hit total aeeiiiiieee panic mode, but at the same time we all have to concede that what's happened in these first two weeks is kinda special.
The word on the street is that #16 is our entire team, our entire season. We all know better... but I guess we all have to be honest and ask ourselves, if Denard never came to AA, what would the forecast of the season be? That might be a good question for all of us ask in standing firm against the hype barrage over the first month of the season.
September 16th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
Completely agree with you.
By interchangeable I only mean that, contrary to popular opinion, the scheme would still work without Denard. Gardner is supposed to be pretty mobile and we already know Tate is.
But don't get me wrong, Denard is special and obviously the best option because of his natural speed and his sound decision-making (so far).
September 16th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
I can understand how it appears that the offense is a one-man show...I think we probably all can. Hell, 92% of our offense comes from Denard. Of course, it doesn't work without the O-line blocking well and the threat of a short dump pass. Are we doomed without Denard? Not in the least, but the numbers show that only one person is (statistically) the offense.
Everyone always said, "Just wait till coach Rod gets his Pat While." I found that a funny statement. It's like saying that Doug Collins just needed his Michael Jordan. I don't think Denard is Jordan, but he has dominated like Mike. I'd say a more interesting question is this:
What other college coaches are so closely identified with their QB? I'm not sure I know of any.
September 16th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
Perhaps Urban Meyer, but that's because he runs a similar system.
September 16th, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
Good point. I thought of Urban, but maybe that's just because of his love fest with Tebow. Still though, it seems that he isn't so connected to his QBs like RR is.
September 16th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^
When Mike Leach offenses passed for 400+ yards but very little on the ground, no one claimed he was running a one-man offense.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding out there among casual fans and some in the press about how the Michigan offense works. Sure, some runs are called as QB keepers but on many others, they're scrambles after finding his passing reads covered or taking what the defense gives him on zone-read plays. ND and UConn both chose to let Denard run because that was their defensive gameplan. If they'd gone after him more, Smith and Shaw would have gotten many more carries and could have gashed their defenses for many more yards.
September 16th, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
I think we're onto something. Put in 10 linemen and then run the QB draw, or a play action to Mike Martin, easy 6.