CC - Denards Comments
Denards comments about CC
"If it was up to me, I'd tell them he has to come back," Robinson said. "We had a pretty good season, and our future's really bright. We've got a young team and we're just starting to jell now.
"I see us in the future winning a national championship or moving in the top 10."
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/21577/denard-robinson-rested-r…
Robinson's success this season appears to be the biggest reason for Michigan to retain Rodriguez, especially since the sophomore quarterback is such a perfect fit for Rodriguez's offense.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:27 PM ^
but the whole point of Denard Robinson is that he can actually throw the ball really well. I mean, yeah, Cam Newton would have made an awesome tight end at Auburn, but that doesn't mean putting him at tight end wouldn't be a giant waste.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^
Denard would be a great slot receiver or rb. That may be his future at the next level. But at Michigan, the thing that makes him special is that he is a dual threat. It is very hard to contain him at the collegiate level because he can run and pass so well.
December 30th, 2010 at 12:11 AM ^
If Joe Webb and Tavaris Jackson can play qb qt the next level than so can Denard. He's shown more in college than they ever have.
December 30th, 2010 at 8:23 AM ^
I'd argue Tavaris still has a better arm than Denard, but Denard is 10x faster, more agile, more athletic. I agree with your sentiment though, if those guys can succeed there's no reason Denard shouldn't be able to
December 30th, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^
The question is, will an Nfl team give Denard a shot. If they do and he's successful, it might help to change the perception that you have to be 6'5 to play QB in the Nfl.
December 30th, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^
The jury is out on Joe Webb, but Tavaris Jackson CAN'T play qb at teh next level.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:28 PM ^
Denard is not a RB...He is a QB.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:31 PM ^
Ahhhhh this brings back good memories from last year.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:37 PM ^
Dernard is a turrible QB? Check.
The offense won't work in the Big Ten? We're ranked #5 in the country bitches. Check.
Defensive players aren't developing? Demens, Mouton, Martin, and the Redshirt Brigade. Check.
December 30th, 2010 at 1:13 AM ^
You didn't prove anyone wrong..Denard did
The offense did nothing against any good defenses, especially when the game was still in question.
Defensive players devoloping? 1st Mouton did not devolop, Demens has played 4 games. You have Martin..1 player that you can say for certain developed. and wtf is the redshirt brigade. Anyone who was any good at all on defense did not redshirt this year.
December 30th, 2010 at 1:21 AM ^
Your argument is ridiculous. How many games does a player have to play before he starts developing? Eight? Nine? Could I get a ballpark figure? Mouton made plays in addition to choking.
Redshirt brigade = defensive players who don't have to play because we have...wait for it...wait for it...consistent starters! If you read between the lines you would figure that out. Traditionally, first-year defensive players redshirt to develop their skills. It is rare to have an incoming recruit immediately contribute on defense. Expecting Ash or Black to jump right into the line is silly.
And it would be pretty hard for Dernard to do his thing without stud wide receivers and a crack O-line that can block for him.
December 30th, 2010 at 1:46 AM ^
You dont know either way.. he has only played 4 games. How the hell can you tell if he is getting better if he has only played 4 games. If in the middle of next season..he shows imporvment over his play this season then you can say he developed.
Again with the redshirt brigage. How can you tell if anyone who has not played is developing. Are you there during practice? Are you a current player or coach? By the way..silly me, Black did jump right into the line and contribute. Again any freshman who were even decent..found playing time this year on defense. You have yet to make a single valid point, but you call my argument rediculous?
December 30th, 2010 at 2:00 AM ^
I can call your spelling ridiculous for one. Also, the athletic department releases these things called "practice videos" where you can watch the players practicing, and their weight is public domain knowledge too. That is two ways to measure progress. Spending a year drilling and enduring S&C with Coach Barwis will presumably lead to your development as a player...or maybe we should try feeding them all Mickey D's for lunch every day.
Demens looks pretty good to me. Being a contributor on defense certainly constitutes improvement over not starting.
You can rag on the offense all you want, but being ranked #5 is being ranked #5 is being ranked #5. Denard is the star, which is why he plays quarterback. That's the way football offenses are built, unless you run Navy-style option runs on almost every down.
December 30th, 2010 at 1:52 AM ^
Is there a reason you keep calling him Dernard? An inside joke I somehow missed perhaps?
December 30th, 2010 at 1:59 AM ^
I too am guilty of misspelling words. Denard it shall be from now on.
December 30th, 2010 at 8:24 AM ^
The offense did nothing against any good defenses, especially when the game was still in question.
So I guess you didn't watch the Illinois game...
December 30th, 2010 at 8:30 AM ^
They also outgained Ohio State in the first half before Denard's fingers asploded shortly before halftime.
December 30th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
...that game "proved" them to be a terrible team/defense. Because nobody with a good defense gave up yards to Michigan. I mean, everyone Michigan lost to kept them down under 150 yards of total offense...right?
December 29th, 2010 at 11:38 PM ^
Sorry guys. I set my DeLorean to the wrong year. I never wanted to go back a year. I was hoping to go forward one and figure this out for all of us. Though seeing Denards first snap again was pretty sweet.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^
But I really wanna know if Devin Gardner will redshirt!
December 30th, 2010 at 12:50 AM ^
Denard is not a RB...He is a QB
He's both, actually. Since so many of his runs came off straight sweeps and iso plays instead of scrambles and read keepers, there is absolutely no reason to believe he would be a less effective runner if moved away from quarterback.
I am NOT suggesting he should be, but keep that in mind before you jump down someone's throat for merely mentioning the possibility.
December 30th, 2010 at 7:01 AM ^
I love him as a dual threat qb but don't forget that when he runs from the qb spot he has an extra blocker (the tailback) on many of the plays. He obviously wouldn't have this if he was the tailback.
December 30th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
DB is an effective runner? Huh, maybe he can play RB if Hart decommits.
/s
December 29th, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^
As a true sophomore in his first season as a starter, the guy puts up arguably the most statistically impressive dual-threat season for a quarterback in recorded NCAA history... and you want him as a running back because with some work he could be pretty good???
I hate everything.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^
to the party.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^
In all fairness, he was only 20th in passer efficiency this season. I'd rather have a five star stud like Matt Barkley, who was...31st.
Also, Cam Newton, whatever you think of him, had a much better year statistically.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:47 PM ^
Newton totaled 3998 yards total (passing + rushing) in 13 games (308 ypg)
Robinson totaled 3959 yards in 12 games (330 ypg), and missed portions of several games due to injury. In the process, he broke the all-time rushing record for a QB.
You're probably right... but there is certainly a legitimate argument that Denard's stats are more impressive.
December 30th, 2010 at 12:52 AM ^
Denard was NOT more impressive than Cam Newton. Newton did things against Bama, LSU, Arkansas and South Carolina that Denard simply didn't do against our top competition on the schedule.
December 30th, 2010 at 12:55 AM ^
But his stats were, and that was the argument. Taken as a whole, Cam's seasons was obviously more impressive.
December 30th, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^
You are right, Denard's stats were just as impressive, and he missed alot of time.
December 30th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^
if you break it down on a $$ per points/yards/first down basis, Denard is a much better deal than Cam Newton.
Denard for the bargain and a win.
December 30th, 2010 at 7:30 AM ^
Cam Newton says, "Hi."....and so does Tim Tebow.
I am NOT ragging on Denard's season. He ran the ball extremely well, but was only a competent passer this year (I am hopeful that he will continue to develop as a passer in the future). Newton and Tebow put up monster numbers both as runners and passers during their great seasons.
For all those dogging the suggestion of Denard as a RB, is it really that hard to believe that UM's offense could be equally effective as the current iteration if they had an elite pro-style QB (e.g. Chad Henne, Andrew Luck) with Denard at RB? It isn't really such a preposterous suggestion and would probably be better for Denard's potential NFL future as he is unlikely to be given the opportunity to play QB at the next level.
December 30th, 2010 at 8:34 AM ^
is it really that hard to believe that UM's offense could be equally effective as the current iteration if they had an elite pro-style QB (e.g. Chad Henne, Andrew Luck) with Denard at RB?
Not at all. That would probably work out just fine.
/looks on roster for elite pro-style QB. Finds none.
/looks on roster for ANY pro-style QB. Finds none.
/looks in recruiting class for a pro-style QB. Finds none.
/looks for spare parts left over from RoboHenne. Finds only scrap metal.
Uh... I think I discovered the flaw in your plan...
December 30th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
I agree with both of you. I don't think Denard should be moved to RB 'just 'cause" but if there was another player on our team capable of playing QB at a high level (and this could be Gardner or Tate) and Denard played a role similar to what Percy Harvin played at UF or Reggie Bush played at USC, we'd be looking very strong. But like you pointed out, this is ONLY if we had a very good player to play QB, as both Harvin and Bush had that.
It's all about getting your best players on the field too - if Gardner and Denard is better than Denard and Vincent Smith, then maybe you do it. You could still let Denard take 5-8 direct snaps a game. Thinl about if a defense had to worry if (a) Denard would get the ball, (b) DG would keep the ball, or (c) Roundtree anyone else would get a pass downfield. That could be scary.
December 30th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
Did you not notice the word "if" in my statement, as in "...IF they had an elite pro-style QB..."?
IF (there's that darn word again), Jim Harbaugh were to be the next HC it is at least conceivable that he could get a good pro-style QB to commit to UM in this recruiting cycle. Even if he did not, it is possible that Devin Gardner would be an upgrade as a passer at QB over Denard.
This is all pure speculation, however. I was not advocating the move for Denard, merely suggesting that Denard could be a viable option at RB if a new HC were to come in and decide that he did not want to use Denard at QB.
But thanks for your snarky reply.
December 30th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
it is at least conceivable that he could get a good pro-style QB to commit to UM in this recruiting cycle.
So you're looking to start a true freshman (who will not have been an early enrollee) over Denard, and thinking this will somehow be an upgrade?
Even if he did not, it is possible that Devin Gardner would be an upgrade as a passer at QB over Denard
Possible... but unless he improves as much as Denard did over this off-season (and Denard fails to progress at all), I really doubt he can catch DR in terms of passing ability,
I was not advocating the move for Denard, merely suggesting that Denard could be a viable option at RB if a new HC were to come in and decide that he did not want to use Denard at QB.
I don't doubt that Denard could be a successful RB. Or CB. Or KR. Or PR. Or FS. Or Place Kicker. Hell, I'd start him at DE if he wanted. My/our point is that a coach who inherits Michigan's roster and is faced with the choice of (a) returning Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year Denard Robinson at QB, or (b) Denard at RB and random true freshman or RS freshman (and non-Pro-style) Devin Gardner at QB, and chooses the latter, would raise some serious eyebrows.
But thanks for your snarky reply.
No snark intended. I guess it's just my default position.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:36 PM ^
Wow could we put Tater back there too?? DROB IS OUR STARTING QB!!! eeessshhhh!!!
December 29th, 2010 at 11:45 PM ^
would make a sharp coffee table, too.
December 30th, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^
Legacy downgrade...good luck with that.
December 30th, 2010 at 1:02 AM ^
he can run from 1500 yards AND throw for 2500 yards from the QUARTERBACK position. Just a thought.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:37 PM ^
when did i say that i don't want him to be our starting quarterback next year or for years after that? i didn't. the guy is electric and a heisman candidate at the qb position. all i said was if rodriguez is let go and harbaugh is brought in that there would still be a place for him in the offense if jim didn't want him to be the quarterback
December 29th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
when it comes Jim Harbaugh, but even so, I feel like I'm on solid ground saying this:
If Jim Harbaugh does not want Denard Robinson to be his QB, then he should not be the coach of Michigan football.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
<br>
<br>If he does not want him at QB so be it. The man lead Michigan to Big Ten titles and went to the AFC title as a player in the NFL.
<br>
<br>I think he knows just a little about playing the position successfully at the collegiate level.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
so be it."
I mean, he's just one of the 2 or 3 favorites to win the heisman trophy next year. If our new coach wants to switch him to a different position, no big deal! I mean, he once played in an AFC Championship game!
December 30th, 2010 at 12:17 AM ^
I can promise if JH is hired one of the first calls he would make would be to Denard to see if he wants to stay on board. Shoelace will be are starting QB next year no matter who the coach is.
December 30th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
Unless, of course, he leaves and tears it up for another school.
December 30th, 2010 at 1:10 AM ^
went to the AFC title as a player in the NFL
Well if that's the criteria, why are we stopping at Harbaugh when Neil O'Donnell won that AFC title game. Screw Hoke, O'Donnell to Michigan!
December 30th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^
I know a guy who won FOUR Super Bowls, and went to the Pro Bowl once. Surely HE should be running a football team somewhere...
December 30th, 2010 at 12:05 AM ^
Strawman right here.
Is there anything to indicate, if Jim Harbaugh were to come to Ann Arbor, that he would send Denard Robinson packing because he "does not want Denard Robinson to be his QB?"
Come on. It's not like Harbaugh would waltz into Schembechler Hall and immediately begin plans to clone John Navarre in 9 months or less. It's absolutely batty to assume that a coaching change would immediately neutralize Denard Robinson's contributions to this offense. Any coach worth his salt is going to want to maximize his talent as much as possible, especially looking at what he was able to do this season when he was healthy.