Denard Career Rushing Record Watch: Week 2
Denard got back on pace to break the all-time career rushing record for a quarterback. With 218 yards on 20 carries Denard has 245 rushing yards on the season.
Pat White: 4,480 on 684 rushes
Denard Robinson: 3,474 on 576 rushes
Denard needs to average 94.5 yards on the ground per game for the 11 remaining games to break the record (NCAA counts post-season games in individual records, beginning in 2002).
September 9th, 2012 at 8:24 PM ^
what you believe to be an assinine statement is really you saying that Countess is expected to go do his job to the best of his abilities, cover, tackle, go all out to get the results that he has trained for and that his natural abilities will allow....and no loss if he's hurt....but not Denard. If having a QB that is so amazing is such a valuable thing then why have we been wasting his natural ability to do what he does best. If the staff didn't understand that we were outmanned on the line, then this is all mute. But I doubt that. I'd like an explanation as to why we insist on sending backs into the line time after time with no imagination to attempt to get them into open space once in awhile. Of course Denard wasn't going to manage much between the TE's...not many have or will against that team, however, if certain people are so special (and he is) then why the lack of effort on the offensive front to deceive, or spread the field once in a while. Staying compact is easy to defend. This game wasn't a surprise. Everyone knew we were playing an excellent team and had plenty of time to prepare to use the available talent to its fullest potential. All I saw was a waste of that talent. To not even try to find ways to use Denard (or anyone else) in open space for fear of injury is a copout. (This is where you go and check your tampon!)
And yes, Countess is just as important on D as Denard is on O and if you think diferently, that's quite alright but you can't have it both ways. Any talented and/or experienced player at any postion is important at any time but you believe that noone but Denard should be protected? That we run the same old plays as last year..w/out our other running back and have nothing in the bag to even try to surprise Bama even just a little? (wouldn't want to get embarrassed or hurt).
As far as my being assinine, two people come to mind. Floyd and Woodson. One was hurt and out for the season, using his abilities to their fullest. The other was never beaten before a game even started.
September 9th, 2012 at 9:57 PM ^
If the staff didn't understand that we were outmanned on the line, then this is all mute.Am I really supposed to have a serious debate with a person that confuses the word "MOOT" with "mute?"
what you believe to be an assinine statement is really you saying that Countess is expected to go do his job to the best of his abilities, cover, tackle, go all out to get the results that he has trained for and that his natural abilities will allow....and no loss if he's hurt....but not DenardI never said he was "no loss" if he goes out hurt, only that him being out for the season does not compare with having Denard out for the season. Countess didn't account for 90% of the defensive production last season while Denard did, in fact, account for 90% of the offensive production in 2011 and 2012.
If having a QB that is so amazing is such a valuable thing then why have we been wasting his natural ability to do what he does bestMichigan hasn't been wasting his natural talents, did you watch the Air Force game? He ran the ball 20 times for 218 yards and 2 TD's. As far as the Bama game goes, it is X's & O's 101 luther -- when a team stacks the box top stop your running game (either from the RB, QB, or both) you counter that with a quick short passing game to get them to unstack the box, and thus open up your running game. As I and others, along with the pundits and coaches, have said, Bama's defensive M.O. is to take away your strength and force you to pass. The pisser is, they have very good and well coached DB's that play tight and physical. That is why they're the defending National Champions, and look to be making another run at the title again this season.
To not even try to find ways to use Denard (or anyone else) in open space for fear of injury is a copout. (This is where you go and check your tampon!)There was no "fear of injury" luther, there was only film and scheme. Borges came up with a game plan, and stuck to it. The problem was that after like 14 plays Michigan was down 24 points. At that point, Michigan was going to have to pass it's way back into the game anyway. That is why a strong defense is so important, it allows your offense to continue to run the ball, as it's not out of touch with the opposition. If you're down, you pretty much have to pass to come back. I am not afraid of Denard getting injured -- he's toughened up a great deal since 2010 -- but neither am I for slamming him into a brick wall designed to stop him either.
Any talented and/or experienced player at any postion is important at any time but you believe that noone but Denard should be protected?Yes, all the players are important. But, it is generally held that the starting QB is more important than any other position on the field, and even more so for a team like Michigan of late, where the starting QB is basically the entire offense. How many tackles did Countess have last season? How many INT's? How many pass break ups? I think the Michigan defense is definitely going to miss him, and he was poised to have a great sophmore season, but the drop off between him and the next guy is far less than the drop off between Denard and Gardner/Bellomy. If you don't think that is the case, you're entitled to you opinion. But I'll bet you're in the significant minority with that position.
As far as my being assinine, two people come to mind. Floyd and Woodson.Your comparisons are not even close. First, Denard is far more important to the offense as a whole than Chris Floyd was, and if you're really trying to compare Blake Countess to Charles Woodson, then I am going to put you on MOOT...I mean MUTE!
September 10th, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^
for the english lesson. I'm sure all english majors appreciate it (which explains the tampon and skirt).
It's not about how many Bama did or could have scored.
It's not about wether or not anyone may get hurt.
People in your corner just don't see what people in my corner see.
Hoke 0-1 (Bama)
Rodriquez 1-0 (AF)
If we're not preparing and going 100% with everyone, all the time....then stay home and play the games that you're supposed to win.
Wasted talent. Wasted game. Except for the bank accounts.
September 10th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^
If we're not preparing and going 100% with everyone, all the time....then stay home and play the games that you're supposed to win.Whatever luther. You're making a lot of assumptions about the team, the staff and the scheme. But, you're entitled to your opinion. I tend to listen to what the experts and the insiders say, not some doofus on a message board. What the staff said is that they had a plan, their plan made sense given the opponent, but the players didn't execute -- in part due to the excellent defensive execution. What more do you want? You sit there and talk about "wasted talent" blah blah blah. If Denard hits a few of those first passes, moved the ball effectively, Bama likely would have eased up on the box pressure, and Denard could have run. Instead if just saying "wasted" this or that, why don't you actually propose what YOU would have done. Personally, I don't think you know much at all about offensive football scheming -- and certainly not as much as Borges and Hoke. Remember, they see the film and they see the players every day, you don't.
September 11th, 2012 at 12:29 PM ^
NOW I'm entitled to my opinion. Go back and read our little argument from the beginning. I didn't attack anyone. I didn't say anything derogatory about anyone. I HAD an opinion before you came along with "assinine" and some other bullshit about my abilities to view a game. Screw you and the english police that you carry in your hip pocket!
I know that I'm entitled to my opinion....I hardly need you and your sarcastic attacks to allow them for me.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^
It bears repeating that we lost to Bama by 27 points. A couple of long runs by Denard would not have made up that difference (though it may have gotten him injured).
You could argue that in last year's two losses, different offensive playcalling could have made the difference, because those were close games. But against Bama, forget it.
September 9th, 2012 at 3:23 PM ^
September 9th, 2012 at 5:31 PM ^
Those plays are on Denard, not the staff (unless Borges told him "Go throw an interception."). Regardless, Bama had no problem moving the ball on us. It didn't matter if they had a short field or not.
September 9th, 2012 at 5:49 PM ^
so what ur trying to convince me of is:
---Coaches don't coach differently if the gap in score is closer.
---Players don't play differently if the gap in score is closer.
---No game has ever changed because of the gap in the score.
---Fans don't cheer differently or louder because of the gap in the score.
---AND we shouldn't play with all of our talents......just in case someone MAY get hurt.
The players don't take the field wearing skirts....why do you watch the game wearing one?
Because we WERE beaten by 27 doesn't mean that we had to show up with a game plan of being beaten by 27 and basking in the "Oh Thank God Denard didn't get hurt!" attitude. He did get hurt twice that I know of and...
no one is going to convince me that he was comfortable w that game plan. He's proven that he wants to do everything within his power to win or at least give his team a chance to win. He's also proved that he is capable of doing just that.
The thouroughbred was bridled and left in the barn.
September 9th, 2012 at 7:13 PM ^
They didn't scheme to "not get Denard hurt." They schemed to lossen up the Bama defense, and THEN let Denard run, when the defense wasn't sitting their daring him to run. Please tell me you're not so football illiterate that you're unaware of a coach "breaking tendency" in a big game against a top opponent in an effort to get their team on their heels?
If you've watching Michigan football over the past few seasons you should know that Michigan's strength is NOT running Denard against top teams bent upon stopping Denard from running. Michigan didn't do it against MSU nor MSU under RR in 2010 despite Denard torching everyone else. Neither did Michigan do it under Hoke vs. ND, MSU, Iowa, and VT in 2012. That is what all trolls out there say over and over. Denard is great running against weak teams, but against good defenses he gets shut down. So, running Denard against Bama's top defense wouldn't have been playing to Michigan's strength, it would have been playing to Michigan's weakness.
Get it? The offense is only going to go as far as Denard's arm and the WR's/TE's take this team. Sure, he's going to run on AF, UMass, and some other weaker teams, but he's not going to run consistently against the stronger teams on the schedule. So, Borges is tasked with developing Denard as a passer to the point that he can punish defenses for selling out to stop him from running. If you're playing the best defense in the nation, what better time to put that development to the test?
September 9th, 2012 at 12:01 PM ^
Going back through Denard's rushing statistics, it's rather illuminating that his average in 13 games in 2010 was 131 yards per game, and that in 2011, it fell to 90 yards per game on average. That being said, from the start of 2010 to date, the mean yards rushing over that entire stretch is 103 yards per game, so it is not entirely unrealistic to think that he could do this, but I think it would be just barely beaten if he does it. It should be perhaps noted that to do it in the same number of attempts as Pat White (Denard would then need 108 more carries in that scenario), Denard would need to average 9.3 yards per rush, but if he meets his average number of carries over the past two seasons (275), then that comes down to 3.7 yards per carry.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
Yesterday Borges did a good job of utilizing his running game through Denard. Obviously the holes weren't there for Fitz and he may have had a little bit of happy-feet. But Al & Denard did a good job of calling and executing running plays that averaged 10 ypc. Denard was very patient and followed his blockers with a hand on their back several times for nice gains.
Al also looked to be calling better passing plays for Denard. Stepping into throws, not using the pocket as much and not throwing across the middle as much were nice adjustments by Al and Denard which led to better execution.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^
Denard is clearly more focused on using better footwork (even vs. Bama) and it's showing. He's definitely a better passer. I'll wait to say he's a better decision maker/bettter quarterback...I think we need a better sample size. But in terms of pure mechanics...Shoelace has improved greatly.
As for the playcalling with Fitz, like I said above. It was so much east-west...so much read-option. I think that plays into the hands of the smaller/quicker defense of Air Force. Bama was bigger and better than us on the OL and they said "fuck it...we're lining up and we're running right at them." And it worked. I believe we were better and better vs. Air Force but we didn't run at them with the RBs and it showed.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:47 PM ^
Yost... you've got a much better handle on play calling then I do. Being at the game I couldn't tell whether it was the play, the line, Fitz' execution, rust, etc. But he looked hesistant and without vision. Hopefully, game speed next week against UMass will not be an issue for Fitz.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:59 PM ^
I don't care if it's Fitz, Rawls, me or you...my comments weren't towards who was running the ball or how well they did/didn't do.
It was about the play called. I'd agree, Fitz needs to get back into game speed.
September 9th, 2012 at 1:51 PM ^
September 9th, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^
Denard only needs 421 yards to break the Big Ten record for quarterback rushing yards (Antwaan Randal El, 3895 yards).
September 9th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
He could pretty realistically put up another 200 yards against UMass like he did yesterday. Then he only needs to average a little over 70 ypg.
Edit: to date he's been averaging slightly over 90ypg career, but his 2009 and 2011 numbers were limited and 2009 skews his starting averages, and his senior stats should correlate more with his breakout 2010 season where he averaged 130 ypg.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:43 PM ^
but there's a good chance Denard only plays a half or so next week. Indeed we DO need our backup QB to get some reps though.
September 9th, 2012 at 2:25 PM ^
In watching the highlights again, Denard was a mere inches ahead of being tripped up behind the LOS on those long runs. That is the magic and beauty of Denard, but that push will get tougher as the competition gets better. Here is to hoping he stays those inches ahead the rest of the year.
September 9th, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^
for the fact that our OL isn't creating any holes for anybody not named Denard?
September 9th, 2012 at 3:19 PM ^
September 9th, 2012 at 3:47 PM ^
September 9th, 2012 at 7:33 PM ^
Denard will run for 500 yards against UMass in the first quarter. You did see what Indiana did to them, right?