Denard on kick return

Just one more thing for opposing teams to worry.

Hoke would find out how fast fans can turn.

Even though he was the backup QB, Drew Stanton sustained a serious knee injury while playing on ST in the 2003 Alamo Bowl against Nebraska, and had to undergo reconstructive knee surgery. There has been plenty of LOL around here over the years about John L. Smith's decision to play Stanton on ST, and deservedly so.

You could make the argument that the danger of Denard suffering an injury returning a kick isn't any greater than running the ball from scrimmage, but one difference is that if the kick goes to another return guy and Denard is running upfield looking to throw a block, it's extremely easy to get blindsided by a gunner looking to lay a big hit on him.

You guys kidding me? Remember how everyone blew their stack when they realized Countess was lost for the season on punt return converage vs Bama? What if that happened to Denard

When you have guys like Norfleet, Dileo and Gallon to handle stuff like that.

I think it would make sense if you put Denard on kick return at the end of a game or half when you needed to work some magic to get back in a game... but I can't think of a reason why you do that when they did. 

He was also on punt coverage in the 3rd quarter

To me, the risk vs reward is bad on this decision. What are you going to gain from him being out there? Now what can you lose if he gets hurt?

That argument doesn't hold during his normal particpation in the game, since being a running QB is 'what he does'. Participating in the suicide / kamikazee jungle that is special teams is just too risky.

I'd be one of the first in line at Ann Arbor Torch & Pitchfork for the angry mob to storm the coaches' homes.  And I'm sure I wouldn't be alone.  Bottom line, we have enough good kick returners back there that we don't need to risk this with Denard.

Calm the fuck down!

We rammed Denard into the interior of State's defensive line probably 15 times, but putting him on ONE kick return (for which he was probably a decoy) is somehow witchcraft?

And i know some of you are saying, "well, he's our best offensive option, so you have to use him." But if that's the case, why would we leave him on the sideline for a situation in which the coaches think he can help? I get that Denard is important. But leaving any arrows in the quiver in a game like that is stupid.

Seems to me that regularly having Denard on kick returns would be too risky, but I've thought for awhile that we should try having him out there in an emergency situation. Like, say for ND's last kickoff at the UTL game: down 3, 30 seconds to play, we need to make things happen FAST. That kick, of course, was a touchback (not a bad outcome for us, IMO - 20 yards, no time off the clock), but if it had been in play in that type of situation I think it'd be worth the risk to have our fastest, best open field runner out there.

if they do it again in the next game. Then if there is a return, we will know.

I have no problem with this and actually like it. Something else for coaches to worry about and if he's going to get hurt the probability is much more likely on offense like Magnus and others have said here. We complain when we don't utilize him enough and then complain when we do something else to get him involved. Make up your minds people! Also the people bitching about Countess getting hurt on ST need to watch more football. Starters are on ST all over college football AND in the NFL. I'm a Bears fan and starters play ST here every year and it is one of the reasons that it is always a strength of the Bears. You play to win the game, if injuries happen they happen. It's football.

Nice catch I didn't see this during the game. personally I'd like to see him back there sometimes. Maybe not every kick off but when we need something to get us going I think he could definetely help us out back there

You guys act as if teams would actually kick off to Denard Robinson.

no one else saw this and just thought, "Oh-- what a good way to make sure MSU just boots it and doesn't try anything tricky like a suprise onsides?" Of course, I am not sure if he was actually in position for that, but I though it was as simple as that. I didn't put too much thought into it though.

http://michiganstate.247sports.com/Board/93/Denard-is-a-Classy-Kid-13317336

Actually Dennis Dixon got hurt in spaces on a read option trying to make a cut. http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=PzpOEdUdoM4

But Denard on kick return doesn't brother me one bit. If the coaching stuff feels comfortable with I'm fine

Some of you need to really grow a pair and stop sounding like whining babies with all that "what if."

No one was asking Denard to start returning kicks...if he can help out by acting as a decoy, so be it. It's football. Charles Woodson was our BEST player and he returned kicks...he also played offense.

Denard wasn't returning anything, some of you acting like if he pulled a hammy running in a half circle and taking a fake handoff from Norfleet that "WolverineNation" would've gone crazy. But him running into 6'6 300 lb DTs all game is perfectly fine.

Sack up. Our coaches know what they're doing and they're not going to put our quarterback in danger or harms way.

I was thinking that it had to be a musical city miracle type of play. In a game of such familiarity, I would have thought that UM would have been more creative in playcalling, but I didn't see much of that. Maybe this was their one shot at "mixing it up" for a lack of a better term with the hope it was a returnable kick. 

Or maybe they were crazy enough to let Denard run the ball on special teams looking for a big play. If so, I question the point of Norfleet returning kicks then.