Denard Robinson is to Michigan what Dennis Dixon was to Oregon
I've been listening to all the talk of Michigan having to limit Robinson's touches and its driving me nuts. This morning there is an article on the Yahoo team page talking about Rodriguez's decisions regarding getting the ball out of Denard's hands. It bothers me that the team may be thinking that Robinson needs to be put in a bubble so he can survivie the year.
That's what made me think of Dennis Dixon in 2007. He brought Oregon to the #2 ranking in the BCS before tearing up his knee. Oregon, without a servicable back-up, limped to the end of their season. Should Oregon have done anything different that year? Should we do anything different?
Every technical thing I've learned about football has been from this site, but I am of the opinion that if running for 200 and passing for 200 wins every game we play, it shouldn't be changed. I agree, we should have RB's that can run and all that, but until they stop Denard why should we stop him?
September 24th, 2010 at 8:18 AM ^
in 2007 was they didn't have a servicable #2 QB behind Dixon... I'm actually fairly OK with the idea of Tate (or hell, if the coaches think, Gardner) stepping back into be starter should something happen. We probably don't have the 8-9 win ceiling like we do with Denard this year, but we're also probably not going to completely crash & burn.
September 24th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
People quickly forget that Tate and Gardner aren't pushovers. They're not the lightning in a bottle that we get with Denard, but Tate is still a good quarterback, and apparently Rodriguez thinks Devin is even better.
September 24th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
in regards to Devin being better... I think the coaching mindset may be that they want to get Gardner reps when they're giving Denard a breather, but if he were to be injured for an extended period, I bet we'd see more of Tate than Devin. In other words, they know what they've got in Tate and are more concerned with Devin getting game experience.
that's IMHO, anyway, but would seem to make sense.
September 24th, 2010 at 8:19 AM ^
Dennis Dixon was Oregon's team that year and IMO a lock for the Heisman trophy. When he went down and Oregon's season fell apart, I thought that should have solidified his place as the Heisman trophy winner.
Anyway, I think Michigan is in a different situation. I think (or maybe just hope) that Forcier could take the reigns if Denard went down and produce wins. I would like to say that Gardner is also a viable option but I really don't think that's the case just yet.
I don't think we should do anything different though because we haven't yet been in a situation where we can let off the gas and put one of the other two guys in. Denard's clearly the best option right now and we'll play him, with as many rushes as he's currently getting, if that's what it takes to win.
September 24th, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^
I think Jonathan Stewart would like to have a word with you regarding Dennis Dixon being Oregon's team that year. All joking aside, I agree that the injury derailed a potential great season for the Ducks and hope/pray Denard isn't injured.
September 24th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
the most rushing yards Dixon ever got was 141.
We can try to find someone to compare Denard to, but he really is his own beast and is incomparable to anyone ever to play college football (IMO).
September 24th, 2010 at 8:24 AM ^
I don't think many people have a problem if Denard runs the ball 30 times in a 42-40 shootout (or some other close score).
The problem that I have with Denard's touches is that he carried the ball 29 times in the UConn game, which was 30-10. If you're up by a couple touchdowns or by 20 points, you don't need to be running your quarterback 29 times.
September 24th, 2010 at 8:52 AM ^
With the teams defense, can they ever really take their foot off the gas?
September 24th, 2010 at 9:02 AM ^
Obviously the cushion has to be bigger than that of a team with a solid defense, but still... There should be a time where Denard doesn't have to run, and they reached that point in the UConn game. He ran the ball too many times that week.
September 24th, 2010 at 9:37 AM ^
Should Denard have carried it less in the first half of ND when it looked like it (ND minus Crist) was going to be a route?
September 24th, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
A route to where? El Paso?
Anyone who thought ND was going to be a rout is insane. We needed to run up the score with Crist out of the game and we failed to do that. As a result, we narrowly won a barn burner.
September 24th, 2010 at 9:56 AM ^
Maybe we danced with the devil a little running Robinson more than we should have... but we didn't get burned. In hindsight he shouldn't have run as much, but it worked out. It catapulted him and the team back to the forefront, set records that he annihilated the next week.
He (and therefore Michigan) has been on Sportscenter just about every day since. I agree with you that we didn't need to run him that much, and if we get up big he shouldn't run as much going forward, but doing it week 1 worked out pretty well for us
September 24th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
I do not agree. Denard ran the ball 14 times in the first half. When we were up big it looked like the coaches should stop running him. However UConn closed the half with a 10-0 run to make the game 21-10. Michigan's first drive of the second half while trying to put the game out of reach Denard ran the ball 7 times on that drive alone. Once in the fourth quarter with our running backs not getting the job done Denard ran the ball the ball several times on short yardage situations and was also carrying the ball because UConn could not stop it. The old addage is if it's not broke, don't fix it. I understand your argument and you don't want to see Denard get hurt, but there were a lot of circumstances that led to him being ran 29 times that game.
September 24th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
If he got a broken leg or tore an ACL late in the fourth quarter, I think you would be singing a different tune.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is all well and good...until it breaks from overuse.
September 24th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^
Denards top end speed, incredible lateral movement, and his vision go a long way in preventing the type of hits that lead to injuries. Also Denard is a tough son of a gun, kid is a leader knows when to avoid the bigger hits, and gained a stern amount of muscle over the last off season with Barwis. Freak injuries like what happend to Dennis Dixon occur once in a blue moon. Plus Dixon's acl was already partially torn and he and the coach decided to move forward with him instead of rehabbing it. Here at Michigan we have the luxury to plug in 2 very solid replacements that can execute the offense to RR and Calvin's liking. I never want to see DR go out of the game for anything other then taking a breather, or that we're up by a great enough margin that the other QB's come in for experience. GO BLUE
September 24th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^
Should the coaches discourage him from aggressive downfield blocking?
September 24th, 2010 at 8:26 AM ^
I agree with this. Let the big dog eat.
It seems we have more than serviceable backups as well, considering Tate should be at least as good as last year and DG is sitting above him on the depth chart.
September 24th, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
that the great Brady Leaf is being categorized as "not serviceable".
September 24th, 2010 at 9:00 AM ^
also lies in the fact that if the game is too close we cannot risk playing any other QB. Cause the QB playing already has that adrenaline rush and is more involved than the one on the sidelines.
With the way Denard's playing he is > DD of Oregon (plus DD was a senior then)
September 24th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^
Our best option on defense is to blitz almost every single down, this will for the QB to get rid of the ball quickly which can turn into mistakes and possibly more turnovers!
September 24th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^
an above average QB will torch that withaquickness. You don't have the DB's to play that game.
September 24th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^
Just because Denard makes it LOOK like NCAA Football 2010 doesn't mean it IS NCAA Football 2010.
Hell, while we're at it, let's just direct snap on every play to Shaw (or place Denard as the HB and do the same)! Whadaya say?
September 24th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
Dixon's idiot coach benched him after two interceptions during the Washington State game in 2006 (his first year as full-time starter) after leading Oregon to a 5-1 start, and had him share snaps with the great Brady Leaf (h/t ldoublee) for the rest of the season. They went 1-5 the rest of the way (not counting a blowout FCS win).
It seems possible that Rodriguez will face a similar conundrum if Denard starts throwing a lot of picks against Big Ten secondaries. NOTE: I'm not saying that will happen, and the Oregon coach appears to have mishandled the benching by basically allowing it continue the rest of the season, a mistake Rich is unlikely to make. In addition, Gardner's upside is probably about a million times greater than Leaf's...
September 24th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
....is built a little better to take a pounding than Dixon was.
September 24th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
Dixon didn't get hurt via a hit. His knee simply crumbled, untouched. That happens regardless of size, build.
September 24th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
6' 3", 200 lbs. He's built better than Denard.
I'd say he's more shifty and cannot be touched, but as you pointed out, it's a knee, and an untouched one at that.
September 24th, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^
Dixon being more lanky. And I know it wasn't because of a hit I just think that DR seems to be more staunch and well put together. Simply an opinion formed in my head.
September 24th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
6'3", 200 lbs of Barwis-free conditioning. I'll take Denard + Barwis over 200 lb Dixon any day.
September 24th, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^
Because Oregon doesn't condition their players. Dixon must have been great to be the Heisman favorite and almost single-handedly have his team in line to be in the National Championship game being so soft and out of shape.
September 24th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
When Dixon crumbled "untouched" and his season ended, it was a non-contact play.
HOWEVER, the ligament was already partially torn at that point. I'm not certain of the cause of the partial tear, but I believe the initial injury was a contact-related one. Dixon chose to play on the bad leg because he wanted to finish out his career and hoped that it wouldn't bite him in the ass. Unfortunately for him, it did.
September 24th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^
I really hope Denard makes it through this season (and career) uninjured. But if something happens, we have two very solid backups in Tate and Devin. All would not be lost.
September 24th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
Except we have two servicable backups, whereas Oregon had zero.
September 24th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
I think Tate is miles beyond serviceable. Plenty of teams would kill for him as their starter, let alone backup. I don't have any concern about Denard being any more exposed to injury than anyone else, but should he get hurt, we're still in fine shape (on offense).
September 24th, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
I remember sitting at the 2007 Oregon game and watching Dennis Dixon throw 40 yard bombs down the field, on the run. Then I watched the fake statue of liberty. Then I remembered an Oregon player post-game quote where he said that "they let up" and could clearly "see we were tired." I couldn't even be pissed off at Oregon because that team was so good. This was in stark contrast to Debord's Zone Left calls to start each game.
I'm glad we finally are the ones that have the explosive offense. I can't wait until we start hanging 50 pts on all of oru opponents.
September 24th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
i see the similarities right now, in that Denard can basically singlehandedly control a game, like Dixon did. But yeah, the dropoff to Gardner/Tate is nowhere near as severe as Dixon to... was it Justin Roper? i don't know why that name sticks out, but it does.
At this point, neither Tate nor Devin can singlehandedly win a game like Denard. Tate's not going to rip off an 80 yard run. What he can certainly do is guide the team down the field, distributing to all the wideouts. More guys would have to step up and want the ball with him on the field. Who knows what Devin can do right now... he may have the speed to break the big ones, but can he make all the right reads? Maybe so, maybe not.
September 24th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
Ryan Leaf's little brother. This is off the cuff, and without any research, so, standard disclaimers.
September 24th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
Oregon turned to Brady Leaf first and when that didn't work out too well, turned to Justin Roper who had a great Sun Bowl that year.
September 24th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^