I cannot believe how many comments I've read talking about how Denard should be on a "short leash," and that we should see what Tate and Devin can do.
Were you guys under a rock for the first 5 games? Denard is the future of this program, and yesterday all that happened was he showed that he's human. He single-handedly brought us to a 5-0 start, is the most electrifying player in college football, is at the top of almost every Heisman list, leads the nation in total yards, and you guys want to pull him because he had a game where he didn't play that great yet still picked up over 300 total yards.
He's young, he's inexperienced, and he's going to make mistakes sometimes. But he's still Denard, he's still the future of the program, and there's no way one game should put him on a "short leash" considering all that he's accomplished to start this year.
Denard Robinson on a "short leash"
I cannot believe how many comments I've read talking about how Denard should be on a "short leash," and that we should see what Tate and Devin can do.
I bet this thought couldn't have been expressed in any of the other threads on MGoBoard. Kudos to you for creating this topic.
There were just so many people talking about it. It was a lot quicker to do it this way instead of replying to like 100 people.
You aren't going to change the opinions of most of those 100 people either replying directly to them or writing a post about it, so again, what is your goal with this?
What was the point of this post? Or any post? You're not going to change his mind that he shouldn't have posted it.
(The point of this post is to point out the hypocrisy, and pointlessness of posts saying Internet posts are pointless).
Oh, and he shouldn't be on a short anything, he's the deserves starter, but that doesn't mean if as Magnus suggests that he doesn't have it one day and it's late and we're in situations where the other team knows we're passing every play he can't be pulled. There's a big difference between that and a benching.
kudos to you for being replying you tool. Go back to your parents basement.
of your post? I'm not sure what's more useless, the repetitive posts about Denard, the defense, etc. or the repetitive criticisms by you, Magnus and others about said posts.
Its like watching punk loitering teenagers against grumpy old men yelling at them to get off their lawn. Its impossible to root for either side.
Magnus is a dick.
Worst of the MgoSnobs.
Calling people names on the internet makes you much better than me. Congratulations.
No, it's mostly the fact that you're such a dick that makes him or her better than you.
DEVID SHOULD REDSHIRT!! I KNOW MORE THAN RR !! DID I MENTION I AM COACH!!!
Now that it's the Big Ten season, who seems to be the backup? Tate Forcier...
Just because I question Rich Rodriguez doesn't mean I know more. We all question Rich Rodriguez for various things.
And I really don't talk much about being a coach on here. Other people bring it up way more than me.
But hey, we lost to MSU. You can take out all your anger on me if you want. You're clearly in a very rational mood.
He's just pointing out that your first comment was pretty dickish. If you didn't like the fact that this was a forum topic you could've just, you know, not said anything. That's what people who aren't dicks do.
Or you could have posted your thoughts in one of the previously created threads about the game and/or Denard and/or Tate Forcier.
You can sit there and call me names, or you can improve your posting habits.
I could have, but I didn't. Why do you care? I felt like it was a legitimate forum topic, so I posted it. But it's not like you had to read it or spend any time commenting on it at all.
Because next time maybe you'll post it in a more appropriate spot. What can I say? I'm a big picture kind of guy...
Oh great and holy Magnus, I have learned so much from your criticism today.
Next time you see a forum topic you don't agree with, how about instead of telling people what to do like you're in charge of this blog or something you just keep it to yourself?
If I didn't say it, someone else would have. There have been a lot of repetitive threads lately.
Anyway, maybe we both learned something today.
but he's 110% right on this. it shouldn't/didn't need to be posted
the point is that this is a blog where people post topics on a message board that they think are relevant and want to discuss. No one else had posted anything about the topic, in my opinion it was relevant, and I couldn't care less what your opinion is. You're not going to change my mind and it's already posted, so what is the point of you saying anything? It just makes you sound like a douchebag.
kudos to you for replying you tool. Go back to your parents basement.
Why do people bitch so much about starting a new topic, maybe he just wanted to be heard, isn't that in fact why we have blogs? just saying.
I was under the same impression too. I always assumed that on a message board, you post topics on it so you can inturn discuss those topics with your fellow fan fanbase, interesting concept, huh. I thought the topic was legit because I also noticed the hypocrisy too regarding Drob after the game, people ready to throw the guy under the bus already because he had his first bad game, he's human it was bound to happen sooner or later. I mean the guy has basically carried this entire team on his shoulders by himself so far, he's a stud and is only gonna get better, oh and did I mention it was only his 6th start in his young college football career, it's not like he's an upperclassman with 30 starts under his belt. He's still learning, so I'm not concerned about him at all, the notion that he should be on a "short leash" is absolutely ridiculous, the only person that should be on a short leash is Greg Robinson and his horrendous play calling!
when 10,000 users each feel they need to be heard and create a post
You created the 2nd pick the score post in the same day this weekend? Just saying, glass houses...
I love the brilliant idea, let's put in the guy who single handedly lost the OSU game between fumbles and interceptions.
Much better than the guy who threw 3 interceptions.
Forcier didn't play well in the OSU game, but he didn't lose the game all by himself, either. The poor defense, subpar offensive line, and absence of a running game surely had something to do with it.
But I guess you're one of those people who thinks every win or loss is on the shoulders of the QB.
Just the losses.
Losing to Sparty 3 times in a row, feels eerily similar to losing to O-state -gulp- 6 games in a row...Neither should happen regularly, let alone for this long.
on the OSU game. Michigan defense played well against OSU and held them to two TDs. Forcier threw 4 INTs and 1 fumble. Sure that Tressel went conservative, but the fact that the defense held them to 14 points with 5 turnovers, you have to give credit to the defense.
I agree with you that the running game was non-existant but Foricer made a lot of bad reads and could've throw 7 INTs in that game.
So your point is that Forcier didn't lose the game all by himself, right? Which is what I said. You explained away the defense issues (Tressel was conservative and only threw the ball 17 times), and OSU ran for 253 yards and 4.7 yards a carry. Meanwhile, the defense only created 1 turnover.
So...yeah...it's still on the defense...and Forcier...and the OL...and injures...and the running backs...
the defense didn't play well. Even with conservative play calling, the defense allowed 2 TDs and were on the field a lot because of the offense struggles and TOs.
The defense is not part of the reason why Michigan lost.
He would've spread out our weak secondary and linebackers and went all 2006 on us. Tressel is a smart coach. Why throw the ball all over the yard if you don't have to? Run the ball, eat up clock and go home with a Big Ten title.
Give the D credit for not allowing any 65 yard TD runs, but OSU made the plays on both sides of the ball when they needed to be made.
The defense was not that bad that game. While they gave up 253 rushing yards, they still only gave up 2 scores on 13 drives (I'm discounting knee outs). The other drives resulted in 9 punts, 1 INT, and 1 turnover on downs. Furthermore, the defense gave up only 67 passing yards on 17 attempts, for 3.9 YPA. You criticize the defense for giving up too many rushing yards and creating only one turnover, but discount the fact that they ran 53 times and passed only 17 (probably because Pryor was having a poor game throwing the ball).
I don't blame Forcier alone for the loss (the rush offense and OL deserves a fair share of blame), but the defense performed very well, considering the opponent. Yes, OSU might have put up better numbers on the defense if the offense scored more points, but that's an entirely different story and shouldn't be considered when evaluating their share of the blame.
We think the defense played well because they only gave up 14 points (7 came on a fumble recovery). However, as I said, OSU played Tresselball most of the game. They got ahead and sat on the lead. But just because U-M didn't get blown out doesn't mean they did anything special.
OSU could well have ran up 400+ yards and 4 scores on our defense if they weren't playing Tresselball. But they didn't because Michigan's offense rarely threatened them. Just because the defense hypothetically could have been torched doesn't mean that they deserve blame for the loss. I agree that they didn't do anything special, but they performed acceptably.
I ascribe the blame for that game to the offense. The defense might've killed us if the offense played decently, but the offense sucked and thus deserves the blame.
Eh, I disagree.
Tressel played Tresselball because
a) he knew Michigan's offense couldn't do much
b) and if Michigan's offense did score, he knew that his team could score on us when needed.
I disagree with you because I don't think that you can blame the defense for what amounts to a hypothetical situation, but you shouldn't be negged for expressing a legitimate opinion.
The negging after a loss often gets a bit out of hand.
Magnus, anyone ever tell you youre a dick?
The thing about that game was that while the defense played reasonably well, the level of Tressell-ball was nearly off the charts once OSU was up 14-3 at halftime. Even when it was 14-10, OSU immediately marched down the field during an 89-yard drive to put the game away. Toward the end Tate was just trying to make plays and was throwing the ball carelessly, but when OSU allowed Pryor and the rest of the offense to take some chances, UM really didn't have an answer. Sure, turning the ball over 5 times doesn't help, but saying Tate somehow cost the team that game is unfair.
His shoulder was shot and his O Line was sub par. Oh yeah, both senior RBs didn't play, but it was all Tate's fault. Reality is, if we scored OSU answered right away and if we didn't they just ate clock. We lost to a better team that day and you can't change that fact.
to you, Magnus, is how long the bet requires you to keep that scoreline up in your signature.
Probably until I post my next blog post and change the link, like usual.
Ah yes, because everyone else on the field played his position perfectly except Forcier. QBs are quite similar to coaches - they get too much of the credit for wins and too much of the blame for losses.
I think that Tate played that game against OSU hurt if I recall.
He did. You could tell that he was really struggling out there because some of thos throws would have not been picked off if he had a bit more control on the ball. While not a great performance in terms of production, it was definitely a gutsy one.
That happened last year, and Tate is miles away from that event. I'm not saying Tate would of been a significant difference had he been put in, but '09 Tate is not '10 Tate.
I haven't read "short leash" comments and would be surprised if I did. Yet, if you happened to read that, try to remember that some of the people on this site and beyond tend to be girls going through pms and over-react either way. Denard is obviously not going anywhere but the backfield for the Iowa game and years to come. Let the mgoteaparties do their thing. It's not worth responding to. Denard is here to stay unless performances like saturday's become a common occurence.
I think I might be the only girl pms-ing on this board and I've never thought he should be on a short leash. The guy deserves to be the starter, and he deserves to be able to learn in situations like yesterday. When things get crappy, how else is he going to learn how to work himself out of it?
I love Denard, and frankly, I think he's the shit. At the same time, if he's playing very poorly in a game, what's the point of having two great backup QB's?
The fact remains that Denard is a better fit for this offense than either of them. Defenses always have to be accountable for his running ability, which is not the case for the other two. The other thing is that it's not like he didn't do anything out there. He averaged 7.4 yards per attempt and, if you take away the one sack, just under five a carry. He played very well up until we got to the MSU redzone. Unfortunately, he just didn't finish drives that well.
He hadn't played a snap in the second half and we were already down by 14. You have to keep him in at that point. He throws his second INT and we are down by 21. If anyone is going to lead us back from a 21 point deficit, who is it going to be? I don't think any of our QBs other than Denard could. If we were still down 14 or 7, that might be a different story. I think we had dug our hole at that point and we were going to win or lose with Denard.
we should have been up 14-0 instead of 3-0 but for a bad decision and a bad throw over an open WR that caused us to kick a FG. I may not necessarily agree with you that when we need to throw the ball Denard is always the best option, but there is always the possibility of him taking one to the house with his legs at any time.
I don't think that Denard is the best option when throwing the ball (Weren't you here that day?). I do, however, think he is the best all-around player for us and gives us the best chance at a come-back victory even when he is having a 3 INT day. If we were down 21 due to 3 INTs in the first quarter, I agree, pull him. But, when there is little time left and you need 3 miracles (not including the 2 miracles known as defensive stops or onside kicks) to tie the game, it has to be him.
...with the "Tate" post from yesterday. Denard was struggling and forcing the ball a bit too much. Sit him down for a series or two, let him mentally regroup, force the opposing defense to adjust, then ultimately bring him back in.
Pull the drowning man back into the boat for a breather before throwing him back in with the sharks.
As far as the "short leash philosophy" is concerned, I think Denard should complete all of his passes, he should rush for 10 yards per carry (minimum) and never fall behind in a game for the rest of his life. Otherwise...
That would be my initial reaction as to what we "should have done." Maybe that's why I'm not a coach. I'm not angry that he was left in there. I don't think it was a "bad" decision, but I think it may have helped to get a fresh player in for a series or two.
To respond to joeyb and jmblue without creating more posts: I can't argue with anything either of you have said. My personal opinion is that this this one was a complete judgement call by the staff, and I don't know that there's a correct and an incorrect decision.
Denard was playing hesitant and throwing the ball late, which led to red zone INTs. It was quite obvious that the gameplan had to be changed to a passing only offense. I was hoping to see Tate brought in to see if he could get a spark in the offense. That didn't happen and Denard threw another INT and the game got out of hand. Do I think Denard should start next week? Yes, but in that instance, that's how I felt.
I don't think this is a crazy idea. Look, they were scheming around DRob! Why not throw in Tate? We have him, he's a very accurate passer. Who knows, maybe he comes in and picks apart their secondary. I'm not saying it's obvious, and I love DRob as much as anyone, I'm just saying, it's not a crazy idea. The other consideration is, you don't necessarily want guys to think that they're going to get yanked just because they make a big mistake, because that can lead them to play tight.
Because when your best player is going through a funk you let him work the kinks out and improve on his mistakes. My god he didn't put up the astronomical numbers he has the first five weeks but he did have 300 plus yds of total offense yesterday with 2 td's. The Defense, and playcalling should take as much if not more blame than Shoelace.
Your opinion is that you should leave a player in when he's not having a particularly good game. My opinion is that I want to see what the #2 guy can do. Can he provide a spark? Can he give the defense a look that they're not prepared for? Those are the unknowns. I'm not ripping Denard or the coaching staff for their decision to leave him in. I, like a few others, just have the opinion that maybe Tate could've sparked the team. It's not mind-"bottling" to consider playing Tate for a series. Maybe it allows Denard to see the game from the sideline and see something he didn't see from the pocket. Maybe it calms him down and takes a bit of pressure off. Maybe he was trying too hard and the one series off helps him re-focus. It's not out of the question, it's just an opinion. These things didn't happen, but they're just suggestions.
This is pretty simple: Denard was the best offensive player in a skill position in the entire country for the first 5 games of the year. End of debate.
...relatively weak opposing defenses. Just sayin.'
Denard domianted for the first five games. That gives him so leeway when he starts to struggle; however, at some point Tate and Devin need to rotate in. It's not like a permanent benching of Denard or anything, just seeing who else can play. And by the way, Tate is a decent QB, too.
My opinion is simply that we have a QB *rotation* and I'd like to see it rotate a little quicker if one of them struggles. Denard was obviously the shit in the first five games, but yesterday he was forced to throw and his throws just weren't very good. Why shouldn't the other two get a few drives?
Yeah if Denard comes out against Iowa and throws it behind receivers, stalls in the redzone, and makes bad reads in the run game we should probably try Tate or Devin. But to say Tate should play ahead of Denard now is ridiculous. How do you justify leaving quite possibly the best offensive player in the country on the bench after he played one bad game out of 6. I think we would be 4-2 (at best) without Denard and probably more like 3-3 or 2-4.
Unfortunately that wasn't the case yesterday.
we appeared to scrap our offense in the second half and make denard a pocket passer. i will never understand that. if we continued to run our offense, even down 14, we may have had a different outcome.
i mean, a straight back drop pass on first and 10 with about 9 min left. Pick 3. game over.
Short leash is dumbass. But what's even more dumbass is this statement from Jim Comparoni, a SpartanMag writer,
"During this period of dominance, the dignified conduct of Dantonio and Tom Izzo, and the respect they have shown to the conquered, exceeds what Schembechler, Carr and the rest ever pretended to be."
Disrespecting Bo is never tolerated. Spewing bullshit is the Spartan thing to do.
I'd strongly recommend that you simply not read any of that crap.
While I have not seen this opinion voiced prominently here, I'm sure there are some people who think it. There are also people who probably think GoGurt is some new hybrid of Yogurt and Google. People can be wrong.
I will say that the title could have been reworded, because my first take clicking on the post was that (a) a coach had actually said Denard was on a "short leash", or (b) you were suggesting that Denard should be on such a leash.
Denard didn't single-handedly bring us to a 5-0 start. He will be the first to tell you that if it weren't for his teammates he wouldn't have had the success that he has had up until this point. Plus, if we only account for the points that he is in for/directly responsible for we lose to BG, but that's being nit picky.
Weren't we up 14-0 when he hurt his knee against BGSU?
they ended up scoring 21 though. He accounted for 14 they scored 21. 14<21. He didn't win it without the rest of the team. Had he been in the whole game, yeah he most likely would've been able to win it by himself, but that is not the case in this instance.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I agree that Denard Robinson is the future of this program and the clear starter for us, but I do have a problem with him not getting pulled yesterday. He was clearly a little shaky yesterday and having some problems finishing drives. Why not put in a backup to see if they can do any better, even if only for a series of two?
You can't pull him the first time he gets shaky. That sends a terrible message. If he continues to struggle, yes, by all means, bring in Tate, but no way do you do it at any point yesterday unless it was pre planned to give him a blow.
I would say it sends the message that he doesn't have to do it all himself. That he can rely on his teammates if he's not doing his best. It doesn't sound like denard's getting a big head, so I wouldn't think that getting pulled once when he was playing bad would suddenly destroy all his confidence. In fact, I would say getting blown out by MSU would have a greater chance at doing that.
he clearly made a few bad throws. but when you have the best rusher in the ncaa, RUN THE DAMN BALL. we gashed them all day. only a matter of time before we broke a big one.
I can't believe that about 1.4 billion people in China don't even know this game was played. I'm borrowing from John McKay here, he said something similar to console his USC Trojans back in the day.
i will also steal from him and update a quote of his.
Question - Coach how do you feel about the execution of your team today?
Answer - I'm in favor of it.
In the first five games, Denard Robinson has been has been amazing both running and passing the ball. Yesterday he had a bad day passing. I'd like to see the team have an option in such a case where Denard can still be the best runningback, but someone else can throw the ball. Then the next week Denard can go back to being amazing in both phases.
ya, the picks were bad, but he was 17-29 passing. and that was with about a half a dozen drops.
I think the problem here is that its easy to look back now and say, "Maybe Tate wouldn't have thrown the second or third ints, and he would have given us a better chance at a comeback."
But during the game, I didn't really ever feel that way until it got to a point where the game was out of reach.
At half, we were down 7. Did anyone want to see Tate start the 2nd half?
By the time the offense got on the field again we were down 14. What about now, did you want Tate now? I know I didn't even think about it because I wanted to see if we had made some adjustments during halftime.
Denard throws 2nd redzone pick, and we are down 21. Okay so maybe some of you were calling for Tate at this point, hoping it would spark the offense. But Denard comes back out and leads us down the field for a TD, we're back to a 14 point deficit.
The defense gets a stop IIRC, and the offense takes the field with a chance to make it a 7 point game. Did you want Tate at this point, given that Denard had just scored a TD on the previous possession? I didn't. I thought Denard may finally be putting it together. I thought he might lead us back like Tate did last season.
So then Denard throws the 3rd INT. At this point the game was basically over, as MSU came down the field and went up 17 points. So I guess if you wanted to see Tate come in on the next drive, I would not have argued with you. But in reality it would not have made a difference because of the time remaining in the game.
Michigan only had one more possession at this point, so even if Tate had come in and led us to a TD, what would that have achieved except a smaller margin of defeat? In addition, we'd be hearing all about the QB controversy and how Denard got benched for the next week. Then, when Denard makes a mistake against Iowa he'd be looking over his shoulder, etc, etc, etc.
Personally, I'm glad we stuck with Denard through thick and thin because 1) I don't think it would have made any difference in the game and 2) it shows Denard that he is our guy and allows him to learn from his mistakes.
Just my opinion.
- 2 of 3 interceptions were passes thrown behind the receiver. 1 of 3 interceptions was a bad throw but the receiver could have prevented the interception.
- QB rushed for 86 yeards and threw for 215. Great stats unless people are used to 200/200.
- O-line had a hard time stopping penetration on runs for the first time this year.
- I actually thought the D wasn't playing too poorly until I realized they had given up 30+ points and 500+ yards again.
- For some wierd reason, I actually have more hope of beating Iowa after this game than before.
- I'm sure Sparty will lose one this year but they played well yesterday, have to give em credit.
- I think the difference between the '09 offense and the '10 offense will be similar to the difference between the '10 defense and the '11 defense.
At the cost of the RBs - although we don't really have good RBs at the moment. But a lot of the QB's yards in our offense would be distributed to RBs in any other offense. The QB running and throwing those short screens are good for the QBs stats, but the overall offense comes out to the same yardage
I don't see your point here...
You (as a coach) absolutely, positively cannot pull Denard yesterday for Tate (and especially Devin). He is a young kid who has done amazing things so far but he had a bad game. Pulling him means potentially shaking his confidence and possibly screwing with team chemistry. You don't want to send a signal to the team that you've got an itchy trigger finger at the first sign of turmoil in a high pressure situation.
I am sitting here, in thought, trying desperately to understand why people are trying to figure out this teams offensive woes which have been limited to one game in six. I would think those analysis' would be better served focusing on the 2/3 of our team that have shown no credibility for 6 straight weeks. Just a thought.
that we played that isn't a cupcake, and is of a similar quality to the remaining schedule.
Patting ourselves on the back because we killed BGSU or UCONN doesn't really mean anything going forward.
So what would you have done differently? If anything this helps out our offense for the future. We played sub-par on offense but still moved the ball on this non-cupcake team. So you live and you learn watch film and come out the gates like gangbusters against Iowa.
RR would probably be catching more heat!
How do you put Denard on a short leash? This offense works by spreading everyone out, it breaks down when you limit what certain players can do. You take away Denard running, and he won't pass as efficiently. And vice versa. Denard needs to be able to what he does best - run and pass to keep the D off balance.
When you're down by three scores with only a couple minutes left, the threat of the run is largely negated. It reaches a point where Denard's legs don't matter quite as much, especially if he's having trouble passing the ball.
Disagree because when we were down three td's he led us down the field for a touchdown using both his legs and arm. I feel if we were a little more balance down the stretch we would have made it tighter down the stretch.
Last year on the road against MSU, Forcier led us back with a worse offensive line from two touchdowns down in the 4th after spending 50 plus minutes running for his life.
I agree with not pulling Denard yesterday, but saying it would have been asinine is extreme considering the available option.
Tate is definitely the more polished passer.
I'm in total agreement with you on that..... This is only Denards 6th start people! He was bound to have a bad game or two. It hurt that it came on sparty week but give him a freaking break! He is still the best QB maybe all around player we have on this team and maybe the country! He has done things already this year that may not be repeated in a very long time around here..... he is still that player... show him some support! Calling for him to be pulled after one bad game makes people sound like bandwagon jumpers to me. We don't need that type of fan around here, give him time.... Imagine how good he will be next week let alone next year with a real running attack ( DEE HART!)
Did anyone really thing they were going to go undefeated? We knew that a L was going to come at some point and we may loose another game or two before its all done.... I hope not but that is the reality of the situation.
The improvement from last year to this year is huge, they know it and so do we, so let be the best fans we can and really be "all in for michigan" and give our support for next week! They are going to need it, its iowa week, lets cheer them on to victory....
That we're yelling at eachother so much after a lose. Don't you see this is exactly what MSU wants us to do? They're trying to tear this family apart! Instead of yelling at eachother and calling one another doo-doo heads, can't we just have a good ol' pos-bang circle-jerk, get drunk and do things we're gonna forget later or never speak of again?
Denard should have given the Tebow speech after the game.
According to this thread on Scout, he did give a Tebow-esque speech in the locker room after the game. He just didn't do it in front of the media.
Denard's performance Saturday was inevitable, RR has predicted such, from game one. Watching how Denard responds to his sub-par outing, starting with Iowa and going forward is what I am most interested in.
Denard may have another tough outing against Iowa, either way, the kid is tough as nails, eventually he is going to figure it out.
This is a hard nosed team and there is much to admire about them, I expect them to gut out a victory against Iowa, Penn State, or Wisconsin and put a smile on everybody's face. Well almost everyone, I know some of you are more depressed in victory than defeat.
There was about a 20 min. period yesterday where I had some horrible thought's, and to be frank, as a "true Michigan fan" I'm completely ashamed of myself...I had to put a pillow over my head an repeat, nah-nah- na- nah-nah like 50 times and they went away.
I was at the game and was amazed by the amount of M fans that wanted to pull DROB. It was if they thought he was a lost cause. I was embarassed for these people, how quickly they forget about his abilitites.
dont forget all the pundits including Koendyke of MSU rivals.com and Smith from OSU...saying that he will be injured if not during this game but soon.
Learn from your mistakes and move on....Beat Iowa and Go Blue
everyone had a bad game.
The dropped balls, the bad play calling, the gashed D line, etc.
There are a lot of teams with a loss now.
Alabama got whipped but I still think they are the best team in the nation - better that OSU and Oregon.
Yes, I know that was against Bowling Green but he led us to several TDs while both running and passing well. I certainly hope that Denard learns from this past game as other posters have suggested. I just don't think he needed to stay in the whole game to know he was not performing well or to learn a lesson
As others have stated many of his passes were well off target, even many of the completions. Tate is now healthy and our offensive line is arguably better than last year. Denard was not getting the job done. Why NOT give Tate a chance? He did it against Sparty last year.
Last year when Tate struggled against Iowa Denard came in and led us downfield for a TD. We almost won that game. If any QB is struggling late in a game, I say give another of our good QBs a chance. It does not mean he is being replaced permanently. After all, I would rather give us a chance to win over allowing the starting QB to continue to struggle in order to learn a lesson that replacing him would also achieve. Perhaps switching other QBs in also gives them a greater incentive for practicing hard during the week. Just my opinion.
because Denard has been the most dominant player in the entire country this year, & if you want to come back you rely on your best players to do it. Denard is our best player, the future of our program, & having one off day doesn't change that. He's capable of breaking one at any time & he gave us the best chance of coming back yesterday. You don't want Denard to be looking over his shoulder after every mistake he makes even though, according to you, he only deserves to stay in the game if he plays a perfect one. It was his worst game of the year & the dude still had 300 total yards & 2 touchdowns.
I would say I am surprised to see this even being brought up but there were many comments along these lines in the Liveblog too. Look, I will always love Tate for that performance against Notre Dame and for gutting it out through injuries last year but come on. Tate seems to have matured a lot this year and is a fantastic backup but he's just not in Denard's league.
While Denard was great for the first five games this year, Tate was equally great for the first four games last year (and was getting the same sort of Heisman hype that Denard has been getting this year) and really only stopped being great when he got hurt, at which time he continued to play pretty well through a lot of pain. Last year and this year, both were great against the weaker part of the schedule. And, FWIW, this year the one time Tate got in, he was 12 for 12 and took the team right down the field for a touchdown on every single drive. Without taking anything away from Denard, it seems to me as if it may well be that a passing quarterback who can run would be better, especially against tougher competition, than a running quarterback who can pass. While Tate may be less likely to take it to the house than Denard, he may well take us on longer more ball control oriented drives. That is exactly what he did until he got hurt last year and the one time he got in this year. But, I must admit, I was rooting for Tate to be the starter from the beginning and still think we might be better with him. I continue to think we may well be better with him passing and occasionally running while handing the ball to the running backs. Who knows?
Tate was equally great for the first four games last year (and was getting the same sort of Heisman hype that Denard has been getting this year)
No, he was not. People need to stop saying this. No one seriously ever considered him Heisman material.
Freshmen seem to be the only group excluded from the exclusive award. Yet after last week, the question has to be asked: Could the final frontier be conquered by Forcier?
Michigan freshman quarterback Tate Forcier was absolutely remarkable in leading the Wolverines to a 38-34 upset of Notre Dame. He passed for 240 yards and rushed for 70 while accounting for three touchdowns, including the game-winner in the waning seconds after he weaved through the Irish rush and found Greg Mathews for a 5-yard touchdown pass.
Bleacher Report, 10/4/09:
After another near comeback victory for Michigan's Tate Forcier against Michigan State on Saturday, his performance begs one question.
Should the freshman be considered as a runner in the Heisman Trophy race?
After five games, the answer is yes.
Yes, it's only the beginning of October and the college football season isn't even half over, but Forcier has been electric in his first five starts this season.
He led Michigan to a thrilling victory over a then-ranked Notre Dame squad in Ann Arbor and also threw a go-ahead touchdown to Martavious Odoms to lead the Wolverines past Indiana.
You are wrong. He was considered, and at the time he was a true freshman without the year of seasoning that Denard had received by the start of this year.
Well if Bleacher Report said it, it must be true.
Tate was in the conversation and didn't get benched so why should Denard when he was the unanimous leader in the heisman race this year.
Because the backup QBs (Nick Sheridan, Denard Robinson) absolutely SUCKED last year.
This is coming from a Michigan fan and a West Virginia fan. I read on this blog all the complaining about coach rod and his coaching decisions. I want my coach back you guys do not deserve him. All the bullshit you hear about coach rod coming from wvu fans is because we know we will never have a coach like him ever again. We are hurt cause we know the best thing to ever happen for the mountaineer program is gone. We sit here in West Virginia watching the wolverines turning into a something very deadly and it's eats us up because we know he should still be our coach. I watch Michigan and think Denard would be a Mountaineer so would odoms, roundtree, shaw, tousaint, and many others. I also believe we would have just picked up the best all purpose back in the country in dee hart coming to Morgantown next year man it would be so lovely. Imagine denard and devine in the same back field right now talk about a powerhouse. I mean michigan fans already want to bench denard because he threw 3 picks against state yesterday I mean are you guys serious. He's has to learn from his mistakes it is so obvious denard is a winner. Sometimes it seems people are not happy with denard because he is so different from what you guys are use to at michigan. Is it because he's black and not one of your golden boys like brady or henson someone please answer this one for me? I know tate is good but he is no denard you guys have the most lethal weapon in college football and michigan fans are upset. I know I will get killed for this post but I had to say it if you don't want Coach maybe he will come home.
"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?" (mcwvu75 responding to a post by bigyellowtaxi)
Watching the game, Denard looked very hesitant to run. On each of the three INT's, he probably should have tucked the ball and ran. In the first 5 games, that is probably what he'd have done, but against MSU, the thought didn't seem to cross his mind. I don't think he needs to be kept on a leash, but he needs that big game experience.
but I have to say, while sitting a highlight reel explosive weapon like Denard for any period for any reason seems absurd, so too does relegating a very impressive second year starter to be to perma-backup and not even discussing whether that is altogether the right move. Having two very good QBs is a nice position to be in, and I believe that Tate does do some things better than Denard, and probably always will. I am all in, but if Denard is our every down quarterback in every situation, I believe that our red zone struggles from the MSU game are only beginning. Rich Rod is captain innovation. I wish he would innovate a way to effectively use possibly the second best player on our team. Just sayin.
Rable Rable Rable..... bench him after one bad game!! every player has an off game now and then. Should OSU have benches pryor at Illinious should Alabama have benched McElroy? our problem is that bad offensive performance = a loss due to our defenses inability to stop anyone.