Be happy that the defense looked like they sorta kinda knew what was going on. But there is no need to start frreaking out that Denard is ruined because he struggled in the 15th practice of the year. It's gonna be ok.
Denard Robinson's Play in the Spring Game
seriously if anyone is down on Denard they are not real Michigan fans
Fuck that. Everybody paniccccccc
Alot of QB coaches will tell you when a guys throwing to high its cause hes trying to put too much on it.. Relax its a simple fix.
or their eyes are following the ball instead of the target...that one is really common when guys are trying to aim too much.
Listen to Marvin, he knows the score.
Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom.
Ohhhh, now I'm really angry.
It was a really ugly game by both QBs. It's only the spring game, but the game has been a pretty good bellweather for what's going to happen in the regular season lately. I hope that's not the case today.
Defensive line was maybe the most impressive unit of the day. Everyone wanted to see how Campbell would do today. From what I could see, he was holding his ground pretty good against Molk, Omameh, and Barnum.
Spring games for the past few years have been 1's v. 2's. I have seen four different practices and the spring scrimmage last weekend. The offense showed much more a week ago then they did today. The number of plays was also way down today as compared with last week. The #1 defense has looked much better two straight weekends. I am generally excited about their improvement, especially since VB, Demens, Woolfolk, and Floyd aren't playing. I said last week Carvin Johnson has looked better in every practice and he had another good day. Relax on the offense and understand THIS staff is getting it done in practice. They will be better!
...but Campbell was not good. He was single blocked every play and never made any impact. Best case right now is that he can clog the middle up on running plays. He won't be on the field in passing situations.
He hustled and I appreciated his hard work...but he has no explosion.
from our seats on several different plays, and he was pushed back often by the O-line. That does not mean death or anything else, every coach has said BWC has talent but needs consistency and more work, so I'm not pronouncing anything about his potential this year. But based upon this practice only, he needs more work. Like a lot of our guys do.
I didn't see him blown back or on the ground at all. I didn't look for him on every play, but when I saw him, he seemed to be doing OK. On running plays, he was on the offense's side of the line of scrimmage more than a few times. On passing plays -- you're right. He's worthless unless he can knock balls down. Maybe my standards are low because all of the reports about him the past few years make him out to be a guy who stands straight up and gets knocked over by an eight year old girl because she has leverage.
This spring showed once and for all that Denard is not a real QB. The only solution is to put RVB back there. He's 6'6", and runs a 5 sec 40 like a real QB should.
That was the most ignorant statement made all day and theres been some bad ones.
ahahahaha that's too much.
I think you need to adjust your sarcasm meter. . .
People are down on the way that Borges and Hoke are using Denard. It's a big difference. It would be like saying people were down on Tom Brady if Belichick started using him primarily as a running QB.
Also: Who says that the defense should look better than the offense in spring ball? Particularly when you are returning almost all of the starters from a top tier offense and when you had one of the worst defenses in the nation the previous year.
Who says that the defense should look better than the offense in spring ball?
Almost any coach out there. As a rule, it takes a little longer to install a new offensive scheme than a new defensive scheme. For the offensive line to play well, all five guys need to be on the same page. It's pretty rare to see that happen in spring ball. Denard wasn't very sharp today, but a lot of that goes on the OL for not giving him time in the pocket. He had to throw some of those passes earlier than he wanted to.
But my point is that even with the offense installing new stuff and the defense maybe being a bit ahead of them as far as that goes... we're still talking about the offensive players from last year vs the defensive players from last year. I more meant who thought that the Michigan defense should be better than the Michigan offense in spring ball?
Read the front-page post from The Wolverine Blog for reasons why the defense should be better than the offense in spring games in general: http://thewolverineblog.com/
the offense looked really good, and subsequent seasons of horrible, and more horrible defense, I'll take the defense looking better.
The offense in a spring game is much more vanilla than what will typically occur during the season while The D is blitzing and stunting, so just on average the D will look better than the O. Its not just UM, look at the other spring games around the country, Texas and UF had their D dominate the O as well.
Also, the D got to play touch football against Denard.
IIRC, they both had good defenses and bad offenses last year, so that's not surprising. We had a god-awful defense and an amazing offense last year, so it is utterly shocking that Denard was shut out.
talent wasn't the biggest issue with last year's D, it was mostly the basics: angles, tackling, block shedding, gap control. If you listen to Mattison that is what he has focused most of his coaching on. So we should expect a large improvement because the kids are getting the proper coaching,
Talent was a huge issue too. I mean, look at who was playing in the secondary. Look at how, for most of the season, what would have been our top 2 corners were out with an injury.
I obviously expect a giant leap forward from last year on defense, but that's not saying much.
Fundamentals is the difference between Clemson and TCU, not between being ranked in the "might as well not be out there" category and dominating an offensive unit that returns 10 players and ranked 8th last year in yards gained. I'm sorry, but despite how great of kids Vinopal and Kovacs may be, they're not playing for anybody but Michigan - Rich Rod era Michigan - and below. Not to mention all of the kids that played way too early. Carvin, Avery, and Cullen never see the field that early in their careers if there wasn't a major lack of talent.
Texas and Florida's O sucked last year while their D's did not. You would expect those results even if they weren't installing new systems/schemes.
I couldn't be less down on DR. He's proven, and I don't know that there's a single offensive player in the country I'd rather have on my team.
I'm down, way down, on taking the B10 Offensive Player 'o the year and trying to make him something he's not.
I'm even further down on the most painfully senseless football-related thing I've heard in the past few years on this board or from the U-M program: Denard taking snaps from under center, dropping back 7 steps, and learning to be a pocket passer in a pro style system will "prepare him for the next level".
Seriously, note to Coach Borges: you inherited a Heisman candidate at the QB position, and your only job is to prepare him for this level. You have zero, less than zero, responsibility to prepare him for the next level.
To paraphrase from Al Pacino to Kevin Spacey in Glengarry Glen Ross:
"Your job is to help Denard, not to fuck him up. Is that clear to you?"
Anyway, I see we just got RJS, so today is a very good day. And like I said in the open thread, the D looks like an adult is in charge of it.
I thought the point of college was to prepare you for the next level/your career....
Did you know college football players go to class and get a degree in between football practices and games?
"I don't know that there's a single offensive player in the country I'd rather have on my team."
1.) new staff with little to no experience running a spread scheme... they are pro-style... that's what they know... that's what they coach. I'd say they are being mighty acommodating to tailor some of their game plan to what Denard knows and is more comfortable with.
2.) Denard stayed b/c of his trust in the staff to prepare him for what he needs to play at the next level. If he wants to be the same guy he was last year, he might as well just wait for Rodriguez to land his next job and transfer there (yeah... pointless and not happening).
3.) Stop acting like this is August 20-something and we're playing our first game next saturday. This is fucking spring ball. The staff and players have had 15 practices together. Do you really think Borges' plan should have been to baby Denard and the offense into the transition running quasi-spread stuff that neither is 100% comfortable with? Would you really spend your practice time making the guys look good for a fucking spring game in the rain with 57 people in attendance? No... you throw out what it is you intend to do and start familiarizing your guys with it, even if it looks ugly. I'm not saying we're going to be a well-oiled machine by game 1, but seriously, it's pretty ridiculous to be already criticizing the deployment of Denard.
worked up about it.
What would be even sillier would be for DR to transfer before he went through Spring ball given the timing of the coaching change. He could definitely do better in a spread scheme without adjustments? That would serve his NFL aspirations ... perhaps ... better. I said it.
Yes Borges brings what he brings - but DR is the B1G POY - it's on Borges to make that work regardless of system. RR had the major fault of making pro style QBs run the spread. Turnaround is fair play. Given the relative trade off in talent (2008 vs 2011 @ QB) Borges has an even greater expectation to succeed.
Usually the D comes out ahead, but theroretically you wouldn't want either side to predominate. That would suggest a disparity between them. Much better to have a competitive game with some dynamic, skilled plays on both sides.
Actually, coaches generally don't mind having the defense dominate. The nature of spring ball is generally that the D is ahead of the O. It's more of a red flag for the offense to be in control.
The O will be modified to Denard's strengths by 9/3. This is what's installed as of today, and it's all new to both QBs. Trust me he'll run more.
Amen. People need to remember that only 60% of the O is installed according to Borges. We saw the skeleton today, but by fall I'm willing to bet more is tweaked and installed to keep D's on their heels more.
DR looked awful. So did DG.
However, I have no doubt it'll get better. We're going to see a lot more roll outs and bootlegs in the real game because they're going to take advantage of their running abilities, and that's going to get us very nice match ups. Now... there were quite a few QB problems today... I saw Denard display some pretty bad footwork when facing the blitz, when giving playaction fakes, and audibles. He'll get there though. He's got the right attitude and work ethic, and we're like 3 weeks into this. That's hardly an indicator. Not to mention, the amount of plays they ran were like... twice as much as RR even had.
So basically things will look better once DR can call the offense, execute the proper footwork/technique, and relax in the pocket. DG will also improve when he learns how to make his reads quicker... maybe hit the wide open players in the short field once in a while.
Denard Robinson and Devin Gardner are not Steven Threet and Nick Sheridan. They have the intellect, athletic ability, and arm strength to run the offense, and will improve greatly over the summer. Both will be good enough to get the job done by this fall. The transition will involve rough spots, but there is a good talent base on offense. Overall, I would be a lot more worried about the defense than the offense. They have a lot more to prove than the offense does.
I predicted when Hoke was hired that Michigan probably won't gel until around the MSU game. I see no reason to change my POV either way after today. As for Denard, he will be fine. He is level-headed and won't let today get him down. Hopefully, the fanbase will take his example to heart.
OK Cool. Maybe you should suit up for QB. Not a real QB. Show some support ok. Neg. me all you want.
I could, could be wrong, but I think he was being sarcastic. I'm not sure, but I doubt that he's actually advocating putting a defensive end in at QB simply because he's tall and slow.
Navarre was a DE and he was pretty successful at QB. I think the RVB move to QB could be a good one based on that alone and nothing else at all.
Touche. Navarre did have that sweet, sweet lack of straight line speed you love in a QB/DE.
EDIT: To be serious for a moment, I actually think Navarre was a pretty great QB by the time he graduated. I think he's still unfairly maligned by a lot of the fanbase because of getting shoved into the line-up before he was ready.
being a successful QB. Was he Michigan's best QB in history? No. But he was one of the best in the Big Ten and honestly, as a senior, in the country.
Right, I didn't think you were being sarcastic about Navarre being good, just that you were kidding about him being a be-all, end-all example of why every DE-to-QB switch is a good idea. He was the starter for the majority of my time in Ann Arbor; he could be frustrating, but I agree that by his senior year he was tops.
He didn't switch positions. He was always a QB. (There were, of course, some people who thought he'd make a better DE, though.)
Sorry, but I kind of assumed that such an asinine comment wouldn't need a sarcasm tag. Twas supposed to be funny.
Wait, are you being sarcastic now? I'm so confused...
No matter how obvious your sarcasm is, somebody will miss it. We all do it occasionally, no matter how finely tuned our sense of sarcasm may be.
The corollary of this is that it's difficult to come up with a ridiculous position that somebody out there doesn't believe.
I hadn't realized this had a name, and at various times I've hung out on forums like the one where Poe apparently formulated it.
The concept itself predates widespread public use of the Internet. I think it was Calvin Trillin who'd written in the late eighties or early nineties that satire was difficult because it was way too easy to get "broadsided by reality." In other words, you think you're writing satire, but somebody comes out with that position (or Poe's Law).
But I would have no problem seeing Mr, Gardner showing his ability... DR is an amazing athlete, but I also believe DG is the real deal QB... I won't choose sides, I'll leave that to coach Hoke... Go Blue!
DG lost some respect from me today. He was throwing into double coverage constantly, looking for nothing but big plays and making few reads... as well as scrambling without benefit. He reminded me of Terrelle Pryor.
Terrelle Pryor without the attitude? Sign me up.
...on the field, I think you will be struggling to find reasons to complain.
It's what we do.
That's the Michigan Difference.
he is an under classman trying to run a new system....wait a tick.
I'll take what I saw from Denard all season last year over 5 or so drives in a two hand touch game in crappy weather.
He'll be fine.
Take some encouragement from the flashes mike cox and shaw showed. Not to mention that D. increased intensity, Great coverage, great pressure.
What you saw today is not what is installed. Why on earth would they show what they have installed for Denard. They ran one zone scheme for Denard today. They have more, but why show it...it doesn't matter. This was a more Lloyd like spring game where you don't show anything. A day to enjoy watching Michigan players.
After the game Borges said they have 60% of the offense installed and showed less than 40% during the scrimmage. No point in giving anything away.
No denying we would all be drooling with glee if Denard had come out and thrown crisp darts to receivers, but I still don't think this showing is worthy of much concern. Lots of practice to go before the opener.
"We didn't run Denard very much, but in the real world, he'll probably run more than you saw today," offensive coordinator Al Borges said. "We're making a transformation here. We're not going to learn about the transformation by the quarterback running every play (in practice)."
This quote wins. Haters read up.
Thank You M-Wolv. Borges would be stupid to just run Denard all scrimmage when he is already very proficent at that. He is trying to get Denard to learn his passing system at this point.
I like this. One thing that kinda frustrated me about RR was that he was so willing to showcase his offensive schemes in the candy games - BGSU, etc. This gave fuel to our later opponents on how to stop our offense, which was our biggest asset. It later became a huge problem, because in games where the offense didn't click occasionally, they were also able to stop us (MSU comes to mind).
he may have been able to run the Pro-I up till the MSU game, then BAM! surprise them with the Denard-spread.
Unfortunately, the O needed to produce every game just to keep us in it (I'm looking at you UMass game).
I guess I would feel better if they would have actually executed the 40% that they have learned.
It may be time for a site lockout.
I don't think its fair to judge a running qb's perfomance in a game where he is down upon a hand touch. Not only can he not make exciting evasions, it probably also discourages the coach from calling qb runs when he knows that the play will most likely be dead at the line because a ref saw someone touch him.
Not quite. While that is somewhat true in a number of cases... it's certainly not true in all. QBs making bad reads, QBs over-throwing receivers, etc are not necessarily good plays by receivers. Same with dropped passes. There are plenty of plays in which it's a bad play for both.
I think you should read this comment again. What he is implying is that a lot of fans want to see and cheer for the big plays on offense rather than good defensive ones because of the excitement factor. It is a major reason that there is a 289 reply thread that some guy started on how ugly the "game" was because there was a lack of exciting plays.
Denard had a rough day, but the O-line was doing a pretty poor job giving him time. They looked pretty confused out there (this is a bit to be expected as it's all new to them as well), didn't pick up blitzes very well, and really didn't move the line on run plays. This will get better as they understand the offense a bit more, but I thought they were the biggest issue coming out of today.
The O line got no push on the "power" running plays and could not pick up the blitz on the resulting third and longs. DR and DG are not (yet) very good third and long QB's so this just made it worse.
We'll know where we really stand in 5 tortuous months.
Punch yourself in the dick.
DB-NTDB. I am first in line !
some work to do on his drop mechanics and under pressure settling his feet and making a good throw.
They showed almost zero throws to the WR's, a unit Borges is convinced is very good. The focus today seemed to be on the defensive front bringing lots of pressure, running the ball between the tackles.
Interesting note: I don't believe Vincent Smith carried the ball once.
Yes, I agree that DR and DG didn't look very good today.
However, I'm also in the camp that they will be significantly improved come game time. I did, however, think that the defense looked MUCH improved. Secondary seemed to be picking up the game too, which was awesome.
We can win with a mediocre offense if the defense is well-rounded, just remember that. (Although we do need a better kicker first.)
Tony Anderson looked pretty good out there. He had a nice pass breakup. I know he's probably just a temporarily fill-in for Woolfolk, but he might be able to help us out depthwise.
Why throw away everything Denard did last year and focus solely on a two-hand touch scrimmage in poor weather? A game in which an offense that is only 60% installed showed about 40% ... Do you really think they are going to showcase Denard in this game? If our O had done amazingly then everyone would be on here lamenting about our defense. There's no making anyone happy because one big play for one side of the ball means a bad play for the other side.
People really need to take the spring game with a grain of salt. A pretty fucking big grain of salt at that.
Can't argue with anything here.
I hate when people like you double post. I've heard this argument too many times.
didn't bother to attend. Even its 0 degrees you support a charity.
That being said, it was a great Spring day, great to watch some ball. The resturants were packed and flowing with past UM stars. Great day ... then the Wings won.
It is spring game. Denard will struggle a bit like he did his freshman year. Overwhelmed. He will do fine this year but everyone needs to put it in perspective. 2012 will be Denard's big year, comparable to this past season. He needs a year to adjust! But he, like any QB on the planet, will go through some difficulties adjusting.
Any coach on this level will tell you Denard is exactly where they thought he'd be at this point. Yes, it's frustrating, but we're on the right track and Michigan will be back. Just may take some growing pains...again. Nature of the CC!
denards showing in the spring game may not meen everything, but it definitly means more than some people are admitting. yes he was the big10 offensive player of the yr last yr. im pretty sure everyone on this site knows that. but he also did it in a different system; one that was specifically geared to his strengths as a player. if we were still running the same system, I wouldnt be too worried about his performance today. but that is not the case. we are running a new system, and denard did not look comfortable.
keep in mind that his performance today wasnt a random fluke, the spring practice reports have been generally negative towards denard and his performances when playing under center. this isnt just about adapting to new routes and new plays. there is a big difference between starting in the shotgun, which allows you to keep your eyes down field, as opposed to being under center, which requires more complicated footwork and often having to turn your back on the field.
so... if the season started tomorrow, would i be worried? YES
is the season starting tomorrow? NO
Denards got the rest of the spring and summer to work on his mechanics and get used to playing under center. if things dont improve, it will be up to the coaches to earn their salaries and make the necessary adjustments. if that means mixing in more plays from the shotgun than borges is used to, thats probably what their going to do (especially on passing downs).
it will be okay
but got picked by the Bookmobile.
any way you cut it, Denard did not look good today. It doesn't mean i am not a real michigan fan you buttheads. i was there, watched the game, and Denard look bad. He fumbled snaps, made bad reads and threw poorly. Had a couple nice runs and was polite to the refs.
The coaches know what they have in Denard...they have said so since day 1 and repeated it in the post game presser today. Give him until September and things will improve immensely., I saw several good runs today and it seems that the coaches are starting to think they have running backs to reduce Denard's load, something that is essential if he is to survive the season.
And to anyone thinking that the O was hunky dory, last year, well it wasn't. It was a work in progress with a lot of room for improvement. Touchdown totals went way down once we started playing better B1G competition last year as did turnovers. Bottom line, let's wait until September to pass judgment.
For everyone who missed it after the game, Borges specifically said that he knows DR can run the ball, so he's working more on the other pieces. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to assume that the play distribution in a spring game will be the same as what is used in an actual game. I have enough faith in our coaches' common sense to believe that if Denard goes for 40 yards like that in an actual game, they may, in fact, run that play again. I would prefer that we have more options and keep defenses guessing. Why is everybody in full panic mode?
prior to this, first in '09 with Tate, then in '10 with Denard, we saw encouraging visions that they both had the potential to be really good QB's. And both those glimpses turned out to be true the following fall. So people fear we saw a vision in reverse this time, and that the QB's will struggle in this offense come fall.
How about that Gardner guy, ehh? He may have thrown 2 int's, BUT he sure as hell has an arm!
Not today though.
I'd worry about Denard if the season started next week. Right now, he is just learning the offense. But it remains to be seen whether Borges calls the types of plays that will allow this team to succeed, not just ones that work within the philosophy of the team.
DR or DG. However, what's with all you folks that feel we all need to agree on everything? If a person has an opinion on DR or RR or BH, so what?
Brady would never amount to much.
I naturally assume that the offense is going to be dissappointing to watch this year, mostly because of what we saw last year. Like him or not, RR is an offensive genius and much of our offensive success was a direct result of his ability to mix tiny little things up that most people wouldn't notice. He's gone and so is a lot of our dynamic offense.
But, I've read way too many (really more than 0) comments where people are actually saying they wouldn't mind seeing the reigning B10 Offensive Player of the Year ride the bench in favor of Devin Gardner. It makes me want to shoot myself in the head.
Come on. I wouldn't bench Sonic just because when he smiles, world peace doesn't seem so far off.
Devin certainly didn't look any better
Looked like a free for all open scrimmage. I don't see how anyone got one thing from that. I love devin but honestly he looked like Tate today.
I don't want Denard benched. I just want him to learn his foot work.
Let's break it down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTnhYnc_q0o&feature=feedu
00:46 dropped back a little too far with 3 steps out of the shot gun which cuts down on the time he has to throw. Notice DG doesn't do that.. however DG is pretty flat footed.
At 3:13 he scrambles a bit and then throws before setting his feet. The result is a pick. Not to mention the throw is across his body.
If he just slows down half a click and sets his feet he'll become very dangerous.
Devin looked worse. He ran an offense Against the worst defense ever barely. He tossed two licks ( int ) and pretty much heaved the ball into broken coverage for most of his day. I watch football , a ton of football, and we are in trouble. I'm talking nick Sheridan trouble.
Devin's problems are different. Devin isn't making reads like he should. Devin has the potential to be like the Mizzou QB... basically the best there ever was... based on his ability to throw. However, Devin is greedy and still used to the spread option where you get one on one match ups.
I like rich rod. Ten wins just turned to seven wins.
You're way off base. If we had a kicker that would have been the best offense in college football.
You don't. Be realistic.
Hey... the troll was deleted so now it looks like we were arguing with each other D=
Better than this pressed shit.
then I'll let you do it. The defenses and special teams were an utter embarrassment under RR, and the head coach is ultimately responsible for everything. And BTW, NO WAY we win nine this year unless RR would have hired a serious DC and LET HIM RUN HIS OWN SYSTEM. You can nibble on Western Michigan, Bowling Green, Indiana (barely), but never get by the better teams without D and special teams.
One more thing...the offense FAILED against better defenses, especially in the red zone. If you can't agree with that, then you weren't watching. How many points did we score against the juggernaut Purdue last year? Our team SUCKED against good competition.
Dream's over dude...wake the fuck up and support the current team.
statistically that you are wrong when you say the offense SUCKED against better defenses, but you can keep saying it if it makes you feel better.
Purdue was played in a swamp right?
Did we play OSU and Miss State in a swamp?
We scored 76 points in our last four games in 2010 (19 ppg). And that included a defensive TD.
and just comment on box scores and recaps?
Let's review why RR got fired: because his defense was abysmal. No question about that.
On top of this, our special teams set a new record for incompetence.
Do you not understand how this attributes to our offense?
Our defense put our offense in position to fail. Lack of turnovers, long fields, the inability to get a momentum changing stop, etc.
Our lack of a kicker ensured that we continuously had to go for it in situations most teams would not have. Missing easy field goals is devastating. You drive all the way down the field against a good Wisconsin team and then miss a chip shot? Then they drive all the way back and score, resulting in a ten point swing? It puts you on the back foot.
Look at how Ohio State, a top team, took a 17-7 lead against us. They three and out their first two drives. Our first two drives result in a 4th down we have to go for because our kicker will miss and a routine turnover caused by the OSU defense. Then they drive the length of the field, but a holding penalty is called (because the longer you have to drive, there is more chance something can go wrong) and kick a field goal.
After a drop, we are forced to punt. It is an 18 yard punt that ends up at the 35. OSU scores a touchdown. 10 - 0.
We get one back on another long drive. 10-7.
OSU proceeds to return the ensuing kick-off for a touchdown, taking a 17-7 lead, yet our offense has outgained them and led the more impressive drives thus far.
How the other two aspects of the team perform matter. Nebraska's 2009 was good enough to win a national championship, but their offense was abysmal and cost them 4 games. Our 2008 defense was not nearly as bad as their numbers indicated, but when you have an offense that specializes in the 3 and out, they are going to look worse than they are.
When you add in the fact that Denard was playing his first year of REAL quarterback, not a running gimmick, you start to realize that Michigan's offense was very good, but got no support from the rest of the team.
It's unfortunate that RR could not deploy a halfway decent defense the last two seasons. We would be having a very different conversation right now, but he did not.
Now, its up to Hoke and Borges NOT to ruin the the one good part of the team that RR left behind while improving the two disasters he did.
with turrible red zone efficiency. Couldn't score from the 1 vs Illinois in 4 tries. Couldn't score in the second half against Miss St. Who thinks V Smith is a better goal-line RB than man-sized-bowling-ball Stephen Hopkins. Toledo. Etc etc.
Forgive me if I'm not convinced. I hoped for the best with RR but he failed. There is a lot of delusion going around.
I will continue to expect to be dissappointed with the offense this year, simply because last year left me prone to inflated expectations for this year. I will also continue to judge RR by my own personal standards and assess him as an offensive genius.
I get it. Everyone who disagrees with you is "wrong" and "delusional." It must be a terrible burden to be right all the time.
I was saying that a while ago too, but then I looked up their actual redzone efficiency, and this past year it was better than Lloyd's in terms of touchdowns.
So in 15 practices the 105th nationally ranked D improved to super-duper awesome level
but the O just hasn't had time to put in the new system.
be it negative or positive. All one has to do to know this to be true is to look back on last year's spring game where he couldn't miss a throw.
Kid is still growing, and once again learning a new offense. His misses today can be attributed to some tiny miscues in footwork - basically length of stride transfering to front foot- and in some cases nothing more than a little extra adrenaline.
I'm far more concerned with Big Will than Little DR. He still, despite two years of preaching about pad level, has an inbread(it appears) desire to stand almost completely up prior to moving forward. This is the guy on d that could be a huge, huge difference maker when(not if - I'm an optimis)he gets it. Black is going to be good and so is MRob. Both are football players in the same mold as Cam.
No kidding. Everyone freaking out needs to take a giant chill pill and gain some perspective.
Pot heads are always saying I need a new perspective.
and it stands to reason that, since this was a PRACTICE, they would focus on areas that need improvement. Which is obviously obvious.
As I am of the plays he was asked to run. That was bad. Like driving a fast car in neutral.
Are people concerned that Hoke may be in over his head? He only has 3 winning seasons in 8 years at low level schools so there is no evidence so far to suggest that he is a good coach and now his offense seems to have turned a first team All-American / Big Ten MVP into a very mediocre quarterback. Is he going to take us back to the "glory" days of Lloyd Carr (1-6 vs. Ohio State in his final 7 years) and Braylon Edwards (1-3 vs. Ohio State)?
Last year, we were amazed at the transformation that Denard made from his freshman run-only plays to a few months later throwing great passes in the spring game. This year, under Hoke, Denard seems seems to have regressed tremendously.
Is the dumbest thing, people who don't know how to explain what they want to say post. There is no such thing.
Was Gary Meoller calling real Michigan football when he opened things up after Bo? Was Lloyd calling real Michigan football in our shootout win over Florida? Or was real Michigan football getting trounced by USC? I forget! No wait. Real Michigan football is Yost football?! Maybe that's it?! ....
The game changes people. There is no such thing as REAL Michigan football. Just winning and losing. If RR had won more games, I guess that would be real Michigan football.
It's about the culture. If you're not a part of our family first you're not going to know our traditions. Brady is a real inbred Michigan man. RR was just inbred.
I kid I kid
Thanks for the laugh!
As the poster stated, it's about fundamentals. Michigan has traditionally had solid teams with all the pieces in place. Maybe not the most gaudy or exceptional in some senses, but all-around solid. Michigan, traditionally, has not neglected important aspects of the game like defense and special teams to the point of utter hopelessness.
For the record, this thread is sad yet enlightening... A lot of people around here really don't have a clue, and/or need to get their hormones in check.
People use some made up concept, "REAL Michigan Football" to cover a broad range of things they don't really understand how to articulate. The bottom line is all about wins or losses. I've seen some Bo and Lloyd teams with some horrible tackling fundamentals for instance, but in the end they won a lot more than they lost and it made them great coaches.
You people are so swayed by foolish media nonsense and phrases like Michigan Man. Open your eyes please. I love Bo but he never won a national title. If real M football is living in mediocrity then shame on Dave Brandon, shame on arrogant alumni, and fans who talk like this...
Lock the thread, all that's left is a Hitler reference.
Of Michigan improving beyond Bo/Lloyd.
As if its wrong to want your team to win multiple national championships or have a winning bowl record.
Then again, you are the guy who excused the Appalachian State loss and said we lost to Oregon because we got our feelings hurt. So in reality I'm not surprised you'd be scared of taking chances.
It's okay. I'll call up coach Hoke and tell him to hang around that 8-4 mark so you don't have to deal with the fact that someone might improve Michigan football beyond Bo.
"Dude, are you being sarcastic?"
nice try. you veiled it with your hitler comment, but all your posts reveal the above to be your true thoughts on michigan football.
Cgoldblu, I think RR is a genius. I was making a joke. I also think the Michigan-only mentality will kill us, but not in this case because Hoke has assembiled some brilliant offensive/defensive minds to lead us to victory. I'm betting on Hoke right now, but I would have been right there with RR if he wasn't canned.
And realize everyone is trying to win multiple national championships, and it rarely happens. It's not as easy as you whining "but I WANT it", especially when you're not willing to cheat. You show me a dynasty, I'll show you a corrupt program. But keep setting up strawmen, since those are the only arguments you can seem to win. I know it's tough when you have no idea what Michigan football is about. And it won't change for your 5 years of fandom. Sorry, you lost.
You're right, talk is cheap. Saying you want to win NCs doesn't mean it's going to happen just like saying, like "we are going to be a tough, physical football team" doesn't mean the team is going to be tough.
"Is he going to take us back to the "glory" days of Lloyd Carr (1-6 vs. Ohio State in his final 7 years) and Braylon Edwards (1-3 vs. Ohio State)?"
Way to cherrypick the "worse" second half of Lloyd's career and not the very successful period that includes a NC and beating OSU regularly.
It was okay to hire Greg Robinson because he had a great first half of his career.
Hoke may be in over his head. That remains to be seen.
RR definitely was, though. Not only was his PR god-awful, but he couldn't hold the team together in tough situations, and put out a product on the field that was vastly outmatched against the relevant competition.
He has taken 2 bad/average teams and turned them into winners. I think he did both through recruiting better than anyone else.
"But he can only win in the Big East, not the Big Ten." I think people nagged on RR saying something similar to that. Looking at the CV's of the last two coaching hires, erasing the names, and tell me who you would of hired. I'm hoping Hoke will be a Mack Brown type of coach; more of an executive type and will surround himself with good coordinators.
I think he already has. Hoke seems to be an expert at recruiting.
just grant me Rich Rod's offense with Mattison's defense. I swear I won't ask for anything else.
You could make a donation of 4 million dollars to pay for both their salaries.
Grant me $4 million... I swear I won't ask for anything else.
That was exactly what i was thinking while at the game....if only we had 1/2 a D last year.
Offense looked rough and I"m worried we're not going to take advantage of this team's offensive skills. I'm really getting tired of downgrading my expectations..
just grant me Rich Rod's offense with Mattison's defense
I'd be down with this if it meant cutting down on Denard's carries. I don't want to see him finishing four games a year on the sidelines.
Down on bringing in Hoke/Borges to run this personnel.
No worries, fellas. DR's drives ended in two missed FG's, two punts, and a turnover on downs.
The offense hasn't changed, after all!
Dont Panic its not like we have 5 starters suspended for the first 5 games, and our head coach is found out by the whole world to be a lier, and were facing a NCAA scandle that could potenially not only change the face of the BIG TEN, but will be a landmark decision on how the NCAA deals with folk that cheat.......so all and all its a good spring for the Maize and Blue. The Def looked better now than they did in the Bowl game so they'll make tweaks and the OFF looked basic but potentially explosive, D. Rob still has to take his time and be patient, but hes still the most dangerous QB in the BTen.....READ D ROD!!!!! READ THE DEF
a level-headed post.
Denard will adapt just fine, and BTW he is still going to get significant yards on the ground.
we would have 3 games last year, max. boges will get it together before the fall, the man is a genious.
Not so much worried about Denard, the kid proved he can play last year. A little worried about offense in general, can't figure out if it was the oline or the improved defense. ( I know the oline didn't have all the starters) I not even worried about the defense it looks as though Mattison has them playing good football. I think the offense could sputter for a while this year, especially if they choose to line up in two tighend sets a lot. Hopefully Borges proves me wrong!
I look at it this way. It's only spring ball. Waaayyy too early in the coaching transition to start freaking out.
What the hell. Last year we had a defense that gave up 13,000 yards per game, a kicking game that couldn't... uh... kick, piss-poor special teams, no running backs that inspired ANY confidence. And after the spring game, people are worried about THIS GUY?
Im gonna freek if the first play in the vid isnt in the playbook.
The QB Lead Oh Noes might be even more effective if operated out of a quasi-pro-style offense.
How many times was Denard in the open field last season and only a shoe string tackle away from six? Those 1702 rushing yards could've easily been much higher.
Absolutely my favorite Michigan offensive play of all time -- Denard's 86-yard bolt to pay dirt against ND.
Worried about what people like the 2008 head coach at St. Mary's High School (leading them to 5-5), who is on our staff, are going to do to this offense. People complained to high heaven about "cronyism" with Rich Rod's staff -- can anyone tell me that the resumes (i.e., past success) of our offensive staff gives them reassurance?
You felt the need to hijack this thread because of lack of OP quality, but the "Football Predictions After Spring Game?" thread which was a minor OP abortion/meltdown gets to go to over 300 posts unedited? Methinks your bias is showing....
As for Ed-M: Why? There were a number of good explanations in the thread, but to basically add - 1. Offenses never reveal all of what they going to do to the public in a non-real game; defenses may not show a blitz or two, but there are a lot less surprises to hide. 2. Spring games usually aren't normal full squads (injuries, split up teams, whatever) which has more of a impact on offense because it's all about timing and getting players to mesh together, where defense is reaction and more individualistic. Not having one D-Lineman play will show the loss of his individual talents, but not really change the way your line plays. Throw out a couple of O-Linemen, and your whole line is off-kilter. Timing with receivers and all take time; everyone converging on the ball...not so much. 3. In this particular case we're installing a new offense and defense, and offense takes more time to get right, because there's a lot more to get down after the fundamentals than there is on defense. There are lots of other reasons listed in the post game threads...those were just a few.
No one was really complaining about Denard, were they? But compared to a thread where the guy was predicting doom after a spring game and calling everyone cowards for not reacting the same way, I'm not sure one deserves editing more than the other for "content".
Edit: Guess it appears ok on the website.
Hey, I was doing this from an iPad during a wedding...gimme a break, eh? I didn't see the other thread. I saw this one and hijacked it rather than end the conversation.
And on the other thing...thanks.
For doing this at a wedding...or say STOP, run awayyyyyyyy!!!!!
they put me at the lesbians' table. I had an iPad and an internet connection, and very little to add to a conversation about Melissa Etheridge.
And the Winner, by Technical Knockout, and Still...
NBC sports quotes about Boise St. spring game:
"But actually watching the spring game itself turned out to be another story, as Boise’s defense ruled the 21-13 final. Quarterback and Heisman finalist Kellen Moore finished 5-of-14 for 50 yards in three series — almost statistically identical to Michigan quarterback Denard Robinson (who finished 5-0f-14 for 68 yards in Michigan’s scrimmage)."
Point is, the spring games across the country weren't beautiful, as they never are. The Defense will usually rule and QBs will struggle. Lets all just relax.
Has anyone argued yet that this is the Michigan defense vs. the Michigan offense? Of course the M defense should be better at stopping Denard -- they play him every practice.