The Denard Show Next Week?
Assuming the team does not experience a letdown next week, I wonder if we will see a lot more Denard when/if we get a comfortable lead? I have two thoughts about this:
The first is that I would love to see Denard let loose in a situation when the game is not on the line. In the first game, it seemed like we were maybe trying to ease him in or perhaps keep him hidden for the ND game. In the ND game it seemed like RR was afraid to put him into situation where one mistake could cost us the game (Tate being Zeus-like probably played a factor as well). It would be great to go up early in the Eastern game, and then let DR take over with the whole playbook (or however much he knows) open to him. This would serve to get him more comfortable with the system and allow RR (and us fans) to see if he is a viable option at this point to run the full offense (throwing and running).
My second thought on this matter is that we absolutely cannot get Denard injured for fear of us being one play away from returning to the team of last year. I know we are much better in almost every area, but nonetheless I will be terrified if at any point Nick Sheridan is our number one backup.
My final conclusion on this is that until DR becomes more comfortable in the system, he won't have the ability to be our number one anyway if, God forbid, Tate goes down. We need to get Denard game ready, even if that means risking injury. What do you guys think?
September 13th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
establish our running game. Take a look at the rushing yards yesterday... Minor Rage had 106... C. Brown minus 3.... There is alot of work that needs to be done in the next few weeks against weaker opponents and one of them has to be getting our Oline and RB's in sync.
The second priority should be to ensure we are establishing DL pressure on the QB. I was concerned with the amount of time Jimmah had to throw. In addition, it appeared that when ND decided to run with power rush attack, it looked (from my vantage point, Sect. 37) that we were losing the LOS battle.
Third priority would be to iron out QB execution issues with Tate and to get quality snaps for DR.
My HOPE is that RR puts both Tate and DR in backfield together more often. There has to be a differential advantage for us to do that...
September 13th, 2009 at 4:48 PM ^
Wow, our 2nd string running back was not as effective as our 1st. We had 190 yards of rushing, that is horrible.
We are always going to have difficulty getting pressure on the quarterback when we are rushing 4 against 6 or 7.
September 13th, 2009 at 7:27 PM ^
And you only addressed one comment. There is absolutely no reason for concern, but it is a fact that we can use some work on both lines. It's really beyond question that they had much time to throw, and they ran the ball very well against us. I'm fairly sure the coaches would agree.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:09 PM ^
Take a look at the box score - 5 yards/carry. That's fine. We had a far more balanced offense this game than last - 38 rushes and 33 passes, instead of 50 rushes and 28 passes. This offense doesn't necessarily have a feature back - it can spread carries around (not to mention the fact that the QB gets a fair share). Forcier, Minor, and Denard combined for 197 yards on 33 carries. I think that's pretty well-established.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:47 PM ^
while showing excellent hands as a receiver out of the backfield
The whole stats rushing/receiving story:
Michigan Rushing
Michigan Receiving
| PLAYER | CAR | YDS | AVG | TD | LG |
| B. Minor | 16 | 106 | 6.6 | 1 | 32 |
| T. Forcier | 13 | 70 | 5.4 | 1 | 31 |
| D. Robinson | 4 | 21 | 5.3 | 0 | 14 |
| C. Brown | 4 | -3 | -0.8 | 0 | 6 |
| M. Odoms | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team | 38 | 190 | 5.0 | 2 | 32 |
| PLAYER | REC | YDS | AVG | TD | LG |
| G. Mathews | 5 | 68 | 13.6 | 1 | 40 |
| D. Stonum | 4 | 54 | 13.5 | 0 | 24 |
| K. Koger | 4 | 38 | 9.5 | 1 | 20 |
| C. Brown | 4 | 36 | 9.0 | 0 | 17 |
| L. Savoy | 2 | 23 | 11.5 | 0 | 17 |
| M. Odoms | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 0 | 11 |
| K. Grady | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | 3 |
| Team | 23 | 240 | 10.4 | 2 40 |
September 13th, 2009 at 7:52 PM ^
And the reason Brown had negative yardage was because of that one botched handoff that resulted in an eight-yard loss.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:42 PM ^
Take that botched handoff away...
...and Brown had 3 carries for 5 yards. Let's not pretend he was good prior to that fumble.
Carlos Brown can't break tackles. That's been a big part of the story his entire career. I wish Michigan fans (not you, necessarily) would get it through their heads that a running back who can't break tackles is a serious flaw.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:38 PM ^
It may be a flaw, but he is the second stringer for a reason. We've got a few other guys that could take his position, but honestly, Carlos' raw talent and experience could be really helpful down the line.
I know it's a "could," but I'm not going to write him off just because he is more of a speed back and can't do the Rage.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:40 PM ^
Still, I'd prefer to see Brown spelling Minor, as opposed to the other way around.
September 13th, 2009 at 11:07 PM ^
I don't think anyone is arguing the opposite.
September 13th, 2009 at 11:09 PM ^
You mean other than the coaches?
September 14th, 2009 at 6:17 AM ^
Brown 2 starts, Minor 0
September 14th, 2009 at 8:06 AM ^
I'll be concerned when Minor is fully healthy and not getting the starts.
September 13th, 2009 at 4:33 PM ^
Denard get a few series where he runs the offense and doesn't just come in for a running play. A big will sighting would be nice too.
Why hasn't he seen the field? Is it a conditioning issue or does he not look good in practice? If he can get on the field and play well it should open up things for our DE's. With his size he should be commanding a double team leaving the outside open for the pass rush and keeping the OL off our LB's.
September 13th, 2009 at 4:45 PM ^
Big Will played in the WMU game on the last series of the game. Had a nice TFL. He'll see more time, don't worry. He's a true freshman and still learning.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
Campbell is very raw and will get owned by good OL. His size isn't going to matter if the other team's OL is depositing him ten yards down the field. Big Will's recruiting ratings are more of a measure of his potential, not his instant impact capabilities. He needs alot of work and would normally redshirt, but our depth isn't that great.
September 13th, 2009 at 4:50 PM ^
All of his plays so far have basically been designed runs or reverses or the occasional pass against WMU. I haven't seen him run the staple read-option or whatever it's called. I think he'd be absolutely dynamite. There were a couple plays where Tate kept it and got decent yardage that I thought Denard would have done a lot more. After WMU I thought they were saving it for ND, but maybe they'll break that out against the relative cupcakes coming up.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^
He ran the read option a couple of times against WMU, but he always kept it.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:51 PM ^
The titles & placement of these posts led to that mental image. Just felt I should share for laughs.
Yeah, I think Big Will is destined to be The Fridge 2.0, with a whole new dimension.
September 13th, 2009 at 4:51 PM ^
dont play the backup for fear of injuries? makes no sense.
i agree about RB's. if we have the lead, i want to see lots of brown and shaw, in particular.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^
denard's got to get in and get some good passes off. if not defenses will not respect that threat and just crash down on him. so while i'd love to see some more of those 40 yard runs- if we get a good lead sending him to throw is a very smart play IMHO.
September 13th, 2009 at 8:13 PM ^
He played against Western. ;-)
September 13th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^
Justin Turner?
September 13th, 2009 at 5:30 PM ^
to see Denard take the helm after we're up 3 or 4 scores and split time with Sheridan. We have a QB, and a downfield offense, no sense getting anyone hurt.
Personally, I'd like to see 45 rushes and 25 passes this week. Let Shaw and Brown do most of the work after the 1st quarter, maybe give Grady 5-10 carries.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:37 PM ^
I think the best case scenario would be Tate and Minor (and possibly Junior) playing the whole first half, and then, if we have a substantial 35-0 type lead, they will have the first series of the second half and be done. Then, Denard, Shaw, Brown, Vincent, and Stonum and get some reps and some valuable experience.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:43 PM ^
This is what I am expecting as well. We cannot take even Eastern lightly. Put them away with Tate and the 1st teamers and then get D-Rob and V.Smith a chance to shine when the game is in hand.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:43 PM ^
I'm hoping for the Coner show next week...at least in the 2nd half.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:44 PM ^
you see, the OP has a point. RRod needs to start Coner because Michigan simply can't afford to have their primary back-up hurt by, y'know doing what you recruited him to do (namely play). Same with Forcier--he's Michigan's best QB, and therefore simply too valuable to play. And Sheridan is functional, so Rod needs to keep him safe, just in case ... So Coner show for entire Game!!! ... Wait, hold that thought on Coner. Someone get Kennedy some reps this week ...
September 13th, 2009 at 7:14 PM ^
How about a Coner showing instead. Another version of the human victory cigar.
September 13th, 2009 at 8:55 PM ^
Right now, Denard just doesn't know enough of the system to be used in any capacity other than running the ball or making very basic throws. I still think he should be incorporated into the offense with Tate on the field at the same time, as a back or receiver and sometimes a QB to throw off the opposition. It's a unique approach but one that can work. There were a few players where Tate had one LB to beat on an outside run but was unable to do so, but if that had been Denard, he would have been gone.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:04 AM ^
Having both of those dangerous players on the field gives us many more options than Denard's ISQS (Incredibly Surprising QB Sweep). Now, hopefully we won't need that level of trickery against EMU, but it would be a big addition to our offensive arsenal for the rest of the season.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:45 PM ^
I have no idea what the second part of your thoughts means. We absolutely can't get Denard injured? Okay . . . well, we absolutely can't get Forcier injured, either, can we? I mean, the coaches actually trust Forcier to throw the football, which is fairly important.
So if we can't get those two injured . . . and if it would be terrifying to even have Sheridan as the #1 backup, then he certainly can't start against EMU . . .
Hey, I have an idea. Let's wrap all of our good players in bubble wrap and hope EMU forfeits.
September 14th, 2009 at 1:53 PM ^
Statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that EMU will forfeit.