Jags giving Denard the start against Browns
Jaguars RB Denard Robinson starting today vs. Cleveland.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) October 19, 2014
It's about damn time they give him a chance.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^
Just saw that. Great news for him.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
I'll be watching here in Cleveland. Hope he does well but not TOO well if you know what I mean.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^
What do you mean?
October 19th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^
He is a Browns fan. He is hoping Denard does well, but not so much so that the Jags beat his team.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:06 PM ^
sarcasm......
October 19th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
I miss Denard.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
We all miss Denard.
October 20th, 2014 at 7:46 AM ^
+1 for real recognize real. This thread is starting to feel Sunday posbang.
edit: This turned into not Sunday posbang really quickly.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
i don't forget the multitude of people who disliked denard and pined for a "real" qb. i wonder if they have the insight to see just how special he was as a player.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^
Denard Robinson was a very good football player at Michigan, but he did not play the quarterback position well. He couldn't read defenses, was generally inaccurate as a passer, and he turned the ball over too much. We can say what we want about whether he was used properly or whatever - which is a separate discussion, in my opinion - but the bottom line is that he was asked to be a QB in a couple different systems, and only one of his four seasons reflected solid quarterback play (2010).
October 19th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^
I love him
October 19th, 2014 at 1:09 PM ^
You can love him all you want. That's your prerogative.
It was a response to the person above who questioned whether people recognize his talent. It's not that simple. He was unquestionably talented, but it's also rational to think that his quarterback play left something to be desired.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^
i was responding to the comment that said "we all miss him." i don't think that is true.
i don't disagree that he wasn't a great qb. i just think people who were happy to see him go probably didn't realize that we would be left with the least fun offense we've ever had to watch at michigan. it's not about being good or bad, it's just about being exciting.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^
Well, I'm probably one of the more vocal critics of Robinson's quarterback play. I feel your original comment was (directly or indirectly) aimed at me or people like me. I certainly miss Denard for several reasons, but I don't miss his quarterback play.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:46 PM ^
i just remember all the students around me during games yelling for them to bench denard and that they hated watching denard. i understood the frustrations about his wild inconsistencies, but he was basically michigan's version of barry sanders.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^
For the history lesson. How about we just be happy for him instead of being negative about 2012
October 19th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^
I am happy for him. Where did I say I wasn't?
October 19th, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^
A random time to bring up his bad qb play. Water under the bridge. I'm just happy he had a great game.
Edit: didn't notice the post you responded to originally.
October 19th, 2014 at 4:25 PM ^
I wasn't the one who brought it up.
October 20th, 2014 at 7:44 AM ^
Every prequalifier aside (he wasn't a top-tier quarterback, he threw too many interceptions, etc.), the question at hand- Do you miss Denard?
October 20th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^
Yes - I wish he was playing running back or maybe slot receiver at Michigan right now.
October 19th, 2014 at 3:59 PM ^
I feel like I should probably defer to your opinion. All my football knowledge is strictly fan-level.
However, a few points to consider:
* Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that his QB play was imperfect, rather than bad? Yes, he turned it over way too much, with fumbles as well as picks. But at a college level he was really deadly and caused all manner of difficulties for opposing DC's trying to prepare for him.
* Kid really carried our team for a while
* The stars never really lined up for Denard while he played at Michigan. He had a true home run threat at RB for, what, maybe half of one season that he played here? No true burners at WR to throw to? His breakout soph year he had no real threat at RB, no great WR's to throw to, playing on a team with a defense that was on the field 40 min/game, and STILL ran for 1,700 yds, passed for 2,300, and accounted for 30+ TD's.
* Kid barely played his freshman year, played at QB only half of his senior year, went through a coaching transition where the incoming staff didn't know how to use him at first, and STILL threw for more yards than all but 3 QB's in Michigan history and accounted for over 10,000 yards and 90+ TD's
Pretty impressive all things considered, wouldn't you say?
October 19th, 2014 at 4:17 PM ^
I don't think I've said that he was "bad."
I see what you're saying, but the context that you provide can also be extended to numerous other players. We talk about the running backs struggling, but perhaps they would have been better with more of a passing threat under center. We talk about Devin Gardner and the running backs being bad, but the OL the past two seasons has been worse than it was in 2010 with Robinson.
Is it impressive? Some of it is, yeah. Some of it isn't.
October 19th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
For my part I am very happy Denard came to and stayed at Michigan.
However, just imagine how his college career might have gone in an alternate universe:
* RRod never leaves WVU
* Denard goes to WVU instead of Michigan (RRod was the only coach recruiting Denard who was willing to give him a chance at QB)
* Denard's freshman year, he redshirts as God intended, watching Pat White put the finishing touches on an historic college FB carerr
*Denard starts as a RS frosh and play for RRod all four years - on a fully loaded, firing on all cylinders WVU squad with a decent defense and no questions about their offensive identity. Oh, yeah, and with Steve Slaton in the backfield for Denard's 1st season as a starter.
That kind of frightening talent, thriving in just the right circumstances, would have been a lot of fun to watch...
October 19th, 2014 at 1:11 PM ^
salvaged those teams. we were more than 1 player away from greatness. i don't miss denard because he was a good qb. what we all miss about denard is watching one of the most exciting playesr to ever dawn the winged helmet.
i could watch 7-6 football and still be entertained. now, watching equally shitty football makes me want to cut my eyeballs out and feed them to state fans. if we are going to be bad, i at least want to have a reason to watch us.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
What you are saying here doesn't really seem relevant to me. I'm not questioning your affinity for Denard. He is/was an exciting player, broke lots of records, had a great attitude, etc.
It's absolutely, 100% fair to criticize his play at the quarterback position. You're right that Michigan wasn't just one player away from having a good team. Put him at running back (instead of, say, Vincent Smith), and you would still need to find another QB, perhaps some WR talent, a whole host of defensive talent, and some better coaches.
I love Dairy Queen. But I can also recognize that it's not the best place to get a post-workout snack. Those are two separate things.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^
So, I've been doing it all wrong?
October 19th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^
is that you would be insane to not miss denard right now because we are an extremely boring offense to watch, and with him we would probably be a little better, but infinitely more fun to watch.
October 19th, 2014 at 4:08 PM ^
You shut your WHORE MOUTH about our beloved Dairy Queen!
Say you're sorry to Dairy Queen- go on SAY YOU"RE SORRY!
[turns to DQ]
It's OK, baby- he didn't mean it. Here, let me have some of that sweet, sweet sugar, baby.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:15 PM ^
I would argue his play in 2011 was mostly "solid". The team went 11-2 and he was far and away the focal point of the offense in the running and passing game. Even with Denard being completely misused often, that team had many good offensive performances that year.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:29 PM ^
Brian often makes the point that Michigan's offense performed poorly in 2011. I think he's a little too harsh on Borges, but Michigan got a huge boost from its defense and running game. Fitzgerald Toussaint averaged 5.6 yards/carry and went over 1,100 yards that year. Denard threw 20 touchdowns and 15 picks. That's way too many turnovers. Michigan was #103 in interceptions thrown (16 total, 1 coming from Gardner). Denard had several good games, but any QB with 20 TD's/15 INT's is questionable.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:45 PM ^
but the bottom line is that he was asked to be a QB in a couple different systems, and only one of his four seasons reflected solid quarterback play (2010).
Three seasons, really. He didn't play enough in 2009 for that to be a legitimate data point. And his QB play in 2011 was "solid" enough to lead us to 11 wins, including a BCS Bowl (in which, admittedly, he didn't play well). His 2011 performance against Ohio State was arguably the greatest performance by a Michigan QB in the history of The Game, and is of course our only victory in that game last 10 years.
I really don't get the constant harping on Denard not being a good enough QB during his time here. He was, inarguably, exponentially better than every other QB on the roster from 2010 through 2012 (as Gardner's inconsistencies in the last two years have confirmed). He's really the only person that has been able to make Michigan's offense run with any consistency in the past SEVEN years. It's not his fault that Hoke and Co. never recruited anyone better suited to play the position in their preferred style, or figured out how to use him as effectively as Rich Rod did in 2010, when Denard was only a true sophmore.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:56 PM ^
"I really don't get the constant harping on Denard not being a good enough QB during his time here. He was, inarguably, exponentially better than every other QB on the roster from 2010 through 2012 (as Gardner's inconsistencies in the last two years have confirmed)."
I don't really know what your point is. Assuming he was the best QB on the roster, that doesn't change the fact that he was inconsistent. Jack Miller is the best center we have right now. Is he above reproach simply because there's nobody on the roster? Is everyone on Miami-OH's roster free from criticism simply because they're playing the best guys they have, despite being 1-7?
Also, Devin Gardner was a better quarterback than Denard Robinson was in 2012. That's what my own eyes tell me, and the numbers agree.
October 19th, 2014 at 2:08 PM ^
The problem is that everyone bitching about Denard as a QB fails to acknowledge everything positive he brought at the QB position. Jack Miller does not bring positive attributes to the center position comparable to Denard's as a QB.
Devin Gardner was not a better quarterback than Denard Robinson in 2012, which is presumably why the coaching staff felt compelled to move Gardner to WR. And when you look at the 2012 numbers, try and remember that Gardner in 2012 had the luxury of not having to play Alabama, Notre Dame, or Michigan State. I know you're all about statistics in a vacuum, but context matters.
October 19th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^
"The problem is that everyone bitching about Denard as a QB fails to acknowledge everything positive he brought at the QB position."
That's hyperbole, and you know it. Everyone acknowledges that Denard was a great runner and had a great attitude.
"I know you're all about statistics in a vacuum, but context matters."
Denard played 3/8 games against ranked teams. Devin played 3/5 games against ranked teams. No, Gardner didn't play against Alabama or Michigan State, but he played some pretty solid teams. He also didn't have the advantage of playing against patsies like Air Force and UMass.
Regardless, Gardner had a better completion percentage (by 6%), a higher YPA (by 1.8 yards), more touchdowns (on 41 fewer attempts), and a higher PER (by 35 points).
October 19th, 2014 at 2:27 PM ^
"Ranked teams" seems like an awfully convenient metric to support your argument. Gardner started in 2012 against Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, OSU, and South Carolina. Of those, which were the "pretty solid teams" with defenses comparable to Alabama's, Notre Dame's (the two BCS finalists that year) and Michigan State's?
October 19th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^
None were as highly ranked, but like I said, you're also giving Denard a couple games against patsies to pad his stats a bit. Gardner had no such advantage. UMass was perhaps the worst team in the country that year, so that should average out pretty well with the game against Alabama. I think South Carolina (Devin's opponent) and Michigan State (Denard's opponent) were pretty similarly ranked, defensively.
EDIT: We're never going to get an apples-to-apples comparison. They didn't play the same opponents at the same time of year, etc. But the point remains that Gardner played the QB position better than Denard in 2012. I honestly can't even believe I have to make that argument. I thought that was pretty well understood. The 2013 and 2014 seasons obviously have not reflected well on Gardner, but the distinction in 2012 is pretty obvious.
October 19th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^
according to football outsiders, MSU was #2 Bama #4 South Carolina was #5 OSU #15 and ND #16. So thats pretty comparable I would say.
October 19th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^
but I also love Denard to hell. The two are not mutually exclusive.
October 19th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^
Given what we know now about Hoke and staff's ability to field an offense, I don't think Denard's struggles post RR era reflect all that poorly on him. Coaches are the ones who teach the qbs to read defenses and not a single UofM QB under Hoke has shown that ability.
October 19th, 2014 at 4:34 PM ^
I disagree. There were signs of problems even when Rodriguez was there, but his offense alleviated some of the issues. The NFL didn't even want to give him a shot at quarterback, and even when Hoke/Borges used him "appropriately" in college, he was often ineffective.
October 19th, 2014 at 7:37 PM ^
So you're saying he had a solid year in his first year as a starter under the tutelage of RichRod where Denard was put in a position to succeed and then both years under Hoke he was asked to do things he couldn't do and didn't develop.
Denard was never going to play QB in the NFL but he could have absolutely dominated the college game as an upperclassman but was never afforded the opportunity.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:13 PM ^
Magnus is dead on. I hate emotional simple-minded comments that conflate criticism with disliking. They have run rampant on this board lately. It was possible to criticize Denard's QB play and love him as a person and a player. In fact, disliking his QB play was more of a statement about coaching than about Denard.
October 19th, 2014 at 3:28 PM ^
i don't forget the multitude of people who disliked denard and pined for a "real" qb.
Dude, every QB in the history of this program has been criticized for something or other. Same for every other QB at every other school. Don't paint us all with a bad brush because of a few loudmouths. The vast majority of Michigan fans loved Denard.
I've seen a lot of posts here that hold Michigan fans up to an impossible standard. Look, most of us are very loyal and just want to support the team. Yes there are some jerks out there but they exist in EVERY fanbase. There are probably fewer of them in ours than the average - witness 113,000 turning out to support a 2-4 team last week.
October 19th, 2014 at 4:19 PM ^
polarizing qb b/c he was the most unique qb we've ever had. it would be disingenious to lump him with every qb we've had.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^
Not as much as Brady.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^
Let it rip, Denard...let it rip.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
Good luck to him!