My thoughts about tomorrow vs AF [ED:BISB- New Rule. Please Note]

Submitted by WingsNWolverines on

I understand Borges wants Denard to be a better passer and I agree completely with that idea. Denard as a QB needs to have a good arm and be accurate. However I feel as if Borges is trying to do this way too late in Denard's career at Michigan. He's not the most accurate QB and he's not a pocket passer we all know that but what he has is something that a lot of QBs in college football don't have. Amazing speed! He can FLY! He needs to harness that talent tomorrow and with Fitz back in the game kick the tires and light the fires! I was so confused why he didn't make more than a few running attempts in the Bama game. It's his senior year, it's an OOC game, I say let the kid run! Would love to see him fly through that AF DL. We  tire out their defense that way and that's when he goes to the air and blows them away. We need a strong offensive start with an opening TD drive down the field! Should we choose to defend a quick 3 and out. Does anybody else feel the same about him going to the ground game tomorrow?

 

[ED:BISB - Okay, this thread did it. I am unilaterally implementing a new rule. Well, I guess the rule isn't NEW so much as it just hasn't been enforced. Either way, it's a thing now, and it's called the Snowflake Rule. The Snowflake Rule is simple: threads that just repeat the same stuff everyone else is thinking are not thread-worthy. Here are some ways to know if you are in violation of the Snowflake Rule:

  • Your thread title begins with the words "My thoughts on," "My opinion regarding," or "What I think about"
  • You cover a topic that has been covered multiple times on the board or on the front page
  • The evidence supporting your post's hypothesis is entirely (a) opinion and/or (b) empty, high-level, tautological statements like "Denard is fast"
  • Your conclusion is something either obvious or completely opinion-based, like "we will be better if the blockers block people" or "Kalis should play because I think he'd be better." Or, as a totally hypothetical example, "Denard should run because Denard is fast at running."

Bottom line: posting a unique take on things is perfectly acceptable. If you want to post about a proposed defensive alignment or scheme that will allow the line to get better penetration? Knock yourself out. Want to demonstrate why Denard should run more by providing an analysis of past running QBs or of Michigan's success based on various run/pass ratios? We'd like to read it. But posting your take on a common question will get your thread pulled like something from a Weezer song.]

Don

September 8th, 2012 at 3:21 AM ^

Using more than one exclamation point in a post. If it were up to me, I'd impose a 60-day banhammer for using more than three, and six months for five or more.

DrewGOBLUE

September 8th, 2012 at 3:47 AM ^

Even though it's painful to do, if you watch the video of every offensive snap from the Bama game you can see that Denard's passing game really has improved. Yes he did throw some balls that weren't on target and had the pick 6. However, he also didn't throw off his back foot so much as he used to, made a few few very nice reads, and had a couple good, accurate passes where he stepped up into and manipulated the pocket well.

So before you sell him short on his passing game wait and see how he looks against defenses that aren't the freakin University of Alabama.

uminks

September 8th, 2012 at 8:37 AM ^

Remember, snowflakes only melt in Bolivia!

I'm expecting that Denard will have a great season, starting Today.  I can't wait until game time. See you in the live blog!

ClearEyesFullHart

September 8th, 2012 at 8:39 AM ^

How about we stop comparing Borges to Rodriguez(lookin at you Brian).  For all this talk about Denard running the ball, and Rodriguez would have done this, and Rodriguez would have done that...

Rodriguez's dumb ass didn't recruit linemen who can compete with Alabama's.  That is why Michigan didn't run the ball.  So you can stop your lovestruck longing for Rodriguez's scheme any time now.  I love our linemen, and I will root for them with every breath I have.  They are more than good enough to win a B1G championship.  But to suggest that scheme would have kept Michigan in that game when our guys up front were just getting owned on every play...

Rodriguez loses that game 120-21.  Would that extra touchdown have made you happy?

Buck Killer

September 8th, 2012 at 9:40 AM ^

Be careful about talking bad about RichRod or Bacon, because he takes out personal. #mancrush. RichRod took our program to its knees trying to run some big east bullshit. Let's focus on the future, and not some RichRod ass kissing book or lovers. #goblue!

In reply to by Buck Killer

ClearEyesFullHart

September 8th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^

Smaller pulling linemen can work against big plodding front 7's.  But when the opponent is bigger AND faster...not going to go well.

Waters Demos

September 8th, 2012 at 9:13 AM ^

Fine intent BISB has; however this is a fight against human all too human nature that can't but fail.  Pissing into a hurricane.  Quality of follower and revenue will always race in opposite directions.  The larger the patronage the more opportunities (certainties) for stupid. 

That's why parking lots have outlets on cross streets. 

Tater

September 8th, 2012 at 9:23 AM ^

Borges is a WCO coach under a directive to play MANBALL.  Denard is the prototypical spread QB.  It's not a perfect situation, but they are making it work.  

Whenever a radical system change is made, the coach needs five years to have his own personnel in place running his system.  It would be foolish to ask any coach to delay installing his system, because it just delays the "growing pains."

Denard isn't worried about his individual accomplishments.  That's good enough for me.