Pretty good for a QB that some said should be benched
Considering that Denard was doing so "poorly" that some loons said he should have been replaced by DG, he did pretty well against OSU.
So well, in fact, that he set a record for most TDs accounted for—5—by any UM QB in a single game against Ohio State.
Robinson is the first Michigan player in the modern era to score at least two rushing touchdowns and two passing touchdowns in back-to-back games, doing it against Nebraska and OSU.
He also passed Vince Young in career rushing yardage by a QB.
More on the records DR has accumulated at A2.com:
http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigan-football-denard-rob…
November 28th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
I mean in the end im just happy he's doing awesome NOW. GO BLUE!!!!
November 28th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
Do you think there's any connection between Denard getting better and being kept in as the starter?
November 28th, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
But dont try to pretend for one second that everyone of you at one point or another didn't want hom [sic] benched...
Not me. Don't pin that one on me. I never wanted Denard benched. I saw what a Chinese Fire Drill the offense could be under Devin. I fear that we might have had 3 or 4 delay penalties every game if Devin had been put in.
I just love how this 40-34 (in regulation) game was so historic and such a 'return to Michigan football,' while our 2010 win over Illinois which was 45-45 in regulation was such a disgraceful track meet that some suggested that we needed to fire our then-Head Coach. By rights, with a few more completions and a good call or two, last Saturday's OSU game could have finished at 44-44 in regulation.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
is not Ohio State. In addition, the defense did not close out that game (unlike in The Game) and the final score reached the 60s. Giving up 60+ to The Zooker is indeed an embarrassment.
Regardless of the down year that OSU is having, their team is far superior to Illinois last year or this (finishing season 0-6).
In addition, this game could be seen as an aberration with an otherwise solid season-long defensive effort. The same is absolutely not true of last year, which was a season-long trainwreck of stuffed animals and 3-man rushes giving up 30 yard plays.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
The simple fact was that the '10 Illinois game was 45-all at the end of regulation and this game could easily have been 44-all at the end of regulation.
I'm not complaining about anything other than that there is such a stark difference in the popular and media perceptions, with the last two Michigan Head Football coaches.
The 2011 Michigan team is two throws away from being 8-4 with losses to all three of its biggest rivals. One great catch by Roy Roundtree against Notre Dame, and one overthrown incompletion to a TD-bound Devier Posey.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
well if you're gonna play the what if game the 2010 team was a few plays away from being 4-8. they were one overthrown bomb away from losing to nd. one underthrown hail mary from indiana tying it and one defensive stop away from losing to 1aa umass. things happen during the season and games swing both ways on close plays. i know you liked coach rodriguez and i did too but this post just looks like you're almost disappointed that michigan didn't go 8-4 so it wouldn't look like such a turn around.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
Not disappointed. Coach Rodriguez predicted 9 or 10 wins for this team and he was exactly right. I am not playing any what if games. I see an improved Michigan team, with a vastly improved defense, and (early, and in the two losses) a sometimes very frustrating offense.
If you are asking, my impression is that I see an "improved" Michigan team, not a miraculously rejuvenated Michigan team.
But even that wasn't my original point. My original point about the Illinois score is what a media turnaround this all seems to be.
November 28th, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
The 2011 Michigan team is two throws away from being 8-4 with losses to all three of its biggest rivals. One great catch by Roy Roundtree against Notre Dame, and one overthrown incompletion to a TD-bound Devier Posey.
10-2 is 10-2. The media perception of a 10-2 team will always be drastically different than that of a 7-5 team, regardless of coach, regardless of how that 10-2 record supposedly came to be (Your argument about this is a lame duck. Any two plays can change the course of any season. That's football). Also, a B1G record of 6-2, as opposed to a B1G record of 3-5 will change that perception as well, as will tangible improvement in at least two major facets of the game - defense and special teams.
Finally, the perpcetion about Michigan football changes because it beat its arch rival - a rival that has dominated The Game as of late - and even if the score was 101-100 that perception is still going to change, and with good reason too. It's amazing how you try to downplay this huge win due to your ongoing and forced narrative.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:35 AM ^
come on.
You can't seriously be downplaying the significance of beating OSU for the first time in 7 years can you?
November 28th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
What I am saying is that it is exquisitely hypocritical, for all of the people who complained about our "basketball score" win over Illinois to now say that we are finally back to Michigan football.
(I was quite satisfied with the win over OSU. But I would have been ecstatic, if Posey had caught that long ball, scored for 6, OSU had gone for 2 and failed, and Michigan had gone on to a 67-65 3OT win. That would have been the sweetest win of all.)
November 28th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
It is what you're doing.
Any type of win over OSU is "Michigan football".
It's much different than beating Illinois.
November 28th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^
Does anybody suppose, that the "make Denard a slot reciever" campaign was tinged with more of the same bury-Rodriguez emotion of the past ten months?
It is not an allegation that I'd lay at the steps of the current staff -- far from it, Hoke has stood behind Denard 110%. Just as Hoke has been quite gracious to Rodriguez.
But clearly, it seemed to be the same mouth-breathers in the newspapers, on the radio, and on the 'net, who were trying so hard to get Rodriguez fired a year ago, and who in 2011 figured that Michigan had to get going with some sort of West Coast offense, putting Devin under center and Denard someplace else. I got the impression that it was a "scheme" argument, and not so much a personal attack on Denard. All equally offensive to me, but whatever...
November 28th, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^
If Michigan had a harder time beating Ohio.
But very telling.
November 28th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
agree that you're wrong about something...you know you've gone off the deep-end.
November 28th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^
I've completely agreed with most of your posts today, but in particular on this thread your counter-reasoning to Tater's, uh, assertion.
Don't know if you should be afraid of that or not....but it's not just this one.
November 28th, 2011 at 5:49 PM ^
the further we get from 2008-10, the more we will agree!
November 28th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
I wouldn't have been happier if Michigan had had a "harder" time beating OSU, and that isn't what I said.
What I said, and what I meant, is that I'd have been delighted if Michigan had beaten OSU by the same "basketball" score by which Rodriguez's Michigan team beat Illinois (and was criticized for it!) And it is funny how close we got to that result.
It isn't that I am in any way disloyal to Michigan. It is that I am still loving any chance to twist the knife in people who were themselves disloyal to Michigan over the previous three years.
November 28th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^
Let’s be fair here, we dared OSU to beat us through the air and they could not. End of argument! We knew BM was not very accurate as demonstrated in previous games, but he is a dangerous runner. As I recall OSU has the 3rd worst passing attack in the FBS. BM has hit some long passes in some games (a few last Saturday), but has a number of games where he was awful in throwing the ball. When we start dissecting facts by saying" woulda", "coulda", "shoulda", maybe, "ifa", then we also have to look at the plays that would have given us a couple more scores. A tackle here or there, or an interception here or there, or a fumble going differently, or a call going differently would surely have affected the score - one way or the other. During a twelve game season there is a high probability of a few above average scores against us - which actually happened. In this case the offense bailed us out by putting up more points on the board. I think OSU played above their heads and I applaud them for it. But we won the frickin' game! I'm not spending a millisecond going over this game to see how we could have lost it. I repeat - we won the frickin' game! If you are an OSU fan then hate it, but if you are a Michigan then love it! It’s called a rivalry game because the dominate team does not always win - many times the underdog pulls an upset (1969, 199x). In this game the dominate team won by fending off the upset minded underdog. We all saw that Denard played brilliantly, but he doesn't want us to focus on him, so I say thanks team - Coach Hoke - Coach Borges - Coach Mattison for easing a decade of pain.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
It was a pretty windy day. Not Trash Tornado windy, of course,but certainly breezy.
Helluva game, kid.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
Not to be a downer, but the day we played MSU it was windy and denard looked mostly terrible and Hoke blamed alot of it on the wind. But guess what, it was windy for Cousins too and he seemed to be able to pass just fine compared to Denard. Anytime it is windy for Denard, it is windy for the other qb so i hate that excuse.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
Yeah, I think we get that wind is wind.
As for Cousins, that game was his worst completion percentage game of the year, so I think he was hindered a bit as well (54%).
November 28th, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^
Wind is wind. I'm gonna steal that for the future.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
If I'm not mistaken cousins was also completing around 50% of his passes that game.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
He did win. And didnt make the mistakes that DR did a.k.a. Pick 6 to put the game out of reach.
November 28th, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
I think you meant Vincent Smith there...
November 28th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
But he got the W. did you forget that? By 14 points. Stats the always tell the whole story but thank you for the amusement.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
Sorry i am doing this off of an iPhone.
November 28th, 2011 at 8:53 PM ^
The iPhone allows it.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
This season, Cousins averaged 228 yards per game, 8 yards per attempt, and a 64% pass completion.
Compare that to the above stats for the game against us (which are factored into his per game average).
Facts......... use them.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
I also remember comments about a certain Mr. JT Floyd that some/many on this here blog said would be a 6th string DB by the middle of the season, and that he was just terrible/lost, and that he wouldn't get his fifth year. Yet he had the best year of any corner on the squad.
Good job, Denard. Good job, JT.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
Ummm...hooray, J.T. Floyd. You succeeded in not falling all the way to 6th on the depth chart!
Seriously, though, I don't remember anyone saying that he wouldn't get a fifth year. But the guy got burned against Nebraska and got burned multiple times against Ohio State. He had a solid game against Illinois, and somehow that seems to have made you forget about everything else. He's still just mediocre.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
He's much better than mediocre. He's the shit. He's lock down. He tackles like a freight train, and covers like a freshly washed blanket. And I do distinctly remember his name often coming up in discussions about the fifth year renewals during the Great Scholarship Crunch of 2011. Some/many said he was expendable, but obviously he's a profound winner on the defensive side of the ball. But as I see there are still doubters, even after he's proved himself a leviathan of football tactic and skill. Keep up the ill-advised blasphemy, though. Floyd only eats the negative and converts it to power.
November 28th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^
i agree with this. if the last two weeks have put an end to the denard to the bench talk, they should also end any idea that Floyd should be the #1 cb on a top tier defense. We should see Countess make a big jump by next year, with Floyd yielding that spot.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:25 AM ^
we hear his name is when it is connected to football.
The very best thing is that he will be back for another year. One more off-season to perfect his game, not to mention having time to work on the lift with Lewan.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
November 28th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
He will be the undisputed most dangerous player in CFB next season, even if he throws minimally. I can't wait!
November 28th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
The Bottom Line IS GOOD JOB MICH
November 28th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
I still need to see the Game again, but at this point I really gotta give a lot of credit to Borges.
Denard is always the fastest guy on the field while also being an accurate passer with a strong arm. He basically allows an offense to do things that no other offense can do.
However, we knew about that before the year, and what we have learned this year is just how difficult it is to exploit those gifts in the game. When passing, Denard is too short to see and take advantage of passing lanes like you want out of a QB and has a tendency to rush leading to underthrown balls off his back foot and fuck-it-chuck-its into multiple defenders. When running with the ball, he is hesitant with his decisions, causing him to bounce-bounce-bounce against quick defenses and miss tons of opportunities on option reads.
He is improving, but all of these are problems and will remain problems. We all knew when used correctly Denard was as productive and dangerous as any player in the nation. We learned this year just how restricted the position he can succeed from really is (if that makes sense).
As a doubter, it wasn't Denard's abilities I doubted (although I was far from impressed at times), but Borges' ability to use Denard in a way that he could be productive. At this point, he obviously can, I was obviously wrong, and I can't wait to see what this offense looks like when the Game rolls around again next year.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Denard was a 53% passer prior to Saturday. Saying Denard is "accurate" is like saying Kate Upton is "ugly."
Denard had a great game on Saturday. Phenomenal. But let's not forget that he had some horrible passing days this season and threw 14 picks. He's still a work in progress.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
100% correct. Nobody, certainly not me, would logically say that Denard Robinson's throwing ability is up to the level of Brady's, or Griese's or Harbaugh's. He had some rough games this season throwing the ball. Luckily for Michigan, Denard's legs can frequently compensate for his aerial mistakes. Denard is no Tom Brady throwing the ball, but Tom Brady is no Denard running the ball, either.
That isn't the whole of the issue, though. Brady and Griese and Harbaugh weren't the backups sitting on the bench—Devin Gardner was, and the issue in question is whether Devin Gardner should have supplanted Denard as the starting QB. I haven't seen a single thing from Gardner, during games or in spring practice, which shows he should be the permanent starter. Evidently, the coaching staff had the same view of things.
November 28th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
Don has shown how you can acknowledge Denard's limitations without being -- well, without being Magnus-like about it. I look forward to the day when a Michigan quarterback lives up to Magnus's expectations of what a college QB should be.
November 28th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
You are one of the conductors on the Denard hate-train. Its amazing the vendetta some of our more "intelligent" posters have against him.
Speaking of progress: Denard was a 67.8% passer over his last three games when we played our toughest stretch of defenses. He was 60% + in all three games. He also threw 5 TDs to 2 picks. Seems like he's right where he should be after a mixed start with a new HC/OC/Offensive staff that didn't recruit him (something everyone seems to forget).
I'm not surprised though: You're one of several people on here who have trashed Denard with false information this season. After all, you were the one claiming that he was woefully inaccurate last year and most of his completions were due to his receivers...when anyone who goes back and watches the "Every Snap" vidoes from last year can tell you that is a load of shit.
November 28th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
Denard had a monster November!
November 28th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^
Denard has repeatedly shown that, when he isn't pressured, can step into his pass, and isn't making a spectacularly bad read he will regularly make a good pass. Remember that Borges used the passing game mostly as a method of stretching the defense vertically. Denard was asked to hang in the pocket and heave it long. As the season has progressed the offense became far more controlling by stretching the field horizontally with zone blocking and crossing routes. When not trying to throw into coverage he has been extremely accurate on the slants and crossing routes.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
Through 12 games:
DR: 133-237-14; completion%: 56.1 18 TDs Passing efficiency rating: 142.24
DG: 11-23-1; completion%: 47.8 1 TD Passing efficiency rating: 117.76
Yep, these facts conclusively prove that Devin Gardner should have been starting over Denard Robinson.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
You fail to look at the big picture. Like i said though, he is doing well now and that is all that metters.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
Eh, I'm with you that DRob should have been the starter, but Gardner's sample size is way too small to make any conclusions. I think he would have had better passing numbers if he was alllowed to stay in for more than a play here or there.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
You don't think that there was a reason WHY Gardner was never in for more than a play here or there most of the time?
November 28th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
decision could be based on things having little to do with his throwing skills. Drob clearly brings more speed and also a leadership component that DG may be lacking. Drob may also be a better improvisor. DG may be a better passer but it may not be enough to warrant giving up the speed/leadership/intangible factors Drob provides.