Who Gets Denarded This Offseason
This time last year, how many of you were thinking "I can't wait until next year when Denard Robinson will become one of the most dynamic and statistically dominant offensive players in Michigan history." Or were you thinking, "Next Year Denard could be a great slot or maybe even a 3rd down/wildcat threat." The point is, I think we are way to quick at dismissing young players on this board. This year, since so many starters struggled, the assumption seems to be that every young kid riding the bench must be even worse. Or even worse, true freshmen who were forced to play and got blown up were written off (ie. Cullen Christian). Sure, but that is the nature of being a young player, there is the distinct possibly of massive improvement. So on a more positive note, I just want to start a prediction thread on which young players (2011 underclassmen) will have big break-out seasons next year.
My Picks:
1. Courtney Avery- Will become a lock down man coverage corner in the new scheme
2. Issiah Bell - Needed extra time after transforming body into linebacker.
3. Fitz - The big health if. But if man...if.
As a little side experiment, I will tally all the votes and post results next week. One thing I want to look for is if there is a correlation between mgopoints and the accuracy of prediction. That will have to wait until next year, but I always wanted to know if spending this much time on this site makes someone more knowledgeable in a meaningful way. So don't let me down 10,000+ pointers.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
So let me get this straight... you're saying
a) You can't predict who will improve greatly
followed by
b) You want us to predict who will improve greatly
I'll play along. Will Campbell.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
I just want people to predict who they think will make "the leap" next year. It's Feb and a fun and simple exercise.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
I just thought that the way you prefaced your request to the board was hilarious. That is all.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
Me too! I think Carvin Johnson is going to have a big year. He just seems like a kid who knows how to play the game to me. Too bad he was banged up last year.
February 11th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
Craig Roh's been lurking just beneath the surface due to size and deployment.
For me, 2011 has 365 days. For Craig Roh, it's a leap year.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
I am more worried about who will be anti-Denarded on the offensive side of the ball. I am thinking M-Rob has a good chance to become "good" on the defensive side. I won't say anyone will take a leap like Denard did. I will also go on record as saying Denard will not be statistically superior than he was last season for the rest of his career. RR has a way with turning QBs into superstars.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^
your consistency.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
Denard doesn't need to be statistically superior to 2010. That's not the relevant issue. What's more important is keeping him healthy, finding running backs that actually run the ball, setting up play-action off the rushing threats of Denard and the RBs, and utlizing Denard's legs in a similar manner to Cam Newton at Auburn.
Oh, and RR is gone. Borges will do just as well with Denard and Devin, and he'll probably get way more out of the RBs, Stonum, Hemingway, and Koger than RR ever could.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
"Borges will do just as well with Denard'
I should bookmark this. You are so, very wrong.
RR - King, White, Denard
Borges - McNown... ... ....
It's all good though, Kool Aid is great!!
February 11th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
Campbell at AU. And then just look at LIndley's stats this year if you still think Borges can't coach QB
February 11th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
Yeah, let's not forget that Borges coached Kyle Boller at California in 2001 as the team's offensive coordinator. Boller was an excellent college QB.
February 11th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^
Did you really just mention Kyle Boller? I'll respectfully request that you never use that name in the same conversation about Denard Robinson ever again. Blasphemy!
February 11th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
Apparently, sour grapes are even better.
February 11th, 2011 at 8:47 PM ^
Sour Grapelicious® Kool-Aid.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
There's this guy called Jason Campbell.. he did pretty well under Borges... but go ahead and stick to your negativity if it works for you...
February 11th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^
Campbell , while at Auburn had an 1.2 yards per carry,249 ATT for 307 yards.....he did throw for 7299 yds in his college career 552 of 854..with 24 int...
February 11th, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^
Campbell only played one year under Borges at Auburn. It was his best season by a mile.
February 11th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
I recall watching Auburn that year, and they explicitly gave credit to Borges for his work with Campbell
February 11th, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^
Ok....2004, Campbell Threw for 2700 yds, he had 20 tds and 7 int , his rushing avg 0.5 he carried the ball 58 times for a total of 30 yds.....on a side note, he was built like Cam Newton ...about 6.5"and around 220 or so.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
OMW FIRE BORGES!
February 11th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
OH MY WALNUTS
February 11th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
ORGASMIC MATING WALRUSES
February 11th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
OUR MASSIVE WANGS
February 11th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^
Octopussy Meets Whitesnake
February 11th, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^
How do you know my dreams?
February 11th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^
Our Michigan Wolverines?
February 11th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
February 11th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^
Ha ha ha I will defintely do it since the anon board poster told me to!
I actually go to the school so I will be a fan forever. This hire was a poor decision in my opinion (and everyones until "defense smash everyone like?" speech).
I am entitled to my opinion.
Thanks for acting like a child, though.
"Your opinion isn't my opinion so you should go away!!!" That works really well in all sorts of situations!
February 11th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^
I know this is going to be so far beneath you but I also think you're an a**. But please don't go away, listening to you bitch is still better than being at work. And before your next d*** comment, I also went to the school.
February 11th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^
Dudeness, I agree that you are entitled to your opinion. And I agree that you are free to express is here on this Michigan blog.
BUT, your opinion had nothing to do with this thread. It is as if you are looking for every possible chance to spout how much you do not love the Hoke / Borges hire and how disappointed that Denard will not run up gaudy (although meaningless, if we don't win) stats. We all get it, and there are plenty of threads where it fits. Here, the OP was just asking for predictions about who will IMPROVE. This wasn't a thread about who will drop off (which Denard's stats might, but which has no bearing upon his effective running of the offense).
Also, not "everyone" thought that the Hoke hire was bad before his speech. I was advocating for Hoke before the hire on this blog. Others were, as well. In fact, after SDSU kicked Navy's ass in the bowl game, there was a thread on the board that had 200+ comments, if I recall, and many were of the "wow, this offense looks good, diverse and well run" and "sign me up" variety.
Finally, why are you so quick to write off Borges with respect to Denard? I know that Denard put up big numbers, but even you must admit that:
(1) running as much as he did got him banged up, slowing down his running AND throwing games, and
(2) while Denard put up big numbers, our offense as a unit struggled against the better defenses.
February 11th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
Only Rich Rod saw DRob at QB IIRC. The only other guy (in D-1 ball) in the country who has an O built for DRob is Kelly in Oregon. All due respect to McNown and Campbell...DRob is a special case. Borges is not likely to use DRob to the best of his ability given the playbook he's bringing to Michigan. Of course he will be successful...but the days of "every play is like play action" are more than likely done.
I will gladly eat this post in April when I see what the future brings (though we are likely looking at a season of tweeks regardless of the scheme we see in the spring game.)
Embedded threads can wander off topic...I don't see any problem with that.
February 11th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
You're being veery undude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL216IAVZ_M&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1
February 11th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
Call me crazy, but I love the pessimism. If you're asking me, he's earned it. Its been an extremely sh-tty past few months (years) and has caused many to question the framework of the institution that is Michigan football. So I think people that have a "show me" attitude are well within their rights to have it, and His Dudeness has earned his right to assert it here on the Board. Those that do not like it, dispute it with facts and examples. Do not simply demean. Show some respect to your elders.
February 11th, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^
Arguments tend to become stupid any time someone starts talking about "rights". He has his rights to whine like a bitch on this message board, just like other people have their rights to call him out on it.
What do you mean by elders anyway? Was that an ill-advised joke?
February 11th, 2011 at 9:04 PM ^
America was built on certain inalienable rights - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And The Dudeness earned an additional right after suffering through the past several months of Michigan football hell - the right to be a damned negative as he wants. Who are you to question his rights? What happened to give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses?
Oh, and I don't make ill-advised jokes. All of my jokes are well-advised, thank you very much.
February 11th, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
My tenure at Michigan started in 2008 and ends this year... I have been in this school for the worst three years of football ever. I was under the impression we were building something and that was torn from us (me) right when I though we were going to crack through and get back to murder ball and winning football. I don't want to sound like a whiney bitch, but I feel like I have been cheated. When I talk about the good old days when I went to Michigan I will tell stories about RR and people will laugh and say how much that sucked, but I see it differently. I thought we were building something and held in my anger for this time because I thought we would see it through. That's my problem.
February 11th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
That's a ton of first person in that post.
Maybe you shouldn't internalize this so much?
They were 39-9 in my 4 years.
Sucker.
February 11th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^
Your tenure on football Saturdays at the Big House never has to end. There is more at stake here than the 2011 season. The "decision" was based on the health and longevity of the program. The year of RR was shaping up to be 2012, your were bound to be cheated either way.
February 11th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^
I agree with that. I got to participate in the Michigan tradition of losing the Rose Bowl...twice. I barely go more than day without daydreaming about what might've happened if Shazor kept his hands together...
February 11th, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^
If you are referring to murderball, the sport played by handicapped athletes, our defense has been playing murderball for years.
February 11th, 2011 at 9:07 PM ^
They have picked their particular positions on the issue and by Schembechler, they will stick to their guns. Admirable, intractable, and practically immune to the ban-hammer and negging due to the gargantuan numbers of points they have acquired over the years, these characters continue to advance their agendas and argue with other posters to this very day.
February 11th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
I think you're wrong and the OP is correct. Overall, Denard will do as well, if not better, in the new offense. For one thing, he'll be a year older. For another, the offense will mix it up more, thereby preventing defenses from keying on Denard. By the end of last season, after the first couples series, they were basically keeping him in check (and beating the crap out of him). He won't get as many rushing yards, but he'll get more passing yards.
February 11th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
February 11th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
Squishing the field into an old-school offensive set is probably going to mean that there will be less mismatches in the secondary, and there won't be nearly as many big plays as there were. If Borges can continue to have this team in the top ten of total offense, and take advantage of the fact that a team with upperclassmen usually closes more drives than a team full of underclassmen, I will be impressed.
But I don't see him "getting more out of" skill players on offense than "RR ever could." And really, the discussion shouldn't have turned into yet another bullshit-laden, "Hoke/Borges vs RR/Magee" thread.
What RR would have gotten really doesn't matter right now. What matters is Hoke and Borges finding a way to help these kids pefrorm to their full potential. Thankfully, Borges' offense looks a lot more like that of Skip Holtz than it does like the "old school" 1980's offense that so many in Ann Arbor think will still work in this era.
Since the field won't be spread out anymore, the offense will have to rely, as does Holtz, on play fakes, misdirection, and unpredictable playcalling to create mismatches in the secondary and decent holes for the RB's. It can still work, but there won't be anymore fifty-point games, except maybe against EMU.
The days of gaudy, Heisman-worthy stats on offense are over; grinding the ball down the field is probably back to stay. Anything better than that would be a major bonus. To me, the main question is whether or not Hoke/Borges will go away from the "Run, run, pass" sequence that Michigan has traditionally queued up on first through third downs.
Saying, "this is what we are going to do, come and stop us" won't work in this era. I think it is possible for a team to win it all with a more hybrid approach, but I don't think it 's possible without some variation in playcalling. From 1969-2007, Michigan's idea of "deceptive playcalling" or "fooling the defense" was to run the draw on third and long. We all know how that usually worked out.
Hopefully, we see an offense that has opponents off balance the entire game, and can't be predicted by charting. If that happens, the formations don't really matter.
February 11th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
Watching that SDSU-Navy game, "squishing" is an apt description - almost looks like an intentional middle finger to spread teams.
Also,
"Since the field won't be spread out anymore, the offense will have to rely, as does Holtz, on play fakes, misdirection, and unpredictable playcalling to create mismatches in the secondary and decent holes for the RB's."
And a shitload of different formations - they line up everywhere. Also a sharp contrast to our O over the past several years (TE's in the backfield notwithstanding)
February 11th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
Are you talking about the "Old school" 1980s offenses with Jim Harbaugh, Mike Taylor and Demetrious Brown at QB, with Jamie Morris and Leroy Hoard at RB, with Calloway and Kolesar at WR?
Truly boring, plodding offenses, those were. Especially that 1986 one. How did that team finish the season, unacceptably?
February 11th, 2011 at 1:00 PM ^
That wasn't Tater's point at all. In fact, this is almost a complete non sequitur.