Why wasn't Denard utilized as a runner?

Submitted by DrWolverine23 on

The times we were at our best last season, was when we let one of the most electric players in college football, Denard Robinson, ...run the ball!!! Its like having Tom Brady as your QB but only allowing him to run the ball not pass. Not playing to your players strengths at all. 

A lot of the national media was mystified by this as well. Pat Forde from yahoo sports:

"Denard Robinson, pocket passer. How's that working out for you, Michigan? No run threat from him at all tonight."

"OK, this is ridiculous. Michigan disastrous game plan. Alabama in a feeding frenzy. 31-0."

 

Thoughts on this? Against a much superior opponent you can not already limit yourself, just ridiculous. This is Denards last year, Borges should utilize such a special player, he can go all manball next year.....

MGoBoard

MattisonMan

September 2nd, 2012 at 6:31 AM ^

I'm not 'inside' but maybe Denard wants to try it as a traditional qb and see if he can make a case to stay at that position in the NFL.

I'm not saying it would work but maybe that's what he's committed to doing.

Joined: 01/29/2010

MGoPoints: 8790

Commie_High96

September 2nd, 2012 at 9:14 AM ^

I would say that, Bama may be the best college team since USC in the early 00's. What can you do? As for Denard, I am glad they didnt run him, they would have had to sell him for scrap parts after the game if they had.

Joined: 02/10/2012

MGoPoints: 19679

mpbear14

September 2nd, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^

Well, our biggest runningback did get blown up on the option play we ran and never went back in the game... and Vincent Smith gets breathed on and falls down immediately...  

It was clear, Denard was being protected with the game plan.  Sucks as fans, but I'd rather have Denard for MSU then against an Alabama team we literally had no chance of beating.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 3495

wolverinestuckinEL

September 2nd, 2012 at 4:11 PM ^

But he wasn't protected in the third quarter. His legs got us into second and manageable. So throw in the white towel because e might get hurt? You are giving ammo to the " it was dumb to schedule this game" crowd with that line of reasoning. If you are afraid to do what is required to win u shouldn't play the game

Joined: 09/21/2010

MGoPoints: 3048

mmp

September 2nd, 2012 at 6:32 AM ^

Why put lipstick on a pig. No one, thought Michigan had a chance going into the game. Winning or losing it doesn't effect the team's stated goal of winning the Big Ten. Therefore they seemed to come up with a game plan keep him healthy for the big ten season. Unfortunately that game plan went to shit after 1st Q and we were forced to try and pass our way back. Denard's chuck and pray didn't work like it has against less talented defenses.

Outplayed and out coached. It happens. I has a sad panda.

Joined: 08/04/2009

MGoPoints: 141

funkywolve

September 2nd, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^

Because Dave Brandon liked the 'wow' factor.  UM facing a big name opponent on a neutral field in prime time to start the season.

It why Brandon is crying about the UConn game but scheduled a game at Utah.  Utah's stadium isn't much bigger than UConn but the Utah game has a 'wow' factor - thursday night game to kick off the college football season.

Joined: 10/08/2008

MGoPoints: 20251

Mr. Rager

September 2nd, 2012 at 11:27 AM ^

I agree with you 100%.  There is no other logical answer than "we were trying to keep him healthy".  Fuck if we should schedule another game like this EVER.  Yet I hear this is the sort of shit David Brandon wants to continue doing.  Maybe the beatdown we were handed last night will cause him to rethink his (shitty) idea.  

Joined: 11/16/2011

MGoPoints: 967

Oscar

September 2nd, 2012 at 6:37 AM ^

Even if Denard ran the ball more, we still would have lost.  The score may have been closer, but at what expense?  Denard's health?  Be happy that more guys didn't get hurt.  If anything, I think we should have challenged them more in the deep passing game.

Bottom line, this is only Hoke's second year.  Give him a couple more years to recruit the player's that fit his system, and then we won't have to put all the pressure on one player.

Joined: 05/06/2011

MGoPoints: 5855

ijohnb

September 2nd, 2012 at 8:40 AM ^

it actually was important to not lose that game like we lost it.  OK, we weren't going to win but we needed to compete.  A loss like that can have a lasting effect and can actually have an effect on recruiting and perception of the program.  We got a nice 3 and out to begin the game and Denard should have ran the ball on that first series to establish that we could move the ball and at least, shorten the game.  Granted he should not have ran the ball 35 times or anything, but he was criminally underutilized, especially early.  There really is no defending the game plan, or lack thereof, by Borges, to make that game competitive.  I am not saying to fire the guy or anything and that was pathetic.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

ILL_Legel

September 2nd, 2012 at 8:49 AM ^

That loss is not going to affect recruiting.  The guys that are going to come are not going to de-commit because of the game.  Even if we show better it is not going to make a recruit we are not in on change his mind.  No impact on recruiting.

The reality is Alabama is more talented team and they were definitely more ready to play which makes sense because they play big games like that all of the time.  Our team will be ready to play for big games now.  A great learning experience even though it hurt to watch.

Joined: 08/13/2010

MGoPoints: 4840

ijohnb

September 2nd, 2012 at 8:53 AM ^

don't think you can say that going into the heart of Texas and getting Andy Dufrained on national TV won't have any effect on recruiting.  If you are a recruit watching that game there is no way to come away from seriously doubting the competence of the Michigan coaching staff.  I'm sorry, but I were a big time football recruit, (which I am so painfully not), seeing that presentation last night does very little to push me into going blue.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

wolverine1987

September 2nd, 2012 at 10:24 AM ^

know what you are talking about, flat out. A regular respectable loss would be fine, but this wasn't that. No, our current recruits are fine, but when your goal, as ours clearly is, is to go the the elite athletes all over the country and actually compete against the Bama and LSU's of the country for certain guys, getting beat down and outclassed on national TV hurts those chances. In this national tiitle era and the nationalization of the game, the best athletes will even more so go to where they think they can win the NC.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 18065

Sten Carlson

September 2nd, 2012 at 11:27 AM ^

Actually, I disagree. I said leading into the game that Borges had to break tendency and come out throwing to get Bama's D off balance -- at least as much as possible. It was there, Denard hit Devin on a nice play action slant...drop/broken up. Same for second and third downs. The plan, IMO, was to short pass early, loosen them up, then when they adjust, try to run Denard more. Problem was, Tree et. al. couldn't hold on to the ball for the most part. Now what. As Herbie said, Bama wasn't blitz happy like MSU was, they were containing Denard and playing a cover 2 robber in the back. With a D like that you don't need to take risks. The entire plan came down to Denard's accuracy and the WR's hands. They failed. No way Borges was going to use Denard like a battering ram vs that D -- I for one am very glad he didn't. I thought Denard passed better than expected, but our WR's were as woefully out matched as or DL was against their OL. The first INT was a perfect illustration of this fact. Tree was decleated into Bama's bench by a phsyical CB and it led to an INT. Bad pass? Maybe. But you wouldn't think a Sr. WR would be so easily shoved out of the play. I thought it was close to PI, but it wasn't called. Oh well. Bottom line for me was that Borges had one shot to even keep it close -- Denard passing early. He tried, and the team failed. He was only sacked once IIRC, and showed some arm strength. Even the check down run seemed to be suicide -- especially with the way Bama's played seemed to lead with thier head (not bitching, just saying it was quite obvious). Hard to beat a D that has that much size, speed, and depth at every position.

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: -56

Thorin

September 2nd, 2012 at 7:09 AM ^

Say Borges gives Denard 30 carries, how many yards do you think he would have gained against an Alabama defense that had eight months to prepare for him and with no threat of a playmaker like Fitz at TB? 75? 90 (he averaged 2.7 with a long of 9)? How would that have made any difference? Michigan gained more yards and scored more points last night than Alabama's 2011 SEC opponent average. 

Joined: 04/07/2009

MGoPoints: 15161

wolverine1987

September 2nd, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^

I hate this argument. So because we all know how good Bama is on defense going in and we had no Fitz, we just ASSUME we will not be sucessful running the ball? Denard had ONE designed run the first half, and spent the rest of the time throwing into NFL sized passing lanes from the pocket. Anyone who has watched him every day should have ASSSUMED that would be a disaster, and it was. 

Yes we probably still would have lost but would you rather lose trying what you excel at, or lose not trying that and instead trying what you've never excelled at?

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 18065

umchicago

September 2nd, 2012 at 10:44 AM ^

You are factoring sacks. I can't remember a single run where he gained less than 3 yards. Borges crapped the bed. He gave the best runner in the country two carries in the 1H, one for a first down and one TD. Denards running was our only chance to win and Borges took it away.

Joined: 02/05/2009

MGoPoints: 33668

MGoNY

September 2nd, 2012 at 7:07 AM ^

denard got hurt twice WITHOUT running much. sparing him from taking that pounding wasn't a bad idea. i am not saying i liked the offensive gameplan but borges isn't out there missing blocks, overthrowing receivers or dropping passes.

Joined: 08/21/2012

MGoPoints: 91

Magnus

September 2nd, 2012 at 7:19 AM ^

He got hurt once because he acted like an idiot and threw his throwing shoulder into a 200 lb. guy running at full speed.  I won't fault him for diving for a first down, but that INT return was a stupid move on Denard's part.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166009

Lionsfan

September 2nd, 2012 at 7:04 AM ^

Like the few others have said, because they need to keep him healthy. If we rushed him 15-20 times, not only would we still have lost by 3 TD's, but then there's a chance for him to take some nasty shots

Joined: 06/03/2011

MGoPoints: 2525

wolverine1987

September 2nd, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^

You don't not run your best runner in a huge showcase for your program because you are getting ready for the B1G season. If a coach did that, he should be fired. I'm not saying that Borges did that or that anyone should be fired, but not running Denard on purpose because you want him healthy later is exactly the same as not trying to win the game. It would be flat out wrong and an insult to the rest of the team.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 18065

WolvinLA2

September 2nd, 2012 at 12:35 PM ^

What about the point of "Alabama's pass d is much worse than their run D, so throwing was our best chance at winning."? There were no running lanes last night, Denard wouldn't have done much better than our other guys. Also, we had wide open receivers, so why not try and hit them? Had Denard not overthrown everyone, it might have been a close game. That gameplan was good, the execution just wasn't.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

NoMoPincherBug

September 2nd, 2012 at 7:14 AM ^

First of all...Forde is a writer who is paid to stir shit up with his comments... and he is FAR from an expert on offensive football.

Secondly...Im done with this topic.  You want Denard to run? Put him at RB or in the Slot where he belongs.  With Denard at QB, this is a 4 or 5 loss team this year.... So why not start building for the future now??

Joined: 04/08/2011

MGoPoints: 1834

Magnus

September 2nd, 2012 at 7:20 AM ^

Denard should have run the ball more early.  Once the game's outcome was decided (which wasn't far into the game), they shouldn't have run him much.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166009