Denard Robinson's Play in the Spring Game
This thread used to be the "go easy on Denard" post. I'm taking it over because some of the responses and discussions were on a level far above that of the argumentative original post that started with "Give me a break," ended with "get a grip" and in between had a laughable amount of spelling and grammatical errors. Please continue sharing your thoughts, remaining respectful to those who may disagree with you.
OP's main points enhanced and summarized thusly:
- Getting a hand on Denard counts as a tackle in the Spring Game, but Big Ten linebackers get no points for touching The Great Denard with one hand, except points for touching pure awesome amirite?
- The accuracy was off but other than the one interception his reads were good.
- Denard's rushing stats will come down when he's no longer the feature back, but that's a good thing so long as his legs and arm are opening up the running back running game.
- In the Spring Game, you're supposed to see the defense look better than the offense (Ed-M: why?)
Discuss...
Right, I didn't think you were being sarcastic about Navarre being good, just that you were kidding about him being a be-all, end-all example of why every DE-to-QB switch is a good idea. He was the starter for the majority of my time in Ann Arbor; he could be frustrating, but I agree that by his senior year he was tops.
/no-s
He didn't switch positions. He was always a QB. (There were, of course, some people who thought he'd make a better DE, though.)
And for the record, he is currently the last UM qb to beat Ohio State. 'Nuff said.
Beat their asses.
April 16th, 2011 at 10:53 PM ^
In high school he was the extremely common QB/DE combo hybrid
Sorry, but I kind of assumed that such an asinine comment wouldn't need a sarcasm tag. Twas supposed to be funny.
Wait, are you being sarcastic now? I'm so confused...
No matter how obvious your sarcasm is, somebody will miss it. We all do it occasionally, no matter how finely tuned our sense of sarcasm may be.
The corollary of this is that it's difficult to come up with a ridiculous position that somebody out there doesn't believe.
Also known as Poe's Law.
April 17th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
I hadn't realized this had a name, and at various times I've hung out on forums like the one where Poe apparently formulated it.
The concept itself predates widespread public use of the Internet. I think it was Calvin Trillin who'd written in the late eighties or early nineties that satire was difficult because it was way too easy to get "broadsided by reality." In other words, you think you're writing satire, but somebody comes out with that position (or Poe's Law).
But I would have no problem seeing Mr, Gardner showing his ability... DR is an amazing athlete, but I also believe DG is the real deal QB... I won't choose sides, I'll leave that to coach Hoke... Go Blue!
DG lost some respect from me today. He was throwing into double coverage constantly, looking for nothing but big plays and making few reads... as well as scrambling without benefit. He reminded me of Terrelle Pryor.
Terrelle Pryor without the attitude? Sign me up.
...on the field, I think you will be struggling to find reasons to complain.
It's what we do.
That's the Michigan Difference.
April 16th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^
he is an under classman trying to run a new system....wait a tick.
What you saw today is not what is installed. Why on earth would they show what they have installed for Denard. They ran one zone scheme for Denard today. They have more, but why show it...it doesn't matter. This was a more Lloyd like spring game where you don't show anything. A day to enjoy watching Michigan players.
After the game Borges said they have 60% of the offense installed and showed less than 40% during the scrimmage. No point in giving anything away.
No denying we would all be drooling with glee if Denard had come out and thrown crisp darts to receivers, but I still don't think this showing is worthy of much concern. Lots of practice to go before the opener.
"We didn't run Denard very much, but in the real world, he'll probably run more than you saw today," offensive coordinator Al Borges said. "We're making a transformation here. We're not going to learn about the transformation by the quarterback running every play (in practice)."
This quote wins. Haters read up.
Thank You M-Wolv. Borges would be stupid to just run Denard all scrimmage when he is already very proficent at that. He is trying to get Denard to learn his passing system at this point.
I like this. One thing that kinda frustrated me about RR was that he was so willing to showcase his offensive schemes in the candy games - BGSU, etc. This gave fuel to our later opponents on how to stop our offense, which was our biggest asset. It later became a huge problem, because in games where the offense didn't click occasionally, they were also able to stop us (MSU comes to mind).
he may have been able to run the Pro-I up till the MSU game, then BAM! surprise them with the Denard-spread.
Unfortunately, the O needed to produce every game just to keep us in it (I'm looking at you UMass game).
I guess I would feel better if they would have actually executed the 40% that they have learned.
Dear Brian,
It may be time for a site lockout.
I don't think its fair to judge a running qb's perfomance in a game where he is down upon a hand touch. Not only can he not make exciting evasions, it probably also discourages the coach from calling qb runs when he knows that the play will most likely be dead at the line because a ref saw someone touch him.
I'll never forget the first spring game I attended and the phenomenon in the crowd. Every good play for the O was a bad play for the D and vice versa, so how does one properly root for something? It's strictly about observation.
Obviously, the masses did not agree with the me and they inevitably just gravitated toward rooting for - wait for it - the offense. Pass knocked down? Groans. Big completion on a deep seam route? Cheers.
That is how most people see things once you get down to the LCD of viewers.
Not quite. While that is somewhat true in a number of cases... it's certainly not true in all. QBs making bad reads, QBs over-throwing receivers, etc are not necessarily good plays by receivers. Same with dropped passes. There are plenty of plays in which it's a bad play for both.
I think you should read this comment again. What he is implying is that a lot of fans want to see and cheer for the big plays on offense rather than good defensive ones because of the excitement factor. It is a major reason that there is a 289 reply thread that some guy started on how ugly the "game" was because there was a lack of exciting plays.
Denard had a rough day, but the O-line was doing a pretty poor job giving him time. They looked pretty confused out there (this is a bit to be expected as it's all new to them as well), didn't pick up blitzes very well, and really didn't move the line on run plays. This will get better as they understand the offense a bit more, but I thought they were the biggest issue coming out of today.
The O line got no push on the "power" running plays and could not pick up the blitz on the resulting third and longs. DR and DG are not (yet) very good third and long QB's so this just made it worse.
We'll know where we really stand in 5 tortuous months.
Punch yourself in the dick.
DB-NTDB. I am first in line !
some work to do on his drop mechanics and under pressure settling his feet and making a good throw.
They showed almost zero throws to the WR's, a unit Borges is convinced is very good. The focus today seemed to be on the defensive front bringing lots of pressure, running the ball between the tackles.
Interesting note: I don't believe Vincent Smith carried the ball once.
He did.
Yes, I agree that DR and DG didn't look very good today.
However, I'm also in the camp that they will be significantly improved come game time. I did, however, think that the defense looked MUCH improved. Secondary seemed to be picking up the game too, which was awesome.
We can win with a mediocre offense if the defense is well-rounded, just remember that. (Although we do need a better kicker first.)
Tony Anderson looked pretty good out there. He had a nice pass breakup. I know he's probably just a temporarily fill-in for Woolfolk, but he might be able to help us out depthwise.
Why throw away everything Denard did last year and focus solely on a two-hand touch scrimmage in poor weather? A game in which an offense that is only 60% installed showed about 40% ... Do you really think they are going to showcase Denard in this game? If our O had done amazingly then everyone would be on here lamenting about our defense. There's no making anyone happy because one big play for one side of the ball means a bad play for the other side.
People really need to take the spring game with a grain of salt. A pretty fucking big grain of salt at that.
Can't argue with anything here.
So there.
April 16th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^
I hate when people like you double post. I've heard this argument too many times.
didn't bother to attend. Even its 0 degrees you support a charity.
That being said, it was a great Spring day, great to watch some ball. The resturants were packed and flowing with past UM stars. Great day ... then the Wings won.
It is spring game. Denard will struggle a bit like he did his freshman year. Overwhelmed. He will do fine this year but everyone needs to put it in perspective. 2012 will be Denard's big year, comparable to this past season. He needs a year to adjust! But he, like any QB on the planet, will go through some difficulties adjusting.
Any coach on this level will tell you Denard is exactly where they thought he'd be at this point. Yes, it's frustrating, but we're on the right track and Michigan will be back. Just may take some growing pains...again. Nature of the CC!
denards showing in the spring game may not meen everything, but it definitly means more than some people are admitting. yes he was the big10 offensive player of the yr last yr. im pretty sure everyone on this site knows that. but he also did it in a different system; one that was specifically geared to his strengths as a player. if we were still running the same system, I wouldnt be too worried about his performance today. but that is not the case. we are running a new system, and denard did not look comfortable.
keep in mind that his performance today wasnt a random fluke, the spring practice reports have been generally negative towards denard and his performances when playing under center. this isnt just about adapting to new routes and new plays. there is a big difference between starting in the shotgun, which allows you to keep your eyes down field, as opposed to being under center, which requires more complicated footwork and often having to turn your back on the field.
so... if the season started tomorrow, would i be worried? YES
is the season starting tomorrow? NO
Denards got the rest of the spring and summer to work on his mechanics and get used to playing under center. if things dont improve, it will be up to the coaches to earn their salaries and make the necessary adjustments. if that means mixing in more plays from the shotgun than borges is used to, thats probably what their going to do (especially on passing downs).
it will be okay
Hold me.
but got picked by the Bookmobile.
any way you cut it, Denard did not look good today. It doesn't mean i am not a real michigan fan you buttheads. i was there, watched the game, and Denard look bad. He fumbled snaps, made bad reads and threw poorly. Had a couple nice runs and was polite to the refs.