Rivals Monday "Conference Call": Biggest Disappointment- Denard?
Rivals is running a new feature this year titled "Conference Call" which is a review of the biggest surprises and disappointments from the previous weekend, conference by conference.
Their biggest disappointment (player) from the Big 10 is..........Denard?
BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT, PLAYER: Michigan QB Denard Robinson. The Wolverines won, which is all that really matters. But Robinson had pedestrian numbers against a mediocre MAC defense, throwing for 98 yards and no touchdowns and rushing eight times for 46 yards. True, the game was called with 1:27 left in the third quarter because of bad weather, cutting into his playing time. Still, his numbers weren't close to being on track with last season, when he averaged 130.9 yards rushing and 197.7 yards passing per game en route to being Big Ten MVP.
On a poisitve note, their biggest surprise (team) was Michigan's defense. So we have that going for us......which is nice.
Read more here: http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1260638
September 5th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
But Denard did have a huge roll in those possessions. Where does a guy get a pastry that size, anyway? And why bring it on the football field? Strange, when you stop and think about it.
September 5th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
Ok, so I get that Denard is our hero and everything, but at the same time I think some of y'all need to take off the blue shades and be consistent. How many people on here freak out about how awesome Rivals or Scout's predictions are when they give Denard props for something? Yet, the second they say anything you don't agree with, all the sudden they're hacks who didn't watch the game and can't write.
If we're honest with ourselves, no, his numbers don't jump off the stat sheet. I generally thought he went out and did his job. The way he was used in the offence didn't demand him to carry the whole weight of the team for us to be successful, and that's ok. But on that same token, I also didn't think the other team's defense was freaking out every time we snapped the ball. Most of the plays we ran didn't matter if Denard was the one taking the snap or not. You could've had (fill in the blank) as your starting quarterback yesterday, and probably wouldn’t have noticed much difference in the outcome of the game. I think that's the main point Rivals made. Denard didn't look bad per say, he just looked like a regular guy instead of a superstar most of the game.
We also should take into account that it's only the first game of the season, that we didn't want to show too much of the playbook, and that because of the way the game played out, we only had a limited number of drives to look at. Things will probably look much different come Notre Dame, and I expect the offense to show off quite a bit more. Al Borges isn't dumb, and I think there's a whole lot more we have yet to see out of Denard in the coming weeks.
September 5th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^
In last year's opener we ran 83. It was a really weird game, but if you just double everybody's numbers to reflect the difference in opportunities, Denard has about 200 yards passing and 100 rushing (AND the backs have 250+). And that's assuming he doesn't break a long run, something he hadn't done yet when the game was called.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
Also it's important to remember the degree to which Hoke kept things a little vanilla on Saturday. By the time Denard got his 3rd possession, M was already up 17. God only knows how many new wrinkles we'll see during the ND game.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^
Denard looked pretty good 9/13 with maybe one bad throw, and three plays with good coverage down field.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^
I can only assume this date has something to do with OSU's recent issues. This is your signature? Really?
September 5th, 2011 at 6:15 PM ^
I remember the Tressel thing as a nice birthday gift for some of us MGoBloggers. I turned 31
September 5th, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^
I think what they mainly aren't taking into account is that our RB's actually did well so we didn't have to rely on denard running or passing as much.
September 5th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
Well I'm disappointed in rivals for being disappointed with Denard
September 5th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
That the coaching staff didn't risk the health of the most important player on the team against a cupcake opponent when all kinds of other stuff was working, just so some douchebag can feel satisfied with said important player's stats.
September 5th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
We'll have the last laugh when we are in November and Denard is not ending games by being carried off the field.
September 5th, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
got really good at the original Mattel handheld football, our box score would look like below
Scoring Summary
| FIRST HALF | DD | MUTT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
TD | 00:00 | Dick Dastardly 80 Yd Run | 7 | 0 |
| SECOND HALF | DD | MUTT | |||
 |
TD | 00:00 | Muttley 80 Yd Run | 7 | 7 |
Team Stat Comparison
|
D Dastardly
|
Muttley
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Rushing | 80 | 80 |
|
Rushing Attempts
|
1 | 1 |
|
Yards per rush
|
80.0 | 80.0 |
| Turnovers | 0 | 0 |
| Possession | 30:00 | 30:00 |
| CAR | YDS | AVG | TD | LG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.Dastardly | 1 | 80 | 80.0 | 1 | 80 |
| Team | 1 | 80 | 80.0 | 1 | 80 |
| CAR | YDS | AVG | TD | LG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muttley | 1 | 80 | 10.0 | 1 | 80 |
| Team | 1 | 80 | 80.0 | 1 | 80 |
If you're time of possession line looked any different, you lost.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^
The game was cut short and he didn't have the ball very long because of two very long drives.
September 5th, 2011 at 5:24 PM ^
Everything that is Michigan State. No. 17 in the nation. Hmm.