Was the last INT D Rob's fault?
I've watched the replay a couple of times and it looks like Hemingway pulls up. I think Robinson expected him to keep running down the sideline.
The ball was clearly over thrown but if you watch the replay it looks as if Hemingway would have been right there if he keeps running. That doesn't mean he would have caught the ball, but at least it would not have been intercepted.
With that said I don't have a problem with Robinson taking snaps for the last drive. It was pretty clear that Tate didn't have it yesterday.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
I don't need to make blanket statements about Robinson's inability to throw the ball. The statistics do it for me. He might be good at it in the future, but he's not now.
So the fact that I made a blog post about benching Steve Brown and you just make a message board post about benching Forcier somehow makes you oodles better than me? Wow.
Anyway, there's no way I can prove to you that it wasn't second-guessing. I suppose I could give you the phone numbers of my mom, dad, and girlfriend, who all heard me say "Get Denard out of there" when the last drive started. Or you could go back and look at all my posts from this entire season saying that Denard Robinson isn't a good passer. I mean, it wouldn't take much research to figure out that I'm not fond of Robinson's passing ability and, therefore, I probably wasn't fond of the decision last night.
But never mind. You're obviously right. I thought Denard Robinson was a great passer until this morning.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^
I never advocated the "benching" of Forcier. Forcier should start our next game. I advocated the substitution of Forcier for a single drive.
I also didn't make my case by writing more than one post describing Forcier's ineptitude, the way you are about Robinson.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:26 PM ^
You did advocate the benching of Forcier. You wanted him benched in favor of Robinson on that final drive. When did I say anything about you wanting Forcier benched for the rest of the season or anything of that sort? A benching is a benching, whether it's for a drive or a quarter or a game or a season.
Once again...the fact that you made only one post about Forcier's ineptitude compared to multiple ones from me makes you better than me somehow? You're reaching now...
Look, we're both doing the same thing. You're supporting one guy, and I'm supporting the other. The difference is that I realize it and you don't.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
No. You're shucking and jiving and straining to distort what I'm saying. Which is what you do.
I never said a word about Forcier's "ineptitude". I said he struggled. You wrote more than one post ripping Robinson's ability to play football. When did I do that?
Also, when Robinson came on in the WMU game in the 2nd quarter, did you think "TATE GOT BENCHED!'. No - Robinson was substituted into the game. That's what happened last night, and I was fine with it.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:38 PM ^
"Also, when Robinson came on in the WMU game in the 2nd quarter, did you think "TATE GOT BENCHED!'. No - Robinson was substituted into the game. That's what happened last night, and I was fine with it."
apples and oranges here...
we knew both qbs were going to be play that first game, rr was using drob to see what we have. by the 6th game of the year, we know what we have and we know which qb has certain qualities. getting taken out for the game winning drive in a situation where tate has proven himself 3 times already was not a "substitution" by any stretch of the imagination. it was a benching and we all know that.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:39 PM ^
Actually, I go into every single game expecting to see both quarterbacks.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
but at certain times. and one of those times i dont expect to see drob is with the game on the line, 80 yards to go, less than 2 minutes, and no time outs.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:26 PM ^
right.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
Well, if we're having a purely semantic argument, I never said anything about Robinson's "ineptitude" either - I never used that word. But that's a stupid argument, isn't it?
Robinson struggles to throw the ball, and I've said that all along. Forcier struggled last night, and you're saying that now. We can call it whatever we want (struggling, ineptitude, incapability, etc.), but it all means the same thing. It's just that Robinson's struggles are longer-lasting (i.e. they've existed all season).
But come on...did you really think that Captain Comeback was being "subbed for" on the last drive? Did anyone? Or was it pretty obvious that Forcier was being benched for one reason or another? I mean, seriously. Are you really going to insist that it was a substitution and not a benching?
October 11th, 2009 at 1:57 PM ^
Rodriguez put the player in who he felt gave him the best chance to win. I don't see it as a "benching". Forcier will start next week. That's not a benching.
If he hadn't played both quarterbacks in every single game this year, I'd probably agree with you. But when both guys consistently play, I don't see the appearance of one as the "benching" of the other.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:57 PM ^
The starter was removed in favor of another player. The series in question was the most important series of the game.
If that's not a "benching" then does anyone ever get benched in your mind?
October 11th, 2009 at 2:10 PM ^
They do both consistently play.
Yet who was in there when we needed to score against Indiana? Forcier. The same goes for Notre Dame. The same goes for MSU.
The INconsistency is the timing of the "substitution." And because of the odd timing, it's a "benching." I think you need to recalibrate your definiton of "bench."
Regardless, Tate was removed from the game. It was a bad move. I hope it doesn't happen again. End of story. I'm not responding to you any further on this topic, because we're just dancing in circles and I'm going to go eat lunch soon.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:08 PM ^
is probably applying your reputation, with your post on your own site, with this comment thread to come up with the conclusion. and i think its pretty obvious you think you know more about drob's lack of ability then coach Rod.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^
gsimmons, I respect your opinion, as always, but I disagree.
I don't think I know more about Robinson than Rodriguez. I think Rodriguez simply made a bad coaching decision. It happens. I'm not perfect. If you came to watch my games, you would probably disagree with some of my decisions as well. Hell, even I don't agree with some of my decisions in retrospect.
But this instance was a mistake. It's okay to admit it (for fans, coaches, armchair quarterbacks, etc.). I'm not saying Rodriguez should be fired or that Robinson should lose his scholarship or change positions. At the time, it was a mistake. In retrospect, it was a mistkae. In the future, I hope Rodriguez lets Forcier keep the reins in crunch time.
P.S. As I stated in my blog post, this all goes out the window if Rodriguez benched Forcier due to behavior. I have no idea if that rumor is true or not, so I'm operating under the assumption that it's false.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:25 PM ^
I wonder why the Cissoko rumor, that had an equal amount of backup at the time didn't get the same level of skepticism from you.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:30 PM ^
And I'll tell you why.
The Cissoko rumor about being benched/suspended came about after Woolfolk had moved to cornerback in the middle of the week. It also came after it surfaced that Cissoko was practicing with the team even after being demoted. So there was evidence that Cissoko was being severely demoted/punished for a few days.
The Forcier rumor about being benched for behavior was based on some people's interpretations of body language/reading lips on the sideline.
When it comes down to it, I'll trust a mid-week confirmed demotion over somebody's interpretation of body language any day of the week.
But honestly, that is a fair question, and I hope my answer suffices.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
Forcier didn't go in because he managed the game poorly during his last two drives. He didn't get the plays in fast enough resulting in the Minor timeout on the Michigan one yard line and the delay of game on the next drive. Robinson, on the other hand, got plays in faster and ran the offense at the pace RR wanted late in the game.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:34 PM ^
happen to agree with you.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:52 PM ^
Uhhh ... we didn't have to go 80 yards. We only needed a field goal not a touchdown. We needed about 40 yards.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:59 PM ^
Probably closer to 50-60 yards. But, yeah, technicalities.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^
Well said.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^
for the extra " to " I left in there!
October 11th, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^
the coach at michigan, would disagree with the statement that Drob didnt give us the best chance to win, i think he would also disagree with the idea that drob cant throw the ball, and i think would also disagree with the idea that Tate was the right guy... he was banged up, he was mentally rattled, and he had not had a very good game...
but magnus obviously we didnt win, therefore it wasa bad descion.. and im sure you would say now that even if we won, and drob lead us to victory, you would still think it was a bad descion. but you and i know that you wouldnt be on here saying that..
tate is still RR's man, and drob is still learning. I will not sit here and root for a kid to never see the field again, espically when the kid is 19, and cared so much about winning, that he basically was beating himself up after he threw the int. thats the kind of kid that michigan needs, i actually like drob more now.. and we will see more and more of the kid, as he continues to close the gap with tate ( another great michigan player)
i just think its incredible that rr has so much confidence in 2 freshmen qb's that speaks well for the future.
sometimes the right descions still dont net right results, but i prefer to see this as a great game, turnovers were the main reason why we lost, and drob was responsible for one of them.. as was minor, as was tate, as was mathews.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
Nicely put.
And as you said, "Sometimes the right descions still don't net right results."
If more people could accept this fact their entire lives would be much happier.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
I know your opinions on "statistical analysis", gsimms, but in Moneyball, the AGM of the A's is described as being enthusiastic about an at-bat where his player struckout, because the player saw 12 pitches during the AB. He reason was that "you need to look at the process, not the results - if you do the right thing, like see 12 pitches, it won't always work, but it will more often than not."
October 11th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
i dont think we can say that putting drob in was conclusively the "right" decision, just like we cant say that putting tate in at that time would have been the right decision, either.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
I like Denard more now, too. I thought it was sad the way Denard looked when he left the field. He obviously cared deeply. I'm not questioning the kid's character. At all.
It's not an insult to say, "This kid isn't ready to play QB as a true freshman." It really isn't. It's just a fact of life that 18-year-olds might not be ready to compete with 21- and 22-year-olds right off the bat.
I can't say what I'd be saying if Denard had won the game on that final drive. Honestly, I might be saying "Denard proved me wrong tonight" or I might give him the "Offensive game ball" on my blog (not that it means anything). So I might have given him credit. I can't say and I don't think you can, either.
I've been critical of his passing ability, and if he throws the ball well at some point this year, you can all point to these posts and say "HAHA Magnus you were wrong all along." These posts are etched in internet stone, so it's not like I can pretend that I never said these things. I've said them. And until Denard proves me wrong, I will continue to say that he's not a good passer. And nobody here can prove that it's incorrect at this point, because the statistics bear me out - he has a worse PER than Nick Sheridan did in 2008 - and whenever he's had to throw the ball (against EMU and now Iowa), he has thrown three bad interceptions.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:00 PM ^
I'll agree with you that Robinson is not ready to be the "Man" at this point in his career. However, if Rich Rod picks his moments, then Robinson can be effective. Last night, Forcier was 8-19 for 94 yards and a pick, which is not exactly stellar. Robinson was the hot hand and Rich Rod stuck with him. In that situation, I don't fault Rich Rod's decision.
I do disagree with the stats backing up passing ability. Take a look at the sample size: Robinson 15 pass attempts, Sheridan 137 pass attempts (2008), Forcier 138 pass attempts. The sample size is comparatively small for Robinson. It is possible that the data is skewed with only 15 points. I'll reserve judgment on Robinson's passing abilities until a point during the season when there is a larger sample size.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:35 PM ^
You can't disagree with stats.
Regardless, whether it's a small sample size or not, the fact of the matter remains that Robinson has thrown three interceptions and zero touchdowns while completing 46.7% of his passes. Last year when Sheridan had shitty passing numbers, people were saying, "This kid can't throw" and everyone agreed. Now I'm saying the same thing about Denard and a bunch of people are like, "You're an asshole for saying Denard can't pass!" (I'm paraphrasing, obviously).
The thing is, THE COACHES AGREE WITH ME. They know he's not an effective passer. He's thrown the ball 15 times and run the ball 41 times. You don't have that kind of a run/pass split if you trust the kid to throw the ball. The coaches know that Forcier is a superior passer, yet they put Robinson in for a possession that clearly required throwing the ball.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:05 PM ^
and Tate are both very talented players and will get better and maybe even become "great" players. It is up to the coach to use them wisely.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
I don't know why there seems to be this universal sentiment that Tate struggled. For much of the game, the announcers could do nothing but praise him. He also got us a number of first downs with his feet and with his passes. He was certainly key to the two offensive touchdowns with key conversions on third down. He was throwing some really accurate passes (darts on the run) like he usually does. Many times to a guy who was completely covered. There were a few drops, not as many as last week. I also can't fault him for the slippery football fumble (it happens to even the best). The interception didn't look good, but the usually don't. Also, Iowa has an incredible defense. Tate has been instrumental in our 4th quarter productivity. Losing the series because of Mathews fumble on the punt hurt because we lost a series. Struggleing to run the offense on the 2 yard line with 98 yards to go can't be evidence of him struggling. I mean Iowa is a great defense and that is a difficult hole to try to dig out of. I heard again the analysis by ESPN of the conversation RR had with Tate and I understand why RR would bench him when he said "I don't know what you want me to do?" But that came after the series on the 2yd so I also understand why he said it. He clearly wanted to be in on th last series and it was in my opinion RR making a point rather than really thinking DRob was the hot hand. Certainly if Forcier was really struggling then there was no reason not to get DRob a series earlier in the game. Regardless, in my opinion, Forcier can make that pass to odoms at the end of the game, whereas DRob is not there yet. That was a horrible decision to throw it deep there... you don't thrown that pass unless you have your guy wide open, we only needed the field goal and the underneath throws seemed obvious, but he was not ready for that situation, whereas Tate is and has proven such. I'm not blaming the loss on RR, clearly there were many reasons we lost, but I don't think Tate was one of them. I've also seen on here a numbe of posts claiming DRob lead that TD drive in under 3 minutes. I watched again and as far as I can tell over 4 minutes came off the clock during that drive. Certainly this was a situation where RR thought he would rather try to send a particular message rather than make the logical choice on the last series. I think he let his emotions get the better of him when dealing with 18 year old kids.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:31 PM ^
Never use what announcers say as a gauge for performance, especially when it involves one of the players who is part of the "storyline" of the game. Forcier is our marquee name and featured in the promos all week. Musburger and Herbstreit weren't going to dog him after that.
Forcier had a shaky game. It happens. He seemed to have trouble reading the Iowa defense, and was baited into making a number of passes into coverage. Fortunately, only one was picked off, but our downfield passing game was rendered basically nonexistent. Most of Forcier's success came early in the game (especially on the first scoring drive); thereafter, Iowa seemed to switch up its coverages and Tate couldn't find the open man very often after that.
And then there was the problem of the offense not getting its play in in time, which happened twice. The QB has to make sure everyone knows what's going on and is lined up properly in time, but twice this did not happen. The first time, we burned a valuable timeout. The second time, we took a five-yard penalty deep in our own territory, putting us in long yardage and making it tough to go back to the power running game that was basically our whole second-half offense. Maybe Forcier would have found the magic at the end of the game, but it was hardly a given. Iowa's pass defense is a lot better than ND's, MSU's and Indiana's.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:01 PM ^
I do agree with most of your points, and appreciate your calm reasoned position. Just to be clear I was only using the announcers comments to back up what I was already seeing and feeling during the game. I wasn't frustrated with Tate at any point in the game. That is a great Iowa defense and on the road in that environment, we are lucky there were only two situations with the play clock. Personally, I think it was Minor's mistake to call the timeout on the 1 yard line (not much of a penalty if we don't get the play off).
That said we had plays called back with holding where Tate had 5-9 yard gainers that put us eventually into third and longs which are the worst position for this offense to be in. I agree Tate wasn't having his best game, but I think it was about the equivalent of the first 3 quarters against MSU.
It was great to have DRob in there with 8 minutes left, because they had to play the pass and we were basically running the ball. But, with a 1:45 on the clock and needing to get into field goal range, you know Iowa has to play for pass and we had to pass, that means your QB has to go through his reads and maybe even make some throws to guys who are covered. I think Tate is the only option in that situation, at least this year.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:12 PM ^
analyzed and Tate's the man!
October 11th, 2009 at 3:12 PM ^
That throw was 100% off of Denard's back foot. Watch the throw again, it just looks terrible. The second he threw it, I knew it was an interception because it was a duck. If he steps into that throw, it probably isn't as crappy, and maybe it falls incomplete.
Now would Tate have thrown off of his back foot so egregiously? Probably not. But with that said, he looked shaky all game. I see both sides of this argument.
..
Yes
..
Denard isn't a great passer, so why would you put him in the game?
..
yes
..
Tate has led 3 fourth quarter drives to win or tie the game
..
yes
..
Denard was the hot hand
..
yes
..
Tate struggled all game.
I just wish that Rich Rod would have put Denard in earlier. That way he leads his touchdown drive, struggles in the next one, and then Tate is in for the final drive.
But this loss isn't on Denard or Tate. It's on the defense (Mike Williams) never covering a tight end or the deep pass.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:43 PM ^
I'll just say what everybody else is thinking, bad coaching decision by Rich Rod. He should've went with Forcier on the last drive. Robinson was a much needed breath of fresh air on that touchdown drive, but he had no business behind center on that final drive. Robinson is a great running quarterback and will eventually develop as a passer in the future. But when it's 1:30 in the 4th on your own 17 yard line you will have to utilize the pass game. Robinson has yet to throw a touchdown and I believe now has 4 interceptions. (maybe it's 3, not sure) Forcier is the better passer and has experience in that type of situation against Notre Dame, Indiana, and MSU. And not only that, he also delivered in those games. Now I would understand if the game wasn't on the line and we were down by 2 or 3 touchdowns, then put Robinson in and see how he reacts in that type of situation. But the game was on the line, Forcier was the obvious choice since he's the most qualified and most experienced in that specific situation. Piss-poor coaching decision.
P.S. I hate OSU
October 11th, 2009 at 6:18 PM ^
I agree totally.
P.P. I also hate OSU...and MSU...and ND.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:11 PM ^
It may not have been entirely his fault, I think Hemmingway was supposed to keep going, but it was way overthrown and a bad force on his part. He even could have ran considering he had some space to his right. ARHGHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *sigh* I know he's just a freshman, but he has to learn to either run or throw it away in that situation. It's clear he can throw, but he has to stop chucking it when he doesn't know what to do.