Any word on Denard?
Has anyone heard much regarding Denard? I have seen posts about K Grady's twitter and talk of "everyone" staying, but am looking for any info. I think Hoke would be an absolute fool to not tailor the offense around Denard, regardless of his system/philosophy at this point.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
Drew Henson's not in the NFL because he chose to play baseball for several years and never got back to the level he was before he left Michigan.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
I agree that the term is mostly used for players whose system is different from the pros.
I think Henson had the talents to be successful in any system. Navarre/Grbac/Collins were definitely system QBs who would not be as good in west coast offenses as in more run-centric offenses, but that term probably would never be used about them.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:11 AM ^
Denard's not a very good QB.
Remind me why people take you seriously again. You're some kind of coach, right? A good one? I'd find that hard to believe. Denard Robinson is a very good, championship-capable QB. I hope he gets a chance to win that championship, even though that certainly means he'll have to do it elsewhere.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:19 AM ^
There's nothing like a personal insult from a random internet dude.
Anyway, if Denard were a good quarterback, I would say so. He's not. As Brian Kelly said (and took heat for), he's a running back who can throw. He was even named an All-American at running back. He's a very good runner.
However, he's very inaccurate as a thrower and isn't very adept at reading defenses that aren't man coverages. There's a reason that guys like Pat White, Antwaan Randle-El, Brad Smith, and Eric Crouch aren't playing quarterback in the NFL - because they're not good quarterbacks.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:02 AM ^
I respect you, Magnus, but c'mon. Passing is not the be-all, end-all of a QB - moving the ball is, and Denard did that more successfully than just about anyone this year. He's a better quarterback from that regard than all but a few, and had respecatable passing efficiency stats.
Besides, how many true sophomore first year starter quarterbacks are highly accurate and great at reading defenses?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:08 AM ^
I understand all that, but Denard isn't built to succeed in a pro-style offense or at quarterback in the NFL. He's good for the zone read option, and he could probably be a pretty good wishbone option QB, too.
But all of the games in which he performed exceptionall were games in which he had outstanding days running the football. If you force him to pass, he's going to be ineffective. To me that's not a good quarterback, unless you're going to run some sort of option.
I wouldn't call Eric Crouch a good QB, either, but he obviously played extremely well for Nebraska, won a Heisman, etc.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^
I think Denard improved greatly passing the ball. I know he is small but don't you think another spring of practice will make him even better, maybe a pretty good passer. In the bowl game, he had some pretty good passes with touch. There were too many drops this year by the WR's.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^
I wouldn't call Eric Crouch a good QB, either,
Which, again, leads one to question your definition of "good." That you could look at Denard or Eric Crouch or Pat White and say that they aren't "good" college QBs is just absurd. It's sort of like if I said that, say, Ike Turner wasn't a "good" guitar player. Would he have played surf rock as well as Dick Dale? Probably not. If I slotted him into Slayer, would he have fit in easily? Probably not. But he was a "good," even great, guitar player. And playing guitar and comparing guitarists is much more abstract than football. In football, we have metrics that determine exactly how well a QB moves the ball and generates offensive yardage and scoring. Denard is very "good" at those things, by any metric.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
Eric Crouch and Pat White were good QBs for the offense they were in. However, neither of them did shit in the pros (Crouch wasn't even given a chance to). Just because you're good at being a running QB doesn't mean you'll be good at running a pro-style set, which is what we'll be running now. I don't want Denard to leave, but saying Denard will be a good pro-style QB because Crouch and White, then that's a pretty bad argument.
If your argument is simply over what makes a QB "good," then OK, but what does that have to do with anything? What makes someone a good spread/option/zone read QB is no longer relevant WRT Michigan football.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^
But agree with Magnus. I'm not even convinced Denard is that good at making decisions in the zone read. Some of it is a function of experience but there were plenty of times that he made the wrong read. That said - he needs to stay at QB because Michigan doesn't have enough depth for him to switch (yet).
January 12th, 2011 at 9:22 AM ^
Pot, meet kettle.
You insulted what Denard does.
That guy insulted what you do.
Seems awfully hypocritical to get annoyed when he asks why people take you seriously (questioning how good you are at what you do) when you have just stated that Denard is not good at what he is supposed to do.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^
I didn't insult Denard. I made an observation based on the play that millions of people have seen. Not all criticism is insulting.
Meanwhile, the poster above has no idea about my personal strengths and weaknesses or my coaching ability.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^
Meanwhile, the poster above has no idea about my personal strengths and weaknesses or my coaching ability.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^
"The only good college QBs are NFL QBs."
January 12th, 2011 at 6:06 AM ^
Are you trying to push him out the door? You sick of seeing him in maize and blue? Either way, shut your fool mouth.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:00 AM ^
Maybe but the first sign that Hoke is worth his salt will be his ability to coach to his players. There is no reason for Denard to leave. His skills are solid and packages can be made for him. Hoke will have to utilize what he has and recruit what he wants. Test number one, keeping Denard. Test number two, transforming the defense.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:17 AM ^
in my mind it may be smart for denard to stay, everyone was saying the denard couldnt have success in the nfl. When Hoke comes in and denard continues to grow under a pro set, it may tell nfl scouts that he could suceed in the nfl
January 12th, 2011 at 3:44 AM ^
denard is a dual threat QB who wants to play in a spread offense. the team played terrible all year with him under center because thats not his game. it will be the pryor in the wrong offense at ohio state result.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
Don't sound so bad after 15-22
January 12th, 2011 at 7:35 AM ^
Denard isn't going to play QB in the NFL, whether he sticks around Michigan or not.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:42 AM ^
Here comes Magnus, with his definitive final statement on the matter.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:54 AM ^
Here comes uniquenam with his vague criticisms of me, despite the fact that he knows (or should know) that 5'11", 193 lb. quarterbacks who aren't very accurate, don't read defenses well, and run really fast don't play quarterback in the NFL.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:08 AM ^
My criticism wasn't vague, but I'll clarify it with a rather pointed one:
You give too many statements that ring with finality.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:23 AM ^
Your criticism was vague, because of course the opposite of my statement is that Denard WILL play quarterback in the NFL. But you know that's very, very, very unlikely to be true. So you won't argue with my statement. You just pop in here, make a random criticism, and say "Ha ha! Look at this!" without actually arguing the point.
Do you think Denard is going to play quarterback in the NFL? (And by "play quarterback" I mean be listed as a QB and actually have a chance of seeing the field aside from Wildcat-type plays or occasional direct snaps.)
January 12th, 2011 at 8:47 AM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
The thing that I dislike about you the most is that you are making me associate a smiling Brandon Graham with whiny, bitchy comments.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
You should learn to compartmentalize.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
Have you been around Denard? He's easily 6', not 5'11. And probably bigger than 193 too.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:20 AM ^
It's a good sign, at least, that Denard was at the team meeting. Mike Cox confirmed that he was there. Tate, however, was not. May the speculation begin. Cox is also a very artful dodger of media questions...
January 12th, 2011 at 3:34 AM ^
I wonder how the rest of his team reacted to his facebook update after RR got fired. I'm hoping some of the leaders had a talk with him about making the right decisions moving forward.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:37 AM ^
I didn't see the facebook post. What was said?
I hate to say it, but my gut is telling me that Tate has played his last game in a Michigan uniform.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:06 AM ^
I don't have a link or anything, but he was very happy about RR being fired. I just thought that his comments were immature and he should have never put it out there.
Edit, found what he said:
"BYE BYE COACH ROD! finally!! party at my crib haha ;)"
January 12th, 2011 at 4:07 AM ^
Who are we talking about again? Mike Cox, Tate, Denard or someone else? Sorry, kinda confused on who posted the rude message.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:11 AM ^
It was Mike Cox's facebook statement and/or tweet when RR got fired. I can't see Denard saying something like this.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
Man, what a cox.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:31 AM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 5:59 AM ^
Once RR got fired he was fair game in my book. You've never said anything disparaging about your boss(or former boss as it were)?
January 12th, 2011 at 6:25 AM ^
Not on facebook, no.
January 12th, 2011 at 6:58 AM ^
He shouldn't have put it on Facebook like that.
HOWEVER, if I were Mike Cox, I would be rejoicing, too. The kid has 19 career carries for 169 yards (8.9 yards per carry) and 2 touchdowns, and he can't even get on the field because Rodriguez is insistent on playing a 5'6", 180 lb. kid who fumbles a bunch, can't break tackles, and can't outrun anybody.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:32 AM ^
I can't agree more without veering into talking negatively about an athlete. Something I don't like to do.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:54 AM ^
But Vincent Smith doesn't fumble! At least that's what people on this board kept insisting whenever I expressed dissatisfaction with him getting all of the carries.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:56 AM ^
True. He only fumbled about 5 times this year. That's all.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:19 AM ^
I think it will also depend on what RichRod does. If RichRod finds a new job in the near future, Denard is more likely to follow. If it appears that RichRod is taking time off, I can't see Denard leaving unless Hoke says he has to move to another position.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:29 AM ^
If RichRod sits out the year (or more? (unlikely)) as expected, then Denard would be transferring before his senior year and would have to sit one out during the first year of RR's hypothetical new tenure. If he decides to leave it would only make sense to put in his papers sooner rather than later. This would mean S-E-Cya. Unless, of course, he stays and things go terribly wrong during the upcoming season or RR lands somewhere soon and does some major snake oilin'.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:45 AM ^
He could go to Pitt now that they hired Magee and run the same system. Obviously wouldn't shock me to see some of RR's staff go too.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:27 AM ^
Denard will stay. I watched the Pointsettia Bowl, and SDSU did NOT play a pro-only set. They will adapt to Denard. Hoke is too smart to run off the Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year. He needs him, and he knows it. If he is half the recruiter people claim he is, then Denard will be back.
Besides, I watched the BCS title game, and Denard is a better quarterback, including drop back passing, than the Oregon quarterback, whom I have not seen previously. With Tate's elgibility in question, Hoke will not alienate Denard. He will start Denard at QB as he should and evetually transition to a medical red-shirted Devin after Denard has graduated.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:32 AM ^
i agree with you Midoc, that denard is the better QB. How many times did Oregons qb, make the bad read in the read option to be lit up or have his rb be destroyed in the backfield? Denard has grown and not only has become a very talented QB, but he also has become a smart QB. The thing is that I dont see Michigan using the read option anymore, but denard can use his skills in any way possible
January 12th, 2011 at 8:09 AM ^
His read "option" was very rarely a true option play. I base that on what I saw during the games and comments by more knowledgable poster on this board. I'm not saying that makes Denard good or bad, just that the absence of a read option based offense doesn't affect Denard's ability to contribute all that much. If he gets to run around, he'd be good, if he has to read defenses and pass a lot, he'll be mediocre at best.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:30 AM ^