Honest Analysis - University of Michigan @ University of Iowa

Submitted by socalblue on October 11th, 2009 at 1:39 AM
So something I thought would turn into a weekly thing turned be a "whenever I get into an argument with my friends" thing. Sorry if I led you on, but alas, time to get to the game.

Disclaimer: I am a very realistic Michigan fan. We are far from 3-9.

My friends and I disagreed about a few things after the Western game and that's what prompted me to create this account and start ranting. Anyways, this week a big argument after the end of the game was the decision to leave Robinson in for the final drive with about 90 seconds left.

My opponents argue that Forcier should have been in the game at that point because of the fact that he is "our starting quarterback" and the outcomes from the recent games. They claim that we would have had a better chance of winning the game with Forcier in the game at that point than with Robinson.

I am obviously in disagreement with this perspective because of the mere fact that I am sitting here writing this. But I will lay my arguments out in a clear and honest manner.

1) THIS week is not LAST week or weeks 1, 2, 3, or 4 either.
   Just because Tate has managed to get it done the past few weeks does not mean        he is guaranteed at getting it done this week. It was evident throughout tonight's           game that this week's version of Forcier was not the super freshman he's been in the    first few games. Yes, Forcier has had a low completion percentage before (actually 3    times in weeks 3-5: 53.8, 52.4, 53.1), but in those games there were far more drops    from the receivers than there were tonight. Heck, the receivers didn't even have many    opportunities to commit drops. Tate overthrew his open receivers on more than one       occasion tonight. Maybe his shoulder was sore, but a completion percentage of 42.1    just won't get it done on the road in the Big 10.

2) Denard SHOULD have been in the game for the last drive.
   Denard drove Michigan down for a touchdown drive midway through the final frame.       Tate was not responsible for a touchdown tonight. Yes, he did manage Michigan        down the field for both of Minor's touchdown runs, but 8 completions out of 19               attempts is far from being a "quarterback that manages the game." Denard was            more than competent in the second to last drive to bring us to within two. When           asked to throw, he delivered the ball on the mark and on time (granted they were        only 5-7 yard curls and outs). On the final offensive possession for Michigan, Denard    just made a bad read and didn't realize this was COLLEGE football. He had a wide       open receiver underneath (5-7 yard gain to give us a first down with 45 seconds on        the clock and realistically about 25 yards from a field goal attempt to win the game       (Michigan was on the 38 yard line, 7 yard gain puts us at the 45 with maybe three or    four shots to get anywhere from 20-40 yards). To sum it all up, Denard deserved a        shot at winning a game. They are both freshmen quarterbacks and both were               promised an equal opportunity at the job. Denard has a right at trying to get some of    that same glory Forcier has received.

3) Rodriguez made the right call.
   Not his fault his quarterback made the wrong read. He had to find out if Denard has       that "it" factor everyone talks about. I really think Denard gives you a better shot at       winning that game than a 70% Forcier who had his confidence rattled. People seem    to forget we only needed a field goal. I think Denard's running ability (and accuracy       on short 5-7 yard routes) gave us a better shot. Get off our coach's back; do you          want 3-9 again?

Al in all,  Michigan played a sloppy hard-fought game. 5 turnovers is way too many and to actually have a shot at winning the game was pretty much all you could ask for. Hopefully we shore up our problems in the defensive secondary and heal up over the next two weeks. Let's make sure Delaware St. 2009 doesn't become Toldeo 2008. It might seem like a meaningless game, but get out there and support.

Respek. Go Blue.

Comments

bouje

October 11th, 2009 at 1:46 AM ^

Past performance is not predictive of future results. If that were true everyone could be a millionaire in the stock market.

Tate did not look good today he overthrew players, his reads were off, etc. It wasn't a good game for him (I'm not blaming him for the loss I'm being realistic here). DR has one drive, drives us down the field for a TD in under 3 minutes. I don't see how you don't give him the last drive when tate had about 10 more drives and produced less results.

VictorsValiant09

October 11th, 2009 at 2:04 AM ^

I am also in California right now, but that isn't why I agree with you. But I do. Wholeheartedly.

"Just because I'm currently in CA is not a valid reason for agreeing with you" is the same as "Just because a QB has led a winning drive in the past does not mean he will do it this week." :)

Oh, the irony. But in summary, I agree that at that point in the game, Denard gave us the best chance to win the game.

samgoblue

October 11th, 2009 at 2:38 AM ^

Really? Not at all? Because it seems like it MAY provide some guidance. We can look to Nick Sheridan's past performances as predictive of future failures with him under center.

Also, while there's no certainty that Tate would have succeeded given the chance, I think that we have learned that Tate has an ability to keep his cool and make plays when there is a lot on the line. On the other hand, D-Rob has shown that he is uncomfortable when asked to do anything other than run the ball. In this particular situation, I think we can actually look to past performance as being predictive of future results.

beotchclemons

October 11th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^

I totally agree with RR's decision to let Denard run the team on the final possession. Tate has been great this year, better than we all expected I think, but last night he was acting like a little bitch. His body language on the sidelines and his constant complaining walking off the field pissed me off all night. If nothing else, I don't know if the final minute of a big game is the best time to teach a lesson, but RR let everyone know that he was in charge and no one is above the team. I think that message will be felt by everyone.

Side note, I was watching the Florida-LSU game during halftime of our game last night and they were commenting on the play that Tebow runs several times a game where he takes the shotgun snap, takes a few steps forward to fake a run, then steps back and throws the ball. The announcers said this was Tebow's most effective play. Now, I am by no means making a comnparison between Tim Tebow and Denard Robinson, but isn't that a play that we should adopt for Denard?

Dan Man

October 11th, 2009 at 1:58 AM ^

I support RichRod and will not bash him. That doesn't mean, though, I have to think every decision he makes is the right one. I respectfully disagree with him and think that Tate would have given us a better chance on that last drive.

loosekanen

October 11th, 2009 at 1:58 AM ^

If you're RR you're really damned if you do, damned if you don't. If Tate comes back in and blows it you're a goat for not sticking with Denard. If Denard throws a terrible interception you're a goat for not going with the kid that has already proven himself in that situation a few times.

The bottom line is that five turnovers, a blown coverage on a 3rd and a mile, and the inability for an all-out blitz to get to Stanzi were just as much the reason for this loss as RR's final decision. We aren't State fans. Our team wins and loses as a team. I have been and still am extremely excited about the direction of this program. I'd hope others would can the negativity and focus on the big picture.

Njia

October 11th, 2009 at 6:18 AM ^

Then I heard about the quote from the sideline reporter, (I really want to see if I can find it). If a QB looks at his coach with the game on the line and says, "I don't know what you want me to do" then it's time to sit the kid. Can't take a chance with him in that situation unless he is 100% confident in his ability AND his understanding of what to do, and when to do it.

griesecheeks

October 11th, 2009 at 2:24 AM ^

IMO, there are valid arguments in favor of each QB being in on the last drive. I think it's pointless to bash RichRod for the decision he made, even if i might have gone the other way. He gets paid to make those decisions.

Neither QB was a shoe-in for leading us to the win on that last drive. Denard made a bad decision while trying to make a play. That's not the coach's fault. Tate might very well have done the same. BUT, in that scenario, it's hard not to give the nod to the guy who's been forced to perform in similar situations.

Ah well, in the long run, i don't think we're going to be all that concerned with the outcome of this game... whereas, if Denard find himself in another close game and he's the guy, he's now got real game experience on the road trying to lead a comeback. That is critical. Would've been great to come away with the win, but we'll be on both sides of this kind of game all year.

Go Blue.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 2:56 AM ^

I appreciate the various arguments defending Rich Rod's decision to put Denard in. When Denard came in the first time, I thought it made sense as a change of pace. But that drive should have been an indication that Tate needed to run the last drive. Rich-Rod was going nuts with how slow it was taking Denard to march down the field on the TD drive (even though he was very successful).

With 1 minutes and 30 seconds left, Denard should NOT have been in the game and suggesting otherwise is just insane. Denard has not demonstrated any ability to throw the ball farther than 10 yards (yes I know he has a couple longer completions). His style is incompatible with the time pressure needed to run a last game drive. It would have made more sense to bring in Sheridan (but obviously I am not too serious here) because he has had more success throwing downfield than Denard. This is also no time to 'see what the kid has got'. If he is not a threat for a 20 yard pass in practice or in any other snap he has ever had, then how did he 'deserve' to be in. If Tate was very injured, then obviously he can't be in the game. But 70% Tate probably sees a wide open Minor streaking down the field. I guess we will hear more about Tate's health in the pressers to come.

In conclusion, it is not that Denard isn't talented. It is not that Tate was struggling before. It was that Denard was incompatible for what we needed--time-efficient, down-field passing or quick outs (which Tate is very accurate on). Would you send out Mesko to kick the game winning field goal too because he had a good punting day??

Double Nickel BG

October 11th, 2009 at 3:20 AM ^

"time-efficient, down-field passing or quick outs"? If DR takes off he gets close to their 45-40 with 40 seconds left. We roll him out again and give him a option to hit the receivers on 5-10 yard outs that DR had been hitting on or running out of bounds in field goal range with plenty of time to move the ball closer to an aboverage field goal shot. It boils down to DR making a mistake and Junior stopping his route.

WE DID NOT NEED TO THROW THE BALL! There was plenty of time to run plays that got us on the perimeter.

What we needed was a dynamic play maker who would give us the best chance to get into field goal range. RR played the player he thought gave us the best chance (Tate was off all game) and it ended up not working.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 3:25 AM ^

1. We had no timeouts
2. Denard's hurry up in the previous series took forever....
3. Running to the outside does not mean you will get there or get yards.
4. Short passes would be fine except that most of Denard's short passes are under the assumption that the person can get tackled without a first down and we'll still be okay. It is much harder to pass outs or passed the first down marker.
5. I have NEVER seen a run dominated final drive with no timeouts and only 90 seconds. We still had to go about 40 yards. That's no trivial. And when he threw the pick I don't think we were pass the 50 AND there was less than 50 seconds. Any tackle before the first down marker would have taken us down to 20 seconds.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 3:45 AM ^

Also, if Denard got tackled or threw one more short pass tackled before first down, we would have had only 25 seconds or so. If that happened, then we would have to downfield pass. I like Denard. But I just don't think that is a good role for him until he matures in passing.

And even though the previous offensive package that Denard ran in the TD drive was not necessarily a 2 minute offense, he has never demonstrated ability to throw downfield when that was the primary option.

Double Nickel BG

October 11th, 2009 at 3:57 AM ^

Tate could have got sacked. Tate could have fell over a yard line. Tate could have run out of time, scrambled, and then threw a pick as he was falling out of bounds. Saying that he could have gotten taken down before the first is like saying all the things I said above. Isn't predicting the future so fun!

DR just made a mistake. A mistake that killed him. Theres no one more disappointed than DR is with himself.

Bottom line. Tate wasn't good all night and DR had looked good the last drive. DR earned his chance to take the final drive. Tate will be fine.

PS. LSU ran the ball while down 1 to Georgia last week with 1:10 left. They ran it with the RB. DR had a better chance to break it or pick up a chunk of yards than LSU did. Granted they had 1 TO left and were on Georgias side of the field.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 4:07 AM ^

Yes, Forcier could have done all those things. Denard could have done all those things. But just like Mesko is a punter and not a kicker. Forcier throws good +10 balls and good outs. Denard doesn't. Of course, Denard could have had a successful job but you have to go with the most appropriate tool for the job. Also, Tate did demonstrate the ability to throw +10 yards in this game too. Denard never has (except for 2 passes in previous games if my memory serves me correct).

Not having a time out (which was Forcier's fault ironically) is a BIG DEAL!!! If we had 1 timeout, I would almost agree with Rich Rod's decision. Because then any option is on the table and we could afford to throw underneath or risk a run.

Double Nickel BG

October 11th, 2009 at 4:22 AM ^

believe RR was smart by thinking that his best bet was getting a playmaker on the edge (who knows if Tate would have been able to get to the edge) and give the QB more than 1 option (throwing the ball). IMO Tate couldn't make the 10 yard throws tonight and he wouldn't of had the physical tools to get to the edge giving him the option of running or passing.

The bigger deal I think would be RR calling for the onside kick with 3 minutes to go rather than kicking it deep. His choice of QBs for the final drive makes sence.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 4:29 AM ^

However, I am unsure why getting a play maker outside is what one would ever do in a 2-minute offense (at least the way we typically throw outside). Kicking a playmaker (like a running back) outside seems very dangerous with little remaining time. It makes sense for Rich-Rod's normal offensive game plan but not the 2-minute offense. I think Rich-Rod was counting on Denard making a couple 10-15 yard downfield passes. If that is the case, then his decision was illogical. If he was hoping to throw a quick pass outside, and hope for a home run...that is also illogical. We only needed to go 40-50 yards. A lot in the time, but not exactly requiring a home-run. Just well managed passes.

Double Nickel BG

October 11th, 2009 at 4:44 AM ^

on Denard making a couple of 10-15 yard passes? How can you say so? I saw Denard roll out to the edge with options to run or pass. Id much rather roll the pocket, give one of the fastest players on our team an option on running to pick up the yards or throwing it. RR wasn't thinking, "Hey, I think we should put DR in so he can sit in the pocket and throw 30 yard outs to the sidelines, which most college QBs have trouble doing."

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 4:53 AM ^

And Denard wasn't rolling that much on the final interception!! So clearly there is something wrong with this theory. Running is a good option, but the fact is that Iowa would most likely not allow a Denard home run. If that is the case, then Denard would run for first-downs at best. Tate is not as fast, but he is quite capable of rolling out and running for first downs. In fact he did that succuessfully on the 92 yard drive last week over and over again.

I'd much rather roll the pocket with someone that actually could throw the ball farther than 10 yards for a first down (not the ~30 yard pass that Denard ironically was trying for). With Denard there really is no safe throw option except for 5 yard passes that are dangerous with no timeouts. With Tate there is a relatively safe run option (look at Tate on other critical drives when running). So really, it is almost as if your previous post proves exactly what I am saying. Tate was a better fit for the situation.

It is fine. Rich Rod made a mistake. It happens. He wanted to ride the hot feet and punish Tate, that's fine, just illogical.

socalblue

October 11th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^

Yes, Tate in PREVIOUS games has proven that he can make a 10+ yard throw. Not last night. Not against Iowa. He did not look like the same super freshmen we have all been touting as the next great Michigan QB last night. Without Denard Michigan is not even in that game. Yes, Tate was done in by the turnovers just as Aaron Corp at USC was done in by the turnovers of his playmakers against Washington. The idea here though is that Tate was personally responsible for two of the turnovers.

A quarterback is a playmaker. Last night Tate was not that. Period.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 3:28 AM ^

I am not saying that it isn't possible that Denard couldn't break a run. But really he is an incompatible tool (at his current stage of development) for the job. I really just think there is a strong argument for him in the game, unless Tate was really injured. Denard didn't EARN a drive for the simple reason that he seems to have 50% interception rate on his downfield passes which he tends to throw when he is pressured. Hmmm...1 minute left is more pressure than he has ever faced and he has buckled ever time before.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 3:55 AM ^

What did Denard do that suggested he could run a 2 minute offense on his 4+ minute drive. What game were you not watching?

Denard is exciting and I think one could say that he 'earned' a start against Delaware State (assuming a good practice week).

Denard is really bad (in the few times we have seen him pass) throwing downfield. The pressure is the pressure he puts on himself to make passes. He is 10x worse than Forcier in terms of forcing throws. Why do I say 10x, because he has thrown the ball probably about 1/10 of forcier and about the same number of interceptions.

Again, Mesko had a great punting night, why not put him in for 55 yard field goal...I mean it involves kicking a ball, right?

Double Nickel BG

October 11th, 2009 at 4:02 AM ^

Tates TOTALLY AWSOME AND NINJA LIKE 90 yards make you feel more comfortable going into the final drive? Tate played BAD tonight. Hes a freshmen. It happens. Denard played well enough to warrant RR keeping a offense that just rolled down the field out there. If Tate had come in and the offense bogged down, many would be like "OMGZ FIRE RR, HE TOOK OUT THE ONLY QB THAT WAS LOOKING DECENT."

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 4:11 AM ^

I am not calling for Rich Rod. I think he made a logically incorrect choice. Yes, Denard was the hot quaterback for a full packaged 4+ minute offense. I don't deny that. If it were the 2nd quarter you would be correct. I am not on Tate drugs. He has been making some bad decisions all year. That said, he was actually not much worse tonight than during state when he turned it on. Under your philosophy of earning, that turnaround should mean that he 'earned' this chance for a turnaround. Ironically Denard came in last week but struggled. If he had some more success, Tate would probably not come in for the final drive under your logic.

jmblue

October 11th, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^

Denard is really bad (in the few times we have seen him pass) throwing downfield.

Your parenthetical is the key point here. We haven't seen him have much success passing downfield. But perhaps the coaches have, in practice. Denard hasn't had many opportunities to show off his passing skills. Against IU, he did connect on a deep ball to Koger. He may be more capable of throwing deep than we think.

EZMIKEP

October 11th, 2009 at 3:52 AM ^

too bad many won't see the overall because of the heroics Tate has already given them. Denard made an AWFUL pass regardless of the receiver stopping his route but I still say that RR going with Denard was not a bad move. It was the smarter gamble and it didn't pay off. Had denard took them down the field and got them into field goal territory and we won the game, MANY people would be calling RR a genius.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 4:16 AM ^

I told my friends when the call was made that this was a bad move, even if it does work. The fact is that Denard has never shown real ability to throw downfield (I panic every time he throws a longer than 10 yard pass -- which is about 5 times this season...because it is usually a bad result).

How is that a smarter gamble? I kinda doubt he practices much better since the offensive packages he's in rarely can result in +10 yard throws.

EZMIKEP

October 11th, 2009 at 4:58 AM ^

entire game & DR was confident & had just been the player who put us in the position to win. I love how everyone wants to think that Tate was deserving of being in for the last drive when we wouldn't have been in our horrible position if he had been on even a little tonight. Maybe we would have won with Tate. We will never know that. I do know we had a chance to get into field goal territory with DR no matter what happened. We didn't need a TD. We needed 3. It didn't happen & I was PISSED like everyone else. But I sure as hell wasn't second guessing that choice. It wasn't some obvious bad call like Zoltans run last week.

Double Nickel BG

October 11th, 2009 at 5:31 AM ^

Denard had literally not more than 10 real life minutes ago, made good throws to pick up yards. I'm not seeing how you think Denard can't throw in a 2 minute offense.

We had a minute to pick up 30 or so yards. EASILY manageable by hitting 8-10 yard passes or running the ball for first downs. A 2 minute offense doesn't have to be "lets drop back and chuck it all over the yard." If you think a screen works, you call a screen. If you think an option will work, you run it. Alot of teams get screwed by playing prevent and having the QB throw to a RB out of the backfield and them running it out of bounds for 8-10 yards. The 2 minute is more about MAKING PLAYS now matter how you do it than just sitting in the pocket and slinging balls.

BlueinLansing

October 11th, 2009 at 3:29 AM ^

go back and listen to the sideline reporters quote (Holly Rowe?) about what Tate said to RR after his last drive....

"I don't know what you want me to do coach".........this is a Bobby Williams type answer and ANY coach in America would sit the young man at that point and go with option number 2.

Tate looked lost tonight for too much of this game, his head just wasn't there.

TinCup

October 11th, 2009 at 8:31 AM ^

I think Tate's comments to RR played a large role in him getting the hook. That, on top of the delay of game penalty and his overall level of play had RichRod steaming mad - so he was going to go with Denard...regardless.

Not sure if it was the right decision, but I think that was the reasoning behind it.

HeismanPose

October 11th, 2009 at 3:47 AM ^

So I watched the game at a bar with a bunch of fellow alumni, most of them RichRod haters. I'm one of his lone defenders. We couldn't really hear the commentary, but when Denard came in during the last drive I just assumed Tate was hurt. I simply cannot believe he was benched. Is this actually true? Jesus Christ, really? The kid was being mentioned as a Heisman candidate. He led us back from certain defeat not once, not twice, but three times.

Coach Rod is gonna catch hell this week, and he deserves it. I don't care if I get negged - keeping Tate on the bench down by two with 1:30 left is unconscionable. I don't even know what to say. Rodriguez just made it very hard on himself. I cannot defend that move. Wow. Just...wow.

weasel3216

October 11th, 2009 at 8:40 AM ^

But Tate was rattled and his confidence had to be low. Tate of 8 or 19 for only 94 yards and a pick. Playing Robinson was actually, in my opinion, just because Tate was not getting it done; i think his previous three possessions were all three and outs.

Additionally, I think that this may be a great move for the long road ahead. Tate now knows that RR is willing to bench him. Tate may have been becoming too comfortable back there since he has rarely come out the past few games. My theory is now we will see the Tate from the 4th against MSU all game the rest of the way.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 4:24 AM ^

I think it is possible to be upset with Denard coming in the game and NOT be one of the following:

1. Someone who complains about everything when his team loses

2. Someone that hates everything rich rod does

3. Someone who does not appreciate the improvements his team made

4. Someone who sips Tate Forcier is God kool-aid

5. Someone who second guesses anything that is bad

All I am saying is that Denard's offensive skill-set seemed logically incompatible with the skill-set typically needed on 1 minute drives with no timeouts. It is a much different scenario if we had even 1 timeout. It is also a different situation if we have 3 minutes. But with that time, we needed the ability to throw outs or 10+ yard passes (or at least have that option even if Denard still runs). Denard has really never even been close to showing that ability...so therefore he shouldn't have been in the game (unless tate was injured).

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 4:58 AM ^

Most of his passes were short passes that required the receiver to run to gain yardage. That really isn't an option for the 2-minute offense. That is the point! The reason why Denard's hurry up took 4.5 minutes was that all of his stuff was short. That is not an option (realistically) with no timeouts.

Thanks for confirming my correctness :)

Double Nickel BG

October 11th, 2009 at 5:24 AM ^

your saying youd rather Tate come in and throw 40 yard bombs (look at how many deep shots he threw into double coverage today)? All we needed was 10 or so yards a play. Doesn't matter if we run for 10 or throw for 10. Denard could have easily made 10 yard throws all day and not had the clock run. But if you some how find that me saying Denard had hit 10 yard passes with ease on the previous drive as somehow you being correct, more power to you.

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 6:15 AM ^

I am just pointing out that you said if Denard did not have 10 yard passes he shouldn't have been in the game. Since Denard did not have 10 yards passes, then Denard shouldn't have been in the game. That is following your logic not mine.

I think this discussion is done because that is about as basic of syllogism as you can get. I didn't realize that this would devolve into a discussion that I come to expect from a Spartan or Buckeye fan. If you run for 7 or pass for 7 you have a BIG PROBLEM (and backtracking from 10 yards to say about 10 yards is a big deal, you need to throw or run for a certain amount when you have no timeouts). Check Denards second to last drive for confirmation of these types of numbers. So if it was easy for Denard to get 10 yards a play, why is it that he has never been able to do this (except for his superman touchdown runs in past weeks)?

So if you can find these mystical 10 yard throws on the second to last drive let me know!!! I challenge you.

I like how your only arguments involves stating statistical inaccuracies and stating things that I haven't said to make a point on something irrelevant. Who said anything about Tate throwing 40 yard bombs? Tate surely thows it up in his history, so does Denard (and to worse effect). This mis-statement is orthogonal to my point. Tate also has good history of throwing a lot of 10 yard passes in gaming winning drives. I am sorry that you pigeoned-holed yourself into saying something that proves my point. At least if you believe in basic axiomatic theory and propositional logic.

Double Nickel BG

October 11th, 2009 at 6:28 AM ^

you think that Denard/RR wouldn't run plays that picked up the amount of yards they needed every play? Why couldn't Denard throw for 8 yards, reciever step out of bounds. Denard throw for 7 for the first? You don't have to pick up 10 yards every single play. Do you even watch football? Maybe you watch futbol.

Go back and look at the 2 passes he threw on the previous drive. What do they have in common? What?!?! They went for first downs and stopped the clock!?!?

qed

October 11th, 2009 at 6:42 AM ^

He got a first down because the previous play went for more thant 0 yards. You cannot have a 3 yard play and then a 7 yard throw as easily when there is only 1.5 minutes left. Not only that, at least one of those throws (maybe both) involved a short throw requiring the receiver to pick up the first down. In 2 minute offense, this is risky. Obviously it is also risky throwing 40 yard passes (which neither tate nor denard should do--but they both do). However, in time management situations with no timeouts this needs to be done sparingly.

But you are missing the point, Denard was trying to run an offense downfield. That is why he threw the ball where he did. If he was so confident in his running and bubble screens he would have assuredly done it instead of a long throw on 2nd and 3.

The statement you made was provably false. I am mocking you for your general lack of consistency becasue it is entertaining me. You can make an argument for Denard that would be harder to defeat so easily. Instead, you put a ridiculouse post with numbers that you didn't verify that technically proves me right. That is a big error by you, not me. Otherwise, if you ignore the fact that what you said is provably false (and you know it is at least by the letter of what you wrote), then I am sure we can argue all night about something where you will just have your opinion and I will have mine. So what's the point?

I will concede that you probably didn't mean to say what you wrote. But you should at least acknowledge that what you said originally did prove me right...at least so I know I am dealing with someone above the Sparty schooling level!!

Double Nickel BG

October 11th, 2009 at 7:24 PM ^

If Denard/RR knew they had 1:30 instead of 7 minutes (like the previous drive) Don't you think that the tempo would be a little different than the previous drive? We could have thrown 2 yard passes and let receivers get YAC and get OOBs. THEY DIDN'T ABSOLUTELY NEED TO PICK UP 10 YARDS A THROW. Denard proved the previous drive that he was comfortable throwing short passes to pick up first downs, which stop the clock.

RR prides his system on letting the players that earn it play. He doesn't care if he benches a 5th yr senior in favor of a freshmen if he thinks it will give him a better chance to win. Last night he thought Denard was a better choice, and I don't blame him.

Hindsight is 20/20.

dundee

October 11th, 2009 at 8:51 AM ^

how did that last 40yd bomb work out for you gb1065? while tate did not have had his best game, and to cut DR some slack, thses guys are just both true freshman and just starting to understand all the nuances of the college game. while i think putting DR in for a change of pace was a great idea to get us within 2, tate needed to be in there the last drive. again, while not his best game he has shown that he can win games in the last seconds. DR so far hasn't shown he can complete a pass over 12yds. with no time outs you need yardage the clock stoppage for first down would not have helped enough to justify putting DR in for change of pace short gains.