D-Rob Final Drive

Submitted by bignige1000 on October 10th, 2009 at 11:29 PM

I know Denard led them down the field for the last td drive, but how do you not put Tate in there?? The guy who has engineered 3 4th quarter comebacks on the bench?! I know hindsight is 20/20 but regardless, how do you not play him when it counts??



October 10th, 2009 at 11:32 PM ^

I asked that same question. Sure if we didn't need to hurry I would have been alright with DRob, but when there's not much time left on the clock you have to go with Tate there. Tate is definitely more comfortable throwing the ball in those situations than DRobb, I don't get it at all. I can't believe the turnovers in this game, pretty bad.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:32 PM ^

we all know that hes not a thrower... forcier was running on the field n then got pulled back... RR should know that hes not ready to put on a gamewinning drive yet...

but... u cant win with 5 turnovers... im suprised we got even close....


October 10th, 2009 at 11:33 PM ^

  1. Tate struggled all game, getting worse as it went on
  2. Robinson lead a great drive right before that
  3. Tate was showing signs of injury
  4. Robinson made a big throw right before that
  5. Tate was making just as bad of reads all games with his aimless chunks 30 yards down field into double coverage

I'm fine with that decision. He played the one making plays and had the most success. If anything, we should have seen more Denard earlier.

Dan Man

October 11th, 2009 at 12:36 AM ^

6. Tate is a much better passer than DRob.
7. You are in a situation where you HAVE to pass.
8. They call him "Fourthier" for crying out loud.

Look, you have valid points, but there are points for the other side, as well. I very rarely question a football coach's decision because who the hell am I, but unless it comes out that Forcier was hurt, I would have put him in myself.

Anyway, you live and you learn. Hopefully our team learned from this loss.


October 11th, 2009 at 12:43 AM ^

Today, Tate was not a better passer, or at least not a better quarterback, than DRob, and not just with the numbers listed in the game. Tate was throwing bombs downfield that were hanging up long enough for WRs to be double covered. His throws in the second half, whether caused by injury or not, were not as crisp. He was making throws downfield when he should have been making passes underneath.

DRob was throwing his usual lasers, which while not usually are a good thing, they got the job done on all but the interception. He had zip on his throws. He offered us the best chance to move the ball at the time. He was passing. He made two great throws to move the ball before that interception. I do not believe for a minute that DRob is a quarterback incapable of passing. As Rodriguez says, he's not just a running guy. He can throw, and he's just needed extra time to learn the system. His throws today show that.

I don't think any of Tate's previous games means he was going to produce in this one. He was playing poorly, he was letting his frustration get to him as evidence of his interaction on the sideline with Rodriguez. Tate didn't have his swagger today. We will never know, but I just didn't feel like he would have done any better.

Dan Man

October 11th, 2009 at 1:01 AM ^

I hear ya, but remember this too: Tate looked like shit for all of the MSU game, and then look what he did. Of course, this could be argued back and forth ad infinitum, but I have to believe that, in the situation of having less than 2 minutes to march down the field, Tate's skill set and prior experience gives us a better chance to win.

That's all. I'm moving on.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:34 PM ^

Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here. Denard should have ran on that last play...but, you know, true freshman and all...

That was the least disappointing loss in Michigan history. To overcome 5 turnovers like that...whew. I'm actually excited about where this team is headed.

Holy shit...how has a Michigan loss not made me suicidal??


October 10th, 2009 at 11:34 PM ^

What a tough loss, we will have to wait to see what Rich says about putting D Rob in on the last drive. I still think this team is going to be good. Alot of fight in this team. Go Blue


October 10th, 2009 at 11:51 PM ^

Good points. It's still pretty amazing what this team has shown this year despite the youth/inexperience/unfamiliarity (defense). A game like this hurts - take away just one of those goddamn turnovers and we win. But hey - it's a process. We'll be schooling the rest of the B10 in a year or two. Take that to the bank.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:34 PM ^

The fact is that based on what Tate has done you can't have him on the sideline. If the Patriots had Mike Vick they wouldn't throw him in there with a minute left...


October 10th, 2009 at 11:40 PM ^

No shit, because they have Tom fucking Brady. Tate is not Tom Brady. He is a true freshman, who was playing poorly for most of the game. I have nothing against RR putting in DRob. If Tate was hurt, it was obviously the right choice. If he was trying to teach Tate a lesson, hopefully it sinks in.

Does anyone remember Beilein sitting Manny Harris last season in overtime? Remember everyone bitching about it? Remember Manny playing really well over the future games? Maybe these coaches know how to motivate their players and know who to play when.

Blue Bunny Friday

October 11th, 2009 at 12:03 AM ^

Maybe because one of those guys has been able to lead a team on a drive in the final minutes of the game and the other hasn't? It's really the only thing I've questioned all night. Maybe Tate was hurt, but if he wasn't then it was a questionable call. I didn't agree with it before the INT, and I'm not going to say "Hey they know better!" after what we all saw.


October 11th, 2009 at 12:26 AM ^

Look, I was surprised when I saw Robinson out there for the final drive. I was also confused at first... but thinking about it, despite my disappointment with the outcome, I think it was the best decision. For whatever reason, Tate wasn't getting it done tonight. OK so he had gotten it done before but uh... you know those are different games, in different situations, right? If you want to predict how something is going to go, it's best to look at the most recent evidence. You don't try to figure out the weather for today by looking at what the weather was like three weeks ago. Tate vs. ND =/= Tate vs. MSU =/= Tate vs. Iowa. He was clearly rattled tonight, was making highly risky passing decisions, and his hand looked hurt as well.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^

Tate was not good in this game. RR gave him a lot of chances to improve but he didn't. Denard deserved a chance after playing well on the previous drive. Denard could have run the ball on that last drive for huge chunks of yards.

Also, we all seem to have a tendency to ignore Tate's MANY throws that are nearly intercepted. He's taken a lot of chances and managed to pull out some great plays. But those aren't chances he should be taking.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:44 PM ^

You have no timeouts. You have a minute left. You have to get at least 50 yards.

Do you think you can run for 50 yards? Mmmmm . . . the odds are pretty pretty small, ya think.

I like Denard. I think some day, with some practice, he could be an adequate quarterback. But, to date he has show little to no capacity to throw a pass other than a 7 yard rollout. Not dissin' Denard here, either. I really like him as a player, but he's extraordinarily inexperienced and a very very raw passer.

So, if you want to WIN the game, the decision not to play your passing quarterback, or Death, is absolutelyfuckinstupidperiod. I really can't believe he even did it.

STW P. Brabbs

October 13th, 2009 at 8:32 AM ^

I played keeper on the soccer team in high school, and in one game my teammate accidentally kicked me in the side of the head as I dove for the ball. I got knocked the fuck out, and had a moderate concussion.

One of the first things I did once I could mostly stand up straight on the sideline was to start jogging back to the goal. In the middle of the game. Without a substitution. The coach had to pull me back to the sideline, and a few minutes later I tried it again.

I knew something struck me as funny when Tate did that ... he looked more confused than determined, now that I think about it. So anyway, my point is that he might have been gung-ho to get back on the field, like I was, but the actual running on the field part probably had more to do with his synapses being wonky.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^

I think it was the right call.

Tate hadn't been effective, and DR just drove them for a TD. DR's throwing abilities aside, he provided something that Tate didn't tonight and that was confidence. I have to believe the rest of the offence would believe they were going to score with DR given how the game had gone.

No different than choosing goalies in hockey. If the backup gets hot, then you run him until he isn't (Varlamov for the Caps in the playoffs last year.)

It didn't work tonight but I still feel that Denard being out there was a better choice given how the game had gone than Tate.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^

I can understand RR. Forcier had made a lot of questionable throws already - some which probably should've been intercepted.

Nevertheless - 5 TOs = not likely to win the game. :/


October 10th, 2009 at 11:38 PM ^

Denard played well at the end of the game, and he started off the drive well. Given Tate's struggles, and the fact that Denard could get us into FG range with one quick run, I do not think that it was a horrible decision. I hope that we see a lot more of him against Delaware St next week, because we should be able to cruise.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:39 PM ^

Can we finally acknowledge that denard is not a qb? He is a damn good athlete, but he can't read a defense and lead a comeback. He is an athlete, just like pryor. I love the kid, but he's not a qb


October 10th, 2009 at 11:54 PM ^

No true freshman QB has ever had difficulty reading coverage and none, and I mean fucking none, have ever thrown a crucial late INT. Denard IS a quarterback that gets less reps in practice and less downs in the game and he throws an INT. Holy shit, call the pigskin police. He had the hot hand, RR went with him, he made some good plays and one bad play and we lost the game. The End. Deal with it, there are some questions like "Why can our young quarterbacks play like seasoned veterans all the time?" And when the answer is simply, "because they are young," and we lose a game you want them to change positions. Slot reciever? Fine, just don't move him to CB when he drops a pass.


October 11th, 2009 at 12:08 AM ^

You're right, after reading that again it came off bad, not I wanted to say.

I should have added a yet. At this point in his career, he does not have enough experience to lead a drive that requires throwing every play. I'm not saying that he never will, but right now he's just not there yet.

I have nothing against the kid though, and I feel horribly for him. He was put into a bad situation and he is just a freshman. I hope he doesn't put this loss on himself, because it wasn't his fault.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:49 PM ^

so, you bench a guy that has led this team in the 4th quarter week after week for a guy that can't throw to save his life and ask him to go 80+ yards in 90 seconds with no TO's? it's absolutely moronic. robinson throws a int every 5 times he passes the ball. all iowa had to do was sit in a deep zone and they knew he'd eventually f-up. terrible decision rich.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:40 PM ^

Maybe you should stay away from the computer until tomorrow if you're going to blame the coach for horrible turnovers and calls that made sense; Tate hadn't done well at all up to when Denard went in; therefore, RRod looked elsewhere.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:43 PM ^

My feeling is that RichRod had successfully made his point by benching Tate the previous drive. Denard also helped to make that point by executing a very nice TD drive.

However, with the point already made, and needing a quick drive to FG range, Tate should have been given an opportunity to to reprise his role as comeback kid, or at least redeem himself for the coach.

I think RichRod took the lesson a little too far, and it may have cost us a shot at a game winning FG.

I am impressed that we were still in the game despite the 5-1 turnover differential. This team can be great with a little more experience.


October 10th, 2009 at 11:43 PM ^

I got labeled a "troll" by the everyday forum last week after I questioned the play calling versus MSU. So I again, regardless of Tate's struggles throughout the game, have to question Rodriguez placing Robinson into the game when you are going to have to throw the ball downfield? Tate has been great in these situations all year long yet he is not in the game? Maybe if Michigan wouldn't run that counter tray every other 1st down, Tate wouldn't have been subjected to so many obvious passing downs. I have to question Rodriguez's decision not to have Tate in the game when it mattered the most, I do not object to sitting him as Michigan had time on the clock, and Denard's running ability lead to a touchdown. I know 5 turnover's ultimately lead to the loss but at the end I go with Tate, lets put some blame on McGee's continued conservative game plan, I think Rodriguez has a lot of questions to answer, this was a winnable game, versus a not very impressive Hawkeye team....


October 10th, 2009 at 11:46 PM ^

I honestly agree with keeping Denard in the game on the final drive.

For one, as fans we don't know the entire situation. Perhaps Tate was injured and could not play.

For two, We needed a change of pace on offense, which is what D-Rob offered us.

For three, He led us to a TD on the previous series!! The offense was in a groove at that point and we needed to keep it moving.

Fourth and final, we only needed a Fieldgoal to win. Not a TD.


October 11th, 2009 at 1:03 AM ^

situation comment. Assuming that Denard was not our only healthy qb, thought, I just can't see it.

This is two games in a row where turnovers have killed us, but we still had chances to win. With turnovers lost, the liklihood of winning this game was razor thin. I just think the razor thin possibility was there, and RR threw it away (literally and figuratively) with that decision.

We still played hard, and a decent game. I expected to lose by a couple of pointsgoing in. From that perspective it's hard to complain about the way we kept in it.

But, it was a poor decision that cost us the opportunity to move the ball into field goal range. For that, he should be criticized -- but he certainly did not lose the game by himself.