Denard appreciation thread

Submitted by MichiganMan20 on October 28th, 2012 at 12:43 AM

After watching the second half debacle by our offense, I now appreciate Denard more so than ever before. I think I speak for all of you when I say we are REALLY going to miss him next year.



October 28th, 2012 at 2:48 AM ^

Denard's probems - passing, specifically - have been well-discussed.

The issue today's game brought is that we have no back-up to Denard.

It's about The Team, not Denard. We can't lose sight that we're building a team, not one player. Cause players get hurt, but Teams endure.


October 28th, 2012 at 6:34 PM ^

If DG doesn't play WR, arguably one of our best athletes isn't on the field.  If he's at QB, we are thin at WR.  Big mistake was probably not buildng around DG last year.  I'm not buying the "he didn't have the work ethic BS."  More like he wasn't getting any playing time or mop up duty early in the season and figured no matter how well he competed they were going w/ DR. Ultimately it was a trade off - win ugly early or start building a program you probably don't have the right pieces for anyway.


October 28th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^

at his worst was better than bellomy.  and tate was a true freshmen.  bellomy is a red shirt.  i am really shocked how poorly the kid looked despite the circumstances.  he has no arm strength and no accuracy.  i am really perplexed at what the coaches saw when they offered up the scholarship.

at least gardner showed some ability last year.  he needs to move back to QB immediately.  WR ain't rocket science.  he can still get practice reps there. 


October 28th, 2012 at 2:47 PM ^

That's out of bounds. Of course not, but it is their fault for not developing a viable back-up the past 2 years or recruiting one for that matter. Our hope for next year rides on a WR, a high school kid with mono who will be 2 years removed from football, and Bellomy. I'm not sure that falls on anyone but these coaches.


October 28th, 2012 at 12:46 AM ^

But next year, whoever is at QB, won't be as hapless as the offense this year was in the second half without Denard.

Anyone hear word on his status?


October 28th, 2012 at 12:52 AM ^

True but I think people take for granted just how special of a football player he is and there is no doubt we will miss him next year. He is the most dynamic playmaker I have ever wached at Michigan. Its hard to replace that.


October 28th, 2012 at 1:02 AM ^

Him, Desmond, Woodson, in that order, since I have been watching M. One other lament, in this night of many, is that he'll never get that national recognition now.

I just hope he returns and helps Michigan finish the season. His right arm looked frighteningly inert walking into half, and he was in pain.


October 28th, 2012 at 9:35 AM ^

Don't put denard next to  woodson and desmond.  Those two are in the elite of the history of college football.  Both were WINNERS and both played their best in the biggest game.  Go look at desmond and charles against OSU, MSU, and in bowl games then go look at denard.  It isn't even close.

All this weepy, I appreciate denard, stuff is a joke.  Because all the rational people aren't mad at denard but at Borges who is pathetic.  And Denard just isn't a quarterback, he doesn't belong back there, he has done amazingly well, but it just isn't him.   If borges had any balls, or hoke for that matter, Denard would be a running back/wideout/wildcat and Gardner would have been the quarterback...




October 28th, 2012 at 7:04 PM ^

class of 2000 fuckface!

418 high street was the place to be 99-00

909 dewey 98-99

south quad thronson bitch!  (96-98)


and I'm an english teacher/spanish teacher so go fuck your self with your grammar nazi/diction police!!!

ps. by so far from average you mean I'm amazing right? 

pps.  seriously dude get off your high horse you fucking idiot.

ppps.  I love you  /  te quiero



Mmmm Hmmm

October 28th, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^

Regarding the second paragraph, let's just assume (I don't know one way or another) that all rational people are mad at Borges.  Still, I don't see how you could watch the Nebraska and OSU games last year and think that Denard isn't a quarterback.  Also, I am not sure what you are basing it on that Gardner would do a better job -- or, more to the point, how switching Denard and Gardner would result in a net plus.


October 28th, 2012 at 12:47 PM ^

and Woodson played on better teams.

At any point in 1997 you had two QBs who played in the NFL backing up Griese. We saw last night how good this team is without Denard.

As for Howard, as electrifying as he was, he did not have to carry his teams like Denard has the last three years. He never had to account for 75 percent of his team's yards for Michigan to win.

The only "pathetic" thing I see is the utter lack of gratitude here.


October 28th, 2012 at 1:03 PM ^

me thinks denard would look a little better if he was surrounded by the type of players on desmond's team; great O-line, derrick alexander, tony mcgee, ricky powers, etc.

we just found out that denard carries this offense, many already knew this.  borges just doesn't have a clue as to how to consistently take advantage of what he does best and get the best out of him.

NYC Blue

October 28th, 2012 at 8:54 PM ^

Well, jdon, you were looking to irritate people and you did.

Assuming that you were doing more than just shooting your mouth off, I would like to hear your rationale.

I would like to know what makes you think that Devin is better than Denard at QB?  When have you seen him play QB?  Was he any good?  I have seen the spring games and in minimal game time last year and thought he looked pretty bad.  Did you think otherwise? 

Or are you making the "anything has to be better than Denard" argument, 'cause brother, I think we just disproved that one (see: Nebraska, 2012, 2nd half).

Denard certainly has limitations, but this kneejerk response is something that only fans can indulge in.  Coaches have to deal with the strengths and weaknesses of the players they have. 

You may now go back to howling at the moon.


October 29th, 2012 at 12:05 AM ^

I typed this whole tl;dr post but all I really want to say is that I only had two points to make and I don't think that they are all that ludicrous.

1.)  denard robinson is not close to woodson or Desmond (most aren't).

2.)  Borges has put Denard in a place to fail in big games by either asking him to put balls in to too tiny of a window or not letting him run (Alabama). 

All the screaming and hollering is just the sting from a frustrating loss last night.  I don't come here to bicker and I probably reacted too strongly this morning but like I said the Denard appreciation is unneccessary, we should be spending our time damning Al Borges. 

I have never done a diary but maybe I will do one breaking down Denard's stats against top defenses or in 'key' games vs. all other games...



NYC Blue

October 28th, 2012 at 1:29 AM ^

(what follows is only an educated guess)

If he had inflammation and nerve compression, he probably got anti-inflammatories and they were hoping they would kick-in in time.  If they did, it would relieve the pressure on the nerve and he would regain the strength in his hand and they might have let him back in. 

Inflammation will typically peak over 24 hours and then resolve on its own over 24-48 hours (somewhat faster with many of the treatments now available to athletes).  Thus they may be anticipating that he will be ready for next week.



October 28th, 2012 at 12:20 PM ^

It may be a form of neuropraxia - which would be the best case. BUT often these take weeks for a full recovery. We'll see if Denard is able to practice and play this week. If not it may be several weeks and in some cases, 6-8 weeks which essentially is the whole season.

I hope he comes back next week or later in the season but if that was the last game we see him play in a UM uniform, Denard Robinson still had an amazing career and will one day be honored as a Michigan legend.


October 28th, 2012 at 1:32 AM ^

Wish I could do a poll. Anyone not think Devin should stop taking reps at wr and go back to qb 100 percent of the time? If not for the this year than next? It's not like we throw the ball well or with any frequency anyways

NYC Blue

October 28th, 2012 at 9:02 PM ^

Actually, for this year, I do NOT want Devin at QB.  Here's why:

- Devin training at QB means he does not play WR, or at least does not improve at WR. 

- I am not sure he is very good at QB given his play in the spring game- not that he can not become better, but not with the limited reps he would get as a #2 QB in the middle of the season.  Plus there is the question of this shoulder injury

- If Denard goes out, I do not think we are going very far with either of our other options at QB

- If Denard stays in, I think having Devin available at WR gives us a significant advantage


 Now for next year, I think Devin has to be at QB either as #1 or #2- which will be decided in the spring and fall practices- since I seriously doubt we want to play a true freshman QB no matter how skilled he is.