Denard Robinson: Senior Bowl

Submitted by Michigan4Life on January 21st, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Senor Bowl just finished the prospect measurements.  Denard Robinson came in at 5104/196.  Way shorter than his listed height which isn't surprising considering that he's not really a true 6'.  His future is definitely at RB/WR, but more at RB because of his ability to run the ball and find holes/cutback lanes.

EDIT: When height shows up in a 4 digit numbers, it means feet, inches then an 8th of inch so Denard is 5'10" 4/8.  That is a common abbreviation for NFL scouts.  They speak prospect's height by 4 digit numbers.

Comments

Ty Butterfield

January 21st, 2013 at 11:06 AM ^

You could tell Denard was not 6'. Don't get me wrong. Denard is an amazing athlete and it was a privelage to watch play in person for four years. So if Vincent Smith is listed as 5'6" I wonder how tall he really is?

UMaD

January 21st, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^

There is a reason to exaggerate Denard's height (neutralize some media narratives).  There's isn't any reason to do so with Smith.  He's very short and there's no way around that.  If anything you'd exagerate how short he is.

Similary, you might want to give Rodman or Barkley a couple extra inches, but Nate Robinson is short.  It can be a fine line between height being perceived as a weakness or a strength.

Lucky Socks

January 21st, 2013 at 12:26 PM ^

Probably still 5"6.  There's much less incentive to embelish the height of a diminuative RB.  Would teams have been more worried about him if he was listed at 5"8?  Probably not.  Whereas a QB under 6 foot is a batted ball machine.  

Also, I've stood next to him and he wasn't super duper tiny.  5"6 seems about right.  

Indonacious

January 21st, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^

I think he could be a change of pace running back, similar to how the 49ers use lamichael james to complement frank gore. He doesn't need to be a featuer back but I think he could hold up for 5-10 carries a game. Just my opinion but I think that the slot compromises some of his unique running abilities, as he certainly has a knack for running the ball.

Jehu the Damaja

January 21st, 2013 at 11:36 AM ^

I could see Denard being used as a Jacquizz Rodgers type. Getting occasional carries and catching passes out of the backfield, but not an every down back. . They're the same weight but Denard has 4 inches on him and possibly a step or 2 faster.

If he gets drafted by a team like San Fran, Washington, Philly, or even Seattle he could be an extremely dangerous option in the backfield with the threat of him being able to run, pass, or catch.

SWFLWolverine

January 21st, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^

Also, I am sure that with him slated to play RB/Slot, his work out regimen would change to add some needed bulk. Clinton Portis is listed as 5'11 205, Emmitt Smith 5' 9 216, Barry Sanders 5' 8 203 for comparison sake. Denard looks pretty thin at 196 so I would think he could add some bulk without much sacrifice to speed.

gbdub

January 21st, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^

Why do people keep saying he can't take punishment? The dude had as many carries as a "feature back" in 2010, and somewhat fewer but still a lot of carries in 11 and 12. All while running the offense and throwing an additional ~20 times a game.

Denard played just as hard as a feature back - even the toughest RBs usually take a breather after every couple of plays. Denard didn't. And through all that, his worst injury only kept him out of a couple games. Sure he had to sit for a few drives and halves in that period, but what RB doesn't? And besides that many of his injuries were ones that made it hard for him to be a QB but he probably could have kept running if necessary (being the star QB, we probably were more cautious than we'd be with an RB with a minor boo boo.)

Denard is tough. Some of his best runs cone from working in traffic up the middle. He could be a feature back if allowed and if he learns to block. WR is a waste - Denard begs to be fed behind the LOS so he can make LBs and crashing safeties look stupid.

UMaD

January 21st, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^

is not 'way shorter'.  It's pretty standard shoes-on/shoes-off differential.  If he was a basketball player he'd have been listed at 6'2.

M_Jason_M

January 21st, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^

I don't know what the hell kind of shoes you're wearing, but most shoes do NOT have an inch and a half thick sole. Mine are maybe 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick. Anyways, the difference between height only matters to the pro scouts who didn't think Russell Wilson could see over an OL even though he played for Wisconsin, so take it with a grain of salt.