Denard Robinson on a "short leash"

Submitted by Trader Jack on October 10th, 2010 at 4:34 PM

I cannot believe how many comments I've read talking about how Denard should be on a "short leash," and that we should see what Tate and Devin can do.

Were you guys under a rock for the first 5 games? Denard is the future of this program, and yesterday all that happened was he showed that he's human. He single-handedly brought us to a 5-0 start, is the most electrifying player in college football, is at the top of almost every Heisman list, leads the nation in total yards, and you guys want to pull him because he had a game where he didn't play that great yet still picked up over 300 total yards.

He's young, he's inexperienced, and he's going to make mistakes sometimes. But he's still Denard, he's still the future of the program, and there's no way one game should put him on a "short leash" considering all that he's accomplished to start this year.

Comments

M-Wolverine

October 10th, 2010 at 7:26 PM ^

What was the point of this post? Or any post? You're not going to change his mind that he shouldn't have posted it.
<br>
<br>(The point of this post is to point out the hypocrisy, and pointlessness of posts saying Internet posts are pointless).
<br>
<br>Oh, and he shouldn't be on a short anything, he's the deserves starter, but that doesn't mean if as Magnus suggests that he doesn't have it one day and it's late and we're in situations where the other team knows we're passing every play he can't be pulled. There's a big difference between that and a benching.

Trepps

October 10th, 2010 at 9:18 PM ^

of your post?  I'm not sure what's more useless, the repetitive posts about Denard, the defense, etc. or the repetitive criticisms by you, Magnus and others about said posts.

Its like watching punk loitering teenagers against grumpy old men yelling at them to get off their lawn.    Its impossible to root for either side.

Magnus

October 10th, 2010 at 7:25 PM ^

Now that it's the Big Ten season, who seems to be the backup?  Tate Forcier...

Just because I question Rich Rodriguez doesn't mean I know more.  We all question Rich Rodriguez for various things.

And I really don't talk much about being a coach on here.  Other people bring it up way more than me.

But hey, we lost to MSU.  You can take out all your anger on me if you want.  You're clearly in a very rational mood.

Trader Jack

October 11th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^

the point is that this is a blog where people post topics on a message board that they think are relevant and want to discuss. No one else had posted anything about the topic, in my opinion it was relevant, and I couldn't care less what your opinion is. You're not going to change my mind and it's already posted, so what is the point of you saying anything? It just makes you sound like a douchebag.

Sparty_Slayer

October 11th, 2010 at 1:07 AM ^

I was under the same impression too. I always assumed that on a message board, you post topics on it so you can inturn discuss those topics with your fellow fan fanbase, interesting concept, huh. I thought the topic was legit because I also noticed the hypocrisy too regarding Drob after the game, people ready to throw the guy under the bus already because he had his first bad game, he's human it was bound to happen sooner or later. I mean the guy has basically carried this entire team on his shoulders by himself so far, he's a stud and is only gonna get better, oh and did I mention it was only his 6th start in his young college football career, it's not like he's an upperclassman with 30 starts under his belt. He's still learning, so I'm not concerned about him at all, the notion that he should be on a "short leash" is absolutely ridiculous, the only person that should be on a short leash is Greg Robinson and his horrendous play calling!

GWUWolverineFan

October 10th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^

I love the brilliant idea, let's put in the guy who single handedly lost the OSU game between fumbles and interceptions.
<br>
<br>Much better than the guy who threw 3 interceptions.

Magnus

October 10th, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^

Forcier didn't play well in the OSU game, but he didn't lose the game all by himself, either.  The poor defense, subpar offensive line, and absence of a running game surely had something to do with it.

But I guess you're one of those people who thinks every win or loss is on the shoulders of the QB.

Michigan4Life

October 10th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^

on the OSU game.  Michigan defense played well against OSU and held them to two TDs.  Forcier threw 4 INTs and 1 fumble.  Sure that Tressel went conservative, but the fact that the defense held them to 14 points with 5 turnovers, you have to give credit to the defense.

I agree with you that the running game was non-existant but Foricer made a lot of bad reads and could've throw 7 INTs in that game.

Magnus

October 10th, 2010 at 5:07 PM ^

So your point is that Forcier didn't lose the game all by himself, right?  Which is what I said.  You explained away the defense issues (Tressel was conservative and only threw the ball 17 times), and OSU ran for 253 yards and 4.7 yards a carry.  Meanwhile, the defense only created 1 turnover.

So...yeah...it's still on the defense...and Forcier...and the OL...and injures...and the running backs...

lilpenny1316

October 11th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^

He would've spread out our weak secondary and linebackers and went all 2006 on us.  Tressel is a smart coach.  Why throw the ball all over the yard if you don't have to?  Run the ball, eat up clock and go home with a Big Ten title. 

Give the D credit for not allowing any 65 yard TD runs, but OSU made the plays on both sides of the ball when they needed to be made.

Seth9

October 10th, 2010 at 5:57 PM ^

The defense was not that bad that game. While they gave up 253 rushing yards, they still only gave up 2 scores on 13 drives (I'm discounting knee outs). The other drives resulted in 9 punts, 1 INT, and 1 turnover on downs. Furthermore, the defense gave up only 67 passing yards on 17 attempts, for 3.9 YPA. You criticize the defense for giving up too many rushing yards and creating only one turnover, but discount the fact that they ran 53 times and passed only 17 (probably because Pryor was having a poor game throwing the ball).

I don't blame Forcier alone for the loss (the rush offense and OL deserves a fair share of blame), but the defense performed very well, considering the opponent. Yes, OSU might have put up better numbers on the defense if the offense scored more points, but that's an entirely different story and shouldn't be considered when evaluating their share of the blame.

Magnus

October 10th, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^

We think the defense played well because they only gave up 14 points (7 came on a fumble recovery).  However, as I said, OSU played Tresselball most of the game.  They got ahead and sat on the lead.  But just because U-M didn't get blown out doesn't mean they did anything special.

Seth9

October 10th, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^

OSU could well have ran up 400+ yards and 4 scores on our defense if they weren't playing Tresselball. But they didn't because Michigan's offense rarely threatened them. Just because the defense hypothetically could have been torched doesn't mean that they deserve blame for the loss. I agree that they didn't do anything special, but they performed acceptably. 

I ascribe the blame for that game to the offense. The defense might've killed us if the offense played decently, but the offense sucked and thus deserves the blame.

bronxblue

October 10th, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^

The thing about that game was that while the defense played reasonably well, the level of Tressell-ball was nearly off the charts once OSU was up 14-3 at halftime.  Even when it was 14-10, OSU immediately marched down the field during an 89-yard drive to put the game away.  Toward the end Tate was just trying to make plays and was throwing the ball carelessly, but when OSU allowed Pryor and the rest of the offense to take some chances, UM really didn't have an answer.  Sure, turning the ball over 5 times doesn't help, but saying Tate somehow cost the team that game is unfair. 

los

October 10th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^

I haven't read "short leash" comments and would be surprised if I did. Yet, if you happened to read that, try to remember that some of the people on this site and beyond tend to be girls going through pms and over-react either way. Denard is obviously not going anywhere but the backfield for the Iowa game and years to come. Let the mgoteaparties do their thing. It's not worth responding to. Denard is here to stay unless performances like saturday's become a common occurence.