Practice Recap from GBMW

Submitted by MichiganStudent on April 11th, 2011 at 10:38 PM

 

This is one of the greatest posts I have ever read. Its from GBMW. Although Eroc and Maizeman can be very difficult to read at times, I thought this post was excellent. I had to copy/paste it for this board incase people have not read it. 

I realize that this is EXTREMELY long, but I thought most people would enjoy it. 

 

Courtesy of GBMW and poster GFord1973.

[ed: dude, you can't C&P whole articles]

 

 

 

Comments

Black Socks

April 11th, 2011 at 11:56 PM ^

Props to the dudes over at GBMW.  They pack a lot of information into that site.  The setup is a bit difficult to navigate but check them out.  You can't get better inside info than this.

jrt336

April 11th, 2011 at 11:59 PM ^

Let's of info to process there. But I don't think you can say DG is a top3 B10 QB when the only thing he's done is tear apart a terrible 2nd string defense.

umjgheitma

April 12th, 2011 at 12:05 AM ^

He spoke of being the #1 high school player in he country, and walking into Schembechler Hall on his first day wearing – get this – a NOTRE DAME letter jacket.

"I was a butthole."

Cam Cameron, another cutthroat guy, put his arm around him.

"You were the #1 running in the country, RIcky," he said.

"Yes, I was!"

"You know what we're going to do next year?"

"What?"

"We're going to recruit the #1 running back in the country again.  And you know what we'll do the year after that?  We're going to recruit the #1 running back in the country again."

“Oh, and kid… take off that jacket.”

Reminds me of the scene in Ocean's 11. "So you're Bobby Caldwell's kid?" "Yep" "That's great, now get in the god damned house!"

I wish he would have said a "now take off that f....n' jacket"

Can't wait for those times again.....

Farnn

April 12th, 2011 at 12:08 AM ^

As much as I'd love to see Gardner at QB and Dennard at RB, the team simply lacks the depth to do anything like that.  With the loss of Tate, our QB depth is scary.

GoBlueInNYC

April 12th, 2011 at 12:45 AM ^

This came up in the over-under thread earlier today, but how is the QB depth scary?

You're talking about getting rid of the incumbent starting QB, so of course the depth will look bad if you do that. But if you don't move Denard, then there's two very capable (I'm skeptical of this guy's doom-laden assessment) QBs. What team isn't in trouble if they get down to their 3rd stringer?

If anything, Michigan's probably is better shape QB wise than most places, with two QBs who are starting caliber.

WolvinLA2

April 12th, 2011 at 12:53 AM ^

I think the post was saying that our QB depth is scary if we move Denard to RB.  Our QB depth isn't enough to warrant one of the QBs to move to another spot and have everything be OK.

But our QB depth is still a little scary.  I agree that most teams would be "in trouble" if they had to play their 3rd stringer, but most would be less in trouble than playing a "meh" rated true frosh who didn't enroll early.  Not everyone's third string guy is a future star, but most of them have been on campus for more than a month before the season starts, or if they're a frosh, they're a highly touted frosh.

BlueDragon

April 12th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^

I think our depth is OK at QB.  With scholarship limits, it doesn't make sense to have more than 3 or 4 QBs on the roster.  There's the two starters, Jack Kennedy, who apparently has improved a bit over the off-season, and I believe Jeremy Gallon was taking some snaps at QB during the preparations for ntMSU.  Gallon also played QB in high school.  We aren't asking the third or fourth stringers to do anything major; they could just hand off the ball for a few plays, like what happened in 2010 when Denard needed a second to breathe.

WolvinLA2

April 12th, 2011 at 1:20 AM ^

OK might be accurate, but it's nothing better than OK.  We have very little drop-off from 1st to 2nd string, but huge, huge drop-off after that.  I think most teams bring in a QB every year, maybe 2 every now and then, and have 4 or 5 on the roster at any given time.  This would be us essentially if Tate didn't leave.  Without Tate, our depth chart goes: Awesome, Awesome, DEATH.

BlueDragon

April 12th, 2011 at 1:45 AM ^

He's a situational backup.  Unless Denard and Devin get snapped in half, which would be both catastrophic and highly unlikely, Kennedy won't be needed for much more than garbage time and/or handing the ball off to the RB and/or running a QB keeper to burn clock.  Any team losing its top two quarterbacks would be in a lot of trouble.

RR did say that one of his goals was to bring in a QB a year so there is definitely a case to be made for needing more QBs on the roster but compared to the depth on the DL it's far less worrisome.

GoBlueInNYC

April 12th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^

Amidst the renewed "Denard to RB" talk, I was wondering something similar. Denard was essentially the featured back last season, and he couldn't make it through a full game without being banged up. Does he really have the size to take a RB's abuse all season if he was switched? Could he take on blocking duties?*

Granted, he was both the featured back and the QB, so he was a key component on nearly every single offensive play last year, so maybe only taking on RB duties would be easier on him, but I'm not so sure. Plus, he definitely wouldn't be a Hoke-certified power-running, downhill back.

(*Related question about switching Denard to WR, does he have the hands and/or route-running abilities to be a viable WR? I think a lot of people advocating position switches see his athleticism and kind of forgets about the skill sets each skill position requires.)

death by wolverine

April 12th, 2011 at 12:09 AM ^

Is anybody suprised devin is looking better than denard?I'm not. Let's face it,denard is a runner not a passer. You just have to be accurate or no defense will respect our passing game.

goblueritzy92

April 12th, 2011 at 12:16 AM ^

description of what his ideal SAM is, does anyone thing think Ken Wilkins could fit in great there? He's about that size, right? Minus the coverage skills at least.

yoopergoblue

April 12th, 2011 at 12:24 AM ^

Listen people, this is still spring practice we are talking about here.  Devin may very well be looking better than Denard right now, but we have 5 months until the season starts.  Devin has the advantage of being physically better suited to play in a pro-style offense.  Denard will need the spring and a lot of time working on his own to adjust to the changes.  I am confident that Denard will be the starter on September 3rd and we will have a VERY capable backup in Devin if need be.

ken725

April 12th, 2011 at 5:08 AM ^

I agree, lets not forget Denard's work ethic.  I'm sure he will put in the extra time in the summer on his own to become great.  He did it last year, now he just needs to learn new techniques and footwork.  He was time before the season starts to perfect his mistakes. 

Rabbit21

April 12th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^

100% co-sign on this.  Denard spent the last offseason with his eyes held open Clockwork Orange style watching film when he wasn't running drills.  Have a little faith.

Regarding Pocket presence, I relate it to teaching my pilot training students something called situational awareness back when I was an instructor.  Some dudes had more of a natural feel for it than others, but with enough practice everyone got to where they were serviceable.  Denard's other gifts are still impressive and he'll eventually develop the pocket presence.

Michael

April 12th, 2011 at 12:32 AM ^

This is why that blog is so frustrating: there's some decent information packed in with extracurricular jabs at the previous coaching staff that are just unwarranted.

I don't understand how they can say something to the effect of this coaching staff adapts to their talent (when the RR's didn't) and then talk ad-nausem about how they are running an offense in which Denard won't be successful.

This is why people like me (and Brian Cook) are worried: Denard turned in a performance of EPIC HISTORIC PROPORTIONS last season as a first-year starter. The solution is NOT to turn him in to a running back, but to run an offense that maximizes his strengths and minimizes his weaknesses.

Obviously this staff is working on coaching him on how to be a pocket passer, and I think he has the ability to do so. It would be a travesty to see one of the best players in Michigan history be relegated to mediocrity because a coaching staff was too arrogant to adapt to the talent they have on hand. (see what I did there?)

 

UMdad

April 12th, 2011 at 7:37 AM ^

It is a little eerie how similar the discussions about Denard vs. Devin this year mimic the Tate Denard discussions last year...

Yeah he looked good but he was going against the 2's

He started last year but the other guy is a better fit for the system

He has really worked hard, shown great improvement and seems to have earned a shot

D.C.Blue

April 12th, 2011 at 1:27 AM ^

Yes, we need to work with Denard's skill set, but we also need to game plan to win games.  Not just the OOC games as happened last year, but also the heart of the B1G schedule.  That, IMHO, is the biggest difference between what RR did and what I hope, Coaches Hoke, Borges and Mattison, are doing/will do with what they have to work with on both sides of the ball.  This also plays into the Powers statements of whatever is best for the team and what gives them the best chance to win.  Either way, it's going to be exciting to see how this all plays out.

Michael

April 12th, 2011 at 3:18 AM ^

First of all, there's no reason for your sarcasm. Especially in the context of an argument you're making that is flawed on a fundamental level. If you're going to be sarcastic, the first rule is to be smart about it.

The intent of my post was two-fold:

1) To point out the inherent hypocrisy of GBMW peeps (and their followers/supporters/minions) in criticizing Rich Rodriguez for not adapting to the talent on hand (Threet running the offense), yet arguing simultaneously that Denard should be a running back,

This argument is so absurd on so many levels that it makes my brain split in half. Michigan had NO returing talent/experience on offense in 2008 REGARDLESS OF SCHEME.

It's okay to not be a RR fan. Hell, the guy didn't give many people reasons to support him. But it is NOT OKAY, especially if we as mgoblog denizens pride our intellectual approach to UM football, to buy into the revisionist BULLSHIT sold by the Free Press and the likes of GBMW.

2) I'm confident our coaches will find a way to maximize the offensive talent we have, which is substantial, in a way that will win us games. The GBMW summary suggests that because Denard is throwing picks while running an unfamiliar offensive scheme, he should be the RB at Michigan is ABSURD for two reasons:

       a) He is learning - throwing interceptions and making bad decisions is part of the process;

       b) He is one of those once-in-a-generation athletes that demands the offense be built around him. It is that simple. It doesn't matter what scheme you choose, you build an offense around Denard Robinson. PERIOD.

It doesn't matter what NFL teams are doing because this is COLLEGE FOOTBALL. You want your best player to touch the ball every single play.

It is CERTAINLY worth noting that the offense we had last year, with a raw first year starter at QB, was the best Michigan has had in a generation and we're essentially scrapping it.*

*Asterisk for the idiots: I'm not coming out in support of or against the coaching change. At this point I am indifferent. This team has the talent to win 9 or 10 games with the returning talent, but that is contingent on the proper utilization of our OFFENSIVE talent and marginal development on the defensive talent.

 

Bodogblog

April 12th, 2011 at 12:33 AM ^

Don't know what to make of it. I'll take it as one man's view, and a good analysis. I'll believe the good things and ignore the bad, such is my wont.
<br>We must now also recognize jamiemac's post earlier tonight as the first volley in the Great Michigan QB Battle/Controversy/Extravaganza of 2011.

Michael

April 12th, 2011 at 3:34 AM ^

In my opinion that was one of the most upsetting things about the whole weekend as reported by the GBMW folks.

There is NO EVIDENCE out there that suggests Rich Rodriguez was anything but welcoming to former players. On the other hand, there is PLENTY of evidence that suggests there was a huge faction of former players who were anti-Rich Rodriguez from the beginning. And I'm not even talking about the media, about which everyone with any semblence of intellect knows.

I'm not comfortable with speeches like that (as reported) because that is so divisive and, franlky, counter-productive to the goal of making Michigan a perennial contender for national championships. (Or B1G championships, which is our newly-state goal)

 

yoopergoblue

April 12th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^

There has to be some legs to the stories about how many former players didn't feel welcome here over the past 3 years.   There will be over 300 former players in Ann Arbor for the spring game this weekend.  300!  That is crazy and I think the new coaching staff is listening to former players for input and they feel like they need to be a part of the program again.  

Jasper

April 12th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^

I think it's equally valid to suggest that some of Lloyd's boys were miffed that one of ... Lloyd's boys didn't get the job.  They may not have liked RichRod from the get-go.

Of course, it's also quite possible that RichRod would have rubbed those people the wrong way even if they'd given him a chance.  PR didn't seem to be his strong point.

Who really knows?

BigBlue02

April 12th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^

I agree to a point. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and he certainly didn't help things out. I will point out: the man was basically called an attention whore for playing score-o....and this was the feeling before he had even coached a game. I think a lot more people felt this way than you or I would guess

TTUwolverine

April 12th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^

Hoke is just being a good politician with this move... and for that matter with a lot of other things he has done and said since he got here?  My thought is that Rich Rod probably didn't put as much effort into calling every single former player he could think of because he was busy and didn't see it as a priority.  At the same time, I don't think he actively shunned former players that reached out to the program, as evidenced by accounts of former players like Larry Foote who came back to train under Barwis.  What I AM sure of, is that somewhere along the way the perception that Rich Rod ignored former players got out there, and Hoke is doing his best to change any widespread negative perceptions leftover from the previous regime.  This can be seen in the constant talk about "defense first," fitting "square pegs in round holes," and borderline obsession with rivalries. 

Captain Obvious

April 12th, 2011 at 12:55 AM ^

Just make generalized comments about every possibility and they are bound to be right about some stuff.  Those that want to believe these illiterate folks will point to the things he got "right" while skeptics will continue to point out the spring hype that turns out to be dead wrong.

Don

April 12th, 2011 at 1:15 AM ^

is completely fatuous, given that Gardner has virtually no meaningful playing experience against B10 competition. Why don't we wait for actual games before we bestow that kind of accolade on him?

death by wolverine

April 12th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^

Yea it would be ridiculous for a freshman quarterback to be top three in his conference. Can you even name half of the big tens starting qbs off the top of your head? All I was saying was that it's not crazy to think Gardner isnt a top three qb considering the competition.

wlubd

April 12th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^

"All I was saying was that it's not crazy to think Gardner isnt a top three qb considering the competition."

Say what? He's played a few drives the beginning of last season and wasn't overly spectacular in doing it. Now reports from practice say he's improving drastically but there's simply not enough info to put him above at the very least:

Denard, Pryor, Cousins, Persa, and Martinez (probably).

 

Don

April 12th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^

Persa

Cousins

Martinez

Pryor

Scheelhase

Robinson

Devin Gardner does not show up in any of the statistics for ANY conference game last year. As far as the box scores available on MGoBlue indicate, he did not play in a single conference game, yet we are supposed to seriously consider the assertion that DG is already a better QB than three of these returning starters.

When DG actually gets, you know, playing time in conference games, we can then determine how good he is.