Robinson's touches this weekend

Submitted by swarwick33 on

When I was thinking back to the Iowa game I had a bigger problem with the fact that Denard was not in the game early on, than the fact he was in there at the end. Michigan had their way with the Iowa defense on the ground, and as we all saw, Robinson ran all over Iowa in his first drive.

I feel that the biggest home run chance Michigan has is Robinson finding a crease and then taking it to the house. This is the reason that he needs to play this week. I do not know if I would insert him into the game for an entire drive, but I would like to see him in every quarter. If it was up to me, I would like to see him utilized in this way this weekend.

2-3 Run-Pass Options
3-5 QB Designed Keepers
2-3 Zone Option Reads
2-3 Wildcat Formation Snaps
1-3 Speed Options/Option Reverses

10-17 Total Touches

Few people can make as big of an impact as Robinson in 10 touches, and this very well could be a one score game.

petered0518

October 21st, 2009 at 8:29 PM ^

Why is this always the first response to someone who offers up an idea that relates to personell decisions?

I mean, the guy is just offering up an opinion as to what might work. In restrospect it seems quite likely that putting in Denard earlier would have been a good idea against Iowa. So as much as the coaches are very good at what they do, it doesn't mean they always have the best solution.

And I don't see how offering up an opinion suggests they know more than the coaches. It is possible to have a good idea without having intimate knowledge of a situation.

ok, rant over. I see you already got negbanged for it and I feel no need to contribute to that, but lets try to wait until a poster actually suggests they know more than the coaches before accusing them of knowing more than the coaches.

jrt336

October 21st, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^

We should bring him in more, but not as QB. Put him in the backfield and run some options with Tate and him. Defenses would have to worry about Tate and Denard running, Tate throwing, and to a lesser extent, Denard throwing. I think it'd be pretty tough to defend that.

david from wyoming

October 21st, 2009 at 4:45 PM ^

They are both true freshman. Until they have learned the entire basic playbook, how can you expect trick formations such as 2 qb's to work and why would be a good idea at this point in their development? Can this incredibility ridiculous idea wait for a year or two?

ThWard

October 21st, 2009 at 4:42 PM ^

No more football posting on this here football board, please. Nothing offends some poster's delicate sensitivities like the strident tone used in this statement - "If it was up to me, I would like to see him utilized in this way this weekend." Oh, the arrogance!

david from wyoming

October 21st, 2009 at 4:51 PM ^

Well okay. I think the team should line up with a punter in every formation because the other team isn't going to know if you are going to run a play or punt, so they'll need to have someone 40+ years of the LOS to cover the punt.

Just because you want to see something happen, and have a hair brained reason to 'think' it will work well, doesn't mean it will work well.

Bad lines of logic include the following; 'it works in a video game', 'it worked on that one drive' (which happened to be a end of the game drive, maybe the line was just blocking better due to the come-from-behind situation?), 'I just have a feeling it would work, but I can't prove it since I've never coached in my life'.

ThWard

October 21st, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^

You seem to be confused. Some ideas from posters are pretty dumb. Like your post re: punters. Other people's ideas are fun to talk about and aren't "bad lines of logic" merely because they didn't come straight from the coaching staff.

But enjoy destroying that straw man you built - nowhere do I see in the original post X-box references.

Also, re: trick formations involving 2 QBs. Seriously - tone down the general ass-ness, and recognize that RichRod has already put them both on the field at the same time. A reasonable post could have been, "he did it early, hasn't done it since, and has seemed less comfortable with Denard's grasp of the playbook to do anything like that again, particularly against better competition." A "David from Wyoming" post is... well, you're better at those than I am.

RONick

October 21st, 2009 at 5:13 PM ^

It is a trick play idea. Something that might be thrown out once a game. If Denard looks to pass after a pitch from Tate, defenses could be in a world of hurt down field. Especially if they are in man due to the presence of Denard on the field. Now, I'm not saying that this is a fantastic idea, nor am I saying I would invite it (I would probably throw my hands over my face not wanting to see the impending fumble/interception/disaster from this play malfunctioning), but it is an idea someone is throwing out on a message board about how to better use our lightning fast backup quarterback. This is not a coaching clinic, it is a message board for fans. Don't be an asshole because you don't like someone else's ideas about personnel.

BrewCityBlue

October 21st, 2009 at 8:48 PM ^

Or is this how you always are?
Wow. Chill out.

Hey, here's an idea....

Have you ever professionally had an opinion and then wrote about it, criticizing others opinions?

NO?!?!?!? Then what the hell are you doing on this board?!?! Leave it to the pros?!!? What do you know about having an opinion about someone else's opinion???!!!??!?

brewandbluesaturdays

October 21st, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^

I don't necessarily think that he needs to come in at quarterback. I love D-Rob and his explosiveness but I personally feel a little more comfortable with Tate behind center. In a game like this, I don't think RR is going to give him the opportunities that he got in our scrimmage last week. This means that it will be a little bit easier for Penn State to have a game plan in place when he comes in the game. I say switch it up, really throw them a loop and line him up at RB a couple times and even a slot receiver. But I trust RR and staff know more than I do and will have an appropriate game plan in place.

blacknblue

October 21st, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^

Robinson wasn't finding creases because he wasn't a legit threat to throw the ball and everyone knew it. All opposing teams were doing were putting 9 players 5 yards from the line of scrimmage and make sure they stopped the imminent threat.

If Robinson can come into the game and threaten the defense in a way besides with his feet he will be a huge weapon, until then I will like the coaching staff keep doing what they're doing.

BiSB

October 21st, 2009 at 9:12 PM ^

But if you look at what Denard did on the previous drive (when Iowa was playing a softer defense, but time wasn't a huge factor), he looked pretty damn good. It was only when time became a significant (almost dispositive) factor that Denard threw the pick.

Magnus

October 21st, 2009 at 9:17 PM ^

He "looked pretty damn good" because he was running the ball (which we know he can do) and because he wasn't asked to do much passing the ball. He can't run those plays for an entire game.

He has shown ZERO ability to throw the ball downfield, except for those amazingly easy throws against whatever high school it was that we played last Saturday.

mcfors

October 21st, 2009 at 5:03 PM ^

If he were not so important as a backup QB, I think he'd make a great kick/punt returner. Has this idea been broached here before? I haven't seen it.

RONick

October 21st, 2009 at 5:07 PM ^

I believe you qualified the reason most wouldn't think about this in your statement. He is the backup QB and so you really don't want to put him in a position like that to possibly get injured, especially when the starting QB goes all of a buck fifty.

Muttley

October 21st, 2009 at 8:06 PM ^

If DRob were to be injured like Drew Stanton, we'd be one injury away from being a bad team.

Perhaps late in the season, against Wiscy or tOSU, that might be worth the risk. But there's too much football left to be exposing your season to that kind of disaster.

notYOURmom

October 21st, 2009 at 5:07 PM ^

I'm going to take issue (friendly, affable issue) with the FIRST part of the following statement from the OP:

"I feel that the biggest home run chance Michigan has

...is Robinson finding a crease and then taking it to the house."

So the purpose of playing is to win.....and the way to win is to make more forward progress to the goal than the other guys...right? Big break-out plays are fun to watch but games are surely won by plays that reliably result in more yards gained.

So...."Denard try to take it to the house" combined with "Denard fumbles" or "Denard throws an interception" on average results in fewer yards gained than "any combination of 3-4 short sure plays resulting in a first down."

I'm not doubting that Denard has lots of awesome mind-blowing bigtime plays in him, but until he is consistently doing better OVERALL it is not surprising he doesn't see more PT.

Tater

October 21st, 2009 at 5:51 PM ^

I hope he gets a series or two in the first half. I think the series against Iowa proved that he CAN move the offense against a top ten team. If PSU thinks he can't throw the ball, it just might cost them six. Getting the D to stack up against the run is a nice way to get a mismatch or two in the secondary.

BrewCityBlue

October 21st, 2009 at 8:53 PM ^

That's about exactly what he proved. And that I will continue to freak out any time he throws the ball at the end of close games.
However, i would like to see him sprinkled in here and there to keep Tate fresh and force PSU to defend him a bit earlier in the game. Maybe couple plays in 2nd quarter (depending on how everything is going) and make JoePa and crew at least spend some time talking about him at halftime. At least then if the unthinkable happens he's not being put in a situation quite like the end of the iowa game.

Magnus

October 21st, 2009 at 8:26 PM ^

Can we stop calling Robinson's plays the "Wildcat"? Please? I'm serious. It's not the Wildcat when you just plug in your backup quarterback. And the "Wildcat" refers to the single wing offense, and I haven't seen many plays for Michigan that include single wing formations.

Also, Denard and Forcier suck at running the read option. That's why they don't run it. So let's stop asking for it, unless you want turnovers or bad plays.

jg2112

October 22nd, 2009 at 8:16 AM ^

A QB draw with Robinson is a QB draw with Robinson. To properly run the "WildWeasel" or whatever the hell Michigan would call it would require a QB lined up wide and SOMEONE ELSE (Brown, Smith, Minor, hell, Bryant Nowicki) taking the direct snap. C'mon. It's not the WildWeasel when Forcier comes in and runs the ball, and it's no different when Denard does it. He's the QB, not the Ronnie Brown-type.

A QB Designed Keeper is differentiated from a QB draw by the hesitation of the QB. On the QBDK, Robinson runs right from the snap. On the QB draw, there is a moment's hesitation. It is little different than the standard RB play Lloyd would run on 1st and 10, as opposed to the RB draw Lloyd would run on 3rd and anything more than 8.

Hal_Victor

October 21st, 2009 at 10:56 PM ^

I'll risk it and suggest that the key to having DRob lining up in the backfield with Tate is *not* throwing to DRob. The first time a defense sees him in the backfield or in the slot, isn't it possible they'll think something is up? Line him up and then throw a bubble screen to the side of the field opposite DRob. Do it again, or something else, then throw to DRob.