Was the last INT D Rob's fault?

Submitted by BlueFab5 on October 11th, 2009 at 10:48 AM

I've watched the replay a couple of times and it looks like Hemingway pulls up. I think Robinson expected him to keep running down the sideline.

The ball was clearly over thrown but if you watch the replay it looks as if Hemingway would have been right there if he keeps running. That doesn't mean he would have caught the ball, but at least it would not have been intercepted.

With that said I don't have a problem with Robinson taking snaps for the last drive. It was pretty clear that Tate didn't have it yesterday.

Comments

stuckinohio

October 11th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^

Denard's reaction right away was looking towards Hemmingway and pointing downfield like he expected the route to continue and Junior sat down. Man Tay Odoms had 25 yard underneath.

MGoJoe

October 11th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^

Sometimes I wonder how much of the reviewer play is running designed routes or improvising downfield to try to get open. During many plays, the amount of time it took for Tate and Denard to throw the ball made me think that the designed routes broke down and both quarterback and reviewer were simply improvising to make a completion. Improvision can be exciting, but it can also be damn scary when QB and WR are not on the same page.

ajscipione

October 11th, 2009 at 11:05 AM ^

The last interception was more RichRod's fault than anyone else. He placed Denard in a position where the odds were more likey that he would fail than not. Tate should have been in there,

A2MIKE

October 11th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^

I feel like our receivers aren't the best at making plays when the play designed breaks down... its hard to tell on TV because you can't see downfield, but I noticed in the Indiana game when the play breaks down nobody really comes back to the ball. Usually as a receiver you're taught to come back to the ball and run towards the QB as the play breaks down, but most importantly run to open space, didn't see a lot of the improvisation, which leads me to think you could be right. Either way that one play didn't win or lose the game... it was lost on the turnovers.

Knappster

October 11th, 2009 at 3:00 PM ^

They're saying DRob missed part of the play that was called. Junior was probably running deep to bring the corner and safety away from the middle dump pass to Odoms/Minor or a QB run for 10-15 yds. It hurts watching the replay and seeing what could have been. I just feel bad for DRob. Hopefully he gets multiple chances to light it up against D-State.

KBLOW

October 11th, 2009 at 11:20 AM ^

Yes, of course it's his fault but quite understandable. He didn't see the wide open receiver underneath and took a chance going deep. But it's a mistake that nearly all QB's will make at some point in their careers, some a lot more than others. But his fault on this play or not, the 5 turnovers are what lost this game, not one INT on a final desperation drive.

JT4104

October 11th, 2009 at 11:32 AM ^

When Tate threw the INT last week against MSU it was a "freshman" mistake and just a bad bad throw and no one really wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

This week Denard throws a INT and all I read is oh it's ok he felt so bad about it...it was Hemingways fault..and blah blah blah...

Reality was Denard has a wide open Odoms for about 15 to 20 yds and the sideline to use to get out of bounce..he choose to go for the gusto with a safety standing back there waiting and it blew it it his face. It's nobodies fault but Denard for even throwing the ball!

El Jeffe

October 11th, 2009 at 5:34 PM ^

My God you're a douche. Though I have some sympathy--you appear to be nearly illiterate. But, if it was RR's fault this week, wouldn't it also have been RR's fault last week? How dare he allow Tate to throw into the end zone during OT.

KBLOW is absolutely right. Last week and this week we saw what happens when you have two freshman QBs. You have late-game INTs. That's just the way it goes. I expect several more of those during their freshman seasons. I expect fewer during their sophomore seasons, etc.

This is a three-year process, boys. We're in year two. This will happen.

Bando Calrissian

October 11th, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^

Even if we believe Hemingway "pulled up" on his route, it was still a poor, overthrown pass into double coverage, a pass Denard has not been expected to make all season. And completely missing the wide open receiver underneath.

A cacophony of failure.

mgonate

October 11th, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^

I dont blame either of them. The other 4 turnovers were the main problem. Plus i feel we have been out coached the past 3 games. Also i dont understand why we never make adjustments. It was clear in the first 4 games even that rolling out with Tate is way better than him standing in the pocket...yet we dont run plays that use it. Last night was a perfect example. Yet D-Rob rolled out a few times and found receivers every time.

KBLOW

October 11th, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^

Have you considered that Tate wasn't rolling out when he should've been and/or was missing wide open reads on non-rollout calls? This (Tate misreads) has been a problem RR has alluded too since the IU game. To blame the coaching, besides demonstrating that you aren't too bright, is to ignore that we put 28 up, on the road, to a team we gave the ball to 5 times AND still had a great chance to win.

Mgobowl

October 11th, 2009 at 11:58 AM ^

Yes, I think that one was on D-Rob. He tried to force a deep ball into double coverage. There was plenty of time on the clock to get into FG range and they didn't need to pick up all the yards on one play. In that situation you have to take what the defense give you and live to play another down. He could have picked up a few on the ground or tossed it underneath.

It is a tough way to learn a lesson, but hopefully he does better the next time he is in that situation.

It was not Hemingway's fault. D-Rob is the one responsible for distributing the ball and getting rid of it in a timely manner.

It is also not R-Rod's fault. D-Rob just drove the field and scored a TD to get the team back in the game. What more could he ask for? There is a chance of losing the confidence of the team by throwing a guy back out there who has struggled all game.

BILG

October 11th, 2009 at 12:02 PM ^

Odoms and Minor were both wide open on the play. Odoms gets at least 20 yards and out of bounds, and Minor was open in the middle of the field for like 25 yards. Even if Hemingway was supposed to continue up field and it wouldn't have been intercepted, it was definitely the wrong read.

scwolverine

October 11th, 2009 at 12:14 PM ^

has looked more or less like a " throw it deep and see what happens" type of deal. Two receivers, Minor and Odoms, were open 20-25 yards underneath, I mean WIDE open. As for placing the blame on Rich Rod for putting DRob in "that" position...hog crap. He was the freaking quarterback for Michigan...make the dang play! Tate wasn't making them either. I dont blame the coach for expecting his quarterbacks to be able to throw passes to wide open receivers.

Magnus

October 11th, 2009 at 12:17 PM ^

So if Rodriguez had put in Cone, it wouldn't be Rodriguez's fault for putting in a subpar passer because Cone is "the freaking quarterback for Michigan"?

Robinson is not a good passer. We all know that, or at least we should by this point. Putting him in to pass the ball is a bad decision, and if you don't believe that, look at his statistics and the results from last night.

BlockM

October 11th, 2009 at 12:23 PM ^

I would agree wholeheartedly with this if Tate hadn't been all discombobulated. The coach made the decision that he thought our chances were better with Denard. He'd thrown a few nice passes on the previous drive, so I don't have a problem with him staying in.

Magnus

October 11th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^

Not when you have to go 80 yards with no timeouts and only 1:30 left.

We know this about Denard's passing: he can throw a little hitch/out route when he's sprinting toward the target. He is excellent at that.

As far as throwing downfield (which is necessary in such a situation), he has proven incapable time and time again.

chitownblue2

October 11th, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^

Magnus, I'll say this as diplomatically as possible:

I don't understand why you constantly have to be so nasty about this. Every single loss, you're on here screaming about a player that, basically, shouldn't be allowed to play. It was more explicit in your loathesome "pink slips" series last year, but it's getting pretty clear here.

Look - Michigan was in a position to win for two reasons:

Robinson led an extremely effective 60 yard TD drive, and the defense forced a key 3 and out.

A key reason why were in a position to lose was because Tate struggled for large portions of the game.

Rodriguez went with the hot hand, and we came up short. That's all.

Magnus

October 11th, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^

How am I being nasty about this? I'm saying Robinson is incapable of playing QB at a high level as a true freshman. That's not an insult. That's honesty, and it's nothing to be embarrassed about - very few true freshmen are ready to play QB full-time. Forcier has been an exception up to this point.

Michigan was in a position to win for several reasons, not just the two you listed. Those final drives didn't take place in a vacuum. Michigan scored 21 other points in that game, 14 of which were at the hands of drives by Forcier (7 from Warren).

Rodriguez did go with the hot hand - he went with the guy who ran the ball well...when we needed to pass.

scwolverine

October 11th, 2009 at 12:14 PM ^

has looked more or less like a " throw it deep and see what happens" type of deal. Two receivers, Minor and Odoms, were open 20-25 yards underneath, I mean WIDE open. As for placing the blame on Rich Rod for putting DRob in "that" position...hog crap. He was the freaking quarterback for Michigan...make the dang play! Tate wasn't making them either. I dont blame the coach for expecting his quarterbacks to be able to throw passes to wide open receivers.

chitownblue2

October 11th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^

Yes, you have to put the blame on Robinson for throwin the pick. Just as it was Forcier's fault for throwing the game-ending pick against MSU. But am I mad about it? Not at all. We were in a position to win the game BECAUSE of Denard Robinson. He's a freshman, and he got us 90% of the way there, but came up short - just like Tate did last week. They'll both get better.

Magnus

October 11th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^

We were in a position to win the game BECAUSE of Donovan Warren.

We were in a position to win the game BECAUSE of Brandon Minor.

We were in a position to win the game BECAUSE of Brandon Graham.

And, yes, Denard Robinson, too.

But do Warren or Minor or Graham deserve to be playing QB on the final drive? Obviously not. Each of those players has a role on the team, and they're not suited to playing quarterback in the 2-minute drill with 80 yards to go. Robinson isn't suited to that situation, either.

Robinson has a role as a change-of-pace quarterback who can complete short throws and run the ball effectively. Just like you wouldn't put Alijah Bradley in for a fourth-and-goal play or run a screen pass to Kevin Grady when it's 3rd-and-20, you don't put in a running QB when he needs to pass.

chitownblue2

October 11th, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^

I'm sorry for being somewhat positive, Magnus. Maybe I should advocate the kid get "fired"? Hand out pink slips?

You're marching up and down this thread posting the same thing over and over until everyone will agree with you that Robinson shouldn't have been playing. I disagree. I see your point.

Magnus

October 11th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^

How are you being more positive than I am?

I'm putting my support behind Forcier, because the kid has done a great job so far this year, and you're not.

You're putting your support behind Robinson, and I'm not.

That's the same amount of positivity. It's just aimed in separate directions.

chitownblue2

October 11th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^

I'm not negative about Forcier at all. Forcier struggled yesterday. Robinson had been effective in his one drive. Rodriguez went with the hot hand. I'm not advocating that one be the starter over the other, or a preference. I'm explaining why the decision was made, and why I think it makes sense. I think that for that drive, it was the right decision. I'm not saying Robinson should be our starting quarterback.

Magnus

October 11th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^

So what was the point of your post?

You say Forcier struggled yesterday.

I say Robinson has struggled all year.

You advocate putting Robinson in for that drive.

I advocate putting Forcier in for that drive.

How am I Mr. Negative when you're Mr. Positive? We're both being positive and negative. You keep making jokes about the "pink slips" thing, but you're doing the exact same thing I was - you're saying Forcier should have been benched (i.e. pink slipped) for Robinson.

chitownblue2

October 11th, 2009 at 1:07 PM ^

The difference, Magnus, is that I'm not on here making blanket statements about Tate Forcier's ineptitude, while you are, about Robinson. I have never come on here and advocated that a kid get benched. You made a running series about it. See the difference?

Second-guessing, with the results of his decision clear, is the easiest thing in the world. Doing it doesn't make you an expert.