Should Denard start against Purdue?
I know it's a big stretch to compare Delaware State to Purdue as far as defense goes, but I think we should try and go with the gameplan we were using late in the first half in the DSU game against Purdue. If we bring Koger in as H-back and just pound the ball with Denard/Minor/Brown/Shaw that should limit the time we need our defense on the field. Tate should definitely play but it seems like it might work out better with a Tate - Denard role reversal.
Both bring in turnover possibilities but when you're running, rarely does a fumble turn into a direct touchdown unlike an interception that can be returned much easier for 6. This strategy would be implemented more to protect our lack of coverage on defense and lack of pass protection by our O-line more so than the latest shortcomings that have fallen upon Tate. RR should realize our weaknesses and use what strengths we have to overcome them. What our your thoughts?
November 4th, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
Denard is not someone you can pound the ball with. And if you're going to have Minor/Brown/Shaw in the game to pound the ball with, you might as well have a QB in that can throw reliably.
I think we'll see Denard unless Tate is playing great AND it's a close game.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
I agree. If you start DRob Purdue doesn't need worry about the pass as much which will limit the RB's effectiveness.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
In the slot? Yes.
In all seriousness, I'd like to see him at QB earlier than the 4th quarter. Give him a series or two early in the game and if UM can move the ball, let him play.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
funny you mention that - - i really think that rrod has been keeping the plays with denard/tate on the field together in his back pocket, waiting to bust them out in the ohio state game... i could be entirely wrong, or sorely optimistic, but who knows...
November 4th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
was thinking the same thing....with the pressure building on RR (at least from irrelevant sources such as the media), he could really use a big rivalry win NOW to shut some people up and give him another year or two w/o everyone on his ass......IME, i think our gameplan for OSU will surprise a lot - on BOTH sides of the ball.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^
So you two think that he is holding a bunch of "cool plays" in his back pocket for OSU? I have heard this a couple of times but I must say it makes very little sense to me. Why would he hold plays back that he think would have a high degree of success in a game when nothing we do on offence is having any success?
This sounds like what we were saying about Dantonio and how he was holding back and only gameplanning for the UM game. I could definitely be wrong, I have been before, but I can't see why a coach would hold plays that could be successful back when our offence is playing as poorly as we are right now.
Maybe they try it a couple of times simply because it is the last game of the regular season and an injury isn't as detrimental at that point. I guess if there is any reason that would be it.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:10 PM ^
The other part says: "ZOMG JUST BEAT OSU I DONT CARE IF YOU CUT OFF DENARD'S ARM AND MAKE IT A MACHINE GUN JUST BEAT THEM SO BAD PLEASE DEATH KILL."
November 4th, 2009 at 2:18 PM ^
The offense is doing better than it seems...they just keep dropping the effing ball. Don't get me wrong, that's a big deal. But execution wise Michigan is getting in its own way a lot of the time. Check out that Guernica diary for more info.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^
I still remember OSU coming out with trips for most of the first half in 2006; it put UM in a hole they couldn't dig out of. As much as I hate Tressel, I have to give credit where credit is due; he severely outcoached Carr that game. I would love to see RR come up with a "stroke of genius" like Tressel did in '06.
I think it will be funnier if he does it in the second half, though, so OSU doesn't get halftime to adjust. Play the first half close to the vest and then "let it all hang out" the second half: I can only hope.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:37 PM ^
Wouldn't it be wise to bring out anything being held back that could possibly help this team win a game this week no matter what players are involved? I don't know about everyone else but I sure would like to have the bowl game in the pocket before tosu game so there is not any more pressure on the team or RR than needs be.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:30 PM ^
If RR has tricks up his sleeve, this is the week to use them. All of them. We need THIS win. If we had beaten Illinois last week, I would have been fine saving the tricks for OSU, but we need to get to 6 wins. If we dont beat purdue, then I don't see us making a bowl game. If we beat purdue, then that confidence MIGHT create a surge to knock off Wiscy or OSU.
Bring out all the stops RR, and assure us (at least) of a mini road trip to motown.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
If both players on the field is that great of an advantage, he would have used those plays to try to win at ILL, MSU, Iowa. He needs wins, and lots of them.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
Denard is not a starting QB right now. He is an extraordinarily gifted athlete, and that works very well for him in his current role: a CHANGE OF PACE QB. A starting QB needs to be able to break down a defense. He's got the arm, but he's not mentally ready to be a starting QB yet.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
Denard Should not start unless we decide to run navy's triple option offense.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
Is that insider info?
Please yes. Please yes. Please yes.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
My thoughts are that I trust Coach Rod, someone who understands offenses and breaking down other defenses more than 99.9% of us could ever hope to. He also has the most access to his players to understand which mismatches could benefit us, and there's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that if he sees Denard starting giving us the best chance at winning, that WILL happen.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:30 PM ^
Yeah, if we Want to set a record for most tunrovers in a 3 game stretch.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^
or is it an exhibition?
November 4th, 2009 at 1:38 PM ^
While the offense had its problems in the past two games, Denard has not proven to be a true dual threat QB. He's a run threat, but still not a pass threat. Tate has not lit everyone up (nor would you expect him to as a true Fr.) but he's been much better in the passing game than Denard.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:39 PM ^
I think it's time to have Denard play other positions in addition to quarterback. There's no reason to waste of player of his talent on the bench.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:44 PM ^
That is first time I have ever heard someone say that on this board.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:40 PM ^
that Denard play a "Percy Harvin-type role" yet? Or mentioned the fact that he's fast and doesn't tie his shoes?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:06 AM ^
He doesn't tie his shoes? Why hasn't the media this yet?! What a story that would be!
November 4th, 2009 at 3:24 PM ^
As awesome as that would be, RRod has repeatedly said that he needs to learn the QB position first before they can even entertain this thought. In a year or two I would love to believe that this is a real possibility and a dangerous one for opposing defenses as well. But as of now he is not ready for that.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:26 PM ^
After a month and a half of coaching at QB? This kid is a freshman, he should not be playing, he should be redshirted. But, thanks to Sheridans inability to play quarterback in a game, we've turned to two TRUE FRESHMAN to play QB. Denard is the only legitimate hope (on the team) we have of having a Pat White-esc Rich Rod offense. Rich Rod is only a special coach when his QB is the biggest run threat on the field. Tate is not a run threat, he's a threat to scramble, but he is not a run game threat. He needs to develope Denard Robinson into a mediocre short passing game QB (He may be a more dangerous runner than Devin Gardner.), and he can go back to his simplified "We're so much fast than you on (and to) both edges" WVU offense. They didn't have a lot of plays, and didn't need them. Their top receivers got about 500 yards receiving a year, Pat White was't asked to throw very much. For all we know, Pat White wasn't any better than Denard his freshman year, but after a redshirt year, he was able to lead a run-heavy offense, which beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
If you want to win championships, you need Denard to develope into a QB who can perform the passing game Rich Rod had with Pat White.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:34 PM ^
Shaun King and let him know that RR was unspecial during their time together. While you're at it, please develope your spelling.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:45 PM ^
Sure thing, I'll email Shaun King and tell him that his coach didn't do anything that unique when he was his QB, I'm sure he'll be devastated. And I'll make sure to stuff that "Point out when people don't really care if they misspell something on a blog post" card in my back pocket. Thanks.
The only time Rich Rodriguez had that unique of an attack (in D-1 football) was with Pat White. Other than that he was just running a balanced spread offense. John L. Smith had one of those as well.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:46 PM ^
sassy.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:57 PM ^
Pretty accurate.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
Tate's has clearly taken a huge hit since the beginning of the season, and starting Denard would be a huge additional blow. Tate is clearly the more complete QB, and he deserves to be the starter. I have no problem seeing Denard taking more snaps than he did last week, but I would worry that benching Tate would have longer-term ramifications. All that being said, the point is kind of moot anyway...I don't think anyone really thinks Denard will start.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
will never be a QB. Denard is a athlete playing QB. You can only get away with that in High School, unless he improves ten fold in his reads and accuracy he will never play at the D 1 level sorry its the truth
November 4th, 2009 at 3:35 PM ^
How can you say never. He's proven that he possesses the tools to be a dangerous fit for RRod. The only thing he lacks right now is proper decision making, which is typical of a true freshman kid, especially one who didn't have the chance to come in early to learn the offense. We know he can flat out run, and he has a strong accurate arm. He just needs to learn which throws he can make at the D1 level right now, and thats hard when you haven't had a ton of reps.
If it was that easy to just step in and perform, playing true freshman wouldn't be that special. But it just doesn't work that way and he just needs time.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:46 PM ^
"Strong accurate arm"
Strong? yes
Accurate? Hell no.
Check out the UFRs. Even if you disregard the bad reads and interceptions (typical of any freshman), Denard puts up a lot more "marginal" throws (requiring the receiver to make a circus catch) than "dead on" throws. Even if he gets to the point where he can read defenses, throw fewer picks, and make all the right decisions, he is not a guy who is ever going to have an eye-popping completion percentage
November 4th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
It would work only if Purdue was then forced to stack the box to stop the run leaving the corners to play man to man coverage. And only if our receivers had the ability to beat the corners consistently.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:50 PM ^
I think only implies one.....a bit contradictory. It's like saying "if UM only had another 5 star CB we'd be a great D. But only if we got another LB, DE, DT and SS."
November 4th, 2009 at 2:05 PM ^
I think he did it on purpose to point out how unlikely it is that we'd be able to succeed in said scenario.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
The entire team's psyche is pretty messed up right now, let alone the fans, if Denard starts and begins to have 'Freshman' mistakes, all goats in a 1 mile radius of the stadium will faint. I'd like to see Tate start and finally have one of those 'all together' games he is capable of having, and will have hopefully soon. I would like to see Shoelace in there as well, he also must be improving in his role. Oh please let it be this Saturday...
November 4th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
hahahaha
Edit: allow me to clarify; ZOMGLOL
November 4th, 2009 at 2:01 PM ^
The biggest criticism I have of RR to date is the revolving door at all positions. For heaven's sake, how the duce can the kid learn the position when they are in one game and out the next. Enough of this "earn it in practice" stuff. Stick with Tate, and please let him rollout and throw the damn ball on the run - he's darn good at it.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
and Bo Schembechler too! What the hell was he thinking. Benching a kid for fumbling....
November 20th, 2009 at 2:32 AM ^
Old School is suspected of being an Ohio State Fan. Search his posts.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
As I've said before - Tate isn't the problem with this offense. Both DR and Tate have been the victims of numerous dropped passes, mediocre protection, and RBs who cannot run through first contact or who CHOTTDB with any regularity. Tate is playing like a freshman, but at least he is a freshman with a history of accurate passing and some game management. Right now, Robinson is basically a RB with a decent arm. Maybe in a year he becomes a viable option leading this team, but looking good against DSU or the odd drive in the middle of the game doesn't mean he will be able to lead this team to a victory any better than Tate.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
I agree. Still, tossing Denard into the game earlier would be beneficial, but Tate is still the starter.
The drops are getting pretty outrageous though.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:22 PM ^
We have far too many achronyms nowdays, but "CHOTTDB" is hilarious!!!! I personally would have wrote CHOTTFB, but whatever. Great post.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:43 PM ^
then I cannot support it. You can only fail at the primary responsibility of your job so many times in a three-week stretch before you are not trusted. Moundros for TE.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:24 PM ^
when you wrote "*use what strengths we have...". What exactly would those be again? I know...we have better microbreweries!!!
*Referring to the opening post.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
No, Denard should not start. Tate gives us better balance and if we want to finish this season strong we need to hope that he'll develop into the vocal leader/leader in general of the offense, because it doesn't seem like Minor/Brown are going to take that role, unfortunately.
Luckily, Tate's just a freshman, but the sooner he can be that for us, the better off we'll be.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:34 PM ^
Denard should start. It would make this team commit to the run the way should be doing. I know they are running the ball more than they are passing but , when this team gets desperate they start throwing the ball around and get impatient, which leads to turnovers. One of the most impressive drive this year was Denards against Iowa. It was a long sustained drive imagine an entire game of that, it might make Michigan's defense look great because it would keep them off of the field.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^
The game winning drive vs ND and the game tying drive MSU > Denard's at Iowa. Heck, even the game opening drive vs PSU was more impressive IMHE due to how well the ball was moved against that tough D.
And have people watched Purdue lately? Their smallish linebackers shut down the quick Pryor and OSU, while their D got owned by Wisconsin.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^
With DR, you are basically conceding any passes down the field unless they are just like woah open. Sure, with DR the team would run the ball more, but it would also create more possibilities for fumbles and make it far easier for teams to gameplan against stopping the offense. Part of the reason Robinson has had some success thus far almost exclusively running the ball is because he is used sparingly - a series here or there, usually later in the game after the defense is worn out a bit.
That drive against Iowa worked in large part because the Iowa defense had been facing Tate all day and probably was a bit caught off guard by DR. I also argued then (and I feel the same now) that Iowa was not against giving up chunks of yardage because it was bleeding the clock and could lead to UM turning the ball over (as they had in earlier drives while running). On the next series, when DR had to throw and the Iowa defense was a little more prepared, Iowa was able to pressure DR and finish the game off.
Put him in to start, and the defense knows that virtually every play will be a run. If UM is up by 10, that's fine; you want to run the clock down and make the defense gamble a bit. But if UM is down (and against Purdue, points will be plentiful), DR is limited to some short stuff and the random bomb. That is not a recipe for a win, no matter who you are playing.