Denard "LLL" Robinson (an excellent driver)

[WolverineMike]

Wait a minute. Normally I think you unfairly get the point end of the stick on this board, and I like that you don't let it bother you. I hope this doesn't bother you, either. But an argument I hear M*ch*gan fans throw out in defense of Rich Rod's terrible defenses (somewhere I saw the stat that his teams gave up more points in under 3 years than Bo Schembechler's did in his first 10 years) was something like, "but we score so fast the other team gets the ball sooner and more often - that's why we give up more points!"

So the offense was the reason the defense was so bad.
And now you say the defense was the reason the record was so bad against "quality" opponents.

I wouldn't put M*ch*gan's terrible record against those opponents on Denard's shoulders, either. I wouldn't argue against that he was the brightest lightbulb on the string of burned-out lightbulbs. But he tapped out early and often - that is inarguable. Whether he COULD have played - that's up for debate. If he truly got hurt against all of those defenses, it will be interesting to see him get hit in the NFL. If he was just wussing out against Big Ten defenses, how much will he be able to play in the NFL?

It's no secret that RR's offense, and Denard, struggled against the big time defenses in the B1G. I'm not disputing that. I was just saying that everyone seemed to be putting all those losses on Denard, when the defense had a lot to do with it too.


The stats are there, UM scored 21 points or more in 7 of those 14 losses. Come on, if you score 21 points in a game, more often than not you should win.

 

[buxfan4life]

It's no secret that RR's offense, and Denard, struggled against the big time defenses in the B1G. I'm not disputing that. I was just saying that everyone seemed to be putting all those losses on Denard, when the defense had a lot to do with it too.


The stats are there, UM scored 21 points or more in 7 of those 14 losses. Come on, if you score 21 points in a game, more often than not you should win.

It is not how many points you put up on the scoreboard as long as it is at least one more point better than the opponent, which Denard was not able to achieve in those losses. Denard should not have to shoulder the full blame in those losses, but the fact he tapped out in some of those definitely puts some of the blame on him. He was the best offensive weapon in RRods quiver, but never seemed to be ready to take the team on his shoulders and win a game since he took himself out of games that were winnable in the waning moments.

Reminds me of LeBron and his quitting when the going gets a bit tough.

EDIT: As much as I (and many here) liked to rag on the Tater, at least that kid gave 110%, hurt or not, when he went out on the field. He was no where near Denard in athletic ability, but he WANTED to be on that field come hell or high water. If Denard had even half of Tater's gumption towards winning, UM would have a few more wins under their belt during the reign of Hairlice.

 

[buckeyesin07]

It's no secret that RR's offense, and Denard, struggled against the big time defenses in the B1G. I'm not disputing that. I was just saying that everyone seemed to be putting all those losses on Denard, when the defense had a lot to do with it too.

What "everyone" is saying is that part of being a good quarterback is being able to win games, against both good teams and bad. Denard couldn't do that. He put up great stats against the sub-par teams, and Michigan had an atrocious record with him at the helm against better teams. If you want to say that Denard put up some great stats but wasn't a great overall QB because his teams were terrible against good opponents, no one would argue with you. But what Michigan fans want everyone to believe is that Denard was a great overall QB. He wasn't. Part of being a great QB is leading your team to wins, not blaming it on the defense and tapping out when the going gets tough.

The stats are there, UM scored 21 points or more in 7 of those 14 losses. Come on, if you score 21 points in a game, more often than not you should win.

First of all, that's only 50% of the losses. What was Denard doing in the other 50% of the games. Second of all, I disagree with your premise. Maybe in the 40s or 50s 21 pts was enough to win "more often than not," but not now.

 

[Zurp]

Second of all, I disagree with your premise. Maybe in the 40s or 50s 21 pts was enough to win "more often than not," but not now.

Meh - we're getting slightly off topic, and it really isn't a big issue. Mostly because you're right in that the quarterback's job is to do what he can to get his team to win the game. However, I think that 21 points should be enough to win a game "more often than not".

Note that I typed that much before I looked for some results to support my guess.

Looking back at just the bowl games, I found 21 games where, had the winning team scored only 21 points, they still would have won the game. That's out of 35 bowl games. There was one game where the losing team scored 21 points, so the winning teams would have been 21-13-1, had their score been reduced (or increased) to 21. More often than not, the losing team failed to score 21.

In those same 35 bowl games, if you change the losing teams' scores to 21, the results of 4 of those games would have changed (and creating 1 tie). Those losing teams would have been 4-30-1, if you change their scores to 21. More often than not, the winning team scored more than 21 points.

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

Meh - we're getting slightly off topic, and it really isn't a big issue. Mostly because you're right in that the quarterback's job is to do what he can to get his team to win the game.

Hasn't it been proven that Denard is not a QB? The fact that people are debating if losses fall on his shoulders clearly shows just how bad the talent was in ann arbor. IMO he was the only player they had that could offer any kind of spark. Thankfully the rest of the team was like an empty Bic, and his little spark was all they had.

Fuck scUM!

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine prior to last season....

He had clearly bought in to the hype...

So, after a little bit of back and forth he says, "But, he's a really good kid who seems to love the college life..."

And I say, "Well, that may well be, but he can't throw the football. I'll give ya that he can run. No question about that, but the dude isn't a QB. He's basically a "Wildcat" RB who might throw it."

He calls me an OSU homer and tells me my burning hatred of Michigan has clouded my judgment

Two weeks later he says to me... "Well, you were right about Robinson... he's terrible"

 

[WolverineMike]

he was a bright spot during a terrible couple years. He was better than any other QB on the roster during a terrible couple years. He was fun to watch, most of the time. That sums him up for me, and I hope he is successful in the NFL.

 

[Coqui]

he was a bright spot during a terrible couple years. He was better than any other QB on the roster during a terrible couple years. He was fun to watch, most of the time. That sums him up for me, and I hope he is successful in the NFL.

Gardner is a better QB than Denard was

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

Gardner is a better QB than Denard was

 

[OhioExile]

Denard was unstoppable when the other team was up by 24 with 10 minutes to go in the 4th as D coordinators played not to lose. Many of TSUN's 21 points were scored when the game was out of reach.

 

[cincibuck]

Pardon me for interrupting your defense of Denard and your looking the other way when it comes to, you know, how Michigan actually fared against the better teams in that "same level of competition," but during Denard's four years, Michigan had the following records against the following teams:

1-3 vs. Ohio State
1-3 vs. Michigan State
0-2 vs. Wisconsin
0-2 vs. Penn State
1-3 vs. Iowa
1-1 vs. Nebraska

The thought that Denard "put up impressive career numbers" ignores the fact that he fattened up his stats on the Big Ten also-rans, and was wholly unable to lead his team to anything resembling respectability against teams with a pulse.

Whereas the Bucks and key Buckeye players only fattened their stats against the cream (pretty thin cream lately, but hey...) of the Big 10? And victories are won only by QBs? Come on.

The guy accounted for 91 TDs and more than 10K yards of total offense while playing on some of the weakest teams in recent Michigan history.

In a comparable period of time, playing for much better Ohio State teams, Terrell Pryor managed 74 TDs and 9,341yds of total offense.

Seems to me that both were great players.

 

[TheStoicPaisano]

Whereas the Bucks and key Buckeye players only fattened their stats against the cream (pretty thin cream lately, but hey...) of the Big 10? And victories are won only by QBs? Come on.

The guy accounted for 91 TDs and more than 10K yards of total offense while playing on some of the weakest teams in recent Michigan history.

In a comparable period of time, playing for much better Ohio State teams, Terrell Pryor managed 74 TDs and 9,341yds of total offense.

Seems to me that both were great players.

How is it a comparable period of time when one guy didn't even play his senior year?

 

[buckeyesin07]

Whereas the Bucks and key Buckeye players only fattened their stats against the cream (pretty thin cream lately, but hey...) of the Big 10? And victories are won only by QBs? Come on.

Are you really suggesting that QBs aren't regularly judged on their teams' win-loss records? Come on.

The guy accounted for 91 TDs and more than 10K yards of total offense while playing on some of the weakest teams in recent Michigan history.

In a comparable period of time, playing for much better Ohio State teams, Terrell Pryor managed 74 TDs and 9,341yds of total offense.

You are aware that Robinson played 4 years and Pryor only played 3, right? And I notice your stats don't mention INTs.

BTW--Pryor's win-loss record was 31-4. But I guess that doesn't matter at all.

 

[Muck]

What "everyone" is saying is that part of being a good quarterback is being able to win games, against both good teams and bad.

Vince motherfukin' Young.

 

[cincibuck]

Are you really suggesting that QBs aren't regularly judged on their teams' win-loss records? Come on.

You are aware that Robinson played 4 years and Pryor only played 3, right? And I notice your stats don't mention INTs.

BTW--Pryor's win-loss record was 31-4. But I guess that doesn't matter at all.

Both were starting qbs for most of 3 seasons. Pryor played for a much more talented, much better coached, team than Robinson. One of them was a big part in his school being ineligible for a bowl game, his coach fired and teammates punished.