sick of people saying that Michigan is a 1man team

[hungry]

What a crock! I guess Denard was out there playing D and getting those turnovers? Did I miss the fact that the MIchigan D limited SDSU to 7 points? Sure, they had some yards...I think we all know how much good yards do.

The defense is out there playing. The other players are out there blocking. Vince Smith had a nice little day out there.

Its a TEAM!

just sick of it

 

[jever4321]

Yep, announcers aren't helping either. On game day corso called the score something like San Diego State 19, Denard Robinson 30.

 

[michdad1]

What a crock! I guess Denard was out there playing D and getting those turnovers? Did I miss the fact that the MIchigan D limited SDSU to 7 points? Sure, they had some yards...I think we all know how much good yards do.

The defense is out there playing. The other players are out there blocking. Vince Smith had a nice little day out there.

Its a TEAM!

just sick of it

I agree, and they also don't have any receivers.

 

[rito67]

Some of the callers on 97.1 yesterday after the game were pretty annoying as well...or dumb...had to turn it off.

 

[hungry]

Yep, announcers aren't helping either. On game day corso called the score something like San Diego State 19, Denard Robinson 30.

That's exactly what I'm talking about

 

[jever4321]

Yep, announcers aren't helping either. On game day corso called the score something like San Diego State 19, Denard Robinson 30.

That's exactly what I'm talking about

Pretty annoying, I agree.

 

[dubbsco]

In some messed up way, that may motivate the defense to play even harder.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I think what they mean is that we would lose without Denard. Sure it wasn't Denard who did anything defensivly, but there's a pretty good chance we have at least 1 loss if denard wasn't in the game at all.

 

[bphillips4gg]

I think what they mean is that we would lose without Denard. Sure it wasn't Denard who did anything defensivly, but there's a pretty good chance we have at least 1 loss if denard wasn't in the game at all.

I know nobody has seen enough of Gardner to really make an accurate assessment of his skills, but I'd bet the offense would run just fine with him in there. Obviously, he doesn't have the running ability that Denard does, but I bet he wouldn't miss open receivers over and over again.

The ND game is a perfect example of both sides of the argument. If Michigan had a QB that didn't overthrow wide open receivers multiple times, they probably don't have to overcome a major deficite late. If they're in that position anyway, I like their chances with Denard running the ball.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I think what they mean is that we would lose without Denard. Sure it wasn't Denard who did anything defensivly, but there's a pretty good chance we have at least 1 loss if denard wasn't in the game at all.

I know nobody has seen enough of Gardner to really make an accurate assessment of his skills, but I'd bet the offense would run just fine with him in there. Obviously, he doesn't have the running ability that Denard does, but I bet he wouldn't miss open receivers over and over again.

The ND game is a perfect example of both sides of the argument. If Michigan had a QB that didn't overthrow wide open receivers multiple times, they probably don't have to overcome a major deficite late. If they're in that position anyway, I like their chances with Denard running the ball.

True, but a huge reason a lot of the receivers are wide open is that they don't respect the pass so they're loading the box to just try and stop denard. And without Denard I'm not sure we have enough of a running threat or a passing threat to really do enough damage to keep up with some teams. ND definitely would have been a loss.

 

[tsbilly]

Sick of people saying the sky is blue

 

[hockeywings]

Without Denard, we don't have those open receivers imo...

 

[mgoblu976]

I think ESPN and other sports media are just trying to make a story to report on. Just about every team in the nation has a marquis player that would swing their season either way. Everyone on this board knows it's The TEAM, The Team, The Team!

 

[tsbilly]

I think ESPN and other sports media are just trying to make a story to report on. Just about every team in the nation has a marquis player that would swing their season either way. Everyone on this board knows it's The TEAM, The Team, The Team!

This year it think, "It's the coaches, the coaches, the coaches."

 

[bphillips4gg]

I know nobody has seen enough of Gardner to really make an accurate assessment of his skills, but I'd bet the offense would run just fine with him in there. Obviously, he doesn't have the running ability that Denard does, but I bet he wouldn't miss open receivers over and over again.

The ND game is a perfect example of both sides of the argument. If Michigan had a QB that didn't overthrow wide open receivers multiple times, they probably don't have to overcome a major deficite late. If they're in that position anyway, I like their chances with Denard running the ball.

True, but a huge reason a lot of the receivers are wide open is that they don't respect the pass so they're loading the box to just try and stop denard. And without Denard I'm not sure we have enough of a running threat or a passing threat to really do enough damage to keep up with some teams. ND definitely would have been a loss.

First off, saying that ND is definately a loss is ridiculous. You don't know, nobody really knows.

Second, take Denard out and put in a better passer (again, don't know yet of DG is actually better), some of those defenders in the box are out of there. Opens up the running game for Smith/Fitz/Shaw/Hopkins/whoever else.

Like I said before, nobody knows what would've happened against ND without Denard. But they sure as hell weren't very happy with his performance during that game up until the very end.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

True, but a huge reason a lot of the receivers are wide open is that they don't respect the pass so they're loading the box to just try and stop denard. And without Denard I'm not sure we have enough of a running threat or a passing threat to really do enough damage to keep up with some teams. ND definitely would have been a loss.

First off, saying that ND is definately a loss is ridiculous. You don't know, nobody really knows.

Second, take Denard out and put in a better passer (again, don't know yet of DG is actually better), some of those defenders in the box are out of there. Opens up the running game for Smith/Fitz/Shaw/Hopkins/whoever else.

Like I said before, nobody knows what would've happened against ND without Denard. But they sure as hell weren't very happy with his performance during that game up until the very end.

You're right, I don't know - it was more of an "IMO - ND is a definite loss". I could see a situation where you put denard at a RB/slot but taking him out all together - I just don't think we have the players to win a game like that outside of Denard; mostly at RB. In order to get the pass game going you need a running game and without any of our RB's really stepping up I don't think we would have much of a running game without denard. Again just my opinion.

 

[deathroh]

I'm pretty sure Michigan has had some open receivers before Denard enrolled.

 

[hungry]

I'm pretty sure Michigan has had some open receivers before Denard enrolled.

Yep

Don't get me wrong. Denard is the star of the team, but he is part of a team. He couldn't do any of the things he's doing on his own and there is a defense out there when he is not. You can point to most teams in the NCAA and say, "they wouldn't be as good without that one player." That doesn't mean they are all 1man teams.

 

[beez]

The worst part is that fans of other schools say "Michigan's a one man team..all they have is Denard." ..then when you bring up Denard as one of the better players in the country they say he sucks and he can't throw and if such n such quarterback got to run that many times, they'd have those yards..blah blah blah.

 

[Michchamp]

The worst part is that fans of other schools say "Michigans a one man team..all they have is Denard." ..then when you bring up Denard as one of the better players in the ocuntry they say he sucks and he can't throw and if such n such quarter back got to run that many itmes, they'd have those yards..blah blah blah.

I think you hit upon the real issue here: the people saying these things are really, really stupid, and when it comes to football don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Therefore, no one should pay attention to them.