So, I don't know if you guys were aware of this, but Denard Robinson broke Pat White's all-time rushing yards record for QB's yesterday with his 100 yard performance against the Gamecocks. Denard now has 4,495 yards to White's 4,480.
But, here's the thing; Denard wasn't lined up as QB for every play that he carried the ball, both yesterday and in the previous games since his return to the field post-injury. He's been lining up as QB, tailback, and some at receiver (I believe). Michigan though contends that all of his yardage should be counted as part of the total because Robinson was "listed" as quarterback (despite barely playing it). My guess is that they wanted him to achieve the record and thus just kept him listed as QB. But does this mean they had 2 QB's listed, or did they have Gardner still listed as WR?
It's not a huge deal to me, just thought I'd toss it out to see what you guys think.
Yes, he played QB for like 95% of the snaps in his career.
Don't disagree, but the contention is on the last 300 yards or so of this year.
It's a small piece of the puzzle. And i'm certain almost every other QB on that list or that has come close had plays that they lined up in different positions.
I imagine you're correct on that.
Yes. Only because it will be that much better when Brax breaks Drobs record in a couple years!
We all love brax, but that's not happening. And i'm certain it's better for us if he doesn't have to break that record for us to be dominate.
No...all those yards should not qualify. Or I wanna list Christian Bryant as a QB, he played qb in high school, so he can lead the nation in tackles by a QB. No...that's stupid. Someone else took the snap and handed to u. U are not a quarterback at that point. Great post tennbuckeye!
"Anything less than flagrant is just playing grab ass!"
Heck no! It doesn't make any sense for him to have a record for a position he did not play at the time. How can you accumulate stats for a position you did not play?
I like to believe that my best hits border on felonious assault.
JACK TATUM
Pure Michigan...
Yes. He got a lot of yards as a QB, despite being a glorified RB anyway. I won't get hung up on the last few, even if it is Robinson.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
This might be the best point raised, regarding the issue.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
So did Pat White, though. And he was always a QB. Why does he not deserve the keep the record when he actually, in fact, had more yards as a QB?
I'm not comfortable punishing the guy because his coaches saw a way to put he and Gardener on the field. If we take away the yards he got while lining up behind the QB, we come off as nit picky. What if he lines up at RB and takes a direct snap? Do we eliminate those? What if he's the QB but gets the ball on a triple reverse or something, do we lose those because he becomes a runner? At what point does it stop.
If this isn't Denard, this conversation isn't happening. The guy ran the ball a ton and took a lot of hits over 4 years-he's earned this record in my humble opinion.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Who the hell gave me -1?
And I understand Denard has run the ball a ton and took a lot hits. Pat White did the exact same thing. Personally, I couldn't care less if this was Denard. If this was Braxton, I'd say it wasn't fair. By definition, the record isn't his, as it's rushing yards by a QB. When you line up as a RB or WR, you're not a QB anymore.
Someone always abuses the downvoting if they disagree with you. You should get used to just acceptin 1-2 downvotes if you disagree with someone. I personally disagree greatly with you, he lined up as QB multiple times, he just didn't start or throw in some of those games. He also lined up in a few other positions. Had he started at QB those games he would have gained even more yards than he did in his flex role.
If a RB lines up and takes a direct snap does it make him a QB? No, we call it a wildcat formation and note that the RB just took the ball even though there was no "QB" on the field. Same here, Denard played the same role he did before he just got the ball a different way. Denard is a NCAA QB, that is his position, he was a converted QB to WR/RB the last few games. He simply played the same role he did prior slightely different.
Again, he would have gained significantly more yards (and thrown a ton of INT's :) ) had he started QB rather than played his flex role where he could pass/run/catch. Denard is a QB, not a very good one lucky for us, but he is one.
I am sure one can find many a play Pat White did not line up at QB with those yards. He played QB pretty much all of his career and only an injury caused him to play out of position (well, he sucked at QB too, but the reasoning was he was injured as a reason to start Gardner). If he gained 300 or so yards playing a flex position that is a drop in the bucket compared to 4500 yards he gained. Frankly, he would have gained MORE yards at the QB position putting the ball in his hands more and giving him more chances. To argue that it somehow helped him is rediculous...
Side note, usually Wiki is updated immediatly by some fan with new things like this... but no one has cared enough to update Denard's page ;)
Yeah, that's why I'm not too torn up about this. You're right, if he had played QB and had the ball in his hands more, he would've had more yards and would've broken the record by more than just 15 yards. Of course, he would've also had more fumbles & arm-punt interceptions, too.
I wouldn't even have known about this had it not been for an LA Times blurb I read about it this morning.
It's a shame he wasn't at QB to give our defense the ball over and over ;)
I agree w/ Brewster! I find it hard to get the least bit worked up about this. Although it's a completely misleading stat based on the fact that he played RB the last couple/few games of his career, let us be reminded that at the end of the day Baby Whoopi Gholdberg still sucks, and so does the team he played for.
Remember that in the end you will be judged not by what you believed, planned or dreamed; but, by what you did.
WOW!! Denard broke....Yaawwwnnnn...z....zz....Z...ZZZ.....ZZZZ...
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
One of the best QBs in the Wolverqueens history (College speaking, not including pro careers) gets moved to RB, gotta love that.
No way Braxton beats his record though, we'll have too many weapons.
I don't know if it's totally wrong, but I'll definitely bring it up anytime a scUM fan tries to tell me that Denard holds this record or that he's better than Brax.
The only Denard record I care for is 1-3.
Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.
" * " for that one win. It took damn near an apocolypse (OSU turmoil) for TSUN to finally break their losing streak to us...
And was still within Devier Posey being a step faster or Braxton being a yard softer on his throw from losing THAT one.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Still waiting for Brax to get his long ball touch.
The skunk weasels have something to show for their season. Brax needs 2,510 yards.
Nothing like dancing on the field in 02...
couple things...first i agree with allday028, that hopefully braxton shouldn't have to break the record for us to be successful. he's 95% of their offense when lined up at qb, which we shouldn't need with urban's recruiting. second, denard started for 3 years, whereas pat white did for four (and braxton likely will). you may not like him, but give him some credit. i also think that had he not gotten hurt, he would have continued to line up at qb (to horrible effect), but broken the record by a much more comfortable margin than he did. that being said, i still know exactly which qb i'd rather have behind center. and he's the one who didn't throw the same number of interceptions as touchdowns this year
Yes, had he not gotten hurt, he probably has the record (still at QB) by the time Michigan rolls into Columbus.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
Who cares... I just love that these meaningless records are all Wolverqueen Nation has to try to be happy about in this era.
D. Anthony
hhhmm d.anthony you must have struck a aacc nerve, i just upvoted you
When's the last time he threw a pass. Even Navy's QB throws it at least once a game.
won't matter soon anyways. Manziel or someone else will soon break it and Robinson will soon be forgotten. QB rushing records will be broken more and more as the position morphs into elite runners. It will actually be the passing records that may stand a lot longer.
Plus I would prefer Braxton breaking some passing records and not worry about this one. Braxton can do a few other things Denard didn't, win an NC and a Heisman. Eat that cereal!
Agreed that he would have had more yards if the injury never happened. However I also have an issue with that record being his. Its hard to justify the yards from his last few games when the majority of them came on either receptions or from him taking a handoff or pitch from Gardner. Regardless, I don't really care one way or the other.
"Michigan and "huge mistake" are synonymous"
-Mark Titus
I look at it like this: Whether or not you think Denard was a good QB (we could debate for years), he will be remembered as a Quarterback. Not a receiver. Not a running back. Whether or not the system is flawed, it's total rushing yards for said player. If 3 games out of 39 games started playing a position other than QB constitutes him not being a QB, than this should not be his record.
Like others said, it's not going to stand long. Whenever a spread team has a great running QB and he starts 3-4 complete seasons, it will be surpassed. Imagine if RichRod's offense was still in place...
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
I'm just glad OSU doesn't have to face him anymore :)
Still blows my mind that RR started Forcier over Robinson back in the day.
It is crazy. Tate was supposed to be great. Denard was supposed to be a great athlete---facing what he's facing now---no one thought he could be a QB at the next level. Tate enrolled early, Denard arrived in Summer/Fall. Denard wasn't able to pickup the playbook and was used in limited ways. Still, crazy he wasn't used as something other than QB when Tate was there. It's not like Grady or Minor were great, even if they were supposed to be.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
Certainly you know much better than I do but I seem to remember Kurt Coleman intercepting a Tate Forcier pass that was intended for Denard Robinson down the sideline in The Game. So they used Denard at least in a limited roll when Tate was in at QB.
Why are we always so concerned with what Michigan is doing? 4 Active posts are in specific regards to Michigan. This makes us look like we envy them or something...
The reason I posted about this in the first place was because I found it interesting. I personally don't care if Denard has the record or not. The yards in question amount to about 6% of his career total, so it's not even a significant amount of his overall yardage. And some of that 6% was yardage gained from the Qb position, so the percentage of "contention" yards would be even less. I didn't even know he'd broken the record until I saw this written about by the LA Times, and they were questioning it, so I thought I'd bring it up here and just see what you guys thought.
I am not really talking about your post, but more the comments. I just feel like lately all we do is talk about Michigan.
I haven't been there, but I imagine they have 4 open posts on Urban alone.
What is the 6% based on?
I don't care as long is they are all counted the same way.
The 6% is the last 300 or so yards he had rushing this year of the 4,495 total QB rushing yards he's given credit for. But not all yards were gained from the QB position.
I watched a lot of Pat White and Co. but don't recall him lining up as a running back.
I agree with the point you are making.
He may have 4495 yards rushing but he will always be 1-3 in games that matter.