ESPN: RR to use 3 qb in first game.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4417543
All I can say is I hope we have a substantial lead in the game early on to use all 3 qb.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
If you have three QBs competing for the starting spot, is there any way you wouldn't say this? Let's see what happens if you declare a starter right now:
1. You discourage the other two that you don't expect to use but might have to if there is an injury
2. You (might) let the starter's guard down a little
3. You help opponents prepare for you
I read anything that starts with "at this point" as "mind your own business".
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:13 PM ^
I think there is benefit to naming a starter right now as well. It gives the team a guy to get behind and support. It also allows you to give more reps to that guy, so he is more prepared come game day.
If other players get discouraged by a different guy being named starter, then they are probably not the type of players you want playing for you to begin with. I would hope they would get fired up to prove their worth more.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:13 PM ^
I don't like this news at all. I'm sorry to say but I really don't want Sheridan playing this year.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 PM ^
Too bad, it's not your call.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:24 PM ^
I always just thought this was just another one of the running jokes on the board. He seriously doesn't tie his laces? Holy shit.Robinson became the story of media day because he hasn't tied the laces of his cleats since he started playing football at the age of 7. It hasn't slowed him down. He starred for Deerfield Beach High School last season and at the Florida 4A track and field championships. Michigan makes Robinson tape his ankles for practice, but doesn't plan to force him to tie his laces for games.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 PM ^
Talk about living up to your nickname.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:24 PM ^
Having to play 2 to decide who the starter is seems pretty normal. Having to play 3 seems equally abnormal.
If he in fact does play all three, as a pre-game plan, to determine who should be the starter, is there any precedent for this? Does anyone remember any other coaches ever not been able to narrow the choice down to at least 2 by Sept?
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^
Tennessee back in either 1999 or 2000, playing thee quarterbacks in their first game. I dont remember if that was the game plan or if it was just a case of the starter sucking.
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^
In 2007, Charlie Weis didn't name a starter until the day before the opener against GT (IIRC). The three in the mix were Clausen, Demetrius Jones, and Evan Sharpley, and they all played in the first game. Jones was the "starter", but as most of you remember, he had left the program less than two weeks later.
(edit: irish explained this more fully about 20 posts down)
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:30 PM ^
the player that RichRod believes gives the team the best chance to win. I know that statment sounds so PC, but RR knows SOOOO much more about this than anyone on this board except Chitown.
After last season, RR will never put a QB on the field that he doesn't think he can win with. The starter will be the one he and the other coaches beileve can win the game.
Like most herem I believe DRob and Tate bring more ability and talent to the table than Sheridan (sorry Brodie). BUT, Sheridan has a full season of the Spread-n-Shred as well a full year of Barwis. Fom a experience standpoint Nick should be able to see what's happening on the field quicker than the freshes. But being able to execute is the no. 1 key in this offense.
No matter who starts Sept. 5, I trust RR's decision here. If all three play, it won't be because RichRod doesn't KNOW who his best QB is.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 PM ^
Of course RR will use 3 QBs. Tate and Denard will split reps while Nicolette holds the clipboard.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:35 PM ^
...his desired College Football preseason, it seems that Coach Rodriguez is nonetheless going to install a preseason gameplan.
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:57 PM ^
If DEATH sees the field at all - I will either be very disappointed or extremely angry (b/c that would mean either Tate or "Nard Dogg" would have to be injured).
Here's hoping Tate can handle the pressure and Denard can come in and provide a change of pace.
[Edit - Neg bangs for this, really? Sherdian's family must be avid readers of this blog]
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 PM ^
1. "Nard Dogg"
2. Calling a 21 year old "DEATH"
Various reasons others may neg you...
A. Whining about points (I had already negged you, so this wasn't my reasoning)
B. Beavis avatar (Just throwing it out there)
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 PM ^
The second g was really excessive.
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:31 PM ^
And how can Sheridan represent the great oblivion when he keeps cheating it (in depth-chart terms)? He keeps coming back despite injuries and having to compete against scholarship players better suited for the offense. Maybe he should be called "Rasputin."
August 24th, 2009 at 11:45 AM ^
Maybe he should be called "Rasputin."Unfortunately, that name conjures images of a certain coke-head Lions coach. Damn you Chris Berman!
August 24th, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^
Calling Fontes a coke head gives the impression that there were people who weren't doing coke in that era.
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:48 PM ^
is that Sheridan is getting a real chance to compete for the position after his putrid performance last year. They're giving him a second chance to redeem himself, but it'll be short lived if both Forcier/Robinson do not just look totally lost out there. That is possible, however. Forcier and Robinson have a total of zero collegiate snaps. You never know how they will react until gametime. If Sheridan did deserve a second chance, at least there'll be a game manager out there to properly hand the ball off to the 4 Rbs and have them and the line carry the offense.
August 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 PM ^
The adage says that if you've got two, then you've got none. Nobody ever said anything about three though.
August 23rd, 2009 at 5:34 PM ^
I don't like this news; not because I don't want to see Sheridan (let the best QB for the job play), but because it seems to me that this is supposed to be the time to iron out who should be the starter -- NOT during the game. Yes, it is possible that they are so close that they can't make a decision, but I can see the juggling of QBs at the outset seriously upsetting the rhythm with the receivers, etc.
Who knows -- it could be just RR's way of motivating the QB's, but I don't like hearing that he's decided to be completely indecisive about this, especially this early on.
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 PM ^
Weis played 3 QBs in our starter in 2007 vs. Georgia Tech. That was a long QB battle that wasn't really settled till week 6. The first QB change came after the half when Demetrius Jones was pulled for Sharpley to get some time and then finally Clausen in the 4th.
Now It was pretty obvious halfway through the 3rd that the QB change wasn't going to lead to a comeback. And that may have been the motivation to even give the 2nd and 3rd guys a look, but getting all 3 out there really painted a picture of where ND was compared to quality teams.
I don't really know what to make of RR's comments on everyone getting snaps in game 1 but it will be interesting to follow. If he was really trying to motivate them wouldn't he have said there is 1 guy beginning to distance himself and not say who. I mean he says all 3 will get snaps wouldn't that tell you if you were one of them that your safe? Doesn't that just say your doing enough to stay in the picture? I agree with your skepticism.
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 PM ^
Agreed. I just don't like this either. I was really hoping that Forcier was distancing himself, along with Denard being used in certain situations.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:00 PM ^
I don't think that RR is being indecisive considering it's just two weeks into practice looking at two pure freshmen who haven't seen one second of college ball. I think it would be unwise to anoint either Tate or Denard the presumptive starter at this early stage; the staff simply hasn't seen enough work by either quarterback. Besides, if it were so blindingly obvious that either Tate or Denard was the only guy capable of leading the offense, that would not be a good thing from the standpoint of depth.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 PM ^
Yes, but why come right out and say, "Yeah, we're going to play all three QBs during game one," especially this early during camp.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 PM ^
Did he actually say that? The article only quotes him a couple of times at the end, and they don't have him saying anything that direct.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 PM ^
More or less, yes. Hence this entire thread.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 PM ^
The ESPN article has no actual quote from him to that effect. I checked the Free Press article and found this:
“In what order and how many, I couldn’t tell you,” Rodriguez said. “Right now, all three of them look like they’re going to play in the opener.”
That's not necessarily a guarantee that all three will play.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 PM ^
As I said earlier in the thread, he also said there are still 2 weeks left and a lot can happen by then.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 PM ^
"That's not necessarily a guarantee that all three will play."
After seeing the quote, I agree, but would take it a step further and say that it doesn't even mean 2 will play. I think he was just saying that all 3 are currently playing at a high level. He was talking in the present tense but using starting as a way to judge how they look now (comparing how they look now against the criteria of starting in the WVU game). All 3, right now, look like they could play, not necessarily like they will play.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:55 PM ^
I can see three Qbs playing. Tate and Denard take snaps and Sheridan is the placeholder for kicks. I don't think that is far fetched.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^
Has to be the most fickle group of folks evah. We all (mostly) started off proclaiming Forcier our savior, then the Sheridan rumblings started gaining traction; people recoiled in horror at first, then quietly accepted it was possible. Now, it's all about Denard babby!
I'm going to crawl in a hole til Sat. September 5th, when I emerge to take my seats at the Big House.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:54 PM ^
I think RR knows what he his doing so i will trust him