Devin’s Burned Redshirt and Michigan’s 2011 Schedule
Last week, I was an outspoken member of the camp that found itself a little bit baffled by Coach Rod’s decision to burn Devin Gardner’s redshirt. The thought process went something like, “why burn a year of eligibility for a projected stud when we currently have two very good options at QB who are only 1 year ahead of Devin?”
Then I took another long look at our post-realignment 2011 schedule. After studying it, I think I understand what Coach Rodriguez, Dave Brandon and the athletic department are thinking.
9/3 – vs. Western Michigan (Big House)
9/10 – vs. Notre Dame (8 p.m.) (Big House)
9/17 – vs. Eastern Michigan (Big House)
9/24 – vs. San Diego State (Big House)
10/1 – Minnesota (Big House)
10/8 – @ Northwestern
10/15 – @ Michigan State
10/22 – BYE
10/29 – Purdue (Big House)
11/5 – @ Iowa
11/12 – @ Illinois
11/19 – Nebraska (Big House)
11/26 – Ohio State (Big House)
What they’re thinking is that Bo himself could not have designed a more perfect, more balanced, BCS-friendly schedule than what we have in 2011, and they’re thinking that with the starters we have returning in 2011, it may be a while before we find ourselves in such a favorable situation again.
To break it down:
What makes the schedule competitive in a BCS-sense?
- Legit opponents: We play Nebraska and Notre Dame. Coupled with our traditional Big Ten opponents like Iowa and OSU, this is a very legit schedule that can’t be attacked as too soft by anybody
- Prime time: We play Notre Dame at the Big House under the lights on prime time TV. This will be the MOST-WATCHED REGULAR-SEASON GAME OF 2011, period. All the AP voters will either be on hand or tuned in, and since it’s a prime time game, many of the other FCS coaches (think Coaches’ Poll) will catch it.
What makes the schedule favorable to Michigan?
- 8 home games: there are only four “@” symbols on that 12-game schedule.
- Absent opponents: neither Wisconsin nor Penn State appear on our schedule
- Home-court advantage: we get Notre Dame, Nebraska, and OSU at the Big House .
- We play who we know: two of our cupcake opponents are WMU and EMU. Our 2011 starters played (and dominated) both of them just last year. The fact that we’re playing someone we know makes it less likely that either of them could sneak up on us and pull off the upset or even just cause us to struggle in a way that could hurt our ranking.
What should we be concerned about?
- NEBthen OSU: we play Nebraska and Ohio State back-to-back. This is probably the least favorable aspect of this schedule for Michigan. The one saving grace is that we get them both at home.
- Iowa City: we have to travel to Iowa, but we competed very hard in Iowa City last year against the best Hawkeye squad anyone has seen in a long time. They can’t all be home games, and if we had to choose to play 1 road game against Iowa, ND, Nebraska and OSU and get the others at home, I think a majority of Michigan fans would chose Iowa.
Other favorables
- Returning starters on offense: most of this year’s offense returns next year. We only loose Schilling and Dorrestein. Molk, Lewan, Omahmeh, Roundtree, Stonum and Koger will all be back, as will Denard and our entire stable of running backs
- Upperclassmen on offense: our offensive starters will be loaded with upperclassmen for the first time since 2007. Lewan will be the only underclassman (as a redshirt sophomore)
- Returning starters on defense: Martin, RVB, Roh, Woolfolk, Floyd and Kovacs will all be back.
- Running Backs: our talented stable of running backs will be more experienced (and, hopefully, we’ll have a certain freshman from Orlando, FL)
So what does all this have to do with Devin Gardner?
What all this means is that Rodriguez is hedging his bets because he knows that you can’t squander an opportunity like the one we have in 2011.
As phenomenal as Denard has been playing, the fact remains that Devin Gardner is and always has been projected (key word) to develop into a better option at Quarterback once he learns the system. He’s bigger (and presumably less likely to get hurt) than Denard, he has all the physical tools, he appears to be a more refined passer, he’s better with the long ball, and he has the mobility to succeed in RR’s system.
Now, it might turn out that Devin is a better option at QB than Denard after fall camp, and it might not. But given how favorable this schedule is, the last thing you want to do is risk putting yourself in a position where your best option at QB has never taken a collegiate snap before during a year when you’re trying to make a serious championship run.
Hence, Devin Gardner’s burned redshirt.
Rodriguez is hedging his bets and getting Devin reps now so that the learning curve is well behind him by the start of the 2011 season. If Devin out-competes Denard for the job, the bonus is that we get to have Devin and Denard on the field at the same time since the offense will find room for Denard either in the slot or at tailback. Who knows…by then Denard might embrace the idea if it looks like a position change is his best shot at making the pros.
On the other hand, if Denard continues to improve and turns out to still be our best option at QB at the start of the 2011 season, then all is still well since it would mean that he beat out a projected stud. It would also mean that Devin would be entering the 2011 season with some snaps under his belt ready to step in at a moment’s notice if 2 years of running the QB draw in the Big Ten catches up with Denard and he has to come out at any point during the season.
Conclusion
In sum, 2011 is the perfect storm for Michigan in terms of favorable schedule and returning starters. Even the angry Michigan-hating God himself is going to have trouble keeping Michigan out of BCS contention in 2011. This is a rare opportunity that the coaching staff knows it can’t squander, and for these reasons, burning Devin’s redshirt was the right decision.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^
Before reading all of this, I already have to contest the idea that Dave Brandon or anyone else in the department that's not RichRod or his direct coaching staff had any influence on deciding not to redshirt Devin.
EDIT: After reading the rest, I still contest that Devin was played simply because he was the second best QB. He beat out Forcier, so he plays. The best players play and you win now, and worry about 201X later.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
I mean, what exactly had DG done to help us win a game this year? Ok, he's taken, what, 4 snaps and not turned the ball over. Ok, yeah, that's good but TF could have easily done the same thing. Until we're at the point where it's TF vs DG for the starting job there's no reason to burn his redshirt. You shouldn't be burning a redshirt on a guy when the starter is just a sophmore and obviously has a stranglehold on the starting QB job.
September 13th, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^
I mean, what exactly had DG done to help us win a game this year? Ok, he's taken, what, 4 snaps and not turned the ball over. Ok, yeah, that's good but TF could have easily done the same thing.
Really? In both situations the game was still at hand. There was no way of knowing how long the back up QB would play in either scenario. DG is the second best QB and with the game in the balance, if your started goes out you put in the best remaining option.
You can argue that he's not the best remaining option, but the staff has clearly shown they believe he's a better option than Tate, so there's no leg left to stand on. Your job is to win and worry about the 2013 starter in 2013.
September 13th, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
Against UConn the end of the quarter was coming up so we knew we'd have time to figure out exactly what's going on with DRob and against ND we were playing at ND - that's great to get him the experience of a few snaps in hostile territory but, as you said, the game was still in question so why, even if DG is a little bit better, would you put him in a situation like that when you've got a 12 game starter who showed last year to have ice in his veins to have him run, what, zone reads?
Yeah, we saw what a great idea that was to burn redshirts on pointless crap all through Lloyd's tenure and it came back to bite us the past two years with guys running out of eligibility because they played on special teams for a year. Personally I don't know why DG (barring actual, read: more than two plays, injury) wouldn't ask for a redshirt with how DRob has cemented the starting job. We're not talking about a guy who you might beat out, we're talking about a guy who just demolished Michigan QB records in his first two games. Given the option of having 1 year as a starter and 3 years of playing backup or 2 years as a starter I don't know what NFL bound QB wouldn't take the latter. If he has a super stud of a year as a RS Junior then he can leave for the NFL - if he doesn't and/or just wants to come back for another year of being the big man on campus he can. If he limits himself to just 1 year and we have a down year he's screwed.
Of course all of that goes out the window if DRob gets injured and misses considerable amounts of time but up to this point we're not talking about that...
And yes, I know the coaching staff thinks he's the better option and he quite probably is but that's not the point - hasn't anyone else played NCAA Football? If you have a clear cut sophmore starter and a backup that's, say, an 83 why would you waste a year of eligibility on an 84 when his peak is going to be considerably higher than the 83 backup who's in his second year? (i.e. DG as true senior = say, 94 whereas DG as RS Junior = 94 and RS Senior = 96/97)
September 13th, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^
My sarcasm meter may be broken. Did you really argue that redshirting Devin would be equivalent to gaining 3 overall points like in the video game.
Is that really your argument?
Like I said, if RR looks four years into the future and tries to predict X, Y, and Z then he probably ends up losing games and looking for a new job.
By now we should all know that depth charts are not at all consistent as expected for 4 years. Real life != NCAA football!
September 14th, 2010 at 8:05 AM ^
Because we all know that players don't get better over time. I mean, I don't know why we don't burn every single redshirt because having 5 years instead of 4 will never result in the player being better...
Is your argument really that 4 years in the system is better than 5? If so I want some of what you've been smoking. (I threw out 3 points as an example, I have no idea what equivalent would be in the game but it's completely idiotic and ignorant of the history of the redshirt to say that 4 years > 5 years)
Also, again, please tell me how, thus far, burning DG's redshirt has saved us a game? In a number of aspects looking 4 years into the future might cost you a game but, thus far, there is no comprehendable argument for DG's non-redshirt saving us a game.
September 14th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
September 14th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
Isn't that exactly what we tell people when we redshirt them now? And it's not 5 years. It's "Hey, you can sit on the bench and be a backup for 3 years and have 1 year of eligibility to make your case as an NFL caliber player or you can redshirt this year, let the other players gain a year and then have 2 years as a starter to increase your draft stock and be the big man on campus."
Right now what do we tell the guys we redshirt? We tell them exactly what you said so I'm really lost as to how that's insulting - I suppose we should ask all the guys that redshirt why they do it or even stay at UM if it's so insulting.
Can we redshirt Tate then since everyone seems to think it's insulting to redshirt DG? It's a huge waste to not redshirt at least 1 of them (barring DRob injury) since they are both very, very good QB's.
September 14th, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^
Not sure what we tell recruits about redshirting, but your opinion about showcasing does make sense. Not trying to point out the obvious about reshirting reasons, I am sure they explained that they arent ready either physically or mentally prepared to help the team. That's the only reason to reshirt in my book. As I said lower down on this post. If a player is ready and can play, why not play them in any role. To not, I think would turn alot of recruits off. All major recruits think they can play pretty much right away and if they prove it in the offseason, why hold them back, just so they can play one more year for the school. Although that sounds great, the averages would point to most talented guys to not stay for their last reshirt year or leave early.
September 14th, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
September 13th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
I think you've overthought this concept.
Rodriguez thinks Gardner is good enough to play this year. So, he's playing. I'm pretty sure that was the upward limit of the thought process into whether to burn Gardner's redshirt.
September 15th, 2010 at 1:08 AM ^
This isn't a difficult concept. Rodriguez promised Devin a chance to compete. Devin competed, won the #2 job and, when Denard was out for minor injuries, played. Devin is our #2. That's not bashing Tate, but Devin has the tools to compete, and proved himself in Spring and Fall camp, not unlike Forcier last year. Forcier didn't have game experience and tore it up the first four games. Freshmen can compete.
Also, don't be surprised if we see Devin lining up at receiver and Denard at QB or vice-vera. Rodriguez has some flexibility here that may be utilized against Iowa/Wisky/OSU...
September 13th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
But none of this has anything to do with Devin's redshirt
September 13th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^
You may be overthinking this a little bit, i don't think RichRod has a plan to replace Denard after the last two weeks. That just seems silly
September 13th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
Wow. That's not what the original post is saying at all.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^
Before the UConn game, I went on the record predicting a Big Ten title in 2011. I stand by that prediction.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
There's no reason, at this point, to burn his redshit. None at all. Whatever snaps he has gotten in the last 2 games are pointless and aren't going to magically make him a better QB should, God forbid, DRob goes down with an injury. Tate should be the backup and DG should be redshirted, end of story. Even beyond that with how DRob is performing it makes an even less coherent case for not redshirting DG. I'm just annoyed we're wasting a full year of eligibility and quite possibly a top 5 UM team because he's upset that Tate didn't workout over the summer.
Now, should DRob go down with an injury and miss more than a quarter we can visit this again but, at this point, it's a stupid decision.
September 13th, 2010 at 5:45 PM ^
and the more I hear the opposite arguments the more I am convinced this is true.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
He is playing DG now because (1) he is good enough, (2) he is a better fit in this offense than Tate is (and closer to the Denard model), (3) he expects that he will need him this year in a relief role and (4) he is more concerned (and rightfully so) about winning this year than protecting DGs redshirt. If Gardner is that good, what makes you think that he will stick around for 5 years anyway. We also have 2 or 3 years to find another QB to take over after Devin leaves.
September 14th, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^
I'm just annoyed we're wasting a full year of eligibility and quite possibly a top 5 UM team because he's upset that Tate didn't workout over the summer.
This is pure speculation on your part, and probably unfounded. Practice observers have been telling us for some time that Gardner has flat-out earned the #2 job.
September 14th, 2010 at 8:18 PM ^
And your blanket statement of "no reason, none at all" to not redshirt him, while admirable given all the factual support you've given, is quite simply wrong. There are many reasons beyond the flipping obvious one of him being the second best QB. Rewarding hard work, maintaining the respect of the other players, future success in recruiting. Who's to say that we don't get an extra recruit here or there because RR can point to Gardner and say "you will play as a freshman if you're good enough, regardless of everything else." I guarantee you Gardner wants to play, and not take a redshirt, just like every young skill player recruit.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^
Who knows…by then Denard might embrace the idea if it looks like a position change is his best shot at making the pros.
Holy crap. Denard just put together the greatest two-game performance in history by a college QB making his first two starts, has been without question the best player in the country thus far, and people are STILL suggesting that a position switch might be in his future. PLEASE MAKE IT STOP.
Maybe the coaches burned Devin's redshirt because they promised him a chance to compete right away and he earned the #2 spot?
September 13th, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
it does say that. I must have glazed over this (it's a long post)
September 13th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
We just witness two weeks UNLIKE anything in Michigan's history,only to talk about next year depth chart moves...utterly unbelivable,to say the least..
September 13th, 2010 at 7:31 PM ^
You're reading that to say that Denard would be better suited at a position other than QB, and that's NOT what it says at all.
It says that IF Devin beats out Denard for the job next year, Denard will still be starting on offense, just in a position other than QB, which he might embrace if he feels it gives him a good shot at turning pro. And IF Denard beats out Devin for the job, the fact that Devin got reps this year will make him a very capable #2 QB.
Either way, by getting Devin some reps this year, Michigan will be in very good shape at QB going into a very favorable 2011 schedule.
September 14th, 2010 at 2:59 AM ^
September 14th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
I'm reading it to say that a position switch might be in Denard's future. Given the last two week's that statement is insane.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^
Whoa. Leaving the state of Michigan once before November and just three times overall...Not a bad schedule
September 13th, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
What about 2012? All those teams on the road?
September 13th, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^
that we have a tougher schedule and less experienced team this year therefore Devin plays this year and redshirts next year when we have a weaker schedule and more experience. Guess you're just saying he wants him to have some experience period.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
You forgot about Cam Gordon and Thomas Gordon/Carvin Johnson in the defensive returning starters part. We return every starter on D other than Mouton, Ezeh and Banks. We also return most all of out back-ups, except for some DL's.
EDIT: I forgot about Rogers because I mentally replaced him with Woolfolk. So technically we lose 4 starters.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^
Definitely over thinking this a lot. RR burned Devin's redshirt because he is the second string guy that can help us win this year. RR said all offseason that if an incoming recruit can help us win right away that he will play. Devin will see some real solid action over the next couple of weeks and we will be able to see just what he has to bring to the table. He has been compared to the likes of Vince Young, and if you have that talent on your team you have got to show him the field and get him some valuable experience. Devin will not dissapoint and he will be a very good quarterback going forward.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
of defensive starters returning in Cam and Thomas Gordon (or if it's Carvin, he's also back). Ezeh, Mouton, Rogers, Banks are the only D starter losses I can think of.
As with above, this seems like it's over analyzing Devin's redshirt. The staff think he's good enough now. Simple enough.
September 13th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
That's good news because Woolfolk will ably replace Rogers, leaving Mouton, and, to a lesser extent, Ezeh (everyone seems to have a different view of Ezeh), as the only meaningful losses.
September 13th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
That's good news because Woolfolk will ably replace Rogers, leaving Mouton, and, to a lesser extent, Ezeh (everyone seems to have a different view of Ezeh), as the only meaningful losses.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
I still think the burnt redshirt is about this year and the chance the Michigan x-hating god becomes the Michigan Qb-hating god.
Suppose DRob gets hurt and Tate proceeds to then get hurt when subbing? We're left with DOOM also known as true freshman and Kennedy. If it's a few snaps or series send in Devin, if it's the rest of the game and possibly more send in Tate who has more experience and has shown the ability to win games rather than just manage a possession.
September 13th, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^
You can still have DG play if DR and Tate go down regardless of whether DG has already played or not. Redshirts are not "declared" during the season. Either the person plays or they don't.
So why make the decision to play DG until we absolutely have no other choice? A few plays of experience here and there are not worth burning the redshirt IMO
September 13th, 2010 at 9:19 PM ^
I don't remember the exact number of snaps that DRob saw last year, but I would suspect that you will see Devin get about the same number of reps this yearthroughout the course of the season. How many did he play against BSU? How many against Iowa?
I also still think that Tate is sitting because he is a better option in case DRob goes down instead of DEATH. RR's offense is a run-oriented game and Tate is a passer first-runner second.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:36 PM ^
is to get him some game experience. Do you want him to come into the Iowa game in a critical moment having never taken a snap on this stage? He will get more and more playing time over the next 3 weeks so that he will be ready when/if needed.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
I'm starting to wonder if we are going to add a package with both Denard and Devin on the field at the same time. I know most think this is a pipe dream, but I don't think that RR is going to want either one on the bench next year. Plus, instead of having to rotate the two between the 1s both can now learn to play new positions, while the 3rd string gets to practice with the 2s.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
Rodriguez knows he's "on the hot seat," and I think he's coaching for this season only. It would be nice if, in 2011, we have three QBs with significant snaps, but I doubt very much that's why he has played Gardner. DG is the second best QB we have, which is the only reason Michigan burned his redshirt.
September 13th, 2010 at 5:12 PM ^
I have never been able to figure out the argument that bigger means less likely to get hurt. I understand more muscle can equal more padding I guess but I just don't really understand. Does being bigger make your bones, joints, and ligaments stronger? Because that is where a majority of injuries happen. Junior Hemmingway is bigger than Denard and he has had nothing but trouble with injury. I think some people are prone to getting injured and some people are not.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
is devin's redshirt definitely burned? i thought if he doesn't play again he can still redshirt.
September 13th, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^
The rule is clear, with no wiggle room. The only way he redshirts now is if he gets injured before the Indiana game. No way recently-investigated Michigan is going to try fudging a medical redshirt after Gardner plays against UMass and Bowling Green.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:30 PM ^
From wikipedia:
"NCAA rules are quite clear on the use of redshirt status: any participation in any competition counts as a season of eligibility. For example, even a single play in a football game counts as participation for an entire season, so coaches cannot play redshirt players at the end of a game simply to get them some experience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_%28college_sports%29
(And yes I think Wikipedia is right on this account...someone can look for the NCAA rule if they want)
There is no possibility of a 5th yr for Gardner due to a redshirt status that cannot occur anymore after his 2 plays vs. UConn. Also Rod burned Stephen Hopkins' redshirt this past wknd vs. Notre Dame by having him play in one play - the 1 yd TD.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
Devin Gardner redshirt nonsense and get back to celebrating?
September 13th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
less likely to get hurt? People keep saying this, but I don't get the logic. Wouldn't a tall, thin person be as or more likely to be vulnerable to bone breaks, etc. than a small, very strong, very compact person? Not trying to be dense, just don't quite see it.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
Rich Rod is not looking to 2011. He wants someone who can run, and that's DG. Tate only plays if Dennard is out and we need a pass package. Tate is, and should be, gone next year.
September 13th, 2010 at 6:48 PM ^
I don't understand why you are getting neg banged for this (unless it's the part about TF transferring). I think DG is the second string because RR wants to use his bread and butter, the *run-oriented* spread, and DG is better for this than TF. DG is faster and bigger. If this were a pass oriented spread, such as ND, that would be a different story. In short, as well as TF did as a natural freshman starting 12 games, RR has moved on to the QBs (DR and DG) that are best equipped to run that offense that RR wants to run.
Comments