agree. It's open season on the 2010 H.S. dual threat QBs.
Mike Lantry, 1972
Shavodrick Beaver, who had been committed to Michigan since the spring, has changed his commitment to Tulsa. There had been rumors of him wavering, but he recruited heavily for Michigan and spoke publicly about how he couldn't wait to come to Michigan, was ready to compete for the job, etc. But now the #8 dual-threat quarterback is staying close to his home in Texas.
This event affects the perception of Michigan's program, but probably not the program itself. Most analysts and fans expected fellow QB commit Tate Forcier to compete with holdover Steven Threet for the starting quarterback job in 2009. A common scenario had Threet starting the season and slowly giving way to the more talented, more athletic Tate Forcier. If this scenario had played out, Beaver probably would have redshirted.
Looking forward, Threet is scheduled to run out of eligibility after the 2011 season. Forcier, if he doesn't redshirt at any point, would finish his four years in 2012. If the aforementioned scenario took place, Beaver would have redshirted, hung around for four years, and perhaps started as a fifth year senior in 2013.
Let me say that again.
Very realistically, Beaver's decommitment affects the 2013 season.
Now, depth is obviously a concern. Every team wants great players waiting in the wings to take over from great players. But is that realistic? Probably not. Assuming Forcier sticks with his commitment, we'll have two 4-star QB's over two classes of eligibility - and that doesn't include possible replacements for Beaver in the 2009 class, such as Tajh Boyd, Eugene Smith, or Denard Robinson (all 4-star players themselves).
Michigan will be okay. The Wolverines will plow through and be successful. The offense started to hit its stride at the end of the 2008 season, especially running the ball. If we can run the ball effectively without an effective QB, imagine what type of offense we will have when Threet improves his accuracy or Forcier steps in with his pinpoint accuracy and good athleticism.
We need not worry about the loss of our third string quarterback.
agree. It's open season on the 2010 H.S. dual threat QBs.
the very good possibility of devin gardner in 2010, this helps that
Yeah, I didn't want to get too much into 2010 recruiting, since we've obviously seen how much things can change in a short period of time.
Other kids might pop up or Devin Gardner might have a shitty senior year or Ryan Mallett might transfer back to Michigan.
You are absolutely wrong. You have no idea which incoming QB would be better, and losing a potentially excellent talent reduces the chances Michigan finds a competent quarterback over the next couple years. If they pick up Boyd or Eugene Smith or Raymond Cotton or someone at that level, fine, no big deal. But you can't pretend that Forcier is guaranteed to be better than Beaver -- or good at all.
Recruits are lottery tickets; we have one fewer now at a place we need many.
I will take this comment as an irrational response in a time of anger.
Notice that I never spoke in absolute terms. I used words like "probably" and "could."
When I say something is likely, there is no logical way you can say I'm "absolutely" wrong.
So like I said, I'll chalk it up to you freaking out a bit.
We will see how it plays out. I'm sure I will forget, but hopefully in four years, I would be able to dig up this post and say YOU were absolutely wrong. That would be a good thing for all us Michigan fans.
No, the tone of your post is smug and absolute. Look at the headline. You're mocking people for panicking when it's actually kind of reasonable to panic.
I didn't realize it was reasonable to panic 1.5 months before Signing Day.
The headline of my post was an attempt to calm people down and take a look at things rationally. It was meant in a joking manner. You are obviously not in the mood for attempts at humor, even though I had the best of intentions. I think you and Huss and others should take a deep breath.
Perhaps you shouldn't be so offended by some guy out there in the world having a theory - differing from yours, obviously - that Beaver would have been the third best QB on the team.
I am free to have my opinion, and I am not "absolutely" wrong. We might find out in four years.
This is why you're the most worthless asshole at mgoblog.
You must own at least 3 or 4 Jump To Conclusions mats. There is nothing to suggest Forcier is better - they're both extremely qualified, ratings-wise, to be the next QB at Michigan. "Most analysts...?" Shut.The.Fuck.Up. You're talking about 2013, for Godssake? 2013? There's nothing realistic about any conclusions you just jumped to.
Man, you suck.
was that necessary?
A simple "I disagree because..." would be sufficient.
"You're the most worthless asshole" is immature at best. You must really love ad hominem attacks.
There's "nothing to suggest Forcier is better"? There's a little something to suggest that...namely, the fact that Forcier is the #6 dual-threat QB on Rivals while Beaver is #8, and Forcier is #14 on Scout while Beaver is #24.
Or the fact that Forcier is ranked the #1 most accurate passer by Rivals.
We could talk about ratings by professionals, but you'll probably just continue to call me an asshole. Enjoy.
In all those numbers is that they are BOTH HIGHLY-RANKED. And concluding that Forcier is our guy until 2013 is just heresy. Trying to convince yourself we're fine because we have the guy ranked #6 by Rivals and not #8 is just ridiculous. The rankings are meaningless with players so similar.
My attack was hardly ad-hominem. Your steady stream of pretentious bullshit culminated in this most annoying of posts in which you have proclaimed that we just lost our "3rd String QB"
Pink slip for you, dude. Pink slip for you.
Game, Set, Match - Huss
This is only not bad if we get another for this class with similar potential. I agree with the lottery ticket analogy. No one knows who is going to be good or great. Given that we don't know who will pan out, and given our current qb's, and, given the Michigan Quarterback Hating God, one less potentially good qb is a bad thing.
I never said it was a good thing or even a who cares? thing. It is indeed a "not good" thing. But is it worthy of half a dozen threads and much cussing and negativity? Probably not. This does not spell doom for the Michigan program. Just like McGuffie transferring - that's not a good thing, but will we be okay with Minor and Brown and Shaw and Toussaint? I think so.
I think this is considerably worse than losing McGuffie--a talent to be sure, but one with a clear penchant for injuries and at a position of relative depth. Brian's point about having one less lottery ticket at the most crucial position with the least depth is the crux of the matter.
It has been a lot to take in a short period of time. It also makes many aprehensive fans (me included) worry that there is a pattern or more than meets the eye.
I hope it is just a run of bad luck that will be changing soon.
Running back: The one position we have zero worries about as far as returning lettermen go and a solid crop of recruits coming in. McGuffie's lost is unfortunate, but doesn't really dent the depth chart.
Quarterback: Currently, we have approximately 1 QB lettering who is capable of playing D1 football. We were in good shape with 2 excellent recruits coming in to challenge for the job. In a situation as dire as ours, losing one of those 2 recruits is horrible, seeing as how recruiting is crapshoot anyways. If Forcier is our only guy and he doesn't pan out....what then?
Nah, what am I thinking. Tate's our guy. He's white. Let's worry about 2013.
I never said it was a good thing or inconsequential.
You should be more careful when you're leveling allegations of racism. I made no hint of racism - I used facts and rankings in my argument for Forcier. You have no idea the things I've done working with minorities, inner city kids, and teaching ALL children.
Me having an opinion about a quarterback does not require you to suggest that I'm a racist.
I want to buy those Jump To Conclusions mats if they all work this well.
Also: Noone cares about the things you've done. I do care about you showing the slightest sense of integrity or conviction with the things you type, seeing as how you write so often for Brian's site(sadly) - alas, it just seems like you shove your head up your ass and regurgitate whatever comes out on the keyboard. But if accusing me of accusing you of being a racist sidetracks you from the very real fact that your post is epic fail - I'm your huckleberry.
So Huss made a Whiteboy joke, get over it. I agree with everything he says.
We all need to stay calm! We have no idea what the coaches discuss with these kids and vice versa. I agree, it looks bad now, but let's reserve comment until signing day. Coach Rod and his staff surely have Plans C, D and E. When all is said and done come signing day, we will be an improved team at virtually every position! We will probably have a top 15 or top 10 class. The future remains very bright! Patience my friends, patience!
As I read this diary entry, I had to totally agree with it as I was trying to think of something insightful to post earlier amid all of this de-committ histeria. There is NO way that we know if Tate would/will be better than Beav. I would have to agree, though, that Beav would have been the third stringer before Tate as I have seen both of them play(I know, many variables) but Tate has more of the "IT" factor. WHITE, BLACK, BROWN, or BLUE. Look, for one, at his passing efficiency and durability. Those are two crucial factors for a QB in this scheme.
I am not trying to side with anyone, but a pot-shot at race is beyond bush league. And all of us freaking out about a de-commit is quite childish as we ultimately know we cannot do anything but cheer.
Can't we fans all just get along...we will plow through and be okay.
Brian- Since you control this internets site and my ability to post, I will not argue with you too much.
Beaver took a normal hit in a HS game and tore up his non throwing shoulder. I say let Tulsa rehab it and hope he can take a hit. I am glad this jerk, and yes that's what he is for stringing UM along, is not part of this team.
Whew. I thought for a minute there David Cone transferred.
Nope. As far as I know, he will still be around to make more excellent rap videos.
He sure can lay it down. We need to send him out at the coin toss to spit some lyrics. Other teams will wilt.
See, you never do know when people leave or decide not to come. Think about the National Title we could have won if Jason Forcier didn't transfer.
Ok, so we wouldn't have won a NT, but Forcier couldn't have been worse than Sheridan.
You're right about that man, but if Jason Forcier is so good, how come he doesn't play for Stanford?
He's third string at Stanford U.
Wow, calm down. Let's not freak out. There is plenty of time to land another highly rated qb. There are a few guys still available.
What an odd hobby we all share. The notion of getting online to call each other assholes and pontificate on the ramifications (or lack thereof)of the decision-making of some 17 y/o kid 1000 miles away seems absurd, doesn't it?
That being said, here I am, drinking it in. FWIW, I find the notion of recruits as lottery tickets to be an apt metaphor. While this is a talent hit from a probability standpoint, let us remember that we may never be sure what Michigan lost this evening. M holds one fewer ticket, I suppose, but the unknown value of an unscratched lottery ticket means that pretty much every opinion is defensible at this point.
I'll reserve judgment, because I have no idea how likely M is to find a suitable replacement. If they end up finding a "ticket" with better odds, perhaps the effort to maximize the probability of fielding a competent quarterback will be served.
I agree wholeheartedly.
That is all.
WTF? Why are Brian and Huss so sure that Beaver is at least 3rd string? I mean, hello, didn't Cone start at clipboard vs. OSU over Threet?
Edit: Damn, I just noticed someone beat me to the requisite Coner joke. I hate myself.
"This event affects the perception of Michigan's program, but probably not the program itself. Most analysts and fans expected fellow QB commit Tate Forcier to compete with holdover Steven Threet for the starting quarterback job in 2009. A common scenario had Threet starting the season and slowly giving way to the more talented, more athletic Tate Forcier. If this scenario had played out, Beaver probably would have redshirted."
Totally disagree with this. I think Beaver the larger, better runner will do better in this offense. Rod does not run an offense with refined passers. Pat White was never known for his ability to throw the ball.
I'm fuckin' devastated about this.
I want Forcier to come here, but I have more question marks about him than i do about the beav.
First Newsome, now Beaver.... F***!!!
Perhaps Rodriguez doesn't run an offense with refined passers because he hasn't been able to get them in the past.
Shaun King was an excellent throwing QB at Tulane.
I do think Beaver will be the better runner, but not necessarily QB.
I think it's funny that my message is:
1) Don't panic.
2) We got the better quarterback anyway.
3) Ad hominem attacks are useless and immature
...and yet there are people trying to paint ME as the asshole.
Nice article, unfortunately, everyone is going to panic as we're entering the recruiting dead time. The good thing is that all the undecided dual-threat kids have a couple of weeks to have this sink in.
that really bothered me was his remark about Tulsa's coaching staff addressing the development of players off the field while Michigan's staff did not. It's just a variant of the "family values" stuff that Boren threw around. I've heard RR make comments plenty of times about the importance of student life beyond football, so I'm a bit puzzled why this comes out again. Beaver also referred to religious faith in the Helmholdt article, and I'm also wondering if Tulsa is a more overtly religious institution than UM is. If it is, and Beaver comes from very religious family, then I can understand the attractiveness of a Tulsa close by than an Ann Arbor far away for the family.
why all the hate for this relatively innocuous post? Even if you don't agree with it, what is the big deal? Magnus may be right; he may not be. Of course no one knows (at least, now). Is there some history here that I am missing? Even if there is, it seems like everybody is overreacting. Calm down. Save it for the field. Or bleachers. Or couch. Just save it.
Did any of the angry people actually take the time to read the post? I've been reading the other diaries, and seeing the panic. After I read Magnus', I thought, "Wow, somebody is taking a deep breath and not panicing... then came all the accusations of racism and calling the guy an asshole?!
Smug? There is not one hint of smugness until the last line which only restates his entire argument. I guess the reason we are all overracting is because we spend four hours of our days reading our favorite blog about college football. Myself included, we have alot investing in this team, but I think the viciousness needs to take a backseat to some reasoned thought.
I'm not trying to excuse his denials which now appear to be pretty hollow, but I wonder if this is as much about the very nature of the institutions and campus experience as it is about football. What sticks out for me is his specifically mentioning religious faith; that's not something you hear very often when a kid commits to USC or Oklamhoma or Penn State or Florida.
Tulsa is a private university with a specific religious affiliation; there is a Christian cross in the official school logo, so I have to think that religion plays a bigger and more overt role in campus life than it does at Michigan. Its enrollment of under 5,000 makes it a vastly smaller place than Michigan, which automatically makes it a more intimate place. To some kids and their families this is going to trump issues of college rankings.
The fact that Beaver did not jump to another major public university like OK or TX or ARK says to me that this isn't simply a football question.
I'm going to throw out a notion that will appear counterintuitive or just plain dumb to most of you, so take your shot: Rodriguez is actually a damn persuasive salesman because he was able to get a verbal from a kid who, in retrospect, was very ill-suited to the University of Michigan. The problem is that RR may be doing a lousy job of identifying the right kind of kids for Michigan, so the sales efforts are misguided in some cases.
And for those who are now ready to throw RR or themselves over a bridge: what's worse: having a kid decommit now, before you've expended a scholarship on him and large amounts of coaching time, or successfully signing guys like Mixon, Germany, Slocum, or Simpson, only to have those guys flame out or leave a year or two later?
this is making my head hurt.
I'm not going to get totally worked up about a kid I have never seen play, but its hard not to be a little uneasy about this. The QB position needs such a surge in overall talent and Beaver was expected to be a big addition.
Better get that snake oil going and add another QB somehow.
With hoops on the rise, league play about to start and such a critical recruiting season underway, this will be a compelling six weeks for both programs.
is idiotic. Wait, that was inflammatory. It is not apt. First of all, lottery tickets by themselves are inert. What makes a lottery ticket valuable is its connection to a random draw from a giant urn of randomness. If recruits are lottery tickets, that means their value depends only on the outcomes of some random process; that is, they have no ability to shape those outcomes.
Less pedantically, there is some correlation between, at a minimum, the guru ratings of recruits and their eventual success. Brian himself has made this point innumerable times on this blog. Those guru ratings, and much more importantly, the evaluations of the coaches, are based on observed characteristics (size, speed, arm strength) and observed performance. Not randomness.
Now, none of this is to say that it is a good thing that Beaver decommitted, leaving us with one less choice at QB and one less person to develop. But, I think it is fair to say, as Magnus did or at least implied, that Forcier is either the leader in the clubhouse (due largely to Beaver's injury) or in second behind Threet (due to Threet's experience and Beaver's injury).
So, I don't know if Magnus is right, but I do think the reaction to his post was out of proportion to the argument.
To get a few things out of the way first; outright flaming is bad, angry disagreement is okay at times, and not all supporters of a view think the same way. If someone said something stupid or racist, then I disagree with that, but that shouldn't distract from the discussion of the actual point. Moving on...
Okay, so you partially disproved the lottery ticket analogy, but you didn't disprove the actual point, which was that recruits are not guaranteed to pan out. The somewhat snide title of the original post states that we lost our 3rd strong quarterback, and the body says that since the quarterback was probably 3rd string anyway, it doesn't matter. Saying "very realistically" doesn't justify the massive leap of faith that Threet, immobile and a fairly poor quarterback at this point, would be even second string after a year or two, or that Tate Forcier would be as effective in college as he is in high school. Then the final point was relax, we don't need to worry about losing our third string quarterback. That's mostly true in a vacuum, but in the context of the original post, it's either an endorsement of your logical thinking, or an irrelevant line that doesn't belong in the post.
The reason why I disliked Magnus's post is that the title trivializes the views of people who are upset that Beaver decommitted and downplays the value of a quarterback recruit at a postion where we sorely lack depth. The body doesn't logically explain why people are upset over Beaver's decommitment; understanding the other point of view is quite important if you're making a strong point. Magnus could argue that the body takes a cooler tone, and I would argue that adding in the occasional qualifier doesn't make the post agreeable to most viewers. The general feel of the post is that Magnus is the enlightened person who's explaining his logic to irrational fans, and that's why some people responded irrationally (which partially proves his point, sadly).
If Magnus had said, hey, this is a loss, but Beaver probably would have redshirted and may not have panned out anyway, so it's not a big problem, there probably would have been a nice healthy debate here. But the post, as written, was quite offensive.
It "presumes" that "most analysts and fans" expectations that Forcier will compete with Threet for the starting job, leaving Beaver at 3rd string, is, by his tone and title of post, a near certainty. The presumption here is incredible; neither Forcier nor Beaver have thrown 1 pass, attended 1 meeting, taken 1 snap or even been issued a jock strap.
Like Brian said, we just don't know (and neither do the coaches) what we have until these guys get on campus and complete a couple of weeks of practice. The more quality recruits Michigan has this crucial position, the better the chance that Michigan has a solid QB. Beaver's decommitment reduced these chances, regardless how great Forcier's high school numbers and film may appear.
And given the choice, after spring and summer practices, RR may very well have thought Beaver a better fit with this offense than Forcier.
Football is a competition. It is a competition between teams, but also a competition between players on a team for starting positions and playing time. What I dislike about the post is that it is so confident about its prognostication of a depth chart prior to recruits even enrolling and so dismissive of slightly less rated recruits and their relative rates of development.
Finally, we have had a number of posts addressing the incredible attrition from the past 5 classes. Go back and look at what kind of depth chart "analysts and fans" had for this past season. Looks kind of different that what we had on the field, doesn't it?