Please. God. No.
Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
First time diary entry... go easy.
I can't help but feel like Sheridan really does seem to be in the mix and that RR is sincere when he indicates he really doesn't know who the #1 is yet.
I've seen Brian's Sheridan=Death so many times, it's hard not to have it plugged into my brain as fact, but...
If Sheridan does start or gets significant PT against WMU it would say less about the competition between the two candidates than about RRs confidence in the offense overall.
Assume Tate is more capable of making big plays and that some of those big plays will be the kind that go the wrong way. Nick on the other hand is less capable of good big plays, and I would argue bad big plays too. With a lot of good execution all around, the QB position becomes less critical and Sheridan-like mediocrity is OK.
You gotta believe Nick will be a better QB than he was last year. He's a student of the game, he's got another year of reps and knowledge and coaching under his belt, and, biggest thing: in the "countdown" videos on the U site he actually looks confident in interviews, athletic in drills and spiral-producing with his throws. In other words, “walk-on” doesn’t come to mind anymore.
So, am I predicting Sheridan will get substantial PT against WMU? Well, yes, I am and not just inconsequential PT. And it won't be because he's a better weapon but because there are a lot of much better players around him, especially the ones in front of him, and because I suspect Tate could probably gain from a little of the humility that comes from having to reflect on QB play in the bighouse vicariously.
Please. God. No.
I'd be surprised if Sheridan didn't start against WMU, and by start I mean take the first snap.
I agree that Sheridan would be better than last year overall. The problem is that he probably wouldn't be significantly more accurate or have better wheels or have much more arm strength. Better decision making and poise from Nick are not going to get us where we need to be.
No, I don't need to die an early death of a heart attack during the first snap of college football. I don't care that he's the one with experience. Sheridan doesn't have a future as Michigan's QB, not even this season. Tate or Robinson (probably Tate) is the guy, freshmen or not. Put them in now and let them get the snaps they need. It does us no good to keep them on the sideline as they have to go in at some point anyway. For the record, I'm fairly certain that RR will have Tate starting.
Why would you ever wish this on our beloved team??? Was last year not painfull enough?
Agree and disagree.
I think it's stupid to rule out Sheridan just because of last year. He was as green as they come, and it showed. To rule him out because of the past season if he's playing well now is purely idiotic.
That being said, I'm hoping (and fairly confident) that Forcier will be enough of a step up from this year's Sheridan that he can take the starting job right from the start and keep it.
Great diary, despite the negative responses. I don't think Sheridan will get substantial playing time to start the year, but if he becomes a significant factor for any reason, I don'[t think it means death.
He showed what he can do against less talented defenses by lighting up Minnesota ("lighting up," of course, being a relative term), and a year of starting/game experience, along with another offseason in the system certainly isn't going to make him worse.
Do I want to see Sheridan start for Michigan? No. If it happens, does that mean Tate and Denard are total busts? Not necessarily. He may have blossomed into a QB that approaches competency.
Sheridan might start the first game. But it's an almost impossible situation for him. As soon as he screws up people will be hollering for Tate. Instead what you might see is an every third series with Tate at the helm.
If sheridan starts he's good enough. Coach Rod knows what he is doing.
I wish more of the fans at games would realize this. A guy behind me during the Miami(OH) game last season kept screaming that we should use I-Form the entire game. We played one series with the I-Form, and it worked for two plays (after which he screamed "SEE, I SHOULD BE COACHING THIS TEAM!") and then they faltered and had to punt. There's a reason RR is getting paid millions to coach this team, and things will turn around, but people need to be very patient with him, and doubly patient with the kids that were thrown into this situation way before they were ready for it.
holy shit, where were your seats at?
GO I FORM FTW!!!!!
but no, I remember a guy doing this same thing during the Miami game. Might have been a different person, God knows we have enough 'I should be coaching.." fans in our stadium
I don't remember the section/row, but it was directly across from the Press Box, more towards the student section. Another guy was there with his 7 or 8 year old grandson and wouldn't stop dropping F-bombs. I guess he's gotta hear it sometime, but that's seriously messed up.
Oh please, I guarantee the kid hears worse at school at that age.
Actually, I do agree with this. However I think seeing Sheridan come out for the first snap could give me an early heart attack anyway.
If Tate and Sheridan are anywhere near equal, Tate will start. Tate is way quicker than Sheridan, which opens up many more options in the running and passing games.
In the Minnesota game, Michigan wasn't running more than 10 different plays. Against Northwestern, the playbook was compressed even more (every time Michigan was on a hash, it ran a sweep to the short side of the field - our section was calling the play before it was run by the end of the first quarter).
Tate's been studying the playbook like crazy for 9 months, and already executes as well as Sheridan. Plus, he has better physical abilities for this offense. If everyone is healthy, Tate will start week 1. If anyone rotates in, it'll be Denard.
If they're equal, Tate will play most of the WMU game. (I don't know if RR will put Sheridan in to start just to see how it goes or not, but I think Tate will come in soon after if that's the direction he goes.) Unless Sheridan is the clear front-runner, there's no reason to play him extensively. We need to be preparing this team for the future.
the rationale that you are using. Just... no. Please no.
Sheridan seems like a great guy, is smart, knows the offense the best and appears to have improved his throwing. All that said, he doesn't have the speed to be a runnng threat and his arm strength was very poor last year. Any downfield pass seemed like a hail mary thrown up for grabs. He'll never be shifty and fast, so has his passing improved that much? Seems like wishful thinking. I bet he looks great on shorter throws, but won't be able to stretch the field once again.
I'll be very worried if it's not Forcier starting.
I have to reject the premise of the OP.
1. Nick Sheridan has reached the ceiling of his QB ability. Tate and Denard haven't. He may have more experience in the system, but at some point this becomes moot. He is clearly not the answer as the QB of the future, and his benefit to the team in the present is negligible (assuming he's not a liability).
2. Every time Sheridan threw the ball last season, I thought, "I sure hope that this doesn't get picked off." So Nick hasn't set the bar too high with his arm. Based on the evidence seen in spring practice and HS highlights, Tate has a better arm. (And maybe Denard too, but only maybe.) So he doesn't have the best arm.
3. Sheridan was more athletic than Threet...but he's certainly not more athletic than Denard, and, at best, about equally athletic as Tate. He will not be the best running QB.
If Sheridan gets another shot at starting without injuries to Tate and Denard, I'm going to wonder if he's really RR's love child. Ok, not seriously, but something fishy would be up.
Sheridan has played ONE season (actually closer to half a seasson) of college football in his life, and only one season in RR's system, which he wasn't recruited for. How can you possibly say definitively that he's already reached his ceiling?
I don't care how "negligible" the benefits seem to you, if he's the better quarterback at the time of the WMU game, I want him in there. Any advantage, no matter how small, is important. For instance: tackling at the right angles isn't always going to change the outcome of a play, but the one time it does, it's important. Every little bit counts.
I like you.
I've been having to post more and more lately because people haven't really been thinking clearly. Not that I can really blame them...
He's not the better QB.
He's not a better runner than Tate. He's not a better thrower than Tate. Other than the Minnesota game, last season he continually made a series of poor decisions and bad throws. A quick stats recap:
NAME CMP ATT YDS CMP% YDS/A TD INT RAT
Steven Threet 102 200 1105 51.0 5.53 9 7 105.3
Nick Sheridan 63 137 613 46.0 4.47 2 5 81.1
NAME CAR YDS YPC LONG TD
Steven Threet 76 201 2.6 58 2
Nick Sheridan 42 92 2.2 12 1
So Threet was a better passer, and they were "about even" on the ground, with a slight edge going to Threet. He nearly equaled Threet's interception total in about half of the playing time.
Look, there is a reason Sheridan was a walk on. He's just not that great of a QB. We have TWO QBs that were both rated higher than him at the QB position coming out of HS. I'm sure he's a hard worker, but that isn't always enough in a sport where talent also is a factor.
I think you'll end up being 100% right, but we haven't seen Tate play in a single college game. If he doesn't end up being a better quarterback this season I'll be shocked and terrified, but that doesn't mean that he should play over Sheridan if Sheridan is playing better football.
I'm not trying to dispute the fact that Tate has looked great so far, or that what we've seen of Sheridan over the last season has been death. Even so, IF (that's a huge if...) Sheridan is playing better than Tate, I want him in the game. Period.
I'm in the same camp as everyone else on this issue for the most part... I would rather not have to find out that Sheridan is the better QB, but if he is, put him in.
"I think you'll end up being 100% right, but we haven't seen Tate play in a single college game. If he doesn't end up being a better quarterback this season I'll be shocked and terrified, but that doesn't mean that he should play over Sheridan if Sheridan is playing better football."
So we agree.
"Even so, IF (that's a huge if...) Sheridan is playing better than Tate, I want him in the game. Period."
I just don't see this part actually happening. I think that if we don't see Tate, we'll see Denard.
+1 because, why not.
for getting so worked up about this, but people seem to be dead set against Sheridan because of last year, whether he's improved or not. I don't see them screaming, "I'd better not see any of the punt/kickoff returners from last year trying to return any this year!"
+1 reciprocated for being civil.
If anyone drops another punt or kickoff I'll throw them on the bench so hard that their splinters get splinters!
Nick Sheridan was not recruited by lloyd Carr. Nick's father was on Carr's staff and was given a walk on spot. Nick has reached his potential and has leveled off. If he starts, which I hope he does not, it is either a result of the fact that Rich Rod hopes that he wont screw up and that the running game will make all the plays, or forcier/robinson are hurt or a bust. The student section will inevitably boo sheridan if he touches the ball.and Western Michigan defenders will probably start salivating and foaming at the opportunity.
Don't think that I'm advocating Sheridan over Tate. No way. If I'm the head coach, I put Tate in to start from the first play. Let him learn under fire and we might see great things. But other coaches might see things different. Like maybe......start Sheridan and ease Tate into the starting spot. If there isn't much separation between the two in camp, we might see it. It shouldn't last too long though. The upside for Tate is waaaaaaaay beyond what we get with Sheridan.
IMO, Tate has been eased in all offseason. It is ridiculous to use actual games to ease in a player in college football. This is not a 162 game season where you are expected to lose 70 or 80 games. Every game is extremely important in college football, and one loss can be the difference between great success and total failure. If this team is not ready to go, guns blazing, by 3:30pm on September 5th, then we will probably start another season at 0-1. Time to ease in is not a luxury that any college football program has.
I wouldn't be totally surprised to see Sheridan if Tate/Denard struggle in certain situations. He is the veteran amongst the three, and there may come a time where he is needed on the field. That being said, I'd love to see a Tate and Denard package for much of the season, but nothing is out of the question at this point in time.
I like your premise but unless Sheridan's passing accuracy (sub-50% completion rate last year) has improved significantly, he won't be able to get as much out of the offense as Forcier, who throws a frickin' laser (or at least did in the Spring Game)
Sheridan is very capable of very big bad plays. In the Utah game he threw...no..lofted a pick into triple coverage and cost us a touchdown late in the half. That's the ballgame there. In the Notre Dame game he again threw some bad interceptions, one near the endzone. Look, I don't like to rip on the guy. But reality is, not many people are cut out to play big time college football and Sheridan is not one of them. He just doesn't have the tools (arm strength mainly) to make plays and win games.
Also, Sheridan is not mediocre as stated above. He is bad. He had no D1 offers and would never have seen the field. If Sheridan had been our quarterback in 2007, we probably barely have a winning record considering how our offense looked without Henne.
I fully agree that Sheridan will/would be better this season than he was last year. Despite Rodriguez's insistence that he was a better immediate fit in the offense (hence his start against Utah), Sheridan was clearly not comfortable running the spread. Certain mistakes--such as throwing bounce passes on screens and holding onto the ball for too long--weren't a matter of scheme but mere reps. Last season was simply a perfect storm for Sheridan, combining unfamiliarity, rust, and an unfortunate but undeniable lack of talent. If he sees time this year, I, too, would expect marked improvement from him. The only question is whether "marked improvement" from Nick Sheridan is still historically awful.
if sheridan is introduced as the starter on opening day, you will undoubtedly hear 100,000+ groaning or booing
...Coach Rod knows that too.
Tate will start. Denard will get 5-8 snaps a game. Sheridan is the signal caller and sideline coach for Tate/Denard. In that role, Sheridan can be very beneficial for the coach, allowing Coach to focus upon other issues that need addressing during the game.
Rodriguez may know that Sheridan will get booed if he's put on the field, but I also believe that he's not going to allow the crowd to dictate his decisions. I always respected the way Carr stood up for Navarre and started him despite the boos and groaning from the fans.
Based on my limited knowledge, I'm going to guess Tate starts, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sheridan, and if he's put in there, I'll trust that Rodriguez had his reasons for doing so.
I would be more disappointed if we boo'd him, than at the fact that he was starting.
Don't think Sheridan will start, he just doesn't have the natural ability.
However, if he does end up playing (due to injuries or other circumstances), then based on his experience and time in the system, I won't panic as much as last year.
Unless he still plays like he did last year, then shoot me.
63 / 137 (46% completion percentage), 613 yards, 2 TDs, 5 INTs. TDs were an unguarded 2 yard pass to Michael Shaw, and an 8-yard unguarded slant route to Greg Mathews.
42 rushes, 92 yards. 1 TD.
A successful QB in this offense should get that rushing total in 2 games. That is not going to be Sheridan. Ever.
I never boo my team, I really hope no ones boos Sheridan,I know he didn't perform as well as everyone wanted but if you don't support your own team in your home stadium, why bother going?
I wish I could say this was true of me too, but at halftime of the Wisky game last year, I was there.
And actually, it apparently helped.
Last year, I thought Sheridan was a better spread-option QB than Threet. That's right, I said it. This does not mean that Sheridan is actually a good QB, he was just better than Threet in our system.
I still think Forcier will win the starting job, hands down.
Test 1: Who made the offense move more? (Threet did)
Test 2: Threet's rushing stats were actually better than Sheridan's. (YPC being the quickest stat to point to.)
Test 3: Threet was a MUCH better passer. Even a spread option QB needs to throw the ball when the defense starts crowding the box. (Stats that show this: Completion %, TD/INT ratio.)
Sheridan was overmatched last season, and will be again this season if he sees the field.
Test 1: you're right.
Test 2: Take out the 58 yard Wisconsin rush and Threet had a worse rushing average than Sheridan. I say this is a push.
Test 3: Tacopants would agree with you. I don't see 50% as opposed to 46% being "much better" insomuch as I see it as life support as opposed to death.
Neither of these guys were any good last year.
I'll give you a push with the running game. I was mostly arguing that Sheridan wasn't a "much better" runner, and by arguing that Threet could be better it gets me to "push" much easier.
As far as passing goes, completion % is only part of it, and, quite right, not the deciding indicator. However, TD/INT ratio for Threet was 9/7 ~ 1.2 and for Sheridan it was 2/5 = 0.4 (just shy of 3 times worse than Threet's ratio). When I saw Threet throw, I thought "be on target". When I saw Sheridan throw, I thought "don't be intercepted". This is why Test 1 goes to Threet so strongly, with Sheridan in, Michigan had no legitimate passing game, while with Threet in, Michigan had an inconsistent, but present, passing game.
"Test 2: Take out the 58 yard Wisconsin rush and Threet had a worse rushing average than Sheridan. I say this is a push."
I HATE this type of argument. Take it out? Why? It HAPPENED. Does it weight the average? Yes. But so what? It SHOULD weight the average. If Usain Bolt normally ran a 10 second 100 meters, and then once ran a 9 second, would you say, "Well, take that one out, and he's not really the fastest man on earth"?
For the Love of all that is pure and holy. . . With prayers on the spirit of Fielding Yost whom Ufer has thanked for previous miracles. Dont let this happen. We have seen too much and do not deserve to be put through this tragedy again. We humbly ask for a new beginning. Please send us a sign, a promise that you will not destroy our universe again with such a pathetic waste of space. Amen.
Tate looked GREAT in the spring game. Albeit it was against our defense, but it's hard to imagine Nick doing better in the same situation. So I think at the moment it's not so much Nick taking the Job from Tate as Tate losing the job to Nick. We'll see what happens, but if Sheridan plays it will be a product of Tate faltering and I for one will be very surprised.
He seems like a great guy with a good work ethic. Sadly though the guy just doesn't have any talent, and I think Forcier should and will be the starter because we need to get ready for the future.