Analysts' take on RR not naming a starting QB
I've heard cowherd and seen in a few columns today put a negative spin on RR not naming a starter - as if no QB is good enough or stands out - using it to add to their case for Uconn getting a W. Funny how nobody sees the advantage of making Uconn prepare for all three...
September 1st, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^
The media whores love this crap.
I would hate to have to prepare for even 2 of those 3.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
I'd hate to have to prepare for even one of those three.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^
First play from scrimmage everybody on the defense expects him to either run or hand it off. He sells a beautiful play-fake and hits roundtree over the top for 6. Book it.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^
That's only if anyone on UCONN can stop Stonum and Odoms on returns
September 1st, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^
September 1st, 2010 at 4:54 PM ^
i will +1 you every time I see you post if this comes true.
September 1st, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^
First play of the game Tate and DRob in the backfield together. UConn will be thinking "WTF?" and we get a quick 6 off a direct snap to Shaw.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
Well, for your last point, is there really that much of a marked difference in how you would prepare for all three? It's not like they'd have to prepare for both a Chad Henne and a Denard Robinson. All three are mobile, similarly-styled quarterbacks.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^
Good point - although I wouldn't be surprised if they shift personnel in spots
September 1st, 2010 at 3:48 PM ^
Tate and Denard have very different degrees of mobility. Last year, Tate and Denard were very different players. Tate was far more likely to pass than Denard, and Denard was more likely to run. As far as UConn knows, that could still be the case. I'd also defend the read option very differently with the two in there; if it's Tate, I'd pretty much tell my DE to crash on the RB every time whereas with Denard, you have to be a lot more wary of his running ability.
As for Gardner, I don't think anyone expects him to see more than token action in the game.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
But it's not like they're going to have to devise three entirely different defensive schemes based on the different guys. You can run tweaks of one for all three. That's the point.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
I disagree. I think it's very likely that teams will go to different packages when Denard and Tate are in. (As for Gardner, I'm not sure.) And defensive players will have to expect different things when each is in the game. Calling them both "mobile" is incredibly misleading. If I'm a DC, I don't fear Tate's running. He can keep it on the read option all he wants. What I fear from him is his scrambling around in the pocket and buying time downfield. Whereas with Denard, I'd be scared to death of his running and would (based on last season's film) dare him to throw it downfield. Against Denard, I'd probably play a 4-3 and cheat the strong safety up. Against Tate, I might go to a nickel.
The bottom line is that college guys have a limited amount of time to practice and anything that adds to their preparation time is a good thing for us.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^
I actually do agree with you about Tate being more of a threat in the air... If you look at most of Tate's special plays from last year, majority of them were from the air, but try telling that to the DE from Notre Dame last year who is still looking for his jockstrap...
September 1st, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^
great choice by them.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
Does anyone else care less about who starts and more about how our defense performs?
September 1st, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^
This is absolutely the key to the game.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^
Nope. You are the only one.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
On top of the obvious, I would just dearly love to see the opposing line looking for divine intervention and the backs staggering back to the huddle believing the myrmidons have been unleashed.I suspect we are a few years away from that, but one can dream.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
These analysts are mostly total idiots, so yeah Rodriguez not tipping his hand to our opponents means that each QB sucks. Remember that Sheridan was part of our three-way derby last year? RR keeps it close to the vest, and I wholeheartedly support this.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^
have a QB controversy. See Penn State. Or Sparty last year. Neither QB is good enough to take the job (though in Sparty's case it seems everyone but D'ant knew who the starter should have been)
I guarantee it is posing problems for UCONN's prep. If not, it should be - these guys are different and complementary
September 1st, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^
This post exemplifies the problem that I have with the coverage by people like Cowherd who don't know what they are talking. His suggestion that RR doesn't know who the starter will be is completely based upon a false premise. RR knows who the starter will be. I can't remember which interview (or press conference) he said it in, but he has already said that he knew who the starter would, but he's not announcing it. That leads more to the conclusion that one quarterback has separated himself (at least enough to merit being considered the starter several days before the opener) and that the secrecy is being used (1) as a motivational tool to each QB and (2) as deception to UConn, rather than the conclusion that all three are equally unprepared.
I seriously have no idea why people listen to guys like Cowherd. It's essentially his job to be uneducated and say things that he has no basis in saying.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^
Eh, true, RR hasn't named a starter.
But anyone that's been paying attention knows it's gonna be Denard.
I would honestly be shocked - not surprised, shocked - if it wasn't.
It's not gonna be Gardner. B/c with 2 capable sophs. RR is not gonna start a true freshman.
That leaves Tate or Denard, and based on everything we've been hearing, unless RR and the other coaches have run a diabolical disinformation campaign, all signs point to Denard. It appears he's made the leap, the team trusts him, he's worked the hardest.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
I really want to disagree with you here. why would RR take the starting job from Tate. Tate was good when he was healthy. Once he got injured things were different. Tate is healthy again why wouldnt he start tate and mix it up with denard until denard proves that he is the number 1 guy. Also if Tate was just a back up why would RR make a big deal about taking his wings away. It shouldnt matter if he was slacking off if hes just a back up.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^
But just because you have a hot avatar doesn't mean you can turn this into a Denard vs. Tate thread. No one should care who starts at this point. The Best will play
This thread is about assholes in the larger media who don't understand that not naming a starter can be a good thing, if it means you have multiple options
Now. Please post a blown-up picture of said avatar as I don't know how to enlarge it
September 1st, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^
At least those who have the luxury of having two or more QBs to win with!!! RR knows exactly what he is doing. And yes it would be great to see a play fake and a TD pass to Roundtree.
Anyone else wish it was Saturday yet?? Man I can't wait!!!!!!!!
September 1st, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
.... watch Edsall's recent press conference. He says something along the lines of (with respect to QBs) that he "likes to be able to name THE GUY from day one and that is your quarter back, your leader."
http://today.uconn.edu/?p=20180&utm_campaign=Tiers&utm_source=Tier1&utm_medium=Frontpage
I took it as a shot at RR's public position.
This bothers Edsall and hurts the effectiveness of his preparation. Nice move by RR.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^
I agree that RR is making a nice move here. I really don't care that he isn't announcing the starter because it doesn't do us any good if we know anyways, but it makes an incredible difference that the other team doesn't know who to prep for when it is likely between Tate and Denard. Edsall won't have a chance when we unleash The Force and Dilithium on his ass! GD I CAN NOT WAIT FOR SATURDAY!
Go Blue!
September 1st, 2010 at 3:46 PM ^
Forcing a team to prepare for three QBs sure didn't help ND in 2007 against Georgia Tech. I don't expect UM 2010 to be ND 2007, but at the same time a coach's unwillingness to name the starting QB before the season is more often than not a portent of bad things. That might not be true in this case, but it's not a completely unreasonable statement to make.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
I'd argue that ND's problems in that game had less to do with them playing three QBs and more to do with 1) them sucking in general and 2) Charlie Weis stupidly deciding to install a completely new offense for that one game only.
Anyway, just because RR hasn't announced the starter doesn't mean that he doesn't have an idea of how things are going to play out. Do not take everything a coach says at face value.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^
has to tell a goddamn fucking thing to the media or Randy Edsall or to the fans when it comes to who starts for him on game day.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
I sure miss Lloyds acid at press conferences. I also love Bill Parcells press handling tactics.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^
But you're absolutely right. RR doesn't have to say anything. He tried being open and honest with the media and look where it got him.
So, screw the press!
September 1st, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
for Don.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^
I couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that these coaches release any info is a luxury in of itself.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^
Abso-freaking-lutely!
September 1st, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^
you are now officially my favorite poster on here.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:00 PM ^
We started 4 different QB's in the opener last year. Look at the result. No worries here. I think there's an appropriate haters gonna hate post comin'.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:18 PM ^
We started 4 different QB's in the opener last year.
Wait, what did we do?
September 1st, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^
Started! and this year will be a repeat since Kennedy is going to take the first snap (as center) with Denard, Tate, and Devin all lined up in the backfield. This way, they have no idea who will have the ball during the first snap of the game.
Luckily I'm genius level smart, we're talking 104/5 IQ, and so I know it's going to play out like this;
Kennedy (snaps) places the ball on the ground, while Devin pretends the snap went high over his head. Tate rolls to the right pretending to have the ball, while directing Koger to get open. Denard runs a fake read option and heads up the field, Kennedy stays still till the coast is clear then picks up the ball to throw down field to Denard who is wide open. Touchdown Michigan! Falk (sp?) brings Edsall (sp?) new pair of pants. Book it!
September 1st, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
Smooth recovery
September 1st, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^
We may have played 4 QB's against WMU, but I think only the first one is considered the starter. =D
HURRY UP SATURDAY
September 1st, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
I really don't think there is an advantage to not naming the starters, since they will both likely play. Shouldn't we want Uconn to only prepare for one starter playing the whole time, then get burned when the other guy comes in?
September 1st, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
I went to cnnsi.com.
FOUR other schools have not named a starting QB, including Nebraska and PSU.
WTF? Are they dense?
September 1st, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
I really hate postings that say "Analysts say [x]" when in reality it should say:
"Some clown at ESPN and articles that I have read say [x]".
I mean, it's not like the media has suddenly turned into investment banks and started to provide estimates on publicly traded companies' earnings. There is no collective source out there taking every single media clown's opinion and putting out an "analyst estimate".
Just my two cents.
[and on things actually discussed in this thread - not naming a starter has a slight advantage I'd believe - since the last practice would be more heavily dedicated to stopping the style expected from the starter. in the end though, it's not a big deal. turnovers and our defense will decide this game. book it.]
September 1st, 2010 at 5:55 PM ^
ESPN's "analysts" and "experts" are anything but.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^
Anyone affiliated with ESPN knows generally nothing about college football, or the advantage of making a team prepare for all 3 quarterbacks. Cowturd is a Jim Rome wannabe.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^
Rodriguez already said all three will play. It takes one small step of logic to conclude that who "the starter" is doesn't matter.
Something tells me most people who actually put a lot of stock into "naming" a starter also say things like, "that Johnny Unitas has a haircut you can set your watch to."
September 1st, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^
Johnny Unitas has a haircut you can set your watch to.
I have no idea if he's said it or not, but I can totally hear Cowherd saying that.
September 1st, 2010 at 8:09 PM ^
It's a Simpsons reference, Abe Simpson said it
September 1st, 2010 at 4:22 PM ^
Having an official starter wouldn't even matter that much. Sheridan started in '08. I'd only be surprised if we did not have Denard and Tate playing for at least a quarter each.