"He's a hard worker, and he watched me and Tim (Hardaway Jr.) and Nik (Stauksas) put work in to become (first-round picks), and I'm just happy he's getting better," Burke said. "It's great for the program, too. It shows what type of program the University of Michigan is and the direction it continues to go in."
Bellomy is/was injured
the yakety sax 6 play they got us on the board.
I don't think there is any question- there is no way Bellomy could have made that play. But, I support the idea that we don't need to beat the kid up any more.
Hoke's epic "injury trolling" continues.
I am surprise he's even walking. Nebraska used him like a tackling dummy.
Right, because it's impossible for quarterbacks to get injured.
Just ask Denard Robinson. And Steve Threet. And Chad Henne. And Drew Henson.
Apparently not all of us are quite so smart (response to inthebluelot).
IF Hoke is using an injury to take the heat off of someone, it is not Borges-- even if you think he deserves the heat (debatable), even if Hoke thinks he deserves the heat (doubtful), I am pretty sure Hoke feels Al is a grown man and can deal with the heat himself.
More likely, he would be protecting his player, who is, afterall, still a teenager. A move which makes me admire Hoke all the more.
I saw this in the press conference, and to me it seemed like a good way to explain why Gardner was the obvious starter without basically admitting, "Russell was a tire fire."
Just a suspicion, but the timing made it seem a bit strange to me.
Actually, what was said in the postgame presser was that Bellomy had a "situation."
A reporter followed up and asked Hoke what Bellomy's "situation" was and he said he didn't want to talk about it.
The fact that he could've simply dismissed it just as easily by saying Bellomy was injure and had a "boo boo," yet he didn't do that, kind of leads me to believe it wasn't injury related.
Denard could have gone. We need a backup quarterback and a starter for next year and I think we saw about enough of Bellomy to know that he is not it. I think this was Gardner's audition for second team QB for the remainder of season and starter next year. It was an impression audition and I think it is safe to say he got the part.
Well, it depends on what you mean by pressure. I tend to think that people complaining about Borges on the internet is not pressure.
Michigan is coming off a remarkably successful season last year, is in line for its second successful recruiting class in a row, has a 5-star QB coming in next year, is still in consideration for the B1G championship, and the "pressure" is coming because when our star QB went down, the backup did not play well.
No, I do not think Al Borges is feeling the pressure.
And you were including yourself, it might help to spell "Al Borges" correctly any one of the 4 or 5 times you mention him in this thread.
It's not Birgess, Borgess or firealborgess.com. (Though if we see that last one online we'll know who created it).
This staff has never been honest about injuries, and there's no reason they would start now.
This isn't necessarily a criticism, as they're perfectly entitled to tell the media whatever, but it's just an observation.
The bit about Denard starting last Saturday erases any credibility on the subject of injuries and two-deep rosters. Complete misinformation. Now, if the idea is to mislead our opponents and to disrupt their pre-game preparation, or to cover for internal team matters in a way that suits Brady Hoke, so be it. But I am not going to pretend that what Hoke says means anything anymore. At least not on the subject of injuries and where players are on the two-deep.
If it suits Brady Hoke, it suits Michigan. They are one in the same and he's not worried about anything besides the success of the Michigan team when he speaks. We had our three years of the super coach who had to be everybody's smooth operator and the smartest guy in the room. It was a disaster.
As an action and results guy, he'd probably caution us to give meaning to the product he is in charge of taking the field and the quality of men who emerge from his program. I doubt he'd care if any of us give any weight to his meanderings to the media about subjects which aren't their business in the first place.
If it suits Brady Hoke, it suits Michigan. They are one in the same
I'd rather not get into the REAL reason this pisses me off outside of being "one AND the same," but you completely missed the point of Section 1's phrase. Every coach has their way of handling this.
I didn't say, "shame on Brady Hoke." All that I asserted was that whatever his reason(s) -- and there could be some strategic/team morale reasons for misleading in the press -- what we now know, from more than one occasion, is that what Brady Hoke says about injuries and players' status is meaningless. Who knows if it will be true or not?
I'd rather hear Magnus tell me about an unsubstantiated rumor, than read what Brady Hoke says in an interview. Because Magnus' rumors are far more likely to be informative than Hoke's press conferences. I'm not poking fun at Magnus. I'm being quite serious.
I wouldn't make a big deal about it, but for the point that Hoke is thought to be such a great and effective personality in dealing with the press and being the public face of the team. Meanwhile, Hoke's predecessor, whom I don't ever recall making a deliberately misleading public statement, was thought to be such a tactless rube in being the public face of the team.
Winning has a funny way of making a coach right, I suppose.
I'm impressed by how smoothly you can turn every thread into a Section 1 special. This thread is about a backup QB who had nothing to do with RichRod, and yet here we are with Hoke/RR comparisons.
Any chance that you want to throw in some Free Press or politics to really go all in on this one?
How it was Nate Volk who brought up Rich Rod IN RESPONSE to a Section 1 post.
I find a lot of Section 1's posts obnoxious, too, but he's definitely right that it's always the RR critics who start stuff.
That's fair. Antagonistic, snarky comment to Section 1 (mostly) retracted.
If only all of the antagonistic, snarky [and misplaced] comments to Section 1 could be so easily and efficiently retracted. Plus one for you in any event.
What's wrong with the Hoke/RR comparisons? We've compared every other coach throughout the years to the one who came before.
RR has won everywhere he's coached, including in Arizona and that will come back to haunt U of M. They will be known as the one place who wouldn't back up a guy who did it by the book, told the truth, and took the heat.
Hoke and all of us enjoyed last year because of RR and you know it.
You people who have an opinion and voice it and then turn around and tell others what they can discuss and shouldn't discuss really need to reexamine yourselves!
Because you have, by NCAA rules, 20 hours to practice a week. If Minnesota is spending a few extra reps game planning their D for two quarterbacks because Hoke is known to be a lying SOB wrt injuries, it's a competitive advantage. Granted, the difference in our offense isn't that great between Denard and Devin, but still (Not sure they could rule out Bellomy starting either though).
how long have you been a fan or watching the games?
Hoke is winning with THAT masterminds players.
Losing with all THAT talent!!!
There were rumors floating around during the week that Bellomy was injured, so it's not like the coaches just made this up in the last 24 hours.
But it's very possible that they made it up earlier in the week.
One of my favorite characteristics of Hoke (and Carr, for that matter) is his unrelenting public support for his players. It's very rare that he criticizes one of his player's play in public, and he says a lot of things along the lines of "we have a lot of confidence in... Bellomy / Gibbons / etc." If the coaches decided that Bellomy isn't ready and Gardner is the better option, then claiming that Bellomy is hurt is a way to give yourself the greatest win probability (Gardner plays) while maintaining that public confidence in Bellomy (who couldn't play b/c "injured" rather than "not good enough"). If Bellomy's not hurt, he obviously knows what's going on, but I'd imagine that message is a lot easier to take privately from your coaches than from your coaches and the entire Michigan fan base.
But if Bellomy is not hurt, wouldn't they want to put him in instead of JDK for the last drive? Any time he can have leading the offense, even if it's just giving the ball to a RB, is needed. I don't think Hoke would keep him sidelined in that situation just to save face for Bellomy.
and there's absolutely no chance that the coaching staff started the rumors!
Nebraska, at least they should be responsible for not being responsible in preparing the backup QBs in emergence situation. Had Borges used simpler schemes for Bellomy, things might have been different.
Simple schemes or not, Bellomy can't get the job done. Not right now. He had simple throws early, and he didn't hit them. Michigan couldn't run the ball, so the game was on Bellomy's shoulders. That was a certain loss once Denard got hurt.
That was a certain loss once Denard got hurt...and Gardner was only prepped for WR.
Personally, I very much doubt that Gardner would have been able to win that game in Lincoln had he been called on even if he had been taking the 2nd string QB reps for weeks. I'm not even sure UM would have won had Denard been healthy the entire game.
Nebraska has shown a propensity for erasing deficits this season (17 to Wisco in Lincoln, 12 in Evanston and 10 in E. Lansing) and UM didn't even have a lead in the game. I think we are just going to have to acknowledge that UN is pretty good this year. They are MUCH better than I thought they were going to be.
You might be right, but I would at least liked to have seen the outcome with Gardner at QB. A lot of the prssure Nebraska was applying would not have been successful with a mobile QB.
your opinion that his conjecture is conjecture...........is conjecture!
I look at it this way. Should the coaches have figured out by the time of the Nebraska game that DG is a much better QB than Russell Bellomy? Absolutely. And I'm sure they did.
But, in case you haven't noticed, our WR corps. has also been struggling all season--as a result of which, our opponents have often been able to render us one-dimensional. We help ourselves at WR by playing DG there.
So, put yourself in the staff's shoes headed into the Nebraska game. We have Denard, who had never missed significant time to that point in his career, ready to play QB. Now, let's assume though that the coaches know he has an elbow issue and there's a decent chance he'll be injured in the game. We can either prepare DG to play WR, where he will definitely be needed, or we can prepare him to be the backup QB, where he might be needed (and for how much of the game, we don't know either). Realisitcally there is probably not enough time to prepare DG for both positions.
Based on DG's historic performance at QB, chances are we don't beat Nebraska if Denard goes out early anyway--even if DG spends the whole week preparing to back up Denard. Therefore, prepping DG to play WR and gambling that Denard gets through the game is probably the smartest play. It's at least a defensible decision. The coaches have to take those kinds of risks because we don't have historical levels of depth. Sometimes the chips fall your way, sometimes they don't.
And of course, we don't know how much of this information the coaches actually had in advance anyway. Did they realize Denard's elbow thing was bad enough to keep him out a whole half-plus? Did they realize DG was capable of playing like he did that last three quarters against Minn? Did they realize Bellomy would perform that poorly if he had to go in?
It's too bad we lost to Nebraska, but there's no sense pointing fingers at anybody.
To be fair his line couldn't block, his receivers didn't help him when he did make the throws (and he did make some good throws), his backs didn't make plays (like you said), he wasn't being prepared for it in practice, and the only other significant game time he had seen was against Alabama, the number 1 team in the country and the #2 pass defense in the country. On the other hand, he is the quarterback and it was up to him to play well.
is for the position.
And him at qb wasn't the only position not playing up to expectations.
Yay, we have people on this message board who can quote meaningless catchphrases used by Coach Hoke!
I think they had a backup QB developed and ready, but for some reason he continued to play at WR against Nebraska...
There was some talk on the live blog that Bellomy should come in to get some good feeling going. That made sense to me, so when they put in Kennedy I was a little puzzled. To be sure, that's not proof of anything, but maybe that explains why Denard suited up and why Kennedy came in.
Going forward I'm fading anything BH says on injuries.
I agree with your last point (about not taking anything this staff says about injuries very seriously), and I think that's a good thing.
If they think that keeping injury information quiet gives them an advantage, I'm more than happy to live in suspense for a few more days before seeing who's in there on Saturdays.
that maybe Kennedy was put in because:
a-he's a senior
b-the game was in hand
c-probably won't have another game in hand the rest of his SENIOR yr to allow him to actually play.
Injured or not, Gardner won the backup job yesterday. Barring some injury or huge setback Gardner has to be the favorite to win the starting qb job next year.
For those of you clamoring for Shane to be your qb on year one, that's just not going to happen. Especially under an old school coach like Hoke.
we have true freshmen playing all over the place this year. if morris proves he's good enough, he plays. it's as simple as that. the best guys should play.