Yeah its a dialect called drunkard, do you disagree with the sentament of the post, or just taking potshots on the only thing you can? Your response also proves my point, thank you.
Devin Gardner for QB?
Way to go Irish.
What I love is how people in here think that the decisions are so simple, so obvious, and that the men that spend their lives making these decisions are IDIOTS when they don't do what THEY believe is the best thing to do in any given situation.
The answer is obvious. If Hoke and Borges thought that Gardner gave Michigan a better chance of winning the game, we would have seen Gardner at QB. They didn't feel that way, so we didn't see Gardner. Simple. Why is that so hard to understand?
I disagree. I think they just didn't give Gardner enough reps as a QB. He wasn't prepared to take over because they'd been running him at wr. Gardner was so-so last year, but worlds more talented than Bellamy.
That they were wrong in thinking Bellomy could manage the game. I've been hearing that Gardner didn't play because he hasn't seen QB snaps in some time. If true, how does a logical find not have a problem with that decision from the coaching staff? Many of us wanted to see Devin move to WR, myself included. I don't think any of us expected that move to mean Devin would not even be an option at QB if things turned ugly.
Everyone ripping on Bellomy, this would happen to almost every school in the country! Do you not remember what happened 2 weeks ago against Illinois?! Nebraska's defense totally changed when Denard went out. The kid was understandably overwhelmed! Wouldn't it have been the same if Martinez went out?! Imagine you're a 19 year old not expecting to play and all of sudden you get thrown to the wolves on the road in a night game with the Division title on the line. Cut the kid some slack!
Michigan has failed to score a touchdown in a game 6 times. 3 games from 2000-2011, and 3 times this season. We've turned a once-in-a-graduating-class event into a once-every-few-games event.
That's a crazy stat.
Conference record takes precedence over head to head right? Means we have to root for sparty next week.
I would assume in a two way tie, head to head matchup is the first tie-breaker.
So bad he's gone six quarters without scoring a touchdown with Denard Robinson. That's hard to do.
DG at QB is not just a theory. He came in a couple of times last year and looked OK, not great, but OK. He did not look intimidated or overwhelmed. And you could not just blitz him every play.
Again, do you REALLY think that if Hoke and Borges thought that DG gave Michigan a better chance to win that they WOULDN'T have put him in? If you believe that, there is no talking to you, because you're delusional.
Agreed and well said.
We all forget that we are working with imperfect information. We don't see practice, we don't talk with the players, we don't know anything other than the games we see on TV.
We debate the strategies of the coaches because it is amusing and they are human, so their decisions can be questioned.
What really can not be questioned is their motives- they clearly are in this to get a victory for Michigan. So I think it is pretty clear that they felt that at the present time, Gardner was not the better option at QB (perhaps because he has not practiced there or whatever...)
Of course, fair points have been raised about whether DG should have been in a position to have been the backup, or whether more effort should have been made to recruit scholarship QBs...
I think they thought RB looked better in practice, but an actual game situation under duress is a different animal. DG has been able to handle actual game situations.
They have their eyes on the future, so they don't want to kill RB's confidence and they stuck with him.
I'm trying to remember when Gardner was in a similar situation to Bellomy today--not mopping up or coming in for one play, but trying to run the full offense with the starters on the field and the game in doubt.
And what I'm coming up with is the MSU series after Marcus Rush put Denard out. Successful long pass, then a pass thrown from beyond the LOS, then two sacks including not getting rid of the ball on 4th and 21.
And then the third quarter series against Iowa that ended in a sack and an intentional grounding penalty.
It wasn't pretty, not that there was any reason to expect it to be. More than half of the passing plays resulted in sacks. It really wasn't much better than today, it just never lasted as long.
Gardner's most successful stint at QB was in the 2011 Illinois game, when he came off the bench and directed the offense on our last few drives. He threw a TD pass on 3rd and long that pretty much clinched the game.
I can understand why he didn't play tonight - I assume he hasn't practiced at QB for weeks. But going forward, I think it's clear from Bellomy's performance that we need to try Gardner there. From here on out, Gardner should - at the least - be splitting his practice reps between QB and WR, if not going back to QB full-time. This will also help him get ready for next season, when he may well be our best option at QB.
He showed little in his mop up time last year other than the ability to scramble. His passing was erratic and nothing to write home about. He wasnt a frosh last year so that is not an excuse. He had practice time last year. Obviously the coaches who see him day in and day out, saw the same things I am saying. Not that I am an expert. You dont move the most precious commodity in sports out of the position if he is going to be elite or at least ABOVE average at the position.
The pining for Gardner now is a lot like the pining for Bellomy each time DRob f**** up - it is always greener on the other side.
only require an ability to threaten the run with the zone read and complete simple short passes. I don't think anyone would argue that Gardner wouldn't be a more threatening presence running the zone read than Bellomy.
I'm seriously interested in hearing how Hoke still went with Bellomy after the kid was 0-11 with 2 INTs and 3 sacks for -16 yards? There's being loyal and there's being stupid.
The coaches gambled and lost. Gardner is almost certainly better able to play QB right now. But thanks to the lack of talent at receiver, they cut gardner's reps and prayed Denard wouldn't get hurt. As it turned out, though, Gardner hasn't shown much at receiver and we got stuck without an even remotely viable back-up QB. This is the first time I feel like Hoke really blew it. You can't go into a big game without a servicable back-up QB. They should have had Gardner prepared. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.
That's probably the most disappointing thing about the move. I wasn't expecting him to be all big-ten but I was hoping by this time we'd see the light coming on, and him being a decent contributor at wr. He catches a couple balls a game but when he's had catches to make a big play it seems he's failed to convert most of the time.
You missed another Russ, Russ Rein in 1984 against Iowa . . . Michigan's last shutout.
I thought I saw the worst of what a UM offense could be in 2008 with Sheridan and Threet...
I was wrong...
I'm pretty buzzed so the QB's name is escaping me (Demetrius Brown??) but he threw 5-6 int's in a game that UM lost by 7 pts.
Given Bellomy's performance tonight trying to pass the football, it's no wonder Denard is starting quarterback, even if he was not a phenomenal running QB.
What makes things worse, Borges runs very simple passing plays, which allows the offense to be a sitting duck for the opponent's defense. There is a lack of creativity and screams predictability. At least with Devin Gardner's running ability, you allow 3 options instead of 2: hand off to a running back or attempt to pass.
In addition the OL is porous, the current RB corps is either very ineffective or very green. As for the WR, should we begin to consider giving the starting WR's rubber cement for their hands.
Finally, can someone tell Borges about a hurry-up offense or no huddle offense. Let's not give the oppoenent's defense to complete homework for next week's class on the field!
... Borges passing plays are *not* simple. The West Coast offense has, as Seth alluded to in an early thread, a symphony of route-trees that nearly always spring someone open. We have had a ton of dropped passes, non-crisp routes (particularly Devin Gardner), and inaccurate passes.
For example, in the last two games, third-and-goal, Borges dialed up pass plays that got a receiver open at the goal line crossing left to right - an easy throw for a right-handed QB to make if he gets the time. Both times the line blocked, the receivers ran good routes ... and the pass missed. That's not on Borges.
Finally, to get back to the point of the thread ... no, we shouldn't move DG to QB. Any scenario where Denard is out for an extended period means we're done - he's the entire engine for our offense. In a sense, it doesn't matter who the backup is, so we shouldn't strip one position to get no improvement at another.
I feel for Bellomy - he's, what, 20? - he had to know that this was an important game, and every time a pass got dropped or he misread the D that monkey just got worse. I sincerely hope the coaches are basically reminding him that he can't change what happened, he can only go forward and learn from this. He's got nowhere to go but up, after all.
I also fear that Devin Gardner was moved to WR for two reasons: A, desperation - we had no one else who could get separation, and if he can pick up the WR routes well enough ... B, he was going to end up the 3rd-string QB behind Bellomy if he didn't move, because he's not accurate enough to be a good QB either - basically a bigger-but-slower-and-less-practiced Denard.
Neither one augurs well for him, and if they're both true ... well, maybe a full offseason at WR will help him tighten up his routes and his ball-in-flight-radar.
I refuse to blame Russell Bellomy. He is a RS Freshman with little experience and the receivers didn't help him AT ALL. Yet again.
I was starting to think that the team hated him or something - - I think it was about 15 passes into his career before I saw a receiver not drop one of his passes.
Even Brian pointed out in an MGoPodcast that he thinks that the receivers are trying to make everyone who doesn't want Denard to play QB feel bad with the receivers refusing to catch balls and Roundtree swatting them out of the air.
is the guy who caught the first pass was the fullback who almost never gets the ball thrown his way.
Denard kept his helmet on the whole second half. What a champ.
It's time for Rawls. Or anyone else. Fitz has had his chance. Maybe he needs the motivation of working to get his spot back.
Bellomy only highlighted the continued problem with our offense which is the absence of a true running game from our RBs. And speaking of RBs, why in the hell didn't Rawls get any touches? Toussaint was meh. And while I love him, Vincent Smith isn't exactly a "change of pace" back. He's a smaller slower version of Toussaint. Rawls at least would have been a different look, someone to lower the boom especially when we went to I-form. Is he in the doghouse or is there an injury I missed?
Wow, I thought the game made me feel bad. The reactions of fans is shameful. Better years are coming and those that can't see that or don't understand why tonight went all wrong should probably put down the keyboards.
Yeah better years are coming! As soon as we get rid of the guy who's scored over 75 touchdowns and single handedly kept us from becoming Washington!
We may not again have an individual player like Denard, who strikes fear into every opposing DC. But the way we're recruiting, our entire team should be more talented across the board in the future.
This one falls on Hoke. Hear me out. Bellomy was the right choice at first to go with. Once we realized D Rob was out for good, we should have made the switch. Bellomy started what 0/10? I am not suggesting we win with Gardner. I remember what he looked like at times last year. All I am saying is once its proven in this big of a game that RB is not the right choice give DG a chances to see what happens. It's not a knock on RB. That was a unfair situation for his first time meaningful pt to come on the road against Nebraska at night with that much on the line. At least DG had been here 3 years and been on the field a lot. Once again not suggesting we win if we make the move but after 0/10 why not
according to reports
Cuz last time I check receivers get jacked pretty often. I can't see how it'd be more dangerous to put him at QB.
The issue isn't where he'd be more likely to aggravate the injury, it's whether he can perform at QB with an injured throwing shoulder.
Has not happened since 1962.
We can debate WHAT is wrong, but we cannot debate That SOMETHING is wrong.
A conservative gameplan against an agressive MSU D and a few dropped passes account for the lack of TDs leading up to Denard's injury.
Losing does that.
Don's made that post after every loss Hoke has had. We've always gone on to win the following week, so maybe it's his personal reverse-jinx.
I also think people need to calm down just a litle bit. Notre Dame is the only game we really had no business losing. Alabama is Alabama. Crap officiating plus Denard going down with no QB depth, what did you expect tonight? Denard going down spelled just the doom I (and most everyone else) thought it would. Auburn we are not.
Gardner's been practicing as a WR. Regardless of how painful that was--and it was Sheridan-level painful make no mistake--it seems the plan has always been if Denard gets hurt, Bellomy plays the rest of that game. If the plan is to get Gardner ready for long-term as expected, it won't happen in-game.
I know while watching that there's something in side you screaming 'WHAT ABOUT OUR 5-STAR JUNIOR QUARTERBACK WHO HAS BEEN IN BIG GAMES BEFORE?' and even if the part of your brain that remembers Gardner in as something other than a distraction for Fitz/Denard Jet is asleep at that moment, you can't put a quarterback in who hasn't been readied for the situation. "Gardner and stuff" would look just as awful.
I didn't think Bellomy would be that hopelessly bad. He has neither accuracy nor any kind of arm. If Denard can't go next week and Michigan doesn't prep Gardner, that right there is enough to declare Gardner really isn't any good. These coaches are not crazy. They're going to do what they think is best to win. They're not liable to just throw shit at the wall like Rodriguez was on defense, and that's why you see them sticking to the plan and not just trying Gardner and stuff. If Bellomy really is a better option, well, you have seen extended Bellomy now and no, that isn't going to spring into a Big Ten-level quarterback anytime in 2012. Either Denard will be able to play, Gardner will be in, or give up on Gardner this year because the coaches think he'll do worse than whatever that just was.
That is a defeatest attitude, and it's NOT something I ever want to see out of a coaching staff EVER. Clearly Bellomy is fucking awful but the point is it couldn't have been any worse. FFS put in Jack Kennedy - the result woulda been the same.
What you are suggesting is the offensive equivalent of "hey let's try Vinopal at FS." Yes, it can get worse when you throw shit at the wall. Yes, it is technically possible that you'll sell it as a painting, but you have to weigh that likelihood versus the 100% chance being the guy who flung shit all over his wall.
I have no trouble believing Bellomy > Kennedy.