Devin may play... Good or Bad?
I have always considered it a positive thing that Gardner is said to be competing for the starting QB job. However, the more I hear about Denard's progress, the more I want to hear that Denard has separated himself (Or Tate really) from Devin. I guess that I find it hard to believe that Devin can be so talented that he has caught the 2 sophomores after spring and fall practices.
How do you guys feel? Do you see it as a positive that Devin is competing? Or would you also like to see one of the sophomores improve to the point where any true freshman will undoubtedly be behind them?
August 28th, 2010 at 1:18 AM ^
August 28th, 2010 at 1:21 AM ^
We should start a fund to send Angry Michigan _____ Hating God to Tahiti for the next four months.
August 28th, 2010 at 2:08 AM ^
You should be in luck. Last I heard Tahiti switched their national currency to MGoPoints.
August 28th, 2010 at 4:42 AM ^
I'd be willing to burn Devin Gardner's redshirt to beat Ohio State. I think he'd be down with it too.
August 28th, 2010 at 4:51 AM ^
We have heard all of the arguments ad nauseum about another freshman QB starting. They all make sense including another year of Barwis and 15 more pounds of muscle. But.....
Here is another thought. Let's assume that Gardner is really as good as some people are suggesting - the recent blog entry indicates that he has really got unlimited potential and MAY be quickly closing the gap on Tate and Denard. He also possesses something neither Tate nor Denard will ever have - he is tall and can really see the field. Wouldn't you think that you won't get the redshirt plus four because Gardner would be heading to the NFL early. Obviously, that is not what we would want, but these days, if you have the potential...you know the drill. It is not what any of us would like, but the unselfish way from the perspective of the player (and the team) is that you would hope he is that good.
So, in that case, you lose absolutely nothing by not redshirting.
I also think, in that scenario, you do not start or even play Gardner for CT and ND, but let him play as much as he can against Massachusetts and Bowling Green (maybe). Get him ready just in case.
August 28th, 2010 at 8:29 AM ^
If Tate, Denard, or the two-headed monster are winning, then Rich is taking a risk by playing Devin. A half against an FCS program (UMass) or mop-up against Bowling Green does nothing to change that reality. So Gardner will likely redshirt.
It is, however, a mistake to think that means he won't play until this year's starter(s) graduate. He could easily overtake Forcier/Robinson in 2011. His problem this year is that Denard is still basically an unknown quantity, but he has at least played in Big Ten games -- so he's going to get his shot. Tate is behind him, with a full season of game experience.
Unless things go horribly wrong this year, something that no one, certainly not Devin (he and Denard are roommates), is hoping for, he won't get his chance until next year.
August 28th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^
Devin play. The spring game is not representative of what Devin is now. I am not saying he should start and blaa blaa blaa Vince Young, triple Heismans. I just think that if he is capable, some game time experience as early as possible is a good idea. By capable I mean he can 'manage' the offense and not be a turnover machine. The coaches know what to do and have not yet sought my opinion on this matter, so whatever they do is fine by me. He seems to be getting plenty of reps in practice--I don't think the coaches would do that unless the competition were really close. But, if I were betting, I'd say Denard starts.
To me, what is mind boggling, is that people think Devin is the best QB RR can ever get. If MICH has a good season this year, recruits will be much easier to get. I would say we'll always have at least a couple of QB's ready to go.
AND, it may be garbage time to fans and announcers, but to a player its nothing but game time. (No one is suggesting Devin go in and take a knee.) You can't coach game experience, you just can't.
Finally, Devin and Denard in the same backfield? forgetaboutit.
August 28th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
He will redshirt this year. He needs a year for learning and watching film, just mastering the offense. I don't want to see him play until 2011 when his mechanics are fixed so he can destroy some people.
August 28th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^
Put me in the camp of "this is RRod's decision". I trust the coaches to make the best decision. If DG gives us the best chance to win games, then play him. You play the best players. I'll accept whatever decision RR and staff come up with.
August 28th, 2010 at 3:01 PM ^
I think the people in favor of a redshirt are full of shit for these reasons:
1) You say that DG should be redshirted, but if TF/DG gets injured you would play DG over Kennedy.
2.) Even if TF/DG don't get injured, but they play inconsistently like last year, you would want (and expect) RR to give DG a shot over Kennedy.
Please. Just preface all of your "pro-redshirt" messages with these scenarios. But still, even if you do add these footnotes to your rationale, your pro-redshirt movement still doesn't hold water, and here's why:
The risk of injury to DR/TF is too great, the risk of inconsistent QB play is too great , and the fire burning underneath RR's ass is too great not to give DG at least some playing time this year. A redshirt is a redshirt. It should only be burned under the 0.0001% chance that the more experienced players can't do the job. The chances of this happening at QB are far greater, unfortunately, and the chances go up as long as the QB's are unable to separate themselves performance-wise. DG needs to get snaps early in the season to prepare for these scenarios.
I've said it before, there is no way DG gets redshirted. No way in hell.
August 28th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
You say that DG should be redshirted, but if TF/DG gets injured you would play DG over Kennedy.
I don't know why you see a contradiction there. There is a massive difference between being the #2 QB and the #3 QB. We want to see him redshirted with the expectation that Tate and Denard will make it through the season healthy, which would leave Devin as the #3 QB. If one of Tate or Denard gets hurt, he then gets bumped up to #2, and that changes things dramatically.
As for your second point, even if Tate/Denard are inconsistent (and they probably will be - they're still underclassmen), I don't think turning to a third-stringer is the answer. Just because a guy makes a few bad plays doesn't mean he must be benched. Did you want Brian Griese to be benched after his first half in the '97 Iowa game?
August 28th, 2010 at 4:27 PM ^
Another way I look at it is if they think Gardner is the best fit, most talented qb for this offense, then give him some playing time in games where Michigan is either blowing out a team or getting blown out by a team (hopefully not). That way he'll get some experience so he can start next year.
Pryor started as a true freshman. So did Henne. Nothing beats experience. Otherwise even if Gardner is redshirted this year, then next year they're going to say that he doesn't have a chance to start because of a lack of experience and Forcier and DeRob will have so much more experience.
I just think that if they know Gardner is the future qb, it's too risky to wait too long with a qb with this much talent.
August 28th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^
That line of reasoning assumes that garbage-time action against UMass and BG actually will make a difference in Gardner's development. I am less than convinced of that.
August 28th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
Consider this. Size and bulking up isn't an issue with Gardner. So that really can't be a reason for redshirting. Live game time experience is the only way to face the unexpected. He could even come in in tight games on non-risky plays just to get in there and get experience. Sort of what Florida did with Tebow a few years back. A qb doesn't develop by sitting on the bench the whole season.