Lighting a fire
Edit: This post is not a commentary on Tate vs Denard, who should start, whether Tate has been working hard, or anything else. I realize that this is a polarized subject and it is hard to read it objectively, but please try. I'm not making excuses for Tate if he's not working, nor am I condemning him either way. I am simply, only, talking about the reasons for the coach and several players being very public about it, and if there's anything more to it than what it appears at the surface level. Please try not to argue and contain your conversation towards that end.
Alright, I'm going to throw something at you here, and lets see if you catch it or not.
Rich Rodriguez - 'We need to see some maturity and development out of Tate.'
Steve Schilling - 'The Seniors have been meeting to come up with ways to keep the under classmen motivated.' ' Denard has worked very hard.'
Troy Wolfolk - "Denard has come out all the time. Tate's going to have a long way to catch up. He really hasn't come out and that's hurt him in our perception.'
Tate - No quotes this summer to speak of.
Denard - No quotes this summer to speak of.
Now, I want you to ask yourself, honestly, which of our two Quarterbacks is more competetive. When Tate signed, and then Denard, there was a quote where his mother worried about a second QB signing, and Tate said, "No problem. I'll just beat him." Denard, meanwhile, said, "I'll play wherever they need me." Tate is widely known as a little cocky and maybe even a bit of a jerk, while Denard is known as the really nice kid.
Now ask yourself something else. Has there actually been any account of who attended what practices this summer, or how those performed, etc?
Then ask yourself one more thing. Do you want to press a "nice kid" like Denard very hard? No, not really. They may break. On the other hand, what's the best way to press a cocky, self assured kid like Tate? Make them feel slighted, or inferior, and you will light one hell of a fire under that kid. If you're nice, he won't do jack squat.
Call me crazy if you want, but I don't think that what we're hearing out of the team is really a disowning of Tate, who we, they, and everybody else knows can play some serious ball. I think Rich Rod really knows these kids. I think they're just getting his ass burning so that he will come into camp angry, and ready to destroy all comers to prove everybody wrong.
Seriously, it's either that, or they're trying to color us against him so we won't be shocked when he doesn't start, but I just don't buy that. Rich Rod has never disparraged one player, not even those who left and threw HIM under the bus. He's not going to do it to last year's starting QB no matter what.
And to that, gentlemen, I say excellent. Light that fire! Get it roaring!
Your assessment is spot on.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:46 AM ^
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I don't think anyone is "disowning" Tate. I think he's probably just slacking off, and it's pissing off his teammates and coaches.
Competition and adversity is a good thing. It builds character. This is perhaps the first time in a long time that there has actually been competition at the QB position. Even when Mallett was here, he was never going to wrestle the full-time job away from Henne.
For Tate, last year he was THE MAN. It was easy to get complacent and it wouldn't surprise me if he did a little. I wouldn't read too far into the other players quotes about him missing workouts because once again he is recovering from injuries.
I fully expect him to compete in fall camp for the job. The coaches want him to believe he is on level footing with Denard, not the favorite to start. They have somewhat accomplished that. What Tate does from here will say alot about his character. I think he will respond.
I don't think there's any grand plan behind all of this. They're just telling us how it is. One guy is showing up to all the voluntary workouts and one isn't.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:00 PM ^
I have a feeling this won't be the last Tate/Denard post this month. Interesting take, I don't know if they are that intentional with their comments. RR said from the begining he likes competition that forces everyone to improve it's playing itself out in very public way with these two. Comes with the position and the school...hey at least we're not talking about stretching.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^
I have a feeling this won't be the last Tate/Denard post tonight.
I'm not really a fan of calling a kid out in the media--even if it's a calculated motivational ploy. In this case, I felt like it was another awkward media gaff, especially once we saw the immediate retraction by Woolfolk.
I'm sorry, I know Tate won some games for us last year, but the level some people are going to defend him or find excuses for him is getting ridiculous. He didn't show up to some of the hardest workouts that are done at Michigan, the killer summer runs, when the rest of the team somehow managed to get out of bed and come to the torture. I don't think he will start, and if he does, what kind of message is that sending? All of the kids that come out and suffer through the hardest part of Michigan's program and put in the work to be good shouldn't have an advantage? I mean Brendan Gibbons showed up to every workout, and he's a kicker, shouldn't the person who's supposed to be the leader of the team and someone who these killer workouts would actually help show up? And don't tell me he doesn't need it, he was absoultely gassed at the end of the State game last year.
First of all, excuses? I have already said, several times, in several threads, if he doesn't or didn't put in the work, he's only hurting himself.
Second of all:
He didn't show up to some of the hardest workouts that are done at Michigan, the killer summer runs, when the rest of the team somehow managed to get out of bed and come to the torture.
I see. And you were there? You have all the facts and the circumstances and so on.
Third of all:
All of the kids that come out and suffer through the hardest part of Michigan's program and put in the work to be good shouldn't have an advantage?
You've been there for all of the past summer workouts too, huh? You know if Edwards always showed up. You know if Grbac always showed up. What about the A-Train? You know he never once sandbagged it a little bit.
Finally:
he was absoultely gassed at the end of the State game last year.
Uh... because he put the entire team on his back and carried them to overtime perhaps? Did you even watch that game? He was the only reason it was even close.
Nobody is making excuses. If he doesn't do the work, he won't play. But my GOD man! All we have so far, ALL we have is an injured off season and a couple of non-definite quotes from players indicating that either A: He could've come out more, or B: Another player did come out more. And you're all ready to piss on his grave?
Seriously, WTF?
August 4th, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
why do you assume you're right and I'm wrong?
August 4th, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^
I believe I speak for a lot of us when I say that comment has intrigued me and I will be watching your posts much more closely from now on.
August 4th, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^
... for speaking on behalf of the community. It is so refreshing not to have to think or speak for myself.
August 4th, 2010 at 11:27 PM ^
I have learned to just ignore her. Generally she doesn't say much of any substance, mostly innocuous stuff to stroke her board buddies (pretty much like the statement immediately above).
In this case, I'm being honest. If he's got insider info, the more he posts, the better. Sorry for assuming that others feel the same way.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
I see you share Mike Tyson's rapist sharp wit.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:30 PM ^
then that's great. We could use your insider insight around here. Either way, my point still stands. Nobody is "defending him" and it's too early to put him in the grave, too. The post is merely speculation on why.
Also, we get WAY too many people around here who claim to have been "at a practice" or "know somebody". If you do, that's wonderful, and I hope you come around and post a lot more. I mean that honestly. I LOVE insider insight. But just saying so doesn't mean much around here. We've had a lot of guys say so and then it turns out not true.
Might I suggest you reveal your insider identity to one of the mods? That will keep whoever you are private if you want to remain private, but they're pretty good about letting the rest of us know who is a trustworthy source.
I mean, honestly, do you automatically trust every dude on the internet that claims to be party to something?
August 4th, 2010 at 10:49 PM ^
If he does start it says he is the better qb and gives you the best chance to win games. That's it. Do I wish that the starting qb would be the guy up front setting a great example of working hard. Of course I do, but at the end of the day I know that Rich Rod is going to play the guy who gives him the best chance to win. At the end of the day it only matters what these guys can do on Saturdays. I wish it was different but that is reality.
August 4th, 2010 at 11:02 PM ^
Just like the seniors are supposed to be the leaders so is the QB, maybe even more so. It is not just Woolfolk's comments but Schilling's that should be a big red flag to everyone. Whatever Tate is or is not doing, it is not sitting well with two players I respect very much.
The bottom line is UM stunk up the Big House the past two years (thank God they renovated it so we can start fresh) and Tate should be the one pulling the cart on getting the entire team to refocus and work harder than ever to make certain it does not happen again this year. He should be the last person the seniors feel the need to call out for subpar effort.
How many times this will be rehashed in a slight "unique" variation of how it has been analyzed in other threads?
6? 7?
60? 70?
five interceptions against Ohio State are probably still with that team. His fall off last year even with the injured sholder, RR has had to pull Tate into his office in the spring, RR's mantra of competition at every spot including QB, Tates run in with the media, Statements that Tate doesen't spend as much time in film as he should. Rumors of his off the field activities, It all adds up to. What? Tate needs to mature? I don't really know. All I want is what the head coach wants to have two we can win with at every posistion.
to the Michigan football organization of 2010...
I pray to all that is holy that this tactic works. Would be nice to have 2 QB's kicking ass this fall.
Look Michigan has had a bit of a history with QB injury problems. Henne started because Matt G. was injured in practice. Mallet burned his redshirt when Henne was injured. We had Threet and Sheridan playing musical injuries and got to the point where Feagin was playing. Last year Tate took that shoulder injury and Denard's time increased.
Can't we just be thankful we appear to have two QBs ready to roll and go forth instead of pondering who is our "starter". Their differences in style and injuries will ensure we plenty of both. Let's focus on the good part, the part where hopefully DG doesn't have to burn a redshirt.
(I'm betting if Denard had showed no improvement in the Spring Game, all these threads would be "We don't have a viable backup! We're screwed! The sky is falling! Aaaahhhh!")
a "who will start" thread.
It was just intended as a commentary on what might be the cause of these comments. Mostly because I don't want to believe the program would throw one of their own under the bus.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:06 PM ^
Why is it "throwing him under the bus" if he isn't doing everything he needs to be doing? Coaches have been doing this since the dawn of time. Remember Lloyd and Braylon "not being on the same page"?
August 4th, 2010 at 10:13 PM ^
he said that to try to get him with the program, and because he knew that Braylon was the kind of guy that would respond to that. If you do it without purpose, that is to say, if you do it just basically to tell a guy, "You're not trying hard enough" and for nothing else, then that's kind of a crappy thing to do. In that case you just talk up the guy who will be taking over. There was no doubt we were still going to put Braylon on the field all the time. If they're NOT planning to put Forcier on the field (assuming he responds and steps up), then simply saying, "He's not trying" is a dickish move. It's like giving a guy his first negative performance review the same day you fire him.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
I don't think anyone is interpreting these comments to mean that Tate will never play, or that his teammates have shunned him. I think you're over-analyzing all this. Denard is showing up every day and Tate apparently isn't. That's most likely all there is to it.
August 4th, 2010 at 11:12 PM ^
... if you do it just basically to tell a guy, "You're not trying hard enough" and for nothing else, then that's kind of a crappy thing to do
I think it is double crappy to be a senior on the UM football team after two horrific seasons with no bowl games and knowing this is your last shot and having to watch your supposed starting QB operate at a casual, leisurely pace when he should be one of the leaders encouraging the rest of the team (especially underclassmen) to work their tails off.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:16 PM ^
August 4th, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
I agree that it's preferable to have the coach make the statements like that. RR probably does as well - hence Woolfolk's rapid retraction.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^
Woolfolk may have intended his statements to be motivational, but the retraction leads me to believe it was not a coordinated effort.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
Besides, this team needs to present as united a front as possible. They aren't good enough to win if they aren't a solid team.
That's why I'm so confused that they would do it if it WEREN'T a motivational ploy.
They're athletes. They're not CIA agents. Not everything they say/do is necessarily calculated for some higher purpose.
If this were so calculated why did Woolfolk immediately and furiously backpedal on his Twitter?
Let's just win no matter who plays. I don't care if it's Tate, Denard, Devin, or the Trix rabbit.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^
problem with Trix the rabbit is he's more interested in getting his hands on Trix then winning football games.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^
That just means he's motivated to get into a bowl.
August 4th, 2010 at 11:58 PM ^
touche
August 4th, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
RR has a solution for that. We have trained him with balls filled with Trix that he is only allowed to get at once in the endzone. During games we will have boxes on the sideline that he can only have when points go up on the board. Boom Trix'd!
August 4th, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
So is Denard. Both will play because each is too valuable to keep off the field. This thing will work
Not sure about your theory, but yes I hope that's true
August 4th, 2010 at 10:06 PM ^
your crazy
August 4th, 2010 at 10:11 PM ^
You're using your wrong in your title. Unless it was a joke, in which case...whoosh.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^
This man has insight.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^
Even though Troy Woolfolk dropped some seriously eye opening quotes I think we are reading way to extensively into the quotes brought forth from the other Wolverines. What if Troy wasn't as colorful with his comments? Would we still think that Denard is the team leader now? I don't know.
I believe that we should chill out on everyone's comments about Tate and Denard and read into how they are practicing during the fall workouts. The only time that we will know for certain who is the starting QB is when we either see Tate take the first offensive snap or Denard. Until then, it's too early to declare who we think the starter at QB will be when it seems that no one knows.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
Then ask yourself one more thing. Do you want to press a "nice kid" like Denard very hard? No, not really. They may break.
Wtf is that about? After basing your whole argument on the idea that since we weren't actually at practice ourselves we shouldn't take what Woolfolk said and what Rodriguez has been saying at face value, you're saying that the guy we really should suspect as soft is Denard? Because he's a "nice kid"? Talk about having incomplete information, give me a fucking break! Sorry dude, but you're in denial. The good news is Tate can still recover.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^
I believe quite a few posters have commented that they've met Denard at various places and he was really nice, and others have commented that they met Tate here or there and he seemed more cocky. Is this a for sure thing? No, but it's not something that necessarily needs to be doubted, either.
And when did I say Denard is soft? When? All I said, at all, was that in my, and I think most other people's experience, nice people tend to respond better to positive reinforcement than negative. I know I do. If that's not true, fine, but what bearing does that have on my argument? It really had nothing to do at all with anyone's references to Denard. I'm not even positive why I mentioned it.
I fail to see what I am in denial about. I've said several times now, including in this thread, that if Tate hasn't been or doesn't do the work, then he's hurting himself, and I am not DENYING that that may not be the case.
Everyone: THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE CRITICISM, NOT ABOUT TATE'S PERFORMANCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I am not saying ANYTHING about whether or not anyone did enough/not enough work. I am ONLY speculating on reasons for this repeated public commentary.
Furthermore: I did not have an argument, nor did I base one in anything. In a reply, I did ask somebody if they had been at practice because they asked why I was defending Tate, and again, I reiterated that I am not defending anyone. Never once in my post did I say "We don't know if Tate worked hard or not!" I did say that there's no account of practice either way, meaning that it is very hard to draw specific conclusions. Not that we should doubt what anyone is saying.
The thread is about the why. Not about the what.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:59 PM ^
Saying Denard might "break" with negative reinforcement is tantamount to calling him soft. And on top of that you have no idea that that's more true for him than anyone else.
The thread is about the why. Not about the what.
Sure, but you need to have a baseline to what the subject is (the what) before asking why. But you keep on talking about if Tate hasn't been putting in the work as if it's even a question. That's a direct denial of what Woolfolk said. That's why I said you're in denial.
August 4th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
Wow. Maybe you have had a hard day but my goodness man ease up. There are things to get pissed about. This isn't one of them. I can understand why you made the jump to Denard is soft. I was actually going to post a question to clarify that is not what he meant. You do treat different personalities different ways, unless you are comfortable with not pushing each individual to their best. Some people respond better to encouragement so if you want to get the best out of them that is how you treat them. I think that was his thought. I think he just worded it poorly. Maybe you need to go get a drink and relax.