Malzone & Perry played well Friday night
Link to the article below. Malzone 18/26 for 276 yds and 3 TDs. Grant Perry 10 catches for 131... offer the kid!
http://michigan.247sports.com/Bolt/Malzone-Perry-Lead-Brother-Rice-To-Victory-31504980
September 27th, 2014 at 7:42 AM ^
September 27th, 2014 at 7:46 AM ^
Michigan has chased after the top ranked guys, the guys with all the measurables, and more or less, the results have been just okay. We won more games with smart, overachieving, under the radar types (see: Brian Griese and Tom Brady) than we did with the pre-college all-americans with oodles of accolades. Malzone seems like a winner, a guy who really understands how to run an offense and play quarterback; I am really looking forward to his development. I know Henne is well loved around these parts but I still think Carr made a mistake by not playing Matt Gutierrez after he recovered from his shoulder injury. Henne was that guy with all the hype and a high ceiling but Gutierrez, if I am remembering correctly, never lost a game in his high school career. Just win baby.
September 27th, 2014 at 8:03 AM ^
September 27th, 2014 at 8:10 AM ^
That Cali program was lights out good but the larger point was Henne struggled during his time at Michigan and Carr never pulled him. That was a maddening time to be a fan because there was talent everywhere yet we couldn't seem to do a whole lot with it. I wanted to at least get the chance to see what a smart cerebral guy could have done with that talent.
September 27th, 2014 at 8:48 AM ^
September 27th, 2014 at 9:00 AM ^
September 27th, 2014 at 9:52 AM ^
Because there was no good reason why we weren't winning more. Now, there are reasons everywhere and that is just SAD. If you have been a Michigan fan as long as I have you have grown accustomed to maddening because every year other than 1997 had a touch of it.
I suppose that undermines my argument that the Henne era was especially maddening but for me, those were the years I was closest to the program in terms of exposure (season tickets, reading Michigan Daily articles covering all the gaffes etc).
September 27th, 2014 at 1:12 PM ^
Michigan won two big ten titles from 03-07. We are in a maddening time right now LOL.
September 27th, 2014 at 8:52 AM ^
"Michigan has chased after the top ranked guys, the guys with all the measurables, and more or less, the results have been just okay. We won more games with smart, overachieving, under the radar types (see: Brian Griese and Tom Brady) than we did with the pre-college all-americans with oodles of accolades."
---
Do any of the other 21 positions matter? Do you think _maybe_ having a once-in-a-generation talent at CB (that Heisman guy) might have had a little more to do with '97's success than Griese?
Do you think that having a QB with "Andrew Luck" talent (instead of a "game manager") would have been detrimental to the '97 team?
Sorry -- you sound a little too much like the "3-star players are just as likely to be good as 5-star players" crowd.
September 27th, 2014 at 9:43 AM ^
I love the high star guys as much as anyone (and believe more often than not that is a good predictor of future success) but I am getting tired of the Henne, Mallett, Morris type players who have all the ability but seem incapable, at least too frequently for comfort, to make the correct read, check down, or decision to throw the ball away.
Based on very little evidence, granted, Malzone seems to have some of the abilities (I believe there was an article touching on his command of his teams offense and how he made a lot of the calls) I would like to see under center. Sure I would have preferred Josh Rosen for obvious reasons but maybe having a guy who really understands the nuances of how to play QB isn't the downgrade we have come to believe.
The same argument could be applied to running back. Mike Hart learned the nuances of playing running back because he had to whereas someone like Derrick Green was accustomed to running over or past his competition to the point that he didn't have to work on anything else.
September 27th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
That's some pretty weird logic. A really good Michigan RB happened to be a 3-star guy, and some underachieving QBs happened to be 5-star guys, and therefore the stars are the problem. Down with talent!
September 27th, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^
I am not advocating for lesser starred players over their more highly rated counterparts. I am saying OUR record of developing the "must have" 5 star QBs has been spotty. My comments were intended to be an attempt at praising Malzone and what he brings to the table as I am sure there are many individuals who are disappointed that we settled for him when we were in it for guys like Rosen.
I was attempting to use the Mike Hart vs. Derrick Green comprison to clarify my point, some of which is obviously lost in translation on the internet. Apparently I failed in that attempt.
September 27th, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^
September 27th, 2014 at 3:12 PM ^
I love anyone who suits up for Michigan. It is just a series of observations (read them ALL if you want to get an idea as to what I was getting at). No need to throw around vitriol just to see what happens.
September 27th, 2014 at 8:56 AM ^
September 27th, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^
Your examples of QB's at Michigan who never lived up to their talent is limited and faulty. You cite Morris, who is 4 games into his true Sophmore season, why don't we actually let him start a few games before we talk about how much better Malzone would be. Mallet left Michigan after one year and ended up having a pretty succesful college career at Arkansas, not sure what that has to do with Michigan struggling with talented QB's at the helm.
As for Henne, do you really think the coaches would not have played Gutierrez if they thought he gave them a better chance to win? Henne had a quality four years at Michigan and is still hanging around the NFL, I don't think Henne's lack of "grit" and "game-managementness" is what was holding Michigan back during his time here. Last time I checked Michigan was undefeated heading into the OSU game with Henne at QB, and I don't believe Henne deserves a large amount of blame for that loss. Not sure what else you want out of him.
You are right, well coached, not as talented teams can beat talented poorly coached teams, but the problem is not with chasing after talent, the problem is identifying and developing that talent. Michigan has been very poor at that for awhile now. And yes, Mike Hart sure was nice here at Michigan, but I would have rather had Adrian Peterson, why, becaues he was significantly more talented.
The difference in college has always and will always be coaching, until Michigan brings in coaches on offense that can actually develop talent, they will struggle, whether they bring in talented 5 stars or "hungry" three stars.
September 27th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^
But I am very worried that will not be the case.
Mallett turned into a solid player at Arkansas. That is not to say he would have stagnated at Michigan but our track record of polishing QB has turned spotty as of late (this unfortunately includes Gardner).
Henne was legit in 2006 but 2005 was a serious issue for him and to not even look at the bench was an error. You can say the coaches always know best but to not even have Gardner prepared for Nebraska after Denard went down, as they planned to use Bellomy as the backup, suggests coaches make mistakes all the time.
I completely agree that talent should be considered above all else but the QB position is the one place where having a smart, cerebral, player trumps having a guy who can throw the ball 80 yards.
September 27th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
I guess I just don't see the trend you say is there. I will grant you Hoke/Borges showed a terrible ability to develop the two QB's (Denard and Devin) that they had at Michigan. Sure you can chalk it up to them not knowing how to handle QB's with that type of skill set, but they still ruined two QB's.
I also believe you are reaching way to much to find a longer trend at Michigan. Rich Rod's three years are difficult to judge because he had three different QB's. You can't use Mallet as a legitimate statistical point because you have no real basis for how he would or would not have developed at Michigan seeing as how it would have been under Rich Rod, maybe Lloyd could have gotten some development out of him had he still been the coach.
As for Henne I think you are being far to harsh on him. He was a solid four year starter who had some really big games and some really bad errors like just about any QB starting for four years would have. He is still bouncing around as a semi-starter in the NFL. Not sure what more development you want out of a QB than that.
In conclusion the offensive player development under Hoke has been terrible, hopefully Shane can start a new trend for them. But I don't think yo can draw any more conclusions about long-term trends than that. But I do appreciate your reasonable discussion of the matter
September 27th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
That has to have the final word but since you are also coming about this in a rational way I suppose I could add one more thing. I once, years ago, calculated the winning percentages of our highly touted QBs versus our under the radar guys (this list went back to Henson but did not inlcude the Rich Rod or Hoke QBs) and it was clearly slanted towards the under the radar guys. That is not to say the QB is the whole team or anything, it just is what it is.
All I am really trying to say is that while Henne was/is solid, Gutierrez deserved a chance in 2005 at least. Henne's games that year looked a lot like what we have seen from Gardner and it seems like the coaches are at least pondering giving Shane a real shot to make a difference. I wanted to know what Gutierrez could have brought to the table, that is my point. Malzone is more along the lines of Gutierrez than he is like Henne, Mallett, or Morris. I think there are reasons to be excited about Malzone even if he isn't the highest rate guy around because that is not always a predictor of future success.
September 27th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
I appreciate the response. I think we have succesfully managed to hide this conversation in an out of the way thread that not many people are looking at.
Its an interesting hypothesis, with talented teams (like Michigan should be) are you better off with a "game-manager" because they are more likely to just get the ball in the hands of their playmakers and not make any game changing mistakes? I could see QB being the one position where you would take a guy like Kellen Moore (smart QB, not a great arm) vs. a guy like Matt Stafford, absolute cannon for an arm, but doesn't always make the best decisions.
I agree though, I am excited about Malzone, but I am still excited about Morris. I hold out hope, terrible start aside, that Nuss can be the QB whisperer that some people said he was when he got the job. I like Devin a lot, but I think he may be beyond repair, but I hope Nuss can get the most of Morris's talent.
September 27th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 27th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^
Like it is today but I think I read somewhere that he was just an average type recruit. Certainly not in the class of Henson, Henne, Mallett, or Morris.
September 27th, 2014 at 2:38 PM ^
I hope Malzone actually pans out.
September 27th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^