MGoBlog Civil War
From where I stand in the east, I can clearly see that there is a storm brewing on the horizon of MGoBlog. The quarterback situation has been a non-issue in September, because, like all issues, nothing really matters when you're winning. BUT all too dangerously, last night could very well become the start of something that threatens the solidarity and unity of the mighty MGoBlog community.
I fear that in the weeks and perhaps years to come, each of us will be forced to take up arms and make a choice for what, or in this case whom, you believe in:
TATE or DENARD.
HOLLYWOOD or SHOELACE.
5 or 16.
Forcier or Robinson.
So ask yourself... are you a Fiver, or are you a Sixteener??
Let the bloodshed commence.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:13 PM ^
I really like Tate and I think it's pretty stupid for people to turn on him after one bad game. He has already basically won 2 games for us in the 4th quarter and he brought us back into the MSU game and almost won. I like to see Denard come in as well, but I think Tate should be getting more snaps than him at this point.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^
There is not a correct answer in this debate. Logic lovers everywhere can be assured, yes Tate should have been in on the last drive, every last one of your boring stats prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But, there is more to the game than analyzing past performance to make real time decisions.
RR felt based on what was happening in real time that Denard gave the team the best chance. Logically I don't think Denard should have seen the field at all Saturday, but then again based on the numbers Tate should not have had the performance he did, but then again football is not logical.
So here am I back at square one, more confused than ever, needing that one elusive stat to unify the natural world.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:59 PM ^
If he puts in Tate and Tate tosses an interception or doesn't score, then all the second guessers screaming that Tate should have been in would scream "Well, Denard was the hot had, HE should have been in". As it stood, the coach read the game momentum at the time and put in who he thought would deliver. He picked the one that just delivered on the drive before. Tate was either rattled or banged up. Both of which are going to happen from time to time. Denard earned the right for his shot on the prior drive. No, he shouldn't have tossed that pass, but that's the learning curve.
We're 4-2. We'll beat Del State, Illinois and Purdue. That's 7 wins and a bowl against a team we should beat. That's what we were hoping for coming in and we're going to get it and maybe more if we tag Wisconsin, OSU or PSU with a loss.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:24 PM ^
It seems to me that at this point there are two schools of thought: There are certainly loyal Forcier people here at this blog, including myself, which we'll call faction one.
Faction two, on the other hand, are NOT Denard people, but actually just people who don't freakin' care WHO gets the snaps as long as we're getting the job done. If George Morales was suddenly put in at QB over Tate and wins the game, they're cool with it. If benching Forcier gets the job done, then so be it.
Either way, I think there are very few people who are Denard-loyal. At this point he's the X-factor, the change of pace, the "What If?" guy-- but I don't think anyone's sold on the idea of handing him the keys.
As I said, I'm with Tate... and I wanted him in. I was hoping someone would get out of bounds and then Tate would sub in for Denard and get us down to about the 20-25, where Olesnavage would get his moment. Ahhh, well... that's life.
When Gardner gets here, the topic will get even crazier, but as far as I'm concerned Tate's our quarterback. Everything else is ninja magic.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:37 PM ^
you just did an amazing job of summing it up. I happen to be in the 2nd group. If Tate isn't getting the job done, put in someone that will. I love Tate and its not even a discussion on who our starting QB is. But he just didnt have it last night.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:56 PM ^
But only because your avatar convinced me.
What was the topic, again?
October 12th, 2009 at 12:04 AM ^
I'm in the Michigan faction, always will be
Maybe that's part of your group two, but for me it's about The Team, The Team The Team.
I like seeing both QB's play learn, grow and produce in their own way.
The coach knows more than I do about this.
I have disagreed with coaches decisions, even ones where he was correct. Yes I am disappointed with the loss, but much more excited about the progress of the team.
I can't channel my disappointment and energy into thoughts about one position or player - even one as important as quarterback.
Again. The Team, The Team, The Team.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:35 PM ^
Give me some Nader Furrha.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:00 PM ^
this is a tough question. the main thing in my head is that I don't buy that a 2-QB system can really work for any extended period of time.
If I had to choose a QB, it's Forcier. you've got to pick one guy and let him develop. we can't just ditch the guy after a bad outing. I guess I don't know whether Denard will be a good enough passer to be a full-time QB. he has the same size/spatial limitations as Tate (in terms of lacking size, etc). He'll have the same batted ball and frailty issues. He's incredibly gifted athletically, and I actually really wish they could script a role for the guy that doesn't put him in as a QB. When Devin Gardner gets here, that's when we'll have the real discussion, seeing as how Gardner is IDEALLY sized and has a huge potential at QB.
it's a tough issue, but I admire Rich Rod's decision to see what he's got in both guys. we'll see. the 2nd half of the season will be interesting for the development of both guys.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:43 PM ^
if either minor or matthews do not fumble, shoelaces never takes a snap
October 11th, 2009 at 10:56 PM ^
Or Forcier doesn't fumble and throw an INT...
October 11th, 2009 at 9:25 PM ^
Normally I would say, "Come on dude." But for some reason, I find that really funny. The obvious answer to the QB question is whoever is out there if "you" are truly "ALL IN."