wait what is this about?
MGoBlog Civil War
How about whoever is playing the best at the moment?
Because the main dispute people are having is whether you should still play the person that's supposedly playing best at the moment if they aren't necessarily the best for that situation. Many people (self included) think that in a situation that calls for passing and managing the game clock, Tate on a bad day is still a better option than Denard.
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to accept. Denard put them back in the game and was playing well, Tate was obviously struggling the whole game so it made sense to put in D-Rob for that final drive. Everyone seems to think that somehow Tate would of suddenly been on a fire and gone 5-5 on the drive and lead us to a win. RR made the decision and Denard made a bad read, it's not the end of the world they're making progress and I'm excited for what's next.
I see your point but Denard put them back in the game by running and it wasn't reasonable to do that with 1:30 left in the game. I actually think that with how Tate was playing earlier (in particular the poor decisions he was making), Denard should have gone in a drive or two before he did--but with very little time left, you've got to go with the guy who can pass. Tate also has a little history of going from meh mid-game to amazing at the end of the game, so he might even get the nod for that reason.
I think Denard has great potential and when that passing threat has developed (which I believe it can), he will be a monster of a quarterback, but Tate is the only QB who currently threatens teams both in the air and on the ground and he should be playing the majority of the time for that reason.
it wasn't reasonable to do that with 1:30 left in the game.
If Denard would have made the right read on that play, or even ran with the ball, we would have picked up a first down and gotten out of bounds pretty easily. He would need ~20 yards in 40 seconds. That's definitely reasonable.
That said, I agree that DRob should have been in earlier. The spark came too late. Actually, I agree, or can see what you're saying, with much else that you said. I just think the "not enough time" meme is incorrect.
could easily be applied in a different way to Tate if he had the chance to go in IMO. The time issue is relevant, because in that situation passes were called for--they were not (necessarily) in Denard's first drive. And when passes are called for, play your best passer. Look, I get the other side, and its legit POV, but when you're in a game winning drive situation, the odds are with you when you play the only QB you have that has proved he can win the game in the air.
I see yours (and others POV) as well. I just think there are a couple using the time crux as a reason he shouldn't have been playing in the first place. I think that's not the right argument.
I agree that the "if he makes the read" was proven that he didn't, but I don't think that means Tate automatically goes either. I think everyone on the "Tate should have been in" wagon agrees with that as well.
I'm neutral on the decision. I don't think it was "OMG WORST COACHING DECISION EVER," but I understand it and respect it. I think it helps that I expected Forcier to be worse than what DRob was on that drive. Lowered expectations and all that.
I don't pretend to know what would have happened, I think it was wrong and yelled it at the TV as Denard was running onto the field that it was wrong and that Denard would throw an INT (not glossing myself, just a fact) but I don't discount that there was a possibility of success either. My beef is with those on both sides that say it was either "stupid and childish" or, as M friend of mine texted me, "the only decision possible"
Threet is that you?
(5+16)/2 = Ten-point-fiver.
In other words, whichever of the two gives us the best chance at 7 given the moment.
I will say a Fiver but I get really excited when I see One Six come in
Whoever is better at handing the ball off to Minor.
If that's the case, not Tyler Ecker. The guy couldn't hand off to Steve Breaston when it counted; I don't trust him to hand off to Minor. /flashbacks-to-alamo-bowl
Forcier is the only real chance we have this season. Robinson is only going to be a "third down and holy shit" until he learns the schemes.
Or he can lead us on a touchdown drive against a top ten team to give the team a chance.
GODDAMNIT, get your facts off this thread. The internet is no place for facts, just e-pinions.
Iowa is not a top ten team!
Question 1: How many more touchdowns does Forcier have than Robinson?
Question 2: I forget, was it Forcier or Robinson that led the Wolverines on last minute drives against Notre Dame, Indiana, and Little Brother?
1- Forcier has 9 more TD passes.
2- It was Forcier
Question 1: Who played like crap and looked rattle for the first time this season?
Question 2: Who just led us on a touchdown drive, on the road, against a top 12 team, in a hostile environment to get the team in a position to win?
1-Forcier(the freshmen who was bound to look like one eventually)
2-Forcier and Robinson! Actually I take that back. Forcier was under center leading them on 2 touchdown drives, Robinson on one.
Question 1: Do you actually believe Robinson was going to throw his way 83 yards in just over a minute with his past incompletion/interception record? Well if you did, you don't now.
Question 2: Was last nights game the first Michigan game you've seen all season?
We didn't need 83 yards. People keep forgetting this. We only needed a field goal to win the game. Not only did we have less distance to cover, it's also easier to drive over the middle of the field (when your receivers have lots of room to run) than it is to punch it in on the goal line. If Denard had just thrown it to Odoms, we would have been very close to FG range already.
Okay, 63 yards-ish. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, team effort. Right? Still, I prefer Forcier's arm over Robinson's footwork. Of course none of this matters until we get some consistency.
Yes because I had more confidence in him to do it at that moment than Forcier.
No, I have watched all 6 games this year.
Dude why are you being a dick about it? Forcier was making mistakes. The ball almost got picked off twice in the series before he was benched, and this was because of his poor decision making. His head was not there. There is a reason why Rich Rod is a head football coach making millions of dollars and you aren't.
tell me more
I miss the days of Antonio Bass' status and haloscan.
I had a throw back to the haloscan days with a binary thread earlier. Brian deleted it.
that makes me a sad panda
01000111 01101111 01101111 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001
And I'll take both these QBs for the next three and a half seasons.
Everyone is forgetting about Furrha. That dude's... well... I have no idea.
Jack Kennedy is on the roster as well.
Jack lived in my hall last year. He's such a nice guy. I wanna see him get some playing time at some point in a blowout. I talked with him a while ago and he said he's behind Coner because of seniority obviously. Hopefully in a couple years.
16 was bettr than 5, therefore 16 should be in the game. Still crying about that decision, WHY!!!!????!!!!111!/??!
Edit -- the pass, not the fact that Denard was in.
this is an online message board....
Besides, we don't have to choose just one do we?
I read the thread topic and didn't read the OP, so I figured it was more of the excessive complaining about the loss.
Yeah, you wouldn't call it a civil war if you were actually in the civil war. That is horrible, it's like saying you like Nazi Germany more than the Buckeyes. It's just ... uncivilized. right Brodie?
Trouble letting things go?
Denard will not be the starting QB bar injury to Forcier.
He might split some time, especially when he picks up the offense and learns how to throw to U-M, but until then will not and should not. I love D-Rob but he's just not it. I'm dying to see him THROW for a TD (next week!?!?!?!) this year.
I'll take the moderate stance. Or the Switzerland stance. Either way I'm taking the stance that I'm not taking a stance.
Then we'll get the 3rd faction - the Gardners
I'm reading this thread thinking of my smart-ass "Devin Garnder should start, uh-oh I'm a year early!" post only to find you beat me to it.
Zoltan Mesko. 53.8 yds per punt average last night.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But only because your avatar convinced me.
What was the topic, again?
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.
Give me some Nader Furrha.
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.
if either minor or matthews do not fumble, shoelaces never takes a snap
Or Forcier doesn't fumble and throw an INT...
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."