Even though there is still an "or" separating them, does the fact that Nick Sheridan is now above Denard Robinson a bad sign?
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
cannot see Death coming in now....he is working on coaching
If Tate were to get hurt, I would have more confidence in Sheridan to win a game than Robinson.
Denard has already made 5 or 6 outstanding plays in limited action as a true freshman. That is 5 or 6 more than Sheridan has made in his career.
Apologies if my sarcasm meter is off, but there is no way Sheridan would/should play ahead of Denard.
During the MSU game, Denard got a series in at QB. In 3 plays the team lost 18 yards. He is clearly not ready yet to play full time as a QB.
I agree - a couple of completions and good runs amidst several interceptions and many lost yards and failed plays does not mean he is ready. I would rather see Sheridan mixed with some Robinson than only Robinson.
The kid has barely gotten a chance to throw the ball. He is 4-11 for 57 yards with two picks. If Odoms doesn't bobble that ball against Eastern his passing numbers are pretty productive, though I don't like the mistakes/picks any better than the next guy. He's also the third leading rusher on the team getting over 5 yards a carry (sacks and shitty snaps included).
Sheridan is awful. Denard has nearly doubled his rushing output from last year already (though he was supposedly the mobile QB option). He's thrown 2 TD's and 6 picks in extended time on the field.
Let's see what Denard can do with a real opportunity to throw the ball. We already know he is ten times the athlete Sheridan is with the ball in his hands and anyone with eyes can see he has a much better arm.
Blueblueblue, are you talking about Sheridan or Denard?
if that game is the best example of what the kid can do at quarterback. I wouldn't say Denard is necessarily ready to start at QB either, but that game didn't show much. The OLine was awful. Tate didn't have a good game untill the fourth quarter either. I would probably prefer to have Denard in the game rather than Sheridan, though. I haven't seen Sheridan complete a pass all season (I believe his one play resulted in an interception in the endzone). Denard has at least completed some passes and can run the ball like a mad man in space. Obviously everybody wants Tate to just stay healthy so we don't have to worry about this situation.
You can't go by the MSU game. NOTHING was happening until there was 4 minutes left in the game. Do you think sheridan woulda been able to drop a snap, pick it up, and run it in for a TD? I don't think so give me Drob and let sheridan wear that headset.
Sounds a lot like last year, does it not?
Denard has one thing that Sheridan and Threet did not have last year and that is the legs to aviod certain situations but, his passing ability thus far looks worse than either did last year. Everyone knows he is not a passing threat anyhow! It pains be to say that I feel Sheridan would be able manage the offense better. He will not have any spectacular plays or anything(unless a receiver makes it for him) but still a better shot at winning!
Did you watch last year? Sheridan may know the offense better, but that means nothing if you cannot make the plays.
Denard just needs time and he'll be fine.
sometimes they actually improve from one year to the next
Denard's yards per attempt throwing are considerably higher than Sheridan's (a little over 5 to about 4.4). Neither numbers are great, but Denard adds the element of being an amazing runner to the mix. We know Sheridan can't run (2.2 ypc and a long of 12 yards) or throw (46% completions, three times as many picks as TD's, less than 4.5 yards per attempt). We know Denard can run and he's shown the tools to be a good passer.
Just one more stat: Denard has already produced 3 touchdowns (all on the ground) while playing quarterback for Michigan, the same number as Sheridan (2 passing and 1 rushing) for his career.
I dont think anyone denies that Denard is the better athlete or even the better QB. What we have trouble with is Denard's ability to manage a game, to make good decisions, and to carry out complex plays. He is too raw. Denard will eventually be able to do all of these things, but he is not yet there. Sheridan can open the playbook and he can enable other playmakers to shine. Denard can't yet do that, except for the circus catches necessary to bring down some of his passes.
And one more thing - you cannot compare Sheridan last year to Denard this year. There are waaay too many other variables (such as OL, WRs) impacting the stats. Everyone is better this year, everyone knows the system much much better. We know Denard is the better athlete, but give up the faulty comparison.
Where are the different linemen and receivers from last year? Looks to me like all the same guys are playing. They are a year older, but the real difference is the fact that the quarterbacks aren't terrible.
If anything is "faulty" in the argument it is your assumption that Nick Sheridan would be able to do anything positive if placed in the position of being Michigan's quarterback. He has had plenty of playing time and been awful, he is a former walk-on (for a reason), and there is no evidence to indicate his massive physical deficiencies have changed/improved. Yet you advocate playing him over a world class athlete who has been an extremely productive runner when given an opportunity and whose passing numbers (in extremely limited duty as a true freshman) are just as good if not better than Sheridan's.
Hate to keep bagging on Nick because he is presumably a hard worker and a great kid, but he should never have seen the field at Michigan and that fact should not change now that the team has two extremely talented kids at the position.
Did you even read my response? Everyone is not only a year older, everyone knows the system better. You take quite the simplistic view. You say they are all the same guys, I say they are all different in the same way - the way that allows the QB to be much better. And I find the rest of your reasoning quite curious and narrow-minded (i.e., stuck in 2008), and not worth responding to. I will just say one last thing - I didn't advocate playing Sheridan over Denard, I advocated playing Denard and Sheridan.
I am glad you aren't on the coaching staff. Again, you've done nothing to justify your idiotic opinion that Sheridan should ever see the field again (barring a massive injury to The Coner).
Your ideas about game management and complex plays are laughable. The coaches call all the plays and (I'm pretty sure) make all the audible calls. They are the ones who manage the game for the offense. Sheridan has done nothing to show that he would be any better at making on-field reads or reacting to defenses during plays (I again cite his long record of ineptitude). This is not a complex offense, they just attack the opponent from a lot of different angles. The quarterback rarely has to make more than one or two reads and to think that an extra year in the system would make up for the fact that Sheridan sucks at football is ridiculous.
Unless we live in a universe where magic exists and Nick Sheridan gained access to its powers over the offseason, there is zero reason to think he has any chance of being even a competent Division I quarterback.
The offensive line has improved from last year, so as Warren, as has Stevie Brown, as have others on the team, as do many college kids. To assume that the offensive line can improve, as can many other college kids, but somehow Sheridan cannot, and he has proved this to you by the what, 3 plays he has played this year, is faulty logic completely obscured by memories of 2008. It fails.
Wow, I don't think Sheridan would be a better choice but all I can think after reading your post is "wow Dick..."
Maybe everyone is playing better because Sheridan is not the quarterback. I'm not saying it is true but this year we have looked better, offensively than anytime last year. (1st half of PSU and 2nd half of Wisc, aside ... those were Threet, anyways.)
With Sheridan in the game we taking the element of a running quarterback out of the playbook. These variables will be a benefit for Denard just as much as Sheridan. Denard's play making abilities I think, give us a much better opportunity to win and let us all just keep our fingers crossed that Tate doesn't go down.
rather have death by denard than death by sheridan.
Just a thought, and you guys might know this better than me, but dont you think that Sheridan would have improved with even more time in the system, i mean weve only seen him take like 4 snapsthis year(i know the results werent good), but he beat Minnesota last year and more time have to equal improved. I dunno, rambling aside, i think right now Sheridan would be a better option for a whole game. Only my epinion
Sheridan may have improved with more snaps, but I would still rather see Shoelace on the field than DEATH! Sheridan is NOT a better option for a whole game. That's my epinion
Sheridan has played for one drive this season. Sheridan has one interception this season.
Don't you guys think that if Denard were the full-time lineup the offensive game plan would change a bit? Thinking that Sheridan would be a better option than Denard is ridiculous.
I really dont think sheridan has gotten any better. Like someone said earlier sheridan has had one drive and one interception. He really can't throw or run. With denard he can at least make something happen with his legs and after getting more reps in he will become a better passer.
No way should sheridan play before denard. Can Sheridan throw the ball any better than Denard? Maybe at times, but at least Denard took a sack against MSU where Sheridan would usually take a leap and arm punt the ball. Plus, Denard has big play ability and also can make something of nothing - Sheridan can do neither. Also, Sheridan isn't building a foundation for a future at UM - Denard is....
if, god forbid, tate misses a game(s), there is no way sheridan should get a start. is last year that long ago? if only for practice reps alone, denard should get all of them; none should be wasted on sheridan. it would only make denard better long term.
plus, denard can at least throw the ball > 30 yards and make plays with his legs. Nick can't. IIRC, denard's picks were both thrown into the wind and thus just slightly underthrown. one may have been a TD with no wind.
We still can't assess DR as a QB. So far, he has come in as a change of pace "package" type of QB. We have not seen him as the every-down type of QB yet, so we have no idea how he would do in that situation. Further, many of the passes he has been asked to make have been down-the-field lower percentage type of passes. If we were put him in with an eye to keeping him in for as many drives as possible, he would be running more of the playbook you see Tate run (more heavily run influenced for obvious reasons). We could see how he does with rollouts, screens, play action stuff, etc. Until we see that, it seems unfair to accept or dismiss him as a QB based on what he has been asked to do on the field so far.
Did you watch him during his "series" in the MSU game? He was obviously throwing and got nowhere. He reportedly has the whole playbook at his disposal as well.
If we're making excuses, Sheridan threw what would have been a TD pass against Western, if I recall correctly.
I don't recommend Sheridan starting over Denard, but Sheridan could be a change-of-pace QB if Denard is the starter. Sheridan is not immobile; last year people were talking him up as the mobile QB versus Threet.
The whole point of my post was that we can't judge DR as a QB yet because he is getting in intermittently and as a change of pace.
And I don't have to "make excuses" for Sheridan, we have an entire year's worth of games to judge him. Had he gotten in a few plays a game all last year to run what amounts to a 90% wildcat offense I would give him the same treatment I am currently giving Denard: that we don't have enough information to judge whether he'd be a viable permanent QB in the event one is needed.
"last year people were talking him up as the mobile QB versus Threet."
That is like changing pace from a turtle to a snail. Because he was more mobile than Threet doesn't make him a mobile QB.
"If we're making excuses, Sheridan threw what would have been a TD pass against Western, if I recall correctly."
And Sheridan DID throw what WAS an interception against WMU.
Sheridan has been given his chance to run the UM offense and he failed. I would at least like to see Denard given the same opportunity if Tate goes down.
Did anyone really talk up Sheridan last year? I remember some rationalizing going on ("Well, he's a coach's son so maybe he doesn't suck that bad"), but I don't remember anyone really hyping him up.
went down, Id fully expect to see Sheridan take 70%ish of Tates snaps and Denards workload to increase a little bit. I think DEATH has improved, but we'd probably see alot more of a pounding ground game. Lets just hope it doesnt come to this.