Oh Noes! Karsh hints it's between Tate and NICK
http://www.mgoblue.com/Multimedia/MultimediaCenter.aspx?id=183746
so it's subtle but Doug is talking to rod smith and asks him about why nick and tate might win the starting job, but only mentions DR as getting "a bunch of snaps"
August 27th, 2009 at 8:39 PM ^
Another quote I enjoyed was when Smith said that when he got his coaching job he'd hire Nick as an assistant...
August 27th, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^
Well, I'd imagine Nick would make a good coach. His father is a very good coach and Nick is supposedly one of the most respected players on the team.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:52 PM ^
I heard those same things dropped here and there in various articles over the off season. If it happens, good for him.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:28 PM ^
I believe that is the plan for Nick. He has stated in the past that he will be enrolling into the graduate assistant program for coaching. He's a smart kid and I think he's gonna be a very successful coach when that time comes.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:29 PM ^
Agreed.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:03 AM ^
I wonder what kind of coach he'll be...
August 28th, 2009 at 9:09 AM ^
As a Giants fan, watching the first two pre-season games of the "Sheridan at DC" era, I'm not so sure.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:23 AM ^
Touche. Though I'm sure we both agree that making it to that level is a sign that he must do something right... Tom Coughlin doesn't seem like the type to promote cronies.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:39 PM ^
Don't worry...it may be "between Tate and Nick," but I think we all know who'll end up as the starter. Sheridan's there in case of catastrophe and Denard should be penciled in as the weapon off the bench in certain packages and situations.
Let's all stop the fretting and let things play out next Saturday.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:55 PM ^
I got all giddy when you said next Saturday =D
August 28th, 2009 at 12:38 PM ^
as did I
August 28th, 2009 at 8:04 AM ^
Can't wait for things to be decided on the field. I think what a lot of people forget is that we'll see more of the playbook this year. Even if Sheridan is in there (PLEASE NO!) but nothing I can do about it - he should know more of the playbook. Tate and Denard have the athletic ability to run some of those plays that didn't make sense to run with Sheridan or Threet back there. SO - things will be decided on the field and it can't come fast enough!
August 27th, 2009 at 8:44 PM ^
I picked that up too and wondered how much to make of it. I liked how Karsh [loosly quoted from memory] asked the question, "If X player were to win the starting job, what what is it about them that would gain them the job?" Does it mean anything that he asked the different question about Robinson? Interesting too, is that the feature plays they chose to highlight was him tearing it up on a run, whereas they were showing Tate making medium deep touch passes. Are we looking for things where there are none, or is this games within games within games?
On a different thought, the Coach Rodrigues presser has me worried. My proviso is that I am no coach and by no means a football genius, but it makes me worried to hear Coach talking about using different packages of plays for different QB's. It seems on the surface that this would make our offence more predictible. It would seem to me you would want one guy to run the whole playbook including run and pass options for the QB to keep defenses honest. If Robinson comes in and it is 85% likely that we will get a QB run play; we put Forcier in and we become more pass oriented; and if Sheridan is in its all short pass underneath stuff that this will make it easy for defenses to game plan against us.
I have faith in Coach that he knows what he is doing and has done this before, but these are my raw anxieties talking to me here...can anyone rational calm me down and reasure me?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:07 PM ^
The Dolphins used Ronnie Brown in the backfield in their "wildcat" to great success last year, and Brown is a RB, not a running QB. While there is some disadvantage to knowing what package tends to run or pass more, the same can be said about different formations, i.e. I-formation compared to 4 wide shotgun. Defenses will have a little bit more of an idea how to stop the play, but doesn't mean they'll be able to stop it.
We'll see how it goes :)
August 27th, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^
with Antonio Bass, Steve Breaston, Carlos Brown, Brandon Minor, Justin Feagin, to name a few. It's not like it will be DR coming in for every run play. He'll be placed in there strategically from time to time, probably on second or third and short. I'm sure on one or two of those he'll run the option fake, and drop back to fire a long ball to Matthews.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^
That's why I would consider having TF/DR side by side in a shotgun formation - this might be the only way to force defenses not to expect a run or a pass.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:48 PM ^
Doesn't that push Robinson into a role that is half RB and half QB? Is that a bad thing?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:51 PM ^
Why not put DR and Tate in the backfield at the same time with Minor? Maybe direct snaps to DR? Or you can snap to Tate and have DR roll out on a swing pass and let him go. Even if he isn't used and Minor runs the ball, he still presents another option that will affect how the defense approaches us. Just a thought.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:23 AM ^
maybe b/c moundros is probably the best run blocker on the team. it would be a mistake to remove him from the backfield for a significant number of plays.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:37 AM ^
Part of having guys that are particularly good at one aspect and using them in a reduced role is that it forces the opposition to game plan for that type of attack, resulting in less time spent working against the base offense.
And while it may be more predictable when the player is in the game, in theory, they are better than anyone else on the roster at running those particular plays and given their reduced playbook, they should be able to execute at a higher level than if they had the entire playbook to execute.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:47 AM ^
You may get more true read option plays with DRob in the game but, there will be a whole variety of plays in the package. Just think of Carlos Brown and Denard in the backfield together- are you only going to concentrate on the QB run? I think not!
Tate will have everything but, I think they will try to limit the number of times that he runs by design. The idea of Sheridan will only bring back nightmare images from last year.
I'm hoping for a package with both Tate and Denard in the game together!
August 27th, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^
I think Karsh just got tired of asking the same question over and over, so he changed it up a bit.
But, the 3 QB scenario makes WMU and ND (yeah, I think they are looking ahead to the M game) prepare for 3 QBs. Now that is a nightmare scenario for the opposing defenses.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:44 PM ^
Really? I mean, I agree it is more tape and prep for a D but nightmare? Two true freshmen and NICK, a nightmare indeed.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:47 PM ^
the Toledo Blade.
"If yesterday's practice session was an indication, freshman Tate Forcier has an edge over Nick Sheridan and Denard Robinson at quarterback. Forcier began drills with the first-team offense, although it was the junior Sheridan who displayed the strongest and most accurate arm of the three, both indoors and later in the rain. It seems as if Sheridan is closer to catching Forcier than the fleet-footed Robinson is of supplanting Sheridan. Rodriguez said practices have been structured so all three will be afforded meaningful repetitions, a scenario that will continue until a player progresses or regresses in relation to the others. Asked which signal caller was atop the depth chart, Rodriguez said, "All three of them."
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090827/SPORTS17/908…
August 27th, 2009 at 8:53 PM ^
Sheridan who displayed the strongest and most accurate arm of the three, both indoors and later in the rain.
Sheridan who displayed the strongest and most accurate arm
Sheridan strongest most accurate armwhat oh wait right, it's the blade. carry on
August 27th, 2009 at 8:54 PM ^
Breathe...inhale slowly...exhale...that's it...breathe...
August 27th, 2009 at 8:59 PM ^
The Blade = better Michigan coverage than the Free Press.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:07 PM ^
but after seeing some of the inconsistencies in reporters' opinions on things M-related (a post of Brian's on the frontpage comes to mind), I've soured on them as well. And most print media.
I'm not a big fan of flakes
August 28th, 2009 at 1:49 AM ^
or is it just Barwis who is responsible for his bulking up to 220 and getting reportedly stronger?
(just kidding about the Bonds comment obviously)
August 27th, 2009 at 8:48 PM ^
I think we all got a wee bit high on Denard a tad too quickly. Very few people expected him to be the opening day starter a week ago.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:17 PM ^
guy wouldn't appreciate your comments.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:46 PM ^
Something akin to sniffing glue...
August 28th, 2009 at 9:33 AM ^
the shoelace lovefest last week, although entertaining and a glimpse of possibility to come, was premature to say the least. he is no where near ready to be a starting qb. there is just no way his speed and athletic ability can compensate for unfamiliarity with the RR playbook. he will see PT no doubt, but from a limited section of the playbook. personally i'm not opposed to seeing sheridan "start" the season opener IF the competition is as close as the coach speak has suggested. before the onslaught of negs hear me out...consider...and debate. although we are all clinging to the notion of qb messiah, it may be good in the long run to start sheridan (again IF the coach speak is not well...just coach speak) to indicate to tate and drob that the learning curve is a long sojourn and that they must continually put in extra effort to supplant nick as "the starter". now even though i think nick starting the game could be beneficial long-term, i DO NOT want him to get the majority of PT, far from it, i think tate should get most snaps. but in terms of "earning the starting position"...similar to "earning the #1 WR jersey"...i think it keeps the freshmen qb's humble and hungry to prove their skills.
that said...Go Blue!!!
August 27th, 2009 at 8:49 PM ^
this whole "OH NO sheridan might be our QB" talk is dumb. If he is then that's because he is our best QB and tate and denard just aren't ready. Just remember, sheridan doesn't represent the future but he's here now and if the coaches think he is the best candidate to transition our program from last year into winning seasons and eventually big 10 championships then so be it. Even if he is the starter vs WMU he most likely won't start more than half of the games this season. Just relax. We'll be fine this year.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^
I agree. Sheridan won't be a star, but I think he'll be noticeably better than last year. Also the OL will be much better. Also the WRs will be much better. Also the RBs will be much better. I'm not excited for Sheridan, but I'm not worried either.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:21 PM ^
Why do you think Sheridan will be substantially better this year? He was already a redshirt sophomore last year. He supposedly was already a "coach on the field" so his knowledge of the offense isn't likely to substantially improve. The main reason Sheridan was bad last year was because his arm was super weak. This is unlikely to change.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:24 PM ^
Conventional wisdom agrees with you, but all practice indications agree with me. He just seems better. Plus, he may have known the playbook better than Threet last year, but he was still only 8 months into the offense by the time the season started last year, and now he's been in it for 20, I think that will make a big difference.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:30 PM ^
This just reminds me too much of us talking ourselves into Sheridan starting last year, except this year we actually have a track record that we can look at that says last year Sheridan was by far the worst qb in the Big Ten. Even with dramatic improvement this year there's no way he is even a middle of the pack qb in conference. Also, unlike the other 2 qbs Sheridan isn't a running threat, this severely handicaps our offense and I don't know why this aspect keeps getting overlooked in these discussions.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:34 PM ^
That I agree with. And don't get me wrong, I don't want to find out that Sheridan is our best bet. I'm just saying that if he is, it won't be like it was last year. He also has everyone else to rely on this year, which he didn't last year. And even if he is our best option, I don't think he will be after another month, unless he surprises people and plays well. All I'm trying to say is that Sheridan 2009 > Sheridan 2008, probably by a significant margin.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:50 PM ^
Yeah last year wasn't all his fault. But a big part of it was. There was no reason for him throwing into triple coverage constantly like he did last year. He just doesn't have the tools. He's not fast. He doesn't have a good arm. He makes terrible decisions. NO SUGARCOAT.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:47 PM ^
Fair enough, but I won't go so far as to say "we'll be fine". We were 3-9 last year playing the majority of the time with a qb that by the end of the year just about everyone regarded as demonstrably better than Sheridan. I think improving from that to 7 wins this year with Sheridan can only be regarded as an absolute best-case scenario, with 6 or less wins (or more likely fewer)being far more likely.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:47 AM ^
on this board, very little is made of decision making. It is probably the most important skill a QB needs. And decision making improves with time and reps. Regards of what the masses may think of Nick Sheridan, he has the most experience in the system among the QBs.
And using last year as a barometer of what he may be capable of is somewhat dishonest. He played with 10 other guys that had little idea what they were supposed to be doing on a given play. Nothing worked well for the vast majority of the season. That was not entirely Sheridan's fault.
Am I suggesting the Sheridan will be the starter for the entire season. No. If he is the starter for more than a two or three games, I will be concerned about the progress being made by the freshman. But the freshmen need time to develop, and it shouldn't surprise anyone if the coaches decide that getting their feet wet with a few series per game is the best way to move them along as opposed to throwing them in the deep end and hoping they can swim.
Just remember, that placing great expectations upon freshmen is only going to lead to disappointment. This should be apparent when we have recently read that USC has just chosen their first ever freshman to start at QB. A program with as long of a history as USC has never previously start a frosh at QB indicates the significance USC places upon experience.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:05 AM ^
I agree, Chad Henne sucked. Especially in 2004.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:11 AM ^
In the interview, Rod Smith said Sheridan is:
"further along mentally" than the other QBs
"A different player than he was in the fall"
"he is a better player than he was in the fall"
August 27th, 2009 at 9:09 PM ^
Except that last year they selected Sheridan ahead of Threet for the Utah game(Ugh)
Sheridan had the worst arm I had ever seen for a D1 QB, I'll accept that he improved over the Summer, but if he has a stronger arm than Tate then I am taking cover this year because it will be a disaster.
If that's the case put Denard in and run the 4 plays that he knows and we'll run it 95% of the time Georgia Tech style.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:25 PM ^
The reason that everyone is saying "OH NO sheridan" is because if Sheridan is our best qb we should seriously lower our expectations for the season.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
I think that's partly right... people also want to see Shoelace and Tate because they're the shiny new toys. No one likes it when on Christmas day you open your presents and you can't play with any of the ones you got this year because they need to be put together, batteries installed, etc. No one would be excited by Sheridan starting due to the stigma, the POSSIBLY lowered expectations for the season and because Shoelace and Tate are going to be fun to watch and it just means more waiting if they don't/can't play right away.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:46 AM ^
sarcasm doesn't transmit too well on the interwebs. I just find it amusing that all the hype on here for denard the last couple weeks doesn't mean he's close to being the starter yet. Doug Karsh brought us the McGuffie as starter story last year. He's probably one of the most "inside" insiders.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:13 PM ^
Whatever is going on, it is a great motivational card for RR to play to push the QB's and I think he is playing it well.