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"
Oh Noes! Karsh hints it's between Tate and NICK
Another quote I enjoyed was when Smith said that when he got his coaching job he'd hire Nick as an assistant...
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.
I heard those same things dropped here and there in various articles over the off season. If it happens, good for him.
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.
I wonder what kind of coach he'll be...
As a Giants fan, watching the first two pre-season games of the "Sheridan at DC" era, I'm not so sure.
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.
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.
I got all giddy when you said next Saturday =D
as did I
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!
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?
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 :)
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.
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.
Doesn't that push Robinson into a role that is half RB and half QB? Is that a bad thing?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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."
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 arm
oh wait right, it's the blade. carry on
Breathe...inhale slowly...exhale...that's it...breathe...
The Blade = better Michigan coverage than the Free Press.
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
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)
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.
guy wouldn't appreciate your comments.
Something akin to sniffing glue...
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, Chad Henne sucked. Especially in 2004.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think Nick,by this point,knows more of the offense than Tate or Denard.Tate is probably second,because he enrolled early. the question is does Nick possess the physical tools to run alot of RR offense.
Tate with greater ability but a little less knowledge of the play book may be a better choice.
Denard with great physical skills and getting started late limits his knowledge of the play book.
The coaches probably do have plays scripted for each guy.
Boy! I hope this works out.They're going to have to pick their poison.
This makes sense. I never expected Denard to be the feature guy. He's a change of pace from what the other two will bring, not the focus of the offense.
Love the kid to death because he's a Michigan man....but he has a spaghetti noodle for an arm.
He cannot play significant minutes this year. I will die if this happens
It's either Tate or Denard....Nick does not have the physical tools
Well, if that article is to be believed, Sheridan showed a better arm than Tate did in practice today.....
Ok, if it's remotely possible that Nick Sheridan improved his arm strength that much in 9 months, I want whatever workout plan he's on, because I'll do it for 2 years, learn how to throw a curveball, and sign with the Yankees for $50M.
I was actually joking they'd overpay for something shiny. I wouldn't expect to be very good.
Aye, I was only joking as well, the Yanks are actually my 17th favorite babeball team
Well if youre looking to pitch the Yankees are notorious for overspending for not so good pitchers
No, you won't. You will sign with the Tigers and like it.
You want another tall lefty that throws 88mph and gives up 8 runs a game? If so, you'll love this guy the Tigers just declared the 5th starter. I believe his name is Nate Robertson.
to be cremated or buried?
There is no way in hell Sheridan has a better arm then Tate. Sheridan must have improved A LOT. If that is the case then I'm really worried about this year.
If anything, the interview made it seem slanted towards to the freshmen, IME.
From everything that we now know,Nick Sheridan may be the greatest practice player in the history of Michigan football.
Have you heard of Stevie Brown?
Mejunglechop it slipped my mind, I had forgotten our greatest cover guy. My mistake.
a good point here, and that is the decision will be made based on how well each player practices. This is, most likely, the reason why RR has stated that all three will play vs. Western. He wants game tape on each QB. He wants to see how each guy will react to live game situations, which are entirely different from practices/scrimmages. As much as the WMU game is the home opener and a very important game, it is each QB's audition for the next week's game.
In all likelihood, if Tate does not start, it will be Sheridan for perhaps one series just to see his progress from year one to year two in the system. Also, remember that he was injured for a good portion of this year and missed valuable time. Tate, again if he doesn't start, would come in because he is more comfortable with the playbook than Denard.
Finally, Denard will probably see time on primarily run plays to see just how explosive he can be in this offense. The QB with the best performance starts against ND.
DR will not start against ND.
RR is also obviously playing with The Schematic Genius down in South Bend. Pretty sure that even after the Western game, there won't be a starter named ahead of ND for exactly that reason. It may be obvious by then, but I'm sure all three names will still be in the mix.
How'd you happen to choose your MGoName? Been awhile since I heard the name Greg McMurtry.
this screen name because I started watching UM games in 1988 (I'm 30) and he's one of the players that I remember from that team. Also, he's rarely mentioned when people speak about receivers who've worn #1 at Michigan even though he had a solid receiving career.
And although the name doesn't have the ring of Tyrone Butterfield, McMurtry was actually a good player.
I agree... now I'm wondering what length is the leash these guys are going to be on. How long will RR wait to make a change if things start going bad.
Regardless how Sheridan looks against our porous defense (yes our defense is not very good even with GERG, accept it) in practice, he has proven to choke in game situations. His knowledge of the playbook may be great, but he made terrible decisions in games last year (e.g. Notre Dame, Toledo, and N'Western games). He didn't show improvement after his "breakout" performance against Minnesota. Not that we know how the freshmen will react in game situations, I can't imagine that they could be any less composed than Nick Sheridan.
For whatever reason, I'm starting to worry about us getting through this WMU game if Sheridan sees significant time. Maybe I'm just wary because of the last 2 years season openers.
I honestly think RichRod is just sugarcoating in his interviews. I don't believe RichRod honestly thinks Death is a respectable option at anything other then clipboard holder. I mean think about it. How the hell could 3 QBs really play and be successful? It is nearly impossible. The QB is the leader. You can't sub QBs like you do RBs or WRs. A successful offense has to be comfortable with one starter. That's not to say Nick won't add depth. But people, RichRod isn't stupid. He's just talking out his ass.
Right, and to REALLY convince people, he's playing Sheridan with the first team O and giving him an equal number of snaps. That RichRod is a tricky mother fucker.
You gotta prepare him too. What if Tate or shoelaces gets hurt? But honestly, you are prolly right. My bad.
I don't really care who starts at QB. I am All In For Michigan! Go Blue!
I'm actually curious to see Sheridan play. I hear all this stuff about year 1 vs. year 2 progression in RR's system and I'd like to see how much better Nick is in year 2. As some have said here, he had a noodle arm last year, but he's had another year working out with Coach Barwis, which could make a huge difference.
for Nick than a true freshman coming in to play. New system. New plays. New coaches. Different expectations.
Chad Henne's playbook was very limited his freshman year. Nick's probably was last year.
At the very least, having a year under his belt gives him more knowledge and more playbook available. More importantly, it gives him some comfort.
I thought Nick was pretty damn poor last year except in the Minnesota game. But if he can perform without mistakes, even though conservatively, that is enough to make a substantial improvement. The improvement in the OL will help -- a lot.
When you look back to last year, the entire offense were like true freshmen. They all had to learn an entirely different offense than what they were used to / recruited for. In his second year, Nick at least has an understanding of the offense, and what's expected of him - not to mention he has a ton of talent surrounding him. Just get the ball to the playmakers and let them do the work.
You're comparing a walk-on to highly recruited talent in Henne. There is no comparison. It's very possible that Sheridan has absolutely maxed out his abilities regardless of how hard he works. We have to remember this kid had no D1 offers. He's simply not very talented. He does not have a high ceiling. Playbook knowledge only works if you can make the throws and runs needed, which Sheridan clearly can't. Maybe he's better than death, but that's not good enough.
that Nick does not have the ceiling. No doubt. But, he's competing against two freshman who are bascially at the same point mentally Nick was last year.
Do you remember how bad Henne was his first few games? The playcalling was VERY protective and he was bailed by Braylon many times over. Especially in the firt few games. And you're right Henne has massive talent and came in as a touted qb -- moreso than Tate or DR. In fact, he never would have started the season but for Gutz' shoulder injury. I think this is analogous.
And I think Nick can make the throws. They may be more conservative throws, like vs. Minnesota. But that's fine. Bottom line we need to remove the plethora of mistakes and be able to move the chains -- make sure the defense isn't out there after every 4th play like so many times last year. And while he's not breaking 60 yarders on a regular basis(even Threet did that once) if he can manage the game with the fewest mistakes then great. I think the O-Line will have a very big impact on his ability to do that after getting familiar with what they're supposed to be doing out there.
My guess is Tate starts and plays most of the season. BUT, if Nick starts it's because he knows much more and is much more comfortable than the Tate. When Tate is ready, he'll break in as a starter. Maybe half way through the season.
The last thing I want to see is the same poor decisions passing the ball that Nick made last year, which is what I'm afraid of if Tate is not ready. I'm going to assume that Nick has learned from those and they won't be repeated as often until he proves otherwise.
Sheridan sounds like a hell of a guy, I just would prefer Tate or Denard outplay him so much that it isn't an issue.
I have an acquaintance who spoke with a walk-on who is currently on the team. Said that nobody really liked Threet too much, but they loved Sheridan but wished he were better.
(Yay 2ndhand non-committal namedrops!)
I don't think anyone believes Sheridan is the future of Michigan football, but if RR thinks he's more mature and has a better grasp of the offense come Sept. 5, I'll support that. No matter what happens, Tate and Denard will both see the field vs. WMU. By mid-season, at the latest, I would expect either Tate or Denard to be the starter. The best QB will prevail and lead Michigan into a better 2009 season.
On one hand, we have people saying if RR thinks Sheridan is the best QB they are ok with him starting.
On the other hand (or the same hand in the 4th dimension) we have people bitching non-stop for RR thinking Sheridan was better than Threet last year.
So, which is it?
It's the second, at least in my case. If Sheridan starts against Western Michigan, I will be holding my breath until either:
a) He leads us to a touchdown or two at which time I will start to relax
b) He is meh and is replaced by either Tate or Denard
Either way, hopefully I will not be holding my breath for long.
Yeah, if you hold your breath for too long that won't end well. All I know, is that if Sheridan becomes a serviceable QB, despite missing the spring with an injured leg, that RichRod and his coaching staff are the best in the world. And, I'll be ok with this.
I'll take best in the world coaches for sure. If Sheridan is really a better quarterback than Tate, then yes, it is a coaching miracle.
I'm saying that this year and last year are non-comparable. Last year, RR had to choose between 2 QB's not designed to run the spread offense, but willing to try. This year, RR has 2 outstanding true freshman QB's that fit the spread, and one QB that doesn't, but has an additional year of experience learning the system. Tate and Denard are the future, but if Nick is the best option in the present, I'll trust RR on that.
and he should be. He has the potential to be an NFL quarterback. But, that doesn't mean that Nick isn't better RIGHT NOW than either Tate or DR. If Threet were here, he'd probably start against Western.
if the Blade comment about Sheridan having a stronger arm than Forcier makes me more (a) curious about just how much Sheridan's arm strength has improved and how he did it, or (b) terrified that Forcier doesn't have a D-1 arm either and there once again won't be any kind of downfield passing.
I'm leaning (a), but (b) is definitely right there.
the sentiment I was trying to convey with my what. I'm not so good with these word things, though.
I'm with you on (a) for sure. More than anything, I'm curious to see how much year 1 to year 2 has improved Sheridan. Looking at the photos from media day, Sheridan has much larger arms than I remember from last year. Maybe this arm strength thing is legit. Sheridan isn't the running threat we're all hoping for, but if he can get this team off to a good start while mentoring the 2 freshman, I'm all in.
Arm size isn't correlated with arm strength at all.
Maybe it's just me, but I could have sworn that Sheridan was learning a completely new and unfamiliar offensive scheme last fall. As someone who hadn't played a down of college football at the time to begin with, that might have had a teeny bit to do with it too.
There's no doubt that Nick is less talented physically than either Tate or Denard, and he may well be less talented in getting things done at crunch time, too. Regardless, it's silly to completely downplay the task of learning RR's system from a standing start, which is what Nick had to do.
Having just watched the Karsch/Smith interview, I think people are drawing wayyy too many conclusions from Karsch's questions and Smith's response. I think that Smith is going out of his way to praise Sheridan's work ethic and team-oriented approach to his situation without saying so in so many words. They're not going to come right out and say he's got no chance of being the full-time starter, even if that's what their conclusion is.
If nothing else, RR and his staff are sending a loud and clear message that simply being anointed "more talented" doesn't automatically get you squat with them. Tate and/or Denard are going to have to earn the starting spot in whatever way RR and Smith require, and their high school reputations don't mean anything in the final analysis.
My money's on Tate getting the majority of the snaps against WMU and ND, but I'm not going to crap my pants if Sheridan or Denard get them instead. All I care about is beating who we're playing. Considering the amount of crap Sheridan gets from people here and elsewhere, I'd get a huge amount of pleasure if he was the one who gets it done.
Based on his sqat, bench press, jerk, and 40 time, David Molk as part of our four man pitching rotation?
You all are worried over nothing. My thoughts when I first watched the video were that Karsh was just trying not to be too redundant by finding another way to ask the same basic question for the third time. If anything, I would believe Karsh was intentionally trying to cover up who was going to be the starter as opposed to giving it away. Despite Nick's improvements, there are limitations to what he can do in this offense and the coaches are keenly aware of it. Notice how RR always starts out talking about the freshmen and then throws in Nick as a side note. RR is going to get the QBs in the game who can make plays and Nick is not a playmaker. He may get an opportunity to see game action, but ultimately the writing is on the wall for Mr. Sheridan, future coach. Though I hope he does well and can contribute in his soon to be short lived playing career.
question, not a coaches comment, so I agree with you. Also, I don't know how current these things are. They show practice footage, but much of it is recycled and these interviews could have taken place weeks ago.
On today's version, Tate says something like with 4 weeks left... which leads me to believe this was taped 3 weeks ago.
Karsh is very tuned in with the program. Very. Probably not purely an "accident".
That question, together with Rod's comments about still working on Denard's mechanics and footwork are telling.
Man, I cannot wait for Devin Gardner to get in here next year and start a QB debate that doesn't involve a weak, immobile walk-on. Sheridan may be a hell of a guy, but he's just not D1 caliber.
Unless Drob and Tate both totally implode this year(hope not) Devin will RS next year.
Interesting video...I did pick up on that subtle comment but hope it doesn't have any true meaning. Coach Smith can talk until he's blue in the face about how improved Nick Sheridan is but I just have no faith in him as our QB and would rather deal with the "growing pains" that will accompany Tate & Denard this year as freshman and "sink or swim" with them, rather than Nick Sheridan.
I could be wrong about this but wasn't Sheridan consistently outperforming Threet last year in practice as well? Sheridan certainly could have made some big time improvement from last year (I use big time when I really just mean some), but bottom line is that the only reason he would start would be experience and game management. These things are obviously extremely important, but if RR has shown us anything in his one season it is that he values pure talent over experience (see mcguffie over minor/brown, odoms over clemons, etc).
Also, I feel like we are forgetting that Sheridan missed most of the Spring, allowing Tate to get all the snaps. That certainly closes this huge gap in experience that would supposedly make Sheridan the best option. I know there is no replacement for game experience, but it seems that most Sheridan supporters are arguing that he knows the playbook and reads better, which is a product of practice time more than game experience.
Continuing the discussion about Chad Henne, keep in mind that that is what a true freshman with all the talent in the world can do with a little bit of experience around him. Chad led us to a Big Ten title, and he certainly had more help around him than Sheridan did, but I am pretty sure there just may have been a ton of inexperience at running back that year as well. With the experience around him, I feel like a talented true freshman can be extremely successful in this conference provided that they have the physical tools. That is why I want to see Tate/DR out there with everything I have. Of course winning is the most important thing so whatever works right?
Yeah, Sheridan is actually quite good in practice. He just sucked in games. Hopefully that's either changed, or RRod won't have to put him in very long to remember that.
Anyway, everyone should calm down. The blade article still said that Sheridan is "the closest" to supplanting Forcier. Not that he did supplant him.
who starts or who gets the most playing time. From what i've read and heard, it sounds like we've got three capable QB's this year who can run the offense. Should be some great, exciting football this season!!!!!!
Coach Smith needs to worry about his own job. RR might hire Sheridan as his own QB coach , and leave Smith looking for a job.
He is henceforth to be called "Sheri-damnit". Or DEATH. Only one of those two until further notice.
As I said before. I think RR knows what he is doing and if that means putting in Sheridan then im ok as long as he proves he is the better qb of the 3