Please stop putting Gardner in at QB

Submitted by Eye of the Tiger on

It's not working, it's disrupting any rhythm we get going.  The kid is talented, but he's not ready for prime time.  Denard may throw some ducks, but HE IS OUR BEST CHANCE TO WIN MORE THAN 8 GAMES THIS YEAR.  Let him play!

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG...

Eye of the Tiger

October 29th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^

Especially if we did some genuine zone-read plays with the two of them in the backfield.  

But I don't see those results in this game at all.  

What I do see is that we get some movement going with Denard at QB, then we have a play with Gardner at QB that either gets little or nothing.  Then we have to get rhythm going again, and it's not easy.  

Same thing against MSU.  Guess it worked against Minnesota, though...

Eye of the Tiger

October 29th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^

I'm glad the site has guardian angels like you, making sure that every thread you don't want to waste time on gets lots and lots of replies.  

I'm also very glad you took the time to say why you think Gardner should be put in at QB on random plays in such an articulate and well-reasoned manner.  I thank you for that, sir.  

Eye of the Tiger

October 29th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^

For keeping Gardner in the game that people have posted on here.  Way to put that Michigan education to work, assuming everyone who posted substance-free, negative replies did actually get a Michigan education.    

If you DO have a good argument for keeping Gardner in the game at QB here and there, then by all means, please do tell.  

 

kb

October 29th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^

is that you have two highly recruited and talented quarterbacks that you need to keep engaged in the program.  Obviously one wins out and is the starter, but as a college coach you have to do things to keep both of them engaged and committed to the program.  You can't honestly tell me that if you were a top 3 QB recruit that you would be happy riding the pine for two years plus.  You have to play both QBs for the health of the present and future of the program.

Lac55

October 29th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^

I here everybody and I understand messing up the rhythm, but DG has to get live game snaps early and throughout the game. It's going to be valuable for us down the road. We need him. Better to take some lumps and learn, & get coached up.

Eye of the Tiger

October 29th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^

However, do you think it's the best time to give him those opportunities early in a tight game, when you've just gotten a massive, 60-yard play on 3rd and 20 from your starting QB?

Like I said above, I'm not averse to the dual QB thing in theory, I'm just not sure we've got something that works in the here and now.  Well, that diamond formation thing looked great against Minnesota, but we also haven't seen it since...and that was Minnesota.  

Do you think the way we're using Gardner is the best way to do so, assuming we do put him in the game for a play or two here and there?

Also, INTs and ducks aside, doesn't Denard and his 300+ yards of total offense/game give us the best chance to win games?

natesezgoblue

October 29th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^

I'm not frustrated with DG. I'm frustrated with the play calling. I was just as fristrated with the playcalling on first and goal as anytime DG has been in. Anytime we run off tackle we get good yds. There is no reason to lay DG right now unless it's simply to get him pt.

BlueUPer

October 29th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

Is Denard still banged up?  It seems as though he doesn't want to run, or we do not seem to be calling many designated runs for him or much zone read. 

Am I wrong?    I know their pass D is average,  but...

 

Eye of the Tiger

October 29th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^

And that last screen was very well executed, but I have concerns with putting him in when the game is still in question.  Purdue or not, they've beaten us 2 of the last 3 years and last year was tighter than it should have been.  

We do look like we have it in hand at the moment, though.  In that kind of situation, I'm all for giving Gardner reps.