Qb controversy?
November 9th, 2008 at 2:17 AM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 3:06 AM ^
Sheridan is quicker than Threet, which I think is an advantage. And even in Sheridan's moments of DEATH, I liked that he seemed in control of what he was doing and had an air of confidence. I'm not so delusional that I feel that I know better than RichRod who should start (and neither should you), but I'd have to say that I wouldn't be upset to see Sheridan start next week.
I know this seems like a quick 180 from the usual sentiments on this blog, but Threet's never put together a 4 quarters stretch like Sheridan did, and I think you should go with the hot hand.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:16 AM ^
It seems like we've been a bit predictable all year. Threet comes out, we play ok for the first half and then the opponent makes an adjustment and we've got nothing.
So this week Threet is injured and Sheridan/Feagin are running a significantly different playbook. Minnesota didn't seem to have prepared well for it, since they hadn't really seen it work in prior games.
So if Threet is healthy, maybe a QB rotation isn't a bad idea, it expands the offensive playbook and keeps Northwestern off balance.
Regardless of all of this, I think results are going to depend mainly on the defense from here on out.
November 9th, 2008 at 8:51 AM ^
Yes Sheridan played a great game but how many possible interceptions did the gophers drop. I can think of at least 3 plays where Sheridan tried to force a ball to a reciever and Minnesota's DB let it hit them in the hands and drop it. So even though he played great it could have easily been different.
I would like to possibly see a Threet / Feagin rotation. I feel that would give us the best mix of keeping the defense guessing.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:40 PM ^
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about Feagin's run ability after last Saturday. But it doesn't seem like the coaches trust Feagin to do anything but a direct run. When defenses key in and realize he's not going to throw, (and it doesn't even look like he's trusted to run an option play), Threet and Feagin combos will be anything but keeping defenses guessing.
I like what i saw in Sheridan. Apparently the coaches had good reason for starting him at the beginning of the year. He can actually run.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:43 PM ^
I think if Feagin can get the zone read down this week, and if Sheridan can throw the ball away at the end of the scramble, we will be good.
Regardless, I think we need more of Feagin, he looked pretty good. I would like to see him in the slot as well.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:23 AM ^
and started Sheridan over Threet.
Sheridan has two very important advantages over Threet that are crucial in running this offense. He is more prone to run the ball (whereas Threet doesn't seem to run as much) and he can hit the variety of screen passes we have. Threet just doesn't throw those well.
Yesterday RR saw the Sheridan he sees in practice. Sheridan starts against Northwestern.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:11 PM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 9:31 AM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 9:36 AM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 10:13 AM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 10:27 AM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 10:29 AM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 12:52 PM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 12:08 PM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 1:40 PM ^
I don't really buy the argument that it was our offensive success that fueled the defensive improvement. Against Purdue, our O played very well and our D still stunk. The bigger difference I saw yesterday was a defensive gameplan that actually put our DBs in a position to make plays, instead of forcing them to give a cushion, backpedal at the snap, and concede the first-down marker again and again. For way too long this season, we've been obsessed with this irrational fear of giving up big plays, and we've conceded tons and tons of medium-sized plays instead (and some big plays anyway). It's taken us forever to figure out that the ultra-passive D just allows every opposing QB to get into a rhythm and look like a stud.
Yesterday we jammed Minnesota's WRs at the line and forced them to work to get open. We also sent more pressure on 3rd down (or maybe it just seemed that way, since their QB had to wait longer in the pocket than most opposing QBs have this season, giving our pass rush time to get there). What I don't get is that we used this strategy to great success in the second half against Utah, and then we seemed to shelve it until Minnesota.
November 9th, 2008 at 2:36 PM ^
November 9th, 2008 at 3:46 PM ^
I disagree a little bit. It seemed like we were blitzing a little more against Minn. We were dialing up blitzes all day it seemed and actually getting great pressure on the QB. Yesterday is what i expected with Shafer, and I hope we see more of the same.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:29 PM ^
effectiveness. Yes, Michigan scored 42 total points against Purdue, but only had 300 net yards (as compared to Purdue's 522 net yards in offense; 1 turnover for each team); which until this year, was a bad performance. Obviously, turnover margin will also have an effect on TOP, and this year Michigan has been very generous.
2007 versus 2008 comparison
2008 (through 10 games): 288 yards per game offensively, 394 defensively: -9 in turnover margin; TOP 26:10 to 33:50
2007 (excluding bowl for fair comparison): 373 per game offensively; 330 yards defensively; +6 in turnover margin; TOP: 29:37 to 30:23
November 9th, 2008 at 2:15 PM ^