The "QB Situation"

Submitted by ijohnb on

Two things strike me:

1.  If Tate Forcier was out of the mix at QB and just a non-factor, you "don't take his wings" and take other action aimed at sending a message if he is a non-factor, he would just be a non-factor and that would be that.  With all the speculation about Tate being the odd man out, there is just something about the way Rodriguez is approacing it that tells me that is not the case.

2. Notwithstanding #1, if Tate is not odd man out, you cannot possibly justify not red-shirting Devin Gardner, which makes the water even more murky.  The only possible scenario if that were the case would be that Tate is injury prone, and there is no faith in D-Rob as the backup.  With all of the pre-season discussion about Robinson's improvement and so forth, that seems highly unlikely.

Could this actually take shape as a 3 quarterback system.  It seems idiotic, but nothing would surpise me at this point after the last two years and this off-season. 

Something tells me that the "QB Situation" is not going to resolve itself with just naming a starter and that is that.  There is something up at QB and I can't wait to find out what it is.   I get the feeling we may see if the Devin Gardner-Vince Young comparison has any legs sonner than we all thought.

GoBlueInNYC

August 31st, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^

I think your argument kind of falls apart at #1.  Why would you not want Forcier in playing shape?  Even if he is 2nd or 3rd, you'd still want a QB you know can play in good enough shape to play if he has to.  (Though, for the record, I don't think that Forcier is 3rd, he's a close 2nd at best, in my opinion.)

GoBlueInNYC

August 31st, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^

I think the DG not red shirting thing is definitely weird, but that doesn't change my point.  Regardless of the QB situation, you'll still want to motivate Forcier.  Even if he's behind Kennedy, why would you not try to motivate all your players?  Let alone the guy who led the offense through all 12 games last season.

msoccer10

August 31st, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^

All three have slightly different strengths. Rodriguez believes in competition at every position and feels that none of the qbs is so much better than the rest that he can name a starter yet. All three will get a chance to prove they are the best in a game situation, because that is the only way to really tell who gives you the best chance to win. Rodriguez told Gardner he would get a legitimate chance to play his true freshman year if he was good enough and obviously Rodriguez feels he is at this point. You don't force a kid to redshirt if you promised him an opportunity and he earns it. Tate, in my opinion, is tied with Denard for starter and it doesn't really matter anyway, because they are both going to play a lot all year. Gardner will get some experience but I expect him to "waste" his redshirt on a few series and prove that he is not as ready to lead the team as Tate and Denard and then he will spend the rest of the year on the bench except in blowouts.

maizenbluenc

August 31st, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

Dude: you're in Rich Rod's (and Calvin McGee's, and Rod Smith's) shoes. Whether you have a job in four months depends entirely on how many points your offense can put on the board. In 2008 our season ended when Steve Threet was injured. In 2009, it ended when Tate damaged hsi shoulder. Heck, in 2007 you went from the top of the world / one game away from the National Championship game, to being shit on left right and center when Pat White got hurt.

Denard looks good, but is not yet game proven. Tate is a proven entity, but might be injury prone. Devin has talent. Your problem is not five seasons from now, it is now. Would you not give Devin reps, and work him up experience-wise just so he can step in if you need him too?

ijohnb

August 31st, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^

why such venom?  Just discussing Michigan football on a Michigan football discussion site.  Not red-shirting Devin Gardner is discussion worthy, it is a surprising move, is it not? 

In reply to by ijohnb

bleednblue

August 31st, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^

I think you're missing his point.  It's not surprising at all given the past scenarios outlined in his first paragraph.  It makes perfect sense, to me. 

We have a qb in Tate Forcier who performed well last year...when he was healthy.  Will he stay healthy this year?  Who knows.  Denard Robinson has proven to be electrifying running the football, and mistake/int prone when throwing it.  Another (at this time) unreliable option to quaterback our team to victory.  

So, given what we actually do know to be true about our "qb situation" why on earth do people expect RR to come out and unequivically announce that DG (the unknown entity in this equation) will redshirt this year?  I don't understand the uproar over it.

Blue Blue Blue

August 31st, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^

RichRod is not sitting on anything.   He plans on having his QBs (at least two of who are gamebreakers in the open field) carry the rock, in additon to passing.    He will get all 3 into a number of the early games, looking to see who has magic in their bottle.  an injury could make part of the decision for him.

RichRod definitely pushed Tate, but even Tate has admitted he didnt work as hard as he could have in the offseason........which has opened the door for D & D to show their stuff.

pdgoblue25

August 31st, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^

I'm in a fantasy college football league with my buddies from Ohio State, I need a team name that rips on them.  I tried posting this as a thread topic, but they deleted it for some reason.

I'm at work so I can't put any serious thought into it, and the draft is tonight, the only thing I can think of so far is EveryoneKillsPeople

Any ideas???

BlizzardOfOz

August 31st, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^

I play in a couple leagues with a bunch of OSU fans also (since I live in Ohio)...

I like to pull the SEC card on them when they give me shit..  Specifically the beating Florida put on them in the 2006 season title game.  I like to point out how UM handled them the next year.   One guy tried to argue with me saying that "UM never beat Florida!"

joeyb

August 31st, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^

He's downplaying Tate because he is obviously the best QB. He wants everyone to think Tate is out of the picture and then BOOM Tate is starting. Tate will throw for 6 TDs and run for another one in the first half because of this strategery.

Blue in sec country

August 31st, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^

Rich Rod is a smart guy. If you want to play the if game try this:
Tate and Devin become the 1 and 2 QB options for 2011. He moves Denard to slot/rb/can't be stopped none qb position. Do you really want to make that move without knowing what Devin can do? Not saying I think this will/should happen but if you put enough "if" in there anything is possible.

KinesiologyNerd

August 31st, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^

"Something tells me that the "QB Situation" is not going to resolve itself with just naming a starter and that is that."

 

Is that something Rich Rodriguez in EVERY PRESS CONFERENCE THIS YEAR?

Anonymosity

August 31st, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^

I can't believe nobody has discussed the QBs yet this offseason.  We should probably start a few more threads on them, just to be sure we have our bases covered.

SysMark

August 31st, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^

I think all the doubt is 100% intentional on the part of RR.  He has been burned by being too honest and he isn't going to let it happen again.  IMHO he is completely sandbagging the entire situation.  To the extent that we or anyone else are confused he is getting exactly what he wants.

UMMAN83

August 31st, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^

My ideal, until more is known, is Tate at QB.  When Tate is at QB Denard is still on the field at slot, RB, or WR.  Denard also gets significant snaps under center.  Go Blue !!!

DesHow21

August 31st, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

Why the hell would you want to announce tha? Let the B10 opponents spend at least a few minutes worrying about him. 

Also, playing time as a freshman is a HUGE factor for us in recruiting. It is very important RR maintain at least a show of the fact that everybody gets to play if they win the job. 

 

Conclusion: There is NOTHING to be gained by announcing a red-shirt before the season starts. 

rlew

August 31st, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^

I don't think it's so much a "by not announcing we gain some competitive advantage" type thing as it is that if Tate or Denard get hurt, Gardner is the backup.  If Gardner ends up not playing, he redshirts.  If he's needed, or if he improves enough that he's useful this year, he doesn't redshirt.  There's really nothing to be announced at all at this point for Gardner or any other freshman when it comes to redshirting.

ijohnb

August 31st, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^

but I guess if he was possibly going to red-shirt, RR's answer would simply be "I don't know-we will see."  But he basically gave a definitive no to the red-shirt question.  I think Gardner may play, a lot, like maybe all of the time by seasons end.