So we're through four games and Morris had a few snaps against Central. If he were not to play again this year, would he still be eligible to get a redshirt? If so, should consideration be given to not using him unless Gardner is hurt (for more than a play or two)? The last two games make it very likely that Gardner will be back next year so getting Morris ready for next year is less of an issue.
Shane Morris and his Redshirt
Once you play a single play you burn your redshirt. It doesn't matter who the opponent is or if it is just running down the field on special teams.
The only way to get a redshirt is if you have a documented injury.
you have to play 20 to 25 percent of the games played. so if you play 4 games your orangeshirt is gone.
He is confused or it was a really lame attempt at humor.
The 20-25% he mentions only applies to medical redshirts so he must be confused.
False! This isn't hard, people. If you get in for a single play in a single game, your redshirt is burned. Period.
(Medical redshirts are a different issue and not relevant here.)
But what about your orangeshirt?
There are many different colored shirts one can burn. In fact, the possibilities are almost endless. Cue the Bubba from Forrest Gump monotone: "They's yella shirts, green shirts...............purple and gray shirts.......that, thats about it.)
One of the first things Hoke did was replace all the redshirts with orangeshirts.
Medical redshirts are just as relevant here as they were in Devin's case. I'm just sayin'...
They'll probably claim some injury and ask for a medical redshirt. It's not an unusual strategy.
he's going to get meaningful snaps this year. write it down.
Medical is the only way.
His shirt is burned. However if he were to suddenly come down with a terrible ouch-y back right now he could apply for a medical redshirt. Sometimes guys play a few downs early in the season in a game that doesn't matter, and then they come down with terrrible ouch-y backs.
Are you suggesting that Devin Gardner's back injury was in some manner exaggerated?
HOW DARE YOU SIR
The proper term is, I believe, ouch-y back.
Please see Devin Gardner, 2010 season
I could be wrong, but the only other circumstances that I think the bylaws outline in addition to the medical waiver are for events which are "beyond the control" of the student-athlete, such as natural disasters or extreme financial hardship within the family (due to layoff or death, for example). I would assume that nearly every case of the waiver being invoked is for medical reasons though.
Ok I'm taking bets on when the next thread about a Morris redshirt.... O/U set at 10.5 days
And then if it is like Gardner's redshirt the thread will appear like clockwork with the questions asked over and over....
put me down for 50 in 2 days..
Hmm...tough one. I'm gonna have faith in the board and take the over. The day after the Minny game, will be the next time we'll have another thread on the topic.
take the under.
...what about kelly baraka?
sorry, wrong board.
The way the offensive line is playing right now, a Medical redshirt seems uncomfortably likely should Morris play behind it.
He plays behind the backup o-line in practice! If they are struggling more than the current starters that should be all the proof the NCAA needs to know Morris is hurting!
Redshirt due to broken heart.
of business against Akron and UCONN, Shane Morris would have 3 games of experience and the redshirt burning would be the non-issue it should be.
With that said, it is terribly frustrating to once again see a Michigan team not be able to trot out young players to gain experience in these inferior opponent games.
What makes you say they are inferior opponents?
Numbers. And watching them play. And math. And statistics. And numbers.
Numbers like 28-24 and 24-20?
Squeaking by teams and then calling them inferior, it's the Michigan difference.
A Minnesota fan talking smack over here? Really?
Ya, I'm a Minnesota fan and alum, and a current Michigan student. As long as Minnesota and Michigan aren't playing, I always root for Michigan. However, in every opponent recap, or afternoon game thread, there is always plenty of condescension towards the Gophers. See the post above as evidence of the comments I refer to.
So as I sit here getting pumped up for Minnesota and Michigan to play, it is difficult to not take the opportunity to call out Michigan fans a little bit about them calling other teams inferior when the last two games have been just abysmal performances offensively. I've been in Ann Arbor long enough to mostly accept the, "We're Michigan, we are better than everyone else" mantra, but right now, I don't think there is a whole lot of on field performance to back that up. But hey, as long as you keep thinking so highly about the program, you can laugh at the idea of a Minnesota fan talking smack and can call teams giving you all you can handle inferior.
Current on-field performance doesn't matter when mocking opponents, history does, we're Michigan!
You're absolutely correct. Akron and UConn are absolutely the complete equal to Michigan. Just because we played like complete dogshit, doesn't mean that Akron and UConn aren't terrible teams. I mean, good teams always lose to Towson or go 1-11 in 3 straight seasons. Jeez dude, give it a rest. I don't think he was showing "Michigan arrogance". I think its pretty common knowledge that the 2 teams we just played were not that good. Which makes our performance against them all the more enraging and frustrating.
I'm not sure I follow your logic when you are sarcastically talking about good teams losing to Towson or going 1-11. I never said Akron or UConn were good. In fact, I would agree that the two teams Michigan just beat are not very good at all, I was simply asking how we came to the conclusion that they were inferior to Michigan. It definitely wasn't from the final score. So is this feeling of superiority from dominating CMU, beating an ND team that is not looking all that great, the potential that I think everyone can see for the future, or just because we are Michigan fergodsakes?
One game is a fluke, two straight games of going down to the wire with supposedly inferior teams may make you start wondering if you are really that much better than your scores suggest.
I always thought the definition of being inferior is having less points than the other guy. Why do they keep score again?
I suppose in a sense you are right, though I would contend that anyone who watched either game knows that the outcome could have gone either way. If the game is essentially a toss-up, I'd have a hard time calling myself vastly superior to my opponent.
Interesting how you just now inserted "vastly" into the discussion. Sure it better makes you point, but is not what the original statement said. So, it doesn't seem intellectually honest.
I used the word vastly due to the poster above my previous response stating that the opponents are inferior because they lost. To me, the term inferior involves some significant degree of quality difference. While the scoreboard says Michigan is better, and I'm not going to argue that point, I would say these two scores are probably close enough to indicate the game could have gone either way. To me, that isn't a significant enough difference in quality to use the term inferior. So, I added vastly to indicate that while I guess you can argue that the scoreboard says you are superior, I think there needs to be a bit more of a beatdown before terms like superior and inferior are used. Perhaps my understanding of superiority is outside of the simple definition of just being better than something else. But if I'm going to be calling Michigan superior, I want to see a beatdown that leaves Akron not crossing the 50 yard line all game, not a game where Akron is one yard away of winning. So, the term vastly was just a lazy way around explaining this whole paragraph, and acknowleding that while the poster I was responding to took a cute way out of the argument, his definition of inferiority lacked what I viewed as a necessary magnitude of quality difference.
Calling an opponent "inferior", even after a very close game that could easily have ended in a loss, isn't necessarily a reflection of some inflated sense of self worth. In the cases of Akron and UConn, it's simply a recognition of the opposing team's standing among all FBS teams. When we say that Akron and UConn are "inferior", we could very plausibly simply be claiming that they rank in the very bottom tier of FBS teams, based on prior results and the general size, athleticism, and skill of their players.
For a similar case study in the use of the word "inferior", see Minnesota, University of.
If you are basing the use of inferior on your recognition of these team's standing among all FBS teams, then you must also be assuming a higher standing for your own team. The polls suggest that is correct, but as I stated in one of my other replies above, after two straight close calls with terrible teams, I'm not sure that current on-field performance would give any indication that Michigan is performing at a level that puts them in a realm where they can feel superior to these teams.
If you want to base claims of inferiority on size, athleticism, skills, and stars, I suppose I can't argue that one much, and Michigan will have that on most teams. However, it seems like that metric kind of minimizes the importance of on-field performance, which I would say matters. UConn didn't really look inferior out there.
And if you want to base it on prior results, well that seems a bit silly. Michigan may have the most wins ever, but this current group of players was in on less than 5% of those. Historically, I agree, almost every program in the country is inferior to Michigan, but that seems like a pretty shaky way to compare your current team against your opponents. But hey, at least the Gophers seem a bit less inferior if we want to use that measure.
If by prior results you mean results from this season, UConn was probably licking their chops after that Akron game. They probably thought even they could beat Akron by a couple touchdwons.
. . . and you can go back to your hole with the certainty that Minnesota will win in a couple of weeks, just like "UConn was licking their chops after that Akron game."
No way would I wager on the Gophers in that game. I know what Gardner is capable of, or at least I think I do. The Gophers will probably lose again. I was just amused that a fan of a team who has barely escaped two of the worst teams in college football is referring to these teams as inferior. Scoreboard says you are about as close to even as you can get.
If the Gophers do miraculously win, it would be interesting to see how many people say they got beat by a superior team. I'm pretty sure I know the answer though, which makes me think these definitions of inferiority are rooted somewhere beyond on-field play in 2013.
And why would that be? Under your "scoreboard" definition, Minnesota has beaten its opponents by far more than Michigan has beaten Akron and UConn. Since you're not willing to stand by your own definition of inferiority/superiority, it's almost like you're just the usual opposing fan who's trying to take advantage of a trolling opportunity before the game is played.
Minnesota and Michigan have zero common opponents, which makes it tough for me to use my scoreboard definition. I have no idea how Minnesota would fare against UConn or Akron. It's not like UNLV, Western Illinois, or New Mexico State are setting the world on fire. We haven't beaten anyone as good as Notre Dame, I am pretty sure about that.
As for why I wouldn't pick the Gophers, I think Minnesota is too one-dimensional right now to beat Michigan. We've thrown 28 passes in 4 games. I imagine that will be easy enough for Mattison to scheme against. Even if Gardner gives us the ball three times during the game, I'm not convinced we can score enough points to win.
I'm really not just a troll though, I read this blog daily throughout the year, and believe it or not, do root for Michigan. There are just certain things about this blog, and maybe about many of the people at the University of Michigan, that irk me, such as the condescension towards "inferior" schools. When I saw that same condescension being placed on teams that Michigan barely beat, I decided it was a nice opportunity to call into question these beliefs of superiority.
But when several others have explained their basis for calling Akron and UConn "inferior" -- as B Mac explains, this wacky notion of "numbers" tends to back that up -- and you respond that this reliance on a wealth of statistics is "condescension," I don't think you're going to get too far in "call[ing] into question" the supposed attitude of Michigan fans. Perhaps you could acknowledge, based on the entire history of football (or organized sports, for that matter), that better teams sometimes struggle to beat inferior ones -- or, heck, even lose to them on occasion. That doesn't prevent us from making educated guesses on how those teams will measure up when the dust settles on the season as a whole. For example, I'll go out on a limb and say Michigan will be bowl-eligible and Akron and UConn will not.
I'm sure I won't get far on a Michigan board calling into question your arrogance. That would be quite the uphill battle.
I would say that I did acknowledge in another post that sometimes there are upsets. But as I stated above, one game is a fluke, two in a row, you might start to worry that you aren't as good as you thought you were. Historically, trends tend to be indicative of things as well.
I'm not sure where these wealth of statistics that you mention comes from that support your superiority over these teams. Per the front page, Michigan is 118 out of 123 FBS team in tackles for loss allowed. Michigan is also 112 out of 123 in terms of turnover margin, largely due to being tied for 10th in interceptions thrown. And they are generally kind of middle of the pack in other offensive categories. I'm not going to take the time to find Akron and UConn in these, I'm sure they are terrible, and I didn't intend to spend my whole afternoon typing out responses that are longer than most everyone cares to read. However, it seems to me that the numbers you want to point to don't show a team that is being dominant in any way, nor does the scoreboard. Consequently, I don't think claim of other team's inferiority is beyond question.
in just about every way that you can measure. long term, short term, whatever. this cannot be argued, and a couple of struggles against mediocre opponents doesn't change that.
We'll see about the short-term. I feel like only fans of Michigan and a handful of other blueblood schools would be able to maintain the ability to feel superior to other teams after squeaking by two of the worst teams in college football. I know that after Minnesota struggled with Western Illinois and only won by 16, a good portion of our fans simply conceded the Big 10 season. Must be nice to have that history and recruiting stars to rest on so you can keep that positive attitude of being better than everyone.
NOW you're just trolling. You're an opposing fan and your only posting history involves bitching about Michigan people on a blog, seemingly purely because you're butthurt that your team hasn't done shit for 50 years. In other words, I don't believe a word you say about "reading this blog daily" or "rooting for Michigan."
Every part of your post is wrong.
I have a posting history that goes beyond this discussion. It was only like 11 posts I think, but I'm almost certain that those had nothing to do with bitching about Michigan people.
Everyone who has read this thread knows what school I root for. The poster I was responding to decided to take more shots at Minnesota, as opposed to actually posting anything related to discussing the discription Akron and UConn as inferior relative to Michigan, so I responded. I suppose it is a tactic similar to what you are using in your response by pointing out that Minnesota hasn't done anything for 50 years. I freely acknowledged my irritation of seeing Minnesota regularly put down here, but I would say I have based 90% of my argument on things having nothing to do with Minnesota. The only time it comes is when people decide to use that as their counter to what I'm saying, as opposed to making their argument with numbers that a couple posters have said are out there to prove this superiority. And this has happened to me on campus too. I asked why students would rush the field after beating a bad Ohio State team, pointing out that they are Michigan, a team that wins national championships and should be in the top 10 every year. I was told in response, we beat you 55-0. It's aggravating to say the least.
I don't know how your paragraph concludes with you not believing I read this blog daily, though I get where you think I don't root for Michigan. I'm not sure how to prove otherwise, and I definitely shouldn't care enough. Unfortunately, I do care a bit. I can tell you that I started checking this site occasionally when TomVH was giving recruiting information. I was on this site a year and a half ago in February when there was a day full of commitments. It definitely made me jealous as a Gopher fan. I know that this site has crashed a few different times when a big time recruit is expected to commit. I saw Brian say he was done writing about the hockey team last year. I know that a lot of people on this board did not like Three and Out, and I think there was a recruting person named aquaman at some point, but that one might be completely made up. Not sure if that gives me the e-cred for you to believe I read this blog, but I do.
Michigan really is my second favorite team, but I do view things differently than posters on this board. I see the way Gopher fans talk about the Gophers and their opponents, and I see the way this board talks about Michigan and their opponents. There is a huge difference, and for the most part, Michigan has earned that. But sometimes, I just think reality becomes a little skewed, depending on which set of glasses you are looking through. As a Minnesota fan, I don't see Michigan as being a great team this year if Gardner keeps turning it over and if the run game can't be a little more productive. I saw two teams that are awful stay right with Michigan, and I chose to call into question posters who wanted to talk about Michigan's superiority over those teams. That's all, it really has nothing to do with whether I cheer for Michigan.
Akron and UConn are (in your words) "awful," "terrible," and "two of the worst teams in college football," but all Michigan fans are arrogant and condescending because a guy in this thread expressed his frustration that Michigan wasn't able to get its younger players on the field in two games against "inferior opponents" that Michigan won in close fashion.
Are we done now?
Eh, not sure if it's done. If you look at the history of my posts, I pretty much keep arguing as long as someone wants to argue.
I did use the words "awful," "terrible," and "two of the worst teams in college football" to describe those teams, though I certainly wasn't the first in this thread to describe them in such a manner. There are definitely differing levels of quality throughout college football, I never argued that there wasn't. My argument was solely about what I consider to be an overly inflated perspective about Michigan's superiority over UConn and Akron in the 2013 football season, at least at this particular moment in time.
And to be clear, Michigan fans aren't arrogant and condescending because someone expressed their frustration about not getting players on the field against inferior opponents, they are arrogant and condescending because they choose to describe these teams who almost beat them as inferior.
And to be clear, I don't actually think all, or even most, Michigan fans are that way, probably not even the poster I called out, but there are a healthy number of them who look down on other programs, even during seasons where it is not justified. As you may have gathered, I'm not a fan of that.
I would have to imagine that if at least some of the people I am arguing with went on a Texas message board, and heard them referring to other teams as inferior, some would find that laughable right now. I'm not saying Michigan is playing like Texas, but hopefully you get my comparison.
So to summarize my main point, I still don't think this team's current performance warrants viewing any team as inferior right now.
Young players are getting playing time and experience in those games. They just happen to be the starters as well.
I was about to say the same thing. A large portion of our rotation are young/very young players.
to see Dereck Green, D. Smith, the entire 2nd unit of the offensive line, Channing Stribling, R Jenkins-Stone, etc, etc etc getting quality playing time as well. Do you not see the future benefits of this down the road?
No way Fitz should be playing EVERY snap. He went out with a minor boo-boo but was right back in the game. Derrick Green NEEDS some runs. This guy was our STAR recruit ... and he needs to see some game action.
He's seeing the future benefits of Glasgow, Miller, Kalis, Chesson, Funchess, Wormley, Ojemudia, Godin, Charlton, Pipkins, Hurst, Ross, Wilson, Taylor, and Countess playing. Because they're all young too, and those benefits might not be next year, but next month. Or at least in two months.
defense is trotting out a ton of young guys especially on the dline. its just the offense that isnt playing a lot of dudes because that whole needing to come back to win the game thing
Shane Morris is either not playing a single play the rest of the year or starting the next game.
I am with you on this one, Michigan seems unlikely to be up enough to allow the back up QB in for some experience the rest of the year. I also would not be upset if he started the next game. Devin seems like a great kid, but he carries that ball like a loaf of bread.
Probably a good shot he gets in for mop-up duty in a game we're getting killed in.
Shane only wears Blue Shirts
He wears Orange in practice...
Not to be that guy, but he was wearing a grey sweatshirt in class this morning.
Michigan should be playing Shane Morris every chance they get. In fact they have been, it's just that we haven't pulled away from anybody except CMU. Shane Morris is one Devin Gardner twisted ankle or jammed thumb away from being our starting quarterback. If that happens in the third quarter against Ohio State, do you want Shane Morris to have been held out in the hopes of preserving a red shirt, or do you want him to have gotten as many game snaps as possible prior to that point?
...I hope everyone who was adamant about him not redshirtting to get experience owns up and shuts up next time this topic comes around.
He gained nothing as far as experience by playing CMU's backups. Not anything he wouldn't know as a RS Freshman next year. Not anything that was worth burning his redshirt.
If DG continues to stink it up or gets hurt...absolutely, put him in there. But is playing against CMU going to help him in one of those circumstances?
He should've redshirtted and practiced as the #2 QB. If he needed to play, go play. If not, now we have a luxury 5th year if needed. Remember the last time Michigan won a National Championship? It had a 5th year senior as the QB.
Why are you so angry all the time?
Why are you so rational all the time?
Ghost of Yost is gone...and now I look like the angry one. When he was here...everyone thought I was quite pleasant. It's all relative.
That said, I stand by that post 100%. I bet you were one of the ones kicking and screaming for him to get "meaningful PT" vs. crap teams. So glad he's got that valuable game experience vs. CMU's backups in the 2nd half of a blowout...now he's ready to play MSU's defense.
The logic was always flawed. Especially when you take into account that every day in practice he goes up against MICHIGAN'S first team defense...which is pretty damn good despite that shitty situations they've been put in.
I think we can all agree... bring back Ghost of Yost!
But yeah, I totally agree with you. I don't see how young QBs really develop much from a few 'get snap, hand off ball' situations.
I really have to disagree with your notion that real-game experience in a blowout in meaningless. Yes, it was Central Michigan. Yes, it was in a blowout. It's still miles different than any scenario Shane Morris had ever been in. There aren't 100,000 screaming fans in practice. Central Michigan's defense certainly isn't Michigan State's, but neither is it the high school defenses Shane Morris has gone against so far. Going against a good defense in practice is NOT the same as actual game time, it never will be.
I venture to say there weren't a 100,000 people still in the stands when Morris came into the game. More importantly, it's one thing to play in front of 100,000 people when the game is on the line or in front of 90,000 folks in Lincoln. It's another to play in front of any size crowd when the outcome of the plays is essentially irrelevant.
Have you ever played football?
Not being a dick, just wondering.
I get what you're saying, but that's not experience. That's not a pressure situation.
Morris can "feel" what it's like playing in front of 100,000 by standing on the sidelines during the ND game. That is more of a feel than handing the ball off to Justice Hayes vs. CMU.
As for a "feel" for the game. Practice every day and scrimmages in the Big House are FAR more important in terms of QB experience for a game. You're playing against Michigan's #1 defense and they're trying to confuse and get after you.
So I would argue that you can get the "feel" of the atmosphere as much on the sidelines vs. ND as you can in garbage time on the field vs. CMU. That's why I asked if you've played football, or any sport for that matter. Garbage time is pretty pressure-less.
And he's not gaining anything on the field in terms of experience by running a base offense against low level MAC backups.
My point is simply that NEITHER (sitting vs. ND or playing vs. CMU) is going to get you prepared for a pressure situation against MSU or OSU's defense in a REAL game. So why waste the redshirt opportunity? THAT is what I am saying. If Shane has to come in vs. MSU...is anyone going to be saying "phew! good thing he got those 2 shit possessions vs. CMU to get him all that experience!!" No. Those snaps vs. CMU mean nothing vs. B1G competition.
Have you ever coached a major college football team?
Not being a dick, just wondering.
Because those that are currently completely disagreed with you in this situation.
Have you ever played football?
Yes. Seven seasons, lastly as a backup fullback and special teams player at high school varsity level. My opinions on the value of game experience, blowout or not, are based entirely on my own experience in similar situations.
..why did the Michigan football coaches decide to play Morris then? This is their job and while I'll agree that anyone can get split second (in game) decisions wrong, playing Morris against CMU wasn't a snap decision. I'll default to the coaches on this one. They know a lot more about footballing than any of us.
I'm guessing they thought that he would get some snaps vs Akron and UCONN as well. I don't understand why Mr. Yost doesn't factor that into burning a redshirt.
Can't Morris just redshirt next year? (Is that possible?)
Although, I'm not sure if Terry Richardson is playing...if not, is HE redshirting in his sophomore year? He's clearly beat out by Avery, Hollowell and Stribling. It would make sense for him to sit this year (unless he's not very good and you don't want him for a 5th year).
If they were going to blow out Akron and U-Conn before putting him in the CMU game?
...but again, how does crap time vs. crap teams prepare one for REAL time vs. "real" teams. Especially at the QB position. It's not like RB, Green is going to continue to be right there in terms of PT. He has a legit shot to play in each and every game. Smith too.
Morris isn't playing again this year unless Gardner continues to suck, Gardner is injured or it's a blowout one way or the other.
(I put "real" in quotes because an MGoSmartAss will say something about "what's a fake team" or they'll say Akron and UConn sure looked real against us...which they did).
So what are you REALLY preparing for? If you were truly preparing Morris, why not give him a couple series vs. CMU, Akron and UConn (assuming the last 2 were handled the way they should have been) in the first half? THAT is preparation. At least you're playing against the 1's, it's not a blowout yet so you have the full offense to run, etc.
because that would be a great way to get fired? Hoke is trying to win football games. This isn't the Shane Morris Football Academy.
You don't redshirt your backup quarterback. You get him as many reps as you can, when the appropriate situations arise. Those situations haven't arisen nearly as often as anyone would have liked so far this season.
...I hope everyone who was adamant about him not redshirtting to get experience owns up and shuts up next time this topic comes around.
This is silly. Shane Morris is our backup QB. You have to get your backup QB some game action to get his feet wet. It's unfortunate that he didn't get to play the last two weeks, but he'll get more chances. I'm glad he at least got to play against CMU. Odds are against Gardner playing every single non-garbage snap (he'll probably have to leave a game at some point, even if it's just for a play or two) and I don't want Morris having zero experience beforehand.
Lol if Devin doesn't stop turning the ball over Shane might be playing
At this point would he really turn it over anymore than Devin? Probably not. Though I still think DG is the better option.
Come on guys. Don't look at the stats like an ESPN analyst who doesn't even watch highlights. The interception to Chesson should have at least been an incompletion because Chessom had 5 or 6 inches on that DB as I recall. On the fumble he probably should have had better control but you also don't expect your fullback to punch it out from behind. The interception to Gallon was the right read a little off target and he got unlucky with the tip. Even with all the turnovers, the only thing I'm worried about right now as far as Devin is concerned is his confidence and mental state, which have clearly taken a hit. The offense as a whole is another story, because it blows, but Devin only deserves a minority of the blame. OL has been shit obviously, and I think that has led to Devin hurrying passes without waiting for options to open up, and the WR blocking has been subpar for the most part, contributing to an subpar run game. If the OL gets figured out, DG will be better. We've already seen it.
even if Devin stops turning the ball over AND the OL and TE's continue to let guys through at the rate they're doing. Devin simply won't survive back there without more help.
There were a BILLION of these threads not long ago, and people STILL can't grasp a simple fucking concept? Redshirts are not hard to understand for football.
So why bother wasting your time reading it and posting a response. I think we know the answer to that question.
Wait. Shane Morris plays for US?
There is no way we're going to stay with Devin if he doesn't somehow regain his confidence that was lost, not from the ND endzone int as one would normally conclude. He came back in that game and led us down the field for 7 if you will recall. However, he hasn't shaken the Akron game and showed a complete disregard for ball security and it was obvious he wasn't merely hesitant to throw the ball vs. UCONN when shit went bad, he adapted a run first, way first before even looking to see if he had receivers because he was thinking only of the bad things that could happen. ^I hope Brady pulls the magic he or whichever staff member did with Gibbons who suffered the same thing, having great practices but somehow missing anything he tried during a game. Now he's hitting everything to the point, he's now our record holder for consecutive fgs made. If Devin doesn't make this transformation make to his normal self, and he can't be simply a game manger because he's way too much of our offense, we will have to insert Shane. I think the RS issue should be tabled until we see if Devin is able to recover. Some people, once they lose confidence in sports, are never able to regain it.
Shane's not going to do much better behind our putrid O-line, especially given his inexperience.
Couple things that popped into my head as I am working.
1. Based on the theory that younger QBs "follow in the footsteps" of older ones in the program, the classic upperclassmen set the example for the underclassmen...Gardner has pretty much apprenticed under Denard Robinson. Incredible athlete...not the greatest pure passer. I recognize that Gardner has done a lot of work with Whitfield, Manning, etc in the offseason, but despite his "graduated" student status would it be fair to say he's sort of a rookie in the dropback passer department? The analogy I bring up is similar to getting a golf lesson. Your muscle memory wants you to do one thing naturally, but your coaching tells you to adapt some other not-so-natural swing tactic in the name of being more consistent down the road. The 5 game "relief" stint that Gardner did last season would be more of the "pure athleticism"/muscle memory end of that spectrum.
2. There have been barbs against the play of Fitz in the Akron and ND games making cutbacks away from holes/lanes that eventually developed in front of him. Sort of leading to the conventional wisdom that maybe he didn't trust his blockers with a high degree of certainty to open the called hole in the line. Could it be that Gardner doesn't trust his pass protection much and is too quick to try to keep the play alive?
3. I think the loopback/reverse field move that Gardner has employed to get away from pressure has to go. It might work against a 300lb 0-tech guy but it seems to get blown up with astonishing regularity by faster DEs and i think a safety in the case of the ND game in the endzone. Couch coaching says combining #2/#3 above to trust the merits (or lack thereof) of the pass blocking. Just try to hold the ball or fall forward for a yard or two if the pocket collapses on both sides or there's unavoidable pressure. The downside of loopback is somewhere between pick-6 and 3 & 25. Recognizing the one highlight reel move against MN last season resulting in easy TD to Dileo...but thats like the Only One that sticks out in my mind as a good result.
Um, at the rate we're going, Shane may see meaningful snaps this year.
I'm not sure what's going on with Gardner, but something is very wrong and the staff can only accept so many multiple turnover games before giving someone else a shot. Never thought I'd write that coming into this season...
Shane would be less more effective than than DG. DG is way better athlete and QB. If Gardner is struggling with our O line imagine the RS FR, he would be running for his life. Just like last year when Russell did vs Neb. Your post is just ridiculous. Bottom line Morris should of been red shirted this year!
i argued at the beginning of the season that we shouldn't waste Shane's RS in a blowout, same reasoning, he will be no more prepared to enter a game at MSU or vs. Ohio by getting 10 snaps in a 50 point blowout vs. CMU, Akron, or UCONN. The biggest thing he needs to work on is learning the offense, getting his progressions down, and work on accuracy. I believe all of this can/could be done in practice. The garbage time against inferior opponents does not prepare him for playing time in a meaningful game, it just doesn't do it. That being said at this point, if Shane is close to being ready, I wouldn't be surprised to see him some in the near future, if Devin cannot figure out how to pass the ball again and Shane has shown strides in practice, you could very well see him. At this point if he doesn't play another snap all season, it will be very sad to see his RS wasted. Hindsight is 20/20, but i just thought it made more sense to get him his RS and not waste it on 30 snaps, hoping this would somehow prepare him...
hurt running this much, shane will play. they won't bench #98, they won't play freshmen over senior leaders. The first year hoke was here he was more open to playing youth but he is fitting in that no true freshmen play much role for a coach. Special teams and 2-3 deep for superstar freshmen, Peppers might be the first and only player to start if he does.
Barring injury, Shane Morris's redshirt is toast. At the conclusion of preseason QB competition, the coaches concluded Morris was the second-best QB, so he would back up Devin. That Morris was a true frosh was a secondary if not irrelevant point. Morris got some game snaps against CMU, and I suspect the coaches thought he'd get more against Akron and UConn, thus giving him a little game experience going into the conference season. As we all know that didn't happen. So if Devin has to come out of the game, Morris is the guy. The coaches had to go with the two backup QBs they had and decide who was the better one. They chose Morris. That's pretty much the end of the story, except to say that it's quite obvious this staff is not adverse to burning redshirts.