Shane Morris to start BWW Bowl
December 26th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^
Isn't he already in grad school? He graduated with Denard
December 26th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
Probably Ace Williams -_-
I wouldn't worry about it since Gardner didn't transfer when he was behind Denard but wanted to.
He wouldn't want to transfer a team with Big 10 Championship aspirations to another team where he will have to learn a whole new offense and scouts will look at him at Michigan since he will probably go pro.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:11 PM ^
That's gold, jerry, gold!
December 26th, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:45 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 2:47 PM ^
Getting breaking Michigan football news from Sparties and Domers is like getting driving directions from a blind person.
December 26th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
He's in his first year in the School of Social Work program. It's highly unlikely he's going to transfer to another school solely for football reasons.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^
is the bigger problem than Morris. Borges will run and run and run and run and just when you think he is done running, he will run somemore.
If the play distribution is more than 20% pass I will be shocked.
On a silver lining note, in this lost year, it will be good to get Morris some live game experience for his own development.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:19 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^
flip it. Morris ls left handed so everything he does will be a mirror image. Does that mean Lewan and Schofield flip? Interview by Lewan says not. No reason not to take him at this word.
It would also seem to be why all the day to day speculation about Gardner. KSU has undoubtedly spent the last few weeks practicing to play against Gardner, how much time was spent practicing for a LH QB?
December 26th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
20%? really?
Are you implying that M's run/pass ratio was somewhere at or above 80/20? Even notorious passing fetishisht Andy Reid runs the ball around 35% of the time. We are certainly more balanced than that. IMO -The problem isn't so much the run/pass ratio but the situational playcalling - i.e. calling obvious run plays with no threat of a counter, or futilely calling a run play, which clearly won't work given our line problems, into a stacked box on 3rd and 10.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
Anyone else already planning their drinks for Saturday?
December 26th, 2013 at 1:11 PM ^
per usual.
December 26th, 2013 at 5:11 PM ^
"sex on the beach" beer?
Because it's FUCKIN' NEAR WATER.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
Threat Level: Midnight
December 26th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
Cmon Sugar Shane.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:12 PM ^
Let's see what the kid has, the game is meaningless for the most part.
I will say this...it's a lose-lose situation.
If Shane does well, we have a QB controversy. If he sucks, the future is doomed for another 4 years.
I suppose he could play "just well enough to win" but then we're bored all spring/summer after a "meh" victory.
That said, it makes the game more intriguing for me. I hope he has a coming out party like we've never seen. I'll take a QB controversy and/or rotating QB next year if it means the following 2 years we have an all-star and first round calibur QB.
Not likely, but hey, I wanna see what the kids got.
No disrespect to Gallon or Schofield (sorry, I really don't care about Lewan)...but I want to see all the young guys vs. a well-coached team. Braden-Bosch-Glas-Kalis-Mags...let's see what they youngsters can do this game. Let's give some hope for the future of Michgan Football.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^
I will say this...it's a lose-lose situation.
If Shane does well, we have a QB controversy. If he sucks, the future is doomed for another 4 years.
I disagree with all of this. First, for a true QB controversy after this game, Shane would have to be incredible Saturday. I'd be okay with that. Then he'd have to keep it up through spring and fall. I'd be okay with that, too. It's extremely unlikely that we have serious QB controversy even if Shane plays well, and a little QB competition wouldn't be terrible.
Second, if Shane lays an egg against K-State, it absolutely does not mean that we're "doomed for another 4 years." Is that serious? We have a RS senior starter next year, so there's no pressure on him to do anything. Even if Shane isn't ready for 2015-2016, we'll have other guys on the roster (and more experienced talent at other positions). Most of all, though, you really think that a guy's debut performance in his true freshman year is enough to tell you whether he's destined to be terrible for the rest of his career?
December 26th, 2013 at 2:03 PM ^
It's not a bad problem to have...but if Shane throws for 400 and 4 TDs in a route.
As soon as DG throws his first pick next year people are going to be going crazy for Morris.
You know there will be at least 15 Shane at QB and Gardner at WR threads this offseason.
...I'm not saying it's right or it's reasonable, but you and I both know it's true.
December 26th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^
But at the point when it's "not a bad problem to have" is it still part of a "lose-lose" situation? I hope Shane lights up K-State. If he does and it looks like we have two totally viable Big Ten starters, that's a win. If he struggles, in no way will I leave this bowl game thinking that our football program is doomed for the next four years.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:14 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^
Let's see what Shane Morris can do! I am still very excited for this game.
Go Blue!!!
December 26th, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
...you gotta BEAT the man.
[/WOOOOOOO!!!]
Sorry...just felt the need for a gratuitous Rick Flair reference.
Hey, we're playing with (big) house money, folks...a bowl game that interested probably a small percentage of the fanbase after a tremendous let-down of a season just got a helluva lot more intriguing. And the good news is that the result really DOESN'T matter, because if we lose, well, we're starting an inexperienced quarterback over a hobbled one, and if we win, well...maybe, just MAYBE it'll jumpstart the fanbase toward really looking forward to Fall of 2014.
There was no way I was going to NOT watch the game...bad Michigan football is always better than NO Michigan football...but now, I'm actually going to watch the game with a genuine interest in what's going on. At the very least I'll be less prone to take bathroom breaks when Michigan has the ball.
But my heart goes out to Gardner. Missing this game has to just kill him. And anyone who thinks we have a better chance of winning without him needs to have their head examined. But I support the decision to sit him...with no mobility and an already injured foot he's like a de-clawed cat released into the wild...no chance at all.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^
Borges is going to go crazy. Dave Brandon is going to hook up Borges to some kid who won a tournament on NCAA 14. Odd this worked on my Xbox.....
If...... IF.. IF we're willing to let him dink and dunk and he throws to the right team, that could open up the run.
A "who knows who cares" game just turned into a, "who knows, at least this could be interesting, although also ugly", game.
All along has been a "Better stop by the gas station for energy drinks", game.
Are Big 12(10 err?) defenses still Big 12 defenses. I.E. Indiana? That's my best hope.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^
Gun to your head...
Would you prefer Shane look amazing, but Michigan lose a close, well-played game? Or Shane look awful and Michigan win an ugly battle?
December 26th, 2013 at 12:21 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:21 PM ^
Well if Michigan loses they'll get a better draft pi... oh wait.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
Mostly because that's always the answer to questions like this, but also partly because I don't share your sense of the importance of Morris's first start in predicting future performance. A lot of very good quarterbacks didn't look so hot in their first real action.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
However, if Shane is awful...it may not be all on him. It could me we have no progression in the OL, WRs or young RBs.
I agree you always win, but it would feel kind of "meh" for me if we won 10-7 with a fluke defensive or special teams TD and a FG while the offense did nothing all game.
For fans, bowls games are usually about celebrating a great year/honoring seniors or trying to get a glimpse of the future.
It doesn't really mean anything if Morris sucks, but it may mean something if he's very very good. May mean we have a legitimate QB for this coaching staff and a bright spot to lead the way down the road.
Remember Forcier's first game? It wasn't spactacular, but it certainly gave us some oxygen after the Threet/Sheridan year.
For me personally, I want the win because typically that'll mean SOMEONE played well. If our defense is lights out, I'll be just as excited as if Morris threw for 300 yards and 3 TDs.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 1:15 PM ^
Michigan wins a game with less than 200 yards of offense that most people believed they shouldn't have been invited to over a team that finished second in a conference whose champion gave up 70 points to West Virginia in that year's Orange Bowl.
Damn right I want Michigan to win, don't care how ugly it is.
December 26th, 2013 at 2:04 PM ^
If this was the Sugar Bowl, this wouldn't be a question. This is the BWW Bowl with the backup QB.
December 26th, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^
The BCS has rendered most bowl games into exhibitions that are shells of their former selves. Does winning a BCS game mean more than winning the BWW Bowl, aside from the amount of the payout to the school? Sure, it's more prestigious and you are more likely to buy a T-shirt or sweatshirt with "SUGAR BOWL CHAMPIONS" on it, but what does it actually mean? Michigan wasn't even runner-up in their conference and they played a team that WAS runner-up in a conference that was considered to be something of a joke. It was a sloppy but tense affair that was certainly more entertaining than the next college football game played in that stadium between Alabama and LSU, but aside from our fans and maybe those of Va. Tech, no one really remembers it.
People remember the 2005 Rose Bowl played by (confrence champion) Michigan and Texas (who were not technically their conference runners-up as they were not represented in the Big XII conference championship game) as being a great game, and it was, but it was a great game that we lost, and being 46 years old I feel that I've already sat through MORE than my fair share of those. Give me a "W", please...uglier'n hell if it needs to be.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
and didn't he and Shane come out of school along with USC's Max Browne as the three '13 QB studs? I realize Shane missed most of his senior year and didn't enroll early but if Hackenberg could play well this year why can't Morris?
If he plays well there is no QB controversy, come on man. Gardner has earned the right to be the senior starter in '14. Even if Shane looks like Peyton Manning running Borges' offense, that should just make us excited for '15 (and also for '14 knowing Gardner can maybe risk designed runs a little more).
December 26th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
...he wins the job. No college QB in history has ever looked like Peyton Manning, and that includes Peyton Manning.
December 26th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
Remember that ratings are based on pro potential, not their ultimate college potential or, even more importantly, where they come in. While Shane has all the physical tools, loads of arm strength, and flashes of accuracy, he is still quite raw for a player. His rating was based much more on his sky-high potential than a player like Hackenberg, who was already fairly developed as far as consistency, accuracy, etc, but doesn't really have the same arm strength as Morris.
December 26th, 2013 at 1:52 PM ^
100% disagree. The best players should play. If Shane is a better option than Devin and gives you a chance to win you owe it the rest of the guys out there to play the better player.
This isn't a slight against Devin. He was a highly rated QB coming out of HS and I'm a big fan of what he's done and I think he's represented the university well. Not trying to run him out of town or anything either.
December 26th, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^
We all know this board and Michigan fans...hell just college football fans in general.
Again, I DON'T AGREE with it. But as soon as DG threw a pick next year, Michigan nation would be calling for Morris.
To say otherwise is a complete LIE. Gardner threw picks THIS YEAR without us ever seeing Morris and people were calling for him. Imagine if those same people watched him go 400 and 4 TDs vs. KSU. It would be unbearable.
December 26th, 2013 at 3:41 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
He actually looked quite mobile and aggressive against MSU. Not running QB mobile, but footwork and escapability mobile. He can move around.
December 26th, 2013 at 4:23 PM ^
December 26th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
But the one thing that helps Michigan in this case is that the base offense that they install with their QBs first (think something between the offense that Michigan ran when DG first came in last year and the South Carolina game, with a little less designed QB running but still a little to keep the defense honest and because it's been practiced anyway; quite a bit of I form, quick PA passes outside, easy reads, lots of single WR with a TE running the seam, mostly 21 personnel, probably Funchess a bit more at TE in passing situations because of that, etc) still sets up for a way moving the ball on KSU. They'll have to continue their improvement run blocking. The RBs, in an odd way, may benefit from this, while it's highly unlikely the run game as a whole does, it can open up some of the base type plays a bit.
The issue is that Michigan's biggest problem on offense now just got a heavy dose of the same problem: inconsistency. For how inconsistent DG was behind an inconsistent OL, a true FR will likely be more so. The key will likely be how they string together plays and rhythm. They need a few drives where they get into a rhythm and score TDs combined with the big play, because if it's just 1-2 good plays mixed with 1-2 bad plays, they will stall a lot. I think if the RBs can continue to get positive yardage and push that average to around 3.5-4 in the process, then some of the short hitch game, outs, and then double moves to the sideline can allow for such a rhythm, but it will all start up front.