Sheridan is Important to this teams success

Submitted by NewBlue Era on

Before I get negged into oblivion, let's all take a second to realize that RR is a very smart football coach. He knows (like we do) that the success of this offense revolves around good (if nor great) quarterback play. And so do Denard and Tate. By keeping Nick Sheridan in the fold it somewhat takes the pressure off of the two (fabulous) freshman QB's. It might seem harsh to throw Sheridan under the bus (so to speak) but this, IMO, is what RR is doing (and actually I think Sheridan can handle it, as he handled his former life as Death, (notice how he is not referred to this anymore?)).

I guess what I am trying to say is that RR knows Sheridan will not lead us to the promise land (8+ wins), but by including all 3 QB's int the "competition" for the starter spot (or having 3 "starters") it reduces the pressure any each of them to perform.

Also, teams (including ND, who is at least a 2 TD favorite vs. Nevada in there opener, thus already preparing for Michigan, somewhat) have to prepare for three different QB styles, and know virtually nothing about two of them. I think RR knows how smart this is, ad he gets to protect two of his most important players at the same time.

Thoughts?

uniqenam

August 26th, 2009 at 9:03 PM ^

Although everyone knows Denard or Tate starts, RR can't acknowledge that, if only to get more hard practice and competition between quarterbacks.

petered0518

August 26th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^

I (see what you're saying) but are you sure this isn't a rationalization that you made up when (you heard) that Sheridan will play(I know I made one)?

(ps. I hope my sarcastic parentheses didn't come off as being a jerk, it was lighthearted fun)

NewBlue Era

August 26th, 2009 at 9:11 PM ^

I blamed a lot of things on Sheridan...but after looking back not everything can be his fault (obviously). And with the team on the "same page" now, I think he could be a sufficient back up who might be able to get the ball to our playmakers, but not be a playmaker himself. Tate and Denard on the other hand...

Muttley

August 26th, 2009 at 10:27 PM ^

The guy was honorable mention, all-conference in high school. An achievement many of us could reasonably achieve if we relived our high school days and our coaches picked us to start.

That an honorable mention, all-conference player found himself on the field was not his fault. Threet's style and aggressive running with that blazing sub 6.0 40 speed was bound to get himself injured. If the Coner couldn't beat out Sheridan, then that's not Nick's fault.

Yes, we do have better QB talent this year. No need to bash the guy that beat out the alternative last year.

Bleedin9Blue

August 26th, 2009 at 9:17 PM ^

I know that this isn't quite on topic with regard to the original post, but I just have to say that a few things about ND since you brought them up.

Charlie is known to prepare his team for the first 3 games or so of the season. Thus, in theory he would be preparing for Michigan at least a little bit even if his fist game was against Florida (although I suspect that he'd be preparing less).

Second, if ND does overlook Nevada they will lose. Nevada's offense (the pistol) is too good and too unknown to many coaches to sleep on. The unknown part means that teams will be less prepared for their specific type of attack and thus won't be as good defensively.

This isn't ND specific as it applies to everyone that plays us (at least until a definite starter is found) but I don't think that ND has to prepare for 3 completely different QBs, at least not as much as you imply. Yes, Denard will run more and faster than Tate whereas Tate will throw more accurately and often than Tate. And yes, Sheridan will be able to execute a few plays that the others can't. But they're still going to be similar. It's not like one QB is going to be Dennis Dixon while another is Ryan Mallet. There will be similarities. I agree that ND and everyone else will have to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of multiple QBs rather than just one, but it won't be a night and day difference between each QB.

Just thought I'd say that. Feel free to disagree.

Double Nickel BG

August 26th, 2009 at 9:48 PM ^

you might be a little off on your teams being prepared for "unknown" offenses. In the league I coach, theres 5 or 6 spread teams, 2 forms of T, and a veer offense. Since our defense practices against our spread O, its a pretty straight-forward matchup when we go against another spread O. When we face one of the other offenses, we go through 10X more tape, hours more of practice, and alot more time finding tendencies to help our team. So you can argue that the offenses we don't see alot we might actually be more prepared for than a spread team. If ND loses, Im willing to bet its more of Nevadas offense being good than ND not being prepared for a pistol offense.

NewBlue Era

August 26th, 2009 at 9:28 PM ^

I know that Tate can run and the defense will have to prepare for that but just remember, if Denard Robinson "breaks free" then we can "strike up the band". Thus, not spending any practice time specifically an containing him would be a mistake, IMHO. Especially early in the season when he will be more apt to take off.

I suspect that defenses will have to play a little different when our QB's shoe are untied, and a little different when the Forcier is with us.

HighKnees

August 26th, 2009 at 10:01 PM ^

Let's say moxie and other "intangibles," including:

1. Grit
2. Scrappiness
3. Heart
4. A never-say-die attitude
5. A knack for doing the right thing
6. That "it" factor
7. Character

Others?

Ziff72

August 26th, 2009 at 9:28 PM ^

ND is favored by 14 and you consider them locked and preparing for Mich already and were favored by 12 and relying on Sheridan?? Fail. ND is preparing for Nevada. WE are holding out hope this qb debacle lets us somehow defeat Western.

NewBlue Era

August 26th, 2009 at 9:34 PM ^

if we weren't coming off of a terrible season (and not undergoing a program altering coaching change), I suspect we would be spending a little time at practice getting prepared for ND already, no matter what MAC team we opened with.

They are one of our biggest rivals.

HighKnees

August 26th, 2009 at 9:35 PM ^

I respect the idea that competition or even the threat of competition is good. What's true in Econ 431 is true in football, as they say. (They say that, right?) So if Sheridan is performing pretty well in practice and knows the offense and his reads better than Tate and Denard, then maybe that gives Tate and Denard the motivation to study the playbook a little harder and not rely on talent alone. He can be Dennis Quaid to Tate and Denard's Jamie Foxx. But you don't need to play three guys to get competition from three guys.

But playing three quarterbacks seems awful to me. First, it's hard to quantify, but I think there's something to the idea that QBs can get in and out of rhythym. So, I'm generally opposed to using more than one QB in a game, let alone 3. Second, I don't think Sheridan brings anything to the table that Tate and Denard do not. (This point has been made on this blog before I think.) Maybe he knows the offense better, but based on last year, I think his physical limits prevent him from running some of the offense.

Regarding your ND point -- I'd make the same argument. If he doesn't bring anything new to the table (or anything better), there's nothing else to prepare for.

Finally, I believe RR is a good coach, and so I get the point about trusting his judgment. If I had to speculate about how a rationale person could decide to play three QBs against Western, I'd say come full circle and say, you're right (partially)-- RR is doing it for competition. It's just that Western is such a patsy, he thinks he can keep the competition going for a little longer than usual. In other words, he'll take the trade off of putting a worse product out there for the increase in competition.

. . . or maybe he just has a sick sense of humor.

marc_from_novi

August 26th, 2009 at 9:49 PM ^

No matter how you slice it, a 3 headed QB is not good news for UM. I personally hope RR's comments are just simply coach speak. We need a single starter and we need one very early in the season IMO. This whole multiple QB scenario seems way to similar to last year to make me feel comfortable. I recognize that the QB situation almost by default will be improved over last year, but I fear failure to maximize potential if RR dinks around playing multiple guys.

gater

August 26th, 2009 at 9:49 PM ^

I was hoping that this was about him knowing the offense but not being able to execute which makes him a good player/coach. Why would Western game plan for him? Everyone says that we give 3 different looks, but his look is about the same as tate's. He's just not as fast or accurate. The only advantage is that he probably knows more of the playbook, but how to you game plan for that? we didn't show the new plays last year because he didn't know them then. You can't look at the plays that WVU ran because they had pat white who was much more denard than tate/sheridan. They still only have 2 looks to plan for. I hope Sheridan is a mentor to tate/denard.

petered0518

August 26th, 2009 at 9:53 PM ^

I would say that an additional reason that Sheridan should play is that freshman qbs, although getting bigger and stronger, are still going to be more fragile than a guy who has been in the program for a few years now.

Like I have said before, I have seen Tate and Sheridan up close and Sheridan is way thicker right now(no homo, I am only homo for Mike Martin)

I personally think that there is a big difference playing 40 snaps rather than the full 75 or whatever a full game is. So yeah, it is not all bad if Sheridan has to play, but if the game is close I do not want to see him in there.

RockinLoud

August 26th, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^

it is not all bad if Sheridan has to play

Not at all? Not at all!! Are you serious!? It could (could) be the most horrible mistake that could be made against WMU!! The entire space-time continuum could collapse in on itself in a massive atomic implosion of apocalyptic proportions!! /overdramaticpoint

But seriously, I would agree if you said "it might not be a bad thing", but there is no way it is definitively not at all a bad thing. It, based on what we saw last year though hopefully not that epically bad, has a greater chance of being bad than good at this point.

drexel

August 26th, 2009 at 10:27 PM ^

The thing is, we haven't seen a whole practice. We don't know what each qb is or is not doing well. I can only speculate that Sheridan has become good or even very good at executing the three step passing game, and that is keeping him in this competition. Maybe he has even become adequate at making some long throws down field. Couple that with MINOR RAGE, and you've got an offense that can score points. As Denard and Tate see more and more D-1 competition on game day, their execution starts to improve and superior talent prevails. Right now, however, Rodriguez feels comfortable putting Sheridan in a game. To me, that says more about Sheridan than it does about our qb situation.

MichFan1997

August 26th, 2009 at 10:33 PM ^

about Sheridan, I'd definately prefer not to see him play. I'd rather the freshman gain the valuable experience. But it is NOT Sheridan's fault that he was our best option at times. The kid works his ass off! If the kid plays, I will cheer him and support him. Because he's our QB. End of story.

Tater

August 26th, 2009 at 11:20 PM ^

An "X-factor" QB for ND to worry about while prepping for UM.

If RR can bluff Sheridan's "improvement" enough, opposing coaches will have to prepare for three QB's until Sheridan proves them wrong. I think it would be hilarious if it lasted at least until the fifth game of the season.

bklein09

August 27th, 2009 at 2:52 AM ^

I just want to say that Sheridan should not see the field this year under any circumstances (except due to injuries or in a mop up role). I say this from the pure standpoint of the future of the program and the development of the young qbs.
Even if Sheridan is somehow improved enough to be equal to or slightly ahead of one of the freshman, wouldn't you rather give the young qbs the chance to develop and gain irreplaceable game experience? The only way I would be alright with Sheridan seeing meaningful time is if RR honestly believed that he gave us a significantly better chance to win a game, and to be honest the is no way in hell that is going to happen.
Imagine this, all three qbs play in the opener, and Sheridan steps up and establishes himself as the starter by leading us to victory against WMU. Whooohooo! But where does that leave us for the rest of the season, or for the next couple of years? At some point we need to develop experience at qb besides Sheridan. I do not want to see Tate/Denard go one second longer than necessary before getting as much game experience as possible.
As far as I'm concerned, Nick Sheridan will always be known as DEATH. I'm not trying to say anything about him as a person. But if he sees significant time this year, it really does spell death for the future of this program.

goldandapager

August 27th, 2009 at 9:06 AM ^

So if sheridan sees significant playing time, you believe it is taking too many reps away from the freshman thus leading us to inexperience next year? Put in the guy who is going to win games NOW...dont worry about what might happen next year, these freshman are going to get their reps as RR has said. If sheridan is lighting it up you would really like to see him pulled?

bigbluefanatic05

August 27th, 2009 at 3:09 AM ^

I see your point & hope you're right...about Sheridan being "used" as "insurance" so to speak...but if RR has ANY ideas of using Sheridan, I'd be very discouraged & upset. We saw how ineffective Sheridan was last year and, frankly, I can't believe that suddenly he's become a decent QB. I have no problem with Sheridan guiding the freshman through the obvious "growing pains" that will appear but don't want to see him ANYWHERE near the field!!

The King of Belch

August 27th, 2009 at 5:53 AM ^

I suppose there is a strong possibility that RR is playing the room. Lord knows he is smarter than those he is playing the room with.

I also think it's bullshit that a guy feels he has to spoon the other posters here by being apologetic for even mentioning Sheridan. Sheridan is going to remain a viable option (and we fans better get used to it) until the freshmen can display, on the field and with consistency, that they can handle game situations. And yeah, Sheridan just MAY start the first two games.

I'm as excited by what UM guys are telling us about what they see in practice. I'm excited by Fred Jackson's hyperbolic effervescence WRT Robinson. I HOPE either Tate or Denard are every bit as good as we all would like to believe they are.

But if Sheridan is the best option to get to 7-5, then so be it.

BTW: Negbang for "Death" for ANYONE who uses that term to describe Sheridan. Played OUT.

OSUckSteverMSUcks

August 27th, 2009 at 10:05 AM ^

I had to reread this about 5 times to make sure I read it correctly. The fact that I'm agreeing with TBS/KOB makes me seriously question the alcohol content of the cream I put in my coffee this morning.

Thorin

August 27th, 2009 at 6:42 AM ^

For the sake of the half of my liver that Sheridan didn't kill last year, fuck this thread and anyone who agrees with its premise.

MichiganMan08

August 27th, 2009 at 7:56 AM ^

If this guy can play and stepped up his game from last year why not play him. Yes we all want to forget last season and its misery but if Sheridan stepped up and can play QB why not give him a second chance?

bklein09

August 27th, 2009 at 9:34 AM ^

I just cannot believe that people here would actually be ok if on September 5th Sheridan strolls out onto the field as the starter. After so much anticipation for this upcoming season, I would be devastated. Ya if he turned out to be decent I would slowly come around, but it would still be hard dealing with the fact that he was our best option. I'm sorry but I just do not see anyway possible that a former walk-on who was that bad last year could make a big enough improvement to get us to a
bowl game. I mean he was truly truly horrible last year. Did we all forget? Don't see how we could have, but maybe some have you have hidden the memories deep within your subconscious. Sheridan= death death death death death death death.

chitownblue2

August 27th, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^

By putting on the Michigan uniform, and working his ass off in practice, and being, by all accounts, a good kid, Nick Sheridan deserves our respect. People can reasonably hold opinions about the quality of his play (which wasn't good), but I really, really, really, object to referring to a kid who works, sweats, and bleeds for the school as "DEATH". It's just a shitty, shitty thing to do. I love this blog, and I think Brian does a great job, but the creation of this meme is one of the few things he's done that I can't stand.