What If - we had two QBs with two years in the system, 2008 and 2009

Submitted by samgoblue on

This is bored offseason chatter, so sorry if it is a played subject.  I'm curious as to people's thoughts with respect to the following hypothetical question.  Mostly, I'm looking for some glimmer of hope going into 2010 by looking backward and considering what would have been if we had ONLY a second year QB (in the current system).

What if, in 2008 and 2009, we had Tate and Denard as second year players? 

We won a total of 8 games both years playing Sheridan/Threet and Freshman Tate/Denard, respectively.  Admitedly, not good.  However, for all of the doom and gloom that comes with that much losing, there were a lot of close games.  Games that could have gone either direction but for poor QB play, or at least the threat of poor QB play causing the offense to stagnate, may have swung if we had sohpomore Tate/Denard.

For example, in 2008, the Utah, Toledo, and Purdue games were 2, 3, and 6 point losses, respectively.  If we had any semblance of a QB, I think we win those three games.  Michigan goes 6-6 in year one, with the chance to get 7 wins in the Motor City Bowl.  Not "typical", but certainly better.  The heat certainly turns down a little.  Also, this doesn't even consider that Michigan held a lead in the MSU, PSU, and Illinois games, and that the ND game was a fluke-filled disaster.

In 2009, the question gets a little foggier.  I think we again win the game against Purdue (making us 6-6 and bowl eligible).  The MSU, Iowa, and Illinois games, already close games (subtracting the surrendered second half in Illinois), become more winable.  If Michigan takes one or even two of those games, the record becomes 7-5 or 8-4.  A clear improvement, with bowl eligibility (a likely loss to a SEC team).  Regardless, the team would have clearly improved.

I know this doesn't really matter in any way, but I do think it is encouraging to know, going into 2010, that as bad as our last two years have been, if we plug only our two QBs from this year into those seasons, all of a sudden Michigan is approaching the realm of respectable.  That said, maybe this years team has a shot, even assuming the rest of the team plays like they have the past two years (hopefully the entire team will improve from the last two years!).

Anyways, I'd like others' thoughts and opinions as to whether this could be encouraging.

MGoRobo

May 26th, 2010 at 11:27 PM ^

Had they been sophomores last yr...well...Denard probably doesn't throw that pick against Iowa.  We probably beat Iowa, and State...we go 7-5. 8th win depending on bowl game.

2 years ago...not sure.  We would've been bad still and potentially missed a bowl game still.  I'd put us in the 5 win range.

BraveWolverine730

May 26th, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^

Well if you combine two years of Dilithium with the Space Emperor, then we would have vaporized our opponents and would have been 26-0 and we would be the two time defending national champs.

sec20

May 26th, 2010 at 11:36 PM ^

What if Les Miles was coach

What if Terrell Pryor Went to Michigan

What If Brandon Minor was healthy

Stop wandering what if Look towards the Bright Future with RR and Michigan

Zone Left

May 26th, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^

It's not just time in the system. Poor Nick Sheridan had, like, two plays against Western this year--one of which was a penalty and the other was a turnover. Regardless, I'm not too worried about points this year--I'm worried about the other teams scoring lots of points.

TheLastHarbaugh

May 27th, 2010 at 12:50 AM ^

Normally I wouldn't respond to a post addressing grammar, but I tend to subscribe to the theory that in a discussion grammar isn't as important as successful communication. What I mean by that is, lingusitically, communicating your point successfully is far more important than being grammatically correct. If one is grammatically correct, but the communication between two parties is lost, then one has failed, but if one is able to get their point across, but the grammar fails, then one has failed grammatically but is still successful because they have communicated successfully.

So essentially, when it comes to communication, meaning and understanding is far more important than grammar.

Grammar's function is to create a uniform set of rules so that we are able to communicate more effectively, but if communication is achieved without proper grammar then one is still successful.

Just my Epinion.

MGoRobo

May 26th, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^

Why don't we just take the topic as is and stop complaining?  I mean...I'm bored out of my mind and what if scenarios arent that horrible if they give some positive feeling.  I'm not encouraging more what if's but if they're there and you see the title and then decide to comment, it's your own fault.  Just don't click on it if you don't like the topic.  Complaining won't change the fact that it's there.

Now, after that little rant:

What if Domino's gave the students free pizza for every game?  Hmmm...

samgoblue

May 27th, 2010 at 12:15 AM ^

and I recognize that this is pointless speculation.  But, I thought it was something of an interesting topic.  Next time I'll be sure to do some math and include a graph or two.  That seems to be hot around here.

Also, I do think it is somewhat telling of what we can expect next year.  Our team isn't great, but our QB talent and experience is as good as we've had since sophomore Chad Henne.  That, alone, could make a nice difference.

MCalibur

May 26th, 2010 at 11:56 PM ^

I've actually been putting together a Diary about this, sort of. It's not about "how would Michigan have done" rather "how do QBs progress from their first season with significant playtime until they graduate". I think it's pretty interesting but I'm not quite ready to post. Should be about a week or so.

Tater

May 26th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^

...but UM and RR only had a competent, healthy QB for four games over two seasons.  They were 4-0 in those games.  With Sherithreet and, an injured Forcier, and not yet ready for prime time Denard, they went 4-16. 

This year, their third string QB will be better than Sherithreet or last year's Denard.   This alone could turn Michigan back into "Michigan" and surprise a lot of people this season.  And that isn't even taking myriad other factors into account.  That is a big reason why my cup is always half full when talking about UM football.

Njia

May 27th, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^

It was discovered that Charles Woodson somehow had a year left of eligibility and Brandon Graham had a previously unknown, identical twin brother who'd never played college or pro ball?

Sambojangles

May 27th, 2010 at 1:53 AM ^

What if Forcier and Robinson were in their third years this year? How does that change the depth chart and game predictions? Will we win 8 games? Does RR keep his job?

jsquigg

May 27th, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^

I prefer to create alternate realities for the season that hasn't happened yet rather than waste time focusing on what could have been.  We could have lost to Notre Dame and Indiana last year, etc., etc., etc.  It will all be great when we go to the Rose Bowl next year.