What QB situation would M fans prefer?

44 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
September 20th, 2009 at 5:03 PM
#1
Lordfoul
Lordfoul's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1456
What QB situation would M fans prefer?

With all of the neg-banging my diary has received, I am now very curious. What QB situation would Michigan fans prefer for the next 4-6 years? Here are the options I see at this point:

1. Tate continues to be healthy and awesome, holding down the starting job for the next four years. Gardner comes in and redshirts, taking over the starting job when Forcier graduates and starting for 2 years. D-Rob backs up Forcier for 2 years and then either transfers (hope not) or plays RB or Slot Ninja.

2. For whatever reason, Tate doesn't start over D-Rob and the above senario plays out reversing those two guys. Gardner still redshirts. (Although I don't see Tate playing anything but QB still.)

3. Neither of the freshmen make a solid case to be the starter going into next season and true frosh Gardner takes the reigns. Either Tate or D-Rob backs up DG for 3 years.

4. All QBs on the roster continue to split time, every year, with no one QB being the #1.

I have been on record preferring scenario 1. These are all special athletes and Michigan needs to make max use of their combined talents. I would really like to see a whole new offensive look that put two QBs, side by side, in the backfield where either can take the snap, they can hand off to each other, etc, etc. I just have no idea if that could even work. I don't think that having the QB position a revolving door like RB is the best plan, but I am no expert.

So what do you all really prefer?

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
September 20th, 2009 at 5:05 PM | We are 3-0, and people are (Score:1)
chitownblue2
chitownblue2's picture
Joined: 06/03/2009
MGoPoints: 7060

We are 3-0, and people are writing vaguely hand-wringing diaries about the QB situation not through the end of the year, but in 2015. I hate people sometimes.

wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog

September 20th, 2009 at 5:14 PM | I haven't read any of the (Score:1)
jaster
jaster's picture
Joined: 08/29/2008
MGoPoints: 105

I haven't read any of the diaries about the future of UM's QB position, but I don't see a problem with this thread. UM football and the coaches surely think about these things, so they seem to be legit topics for discussion among fans. If it's not your cup of tea, why not just ignore the thread?

September 20th, 2009 at 6:39 PM | I'm with chitown... (Score:1)
NYWolverine
Joined: 08/16/2008
MGoPoints: 353

But before I get negged into oblivion, let me explain. I share your enthusiasm for what's happening on the field every Saturday so far this year. I am also excited about our two dynamic young QBs and look forward to each game to see how they develop and mature. I am also happy about the solid verbal commitment we have from the #1 QB prospect in the state of Michigan (and in the country), and what his potential could mean for our football program in the long-term...

Having said this, there is a responsibility on this blog to self-regulate our enthusiasm for the greater good of the overall quality of discussion.

This thread discusses Michigan's quarterback situation 3 years from now, and forces participants to make incredibly optimistic inferences about player development, health, commitment, etc., in this regard. It is, prima facie, an exercise in mental masturbation more than it is a valid discussion. This blog's success derives from its ability to temper enthusiasm with realism and smart content.

We share your enthusiasm, believe me...we wouldn't be here if we didn't. But lest we fall into Scout/Rivals/Bleacher Report quibbling every time we have a big win or loss against an unproven defense/offense/whatehaveyou, you'll need to read chitown's writing on the wall: just chill the f*$# out.

Go Blue!

E to the S Go Blue, Class of '04

September 20th, 2009 at 7:04 PM | This thread doesn't "force" (Score:1)
jaster
jaster's picture
Joined: 08/29/2008
MGoPoints: 105

This thread doesn't "force" anyone to do anything. I think you've misunderstood it since much of your post doesn't really apply to it. It's a valid discussion on the future of the program and its players. Self-regulating the blog and tempering enthusiasm with realism and smart content does not apply here. Is the topic a gray area? Maybe for some, but like I said, ignore the thread if it isn't your cup of tea. It's not out-of-bounds or breaking any rules, written or otherwise. I can't see anything written in the OP that deserves the "just chill the f*$# out" response. The only thing that that seems to apply to is the posts going off the deep end about this topic being somehow unreasonable.

September 20th, 2009 at 7:36 PM | EDIT (Score:1)
NYWolverine
Joined: 08/16/2008
MGoPoints: 353

double post

E to the S Go Blue, Class of '04

September 20th, 2009 at 7:33 PM | Define "valid" (Score:1)
NYWolverine
Joined: 08/16/2008
MGoPoints: 353

Websters: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful (a valid theory); b : logically correct (a valid argument, valid inference)...

You say that this thread is a "valid" discussion of the future of the program and its players. Now, in order to have that type of discussion, we have to be able to draw on logic. In order to draw on logic, well, some logical support has to exist to create deductions. This thread by its nature 'forces' anyone who wants to participate in to make gross inferences, which is inherently illogical.

I fail to see how we can discuss this topic at all without tempering our enthusiasm and drawing on reality and the severely limited data to which we have access. So I simply cannot agree that "[s]elf-regulating the blog and tempering enthusiasm with realism and smart content does not apply here." It has to apply here, or we might as well let a monkey decide what the QB situation should be.

I can't help that my post riled your sensitivities; there are a huge number of people on this blog that would like to see it stay an oasis from the premature ejaculations of untempered enthusiasm for a future QB situation over which we have no control of the parameters, nor the stat-lines that we need to even make any assessments.

This is MGoBlog, Jaster, the Michigan sports blog that, with respect to all of its content, seeks to accentuate quality over quantity. Brian has spoken to this very issue in the past. If we don't self-regulate, if we don't decide, 'you know, maybe it's too early to discuss this matter so I'll hold off' it floods the board with nothing but "RAH RAH" fodder and, well, that sucks.

Having said that, this thread is not the worst of culprits I've seen, but I still support the underlying point behind chitown's post. Just chill out a little. Discuss the things we have facts and defined parameters to discuss; leave the speculative fapping to the Scout boards.

E to the S Go Blue, Class of '04

September 20th, 2009 at 7:58 PM | So glad to see that you have (Score:1)
Lordfoul
Lordfoul's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1456

So glad to see that you have a firm grasp of what this Blog stands for. I am also glad that this isn't your blog as it seems then it would be a dull, dull read indeed. Here is some logic for you:

Michigan will have a starting QB in years to come.

That QB will most probably be from amongst players we have heard of.

Logic would follow that the coaches are thinking about this future of the team and so are the fans.

The fans like to discuss this with other fans on the best forum available.

NYWolverine contributes nothing but negative comments to this space as far as I can see.

Logic. Logic.

September 20th, 2009 at 8:27 PM | Riiiiiight... (Score:1)
NYWolverine
Joined: 08/16/2008
MGoPoints: 353

Look, I'm not here to throw around insults. If that's your M.O., you're welcome to continue. I don't intend to contribute a "negative comment" on this thread as I'm not looking to put anyone down. My opinion is that 2 good games and a very freshman performance does not establish anything.

The competitive nature of Michigan football's weekly practices seems to be the determining factor in the depth chart. That much comes from the coach's mouth, so that's my take. What else is there to discuss?

As for the coaches' thinking about the QB depth of the team 3 years from now, I hope it's limited to coaching up who they have currently and not depending on variables that are yet to play out (Devin Gardner is not a Wolverine yet). Go read all the discussion threads of how Kevin Newsome and Shav Beaver would play out. If you'd prefer not to, then you'll understand why I'd prefer we limit (or eliminate) this type of thread. See also, Terrelle Pryor.

E to the S Go Blue, Class of '04

September 20th, 2009 at 8:54 PM | "The competitive nature of (Score:1)
Lordfoul
Lordfoul's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1456

"The competitive nature of Michigan football's weekly practices seems to be the determining factor in the depth chart. That much comes from the coach's mouth, so that's my take. What else is there to discuss?"

I like to discuss Michigan Football on MGoBlog. If there is nothing you would consider worth discussing then why are you here? Why don't you quit with the negative takes on other peoples' discussions and go read the presser notes again.

September 20th, 2009 at 8:24 PM | It's valid because it's a (Score:1)
jaster
jaster's picture
Joined: 08/29/2008
MGoPoints: 105

It's valid because it's a question regarding Michigan football, players already on the team or committed, and the future of said quantities. No need to analyze Merriam-Webster definitions and get into semantics. Does this line of thinking require predictions? Sure, but that doesn't make this an inappropriate topic. We have data to base those predictions on, if we want to get into that much detail. If the question had been, "OMG how awesomez do you think the Force will be?" then I'd agree.

"Self-regulating the blog and tempering enthusiasm with realism and smart content" does not apply here because there is no enthusiasm requiring tempering. Why are you assuming that the question forces "incredibly optimistic inferences about player development, health, commitment, etc.?" If Forcier and Robinson were both struggling, the right answer might be different. At some point one would have to essentially say, "hopefully Gardner comes in and performs as a true freshman, since Forcier and Robinson aren't cutting it and I don't expect them to get much better." The point is, "realism" can be, and should be, applied to the question. Forcier seems to be the real deal and Robinson brings an element that makes him a good backup, or 1b. Personally, I see them as a good tandem for the future, and so, at this point, it looks like it'll be a good idea to redshirt Gardner, especially since he needs to work on his mechanics anyway.

Your post in no way riled my sensibilities. I don't see anything in my post that would have given you that indication. And I'll have to respectfully decline to heed your lecturing in regards to the context of this thread, since it is based on what I view as a false premise; that this thread is an example of what Brian wants self-regulated. As someone who posts regularly on a Red Wings site that is centered around prospects and often discusses predictions based on what we know of those prospects, I find the criticism of this thread topic rather funny. Someone who is asking a question about opinions on the future of the QB position simply does not warrant a "just chill the f*$# out" response.

September 20th, 2009 at 8:52 PM | Assumptions, mine vs. yours (Score:1)
NYWolverine
Joined: 08/16/2008
MGoPoints: 353

You wrote, "Why are you assuming that the question forces 'incredibly optimistic inferences about player development, health, commitment, etc.?'" My problem with this thread is that is begs the optimistic assumption that the first two games of the season represent our QB consistency, and that the last very freshman performance out of Tate Forcier was an anomaly. It also assumes Devin Gardner is a) committed to play, and b) will play as advertised. You know the thing about assumptions, right?

Your assumption seems much more egregious than mine, but before this conversation devolves any further, my point: any topic that forces such assumptions to be made, especially given a data pool of 3 games, are not particularly strong. I've read the majority of the posts in this thread, and out of those I think most are along the lines of, 'let's just see how this plays out; i hope QB play remains strong, but it's too early to discuss.'

Go Blue.

E to the S Go Blue, Class of '04

September 21st, 2009 at 2:19 AM | You'll have to point out (Score:1)
jaster
jaster's picture
Joined: 08/29/2008
MGoPoints: 105

You'll have to point out where I made egregious assumptions. And I still don't see how this thread "begs the optimistic assumption that the first two games of the season represent our QB consistency, and that the last very freshman performance out of Tate Forcier was an anomaly." Who has said that? I don't think the first three games are the end-all, be-all, no one should, but they are certainly valid events that can be used to judge our two freshmen quarterbacks. Do you get mad at ESPN when they say, "this kid looks like the real deal!" No one is saying there won't be inconsistency or freshman mistakes, but unless you are prepared to posit that Forcier will eventually prove incapable of running this offense, then I don't see a problem with predicting that he will continue to be the starting quarterback. You're trying to curb an enthusiasm that simply isn't present in this thread.

What this thread really boils down to is, "what do you think of the quarterbacks so far?" And there's nothing wrong with that question. It's not requiring people to say, "[Player X] will definitely do this or that, or definitely become this or that." If someone wants to go ahead and say Forcier will win the Heisman this year, then, by all means, reign them in. Until then, I think you're off-base.

We'll have to agree to disagree it seems.

September 20th, 2009 at 8:02 PM | I swear you lurk MGoBlog for (Score:1)
chitownblue2
chitownblue2's picture
Joined: 06/03/2009
MGoPoints: 7060

I swear you lurk MGoBlog for the specific purpose of complaining about me.

wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog

September 20th, 2009 at 8:05 PM | Funny, I swear you lurk (Score:1)
Lordfoul
Lordfoul's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1456

Funny, I swear you lurk MGoBlog for the specific purpose of complaining about everyone and everything.

September 20th, 2009 at 8:06 PM | I swear you lurk MGoBlog for (Score:1)
chitownblue2
chitownblue2's picture
Joined: 06/03/2009
MGoPoints: 7060

I swear you lurk MGoBlog for the specific purpose of complaining about everyone and everything.

Actually, just specific things and specific people.

wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog

September 20th, 2009 at 6:16 PM | Hehehe! (Score:1)
victors2000
victors2000's picture
Joined: 03/21/2009
MGoPoints: 2324

Hehehe!

You have to play this game like somebody just hit your mother with a two-by-four. ~Dan Birdwell

September 20th, 2009 at 8:18 PM | Don't hate the player, hate (Score:1)
techyooper
techyooper's picture
Joined: 03/31/2009
MGoPoints: 242

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Seriously, if one doesn't have thoughts about how to get DR on the field, outside of the QB position, one must be fricking out of one's mind.

Edit: This is vaguely what I think.

derelicte

September 21st, 2009 at 2:54 AM | There's that phrase (Score:1)
Sommy
Sommy's picture
Joined: 07/29/2008
MGoPoints: 1976

There's that phrase "hand-wringing" again.

...and by that, I mean helter-skelter, willy-nilly and putt-putt!

September 20th, 2009 at 5:08 PM | Huh? (Score:1)
MaizeSombrero
MaizeSombrero's picture
Joined: 07/19/2008
MGoPoints: 1938

Is this really what you think about?

I'm a cucumber.  | Twitter

September 20th, 2009 at 5:12 PM | Sure. How is thinking ahead (Score:1)
Lordfoul
Lordfoul's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1456

Sure. How is thinking ahead regarding Michigan's QB situation strange? I am enjoying the season now and extrapolating our continued success going forward.

I just don't get why this is considered strange. What do you think about?

September 20th, 2009 at 6:21 PM | I agree LF (Score:1)
victors2000
victors2000's picture
Joined: 03/21/2009
MGoPoints: 2324

What's the big deal about scenarios? It's fun to speculate, everybody wins, we move on to the next speculation. I myself think, in 2015, someone unbeknownst to us will be platooning with someone else unbeknownst to us, attempting to lead the Wolverines to their 3rd national championship in 5 years.

You have to play this game like somebody just hit your mother with a two-by-four. ~Dan Birdwell

September 20th, 2009 at 5:10 PM | Setting aside any bias fans (Score:1)
jaster
jaster's picture
Joined: 08/29/2008
MGoPoints: 105

Setting aside any bias fans may have toward one QB or another, and based on what we've seen so far this season and what we know of college football, scenario #1 is the only choice here. People who pick another either have an irrational stake in Robinson or Gardner, or irrationally dislike Forcier.

September 20th, 2009 at 5:15 PM | This is exactly the vibe I am (Score:1)
Lordfoul
Lordfoul's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1456

This is exactly the vibe I am getting from comments on this blog. It seems that some do not like the success Forcier has had and want D-Rob to get a better shot. Doesn't make sense to me but whatever...

September 20th, 2009 at 5:19 PM | You are exactly right. (Score:1)
Sambojangles
Sambojangles's picture
Joined: 12/15/2008
MGoPoints: 1318

You are exactly right.

Forcier has proven so far to be way ahead of D-Rob as a passer and running the offense. I think Robinson should stay as a backup/second QB for the next two years while Gardner redshirts, then move to slot or whatever. Forcier will start for all four years and be awesome, as you said.

Gardner will have 3 and a half years to learn the offense before he has to be the starter. And that is the way it should be. I'm sure RR will recruit in the future by trying to have a QB start no earlier than his sophomore season, hopefully no earlier than a redshirt sophomore season.

Fingers crossed/knock on wood/any other superstitious action/no injury/no decommit/nothing to ruin the plan.

"The trouble with quotes on the internet, is that it is often difficult to discern whether or not they are genuine" --Abraham Lincoln

@Sambojangles

September 20th, 2009 at 5:22 PM | Wouldn't Gardner have 2.5 (Score:1)
Lordfoul
Lordfoul's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1456

Wouldn't Gardner have 2.5 years to learn, not 3.5?

September 20th, 2009 at 5:15 PM | Whatever situation wins the (Score:1)
mscharbo15
mscharbo15's picture
Joined: 01/12/2009
MGoPoints: 151

Whatever situation wins the most games.

September 20th, 2009 at 5:20 PM | I prefer that all of our QBs (Score:1)
joeyb
joeyb's picture
Joined: 10/12/2008
MGoPoints: 11300

I prefer that all of our QBs learn the system, continue to improve, and that the best QB will play. I don't care which one of your situations that fits into as long as we are winning games.

That said, Denard has been here for, what, 6 weeks now? Give him a chance to get used to 110,000 people cheering for him.

September 20th, 2009 at 5:22 PM | Success (Score:1)
Maize
Maize's picture
Joined: 04/01/2009
MGoPoints: 151

The answer is both scenario #1 and #2. Healthyness and awesomeness is always the best choice. I really don't care who starts.

Tressel: Pounding kids since April 2010.

September 20th, 2009 at 5:34 PM | I'd consider this more of an (Score:1)
West Texas Blue
West Texas Blue's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1661

I'd consider this more of an offseason topic. We have so much of the season left that no one knows what will happen. Tate has been one of the few exceptions so far for true freshman QBs playing well. Seeing how Gardner needs work on his mechanics, I really don't see him playing next year. It'd be a waste to have him play garbage time and waste a year of eligibility.

September 20th, 2009 at 6:26 PM | I'd say number 1 is the best (Score:1)
Papochronopolis
Papochronopolis's picture
Joined: 09/17/2009
MGoPoints: 1554

I'd say number 1 is the best option, but it's beneficial to have a change of pace guy that you can goto. I say stick with what we got now, bringing in DRob once in a while. Once Gardner's on campus (or redshirt if it's not necessary to use him) why not use him in a freshman Tebow like role.

September 20th, 2009 at 6:58 PM | True freshman QBs should (Score:1)
West Texas Blue
West Texas Blue's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1661

True freshman QBs should never see the field 99.99% of the time. Our hand was forced because we needed a dual threat QB to run the spread option offense. We won't be starting true freshmen QBs in the future.

September 20th, 2009 at 7:43 PM | RR is all about competition (Score:1)
Maize and Blue ...
Maize and Blue 4 Life's picture
Joined: 03/15/2009
MGoPoints: 3516

While I love what Tate and Denard bring to the table if Gardner comes in and outplays them he will start period. RR will start the best player regardless of what class he is in.

September 20th, 2009 at 8:14 PM | Unless Gardner's mechanics (Score:1)
West Texas Blue
West Texas Blue's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1661

Unless Gardner's mechanics make a quantum leap forward, there's no way he is going to be starting next year.

September 20th, 2009 at 7:46 PM | I have no dog in this race (Score:1)
Viper
Viper's picture
Joined: 01/23/2009
MGoPoints: 28

All I care about is wins on the field and bringing National Championships back to Ann Arbor.

I love Forcier like everyone else. But if Robinson or Gardner beats him out at some point, well, then Michigan is going to have a deadly combination of QB depth.

September 20th, 2009 at 8:34 PM | Multiple QB's (Score:1)
Tater
Tater's picture
Joined: 08/13/2008
MGoPoints: 10359

I would love to see two or three QB's on the field at the same time, with plays so creative that the NCAA is forced to change their rulebook. I also would love to see RR shuttle QB's like RB's. Whatever the case may be, I hope RR isn't finished being a "pioneer."

 

 

 

September 20th, 2009 at 9:33 PM | I kinda like (Score:1)
jamiemac
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 7894

I kinda like the way the QB position looks right fucking now. I'll think about how I want it to look like in the future once the current situation proves untenable. Or any of the players actually change.

Until then, the top is down, the sun is out and the radio is not only loud, but cranking out the RAWK!

Help My Friend Allison Fight ALS 

MSU/IU at the JCB

September 20th, 2009 at 10:14 PM | I'd Like to Say (Score:1)
The King of Belch
The King of Belch's picture
Joined: 07/21/2009
MGoPoints: 6

That points 3 and 4 qualify as dumb. Why would ANY fan "prefer" Tate and D-Rob to stink? Why would ANY fan "prefer" no one player to step up into the leadership role?

Right now, the only option (sans Robinson transferring. I don't know why that always comes up these days--players transferring) is Number 1.

With what Tate has shown as a freshman, who the HELL is going to step in (assessing it at this point as opposed to after the season and seeing how it plays out) and wrest the starting job from him?

A quarterback has to be much more than a fast guy with a strong arm. Tate has sown measurable intangibles and hip pad levels that display an inate quality to be the quarterback and leader whom you can trust every time, all the time. It's only going to get better with him (unless you re one of those "Hey, his ceiling is lower than XXXXX" dolts).

That being said, it is what it is.

September 21st, 2009 at 2:05 AM | I actually prefer 4 As long (Score:1)
cargo
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1062

I actually prefer 4
As long as the teams play well with them that it is.
Think of it this way,
1. No one transfers
2. We have 3 really good quarterbacks that are competing day in and day out
3. If 1 or 2 goes down with injury or is having a bad day we can plug in another and they have experience and can jump in without simplifying the playbook.

Ideally they would compete all week and whoever wins the starting job Friday, plays until they cant or if they are playing bad. Rinse and repeat next week.

September 21st, 2009 at 5:59 AM | I think option 4 has more (Score:1)
Lordfoul
Lordfoul's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1456

I think option 4 has more support than you realize. It seems to me that several people on this blog want to use a rotation of QBs in the games. All of the hype that platooning QBs has gotten is a little overboard IME.

September 21st, 2009 at 9:54 AM | Then (Score:1)
The King of Belch
The King of Belch's picture
Joined: 07/21/2009
MGoPoints: 6

There are more retards out there than I realize. Funny how coaches don't even like having two quarterbacks (hence, the adage that if you two quarterbacks...). But don't let that stop you.

That being said, it is what it is.

September 21st, 2009 at 2:07 AM | Jesus titty fucking Christ. (Score:1)
CPS
CPS's picture
Joined: 10/20/2008
MGoPoints: -369

Enjoy the here. Enjoy the now. Michigan is 3-0. Have a beer. Don't worry about the QB situation until a clavicle or two is broken.

Recent recipient of the First Annual Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence

September 21st, 2009 at 10:08 AM | I like the way the QB's are being used right now. (Score:1)
Blue Durham
Blue Durham's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 985

Both Forcier and Robinson give the offense a very different look, and I enjoy seeing how the offense operates under each of them.

I also suspect that opposing teams have more problems preparing for Michigan due the difference between Forcier and Robinson. Time preparing the defense for when Robinson reduces prep time for when Forcier is in, and vice-versa.

The other reason I like the platooning is that it give vital experience to both. Later in the season, or next year, that experience will be critical if either goes down to injury.

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.