Because he was good enough to play, and we need it. It happened, embrace it, and for the love of god it happened almost a month ago and we've already discussed it ad nauseum.
Why burn Devin's redshirt?
NO YELLING ON THE BUS.
But seriously, I agree.
Stop spreading this nonsense. Only in fairy land did Devin "need" to play. I wonder how you will feel in 2 years when Devin is pissed off because he is still not starting or we have a full blown QB controversy.
He's still just as likely (probably more) to not be playing in 2 years, so he'd be just as pissed. Maybe more if he was the 2nd best QB but didn't get to play.
We didn't need it.
Once again, statistics say that Forcier was the better quarterback on Saturday. Forcier had better passing AND rushing stats than Gardner.
Forcier should have been the #2 in the UConn game and in every game since.
All of those hours of practice (which obviously you attended) didn't mean anything? Or are you saying that you know more than all of UM's coaching staff combined? My question to you is, why aren't you one of these high paid college coaches, I am pretty sure it pays more than high school coaching.
...because everybody who ever criticizes any coach ever...
...has attended all the practices.
Next time you criticize Barack Obama's politics or Jim Leyland's managing, I hope you think back to this comment.
Your opinion is not fact, as much as you think it is.
In fact, you admit to not seeing the QBs play other than on Saturday. I find it extremely arrogant on your part to say what should or shouldn't have been done. Arrogance bordering on delusion, if I may say so. See that? I can draw asinine opinions based on minimal data just like you did.
Even if somebody else is better in practice, Forcier was better in the game. Statistics back me up.
Those are all the facts I need to make my argument. Whether you choose to agree or not is up to you, but disagreeing doesn't make you right.
Let me get this straight. If Gardner has outperformed Forcier in practice, since August, Forcier should be number 2 because he outperformed Gardner in the game that hadn't been played yet?
Forcier started 12 games last year and did pretty well.
To most observers, Forcier looked better in practices, too.
Now he performed better in his only action this year.
Forcier is better RIGHT NOW than Gardner is.
It's really not a complicated concept.
I missed that part where we can just make things up.
Most observers thought Devin outperformed Tate in practice and in the game yesterday.
Gardner threw for a touchdown and ran in a touchdown. Forcier only threw for a touchdown. Gardner personally accounted for more points. Isn't that the goal of offensive football, to score points?
I honestly think you should be a head coach somewhere. Georgia may be opening up.
I missed that part where we can just make things up.
Most observers thought Devin outperformed Tate in practice and in the game yesterday.
I'm glad to see that you're admitting you made that part up.
Yeah, the goal of football is to score more points. We all know that touchdowns are a function of field position and playcalling, though. At least I hope we know that.
I'm not afraid to say when I make things up. I know you won't do that. Well, that's what most observers say anyway.
If Molk doesn't get penalized, Gardner throws for more yards and more TDs than Forcier.
Your opinion, which you try to pass off as fact, is on very, very shaky ground. I think if one acts arrogant enough, you may be able to convince some. You should try it. Oh wait...
My "opinion" that Forcier had better stats than Gardner?
No...those are facts. Which I've tried to explain over and over again. This will be my last attempt to explain to you that 12/12 is better than 7/10, that 7.5 yards per carry is better than 4.2 yards per carry, etc.
Forcier should have been the #2 in the UConn game and in every game since.
You are going to base your above statement on 12 passes and 6 runs by Forcier and throw out all of the practice time? Oh wait, you can discount practice because of the "most observers" comment.
Forcier 30 yards rushing , Gardner 25 and a touchdown. Again, the goal of football, particularly on the offensive side, is to score points.Now, coach, I would trade 5 yards for a touchdown, wouldn't you?
To be fair, all the coaches had to go off of this season for thsoe two was practice time. Now, that said, they should have known that Tate would be better in the game than in practice. We've heard reports about that since before he even came to Michigan.
Or they could have realized that Forcier started 12 games last year and Devin Gardner was playing in front of crowds of a thousand or a few thousand people.
Also, by the end of the summer, practice reports indicated that Forcier was nearing Denard in offensive efficiency.
I'm not quite sure why you're reacting the way you are toward me (and others) lately. I was supporting your point. Under a lot of stress lately or something?
Nothing in my post is reacting negatively. My responses to you have been fully based in factual statements and my opinions, but I haven't insulted you or anything.
I didn't say that you were reacting negatively or had insulted me. You're just not yourself in your responses lately; at least insofar as I've noticed. You just seem awfully short and impatient, whereas you used to be much more patient and explanatory in your posts.. It's not something I would normally notice or even comment on, but it's something that's a little more apparent when you do it to someone who was agreeing with you (and don't have prior bad history with). Maybe I'm just reading your posts wrong lately. Just an observation/opinion.
Maybe that's true. Maybe it's partly because once the season starts, a bunch more people come here who don't know what they're talking about.
Like I said, I didn't mean for any of my comments toward you to be offensive. You're usually a very thoughtful and informative poster.
Don't worry, no offense taken. I understand what you're saying completely.
Here's the question that's on my mind: Why didn't you post this in one of the many existing threads about Gardner and the other QBs?
He is gaining needed in-game experience. And the team needs him on the field.
Except, with Denard and Tate ahead of him, they could have red shirted him this year and given him game experience next year. That way, he'd have game experience and two years of eligability after Denard graduates. I'd rather have him as a two year starter with two years of back up duty than have him as a one year starter with three years of backup duty.
So far, they *haven't* needed him on the field because Tate looks fine. Of course, if they really needed him because both Denard and Tate weren't playing well and/or injured, they could have burned his redshirt then.
Game experience....and i truly think RR wants to use all of his cards in his hand this year to do as well as he can this year (hotseat and all) and if having gardner helps us win even 1 game then it will be worth it. There must be other reasons though too.
The most significant part of your thread:
(which has been discussed on this blog at various points)
You don't have to use the redshrit year during a players freshmen year. It's possible that this year the team is in a situation where they need to have all three QBs ready to go.
Thank you. I feel like no one realizes this. While I don't know if I see RR redshirting him in another year, there are 3 more years in which DG can be redshirted. Maybe when things are a bit less tenuous on the job front.
For the next 4 years. Because he's got no guarantees Tate is staying. And he learned what happens to a great season if your QB goes down and you have no one to replace him (White, WV). If Tate proves he's sticking around for all four years, Devin can always redshirt later. If Tate leaves after saying he's staying (that's never happen at Michigan before, has it?) he needs another QB ready for not just now, but the next 3. Because every game he's played so far this season, it was because of a need for a back-up to go in, not a substitution.
That may very well be, but they could have held him back unless and until then and not burned his redshirt unless he was actually needed.
You seem logical.
I wish there were more people like you around.
His redshirt was gone as soon as he played his first down in a game. The only way to save it at this point would have been an injury (real or imagined) followed by a request for a medical redshirt.
There is a possibility of having one of our two backups redshirting next year.
What happened? When did we travel back in time? Is it Sept. 4th? Nooooooooooooo....
Didn't you see his touchdown pass to Grady?
The kid is extremely talented and would probably start for college football teams elsewhere. We need him at Michigan and playing football, not transferring. Besides, has it ever occured to you that he's done all that the coaches have asked of him to earn playing time.
Devin looks fantastic in that No. 7 jersey. Be happy for him.
I have no problem with him playing but I feel Tate is better. Gardner looks good but he doesn't seem like the uber Tate/Denard hybrid I was led to believe. Fact is, no one is like Denard. I think Gardner is more like Pryor and Young as already mentioned. Maybe mobile enough to make plays but not elusive enough to be the homerun threat with his legs
I think with Gardner and Tate the offense is better suited to a pass first spread rather than this read option, but maybe that's just me
Either way I'm glad Gardner is playing, I just think Tate's scrambling, experience, and shiftiness should have him
I am perfectly OK with Devin playing like Vince Young. And if he lives up to that, you can be assured that he will be competing for the starting spot next season.
to Tate's attitude adjustment.
is to FIRE RICHROD
I gave you the plus one because you used ALL CAPS. It would have been better if you could have somehow incorporated UNACCEPTABLE in there somehow.
I heard RichRod told everyone they could compete for a starting spot unless their name was devin Gardner. He would have to wait until next year.
To defend the poster, today's game reminded us all just how good a healthy Tate Forcier can be, so the topic has new information to it.
Now on a more pressing topic, why does SNL keep writing Bronx Beat sketches?!
I am pretty sure Tate is the second best QB on the team (who knows how he compares to Denard, it might be closer than we think). The reason Devin got those snaps was a combination of Devin being good, and Tate learning a lesson. If Tate hadn't gotten in the dog house, then I'd bet Tate and Denard would have split the snaps, and Devin would have taken the red shirt.
He still would have played. You can't get by with just two QBs. Look at today - both Denard and Tate got nicked up a bit. Once Sheridan decided not to return for his fifth year, I pretty much figured Gardner would see the field.
I think Jack Kennedy could have done just fine at QB once Forcier got nicked up.
If you get two quarterbacks broken and you need to win games, THEN you take off the redshirt. So far that hasn't happened.
Obviously, the coaches do not share your optimistic take on Kennedy. If Kennedy were any good, he'd have been given a scholarship. He hasn't.
Your suggestion is playing with fire. Yesterday offered a great chance for Gardner to get his feet wet against a weak defense. You're proposing that we forego that opportunity and potentially have to insert him down the road in a game when he has no experience whatsoever. If we had four QBs, he'd redshirt. We don't, so he plays.
Seriously, we won by 44 points. Do you really think Kennedy would have put Michigan at any risk of losing that game?
Actually, it doesn't matter what you think because the answer to that question is no.
When is the last time Michigan NEEDED three quarterbacks? Not in 2009. Not in 2008. Not when Henne was here.
Just because Sheridan, Cone, Feagin, and a few others have played over the past few years, it doesn't mean we NEEDED them. I don't care what team it is - if you get down to the point where you're playing your third string quarterback out of necessity, your team is almost surely headed for trouble, whether that 3rd guy has experience or not.
"I'll take, ''Questions that stopped being relevant on September 4th' for 400, Alex"
Because rewarding hard work, no matter who you are, is an important principle to have instilled in your football team. It's worth way more than Gardner's redshirt.
+1000 if I could Ike. I was going to post at the bottom this exact same thing.
Rich Rod is clearly a coach who believes in extremely hard work and frowns upon entitlement. It seems like he is trying to run more of a meritocracy than most coaches in college football do. If he told DG that if he busts his ass he will have a chance to start or be the number two quarter back (which he said he did), then RR is a man of his word. You can't tell everyone on your team that if you work hard enough, prepare, and are ready to see the field that you will have an opportunity to play, and then make exceptions for elite recruits or players it would be more convenient to redshirt.
With TP his freshmen year, I'm afraid a promise was made to gain Devin coming here. It happens all the time now at larger schools. I know Meyer was telling him he would play from the get go in the swamp.
It is a fine line between playing and not playing. Rich Rod wants everyone ready to play. If the kid has earned the right to play, then so be it. It just seems that everyone assumes the Shoelace will be around for the next 2 years after this one. (I certainly hope so!) But you never can be prepared enough. Let him play, he has earned it, it creates competition, and he gets meaningful game experience....
DG is Terrelle Pryor 2.0. He has the best arm of all 3 of our QB's and is ahead of where TP was as a Frosh (IME). He seems slower than Tate because he takes big strides like Pryor --- His problem today was thinking he could outrun people laterally like he could in High School instead of running North-South like Tate was and DRob has thus far this year.
Perhaps you should wait until your first full week as a member before straightening us all out.
PS Then >< than
about the Pryor comparison, either. I agree that the Pryor/Young comparisons are largely due to similar body types and stride length, and from what I've seen Gardner seems to be noticeably slower (or at least less explosive) than both. Now, that's not to say he won't be a great QB. I think he has the ability to become a much more polished passer than either Pryor or Young.
Did you see Gardner's deep ball that was dropped? It was a thing of beauty, and an exceptional throw for anybody - especially a freshman. He looks a little tentative on his feet, but I was very impressed by his TD run at the end of the game. Hurdling that last defender was pretty sweet.
It's just you.
I think the Same things were being said about Tate after 4 games last year. A lot can happen over 3 years. Players improve, regress, get injured, go pro, struggle with academics. I hope he does, but you never know.
ok. for fuck's sake: both Denard and Tate got injured today... would you rather have Jack Kennedy on the field or Devin Gardner? Fortunately, neither injury appears to be serious, but anything could happen at any time. Right now, miraculously, it seems that all three guys are totally committed to michigan and acting as one big happy family. enjoy the fuck out of that, because it's an unreal luxury for a team to have that depth.
as things unfold, it seems pretty clear that Rich knows what he has in Tate, and to give him little bits of playing time doesn't really do much, whereas getting Devin any kind of game experience is invaluable to his progression. Devin, whenever the future turns out to be, IS that. He's definitely got the talent to play. It was great to see him stand tall in the pocket and deliver those strikes. He'll be good. But if, for example, Denard's injury were more serious, you can bet your ass that Tate would be the new starter. Devin would take on, I bet, a role similar to Denard last year, but with more of a pass threat.
everyone needs to chill the fuck out, and thank our lucky stars that we've got this kind of quality depth at QB. it's absurd. definitely the best situation in the country.
at this point, i couldn't care less about redshirts and future eligibility. This offense has the potential to be unreal. Denard is unreal... i can't even say how much glee it brings me to have a guy like that playing for us, and not against us. But it's also pretty great to see your #3 guy come in and complete all 12 of his passes. he and Roundtree have a connection.
this was the exact bounce-back game i was hoping for. The D will cost us a few games in the B10, and I'm sure there'll be at least one off-day for Denard and the offense, but 8-4 seems more than likely.
both Denard and Tate got injured today... would you rather have Jack Kennedy on the field or Devin Gardner?
When you're up by 30 points, Jack Kennedy can do just fine.
was everything I hoped it would be.
I think I used up my allotment of up-votes for the day.
I agree in the spread offense you need at least 3 QBs. Both DROB and Tate were slightly injured during the game. I'd rather have Gardner ready to take over. He needs some more game experience but his arm looks really good. He doesn't have the speed of DROB but may be able to scramble and learn to throw on the run.
RR will probably get another big spread QB recruit in '11, so I think we will be fine having Gardner start in his senior season. But who knows how Gardner will develop. May be he will challenge DROB next season? Or he may be he will be lucky to hold off his underling during his senior season? Only time will tell. In RR system there is no guarantees being the starter based on your seniority or what you did the previous season. May the best QB start and right now that is DROB!
My opinion probably won't be seen by most people, it's at the bottom of the page, but I think, and I hate to compare our twoo schools, with the progression of Denard to Devin, we have the same situation as Florida does.
Tim Tebow: Running QB, accurate arm, many obsolete backs to support him.
John Brantley: Taller build, pocket passer type, strong arm. same obsolete backs to help him out.
Now, here's saying we don't look like Florida when the 'Nard dawg is gone.
here's hoping it's homage to the funkified horriblosity this is Blaha and his greasy-ass combover.
...that maybe, just maybe we can recruit another Devin Gardner/Denard Robinson? Why are we thinking Rich Rod cant recruit another QB that can run his system? We currently have three.
Do you want to let the coach run his program and win games or not? I wish Gardner had redshirted too, but at some point I feel you have to trust the coach to do the right thing to win games, which, believe me, is the only thing we all care about anyway. USC is one program I can point to where some players only start one year of their career, but they gain valuable experience playing in spots while they're young...Mark Sanchez comes to mind.
Over the last couple years the opinions of some people on here are ridiculous!!!! Stop wasting our time!!!!
In two years or maybe even next year, I won't be surprised to see Gardner and Denard in the backfield together with Gardner running the read-option. That is one hell of a duo to defend.
I actually have a new idea that hasn't been suggested yet. I think that RR knows that there are many HS QB's around the country watching Denard run crazy, knowing that they could do the same thing at Michigan - only better. At WVU, RR got great QB's but the overall exposure and team talent was less than at UM. Now, RR believes he will have the nation's #1 running QB often. By the time Gardner is a true senior, there will be a freshman or sophomore QB who is potentially better. Why save Gardner for that extra year when there will already be a better replacement pushing to play. QB is not where we need redshirts.
The best running QB's in the nation will be paying a whole heckuva lot more attention to UM as Denard's stats keep piling up. We will be rich with talented QB's for the foreseeable future.
Defending the original post: we have new info after seeing Tate (who looked better than Gardner to me), so it is legit to bring it up again. I was interested in seeing people's thoughts about this after the game. I'm glad the topic was posted.
Denard was a litte banged up as was Tate and we havn't played in the Big Ten yet. Devin is going to be needed and it's better to get experience in non-conf games than in the 4th quarter of a tie game against Sparty.
1. DG enrolled early do you think he will stay 5 1/2 years especially if he becomes as good as we believe he can become.
2. Denard and Tate both nicked up.
3. RR offers the opportunity to come in and compete for playing time.
4. Per Tate's dad, "we knew there would be some form of discipline."
5. Game experience just in case it is needed.
From all accounts, Devin has come in and worked his a__ off and has earned his playing time. It was obvious that when Tate came in the pace of the offense picked up, but that's what an extra year and 12 college starts will do for you. Think about the huge difference in Denard's play this year from last year and imagine what could be if Devin makes the same jump. To have three QB's this good on the roster is a blessing after the last two years is a blessing enjoy it.
When he "burned" Tebow's redshirt the year Florida won the National Championship....
Why not stay in the present and see that it is beneficial to get a talented player in the game...
And lets not forget that the point is that Michigan needs to win now... not plan for 2012. Winning now makes it easier to recruit.... then perhaps we can find another qb with talent so that some can complain about burning redshirts...
- Probably because Rodriguez promised Devin (and probably all recruits) that if they work hard and earn playing time, they will get playing time. RR just living up to the stuff he tells the players as recruits.
- Good to have 2 back-ups with experience.
- Because Devin is probably better than Kennedy.
- Because, believe it or not, RR will probably get another QB in the incoming recruiting class, and another in the class after that and so on. We will have QBs after Devin that will be very qualified to play as well, we just don't know who they are yet.
So RR lives up to his words to his recruits, encourages and rewards hard work from the players, and reloads talent.
Works for me.
That Denard is so good he's keeping our talented star QB recruit on the bench.
Now, back to complaining about the defense!
(If the Net had been as big in '98 - why did we burn Drew Henson's redshirt when we had Tom Brady?!?)
The Brady/Henson situation was completely different.
Yes, it was different - we had more QB depth then than we do now. Tom Brady was the starter, Scott Dreisbach was a backup with a ton of experience, and Jason Kapsner was a redshirt sophomore (and former blue-chip recruit). It was not necessary for Henson to play. But we promised him that he wouldn't redshirt, so he didn't.
People need to stop obsessing about the year 2014 and look at the here and now. We run an offense in which the QB is going to get nicked up on occasion. (I don't think the odds of serious injury are much elevated, but the chances of minor injury probably are.) Having only two guys is playing with fire. If Sheridan were still around, he could have been that third guy to offer injury insurance. But he's not, so Gardner plays.
Henson played because he practiced and played well enough to earn playing time. Devin practiced better than Tate and worked harder, and earned his second spot. I would think a football coach would know how corrosive to a team it is when the players who earn playing time are passed up by those who haven't earned it. Players can see that. And every indication from the coaches was that Devin was playing a lot closer to Denard than Tate. Did one game against BG seem to show different? Sure, but coaching by fortune telling is not good for team morale.
And every indication from the coaches was that Devin was playing a lot closer to Denard than Tate
I don't think this is necessarily true. What evidence do you have that's the case, other than Devin getting snaps when Denard has been dinged up? The coaches seemed to be pretty non-committal about how they had the quarterbacks ranked, and practice observers stated that Tate was running the offense better than Devin.
Although I can understand the rationale for burning the redshirt, I gotta agree with Magnus (and I believe Brian seems to be in this camp as well).
If I'm looking to drink alone, and I have 3 excellent (and expensive) bottles of wine that I've been saving, I won't open all three at the same time. I'll start with one. If that gets me to where I want to be (a good buzz) I may follow it up by having a beer or two, saving the others for another time.
If I finish the first and decide I'm not that drunk, or a friend stops by, I may open the second. After that I'm pretty drunk and it may be difficult to fully appreciate the third bottle. If it's a really special occassion or I'm trying to get laid or another friend stops by, sure, I'll open the third. But otherwise (I'm drunk, or the game is in garbage time) I'll go with Kennedy/Natty Light and save the third for when I need it. I would hate to be trying to impress a girl the next week and only have Natty Light because I wasn't spreading the wealth for the future.
You don't need to come up with tortured analogies. It isn't complicated: you need three available QBs in this offense. Last year, the third guy was Sheridan. This year it's Devin.
Remind me again - when did we NEED Sheridan last year?
I'm not sure why this debate is even happening, to be honest. If Denard and Tate continue to progress the way that they have, it's perfectly reasonable that Devin very well might not be needed next year or the year after and there are, no matter which way you cut it, two years that Devin would not be able to redshirt and thereby lose a year of eligibility waiting on the bench. In other words, just because the redshirt was burned for this year it does not mean that Devin could not be redshirted next year (i.e. Denard/Tate's junior year) or the year after (i.e. Denard/Tate's senior year), so that when both Denard and Tate graduate, Devin still has two years of eligibility left, which is exactly the scenario that would have existed had Devin redshirted this year.
I realize that it is atypical for a player to redshirt in a year other than their freshman year, but given the way that the current QB situation looks to stack up for the next two years, it could happen. It seems like everyone is stuck on the mistaken belief that if he was not redshirted as a freshman, that he could not be redshirted at all. My prediction is that Devin will redshirt next year if he doesn't end up as a medical redshirt this year.
You answer your own question...
I'm not sure why this debate is even happening, to be honest.
I realize that it is atypical for a player to redshirt in a year other than their freshman year
Obviously, it's not typical. My point was more to why the debate is being had the way that it is (i.e. OMG!1!!!1 Devin's redshirt in gone foreverz and he lost a year of eligibility). He was going to lose at least one year of eligibility to Denard or Tate, so it really doesn't matter at all whether that year of eligibility was lost this year, next year or the year after. Frankly, I think using it this year was a brilliant idea because it (1) served as a motiviational tool for Devin to take his preparation this season very seriously, (2) got Devin some experience of what it's like at this level right away and (3) served as a motivational tool for Tate. I'm farily certain that a number of people who has commented on this topic, here and elsewhere, lost sight of the fact that a redshirt is not confined to use during freshman year.
Right, but it rarely happens. Why should any Michigan fan expect that Devin will redshirt in 2011 or 2012? Besides that, Virginia Tech tried to redshirt Tyrod Taylor as a sophomore. Then the Glennon kid got hurt or couldn't do the job, and Taylor ended up playing last year anyway.
If Denard and Forcier can stay healthy this year, it's going to be pointless to have Gardner ready to play. So Gardner's redshirt should have been preserved until/if those guys got injured.
Next year they can do the same thing, but you can't count on the other quarterbacks staying healthy in any given year.
3rd string? If we have Tate and Denard for 2 more years after this, then it becomes easy to redshirt Devin in a later year. Because he won't have to go in. If Tate isn't around, that game experience help, because Devin WILL go in. Someone other than Denard has had to take snaps each game. Rich is dealing with a back-up QB who seems disinterested, has threatened transfer, and who has went from full time starter to seemingly back-up forever. You may count on having Tate for 2 more years. He can't.
I'm sure Rich Rod has weighed the pros and cons of both redshirting as well as playing him in as many snaps as he can this. Have faith in Rodriguez. He has a plan. GO BLUE!!!
Has anyone thought about the fact there will be more QB recruits in the coming years. And, if recruiting goes as well as RR hopes than there will be a lot of QB battles in the coming years. Hopefully, this argument is mute. Competition is necessary when building a program. Look at the humbling lessons this has taught Tate. He learned a lot from sitting back and watching, thus is a better player. Isn't that the purpose of a coach, do whatever it takes to get the most out of his players? Devin has 3 more years for a redshirt. Besides, its better to have 3 QBs than 2.
This redshirt issue might be the most overrated issue/talking point. of the season so far
It exists only for people who like to complain to do so