Question of the week

Submitted by theguy49503 on

Soooooo do you give Peters a shot or do you roll with O'Korn again and chalk up Saturdays game as simply a bad game? Obviosuly everything is earned in practice but just curious given the JO that showed up Saturday looked like the one from the Inidana game last year

JTrain

October 9th, 2017 at 10:36 AM ^

The way our line is in pass-pro eventually O’Korn will get ding’d. This is his last shot and he’s pretty much throwing his body around accordingly.
I doubt Harbaugh wants to throw Peters to the wolves.
Next year will be interesting tho. Mccaffery, Peters, Speight. Just wonder how that will play out. Oline will probably again be marginal. I’m not sure it’s worth going with Speight again. Might as well go with the young guy...

uferfan

October 9th, 2017 at 10:42 AM ^

I have a long standing hockey theory that surrounds the question as to why teams haven't figured out to put an 800 lb. guy in goal and let him sit there with an endless supply of chicken wings.

Perhaps we could do the same with the line. It might be a little more difficult though because they'd have to move up and down the field. Maybe we run that gimmicky A-11 offense just to confuse the crap out of people. I don't know- try anything other than what isn't working and has kept every single team in every game we've played this season. We just don't have the guns up front this year offensively and that sinks the ship no matter who you throw out there at QB.

victors2000

October 9th, 2017 at 10:45 AM ^

He needs to work things out that's for sure; him and Coach will get together and do just that. Sometimes the extra week off isn't helpful and it adversely affects a team. Then you add it was a night game and then there was the monsoon; I'm just saying it was an unusual football week and perhaps that had something to do with how he performed. I'm sure Peters has amped up his preparation; if John has a rough start we may see the future sooner than later.

Mgoczar

October 9th, 2017 at 10:45 AM ^

Do we think the WRs can get better? Because as it currently stands, there is no "safe" WRs, just our TEs. There is not "put the fear of god" type WRs. There is no Mannignham. 

Without a consistent running game and the above, we are just spinning wheels and trying our best to scheme our way. That scheme may or may not work or be good or acceptable etc etc. 

I see youth and lack of one play maker WR or RB - get one of the other and we are scoring more points. 

Michigan9

October 9th, 2017 at 10:47 AM ^

how this young team and coaches respond to a loss?  To me, that is the question of the week. While I hate losing, especially to those guys, maybe this is what they needed. 

If we go out and half-ass it 'cause we're scared, then we'll always wonder if we were really good enough. But if we go out there and give it all we've got... that's heroic. You guys wanna be heroes?--Jonathon "Mox' Moxon:

Perkis-Size Me

October 9th, 2017 at 10:54 AM ^

Putting in a new QB isn't going to fix the revolving door we have at RT. It's not going to fix the overall mess we have on the entire line. That's where the real problem is. I'm no football coach, but if you think either Peters or McCaffery are the future of your program, I wouldn't risk putting them behind this OL unless you want them buried into the ground every game and have their confidence shattered by the end of the season. 

Unless O'Korn causes us to lose to Rutgers, I say to hell with it and just let him finish out the year. Let's be brutally honest here: we are not competing for a conference title. It's going to be a fight (in my mind) just to make it to the Outback Bowl. Peters or McCaffery may be immensely talented, but getting them game experience won't do them any good if all that experience entails is not having more than 2-3 seconds to get rid of the ball. Opposing teams look at weak OLs with a freshman QB and immediately start licking their chops. OSU is looking at this game right now and wondering if it might hit double digit sacks. 

I say give them one more year to learn the offense and take your chances with improving the OL for next season. 

KC Wolve

October 9th, 2017 at 11:04 AM ^

I get what you are saying but I disagree with the take that the O line is bad so you shouldn’t play them. At this point, the O line could be bad for a while for all we know. It has been shit for a long time. Being able to deal with adversity is part of being a QB. If the young guys need an elite level line before they can see the field, they may very well graduate before that happens. I don’t think the team is there yet, but losing at home, coming off a bye, to an average team is getting them pretty close to “throw him out there and see what he can do” territory.

Maynard

October 9th, 2017 at 12:07 PM ^

Exactly, not only is the "wait for the O line to be good before putting in our 2nd or 1st year QBs" take puzzling in that you won't know when the line will for sure be good again, but also good leaders make others around them better. It's sort of a weird thing here because I don't see that at other schools. Peterson wasn't afraid to put in a young QB and that program became relevant pretty damn quick. There are freshman, RS freshman, and sophomores all over the country starting behind suspect offensive lines. If you need to design plays to get it out of the QB's hands quick, do so. Tthis defeatist idea that they are so precious that they will get beat up and be ruined forever is ridiculous. There are plays to run to avoid getting the shit beat out of a QB.

bcnihao

October 9th, 2017 at 1:20 PM ^

But nobody's saying to wait until the O-line is elite.  If this year's O-line were even as good as last year's, it might make some sense to give Peters more exposure. 

Remember when many, right in this forum, insisted that Hoke was stubornly hurting the team's chances by refusing to start Morris over Gardner?  Then remember when he _did_ start Morris?

theguy49503

October 9th, 2017 at 10:58 AM ^

Just for the record. The thread was started to get diffrent views opposed to my own not to be divisive. Personally I think the mix of a poor oline and playcalling are more of the issue than the players. Not enough short routes, check downs/hot routes and roll outs for me. I do believe that JOK leash needs to get shorter not in terms of mistakes but the types and manor of the mistakes but you can't begin to do that until you know you are calling plays that cover your weaknesses and put your team in the best possible spot for success and that hasnt been done and I think Peps dreams of this high octain offense should have been dashed since about wk 3 and he should have scaled it back and changed the play calling to we are going to take what the D gives and simplfy things for the inexpereince that we have. 

Heisman212

October 9th, 2017 at 11:00 AM ^

You have to let athletes play. The offense is too confusing for them right now. I say simplify it some and let the guys just play. There is only one team on this schedule that has more and better talent and that is OSU. Penn St might seem good but after Barkley they drop off. Our def Mae is championship caliber. Score 24-30 on offense and I would be surprised if were not in the playoffs.

Blue in PA

October 9th, 2017 at 11:01 AM ^

I recall being baffled during the RR/Borges/Nuss era... wondering why the hell they weren't playing dink & dunk football.  Wouldn't using short, quick, high % routes: A. build confidence and B. move the chains?   I find myself wondering that again. We have friggin' 6'7" TE's.... they're taller than all the guys who would be covering them..... Can't we create a mismatch?  Since it seems our WR's, minus Perry, can't seem to create separation, why aren't we using rub-routes once in a while?  O'Korn rolling out, having the threat of tucking and running, could have been used a little more. 

I think we might have seen why Wilt wasn't benched for J O'K, as bad as Wilt was playing, he was still probably the better QB.

They are kids, I get that, but why can other teams get their kids to do stuff that our coaches can't seem to get our kids to do?  

I've never coached football, and I'm 100% sure the guys who do know a lot more than I.  It just seems like there are things we should be trying and for some reason aren't.

We weren't going undefeated anyway, so we got our loss.  Lil' bro got his 4th win, now he's already got more wins than he had all last year, kinda proud of that kid.

Onward and, I hope, forward.

 

GO BLUE.

Christicks

October 9th, 2017 at 11:09 AM ^

This will be wildly unpopular, but I thought O'Korn actually played a pretty good game, given the circumstances.  I get he had 3 interceptions and I would argue part of that is the shitty weather, but he made a number of escapes that were extremely impressiveand extended plays.  I still think he deserves a shot and I also think we need to test out some read option to open up the crossing routes.

maize-blue

October 9th, 2017 at 11:20 AM ^

They need to move Jay back to TE coach. The RB's now fumble and can't block. Go find an experienced RB guy. But that won't help this season. Frey should take over the OL. Is there a dedicated WR coach?

MWolverine7

October 9th, 2017 at 11:26 AM ^

This. I think this is an issue 100%. I think Jay needs to be shifted back to coaching the TE’s and helping with ST. We need a real running back coach. I would also like to see Frey have 100% of the OL as well. OC needs to be addressed. Is it Drevno, Hamilton, or a new guy. Personally I think a new guy maybe the way to go next year.

blueblueblue

October 9th, 2017 at 11:28 AM ^

The nepotism-based move of Jay to RB's coach seemed to make little sense at the time, and has not worked out. Hire a real RB coach. Especially since, you know, the system the coaches want to run is dependent on the run. Seems like mismanagement from the top to me. 

papabear16

October 9th, 2017 at 11:21 AM ^

I think that who you play now depends, to some extent, on Speight's prognosis.

We know that Speight is not coming back this year. The question is: What about next year? If he doesn't come back, and O'Korn plays the rest of the way, then Michigan goes into 2018 with no quarterbacks with meaningful game experience. That is pretty darned uncomfortable.

If you expect Speight to come back, then Michigan goes into 2018 with a veteran plus at least three talented QBs to compete against him. That is a far more comfortable situation. In this scenario, I think there is no reason to rush a QB that isn't ready (Peters) into a game behind a shaky line.

So I think that if Michigan believes that Speight's career is over, they need to, at the very least, find a way to get Peters some meaningful snaps, if not a few starts. Otherwise, let's see if O'Korn can return to his Purdue form while we pray for no further monsoons.

(By the way, I have no knowledge about Speight's prognosis. I've simply heard rumors that his career might be over—an awful outcome if so—and it got me thinking about what it meant for Michigan's quarterback situation. That is all.)

MWolverine7

October 9th, 2017 at 11:22 AM ^

I had a different opinion yesterday, but I think you need to go with O’Korn. If we are FORTUNATE to have any garbage time against Indiana, I think you have to bring him in and give him some game time reps. I mean real reps - not just handing off to Evans or Walker.

papabear16

October 9th, 2017 at 11:34 AM ^

I agree that a few handoffs hardly count as real reps. They might be nice if you want to show a truly green player what it feels like to be on the field in front of 100,000 people, but after that, you need real game situations, throws, adjustments, etc.

goblue16

October 9th, 2017 at 11:31 AM ^

Simple O’Korn is a senior. We need the future to start now I’m willing to wait until PSU if we lose than harbaugh would b stupid not to play peters for the rest of the season

Maizerage11

October 9th, 2017 at 11:42 AM ^

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.  Who ever gives us the best chance to win the next game should play.  If O'korn gives us a 40% chance to beat OSU, and peters gives us a 30% , then fucking role with O'korn.

 

You want to give Peter's experience?  Well Speight had experience and that didn't go so well.   So lets focus on winning the next game, and worry about next year in January.

blueblueblue

October 9th, 2017 at 11:45 AM ^

Dude. You keep making this argument. It aint gonna happen. It's not good coaching. It's not good management. Giving up on this season with the goal of working toward next season is silly. No team will give their best in terms of learning and getting better under those circumstances. You work on next season by doing everything you can to win every game this season. Any coach, hell anyone with management experience, will tell you that.

And perhaps the real key to the problem in your argument, with your apparent inability to see any other angle, is in the "I'm willing to wait until PSU..." statement. It's not about what YOU are willing to do or not to do. It's about the team. You are not on the team. Give it a rest. 

Amaizing Blue

October 9th, 2017 at 11:47 AM ^

New England Patriots Schedule - 2017

Season: 
  Add to Calendar


 

 

NelzQ

October 9th, 2017 at 12:05 PM ^

This offense needs an intervention.

Harbaugh must step in and take over. Drevno and Pep are not showing signs of working well together.

My two cents.

Coach Nero

October 9th, 2017 at 12:19 PM ^

If you want to get Peters some playing time, I would completely script a couple of series that he could come in an run.  Teams script opening drives, why not a drive for the backup.

Uper73

October 9th, 2017 at 12:22 PM ^

I believe Okorn has played 2 1/2 games in three years?

He needs reps, game speed reps. As do his skill players with him.

The bye week hurt this team, would have been better if Okorn could have gotten more experience, but, that's not the way it was.

Give the guy a chance.

Loopyd1

October 9th, 2017 at 2:02 PM ^

Complexity is in the eye of the beholder.  So Dantonio says he saw 40 formations...really?? He is the best source.  But even so, its what you do with them that makes it complicated.  And not every player is affected by every formation.  If the FB is positioned directly behind the QB or offset or on the wing, while everyone else is static, is that 3 formations, one guy affected.  His job, route is likely different in each position, but not everyone else's. 

I remember that to help Jake Rudock, they called the plays, but the downfield reads were restricted to one-half the field.  That helped him be more efficient and by games 8-10 he was pretty good and seeing the whole field.  Have they done that with O'Korn?, don't know.

I think we have seen the real JOK, at PUR and at MSU.  He takes chances, he fits things into tight windows and when successful he looks good, but he also turns it over a lot, misses a lot.  He does not throw a good deep ball, so defenses are not too worried about his takig the top off and crowd the middle and short zones.  It is why he was better at HOUS, but also why he was later passed by....ball security is everything.

Every decision in context, we have a Ferrari of a D and a Model T of an O.  How do you win with that?  But, more importantly, that D is not static it will change next year and the year after with grads and early NFL guys, so do you waste it now backing a RS Frosh QB's learning curve or do you fit the O to the players, limit the risk the QB presents and simplify the OL executions and get 20-24 pts per game and win with field position and defense?  Jim Tressel made a career and won an NC just doing that.  While I dislike the guy, his "strategy" was excellent for his talent and frustrating for his opponents.

If we had done just that on SAT, we would have won.

 

Gipsy_Danger

October 9th, 2017 at 2:57 PM ^

I like the Peters getting reps idea but I fear that if he gets killed behind that O-line it might shake his confidence.