So, About Shea Patterson Comment Count

Brian

Image uploaded from iOS
LaQuon Treadwell rebate, come on down? [Bryan Fuller]

Yo. Bolded alter-ego. Get in here.

what

So here's this:

Multiple well-placed sources have confirmed to the Ole Miss Spirit today that quarterback Shea Patterson has been granted permission by Ole Miss to talk to other programs about potentially transferring. Patterson and Ole Miss executed what is termed a "permission to contact" form on Friday, according to those sources. ...

Well-placed sources also told the Ole Miss Spirit that Michigan is probably the favorite to land Patterson, if he does execute a transfer from Ole Miss.

FWIW, Patterson's release bars him from SEC schools and other teams on Ole Miss's schedule the next two years.

What?!

Yeah.

I have questions.

Shoot.

I thought Patterson wasn't immediately eligible?

By the letter of the law he's not. The NCAA automatically grants a free transfer to anyone whose eligibility expires before a post-season ban does, but since Ole Miss just got one extra year only their rising seniors are 100% free and clear to leave. Patterson is going to be a junior.

However, it would make zero sense for Patterson to transfer to Michigan if he did have to sit out a year. If Patterson isn't immediately eligible he'd enter 2019 as a redshirt junior at a school with an entrenched starter who's either in the same class (Peters) or younger (McCaffrey). Therefore we have to assume there's a path to immediate eligibility in the world where Patterson does come to Michigan. This section of the NCAA rulebook that comes immediately before the "if your eligibility is covered by a post-season ban you can transfer free" section might be it:

14.8.2.1 Residence Requirement. The one-year residence requirement for student-athletes may be waived under the following conditions or circumstances: (Revised: 7/24/12) ...

For a student-athlete who transfers to a member institution after loss of eligibility due to a violation of the regulation prohibiting pay for participation in intercollegiate athletics (see Bylaw 12.1.4) or a violation of recruiting regulations (see Bylaw 13.01.1), or for a student-athlete who transfers to a Division I institution after loss of eligibility due to involvement in a violation of the freshman or transfer eligibility requirements for financial aid, practice and competition set forth in Bylaws 14.3.1, 14.5.4 and 14.5.5. The Management Council may waive these requirements only upon a determination of the innocence or inadvertent involvement of the student-athlete in the violation.

I'm not sure what a "loss of eligibility" means in this context. It seems clear that this section is designed to let players leave after specific sorts of NCAA violations, as long as they're innocent of them personally. FWIW, in 2003 all Baylor basketball players were eligible to leave immediately after the Bliss scandal. That's... uh... maybe a sui generis kind of thing, but the NCAA only banned Baylor from the postseason for one year.

In this specific case, Ole Miss's desperate attempt to keep the program together might backfire on them. Safety Deontay Anderson sat this year out and is now petitioning for immediate eligibility—he's even using Houston Nutt's lawyer!—because Ole Miss lied to him about the investigation:

According to Mars, Anderson claims that both Freeze and Bjork indicated that the NCAA investigation would not have a negative impact on the football program and that the bulk of the alleged violations pre-dated Freeze’s arrival, which was proven to be false. Those statements were allegedly made both in a group setting during Anderson’s recruiting visit on Jan. 29-31, 2016, and in private meetings with Freeze, including one instance where his father Michael Anderson implored Freeze to tell the truth about the severity of the allegations and potential penalties.

Ole Miss did not publicly release its first Notice of Allegations until May of that year.

According to Mars, Anderson submitted to the NCAA that he would not have signed with Ole Miss had those statements not been made.

“...in that individual meeting with Coach Freeze on Jan. 31 Mr. Anderson very emphatically asked to just tell the truth about the nature of the allegations and what the implications could be.

“Mrs. Anderson vividly remembers that, and so does Deontay and it underscores how important it was to all these student-athletes and their parents to get a full understanding of what the situation was and it underscores how unconscionable it was for them to be told anything less than the truth.”

If—when?—Anderson gets that waiver that should open the floodgates for the entire 2016 class. If Michigan gets Shea Patterson because Hugh Freeze was lying to everyone and people, including purported journalists, believed him, you will hear the deep rumble of my evil mastermind laugh from sea to shining sea.

Uh... is Patterson going to be eligible? I mean, #1 QB in the class of 2016 decides on Ole Miss?

Patterson wasn't implicated in any of the violations. And Ole Miss hired Patterson's brother Sean immediately after Patterson committed. That, rather than some money to keep mom's lights on, was likely the impetus to go play for Hugh Freeze. These days high-end QB recruits are often from affluent families that can afford the camp-trotting and intensive coaching; the Pattersons were probably focused more on the pot of NFL gold at the end of the rainbow than anything up front.

FWIW, like Devin Bush Sr., Sean is a legitimate football coach. He had analyst/QC roles at LSU and Arizona before his move to Ole Miss, and was a three-year starter at Duquesne prior to that. I'd bet a dollar that if Patterson transfers Sean will come along in a similar non-coaching role.

And you're fine with this?

I think players should be paid. I also think people should follow the rules laid out for them, and advocate to change them if they feel the rules are wrong instead of seeking personal advantage by breaking them under the table.

But what about Peters... and McCaffrey?

The major downside of taking Patterson is what it might do to Michigan's already desperately thin collection of QBs not currently in high school. Brandon Peters had a promising start to his career, and might take badly to Harbaugh importing a guy just when the depth chart opened up for him. While Patterson's a big fish, losing Peters would be a blow. I'm not sure maybe one year of Patterson backed up by McCaffrey is preferable to certainly two and maybe three years of Peters.

Any transfer in would be a delicate situation. Michigan's best approach might be emphasizing that Patterson wants to be a one and done; if that's the case than Peters's situation is basically identical to what it was with Speight around: competing for the job and maybe getting blocked for one more year.

McCaffrey's extra year means Patterson won't be as threatening to him; don't think it would impact him much.

Any other dudes we could pirate away? Especially tackle-shaped dudes? Please tell me there's a tackle-shaped dude.

The big fish is of course Greg Little, the former five star who was PFF's third-highest-graded SEC OT as a true sophomore. Little has given no public indication that he's on his way out, has no connection to Michigan, and doesn't have a brother in coaching that helps explain why on Earth he'd go to Oxford. He is in that 2016 class that might be set free, though, and if dude is thinking about heading to the NFL after 2018... I mean. It could happen! Shut up.

We've received some intel that Michigan is interested in one of Ole Miss's wide receivers. Sophomore AJ Brown, PFF's top-rated SEC WR, led the conference with 75 catches for 1200 yards this year and is also in that 2016 class; junior DaMarkus Lodge caught 41 balls for 700 yards and is definitely free and clear to transfer as a rising senior. We think it's Brown but aren't clear on that. (Correction: we think it's Van Jefferson.) While Michigan has a lot of upcoming talent at WR they have maybe one established outside WR in Donovan Peoples-Jones and could not turn up their nose at Brown.

Michigan has no other spots of glaring need and doesn't have a lot of room to play with—this recruiting class is going to be smallish—so it's unlikely they go after anyone who doesn't directly address QB, WR, or OT.

Is this actually happening? These things get talked about all the time and they never ever happen.

This one looks like it's actually happening. Patterson and the WR in question are tentatively scheduled to be on campus this weekend. That's much farther than these rumors usually get.

Comments

Kevin13

December 4th, 2017 at 2:16 PM ^

He would have more experience then anyone else we have on the team right now. Doesn't competition make eveyone better. Your just assuming brining him in will piss off everyone and people will leave.  We don't know, but depth and competition is always best for making a top flight team.

Bambi

December 4th, 2017 at 12:57 PM ^

I don't want to shit on Peters, because I think he can and will be very good, but he hasn't even shown he can light up MAC teams. And Patterson had a worse team at Ole Miss than Peters did here. Even if you're dismissing it as garbage time, his numbers against Auburn are still much better than anything our QBs did this year. Same with his games against MAC opponents. We would have killed for that this year.

MileHighWolverine

December 4th, 2017 at 1:02 PM ^

I thought Peters did pretty well against Wisconsin considering our OL situation. And frankly, how do we know this Patterson kid will do much of anyting if we pair him behind a young and inexperienced line? 

I wish they would focus on grad transfer OL and leave QB situation alone. At some point you have to roll with what you have and we have 2 very promising players who are familiar with the system.

ScooterTooter

December 4th, 2017 at 1:05 PM ^

Peters played quite well for being a RS Freshman against Wisconsin, to the point that it makes John O'Korn ever being ahead of him a serious question mark for Jim Harbaugh. He was 10-18 for 160ish yards and a TD if the officials followed the rules of football. Considering how bad the offensive line played that game (and getting nothing from the running game) that was the best performance by any QB on the roster this year by a long shot. 

Michigan4Life

December 4th, 2017 at 1:31 PM ^

is the worst way to evaluate a player. Highlights are supposed to show all of the good plays.  That's why Michigan fans went gaga over JOK despite ignoring that he got benched at Houston for sucking.

Game tapes are a better indicator of how a player is on the field as far as both strengths and weaknesses.

Michigan4Life

December 4th, 2017 at 4:00 PM ^

fans makes the worst subjective evaluations on a player because they don't want to watch the game film. That's also the reason why I take recruits highlight with a grain of salt because they're doing it against shitty competition.

I can make Kyle Kalis look like a 1st round pick with highlights but is he a 1st round caliber OG? Nope.

NowTameInThe603

December 4th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^

You know what game film I watched? Peters... not impressed. 

And you cant tell me if you are a real sports fan that you never saw an athlete for the first time and instantly thought "star" or "unequaled talent". 

Just watch the one highlight clip of his game against A&M. I cant wait til he comes here and all of you forget saying you preferred Peters.

EGD

December 4th, 2017 at 4:50 PM ^

Yes.  The first time I saw Aaron Rodgers play, I thought that.  The first time I saw Jameis Winson play, I thought that..  Maybe a few other QBs: Deshaun Watson and Donovan McNabb would be a couple more.  Yes, it has happened.

I don't get that same kind of impression from Patterson.  I'm not saying he isn't good.  But he's not a generational talent.  I hope we get him for depth, but I think Peters would more than likely retain the starting job because he'll have 2+ years in the system and several starts under his belt heading into fall camp.  

bronxblue

December 4th, 2017 at 1:06 PM ^

He threw the ball 51 times vs. Auburn. Every other game he played he threw for about the same yardage and ypa as Peters, but with more turnovers. Yes Ole Miss was worse overall, but Peters also played behind a bad line and had no playmakers at receiver like Ole Miss had. It's not a given Patterson is any better.

Bambi

December 4th, 2017 at 1:19 PM ^

What game did Peters have that looks anything like Patterson's first 2 or his game against Vandy? He might have had a better line/pass OL, but not D or running game. It was basically on him to do everything or they were screwed. That helps explain the turnovers too. I'm not saying he's perfect or even that he'd 100% beat out Peters. I'm saying his game against Vandy alone (a P5 time that was ranked at one point) is more than anything Peters has shown and he'd be the best QB on the roster right now. You can't pass that up.

bronxblue

December 4th, 2017 at 1:35 PM ^

Vandy finished 5-7 and had a middling defense.  He threw 44 times against Cal and had 3 picks.  I'll concede Alabama and Auburn, though he didn't look very good in either of those games (I saw that Alabama game a bit and he was dangerous with the ball in addition to being under pressure).  But he was terrible against LSU (and LSU was still not playing all that well despite 2 straight wins), and throwing out his first two games against non-P5 teams and he averaged 7.3 ypa; Peters averaged 7.7 against P5 teams.  Yes, Patterson played against some better competition, but he wasn't some super-efficient QB and Peters was never asked to, say, carve up Rutgers or Minnesota because the running game was already doing that.

I simply took issue with you saying we hadn't seen him carve up a MAC team.  And that's true in a sense, but he wasn't asked to throw the ball 30+ times in a game.  He might be pretty good at that; he was moving the ball against a good Wisconsin defense until the injury.  And he's never had a particularly good receiving corps; the leader in receptions on this team is McKeon, and he's under 30 for the year.  So my larger point is that Patterson might be an incremental improvement in a vacuum, but you'd have to (a) unteach him bad habits he learned at Ole Miss, which had a different offensive style, and (b) possibly submarine your depth for it, with no promise that Patterson will actually be better.

I'm not going to cry in the corner if Patterson comes to Michigan, but I've been saying this for weeks now and it's still true - Michigan needs to keep the guys they do have under center healthy, not find more and more bodies to throw back there.  I'd rather they take a run at grad transfer tackle or guard, even if it's unlikely to work out, because that feels like a place where more bodies could possibly pay off.

Bambi

December 4th, 2017 at 2:03 PM ^

Vandy had the 16th ranked S&P passing defense. Patterson threw for 351 yards, 4 TDs and 0 picks on 35 attempts.

The other P5 pass defenses he faced were #59, #9, #1, and #24. He put up 7.3 YPA against those teams.

Peters faced the #65, #94, #53 and #7 pass defenses to S&P.  Against clearly inferior P5 opponents, he threw for the same YPA as Patterson. The only two teams he faced above Patterson's worst pass defense were Wisconsin (his worst DSR by far to Brian) and Minnesota (threw for 56 yards).

This is also ignoring South Alabama, the #88 pass defense (higher than Maryland) who Patterson torched.

My issue is that Peters hasn't torched anyone, MAC or else, while Patterson has multiple times. I'm not trying to say that Peters is bad and wouldn't be good next year, or that Patterson is a perfect God send. I'm saying he has clearly been better than Peters to this point, and it's not close.

We know all of Peters warts, and why many of his stats aren't his fault. So we give him a pass. But people just attribute all of Patterson's faults to be 100% his. He was exposed more because he didn't have a run game or D to rely on, so he had to take risks, expose himself to turnovers, etc. Patterson didn't have the luxury that Peters did to let his run game carve teams up. If Peters had to throw as much as Patterson, guaranteed you see worse numbers.

The ability of this board to cherry pick stats to this degree to try and argue Patterson = Peters to this point is astounding.

bronxblue

December 4th, 2017 at 3:26 PM ^

IIt's not cherry-picking stats any more than you are.

Vandy had the 16th-ranked pass defense in part because they had the 92nd rush defense.  Against P5 teams they gave up about 260 yards on the ground. Per S&P, the #15 pass defense in the country was Northern Illinois, and the #14 was USF.  And Vandy also had the 105th PassingISO rankings, meaning when they got busted they weren't all that good at stopping you. So no, I will go on record by stating that perhaps 5-7 Vanderbilt was not  all that good of a pass defense.

He put up a bunch of yards, usually when they no longer mattered.  He had under 200 yards on 41 passes against Auburn before his team was down 38-3 midway through the 4th quarter, when he threw a couple of meaningless TDs.  He had good numbers against Cal, but about half of his yards came on two passes (71 and 72-yard TDs).  They were good throws, but it was also Cal's corners letting guys just blow past them.  Good on him for making those throws, but he also threw 3 picks.

He played better defenses, on average, and was bad against them during the competitive part of the game for the most part.  That's what I'm seeing.  If you want to hang your hat on a bunch of yards against Vandy, go for it.  But he had much better receivers than Peters had, he threw way more, and I'd argue that his terrible defense contributed in part to his numbers; he threw the ball a bunch because he had to.  That's no his fault, but you're looking at his raw numbers and proclaiming him better than Peters and I'm pointing out that such an argument lacks the very nuance and context you claim I am guilty of.

Again, I'm fine if he comes to Michigan.  But people are acting like he'll be this savior when I just don't see it.  He'll take chances, and sometimes they'll work out.  But I have a sinking suspicion that he'll have a lot of bad habits to teach out, and so whatever talent-level improvements he'd provide for 1 year would probably be cancelled out by getting him to not be an Ole Miss QB anymore.

ScooterTooter

December 4th, 2017 at 1:36 PM ^

When was Peters ever given the chance? The coaches played as close to the vest as possible when he was in (until Wisconsin) and when they did let him drop back the offensive line nearly got him killed in a matter of 2 seconds (until they did get him killed). 

Maybe you would have seen more of him had he not been sitting behind John O'Korn for reasons that will never make sense to me. 

Um1994

December 4th, 2017 at 3:05 PM ^

Great – then Patterson can come in and compete.  Worst case, he’s a back-up with some experience and the other QBs shouldn’t be upset.  Best case, he’s a great starting QB for Michigan.  Where is the “lose” in that scenario?  Some people seem to bank on Peters transferring if Patterson transfers in.  Perhaps Peters would be eager to show that he can start and beat out a 5 star who was ranked ahead of him.  These players are competitive.

 

I Like Burgers

December 4th, 2017 at 1:00 PM ^

Its another QB.  That's all that matters.  Michigan is going into next season with a redshirt sophomore QB and a redshirt freshman QB, and an ultra-raw QB prospect as their only options.  If, like they did this year, have to go down to the third string QB, the season is completely fucked.  They aren't winning shit with Joe Milton at QB.  Maybe in the future they can, but sure as hell not next year.

Drama or not, having another viable option at QB 100% puts Michigan in a better situation.  Arguing otherwise is foolish.

robpollard

December 4th, 2017 at 1:09 PM ^

...who are Top 5 recruits (at his position -- like McCaffrey, Peters and Patterson) and has been at the school for more than a year.

I literally don't think they exist -- not at Alabama, Penn State, UCLA, USC, Auburn, Ohio State, Clemson, etc. There might be one (I didn't search every team) but I can't find it.

Even Georgia, which has a RS SR as a 3rd stringer is a guy who has lifetime 4 TDs for 6 INTS, and Georgia is starting....a true freshmen.

It's not "foolish" --- it's life with top-tier QB recruits.

stephenrjking

December 4th, 2017 at 1:17 PM ^

Yeah, this idea that people are kicking around that we are going to be able to have three starter-level QBs on the roster is pretty out there. This season's 3-qb situation isn't the norm. It's exceptionally rare. When else has Michigan relied heavily on its third QB? I can't think of a time in my memory. 

Meanwhile, the landscape has changed. Nbobody wants to be the third-string QB, and especially not if they're a touted QB capable of starting (and the whole point of the "let's keep three good QBs" crowd is that people want a guy in third place capable of starting). They're likely to leave, and at the least they will be hampered in their development.

I think that it is highly, highly unlikely that Michigan will have both Peters and McCaffrey on the roster in 2019 if Patterson comes, no matter how long Patterson stays. You don't get Patterson because you want a competent third-string QB; you get Patterson if you prefer a year or two out of him over whatever you think Peters will bring you, because Peters will probably leave.

robpollard

December 4th, 2017 at 1:28 PM ^

It's understandable. I would like 4/5 stars, with experience, up & down the roster.

But QB is unlike any other position. Only one can play at a time. To get picked in the NFL, you need to show your stuff on the field, in order to demonstrate all those "intangibles" (e.g., leadership, moxie, grace under pressure, "winner", etc).

Pair that with the grooming as stars these QBs have from 7th grade on (QB camps; pro trainers; family coaches), they are almost like free agents. 

Harbaugh would have to perform an ego-grooming and expectation management of an unprecedented level (and I mean that literally -- again, someone find me a team with three, non-first year top 5 QB recruits on it) to keep everyone engaged, on the team, and ready to go.

Blue in Paradise

December 4th, 2017 at 1:44 PM ^

would understand why you may want 3 QBs with college footbal experience on the team.  I really don't get why everyone thinks that Peters automatically leaves if Patterson comes in.

The coaches already said "no thank you" to Patterson 2 weeks ago because of the senstivity to the existing QBs.  That was when we projected to be 4 deep at QB next year (maybe 3 since they probably knew Malzone was leaving).

But now they are back in the hunt, to me this means that Peters is already on board.

 

Kevin13

December 4th, 2017 at 2:19 PM ^

the top QB recruit in the 2018 class this year and maybe bring him in, in Januray, would you suggest we skip on him because he may win the starting job next year, beating out Peters and McCaffery?

So now that the top QB from 2 years ago is available and has more experience then any QB we have on the team we should not bring him in because we may hurt someones feelings?

Whether you recruit them or find them via transfer, you always try to upgrade your talent and put the best team on the field. Competition is the name of the game at this level.

stephenrjking

December 4th, 2017 at 2:26 PM ^

The top QB recruit this year will be on campus for a minimum of three years, and if he pushes out a guy like Peters we get two years of starting out of him, a great total. 

If Patterson performs up to the potential of his ranking, he's probably gone by 2019. And then we're starting this all over.

You can say "Peters should wait that out." Peters might not want to. Peters may feel like it's a poor fit and like he's not being given a fair shake, and believe he won't be given a fair shake in 2019. Or Peters may think that McCaffrey will pass him by 2019 and if that happens he's basically lost his shot to develop into a draft-caliber QB. Or he may just be discouraged and think he needs a new scene to evaluate where he is in life. 

There's a really good chance that Peters leaves if Patterson comes. And if that happens there's a good chance that we're looking at McCaffrey backed up by Milton in 2019. There's no top-ranked 2018 recruit there. 

Kevin13

December 4th, 2017 at 5:37 PM ^

so what if Patterson doesn't come this year and McCaffery beats out Peters this year, which is possible? Peters gets upset that a younger player beats him out relegating him to the bench for the rest of the time he is at Michigan and transfers. That leaves McCaffery and RS Freshman the next year. Not exactly ideal, but you play your best players.

Look the object is to get the best players you can get at every position. The best players will make your team better. If I'm Harbaugh and I have a chance to get a QB that is better then any I have on my roster next year and will improve my team, then I am going to get him and then deal with the QB's on my roster the best I can, but I'm not going to pass up making my team better because I might loose one player off my roster. Being a better team will help with recruiting and we produce a top flight QB, more become interested in the team.  This goes with every position on the team, recruit, take transfers do what ever you need to, to upgrade the talent and win championships.

If Peters were to leave and go to another P5 school he will be facing the same issues there with competition and coaches brining in players. Heck a coach would be taking him as a transfer and having to deal with the QB's on his team. Saban, Sweeney and Meyer have top flight teams because they just keep brining in top flight talent and play the best players they have.

As a coach said a few years ago. "This is big time football it ain't intramurals brotha"  If competition scares you away, then you might be in the wrong sport or at least playing at the wrong level.

ijohnb

December 4th, 2017 at 1:34 PM ^

should leave if Patterson comes in, and that sucks.  I think the kids wants a chance to play QB and if he is not going to get that here, he should find a place where he can.  This idea of a perpetual competition can cut both ways, and it is going to be a tough sell to go after elite talent and tell them "they might play."  I think we could have a weekly "tryout" at QB with 2 or 3 star QBs, but not with top end talent.  The really top tier kids are going to play that game.

In reply to by ijohnb

Blue in Paradise

December 4th, 2017 at 1:39 PM ^

that Michigan only have two non-true freshman scholarship QBs on the roster with an aggregate total of 3 starts.  Especially given the circumstances that played out in 2017.

If Speight or Malzone were still around, I would agree with this.  If Peters were to be upset given the situation that we are looking at today, I think it would look incredibly bad on him putting his own interests ahead of the team.

Under this line of thinking, nobody would ever go to Bama or OSU since they are 2 deep (if not 3 deep) in high 4* / 5*s at nearly every position.

 

ijohnb

December 4th, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^

bad on Peters for putting his own interests ahead of the team?  Of course he is going to do that.  Bringing in Patterson would be Harbaugh putting his interests ahead of Peters.  Harbaugh may feel like he needs to win right now, and that Patterson gives him the better shot of doing that.  But if I'm Brandon Peters and I just spent half the season playing behind John O'Korn due to ??????? only to see Harbaugh bring Patterson in, my bags would be packed before the bowl game.

Blue in Paradise

December 4th, 2017 at 2:04 PM ^

Not understand the value in having 3 college ready QBs?  How would Peters not understand that every team that fancies itself as a contender should want to have sufficient depth in case of injuries.

Harbaugh would be doing HIS JOB in bringing in a 3rd QB - not insulting an existing player.  If we establish that we should have 3 game ready QBs, then why would you not want the best player available - especially if he can bring some other players with him.

ijohnb

December 4th, 2017 at 2:18 PM ^

now you are changing the question.  If Patterson can "bring other players with him" that changes things, depending on who those players are.

I think we just disagree on what Michigan needs right now.  I understand that competition is a good thing, but for god sake this team needs a "starting QB."  I was hoping that right now Harbaugh could start showing some answers, bringing in Patterson alone to me would just be to begin asking more questions.

In reply to by ijohnb

Blue in Paradise

December 4th, 2017 at 4:51 PM ^

3-4 Ole Miss players are coming on a visit.  I think it is a safe assumption that we "can" get at least one player other than Patterson.  Doesn't mean that we will get one, but we obviously can get one otherwise they wouldn't waste their time visiting.  So that has to be part of this equation. 

What we don't know is whether Little is part of the group.  If LIttle is potentially interested, then it is a clincher for the staff that we need to go after these guys.  He could easily be the difference between a top 12 and a playoff season in 2018.

Hopefully nobody on the board has a problem with that.

MinWhisky

December 4th, 2017 at 3:46 PM ^

...it looks to BP like a second 'no confidence' vote.  You can say "Well, it's just more competition" but think of it from BP's perspective.  He honestly believes that he 'won' the back-up position in the spring, only to be told "no, you're 3rd string".  And then he gets thrust into the starting role with very little preparation when JOK can't cut it.  So, it looksto BP like he was right, JH was wrong, and JH still has it in for him..   

Kevin13

December 4th, 2017 at 5:42 PM ^

Harabaughs best interest to do what is best for the team? Wouldn't that mean bringing in the best talent you can to improve the team, so you can win? I think that is what he is tasked with and trying to beat the likes of OSU.

If your more concerned about not hurting one players feelings your never going to win at this level. Competition is what this sport is all about and if Peters were to leave, he's going to face the same type of competition elsewhere. Recruiting is about trying to get talent, no one seems upset when a Freshman comes in and beats out an upperclassman and worry about their feelings. But, now we could get a transfer, that could vastly improve the team, and we shouldn't because one player might have their feelings hurt????

Fezzik

December 5th, 2017 at 12:54 PM ^

"Bringing in Patterson would be Harbaugh putting his interests ahead of Peters."

Please tell me how head coach Harbaugh's interest of winning is less important than Peter's interest of playing football immediately.

You know what every coach wants? More talent at more positions. We have a chance to do that at a position where we have zero experienced depth and we should consider the feelings of one player more so than Jim frickin Harbaugh's interests of winning?

You don't come to Michigan to have things handed to you. You come here to compete to be the best by beating the best. 

EDIT: Sorry Kevin, intended to reply to ijohnb

Brodie

December 4th, 2017 at 2:13 PM ^

OSU's third string QB is a three star who only got offers from B1G teams. Everyone essentially knows that Tate Martell will one day jump him to be QB-1. This is how most programs do it... high stars as QB-1 and QB-2 (usually at least one class apart) with a middling third stringer and then, when it's time, a true frosh high star kid getting his red shirt year in while your starter is a senior. 

Nobody hoards elite QBs, because they are prone to transfer in search of PT. Every 4-5 star QB thinks he can play on Sundays and wants the opportunity to show it. This is why Michigan has lost three QBs to transfers in the past two years. You'd risk losing a fourth? 

Blue in Paradise

December 4th, 2017 at 1:33 PM ^

Speight and Malzone were still on the roster - bringing in another QB would have been a slap at Peters (not so much McCaffrey as there is a 2 year eligibility gap).

However, as we stand now, Michigan needs to bring in a transfer or else our 3rd string QB is currently in high school - NOT GOOD.  I would hope that Peter would prefer to have proper depth at the QB position (especially given what happened this year) than an easier track to starting in 2018.

Once you agree that a transfer is needed, why not go for the best possible player if he interested?  Especially given that he may be able to bring some friends that happen to fill huge needs on the roster.

If Patterson and Little were on our roster in 2018 (I know this is extremely speculative but since it is the topic du jour) - Michigan is no worse than a top 3 team and maybe the favorite to win it all.