Jack Kennedy and the DG Redshirt
so Tate is ineligible, and we are hoping not to burn Gardner's (maybe) redshirt over the bowl game.
If Denard getes dinged (the kind where he had to come out, but we expect him to go back in), could this be the time for Wolverine nation to turn to Jack Kennedy........who will ask not what the team has done for him, but will ask what he can do for the team........for a couple of plays?
with Tate's future looking cloudy (or should that be puffy?), DG looks to step in for 2 years of apprenticeship to Denard, then two years of his own.........if we can avoid using him on Jan 1.
anybody else expecting a Kennedy sighting?
December 31st, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
No. RR has already said it will be DG. Why, I don't know.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
don't forget, in some sense RR is coaching for his job tomorrow. he doesn't know if he'll be the coach at Michigan next week which would lead me to believe he would play the guys that give him the best chance to win, regardless of a burned red shirt. that's what I'd do at least. if we lose tomorrow it's going to be very bad for his case to keep the HC job.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
If DG's redshirt gets burned in a meaningless game where he only plays a couple play, then I will be completely swayed to the "OMG RR FIRE HHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMM"
December 31st, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
I don't understand this thinking. I want Michigan to win. I don't want to have Denard have to miss time and our team to put a 2008-esque quarterback on the field. That would make the game that much more unbearable.
I want RR not to give up, that will just lead the team to givng up. I want him to win. I want him to want to win. Putting his best players on the field is how you win. If Denard has to come out, you put your best players on the field. Even if it's only for a few plays, you have to use him.
Gardner has 3 more seasons to try and get another redshirt season. If Denard and Tate can cover all or most (although I would never hope for an injury) of next year, a red shirt is still possible.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
If Denard gets seriously injured in the first half and we know he won't come back, go ahead and put DG in. If he just gets dinged up and should only be out for 2-3 plays, which is what usually happens, don't put DG in the game. Put Gallon or JK in there and just run it.
December 31st, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
I was thinking the same exact thing. If its a major injury then do what you have to do, however if its something small and he will be in the next play I think that we can run some kind of wildcat type offense and be completely fine for a series. I do not want to risk a year of DG for one game. I honestly believe the DG will be the QB that leads us back to the promise land and we need him as long as possible.
December 31st, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
But on the other hand, leaving aside the coaching situation, would you rather take a loss to Mississippi State in a meaningless game (and one you might lose even if you play Gardner) or would you rather burn Gardner's 2013 (if he were to go pro early) or 2014 season? For me, that's an easy call. I'd like a win tomorrow, but I'm not going to be crying on Monday if we lose.
January 1st, 2011 at 8:12 AM ^
You put in your best players to try and win the game. The team is bigger than one player. Who even knows if Tate will be back next year. Devin might be in store for more work over the next two years than we expected.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
I'm guessing DG wouldn't be thrilled about the prospect of sitting out all of next year. I'm guessing he sees himself as Denard's number-two next season.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^
...and that is why I was disappointed that RR wasn't more creative/aggressive in the games against Wisconsin and OSU when there was absolutely nothing to lose. But, burning DG's redshirt doesn't pass the cost/benefit test.
December 31st, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^
FA,
I'm talking more a couple plays. If DR gets hurt right before halftime of a competitive game and they decide during the break that he cannot come back, then so be it: bring in DG.
If it's for a play or two just because DR has to get his pads readjusted or whatever, then no. This game simply isn't worth it. You cannot look at this as a win at all costs game. Why should it be any different if we lose the game by 6 with Kennedy playing a few snaps as opposed to winning with DG playing a few snaps?
If there's any judgement of RR to come from this game it should be of the defense: we all know what RR's offense can do w/ Denard in there.
Plus, if you burn DG's RS you are looking at serious QB depth issues again and have to scramble to find a QB this recruiting year (considering Tate is on the fence).
And, from a fan perspective, since it is more likely that JH is already coming here, the last thing I want is DG's RS burned.
December 31st, 2010 at 3:51 PM ^
I wouldn't trade a couple snaps of Gardner or even an entire half of Gardner to win the gator bowl this year for 12 or 13 games in 4 years when the team could hopefully be primed for a run at the MNC assuming DG turns out to be the shit like he looks like he will be. Then again I'm not RR. I'm sure RR feels like he's coaching for his job tomorrow. If Michigan looks really good against MSU it's going to make firing him harder- it'll probly still happen- but in RR's mind he needs to coach the game of his life tomorrow to keep this job.
December 31st, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^
I don't know. I'm one to think you play to win now. One in the hand is worth two in the bush style. There's no guarantee that DG will be here in 3 years. He could bolt with a coaching change. He could get injured. Our team could really suck in 3-4 years.
No one wants to think about it like that, but you play with what you have, and you play to win. These kids, including DG, came to play. You let them play, even if it means just the few snaps. They are here to help the team win games. This is where they are needed. This is where they should play.
I understand the fan perspective of saving players to be used more efficiently, but putting in a walk-on who isn't particularly built for our offense, nor was heavily recruited, is the equivalent of quitting. Even if it's for one snap, it's quitting.
You're resigning that this game means nothing. You might as well not even watch it then. It apparently means nothing to you.
I don't work that way. I don't think most of the people here work that way. We want to see Michigan win. We want to see Michigan give everything they've got.
I can understand fans' patience and impatience with long term results, but the short term goal is always WIN. If you don't win now, that jeopardizes the long term goals, regardless of which coach is at the helm.
As far as depth, I'm not worried if DG stays through a coaching change. That's all rampant speculation. We don't know that Denard would leave. We don't know that the next head coach would call plays to his current players strong suits. There's so many "what-ifs" that I'm just not worried about it.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
that if denard needs a breather we will see gallon running the read for a play or two.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
Let's just hope for a healthy Denard, although there hasn't been a game that'll give us confidence in that...
December 31st, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
RR has already said DG is the backup. Such a shame that Tate's indiscipline has led to this. (Let's also remember that DG would have never played earlier in the year if Tate hadn't had such a poor offseason.)
It's also a shame because Tate appeared to have turned a corner with the team.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
He sorta has to say that though in order to protect Denard, otherwise the bullseye on his back just got a lot more appealing to the MSU defense.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
MSU would defintely go after Denard if they knew Kennedy was going to be his backup. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was just for a play or two if they put in Kennedy instead of Gardner. If it was something more serious they would have to burn the redshirt.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^
I feel like MSU was going to go after him no matter who the backup was because the backup would be a significant step down from Denard regardless of who it was. Basically, this is what all the teams we played this year did. Remember all the talk about Michigan State practicing twisting his ankles and what not...This whole Tate being an idiot thing will not change how much MSU wants to get Denard out of the game.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
You're right, they're gonna be a nasty defense regardless. If someone wants a preview, take a look at the MSU defense cut ups against LSU. Denard, Devin, Jack, me, or you could be back there, and they would try and kill the QB regardless.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
I'm not sure how much this actually "protects" Denard. If I'm a Miss State player, I'd drool at the thought of Michigan having to throw a true frosh with almost no game experience (Gardner) in there. Realistically, we'll be in trouble if Denard gets hurt, no matter who's in there.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
not real action.......but if Denard gets the wind knocked out of him at the end of another long run, and stays down (briefly), he still needs to come out for the next play. If we are sure he is coming back, would RR still undo the whole medical redshirt thang, and cost DG a season, over a snap or two?
It still seems viable for Kennedy to be used instead of DG,if it is just a hiccup.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
December 31st, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
Chengelis mentioned it in her article this morning...A good idea, I think...he's an unknown quantity, bring him in to run QB draw, then hand off, bring Denard back in. If Denard gets knocked out for a significant time, however, RR may have to put in DG, he is the back-up now.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
what your team can do for you, but what you can do for your team.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
Vote Kennedy. He's the best choice for a better tomorrow.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
December 31st, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
December 31st, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
December 31st, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
It's gonna depend on the situation. Mark Snyder seems to think Gallon was running plays in the offense because RR saw this happening.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
Wouldn't be surprised at the Freep speculation, however..
December 31st, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
I read the article again. It does look a lot like speculation. No concrete facts, just a couple of quotes, a bunch of non-commital verbs (may be, could, etc.)...
I'll be honest with you, I kind of hope they're right.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
I'm pretty sure Marilyn was the "hot option."
December 31st, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
As were many other women. Jackie was probably the last option.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
would know.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
counts towards burning a redshirt? If so, why weren't the OSU players suspended for the bowl plus 3 games next year?
December 31st, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
Because the NCAA is hypocritical, and doesn't want to reduce the value of the bowl game by taking out OSU's star players. Isn't interested that this investigation and announcement took so long? Think they knew what they were going to do before the Michigan game?
December 31st, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
I don't really know what the answer is, but going forward, we've got to stop getting Denard killed. No matter whom the coach is next season, his carries have to go down significantly. A lot of people say we should emulate Oregon. Well, their QB (Darron Thomas) carried the ball 86 times in 12 games, sacks included. I don't think you can realistically expect a QB Denard's size to survive 20+ carries a game, and I'm getting tired of always having an injured QB when we play OSU.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
Jack Kennedy would probably have to get a number change right? Can we have 2 #20s in the backfield?
December 31st, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
No. The special teams earlier in the year had that exact penalty for having two players on the field with the same number.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
I hear that's available
December 31st, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^
Running Denard like that is what makes the offense work.
It is an inescapable downside to running a run-first, read-option with a smallish QB with great running skills.
Edit: This was meant as a reply to jmblue. Sorry.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:18 PM ^
Then the offense needs to be tweaked. Hey, everyone says that Oregon is what we're supposed to look like next year. Darron Thomas rushed for 40 yards per game. It didn't slow them down any.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
Chad Henne never had any injury problems standing back there in the pocket. Having the best RB in the nation probably has nothing to do with Thomas' lack of carries, either.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^
Chad Henne was a four-year starter. Only in one of those four years did he have injury issues. His predecessor (Navarre) was a three-year starter and never missed time due to injury. To compare that to what we're seeing now is ridiculous.
And the difference between Oregon and us has more to do with philosophy than personnel. Even when RR had TWO of the nation's top runners in Slaton and Devine in 2007, he still had Pat White carry the ball 197 times. RR has always preferred his QB to be a primary running threat. He may want to rethink that. Unless you're a 250-pound beast like Cam Newton, you probably can't survive a season carrying the ball that much.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
This is Denard's skill set and why Denard is the starter. Denard has improved as a passer, but it is that breakaway speed that makes Denard, well, Denard.
To make Denard a throwing QB who runs just enough to keep the defense honest isn't RR's offense. What you are seeing is RR's offense.