The Heart Of Saturday Night Comment Count

Brian

10/11/2014 – Michigan 18, Penn State 13 – 3-4, 1-2 Big Ten

OONTS OONTS OONTS OONTS

Songs designed for da club have one over-arching theme: tonight. Buy another drink, raise it to the sky. The OONTS OONTS commands you. Feel the beat. The beat is inside you. Tonight is going to be a good night, says the worst song ever written. The people around you accept this and so do you. Your sky-drink is empty. You are commanded to buy another. The OONTS OONTS doesn't care if you vote or do your homework or wake up tomorrow with a gremlin jackhammering at your temple. It commands you to see only what is in front of you now.

What is in front of us now is a lady named Victory. She is… well… she's a little ragged. Makeup's smeared; eyes are a little twitchy; you don't want to know the Vegas over/under on how many times she will throw up in the cab. Because she will do that, in the cab. Because there is going to be a cab.

Tonight, we go home with Victory.

-------------------------------

Michigan put it all aside. There is no one to credit here; I found out a long time ago that pushing large groups of people in a direction is impossible. To lead is to find yourself at the head of a tidal wave hoping it won't notice your tiny course corrections. The people are the direction.

And except for a third of the student section that was momentarily absent because of malice or apathy—impossible to tell—the people showed up, were as into it as can be expected of people watching two cows rub against each other threateningly, and were happy to win.

After the game a section in the south endzone unfurled a section-wide FIRE BRANDON banner; that was about right. Michigan fans have for the most part held their fire on players, held their fire for the portions of games in which Michigan can win. When things get out of hand or are just intolerably incompetent on the staff's part, they let their feelings be known. They have in fact been as good as an enormous amorphous mass of pissed-off people can be at aiming before firing.

They're still mad, because they should be. This kind of win over this kind of team is just more of the same, and the athletic director's futile gestures towards humanity are the definition of too little, too late. But tonight is tonight and tomorrow can be dealt with later.

---------------------------

Devin Gardner put it all aside. A guy who'd been moved to wide receiver because the coaching staff thought more highly of Russell Bellomy. A guy whose ribs are a fine paste after last year. A guy who got benched for Shane Morris because the coaches had lost faith in him. There is a guy to credit here.

15340123720_595f0111f2_o

He's going to be a footnote, now, no question. All hopes and dreams of being a towering colossus have fled. He won't have Navarre's redemption story, and unless something deeply bizarre happens he won't have an OSU win. Ten years down the road mention Devin Gardner and most Michigan fans will wince involuntarily and offer sympathy.

This is especially cruel on the heels of his predecessor. Denard was a tragic hero but he got his OSU win, his BCS bowl, and anyone still trying to be disappointed with him after what happened when he left is certifiable. Ask a Michigan fan about him in ten years and it's different. A lot different.

But that's tomorrow, and tonight the guy who's had his leadership questioned since he arrived is going full Novak on his sideline to WIN THIS FUCKING GAME. He limped out on the field because that's just what he does. Probably can't even throw right unless several different areas of his body are telling him to go to the spa immediately. Rod Gilmore's screaming that he shouldn't be in the game because Rod Gilmore is incapable of telling a head from a leg—not that we are at all surprised by this revelation—and Devin Gardner is just like I put my heart in this shit.

-----------------------

Heart only gets you so far. It gets you to a narrow win over a Penn State team starting a broken vacuum and a Teddy Roosevelt biography at guard. We appear to have a vicious all-day hangover scheduled in two weeks. But that's for tomorrow.

Tonight, we are in a cab and squinting and feeling pretty okay, because we've got something to hang on to.

Awards

DEVIN GARDNER I PUT MY HEART IN THIS SHIT POINTS OF THE WEEK.

15526886645_3b5820f014_o

1: Devin Gardner.
2: Dennis Norfleet.
3: Devin Gardner again.

[After THE JUMP: don't start thinking about tomorrow. Oh no we did.]

Offense

Okay here we have to downshift into tomorrow mode. Sorry.

15323137188_6bc5ef601a_z

[Eric Upchurch]

Your safety was not that helpful. Michigan's touchdown was fortunate. Great play by Funchess to go get that ball, yes, and you may as well punt it up to him even when he's double covered because what else is going to work.

That particular punt should not have worked. Penn State's safety drifted back and tried to catch it in his chest, as if he was fielding a punt. A semi-competent guy at least steps in front to break it up and it looks like if he high-points the ball he's definitely picking it off.

Funchess did make an awesome catch, though, reaching those enormous arms out—possible the safety didn't think he had a play on the ball at all, because many humans would not have. Funchess 2014 == Jacob Trouba 2011-12.

I don't know what I expected dot gif. Michigan's ground game came up against one of the best rushing defenses in the country and went splat. The only run longer than ten yards was a 25-yard Gardner zone read at the beginning of the second half; Dennis Norfleet's single run for three yards was the most productive output of the night. At least they didn't end up with –48 yards?

I think I'm serious about that. When Michigan faced the best rush defense in the country last year they were over 100 yards worse, sacks inclusive. When you go from completely awful to mediocre at best it kind of looks like this.

15323149258_ec47e981a4_z

[Eric Upchurch]

Darboh rising. Darboh had four catches for 66 yards, which is a big chunk of the total production on the night from everybody. There was one bad drop in there but he also showed off some skills against a decent secondary for the first time.

Gardner was actually pretty good. He was 16/24 with two clear drops from Funchess and Darboh and hit 8.0 YPA despite that; the interception was bad but I think that you've got to put at least some of the blame there on either the play design or the OL because that DE has to be cut to the ground or otherwise dealt with.

Is this really all I have to say? Uh… it appears so. Nature of the game.

Defense

15323645999_b303e1b3e9_z

[Bryan Fuller]

I will wave the tiny flag. A dominating performance against a team that is hard not to dominate. This is where I'd say something like "I haven't seen an offensive line that bad since…" but of course I have. I haven't seen a line that bad since 2013, and it lived in Ann Arbor.

It's good they comprehensively smashed them; it means that Hackenberg was not able to fire his first read in rhythm time and again. That's progress. How it will last against teams that can have a gameplan other than zero faith in the OL I don't know.

Breaking 'Berg. Did anyone else detect signs of Gardner 2013 syndrome in Christian Hackenberg?  It may not have been easy to see on TV, but Penn State was seemingly in give-up-and-fade mode for much of the second half. Michigan—specifically Jourdan Lewis—played these pretty well; Hackenberg would give up on that route and either go try to find another or bug out because he thought his line was going to crumble.

Neither one of these things went well*. Hackenberg is no Gardner at the beheaded chicken stuff, and he was generally right about his line. So what do you do in that situation? Punt it up to that fade. The back shoulder's there, and if you do get it picked off you've avoided a sack and a 30 yard punt.

*[Except once in the second half when Hackenberg lasered out a corner route for 17 yards, causing some guy behind me to exclaim "HOW CAN HE BE THAT OPEN" at Penn State's first downfield completion in about 30 minutes of game time.]

15514239502_a5f54912c4_z

[Bryan Fuller]

Don't confirmation bias this one. The Penn State touchdown did happen to come against the guy Blake Countess was in coverage on, but it was in no way Countess's fault. Hackenberg had forever for once, Countess was in the guy's pocket, and the throw was the NFL bullet Hack pulls out every once in a while to remind you that it's not his fault.

No DTs? Late on someone noticed that Willie Henry was wearing a cast on his hand, which is probably a result of his sack against Minnesota when his thumb got caught in the QB's helmet. Ryan Glasgow's absence was more mysterious. He's been one of Michigan's best defenders this year and he did play some late (reports that he was getting in during the first half are probably people mistaking Godin for him because the numbers on the jerseys were hard to distinguish). The injury that holds a guy out until sparing snaps in the second half on which he plays well is a weird one indeed.

A wild Gedeon appears. Oddly, Michigan has dropped linebacker rotation to zero after Desmond Morgan's injury. It's odd because Michigan did a reasonable amount of rotation last year with Ben Gedeon and now he's gone. I think the sack he got early may have been his first meaningful snap of the year. And then he went away.

Miscellaneous

Correlation is causation. Ever since Brady Hoke got super paranoid about injuries, Michigan has suffered more of them than anyone in the country. Chesson and Khalid Hill joined the infinite list of walking wounded, with Hill out for the season. The clear move is to be a open about your injuries as possible, because then you won't have them anymore. #science

15328257078_789fe84365_z

WAT U DOIN [Bryan Fuller]

Oh God, the timeouts. You think there's no way to top Brady Hoke taking timeout with three seconds left in the half, sending his punt return team out, and then having to hurry them off when Penn State shockingly goes for the Hail Mary. And then James Franklin takes one

  1. down three points with under two minutes on the clock
  2. with the clock running
  3. with three seconds on the playclock
  4. from his own one
  5. so he can tell his team to take a safety.

And then you find out that it is possible to top giving the opponent a free shot at the endzone.

Actually… did that top the Hoke timeout? The only thing that makes sense there is that Franklin was actually intending to punt on fourth and 31 when that would just about end the game and then either he or someone else on the sideline figured that a safety was their best bet. And I can understand why your game theory competence doesn't extend to that fringe situation.

Meanwhile literally every coach in the country has been on a team when they run the first-half playclock down to three and taken timeout so they can run a Hail Mary. It's close, at least. /waves tiniest of all flags

We won a puntwar. There were only four second-half plays of consequence: the Hackenberg interception, the Norfleet catch, and two shanked Penn State punts. Chris Gulla had back-to-back 26 and 29 yard punts into the sideline, giving Michigan the multiple cracks at drives starting in Penn State territory they needed to get the ball in field goal range.

It's 1950, you decide like it's 1950. After the Hackenberg interception, Michigan rolled Bellomy onto the field to go run-run-yikes-field goal and I was fine with that. I would have been fine with run-run-run-field goal, because when your teams are combining for 250 fewer yards than Baylor got against TCU your decision matrix should tilt towards fear.

1950 decisions weren't wrong in 1950, and this was a 1950 game. Which brings us to James Franklin's insane fake punt that put a guy in motion (HI PAY ATTENTION TO ME) on fourth and eleven. On the Michigan 37 the opposition is going to be looking for a fake, too. You have two options there: go or punt. They're not good options, but move that Hackenberg interception up 17-30 yards and Michigan has to punt it back after going three and out with Bellomy on the field.

Punting was in fact winning, and once we stepped through the time portal there was nothing conservative enough to draw ire from me.

Band. Best show since half of 'em became the Titanic and half an iceberg and they sunk the Titanic.

So hooray for that.

Uniformz. Not that you're surprised by this take but bleah. Number legibility issues (hard to distinguish between 6, 8, and 9), the racing stripes thing made them look like bicyclists wearing reflective tape, and all blue isn't as good as the maize and blue contrast.

They looked worse than Michigan's standard uniforms. Everything does, yes. This is why I'm generally opposed to uniformz.

Reflol. It's not often that both teams assume a call is going to be overturned before it actually comes down, but the Penn State offense and Michigan defense were waiting at the previous line of scrimmage for a good minute before the refs indicated that the "fumble return touchdown" Jourdan Lewis snagged was the world's most obvious incompletion.

For the rest of the game, any ball on the ground was pounced on; I'm surprised no one leap on the ball after the ref spotted it.

Can you imagine what would have happened in State College if that had not been overturned? By now they'd be trying to burn the cows because everything else is ash. I only root for hilarious injustices like that against Penn State.

HILARIOUS INJUSTICE. There were a bevy of competing screenshots in the aftermath of the offsides call on Penn State's recovered onside kick, one of which barely had one Penn State guy's helmet on the 20 yard line:

offside_1.0[1]

any part of you intersecting the plane of the ball is offsides

That's close, so it's perfect: a 50/50 call that is unlikely to change the outcome of the game that makes Penn State fans collapse into a frothing lather, made by the Witvoet crew. And then Witvoet took two seconds off the clock, because f--- you that's why.

TrollrefMuschamp[1]

HERE

Best And Worst:

I don't need to go into the gory details about Gardner's time at UM; you've heard these stories numerous times before, "hot takes" about his failings and odes to his greatness are legion in these parts:  He's a winner except when he's throwing crippling INTs or struggling to hold onto the ball under intense pressure, or a maddeningly inconsistent QB who never learned how to play the position due to a revolving-door of disinterested/ill-equipped offensive coaches and whose success typically comes from being a better athlete than the guys chasing him and/or a healthy bit of luck sprinkled with defensive incompetence.  He's off-the-charts when it comes to feelingsball and playing hurt, but through 7 games this year he's throwing more INTs (8) than TDs (6), and his team is 3-4 with one semi-competent win.  He's everything you want in a QB but with just enough rough edges and blemishes that you can't enjoy it.  He can wear whatever hat you want, can both prove and invalidate any argument, and at all times fit into a narrative without being attached to it.  Heck, against Miami I called him "Chaotic Neutral", and even now I'm not sure if that should be considered a compliment or a condemnation; it's probably just a statement of fact.

Inside The Box Score:

Allow me to share my "cool story bro" story. Back when I was a student at UofM, I gave a paper at the Materials Research Society Meeting in Boston. This meeting had somewhere around 30 parallel sessions going on at the same time (hence, the word parallel.) Some of the more popular topics, like silicon, were granted the larger meeting rooms. Folks like myself who were studying compound semiconductors (like indium phosphide) got to speak in a closet in front of 15-20 people.

At this conference, I overheard talk that Shuji Nakamura was giving an invited talk. He is one of the three fellows who just won the Nobel Prize. So I wandered over to that session's conference room. It was a little larger than a closet, but the interest was extraordinary for a compound semiconductor talk. I'm talking standing room only at a technical conference. This guy was already a rock star.

This was over 20 years ago, when gallium arsenide was still regarded as the technology of the future ("...and always will be" is how that joke finished up.) Now, everyone's phone has a GaAs power amp and gallium nitride based blue LEDs are ubiquitous. At that time, no one thought a blue LED was possible because the defect density in gallium nitride materials was extreme, and defects cause non-radiative recombination, etc. So halfway through the talk, Nakamura pulled out an array of green LEDs (the pre-cursor to today's blue LEDs) and powered them up.

The brightness was more intense than anyone thought possible. The audience was shocked, awed, and amazed. He explained how they were motivated to generate all LED traffic signals, and the green LED was the only thing missing. I had a feeling I was witnessing the future. And now, more than 20 years later, Nakamura has rightly earned his Nobel Prize. I was a witness to this due to my attending the University of Michigan. Damn right, I'm proud to be a Michigan Wolverine.

What, you didn't expect to hear a story about LEDs?

ELSEWHERE

I'm late today so I'll round it up later.

Comments

Reader71

October 13th, 2014 at 8:32 PM ^

You (and a lot of others) are missing the point. IF the staff really thought more of Bellomy than Gardner, they were wrong, no matter what. We're making judgments from a spring game, the staff is making judgments from thousands of reps. Just because we understood it at the time or Brian called it the right move doesn't make it so. Notice I didn't point out that mgoblog approved the move, because that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the staff never thought Bellomy was the better option. That's what my statement was about.

InterM

October 13th, 2014 at 8:42 PM ^

My post was about 99.9% snark/sarcasm, based on the continued glowing reports about how wonderful everyone's performing in practice.  I'm not sure, at this point, how you can be so confident that Hoke and his staff can make "judgments from thousands of reps" and those judgments wouldn't turn out to be wrong.  Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if their assessment of Bellomy from practice was that he was a cross between Brady and Henson.

ijohnb

October 14th, 2014 at 8:54 AM ^

could not have thought very much of him but still believed that he could at least finish a game where Denard got hurt and be mimimally serviceable for that duty.  It took them one week for them to have Gardner back as the starting QB with what appeared to be a working knowledge of almost all of the playbook after Denard got hurt.  It did not look as though they believed that Bellomy had "passed" Gardner on the long term QB depth chart, but that they could add a weapon that season at a position of need and still have their quarterback of the future.  I never thought, even before Bellomy flopped, that they intended for Bellomy to be Denard's "successor."  I thought they needed to find Garnder a place on the field and they were not going to take away QB1 from Denard in his senior year.

Reader71

October 14th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^

Right. A third of the book cam get you through a game but not a season. If they needed a QB to start game week, it stands to reason that it was Gardner because he was armed with the full playbook by the next week. This doesn't seem complicated to me. I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with it.

InterM

October 14th, 2014 at 2:07 PM ^

You've offered a completely plausible explanation of how the coaching staff could have moved Gardner to receiver and yet still thought he was preferable to Bellomy as a long-term QB if Denard was going to miss more than part of a game.  The problem is, all you have is a theory of what the coaches could have been thinking, without any evidence to back it up.

You seem to base your claim entirely on Gardner having the "full playbook" available to him for the Minnesota game, whereas Bellomy supposedly had only a third of the playbook. Since Bellomy was so awful from the get-go in the Nebraska game, who knows what plays might have been available/called if it appeared that he could execute them?  Also, Gardner was a backup for Denard for the entire 2011 season, so he presumably learned most of the playbook and could get back up to speed fairly quickly, even if he practiced exclusively at receiver for the first half of the 2012 season.  Finally, since Gardner is a dual-threat and Bellomy is not, it stands to reason that there are more plays available to choose from when Gardner is your QB.

Your theory may be right -- or it may not.  I'd like to believe, based on what I've seen of Bellomy, that the coaching staff never saw him as a more viable option than Gardner.  But since that Nebraska game, we've seen a whole bunch of head-scratching moves by this coaching staff that make me wonder whether I've been wrong in giving them the benefit of the doubt all this time.  The Shane Morris fiasco is only the latest example, and one that casts a new light on past QB decisions.

matty blue

October 13th, 2014 at 2:38 PM ^

...at least re: bellomy.  i thought he would be better than he turned out to be, or at least tiny bit  serviceable.

that said - he was something like 3 of 15 with 4 picks against nebraska...that's some historic overmatched-ness, and it happened in week 8 or 9.  i have a hard time giving the coaching staff a pass on that - how competent could he possibly have looked in practice, compared to that?  and if he DID look good in practice they sure jumped off that ship in a hurry when he stunk it up...seriously - nobody looked at him in practice and wondered whether he could fill in when denard was (inevitably) knocked out of a game?  ever?  they must have just shrugged it off, right?

of course they did, because that's, you know, what this staff does.

Space Coyote

October 13th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^

That Brian called the correct move at the start of the 2012 season. I agree with him on that fact. It's hindsight and bad circumstance that makes people believe it was a bad move, but DG was Denard's favorite target, and that was while DG was a very raw WR (and getting better each game).

Not to mention that DG claims that was a major benefit to him better understanding the QB position. Seeing things from that perspective is not always a negative thing.

BiSB

October 13th, 2014 at 2:28 PM ^

Is that the move was predicated on the assumption that the coaches believed Bellomy was at least a viable stop-gap in the event of a Denard injury. In other words, that based on what they had seen in practice, we weren't moving our ONLY other quarterback to WR.

That assumption looks really hard to square in hindsight.

Space Coyote

October 13th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^

But I think he may have looked viable relative to DG in practice. Like I said, he looked just as capable if not more so than DG in the spring game. That's not just according to me, that was also Brian's belief. For what was supposed to be a stop-gap (Denard never had major injuries until then, it was always a couple plays or a drive here and there), I think the move made sense at the time. I don't think Bellomy was helped by the fact that it was a night game at Nebraska and Nebraska was a blitz heavy pretty good defense (35th yards per game; 6th in yards per game at home; allows 16.1 ppg at home; 4th in the nation in pass yards).

Likewise, DG didn't look very good to start the Minnesota game either, but something seemed to click in the 2nd half (I believe it was 2nd half, may have been 2nd quarter after his crazy roll out and he found Dileo in the back of the end zone) when he started gaining some confidence, leading to a blowout. Sometimes you just don't know how a guy will react to game day until he plays in a game. But from everything we saw, Bellomy was just as viable a stop-gap as DG in the short term, and once it was apparent he wasn't, DG was given a shot long-term at QB

CompleteLunacy

October 13th, 2014 at 2:39 PM ^

But it's impossible to know how a kid will respond in a game until he...gets put in a game. Criticizing the coaches for it after the fact seems a bit unfair, especially since they addressed the issue immediately after the Nebraska game ended anyway.

(Tangential thought...I remember something about how the FSU coaches were leery of how Winston would play in the game given how goofy of a freshman he was. It's not like they knew he was a Heisman-level QB before his first snap at FSU.)

 

BiSB

October 13th, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^

Brian's point (which I guess is tangential to my own) is that he heard from a legitimate source (unlike my sources, which are... oh, what is word... imaginary) that the reason they moved DG was because they preferred Bellomy. Whether it was a joint delusion shared by coach or blogger alike is another story.

CompleteLunacy

October 13th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^

The "sources" thing does bring doubt into it for sure. Who the hell knows though. Maybe it's denial, but I refuse to think that the coaches were THAT obtuse about that situation. And whether it was for the right or wrong reasons...the coaches still made a risky, but justifiable move, and still made the proper adjustment once Denard went down and Bellomy was clearly NOT the answer.

funkywolve

October 13th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^

Brian was fully on board the Gardner to wr train.  This is from the 2012 preview:

 

Devin Gardner spent last year making cameo appearances in the two-QB package Al Borges calls "deuce" but should by all rights be called "Fritz" and running the base offense when Denard was inevitably banged up. Neither of these things went that well except on that one pass in the Illinois game. Gardner rushed for 3.5 YPC even if you exclude the Michigan State game and its yakety sack, completed fewer than half his passes, missed a blitheringly wide open Hopkins against MSU and threw a fugly interception against Purdue.

Then spring practice hit and rumors leaked out that Gardner was not only playing wide receiver but playing it ridiculously well. Gardner has spent every waking moment since deflecting questions about his position; 42% of all sports content on the internet since has speculated about a potential position switch, its costs, and its benefits.

This site's been on Team WR from the beginning and became even moreso after an alarmingly poor performance in the spring game that caused me to survey the Gardner oeuvre with a suspicious eye:

In three consecutive spring games he's looked bad. You may remember Jake Ryan bursting onto the scene last year with a pick six thrown directly at his dome by Gardner. Yeah. … [The year before that] Gardner got safetied and intercepted on the same play and still probably had a better overall outing than he did yesterday.

When fall practice started up Hoke offered up the only piece of solid information he's provided in months by admitting that yes, Gardner was practicing at WR. His potential impact there will be covered in that position preview.

Gardner will have an opportunity to play at both spots. He's getting the same load of QB reps and moonlights at WR when other quarterbacks are taking snaps, and Borges pointedly defended Fritz from a reporter's question despite the thing seeming to run out of gas after the Denard end-around package was adequately scouted. He may not be the first guy off the bench if Denard needs to come off for a play, but any long-term issue will likely see Gardner ascend to the starting spot, where his performance is anyone's guess. He needs to get a lot better to be plausible; raw athletes going into their second year in the same system do that sometimes, but maybe not often when they're spending at least half their time at another position.

Russell%2BBellomy[1]Redshirt freshman Russell Bellomy [recruiting profile] is the third(?) stringer and only other QB on the roster. He was clearly more effective than Gardner in the spring game, but had the luxury of going against backups and was a checkdown-heavy dink-and-dunker. He went six of nine, sure, but he averaged six yards a completion. He displays some athleticism, though not anything in the same stratosphere as either of the veterans. Tate Forcier was his YMRMFSPA; former Purdue quarterback Brandon Kirsch is also a decent comparable.

The coaches have been talking him up some. When Tom Dienhart hit up a practice he returned back with this news about Bellomy:

…the guy to watch is Russell Bellomy. Brady Hoke told me he is faster than you think. I also asked him if he’d be comfortable if Bellomy had to play, and Hoke said he would.

It's hard to tell whether Bellomy's development allows Gardner to play wide receiver or the crying need at wide receiver forces people to play up Bellomy's progress. Either way the downgrade from Denard to Bellomy would be severe. A few plays here and there for dings will be fine.

 

jsquigg

October 13th, 2014 at 5:44 PM ^

being a fucking dumb strategy considering what happened in the Nebraska game.  When Russell Bellomy is the only QB after Denard and you're headed toward a potential Big 10 title and you decide to use Devin Gardner at receiver, you're bad at your job.  Devin wasn't good enough at receiver to take him off of reps at QB, and he could've been prepared at both.

bronxblue

October 13th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^

Yeah, I read that and blanched a bit as well.  It was pretty obvious that they wanted Devin in the game but couldn't run an offense with two QBs (and you don't displace a senior QB in that instance) or move one to RB, so this was a decent option.  At no point did I read anything that felt like more than coach-speak surrounding their faith that Bellomy could come in and be a competent starter.  In fact, I think the only reason they didn't put Devin in against Nebraska was because they figured he'd be a weapon in the receiving game and, I'm sure, figured Bellomy could do SOMETHING against Nebraska. 

Hoke has not done any favors to Gardner since he took over at QB in terms of offensive system and development, but I don't think he or the staff ever thought Bellomy was the better option at QB.

Blue Bunny Friday

October 13th, 2014 at 2:04 PM ^

Come on. Devin was going to be your starting QB for 2 years and you move him to WR for one because it's going to be that much of a game-changer? I don't think so. I believe that they legitimately thought that the move was going to be permanent and they could get by with someone they delveloped. 

mm92.

October 13th, 2014 at 1:59 PM ^

I feel like I'm in the minority with this, but I actually really liked moving Gardner to WR at that point. Denard was our quarterback and Gardner and a 6'4 215 pound junior with good athleticism was not going to see the field unless moved. We also did not have a proven big WR yet. It made sense to me.

Reader71

October 13th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

I've got a source, too. Admittedly, it's less than 100%. I was told that if Bellomy ever had to play, he would be limited to 1/3 of the playbook. Gardner started the next game with 100% of the playbook available. That doesn't seem like they preferred Bellomy to me. It might not be your lie. But someone is lying, and the evidence suggests its not my guy.

westwardwolverine

October 13th, 2014 at 6:29 PM ^

What is the evidence in this case? If you are referring to each player's actual play, I'm not sure that makes your point. Its very easy to see Hoke and Co. screwing this up as they aren't the world's sharpest staff. 

If this isn't what you're talking about, disregard it. 

Reader71

October 13th, 2014 at 7:58 PM ^

No. I think moving Gardner to WR was a mistake and a bad move by the coaches. The evidence is not the play of the respective QBs, but the amount of the playbook they felt comfortable using with each of them. This seems like a pretty reliable test of 'preference'. Brian and his source claim that the coaches preferred Bellomy as a QB over Gardner. My claim, and that of my source, is that they preferred Gardner the whole time, but still made the bad move of putting him at WR.

westwardwolverine

October 13th, 2014 at 8:22 PM ^

I would say that Brian's source seems more legit given that:

A. Borges/Hoke recruited Bellomy (favoritism)

B. Borges has a terrible track record when it comes to developing QBs

C. Devin Gardner has been said to have had some attitude problems, which might not have sat well with the coaches

D. The fact that Hoke pulled the trigger on starting Morris, even though Gardner is a better player

E. The general incompetence of the staff. 

But who knows. 

InterM

October 13th, 2014 at 7:22 PM ^

if they're able to say that at no time did any relevant member of the coaching staff (presumably Hoke or the OC) ever say that Bellomy appeared to be as good/better a QB option as Gardner, so that there was essentially no downside to moving Gardner to receiver.  Even better, your source is so sure that nobody ever said that, that anyone who claims any different is "lying."  Given how many times Hoke contradicts himself in the average week, not to mention during fall camp or over a season, maybe the "lie" charge shouldn't be thrown around so lightly.

Reader71

October 13th, 2014 at 8:12 PM ^

I dont doubt that the coaches SAID they were comfortable with Bellomy. They might have even said they preferred him to Gardner. What I'm saying is that whatever they said was in an effort to manage the team. What they FELT can best be judged with how much of the playbook they were willing to use with each QB. Bellomy was very limited, Gardner wasn't. This speaks to preference, I think. I chose my words very carefully. I had originally typed "Are you sure about that?" but decided to change it. If I was just speculating, I wouldn't have phrased it how I did. But I've heard from a reliable source that the claim isn't true. I'm totally comfortable with calling it a lie.

InterM

October 13th, 2014 at 8:30 PM ^

There's no doubt that after Bellomy's first series in the Nebraska game, whole chunks of the playbook got thrown out.  And after last weekend's debacle, Bellomy's playbook presumably has been whittled down to a couple of pages.  Unless your source told you pre-Nebraska that Bellomy was an inferior option, it sounds like what you've got is an after-the-fact rationalization that "we knew it all along."  Hoke basically did a variation of the same thing, trying to save face after the Nebraska game by claiming that Bellomy was injured.  I guess what I'm saying is, the closer your source is to the coaching staff, the more likely what you're hearing is face-saving BS.

Reader71

October 13th, 2014 at 9:19 PM ^

It was well before Nebraska. I dont remember if it was before Gardner made the move to WR or in the immediate aftermath. But I have no doubt that the staff had very little confidence in Bellomy, as evidenced by the playbook. It is possible that they had even less confidence in Gardner, but judging by the fact that he won the job in a week and had the whole playbook available to him, I'm not buying it.

pudge44

October 13th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^

I think you're on-point with the Hackenberg '14/Gardner '13 comparison. He looked better at the beginning of the year, but all that running for his life, all the hits, etc. are diminishing him as a player. His accuracy is down, he sometimes senses pressure when it's not (yet) there and he forces balls while being dragged down.

He and Gardner are fellow members of the "PTSB" (post-traumatic blitz disorder) club. Its founding member is New York Giants-era Kurt Warner.