Redshirting: I don't want to hear it

Submitted by BigBlue02 on September 22nd, 2010 at 4:42 PM
This is a plea for all to just quit bitching about burning someone's redshirt and enjoy watching a young team knowing they will just get better in the coming years. I would personally love to redshirt every single freshmen because that would mean there was a shit ton of upperclassmen performing well above them. But that isn't the case. With our depth chart, we have plenty of openings for young kids to come in and compete right away....isn't that why we got some of these kids? They wanted to play right away? Why do we bitch about burning (for instance) DG's redshirt but we let Carvin and J Black go out and play on Saturdays without a word about their redshirt? Please stop acting like you know better than the coaches who is ready to play and who isn't. Sorry, this has really been pissing me off lately and I had to get it off my chest.

Comments

GCS

September 22nd, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^

Not that I don't agree with your sentiment, but is there any reason that this can't be placed in the true freshman starts thread that this is undoubtedly based on?

umuncfan11

September 22nd, 2010 at 4:54 PM ^

Well with your example, Carvin and Black and the slew of other guys that have played thus far are at positions of need.  Last I checked we have perhaps the most dynamic QB in the nation so Devin has not NEEDED to play (especially with a certain QB who started 12 games last year still on the roster)... I think playing freshmen depends on exactly what you said... "NEED"  I am all for playing freshmen if you need to play them and they are your best players.  I hope to see Marvin Robinson get a ton of playing time this week and would like some other young guys to get a chance on D since obviously the upperclassmen are not getting it done.  Devin is a different situation though because he does not NEED to play and burn his redshirt when he plays a position which we are strong at.

blueblueblue

September 22nd, 2010 at 5:22 PM ^

Devin is a different situation though because he does not NEED to play and burn his redshirt when he plays a position which we are strong at.

Sorry, but this is pretty silly. We are only strong at QB until that QB has to be out for part of a game or more (knock on wood). We can't have that position, of all positions, go from strong to defunct with the blink of an eye (ask Kelly at ND). QB is not our strongest position, even if our QB is our strongest player - if you were around in '08 and '09, not having a QB that is game-ready and that fits the system can be unpredictable ('09) to debilitating ('08).  As you may have heard, "we need two guys at qb we can win with", and we are not there yet. And that is why RR puts Devin in instead of Tate - Devin is a better fit, he gives us a better chance to win if he is prepared through playing time (as evidenced by Denard).

umuncfan11

September 22nd, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^

You really think Tate couldn't do just as good a job handing the ball off for those plays that Devin has played thus far?  And I would be completely and 100% comfortable with Tate playing should Denard go down, and if not, wait to play Devin until Denard goes down.  I will forever stand by we didn't NEED to burn Devin's redshirt.  And it's laughable you are comparing this years QB situation with '09 and '08.  It's not even comparable.

blueblueblue

September 22nd, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^

And it's laughable you are comparing this years QB situation with '09 and '08.  It's not even comparable.

Learn how to understand comparisons before you call something laughable - I used 09 and 08 as an example of what it looks like having a qb who does not fit our system like Denard and Devin do. I was not making a comparison.

As for Devin and Tate, RR is putting Devin in to get him prepared for when he actually has to take over - for example, Denard's playing time last year helped make him what he is this year. RR has learned that lesson (probably for quite some time now). He HAS to play Devin to prepare him for when he actually has to take over for an extended time - RR's decision to play Devin is not about the present. I'm not sure why that is difficult for you to understand. 

jmblue

September 22nd, 2010 at 6:32 PM ^

The flaw in your thinking is the assumption that Gardner (who grew up an OSU fan) would have still come here if he weren't offered a real chance at competing for the job.  RR has made it clear that "competing" doesn't just mean a couple token snaps with the first team in fall camp.

cjpops

September 22nd, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^

That does make sense.  I wouldn't be surprised if part of his recruiting pitch was that he would play right away.  It would also offer a bit of an explanation as to why Forcier is riding the pine in the instances when DR has gone to the sidelines.

I'm no recruiting expert, but, I'll bet this kind of thing is fairly common...especially with athletes who are as talented, hyped and recruited as much as Gardner was/is.

michgoblue

September 22nd, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^

I am so sick of everybody talking about this whole redshirt issue.  I mean, all people are doing is talking about redshirts.  Is it so much to ask for people to stop talking about redshirts.  I mean really - if people would just let the topic go and stop talking about it on the MGoBoard that would be cool.  It would be especially cool if people would not start threads solely about the topic of redshirts. 

That's why I started a whole thread talking about redshirts - because I don't want people talking about redshirts.

Tha Stunna

September 22nd, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^

This is a plea for BigBlue02 to just quit bitching about bitching about burning someone's redshirt and enjoy the pointless discussion that goes on within internet forums. I would personally love to have no complaining because that would mean the board was all perfect and we would be on our way to a national championship season. But that isn't the case. With our depth chart, we have depth at some key positions but not others, and it makes sense to give certain players an extra year of eligibility when they play at a position of some depth. Why is this a taboo topic of discussion? Why don't you understand the difference between burning DG's redshirt, when we have a talented backup quarterback that can hand off to a running back just as well as DG can, and burning the redshirt of freshmen who are ready to make a unique impact at a position of need like safety? Please stop acting like you can control the discussion on this forum or that mindlessly agreeing with every decision the staff makes is the best policy. I am not sorry, this thread really pisses me off and you need to take your head out of your ass before posting.

I welcome any counter-counterresponses that are kept to a REPLY within a thread, as they should be.

briangoblue

September 22nd, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^

to keep that redshirt year in your back pocket. Ask Troy Woolfolk. He may have gotten some kind of medical redshirt  even if he already taken a redshirt under the circumstances (rules, plz?), but in this case, there was no question. Redshirt, get well soon, seeya in 2011. 

jmblue

September 22nd, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^

You can't redshirt twice.  The only exception to that is if both redshirts are caused by injury, in which case you have a chance at getting a 6th season of eligibility. 

If Woolfolk were a 5th-year senior who had previously gone through a normal redshirt year, he'd be out of luck right now after the ankle injury - career over.  That's exactly what happened to Ben Huff.  He was a 5th-year senior in '97 and suffered a season-ending injury in camp.  We tried to apply for a 6th year, but could not prove that his earlier redshirt was injury-related, and it was denied.

briangoblue

September 22nd, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^

I knew there were rare case of a guy getting a 6th year but wasn't sure on the specifics. Thanks for clearing that up. Forgot about Huff. What a bummer to miss your senior year on THAT defense and get denied another chance to play. I'm glad Woolfolk burned his redshirt on whatever seemingly meaningless special teams or garbage time he got on the field.

 

NateVolk

September 22nd, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^

Aimless baseless bitching sucks. But there is a huge difference between bitching and bringing up discussion points or asking questions.

The idea that the coaches know better than us is a great counter point, but it shouldn't be used to blow up interesting discussion points and make them off limits.  That reasoning would make every discussion topic off limits on a board like this. 

The message board wouldn't be.

I also thought Brian mentioned that he had issues with Devin's redshirt being burned after the UCONN game?  If a guy with his level of knowledge has issues, then it is probably a very legitimate question.

But we're heading towards 4-0 so that is cool  Little squabbles are part of being passionate fans.

Tater

September 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 PM ^

By labelling all of the redshirt discussion as "bitching," you have basically engaged in a baseless ad hominem attack on a great portion of the board, solely for the "crime" of disagreeing with you. 

I don't know if you have noticed, but there are plenty of intelligent people here; calling their discussion "bitching" and telling them not to post about it anymore probably isn't a very good way to lessen the discussion.  For example, there are, counting mine, 39 replies on this thread, most of them talking about redshirts.

Anyway, you may want to reconsider posts like this one, even if you do apparently think that your opinion is the only one that counts.

dahblue

September 23rd, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^

If you don't want to hear people discuss redshirts...don't listen.  You could also choose to ignore talk of defensive formation, starting QB's, stadium lights, t-shirts, recruiting, Barwais, etc.  It's just discussion...nothing more.

In any event, I would assume the only large redshirt questioning would be Devin Gardner losing a redshirt to take a couple of meaningless hand-off snaps.  Given that we've got an excellent backup QB in Tate, it's understandable for many to question the decision.  In the long run, the decision will probably be viewed by its backward looking usefulness.  Think of it much like Dantonio's choice for the fake FG against ND.  The attempt fails and it's a bad call; it succeeded and he's got "balls of steel".  If those snaps are Devin's only this season...then, redshirting him will appear to be a terrible decision.  If he takes a bunch of meaningful snaps at some point, it won't be a big deal.