Should Nick Sheridan be starting this week?

Submitted by Blue Balls on October 26th, 2009 at 12:24 AM

I believe Tate is playing hurt and unable to throw the ball down the field. Coach Rod knows how important it is to throw down the field, it keeps the corners and secondary players from pinching in, and keeps them on their heels not their toes. Denard is not yet ready to start at QB. Having said that, Denard has to much speed and elusiveness to be on the bench. Some bloggers believed that Terrell Pryor should be playing wide receiver, I believe Denard's speed warrants him as a wide out when not playing QB. Tate is a great player with many of years and games ahead, I fear what happened to Sam could happen to Tate. In my opinion, if Tate is playing hurt, asking a freshmen to carry this team while hurt, is asking to much. I would start Sheridan.

Comments

strafe

October 26th, 2009 at 12:27 AM ^

Yes. Unless Tate shows up and is unbelievably dominant in practice, I would like to see Sheridan play. I always liked him.

I would worry about the reaction from "fans", though.

BigBlue02

October 26th, 2009 at 1:15 AM ^

He has sucked repeatedly in games. Just because he is a walk-on doesn't mean he should get any different treatment than the rest of the team. We have no problem calling Cissoko garbage because he has played horribly since he came to Ann Arbor. Sheridan is no different. He is garbage on the field. He shouldn't be starting.

KinesiologyNerd

October 26th, 2009 at 12:40 AM ^

This is pure speculation on my part but... Maybe an injured Tate is better than Sheridan? There is probably a reason we haven't seen him in a tight/tough game.

On a side note, I do think Tate dinged up his shoulder again yesterday. I forget when it was (but I wasn't in a blind rage at that point so it had to be early on) but there was one play where he came down hard on his right shoulder and looked like he was favoring it/shook up when he got up.

mjv

October 26th, 2009 at 12:49 AM ^

the post pass Tate whistled into Matthews didn't look like the work of a guy with a busted shoulder.

The problem is that Tate is a freshman and is playing as such. Adding to the issues is that teams now have footage on Tate and know how to defend him... Don't let him buy time outside of the pocket, either force him inside or send LBs who can run him down. And putting sheridan in is not a solution to the quarterbacking dilemma.

BlueGoM

October 26th, 2009 at 6:01 AM ^

Yes, this. He's not surprising anyone anymore, teams are aware of how to defend against him. Even MSU had LB's spying him a few times to keep him from scrambling. They're forcing him to read defenses instead of letting him turn every play into a broken play / sandlot football.

megalomanick

October 26th, 2009 at 1:16 AM ^

First of all, I don't think he should be starting. That being said, when Michigan's offense degrades in to throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks (See second half of Iowa, PSU, MSU) I think we should give him a shot. After seeing the way Tate has played the last three (real) games, it's obvious that something's not right there. Put in Denard, great, I think he needs to see more snaps, but why not give Sheridan a drive to see if the unthinkable happens and he can actually move the offense? If we're putting in a guy like Denard who is prone to turn the ball over 1 out of every 4 snaps, why not throw in the noodle-armed fella with two years in the system and see if he can make some good decisions?

Arizona Blue

October 26th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^

We tried inserting Sheridan for a drive against Western Michigan. He shocked the western world by throwing 0 complete passes and throwing an interception in the red zone. With those numbers in mind I think we should start him against TOSU. Nick Sheridan should NEVER touch the field as long as Tate is alive.

Beavis

October 26th, 2009 at 1:18 AM ^

We have a better chance with a hurt Tate, or Denard, than we do with Sheridan. Period.

If you saw the games last year (OK, other than Minny) and the one game in which they all played this year (Western), you would agree. But apparently your brain has a major malfunction with it's long term memory.

MaizeNBlue

October 26th, 2009 at 1:33 AM ^

No. But if we look clearly better than Illinois (and we SHOULD, given how hopeless they've looked without showing signs of life), Tate will see limited playing time, which is GOOD. Denard will then see most the snaps as RRod tries to build him into a QB.

Against an ailing Illinois team, Denard could finally have his game; however, chances are, if my prediction comes true, Denard will end up with a decent to good game with two or three TDs and a turnover or two.

KBLOW

October 26th, 2009 at 1:33 AM ^

An injured Tate is probably still better than Sheridan and certainly no worse. Yet we have a 2nd string QB, and his name is Denard Robinson and not Nick Sheridan. If Forcier is too injured, then Robinson should get all the reps in practice and the start. Our QB development is not just about winning this year, it's about building a championship level team for future years. Nick Sheridan, in spite of how hard he works, how nice he is and how dedicated to the team will not be the QB that ever leads Michigan to a championship.

PurpleStuff

October 26th, 2009 at 2:07 AM ^

You made me laugh out loud when I read the topic title and then I got to explain why it was so funny to my non football fan girlfriend (she still doesn't get it, but she believes I am correct in saying it is funny). Thank you (and I sincerely hope you are joking, for your own sake).

Also, if Sheridan ever takes another meaningful snap at UM, I will cut my balls off with tin-snips. The bidding for my detached nuts starts at $8.95

EDIT: I sincerely think Nick is a wonderful guy who was put in a thankless position last year. In no way did I intend to rip on him personally. Go Blue! (and no, he still shouldn't start in a million years).

colin

October 26th, 2009 at 3:44 AM ^

Our Bloggy Overlord has already authored a conclusive poston this point. Particularly relevant are the following:

http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/froshqbsugh_thumb.jpg

http://www.cfbstats.com/2009/player/418/1024807/passing/gamelog.html

and the aforementioned post:

http://www.cfbstats.com/2009/player/418/1024807/passing/gamelog.html

key quote, referring to the frosh qb jpg:

"If you scanned that like I did your first reaction was "holy hell, Threet & Sheridan's YPA was well worse than everyone on this list except Jimmah." And yes, it's true. Taken as an aggregate, this random sampling of who-dats and future stars comes out to 6.7, a little worse than Dreisbach-Griese and vastly better than Threetsheridammit.

The upshot: freshman quarterbacks suck, but on average they suck far less than Michigan's two-headed monster of yesteryear. An average-for-a-freshman performance from Forcier will be a huge step forward for the offense. "

Sheridan is a walk on and has played like it. His INT adjusted career yards per attempt is a full 2 yards worse than Forcier's over about the same number of attempts. FWIW, Forcier2009 and Henne2005 have been basically the same so far in those terms.

Tate Might Be Not Healthy?

If you're saying Tate playing is not in his best interest and the doctors cleared him anyway, then you've leveled a fairly significant charge against the M medical team. Presumably they've dealt with such issues before and are making judgments in his interest and will continue to do so if they clear him to play. Is there any evidence from players or parents past and present that they aren't cared for? I don't believe so (David Molk's case remains to be seen). So Tate should play as long as he's cleared to play.

Maybe make a post about a hypothetical Denard vs. Sheridan? situation?

bigge1014

October 26th, 2009 at 3:54 AM ^

No to Sheridan at QB, we all saw how that experiment went. Denard should be a slot receiver and probably will if we sign Gardner for next year. Let Tate take all the reps because they will sprinkle in Gardner next year just like they're using Denard this year. Tate needs all the looks and experience he can get to become more comfortable in the offense; this will lead to expansion in the playbook and more offensive creativity.

BILG

October 26th, 2009 at 7:02 AM ^

Sheridan? Let the freshmen learn the game...the hard way. This is still rebuilding mode. Just run the ball 80% of the time with the qbs reading the defense and getting more carries in the read option system.

Blue Balls

October 26th, 2009 at 7:48 AM ^

Tate's hurt and Coach Rod is still asking him to start. As a freshmen, I think that is asking to much of this player. The pressure to win at Michigan is obvious, just read these blogs. To put this kind of pressure on Tate might hurt his confidence not to mention his future ability to play QB. I would agree that a 70% Tate is better than Nick, that's not the point I'm trying to make. I want to see this team win as much if not more than most bloggers but not at the expense of f--king this kid up(physically or mentally)and as a freshmen give me a break.

mjv

October 26th, 2009 at 10:59 AM ^

Tate was hurt earlier in the season, but is now healthy enough to play. And at this point in the season it is highly unlikely that any starter or major contributor is 100%. If there is any lingering concern about his shoulder or concussion, please provide a recent link, as I have not read it recently.

Also, a player who on repeated occasions has said that he "never gets nervous" does not lack for confidence. I would opine that he is better served taking live snaps and risking his confidence in order to gain experience.

ijohnb

October 26th, 2009 at 8:08 AM ^

In two circumstances he should definately be playing, a)If Tate is hurt to the extent that he needs some recovery time of several weeks and is going down the McGuffie road and it is Sheridan v. Denard, I would seriously start Sheridan, and I did watch Sheridan games last year, especially the one where he orchastrated the most complete game of the year at Minnesota. Denard has not been given enough consistent play at QB to start, simply put. And b)the other circumstance is if the game is in the bag either way. If Illinois has got the game in the bag, I believe it is because M has had a multi-layer catastrophic failure, in which Sheridan should see the field due to experience alone and the fact the has taken major lumps before. If we do in fact have something in Tate, we don't want to leave him in banged up going down with a sinking ship, doesn't serve any purpose. As for D-Rob, incredible speed, hasn't shown a lick of football IQ - Sheridan is a realistic possibility, time we all face it.

ijohnb

October 26th, 2009 at 8:33 AM ^

that looks like he needs about six months of intense therapy to repair any form of confidence in Tate, or a guy that throws an interception serious 1/2 of the time he throws the ball and fumbles 1/2 of the time he keeps it in Denard. I'm not saying this is the best case scenario, I'm just saying it may HAVE TO happen. Michigan needs to take their foot off the accelerator for a minute. Their offense and defense are moving at two different speeds and it results in a lop-sided, manic type energy level at different times throughout the game. RR NEEDS 7-5, what he can't have is a collapse. Listen, Sheridan is what he is, but he WAS at least competent is a very watered down version of this offense. What this team needs more than anything is a level head, in my opinion, Sheridan showed that for periods last year. I'm telling you, a serious collapse in not out of the question, this team needs some gel. Looking at Saturday, I am just having trouble figuring out where else to look.

jmblue

October 26th, 2009 at 10:59 AM ^

Listen, Sheridan is what he is, but he WAS at least competent is a very watered down version of this offense.

When? Minnesota last year? Maybe (although he was helped by Minn defenders dropping a bunch of passes), but he followed that up with two of the worst QB performances in school history against Northwestern and OSU.

How anyone can believe Sheridan gives us a better chance to win that Tate is beyond me. Check the UFR of the two aforementioned games (and PSU last year for good reason) if you don't believe that.

ijohnb

October 26th, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^

not that Sheridan should be starting over Tate, or that he even gives us a better chance to win, but that Sheridan should see the field in two circumstances, 1)Tate is injured, maybe not one serious injury but a composite of several minor injuries that are seriously affecting his performance or well-being, or that 2) the game in Illinois is in the bag either way. I am not saying that a game last year against Minnesota means that Sheridan is a great option, but I am saying that he has put an entire game together in the past and lead to an impressive, convincing big-ten victory in hostile grounds. There is no other quarterback on the roster that can make such a claim. There is the possibility that M comes out with a vengeance on Saturday with Tate and this entire debate will look silly, however, there is a scary but true possibility that Illinois may beat us, and really beat us (like they did last year in Ann Arbor, with essentially the same team). I don't think it is too early to start thinking about a serious contingency plan, one that involves clock management, time of possession, the basics that M seems to be completely ignoring. I'm just saying that Sheridan may be best equipped to maintain the bleeding at its current level instead of opening a gash wide open. Thats all.

jmblue

October 26th, 2009 at 6:26 PM ^

I have a hard time understanding how you can put so much weight on a single performance by Sheridan when it was preceded and succeeded by many absolutely horrendous performances. That Minnesota game was the one and only time in his career he hasn't been a gigantic liability. I think that says more about Minnesota's defense that day than Sheridan's potential.

Kilgore Trout

October 26th, 2009 at 8:27 AM ^

I wouldn't start him because I think this still needs to be Tate's team, but I am not opposed to him getting some playing time. After UM's last possession of the third quarter fizzled out, I was behind putting in Sheridan for the next series. It was obvious Tate didn't have it for whatever reason and Denard is just too much of a walking turnover at this point to give considerable playing time too. Of course Penn State then possessed the ball for the next 10+ minutes and it didn't matter after that. But seriously, we aren't throwing down field at all now, so I think it's worth a shot in the circumstance that Tate just can't go and we need more than a mix it up series, because I don't think Denard can function as a full time qb now.

mgofootball4

October 26th, 2009 at 8:55 AM ^

I don't like losing or watching incompetent football - which was 2008. Not that things have been great this October, but at least we know Tate has the potential to be a much much much much better QB than Sheridan...

umchicago

October 26th, 2009 at 9:55 AM ^

you say that tate shouldn't start because he can't throw the ball downfield because he may still be hurt. did you watch any game last year? sheridan can't throw the ball down field period!

get a clue, man.

MWW6T7

October 26th, 2009 at 10:08 AM ^

Didn't Sheridan basically play Del St to a tie in the time he was given in that game? He is a great guy but not a starting option in my opinion.