Unfounded and ridiculous rumor (Move along)

Submitted by goblue20111 on October 24th, 2011 at 12:39 AM

[ED:BISB: Can't unpublish or lock because of stupid Javascript.  In the meantime, it stays up because it is at least noteworthy that a 'professional' (#HALOL) journalist raised the issue, and because I don't want to out-and-out delete it. Sufficed to say that it is certainly false. Rob Parker is a professional Concern Troll.]

Hey guys, sorry if this has been discussed some place else. I searched and didn't find anything. I was watching Sports Final Edition on Channel 4 for those of us in SE Michigan. They started talking about State so I put my headphones on and went back to studying. I saw some Gardner highlight and I took my headphones off long enough just to hear Rob Parker talking about Gardner being the QB of the future and how big of a loss it would be if he were to leave. WTF is this about? I know Parker is full of BS sometimes (read: most of the time) but is there any substance to this? No other mention on the interwebz of this that I could find. Like I said, I just caught the end of the interview, so I apologize if I may have missed anything more substantive that he said. Not trying to stir any panic or anything.

Comments

hart20

October 24th, 2011 at 3:10 AM ^

"I took my headphones off long enough just to hear Rob Parker talking about Gardner being the QB of the future and how big of a loss it would be if he were to leave".

You heard part of a telecast. You started a post based on listening to half of a segment from a disreputable newscaster. So no, I'm not the dense one here. Thanks for throwing out the insult though.

BILG

October 24th, 2011 at 12:47 AM ^

He and Denard are very close.  Good chance he could start over Denard next year in a more traditional set with Denard being moved to a hybrid role.Given he is already seeing playing time and the coach said as much in terms of him being the more accurate passer, I don't know why he would transfer.

rbgoblue

October 24th, 2011 at 1:24 AM ^

Where do you get this stuff?  In Coach Hoke's press conference this week, he said (not quoting) that the idea of starting Devin over Denard hadn't come close to entering his mind, and that the two weren't even close in terms of playing QB at Michigan.

Furthermore, the chances that Denard moves to a "hybrid role" next season would leave us with two QBs on the depth chart, one being a RS Freshman.

I don't want Devin to transfer, as we need QB depth desparately right now.  That said, I don't understand why people are penciling him in to play more when in the few snaps we have seen, he has been terible (poor reads, missing open receivers, throwing passes 5 yds past the line of scrimmage, and crazy circular circuis runs on fourth down).  Everything considered, I think the chances of him trasnfering are probably greater than him beating out the defending B1G offensive player of the year at QB, and in both cases, I think the chances are very very small.

rbgoblue

October 24th, 2011 at 1:31 AM ^

Michigan has worked No. 2 quarterback Devin Gardner into the game plan in certain situations, but according to the Detroit Free Press, Borges said on a radio show last week that any idea of benching Robinson for Gardner was "flat ridiculous."


"I don't claim to be the smartest guy in the world," Borges said, "but I'm not taking 300 yards of total offense out of the game."

             Link

Blue since birth

October 24th, 2011 at 3:51 AM ^

"he has been terible (poor reads, missing open receivers, throwing passes 5 yds past the line of scrimmage, and crazy circular circuis runs on fourth down)."

BS

For starters you seem to be making two issues out of one with the "poor reads" and "missed receivers"... But yeah, he's had a few of those. Which is shocking considering the number of snaps he's had. /s

He was 1-1/2 yards past the line LOS on that pass. One stride. Not 5 yards or even 2.

It was a broken 4th and 22 where he busted his ass trying to make something out of nothing (would have been a hero had it been 4th and 10). 

As far as your quotes from the couches...

Meaningless really. As they assume that Denard would be benched in favor of Devin and almost no one has called for that.  As for the Brady Hoke "non-quote"... That's not even paraphrasing (more like embellishment or a heavy dose of "reading into") because he said nothing of the sort. He simply dismissed some fans calls for Devin to start over Denard at this time.

BTW- Moving Denard to another role wouldn't take him off of the team or leave us with "2 QBs next season... ". We'd have the same players regardless of what you call them. 

rbgoblue

October 24th, 2011 at 6:55 AM ^

The point that I was trying to make was that in limited action this season, Devin Gardner has not looked like he is ready (or even close to ready, for that matter) to supplant the starting QB of a 6-1 team.  He has looked bad in games, and I'm assuming that the coaches haven't seen enough in practice to put him over Denard either.

And yes, there is a difference between making a poor read (throwing into coverage instead of a wide open Stephen Hopkins) and missing receivers (inaccuracy throwing to the desired target).

And moving Denard to a different position obviously doesn't remove him from the roster, but if Devin goes down, what do you do?  Ask Denard to pick up from where he left off last year, or hand the ball over to the only other remaining option on your team at QB.

Everyone is overreacting WAY too much to our one loss this season.  As it stands now, we are a 6-1, soon to be 7-1 team, ranked in the top 25, with a damn good QB, and a backup with a lot of upside.  Let's not get too carried away here.

ijohnb

October 24th, 2011 at 8:11 AM ^

that the coaches have not indicated that a quarterbaclk switch was imminent, and I think that this was a reckless post by the OP, but I think it is inaccurate for a lot of the above posts to refer to Gardner's performance this year as bad in game, etc.  In limited action, Gardner has done nothing but make me want to see more of him.  It is not easy to be spotted into a game at any point and perform well immediately, and I think Gardner has looked imposing and very dangerous as a duel threat in his time this year.  Taking 300 yards "off the field" is different than deciding to implement something that can made both Denard and Gardner as effective as possible together.  I have not heard any rumors as of yet, but for a highly touted recruit with Gardner's physical tools, really, how long do you expect him to wait?

Blue since birth

October 24th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^

"And yes, there is a difference between making a poor read (throwing into coverage instead of a wide open Stephen Hopkins) and missing receivers (inaccuracy throwing to the desired target)."

"a poor read is a QB reading something wrong in the defense while a missed receiver is an inaccurate pass. They are definitely not the same thing."

 

*sigh*

I assumed he was equating the two because I've heard no one complaing about Devin's accuracy (especially relative to Denard).

My apologies then...

You didn't make two complaints out of one... You simply made one up.

Better?

Rasmus

October 24th, 2011 at 9:34 AM ^

Hoke and Borges pretty much said (when questioned about what we saw against MSU) that the offense they have been installing involves both players. I don't think they will give up on it after basically only one game with it firmly in place. Think of Denard as a captain, with Devin as a lieutenant. I don't think there is any confusion on the team about who is who.

From the point of view of teaching, which is really what college-level coaches do, Michigan's open week is well-placed this year -- this team is going to win most of its remaining games.

bacon

October 24th, 2011 at 12:50 AM ^

I'm not sure why he would transfer, seeing as he is playing in games with some regularity and will be the starting QB after next season. If he transferred, he'd have to redshirt/lose a year of eligibility, so he'd basically be transferring to play in a new place in 2013, the same time that he'd be starting here.

manchild56

October 24th, 2011 at 12:50 AM ^

i think that is why he is playing so much as it is... I mean that is the only reason I see to disrupt thr offense by putting in different packages all the time is more to please him and keep him happy versus good of the team. Now saying that I do think he is one of the best eleven on the team and should be out there and he is 1 injury from playing full time. So I call BS on this 100 percent.  HE IS PLAYING WHY LEAVE NOW?

Yeoman

October 24th, 2011 at 5:31 AM ^

Maybe the context (which the OP admits he hasn't the foggiest idea of) was exactly this: a discussion of why Gardner is seeing so much of the field? Of course they want to keep him happy while he waits his turn.

People piling on Parker here are making the same mistake as the OP--as far as I can tell nobody here has any idea what he was actually saying (and neither do I). But if he were really rumor-mongering a transfer there'd be a bit of an internet or media echo, which there isn't except for this post. I'm guessing the OP completely misunderstood.

Look Up_See Blue

October 24th, 2011 at 1:00 AM ^

Sounds like this reporter was just talking out of his...it doesn't appear there's any substance to this.  The media loves to hate Michigan.  And sometimes they'll do whatever they can to play mind games.  sparty is the darling right now and that's fine.  I wouldn't worry too much about what some slap on channel 4 is saying.

BRCE

October 24th, 2011 at 1:02 AM ^

I can tell by some of the responses that some of you don't know Rob Parker's history.

The guy is a proven flat-out liar, many times over. He said Kirk Cousins was arrested in a bar fight one time, something that was proven to have zero substance.

It's unfortunate there was even a post made about this. Ignore and move on. It's fucking Rob Parker.

M Fanfare

October 24th, 2011 at 1:06 AM ^

Is this the same Rob Parker who got suspended by the Detroit News for two weeks for falsely reporting that Kirk Cousins was involved in a fight with members of the MSU hockey team and who subsequently resigned from the Detroit News after asking Rod Marinelli if he wished that his daughter had married a better defensive coordinator? Not exactly a bastion of journalistic integrity.

Maizedout1982

October 24th, 2011 at 1:13 AM ^

Hell, if one of my Ohio State family members won the lotto, that "Would be devastating." If someone that i cared about died, "That would be devastating." You cannot bring up a would if situation and claim that it is true. Hell, if i knew the world is ending, "That would be devastating."

SanDiegoWolverine

October 24th, 2011 at 1:35 AM ^

The TV guy was saying how devastating it would be if Garner trasferred. That's like saying, "damn, this guy is really good. I hope he never transfers." This has got to be the stupidest fear mongering post I've seen in a long while. Please delete.

snoopblue

October 24th, 2011 at 3:30 AM ^

1) Rob Parker is just stirring up a pot to get some news going in a bye week. Now every local news outlet (Freep, Detnews, etc.) will report some bullshit story based on HIS information. (Trying to get some revenge on the detnews?) Someone will awkwardly ask Hoke about it, someone will ask Devin, etc. It might be his way to stay relevant locally while he's doing it big on ESPN.  He has a few restaurants in Detroit, so it's in his best interest to keep is name flowing here even though he has a national presence on 'First Take'.

2) Clearly, it worked. Michigan fans flip a shit when they here something like this. Everyone just needs to chill.

3) I know the kid loves Michigan, but I really don't like the way he has been used the past few weeks. I am sure he and his family aren't the happiest either, especially with Denard's struggles. I hope he gets some snaps with the first team O and get's complete drives in games instead of this one play in and out bullshit. It's just a tough situation and people are really hell bent on their opinions in regards to it. *His medical redshirt status isn't known yet, so you MUST consider him a sophomore.