Why burn Devin's redshirt?
September 25th, 2010 at 11:18 PM ^
Because he was good enough to play, and we need it. It happened, embrace it, and for the love of god it happened almost a month ago and we've already discussed it ad nauseum.
September 26th, 2010 at 1:14 AM ^
NO YELLING ON THE BUS.
But seriously, I agree.
September 26th, 2010 at 2:37 AM ^
Stop spreading this nonsense. Only in fairy land did Devin "need" to play. I wonder how you will feel in 2 years when Devin is pissed off because he is still not starting or we have a full blown QB controversy.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^
September 26th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
We didn't need it.
Once again, statistics say that Forcier was the better quarterback on Saturday. Forcier had better passing AND rushing stats than Gardner.
Forcier should have been the #2 in the UConn game and in every game since.
September 26th, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
All of those hours of practice (which obviously you attended) didn't mean anything? Or are you saying that you know more than all of UM's coaching staff combined? My question to you is, why aren't you one of these high paid college coaches, I am pretty sure it pays more than high school coaching.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^
...because everybody who ever criticizes any coach ever...
...has attended all the practices.
Next time you criticize Barack Obama's politics or Jim Leyland's managing, I hope you think back to this comment.
September 26th, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^
Your opinion is not fact, as much as you think it is.
In fact, you admit to not seeing the QBs play other than on Saturday. I find it extremely arrogant on your part to say what should or shouldn't have been done. Arrogance bordering on delusion, if I may say so. See that? I can draw asinine opinions based on minimal data just like you did.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:25 PM ^
Even if somebody else is better in practice, Forcier was better in the game. Statistics back me up.
Those are all the facts I need to make my argument. Whether you choose to agree or not is up to you, but disagreeing doesn't make you right.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^
Let me get this straight. If Gardner has outperformed Forcier in practice, since August, Forcier should be number 2 because he outperformed Gardner in the game that hadn't been played yet?
September 26th, 2010 at 10:41 PM ^
Forcier started 12 games last year and did pretty well.
To most observers, Forcier looked better in practices, too.
Now he performed better in his only action this year.
Forcier is better RIGHT NOW than Gardner is.
It's really not a complicated concept.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^
I missed that part where we can just make things up.
Most observers thought Devin outperformed Tate in practice and in the game yesterday.
Gardner threw for a touchdown and ran in a touchdown. Forcier only threw for a touchdown. Gardner personally accounted for more points. Isn't that the goal of offensive football, to score points?
I honestly think you should be a head coach somewhere. Georgia may be opening up.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:09 PM ^
I missed that part where we can just make things up.
Most observers thought Devin outperformed Tate in practice and in the game yesterday.
I'm glad to see that you're admitting you made that part up.
Yeah, the goal of football is to score more points. We all know that touchdowns are a function of field position and playcalling, though. At least I hope we know that.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^
I'm not afraid to say when I make things up. I know you won't do that. Well, that's what most observers say anyway.
If Molk doesn't get penalized, Gardner throws for more yards and more TDs than Forcier.
Your opinion, which you try to pass off as fact, is on very, very shaky ground. I think if one acts arrogant enough, you may be able to convince some. You should try it. Oh wait...
September 26th, 2010 at 11:56 PM ^
My "opinion" that Forcier had better stats than Gardner?
No...those are facts. Which I've tried to explain over and over again. This will be my last attempt to explain to you that 12/12 is better than 7/10, that 7.5 yards per carry is better than 4.2 yards per carry, etc.
September 27th, 2010 at 12:51 AM ^
Forcier should have been the #2 in the UConn game and in every game since.
You are going to base your above statement on 12 passes and 6 runs by Forcier and throw out all of the practice time? Oh wait, you can discount practice because of the "most observers" comment.
Forcier 30 yards rushing , Gardner 25 and a touchdown. Again, the goal of football, particularly on the offensive side, is to score points.Now, coach, I would trade 5 yards for a touchdown, wouldn't you?
September 26th, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
To be fair, all the coaches had to go off of this season for thsoe two was practice time. Now, that said, they should have known that Tate would be better in the game than in practice. We've heard reports about that since before he even came to Michigan.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:44 PM ^
Or they could have realized that Forcier started 12 games last year and Devin Gardner was playing in front of crowds of a thousand or a few thousand people.
Also, by the end of the summer, practice reports indicated that Forcier was nearing Denard in offensive efficiency.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:06 PM ^
I'm not quite sure why you're reacting the way you are toward me (and others) lately. I was supporting your point. Under a lot of stress lately or something?
September 26th, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^
Nothing in my post is reacting negatively. My responses to you have been fully based in factual statements and my opinions, but I haven't insulted you or anything.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^
I didn't say that you were reacting negatively or had insulted me. You're just not yourself in your responses lately; at least insofar as I've noticed. You just seem awfully short and impatient, whereas you used to be much more patient and explanatory in your posts.. It's not something I would normally notice or even comment on, but it's something that's a little more apparent when you do it to someone who was agreeing with you (and don't have prior bad history with). Maybe I'm just reading your posts wrong lately. Just an observation/opinion.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
Maybe that's true. Maybe it's partly because once the season starts, a bunch more people come here who don't know what they're talking about.
Like I said, I didn't mean for any of my comments toward you to be offensive. You're usually a very thoughtful and informative poster.
September 27th, 2010 at 12:21 AM ^
Don't worry, no offense taken. I understand what you're saying completely.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:16 PM ^
Here's the question that's on my mind: Why didn't you post this in one of the many existing threads about Gardner and the other QBs?
September 25th, 2010 at 11:17 PM ^
He is gaining needed in-game experience. And the team needs him on the field.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
Except, with Denard and Tate ahead of him, they could have red shirted him this year and given him game experience next year. That way, he'd have game experience and two years of eligability after Denard graduates. I'd rather have him as a two year starter with two years of back up duty than have him as a one year starter with three years of backup duty.
So far, they *haven't* needed him on the field because Tate looks fine. Of course, if they really needed him because both Denard and Tate weren't playing well and/or injured, they could have burned his redshirt then.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:17 PM ^
Game experience....and i truly think RR wants to use all of his cards in his hand this year to do as well as he can this year (hotseat and all) and if having gardner helps us win even 1 game then it will be worth it. There must be other reasons though too.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:18 PM ^
The most significant part of your thread:
(which has been discussed on this blog at various points)
September 25th, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^
You don't have to use the redshrit year during a players freshmen year. It's possible that this year the team is in a situation where they need to have all three QBs ready to go.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
Thank you. I feel like no one realizes this. While I don't know if I see RR redshirting him in another year, there are 3 more years in which DG can be redshirted. Maybe when things are a bit less tenuous on the job front.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
September 26th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
That may very well be, but they could have held him back unless and until then and not burned his redshirt unless he was actually needed.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
You seem logical.
I wish there were more people like you around.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^
His redshirt was gone as soon as he played his first down in a game. The only way to save it at this point would have been an injury (real or imagined) followed by a request for a medical redshirt.
There is a possibility of having one of our two backups redshirting next year.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:21 PM ^
What happened? When did we travel back in time? Is it Sept. 4th? Nooooooooooooo....
September 25th, 2010 at 11:22 PM ^
Didn't you see his touchdown pass to Grady?
The kid is extremely talented and would probably start for college football teams elsewhere. We need him at Michigan and playing football, not transferring. Besides, has it ever occured to you that he's done all that the coaches have asked of him to earn playing time.
Devin looks fantastic in that No. 7 jersey. Be happy for him.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:24 PM ^
I have no problem with him playing but I feel Tate is better. Gardner looks good but he doesn't seem like the uber Tate/Denard hybrid I was led to believe. Fact is, no one is like Denard. I think Gardner is more like Pryor and Young as already mentioned. Maybe mobile enough to make plays but not elusive enough to be the homerun threat with his legs
<br>
<br>I think with Gardner and Tate the offense is better suited to a pass first spread rather than this read option, but maybe that's just me
<br>
<br>Either way I'm glad Gardner is playing, I just think Tate's scrambling, experience, and shiftiness should have him
<br>At #2
September 26th, 2010 at 2:09 AM ^
I am perfectly OK with Devin playing like Vince Young. And if he lives up to that, you can be assured that he will be competing for the starting spot next season.
September 26th, 2010 at 8:33 AM ^
Although I am the supreme Denard guy, Denard couldnt run at full speed while thinking last year, and same goes for Gardner. You'll see a metamorphisis taking place in Gardner during the offseason, regarding his running ability. However, It still is All About Denard.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:35 PM ^
to Tate's attitude adjustment.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
...know that.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^
is to FIRE RICHROD
September 25th, 2010 at 11:52 PM ^
I gave you the plus one because you used ALL CAPS. It would have been better if you could have somehow incorporated UNACCEPTABLE in there somehow.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
September 25th, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^
To defend the poster, today's game reminded us all just how good a healthy Tate Forcier can be, so the topic has new information to it.
Now on a more pressing topic, why does SNL keep writing Bronx Beat sketches?!
September 25th, 2010 at 11:56 PM ^
I am pretty sure Tate is the second best QB on the team (who knows how he compares to Denard, it might be closer than we think). The reason Devin got those snaps was a combination of Devin being good, and Tate learning a lesson. If Tate hadn't gotten in the dog house, then I'd bet Tate and Denard would have split the snaps, and Devin would have taken the red shirt.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:26 AM ^
He still would have played. You can't get by with just two QBs. Look at today - both Denard and Tate got nicked up a bit. Once Sheridan decided not to return for his fifth year, I pretty much figured Gardner would see the field.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
I think Jack Kennedy could have done just fine at QB once Forcier got nicked up.
If you get two quarterbacks broken and you need to win games, THEN you take off the redshirt. So far that hasn't happened.
September 26th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^
Obviously, the coaches do not share your optimistic take on Kennedy. If Kennedy were any good, he'd have been given a scholarship. He hasn't.
Your suggestion is playing with fire. Yesterday offered a great chance for Gardner to get his feet wet against a weak defense. You're proposing that we forego that opportunity and potentially have to insert him down the road in a game when he has no experience whatsoever. If we had four QBs, he'd redshirt. We don't, so he plays.
September 26th, 2010 at 3:41 PM ^
Seriously, we won by 44 points. Do you really think Kennedy would have put Michigan at any risk of losing that game?
Actually, it doesn't matter what you think because the answer to that question is no.
When is the last time Michigan NEEDED three quarterbacks? Not in 2009. Not in 2008. Not when Henne was here.
Just because Sheridan, Cone, Feagin, and a few others have played over the past few years, it doesn't mean we NEEDED them. I don't care what team it is - if you get down to the point where you're playing your third string quarterback out of necessity, your team is almost surely headed for trouble, whether that 3rd guy has experience or not.