Michigan @ Minnesota, Saturday, 10/31, 7pm EDT, ESPN

[drok]

You definitely had to gameplan for Gardner. You definitely do not have to gameplan for Rudock. That's the difference between the two.

[hack]

Just like it annoyed the living shit out of us that MSU's defense suddenly did not display the weaknesses expected. Is how it is.

Agree with your take that with Gardner there was an element of unknown that was a problem for a defense. I agree he took away just as much as he gave, if not more, but there was also that potential for broken-play creativeness. And, Rudock makes him look good as far as deep balls are concerned.

[Hannibal]

Gardner had a great deep ball. That's part of how Jeremy Gallon had a Braylon Edwards-like senior year.

[froot loops]

MSU didn't display the weaknesses you thought because:

1. Those two freshman safeties didn't crap the bed like Nicholson had, a lot of those big plays they have given up were due to him.

2. The teams MSU played all had pretty competent offenses, they weren't great teams but they all can score.

[hack]

I think there was an expectation of moving the ball on the ground because your front four is better suited to pressuring the pocket rather than stuffing the run. I didn't see it that way. I expected there to be no easy scores and no breakdowns. (It's a league game, Smokey.)

[Rocky Bleier]

When I said U-M's offense was flawed and had to manufacture chunk plays, I was told that they had outscored there previous 3 opponents by a combined score of 180 - 0 or something... Glad to see so many on board...

[lineygoblue]

That's the difference between the two.

The difference between the two is Jake Rudock is the quarterback of a winning team at 5-2, which should be 6-1 if we get a better punt snap.

Gardner wouldn't have this team anywhere near 5 or 6 wins. Someone please make the argument that he would have done better than Rudock.

I can't believe what I'm reading. Michigan guys seemingly longing for a return to the days of Devin Gardner. Are you serious? I mean, I like the young man, .. and I consider him a Michigan Man in the truest sense of the phrase. But, as a quarterback, he was a miserable failure. I respect the young man's tenacity, and his willingness to play with a broken foot, and at least TRY to improve. But, he never improved. He regressed as each season went on. I'm not sure why he did so well against Ohio. Some things you just can't explain. Maybe they watched too many game films where he screwed things up, and figured he'd do the same against them. I don't know.

But there is absolutely NO WAY that this team is worse off with Jake Rudock at QB, than with Devin Gardner. I wish Gardner well. I hope he's happy and successful in life, and prospers to his fullest potential. But, Jake is the man now, and he's doing a journeyman's job at the QB spot. I don't think he's played his best game of the season yet. I think that game is yet to come.

And, its not a one-man game anyway. There's been a lot of improvement on a team-wide basis, which accounts for most of the success this year.

[drok]

I can't disagree with this more. If Gardner is starting, we're undefeated right now.

[Mike]

Yeah, I'd have loved a properly coached Gardner. Not sure I've ever seen a staff waste more talent than Hoke's did with Gardner.

[lineygoblue]

I can't disagree with this more. If Gardner is starting, we're undefeated right now.

WHAT?

Come on, Drok. Are you drinking Ohio whiskey right now? You better get back to Canadian Club immediately .... that Ohio rot-gut will kill you.

[lineygoblue]

You too, Mike?

yeeeeshhh....

I'll give you this about Gardner ...

IF.... IF ... IF ....

.. Gardner has been brought into Harbaugh's tutelage as a FRESHMAN, he MIGHT have developed into a somewhat better QB than he ended up being ....

but .. if Gardner had another year THIS year ... and its between him and Rudock? I'm sorry, I'm taking Rudock 100 times out of 100.

[hack]

Very good question. If Morris couldn't beat out a guy with significantly less ability, then why would Gardner, with four years of bad coaching instead of two, be able to turn it around? I don't know. I think I agree with drok. I think. Gardner had real talent and the deep ball. Frankly, given how little we ask of Rudock, you have to think Gardner could have handled that. Plus added a running-game dimension.

[drok]

Gardner definitely had Heisman level talent and was a smart kid. With the right coach over his career, he was a first round draft pick. Gardner probably had more talent than any UM QB ever other than maybe Henson and even then, it would be debatable.

Decision making and reading defenses...those were coachable things and where he was failed. He had enough flashes of brilliance (99% of 2013 ND, 2013 OSU) to show it was possible.

Morris has never shown anything near competence at QB since middle of high school. It's not comparable.

And even if Gardner did turn the ball over even 3x more than Rudock, he's worth an extra 2 td's per game between his playmaking ability and how his deep ball would open up the running game. And paired with this defense, his mistakes would be less problematic.

[hack]

Well, OK, but Morris was even more of a blank slate whereas Gardner's bad habits were pretty sunk in. You can't coach them out quick. That's what I mean. But I agree about the raw talent. And even Borges managed to scheme his interceptions down during conference play after getting burned aginst ND two years in a row. So this staff could have done that too.

I definitely agree about the level of talent.

[drok]

I'm not saying one year of Harbaugh does a QB make (examples: Rudock, Morris), but I think the difference Harbaugh could have made in one year with Gardner would have made Rudock irrelevant.