Is there another Weisman sitting down right now?

SpiderRico

SpiderRico

Well-Known Member
There have been posts ad-nauseum over the past 14 years concerning fan opinion of whether KF tends to err on the side of experience more than talent, so I don't want this to devolve into a pi$$ing match about whether or not he does this.

What I do want to know is whether we have more Mark Weisman's sitting on the pine right now. I think it's pretty obvious that if Bullock doesn't get hurt that there's no way Weisman sniffs playing time as a tailback.

Given that, can it not be inferred that there may be other players who, if just given the chance, could have a Weisman-type breakout? Could Melvin Spears provide speed off the edge and provide some much needed sacks or qb hurries? Could Alston provide more run stuffing ability and more ability to not get dominated at the point of attack? Could Nico Law provide some much needed aggressiveness on defense? Could Ruddock provide some ability to look off the primary if he's covered or provide the ability to know when to throw a rocket and when to throw a touch pass? Could Tevaun Smith or Maurice Flemming provide some much needed speed and play-making ability on the outside?

Maybe they could and maybe they couldn't. However, given the fact that our resume absolutely stinks right now, I'm not sure we could do much worse. Doesn't matter to me if we lose by 3 or by 30, it's still a loss. And if we're going to lose, I'd rather lose giving the "new guard" some game experience than trying to ride, for example, a 5th year senior qb all the way to a 4-8 record with no snaps to the backup.

Odds say that if there's one Weisman out there, then there's probably more.
 
SpiderRico said:
There have been posts ad-nauseum over the past 14 years concerning fan opinion of whether KF tends to err on the side of experience more than talent, so I don't want this to devolve into a pi$$ing match about whether or not he does this.

What I do want to know is whether we have more Mark Weisman's sitting on the pine right now. I think it's pretty obvious that if Bullock doesn't get hurt that there's no way Weisman sniffs playing time as a tailback.

Given that, can it not be inferred that there may be other players who, if just given the chance, could have a Weisman-type breakout? Could Melvin Spears provide speed off the edge and provide some much needed sacks or qb hurries? Could Alston provide more run stuffing ability and more ability to not get dominated at the point of attack? Could Nico Law provide some much needed aggressiveness on defense? Could Ruddock provide some ability to look off the primary if he's covered or provide the ability to know when to throw a rocket and when to throw a touch pass? Could Tevaun Smith or Maurice Flemming provide some much needed speed and play-making ability on the outside?

Maybe they could and maybe they couldn't. However, given the fact that our resume absolutely stinks right now, I'm not sure we could do much worse. Doesn't matter to me if we lose by 3 or by 30, it's still a loss. And if we're going to lose, I'd rather lose giving the "new guard" some game experience than trying to ride, for example, a 5th year senior qb all the way to a 4-8 record with no snaps to the backup.

Odds say that if there's one Weisman out there, then there's probably more.
Click to expand...


Not a new guard, but I watched Wienke from a distance in high school. I really don't understand why he isn't given a real shot. His punting is a sign that he's a gamer. Guarantee he'll look off receivers and understand defensive adjustments. Michigan had better success with qb's over the years and he was good enough for them.
 
They needed Weisman at FB to start the year, due to Rogers not being 100% in camp. As Rogers got better and given the RB depth or lack thereof, plus with Malloy getting sick two weeks ago today, they decided to give Mark a try at tailback in practice. That turned out to be a pretty wise move in that Bullock and Garmon got hurt four days later.

I'd say that was a pretty good move, don't you?

Plus, you probably don't go looking for people to carry the ball at this level who have had very little experience doing that since at least 2009, don't you think?
 
None of us has access to practice. None. If you feel the players who are not practicing the best each week are not playing, you are fooling yourself.
 
Weisman earned his way. KF, in presser, said they started experimenting with him at RB a few weeks ago.

BTW, Bullock was averaging 6 ypc when he got hurt, hardly any justification to pull him.

KF also said Weisman will probably stay at RB.

As to other positions, I'm sure there is SOMEone who "deserves" mor PT based on talent. But is work ethic, practice performance, etc., showing up? If not...

I think you stay with JVB until we start B1G 0-2. As a 5th-year senior--and he isn't the only one--you do the best possible to make a bowl game. Once it becomes obvious we WON'T make a bowl game, THEN you start pulling the "experienced" players who aren't cutting it.

EDIT: At this point, I hardly think pulling JVB is the answer, anyway. Or a Keenan Davis (another senior). Still, if/when that day comes, there are other considerations. "Pulling" guys can work against you with recruits, I would guess, just as much as it would work for you. Certainly, pulling Jake C for Stanzi was a "good" move, but in 2007, neither Stanzi nor Nelson showed anything that would have given reason to pull Jake, and the OL was not performing well enough to put it all on Jake.

For everyone that says Nico Law should be starting over Donatell, I simply ask: where is the evidence? Hyde and Lowery have made more mistakes than our safeties this year, but even those are, several times, attributable to our CBs getting "lulled" into run support.

Face facts: we are inexperienced ands have some holes. Massive changes in the 2-deeps aren't the issue...yet.
 
Last edited:
JonDMiller said:
They needed Weisman at FB to start the year, due to Rogers not being 100% in camp. As Rogers got better and given the RB depth or lack thereof, plus with Malloy getting sick two weeks ago today, they decided to give Mark a try at tailback in practice. That turned out to be a pretty wise move in that Bullock and Garmon got hurt four days later.

I'd say that was a pretty good move, don't you?

Plus, you probably don't go looking for people to carry the ball at this level who have had very little experience doing that since at least 2009, don't you think?
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of the post, but no matter, I'll bite. At this point, the "experience" you talk about hasn't gotten us jack squat. An "experienced" qb with one touchdown pass and an abysmal qb rating. "Experienced" wide receivers that can't get separation against MAC or FCS opponents. An "experienced" middle linebacker who still loses the football and still gets dominated at the point of attack more often than not. "Experienced" defensive linemen (in age anyway) who show no ability, save for Gaglione, of getting to the QB or occupying blockers.

I'd say the experience argument you had in your last sentence is pretty moot at this point.
 
SpiderRico said:
I think you missed the point of the post, but no matter, I'll bite. At this point, the "experience" you talk about hasn't gotten us jack squat. An "experienced" qb with one touchdown pass and an abysmal qb rating. "Experienced" wide receivers that can't get separation against MAC or FCS opponents. An "experienced" middle linebacker who still loses the football and still gets dominated at the point of attack more often than not. "Experienced" defensive linemen (in age anyway) who show no ability, save for Gaglione, of getting to the QB or occupying blockers.

I'd say the experience argument you had in your last sentence is pretty moot at this point.
Click to expand...

If you had any real factual data as to how the backups were performing in practice week to week, you could make a debate. But since you don't, it's awfully tough to wish it all true.
 
Quite frankly, I feel the annual 'Play the backup!' argument we see every year is one of the dumbest things on the message boards. None of us has access to how these guys perform on the practice field.

I guarantee you if someone is clearly outplaying the starter day in and day out on the practice field, he's gonna play.
 
JonDMiller said:
Kirk said he is glad JVB is their QB and is glad he will be for the next eight games
Click to expand...

Good God, if they lose the next 4 and JVB matches his TD total from the first 4 games over that stretch and there is no sign of JVB getting yanked, I'm gonna start a fire Ferentz petition on Change.org. I'm serious, I totally will.
 
JonDMiller said:
None of us has access to practice. None. If you feel the players who are not practicing the best each week are not playing, you are fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

I have had lots of salesmen that worked for me in the past that did an awesome job in making practice sales presentations. Then some of them would do it for real in front of a client and absolutely suck at it. They weren't "gamers"....when the "lights" came on, they froze, stumbled, etc. Sometimes you have to say, we can't deal in potential anymore, but in reality. KF puts a lot of emphasis on Sunday-Friday, as well he should, but sometimes at the detriment of what he's actually seeing on Saturdays when it counts.
 
JonDMiller said:
Quite frankly, I feel the annual 'Play the backup!' argument we see every year is one of the dumbest things on the message boards. None of us has access to how these guys perform on the practice field.

I guarantee you if someone is clearly outplaying the starter day in and day out on the practice field, he's gonna play.
Click to expand...

Tell Stanzi and Brad Banks that..

Jon, your saying none of us have access do you know for certain?
 
SpiderRico said:
I have had lots of salesmen that worked for me in the past that did an awesome job in making practice sales presentations. Then some of them would do it for real in front of a client and absolutely suck at it. They weren't "gamers"....when the "lights" came on, they froze, stumbled, etc. Sometimes you have to say, we can't deal in potential anymore, but in reality. KF puts a lot of emphasis on Sunday-Friday, as well he should, but sometimes at the detriment of what he's actually seeing on Saturdays when it counts.
Click to expand...

I can tell you this for certain; few players who don't practice well ever get the chance to play in a game...unless injuries force the coaches hand.
 
JonDMiller said:
If you had any real factual data as to how the backups were performing in practice week to week, you could make a debate. But since you don't, it's awfully tough to wish it all true.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, I have real, hard data on what the current starters are doing in the time it actually matters....the game.....and that data is absolutely attrocious. So I'll take my chance at the "unknown" because the "known" right now simply blows.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
Really. Tell Stanzi that and Brad Banks..
Click to expand...

Stanzi wasn't ready in 2007 and Brad Banks was not close to being ready in 2001. Not close. I've talked to more than a dozen players who were on that 2001 team and they have all told me the same thing. When Banks played in 2001, he had about a 10 play package.
 
SpiderRico said:
Yeah, well, I have real, hard data on what the current starters are doing in the time it actually matters....the game.....and that data is absolutely attrocious. So I'll take my chance at the "unknown" because the "known" right now simply blows.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because that's how it works at the high major FBS level. This isn't a sales call.
 
SpiderRico said:
I think you missed the point of the post, but no matter, I'll bite. At this point, the "experience" you talk about hasn't gotten us jack squat. An "experienced" qb with one touchdown pass and an abysmal qb rating. "Experienced" wide receivers that can't get separation against MAC or FCS opponents. An "experienced" middle linebacker who still loses the football and still gets dominated at the point of attack more often than not. "Experienced" defensive linemen (in age anyway) who show no ability, save for Gaglione, of getting to the QB or occupying blockers.

I'd say the experience argument you had in your last sentence is pretty moot at this point.
Click to expand...

All cred gone with Gaglione argument. That last penalty killed us, and the QB was able to run to FG range past Gaglione's spot. I like Gaglione, but he is as "green", at times, as any of the DL.

What game were you watching? The WRs got plenty of separation.
 
JonDMiller said:
Yeah, because that's how it works at the high major FBS level. This isn't a sales call.
Click to expand...

When you're 2-2 with a loss to one of the 10 worst teams in the country, it MIGHT be time to mix it up a little....just a thought. But hey, let's ride this all the way to 4-8...no problem. In the meantime, that light at the end of the tunnel is really an oncoming train.
 
JonDMiller said:
Kirk said he is glad JVB is their QB and is glad he will be for the next eight games
Click to expand...

Of course he'll say that, he needs to say that. But, if things go south (further south?) over the next 3 games, then Rudock needs to play some, not all the time, but some parts of each game. Wouldn't Ferentz feel the same way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top