I thought ex-Wolverine Steve Threet did the best job he could do last year, considering he was asked to morph into a spread-option quarterback as a first-year starter under a new system. I liked his attitude, and I am thankful for his service to the team.
But I do not understand why he sees it fit to comment on a quarterback competition he voluntarily left behind. I am all for free expression, but when you are not on a football team anymore and not a part of its future, why would you talk to the local paper about it? It is not that I think he is completely off-base to suggest Sheridan should start. They are good friends, and Sheridan certainly has some game experience. But why do it? And why suggest that Tate or Denard cannot execute the offense? Threet told the DFP that:
"I feel like Tate has a good opportunity coming in early with the extra reps in the spring and that should be beneficial," he said. "But Nick does a good job of executing the offense the way they want it to be run. People may point out the physical things Tate or Denard may have at a physical advantage, but a lot of time at quarterback in this system comes down to decision-making."
Was he at the Spring Game? Did he see Tate go 11 for 13 and score four touchdowns? Do you think it was a “physical thing” when Tate threw a laser to Roundtree falling in the endzone or a bomb to him for a touchdown?
I mean, seriously. Raise your hand if you think Sheridan could have made those same two throws. Don’t get me wrong. I hope that Nick has a fantastic Summer and Fall. I hope that Denard comes in and tears it up. And I hope Tate continues to progress. I want there to be a fantastic competition for the quarterback position this Fall, and if Sheridan proves himself to be the best of the bunch, so be it.
I understand Threet's decision to support a friend, but I think it is time for him to focus on Arizona State and exit the discussion of Michigan’s future. After all, he chose not to be a part of it.
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!