has to be the fastest qb in the country so my question is if he picks up the offense quickly , no matter what tate does in the spring or summer will denard get the start against western michigan ?
i refuse to even consider this a possibility
i don't think anyone knows at this point
Denard will probably never START at QB, but it's highly likely he will get some snaps.
How in the hell do you know that?
They thought Pat White was going to be a receiver coming out of High School.
If he "picks up" the offense quicker than Forcier or anyone else then, yes, he will be the starter. However, the chances he does that are extremely small. By that I mean the chances a guy who completed fewer than 50% of his passes in high school suddenly starts completing them at, say, 60% in college is extremely small.
The real question is was he in our top 5?
He only ran a 4.4 forty, so I have no interest in this guy!!!
lol too bad that the only actually quantifiable percentage in question when it comes to quarterbacks is completion percentage otherwise you might have a point that isnt incredibly stupid lol
i think if denard gets 35% of the offense he should start over tate because he is ultra fast and he can just run around. that's all you really need to be a good qb anyway. even if tate gets 92% of the offense i think that he will be 42% less fast than denard who has 99% SEC speed
no way bro, what are you smoking? i think the percentage is clearly 47 for denard and 91 for tate.
arbitrary percentage generator:
"I was thinkin if he picks up 60 percent of the offense even if tate picks up 80 percent of the offense denard should get the start"
I don't think I would understand this even if I were sober...jus' sayin'
....indicate that Tate is committing (early enrollee true) freshman errors, but that he is improving every day and throws a good, crisp ball. He's not being allowed to run.
The team will probably be more comfortable and efficient starting against Western Michigan with a guy they've been practicing with for 9 months, and Tate, with his perpetual training for the job since he was a young guy, will probably be the starter this fall. I don't think Denard will play unless Tate falls on his face, and frankly, I don't think Tate will play as bad as either Sheridan or Threet did last year. Now, injuries may put Denard in the game. But I don't think performance will.
Freshmen errors eh? Well, he shouldnt be at michigan until June and he is there now. So he gets 6 extra months to learn. Rather have him make the mistakes in March or June?
He's not allowed to run because they don't want him getting hurt
...I didn't say there was anything wrong with freshmen errors when one is a freshman. They are expected and I'm sure being worked on.
And, uh, I know he's being protected. Not sure what the quibble is here.
A Michigan Man wouldn't make freshman errors. At least not 93.1 percent of the time. But, then, we are talking practice. This is the quarterback who will know 80 percent of the offense- and we're talkin' practice?
... and more interested in both of them developing. Quarterbacks get injured and we need a solid back up whether it is Tate or Denard.
OK so just to get the consensus of the room here is it safe to say that the one who does better and gives us a better chance to win will get the start. GEE guys keep up the brainstorming, I think we are only one step away from genius.
Einstein got nuthin on us huh?
OR.....maybe, *gasp* he wants someone who can both equally well!
Tate has a MASSIVE advantage over Denard. Like, 6+ months worth. If RR just wanted someone who could run fast, than Feagin would've been the starter last year. I highly, highly doubt that Denard is going to win the job outright from Tate.
RR wants a passer who can run, being that he is recruiting so many wide receivers. I don't think he wants Jackson, Miller, Williamson, Robinson, etc.. to spend 4 years at Michigan blocking all of the time.
Don't waste your breath, this concept is foreign to people.
EDIT: As noted by the first reply, the thought of someone that can run AND pass, and isn't a running passer nor a passing running just blows their mind.
are so small, (barring more injuries) that you can legitimately say "won't happen" IMO. As was pointed out, an under 50 completion % in High School does not equate to "instant freshman starter". There was a reason why many of Denard's big time offers were not to play QB.
I have no basis for conjecture because 1)I don't REALLY know how good these kids are and 2)I am by no means an insider.
For some reason, I think Robinson may be a little more raw and if he had the early start, he and Forcier might be in a horse race. With the head start, I think Robinson will have a hard time competing for the starting job in the fall.
I know it is an unpopular opinion here, but I think experience is huge, and I believe RR feels this way as well. This could easily result in (OMG NO) Sheridan having significant time at the start of the year despite the fact that he suffers from a talent deficit compared to the other two. Don't get me wrong--he'll play the guy who he believes gives him the best chance to win. However, early on he may feel this is Sheridan. I hope not--I hope the two freshman are head and shoulders above but WTFKs?
If Sheridan starts and gets the majority of snaps against WMU, and UM loses, the fanbase will crucify RR. So, for that reason, and I believe Tate to be a better qb, RR will start Tate from day 1.
I suggested a few weeks ago that Sheridan could potentially start next season, and I believe the first response to my post was calling me an idiot.
I do think Sheridan has a shot still, but the injury really hurt his chances.
I don't care who wins the starting job as long as 1) it's not Sheridan 2) One of them emerges as the starter and we're not waiting til Friday to know who's starting Saturday and 3) we see them both on the field at the same time for some of those QB lateral passes (isn't that what this HD offense is all about. Making opponents look like bad D III schools)
I think he meant to say the offense Penn St. ran last year. I do not know how it applies to us though.
It's the principle not actually the offense. PSU idea was just put your best athletes on the field not necessarily the best football players. what's the difference between what we want to run and what they run. All they do is run the spread.
Yes I agree that the principle is the same, but our offenses are different.
Can you explain how you win more games with better "athletes" but not with better "football players"?
You tell me how the offenses are different, because what PSU runs sounds alot like what we're trying to run. And yes we're recruiting more athletes. you can make a athlete a football player but athletes are born not bred.
I hope Tate starts. Tate is pretty athletic, but he can't play other positions like D Rob. He should get the QB job, and since Denard can play corner or saftey, thats where he should be put. They shouldn't waste any athletisism. But since Michigan doesn't have much depth at QB, if Tate were to get hurt, they would have to turn to Sheridan to replace him! EEEEK! So I'm not really sure. Hopefully since RR plans to recruit 3 or 4 more dual threat QBs in the next few years, they won't have to worry about injuries.
do you have any evidence for any of these assumptions or do you just say whatever comes to your mind
Kids say the darnedest things!
What evidence to you want me to get? These are all actual possiblities. Not like I'm just pulling them out of my ass!Theres the chance D Rob doesn't make the starting QB...he would either get switched to db, transfer, or accept a backup role. I highly doubt he would accept a backup role since he has NFL potential. Then there's the chance he does beat Forcier. Then Forcier would either transfer or accept a backup role. He would most likely transfer since he also has some NFL potential.
+1 He's transferring before playing DB.
There is a decent chance that one of the three (assuming Gardner comes to Michigan) doesn't stay for the duration
if it becomes obvious that someone has the keys for the next 4 years. Hopefully Robinson (or Forcier) is prepared to take another role if he's not that guy or accept the role of the backup.
It cannot be obvious for obvious reasons, see Nick Sheridan presently.
They are both going to play, RichRod virtually has no choice, who ever plays better in games and or stays healthy will start. We have no depth, Feagin played last year and the situation sans Tate & Robinson is worse this year.
I don't think anyone wants to see Sheridan starting, both freshman have to play, because both have to be ready.
I would actually like to see them both playing this year. But I just don't see it becoming a Chris Leak-Tim Tebow combination like that 06 Florida team for 4 years. In the future, one is going to have to become the full time starter...
man, not to be a giant dick, but sometimes it's so easy to pick out people who clearly didn't go to michigan.
Did you go to Michigan? If so congrats it's a great school, but that doesn't make you smarter than anyone else. Me personally got accepted and decided not to attend, wasn't the best school for where i wanted to go.
Nothing wrong with trade school. Plumbers make mad cash. If you don't think so, try calling one on the weekend, $130/hr.
I'm on your side I am a Firefighter/Paramedic. I have the upmost respect for plumbers, electricians ect. saying it's obvious the people who didn't go to Michigan sounds cocky. That's not what i'd expect from someone so prestige as a michigan alum.
Michigan alums vs. Macomb Community College alums vs. high school drop outs, I've got 50 on the Michigan alums being smarter.
I don't think he'd make that statement if he didn't attend!!
And OBVS, you didn't go to Michigan, because you made a grammatical error, and Michigan grads never (ever) make those mistakes!!
i wasn't talking about you, but the OP and RRerabegins2009 or whatever his name is and anyone else who writes huge run-on sentences.
kudos to you though, i couldn't tell you were a welder.
Who's a welder?
Is it the ones who don't capitalize properly?
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
I think Denard won't beat Tate. Tate is just too polished of a passer and is just about as fast as Denard. Denard is a great kid but I think his future is at CB.
Tate is not about as fast as Denard.
I never said Tate was. I'm just saying that people don't give Tate his props. He runs a 4.55 on Rivals and many people have him running faster. I try not to use Rivals on 40 times because they are pretty far off on a lot of guys. However, after looking at Tates highlights I can say that he def has more than enough speed. He is pretty elusive and I wouldn't be shocked if he runs a 4.4. Now Denard is prolly faster but not by much. Denard didn't look as elusive in his highlight tape or as good as a passer. But I honestly know that both run a 4.4 or a 4.5. So one really isn't much faster then the other.
Tate Forcier does not run a 4.4. You don't believe what Rivals lists...so you lower his speed by .15 seconds?
Denard Robinson just ran a 10.44 in the one hundred meters. I'm not saying Tate Forcier is slow, but Denard Robinson has blazing speed.
You didn't help your case with this post.
You certainly didn't help your case either. Okay, let's go by Rivals. Tate runs a 4.55 and Denard runs a 4.49. Now you really think Denard is so much faster? If Denard is really so fast then why did Tate make Denard's highlight runs look like shit? I could care less what Denard runs in the 100 meter. That has nothing to do with the 40 yard dash. NOTHING! Like I said, I'm sure Denard may be faster in shorts and on a track, but Tate has more football speed. Period. Look at the highlight films. Lastly, why would you go off of Rivals?
Get over it. Denard is a conerback with a decent arm. Denard will make an awesome conerback! But quaterback is taken by Tate unless he gets hurt.
Im no football expert but I think Tate is hella fast. Anyone disagree? And if anyone thinks that Tate is too small, I'm sorry to say but Denard is even smaller. Funny how everyone said McGuffie was too small. But nobody mentions that Vincent Smith is too small. Can't wait to see McGuffie own shit at Rice!!
I disagree. It's pretty obvious from his runs that he has little breakaway speed. He has good acceleration, but he's not a burner by any stretch of the imagination.
He got into the Endzone didn't he? Not a burner? Looks hella fast for a QB. Find some of Denard's runs. He doesn't look faster then Tate.
Your logic is flawless.
How so? Please explain. I'm just trying to have a educated debate.
You're a moran. :(
A few replies above, you stated that Tate was "about as fast" as Denard. The reply back to you was that, no, he is not. You then reply back saying that you never said he was.
Your logic= flawless
Okay, lets make this simple for you. ABOUT AS FAST means just that. Tate is ABOUT as fast as Denard. Does not mean he is FASTER. God you are the fucking moran. Your life= Pointless
"football speed" fit in? Sounds like something Brent Musburger would come up with.
Whoops, don't answer that, you said you had nothing more to say.
I understand what you mean by "about", ok? You said he was about as fast, and then said you didn't. It's simple.
Re-read what you wrote.
Edit: Also, I apologize for calling you a moran, it's childish.
Dude. He said that I said Tate was as fast as Denard. I never said he was As fast. I said ABOUT as fast.
Really? What's this mean, then:
"Find some of Denard's runs. He doesn't look faster then Tate."
This discussion is over. Denard ran second fastest 100 meters this year. As soon as Tate runs anywhere near a 10.44 100 you can bring this back up. Until then Mcfarlin shut up your logic = flawless.
to have some kind of education first?
So, apparently everyone missed the part where this dude actually said "Denard doesn't look faster than Tate."
Uh, yeah, he does. It's pretty obvious in his highlight videos that once he hits the secondary, he's gone. I don't think I saw a single highlight where Tate actually outruns a defensive back.
0:15 mark, and 1:00 mark
Sure, he's not the fastest kid. But his films suggest that he is quick enough to make it to the secondary. If Tate is able to run with some consistency into the secondary, I'll take that all day long.
He outruns defensive backs there...
Hmm, did Tate take it to the house like 3 times in that video? Wow. He isn't very fast. Sarcasm.
Nobody said Tate isn't fast. Everyone is saying Denard is faster, because he is. You're like a child to not understand this.
For the record, being a successful running QB has a lot more to do with having good vision and instincts than speed, which is apparent on a lot of Tate's runs. Yes, he's fast, but he's not even significantly faster than many of the high school players on the same field as him.
speed is all relative. game speed is not neccessarily the same as speed in t-shirt and shorts running a timed 40. i'll take the slower 40 guy as long as he plays faster and makes better throws come game time.
To be honest with you. I think Tate my be "game faster" then Denard. Compare the twos highlight tapes. However I don't know who played better opponets in HS.
Denard played better opponents in high school and it's not even close.
Something to keep in mind when you think about completion percentage too...
K. Then how come Tate is rated as the most accurate QB in the country? You think they just go off complete percentage? Nope! It's called Combines. Scouts over and over said that Tate was the most accurate QB. He can do it all. I don't care, anyone that completes 77 percent of their passes has earned my respect. You think Denard played better opponents? San Diego isn't a good area for football? I would of never guessed... I didn't see Denard on ANY of the rivals or scout rankings. He's an ATH with a decent arm. Nothing more!
San Diego isn't a good area for football?
Wow. That's all I got to say.
I never said "Tate's accuracy is overrated because his opponents sucked". What I did say was meant to convey the idea that "Tate killed Denard in completion percentage, and is definitely a more accurate passer, but based on the level of competition each player faced, the gap is probably not as wide as the stats would indicate". Is that clear enough for you?
And while I might be wrong on this, I believe Denard played at the highest level of high school football in Florida, while Tate's league was third tier or so in California. Florida > California. 1st tier > 3rd tier. End of story.
Wow. You are really something special. Denard wasn't even ranked in the top 10 for Rivals or Scout for the FASTEST QB. Put stats aside. Let's look at pure skills. Rivals and Scout have a top ten for most Accurate, Strongest Arm, and fastest and Denard was in zero of them. The fact that you are saying Denard is even close to Tate is amusing. Please stop. I can't take it!!! LMFAO!!
Are you high? Please show me where I was talking about speed.
My argument was about the level of competition they faced in high school (which you obviously know nothing about) and now you are turning it into some other twisted argument that I don't fully comprehend. Nice work dude.
Just face is son. You are a lil' bitch.http://rivals.yahoo.com/video/recruiting-football/AMP-Breaking-Down-the-QBs-31408;_ylt=AjvWCTQFkucchqwNL74rH8Qh7qB4
If you're going to argue by calling people bitches, then take your garbage to Mlive where that crap is accepted.
Over/under on how long until Brian shows up and starts throwing banhammers?
Seeing as it would possibly decrease his income, I vote never.
Brian wouldn't ban someone?
"Denard wasn't even ranked in the top 10 for Rivals or Scout for the FASTEST QB."
That's likely because he was listed as a CB on Scout and an athlete on Rivals.
Because he was listed as a DB on scout and an Athlete on rivals.
If you watch that video it clearly states that one of the fastest guys was listed as an ATH. Plus I wonder why Denard is labeled as a Conerback and an ATH. Hmm...
Probably the same reason that Shavodrick Beaver was listed as a WR on Scout for a long time.
Do you sit back and cross your arms whenever you reply to someone? Just wondering.
(Deleted because I fail)
I am amazed that no one has destroyed the original poster's comment, which implies that speed is the only thing that matters for Rodriguez quarterbacks and that Forcier could complete 100% of his passes all spring and summer, but if Denard "picks up the offense quickly" he should start.
I think it's because there are a lot of other things wrong with this post. The next fifty posts will dwell on this.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's get it right -- if Denard picks up 60% of the offense he should start. He's got the advantage, what with the SEC speed and all.
I'm not defending the OP (he's got problems), but as a former high school football coach we did loosely quantify "picking up the offense." We had a full (and evolving) playbook and we'd note in practice which plays were "game ready." We did figure a percentage of mastered plays vs the book. Hardly scientific, I know, but it was based on making correct reads, proper footwork etc. Having said that, I'll take a kid who runs 8 plays well over a kid runs 40 in mediocrity.
In summary: OP is 94% stupid, not 98%.
isn't going to start against Western Michigan?
Tate couldn't have walked into a better situation. No heir apparent and no competition for months.
That was total sarcasm on my part.
But if we have any more injuries at the position, God forbid, just about anyone could end up starting by the time the season begins or Big Ten play begin.
*Fingers crossed for good luck*
Competition is a good thing.
In this day and age, it is almost impossible to keep a kid happy without "enough" playing time, and they are much more likely to transfer than they would have maybe ten years ago. Eventually, especially if QB's are asked to run more, someone is going to have to experiment with shuttling QB's like RB's or WR's.
It goes against prevailing "wisdom," but "wisdom" is just a consensus of any era's preferences. For example, before Vince Lombardi, the prevailing "wisdom" was that weightlifting was bad for athletes because it made them "muscle-bound." Lombardi didn't believe that and instituted what was then reported as the first mandatory weightlifting program in the NFL. Suddenly, the Packers won championships by pretty much running over people.
I would love to see as many as three or four QB's in and out of the lineup in any given game. The coach that does it will be ridiculed at first, but the first time it is successful, other coaches will start doing it, too.
The main objection to this is that "the starting QB needs as much experience and game time as possible to truly be effective." A correlation of this is "how do you expect a QB to get better if he doesn't play enough?" And, of course, there's always the ridicule that the coach will recieve if one QB plays better than the other and the least proficient of the two is accused of "stopping the team's momentum."
Those are all possibilities, but success and evolution are possibilities, too. We don't really know how it would work out because nobody has ever tried. The previously mentioned Tim Tebow was successful with very few plays per game.
Maybe, if RR keeps recruiting those QB's, we will see something like this at UM in a couple of years.
I don't buy into the notion that Robinson will transfer if we try to move him to another position. He wanted a CHANCE to play quarterback. If he's not good enough to do that, I think he'll be smart enough to see the writing on the wall. If Rodriguez can't find success with a kid that has his skills, then I don't think he's going to go anywhere else where he will be put in a better position to succeed.
Especially because only Michigan and Florida (I believe) offered him the opportunity to play QB. If he transferred to another school, he would likely be playing corner anyway.
All he wants is a chance. I think he will be like Deon Sanders play mainly D, but will be out there in the slot for double passes reverses and other plays like that.
Oh man don't ban me!!! You get owned and you ban someone? OH MAN SCARY!!!!
Are your parents cousins?
I will put an end to this right now. Denard is faster on a track. But as far as I am concerned Tate can take it to the house just as well as Denard can. MANY scouts suggest that Tate runs a 4.4. None the less, I see no difference in a 4.49 to a 4.55. If you honestly think one is much faster then the other you are nit-picking.
"But as far as I am concerned Tate can take it to the house just as well as Denard can."
That's fantastic. I'm glad.
As far as the pure speed issue goes, TATE FORCIER DOES NOT RUN A FUCKING 4.4 FORTY YARD DASH. The fact that you're insisting on this gives you absolutely zero credibility. Morgan Trent ran a 4.53 forty yard dash.
If you want to claim right here and now that Tate Forcier is faster than Morgan Trent (who's a Big Ten sprinter and chased down Percy Harvin), then please feel free to do so.
Until then, just calm down and admit that you don't know jack shit about forty times and, thus, this discussion has been practically useless.
Are you fucking smoking crack? According to Rivals. Tate runs a 4.55. Which is .02 slower than Morgan Trent. Honestly you think a 4.48 and a 4.55 is a huge difference? The difference is less then a 10th of a second. About the time of your attention span.
I AM NOT THE ONE SAYING TATE RUNS A 4.4, SCOUTS ARE SAYING HE DOES! From his highlight film I think he runs a high 4.4.
I compare Tate Forcier's 40 time (timed by whoever/whenever and probably inflated) to Morgan Trent's (timed at the NFL combine).
Completely logically, you start talking about 4.48 forty times. Who mentioned anything about a 4.48?
Nice burn about the attention span, though. I have to give you credit for that one. I'm probably going to go cry now.
According to Rivals.com Denard runs a 4.48 and Tate runs a 4.55. The fact that you are saying that Denard has blazing speed and Tate doesnt is laughable. Stop bringing up the 100 meter. It has nothing to do with a 40 time. If Denard has "blazing speed" then Tate must have damn near close to blazing speed as well.
Do you see in the above post where I mentioned the 100 meters?
Yeah. Me either.
Nope but everyone wants to bring up the 10.44 Denard ran.
By the way, you just said that Forcier is faster than Morgan Trent (you said Forcier probably runs a "high 4.4" and Trent runs a 4.53).
Thanks for proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
End of discussion.
He doesn't run a 4.4 and that seems a little fast for him(I'm not sure where McFarlin got that from) I wouldn't be surprised if he could get 4.55 though. He looks a lot faster than people think he is. Unless Denard really improves his passing, I think Tate will be the starter come fall.
Pat White (who's been in a college S&C program for four years and has been training for the NFL Combine for months) ran a 4.55.
I'm not willing to agree that 17-year-old (is he 18 yet?) Tate Forcier is just as fast as Pat White. Call me crazy.
It says Denard ran a 4.4...Do you believe that? He is 18 and runs faster than Pat White. I can believe it. Maybe these guys are just abnormally fast and that we have been blessed with their talent...
No, I don't believe that, either.
There's a reason that Brian calls almost every 40 time "fake" on his posts about new commits.
I do not think that all of the 40 (or whatever distance, height, length, whatever) has the same value.
Consider that some of it may be, shall we say, adulterated.
Forcier is listed at 6'1", but some practice observers say he's 5'10" at the max. Ben Wallace was listed at 6'9" but I've heard he's closer to 6'6" or 6'7".
Could it be possible that Rivals' measurements might be slightly off? Ohmygod!
It's that weird relativistic physics stuff in 12 dimensions.
Throw in that uncertainty principle thing as well.
Consider my mind blown.
Heisenberg theorized that it was impossible to tell exactly how fast an electron-sized back was traveling when he crossed a particular yard line.
Additionally, it remains unclear to M-theorists what in fact is happening when said back is deemed to have "crossed the plane" of the aforementioned yard line.
This conundrum led to the modern work-around that requires all midget backs to run 4.4s.
Tate and Denard are both midgets.
∴Tate is as fast as Denard
He ran it in 4.55 seconds, I just looked it up.
With this many posts, nobody has said "INFORMATIVE HEADLINES" Rable rable rable
Wow, McFarlin sure knows how to blow up these threads with millions of posts.
Who fucking cares? I mean, honestly, who the fuck cares? Both of them are fast, both are playing for Michigan, and all I ask is that one of them gives us competent QB play this year.
Word. The end.
you could inspect a cow by sticking ur hand in its ass, but wouldnt it be easier to just trust the butcher
You can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.
RichRod would not have sent half his entire staff to Denard's living room, unless it was to play the most vital position in his offense, QB.
I hope Forcier does well, however, this Denard kid has quite a reputation of being a major clutch player and to me has just as good a chance as Forcier to be the QB next year.
In fact, I've been the one predicting it. I think Forcier as a true freshman will get sat down in favor of Shoelace. The offense will still go through growing pains and RichRod will put Denard in due to his exceptional running ability, at least until the spread offense catches up here. But by the time it does so, I think Denard will show enough dynamicism that he'll be the man going forward and won't look back.