Chad Henne v. Tate Forcier - 3 Games in

the go to stat is YPA. and Forcier's killing Chad in that regard. though Chad wasn't an early enrollee, a factor you probably should have mentioned. age is something to consider as well, though it would appear moot here (July 2 vs. August 10).

**EDIT**

you did mention it. apologies for skimming.

He is Tate White Jesus.

Tate's rushing yards and TD, and sacks.

Tate has a coach that allows him to make plays - advantage Tate.

Chad had coaches that held him back, initially. The ND game was frustrating. I was at that game and believe we had first and goal a couple times in the 1H; only to run it 3 times and settle for field goals. Leaving those potential points off the board cost us big time in the 2H. A bunch of chad's yards and TD came late in the 4Q after the game was decided.

I don't think most people understand that part of the reason Chad Henne is a Robo QB is because he has a robotic personality. Tate doesn't.

translating INTs to a yard value isn't that tough (estimates I've seen range from 40 for college to 60 in the NFL), so you can do an adjusted YPA (that could be made better with sack yardage):

(Yards - 40*INTs)/attempts

So we'd have 487 - 40 = 447/66 ~ 6.8 YPA for Tate

544 - 200 = 344/88 ~ 3.9 YPA for Chad

That's about a touchdown per game difference.

This might be a bit premature.

When Tate gets the team a ten point lead over Texas going into the 4th of the Rose Bowl, then let the comparisons begin...

This is much more in depth than I would have imagined. Very nice. I think that these stats support the Forcier = 4 year starter very well, except for the sample size being so small.

You have not considered that Tate was on the run constantly against ND, and that he had great moments no matter how the pocket broke down or how much he had to roll out in anticipation of the pocket breaking down. Whereas under Lloyd, especially in 2004, Chad did what he was asked to do, which was limited. Chad may have had more ability than Lloyd allowed for. But from a fan perspective, he never did what Tate did against ND. Even as a junior in the USC Rose Bowl Chad looked a lot like Navarre under the huge USC rush. Tate is part of a huge breath of fresh air which is why we are all so excited with him and the offensive team in general. Let's admit there is no chance Chad wins the ND game with our offensive line.

I dont think anyone in this thread has mentioned that Tate enrolled early, while Chad didn't even know he was starting until like a week before the first game, as I recall.

[EDIT: To answer the poster's question, Chad did not enroll early. He likely had access to a playbook, but I believe he only had about three weeks of actual practice with the team, and like I said above, he probably wasn't working with the starters until Gutz went down]

So basically Chad had less time to learn an offense that I'd consider more complex, while Tate had all spring to learn an easier offense.

Nonetheless, I think I like Tate better (even though I liked Chad, too). Chad was always quiet and not very public, IMO, whereas Tate walks around with a little more swagger. I like that in a quarterback.

I don't think Tate can compare to Chad's robo demeanor and stature.

Going with Brian's descriptions of Tate's magic he might be more like "the Wizard."

Tate is sharing snaps with Denard. Granted, it has not been a significant number of snaps, but Chad was in for every play from the get go.

and this is just observation based on personally witnessed things, I'm almost kind of worried for tate. This is the oh no the glass is half full argument, but, from all the things I have seen, and in many sports, it's quite often that the ones that start the strongest do not finish as such. And by this, I dont necassarily mean the collegiate career only, its sometimes the pros expectations.

Sometimes you see someone show such brilliance early on, and then what they showed was the best they ever did, ie, they never developed.

IF Tate develops and shows a good improvement curve, he will be in the pros. I have never seen a freshman, and rarely see an nfl qb, that can throw the way he does on the run.

At this point, I hope my Broncos get him!

The 'Force' also had a most excellent punt.....

I think Forcier understands that, unless he has a miraculous late growth spurt, he is considered "too short" to play QB in the NFL, and won't get the opportunity, no matter what his talent level is, to do so.

In UM, Forcier has found a coach and system that are perfect for his skill set, combined with a school whose degree carries a lot more clout than one from many other schools. I see Forcier as having three great options that his performance on the field, combined with a UM education, will provide for him:

1. Broadcasting
2. Coaching.
3. Private business sector, particularly something along the lines of "Forcier Academy of Quarterbacking."

I find the third possibility to be the most intriguing, because he could involve his entire family. His reputation, assuming that his career path at UM remains where it is, would make him the "franchise player" whose name brings in the most business. He could combine this with some scouting and blogging, and do really well for himself without ever having to punch anyone's clock but his own. He wouldn't have to work assistant coaching jobs with eighty-hour weeks, or head coach jobs with hundred-hour weeks.

At any rate, he is doing fine at UM so far, and has been a pleasure to watch.

This is not a premature comparison. If we had more data, say an entire season's worth, we wouldn't have anything left to wonder about. We'd know if Henne as a freshman was better than Tate as a freshman, because we'd have all the stats.

It's basically just an exercise for fun.

Tate's pocket presence is already more advanced than Henne's ever was. That's just a gift Tate has that can't be taught...kind of like Henne's rocket arm.

I think there are some factors that should be taken into account. First off I think Chad was put in rough situations by bad play calling in his freshman year, at least at the beginning of the season. It was typical Carr to close the playbook with a freshman quarterback, so this inevitably meant that a lot of Chad's passes were on third down and long or in a "safe situation." I don't have hard data, but having watched Michigan football religiously for years I would bet that Chad threw a lot of passes on third and long his freshman year.
With Tate, Coach Rod has put him in better situations to succeed with more aggressive play calling. Tate is also somewhat of a dual threat QB, so he has that over the relatively immobile Henne. It would be interesting to see how the numbers would compare had Henne been in a more aggressive pro-style system because he had, IMO, as much offensive talent around him if not more. Also, I believe 04 was the year that the running game struggled the first two games and a half until Hart "emerged" to salvage the San Diego State "scare."
Hopefully Tate can continue to handle adversity like a five year senior, because if he does and stays healthy, he'll have a chance to set some records.

I cannot help but feel that Chad had a much, much better offense around him than Tate does, although it is hard to judge this year's team only three games in.

In Chad's freshman year, I probably would not have considered him one of the best players on the offense considering they had a very talented O-line and a ridiculous WR core.

On the other hand, I think Tate is definitely one of our best players on offense this year, coming in behind Minor, maybe one OL, and no one else IMO.

Chad had an amazing freshman year, but I think if I had to choose one of them for just that first year, I would go with Tate right now. He can carry us!

As someone mentioned, Chad didn't enroll early.

How many starts did UM's oline have going into the 2004 season? I'm guessing UM's oline this year had over 50, if not over 60. Was Andy Moeller the oline coach in 2004? I'm not sure how much of an advantage I would give to Chad with regards to the oline.

Also, the UM running game has been very solid so far this year. I don't think the same can be said for 2004. It wasn't until Hart got his shot that the UM running game got going in 2004.

I'd suggest reversing who gets the "advantage" in some of your non-chartable factors. For example, since Chad had better receivers, I'd give the advantage to Tate because Tate had to be better to get the same with receivers who may not be as good.

since Chad will soon be Terminator (due to his robotic time-warp to the NFL) perhaps Tate can become the Liquid Metal Terminator? It all likely depends on his ability to time-warp us back into a New Years Day Bowl...