A case for Tate to start at QB
I was just surfing the net looing for michigan articles and i found an article on Maizenbrew.com about reasons Tate should get the nod to start. The reasons he points out ar exactly what i have been saying about this situation all off season, about his stats his injurys and his toughness. There is also a bit about the reasons against starting him, but majorty of the article is for him.
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/7/26/1582196/michigan-footballs-position
I really like how he points out that after the 4-0 start we were scraming for the heismen to go to tate and making predictions about him and anoiting him another qb to join the ranks of Henne, Griese, Navarre ect. Look i think we win with either QB but i feel safer with Tate.
I was looking around at some Pat White highlight reels, Denard definitely looks more like Pat White than Tate.
When I think of RRs offense running on all gears I think of a qb that can fake the handoff and juke the first guy at the line of scrimmage and break out into the second level of the defense. Do you see Tate being able to do this, check it out from 40 seconds in:
Stop it stop it stop it!
Grah! I hate that. "Denard should start because he's like Pat White!"
Bullshit. Point 1: Being like Pat White is not the same as being Pat White. There are a whole metric BUTTLOAD of fast guys with a strong arm out there, and none of them but Pat White are Pat White.
Point 2: This team is not WVU during the Pat White years. It has different players, who, while they may be like some WVU players from the Pat White years, are not the same, and therefore, the team has different strengths and weaknesses.
Point 3: WVU was not made up of Pat White. It was made up of a whole team, and simply having a Pat White at QB would not make a team in any way automatically successful in a WVU way.
Point 4: Just because Rodriguez had a lot of success DURING the Pat White years does not mean he is necessarily trying to or cares to recreate that here. He didn't win the national title, did he? He didn't win the Big Ten. He didn't beat OSU, PSU, MSU and ND then. Therefore, he may not want or care to recreate that team now.
Point 5: He has way more talent now than he ever had at WVU, even during the height of his success. The more talent you have, the more options you have, and therefore, the less locked in you are to a Pat White philosophy.
SHUT UP ABOUT YOUR DAMNED PAT WHITE!
if you had found a way to mention Pat White a few more times.
Pat White could have done it.
Because they are exactly alike in every way.
I apologize for angering you. I know that nobody is Pat White and that these team are different and will therefore implement different strategies. But I was commenting on how effective the spread can be when combined with a qb who is also dangerous when running the option.
It's all good. It's just that this idea has been discussed one or two times before and sometimes someone snaps.
"Denard definitely looks more like Pat White than Tate"
Um, well, yes, Denard and Pat White are both black, and I guess that neither of them have Tate's reddish blond hair.
Holy hell Pat White could move.
on really any list. Perhaps the "serviceable quarterback when the well is dry and your starter gets hurt list and then leaves to play baseball list," but not anywhere on the same list as Henne.
Tate's edge is intangibles. Of course he was not perfect last year, true freshman, but he showed flashes (granted most in losses) of things that you cannot teach. His concentration and ability to focus actually seemed to improve in the most stressful of situations. He said after the Notre Dame game that he did not get nervous. I actually believe that he doesn't. Now granted, that is not always a good thing, but I was time and time again amazed by his composure as a true frosh. Sure, Denard has wheels, but I think the job is still Tate's to lose.
Our Glorious Leader disagrees:
I will give him that, and happened to play at a time when Michigan was not loaded at quarterback. It also helped that he had a pro-cailber receiving core to throw to. I just remember too many games where I felt that M won despite him, not because of him. He did polish up a little at the end of his Senior year, but I just don't look at him the same way as Henne, Brady, or even Greise for that matter.
he had a pro-cailber receiving core to throw to
Edwards, Breaston, Avant, Manningham, Arrington
I agree with you that Henne had a better career than Navarre, but given the fact Henne does hold almost every UofM statistical record, that's essentially saying Navarre wasn't one of the best two or three qbs in UofM history. That really shouldn't make him the object of scorn. Navarre was a good quarterback.
that he was not a good quarterback, he was. What I am saying is that I don't include him in any list of deadly Michigan quarterbacks as implied by the OP. He had a nice career, but I never came away from a Michigan game thinking he was noticeably a "great" quarterback.
And yes - "or even" Griese. Griese was quarterback when we won the national championship, he was a good leader and and a hell of nice guy, but lets not act like he was some lethal gun slinger here. Two long Tai Streets touchdowns in the Rose Bowl and a moderately successful pro career does not a great college quarterback make. Greise was a good quarterback, but Chad Henne and Tom Brady showed flashes of individual talent in college that Griese simply didn't, perhaps because he was not called upon to do so, but the fact still remains.
"and even Griese" did take us to our only National Championship in the past 60+ years.
As for Navarre, I don't think that many of us would complain about having him as our starter right about now. (Not a shot at Tate or Denard, but we were pretty darn successful under Navarre).
for that Michigan team and the pro style system. If I had the choice today, no way would I pick Navarre over Tate or Denard for this offense.
and even Griese avoided screwing up too badly as our record-setting defense took us to our only National Championship in the past 60+ years.
I like Griese and all, but he didn't do anything that most of our other QBs in the past 20 years couldn't have done. He just had a lot more help on the other side of the ball. Case in point: in the fourth quarter of the '97 ND game, our offense turned it over in our own territory three consecutive times - and the D didn't allow a single point.
I will feel comfortable with either Tate or Denard starting. I think we can win with Tate, but for God's sake, stop holding the ball with one hand under your waist when you scramble!!!
Denard's edge in athleticism is undeniable, but may be over-empashized as a reason to play him ahead of Tate. I think the starter will be the player who demonstrates the best ability to get the offense into the right play with pre-snap reads and consistently makes the right decisions once the ball is snapped. I think if the players are about even mentally, then Denard should play due to his superior physical talent, but Tate had a major head start with early enrollment last year. Denard has now had an opportunity to catch-up a bit, but I wouldn't be surprised if Tate's knowlege of the offense and decision-making skills are still ahead of Denard at this point.
We have 2 good QB's. We'll see who is the best after August! Tate may get more playing time initially due to his more accurate arm and broader depth of the play book. Though if DROB just out performs Tate at summer camp, then DROB may get nod. I hope they both perform well in camp and it ends up being a tough decision for RR!