rman247

June 16th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^

Not blaming the 5-7 record on tate, however when stuff like that happens, qbs get a lot of the blame. Also, most bigger name sites don't have him that high. Just saying if u watched the spring game or reading up on reports, he should be battling.

Space Coyote

June 16th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^

I think he's a top 50 QB in the country.  When he was healthy last year he was top 30 probably.  You got to figure most of the top QBs left, and besides Barkely from USC no other freshman last year were really even close to Tate.  If he becomes more consistant you have to think he'll be higher than last year.  Returning starter with experience, good accuracy, mobility, and a system that works well for him, seems top 50 to me, and pretty well placed at #26

 

EDIT: True freshman, I forgot redshirt freshman Luck, and I guess Oklahoma's QB

Blue in Yarmouth

June 17th, 2010 at 8:29 AM ^

Top 50, yeah I can see it. Top 30 is a bit of a stretch. I do think that given his struggles last year he should be battling for the starting job though. If Denard has progressed enough as a passer to the point where people will actually have to worry about the possibility of him passing, he may be the most dangerous QB in the country. Not to say he would be the best by any stretch, but one of the most dangerous.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 17th, 2010 at 8:50 AM ^

The whole "Tate was awesome before he got injured" talk is a little misleading if you ask me. I am not saying he wasn't injured, that was clear. However, I think people neglect to factor in the more important contributor to Tate's woes during the second half of the season, that being the fact that he was playing against much better competition.

As I have said here before, I am a Dr. though not a Orthopod. I do, however, have many friends in the field who told me that if the injury was what it was reported to be (and I know that is a big if, but still) then he should have been fine to after about two weeks.

Also, lets be honest, most of those interceptions that were thrown were mental mistakes on passes that never should have left his hand. His arm (or shoulder) wasn't the problem on most of those plays.

I am not bagging on the guy, I thought he did well for a freshman. I wouldn't be disappointed if he won the job again this year and showed significant strides. What I have an issue with is the people who continually bring up the excuse of him being hurt for the reason he played worse after the first four games. Does no one think that it might just be that he has a harder time against tougher competition?

Space Coyote

June 17th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^

Would be a huge mistake, and I think many people give the "before he got injured" line to not just indicate the injury, but also, to a lesser extent, just a generic point in time when Tate went from really good to pretty average.

 

That being said, you have to think after a year he would clean up most of those mental mistakes, which were the reason for most of his mistakes as you said.  I think he did enough well last year that if you cut half the mental mistakes (give or take), I believe him being in the top 30 isn't too far of a stretch.  You have to think much of what went wrong in the second half of the season was because he was seeing many new things he hadn't seen before or was very unfamiliar with, it won't be as much of the case this year.

Monocle Smile

June 16th, 2010 at 9:49 PM ^

He doesn't have the physical gifts that Denard has, but last year he showed a propensity to create something from nothing and improvise to great (or not so great) effect...watch the Notre Dame game or the end of the MSU game. You can't coach a hat of magic tricks.

Purkinje

June 16th, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^

I can't help but worry that his magic is broken ever since he scored the first points during the Ohio State catastrophe. : (

 

EDIT: I'll take the negs as a sign that most of you don't think his magic is broken. It's just that watching him drop the ball in our own endzone at the very start of the game to give Them a touchdown pretty much broke my will.

BlueGoM

June 17th, 2010 at 12:23 AM ^

Remember folks, we only had him 100% healthy for about 4 games last year.    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Toosu_tSE

http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigan-quarterback-tate-forcier-rehabbing-shoulder-injury-battling-staph-infection/

He just wasn't quite the same after that injury, point being it's sort of tough to judge his physical tools when we have only seen him 100% for 4 games.   Of course we had the spring "games", too... FWIW.

Having said that I think we're going to see, next season, that we have 2 options at QB, both with enough skills to cause defenses to worry.   Now if the defense can just step it up...

wnymichfan

June 17th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^

i agree that under normal cicumstances tate's shoulder could have healed in two weeks, but when you get hit and sacked the way he did, its almost impossible to do.  When you repeatedly get slammed on an injured shouder it stays injured.  The timetable for healing for injuries usually doesn't include them still actually playing and taking hits.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 17th, 2010 at 1:28 PM ^

the timetable I was given by my orthopod friends was considering that. Also in consideration was the fact that he most likely wouldn't be getting hit in practice, which I think was the case. Actually that is a bit misleading. What they said was healing would take a lttle longer than a person who didn't play football, but the injury shouldn't affect his play.

See, their view (and this was unanimous amongst all 11 that I was speaking to about this) was that when given shots for the pain he should have no issues with throwinbg the ball. So while he would actually be "healed" he could perform as if there were no injury while playing in the game.

Their conclusion therefore, was that physically the injury should not be inhibiting his gameplay because the injury wouldn't hamper a QB's ability to throw the ball once they were medicated for the game.

As I said, I am not an Orthopod but I am qouting what 11 different specialists told me.

cadmus2166

June 16th, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^

We have a lot of talent at the QB position.  And that is a good problem to have.  As far as who should start....I'll leave that up to RichRod.  He knows best which QB is better at running his offense. 

MGoShoe

June 16th, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^

...bogus.  He ranked Kirk Cousins at #44.  Maybe he accidentally flip-flopped the two? 

OTOH, Kevin Newsome at #49 should fill the Nittany Lions with quiet confidence for their sure fire Big Ten championship. 

Blue-Chip

June 16th, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^

I disagree with your basic argument here.  Only RichRod really knows how close or far Denard is from taking the job.  And even if that were to happen, would you not have to credit Denard as much, or probably more, than blame Tate?

twohooks

June 16th, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^

This list lost credibilty when Terrelle Pryor was listed second. He even adds a blurb that TP is one dimensional, which he is. Seems like a noteriety list to me.

Wolfman

June 16th, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^

What is his one dimension? Is it his fullback like runs, where he throws off would be tacklers with a fierce stiff-arm?  is it his flat-out speed, that enables him to turn the corner on any DE because they don't whether to drop back, attack, and if so at which angle, or to merely try and contain him? Is it his running ability that enables hin to turn in an accuracy rating much higher than his actual passing skills if he were, indeed, one dimensional

Again, which dimension does he bring to the game? And I also forgot to add perhaps the most important of all. He simply wins and has since he stepped on campus and relegated the all-conference pick of the previous season to the bench.

Zone Left

June 16th, 2010 at 11:14 PM ^

Why do his fullback like runs always end with him turtling about one yard prior to the first down?  I couldn't get over how many first downs he gave away against Michigan last year. Seriously, I thought I was being a normally biased Michigan fan until I asked my cousins--who are huge OSU fans.  Their general feeling is that he just doesn't seem to have a strong competitive streak or something just isn't right in the head with him.  Both of them are pretty level-headed, too.

I just think OSU wins more because he has a loaded team around him.

BigBlue02

June 16th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^

You do realize that everything you mentioned refers to running right? Wouldn't that be the definition of a one dimensional QB? Unless you are going with the argument that he should be a running back, that the stiff arms and the speed and all other RUNNING attributes would make him a balanced runner. That argument might make sense. You know, since he is a QB, I would think passing might be the other dimension he needed to possess, but what do I know. Also, I would like you to point me to one person in the world, when discussing two dimensional QBs, who uses "winning games" as one of the dimensions. I will hang up and listen for your response.

bronxblue

June 16th, 2010 at 10:06 PM ^

I know he struggled toward the latter half of the season, but this whole team fell apart down the stretch.  Denard may surpass him (I am still leery because I have yet to see him play well against real opposing defenses at full speed), but to say that Tate is a top-30 or -40 QB in the country based on last year's results and projecting forward is not crazy.  He was a freshman without an established back for most of the year, injuries to his center, and a very raw (outside of Mathews) WR core.  I think he played admirably, and with another year I fully expect him to play like the talent he is.  Whether that is as a starter, co-starter, or situational player, he'll play well this year.

BigBlue02

June 17th, 2010 at 12:02 AM ^

I would say Denard played pretty well in the Iowa game. That Iowa defense I believe was running at full speed in the 4th when he ran or passed on 10 of the 11 plays that scoring drive to bring us back into the game. I know it was only limited time, but if you can say Tate had the disadvantage of being a freshmen with an injured center etc...., then you can say the same thing about Denard.

Flying Dutchman

June 16th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^

A couple things:

There will be an epic battle for starter, and both our top 2 guys are going to see the field.  It's just that if Tate really is #26, Denard might just need to be #25 after he gets some run in these first few games.  I have a feeling that Notre Dame is going to have no idea what to do about #16...

Also, I was very relieved to see Cousins at #44 and not receiving the typical mouthparty he gets from the media in our state.  That guy is already very near his ceiling, but nobody in a green S wants to admit it.

Space Coyote

June 16th, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^

Gilbert probably outplayed McElroy in a pure passing game in his first ever significant playing time against the best defense in the country.  McElroy, who reminds me a bit of Griese (that means no disrespect at all), does a great job running the offense, handing the ball off to sweet RBs behind a really good O-line, and occassionally getting it to maybe the best WR in the country in Julio Jones.  But I think as a pure QB, Gilbert is better, and as soon as he gets experience this year I see him moving up on this chart a bit too.

 

Now Florida's Brantley on the other hand... I don't know, when Tebow went down last year that offense was stalled IIRC.  I know he was a very high recruit, but to me this is putting him way up there based simply on being a top recruit.

Tater

June 17th, 2010 at 12:29 AM ^

He is being ranked for being an elite recruit with a great high school career, but there is more.  He is a "legacy" player with a father and uncle who played at Florida, one as a QB.  Also, Meyer is tweaking the offense to fit Brantley's style more this year.   When he "replaced" Tebow last year, he was trying to run Tebow's plays, which were tweaked for a left-handed, power-running QB.   

Not only was the offense designed for Tebow, but Meyer called plays that were designed to not allow Brantley to blow any games.  Meyer didn't expect Brantley to win games with spectacular plays; he just didn't want him to lose any with bonehead plays.   So, Meyer kept everything close to the vest when Brantley played last year, and his stats weren't very impressive.  

According to almost anyone who has watched practice this year, Brantley is going to have a monster breakout year.  I don't know if I would go that far, but I wouldn't count him out.  Meyer won one championship with the immobile Chris Leak and one with Tebow.  I have a feeling he will tweak an offense for Brantley just fine.

 

 

Geaux_Blue

June 17th, 2010 at 1:44 AM ^

does that mean he only gets to play against MSU, PSU and OSU. does this leave Denard as our non-stater taking on the likes of UConn, Iowa and the lot?

BleedingBlue

June 17th, 2010 at 8:43 AM ^

"He’s not a polished passer (neither is Terrell Pryor) but he is a duel [sic] threat that could make Auburn’s offense even more explosive than it was last season."

ander2ta

June 17th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

Mallett as #1?  I'm not going to debate it because he's a great QB.  I just didn't expect to see it, then again, I can't think of anyone I'd put above him.  Too bad he couldn't have come earlier... I would have like to see him develop at Michigan.