Denard as the starting qb...
Am I wrong in thinking that a lot of Michigan football fans think that Denard Robinson is going to become the starting quarterback during the 2010 season? From what I saw, he did a marvelous job but against the second string defense while Tate Forcier didn't look nearly as good against the first team defense. Does anyone beside me think that the first string defense is and will be much improved for the 2010 season and beyond? Does anyone think that Tate has been lazy or taking an extended vacation which has kept him from making greater progress during the off season? My feeling is that Tate, last year's quarterback, has accepted the challenges and has worked hard on what the staff has put before him and will continue as the starter for the entire season. What do you experts expect?
Most of the armchair speculation is in Denard Robinson's favor, simply because he emerged from spring practice as #1 and did everything that could have been asked of him in the spring game.
No one knows for sure what the coaches are thinking. I doubt that Forcier has taken a lazy approach to his off-season prep. He couldn't possibly be that naive. But there certainly were some maturity issues last year, and the coaches could be trying to send him a message.
Although both can and must improve, the Forcier we saw last year was probably closer to his potential than the Robinson we saw last year, because Forcier had the benefit of spring practice in 2009, plus much more tutoring in high school.
The big question surrounding Forcier is durability: can he withstand a full Big Ten season? The big question surrounding Robinson is the passing game. Last season, defenses pretty quickly figured out that they could play him to run on almost every down. If he can complete passes of 10+ yards with any regularity, he could be awfully dangerous.
I feel that many forget:
Tate was home schooled, which allowed him to have a very flexible schedule. This also allowed him to get one on one QB coaching on a regular basis. He was able to enroll early and learn the playbook. By all accounts, Tate should be good
Denard went to a regular high school, less than stellar QB coaching (see QB mechanics) and ran track. He also came during the summer with limited time with the playbook. By mid season...many here were ready to move him to a different position, While others threw him under the bus all together.
Now, we have QB’s with very different backgrounds in the same place getting the same coaching.
Who does it appear we have we seen the most improvement of? Denard. That does not take anything away from Tate but let’s be honest; Tate may be coming close to his ceiling. I hope this is not the case.
I remember the years when that bastard Modell owned the team and Belichick was still a crappy hire. They had two quarterbacks, Kosar and Testaverde...In Kosar you had a legend, a gunslinger who would ultimately get his Super Bowl ring in Dallas. In Testaverde you had the most popular guy in town...
Why? The perceived #2 is always the most popular guy in town.
I think Denard will play some QB this year but dammit I want them both on the field and RichRod "just give Denard the damn ball" in a million situations.
... the Coner returns for an unexpected additional year of eligibilty (thanks NCAA) and drops so many bombs on fools that he's named the starter even before Fall practice is over.
turnovers turnovers turnovers turnovers
Whichever QB stops treating the football like it's radioactive will play. period.
Denard reminds me more of Mike Vick than Pat White IMO, there's just no one on the field with his speed. He also has a strong arm, but problems with accuracy.
Oh and I have no idea who'll start.
Today was the first time I got negged. No big woop but It would be nice for the person to disagree with me publicly, put forth a reason why I am incorrect in my statemnet rather that being a little B!$@! about it.
is do not, for the love of GOD, talk about MGoPoints.
Some people neg when they feel what you said was crass or out of line. Others neg simply when they disagree. Still others become serial about it, hunting out certain posters, and others still just seem to do it randomly.
Deal with it. Don't whine about it.
There are instructions from Brian Cook:
"TAKE IT LIKE A MAN"
I negged you for being a little bitch, but only on this post :-).
I disagree with the conventional wisdom that Denard is the one with the greater upside. He might be a lot faster than Tate, but his throwing will never be anywhere near as good as Tate's. Forcier did stuff last year that I have never seen a Michigan QB other than Drew Henson do. Like throw accurately down the field while running to his left. He threaded a needle on numerous passes all year long and he looked like a world beater against most of the bad teams that we played (along with MSU and Wisconsin). Whereas Denard didn't look good throwing against anyone last year. Even against Ohio State, Tate looked good at times. His lack of ball security and his poor judgement against good defenses (namely Iowa and OSU) are problems that I see as more inherently fixable than Denard's problems. Also, I'm not an expert on option football, but I see Forcier learning to run the option before I see Denard learning to become a good drop back passer (although Tate hasn't made great progress there).
not to say I am wise at all, but I am of the opinion that DR has better upside for a few reasons. First when I am speaking about upside I guess what I am thinking (which may be entirely wrong) is a players potential to improve in time.
To me I think Tate is almost as good as he is going to get. He could get better at the zone read and things like that, but as far as his throwing goes, I don't see him getting a lot better given that he has been playing the position since birth. Also, he is not going to get significantly bigger or stronger than he is right now. For this reason I think Tate is nearly (maybe not quite but almost) maxed out as far as his potential goes.
Denard on the other hand has a lot of room to improve his game (and appears to be doing so). He has a cannon of an arm and with time and practice, could be a more viable downfield passer than Tate is IMHE. Tate really doesn't have a strong arm and as a result we didn't really stretch the defense much with him last year. If Denard can get better at readong the defenses and work on accuracy (both thing that I think can be coached) he could be just as good in the passing game as Tate IMHE.
One reason I don't think Tate's ball security problems are as fixable as you is from where I see them stemming from (and this is just my opinion). I think it is because of his confidence in himself that we saw so many TO's from him last year. Confidence is a good thing but it appeared to me that he was a little over confident in his abilities and that led to turnovers. I don't see that being easily fixed. He constantly threw the ball into coverage last year and very easily could have wound up with at least 5 or 6 more picks if the defense players didn't have stone hands.
To close I guess the statement "opinions are like babies, everybody loves their own" fits well here. We all have our opinions on who we think is better, who has the higher ceiling and who should start, this is just mine. Good luck to both guys and I will be cheering for whoever is on the field. GO BLUE!
He can certainly read D1 defenses better (so can Denard)
He can certainly take care of the ball better (so can Denard)
All the improvement we see Denard being able to make, applies to Tate as well. They were both true freshman last year. They both have tremendous upside
"Tate is almost as good as he is going to get"
I am unsure about this...I got to thinking about this new version "Tate with ball security" or how about "Tate with ball security with David Molk under center" and I think this latter version would be the best possible Tate Forcier.
I like the idea of Tate with ball security...I like it a lot.
It isn't as though Nature and nurture aren't inextricably linked. Neither means anything without the other, and anyone claiming otherwise is behaving ignorantly at best or cognitively dissonantly at worst. OK, that's enough angry and vague and esoteric mutterings from me. Carry on.
the nature v nurture thread is down the board a bit.....