Easier for a run-first frosh QB to succeed?
Is it fair to say that it's easier for a QB to succeed as a freshman if he's run-first, rather than throw-first? The idea would be that you need less precision and experience to run successfully than to throw. If you make a mistake running, it's probably a two yard loss, not a pick six.
If that's true, doesn't it give a real advantage to Denard Robinson to win the starting job? Pick the QB with blazing speed who can throw enough to keep defenses honest, rather than the QB who throws very well for a freshman but makes too many drive-killing bad reads.
Although Rich Rod has been successful with throwing quarterbacks, his biggest and most recent success came with Pat White. So, all else being equal, won't he lean toward starting the guy who is more like Pat White? Could this thinking have influenced him in reaching the bizarre decision to start Sheridan over Threet? (I apologize to everyone for comparing Nick Sheridan to Pat White.)
Just to be clear, I don't claim any expertise on this, I'm asking an honest question, and I'd like to hear the opinions of those who actually know what they're talking about. And I know there are a lot of people here who love them some Tate Forcier. I promise I'm not trying to disrespect your man-crush. If Forcier is clearly the best QB in practice, I'm sure the job is his. I'm just saying if it's close, doesn't the tie go to Denard?
February 13th, 2009 at 3:28 AM ^
Denard is probably the least likely QB to be the starter in game 1. He's competing against guys who have been studying the system for significantly more time. He may be fast, but he'll have a lot to learn in a short period of time.
Pat White was the exception to the rule. Most "dual threat" quarterbacks are guys who can throw well, but have the speed of a mediocre linebacker. If run-first quarterbacks were a better option than anything else, we would have put Minor or Brown in the shotgun every down of the last season.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:45 AM ^
I take your point about Denard having less time in the system. That will be a big disadvantage, maybe impossible to overcome at the start of the season.
But it's a bit unfair to compare Denard to Minor or Brown. Minor or Brown would have been basically "run only," not run first. You'd need someone who is a credible enough passing threat to keep the defenses honest. I don't think Michigan had anyone like that last year.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:25 AM ^
You don't want a run-first QB in the Big Ten.
I get where your thinking though. For me, most likely to succeed:
1) Pass first qb, who can run and has good speed.
A.) If he can run, he has less chance to force throws, and most time he does throw it, it will be good throws(hopefully)
2) Run-first qb, with at least a decent arm.
A.) Like you said, less interceptions, But your QB will have way better chance getting hurt
3) Pocket Passer, only way to succeed as freshmen is if your that damn good.
A.) Freshmen mistakes are more noticable.
People may disagree with me, But if Denard is so fast, Why would you want him at QB? Let him play all positions where he uses his speed. Like QB direct, slot, HB. Sort of like Percy Harvin. If he is a QB, he won't utilize his speed every play.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
What does the conference have to do with anything?
February 13th, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^
"B10 football is fisical and big players. No good running qb in conference run too much and getlit up. may work in bigLEAST but b10 players big."
February 13th, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^
coach? is that you? no sugarcoat?
February 13th, 2009 at 12:13 PM ^
Make the following phrases in no particular order. This works for coaches as well as players:
1. "big and physical"
2. "make plays"
3. "we just need to execute"
4. "I'd like to thank God"
5. "work on fundamentals"
6. "just have to keep working hard"
February 13th, 2009 at 3:34 AM ^
i think the running qb has a very slight edge in our version of the spread offense, but forcier has the edge because he enrolled earlier and he's a much more polished qb it seems...in terms of examples from other spreads i feel like i can think of more success stories from run-first guys like pat white, juice williams, tyrod taylor, BC's dominique davis this year, even his holiness the tebow than throw-first guys like mccoy, bradford, etc..
personally i'd be surprised if we didn't see musical chairs at the qb position for at least the first third of the season.
February 13th, 2009 at 8:44 AM ^
It's all shades of gray, but Juice Williams and Tyrod Taylor were utter disasters at QB as freshmen. Last year was not Tyrod's 1st year if that's is what you were thinking of where he was somewhat functional.
February 13th, 2009 at 9:01 AM ^
about Tyrod Taylor as a freshmen.....was he great, or even consistently good? No. Disaster? Absolutely not.
He took over for an innefective Glennon and he played well enough to help pull the Hokies out of a funke and to the ACC Title.
He was certainly effective during the 2007 season....and I am still not sure why Beamer jerked him around this past season with the whole redshirt situation.
That said, I do think Michigan has a chance to be better at the QB position this year than VT was in 2007 in the first year of the Taylor/Glennon hybrid....i like Threet better than Glennon, and I think Forcier and/or Robinson can be as effective as Taylor was his first season.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^
Yeah - if "playing well enough to get in the BCS" is "disaster", I'll take the disaster.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:18 PM ^
Lest everyone forgets, Juice Williams was recruited as a pro-style QB and had gone to the Elite 11. Sure, his completion percentage his first two years was terrible, but don't get it twisted. Just because the Zooker runs a spread option doesn't mean the players involved are just speedsters. Look at how much Wiliams improved this year as a passer.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:51 AM ^
In general, it would make sense that a player with a broader base of skills would have an easier time than one who excels in one area.
For instance, if Terrelle Pryor had the mobility of John Navarre, we can likely agree his season wouldn't have been nearly as effective.