Forcier: How much upside?
So... Forcier. I like him. I, along with many of my fellow MGoBloggers, was at the game Saturday. Tate was quite good.
But, after reading this and to some extent this I do have one question, does Tate have any upside left?
Now then, don't start negging me yet, I'm asking this as a legitimate question. Yes, the second article lists Forcier first or second 3 out of 4 times so that's pretty nice*, and yes, the first article didn't say anything directly bad about them... but you still have to wonder about this.
Tate was groomed, as we all know, to be a QB. He had a personal QB coach, he was home schooled, his family is a family of QBs. Tate sort of went into the family business. We're all pretty aware of Forcier=accuracy.
But where do we (i.e. where does Tate) go from here?
I do think that Tate can get a little bit faster. And I do think that his arm is currently underrated (he can definitely throw further than 35 yards with accuracy). But he's not going to get much faster (Tate speed!=Denard speed) nor do I think he'll be able to throw a 90 bomb (Tate arm!=Peyton arm).
So, what's left is a little bit of speed, some arm, some better decision making (although he's already doing better than most), and a few pounds.
I'm not trying to complain, I think the kid did great and has ice in his veins. And maybe I'm still just pessimistic from last season and am looking for things to be "down" on. Do we even need Tate to improve that much more? I don't know.
I do think that we're not going to see the average jump from our QB from freshman to sophmore year. Yes, I think he'll get better. And yes, with a better, more experienced, hopefully stronger and faster (and maybe even heavier) O-line he'll be better protected. Yes, with more deep threat receivers and slot ninjas coming in Tate will have a better arsenal around him. But will Tate himself make a huge leap? I don't think so.
I mostly just mean this thread as a place to talk about Tate's potential upside. I'd be fairly satisfied with the Tate that we saw against ND for all 4 years. But, I don't know if that's quite good enough. I especially don't know if that'll be good enough to hold off Devin Gardner.
*I include the second article because I wonder if Tate would still be listed so high in a few years if all of those QBs develop as I expect them to develop. When they're seniors, who do you think most people would want, Barkley or Forcier?
September 15th, 2009 at 7:00 PM ^
I was thinking about this myself, and I think that he doesn't need to get much better except in two areas. Size and decision making. And the only reason he can improve in these areas is because he is a freshman.
I think he already has much more speed (and elusiveness) that most QBs. He has accuracy. He has moxie. What else do you really need?
Size and decision making will come. Like Colt McCoy, he will get bigger next year and get a stronger arm. He will also learn more of the offense and get even better
All in all, I think he has what it takes to be a winner already.
Think about a veteran, knowledgeable, faster, 200 lb Tate. What else could you really want or expect?
September 15th, 2009 at 7:02 PM ^
imo is vastly underrated, esp when you have skills. Physically he may not mature much. But his knowledge will be so much greater. He has only played 2 games, none on the road in a hostile place. Hasnt seen many different Ds or situations. He has plenty of room to grow.
He may not put up better #s. But it will be the little things that dont show up in the stat book that puts him from good to hopefully geat and elite status by the time his career is over here.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^
Especially in pro quarterbacks, there are a lot of teams in the NFL who are still not willing to go get a quarterback who can move outside of the pocket. There are a number of reasons for this, maybe the guy will command a lot of money like Michael Vick, maybe the team would prefer to build a team around a pocket passer, getting him good receivers, running back, and a moat of an offensive line. But I really think if a team has all of the things like that and a mobile starting QB, they're going to be a better team, because it means when the protection breaks it's not an automatic sack.
To me the best player who summed this up was Steve Young, it was a HUGE adjustment for the 49ers to go from having Joe Montana the pocket passer to having Steve Young the scrambler. But once they adjusted their team to Young's strengths as opposed to Montana the 49ers of the 90s were one of the best teams ever.
I think that if Tate goes to the NFL his success is gonna depend more on the guys who are around him, remember football's a team sport and one guy can't win the game on his own. If he plays for a coach and a team that plays more towards his strengths and he has the right weapons he'll be good.
I think we're getting there with the weapons, but i don't think we're quite there yet.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^
he's bound to get more comfortable and bigger, maybe taller.
that said, if he continues to put up stats like he has so far, i'm ok with 210 yds passing, 68% accuracy, 5/1 td/int, and 50 yds rushing per game.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:12 PM ^
Have Barwis's workouts been proven to increase a player's height? If so, snap.
September 16th, 2009 at 1:01 AM ^
some dudes keep growing into their early twenties.
not me. i quit growing (vertically) in 8th grade. i'm what dantonio, and other b-holes, would call "that tall" while placing their hands at their chests.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:08 PM ^
He has less upside than most, but that's because this is what he has been doing his whole life. He plays more like a Jr.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:11 PM ^
a groomed QB = less ceiling? It only equals a higher floor. Guys like Matt Barkley, Clausen all had QB coaches, personal trainers... just like Tate. His older brothers also had similar training and look where they are.
You may see something else in his game that gives you this impression, but I definitely don't.
What is left is better decision making, audibling plays (like Brady or Manning), more leadership, and a stronger arm as he ages and lifts weights.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:20 PM ^
And maybe that's where I need to adjust my own assumptions. I do assume that more grooming=less ceiling. But I also assume that because of his size and weight.
As for Barkley, Clausen, etc. having personal trainers... I didn't really know that. I sort of assumed that Tate was the rarity in that. I didn't think he was the only one, but I didn't think it was common at all. Perhaps I'm wrong there.
And you're definitely right that I don't give enough credit to the idea that a senior QB can essentially call any play from the LOS and the coaches will know that he's making a good call. Having someone with such a great command of the playbook is very useful and something that Tate doesn't have yet.
So, thanks for the post. It gives me hope that Tate will improve more than I think he will.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:12 PM ^
No offense to the original poster...but the question of "Upside" is moot....
The real question is CONSISTENCY??
If Tate consistently completes 65% + and a 5-1 TD to INT ratio and puts in 50 or so yards of Rushing every game or so...
Wouldnt that = AWESOME CAREER? and in turn = MANY WINS
I think so... so we have seen what the kid can do...now the real question is...can he do it over and over and over and over again...?
September 15th, 2009 at 7:25 PM ^
No offense taken all. Consistency is huge. I am assuming that the Tate I saw against WMU and ND is the Tate of the rest of the year. If he is (and I do think that he is), then I feel fine about this year.
Of course, I think it's a bit much to expect that he'll have a 1:1 TD:INT ratio or be putting up 5 TDs every game. But know that you don't mean that specifically but just that Tate is consistently playing at this high level.
I guess one question would be, how do Tate's ND stats compare to what we think another, more experienced, QB's stats would look like with everything else held equal? If Tate is close to that hypothetical other QB and he consistently plays like he did (again, I think he will) then, yes, Tate will be quite good for us.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:35 PM ^
If he is close to 65% comp and thows 5 TD for every 1 TD and chips in 35-50 a game and a TD run every other game... that would probably rank among the top Michigan QBs of all time and would lead to many wins...
I hope that is the case of course no one knows for sure, but he will probably put up those kind of numbers quite often one would think... The offense is perfect for his skills.
One of the things that it great about Tate is that he buys in to the "just get the ball in to the playmakers hands" philosophy and its not all on him to be the big playmaker... in turn he actually IS the playmaker like a point guard in a good BB offense.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:18 PM ^
I think you need to take into consideration Brian's point about him trying to make the corner against DBs. If he cuts up, he gets 7-8 yards, maybe even 10+. That will improve. Knowing when to get rid of the ball instead of running will come as well and he will see a huge jump in rushing yards.
This is a kid that had not worked out before he got here. His arm strength will improve. The reason that he can throw the ball so far right now is his excellent mechanics. With the added strength he will be able to heave a pretty deep ball. Maybe not 90 yards, but certainly deep enough.
As of right now, he only knows 70% of the playbook. Wait until he learns the other 30% or they start game planning around him. His numbers will sky rocket.
He still has a lot of upside left, he just has a very high downside.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:28 PM ^
I think that that addresses my points/questions very well.
Besides increased arm strength from working out more, improved decision making, and a great knowledge of the playbook (which, all 3 combined, that's a lot) where else do you think we can reasonably expect to see some improvement? Obviously he's going to get bigger and probably a little bit faster, but I'm not expecting huge changes there.
I guess, after reading all of the stuff above, even if that's the "only" things he improves upon, he'll be quite a good player.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:51 PM ^
Hate to say it, but Tate probably won't be THIS good all year. If he is, I don't really care if he NEVER gets better. That said, he'll improve every single aspect of his game as he matures in this offensive system. He'll become faster, stronger, more accurate, etc, etc. I guess he might not get taller. That's all.
Sure he doesn't have as much upside as, for example Prior, but he also doesn't have as far to go as Prior does either. Sure, if Prior could become as good a passer as Tate is, it would be impossible to stop him, but passing is an athletic skill just like running a 40 is an athletic skill. You can improve your 40 time by working in the weight room, on technique, etc, but someone who runs a 4.7 will never be able to run a 4.4. They just won't.
Passing is the same way. Prior might become an okay passer, but he'll never be great. He'll never even come close to Tate. He might become better at reading coverages than he is now, but he'll never be as good as Tate is right now. These are not only aquired skills. They are talents.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:27 PM ^
It's crazy to think that Tate doesn't have much upside. As been mentioned, he probably won't get much bigger, OH WELL. But, his decision making and running should get better over the few years. Also, we shouldn't be concerned with his NFL potential, just his college career. That being said, he should become more and more familiar with his team over the next few years and that in turn allows for a more fluid offense. I suppose I see upside for Tate but the team as well.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:28 PM ^
Another huge area for improvement is pre-snap reads. We had several plays that resulted in negative yardage. As Tate gets more experienced, he'll be better at reading the defense and changing the play.
Tate is quite good now...just think what he'll be like in year 4.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:11 AM ^
aren't allowed to change plays. Coaches do that for the QBs. This is why you see players looking to the sideline for adjusted plays or audibles.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^
How much of the playbook is really open to him at this point. I have to imagine his arsenal of available plays will only continue to grow
September 15th, 2009 at 7:45 PM ^
Hard to believe that all the same folks who said that starting a true freshman meant we were DOOMED are now saying it can't get any better for a freshman QB.
That is just crazy. He has missed open receivers, made the wrong read, undoubtedly failed to audible out of some plays, probably does not yet know the entire playbook, needs to put on weight and strength, needs to mature (do you realize he will be 20% older in 4 years), etc.
And, unless you have totally lost it, Tate will not win a Heisman or MNC this year. Upside potential is still great.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:59 PM ^
I was more trying to ask how much upside there is. Obviously there must be some simply from that fact that he's a freshman and there's always room to improve. But, part of the question was, has he already started to breach some of the upside that we'd see from a sophomore QB and thus the "jump" next year would be less.
I'm not trying to say that it's not getting any better than a freshman QB, but was trying to imply that perhaps Tate is already past where a "normal" player would be (without a personal coach and whatnot) and thus shouldn't be considered a freshman when it comes to upside. If he's playing more like he will as a sophomore then he "should" as a freshman then I'm not saying that a freshman is as good as it gets but that our current sophomore level QB doesn't have as much upside as the average freshman QB might.
Although he has missed open receivers Brian has point out that his adjusted completion % (adjust for drops and circus catches) is already quite high. I'm assuming that it's not going to go into the 80s and stay there (nice as it would be) so I think that that might stay fairly consistent. Of course, I think that the average distance he might throw will increase which will be nice.
As for your other points, yes, they are all quite valid. Hopefully Tate does improve in all of those areas.
Maybe I'm pessimistic because I simply don't believe that a "mere" freshman QB can be so good and that he must have already "tapped" some of his future upside thus indicating that the increase in awesomeness from freshman to senior year will be less than that of average QB.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:34 PM ^
Of course he can get better! Just because he was groomed to play college ball since 3rd grade does not mean he has hit the ceiling! He will get bigger and stronger, and I wouldn't doubt that at the rate he's playing now, he could win a heisman. If he gets even better, god knows!
September 15th, 2009 at 8:09 PM ^
he's undefeated, ranked #21 in passer rating, and averaging 2.5 TDs/game with .5 INTs/game. And slightly over 50 ypg rushing. That's projects to a pretty awesome career ;-)
September 15th, 2009 at 8:44 PM ^
Call me crazy, but I think this year reminds me a lot of 2004 with Chad Henne. Chad came in and performed way better than a typical freshman. But over the course of his 4 years, I felt like his improvement year over year was not as dramatic as say John Navarre, who went from very shaky as a Junior to an all Big Ten performer as a senior. I think Tate will improve greatly every year. What I really worry about is injuries, he is a bit small. What I really think will prove Tate's success as a COLLEGE QUARTERBACK, is not whether or not he improves by leaps and bounds, but whether or not he has that "IT" factor. Tom Brady had it, Brian Griese even had a little of it. I thought Chad lacked it, as evidenced by a 1-7 bowl record and OSU. If you have the it factor, there is no ceiling. I don't know what "IT" is, but it makes guys love to be down 4 with 2 minutes and 80 yards to go. Let's hope Tate has "IT". So far so good.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:48 PM ^
You also have to look at who Henne had around him from year to year...
September 15th, 2009 at 9:13 PM ^
He's already quite good.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:15 PM ^
Not sure about his upside, but if I were MSU, ND and OSU right now, I'm DREADING facing this fucker for 4 years!
He's a good, positive kid, will help recruiting and add consistency to this program in a time when it never needed it more.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:26 PM ^
He wins and he wins and he wins... That's okay by me.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:28 PM ^
realistic assessment of a guy who's obviously not an athletic freak?
September 15th, 2009 at 10:19 PM ^
Almost by default, Tate has upside...the kid's a true freshman. In the last two game's Tate's been fantastic, and he can get better. In Tate's case, better = guaranteeing production consistency. Two things:
(1) strength and conditioning. Tate is guaranteed to bulk up. Over the next 4 years, he'll put on size, strengthen his core, become harder to bring down and reduce his risk of injury. As this happens, his confidence in tucking the ball and attacking defenses will improve. Without Denard's speed, Tate's not an every-down sideline to sideline homerun threat; but in RR's offense, given the triple-threat dynamic of the mesh-point on almost every play, he can become a legitimate thorn in a defense's side for let's say 4-6 yards per carry. Tate's not going to light you up for a 31 yard TD every game, but he can probably become a consistent 55-75 yard gainer on the ground.
(2) decision making and mechanics. there's no way Tate's done learning how to be a better QB. MM did a hell of a job with him pre-Michigan, and his dad and brothers were great secondary QB coaches through HS. Rod Smith will improve him, and Tate's decision making in Rich Rod's offense will improve as well. As this happens, his pocket awareness will improve and he won't stretch the pocket past max efficiency. This means less poor decision-making after engaging the DE, less tackles for loss, and more gains (and more importantly, more second-chances for solid gains).
Calling a spade a spade, Tate's undersized with the field awareness of a true freshman QB. A savvy true-frosh, but a true-frosh nonetheless. If he is to max out his potential as an accurate passer, scrambler and play-maker, he's going to have to feel more confident tucking the ball in and attacking holes in the defense. I think this will happen as he increases the muscle mass on his frame, and increases the speed and accuracy of his reads.
PS: Tate went up against Tenuta as a true freshman and lit him up. That was a huge test and he passed. I have a ton of confidence in the kid that he will be a very consistent QB for us over time. But right now, you just say 'great freaking two games, kid.' Let's not go overboard with the praise after 2 games.
KEYS TO TATE'S SUCCESS: maintaining a balance of talent around him on the field. I think his talent ceiling requires a big solid RB and a handsy TE. If he ever has a Braylon on the team, he could average 3 TDs throwing to 1 on the ground per game (ok, crazy optimism, but possible right???). I don't foresee him throwing many picks: 2.4ish:1 this year.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:44 PM ^
I think it is probably long enough after the Fan-Freakin-Tastic win over nd to post this. So here goes.
Would the OP still be making this "analysis" if the pass to Matthews was 3 inches more to the outside (resulting in no catch)? Or even if Matthews had not made a very, very good catch (wonder how Brian will rate that last pass)?
Are some people getting a tad bit carried away after just 2 games?
Maybe it is time for folks to relax, take a deep breath, and avoid premature exuberance (that even sounds painful).
September 15th, 2009 at 10:13 PM ^
if we go 12-1 this year will people be complaining about the team's "upside"? I mean shiiiiite, assuming that happens it would be a gain of 9 WIIINNNNNSSSNN!! That 3-9 2008 team kinda sucked, but boy it had good upside!
But this year's hypothetical 12-1 team, MEH. barely any upside left at all!!!
September 15th, 2009 at 10:19 PM ^
Up side? Is he gonna get bigger? How big was Doug Flutie?
September 15th, 2009 at 10:26 PM ^
Bentley, did you see Chad audible against Florida? He couldn't do that as a Freshman.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:35 PM ^
I don't know if anybody has said this yet, but only being 2 games into his college career, there is the speed of the game that he must and will catch up to. That right there will show automatic improvement. 4 years of coaching won't hurt but I think he needs to improve his size and his arm strength mostly
September 15th, 2009 at 11:07 PM ^
People wouldn't be wondering about Forcier's upside if he was 10 pounds heavier and 2 or 3 inches taller. It's true that his short stature doesn't project well for an NFL-type quarterback, however, there are some exceptions..(see Drew Brees...)
However, from what we've seen from him.. if people are expecting him to put up bigger numbers than what he put up in those two games, you're basically expecting him, barring injury, to break almost every B10 passing/total yards record..
I think we'll see him mature over the years he'll spend at Michigan. That will surely amount to fewer mistakes, more consistency, but not necessarily bigger numbers. This season will more than likely be a rollercoaster for both him, and the team as a whole.