PLZ Stop the "Tate is too short"
I think about 60% of people are on board with Tate, but the haters best argument is that he is short. I think we can put this argument to rest. I'm not saying Tate will be as good as Drew Brees (though that would be nice), I'm saying being 6'1" or 6' tall doesn't preclude a QB from being successful.
Drew Brees had a pretty decent college career ("left Purdue with Big Ten Conference records in passing yards (11,792), touchdown passes (90), total offensive yards (12,693), completions (1,026), and attempts (1,678). He led the Boilermakers to the 2001 Rose Bowl, Purdue's first appearance there since 1967. Brees was a finalist for the Davey O'Brien Award as the nation's best quarterback in 19c9. He won the Maxwell Award as the nation's outstanding player of 2000 and won the NCAA's Today's Top VIII Award as a member of the Class of 2001. Brees was also fourth in Heisman Trophy voting in 1999 and 3rd in 2000.") and is doing ok in the NFL if you haven't noticed. And check out his whopper stats his freshman year when he was a backup to Billy Dicken (who?):
Sources:
http://www.purduesports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/brees_drew00.html
http://www.qbforce.com/NEW2009/TATE/tates-home.html
| Year | Att. | Comp. | Int. | Yds. | TD | Pct. |
| 1997 | 43 | 19 | 1 | 232 | 0 | 0.442 |
| 1998 | 569 | 361 | 20 | 3983 | 39 | 0.634 |
| 1999 | 554 | 337 | 12 | 3909 | 25 | 0.608 |
| 2000 | 512 | 309 | 12 | 3668 | 26 | 0.604 |
| Totals | 1,678 | 1,026 | 45 | 11,792 | 90 | 1 |
Sources:
http://www.purduesports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/brees_drew00.html
http://www.qbforce.com/NEW2009/TATE/tates-home.htmlJanuary 4th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
Some short people play tall. Some tall people play short. Tate is short and plays short.
Next topic.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^
I am not sure how you define playing short, but one thing I think of is a low delivery. John Navarre is a great example of a guy 6-6 who had a long stride and a low release and sent what seemed like half of his throws into the waiting arms of defensive lineman. Oh, and by the way, the knock on Devin Gardner is that he has a low release and a long delivery. I do not feel that Tate has a shoulder delivery, so I would need you to explain how he plays short.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
I would need you to explain how he plays shortThis should be priceless...
January 4th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
bets that stock prices will go down.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
is that you are ridiculous. Not one thing--one--that you have endlessly posted on Tate is either 1-factual (other than you know his height), 2- not disproved by other college QB's that have had great college careers, or 3- explained by the words "true freshman." Not one thing that you have posted on the topic is insightful, or interesting.
Opposite opinions are fine, if someone told me "I don't think Tate will become a great college QB" because of the size and arm factors--fair enough. But you don't do that. You write him off based upon his true freshman year, a year that was quite respectable based upon other true freshman years by excellent college QB's. That's not another opinion, it's ignorant.
Next topic.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
Can we say he's vertically challenged?
January 4th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^
Doug Flutie.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^
Not criticizing, just pointing out...
January 4th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
that is a quote from The Office.
Dwight: "One word, two syllables: demarcation."
January 4th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
well done.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
Two words, three syllables.
EDIT: Sorry, same posting time, but you beat me to it.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
Anytime you have to run to one side of the field or the other to see to the second level of receivers, you are "playing short".
Unlike Drew Brees (a short guy who plays big) who can step back in the pocket, stay there, have great pocket presence and throw downfield.... unlike Brees, Tate has to be rolled to one side of the field or the other so that he can see and throw downfield.
WHY START THREADS LIKE THIS? This thread is a recipe for a neg bang. Either think like the group or be neg banged to death. And do you think for one second that a neg bang is going to change one single mind? Of course not. And should people be censored and not entitled to their own opinion? Or course not.
Threads like this are useless.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^
Is it a recipe for a neg-bang? Sure, but that only matters if he's all worked up about MGoPoints...
I liked the stats, etc. even if it is a played out subject already. Welcome to the offseason, brother.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
I think the point is that Dr. Sherwin is being neg-banged, which he shouldn't be. He's responding to the post with his opinion, which is directly on topic. People shouldn't be neg-banged every time they say something critical about one of our players.
So a post like this is basically a trap. You can either say "yeah, I agree," or dissent and get neg-banged.
(For the record, I don't think Tate is too short. I also haven't seen that many posts complaining about his size, so I don't understand the purpose of this thread).
January 4th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
I just don't understand why Dr. Sherwin is so angry--it's like he's personally offended by Tate Forcier.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
As I said above, he doesn't say "I don't see Tate being a great college QB" which would be fine and the other side of the opinion--he says basically, that Tate sucks. Which is ignorant if you base it upon last year, or most true freshman QB's, or, as he does, that Tate is not the "big, sturdy" QB that he craves.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^
I feel strange defending him now, because his rant below truly was ignorant and idiotic. However, in the posts that originally got negged, he took issue with Tate's pocket presence, saying that he needed to roll out to see the field. That was not just saying that "Tate sucks". His original posts, at least, were legitimate on their face and shouldn't have been negged.
Perhaps he made other posts about Tate in the past that led you to realize, before I did, that he has an irrational hatred for young Forcier. I still feel that individual posts should be judged on their own merit, and people shouldn't be negged for past idiocies, but if that's the situation I understand more where people were coming from when they negged him.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
He responded to a well-thought-out post, which includes statistics, facts, etc. with a completely nonsense statement about "playing short" and "playing tall" -- complete bullshit which, at no point, intersects with reality. It has no meaning or value because it refers to things that don't actually exist.
When asked to further elaborate, he provides only a gross generalization which fails to yield any tangible meaning. He fails to consider other reasons why Tate might roll out of the pocket... he also fails to provide any useful explanation for why Brees has better pocket presence, despite being the same height as Tate, when the topic is about whether Tate's height is a detriment.
That's why he gets neg-banged: he's an idiot and we don't like idiots around here.
If he backed up his opinion with facts and was capable of rational discourse, he might get different results. Probably too late at this point, though.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
Like I said, I feel strange defending him because his later posts did reveal him to be an idiot. But I strongly disagree with your assessment of the original posts.
The original post was not a "well thought-out post, which includes statistics, facts, etc." The guy basically said that short quarterbacks can do well because Drew Brees was great, and cited Brees' statistics. That does not qualify as a "well thought-out post." That's like me saying that short guys can play above-the-rim, and citing all of Spud Webb's dunks.
Doctor Sherwin responded by saying that Tate "plays" short, further explicating that Tate lacks pocket presence and has to roll out to see the second level receivers. That's a perfectly legitimate observation. You of course are free to disagree with it, but it's far from an idiotic point. I don't see how the burden is on Doctor Sherwin to explain why Brees has better pocket presence than Tate -- I think the burden is on the person making the comparison to explain why Tate can conceivably be compared to Brees in the first place.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
is a response to posters who, as of late, have been asserting that because Tate is short and slight, he will never be any good. Drew Brees is an example of a short QB who was good. This is thoughtful because it indicates that the OP considered the logical structure of the aforementioned posters' arguments and addressed a relevant weakness appropriately.
The "playing short" rhetoric is idiotic because it contains numerous gaps in reasoning and fallacies. The burden of proof is on Sherwin because his argument refers exclusively to intangible concepts (e.g. "playing short") and effects with ambiguous causes (e.g. Tate rolls out "to see receivers" when it very well may be that the OL missed a block or two, or perhaps it was a design element in the play). Further clarification is needed.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
So being short is not a disadvantage for quarterbacks? Really? Drew Brees renders fifty years of conventional wisdom irrelevant?
Being short is a disadvantage for a quarterback. It can be overcome by exceptional players. Drew Brees was an exceptional player. Hopefully Tate is one as well, but right now it's too soon to tell. The idea that Tate's height shouldn't even be a concern because DREW BREES!!! is, simply, idiotic.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
Tate's height is definitely a disadvantage but this does not doom him to mediocrity. Again, people are entitled to their opinions but when you are in the dissenting camp the burden is greater to back it up with facts and sound logic (welcome to life). Otherwise, you will be negged.
The point being, this is the severely limited argument of Dr. Sherwin and the other guy:
1) Tate is short and slight
2) UM had a lousy season
3) Tate is UM's quarterback
--
Therefore, UM's lousy season was because Tate is short and slight
This is a fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc and indicates that they are idiots, because fallacy and idiocy are in an exclusive romantic relationship. But the fun continues:
1) There are other QBs who are big and hefty
2) These particular QBs played for teams which achieved success
3) UM has an incoming big and hefty QB
--
Therefore, Tate will get beat out by a true frosh who is big and hefty
etc.
I don't have all day, but you get the idea.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:17 PM ^
Again, people are entitled to their opinions but when you are in the dissenting camp the burden is greater to back it up with facts and sound logic (welcome to life).
That's just silly, because it depends entirely on who you deem to be the "dissenter". I could just as easily argue that the original poster is "dissenting" from those who believe that short quarterbacks are less likely to prosper, and thus he has a greater burden of proof. Basically, you're saying that people who disagree with what you believe to be true have a greater burden of proof. Awfully convenient.
In the legal world, it is the person making the original claim who has the burden of proof. Here, the original poster compared Tate to Drew Brees, a future hall-of-famer. The burden is on him to explain how Drew Brees' success in any way foretells similar success for Tate. The burden is not on others to explain why Drew Brees' numbers are irrelevant.
The point being, this is the severely limited argument of Dr. Sherwin and the other guy:
1) Tate is short and slight
2) UM had a lousy season
3) Tate is UM's quarterback
--
Therefore, UM's lousy season was because Tate is short and slight
That would be an idiotic argument. But it's not at all what he said. His original posts said simply that Tate lacks pocket presence, as demonstrated by his needing to roll out to see the second level receivers.
Basically, you're justifying negging someone for something they didn't say, and defending an indefensible comparison of Tate to Drew Brees.
Yes, his later posts were moronic and deserved to be negged. But the earlier negs were just another example of the tendency of some on this board to collectively attack anyone who dares say anything critical.
January 4th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
Yes, his later posts were moronic and deserved to be negged. But the earlier negs were just another example of the tendency of some on this board to collectively attack anyone who dares say anything critical.
This is what I meant by the burden of proof being on the dissenter. It has nothing to do with what I believe except for the incidental fact that I agree with the majority in this instance. That's just the way life is. Those who defy the "common" wisdom of a community end up in the stocks. Not saying it's right or wrong.
As for my distilled version of the anti-Tate argument, call it a straw man if you will but this is what I was referring to:
It seems most of U of m fan got fooled by the Western, ND, Indiana, and Eastern start. I sorry folks this is U of M. You are ultimately judged by your performance against the cream of the Big Ten, pre-season top 25 teams and bowl competition. Threet and Sheridan made fans satisfied with mediocrity and it shows. If Tate was on another team we would be salivating to play him and knock is small a$$ out the game. Dave Molk does not make an offense and Tate had talent around him. If Navarre or Henne performed like him we would be running him out of town. Say what you want but if Gardener is not starting soon then God help us all.
(from 21blue21 -- "Tate Bashing")
This clearly implicates Tate in the overall result of the season. That's how I read it at least.
January 4th, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
But that's a different poster, making a different argument! How does the fact that 21blue21 said something stupid in a different thread justify negging an entirely different post by Dr. Sherwin? For a self-professed defender of logic, your reasoning is fallacious.
January 4th, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
My argument is under the assumption that it's one troll with two accounts. They show up posting the same ideas at the same time using the same writing style. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.
Anyway, the overall thrust of their argument is ridiculous. And people seem to agree with that much, at least.
January 4th, 2010 at 9:02 PM ^
You aren't wrong
January 4th, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^
Who cares what Drew Brees numbers were? He's an outlier, they mean next to nothing. Also, Doctor Sherwin doesn't have 20 mgopoints, his concern is reasonable.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
Yeah, they're not particularly useful, but the post wasn't just "EVRY1 STP CALLING T8 2 SHORT"... At least there was some effort put in.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
Are there too many facts for you? Or maybe visual evidence? That stuff really messes up ranting BS arguments.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
I'm a Tate fan, but this is ridiculous. You think this is irrefutable proof that Tate is great and has no flaws? I'm sure that there are many busts who were named offensive player of the week for fluky performances.
It's amazing that our team only had 1 win in the Big 10, when so many of our key players are above reproach.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
He's not entirely wrong. The reads are much easier when you roll out and some of that has to do with having a clear field of vision, something tall quarterbacks don't have as much trouble with. Tate rolled out a lot this year.
Also what does some fan poll have to do with anything?
January 4th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
Not to mention September 17, 2009 when I received a text message from ESPN that Tate Forcier was named AT&T/ESPN All-America Player of the Week.
I still haven't deleted that text message and probably never will. (I'm a total dork, I know.)
January 4th, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^
at first as well. But after watching more of the games I think it was designed roll outs due to the offensive line issues with Molk out. Could be either. Hard to know what Tate sees and doesn't see back there. He did hit Odoms on a deeper route vs Indiana standing in the pocket. Just one off the top of my head.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
I am not negging you, by the way, an opinion is an opinion. My only point is, you are citing a result as a cause. You say that Tate has to be rolled out to see the recievers because he is short, but drew brees can stay in the pocket at the same height. My question is why? Are Brees' eyes higher on his face? If you are claiming that Tate Forcier has trouble reading defenses and needs to roll out to limit his decisions to one side of the field and to a couple of recieving options, I could accept that as an argument, whether or not I agree. I only have a problem with saying that because he is short he can't play out of the pocket. That argument is negated by QB's such as Brees and Leak and Daniels, etc. You really need to define why you feel he can't be a pocket passer based on more specific points. Also, it is possible, and I believe this to be the case, that we roll tate out becasue it gives him a run pass option and he throws well on the run. I think we are playing to his strengths as opposed to avoiding his weaknesses.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
This is exactly why he ought to be negged. He has no concept of logic. That's not acceptable.
Keep the Ann Coulters out of MGoBlog.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^
...like Jared Lorenzen.
Oh wait...
January 4th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
logic fail
January 4th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
One of my favorite nicknames.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
Tate is too short. He's going to have to sell himself to get the NFL to touch him. More importantly, is his height also limits his overall size/ability to take hits. He's not going to be a big bad college quarterback like Young or Pryor that can stiff arm linebackers and shrug off hits. This also means he's more likely to take injuries when he gets hit by the big guys.
Even Henne, who wasn't all that mobile, was a big guy who would occasionally scramble and lower his shoulder. I remember the PSU game where Henne needed a first down, the PSU LB thought Henne was going to slide and Henne ran him over and kept on trucking down the field.
All that said, does that make Tate a bad player? No. He's a good quarterback and he is going to get us wins, but he isn't the ultimate system quarterback for us. I think Tate is going to have a great run with us, hopefully set some records and collect some awards and bowl wins, but Gardner and those who follow will likely eclipse Tate's records.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^
The problem with Tate is not that he is too short. Tate's weight is a big problem also. Tate had personal trainers before college and came in a 180. He put on 10lb and promptly lost is during the season. If Tate was 225 RIGHT NOW then his height maybe could be ignored. I'm all for the resilience of the human spirit but this is football. Size and speed are the name of the game.
Comparing Tate to Brees is just asinine. They play in two completely different offenses. Tiller spread is more run and shoot while RichRod's is more run oriented. Tiller had no problem throwing the ball 70 times. Did you see any evidence last year that RichRod was going to accommodate Tate and change to a run and shoot spread?
Tate is going to be an excellent backup. He has a year under his belt. The fan base will not have to go into panic mode if goes under center. Tate is a back up IMO. A very good one just like Doug Flutie.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
It's not uncommon to lose weight during the season. Clausen was down to under 190ish after his freshman year because he was just getting the crap kicked out of him (took 60 sacks or something like that) and therefore was in no position to be hitting the weights in between games.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
Tate is too short.tate:
too $hort:
no way. two different dudes.January 4th, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^
In a sea of random...tall, short, big, little, vision, blindness, up, down, capable, incapable...you, sir have hit the mark.
Plus 1 to you.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
I really don't get the point of this post. Everyone knows you can find quarterbacks who have succeeded in spite of their relative small size. These exceptions, though don't mean size doesn't matter. They don't negate the fact that smaller quarterbacks can't see as well downfield and have lower release points.
Also, who's actually been banging the "Tate is too short drum"?
January 4th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
The point is that Tate is roughly the same height (and about the same size as a true freshman) as the record holder in most passing categories in the Big Ten. Brees was one of the best passers in Big Ten history and is one of the best QBs in the NFL right now, and even Brees essentially did not play as a freshman. That is the point.
or, from the post, "I'm saying being 6'1" or 6' tall doesn't preclude a QB from being successful."
January 4th, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^
The fact that one quarterback achieved great success despite being vertically challenged does not prove that lack of height doesn't make it more difficult for a quarterback to succeed. To use other similar (albeit extreme) arguments:
Christy Brown was a great poet, artist and author, despite having no control over any limbs other than his left foot. Thus, having no control over one's limbs does not preclude one from being a great artist.
Kyle Maynard was an award-winning college wrestler despite not having any arms or legs. Thus, not having arms or legs does not preclude one from being a successful wrester.
Pete Gray and Jim Abbott (go blue!) played professional baseball despite having only one arm / hand, respectively. So missing an arm or hand doesn't prevent one from playing pro baseball.
Tom Dolan (go blue again!) won multiple gold medals despite severe asthma that limited his air intake to only 10% of a normal person. Thus, severe asthma does not preclude one from being a gold-medal winning swimmer.
January 4th, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
Thanks for making my point