Chad Henne v. Tate Forcier - 3 Games in

Submitted by Koyote on September 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 PM

So, I read the recent mail bag questions and was reminded of Chad Henne the Robot. The question came to me. If Chad was a robot, what is Tate? Is Tate a mere human? Or is Tate the next in line of Michigan Robo QBs? I had to know. So it was time to investigate and compare the two.

So what better way to compare than via stats? But I was left with the issue. Chad has a whole body of work for Michigan, while young Tate has only 3 games. Ok, well maybe we will just compare their first 3 games. 

What would Brian do? He would use a chart, so I will also.

Forcier’s First 3 Games

Opponent

Comp/Attempts

%

Yards

Average

TD

INT

WMU

13/20

65%

179

9.0

3

0

ND

23/33

69.9%

240

7.3

2

1

EMU

7/13

53.8%

68

5.2

0

0

TOTAL

43/66

65.2%

487

7.4

5

1

 

Henne’s First 3 Games (2004)

Opponent

Comp/Attempts

%

Yards

Average

TD

INT

Miami (OH)

14/24

58.3%

142

5.9

2

1

at ND

25/40

62.5%

240

6

1

1

SDSU*

11/24

45.8%

162

6.8

2

3

TOTAL

49/88

55.7%

544

6.2

5

5


*San Diego State

But there is so much more to a QB comparison than just pure numbers, you have to look at things like their teams and other factors that might not show up in a chart. Who had the better set of circumstances to allow success?

So,

Non-Chartable factors to consider
1. Wide Receivers
  • Chad had Braylon Edwards, Avant and Breaston (All Future Pros)
  • Tate has Hemmingway, Mathews, Stonum, and Odoms (Hopeful future pros, but probably not the same talent level
  • Advantage = Chad

2. Running Backs
  • Chad had Underwood and a rarely used Mike Hart (at least for the first few games)
  • Tate has Minor and Brown
  • Advantage = Tate

3. Tight End
  • Chad had Ecker and Massaquoi
  • Tate has Koger and Webb
  • Advantage = ??? I think Koger has potential to be great. But right now I'd say it is a Push

4. O-Line (Starters)
  • Chad had Kolodziej, Riley, Bas, Lentz, and a Young Jake Long
  • Tate has Ortmann, Schilling, Molk, Moosman, Huyge
  • Advantage = Chad

5. Scheduling
  • Chad had Miami (OH), at ND, SDSU
  • Tate had WMU, ND, EMU
  • Advantage = Tate - All home games

6. Opponent Strength (Comparing each team 3 games in - seeing how it is hard to judge our current opponents ignoring final records because they are not available for this year (obviously)).
  • Chad - Miami (OH) (1-2), ND (2-1), SDSU (2-1)
  • Tate - WMU (1-2), ND (2-1), EMU (0-3)
  • Advantage = Tate - Opponents combined win total was weaker at 3-6, Chad's were 5-4

7. System
  • Chad was in a pro-style offense
  • Tate is in a spread offense
  • Advantage = Push, both are good fits for the QB

8. "it"
  • Chad had swagger as a freshman QB - although he didn't do his come from behind victory over MSU (which made him Robo Henne) at this point
  • Tate has moxie - he led a come from behind drive against ND
  • Advantage = I'd guess Push again. Although you could argue Tate

Non-chartable results
  • Henne - 2 (better WR&OL)
  • Tate - 3 (Favorable scheduling, Weaker Opponents, Better RB support)
  • Push - 3 (TE, System, 'it")

So what were my findings?

FINDINGS!

I propose that Focier is QB Robot v 2.0

Ok, maybe that is a bit early for that, but hear me out. 

Tate appears to compare favorably with Henne on a pure stats basis. Tate has a higher completion percentage, an equal number of passing TDs, far less interceptions.  The only category he seems to be behind is yards. Which can be attributed to the fact that the running game steamrolled EMU and didn't need to have much throwing.

In terms of the non-chartables. Tate appears to have been in a better situation as a freshman, although it could easily be argued that he was in the worse position because of the pressure that came onto him when he entered. I don't think Chad Henne was ever billed as the savior of the program before he came in.

So yeah, high hopes for Tate

Disclaimers&Thoughts
  1. Three games is a pretty small sample size
  2. It would likely be helpful if done at the end of the season (Future Diary Post maybe)
  3. Didn't examine overall team strength - no analysis of Special Teams and Defense's ability to help out a young QB.
  4. I thought about comparing him to other QB starters, however, considering that the majority of our QB sit for a few years learning the system, it didn't seem fair.
  5. I was unsure if Tate had more time to learn the offense than Henne. Does anyone know when Chad came in? Did he enroll early? If not, did Coach Carr send him a playbook early?

Comments