Submitted by Firstbase on October 9th, 2010 at 8:57 PM

I actually thought Tate would come into the game for a few downs after Denard's 2nd red zone pick. I really did. State had effectively boxed up the run game and it was time to start throwing mid-range passes -- Tate's forté.

I think it may have settled Denard a bit and may have made a difference had he come back in later.

I also caught myself thinking that we would have been up by 7 or 14 at half had Tate thrown those passes. 

Oh well. What the hell do I know.


McFarlin 2.0

October 9th, 2010 at 9:26 PM ^

That was on 3 plays in a row late in the game. Kelvin Grady bailed us out on a 4th down catch. Denard threw 3 picks today because he could not put the ball where it needed to be.


October 9th, 2010 at 9:20 PM ^

I am pretty torn on whether Denard or Tate should have been playing towards the end of todays game.

In favor of Denard: he's explosive enough to take any play to the house, and he's earned the right to be on the field.

In favor of Tate: Denard's passing was pretty inaccurate (even the completions weren't the prettiest). Also, we constantly talk about having a stable of three QBs that we can win with ... so if one of them is having a bad day, why not dip into the stable?

Ultimately it's tough to pull Denard after what he's done the first 5 weeks. It will be interesting to see what happens if he struggles early against Iowa, though. Under RichRod's concept of letting the best guy play, I think Tate and Devin ought to be given a chance next week.


October 11th, 2010 at 1:07 AM ^

I like it.  There's a lot that goes into a decision like this (and not a lot of time to think with a hurry up offense).  I imagined Tate might come in, and honestly would have preferred it (+ Hopkins) for just one series to calm Denard down after the 2nd interception, but there are a lot of ramifications, too.  Tate might do poorly and Denard may not get the full support and lessons he needs to grow.  Anyway, thanks.

McFarlin 2.0

October 9th, 2010 at 9:25 PM ^

Denard threw 3 picks today because he couldn't place the ball where it needed to be. Tate is a much more accurate passer and would of most likely gotten the ball in the right spot. 

McFarlin 2.0

October 9th, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^

Yeah ban a life long Michigan fan because I have a different opinion then you do. Real cool man. Keep living in your fantasy world that your opinion is always right.  I should be able to state my unpopular opinion with being threatened of being banned. I guess we shouldn't of questioned slavery because at one point in time it was the popular opinion. God forbid I feel differently then you do.


October 10th, 2010 at 1:35 AM ^

I just don't understand why you would take out the most explosive player on the field just because he was having a rough day.  If you take him out and replace him with Tate, what is that saying about RR's confidence in Denard?  Why create a controversy on this team?  If you pull him that will stick with Denard.  You are basically telling him that if he isn't getting 400 yards of offense and 4+ touchdowns, Tate's on his way in.  I liked that RR stuck with him, hopefully this shows Denard that this is his team and RR has confidence in him.


October 9th, 2010 at 9:29 PM ^

When the threat of Denard running the ball was taken away late in the game, I wouldn't have minded if Tate Forcier got a chance to come in and throw the ball.  Tate's better at reading defenses, in my opinion.  A lot of Denard's passes have been completed because of the threat of him running the ball.


October 9th, 2010 at 10:00 PM ^

I could agree that Tate reads pass defenses better than Denard, but do you think Tate makes better zone read calls than Denard (that's an honest question that you're better equipped to answer than I)? Unless the game is really out of hand, a 15 yard Denard run is dangerous and useful until really late in the game.

I'd trust Tate a bit more to squeeze in the tight passes that State was leaving open all day as well (as long as the receivers could hold on). Trouble is, I didn't say to myself, "Man, Denard just isn't going to get it done today" until the game was out of hand. Sometimes QBs have a bad day and there's nothing you can do but give someone else a go. But I wouldn't have made that call until it was too late anyway, which is where I suspect RR found himself.


October 9th, 2010 at 9:44 PM ^

I guess I would have been okay with Tate if Denard was hurt or seemed very lost out there, but the game was still in the balance well into the 4th quarter.  If you pick Denard as your starter, you have to be willing to suffer through these types of games as he improves.  Now, if Denard struggles the next few games maybe you give Tate a chance, but nobody is going to grow and improve if there is a near-constant fear of being pulled after a bad series.


October 9th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^

This thread is ridiculous. Denard is our best quarterback and despite some bad decisions he didn't even have that bad of an outing. Not once did I think of putting in Tate and I imagine RR was in the same boat. Denard is our most explosive weapon so he should get the ball every snap imo.


October 9th, 2010 at 10:25 PM ^

Reasonable forum posts? Can I haz rational thoughts and opinions? No? Ok, I'll quit reading.


Seriously, can this idea not go any further than this post tonight? Denard is our best chance to win. Period.


October 9th, 2010 at 10:30 PM ^

I wondered also what would have happened if Tate came in for only 1 series late in the game.  It seems like MSU prepared well for Denard, but how well did they prepare for Tate?  Maybe a change in qb for a series would have kept MSU's D off balance a little bit.  And it would keep future defenses from only preparing for Denard if they think Tate could come out at any time.  Sure Denard is the starter no question, just trying to throw the defense off a little.


October 9th, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^

Passed through my head in the first quarter, not long after the interception. For some reason, and I am rather certain, Denard was not moving quite as quickly today. He was not running with confidence, particularly the first three steps. The Dink/Donk passing attack, which was largely working due to the coverage, is Tate's forte.

What I really wanted to see: Denard lining up at WR, Tate at QB.

Or: Denard/Tate sprinting on and off of the field.

NOLA Wolverine

October 9th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^

My god, we're the worst fan base ever. Denard has done everything up to this point, and the passes he threw today are nothing new, he's always thrown to where the receiver is at and not to where they're going. We've lived on Denard to this point, and we're going to die with him too, let him grow and figure it out. He's only a sophomore, and he had terrible coaching in HS, give him time. Maybe Tate completes those passes against that coverage, but they wouldn't be in that coverage if Denard wasn't on the field.

NOLA Wolverine

October 10th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^

You know, I'm not really sure. But when I was watching the Thursday night game, their away jerseys didn't have that odd stretched across the torso and loose sleeves look that gives us some ridiculous looking away jerseys. The only way to really illustrate it is this comparision. Our jerseys have never looked right to me since 2008.




October 10th, 2010 at 1:47 AM ^

Never thought about Tate needing to come in. There were plenty of well thrown balls that should have been caught that whether it was Denard, Tate, or Jack Kennedy throwing them, they would have still been dropped because of the receiver. 

The first pick was ugly. No excuse for that. Overthrowing Stonum looked to be duel responsibility. Denard got too excited, and for some stupid reason Stonum pulled up on the route. Really Stonum??

The other red zone pick was a tough throw that probably shouldn't have been made, but any QB is going to assume they can make it. Good defensive play more than errant throw.

The Grady pick is another example of dual responsibility. Yeah, Denard probably would want that back, but as much as I love Kelvin Grady - LOOK FOR THE DAMN BALL. I have no idea what happened with him on that play. 

Denard did look a bit tentative, but early on, they were able to move at will with a good run/pass mix and using others in the backfield. However, when State was able to move up and down the field, it put too much pressure on the offense to keep up (i.e. pass it more). 

Re: Tate - the last time he was meaningful playing time, he was confusing Buckeyes for Wolverines. So it's hard to say he would have done better. Besides, on any given play, Denard can take it to the house. You can't say that about Tate. Even if they lose to Iowa next week, they come back with Penn State, Illinois,  and Purdue - all three are very winnable games. That would make them 8-2 heading into Wisconsin and OSU. 


October 10th, 2010 at 7:08 AM ^

He's the best QB we have. Yes, he forced a couple of passes. Try to remember that 1. State had the best Defense he faced this year and 2. He practices against a defense that ranks 120 out of 120 on passing yards allowed in the FBS, so he isn't used to throwing into tight coverage.


October 10th, 2010 at 9:52 AM ^

I got neg'd a couple weeks back for questioning if Denard was actually a better QB for this team than Tate.  So be it.  These last two games haven't helped Denard's case much.

Even given Shoelace's other-worldly running ability, Tate running this O could still be more difficult to defend.  RR seems to have a preference for a running QB that can pass over a passing QB that can run but I'm not sure that preference would bear out under a head-to-head test against a good Big Ten defence.

I'd really like to see the two of them split time against Iowa so we could get a better idea which QB can put more points on the board!


October 10th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^

These last two games haven't helped Denard's case?  Yes, that 200/200 game against IU was a real bummer. 

The main knock everyone has about Denard's game is that he screwed up in the redzone.  Gee, that never happened to Tate, now did it?


October 10th, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^

The whole "Tate was a Heisman candidate" stuff is getting tiresome.  One or two guys half-jokingly mentioned him as a sleeper last year.  Not the same.  Denard was the clear favorite going into Saturday. 

And yeah, Tate might be better, but he didn't really show me anything new against BGSU.  He still bailed on the pocket very early, which IMO was his biggest problem last year. 


October 10th, 2010 at 8:00 PM ^



I think that people are mislead that Denard's amazing personal statistics have done absolutely nothing for Michigan that Tate hasn't done so far. Only time will tell, but I think Tate as the poor man's Pat White and Denard as pseudo-Slaton is a better talent combination than Denard as Pat White and *insert 2-yard back here*. But what do I know?