Platooning QBs - How to use this to Michigan's advantage
MCalibur's post really got me thinking (which hurts a little on a Friday evening) about the Tate/Denard choice in a different light. Specifically it got me thinking about the obvious advantages Michigan might exploit if/when Denard shows that he is game ready. A few thoughts:
- I still am somewhat convinced that Tate has earned the starting role for game 1. Beyond that I think the best looking QB for the week leading up to the next game, including the game played last, should and will start the next contest. Tate was just a warrior for us last season and took a heavy beating. So even if it is only for a series or two, I would most like to see him get the starting nod.
- Having such divergent talents of roughly equal effectiveness (hopefully very effective, i.e. Tate-September-2009) will really allow Michigan a sweet opportunity to exploit the practice time of each upcoming opponent. They can start out trying one player out to see how well prepared the defense is for him, and if they seem particularly well prepared have some level of confidence that the other player will find success. Of course if the starter dominates from the beginning, we might be able to run away with any given game.
- Of course the QB is not the only skill positions that teams will prepare for, and that might yield another advantage. Each QB is likely to practice in large part with the same set of skill players (1st team vs 2nd team) and thus could produce entire platoons of playmakers in tune with their respective QB. Michigan's roster seems well equipped for this scenario, with many slots and backs of varying talents and even enough outside receivers to make it work well. There are even two very talented TEs to choose from.
So in summary, not only would the opposing defense have to choose their poison at QB, they would have to take a guess as to which platoon of skill position players would be with them and that could also be varied each week. All together, this should give Michigan the ability to find a very strong combination by around the 5th possession, or possibly just steamroll from the beginning. Even the worst case scenario there ends up keeping everyone of import both fresh physically and into the game mentally.
I am stoked thinking about this. Bring on the season.
Tate has not earned anything. If Denard outplays Tate on a daily basis in practice, he WILL be the starter.
Exactly. I really don't understand why people keep throwing out the "Tate has earned the starting spot" thing. Rodriguez has said nothing of the sort, and people get passed on depth charts all the time.
I view the starting spot for UConn as anything from a token nod to last year's performance to Tate just earning it in practice, but either way I hope he gets the first snap.
Whatever QB gives RR the best chance to keep his job will be on the field. I doubt anything will be held back.
This is pretty much what I have been preaching/hoping for since both QB's were signed over a year ago, and especially since Denard's improvement this spring. I would add this:
4. An offense like the spread option, which creates gross mismatches, isn't as dependent upon a QB being "in sync" with recievers as an offense where recievers are usually more closely covered. It's always an advantage to have the QB's and recievers "in sync," but when this offense works, players get so wide open that the QB merely has to get the ball reasonably close to where it is supposed to go.
It's nice to see that Forcier can "force" a ball into coverage when he has to and come up with a positive play, but both QB's should have plenty of opportunities to throw to wide-open recievers, too.
In other words, the "lack of reps/no time go get into a groove" argument against using two QB's really doesn't apply as much to this situation or offense as it has to others in the past. This offense will work and it will work with either Forcier or Denard taking the snaps.
Which is the way it should be. Whether it's Tate or Denard, they'll have to earn it under RR. He isn't going to hand it to either one beforehand.
That being said, I think having both guys is an advantage, not the disadvantage some try to make it out to be. Their strengths are different, and hence they put different kinds of pressure on a defense. If we play somebody with a stout run defense but a porous secondary, Tate might be the smart choice to start. If we play somebody else with a strong secondary but a porous defensive line or lousy LBs, then Denard might be the ticket.
The question I have is what will be the reaction of Tate or Denard to not being named the starter. For some reason I think that Denard will handle it better.
For some reason I think that Denard will handle it better.
I agree with this, and think that it may end up weighing in on RR's ultimate decision. I really think Denard will have to be the obvious choice to start the first game, and if the competition is even close he will go with Tate. And having said this I admit that I probably, definitely, and most likely really have no clue what RR will do... ;~)
Like I said earlier today, this Two Headed Monster concept could work well for us. Like Leak and Tebow in '06, we have two QB's "we can win with" with complimentary abilities. We just probe and test, and figure out which one exposes our opponent the most, and bring in the other for a change of pace, or specific down situations.
I hope Tate is the starter. If not, he will transfer.
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 21 | 34 | 55 | 89 |
msu would never figure it out, 'cause thay dummehs.
Sparty would respond to your sequence with "You cant have two guys with the same number on the field at the same time, dummy"
Tate has kind of proven himself over the course of a season--one where he was injured and playing behind a completely inept offensive line after the Indiana game.
I mean, I know Denard looked great in the spring game against a bunch of walk-ons from Okemos and Tawas, and I get that he has improved with a whole year under his belt--but come on: without Tate last year's team would have gone 2-10 and Rodriguez would be sitting next to Lou Holtz on Saturdays this year. I think it stands to reason Tate will also improve. I just can't understand how so many have seemingly given up on him.
I don't buy the "third year-ish" starter crap. 15 extra spring practices and tossing taped towels around for a month before that don't exactly equate to starting against Notre Dame.
And Denard is going to face a strange thing in games this year if he starts: The PRESSURE. Oh, and of course, something he didn't face in the spring game: a funny little thing called a "blitz" and of course, defenses that can actually tackle the QB.
Funny, also, how platooning QB's is going to work here against all odds. It has been shown to work like almost, if not always, never.
I know it's all about "earning" something and all, but if Tate's experience from last year doesn't at least mean he is given every opportunity, and then some, I couldn't balme the kid one bit for telling Rodriguez he'll see him when both are wearing different uniforms next year. The kid earned it for this year unless he has totally tossed everything aside.
I still don't think Tate's play last year alone is enough to have "earned" him starter status this year. If Denard is noticeably better in practice, I would expect RR to take the risk and start him right away. I have been a big fan of Denard from the beginning and was hoping he'd be starting this year. But honestly, I bet Tate gets the start, but both QBs will be getting an equal amount of snaps at least through the first half of the season. I don't think we'll know who the real starting QB is by game 5 or so, and whoever it is will certainly be tested through the MSU-Iowa-PSU stretch. We shall see. I don't really care what happens as long as it works.
And that's fine. I'm definitely in with the "whatever works" meme.
But I also notice you've been a fan of Denard "from the beginning"--which could show a bias.
Look: Last year Tate took a beating. He led Michigan to an improbable win against ND and a stone-cold death march comeback against Indiana--and was injured while doing so against the Hoosiers. When Molk went down, the offensive line was turrrible. As someone else said, Tate was a warrior last year. The only game where he looked bad was Ohio State--and they were, uh, kind of great. They throttled Massoli and Oregon, if I recall, and Penn State as well. Of course, someone will jump up and down and scream: PURDUE!
This isn't coming from an entitlement stance--but really, what HAS Denard proven? A nice drive against Iowa? The spring game against total shit?
And if we don't know the starter by game five--sorry, but that spells 2-3 T-R-O-U-B-L-E. Denard starting says to me "another first-year starter." BAD.
If Rod Smith is a good quarterback coach and Rodriguez and Magee are the offensive genii that we all hope--they have found a way to capitalize on Tate Forcier's strangths, because a run-first spread won't work at this level (Oklahoma! Georgia! Acknowledged and accepted--and excepted), coach to them, and build on them. Look at OSU: Not doing anything with Pryor until he learns how to pass, amiright? And how many Michigan fans laugh at Pryor--because they <i>don't think he can pass</i>.
Robinson has been the darling of people who read practice reports and blurbs on this site and pay sites. I SAW with my own eyes Tate Forcier get shit done last year IN GAMES.
That counts for a lot--and in my book a whole lot--over practice blurbs and Robinson working Michigan's second-string defense in a controlled scrimmage.
Denard will only get better with more real-game experience. Tate had the upper hand on him last year with early enrollment and had more time to learn the system. I expected big improvement from Denard in the offseason and saw it in the spring game, despite the fact it wasn't against the strongest d. He showed better poise, better decision making, and he definitely looked more comfortable. Some solid playing time against UConn and ND will only build his confidence and make him a very solid option for QB , especially with his speed. I think it's a bit ignorant to base starter status solely on last season's performance. Let's let performance in practice and the first couple games show us how these guys have progressed. I'm not completely convinced which one is our go-to guy, and it might not be one sole person.
Do we buy into the "you got to prove yourself in practice" theme. It's as if Rodriguez said that one day in some interview or something, like when he said, "Playing time is voluntary" or "I only care about players who play for Michigan" or some other shit Michigan fans now like to echo as if THAT stuff is etched in stone instead of "Last year's starter, who got his fucking ass kicked because he had no help and was left on an island."
The point here is this: Michigan's defense as of right now is absolutley NO measuring stick, especially in practice, about who is better.
Forcier and his family showed a ton of balls, especially with what happened to Jason, by comitting to Rodriguez. He showed a ton of balls last year. And I'm not going to toss that away because Denard scored a TD against Western Michigan, led one TD drive against Iowa, and showed promise against Michigan's second-string defense in a controlled scrimmage where they couldn't touch the quarterback.
Are you serious?
Last year's games should have little impact on who starts this year, for either Tate or Denard. It doesn't even matter who starts the first game. Both QBs will have their chances to prove their progression in the first few games. I'd be damned if RR says "Tate is starting all games this year because, god dammit, he took a beating last year and deserves it". That's just plain silly. The job is going to go to the most qualified if one is clearly better. You cannot argue that.
And based on what I've seen, in actual GAMES--Tate Forcier is the better quarterback and should start.
With all due respect, of course, to blogs and blurbs and spring games where the defense couldn't even blink at the quarterback.
I just don't see how you see this as still relevant. Both QB's have had an entire offseason to train and prepare. The only thing I can conclude on the QB position from last year's games is that we don't know the true potential of either of these guys yet. Tate was injured most of the year, and Denard plainly lacked experience.
And if Tate is without a doubt the "better quarterback and should start", we wouldn't even be discussing this right now. The job is clearly open.
Tate?
In all seriousness, you sound extremely uniformed right now. Just step back, take a deep breath, and try again another day. Telling us all how last year's games should tell us who should start this year is not only ridiculous but also goes against everything RichRod has ever said. He wants competition because he wants to get the best players on the field. If games are the only thing that matter, why do kids even practice? You said "and based on what I've seen, in actual GAMES--Tate Forcier is the better quarterback and should start." Well based on everything RichRod has seen, he put Denard with the 1s so obviously it isn't clear cut. Although I guess you probably know more about it than RichRod, you know, with you being at practices and all and evaluating how much each one of them has progressed from last year, so congrats on being the starter Tate.
You know, when Lloyd was the coach and Michigan was sucking it up, we ALL knew more than him and no one was riding you out of town on a rail or accusing you of being "uninformed" if you criticised him.
Now, of course, Rich Rod knows all. And because he's tossed a few memorable quotes out there, it's become the lexicon by which Michigan fans live and tell those who disagree how stupid they are. I guess when you go 8-16 your first two years, get the team on probation, be a public PR disaster, and screw up your defensive coordinator hire, you've earned the right to be defended to the death.
And of course, those who read the practice blurbs on Denard and shout "Dilithium!" "Our helmets have wings!" are infinitely more informed because, you know, THEY'VE been to all the practices and have seen what's going on with THEIR own eyes, too.
I know one thing: Forcier showed some, uh, "GRIT" last year--a lot of grit. A lot of moxie. A lot of ingenuity. And he did it behind a shit offensive line, with NO running backs, with NO receivers excepting the wonderful Tay Odoms and Roy Roundtree when he was unleashed late in the season, and absolutely NO defense.
So yeah, fuck me if I feel Tate has kind of earned the benefit of the doubt (unless he has tossed it all aside, like I said before, and shows up at practice wearing flip-flops and a sombrero). I also DO know I absolutely do NOT want the third first-year starter in a row here. And that, stuboornly or not on my part, is pretty much based on principle alone, I admit.
It doesn't matter what RR said. We have 2 unproven QBs - their play will dictate who starts.
This "grit" argument makes no sense. Who cares what Tate showed last year? What matters is what he can do now. It's just plain stupid to consistently start someone based on performance last year alone. You're completely ignoring the possiblity that Denard has improved substantially. All you want to talk about is "Tate did this and that last year". If he really is the starter, he will earn it in practice and through the beginning of the season, not through performance last year.
What Tate showed last year, because he was pretty much a one-man offense. And one thing I, like most others seem to be doing, is NOT ignoring the possibility that Tate will improve substantially.
Just curious... what do you think Bo Schembechler's reaction would have been to some player saying he was going to transfer if Bo didn't name him the starter?
Bo isn't coaching anymore. I only worry about guys who coach for Michigan.
It would be fun, however, to employ two offenses.
Offense #1: Spread Option
QB: D. Robinson
RBs: M. Cox, F. Touissant
Slots: J. Gallon, T. Robinson
WRs: J. Jackson, R. Miller
TEs: K. Koger, M. Webb
C: Molk
Gs: Schilling, Mealer, Washington
Ts: Huyge, Dorrestein
Offense #2: Air Raid
QB: T. Forcier
RBs: V. Smith, M. Shaw
Slots: M. Odoms, R. Roundtree
WRs: D. Stonum, J. Hemingway, J. Stokes
C: R. Khoury
Gs: P. Omameh, R. Barnum
Ts: Lewan, Schofield
Trying to defend both of these spread offenses would be brutal. The reason we can't run both with everyone is b/c the number of blocking schemes and pass protections become too time-consuming to practice and difficult to execute in games.
In the year 2000, a small school from Mississippi by the name of Delta State won the DII National Championship running two offenses. They had a spread offense and a double slot option attack running midline and triple a la Georgia Tech. Delta State was a load. They used two different QBs and two different OLs, but the RB, slots, and WRs played both. They put up 63 points in the title game.
It would also make injuries brutal. Assuming the two offensive units would run different playbooks, we would end up with no one in reserve for either.
Injuries happen, especially on the OL, and there isn't enough depth. However, maybe a lineman or two would be smart enough and good enough (ahem, Molk) to play in both systems, thus providing enough depth. This would definitely not be for the younger players.
As I said, the idea is completely untenable.
This is actually something I've pondered. You're a coach, so better at being able to discuss this with authority, but in my own layman's terms, here's what I kind of envision:
Starting Denard, running the "run first (whatever)" spread. More ball control, establishing some form of control, less turnover prone, and if Denard is really that good, having teams chase him and the speedy midgets around.
Then you bring in Tate and go a bit more pro-set or just more passing--and in mid-game the opposing defenses have to adjust.
I could see this working enough, especially in the first six games. It probably would limit Forcier's exposure to injury--and he had a bevy of them last year, including a concussion.
I just wonder if, especially with such a young team, though, the staff can really work two different offenses and game plans into this team's preparation and do it efficiently. In other words: would these be two OK offenses as opposed to one that runs much better because that is what is practiced most of the time?
You might disagree but I think Tate will start against UCONN just for the fact RR will have some stability for the first time as the coach of Michigan. It is a small victory, but to have the same opening game starter two years in a row is one of the first signs of a program about to come back with a vengence.
With that said Mr Robinson might play the second series.
Unless either Tate or Denard has regressed significantly by the end of fall practice, I think it's a given that both are going to see a lot of snaps during at least the first part of the season. Tate is too effective at throwing the ball to keep him on the bench, and Denard is too dynamic running with the ball to keep him there as well. The only way I see one of them grabbing a large majority of the snaps (barring injury) is if the other displays an inability to move the team and/or protect the ball while doing so. Frankly, I think our offense is going to be OK with both of them. We'll go only as far as our defense and ST allow us to go.