|
Post by TheGlove on Nov 8, 2016 9:35:45 GMT -8
Another way to look at this "news" regarding 2 QBs playing is that the staff believes they need to make sure both guys are ready to play.
How else do you accomplish readying both players? Tell them they are both going to play and give them an equal number of reps with the 1's. This serves a couple of purposes. 1- the QBs are competing for the start and/or more reps and therefore they push each other to be better. 2- the players around the QB get will get used to each QBs abilities/liabilites.
The real question is why?
1- Injuries happen, and they happen to "running" qbs as well as qbs who are throwing, so both guys need to be ready. By dedicating all the first team reps to MM you aren't helping the backup situation. 2- Maybe the staff knows that one of these QBs needs that extra motivation of competing
The words CGA used is both "could" play, not both "will" play. Maybe this is just some obfuscation by CGA. Not tipping our hand to Ucla, creating competition internally, and just hedging potential injury. Given that we are down to just 2 guys now, it makes sense to get both of them ready.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 8, 2016 9:47:40 GMT -8
Another way to look at this "news" regarding 2 QBs playing is that the staff believes they need to make sure both guys are ready to play. How else do you accomplish readying both players? Tell them they are both going to play and give them an equal number of reps with the 1's. This serves a couple of purposes. 1- the QBs are competing for the start and/or more reps and therefore they push each other to be better. 2- the players around the QB get will get used to each QBs abilities/liabilites. The real question is why? 1- Injuries happen, and they happen to "running" qbs as well as qbs who are throwing, so both guys need to be ready. By dedicating all the first team reps to MM you aren't helping the backup situation. 2- Maybe the staff knows that one of these QBs needs that extra motivation of competing The words CGA used is both "could" play, not both "will" play. Maybe this is just some obfuscation by CGA. Not tipping our hand to Ucla, creating competition internally, and just hedging potential injury. Given that we are down to just 2 guys now, it makes sense to get both of them ready. Except for the fact we were told CB was able to play vs WSU and thus Stanford yet no such proclamations were made then? I'm assuming that from the time CB was verified fit for game duty both were being prepped to play? It is the natural way practices go, but you never split reps with 1's if you think you have a true starter. Again it seems this week extra effort was made to assure the public knew both could see time, when in essence a backup could always have that chance.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 8, 2016 9:56:21 GMT -8
I disagree. The best way to get this team ready is to win games. Screw developing guys for next year....I think we're doing plenty of that already. Twelve freshmen saw the field against Stanford. Eleven sophomores. We don't need to do something special to get these guys on the field. I don't think you start using guys just to use them. If we're serious about this whole competition at all levels thing, then you have to play the best players on the field whenever you can. This isn't little league, where everyone needs to play a required amount. We are trying to win football games. Winning is fun, winning is contagious. If we think the best way to beat UCLA is to play both guys some, then so be it. I can live with that. But if we're moving the ball up and down the field with McMaryion and get bogged down in the red zone due to false starts, missed field goals, etc. I think it'd be a huge mistake to get Blount in there to "see what he can do."
This is why I hated the "rip the bandaid" approach we took last year. I want to be in the best position to win every game now, not five years from now. This isn't the pros, where you can make a trade midseason to get you over the hump if you're close. Winning now is the best opportunity to win later in college football in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Nov 8, 2016 10:07:37 GMT -8
I disagree. The best way to get this team ready is to win games. Screw developing guys for next year....I think we're doing plenty of that already. Twelve freshmen saw the field against Stanford. Eleven sophomores. We don't need to do something special to get these guys on the field. I don't think you start using guys just to use them. If we're serious about this whole competition at all levels thing, then you have to play the best players on the field whenever you can. This isn't little league, where everyone needs to play a required amount. We are trying to win football games. Winning is fun, winning is contagious. If we think the best way to beat UCLA is to play both guys some, then so be it. I can live with that. But if we're moving the ball up and down the field with McMaryion and get bogged down in the red zone due to false starts, missed field goals, etc. I think it'd be a huge mistake to get Blount in there to "see what he can do." This is why I hated the "rip the bandaid" approach we took last year. I want to be in the best position to win every game now, not five years from now. This isn't the pros, where you can make a trade midseason to get you over the hump if you're close. Winning now is the best opportunity to win later in college football in my opinion. Who are you disagreeing with? This thread is on it's third page, use the quote function. Also, "the best way to get this team ready is to win games." What does that even mean?
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 8, 2016 10:46:09 GMT -8
TheGlove - you. I disagreed with you. You seemed to have picked up on it without me quoting you, but I'll try to be more clear in the future. You said that "giving all the first team reps" to McM isn't helping the backup. I don't think successful teams split up first team reps with the backups. What that does is give neither one of the guys ample time to develop with the guys they're throwing to (again, my opinion). And as for my "best way to get the team ready is to win games" statement, what I meant is that winning games is what is going to make this team better. Look at what the Cal game did for us....since then, we've been infinitely more competitive than we were before. That feeling will wear off after a while, so I think we need to put the guys out there that give us the best chance to win today, not five years from now, not next season. Win, and everyone prepares a little harder for next week. Win, and that feeling carries into the offseason. But if we drop these last three down the stretch because we're giving younger guys more playing time to prepare for next year, I think that's a terrible idea.
|
|
|
Post by justdamwin on Nov 8, 2016 11:48:36 GMT -8
TheGlove - you. I disagreed with you. You seemed to have picked up on it without me quoting you, but I'll try to be more clear in the future. You said that "giving all the first team reps" to McM isn't helping the backup. I don't think successful teams split up first team reps with the backups. What that does is give neither one of the guys ample time to develop with the guys they're throwing to (again, my opinion). And as for my "best way to get the team ready is to win games" statement, what I meant is that winning games is what is going to make this team better. Look at what the Cal game did for us....since then, we've been infinitely more competitive than we were before. That feeling will wear off after a while, so I think we need to put the guys out there that give us the best chance to win today, not five years from now, not next season. Win, and everyone prepares a little harder for next week. Win, and that feeling carries into the offseason. But if we drop these last three down the stretch because we're giving younger guys more playing time to prepare for next year, I think that's a terrible idea. Win games big, play your 2s and 3s in the 3rd-4th quarter, live game, meaningful reps that's how you prepare players for the future and win today. Just gotta win big. Just Dam Win
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Nov 8, 2016 13:05:06 GMT -8
TheGlove - you. I disagreed with you. You seemed to have picked up on it without me quoting you, but I'll try to be more clear in the future. You said that "giving all the first team reps" to McM isn't helping the backup. I don't think successful teams split up first team reps with the backups. What that does is give neither one of the guys ample time to develop with the guys they're throwing to (again, my opinion). And as for my "best way to get the team ready is to win games" statement, what I meant is that winning games is what is going to make this team better. Look at what the Cal game did for us....since then, we've been infinitely more competitive than we were before. That feeling will wear off after a while, so I think we need to put the guys out there that give us the best chance to win today, not five years from now, not next season. Win, and everyone prepares a little harder for next week. Win, and that feeling carries into the offseason. But if we drop these last three down the stretch because we're giving younger guys more playing time to prepare for next year, I think that's a terrible idea. No. I didn't pick up on it. I just saw a post that seemed not be be related to anything near it and thought it mighy be from earlier in the thread OR it could have been a reply to me but didn't really address anything I said. Disagree with my post all you want, but I wasn't really making any big statement of opinion. Just trying to figure out CGA's coach-speak on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 8, 2016 13:14:59 GMT -8
McM was not very good against Wazzu. He was average. I find this hilarious. McMaryion had BY FAR the best passing day in the history of CGA at OSU, but that's not good enough for you? NOTHING any of the other QBs on this roster have shown makes me feel like they could replicate McMaryion's performance vs WSU. McMaryion is NOT a "good" Pac-12 QB, yet he's pretty well shown that he's light years ahead of Garretson and Blount. Hell, the bad day he had vs a VERY GOOD Stanford defense his QB rating was what Garretson and Blount averaged for the year. From an outside observer, it appears Andersen would rather have "his" guy play QB rather that the best player playing QB. It depends upon what you mean. McM had the best numbers day against Wazzu. (Which is sad.) But his accuracy was frankly bad, especially on deep balls.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 8, 2016 13:18:38 GMT -8
Just trying to figure out CGA's coach-speak on this issue. You and me both, my friend. When you unlock that cipher, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 8, 2016 13:24:07 GMT -8
McM was not very good against Wazzu. He was average. What are you talking about? McM had a 59% completion percentage, 327 yards, 2 TDs, 0 ints and 8.4 yards per attempt. That is an excellent game, and far better than anything else we have seen for the past two seasons. Perfect game? No. Great? No. But excellent and worth more looks.
McM's two bad games have come against two of the best D's in the Pac 12. Don't you think that's a guy you want to see if you can develop?
We are saying the same thing........I think. Was it a great game by McM? No. It was a solid performance. Above average? No. Above average compared to what we had seen previously? Absolutely. If you compare it to the DG games or the Nick Mitchell games it was outstanding. But compare it to a pre-2015 QB. Who does it compare to? Vaz? Maybe? I remember Vaz looking better. Moevao, perhaps? He had some clunkers.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Nov 8, 2016 18:21:06 GMT -8
What are you talking about? McM had a 59% completion percentage, 327 yards, 2 TDs, 0 ints and 8.4 yards per attempt. That is an excellent game, and far better than anything else we have seen for the past two seasons. Perfect game? No. Great? No. But excellent and worth more looks.
McM's two bad games have come against two of the best D's in the Pac 12. Don't you think that's a guy you want to see if you can develop?
We are saying the same thing........I think. Was it a great game by McM? No. It was a solid performance. Above average? No. Above average compared to what we had seen previously? Absolutely. If you compare it to the DG games or the Nick Mitchell games it was outstanding. But compare it to a pre-2015 QB. Who does it compare to? Vaz? Maybe? I remember Vaz looking better. Moevao, perhaps? He had some clunkers. 327 yards and 2tds with no interceptions IS above average. Over 12 games that would be nearly 4000 yards and 24tds with 0 interceptions. 8.4 yards per attempt is also very good. The fact that it's really good AND much better than what we've been putting out over the past year and 3/4 is what makes your criticism of his performance perplexing.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 9, 2016 12:34:20 GMT -8
We are saying the same thing........I think. Was it a great game by McM? No. It was a solid performance. Above average? No. Above average compared to what we had seen previously? Absolutely. If you compare it to the DG games or the Nick Mitchell games it was outstanding. But compare it to a pre-2015 QB. Who does it compare to? Vaz? Maybe? I remember Vaz looking better. Moevao, perhaps? He had some clunkers. 327 yards and 2tds with no interceptions IS above average. Over 12 games that would be nearly 4000 yards and 24tds with 0 interceptions. 8.4 yards per attempt is also very good. The fact that it's really good AND much better than what we've been putting out over the past year and 3/4 is what makes your criticism of his performance perplexing. But watch the game. Was it because he had a good game, or was it because Wazzu's pass defense sold out to stop the run? An above-average quarterback has a monster game. McM had a good night against a pass defense that was basically rolling out a red carpet.
|
|
|
Post by osulax24 on Nov 9, 2016 15:42:18 GMT -8
Way better option than DG, who was Nick Mitchell 2.0
|
|
|
Post by biggieorange on Nov 9, 2016 15:48:06 GMT -8
All staffs have some flaws, look at Wittingham at Utah, and Shaw at Stanford hasn't developed had a great passer, basically ever.
QB development might be the toughest single position to coach, but ONE rule that is generally agreed upon is, 'if you have 2 QBs, you don't have one'.
So yeah I agree the short hook isn't helping.
|
|
Angus
Freshman
Posts: 187
|
Post by Angus on Nov 9, 2016 20:51:06 GMT -8
All staffs have some flaws, look at Wittingham at Utah, and Shaw at Stanford hasn't developed had a great passer, basically ever. QB development might be the toughest single position to coach, but ONE rule that is generally agreed upon is, 'if you have 2 QBs, you don't have one'. So yeah I agree the short hook isn't helping. This is one game. Personally I think this a very good call by the coaches. They see our quarterbacks every day in practices, so they ought to have better insight in who should be playing than any of us(I was always in Riley's corner when he chose his starter - he knew best). Besides, the overall team play has improved since Blount last played, and maybe the coaches just want to see how he will respond? MM's passing numbers are good, but he still has not been able to move the team when it counts, and overall I am just not convinced that any passing efficiency he brings is not offset by his inability to run or make correct reads. And if MM is truly the answer, how many losses do we have to endure before he improves and the team around him improves enough to really win games? early next year, middle of next year? When he runs out of eligibility? These are legit questions IMO. But if he shows he is clearly better than Blount on saturday and can move the team when it matters, then by all means, I say keep him the starter - he will have earned it. In the meantime, at least vs UCLA, Blount deserves a legit shot to see what he can do.
|
|