|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 10, 2016 6:52:50 GMT -8
This is one game? How many games in this staff's OSU history have they played two QBs? I don't know how many, but it's been quite a few, often without injury involved.
My only concern is pulling a QB that is doing OK just for the sake of making a change during a game. If a QB is injured or struggling or you've built up an unsurpassable lead, make a change. If the game is close and a QB is not struggling it seems pretty darned risky to put in someone with all of 3 quarters of experience in 8 games just for the sake of playing a second QB unless you are darned certain that kid is a superior QB to the one already in the game.
|
|
|
Post by biggieorange on Nov 10, 2016 7:43:31 GMT -8
Injuries happen, I get that but the constant jerking guys in and out after half time really feels like the norm with this staff.
I wouldn't be so NEGATIVE, except for the fact that over the last 2 seasons the Offense has SUCKED and the QB's have played even worse than that.
When your horrible at something, you need to look at the whole picture to try and make small improvements everywhere. So far every QB move Andersen has made, has been wrong.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Nov 10, 2016 8:11:36 GMT -8
Hey its working alright for Wisky!
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 10, 2016 8:57:19 GMT -8
Hey its working alright for Wisky! Is it? Points per game: OSU 23.8 Wisconsin 23.8 Yards per game: OSU 354.8 Wisconsin 371.6 Passing ypg: OSU 165.3 Wisconsin 191.1 Completion %: OSU 50.7 Wisconsin 59.1 TD Passes: OSU 7 Wisconsin 9 Interceptions: OSU 10 Wisconsin 10
Points allowed OSU 31.9 Wisconsin 13.8 Yards allowed OSU 441.3 Wisconsin 302.8
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Nov 10, 2016 9:31:02 GMT -8
Hey its working alright for Wisky! Is it? Points per game: OSU 23.8 Wisconsin 23.8 Yards per game: OSU 354.8 Wisconsin 371.6 Passing ypg: OSU 165.3 Wisconsin 191.1 Completion %: OSU 50.7 Wisconsin 59.1 TD Passes: OSU 7 Wisconsin 9 Interceptions: OSU 10 Wisconsin 10
Points allowed OSU 31.9 Wisconsin 13.8 Yards allowed OSU 441.3 Wisconsin 302.8What's Wisconsin's record? I seriously don't know. I could find out easily by googling it, but then my "stats are for losers" tag-line drop won't have the same effect.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 10, 2016 10:06:07 GMT -8
Wisconsin's 7-2 (losses to Michigan and Ohio State) but the strength of their team is far and away their D. Their offense is pretty much on par with ours in terms of yards and points scored.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 10, 2016 18:49:28 GMT -8
Wisconsin's 7-2 (losses to Michigan and Ohio State) but the strength of their team is far and away their D. Their offense is pretty much on par with ours in terms of yards and points scored. Granted... but their offense has faced much much tougher defenses than ours. It's one of the many reasons stats like SOS, yds/game, etc. are so deceiving. It's not just who and where, but when... injuries, etc. If we'd played Wisky's schedule we'd be at 13 a game on offense and 40 on D... left suiting down 50 players by now.
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Nov 10, 2016 20:08:44 GMT -8
Wisconsin's 7-2 (losses to Michigan and Ohio State) but the strength of their team is far and away their D. Their offense is pretty much on par with ours in terms of yards and points scored. Granted... but their offense has faced much much tougher defenses than ours. It's one of the many reasons stats like SOS, yds/game, etc. are so deceiving. It's not just who and where, but when... injuries, etc. If we'd played Wisky's schedule we'd be at 13 a game on offense and 40 on D... left suiting down 50 players by now. Comparing stats are so deceiving is that why you I am sure you would be so right with your hypothetical stats you pulled from your posterior:).
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 10, 2016 20:26:23 GMT -8
Granted... but their offense has faced much much tougher defenses than ours. It's one of the many reasons stats like SOS, yds/game, etc. are so deceiving. It's not just who and where, but when... injuries, etc. If we'd played Wisky's schedule we'd be at 13 a game on offense and 40 on D... left suiting down 50 players by now. Comparing stats are so deceiving is that why you I am sure you would be so right with your hypothetical stats you pulled from your posterior:). Obviously... they were just to make a point, NOT "stats". Ya see, stats are based on actual events. Just as obvious, you might want to proof read if you'd like to diss effectively. 😉
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Nov 11, 2016 15:07:11 GMT -8
Comparing stats are so deceiving is that why you I am sure you would be so right with your hypothetical stats you pulled from your posterior:). Obviously... they were just to make a point, NOT "stats". Ya see, stats are based on actual events. Just as obvious, you might want to proof read if you'd like to diss effectively. 😉 You are right. I messed up my grammar.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 11, 2016 15:42:11 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. Alex Smith??
|
|
|
Post by gzrbvr on Nov 11, 2016 20:39:40 GMT -8
My guess is the biggest effect will be to force UCLA to spend time practicing defending the QB run, rather that to anticipate teeing off on MM every play of the game.
I can see where alternating the QB's would mess with their continuity on defense and create some confusion on their side of the ball.
The other advantage would be to jack up MM a little. I still don't see the positive leadership, rah rah action of a guy who has taken over the job and defies anyone to take it away from him.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Nov 11, 2016 22:14:41 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. Alex Smith?? What's the question? Alex Smith was an Urban Meyer guy, not a Whittingham guy if that's what you're trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 11, 2016 22:38:03 GMT -8
What's the question? Â Alex Smith was an Urban Meyer guy, not a Whittingham guy if that's what you're trying to say. Â I guess I didn't realize he was that old! My bad.
|
|
Angus
Freshman
Posts: 187
|
Post by Angus on Nov 12, 2016 7:23:46 GMT -8
One thing I'm not sure was brought up yet, is the fact that using Blount, if he has a better grasp of our offense as has been suggested, is that 2 guys give you extra scripted plays available. Even if MM starts and moves the team some in the 1st lets say, I would almost guarantee UCLA adjusts and shuts us down completely in the 2nd. With Blount it gives UCLA a completely different scheme they MIGHT see. On that, we'll just have to see.
Just saying that could be a reason why using 2 guys is better than one at this stage of our evolution.
|
|