• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

QB Going Forward

John Dell also confirmed Marucci was on the team as a Freshmen when Jordan was a Senior. And before I go off bragging that the Tino backed up Jordan ever, I just want to be certain he was the backup, as in 2d string to Jordan.
I haven't found a source for that other than here. Someone ask the Mooch soon.
 
Where would Kern and Marucci fall on this chart if they had the sample size?
 
If they're both healthy I am pretty sure Griffis is going to get the nod.

Although, I would try to do the exact same thing as last week. Run it non-stop, hope the defense keeps us in, and then maybe our QB can make plays late to try to win it.

Regardless of who is back there, the line has to block like they did last week for any QB to have a chance.
 
LilburnDeac said:
It is inexplicable to start Griffis after benching him against VT, then having his back-up's back-up lead us to one of the most exciting wins we have had in years. Go with the guy who won.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's beyond inexplicable. But apparently some point needs to be driven home to the fanbase.
 
TheAbster said:
Agreed. It's beyond inexplicable. But apparently some point needs to be driven home to the fanbase.
Click to expand...
yeah man clawson is just trying to make a point to the fans. he doesn't actually think griffis can help us win, he just has to show us that he is right. I think that's definitely his motivation.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
If they're both healthy I am pretty sure Griffis is going to get the nod.

Although, I would try to do the exact same thing as last week. Run it non-stop, hope the defense keeps us in, and then maybe our QB can make plays late to try to win it.

Regardless of who is back there, the line has to block like they did last week for any QB to have a chance.
Click to expand...
Ah, also our game plan against Clemson.
 
I think I will get skewered for making this post, because the stats have been really bad for Mitch this year, but I'll say it anyway.

I have way more faith in the staff making a decision as to who gives us the best chance to win a game than we do. I know folks keep making fun of how Mitch looked the last year or so in practice/scrimmages/bad teams, and how he has looked against actual P5 teams. I don't disagree that he has been bad when the lights come on, and I would say decision making is by far his worst trait.

That being said, I still think Mitch gives us the best chance to win games, and I think the staff feels that way too. Simplify the playbook, give him more of an offensive gameplan like we gave Santino, and also the blocking we got against Pitt, and I still believe Mitch can be a serviceable quarterback. I don't think he is the QB of the future at all.

We asked Santino to basically do nothing the entire game, and ran the most vanilla playbook possible. He made 2-3 good throws all game out of 21 attempts, and he came up big when it mattered down the stretch. Based on what I saw throughout the game, I don't think that will necessarily be repeatable if we did it 10-15 times a game instead of 1-2. He balled out to get us the win, no doubt, and full credit to him.

Nothing at all that the staff is doing decision-making wise has anything to do with the fan base or "sticking it to us". Those are asinine assertions and just dumb. They are trying to find the QB who gives us the best chance to win games. Period.
 
LilburnDeac said:
It is inexplicable to start Griffis after benching him against VT, then having his back-up's back-up lead us to one of the most exciting wins we have had in years. Go with the guy who won.
Click to expand...

Is there anything to Clawson having had Tino as a guest, along with Hite, on his radio show this week?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I think I will get skewered for making this post, because the stats have been really bad for Mitch this year, but I'll say it anyway.

I have way more faith in the staff making a decision as to who gives us the best chance to win a game than we do. I know folks keep making fun of how Mitch looked the last year or so in practice/scrimmages/bad teams, and how he has looked against actual P5 teams. I don't disagree that he has been bad when the lights come on, and I would say decision making is by far his worst trait.

That being said, I still think Mitch gives us the best chance to win games, and I think the staff feels that way too. Simplify the playbook, give him more of an offensive gameplan like we gave Santino, and also the blocking we got against Pitt, and I still believe Mitch can be a serviceable quarterback. I don't think he is the QB of the future at all.

We asked Santino to basically do nothing the entire game, and ran the most vanilla playbook possible. He made 2-3 good throws all game out of 21 attempts, and he came up big when it mattered down the stretch. Based on what I saw throughout the game, I don't think that will necessarily be repeatable if we did it 10-15 times a game instead of 1-2. He balled out to get us the win, no doubt, and full credit to him.

Nothing at all that the staff is doing decision-making wise has anything to do with the fan base or "sticking it to us". Those are asinine assertions and just dumb. They are trying to find the QB who gives us the best chance to win games. Period.
Click to expand...
It's not a ridiculous opinion or anything. But as I mentioned above, you can make a legitimate argument that Griffis been the worst QB (at least P5 QB) in the entire country. They've benched, and kept benched, far better players at other positions in the past.

Clawson and co have shown how stubborn they are on several occasions, and this seems like another opportunity for that, not to "stick it to the fanbase", but because they just refuse to believe how wildly wrong their assessments were. My biggest fear is that Mitch becomes reasonably serviceable (let's say bottom 30% vs. bottom 3% of QBs), and we have to watch this disaster for 2 more years after this.
 
tigerswood said:
It's not a ridiculous opinion or anything. But as I mentioned above, you can make a legitimate argument that Griffis been the worst QB (at least P5 QB) in the entire country. They've benched, and kept benched, far better players at other positions in the past.

Clawson and co have shown how stubborn they are on several occasions, and this seems like another opportunity for that, not to "stick it to the fanbase", but because they just refuse to believe how wildly wrong their assessments were. My biggest fear is that Mitch becomes reasonably serviceable (let's say bottom 30% vs. bottom 3% of QBs), and we have to watch this disaster for 2 more years after this.
Click to expand...
If the defense continues playing like this then he doesn’t even need to be good. Just serviceable and not lose the game for us by himself.
 
I think the biggest question I have regarding this season is how their assessment was so far off on what we had in the QB room considering the talent that we've produced at the QB position the last decade. I trust the staff's evaluation and ability to figure out who will be good for us at the QB spot, so how did that go so awry this time around? It's a combination of a lot of ugly things on offense imo.

We just have to pivot to running the ball, protecting the ball, and relying on defense to wins games for the remainder of the year. It's a complete 180 from the last 5 years.

Regardless of how we feel about the 'stubbornness" of the coaching staff, they have led us to back to back top ten rankings nationally and 7 bowl games. I trust the process and trust them to figure this out until it's obvious that it's not a blip, but rather a trend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top