No player should have to play that hurt. Let him heal. We were told that it was a QB battle in the summer of 2013. Pretty obvious it was not. Especially is an injured Sam is a better option than a healthy Rohach. That is complete BS.
Column: Don't sleep on Sam
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
No player should have to play that hurt. Let him heal. We were told that it was a QB battle in the summer of 2013. Pretty obvious it was not. Especially is an injured Sam is a better option than a healthy Rohach. That is complete BS.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Then we have as much of a problem with our QBs as we have with our ability to evaluate them. Prior to this season, I think we really did have a problem with evaluating what our need was and who could fill that need based on what our identity is.
We are all really leaning on Mangino's proven track record to lead to a correct evaluation of our need and who is best to fill it.
I agree, Monte Morris is the best passer we have, suit him up!confused:
No. Matt Thomas started the season as a starter. Unless injured he can NOT be replaced by Monte Morris. That is the NEW rule.
Neither of these guys is going to grow as a QB if they aren't given some space to make mistakes and go through the natural growing pains. This merry-go-round mentality of constantly shuffling the QBs in and out has probably been the most detrimental decision to this team, as far as the offense is concerned at least. I find it hard to believe that SR and GR are that close together in performance, for as long as it's been going on, that a clear cut starter can't be named.
I am not calling for a constant shuffling of QB's. But if you go the whole first half and the reason for a pathetic first half offense is the pathetic play of the QB, then you OWE it to the team to put in the backup at some point in the second half and see if it sparks the team IMO. Nothing was worse than watching the Vikings sticking with Josh Freeman for a whole game that was winnable because of stubbornness and thinking you will shatter the QB's confidence. Doing something that stupid ends up shattering the TEAM's Confidence in their coaches to do what is necessary to win the game.
I think Sam Richardson would have been the guy all year last year, but he got banged up, and Rohach was better than an injured Richardson who couldn't run anymore.
I get the sense, from your post, that you think I was responding to something you said. Not the case. Just my two cents worth on the QB situation going all the way back to 2012. That is the constant shuffling to which I am referring. We know what we have with both SR and GR. We know they have potential. They don't suck...but they have both sucked at times. Big difference. Let whoever is named the starter work through the issues they will no doubt encounter during the course of their "trial" as a starter...even if they suck at times. For this offense to be able to get into the zone or flow or rhythm, there has to be consistency in who takes the field, especially at QB. Again, just my opinion.
Not arguing over that. Just that if the QB play in the first half by the named starter is THAT BAD, then you really owe it to the team to at least give a series or two to the backup and see if it ignites a spark.
And hate to speculate but watched the interviews with Nealy and Wimberly after Practice No. 8. Nealy was asked if Wimberly and Nealy might both in the backfield at the same time and what that brought to the table.
Nealy said that it was like a 3-headed monster back there since they all could run and had speed, including Sam at QB........then added.....and Grant can run too. Kind of strange how he added that. And might be reading more into it than it seems. But it almost seemed like he tipped the hand that SR could be the starter.
Not according to his family that I sat next to during the Iowa game. In fact, they told me Grant was a bit frustrated at not being given the nod to play that day given how injured Sam was. His family even made mention of Sam and the "moped incident" and joked about what the heck has to happen for Grant to see the field? It was evident Grant was not banged up and was chomping at the bit to play that day.
Sounds to me that Rhoads comments that he wasn't ready were not related to being banged up.
Just rewatched the WVU game and Grant was nothing special in that game as a whole. He was really bad at the start of the game, missing guys badly with passes, and almost threw 2 INT, one which would have been a pick 6. He did throw some nice passes later in the game, but the comeback was more about WV turning the ball over than ISU being dominate.
For the 2003 first week, they did not lay over and rot like 2013 team did against UNI. The deep secondary was making the 2013 UNI tackles.
Will you guys quit acting like we've been having good QB play and benching the QB's for no reason? They were given plenty of time to get it together and were benched because of very poor play and/or injury. Sometimes they changed it up trying to get a spark.
It wasn't, hey incomplete pass next guy in... Or even an interception. It was consistent poor play.
It wasn't, hey incomplete pass next guy in... Or even an interception. It was consistent poor play.
You are right. The 2003 team laid over and rotted over the last 10 games of the year and did not win a conference game. ISU Cyclones scored a whopping 25 points in the last 5 games.
For the season ISU scored a whopping 174 points (65 points in the first 2 games) with opponents scoring 437 points. Over the last 10 games ISU scored 109 points while opponents scored 407 points.
I will take 2013 season and the loss to UNI over the 2003 season every time.
Just curious--did you ever see Archie Manning when he played for the Saints?
Just one time, it would be nice for one of our quarterbacks to grab the job by its haunches and hump it into submission. I'm tired of this "neither one stands out" *********. They should try to be a little more like White Goodman and take the bull by the horns.
