Don't mean to nitpick - but really, was the UVA win really all that "comfortable"? Or as the Daily Press reports, the "Cavaliers rolled"?

The game was 21-10 and W&M had the ball back with 5 minutes left.

I know many here are negative on the game but I thought the write-ups went well beyond reality. The biggest story of the game was how an ACC team couldn't manage to rush for more than 100 yards against an FCS defense.

(09-03-2017 09:32 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Don't mean to nitpick - but really, was the UVA win really all that "comfortable"? Or as the Daily Press reports, the "Cavaliers rolled"?

The game was 21-10 and W&M had the ball back with 5 minutes left.

I know many here are negative on the game but I thought the write-ups went well beyond reality. The biggest story of the game was how an ACC team couldn't manage to rush for more than 100 yards against an FCS defense.

Exactly! Thought the defense was solid, especially upfront. Offense will take time to come together.

Defense looked much improved, LB's all over the field. I think I saw the TF DL from Pa in the game as well.
RB's looked good as well, as did the OL.

Honestly, it was a comfortable win by UVA. Was there really a part after the first quarter when we thought that we would win based on how the game was going? If the offense had tried to be more aggressive, than maybe we could try to argue otherwise, but we never really threatened to win for most of the game.

I'm as much of a homer as anyone can be about W&M, and was in attendance yesterday. At no point did I think we had a shot at winning.

Yeah I would definitely call that a "comfortable" win

Sent from my VS500 using Tapatalk

I will keep that in mind next time we are ahead 21-10 and the visiting team has the ball with 5 minutes left.

(09-03-2017 01:00 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I will keep that in mind next time we are ahead 21-10 and the visiting team has the ball with 5 minutes left.

that visiting team will likely have a QB that can throw longer than 5 yards.

(09-03-2017 01:00 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I will keep that in mind next time we are ahead 21-10 and the visiting team has the ball with 5 minutes left.

It's all about the situation and how the game was developing

We only crossed our own 45 yard line 3 times during the game (and only crossed our own 40 1 other time):

• Our first possession when we reached the UVA 47
• Our first possession of the 2nd half when we got the FG in a 4:33 drive to make it 14-3
• Our 3rd to last possession when we got the TD in a 5:02 minute drive to make it 21-10
  

Remember when we got the ball back with 5:20 to go down 21-10, we had the ball on our own 4 yard line and we had not been moving the ball quickly. 3 plays later, we had gained 21 yards and threw an "INT" in 52 seconds. We never rushed to the line and looked like we were going to make a long pass or move at any real pace.

As I said above, if the offense was trying to be aggressive, things could have been different and more uncomfortable for UVA but with our calls, we never showed that we were going for the win that game which made it more comfortable for them.

We obviously were all rooting for a win but the offensive calls were not going to scare UVA into thinking a comeback was realistic.

(09-03-2017 01:17 PM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 01:00 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I will keep that in mind next time we are ahead 21-10 and the visiting team has the ball with 5 minutes left.

that visiting team will likely have a QB that can throw longer than 5 yards.

Now you're just being nasty. Not cool.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I hope we're all willing to give McKee more than one game played against, no matter how formidable they may be within the ACC, a Power Five club.

I,too, thought his passing was weak weak, especially with two short-armed throws that didn't reach open receivers, and two overthrows to a wide-open Dedmon.

However, the play selections given him by the coaching staff were ultra-conservative, so, other than one long throw early in the match, we really didn't see much. And Tommy ran well and showed a great deal of toughness.

I also believe Laycock has to find another punter (where I don't know!) and take this burden off the qb...not to mention it's hard to punt after you've been racked up running twice (the cause of his 29-yarder). Also, do we want the qb in danger of being seriously hurt by a blocked punt attempt or a roughing the kicker?

Let's settle down and see what happens this weekend.

For me it's not as much as feeling that McKee isn't very good or whatnot but it's more about feeling like Battle and Mitchell have a higher ceiling and I'd much rather see them given every opportunity to maximize that potential.

I also don't want to miss out on maximizing our strong receiving corps while we break in a qb that is more a running qb and game manager.

I feel like we lost out on a few years of RJ Archer at qb and don't want to see that pattern repeat itself but fear it will. Once a guy starts for JL history seems to show it's hard for a guy to beat him out barring injury. That being said, if McKee is a running qb, he is more subject to injury which I definitely don't want.

Anyone know how strong considerations are to red shirting Shon? Do they want to do that or not? Is he open to that?

Go Tribe!!

Naptown, I remember about 35 years of very good or great QBs one after the other. We can go way back to Garrity, Rozantz, Yagiello, Lambiotte, Knight, Corley, Hakel, and Archer. I'm not even naming Phillips, Brosnahan, and others who were serviceable, but not great.

What we've had over the last several years is not good, and you can't blame injuries on all of it. I really want to know why Kevin Rogers left at this point because Jimmye isn't the QB Whisperer that he used to be.

(09-04-2017 10:07 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Naptown, I remember about 35 years of very good or great QBs one after the other. We can go way back to Garrity, Rozantz, Yagiello, Lambiotte, Knight, Corley, Hakel, and Archer. I'm not even naming Phillips, Brosnahan, and others who were serviceable, but not great.

What we've had over the last several years is not good, and you can't blame injuries on all of it. I really want to know why Kevin Rogers left at this point because Jimmye isn't the QB Whisperer that he used to be.

Kevin Rogers retired. Stop trying to stir up crap when you don't know what you're talking about.

(09-03-2017 08:45 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 01:17 PM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 01:00 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I will keep that in mind next time we are ahead 21-10 and the visiting team has the ball with 5 minutes left.

that visiting team will likely have a QB that can throw longer than 5 yards.

Now you're just being nasty. Not cool.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

He fought like hell and showed a lot of characteristics of a great leader.

But he showed nothing to make anyone think he will be a sufficient QB at this level. If we're gonna go through growing pains, it should be with a younger player.

That said, it is completely possible that the other 2 options are worse right now. Which is a scary thought for Tribe fans, and a Tribe program that has had many good QBs come through, though perhaps none recently.

Sorry I hit a nerve.

(09-04-2017 11:16 AM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  

(09-04-2017 10:07 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Naptown, I remember about 35 years of very good or great QBs one after the other. We can go way back to Garrity, Rozantz, Yagiello, Lambiotte, Knight, Corley, Hakel, and Archer. I'm not even naming Phillips, Brosnahan, and others who were serviceable, but not great.

What we've had over the last several years is not good, and you can't blame injuries on all of it. I really want to know why Kevin Rogers left at this point because Jimmye isn't the QB Whisperer that he used to be.

Kevin Rogers retired. Stop trying to stir up crap when you don't know what you're talking about.

As someone else said, playbook for a QBs first start will be limited. I didn't get to watch much of the game, so I'll admit I don't have much to base things off of. As many of us said. Effort the UVA game, NSU Bucknell and a bye week give the offense a lot of time to get into a rhythm. Great receivers, a better than expected running game, and strong O-line will give McKee more time (and weaker secondaries won't hurt).

I also can't wait for the inevitable fake punt and throw for a big gain.

(09-04-2017 10:07 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Naptown, I remember about 35 years of very good or great QBs one after the other. We can go way back to Garrity, Rozantz, Yagiello, Lambiotte, Knight, Corley, Hakel, and Archer. I'm not even naming Phillips, Brosnahan, and others who were serviceable, but not great.

Or Lang Campbell, who was okay. If you like that kind of thing.

yeah, he still had to drag that Player of the Year thing around with him...

Tribe QBs ranked by efficiency from 2002-2016, minimum 50 passes. Hope the formatting isn't too janky:

Paulus 2011 66.3
Phillips 2006 102.6
Graham 2012 108.3
Graham 2013 116.2
Cluley 2016 120.3
Paulus 2010 120.7
Archer 2009 122.2
Caprio 2012 122.8
Ortiz 2012 123.4
Potts 2006 126.8
Cluley 2014 126.9
Caprio 2013 128.2
Archer 2008 129.1
Caprio 2011 131.4
Potts 2005 132.2
Phillips 2008 134.9
Cluley 2015 137.7
Phillips 2007 141.1
Callahan 2010 141.3
Graham 2011 143.1
Corley 2002 144.6
Phillips 2005 145.8
Campbell 2003 152.1
Campbell 2004 158.68

In chart form, if you prefer (ordered chronologically):



I'm but a single ignorant fan who wouldn't dream of saying he knows anywhere near enough to be a coach. I am however capable of noticing trends. I also blame myself for Cluley- I wrote how he was on the verge of having the best season of a QB not named Campbell near the end of 2015 and he then threw picks for 8 straight games.