OptimisticOwl
Legend
Posts: 58,760
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex
|
RE: RICE @ UTSA ***PRE-GAME THREAD***
(10-17-2017 02:46 PM)Antarius Wrote: (10-17-2017 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (10-17-2017 02:18 PM)Antarius Wrote: (10-17-2017 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (10-17-2017 01:55 PM)Antarius Wrote: Does this bring back horror memories of the QB by committee approach from years past?
Actually, no. Instead of three #1s, we seem to have a clear 1, 2, 3. Looks like the plan is to give Smalls more time and experience to prep him for the future. Isn't this what we have been begging for?
I thought Ellis was out for the season.
Other than the Cleveland Browns, I literally cannot think of another example where the depth chart is less clear. Sure we have a 1,2,3 for this week but lord knows what it will be next.
You have a 1,2,3 where your 2 doesn't play unless your 1 gets hurt or the game is way out of reach. Your 3 doesn't play unless your 2 gets hurt. If we wanted to give Smalls practice and training, we could have played him as a garbage time QB for Stanford, Pitt, UTEP or the entire second half for UH.
We've been begging for a cohesive development plan - not week by week shuffling of the depth chart. I literally have no idea what we are doing now. If Smalls was our #3 and the plan was to not play him barring injury, then why did we start him against Army? Shouldn't he have been the backup? That begs the question of what are we doing in practice?
Given that Hue Jackson will probably be fired in the near future, I think Cleveland is a perfect landing spot for Bailiff. Its a match of questionable roster moves and depth charts made in heaven.
C'mon, now. At the time we played Stanford, Pitt, et al, the plan was obviously to redshirt Smalls. Then Glaesman got hurt, Tyner was not effective, and the need became so great the plan changed. Now the redshirt has been burned, and they are doing this year what they planned for next year - working him in, giving him some experience. Why is your assumption that it was always planned to use Smalls this year? I thought one of the knocks on Bailiff was that he didn't adjust to changing situations. Well, he seems to be trying to adjust to this one.
Clearly Glaesman will start, and Smalls will see some time. Tyner will be the #3 and may see some action along the way as they ease him into a new role, as TE. Not at all what we had in 2009. Now if they start alternating series within the threesome, I will retract my statement.
Tyner was 32 of 67 (47.8 cmp %) for 318 yards, 2 TD and 1 INT in 2016. This season he is 46 of 96 (47.9 cmp %) for 598 yards, 2 TD and 4 INT. With the exception of the extra 3 picks, near identical statline. His rating per ESPN is somehow higher in 2017 (?) than 2016, although not by much.
To which I ask, we saw Tyner last year we got almost the same Tyner this year. If 2017 Tyner wasn't good enough, then why was he #2 on the depth chart going into this season??? It isn't like we went from Patriots Matt Cassell or Packers Matt Flynn to their alter egos elsewhere. 2016 Tyner = Spring game Tyner = 2017 Tyner. Which means if Smalls makes sense to be #2 now and start against Army, it would have made sense to have him be the #2 going into the season.
Which is why I the issue is we do not have a cohesive development plan, or seemingly a plan at all. Its throw stuff against wall and see what sticks. Or mash the square peg into the round hole until either/both break. This is not an opinion based on just this change. Its year in year out - which makes the Cleveland Browns comparison even more appropriate.
First off, I don't follow the NFL, so all those comparisons might as well be to the Texas Rangers or New York Rangers. All Greek to me.
I am sure Bailiff - or any coach - would have preferred not to have a 48% passer as his back up QB. But that doesn't mean he should immediately plan for Smalls, a 0% passer in college to waste a year of eligibility riding the pine. I don't know how severe Glaesman's injury was, or if it was slower healing than expected, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect the coach to burn Small's redshirt unless pushed to it by circumstances. I think if we had beaten FIU, Smalls would still be a RS. JMHO, and like yours, based on speculation and an inkling of what I would if I were Coach.
One thing I like is that although Bailiff is likely gone after this year or next, he is still trying to build the program for the future, and I am sure that is why he was trying to keep Smalls in the red shirt. He could have succumbed to panic and like some have suggested he would and should do, installed Smalls immediately as the QB in an effort to win ten and save his job. He didn't, and I respect that.
I was in the stands for Tommy Kramer's first start, a 28-0 loss to ND. Future NFLer, but it's tough for freshmen.
I think you are just trying to add one more count to the indictment of Bailiff, when you already have enough for the death penalty. No need for it. No use to it.
Glad to see Glaesman back. He still needs to show us why he was the starter.
|
|