The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

In fairness to Hayden, the receivers dropped a lot of passes last season...including wide open stuff downfield.
He had 20 TDs and 9 INTs.
Also I don't recall many explosive running plays either last season. Warren already has 350 more yards rushing now than leading rusher Doaks had all of last season. UC has more rushing yards now than they had all of last season. Oline and Defense are playing better.

(10-29-2018 03:32 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  In fairness to Hayden, the receivers dropped a lot of passes last season...including wide open stuff downfield.
He had 20 TDs and 9 INTs.
Also I don't recall many explosive running plays either last season. Warren already has 350 more yards rushing now than leading rusher Doaks had all of last season. UC has more rushing yards now than they had all of last season. Oline and Defense are playing better.

That was my feeling on Hayden as well. I thought his passing was better than the numbers suggested last year because he got so little help up front and from his receivers. I believe the passing game would be better with him this year than it has been with Ridder. However, Ridder gives an added dimension with his legs and his development is probably worth the drop off in the passing game. That said...during games when Ridder is particularly struggling (like Temple) I would like to see Moore get a chance.

(10-29-2018 03:36 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 03:32 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  In fairness to Hayden, the receivers dropped a lot of passes last season...including wide open stuff downfield.
He had 20 TDs and 9 INTs.
Also I don't recall many explosive running plays either last season. Warren already has 350 more yards rushing now than leading rusher Doaks had all of last season. UC has more rushing yards now than they had all of last season. Oline and Defense are playing better.

That was my feeling on Hayden as well. I thought his passing was better than the numbers suggested last year because he got so little help up front and from his receivers. I believe the passing game would be better with him this year than it has been with Ridder. However, Ridder gives an added dimension with his legs and his development is probably worth the drop off in the passing game. That said...during games when Ridder is particularly struggling (like Temple) I would like to see Moore get a chance.

A few of his runs might qualify as the longest rushing plays from last year. Couple of series for Moore isn't a bad idea.

(10-29-2018 02:08 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 01:48 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Offensively UC has still been mediocre at best with Ridder as QB. We are currently 98th in Off S&P+ (we were 100 last year). Essentially all of our improvement this year has been on the defensive side of the ball where we went from 86 to 18 in S&P+.

Do they breakdown rushing v. passing? Regardless I am a bit surprised our offense is ranked that poorly. It feels stronger than last year by a decent amount - maybe offenses are up across the board? Or maybe it doesn't factor in turnovers (which is what hurt last year's offense so badly)?

But the defensive improvements are absolutely clear. We've been simply dominant for long stretches in most games. And with so much youth, the future there looks very bright if we can replace our DL losses next year. Well, that and keeping Freeman. Truth is I'm much less worried about losing Fickell anytime soon (due more to his ties/dedication here as opposed to there not being demand for him) than Freeman (I think he'd be hard pressed not to accept say a Big 10 DC job that might pay double or more(?) than UC). But we can worry about that in the offseason.

Bolded, agreed. Let's go all out this season for ten wins. Ten or more has happened five times in the last 65 years for UC from a source I quickly referenced online. This season can be historic in that regard and will strengthen Fickell's hand in recruiting--which might include recruiting a couple of new assistants. Freeman has done fine work and I too fear it won't go unnoticed by those schools with very deep pockets and very porous defenses.

(10-28-2018 08:02 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  Kudos to the kicker dude for having some pelotas for kicking three straight with Sonny Bono over there jacking around with his TO's. I was all over him last week but he came through with flying colors yesterday. I thought for sure that last one would miss.

Offense has to knock it off with the stupid turnovers. They're killing us. Darned near killed us yesterday.

(10-29-2018 10:41 AM)cpawstoney Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 10:36 AM)EffinBJ Wrote:  The reason we need Campbell at center is that we've had multiple rotten snaps that resulted in costly turnovers. I'm not sure what happened in the temple OT period, could have been Ridder messing up the count - but that one effectively caused the L.

The loss was cause by two turnovers in the first five minutes of the game coupled with the inability to move the chains in the last six minutes of the game. Had the offense managed the game properly overtime should not have happened. But... we have a young offense and meltdowns are going to happen.

The inability to kick a FG lost the Temple game.

(10-29-2018 01:34 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 12:44 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 12:03 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 10:26 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 09:51 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  As with all of us, I'm thrilled with the win Saturday. Everyone did their part in that final drive to score in regulation. This team's defense saved the day in OT. But the past two weeks have been more reminiscent of last season's narrow escapes than the previous six games of 2018.

-Are we really missing Campbell at center for those runs up the gut?
-Should we have seen Hayden Moore for some of the third or fourth quarter when a few more pass completions might have opened up an insurmountable lead?

This team is loaded with excellent, young players. But Wiggins continues to work his magic in amazing ways. Lose that game, and we're still okay @ 6-2. But doubts then creep in whether we're improved over 2017 relative to Temple and SMU. Having won it, and having should have/could have won at Temple suggests Fickell still has the program ahead of schedule and on the way to 9 or 10 wins (I'll take 10 please to rank it among the best seasons in program history).

No to anything H. Moore. We've seen what he offers. Not a lot. This is a young team, you want the hard lessons to be fully experienced by the people who will remain with the team (Ridder) beyond this season. Were we in some sort of 'win now' mode...maaaaaybe? but, prolly still a hard pass on Moore. We've seen what he's capable of, and it's not pretty.

Idk how any doubts creep in even if we lose that game. We were absolutely OWNED at home by Temple last year. We lost, sure, but the final score doesn't mean you lose sight of the gains made by the team....and we were on the road. SMU didn't own us last year, however we're once again a young team on the road, and we were in control for a large part of the game. Both represent marked improvements against these teams relative to last year.

It seems to me that the goal posts are moving on this team. We are 100%, no doubt, ahead of schedule. That said, this team is in no way a world beater. I have no illusions about us being a top 25 team, however I'll def take that recognition - thanks voters who show us some name value/ recognition respect.

Our margin for error is tiny. Frosh at center & QB. Youth in the back end on D. Wow! We're doing very well this season. There's no question we're trending in the right direction.
mc

While I agree this team isn't a world-beater, who says we aren't in "win-now" mode? Certainly not our seniors. Certainly not anybody who wants to see us win our conference or even our division. Certainly not anybody who wants to see us ranked. And certainly not anyone who wants to see us in a good bowl game. If we beat Navy, ECU and a very mortal USF and Temple loses at UCF and at Houston (I think 4/5 of those are likely to happen with the USF/UC game a tossup at worst imo), we are looking at 10-1 Cincinnati playing unbeaten UCF for the division championship.

If we are waiting for the year where we have a realistic shot at the 4 team playoffs, we may have a very long wait. But make no mistake: if we win out (and yes this will be very difficult), we are the G5 rep in New Years Day games. That's often going to be the best case scenario for this program. This is win-now territory my friend. Right now.

I'm open to whatever works. Ridder has made some big plays but has also shown he has areas to work on. I'm all for giving Hayden a shot (for a series or two at least) if Ridder is struggling.

I get it. Perhaps it was the 'win now' mode comment that was a bit off base. However, the fact remains that we've already seen what Moore brings to the table. We've seen it in this season for that matter. The assessment has been made, and it's seemingly final. Des offers the team the best chance at winning a ballgame. We've seen it play out on the field to the tune of 7-1. You play Des and you stick with him if you're trying to accomplish all the things you've said are within reach.

To be honest, it strikes me as a bit of revisionist history to suggest that Moore offers this tried & true upgrade in the passing game. Have a look for yourself http://www.espn.com/college-football/con...rds/id/151

H. Moore Rating (2017): 118.4 (last in AAC) // (2016): 123.4 (8th in AAC)
D. Ridder Rating (2018): 137.8 (5th in AAC)

Need we touch on all of Mr. Moore's fumbles? Or how much of a different dynamic Mr. Ridder's running ability brings to the table? I guess what I'm saying here is that on what justification is there to turn to Moore? He hasn't shown himself to be better/ more productive than, Ridder. That's statistically, or just out on the field.

It seems pretty obvious that we become a more predictable, and less dynamic offense with Ridder out. Hence why i think it's a hard pass on going to Moore. Is the mixed message, and disruption of confidence worth it? Maybe if Moore truly brought something to the table, but we've never seen any evidence of that sans that one game...way back when. The one we're always told about with respect to Moore.

Bottom line, Des gives us the best chance to win, he's going to continue to grow with the program, etc. You don't throw things into a state of flux because of a couple of struggles in a game or two in a season like we're in. Des has earned so much slack....it's just not worth it. Esp for a commodity like, Moore.mc

"Perhaps it was the 'win now' mode comment that was a bit off base." PERHAPS ??? Well, I'm guessing that's as close as you'll get to admitting it was actually complete crazy talk. But we can move on to clarify my take (and I think that of a few others) on Hayden.

I don't think anyone is advocating a change in who is the "starter". But I don't think it's fair to say "we've seen what Hayden has got this year". The coaches obviously liked what they saw of him all offseason and preseason - presumably a bit more than they liked the same from Ridder. Since then Hayden's played what, a handful of meaningful drives all year? And I think we've seen some of Ridder's (let's call it) "luck" run out particularly when it comes to turnovers and avoiding sacks. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say lately it's his runs more than his passing that have been his/our saving grace and his lack of them being part of our downfall (Temple). And I think that also may be a factor in why our running game seems to be relying more on the occassional big hit rather than consistent play after play gains. Maybe a bit more effectiveness passing as a threat would help rectify that (not that Ridder has been that bad, but to my eyes he does seem to be: focusing on one receiver rather than his progression, holding the ball a lot longer rather than getting rid of it, and panicking a bit more in the face of a good pass rush). And just maybe some of Hayden's "luck" will reverse itself too (the other way).

If Ridder is struggling to move the offense (not that it is all on him by any means), I don't see the harm in giving Hayden a series or two to see if he can get things moving. After all (although it was pre-designed) that's how Ridder earned the job in the first place. And we've seen that relying on late game theatrics don't always go our way.

Take that up with the staff. They saw enough in the UCLA game. We saw peak Moore in that game - in just 2 drives.

Regarding Moore being the starter at the start of the season - it seems it was more about trepidation with starting a RS frosh at the Rose Bowl. That as opposed to liking Moore....well, more. That's what i took from pre-season evaluations done by Chad & Co. From their pre-season look at camp it sounds like Moore was up to his same ol' tricks. It's kinda telling when a Sr can only just barely nudge out a RS frosh. Not a lot to take away from him starting over Des. Especially when you look at this season as a whole.

Regarding luck running out - we're 7-1 and the guy just threw for 352 yards! Furthermore, the 477 yards we ran up on SMU is good for the 3rd most yardage we've had this season. The only games we had more yardage in are against zombie teams (UCONN & Alabama A&M). Seems like a proper bounce back game. And yeah, of course his legs are probably the better asset. That's fair. Who cares tho as long as he's getting the job done? He's still rated as a better passer than Moore.

CLF has said many times he doesn't want to do the rotating QB thing. He seemingly only did it in game one cuz Des forced his hand based on what went down in camp. CLF seems like a man of his word. It's a mixed message/ disingenuous to reverse that sentiment at this point in the season sans a total offensive breakdown. And I don't count the Temple game as that. Which brings me back to my original point - you play the long game. None of this rotating QB stuff for some potential short term play. These kids aren't robots, how's it look to park the kid who's been 1A to MWII's 1B in terms of importance to the UC's season on offense? Especially considering how hard he rode Moore throughout last season when the stakes were considerably lower than this season.

Nah. You ride the kid that's quite possibly the future of the program through thick and thin....until the wheels fall off. That's how trust is cemented.





mc

(10-29-2018 04:25 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  You ride the kid that's quite possibly the future of the program through thick and thin....until the wheels fall off. That's how trust is cemented.
mc

This!

(10-29-2018 04:25 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  Regarding luck running out - we're 7-1 and the guy just threw for 352 yards! Furthermore, the 477 yards we ran up on SMU is good for the 3rd most yardage we've had this season. The only games we had more yardage in are against zombie teams (UCONN & Alabama A&M). Seems like a proper bounce back game. And yeah, of course his legs are probably the better asset. That's fair. Who cares tho as long as he's getting the job done? He's still rated as a better passer than Moore.

CLF has said many times he doesn't want to do the rotating QB thing. He seemingly only did it in game one cuz Des forced his hand based on what went down in camp. CLF seems like a man of his word. It's a mixed message/ disingenuous to reverse that sentiment at this point in the season sans a total offensive breakdown. And I don't count the Temple game as that. Which brings me back to my original point - you play the long game. None of this rotating QB stuff for some potential short term play. These kids aren't robots, how's it look to park the kid who's been 1A to MWII's 1B in terms of importance to the UC's season on offense? Especially considering how hard he rode Moore throughout last season when the stakes were considerably lower than this season.

Nah. You ride the kid that's quite possibly the future of the program through thick and thin....until the wheels fall off. That's how trust is cemented. mc

"Luck" running out was a reference to him avoiding interceptions, sacks and fumbles (especially fluky ones) along with dropped passes. Those were Hayden's big bugaboos in the opinion of a lot of us and often not 100% his fault. I didn't check the numbers as it's been a gradual thing based upon observation, but my recollection is the first three of those (thus not including dropped passes) have gotten more frequent lately under Ridder than they were earlier this year under Ridder. Maybe it's just the competition getting better or the fact that our opponents now have scouting of him playing to utilize. Or maybe it's just some of the law of averages starting to even out over a larger sample size.

You seem deadset on misinterpreting what I'm advocating here so I'll say it one last time and let it go. I haven't seen anyone talk about rotating QBs aside from early in the year. It's about giving something/someone a shot when one player is struggling. (See Tampa Bay and Fitzpatrick against the Bengals yesterday if you need an example. The entire NFL has seen for many years "exactly what Fitzpatrick has" and not many were interested in buying it to come in and start. And yet all of the sudden the TB offense looked like a completely different team when he entered the game. If that happens for us, great! Then you go from there and maybe we have the good kind of decision to make.) But right now I think everyone is saying Ridder should start and if he is playing well should stay in. IF he struggles for a big portion of the game, you see if you can improve things for the TEAM to WIN. It's not about cementing trust - Hayden was the future of the program at one point too. He opened the door and Ridder stepped in which was good for the team. If Ridder opens the door slightly back for Hayden, it's on Hayden to show he can run through the opening. If he does, good for the Team. If he doesn't hopefully Ridder gains something from seeing things from another perspective he can use now and for the rest of his career. But back to my original point: The future is NOW. WIN NOW!

(10-29-2018 10:41 AM)cpawstoney Wrote:  The loss was cause by two turnovers in the first five minutes of the game coupled with the inability to move the chains in the last six minutes of the game. Had the offense managed the game properly overtime should not have happened. But... we have a young offense and meltdowns are going to happen.

The mistake that ended the game was the fumble in OT. Went from 1st and 10 at the 14 to 2nd and 21. Had to pass in that situation and that's the one thing they could stop - just as UC stuffed Temple's running game all day. Of course there were other mistakes. This was the fatal one.

In two other games, awful snaps created turnovers. We could use Campbell snapping the ball.

I am not sure Hayden wins the UCLA, Ohio or SMU games. My point being is that Ridder's play on those key drives were huge.

I just can't believe how close UC was to losing to SMU. Cats basically needed everything to go right including a missed horse collar tackle, SMU's refusal to pass for a first down with under two minutes, Warren's final catch and run to get to the first down marker, and a made FG after two times outs. Any of those plays go the other way and the game is over. Heck a false start on the play they spiked the ball to set up the FG would have ended the game.

(10-30-2018 07:39 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I am not sure Hayden wins the UCLA, Ohio or SMU games. My point being is that Ridder's play on those key drives were huge.

I just can't believe how close UC was to losing to SMU. Cats basically needed everything to go right including a missed horse collar tackle, SMU's refusal to pass for a first down with under two minutes, Warren's final catch and run to get to the first down marker, and a made FG after two times outs. Any of those plays go the other way and the game is over. Heck a false start on the play they spiked the ball to set up the FG would have ended the game.

Except for maybe Alabama, isn't this the story of most college football teams each season? UC could be 5-2 without a pair of game winning interceptions against Ohio and SMU. Three of last year's four victories (Miami, Tulane, UCONN) came in large part through the ineptitude of the opponents down the stretch. It's what makes college football exciting. This year, it's been "exciting good" more often than not. And I think when any team finds a way to win the confidence level improves; winning breeds winning.

(10-30-2018 07:39 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I am not sure Hayden wins the UCLA, Ohio or SMU games. My point being is that Ridder's play on those key drives were huge.

I just can't believe how close UC was to losing to SMU. Cats basically needed everything to go right including a missed horse collar tackle, SMU's refusal to pass for a first down with under two minutes, Warren's final catch and run to get to the first down marker, and a made FG after two times outs. Any of those plays go the other way and the game is over. Heck a false start on the play they spiked the ball to set up the FG would have ended the game.

I finally watched the game last night. There was also a play on SMU's possession in OT where Hicks was sacked and the UC defender slammed him to the ground (the play where his helmet was knocked off by his own guy) - UC arguably could have been flagged for a penalty there as well which would have given SMU a first down.

(10-30-2018 07:50 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 07:39 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I am not sure Hayden wins the UCLA, Ohio or SMU games. My point being is that Ridder's play on those key drives were huge.

I just can't believe how close UC was to losing to SMU. Cats basically needed everything to go right including a missed horse collar tackle, SMU's refusal to pass for a first down with under two minutes, Warren's final catch and run to get to the first down marker, and a made FG after two times outs. Any of those plays go the other way and the game is over. Heck a false start on the play they spiked the ball to set up the FG would have ended the game.

Except for maybe Alabama, isn't this the story of most college football teams each season? UC could be 5-2 without a pair of game winning interceptions against Ohio and SMU. Three of last year's four victories (Miami, Tulane, UCONN) came in large part through the ineptitude of the opponents down the stretch. It's what makes college football exciting. This year, it's been "exciting good" more often than not. And I think when any team finds a way to win the confidence level improves; winning breeds winning.

I thought SMU's defense looked pretty well coached.

It was like they knew what we were doing before we would do it. I didn't think that they physically overpowered us or anything.

... not that our offense is all that imaginative, though.

(10-30-2018 09:32 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 07:50 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 07:39 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I am not sure Hayden wins the UCLA, Ohio or SMU games. My point being is that Ridder's play on those key drives were huge.

I just can't believe how close UC was to losing to SMU. Cats basically needed everything to go right including a missed horse collar tackle, SMU's refusal to pass for a first down with under two minutes, Warren's final catch and run to get to the first down marker, and a made FG after two times outs. Any of those plays go the other way and the game is over. Heck a false start on the play they spiked the ball to set up the FG would have ended the game.

Except for maybe Alabama, isn't this the story of most college football teams each season? UC could be 5-2 without a pair of game winning interceptions against Ohio and SMU. Three of last year's four victories (Miami, Tulane, UCONN) came in large part through the ineptitude of the opponents down the stretch. It's what makes college football exciting. This year, it's been "exciting good" more often than not. And I think when any team finds a way to win the confidence level improves; winning breeds winning.

I thought SMU's defense looked pretty well coached.

It was like they knew what we were doing before we would do it. I didn't think that they physically overpowered us or anything.

... not that our offense is all that imaginative, though.

Maybe our offensive has just become that predictable....

Actually it appeared that SMU had a pretty good strategy. Crowd the line of scrimmage, run blitz and make us beat them through the air. They had guys unblocked on many plays, whether through missed assignments or by just having more numbers than us. It's why I was hopeful we would take more shots down the field. We did that twice for TDs against SMU but haven't consistently taken deep shots the past couple of weeks. I was yelling for it against Temple in order to loosen up the defense.

To the point above about how we were so close to losing to SMU and needed several things to go our way in order to win. I'd say the same thing about Temple and beating us. The turnovers in the red zone to start te game, our inability to get a first down on 6 consecutive drives, 3 missed FGs, a FG waived off because of a TV timeout, an overturned TD that was clearly BS, bad snap followed be a personal foul in OT, etc. A lot went wrong for us that could've easily went the other way and resulted in a L for Temple. And so it goes...

(10-30-2018 09:32 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 07:50 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 07:39 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I am not sure Hayden wins the UCLA, Ohio or SMU games. My point being is that Ridder's play on those key drives were huge.

I just can't believe how close UC was to losing to SMU. Cats basically needed everything to go right including a missed horse collar tackle, SMU's refusal to pass for a first down with under two minutes, Warren's final catch and run to get to the first down marker, and a made FG after two times outs. Any of those plays go the other way and the game is over. Heck a false start on the play they spiked the ball to set up the FG would have ended the game.

Except for maybe Alabama, isn't this the story of most college football teams each season? UC could be 5-2 without a pair of game winning interceptions against Ohio and SMU. Three of last year's four victories (Miami, Tulane, UCONN) came in large part through the ineptitude of the opponents down the stretch. It's what makes college football exciting. This year, it's been "exciting good" more often than not. And I think when any team finds a way to win the confidence level improves; winning breeds winning.

I thought SMU's defense looked pretty well coached.

It was like they knew what we were doing before we would do it. I didn't think that they physically overpowered us or anything.

... not that our offense is all that imaginative, though.

They brought the linebackers downhill on our running plays. They attacked it very well, pretty much run blitzes. A little bit of a gamble as Warren/McClelland usually bust a couple of big time runs if teams do enough of that.

I am still in shock that they didn't flag Bryan Wright for slamming the QB during that sack on the first play of OT. I'm just so conditioned to expect laundry on every single play. Thankfully college refs let the teams play way more than they do in the NFL.

(10-29-2018 06:07 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 04:25 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  Regarding luck running out - we're 7-1 and the guy just threw for 352 yards! Furthermore, the 477 yards we ran up on SMU is good for the 3rd most yardage we've had this season. The only games we had more yardage in are against zombie teams (UCONN & Alabama A&M). Seems like a proper bounce back game. And yeah, of course his legs are probably the better asset. That's fair. Who cares tho as long as he's getting the job done? He's still rated as a better passer than Moore.

CLF has said many times he doesn't want to do the rotating QB thing. He seemingly only did it in game one cuz Des forced his hand based on what went down in camp. CLF seems like a man of his word. It's a mixed message/ disingenuous to reverse that sentiment at this point in the season sans a total offensive breakdown. And I don't count the Temple game as that. Which brings me back to my original point - you play the long game. None of this rotating QB stuff for some potential short term play. These kids aren't robots, how's it look to park the kid who's been 1A to MWII's 1B in terms of importance to the UC's season on offense? Especially considering how hard he rode Moore throughout last season when the stakes were considerably lower than this season.

Nah. You ride the kid that's quite possibly the future of the program through thick and thin....until the wheels fall off. That's how trust is cemented. mc

"Luck" running out was a reference to him avoiding interceptions, sacks and fumbles (especially fluky ones) along with dropped passes. Those were Hayden's big bugaboos in the opinion of a lot of us and often not 100% his fault. I didn't check the numbers as it's been a gradual thing based upon observation, but my recollection is the first three of those (thus not including dropped passes) have gotten more frequent lately under Ridder than they were earlier this year under Ridder. Maybe it's just the competition getting better or the fact that our opponents now have scouting of him playing to utilize. Or maybe it's just some of the law of averages starting to even out over a larger sample size.

You seem deadset on misinterpreting what I'm advocating here so I'll say it one last time and let it go. I haven't seen anyone talk about rotating QBs aside from early in the year. It's about giving something/someone a shot when one player is struggling. (See Tampa Bay and Fitzpatrick against the Bengals yesterday if you need an example. The entire NFL has seen for many years "exactly what Fitzpatrick has" and not many were interested in buying it to come in and start. And yet all of the sudden the TB offense looked like a completely different team when he entered the game. If that happens for us, great! Then you go from there and maybe we have the good kind of decision to make.) But right now I think everyone is saying Ridder should start and if he is playing well should stay in. IF he struggles for a big portion of the game, you see if you can improve things for the TEAM to WIN. It's not about cementing trust - Hayden was the future of the program at one point too. He opened the door and Ridder stepped in which was good for the team. If Ridder opens the door slightly back for Hayden, it's on Hayden to show he can run through the opening. If he does, good for the Team. If he doesn't hopefully Ridder gains something from seeing things from another perspective he can use now and for the rest of his career. But back to my original point: The future is NOW. WIN NOW!

Lol. I am at a lost here. What do you call putting in a QB when one is struggling? I mean, are you calling for an out and out replacement? It doesn't seem like it, but you're not really clear on how it plays out. Based on your Tampa analogy that is the case. Fitz is now the starter. That's replacing the starter JW with a new starter, Fitz.

The bottom line is this, you open a can of worms by doing what you're saying. Let's say Moore came in on the Temple game, and did wonderfully. Now you're looking down the barrel of a QB controversy. Do you go with the guy that brought you to that point (Des)? Or do you go with the guy who did wonderfully in the moment (Moore)? Or do you rotate?

Regarding your you do realize that Tampa's production tanked once Winston started after his suspension. It's pretty easy to draw a linkage, and make the call. Not even close to the case here. Other than Memphis - umpteen years ago - we've never seen Hayden provide a spark. In fact, one of his biggest failings is that he is a notoriously slow starter. Something that persisted during camp, per Chad's reporting. So, it seems he isn't even well equipped to provide the spark off the bench you're talking about.

I hear your point - i'm just saying why even bother disrupting the growth of someone who's likely to be here for the next 3 years? It's not worth it, and 1 sub-par game against a team with a really good defensive minded coach doesn't exactly call for a re-examination of a policy of not rotating/ replacing/ however you wanna frame it QBs.



mc