(01-04-2018 01:38 PM)EagleTough Wrote: (01-04-2018 01:00 PM)emu steve Wrote: My guess is still that we now have our version of Shane Morris.
Certainly hope not. If so, we just need to groom our young guys. Morris threw 17 picks and had little mobility. For all of his struggles this season, Roback 'only' threw 15.
We need the opposite of Morris/Roback. A QB with mobility, who also protects the football, first and foremost.
I see things a bit differently:
I would like a Cam Newton but do we have one of the roster? No.
First, I think we are asking/expecting TOO much too much of a true frosh QB, like Grissom, Jackson, etc. or even a very inexperienced QB like Steibeling. Steibeling survived against BOWLING GREEN, who had never seen him before, etc. etc. He is many years behind Roback in development. Put him up against NIU, WMU, TOL, etc and he'd probably not look as good.
We are NOT in rebuild mode, but trying to get to a bowl. We need to replace a many year starting QB without going through 'growing pains' with the new guy.
Second, there is no reason, NOW THAT we have a lot of QB talent ready to go, to not have a pro style and dual threat QB. Wiegers can be the first and Grisson and (?) the other. This strategy is dependent on a dual threat QB being ready to play. Is Grissom the only high talent dual threat QB on the roster?
Third, it appears (to me) that the strategy was to go all the way with Roback and the 2nd stringer would get mope up duty. There wasn't really any mope up with so many games nail biters. The QB battle was deferred until 2018.
Fourth, the QB battle in earnest will be in 2019 after Wiegers is gone. Wiegers' backup will led the charge in spring ball. I assume Wiegers with his experience is odds on favorite to win the start. Putting a frosh QB in vs. Purdue, SDSU, Army, TOL, NIU, WMU, etc. is not something I like.
Fifth, I see no problems with Wiegers being another Shane Morris. Here are his, Morris' stats for 2017. He finished FOURTH in passing efficiency in the MAC. Nothing wrong being #4 out of a 12-team conference. Some of the frosh, e.g., Grissom, Jackson, etc. might be well served to be backup QBs as true frosh. Tossing a TRUE frosh into a starting QB role usually spells disaster. That is not what a HC normally wants (fans might love the fantasy of him being good as a frosh, 'gooder' as a soph, 'more gooder' as a junior, etc.). More like 'fair' as a frosh, 'okay' as a soph and then maybe good.
Sixth, I just can't believe the expectations folks here have for a frosh QB (e.g., Jackson). Wiegers was a 3 or 4 star QB with years of B1G experience (even though not game action). Jackson will be a frosh 2 star QB. Maybe, Jackson becomes a good MAC QB. I don't know. But the expectations, based on his h.s. performance and recruiting, are that he is a prospect for the future, not someone to step in as a true frosh and lead a winning team.
Seventh, here are the QB stats from the MAC site. I have NO problems with Morris' stats. I'm sure a half dozen teams would have been glad to have him.
PASS EFFICIENCY Cl G Comp-Att-Int Pct. Yards TD Long Effic.
1. WOODSIDE, Logan-TOLEDO SR 14 264 - 411 - 8 64.2 3882 28 89 162.2
2. RAGLAND, Gus-MIAMI JR 9 150 - 269 - 7 55.8 2032 19 55 137.3
3. Rourke, Nathan-OHIO SO 13 161 - 292 - 7 55.1 2203 17 58 132.9
4. MORRIS, Shane-CMU SR 13 249 - 446 - 17 55.8 3237 27 77 129.1
5. ROBACK, Brogan-EMU SR 12 245 - 409 - 15 59.9 2890 19 74 127.3
6. CHILDERS, Marcu-NIU FR 12 152 - 265 - 5 57.4 1674 16 73 126.6
7. CRUM, Dustin-KENT FR 10 16 - 30 - 2 53.3 232 1 75 116.0
8. BOLLAS, George-KENT JR 11 88 - 182 - 12 48.4 1133 4 84 94.7
9. MILAS, Jack-BALL SR 12 110 - 207 - 8 53.1 970 2 47 88.0
Eighth, if Grissom is the second coming of Cam Newton I'll be glad to admit I was wrong and will drink to it while planning to attend a bowl game. :)