(09-03-2013 02:32 PM)eroc Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 01:49 PM)bctn8n Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 01:31 PM)uccheese Wrote:  Maybe, but I think it's worth noting that Munchie's interceptions are almost always physical mistakes. With a lot of QB's, you take a look back at INTs and think the ball should have never been thrown there. With Munchie's picks, you almost always come away thinking the ball sailed on him or was too much of a line drive so it got tipped, etc. I think he's actually a good decision maker, but his inaccuracy is leading to INTs which naturally makes people question his reads/decisions.

Then again, INTs are INTs regardless of the reason so I guess it doesn't matter if he's TRYING to throw to the right spot or not.

His second INT Saturday was mental not physical.

i disagree. it was both. The pass should not have been thrown and it was short. Not unlike the interception at Louisville in OT, the INT returned for a TD at Toledo, or the one that he threw right to the Toledo Defender with no WR in sight. When Munchie throws an int that isn't tipped at the line his WRs rarely have a shot at making a play. Hell, some of his best passes were 50/50 balls where the WR made a GREAT play, usually fighting off a DB or catching a poorly thrown ball with a high degree of difficulty.

Besides the tip int and the int in the endzone, there was a pass into coverage where Munchie was moving left, his WR was moving right and he ended up throwing it right to a LB who, luckily, dropped it. There was also the completion that McClung had to pick up off the ground. i give credit to the coaches for putting him in a position to succeed, unlike Lyle. That said, i want Brendon to start, period, end of story. He gives the team the best chance to win in the long run, and nothing that happened in the Purdue game changed my mind on that.

Good points. The throw to McClung was terrible. It happened right in front of our seats in Section 123. McClung made a terrific catch on a ball thrown at his shoelaces. He was wide open but Munchie could not put it in a place where McClung could make make some yards after the catch.

(09-03-2013 05:16 PM)@ES Trader Wrote:  Why is Brandon Kay running a qb sneak or playing at all if not 100%???

That's the million dollar question IMO. Brought in specifically for short yardage then throws one deep later in the game. Seems ok to me.

(09-03-2013 06:44 AM)pat5775 Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 06:22 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 12:35 AM)#41 Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 09:36 PM)50Cent Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 09:18 PM)#41 Wrote:  Munchie is inaccurate and prone to turnovers -- he proved that last year

You don't win consistently at any level with a QB like that.

Maybe you can look up munchies record as a starting qb.....

And you assume he didn't improve tis offseason working with the new staff.

Either way, the derision towards a guy who has been a model bearcat is pathetic and guys like you and some others on here should be embarrassed.

I expect every player in the program to be a "model Bearcat" -- that's a non-starter for me when discussing a player's abilities and whether or not he should be starting.

Why should I be embarrassed for pointing out that Legaux has been, over the course of his career: Inaccurate, Prone to Turnovers, and generally a very sub-par QB?

Hmmmm.....this seems like an over-reach and at odds with results. His record as a starting QB seems to say otherwise. Make no mistake, I'm with the consensus, i'd prefer to see Kay start. Higher offensive ceiling and all the rest. Just pointing out that Muchie wins and that, at the end of the day, is why we play the game.




mc

Not trying to step on any toes here, but wins are a TEAM stat, not a QB stat. There is A LOT more that goes into being a decent QB than a mere W/L record (ask Tim Tebow).

It's not often that a QB single-handedly win a game by himself... however, I can think of two games last season that Munchie pretty much single-handedly blew himself but I digress.

As a QB, Munchie has his strengths and weaknesses, but he definitely has more weaknesses. Once we start playing some tougher opponents, I honestly cringe at the thought of Munchie starting. Munchie can beat weaker teams, sure, but just about any QB on the roster can. I hope Munchie proves me wrong and leads this team to a 12-0 record and a BCS Bowl, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

I hope TT and his staff know what they're doing

So wins are a team stat but a qb loses the game all by himself? Some of you guys are so anti-munchie you can't give the kid credit for playing a good game or that he could improve or that coach Tuberville coud actually think he can win with munchie.

Awful lot of guys on here who wanna be coaches who have never coached.

My guess is Kay starts @ Illinois. Reasons? He appears healthy, I think this game may turn into a shootout and the deep ball will be more needed than last week. You also keep IL guessing.

Coach knew they could run against Purdue so why not keep the defense wondering if it could be Munchie on any given snap. While I prefer Kay's style, Munchie was a key to Saturday's victory. He made mistakes but he also made some great plays and managed the offense at critical moments when the momentum could have changed had UC not advanced the ball or scored.

(09-03-2013 02:34 PM)bctn8n Wrote:  In Tuberville's press conference today he said it should've gone to the 2nd read. He then went on to state that Munchie knew it as soon as threw it. The 2nd read was wide open but he locked onto the first read which was covered.

Fair enough. Thanks.

(09-04-2013 07:05 AM)indycat Wrote:  My guess is Kay starts @ Illinois. Reasons? He appears healthy, I think this game may turn into a shootout and the deep ball will be more needed than last week. You also keep IL guessing.

Coach knew they could run against Purdue so why not keep the defense wondering if it could be Munchie on any given snap. While I prefer Kay's style, Munchie was a key to Saturday's victory. He made mistakes but he also made some great plays and managed the offense at critical moments when the momentum could have changed had UC not advanced the ball or scored.

Best Post yet, and hits the nail on the head.

Munchie is a solid quarterback, with improving judgement. He certainly has issues that are not going to change at this point in his career, but we can and will win him at the helm. He will likely continue to get meaningful snaps as the year progresses.

This team is blessed to have a guy as good as Kay. His presence is the reason we're so critical of Munchie, since we have the luxury of seeing/contrasting a potentially special QB along side Munchie. A healthy Kay is our best bet, and I believe he is being preserved for the stretch run that will give us our shot at a BCS game.

(09-04-2013 08:04 AM)Teakwood Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 07:05 AM)indycat Wrote:  My guess is Kay starts @ Illinois. Reasons? He appears healthy, I think this game may turn into a shootout and the deep ball will be more needed than last week. You also keep IL guessing.

Coach knew they could run against Purdue so why not keep the defense wondering if it could be Munchie on any given snap. While I prefer Kay's style, Munchie was a key to Saturday's victory. He made mistakes but he also made some great plays and managed the offense at critical moments when the momentum could have changed had UC not advanced the ball or scored.

Best Post yet, and hits the nail on the head.

Munchie is a solid quarterback, with improving judgement. He certainly has issues that are not going to change at this point in his career, but we can and will win him at the helm. He will likely continue to get meaningful snaps as the year progresses.

This team is blessed to have a guy as good as Kay. His presence is the reason we're so critical of Munchie, since we have the luxury of seeing/contrasting a potentially special QB along side Munchie. A healthy Kay is our best bet, and I believe he is being preserved for the stretch run that will give us our shot at a BCS game.

Teakwood;

1) Welcome to the board!
2) i disagree, either in whole or in part, with the portions of your post i bolded. He vacillates between poor judgement and no judgement. He doesn't have the arm strength to consistently connect on deep throws, he doesn't have the accuracy to connect on most throws. i would rate him as a below average QB.

(09-03-2013 05:17 PM)Nasty Nati 513 Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 05:04 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  I cannot believe we are discussing this again this year.

X2

agree 100%

(09-04-2013 08:57 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 05:17 PM)Nasty Nati 513 Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 05:04 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  I cannot believe we are discussing this again this year.

X2

agree 100%

Get used to it. It starts all over again next year with the Coney vs Kiel debates.

(09-04-2013 09:02 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 08:57 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 05:17 PM)Nasty Nati 513 Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 05:04 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  I cannot believe we are discussing this again this year.

X2

agree 100%

Get used to it. It starts all over again next year with the Coney vs Kiel debates.

if that debate is like this one, lord effing help us all!!

(09-04-2013 08:04 AM)Teakwood Wrote:  This team is blessed to have a guy as good as Kay. His presence is the reason we're so critical of Munchie, since we have the luxury of seeing/contrasting a potentially special QB along side Munchie. A healthy Kay is our best bet, and I believe he is being preserved for the stretch run that will give us our shot at a BCS game.

Wrong. Were you not on this board last season? You don't need a side-by-side comparison to see what you have with Munchie. If it wasn't Kay on the sideline it would have been one of the younger guys clamored for.

I don't want to take anything away from Munchie. I'm hopeful he can build on his successes this year better than last. I'm also hopeful that Tuberville is better at managing the game and what he has on the bench than Jones was; it shouldn't take several games and a crowd of boos (directed at yourself) before you even attempt to patch a gaping hole.

(09-04-2013 09:51 AM)franzeal Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 08:04 AM)Teakwood Wrote:  This team is blessed to have a guy as good as Kay. His presence is the reason we're so critical of Munchie, since we have the luxury of seeing/contrasting a potentially special QB along side Munchie. A healthy Kay is our best bet, and I believe he is being preserved for the stretch run that will give us our shot at a BCS game.

Wrong. Were you not on this board last season? You don't need a side-by-side comparison to see what you have with Munchie. If it wasn't Kay on the sideline it would have been one of the younger guys clamored for.

I don't want to take anything away from Munchie. I'm hopeful he can build on his successes this year better than last. I'm also hopeful that Tuberville is better at managing the game and what he has on the bench than Jones was; it shouldn't take several games and a crowd of boos (directed at yourself) before you even attempt to patch a gaping hole.

Just as a general comment and not directed at our current QB situation, any coach who changes his personnel just to placate booing fans need to find a new profession.

(09-04-2013 10:54 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Just as a general comment and not directed at our current QB situation, any coach who changes his personnel just to placate booing fans need to find a new profession.

Most FBS coaches who don't please their fans/donors get shown the door sooner rather than later.

(09-04-2013 11:18 AM)franzeal Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 10:54 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Just as a general comment and not directed at our current QB situation, any coach who changes his personnel just to placate booing fans need to find a new profession.

Most FBS coaches who don't please their fans/donors will be out on their butt.

So in other words you advocate a coach making his/her decisions based on the fans' moment to moment reactions at the game rather than their own judgement and experience? Okay.....

(09-04-2013 11:36 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 11:18 AM)franzeal Wrote:  Most FBS coaches who don't please their fans/donors will be out on their butt.

So in other words you advocate a coach making his/her decisions based on the fans' moment to moment reactions at the game rather than their own judgement and experience? Okay.....

No, I'm advocating that your statement isn't so cut-and-dry, but requires context and common sense.

(09-04-2013 09:02 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 08:57 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 05:17 PM)Nasty Nati 513 Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 05:04 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  I cannot believe we are discussing this again this year.

X2

agree 100%

Get used to it. It starts all over again next year with the Coney vs Kiel debates.

I think that debate will be very different. That's more of a "good problem to have" type debate.

(09-04-2013 11:18 AM)franzeal Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 10:54 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Just as a general comment and not directed at our current QB situation, any coach who changes his personnel just to placate booing fans need to find a new profession.

Most FBS coaches who don't please their fans/donors get shown the door sooner rather than later.

uh...Coach TT is going to start/play the people he thinks can best help us win....period.

(09-04-2013 11:58 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  uh...Coach TT is going to start/play the people he thinks can best help us win....period.

You're right, coach Tuberville answers to no one. His salary grows on trees along with Whit's. There is no metric to judge their performance and both will be here as long as they see fit.

That aside, I certainly have hope that coach Tuberville will do exactly that (have a gameplan that he thinks can best help us win). I lost all hope in the last guy doing the same.

(09-04-2013 11:39 AM)franzeal Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 11:36 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 11:18 AM)franzeal Wrote:  Most FBS coaches who don't please their fans/donors will be out on their butt.

So in other words you advocate a coach making his/her decisions based on the fans' moment to moment reactions at the game rather than their own judgement and experience? Okay.....

No, I'm advocating that your statement isn't so cut-and-dry, but requires context and common sense.

Sorry if you think I took your original comment out of context. It's just that it included the phrase "crowd of boos".

(09-04-2013 01:09 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Sorry if you think I took your original comment out of context. It's just that it included the phrase "crowd of boos".

I don't care what context you take my statement in. It doesn't make your assessment any less broad and outside of reality.