Last week in my rant about 1's, 2's, and 3's, I warned that I was curious to see the play-calling based on some of the spin coming out of media reports and quotations after various performances. To be brief, I'll paraphrase:

"I'm interested to see the gameplan because the current number one has had very protective play calling and has not been asked to "make plays"... the current number two has shown youth and cannot protect the football or execute... and the now number three (who spent the evening signalling) was asked to throw over 30 passes at Pitt with no designed runs and was hence deemed ineffective".....

So... with that in mind.... 9....nine...nueve... pass attempts for the "starter". A conference game against a CUSA defense. nine forward passes of which how many were shuffle passes?

30 plus at Pitt an ACC school, and a very quick narrative to deem that QB ineffective.

Nine at UTSA and we say it was a "lack of communication"...

I warned of agendas last week ladies and gentlemen. I only go where the evidence takes me.....

Did you count this attempt though?

Head coach David Bailiff said Tyner, who was recruited as an athlete, will be utilized in a variety of ways, including some snaps at tight end.

"It leaves Jackson right now as the third (quarterback) and we're going to package him in the offense in different capacities," Bailiff said.

How does signalling the entire game quantify being utilized in a variety of ways? We typically have two signalers on the sideline did he alternate from primary to secondary signaler to justify different capacities?

(10-23-2017 09:05 AM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  Did you count this attempt though?

Believe this is the third time this this season that has happened. Young and inexperienced though.

(10-23-2017 09:54 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  Head coach David Bailiff said Tyner, who was recruited as an athlete, will be utilized in a variety of ways, including some snaps at tight end.

"It leaves Jackson right now as the third (quarterback) and we're going to package him in the offense in different capacities," Bailiff said.

How does signalling the entire game quantify being utilized in a variety of ways? We typically have two signalers on the sideline did he alternate from primary to secondary signaler to justify different capacities?

If Tyner isn’t going to be a QB I want to see him in the 2008 Thor role not just as a TE. His size would present problems for the DB’s and speed for the LB’s.

Well... My point isn't so much about one over the other or who plays... I'm just concerned that in the midst of a great deal of criticism and bluster on this site (much of which has credibility apparently), that we (the fans) are being sold poo poo popsicles disguised as Chicken Fried Steaks. Much less what the kids must be feeling to hear narratives that do not fit the actual "non-fiction" taking place on the field. It is apparent that there's an interest to protect some players while it appears another has been used as the patsy.

"If Tyner isn’t going to be a QB I want to see him in the 2008 Thor role not just as a TE. His size would present problems for the DB’s and speed for the LB’s."
[/quote from Tiki Owl]

Are you sure that's sound thinking for a 6'5" 245 lb kid who was recruited as an "athlete".... ????

(10-23-2017 10:02 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  "If Tyner isn’t going to be a QB I want to see him in the 2008 Thor role not just as a TE. His size would present problems for the DB’s and speed for the LB’s."
[/quote from Tiki Owl]

Are you sure that's sound thinking for a 6'5" 245 lb kid who was recruited as an "athlete".... ????

Need to ask the LB from Stanford and the one from Army he ran over what they think about that idea. The kid is a load. He may not be lightning in a bottle but haven't seen him spot an opponent points- 21 UofH...21 Army... 14 UTSA

Well... in any event.... agendas or not... "they" scored seven points ... "They" changed personnel and scored 7 points...."They" claimed to change again --- seven points.... Kinda hard to keep putting this on personnel ...

(10-23-2017 09:59 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 09:54 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  Head coach David Bailiff said Tyner, who was recruited as an athlete, will be utilized in a variety of ways, including some snaps at tight end.

"It leaves Jackson right now as the third (quarterback) and we're going to package him in the offense in different capacities," Bailiff said.

How does signalling the entire game quantify being utilized in a variety of ways? We typically have two signalers on the sideline did he alternate from primary to secondary signaler to justify different capacities?

If Tyner isn’t going to be a QB I want to see him in the 2008 Thor role not just as a TE. His size would present problems for the DB’s and speed for the LB’s.

I believe that's what they have that RS freshman Myers (?) doing now, and somewhat capably.

With that in mind, I'm not entirely convinced there are many snaps to be had for an additional big but not particularly fast or elusive guy.

(10-23-2017 08:26 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Last week in my rant about 1's, 2's, and 3's, I warned that I was curious to see the play-calling based on some of the spin coming out of media reports and quotations after various performances. To be brief, I'll paraphrase:

"I'm interested to see the gameplan because the current number one has had very protective play calling and has not been asked to "make plays"... the current number two has shown youth and cannot protect the football or execute... and the now number three (who spent the evening signalling) was asked to throw over 30 passes at Pitt with no designed runs and was hence deemed ineffective".....

So... with that in mind.... 9....nine...nueve... pass attempts for the "starter". A conference game against a CUSA defense. nine forward passes of which how many were shuffle passes?

30 plus at Pitt an ACC school, and a very quick narrative to deem that QB ineffective.

Nine at UTSA and we say it was a "lack of communication"...

I warned of agendas last week ladies and gentlemen. I only go where the evidence takes me.....

Tyner has had many opportunities beyond the Pitt game with similar results. I haven't seen evidence of an agenda with the coaches. Can't say the same with your posts.

(10-23-2017 12:09 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 08:26 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Last week in my rant about 1's, 2's, and 3's, I warned that I was curious to see the play-calling based on some of the spin coming out of media reports and quotations after various performances. To be brief, I'll paraphrase:

"I'm interested to see the gameplan because the current number one has had very protective play calling and has not been asked to "make plays"... the current number two has shown youth and cannot protect the football or execute... and the now number three (who spent the evening signalling) was asked to throw over 30 passes at Pitt with no designed runs and was hence deemed ineffective".....

So... with that in mind.... 9....nine...nueve... pass attempts for the "starter". A conference game against a CUSA defense. nine forward passes of which how many were shuffle passes?

30 plus at Pitt an ACC school, and a very quick narrative to deem that QB ineffective.

Nine at UTSA and we say it was a "lack of communication"...

I warned of agendas last week ladies and gentlemen. I only go where the evidence takes me.....

Tyner has had many opportunities beyond the Pitt game with similar results. I haven't seen evidence of an agenda with the coaches. Can't say the same with your posts.

Seriously many opportunities since Pitt?

Actually the only opportunity Tyner had since the Pitt game was as the backup against Army. Took over with a 21 point deficit creating by Smalls and his "lightning in a bottle." Tyner moved the ball well and generated 10 points. Two receiver fumbles after gaining first downs does not equate "ineffective" by Tyner. Assuming he had limited reps the Pitt week while waiting to see the availability of Glaessman then receiving no reps with the 1's as the backup to Smalls the week of Army I would venture to say Tyner is doing pretty darn good with the preparation he has been given.

(10-23-2017 12:09 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 08:26 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Last week in my rant about 1's, 2's, and 3's, I warned that I was curious to see the play-calling based on some of the spin coming out of media reports and quotations after various performances. To be brief, I'll paraphrase:

"I'm interested to see the gameplan because the current number one has had very protective play calling and has not been asked to "make plays"... the current number two has shown youth and cannot protect the football or execute... and the now number three (who spent the evening signalling) was asked to throw over 30 passes at Pitt with no designed runs and was hence deemed ineffective".....

So... with that in mind.... 9....nine...nueve... pass attempts for the "starter". A conference game against a CUSA defense. nine forward passes of which how many were shuffle passes?



30 plus at Pitt an ACC school, and a very quick narrative to deem that QB ineffective.

Nine at UTSA and we say it was a "lack of communication"...

I warned of agendas last week ladies and gentlemen. I only go where the evidence takes me.....

Tyner has had many opportunities beyond the Pitt game with similar results. I haven't seen evidence of an agenda with the coaches. Can't say the same with your posts.

You're right... I have a bias... I have two agendas actually...

1) Tyner is my guy... I favor him. I don't think the offense fits any of these guys. I think for you to say he's been ineffective is certainly within the realm of what would be your right to say... I only counter with this: How effective are the other guys? Either the staff has recruited three guys who can't play, or they've designed a system and called plays rendering all three ineffective. Either way, it's on them. I would love to see Tyner, Glaesman, and/or Smalls in a "playmaker's, run first, QB as a dual threat weapon" offense. But don't sell me this box of poop and tell me its a dozen tulips

2) 2nd agenda-- sniff out Bullsmack... I'm absolutely 110% fine with whoever they want to start. But when you do make a decision on anyone, hold them to the same standard. It's one thing to "game plan" a little conservative. It's yet another to tank a game plan to protect youth and still have youth give up scores by their own hand crippling a hard playing defense. If they don't want Tyner to play QB, great. They make a bunch of money to make those calls and obviously because they coach big time multi-million dollar football and I only gamble $50/week on the same football, they are inherently more qualified and have their reasons. BUT..... don't tell me "A" is this, but "B" is that and "C" can possibly give us "A+B" when in fact... and the facts at this point are indisputable... "A" > "B" and "C" even if by a small margin....

The facts are pretty plain: Pittsburgh has arguably two NFL prospect DB's, we threw 32 times and ran the QB zero... UTSA .... not UT, UTSA, and we trusted the QB's enough to attempt 15 passes... three of which were picked and one other fumbled for a TD. As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things".


And like my signature line says, if one player is the problem, change the player... But if a lot of players are the problem, It's you....

(10-23-2017 12:18 PM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  Seriously many opportunities since Pitt?

Actually the only opportunity Tyner had since the Pitt game was as the backup against Army. Took over with a 21 point deficit creating by Smalls and his "lightning in a bottle." Tyner moved the ball well and generated 10 points. Two receiver fumbles after gaining first downs does not equate "ineffective" by Tyner. Assuming he had limited reps the Pitt week while waiting to see the availability of Glaessman then receiving no reps with the 1's as the backup to Smalls the week of Army I would venture to say Tyner is doing pretty darn good with the preparation he has been given.

At Ease did not say since Pitt, he said beyond Pitt. I believe he is including last season too.

That said, Tyner's adjusted QBR for 2017 is 24.1. Glaesmann is 14.6 (pulled up by UTSA game at 34 - otherwise he was 8.8 vs Stanford, 15.5 vs UTEP and 1.0 vs UH). Smalls has a zero.

Personally, I would like to see some semblance of a plan or approach. A clear cut 1,2,3. We seemingly shuffle them every week. The whole "lightning in a bottle" idea was plain stupid. The better prepared team usually wins. What next, we pray for rain?

As I like to say.... jus' sco'.... don carah howa.. don carah hoo...jus' friggin' sco' sum touchdown...