Ranking every FBS QB situation
- Thread starter ccsblackknights
- Start date
HIgh?
Might want to read the comments about the teams below us on the list. You'll find lots of QBs who have never started a game for the team for which they now play. When you do find starting experience below us on the list, you won't find much.
Might want to read the comments about the teams below us on the list. You'll find lots of QBs who have never started a game for the team for which they now play. When you do find starting experience below us on the list, you won't find much.
Note also the rating criteria, which includes the experience level of both the starter and the backup. That's a strength for us this season with two experienced quarterbacks vying for the starting role. No matter which quarterback starts this year, we have a reliable backup who can step in and run the triple option offense reasonably proficiently.
That was often a problem for us when Steelman was our starting quarterback. One of the reasons Steelman started as a plebe was that we didn't have a true triple option quarterback before he arrived. Chip Bowden was more of a two option guy and Jenkins was never a really good option quarterback either. In 2010 and 2011, Jenkins was initially the backup, but eventually Ellerson turned to Santiago, who was a bit more reliable as a runner but was indecisive pitching the ball on the third option. Santiago started the 2012 season at backup but looked terrible (indecisive) in the Wake Forest game, which led to Schurr being elevated to the backup as a plebe. That's two seasons in a row that we had to turn to a plebe as the backup. We ended up losing a few games as a result.
As the author noted, our guys are rated on how well they do as triple option quarterbacks, and not how they'd do at a team that passes the ball more. Their primary skill requirement is reading the defense and getting the ball to the right ball carrier. Their second most important skill is running the ball when the second option is called for, and their third most important skill is passing it. Santiago is quite good at the first two but quite poor at the third. Schurr is a slightly better passer, but has had problems hanging onto the ball. I doubt seriously that Santiago is going to improve significantly as a passer, and it remains to be seen if coaching will improve Schurr's ability to hang onto the ball. Steelman was never a good passer, and he had his problems with fumbling, but he was very good about reading the defenses and got better as a runner each year. I always thought that a big part of his fumbling problem was that his mind was often ahead of his body and he was too intent on selling the options to pay enough attention to ball control.
We tend to think of Reynolds as a good passing quarterback, but that's only in comparison with our own. Navy passes only slightly more than we do, and only slightly more proficiently. The primary difference in pass efficiency ratings is that Navy finds a receiver open downfield a few more times each year and Reynolds is more capable of delivering the ball to a wide open receiver. He's probably better at scrambling with the ball or running the quarterback draw. As the author notes, he won't get any offers from the pros but he fits the Navy offense very well.
That was often a problem for us when Steelman was our starting quarterback. One of the reasons Steelman started as a plebe was that we didn't have a true triple option quarterback before he arrived. Chip Bowden was more of a two option guy and Jenkins was never a really good option quarterback either. In 2010 and 2011, Jenkins was initially the backup, but eventually Ellerson turned to Santiago, who was a bit more reliable as a runner but was indecisive pitching the ball on the third option. Santiago started the 2012 season at backup but looked terrible (indecisive) in the Wake Forest game, which led to Schurr being elevated to the backup as a plebe. That's two seasons in a row that we had to turn to a plebe as the backup. We ended up losing a few games as a result.
As the author noted, our guys are rated on how well they do as triple option quarterbacks, and not how they'd do at a team that passes the ball more. Their primary skill requirement is reading the defense and getting the ball to the right ball carrier. Their second most important skill is running the ball when the second option is called for, and their third most important skill is passing it. Santiago is quite good at the first two but quite poor at the third. Schurr is a slightly better passer, but has had problems hanging onto the ball. I doubt seriously that Santiago is going to improve significantly as a passer, and it remains to be seen if coaching will improve Schurr's ability to hang onto the ball. Steelman was never a good passer, and he had his problems with fumbling, but he was very good about reading the defenses and got better as a runner each year. I always thought that a big part of his fumbling problem was that his mind was often ahead of his body and he was too intent on selling the options to pay enough attention to ball control.
We tend to think of Reynolds as a good passing quarterback, but that's only in comparison with our own. Navy passes only slightly more than we do, and only slightly more proficiently. The primary difference in pass efficiency ratings is that Navy finds a receiver open downfield a few more times each year and Reynolds is more capable of delivering the ball to a wide open receiver. He's probably better at scrambling with the ball or running the quarterback draw. As the author notes, he won't get any offers from the pros but he fits the Navy offense very well.
Nice post Good, IMO I would go with the best reader, you get more done with the ball.. Having a good passer vs a good reader, thats a sticky one there As you stated Steelman wasn't a good passer, but he took the team and won a bowl. Its going to be interesting to see how this goes, I'm for certain they both will be used for different plays. Monken seems to be looking for a all around QB, vs the other coaches in the pass wasn't to worried about the passing with how Army ran the ball So passing wasn't a skill brushed up on doing practice, which was why Steelman wasn't good at it. A 4yr starter, that should have been done coming in.. All QBs from hs know how to throw the ball coming in, but if the coach don't embrace and sharpen the skill it won't matter.
Not to make excuses, if you watched Steelman play in the All Star game, his passing was on point… They wasn't moving the ball until Steelman came in as the QB, and the team won the game because of him. Now what was different about the players vs ours. The man power was different, he had more people out there doing their job protecting him vs just three players on the field protecting him (a little sarcasm) there. But true, it was a lot of missed blocks, it drove me crazy…. Which was 1 of our biggest problems! HC Monken not having that, IMO.
If you have to many missed assignments out there, his benching you, after he finish letting you have it... I don't see him being closed mouth on the sidelines and Emotionless.
This post was edited on 7/23 11:49 PM by Bulletproof09
If you have to many missed assignments out there, his benching you, after he finish letting you have it... I don't see him being closed mouth on the sidelines and Emotionless.
This post was edited on 7/23 11:49 PM by Bulletproof09
I think our QB situation will change because of the coach. He says the starter will be the QB and stick with him develop him. QB's need playing time and coaching to help make tem better. The one aspect of Army's game that has been missing is the blocking for the QB on running plays, sometimes the blocker forgot his assignment other times just missed their blocks and the QB got killed.
Coach Monken, will not tolerate this type of play and expects the blocks to be there.
He will develop the QB to fit the offense, but the QB has to have abilities that fit the offense and that choice is up to the coach as to who he feels fits the offense.
I personally think coach will mix in the passing game with the running game so one offsets the other and keep the defense confused, which we make our team more consistent in scoring or at least in moving the sticks down the field.
Coach Monken, will not tolerate this type of play and expects the blocks to be there.
He will develop the QB to fit the offense, but the QB has to have abilities that fit the offense and that choice is up to the coach as to who he feels fits the offense.
I personally think coach will mix in the passing game with the running game so one offsets the other and keep the defense confused, which we make our team more consistent in scoring or at least in moving the sticks down the field.
Before we get too excited about the "balanced" run / pass of the new coach and system, please look at his biggest win. At the Swamp against Florida, Ga Southern was 0 for 3 and zero yards passing. Small sample size, but I don't look for a return to the Leamon Hall days.
I agree it is good to be able to keep the defense honest, but as others noted, that is 3 of 3 in the priority of read, run and then pass.
I agree it is good to be able to keep the defense honest, but as others noted, that is 3 of 3 in the priority of read, run and then pass.
Your right I did watch it... And totally agree 3 of 3 priority!
Goarmyfan you made some good points as well.
For the record, over the past four years that Monken coached at GSU, they passed the ball less than Army. That's based on a calculation of pass attempts as a percent of total plays each season. Here are the numbers:
2010: Army 15.9% GSU 15.2%
2011: Army 11.9% GSU 16%
2012: Army 12.5% GSU 10%
2013: Army 18.2% GSU 14%
Over all 4 years: Army 14.5% GSU 13.8%
GSU was generally more effective when they did pass with a Pass Efficiency rating of 144 versus Army's dismal 109.
While I don't have sufficient data to support my conclusion, it seems to me that Monken adjusts his strategy somewhat to match the skills of his quarterback. Mckinnon was primarily a running quarterback and you can see in 2012, when McKinnnon was the starting quarterback the passing percentage was only 10%. The following year, McKinnon started at quarterback the first half of the season, but was moved to fullback and Kevin Ellison took over at QB and the percentage went up to 14% for the season. Ellison had 79 passing attempts, compared to McKinnon's 17. It's difficult to estimate how much time each of them played quarterback, but they started about the same number of games. To me that suggests that we're probably going to pass a little more often if Schurr is the quarterback than if Santiago is the quarterback, but it probably won't be much more than we've seen in the past.
2010: Army 15.9% GSU 15.2%
2011: Army 11.9% GSU 16%
2012: Army 12.5% GSU 10%
2013: Army 18.2% GSU 14%
Over all 4 years: Army 14.5% GSU 13.8%
GSU was generally more effective when they did pass with a Pass Efficiency rating of 144 versus Army's dismal 109.
While I don't have sufficient data to support my conclusion, it seems to me that Monken adjusts his strategy somewhat to match the skills of his quarterback. Mckinnon was primarily a running quarterback and you can see in 2012, when McKinnnon was the starting quarterback the passing percentage was only 10%. The following year, McKinnon started at quarterback the first half of the season, but was moved to fullback and Kevin Ellison took over at QB and the percentage went up to 14% for the season. Ellison had 79 passing attempts, compared to McKinnon's 17. It's difficult to estimate how much time each of them played quarterback, but they started about the same number of games. To me that suggests that we're probably going to pass a little more often if Schurr is the quarterback than if Santiago is the quarterback, but it probably won't be much more than we've seen in the past.
Last year, Oklahoma's (returning) QB torched the vaunted Alabama defense in the Sugar Bowl to the tune of nearly 400 yards passing and 45 points. The Sooners also have a backup QB on their roster that led his team to a 17 point win over Notre Dame in South Bend. Those factors combined to earn OU a ranking of #35 on this scale. Navy OTOH comes in at #9. This writer must live in either Colorado or Washington.
Texas would more likely account for what you claim is the low rating for the Oklahoma QB. Annapolis, perhaps for the other side?
I don't follow. Last year Navy lost to Western Kentucky, Duke, Toledo, and Notre Dame. As I said earlier, Oklahoma drilled Notre Dame in a 14 (correction to original post) point win in South Bend that wasn't that close. (The Sooners were on the Irish 12 yard line with under two minutes left in the game and just ran out the clock.) I would submit that Texas is certainly better than WKU or Toledo. Last year, Duke had its best team in decades but they still lost four games. In that light, saying Navy's QB situation is stronger than Oklahoma's--by 26 slots, no less--causes this writer to lose all credibility IMO.
