Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.Originally posted by goodknight65:
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.
Your right I did watch it... And totally agree 3 of 3 priority!Originally posted by swburke:
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.))))))
Texas would more likely account for what you claim is the low rating for the Oklahoma QB. Annapolis, perhaps for the other side?Originally posted by WP76:
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.
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.Originally posted by goodknight65:
Texas would more likely account for what you claim is the low rating for the Oklahoma QB. Annapolis, perhaps for the other side?Originally posted by WP76:
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.