Brion

[Enhance]

Seriously though... Putting in Brion would be the equivalent of taking a step backwards momentarily in hopes of eventually taking many steps forward. It would be a move made for the future. If you're gonna do it, you're gonna have to break the kid in eventually. During the meat of the big 10 schedule probably isn't the best time, but I digress...

You've seen it before. Ohio State replaced Todd Boeckman with Terelle Pryor. Virginia Tech replaced Sean Glennon with Tyrod Taylor. Hell, the Notre Dame replaced Dayne Crist with Tommy Rees. It happens... You realize you do not have the right guy under center... he might just not have the "it" that QB's need... and you replace them with someone that might. Sometimes it takes an a$$ kicking to realize that and make the change (Ohio State got rolled by USC right before Pryor took over, and Notre Dame looked like crap with Crist at the helm this year).

I've said this multiple times, and from my perspective, this is how I see our QB situation:

We either run a pass-limited offense with Taylor and hope we don't go down big or get in holes where we need to pass, or put in Brion and struggle some and hope to develop a more multi-dimensional offensive attack.

Or, you also run the risk of what this coaching staff has done before - you put in the young guy and he struggles, you bring back the old guy, you somewhat shatter the young guy's confidence and then you play quarterback roulette every week, with promises of a more efficient offense the next season. Sound familiar?

I understand your point, but I think we can take two approaches. Play a pass-limited, run heavy offense and struggle through our young guys' growth processes, or your approach. The only reason I like mine better is because we have the playmakers and the playbook to run a much more diversified running attack this year than we did in 2009 when we went to a run-heavy approach.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Seriously though... Putting in Brion would be the equivalent of taking a step backwards momentarily in hopes of eventually taking many steps forward. It would be a move made for the future. If you're gonna do it, you're gonna have to break the kid in eventually. During the meat of the big 10 schedule probably isn't the best time, but I digress...

You've seen it before. Ohio State replaced Todd Boeckman with Terelle Pryor. Virginia Tech replaced Sean Glennon with Tyrod Taylor. Hell, the Notre Dame replaced Dayne Crist with Tommy Rees. It happens... You realize you do not have the right guy under center... he might just not have the "it" that QB's need... and you replace them with someone that might. Sometimes it takes an a$$ kicking to realize that and make the change (Ohio State got rolled by USC right before Pryor took over, and Notre Dame looked like crap with Crist at the helm this year).

I've said this multiple times, and from my perspective, this is how I see our QB situation:

We either run a pass-limited offense with Taylor and hope we don't go down big or get in holes where we need to pass, or put in Brion and struggle some and hope to develop a more multi-dimensional offensive attack.

Or, you also run the risk of what this coaching staff has done before - you put in the young guy and he struggles, you bring back the old guy, you somewhat shatter the young guy's confidence and then you play quarterback roulette every week, with promises of a more efficient offense the next season. Sound familiar?

I understand your point, but I think we can take two approaches. Play a pass-limited, run heavy offense and struggle through our young guys' growth processes, or your approach. The only reason I like mine better is because we have the playmakers and the playbook to run a much more diversified running attack this year than we did in 2009 when we went to a run-heavy approach.

Actually Enhance, I was just displaying the two options we have as I see them. I too am actually in favor of letting Taylor remain the starter. I think we just need to do what we can with what we have, grind out games on the ground, and continue to ask Taylor to pass only when he needs to. That means play action (after we set it up sufficiently by pounding the rock), and some deep balls to the likes of Kenny Bell and Jamal Turner and Reed a few times every game. I'm especially excited because for some odd reason our offensive line has looked much improved this reason... Maybe with Stai and Garrison helping the coach Barney is held accountable and can't just sit in his office and eat Twinkies all day...

And, FWIW, if we take the second approach of sticking Carnes in, I'd hope our coaches would have the wherewithal to stick with Carnes through his struggles. It would be risky though... You don't want a Ryan Leaf/Andre Ware/David Carr type situation where you stick a guy out there and he does super poorly and his confidence is just shattered. Although I think we have much much more weapons offensively than any of those guys' NFL teams had.

 

[Enhance]

Seriously though... Putting in Brion would be the equivalent of taking a step backwards momentarily in hopes of eventually taking many steps forward. It would be a move made for the future. If you're gonna do it, you're gonna have to break the kid in eventually. During the meat of the big 10 schedule probably isn't the best time, but I digress...

You've seen it before. Ohio State replaced Todd Boeckman with Terelle Pryor. Virginia Tech replaced Sean Glennon with Tyrod Taylor. Hell, the Notre Dame replaced Dayne Crist with Tommy Rees. It happens... You realize you do not have the right guy under center... he might just not have the "it" that QB's need... and you replace them with someone that might. Sometimes it takes an a$$ kicking to realize that and make the change (Ohio State got rolled by USC right before Pryor took over, and Notre Dame looked like crap with Crist at the helm this year).

I've said this multiple times, and from my perspective, this is how I see our QB situation:

We either run a pass-limited offense with Taylor and hope we don't go down big or get in holes where we need to pass, or put in Brion and struggle some and hope to develop a more multi-dimensional offensive attack.

Or, you also run the risk of what this coaching staff has done before - you put in the young guy and he struggles, you bring back the old guy, you somewhat shatter the young guy's confidence and then you play quarterback roulette every week, with promises of a more efficient offense the next season. Sound familiar?

I understand your point, but I think we can take two approaches. Play a pass-limited, run heavy offense and struggle through our young guys' growth processes, or your approach. The only reason I like mine better is because we have the playmakers and the playbook to run a much more diversified running attack this year than we did in 2009 when we went to a run-heavy approach.

Actually Enhance, I was just displaying the two options we have as I see them. I too am actually in favor of letting Taylor remain the starter. I think we just need to do what we can with what we have, grind out games on the ground, and continue to ask Taylor to pass only when he needs to. That means play action (after we set it up sufficiently by pounding the rock), and some deep balls to the likes of Kenny Bell and Jamal Turner and Reed a few times every game. I'm especially excited because for some odd reason our offensive line has looked much improved this reason... Maybe with Stai and Garrison helping the coach Barney is held accountable and can't just sit in his office and eat Twinkies all day...

And, FWIW, if we take the second approach of sticking Carnes in, I'd hope our coaches would have the wherewithal to stick with Carnes through his struggles. It would be risky though... You don't want a Ryan Leaf/Andre Ware/David Carr type situation where you stick a guy out there and he does super poorly and his confidence is just shattered. Although I think we have much much more weapons offensively than any of those guys' NFL teams had.

Ahh I got ya!

Personally, I think putting Carnes in is about the worst decision the coaching staff could make, just because we saw what happened with Green and I don't think we want another one of those situations on our hands. This is something you eluded to.

Good post.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I think all these posts got to Taylor. :sarcasm :