Triaging the QB room

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Scofrosghost said:

I’m talking about holding Sims accountable. I agree with you. Sat is holding himself accountable. 

There's literally nothing that a coach can say in a press conference that will hold anyone accountable. The coaches could be critical or blame the players, but accountability happens within the athletic dept and the team, not from saying stuff to the media - that's the opposite of accountability.

 

1 hour ago, Scofrosghost said:

but you bench grant for one fumble (which was actually a great defensive play on the Minny defender) and then essentially say we are going to keep trotting Sims out there as long as he’s healthy. I understand they don’t have a lot of options but it’s not a good look

You're comparing the coaches not playing the 3rd string RB due to fumbles as compared to the 1st team QB. You really don't see how those are very different situations?

 

And that's assuming that the 3rd string RB did not play due to fumbles.

[teachercd]

18 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

There's literally nothing that a coach can say in a press conference that will hold anyone accountable. The coaches could be critical or blame the players, but accountability happens within the athletic dept and the team, not from saying stuff to the media - that's the opposite of accountability.

 

You're comparing the coaches not playing the 3rd string RB due to fumbles as compared to the 1st team QB. You really don't see how those are very different situations?

 

And that's assuming that the 3rd string RB did not play due to fumbles.

People like to pretend that the same rule applies to everyone on the team.  It is fantasy land.

 

 

[Micheal]

30 minutes ago, teachercd said:

People like to pretend that the same rule applies to everyone on the team.  It is fantasy land.

 

 

Yep life is not fair. What applies to one doesn't apply to all. 

 

You definitely will see first string players get more of a leash then a 3rd string player. 

 

That starter has apparently built up some good points that they can withstand some bad. The 3rd string player has less of a cushion. 

[twofittyonred]

16 hours ago, Micheal said:

Yep life is not fair. What applies to one doesn't apply to all. 

 

You definitely will see first string players get more of a leash then a 3rd string player. 

 

That starter has apparently built up some good points that they can withstand some bad. The 3rd string player has less of a cushion. 

Some peoples logic befuddles me...  It was always assumed that Grant was the RB to beat coming out of last yr and through spring...  When depth charts came out grant was #3 and it was CLEARLY stated his drop to that position was because of ball control...  So why would that not also pertain to the QB position as egregious as ball control has been with sims..??  EXPECIALLY with the scenario we have at hand..  let your injured starter heal, lets see what # 2 has against (what should be) an inferior opponent, align yourself with the team statement "if you cant handle the ball, you cant play here" and if #2 fails then we all know were we stand with the QB room and sims...  pretty simple decision in my mind...

[Red Five]

Seanny C expects HH to get the start.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, twofittyonred said:

Some peoples logic befuddles me...  It was always assumed that Grant was the RB to beat coming out of last yr and through spring...  When depth charts came out grant was #3 and it was CLEARLY stated his drop to that position was because of ball control... 

No it wasn't. Fumbles were mentioned at the very end of fall camp by Rhule as something Grant needed to work on, but no coach said that's why he was 3rd string. There had been reports for weeks from people who had been watching fall camp that Gabe Ervin was the clear #1.

 

But you're ignoring several major differences here. The QB and RB positions are not the same. Starters and backups are not the same. What the coaches say during press conferences is not the same as what's happening within the team. And perhaps most importantly, the RB room has several good options, while it certainly doesn't look that way for QB.

[twofittyonred]

29 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

No it wasn't. Fumbles were mentioned at the very end of fall camp by Rhule as something Grant needed to work on, but no coach said that's why he was 3rd string. There had been reports for weeks from people who had been watching fall camp that Gabe Ervin was the clear #1.

 

But you're ignoring several major differences here. The QB and RB positions are not the same. Starters and backups are not the same. What the coaches say during press conferences is not the same as what's happening within the team. And perhaps most importantly, the RB room has several good options, while it certainly doesn't look that way for QB.

Well, when the presumed RB drops to #3 and the coach says "he need to work on ball control" when asked why....  my guess is he dropped to that position BECAUSE he drops the ball...  pretty self explanatory.  

 

As for the difference between RB and QB we ALL understand that...  the QB handles the ball far more then a RB...  BUT, if the problem is as egregious as it is with sims (7 turnovers in 2 games) than yes, its the same.  HH did just fine in my opinion with the situation and his limited live play..  not sure if you actually watch the game or not..??

[kengel2]

Jeff Sims is not a quarterback, y'all need to move on. He won't be there next year anyway.

 

Let Haarberg get the experience if you're just going to lose.

[Mavric]

I'm not sure I quite buy this with Sims, at least for all of it.

 

But I do think there is something to this.  I thought the same with Adrian Martinez and why he seemed to turn it over late in games.  When you feel like you have to make a play or your team will lose, you tend to force things.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I'm not sure I quite buy this with Sims, at least for all of it.

 

But I do think there is something to this.  I thought the same with Adrian Martinez and why he seemed to turn it over late in games.  When you feel like you have to make a play or your team will lose, you tend to force things.

 

 

I agree with the idea especially when discussing past QBs like 2AM.  But, when Sims drops a snap or doesn't get the ball to the RB properly in a simple handoff....that's not "trying to do too much".  It's "trying to do what he's supposed to be able to do".

 

Interceptions could fall under this idea.

[Husker in WI]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

I agree with the idea especially when discussing past QBs like 2AM.  But, when Sims drops a snap or doesn't get the ball to the RB properly in a simple handoff....that's not "trying to do too much".  It's "trying to do what he's supposed to be able to do".

 

Interceptions could fall under this idea.

 

It can be if the reason he drops the snap is he's looking downfield too early. It's still an inexcusable mistake to make twice, not trying to make it out to be better than it is. But I think trying to do too much can still be a factor on things like that. Definitely a factor in why he tried to pick both up instead of just trying to fall on them.

 

The handoff wasn't trying too hard, but I think both Sims and Ervin were thrown off by where Bonner ended up needing to make his block. It's right where Ervin is supposed to go, and almost stepping on Sims foot. You still have to do the absolute bare minimum of executing the handoff though, that's just flat-out not doing what you need to do. 

[RedDenver]

49 minutes ago, twofittyonred said:

Well, when the presumed RB drops to #3 and the coach says "he need to work on ball control" when asked why....  my guess is he dropped to that position BECAUSE he drops the ball...  pretty self explanatory.  

You presumed incorrectly... pretty self-explanatory.

 

49 minutes ago, twofittyonred said:

As for the difference between RB and QB we ALL understand that...  the QB handles the ball far more then a RB...  BUT, if the problem is as egregious as it is with sims (7 turnovers in 2 games) than yes, its the same. 

Again, you're ignoring that this is the 1st string QB vs the 3rd string RB. There are already 2 other RB's that the coaches think are better, and we can easily play with the top 2 RB's and not the 3rd stringer.

 

49 minutes ago, twofittyonred said:

HH did just fine in my opinion with the situation and his limited live play..  not sure if you actually watch the game or not..??

I agree, HH did fine in limited action, which might mean he should be starting over Sims. I have no issue with that. That's a reasonable comparison between the 1st and 2nd string QB's.

 

I'm arguing against the idea that the coaches should pull the 1st string QB with turnover issues simply because the 3rd string RB has fumbling issues and didn't play. That ignores all the context of why a backup might play instead of the starter. The coaches should play whichever player gives us the best chance to win, which there's a TON of variables most of which we as fans don't get a chance to even see.

 

We all watched the game. You've got a weak argument if that's what you're resorting to.

[Undone]

26 minutes ago, Mavric said:

When you feel like you have to make a play or your team will lose, you tend to force things.

 

Yes, and the Minnesota game was so winnable if several guys around him aren't making bad mistakes throughout the whole game. We even had a tight end false start in that one, I think. We just look so tight and scared to lose.

 

Different train of thought: I'm actually now pretty worried about losing this one with Haarberg as the starter. The staff probably needs to focus in on getting him some high percentage/easy throws early to build some confidence. Give him RPO's that allow him to just tuck it & run if nothing's there.

 

But if you don't have an open guy, don't lob it down field.

[Archy1221]

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I agree with the idea especially when discussing past QBs like 2AM.  But, when Sims drops a snap or doesn't get the ball to the RB properly in a simple handoff....that's not "trying to do too much".  It's "trying to do what he's supposed to be able to do".

 

Interceptions could fall under this idea.

Even some of the interceptions don’t fall under the trying too hard aspect though.   The one to Fidone was a late read issue.  That’s being bad at his position not trying to do too much. 
 

The interception in the end zone the first game was a misread and not trying to do too much.  He missed the open receiver.  Another pick was an overthrow.  And like you said, the missed snaps are just simple hand/eye issues.  

[twofittyonred]

37 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You presumed incorrectly... pretty self-explanatory.

 

Again, you're ignoring that this is the 1st string QB vs the 3rd string RB. There are already 2 other RB's that the coaches think are better, and we can easily play with the top 2 RB's and not the 3rd stringer.

 

I agree, HH did fine in limited action, which might mean he should be starting over Sims. I have no issue with that. That's a reasonable comparison between the 1st and 2nd string QB's.

 

I'm arguing against the idea that the coaches should pull the 1st string QB with turnover issues simply because the 3rd string RB has fumbling issues and didn't play. That ignores all the context of why a backup might play instead of the starter. The coaches should play whichever player gives us the best chance to win, which there's a TON of variables most of which we as fans don't get a chance to even see.

 

We all watched the game. You've got a weak argument if that's what you're resorting to.

"I'm arguing against the idea that the coaches should pull the 1st string QB with turnover issues simply because the 3rd string RB has fumbling issues and didn't play."

yes, that is the argument....      

 

LOL....  im sorry...  ill just concede and admit you have ZERO understanding of the conversation...   enjoy your bliss..!!