Obviously, we're working with different definitions of snowball. I agree he's been putting the ball on the ground too much lately. I do not agree with the implications of the word "snowball"- that once he makes a mistake he is likely to make more mistakes in the following series. In fact, I strongly disagree with that. I don't see how '12 is relevant here.
He has had several multiple TO games, ASU in particular, he completely unraveled. He has had multiple games this season, as well as '12 (history is relevant when talking about what a QB is capable of), where he just couldn't get himself calmed down. That's not even subjective in my opinion.
26th in the country is not Heisman good, but it's not bad...not even close to bad. Especially when you factor in reliable drops (remember Stanford) and relatively poor O-line play.
Oh yes... Stanford.... the game where he threw an interception and later fumbled the ball BOTH IN THE REDZONE. Yeah... that's not snowballing. Sure, his last second heroics won the game, but his turnovers are the reason it was close in the first place. Stanford isn't even a good team.
And 26th in the country in QBR when you play a crap schedule and in a pass first spread is not that good. You were the one that used it as an example of why he has been playing so well, not me.
I'm fairly confident I didn't say his "big plays" are what's kept us in games. I said that this team has had a chance to win every single game with Golson at the helm this year. That accounts for his big, little, and bad plays.
See Stanford. Two costly turnovers in the redzone that not only cost us offensive points, but also kept Stanford in the game until the end. His "big plays" weren't needed in that game unless he coughed up the ball. Same thing against Syracuse, same thing against UNC. His big plays were mandatory to make up for his constant mistakes. This all against bad teams.
It is completely subjective whether or not we would need to get big plays if we could somehow remove Golson's turnovers from the equation, because it relies on the assumption that we would get the same offensive production if they would just go away. Golson's turnovers have been a product of a lot of things this year, but one of the major factors has been his tendency to try to extend plays. It's high risk, high reward.
It's not subjective at all. How can you honestly say that turnovers that led to our opponents scoring are meaningless? It's the one thing every coach in football agrees with. That you cannot win regularly if you lose the turnover battle. These aren't turnovers that our defense ends up bailing us out on. They are pick-6's, they are fumbles that turn into long TD drives for our opponents. They are directly correlated to getting outscored by our opponents.
You can parse the numbers all you want, but at the end of the day there's a subjective judgment to be made. When you take the good and the bad into account, is Golson a net positive or a net negative for this team? I think- and Brian Kelly thinks- that Golson is a net positive. And really, I don't think it's even close. Golson makes this offense run. His ability has disguised (for the most part) really poor play by our O-line and made a mediocre group of receivers look like all stars. The turnovers hurt and if he can clean them up for next year this team is a national championship contender. But only because it has Golson running the show. I truly believe he is what makes this team special. If you don't agree, fine. Like I said, it's subjective. Just know that Kelly also believes it, so barring a complete melt down for the rest of the season, don't expect to see any legitimate challenge to Golson.
You have zero knowledge of whether or not Malik could have a net impact greater than Golson. No one possibly knows that answer, not even BK. We can only possibly know that if he made it onto the field. What we do know, and its an indisputable fact, is that he has not been a net positive in two of our three losses. Both ASU and NW can be directly tied to the mistakes that Golson made on the field. His impact in those games were a negative. The only game his athleticism kept us in was FSU. I'm not convinced that we couldn't have a better record right now with a less talented QB, that simply didn't turn the damn ball over so much.
