CanadianIrish
New member
- Messages
- 617
- Reaction score
- 26
Your words were, "I haven't seen this bad of quarterback play since Brady's freshman year, and perhaps this is worse." Now you want to change it to that you were talking about 'visible potential'??? Nice try. Brady was awful his freshman year, he even said himself that he felt as if he weren't even being coached. And you won't find a bigger Clausen fan than me, and even I admit that he was awful his freshman year, and did not show the kind of potential that he would eventually get to. To say otherwise is revisionist history at its finest (and yes, his line and entire team sucked).
Crist has shown PLENTY of potential...if you haven't seen it it's because you are blinded by your desperation to be proven right. You don't put up the numbers he has without showing potential. You just don't. You're not even looking. The fact that you supported our pathetic defense and put all the blame on Crist shows your prejudice.
As for being a redshirt sophomore, I'm talking about years in a system. You look at it your way all you want; I'll look at it my way. He is learning a completely new system that requires completely different footwork and reads. And as far as age, look at Jimmy Clausen's age as a junior, and then get back to me. Nice try though.
Again, I'm not saying he doesn't need to improve. Hell yes he does. All I'm saying is give him more than 7 games before you proclaim him done and start asking for true freshmen that he has beaten out badly in practice, and in Rees' case, games. Seriously, to call for those guys is insane, sorry. Call that an attack or whatever, but it's true. Like I said, you were probably calling for Clausen's head and Brady's head, that is, if you were consistent.
That's a far more reasonable post and one I can actually respond to.
With respect to my language in talking about this being the "worst quarterback play since ..." I didn't say worst quarterback stats. The question is how you define play, and a part of play (to me at least) is a question of where the problem lies. I would re-iterate my earlier position that while their play was bad, it was decision making that was the problem rather than fundamentals. With Dayne, I think it's the opposite, the fundamentals are the problem. The coaching staff was talking about problems with his mechanics in the pre-season, it's been noted by many in this thread he has problems throwing on the run and with his point of release, and I continue to maintain that he has a distinct lack of touch, and I don't think anyone can point to a single throw he's made all season where he has taken something off the ball to get it into a tight spot.
So based on that standard of analysis, I would say that Dayne's performance is worse than Brady or Jimmy's.
With respect to the potential, I think Dayne's situation may be similar to Ryan Mallet's. Sure he has shown tons of potential, he can throw a rocket and he's a good leader. But the spread is more about accuracy than anything else, and that's Dayne's weakness. Additionally, he cannot throw on he run, whereas that is considered to be one of Hendrix's strengths. Dayne would likely have been great in Charlie's system, but I don't think he is suited for Kelly's and it's really showing.
As for Jimmy's Age, that's certainly true, but the question is about coaching. If I remember correctly, Jimmy was held back in years when he was younger - I doubt the extra year of coaching when he was 10 or something helped a lot (unless you're a big believer in the book Outliers). And for the record, I was a big proponent of starting Jimmy because I knew he was the long term answer and wanted him to get experience. The difference here is that I'm questioning whether Dayne is the long term answer based on:
1.) Lack of touch (inability to throw a fade, take something off a ball)
2.) Lack of ability to throw on the run
3.) General lack of accuracy