QBS

backthepack

It's pretty clear we? need a black QB ( yes ik ISAFRNC)

NEsnake12

backthepack

NEsnake12 said:

This makes me happy

CuntWaffle

Bridge Gadd is going to surprise some people. Browning won't hand the ball off straight to Sirmon.

ToddTurnerLIVES

CuntWaffle said:

Bridge Gadd is going to surprise some people. Browning won't hand the ball off straight to Sirmon.

Agree

TurdBomber

Remind me: He's speedy, right?

PineapplePirate

TurdBuffer said:

Remind me: He's speedy, right?

I think he runs a 4.9

AIRWOLF

I simply do not understand how Petersen, who is a true offensive tactician, hasn't embraced the simple mathematical advantage that having a QB that is a true threat in the running game gives an offense.

Clemson's passing offense is stunningly simple. They utilize relatively few concepts. But so much of it is based on RPOs and tags off of running plays, that even a defense like Bama's struggles with it. And the use of the QB in the running game helps to even the numbers up, or even give the offense a mathematical advantage (based on reading at least one defender, and often two) on basically every run.

I suspect the reason Petersen hasn't embraced it is because of the risk to the QB posed by carrying the ball a lot. I don't think that is a big enough concern not to take full advantage, but I guess he does.

Of course having really good receivers helps too.

RoadDawg55

AIRWOLF said:

I simply do not understand how Petersen, who is a true offensive tactician, hasn't embraced the simple mathematical advantage that having a QB that is a true threat in the running game gives an offense.

Clemson's passing offense is stunningly simple. They utilize relatively few concepts. But so much of it is based on RPOs and tags off of running plays, that even a defense like Bama's struggles with it. And the use of the QB in the running game helps to even the numbers up, or even give the offense a mathematical advantage (based on reading at least one defender, and often two) on basically every run.

I suspect the reason Petersen hasn't embraced it is because of the risk to the QB posed by carrying the ball a lot. I don't think that is a big enough concern not to take full advantage, but I guess he does.

Of course having really good receivers helps too.

I doubt Petersen is against running QB's, but he's definitely not a huge proponent either. That said, running QB's that can't read defenses and throw get exploited. Even if they play for Alabama.

Petersen seems to be too ingrained to the Kellen Moore/ Browning fuck size and arm strength if they are cerebral QB's. It matters. Sirmon will hopefully break the mold.

AtomicDawg

AIRWOLF said:

I simply do not understand how Petersen, who is a true offensive tactician, hasn't embraced the simple mathematical advantage that having a QB that is a true threat in the running game gives an offense.

Clemson's passing offense is stunningly simple. They utilize relatively few concepts. But so much of it is based on RPOs and tags off of running plays, that even a defense like Bama's struggles with it. And the use of the QB in the running game helps to even the numbers up, or even give the offense a mathematical advantage (based on reading at least one defender, and often two) on basically every run.

I suspect the reason Petersen hasn't embraced it is because of the risk to the QB posed by carrying the ball a lot. I don't think that is a big enough concern not to take full advantage, but I guess he does.

Of course having really good receivers helps too.

That was offense is great with deshaun Watson. Lots,of running qbs suck though too. See the Arizona schools or Utah.

I agree our offense should be simplified though whether or not the qb runs.

bananasnblondes

AIRWOLF said:

I simply do not understand how Petersen, who is a true offensive tactician, hasn't embraced the simple mathematical advantage that having a QB that is a true threat in the running game gives an offense.

Clemson's passing offense is stunningly simple. They utilize relatively few concepts. But so much of it is based on RPOs and tags off of running plays, that even a defense like Bama's struggles with it. And the use of the QB in the running game helps to even the numbers up, or even give the offense a mathematical advantage (based on reading at least one defender, and often two) on basically every run.

I suspect the reason Petersen hasn't embraced it is because of the risk to the QB posed by carrying the ball a lot. I don't think that is a big enough concern not to take full advantage, but I guess he does.

Of course having really good receivers helps too.

For every Watson, there are a ton of shitty dual-threat quarterbacks. Just because the team who won the NC this year found an amazing dual-threat qb, doesnt mean that it's the best way to go. Petersen started off at UW with a 4-star All-American game MVP dual-threat QB. The guy was absolute shit.

I know we lost 2 games this year, which is a real bummer even if they are to the #2 and #3 teams in the country, but let's at least wait until one of Petersen's classes have gone through graduation before we start the "the coaches don't know what their doing" talk

AIRWOLF

Of course having a shitty dual-threat QB isn't helpful. Just like having a shitty drop back passer isn't.

I am not going to go all Tequilla and write a dissertation here, but utilizing the QB in the running game using read concepts and RPOs fundamentally alters the basic run blocking math from being a clear advantage for the defense to a draw or even an advantage for the offense.

TurdBomber

AIRWOLF said:

Of course having a shitty dual-threat QB isn't helpful. Just like having a shitty drop back passer isn't.

I am not going to go all Tequilla and write a dissertation here, but utilizing the QB in the running game using read concepts and RPOs fundamentally alters the basic run blocking math from being a clear advantage for the defense to a draw or even an advantage for the offense.

When you have a swift running QB who's good at it. We don't. All JB could do is step back and throw late. Twas a shit-show against good Ds.

I guess you sorta said that. My hate-filled Smiff-must-die rage temporarily Gpa Sankey'd me.

TurdBomber

Why aren't we hearing about these two QB prospects: http://www.hudl.com/profile/4057094/nathaniel-holcomb
http://www.hudl.com/profile/3983025/drew-tingstad

Holcomb throws beautiful bbs 50 yds downfield, has great mobility and quickness. I believe he lead the 4A in WA with the most yards and threw 10 touchdowns in one game.

Tingstad is 6-3 220lbs, has great vision and pocket mobility, a strong arm, throws well on the run and is ice fucking cool under pressure. He was at or near the top in several 3A categories.

Coker? You're the tbs expert: Why are we threading about Sirmon, Burmeister, and a bunch of sub-200 lb. skinny QBs, but not these guys right in our backyard?

FireCohen

Burmeister sux. Sirmon has fucking cannon for an arm.

TurdBomber

WeakarmCobra said:

Burmeister sux. Sirmon has fucking cannon for an arm.

Sirmon looks fine. But there hasn't been good depth at QB in decades. Yet, there are some pretty good QBs in this area who never played for Skyline - the much-hyped factory that produced All-World Jake Heaps and Max Brown. And how the fuck was Lindquist ever an Elite 11 QB in HS?

Conclusion: The QB tbs'ing industry has about a FS success rate at identifying future great QBs.

godawgst

In today's game you can't have a statue at qb, unless you plan on having Stanford's OL blocking up front.

I thought at the beginning of the year Jake would be good enough to slide away and escape when the pocket broke down. He was against shitty teams but it didn't matter as they are shitty. Against the good ones he wasn't.

? for me will be can another year in the weight room, coupled with more experience give Jake the tools necessary to be able to do that.

Dennis_DeYoung

You guys are fucking morons.

We tried to sign Braxton Burmeister (who is a mobile QB) but he told us (like every other QB prospect that's dad isn't a prof at UW) to go fuck ourselves.

We tried to get Skinny last year.

We just try to sign good QBs. Jake Sirmon is a big kid with a big arm and some mobility. In '19 we'll get Jake Heaps II because he'll fall into our lap and we can't sign anyone decent who doesn't.

FireCohen

Dennis_DeYoung said:

You guys are fucking morons.

We tried to sign Braxton Burmeister (who is a mobile QB) but he told us (like every other QB prospect that's dad isn't a prof at UW) to go fuck ourselves.

We tried to get Skinny last year.

We just try to sign good QBs. Jake Sirmon is a big kid with a big arm and some mobility. In '19 we'll get Jake Heaps II because he'll fall into our lap and we can't sign anyone decent who doesn't.

Time for babushka to sell the couch.

tvoie

Dennis_DeYoung said:

You guys are fucking morons.

We tried to sign Braxton Burmeister (who is a mobile QB) but he told us (like every other QB prospect that's dad isn't a prof at UW) to go fuck ourselves.

We tried to get Skinny last year.

We just try to sign good QBs. Jake Sirmon is a big kid with a big arm and some mobility. In '19 we'll get Jake Heaps II because he'll fall into our lap and we can't sign anyone decent who doesn't.

Jake Heaps II = Dylan Morris?

How can UW possibly struggle to find a QB is my question? Is it simply Smith and his social retardation?

AtomicDawg

Dennis_DeYoung said:

You guys are fucking morons.

We tried to sign Braxton Burmeister (who is a mobile QB) but he told us (like every other QB prospect that's dad isn't a prof at UW) to go fuck ourselves.

We tried to get Skinny last year.

We just try to sign good QBs. Jake Sirmon is a big kid with a big arm and some mobility. In '19 we'll get Jake Heaps II because he'll fall into our lap and we can't sign anyone decent who doesn't.

does this mean Dylan Morris Sucks like Jake heaps? If so I am out.