Comparable QB situations and results
I don't want to overreact to the Spring Game, of course, but with our first game still months away, I'm imagining what I might do if I were the coach of our football team, and specifically about the QB situation. Hell, it's the off-season.
Here is one interpretation of the current QB situation: We have an incumbent starter, Speight, who had a good but not great year last year, is a fine leader, works his ass off, but may be near his ceiling. And we have a younger kid, Peters, who probably has more natural talent and who is showing signs of rapid progress. It is possible that if we start Peters, then by the end of the season he will have surpassed Speight and could be on his way to being Andrew Luck 2.0. But there are no guarantees, and Peters could flame out. And if he flames out, we may have caused Speight to regress by shaking his confidence, leaving us worse off.
If I were the coach, I'd look to other examples of this situation around college football, going back at least ten years, and see how those played out. What similar situations could I study? In other words, can anyone think of other situations where either the incumbent kept the job while a promising recruit was kept on the bench for a few years, or where a solid incumbent was benched in favor of a less-skilled but higher-upside kid? And how did those situations work out?
I'm just glad this situation isn't comparable to Threet/Sheridan/Feagin
I forgot about Feagin. And that dude that spurned us for Tulsa.
Good times.
Oh yeah. Shav'd Beav.
How in the world could I forget that?
I'm disappointed I didn't think of that! Yes, that's exactly the sort of comparable situation I was trying to think of.
Well Tom Brady was challenged by young, hotshot Drew Henson which directly lead to Brady becoming the GOAT.
So it's simple really. Harbaugh needs to play Peters several series each game to strengthen Speight and he can be the next GOAT.
Science.
I don't know how much of a game managing qb Speight is. He threw terrible interceptions all year hawaii, MSU, OSUx2. The definition of a game manager is someone who won't lose the game for you. Brandon Peters did also threw a terrible interception on saturday but it was one along with tons of beautiful throws. I just feel like Peters looked better at not forcing the ball and being on the mark.
The fumbled KR to start the second half plus some WR drops lost the Iowa game. Speight, bad shoulder and all, did not lose the Iowa game.
The atrocious reffing, the failure to pick-up a blitz and THE ONLY fumbled snap all season long lost the OSU game.
Missing Peppers and the turnstile along the interior of the o-line lost the FSU game.
All that said, we lost 3 games by a combined 2 points in regulation, all on the road or at a "neutral" site game.
Speight is more than a capable game manager. He is going to have to up his game now that we're breaking in so many new starters.
and Speight was actually outplayed by O'Korn. Speight was very effective early last season but didn't improve as the season progressed. Maybe he was hurt at Iowa, but he wasn't effective. The first half of ohio was his worst half of the year ... maybe until the FSU game. Reality is that Speight on Saturday looked like he did "late season" and Peters (save for 1 throw) was in command of his throws and he moved well out of the pocket. His scramble TD run was exceptional for a guy who everyone thought was a "pocket passer". There is NO doubt that Peters has the stronger arm.
Unless Speight shows some significant improvement, there will be a QB battle into the fall.
Go Blue!
April 18th, 2017 at 11:42 AM ^
Well, more like 10-11 games considering he missed the Indiana game and was pulled so early in a number of games (Hawaii, Rutgers, Illinois, Maryland). But the larger point is, if you look at the six best teams we played (Colorado, PSU, Wisconsin, Iowa, OSU, FSU) he was a combined 112-196 (57%) for 1122 yards (5.7 YPA), 6 TD, 5 INT (and 2 lost fumbles) in those games. That's not very good. Speight may not be a turnover machine, but if you're not helping your team get points either when it matters, then is that really a positive?
There was this one team back in 2009 who had an incumbent QB who had started for a year, with some success, but was relatively inconsistent. Another QB, who had ridden the bench the year before because he was relatively raw, but who was recruited specifically for the head coach's offense, beat him out in 2010 and did pretty well.
Of course, in 2009 we went 1-7 in Big Ten play, tied for last place with IU.
That would be some kind of Luck all right.
Fuck Mountain
I would go with the better QB whoever that may be. Not particuarly concerned between a returning starter who had a good sophmore season and a hand picked Harbaugh rs-frosh stud.
Harbaugh is not going back to study each of these similar situations from other universities over the last ten years. He doesn't give 2 craps about what happened at other schools. He is looking strictly at these 2 QBs and will put the best one out there in the fall.
These guys are big kids now and this is big time football. The QB who has the best fall camp, moves the team and gives UM the best chance to win will play, no matter what the future might hold.
The competition is close. The work they put in this summer with the WR's and how much they progress will tell who the starter is. You can never compare one team or situation to another, you have to coach your players and put the best on the field, from the QB to the holder.
you are really overthinking this...
It's worth noting the Andrew Luck went 8-5 his redshirt freshman year for Stanford. He had some huge wins over top 10 Oregon and at USC, but also had some road struggles, losing to Wake Forest, (nt)OSU, and Arizona.
Although Luck had the highest passer efficiency rating in the PAC-10 that year and Stanford had the 113th rated defense by S&P+, so maybe the losses weren't so much on him.
The QB debate is an example of why I hate this board. Its an actual, substantive, interesting football discussion in April. So of course, the people who live on this board have to whine in every thread about it.
Not interested, don't click. Not that hard.
Let me know when the board has access to months of practice footage. Until then it's not a debate, it's a collection of hot takes and they deserve to be mocked.
I don't know. Football is a fun distraction for me. Not sure what deserves to be mocked about discussing an interest.
When you go to a movie, someone says "eh, not great" do you yell at them for sharing their opinion when they're not a director?
April 17th, 2017 at 10:44 PM ^
April 17th, 2017 at 11:12 PM ^
Yep, apparently they'd rather sit in silence until the season starts.
This is what I don't understand. Yes, time will tell. Yes, the coaches know more than we do. Yes, this was one spring "game" among lots and lots of hours of work. Yes, the games will be played and the things will happen. Do the same people who express those opinions want MGoBlog to be nothing more than a post of the final score of each game? Where's the fun in that?
Good question. The policing of this board is ridiculous. Maybe there is no QB battle, but it sure looked like there should be one based on the spring game. Why people don't want to discuss the QB situation is beyond me. It's not like there's much else to talk about.
Play all quarterbacks simultaneously to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Peters has the throwing motion of one Tom Brady, and the running ability of his competitive counterpart, Drew Henson. In any case, welcome to your next qb controversy until it's not.
This is making me think about the Terrelle Pryor/Todd Boeckman situation in 2008. The short version was that Tressel ended up sitting (senior, returning starter) Boeckman for (true freshman) Terrelle Pryor after they lost to USC (35-3). I think the idea was that they could win plenty of games with their defense, and Pryor could get some on the job training so that they could be even better the next season.
Here is a link to their scores from that season and the ones following it. I'll let you decide if it worked or not.
I'd forgotten this situation. Yes, thank you.
I don't know enough about the Cook/Maxwell situation to comment. But the Tate/Denard comparisons ring hollow. I bet that RichRod was interested to see what Denard could do, but Tate had been plenty promising (and frustrating). But Tate had a lot of off-the-field issues that contributed to Denard's increased opportunities. Speight seems to have none of that; from what I've read, he's a very hard worker and solid leader.
