re: Did Trevor Lawrence progress faster than Justin Fields?

This is a fricking A cringeworthy thread and I didn't be get in more than 3/4 posts

quote:

---

know people like to talk about two QB's competing against each other or one outplaying the other, but the reality is that the QB's don't play against each other. They play against the other team's defense.

Tua didn't outplay Fromm; he outplayed our defense. T

---

Spin it however you want, tua was the best qb on the field. His play won the game for them. He was a legit difference maker.

quote:

---

Again, we nearly beat Bama without a true dual threat QB, so I take issue with the assertion that we probably need that type of QB to beat them. Also, all QB styles have their strengths and weaknesses. It happens every week.

---

Of course you are Ignoring the breaks we had by tua sitting on the bench for a half and their kicker being terrible.

Nearly? That’s basically the point. We lost despite the breaks listed above. We needed more points. We needed more plays by the qb. We didn’t get them. Bama did.

Also, Teams that beat Bama did. What do most of this teams have? Qbs that can run, or will run, and throw well.

quote:

---

Mond was one of those types of QBs you mentioned and they wiped the floor with him. He got off a few long runs, sure, but overall they completely neutralized him like they tend to do with every other team out there. It's not about the QB you bring to the table, but how well your team as a whole executes.

---

As for mond, game would have been much uglier without his legs. His passing was similar to Fromm, but add 100 yards rushing (sure would have come in handy for us last year). Heck, their offense scored 23 vs Bama in regulation (which would have gotten us a national title), and were still blown out, so the difference looks to be tua playing from the start. Bama didn’t give them a head start like they gave us and they won’t give us one this year.

quote:

---

Spin it however you want, tua was the best qb on the field. His play won the game for them. He was a legit difference maker.

---

As painful as it was, I just re-watched every single play of his during the NC game.

Here's what I saw: the vast majority of his completed passes were out to a receiver in the flat that was wide open and got a lot of YAC. He benefited greatly from wide open receivers due to blown or loose coverage (especially the very last play) and his last TD before the end of regulation was 100% luck (on his part). His intended target was being wrapped up and another receiver snuck in front of him and caught it.

He definitely gave Alabama a spark that they needed and he definitely played better than Hurts, but I'd be hard-pressed to say he was better overall than Fromm. The problem with Fromm was mostly in play calling (mostly ran with little success in the 2nd half) and pressure put on him. He didn't have as many open receivers when he did get a chance to throw it in the 2nd half.

quote:

---

Of course you are Ignoring the breaks we had by tua sitting on the bench for a half and their kicker being terrible.

---

I'm not ignoring those things. I'm just saying that all else being equal (and with Tua in the game in the 2nd half), we still almost beat Bama. He hit a wide open receiver to end the game because we had blown coverage. That wasn't him being awesome, that was us sucking badly. Fromm hit Hardman on that open TD against Mizzou last week. That doesn't mean Fromm is the best QB alive; it just means that was a terrible defensive effort on that play.

quote:

---

Nearly? That’s basically the point. We lost despite the breaks listed above. We needed more points. We needed more plays by the qb. We didn’t get them. Bama did.

---

We had enough points prior to the blown coverage on the last play. We needed more plays by our defense. We needed more plays by our OL and RBs. We needed the ref to not screw us out of that blocked punt. Yeah, there were a lot of things we needed, but even with everything else going exactly the way it went, we still nearly beat them with Fromm and it wasn't Fromm that let them score in OT. You make it sound like we had our butts handed to us and that if we just had someone like Fields in there, the entire game would have been completely different. There's just no factual way you can claim that.

quote:

---

Also, Teams that beat Bama did. What do most of this teams have? Qbs that can run, or will run, and throw well.

---

So? Again, we had them on the ropes with a pocket passer for a QB. Fromm did not lose us the game even though you make it seem like if we had a DT QB, we would have won. Stidham beat Alabama and we beat Stidham's team in the SECCG. There's a lot more to those games than just the QB and I'm surprised you are so focused on that aspect that you are ignoring everything else. Offenses are made up of more than the QB, as Missouri knows very well (boy did they drop a lot of passes against us).

quote:

---

As for mond, game would have been much uglier without his legs. His passing was similar to Fromm, but add 100 yards rushing (sure would have come in handy for us last year). Heck, their offense scored 23 vs Bama in regulation (which would have gotten us a national title), and were still blown out, so the difference looks to be tua playing from the start. Bama didn’t give them a head start like they gave us and they won’t give us one this year.

---

I watched that game. Tua was not the super star in that game everyone is making him out to be. He had a lot of wide open receivers and he he got a lot of his yards after the catch where his targets were breaking tackles and dragging defenders with them. Yes, he made some good throws too, but his supporting cast honestly did most of the work for him.

And the issue with Mond just proves my point: a decent passer and a good runner got absolutely creamed by Alabama's defense over the course of the game. A&M scored a TD in the 4th quarter with Bama's 2nd string on the field and when they were already down 45-16. Bama's kryptonite is not DT QB's, but great execution.

quote:

---

Fields has taken only 1 meaningful snap which is what this entire thread has been about.

---

What in the world are you classifying as meaningful snap? One in which the game is on the line? Are you now advocating playing Fields in situations in which he could cost us the game? This thread is about progression of QB's and getting Fields experience...or it was.

You seem to be wanting Fields to play in situations in which he could cost us the game. Is that what you are saying? If not...please give a definition of "Meaningful snap".

I actually think this is one of Sabans weaker Bama defenses.

Still think this is his best or second best team at Bama, but that D, especially the back end, is far less scary than some of the ones they have fielded.

quote:

---

Learn to read.

---

Oh, I know how to read. But one minute y'all talk like he needs experience, then the next minute you act like he needs experience with the game on the line.


Look. I'm pretty much done with this topic,

Here is what it all boils down to:

1. Kirby Smart is the coach.
2. He will play Fields when he sees fit.
3. He is a better coach than you are, no matter what you think.

It's so mind numbing at the number of people that think thy know more about how to prepare players while fighting for a shot at the playoffs than the coach that does it for a living.

Lawrence looks like trash so far today and just got hurt.

Clemson is losing to Syracuse at home by two field goals and punting the ball with just a few minutes left in the second quarter.

quote:

---

We did get our butts kicked in the 2nd half and OT. The difference between a win and loss can be as little as that 1st down scramble/pass by a QB to keep a drive alive.

For example 1: Tua had a very important 3rd down scramble in the 3rd Q. I doubt Bama beats us without it.

For example 2: Fromm missed on a key 3rd down pass in our final drive, and he is less likely to scramble for a 1st down than a faster more agile QB.

---

You can say that about any number of things that went right or wrong in the game. If we're going to pick on one play, I'd rather pick on the blocked punt or the blown coverage on the very last play. Those were more one-offish compared to the rest of the night than trying to escape pressure on 3rd down.

The butt-kicking occurred because we couldn't move the ball down the field as well and we had some bad things happen (conservative play calling, a blocked punt called back, and the weird INT that bounced off of our OL) that negated good momentum we had and handed it back over to Alabama who made good adjustments in the 2nd half.

As well as Tua played during his time in the game, he had a LOT of help from us and his team. Too much credit is being given to the individual QBs.

quote:

---

So it shows that it helps to have a QB that can hurt the opponent, especially Bama, when a play breaks down. The more yards you can gain, the longer you have the ball, the better your odds of scoring and keeping them from scoring.

---

Obviously it's better to be able to pick up yards than it is to lose them. That can happen in a few different ways including running with the ball. Fromm showed that he could do that in a limited fashion last year. The issue isn't that he couldn't escape from the pocket but that the pocket would break down in a way that made it hard to escape. Fromm did have a good run against Bama in that game but it was more by design than from a breakdown in the pocket. Also, a scrambling QB can also be more prone to run into an injury (TLaw from this weekend) or take off before he needs to because he's got his legs to bail him out. It isn't just about the options but how they are used in the game.

Against OK, Fromm had that great vision to recognize a collapsing pocket and step up to throw it to Sony for a big gain. You don't always need to have a QB who runs a 4.2 to make life easier; usually you just need to play as a team.

quote:

---

Shutting down Mond or Pass doesnt disprove the point about the type of QBs who Bama usually gets beat by. All it proves is that not all teams with dual threats will beat them, which is beside the point.

---

If you want to talk about having the perfect QB, that's a different topic than discussing the merits of a dual-threat QB vs. a pocket passer. My point was that Mond is a good DT QB and he was made to look rather silly all night outside of a handful of plays.

My point is that outside of having the perfect QB who is super fast, agile, and smart, with a very strong, accurate arm, there are going to be pros and cons to whoever is behind center. Alabama can beat and be beat by either a PP QB or a DT QB. If we don't give up that TD due to blown coverage, we likely would have beat Bama with Jake Fromm as the Quarterback, and that's my point. The QB wasn't in the secondary losing us the game yet there we were, up by 3 points and we just needed to keep the ball in front of us to likely put them away.

quote:

---

Do you agree it would have been much uglier without his legs? That shows the positive impact legs can have on offensive output. Not sure they even get more than a FG without his legs.

---

It would probably have been uglier if he weren't a mobile QB, but my point isn't that mobility helps the game, but that a good defense can shut down any kind of QB, regardless of their mobility.

It's why everyone clamoring for Fields to replace Fromm as the starter after his handful of good runs on Saturday is short-sighted. A defense that plans for a PP QB will struggle when a DT QB comes in to play. A defense that plans for a DT QB will struggle when an accurate PP QB comes in who can pick apart defenses. It's about game planning based on the personnel, and Fields--like Mond--would be less effective moving the ball over the coure of the game against a good defense who expects him to run.

I’m with you FooManChoo. You been fighting the good fight.