Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/8/19 at 2:21 pm to Cobb Dawg
quote:
Of course he did. Fields practiced right alongside Fromm for a year and never impressed Smart and Chaney enough to get much PT. They evaluate these players every day, we just see them on Sats. Eason/Fromm proved that the coaching staff is willing to give anyone a shot that steps up. Fields didn't, and I'm not sure he will at TOSU.
Fromm only started because Eason got hurt. Smart/Chaney watched Eason/Fromm and decided Eason was better. Dawg fanbase hoping Chaney gets processed. Tell me again why we are so confident Chaney/Kirby did the right thing w/ Fields?
Posted on 1/8/19 at 2:25 pm to DawgRff
quote:
Not with 5 loses it isn't
That's another one. Ha
Posted on 1/8/19 at 3:17 pm to Long Dawg
quote:
Fromm only started because Eason got hurt. Smart/Chaney watched Eason/Fromm and decided Eason was better. Dawg fanbase hoping Chaney gets processed. Tell me again why we are so confident Chaney/Kirby did the right thing w/ Fields?
Whuh? Eason came back and only played a few mop up snaps because Fromm was the better QB.
We are so confident because Chaney/Kirby have a little experience in evaluating CFB talent, and thus probably are more adept at it that you and I. Fields looked lost at college QB'ing. That looking for a receiver and heaving the ball towards him, or tucking and running worked at Harrison, but CFB ain't Harrison. It's exponentially more complex, and you have to have the mental tools along with physical ones in order to be successful. Fields has a strong arm and good legs. I'm not convinced that he has the mental tools that he'll need to be an effective college QB. I'm currently thinking not. Time will tell.
Posted on 1/8/19 at 3:46 pm to Long Dawg
quote:The difference between Fromm/Eason and Fields/Fromm is that Fromm was legitimately challenging Eason for the starting job in week 1 though Eason was named the starter while Fromm had a stranglehold on the starting job vs. Fields, even though he wasn't officially named the starter. Fields was being coddled and pampered to stroke his ego and keep him around.
Fromm only started because Eason got hurt. Smart/Chaney watched Eason/Fromm and decided Eason was better. Dawg fanbase hoping Chaney gets processed. Tell me again why we are so confident Chaney/Kirby did the right thing w/ Fields?
From all the quotes I've seen in the past two seasons, Fromm was legitimately challenging Eason for the starting job leading up to the first game, even though Eason had been in the program a full year longer. Regardless, the issue was what happened after Eason got better. Fromm simply outperformed Eason and won the job.
The lesson? Make the most of your playing time. Fields got a lot of quality playing time as a true freshman with a solid QB as the starter (that's not common). It's arguable that he got more snaps than he should have since there was risk to messing up Fromm's rhythm with the offense by making those changes. Even so, Fields did not show anything beyond future potential.
He had some good, strong runs. He had a couple of beautiful throws. But, the majority of his playing time was showcasing his legs, not his arm, because so many times he had an opportunity to throw it, he opted to run. Granted, that may have been the smart play each time, but he didn't show that he was ready to displace Fromm like Fromm showed he could (and did) displace Eason.
Posted on 1/8/19 at 4:24 pm to FooManChoo
CBS and SEC Network commentators who watched our practices all reported that Fields is a phenomenal passer.
When we played South Carolina Gary Danielson was talking about Kirby's QB options. Danielson said that if Fields is called on and plays much better than Fromm, then Kirby has a problem.
A QB playing bad is a problem. A QB playing well is a benefit. Not everyone sees it that way. I think that Kirby wanted to avoid a QB controversy at all costs and that is why Fields wasn't allowed to develop.
The cost of that type of negative coaching could be great. Fields was the big Georgia draw that resulted in a number 1 draft class. Fields' transfer can't be viewed as a positive. The luster doesn't appear quite as bright as it was before.
Kirby fricked up.
When we played South Carolina Gary Danielson was talking about Kirby's QB options. Danielson said that if Fields is called on and plays much better than Fromm, then Kirby has a problem.
A QB playing bad is a problem. A QB playing well is a benefit. Not everyone sees it that way. I think that Kirby wanted to avoid a QB controversy at all costs and that is why Fields wasn't allowed to develop.
The cost of that type of negative coaching could be great. Fields was the big Georgia draw that resulted in a number 1 draft class. Fields' transfer can't be viewed as a positive. The luster doesn't appear quite as bright as it was before.
Kirby fricked up.
Posted on 1/8/19 at 6:01 pm to Whiznot
quote:
Kirby fricked up.
How could Kirby have done anything to change the outcome? In my opinion, Fields didn’t transfer to TOSU, he ran from UGA. I think the kid was lost. He certainly looked that way when he got PT. I don’t think he’ll ever be a sussessful college QB. I think he should look at other positions if he wants to ever be successful.
Posted on 1/8/19 at 6:22 pm to Whiznot
quote:He may be... in practice. I doubt CBS and SEC Network commentators were watching every snap of every practice, though. Consistency is often times more important than raw talent.
CBS and SEC Network commentators who watched our practices all reported that Fields is a phenomenal passer.
quote:I guess it's a good thing Fields never really showed that he was better than Fromm
When we played South Carolina Gary Danielson was talking about Kirby's QB options. Danielson said that if Fields is called on and plays much better than Fromm, then Kirby has a problem.
I think what Gary meant was that CKS had an experienced and battle-tested QB that helped lead the team to an SEC championship, a Rose Bowl victory over a Heisman winner, and a close OT loss to the best team in college football in the national championship game and that he could be supplanted by a true freshman, leading to Fromm desiring to transfer. That would have been a pickle. Instead Fromm improved all season over his great overall performance as a freshman and it resulted in Fields transferring out as the loser of the competition.
quote:The same can be said about any player on the field. I don't know what exactly you're saying but it sounds like you're accusing the coaches of purposefully holding back Fields so that Fromm could remain the starter. I hope that isn't what you're saying because that would be idiotic.
A QB playing bad is a problem. A QB playing well is a benefit. Not everyone sees it that way.
quote:Ah, so that idiotic thing is what you're saying.
I think that Kirby wanted to avoid a QB controversy at all costs and that is why Fields wasn't allowed to develop.
I see it as just the opposite. You make it seem like Fields was held back and not given an opportunity to shine. Hell, it can be argued that we lost the SECCG because Fields was given a chance in a critical moment of the game (the fake punt) when he had no business being out there at all except maybe in a goal line situation.
Fields was given chances all season. He was given snaps during games when the outcome wasn't decided. He was given experience with D1 football. He was given experience with SEC speed. He was in the game when the outcome was still on the line. You don't think that was opportunity for development? What do you say to the redshirts who stand on the sidelines and work with the starters during the season? Are they not developing? Well Fields got a hell of a lot more playing time than those guys in addition to sharing snaps with the #1s in practices. CKS didn't even name Fromm the starter before the first game and you make it sound like what Fields got was just lip service. Incredible.
Fields got to see significant playing time for a guy who was the obvious #2. He got to work with and learn from a true leader and someone who really knows the QB position at a relatively young age in Jake Fromm. That isn't wasted time and that wasn't holding Fields back to "avoid a QB controversy at all costs". If anything, the coaches risked screwing up their starting QB in order to develop Fields.
quote:I agree with everything you said here. CKS screwed up. He screwed up by trying to placate that spoiled prima donna at the expense of his loyal starting QB who earned what he got and took advantage of the opportunities that he was given.
The cost of that type of negative coaching could be great. Fields was the big Georgia draw that resulted in a number 1 draft class. Fields' transfer can't be viewed as a positive. The luster doesn't appear quite as bright as it was before.
Kirby fricked up.
If there's a black eye on Georgia recruiting right now, it is due to how Fields handled his transfer. I normally wish the best for our players who want to go elsewhere, but in Fields' case, I hope he gets an extra dose of the real world and has to sit out an learn to be a team player. I hope he grows up fast and becomes a better person from his experiences here.
This post was edited on 1/8/19 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 1/8/19 at 6:51 pm to FlexDawg
Hint: if Georgia's defense had held bama to 16 in either game, we would've won.
Posted on 1/8/19 at 7:11 pm to Cobb Dawg
Eason has the job to start App State. Fromm only got in because of Eason injury. Did you take the first game and off-season off in 2017?
Posted on 1/9/19 at 12:49 pm to Long Dawg
quote:Just remember that Lambert "won" the starting job against UNC over Eason the season before. Look how that turned out. It's not where you start, but where you finish. Fromm made the most of his opportunities last season to earn the starting job. Fields did not.
Eason has the job to start App State. Fromm only got in because of Eason injury. Did you take the first game and off-season off in 2017?
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:53 pm to FooManChoo
No matter what Field did, he wasnt taking the starting QB spot. No true QB competition because Jake almost beat Bama and our ex OC only used him for read option at the worst times in a game to do it. Dabo handle it the right way, gave both Qbs a chance to prove themselves
Posted on 1/9/19 at 8:52 pm to RiverDawg
Coley was the QB coach. What role did he play in Fields lack of development?
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Fromm was legitimately challenging Eason for the starting job in week 1
Of course you, one of the biggest fromm fan boys there is, would claim this.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Fields did not.
He didn't have much in the way of opportunity. His only legitimate opportunities were in a couple of cupcake games, and he performed incredibly well in those games. Fromm had far more opportunities than Fields ever did. It's hardly a fair comparison. One guy got all the snaps and was handed a starting job because of an injury, the other one barely got any at all, except for the cupcake games and blowouts, which he basically did nothing but hand off. The straw that probably broke the camel's back was not giving him any chance in the LSU game when Fromm was lost. That was enough for him to know he was probably wasting his time here. He wasn't going to sit for three years behind Fromm, and he had no guarantee that Fromm was going pro after his junior year. So I doubt he wanted to take that risk.
All of this guessing about Fields as a QB will be answered a year from now. If he balls out at OSU and looks great, we'll look a bit silly. If he doesn't then it's a moot point.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:40 pm to HTDawg
quote:
he performed incredibly well in those games.
Ehh... he was good, but I don't know if I'd go as far as to say he performed incredibly well.
Showed he had great arm talent and good running skills. Don't think we saw more than that.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:44 pm to Dawgsontop34
quote:
Showed he had great arm talent and good running skills. Don't think we saw more than that.
Considering the limited number of passing snaps and the fact that he probably wasn't allowed to audible, he did as good as he could have done. He completed 80% of his passes for I believe over 200 yards, 2 TDs, and 0 INTs up to that point. Not sure what else he could have done. They were blowout games against cupcakes.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 10:46 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:00 pm to HTDawg
Don't know why he wouldn't be allowed to audible, but he did well. I'm not saying he sucked. He showed that he's going to be a stud if he has a little bit more patience and reads defenses at the collegiate level IMO.
I don't blame him, but obviously his natural tendency is to run any time his first or second read isn't there. That can be beneficial, but against good teams it's going to be more difficult to get away with that.
I don't blame him, but obviously his natural tendency is to run any time his first or second read isn't there. That can be beneficial, but against good teams it's going to be more difficult to get away with that.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:03 pm to Dawgsontop34
The only way to overcome that "pull it down" tendency is extensive playing time.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:31 pm to djsdawg
quote:
The only way to overcome that "pull it down" tendency is extensive playing time.
Agree. I think he would have gotten much better with that this offseason and then into next year. We didn't manage the expectations well with his playing time, but there really weren't a whole lot of times to put him in the game that we missed. I would have given more of a free reign against UMass, Austin Peay, and two more games and played him for a half+ with an open playbook.
I still think redshirting him was they way to go. Dual Threat QBs IMO are much better with that redshirt season.
Page 12 of 13
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News