re: Haselwood's comments about our staff

quote:

---

Every college in the USA would love to have Fields at QB.

---

Fairly sure that there is at least one out there that is happy with its current QB vis a vis Fields. Also fairly sure that there are a number of colleges which don't have football programs and could therefore not give a tuppeny frick about having him.

quote:

---

My only point is his seeming under-utilization is detrimental to UGA given his production when provided opportunity

---

However, you previously stated that "the team lined up behind him [Fromm] and stepped away from Fields".

So, by your own admission, the team for which Fields played chose Fromm over him. That being the case, there is no "seeming under-utilization".

quote:

---

Now if you're a rising star QB - the third highest rated ever like Fields - and you have a choice between UGA and Clemson where do you go?

---

If I'm the third highest rated QB ever, I'm going to have a wider selection that Georgia or Clemson. And I'd go wherever I had the best opportunity to develop. further. Do my skills fit with their style of play? Do I get along with the coaches? Do I like the school? Am I going into a good situation; i.e., am I suddenly going to find myself without a good line/RBs/receiver due to graduation, players leaving early, etc.? One of the lowest concerns on my list is going to be "Will I get a ton of playing time as a freshman?", in no small part because that comes with as much risk as reward - if I go out and get eaten alive, as can easily happen to a freshman, that's not going to do wonders for either my confidence or my future marketability.

Beyond all of that, consider the track record of the guys who were touted as potential stud quarterbacks at UGA in recent history:
1) Ramsey - flopped at QB, serviceable punter.
2) Park - flop, transferred, and flopped again.
3) LeMay - flop, transferred, succeeded at FCS level.
4) Eason - moderate success, supplanted, transferred.
5) Fields - not immediately hailed as program's messiah, transferred.
So out of five supposed bad-arse quarterbacks, none accomplished much of anything at UGA, and four left. Of those four, two essentially ended up being zeros at the D1 level, and the jury is still out on the other two. "Potential" doesn't guarantee results.

Fields was ranked ahead of Lawrence before he broke his finger - that had nothing to do with the category (DT vs Pro).

The only significant difference between the two QBs was the situations they came into with the existing starter and the attitudes of the HC/OC.

Fields showed he was ready to play more on the small sample size we had as he was productive all season throwing and running. It was obvious Chaney and Kirby didn’t want a QB controversy and played Fields accordingly. While Fromm played terrifically after LSU game, he was average prior to the LSU game.

I know the differing view is “Fields got what he earned in practice” or “it was open competition because Kirby said it was” - I don’t believe that was the case.

Regardless, this is over and Fields will prove one way or another his worth and value as a QB - I expect him to be a very good QB.

Will you feel the same way when he and his lawyers throw us under the bus?

Fromm has to learn to deal with mock or disguised defensive coverages.

Improves wr play and eliminating drops will help. Very few passes hit the ground in 17.

quote:

---

I think Fromm was good before the LSU game, and terrible in that game.

---

Fromm was spotty and streaky at best up through the LSU game. He was terrible in the LSU game and in the first half against Mizzou. He was not great in the first half against South Carolina and Tennessee either. After the LSU game he was great, but Fromm had a number of slow first halfs.

As for this entire argument about Fields, it's completely pointless. He's gone and we'll find out sooner or later just how good he is. I expect he's going to be great which is going to make his loss sting even more, like watching two Georgia boys Watson and Lawrence lead Clemson to titles.

quote:

---

Fromm was spotty and streaky at best up through the LSU game. He was terrible in the LSU game and in the first half against Mizzou. He was not great in the first half against South Carolina and Tennessee either. After the LSU game he was great, but Fromm had a number of slow first halfs.

---

Completely agree. I just generalized it as good. He was pretty mediocre in most first halves and really good in the second halves.

I know we disagree on the amount of playing time he should have gotten this year, but we both agree the way that it was handled was wrong.

Long Dawg, I agree that you can't get in a rhythm only playing a play or two at a time. I thought it was so weird we pretty much took it out of the playbook after the LSU game (unless it was a situational running down) until the Bama game where we tried to get tricky again.

There was just no rhyme nor reason to how Justin was used all year long. Evertime you thought there would be a change in strategy the following week it would go right back to a regression.

Florida would be one example. After a lackluster start of year and then Jake layed the egg at LSU as one inflection point. Another, the UMASS game - for all the “It was UMass” poo-poo, Fields was dropping dimes 40-50yds down the field. He was cut loose in that game. If Chaney and Kirby were serious about developing Fields in 2019, there were 3-4 other games where he could have been unleashed for an entire 2nd half of football in a blowout game. I believe it was purposeful not to do so because there is no logical explanation not to do it.

Knowing Kirby and controlling the message, it’s a good bet that he told his players that they weren’t to discuss Fields with sports media and/or on social media - if you think on it, there has been almost no chatter on the subject from players. Coincidence? I think not.