Started By
Message
re: So Where does Eason transfer to?
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:19 am to DawgsLife
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:19 am to DawgsLife
I agree with djs on this one. Unless Fromm was insanely better than Eason in the off-season (and probably even if he was), he wasn't going to start in game #1. Fromm being "better" (if he was) would be offset by Eason being tested with a full season of SEC play. Eason was a known commodity while Fromm wasn't.
There have been a lot of workout warriors that lit up the practice fields and then acted like a deer in the headlights once they put on their pads for the first real game. Going into the game, I'm sure CKS was either planning on red-shirting Fromm or giving him a chance to play with the game well in hand, but Eason was not going to lose his starting role to an unknown unless he had regressed tremendously and Fromm had looked unstoppable in practice. Hell, last year we knew Eason had to be better than Lambert but Lambert still started (and ended) the game against UNC.
There have been a lot of workout warriors that lit up the practice fields and then acted like a deer in the headlights once they put on their pads for the first real game. Going into the game, I'm sure CKS was either planning on red-shirting Fromm or giving him a chance to play with the game well in hand, but Eason was not going to lose his starting role to an unknown unless he had regressed tremendously and Fromm had looked unstoppable in practice. Hell, last year we knew Eason had to be better than Lambert but Lambert still started (and ended) the game against UNC.
1
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:27 am to SneakyWaff1es
quote:
Lambert started the first game last year. How'd that work out for Lambert? Could've had Fromm may have had significant playing time in that first game if Eason wouldn't have been injured.
Are you saying Eason looked better than Lambert during the summer? I doubt it. What made Lambert the better choice to start? Wasn't it his experience? What gave Lambert the edge over Eason?
Knowledge of the playbook and experience. It is not always about physical talent.
quote:
Eason very well could take his job right back next week but based on the very, very small sample size so far he hasn't progressed much.
There is the key. Nobody knows because of the very, very small sample size that we have seen. the coaches have seen much more. That is why I trust the coaches. I'll let them make the decision and not say Fromm should start because Eason didn't look good on the three passes we saw him throw against App. St.
quote:
. I'm kind of hoping he does take the job back. If he does, that means he's made progress we haven't seen and he's better than Fromm. If he's better than Fromm, this team just got much better and I just went from six to midnight.
Fromm looks awfully good, and as I said above, sometimes it is more than physical talent. Some on here are choosing to go with a limited sample, and that is always dangerous. I am not arguing for either one of them. I like them both. Fromm, right now, looks to be better, but I haven't seen sophomore Eason.
But yes, it is nice having two talented QB's on the roster. I would like to have three, but I suspect if we sign Fields, and Fromm keeps the job Eason will transfer. I would imagine Kirby is having some heart to hearts with Eason to get a feel of what might happen.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:33 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Fromm being "better" (if he was) would be offset by Eason being tested with a full season of SEC play. Eason was a known commodity while Fromm wasn't.
That is my entire point, though. It is more than just ability. Experience plays into which QB is better. That edge gets smaller every time Fromm takes a snap. But, at the start of the season, Eason was the better QB, even if it was because of experience. Experience counts as an attribute, and has to be considered when you consider who the better QB was.
Someone mentioned Drew Bledsoe started over Tom Brady when Brady was a rookie. Why? Brady is clearly the better QB. more gifted in many ways. Bledsoe had the experience, and management felt Bledsoe was, at that point, the better QB...because of his experience.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 11:44 am to djsdawg
quote:
I don't get this point. Fromm has proven he can stretch the field.
Oh, I agree but the question remains: will we need Eason's arm strength for instance vs Auburn. Let's say we are down a TD with 30 seconds remaining on our 25 yard line. Do you bring in Eason to make maybe 2 long throws to try and salvage the game? Personally I would stay with Fromm assuming he's healthy because I have more confidence in his ability to direct the offense. But I do think it is a reasonable question.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 10/2/17 at 11:45 am to djsdawg
If Eason leaves I don't think Fields would come.
Why take the chance of possibly being a starter for one year after Fromm leaves.
Why take the chance of possibly being a starter for one year after Fromm leaves.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 11:58 am to DawgsLife
quote:It may be a small and insignificant point of contention but I would say there's a difference between being a better QB and being the better option at QB. "Better" is a subjective word that often includes a lot of debatable nuance. In this case, even if Fromm was the better overall QB between he and Eason, the coaches may have felt that Eason was the better choice at QB based on his experience. Experience alone doesn't make someone better. A lot of rookies play well while a lot of veterans play poorly. Experience is just one factor in a decision but I think it was the one that gave Eason the edge in this case.
...Experience counts as an attribute, and has to be considered when you consider who the better QB was.
...Bledsoe had the experience, and management felt Bledsoe was, at that point, the better QB...because of his experience.
I would love to see us demolish Vandy and give both QBs a chance to make their case for who should be the starter going forward. Eason hasn't made the most of his few opportunities this season but that doesn't mean he's worse than Fromm. I just don't think we're in a position (outside of a blowout) to gamble with the synergy that the offense has with Fromm at the helm. He should remain the starter until he becomes a liability.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 12:12 pm to Jokey1968
If Eason leaves, I think it helps us with fields. An idiot named barstools will misinterpret this as me saying I hope Eason leaves.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 10/2/17 at 12:32 pm to Jokey1968
quote:
If Eason leaves I don't think Fields would come.
Why take the chance of possibly being a starter for one year after Fromm leaves.
Won't that be the situation whether or not Eason leaves?
besides, Fields would redshirt his first year and Fromm could leave after his junior year.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 12:36 pm to DawgsLife
He would be auto #2 and play day 1if Eason leaves. He would be #3 with a possible redshirt if he stays.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 12:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It may be a small and insignificant point of contention but I would say there's a difference between being a better QB and being the better option at QB.
I don't see how. If someone is the better option, then they are the better QB. I think some on here are getting physical ability confused with overall ability.
If you want to go with physical ability then eason gets the nod. If you want to go with intangibles, then Fromm gets the nod. Fromm's intangibles SEEM to be much higher than Eason, and Eason's physical abilities not that much greater than fromm. but make no mistake about it, experience has a lot to do with the overall QB package and is definitely an attirbute.
This is JUST MY OPINION, but I think most coaches would agree.
quote:
Experience alone doesn't make someone better.
This is true. but neither does arm strength, Reads, or any other single attribute a QB may have.
For instance..if a QB reads defenses flawlessly, but has no arm strength at all, he is not very good. It all works as a package. But experience is a very big part of that package.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 12:42 pm to djsdawg
quote:
He would be auto #2 and play day 1if Eason leaves. He would be #3 with a possible redshirt if he stays.
I took it, he definitely did not have a problem with taking a red shirt his first year. If he is as good as some (Scouts, etc) make him out to be, he would probably start his sophomore year...or RSFreshman year.
But, I see your point.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 1:02 pm to DawgsLife
Fromm's physical ability is above Eason's. Eason doesn't move well either in or out of the pocket. Eason is so awkward that he doesn't even know how get tackled.
One play that sold me about Fromm was his great block that resulted in Chubb's TD on a left sweep against Notre Dame.
One play that sold me about Fromm was his great block that resulted in Chubb's TD on a left sweep against Notre Dame.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 1:54 pm to DawgsLife
quote:"Better option" doesn't mean "better QB".
I don't see how. If someone is the better option, then they are the better QB.
Again, it's easy to see that Eason was the better QB last year over Lambert but Lambert was the better option (in the eyes of the coaching staff) to start the first game because he was the safer option. "Better option" goes back to what the coaches value in a QB based on the context they find themselves in. Nick Marshall wasn't a good QB and didn't even go to the combine as a QB, but he was a good QB for Auburn's offense. Likewise, whatever QBs they recruit at GT are typically not "good" QBs, but they run their offense effectively for the style of offense that they use. Putting Eason behind center at GT would be dumb because Tech doesn't have the tools and aren't built in a way that would utilize Eason's QB talents well. Likewise, the GT QB would struggle here because we would want something completely different than what he offers.
quote:In football, as with most of life, decisions come down to a cost benefit analysis. You look at the positives and negatives of all your options and choose the one that you think will give you the most benefit with the least amount of cost. All of the different attributes for each QB are analyzed to try to determine which one gives you the highest chance at winning and/or the lowest chance of losing. There coaches have to look at everything: physical tools, experience, knowledge of the playbook, synchronicity with the other offensive players, ability to read coverages, ability to manage the clock, ability to make corrections at the line, ability to hold up under pressure, aggressiveness, leadership, attitude, work ethic, and others.
I think some on here are getting physical ability confused with overall ability.
If you want to go with physical ability then eason gets the nod. If you want to go with intangibles, then Fromm gets the nod. Fromm's intangibles SEEM to be much higher than Eason, and Eason's physical abilities not that much greater than fromm. but make no mistake about it, experience has a lot to do with the overall QB package and is definitely an attirbute.
All of those things must be considered as well as the overall context of what we're trying to do as an offense. Is it better to have a gun slinger over a game manager with our overall offensive scheme? Does our pass protection allow for longer times in the pocket or do we need someone who makes quick reads and throws? Do our receivers get enough separation most of the time to allow for more inaccuracy in throwing the ball? Are our receivers fast enough or have good enough hands to track down and catch balls from a canon arm? There are all sorts of questions that need to be asked to determine the best option for QB.
quote:I agree. I think too much value is placed on arm strength at this level. The margin for error is lower than high school for sure but college QBs aren't expected to be able to throw the ball 60+ yards (receivers and blocking don't usually allow for that anyway except on hail mary plays) or to fit the ball into tight windows like the NFL. At this level, if you are trying to fit the ball in to a tight window, it is probably the wrong read. I think the superfluous arm strength of Eason is really the only advantage he has now, and even that is minimal considering what we should be doing with the football. Fromm has enough arm to challenge defenders deep and he has the other skills to run an efficient offense.
This is true. but neither does arm strength, Reads, or any other single attribute a QB may have.
For instance..if a QB reads defenses flawlessly, but has no arm strength at all, he is not very good. It all works as a package. But experience is a very big part of that package.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:03 am to GurleyGirl
quote:
You have to stretch the field against good defenses and Auburn and Florida both have good defenses.
Maybe for auburn but UF is ranked 69th nationally on total defense and made UT look good. I'm not too worried about the gators (famous last words tho) but Auburn has all that feeling of a shite storm right now.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 9:07 am to FooManChoo
I find this an interesting comparison as Brady would certainly end up having a hall of fame career but he was hardly the better QB that season. If you remember, and most don't, it was Bledsoe who came in and won the championship game againts the Steelers to gift Brady his first super bowl. Brady was horrible that game and after tweaking his ankle, Bledsoe came in, led the team down the field from deep in their own end and threw the TD pass. The ONLY TD New England had that day but it was enough to win.. and Why? Because their defense was amazing.
We have a similar scenario here. We are winning because we have perhaps the best defense in the country. We have the worst passing offense in the SEC and a middle of the pack offense overall. Its lifted by a incredible stable of running backs.
Moral of the Story is Fromm is good enough to get you there, but it will take a little magic to win the game you want the most. That magic is likely Eason, not Fromm. Just like it was Bledsoe, not Brady that started it all for NE.
We have a similar scenario here. We are winning because we have perhaps the best defense in the country. We have the worst passing offense in the SEC and a middle of the pack offense overall. Its lifted by a incredible stable of running backs.
Moral of the Story is Fromm is good enough to get you there, but it will take a little magic to win the game you want the most. That magic is likely Eason, not Fromm. Just like it was Bledsoe, not Brady that started it all for NE.
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 9:09 am
Posted on 10/3/17 at 9:13 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Again, it's easy to see that Eason was the better QB last year over Lambert but Lambert was the better option (in the eyes of the coaching staff) to start the first game because he was the safer option.
You are discounting experience to say this and considering only physical abilities. Experience plays a part in who the better QB is. Ryan Leaf was an extremely physically gifted QB, but I cannot imagine how he would be a better QB.
Did Fromm have a lot of potential? yes. Could he have been potentially a better QB at the beginning of the season? yes. but that did not make him a better QB. Fromm became a better QB when he gained experience and showed he could do the job under pressure in a SEC game situation. Until he does that nobody can say he was a better QB at that time. The only reason we know he could handle the pressure of SEC football is because he got experience. It was at that time that the coaches knew he might be a better QB.
We STILL don't know if Fromm is the best QB right now. We just know Fromm is a better QB than Eason was last year.
I don't think we will ever agree...and that's ok. I might be missing your point, or you might be missing my point.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 9:30 am to Jay Gatsby
Interesting analysis and I think it's pretty accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong here but it seems you are implying that our passing offense is last in the SEC because of Fromm. I would say that Fromm has (for the most part) hit every throw he's been asked to hit. He has had several of his receivers drop easy passes of 20+ yards that would have boosted his stats a bit and our offensive scheme has been focused on short-to-medium passes to set up the run and move the ball down the field. If Fromm was struggling to connect on his passes, I'd say we had a problem with him at QB, but he's done very well at doing what he's been asked to do regardless of his passing yards. Throwing the ball 10-15 times a game will keep those stats low regardless of the QB, too.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:24 am to Jay Gatsby
Jay, I like your story but from my perspective I think it is Fromm who has the magic and not Eason. We have had limited passing yards because Fromm is a true Freshman and our staff has been justifiably cautious in turning him completely loose so far but mainly we have had an effective running game with a stable of fine RBs; as such we haven't had to pass as much thankfully. Having said that, Fromm has made the clutch passes when it was called for. Honestly, the only scenario that I foresee in which Eason might be the better option is throwing a super long Hail Mary. Other than that, I would rather have Fromm running my offense.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:38 am to FooManChoo
Ahh, but there in lies the rub. We asked Eason to single handedly win games with his arm last year on a much worse team. That alone made his numbers look substantially lower than they might otherwise while there where many more drops as well. No one is making Godwins catch in the endzone on last years team. Wimms isn't snatching a for sure interception out of a defenders hands for a 30yrd gain. I found it amusing hearing the announcers label Fromms penchant for throwing to his primary receiver at all costs a "pre-snap read" essentially excusing him for never going through his progressions.
We don't ask Fromm to do what we asked Eason to do last year and under far worse circumstances. Yet he did rise to the occasion several times. We just can't know what Eason is capable of when surrounded by a decent supporting cast. It certainly could be worse, but it could be incredible. Labeling Fromm the better QB is extreme folly to say the least. Doesn't make it untrue, just a bit of a gamble on limited info. Fromm running last years offense throwing as much as Eason is likely a record number of interceptions. He loves the 50/50 balls and sooner or later they fall on the other teams 50 too.
We don't ask Fromm to do what we asked Eason to do last year and under far worse circumstances. Yet he did rise to the occasion several times. We just can't know what Eason is capable of when surrounded by a decent supporting cast. It certainly could be worse, but it could be incredible. Labeling Fromm the better QB is extreme folly to say the least. Doesn't make it untrue, just a bit of a gamble on limited info. Fromm running last years offense throwing as much as Eason is likely a record number of interceptions. He loves the 50/50 balls and sooner or later they fall on the other teams 50 too.
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 10:45 am
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:43 am to DawgsLife
quote:I'm not discounting experience at all. On the contrary, I'm saying the coaches clearly valued that experience of Lambert above the physical tools of Eason to give him the start. The coaches obviously wanted a cool, experienced head that has proven not to crack under the pressure in there to manage the offense and get the game going before putting Eason in. In that context, Lambert was the better option to start the game even though Eason was the better overall QB because experience was an attribute that the coaches were putting a premium on at that time.
You are discounting experience to say this and considering only physical abilities.
quote:Agree, but like I said before it is just one aspect of many that coaches have to consider. The context and situation will determine which attributes the coaches put a greater emphasis and value on.
Experience plays a part in who the better QB is.
quote:As I said previously, "better" is subjective and is a combination of many subjective and objective factors. Physical giftedness doesn't always translate to being good at the QB position because there are other factors to consider.
Ryan Leaf was an extremely physically gifted QB, but I cannot imagine how he would be a better QB.
quote:It depends what combination and depth of attributes that coaches thought made one "better" than the other to start the season.
Did Fromm have a lot of potential? yes. Could he have been potentially a better QB at the beginning of the season? yes. but that did not make him a better QB.
It's my subjective estimation that Fromm has the better set of QB tools between he and Eason based on what I've seen from both men at this time. Where Eason had the leg-up was on arm strength and experience as well as being tested in high-pressure situations in a college football atmosphere and I believe those things combined with him being a known commodity were attributes that the coaches put a higher value on to determine who was starting in game #1. Those attributes don't determine who the better QB is but they certainly determined the better option to start the first game.
quote:I disagree and I think it's because we are not on the same page with the difference between "better QB" vs. "better option at QB". I tried to explain it but obviously I didn't do a very good job at it, so my apologies there.
Fromm became a better QB when he gained experience and showed he could do the job under pressure in a SEC game situation. Until he does that nobody can say he was a better QB at that time. The only reason we know he could handle the pressure of SEC football is because he got experience. It was at that time that the coaches knew he might be a better QB.
The better QB is mostly subjective but there are key indicators that most people look at to judge one QB by another. I listed those attributes previously, but suffice it to say that having more and "better" attributes of a prototypical QB than another player makes one a better QB overall. However, the better option at QB is the one that gives the offense and team the best chance at success and victory.
Most of the time the best QB and the best option at QB are the same player while sometimes they aren't and there are different attributes that coaches look at within the context of the offense that they use to determine who is the best option to play the position in the game. That's why I used the example of Georgia Tech's QB. Who would argue that he is a better QB than Eason or Fromm from a passing standpoint? GT's QB is a better QB option for their offensive scheme than either Eason or Fomm, and likewise he would not be a good QB option in our system compared to both Eason and Fromm.
Fromm appears to have the broadest toolset to be the better QB at UGA at this time and that would make him the better QB, and given the experience he has now, he would appear to also be the better QB option. If he becomes a liability because his reads, progressions, and accuracy slip, then Eason may become the better QB option. If Eason's reads and progressions (and mechanics) have improved to be on the same level or better than Fromm's, he could be both the better QB and the better QB option.
quote:True, but just like game #1, we have a known vs. an unknown. The known QB has run the offense efficiently, made (mostly) good decisions with the football, and has shown the ability to make all the throws we've needed him to make while not cracking under the pressure. The unknown QB is just that. We don't know if Eason has progressed from last year. We don't know if his mechanics have improved. We don't know if his reads have gotten better or his pre-snap recognition of the defense has come along since last year. The only thing we do know is that Eason has not taken advantage of the few snaps he's gotten so far this season to show that improvement. He still overthrew his receivers and didn't make the correct (or maybe "best") reads each time. In this case, I say the coaches should stick to their game plan that they had going in to the first game: go with the guy they "know".
We STILL don't know if Fromm is the best QB right now. We just know Fromm is a better QB than Eason was last year.
Page 3 of 6
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News