How come you think there are "ulterior" motives for everything? Especially, when someone disagrees with you?
Cole or Cam
- Thread starter redsfan5590
- Start date
Right... So the defense (that was gashed btw) also got 3 turnovers to keep us in the game and a game changing pick 6 had nothing to do with the win? Without Fanchers mighty .031 points per yard play (Wow! So explosive, lol) we would have lost. But imo that is another win because of the defense and in spite of bad defense and bad turnovers by our qb. We can agree to disagree, because we are not gonna agree on this. We both believe we are right.
This would make perfect sense if I were saying that to anyone other than Rifle.
And you've been on Pullman. He's a pot stirring prick who loves to mess with people.
Sorry, I know you want your son (or relative) Cam to be the starter, but I don't and I'm not the only one.
The question wasn't if any other sides of the team had factors in the win. The question was if a QB won the game for us and when the defense or a RB didn't win the game for us.
No reasonable person could watch that game and think that the defense (11 yards per carry against and 340 rushing yards allowed) won the game. No reasonable person could watch that game and think that the RB (Ali had less than 80 yards with a 2.8 average) won that game for us. On the other hand, the guy who threw for 84% and 270 yards (approximately) and rushed for 100 yards did win the game for us.
What kind of absurdly stupid stat is this? So if each time I touch the ball, I go for 98 yards but get tackled at the 1 yard line, I am not explosive because my "points per yard play" is 0?
Please tell me you didn't just make that stat up.
So we had bad defense, but . . .
But we won because of that bad defense?
It's alright to admit that you were wrong with your original claim. Continuing to try and defend that original incorrect claim is your biggest error.
It also should show why so many screens and short passes are called. Anything over 10 yards gives Marshall fans extreme anxiety, as they all turn into bad results.
As I have said since last year, the play calling isn't the issue. When you are one-dimensional on offense or in terms of what you can/can't throw, it hamstrings the play calling. And considering how bad our ability is to move the ball through the air, it's impressive that Marshall has been able to beat ND, Tech, etc. You can always pick certain plays we shouldn't have done (3rd-and-2 at their 48, down 14, we would have had two chances to run it, but we decided to throw on 3rd down).
That doesn't mean that certain coaches shouldn't be faulted for failing in developing their positions or increase the talent in their rooms by recruiting better, but play calling isn't the issue.
Rifle's absolutely correct.
"Play calling" and "imagination" are difficult when the abilities of the skill positions are so limited.
"Play calling" and "imagination" are difficult when the abilities of the skill positions are so limited.
doesn't appear to be the second coming of Pennington - not a good start with 8 turnovers in 10 quarters with 0 TDs.
Let's pump the brakes here guys. You're right when you say it's "not a good start." But that's all it is...a start. All we've learned about Cole to this point is that he doesn't seem ready to put the team on his back and carry us to a championship. It says nothing about what he will be with more than two starts. Or what he will be with another off-season. Or with different coaching. Or with a better supporting cast (Remember that Dad had a pretty decent receiver to play catch with). Let's not make a career judgement on this guy based on such a tiny sample size and challenged supporting cast. Maybe this is all Cole has. Or he may yet show a little Chad in his game as he matures past his redshirt-freshman year.
Cole isn't going to get Donnan and Pruett either. So, it's gonna be difficult to be optimistic about his future success here at Marshall.
Can he get better with time and coaching? Sure. Has he shown anything in two games that makes you think his awareness and pocket presence is improving? Absolutely not. It just doesn't look like he has the necessary tools to be a D-1 quarterback. I hope he proves me wrong.
I will say I thought he looked a little more comfortable running the hurry-up last night than he does when they slow things down. Maybe that's an option going forward?
Cam was ineffective because he was hurt? Was he hurt for the past year?
278 yards passing… and a high completion percentage on screen passes. Woohoo. I am so sorry to have misjudged him, glad he had a good game once,
He sure damn should be better. He started 17 games. Cole has started 2. Playing behind a beat up and bad OL.
Cam played QB one season in HS from what I understand. Cole played at a small private school in KY against pretty poor competition. We have one guy on the bench who supposedly was a 3 star in Ohio, he hasn't sniffed a down.
It's talent evaluation and coaching. Neither have been close to good. Trickett sucks, always has and Huff isn't as smart as the BOG thought he was.
Simple fact of the matter is Cam looked like Marcus Marriota the first half last night. But let's all calm down. It was one half of football. Super happy for him, but that was a bad defense when healthy and they were beat up in the backend last night. Still an amazing job by Cam to silence some critics.
Cam had 1 good half vs. a bad team. Relax!
Final regular season stats - 11 TDs/11 INTs with a QBR of 44.8 ranking him as the 101st FBS QB.
You're cams dad aren't you? Look they both sucked. Coaching sucked cam has not gotten better in his 17 starts. He still makes the same mistakes and struggles making completions past the line backers. Cole played in three games and looked awful. Can he improve? Maybe we don't know. Do we roll with what we know or let someone else potential grow and develop
yes - AR St offense wasn't bad. Their defense struggled all season - gave up 28 points/game
Similar threads
