QB controversy...contrarian view...Why Tyl;er should start.

[cheewgumm]

Ok, I am in the camp that Dak is probably the "starter", but I would play them both. I'm usually agasint that, but I'd play both of them.

Regardless, what about this thought on why Tyler should play and may be more productive. Here is the take:

1) Dak has played well and thrown well, because we have been able to run(mostly him) agaisnt some crappy defenses.
2) Because of this, and because we have played sub-par defenses, our receivers have been relatively open.
3) Because they are relatively open, Dak can hit them fairly easily.
4) What happens when our run(including Dak ) is stuffed and we have to throw?
5) Once we HAVE to throw, what happens when our receivers cant get wide open? Keep in mind, they already have problems "getting open"


Theory - Once we have to throw and there are tighter windows to throw in...then the obvious choice is Tyler. He can throw better to "not so open" receivers. I honestly think Dan thinks this to some extent.

I do think this assumes a lot of thngs...like Dak has not proven that he can't do it. In fact, he's thrown well IMO.

I do think Dan is thinking this though to some extent.

[Coach34]

4) What happens when our run is stuffed and we have to throw?
.

The same thing that happened last year vs Bama, A&M, LSU, and OM- except this year our WR's arent as experienced

[Barking 13]

see my other post

[CadaverDawg]

If we become one dimensional against a SEC team, then it won't matter who the QB is...we will lose. That's why you have to play Dak and continue to at least try to run the football some. We were one dimensional with Tyler for the last 7 games of last year and you see how well he "threw into tight windows". With no semblance of a run game, you could have Montana back there and we aren't beating teams not named Kentucky more than likely.

[Bubb Rubb]

If we become one dimensional against a SEC team, then it won't matter who the QB is...we will lose. That's why you have to play Dak and continue to at least try to run the football some. We were one dimensional with Tyler for the last 7 games of last year and you see how well he "threw into tight windows". With no semblance of a run game, you could have Montana back there and we aren't beating teams not named Kentucky more than likely.

We will be one-dimensional with Dak at QB against elite teams as well. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

[Coach34]

Here is the crux of the problem:

Our run-game with Tyler in there is going to look like shit vs any decent teams. Defenses dont have to account for him in the run game. And our OL cant move people around to run the type of run plays needed for Russell. Teams can mix coverages and play more base D due to not being concerned with the run. This also makes it harder for Tyler to throw. And why he struggles so much vs good defenses.

Our run game is better with Dakota in there because he has to be accounted for also. We can be more imaginitive. It also forces most defenses to commit an extra defender to the box to stop it. This helps Dakota in the passing game because he sees more man coverage- less reads for him.

If we cant run the ball- it doesnt matter which QB plays- because we are ****ed regardless. I would rather take my chances that we can run some with Dakota and he can makes some throws vs man coverage- than watch Russell continue to not convert any 3rd downs because we have no run game and passing lanes are crowded.

[Coach34]

We will be one-dimensional with Dak at QB against elite teams as well. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

we'll just disagree- Dak will get to the point he can make good defenses pay for going man

[CadaverDawg]

We will be one-dimensional with Dak at QB against elite teams as well. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

Haha, we haven't been yet, so what "facts" are you referring to? Damn, you keep throwing shit out there but are completely making it up.

The only QB that we KNOW we become one dimensional with...yep, you guessed it...Tyler

[CadaverDawg]

Here is the crux of the problem:

Our run-game with Tyler in there is going to look like shit vs any decent teams. Defenses dont have to account for him in the run game. And our OL cant move people around to run the type of run plays needed for Russell. Teams can mix coverages and play more base D due to not being concerned with the run. This also makes it harder for Tyler to throw. And why he struggles so much vs good defenses.

Our run game is better with Dakota in there because he has to be accounted for also. We can be more imaginitive. It also forces most defenses to commit an extra defender to the box to stop it. This helps Dakota in the passing game because he sees more man coverage- less reads for him.

If we cant run the ball- it doesnt matter which QB plays- because we are ****ed regardless. I would rather take my chances that we can run some with Dakota and he can makes some throws vs man coverage- than watch Russell continue to not convert any 3rd downs because we have no run game and passing lanes are crowded.

Exactly. And it blows my mind that as many "football minds" we claim to have on this board...that nobody seems to understand this simple truth

[Bubb Rubb]

we'll just disagree- Dak will get to the point he can make good defenses pay for going man

I agree that he will get to that point. He's not there yet.

[cheewgumm]

Yep, I agree too. Just trying to thnk of reasons that Dan may be thnking with Russell.




Exactly. And it blows my mind that as many "football minds" we claim to have on this board...that nobody seems to understand this simple truth

[Bubb Rubb]

Haha, we haven't been yet, so what "facts" are you referring to? Damn, you keep throwing shit out there but are completely making it up.

The only QB that we KNOW we become one dimensional with...yep, you guessed it...Tyler

You are a mental midget. Your bias doesn't allow you to look at a damn thing objectively. I would tell you to go back and actually watch some football, but it's clear to me that you don't know what you're looking at.

At least Coach can use some logic.

[CadaverDawg]

You are a mental midget. Your bias doesn't allow you to look at a damn thing objectively. I would tell you to go back and actually watch some football, but it's clear to me that you don't know what you're looking at.

At least Coach can use some logic.

You are the worst poster on this board because you bring no facts to the table. It's all "mental midget" type shit, which proves you have no facts.

You are saying "Dak can be made one dimensional"....but our offense hasn't so far wi Dak. You say, "Dak's not there yet"...but so far he has been there (although I think he has a lot of growth to do in the passing department). My point is, everything you are saying negative about Dak is pure speculation at this point. Meanwhile, Tyler has actually proven that he can't beat good SEC teams because we can't run the ball with him in the game, therefore passing becomes harder.

The only midget is the guy bringing nothing but pure speculation to a discussion.

But whatever, I'll agree to disagree.

[Ronny]

..it is impossible to make a reasonable argument as to why Russell should start over Dak.

This football team is 100% improved in all aspects with Dak @ QB.

Dak's charisma alone is changing this football team.

Russell had his opportunity & blew it.

You go with who is going to help you win. Not with who makes the most sense philosophically.

[CadaverDawg]

Yep, I agree too. Just trying to thnk of reasons that Dan may be thnking with Russell.

No, I think you had a very valid question...the "football minds" part was definitely not directed towards you. You seem to know your stuff, or ask questions about the things you don't know. That's what I like to do as well. It's people that just say stuff like "We will become one dimensional with Dak", when they have nothing to base that on, that grind on my nerves. We may become one dimensional wi Dak, but at least wait until it happens before saying it will.

[CadaverDawg]

..it is impossible to make a reasonable argument as to why Russell should start over Dak.

This football team is 100% improved in all aspects with Dak @ QB.

Dak's charisma alone is changing this football team.

Russell had his opportunity & blew it.

You go with who is going to help you win. Not with who makes the most sense philosophically.

Can't argue that

[DawgInMemphis]

Ok, I am in the camp that Dak is probably the "starter", but I would play them both. I'm usually agasint that, but I'd play both of them.

Regardless, what about this thought on why Tyler should play and may be more productive. Here is the take:

1) Dak has played well and thrown well, because we have been able to run(mostly him) agaisnt some crappy defenses.
2) Because of this, and because we have played sub-par defenses, our receivers have been relatively open.
3) Because they are relatively open, Dak can hit them fairly easily.
4) What happens when our run(including Dak ) is stuffed and we have to throw?
5) Once we HAVE to throw, what happens when our receivers cant get wide open? Keep in mind, they already have problems "getting open"


Theory - Once we have to throw and there are tighter windows to throw in...then the obvious choice is Tyler. He can throw better to "not so open" receivers. I honestly think Dan thinks this to some extent.

I do think this assumes a lot of thngs...like Dak has not proven that he can't do it. In fact, he's thrown well IMO.

I do think Dan is thinking this though to some extent.

Having Dak in the backfield helps open up the run game, because defenses have to respect the qb's ability to run. With our inexperience at WR and Russell in the game, defenses will stack the box and key on our running backs while daring us to throw. With TR back there, he will have to throw our wideouts open. If he can do that, then it will open up the run game and we can be successful with TR in the game. If he can't, we're better off with Dak and multiple running threats out of the backfield. The key either way is keeping the defense guessing. Different screens, misdirection, power running, occasionally taking shots down the field, etc. It doesn't matter who the qb is if we're predictable on offense or if we don't execute. LSU is looking much better than I thought they would coming into the year. We have the talent to beat them, we just have to plan well, play well, and get our share of those 50/50 calls.

[Bubb Rubb]

You are saying "Dak can be made one dimensional"....but our offense hasn't so far wi Dak. You say, "Dak's not there yet"...but so far he has been there (although I think he has a lot of growth to do in the passing department). My point is, everything you are saying negative about Dak is pure speculation at this point. Meanwhile, Tyler has actually proven that he can't beat good SEC teams because we can't run the ball with him in the game, therefore passing becomes harder.

The offense wasn't one-dimensional against bad teams when Tyler was in there. You are being selective. And then you are getting your panties in a bunch when I call you on it, and you can't be reasoned with. And anything you say about Dak (or Tyler, for that matter) is pure speculation as well. That's why they play the games.

I'm not pro-Tyler or anti-Dak. I'm pro-whoever Dan has starting. It would be nice if more of our fans felt this way.

[CadaverDawg]

Having Dak in the backfield helps open up the run game, because defenses have to respect the qb's ability to run. With our inexperience at WR and Russell in the game, defenses will stack the box and key on our running backs while daring us to throw. With TR back there, he will have to throw our wideouts open. If he can do that, then it will open up the run game and we can be successful with TR in the game. If he can't, we're better off with Dak and multiple running threats out of the backfield. The key either way is keeping the defense guessing. Different screens, misdirection, power running, occasionally taking shots down the field, etc. It doesn't matter who the qb is if we're predictable on offense or if we don't execute. LSU is looking much better than I thought they would coming into the year. We have the talent to beat them, we just have to plan well, play well, and get our share of those 50/50 calls.

Good post. You're right...if Mullen isn't calling a good gameplan offensively, then it doesn't matter who we have back there.

[Barking 13]

Here is the crux of the problem:

Our run-game with Tyler in there is going to look like shit vs any decent teams. Defenses dont have to account for him in the run game. And our OL cant move people around to run the type of run plays needed for Russell. Teams can mix coverages and play more base D due to not being concerned with the run. This also makes it harder for Tyler to throw. And why he struggles so much vs good defenses.

Our run game is better with Dakota in there because he has to be accounted for also. We can be more imaginitive. It also forces most defenses to commit an extra defender to the box to stop it. This helps Dakota in the passing game because he sees more man coverage- less reads for him.

If we cant run the ball- it doesnt matter which QB plays- because we are ****ed regardless. I would rather take my chances that we can run some with Dakota and he can makes some throws vs man coverage- than watch Russell continue to not convert any 3rd downs because we have no run game and passing lanes are crowded.

I understand... the point I was trying to make is that we have to establish a run game / short passing game no matter who the QB is... I just don't want Dakota running the ball 20 freaking times, even though it is working now.. that eventually becomes one dimensional... like I said.. everybody needs to step it up a notch... OL stay on that block for another split second.. RB's go north and south not lateral (perk), receivers you have to catch or go get that ball... etc. just little things that make the big picture... and I'm not saying much about the defense, but there's a couple little things they can do better too...

[Bubb Rubb]

Good post. You're right...if Mullen isn't calling a good gameplan offensively, then it doesn't matter who we have back there.

Something else that I've said a million times. But to you, that's Dak's justification. With Tyler, it's that he holds the ball too long, or he can't run, or he makes poor decisions, or whatever.

[CadaverDawg]

The offense wasn't one-dimensional against bad teams when Tyler was in there. You are being selective. And then you are getting your panties in a bunch when I call you on it, and you can't be reasoned with. And anything you say about Dak (or Tyler, for that matter) is pure speculation as well. That's why they play the games.

I'm not pro-Tyler or anti-Dak. I'm pro-whoever Dan has starting. It would be nice if more of our fans felt this way.

Whatever. It WAS one dimensional against any decent team though. Can you not read? It was one dimensional the entire SEC season with Tyler last year...so what is going to change this year when you add no experience at WR?? See where I'm going wi this?

What I'm saying is, we KNOW we are one dimensional with Tyler, so we can't possibly be more one dimensional with Dak because he gives us a mismatch in the running game that Tyler doesn't. Geez. And once you're one dimensional, it doesn't make a damn who your QB is. But I would still rather have the guy that can avoid e rush and has shown the ability to pass with good accuracy to this point vs the guy who has proven he can't get it done wi Senior WR's against these same teams we are going to face.

But feel free to stick to your opinion and I'll have mine. I just think you're trying to say what Dak will do negatively before he's done it...meanwhile the guy he's replaced has actually done it negatively but he is not mentioned. It makes no sense to me.

[CadaverDawg]

Something else that I've said a million times. But to you, that's Dak's justification. With Tyler, it's that he holds the ball too long, or he can't run, or he makes poor decisions, or whatever.

No it's not. Again, putting words in my mouth. If you're not going to read what I say, don't tell me what I am meaning...because so far you are 0fer

[ckDOG]

Yep, I agree too. Just trying to thnk of reasons that Dan may be thnking with Russell.

I'm starting to think it's a combo of general arrogance combined with goodwill towards Russell. I think the staff sees a QB that has plenty of tools and does the things at practice and away from practice that you want your leaders to do and they expect it to work on gameday. I think they are skeptical of bailing on a guy that looks great on paper and has an NFL arm and refuse to admit that their coaching abilities require a running threat at QB. It's basically admitting you have shortcomings as a staff while also having wasted a good talent. I'm sure that weighs on their minds heavily and causes them to be skewed towards Tyler even when it's becoming obvious that we are on another level with a different guy taking the snaps...

[CadaverDawg]

I'm starting to think it's a combo of general arrogance combined with goodwill towards Russell. I think the staff sees a QB that has plenty of tools and does the things at practice and away from practice that you want your leaders to do and they expect it to work on gameday. I think they are skeptical of bailing on a guy that looks great on paper and has an NFL arm and refuse to admit that their coaching abilities require a running threat at QB. It's basically admitting you have shortcomings as a staff while also having wasted a good talent. I'm sure that weighs on their minds heavily and causes them to be skewed towards Tyler even when it's becoming obvious that we are on another level with a different guy taking the snaps...

Wow, that is very well said. I think you are 100% correct

[Bubb Rubb]

Whatever. It WAS one dimensional against any decent team though. Can you not read? It was one dimensional the entire SEC season with Tyler last year...so what is going to change this year when you add no experience at WR?? See where I'm going wi this?

What I'm saying is, we KNOW we are one dimensional with Tyler, so we can't possibly be more one dimensional with Dak because he gives us a mismatch in the running game that Tyler doesn't. Geez. And once you're one dimensional, it doesn't make a damn who your QB is. But I would still rather have the guy that can avoid e rush and has shown the ability to pass with good accuracy to this point vs the guy who has proven he can't get it done wi Senior WR's against these same teams we are going to face.

But feel free to stick to your opinion and I'll have mine. I just think you're trying to say what Dak will do negatively before he's done it...meanwhile the guy he's replaced has actually done it negatively but he is not mentioned. It makes no sense to me.

Speculation. That's what all of this is. We were one dimensional against Auburn, but I guess you missed that. And I acknowledge that the playcalling had something to do with that, much like it did for Russell too. I acknowledge that Dak is a bigger running threat. I also acknowledge that there are coaches who watch both players in practice every day, and they are more qualified than either of us to decide who is the better option. Are you willing to acknowledge the same?

[CadaverDawg]

Speculation. That's what all of this is. We were one dimensional against Auburn, but I guess you missed that. And I acknowledge that the playcalling had something to do with that, much like it did for Russell too. I acknowledge that Dak is a bigger running threat. I also acknowledge that there are coaches who watch both players in practice every day, and they are more qualified than either of us to decide who is the better option. Are you willing to acknowledge the same?

Well of course they are, but If we all just went with the Genespage mantra of "well the coaches know more than we do", what would be the point of a message board! Ha.

Look, all of my argument is in good fun and sports debate, so I appreciate your difference of opinion otherwise it would be boring around here. I guess we just have somewhat of differing opinions, and I'm cool with that.

The only thing that really struck my nerves was when you said we have fans that hope Tyler fails or gets injured...because I would definitely hope that isn't the case. I would love nothing more than for Tyler to come out and light LSU up and take us to a 8 win season....but I would be lying if I said I won't be on here questioning Mullen if he starts Tyler and we end up in a 21-0 hole before seeing Dak.

It's all about State winning, and I'm sure we can both agree on that. Agreed?

[CJDAWG85]

From what I just heard... And it may not be true.. But I was told they are trying to get TR a medical redshirt this year and transfer him to a school that runs a pro-style offense.


Again... it may not be true... but it makes sense

[codeDawg]

Serious question: What do you guys think Tyler does well? All I hear is a bunch of bitching about him holding on the ball, can't run, etc. The guy has been very productive in his time at QB, just not at the RIGHT time (3rd down). What does he do well, and what do you call to play to his strengths if he is in the game?

[Bubb Rubb]

Well of course they are, but If we all just went with the Genespage mantra of "well the coaches know more than we do", what would be the point of a message board! Ha.

Look, all of my argument is in good fun and sports debate, so I appreciate your difference of opinion otherwise it would be boring around here. I guess we just have somewhat of differing opinions, and I'm cool with that.

The only thing that really struck my nerves was when you said we have fans that hope Tyler fails or gets injured...because I would definitely hope that isn't the case. I would love nothing more than for Tyler to come out and light LSU up and take us to a 8 win season....but I would be lying if I said I won't be on here questioning Mullen if he starts Tyler and we end up in a 21-0 hole before seeing Dak.

It's all about State winning, and I'm sure we can both agree on that. Agreed?

Of course it's all about that. I was in the stadium with my eight year old nephew on Saturday, in his Dak Prescott jersey that I bought him before the game. I love what Dak brings and expect him to have a great career. What I have been lamenting is the rush to throw Tyler aside. I didn't say you specifically were hoping Russell wouldn't succeed or that he was still injured, but if you think there isn't an element of our fanbase who think that, you are being naive. We all question the coaches, but at the end of the day, they are going to play who they think is the best option. If they are wrong, they will pay the price for it at some point. I have been as critical of TR as anyone, but I also know that he hasn't had a lot of help. I can tell you that there is no cut-and-dried answer here. Both have shortcomings, and both have advantages. I would just much rather everyone rally behind the guy that's out there instead of picking favorites. What Dak has done against Troy and Alcorn State won't mean a damn thing against LSU. There were games last year where Russell played well and the defense let us down, and then coming from behind, he started forcing throws. Everything is circumstantial, and isn't as simple as being too one-dimensional.

[Coach34]

I agree that he will get to that point. He's not there yet.

But neither is Russell

[Political Hack]

But neither is Russell

who else we gonna get to throw the ball? I can find you a few who can run it.

[Bubb Rubb]

Serious question: What do you guys think Tyler does well? All I hear is a bunch of bitching about him holding on the ball, can't run, etc. The guy has been very productive in his time at QB, just not at the RIGHT time (3rd down). What does he do well, and what do you call to play to his strengths if he is in the game?

Here are my two cents. No matter who the QB is, we have to set up the run. With Tyler, we can do that with two back sets, but we can also do that by running very quick, short, combo routes that can get four or five yards - just like a successful run. That will force teams to play more man and will open up things deep. As it is today, our receivers are running too many long, double-move routes, and he doesn't have time to wait on them to develop.

Tyler isn't very good on third down because it's too many third and long situations because we weren't very creative on first or second down. There aren't many QBs who would be successful in those situations.

[Barking 13]

who else we gonna get to throw the ball? I can find you a few who can run it.

that's part of what I'm trying to say...

[Bubb Rubb]

But neither is Russell

What are you talking about? That's the one thing I thought we all agreed that he did well....throw the ball.

[codeDawg]

Here are my two cents. No matter who the QB is, we have to set up the run. With Tyler, we can do that with two back sets, but we can also do that by running very quick, short, combo routes that can get four or five yards - just like a successful run. That will force teams to play more man and will open up things deep. As it is today, our receivers are running too many long, double-move routes, and he doesn't have time to wait on them to develop.

Tyler isn't very good on third down because it's too many third and long situations because we weren't very creative on first or second down. There aren't many QBs who would be successful in those situations.

I agree with this. One thing we had Dak do this week was throw a lot of quick hit WR screens, etc. I'm not sure why we haven't done more of that with Tyler. Maybe it's because the D can pull the extra guy out of the box with TR in there, but we should be able to run in those situations. Maybe what Dan has been calling to open up the box is the downfield toss, but it takes too long to develop and our receivers just can't go get the long ball.

It seems like the Case Keenum "extended handoff" offense would be the best use of TR. Remember that offense relied heavily on the run game, but used the short quick out to open it up.

I just haven't understood the play calling with TR in there. If anything, Dak benefits from play calling when he is in the game.

[curmudgeon]

I'm going to laugh when in two weeks we put Dak on the field against a team that prepared for Russell between games against Georgia and Florida and kick LSU's ass.

[Coach34]

Here are my two cents. No matter who the QB is, we have to set up the run. With Tyler, we can do that with two back sets, but we can also do that by running very quick, short, combo routes that can get four or five yards - just like a successful run. That will force teams to play more man and will open up things deep. As it is today, our receivers are running too many long, double-move routes, and he doesn't have time to wait on them to develop.
.

ok- we're not going to do that. We are going to run a one-back Spread Option offense. So since we arent going to do any of the things you mentioned- why should we play Russell?

This has been my point of contention the whole time he has been at State. He doesnt fit what we are trying to do. It's not his fault- he just doesnt. We have tried to amend some things with the offense to help him be successful- but that shit hasnt worked. Since Dakota has been starting, we have a different playbook and we look alot better on offense. It's night and day. We have never committed to changing the offense for Russell- so why play him over Dakota now? What will it help?

Defenses would love for us to play Russell. They can stay in a base D, control the run, and hammer our WR's. They don't want to have the headaches a facing our offense with a mobile QB that is getting better everyday- and unlike Relf- can actually throw the ball decently.

[bluelightstar]

Speculation. That's what all of this is. We were one dimensional against Auburn, but I guess you missed that.

We had 213 passing and 202 rushing against Auburn.

[codeDawg]

ok- we're not going to do that. We are going to run a one-back Spread Option offense. So since we arent going to do any of the things you mentioned- why should we play Russell?

This has been my point of contention the whole time he has been at State. He doesnt fit what we are trying to do. It's not his fault- he just doesnt. We have tried to amend some things with the offense to help him be successful- but that shit hasnt worked. Since Dakota has been starting, we have a different playbook and we look alot better on offense. It's night and day. We have never committed to changing the offense for Russell- so why play him over Dakota now? What will it help?

Defenses would love for us to play Russell. They can stay in a base D, control the run, and hammer our WR's. They don't want to have the headaches a facing our offense with a mobile QB that is getting better everyday- and unlike Relf- can actually throw the ball decently.

Completely agree with this. There are things that we can do to make Russell successful, but I don't think that's where our coaching staff's bread is buttered or we would have seen more of the things that work from them by now.

It will be shitty if we play the wrong offense with the wrong quarterback all year out of some sense of obligation. One or the other has to change, and it's a lot easier to change a quarterback when you do have one that fits than an entire offense to fit the guy that doesn't.

[Barking 13]

We had 213 passing and 202 rushing against Auburn.

he meant at the end of the game...

[fishwater99]

Completely agree with this. There are things that we can do to make Russell successful, but I don't think that's where our coaching staff's bread is buttered or we would have seen more of the things that work from them by now.

It will be shitty if we play the wrong offense with the wrong quarterback all year out of some sense of obligation. One or the other has to change, and it's a lot easier to change a quarterback when you do have one that fits than an entire offense to fit the guy that doesn't.

I agree, but Dan has had over 2 years to change his offense for TR and he didn't....

[PMDawg]

11 yard difference, that's the epitome of one dimensional, right?

I hope Dak starts Saturday, I'm interested to see what happens against a defense like LSU. My thought/fear is that our offensive coaches will butt pucker up again and play not to lose. I think with the right gameplan and playcalling we can win this thing. My expectations are, however, muted bc I am tired of Mullen and co. getting my hopes up and then shitting all over them. He's had a habit of putting up stupid numbers vs crappy teams and then turning around and laying eggs in real games. That's why I wonder how much of this is Dak and how much is Mullen gon' Mullen. It was the same with Relf and Russell in 11 and 12, so it's not just a Russell thing. Somebody will point to Auburn, but 20 is the fewest we have scored on them in 3 seasons. This is why I'm not jumping all over the "our offense is fixed" train just yet. Has nothing to do with Russell vs Dak. Has everything to do with Dan and Les.

[bluelightstar]

he meant at the end of the game...

Regardless I think we showed an ability to be two-dimensional with Prescott that we will desperately need -- our 3rd down offense has been miserable under Russell. I don't think Prescott is at the point where playing him will allow us to churn out 45 points a game but I do think playing him allows us to convert on 3rd down and keep scores relatively low like we did in 2010.

[Political Hack]

We had 213 passing and 202 rushing against Auburn.

we threw one ball past the line of scrimmage on 3rd downs in the 2nd half despite multiple 3rd and longs. The staff was scared to let Dak throw, and I'm guessing it was because he was amped up and kept everything high the whole game.

You can look at yards and argue balance, but the fact of the matter is we we're scared to throw the ball downfield on 3rd downs against Auburn. Until we can make those calls, we'll be one dimensional. Dak is close... he's just hasnt proven to me that he's ready to be the only option at QB for us. That doesn'tean I'm not impressed and excited about his future though.

[Coach34]

I agree, but Dan has had over 2 years to change his offense for TR and he didn't....

ok- so what does that tell ya? It tells me damn sure arent going to change it now- especially since it looks good with Prescott running it

[Coach34]

we threw one ball past the line of scrimmage on 3rd downs in the 2nd half despite multiple 3rd and longs. The staff was scared to let Dak throw, and I'm guessing it was because he was amped up and kept everything high the whole game.


This not true. We tried to throw it a few times but our WR's couldnt get away from the press coverage- and Dakota had to tuck the ball because of the rush. Having Tyler in there is not going to help the WR's beat press coverage- they have to get better and more experience. That's just another one of the many reasons having Russell in at this point is a bad idea. Kapernick faced the same thing vs Indy yesterday= his WR's couldnt get away from press coverage- and he had nowhere to go with the ball

And I dont think we will vs LSU. I think we are going to see Dakota take the field and try to win the game with him.

[Political Hack]

one pass attempt that went across the line of scrimmage on 3rd downs in the 2nd half.

One.

[Bubb Rubb]

And I dont think we will vs LSU. I think we are going to see Dakota take the field and try to win the game with him.

You like to talk about what we aren't going to do to help Tyler, and yet you are convinced that they are going to try to open it up with Dak. What have you seen from this coaching staff to make you think we are going to do anything different than we have always done?

Serious question.

[RougeDawg]

Serious question: What do you guys think Tyler does well? All I hear is a bunch of bitching about him holding on the ball, can't run, etc. The guy has been very productive in his time at QB, just not at the RIGHT time (3rd down). What does he do well, and what do you call to play to his strengths if he is in the game?

Just look at the defenses he has been productive against. Yes he had one decent game against an elite defense (LSU last year) but he's been abysmal in every other game against elite defenses. Just watch some commentary or breakdown of offenses that work in today's college football landscape. The analysts on any show have beaten the issue to death. The only way to win with a NFL drop back type passer, is to have an elite OLine full of NFL talent (Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, Etc.). And if you do not have a few potential NFL lineman, you better have a mobile dual threat QB. I think any MSU fan has seen this play out before our very eyes. An immobile QB has been main reason our offense has sputtered against the better defenses. Even Relf, as limited as his passing ability was, had decent success in our offense because he was a threat to run the ball. Let me repeat "We cannot win consistently, against teams better than us, with an immobile drop-back passer. Period.

[codeDawg]

I agree, but Dan has had over 2 years to change his offense for TR and he didn't....

Maybe I didn't say it well, but that was my point. He has not changed the offense effectively for QB, so maybe it's time to change the QB for the offense. Dan has had the chance to "do right by Tyler", but he does not appear to be capable of doing so. Let's go with what works.

[Coach34]

one pass attempt that went across the line of scrimmage on 3rd downs in the 2nd half.

One.

WR's couldn't shake free before the rush got there- Not One

[Coach34]

You like to talk about what we aren't going to do to help Tyler, and yet you are convinced that they are going to try to open it up with Dak. What have you seen from this coaching staff to make you think we are going to do anything different than we have always done?

Serious question.

I think we are going to run the same exact stuff we ran vs Troy.

Things like faking the zone handoff, pulling the frontside Tackle to kick the backside DE out which led to Dakota's 1st TD run untouched.
Things like faking the zone handoff and running the option to the backside.

Those are two plays we cant run with Russell- but they are hard to defend. It's things like this that are making our run game better since we switched QB's. And why I dont think we are going back to the crap we were running before. We're not spending all that time putting in these new plays only to table them and put Russell back in. Not gonna happen

[Political Hack]

Uno.

[CadaverDawg]

I think we are going to run the same exact stuff we ran vs Troy.

Things like faking the zone handoff, pulling the frontside Tackle to kick the backside DE out which led to Dakota's 1st TD run untouched.
Things like faking the zone handoff and running the option to the backside.

Those are two plays we cant run with Russell- but they are hard to defend. It's things like this that are making our run game better since we switched QB's. And why I dont think we are going back to the crap we were running before. We're not spending all that time putting in these new plays only to table them and put Russell back in. Not gonna happen

This is what we SHOULD continue doing. And it's what I HOPE we keep doing. Very tough to defend.

[Coach34]

This is what we SHOULD continue doing. And it's what I HOPE we keep doing. Very tough to defend.

the play in which we pull the playside Tackle to kick the DE is something we stole from Dan Werner and OM. Troy was the 1st time we had run that

[CadaverDawg]

the play in which we pull the playside Tackle to kick the DE is something we stole from Dan Werner and OM. Troy was the 1st time we had run that

That play where we fake the zone read, then fake the option pitch to the opposite side, and the drop back to pass, should help open up the passing game in a major way. Not to mention, it gives the LB's two different fakes they could bite on or at least have to freeze on....which should free up Malcolm and Brandon Hill in the passing game. I liked a lot of what I Saw out of Danny Two Gloves against Troy when it comes to scheme and play calling. If we will continue to be creative on offense like that, we should at least be in the game in the 4th quarter with LSU as long as our D plays the way they have been playing.

As always, it will come down to who can run, who can stop the run, and who commits the most turnovers. I think we CAN potentially beat LSU...but we have to make them pay for every little mistake they make, and not give them free points by missing FG's or turning it over.

[Political Hack]

I think we are going to run the same exact stuff we ran vs Troy.

Things like faking the zone handoff, pulling the frontside Tackle to kick the backside DE out which led to Dakota's 1st TD run untouched.
Things like faking the zone handoff and running the option to the backside.

Those are two plays we cant run with Russell- but they are hard to defend. It's things like this that are making our run game better since we switched QB's. And why I dont think we are going back to the crap we were running before. We're not spending all that time putting in these new plays only to table them and put Russell back in. Not gonna happen

but we are going to waste the entire spring, summer, and fall camp when we were planning for Tyler...

[Todd4State]

If I was the coach at MSU, I would play two QB's regardless- like Troy. Then everyone can be happy.

Again, I don't see why we can't do the same at MSU. It would probably be more effective for us to do that anyone over the long term because of the historical struggles that we have had. If we get a Peyton Manning or a Cam Newton- by all means let them be the lone starter. But in general, I think having a guy that is more of a passer and a guy that is more of a runner could be very beneficial IF it's done correctly.

[chef dixon]

Our offense is not great on 3rd down and REALLY bad in the redzone with Tyler as our QB. These are 2 things we can not afford to suck at when playing LSU. So if we are going to use 2 QB's I think we need to play with these thoughts in mind.

Another thing, I was really hoping that Tyler's movement IN the pocket would get better this year. Sample size is small but it didn't look like it.

[Percho]

Here is the crux of the problem:

Our run-game with Tyler in there is going to look like shit vs any decent teams. Defenses dont have to account for him in the run game. And our OL cant move people around to run the type of run plays needed for Russell. Teams can mix coverages and play more base D due to not being concerned with the run. This also makes it harder for Tyler to throw. And why he struggles so much vs good defenses.

Our run game is better with Dakota in there because he has to be accounted for also. We can be more imaginitive. It also forces most defenses to commit an extra defender to the box to stop it. This helps Dakota in the passing game because he sees more man coverage- less reads for him.

If we cant run the ball- it doesnt matter which QB plays- because we are ****ed regardless. I would rather take my chances that we can run some with Dakota and he can makes some throws vs man coverage- than watch Russell continue to not convert any 3rd downs because we have no run game and passing lanes are crowded.

MHO concerning this. TR could run if he would read and keep the ball when he should. I don't think he wants to. I was late tuning in the OKS game around 930 first quarter. From that point into the second Q several times it appeared to me they were not accounting for him as a runner and he should have kept the ball. Finely at some point in time not sure when he finely kept the ball for about 13 yards. He would not have to do that very often but if he would when the other team is giving it to him it would solve a lot of problems you have when is in the game. I would say if he kept it at the right times he would only have to 5 or 6 times a half.

[hacker]

Uno.

This is dumb as hell. It's not like we had 40 3rd downs in the second half. We had 7. And 4 were passes. And the line of scrimmage qualification seems very arbitrary.

3rd and 4 at MSST 48 Dak Prescott pass incomplete to Joe Morrow.
3rd and 14 at MSST 48 Dak Prescott rush for no gain to the MisSt 48.
3rd and 13 at MSST 6 LaDarius Perkins rush for 12 yards to the MisSt 18.
3rd and 3 at AUB 40 Dak Prescott pass complete to LaDarius Perkins for 1 yard to the Aub 39.
3rd and 13 at AUB 35 Dak Prescott pass incomplete to Jameon Lewis.
3rd and 9 at MSST 21 Dak Prescott pass complete to Jameon Lewis for 8 yards to the MisSt 29.
3rd and 4 at MSST 38 Dak Prescott rush for 2 yards to the MisSt 40.

[CadaverDawg]

This is dumb as hell. It's not like we had 40 3rd downs in the second half. We had 7. And 4 were passes. And the line of scrimmage qualification seems very arbitrary.

3rd and 4 at MSST 48 Dak Prescott pass incomplete to Joe Morrow.
3rd and 14 at MSST 48 Dak Prescott rush for no gain to the MisSt 48.
3rd and 13 at MSST 6 LaDarius Perkins rush for 12 yards to the MisSt 18.
3rd and 3 at AUB 40 Dak Prescott pass complete to LaDarius Perkins for 1 yard to the Aub 39.
3rd and 13 at AUB 35 Dak Prescott pass incomplete to Jameon Lewis.
3rd and 9 at MSST 21 Dak Prescott pass complete to Jameon Lewis for 8 yards to the MisSt 29.
3rd and 4 at MSST 38 Dak Prescott rush for 2 yards to the MisSt 40.

Good stuff.

[Political Hack]

This is dumb as hell. It's not like we had 40 3rd downs in the second half. We had 7. And 4 were passes. And the line of scrimmage qualification seems very arbitrary.

3rd and 4 at MSST 48 Dak Prescott pass incomplete to Joe Morrow.
3rd and 14 at MSST 48 Dak Prescott rush for no gain to the MisSt 48.
3rd and 13 at MSST 6 LaDarius Perkins rush for 12 yards to the MisSt 18.
3rd and 3 at AUB 40 Dak Prescott pass complete to LaDarius Perkins for 1 yard to the Aub 39.
3rd and 13 at AUB 35 Dak Prescott pass incomplete to Jameon Lewis.
3rd and 9 at MSST 21 Dak Prescott pass complete to Jameon Lewis for 8 yards to the MisSt 29.
3rd and 4 at MSST 38 Dak Prescott rush for 2 yards to the MisSt 40.

one. Did you see more?

We didn't covert a 3rd down. That's a problem. You can celebrate it if you'd like, but it better get fixed before we play the rest of our SEC games.