So after reading Andy's article, which is another thread so I won't link it here, Beamer said they never intended on redshirting Lawson. So I figured with the multiple threads discussing wether or not to pull his redshirt we could just discuss all the QB talk in one thread. Bottom line he's not redshirting. Was never going to redshirt. Thoughts on how much action and how soon are now the only questions for debate.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Andrew Ford would have a been a nice fit here.
He is probably kicking himself right now. But he might have just not been as good as the current guys and knew it.
Where did he end up going again?
I think JUCO.
Lackawanna.
Not even kidding.
I dunno, Ford was already behind Motley. When Lawson signed, he probably saw the writing on the wall.
I dont think he was going to cut it, just didnt look like he had the arm in practice and spring games.
If that's the plan, we better go balls to the wall with it and play him a lot, if not start him this week. I know Motley was playing against a great team in aOSU, but he was just not accurate throwing the ball, taking bad sacks, making bad decisions, etc... It should never be an excuse that he was not ready to handle all the snaps because that's what his job was as a backup QB. Is Lawson better at this point than Motley? Or will he be within a couple weeks? If the coaches think the answer to that is yes, then Lawson needs to be take the majority of the snaps this Saturday. If not, I don't know why they would waste a redshirt.
Let Motley start. Have Lawson compete with Durkin all week to decide who gets to run with the 1's in the second quarter and the 2's in the third quarter. Loser of that battle runs with the 2's in the 4th.
I just hope we are up enough to let the backups play in the second quarter. I do think we will be able to get teh offense going though. It looked pretty good with Brewer in against OSU, so with a week of practice with Motley, I think we will get back up to speed. I remain optimistic that the season can still be great.
Except we don't have a full week of practice...
They had a package for him vs OSU but didn't put him in, I would imagine we'll see him vs Furman, the only question is how much he'll be in there
I know they say they had a package for him for OSU and I believe that but I really do wonder what it was? I mean we saw Motley come in and run the read option a couple times in the 1st half so that wasn't dwaynes "package" we ran trey off tackle twice in a row from the 3 so that wasn't dwaynes "package" im just really curios as to what his role would have been.
This is exactly what I have been wondering this whole time. How would his package have been different from Motley's? I get the idea of having a wildcat QB that plays a little bit each game, but I don't like the idea of having TWO wildcat QB's along with your main starter.
It appears that Durkin and Motley are similar QB's while Lawson provides the most upside for the passing game. I think we need to just throw Lawson in that game and hope he does a backflip into the end zone on a qb sneak.
A la: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znubTspM440
After Motley's 3rd drive with no points, I was calling for Lawson. Maybe it was smart not playing him vs OSU. I would hate for him to go into that game as his first game, head spinning, and end up getting hurt. That's what we really don't need. As someone else mentioned in another article, the schedule is set up perfect for Lawson right now. Start him saturday. First game is Furman, second being a step up to Purdue and a away game. Third being another step up to ECU and it's also a away game. Bring him back home to start ACC play. The schedule could not be any more perfect for him to start now.
I agree, starting against OSU probably would have been to much, but these three games provide the best opportunities to give Lawson experience in games where he won't need to play perfectly to come away with a win. I think if we do go with Motley, we will be kicking ourselves if Brewer's four weeks creeps closer to eight. I like Motley, but he doesn't seem to be the guy to consistently get out there and win week in and week out.
Agreed sir!
Pump the brakes. What did Motley do that warrents benching him for Lawson? Lets look at the facts:
1. Motley earned the backup spot, not Lawson (otherwise, the depth chart would reflect this)
2. Motley scored! It took 3 drives against one of the top defenses in the country (and top teams). Wow, he must really suck \s
3. In Beamer we trust! (yes, this is a fact)
1. Motley did earn the backup spot, that's true. I just haven't seen anything from Motley yet that makes me think he can consistently win games. He is a great runner, but I haven't seen strong passing skills.
2. He did score, but that pass seemed dangerous. The DB was right there and nearly had a hand on the ball. I think 9 times out of 10 that is knocked away or intercepted. It seemed like the poor decision that led to so many interceptions on Brewer's part last season.
3. In Beamer we trust! If he starts Motley, I will support Motley with every drop of Maroon and Orange blood in my body.
I like Motley, I think he is a talented player who could win us games. Based on my own relatively uninformed observations, I think an experienced Lawson could win us more.
From the south end zone, it seemed like he threw it as poorly as possible while still getting a completion. He could have led the receiver away from the defence but he led him right back to the DB.
That's part of why that pass is a no-no: it's incredibly hard to throw accurately back across your body.
Yep, but when Cardale did it in the first drive of the game nobody seemed to think much of it.
Drop 42 points and 560+ yards on a Bud Foster defense, and any mistakes made will be instantly forgotten.
Has anyone crunched the numbers on how many yards came after the injury? I remember at one point they flashed the graphic that said we had 100 yards in the second quarter and they had like 36. I'm thinking like half of those yards might have come after we essentially abandoned the game.
Not an excuse, I'm just saying, I would really like to know the breakdown of when the yardage really piled up.
They had 312 yds before Brewer's injury, 260 yds after Brewer left the game. They only had 52 yds in the 2nd qtr because of their 2 turnovers.
Okay, so, 312 yards. 75 came on the first drive of the second half. Their first two drives after Brewer went down went for 19 total yards. They racked up 188 yards in the final 15:02 of game time.
32% of their yardage game in the final 25% of the game.
EDIT: math failure, adjusted numbers.
Good info there. In the aftermath we've heard a lot about Ohio State's depth overwhelming our defense, which is true, but it was significantly facilitated by the fact that the offense could no longer achieve first downs and had multiple turnovers that forced the D to stay on the field for most of the second half.
They turned our two turnovers into 14 points. That opened the floodgates.
No excuses. We lost because we couldn't compete without Brewer. But the floodgates still took a while to open even after Brewer went down. If we had put points on the board after the two quick stops the D got after the injury, completely different ballgame.
Everybody else stops listening when the sentence starts with "Yea, well we only lost because..."
The excuse that the weaknesses in the defense were a result of Brewer's injury isn't supported by the game film. That excuse would hold more weight if it had been a 7-point loss, but it was an 18 point loss, and it was more than just that.
This game exposed some weaknesses in the game plan, and possibly in the defense itself. Better to accept that, and to use it to prepare for the rest of the season. You don't get a "do-over" for that particular game.
While it's certainly understandable that losing Brewer affected VT's ability to win, it's just an excuse at this point. The only way you can "prove" that you win is by actually winning the game.
No amount of statistics is going to change that.
Thankfully, I never started a sentence like that.
There's excuses, which I'm not making, and there's analysis. You seem to be dismissing both.
When an analysis includes "because Brewer was out", or "after Brewer went down", as if that were the root cause, it appears to be an excuse to me, as it claims to know the unknowable.
Same with statistics. Statistics show correlation, not causality.
Some relationships can neither be proven nor disproven. That's all I'm saying. I'm not faulting any analysis, and I'm not following any particular person's argument closely enough to be directing the comment at any individual. It just seemed that that's where the statistics might be leading, so I plopped the comment there.
I don't get this. Losing your starting QB is a major change. It's a natural point to look at and say, what happened before this point vs. after it?
If anything, my point was, in the blur of emotions that was the second half of the game, it felt like the sky fell along with Brewer. But the stats don't pan out that way. The big gash in the third quarter came BEFORE Brewer's injury. The two drives following the injury, the defense was dominant. The game actually turned on turnovers, not so much on Brewer's injury. So had we been able to maintain offensive momentum after Brewer went down, who knows what would have happened?
To be clear, I'm not claiming that we would have won with Brewer. That's my completely unempirical hunch, but there's no data to support or disprove it. The data does support the claim that after the offense stalled, the defense continued to hold for two series, then folded starting with the first of two consecutive turnovers.
Going forward, it's a pretty safe bet that means that without support from the offense, this defense might not be enough to carry the team. If anything, this should all be construed more as "we absolutely have to find a way to be productive with whoever replaces Brewer" than it should ever be interpreted as me saying we "should/would have beaten OSU with Brewer."
I agree 100%
I just saw your edit.
Yep. And they racked up 185 yards in the 1st qtr, so 32% of their yardage came in the first 25% of game time too.
I don't think motley will be "benched" but IMO all 3 QBs should see significant PT over the next two weeks against extremely weak opponents. Motley looked lost out there and even on the TD play it took him getting rattled and outside of the pocket to get that pass off.
Glennon phrased it well at the Spring Game. Motley doesn't do a good job of taking was the defense gives him. I know he hasn't started yet, but it has now been 3 years of that. Lawson might not be as good as Motley right now, but his upside is so much better I think it is smart to get him ready. This all makes Brewer going down such a shame though. He was playing great.
Having all three QBs see significant playing time over the next few weeks is a bad idea in my opinion, even if it is Furman and Purdue. Let 1 guy take the majority of the snaps, and try to get him in a rhythm. If all three split the snaps 33% it will be hard to see who can develop the best rhythm with the offense.
In my opinion, Lawson should get the most playing time with Motley backing him up. UNLESS Motley (or any of the QBs for that matter) catches fire this (short) week in practice.
I've got to believe the coaches have seen these quarterbacks play, and have an opinion.
They've announced that Motley is the guy. That means he's the guy.
I think Motley is a fine QB and deserves a shot. I think most of the "play the new guy" clamoring is based on our history with Randall and Taylor. Both ended up being great, but both also were very raw when the calls from the stands started.
I expect to hear stand calls for Lawson before these next three weeks are over. I'd be happy if I don't.
^^This. I think most people remember Tyrod's last 2 years and forget his first 2 which were a struggle.
You left off the fact that Motley scored when OSU knew he would have to pass.
Its even easier for a defense if they can disregard the run game, stunt and blitz your line and drop the rest into coverage because of the late-game situation. The situation Motley scored the touchdown was even more impressive considering OSU the context.
he did sidestep an unblocked LB then rolled out and threw a mediocre pass that somehow founds its way to ford.
Give him credit for the escape-ability yes and to keep his head downfield yes the throw could have been crisper but hey the last drive left me with a encouraged feeling. IMO we will see more I formation against Furman than we have ever seen in the past few years
I would argue that brewer didn't look "crisp" by any means. had he under threw ford on 2 deep passes (although one was called back for a hold) and threw behind malleck who made a heck of a catch from his back side and behind bucky on a drive that cost us points. I know losing brewer hurt but its ALL being based of what he did in the 1st half against OSU. how easily we forget what happened to brewer after OSU last year. I think motley will do just fine. IMO the 2 tds brewer through for were more play calling than anything brewer did specifically.
Except he was going against their backups and it was a poor decision to throw late over the middle.
Yeah, but Ford was so wide open, I would have been more pissed if he didn't throw that, even as late as it was. Not saying he should make a habit out of that, but when a guy is all alone like that, throw him the ball. It was a heck of a throw too.
I would have preferred he throw it to Phillips. Once Mot looked at Ford, the corner came crashing that way and left Phillips even more open than Ford was. The best thing to have done would be look at Ford to look the corner off, then come back to Phillips on the edge where it is a much safer throw than lobbing one late over the middle. I think he got lucky as hell.
Maybe so, but Ford was so wide open, even that corner crashing hard (I saw it from the North end zone) couldn't get there in time. Late over the middle is always a no-no, but if you're ever gonna get away with it, it's when your receiver is in the end zone without anyone within 15 yards of him.
Bottom Line. The lateness of the throw is the issue.
Motley has to go through his progressions quicker and with more assurance in his mind. Period.
The solution there is simple: play calling. One to two reads in the progression maximum. Primary target, check down, tuck and run on every pass play. Risk of injury? Yes. But that's the game Motley plays. He'll never be Brewer.
Want him to make his reads faster? Give him fewer reads.
That was a broken play anyways, but it looked like it was supposed to be just that. I really don't think Ford was going to be the third or fourth read there, Mot just had a guy in his face and did a good job extending the play.
I don't think it was a broken play, I just think Motley had to run away from pressure. I think it was a safety read to either Ford or Phillips from the start.
Lots of that kind of pass play, with a check down to Malleck or Rogers, and always the option to get whatever he can with his legs if all else fails. That's the recipe for success with Motley.
I think that was mots biggest issue. not on that throw but one earlier that he threw ford out of bounds on an out route, ford was open FOREVERRRRR and the throw was really late Isaiah did a great job of trying to get his feet in but it was to no avail. that play really stood out to me though as mot just taking WAY to long to go through his progressions.
We through Tyrod into the LSU game and burned his red-shirt and I think he turned out pretty good. I would have put him the game, so he can get a feel of how the big boys play. He would be my starter agianst Furman. He needs to get up to speed sooner than later.
I was just looking up the stats on Tyrod, and it's still heartening to see how he turned that corner once he became the full-time starter as a Junior. Went from 7 TD's and 10 INT's in those first two years to 37 and 10 the last two.
Not a prediction on Lawson at all. Just reminiscing. :)
You're making me tear up a little bit. What I would do to have that guy back right now... You're also making me drool over the possibilities of Lawson with this talented roster.
I think by the time Tyrod got onto the field, LSU had put in their second string. Tyrod turned out to be amazing, but at the same time, wasn't he was also the backup to Sean Glennon?
I have little worry about Motley. He hasn't taken 1st team reps in a while. He'll do it this week, he'll get that chemistry with the OL/receivers, and over the course of a few weeks, he'll look like a serviceable starting QB.
All this doom and gloom is no fun. Its how you get through the offseason as a redskins fan (pretend that everything will get better)
But that's exactly what I don't want, a "serviceable" QB. We need someone who can actually go out there and make some plays. We've been mediocre the last few years because we haven't been good on offense. Yes our defense is good enough to keep us in every single game we play, but we can't expect our defense to score the points for us as well.
^Agree... The stout D will keep us in games. We we can't rely on the D to be what they should be when the O consistently can't move the ball because of a 'serviceable' QB. Several of the 2nd half scoring drives on Monday came off VT drives that never moved and gave OSU solid field position.
That compromises the D and puts them in a bad spot, not to mention wearing them out. Then we get the folks who start blaming the D for giving up too many points...
We should roll with whoever comes in and proves they can move the sticks. If they can do that, the points will come.
Lefty will put in the QB that will poise us to win that particular game. Thats what it comes down to. The BEST QB. TRUST ME, I want to see Lawson hit the field, and live up to all the hype we've given him. The coaches are consistent - put the best players (right now) on the field. Thats how you keep positions battles going: motivation. If coaches start putting in people based on "potential" vs what they've seen in practice, then I think it hurts team chemistry.
I'll reiterate: as a fan, I'd love to see Lawson start and kick some Furman butt
After seeing what they said about Motely I'm sure they have all the confidence that he can lead the team. However I bet we see Lawson's playing time increase each week, providing he performs of course. If he excels he may take over the job by mid season. Excited either way.
I expect it to be closer to the Glennon/Tyrod scenario year 1 (2007), where Motley plays some, Lawson plays some, and they go back and forth. A healthy Brewer would have done that with Motley coming in at points in the game. Lefty said it last year, with the schedule we have, we need a 1A and 1B at QB.
I'm fine with Lawson getting some playing time, but if he's playing well, we could be looking at a QB controversy when Brewer gets back. That is what I don't want to see.
Brewer was outstanding Monday night. Any QB controversy will be purely in the minds of a select group of fans... Probably the same group that wanted Leal to start.
If we move Lawson or Durkin to starter in the coming weeks and are X-1 with when Brewer returns after X weeks, I think the controversy would be pretty real. I'd also be pretty happy to see us in that position.
Any bad losses before then, and Brewer has my nod.
I wouldn't hold your breath on Brewer coming back, unfortunately. Just too much time between now and then, and it'll be even longer for him to get into game shape again, even if everything goes well.
Absolutely. That's why I used an X instead of even a range. Just no way of knowing. :(
Isn't that always the case, except with a HC who is so unsure of himself that he feels he has to please someone else?
There will be no "controversy." If Frank Beamer says Brewer is the starter, Brewer is the starter. If he says Lawson won the job while Brewer was rehabbing, Lawson will be the starter. There will be arguments among the fans and the talking heads and the radio personalities, but isn't there always?
*sigh* that's the point, yes.
Brewer played very well against OSU, if any other QB on the roster can play close enough to that level then I'll tolerate a month long QB controversy if and when Brewer returns
If Lawson plays well and continues to improve his game, there will be/should be no controversy. They will keep playing Lawson, continuing his growth. No need to put Brewer back in being his senior season this year, if Lawson shows promise. Now if he doesn't/signs of struggle, then sure, put brewer back in.
Guys, let's be clear about one thing here: Motley was not put in a position to succeed against OSU. To come in losing to the best team in the country is not a spot from which we should judge his abilities as a QB. Now, there's a reason Brewer is the starter, but seeing so many people express a lack of confidence in Mot because of Monday is just silly to me. He may not light the world on fire, but it's hard to believe he won't be much better when he isn't thrust into that situation. Personally, I'm hoping for big things from Lawson, but at this point things are very much feast or famine for him. I thought Loeffler more than earned his money as an OC on Monday (anyone who thought he didn't call a good game up until Brewer got hurt is fooling themselves), now it's time for him to earn his money as a QB coach.
So far we have seen such a limited playbook for Mot on-field. He was used exclusively as a wildcat vs. uVA last year, and even in spots against aOSU (prior to the injury), the same. Even when they did allow him to throw, he flung one downfield into triple coverage and gift-wrapped a pick. Granted, yes, it was against an excellent D, but I would have like to have seen him get into a rhythm and feel of the D with quick hits and or screens before chucking one downfield. He very well may be a capable passer, but that has yet to be seen in a game situation. (Didn't see the late TD live, but from what I saw on the replay, it wasn't a great throw, but a good end result).
Let's see what Mot can do through the air vs. Furman. I don't think it's beyond expectations to see AT LEAST 200+ yds with 1-3 TDs and <2 ints.
If he isn't able to produce solid numbers and effectively move the ball vs. Furman, then how is he going to move the ball vs. the rest of the schedule??
I am all for giving him a shot to prove himself, I think he's earned it. But with that said, he doesn't deserve a long leash.
Nothing has been seen of Durkin outside practice and spring game, so I think he deserves QB2 unless DL2 overtakes him in practice this week.
DL2 is raw, I'm sure, but I'd be willing to guess the only reason he hasn't overtaken Mot is his grasp of the offense to a starting level. If the RS is definitely off the table, based on this post, then why not have a package for him this week to see what he's capable of when the lights come on?
I agree with you on pretty much everything except I don't expect Mot to throw for over 200 against Furman. Simply because all 3 QB's will be getting PT and I think we will be running the ball heavily. For him to reach 200, there would have to be a couple deep PA bombs. I don't see us going out there and throwing the ball all over the field.
Good point, provided that they do give all 3 an opportunity. What if Mot comes in with a good rhythm and is moving the ball consistently? Do we still throw Durk or DL2 in 'just because'?
With all the hype surrounding DL2, I am just as curious what Durk is capable of.
Somebody has to come in a prove we can move the ball through the air. Otherwise we're going to see stacked lines and D's that dare us to prove otherwise the rest of the way.
With the high possibility of the R word on Sat., you're right, I would fully expect a run heavy attack.
On a light hearted note, let's flip a coin in the huddle prior to each possession to see who gets to run out there. By now, they should all be able to run plays, so it shouldn't matter. If you score, then you earn another series. VT QB BINGO!
For at least this game, I would say yes to playing all three 'just because'. If Motley does light it up to start, who's to say that either DL2 or Durk wouldn't do the same? So yeah I would guess for at least this game, all 3 play and then evaluate the film and pick your guy. Next week at Purdue it should definitely only be one guy.
If Mot & Durk can play their roles within Lefty's offense, and ESPECIALLY if they light it up against competition they should light it up against, no way I'd burn Lawson's shirt.
Let's face it -- a VT QB lighting it up against any competition comes few and far between. Blame it on personnel, on coaching, on whatever. Far too often we've watched our QB's, first string included, stink it up against a sub-par defense.
If Mot or Durk stink it up this weekend, then I'd be open to seeing Lawson. At that point I'd be on the nothing to really lose bandwagon.
if 1 of those two can accurately throw the ball we will be just fine.. IMO we could see an uptick with the wildcat due to durkin being a completely different runner than motley is.
Lawson will play early. Redshirt is pretty much out the window right now.
Agreed
Assuming Mot doesn't completely tank it, I say he should get every quality snap he can at game speed leading up to conference play.
If I were Beamer, I'd look to run as much of the playbook you expect Mot to be able to master, and don't shy away from running up the score. Apologize to the other coach after the game, and just let him know that circumstances required we maximize the reps for our new QB.
I just don't see much benefit at this point in burning a shirt, regardless of what the coaches say today.
Now. If Lawson's light turns on this week in practice, and there's no discernible dropoff from Mot or Durk to him, I'd be more open to it.
But nothing I've heard so far suggest he's ready to manage a game.
But they were never going to redshirt Lawson. They had a package for him against OSU. I'm it depended on the right situation and all but they had a plan to play him. Now that he's basically tied for 2d string until otherwise proven he should get to the field even quicker. There is no discussion of burning his redshirt or not because they plan on playing him. Only question is when and how much.
I don't mean to discount your opinion, but if Lawson had a package and was going to play while we had a healthy Brewer, then he will definitely play now.
idk if i buy Lawson had a package for OSU.. what would that have looked like.. considering motley is wildcat was Lawson going to be be that package but with a throw or two??
If I had to guess, it'd be some sort of option or designed QB run.
There's also always a package in case of "every QB just broke their collarbones."
Most every player that isn't the starter has a package.
Durk has one, and had one last year as well. He didn't play.
I know I know... Lawson is a 4-star yada yada. And I believe the hype. I'm just a bit skeptical given what we've seen & heard that he wouldn't be a liability at this time.
We'll see. Maybe the light turns on early and we can't keep him off the field. If so, great. Maybe Motley & Durking stink it up so bad that we have no other choice. But if I'm coach, and especially as a fan, I'm not basing that decision on spot duty last year & the trial by fire this past Monday.
But everything I've got to go on now tells me we should leave the 'shirt on.
You should definitely leave your shirt on. Unless that's you in your avatar.
It's been incredibly hard to avoid typing the word, "shirtless" in this thread.
Careful, we don't want Harbaugh to show up.
What are you talking about???
This was going to be the case no matter what.
I'm sure there will be a package for him. Beamer stated they had a package for him for OSU. I just think that they were looking for certain conditions and once Brewer was hurt they didn't get to where they wanted to play that package. I would be surprised to not see him this weekend. If he doesn't get in the game this weekend I'd have to believe that it's to get Motely as many in game reps as they can before ACC play begins.
I think something that a lot of people are overlooking is the fact that Durkin might be listed ahead of Lawson n the depth chart (Durkin OR Lawson) if they had a package for Lawson for the first game I believe that gives him the advantage.
THIS... just listen for a few seconds.
Durkin is a big boy 6'4 222lbs he has a huge arm.. can he be accurate?? If so this is where I think we will land. Durkin might not be the quickest but he has some shake and like we saw with Cardale its tough to bring down a big boy. Perfect for our zone reads where he will be giving out the punishment not taking the punishment.
With Durkin we could probably stretch the field even more than we do now and that would be huge for VT as we have 3-5 skill guys that could break out.
What Mason said above is some good stuff about Durk. Put him behind our improved O line and he has the arm strength to make all the throw.. accuracy would be a worry but who knows.
The hype train only runs on Hokies!
This makes me excited to see Durk more than Lawson. Logan was a beast and I'd be happy seeing that style of qb again. Hoping that Mot does well, as a local kid mostly. But it all comes down who is best to lead us while Brewer is out. Sending wishes of a speedy recovery to that kid.
This is great news, it means that the best QB will play. In 1998 when we went through this, Vick wasn't even on the table. So you had Sorensen starting four games (and coming in in the 4th QTR of the UVA game with us down 4 points).
Now, if Lawson is better than Motley, he'll play. That's all you can ask for.
Absolutely. I'll never forget sitting there watching the Temple game as Sorensen played QB while Michael Vick stood in full uniform on the sideline.
I just want to see us win games. If we have to put Sam Rogers at QB, as long as we win. He was a HS QB I believe. Haha
The major downside of Sam at QB is that he's not catching passes.
If there's ever a QB who could catch his own passes, it's Sam Rogers.
Sam Rogers once thru a 60 yard TD pass to himself. It was so incredible that the cameras taping spontaneously combusted, along with the only few eye withnesses. I also tell you this tale at the risk of combustion myself.
And, Poof!
He had the longest run and the longest pass reception vs OSU.
the one thing that worries me most about Mot is how indecisive he looked dropping back on monday. He held the ball for a long time, which let to sacks/hurries/bad things.
I say pick the one who is the most decisive, let him learn and take his lumps, and hope for the best
Why does everyone have such little faith in Mot? Everyone has become a QB expert after watching him play less than 1 half of football. 1 half of football in which he was thrown to the wolves, down in the game, against the best team in the country.
Not only that, everyone wants Lawson to play. We just found out that Beamer wasn't intending to redshirt Lawson yet, so him being #3 on the depth chart means the coaches think he is the 3rd best quarterback on this team right now (before brewer injury).
Let's have a little faith in Motley and stop calling for the "Prodigy" to be thrown into the mix just to do it.
I have some - just not a lot. I feel like I've seen what he can do. I like his mobility, but seeing the field and delivering a strike will present challenges.
I mean, after watching what he did Monday, it is concerning but I am not going to put all my eggs in that basket on judging his play. Now if he comes out against Furman, gets sacked a lot due to holding the ball long, throws multiple picks, etc, THEN I will absolutely be worried. But right now, I feel like people are bashing him and his play before even seeing what he can do.
The poor guy was put in the worst spot. We were doing well with Brewer, then all that hope was snatched away and Motley got thrown into the shark tank. The optics of the situation are just tough for him. Losing Brewer is going to hurt, but I do have hope that Motley's athleticism will help us hold on.
I just wonder if the same people calling for Lawson to play are going to call for Frank/Loeffler's head if we play him, he plays like a true freshman typically does (i.e., not well), we lose a bunch of games, etc.
Does playing Lawson "because he's supposed to be the man next year" excuse any and all performance on the field this year? I'd rather see us try and play whoever gives us the best chance to win now. Sitting on the bench/in meeting rooms doesn't exactly harm a young QBs development (e.g., Aaron Rodgers, anyone?)...
I'm a future kind of guy. Play the QB that gives you the best chance of being good for years. Like when the Packers went with Rodgers even though Favre wanted to come back. Is it a gamble? Yes. But it does make more sense to me to develop the QB of the future instead of starting the guy that might win one or two more game for us this year
I can't imagine we see 3 QBs this week. That is not Frank's style to switch QBs. He barely did it last year with Brewer struggling with injuries. If Lawson beats out Durkin for the #2 then we see him. But it sounds like Lawson has not done that yet.
Except it's our FCS game. Yeah, any of the QBs could use the playing time, but this is the best time to get looks at everyone.
Now, if we're in a position where the starter needs to stay in because the score is too close, we might have problems.
Yup. If our game against Furman goes how a game against an FCS team should go (please dear god let this game go how a game against an FCS team should go), then we will probably see a second quarterback play in the game coming up this weekend. The only question left is which one will it be.
If it's a close game, then, naturally, you stick with the guy that gives you the best chance to win. But if it gets a little lopsided, then it's only sporting to pull your starter.
Could Lawson play a quarter or two this week and keep the redshirt if that is all he plays or is the shirt burned with just one play?
One snap and POOF, gone.
If they play him, plz give him as much of the year as possible.
Don't "waste" a yr of eligibility with a few appearances.
W/in 2-3 games he should start and get all those 1st team practice reps.
In all honesty, this upcoming game might be the most entertaining one of the year in that we finally get to see the other talent in action that Loeffler has recruited.
Agreed. I want to see Lawson and McMillan together; they are our future.
It's always not best to throw a young, inexperienced quarterback into the fire. I'm not gonna pretend like I've seen Lawson or Durkin play live; I've only seen a highlight tape and I could make Uncle Rico look like Andrew Luck with one of them. So, I'm not gonna speculate on to why the depth chart is as it is. It's clear from Brewer's play that he was far and wide the best quarterback we had.
As a coach, not that I have experience (more so common sense), you have to put your players into a situation where they can succeed. That was never gonna happen regardless of the QB we threw out there. Motley obviously know the playbook, and showed he could move the ball a little on the drive that ended in a fumble that really turned the game.
I've never been particularly sold on Motley. I love quarterbacks who can run, but he's more of the Logan Thomas power run, than a Tyrod Taylor elusive run. Let's see if he can move the sticks against Furman. If so, I'll be thrilled for him. I'd also like to see Durkin and Lawson live. I'm intrigued by both of them. Durkin for his Tebow-like frame and wildcat ability. Lawson because he's a massive frame and has been anointed savior of TKP message boards. Awaiting to see if the prophecy has some merit.
Either way, I'm behind whatever QB it is. It ain't a great situation, but it'll be interesting.
This is gold.
Has anybody else watched the Youngstown Boys 30for30? If not I suggest watching it, as with all of those its great. There's a line by Maurice Clarett talking about his first game against Texas Tech. The first couple drives nothing, then he busts one to the house.
"Keep making big plays and they can't take you out". Why do I want tomorrow to be an audition for the starting job? I feel like whoever comes out and plays lime a P5 starting QB will be a a P5 starting QB.