Looking back at last year, it seems like the majority of Motley's TD passes were thrown from outside the pocket, either on designed roll-outs or scramble action. His 3 TD game against NC State really stands out, with two of the three TDs coming on designed roll-outs to the right.
While rolling out to one side, the field is smaller and you are not tasked with moving through multiple progressions.
Through French, it seems like much of Fuente's passing attack is one read only...which supports the idea that, maybe, Motley can do okay in a Fuente offense?
On the other hand, Motley is not the dynamic runner I hoped he would be.
I think Evans will be our guy, but I'm curious to hear any of your thoughts on this.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I'm pretty sure this has been hashed out ad nauseam.
The general two schools of thought are:
1. Motley sucks and should never be allowed at QB ever again
and
2. Motley just needs the right offense to flourish in, and Fuente's just might be it.
It's really all speculation. I do think that Evans will start but I won't be shocked, nor will I be calling for heads, if Motley wins the starting job. I doubt that happens though.
I am really interested to see what this offense looks like and I can't wait until football season. The off-season is long...and tedious.
I think if Mot narrowly "wins" the starting job, he sure as shit won't keep it. Not saying he sucks. I just don't believe he would last long.
If that happens, don't think that Evans or whoever else would do much better if they just lost the position battle to Motley.
Yeah, OR he could confirm what most folks are thinking and take complete command of the starting roll.
If he's going to "take complete command of the starting rol
le" like you suggest, he's going to do it from the start. If Motley starts the season I think it is highly unlikely that he'll lose the job eventually to somebody who will "take complete command" in the sense that I believe you mean.FWIW, I think Evans will start.
^^^^^exactly.
If Motley wins the job and flubs it, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that whoever takes over will be that much better.
If any QB "wins the starting job" and there's a truly better option sitting on the bench (for reasons other than discipline), you have a coaching problem a la Mike London. I know Beamer was guilty of this at times due to his sense of loyalty rather than incompetence, but in the end, no matter the rationale, I think it makes for poor coaching.
What QB do you think was truly the better option that he kept on the bench?
Leal obviously /s
In all seriousness, the example that comes to mind is the LSU game in '07. Glennon struggles all game (not entirely his fault) and Beamer burns Tyrod's redshirt and we have our only TD of the game. I feel like Beamer was trying to honor Glennon by giving him the start and give Tyrod a year to mature, but that game highlighted that Glennon just wasn't going to cut it (or it would seem CFB thought so) and Tyrod lost his redshirt.
I'm not saying this was a staple of Beamer's coaching or anything, just a couple of head scratcher moments.
That situation isn't as cut and dry as you make it seem. If you go back and look, both quarterbacks had lots of ups and downs that season. Tyrod was certainly more talented but watching him play that first season he was definitely raw.
Tyrod was a TRUE Fr and Glennon was also a 4* recruit....he just happened to be a pocket passer who never had a pocket to pass from
He didn't have a strong arm either. IMOP, he was a very overrated 4* recruit.
Stronger than Kellen Moore
That's not really saying much...
Vick redshirted
That was because he honored his agreement he made with the highschool coach.
I think it was more because Beamer always redshirted his freshmen until about 2010
See VTGuitarMan's post below
Tyrod Taylor says Hi
My b, Beamer wanted/tried to redshirt his freshmen until about 2010
That's an asinine reason, and a total shirk of his duties if true.
It's real. Beamer wrote about it extensively in his book. Having a talent like MV7 on his bench killed him at times when the team struggled, but Frank had promised his HS coach and Vick's mother that he would keep him redshirted so he could deal with adjusting to college. He was thinking not about the success of his team or Vick's performance on the field, but his development as a person. Frank wanted to make sure he had a solid foundation in college as his life was changing considerably. His mom and HS coach worried that he wouldn't be able to handle the pressure and flame out. And Frank, as he always did, kept his word.
Yeah...Don't think that redshirt year did the trick for his "development as a person"....
The goal was for him to not buckle under the pressure of QB1, flunk out of college, and ruin his professional prospects. That worked. His personal conduct afterwards is not relevant here (and usually starts a very heated debate on these forums, FWIW).
I'm not going to get all pissy about the downvotes. I'm also going to have to respectfully disagree. His personal conduct is very relevant and I think Beamer did everything possible to steer Vick away from the negative influences and behaviors from the area he grew up in. I don't think Mama Vick's aspirations were simply to keep him from buckling under pressure.
While my sarcasm may have ruffled some feathers, I believe that we, as fans, have to still recognize his behavior after he left since he's still an ambassador to the hokie nation (just like we hope others recognize that he paid for his crimes and is hopefully a reformed individual).
No debate needed
Then I presume you will give equal weight and acknowledgement to his character and actions AFTER his punishment, correct?
Don't get me wrong, I've been a huge advocate of MV7. He did his time and has done and said the right things ever since he got out. He seems to be a great example of how an individual can reform one's self. HOWEVER, I also subscribe to the quote below:
"A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward."
Can't wait to see you on judgment day.
gave you a leg to cancel out the downvote.
Respectfully though I think you're wildly missing the point. To me it really doesn't matter if Vick's character improved or not. It doesn't matter if he actually needed a year to get it together or not. What matters is the man gave his word and he kept it.
That point has always made me respect Beamer more than most. It also makes me even more proud to have gone their and have the Hokies as my team. Because as much as I want to win every championship every year, I believe VT is different than other places. That we should be different. I believe in the blue collar, do your job, honor your commitments and persevere attitude. And I think that blue collar attitude has a lot of character building itself. Maybe it didn't work for Vick, but everyone on that team must have known that he wasn't getting played because of that promise. Maybe it affected other members of the team more positively to know they play for a man of character. Maybe it affected that high school coach and others to know that Beamer really is looking out for their kids.
That to me is the point.
Wish it had worked on MV5. He showed signs of having nearly as high a ceiling as MV7. What a waste of talent.
Worst ever waste of talent in the history of Hokiedom. Ever.
I know it's wrong of me, but I really did like it when MV5 flipped the bird to them at West Virginia. They really deserved it for their conduct that day. :--)
Btw, even though I disagree with the premise, philosophy and interpretation of the quote pertaining with MV7, I did not downleg.
Just my humble opinion, but I think Beamer's influence was an essential factor that helped MV7 to stay out of trouble while he was in college. When he left the shelter of that influence, we all saw what happened.
That said, I don't think MV7 had, has, or ever really had a true thug type mentality. He grew up in a sh*tstorm, Mamma Vick did the best she was capable of, but MV7 came out of that upbringing susceptible to bad influence, made bad choices, and paid a really steep price for those bad choices. I also think MV7 has acquitted himself extremely well since then. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't have the core of a good person deep down.
Marcus on the other hand....***now vomiting a little in mouth at the mention of his name***
Parker or Davis? The only complaint I had for Davis was his unwillingness to block downfield.
FIFY
I've said it once and I will say it again: do not sleep on Brenden Motley.
if only his name was Simmons or Serta instead
You must be a dad.
Mediocre QB outside the pocket, mediocre one in it.
Dude has a cannon and I wouldnt call him mediocore outside the pocket. I just think his pocket presence is really bad and his awareness. He had lots of turnovers that were due to essentially not feeling the rush coming. Thats a hard thing to teach some guys have just got it and others dont
Also playing in Wing T growing up doesn't help developing it either.
2 much contact and a QB gets pocket "deafness" for lack of a better term
JMHO... each QB has his threshold... I think we exceeded Glennon's, Motley's, and Thomas's
looking forward to a new day... though I'd feel more comfortable if I saw professional H-Backs playing the role that seems to be the key to our offense ... either way I think we're going to get some really good QB play and scheming that maximizes talent
You aren't a Redskins fan by any chance are you? Those 2 statement pretty much sum up the RGIII years
Definition of Mediocre:
"of only moderate quality; not very good."
I feel like that is a fairly good descriptor of his abilities at QB. That's not trying to put him down in anyway, just an honest assessment of what I have seen. It isn't the arm strength holding him back, plenty of average QBs have cannon arms. It is the stuff that you can't teach as well that separates the good QBs from the rest; most have "good arms" at this level.
I would even say with spurts of showings between mediocrity and elite
He was ignored mostly by his last QB coach...Fuente's system fits him. He's a very good athlete, and has a good arm. He was inexperienced last year, but he showed flashes of being very good. The deep ball he threw on the run to Ford vs Purdue Brewer never could've thrown. Loeffler's O was very complex especially for a guy who ran a wing T in HS
I think Evans will be our guy. Still love Motley, though. Class act and a true Hokie.
I don't understand this enamored fascination with Mot. I mean sure, he's a great Hokie, and did a serviceable job for Brewer. But beyond that it just looks like pure spec to me.
Everything regarding our QB position is speculation at this point :) Not to mention the secondary, LB corps, and to some extent the RB situation...
I see your mouth moving, but all I hear is "15-0"
where do you see "enamored fascination" with Mot? Cuz I'm not seeing it...Guy asked who it'll be. We've had this discussion. I don't think anyone is enamored with Motley. Most people seem to think Evans will win the starting job. (In fact, if there is any inexplicable enamored fascination, it's towards Evans, not Motley) The difference is that there is a faction of the fanbase who want to see heads roll if Motley wins and there is a different faction who is a little more trusting of the coaches and willing to see what happens regardless of who starts. Heck, at this point, I wouldn't be upset if Josh Jackson wins the starting role. I trust the coaches to put the best guy in the game.
We do tend to get pretty passionate (...vocal) about skill position choices. None more so than QB.
Part of it is that he is a local kid. Fans like that feel good story.
Fuente will give Motley the best chance to build and grow as a qb. I wouldn't mind seeing some plays specifically for him, but Evans will give us the most upside.
No one is talking about Lawson? Jackson will redshirt I imagine.
Think some people were hopeful for him, but Fuente has stated that Motley and Evans have separated themselves from the rest of the QBs.
Kind of a vanilla comment on my part, but I wish Motley the best. If he wins the job, I'll root for him. If he flubs up, I'll be disappointed in the results, but not engage in more personal hating towards him. As long as Fuente keeps him in there, I'll root for him to do well.
Same goes for Evans.
If it becomes apparent the better QB is riding the bench at some point, I'll blame Fuente for that one, and not the player for things not going right.
And if we see the typical, snap the ball, and have rushers on him 2 steps into his drop back, I won't blame the QB for poor performances. How many times have all our QB's for the past 10 years dealt with that? Joe Montana couldn't QB effectively with as bad as our O-line has been. Fact is when our QB's have had time to throw and Stinespring was sending half decent plays calls down to the field, even Glennon did okay.
The difference between good QB play and bad QB play is sometimes really the O-lines performance, RB's picking the right holes to run in, receivers running the right routes, play design and play calling, etc. Let's try to remember that no matter who is in there, the QB performance whether good or bad is also the most glaring indicator of whether everyone else (coaches and players) are performing well or not.
Considering the play of our OL, its not such a bad thing to have a QB who is better outside the pocket than in it
I have a strong feeling with Fuente, that'll change soon enough.
This will be the best OL we've had since, well I'm not sure when...maybe 1999-2000
When does the hype train leave the station?
When Sam Rogers tells it to
That is some well-trained hype.
Motley played solidly at times last year. NC State as an example.
That long TD to Ford was indicative of some good abilities.
And the long non-TD to Ford vs Purdue he threw 60+ in the air on the run
TKP waiting for football season to start:
