Pasqualoni said one thing does another.

[gabect]

As said many times before, nothing is ever as good as it seems, and nothing is ever as bad as it seems, when you get to the point of breaking down what actually happened in a football game.

Agreed... on that last drive though, the entire stadium expected another score no matter how many near-picks Johhny threw. The 4th quarter both offenses were on fire, unfortunately one defense made play and the other didn't.

 

[freescooter]

Pasqualoni is the one who said he would choose based on production -not me- the head coach. Then a QB goes out, doesn't produce and he leaves him in. That is saying one thing and doing another.

Whether Nebrich would have done better (or worse) misses the point. He rewarded one QBs lack of production. He didn't give another QB the chance to show if he could produce.

I find that an odd way to make a choice if it was to be based on production. And if he was judging it on "practice" production (huh?). That obviously didn't translate to games.

So is this what you think Pasqualoni should have done at quarterback? Taken an unproven true freshman who had apparetnly not performed as well in practice, nor as well in his admittedly limited game opportunities and given him the starting job? Or shoudl he have taken a clearly one-dimentional quarterback and used him? And if we assume that the coach wasn't just pretending that Shoemate and Hippolyte were injured, who should he have used to replace McCombs? The guy that started the season #4 on the depth chart? And what do you consider "not producing?" for a running back who has 3 100 yard games and 5 tds?

 

[mattp]

Pasqualoni is the one who said he would choose based on production -not me- the head coach. Then a QB goes out, doesn't produce and he leaves him in. That is saying one thing and doing another.

Whether Nebrich would have done better (or worse) misses the point. He rewarded one QBs lack of production. He didn't give another QB the chance to show if he could produce.

I find that an odd way to make a choice if it was to be based on production. And if he was judging it on "practice" production (huh?). That obviously didn't translate to games.

the fallacy is in your first line. he said he'd put in the player that was most productive. we all agree there. just because McEntee didn't produce to your liking doesn't mean he wasn't the most productive, and evidently he was. he gave the other QBs time in practice and, he did give him time in games.

personally i would have liked to see Nebrich start against Buffalo, but i didn't see him in practice all year so i don't know if he earned it or not. none of us did. for some reason you seem to think you know better than the coaches, players, and even Nebrich himself, who said he wasn't ready (not sure where i read the last part, i'd seen it mentioned a couple of times, and if it's not true feel free to correct me).

 

[mattp]

You really should spend more time watching football and less watching football press conferences. You might find it more fun.

that's the part that i don't get. some people here analyze every word spoken by a coach as if it's a carefully worded contract. it was unbelieveable to me that so many people made such a big deal out of P's claim that he would play the most productive QB. every coach says they'll put in the most productive players. i had to watch about 2-3 press conferences before i realized it's pretty much the same canned B-S every time. for anyone to spend more than a minute analyzing it is a waste of your time. do you also get excited when players say they'll give 100%? wow, now they're really trying.

 

[freescooter]

Ok, so we should just pretend it didn't happen since there is no stat category for it. Gotchya.

There's no stat category for missed assignments, broken plays, missed tackles, or missed blocks. I wonder if the coaches go over that stuff in film study or if they just say that stuff "happens in the game of football".

/sarcasm

Of course those things get reviewed. But that isn't the same as arguing it would have cost us the game. Sure it might have, but what happened is what happened. In a close football game there are probably a couple of dozen plays that might have changed the outcome. If Moore doesn't get flagged for roughing on 3rd and long, maybe we get the ball back and score. If the WMU saftey hangs onto the ball, maybe they win. If their punt returner simply gets out of the way, maybe they have an insurmountable lead. If the Tight end secures the ball, maybe we score and pull it out. If Teggart hits the first field goal, maybe we have momentum and pull away...and those are only the obvious ones I can think of...But plays happen as they happen. Moore did get flagged. The saftey dropped a pass, the return man didn't get out of the way, the tight end got stripped, the field goal kicker missed. Any one of those plays MIGHT have changed the outcome if it played out differently. But none of them did. And the outcome was what it was.

 

[BlueMAB]

Of course those things get reviewed. But that isn't the same as arguing it would have cost us the game. Sure it might have, but what happened is what happened. In a close football game there are probably a couple of dozen plays that might have changed the outcome. If Moore doesn't get flagged for roughing on 3rd and long, maybe we get the ball back and score. If the WMU saftey hangs onto the ball, maybe they win. If their punt returner simply gets out of the way, maybe they have an insurmountable lead. If the Tight end secures the ball, maybe we score and pull it out. If Teggart hits the first field goal, maybe we have momentum and pull away...and those are only the obvious ones I can think of...But plays happen as they happen. Moore did get flagged. The saftey dropped a pass, the return man didn't get out of the way, the tight end got stripped, the field goal kicker missed. Any one of those plays MIGHT have changed the outcome if it played out differently. But none of them did. And the outcome was what it was.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what the other poster and I were discussing.