Silver's Synopsis on UConn QB's

[UConnDan97]

Scholly 1. Whitmer: Starter, courageous kid, but knocked out of TWO GAMES with head injuries. not good. this is quality, but fragile quality.
Scholly 2. Cochran: Zero experience, zero production, very mixed reports from practice. deer in headlights spring game, missed half a year of practice with an injury. basically, we have zero idea what he is, at all. and he's our #2 most likely.
Scholly 3. Richard Lagow: True Frosh, looks like a good prospect but who knows? our trend with freshman quarterbacks is pretty terrible. And we would like to keep the redshirt on him.
_______________
Scholly 4: Scott McCummings: Proven that he cannot throw the ball, and that his limited wildcat packages are somewhere between inconsistent and consistently terrible.

My point being this: You say that this might be the most quality depth we've ever had at the position, ok. Where is the quality? At least with Frazer/Endres we knew we had two guys who could lead a team to victory. I'm optimistic about the future with Lagow/Cochran, but we have exactly zero idea whether the constitute "quality depth".

If Whitmer goes down, we are down to either full=time wildcat(unlikely) or a freshman qb who has zero snaps under their belt.

hard for me to call that quality depth.

First, your characterization of Whitmer being "fragile quality" is ridiculous, really. The guy got hit more than Frazier against Ali, and he STILL played in every game.

Second, Cochran has not seen a real game, granted. But he has had more than a year to learn the system and he looked decent in the Spring Game last year. We'll get to have another look at him in the Spring Game this year, as well as the fact that he will be running the second team offense every day in practice.

Third, Lagow is a true freshman, and it is difficult to expect anything out of him. In fact, they would like not to have to, so that they can properly redshirt him.

Fourth, you and I agree on the prospects of McCummings and his inability to throw. But he is plenty "game-ready", and if it came down to it, he would be good to go.

The combination of Frazer and Endres was very good, and was the most proven talent that we've had at that position at the same time, but there was no depth with Box. I'm sure we all remember the Louisville game, right? This is the most depth that we've had at the position, in terms of scholarship QB's, even if some of the quality has yet to be proven...

 

[freescooter]

QB depth will continue to be a concern IMO. Whitmer and Cochran, and I assume Lagow redshirts. I have zero confidence in McCummings playing full time QB if it comes to it.

That's true but...it is also true of 75% of college teams out there and probably 85% of the NFL for that matter. In this day and age, if a guy doesn't think he'll be a starter by his sophomore year, you often see him transfer either to another D1 program or an FCS program where he can start right away. the result is most quarterbacks are backed up by either inexperienced freshmen, or guys with lesser amounts of talent. If, and its a big if, I think, McCummings could develop some skill as a passer, he's be a huge asset to have as the backup.

 

[bmayuc]

First, your characterization of Whitmer being "fragile quality" is ridiculous, really. The guy got hit more than Frazier against Ali, and he STILL played in every game.

Second, Cochran has not seen a real game, granted. But he has had more than a year to learn the system and he looked decent in the Spring Game last year. We'll get to have another look at him in the Spring Game this year, as well as the fact that he will be running the second team offense every day in practice.

Third, Lagow is a true freshman, and it is difficult to expect anything out of him. In fact, they would like not to have to, so that they can properly redshirt him.

Fourth, you and I agree on the prospects of McCummings and his inability to throw. But he is plenty "game-ready", and if it came down to it, he would be good to go.

The combination of Frazer and Endres was very good, and was the most proven talent that we've had at that position at the same time, but there was no depth with Box. I'm sure we all remember the Louisville game, right? This is the most depth that we've had at the position, in terms of scholarship QB's, even if some of the quality has yet to be proven...

1. You would not call getting knocked out of two games a tenuous situation for our QB? It doesn't matter that he got hit alot. In fact, it is a huge problem that he got hit that much and was knocked from the game. That is not a point in your favor in this argument.
2. How can you say it is quality depth if you concede that we have yet to see them perform? Your categorization of Cochran in the Spring game as decent is intereting: 5-14, 38 yards. I consider that pretty bad.

Look I'm not trying to be negative, but its certainly a HUGE area of concern. I hope Cochran comes out blazing in the Spring game, but given the performance of the OLine the past two years, I can't say I am very confident...

 

[Husky25]

1. Freak occurence or not, it illustrates the danger of having poor depth at the QB spot and at very least puts question marks on his durability. We are not talking about a minor injury

Severity of the injury should not factor into one's injury proneness (is that a word?) as much as Occurance/Reoccurance/Reaggrevation. If Cochran were to fall off his bike again this year or reagrevate the injury, then they would have to re-assess (Even if that did occur, I'd call him accident prone). Broken wrists tend not to reoccur once FULLY healed and protected. Though I will certainly agree with your Whitmer assessment below, . 2 head injuries in 8 day's time may be something to worry about.

2. Coach P stated plainly that he would not have been able to play, period, had he been needed until november timeframe. So who cares whether his arm "was in throwing shape". He couldn't participate.

You missed the point here. The injury was to his non-throwing arm, so he presumably lost minimal range of motion and maintained his strength with other exercises. Had the injury occurred to the right wrist, ROM and strength would have to be rebuilt over time. Just because he's not going through drills in practice, does not mean he's completely separated from the team. Besides, the third string QB, redshirt or not, typically gets very few non-scout team reps, where the reads are different. Re: games, the plan was to redshirt regardless of injury. However, he was still on the sideline, where he is presumably listening to the play calls and doing mental reps.

3. There absolutely is more to the game that physical. However, you have to be physically able to play. You could have Tom Brady's mental game, but if you just had surgery on your wrist you are not going to be on the field. not sure what this even means.

See above.
See also: Rogers, Aaron; 2005-2007.
See Also: Brady, Tom; 2000.

4. He played in last year's spring game. Terribly. I hope he does great. but in terms of what he has showed, the answer is very, very little. And he's #2 on the depth chart behind a guy with a history of head injuries. scary.

Yeah, he wasn't that good. On the other hand, he will have had a full year in the offense by April 2013, whether it's through observation or otherwise. It's not like the kid was on a religious mission or somewhere with no exposure to the game. I'm willing to give Cochran the benefit of the doubt and I'm not willing to call him injury prone.

At this point, it doesn't matter who the QB is. If the offensive line play and play calling doesn't improve, they will all get an opportunity...

 

[Husky25]

When talking about depth I was thinking back to the Frazer/Endres/Box rotation. That year was plagued with issues at the QB position and having 3 scholarship QB's got them through it. Right now you're looking at two scholarship QB's and a wildcat specialist. If you get one QB injured to where he can't start this means you'll have one QB and the wildcat QB. That's one hard hit away from having to burn a redshirt. This is what I mean by a concern about depth. Not bitching, a concern. And I think the redshirt is important. This helps to build depth at a position.

By definition, UConn does not run a Wildcat.

I also don't understand the comment about the coaching staff making McCummings damaged goods. SM came in under the prior staff and I've yet to see much accuracy displayed in his passing whether it was with the old staff or the current one.

You say it yourself...McCummings threw about three times the entire season. The coach's lack of confidence in the kid's throwing ability leads directly to the kid's lack of self-confidence in his throwing ability. Also, a 95% designed run rate = reduction in ability to read defenses when called upon to do so. They should move him to wide out ala D.J. Hernandez and Koren Henry. That way McCummings will at least be on the field already and the PA announcer won't tell the other team that UConn's more mobile backup is coming in for a designed off tackle run.

 

[UConnDan97]

1. You would not call getting knocked out of two games a tenuous situation for our QB? It doesn't matter that he got hit alot. In fact, it is a huge problem that he got hit that much and was knocked from the game. That is not a point in your favor in this argument.
2. How can you say it is quality depth if you concede that we have yet to see them perform? Your categorization of Cochran in the Spring game as decent is intereting: 5-14, 38 yards. I consider that pretty bad.

Look I'm not trying to be negative, but its certainly a HUGE area of concern. I hope Cochran comes out blazing in the Spring game, but given the performance of the OLine the past two years, I can't say I am very confident...

I don't know what else to tell you, other than the fact that Whitmer has already shown he is plenty tough. You trying to make it anything else is just silly. In the event that he has to be replaced, Cochran has worked within the confines of this offense for a year, even if it wasn't in a real game. McCummings is battle-tested, even if the majority of his work would be option-run type stuff. Lagow will go for the redshirt, but in the VERY unlikely event that we will need him, he will be there to be called upon.

I don't know what else you want or are looking for. That's the situation. It's a pretty good situation at QB. Do you think that we should have seven guys on the bench named Dan Marino??? Of all the areas of concern for this team next year, QB is not near the top of the list...

 

[bmayuc]

eh, whatever. this is a stupid argument.

But simply saying that Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers were once getting "mental reps", or as I call it, "not playing", is incredibly dense. So were thousands of high school qb's who didn't amount to anything... its not even an argument, its a waste of bold lettering.

 

[UConnDan97]

I agree. It's a stupid argument. Wanting to have five scholarship QB's because of someone's discomfort with having four is really not something to waste any time on...

 

[Husky25]

eh, whatever. this is a stupid argument.

But simply saying that Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers were once getting "mental reps", or as I call it, "not playing", is incredibly dense. So were thousands of high school qb's who didn't amount to anything... its not even an argument, its a waste of bold lettering.

You're the one that brought Brady up, not me. Aaron Rogers didn't play for three years, came in and became All-World almost immediately. So, now when someone makes a valid point that does not jibe 100% with your view, it becomes a stupid argument? Yeah, that makes sense...

BTW. I immediately went back to edited my comment in order to unbold as soon as I originally posted.

 

[pj]

Do you think that we should have seven guys on the bench named Dan Marino???

Well, TDH thinks we should have walk-ons who turned down BCS offers to be at UConn without a scholarship. Why not Dan Marino too?

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Yes, but being injured for a full half of the season EVEN WHILE REDSHIRTING does not bode well for his durability. If he were needed, as he will be next year, he would have been on the DL for more than half the year.

that matters when talking about depth.

Basically we will be two deep next year

1. Whitmer(lost two games to head injuries)
2. Cochran(lost half a season to a wrist injury)
3. Redshirt Fr. Richard Lagow(goal must be to redshirt)

Sort-of-qb
1. Scott McCummings (Missed Sprint with Injury) in his RS Soph campaign, he threw 2 passes and was not effective. Staff doesnt trust him throwing the ball at all so he's not very viable as an everydown QB


Basically I'm saying we have a lot of guys, but not many good options down the chain.

Does anyone else feel that Scott McCummings' might be a decent full-time RB? That he, and the team, might be better served by a position change with very occasional returns to the wildcat. Just another scatter-brained thought on my part

 

[UConnDan97]

Does anyone else feel that Scott McCummings' might be a decent full-time RB? That he, and the team, might be better served by a position change with very occasional returns to the wildcat. Just another scatter-brained thought on my part

Not only do I think they should take a look at him as a back, I would like it even more if they take a look at him as a slot receiver as well. Then, you can really open up the playbook (no...not you, GDL...). You can imagine a backward pass being an opportunity for him to throw to a wide open TE or something like that.

He's a good runner with good instincts for the hole and pretty good power. But can he block? Does he have good hands? I'm not sure about any of it, but it should certainly be something that is talked about and looked at...

 

[Husky25]

Does anyone else feel that Scott McCummings' might be a decent full-time RB? That he, and the team, might be better served by a position change with very occasional returns to the wildcat. Just another scatter-brained thought on my part

I said in an earlier post he should be a wide out.At the vey least we can call the "wildcat" plays wildcat ad not be lying.

 

[Bootsthemonkey]

I've stated on several other threads I think McCummings should be moved. I don't think he's much of a passer but I think he's a big, fast athletic guy with good vision. I'm not sure what his pass catching ability is so I think he's better off as a back rather than a receiver. It only makes sense to me to have an athlete of his caliber on the field more - and if he's. out there alongside an accurate passer the defenses can't load the box as much and tee off on the run game.