Silver's Synopsis on UConn QB's

[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.