what is wrong with taking out your "struggling" starting QB for one series giving him time to RESET himself and maybe see things CLEARER. I cried for 3 quarters begging Fedora to give Q just one series rest to refocus. We left ALOT of plays on the field that might have given us momentum and given the Defense confidence (time off the field). just a question??
..............a QB Timeout?
- Thread starter grUNC86
- Start date
I concur. Quise was pressing playing in front of family/friends. Took 2/3's of the game to settle down. Too little, too late from the QB spot.
The problem with that is that the more you play that #2 QB, the more people are likely to see how much sharper and smoother he is in the passing than the starter, and then they will wonder why you couldn't see that. And then they will blame you for not playing the #2 much more.
So you live and die with your chosen starter.
And yes, we list both game this year primarily because MW failed - vs SoCxar the entire game and vs. Clemson for 3/4ths of the game.
Part of it was the pressure Clemson's line put on him, a good part was Quise's lack of composure under pressure. He missed several open receivers due to his old nemesis, bad footwork.
He's had a fine career and a very good year, but his limitations are real. He's a very good college QB, he was playing against a great college QB. No shame in losing to a superior QB, a superior staff, and a significantly more talented team.
He's had a fine career and a very good year, but his limitations are real. He's a very good college QB, he was playing against a great college QB. No shame in losing to a superior QB, a superior staff, and a significantly more talented team.
I think your 99% is a tad on the high side. He missed several open receivers when the pressure just wasn't there.The young man saw his life passing before his eyes on what seemed like 99% of his pass attempts. My footwork would suck, too.
A
anon_i4zuby9r2e1zz
Guest
Yea, I've been pro 'Quise all season, but he flat out missed guys all night pressure or no pressure. And there were plenty of those "no pressure" misses.
I'm still a Quise fan, he has a lot of heart. But my biggest fear, as stated prior to the game, was that he would try to compensate for the terrible game he had in front of his hometown fans/family against SC. I knew their line would pressure him more than any team we had faced to date. They did, and he didn't respond very well.
I told the guys I watched the game with that we'd need to score 45 points to win because I didn't think we'd be able to stop their offense. Turns out I was right. If Quise had been on his game, we could have out scored them. Unfortunately, he didn't calm down until the 4th quarter, too late for the win.
Still, we never quit and Quise showed a lot of heart, if not a lot of poise. I would have loved to have gotten the ball near midfield with over a minute to go and 3 TO's. Fed's unwise two point attempt made it more difficult but still...
BTW, someone please tell Fed that you only go for two out of NECESSITY!
I told the guys I watched the game with that we'd need to score 45 points to win because I didn't think we'd be able to stop their offense. Turns out I was right. If Quise had been on his game, we could have out scored them. Unfortunately, he didn't calm down until the 4th quarter, too late for the win.
Still, we never quit and Quise showed a lot of heart, if not a lot of poise. I would have loved to have gotten the ball near midfield with over a minute to go and 3 TO's. Fed's unwise two point attempt made it more difficult but still...
BTW, someone please tell Fed that you only go for two out of NECESSITY!
Not sure why we challenged the 2nd onside kick as Clemson (somehow) clearly got it back. That 3rd timeout would have given us a chip and a chair considering how our offense is run and how the clock stops in college on first downs.
I think that, in THAT situation- your conference championship- you're kinda stuck unless he's just chucking one interception after another.
I also wish Fedora would STOP with these 2-point conversions.
I also wish Fedora would STOP with these 2-point conversions.
Given MW's poor playing at the end of last year, against faux sc, Delaware, VT, AND then in the conference championship this year, he should have sat for a series. Maybe you don't pull tom Brady, John elway, joe Montana, but you do pull an average throwing qb in the most important game in the school's history for at least a series.
You need to define 'hardly'. There were UNC receivers open every play.
Now, as MW reads coverages slowly and poorly, he may often have not gotten around to seeing the open receiver, but such open receivers wearing Carolina blue were in abundance - just like they were against USuCk.
In fact, MW tried to pass to at least a dozen of those open receivers that he missed, most often missed badly.
MW is a great back yard football QB. He is the best power running between the tackles QB of the past few seasons. Other than that, MW becomes a liability any time we face a team with a good DC and good D talent.
He may look good against Baylor, because as much as 3/4ths of the Baylor talent and coaching ability is on offense.
oh semantics. Looking forward to MW closing out his career with a monster performance vs. Baylor.Maybe "seemed like" means something different to you then.
It seemed clear pretty early that MW wasn't going to have a great game running against the CU defense. Add to that the fact that even when not pressured he was missing too many guys badly? I still cannot see why Trubisky didn't get a chance or two. At least 3-4 times this season Mitch came in for "one play" when MW lost his helmet or whatnot. IIRC he completed passes on at least 2-3 of those "cold calls" and at least one of them was for a TD. If not mistaken I think Mitch was 100% or darned near it in producing positive plays in those cold call opportunities.
This is water under the bridge. Quise is our guy for one more game. Next year we'll get to really see what Mitch has got. I imagine some will then be calling for Mitch's backup. It's the nature of fans I guess, that we're never happy.
Yes exactly what "seemed like" 99% to you , seemed like 60% to me. It is a matter of perception. "seemed like" is not definitive. I am not talking about the definition of the idiom "seemed like".
So it's NOT semantics after all! "Seemed like" means exactly the same thing to you. Since you agree I was actually giving my opinion, where the heck is the definitive statement? There wasn't one.
It appeared to me Williams was harassed almost every time he attempted a pass, and in my opinion that's what led to his horrible footwork. Even when he had a legit opportunity to throw the ball it appeared to me he was anticipating the rush and hurried his throws.
Don't get me wrong, that doesn't excuse the fact he played...less than stellar. On the rare occasions he wasn't sensing Rome crumble around him I'm not sure he ever got past his first option. Some of his decisions at the mesh left me scratching my head and wondering what the heck he saw. Maybe he needed a series on the sidelines to settle down and watch what was going on. Maybe it would have slowed the game down for him a little, I don't know. All I know is that IMO he never looked comfortable back there all night and Clemson had a whole lot to do with the reasons why.
I was in favor of giving Trubisky more time in games during the season, but I went on record on here (or maybe premium) saying that we shouldn't pull 'Quise at all during the ACCCG game. You have to ride or die with your guy in that game.
Now in the bowl game........I'm 100000% on board with giving Trubisky a few meaningful series, whether we're winning, losing, or tied. Winning the game would be nice, but getting Mitch quality minutes against a meaningful opponent would be much nicer.
Now in the bowl game........I'm 100000% on board with giving Trubisky a few meaningful series, whether we're winning, losing, or tied. Winning the game would be nice, but getting Mitch quality minutes against a meaningful opponent would be much nicer.
At least one of you is good with math.
I am over the loss, but still interested in Fed's thinking in never giving Trubisky a series or two.
The Great Dean E. Smith was not above sitting All Americans down on the bench to watch a few minutes of the game from a different vantage point.
The Great Dean E. Smith was not above sitting All Americans down on the bench to watch a few minutes of the game from a different vantage point.
The nature of the game of basketball allows you to bench a player for a little to let them cool off and regroup. Football doesn't really give you that luxury with QB's, even with our offense increasing the 'normal' amount of possessions per game.
We see this differently. Those 3 and outs with MW took about 2 minutes a piece. If Trubisky is unsuccessful MW watches from the bench for 4-5 minutes at most even if Mitch gets 2 series, and maybe benefits from seeing the game from different perspective.
If Mitch is successful and the drive takes longer so much the better. Maybe we even get a score or two that changes the complexion of the game.
All water under the bridge, but still ok to discuss.
If Mitch is successful and the drive takes longer so much the better. Maybe we even get a score or two that changes the complexion of the game.
All water under the bridge, but still ok to discuss.
Absolutely it's okay to discuss it -- just giving you my opinion. I don't think the Dean Smith thing is an apples to apples comparison because each possession in football means infinitely more than each possession in basketball. It sounds good in hypothetical terms to sit a QB for a series or two, but in practice, it could cripple your chances at winning the game.
I don't think Fedora should've sat MW for a series or two in the ACCCG. I think he either should have stayed with him or benched him completely. Giving him one possession off in his second-to-last career game isn't going to help him.
It might have helped the team though. Biggest game for UNC Football in many years, maybe ever in the modern Era. I think you have to do whatever it takes to win, or to give your team the best chance at winning. Obviously if Mitch was hot as a pistol you leave him in the game. Backup QBs shouldn't be there for injuries only, they should have other functions. Such as trying to help the team when the starter is struggling mightily.
However, in support of "sticking with the starter", John Fox always did the same thing while Panthers HC.When Sucky Jake showed up to play instead of Good Jake, John would go ahead and ride him to the inevitable loss. And John has been coaching a long time and won lots of games.
In Fed's "defense", MW eventually seemed to settle down and had us in a position to try for a tie. Maybe if Mitch came in we would have lost by 30. But we will never get to know.
However, in support of "sticking with the starter", John Fox always did the same thing while Panthers HC.When Sucky Jake showed up to play instead of Good Jake, John would go ahead and ride him to the inevitable loss. And John has been coaching a long time and won lots of games.
In Fed's "defense", MW eventually seemed to settle down and had us in a position to try for a tie. Maybe if Mitch came in we would have lost by 30. But we will never get to know.
^^ we agree, sorta. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Mitch backer. I've wanted him to start since the SCar game, and I would've loved for him to get more time in games during the season. I just don't think that in that specific game, that you can rotate QB's. In a game in October? Absolutely.
FWIW, Roy sat Brice Johnson for around 8.5 straight minutes of the first half. That is approximately 21% of the entire 40 minute game. When re-inserted into the lineup Johnson made 11 baskets without missing and set a new career high, powering the Tar Heels to a nice win over UCLA.
Maybe Fed knows Quise wouldn't respond positively to a series or two on the bench. Or maybe Roy is just a better coach than Larry.
Anyway, hope we win our Bowl game, and if Marquise is struggling in that game I hope Fed gives Mitch a chance or two.
Maybe Fed knows Quise wouldn't respond positively to a series or two on the bench. Or maybe Roy is just a better coach than Larry.
Anyway, hope we win our Bowl game, and if Marquise is struggling in that game I hope Fed gives Mitch a chance or two.
his playing time has been extremely limited but he came in cold and performed well. based on what we've seen i don't think we'll be disappointed next year.
