Buy/Sell...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
since they've been here. While I like both Carroll and Lee, I have little confidence in our ability to manage/coach them effectively.
Normally, I would sell on a 2 QB system. However, I think the backup is proving to be as good as the starter. Bring Lee in on some drives with the entire 1st team. Carroll should start because of the experience factor. But Lee is putting up good numbers and needs some experience. </p>
Mutt the Hoople said:
</p>
</p>
obligatory ]</p>
</p>
AA - actually liked watching First and 10 in the beginning
</p>
two Qs = no qbs aside, Carroll proved last year that he is a gamer. His practice stats were never good last year, yet he completed more than 50 percent of his passes on the season (if my memory is correct), had the great streak of no picks, and managed the game better than any quarterback we've had since...as long as I can remember.
I think you have to give Carroll the ball and let him play until he fails.
Obviously, Lee needs some reps if we get a lead in one of these early games, but a pure 2 qb system would be a mistake.
I think you have to give Carroll the ball and let him play until he fails.
Obviously, Lee needs some reps if we get a lead in one of these early games, but a pure 2 qb system would be a mistake.
We don't have a Tebow to put in and say "go ahead, try to stop him." With our coaches, this would only make it worse.
I'm still not sold on Lee. If he was any good, he would have had some other offers despite being 5'10", whatever he is. Plus, Lee playing a lot may hurt Carroll's development a little because that's less playing time for him and it can possibly take him "out of his rhythm".
As others here have pointed out, there is no change of pace with Lee & Carroll. They're pretty much the same type of QB. The only time I'd like a two QB system is if you have QBs who are very different and would force a defense to have to prepare differently for each. That isn't the case with Carroll & Lee.
And I gotta say this: Am I the only one who is starting to think Lee might be the next Henig? All the signs are there: midget, big arm, fellated by Croom and half the fan base without ever having taken an SEC snap. It's a little ridiculous, especially when we have a freshman All-SEC QB on the team. I'm seriously starting to hate him before even watching him play, just because of how hard he's getting sucked off by Croom & Co.
And I gotta say this: Am I the only one who is starting to think Lee might be the next Henig? All the signs are there: midget, big arm, fellated by Croom and half the fan base without ever having taken an SEC snap. It's a little ridiculous, especially when we have a freshman All-SEC QB on the team. I'm seriously starting to hate him before even watching him play, just because of how hard he's getting sucked off by Croom & Co.
I'll buy as long as Pegues is the second QB. He is the most explosive player on our team, why not let him run 3-6 spread like plays a game to keep the other team off balance?
Sixpack's golden boy Carroll most likely wont have the benefit of 9 pick six's to bail him out again this year.
Sixpack's golden boy Carroll most likely wont have the benefit of 9 pick six's to bail him out again this year.
I wouldn't mind seeing Pegues come in and take some snaps at QB to give a different look every now and then.
By the way, Lee will be worn out from all the blowjobs he gets from Bulldawg Junction members and staff to be able to play, so you don't need to worry about trying to fit him into the 2 QB system.
By the way, Lee will be worn out from all the blowjobs he gets from Bulldawg Junction members and staff to be able to play, so you don't need to worry about trying to fit him into the 2 QB system.
South Panola Dawg said:
</p>
And that's what worries me. QB is the ONE position that you should not <17> with, and the one position that you can NOT afford to have a prodigal son at the helm, especially if the other QB has shown that he can win and get the job done.
We can change out every other position the field but QB, I don't buy it. Bull ****!!! Everyone has an opinion, and thats mine. We need the diversity.</p>
dogmatic1 said:
</p>
We tried a 3 QB system for a couple years there with Shaky, Shakier, and Shakiest. You saw how well that worked. I do agree that multiple QB systems only really work when you have designated packages for each QB. When we rotated QBs, at least under Orgeron, we were trying to make them run the same offensive package. That rarely ever works. Cutcliffe actually had a decent clue about how to do it, in that he used Lane primarily as a running QB and Flatt and Spurlock for more of your passing options. Honestly we probably could've had a remotely decent offense last year had we run Adams as the primary passing QB in a pro style offense and then brought in Schaeffer to run more of a run-based spread option. Either way, I don't like multiple QBs unless you're going to use them as a change of pace to run different systems.
If you think about it, what they did with McPhadden at Arkansas was similar to having a 2 QB system. Dick would run the primary offense and most of the passing game. Then they'd offer a change of pace with McPhadden at QB running the WildHog, and it worked pretty well. Even at Florida under Spurrier, they never had success with multiple QBs running the same system.